The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 05/19/1980 a TIGARD CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING SAY 19, 1980, 7:30 P.M. FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL LECTURE ROOM NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIR NAME ON THE APPROPRIATE SIGN-UP SHEET(S) LOCATED AT THE BACK OF THE ROOM, PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK WILL THEN BE CALLED FORWARD BY THE CHAIR TO SPEAK ON THE INDICATED ITEM(S). AGENDA: 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. CALL TO AUDIENCE FOR THOSE DESIRING TO SPEAK ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS. 5. CONSENT AGENDA: (All matters under this heading are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted in one motion in the form listed below. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is desired by any Council member or member of the audience, that item will be removed from the consent agenda and will be considered separately.) (a) Approval of Minutes: May 12, 1980 (b) Approval of Expenditures and Investments: $ 101.005.63 , (c) Monthly Reports: Receive and File Building Library Police Finance Planning` (d) Written Communications: Receive and File Transmittal from Kermit Carlile res Kerwood Estates (see agenda item 17 ) n 6. RESULTS OF DOWNTOWN SURVEY (a) Presentation by Chamber of Commerce 7. ORDINANCE No. 80- AN ORDINANCE RATIFYING ANNEXATION OF LANDS BY BOUNDARY COMMISSION ORDER No. 1557 RECORDING AN'EFFECTIVE_DATE AND DECLARING AN s EMERGENCY. (Beck Annexation - Pfaffle/Hall`Blvd.) (a) Recommendation of Planning: Director. 8. ORDINANCE No. 80- AN ORDINANCE RATIFYING ANNEXATION OF LANDS BY BOUNDARY COMMISSION -' ORDER No 1573%RECORDING'AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (Morissette Annexation). (a) Recommendation of Planning Director. w h a M 9, ORDINANCE No, 80- AN ORDINANCE RATIFYING ANNEXATION OF LANDS BY BOUNDARY T COMMISSION, ORDER No. 1576 RECORDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (Smith Annexation - 79th/ South of Bonita). (a) Recommendation of Planning Director. 8:00 P.M. PUBLIC NOTICE& APPEAL HEARINGS 10. ZONE CHANGE ZC 5--80 (Dennis O'Neel) NPO #2 A request by Dennis R. O'Neel for a zone change from Washington County RU-4 to City of Tigard R-7 "Single Family Residential" zone located adjacent to the north side of SW North Dakota, 210 feet west of SW 95th Avenue and 250 feet cast of SW 92nd Avenue (Wash. Co. Tax Map 1S1 35AC, Tax Lot 700), (a) Recommendation of Planning Commission. (b) Consideration by Council (c) ORDINANCE No, 80- AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE 1970 ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF TIGARD AND FIXING AN EFFECTIVE DATE, (Dennis O'Neel). 11. ZONE CHANGE ZC 7-80 (Larry Leahy) NPO #2 A request by Larry Leahy for a zone change from Washington County RU-4 to City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Zone Designation A-12 "Multifamily" zone located fronting approximately 220 feet on the east side of Greenburg Road and 250 feet north of Dakota Street (Wash, Co. Tax Map ISI 35B, Tax Lots 700 and 800), (a) Recommendation of Planning Commission (b) Consideration by Council. (c) ORDINANCE No. 80- AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE 1970 ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF TIGARD AND FIXING AN-EFFECTIVE :DATE. (Larry, Leahy). 12. ZONE CHANGE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT"ZCPD 9-80 (Park Place Condominiums) NPO #2 Arequest by Joseph VanLom for a zone change from R-7 "Single Family Residential" to A-20PD "Multifamily Planned Development District" (condominiums) which;is inkeeping with the Comprehensive Plan Designation located at 11900 SW 98th Avenue (Wash. Co. Tax Map ISI '35CD, lTax Lots 2200 and 2300). (a) Recommendation of Planning Commission (b) Consideration by Council (c) ORDINANCE No. 80- AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS (:LITH RESPECT TO AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE 1970 ZONING MAP OF THE 'CITY OF TIGARD AND FIXING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Park'Place Condos'). 13, 'TEMPORARY USE TU 2-80 (Oak Hill Investments Company) NPO #3 A request by Oak Hill Investment 'Company: for a temporary use permit to place a manufactured model home on SW Pacific Highway<`south` of Fairhaven Way,, north of SW Gaarde `Street for a period of time in excess of six months (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 3DD, 'Tax Lot 900) . (a) Public Hearing Opened (b) Summation by Planning Director ('c) Public Testimony Proponents Opponents Cross Examination (d) Recommendation of Planning Director (e) Public Hearing Closed PAGE 2 - COUNCIL AGENDA - MAY 19, 1980 a (f) Consideration by Council. UBLIC NOTICE OF APPEAL 14. VARIANCE V 2-80 (Shell Oil Company) NPO #2 The Planning Commission denial of a request by Shell Oil Company for a Variance to allow additional sign height located at 9785 SW Shady Lane (Wash. Co. Tax Map 1S1 35B, Tax Lot 200), which decision has been appealed to the City Council. All testimony will be limited to a summation of previous statements. (a) Public Hearing Opened (b) Summation by Planning Director (c) Public Testimony Proponents Opponents Cross Examination _ (d) Reconmiendation of Planning Director (e) Public Hearing Closed (f) Consideration by Council 15. LERON HEIGHT INTERCEPTOR DISCUSSION (a) Discussion by Legal Counsel 16. G.I. JOES/WAREMART PRELIMINARY PLAT APPEAL. REQUEST CONSIDERATION (a) Request by J. B. Bishop _ 17. RESOLUTION No. 80-41 RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC j IMPROVEMENTSCONSTRUCTED WITHIN KERWOOD ESTATES SUBDIVISION, SUBJECT TO HEREIN SPECIFIED CONDITIONS. (a) Recommendation of Director of Public Works. 18. RESOLUTION No. 80-- A RESOLUTION REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF THE POSTED SPEED ZONE(S) ON S.W. 121ST AVENUE BETWEEN-S.W. 'SCHOLLS FERRY ROAD AND S.W. WALNUT` STREET. (a) Recommendation of Director of Public Works. 19. 72ND AVENUE STATUS REPORT (a) Report by Director of Public Works. 20. OTHER 3 (a) City Representative for. factfinding -(TPOA contract) City Administrator 21. ADJOURN14ENT PAGE 3 COUNCIL AGENDA — MAY 19, 1980 a T I G A R D C I T Y C 0 U N C I L SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 19, 1980 - 7:30 P.M. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor Alan Mickelson; Councilmen Tom Brian, John Cook, Kenneth Scheckla (arriving at 7:38 P.M.); Chief of Police, Robert Adams; Legal Counsel, Joe Bailey; City Administrator, Raeldon R. Barker; Public Works Director, Frank Currie (arriving at 8:09PM) ; City Recorder/Finance Director, Doris liarti.g; Planning Director, Aldie Howard (leaving at 9:00 P.M.); Administrative Secretary, Loreen Wilson. 2. CALL TO AUDIENCE FOR THOSE DESIRING TO SPEAK ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS. (a) No one appeared to speak. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 12, 1980 (a) Motion by Councilman Brian, seconded by Councilman Cook to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 4. APPROVAL OF EXPENDITURES AND INVESTMENTS: $101,005.63 (a) Motion by Councilman Brian, seconded by Councilman Cook to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council. present. 5. MONTHLY REPORTS: Receive and File Building Library Police Finance Planning (a) Motion by Councilman Brian, sceonded by Councilman Cook to .receive and file." Approved by 'unanimous vote of Council. present.' 6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Receive and File Transmittal from Kermit Carlile re: Kerwood Estates (see minutes item #11) (a) Motion by Councilman Brian, seconded by Councilman Cook to receive and file. Approved by;unanimous vo.te of Council present. 7. ORDINANCE No. 80-39 AN ORDINANCE RATIFYING ANNEXATION OF LANDS BY BOUNDARY C01414ISSION ORDER No. 1557 RECORDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. ';(Beck Annexation - Pfaffle/Hall. Blvd.) (a) Motion by Councilman Brian, seconded by 'Councilman Cook to adopt. Approved by unanimous vote of. Council present. ' 8. ORDINANCE, No. 80-40 AN ORDINANCE RATIFYING ANNEXATION OF LANDS BY BOUNDARY COMMISSION R ORDER No. 1573 RECORDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND DECLARING AN ! EMERGENCY. '(Morissette Annexation).` s' i h i (a) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Brian to adopt. (b) Planning Director recommended approval. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 9. ORDINANCE No. 80--41 AN ORDINANCE RATIFYING ANNEXATION OF LANDS BY BOUNDARY COMMISSION, ORDER No. 1576 RECORDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE ANI? DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (Smith Annexation - 79th/South of Bonita) . (a) Motion by Councilman Brian, seconded by Councilman Cook to adopt. (b) Planning Director recommended approval. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. Councilman Scheckla arrived: 7:38 P.M. 10, RESULTS OF DOWNTOWN SURVEY (a) Cheryl Beshears, Chamber of Commerce manager, presented the Council with a copy of the survey results of the downtown business people regarding the development of safe and efficient streets and transportation facilities in the area. She requested Council take action to address the concerns shown in the survey results. (b) Council and staff discussed the survey and what action might be taken by the City. Council requested Planning Director formulate suggested committee members (comprising of Chamber representative, two downtown business men, two residents of NPO #1 area, 1 Ash Street resident, 1 city staff:member` and possibly members of the Park Board, Planning Commission, etc.) and `set forth some tentative goals for the committee. Planning Director stated this would be brought back to Council at the June 2nd study session. 11. RESOLUTION No. 80-41 RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD'CITY;COUNCIL ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC — IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTED WITHIN KERWOOD ESTATES SUBDIVISION, SUBJECT TO HEREIN SPECIFIED CONDITIONS. (a) Motion by Councilman Brian, seconded by Councilman Cook to remove item from the table. Approved by unanimous vote of .Council present. (b) Mr. Mike Busher, 9<>8 SW Kimberly Drive, read into the record a letter" dated May 17, 1980 which set forth areas of concern for the citizens - in the subdivision. Also gave the City a proposal by the Kerwood Estates residents to_resolve the problems experienced in that area noting especially the private access road between Lots 35, 36, 37-& 38; the landscape berm along SW Durham Road; the 98th Street access; and miscellaneous repairs'. (c) Planning Director stated that the city would need more time to meet with Mr. Carlisle and Mr. Hughes to work out the problems in the area and suggested that Council not release the performance bond until there was some a° action taken to eliminate the problems in the area. (d) Ater lengthy discussion, Councilman Brian moved to table the item until June 2, 1980.` Motion seconded by Councilman Scheckla. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. PAGE '2 — COUNCIL MINUTES — MAY 3.9, 1980 ., Director of Public Works arrived: 8:09 P,M. RECESS: 8:11 P.M, RECONVENE: 8:18 P.M. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS 12. ZONE CHANGE ZC 5-80 (Dennis O'Neel) NPO #2 A request by Dennis R. 0`Neel for a zone change from Washington County RU-4 to City of Tigard R-7 11Single Family Residential" zone located adjacent to the north side of SW North Dakota, 210 feet west of S14 95th Avenue and 250 feet east of SW 92nd Avenue (Wash, Co. Tax Map ISI 35AC, Tax Lot. 700). (a) Planning Director synopsized request and stated the Planning= Commission recommended approval. 'b) ORDINANCE No. 80-42 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE 1970 ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF TIGARD AND FIXING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Dennis 0`Neel). (c) Motion by Councilman Brian, seconded by Councilman Cook to adopt. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 13. ZONE CHANGE ZC 7-80 (Larry Leahy) NPO #2 A request by Larry Leahy for a zone change from Washington County RU-4 to City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Zone Designation A-12 "Multifamily11 zone located fronting approximately 220 feet on the east side of Greenburg Road and 250 feet north of Dakota Street (Wash. Co. Tax Map 1S1 35B, Tax Lots 700 & 800) . (a) Planning Director stated thePlanningCommission recommended approval. (b) ORDINANCE No. 80-43 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE 1970 ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF TIGARDANDFIXING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Larry Leahy). (c) Motion by Councilman Brian, seconded by Councilman Cook to adopt. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 14. ZONE CHANGE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ZCPD 9-80 (Park Place Condominiums) NPO #2 A request by Joseph VanLom for a zone change from R-7 "Single Family Residential" to A-20 PD "Multifamily Planned Development District" (condominiums) which is in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan Designation located at 11900 SW 98th Avenue (Wash. Co. Tax Map 1SI `35CD, Tax Lots 2200 and 2300). (a) Planning Director noted that Planning Commission had recommended approval. (b) ORDINANCE No. 80-44 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO AN APPLICATION FOR AN 'AMENDMENT TO THE 1970 ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF TIGARD AND FIXING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Park Place Condos)' (c) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Brian to 'adopt. Approved by unanimous vote of_Council present. ' PUBLIC HEARING ITEM r PAGE 3 - COUNCIL MINUTES - 1QY 19, 3"980 !4x 15. TEMPORARY USE TU 2-80 (Oak Hill investments Company) NPO #3 A request by Oak Hill Investments Company for a temporary use permit to place a manufactured model home on SW Pacific Highway south of Fairhaven Way, north of SW Gaarde Street for a period of time in excess of six months (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 3DD, Tar. Lot 900) . (a) Public Hearing Opened (b) Planning Director gave brief synopsis of request by applicant regarding the placement of a model home (manufactured) on SW Pacific Highway. (c) Public Testimony Proponents: Mr. Roger Staver, 7941 SE Johnson Creek Blvd. , representing Oak I:ill Investment Company, requested Council approve request and answered questions of Council. Opponents: None (d) Planning Director recommended approval of request for a maximum period of two years and requested the following conditions be enacted. 