Planning Commission Packet - 07/10/1984 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PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and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.
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PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and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.
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PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and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.
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PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and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.
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PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and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
JULY 10, 1984 - 7:30 P.M.
TIGARD SCHOOL DISTRICT BLDG. - BOARD ROOM
13137 SW PACIFIC HWY.
TIGARD, OREGON 97223
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approve Minutes from June 12, 1984, Planning Commission Meeting.
4. Planning Commission Communication
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
5.1 NPO APPLICATIONS
5.2 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 9-84 & VARIANCE V 9-84 WINTERLAKE NPO # 7
5.3 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 11-84 ZONE CHANGE ZC 7-84 TIGARD
WEST DEVELOPMENT NPO # 3
5.4 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 14-84 GOAL # 5
5.5 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 14-84 GOAL # 10
5.6 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 18-84 POLICY 6.3.2
5.7 ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 5-84 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE
5.8 SUBDIVISION S-8-84 VARIANCE V 11-84 SANiLEWOOD PARK NPO # 2
6. OTHER BUSINESS
o Home Occupation findings to be heard July 24, 1984
o Workshop
7. ADJOURNMENT },F
�y!
r�.
0288P �s
r..
[Ire:
1
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING - JULY 10, 1984
1. President Moen called the meeting to order at 7:38 PM. The meeting was
held at Tigard School District - Board Room - 13137 SW Pacific Hwy.,
Tigard, Oregon.
2. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: President Moen; Commissioners Fyre, Peterson,
Leverett, Bergmann and Owens (arrived 10:00 PM).
ABSENT: Commissioners Vanderwood, Butler and O'Hara.
STAFF: Director of Planning & Development William A.
Monahan; Associate Planners Keith S. Liden and
Elizabeth A. Newton; Secretary Diane M. Jelderks.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM JUNE 12, 1984.
o President Moen noted there were some typing errors which he would
submit to the Secretary.
o Commissioner Peterson moved and Commissioner Fyre seconded to approve
minutes with corrections. Motion carried unanimously.
4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATION
o There was no communication.
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
5.1 NPO APPOINTMENT
o Director of Planning and Development made staff's recommendation to
have John Mayfield appointed to NPO # 6 and Christie Smith appointed
to NPO 1/ 3.
o John Mayfield was not able to attend, however, he had called City
staff and asked that staff express his desire to become a member of
the NPO.
o Christie Smith was present and explained why she would like to become
a NPO member.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY - No one appeared to speak.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION
o Commissioner Fyre questioned if they was any problem with Mr.
Mayfield living out of the City. Director Monahan stated the code
allowed for individuals who worked or owned property in a NPO area
could become members even if they did not live there.
Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1984 Page 1
o Commissioner Bergmann moved and Commissioner Peterson seconded to
forward a recommendation to City Council to appoint John Mayfield and
Christie Smith to their appropriate NPO.
Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present.
5.2 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 9-84 WINTERLAKE/WEST & JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT
A request for approval of a 150 unit apartment development. (This
item was set over from the June 5, 1984, Planning Commission meeting.)
o Associate Planner Liden reviewed the history of the project and
changes which had been made following meetings between the NPO,
Morning Hill Homeowners, and the Developer. He explained concerns of
the Engineering Division. He also displayed two plans, labeled Plan
one and two nor consideration.
o Director Monahan stated that legal counsel was available to give
assistance with the decision making process.
o Adrianne Brockman, legal counsel, explained how the decision making
should work.
NPO COMMENTS
o Richard Boberg, Chairman NPO # 7, recommended approval of plan number
two. They opposed having the project tied to the proposed LID
alignment for 135th. They also recommended moving building I & J so
the driveway could be constructed around the complex instead of
deadending. He requested a condition which would allow the NPO and
Morning Hill Homeowners to review the landscaping plan. They also
wanted the Morning Hill Subdivision to be protected from traffic
going into the residential area from the apartment complex.
APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION
o Ron Johnson, West & Johnson Development Co., wanted to acknowledge
the efforts of the NPO and Morning Hill Homeowners. They favored
approval of plan two with the vacation of SW 130th street. He
explained changes they would make to plan two as a result of the
vacation of SW 130th street. They are willing to have the NPO and
Morning Hill Homeowners review the landscaping plan. They did not
want approval of the project tied to the proposed LID for 135th,
however, they did want to be involved in the improvement of 135th.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
o John Morris, 11900 SW Morning Hill did not oppose plan two with
modification, however, he did want to review the revised site plan
and landscaping plan. He wanted park improvements to be made or 100%
bonded before occupancy permits are issued. He severely opposed the
one way into the project or closing off access to 135th from the Pond
Ct. area
Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1984 Page 2
,.i
rt
o Mark Bonebrake, - Felt everything had been covered and had nothing
more to add at this time.
CROSS EXAMINATION AND REBUTTAL
o Commissioner Fyre asked the NPO what they would suggest to avoid
traffic going into the Morning Hill residential area. NPO responded
by having a two way access onto 135th. Discussion followed regarding
the access from Pond Court to 135th and the proposed 135th LID.
o Commissioner Leverett did not support having a one way access.
o Commissioner Peterson questioned the completion of Shore Drive.
Discussion followed.
o Commissioner Leverett questioned the landscaping having too many
hands involved. Discussion followed.
o Commissioner Bergmann asked what would happen if the County would not
vacate 130th. Discussion followed.
o Commissioner Moen questioned who was asking for the non-remonstrance
for the 135th Steet LID. Discussion followed regarding the LID
process and that Washington County had requested the
non-remonstrance. Discussion followed regarding the park
improvements.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
o Commissioner Fyre thanked the NPO, Morning Hill Homeowners and the
Developer for their cooperative work and supported plan two with a
two way access.
o Commissioner Leverett and Peterson also supported plan two with a two
way access.
o Commissioner Bergman, supported plan two, noting that there may be a
utility easement involved with the vacation of 130th. He also
supported the two way access onto 135th. He did not support removing
the non-remonstrance for the LID as it has always been City policy to
require non-remonstrance agreements for the improvement of public
improvements. Discussion followed regarding the LID process.
o President Moen commented that the applicant had not opposed the
language for the park improvements and felt it should be left as
staff proposed. He also supported Commissioner Bergmann's comments
regarding the City's policy on LIDs.
o Commissioner Fyre moved for approval of SDR 9-84, plan two with the
following conditions.
1. Conditions of approval for M 1-80 and S 6-82 shall remain in
effect.
Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1984 Page 3
2. Standard street improvements including sidewalks, curbs, street
lights, and driveway aprons shall be provided along Lake Drive
and Park Street.
3. Seven (7) sets of plan-profile public improvement construction
plans and (1) itemized construction cost estimate, stamped by a
registered civil engineer, detailing all proposed public
improvements shall be submitted to the City's Engineering
Division for Review.
4. Construction of proposed public improvements shall not commence
until after the Engineering Division has issued approved public
improvement plans (the Division will require posting of a 100%
performance bond), the payment of a permit fee and a sign
installation/streetlight deposit. Also, the execution of a
street opening permit or construction compliance agreement shall
occur prior to, or concurrently with, the issuance of approved
public improvement plans.
5. The improvement of Lake Drive and Park Street shall be
coordinated with the development of the single family residences
in Phase II which are on the north side of Lake Drive.
6. The location of sidewalks along the driveway entrances shall be
approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of Building
permits.
7. A modified landscaping plan shall be submitted for Planning
Director approval prior to issuing Building permits. The
revised plan shall:
a. Apply to the approved site plan;
b. Incorporate the elements of the plan submitted at the June
5, 1984 hearing plus the 6-foot high site obscuring fence
and coniferous trees indicated in the revised plan reviewed
by the Commission on July 10, 1984;
c. Be consistent with the Vision Clearance provisions of the
Code (CH. 18.102).
8. The landscaping materials shown on the approved plan noted in
Condition 7. above shall be installed prior to the issuance of
t
an occupancy permit.
9. A City of Tigard approved non-remonstrance agreement relating, to
135th L.I.D. shall be recorded with Washington County and
returned to the Planning Department before building permits are
issued or a change of property ownership.
10. The storm drain system shall be privately maintained.
Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1984 Page 4
€i
11. A dedication document including a legal description shall be
recorded with Washington County for the 3.4 acre park land. The
dedication document will be reviewed and approved by the City
prior to recording. The park shall be dedicated prior to the
issuance of Building permits.
12. The applicant shall be responsible along with the other
developers of Winter Lake for the grading and seeding of the
park. The method and timing of the improvement shall be
approved by the City prior to issuing Building permits.
13. This approval is valid for the period of one year.
14. Adjust the buildings at the south eastern end of the project to
complete drive north to Park Street and close of the loop.
15. Staff to seek NPO input prior to approving the landscape plans.
16. The western half of the 130th Ave. Right-of-Way adjacent to the
subject property shall be vacated. The applicant shall initiate
the vacation procedure and City staff shall provide assistance
to expedite this process.
17. Accomodate any utility easements with the vacation of 130th Ave.
18. Have a two way access onto 135th from Pond Court.
Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously by
Commissioners present.
5.3 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 11-84 and ZONE CHANGE ZC 8-84
TIGARD WEST DEVELOPMENT CO. NPO # 3
Request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low Density
Residential to Commercial General and for a Zone Change from R 3.5
(Residential R 3.5 units/acre) to C-G (Commercial General). Located
10500, 13370, 13450, 13490, and 13530 SW Watkins Ave. (WCTM 2S1 3DA,
lots 4700, 4800, 6100, and 6200 and 2S1 3DD, lot 200.)
o Associate Planner Liden reviewed the staff report and made staff's
recommendation for denial.
NPO COMMENTS
o Duane Ehr, NPO # 3 member, stated that the NPO unanimously opposed
the Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change based on City Policies and
neighborhood opposition.
APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION
o Stephen Janik, Attorney representing all but one of the applicants,
reviewed the site and how GI Joes would be placed on the Site He
stated that they would deed property along Watkins to the City so
Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1984 Page 5
there could not be any future access onto Watkins. They would also
provide a 20 to 40 foot buffer between the commercial and residential
properties. He noted that all accesses were oriented on or toward
Pacific Highway. He reviewed the zoning on surrounding properties,
commenting that the proposal does not encroach into the neighborhood
anymore than surrounding commercial properties. He reviewed how the
plan conforms to City policies and the benefits the project would be
for the City. He questioned how the staff had applied the City's
policies to this proposal.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Proponents
o J. A. Paterson, 11605 SW Manzinita, supported the proposal.
o J B Bishop, 10505 SW Barbur Blvd. S-303, pointed out that Park and
Watkins are unimproved streets and would be improved by this
project. This project would provide numerous jobs. Also the 40 ft.
buffering is 20 feet more than the code required. He also stated
that GI Joes would not be built on any other site in Tigard if not
here.
Opponents
o James A. Cox, 8 North State St., Lake Oswego, Attorney representing
surrounding property owners submitted written testimony as well as
the names of the people he was respresenting. He responded to the
applicant's proposal by reviewing the subject site. He commented
that this project would not be just a GI Joes but rather a mini
shopping center, which is the practice of GI Joes. He stated that
the buffering is a site development review item not a land use item.
He noted that the applicant had promised a traffic study which had
never been submitted. He continued that the subject property has
always been zoned residential and the other properties referred to by
Mr. Janik were already zoned commercial prior to development
proposals. He submitted a copy of testimony given by Mr. Janik to
the bankruptcy court, reading portions into the record. He stated
that a corridor study has never been completed for Pacific Highway
and it was impossible to project the traffic impact this proposal
would have. In conclusion, GI Joes had been denied in 1978, now that
the site has been altered with the construction of Pietros, it should
be denied again instead of encroaching into the residential
neighborhood.
Commissioner Owens arrived
o Doug Nicolai, 10655 SW Park St., President of Save Our Neighborhood
showed slides of the surrounding area and the properties included in
the zone change request. He emphasized that these properties do not
warrant destruction for commercial use. He submitted that the buffer
which exists, provides a better buffer against commercial development
than the 40 ft buffer proposed by the applicant. He maintained that
the rezoning would be an encroachment into the single family
residential neighborhood.
Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1984 Page 6
t
o Dennis Moonier, 10634 SW Kirk Lane, wanted to go on record as not
opposing development on the existing commercial site but only the
encroachment into the established single family residential area. He
quoted comprehensive plan policies which were written to protect
established residential areas. He opposed the zone change as not
being consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
o Dennis Owen, 10945 SW Fairhaven, raised questions regarding the
traffic that would be increased if the Commercial site is enlarged.
He explained how the traffic would impact the residential areas and
the inadequate road conditions. Also because Metro has not completed
the corridor study for Pacific Hwy it is unknown what the impact
would be.
o George Fitzgerald, 13145 SW Watkins, a member of Save Our
Neighborhood, read and submitted petitions signed by 184 neighboring
individuals opposing the application.
o Ted Pazderie, 13435 SW 107th, opposed the application because it
would set a precedent and that the safe guards proposed by Mr. Janik
could not be guaranteed.
o Jeanett Kromer, 13465 SW 107th, opposed the application. Her concern
was for the safety of the children who had to use this route to walk
to school.
o Jim Nicoli, 10710 SW Fairhaven Way, felt the offer to dedicate the
property to protect access onto Watkins was a void offer, that a deed
restriction would be a better method. He felt if the houses were
left it would keep the juveniles from crossing into the commercial
site over the landscaped and fenced areas. He felt there would be
jobs created even if the site would develope as is. He also stated
that the neighborhood is a well maintained neighborhood and is not
declining except for the homes that the developer has purchased.
o Donna Grossman, 13485 SW Watkins, opposed the zone change. Her house
will face the back of the proposed development. She stated they had
purchased their home because the existing buffer was adequate
protection from Pacific Highway noise and the. commercial property.
If this application is approved it would decrease the value of her
home.
o Duane Ehr, 10425 SW Park, opposed the application as not being
economically feasible. He appealed to the Commission to deny the
application and keep the residential land as residential and
commercial land as commercial.
o Bob Bledsoe, Chairmen NPO # 3, stated that the NPO had met the night
before and reviewed the application and concurred with the staff
report, especially the encroachment into the residential
neighborhood. Also, this application was calling for a change from
one basic use to another use and should have to meet the necessary
criteria. .
Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1984 Page 7
CROSS EXAMINATION AND REBUTTAL
o Steve Janik responded to the public testimony concerning the amount
of land needed for this development. He opposed the use of the Carl
Buttke traffic study as not being pertinent to this site. He
commented that the noise would be better blocked by the building than
by the existing buffer and that if it was left the way it is the
existing houses would be the buffer against the commercial site. He
did not feel the zone change was an encroachment into the
neighborhood.
o Jim Cox asked if this zone change was approved what boundary in the
City would be safe. This property has always been the boundary
between residential and commercial and he did not feel the zone
change could be justified.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION
o Commissioner Bergmann felt this development was likened to the Fred
Meyer site. He had not made up his mind and wanted to listen to the
other Commissioner's comments.
o Commissoner Peterson stated he would like to see a GI Joes, but was
concerned with the encroachment into the residential area. He felt
the residential area as it is would be a better buffer.
o Commissioner Leverett was inclined to support the zone change with
sufficient buffering.
o Commissioner Fyre asked staff if the comp plan change could be
conditioned. Staff stated it could not. He didn't feel there was
any compelling reason to make a comp plan change. He saw it as a
definate enchroachment.
o President Moen reviewed the staff report and applicable policies. He
felt the zone change did encroach into the residential neighborhood.
o Commissioner Fyre moved and Commissioner Peterson seconded to deny
CPA 11-84 and ZC 8-84 based on the following findings:
1. The change in use from residential to commercial will encroach
upon an established single family neighborhood. It will
initiate the replacement of five residences with commercial
development and will probably set a precedent for the
establishment of commercial activity on the east side of Watkins
Avenue south of Park Street as well as other areas along Pacific
Highway.
2. The applicant has not demonstrated the need for the Zone
Change. The property to the east appears to be capable of
accommodating a wide variety of commercial activities without
requiring additional land.
Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1984 Page 8
3. Policy 6.3.1, which states the City shall direct its land use
action toward the maintainence and the improvement of the
established residential areas.
4. Policy 6.3.3, which states that all phases of the development
approval process in a residential established area, primary
consideration of the City shall be to preserve and enchance the
character of the adjacent established areas.
Motion carried three to two. Commissioners Moen, Peterson and Fyre
voting yes; Commissioners Bergmann and Leverett voting no.
(Commissioner Owens abstained as she was not present for the entire
hearing.)
5.4 GOAL # 5 SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS AREAS CPA 14-84
Associate Planner Newton made staff's recommendation to amend Chapter
18.84 of the Community Development Code to include a new Section
18.84.045 Exceptions for Development in the 108th/113th Ravine
significant Wetlands Area.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
o Elton Phillips, 16565 SW 108th, opposed staff's recommendation
stating that the maps for that area were incorrect.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION
o Discussion followed regarding how floodplain is determined and how it
would impact Mr. Phillip's property.
o Discussion regarding criteria number three.
o Commissioner Peterson moved and Commissioner Bergmann seconded to
word the recommendation to City Council to add the following section:
18.84.045 Exceptions for Development in the 108th/113th Ravine
significant Wetlands Area.
A. Under the Sensitive Lands Permit process., the
Hearings Officer may allow portions of the Ravine
at 108th and 113th designated as a significant
wetlands areas to development provided that all
of the following criteria are met.
1. All of the land (within the ravine) being
considered for development is at less than 25%
slope.
2. There are no unstable soil conditions on the land
being considered for development.
Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1984 Page 9
3. Must comply with the tree cutting ordinance
section.
Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present.
5.5 GOAL # 10 MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT CPA 14-84
o Associate Planner Newton made staff's recommendation to take
testimony on increasing the number of units permitted in the medium
density zone from 20 to 25 and to forward a favorable recommendation
to City Council.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
o No one appeared to speak.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION
o Commissioner Owens moved and Commissioner Fyre seconded to forward
CPA 14-84 to the City Council with a recommendation to increase the
Medium High Density from 20 to 25 units per acre.
Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present.
5.6 CPA 18-84 POLICY 6.3.2
o Associate Planner Newton made the staff recommendation to amend
Policy 6.3.2 b and the compatibility matrix to enable staff to
administer this policy effectively.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
o No one appeared to speak.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION
o Commissioner Owens moved and Commissioner Bergmann seconded to foward
a recommendation of approval to amend Policy 6.3.2 b and the
compatiblity matrix per staff's recommendation.
Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present.
5.7 ZOA 5-84 CHANGES TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE.
5.8 SUBDIVISION S 8-84 and VARIANCE 11-84 SANDLEWOOD PARK NPO # 2
Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1984 Page 10
o Commissioner Fyre moved and Commissioner Peterson seconded to
continue the ZOA 5-84, S 8-84 and V 11-84 to July 24th, 1984, to be
held at Tigard City Hall.
Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present.
6. Meeting adjourned 12:00 Midnight.
! 4,0c,
Diane M. Jelderks`ecretary
ATTEST:
ade-Vt-
A. Donald Moen, President
0514P
dmj
Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1984 Page 11
_ fll
PLANNING COMMISSION ROLE CALL:
ite Donald Moen ybo-
Bonnie Owens _
John Butler AO
Milton Fare
tpir Deane Leverett _Aegeo
4
Dave Peterson s //ICJ-)
Chris Vanderwood 'OLO
(V) i1914eatr, rntOthi
l if
•
•
•
____7114/6
•
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/bESCRIPTIO : ® • ' •
or
• -
l �, •
i %
PROPONENT (For) OPPONENT (against)
Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation
1 n) ��A€4, Sri' ;9/
UO X kip r u'") PVT eel
00• (2-.01\ 4Z6i U1/4)1(s c tir1 0Q- `fl O'Z 0 a ► • CIA) eov e At Ala; Ac l ' 4
d s� ff"
r•.
FI
i
t
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)
5.1 ITEM/bESCRIPTION: CA /(1.44
d
aid- -
OPPONENT (against)
PROPONENT (For)
Name,��AAdddress and Affiliation
Name, Address and Affiliation
4./ 1 ell LS- ' l -/4w.
.
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIR NAME
and note their address on this sheet. (Ple se Print your name)
« /b
ITEM ESCRIPTION: ('? °A /5.--6
GiOftL #- /O
.__._______.
PROPONENT (For) OPPONENT (against)
_
Name, Address. and Affiliation
Name, Address and Affiliation
I
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION SIGN UP SHEET
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIK NAME
and note their address on this sheet. (Please Print your name)
ITEM/bESCRIP.TION: Cp �' / 6-
5.6
• .
PROPONENT (For) OPPONENT (against)
Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation
•
•
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIR NAME
and note their address on this sheet. (Please Print your name)
6.7 ITEM/bESCRIPTION: 2.0A
' . 114 Jo -
PROPONENT (For) OPPONENT (against)
Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation
•
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIR NAME
and note their address on this sheet. (Please Prin)t�yourr name)
ITEM/DESCRIPTION: S - 55/ f/ J/-
5.
l I i
. la A _ . lam L L ` _
t')Po
PROPONENT (For) OPPONENT (against)
NA e, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation
�r .A` , I
Ili/
•IllarAggli 0
t �
A 1E6 irobLA a A / L-23- I - 1
I
16. .4? . 1
t
--1- ' r,/r A/ Io Z ii
ENE111116, ,cs 1
'NV >
o Seca At. . I:.,•(d a& S'
■ 1 6 --�- . o6
,
t'-1
I :
1
1 1
P.
Agenda Item 5.1
Planning Commission Mtg.
July 10, 1984
NPO APPLICANTS
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Members of the Planning Commission July 6, 19844 �
FROM: William A. Monahan, Director of Planning and Development 44'�"jj�l
SUBJECT: NPO APPOINTMENTS
The following individual have applied for membership on the City NPO's:
John Mayfield, 301 Madison, OC NPO # 6
11555 SW Durham Rd. Tigard
Christie C. Smith, 13210 SW Ambiance, Tigard NPO # 3
Both applicants have been notifed that their application will be considered at
the July 10, 1984, meeting of the Commission. If both are appointed, the NPO
membership will be as follows:
NPO # 1 9
NPO # 2 3
NPO # 3 9
NPO # 4 9
NPO # 5 10
NPO # 6 11
NPO # 7 10
ti
The Commission should consider the applications and made a motion to recommend
that the City council approve their membership applications.
•
CITYOF TIGARD CITIZEN COMMITTEE INTEREST APPLICATION
NAME: I I/a l C,,/ DATE: j40-1-e, G j r�f f"
ADDRESS (RES.): o / a,•6J.->-,. JfY 4 a (d RES. PHONE: 6,SY,-J/k,,•!
ADDRESS (BUS.): P55-5 3./4I. )/1r/G,rl 1::-;J --',,;.'c;K4 y( BUS. PHONE: GGC) `c.0 JY',i
1
LENGTH OF RESIDENCE IN TIGARD:01-/7;[ - 4 (4s7/-//. SUGGESTED BY:
WHERE DID YOU LIVE PREVIOUSLY?
) �EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: � cal -, ,,,,v,-- — y A «- ' ,e
OCCUPATIONAL STATUS AND BACKGROUND: /(;Y/e1772.4,7 v �}-4,6, ,
q, R_ 44,
/ r/
'._.
HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN EMPLOYED WITH THIS FIRM? /" In077-14
IS THIS COMPANY LOCATED WITHIN YOUR NPO AREA (NPO APPLICANTS ONLY)?
