City Council Packet - 11/15/1982 =050
o.�0
"' TIGARD CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA agenda item needs to sign their name on the
NOVEMBER 15, 1982, 7:30 P.M. appropriate sign-up she-at(s) . If no Ghost is
FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL provided, ask to be recognized by the Chair.
LECTURE ROOM
1. SPECIAL METING:
1.1 Call To Order and Roll Call
1.2 Pledge of Allegiance
1.3 Call To Staff, Council & Audience For Non-Agenda Items Under Open
Agenda
2. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be
enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request
that an item be removed for discussion and separate action. Notion to:
2.1 APPROVE MINUTES - October 11, 18, 25, 27, 1982
2.2 Approve the Expenditures and Investments: $ 1,308,219.19
2.3 Receive and File Transmittals:
o Tax Increment Election, Report
o Reclassification Study Findings, Report
o TOYS August-September, 1982, Monthly ;,.Qport
o Washington County Community Action Organization Report
2.4 Receive and File Department&! Monthly Reports and Update
2.5 Approve OLCC Application - Stein & Burger, 11688 S.W. Pacific
Hwy. , Tigard, Oregon 97223 (old Burger Boy Restaurant)
( 2.6 Canvass Vote - 11/2/82 General Election
2.7 Authorize 3 Year Lease Agreement - Photocopier
2.8 Approve Resolution No. 82-125 Confirming NPO #5 Appointments
2.9 Appointment of Charles Gutweniger to Park Board/Mayor's
Recommendation
2.10 Approve Resolution No. 82-126 Accepting Public Improvements
Constructed within Copper Creek Subdivision
2.11 Approve Resolution No. 82-127 Accarting Public Improvements
Constructed within Shilo Subdivision
2.12 Approve Resolution No. 82-128 Accepting Public Sanitary Sewer
Improvements (Gevurtz Sanitary Sewer Extension) Constructed within
SW Bonita Road
2.13 Approve Cambridge Square Subdivision Compliance Agreement and
Authorize Appropriate Signatures.
2.14 Approve Resolution No.82-129 Authorizing Signature of Traffic
Signal Agreement for JB Bishop Property/Bain Street/Pacific Hwy.
2.15 Approve Resolution No.82- 24 Requesting Time Extension For Water
Contract With City of Portland.
3. LIABILITY INSURANCE RENEWAL AND DISCUSSION, NOTION TO APPROVE
o City Recorder
RECESS SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
4. TURA MEETING
( o Call To Order & Roll Call
o Receive and File Report
0 other Business
o Adjournment
RECONVENE SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
COUNCIL AGENDA - NOVEMBER 15, 1982
rs o raa a a:a va seas r sm Al�
_ 5. ORDINANCE NO. 82- ORDINANCE REGARDING FIRE CODE AMENDMENT FOR
WASHINGTON COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT #1
o Director of Planning and Development
6. ORDINANCE NO. 82- ORDINANCE AMENDING DOG CONTROL ORDINANCE
o Chief of Police
7. ORDINANCE NO. 82- ORDINANCE LICENSING AND REGULATING ANTIQUE AND
PRECIOUS METAL DEALERS
o Chief of Police
PUBLIC HEARING PORTION OF MEETING
8. APPEAL-ZONE CHANGE ZC 12-82 &SUNNYSIDE ESTATES NPO #6
An appeal by the Robert Randall Company of the Planning Commission's
decision of denial for a zone change from R-7 to R-5 and a 25 lot
subdivision located at 15280 SW 100th Avenue (Wash. Co. Tax D:ap 2S1 11CA
Lot 900). The matter is to be reviewed by Council pursuant to Tigard
Municipal Code Section 18.84.250(b)(1). This matter is to be heard
pursuant to Section 18.84.290(b) and the review will be confined to the
record of the proceedings. No new evidence or arguments will be allowed.
- However, parties are invited to submit written arguments only pursuant to
Section 18.84.290(b). Such arguments shall be submitted to the City
Recorder not less than five (5) days prior to Council consideration.