1. Project be subject to Site Design Review to ensure adequate landscaping, etc. 2. Model not be required to connect to public sewer or water services. (e) Public Hearing Closed (f) Council discussed whether model should be connected to sewer and water and noted that current model, located elsewhere in the City, was not connected- (g) After lengthy discussion, Councilman,Cook moved to approve the temporary use request for two years with the two conditions as requested by Planning r Director. Motion seconded by Councilman Brian, Approved by majority 3-1 vote of Council present. Councilman Scheckla voting;Nay. APPEAL PUBLIC HEARING 16. VARIANCE V 2-80 (Shell Oil Company) NPO #2 The Planning Commission;denial of a request by Shell Oil Company for a Variance to allow additional sign height located at 9785 SW Shady Lane (Wash. Co. Tax Map ISI 35B, Tax Lot 200) , which decision has been appealed to the City Council. All testimony was'limited to a summation of previous statements. (a) Public Hearing Opened (b) Planning Director summarized request by applicant and stated the Planning Commiss*,n had denied the request. (c) Public Testimony Proponents: Mr. Richard Hollingsworth, real estate representative for Shell Oil Company, 1425 NE Irving ,Street; Portland, requested Council. ' uphold the appeal and allow the gas station sign additional height as traffic on Highway,,217 is no longer able to see station due to development along the highway. He noted that this creates a hardship on the owner as business has been reduced. Mr. Tom Doll, 11500 SW,90th Avenue, Tigard, owner of the Shell r: PAGE 4 - COUNCIL. MINUTES - MAY 19, 1980 �' gas station, requested Council uphold the appeal as business is suffering due to the obscruing of the signs from Highway 217. Opponents: None (d) Planning Director requested Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's findings. (e) Public Hearing Closed (f) Motion by Councilman Brian, seconded by Councilman Cook to deny appeal and uphold Planning Commission's findings. Approved by majority 3-1 vote of Council present. Councilman Scheckla voting Nay. Planning Director left: 9:00 P.M. 17. LERON HEIGHTS INTERCEPTOR DISCUSSION (a) Mr. J. Allan Paterson, 11605 SW Manzanita, requested Counciltake action to make a determination regarding the funds being held by the City for Leron Heights sewer connections. Mr. Paterson noted his attorney, Mr. George Burney was present if anyone had any questions of him. Mr. Paterson requested Council release funds being held, and if collection was too much of a burden to the City that Leron Heights Interceptor would take it over. (b) Lengthy discussion followed regarding the right of the City to collect funds, hold funds, and to the legality of the contract which was signed with the Leron Heights Interceptor Corporation. (c) Motion by Councilman Brian to release impounded funds with whatever interest that might be due z!nd that the contract continue to run its course and the City not continue to collect funds for connection to the interceptor for Leron Heights Interceptor Corporation. Motion seconded t-'cT,- by Councilman Cook. U ) Approved by.a -a4fvote of Council present. c, ck- iia• '�—� }C l)a '�+,q 18." G. I. JOES/WAREMART PRELIMINARY PLAT APPEAL REQUEST CONSI)ERATZON a� (a) A letter was presented from Mr. Stephen T. Janik, attorney for J. B. Bishop, withdrawing appeal, noting that Planning Commission will reconsider the matter at its June 3, 1980 meeting.; 19. RESOLUTION No. 80-42 A RESOLUTION REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF THE POSTED SPEED ZONE(S) ON S.W.`'121ST AVENUE BETWEEN SW SCHOLLS FERRY ROAD AND;SW WALNUT STREET. (a) Director of Public Works recommended Council approve resolution and request State Speed Control Board to consider changing the posted speed zones on 121st Avenue. (b) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Scheckla to adopt and forward to the State Speed Control Board. it Approved by unanimous vote of. Council present. 1 PAGE 5 - COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 19, 1980 a F 1 20. 72ND AVENUE STATUS REPORT (a) Director of Public works noted that 51.3% of the properties in the LID area have signed a petition and that Washington County, Southern Pacific Railroad and Pacific Trust have stated they will not remonstrate against an LID which would bring the total up to 81.6%. Director of Public Works recommended that Council proceed with the project and hire a consultant to do the preliminary study. (b) Council requested staff suggest and rank 2 or 3 engineering firms which could do this large of a job and report back at the. June 2nd Council meeting. 21. OTHER (a) City Administrator advised Council that Professor Knutson of State Conciliation Service and Lewis & Clark College has been selected to be the factfinder by the City staff and TPOA. Factfirding will be Tuesday, May 27, 1980, at 9:00 A.M. and will continue all day. City Administrator recommended Council hire a professional person to represent the City in factfinding and suggested Mr. Fred Larson with Lon Mills and Associates. His fee is $50.00 per hour, and he would assist the City in factfinding and arbitration. Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Brian to authorize the City Administrator to hire Mr.. Fred Larson to represent the City in factfinding and arbitration. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (b) City Administrator state he checked with 0.D.0.T. regarding the hours the contractor could work on the TSM project to see if rush hour could be avoided. According to the state, if the City were willing to pick up the cost of the contractor working overtime, perhaps a contract revision could be ,signed so as to avoid work being done during rush hour in the morning._ Currently, working hours .are between 6 AM and 3 PM'. Council did not_wish to make any changes in the contract at this time. 22. ADJOURNMENT: 10:01 P.M. Citder ATTEST: E PAGE 6 - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 19, 1980 w A Date 5/19/80 'n.. I wish to testify "before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print your name) AGENDA ITEM # 4 CALL TO AUDIENCE Name, Address & Affiliation Item Description —_ _- Date 5/19/ �. I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print your name) Item Description: AGENDA ITEM! # 13 TEMPORARY USE: TU 2-80 OAK HILL INVESTMlENT GOo i s Proponent (for) 11 Opponent (against) Name, Address and Affiliation - ----_----- ------- Name, Address and Affiliation - I - I i -- !I - f s - _ a f, Date 5/19/80 I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print your name) Item Description. AGENDA ITEM # 14 ,SI"_ -SIFE- -OILPj.�. G n e Proponent (for) Opponent (against) , 1::ame, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation �c 12 �c.. 12 i! - 4D4- 12 �i fs .1� s { a f Date 5/19/80 I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print your name) AGENDA ITEM # 15 Item Description: LERON HEIGHT INTERCEPTOR � Proponent (for) _--� -- v+Opponent (against) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation 111 .:MIT )Ili g i PAYMENT OF BILLS FOR COUNCIL: APPROVAL r . PROGRAM BUDGET Community Protection Police 2047.51 Public Works SF,37.02 Municipal Court 511 .27 Planning 254.20 Building 408.39 Total Community Protection 8,858.39 Home & Community Quality Public Works 112.23 Social Services Library 401.86 Aged Services Youth Services Historical Total Social Services 401.86 Policy & Administration Mayor &Council 86.42 Administration 12.38 ' Finance 1427.29 Total Policy & Administration 1,526.09 City. Wide Support Functions Non-departmental 2 �7R 50 Misc. Accounts (refunds & payroll deductions, etc.) 4.101 CAPITOL BUDGET Community Protections RoadAcquisition & Dev. Parks Acquisition & Dev. 4,g it Storm Drainage �14.ZSL Total Community Protection 962,56 Support Services Building Improvements DEBT SERVICE General Obligation Bond Bancroft Bond UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY Contract TOTAL AMOUNT OF CHECKS 'WRITTEN �Z�p005.63 x f MEMO TO: CITY COUNCIL DATE: MAY 19, 1980 FROM: BUILDING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: MONTHLY REPORT FOR MONTH OF APRIL, 1980 April' s building activity included permits for 10 signs, 9 single family residential, 14 residential alter and repair, 7 commercial alter and repair, 2 demolition and 1 inspection For a total valuation of $725,062.00. Fees for 32 permits $ 4,270. 50 Fees for 10 signs 325.00 Plumbing Activity - 24 900.04 Mechanical Activity - 29 250.00 Business Lecenses - 72 2, 951.00 TOTAL" - - - $8,696. 54 Sewer Permits - 1`3 $32, 500.00 Sewer Inspections' - 13 7,320.00 King City Activity included 1 residential alter and repair For a total valuation of $2,860.00 and fees of $24.00. d k TIGARD BUILDING PERMITS - APRIL, 1980 contractor address Me valuation Ronald Hackbarth 11140 SW Morgen Court residential 74,000. 3-Ent Construction Co. 14160 SW 80th Court residential 42,200. 3-Ent Construction Co. 14170 SW Both Court residential 42,200. 3-Ent Construction Co. 8035 SW Fanno` Creek Drive residential 52,000. Ferd Wardin 8700 SW` Reiling Street residential 44,300. Ferd Wardin 8765 SW Reiling Street residential 44.300. Wedgwood Homes 13355 SW Chimney Ridge Court residential 67,300. Robert S. LaUelle 12120 SW Ann: Place residential. 71,000. Torn miller 12105 'SW Ann Place residential 53,200. Reno Miletta 11520 SW 121st residential a/r 31,028. R. H. Memovich 7630 SW Cherry residential a/r 2,500. Laurence R. Lewton" 15650 SW Old Orchard Place residential a/r - David Saunders 12205 SW 126th Avenue residential a/r 18,000. Larry Cunningham 10130 SW Brookside Place residential a/r 1,500. William Lindsay 11195 SW Boxwood Court residential a/r 4,600. David Rosenquist 10690 SW Park Street residential a/r 15,000. Robert Hoffman 10975 SW Park Street residential a/r 13,824. Noemy Brenes 12490 5W Katherine residential a/r 2,784. Jack W. Bell 11250 SW Uiewmount Court : residential a/r 19,491. Richard U. Muralt 12005 SW Ann Street residential a/r 2,000. Ronald Hackbarth 11140 SW Morgen Court residential a/r 27,700. Robert D. Beaudry 12975 SW Watkins residential a/r 20,000. Noemy Brenes 12490 'SW Katherine Street residential a/r 3,760. E. _Lee Robinson 7080 SW Fir Loop commercial a/r 13,000. Prendergast Moore Co. 9735 SW Shady Lane commercial a/r 35,000, Shakey's' Pizza 11475 SW Pacific Highway commercial a/r 10,000. George Edens 16285 SW 85th commercial a/r 2,050. G & C Painting 1 606 SW Pacific Highway commercial a/r 2,500. Llo'yd's Design Studio 12160 `SW Scholls Ferry Road commercial a/r 3,000. Garden Park Plaza,'Oak Hill Inv. 13815 SW Pacific Highway commercial a/r 8,000. St. Anthony Church- 9870 SW Johnson demolition -- St. Anthony Church` 9817 'SW McKenzie Street demolition -- TOTAL FOR MONTH OF APRIL, 1980 - - - - - $713,237. # 9 1 N CL c . , o . . o •r i O C) O O L n 0 0 0 0 0 l D .�.� 0000C O Ln 000 OD O - ro NOOC- -4 r- Lr) OCDN ro tP� tp 1 ro m O T T Tx •14ro ro � i co 1+ 3 3 m 3 Ta S L m L 6•+ U U N SL- a c = SG7 m ro U U) 4- ro U U U r-I •1-i 4- 1-1 N C C- 4- O ^ m G) t0 U a:co N -0 ro u m C Q C3 G) 0_ N En (13 L (U CL n- Q m c4 33333. � 3 3 cn •0 U? U] cn cn c3r7 Cn LO O _0 to ro C N Ln`O Lo '0 O iO Lo }D:O i0 00 C t-0 O M 117 S M .-INt0 L nCO.O00 1- - "IC'4r-IN k.0 toNO:dr4 Z CD0_ L- -j C7 co U 0 r1 t— a O J co (1) m m Ir .-1 .�. 0- : d N CJ r-� C CL -I' ' i '_' c° d0- C -P E co r-+ W ro C .. O C C -Y N O - i� O rI U EO W co rn -P U U0 -1.3 d 0• H 3 0- G3 U .,i .,--i -i N CO m O L C S CD ro cnEn u o 003 N .a'� >- n u mei c c o o,u7 c 1-- -tom >ti T'L) f...o co 1n 3 L. O m C.7 G q C C U-0 S mm0LIJ -4-1romuN x m rrJCnm0.. CntnS =D t— :c - t FINANCIAL STATEM NT r EXPENDITURES Date..Aar il 3G_1,_ 1980 OPERATIONAL BUDGET 1979-80 Current Year-To Budget Month Date 1. COMUNITY PROTECTION POLICE SERVICES 1.1 1.1.1 Patrol +5,000 $ 448,558 = _453,558 33,870 371,4 95 1.1.2 Investigation + 5,205 99,151 = 1D4,356 6,923 81,060 1.1.3 Communication & Records + 2,_295 110,557 = 112,852 9,744 __1001992 1.1.4 Administration 65,556 4,750 53,543 TOTAL - + 12,500 $ 723,822 = 736,322 55,287 607,090 PUBLIC WORKS 1.2 1.2.1 Street Lighting 71,180 42,552 1.2.2 Traffic Signing & Marking -- -250 22,404 = 22,654 3.387 172960 Engineering +2,825 46,174 = 48,999 2,002 43 031 Administration & Clerical 2,450 21,039 = 18,58. 1,776 14,369 TOTAL :: + 625 $ 160,797 =161,422 7,165 117,912 MUNICIPAL COURT 1.3 1.3.1 Arraignments & Trials 25,757 2,311 20.04 PLANNING AND ZONING 1.4 1.4.1 Current Planning 69,657 2,485 41 rSp 1.4.2 Advance Planning 30,189 _ ?,057 20,835 TOTAL $ -99,846- 4,537 62,493 BUILDING INSPECTION &` ENFORCETENT 1.5' 1.5.1 Plan Checking15,803 1�17f 19 1 A 1.5.2 Field Inspection 62,066 9.109 787 1.5.3 Support Services (Clerical) 9,495 87 1.5.4 Program Administration 10,643 784 8 543 TOTAL $ 98,007 7,856 77,571 2. H014E AND COMMUNITY QUALITY PUBLIC WORKS 2.1 2.1.2 Sanitary Service +12,800` 181,719 = 194,519 7.4,269 67,970 2.1.3 Streets and Roads -;4,800_-4,250 241,580 = 232,530 5,396 91,704 2..T.4 Parks + 1,000 56,294 = 57,294 4, 122 a'M 46,146 2.1.5 Storm Water Control +_11,500 27,946 = 39,446 1;592 27,425 2.1.6 Special:Projects 10,201 793 8,475 = 2.1.7 Ancillary Service 27,484 2.186 22.339 2.1.8 Engineering + 5,000 43,862 = 48,362 4.562 30.358 2.1.9 Administration & Clerical -2 450 24,527 =' 22 077 � - 9 : 2=032 16,872 2.1.11 Insect Control + 4,500 6,440 = 10, a0 9 . _ 5;400 TOTAL +23,300 $ 620,053 = 643,`353 34,352 316,689 *Trans. EXPENDITURES Date Anril 3d. 1980 OPERATIONAL BUDGET Page 2 1979-80 Current Year-To 3. SOCIAL SERVICES Budget Month Date LIBRARY 3.1 3.1.1 Technical Services $ 37,991 2.89,x_ 29 17f� 3.1.2 Communit Services 54,292 4 461 3.1.3 0 erations & 4,146 249 Maintenance 2 911 3.1.4 Administration 12,342 990 9 96ry -- $ 108,773 8,595 86,543 TOTAL YOUTH & ACED SERVICES 3. 6,000 9-651 ____,.,. 3.1.1 Loaves & Fisches 49,699 41,020 3.2.1 Youth Services $ TOTAL. 55,699 46,671 4. POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION MAYOR AND COUNCIL 4.1 4.1.1 policj and Direction +2,500 $ 10,614= 13,114 209 5,815 CITY ADMINISTRATION 4.2 4.2.1 Management Functions 35,759 2 441 28 505 t� unctions +9 700 s = 23 433 2.189 21011:111176 777 nci ary unctions >> 5 296 3 010 TOTAL +9,700 $ 53,350 = 63,050 4,926 51,b91 FISCAL ADMINISTRATION AND RECORDS 4.3 4.3.1 Finance Fro ram +5,635 74,448 = 80,083: 6 765 6 31,881 2 031 21 398 4.3.2 Citv Records ' 7 874 " _4.3.3 Management Su ort Services 9,120 764 TOTAL +5,635 $ 115,449 = 121,084 2,560 95,111 5. CITY WIDE SUPPORT FUNCTIO14S NON-DEPARTMENTAL FUNCTIOCIS 5.1 5.1.1 Legal Services $ 43,750 3 539 3 221500 11272 148499 954 5.1.2 Insurances 24 450 5.1.3' Utilities 30,485 2 286 5.1.4 Rent- 7,175 405 ' „5 133 9,240 7,080 7 351 5.1.5 Posta e 7,250 6-960 5.1.6 Audit 9,591 9 481 5.1.7 Memberships 2,903 5.1.8 Codification of Ord:tinances 2,500 3 405 5.1.9 Stationer & Supplies 2,000 538 _ 2 7.15 5" 1 10 `"Bldg & Equip. Maint.