PREVIOUS COMMUNITY ACTIVITY: f7D71-t // 47 (
ORGANIZATIONS AND OFFICES:, 7i l/,/ ;.n 0 , 8,-,,, A/4,4'c/ 4r 7/
7,,> l c �4/
/41414', f i Artie e,." 4 %% 7f7///12/ ; /�d'-rrY�y9 ,1 ( 7'
✓7 4f;?f 1
OTHER INFORMATION (GENERAL REMARKS): _L `- ,,.,1 , �id ny� ,t ,c.4 .;,
t/yl1,0lT l I
s.
l
BOARDS, COMMITTEES OR NPO INTERESTED IN ftDxerimtG 1(% 0k0 ) l yyt . , 7-4/ ihI),:0, 4,,
Date Received at City Hall Date Interviewed ,r
Date Appointed Board, Committee, N
: , or NPO P r
Inside City Outside City
(0346p) #,^
I
l
4.111.111.1.117
i 1��•�(./t t_e 2u . / / d 7f• (
•
CITY OF TIGARD CITIZEN CO EXIITIRit
�� , �` l � l 3 1994 V --_�_ >93',
NAME;... .S.Liad1i, I,A h,. /
J / �17Y OF TIGAKO
ADDRESS (1411.S. ) : ANNING O t Piton: �j.3
ADDRESS (BUS. ) : l / �C (,c/1LQ. 6JL(,f)/ ( 120 BUS. PHONE: T 1
LENGTH OF RESIDENCE IN TIGARD: SUGGESTED BY:
WHERE DID YOU LIVE PREVIOUSLY? , /■ar ./ _. / p.■ -. I / I •
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: ttazth 2 , -vn`
•/ ,/ , iYX�
OCCUPATIONAL STATUS AND BACKGROUND: �_ • L• �/!/.�__; • 1 `_/ I
n I� a i � I •._' '�/
HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN EMPLOYED WITH THIS FIRM? •
( jl(�) !,1 ,'i. �r „_'�%i I I
IS THIS COMPANY LOCATED WITHIN YOUR NPO AREA (NPO APPLICANTS ONLY)? , �i ,„,., A 4 _4_ at
PREVIOUS COMMUNITY ACTIV TY: �,,.��� :� LO (.Ltd / / 1 . , ' i4-L Q
I/ / Imo, . ,�,/, ' / . ..10/, ��I, ' , � // • n/• //i g'
./. I/. _..ii.,. MI _ t../ %/.I., 9/AIM •_,_ .1, i //i 0� .. / e iil .i 02. _i1
•• Apriii-/ ' i ti / �I / r ) OP I �r I S I / 0 o _ iI /.:',, v r A '
I
ORC NIZATIONS AND OFFICES: . A i g. :.,•/ . 1." ,;. :_ '. /�_ !4 ,O •• . . . • . -
` 0
/�.._.-.4 •• ,/ , /s ° ✓ ,4 4/ / L
. ` _ _ _ L
,
r _ _�J
OTHER INFORMATION (GENERAL REMARKS) : I / • i .. , (r!/ J�■
(44 a7itaU 44211, zatA t- Atte, iu, 7ird 7,622, at , ,
1),I'd411,12*111-411Z-21ff ( - ' ,r / Z
-r ". .1-* ,/ . 2• 4 /.L/ ' _. €i1 Ar '! ..- ... 0
IB AKUS, COMM I'I"I'EES OK NPO INTERESTED I N: ac4i, ..
. . ..__________ _.
.. . __ „
..
_.. ___ ._... . .. .
Dnli Kereived at (illy !hill Italy lulu rvtrwr,t ___
Witt, Apiwinii•d R.i ..'dl, Cilium t I IC•,', „t NI'i1 _ ..-_....
111.. 1 d.• t il y ()III !. 14i1. t I1 `'
111 ;•41,1,
}
I
Christie C. Smith
13750 S.W. Fairview Court
Tigard, Oregon 97223
(503) 639-8403
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
1980 - Present C.I.T. Corporation
1600 S.W. Fourth, Suite 655
Portland, Oregon 97221
(Transfered from Spokane Division and promoted to
Senior Clerk)
Senior Clerk- Handle initial loan inquiries.
Research application, make recommendation and
if approved, process loan. Some collection
work (in office) plus evaluation for extensions,
rewrites and transfers. Set up UCC sales and
auctions for repo'd equipment. Schedule Com-
modity Checks and Monthly Rental Reports. Keep
up-to-date records on Insurance, Titles, and fil-
ings for equipment financed through C. I.T.
1979 - 1980 C.I.T. Corporation
717 West Sprague Avenue
Spokane, Washington 99201
Executive Secretary- All Division Head, Private,
Confidential , and Home Office correspondence.
Compile and prepare Division Head Reports and
maintain Personnel files. In charge of hiring
all clerical staff. A/P and A/R. Maintain tease
and Corporate ledgers. Cut all Division and
Region checks, handle expense accounts, pay bills
and process the purchase of new business. Balance
and forward all reports to Home Office (N.Y. )
daily. Handle all insurance, filings, UCC's and
Titles for equipment financed and leased by C.I.T.
Arrange air and hotel reservations, plan banquets
conferences and conventions. Order supplies and
keep inventory. Obtain Credit Reports. Operate
CBI terminal. Notary Public
Christie C. Smith
Page 2).
1972 - 1978 Air Sea Land Travel Service
Ridpath Hotel
Spokane, Washington 99201
Assistant Manager, Lincoln Building Branch. Tour
planning, Tour Guide, work closely with Japanese
Sister City (P/R) during Expo '74. Wrote Domestic
and International tickets, reservations and itin-
eraries.
1969 - 1971 Old National Bank of Washington
0.N.B. Building
Spokane, Washington 99201
Supervisor- Employee Benefits and Trust Department.
Set up Employee Benefits programs and Keogh Plans.
Work in Individual and Government Trust accounts.
EDUCATION
1965 Holy Names Academy (H.S. )
1966 - 1968 Holy Names College
2 years - Liberal Arts
OTHER TRAINING
1968 Kinman Business School
1969 - 1971 American Institute of Banking
1972 United Airlines Ticketing School
1981 - 1982 Oregon State University
Audited courses in Accounting and Business Law
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 5.2
JULY 10, 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: Site Development Review SDR 9-84, Variance V 9-84
REQUEST: For approval of a 150 unit apartment development.
LOCATION: East side of SW 135th Avenue, 1/2 mile south of Scholls
Ferry Rd. (Wash. Co. Tax Map 1S1 33DC, tax lot 500)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential
ZONING DESIGNATION: R-12(PD) (Residential 12 units/acre, planned
development)
APPLICANT: West & Johnson Development Co. OWNER: Russell Krueger
P.O. Box 426 12225 S.W. 2nd Ave.
Wilsonville, OR 97070 Beaverton, OR 97005
2. Background
A Sensitive Lands Permit (M 1-80) was granted in February, 1980 to allow
development on the subject property which contains an identified
drainageway. Approval was subject to the following conditions:
a. That the question of emergency vehicle access be resolved at the
General Plan and Program Hearing.
b. That site and public drainage construction plans be approved by
the Building and Public Works Departments prior to issuance of
Building Permits or Bonds.
c. No changes will be made to approved plans or specifications unless
formal application is made to the appropriate City department and
changes are approved by that department. Application for changes
will be made in writing and shall include applicable drawings.
d. That the proposed drainage system shown on this application be
added to the General Plan.
On June 23, 1980, the Tigard City Council approved a Zone Change request
(ZC 29-79a and ZC 29-79b) to allow for a development consisting of 1
single family residences (Phase I) and multiple family dwellings (Phase
STAFF REPORT - SDR 9-84 & V 9-84 - PAGE 1 •
at
II). A 14 to 15 acre area in the southeast corner of the Winterlake
development was rezoned to A-12 (R-12 replaced this zone) to accommodate
Phase II of the project. A condition of that approval stated that
"Phase II - ZC 29-79a (Apartment) shall be brought before the Planning
Commission at a later date". A portion of Phase I has been completed.
On November 9, 1982, preliminary subdivision approval was granted by the
Planning Commission subject to the following conditions:
a. Public improvements for each phase shall be constructed prior to
the issuance of any occupancy permits.
b. A dedication document including a legal description shall be
recorded with Washington County for the 3.4 acre park land. The
dedication document will be reviewed and approved by the City
prior to recording.
c. The developer shall submit an application for site design review
for Phase II prior to issuance of any Building Permits on Phase II.
d. The applicant shall submit a plan for park improvements prior to
issuance of any building permits on Phase II. The park plan shall
be approved by the Director of Planning and Development in
accordance with presently established park standards. In
addition, all park improvements shall be completed or bonded for
100% of the cost thereof prior to issuance of any building permits
on Phase II.
The area that had been zoned A-12 was rezoned to R-7 as part of the
Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code revision process that
was concluded in November, 1983. On April, 1984, a zone change (ZC
9-84) from R-7 to R-12PD involving the area covered by this application
was approved by the City Council.
on June 5, 1984, the Planning Commission reviewed this application (SDR
9-84) and continued the hearing until July 10, 1984 to afford the
applicant additional time to supply supplementary information related to
the Site Development Review and to meet with NPO #7 and the Morning Hill
Home Owners Association' prior to July 10th.
3. Vicinity Information
The area involved in this development includes the multiple family
portion of Phase II of the Winter Lake development. Morning Hill
subdivision lies to the south with an R-4.5 zone applying to the lots
west of Lake Drive and an R-7 zone applying to those east of Lake
Drive. Undeveloped property zoned R-20 is to the west, undeveloped land
zoned R-4.5 lies to the east, and a single family residential portion of
Phase II, which is also intended to be developed this summer, is on the
north side of Lake Drive.
4. Site Information and Proposal Description
Presently, only part of Winter Lake Drive (Brittany Square) . is completed
and the remainder, including Phase I b. and II, is undeveloped. The
STAFF REPORT - SDR 9-84 & V 9-84 - PAGE 2
property consists of a grass field with a drainageway (includes a
man-made lake) that runs downhill in a northeasterly direction.
The applicant has submitted a revised site plan (Sheet 1) and narrative
for the project with the following modifications:
a. The number of apartment units has been reduced from 160 to 150.
b. The variance request has been deleted and 150 covered parking
spaces are provided.
c. An additional driveway has been added onto Park Street in the
northern portion of the project.
d. A driveway onto 135th Avenue has been re-established at the
northwest corner of the development.
Also, while the site plan was being revised, it was noted that the 130th
Avenue right-of-way, which abuts the eastern boundary of the project,
will not be needed for any future street improvements. The applicant
has submitted an alternative site plan based upon the assumption that
this portion of 130th Avenue could be vacated. Preliminary information
indicates that the first 10 feet along the property frontage is
dedicated right-of-way but the remainder of 130th Avenue is an
undeveloped easement. The applicant intends to look into this matter
further before the hearing.
This alternative proposal (Sheet 2) differs from the plan on Sheet 1 in
the following manner:
a. The covered parking spaces are outside of the 100-foot transition
zone.
b. The landscaped buffer is expanded from 35-55 feet to 45-79 feet in
depth along the southern property line.
The landscaping plan submitted for the June 5th hearing will be modified
to include a six-foot high sight obscuring fence and a row of ten-foot
tall pine or fir trees along the entire southern boundary of the
project. The third sheet of the revised plans contains a cross-section
showing a typical relationship between the buffer area and the apartment
buildings.
5. AGENCY AND NPO COMMENTS
The Engineering Division had the following comments for the June 5th
hearing:
a. The standard construction and compliance conditions should be
applied.
b. The development of Lake Drive and Park Street should be
coordinated with the development of the single family residences
on the north side of Lake Drive.
STAFF REPORT - SDR 9-84 & V 9-84 - PAGE 3
c. Since the storm sewer system is only serving one ownership, the
owner should be obligated to privately maintain the system.
d. The proposed drive to 135th Avenue should be deleted.
The revised plans have been submitted to the Division and comments will
be presented at the hearing.
Washington County Fire District No. 1 has no objections.
Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation recommends
that Park Street be completed and that a non-remonstrance agreement for
the 135th Avenue LID be required as a condition of approval.
NPO # 7 plans to meet on July 9th to formulate a recommendation for the
Commission.
B. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
The previous conditions of approval for M 1-80 and S 6-82 will apply to
this application as well. The park dedication has not occurred at the
request of the City. The purpose of the delay was to use the park land
donation as a matching contribution in an application for State funding
to develop the park. The State funding did not materialize and the land
will be deeded to the City in the near future.
In terms of the condition relating to park improvements, it is intended
that the entire Winter Lake development be responsible for grading and
seeding the park area. The applicant should contact the other
developers in Winter Lake to arrive at a solution for the improvement of
the park which is acceptable to all parties involved, including the City.
The staff has reviewed the two alternative site plans proposed by the
applicant. One includes the existing property and the second is based
upon the assumption that 130th Avenue could be vacated. Both plans are
in conformance with Code requirements except for two minor items noted
below. The major components of the proposal relate to density,
landscaping and screening, parking, and access.
a. Density.
The R-12 zone allows for a maximum density of 12 units per acre.
In addition, Chapter 18.92 of the Code provides a formula for
calculating the allowable density for a specific project. The
applicant has submitted a copy of the calculations (pp 5-6) which
shows that a maximum of 162.7 units may be allowed on the
property. Staff finds the applicant's calculations to be correct.
b. Landscaping and Screening.
The landscaping plan submitted for the June 5th hearing met Code
requirements except for several trees which interfere with vision
clearance at two driveway locations. Amendments to the initial
STAFF REPORT - SDR 9-84 & V 9-84 - PAGE 4
1
plan along the southern boundary of the project are noted on the
revised site plan. If the application is approved by the
Commission, a final landscaping plan which incorporates the
original elements and the proposed revisions should be prepared
and approved by the Planning Director prior to issuing building
permits.
c. Parking.
Chapter 18.106 of the Code requires 1.5 parking spaces for each
dwelling unit plus an additional 15% of guest parking that is
"centrally located" within the development. A total 248 spaces is
required and the applicant is proposing 150 covered spaces and 109
uncovered spaces. Off-street parking spaces must be within 200
feet of the building they are required to serve. Both site plans
meet applicable requirements.
d. Access.
Chapter 18.108 of the Code requires three 24-foot wide driveways
to serve a 150 unit development. The site plan indicates that
five driveways are proposed. Five-foot wide sidewalks are
required along one side of the driveway entrances leading into the
development. These sidewalks should connect with the five foot
wide public sidewalks that will be required along both sides of
Lake Street.
C. RECOMMENDATION
The Planning staff recommends approval of Site Development Review SDR
9-84 subject to the following conditions:
1. Conditions of approval for M 1-80 and S 6-82 shall remain in
effect.
2. Standard street improvements including sidewalks, curbs, street
lights, and driveway aprons shall be provided along Lake Drive and
Park Street.
3. Seven (7) sets of plan-profile public improvement construction
plans and (1) itemized construction cost estimate, stamped by a
registered civil engineer, detailing all proposed public
improvements shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Division
for Review.
4. Construction of proposed public improvements shall not commence
until after the Engineering Division has issued approved public
improvement plans (the Division will require posting of a 100%
performance bond) , the payment of a permit fee and a sign
installation/streetlight deposit. Also, the execution of a street
opening permit or construction compliance agreement shall occur
prior to, or concurrently with the issuance of approved public
improvement plans.
5. The improvement of Lake Drive and Park Street shall be coordinated
with the development of the single family residences in Phase II
which are on the north side of Lake Drive.
STAFF REPORT - SDR 9-84 & V 9-84 - .PAGE 5
B
6. The location of sidewalks along the driveway entrances shall be
approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of Building
permits.
7. A modified landscaping plan shall be submitted for Planning
Director approval prior to issuing Building permits. The revised
plan shall:
a. Apply to the approved site plan;
b. Incorporate the elements of the plan submitted at the June
5, 1984 hearing plus the 6-foot high site obscuring fence
and coniferous trees indicated in the revised plan reviewed
by the Commission on July 10, 1984;
c. Be consistent with the Vision Clearance provisions of the
Code (CH. 18.102).
8. The landscaping materials shown on the approved plan noted in
Condition 7. above shall be installed prior to the issuance of an
occupancy permit.
9. A City of Tigard approved non-remonstrance agreement relating to
the 135th L.I.D. shall be recorded with Washington County and
returned to the Planning Department before building permits are
issued or a change of property ownership.
10. The storm drain system shall be privately maintained.
11. A dedication document including a legal description shall be
recorded with Washington County for the 3.4 acre park land. The
dedication document will be reviewed and approved by the City
prior to recording. The park shall be dedicated prior to the
issuance of Building permits.
12. The applicant shall be responsible along with the other developers
of Winter Lake for the grading and seeding of the park. The
method and timing of the improvement shall be approved by the City
prior to issuing Building permits.
13. This approval is valid for the period of one year.
PREPARED BY: Keith Liden APPROVED BY: William A. Monahan
Associate Planner Director of Planning & ¢'
Development
(KSL:pm/0463P))
STAFF REPORT - SDR 9-84 & V 9-84 - PAGE 6
GEORGE SCOTT
11640 S. W. 135th Avenue
Tigard, Oregon 97223
July 6, 1984
Planning Commission
City of Tigard, Oregon
12755 S. W. Ash
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Re: Winter Lake Apartment (SDR 9-84)
Dear Commissioners:
I am the owner of that certain property located at
the northwest corner of the above proposed development.
Specifically, my property is legally identified as Tax
Lot 400, Washington County Tax Map 151, 33DC.
My property is not currently developed to its
highest and best use and I have no current plans for any
development. Accordingly, my property is characterized
as a "developing area" according to the Community
Development Code of the City of Tigard, Oregon.
I understand a question has arisen during the
processing of the Applicant's site design plan under the
above proceeding whether that plan complies with any
applicable requirements for transitional areas or buffer
zones. No such requirements apply to my property
because of its categorization as a "developing area."
I am also expressing my support for and urging your
approval of the Applicant's site design plan. I have
reviewed this plan, found it satisfactory in all aspects
and reflecting an obvious concern and sensitivity by
the Applicant for the adjoining neighborhood while
maximizing liveability for project residents.
Very truly yours,
il
/ Y
�` 4 '1
G O SCOTT
*. b
July 10, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR: Planning Commission
City of Tigard, Oregon
FROM: West and Johnson Development Company
SUBJECT: Site Development Review SDR 9-84 and
Variance V 9-84
This memorandum, the information contained
herein and the attachments hereto are submitted as
additional evidence in connection with the above subject
which was heard initially on June 5, 1984 and, at such
hearing, continued until the date hereof.
I. Variance Request (V 9-841 .
The variance request is hereby withdrawn.
II. Additional Evidence fob Site Development
Review (SDR 9-84) and Hearing Continuation.
The June 5, 1984 hearing regarding SDR 9-84
was continued for the following reasons:
A. Applicant was to be given an opportunity
to comply with sections 18.40.040 and 18.100.070 of the
Comprehensive Development Code (CDC) of the City of
Tigard, Oregon; and,
B. Applicant was directed to meet and
discuss the site design plan revised in accordance with
subparagraph A. hereof with variously affected parties
including representatives of Neighborhood Planning
Organization (NPO) No. 7 and the Morning Hill Home
Owners Association.
In response to the reasons given for the
hearing continuation, Applicant hereby offers the
following:
WINTER LAKE APARTMENTS (SDR 9-34) - Page 1.
A. Revised Site Plan.
The revised site plan for the Winter Lake
Apartments project submitted herewith by Applicant for
approval incorporates the following modifications:
i. The number of apartment units has
been reduced from 160 units to 150 units, a
reduction of 6.25%;
ii. 150 covered parking spaces in
compliance with Tigard CDC 18.106.030 (A) (4) ;
iii. Additional access point at extreme
northwest corner of project onto Lake Drive;
iv. Retention of access point onto S. W.
135th Avenue in contravention to June 5, 1984
City of Tigard Staff recommendations and re-
located at northeast corner of project;
v. Removal of all multi-family building
structures from within the 100 foot
residential transition area adjacent to the
project's entire southern boundary and in
compliance with Tigard CDC 18.040.040;
vi. Removal of all covered parking
spaces from 100 foot residential transition
zone;
vii. Expansion of Buffer required by
Tigard CDC 18.100.070 from approximate 35 foot
depth of earlier site design plan to
approximate average depth of 72 feet; and,
viii. Relocation of building structures,
covered and open parking spaces and attendant
improvements to accomodate the above
modifications.
B. Discussions with Affected Parties.
In response to the request for additional
meetings with affected parties, Applicant has met and
discussed with various individuals and organizations,
including representatives from NPO No. 7 and the Morning
WINTER LAKE APARTMENTS (SDR 9-84) - Page 2.
Hill Home Owners Association, the revised site design
plan submitted herewith and other collateral issues.
The dates and places of those meetings are as
follows:
June 5, 1984: Discussions with affected
parties who attended Planning Commission hearing of same
date to determine specific concerns. This meeting was
held in Fowler Junior High School, Tigard, Oregon and
lasted approximately one hour.
June 14, 1984: Discussions with representa-
tives of Morning Hill Home Owners Association at which
revised site design plan was presented and reviewed.
Representatives of NPO No. 7 were also present. This
meeting was held at Fowler Junior High School, Tigard,
Oregon and lasted approximately two hours. Attached
hereto as Exhibit "A" is a copy of notes from that
meeting prepared by an attendee representating the
Morning Hill Home Owners Association wherein certain
issues concerning the site design plan were described.
June 27, 1984: Presentation to meeting of NPO
No. 7 at which representatives of Morning Hill Home
Owners Association were present. Attached hereto as
Exhibit '8" is a copy of a June 27, 1984 memorandum to
the attendees of this meeting wherein those issues
raised at the prior June 14 meeting are addressed (A
portion of that memorandum deals with the question of
the vacation of S. W. 130th Avenue and its possible
availability for inclusion in this development. That
issue will be discussed below.) In addition, a second
revised site design plan was presented and discussed.
This meeting was held in the Administrative Offices of
the Tigard School District, Tigard, Oregon and lasted
approximately one and one-half hours.
July 9, 1984: Presentation to Special Meeting
of NPO No. 7 at which site design plan submitted
herewith was presented and discussed. Representatives .
of Morning Hill Home Owners Association were present.
Meeting was held in the Administrative Offices of the
Tigard School District, Tigard, Oregon. A copy of this
memorandum was presented and reviewed at such meeting.
WINTER LAKE APARTMENTS (SDR 9-84) - Page 3.
1
In addition to such meetings, Applicant has
held numerous telephone conferences with affected
parties and met with City of Tigard staff officials. No
discussions or meetings have been held by the Applicant
with any member of any Approval Authority of or
representating the City of Tigard, Oregon or its
Planning Commission.
In conducting such meetings with affected
parties, Applicant has been sensitive to and aware of
the dictates of the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals
(LUBA) which requires "an articulate challenge" to a
goal requires a record "which demonstrates that
citizens' concerns were heard and considered Pnd shows
why those concerns were or were not ultimate..y reflected
in the comprehensive plan." Gruber v. Lincoln County,
2 Or LUBA 180, 188 (1981) . While such discusses citizen
involvement in the context of preparation and adoption
of comprehensive plans, it has some applicability in
this instance. Related to this issue is the question of
citizen influence versus citizen control. The point
that citizen influence is not synonymous with citizen
control and that the right to participate does not imply
a right to prevail is made in Multnomah County v.
• 11 • ' Z - . . . 0 - • _ • ! • X41 c� LCDC No.
78-002.
Applicant believes it has addressed and
attempted to resolve all concerns of affected citizens.
The single greatest concern expressed by those citizens
representing the Morning Hill Home Owners Association
has been the proximity of the proposed multi-family
development to their properties. Applicant's revised
plan complies with Tigard CDC 18.40.040 by providing a
100 foot deep residential transition zone with no
multi-family buildings contained within it. The minimum
standard imposed by Tigard CDC 18.100.070 requires a 15
foot deep landscaped buffer area that contains "no
buildings, accessways or parking areas." Applicant's
revised site design plan reflects citizen concerns by
expanding the landscaped buffer area to 480% of the code
minimum, that is, an average depth of 72 feet.
Likewise, Applicant has made a diligent effort to remove
all development with the exception of an accessway from
the residential transition area and landscape such to
standards exceeding Tigard CDC minimum requirements.
WINTER LAKE APARTMENTS (SDR 9-84) - Page 4.
Concerned citizens have expressed objections
on technical grounds. These objections are as follows:
1. Number of Units permitted by Tigard
CDC 18.92 (Density Computations) .
