The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 02/08/1982 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on REGULAR MEETING AGENDA an agenda item needs to sign their name on FEBRUARY 8, 1982, 7:30 P.M. the appropriate sign-up sheet(s) . If no FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL sheet is provided, ask to be recognized by LECTURE ROOM the Chair. 1. REGULAR MEETING: 1.1 Call To Order and Roll Call 1.2 Pledge of Allegiance N 1.3 Call to Audience, Staff and Council For Non-Agenda Items Under Open Agenda cc i 2. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one n motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 2.1 Approve the Minutes: January 11, 18, 25, 1982. 2.2 Approve the Expenditures and Investments: $ 116.317.78 2.3 Approve Appointment to Transportation Committee: Tom Brian, Nancie Stimler, Wilbur Bishop, Frank Currie & John Hagman. 2.4 Business License Report - Receive and File Memo 2.5 Approve Resolution No. 82-06 Accepting Improvements in Copper Creek Phase I (Maint.) 2.6 Approve Resolution No. 82-07 Accepting Improvements in Douglas Heights (Final) 2.7 Approve Resolution No. 82-08 Accepting Improvements in Dawns Inlet (Maint.) 2.8 Approve Resolution No. 82-09 Accepting improvements in Dales Glenn (Maint.) 2.9 Approve Resolution No. 82-10 Accepting Improvements in O'Neel Acres (Maint.) 2. 10 Authorize signature of Mayor and forward to OLCC of following liquor permits: L'Ecurie , 12386 SW Main, Tigard, Oregon, Dispenser Class C License Circle K #572, 9930 SW Walnut, Tigard, Oregon, Package Store License Big B Thriftway, 14365 SW Pacific Highway, Tigard, Oregon, Package Store License The Tortilla Machine, 11445 SW Pacific Hwy, Tigard, Oregon, Disp. Class A License Swift Mart No. 17, 9800 SW Shady Lane , Tigard, Or. , Package Store License Safeway Stores No. 383, 250 Tigard Shopping Plaza, Tigard, Or, Package Store Lic. 2.11 Receive and File following transmittals: Transmittal from DJB Inc. re: property and annexation-- . - Transmittal nnexation_ . _Transmittal from Metro. Service District re: A95 Review Policy Transmittal re: McDonald Island census information Transmittal from City Administrator re: Shift of Unemployment Options Transmittal from Mauvanie Lerman re: Cherry Park Tenants Union concerns 2.12 Approve Fiscal Year 1982-83 Pay Plan For Budget Purposes 2. 13 Approve 1981-82 Control Budget and Contingency Fund Appropriation Resolution No. 82-11 2.14 Approve Radio Equipment Purchase 2.15 Approve Bid Award - Public Works Inspection Van 2.16 Approve Contractural Professional Services - Surveying 3. ORDINANCE No. 82-10 TRUCK LOAD LIMITS e Recommendation of Director of Public Works 4 . COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION - CPR 14-81 - Dr. Alva Roberts - Tabled at 1-25-82 meeting e Recommendation of Planning Director 5. AMART APPEAL FINAL ORDER e Presentation by Legal Counsel 6. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION - CPR 16-81 - Ash Avenue Right-Of-Way - Set Over From 1-25-82 meeting. ORDINANCE No. 82- Adopting Findings of Council • Presentation by Legal Counsel 8:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING -- APPEAL 7. VARIANCE APPEAL - V 10-81 - John Skourtes - NPO #5 An appeal by John Skourtes of the Planning Commission denial of his request for a variance from the sideyard setback requirement from 20 feet to 10 feet in an M-3 Light Industrial Zone. (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 12A, Railroad Right-of-Way.) This will be an "argument-type" hearing only, pursuant to Tigard Municipal Code 18.88.060 (b) . The Council will consider only the record before the Planning Commission, which is on file at City Hall. The Council shall not consider any new testimony or evidence which is not in the record. o Public Hearing Opened e Staff Report and Summary of Planning Commission Proceedings by Planning Director • Argument: Appellants, Respondents, Appellants Rebuttal e Public Hearing Closed • Council Consideration and Action PUBLIC HEARING PORTION OF MEETING COMPLETED 8. RATIFY NPO #3 Appointments • Report from Staff 9. COMPUTER STUDY SYSTEM REPORT • Presentation by Administrative Assistant (Joy Martin) 10. CHARTER DISCUSSION e Report by City Administrator 11. OPEN AGENDA: Consideration of Non-Agenda Items identified to the Chair under item 1.3 will be discussed at this time. All persons are encouraged to contact the City Administrator prior to the meeting. 12. ADJOURNMENT PAGE 2 - COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 8, 1982 T I G A R 1) C I T Y C O U N C I L REGULAR MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 8, 1982 - 7:3C PM 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor Wilbur Bishop, Councilmen John Cook, Kenneth Scheckla; Director of Public Works/Planning Director, Frank Currie; Finance Director/City Recorder, Doris Hartig; City Administrator, Robert W. Jean; Legal Counsel, Ed Sullivan; Office Manager, Loreen Wilson. 2. CALL TO AUDIENCE, STAFF AND COUNCIL FOR NON-AGENDA ITEMS UNDER OPEN AGENDA. (a) City Administrator requested the following item be placed under the Open Agenda section of the meeting. 11.1 Extension of Planning Intern Services Contract 11.2 Report of Status - St. Anthony's Kelly Center 11.3 Report of Status - MACC & Cable TV 11.4 Extension of Councilman Brian's Approved Medical Leave to 2-28-82 11 .5 Report of Letter received by Mayor Bishop from LCDC Re: PGF. Rate Increase 11.6 OLCC application discussion - Feeks & Stongs Potato Pub (b) City Administrator requested Consent Agenda Item 2. 12 be removed from considera- tion at this meeting. (c) Mayor Bishop expressed his appreciation of the improvements made to S.W. Hampton Street by a recent LID. 3. APPROVE MINUTES: January 11, 18, 25, 1982. (a) Mayor Bishop requested minutes from January 18 and 25 be amended as follows: January 18, 1982, minutes - Page 1, item 2.(b) third paragraph, second sentence be amended to read as follows: "Councilman Scheckla and Mayor Bishop stated they would like to attend the meeting." January 25, 1982, minutes - page 8, item 17 (a) add a sentence to read as follows: "(See attached copy of State-Of-The-City Message) . (b) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Scheckla to approve minutes as amended. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 4. APPROVE EXPENDITURES AND INVESTMENTS: $116,317.78 (a) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Scheckla to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 5. APPROVE APPOINTMENT TO TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE: Elected Official: Member, Tom Brian; 1st Alternate, Nancie Stimler; 2nd Alternate, Wilbur Bishop///Staff Official: Member, Frank Currie; 1st Alternate, John Hagman; 2nd Alternate, Bob Jean. (a) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Scheckla to approve appoint- ments. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 6. BUSINESS LICENSE REPORT - Receive and File Memo (a) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Scheckla to receive and file report. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 7. RESOLUTION No. 82-06 RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTED WITHIN COPPER CREEK (Phase I) SUB- DIVISION, SUBJECT TO HEREIN SPECIFIED CONDITIONS. (a) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Scheckla to approve resolution. Approved by unanimous vote cf Council present. 8. RESOLUTION No. 82-07 RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ACCEPTING THE FINAL PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTED WITHIN DOUGLAS HEIGHTS (a) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Scheckla to approve resolution. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 9. RESOLUTION No. 82-08 RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTED WITHIN DAWN'S INLET SUBDIVISION, SUBJECT TO HEREIN SPECIFIED CONDITIONS. (a) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Scheckla to approve resolution. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 10. RESOLUTION No. 82-09 RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTED WITHIN REEL ACRES (Dales Glen) SUBDIVISION, SUBJECT TO HEREIN SPECIFIED CONDITIONS. (a) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Scheckla to approve resolution. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. I1 . RESOLUTION No. 82-10 RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTED WITHIN O'NEEL ACRES I SUBDIVISION, SUBJECT TO HEREIN SPECIFIED CONDITIONS. (a) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Scheckla to approve resolution. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 12. AUTHORIZE SIGNATURE OF MAYOR AND FORWARD TO OLCC OF FOLLOWING LIQUOR PERMITS: L'Ecurie, 12386 S.W. Main, Tigard, Oregon, Dispenser Class C License PAGE 2 - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - February 8, 1982 Circle K #572, 9930 S.W. Walnut, Tigard, Oregon, Package Store License Big B Thriftway, 14365 S.W. Pacific Highway, Tigard, Oregon, Package Store License. The Tortilla Machine, 11445 S.W. Pacific Highway, Tigard, Oregon, Dispenser Class A License. Swift Mart No. 17, 9800 S.W. Shady Lane, Tigard, Oregon, Package Store License Safeway Stores No. 383, 250 Tigard Shopping Plaza, Tigard, Oregon, Package Store License (a) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Scheckla to authorize signature of Mayor and forward to OLCC. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 13. RECEIVE AND FILE FOLLOWING TRANSMITTALS: Transmittal from DJB Inc. re: Property and Annexation Transmittal from Metro Service District re: A-95 Review Policy Transmittal re: McDonald Island Census Information Transmittal from City Administrator re: Shift of Unemployment Options Transmittal from Mauvanie Lerman re: Cherry Park Tenants Union Cencerns (a) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Scheckla to receive and file transmittals. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 14. APPROVE FISCAL YEAR 1982-83 PAY PLAN FOR BUDGET PURPOSES (a) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Scheckla to remove from consideration at this meeting. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 15. APPROVE 1981-82 CONTROL BUDGET AND CONTINGENCY FUND APPROPRIATION RESOLUTION No. 82-11 A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 81-115 AND TRANSFERRING FUNDS FOR EXPENDITURES WHICH WERE UNFORSEEN AT THE TIME OF BUDGET ADOPTION. (a) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Scheckla to approve 1981-82 Control Budget and Resolution No. 82-11 . Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 16. APPROVE RADIO EQUIPMENT PURCHASE (a) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Scheckla to approve radio facility conversion and upgrade of current system through Communications Enterprises of Oregon, Inc. according to staff recommendation in February 4, 1982, memorandum. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 4 PAGE 3 - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - February 8, 1982 17. APPROVE BID AWARD - Public Works Inspection Van Bids received on December 4, 1981 , for one half-ton van for City Engineering Divi- sion were: Gateway Ford (Newberg, Oregon) $8, 156.57 Landmark Ford (Tigard, Oregon) $7,844 .63 (a) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Scheckla to accept bid of apparent low bidder, Landmark Ford in the amount of $7,844.63 and authorize purchase. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 18. APPROVE CONTRACTURAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - SURVEYI14G (a) Motion by Counciliran Cook, seconded by Councilman Scheckla to approve survey- ing of S.W. Tiedeman and S.W. McDonald Streets by John M. Peterson & Associates in an amount of $4,272.00. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 19. ORDINANCE No. 82-10 AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 10. 16.050 TO THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE, PROHIBITING THROUGH TRUCK TRAFFIC ON SPECIFIED STREETS AND FIXING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (a) Director of Public Works noted ordinance had been changed since last meeting by adding the definition of "through traffic". He recommended approval of the ordinance and mentioned that citizens are in the process of circulating petitions in the Greenburg Road area to request Council consideration of a similar type restriction being placed on that road. (b) Motion by Councilman Scheckla, seconded by Councilman Cook to adopt Ordinance No. 82-10. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 20. COMPREHENSIVE PL,%N REVISION - CPR 14-81 - Dr. Alva Roberts - tabled at January 25, 1982 meeting. (a) Planning Director advised Council that Dr. Roberts, the applicant, has request- ed the CPR process be dropped, however, the property owner, Mr. Vincent Olson, has requested the process be continued. (b) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Scheckla to remove item from table. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (c) Mayor Bishop stated that he was concerned with the change from multi-family zoning to commercial zoning and the ramifications that could have on LCDC compliance and specifically, Goal r10. (d) City Administrator noted that the original staff recommendation to Planning Commission was to deny the application. PAGE 4 - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - February 8, 1982 a gig 11:1111g�i iiiil,�i;:!Ii,lliii��i�i� 1111111; 111 (e) Legal Counsel mentioned that LCDC recently ruled on a case before them that if a jurisdiction changed a large parcel of multi-family zoning to another zone designation, then the jurisdiction has the responsibility to readdress the comprehensive plan and find another area to upzone to offset the multi- family ratio. (f) ORDINANCE No. 82-07 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO APd APPLICATION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION TO THE NPO #7 PLAN MAP OF THE CITY OF TIGARD DECLARING AN EMERGENCY AND FIXING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Dr. Alva Roberts. (g) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Scheckla to adopt. Ordinance No. 82-07 was denied by unanimous vote of Council present. (h) Council requested Legal Counsel prepare a final order for Council adoption at the February 22, 1982, meeting denying the request for a comprehensive plan revision. 21 . AMART APPEAL FINAL ORDER (a) Legal Counsel discussed the format of the final order as drafted by his office. He noted that moss final orders will not be this lengthy, however; they used this case to prepare a complete final order to give staff and Council experi- ence in dealing with this format. Legal Counsel also reported that a copy of this had been forwarded to all parties concerned. (b) RESOLUTION No. 82-12 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF TIGARD, OREGON IN REGARDS TO APPEAL OF AMART DEVELOPMENT, LTD. (CPR 15-81 Final Order) . (c) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Scheckla to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (d) Legal Counsel requested that staff send a signed copy of the order to the applicants. 22. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION - CPR 16-81 Ash Avenue Right-Of-Way - Set Over From January 25, 1982, meeting. (a) City Administrator stated that staff had contacted many people present at the last Council meeting where this issue was heard and noted that the in- tent of the motion by Council was not clear regarding where insertion of O'Mara extension parallel to Ash Avenue should be and also when the actual removal of the barricade should occur. (b) Councilman Scheckla stated that his intent was to remove the barricade after all street extensions were made. (c) John Butler, NPO SP19 requested second paragraph in Policy 28, as set forth in ordinance, be changed to show that Main Street Development Company was not required to develop Ash Avenue. He also mentioned that the last para- graph before the conditions are set out seems vague when it mentions "suggest- ed" methods for mitigating the traffic impact. He recommended that the word 'suggested' be removed. PAGE 5 - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - February 8, 1982 (d) Councilman Cook expressed concern that if the barricade was removed after all the street extensions that the process could be quite lengthy in getting through traffic circulation on Ash Avenue since the Council does not have any control over when the land will be developed where streets are scheduled for extension. (e) Lengthy discussion followed with Council and staff. Councilman Scheckla and Mayor Bishop stressed that they felt the barricade removal must occur after the street extensions are completed to protect the Ash Avenue residents. Councilman Scheckla noted that if the issue of the barricade removal needs to be re-addressed at a later date, Council would have the right to do so. Discussion followed regarding the actual physical placement of the barricade. Staff recommended barricade placement be left open to the discretion of staff at the time the barricade is needed. (f) ORDINANCE No. 82-11 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO AN APPLICA- TION FOR A COMPRHENSIVE PLAN REVISION TO THE 1974 NPO #1 PLAN POLICY 28 OF THE CITY OF TIGARD DECLARING AN EMERGENCY AND FIXING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Ash Avenue) (g) Legal Counsel read, in full, the proposed changes suggested by Council, staff, and NPO members, to the ordinance. Section 2, Policy 28 be changed to read as follows: "Policy 28: Ash Avenue should be extended across Fanno Creek, enabling access to the neighborhoods commercial area without using Pacific Highway. Design features shall be used to slow traffic and make the street as safe as possible. Ash Avenue shall be designated a minor collector in conformance with the Comprehensive Street Plan. Design features and mitigation measures shall hold traffic volumes to the middle limits of a minor collector. "Improvements to S.W. Ash Avenue from S.W. Hill to Fanno Creek shall be con- structed as a condition of development of adjacent properties. The street improvements along with the development of a major commercial site will increase traffic on Ash. A barricade shall be placed at Hill Street approximately at the end of the existing pavement to protect the neighborhood residents from the commercial traffic. The extension of Ash Avenue from the creek to S.W. Burnham will further increase traffic volumes. "Methods of mitigating the traffic impact on the neighborhood sh411 include in the following order of improvement construction: 1. Improving S.W. McDonald Street to interim maintenance standards to encour- age traffic from South of McDonald to use McDonald to exit to Hall and/or Pacific Highway. 2. Improvements to the residential portion of Ash from Hill to Frewing. These improvements could include limited parking, delineation of traffic lanes and sidewalks on one or both sides of the street. 3. The extension of S.W. Hill to S.W. O'Mara and/or the improvement of S.W. Ash from Frewing to Garrett. °" PAGE 6 - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - February 8, 1982 4. The extension of S.W. O'Mara to S.W. Hill parallel to S.W. Ash. 5. Removal of the barricade in place on Ash Avenue at S.W. Hill. 6. Improvement of S.W. O'Mara Street to interim maintenance standards to encourage an alternate route. 7. Installation of traffic inhibitors to the residential portion of Ash if and when traffic volumes exceed the middle range for a minor collector. Traffic inhibitors include but are not limited to planting islands, speed bumps, buttons, turning restrictions, load limits and enforcement." (h) Council questioned whether item No. 2 should be changed to read "shall include" instead of "could include" to make the meaning more defined. (i) City Administrator advised Council that he had concerns in defining the exact improvements to be made when this cost would have to be financed (possibly by an LID) and that Council should be able to set a policy at the time of improve- ment as to the extent the improvements that would be developed. (j) Councilman Cook and Councilman Scheckla agreed that item No. 2 should read as set forth by Legal Counsel. (k) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Scheckla to adopt Ordinance No. 82-11 as amended by Legal Counsel's recommendation. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 8:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL 23, VARIANCE APPEAL - V 10-81 - John Skourtes - NPO 165 An appeal by John Skourtes of the Planning Commission denial of his request for a variance from the sideyard setback requirement from 20 feet to 10 feet in an M-3 Light Industrial Zone. (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 12A, Railroad Right�,of-Way) . This will be an "argument-type" hearing only, pursuant to Tigard Municipal Code 18.88.060(b) . The Council will consider only the record before the Planning Commission, which is on file at City Hall. The Council shall not consider any new testimony or evidence which is not in the record. (a) Legal Counsel recommended Council disregard a letter submitted in packets by Mr. Skourtes from Oregon Pioneer Savings since it was dated after the Planning Commission hearing date. He continued to explain that this hearing was "on the record" only and no new testimony should be accepted. (b) Public Hearing Opened (c) Planning Director stated this request was before the Planning commission and that they voted to deny Mr. Skourtes' request for a variance to the sideyard setback requirements in an M-3 zone. The Planning Commission made the denial based on the finding that the applicant does not meet the required criteria established for granting a variance in that a smaller building could be constructed on the site. He noted that the transcript of the Planning Commission hearing was included in Council packets along with staff reports and the appeal papers filed by Mr. Skourtes. PAGE 7 - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - February 8, 1982 (d) Argument: Mr. John Skourtes, 17010 S.W. W.-ir koad, Beaverton, Oregon, 97007, spoke on behalf of. himself. He discussed the issue of sideyard setbacks as it per- tained to zoning and property within Tigard and other jurisdictions. He offered a synopsis of his presentation before the Planning Commission. Council questioned Mr. Skourtes regarding the size of the parcel, ownership of the parcel, when the parcel will become a lot, willingness of appellant to participate in an LID, and the other designs which were considered by Mr. Skourtes. (e) Councilman Cook questioned what criteria the Tigard Municipal Code requires for granting a variance. (f) Legal Counsel read into the record the following conditions as required by Tigard Municipal Code Section 18.76.020: "(4) The variance requested is the minimum variance from the provisions and standards of this title which will alleviate the hardship." Legal Counsel advised Council that they must look at the special circumstances of the land before making a determination if a variance should be granted to eleviate a hardship. (g) Mr. Skourtes expressed concern that Legal Counsel was advising Council to dictate how he must development his land. (h) Legal Counsel advised Council that his intent was not to dictate how the land should be developed, only that Council, according to the rules set forth in the Tigard Municipal Code, should look at the special circumstances of each parcel before determining the variance request. (i) Public Hearing Closed (j) Mayor Bishop stated that the lot configuration is unusual and seems `a lend itself to meeting the hardship requirement. He noted that if a variance is granted conditions should be attached at the time of Council approval. (k) Councilman Scheckla noted that if parcel were not developed it would continue to be an eyesore for the community and if developed could become productive land. He also noted that if there were problems with parking, conditions could be placed upon the parcel at a later date to deal with those types of issues. (1) Councilman Cook expressed .concern that Council. does not have any guarantee that Mr. Skourtes will develop a warehouse if a variance is granted. Councilman Scheckla stated that Mr. Skourtes has historically built ware- houses and felt comfortable that this would be the case again. (m) Councilman Scheckla moved to instruct Staff to prepare a final order approv- ing the variance, based upon discussion by Council. Motion seconded by Councilman Cook. Approved by 2-1 majority vote of Council present, Councilman Cook voting nay. PAGE 8 - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - February 8, 1982 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM CONCLUDED 24. RATIFY NPO #3 APPOINTMENTS (a) City Administrator drew Council 's attention to Resolution No. 80-17 Section 3 which states that there "shall be seven (7) members from each of the seven district NPO areas within the City boundaries." He noted that currently the NPO's have more than seven members. He recommended Council not go forward with the appointments for NPO #3 until this matter is addressed. (b) Council and staff discussed the original intent of the resolution and noted that it should have read a "minimum" of seven members. Discussion followed regarding the number of members each NPO should have and whether they should live inside or outside the city limits. (c) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Scheckla to table the matter until another meeting. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (d) City Administrator encouraged NPO X63 to continue to meet and Council encour- aged them to find more citizens interested in the NPO process, hopefully residents along Pacific Highway and business owners in that area. 25. COMPUTER STUDY SYSTEM REPORT (a) Administrative Assistant, Joy Martin, was introduced to the Council by the City Administrator. (b) Administrative Assistant gave a brief study overview, discussed the purchasing policies of the City and how they pertain to this proposed purchase and stressed this proposal was within the 1981-82 control budget. She stated that the staff recommends the purchase, on a three year lease, of the Wang OIS 115-3 system for word processing for approximately $36,599 and a memory upgrade workstation and printer for data processing of approximately $ 12,835. She noted that this would complete Phase I of the program. Phase II and III for wordprocessing and data processing would be presented in the next two or more fiscal years at a total cost of approximately $27,610. The Administra- tive Assistant assured Council that the original purchase of the Wang 2200 MVP was a good move and that this is the time, with the inception of a word processing division, to enchance the Wang system by addition of the OIS 115-3. (c) City Administrator advised Council that a decision was needed as soon as possible so that word processing could begin functioning at a more acceptable level. He noted that with the 3 year lease, there would be a minimum dollar investment and a maximum efficiency yield. The City Administrator stated that he was satisfied that a complete city-wide study had been accomplished and that the results would best enhance the existing Wang 2200 MVP system. This proposed purchase would also be the best step towards a city-wide computer system which will be needed in the future . (d) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Scheckla, based upon the results of the study and the bids received, that the following steps be taken to implement Phase I of the three phase plan. PAGE 9 - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - February 8, 1982 1. Purchase during the 1981-82 fiscal year the Wang OIS 115-3 for word processing and telecommunications on a three-year lease with option to purchase at $1,700 per month, plus $50 to purchase a null modem using non-departmental funds in account No. 05-05117-704-000. 2. Purchase during the 1981-82 fiscal year a data processing terminal and memory upgrade for the Wang 2200 MVP on a three-year lease with option to purchase at $550 per month, and to pay installation charges of $ 160 using engineering funds in account No. 05-02180-705. 3. Contract during the 1981-82 fiscal year for software development on the Wang 2200 MVP for both Engineering and Finance at a cost not to exceed $7,800 from engineering account No. 05-01230-621 . Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 26. CHARTER DISCUSSION (a) City Administrator requested that no lengthy discussion be held at this meet- ing and recommended that Council study the information received in packets and bring any suggestions and concerns they might have regarding the Charter to the February 15, 1982 study session. (b) Consensus of Council was to consider this item for discussion at the February 15, 1982 study session. 27. OPEN AGENDA: Consideration of Non-Agenda Items identified to the Chair under item 1 .3 will be discussed at this time. All persons are encouraged to contact the City Administrator prior to the meeting. 27. 1 Extension of Planning Intern Services Contract (a) Planning Director advised Council of the increased workload in the Planning Department in getting information and material together for the comprehensive plan presentation to LCDC. He requested that Council approve the extension of the Planning Intern services contract for three months and noted that this should not exceed $3,000 which is budgeted. (b) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Scheckla to approve the contract for three additional months for a dollar amount not to exceed $3,000. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 27.2 Report of Status - St. Anthony's Kelly Center (a) City Administrator stated that the City has now received a formal appeal from St. Anthony's regarding the Kelly Center. This item has been heard by the Planning Director and should go before the Planning Commission next, however, he noted that the City Council will have to hear this matter in the long run. (b) Legal Counsel advised Council of their authority in this issue and the pro- per ways to hear this issue. (c) Motion by Councilman, Scheckla, seconded by Councilman Cook to instruct the Planning Commission to hear this issue on March 2, 1982, and automatically forward the issue after their decision to the City Council for a hearing on PAGE 10 - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - February 8, 1982 March 8, 1982. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 27.3 Report of Status - 14ACC and Cable TV (a) City Administrator reported that the City has received its copy of the executed MACC agreement back for file and noted that MACC will be selecting a director soon. 27.4 Extension of Councilman Brian's Approved Medical Leave to February 28, 1982. (a) Mayor Bishop stated he had talked with Councilman Brian and noted that he would be unable to attend Council meetings until approximately March 1, 1982. Mayor Bishop recommended Council extend the approved medical leave for Councilman Brian. (b) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Scheckla to approve extended medical leave for Council Brian until February 28, 1982. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 27.5 Report of Letter Received by Mayor Bishop from LCDC Re: PGE Rate Increase (a) Mayor Bishop read a letter from LCDC which advised Council that they were investigating the recent PGE rate increase for compliance with LCDC goals - especially as it relates to Goal 410. 27.6 OLCC Application Discussion - Feeks & Stongs Potato Pub (a) Finance Director stated that applicants have applied for a beer and wine license for the former location of Peabody's Sandwich Shop. She noted that the applicants have indicated they plan on installing a pool table and electronic games and due to this, the Chief of Police has recommended approving the application and exclude the pool table or electronic games. (b) Virginia Teenburg, 0208 S.W. Texas Street, Portland and Shirley Bilbao, 15535 S.W. Canyon Court, Portland, discussed with Council their concerns regarding the application. They noted that the addition of a pool table and electronic games was not to change the land use from restaurant to tavern, but to enchance the restaurant trade into the evening hours. They requested Council approval of the OLCC application since they are unable to operate the business even with- out the pool table and other enhancements until the OLCC permit is processed. (c) Lengthy discussion followed regarding the question as to whether the use has changed with the addition of the games. The City Administrator recommended that Council approve the OLCC permit and instruct staff to meet with the applicants to determine whether a conditional use is required. (d) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Scheckla to approve the liquor permit and authorize the Mayor to sign and forward to OLCC and instruct staff to determine the best way to handle the land use questions and report back to Council. PAGE 11 - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - February 8, 1982 Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 28. ADJOURNMENT: 10:52 P.M. City Recorder - City of,-T'4ard ATTEST: Mayor - City of Tigard PAGE 12 - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - February 8, 1982 Date February 8, 1982 I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council the following item: (Please pr .