` & Repair 7,500 --- 7,39E 647 6,863 5.1.11 Contractual Services 4,000 889 5.1-12 Unemployment Reserve 2,000 5.1.13 Donations 1,975 5.1.14- Publicit & Couanunit Relations 1,700 270 5 1 15 Materials & Supplies 1,225 177 _____----1,20 1 5.1.17 " Office Equi menu Expense 5 442,115 = 387,855 5.1.19 Contingency-3 , - - TOTAL * -54,260 $601,122 = 546,862 `15,946 124,899 ME . v CAPITAL BUDGET Date Ancil O, qw Page 3 1979-80 Current Year-To Budget Month Date 6. CO?ffi✓tTJNITY PROTECTION .�--. HOPE AND COMMMMY gUALITLY 6.2 6.2.1.3(7) Road Acq. & Development $ 629,753 584 58li _ Par cs cq. & eve opment £317I=��'� 457Snn 6.2.1.5(3) Storm Drainage 47,619 Fi 51n TOTAL $ 908,523 •10,545 28,594 DIVISION 6.5 6.5.1.13(l) Donations 2,000 6.5.1 Bldg. Improvement Expense 147,273 9 809 83 143 TOTAL $ 149,273 7. DEBT SERVICE 7.1 General Obligation Bonds 9,000 9,000 fi 7�•1•I enera iga ion on s Int. 1,041 1,041 Unappropriated Balance . 26,445 TOTAL $ 36,486 10041 7.2 Bancroft Improvement Bonds 44,000 , _ 17-000 10,001 . antro Improvementonds f. (Int.) T0.164 1,646 6.961 Unappropriated Balance 108,176 TOTAL $ 1621340 18,646 36,961 G j' s TOTAL $ >3,929,909 190,344 1,771,269 z , s f E . G i fi �+ O ¢: 0 0 .a m Lo 0 G cA� O O N O O m m M u7 m M of ri m N M ri m 10 O M 10 In W X w J O 0 LD M N r-1 CT t W 6 �U L? N .-I N m U O N I! —4Lo nn nn E C4 � M N N L •L Y--1 M 'm�; NN m 'oM T °I }a r, ;p d CD O m m N 0 7 ^ N m ri 7 �' M V3 C, rn ul N M Ln N r' M .-i Q mD C 1 � i o F O t-- CD I` N C Ln rn ��I y n M ri C•o M N O - 0 0 W G O x y > E a L M C V p O w l0 M Pa Cd 0) rait N 0 Cl ^ - O N u G.O W 117 Ln 10 E..O a.+ W H t0 _ warm tnva :1 -4 :r 14 M c9 C O E• M a w M H W`¢ N U H w O N p O O ^ vw E4 pmEn ^ o M O Lf) Ll) M M ro G•o Ln H Ln u G•� G m m I N y: a ca 1 'r{`.In N-m of ''-1 O m lT 0 LO CV O l0 M Ln M 117 >N N'.:N Cl) l: P LO.: M N m N N LO �Y ,u7 O1 m 0 N O m T —4 .q Itl �. M ri m N ^i Cl) O O m 0.O N LO u) LO M .-1. M �:'O) LO t0 O C� r1 lT LO m LO t0 l0I v a n lf) LV t— O L: L0 In .-i N U') to Ln ct LC) L- —4 N M l0 O LL] M C1 N LO ,....p �...N :ZrN LP: N N N M ri a m >+ m M V] O O O w ..-1 ♦.+ H E :o y. E•+ " :n C G y to • J .� y 7 u —,o O W 3+G] CQ > O. H •.i V N 6J a. N .i taa W N +f"7•. 7 G Y a. '� ¢ : F V II]. V C A _ cc a u G O o C w O u H CD O _ C7 O d C.7 N N a O M M id'O u G O CIa7 X N O O aGi w u cH7 m M C7 6 LD N m 1 IT N M N N cy I O to � CO -1 l0 LO r- N •.i U Q u C c O CIv O d 0 z LD ti C vl<t: N 0) M C- I [O N -I N H Ln [1] O v a ro Lf) m '--I ID L'] <D N N Ll- LD if N M '.{ Q 'T LO - .i oD CD n G v O O u� G x G o Lo Ln .-i •r, L O d N C- w _ N N a ^ Ol Lo I G 0 ro ca Q) G v E �I C- H H a C. w a o x -4 Lr N U rol Lfl CO m M O a aCD G L CO LD H 4 O W C- O N u m� 's L/3v H a. .-i Lo CD n d ti0 O WO 6� a d W _q N M im H'P O N NII U a w a+ N cc, O a, X;av Ol r-i r1 U Q.::. N E p = :C ? Ln v)..... u W In O MI .-t a OD :N �o H G•ri G .. .• b:>..m W m O CO LO rl O W H m 0 LD l0 M d LD .a C to M Q M N O Ol In a w LO LO O M a3C7 ` N Ln ..i :� •Ct0 I- m C Nn :-i O r- CT) M lam- RI a O.'� ro IO N LO m LO Lo M 'IT M LO N CO O IlO .O .LD Lam- 0 UD A � C n Lf7 'Lr] O.v O LO 'T ol N m 'T m M r-i u IV G m a W z W H ✓M y .m Ln a O YjCL p In q F H U H b 'b a � t4 CI C1 u1. C a a T Z H H W C a H H b +•+ a a H A A. cl C. O:a.T O U N ca G G. m W C 5 V c4 a WOL .,G. i coGW IV ? v a u.. •O "� p rn ro N. c6 W N O d G .a b a a a a e A, ro a u _.: x 7 O •.+ :H G ;ce 7 1 a W H C.C m H - W v a HV] a 0.3 a U L.. H U 'U u U .a A:..A z 0 3 rt ;� u w Iz ::U Cl'D d � e» ca C C* o•.G+ co rn w v G r G o 0 x ro v G G H 41 ? ¢1 } ro H v e w v x H u co U O� OJ •.-1 n 7 a H O w w U a N N lz m C' 11 Cv l m R O m m m L N aJ b M ro H y 7 10 1-c o r7 ti(n caw -i bo cj) •1 H G N H G v 'uU > ry } N d• 61 N F w • lojN •r7 O O M N N [� O m M m O M 00 O , C rl m WCD lD N M N W v- L� }V-1 al LO O N m N d .-I t0 N m [' m M E•1 '�'' .� H'O O ., .. .. .. .• .. .. .-1 N Ln N w 7� N G l'J Cr' m M �' L` N E- W rl m yO+C. C y W .i •--1 N co lO N rl H O 9 C7 N Ln O)d O d O N O U E1 .-1 m t0 m. M N h O M m O M tO O d � O N: W.. .O O C`- N .-I O� ID [� M N .. �sJ , m N d ri - .-1 l0 N m L�m M N lfJ W [� [� F 7 O .. .. .. ., rI N 'n N d HA �J'•1 N v M O cn LO IT M LD Q E� co m :In 'T •-{ U �. E .� .•-1 i0 N m 10 Ln N rA U O N 1 :O N O O (zOA gyp. O e0 e-i tP O H N •D �-1 :.J a-1. x-i 'o O w Cl O N O r N O :C F. y W N O O N 6. u'J O O d' O �n r+1' ^ +•i. d l 0, 00 Oa ep 6. .O O w c+. .t a0 .. .. O O' u D�� cn O J d' C r-I O O �' ,O M •O N d N u7. r a•1 3 N t`•'I O C. r!1 O v'1 N N r ri N L ' - m T � a ro H -o ro F � � 4 W F- W In \ yO y }, N>H„ CD 4 `G H a 6 C G ¢ mo C a) O C Y. m a E-' G C d ai I W eroi b •w al l'1 � W E., E SC+ m c7'..� ? o:,:.a �...j to: � i%i d ca �u�i C N In f� N N M L M iz _;r, v G- m eJ ..+ al C C O 01 u.. •^r 6 .a G H N CJ H CJ T � y u ✓ .+C N G+ G N .}• 0 MQ' A �. u .7 ro ro a O•y u } .-1 } L d. H Q v ,.+: •ri u u u . O u O N O20. u C!3 p+ en O PHi O > {n U cc a to V '..x w U) �, m Ln CD M M N Y b C h r-1 N N OD N O O $ Ln N., '0 G u4 v � N -! 60 �o w G 7 O O x 7I N H C W U.a G 1 01 b O 0- 10 o O N v N tom+ w w - N U 0 R �O N Ln 10 �,v•C• G £ +H' o la mc�a m CD m •o 'o C -. ym NGI ^ 0 C:1 N O U WO v 10 p M iv X ci G� W a¢ N o C W� v]W H rW F W u7 ko N µ G G. .-1 10 � FO U 7 'U M O 'O .-i N N Cs7 0, m �' m N N 01 O M u7 ri � d [- d m s C L''1 10 OJ �D O O Lf9 l0 O Io M N .�' N O O u7 i0 N O �0 .-i O O lfl L� O W A �'� M ^ m N N rl N M 10 tO...N tP v W +� N. O O 0 0 ... . O O O O p O h O O h N h O O •. O G 1 O O O. O O N M N V O a 7 O O. M u'1 M M N W N Cq J H S N H r W Y G C N 0 H G H .Ui u [s. 4 L) H W N W 4 W i G '2I Z H G " b y v L U G bU..:N FHi V] IA iN7 U V Y 3 w m ~ C m m v 01 C ..G+ C D HO H M 6 V. En C. r Y rl W F F N .-1 (. y O N IC �p m cG vl w > > cD O H H CO J 7 O v v v t CN/ O H O � yM 7� 0 m a C G Cli m N a E w , a G'� O k➢ co ..-1 OW C3 LA v a as o =1 oo c' v !n y W aha F gni W Q to W z w vy3 a R N C •Ci p` 4.SfI L •ate W C H Z m cl ] b p O N 'o No y V rl a. W u H H +� a W O O D C> p t w J O C1 ri N N 1 a � ' � m a N C a o 'V g 1.+ a : w b O CU.7 ;.. v My W c� a� N N C 4 . d cn a R }C .r Y O M I0 q N oD . O G O � o as 1 C � � o O C. CO cs a G G ai E W N GC N cD N L m a .m o a u ca H W M O � �o � I C4 M z n W Q M on n� In WaN Ws'G, m a` N N _ H G 4 M tl7 C� O 01 '0 d CO H w B' H q O CO M � .. M .O a G W m M Oi �-i .-i � rN-I � � N In to N 0.. UR v. ...M u7 t`- O Ol 'l0MO N 0 WOi ��. m M ,m r{ .-i. N O E T � o F O N m 'n '-I LO LO N d W+ NH : o a � o o � �. a o W PI q O .e O � 17, � .-i N � � � ON � N fi N t - N G G a cq � 41 X a U) W Id W ye y R+ O W V O 0.' ty a C. i F a Q .C7 a 5..+J .,.�a W..:1�i H �.:+d+ M .0 N d'. :y w ai �; O v G 'a' m a..v ca a a •� O J ti a N C3 a ^dC p as o a z ca v O a C W � � a al C G •. y m a d03 C3 J 7 r� o x o G + v a 0 � v W ti f_ m w m z vW E w cm w� co .., k H a, N U _ O N r 9 m N a.CI 7 N aS H w cU LV { i Oca � LW H r1 Y ct6 y w� 3 A.'i to to w u H G.0r GI v al G Oo 'i tM pN W W m O d m M Lf'Ti l to m O m t0 -I m O Il O Q a .. ., .. rl Ip m .-f M "{In rn c) N N co H D til rl .-i G1 N L7 7 .--1 O to N O O ID O v! to tC O W ID w m •, p O Ol O k o.$O c3<d N 10 N m to tT N I N E: `1... - W U rn rn s oo rn . oo J rn ® +n a, b P as cD 67 P b, N 11 II It it it II II it II p rl O N N O O Ift O O O .-i b N 't1 , O r/ O Fl - d N � - N N O e-1 ul J f"1 VS NO d M �Y' .. w w .. LG p c7 ul N ¢o N N:. zr OW N ill. � N >p z W w 1-4 s C u F v b b dS G F O 0 O � mei .ra H W caa7.: y H p. w H y+ - W. 4 u v P. 7 .-t G :u .G+ q X ia. H 5 '� �> .b 'a R �. w u: a: 14 c C n ;�. +a' .,G., p ,.+ s o H x of .,y 9.:. .mi oul C. G V to Vl 4�+ P+ ru cl- Q C W iL NO ..� h i� •p � -tD Im ,N N 10 _ m N N On co m C14 Ln p C7 C W� O O O n o o �E w > ci 7 d �T d i0 y L p U p] CO m C c +4 w v Lr) U-) u� m i-4•0 G .0 m N w � wvw a I! o n L !{1 OED E� 7�d 10 W t1l Q) O .il W ti W a ? m Ln v cGi H 7 I C o N w v m�w� r o o w ie: v I; m m r o w e i r�'yj O N N N O j a G :3 tv o � C` W N E., .0 E•-� rn� N m rn m en II C E G OIlI! :a o o ,�[ Lo 'm N W ++ O In 0 cOI u'1 O 10 .n c0 U W pr, gm Gl U i G J O � W G H w M z a N w w m. m 14 v a G m s+ u N H > X 'O G - � °° W W .yi.....P'. W Z. F o � a k� - a f: u d m E WI (s1 S to WJ 00 G N 'n u J > a C a w W a o14 a + • CC) r I a W ai. Lr1 N Y � N a � as m a o u t u a N qin cn w M W M u-) r1 a N > C4�I W N �o waw �� o Ln C7 P r-, Ln t N OD Mlo a U Ln H m .. d. Ol N Ln \o Lfl LC M W N m M O N -cD LI In N c, o N q... p A M. M _4 'N O 04 14 Lr) lfl V] tJ cn h O e-i rf .O d 'M1 d O o' oo oo co .� .4t a0 O r 1 00...OM1 M N Qq Q� .O e-1 N H z-'i N N `o Vl N Q` M1 .D S W S .•i (i �O O rl O.O 7 M1 N vi U W G1 VT Y G N u c,7 Y a 5 W c m tD sr a ro a C a GaN •.a 9 t 1 Y C o 14 .N y H L T o "O.1 N G .Gi W ..� In U M. a w m O C X a C C a a a M a N X d N i a > > > £- Fc 14 m a C > O C ? 7 vGi to ch N G o v _ _ H N L— U CJ G G r O O ., n N H 47 C7 N Sa'O Ln Q tf7 N 00 CD F G� 10 O • rn N i G ) � b U LL lL7 N > G C N u E w ai U a GG � » M Y Y m u (\1 O U +� •o .. •.-�CD•C G 01 d N 7+ 6 a Y C H W V) V R+ rn a ti M y a wt. n LOV Ny � Hy N F j U. N O � � C2O S:T a a1 e0 0 . O C) O 4 7 > V W U) +CNH W N O O d L17 O > }'•o+ N " a) Gi oa aGw4 Ul C H O z U W 'o 0, 'o f-I 'o C7 C=, Lam- N O O �7 0 L!7 rn m Lf).. -t Co M �.. N M C— i7 to Co tO :u7 O 01 1 c'! N N V. w C W y M CO M M1 O M1 N H H +�O M M O O N . W W r-1 �O ci f� M M1 O � J u1 v a r- r�� N G m 1:w G v m r..o a •i G o G G N Ms. Y 00•'1..- Y N N L Y N G N N CL o w .. sW+ N a. E Y N Y.�� w m G Y N Y C)r{ Y O. N y y <tl E U) C) Y b b J N Y U U' CO N •° N > m v N G d W G X ix. E > C)W C1 A >, F w c_4. V G .-. •.G•1 0 J Y O m m 6 O G) N 14 W W N y y e1 N a�.l 'O CHi o 1 C H 7 + Y 00 3a O v eCO. aui w a 0..:YCI G Y H 7.7: O N u G! la G V o N F -L) i ton d l .-i O � C C 10G G w C2 G r ro O G o p C] a.� 0 0 e •o �. Ln o m > G C y > y 0 M is H u W o a C:) O G 0 Cul•O O M m J,O U to44 u O mayi m W '-I tu .-t y OD W p of a O •G C7 M H G•� G CLD I •.i W CL:n N W O M r 'A O d' y G� Ln p o Nw N • �O may. C7 r{ N ._ ; u W W N O O O u7 N O rl :Zr ; O O O M M Ol M N •-a 1D d m 6 0 m:. ti U O M N Oto m Gl A IV W J H H O O O O M O M t` O� •O1 rrf O ul I W CO q W to i t• t\ M T-i �D. r♦ vl M. N M w VI+ 'O'O` N e-i M ri d O� M �T �-1 M �'1 tD 1`• r H Cl N ��t-1 NM M e-I r N C m d H U t!1 y 5• W O to _' N G E H y m C - P• u u G N N y tC O "0.Q O +'a H •O ' .d pJ y Q `v✓ Q G5 y rn N Im by ^d N u ty y C Ce F7 Q N r ^� W > E 9 E t G > U y t+' O X y 6 C ', y C f .,Oa W ut CO m CO y ry .-t y 7 >, ^J y [� aC C n w d J H y N U E rncn ym .`ni wi: � m a w > n N U c3 air v C O 3 v R W C G .-] U W :.0 cr, � 2 C 1 _ Ln LO LLOoa G F W ' o N 7w o o a 0- 0 ,0 0 v ro or ov +� w ro .0 w •N • c u m 0®w cn ca a ro� i� ca r a w o - U C5 y 3 L xvr. H m zIn N ' _'tl A W' ` O :3.G C M d 0 H 7 >U w 'U') F 94 -Sb+,b co r-I rl M 0 � L. N rl Ili LO CO tl'] C', Ln lT t'7 LCI ., .. ., .. .. .. .. .. O R'„� N GC, LO N N d D- CC) Ol LO E- [- -4 C- 0 LO 01 10 O 10 to O C O :1 .-r M , C, O N 'D. 'CY O �7 N C'J LD: m U7 N 11 LO 01 LO Rl O. OC In N N T r- O d m LO �' U7 93 U .: LO d N HH .00 .o S N .O - O d rn �l rn •-1 •a c"1 O .D r` u-t .9 CT O I to.�. to" C- O = t"1 w O vl O N O: U r'1 W u'1 O rr= O ob O, d O: -I rf N ro e0 C:C C H y M k W -V U O1. .01 L q N u :H ywj iJ Ems'aaJ u w U U w tll O :U ., 13 to Ui a +1 .� w y+.O-O N C d O: -rl 'O Lc. W V y O C E C W C sx3 04 N fB ..1 W O d.C, y H U a a] C O 40" C 7� N M -*37 ¢ N to(Z �0 W 0 W -..SI •-1 'L U Sx+ H q 'A •a •.tl .-i ...1 G .�+ H "O O .0 Ui C C.y a w q q 0 O w O. O C ri •,-1 aD O q .,.t y.l O O U to V; �+ W. C A V to 9 i o ' U d C N N cy) M ici w G� u'7 G cq bx�I m G G Oo ••a w fA G G •. N a rteN N. > E w N NU L] a a I m co - - m m l U Lf] Lo N O O N v 0 N cn V W � O 'O'G m m JJ q0 7 ' w ppe C �W� M r7) N a C U G7 O O O In cn VJ V N Z O co m Gs Ol .-i N M In M m A W v ai N 7 Inw Ill m Cf co ri W � El v a o� wi �I N 0 G '� lfJ l2� N -a Lri u lcrl, Irm H H y O N h o S t. W e0 , y v w U N N d u M C9 O G N O 'Go:v O w C O o ..+ v ,tom W E' w 'w 7 W h G w N E Gd. O 7 O H: N O C TIGARDLIBRAWs PUBLICPhcne 63g-9511 12568 SW Main-Tigard, Or.97223 MW iORAidDJM May .i2, 1980 TO: LIBRARY BOARD CITY COUNCIL FROM: CI'T'Y LIBRARIMI SUBJECT: Monthly Report, April 1980 1. Administration: a. Library Board held its meeting on April 7. The meeting was changed from the regular second Monday because of Librarian's schedule. Minutes are .attached. b. Librarian attended Reference Update workshop at Portland State University, April 7 and 8. c. Karr.in Hawes, Library ASsisClan-L-Technical Secvice, and Kathy Treinajne, Library Assistant-Youth Service, attended Oregon Library Association annual conference in Bend, April 18-19. Building Fund Committee met with City Council at a study d. Friends of Library B session on April 21. The Committee specifically asked the.Council for ideas regarding feasibility of building a library and to indicate their level.of support. Reaction was very positive and plans were made to explore possibility of building.a civic center which would include a library, police quarters and city offices. Council.asked that a resolution be prepared for the next regular session to transfer money previously ear- marked for a library building into a trust fund. Council also asked that a town meeting be called to get citizen. input regarding the entire development of downtown Tigard. This meeting was held April 30. Input regarding a new civic center., tentatively located on city-owned property on Ash Street, was favorable. . Support for a new library seemed particularly strong. It is planned that the City Council, Friends of the Library Building Cotnmittee, Planning and Parks Commission will get together soon to explore various strategies. to build a civic center. e. Librarian-is working with Librarian from Tualatin to do.cooperative buying of audio--visual materials. Tentatively, it is 'planned to develop.a basic collection that each library will buy and then develop ,a buying and sharing plan for the less-called-for and/or more expensive items. - f. tems. _f. Librarian attended Washington County Cooperative Library Service (WCCLS) pro- fessional board meeting, April 30. Of interest: 'T_ILe negotiations for the automated, (circulation system continues with the added. condition of not going.on line until July 1981. This has developed because TrICCLS does not have. sufficient funds to go with the project at present. Various sources for funding are being explored. There was.also discussion of the Washington County fiscal difficulties. These difficulties could impact on WCCL.S through increase in charges for administering WCCLS.funds. . At;present, there is less than minimal charge. It was announced that the "I Love