In response to the question of whether the !'
number of proposed units complies with the applicable
provisions of the Tigard CDC, Applicant hereby offers
its computation of the net permitted units per acre:
Gross Area: 15.13 Acres
Deduct:
r..
fi
Land within 100-
year floodplain None
Land or Slopes
exceeding 25% None
Drainageways (1.96 Acres)
rr
Land dedicated for
Park Purposes None
Public Rights-of-Way (2.27 Acres)
Land for Private Streets None
Existing Dwelling None
Net Development Area 10.90 Acres
Net Development Area
(Square Feet) 474,804 SF
Net Units (calculated
by dividing Net
Development Area
(Square Feet) by
minimum number of
square feet required
for each lot (3,050
square feet - Tigard
CDC 18.54.050 (A) ) 155.67 Units
WINTER LAKE APARTMENTS (SDR 9-84) - Page 5.
y,.
Add: Res 'd nt;a7 Density Transfer
Drainageway area
(85,813.20 Square
Feet) divided by
minimum lot size
(3,050 square feet)
times 25% 7.03 Units
Total Number of Units Permitted 162.70 Units
Applicant's site design plan is for 150 units
which is 92.19% of the maximum permitted number of
units. The question about number of permitted units
arises because of the size of the drainageway. A
concerned citizen has stated, based on some document not
made available to Applicant and unknown to Applicant,
the drainageway area is about 3.70 acres. Applicant has
measured the drainageway area and verified the area of
such is 1.96 acres thereby confirming the accuracy of
the calculation of number of permitted units.
2. Traffic Volume and Impact
Concerned citizens have stated that the volume
and impact of traffic to be generated by Applicant's
development will be substantially greater than earlier
proposals presented in connection with this property.
This matter arises because of the April 1984
zone change (ZC 9-84) concerning the 3.13 acre portion
of Applicant's project which is frequently referred to
as the "Pond Court" property. Proposals prepared prior
to the date of that zone change apparently showed the
Pond Court property being developed with 15 or 16
attached or detached single-family residential
dwellings. Those same proposals indicated the larger
parcel that includes the drainageway being developed
with 138 multi-family units.
Applicant believes its development proposal
will generate a lesser volume of traffic thereby
mitigating any adverse affects such traffic might cause.
Should this earlier development proposal have been
approved, a total of 268 parking spaces would be
required (30 spaces for the single-family residential
WINTER LAKE APARTMENTS (SDR 9-84) - Page 6.
portion (assumes 15 dwellings) and 238 spaces for the
apartment project) . Applicant's proposal for a 150-unit
multi-family development requires and will contain 259
parking spaces, which is less than the number of spaces
required under the earlier proposal. Further, this
earlier development plan did not include any access
points onto S. W. 135th Avenue as does Applicant's plan.
Having such will further alleviate any adverse traffic
impacts in addition to the lesser amount of traffic
anticipated with Applicant's plan.
3. Non-compliance with Tigard CDC 18.02 (A) .. '
Concerned citizens have stated approval of
Applicant's proposal will not comply with the provisions
of Tigard CDC 18.02 (A) . This section of the Tigard CDC
describes the purposes for implementation of the CDC
with section (A) thereof stating one such purpose to be:
"Ensure that the development of property
within the City is commensurate with the
physical characteristics of the land, and in
general, to promote and protect the public
health, safety, convenience and welfare [ .1 "
This concern apparently arises from a
vvaa..c riled c:itizell's belief that approval of Applicant's
proposal will fail "to promote and protect the public
health, safety, convenience and welfare." Such failure
constitutes, according to this theory, the creation by
Applicant of a private nuisance which is tortious
interference with the use and enjoyment of land.
Any such nuisance action must be based on any
one or more of the three recognized bases for recovery
in tort, i.e. , intent, negligence or strict liability.
Raymond v. Southern Pacific Co. , 250 Or 629, 634,
488 P2d 460 (1971) .
The test for intent is that the defendant
creates or continues activity with full knowledge that G{
harm to plaintiff's interests is substantially certain
to follow. ,Jacobson v, Crown Zellerbach, 273 Or 15, 19,
539 P2d 641 (1975) . Applicant believes its actions of
several meetings with involved citizens and resolving
concerns by reducing the proposal's number of units and
removing improvements from the residential transition
WINTER LAKE APARTMENTS (SDR 9-84) Page 7.
zone clearly show Applicant is not intending to create
or cause any form of nuisance activity.
While these tests for nuisance are elastic and
do not fit into neat categories, one factor considered
by courts is interference with the use and enjoyment of
land. However, the utility and reasonableness of
defendant's conduct must be outweighed by harm to the
plaintiff. State Dept. of Env. Oual. v. Chem. Waste,
19 Or App 712, 717, 528 P2d 1076 (1974) .
In instances where uses were found to be
unreasonable, the following types of interference have
been recognized and found to create a private nuisance:
1. Percolation of water from an irrigation
canal, Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Vale, Oregon
Irrigation District, 253 F Supp 251 (D Or 1966) ;
2. Emission of slate dust, Smejkal v. Empire
Lite-Rock. Inc. , 274 Or 571, 547 P2d 1363 (1976) ;
3. Cement dust and noise, Lunda v. Matthews,
46 Or App 701, 613 P2d 63 (1980) ;
4. Pig farming in a rural-residential area
progressing toward residential, Jewett v. Deerhorn
Enterprises. Inc. , 281 Or 469, 575 P2d 164 (1978) ;
5. Backing up of river water onto
plaintiff's property due to fill in river, Phillips
Ranch. Inc. v. Banta, 273 Or 784, 543 P2d 1035 (1975) ;
and,
6. Sawdust exudate from sawmill, York v.
Stallings, 215 Or 13, 341 P2d 529 (1959) .
The point being no precedent exists involving
a use and development of property in compliance with
previously approved comprehensive plans and zoning
ordinances. No Oregon court has adjudicated a factual
instance similar to the theory raised by the concerned
citizens in this matter. In Applicant's opinion, the
factual occurrence of two-story apartment buildings
located 100 and more feet from an existing single-family
residential neighborhood fails to come close to the
standards set for nuisance. This is further reinforced
WINTER LAKE APARTMENTS (SDR 9-84) Page 8.
_
by Applicant's efforts to assuage citizen concerns by
reducing the number of units in the proposal, re-
locating improvements a considerable distance from
adjoining uses and the extensive landscaping planned.
An emerging cause for nuisance action deals
with what are known as visual or aesthetic
sensibilities. Applicant does not believe citizen
concerns embody this somewhat uncertain doctrine. Such
considerations may warrant an exercise of police power,
however, the Oregon Supreme Court has raised, but did
not answer unequivocably the question of "whether a city
can wholly exclude a use of property on the sole ground
that the use is offensive to aesthetic sensibilites."
Oregon City v. Hartke, 240 Or 35, 400 P2d 255 (1965) .
The facts of that case involved a zoning ordinance which
totally excluded commercial automobile wrecking from the
city except as a nonconforming use. This instance, that
is, a comparatively low-density multi-family development
near a higher-than-normal density single-family
residential development does not compare with the
instance of an automobile wrecking yard.
III. itequesb for Favorable Consideration of
Applicant's Request Conditioned upon Vacation of
S. W. 130th Avenue.
Applicant requests approval of the revised
site design plan submitted herewith. The proposed use
is permitted outright and the site design plan meets or
exceeds all Tigard CDC requirements.
Applicant also requests such approval include
a special condition that the City of Tigard, Oregon
immediately undertake a vacation proceeding with respect
to that portion of S. W. 130th Avenue which adjoins
Applicant's property and, upon the conclusion of such
proceeding, one-half the lands vacated therewith vest to
the ownership of Applicant.
In so requesting, Applicant hereby objects to
the imposition of any further or additional changes to
the revised site design plan submitted herewith that
would require further delays or impose additional costs
on Applicant in deciding this request. The basis for
this position is that "discretion not limited by
explicit, objective, exact criteria discourages builders
WINTER LAKE APARTMENTS (SDR 9-84) - Page 9.
and adds delay and cost to housing." 1000 Friends v.
Milwaukie, 3 LCDC 1, 6 (1979) . If technical or issues
of minor significance arise or remain unresolved when
this request is decided, such should be conditions to
the approval and thereby allow Applicant to proceed with
its development plan.
The so-called "St. Helens Policy" (LCDC,
Rousing yolicy, Discussion (July 12, 1979) ) as codified
in ORS 197.307 requires local governments to allow
needed housing "in a zone or zones with sufficient
buildable land to satisfy that need." This policy
continues by not prohibiting local governments from
imposing standards, special conditions or procedures to
that permission, however, "such must be clear and ob-
jective and must not have the effect, either of them-
selves or cumulatively, of discouraging, such as through
unreasonable cost or delay, the needed housing type."
The vacation proceeding regarding S. W. 130th
Avenue is essential to the operation of applicant's
revised site design plan. Without the additional land
to be made available from such vacation, the feature of
no improvements within the residential transition zone
is not possible. Therefore, if approval contains the
requested special condition for such vacation
proceeding, a commitment by all involved parties to the
ultimate success of such action is mandato yy ___
Applicant believes such vacation can be
accomplished without unreasonable delay under the
provisions of ORS 368.620. This section applies to a
county road (S. W. 130th Avenue is such) that has not
opened within two (2) years from the date of the order
establishing-it, or has not been used for vehicular
traffic by the public for a period of sixteen (16)
years. The county court will review the petition for
vacation and either causes the road to be opened or
ordered vacated. No consents from abutting landowners
are required nor is there any statutory provision for
comP abutting compensation of the abuttin landowners if the vacation
affects the market value of their property. This latter
provision is limited to the extent that the vacation
proceeding can not deprive any property owner from
access to his or her property by public road or other
right-of-way.
WINTER LAKE APARTMENTS (SDR 9-84) - Page 10. ;`
EXHIBIT "A" TO JULY 10, 1984 MEMORANDUM
FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
IN RE: WINTER LAKE APARTMENTS (SDR 9-84)
WINTER LAKE APARTMENTS (SDR 9-84) - Page 11.
(5) _ ILk '4
aRkfundrwroo \)-6 Plain
UJ's1 1F 9ovr w- k)PO# 0 j riAorninahili born¢.OW
Aa.t e 1 r r,ol M®r n n h !J r
(�
cc ess ckwophwr►f will 90 di recta y to).5
6-et 'Pence- cd 1I be. by;i+ q[Or� `4
in o r n i n 11 („e vtl rn.e,irrt ()AIL)
3 9h42_ . -rain..-c. -co • - w iLit j_
ci- ao
. .ao M aO L /amc
o r fli ovy,r , i con 4,e . Para* •
ow Abe_ lct ZQ c .on
-e2 'a can s 00-14 . rnkt ..j
C Co Q accuilim9 wcCC ibiL foAcoiciocxfol_
103Ap_trn9 letcohy rca con /24._.a.k., .
u-nRliNcas
Ccc . - . (col c d3J
\i-urun
pc(5 . - ibecocc
6) P-owcut. E'L�5 We' K
10033,6-62, enc( 46te .44,
• t
•
hl
EXHIBIT "B" TO JULY 10, 1984 MEMORANDUM
FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
IN RE: WINTER LAKE APARTMENTS (SDR 9-84)
L
ii
WINTER LAKE APARTMENTS (SDR 9-84) - Page 13.
June 27, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR: Neighborhood Planning Organization
(NPO) No. 7 and Morning Hill Homeowners
Association, Tigard, Oregon
FROM: West and Johnson Development Company
SUBJECT: Winter Lake Apartments, Tigard, Oregon
This memorandum will address issues raised
during a June 14 meeting concerning the proposed plan of
development for the Winter Lake Apartments.
1. Connection „Lake Drive to Mornin H •
Drive.
You requested that Lake Drive not connect to
Morning Hill Drive. Both streets are either currently
dedicated to, or required to be dedicated to, the City
of Tigard, Oregon. We will be required to improve the
Lake Drive right-of-way to standards imposed by the City
of Tigard and intend to comply with such as they pertain
to our development. The intersection of Lake Drive and
Morning Hill Drive is not within the boundaries of our
property nor is the northerly extension of Lake Drive to
the boundary of our property. We would not object to
any realignment of that portion of Lake Drive or its
intersection with Morning Hill Drive so long as any
proceedings in connection with such do not delay the
design review application we currently have pending or
impose unreasonable additional costs. This matter is one
which you must resolve with the City of Tigard, Oregon.
2. Access onto S s, W. 135th ,Avenue
The site design plan we submitted for review
at the June 5, 1984 Planning Commission hearing
indicated an access point onto S. W. 135th Avenue.
WINTER LAKE APARTMENTS - Page 1.
City staff recommended such be deleted. In response to
that recommendation, the site plan you reviewed at our
June 14 meeting eliminated the access point onto S. W.
135th Avenue. You requested such not be eliminated. We
have no objection to such and have reinstated_ acce_SA.
onto S. W. 135th Avenue, The au€horization for this b,1L
`access can only be given by either City Staff or the
Planning Commission.
3. - A '.40 .., . • 0 - f . . - : .. 9 •
Our original plan indicated a five-foot high
hedge to be part of the required landscaping plan. You
requested such be eliminated and, in place thereof, a
six-foot high fence be installed. We have no objection
to substituting a fence for the hedge subject to
concurrence by City Staff and the Planning Commission.
4. Landscaping within Transition Buffer.
You asked that the landscaping plan within the
transition buffer include a berm with a maximum
elevation not less than the finished grade of the
residential lots adjoining the southern boundary of the
proposed Winter Lake project. Likewise, you asked that
the fence (Issue no. 3) be installed at the point of
this maximum elevation. We believe our original plan
met or exceeded these requirements, however, we are
hereby reiterating our willingness to provide such as a
minimum requirement subject to concurrence by City Staff
and the Planning Commission.
5. Covered Parking Facilities be p_ rovideed for
Spaces adjoining Falcon Rise Drive.
We are unable to comply with this request as
doing so defeats the purpose for covered parking spaces.
The City's requirement for covered parking spaces is
imposed for the primary parking requirement (1 covered
space for each apartment unit) and to provide protection
to occupants and their automobiles. To not have these
covered parking spaces adjacent to the units they serve
is not consistent with the code's intent and the purpose
for such covered parking.
WINTER LAKE APARTMENTS Page 2.
6. Number of Access Points.
You questioned whether the project complied
with the Code's requirements for access points. We
do not believe any of the previously submitted plans for
the project, when considering the project in its
entirety and not as two separate projects, failed to
comply with this access point requirement. Neverthe-
less, the plan submitted herewith now has a total of
five (5) access points including one onto S. W. 135th
Avenue (Issue No. 2) .
7. Turnaround.
The plan submitted herewith indicates a turn-
around configuration for vehicles. A similar
configuration was indicated on the original plan
submitted for the June 5 hearing. The plan you reviewed
at the June 14 meeting was conceptual in nature and was
intended to deal with other issues. We do intend and
have always intended to provide such a form of turn-
around for emergency and other vehicles.
8. Centrally Located Visitor and Guest (Shared)
parking.
Section 18.106.020 (G) (2) of the City Code
requires that Shared Parked be "centrally located." The
Code provides no guidance about determines centrally
located parking. One can rationally assume a separate
and distinct shared parking area located a substantial
distance from the majority of improvements would not be
in compliance. The shared parking spaces for this
project are interspersed within the project. Central
locations can readily be determined for projects that
are not irregularly shaped as is the case here.
Accordingly, we believe we comply with the Code's intent
for centrally located parking.
9. Required Parking within 200 feet of, Unit being
Served.
Section 18.106.020 (H) (2) of the City Code
requires off-street parking spaces be located not
further than 200 feet from the building or use they are
required to serve. This distance is to be measured in a
straight line from the building. We believe the plan
submitted herewith complies with this requirement
WINTER LAKE APARTMENTS - Page 3.
10 . Duffer from Scott House.
A question arose during our June 14 meeting as
to whether the proposed plan complies with the density
transition and buffer requirements where it adjoins the
so-called Scott House at the project's northwest corner.
We believe such requirements are not applicable under
the "developing area doctrine," that is, the current use
of the Scott House property is not one which is
developed to its highest and best use and the Winter
Lake site is being first developed. Further, we will be
obtaining a letter from Mr. Scott and entering such into
evidence whereby Mr. Scott states no objections to the
plan of development and waives any and all future claims
to object on the basis of non-compliance with the code
requirements.
11. possible Filling of Winter Lake.
At your request, we investigated the
possibilities of filling part of the southerly portion
of Winter Lake and using the reclaimed land for
improvements. We found the amount of land that could be
reclaimed, the costs associated with such and the
resultant minor amount of additional site area gained
renders this issue unfeasible.
12. Parking Spaces in Transitional Zone on
Southern Property Boundary.
The current project development plan is for
152 apartment units which requires a total of 262
parking spaces (228 required spaces and 34 shared
parking spaces) . During the planning process between
our June 14 meeting and preparation of the plan
submitted herewith, we attempted to minimize the number
of parking spaces within the transitional zone on the
southern property boundary. We find it impossible,
however, due to site size limitations, to limit or
eliminate parking spaces from this portion of the site.
The minimum code requirement is that the buffer strip be
not less than 15 feet in width and contain no
improvements whatsoever except landscaping. At its
closest point, parking spaces are 35 feet from the
property line; a distance which is 233% of the code's
minimum requirement.
WINTER LAKE APARTMENTS Page 4.
e
You have stated you will support no variances
whatsoever from code requirements. Without a variance
we find it impossible to deal with your request for no
or few parking spaces within the transitional zone.
This is not to imply we are unsympathetic to your
requests and ask you to consider the following solution.
The street right-of-way for S. W. 130th Avenue
(eastern property boundary) has been legally vacated,
but title to those vacated lands has apparently not been
revested in the appropriate owners. While we have not
yet been able to confirm such, we believe that our
property size can be increased should one-half this
right-of-way be added to our current property size. This
may allow us to deal partially with, but possibly not
the entire question of removing parking spaces from the
transitional zone. Parking spaces must be 18 feet in
length and manuevering areas must be provided for such
spaces. If the minimun manuevering area width is 24
feet and the parking space is 18 feet long, then a total
of 42 feet is required for parking areas. If that
portion of the right-of-way which is added to our
property is 30 feet in width, then we can not accomodate
easily the transfer of parking spaces. This is not to
say some parking can not be provided in this additional
area, but the number of spaces will be limited; perhaps
no more than 10 spaces.
The current plan indicates 5 required parking
spaces and 15 shared spaces in the area which you would
prefer to be landscaped only. If we are able to move 10
of these parking spaces into the additional area gained
by the S. W. 130th Avenue vacation, then 10 parking
spaces would remain in the transitional zone. To
eliminate any of these final 10 spaces will require a
variance to the code's parking requirements. We are
willing to request such a variance and thereby relocate
a majority of those parking spaces that are closest to
the southern property boundary. We are not willing,
however, to request such a variance without your
support; particularly in view of your previously stated
position of demanding no variances be granted for this
project.
CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
�.n
FINAL ORDER NO. 84-01r6
A FINAL ORDER IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT AND A ZONE CHANGE REQUESTED BY TIGARD WEST DEVELOPMENT, JB BISHOP,
GI JOES, AND ALICE TREFFINGER, FILE NO. CPA 11-84 AND ZC 8-84, DENYING THE
APPLICATION REQUESTS, ENTERING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS.
The Tigard Planning Commission heard the above application at its regular
meeting of July 10, 1984. The applicants appeared along with their attorney
and architect. Appearing for the opposition were a number of interested
property owners, represented by legal counsel and the Neighborhood Planning
Organization (NPO # 3):•
The Commission finds the following FACTS in this matter:
1. The applicants for this matter, Tigard West Development, JB Bishop,
GI Joes and Alice Treffinger, requested a reclassification from R 3.5
zoning and low density designation, which would allow for single
family residential units to a (C-G), General Commercial designation
on a parcel of land designated as Washington County Tax Map 2S1 3DA
Tax Lots 4700, 4800, 6100 and 6200 and Washington County Tax Map 2Sl
3DD lot 200. The information supporting the request is found in File
"t?
No. CPA 11-84.
2. The applicant's justification is presented In the minutes for the
July 10, 1984, Planning Commission meeting. The applicants at that
time, represented by Attorney Stephen Janik, spoke to issues relating
to squaring off a parcel that is 80Z committed to commercial,
potential negligible traffic impact on neighboring streets, a change
to a commercial designation which would be better for the existing
residences, the conformance of the application to the plan policies,
whether the residential zoning on the 5 residential lots in question
was a mistake, and the increase in jobs for local residents and the
conformance of the application to locational criteria.
3. The relevant approval criteria in this case are the State-wide
Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, & 14. Goals 3,
4, and 15 - 19 do not apply. In addition, the City of Tigard
Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 5.1.4, 6.3.3 and 12.2.1.
The Commission make the following FINDINGS in this matter:
1. State-wide Planning Goal # 1 is met because the City has adopted a
Citizens Involvement program including review of all development
applications by the Neighborhood Planning Organization (NPO). In
addition all public notice requirements were met.
2. State-wide Planning Goal # 2 is met because the City applied all
applicable State-wide Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan
Policies and Development Code requirements to the application.
3. State-wide Planning Goal # 5 does not apply because no open space f
would be created or removed by this application proposal.
3x
Pa;,
4. State-wide Planning Goal # 6 does not apply because water, air and
land resources quality would not be affected by this application
proposal.
5. State-wide Planning Goal # 7 does not apply because there are no
natural hazard areas on the property.
6. State-wide Planning Goal # 8 does not apply because there would be no
recreational facilities being constructed or removed as a result of
this proposal.
7. State-wide Planning Goal # 9 does not apply because the portion of
land being proposed for the change from residential to commercial is
too small to impact the City's employment picture.
8. State-wide Planning Goal # 10 does not apply because the removal of 5
homes from the City's housing stock would not have a great impact
City-wide.
9. State-wide Planning Goal # 11 is met because public facilities are
available to the site.
10. State-wide Planning Goal # 12 is not satisfied because SW Watkins
Street is not improved to City standards,
11. State-wide Planning Goal # 13 does not apply because there are no
great energy savings to be gained by changing the five residential
properties to commercial.
12. State-wide Planning Goal # 14 does not apply because the proposed
change does not affect rural land.
13. City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because
the Neighborhood Planning Organization and surrounding property were
given notice of the hearing and an opportunity to comment on the
applicants proposal.
14. City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 5.1.4 is not satisfied
because approval of the applicants' request would allow commercial
development to encroach into a residential area that has not been
designated for commercial use.
15. City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 6.3.3 is not satisfied 1
because approval of the applicants' request will not preserve and
enhance the character of the adjacent established area. I`
16. City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 12.2.1 is satisified in that
all of the appropriate locational criteria have been applied to the
project, however, not all of the locational criteria can be met by
the applicants' proposal.
4k
The Commission adopts the following CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. Based on Finding Number 14, the Commission has determined that the
applicants' request to redesignate five single family residential
lots to commercial would allow commercial development to encroach
into a residential area that has not been designated for commercial
use.
2. Based on Finding Number 15, the Commission has determined that the
granting of the applicants' request will not preserve and enhance the
character of the adjacent established area.
3. Based on Finding Number 16, the Commission has determined that the
applicants' request does not meet all of the locational criteria
setforth in Policy 12.2.1.
Specifically, locational criteria (1) (a) is not met "The commercial
area is not surrounded by residential
districts on more than two sides."
is
It is, therefore, ORDERED that, based on the above Findings and Conclusions,
the application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change in this t;
matter be, and the same hereby is denied.
It is further ordered that the applicant be notified of the entry of this
order.
PASSED: This co-IJb day of b/446.4...u, 1984, by Planning Commission of the
City of Tigard.
9*et e-t.
A. Donald Moen, President
Tigard Planning Commission
0671P
dmj !!'
Sn'
tai
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 5.3
July 10, 1984 - 7:30 P.M.
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
TIGARD SCHOOL DISTRICT - BOARD ROOM
13137 SW PACIFIC HIGHWAY
TIGARD, OREGON 97223
A. FINDING OF FACT
1. General Information
CASE: • Comprehensive Plan Amendment, CPA 11-84 and Zone Change, ZC
8-84.
REQUEST: For a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low Density
Residential to Commercial General and for a Zone Change from
R-3.5 (Residential 3.5 units/acre) to C-G (Commercial
General).
APPLICANT: Tigard West Development Co. OWNER: Same
G I Joes'Inc. , Alice Treffinsen
and JB Bishop
3853 SW Scholls Ferry Road
Portland, Oregon 97221
LOCATION: 10500, 13370, 13450, 13490, and 13530 SW Watkins Ave. ,
Tigard (Wash. Co. Tax map 2S1 3DA, Tax Lots 4700, 4800,
6100, and 6200 and 2S1 3DD, lot 200).