-lit your name) k' Item Description: 7_ V,?_,t7FNCE APPEAL — John Skourtes ;Proponent (for) =Opponentagainst) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation I PAYMENT OF BILLS FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL JANUARY 31, 1982 PROGRAM BUDGET Community Protection Police 13,820.65 Public Works 3.706.30 Municipal Court 1,291.14 Planning 580.66 Building 1,629.74 Total Community Protection • 21,028.49 Home & Community Quality Public Works 6,672.41 Social Services Library 1,513.94 Aged• Services Youth Services Historical Total Social Services 1,513.94 Policy & Administration Mayor & Council 525.38 Administration 1,452.58 Finance 2,925.58 Total Policy & Administration 4,903.54 City Wide Support Functions Non-departmental 2,808.40 Misc. .Accounts (refunds & payroll deductions; etc.) 44,367.01 CAPITOL BUDGET Community Protections Road Acquisition & Dev. Parks Acquisition & Dev. Storm Drainage Total Community Protection Support Services Building Improvements DEBT SERVICE General Obligation Bond Bancroft Bond 35.023.99 UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY Contract TOTAL AMOUNT OF CHECKS WRITTEN i�_� c L, February 4, 1982 MEM0RANDUM To: Mayor and City Council From: Bob Jean, City Administrator Subject: Washington County Trasnportation Committee Per Resolution No. 82-04, Council decided to participate in a Washington County Transportation Committee to review transportation issues and funding in the area. Meetings of this group are expected to occur on weekdays during normal work hours. Staff suggests that the following assignments be made: Elected Official - Member: Tom Brian lst Alternate: Nancie Stimler 2nd Alternate: Wilbur Bishop Staff Official - Member: Frank Currie lst Alternate: John Hagman 2nd Alternate: Bob Jean February 3, 1982 MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and Council -� From: City Administrator, Bob Jean l Subject: Business Licensing V As you are aware, I met with the Chamber of Commerce Public Affairs Committee to discuss the proposed Business License Revocation ordinance. Chief Adams and the City Attorney discussed problems with enforcement of the existing Code. A general discussion as to the revenue or regulatory purposes of business licensing followed. What we have tentatively agreed upon is to take a comprehensive look at the whole issue , not just a quick fix on revocation. The Chamber offered to name three members to work with the City on this issue. Mayor Bishop has suggested that some citizens-at-large also be involved. Meanwhile, staff has been reviewing the existing Code and are gathering information from other jurisdictions. I would request that Council appoint a committee with three citizen members to be appointed by the Council and three members from the Chamber to work with staff and present its findings to Council in April. February 4 , 1982 MEMORANDUM To: Mayor & Council From: Finance Director Subject: OLCC Applications Police Department has reviewed all requests for license applications for this meeting and have recommended approval and forwarding to OLCC with the Mayor's signature. �f V C Avoid Verbal Messages A_1 CITY OF TIGARD To: CHTF.F pF P(1T.TCF From :—_ DORIS HARTIG Subject: OLCC RENEWAL APPLICATION Date:i January 26, 1982 Please investigate and have recommendation ready for February 8, 1982, council meeting. Safeway Stores No. 383 250 Tigard Shopping Plaza Type of application: Package store 4� Avoid Verbal Messages A_1 CITY OF TIGARD To: CHIEF OF POLICE From:__DORIS HARTIG Subject: OLCC RENEWAL APPLICATION Date: 1_27_82 Please investigate and have recommendation ready for February 8, 1982 council meeting. The Tortilla Machine Swift Mart No. 17 11445 S.W. Pacific Hwy 9800 S.W. Shady Lane Tigard, Oregon 97223 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Type of application: Dispenser Class A Type of application: Package Store o � Ic- v i LM Avoid Verbal Messages A-1 CITY OF TIGARD To: CHIEF OF POLICE From: DORIS HARTIG Subject: OLCC RENEWAL APPLICATION Date:_ February 2, 1982 Please investigate and have recommendation ready for February 8, 19_82 Council meeting. L'Ecurie Circle K #572 12386 S.W. Main 9930 S.W. Walnut Tigard, Oregon Tigard, Oregon Type of Application: Dispenser Class C Type of Application: Package Store Big B Tiiriftway 14365 S.W. Pacific Hwy Tigard, Oregon Type of Application: Package Store Mr9. William Del Ba11 RECEIVED 11515 southwest 91st Avenue JAN Z V 1582 Tigard. Oregon 97223 25, M2 CITY OF TIGARD FAaak Gvmu.e, ! �. ' n 8 t2i�ce-cto2 �Ce�ctosz, l,Ie�osta.�,e �:�ascrrez LaAee= G1Llon, 0,4-' a /+ecu 12755-S. Adh- Pe O. Hbx 23397- _&ga,4 O"fx=97223 3 "adkAztaad the Cit6, v�e 7i�_Zm .the rant . ov dLetartt °iltis a e r ri.('-E .eZc� to; annex .crs. them Tici.�"an a=ex Erato/ Zz Z--,u�Sir ath em .Zegat puxcedu � 3 =n,t to =lam . Y"u do not ttde -the .Zega2 czscaip_ r .t. iia fatvlxi .cl to ra the'" _�,L .the .e£a-eti:aa hetd ics� �acgccet 25D 1;8P a.8 -;e thi.e had 4een 6uceeee t &"ad hatre 4eea damagZV to m., pzaae44- 1"he P"2e tg.M J ar�re r ddu ch &V.6armed-t o the- CLt<� ¢/- _gam 4z Na&dz W, 198x.4z az Zoe s (&F T S- t 36,/M...Tax Lata 5700, 6600 and 000 and it .c.a my dk4ite that #Jze,5, �av�� (��n) Citi .o� Tom. _T .threat the Ci4 a- T2ga4d ru�ZZ wmi-te up .the Xogat &.ca ""m afw �Gectr'rrn .on 041p t mamw '%z annexing taZ .ia� the Atsate za as to a6 u4.: 0n4 anrzeti izg Ma ea a?read 42araened anal &v-ng, .60"m .6mch a zscume& as to nat Z .r va"s '7+ adi rr zce tr g any aruz p tion ��L. aE�frha Qlaa 'i L., Milli RECEIV,p CITY OF TiG .EJB INC. 11515 S.W. 91ST AVENUE PORTLAND, OREGON 97223 U.S.A. (503) 639-2900 a DEL W.BALL DIRECTOR G. L. BALL DIRECTOR L� Jrt Sec.-7T.Leaa. a ' gaad ;Wtw- j- 25, 1982 t2r55 S. 4& A6h. P. 0. Rox 23397. T.r� 04,egm Rltenti:on., t7ovLs,a yazt.� Ci , L-4--- NRatW. ,a, z ful� f�,�«/uLPlL 8 % LG 1uu/1lLd � GtOJZ 1.rmm 7L (41-.50", 0 ('ani-may Ue chid e— tadLd the ClRxeztzm t" -by ale rzg- LCL -uz tAe nat. l3lL�`. 11-1 fLe �tQ�!• llll Cl LPIL n O� -&L � F/Ll'lif�-P�' IJJL .lL Tl-taae- &" L 4le loCrlLt ta rI1QfLe GpJLt.21JL u- do not. a6e -the `egAZZ p-woc-ded .ta the ,t_/-am the �ectiron art 25, 1981 ,,, t&j, u, a � to o�� : die�i,cded Tax La t 1260, l'la� 2 S 1 1 Al, Xew.Za the ath paten uz .the �g. then "ent am to �zlmoae the 4' a&n o ou s �m .&auzg -La .the Ci.t � Zt Pesch iri.the Caetrztr�, lLle-don't 4e?.i etle -the �rizi�tiva wouPd �Prz fiaue a�utexPd 7lax Lat 400, owed � Fo,& L u�u and LaZir� t1a e aR a min isz 17 and 18 2 S 1 1 g /UAaC-e .4n 13,eoch acza rzat .au ' �:�' 6ti"ee ilt -the C.ou ttr�. A6 you- hrtcu.,, thi..6 eP� Ode tiur�t .the next =Ae-1a�/z o2 etecti= ',",U -le Ame .the unpa,6,a o l=121wwp4-Lt9 not erL the Ci teg ore 7-i clairrl crud ,that -the Ci:t r o#Jxeie ed tis tJLe jZWZea a. wee a�e zltz z P,4,y lzt1j k" aanx-tad alr-ta .the C14 aA 7--galyd ort 7a4,ch 20, 1981 (La zz j, a tu=) and -&t 4.6 aro7- d"44-e -tO .r-em u m -uz the CLtry, 1 7 7i A..... Tax Lata 100' 1700, 1400, 1301, 1200 17177-: 1 S 1 36 [,i._..Tyr Lata 48000, 4900, 5000, 5100, 5800 tdA-- a.Qda) &xurt to caee 1-� ryaud .i w7- -that l'la72 2 S l 1 A4 Tax Lat 5200 417-6 ann�� -ur .the CZ it j -a 1979 (Glamduz f mz.,,r J P7912 2 S 1 1 M tan Lost 2200 4x7-6 annRxed .isrta O:tct u7- 1981 (Lair aarz &Mawtioa) -46; air Batt hrtour &li tt caned -� 'u9fst .ta .eet . .tfze vocz eet the Co ' aaz arzd hour -imLla�zZt -6t r.6 to e TZaa t-o �.c, tion a:7- a me-r-pd to .the Ci z`ig L6 annexed uizezz.eueet aLZO�tJLV'L arutexd anothe-Oz pe.'r4 lit an that game c.6 dome Za za-ch a mann e z a6 to stat darzag e g,= hatre angv �, eet u s hrzaur; ang an .ovz o F-�eQ a e ?a tae ase adtrr.d ed ua�_CQ in T �7z� as k=e�xti.art .to arLrzPx �ira�en#� .r."rt GIe aafz.tl-at t-h4.6. 4a made pant ale .the Citg asp Ts$and izecartd, .Sulzceze�i� DA"01 Jh'G ,o METROPOLITAN SERVICE DISTRICT ;27 SIV.HALL ST.,PORTLAND,()R. 97201, ,03 2 21-1646 1�1ET�® Rick Gustafson )y} �- EXECUTIVE OFFICER f\ F C E I�/F n Metro Council January 11, 1982 v 1 Jack Deines PRESIDING OFFICER DISTRICT Betty Schedeen DEPUTY PRESIDING OFFICER DISTRICT 7 Bob Oleson DISTRICTI Mr. Bob Jean City of Tigard Char DISTRICT 2lie 150n 12420 SW Main Street Craig Berkman Tigard, Oregon 97223 D"IRICT 3 Dear Bob: Corky Kirkpatrick DISTRICT 4 During the past six months the Reagan Administration has lane Rhodes DISTRICT been reviewing its administrative procedures as they relate to state and local governments. The A-95 function Ernie Bonner DISTRICT D has come under close scrutiny expected and it is that a recommendation will be forthcoming. There is every Cindy DISSTRICT9` likelihood that the recommendation will shift the responsibility to the state level and allow it to become a Bruce Ettinger DISTRICT IO voluntary program. Should this occur , the ry Intergovernmental Relations Division of the State of MDISTRIICT`II Oregon will coordinate an effort to determine the Mike Burton appropriate role for A-95 in this state. DISTRICT 12 Metro has performed the A-95 function (as did CRAG before it) for the past three years in the tri-county area because of its designated role as Areawide Clearinghouse for A-95 Reviews. At one time this function was funded by federal funds and is now funded solely by local dues. The National Association of Regional Councils (NARC) may file a lawsuit to protect the principle of A-95. It is important that we know how you feel about A-95 and its future. In particular, we need to know how hard you want us to work to preserve the A-95 role. It would be extremely helpful if you would share with us any examples January 11, 1982 Page 2 that highlight either the effectiveness or the drawbacks of A-95 as it relates to local governments. Please contact either Marilyn .Holstrom or Mel Hui.e with any sug ions that you might have. incer ly, Corky Kirkpatrick ick Gustafson Councilor Executive officer District 4 RG/CK/MH/srb 4991B/D2 c RECEIVED JAN 2 2 i:��334 ATTACHMENT 8 ENUMERATION AREA SUMMARY SHEET City Tigard County Washington Date of Enumeration ,bannar_v-�., 1932 Area Enumerated Annexation Order 81-100 HOUSING POPULATION TYPE Average OF Occupied Vacant Total Occupancy Household UNIT Units Units Units Rate Pop. Size Single Family Units 239 3 242 .9876 742 3.1046 Multiple Family Units 3 2 5 .6000 6 2.0000 Mobile Homes 1 0 1 1.0000 2 2.0000 Group Quarters _ TOTAL ALL UNITS 243 5 248 .9798 750 3.0864 Owner-Occupied Housing Units 240 Population 729 Renter-Occupied Housing Units 8 Population 21 SIZE OF HOUSEHOLD (Number of households by num er o persons per household) 1 22 2 85 3 42 4 53 5 26 6 5 7 �` 8 9 10 11 12+ CI` F TICArRD January 28, 1982 WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON Department of Human Resources Employment Division 875 Union Street NE Salem, Oregon 97311 Attn: Roger Lent Re: Shift of Unemployment Options , Dear Mr. Lent: Please be advised that the City of Tigard wishes to exercise our option to change the unemployment program and participate in the Local Government Employer Benefit Trust Fund. I understand this change will become effective July 1, 1982. Please review this request and advise an estimated tax rate so this item may be included in our 1982-83 budget preparations. If further information is needed, please feel free to contact Doris Hartig, Finance Director at 639-4171. Sincerely, Robert W. Jean City Administrator RWJ:lw 12420 S.W. MAIN P.O. BOX 23397 TIGARD, OREGON 97223 PH: 639-4171 .. '• - _-..:fir° ... '.'"=.�z�+'�-d Mauvanie Lerman 14680 SW 76th X195 Tigard, oregon 97223 18 Jan 1982 Mayor Bishop City Council 12420 SW Main r Tigard, Oregon 97223 Mayor Bishop and City Council Members: I am writing in requards to the matter that the Cherry Park Tenants Union brought to your attention last summer, discrimination against chil- dren and the poor. The Council said they would check into the matter. We hope that the Council by this time has done as they said. We do have some new imformation. We have found out that Granum and Harris have put the apts up for sale as we had anticipated. It was just another Tax Write-off for them, but at the expense of several familes who could not afford it. This is the type of thing we would like to see put to rest in the City of Tigard; and, through- out the State. We would like to see the City of Tigard take a stand and be an example for the other cities in Oregon. I hope to hear from you very soon about this matter. Sincerely, 11 Xe12 m cc: Legal Aid Mary Alice Ford John Davis (channel 8 tv) a , i February 3, 1983 MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council From: Finance Director Subject: 1981-82 Control Budget Approval Staff would recommend that Council state their motion for approval of the 1981-82 Control Budget as follows: The Tigard City Council acknowledges the City Administrator's control budget and concurs with its use for the remainder of fiscal year 1981-82. PROGRAM BUDGET EXPENDITURE SUMMARY PROGRAM: ADOPTED CONTROL $ $ DEPARTMENT BUDGET BUDGET MIANGE CHANGE NOTE: QOMMUNITY PROTECTION police $ 1,035,368 977,000 ($58,368) - 58 Public Works 334,930 293,950 ( 40,980) -128 Municipal Court 37,461 36,875 ( 586) - 28 Planning 94,896 77,500 ( 17,396) -188 -PD,-CEO, +AP... Building 127,998 116,500 ( 11,498) - 98 -CEO TOTAL, $1,630,653 $1,501,825 ($128,828) - 88 HOME AND COMMUNITY QUALITY: Public Works 1,399,529 1,220,000 (179,529) -138 TOTAL, $1,399,529 $1,220,000 ($179,529) -138 POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION: Mayor and Council 16,902 16,000 ($ 902) - 58 Administration 83,172 103,000 19,828 +248 +AA,AS,Moving & selection $... Finance & Records 155,176 168,500 13,324 + 98 TOTAL, $ 255,250 $ 287,500 $ 32,250 +128 SOCIAL SERVICES: Library $ 133,409 $ 136,000 $ 2,591 + 28 Grant + mon... Loaves & Fishes 10,000 10,000 O 0 TCYS 66,383 66,383 0 O TOTAL $ 209,792 $ 212,383 $ 2,591 + 18 NON-DEPARTMENTAL TOTAL $ 262,286 $ 350,000 $ 87,714 +338 Legal, newsletter, City Hall & Civic Center... CAPITAL BUDGET TOTAL $ 916,612 $ 916,612 0 0 DEBT SERVICE TOTAL $ 172,866 $ 172,866 0 O SUB TOTAL PROGRAMS $4,846,988 $4,661,186 (185,802) - 43 CONTINGENCY General Fund $ 242,773 $ 160,663 ( 82,110) -348 For P/82-83... . Before Special Other Funds 195,501 100,630 ( 94,871) -488 Lesislative session... TOTAL $ 438,274 $ 261,293 ($176,981) -408 TOTAL ALL PROGRAMS $5,285,262 $4,922,479 ($362,783) - 78 108 GF, 48 Others... PROGRAM BUDGET REVENUE SUMMARY FUND ADOPTED CONTROL $ $ RESOURCES BUDGET BUDGET CHANGE CHANGE NOTE: i :NERAL FUND: Beginning Balance $ 322,154 $ 226,083 ($96,071) -30% Audit... Property taxes 717,861 710,000 ( 7,861) -118 Delinquencies... Cigarette Tax 38,150 38,150 * * *Before Special Liquor Tax 136,650 136,650 * * leg. session? State Rev. Sharing 103,979 86,000 ( 17,979) -178 Pop. change... Hotel-Motel 30,146 30,146 O 0. Grants 192,264 201,563 9,299 + 58 CDBG & LCDC Business Licenses 66,000 50,000 ( 16,000) -278 -Builders Building Fees 174,040 104,000 ( 70,040) -408 -Permits... Fines & Forfeitures 59,400 59,400 O 0 Interest 49,000 30,000 ( 19,000) -398 -Balance SB Lighting Fee 14,500 14,500 0 0 -Slowdown... SB Applications 6,000 4,000 ( 2,000) -338 Zoning fees 17,000 10,000 ( 7,000) -418 P W Inspection 40,000 18,000 ( 22,000) -558 n Other 10,500 5,000 ( 5,500) -528 n Franchise Fees 378,750 378,750 O 0 All Other 157,149 170,758 - 13,609 + 88 CC Transfer In... GENERAL FUND TOTAL $2,513,543 $2.273,000 ($240,543) - 98 FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING $ 146,890 $ 130,000 ($16,890) -118 -BFB & Cuts COUNTY ROAD FUND 93,262 86,300 ( 6,962) - 78 -BFB MAJOR ST. (SDC) FUND 941,534 900,000 ( 41,534) - -58 -SDC's, +BFB... STATE TAX STREET 223,229 223,229 O O +BFB...14/Gal... COUNTY ROAD (LEVY) MAINT. 521,615 521,615 0 0 -Delinquencies? SEWER FUND 597,354 540,500 ( 56,854) -108 -BFB & CONNECTS PARK & RECREATION (SDC) 74,969 74,969 O 0 +BFB, -SDC SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 162,653 162,653 O O SND SINKING FUND 10,213 10,213 O O TOTAL ALL FUNDS $5,285,262 $4,922,479 ($362,783) - 78 February 4, 1982 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Radio Communications It is herewith recommended that the Council direct staff to proceed to engage Communications Enterprises of Oregon, Inc., to facilitate conversion and upgrading of the City's radio communications system, in accord with State of Oregon's Price Agreement No. 34-201-1369, G.E. Bid No. I-0957-81 and the City's approved budget thereinregard conversion/upgrade. COMMUNICATION ENTERPRISES OF OREGON, INC. GENERAL �; " ELECTRIC t. AUTHORIZED SERVICE 2323 N.Williams Ave.,Portland,Oregon 97227 Phone:284-2168 MOBILE RADIO December, 14, 1981 t City of Tigard Dept of Public Works PO Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Attn: John Hagman Dear John: Per your request, I have listed below the equipment and installation work that we discussed at our last meeting. Some of the equipment is to be purchased by the City from General Electric Co. and these items are so noted. The balance of the equipment and installation work will be done by Communication Enterprises of Oregon, Inc. We will perform the following : A. Remove existing tower from Old City Hall. B. Provide and Install new PD-200 Antenna & Transmission line on Police Tower. C. Provide necessary parts to convert existing Motorola Base to Remote Control and install same in Equipment Room. D. Install three Remote Control units as follows: 1. One at Auto shop (53911Zs1 14/8527 to be purchased from GE 2. One at Clair's office (539AZS1 111/8527 to be purchased from GD 3. One at City Hall (539AZS1 [1/8527 & 8583 to be purchased. from GE E. Provide and install three Remote Slave units in City Hall. F. Provide parts and labor necessary to change frequency and a`a channel guard to the Motorola Base Station and three existing Motorola mobile units. All above work will be performed for the Sum of 53,710.00 Equipment to be purchased from General Electric in priced as follows: A. 2 Required Remote Controls 539AZS1 1-.V8.527 S 433.00ea B. 1 Required Remote Control 539AZS1 W/8527 & 8583 (Handset) S 480.00ea C. Mobile unit CT561lAU66A Yd/1911 & 1920 Single Channel with Channel Guard S 535.00ea D. Mobile units CT56PCU66A W/1911 & 1920 2 frequency with Channel Guard S 604.00ea. t Fr.R-1565-t Page 2 This should include all work we have discussed in the past, however if I have missed something or if you have any questions, please give me a call. Respectfully, Carl J. DePaolo V anager CJD/ed i �^ 2JTIMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTI4ENT SUBJECT: BID AWARD RECOTa1ENDATION - HALF TON VAN DATE: DECEMBER 7, 1981 The opening of bids for one (1) halt ton van, for the City's Engineering Division inspection vehicle, was held at 3:00 PM on December 4, 1981. Two (2) bids were received, namely: Gateway Ford (Newberg, OR.) . . . . . . . . . . $ 8,156.57 Landmark Ford (Tigard, OR.) . . . . . . . . . . 7,844.63 The City had budgeted $ 8,550. for this acquisition. Therefore, it is recommended that the City Council award said acquisition to the low bidder, being Landmark Ford (Tigard, OR.) . February 3, 1982 MEMORANDUM TO: amity Council FROM: Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Proposal(s) for Monumenting the Right-of-Way of S.W. Tiedeman Avenue from Walnut Street to Tigard Street and, also, Monumenting the Right-of-Way of McDonald Street from Pacific Highway to Hall Blvd. In pursuing the Council's previously expressed desire to develop the City's collector street system, it is necessary to legally record and physically locate the system. Staff research has determined that the two streets mentioned above are of top priority. Therefore, in pursuing development of the system, the department hereby recommends that the proposal(s) submitted by John Peterson be adopted, and that field work thereinregard commence. JOHN M. PETERSON & ASSOCIATES zPROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYING 2724 S.E. Sunflower Ct. , Hillsboro, Oregon 97'123 (503) 648-3820 January 20, 1982 City of Tigard Job // 0'182002 12755 S.W. Ash Ave. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Attn: Mr. Clarno S.W. Tiedeman Ave. Proposal for Consulting P.L.S. Services JOB LIMITS: S.W. Tiedeman Ave. from Walnut Street to Tigard St. ;-� SCOPE: I. Initial discussions and receipt of research IRb.NbY sCRsw AouRs material from the City. Z pEOP�ti Research material to include: a) Blue line prints of all plats along project length. Mos-r aF b) Blue line prints of tax maps along project tlength. - 3rws, MA-t R►AL c) Blue line prints of 200 scale maps along � project length, obtained from County, to be used as an index map. a�Ta`i QED. d) Working prints of all records of surveys along project length. e) Additional information, such as road notes and deeds, acquired by the City or requested by the Consultant. f) The above prints to be retained, by. the Consultant, after completion of project, for back up support of record of survey. 3 O (2 M.H.) II. Review research material and formulate recommend- ations for field survey work. p p (10 M.H.) III. Research into State law, various court decisions and discussions with the Washington. County • surveyor in order to resolve the discrepancy of the right-of-way width that should be accepted. This will include field inspection of the lines of occu ation. O Q (8 M.H. IV. Consult with Mr. Clarno giving him my recommend- ations for the field survey. (4 M.H.) 1 Of .3 �vJ AoupS V. Field survey is conducted and computed by 3Z City forces. VI. After receiving survey computations, working drawings and copy of field notes the survey is reviewed for completeness. (6 M.H.) VII. Determination of centerline and right-of-way lines and coordinations of centerline points to be set. ® 0 (20 M.H.) VIII. Consultant will furnish Centerline monuments consisting of 30" x 5/81 1 iron rods with cast aluminum cap stamped "J. Peterson P.L.S. 1856". 8 a These monuments are to be set by City Forces. IX. Preparation of written narrative and references to go on record of survey. Consulting with City as to what should be shown on record of survey. Final review of record of survey with field inspection. 1-AS (12 M.H.) X. Preparation of legal descriptions for portions of the two tax lots to be acquired for the realignment of a portion of S.W. Tiedeman near Fowler Jr. High School. O (5 M.H.) XI. COST SUMMARY: Item Man Hours 4 �.Lw��K� Y 2 -777 O II 10 III 8 of wgleIf IV 4 VI 6 VII 20 IX 12 �rN THS X 67 Total Man Hours @ $34.00 each 7 OF M Y Subtotal Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2278.00 Eight Monuments @ $5.00 each . . . . . 40.00 -rimE. Total Cost $2318.00 XII. PAYMENT: Billings will be made after the completion of items IV, VII and X. Payment to the Consultant shall be within 15 days, except that 10% of each payment is to be retained by the City if they 66OL-D _E"E PSS desire, until completion of the job. 2 of 3 XIII. Every effort will be made to remain flexible and S� to cooperate fully with City forces. Any ti substantial work requested by the City, that is not covered by this proposal, shall be charged at the hourly rate stated in item XI. XIV. In case I would be called to court, to testify for the City, in support of this survey, for the acquisition of additional right--of-way or for resolution of any other problem arising from this work, I will be compensated at my normal hourly rate for the time spent in court. XV. This proposal to be in effect for 90 days from the date on it. Work to start within 10 working days of the receipt of written acceptance, unless otherwise mutually agreeded upon. Upon acceptance of this proposal, please sign and return one copy. Sincerely yours, 2�� ohn M. Peterson, P.Z.S. - i Accepted 9 1982 Name Title imp/wma i 3 Of 3 JOHN M. PETERSON & ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL, LAND SURVEYING 2724 S.E. Sunflower Ct. , Hillsboro, Oregon 97123 (503) 648-3820 e, January 12, 1982 City of Tigard 12755 S.W. Ash Ave. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Attn: Mr. Clarno S.W. McDonald Street Revised Proposal_ for Consulting P.L.S. Services P JOB LIMITS: S.W. McDonald Street from State Highway 99 to Hall Blvd. .SCOPE. -- I. Initial discussions. and receipt of, research material 7RN0C S C?-EW from the City. "CLms Research material to include : Nou RS 2vcoo6 a) Blue line prints of all plats along project length. b) Blue line prints of tax maps along project length. c) Blue line prints of 200 scale maps along project length, obtained from County, to be used as an Index map. d) Working prints of all records of surveys along project length. e) Additional information, such as road notes and deeds, acquired by the City or requested by the Consultant. f) The above prints to be retained, by the Consultant, after completion of project, for back up support of record of survey. O (2 M.H.) II. Review research material and formulate recommendations for field survey work. 0 0 (12 M.H.) III. Consult with Mr. Clarno giving him my recommendations for the field survey. Q- o (4 M.H.) 0 IV. Field survey is conducted and computed by City forces. V. After receiving survey computations, working drawing and copy of field notes the survey is reviewed for completeness. (6 M.H.) VI. Determination of centerline and right-of-way lines and coordinations of centerline points to be set. o (20 M.H.) i I of 2 LFz��.J ------ t-�ou2.s C Z oPL� VII. Consultant will furnish Centerline monuments consisting of 30" x 5/8" iron rods with cast aluminum cap stamped "J. Peterson P.L.S. 1856". These monuments 16 IG are to be set by City Forces. VIII. Preparation of written narrative and references to go on record of survey. Consulting with City as to what should be shown on record of .survey. Final review of record of survey with field inspection. 211- o (12 M.H.) IX. COST SUMMARY: Item Man Hours I 2 II 12 A III 4 1 weiv- Nw--> ZDA s v VI 200 \1414141A VIII 12 5� `»n;vL, Total Man Hours Q $34.00 each 3oA4s. Subtotal Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1904.00 w�L�. •rad MY Ti n�E Ten Monuments 50.00 oNVY - 8G`�ot„Q Total Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1954.00 X. PAYMENT — S7- S REaant�t�t� D- A` Billings will be made after the completion of items III, VI and VIII. Payment to the Consultant shall be -rM5 M. NumE-707-,-, 'P.,E within 15 days, except that 10% of each payment is Sof IM�DIATI�`� �ct.t,o!o�aC� to be retained by the City if they desire , until completion of the job. XI. Every effort will be made to remain flexible and to —SNiTIn V 'F��u �tJopN cooperate fully with City forces. Any substantial work requested by the City, that is not covered by " sElav�p this proposal, shall be charged at the hourly rate '5-rNRr' No t, 'fl- Wstated in item IX. 3 vt��K3 3�FoR� 1�.v�r�l XII. This proposal to be in effect for 90 days from the U• date on it. Work to start within 10 working days of the receipt of written acceptance. Sincerely yours, John M. Peterson, P.L.S. jmp/wma 2 of 2 E� M E M O R A N D U M o� TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING STAFF SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Revision CPR 14-81 (Dr. Alva Roberts) NPO # 7 November 10, 1981, at the Planning Commission meeting, the Commission voted unanimously to continue a request by Dr. Alva Roberts for a Comprehensive Plan Revision from A-12• Multi-Family to CP 'Commercial Professional. The Commission directed the applicant and Staff to work out conditions appropriate for the approval of the Comprehensive Plan Revision. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider the following conditions if this Comprehensive Plan Revision is approved. 1. A non remonstance agreement shall be signed for the future improvement of S.W. Scholls Ferry Road and for the improvement of a future street that will serve the site. 2. A dedication of Right of Way shall be made on Scholls Ferry Road as required by the Oregon Department of Transportation. A dedication shall also be made for Tax lots 2400 and 2500 for the future extension of Sorrento Road. The R.O.W. dedication for lots 2400 and 2500 shall be 30 ' from the extension of the center line of the Sorrento Road R.O.W. . 3. The septic system shall be inspected by the Washington County Department of Sanitation prior to issuance of an Occupancy Permit. The applicant shall request and receive annual inspections of the septic system by the Washington County Department of Sanitation. The applicant shall bear the cost of these annual inspections. 4. The site shall be connected to public sewer when service is within 3001 . 5. The applicant shall apply for Site Design Review for landscaping, parking and site access prior to the isssuance of Occupancy Pexmit. 6. The applicant shall apply for a Sign Permit and a City of Tigard Business license prior to the issuance of Occupancy Permit. Pre red By Eli abeth Newton, Associate Approved By Frank Currie Planner Planning Director i u CITYO TIOWRD WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON FFeb,..ry , 1982 REFERENCE: CPR 15-81 AMART APPEAL Please take notice that on February 8, 1982, the Tigard City Council adopted a final order denying the above application, filed by: MART Development, Inc. The signed final order, along with accompanying findings and conclusions, was filed with the Planning Director and City Recorder on February 9, 1982, Frank A. Currie, Planning Director City of Tigard FAC:dmj { 12755 S.W.ASH P.O. BOX 23397 TIGARD, OREGON 97223 PH:639-4171 We the undersigned residents of Tigard disapprove of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Revision from R-7 to A- 12PD bei ng presented. To be located on S .W . 130th , South of Glacier Lily Circle (IS ] 33D Tax Lot 100) , for the reasons listed below : A . The change in the existing Comprehensive Plan would be i ncons i stant with the already existing pre-developed surrounding area . (i .e . multi -family in the middle of a single family residential zone . B . The increased traffic created by the development would add additional risk to the up-bringing of children in the area , over and above the risk level for a R-7 zone . Name Address Telephone 12 U_ -2 7 It j 4;- � r-��-��C rte• (� �, /�. , i � '��C'C'i�'�C'��"-�; Ha -1. �'�117 %'� � ,_tom�,> 1 - �//L � ��C'�•-/_ LC A- L_4 C _5 We the undersigned residents of Tigard disapprove of the proposed Comprenensi ve Plan Revision from R-7 to A-12PD bei ng presented. To be located on S .W . 130th , South of Glacier Li ly Circle (1S1 33D Tax Lot 100) , for the reasons listed below : A . The change in the existing Comprehensive Plan would be inconsistent with the already existing pre-developed surrounding area . (i .e . multi -family in the middle of a single fami 1 y -residential zone . B . The increased traffic created by the development would add additional risk to the up-bringing of children in the area , over and above the risk level for a R-7 zone . Name Addr ss T 1 e ho e IZ770 5� Z • - _ Ines &nSM /273s EtJ77akj� .1 SCSI La > 2v 4-M v C12 '7 We the undersigned residents of Tigard di sapprove of the proposed Comprenensive Plan Revision from R- 7 to A-12PD bei ng presented. To be located on S .W . 13001 , South of Glacier Lily Circle (IS ] 33D Tax Lot 100) , for tine reasons listed below : A . The change in the exi sti ng Comprenensive Plan %,:oul d be inconsistant with the already existing pre-developed surrounding area . (i .e . multi -family in the middle of a single fami I y residential zone . B . The increased traffic created by tree development would add additional risk to the up-bringing of children in the area , over and above the risk level for a R-7 zone . Name Address Te I e phone � � SGC' �,� i�9�' S��-' ��' L �L y G:�L -��.�i c- • '3'77 �-tc►,.r2 12(,,w Sw am- 7C, l zy$Z 5 w 5keo,V e-;r— b z o- `7 17 6 yam. 42:2415 2 ? 1 stb We the undersigned residents of Tigard di sapprove of the proposed Comprenensi ve Plan Revision frown R-7 to A- 12PD being presented. To be located on S .W . 13001 , South of Glacier Li ly Circle (1S1 33D Tax Lot 100) , for the reasons listed below : A . The change in the exi sti ng Comprenensi ve Plan would be inconsistant with the already existing pre-developed surrounding area . (i .e . multi -faini 1 y in the middle of a single family residential zone . B . The increased traffic created by ttie development would add additional risk to tiie up-bringing of children in the area , over and above the risk level for a R-7 zone . NameAddress Te 1 e phone t '7 fs. y P 3 S - G �X� o...u.-, .r- cam- 12/61 ' Am c /027 O -20 Sl t,},, \Z. Ak ` C) - S CovwL 1,2 7 '- We the undersigned residents of Tigard disapprove of the Proposed Comprenensi ve Plan Revision from R-7 to A- 12PD being presented. To be located on S .W . 