Libraries" publicity campaign won a national award for 1979• 2. Personnel: a. Volunteer hours totaled 135.5; 'daily average 5.3. Andrea AsteLl, outreach volunteer, worked 40 of the total. On April 21, the volunteers were recognized at a luncheon at Mr. Steak. Dave Dalton, Manager, treated the volunteers with the lunch of their choice. Certificates f- of appreciated, signed by the Mayor, were presented by Sharon Takahashi, President of the'Friends of the Library. b. Court referrals worked 34 hours. a r , a 7119A R- D p PUBLIC Phone e,3�-9571 NUTES Tigard Library Board April 7, 1980 12568 SW r0ain-Tigard,Or.97223 MI Call to Order The regular meeting of the Tigard Library Board was called d Roll Call: an to order at 7:30 PM, April 7, 1980, by Chairman Betsy Chick. Excused: George Vaternick. Minutes for previous meeting were approved. Reports: The monthly report was reviewed. The 1980--81 proposed budget was discussed. Librarian pointed out in order to present a balanced budget the City Administrator had cut out three Library requests: the Computerized circulation program; addition to circulation desk and cmaking»the L'Rtime clerk- full tZ�-�. Librarian �lnnn�d to a '_c or reinst ,amen of tln _ul_- time clerk when Library budget is presented April 17. Old Business: Friends of the Friends of the Library Building Committee will go to City Council Building study session on April 21 to ask for direction, support Committee fer of funds (held back last year from budget) to a designated status. Computerized Librarian announced that the Washi gton County Cooperative Library am Circulation Service NCCLS) computerized circulation committee had chosen a vendor and that contract negotiationsnare in pro. iod.N e of the vendor is being withheld during gp County-Wide The Board discussed the feasibility of a bond issue to do r end Issue capital improvements and install the computer.system. They maintain same position as expressed in previous memo to WCCLS coordinator. New Business: Staffiz�.g Librarian expressed concern.over increased staffing-problems created by increase in circulation and readers°.service, as well.as the increase in amount of materials to be processed. Discussion>centered on possibly reducing hours as d means of coping. Copy Machine Yvonne Burgess asked that the feasibility of Librarian ian explained a newer, more efficient-copy machine be discussed. that present machine does not cost city any funds, i.e., is not leased and all materials and services are furnished by Zerox. It does -cost a good-deal of`staff tine in helping persons operate 'it and adjusting it. Jeri Cundiff expressed concern that it was °,costing" in hidden ways. Librarian agreed to explore: other possibilities, George Vaternick The Board discussed the problem that member, George Vaternick is experiencing in attending meetings because of schedule conflict. eels that he is un- MOTION Dick to attend moved since re ulorly ytherBoardnick �reluctantly accepts able to attend meetings regularly, his resignation. -Seconded. Passed. ced that the F Librarian announriends of the Library had scheduled ook Book Sale Librariana bran sale April 12, 10 AM' - 4 PM, at the Tigard Community Center. t Meeting adjourned 8:30 PM. Respectfully submitted -, Irene Ertell Approved. Approved as corrected= a Tigard Monthly Report - April 1980 page 2 3. Statistics: T. Total circulation 8176 (311 per day, 26 days) { Books 7542 Magazines 322 Adult 5124 Audio-Visual-188 Juvenile 1918 Other 24 Interlibrary Loan b. User cards 345: in town 179: out-of-town 166 c. Story hour 98 total; 12.5 average d. Materials added 272 e. Materials withdrawn 252 j f. Money received: Fines $21.50 Lost Bbd 18.85 Donations .50 a 4. Youth Service- Kathy Tremaine: Aaz afternoon Baster-ego-decorating party was held April 5. It was well received, F but not well attended. The pre-school storytime-volunteer support is dwindling even as attendance increases. The effort will be made to maintain some volunteer input in hopes that it wz11 pick up again Use of the non-fiction area by young adults is increasing. Improved reference $, materials has greatly increased our ability to help with reports and assignments. A new collection (150paperbacks) of fiction for mature young adults has been added. In two weeks, 130 have been checked out. Further .plans are being made to reach this age group through school visits and special displays in the library. ; Two tours for 'elementary'school children were conducted. Contacts with the schools y continues to be part of the youth services program and is responsible for much of the increased usage of the materials. fi t 5 i ( s „ z i - i MONTHLY REPORT PLANNING DEPARTMENT April 15, 1980 May 15, 1980 CURRENT PLANNING The following projects were acted on by the Planning Commission over the past month. ZONE CHANGE ZONE CHANGE, ZC 7-80 (and) CONDITIONAL USE, CU 5-80 (Larry Leahy) Applicant: Larry Leahy t Request: For a Zone Change from Washington County RU-4 to City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Zone Designation A-12 "Multifamily!' Zone and, A request for a Conditional Use for professional offices in an A-12 "Multifamily" Zone as allowed in the Tigard Municipal Code Section 18.24.020. Site Location: Fronting approximately 220 feet on the east side of Greenburg Road and 250 feet north of Dakota Street (Wash. Cc Tax Map 1S1 35B, Tax Lots 700 and 800) . Action Taken: Approved April 22, 1980 ZONE CHANGE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, ZCPD 9-80 (Park Place Conaomiriums) Applicant: Joseph VanLom Request: For a Zone Change from R-7 "Single Family Residential" to A-20PD "Multifamily Planned Development District" (condominiums) which is in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan Designation. ` Site Location: 11900 SW 98th Avenue (Wash. Co Tax,Map 1S1 35CD, Tax Lots 2200 and 2300) . Action Taken: Approved April 22, '1980 ZONE CHANGE 'PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, ZCPD 10-80 ;(Summerfield"Phase XIV) Applicant: Tualatin Development Company Request: For a Planning Commission review of 'Phase 14 in Summerfield, Project'A - 138 Condominium Units, Project B - 11 Single Family ,Units, and Project C -future housing site. Site Location: 109th and Summerfield Drive (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 TODD, Tax Lot,100 and Tax Map 2S1 10J, Tax Lots 1100 and 2000) . t Action Taken: Approved April 22, 1980 ZONE CHANGE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, ZCPD 6`-80 (J. B. Bishop/G. I. Joes) k ,- Applicant: J. B. Bishop and H. J. Buchholz of Main Street Development, Ltd. Request: For a Zone Change from C-3M "Main Street Commercial" to ' C-3MPD "Main :Street Commercial Planned Development District" Zone for approximately 11.51 acres. " Site Location: The southern end of"Main"Street (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 2AC, Tax Lots 1600, 1500, 2200, 1400, 1300, 1200 and a portion,of 200 parcel #3) . Action Taken: Denied April 22, 1980 s f< a MON'T'HLY REPORT CONTINUED Page 2 1, CONDITIONAL USE CONDITIONAL USE, CU 4-80 (The Robert Randall Company) Applicant: Thomas J. Edmonds for Request: For a Conditional Use in an M-4 "Industrial Park"Zone R.V. outside storage as allowed in the Tigard Municipal Code Section 18.52.020 Also requesting use of floodplain area for R.V. outside storage. Site Location: 8900 SW Burnham (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 2DB, Tax Lot 200 and Tax Map 2S1 2AD, Tax Lot 200) . Action Taken: Denied April 22, 1980 t t i {5 1 c C: { 5 kyry. T 's g r F t, t, is E t 4- vmc 5jZ4/80 POLICE DEPART,-IFNT CONSOLIDATED MONTHLY REPORT FOR MONTH OF APRIL 19 80 DISTRIBUTION OF PERSONNEL AVERAGE a NUMERICAL STRENGTH DAILY ABSENCE � AVERAGE EF;:ECIIL'_E STRENGTH End of Same This Year Year Same _ This ! Last Same R this Month Month Month hionth + Month Month Month Last Last Last Year TOTAL PERSONNEL 22 11.1 10.0 17.9 17.6 16.0 CHIEF'S OFFICE 2 2 •7 •7 1.3 1.3 1.3 SERVICES DIVIS. 8 7 3.4 3.0 4.6 4.7 4.0 PATROL DIVISION 15 14 5.8 5.3 9.2 9.6 8.7 TR.9.FFIC IIIVIS. ------- --------3--------- ---i----_ ----__---_ l-------- ------- -----.- INVEST. SECTION 4 .3 1.1 2.7 1.9 1 9 FORCE ONE 13 11 4.3 3.4 8,7 8.5 7.6 FORCE TWO 10 3.3 5.2 � 4.7 4.5 FORCE THREE 8 5 3.5 1.4 #; 4.5 4.6 3.6 CHANGES IN PERSONNEL DALLY AVER_aGE PATROL STRENGTH 1. Present for duty end of last month 29 This Same Month ® Month � Last Year 2. Recruited during month � 1. Total number field 3. Reinstated during month officerS 15 14 Total to account for 9 2. Less Agents'Assig- 4. Separations from the service: ned to Investigat. 0 0 (a) Voluntary resignation 0 3. Average daily abs- 0 ences of field off- .(b) Retirement iters owing to: (c) Resigned with charges pending 0 , (a) Vacation, susp- ension, days off, (d) Dropped during probation 0' comp. time, etc. 5.4 4.7 -(e) Dismissed for cause 0 : (b) Sick & Injured .3 .3 0 (c) Schools, etc. .3 (f) lolled in line of duty Total average daily (g) Deceased 0 absences 5.8 _. 5.3 Total separations ® 9.2 8.7 4. Available for duty 5. Present for duty at end of month 29 Page one w , r x a YMonthly Report fr i .I. Calls for Service: This Month 580 Year to Date 2,138 A. Obligated Time 1,278.6 B. Non-Obligated Time 834.4 II. PART I CRIMES No. Cleared Axrests A. Homicide _ B. Rape C. Robbery 2 1 11 D. Assault - 5 — 4 2 E. Burglary 24 5 6 F. Larceny 37 10 10 g G. Auto Theft - 3 Totals 71 20 19 III. PART II TOTALS 101 69 37 TOTAL - Part I and II 172 89 56 IV. TOTAL PERSONS CHARGED: 56 a. Adult Male 33 c. Juvenile Vale 14 b. Adult Female 8 d. Juvenile Female V. WARRANTS SERVED 14 VI. TOTAL PROPERTY LOSS $ 43,247.45 TOTAL PROPERTY RECOVERED $7,529.55 V11. TRAFFIC a.'' Accidents Investigated 38 Injury Accidents 14 Fatal` 1 b. Citations: VBR (Speeding,) 20 Yield Right of WaY 6 Following too Close 3 Red Light 22 Stop Sign 7 Improper Turn 4 Reckless Driving 2 Careless Driving 15 Driving Under the Influence 10 Driving FThile Suspended 17 Other Hazardous 18 Non-Hazardous 93 Total Hazardous 124 c. ; Enforcement Index' 8.26 d.: Traffic Enforcement Totals Citations: This Month This Year 217 Year to Date 969 This Month Last Year 332 Last Year to DateIO47f Warnings: This Month This Year 119 Year to Date 452 This Month Last Year 80 Last Year to Date; 255�--a • Vii.... s NOTE: Part I Crimes (Major Crimes) Clearance Rate 28.2% Pant II Crimes (Minor Crimes) Clearance Rate 68.3% ,t 21 i' �Ze+ x a VIII. TRAINING A. Firearms_Repair. Sgt. Wheeler spent 16 hours at Beaverton ' Police Department, receiving instruction in automatic firearms repair and maintenance. This training was received on April 15 and 16. gra hic Seminar.. On April 24, Cpl. B. Crime Scene Photo,-� �. Myers and Officer Newman received 8 hours training each in Eugene on Crime Scene Photography. C. Drugs and Arrest Procedures. On April 8, all sworn personnel of the Ts.gard Police Department received 2 hours inservice training at the General Motors Training Center, receiving instruction in drugs and arrest procedures. D. Vicarious and Civil Liability. On April 23, 4 hours of l liability was received by the Chief instruction on vicarious and civ s. s. This class was held at Washington of Felice, Lt, Rea, and Cpl. It County Sheriff's Office. Then on April 30, Det. Sgt. Branstetter and Cpl..Featherston attended the same class, also receiving 4 hours training each. E. See attached report from Police Reserves for summary of their monthly activities. A total of 92 man hours was spent in training during the month of April. IX. C01,01UNITY RELATIONS A. See attached report from Joe Grisham, Juvenile officer, for summary of his monthly activities. F �e ® t � s ci od rN a+ ss a9 w +•s u' x a � 0 0 rn Cd co cj • Ux 1n( to-� o Cdaru96 w to cis b E+ C4 r� va cn 94 M O Al aR°+ 04 W En � � E•'' R4LH O to vcnC-70q A . Ez7 T , - o ri i'i ca CA W 4Y 6g :a A' ca ca 0 • a�,ce •p+ P.> ca '0 a ., -A„� b c coC* P.M Iz I= o 41 o 41 ,`4 cl &4 e ® e 1-4 ypep d q C a crs a� w 14 l E. P4 III cr,1 ers g n- f.. 1 _ 4J. r1 e•a w•4 .-i w-1 +4 .rl -4 -H w-1 .r-0 n-1 wa Pd r4 _. 'A CL 'i7 O.. 'G "L7 'i7, 'CE °i5•- 'O C4 CL ' , %} aha a ao a. a. w w v Q cg _ E E E 8• 8. H E E E E E E E E w cb cs co cc ax ai co eo co .0 M [Ya_.- �. eo. M (A W Ea - ax --:.m -U) - (n 67 0 9 do � ©� in p t t M C4 co 0 0 to Cd co co N .a N 10 1 `� 1 ® r ..a .-+ ra .-+ 1 .4 .-a .� u 1 .c d e , 14 441 9n 14 G oo 0 Ni w0-0 j h O 1 L 0 4. AD G ar a► N 1 0 j 41 A 97 41 G G G G as 0 411 V 41 E a G .a W 14 -Aa Ya .Oa •9 O N011 iJ H �. as Cd _ Y LNiD co -Mcc Q) Gk� did �W r3 41 L� 411 4J H w' o) � m N � w G d G a.1 0 ca 4! O cU a) N a1 d 0 ba O Is Ir a A 14 a + oma �. R. u ¢i o ® co co CL � .-da .tea w -A � .1-1 w ba w a-1 rd G 34 / w•1 w� @x &! ^vdi QS co O O cl v14 . 0 �8 ® 0 -_ 0 0 0 a°a v 5 ;0 U 0 CO y+ Cn C C ra - v a4 �4 H . E- to c- '0 co G1 G co 49 Ea 0of E- a' ° o) a boa bDca 'ria E N '. a Ia '� 30 cc co p. Go co; _:co 1 1 .. .r �. '. M cn �-6'.' ..a. .-a CV. CV N N h N N 'N N - / / s i M— mm ad RECEIVED MAY 13 1980 KERWOOD ESTATES INC. Rt 3, Box 278-M CITY OF `AGAR® Sherwood, Oregon 97140 May 13, 1980 City of Tigard P.O.3ox 23397 12420 S.W. Main Tigard, Oregon 97223 City Officials: Re Kerwood Estates: The terms of the Subdivision Compliance Agreement of October 24, 1977 have been met by Kerwood Estates Inc. The City of Tigard has not complied with or has been in my opinion misconstrued ITEMS 1, 5, 7, 8, 9a, and 9c. The letter of October 6, 1978 is not in conformance with the Subdivision Compliance Agreement and was not addressed to Kerwood Estates Inc., neither has the other correspondence. Kerwood Estates Inc. is the developer, NOT Kermit H. Carlile or NOT Woodrow Hughes, they are officers and part owners of said corporation. I will if necessary submit documents in a court of law in which I believe will show gross negligence by some city employees &city officials, including violation of O.R.S. Kermit H. Carlile was damaged by false accusations made at the public i testimony portion of the May 12, 1980 City Council Meeting, and further damaged by the refusal of the City Council to allow him the opportunity to defend his character & actions and rebuke said false testimony for the record, "State vs,Grand Forks County 71 N.D., Pacific Fire Ins vs Murdoch Cotton Co. 193 Ark. In the Future Please 1. Testimony should be given under oath! 2. Opinions should be'seperated from facts. 3. Testimony should be restricted to the topic. 