LOT AREA: 99,000 square feet, 2.3 acres
2. Background
Kristen Subdivision (S 12-79) was proposed in 1979 to create seven
residential lots along Park Street, however, did not receive final City
approval.
3. Vicinity Information
A triangular area lies south of Park Street, west of Pacific Highway,
and east of the subject property zoned C-G (Commercial General) and is `.
partially developed with commercial uses. Properties to the north, west
and south contain single family residences that are in the R-3.5 '.
(Residential 3.5 units/acre) and R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre)
zones.
4. Site Information and Proposal Description
The five properties being considered in this application are developed
with single family residences on lots that are 130 feet deep and vary
from 116 to 210 feet in width. The lots are all contiguous beginning at
Park Street running south on the east side of Watkins Avenue.
4`.
STAFF REPORT - CPA 11-84 and ZC 8-84 - PAGE 1
The applicant proposes to change the Comprehensive Plan designation from
Low Density Residential to Commercial General and to rezone the property
to C-G (Commercial General). This modification is requested to enlarge
the commercial property to the east. The applicant contends that the
additional space is necessary to accommodate a 55,000 square foot retail
business. The applicant indicates that no access to Watkins Avenue is
desired and an exit directing vehicles to Pacific Highway will be
proposed on Park Street. The retail facility will require a Site
Development Review approval prior to any development of the site.
5. Agency Comments
The Engineering Division has no objection but indicates that future
development on the property may require a sanitary sewer easement across
Tax Lots 4800 and 6100. The Building Inspection Office has no
objections. The State Highway Division indicates that the proposed
retail development could potentially affect the Watkins Avenue and Park
Street intersections with Pacific Highway. The Division has no
objections at this time. NPO # 3 recommends denial.
B. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
The applicant has submitted a narrative in support of the proposal which
addresses specific policies in the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning
staff has reviewed the application and its relationship to the Plan.
The relevant provisions and policies are discussed below. It is
important to recognize that this review should only deal with issues
which are germane to the Plan and zone change, not the installation of a
specific commercial use. The development of the subject property and
the land to the east will be required to follow the Site Development
Review process which includes an analysis of Code requirements such as
traffic impact, buffering and landscaping.
Implementation Strategies
2. The Community Development Code (C.D.C. ) shall provide
quasi-judicial changes to the Comprehensive Plan Map which may be
initiated by affected parties on a semi-annual basis and approved
if the City Council finds:
a. The change is consistent with applicable plan policies;
b. A change of physical circumstances has occurred since the
original designation; or f`
c. A mistake was made in the original land use designation.
4.1.1 THE CITY SHALL €?
a. MAINTAIN AND IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF TIGARD'S AIR QUALITY AND R'
COORDINATE WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS AND AGENCIES TO REDUCE
AIR POLLUTIONS WITHIN THE PORTLAND-VANCOUVER AIR QUALITY
MAINTENANCE AREA (AQMA). '
STAFF REPORT CPA 11-84 and ZC 8-84 - PAGE 2
The applicant contends that Tigard residents must travel significant
distances to reach retail business similar to the one proposed. A large
retail store may reduce the amount of traveling for local residents but
it will tend to attract customers from other parts of the southwest
metropolitan area. Further study would be necessary before any
conclusions could be made regarding impacts upon traffic generation as
it relates to air quality.
4.3.1 THE CITY SHALL
a. REQUIRE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS LOCATED IN A NOISE CONGESTED
AREA OR A USE WHICH CREATES NOISE IN EXCESS OF THE
APPLICABLE STANDARDS TO INCORPORATE THE FOLLOWING INTO THE
SITE PLAN:
1. BUILDING PLACEMENT ON THE SITE IN AN AREA WHERE THE
NOISE LEVELS WILL HAVE A MINIMAL IMPACT: OR
2. LANDSCAPING AND OTHER TECHNIQUES TO LESSEN NOISE
IMPACTS TO LEVELS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING LAND
USES.
The applicant indicates that the purpose of the proposal is to remove
the house and consolidate the five parcels with the existing commercial
property to the east. The additional land will be used to accommodate
the store as well as a 40+ foot wide landscaped buffer along Watkins
Avenue. This buffer is intended to reduce the negative impact of a
commercial use particularly in terms of noise and visual impact.
Standard Code requirements mandate a ten foot wide landscaped buffer
with screening (eg. hedge or sight obscuring fence) when commercial
development occurs adjacent to a residential use.
5.1.1 THE CITY SHALL PROMOTE ACTIVITIES AIMED AT THE
DIVERSIFICATION OF THE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES AVAILABLE TO
TIGARD RESIDENTS WITH PARTICULAR EMPHASIS PLACED ON THE
GROWTH OF THE LOCAL JOB MARKET.
The retail development will create approximately 160 construction jobs
and 60 full-time jobs.
5.1.3 THE CITY SHALL IMPROVE AND ENHANCE THE PORTIONS OF THE
CENTRAL BUSINESS AS THE FOCAL POINT FOR COMMERCIAL, HIGH
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, BUSINESS, CIVIC AND PROFESSIONAL
ACTIVITY CREATING A DIVERSIFIED AND ECONOMICALLY VIABLE CORE
AREA.
Although this request will have a minimal impact upon the downtown area,
the transformation of residential land to commercial uses along Pacific
Highway will tend to expand upon the existing strip development
pattern. If commercial areas outside of the CBD continue to grow it
will become increasingly difficult for the downtown area to become a
viable commercial center. The downtown area redevelopment remains a
high priority, however, the City's ability to fund public improvements
and encourage economic growth has been limited by the abolition of the
STAFF REPORT - CPA 11-84 and ZC 8-84 - PAGE 3
TURA program. Development of the downtown area will take place only
when marked conditions and land availability make it an attractive
location. The City does not discourage commercial development outside
of the downtown.
5.1.4 THE CITY SHALL ENSURE THAT NEW COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT SHALL NOT ENCROACH INTO RESIDENTIAL AREAS THAT
HAVE NOT BEEN DESIGNATED FOR COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL USES.
The Plan and Zone Change will lead to the removal of five single family
residences and their replacement by a commercial use. Presently, a row
of seven single family residences are between Watkins Avenue and the
commercial property to the east. This proposal would leave the southern
two lots which will only be adjacent to residential development on the
west side of Watkins Avenue. In addition, a precedent could be set for
the conversion of all the residential properties on the east side of
Watkins Avenue to commercial use.
The following locational criteria apply to the establishment of a
Commercial General Zone:
2. General Commercial
General Commercial areas are intended to provide for major retail goods
and services. The uses classified as general commercial may involve
drive-in services, large space users, a combination of retail, service,
wholesale and repair services or provide services to the traveling
public. The uses range from automobile repair and service, supply and
equipment stores, vehicle sales, drive-in restaurants to laundry
establishments. It is intended that these uses be adjacent to an
arterial or major collector street.
A. Scale
(1) Trade Area. Varies.
(2) Site Size. Depends on development.
(3) Gross Leasable Area. Varies.
B. Locational Criteria
PI
(1) Spacing and Location
(a) The commercial area is not surrounded by residential
districts on more than two sides.
(2) Access
(a) The proposed area or expansion of an existing area
shall not create traffic congestion or a traffic
safety problem. Such a determination shall be based
on the street capacity, existing and projected traffic
volumes, the speed limit, number of turning movements,
and the traffic generating characteristics of the
various types of uses.
STAFF REPORT - CPA 11-84 and ZC 8-84 - PAGE 4
(b) The site shall have direct access from a major
collector or arterial street.
(c) Public transportation shall be available to the site
or general area.
(3) Site Characteristics
(a) The site shall be of a size which can accommodate
present and projected uses.
(b) The site shall have high visibility.
(4) Impact Assessment
(a) The scale of the project shall be compatible with the
surrounding uses.
(b) The site configuration and characteristics shall be
such that the privacy of adjacent non-commercial uses
can be maintained.
(c) It shall be possible to incorporate the unique site
features into the site design and development plan.
(d) The associated lights, noise and activities shall not
interfere with adjoining non-residential uses.
The area to be rezoned has residential zones and single family
residential development to the south, west, and on the north side of
Park Street. This is contrary to the criteria which calls for no more
than two sides being adjacent to residential development. This criteria
is intended to minimize the potential for a new commercial use to
infringe upon an area that is primarily residential in nature. When
combined with the commercial property to the east, the remaining
criteria are met or would be evaluated during Site Development Review.
In summary, the requested Plan and Zone Change does not appear to be
consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan for the following
reasons:
1. The change in use from residential to commercial will encroach
upon an established single family neighborhood. It will initiate
the replacement of five residences with commercial development and
will probably set a precedent for the establishment of commi>_rcial
activity on the east side of Watkins Avenue south of Park Street
as well as other areas along Pacific Highway.
2. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the continued development of the
CBD as a commercial center and enlarging the inventory of
commercially zoned land along Pacific Highway contradicts this
policy. The effect is recognized as minimal given the other
factors which make the CBD less desirable for commercial
development at this time
STAFF REPORT CPA 11-84 and ZC 8-84 - PAGE 5
t
3. The applicant has not demonstrated the need for the Zone Chang e.
The property perty to the east appears to b
PP be capable of accommodating a
wide variety of commercial activities without requiring additional
land.
C. RECOMMENDATION
The Planning staff recommends denial of CPA 11-84 and ZC 8-84
PREPARED B : Keith Liden APPROVED BY: William A. Monahan
Associate Planner Director of Planning &
Development
(0503P/dmj))
qv
STAFF REPORT
T - CPA 11-84 and ZC 8-84 - PAGE 6 t,
t ,
BEFORE THE CITY OF TIGARD
IN THE MATTER OF THE
APPLICATION OF TIGARD WEST ) File No. CPA 11-84
DEVELOPMENT CO. , GI JOE' S, INC. , ) and
MRS. ALICE TREFFINGER, AND ) File No. CZ 7-84
JB BISHOP
FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CHANGE AND ZONE CHANGE
INTRODUCTION
This application involves five residential parcels
described as Tax Lots 4700, 4800 , 6100 and 6200 in 2S13DA and 200
in 2S13DD (the "Property") . The Property abuts SW Watkins Street
and forms the rear edge of a triangle of land formed by Pacific
Highway, SW Park Street, and SW Watkins Street. That triangular
property, except for the Property here under consideration, is
planned and zoned for commercial development and is the site of
existing commercial uses along a portion of the SW Pacific
Highway.
The applicants in this matter are the owners of the
residential lots along SW Watkins Street and SW Park Street which
constitute the Property. The balance of the triangle is owned by
JB Bishop who is now in a Chapter 11 reorganization before the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court. As part of the reorganization, agreements
}
have been reached for developing the entire triangle as a retail ,
center with G. I. Joe' s as the main retailer. The developer of
this retail store will be Tigard West Development, a partnership
composed of Vik Development Company of Eugene and Mr. Lindsay
F
t
McArthur. Tigard West Development has obtained an option to
purchase the property from JB Bishop, Tigard West Development
and G. I. Joe ' s have entered into a lease agreement, pursuant to
which Tigard West Development will build a 55 ,000 square foot
G. I. Joe's store, related parking, accessways , and landscaping
and lease the completed store facility to G. I. Joe' s. The
commitment of G.I. Joe' s to this project is perhaps best
evidenced by the fact that G. I. Joe' s has purchased Tax Lots 4800
and 6100 , part of the Property which is the subject of this
application. Construction of this project will commence in
September of 1984.
The Property is a strip of existing residences abutting
a key commercial area along SW Pacific Highway. The Property is
separated from other residential land by SW Watkins Street. The
entire triangle is separated from residential uses by SW Park
Street and SW Watkins.
The site plan proposed provides for no truck or
vehicular access along SW Watkins to insure that no traffic
resulting from this commercial development will affect the
residential streets. The store is oriented on the site in such a
way that no trucks or vehicles will divert through residential
streets in order to gain access to the store. There is no
entrances to the parking area along SW Park Street, only an exit
clearly marked, so as to minimize any traffic on Park Street,
north of SW Watkins Street. To further insure that no access
from the project to SW Watkins will occur, the developer offers
to deed a 20-foot strip of its land along SW Watkins to the City
of Tigard. That strip will be part of a landscaped 20-40-foot
buffer area which will be maintained by the developer.
2
In order to further buffer this commercial use from the
residences west of SW Watkins Street, the large trees and shrubs
that now exist in this 20-40-foot strip will be retained and
additional 13-14 foot evergreen trees will be planted in this
20-40-foot strip according to the requirements to be imposed in
the Site and Design Review process. Additionally, a six foot ,
sight obscuring wood slat and cyclone fence will be built on the
easterly edge of this 40-foot strip. Thus, those driving down SW
Watkins and those living along SW Watkins will see mature trees
and a 40-foot landscaped area, and will only intermittently see a
six-foot wood slat fence. The precise fence materials and color
will be subject to the Site and Design Review approval.
The applicant' s purpose in requesting this plan and
zone change is to bring the planning and zoning of this strip of
residential land into conformance with the existing commercial
designation of approximately 80 percent of this triangle of land
fronting on Pacific Highway, so as to allow sufficient land area
for a large, quality retail center along Pacific Highway. If
this change is not allowed, the effect will be to create
substantial conflict between this narrow strip of residential
land and the commercially planned portion of the triangle. In
that circumstance, those residences would not be buffered from
the commercial development planned in the Comprehensive Plan by a
street and there would be inadequate land area to locate the
20-40-foot landscaped buffer being proposed here.
3
A
SPECIFIC REQUESTS
Thus, the applicant is requesting a Comprehensive Plan
and zone change on the Property from Residential, 3. 5 to General
Commercial, C-G.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE
A. Comprehensive Plan Changes
The standards for granting a Comprehensive Plan change
under Tigard's Comprehensive Plan are set forth in Policy 1 ,
Implementation Strategy 2 at page 1I-8 of Volume 2 of the Plan.
That section provides that comprehensive plan changes may be
granted by the City Council upon a finding of any of the
following:
"a. The change is consistent with applicable plan
policies;
b. A change of physical circumstances has
occurred since the original designation; or
c. A mistake was made in the original land use
designation. "
The applicants submit that the requested plan change is
justifiable under either criteria (a) or (c) .
B. Compliance with Plan Policies
This application affects some but not all of the Plan' s
policies. The following is an analysis of the impact of this
application on each of the Plan' s policies.
1. Citizen Involvement - Policy 2. 1.1
With the established notification and hearing
procedures of the City of Tigard, which will be followed in this
case, granting the Plan change will be consistent with this
policy.
4
2. Natural Features and O.en S.ace - Polic 3. 1 to 3.6
Policy 3. 1. 1 prohibits development in certain land
areas that have serious development constraints that cannot be
accommodated by proven engineering techniques. The requested
Plan change does not have any impact on this policy because of
the fact that the Property is already developed for residential
use and has none of the development constraints listed in Policy
3. 1. 1. Policies 3 . 2, similarly, restricts development on
property which is in the 100-year floodplain. The Property is
not within the 100-year floodplain and thus there is no
inconsistency with this policy between the requested Plan change
and this policy.
Policy 3 . 4 provides limitations on development of areas
that have been designated as areas of significant environmental
concern, such as wetlands, geologically significant lands, and
fish and wildlife habitats. The City Comprehensive Plan does not
designate any portion of the Property as such an environmentally
sensitive area. Accordingly, the Comprehensive Plan change is
consistent with this policy.
Finally, Policy 3.5 provides for the establishment of
certain open spaces and recreational areas pursuant to
implementing strategies set forth in the Development Code. The
proposed Comprehensive Plan change is consistent with this policy
because the Property is already developed and has not been
designated for any open space or recreational space utilization.
Similarly, Policy 3.6 is inapplicable to this request, because
5
none of the Property is designated under the parks and open space
standards and classification system of the City of Tigard.
3. Air, Water and Land Resources Quality - Policies 4 . 1. 1 ,
4. 2, 4. 3
Policy 4 . 1 . 1 (a) provides that it is the policy of the
City to maintain and improve the quality of the air in Tigard.
As is noted in Volume 1 of the Comprehensive Plan, a number of
the shopping trips by citizens of Tigard require travel to retail
activities outside of the City of Tigard. The Comprehensive Plan
change requested will be in conformance with this policy because
it will locate a significant retail area in the center of Tigard
and will enable those seeking to make purchases at stores like
G. I. Joe' s to do so without the longer travel trip that is
currently necessary. Overall, this will reduce vehicle travel
and related air pollution.
Policy 4. 2 is not applicable to this request, given the
fact that there will be no adverse effect upon the water quality
of Tigard from the proposal. Twenty to forty feet of the
Property will remain in a semi-natural condition and not increase
the run-off. The run-off from the entire triangle will be
collected and retained on sight to allow a controlled release
into the existing storm water system in Pacific Highway and S.W.
Park Street at rates within the capacities of this system.
Policy 4. 3 requires that developments which create
noise in excess of applicable standards incorporate mitigation
measures in the development and operation of such facilities. A
retail store , as proposed by the applicant, will be built and
6
operated so as to fully comply with all applicable noise
standards. In addition, truck delivery and garbage truck
pick-ups , a source of noise of concern to some, will be limited
to hours that will not interfere with sleep.
4. Economy - Policy 5
The requested Comprehensive Plan change fulfills this
policy in a number of significant ways. Without the requested
Plan change, the site area will be inadequate to accommodate the
proposed 55 ,000 square foot retail business. Thus , the Plan
change is essential to bringing this amount of retail activity to
this area. The construction of the development will have an
approximate cost of $1 , 850, 000 and will produce approximately 150
jobs during the construction period. Thereafter, it will produce
approximately 60 full-time jobs. Finally, the development which
will be allowed by the Comprehensive Plan change will produce
additional taxes of approximately $40, 000 to $45 ,000 . These
economic benefits fulfill a number of the policies set forth
under Policy 5.
Policy 5. 1. 1 provides that the City sh11 promote a
diversification of economic opportunities available to Tigard
residents , with particular emphasis placed on the growth of the
local job market. The requested change will promote this goal by
bringing an additional 60 number of full-time jobs to Tigard area
residents.
Policy 5. 1. 4 provides that the City shall insure that
new commercial development does not encroach into residential
areas that have not been designated for commercial or industrial
7
uses. The requested Plan change complies with this policy by
insuring that there will be impenetrable buffers protecting the
adjacent residential areas. Those buffers consist of SW Watkins
Street and SW Park Street, the 20-40-foot strip along SW Watkins
Street which will be deeded to the City, the extensive
landscaping that will be retained and enhanced by the planting of
mature trees, and the six-foot fence. All of this will insure
that there will be no encroachment of commercial activity into
the residential neighborhood. The entrances and exits for the
store will similarly insure that traffic coming to and from the
store will not, to any appreciable degree, utilize SW Watkins
Street or SW Park, beyond its intersection with SW Watkins
Street. This kind of buffering requires a land area of a
sufficient size to accommodate the buffering area as well as the
store and its ancillary parking. Without this Plan change, there
would be an inadequate land area to accomplish the buffering
proposed, as well as accommodate the store and its parking.
5 . Housing - Policy 6
Granting the requested Comprehensive Plan change would
provide for the elimination of only five single family dwelling
units. This number, in light of the existing supply of housing
in Tigard and vacant land areas planned for residential
development, will have no impact upon Tigard' s ability to meet
its housing needs and comply with LCDC Goal 10.
The only policy that directly applies to this request
is Policy 6. 6. 1 which provides that the City shall require
buffering between different types of land uses in order to
8
protect established residential areas. The policy requires that
the type and extent of the buffering be flexible and be tailored
to the precise conflicts that may result from the proposed
development. As is discussed above, the buffering provided in
this development will be extensive and will be a very effective
buffer between the residential areas and the proposed commercial
use. In addition, the store building itself, as well as the
landscaping and fencing, will provide noise buffering from noise
sources along SW Pacific Highway. It is well established that
structures such as the proposed store serve to reduce ambient
traffic noises.
6 . Public Facilities and Services - Polio 7
Policy 7. 1. 2 requires that as a precondition to the
development approval, all required services are adequate and
available. Sewer and water service for the development of the
entire retail store are similarly readily available through sewer
and water lines that are in the Pacific Highway right-of-way and
are sized with adequate capacities to accommodate the
requirements of this store. Storm drainage will be accommodated
within the existing storm drain system in SW Pacific Highway and
SW Park Street as discussed above. Thus, the requested Plan
changes are in conformance with the requirements of Policy 7.
7. Policy 8
The only policies under this section of the Plan that
are applicable to the requested Plan change are those set forth
in Policy 8. 1. The Plan change itself will not result in any C;
additional vehicle trips, since the land area involved in the
9
•
Plan change will only include a small portion of the store and
the landscaped buffer. However, the development of the entire
triangle for the requested retail store will produce additional
vehicle trips which can be accommodated within the existing
capacity of Pacific Highway, the principal access to the
development. This will be further documented through a traffic
study by CH2M Hill to be submitted prior to the staff report in
this case. Thus , the request is consistent with Policy 8 . 1. 1
which provides for a safe and efficient roadway system adequate
to meet the needs of development.
Under Policy 8. 1 . 3 there are a number of requirements
which are preconditions to development. The requested Plan
change conforms with these requirements. The development will
abut a publically dedicated street and will have accesses which
are approved by the State of Oregon, Department of
Transportation. There are no substandard street widths and thus
there will be no required street right-of-way dedication.
Sidewalks, streets , and curbs within the development will be
constructed by the developer as required by Policy 8 . 1 . 3 (c) .
With respect to Policy 8. 1. 3 (e) , the accesses to and from Pacific
Highway will not cause traffic hazards and will be regulated by
the State of Oregon, Department of Transportation. Disabled
persons parking spaces will be provided as required by Policy
8. 1 . 3 (g) in close proximity to the store entrance.
8. Energy - Policy 9
The requested Comprehensive Plan change has little
impact upon Policy 9 other than the reduction in vehicle trip •
[ .
length, and the savings of fuel, which will result from bringing
the proposed type of retailing activity to the central area of
the City of Tigard.
9. Urbanization - Policy 10
This policy is inapplicable to the Comprehensive Plan
change request. This policy deals with annexations of lands to
the City (Policy 10. 1) , extensions of services outside of the
city limits (Policy 10. 2) and annexation of lands outside the
established UGB (Policy 10. 3) . None of these events will occur
in connection with this application. The Property is entirely
within the city limits of the City of Tigard and the established
urban growth boundary, and it is very near to the central
business district.
10. Special Areas of Concern - Policy 11
Policy 11. 1. 1 provides that the redevelopment of the
central business district should occur and that "convenience,
appearance and the needs of the shopping public should be primary
considerations. " Even though the Property is not within the
designated CBD, it is very close to this area. The policy
suggests that bringing additional retail activity of a type which
is not now found within the City of Tigard, and bringing more
convenient shopping to the City of Tigard is an appropriate goal
for the City. This request conforms to this policy by locating a
substantial amount of additional retail close to the center of
Tigard, a type of retailing activity that is not now located
within or near the City of Tigard.
11
11. Locational Criteria - Policy 12
Implementing strategy number 12. 2 provides certain
standards for the location of commercial activities within the
City of Tigard. The requested Plan change fully conforms with
the elements of this implementation strategy. Element number 1
provides that "commercial areas should be at a scale which
relates to the location, site and type of stores to be served. "
This implementation strategy is precisely the reason for this
requested Comprehensive Plan change. The site is a triangular
area of which approximately 80 percent is already designated for
general commercial purposes. Leaving an approximately 130-foot
wide strip of isolated residential is no t goo d
plannin g g in light
of the physical dimensions of the site. Additionally, the
conversion of this residential area into a conforming general
commercial designation is necessary' because of the size of the
retail store being provided and the amount of land area which is
necessary to accommodate that store as well as the City-required
and developer proposed buffering.
Second, element number 2 of that implementation
strategy requires buffering of surrounding residential areas.
This will be accomplished as has been fully discussed above.