During Council consideration, Council may pose questions to staff and
parties on policy issues.
o Public Hearing Opened
o Staff Report and Summary of Planning Commission Proceedings by
Director of Planning and Development
0 Argument: Appellants, Respondents, Appellants Rebuttal
o Public Hearing Closed
o Council Consideration and Action
9. APPEAL-SENSITIVE LANDS PERMIT M 2-82 JADCO CHEMICAL NPO #5
An appeal by John Duncan of the Hearings Officer's denial of a sensitive
lands permit request to excavate and fill within the 100 year floodplain
at 16055 SW 74th Avenue (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 13Alot 1500). The matter
ids to be reviewed by Council pursuant to Tigard Municipal Code Section
18.84.250(b)(1). This matter is to be heard pursuant to Section
18.84.290(b) and the review will be confined to the record of the
proceedings. No new evidence or arguments will be allowed. However,
parties are invited to submit written arguments only pursuant to Section
18.84.290(b). Such arguments shall be submitted to the City Recorder not
less than five (5) days prior to Council consideration. During Council
consideration, Council may pose questions to staff and parties on policy
issues.
o Public Hearing Opened
o Staff Report and Summary of Hearing Officer Processings by
o Director of Planning and Development
PAGE 2 - COUNCIL AGENDA - NOVEMBER 15, 1982
o Argument: Appellants, Respondents, Appellants Rebuttal
o Public Hearing Closed
o Council Consideration and Action
10. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION CPR 4-82 JB BISHOP NPO #1
A review by City Council pursuant to TMC Section 18.84.050(b)(2) of
Planning Commission's approval of a request by JB Bishop for a
Comprehensive Plan Revision from Commercial Professional to General
Commercial on Tax Map 2S1 2CC, Tax Lots 100, 801 & 900 and a Comprehensive
Plan Revision from Commercial Professional/General Commercial to General
Commercial on Tax Map 2S1 2CC, Tax Lots 200 & 500. Property is located on
the east side of Pacific Highway approximately 1000 feet south of Garrett
Street.
o Public Hearing Opened
o Staff Report and Summary of Planning Commission Proceedings by
Director of Planning and Development
o Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross Examination
o Public Hearing Closed
o Council Consideration and Action
PUBLIC HEARING PORTION OF MEETING CONCLUDED
11. WINSOME TERRACE AND HOUSING AUTHORITY PROJECT DISCUSSION
o Director of Planning and Development
12. QUESTIONNAIRE & TAX INCREMENT FINANCE POLL DISCUSSION
o Administrative Assistant Martin
13. 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.
14. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session
under ORS 192.660 (1)(d) and (1)(e) to discuss labor relations and
acquisition of real property.
15. ADJOURNMENT
PAGE 3 - COUNCIL AGENDA - NOVEMBER 15, 1982
T I G A R D C I T Y C 0 U N C I L a
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 15, 1982 - 7:30 P.M.
1. ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor Wilbur Bishop; Councilors Tom Brian, John Cook,
Nancie Stimler, and Kenneth Scheckla; Director of Public
Works, Frank Currie; Finance Director/City Recorder, Doris
Hartig; City Administrator, Bob Jean; Director of Planning &
Development, William Monahan; Legal Counsel, Ed Sullivan;
Office Manager, Loreen Wilson.
2. CALL TO STAFF, COUNCIL & AUDIENCE FOR NON-AGENDA ITEMS UNDER OPEN AGENDA
(a) City Administrator requested that canvass of votes from the 11-2-82
election be pulled from the agenda and the following items be added
to open agenda:
.1 Discussion of Council Retreat
.2 Mawhirter Permit of Entry
.3 Receive and File Communications
.4 2 Parking Ordinances
.5 Resolution for 72nd Avenue Condemnation
.6 Mrs. Ball Discussion
.7 Mr. Mike Marr Discussion
(b) Bruce Clark, Chairman of the Water Study Committee, requested Council
approve the resolution on consent agenda to ask the City of Portland
for an extension to the Water Contract. He also requested Council
consider allowing Nancie Stimler to continue serving on the Study
Committee after January 1, 1983 if the study is still underway.
Council stated they would approve the resolution and would act on the
term of office for Nancie Stimler closer to the end of December.
3. APPROVE MINUTES - October 11, 18, 25, & 27, 1982
(a) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Scheckla to approve.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council.