4. The opportunity should be given to rebuke false testimony, of which should be stricken from the record. KERWOOD ESTATES;INC. � Kermit H. Carlile, President b K a P n a Y 1 Tigard-Tualatin-King City-Sherwood-Metrger-Washington Square i ! TIUARDARMCNAMBER OFCOMMERCEt I May 15, 1980 i Mayor and Council City of Tigard 12420 SW Main Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 j Dear Council Members: j The Tigard Area Chamber Board of Directors respectfully asks the City Council to focus attention on a matter of vital importance to the business community and to all citizens of Tigard. We feel that planning for the downtown area -- particularly with regard to the development of safe and efficient streets and -transportation facilities -- has reached a critical stage. Please consider the following points: i i 1. A majority of downtown business people believe the present city street system is not adequate to handle commercial traffic. j ! (See enclosed survey) 2. New developments', pending and in progress, will place an added burden of traffic and parking demands on city facilities.'; 3. Neither the Chamber nor the City currently has ;the answers to the myriad inquiries regarding long-range transportation j plans for the downtown area. Although the City has an adopted downtown plan, "A Plan for Ash Avenue - Downtown," it is clear that certain aspects of the plan will require amplification or revision in order to, address specific points of concern which f have arisen since the Neighborhood Planning Organization (NPO 1) i { completed its work in 1974. ! ! 4. In the process of updating the 1974 plan, NPO I members j and city planning staff are at odds on a number of crucial i transportation issues. There seems to be a lack of shared ' y objectives, or clear direction, arising from this planning j effort notwithstanding the diligent work of NPO 1. i 5. This lack of direction could be resolved at the City Council level, where the authority to establish overall community objectives ;is rightfully vested. As is we are j `l. 12.490 S.W. MAIN STREETO TIGARD, OREGON 97223 e PHONE 639-1656 w s Page 2 uncertain as to the level of Council support for either: the public's expressed interest in planning a more safe and effi.cent transportation system; or, the specific downtown development objectives publicly espoused by your planning department. 6. In the absence of Council direction and goal-setting, it is difficult for any segment of the community to formulate responses to specific proposals and issues affecting the downtown area. The absence of concrete objectives places an additional burden upon property owners who are unable to plan for the eventual disposition of their investments. (Witness the frustration of Ash Street homeowners, potential downtown developers, and owners of existing businesses) . 7. Public interest in downtown planning has been aroused by recent events --- the meetings of NPO 1, -the release of plans for a greenway park and civic center, the GI ,Toe's development proposal, and Tri-Mets interest in siting a Tigard transit center. Through a timely expression of support for downtown planning, the Council could take advantage of this heightened level of citizen interest in local government. Based upon the above points, the Chamber of Commerce asks the City Council to take an immediate, active role in. addressing downtown problems and resolving planning conflicts. We suggest - that you: designate downtown planning, as a high city priority; appoint a committee of citizens, businesspeople and city staff to formulate recommendations on major issues and concerns surrounding downtown transportation planning; and adopt a° set of concrete objectives with regard to these major issues which significantly affect the livability and livelihood of our community. 4 Sincerely, Cheryl A. Beshears Manager k f� � T N � v s m DOWNTOWN BUSINESS SURVEY Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce t. April, 1980 1. What do you see as the major problems confronting business in downtown Tigard? g3% Inadequate parking 67/0 - Poor traffic circulation 33% - Lac1c of exposure to buying public 5% - Inadequate long-range planning 5% -- Strict sign code 5% - Poor traffic control on Main Street 5/ - Lack of small specialty shops 5/o No major problems 2. Do you feel that the present city street system is adequate to accommodate downtown commercial traffic? 56/ - No 28/ - Yes 1r/. - Qualified no 5/ - No opinion 3. Do you feel that the street system will continue to be _workable if development continues and improvements are not made? 79/° - No 11% - Qualified yes 5/o Yes 5% - No opinion 4. Do you feel that Tigard's downtown parking problems should be addressed and resolved by: l 50/ - The city and the business community 17% The City of Tigard 17% - Downtown business, people 11% - A group of citizens, business people and city representatives 5/o No opinion Downtown business survey - - page 2 5. What sources of funding, if any, should be explored to provide the downtown area with improved struts or additional parking, or both; 22% - City of Tigard General Fund rev(-.nues 11% - A Local I.mr)rovem, nt District (LID) , supported by business 11% - City of Tigard systems dcvelvpme.nt revenues 11% - General fund and systema development revenaes 11% - LID and systems development revenues 11% - General fund revenues and federal grants 5% - LID and General Fund revenues 18% - No opinion 6. Do you feel that additional Main Street development will. be a benefit or a detriment to your particular business? 61% - Benefit 5% Detriment 17% - No effect 17% - No opinion Additional comments: 1. I would like to see more information on the possibilities of _ ...__ _ an urban renewal project. 2. Additional development is needed to provide more exposure to 'downtown business. 3. Streets leading into Main Street should be widened and have sidewalks 'and 'underground utilities. 4. The development of `adrlitional downtownbusiness will be a' benefit if each one;p,_ovides 'off-street parking and if we have additional public parking. 5. The Bancroft Plan was used to redevelop Main Street and I ` believe it would be only fair if future street,improvements were made in a 'similar way. 6. Main Street is adequate to handle,present downtown traffic; Burnham and Commercial are not. w 7. With regard to the impact of additional Main Street development, have, yet to see any business suffer from increased exposure K to the public. m 1 Downtown business survey - -pago 3 8. The City of Tigard suffers from inadequ< t•v long range planning_ in almost all areas, caused primarily by short-sighted city politicians abdicating their responsibilities to inexperienced and unqualified city managers. 9. Tigard has two parking problems: Main Street customers and Park & Ride bus riders„ 10. Additional traffic would benefit existing downtown business, but only if traffic can flow smoothly without long waits. 11. There would be no parking problems if the laws were enforced. 12. :Increased parking would make this a viable commercial area for people to do business. 13. Traffic is allowed to travel at a speed much greater than the limits. 14. Additional Main Street development will be a detriment if it occurs as it has in the past. 15. Whether additional development would be a benefit or a detriment depends on the type of development. 16. I consider the completion of 'Ash Street to Commercial Street to be of prime importance in the downtown area. 4 17. Additional Main Street development would be improvement over what is presently there--marginal businesses.. 18. The street system will continue to be workable if the ,Main Street bridge is made wider and proper traffic lanes are installed at -the southwest end. k t 19. Additional Main Street development would be beneficial in providing additional public exposure, but detrimental due to lack of parking and potential traffic congestion. i 20. The extension of Johnson Street east to Ash Street, the realignment of Main Street at its southern intersection with . Pacific Highway, and the extension of Ash Street to Commercial all stink. Realignment of Main would 'further slow traffic, exiting Main Street, would create two stop lights within a few hundred feet of each other, as well as put additional traffic on Main :Street. Extension of Johnson would create a confusing intersection if Main is left as is and would put M business traffic on Ash through a residential area. F. 4 Downtown business survey -- page 4 21. Extension of Ash to Commercial is not enough. Ash should be extended all the way to Hall Boulevard, or possibly to Scoffins, with Hunziker realigned through vacant field for intersection with Scoffins at Hall.. A light would be needed at that point. 22. We now need lights at Commercial and Burnham intersections on Main, possibly operating afternoon hours only. 23. As long as they don't mess with Main Street, new development will not be a detriment. 24. We are totally opposed to any idea concerning one-way on Main. 25. There are not enough small specialty shops to encourage shoppers to window shop, such as in the Sellwood and Multnomah areas. Shoppers on Main Street come here for one-stop trips, e.g. ; -to the title company, and that is the only business they carry out. We don't need another big complex to cause shoppers to pass through town. Too many people now travel on Main Street to get to McDonald's or Payless and then leave the Main Street area. 27. _ Parking on Main Street is adequate now and would be better if parking regulations were strictly enforced. People who ;frequent the bars, and even one businessman, often leave cars parked on the street for more than two hours. 28. Business will improve only if small specialty shops are brought into the area. A shopping complex;on the other end of Main Street from Payless/Albertson's will only increase the number of cars 'passing through, not the number of shoppers. 28. The business community has tried to do some things and after spending time and money' just, turned around and tore up the - projects, hence wasting, their money and mine. I see the ;city as a ;group of 'civil servants, working diligently to make ` themselves important and building job security at the expense of the local taxpayer. Furthermore, the police department is nothing more than a' traffic patrol, doing state patrol work instead of working for the betterment of the community. 29. We provide parking for our customers but find others use the spares in; our jot--even when not dealing with us. Additional business on Main Street will only make the situation mucid worse. Traffic in downtown Tigard is almost as bad as Beaverton. It's a mess. k f:Wil- STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL May 19, 1980 - 7:30 p.m. Fowler Junior High - Lecture Room 10865 SW Walnut Street, Tigard DOCKET: TEMPORARY USE, TU 2-80, (Oak Hill Investments) NPO #3 APPLICANT: Gerald M. Foy OWNER: Ted L. Millar 7941 SE Johnson Creek Blvd. SAME ADDRESS Portland, Oregon 97206 APPLICATION DATE. May 5, 1980 i REQUEST: For a Temporary Use Permit to place a manufactured model home on a vacant lot. (See Exhibit "A") LOCATION: On SW Pacific Highway, south of Fairhaven Way, north of Gaarde Street (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 3DD, Tax Lot 900) . I. FINDINGS OF FACT: _ 1. Chapter 18.80.030 of the Tigard Municipal Code, Subsection (5) states the following: "That the purpose for which the temporary use or occupancy permit is sought is compatible with and incident to the completion of the basic purpose for which the lard is being developed, and the duration of such use is limited by the periodof development, suchastemporary, sales office in a residential district." 2. Ordinance 79-18 regulating the use of model houses is found to be relative to this matter, but not in a "specific" way because it is intended to regulate "models" in established subdivisions. II. CONCLUSIONARY FINDINGS: 1. Staff agrees that this unit will not be a permanent fixture' on"this site, and, therefore, it is not necessary to connect this unit to': sewer and water services. The 'actual sales office is an allowed use in the C-3 Zone. Applicant states that this model will be replaced in approximately two (2) years'. III. STAFF,RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve this installation with the following conditions: 1. Project be subject to Site Design Review to ensure adequate landscaping, etc. i STAFF REPORT' CITY COUNCII, May 19, 1980 TU 2-80 Page ?_ 2. Model not be required to connect to public sewer or water services. 3. Approval for Temporary use be granted fora maxi.mu.n of two (2) years. Z#�rd, Planning Director 4 I _ I ia - ' I`I 1 b' �F ~ corbett development corp. p:o. box 761 lake oswego, oregon 37034 ` (5031 tkJ&k1,5,5 620-5947 February 21, 1977 City of Tigard 12420 S.W. Mai n r Tigard, Oregon 97223 x � Attention: Planning Director Re: Conditional Temporary Use Permit Boise Cascade Model Home i Dear Sirs: i We propose to place a Boise Cascade manufactured home on the vacant lot t adjacent and to the south of our existing office at 12035 S.W. Pacific High- way. This home is identical in all construction methods to homes built on- site, and has a sales price, excluding the lot, of $37,847.00. We feel that a model home is a necessary sales tool for our business. 3 The Tigard comprehensive plan designates the land for commercial use. Our use would be commercial. The current zoning allows real estate sales offices as a permitted use in the area in question. There is a definite advantage to the public to be able to view an alternative to on-site constructed homes. All street connections and driveways necessary to serve our proposed project are presently in place serving the office building we presently occupy. Regarding connections to public facilities, the office building we present y occupy would be retained and would serve to house our sales staff and provide water and restroom facilities. Because the model home would probably be re� placed every two (2) years, we do not envision connecting to public services other than electricity. Electricity is presently available from o pole located on the property. It is our understanding that there are no zoning provisions in the city of Tigard allowing placement of a model home. Our use would be similar to a real estate sales office and the question needing interpretation is: Are we in fact a real f 4 _z Page Two estate sales office, or an outside display? If we are to be considered an outside display of a product, may we be permitted this conditional use? The surrounding neighborhood consists of: To the north, an office building; to the east, Pacific Highway and the new Pay n'Pok development; to the south, single and multi--family dwellings; to the west, single family homes. Our model would be identical in appearance, landscaping and other respects to a single family home. We anticipate no additional requirement for public services other than those already serving the area. Very truly yours, Nelson H. Corbett, CORBETT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 12035 S.W. Pacific Highway Tigard, 'Oregon 97223 N HC/cw I 1v 1 14 1 5 /�YpOc,5 ` (C.