Element number 3 requires that commercial centers be
aesthetically attractive and landscaped. This will be insured
through the Site and Design Review process which will address the
details of the landscaping and architectural treatment of the
store. Element number 4 requires that ingress and egress not
create traffic hazards. This will be insured through the
12
approval of the City as well as the State of Oregon, Department
of Transportation which will control access to Pacific Highway.
Finally, element number 5 will be fulfilled because the
retail development proposed will substantially reduce trip
lengths for those who are now having to go outside of the City of
Tigard to purchase the items offered by the proposed retailers.
Policy 12 also goes on to specify certain locational
criteria for general commercial. That section provides that
general commercial is intended for "large space users. " It
further provides that general commercial is intended to be
adjacent to an arterial or major collector street. The proposed
retail use is clearly a large space user and the Property and the
development is located adjacent to a major highway. Under
•
locational criteria B (1) (a) , the proposed development is not
surrounded on more than two sides by residential districts and
thus the proposal complies with this requirement. Pursuant to
B (2) , the general commercial shall not create traffic congestion
and shall have direct access from a major collector. As noted
above , these requirements are met.
Under subsection B (3) , general commercial shall be
located in land areas that are sized to accommodate present and
projected uses. That is precisely the basis for the requested
Comprehensive Plan change. The development plan proposed will
enable this significant general commercial site located along
Pacific Highway to accommodate the immediate use of the G.I.
Joe' s store as well as to allow for future retail development
along the frontage of SW Pacific Highway, thereby concentrating,
13
•
commercial activity and efficiently utilizing the access points
along Pacific Highway and this general commercial land area.
Also, the site is required to have high visibility. This site
clearly has such visibility given its location along Pacific
Highway and the slight rise in the topography moving away from
Pacific Highway. In addition, the developer has agreed through a
deed covenant to leave 50 percent of the frontage of Pacific
Highway with unimpeded views to the major retail store.
Subsection B (4) requires, in general, that the proposed
general commercial not adversely affect surrounding uses. As
explained in detail above, the surrounding residential areas will
be significantly protected from traffic, noise , lights and
adverse visual impacts.
ZONE CHANGE
Pursuant to Section 18. 32.250 (A) of the Code of the
City of Tigard, zone change and Plan change decisions may be
granted where the applicant demonstrates compliance with: "the
City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan and the relevant approval
standards found in other applicable code sections. " With
respect to the conversion of the Property from a residential
designation of R-10 to a C-G zoning designation, there are not
other separately applicable standards beyond those set forth in
the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, the applicant reincorporates
the justifications set forth above regarding compliance with the
text of the Comprehensive Plan as a basis for its requested zone
change.
STJ005
14
3
Agenda Item 5.4
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD
TO: Planning Commission July 10, 1984
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: Goal #5 - Significant Wetlands Areas
On June 12, 1984, the Planning Commission voted to submit staff's
recommendation to City Council on Goal #5 issues with a modification. (See
minutes attached). On June 25, 1984, the City Council held a public hearing
on Goal #5 Issues. Mr. Elton Phillips spoke at the hearing regarding the
ravine at 108th and 113th in the Tualatin River Floodplain. Mr. Phillips is
concerned that although the ravine is worth protecting, the 150 foot elevation
mark designated in the ESEE document (copy attached) may be excessive. Mr.
Phillips contends that land below the 150 foot elevation mark on his property
is buildable. The City Council, after some discussion, adopted an ordinance
(copy attached) which omitted the ravine as a significant area and directed
staff to take the issue back to the Planning Commission for discussion.
Staff feels that the ravine area below the 150 foot elevation should be
protected, however, perhaps an exceptions provision should be included in the
Sensitive Lands Section of the Code to allow development in the ravine area
only under certain circumstances. The exception should only be granted to
areas of less than 25% slope, with stable soils and based on natural
vegetation.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The purpose of this protecting the ravine at 108th and 113th was to protect
the wetland area which is characterized by steep slopes and marshey areas.
Allowing exceptions for land below the 150 feet elevation which are not steep
or charactized by unstable soils would not be contrary to the interest of
protecting the resource. Staff recommends that an exception process be
allowed for land within the ravine area which meets certain criteria. The
ESEE document would be amended as shown on attached Exhibit "A".
In addition, Chapter 18.84 of the Community Development Code should be amended
to include a new Section 18.84.045 as follows:
18.84.045 Exceptions for Development in the 108th/113th Ravine significant
Wetlands Area.
(,J
A. Under the Sensitive Lands Permit process, the Hearings Officer 'I
may allow portions of the Ravine at 108th and 113th designated
as a significant wetlands area to develop provided that all of
the following criteria are met.
1. All of the land (within the ravine) being considered for development
is at less than 25% slope. is
(.
2. There are no unstable soil conditions on the land being considered for
development.
3. There are no trees on the land being considered for development which
are over 20" in caliper measured at 4 feet above ground level.
1I
On areas designated for industrial uses within the floodplain, conflicting
uses will be allowed fully in accordance with policies 1 . 2 . 2 and 3 . 2 . 3 and
all tho standards set forth in tho sons i t i Vo I ands l'liapt or of 1 ho Community
Development Code.
J. Ravine 108/113 Tualatin Floodplain
This resource area is actually part of the Tualatin Floodplain area,
yet has a setting much unlike the normal floodplain area. It has,
therefore, been considered to be a significant open space, water shed
and wetland area; and it includes all of the land designated as
floodplain, approximately 35 acres, This low lying area is primarily
covered with deciduous trees and underbrush with a few marshy areas.
It provides a habitat for a variety of small animals and birds while
providing a unique open space resource. In some of the areas, the
property owners have maintained the area as lawn.
This natural area also functions as a drainageway primarily during
the months of higher water concentration. Many of the slopes going
into the area exceed 15%, and adjacent to the mobile home park the
reinforced slopes are a minimum of 25 percent. The actual floodplain
area is less area than the entire resource area.
The Tigard Comprehensive Plan indicates that the areas surrounding .'
this resource will be developed for Low Density Residential uses (1-5
units per acre), except for the mobile home park which is already
developed at a Medium Density Residential use (6-12 units per acre) .
These uses may conflict in some ways with the preservation of this
resource. If the entire resource is preserved, there may be a loss
of buildable lands, fewer dwelling units, and additional development
costs. On the other hand, land and amenity values might be enhanced,
dwellings buffered from other dwellings, and local open space
generated. If the conflicting use is allowed unaltered, there may be
a loss of wildlife habitat, lower water quality, and additional costs
of modifying the area.
The staff recommendation for this Goal #5 is that the floodplain and the
entire ravine area below the 150 foot elevation mark be preserved in their
natural condition, including topography and vegetation. Density transfer
from the site will be allowed up to 25% of the density allowed within the
resource area. Parcels containing any of the resource site will be
required to develop under an approved Sensitive Lands permit and the
standards set forth in the Community Development Code. L404, wi'$tip1 -1h, YQ,>rlHe Avt4 11101
be alwtll>INA UMW' * Bxc>LptlrNs imam outtlftd, inVal 18 89,o46 of (Om ''i
K. Durham Elementary School QLYC
The Durham Elementary School was determined to be a significant
historic structure. The school site includes 5.59 acres. Now part
of the Tigard School District 23J, the Durham School was erected in
1920. In 1951, an addition was added to, the facility which now
houses classes to the sixth grade. In addition, this school house is
the only remaining institutional land mark in the southeastern
portion of Tigard. Efforts are continuing to place the structure on
the National Historic Register.
I —102
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 84- 3
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REVISING THE FLOODPLAIN AND WETLANDS MAP AND
AMENDING VOLUMES 1, 2 AND 3 OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS ORIGINALLY ADOPTED BY
ORDINANCE 83-52 AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.(CPA 14-84)
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard adopted a Comprehensive Plan for the City by
Ordinance 83-52 on November 9, 1983; and
WHEREAS, Volume 1 - Resource Document, Volume 2 - Findings, Policies and
Implementation Strategies, Volume 3 - Community Development Code and the
Floodplain and Wetlands Map were adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan was submitted to the Land Conservation and
Development Commission (LCDC) on November 18, 1983; and
WHEREAS, the Land Conservation and Development Commission held an
acknowledgement hearing on Tigard's Comprehensive Plan on April 26, 1984; and /
WHEREAS, at the April 26, 1984, LCDC Hearing, the Commission voted to continue
acknowledgement on Goal #5 with In Order to Comply Statements; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on June 12,
1984 to consider the In Order to Comply Statements and a recommendation was
made to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the City Council on June 25, 1984,
for Council consideration of the Planning Commission's recommendations.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Ordinance 84-28 as it amended Ordinance 83-52 is hereby
amended. Ordinance 84-28 is hereby amended by revising the
Floodplain and Wetlands Map as setforth in attached Exhibit
"A" to designate five specific areas as significant
resources. Those areas are: the Summer Creek Floodplain and
Riparian Forest, Krueger Creek, the Summer Creek Floodplain
and Riparian Forest at the east end of SW 135th, Fenno Creek
north of North Dakota and the 108/113 Tualatin Floodplain
Ravine.
Section 2: Ordinance 83-52 is amended to revise page 1-42 of Volume 1
Resource Document of the Comprehensive Plan to include a list
of those areas to be designated as significant wetlands to be
protected and preserved. Language to be added is underlined
below and will be inserted at the beginning of "C. Special
Areas".
ORDINANCE NO. 84-3(0 Page 1
4mmummi
"Protect the areas designated as significant wetlands on the
Floodplain and Wetlands map and_prohibit conflicting uses on
those sites. The sites desi:nated as si:nificant wetlands are:
• Summer Creek Floodplain and Riparian Forest
Krueger Creek
Summer Creek Floodplain and Riparian Forest at the
east end of SW 135th
Fanno Creek north of North Dakota
"Reco:nize the areas identified in A! 'endix I of the significant wetlands, drainageways and creeks. Allow
conflicting uses as identified in Appendix I with
limitations. Require as part of the Site Development Review
•rocess a showin: of Goal #5 com•liance b that develo'ment
which would have a significant impact on the protected areas
as listed below:
Tigard/Tualatin Fanno Creek Marsh and Floodplain
Tualatin River Floodplain west of Cook Park
Fanno Creek Park/Main Street
Fanno Creek Hall/Bonita - Bonita Durham"
Section 3: Policy 3.5.3 in Volume 2 - Findings, Policies and
Implementation Strategies shall be amended as setforth below.
Items to be added are underlined, items to be deleted are
shown in [brackets].
"3.5.3 THE CITY [SHALL DESIGNATE] HAS DESIGNATED THE 100-YEAR
FLOODPLAIN OF FANNO CREEK, IT'S TRIBUTARIES, AND THE
TUALATIN RIVER AS GREENWAY, WHICH WILL BE THE BACKBONE
OF THE OPEN-SPACE SYSTEM."
Section 4: Section 18.84.010 of the Community Development Code shall be
amended by adding a new Section C. Subsequent sections shall
be renumbered. Items to be added are underlined items to be
deleted are shown in [brackets].
"C. Development is prohibited within all areas designated as
significant wetlands on the Floodplain and Wetlands Map.
Development on property adjacent to significant wetlands shall
be done under the •lanned development section of the Communit
Development Code. In addition _ development shall occur on
•ro'ert adjacent to areas designated as si:nificant wetlands
an the Floodplain and Wetlands Map within 25 feet of the
designated wetlands area.
"[C. ] D. Except as explicitly authorized by other provisions of this
Chapter, all other uses are prohibited on sensitive land areas.
"[D. ] E. A use established prior to the adoption of this Code, which
would be prohibited by this Chapter or which would be subject
to the limitations and controls imposed by this Chapter shall
be considered a nonconforming use. Nonconforming uses shall
be subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.132 of this Code:"
ORDINANCE NO 84-3(o Page 2
Section 5: Policy 3.1.1 in Volume 2 - Findings, Policies and
Implementation Strategies shall be amended as setforth below.
Items to be added are underlined.
"3.1.1 THE CITY SHALL NOT ALLOW IN AREAS HAVING THE FOLLOWING
DEVELOPMENT LIMITATIONS EXCEPT WHERE IT CAN BE SHOWN
THAT ESTABLISHED AND PROVEN ENGINEERING TECHNIQUES
RELATED TO A SPECIFIC SITE PLAN WILL MAKE THE AREA
SUITABLE FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT[ :] (NOTE: THIS
POLICY DOES NOT APPLY TO LANDS DESIGNATED. AS,
SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS ON THE FLOODPLAIN AND WETLANDS
MAP.):
Subsections "a" through "e" will remain unchanged.
Section 6: Amend Volume 2 - Findings, Policies and Implementation
Strategies Document adding a Policy 3.2.4 as setforth below.
Language to be added is underlined.
"3.2.4 THE CITY SHALL PROHIBIT DEVELOPMENT WITHIN AREAS
DESIGNATED AS SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS ON THE •FLOODPLAIN
AND WETLANDS MAP. NO DEVELOPMENT -SHALL .00CUR ..ON/
PROPERTY ADJACENT TO AREAS DESIGNATED AS SIGNIFICANT
WETLANDS ON THE FLOODPLAIN AND WETLANDS MAP• 'WITHIN
TWENTY FIVE (25 FEET OF THE DESIGNATED WETLANDS
AREA. DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY ADJACENT TO SIGNIFICANT
WETLANDS SHALL BE ALLOWED UNDER THE • PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT SECTION OF THE CODE."
Section 7: This Ordinance shall be effective on and after the 30th day
after its enactment by the Council and approval by the Mayor.
PASSED: By (di In a.Y1 i wtoLc_S vote of all Council members present after
being read by number and title only this el2EPILday of „ AL , 1984.
1...6115
/Deputy Recorder - City of Tigard
APPROVED: This 5 day of i.ot e , 1984.
y - ity of Tigard
(0476P)
{
ORDINANCE NO. 84-3C,
Page 3
o Commissioner Fyre had some concerns that the primary use is
residential. He felt, maybe, this matter should be taken to LUBA.
He was of the opinion that the Home Occupation Permit should be
denied.
o President Moen was concerned about the square footage being within
the 25%, however, he had recalculated and it was within the 25%. He
then reviewed each of the criteria and felt the applicant had met all
of them.
o Commissioner Butler moved and Commissioner Peterson seconded to deny
the appeal to deny the Home Occupation Permit HOP 4-84.
Discussion followed regarding the findings. Frank Josselson objected
to the proceedings of the hearings. Further Discussion.
Motion approved by majority of Commissioners present, Commissioner
Fyre voting no.
o Further Discussion regarding written findings.
o Commissioner Fyre moved and President Moen seconded to reconsider the
approved motion. Motion carried unanimously.
o Commissioner Peterson moved and Commissioner Butler seconded for
tentative denial of the appeal of HOP 4-84 until written findings
could be furnished by City staff.
Motion carried by majority vote of Commissioners present with
Commissioner Fyre voting no.
5.3 a. GOAL # 5: OPEN SPACES, SCENIC AND HISTORIC AREAS, AND NATURAL
RESOURCES
Associate Planner Newton reviewed the Goal 5 In Order to Comply statements
and how the City might amend the plan to bring it into compliance.
NPO/CCI COMMENTS - No one appeared to speak
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
j
o J B Bishop, 10505 SW Barbur Blvd. Suite 303, objected to adding
paragraph number two without having additional public input from the
NPOs and CCI. On Item # 4 he was confused where the conclusion above
was. Discussion with staff followed.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION '
o President Moen felt this is a clean up item and he had no problem
with the additions.
Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1984 Page 4
1,
o Consensus of the Commission was to require development under the
Planned Development process only.
o Commissioner Butler moved to submit staff's recommendation to City
Council, with the modification of deleting "and require additional
setbacks" under Exhibit "A", second paragraph, with recommendation of
approval.
Commissioner Fyre Seconded. Motion carried unanimously by the
Commissioners present.
5.3 b Private Outdoor Area and Shared Outdoor Recreation areas requirements
(Chapter 18.120) - Community Development Code
Associate Planner Newton reviewed the option chosen by staff for the
Private Outdoor Area and Shared Outdoor Recreation Areas Requirements.
(Exhibit A)
President Moe!;:, questioned if any one of the finding or all of the findings
would have to be met to grant the exception. Staff stated that any one or
more of them.
NPO/CCI COMMENTS - No one appeared to speak.
P
P P
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
o No one appeared to speak.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION
o Commissioner Butler suggested adding the words "any one or more of
the following findings" after the words "based on". He favored
having private or shared outdoor areas.
o Commissioner Fyre and Peterson agreed.
o President Moen moved for the following language: :
C. The Director may grant an exception or deduction to the Private
Outdoor Area and Shared Outdoor Recreation Areas Requirements
provided the application is for a use designed for a specific
purpose which is intended to be permanent in nature (for example
senior citizen housing) and which can demonstrate a reduced
demand for Private Outdoor Recreational Area based on any one or
more of the following findings :
1. There is direct access by a pedestrian path from the
proposed development to public open space or recreation-
areas which may be used by residents of the development.
Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1984 Page 5 }
Agenda Item 5.5
File: CPA 14-84
Planning Commission Mtg.
July 10, 1984
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Planning Commission July 6, 1984
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: Medium High Density Residential Zoning District
At the June 12, 1984, Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission
voted to recommend staff's alternative # 2 on meeting the 10 units per acre to
City council. (minutes attached) Staff's alternative number two proposed
increasing the number of units allowed in the Medium High Density Residential
Zone from 20 to 25 units per acre. In addition, the zoning district would be
redesignated from R-20 to R-25.
At the June 25, 1984, City Council meeting the City Council passed a
resolution (copy attached) directing staff to initiate the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment process to consider increasing the number of units allowed in the
R-20 zoning district designation fro 20 to 25 units per acre. Council further
directed that a public hearing be held on July 10, 1984, before the Planning
commission to consider public testimony on the issue.
It should be noted that at the June 25, 1984, City Council meeting, the
Homebuilders Association of Metropolitan Portland proposed an additional
alternative. Their alternative was to increase the number of units permitted
in the medium density residential zone from 20 to 24 units per acre and reduce
the minimum lot size in the R 4.5 zone from 7,500 square feet to 7,000 square
feet. Four of the Council members did not favor this alternative, however, as
they felt the reduction in lot sizes from 7,500 to 7,000 square feet impacted
too many established neighborhoods. Councilor Edin and the Planning Director
stated at the Council meeting that they could support the Homebuilders
proposal and that the difference between 7,500 and 7,000 square feet would
probably not be perceived by existing residents.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take testimony on increasing the
number of units permitted in the medium density zone from 20 to 25 and forward
a favorable recommendation to the City Council.
0509P
dmj
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
RESOLUTION NO. 84- 149
INITIATING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS TO CONSIDER INCREASING THE
NUMBER OF UNITS ALLOWED IN THE R-20 ZONE FROM 20 TO 25 UNITS PER ACRE.
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard adopted a Comprehensive Plan for the City by
Ordinance 83-52 on November 9, 1983; and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan was submitted to the Land Conservation and
Development Commission (LCDC) on November 18, 1983; and
WHEREAS, the Land Conservation and Development Commission held an
acknowledgement hearing of Tigard's Comprehensive Plan on April 26, 1984; and
WHEREAS, at the April 26, 1984, LCDC Hearing, the Commission voted to continue
acknowledgement on Goal #10 Housing, because the City of Tigard does not meet
the Metropolitan Housing Rule requiring 10 units per acre; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on June 12,.'!
1984, to consider the In Order to Comply Statements and a recommendation was
made to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the City Council on June 25, 1984,
for Council consideration of the Planning Commission's recommendation.
•
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT. RESOLVED, by the City of Tigard, as follows:
1. The Tigard City Council directs the staff to initiate the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process to consider increasing the
number of units allowed in the R-20 zoning district designation from
20 to 25 units per acre.
2. A public hearing shall be held on July 10, 1984, before the City of
Tigard Planning Commission. The public hearing shall be under the
provisions set forth in Chapter 18.30 of the Community Development
Code.
PASSED: By the City Council on the ;;)..5741 day of .j ter, Q- , 1984.
yof - City of Tigard
ATT SA
I:1 ! 0
e .. . (.1)
P - ' ty City Recorder - City of Tigard
L./
RESOLUTION NO. 84-
o Commissioner Butler moved to recommend approval of 5.3 c to the City •
Council with the change of no more than two subsidized housing units
shall adjoin.
Commissioner Fyre seconded. Motion carried unanimously by the
Commissioners present.
5.3 d Density - 10 units per acre.
Director of Planning and Development Monahan reviewed the present density
and how LCDC had rejected staff's approach to take credit for additional
units within redeveloping areas of the the Central Business District and
the CP areas of NPO # 4, which left 9.1 buildable units per acre. Staff
then reviewed the four alternatives they had investigated.
CCI/NPO COMMENTS - Staff presented the CCI minutes which supported
alternative number two as being the most desirable, number one being poor
• but possible, the third being poor and destroys the character of the plan,
and four being preferable to option one, because it leaves the best vacant
land for commercial, but unrealistic as it involves a major change of the
Comprehensive Plan.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
o Jim Miller, 12910 SW 63rd Place, Portland, Or. 97219, opposed
changing the property in NPO # 4 from Commercial Professional to
Residential 40 units per acre.
o Bob Bledsoe, 11800 SW Walnut, opposed alternative number three,
considered number 2 as being possible. He suggested taking high
density to 50 units per acre. (Staff commented that we can only get
credit for 40 units per acre) .
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
o Commissioners Butler, Peterson and Fyre favored as being the best and
easiest way to go.
o President Moen, felt the Council has two options. If they choose not
to fight LCDC, then the only option is alternative number two. The
problem being that LCDC won' t allow residential to be counted in the
redeveloping Commercial zone. If we were to fight LCDC then he would
suggest that we create a special zone called residential/commercial
professional and do something on that order. Discussion followed
regarding readdressing the redeveloping issue.
o Commissioner Peterson moved to approve 5.3 d alternative number two
and forward the recommendation to City Council.
Commissioner Fyre seconded the motion. The motion carried
unanimously by Commissioners present.
5.3 e Conditional Use Standards for Manufactured Housing Units.
Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1984 Page 7
- . i. -..-. ;_ 1_1L: t _ 1 � f iii I [ " �1[d I C •lY L ^trlRJc[ t �T^.�. �� i.�_1 ��.,_i____4 ► F � off '
M, f Tic-- -■ __1_r III If . 1- - E P
il ,1 FRED �`
`. r •—— . ...,,
.. 9MEYER 1• „_,._.1...�..r[
' mar 1■11 --7. ;., [A----1 'r- .- 1
S - VIII ' taw In_ 1 g ! '
jilt-, ,` - `, C I :`'� ;� r-- ' Al
tri le tasE -Ara tc6 1 ,. LI i ,L. -- •. 'I ,\i • \ ■ .`1 �I , -' `"� �•unrA rR,I r IMIM[. �w
,_ • i ii.mi.. - c.ito° . ,. Pa "' ' 11.17._711"L___1. likunkm, '' 'I' t -Es I ; '
NG- �. ' AI..r __ 1111: '51 iC MN "-111 '
/��• „ ;-�' CSI-G (PCq - am 0 ..ais
4- ' a ,. t..,1 KOU ,`j7. f.��� f RIM,'- 4
i ■ . ■ '',"' ' . Mil : 0,811 IIIIP 1
. S i I -_ 1 } i ®r qe �®... „,,,pi, F-- ' S,, .. -; 1 �� / .,3E, ,
.... r--. r.,,,..,,, . .. ,
.14,_ :.
.. . .
„ , , . ...,,L• N. TT ♦. ..
1 + Ili,ri t aes� ir/ i
v �� �' an an r
,\ PH ,r. �, ® Lass i
S LEWIS 141
k� it ( EM,.. l.i :..,minsum:Neer s a G as &8 1 •®'y: �!zoir
r • - r" ,ii,
I
. •■
Ill',.. ! 1/1111111
. , N/,<, / . amentamil . . , 76.
g
1 t i\ • j•�F__ RM. r J •
tl'.
I
�P a PEW ' ' ' ''''i',
•T �� d
)..it , IN w
:,,,A1.1.L' al I i j _ ........
- L r
� - ffRE.
-I. I-L i . i'
1 h--1.' IIII '. - \ I I "--1"-1. -..411°',117:11"(7.4; '''I'ir':.:
I ees::,..k. ' 4••• . %.", ' I --r--- „ ,,..et;7774'7,i'Mp.',,,,. ',.., -
-I-- :-.: -4 . R 1 i , "PI' :,' _ . ,f,,,,,..!''':''
•
t.