130th , South of Glacier Li ly Circle ( 1S1 33D Tax Lot 100) , for tree reasons listed below : A . The change in the existing Comprenensi ve Plan would be i nconsi Stant with tree already existing pre-developed surrounding area . ( i .e . mul ti -fami I y in the middle of a single family residential zone . B . The increased traffic created by the development would add additional risk to the uo-bringing of children in the area , over and above the risk level for a R-7 zone . Name Address Te 1 ephone )^ter f k e ,= T c7- _4 7 1 - - G /'`4_ti4F��z"`�o- /L f �7. C s. [.' v it s•1 r i �-��i' J � ` i. }4 r• ' 7 c J � Z-zC. z:�. "1 !. I'�/�i/.G.�1� /�tet` _`�� .--..�i' '✓-!/. �/�t4-� '�G-� _ _ 1 �� - / `.� .-.��✓✓// / 1 V �f % /-�L V � .��Sl c�1 ./i "lt 74.._'' i�t'..1—l— 1. �j_ /1 t. / f7 ( 1 z ® 5-u-1 1b S f We the undersigned residents of Tigard disapprove of the proposed Comprenensi ve Plan Revision from R-7 to A- 12PD Soubei ng presented. To be located on fo ti�e0 130th , 1 is teGlacier l aci er Li l y Circle (ISI 33D Tax Lot 100) , below : A . The change i n the exi sti ny Comprenensi ve Plan woul d be inconsistent with the already existing pre-developed surrounding area . ( i .e . multi -family in the middle of a si ng le fami 1 y resi denti al zone . B . The increased traffic created by the development would add addi tiona 1 ri sk to the up-bri ngi ng of chi 1 dren in the area , over and above the risk level for a R-7 zone . Name Address Tele h e 7 _ f: r �a is 61 220v S(" fZ7 931Z- Sw/ _mac / 7y' t �Z0- Z0 iw — a� - Zoo -5 CS /z YOo s.cU 67- We the undersigned residents of Tigard disapprove of the proposed Cornprenensive Plan Revision from R-7 to A- 12PD being presented. To be located on S.W . 130th , South of Glacier Li I y Circle (1 S I 33D Tax Lot 100) , for tree reasons 1 i s ted below : A . The change in the exi s ti ny Comprehensive Plan would be A inconsistant with the already existing pre-developeduz - surroundi ng area . (i .e . mul ti -farm I y i n the mi ddIe of L„ � a si ng le fami 1 y resi dential zone . B . The increased traffic created by the development would add addi ti ona I ri sk to the up-bri ng i ng of chi 1 dren i n the area, over and above the risk level for a R-7 zone . Name Address Telephone 2- AL &i2::3 tvl1-.;7(1- Ir)I A_/IS AQ We the undersigned residents of Tigard di sapprove of the proposed Compreriensi ve Plan Revision from R-7 to A- 12PD bei ng presented. To be located on S .W . 130th , South of Glacier Li ly Circle (lS1 33D Tax Lot 100) , for tine reasons listed below : A . The change i n the exi s ti ny Comprenensi ve Plan woul d be inconsistant with the already existing pre-developed surroundi ng area . (i .e , mul ti -fami I y i n the mi ddle of a s i ng le fam i I y re s i de n t i a l zone . B . The increased traffic created by the development would add addi tiona i ri sk to the up-bri ngi ng of chi i dren i n the area , over and above the risk level for a R-7 zone , Name Address Telephone Ica 6' IU '54 Cil -�0(E _ —� D 14770 S'cJ ol-y C :ecce We the undersigned residents of Tigard di sapprove of the proposed Comprenensi ve Plan Revision from R-7 to A- 12PD being presented. To be located on S .W . 130th , South of Glacier Lily Circle (1S1 330 Tax Lot 100) , for the reasons listed below : A . The change in the exi s ti ng Comprehensive Plan would be i nconsi stent with tree already existing pre-developed surrounding area . (i .e . multi -fami I y in the middle of a single fami 1 y residential zone . B . The increased traffic created by the development would add additional risk to the up-bringing of children In the area , over and above the risk level for a R-7 zone , Name Address Telep_ hone ��..o ��. r!' -Q��.%�'J�s Sup -�t/lc,•. liter?6 -c;a s/� JV CA ),�27- .S S(4_).PO '�'O OtACan M is'12,0 10-) K tkLN,- Q,) L3g S a y�► 1 r� o Iv 6 9 5 v � /z7isSw � �.3r-G73� 1,123 1 1 6 .s ' lv February 4, 1982 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Planning Staff RE: CPR 16-81 Revision of Policy 28 of the NPO 461 Plan On January 25, 1982, the City Council directed staff to draft an ordinance to revise Policy 28 of the NPO 461 Plan. After listening to the tape re- cording of the discussion relative to the Policy 28 Revision, staff has written the ordinance as directed by Councilwoman Stimler's motion. The transcript of the motion as made is attached for your review along with the draft ordinance. i f r �J 1/25/82 Council Meeting (Side 5) NANCIE STIMLER: having a problem with that suggestion either and if you take the recommendations that are on page 3, Staff Report CPR 16-81 and insert the extension of O'Mara to Hill then we should be able to live with that. MAYOR: You On what page is that report? 3? COOK: page. And adding the extension of O'Mara to Hill. MAYOR: At what point? FRANK CURRIE: If I could mention something. Ed mentioned one side of this picture and I'm not sure whether that is exactly what you had in mind. There ai ? two points I think you're talking about. One is you can include these things as part of the policy plan in which case they are solid. If you don't include them then they are not solid and they're used as guidelines. It was the staff's intention that they be used as guidelines. And it was the Planning Commission's intention that they be used as guidelines. position that they be used, I think, as policy. That's . . . I think that's the MAYOR: Legally advised that policy . . . SULLIVAN: No. You can do it either way, but if you don't put it in the plan, it ain't binding. MAYOR: That's right. FRANK CURRIE: And as a policy, it was not intended to be binding at the staff's point of view. And Planning that's the point I wanted to make too. COOK: The only problem I have Ken's comments is the extension of O'Mara down. Ed, does that . . , that doesn't have to show on a map as lines specific? SULLIVAN: No, if you tell if you say in a policy you want to extend when it's . . . COOK: That's generalization of an extension because it might move one lot in so the people would build on the side or two lots or five lots in. BOB JEAN: Do you I sense a general consensus around the idea of the . Policy 28 is drafted by staff with the findings or the . suggested guidelines actually being incorporated as a part of the text policy statement and adding the extension of O'Mara to Hill as a part of that concept. MAYOR: my position to go along with the , BOB JEAN: I think that we can draft something up along those lines. Page 2 MAYOR: Ms. Stimler indicated also that the . . . you wanted a consensus? EDIN: Just let me say O'Mara to Hill and I agree with you. it needs to be exact . . . our concern is that it not be later interpreted to come clear down where staff has it drawn. ??? It is being just about any . . . EDIN: If I . . . the way you have it written, it could come clear down to here. ??? Oh . . . EDIN: And that's our concern. XXX BOB JEAN: No, we understand what you're talking about. NANCIE STIMLER: Well, then you put . . . parallel to Ash. Okay? So the ex- tension of O'Mara to Hill parallel to Ash. BOB JEAN: No other other specific . . . would you move that to March 8th? KEN SCHECKLA: There's no need to, is there? NANCIE STIMLER: No. KEN SHECKLA: No? ??? Council is . . . ??? We should have got four for the . ??? They're here apparently . BOB JEAN: Should we prepare the final language and bring it back next week? COOK: No. We might be real short Council wise. NANCIE STIMLER: Yeah. SULLIVAN: You have three members, Mr. Mayor and all three are in general agreement, and all three are in general agreement right now. It doesn't seem to be . . . (Everyone talking at once) NANCIE STIMLER: Okay. So it is the extension of O'Mara to Hill parallel to Ash would be inserted. i ??? Well . NANCIE STIMLER: Parallel doesn't mean . . . Page 3 SCHECKLA: Do you have any remarks FRANK CURRIE: I guess I'm only going to suggest that you're probably putting some restrictions on that property that is going to make it extremely difficult to develop. SCHECKLA: We haven't done that in the past . . . MAYOR: We don't, we can't get other things to make it viable to live in the Ash Street area. So what choice have we got? NANCIE STIMLER: They can come apply for a CPR BUTLER: Could I add that even though the Hill Street extension of O'Mara on and you would maybe add O'Mara to Hill then the Lake Street that's not on anybody's plan so . . . MAYOR: That may or may not I would assume but if I . . . COOK: It might on to this extension . . . extension of O'Mara. ??? . . . unless there is a good reason for it. COOK: Only would be a different street name probably. MAYOR: Chopping up through the lots then if you keep putting more I visual BOB JEAN: I would suggest that we put this in final language, bring it back to the next Council meeting and let you take a look at it. MAYOR: We need a motion tonight then to that effect . . . to continue it. 727MAYOR: Council member wish to make that motion? NANCIE STIMLER: So rule. SCHECKLA: Seconded. MAYOR: Moved and seconded. We continue . . . public hearing closed. We will continue the matter for decision at the next regular Council meeting. Is there discussion on the motion as such? If not, then all in favor signify by saying aye. (vote taken) Page 3 PF. SCHECKLA: Do you have any remarks r^_ FRANK CURRIE: I guess I'm only going to suggest that you're probably putting some restrictions on that property that is going to make it extremely difficult to develop. SCHECKLA: We haven't done that in the past . MAYOR: We don't, we can't get other things to make it viable to live in the Ash Street area. So what choice have we got? NANCIE STIMLER: They can come apply for a CPR BUTLER: Could I add that even though the Hill Street extension of O'Mara on and you would maybe add O'Mara to Hill then the Lake Street that's not on anybody's plan so . . . MAYOR: That may or may not I would assume but if I . . . COOK: It might on to this extension . . . extension of O'Mara. ??? . . . unless there is a good reason for it. COOK: Only would be a different street name probably. MAYOR: Chopping up through the lots then if you keep putting more . I visual . BOB JEAN: I would suggest that we put this in final language, bring it back to the next Council meeting and let you take a look at it. MAYOR: We need a motion tonight then to that effect . . . to continue it. gg$MAYOR: Council member wish to make that motion? NANCIE STIMLER: So rule. SCHECKLA: Seconded. MAYOR: Moved and seconded. We continue . . . public hearing closed. We will continue the matter for decision at the next regular Council meeting. Is there discussion on the motion as such? If not, then all in favor signify by saying aye. (vote taken) l" February 3, 1982 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Planning Director RE: Skourtes Appeal On November 10, 1981, the City of Tigard Planning Commission denied John Skourtes' request for a variance to the sideyard setback requirements in a M-3 Zone. The Planning Commission made the denial based on the finding that the applicant does not meet the required criteria established for granting a variance in that a smaller building could be constructed on the site. The findings of the Planning Commission concurs with staff's findings and recommendation. The applicant's narrative, the staff report and a trans- cript of the Planning Commission Hearing are attached. • ., (o4�q-�03 i BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF TIGARD, OREGON NOTICE OF APPEAL File No. 1 . Name: > C//�✓ S w✓r, /�///'c f�.� rte, 2. Address : /70,, 0 S h✓ ivrir �� Street P.O. Box �C�iCiz %G'l� C%l /7J:7 7 City State Zip Co de 3. Telephone No. : Z 032 4. If serving as a representative of other persons , list their names and addresses : 5. What is the decision you want the City Council to review? (Examples : denial of zone change; approval of variance. ) S,'v A—/r A— J b. The decision being appealed was announced by the Planning Commission on /i -/v-�/ Date 7. On what grounds do you claim status as a party? (See Section 18.92.020 Tigard Municipal Code. ) — A f 8. Grounds for reversal of decision. (Use additional sheets if necessary. ) Your response should deal with the following: (a) Explain how your interest is damaged. (b) Identify any incorrect facts mistakenly relied on in the decision or recommendation from which you appeal . (c) Identify any part of the zoning code or other law which you claim has been violated by the decision or recommendation from which you appeal . (d) Describe what decision you are asking the City Council to make. 11,917L) !i C 1�0�.�•�r� i /� F•a � c t'i• 'nG /dive y�.� .•-rt i > i t 9. Estimate the amount of time you will need to present your aq,,wuent.__to the City Council. (The Council will* schedule more than(::L55minutes per side only in extraordinary circumstances . Each side will given the same length of time for its presentation. ) Signed: Date: // -3✓ ' ##################;;`-##########-ar##################################i"7r##'##"r##7r FOR USE BY CITY Date and time of filing: .1 /-30 --al Date of Planning Commission decision: Date set for Council consideration: Time allowed for arguments : per side Entered by: Amount paid: Receipt 7 7 a Page 2 of 2 '' Notice of Appeal . 39 fig.', City of :igard Pl a ni ig Coaimt:::?ion .,gu=st: :;ide Yard setb.ck £ro.m t'r,snty feet to t. .-n `' •::t• in -3 ;;o Lot parallels road and rail road track for 250 f :et. =.:.f,F,rence: 18.76.020 Granting Conditions SXCL?FIONAL CONDITIONS (1) Thi:i lot has existed before the City was formed. t wad created in 1902 when the Ore:oon Zlectric R.i. -acquired this right of bray. Parcel surrounded by road end railroad. •.-'e have no control of lot dimensions. PRES&RVA. ION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS (2) Without sids yard variance unable to improve lot. WILL ;OT B& INJURIOUS TO PROYER TY 1A VICINITY (3) Crantirg of side yard variance will riot. be injurious to ISroF rt; in the vicinity because property is surrounded by roads and railroad ur.,c lK. U'U,4 VAiRIANCE TO ALi;VI TS 14-U0, Qi--LP (4) The minimum width necessary for a w--:rehouse building to make the project viable and functional is forty feet wide. By reviewing '.he proposed site development adequate provisions have been -:lowed, for off street parking and iandseaping. In this instanc=e a twenty foot side yard set back serves no functional purpose, Lot size 12,000 sq. ft. coverage 50:Q building 15"0 landscaping --�4 parking-paving 1OC*,6 10"' ARS_ HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION AT ITS MEETING ON' TUESDAY, November 10, 1981 , AT 7:30 P.M., IN THE LECTURE ROOM OF FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL, 10865 S.W. WALNUT, TIGARD, OREGON, WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: APPLICANT: John Skourtes OWNER: Burlington Northern Railroad 17010 S.W. Weir Road Beaverton, Oregon 97007 REQUEST: For a Variance to the required sideyard back from 20 feet to 10 feet in an M-4 Industrial Park Zone to allow construction of a warehouse LOCATION: S.E. cornet of S.W. Bonita Road and S.W. 74th Avenue (Washington County Tax Map 2S1 12A Railroad Right-of-Way.) FILE NO. V10-81 A eeae.— `— o — N !•• o so° a N 403 N Q ooN _ 9 b - .�. b tO•�1 Y .d 701 c 1- .IlAc �. $CSo59°t¢ S0` ! 1 v/dST IBS -'1 75 P 230° _ J N09006'.y�E .02A - —f ERM. C .^. 636 ra oS- 4./le t5.09 BL}iV� a.Q T04,46 BEGIN C.R.736 {�� _ It 250 less 4o4.s 1 met i 1901 1900 [2000 0.417Aa 5WAC. N _ 800j 1 �1 p 2./4AC. �1 /.97 Ac./,8OAc. Cr1901-A1 n e - � r 1 o 100 ' o r� L 17,E -i ti N I "o, 209 ! n' 624 50 _ • ' N89'52E 381_4 - !6 C V9900 m c MS.BOAC. •40 z58B�52°W 387.2c / 42970 N / \. Yl 1000�20 � u! t t t . . � � 1902 m i.srAa .7 4000 `6�� •r./s At. - .es'a _ • Nag-57 2802 • -. �100. ••\ .a :3AOAc.. - ,�.5'6A.'. 4001 N mW J w- N •Il Ac. 499.54 • No .•t, . 1 • .C` EAST '520 OB'M/.L - 5:0.21 � mmniri�ri iNt .nin 2101 S.W.COR. 1700 _ - �18O,Q �"7 JOSEPH FOUGHT 3.53Ae 'o - 475/309 5 20. 1. Aa. 264 o u Q SP rt 21 :� � p 00 : _ 29 O r 496..75° r. CIS ,u :4f 8 2100 �. i ! r. - S3 Qc. rr F t• - :n .� •-=----_ .— •-_. - to g '264' -T THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF PROCEDURES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. ANY PERSONS HAVING INTEREST IN THIS MATTER MAY ATTEND ARID BE OR, TESTIMONY I-JAY BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD OF THE INITIAL HEAD INC SHOULD YOU WISII TO APPEAL, A WRITTEN LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE CITY RECORDER MUST BE RECEIVED PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF THE TWENTIETH DAY AFTER THE DECISION OF THE HEARING. IF NOTICE TO APPEAL IS NOT RECEIVED WITHIN TWENTY DAYS, THE ACTION IS VALID. FOR FURTHER INFOP-IATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE PI..A*TNING DEPARTMENT AT 639-4171 CITY OF TIGARD, 12420 SW Main October 27, 1931 TO: Ms. l,;z Newton FR0.4: John Skourtes Nati cnF'1 Safety Co-,i,,�.�y R~QUSST: Side yard setback fr my feet - fo,; c'n t.rA, zone for a lot that _ • _>� t in a M-3 for 250 Feet, :;dar--ilrosd trek P.3 -RSNt,3_ 13. 7-3.02-0 Grp t � n iag Ccr.diticns: H� %itic 1 impar- _. ria-, to (z) Th Ru,q r.h nJ .ssary For a e w9reF2rj.l._s. b:l?1�1n� project viable a n to mss. the and fv ction3l is forty fa=t 3SCAUSS: 6 . All parcels of l.snd in the u:b,jn should ba dev-:l00,d (cont+olsito the, Sh .st ana best vsYenFlet-ion arra urt�ar } s�r?wI h. Mortg89'a cc,.m any ;si I 1 'Irt. loan ona s-_Dock ware ing that is only 30 =-,et wide house build.. be functional: - b'c-�is= buf-13in.g ;,ri?l not not- enough }:f adequate tenant 3 mane: ably rco� insiae• :aarketae t nantAresaons� wherein the building will nor_n e. The prop 0_;�.t building is Teat p b- bowling alley• mzr3inally dW-3 3re esa Ani-ve psrcel of fallow Iand that is to im*�rovy i+ r_ b_ _�to begin with and are attempting �'`IPr•' it can be p_oductic+e- of the market place prove the hardship clsusTse realities h, d. This parcel of land is equivalent tc a I7,000 s� 6,x=00 s7- -ft- of building is at best_ lot. Tif�St ^lO.3e.3t. _Ft, STAFF REPORT AGENDA 5 .4 TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 10, 1981 - 7 :30 pm FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL 10865 SW WALNUT STREET, TIGARD No submission of additional material by applicant shall be made at this Public Hearing unless the applicant is requested to do so. Should this occur, unrequested, the item will be tabled until the following Hearing. DOCKET: Variance, V 10-81 (John Skourtes) NP04 5 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: Notice published under Planning Commission Agenda in the Tigard Times on October 29 , 1981 and November 10, 1981 . Notices mailed to surrounding property owners within 100 feet on October 30 , 1981 . APPLICANT: John Skourtes OWNER: Burlington Northern R. R. 17010 SW Weir Road Beaverton, Oregon 97007 REQUEST: For a variance from the sideyard setback requirements from 20 feet to 10 feet in an M-3 light industrial zone. LOCATION: S.E. corner of S.W. Bonita Road and Sti^: 74th Avenue (Washington County Tax Map 2S1 12A - Railroad Right of Way) . FINDINGS OF FACT: 1 . The applicant is proposing to construct a 6,000 square foot metal warehouse on the site. 2 . The applicant is proposing access to the site from S.W. 74th Avenue. At present, there is a Local Improvement District being formed for the Improvement of S. W. 74th Avenue. 3 . The Tigard Municipal Code, Section 18 .76 .020 states : "No variance shall be granted by the Planning Commission unless it can be shown that all of the following conditions exist. a) Exceptional or extraordinary conditions applying to the property that do not apply generally to other properties 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 no control ; STAFF REPORT AGENDA 5.5 Page 2 b) The variance is necessary for the preservation of a property right of the applicant substan- tially the same as possessed by owners of other property in the same zone or vicinity; c) 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; d) The variance requested is the minimum from the provisions and standards of this title which will alleviate .the hardship. " 4 . The property in question is actually a portion of the railroad right of way and not a legal tax lot. CONCLUSIONS: 1 . Improvements are needed to S.W. 74th Avenue. 2 . The applicant does not meet all the criteria established for granting a variance. Specifically, the applicant does not meet condition Number 4 . The applicant could construct s smaller building on the site and therefore, maintain the required setbacks. 3 . The applicant feels that a smaller building would not be economically feasible for his purposes. ALTERNATIVES: 1. The -Planning Commission could approve the request as submitted. 2 . The Planning Commission could approve the request as submitted with conditions . 3 . The Planning Commission could deny the request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of Variance V10-81 based on findings as follows : 1 . The applicant does not meet the required criteria established for granting a variance in that a smaller building could be constructed on the site. The question is whether a 40 foot building is the smallest building that is economically feasible on the site. TRANSCRIPT OF TIGARD PLANNING COb]MISSION HEARING November 10, 1981 - Variance V-10 - National Safety Company Fowler Junior High School - Lecture Room 10865 Sw Walnut St., Tigard, OR Present for this hearing: Commission: President Tepedino, Commissioners Bonn, Christen, Herron, Kolleas, Moen, Owens, Speaker Staff: Planning Director Currie, Associate Planner Newton, Ken Elliott of City Counsel Tepedino: Five point four: may I have the staff report and recommendations, please? Newton: (Read the staff report.) • Tepedino: Thank you, staff. May I have the applicantts presentation? Skourtes: Mr: Chairman, on this staff report it says, "No submission of additional material --- Tepedino: You are, sir? Skourtes: Oh, excuse me. I am John Skourtes, 17010 SW weir Road, Wash- ington County, Beaverton-Aloha address. The staff report makes the statement here, "No admission of additional material by the applicant shall be made at the subject hearing unless the applicant is requested to do so. If this occurs, the item will be tabled until the following hearing." Can you give ze' the boundaries of what that means? Tepedino: Yes; basically, Mr. Skourtes, is what we are suggesting there Is that we find the applicant meets with the staff of the city and "makes his request, her requestfor the hearing. He/she at that time has to present the information and documents Po that the staff can make appropriate publication of that so that the public will be informed as to what the action is going to be, and what the request is. And in order to preclude surprise on the part of the commissioners regarding evidence they were unaware of, and also to preclude surprise . on' the public by the presentation of evidence or arguments that they were not prepared to analyze --- Skourtes: This is a standard clause? Tepedino: Thatts right. Skourtes: Now, the members of the commission: do you have my letter . Tepedino: we have a letter to the Tigard Planning Commission dated October 23, 1981, and we have a letter of October 27 --- TRANSCRIPT OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING November 10, 1981 - Variance V-10 - National Safety Company Page 2 Skourtes: Before I start, I happen to have an aerial map of this site, and I would like to ask every one of the members if they have driven by the site? Are you all aware of it? Tepedino: In fact, some of us have driven by several times on some of your earlier presentations. -Yes, sir. Owens: (Asked to see the aerial. Some business showing the site to her and others.) Speaker: Is that -- is it this one right here, with access to Bonita, or to 74th? Skourtes: 74th. It is this one right here. Tepedino: Now this is the property that has been the subject of several preceding presentations? Skourtes: No; this is the one on this side, where they are putting in this planned unit development, over here. See this one over here? Oh, you mean the property I built on? Tepedino: Yes. Skourtes: Right there. Tepedino: It's the same property? Skourtes: No, no, no, no, no. It's this property right here. The property between the two railroad tracks. . This was 1977. . . . . This is the one right here. (Commissioners identify the site.) Tepedino: Okay. Skourtes: I am sure the members of the Council (sic) are familiar with the code which state the four parts . (requirements applicable for a variance) The staff accept three of the points, so• the fourth point that the staff and I am not in agreement With is hardship. I want that under stood prior to . . four points you have to have to get a variance. I am not reviewing . (the other three) . . . ti Tepedino: The hour is late, Skourtes: The intent of the ordinances on setbacks were really, of course . I mean, the ordinance is a standard one that the average lot is usually a rectangle or triangle, and you have to agree this to a very unique lot. And if you read my letter of October 279 1 am here as an expert witness, and TRANSCRIPT OF TIGARB PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING November 10, 1981 - Variance V-10 - National Safety Company Page 3 Skourtes: my crodentials as being an expert witness, I am the owner of (Cont.) five separate warehouses, and every one of them is a spec warehouse. A spec warehouse is one where you do not have a tenant when you build it. You are gambling that you will find a tenant, so you have to be very careful--you have got to know what you are doing to build a spec warehouse, otherwise you are going to go broke because you can't find a tenant; and I want to read-out loud my point (g) which more than proves hardship: "The mortgage company will not loan on a spec warehouse that is only 30 feet wide, because the building will not be functional." Now when we design warehouses, we design 12, 12 12 -- l2, 12, 12, 12s for aisle ways, storage, etc., etc. That is a standard design for building warehouses. A thirty foot ware- house--30 feet wide and 100 feet long, is not a functional warehouse. You have no maneuverability inside the building. Now what we are really arguing about is whether we have plantings of 10 feet�or 20 feet along a road that is going to be fending a steel yard. I think you people are aware directly south of this site,.Mercer Industries is putting in a rebar plant. Are you aware of that? Seventy foot semis -- this parcel is right next to a railroad track. Right across the street you have another metal building and then have a creek. This parcel parallels the railroad track all the way down, and will be the only building on that side of 74th, all the way down to Durham Road. Because if.you notice the track -- I think the tax map shows it -- okay? Now my understanding is I can't have new evidence, I havea letter from a mortgage company that will not loan on a 30 foot wide building because it would not be econ- omically feasible as far as finding tenants. As I mentioned In my letters the realities of the marketplace proves the hardship clause. No* the point is, -I have already paid for the Mater on 74th-- remember on. that other fiasco three years ago, between the tracks? I'paid $6,000 to run water down 74th. I recall the vote on the Planning Commission was eight to nothing against me, and of_ course we won five to nothing on the City Council. Well, the problem there was access between the railroad tracks. At this point, the problem here is, if I prove the hardship clause, ten feet vs. twenty feet for the side of the yard-- right next, to a railroad track, right next to an industrial road where steel trucks will be running, no other building on that side,-of.-the road for about 2,000 feet going south. Now I agree with you if this lot was wider. You have to keep the building- 25 feet from the center of the track. I mean Burlington Northern will' not let me build closer than 25 feet from the center of the track. .So right off the bat we are restricted to TRANSCRIPT OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING November 10, 1981 Variance V-10 - National Safety Company Page 4 Skourtes: fifty feet. There is a dedicated road of 40 feet. So the (Cont.) maximum we can put in is a 40 foot wide building. A 30 foot by 150 foot building just is not functional. Secondly, the Stran building that I use come in increments of 10, 10, 10 as far as the width on the main beams, and the mortgage company will not go on a 30 foot wide building: it Is too much of a special purpose building to be functional. Secondly (sic) you are not now -- if I put in -- let's say I put a building there 30 x 50, 1500 feet. By the time you pay for the road, the LID on the road; you pay for the sewer connection, the water connection -- there isn't enough square footage to come out economically. You dontt have enough square footage. Now I have chosen as my choice--most of the buildings that I have--I own a couple over on Tiedeman and North Dakota--I usually pick odd lots with triangular -- very hard lots to pick. Now the code was written for . . . (ordinary, rectang- ular lots) . . . basic 10,000 foot square buildings; it wasn't built for these odd ball lots that I happen to find, and I think -- I mean -- hardship again is one of those ambiguous words like safety. If I asked 10 people what safety is, I would get 10 answers.. But when the marketplace establishes the hardship--I mean that's dollars and cents--that's a reality of life. Now I am not building a house: I am building a business. This Is an investment property. An investment property, you do it to get a return on your investment. On a house you have aesthetic reasons. It is obvious I have met all the other three rules, and I think you should be aware of that, because It is very critical. I met the exceptional conditions, preserva- tion of property rights, I am not injuring anyone; and I feel I have-more than met the hardship rule. Lot me review my notes, and then it is getting late. This will give you an idea: the average garage on your house is 26 feet deep. You will build a warehouse 30 feet wide when an average garage is 25 feet and expect to have a ? building - and find a tenant? 30 x 150 -- it would be a tunnel. And again, what is the difference whether we have 10 feet of landscaping or 20 feet? One of the problems with a metal building, you have a hot reflection from the sun and itts very hard to keep any plants growing because you get the reflection of the sunlight on the plant life. It°s very difficult. The best you can hope for as far as landscaping, to be realistic, with this reflection is barkdust and very low-lying shrubs. Any shrub that grows- up, the reflection off the side of the • TRANSCRIPT OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING November 10, 1981 - Variance V-10 - National Safety Company Page 3 �ilv bu:=��ejust burns the plants. So you landscaped. Skourtes: steel building, - _ (Cont.) never can have it as well landscaped. Remember, right next to the road, the Mercer Steel plant is directly south of us and is crossing the railroad tracks between the tracks further down on the wye. Speaker: John, what is across the street from this pr4pperty. Is that residential property, I believe? Skourtes: No. That is all M-3• Up until you cross the creek • (followed by discussion of location of creek and development between Fanno Creek and 74th) • • • I think the members of the Commission saw my tentative site plan, where I would have the doors -=- you have that? If you look at the layout and the reason for my October 27 statement, we are talking the equivalent, because are can go to the property line on the railroad sine, of about a 17,OOO.square foot lot. (Some lost in change of tapes.) (resumes with a little undecipherable discussion among Commissioners, including access for semis to the site.) Skourtes: I�et me tell you who might rent this warehouse: a small sub- (Cont.) contractor like an electrical contractor, or a small service company. And the reason you.-wouldn't have semis because the property is only ,6,000 feet, and because of the access, nobody could get in there. In other words, people who 'rent warehouses are businessmen and they usually know what they.