$.No.12O82) 13 vm 5 8qL yy `9 spy 286 f � .1Nr432 55 � N94°I0148.643 4 W 8.6 4-30 1 431 \ 400 / 6 .95Ac �M 1� 1 EAST 378' -_ — -- _ 2.0/ 051 / h5"54 700 as ,4AG N 99°48 i ,E 6v Ac. pp 4'1aCJ 4300 4200 4100 4" co z _ `� /600 94Ac. 4 n 26 N 25 �4 23 ? 26 N 44.9n 144.80 1 45.22 i.9. 44.90 44- G' 800 ••D" PRIVATE STREET /.00Ac. h 48.50 48.50 48.50 49.50 BUTTE GRANGE 7 3500 3600 3700 3300 No. 148 CO•- r 3 0 18 0 19 20 0 21 G 22 b2 �oo N 89°42• .W 48.50 cn�� •n cam .' SkFm �. - :S W.442. -02 E 500 900 / .7F 4 c. +� 7 o 2.71 Ac Ic2.99 589 56 iN 364.8 app / a �.. 1x00 i C 15 4 /.t3Ac. �. x c „05.94 N c Ipp ^a ti t 14 . r 1Oo 45 � 000 �� '. ti-89°56`E 2866 .: Ngg°28'50'.4 W 4.39CH. 5.94 /- 8047 SACT`E' 1100 ' 1 200 I Rx �h .564c X 1 :3CAc v w 1200 Al 0 1 1500 �� CO -o t I ' h - 24A✓. w �M89d33'E 6C V. � pya44/528 c - DE7ICATEO_ v � _:�_ 89"!; 9 35W 8.1c ROAD � . ' g�yy fps AI L ''iT. c D N, 'l L D Qi t•f?_ a30 35; ` 193 XI t PLEASE x 9iV1T A �_ rw�y � •rte� � •` � r e u Y'i 1 J' TRANSCRIPT OF PLANNING Cot�'_MISSION HEARING AP ril lr', 1980 - Agenda Item 5.9 - Shell 0il Company Fouler Junior Leigh School - Lecture Room 10865 SW Walnut Street - Tigard, Oregon Present for this hearing: Commission: President Tepedino, Commissioners Bonn, Funk, Helmer-, Herron, Kolleas, Smith, Speaker Absent: commissioner Popp Staff: Howard Tepedino: Five point nine is a variance, and we vrill have the staff-- Ho;vard: This is V:.xianca 2.80, Shell oil Company; the applicant is Mr. R. E. Hollingsworth, the owner is Fir. Conrad Anderson, and the application date was February 25, 1980; the site location, 9785 SN Shady Lane, Wash. Co. Tax Map 1S1 358, Tax Lot 200, NPO r#`2. Request for variance to allow additional sign height. Howard then read the Staff Report, which includes Staff Findings and Staff Recommendations, attached as _'hibit A. Tepedino Thank you, staff. May I have the applicant's presentation? Howard: We would like to add this letter also, when you -- Tepedino: Okay. Hollingsworth: My name is Richard Hollingsworth. I am the real estate re-ore- sentative-for Shell Oil Company, 14a5 NE Irving, in Portland. I hope that you ladies and gentlemen have viewed the site since we have made our application, because if you have, you will notice that to the north of the intersection the overpass com- pletely occludes our service station from the north; and the,new building, the Tar-bell building, now completely blocks any kind of view from 217 from the south. When we originally came to the city for our permits--building permits, sign permite--it was'stated to the city that ,basically on any kind of a freeway location we are going to have some kind of visibility to the traffic arterial. (A few words lost here, but the.sense'Is traffic on 217) day, and that Is what we are selling to. Seventy per cent of our business goes to traffic on 217- In 1971 1:7.In"1971 this body within the city gave us a building permit and a sign permdt--35 feet in height and eight foot for the sign. We have been able to barely get over the overpass as far as our sign to ,view to the north, and we have had no restrictions to visibility for our sign from northbound traffic on 217= The r j TRANSCRIPT OF PL I,,TNING C01-24ISSIOPJ HEARING Shell oil Company April 15, 1980 K Hollingsworth: Tarbell building, whatever it is named, now completely occludes (Cont.) our sign. We have no visibility to 217 at all. And had we been notified--Shell oil Company been notified--we would have been here at the time that the conditional use permit and variance was before this body in 1979. But our landowner, or our lessor, was notified. He sent us a copy of the notification an additional month after this C.U.P. and the variance was passed. I know you have read my application, or at least my remarks on the application, but I would like to answer the staff report just a little bit. Mr. Howard phoned me on the 30th of March and told me he had for the city no records of our building permit or our sign permit in 1971, which I made the statement in my application, so I had sent him copies of those permits on the 31st of march. I make note that we were not notified--Shell was not notified--our lessor was notified by the city of the earlier application by Tarbell, not only to build the building, but to raise it eleven feet over the maximum limit. The proposal to raise the sign 28 feet was based on our bringing a boom truck out there and raising the sign so that it is barely visible over the-top of Tarbell's building. And I have some pictures I have sent to Mr. Howard in that regard showing it at that time as it was raised over the roof and over tae building- just barely. He makes the statement that are do not meet the section on variance as far as Code 18.76.020. I_would make ,the statement that we feel that based on the Code, that "exceptional and ! Y extraordinary conditions" exist in the instance, ;where "a previ— ously granted use has been taken away from the premises. We feel that an approved variance is necessary for the preservation Of the property right previously granted to us by the city. We feel that the authorization of the variance previously given to the abutting property owner is materially detrimental and injurious to our property, based on the city's previous granting of 'a sign permit. "The variance requested is the;minimum vari— ance from the provisions and standards of the ordinance;which would alleviate the hardship.ov Those are the four points he makes in the staff report.' And lastly, Mr. Howard did call sae and made the statement that he could provide for us a place to put'the,sign in frost of the Tarbell building, and I came out and visited tho site with Mr. Bob Irvin, and it was feasible to do that at the head of the Property, excepting for the fact that the Tarbell Company granted to sell us a lease—rental, for each month that we had the sign, and I dongt think that that is right--we were given visibility Of our sign at;35 feet that has .been taken away from us: I would very much appreciate if we ,were to be allowed to raise the sign ®2® MEN,,w TRAPTSC-RIPT OF PLANNING COM-IISSION HEARING Shall Oil Company April 15, 1.980 Hollingsworth: so that we do have the visibility that we need from 217. We (Cont,) really have to have it. Thant: you verb; much. Tepedino: Thank you, Air. Hollingsworth. Any other parties wishing to speak in favor of this proposal? Those in favor? Howard: We have that letter (broken off by change of tapes) Holl: (Note: Jerry Doll, operator of the Shell station, testified very briefly. He asked for the identification denied by the Tarbell building. His testimony was lost in the change of tapes.) iapedino: Any other parties wishing to speak in f ,.or of this propassl: Any parties wishing to speak in opposition to this proposal? (To Howard) Can we enter that letter on the record? Howard: (Howard then read a letter dated April 15 from Conrad.E. Anderson, Lincoln City, Oregon, owner-lessor of the property, copy of Which is attached as Exhibit B.) Tepedino: Thank you, staff. Any cross-examination or rebuttal to the ar*deuce presented tonight? I close the public hearing portion on this issue. Commissioners? Commissioner Herron? Herron: I don't really have a problem with it. I felt like I knew it was going to go up higher because I am sign-defensive, but I s appreciate whatheis saying—it can't be seen on this 'particu- lar property to get into the service station.> Tepedino: Commissioner Holleas? Kolleas:' Well, I think what bothers me is that we granted the Tarbell the height on their building which covers this sign--I' don't'think , that's fair. Tepedino: Commissioner Funk? Funk: I might say I take exception to staff—the parties have 'shown a hardship. I' think we all realize there is a hardship onthat piece of property. But I don't think I ata in agreement with FY raising that sign 63 feet. ' But surely;staff gust be able to work out some other kind of satisfactory conclusion. Howard: We tried that. Funk: Did you explore all avenues, or just try one? Howard; No, we explored the avenue that would have provided a sign with the Tarbell people, and Shell didn't brant to pay for the lease. t TRANSCRIPT OF PLANNING CQi tTSSIOii HEARING Shell Oil Company April 15, 1980 Howard: Now if they don't want to pay for the lease, then I can't find (Cont.) thea another piece of propertythat's not going to have the same request. If you want to put a sign on my property, you pay the lease. Now that's reasonable. Funk: I can sure understand that, but I think we did take the sign right away from this piece of property. And we must somehow accommodate the situation, even if we have to agree with the 63-foot height. God only knows how that's going to look. I am sure we have to allow some kind of identification. Speaker: Now there is another service station about half a block array-- a Mobil station? 7-That 3,-,rt Of sin docs i. hayeS = Howard: Just a low, standard, Mobil gas station sign. Speaker: But is that visible from the highway? Voice: That's a dif:Gerent kind of •sign. Howard: I don't think so. v Funk: I might say that wasn't the most ideal piece of property for a service station in the first places with the overpass, knowing- 1people knew that overpass was comng. But they did, and we let them put their sign on it. Speaker: This is speculation: Would we have conditioned Tarbell to permit the:sign if we bad known at that time that increasing—allowing a high building there—you might say---destroy this man's business if he couldn't have a sign? Smith: I think 'there is another thing that ought to be brought out. We permitted Tarbell to,go eleven feet over the limit, but the applicant here says he needs to get an additional;28 feet in order to have visibility, and I would like to suggest that had rte not allowed Tarbell to build eleven feet over the limits then in fact the applicantwould'still` be in the same position right now, and that therefore the applicant's problem is simply the fact that he has property adjacent to hitt which is zoned, for that, type of development. Now if the applicant were saying, - - to raise my sign eleven feet or a little more than that., to get over that eleven-foot addition we gave Tarbell, that it looks' to tae like the applicant would have been in the same problem reardless of which 'way vre had gone on Tarbell's original height. But I can see this creates a hardship. The gas station relies on exposure to a major artery, and I can see that the only thing I was wondering is, outside of simply extending the height plicant's of the sign, is there any other location on the ap t TRPITSCRIPT OF PLANNING C0111MISSIOIN HakRING Shell oil Company April 15, 1580 Smith: property that the sign can be located that might be a compromise, (Cont.) without — you know a 63-foot sign, that's about like a six - story building, and I know you drive up and down I-5 and see these things, and I don't think it's particularly too attractive— they stand up like a water tower. Howard: That's my comment. 3n attempt was made Smith: I mean outside of going to another adjacent parcel Howard: Well, okay, then if you would like staff to go out there and look for another parcel on that particular property, it's going to be very difficult. What he is asking for is visibility for people coming from Salem to Be ,,averton. Iu_-der for that to happen, you have to be able to see through the Tarbell building, because that building obscures the Shell station. The only way to see it is to go up. Now if you are talking about them coning from Beaverton going toward Salem, you can just see the top of the sign--you are talking about raising it. But my point is they can't have their cake and eat qit too in this case, unless they go 63 fee;, in the air. Now I don't think that's appropriate. E Smith: The traffic coming down from Beaverton -- Howard: They can see the sign at this time. Smith: So the loss is essentially the visibility from northbound traffic? A e ; Howard: That's correct. And when an attempt was made to provide that ; . withanadditional off-site `sign'that would have allowed the visibility from the traffic from'Salem to Beaverton, Shell Oil Company did riot want to pay for that lease of that ground. And that was our attempt to solve that issue of visibility. It didn't work. Smith: I think the only place I can see a problem here is that because - we did allow that variance with Tarbell for additional height, I think I would pretty much agree with-you,-Aldie, had we not ' done that. But 'having donethat, 'then'we get' into'this<thing P` f " of adjacent property owners where we essentially are creating somewhat of a hardship on one property owner by not giving him a variance where we did another adjacent property owner. It gets into the conditions of'a variance, and in that sense they have satisfied that one condition. It is subjecting them to a condition that we are not subjecting adjacent property owners to. Howard: Well, then, let's take the `public`notice. You know we make every [' attempt to notify the owners of the particular property. The i guy Waits a month before he calls`Shell_and says, "Hey, look i' U _ s TRAIMCRIPT OF MAIMING Cat-MISSION HEARING Shed Oil Company T:pril 15, 1980 gE Howard: what happened." And you itnow, something's wrong. I don't knout (Cont.) what's wrong, but something is definitely wrongs They had the right to appear. There were other people in the area that, you kno� , have coincided with their sign requirement; right across the street„ Plaid Pantry didn't request a sign that went 63 feet in the air when vie cut off with the Tarbell -- you know that kind of thing. I just don't think that this is a realistic approach to signing in this community, regardless of what takes place on the adjoining property. Now I just don't think that _ these people have shown hardship, and I don't think that they can. Smith: One of the questions that-I turn up with is to what extent _ their business relies on trans:.Ients, and `.o what extent their business is in fact local. Howard: Well, they could provide the figures and vte'd have no way of checking them. And vie have no way to police it. Voice: It is 70 per cent. Howard: Well, the other point is if he has been there eleven years and 70 per cent of his customers are people from off the highway and he's been doing a good job in business and does experience repeat business, then again I don't see the reason for putting the sign 63 feet in the air. a Tepedino: What was_the'name of the . . . (a few word indistinct and lost) There is no question in my mind, I see a hardship being experienced. On the other side, though, I don't think the