<,:,,,>.r . - *— :,..'14 • ':"
. ii,,,„,• .` / I t --I / A, _ " ., mPl •Y
T +,.'
HAIN -'- —
SW IL' I, 4P* t r "I,.�'�+vh ' , . AT4ANTA BTk? T r
f �f LW At_ 6TR CT #^ I ._._.� �
i I. ills Ii iir .s w I l `. (ii� ■ iMI
1 ®°� ,, r
I =If
�� _ r Ly ,:� Ix , :;MN
.,,.. '' - -
lz, it • _::: 41111 Is . _______ • asp • ,. /\--->, •
...__ _____.
,_____
r•,..,-stal rola, ,.. 1 : . .. mff (s, i _il\,--:____ .. .,
`, iO >�. `'' tax L.t .ifl� {
•
Iii
— -i {_ _---,--;=' .,,',:''''--.,..,' .°6111.. r_-71iTi_r 1-7-1;� �} L D r:',,-c;7.- fR�iNK 1 �g ,� _--.--', - ,./ , * \ . - ' !Nil ,
',......iz: .. .. . .. ,_-
. ,, ,,,I,
k,,
P ®® 1 !il• I. ,ta ' _ i1 i:I. ,',
,, ,.
r1 il,.-..•...,H...,,
, -.
aisl.'
LE`i►:'!S awg ® ® p ■ m ..yam
i 1. E :._ ,�
4:,..,4.7. 1 _____. N . u.,,,,,,:.:,,,,...,,\_._ . . _.: ..._,,
-'.,'-• . ,i: ' ,i''A' ''';', am mai .. w
t,. I < < IrTl it 1
.'G
i
•1 4•', � t�.ti
•W, YARki t1'` tRM wnY
�+ °1 g, a,
f . / � }�q rT ¢� C 1 T Y•P — d Vj
S < _.J F �•
T
LAKE
�
[.
_ fix .
•
I(
r )
. •4.:i , 1p
4 �'
i. ' i:, ;z, R;: M A s HAINE' 111111111111111,, R
't ~4"14.:1 \r r .a1". CLRw2•beYir ' Cs:i-tea r'•
.
' ' • ',;• "$, li!'" /I• .
iAr. . ..
,..;jigs irtril: . * . • MIA. 4 .',"'' r?max 1�; ■ NI
■ fN
wus
3 Tit SIM '/ 5.4 rrio:-. 181 111111.., 11 MIN
NM 1-
it...,. fa r„,„, 1111 131M -warn -
ing
iiim... ,". ......11 .
0, ., . r !Rs:
lit,.. m,..,,,:. r.,„ . . , •.. . .. ET i..3 Ilni
"C 1. .t.ti•;;ECL'�i..y.,pm.. �,'•�At';1'.-'�7•�'' �fl�•jy�yy".•c, t-. L ..v
. . ... . F ,t�, al•,
ME
II. - 1::.] • z
•
`� . 91�Z�1�: UTH ST 1 L R/III:11
f i, ,,, .rill IMP .4°'
• - N . ,.
. . . Sil
31E • Nil
, ••• ••
.. :14.....i:- .. ;� E ••
■
, . .. : . . • ..e
. •• u,, .;; :: ,, ■ • RIM
�_
z ` f ■
SRti fy' t 1 �f�! ! ��. ■■ 0 im
ft
e. ■ ■
III
Jr,. ..*.......k, :
■
11-:,.'',. >�. on
MIE I :C.-
II +; $.1 .fir■■ la
. • 1.1 1, 0...':,....:,......,,.�� 1, �, 1.215211. wirm,
, ■ ■ IIIII_ min
mi
III 1111 Irdi
S , ,
e :
i
7h Q). ".' Eli al Iill oil "la
i..:1 MI Nol. MN
P. L sill 111111
1111 la ' ISM
v, 3 e. rtN67. sJv .> f�1
Agenda Item 5.6
File: CPA 18-84
Planning Commission Mtg.
July 10, 1984
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Planning Commission July 6, 1984
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: Policy 6.3.2
On April 3, 1984, the Planning Commission voted to amend policy 6.3.2 b. of
the Comprehensive Plan by adding a definition of compatibility to the
Community Development Code and including a compatibility matrix in the Code.
A copy of those minutes are attached. On April 30, 1984, the City Council
approved two ordinances adopting the Planning Commission's recommendation.
Copies of the ordinances are attached. During the administration of this
ordinance, it has become apparent that some clarification is necessary. The
matrix should be labeled so the "Proposed Uses" are those listed across the
top of the matrix and "Existing Uses" are those listed down the side of the
matrix. In addition, where single family detached and single family detached
along the "Proposed Uses" meets multi-family along the "Existing Uses" the
NO's should be Change to YES. (see EXHIBIT "A") this would eliminate the
confusion with the current matrix which does not allow proposed single family
to be developed within 100 feet of existing multi-family development.
Also Policy 6.3.2 b. as modified should be amended to be more specific as
follows. Language to be added is underlined.
WHERE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ABUTS AND EXISTING HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT, THE HOUSING TYPES WITHIN 100 FEET SHALL BE
COMPATIBLE AS DEFINED BY THE COMPATIBILITY MATRIX IN CHAPTER
18.26 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to City
Council to amend policy 6.3.2 b as shown above and to amend the compatibility
matrix as shown in EXHIBIT "A" attached.
0509P/dmj
• CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
i
ORDINANCE NO. 84-a.5"
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING POLICY 6.3.2(b) IN FINDINGS, POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION
STRATEGIES, VOLUME 2 OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (CPA 8-84) ; AND DECLARING AN
EMERGENCY.
WHEREAS, during the Comprehensive Planning process the City Council
adopted policy 6.3.2(b) to address housing development compatibility; and
WHEREAS, 1,000 Friends of Oregon objected to the vague and discretionary
language contained in the policy; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on April
3, 1984, to consider an amendment to this policy.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Policy 6.3.2 b shall be amended to delete the words within
brackets below:
WHERE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ABUTS AN EXISTING HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT, THE HOUSING TYPES SHALL BE COMPATIBLE. [FOR
EXAMPLE:]
[1. TWO HOUSING UNITS WHICH ARE ATTACHED ARE CONSIDERED
COMPATIBLE WITH A DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY UNIT: BUT]
[2. MORE THAN TWO HOUSING UNITS WHICH ARE ATTACHED ARE NOT
CONSIDERED COMPATIBLE WITH A SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED UNIT. ]
Section 2. Inasmuch as it is necessary for the peace, health and safety of
the people of the City of Tigard that this amendment be made with the least
possible delay, an emergency is hereby declared to exist, and this ordinance
shall become effective immediately upon passage by the Council and approval by
the Mayor. 1
I
PASSED: By the City Council by linnarii'ric,cz 5 vote of all Council
members present, after being read by number and title only, {
this 30 day of fipr:, / , 1984.
it
Deputy Recorder - City of ,T.gard
APPROVED: This 30 day of gir-i`/ , 1984•
Mayor pro tem - City of Tigard i'
ORDINANCE NO 84-01.j
(0407Pdmj) [+
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 84-,26,
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18.26, DEFINITIONS, OF THE TIGARD COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADDING DEFINITIONS FOR "HOME OCCUPATIONS"; "REMODEL";
"ADDITION"; "COMPATIBILITY"; "WINDOW"; "FACE"; AND "STORY HALF"; AND DECLARING
AN EMERGENCY.
WHEREAS, it has become apparant that additional terms should be defined in
the Community Development Code to avoid confusion; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 17, 1984
to consider the definition of these terms.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Chapter 18.26 of the Community Development code shall be amended
to include the following definitions which will be inserted within the section
in alphabetical order:
Home Occupation. A home occupation exists when a dwelling unit in a
residential zone is used for commercial purpose. See Chapter 18.142.
Story, Half. A story under a gable or gambrel roof, the wall plates of which
on at least two opposite exterior walls are not more than two feet above the
floor of such story. If the finished floor level directly above a basement or
unused under-floor space is not more than 6 feet above grade as defined herein
for more than 50% of the total perimeter or is not more than 12 feet above
grade as defined herein at any point, such basement or unused under-floor
space shall be considered as a half story. . ..
Face. Directly confronting.
Window. Any opening constructed in a wall to admit light or air, framed, and
spanned with glass.
Remodel. An internal or external modification to an existing building or
structure which does not increase the site coverage.
Addition. A modification to an existing building or structure which increases
the site coverage.
Compatibility. Shall be interpreted as capable of orderly efficient
integration of housing types in a harmonious combination. Compability shall
be determined in accordance with the following matrix.
•
•
I'I
•
l
■I
S.F. Detached 3.F. Detached Mobile Hm Park Duplex S.F. Attached Multifamily
(Zero Lot Line)
il
S.F. Detached YES YES Conditional YES YES 2 units NO
ii
No-over 2
S.F. Detached - {_''
(Zero Lot Line) YES YES Conditional YES YES NO 1
Mobile Home Park -4 !'��
Conditional Conditional YES YES YES YES t'I
Duplex ' k,
YES YES YES YES YES YES 1
J " }I
S.F. Attached �
Yes 2 units YES YES YES YES YES
No-over 2
Multi-family
NO NO YES YES YES YES .
n.
ti
r
Section 2. Inasmuch as it is necessary for the peace, health and safety of
the people of the City of Tigard that this amendment
be made with the least {
possible delay, an emergency is hereby declared to exist, and this ordinance k'
shall become effective immediately upon passage of the Council and approval by
the Mayor. r
4i
PASSED: By the City Council by 0/1 S vote of all Council
members present, after being read by number and title only,
this 3 a day of ,gp,,, / , 1984.
1
AI,. Wz-,4. ...,)C-rili2,-,e- I
Deputy Recorder - City, Tigard
APPROVED: This ,-to' day of Alf;,( , 1984.
Mayor pro tem - City of Tigard
0407Pdmj
E it/len_ 'A"
er0P05W usg
e716/- nvq
066 S.F. Detached 3.F. Detached obile Hm Park nuplex S.F. Attached Multifamily
(Zero
_ Lot Line)
S.F. Detached YES YES Conditional YES YES 2 units NO
No-over 2
S.F. Detached - —
(Zero Lot Line) YES YES Conditional YES YES
NO
Mobile Home Park -'
Conditional Conditional YES YES YES YES
Duplex
YES YES YES YES YES YES
S.F. Attached
Yes 2 units YES YES YES YES YES
No-over 2
Multi-family
timr 7 v 440165 YES YES YES YES
Section 2. Inasmuch as it is necessary for the peace, health and safety of
the people of the City of Tigard that this amendment be made with the least
possible delay, an emergency is hereby declared to exist, and this ordinance
shall become effective immediately upon passage of the Council and approval by
the Mayor.
PASSED: By the City Council by &fria 9imov S vote of all Council
members present, after being read by number and title only,
this 30 day of /, / 1984.
Deputy Recorder City Tigard
APPROVED: This _____,3s) / - day of �r,7
: 1984.
Mayor pro tem - City of Tigard
0407Pdmj
Agenda Item 5.7
File: ZOA 5-84
Planning Commission Mtg.
July 10, 1984
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Planning Commission July 6, 1984
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: Changes to the Community Development Code
In administering the Community Development code it has become apparent that
some sections are in need of revision and clarification. The changes
recommended are as follows:
1
Page Number Section Number Change
111-310 18.164.03 c. On first line change "Commission" to
"Approval Authority".
111-310 18.164.030 c. Change last line to . .."method by which
a lot large enough to be divided can
develop".
III•°245 18.130.090 add "8. The location of mailboxes
9. The location of all structures
and their orientation.
10. The location and type of !+
outdoor lighting considering crime
prevention techniques."
111-245 18.130.100 Replace the existing language in Section
with the following:
rF
"Grading Plan tl
A. The site development plan shall include
a grading plan at the same scale as the`
site analysis drawings and shall contain
the following information:
f
1. Requirements in Sections
18.130.080 and 18.130.090 of this
Chapter. #';i
kt,
2. The location and extent to which
grading will take place indicating
general contour lines, slope
ratios and slope stabilization
proposals.
3. A statement from a registered
engineer supported by factual data
substantiating:
a. The validity of the slope
stabilization proposals; and
b. That all problems will be
mitigated and how they will
be mitigated."
III-246 18.130.120 Add "4. Location of underground
sprinkler heads where
applicable.
B. The landscape plan shall
include a narrative which
addresses:
1. Soil conditions; and
2. Erosion control measure
that will be used."
III-224 18.120.020 Add "4. Any proposed development
which has been approved
through the Conditional use
Permit application process."
III-278 18.144.020 12th line insert - "Accessory building
which are less than 120 square feet in
area and do not exceed 10 feet at their
highest point are excluded from the
requirements of this chapter."
III-185 18.106.050 k. Add . . ."The front three feet of the
parking stall may be concrete, asphalt,
or low lying landscape material that
does not exceed the height of the wheel
stop. This area can not be calculated
to meet landscaping or sidewalk
requirements."
0509P
dmj
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 5.8
July 10, 1984 - 7:30 P.M.
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
TIGARD SCHOOL DISTRICT - BOARD ROOM
13137 SW PACIFIC HIGHWAY
TIGARD, OREGON 97223
A. FINDING OF FACT
1. General Information
CASE: Subdivision S 8-84, Variance 11-84
REQUEST: To subdivide a 1.66 acre parcel into 13 lots 5000 sq. ft. in
size in the R-12 zone (Residential, 12 units/acre) and
subdivision variances to reduce flag lot side yards from 10
ft. to 5 ft. , the access width from 25 ft. to 15 ft. and the
street frontage width from 25 ft. to 7.5 ft.
LOCATION: Southwest corner of 95th Ave. and North Dakota St. (Wash.
Co. Tax Map 1S1 35CA, Tax Lot 2000)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential
ZONING DESIGNATION: R-12 (Residential, 12 units/acre)
APPLICANT: Dave Emmett OWNER: Brookman, Brocon, Dunn
800 SW Murray Blvd. 3126 SE Gladstone
Beaverton, OR 97005 Portland, OR 97202
2. Background
No previous development proposals have been reviewed by the City.
3. Vicinity Information
Single family residential uses surround the subject property. The R-12
zone lies on the north side of North Dakota Street, to the west and
southwest. The R-4.5 (Residential 4.5 units/acre) zone is to the south
on the east side of 95th Avenue.
4. Site Information and Proposal Description
The property is lo, 'ted on the southwest corner of North Dakota Street
and 95th Avenue. One house and several accessory structures are
situated in the southern portion of the property.
The applicant proposes to remove the existing structure and establish ,a
13-lot subdivision for single family residences. The preliminary plat
features eight lots with frontage of North Dakota and 95th Avenue and is
five flag lots with 7 to 15 feet of street frontage.
STAFF REPORT - S 8-84, V 11-84 - PAGE 1
Variances are requested to reduce the side yard requirement for flag
lots from 10 to 5 feet, the access width from 24 feet to 15 feet, and to
reduce the street frontage requirement for subdivision lots from 25 feet
to 7.5 feet.
5. Agency and NPO Comments
The Engineering Division has the following comments:
a. Half-street improvements shall be required along the 95th
Avenue and North Dakota Street frontage to city standard
including 25-foot right-of-way from centerline as shown on
the preliminary plat, 34-foot pavement width, 5-foot
sidewalks, and street lights.
b. The addition of base and asphalt pavement to provide a
24-foot roadway width fronting on Tax Lots 2100 and 2200 is
recommended. The disposal of stormwater runoff should be
addressed, particularly from Lots 9, 10, and 13. The
developer needs to provide a means to tie roof drains to
public storm system. All roof drains/footing drains should
be tied to a public stormwater line or shall be connected to
curb weep holes as is appropriate.
d. Proper driveway curb-cut clearance from the right-of-way
intersection of 95th and Dakota should be maintained for
Lot 5.
e. The existing public sanitary sewerage main line, in SW 95th
Avenue, needs to be extended south to the plat boundary.
f. Joint use/maintenance agreements need to be recorded for the
lots which are proposed to be created with common driveways.
g. Each lot should be connected separately to the public
sanitary sewer line.
h. Sanitary sewer service to Lot 9 (in particular) and Lots 10
and 11 could be difficult espy-dally if structures will have
basements.
B. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
The subdivision meets the requirements of the R-12 zone and development
will be consistent with the character of the area However, the
variance requests do not appear to be justified. After being informed
of the lack of staff support, the applicant wishes to submit an
alternative plan which will eliminate or significantly reduce the need
for variances.
i
STAFF REPORT - S 8-84, V 11-84 - PAGE 2 •
tr
The Planning staff will receive the revised proposal on July 9th and a
recommendation will be made to the Commission to approve with
conditions, deny, or continue the hearing until sufficient information
is available to take action.
PREPARED BY: Keith Lien A' 'RO' ED BY.'illiam A. Monahan
Associate Planner Director of Planning &
Development
(KSL:pm/0510P)
II
fifi
F
STAFF REPORT - S 8-84, V 11-84 PAGE 3
I
RYAN O'BRIEN
Planning Consultant
1134 S.E. 23rd Ave. • Hillsboro, Oregon 97123 • (503) 648-4061
June 8, 1984
Sandlewood Park Preliminary Plat.
Tax Lot 200, Map 1S1-35CA - 1 . 66 acres.
City of Tigard, Oregon.
Dave Emmett, Applicant.
INTRODUCTION
•
This is a preliminary plat application for the subdivision of 1 . 66 acres
into 13 lots containing 5000 to 7000 square feet in area. Single family
residential detached houses are proposed. They will be similar to the
existing single family development in the area.
The site is located on the south west corner of Dakota Street and 95th
Avenue. No new streets or utility extentions are proposed with this
development other than sewer and water laterals. The existing area is
highly parcelized and limited opportunities are available to coordinate
with surrounding properties. The existing house and accessory building
on the subject property will be removed. This development menu contains
5
flag lots and 8 lots which directly access onto Dakota Street and 95th
Avenue. Four of the flag lots will have common driveways with pavement
10 feet in width.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
This property is designated residential at 12 units per acre. The density
of this development is 7. 8 units per acre, which is below the maximum
density allowed by the Comprehensive Plan. This development meets all
the minimum lot size and set back requirements of the code.
CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT
This project is in NPO #2 and is proposed to be reviewed by that group
prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Further involvement from the I
NPO and residents in the area will occur at the Planning Commission
meeting.
NATURAL FEATURES
The property contains numerous filbert trees that will be preserved if
possible. Other than these trees, the property does not contain any
significant natural features in need of special attention or preservation.
,
e
i
u y
r'
Page 2
Sandlewood Park
Preliminary Plat
The slope of the site ranges from 13% at the south end' of the property
to 3% at the north end. The natural drainage is in a northerly direction
to Dakota Street. The drainage then continues westerly along Dakota
Street to Fanno Creek, and northerly along 95th Avenue to Ash Creek.
ECONOMY AND HOUSING
This development will help satisfy the housing needs in the City and
stimulate the local economy. This development will provide housing
variety and affordable housing in the community.
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
An 8"" public sanitary sewer line is available in both Dakota Street and
95th Avenue, A 611 cast iron water line is available in Dakota. Street
with a fire hydrant at the street corner. An 811 ductile iron water line
is available in 95th Avenue. None of these lines need to be extended to
serve this development. The water lines are maintained by the Metzger
Water District. They have indicated the lines are adequate.
The school services are provided by the Tigard School District. They
indicate that adequate capacity is available, however, boundary adjust-
ments may be necessary in the future.
Half street improvements with curbs have occured on the opposite side
of this development on both streets. If half street improvements are
required with this development then full street improvements will be in
place.
•
•
`i
tr;
f Pag` 1
•
r •r .v. •
4
- Type of units being proposed:
Single Family Number of Laits
Duplex Number of Units
Multiplex Number of Units
Multifamily Number of Units
- How many bedrooms in each unit:
Single Family 13
Duplex
Multiplex
ilultiple Family _ 1
- How many acres are involved In this proposal `, L.,/ 6 . 0-FS
- When is construction likely to begin: year /-U6--- month /04
- Is the development to be completed in ,phases? . If so, how
many and over what time period •
- When is +ie last unit scheduled to be completed: year e5 month 21r--
II . SUBMIT THE .OMPLETED FORM TO THE BUSINESS OFFICE OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT
IN WHICH THE SITE BEING PROPOSED FOR DEVELOPMENT IS LLOCATED �'
III . THE FOLLOWING IS TO BE COMPLETED BY APPROPRIATE SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICIAL
SCHOOL NAME EXISTING ENR. EST. CAPACITY
Elementary pill Lewis Element4ry 432 441
Intormedlate' ler Junior Hiah 864 10O0
H i�h Tisard Benign High 1322 1450
Additional Comments: No gn
siificant irpact enrollment ise fr
-w om this
•to.osed devel. . t. • . , , . , .
developments planned for the same general area necessitate some ad ubtssnts
in elementary school attendance oundaries.
Information provided by: /I/ phone No. 68 4'2 Q9
Date: May 9, 1984
IV. RETURN TO DEVEU P R FOR SUBMISSION WiTH APPLICATION (Name b address on
page 1)
4
RYAN O'BRIEN
Planning Consultant
1134 S.E. 23rd Ave. • Hillsboro, Oregon 97123 • (503) 648-4061
June 25, 1984
REQUEST
Subdivision Variances for Sandlewood Park, Tax L,ot 2000, Map 1S1 -35CA,
1 . 66 acres, City Tigard,Ti ard, Ore on.
g
{
INTRODUCTION
These variances are for a 13 lot subdivision that contains 5 flag lots.
One of the flag lots has a 15 foot, access width for the pole and a 10
foot driveway in accordance with Section 18.108. 0'70-A of the Tigard Code.
The other 4 lots are grouped in pairs and are proposed to have common
driveways 10 feet in width with' a combined flag pole width of 15 feet
instead of two 15 foot wide poles and two 10 foot wide driveways or
one 25 foot wide pole with a 20 foot wide driveway.
The second part of this variance is for a reduction of the 10 foot
side yard requirement of the flag lots to 5 feet in accordance with
Section 18. 96. 090 of the Tigard Code.
VARIANCE FINDINGS
1 . There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property
which are unusual and peculiar to the land as compared to other lands
simularly situated.
COMMENT - The only reasonable development of the subject property is
o
this fla g lot approach. A 25 foot access ca n be provided ided with a 20
foot driveway, but this would reduce the lots widths and depths for
lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 11 , and 12. These lot widths and depths are necessary
to accomodate the type of houses proposed on the lots. Also, the flag
lot widths are not sufficient to accomodate the 10 foot side yard of the
code. The purpose of this extra side yard is to protect adjacent existing
houses from the effects of a new house that was not previously expected
to be developed. In this case, no existing houses are right adjacent
to the houses that will be developed on the flag lots. Therefore, the
10 foot required set back is not necessary.
2. These variances are necessary for the proper design and function of
the subdivision.
Comment - As mentioned in Finding 1 above, these variances will accomo-
date a more reasonable lay out and design of the subdivision for the
type of houses proposed. The proposed 10 foot driveways are adequate
for the short distances they will be utilized. This driveway width is ,
not adequate for 2 way traffic, but it is adequate for emergency vehicles.
II
Page 2
Sandlewood Park Variances
The chances of a vehicle entering and exiting at the same is very limited.
If it does happen, the result will only be a 5 second delay. Also if
one of the vehicles has to back out slightly to accomodate the other
vehicle no impacts will be created because of the limited traffic of
95th Ave. and Dakota Street. Further, a 15 foot access strip and 10
foot driveway is much more aesthetically. pleasing and more in scale with .
5,000 square foot lots than a 25 foot access with a 20 foot driveway.
A large 20 foot driveway has a poor appearance and will have a negative
visual impact on the development and the surrounding area.
3. The granting of these variances will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety and welfare, or be injurious to the rights of other
property owners.
Comment - The proposed 5 foot set backs instead of the required 10 foot
set backs will not have any negative impacts on surrounding property.
No existing houses are close, enough to have any impact. Vacant property
adjacent to the subject property will probably also be developed with
identical flag lots in the future. These proposed 5 foot side yards
will not create any public health or safety problems.