-need so far as requirements (A questiori,from an unidentified commissioner about a loading dock.), Skourtes: No, this would be an overhead door, but no loading dock. ,. . .use as a warehouse--itts not functional. Tepedino: Are there any other parties wishing to speak in favor of this proposal? Any parties wishing to speak in opposition to this proposal? Now is the opportunity for cross-examination and/or rebuttal• (No response to any of these questions.) I close the public hearing portion of this issue. Commissioners? Owens: (A question about the problem for the planning commission on his building between the railroad tracks.) Skourtes: The problem there was access onto Bonita Road. safe. The access to Bonita Road between the railroad crossings was the problem on that site. Owens: The building itself actually appears to be very close to the railroad track. I guess that 10 foot right-of-may does not apply to the railroad track? i S TRANSCRIPT OF TIGARB PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING November 10, 19$1 - Variance V-10 - National Safety Company Page 6 Skourtes: The Burlington Northern plus Southern Pacific requires 20 feet from the center of the track. Tepedino: Now that the public hearing is closed, I would like to make a few comments on this. Most of us know we don't always agree with the staff--a measure of our independence, perhaps. But In any event I partially agree with the staff in that I feel the applicant hasn't met the required criteria, because the question now is whether the 40 foot building which the applicant wants to put in . . and the applicant suggesting that the 40• foot building can't fit on the property and therefore ' he needs a variance. Now on the flip aide of that, I Mould suggest that even if a warehouse can't be put in there, perhaps some other type of development could fit in there; and therefore It seems to me that the criteria hasn't been met in that regard. Another thing that bothers me is I think also that the appli- cant hasn't carried the burden on the first item: exceptional or extraordinary conditions applying to the property over which the applicant has no control. and again it happens to be my Information that the applicant does have control, because while this particular application may not be the proper one, there may very well be another application; and I would suggest that perhaps the problem we are looking at here is economic return that will be somewhat diminished if the applicant must abide with the ?? that is there. . . . . . if he doesn't get this variance. ,And I would suggest that in my estimation he hasn't met the requirements of the variance. It is pretty harsh. I think this is one of the most harsh requirements of the code; but it's in the code and -- Skourtes: Which one are you talking about? Tepidino: I am talking about here, item (a), and also item (b). Skourt.ns: Well, this lot existed before you had any codes. Tepedino: I understand. But I an suggesting the code exists now, and what you would like to do is use the property now under the existing code; and I am suggesting the applicant hasn't carried the burden on at least two of the requirements of the code In terms of getting a variance. Skourtes: NOW* wait -- according to the staff report we would be able to argue that point. It wasn't in the staff report. Tepedino: Comments are not limited to the staff report, sir, in terms of what we see and the evidence TRANSCRIPT OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING November 10, 1981 - Variance V-10 - National Safety Company Page 7 Speaker: Mr. President, I would Ask staff: certainly i:: the adu.iriazrative procedures that we are considering, the owner would have to sign the application with the applicant. Did the Burlington Northern sign with Mr. Skourtes on this? Currie: I believe they did; yes. Skourtes: Yes they did; it came from Minneapolis, and it was given to staff. Currie: I might point out that he is referring to this as a lot. It's in actuality a portion of the Burlington Northern right-of- way; it isn't at this time a lot--it is a piece of land that could be a lot if .the applicant were successful in getting, you know, the setback that he would like to build on. He would need to apply for a minor land partition, but it is a little, perhaps, technicality that doesn't count. Bonn; One of- the things that wasn't mentioned so far is, both Bonita Road and 74th have a 40 foot right-of--way; and if that were the case, .(something about fire equipment) . Currie: 74th, which is the street from which he is requesting the setback there, will not be any wider than 40 feet if the design that our consulting engineer is coming-up-with for the improve- ment of tbis' street is successful--and I- have no reason to believe it won't be. We are trying to design a street improve- ment within this 40 foot right-ok-way for several reasons: (l) it abuts property along the railroad for its full length, and (2) the other side of -the street is involved with properties that have a, considerable amount in the floodplain,' and we are trying. to fit a road Inhere that meets .the :needs of the properties on both sides and doesn't take any property that Would yield it almost unusable. Bonn: This is going to.be one of the exceptions 40 foot right-of-way? Currie: It will be an exception, I think, in contrast to what Mr. Tepedino said. That's one of the things that allows this to meet portion' (a) and (b) of the variances--that's one of the things Fre considered..were unusual circumstances. Bonn: On' the width of the street? Currie: Yes. Bonn: And what would be the sidewalk Currie: Yes, that's correct. On the side adjacent to the railroad there will be no access. There are only two accesses approved, TRANSCRIPT OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING November 10, 1981 - Variance V-10 - National Safety Company Page 8 n,.ec1 site the app i.Cant Currie: and they are both in this !%iercei- ��-� -� - (Cont.) alluded to. Burlington Northern is trying to get rid of all the other accesses all the way down to Durham Road so there will be no accesses across the tracks. Tepedino: I guess I don't understand your point Currie: It is--my point is, no sidewalk there on that side. Tepedino: Maybe I misinterpreted something. My point was that the applicant has a piece of property in mind on which he wants to do something, and he is suggesting that there are outside conditions over which he has no control. They are impacted, and these are extraordinary conditions. But the way I inter- pi ted what he has said is he isn't having a problem if he wants to put a building of a certain width on it, and that's what's causing his problem. Currie: (A) :does not speak to the shape of the building--it speaks to the shape and- size of the lot; and I think this is an unusual lot configuration--extremely unusual on all three sides--it's extremely narrow, extremely long, fronts on the railroad on one side and an interesting configuration of street on the other side. Tepedino: Yes, notwithstanding the fact that the lot is unusual, that there may be other uses for that unusual lot which would not require a variance, because the control that the applicant has over the use Currie: We Agree in that regard, but we thought that that was- covered under (d) much better than it was in (a) , Skourtes: Any use is going to require the side yard setback. Even if you put •a -mini-storage in there, you are going to want side yard setbacks. You-put side yard setbacks, and you can't even cut In on a mini-storage deal. What can you do with something that is 30 feet wide and can get only two accesses on 74th? If I could have accesses all along 74th--remember in the olden days, we had garages and wide driveways the full length of a city block? You know you can get only certain cuts into the street. Now if you want to give me access all the way along ?4th and have a continual driveway, great. But you know I can't get a continuous driveway. You are only going to give me two cuts on 74th. Currie: The width of the driveways are established by ordinance, and a provision in the ordinance allows the Public Works Director to make variances to those widths of driveways. And. I would suspect if some type of use were proposed that would require driveways somewhat continuous--I think we allow TRANSCRIPT OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING November 10, 1981 - Variance V-10 - National Safety Company Page 9 Currie: two __.� jV foot s'u'ivcway'r3 poi- ivv feet of frontage- i 'vii u • � isnOiv (Cont.) what the frontage is here, but perhaps we could allow some variance of the driveway widths, especially due to the fact that side of the street is not going to have curbs or sidewalks on it--it's going to be a rural type cross section. Just as a counter to that point. Skourtes: This is an industrial property. You don't have to have a house line to worry about. They are not going to come dorm and yell at you. This is strictly an industrial zone. You have a railroad track. You are next to a road. It's submarginal property to begin with. the City of Tigard, the do have some configurations that current planning cannot allow for. This existed before the City of Tigard existed. We all like to deal In nice squares and rectangles. Tepedino: But we can't go against the code and say, "John -- " (Both talking at once) Skourtes: . . . . That is my position, and you have already voiced your opinion. Let's vote on it. It's getting late, and of course I will accept your determination, and if it's against me it's obvious I will appeal to the City Council. I am not threaten- ing anybody, but -- Tepedi•no: We are used to being threatened--don't worry about that. (Some lost in good humored laughing and two or three people talking at once. President gavelled for order.) The public hearing is closed on this issue, and I would like to ask the commission for a motion. (long pause.) Commissioner Speaker? Speaker: I think the idea of mini-storage is something that might go there, and apparently there would be cooperation on the part of the public works director. Therefore--eliminate the therefore--I move denial of Variance 10-81 based on the staff finding and conclusions and the recommendation, with the finding that the applicant does not meet the required criteria established for granting a variance in that a smaller building could be constructed on the site. The question is whether a 40 foot building is the smallest building that is economically feasible on the site. Now I have a little quarrel with that, because in the language for the variance, the four things, the economic feasibility is not supposed to be considered a factor. But, anyway, I think the statements of staff here and I move denial on that basis. f Tepedino: Motion made for denial. �` Kolleas: Second. TRANSCRIPT OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING i November 10, 1981 — Variance V-10 — National Safety Company Page 10 s i Tepedino: Seconded. Further discussion? I call for the question. All those in favor of denial of the motion (sic) that is made and seconded, signify by saying Aye. Chorus: Aye. Tepedino: Those opposed? Voice: No. Tepedino: Okay. 2-fay we have a division of the house? I think there was only one No. Aye will be for denial. Newton: Tepedino? Aye Speaker? Aye Moen? Aye Kolleas? Aye Christen? No Herron? Aye Owens? Aye Bonn? Aye Tepedino: The motion is -- the item is denied. Skourtes: industrial property, we pay the taxes. When the City Council approves it, then we will see what you do. Tepedino: It won't be the first time. We can only call it the way we see it. (Said without rancor.) (i f i February 3, 1981 TO: Tigard City Council: From: John R. Skourtes Subject: Request for ten foot side yard setback on lot existing since 1902 History of Tigard's twenty foot side yard setback for M-3 Zone. This general provision for 24-3 zone has been on the books since Tigard adapted zoning ordinances over fifeteen years ago. It has not been refined or further clarified as the City has matured even though the same ordinances require ZERO side yard setbacks in Conmercial-Professional and General Commercial Zones. A glaring contradiction... .. We presu.-ne the original intent of the side yard setback was to insure the following: a. light between warehouse buildings b. air circulation and open space between warehouse buildings c. adequate room to fight fires - no fire threat to a neighbor d. control density for huge warehouse structures when land and cev�-�lopment costs were insighificant This lot can still meet all of the above criteria with a ten foot side yard setback. The ordinance further states that to receive a variance you have to meet four criteria: 'Ke have met the most difficult of the criteria. 1. exceptional condition 2. preservation of property rights 3. will not be injurious to property in the vicinity And have overwhemingly met the hardship clause: Definition of Hardship: STATS OF RING DEPRIVED - WASTE - DISPOSSESSED Upon careful review in the developing of this parcel of land- a. site configuration b. location of railroad on one side; road on other side (isolation) c. zoning constraints d. effective utilization of land Any new warehouse building for this site under forty feet wide is not FUNCTIONAL. Structures most be built to be functional. Therefore in order for the applicant not to be dispossessed and deprived (hardship) from developing this unique parcel a ten foot side yard setback must be granted. Thank you, Omgon Pian=&wing, January 28, 1982 To: Tigard City Council Re: Proposed development S.E. corner Bonita Road and 74th Avenue We have been asked by National -Safety Co., the developer of the above captioned project, to review the proposed building for possible financing. After considering the site plan submitted, we believe the minimum width for the building is forty feet in order for it to be competitive with other similar buildings available in the market. Without being competitive, the building could not generate adequate income to service the loan amount required to build the project. P.D. Herman Vice President Main Office: 401 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204 503/226-6666 Z a QL \' IV 2 C0 o. 1 _X l 0 ra \`� ft► l Q- C � R °C oii 'D yM_ r fl 11-4 Vy ri V\ ZIO N 1 N Q C �i Q TIGARD -NOTICE - OF S HEARSU NOTICE IS FiEELE GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD PLANNING CO,',LXISSION AT ITS MEETING ON TUESDAY, November lU, 198i , AT 7-30 P.:1 IN THE LECTURE ROOM OF FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL, 10365 S-W. WALNUT, TIGARD, OREGON, WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLO;•lING APPLICATION: APPLICANT: John Skourtes OWNER: Burlington Northern Railroad 17010 S.W. Weir Road Beaverton, Oregon 97007 REQUEST: For a Variance to the required sideyard back from 20 feet to IO feet in an M-4 Industrial Park Zone to allow construction of a warehouse LOCATION: S.E. corner of S.W. Bonita Road and S.W . 74th Avenue (Washington County Tax Map 2SI 12A Railroad Right-of-Way.) FILE NO. VIO-81 50' I 9 .o \l N C% 410-3. C. 4 lAe. $88�39'W .�� i \ >1rST 185 75 230' _ J N89'454(J"I 4.a6 i3.�9• - DEGt1'C.R.735 '— f'_RM C 535 4u �. as r BoNiT�. 7x9.46 -. 250 2000 � �� 2800 1� a 19OlI 1900 1 _ o0.47A,- 800: I_ Nl o o a > 2.14AC. /.97 AC. rc, 1901-A1 c lod . - p W 209' N_ 424 50 CLI N89-52E 3814 > 0 o V�"M'900 , e 3,`g.90Ac. i 46 ZS89052'W 387.2• � >I 1000 429 TON � -10 (\j .74 400 .n .05 A i .. ` y�5 4.194r. o p g 2802 1100. a.00Ac. :/.9BAe, •� -o, 4001 N l N oW 489.54 Np N\ 17i.2f .///i EAST 210 I S.W.COR. cn• ;180,0 _ ,0�73/309uG! 3S3Ae '0 2.17Ac� . 20-20 o ttl D /.26Ac. r, - .. a > 9 - .' 264 2700 p 200': ,'^�, 1 94 4 c _ 496..75' s� ¢ra r • .:, q 8 2100 �' - 11 a_ wl N --- •- G p - .573 Ac. .f TETE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF PT;O= OF 'THE PLANNING COM14ISSION. ANY. PERSONS HAVING INTEREST IN THIS MATTER MAY ATTEND WND B-- OR, TESTIMONY MAY BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO BE ENTERED INTO,THE RECORD OF THE INITIAL SHOU'_,D YOU 14ISH TO APPEAL, A WRITTEN LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE CITY RECORDER MUST BE R-ECEIVED PRIOR TO THE, EXPIRATION OF THE "IET-ITIETH DAY P.FTER THE DECISION OF THE HE RING IF PIOIA.CE APPEAL IS NOT RECEIVED WITHIN TWEN`�' D:YS, ^:IE ACTION IS VALID. FOR FURTHER INFOP-MATION, PLEASE CONTACT HE PUA*NING 'DEPART7,ENT AT 639-=4171 MEMORANDUM January 13, 1982 To: Finance Director & Lity Administrator From: Office Manager Subject: Board and Commission Listing Attached is a copy of the updated Board and Commission list. We are currently having difficulties in getting an accurate listing of the NPO members for all active NPO's. The main difficulty is that people are being appointed at the NPO level and becoming active in the voting process without Planning Commission: and Council approval for membership. The other issue is that according :to Resolution No. 80-17, see attached copy, NPO membership applications must be heard in a public hearing. before Planning Commission and ratified by Council with only 7 members allowed on each NPO. Current practice is to approve applications at the Planning Commission level without a public hearing and each NPO has approximately 10 members now which have been approved or ratified by the City Council. It would seem that we should either comply with the resolution or change it. If I can be of any help in this issue, let me know. LW V February 3, 1982 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: NPO #3 On January 12, 1982, the Planning Commission voted to approve the following persons to membership on NPO #3. The City Council has asked staff to verify whether or not applicants live in the city. Bob Bledsoe - out - Walnut Island Bernard N. Clark - out - Bechtold Beverly Froude - out - Bull Mountain Roger Garrett - out - Walnut. Island Alan Horowitz - in Howard Raetz - out - Walnut Island Vince Ramsdell - in Lyall Turnbull - in Milton Fyre - out - Walnut Island NOTE: Lou Ane Mortensen, Chairman, already approved by CC. Lives outside of the city limits. INVENTORY OF CITIZENS Suggested for Community Service " � � DATE D.0&e,&t.� e�/. NAM 0 L( Mo 7 RES. PHONE-/,.,,2 l 30 Z ADDRESS 7O)1 h e ?^ / a r-cC,• BUS. PHONE,,-? LENGTH OF RESIDENCE IN TIGARD SUGGESTED B^YJhC)-C��.tIs7-�,6 WHERE DID YOU LIVE PREVIOUSLY? o AGE MARITAL STATUS yYCc r�Y�i ec� CHILDREN / y�p EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND /y �� .So-hod f C7-t22CCGCa e� OCCUPATIONAL STATUS AND BACKGROUP3D— AA,7 FF�� l /^S � �f�� a rt� d�� G 1S e�r'��'yt end ��s�r�-plan� ��• PREVIOUS COMMUNITY ACTIVITY ORGANIZATIONS AND OFFICES S7L -5 OTHER INFORMATION GENERAL REMARKS) _ n m Ca c---rh _. C/0�►1��-'� i n r�� h �c�e ��e OiU ems, BOARDS OR COMMITTEES INTERESTED IN - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - Date- Received at City Hall Date Interviewed Date Appointed Board or Committee INSIDE. CITY OUTSIDE CITY r INVENTORY OF CITIZENS Suggested for Community Service (1 DATE 0 1Pe" NAME c b l;� ! c�S� �_ RES. PHONE ., j7 - 9- 737 ADDRESS I Y-00 S Lv 't,v'aItiy f BUS. PHONE 4 6 7 y LENGTH OF RESIDENCE IN TIGARD 4jCc* — `Iys SUGGESTED BY . WHERE DID YOU LIVE PREVIOUSLY? AGE 3 $ MARITAL .STATUS rid ✓-,rs'Yor CHILDREN EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND 13. S. OCCUPATIONAL STATUS AND BACKGROUND L4 c (-,e c ti v►1'C PREVIOUS COMMUNITY ACTIVITY ORGANIZATIONS AND OFFICES OTHER INFORMATION (GENERAL REMARKS) BOARDS OR COMMITTEES INTERESTED IN - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Date Received at City Hall Date Interviewed Date Appointed Board or Committee INSIDE CITY OUTSIDE CITY INVENTORY OF CITIZENS - Suggested for _Community Service DATE RES . PHONE ADDRESS �C�, , � G'l/.� �!/ BUS . PHONE LENGTH OF RESIDENCE IN TIGARD SUGGESTED BY WHERE DID YOU LIVE PREVIOUSLY? AGE MARITAL STATUS CHILDREN EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND OCCUPATIONAL STATUS AND BACKGROUND PREVIOUS COMMUNITY ACTIVIT efl ORGANIZATIONS AND OFFICES_T_�/!/p OTHER INFOF_x1ATION (GENERAL REMARKS) BOARDS OR COMMITTEES INTERESTED IN �- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Date Received at City Hall Date Interviewed Date Appointed Board or Committee INSIDE CITY OUTSIbE CITY INVENTORY OF CITIZENS Suggested for Community Service DATE NAME � _ C.� ti C/ \. � r� RES . PHONE �-`3 CL- 5 ADDRESS . a I �/ / �� `� BUS. PHONE LENGTH OF RESIDENCE IN TIGEj D YSUGGESTED BY 14HERE DID YOU LIVE PREVIOUSLY? AGE MARITAL STATUS WO r v , CHILDREN Q j-,¢ --z--c I EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND OCCUPATIONAL STATUS AND BACKGROUND PREVIOUS COMMUNITY ACTIVITYjy ��/.� ,moi.� ( .��I�CiJ��i! � �7 ��r�cl��/- �� • � - ORGANIZATIONS AND OFFICES OTHER INF-O-RMA®TION .(GENERAL REMARKS) `7- BOARDS OR COMMITTEES INTERESTED IN Date Received at City Hall Date 'Interviewed Date Appointed Board or,Committee INSIDE CITY OUTSIDE* CITY INVENTORY OF CITIZENS Suggested for Community Service DATE PLT°u1176. �, vArr!Z— r RES. PHONE ADDRESS //� n ��J �, BUS. PHONE LENGTH OF RESIDENCE IN TIGARD , r V s SUGGESTED BY — WHERE DID YOU LIVE PREVIOUSLY? AGE �7 MARITAL STATUS i'�Yhrr:c- r� CHILDREN EDUCATIONAL BACKGRlO'�UND ti�A CN e.0 ;^ >� Y r _ / - ,_� so OCCUPATIONAL STATUS AND BACKGROUND PREVIOUS COMMUNITY ACTIVITY ORGANIZATIONS AND OFFICES OTHER INFORMATION. (GENERAL REMARKS) BOARDS OR C%1MITTEES INTERESTED IN ^ DaL Received at City Hall ...Date Interviewed R Date Appointed Board or Committee INSIDE CITY . OUTSIDE CITY INVENTORY OF CITIZENS Suggested for Community Service 12 DATE- P- —All all � N�tiIE_ L�.1'1 [�by©w � RES. HONE ADDRESS 1041,; r BUS. PHONE I,ENGTH OF RESIDENCE IN TIGAR6-ZO— ,� SUGGESTED BY WHERE DID YOU LIVE PREVIOUSLY? ACE a MARITAL STATUS_____/ CHILDRENEDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND v J 5. - S OCCUPATIONAL STATUS AND BACKGROUND 1 ,4„Q �A" l 11,^^ ) I` PREVIOUS COMMUNITY ACTIVITY = RG_4NIZATIONS. AND OFFICES - THER INFORMATION (GENERAL REMARKS) 17 0 Q� o IMMOARDS OR CO'i%PiIITTEES INTERESTED IN �L/M --r:?Emig ate Received at City Hall Date Interviewed )ate Appointed Board or Committee NSIDE CITY OUTSIDE CITY INVENTORY OF CITIZENS Suggested for Community Service DATE NA`�'IE RES . PHONE (O Z -5Q �L^ ADDRESS .�'PHONE LENGTH OF RESIDENCE IN TIGARDf SUGGESTED BY WHERE DID YOU LIVE PREVIOUSLY? AGE MARITAL STATUS _ CHILDREN EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND •1�` S'f ��f F�-�� OCCUPATIONAL STATUS AND BACKGROUND ,-.et4 L PREVIOUS COMMUNITY ACTiVITyjl � P�,�� -c� A/ l�D ORGANIZATIONS AND OFFICES OTHER INFORMATION (GENERAL REMARKS) BOARDS OR COMMITTEES INTERESTED IN D�' Received at City Hall Date Interviewed Date Appointed 'Board or Committee INSIDE CITY OUTSIDE CITY INVENTORY OF CITIZENS Suggested for Community Service_ DATE NAME V; i n s-j r RES. PHONE ADDRESS S. (n/. e ,;-AcF T,,; fs. Q-- T :,,, l BUS. PHONE J LENGTH OF RESIDENCE IN TIGARDr ,SUGGESTED BY WHERE DID YOU LIVE PREVIOUSLY? AGE 3;1 MARITAL STATUS CHILDREN 1 acre. �7 EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND 1?. A. A OCCUPATIONAL STATUS AND BACKGROUND (/;c.e 11 es 1J,- ( L2obpjs /�1 :- C'�,..., 5�6 N C�I„ }7i L'V rC, ("X? Dit7- Li�..tJ.Y., M..r PREVIOUS COMMUNITY ACTIVITY ' hh f� ORGANIZATIONS AND OFFICES UicE /'rFff �cr,- Tn.,.a 1�iaf, r� T. i�T_ •�n: v n,�:�f��r S--�� n� `-a n, - �•"f-cr U.fCrf� !'7-o�P_r?r � r�vicT CP.C. �ov SGJ .}s o7- �%+.�rc1 OTHER INFORLIiATION. (GENERAL REMARKS) BOARDS OR COMMITTEES INTERESTED IN NPO 3. Date Received at City Hall Date Interviewed Date Appointed Board or Committee INSIDE CITY OUTSIDE CITY INVENTORY OF CITIZENS Suggested for Community Service ' DATE- zrz-- Cz. NA c JA4111 RES . PHONE ADDRESS T,/ / "' GC �Q/��c. fry' BUS . PHONE LENGTH OF RESIDENCE IN TIGARD S SUGGESTED BY WHERE DID YOU LIVE PREVIOUSLYilk AGE KZ MARITAL STATUS CHILDREN EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND OCCUPATIONAL STATUS AND BACKGROUND PREVIOUS COMMUNITY ACTIVITY ORGANIZATIONS AND OFFICES OTHER INFORMATION (GENERAL REMARKS) BOARDS OR COMMITTEES INTERESTED IN Buce Received at City Hall Date Interviewed Date Appointed Board or Committee INSIDE CITY OUTSII)1; CITY 17 INVENTORY OF CITIZENS Suggested for Community Service DATE NAMES RES. PHONE ADDRESS BUS. PHONE a3y—0 3r_/ �qq8 LENGTH OF RESIDENCE IN TIGARD lZ SUGGESTED BY WHERE DID YOU LIVE PREVIOUSLY? AGE MARITAL STATUS CHILDREN EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND OCCUPATIONAL STATUS AND BACKGROUND PREVIOUS COMMUNITY ACTIVITY — ORGANIZATIONS AND OFFICES . • \ .' OTHER INFORMATION (GENERAL REMARKS) BOARDS OR COMMITTEES INTERESTED IN Date Received at Cit Hall Date _ ._ , City ate Interviewed Date Appointed Board or Committee INSIDE CITY_ OU'TSU)is CITY February 3, 1982 iir i$ORANDUM To: Mayor and Council From: Joy Martin, Administrative Assistant Subject: Computer System Study Report In order for organizations to effectively and efficiently cope with our changing world, they must look towards new technology and how it can be used in the workflow. Computers decrease the number of man hours spent on repetitive and routine tasks, hours which can be applied to directly serving the public or to analyzing and planning strategies in response to changing revenues or needs. The computer is a tool which can redistribute staff workloads so their skills can be applied to the problems and issues, rather than repetitive calculations or drafts of documents. The purchase of the Wang 2200 MVP was an important first step towards using technology to increase the efficient delivery of services. This was a very good decision. The "2200" served the immediate needs and allowed for great flexibility for future applications. The purpose of this study is to reassess the needs of the City within the context of the current capabilities, and to propose a long—term plan of how the technology can best improve the workflow along with the necessary purchases for each of these applications. The process of this study involves five basic steps: 1. A Needs Assessment of organizational applications and the capabilities of the "2200". 2. Development of an Organization Plan based upon the assessed needs and knowledge. 3. Requests to various Vendors to respond to how well they can satisfy the organization's evolving needs. 4. Make a Recommendation based upon the current and future applications, and the purchases necessary. 5. In the Future, to reassess the applications and needs every six months to monitor and refine plans prior to future purchases. Needs Assessment During the past four months, members of the staff have collected information on (a) the "2200" and possible applications, and (b) identified the common secretarial functions which are both time consuming and more quickly performed by a word processing system. These two strands represent data processing (UP) and word processing (WP) respec— tively. Department Heads and others were interviewed regarding their needs. This information forms the foundation of the plan. Page 2 2-3-82 Computer System Study Report Memorandum Organizational Plan Each of the possible applications are rated according to how much risk is involved in implementing the application, and the type of return or pay back for the organization once the application is successfully implemented. Risk factors include: e Special staff training or experience e Special software , whether "packaged" or needing development e "Readiness" of the data and the complexity of the operation e The amount of computer time/space required Pay back factors include: e The estimated time saved by automating the operation e Decrease time spent in retrieving or merging files e Offset increases in staff and the accompanying financial costs e Decrease physical space required for storage of data e Increase level of accuracy and decrease possible errors The applications are defined as either common wP functions, or special departmental applications. When the risk and pay back factors are considered, a time-line or Jong- range plan evolves. For the purposes of this report, this time-line is divided into the applications, basic equipment, and outside services required as shown in Table 1 attached. Phase I involves starting a centralized WP center which will relieve heavy workloads throughout the organization. Special applications include enhancements to the "2200", using data currently in the system or data collected and ready to be included. This phase concentrates on time-consuming tasks which have low risk factors. During Phase II the more complex WP functions will be applied once staff gains experience, and minor software enhancements are added. The added workload and the addition of a city-wide address list requires another workstation. The benefits of the latter will not be fully realized until Phase III, however, the initial data will be available this fall. The two major applications are Municipal Court and Engineering/Survey. These are both very time consuming, but require researching possible alternatives and training. Police applications require enhancements to their developing system. Because of the confidential and highly sensitive nature of the data, the separate system is best at this time. By Phase III many of the initial applications should be standardized and Operation Manuals will be appropriate. These, along with cross-training other staff, become a safety measure in case of changes in staff. Special applications include large data files, planning, and the library. Page 3 2-3-82 Computer System Study Report Memorandum After Phase III, the City will probably need another WP printer & additional terminals or workstations to be added, as the work load grows, and as more staff is trained. Overall, the Plan builds upon the existing system as needed. Equipment is added because of the combined needs at the time. Otherwise, equipment will be purchased, but not really used, until a later date. This is the reason for the plan - so all the pieces will fit together at each step along the way. Vendors Since we currently have the Wang 2200 for DP, we concentrated on WP vendors. Contacts with many vendors were made and eight systems were observed and evaluated in terms of how well it could handle our needs. These needs included examples of applications , and other criteria such as ease of use, ease of text manipulation, search and sorting capabilities, if spelling checks are possible, simple column manipulations, math functions, the speed and quality of the printer, training and maintenance. The eight systems were CPT, IBM, Jacquard, Lexitron, Radio Shack, Univac, Wang and Xerox. For follow-up, we contacted users of those systems which met our basic requirements. Recommendations Basically there are two alternatives for WP, (a) to purchase a Wang OIS system which is "shared logic", or (b) purchase a "stand-alone system", of which Lexitron was comparable in price, and the best of the stand-alone systems we evaluated. Shared Logic .is the separation of the disk storage and main processing unit from the workstation so each workstation "shares" the files and processing unit. Workstations are cheaper, however, there is an added piece of hardware - the Central Processing Unit (CPU). Stand-Alones are separate and complete workstations, each having their own disk drive and processor. In both systems, the workstations (up to 3 or 4) share one printer. Even though both can perform our anticipated needs, the shared logic allows concurrent use of the same document, and fewer problems in maintaining updated disks. Both can connect to the main system of Wang 2200 at some later date, however; the Wang OIS presents less problems in this connection than the stand-alone alternative. Initially, the cost of the shared logic system is greater than the stand-alone alternative. However, when the third workstation is added during the next fiscal year, the shared logic system will be more cost effective. Therefore, we recommend the Wang OIS be purchased for WP and the enhancements for the "22001 should be added. Initially, only the equipment necessary for Phase I should be purchased with the understanding that later purchases will be necessary. This system allows for greater control in file maintenance, and increases the potential for added flexibility in terms of transferring data between the "2200" and the Wang OIS. This will prove to be very important within the next three years. Page 4 2-3-82 Computer System Study Report Memorandum Future A plan is used to monitor activities and also to provide direction and a comprehensive view of each step necessary to accomplish each task. It is difficult at this time to accurately state exactly what is needed beyond the immediate time frame. Recent experiences with the system help to clarify the next step. As staff learn how to use the .system,other applications may be added, or perhaps deleted. Therefore, for the plan to truly provide direction it must constantly be refined and updated. Even though this is ongoing, it should be formally done by means of interviewing people in each department twice a year. SUMMARY Synopsis: The purpose of this study is to examine how computers can best utilize the time and skills of the City employees given the current system and the changing times. An assessment of the needs in each department was completed and a comprehensive, long-range plan was developed considering the risk and- pay back factors for each application. After many contacts with vendors and demonstrations by selected vendors, two alternative recommendations were developed. Vendors were evaluated in terms of how well their equipment matched our needs. Recommendations: Option A is to initially purchase the Wang OIS System which is more cost efficient in the long-term. Additional purchases will be enhancements to this system and added as needed. Option B is to purchase Lexitron, a stand-alone word processing system. As stated above, additional enhancements would be added as needed. Regardless of Option A or B, it is recommended we purchase the DP hardware and software necessary to meet the needs in Phase I. This includes a DP terminal and printer, software enhancements for the current system, and software development for public works. H a 0 u >> 1 a •� H •� H N � O U CLO cid N C a .n N r-1 . 