city should be a guarantor Smith: Guaranteeing the value of that building. r r . Tepedino: Yeah, that bothers me. And the second thing that bothers me is the decision made—I guess based on economics—that the 'sign " with the lease-rental of some space offered to them on the adjacent property, was:not wantedbecause of the cost of that. The alternative would-be the cost to the city;allowing one sign amon;;st the many applications, that. . Smits: I want to ask you a question here: Within the Tigard city limits are there any other areas along 217 or i-5 Where we have permitted signs of this heiSht? Howard: No, sir; not this high. It goes by zone. I think the tallest - one is 20 feet. Tepedino: Fred Meyer's sign? s E m 4 y —6- 1 TRANSCRIPT 01 PLANNING COM14ISSION HEARING Shell oil Company Aprit 15, 19$0 Howard: Fred Meyer's is a nonconforming sign, and they have agreed to bring it into compliance by 1981 Speaker: And we ;Just turned donnn tonight a variance for a second sign for visibility from that highwV. Howard: That's right. Voice: Aldle, . . (brief reference made to another sign) Hora_rd: Yes, but that's another nonconforming use. They came in long before we had a sign code. Now we have made. every attempt in the community to %ecp the at an ,boolutc ri-iL zr, and it just seems like 65 feet in the air iG a bit much for Shell Oil to request. You know? I mean just look at it that stay, and I put Tepedino: What is the cost for renting or leasing that sign on the Tarbell building? Howard: I don't know. Tepedino: Does the applicant know? How many dollars are we talking about? Hollingsworth: I didn't pursue it with Tarbel?, ,Ir. Chairman, because I didn't think it was right for us to have to go and pay additional money for a second site ® you know, we still need the sign for the traffic coming north, so we are looking at two signs that we have to take care of. All we are asking for is the visibility' from the south going north, that we have lost; and we 'do get 70 per cent of our business off of 217, and it's an untenable situation. Tepedino: I am not sure that Shell paying (?) the owner of the land, who slept on his rights (a few words lost) . . . when he was • 6 notified that something was °going on next door. Howard: The next variance request we will get will be from Mobil Oil Company to go 65 feet in the air. Now they are in almost „x exactly the same situation. They are within the sign code„ I don't see any reason for this variance to be granted. Hollingsworth: May I make the suggestion that Mobil Oil Company's sig~u is 55 feet in the air to the top of the sign, that is adjacent to our servicestation. Howard: I don't know. I haven't'measured it. f Smith: It must have been something that was started prior to the existing code. yl: 10 h TRANSCRIPT OF PI..IRTINC CO:-2dISSION HEARING Shell Oil Company April 15, 1980 t Howard: That station was annexed to the city by — Smith: Okay, so it was Washington County -- Howard: Yeah, tbat's right. Tepedino: . . . (sore lost here) . . terrible, traumatic experience. Too bad Al Popp . . . (a reference was made to the sign code) Howard: We have had a tough time. That thing is so thick and so cumber— some, and it's caused us a lot of difficulties you know it'e very difficult to police. You come in and want a sign permit and there's nobody there, and somebody initia it and it's gone, and the thing is there -- you know? Tepedino: Is there no other way, other than the leasing of space on the Tarbell or a 63—foot sign -- is there nothing else? Howard: dell, if you would like us to go out there again with the appli. cant and table this thing pending resolve, we'll go out and look again. Funk: I might just add, if I may, the owner of the property, if I understood your reading of the interpretation of this lease from the party, that he guaranteed you a sign site? Hollingsworth: Sir? Funk: The owner of the property at the time of the execution of the lease guaranteed you 'a sign site. Is that correct? Hollingsworth: No, that's not correct. "Negotiations between the lessor and ourselves hinged upon the fact that we were granted identifica— tion by the city: to 217. Now we knew that the overpass was going to be there, and the 35 feet based upon what the state gave us as far as the height was concerned, was adequate. And our sign can be seen from there. We don't want to raise the sign. We would'like for it to be exactly the way it is right now,'' if it wasn't for the fact that someone else has gone in ahead of us, based on 'authority given to us by the city, and has blocked off our vier. `-I don't knout, it seems to me -that the staff or the city perhaps should have had some responsibility when that was - when they were discussing that and going through all the application, to say, "Hey, are you taking away, any of the: rights of the abutting property?" But;that wasn't done, .1 didn't ,get here because of what is .stated, _so basically, if there is another place that we can nut the sign on our property that will give us visibility that will allow people to get off of 217 onto the off—ramp and Greenburg-®if you will t TRiUTSCRIPT OF PL•4NNIPIG COi,24ISSION HrARIPlG Shell Oil Company April 15, 1980 Hollingsworth show us that, that's where we will move the sign, at 35 feet, (Cont.) or 40 feet or whatever. 'go don't want 63 feet. The 63 feet comes from the fact that the bottom of the sign sits right on the top of the building as we put it up with the boom truck to get the visibility that we need from the highway. Howard: then we drove 217 towards the project, you can see the sign if you are looking for it. But, before, even without Tarbell, you had to be physically looking to the left off of 217 across the traffic to look for the Shell station; and chances were that you were by the Washington County (Square) exit, by the time you saw the sign. Next exit -- Progress. ?io I just don't see this particular request even 65 feet in the air. You are going to look over the -- you know, the visual effect of a Shell sign peeka.ng over the top of the Tarbell building 1s not going to acquaint people with that Shell station in time for them to get off that exit. Now I have driven it five times both with staff, with myself, with a friend----I have driven it day, and I have driven it night--and I can tell you it does not make a whit any Way you are going to -ut that sign above that building 63 feet up in the air -o— you know? Speaker' I wonder -- you go down on I-5, and before exits they have a • sign which tells what the accommodations are and what service stations are available at the next exit. Alight that be something to pursue? a - Howard That's a possibility. The applicant in this case 'could apply to the State of Ore on for that designation �• Shell, next exit. They can put it right on that sign, and it's right there with the .-- Voices:, Gas, food, lodging ®-- Speaker: And have the logos of Mobil and Shell,: and I don't know chat restaurants are available there. Howard That's possible. Speaker: It seems to se that would give them really better identification than a sign peeking up over a building---still across the railroad track from 1-5, isn't it? Is Fanno Creek in there? Howard: Now can I- tell you? It's on Greenburg, intheGreenberg Road area, just before you go to Washington Square over 217, Smith: The question I "still have is, if we are granting Tarbell the additional 11-foot height to their building, which obscured the Shell sign, then I feel we should have some obligation to give —9® TRIVISCRIPT OF PLAT ZING COMMST_SSION Hr 4RING Shell oil company April la, 1930 Smith: then a variance for these 11 feet; but if the applicant is (Cont.) saying: "I need a8 feet", then in fact, had ,;a not grantad the 11—foot variance to the.Tarbe!2 building, they still have the same problem; and in such case I don't think we are under any obligation they have due to normal development. So I think that's where I stand on it. If the applicant can show that it was that 11--foot additional height, and not the height the build— Ing would have been without the 11 feet that has made the dif— ference. It doesn't appear that way, because he says he needs 28 feet. He says to me that even if the building, you know, not that e-,ctra height a he would still have that problem, and I don't feel that the city is obligated to compensate Shell for normal building height. Tepedino: That would 11 feet do? Would that do anything for them? Howard: Nothin;. I thiraz if you honor the sign code of-the city, you cannot assume the rem„val of property right, because it is a general city ordinance that is specific in all zones, regard— less of development in that zone. And I don't think that that has anything to do with what you are proposing, that we took away a right, or Smith: The Shell people have their own obligation to obtain a sight easement across adjoining property. Initially they had that responsibility. I don't think it is the obligation of the city to guarantee that sight easement. But I would like to ask the applicant if in facts if we granted a variance to increase the height of your sign by 11 feet, would that solve your problem? Hollingsworth; In response to your earlier suggestion, we did get a lar;e sign that gent out toward 217 at the time we put the service station in. . And we were told at the time by the state that they would' not need that property. Two years after we were in business and the siga was out, and the state came back and condemned that piece of property so that they could put in a wider or a better radius on—ramp, and so they took our sign easement away from us, because we were out probably 30 feet from our back property line. Smith: Well, that was for locating a sign. Hollingsworth: Locating our sign, our easement 'array from any problems �- Smith I am talking about a sight easement--that is where you essen— tially say for this certain parcel of land that you grant us r that you won't build anything that obstructs the vies. it's like a solar easement or -- Hollingsworth; There was nothing like that that was done by the city that said they wouldn't do that ®-- no. -10— I TRANSCRIPT OF PLANIIING CO,"UTISSIOII HE URI`dG Shell Oil Company April 15, 1980 Smith: But anyhow my question was, would if you raised your sign 11 feet—would that solve your visibility problem? Hollingsworth: No, unfortunately not, because it would be like me standing up here . . . (some cross tabs here, neither plain) . . . M-foot building in front of a 35=-foot sign, we mould be occluded at that particular point--if as had 11 feet sign over a 35–foot building, I'd have to –m. you know, I am not a surveyor -- but that might give us visibility; but since it's gone up 46 feet now, we need the additional height to see from the ground to the sign. Smith: I thins the point is that in fact their problem exists whether the iarbell building was given a variance or not, and -- Tepedino: Do you want to make a motion? Smith: I would move for denial. Tepodino: Motion made for denial. Any second? Kolleas: Second. Tepedino: Seconded. Further discussion? I call for the question. All Use 3.n favor of the motion as made and seconded signify by saying aye. Chorus: Aye. Tepedino: Those opposed? (No response.) Motion for denial carries unanimously. (To the applicant) You have a right to appeal. ew11® a STAFF REPORT AGENDA 5.9 TIGARD PLANNING CORMISSION April 15, 1980 - 7:30 p.m. Fowler junior High - Lecture Room 10865 SW Walnut Street, Tigard DOCKET: VARIANCE, V 2-80 (Shell Oil Company) APPLICANT: Mr. R. E. Hollingsworth OWNER: Mr. Conrad E. Anderson (Land) _ SHELL OIL COMPANY P O Box 982 1425 NE Irving Street Lincoln City, Oregon 97232 Portland; Oregon 97232 019NER OF FACILITIES: SHELL OIL COMPANY APPLICATION DATE:: February 25, 1980 LOCATION SITE: 9785 SW Shady i,ane (Wash. Co. 1S1 35B, Tax Lot 200) NPO #2 REQUEST: For a Variance to allow additional sign height. PREVIOUS ACTION: Applicant states that in 1971 he received a Building Peznit from the City of Tic,,ard which included a permit for a thirty-five (35') foot highway sign. Staff is unable to document this statement from our records. We do show a Building Permit issued in 1973 for an addition to the present building. I. FINDINGS OF FACT:. 1. Chapter 18.76 Variances of the Tigard Municipal Code Section .020 Granting-- Conditions states as follows: "No variance shall be ,granted by the Planning Commission unless it can be shown that all of the following conditions exist: (1) Exceptional or extraordinary conditions applying to the property that s do not apply generally to otherproperties in the same zone or vicinity, which conditions are a result of lot size or shape, topography, or Other circumstances over which the applicant has not control; ` (2) :.The variance is necessary for the preservation of a property right of the applicant substantially the same as is possessed'by owners of other property in the same zone or vicinity; (3) The authorization of the variance shall not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Title, be injurious to property in the zone or __ vicinity in which the property is located, or be otherwise detrimental to the objectives of any City development Plan or Policy (4) The variance requested is the minimum variance from the provisions and standards of this Title which will alleviate the hardship..F' E� s a STAFF" REPORT AGENDA 5.9 TIEGAIRD PLANNING COM2KISSION April 15, 1980 V 2-80 Page 2 2. Tarbell Company was granted a Conditional Use to construct a real estate office building eleven (11') feet above the allowable building height by the Planning Cor=ission on August 21, 1979. Surrounding property owners were notified of this hearing and this particular applicant did not respond at that time. (Reference CU 15-79) _ 3. Chapter 16.40 Special Types of Sig-s, Section .090 Outdoor Advertising Signs, part (2) Height, states: _ "The maximum height of an outdoor advertising sign shall not exceed thir-t<j--five (351) feet from the ground level at its base." III. CONCLUSIONARY FINDINGS: 1. Applicant is proposing to raise the current sign t-rienty-eig_^_t (28') feet above the maximum height allowed in this zone if this Variance is granted: 2. This proposal violates the Code, Section 16.40.090. 3. Applicant has not met the four (4) conditions for the granting of a Variance contained in_Code Section 18.76.020. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of this Variance for the, following reasons: 1. No evidence has been submitted which proves that the Variance Conditions have been met. STAFF NOTE: in an effort to help this applicant, Staff contacted the owners of the Tarbell Building concerning the possible 'placem=nt of a sign along 217 on the Tarbell property. Tarbell agreed to lease space to Shell Oil. Shell Oil was not willing to lease the space. in this particular case, it does not seem appropriate to Staff to simply raise the existing sign to a height of sixty-three (631) feet! If this 'same logic was applied throughout this City, we would experienceless than desirable consequences. Staff has° tried to reduce the visual effects of signs through the use of the Sign Code as approved by the Planning _ Commission and the City Cou*icil. We have been very restrictive and try to limit signs to one (1) freestanding installation per site. Prepared by Al ' ward, Planning Director AHvmc M a: CITY OF IIGARD P.O.Box 23397 1 420 s.w.Main Tigard,dragon 97223 RECEIVED Sept--lber 10, 19-79 SEP 17 1979 CITY OF TIGARD P 7 Rf. T YDOEZE Ce'U The Tes and Greir er P O Bac 1927 98009 Pelletnr--, Washington Rc,s Cu 15--7.9, R ZALTOr"S C-entlerr n Please be advised that the Tigard Planning Cczran'-ss�on at their r�e =g o �_cfst 21, 1979, approved yea=r reg<,est for a ccalaitionat use permte office it to renew a o�nditi oral use approval to h 11d lzi a C-3real `"Genal building eleven feet above the allowable building � . . rercial" zone on a 1.44 act parcAl. Mle conditional use pert shall expire -in one year from the date Of approval., if the use has not begun and continual progress toward its full operation 3s not in evidence. if wa can be of any further assistance, Please do not hesitat° to tart, this:office at 639-4173.. ' - F Sin -rely, Ken Selby Associate City Planner KSvrrz" mote:. shefolltx'ri_ng acSwowledgQ,m'nt mist be signed and returned to the City a�d Planning Depar�nt within fourteen (14) days of your receipt. of Tig ~ , of this letter. Failure to return this ac'r rarled,�o is twill result in no further action on this project with regards to issuance of building Permits or engineering approval. " . Date Signature t y s _ REMARKS . . . In January, 1971 the City of Tigard granted building permits to construct a three- bay ranch style Shell service station at the subject location. Among the permits included was a special sign permit for a 35 foot highway sign for the purpose of identifying our location to the automotive traffic on Oregon State Higtraay 217. At the time we negotiated our deal with the land owner, we purposely negotiated an easement area to the east of our location for the placement of this sign. (See Plot Plan). In April of 1972 the State Highway Commission took over the easement area for the purpose of constructing the Greenburg Road overpass and we were forced to move the sign onto our leased premises with City approval, as is now indicated on the attached Plot Plan, When the overpass was completed, our highway sign was barely visible to the traffic moving southeast on O.S.H. 217 but had excellent visibility to the northwest bound traffic on O.S.H. 217. In•September of 1979, our Lessor, who owns the land at our subject site and who lives in Lincoln City, brought us a notification which was sent to hire by the City, advising that a hearing was to be held by the City in August to act upon an appli- cation for conditional use and variance to build a commercial office building adjacent and to the southeast of our service station. We received word of the hearing almost a month to late to give testimony, although I am not to sure that we would have been overly concerned at the time. We have always felt that public bodies such as your municipality study proposals thoroughly enough prior to approval that the authorization of a C.U.P. or variance would not be injurious to those properties adjacent to or in the vicinity of the new project. The adjacent new construction completely covers and obscures not only our highway sign but also our total service station building from the view of north'iest bound' O.S.H. 217 traffic. The Greenburg Road overpass already obscures our facilities from the southeast boundmotorists view. the h aht.raification sign is paramont to the successful and orofitable o of a h' h;iav or�ien'ted service sfal of n t wa e ^itv nf Tirm"A ,111Rresented our eonsiron or000sal in 1970 and the higiwav sign was approved. We have conducted a`thorough survey and investigation of our total property in hopes that there would be another location oin the premises to locate :the sign which would afford the visibility that we have lost. Unfortunately there is none. Our last recourse is to request a variance to the ordinance which will raise our sign over the building which now obstructs the visibility. Based an our research we will need a sign heighth of-63-fe-et,to clear the top of the newly constructed office building. This heighth was computed by actually raising ; a target sign by boom truck at the present sign location. In suumation: 1. Owing to special and unusual circumstances, the construction of the office building abutting our premises has created an undue and unnecessary hard- ship on ourselves and especially our contract dealer who operates the business. 2. We feel that granting of the C.U.P. and the variance to the applicant and 1 • _ Page 2 p builder of the subject office building was not in keeping with 18,76,4310 of the code which states that "in granting a variance, the planning commission may attach conditions which it finds necessary to protect the best interests of the surrounding property or neighborhood". 3.a. We feel that based on .18.76.020 of the code, exceptional and extra- ordinary conditions exist in this instance wherein a previously granted use has been taken aw-Ay from the premises. b. We feel that an approved variance is necessary for the preservation of a property right previously given by the City. L We feel that tr1� authorization a;' the variance previously given to the abutting property owner was materially detrimental and injurious to our property based on the City's previously granted sign permit, and, d. the variance requested is the minimum variance from the provisions and standards of the ordnance which will alleviate the hardship. We respectfully request that our application for variance be approved. Thank you. n . A F 1 i v - i Jam• r � ry3µ--: - ••. >- ' ca` As.30.:4 �/I a d� y��et SEE MAP IS S TiAB 55 ,p?ASF � -' - / ,tT r' �� '•- � - .. a F �`3 t • � 10C? �__.e_ 774 c3" ` IM r � of SEE :1raP e ,t IS S 35A 03 .�;' ��5� r — ,w•.•.-., .,.cam a�.k �.�.d ,*•-.�..�—+�,,.��..-z�s�-�"---' � :( .. .% 42 - .5. N°. 1324E: - �45E'•r... �� ✓ 2073 11(1:0 202 2000 _�5�c C-96�4c 204jcc �r•a 4v� syr •� / �Oe r f �_T?�� •\ �•. Atoo 201 / c,S, ?686 a 100i - �� 1000 °3 V, ti T C.S. 8433 N < f „ L0T 8 } sl of +t' M. -er f _ «.: ni _ f LERON HEIGHTS INTERCEPTOR CORPORATION 12700 SOUTHWEST PACIFIC HIGHWAY TIGARD, OREGON 97223 April 30, 19130 Mayor Alan W. Mickelson 12479 S.W. Brook Court, Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Mayor: Leron Heights Interceptor Corporation has requested a schedulers hearing for May 190, 1980, to formally protest the rbitrary and illegal action taken by your City Attorney and Admini.stro`r when _ in August of 1979 they began impounding sewer connection fees due the Interceptor Corporation. This was done without the consent of the Mayor and CoL-cil or notice to the Corporation. The Corporation has, been denied its revenue and dud process of law by this uni- lateral action deemed a breach of contract and breach of faith between the City and the Private Utility, Leron Heights Intercepter Corporation, that has served the City's growth for 15 years. The Impounded funds hz-ve reached $7,350 as of April 1, 1980. As the officers and Owners of the Corporation, we, J. A. and Allan Paterson, are at this time formally requesting that the Mayor and Council instruct the Administrator to turn over to the Interceptor Corporation all impounded funds plus legal interest in the amount of $127.13 computed to April lst from the date of each collection made. We strongly feel that the above action taken by the City Attorney and Administrator is ' a violation of the Leron Heights Interceptor ' Corporation contract with the City, that has been, in effect since September 1964. Future connection fees may be collected in escrow any Washington County Title or Escrow Companies, by Leron Heights Interceptor Corporation to facilitate removal of a lien, or by the City i it wishes to con`i.nue acting as agent in this respect. if this service imposes a financial burden' on;the City at this time, the Interceptor Corporatism has no objection to paying a fee to the City for same. Since you were not on the Council in 1964, the following is a brief ' expla nation, some background' information and history that aright be of some hells to you in resolving this matter expeditiously. Sincerely yours, f J. A. Paterson J., terror t' OW a STOEL, Riv- Es, RDLEY, Fn-ksE-R AND WYSE MAY 19 1980 (OAVIES..BIGGS.STRAYER.STOEL AND BOLEY) (RIVES.BONYHADI S SMI"1'N) 911 _ J R.4BRAVAN EL ROe3 ERT H.HUNTIN GTON LAW OFFICES yFREY MIG NAF.L ALDEN STEPHEN T.JANIK goo S Vel FIFTH AVENUE RICHARD C.ALEXANDER V ELMA JEREMIAH f4luRe) RICHARD 0.0A.. RIC HARP C.JOSEPHSo. RORTLANO. OREGON 97204 DAVID L.DAMES PAUL L.E-OL EY JOEL 0.K,NTZ HUGH L.EIGGC ERNEST 00NYH A01 DE%TER E-MARTIN --- PHILLIP O.CHADSEY WILLIAM M.MCALLISTER HARRY S.CHANDLER CHARL F.J.MLMURCHIE (503)224-3390 GAtL L.ACHYERM AN 'UgAN M.HAMMER CLEVELANO C.CORY GEORGE K.MEIER.M CHARLES F A•JnMS NORMAN O.Hq LLY KAREN K.—A.ON OAVIO P,MILLER STEPNE.E.SAB_.GN MELA LJAOK U. THOMAS P.BEEFING GREGORY R:MO'NE .ARO ARET M.OAJMGARON ER PETEP P.—I. JQHM OETJ ENS.M HARDY MYERS WILLIAM A.BERG GREGORY F JENNER BARNES H.ELLIS THOMAS R.NICOLAI JOHN a.00GOANSK1 JENHIFF.R J.JOHN 90N EO1vnRO L.`=P=TEIN MILD E.ORHg E-,I+ JOHN F.gRAOACH CHARLES S LE\V 1g.ID MOWA..N.FEUERSTEIN TERRENCE R.PANCOAST HEN R,C.11 ITHAUPT DENNIS LEN00 LO RICHARD A.FRANZKE MARK H.PETER.AN May 16, 1980 MATTHEW W.CHAPMAN GREGORY -MACPMERSON - GCORGE M.FRASER CAMPBELL RICHAROSOM OERTRANO J.CLOSE DANrEL W.MEEK GEORGE M.GALLOWAY ROBERT L.RIOGLEY NANCY L.GOW GILLWILLIAM E.MERRITT LEONARD A.GIRARD GEORGE O.RIVES C.PAUL OAG IE THOMAS H.NELSON 'WILLIAM J.GLASGOW RICH4Rp E.ROY E.JOSEPH DEAN MARGARET HILL OTO GER—AM OOLOSTEIN JOHN M.gCHW EIT2ER CHRISTINE LHTING Y THOMAS R POS _ RONALD g.GROSSMANN PA TRICK J.SIMP50N MAgK R.REi CMTINOLR BRUCE R.POS EY _ CHARLES .1.-IABERNIGG MVGH gMiYN ANDREW C.FO>TER .LUT A.RAND LE9 ROBERT F.MAA RINOTON THOMAS a.STOEL DREW R.GARONER OIS O.ROSENBAUM JOHN R.HAY MAN LEY B.STRAYER SUDAN P GRA.ER 'TEV EN SCROD GIN RICHARD A AYCE..JR. DERE M WEB® DAVID W.OREEN JAMES RAY gTRERIZ DAVID O.RAY....r --..CNCE R.WICKS STEPHEN L.GRIFFITH ANN E.THOMPS ON MEN RY F HEWITT MARCUS WOOD THOMAS O.P.GUILE ERT E.WA LT ER VON Va LK ENgURq CHAALe5 F.RINK LE WILLIAM W.WYSE City Recorder City Counsel City of Tigard, Tigard City Hall 12420 Sid Main Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear City Recorder and Members of the City Council: Re: Main Street Development Zone Change Request, ZCPD 6-80 Pursuant to our letter dated May 1, 1980 we initiated an appeal to the City Council of the Planning Commission's denial of our client's request for a zone change from C-3M "Main Street Commercial" to C-3MPD "Main Street Commercial Planned; Development District. " ` In recent conversations with members of your staff, whose assistance in this matter has been;,appreciated, we have t determined that it may be more expeditious to have this matter reconsidered by, the Planning Commission at its June 3, 1980 meeting. We have been advised that , it will be feasible for the Planning Commission to hear us on this date. Therefore, based on these discussions with your staff, we hereby withdraw our request for a hearing before the City Council :and our appeal of the Planning Commission's previous decision. Thank you very much for your attention on this matter. f Very t 1 ours, , n T. n k STJ:cay cc• Mr. Joe Bailey Dir. Aldie Howard Mr. J. B. Bishop s' Mr. H. J. Buchholz } F g'. S. WASHINGTON COUNTY COMMUNITY ACTION ORGA ILATION 245 SE SECOND HILI SBORO,OR 07123 PH.503-648-6646 9 RECEIVED MAY _ 91980 aTy OF TIGARII May 7, 1980 TO: BUDGET COMMITTEE, MEMBERS FROM: GORDON J. MOLITOR, EXECUTIVE DIRECT v With inflation and the cost of everything so high, yours is not an easy job Imagine the difficulty of budgeting for a family of four living at the poverty level -- $9,313. or $776./month. In order to move into an apartment too small for your needs, you would have to save $600. for first and last months rent plus a damage deposit. You would have to save 6.4% of your annual income just to get into a decent house and then spent 32% of your monthly income to maintain it. • The Emergency ShelterHousewhich has requested money from your unit of Government is designed to,help ease the problems low-income families face when`'trying to move into decent housing. The amount requested for the Shelter House will be critical in maintaining' the operation of a properly staffed service. ':Please keep the housing needs of your low-income citizens and neighbors in mind while developing your budget. GJM/pk AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ' PD TE T IG D A WEEKLY NEWSLETTER VOLUME II Issue 34 May 15, 1980 USA CONTNECTIONS UP. The Unified Sewerage Agency will recommend an increase in connection fees from the present 0680 per dwelling unit to $725 per dwelling ob=it. This proposed increase is expected on July 1, 1980. Now the good news; no increase will take place in the current $6 per month service charge. VOTER REGISTRATION. Staff members are continuing to register persons to vote. The response has been steady and the people appreciate the service. COOK PARK IS FULL. Persons wishing to reserve space in Cook Park for summer season activities are out of luck. The park is full from now until tate September. NEW RUBBER STAMP. In an effort to improve communication between departments and developers we have devised a simple stamp for Occupancy Permits. Unless all conditions and concerns have been,addressedbythe developer to the satisfaction of the Planning Department and the Public Works Director - no .Occupancy Permits will be issued by the Bu. ld!-mglnspector. NO";MORE 'BACKYARD BURRING. It is evident that the Department of Environmental Quality is set to prohibit all backyard burning as of December 1980. Final meetings are now being held throughout the METRO Area to finalize the rulings. Communities are 'encouraged 'to seek alternate methods of 'removal other than land fills for this material. Any suggestions? PLANNING D7PT. GETS 1+FREEn?�LP. The Geography Department at Portland State University has asked the Planning Department to use a person for 80 hour's in June'. The only outlay of funds from the City will be short-time insurance costs. Person will work on a vacant land survey.and associated tasks. r ,