4. APPROVE THE EXPENDITURES AND INVESTMENTS: $1,308,219.19
(a) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Scheckla to approve.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council.
5. RECEIVE AND FILE TRANSMITTALS:
o Tax Increment Election Report
o Reclassification Study Findings Report
o TCYS August-September 1982 Monthly Report
o Washington County Community Action Organization Report
(a) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Scheckla to receive
and file.
i
Approved by unanimous vote of Council.
COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 15, 1982
6. RECEIVE AND FILE DEPARTMENTAL MONTHLY REPORTS AND UPDATE
(a) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Scheckla to receive
and file.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council.
7. APPROVE OLCC APPLICATION - Stein & Burger, 11688 SW Pacific Hwy. Tigard.
(Formerly Burger Boy Restaurant)
(a) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Scheckla to approve
with attached conditions.
1. That all sales of beer and wine shall be consumed on premises.
2. That no package sales be authorized.
3. That the consumption of beer or wine shall be incidental to the
service of meals.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council.
8. AUTHORIZE 3 YEAR LEASE AGREEMENT - PHOTOCOPIER
(a) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Sdheckla to
authorize lease agreement.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council.
9. RESOLUTION NO. 82-125 A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL RECOGNIZING
THE COMPOSITION OF NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING
ORGANIZATION #5.
(a) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Scheckla to approve.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council.
10. RESOLUTION NO. 82-130 A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MAKING
APPOINTMENT TO THE TIGARD PARK BOARD.
i
(a) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Scheckla to approve
f
appointment of Charles Gutweniger. i
Approved by unanimous vote of Council.
1
11. RESOLUTION NO. 82-126 RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ACCEPTING THE j
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTED WITHIN COPPER CREEK
t
SUBDIVISION.
i
(a) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Scheckla to approve.
f
Approved by unanimous vote of Council.
i
12. RESOLUTION NO. 82-127 RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ACCEPTING THE
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTED WITHIN SHILO i
SUBDIVISION.
(a) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Scheckla to approve.
f
Approved by unanimous vote of Council.
PAGE 2 - COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 15, 1982 j
13. RESOLUTION NO. 82-128 RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ACCEPTING THE
PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS, KNOWN AS THE
GEVURTZ SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION, CONSTRUCTED
WITHIN SW BONITA ROAD.
(a) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Scheckla to approve.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council.
14. APPROVE CAMBRIDGE SQUARE SUBDIVISION COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZE
APPROPRIATE SIGNATURES.
(a) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Scheckla to approve
and authorize signatures.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council.
15. RESOLUTION NO. 82-129 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TIGARD, OREGON, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY
RECORDER TO EXECUTE A PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING AND
CONSTRUCTION FINANCE AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF
OREGON.
(a) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Scheckla to pull
from consent agenda.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council.
16. RESOLUTION NO. 82-124 A RESOLUTION REQUESTING A TIME EXTENSION OF THE
CITY OF PORTLAND FROM THE DECEMBER 25, 1982 WATER
CONTRACT DEADLINE.
(a) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Scheckla to approve.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council.
17. WAIVER FOR PERMIT FEE - HIGH SCHOOL
(a) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Scheckla to waive
fees for permits for High School Home Construction Class.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council.
18. COOPERS 6 LYBRAND AUDIT CONTRACT
(a) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Scheckla to
authorize contract for 1982-83 audit for $13,500 which will include
all services necessary for filing for the MFOA Certificate of
Conformance Award.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council.
19. RESOLUTION NO. 82-129 A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TIGARD, OREGON, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY
RECORDER TO EXECUTE A PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING AND
CONSTRUCTION FINANCE AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF
OREGON.
PAGE 3 - COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 15, 1982
e[®i IIAW
(a) Mayor Bishop stated that though a relative of his was the developer
in this matter, he did not have any conflict of interest per Oregon
Ethics Law.
(b) Mr. Rob Ball, 1 SW Main, stated he was representing JB Bishop and
requested Council defer action on this issue until Mr. Bishop can
work out some contract language problems with the State of Oregon.
Mr. Ball also requested Council direct City's Legal Counsel to
approve the final language.
(c) Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Brian to direct
Legal Counsel to work with JB Bishop and Mr. Ball in finalizing the
contract language before 12/13/82.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council.