4 H O V] cd H W H ca H a ., a 41C .0 u a) C U, a L •.-1 1J •r1 O a C to O C C o a C 0 u aa) a) O ' •u W O 0w cd V] O CO W H W co co O .0 00 H •.a caai •4 a w a H cin •� ,I a a O s+ .-+ o u-C -x 6 CO 00 a r4 x ,a 3 cO a H O cd co r-+ C -ri C H H CO 1-4 cd iJ co H �+ 3 cd r-c 41 A a cd H v o a -4 CO ,x 4-J G o a 0 x .n U-4 H a) •.+ > .� W 3 44 u C U O A $ a+ r-c r-I U ca o .F. o a) a co 3 R H (L) 3 R •.-1 -4 H P+ 3 41 3 a a a) b u -4C:C H H b 4J a U a H u H a a s H H N 3 k A Co 3 0 0 0 3 a 3 'n coo 0 0 aa� i� co 'i a W GL a-c u 'tj' 0 a..r H 41 4 1 41 a ,e o 0) 4444 co ro •vw cow CO v) bro a ow 0)0 uv pw, C O o a w ro -0 o •C o r4 P: 10ro 93 3 0 -4H cH 3 Ocncncn WCOrX. H 66 OE4Vr R O W. pq • • • • • • O • 0 • • • • • • • • • • O Go H a to W _ .G a a) -0 0 CD 4J PC14 cd m v C N • v 44V)G Hci 00 O a) 0 C q Cko •C _ t7 a) 6r. z U H t� .0 .>N v C O a -rr•1 4J W •rbc - �1 .a) CD rl ca 4.1 P a -A •O y a 0)o b a) to :3 o a, to 3 lac aa) •A cid cd Q. v a 02 a 41 L :4a) N O v > = a >%-4 C U H U ^ a) H b 0) N 4.J •• A 0)..c H a o w P. a c++ � rb O 00 r+ a C r-c = a) 1+ m O 00 aJ •4 a C H G L cd .0 0 C 1-1 •r•c 10 >% >, H H U u O 00 •A. c� 00 d ,4r- 0 wN - H C y 4.3 CO � - H .n > 1 u li u C a 3 a m v C � co a+ � o cin o 14 `� j W r`A n. u V a) a, •r0) u 0 to H H u H El .4 H avi o 0 H U F- C13 rD G 000-4r0 H0 W C -0 8 a a.+ .a •• ?, 0) cd .,4 U- O H O cd co •.+ a O •r7 C >%4-1 to H a) a R w .,..c C v O q ^ a R. L P4 H cd U O O 00 .-c •ri 0 'a �� H U O 4J 4-J «i Wb •r4 as > a «f C 3 •�+ H U C -A H L).•r4 i r-] a -4 •.a ."� r4 -LJ a H b a W C C) r-+ O. •r0) cd O r- .-a ) r C r. O ppyy 00-4 C q b a_ a as 0) H ro U ..0 W 0) CO-A 1 � .� Pa H 3 C co cd H y 1.c a) E� •4 13. H z a) a U a C C C " >> H 0) p A d u to •r4 ateco) H • 4 aa)) .0 CU a0i Oa9 I u •ac 41 0 U HN " 0 0 x CO co rm 4-1 C i.., u •.-t •r•1 0 .--c a O0 U H 4J N r-c co >> -•4 U -4 •,i a C 0 u .0 H •r1 cd a 00H to > 0 C% H O a H H > .a 1~ 4J C a o0 W .-4 00 0 H CO 1•. cd p. r0 w C a C r-7 co a CO A. 4.3 H n. � O -C cd CO -A O GL C 0 •ri 0) O r 0) 0) H r•+ r0) a C r a •r� P+ ca HCC W mV) uw ¢ +r � U ca a w a4 4-4 ww &A -el a H 4344 03a U O Ln H Gp coC4 -It i i.1 W o0 co >� roc co OD U+ cn cco 1 + u H, 1 N 00 a w1-4 00 0)o k co w rn m , 1-4ro \ H H F.•i H Cq W 1% MEMORANDUM =- TO: Mayor and City Council CITYOFTIGArIM FROM: Joy Martin, Administrative Assistant WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON DATE: February 8, 1982 SUBJECT: Computer Systems Study SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Why Now? Basically there are three reasons for Tigard to take a major step in using com- puter technology. First, to increase the productivity of the organization. This involves better use of staff time so increasing workloads can be completed. Second, to be able to continue the current quality of production without expenses of additional staff. And third, to be prepared for increasingly scarce revenues and possible turnover in staff. By planning now for the future, it will be possi.- b?e to have a well-trained staff able to handle changes as they arise. The Study The study includes four basic steps: assessing the needs of each department, developing a long-range plan on when each application should be implemented de- pending upon estimated risks and benefits, contacting local vendors and evaluating their computer systems in terms of our current and future needs, and recommending a solution that will insure the total output of the organization will not suffer during the unstable times ahead. Descriptions of each step are in the Preliminary Memo dated February 3, 1982. The analysis leads to a recommendation consisting of three parts: 1. Immediately purchase for word processing the Wang OIS 115-3 equipment and software. 2. Immediately purchase a data processing terminal, printer, and memory upgrade for the Wang 2200. 3. Contract for software development on the Wang 2200 for both Engineer- ing and Finance. Purchasing Policy The selection of a contractor for the word processing equipment and software is exempt from competitive bids because of conditions stated in City Ordinance 76-3 regarding data processing, single sellor, and personal services. Over 30 local vendors were initially contacted. Other munic' �alit -s and local .businesses were also contacted for vendor references and recer.iations. Of these vendors, eight were selected for demonstrations and bids. Criteria used in comparing the systems reflect the anticipated needs of the City. These cri- teria and general ratings on three systems are attached. Costs were then added to the ratings, and the recommended system is competitive in both cost and quality 12420 S.W. AAAIN P.O. BOX 23397 TIGARD, OREGON 97223 PH: 639-4171 -2- Data processing equipment and memory upgrade is exempt from competitive bidding since these are enhancements to the current system which can be supplied by only one sellor or at one price. Special- software development is exempt from competitive bidding for two reasons. First, it is a form of personal service. Second, a contract for a service is a statement of intent, and inexperience or lack of knowledge can easily be disguised either intentionally or unintentionally. Subjective measures such as a person's reputation and proven experience in working with this type of machine and appli- cation, and their availability for handling special problems are two very impor- tant criteria to consider along with estimated costs. Costs were collected from three vendors for the development of the Engineering application, and fortunately, the lowest bidder also has the best reputation and experience of the three bidders. Other reasons for exempting data and word processing from competitive bidding are: o Comparisons often require subjective judgments which cannotfbe quantified and cannot be meaningfully aggregated. o Costs in terms of staff time if the -selection process is repeated on a larger and more formal basis, making it difficult to draw-up speci- fications for some of the more vague criteria. o Time saved, making it possible to. implement the system sooner .and to increase productivity of the total organizational s-ystem as soon as possible. Budget in the current control budget there is $4000 in non-departmental funds for word processing and $7000 in Public Works for data processing. The costs for both the Mang OIS and the Lexitron systems are attached, along with data processing and software development costs. Three-year lease with option to purchase is recom- mended. For Phase I, the Wang OIS-115-3, with City discount, is $1,700 per month, including maintenance. Data processing costs on lease are $550 per month, plus installation charges. Software development is $7,800. The Lexitron system for Phase I, with City discount, is $1,111 per month, including maintenance. Data processing and software development is $550 per month and $7800 respectively. Recommendations Based upon the results of the study and the bids received, the staff recommends that the Council finds that purchasing procedures were followed as per this report and that Council pass the following three motions to implement Phase I: 1. Purchase during the •80-'81 fiscal year the Wang OIS 115-3 for word processing and telecommunications on a three-year lease with option to purchase at $1,700 per month, plus $50 to purchase a null modem using non-departmental funds in account 5117-704. 2. Purchase during the 180-181 fiscal year a data processing terminal and memory upgrade for the Wang 2200 MVP on a three-year lease with option to purchase at $550 per month, and to pay installation charges of $160 using engineering funds in account 218-705. 3. Contract during this •81-*82 fiscal year for software development on the Wang 2200 MVP for both Engineering and Finance at a cost not to exceed $7,800 from engineering account 123-621. COMPARISONS BY APPLICATIONS Key _No.not possible =less than desired UK=satisfactory + =excellent Wang Wang 2200 OIS 115-3 Lexitron 2303 I. Basic Text Processing A. Editing, revising + + 4- B. Text movement, blocks. or columns C. Widow or orphan protection D. Automatic repagination E. Automatic movement of footnotes F. Ease of underlining _ OK + G. Ease of vertical lines No OK + H. Centering I. Global search and replace J. Forms fill-in abi-Lity K. Organization chart _ + II. Special Programming or Software A. Math functions B. User programmability C. Ease of' doing special reports, tables D. Spelling verifier, user expandable E. Security ? + OK F. Sort, search OK + + G. Change print types automatically No + _ H. Merge documents No + + I. Speed - - OK , III. Printer A. Vary density of image No + B. Background printing + + C. Printer-Que No + + D. Noise - -/? OK IV. Other A. Ease of learning - OK + B. Service, local support OK OK + C. Visual display OK OK + D. Training + 4- E. E. Records Management _ + + F. Delivery 2 mo. 2 mo. 2 wks. G. Trial in-house No No Yes-2 wks H. Communication with 2200 + + OK? I. City discount 5% 50A 6% J. Ease of use-user friendliness - OK + K. Portability of workstations - _ + V. Total Cost of System, Not Including Maintenance: $22,573 $45,909 $50,200 Q/S-/iS-3 a �,Z , /a.,�� s 7 aoCZ 5y vat /r'b.,�� occcss. 7, ��Coic1S ^�etrla�j�. � 7 �ecnr:rnunicc� �,s ='�D 4 a �O 3 %,sas �a� - $9 .� ` 4? 3G,s9q ! C�`77�i�-o �,�,��s-� -�.- Nu11 �o�e,ti► —�`►sc. SYS — 7/ �Y�sS �aoa A a7/oa/�//,o a i 8o 0 r 7� 7La 3 n . t o7ccess. SOD 1.4 t 7 7 9 �rim f�� • �icor�s Manage. / 500 tc�,�cciil�'ftozs 3rssy a�0/Mo /t 36 Cry-•a-c-�asal�n 31toDY - 4 O tuor/�sto�1 /D `TDO E$/i��p 3Fzz �ro.?�6 � 3sy • -D� &5`f - a 3 E 4P,oaY6 35 9 Comm--A- OO 3 SG`, �QT� I I-oC.eSSinq �0=�5 i urs iCo S LCo �aoo. sy Fr o'7-'-Y- 307 Y-Po•//f /Mcc /�tPlfXt'►- /..t/00 �/7�•7'!a. /[Q�O�Z /COD 12836 N70/",- ZZ LC �s�rr+•4�es /a8 K Vv -7Z 1,le spm ��a rcl(e s s o�-t- czn y czc�co 2 o n- c.,t r r COtto�f Y[On Ar .J AlV44 p �r L0. fno/ Pll T�/1'lci i1 JCn �O c{n /ra M�r�r+7 �ICt/t/ n1��./ A C- t MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Bob Jean, City Administrator DATE: February 3, 1982 SUBJECT: Charter Review Discussions As in the attached memo approved by Council on Consent Agenda, staff have been reviewing the Charter for possible housekeeping changes. Unless Council wants to do a full Charter study with a Charter Review Committee, I suggest the follow- ing: • February 8: Discussion of problems with the Charter and review timetable. . . a February 15: Discuss suggested proposals for revision by Council and staff. . . o February: City Attorney drafts proposed election resolutions. . . v March 8: Final discussions and passage of resolutions for May election. . . P May: Charter review election at May primary. . . e November: Election of new Council position members? CITYOFTIGAIM WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON December 28, 1981 Mayor and City Council City of .Tigard, Oregon SUBJECT: Charter. Review Honorable Persons: councilor•Stimler- has asked •that staff prepare suggested Charter amendments for her to -introduce for Council consideration regarding the .procedures for. calling Special Council-Meetings. Treating this as a.request for information on how to accomplish such a change., .T will see to the preparation of .an amendment. Con- sistent with our policy.of no:"plops" and .my effort to provide information equally to all Council .members, I have initiated this letter. I would like.to suggest that we .review other areas. of the Charter for possible update as to-:clarity or streamlining. I. have asked staff to submitsuggestions for Charterhousekeeping to me for our February 15, 1982 Study Session. Charter - amendments.for.voter approval in May would need to -be passed- by resolution of Ic the Council.no .later than March.229 -.1982. Any further. suggestions or guidance from Council-would -be•appreciated. Yours truly, Robert W.. Jean c City Administrator �vi— cv e0`1 /�� h� Go 12755 S.W.ASH P.O.BOX 23397 TIGARD,OREGON 97223 PH:639-4171 O'DONNELL, RHUA1JtJ. 41t"931Z." DATE: December 28 , 1981 SULLIVAN & RAMIS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1727 N.W. HOYT STREET TO: Bob Jean, Tigard City Administrator PORTLAND. OREGON 97209 15031 222-4402 FROM: Ed Sullivan, Tigard City Attorneyo.1 - RE: Charter Amendments RECEIVED DEG 2 9 1981 The normal time for amending a ciL-y charter is either at the primary or the general election in even numbered years. ORS 221 -210 states -that city charter amendments must be filed with the City Clerk or Recorder for submission to the voters not less than 60 days before the election at which the amendments are to be voted upon. While it is possible that the city's home rule powers may abrogate that section of the law, if the city adopted an ordinance in conflict with general law, I would recommend that th&--city' s practice be consistent with ORS 221.210. This means that the final form of the ordinance or resolution which submits charter amendments to the voters, assuming that any charter amendments are to be submitted to the voters on the May 18th primary election, and assuming further that only Monday night meetings of the Council are utilized to take such action, the last date for Council action on this matter would be March 15, 1982, normally a study session date. It would be preferable, unless the Council wished to call a special meeting, to accomplish such action by the Council's March 8, 1982 meeting date. The Council could decide to submit charter amendments on other than the two dates specified above. If you wish to consider that option, I will be happy to research the matter at your direction. Would you kindly determine whether Council desires: 1. To amend the Charter; 2. The amendments desired; and 3. What election the Council wishes to submit such amend- ments to the voters of Council. Upon receipt of this information, I will be happy to prepare the necessary documents to amend the City Charter. cc: Mr. Jim Mattis EJS:mch 12/28/81 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF TIGARD, OREGON NOTICE OF APPEAL File No. CPR 15-81 1. Name: Mel Stout, Benkendorf & Associates Ltd. 2. Address: 620 S.W. Fifth Avenue Street P.O. Box Portland, Oregon 97204 City State Zip Co e 3. Telephone No. : 226-0068 4. If serving as a representative of other persons , list their names and addresses : Phil Mullard AMART Development Company 8925 S.W. Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway Portland, Oregon 97225 5. What is the decision you want the City Council to review? (Examples : denial of zone change; approval of variance. ) Denial of a Comprehensive Plan Revision from R-7 Single Family Residential to A-12 Multi-Family Residential. 6. The decision being appealed was announced by the Planning Commission on November 10 1981 Date 7. On what grounds do you claim status as a party? (See Section 18. 92.020 Tigard Municipal Code. ) As the 'applicant. 8. Grounds for reversal of decision. (Use additional sheets if necessary. ) Your response should deal with the following: (a) Explain how your interest is damaged. (b) Identify any incorrect facts mistakenly relied on in the decision or recommendation from which you appeal . (c) Identify any part of the zoning code or other law which you claim has been violated by the decision or recommendation from which you appeal. (d) Describe what decision you are asking the City Council to make. See attachment. 9. Estimate the amount of time you will need to present your arrument to the City Council . (The Council will schedule more than 15 minutes per side only in extraordinary circumstances. Each side will be given the same length of time for its presentation. ) 15 minutes. Signed: Date: ############Iar################z 7r######################'7'###############Z T'TmTu T FOR USE BY CITY Date and time of filing: Date of Planning Commission decision: Date set for Council consideration: Time allowed for arguments : per side Entered by: Amount paid: Receipt #: Page 2 of 2 Notice of Appeal s" S(a) (Explain How Your Interest is Damaged The applicant desires to build primarily single family homes on small lots in order to maintain construction quality but reduce overall costs and thereby provide homes on lots that people can afford. Most affordable (twenty percent of the proposed living units) would be condominiums which would not be built on lots but would allow home ownership. That cannot be accomplished under the existing Comprehensive Plan designation of R-7 for the site but could be accomplished through a Comprehensive Plan Revision to A-12. Consequently the Planning Commission decision to deny the change to A-12 does not allow the applicant to provide the city with the proposed affordable homes. 8(b) Identify Any Incorrect Facts Mistakenly Relied on in the Decision or Recommendation From Which You Appeal After careful review of the testimony in opposition and comments of the Planning Commission; very few facts were presented supporting denial of the proposal. The major issues of compatibility of proposed housing types with existing neighborhoods and capacity of proposed streets were not deemed 'incompatible or unacceptable by the presentation of facts with the exception that the proposal is in conflict with the NPO #7 Plan. All requests for change are inherently in conflict with existing plans but the City Council has shown a desire to increase density in the area and the proposal responds to that. 8(c) Identify Any Part of the Zoning Code or Other Law Which You Claim Has Been Violated by the Decision or Recommendation From Which You APPS None has been identified. 8(d) Describe What Decision You Are Asking the City Council to Make Approval of the Comprehensive Plan Revision From R-7 Single Family Residential to A-12 Multi-Family Residential or recommendation of how to provide affordable housing units as proposed at or near the density proposed. J. Staff Report Agenda 5.2 Tigard Planning Commission November 10, 1981 - 7:30 Fowler Junior High Lecture Room 10856 SW Walnut, Tigard, DOCKET: Comprehensive Plan Revision, CPR 15-81 (Summerlake Il) PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: Notice published in Tigard Times October 29, 1981 and November 5, 1981. Notice was mailed to surxaundi>ig property owners within 300 feet on October 30, 1981_ APPLICANT: AMART Development Company 8925 SW Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway Portland, Oregon 97225 OWNER: Same APPLICATION DATE: October 23, 1981 SITE LOCATION: North of SW Katherine between SW 126th and SW'128th (Washington County Tax Map 1S1 33D Tax Lot 100) . REQUEST: For a Comprehensive Plan Change from R-7 Urban Low Density to A-12 PD Urban Medium Density Development and for a preliminary Plan Review. PREVIOUS ACTION: Reference ZC 28-77, S8-778, SDR 36-79 FINDINGS: 1. The site is designated Urban Low Density on the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Map and NPO #7 Plan Map. 2. The applicant proposes a Planned Development District with Single Family Attached Units, Single Family Cluster Units and Townhouse Condominiums. 3. The NPO #7 Plan Map designates this site for Urban Low Density, approximately four single family units per acre. 4. . The surrounding land uses include single family homes to the south; Mary Woodard Elementary School and the Greenway to the east; Summerlake Park to the north; and single family and proposed west. multi-family to the ' 5. Presently, SW 128th dead ends at the site on the southern boundary and SW Falcon Rise Drive dead ends on the western boundary. Both of these streets are designated as local streets on the NPO #7 Plan. 6. There is a sewer line running north/south through the property. 7. Although Mary Woodard School is in the Tigard School District and is located immediately west of the property, elementary school children would attend school in the Beaverton School District. -77- - " - 8. Polici es from the NPO #r7 Plan applicabl( to this request are: Policy 6. The single family character of the area designated on the Plan Map as Urban Low Density is viewed as a positive asset to be retained. Projects proposed for this area must be judged according to affects upon this character. Policy 7. Within the Urban Low Density residential area, allow duplexes on lots less appropriate for single family homes to include locations at street intersections, adjacent major thoroughfares, and as buffers between multi-family and single family areas. Policy 8. When developments are proposed in the Urban Low r3ensity Area for sites which include identified natural features worthy of preservation, the planned development concept shall be utilized if the Planning Commission determines it the best method for preservation_ 9. Goals from the NPO #7 applicable to this request are as follows: 2. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the established character of existing neighborhoods and seeks to preserve and enhance existing neighborhood values. Future development proposals should be sensitive to the concern of citizens for their own immediate environment as well as to the well-being of the citizens as a whole. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant proposes an increase in density from 4 single family units per acre to approximately 12 units per acre. Given the surrounding land uses and the existing street network, staff feels this increase in density is inappropriate. 2. In locating multi-family development, NPO Policy identifies appropriate sites as those which are located in close proximity to schools, shopping, jobs and recreation. An adequate street network to serve the density of a multi-family development is also a concern. 3.. Although the proposed project is located adjacent to a Tigard School District elementary school, the children residing in the proposed development would not attend this school. The residents of this proposal are in the ]Beaverton School District. The elementary school serving this site is 2-3 miles away, north of Scholls Ferry Road. 4. The street pattern for this development is a concern. There are only two local capacity streets which presently dead end at the south and west boundaries to serve the site. The construction of 130th as a minor collector through the site would help alleviate potential traffic problems. However, the extension of 130th from the north connecting to SW 128th at the southern boundary is the only through street proposed for this project. 1' ALTERNATIVES: s 1. The Planning Commission could deny the request as proposed. 2. The Planning Commission could deny the request as proposed and approve a lower density. 3. The Planning Commission could approve the request as proposed. 4. The Planning Commission could approve the request as proposed with conditions. RECOM4ENDATION: Staff recommends denial of CPR 15-81 and denial of Preliminary Plan Review based on findings as follows: The request violates Policy #6 and Goal #2 of the NPO #7 Plan in that approval of this proposal would considerably alter the single family character of the existing neighborhood. Staff further recommends that the Planning Commission consider a request for Urban Low Density at R-5 standards upon re-submittal of a proposal by the applicant. Prepared by: �jj Approved b y��'^ -' / � /j PP Y- �� Eliz beth A. Newt Frank A. Currie As Mate Planner Planning Director I AF & T I U? FP""A CT C HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGA_RD PLANNING COMMISSION AT ITS FETING ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1981 r AT 7:30 P.M. , IN THE LECTURE ROOM OF FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL, 10865 S.W- WALNUT, TIGARD, OREGON, WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLO'^7ING APPLICATION: APPLICANT:At-ART Development Company OWNER: SAME 8855 S.W. Beaverton Hillsdale Highway Portland, Oregon 97225 REQUEST.- For a Comprehensive Plan Revision from!-.R-7 to A-12PD and a Preliminary Plan Review. Also a. Sensitive Lands Permit application. LOCATION: S.W. 130th, South of Glacier Lily Circle (Washington County Tax Map ISI 33D, Tax Lot 100) . ' Its W . � s LS- S.48- S_5 8- CHICKOY S- N Lq w OD �n 'wr H� � O F• G G $p 0J.— �'! N 1 N ss87aeee■ D� ! . COTTOtiwC- o HAWKaEARD Ow C� I l._ S.W. ST a.a.ears� MANZANITA M CTT w - •.. J- 0 1 � p1 ST TIMNI Q Lj :i '� LACIER LILY CIR- Q V .� S.W. cE v j ' •• uBill Eggs uett.R.N. .r• N BURLHEIG& y �� cam_ SUMMER * DR ? r. �rGS DR. -' S cntA 3 S.W -1815:1123341REST I`F4G ��Ga�O r--0 ►�ae.s .a�a. J ! `rr • SW a MERES ON �- W o Q CT MORNQI FALCON.FTSE DR SW. N HILL DR. KATHERIN � � O � N S.W. > s _ 33' 34 N, -KATHEF2INE ST .. RIDGE . CT .� ILLS PL ctOit > N > , sn• "PPa�raarre %V LYNN ST. THE PUBLIC FEARING ON .THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF PROCEP`T n S OF THE PLANNING CO1*1ISSIOL - ANY PERSONS HAVING INTEREST IN THIS MATTER MAY ATTEND AND BE. --OR, TESTIMONY MAY BE .SUBMITTED IN-WRITING TO BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD OF THE- INITIAL RE.A-:;,ING SHOUM YOU WISIF TO APPEAL, A WRITTEN LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE CITY RECORDER MUST BE RECEIVED PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF THE TWENTIETH DAY AFTER THE DECISION OF THE HEARING. IL•' NOTICE TO APPEAL IS NOT RECEIVED WITHIN TWENTY-D:YS, THE ?ICr.TION IS VALID. FOR FURTHER INFOMIATION, PLEASE CONTACT THF PLA*?NING DEPARTMENT AT 639-4171 CITY OF TIGARD, 12420 SW Main TRANSCRIPT OF TIGARD PLANNING C011MISSION HEARING November 10, 1981 - Comprehensive Plan Revision CPR 15-81 Applicant: Amart Development Company Fowler Junior High School - Lecture Room 10865 SW Walnut Street, Tigard, OR Present for this hearing: Commission: President Tepedino, Commissioners Bonn, Christen, Herron, Kolleas, Moen, Owens, Speaker Staff: Planning Director Currie, Associate Planner Newton, Ken Elliott of City Counsel (This hearing opened about 8:45•) Tepedino: May we have Item 5.2, please--the staff report and recommendations, please. Newton: (She read the staff report. She pointed all the area involved in the request. She explained tthe wschoolp children from the development would not go to the Tigard school adjacent to the development, but would be bussed to McKay Elementary School in Beaverton, north of Scholls Ferry Road.) Basically staff conclusions speak to the fact that the appli- cant hasnit made a real strong case to the staff for locating an urban medium density project in the middle of a single family area. (Going to the wall maps.) This is what the COMP plan designations would be if . , . The other concerns staff has are in the Increase.In about triple the density; the fact that the school is not located in Close proximity; it Isn't on a major thoroughfare--in fact one Of the streets proposed would serve as a connector from 130th-135th down to 128th Avenue, which is a local, street; we are concerned about the amount of increasing traffic . . • (She then read the staff recommendations for denial.) Staff would like to further recommend, or suggest, that the Planning Commission consider a resubmission of an application on the part of the applicant for a lower density, maybe at the R-5 standard instead of A-12. Tepedino: Thank you, staff. I would suggest that if - defect, gg You have a hearing r please move,up to the first row. We don't have a sound system here. May we have the presentation by the applicant, please? Stout: The name is Mel Stout, with Benkendorf and Associates, 620 SW Fifth Avenue in Portland, Oregon. The firm is representing Amart Development Ltd. Amart is the same company that developed the first phase Of-Summer Lake out of Southwest Scholls. TRANSCRIPT OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING November 10, 1981 - Comprehensive Plan Revision CPR 15-81 Amart Development Company - Summerlake II Page 2 Stout: First of all, I would like our application package, of the (Cont.) report you have before you, to become part of the record along With the other information I will be presenting here tonight. The original planned development plan for Summerlake was approved by the Tigard Planning Commission in 1977• Since then the applicant has proceeded with the development of the first phase. In association with the initial approval the applicant has contributed land and improvements totaling over a half a million dollars: . included was tine 17 acres for Summerlake City Park, lake improvements such as the weir and the dredging and the shore sloping, and help with installation of the trunk sewer line. W® have revised the plan for the second phase of Summerlake, and have returned this application for several reasons: No. 1, real changes have taken place in the housing industry since the first phase was initiated. People are having a difficult time finding single family homes on- lots that they can afford. This has been well publicized, and -the state as a whole is suffering from a national decline in housing construction. No. 2, there is an increasing pressure from Metro and LCDC to Increase density to help provide affordable housing. And No. 3, recently the City Council unanimously directed a developer of an adjacent property to revise his application to a higher density than originally planned. For these reasons we have returned with a plan that can provide for sale of single family units on lots that we know-people still desire, but at a more affordable price than traditional 10,000 square foot homes that are becoming the dinosaur of the 80s. A couple of months ago we met with the staff while Aldie Howard was still here. We expressed a desire to build smaller homes on smaller lots and increase the density of Phase II. We received encouragement at that time to revise our plan and use the smaller unit types, and to apply for A-12 density. We went back, developed a plan, reviewed it with the staff, and were advised to file a simultaneous plan revision, zone change and PD application. Consequently we developed the application that is before you here tonight. As you know, the site is located on the south side of Summer- lake and Summerlake City Park. On the east side is Mary Woodward School, the greenway runs through this area, and on the west side is Winterlake--Winterlake pond here, and then on the south the existing R-7 neighborhoods. You can see, coupled TRANSCRIPT OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING November 10, 1981 - Comprehensive Plan Revision CPR 15-81 Amart Development Company - Summerlake II Page 3 Stout: with a drainage way that runs through the site in this direc- (Cont.) tion, and the lake, the city park and the school grounds, the greenway and Winter Lake, there is an unusually large amount of open space connected with this project. Basically the site is bordered by neighboring developments on only the south and the southwest. We established three objectives which we worked to achieve with this revised plan: No. 1, we wanted to provide a range of housing types to respond to the rapidly changing housing market while still promoting home ownership in a single family manner. And No. 2, we wanted to assure compatibility with the existing and planned residences in the area. And Ido. 3, we wanted to integrate the park and greenway into the master plan. Three affordable owner-occupied housing types are proposed, and I would like to show these typical units at this time; and those three include -- (prepared to show architectural drawings on an easel.) Tepedino: I am just wondering if you would put the easel on the other ' side, perhaps-the people in the audience could see it--over In the corner. Thatts better. I am sure the; might have some Input.. Everybody see that? Stout: (Continuing at easel) This is a typical layout of the attached units that we would be proposing, and they are the same type Of units that are now located along Scholls in Phase I of Summerlake. . They have individual front and rear yards, sepa- rate entrances, driveways, garages, and they are just very well done; and I don't know if you have ever been by and seen those up there--they are extremely well finished inside, and very nice homes. (Changed drawing.) These are the proposed clustered units, which are detached units. They are not connected to each other-.