The City of Hillsboro requires 2 common flag lots to have a 16 foot
access strip with 10 feet of pavement. Washington County requires 2
common flag lots to have a 20 foot access strip with 10 feet of pavement.
both of these jurisdictions found that the traffic generated by 2 houses
is not sufficient to require a driveway wider than 10 feet. Both of
these jurisdictions require reciprocal access easements and maintenance
agreement which is the same as proposed with this application. The end
result will give each flag lot owner the use of a 15 foot access strip
and a paved driveway 10 feet in width. The easement rights are basically
identical to ownership. These reciprocal easements are requested in
accordance with Section 18. 164. 030-C of the Tigard Code which allows
the Planning Commission to approve such easements. It is found to be
the only reasonable method available. Such easements cannot exceed
100 feet unless through the Planned Development Process. The use of
these reciprocal easements and common access maintenance agreement and
the size of the proposed accesses and driveways will not affect surround-
ing property or create health or safety problems.
4. These variances are necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property rights because of extraordinary hardships which
would result from strict compliance with the regulations of the ordinance. !.
Comment - The hardships that will be created are wide driveways that
are unatractive, unneeded and out of scale with the small lots proposed.
Secondly, the combination of these driveways and increased side yards
will reduce the overall width and depth,,,of the other lots without any
significant corresponding public benefit. The specific size, shape
and location of the subject property is the main reason for tese variance
requests. Also, adequate lot size and dimensions, and dwelling unit
location, are much more important when compared to the benefits of a 10
foot side yard and the larger access and drive way widths.
[Page Too Large for OCR Processing]
[Page Too Large for OCR Processing]
•
l ,•n �v ° Z O-
W 3 —I o
t .: • •
P« < .00 30 0 31 y l 32 33 Iw' — Q •
400 lao'
N ; w l I Yt
= _
o�l 9 = 2 4 1.,1_1 0
76.7"`'•
90_ 90• o nl•
r0' sce- _ — 136.27' •:_OO Ib0' •
/�� 3201 500 Iso' /.Oqc, .46Ac -
93 9• 33049, 9{.19' 1 4' LLl ,.. _
N
3290 . ° Y No \1 qY
400 I I —r • I. 8 _ o w o a �o• q •��
I �� 1 I _ ^ 0 5 ,_ . :Os' C.S.13,715 .° 301 ° Nna
�I N 70. TO 114ce
sss•4oc c6e•4oE 4?Ac, /k Q so 1 q� O N v301 AI rye 'F••
37 « 36 « 35 700 v°I= L w 4 I,too II --1 e rD °
w 60 j C
N//N/M2.:3l/%/....,,,,, ,,,,/_, ,,%,,,,,,/1///l/ ///..,...iniiii•.�i,,,..nwv, - 1/ ,. "� '.• ! ... u�, f AL'.
669°13W 4�6;ti
� 2300
STREET INITIAL POINT $ 21'_.., _ -R 132U ,f�'
,,-,I C R 1 20 FANTASY NIL -
644.6 ° 71 91 o
see.311'30"V/ 626.15' 'Ne9 3e'501 510.04' 704.40 ^,°
xrP/ i 100 t eec yo,7
•`4200 4300 4400 4500 4800 . 405 74c y 2200
/Q3AC. 2rA�. .�N
1 - • - 7¢E['�•i, 376.37 y +
__7 o • �: r. ,�115t�+ "� 5109°OS'25•E 399 , y`
�t • 5 4 $ 3 • 2 :, 1 0 ' a ° • : .
N211.31.51%.9.); s, - a
rlwro6'W
d .3 NIbO 120 52 Selo o!'-u,
1 • AG; 49100 35
J./9 4c &i - w
s 92 4• _ 91' V 91' b 91' o 91' al 1804 �A a .4. .17Ac. .45
5300 5200 5100 5000 4900 a I .67 ac N0` �� "6e°r.
O \ `� I •Q `_ \ . N 9�
r rl 1 • rl S �:. W 6�
• 41)14P°' 80C \ ,,t ,° 2000 W •!s
a 6 °^ 7 ° 8 0 9 ° i t• e••a� o �• r .864c. ylap• 'w.
�! 17 Jt 6~69••6. .. .p ^ 3 94670 10 as
•'.y 6+ 1• ,.,� �• (C.S No. 12,175) 15300A
r 1802 • .. / '
• ry • - 1•�,. .84 4c, + °, ro J° ° " a9 q' -•T•72 32' 91' 1 91' ILO's' .r i4 IOS,st' ,�1 !
- • 1191-4-17590 -' ° _ _ 4• 111r4i
�; �" O2' N ° -00) ,M
I VACATED BY •yi, �•
. C 00 K C R 1788 LANE s y... 4 �:
_� 1190/215 1 N. y0 ryP 7, are W g6`4+.
n7' A • ° s4' ° :1 • —no.oe , +4. 4, lh 'o gp 55005
5 ••O •7ek 5800 / ': °6100 4,y�
i.f0 A4', 1 ,p. '°� eo 'Q• , M(-� P A
isi g•P• r �_ ?.•
o J ° ► I 1 « I•j= q° It'tf •1 {ry 9 1,. 1 IN' _ t;.µ ~th4. TRANSAMuh!h 'ihi�f,„- w i '°24 d 2pp / 4y
This sketch s F� or a purpose•
•,. q9” of ass nn. n2rSe 11ca YCf said r Q•0 b pram,;cs and the company assume
•o 74 . • J • 15 no imbuay variations if any,in AD
! _•Assessors Tree ,�• dimensions and location ascertained
pay y,�..-„..yr by actual survey.
_u JeC'�' prOPer`�u �A.s Valve. •00 ` ” b A 0 r. i1+4:Ay
`\ J ,!,-,,,:l
YIC� d-4 I r• r t. , „:.,:y....4 w ',,,4`,..11r1 yyyy6 N 6j
Cs-- (Q .J �•: -- - --- - $ z `al r o a '��I�1"°� � •,,j 3 ` �+ f r t'bt , Q" tty t ^ , ly 4�} �r.
..,,,„„:,66;:.,„ 4,:.,` 4•
19tc1rn ro r4tec (1l.- (o s) .. - „ , .,.y,6. t.
t
G
of V11d _fin �' k z 300• t' ' x S
_ el e Lo .�'.r— f-�w/--- 6..0.6____ 4`_"_ -`. 1y�wa�y , �? , * ,er s ,p.<a `ii•;f `• .
�,S I�. �W w�_ wr- �-� L_ � �� �W I�r•��_5 °. �� •I ,�y ;[t •R7 i } }' s 4 4
3_ J 437 � M1 431 r x
Q
`h 4.117 17 + S
.n r a •' Tj r
Q.r� x11.... 1Ttvs+ 100 ^�.. ill' r `r4 ,, ,} S
r r , a
�6` ■ '1.111(- ' t w •''' 7 fi� s r£YL � IL ,`i'' ♦ 'v�Ol�lk rig 'LH p '�, >
4615 St Q'_ Wa •-•.'I'S. _. _. • ' : , A11 7 •` ( P 2uplt �r" S,r� t] b1 .f AC• Jt 'r C r rF.. i : r
_ t
Li"Q V y; N ° wt/4f• '�3�F;� s +1 d , •
(2, Io+s -' ... !_ .- I.. 3 II_ _ • -- - ....•4O% I•tAt r'Y ..• - 1§', rX +. ry Lt t it ti�,4„1
YYY I l
. '_... ]:` s0 M26 f.. tAk ,•d,1 ` et t' 3 +' 'S , 's nr svy ;1
ItM00 try Vie.`1 ti n PY ”'i }�r C{1'' r tr'+ 7 , ;1 R t
SI
._..__. e \tF, N �ixh i,t. 1Re t ,...t....;,:,,,,,,....4 3\ r�r �( r
i
12082) ‹ i 6.7ji to ; a ; r,' ,l,fa :' qo 1{ 'N hr-:,}:h'
. fi{tlo a
l r a P ��
___...._.__ / e. 11467,,,' g•,I M- Ptq.'x+1 kt• ,, Th y"!".� '�`
4.7 3
a
�■ �' 4 ±q 8 , y`r -b 7Fr1" d 5 } ' 1 ..
•_...-......- X06 s�cl'r ,••‘•(', q , r�\ 1
- , t,ssebea. {•k..�`.x.'- S '# .' >w.`t'-t yl r`'t *t t w Ei';, _',,7:'
x :',••�'
1 •'TCO -:./-'42�.... hf31. \ ■ ; -_ — — — _ - • 4"7'x. l % ' 14'4;1.1'; 1. pt`" _1' n '' {`ll r w
' r •` 400 w l' '
, V tic '.
10 0 6 9 n 8 7 s ANSAMERICA ITt! •► 144'01 i t a�'ec 3d ..N ' , i .♦fir
',� , This sketch is sole or the IWit, 3�.7*'r .4.1,,,,,):,, 1 "r ': t .a m a " ,,.v't i.;..4, '- R
g \4 01 ssisling In a location of 5610 t• t � ,� ,0,{6 i ,, 1 y y,• s • a ,•'••N,
r /... i •,i ., a — EAST 576' — — — — — _ cos and a company assumes p,t a,•vr yYap ,'r "'+) :al k} 'r �ti *ra91(�t.TRAI�.� I'�ER1 JQ TI.EI a .
1, ; or variations If any,in SO
.• 0':,•. 4 1'1 n. ...,p �'.y. — — — s. 1 '' r r � . Co'. s ' 1 = Z 2 TMsskii' tollitif W,"'
s J56 4•'E/ - imeosn and loceticnascedo ascertained
er 1 r >yt l ' r'
:;: 415 N e9°w i9t 700 � 2S r � �t�x3p�;.S i 'L' � of essau rn�h'e 14c If ,
4900 4800 4700 4600 4500 4400 4300 4200 4100 4000, ,,,,IF Ac. by ec el su ,. til z tf t b ria
y �itl,y��n n 2 r i, St ' `.'r c;P kscv.l }•' di'c any,ssum.
7-:1(.1-OA AGENDA t•t5.3 e y 1 „
"� 9 . a ,.«scertaai ,vxr,;,axzvy � .' .r iCll S r i .�4 � rS 1 i 1(4i 2s 1•�!r 114 .es,¢ � 600 �■ r a�'s it°t a'r >. n
1 OF ?6 " 25 = 24 23=' �N a °° 94Acr..a
f.t . . .. .. .,�. rv. ., ,.,.- '> ,; : :.. x;- W -.e;•", .".=f„. p. Lr£+: ��a. �-. ia �..•: .s.t �p y i�irY t't-. '�t�;1,r< ', _•3�'�y� : 4�i�i,�Cti;,e•GS
„ .,,4" .l',', t+.o- m ,:,a "..,' :: .,r.+s7 i t ,cs..t '.tip 'I7° p . ,. t4s�+�•. Y ...1T...h YY V r.:..., .•I 1 -:. .. a � ,., i t . IC. ��
.rte ,. ,nw_...,m5'bw..��aA?b... n wmn; _..... n.' ;-, .,,,4,fi .�. :a. a,+..9$1..5 d r. ..,.Y .., 1,,.. .. .h.,., ... 5 \ { t tt } e�. Y.''•.
.t}•c•-y .._.._.wxxw...Na.:auu�xf»-:r#.:mt.i�ldi ,..u..fi.Sa w._:�..at,„vi. ars .ud.z .+ r . ,,.. a,.� ".,b.u: tC. 2;y:.:,.ut m' 1. .tl 9 s, . -+.. - T_v:: `S .Yaz•.d.G :.0>
,^ a
,- -.. •, - -' --_ _._- ,fir'•.i..i....,e. ...cues- .a.:;- ...�
� .?..vcz'31..-d U..,.cY t._..,_:SV-_'i w. ,• ..,.,h,::�. _-.,.- �. C
1{ 111 1 1 1 l'1 1 1 1 ..1 i ( ti i .v,t.t1.•+.r.ac.F,. , mr.4.r;.,ri,w .,,, :,.__ i _.,,s ..4.. :..c?Ma�.±4aa :c, !,.v>t
1 ( ( ( 1 1 1.1�1t{11 ( i 1 TIIi�111�11 (' f 1�L�I�TI'17 '1111��' Ii1111�11�� 111 ►`��11i1ry1 11bIF1►'1111111'111115.111:1 11,11ff:�11I1111111 x111.1 ►'Illlill t ! ,r x 1 i
_ ._ .. .. ` (. 2 3 4 5 e a 7 d a ( 0 I I 1 - t ts.n ,t«.. off..:. ri ...,._, 1
NOTE: IF THIS MICROFILMED ".... - - t' ~•.,
DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR'RAN l ' a■ +
MIS NOfl IT IS-OIIE 10
..QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL I _
DRAtIING.
-- /� �; It !Z : $ L2 it Ltt ►Z if--33---1-3 or •, 191 LI 1i1 -Of 11 CI ZI I( 01 { • L I 9 L • C Z 1�•
• M111N1
�1y�1111NI1�1111t1111�INIt1111�M1N111 ••'' L 11
11M1111W11l11111111UR
-
._-.-..,.._......._.. Tni;+'(< fi 'nt•.^�Pt+r . :,.m.,� •;> 4.n� o-:rrs.1,>.^.. „ ;.,,c __ ... .______. .. ... ......._ .. ... .._._. -
IN11N1 yy
JANU 31 ��
•
ARYL )� f1� j �
�. m 1y:
•
: . . "•..
•
, .
•
•
. • ,
,. .., . .
- ,
. • . . ,
. .
. • ,
I I . .
.
. . . , .
! I
f es aSbea
. .
,
I t 2
I 0400
. .
1 . '
I J ;
. .
c:› .. .
.•
I I to
. .
. : . .
_ . leo
, . .„ .. , .. . . • .,
,. . .
. .
. , - -- „ . ,,,,, , ,- 0400.. \:.3.,1;.. „,.. ,4,4,. ...• t ,'„•.,•'' :), .,r'..., ... ‘, ■•1 '.,,,,, ...,.!,.:,1:,,,,,s,...
(evse.:0,,. ... . „. , .,,:. - •, .,(4.-, ,,,,,v •- • ., • ,„ a,,,v . , a
,... A.A.,•• ••', ',' +,■-'" '.4,'V 1145-' ... • •,.,''..... .,,,,, +, ',. 1''''.i '. v ti. r.. . , 1'..' ' ". .0 : ' Vi,'. : ...'•:...‘
a:mats?e 0 rrY ,..1 -C)1-- • %.c.o 2.e.•=a
9
,,,. : ;' A.:;9;,..-.'„:',.., ' ' ,.'t:','",':'''.,...;''''J.i9;:',. .;i'..''?f.. :„.:,;1‘;'•'.34.. ..1.?.: .1:'.. '„' .. ..,14.,!1k;::: , , , ;.,-.' :..,y.x,i'... ,...,;::;:„;',..:;- ,:-:: ;,.. ' J.-,':;:,..,,.fe,11,r4,41*.
NI.IT'S 1
,.. .
. . .
leo -___________I.
t C,1
9
,, - ''', ., . .,./i19';',Ii t'..:k''.:' ''.'rk4A't.:"•• ,;"/" 1 ';-,•.1.....16, ,....-.''' ' • '-',"' • ' % 1rill;
• ' •
. ,
- I -.---------•.--- -.______._----
1
.,, ,..,..•,„,,,, ,4,,.... 0.,..:-•toli•,_„,:4,.,.,•„•„.••.V%..q•• .,1•4r-,;,,,,,,e.?';'.•.%.r.:,,:,7,, ,•-,.;'•-'1.-,, •i',,,,„•!•3::::,•:,....,.•.•,••-i1:-...:, .•••,• :',',47`•,...,i :,„•2..',...,,,•.,"al-, ,'. , '... '* ".1'•.,i:'<P,1,4
''.,.7 ,.,-;•' ' '," :10., ,.',,,i',,c,'.:Y7-''-' y',4.#A4: '1:,•.'v'Li14.64..Vt,' ''''l''i''' •Y' '''. ' ' ',. '' '`t'... 1; ''''.;''.:4'',4143;di.
,
I
•
• _
',. ,),':'• 44,Si4144,1 A:ii 1.11,- .."•7,'4,■*,•;4:1;.i?'' •L','4.'",';',11!?,FlIt...tc?').1,J1'itktik : . .,?/..,,,!::',-,-,ir( :'-A,.:F: ":".-t1. :1‘,',., "..;i4c.21:ei,;;41,,11-7-44. .• •
•
__I
„2. . . .,.... ., .2: ..,....3„,„.,,, 4,..,_„, .;„...„„„,....,,i,., :,.,,,,,,f,,,.,„„•.„- . :., 54, , t,,,,,,..;.,-..- , , .,,, ,.., .. „.,
'1,' • ' ,,,4- 4,,,;';'q..,4 ',Y,. .c,,,tr.i.t,t,; , -,,,,, 4,,,,,„.„,
.1■1
. 7 ..;i,,, .,::1,,'1 J.,V;f4";?,jto.-".:1•Ii:•17M,f11,-...c::,".._',•.:,:,'Y....-,7-''r,:' ."'' '7',.1-', :-,44"'''''' 4;,.11,P:;:1::- ,:t,"."- ' . ' ''• .•,7''._-'•'4.::'. Ili.i.:.'"g:!,KPP . ,,
364 3CD 7 Sol So S 30'5 ,L- ----...____
. c,i,:: , • , . " . '' ••-iit- • • t • -t,It.71t?,*%•,,..,,,- '-, '•:,Y, ,if :',.•lie.tir .vz4.. ii.'.i4f:' '',.,,,, ''''177.-',.C :
t ...,i '......*-*•■•••....„.....le2.. .,
.....■.........-..-..............................
201 ..5
S. t.' "*".'' '''," ' ,r',,,,,A .• .--•01,•1• ,.,--., .• : > - •-,...',i.ltat_. ,..-.s'44',...■ '-g
•
ig•X''' ''.... .'' . . . t C:3 t C,C21 t e)c.c:• q ei e,t),.'• ..., , ' .; ' '- ,r-\',''',.vt,„.;'',.':::• ':F.•;,-,,,:'•A'' ‘,.`',4‘k'''/'•'-til.f\r",f;:'.'','A,•,,p;',,•„."';''.'"."r•4 .'4;.'it',;,', ',,t,.4.'„,1;;',., •,..,,, , ,,,..'..,,,..,:;:.,. ,..‘, ,•,',.,,,'4.5i.',,gi."'..194,,.,91',eje,;,,'',If•
./ ----' '•• ' ... , ., • ''7' ,, ' :' .1',...,'"%-:,V-,,,,,..,. 9:',e929,,,,',,,4'ip,,,,,,i.,..'',..r.,1.;10,; .7,ii 4.1.„,4,.:,,, ,;,, •"',.'. -,,,,,..,it,,,,-,:,,,mi,,W „; ."',5,5`..'5,11'.'‘,..v, . 1 ,,i •• : -,'-' X.'41;4',Igi. •
..:, , i „i,.1..:5'.7...:::. ..- ; -4,,v,, L, .,', 4"t`tPift:i'';:',Pk.<-7.
I 04 I C3C:, I al
• ,. .;.:: ' : '-‘-'..' .: '4,,,,i,m., ' ,,,,,,.:-4: 'vs,-•-,7.' , ,,;:ii, • if '4;.$ .' ▪ .10...""
,. n( 4 i - '," • .- .... „ . . '' • (L-V .•3' , ."..i 1 1 4,''''? ‘%.,IL 41'. „sit;,st.,...„, ,...4.,.tig'.. ■, ' ',.. •,' L. L' L■,.: ...`i•,..:, ''' ''ff*Jjk,:.:'
' „' .•,L • :. , , --,,Lr”- L •,' ; ,14•%0 1 1.' 1„';',f,:;.L.,.%,,'54-"Pid: .ki'Al, •''' k v,t1 • , 1 --- ---••,i, 4., ['. . ''. '''' •, • ,,;,, ' .4-.,.,'" ''.,■?'..,'"'';'-7V...,L. ,?,..,`'relt.,
10+--------------
,
•,.•',-•,, , - • , ," •, :‘, ••. • -.• '..., t• ••( ,r t'1' ,.. 0 fr47,, ..--i:'..i.exij....,e,;;?;:•,•;Az.
kts • ,, .,,,. '.-• ...• .e,,, '-',',-'i'.'1 ; s...:.,;-:',4,11;"41,41,,,j"••,••:. ' :r gP, pi • '-.I.,tg.,,,,,,:i - , ‘,,,-,f:!--. :i ,r, ..'. 'io.',Iil."(itlt
. .
- • . .. „ ,. . :•,. , , .. •,,,. •,,,.,i_,', .4%, i e.•i„• .., .:.', ..: . .1,,1 4■L,'In,,,. ,uvi '4,214, ', '*:-4, ' '' '•4.-1',, t, ',',' ' '•` ,. '. *1•••'.- . , .',-;•., -,,,,,,,,
...............■•• . ..■...„...„ ,.,s.
1,' ''''.,-,:'i'.., .;' ',1 '' .L' ' „'!.- ' ',:t;,.tAig...,, 1,- . „ ,...1.7.; . ,it a ..i,, ,,,, , , 1,3,.,,,-„s • • ',,,,,,:,,,,,,.,,„ li,„-•,/ ,:•:„:.;,,,,.:,..r-4,0,:•%;,‘,04. ..
.
,
. •
io6.----
;*;=•::';,.: 1', -''. .';,...,,,,- ., ' . '•\ ;'..'..,k-' i, '.t.Y•"•;!, , l':r7-•_,, .,, ..ns-‘440tivpAritliZtir .' 4,9v,..,,'',, .-. • ''..A,.".--..; '„;....4'' ' 7.4 ;',.....•, '':', %,. 11...41...i\l'.' 10,,,
_„„_
,,,h 4...0 -..':‘`,',‘', : i` .- .,"‘",,'” ,.." -',,-4';,.. -•"(,.;i4ty,-",:.^1,-, -
• .. , ' .
. . ..1 • . ; -„, •,, ,,./. „..•. „,.,,,, ...f. ..4 .. , ,-.: ..'• ` ,'• -,t'''.,- .4'41Y,j4,'''.d,,1:34' '
V) " lEAA5 . 'i'''''' ''' ''' . '' '*.'.\' ',.':' '. 'e .''4'1'"1''''' '' '•fp!,'-`,.''''''7.4,„?,:•1 I gfio's • ' ' .011 • ,'-::-....,..: • . ••••II ') ,,1,,..;,,".°F!"-; ,;.,:::, .:: ..., .,,9: 0•-tv.,9,;.!-Vii.,.`,74,4;'
. .
,
IP SW ' t:7AKoi-A. -rt.sF_.-T- ---------- -
"L"--€s" e#44•.6 ':.'4' ' ''' '''1,.,,',*-,,, ',.',; ..II'v.,',.• '..1.'1,;','..'i:'•,. ,C;1`)....,,,,,,L,I. ;..q.L.,.,i 44.4s.,, ..• . •i,k;,t1, . , ,..„,...t.•*5..•4.V.7 ',.:.,•!..,,.. '. ,•,: -.,,,,.. ••:•-.. ..,,•,:. Pe..;t•-,t:;.,1,,..,y!. ,.
<....... e,... .c.h.g.-...a.1.0 N
,4.e
-.,', -'• '- • '•A-:.74,;l'•'•:-7, :- -..' :1:`.,'/A ''', '‘ .., l'1,.‘-.W. .-1'.-'':'- ,-,F': ..4.,'.,,t.'•X,itolfit-, ,1,1,ix4s- '
. .
,.