-they are single family homes. They have their own private yard spaces; there are separate entrances, and they are very well designed units-- lots of open space in the areas. (Changed drawings again.) Neat, this typical layout here is of the condominium type units proposed, and it shows a central driveway area, garages for each of the units, and surrounding opon space and connec- tions to the greenway system in the project. If I could, I have about a dozen slides of real projects, real units that I would like to show of each onBof these unit types. TRANSCRIPT OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING November 10, 1981 - Comprehensive Plan Revision CPR 15-81 Amart Development Company - Summerlake II Page 4 Tepedino: Okay. Move through it pretty quickly, because we have a number of other items. Stout: (Showed slides on the wall) These are the attached single family units that exist--these very same units--by Scholls, and you can see the very nice character and design of these units-- front yard, rear yard space, separate entrance--they are very well done. These next two or three slides are of the clustered units. This is a project down in California, and it shows how. those clustered units are placed individually--not attached. It has yard space, and are really quite well done. These units were introduced into this area first, I think, at the Street of Dreams--there were some clustered units there this year. This is an interior shot of those type of units. This Is the plan of the units down in that location showing some of the landscaping and land. These next few slides are of the condominium type units that we have in mind--very high quality, you can see the shape and design of them--very well done. These units would be placed near the western portion of the project. I think that gives a good idea of the type of units we are gropostng. We are proposing 401 units on the site. Of these, 80 per cent will be single family; only 20 per cent will be condominiums. And of the 80 per cent single family, 80 per cent of those will be detached units. One hundred per cent--or all of them-- will be for sale for owner-occupied homes. We feel that this proposed plan complements the character of the existing and planned neighborhoods by the complementary single family housing types that we are proposing, and by, providing a density transition. The majority of the project is planned for single family lots. The largest lots are located in this area down here, and in this area up here (pointing to his sketch of the development) next to existing R-7 developments. The smaller lots are located In the central area here off of the open space of the school and the drainageway and the property in the park. The condo- minium units are located to some existing A-12 over in this area and to the WInterlake site and the WInterlake open space. All of the units would be built with the same high quality and high standards of the existing Phase I development to the north. The clustered units are estimated to sell for approxi- mately $69 - 85,000; the condominium units for $55 - 75,000; and the attached units for $95 - 110,000. All the units will be built adjacent to the extensive park and open space areas you see here on the plan, and there will be connections through- out the project to those open space areas. TRANSCRIPT OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING November 10, 1981 - Comprehensive Plan Revision CPR 15-81 -- Amart Development Company - Summerlake II i` Page 5 Stout: The concept of the plan provides for a connection, a street (Cont.) connection, from 130th, through the project, to 128th. A loop street comes off of that collector in this way (pointing to the plan) to provide access to the rest of the project. All the units would have easy and safe access in and out of the site. In addressing the four concerns cited by the staff, we feel that 12 units per acre is appropriate for this site because of the large amount of open space surrounding the site, and because of the future plans for street improvements in the area. Actual density for the plan is 9.27 ?? units per acre. A localized LID is planned for the area, as you probably know, to construct 130th and some associated improvements. A feas- ability study is proposed to be completed in January, with a design in the spring and construction this summer and in fall. Consequently street improvements will be improved and provided In the area. Regarding the second and third concerns of proximity, school capacity exists for the project. In fact, in response to our letter to Beaverton School District, the response of the district was that because of the unit types that we are pro- posing, the actual generation of students will be less with this project than the previously existing proposal. And the district has the facilities to serve the project. Although the site is not in the Tigard School District, we would have no objection to supporting a petition to change .the boundary and'include it in the Tigard district if, you know, the city thought that was desirable. The site is conveniently located close to the neva shopping center near 121st and SW Scholls; it is close to jobs in the area and borders considerable recreation and open space.' We knew that traffic considerations would be a concern on site. We hired.a traffic consultant to address the traffic 3,mpacts to assure ourselves that the proposed street system Is adequate. We hired Carl Buttke, who worked for the city before on a previous project of traffic circulation in NPO No. 7. Carl couldn°t be here tonight, but I think I can answer questions regarding his report. He concludes that the proposed change in density will not adversely affect the operation of the planned street system. There are two main points of access on and off the site--where 130th comes in, and then the connection to 128th. Most of the traffic will flow--in fact, two-thirds of it--will flow north TRANSCRIPT OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING November 10, 1981 - Comprehensive Plan Revision CPR 15-81 Amart Development Company - Summerlake II Page 6 Stout: to Scholls. This is according to Carl's report. We expect (Cont.) a large amount of traffic from the Bellwood neighborhood coming through our project in that direction also. However, the street system is adequate to handle it. Although traffic will increase on 128th, it has adequate capacity to handle the load. The Increase forecast is from 1600 to 2100 vehicles per day. 128th was designated and approved as a collector based upon the 'NPO No. 7 study of May, 1978• A collector is designed to handle 3,000 vehicles per day, and the year 2000 projection at that time for 128th, at the time of the study, was projected to be 2,000 vehicles per day. Our proposal has a year 2000 projection of 2100, which is nearly the same, and well under the 3,000 capacity of the street. In our application we have addressed the city and LCDC goals, and have shown, I think, that we meet the test. We have shown that adequate public services are available to support the proposal. We have included letters of approval from the school district and the fire marshall. Before I close, I would like Phil Millard, President .of Lutz Development, to briefly address the housing market that this proposal will serve. Millard: Thank you, Mel. I am Phil Millard, from Lutz Development Company, 8925 SIV Beaverton Highway, Portland. I think every- body in the room tonight realizes the state of depression that the local and national real estate market is currently experi- encing. The media advise us just last week that we are in the worst housing depression since 1939, and I think everybody will also acknowledge that inflation has pushed the price of housing up to unaffordable limits for 85 per cent of our population. The government°s methods to control inflation have been partic- ularly abusive to home buyers with extremely high interest on mortgages that aro currently available. I think we also all know that recovery is in the wings, and from all reports that recovery should come next summer. Vie all press our fingers In that regard. During the previous 1970 decade, most prognosticators projected that the national need for new housing through each one of the distinct years in the 1980s decade, would be a need of somewhat over two million housing starts per year. Last year, just the first year of the decade, the housing starts nationally were 1.3 million, and if we are lucky this year we will get 800,000, so we can see there that with the post war baby boom that is now entering into the market, probably the first home--maybe your second, in a larger home--that we are way behind the goal for the first two years of the decade with 2,100,000 starts, where we should have close to 4 million starts. TRANSCRIPT OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING November 10, 1981 - Comprehensive Plan Revision CPR 15-81 Amart Development Company - Summerlake II Page 7 Millard: In the Mulnomah, Clackamas and Washington Counties we are all (Cont.) faced with an urban growth boundary which includes the directives by the Land Conservation and Development Commission, LCDC, as to how all the land within that urban growth boundary are going to be developed. And since that boundary was adopted in February, 1979, the land values within that boundary have just soared tremendously--three and four times--and that is within a two-year period. And when we address that back to providing affordable housing, and the lots that result from the land that is purchased at those higher rates, that's one of the reasons people canit afford homes today. So I think our task as builders and developers, and your task generally speaking as planning commissioners--those tasks are to provide for the thousands of people in our tri-county area who want home ownership but are having a tough time making it, affording those homes, but really in the American way they are entitled to it. So we have some individual responsibility to perform that task, and maybe a collective responsibility. LCDC has limited the amount of available land, substantially increased the value per unit, and advised the cities that "You will meet the goals that were established in those guidelines" that they set up; and so we really canet count on them in providing the housing for the people that need affordable shelter, so they have done nothing to help other than create some problems for us. In our position ae 'builder-developer, we have a responsibility to design the product and project its feasibility, and we think we have done our share in the proposal x7e have made here tonight. In the financial community, they certainly have a responsibility to design new mortgages or refine the old ones that we have experienced, and the public has got to be provided with some way of adjusting to flexibila.terms to purchase these homes. So We anxiously await what the financial community is going to do. And you of the planning commission have a responsibility to judge our satisfaction of LCDC goals in creating the mix that they would like to be created. You have a responsibility to Judge our innovation, or innovative product and its adaptability to the site, considering all the factors that have been presented here by Mr. Stout. The surrounding neighbors -- I think they have a social commit- ment to not take the approach of "I•ve got mine, and let the new-guys suffer',, but adapt to the prospect that weave got a social conscience and we°ve got to make some commitments to TRANSCRIPT OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING November 10, 1981 - Comprehensive Plan Revision CPR 15-81 Amart Development Company - Summerlake II Page 8 Millard: provide affordable housing to the new generations coming on. (Cont.) I propose we are in a really brand new era in providing shelter on smaller lots. No one can afford the 7,000 square foot, 825 - 30,000 lots--and they are out there right now--thatilis what we are selling our individual lots for in the first phase of Summerlake on the north side of the lake. Actually they are going $25,000 up to $40,000. I suppose that houses drill be purchased on lots in the future for 2,000 to 5,000 square feet with large common areas--and they will become the rule, not the exception, and maybe tonight we are going to be the exception. We want to be the first in Tigard to accomplish this task and certainly think that Tigard is ready for us. Thank you very much. Stout: This in summary in response to the staff's summary--we feel very strongly that the proposal will not considerably alter the single family character of the existing neighborhood. In fact, we feel it complements it very well. We are actually providing those types of units, only smaller. We point out that this is only an application for preliminary plan approval. Any conditions and concerns can be addressed in the final plan development formation. We urge you to accept alternative number 3 that the staff has proposed, and approve the request as proposed. And I will be available for questions at any time. Tepedino: Thank you, Mr. Stout. Any other parties wishing to speak in favor of this proposal? In favor? Any parties wishing to speak in opposition--those opposed--not in favor? Won: My name is K. J. Won, of Ginther Engineering in Beaverton, and representing Wedgewood Homes. Wedgewood Homes is the develop- ment of the Morning Hill planned unit development which is located adjacent to this property in the southwest. First of all, I would like to clarify that I am here speaking neither in support of nor in opposition to the proposal. Our position is neutral. My purpose is to communicate some comments and concerns in the past with respect to our develop- ment. They are essentially two-fold. First, what you are considering, to us would be a major policy change--no question about it--you are talking about changing densities from low to medium. Now we are not speaking to that issue. But what we would like to go on record is that in the event that you consent to approve the amendments, then we would like, if in the future we decide to amend our plan--we would like to be accorded similar consideration. Now this may or may not come to pass; I just wanted to state it for the record. TRANSCRIPT OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING November 10, 1981 - Comprehensive Plan Revision CPR 15-81 Amart Development Company - Summerlake II Page 9 Won: A second item of concern has to do with the design of the (Cont.) project. We did not review the plans presented to you tonight. Let me just say that our concerns are the physical impacts that the project would have on the Morning Hill development. We were very supportive of the original design concepts that show a higher density along the multi-staged lake locations and the major streets . . . . . . . proposal, and it may very well be consistent with the original concepts. It seems to us higher density may mean more multistory buildings that could Impact the views from our property. Now these are areas that can be resolved in design review of the site plan. What I would like to do is to submit a letter from Wedgewood .Homes. I have summarized the major points in this letter, and will respond to questions, if there are any. (Note: A com- missioner asked the location of the Morning Hill development, and was responded to by Mr. Won. The recording here is poor.) We are bounded by 135th and Walnut. Christens (?) Can you possibly show the relation to what they showed in their proposed plan, please? Do you have a road going into their plan? Do you have a road like a Falcon Drive, or a Falcon something--a road that goes into their development? (Several persons talking at once, but the question was answered.) Won: That's it. Tepedino: Thank you, Mr. Won; we appreciate it. Any other parties wishing to speak--in opposition -- Are you in favor or in opposition? Parker: In opposition. Tepedino: This is the alternative. (Laughter.) Parker: I am Bruce Parker. I reside at 12705 SW Katherine. I am one of the representatives of the neighborhood that surrounds the adjoining site we are talking about. Christen: (?} Could you also show where you are relating to that site-- relating- to the neighborhood that you are speaking of? Parker: Well, the area -- most of us come from Katherine Street, which' Is down In here (indicating on map), and I know of some other people who live up above there, the other side of the (?) drainage way . . . . out here. But it is mostly in the Katherine Street area. The surrounding neighbors of the site were given about one TRANSCRIPT OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING November 10, 1981 - Comprehensive Plan Revision CPR 15-81 Amart Development Company - Summerlake II Page 10 Parker: week's notice of the proposed change. Liz Newton and Amart (Cont.) Development, through Phil Millard, have helped us a great deal In supplying information to us- But one week is really not enough time to assimilate all that information, to develop strong reactions and thorough research by residents of that area. We do not have the resources, money, time that Amart has. We do not have the attorneys, developers or the experts to strengthen our position. I will repeat, we do not have these resources available. I know the board recognizes this, and will concern themselves the best representing the community Into it. Fie want to acknowledge the difficult position of tha board. Therefore we make a point to present our objections witrout being redundant, by a series of spokespersons trying to address different topics. I am sure there is going to be some repetition, but we did not have enough time to iron out all those wrinkles. We are also going to try to contain our emotions. It is an emotional issue also. I would like also just to show how many people are*here in opposition who are not speaking, so will they please stand -- everybody who is opposing this development? (Perhaps 30 to 40 stood.) Thank you. Why is Amart Development trying to change R-7 to A-12? I think Phil Millard has already answered that -- they cantt sell houses at R-7 under present conditions because today's money market just won't allow it. We hope the planning commission will look beyond that point and look into the future and what It holds. We believe there will be housing again in the immediate future. Until then we realize the planning board is going to be under an additional onslaught from developers who own land that is zoned R-7 who want to change the zoning to higher density and then go about developing it --and also, by the way, will reap an additional profit at the higher density. The surrounding site has areas of undeveloped R-7 which will face an additional pressure. If you look at the map which is up here you will see (some lost in change of tapes.) We also feel Amart has not adequately proven the need to change from R-7 to A-12 as designed in the comprehensive plan. We feel this Is drastically changing the neighborhood plan to make this step, and about the only thing I see he has offered here in the presentation in the brown book that you have is the suggestion . . . . . 50/50 the comprehensive plan is going to try to meet that There is no further need to start changing areas to a higher density just to meet that goal. We will have one of the next speakers in our group. TRANSCRIPT OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING November 10, 1981 - Comprehensive Play_ Revision CPR 15-81 Amart Development Company - Summerlake II Page 11 Tepedino: Thank you, sir. Any other parties wishing to speak in opposi- tion to this proposal? If there are any other parties wishing to speak, I would appreciate their coming down. It is 9:20 and we may not be able to hear everybody if we waste two minutes apiece. So move on down to the first two rows, please. Nicolas: My name is James Nicolas. I live at 12750 SW Katherine Street. I would like to read the staff report for September 5 of 1978. This concerns the 128th Street. It says that the state traffic engineer logged (?) traffic counts, average daily trips on Walnut between 122nd and 123rd, and between 124th and 128th, and between 129th and 132nd. This concerns the Bellwood Park III subdivision that was considering a zoning change. What It says is that "Staff also had to estimate the additional amount of overcapacitated existing local street, 128th.11 What they found was that 128th was already overcapacitated. It was designated at that time as a local street, and now a collector. Nothing has changed these conditions, and the new proposed zone change would only aggravate the condition more. Staff findings indicate that 128th Street is the only through street proposed for the project. My other points have been taker_ from the comprehensive plan which designates the site for urban low density, approximately four units per acre. Policy No. 6 states that ' The single family character of the area, designated on the Plan Map as _ Urban Low Density, is viewed as a positive asset and to be retained. Projects proposed for this area must be judged according to the effects upon this character.' I don1t believe the proposed development is really sensitive to this, and is insensitive to the goal from the same plan. One other concern I have is the ability of Fanno Creek to handle the increased amount of water normally absorbed by the area that is now in the flood plain. The higher the density that a site haa, the less absorption of water takes place and Increase in water draining into Fanno Creek, I do not believe, Is adequate and I believe an impact study should be made to see that this could be a potential problem. The residents on Merestone Court told us of water rising to their decks last summer because of the inability of Fanno Creek to handle the flow of water. The residents of the area have purchased their homes with the understanding that the zoning of the area is R--7. This includes new homes in the Summerlake area recently constructed and sold over the past couple of year-so That's all. Tepedi-no: Thank you, sir. Are there any other parties wishing to speak In opposition? E r TRANSCRIPT OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING November 10, 1981 - Comprehensive Plan Revision CPR 15-81 Amart Development Company - Summerlake II Page 12 Zimel: My name is Mark Zimel, and I live at 12925 SW Katherine. For the purposes of showing you exactly where that would be-- I can't be exact--there is not enough tract (2) . . . it would be right behind this little piece here, because the next lot over to me is in the Bellwood subdivision . . . . . . . but my fence is probably six inches in on my side of the property line. This is the property line, and I guess I will be looking at condominiums, but I thought I would be looking at a beautiful Art Lutz development of --- (outburst from audience) Sincerely, I want to say one thing: they are good developers-- let's not keep anything away from them but give it all to them from the standpoint of what they have done up to now--is quality. It is. We don't know what anyone is going to do in the future, or if we had a Crystal ball, we would all be at the race _. tracks and we would all be wealthy (7). So anyway I would like to address a few things. Phil Hillard was nice ehough to meet with our neighborhood group and he went through essentially -- gave us a couple of books that you have been submitted regarding Summerlake II; and looking at what they are trying to do, I appreciate the powerful pressures of the city trying to get a 50/50 density here in multifamily and single family--I appreciate the pressures from a development standpoint. It's not necessarily the fact that people can't afford homes nowadays, it's that the trend of the market as much as high interest rates. So I don't feel that to give someone a high density because of the high prime rate today, that that is going to be the answer. If they had 15,001 units there today, they couldn't sell them today without financing. Now essentially they address a number of issues. You said you are in a little bit of a hurry tonight, so I am going to skip a number of mine, bring them up at a later. date, and just concentrate on-two of them. No. 1, Carl Buttke, who is a very tremendous traffic consultant engineer in the State of- Oregon. I know this because my father and another gentleman have developed a shopping center. I am also in commercial real estate. I am the leasing agent for Greenway, and when we needed a traffic consultant, the man I was told to call, and the reason he couldn't be here tonight, probably, is the man is busy, expensive, and very good at what he does. I don't, you know, refute that they didn't try to get the best to help them. But I think what Mel Stout was thinking about tonight -- in conclusion Mel said that the proposed change in density on this site would not adversely affect the planned operation of the street System -- isn't the question I would like to hear an answer. I don't know the answer to the question I will put forth to you. The question is whether or not the capacity of the additional TRANSCRIPT OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING November 10, 1981 - Comprehensive Plan Revision CPR 15-81 P.mart Development Company - Summerlake II Page 13 Zi-mel: traffic going through 128th, which is the street I am concerned (Cont.) about because it goes right by my house personally -- I am on Katherine, but it is close enough -- if I am raising kids they are going to be up there -- you see what I am concerned about Is whether or not that capacity is usual or unusual in a residential neighborhood. Now if you are not used to hearing traffic numbers--and you probably are a lot more than a lot of us out here--2,100 is quite a bit of traffic. Now I don't know--I didn't really hear Mel when he said that 2,100 was. Is that the year 2000, or is that presently? Stout: The year 2000. Zimel: Okay, the year 2000. That makes me feel a little bit better In that I have heard -- wall, we have developed shopping centers again -- and we have had 10,800 traffic at the high levels and that's one fifth of that volume in that area. B1t anyway my point is, is it usual or unusual for in that area of this type? I am concerned about, and I don't really want -- I don't care if the road can handle it -- people park on the road -- maybe there are plans for the road to be parked on -- I don't know. There's a number of things to be looked into. No. 2, they looked into schools: Beaverton, Tigard, whoever; but Beaverton in this case. They talked with a gal, or a gal by the name of Jay .Gay Fall -- I don't know It she would- like being called a gal or not, though however she would be addressed she is really nice -- I talked with her -- she made a few general statements stating that .. . that they had judged from the survey they had most recently taken that multifamily units do not present to schools as many kids as unattached single family homes do. Ylell, let's go back to the pressures the cities feel. You want to have 50/50 of the goal hero--you want to have 50 per cent multi- family and 50 per cent single family, because there is a pressure out there to house everybody. If we are housing everybody and we are getting away from what the majority of the people have been in for the last umpteen million years ( . . . . exaggerate ? too badly) by single family homes all right, that eventually .a trend, I would suggest, would come up (I would suppose, at least) that it would change, and that you would start having more and more kids once again, especi- ally if that is what the whole market turned to. Okay? So then we have got real problems with maximum density being exceeded in the schools, Whether that be in the Beaverton side or Tigard side. Now you made a suggestion about the developer would be willing to come in and be in a Tigard site--I suggest that you might be better off in the Beaverton site except for the concern for the kids having to go so far, TRANSCRIPT OF TIGARD PLANNING CO14MISSION HEARING November 10, 1981 - Comprehensive Plan Revision CPR 15-81 Amart Development Company - Summerlake II Page 14 Zimel: the reason being that Mary 1.7oodward is already, from what (Cont.) I have heard (and this is from my cousin who teaches in the Tigard School District--a school professional there) that this is from that gal, and she says it is already close to capacity. I think that would put it over, and I don't know for sure. But anyway, my point being is that the schools and the traffic are things that will change in time, and I would like to know If any traffic projections have been on target. Anyway, with all the changing trends, 20 years from now some- thing else may happen, too. But essentially I was going to say one other thing, and that is that we are not all against each other here, I think -- it's a matter of you've got a developer--and I am a developer also, but I am not here in front of you as a developer. I happen to be very concerned because all of a sudden this condominium is going on behind my back. Well, that may sound hypocritical, but it's not, because your job and your residence are two different things. Most people don't viant to bring their work home, and anyway I respect what they are doing--if I had the property I might be doing the same thing with the same consultants, because you can tell they have given a real professional representation up to now, and I don't figure that they would lose it from this point on. My point is just to say that we do have a different value system because they are looking at it. from a development standpoint; we are emotional because we are looking at it from a residential standpoint. And I think one last important thing I would like to talk about is the fact that if anything Is ever given approval, it is a conceptual approval if it is granted--and we don't want it to be granted if I were to be speaking for the neighbors and myself; but there is just a lot of things in question -- we don't know the materials they are talking about using, we don't know the design -- you know he showed things on Murray Road or, you know, so far what he has done is super; but who are to say that they are going to develop it? They get the higher density -- they can turn around and .sell it. No one, not even myself if I were the developer, would want to pin myself down on a piece of paper and say that I will develope it because Art Lutz does a good job of developing . . . . but I would like to have those thoughts considered once again about the fact that-- probably the most important fact is that financing is the thing that's got to loosen up -- that's the thing that has stopped people from being able to afford anything. It's not the issue that people cannot afford a 7,000 square foot-lot With a 1500 square foot home on it. Thank you. lepedino: Thank you, Dir. Z:Lmel. Any other parties wishing to speak in Opposition, or opposed to this measure? Yes, ma'am. TRANSCRIPT OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING November 10, 1981 - Comprehens4,ve Plan Revision CPR 15-81 Amart Development Company - Summerlake II Page 15 Capron: I am H. Kay Capron. I live at 12770 SW Marie Court. I probably live on the far outside edge of what can be looked upon here as the affected area. I live just off of 128th--two houses off of 128th and one short block off of Walnut. I believe that we are talking about the same values here. It isn't a.separation of developer and residents at all, or of personal interest and social obligation that we are talking about tonight. We are talking about how we are going to place certain types of housing--where it's going to be placed. I don't believe that anybody here denies that there is a need for multifamily housing, clustered homes, condominiums. The question is, Where is it to be located? I suppose it should not be located where the applicant would like to place It within this particular neighborhood. The reason for this is that there should be options in housing. The argument of the applicant is, "Let us give the public options." I believe that If we have this type of rezoning, .the option for the person who -wants a single family dwelling in a single family neighborhood.is dwindling and in fact is disappearing in this type of action.. The firat man who.applied for a zone change tonight spoke of acres and acres of medium density dwellings--dwellings just across Scholls Ferry Road. When I was looking for a place to live I rejected that area, and I rejected single- family housing- that was near that area, because I wanted to live In -a neigh- borhood that is an ante aabted single family unity, because that is the type of llfRe weOuld like--it fits my family. If you look at 'this plan, particularly with the idea that the next developer next door would also like a similar situation, you are seeing more and more orange on that map, and less and less yellow. Even if this is the only plan that is approved in this area that is outlined there in yellow, and we are looking at more orange, bounded by 128th, Walnut, the greenways If these . . . . . . radically change the character of the neighborhood that we share: the people who live on 129th, Katherine going toward 1218t; people who are living in the Horningside area that- are going towards 135th; the people in my area and in the Bellwood area going back towards Walnut -- all of us are going to experience a gradual difference in our neighborhood. The main difference is going to be the number of people going in and out to the heart of the neighborbood. If you look at that map, this multi- or higher density housing is right in the heart of this largely single family designa- tion. These people are going to be going in and out, and they are going to be going on 128th. If that is made a through TRANSCRIPT OF TIGARD PLANNING COI-MISSION HEARING November 10, 1981 - Comprehensive Plan Revision CPR 15-81 Amart Development Company - Summerlake II Page 16 Capron: street, we are going to have people who would ordinarily take (Cont.) Scholls Ferry--who don't even live in this area--who ordinarily take Scholls Ferry down to 217 and take 217 into Tigard or to 121st over to Walnut--and nobody wants to drive on Walnut because it has ? ? , but they will take that into Tigard; but they will not do that--they will cut through 128th and we will have all those people in addition to all the people coming in and out. The gentleman who spoke before me is very right, in that that may have the capacity to hold the cars they are talking about. But the community that lives along that pathway for that traffic--people do park on those roads and they have no other places to park because they have turned their garages into a family room. There is no safe way that two cars can park on that street with cars parked .on either side. There is . . . (cars parked?). all along there all the time. I do not have a child above the age of two, but I am concerned for the people around me who do, or who even have ones who play out in their yards with a ball. We are looking at increased crime rate because we are looking at higher population density. Not because the people who move In there are criminals, but because apartments attract more people, because high density where it's easy to move in and out of an area . . . . . people attract . There's no way that this proposal will not radically change this neighborhood or group of neighborhoods in here from the intended land use as expressed in the zone area that•was in effect when the people who live in this area bought their homes. A11=-virtually all, not all -- virtually all the homes in this area are very new--about a dozen years old down to some a few months old. People bought the idea that they were selecting one of the options in housing--a neighborhood filled with single family homes. That option is harder and harder to find. You have to look very hard to find an area in which you have a few square miles that is principally single family noncommercial, and I would hope that. the Commission would 1_ook -at that in terms of community need--not just for the neighbors that live clos6, but because of social need. We doa't want to becoMe homo- geneous and everybody have to live in a single family home; but neither do we want to be homogeneous and say that every neighborhood must be a combination of different types of dwellings. One thing I would like to say: hopefully in my mind, for the betterment of Tigard and for the continuity of good nhighbor- hood, you will turn down the applicant tonight. Should you turn the applicant down and the applicant come back with another TRANSCRIPT OF TIGARD PLAN14ING COMMISSION HEARING November 10, 1981 - Comprehensive Plan Revision CPR 15--81 Amart Development Company - Summerlake II Page 17 Capron: proposal that is of lower density but still not within the (Cont.) existing plan, I would like to see that applicant work out something different in terms of traffic flow. I believe If there is any other type of development other than single family houses in that area, that 128th and 131st not hook up In that manner--that there should not be an arterial between Scholls Ferry and Walnut at that point. Thank you. Tepedino: Thank you, ma'am. Are there any other parties wishing to speak In opposition to this measure --_.opposition? :Magner: My name is Ron Wagner, and I live at 12645 SW Katherine. This-morning in the Oregonian there was an article, and it's entitled "Beaverton Issue--Increase in Density", and there is one paragraph.in the article that I think would be worthwhile to read, and-It- states: "The city requires developers seeking to increase the density on their property to request rezoning from urban standard single family home to an urban medium multi-family home designation to prove a public need for additional housing exists." I think the word "public need" Is pretty important here. Do we have a public need here for the requested increase in density? In the Bellwood housing development there is Bellwood Terrace Condominiums; on 121st and Scholls Ferry there is ? ? Condominiums, which has plenty of space available for someone who wants to buy a condominium. We have already offered about all the area around this particular proposed change that is already zoned A-12. Do we need another zone change for this density? That's it. Thank you. (Applause from audience.) Tepedino: Any other parties wishing to speak in opposition? Campbell: Yes. I am Nancy Campbell. I live at 12790 SW Katherine. I am on the corner of the exit from the proposed development. I am against it from the traffic standpoint. I have also lived in two types of this community before--and both in Illinois. Both had some real problems with roads, as the other similar types of developments in that area had. Voice: What community was that you were living in7 Tepedino: (Pounding gavel) You are out of order, sir. Campbell: Okay. Why do you say that these will be private streets? One of the problems thftt really became an issue in Illinois was that there had not Inset aside proper reserve funds to keep the roads in a perpetual care situation. Of course they ended up worse than Walnut. I also very much confirm about the shortcut traffic that would come down Murray and cut I think that the traffic would exceed the 2100 cars per day as TRANSCRIPT OF TIGARD PLANNING COIDIISSION HEARING November 10, 1981 - Comprehensive Plan Revision CPR 15-81 Amart Development Company - Summerlake II Page 18 Campbell: soon as the development was finished. I don't think people (Cont.) would be taking Walnut any more. I really seriously doubt it. There is another question I have. The Art Lutz Development Company, from all I can find out, is in deep financial trouble, and they are trying to bail out wherever they can. What is to stop them from getting the project half way through and like what we see over across Scholls Ferry, we've got units that are not complete--they are at a complete standstill. It brings rodents into the area, it brings broken windows--all sorts of problems. ? ? ? I don't see why they should dump this type of development in the middle of our neighborhood, which has been basically single family. If they are smaller lots, single family, I might concede that. But it's taking away the essence of our community. I moved here and bought my 'home on the basis that I wanted my child to grow up in a single family residential neighborhood, and I Leant to keep It that way. Tepedino: Thank you, ma'am. any other parties wishing to speak in opposition to this measure--in opposition? Patterson: Chairman Tepedino, Commission members: Alan Patterson, 11605 SW Manzanita, Tigard. Just a matter of information I would like to make. I own some residential acreage north of the Mary Woodward School and east of this property approximately - 820 feet north of the section corner here in this area. In 1978 when I platted the front part of this street, presently called Merestone Court, rather than cross the sensitive land and floodplain with a bridge, it was suggested that the street be cul-de-saced and that the remaining land, residential land, remain landlocked until such time as Phase II or III of Summer- lake was developed. So I realize that this is just a conceptual plan tonight; but when we get down to the preliminary plan, access to the center of that acreage is to be provided. I thought I would just state that for the record. That's all. Tepedino: Thank you, sir. Any other parties wishing to speak in opposi- tion--opposed to this measure? Now is an opportunity for cross-examination and/or rebuttal. I request that if you have a question or rebuttal, you keep it as brief as possible. , Again? Cross-examination or rebuttal? I close the public hearing on this issue. Commissioners? Commissioner Herron? Herron: I have some real concerns about the traffic flow, and also questions: they talked about the school. They will have to provide access for school buses in and out of that particular area, and I am concerned about that particular phase of trans- portation, because that would include an elementary bus, a TRANSCRIPT OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING November 10, 1981 - Comprehensive Plan Revision CPR 15-81 Amart Development Company - Summerlake II Page 19 Herron: junior high bus, and a high school bus onto the streets. Even (Cont.) if there was only one child going to Beaverton School, he would have to be transported, because it isn't within walking distance. I don't particularly care for the idea of this high density In that area--I think it is out of place. Tepedino: Thank you. Commissioner Kolleas? Kolleas: Well, I don't like the high density either, and the traffic volume going through single family residential; putting it in the center of the single family residential, it is far out of place. Tepedino: Thank you. Commissioner Speaker? Speaker: I would like to ask Mr. Patterson: You talked about access to the center of your property. Is that the center of this Summer- lake, or your property? Patterson: The center of my property. (Newton and others identified it on the map.) Speakar: In other words you have affirmed that access to that would come from this current application? Patterson: I was told by the set (?) of conditions of the preliminary Plat of Merestone I that's in the records back at that time. The plat is . It is in the records, though; I just wanted you to be aware Of it, and the developer. Speaker. Very good. Thank you. I am inclined to agree with the ladies that this is hardly the place to have this kind of density. However I do feel that in the future we are going to have to live on smaller lots whether we like it or not, for a variety of reasons; but I will state my position: I could not support this density, but I would like to see in this area some examples, or a small example, of the cluster type housing. Now in con- z,eetion with that cluster type housing, I presume that setback requirements would have to be modified to accommodate it. Is that correct? Staff or Tepedino: . . . . PD and then there would be certain adjustments made to that under the PD concept. Is that correct, Frank? Speaker: Now you stated in your brochure here that there are no modi- fications of standards that were required by this development. I think you were incorrect in that you did not mention that TRANSCRIPT OF TIGARD PLANNING COIC4ISSION HEARING November 1O, 1981 - Comprehensive Plan Revision CPR 15-81 Amart Development Company - Summerlake II Page 20 Speaker: the setback requirements in this requested housing would have (Cont.) to be modified. Am I correct? Stout: (?) I am just trying to think -- Newton: I think that he is relating to the fact in a regular detached single family housing development, you have front yard, rear yard, side yard setback, and obviously in a cluster type housing you are not necessarily meeting the 15 foot rear yard for each house and a five foot side yard for each house, so that they are modified somewhat. Currie: (?) . . . . . development standard as a part of the PD plan Speaker: Okay then, your presentation would have to be modified, at least in a few respects from what you gave us here, because you said that there were no modifications necessary--at least that is what I understood. Another thing I am interested in is, what are the prospects, or what are the means--maybe what is the desirability of getting this property into the Tigard School District. It seems kind of absurd to me to have a grammar school right on the edge of a school boundary. Maybe that isn't something that -- Tepedino: We'have fought that problem for so many years! Staff, do you have any comments on that? Have you been in any of those battles? l Newton: My understanding is that the way to modify these boundaries is for the people in the area to petition to the Beaverton and Ta.%ard School Districts to have the boundaries changed. The c =y staff does not enter into it, you know. As we have been saying, we supported it. Moen: May I comment on that? I live in Englewood, and we are in exactly that position--a rather uncomfortable position; and this community will suffer the same thing. We are part of the Beaverton School District, but we are not part of Tualatin Bills. Tigard schools in Tigard provide all the recreational ar0as. Beaverton does not contribute to the park district, so we are in a kind of no man's land. However, a lot of the people that buy in this area . . . . . a lot of the people that buy and have bought into it, have bought there -- a number of them bought there for the specific purpose of going to Beaverton schools. And any time that comes up it is a highly emotional issue, and I would doubt that there ever ?(will be a change)? . . . . (there were some sido conversations obscuring .the proceedings; some was missed here.) Christen: I have no questions. TRAPISCRIPT OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING November 10, 1981 - Comprehensive Plan Revision CPR 15-81 Amart Development Company - Summerlake II Page 21 Tepedino: Thank. you, Commissioner. Commissioner Owens? Owens: I find . . . . (She was some distance from the recorders and but some of her comments are wholly undecipherable) . the plan definitely is not in agreement with the NPO 7 Plan as it was devised. The whole concept of that kind of a density In the whole area does not fit. It doesn't fit the roads that exist, and there's you know, we were dealing with the problem of ., parking road even with that kind of a density, and this just makes it worse. True, the economics have changed, so that brings more to bear, you know--the possibility of what was planned in one year doesn't fit for another. . I don't know; it's a tough one. Tepedino: Okay; Commissioner Bonn? Bonn: I do not have anything --- (Laughter). No, actually there are a number of issues here. The density, with only the limited amount of street access, and of course right now it is very difficult--any direction you go, the streets are horrendous. And I don't know whether (?there will be?) one hundred or two hundred or three hundred or five hundred, will have to be bussed to Beaverton . . . . . .be something that has to be looked at that wasn't addressed was the Patterson property that from what he says is a condition that has to be addressed. The concept -- I like some of the concepts he had on this clustering, and everything, but the density is going from 160 units to 401 units . . a tremendous increase, and I believe It-will severely impact that area . . . andcreate attremendous amount of problems -- like Scholls Ferr,,vRoad: you that on a rush hour now, you are going to sit quite a while just to get on Scholls Ferry Road. The impact of another 150 cars or 600 cars or I don't know how many there will be, is going to lead to problems that have not been addressed yet. I believe that the feeling that there are problems that haven't been addressed yet . I am going to vote against it. Tepedino: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Moen? Moen: Well, first of all, I would like to commend the applicant for. his professionalism I think it is one of the best ? ? we have seen in a long time. I would like to commend the opponents . . . (the sense was for their thoughtful presentation.) I think we have a responsibility to the people that are already there in the area; and a goal in NPO 7 states that "The compre- hensive plan recognizes the established character of existing neighborhoods and seeks to preserve and enhance existing neighborhood values." And that has been spoken to here tonight. ibility to the people he has The developer also has a respons TRANSCRIPT OF TIGARD PLANNING COI-1dISSION HEARING November 10, 1981 - Comprehensive Plan Revision CPR 15-81 Amart Development Company - Summerlake II Page 22 Moen: already se'_.d to in the first phase of the development. I (Cont.) actually dropped in and tallied to these people and looked at some homes in the area, and I would comment here that if I had purchased that home in that area and was now in this situation, I would be very unhappy under present conditions. Lastly, I want to make a comment: what we do here tonight, as on other nights, really affects what Tigard is going to look Zike for the next hundred years. I donet think that we can make those decisions wholly on economic states, much as we would be very tempted to do so. I think I hope that Tigard does continue to provide options. I guess this is I think R-7 zones as provided in the past is the place for R-7 zones I think I know some people like the R-5, and the R-5 is fine. I think we do need to have option for R-7 somewhere in Tigard, and I think this is an ideal place for it. (Applause from audience.) Tepedino: Thank you, Commissioner Moen. I would appreciate it if you would keep your outbursts down. My only comments are that Tigard has to provide ?affordable? housing--there is no question. They are under pressure to do that. The problem I have with this particular application is really in terms of policy considerations. Some of the opponents mentioned that. We are looking at a policy change here in putting a high density development away from some of the major thoroughfares where in the past we have always attempted to put them at .or adjacent to a thoroughfare, for a number of reasons. In this case it looks like vie are dropping it into the center of- other than a high density area, and that bothers me because that raises the issue of access -to roads -- the transportation *system. I know there is the question we are all concerned with, and I know that is emergency vehicle access--fire vehicles, police cars, additional school buses. The school situation is well covered. But because of those points, and-particularly the policy considerations, I would really be forced :to vote against it. Although I think the concept is good;. i:t is the particular location that bothers me .very'much. : For that I would not beable to endorse the application. Staff, do you'have a few comments to make? Or Counsel? Elliott: I would like to,.just briefly address the question of LCDC goals and their applicability to this problem. As a compre- hensive plan amendment, it must comply with the LCDC goals. The TRANSCRIPT OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING November 10, 1981 - Comprehensive Plan Revision CPR 15-81 Amart Development Company - Summerlake II Page 23 Elliott: applicant has stated in detail, beginning at page 34 of its (Cont.a proposal, what it considers to be the applicable goals. I would just like to suggest that the commissioners, if you have not already considered these in detail, to review the goals and consider them in your decision. Particularly Goal 10, on housing, which is set forth on page 46, and it has already been discussed by individual commissioners and by the applicant that the city does have an obligation to provide a mix of housing, and also to comply with its share of the regional housing need along with the other jurisdictions within the urban gro17th boundary. And I would just like to briny the goals to the commissioners' attention, and perhaps it might be appropriate to discuss some of them if some individual commissioners would like to. Tepedino: Thank you. Owens: I would like to respond to your pointing out the Goal 10 on housing particularly. At one point the NPO 7 met and desig- nated areas which would be for higher density housing. At that time NPO 7 had the largest amount of land that was not yet developed, and so a greater responsibility fell to NPO 7 for this need in the area of increased density. Perhaps . • that kind of thinking and that particular area wasn't one of the areas that was designated for increased density. The orange area that you see other than that area are the ones that were designated for increased density, as our part of contributing to the over-all Gaal 10 requirement. So I don't particularly see--gratis- one of my problems. in this application here--is that I feel that the areas already identi- fled within our . Tepedino: Okay, thank you, Commissioner. All the commissioners have had a chance to speak. The public hearing is closed on this. I would like -to call for the question. Commissioner Moen? Moen: I would move that . . . (motion for denial lost in change of tapes.) Tepedino: Thank you. Commissioner Moen made a motion for disapproval, based on findings of fact and staff pre .t-ztation, as well as the discussion here at the Commission lcv�l. Kolleas: Second. Tepedino: Motion made and seconded. Further discussion? Further dis- cussion? I call for the question. All those in favor of the motion made and seconded for denial signify by saying Aye. TRANSCRIPT Or TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING November 10, 1981 - Comprehensive Plan Revision CPR 15-81 Amart Development Company - Summerlake II Page 24 Chorus: Aye. Tepedino: Those opposed? (no response.) The motion is defeated unani- mously. (Sic) (He meant that the proposal was defeated.) CHARTER REVIEW ISSUES - DRAFT - JANUARY 18, 1982 PAGE # CHAPTER & SECTION # PARAGRAPH ISSUE ii 5 Chapter III/Sec.7 3rd Contradicts Ch. VI, Sec. 31 Contradicts Ch. VII Sec. 33 (quorum) Cnty. handles elections-may not meet require. of charter - outdated. Mayor & Council/ _ Form of Government question. .7 Council Members C5-1 Chapter III/Sec.10 1st 4th & 5th lines "mayor with common consent" -what is common consent. City Admin. position added? Cid Attorney position added C5-1 Chapter III/Sec.12 1st Compare to State laws (current?) C6 Chapter IV/Sec. 13 1st Rewrite! Timing for calling special meeting-hours What kind of notice-post/ads/emergency/ Who call call special meeting-Mayor/common consent of Council/President of Council in Mayor's absence/ Where' are adopted rules for governing members and proceedings? C6 Chapter IV/Sec. 14 1st No ordinance adopted. What is quorum - 4 member council if 1 has resigned. C6 Chapter IV/Sec. 16. 1st What is difference between Study Sessions & Regular Meetings? C6 Chapter IV/Sec. 18 1st Clarify Chairman's functions & authority(ie calling special meetings in absence of Mayor) C6-1 Chapter V/Sec. 20 1st Contradicts Ch.III,Sec.7 (Mayor with common C7 consent) "Mayor appoints committees provided by rules of Council"??? Bonds. . . Mayor or designee? C7 Chapter V/Sec. 21 1st Times for court not designated by Council C9 Chapter VI /Sec.30 1st Who signs checks,d ocuments and takes action needed from the lst of January to date and time oath is administered at the first Council meeting? C9 Chapter VI /Sec. 31 all Needs comparison with ORS/County rules C9-1 C10 CIO Chapter VII/Sec. 32 1st Contradicts Chapter III,Section 7 C10 Chapter VII/Sec. 33 1st Contradicts Chapter III, Section 7 ^10 Chapter VIII/Sec 34-36 all Read ordinance by title 2 times - where does it say that? Title only- 1 week in advance? CHARTER REVIEW ISSUES - DRAFT - JANUARY 18, 1982 AGE # CHAPTER & SECTION # PARAGRAPH ISSUE C12 Chapter IX/Sec. 39 1st No ordinance enforcing payment of special assessments etc. C12 Chapter IX/Sec. 40 1st Per ORS. . .$10 000 C12 Chapter IX/Sec. 41 1st Debt Limit $5,000 - Raise? $10,000? ORS C12 Chapter IX/Sec. 42 1st Rewrite to meet state law (outdated). NOTES: Recall: City Recorder to order election - ORS 221.220 - Chapter VI.31 Article II-8 Council to set time, manner & means of holding a special election - Chapter VI.25 County supervises city election and City Recorder re: elections ORS 246.012, 246.200, 246.210 Annexed areas allowed to vote - ORS 199.410 - 512; or sign petitions ORS 222.010 - 750 Designate City Recorder as "filing officer & chief election officer" as specified in ORS 260.005. G<J. �k n?AYo� Fo2m N Q �. (h�vo k C4LlNC i w m6ofZ couNCL. N � wETo d �.r6ZIATXatV o � y q �oun�csc gPPox.NYS•.. W ASP S... G.X TY`+1 D E Q T. [a TAA rQg NFA OS r A e zz DF-k% o ° V o ALFA©S �GouNc�'�-mRn�AG.F� Fo�Qm" " G v n�� rss�o� Fo2�n`► J ydTF- R5 V OT ER5 -r. Q [LOLAIVC.'T L p D EPS: CT-rY �, FlO lw&qo � a® � � p s A PPo��.,, � • i CHARTER of the CITY OF TIGARD OREGON Referred to the voters and adopted November 6, 1962 Effective January 1, 1963 Cl INDEX CHAPTER I -NAME AND BOUNDARIES Title of Enactment; Name of City; Boundaries. Begins page C4 CHAPTER II POWERS . Powers of the City; Construction_ of Charter. Begins page C4 CHAPTER III FORM OF GOVERNMENT Where Powers Vested; Council; Councilmen; Mayor-Council Form; Other Officers; Salaries; Qualifications of Officers. Begins page C4 CHAPTER IV COUNCIL Meetings; Quorum; Journal; Proceedings To Be Public; Mayor' s Functions at Council Meetings; President of the Council; Vote Required. Begins page C5 CHAPTER V POWERS AND DUTIES OF OFFICERS Mayor; Municipal Judge; Recorder. Begins page C5 CHAPTER VI ELECTIONS Regular Elections; Notice of Regular Elections; Special Elec- tions; Regulation of Elections; Canvass of Returns; Tie Votes; Commencment of Terms of Office; Oath of Office; Nominations . Begins page C7 C2 INDEX (Continued) CHAPTER VII VACANCIES i== OFFICE What Creates Vacancy; Filling of Vacancies . . Begins page C10 CHAPTER VIII ORDINANCES Enacting Clause; Mode of Enactment; When Ordinances Take Effect. Begins page CIO CHAPTER IX PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS Condemnation; Improvements; Special Assessments; Bids . Begins page Cll MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS Debt. Limit. Torts. Existing Ordinances Continued. Time Effect of Charter. Begins page C12 C3 1--6 Chapter I NAME AND BOUNDARIES Section 1. TITLE OF ENACTMENT. This enactment may be. referred to as the City of Tigard Charter of 1962. Section 2. NAME OF CITY. The municipality of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon, shall continue to be a municipal corporation with the name "City of Tigard" . Section 3. BOUNDARIES. The City shall include all ter- ritory encompassed by its boundaries as they now exist or hereafter are modified by voters, by the council, or by any other agency with legal power to modify them. The recorder shall keep in his office at the city hall at least two copies of this charter in each of which he shall maintain an accurate, up-to-date description of the boundaries . The copies and de- scriptions shall be available for public inspection at any time during regular office hours of the recorder. MAYOR-COUNCIL FORM Chapter II POWERS Section 4. POWERS OF THE CITY. The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities as fully as though this charter specifically enumerated each of those powers. Section S. CONSTRUCTION OF CHARTER. In this charter no mention of a particular power shall be construed to be ex- clusive or to restrict the scope of the powers which the City would have if the particular power were not mentioned. The charter shall be liberally construed to the end that the City may have all powers necessary or convenient for the conduct Of its municipal affairs, including all powers that cities may assume pursuant to state laws and to the municipal home rule provisions of the state constitution. Chapter III FORM OF GOVERNMENT Section 6. WHERE POWERS VESTED. Except as this charter provides otherwise, all powers of the City shall be vested in the council. C4 7--8 Section 7. MAYOR AND COUNCIL. The elective officers I of the City shall be a mayor and four councilmen who together shall constitute the City Council. The mayor shall be elected and hold office for a period of two years. There shall be elected in conjunction with the statewide general election in November, 1972, a candidate to the office of mayor whose term shall begin on January 1, 1973. No person who is serving as mayor or councilman shall become a candidate for any city office for a term which would be concurrent with his term in the office he then holds unless he first submits a written resignation from his then- current office. A resignation submitted for the purpose of satisfying the provisions of this section shall recite that it is given for the purpose of permitting its signer to be a candidate for office. A resignation submitted to satisfy this section shall not be withdrawn. The resignation shall be adequate for purposes of this section if it provides for the termination of the signer's service in the office not later than the last day before his service would begin in the office for which he seeks to become a candidate. in the event the office of mayor or councilman becomes vacant 180 days or more before the normal expiration of its term a special election shall be held to fill the office for the unexpired term. Such an election shall be held within 45 days of the occurrence of the vacancy. All nominating . papers comprising a petition shall be assembled and filed with the recorder as one instrument not later than 20 days before the special election. If, however, a state-wide pri- mary or general election falls within the 180-day period following the occurrence of the vacancy, then no special election shall be held.CAS-,- cl,.-g�. ,act .�� . � .