I --... , --- — in —---- *....•.: ."...r:' ..„,.•',,..1;;',.";.r..,'''„, ,yt;.„',•:,.,:,0 610..,,,-.,= ,,,-,„1;-,i,..,,gy.,..44,,!•„:„k,,,...i„.,.,,..t,„,").',.• ..;.;•.,..2,.::,:,:-.,..„4".,, ,.„'•. , : ,.„-,, „:;,...• ,•,... ..,..A1-'5.-,....••.);,-.,•:;,7,,,,,4,,..„4‘-v.,,iti,,t-(6-..• ,
-
.,
_-:kllIllmllIllIll.11=-••• ,_._
• i. ... ,' to - - --- _ -,:f. .;• -,,,,,, •., • .' , - , ; ,.4. ... ,;;',.;',i''''''Vr‘.)'''. ''.. ','.•,,. ..'„,;','.,1 9 a;;.:4'..P.tie.1„(,g,,,...'g?A T":-:::,:'.i;:,4,....,'" ',.'...k.;I'.'i..1-',41, ..7..' :'•f:: ,'..,;.,4,„„ :7„,,,,.„-- 1 'AT'"7„.4.!•94:il_
,,,•,,,, - . ..,.. , , N.' "•.: ,.',.'.•4,-*-..Y ‘..../cs..4-4',.!:, ..,t'''.;,..:.u.: ., .- .- ....• . - t' '.:-..,:.... '.:;•,,. . ;::„.., ..AS:"- 4:Yet'
. v
I — •• ••' ,........)0' tar_olc_.../4T 1014 — FA. t 1 (''' ; 1, ,: • .A-,.:,-',.:',":,'- ' .1.-: - :1 ,.:,-, -, . , .,,,, „,.--,--m., I; .1";.'N'
'
ile .....--.--.--'-'-'
, , '- ' ,-= • ',.' VA, -; J., '-,-,,,,k,i---;-••, ,.".4.:..'q •••,•,/, •4.--,1‘, 7-- 0, .,•,:,,t t,-,":''''' .L' .,
I i .„
.. , . , 4' ' ' ',..,'' .., .,..A , ”',A'a ' •.k`!,',?,' ft,,,,-,... ',,zi..,4 ---I.ti,ft:i'-•., .,11,7-,i' .m.,;?irtft":..,?i,,,ii.- _;,...., .-I,,,i ••• --Alf, -- • e,':.,....:: :',-,1,:...ii:;4V-Iii,, ' ,,.. .
.,
.
0 4
7,1,,,,,'..q. •It: .7•.;!.•, -4.-..--• .' . , 0,,..7.-.•p.., .,., .... .. •• .'-• ..;-„.., •--,' .. . .• 7-„,,,!,,,,, ,,,,,,,,..4,47,,a,,,,,,,,,z....t. .
•
I 41 01 I cto-2 . . -- -------, ....
•.'",olft•• . '-:.• °L,',, , . ,.• ,..i,,,7q : '..„:20,ed:-.7 , ' ?-4P....,..', \:`,1. '. ',': $..L4-,k'L 4. ,, . .ti;L...s L .-,...■• 4: ,.'.t ; ",;- .:. , • ..,,, .• .,,',,.,.,,,?1,7„,...1.,IL:,,3
.7 .,, ' w,.....:: ,:,:;'....,., ,?,_,,.,.,,,,4.1.,i;: 0 +,1.1T. ,ric„..itii,-;i;., .i„..",;.,,,,A. . s...4ii.11‘..:ilki ,:,.,vo.,41xati,
. ,-. • ' .
I%
188
I 90•,--.............__ ir- 7 1• g
' 0 o • 8 N 5 1
: ._------------/
_.....,
I -
0
cp 0.
64-00 6soc, 6 60c) 6.710o,-' ' ..,-;;.';_: '•••••: ,--- ' : ••A•.:,'.-:!....;',,,F.•`-"...; : •,•-4710,t.m4.., .. • •••.,•, ...r. .,,,..,,. , ,-, - ' • :%:- • t ., .:••,. . ;, --' -,:,•1•`.'if•,,,;;;;; ,,,i'‘'• - .
isoc, ., • „..--.....LL — /92 r---:---)
. .
_,-,.“ , . ..„....,...,,,, -"4.., :Ai.. '• ''.' :,;;:7•9', . ?.`,4'.,i.,!.."-',-v.:`,;-1.-• '. ".:,, ,'. ; ,.':''''-; .-', . :..'"?'' '';,.-
.
r -I r" 1 _
, ,•3;,••••:. ,, 4,„;•: .,. ,:,.. .'7..":;8::,. '-',' ,P,,k.,, '',' : ';''' '' ''' . . '•.'.--, .,. -4'1.;•7•:-..• '.."' : ;,---„L',.- - . :••-,- •-• ,‘•J". , -.:-.', ,, •••• -'•••!'..c.?4k':-A•,-;.1•,-S40
oo. -- . 140
,‘ ,••.••,, • 1 '''‘ ,'• . L. i,r,...''`..i..;'`-:,, - L. ti, ...,..':. , .• ,L.,,, - ; ,,.:L.' :L. .‘ '' .."''.. " L ! A-1'..',44-,4,i4,4 .
I I I i 1 ,
4.• ''',...,;...i, .,•,,,•.: :•, .,''' ,', ,' , ?A-•..' • r• ' , . ,- .•., ,•pftplotzED•rc•11,051-, 4,tx,142* .f 141.1-y'
•,, ,
L___ _J ---"--
--1,71.......:-...t... ,• "I___ .....1--
i.4,.- ''''OWNKAi-,:,•',-glitt,04411:',- ,,:.•.'91.FP.tk. '•1'''',• %, • , . . . - :ii,..4v.....I P•u- •••••' '' '-'.-F,,- .--0.-'
u.,,,,,...i. --,,..0-14,80.04 „.,„ „,,,,,•-"1"-I'-i'•':.,..',"k' •
' .L. —,,,...„ — --I
.
." ' ‘''''' ' .11c.g'§'-;,1013 - L,f 4'03t91..0i.,(!, , ,•-, •. •:', •• • . - '•,* •-;,., '•..., .'''•1„,.• ,2 ,...i. .-, J:.,,,,-,•..,,,'•• - ' ,. 4, ' ..,",ixx,••,;--.f'.044k,','•.;••„;,•• 1
•
. ._.
. .
.
,
40 _ 4 G .
. --...,
4•0
, IA vt 1 0 ,•, , •• • PO pti. f4i••,. P.+•:-'..7M*-7- (;)??. ,-. -. ‘„ . • ,-r ,
,
i a
• - ,,, . -., .:.,„,-_-", ,,-• '. ., .!'...1,
------
11.1. ,......_......_______
...-----.—tqz
/ ,-, is,,'',1:, :..,v•
, , •
'+■,,..., ... .
10 cp.Z. ci
6oc.
TA . )4,, - , -,,,,,,,,,...,,,,.-., 15.:•,,,- i'i,`‘:,
..,i, %.' ; , .r...' ±-1-?..::•.-4..: ';-'
--......_. ...--, 6.13cx:, -. itnitICAUT1.•:-.,,„P19,46:.VIBIA431 .:'' ,.. ' ''' . ,R,ERItiRED.':„ -• ‘•
• ' •.•''•""- ,• • ,7: .:-.-.,,800.-,,:Sterlititril/•',1,3-,Y.4., • ,,...i,;,...".• - ',-- ••, , r ',q.: •.':',..„.:., :...,,,,A; •••:F-?,,,-....,•?!•::: '.•,,,,,,fi,,,,,:.,,
1 .
, .
•
(9 ..'' . 5", -4e9::v-044i111,,...'.64,.-,-.•.-, 1700,5 ' -20r',.' ,-.' •-- `,1‘.0.11,t Xard.:.:.,.: .::'''' -, . : -",•-',.•.•••,.-!: ,,4,::,.-,;t,f,'-z 414
/46 Iti 2 CO 3 - --17--------- .
.______
L-3 to
7
,
,
gil, ; . 51.., .-, side,,, yard
.'. '4. .;',::' L'-'1' i-', ...":',.•!,;-,..-:',-:; ',•,...43"-:.!':',','.'4,$:,'-‘•
____________ ____________:._ 4' kg ....._________ ___.
—.....4...............i qt
,.____________- ' IA
..' •' , .., • ,. :.• , ;7..3,"-•.1•,-i;,-:t,,.;-i.-?., , , ,:-. •,.,.. 4 •',., L, ,:1',..;-A ',•,-,... :;•: ' . '., ,,,. ' s, , „ ,,',. ,...`;''''',"'?T'j',r4.''',:;'.,
, . _, • Is' '11R4.4.1xeti.'x' i ,,;;,11:1 , ■ " 'i 'tt.0, 'Y.', :,.10,..tt,te 3/4.„c til de . -. "(A - - ,•, ,, - . ,-,,,!,,,a,;,,,.,...._,:=. .
t
, i cie. , •• -. 't-..0.-, • : . .., a,,;.;, ,, ;t:::-T.,;‘, ..,,,,,, _.. . ,.,... . . .,., ,, ..1, . ..„,-, • ,,,,t,.. ,, y ,. • . „L.... 4. '''s !'P,gt.:%t•••''''.:.;,•• ...''',. '
• ". `,. ,
I qs.
• -----......._____
9 00 .____ - — I ot- ..--- ___...,.. .
4 s 7 s s
.."'' ''' -"--''''''-.'"v'''.'''-''0---.'Otiett4, 604, A'640o: . • 15! *.-• .0* ., ,yard
---"-20o
. ,
...4 44. !kl,:i.,... ..„.-...,--, ,.3•:•,,,. - ,, - .,-, • . • ,;, . ..', .. ;:"...,„„-- •,,,,,,.T2i.,. .. :. .., ' ' • .,..• . . ., , .,- • L'"'-',Z.•r". 'kL4,5",4;''`
, .
--------------
t-' ''' 'liEl.:litit #.4°.4° )0 •ike aci, 4,'-•t=.6 - •-•:- min; itg, sizer'!::.'-,;'..)•,:,1.•••'',-,f•l,' ,
• • *
t%At.
11 .
V) ft:-
___--------
• -‘. .,.,•.' ,,,:.„Llig,‘•4:,..-,}..
o.,lel
I
B t.
.1,-, :::•':, '..:.!'r''''':',.'.'•• , .-;:...,,,...,.-_. A ..,.,.!...,4....,:.;• ,y-,-1. ,.,,,," . - , . - -.• •, „A.ti*.. ,.,.: ,..:Iii,“-,-,':• lot dclite,ralc,,, •,-....:. •-,•: .i. ,:-.4 ,:p41,4"4,2,41,
201
I L --, 0 tA ____------- ,, . . . ,ou. lot—
--. t.. I I '2.elko . 1
,
te4 ,A ■•‘" .. '' ' ''', :- * '■2'q.'..0'-'..S.4.;2::,.',•*1,'"'. ,,t,:kr ,,,,z_414,,,,,174..,,‘ • '.
,.. " ..,.,• ' ,,,,,,, ,.,'.,'t".-.A. :'''','.:AA,'41A;;A ;•,:.':' '...,...,, --:-. . '%., • %,.., . :......;;,ioA 4, ,.:',-,, .L.. ,,,,I7 .■:,1%■0■411;111 ','irkielj .T.ixv..j.t)V"..■;ei%+&.,4■1
2.0 I 5 i 6:.1 o cr 7C:rock - . ', -i-,. i•- , .-",,i„.:-,-. ,.2.. ,,,,• •,•.-,.. .'•,'1..,.•••"' ,i, ,-, 7.;,..V,r..4. ".'4',.,..,.,,,,i,,. ‘t,i,P,■, T.:TN',Atar+04 ,,`,,,itfAtttilk.,,. i",'1'''', :„;7- 4i::' 1"---C-,1.,-P,'.1A:.1:',1'• .,:--•if
ii • I
'''‘tii.ON'tilit,,,01*001;141111ttfe4i1144*'-' "4:'\''';'.,:'..--;".n..'1... . ,-,,,, :" ..."-,, ' ; 1' ,,.L.,‘:i 6: •Lii.„ 41,,,,,,. ,,;;,
____________
- t -- _
,'..'' '"'''''-.4:-•'. :'tv, '...-• .' , -r1.-46-,.,,!..gr-'.1 „.,v,.. . „,-A,..., +Itivr...w.:.., --'t eiV,Iiirdlivrizpr40,04...m41111K;i•lk:•!it..,---,..t,1,?..):1
,
4 : : I
• :, 12.os
., . ,.
2.Is.et
'','' .•!...- '14-7:',,1"..I. ,,,o' .‘kr;,041!,,,',,;• •'.,,,tril•..•,•' ”,'',,,:iv.:"!•••-?4)*:''•” . ii,?• -•' ... .0 , -•,.,- '.;,, 'Ai7.--' " 1.,i 2'• '.:.:,i7;;;,..k,:if.„...144:41p4", •
.........a.■■■■•
1
43
L. — — --1 20Z :.--
po I , ,. ,-.4'4.4 I,T :I!:,'..Z41) ..w.WIR4 .,4.- ":, 'I:,.:;:,‘, ' '''''' ,•'•- ' ` ., • ' ci f .: . i-,+*' -Ifitli-loi-,tinlipAirk.,**4)fetxt,k., .• •
__,-------- / 479 rii i .
• 1 •---,,,,, i■A'. pftvente.,.?- width x • s • - •-t• - ., .4„,. i.ip„,., • .
. .
I
• '''''."-• .,.•L''''••*:..,-"."•4:::.'r)*: •04:,1....?: 04...•;.:-.:'!",... ,...t'' ,.., ,,,,''''''' .,'•- . ' - i'..;...:. •:',-;.,-.,,,- -' ........: '''.'":-•'`:. .` ,,‘„ ,:k.;. "tf-..... iift‘iN..4p:',,..'
2.,
. . .
rE —. -1 10 ....„-------$ . . -,- . .:$111.tiVsoati-.e. :Alx:!'.-.„-:',... '7'1-kic-27 '.' ''.1.*:!!!..'-..',. 25'f. It'''.'',8 street Wit 4t,k,',rot!:' !-C•••.-4..iiisItitt0" bt;,,.1,..iA,•-, -:
I I
. , :• • 7.10 ,
I 11)) ..,,---------- r 1,, . 1.4 o
....--------* . r --1
....: , : '.; ,• • , ..,,,A-,1,,, -,•-.,••.•-:„ ,...,,-... • ,,A.••!;•7,,,,,,, !,'.: , ' • ,•• T.,....,,,,,,, , '' 2.pi,.. it,,•,..•-00.17•entolt,'-tf•ifiz".„#bc,11-4,r. 'otiioe,,•:* ::';114 1 ;,$,,',-,..-,•
;t i,• ..::::.:- : tv
„. . L_ _ _11°'ft
4.04. --••---/ L .1 I
...„....,..,„„,.., ,,..,, ..., .,,..„..n. , ,. ._ ,. _ ,: . ..:,....,_ „.„,..„. .....i. . ... .,. ...,, ... ,
1
, .
1 07.' • ..1. '' SEWER: ,'-!:::ctyt. 4 ty, T...." 4•01t(,t' ' .-: ' l'i- . •, :' •
. :.. r . .
X°6''''..". ".'."..'''.."'
tg_ Ext?T1 .4 ...- ' Itt417q ill I •2.12.
' 'rti'A'T, Fi,': 14,e.' iz.'t...igi' OT,.,..1"li4.*'41r..': ''-'4.,;1''''1.. '.84.u" ... -"::,i'-:.;. :: : :'' ,''''*:, :...'''''. ''1.,.: ::.1,...'''' ''' :'" '. '-';:'- ';;:-. .. ' '',..''. ...:1 .';'ri'L.' '''':"..'•4'''':::11':ii;i:41•.,,Vtil':
— ' ,‘-`'" , ',• 1f.'".44,41;1;.,;.
' '1 ,. ' i. .2'''...', ''' ::.',...; '''', ',::',:: ''. ' . `.. '-.
'• , ' . ' I giCIO ' 2400
-1,.. :
208 '
L_-i 0 I I -, z 14
'''-'?.-{' ''tit UR S- • City "0 tr,1Tigard.-7•- /.., -: -,: ',-.,,:;;.,•7,,4-,,,,j,!..?„,.,; ,,' • ., '.' .., , ,F,'' ,,-,. ' „ , ,. ....,. ;; .
I VI it IP
.. • ,. •,. 4 .`1' ....,,LL' , '. ,:i„L'L ',-' *;.q ‘. ' ' L-: '•L'L'' '1
. .
.:`,;Pi;3!. e. : . ' . -, ::,,,i,..: ;,,,,'.. ,9',:...t.-4,,,`, ,, '.,';'- ,'. '''',;,,:.,y,x-'■,t,:,:f r•r.'.1, - , =:.,•... ., ' .,. 'L'...4". '''. '...1' ''''''''''.i',LAI".?-2',!, ,tcki 0.:,..
.. T°c 4%
• it*. f..,'•••L''Pp.,...4
,-1,,, . , t s,.,•,. ., 1.2'-.,ullitif.r per a•cree.'," ', ".'..:•••'''''' ..' . ' . . ; v •'1:4'i,
■
t
c....------:";;;;"-- 0 .- - '.;:-I'`:....' -.• i9N.Iti..,:. iL,I.A4.iitt41)'•'ti ii:I;;,.:.0;..*.k\.''*'•:,.'-';',i'',.''',.,:•"• '....',.'.. , :. .;,,. ',..'''.. .'.,: '; :.•fr' - '.. ;• :;.-: '' ..- ,,..i'-:,•:),.i:'-',4,, ,,,,....,,,-,‘".,,q,i,41..
. .
• .
_......, .
,2.16.
r- 2./0-------
. , . .
. . .
. ...
,
240.77'
III .
TO •• -
.
.
•
.
Alz;----- 1 E- 1 ,.
•
• ,
. r / 1 '*---------_____.2.:(8
v..00 .
,..
e., ,
/0e7, ,
.
--I
.t.:.)
.
I ............. zz.,z,
. •
. ,, ... 1...
L.....4 s.307-
2.100 1 zs. 2.6
..SC.a/ [ I . . •
A .. ,
Iii ....... c.:.‘ ,
W 214
. ,
, .
1______I
...: .
.
•
...,
- ....
..,
. /
, .. .. 0 •
- .
....
r_ — — --i
. • '' ILI
'7.-ZOC> <C
SS,c52.
-
,
.
. fr 2-502
"Ir— -1
1.10(Z114 ,
.
, . ,.. :., . lsoo
' I ___I
43 tj
.
,. ., .,
__I— I r- 1
L__ - ' •
r---- L. Ll i 2 V)
.
- , . , •
, . . ;
I I tr.
..,
I 7 L..-J \Li ; \M
, .
:g,e4....1 pL6.7 A Folz...
.
—
LA NI 1:7Al_wciost....) . '
,. . .
. .. 5
....0
. . , . .•
.
JO •
...„. „ ,
SSOG:,
..-AN., ' ' ' -- -----....L
.
L _Jr"r----r-------
.1)11AW Int
• : ,
' '
7C20
. . , S 'scsiLlf: 1 gi=.6 c).' ' 7116..)c:..•L ol"'" . 0■0 S..
,
\ ate- t•Air.P I 41 - SSC_,A. - • ,,,
• ,. .. .
\ +--- — —1
DATIL 6 -a- ...-T-
. , .
t.-t,,,,,-,;,.„ ,, ,-„..,•5.i. '.. •
,
501 4 oF LOT-2: 8101171:41E41-5', •... •‘ '.
I' 2...,c:04 I 2503 I
•....„• .-, ...., ,4-•;,-, ... ••
20' L5' .
I.66 ACX.g..5- ge. iVt
Arxr3 rri ok.t. .., .
, .
1
,
ht, 0-e•7 . : ' . ', . - - . ! • „
L__. 17 .1 -----T-----;--- zf,4 •
. . . ..,.:,..,.. .
OltAWINS,14U,1911rul;
Z.i C.
Or( Or* "ri( A,ED, ‘.4/1,sN 1 14 6-rot4 cout.rry,or._. , -
..4,:',.0;', .,,,,f,, •. ,,_ •--
, .
i 0--84 AGENDA #5,, 8
t' •,:'''!•.- ' • , , ,
• - ,
, • .
.
. , .
il--..'''•.' ' ,.' 1.
OF 1.
,..„,".........................................,
' ., ,
,
• , .,•
:. . . . ..
egommoimov.............r.
. . • .• §-4,V, ,,r'''. ' 1,' ''''.-'`,''‘r'.'''''''%4..1':.-'''..,,'.1'.1 r■''..:f1'..,''.,'a'!tr:,;.:',.qt'''',',;'0'.V.V.e'ri*.''
. . „
..
. i., ,l', 1. ',14, ',:,'\'',',,I.ig.',i..,,,... . 1,,,A,.;444...,',D.LI:.,..46,4•3..t.,:i,,e..g.114144,4i.
,
' ' ' '.".17It'S.'a POI'INTRO:01' NO.'10001.te c.i.amtnietor YADIC:OUT
.1474114'°Irt: '' '.' '':;• ''.. '', . ' ,... ' . .'
I
i 1 ' "1E' ' -, ,
.
,/
.
, t1;12,, ..„..,...,,,%..., , ..,,,,.. ... , . ,L, .,...._ __._____ __._ Ill.:41:, :. ,,,....... . 1,,,,._ ....1 ,t, .__Litt , t.n.t, __.ir 1 '",-.-,'.I-,:ii. • ,,•,••,.::.,,,,N ,,,,,L.L.,...,;,..y.,1,4.',.....•".^,Z .'tr:,..,:,.':;-:LLL,s,,,,.:, ', - ...L,,......,_„...,,,,,.41;,„:,-,'',.1;....iT:A.,s4s'i 5,V.ARI.7.:).+0.7rk,#",:xi.mi.., .,,.,.-..,.,.,,_ ,
'",;'4•;Y' 1441- ' •••• ' • - ', - - . -- - -- - , ::, :„..,.. ._. ,_:.•-.1 .f.=•.- . , ,' ' ,, ',, • ' -.;'.. 4-"'---'' _ _ .,,,.._. -ii, ,, i., td , 7:-,—.,:-.!,,,,,,,. ,4 ...,, 1. ,i,....iii. . .11 ,,, ,,liteirtlitinfilitits,,,i,14,1..,,,,,t,141.11,,,,,t,,,t,i,. it,11:1--ifia,11,11.1„.1,to-.1,1.vi 0144.1-1 1.1 1,
. ,-,,,,i,,,,,.4x,;,,,qft,fii,..e.:41.'W•i"i'''If's•'-- -t:!4;;;1'. '... ..., '' .. --•-: .• '', ,..--- - •-: :::.-:-.-:.--- ----,-- ----- -. .- ,.--,..,,,• • t ''i-'-'- • -4": - :'' - •:''..-t.. -". -,- . . it , :' , '*,',1, ,,1,-. 1 ;I,. •fritri , = 11, I,,,-.. , -11 II II f• ,,•' ,,•., •,- , - ,- ,, ' • ' - - r . '
4 5 '6 ' 7 • a
,.,. . 0
Alb :, 1
4 41
,-■ ''''
'
4,hip--------
,I,
.* ,
..,
NOTE: IF THIS MICROFIU4ED
,
' • 5
4 V
' • DRONING IS LESS CLEAR THAN .
.
,.
?% •
.
THIS NOTOr-TT-1S-011E-70
.. ....._.—
•
...,..:, ..., AUAtITY OF THE ORIGINAL
......._. . __..__ _.. . .. . ..... .... . ._ ,
.,- ---,,., , • -
.
,
.
',.•
,---
- GRAMM.
, OC 82 e; 22 112 SZ 02 .
, :•-•,,4,-,, - ,,---_ ______ .-p--- _ .i..i___..t.i___Te. _______coa____44..c._..e. I..__ 4.1 al st fr.1 ei• al II 01 6 ,.Iiiiiiii$400410001144404004064044011,9 s t
,....--
f,1
,
toskulfonlaloIastolusehosimlissolsi' 4.--.. , "'-v;91A.10.-4.7"-' n •k,-, ,- 116. X
.. ,,-- . ... . ...... •
....„„.. ...._,...__,_,,;_,.....;,,..„.....,..._---"""4"' '4;',V,i41:e i" ,'''::::',":! .-^ • '*..!.' Late, .i'...;,,..f.' .. ''' , , ;`. 91-94:144V,.....11,5t •.4.„W-'4'.14',..7, --■,.. -:
_
...,._..... .. .... _... .. ,..
• ,I. ..4. ,
,, . „ , i ,..,,!;'1;,
,-
. .- . • k L'.', .ti
A * ',, , ;:, .'‘ .' ',', # * sI.,''.1 . i
,,,, k .., • ..'!-` c " .,..:. ..
. .
,
_