� . , v ► Section 8. COUNCILMEN. The four council positions are hereby designated as Positions Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. The coun- cilmen shall be elected and hold office for a period of four years'; provided, however, that the officers holding office at the time of adoption of this amendment shall hold their offices for the balance of the terms for which they were elected or appointed and until their successors are elected and qualified. At each biennial general state election after this amend- ment takes effect beginning in 1972 , two councilmen shall be elected, each for a term of four (4) years. Candidates to fill Positions 1 and 2 shall be submitted to the voters at the general election in 1972 , and candidates for council Positions 3 and 4 shall be subject to election in 1974. The candidate receiving the highest number of votes for each of the numbered council positions shall be deemed elected for a four-year term. _ C5 (Tigard 1/15/79) 10--12 Section 10 . OTHER OFFICERS _ Additional officers of the -City shall be a municipal judge, a recorder, and such other officers as the council deems necessary. Each of these offi- cers shall be appointed and may be removed by the mayor with the consent of the council. The council may combine any two or more appointive city offices . The council may designate any appointive officers to supervise any other appointive officer except the municipal judge in the exercise of his judicial. functions. Section 11. SALARIES _ The compensation for the services of each city officer and employees shall be the amount fixed by the council. Section 12 . QUALIFICATIONS OF OFFICERS . A qualified elector within the meaning of the State Constitution, who will have resided continuously for a period of twelve (12) months or more i�►u-nediately preceding the election in an area which is within the corporate boundaries of the City as the same shall exist as of a date one hundred twenty (120) calendar days immediately prior to the date of the election (inclusive of all territory previously effectively annexed to the City) , shall be . eligible for an elective office of the City. The Council shall be final judge of the qualifications and elec- tion of its own members, subject, however, to review by a court of competent jurisdiction. • C5-1 (Tigard 1/15/79) 13--19 Chapter IV COUNCIL Section 13. MEETINGS. The council shall hold a regular meeting at least once each month in the City at a time and at a place which it designates. It shall adopt rules for government of its members and proceedings. The mayor upon his own motion may, or at the request of three members of the council shall, by giving notice thereof to all members of the council then in the City, call a special meeting of the coun- cil for a time not earlier than three (3) nor later than seventy-two (72) hours after the notice is given. Special meetings of the council may also be held at any time by the common consent of all members of the council. Section 14. QUORUM. A majority of members of the coun- cil shall constitute a quorum for its business, but a smaller number may meet and compel the attendance of absent members in a manner provided by ordinance. Section 15. JOURNAL. The council shall cause a journal of its proceedings to be kept. Upon the request-of any of its members the ayes and nays- upon any question before it shall be taken, and a record of the vote entered in the journal. Section 16 . PROCEEDINGS TO BE PUBLIC. No action by the council shall have legal effect unless the motion for the ac- tion by the council vote by which it is disposed of take place at proceedings open to the public. Section 17. MAYOR'S FUNCTIONS AT COUNCIL MEETINGS. The mayor shall be chairman of the council and preside over its deliberations. He shall have a vote on all questions brought before the council. Section 18. PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL. At its first meeting after this charter takes effect and thereafter at its first meeting of each odd-numbered year, the council by ballot shall choose a president from its membership. In the mayor's absence from a council meeting the president shall preside over it. Whenever the mayor is unable to perform the functions of his office, the president shall act as mayor. Section 19 . VOTE REQUIRED. Except as this charter other- wise provides , the concurrence of a majority of the members of the council present at a council meeting shall be necessary to decide any question before the council. C6 (Tigard 10/15/72) 20 _ Chapter V 0-- POWERS AND DUTIES OF OFFICERS Section 20. MAYOR. The mayor shall appoint the com- mittees provided by the rules of the council. He shall sign ' 1 C6-1 (Tigard 10/15/72) s; - mom 21--23 all approved records of proceedings of the council and coun- tersign all orders on the treasury. He shall have no veto power and shall authenticate by his signature all ordinances passed by the council within three days after being enacted. After the, council approves a bond of a city officer or a bond for a. license, contract, or proposal, the mayor shall authenti- cate the bond by his endorsement thereon. Section 21. MUNICIPAL JUDGE. The municipal judge shall be the judicial officer of the City. He shall hold within the City a court known as the Municipal Court for the City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon. The court shall be open for the transaction of judicial business at times specified by the council. All areas within the City shall be within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. The municipal judge shall Exercise original and exclusive jurisdiction of all crimes and offenses defined and made punishable by ordi- nances of the City and of all actions brought to recover or enforce .forfeitures or penalties defined or authorized by ordinances of the City. He shall have authority to issue process for the arrest of any person accused of an offense against the ordinances of the City, to commit any such person -to jail or -admit him to bail pending trial, to issue subpoenas ," to. compel witnesses to appear and testify in court on the trial of any cause before him, to compel obedience to such subpoenas, to issue and process necessary to carry into ef- fect the judgments of the court, and to punish witnesses and other for contempt of the court. When not governed by ordi- nances or this charter, all proceedings in the municipal court for the violation of a city ordinance shall be governed by the applicable general laws of the state governing justices of. the peace and justice courts. Defendants in the municipal court charged with violation of city ordinances shall be en- titled to a trial by jury as provided by state statutes. Section 22. RECORDER. The recorder shall serve ex of- ficio as clerk of the council, attend all its meetings unless excused therefrom by the council, keep an accurate record of it.s proceedings in a book provided for that purpose, and sign all orders on the treasury. In the recorder's absence from a council meeting, the mayor shall appoint a clerk of the coun- cil pro tem who, while acting in that capacity, shall have ala_ the authority and duties of the recorder. Chapter VI ELECTIONS Section 23. REGULAR ELECTIONS. Regular city elections shall be held at the same times and places as biennial general C7 24--29 state elections in accordance with applicable state election laws. Section 24. NOTICE OF REGULAR ELECTIONS_ The recorder, pursuant to directions from the council, shall give at least ten days' notice of each regular city election by posting no- tice thereof at a conspicuous place in the city hall and in one public place in each voting precinct of the city: The notice shall state the officers to be elected, the ballot ti- tle of each measure to be voted upon, and the time and place of the election. Section 25. SPECIAL ELECTIONS. The council shall ap- prove the time, manner; and means for holding any special election. The recorder shall give at least ten days' notice of each special election in the manner provided by the action of the council ordering the election. Section 26. REGULATION OF ELECTIONS. Except as this charter provides otherwise and as the council provides other- wise by ordinances relating to elections, the general laws of the state -shall apply to the conduct of all city elections , recounts of the returns therefrom and contest *thereof. Section 27. CANVASS OF RETURNS. In all elections held in conjunction with state and county elections, the state laws governing the filing of returns by the county clerk shall apply. In each special city election the returns therefrom shall be filed with the recorder on or before noon of the day following, and not later than five days after the election, the council shall meet and canvass the returns. The results of all elections shall be made a matter of record in the jour- nal of the proceedings of the council. The journal shall contain a statement of the total number of votes cast at each election, the .votes cast for each person and for and against each proposition, the name of each person elected to office, the office to which he has been elected, and a reference to each measure enacted or approved. Immediately after the can- vass is completed, the recorder shall make and sign a certifi- cate of election of each person elected and deliver the cer- tificate to him within one day after the canvass. A certifi- cate so made and delivered shall be prima facie evidence of the truth of the statements contained in it. Section 23. TIE VOTES. In the event of a tie vote for candidates for an elective office, the successful candidate shall be determined by a public drawing of lots in a manner prescribed by the council. Section 29. COMMENCEMENT OF TERMS OF OFFICE. The term of office of a person elected at a regular city election } Cg 30--31 shall commence the first of the year immediately following the election. Section 30 . OATH OF OFFICE. Before entering upon the duties of his office, each officer shall take an oath or shall affirm that he will support the constitutions and laws of the United States and of Oregon and that he will faithfully per- form the duties of his office. He shall affirm that he is not then nor ever has been at any time a member of any organi- zation advocating the overthrow of the United States govern- ment. Section 31. NOMINATIONS. A qualified elector within the meaning of the State Constitution, who. will have resided continuously for a period of twelve (12) months or more immediately preceding the election in any area which is with- in the corporate boundaries of the City as the same shall exist as of a date one hundred twenty (120) calendar days immediately prior to the date of the election, (inclusive of all territory previously effectively annexed to the City) , may be nominated for an elective City position. Nomination shall be by petition specifying the position sought in a form prescribed by the council. Such petition shall be signed by not -fewer than 25 electors. No elector shall sign more than one .petition for each vacant position. If he does so, his signatures shall be invalid. The signatures to a nomination petition need not all be appended to one paper, but to each Ic separate paper of the petition shall be attached an affidavit of the circulator thereof, indicating the number of signers of the paper and stating that each signature appended thereto was made in his presence and is the genuine signature of the per- son whose name it purports to be. With each signature shall be stated the signer's place pf residence, identified by its street and number or other sufficient description. All nomination papers comprising a petition shall be assembled and filed with the recorder as one instrument not earlier than 120 nor later than 90 days before the election. The recorder shall make a record of the exact time at which each petition is filed and shall take and preserve the name and address of the-person by whom it is filed. If the peti- t-Jon is not signed by the required number of qualified elec- tors, the recorder shall notify the candidate and the person who filed the petition within five days after the filing. If the petition is insufficient in any other particular, the recorder shall return it immediately to the person who filed it, certifying in writing wherein the petition is insuffi- cient. Such deficient petition may be amended and filed again as a new petition, or a substitute petition for the same candidate may be filed, within the regular time for fil- ing nomination petitions. The recorder shall notify an C9 (Tigard 1/15/75) 31 eligible person of his nomination, and such person shall file with the recorder his written acceptance of nomination, in such form as the council may require, within five days of notification of nomination. Upon receipt of such accep- tance of nomination, the recorder shall cause the nominee's 1 C9-1 (Tigard 1/15/75) 32--35 name to be printed on the ballots. The petition of nomina- tion -for a successful candidate at an election shall be pre- served in the office of the recorder until the term of office for which the candidate is elected expires. Chapter VII VACANCIES IN OFFICE Section 32. WHAT CREATES VACANCY. An office shall be deemed vacant upon the incumbent' s death, adjudicated incom- petence, conviction of a felony, other offense pertaining to his office, or unlawful destruction of public records, resig- nation, recall from office; or ceasing to possess the qual- ifications for the office; upon the failure of the person elected or appointed to the office to qualify therefor with- in ten days after the time for his term of office to commence; or in the case of a mayor or councilman, upon his absence from the city for 30 days without the consent of the council or upon his absence from regular meetings of the council and upon a declaration by the council of the vacancy. Section 33. FILLING OF VACANCIES. Vacancies in elec- tive offices in the city shall be filled by a majority of the incumbent members of the council. The appointee's term shall qg begin immediately upon his appointment and shall continue until the first day of the calendar year immediately follow- ing the first regular city election, as defined in Section 23, Chapter VI, of this Charter, following his or her appoint- ment to office. During the temporary disability of any offi- cer or during his absence temporarily from the city for any cause, his office may be filled pro tem in the manner pro- for filling officers in office permanently. Chapter VIII ORDINANCES Section 34. ENACTING CLAUSE. The enacting clause of All ordinances hereafter shall be, "The City of Tigard ordains as follows: " . Section 35. MODE OF ENACTMENT. (1) Except as this sec- tion provides to the contrary, every ordinance of the council shall, before being put upon its final passage, be read fully and distinctly in open council meeting on two different days. . (2) Except as this section provides to the contrary, an ordinance may be enacted at a single meeting of the council by unanimous vote of all council members present, upon being read first in full and then by title. (3) Any of the readings may be by title only (a) if no council member present at the meeting requests to have Clo (Tigard 1/15/77) 36--38 the ordinance read in full or (b) if a copy of the ordinance is provided for each council member and three copies are pro- vided fob► public inspection in the office of the city recorder not later than one week before the first reading of the ordi- nance and notice of their availability is given forthwith upon . the filing, by (i) written notice posted at the city hall and two other public places in the City or (ii) advertisement in a newspaper of general circulation in the City. An ordinance enacted after being read by title alone may have no legal ef- fect if it differs substantially from its terms as it was thus filed prior to such reading, unless each section incor- porating such a difference is read fully and distinctly in open council meeting as finally amended prior to being ap- proved by the council. (4) Upon the final vote on an ordinance, the ayes and nays of the -members shall be taken and recorded in the journal. (5) Upon the enactment of an ordinance the recorder shall sign it with the date of its passage and his name and title of office, and within three days thereafter the mayor shall sign it with the date of his signature, his name and the title of his office. Section 36. WHEN ORDINANCES TAKE EFFECT. An ordinance enacted by the council shall take effect on the thirtieth day after its enactment. When the council deems it advisable, however, an ordinance may provide a later time for it to take effect. In case of emergency, an ordinance may take effect immediately, provided that there is set forth in a separate section the reasons why it must become effective immediately. Chapter IX PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS Section 37. CONDEMNATION. Any necessity of taking prop- erty for the City by Condemnation shall be determined by the council and declared by a resolution of the council describing the property and stating the uses to which it shall be de- voted. Section 38. IMPROVEMENTS. The procedure for making, altering, vacating or abandoning a public improvement shall be governed by general laws of the state. Action on any pro- posed public improvement, except a sidewalk or except an im- provement unanimously declared by the council to be needed at' once because of an emergency, shall be suspended for six months, upon a remonstrance thereto by the owners of two-thirds of the property to be specially assessed therefor. For the purpose of this section "owner" shall mean the record holder of legal } title to the land, except that if there is a purchaser of the C11 39--42 } land according to a recorded land sale contract or according to a verified writing by the record holder of legal title to the land filed with the city recorder, the said purchaser shall be deemed the "owner" . Section 39. SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS. The procedure for levying, collecting, and enforcing the payment of special assessments for public improvements or other services to be charged against real property shall be governed by general ordinance. Section 40. BIDS. A contract in excess of $2,500 . for public improvement to be made by a private contractor shall be let to the lowest responsible bidder for the contract and shall be performed in accordance with plans and specifications approved by the council. The council shall have the right to reject any or all said bids. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS Section 41. - DEBT LIMIT. Except by consent of the vot-. ers, the City' s voluntary floating indebtedness for general city purposes shall not exceed $5, 000.00 . For purposes of calculating the limitation, however, the legally authorized / debt of the City in existence at the time this charter takes effect shall not be considered. All city officials and em- ployees who create or officially approve any indebtedness in excess of this limitation shall be jointly and severally li- able for the excess. Section 42. TORTS. In no event shall the City be liable in damages for an injury to person, a damage to property, or a death, caused by a defect or a dangerous condition in a pub- lic thoroughfare, site or facility, unless the City has had actual notice prior to the injury, damage, or death that the defect or condition existed and has had a reasonable time thereafter in which to repair or remove it. In no case shall more than $500 .00 be recovered as damages for an injury, dam- age or death resulting from such a defect or dangerous place. No action shall be maintained against the City for damages growing out of such injury, damage or death unless the claim- ant first gives written notice to the council within 30 days after the injury, damage or death is sustained, stating spe- cifically the time when, the place where, and the circum ances under which it was sustained, and that he will claim damages therefor of the City in an amount which he specifies . But in no event shall the action be started until 30 days have elapsed after the presentation of this notice to the council. C12 (Tigard 10/15/72) 43--44 Section 43. EXISTING ORDINANCES CONTINUED. All ordi- nances of the City consistent with this charter and in force when it takes effect shall remain_ in effect until amended or repealed. Section 44. TIME OF EFFECT OF CHARTER. This charter shall take effect January 1, 1963. AUTHENTICATION CERTIFICATE OF CITY RECORDER I, RALPH V. SYMONS, do hereby certify that I am the duly appointed, qualified and acting Recorder of the City of Tigard, Washington County, State of Oregon, and as. such have the care and control of the official records of said city. I further certify that pursuant to resolution of the City Council of Tigard, duly adopted at its regular meeting of October 8, 1962, there was referred to the voters of the City of Tigard, in conformity with initiative and referendum powers contained in Ordinance No. 62-20 of said city, at the regular city election of November 6, 1962, the question of the adoption of the above herein and foregoing Charter of the said city, and that a total of 631 votes were cast with re- spect to said charter proposal at said election of which 456 votes were cast in favor of said charter and 175 votes were cast against same, and that as shown by the official canvass .of the . returns of said election, the above herein and fore- going Charter was duly adopted by the people of the City of Tigard at said election of November 6, 1962, by majority of the votes cast. I further certify that I have carefully compared the above and foregoing copy with the original of said charter proposal as filed in my office and that the foregoing copy is a correct transcript therefrom and the whole of said original as the same now appears on file in my office and in my offi- cial custody. I further certify that by resolution of the City Council of the City of Tigard, Oregon, duly passed at its regular meeting of November 26, 1962, the above herein and foregoing Charter was duly proclaimed and confirmed as the Charter of the City of Tigard, Oregon, to be effective by its terms on and after January 1, 1963. In Witness Whereof I have hereunto set my hand and af- fixed the official seal of the City of Tigard, Oregon, this 14th day of January, 1963. Ralph V Symons, Recorder of the City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon. C13 February 3, 1982 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Planning Division SUBJECT: An extension of the Intern's Services In November of 1981, the City Council reviewed and approved the proposed work program to revise and complete the Comprehensive Plan for eventual LCDC approval. This work program is outlined in Attachment "A". Briefly, it includes the review of existing data and policies and their importance regarding city needs and LCDC goals and guidelines; the establishment of new data; new policies and their findings; coordination with the county and LCDC; and review by the Neighborhood Planning Organizations, the Planning Commission and the City Council. The initial phases of this work (e.g. , the collection of data and the writing of findings and policies) are labor intensive and it is extremely important that all of the data needed is verified with all appropriate Federal, state, local and private agencies. For the past three months, the Planning Division has retained the services of an intern who has assisted Liz Newton with all aspects of current planning matters besides establishing existing land use data which will be used for the housing and urbanization studies of the Comprehensive Plan. Ire January, another Associate Planner was hired to work on the revision of the Comprehensive Plan. This person has been involved in the collection of data for the various proposed elements of the Comprehensive Plan as well as revising sections of the Zoning Ordinance which are inconsistent with existi:.g land uses and city and neighborhood policies. Due to the amount, of data that needs to be collected prior to the drafting of policies and additional revisions to the Zoning Ordinance, staff believes it is important to retain the Planning intern. If retained, the Planning Intern would be specifically assigned to assist in the collection of data for the Urbanization, Housing and Land Use aspects of the Comprehensive Plan which relate to LCDC goals 14, 10 and 2 respectively. These are the most complex and labor intensive aspects of the Comprehensive Plan, and after primarily reviewing the existing data, they require the most attention. In order to maintain the City Council approved work program in a reasonable and orderly manner, staff believes that the Planning Intern should be retained for an additional 3-month period. By the end of this period, most of the data collection will have been completed. City Council Page 2 After reviewing the existing 1981 - 1982 control budget, the Planning Division does have an additional $3000 for such personnel services. This amount would adequately pay for the Planning Intern services needed over the 3-month period. OUTLINE FOR REVISION OF COMP PLAN & PROJECTED TIME TABLE I. Review existing documents submitted to LCDC. A. All seven (7) Neighborhood Planning Group (NPO) plans. 1. Existing policies look at problems and potentials stated in plan and policies. 2. Existing land uses. 3. Establish inconsistencies between existing land uses, zones and plan policies. 4. Cross references existing applicable policies with LCDC goals. B. All applicable County Planning Group plans (CPO) . 1. Determine inconsistencies between NPO and CPO plans policies and existing land uses. 2. Determine inconsistencies and areas of interest with the Urban Planning Area. a. Primary b. Secondary 3. Initiate update to Urban Planning Area. C. Review Tigard Community Plan (problems and policies) . D. Review all other Comprehensive Plan elements which include: 1. Citizen Involvement 2. Environmental Design and Open Space Plan 3. Air, water and land resources quality 4. Energy analysis 5. Tigard Economy Plan 6. Community Services and Transportation Plan 7. Growth Management Policy 8. Buildable Land Survey 9. Housing Plan E. Review Zoning Ordinance. 1. Administrative procedures 2. Use permitted in each zone (district) 3. Development inconsistencies (standards) F. Meet with LCDC representative. Projected completion: March 15, 1982- II. Establish outline (structure) for Comp Plan. A. General outline should break down policies (general) according to LCDC goals. Page 2 1. Additional categories within general goal heading. 2. Include intro, findings and policies in each category. B. Establish definitions for Comp Plan & future land use map. 1. Density ranges. 2. Other use type categories. C. Establish methods to amended map and policies. D. Meet with LCDC representative. Projected completion: February 15, 1982. III. Update (existing data) . A. Update data on existing Comprehensive Plan elements stated in Section I-D above that have salvageable data. B. Establish new data on those elements that do not have salvageable data, e.g. , Housing. C. Update existing Housing (LCDC Goal 10) data. (Example: procedure) 1. Determine future population. 2. Extrapolate income levels based on present trends. 3. Determine residents ability to afford various housing types. 4. Allocate population to housing type. 5. 1-4 above are determined by buildable lands and zoning. 6. Building lands survey and establish process to update. 7. Establish general land use areas. D. Submit data NPO groups. 1. For review and verification of data. 2. To establish findings and policies for NPO area and city. 3. To establish land designation within NPO area. E. Meet with LCDC representative. IV. Establish implementation strategies. A. Procedures related to Comp Plan elements. 1. Urban fringe area (e.g. , growth management, city/county agreements. 2. With city limits (e.g. , existing land uses, amendments and available buildable lands) . B. Procedures related to Zoning Ordinance. 1. Administration 2. Land uses permitted 3. Development standards 4. Amendments to text & map Page 3 C. Strategies specifically related to each Comp Plan element. Projected completion: May 1, 1982. V. Submit draft to NPO, PC & CC for initial review by May 15, 1982. A. Discuss B. Revision C. Get Neighborhood Planning Organization approvals. D. Meet with LCDC representative. VI. Submit revised draft to Planning Commission by June 1, 1982. A. Discuss (revisions/additions) . B. Planning Commission approval. VII. Submit revised draft to City Council. A. Discuss (revisions/additions) . B. City Council approval of final draft. Projected completion: July 1, 1982. VIII. Submit to LCDC. CITY F T11 January 29, 1982 %%SHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON The Editor TIGARD TIMES P.O. .Box 370 Beaverton, Oregon 97075 Dear Sir: As with many signs, there are also two sides to every story. The Times editorial about the City of Tigard not enforcing its sign code is misleading. The times comment that there are "a lot of illegal signs" is apparently based on the state- ment of an ex-City Codes Enforcement Officer and not on fact. In fact, the last rotating sign was at the Dairy Queen, and it is now fixed. Davidson's "reader board" has been questioned, but actually the Code refers to the "changing of the message regularly".and allows for complete overhaul of a sign at any time, so Davidson's "Cinnamon Rolls" may be all right. Some signs were damaged in the recent storm and, if non-conforming, were not allowed to rebuild, such as the A-Boy Electric sign. The damaged Goodyear sign is in conformance, except that its "round" posts are not encased in a "square" sheathing. I feel the Code in this case may be unreasonable in trying to put a round peg in a square box! I am not, *however, aware of any policy of benign neglect and suggest that if the Times wishes to attribute such policies to a previous administration, they should check with the previous City Administrator, not an ex-Codes Enforcement Officer. As to January 11, 1981 being the deadline for removal of non-conforming signs, there is a -vague reference in another section of the Code to the date of March 20, 1988. The inconsistencies in the Code and the "gray areas" of inter- pretation require a thorough review of the Code by the Council prior to any aggressive change in enforcement policy. So, to be perfectly clear, I will do my best to assure the uniform and fair en- forcenient of all City Codes to the extent of the resources available. We continue to .require Code conformance when new construction permits are• issued'or when we receive complaints. We are enforcing the Code. Suggested revisions to the Code will be before the Council in February as has been planned since the matter was brought to my attention last fall. Meanwhile, I have no intention of taking a heavy-handed approach on signs towards a business community trying to make a living, nor imposing the burden of unreason- able or arbitrary government regulations. Yours truly, Robert Jean City A inistratoc cv 12755 S.W.ASH P.O.BOX 23397 •TIGARD,OREGON 97223 PH:639-4171 MEMORANDUM C17YOFTWARD WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Bob Jean, City Administrator } DATE: February 5, 1982 SUBJECT: St. Anthony's Kelly Center On September 18, 1981 the City of Tigard received a Site Design Review applica- tion for St. Anthony Church's Kelly Center. Planning Director Aldie Howard re- quested additional information as to square footage of all buildings on site and parking. The architect responded in writing on September 24, 1981. The Planning Director approved the Site Design Review with conditions relating to: 1. elimination of 99W ingress/egress as approved by Public Works Director; 2. petition to form L.I.D. on McKenzie, Grant and Johnson, or if L.I.D. is unsuccessful, to make half-street improvements on McKenzie and Grant, and sign non-remonstrance agreement on L.I.D. for Johnson and 99W; 3. parking; 4. no Occupancy Permits will be issued until conditions are satisfied; 5. changes to specifications to be approved in writing; 6. grading plan; 7. underground utilities; 8. non-remonstrance agreements to be recorded with County; 9. parking to be paved; 10. no minor land partitions; 11. dedicate rights-of-way. On October 14, 1981, Mr. George Frye, Committee Chairman, requested a "working session with the City Council on October 1_9, 1981." Council agendas did not permit the matter to be scheduled until the November 23, 1981 Council meeting. The applicant's attorney presented his letter dated November 18, 1981 to the Council, essentially offering a counter-proposal as an appeal to the Council: 1. issue building permit; 2. dedicate right-of-way along McKenzie and Grant (unimproved) ; 3. build sidewalk by parking lot; 4. and that 99W ingress/egress be addressed later. The applicant's attorney further suggested that there was no need for an L.I.D. nor any non-remonstrance agreements. Council advised the applicants that they had asked for a "working session" with the Council, but in fact were effectively seeking to appeal directly to the Coun- 12420 S.W. MAIN P.O. BOX 23397 TIGARD, OREGON 97223 PH: 639-4171 f -2- cil around the staff and around the established process. The applicants were SSW advised to address their concerns to the new Planning/Public Works Director and to follow the appeals process if unsatisfied with the results. On December 14, 1981, the Planning/Public Works Director revised the Site Design Review conditions and approved as follows: 1. eliminate 99W ingress/egress; 2. petition to form an L.I.D. on McKenzie, Grant and Johnson; or if un- successful, to make half-street improvements on Johnson from 99W to Grant, on McKenzie from Grant southerly, and non-remonstrance agree- ment on the rest of Grant; 3. parking; 4. no Occupancy Permits until conditions are met; 5. changes in writing; 6. grading plan; s eliminated underground utilities; ` • eliminated recording of non-remonstrance agreement with County; 7. parking to be paved; 8. no minor land partitions; 9. dedicate rights-of-way on Johnson, McKenzie and Grant. Mr. Larry Nicholson signed acceptance of the conditions on December 23, 1981 for the Archdiocese of Portland, St. Anthony's Church. The latter part of January, I was asked by several Council members as to the status of this project. On February 3, 1982, an appeal to the conditions was filed with the City. The deadline for the March Planning Commission agenda was January 26, 1982. The appeal has been set per the City's cut-off dates and pro- cedures for the April 6, 1982 Planning Commission meeting. The alternatives available to the Council are: 1. let the appeal go through the established appeal process; or, 2. request that the appeal be heard before the City Council when- ever Council deems appropriate (allowing for 10 days' published notice) ; if Council wishes to hear the appeal directly, I would suggest either February 22 or March 8 (preferably March 8 to allow the City Attorney adequate time to review) . Yours truly, Robe W. Jean Cit Administrator cv Avoid Verbal Yessages CITY OF TIGARD To: Cheif of Police From: Det. Sgt. L. Branstetter object: Liquor License Appicant Date: 2-8-82 APPLICANTS: BILBAO, Shirley Lorrine 15535 N.W. Norwich St. Beaverton, DOB 8-20-36 McGAUGHEY, Gary T. 6540 S.W. Canyon Court ............ DBA G.S.G. of Oregon Inc. Portland, DOB 6-11-37 8835 S.W. Canyon Ln. Portland, Ore. TEENBERG, Virginia Beverly 0208 S.W. Texas St. Portland, DOB 7-20-47 APPLICANTS BUSINESS NAME: FEEKS & STONGS POTATO PUB (old Peabodys Resturant) 13620 S.W. Pacific Hwy Tigard, Oregon • The applicants are the original owners of the Peabodys Resturant which is already licensed for the type of license that they are currently requesting. The owners for business reasons took back the business from the sub leasers and are now wanting to reopen the business under a new format as a Tavern rather than a resturnat serving beer and wine. The owners have two. other businesses which is of the same format .as the old peabodys Resturant:of-. Tigard where their format is a Sandwich shop serving beer and wine. Because they are wanting to try a new type of business where beer and wine service will be the main item sold with a food supplement, it is questioned as- to whether that Tavern format will be c6mpatable with the surrounding business and residential area. The owners also intend to include pool tables in the tavern which will definately change the. business 'from its present format. Background checks on the applicants have shown no criminal records. History checks with •-the Oregon Liquor Control Commission has revealed no prior problem in the operation of tFseir current businesses, or the operation of the old Peabodys Resturnat. Consider- ation should be given to the complete business format change from a sandwich shop to a Tavern with pool tables serving a food supplement. The Tavern format with a food supplement without pool tables would be more acceptable to the area where the business 9 is located, and• would be less of potential enforcement problem. ------------ LC L. Branstetter, Det. Sgt. License recommended only on the condition that no pool tables or similar games not be installed. t R.B. Adams, Chief of Police