20.LIABILITY INSURANCE RENEWAL AND DISCUSSION, MOTION TO APPROVE
(a) Brian Dooney, Agent of Recorder for Leonard Adams, presented the bid
results for Liability Insurance Renewal. The two low bids were:
League of Oregon Cities $21,163.61
Gulf Insurance Company $17,980.00
(b) Mr. Charles deGreef, Gulf Insurance Representative, answered
questions posed by staff and Council regarding anti trust laws and
public officials liability insurance.
(c) City Administrator stated that staff recommends awarding the bid to
Gulf Insurance Company.
(d) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Stimler to accept
the quotation and award the bid to Gulf Insurance Company.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council.
RECESS REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING: 8:04 P.M.
21. TURA MEETING
(a) ROLL CALL: Present: Agency Members Wilbur Bishop, Tom Brian, John
Cook, Nancie Stimler, and Kenneth Scheckla; Director of Public Works,
Frank Currie; Finance Director/City Recorder, Doris Hartig; City
Administrator, Bob Jean; Director of Planning & Development, William
Monahan; Legal Counsel, Ed Sullivan; Office Manager, Loreen Wilson.
(b) Motion by Agency Member Brian, seconded by Agency Member Scheckla to
receive and file report.
Approved by unanimous vote of Agency Members present.
(c) City Administrator requested Agency consider replacement of Ima Scott
on the TURA Board since she will become a Councilor/Agency Member as
of 1-1-83.
(d) ADJOURNMENT OF TURA MEETING: 8:06 P.M.
RECONVENE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING: 8:06 P.M.
PAGE 4 - COUNCIL MEETING - NOVEMBER 15, 1982
3
22. ORDINANCE NO. 82-74 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE WASHINGTON
COUNTY RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT N0. 1 FIRE
PREVENTION ORDINANCE TO BE EFFECTIVE IN CERTAIN
PARTS OF THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON, AND DECLARING
AN EMERGENCY.
(a) Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Brian to adopt.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council.
23. ORDINANCE NO. 82- ORDINANCE AMENDING DOG CONTROL ORDINANCE
(a) Consensus of Council was to remove from agenda at staff request.
24. ORDINANCE NO. 82- ORDINANCE LICENSING AND REGULATING ANTIQUE &
PRECIOUS METAL DEALERS
(a) Consensus of Council was to remove from agenda at staff request. k
25. APPEAL - ZONE CHANGE ZC 12-82 & SUBDIVISION S 4-82 SUNNYSIDE ESTATES NPO #6 f
An appeal by the Robert Randall Company of the Planning Commission's
decision of denial for a zone change from R-7 to R-5 and a 25 lot
subdivision located at 15280 SW 100th Avenue (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 11CA,
Lot 900). The matter is to be reviewed by Council pursuant to Tigard
Municipal Code Section 18.84.250(b)(1) . This matter is to be heard
pursuant to Section 18.84.290(b) and the review will be confined to the
record of the proceedings. No new evidence or arguments will be allowed.
However, parties are invited to submit written arguments only pursuant to
Section 18.84.290(b). Such arguments shall be submitted to the City
Recorder not less than five (5) days prior to Council consideration.
During Council consideration, Council may pose questions to staff and
parties on policy issues.
(a) City Council chose not to hear or consider any further public
testimony.
(b) Director of Planning and Development gave synopsis of issue and noted
the following reasons for staff recommendation of denial at the
Planning Commission hearing.
o The proposal violates policy 2 of the adopted NPO #6 Plan.
o The proposal is not compatible with existing surrounding land uses.
(c) After discussion by Council, Councilor Brian moved to deny the appeal
based on staff recommendation, Planning Commission hearing and Legal
Counsel findings. Motion seconded by Councilor Cook.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council. �.
t
(d) Consensus of Council to direct staff to prepare a final order and
f
return for adoption. i
PAGE 5 - COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 15, 1982
t
26. APPEAL-SENSITIVE LANDS PERMIT M 2-82 JADCO CHEMICAL NPO #5
An appeal by John Duncan of the Hearings Officer's denial of a sensitive
lands permit request to excavate and fill within the 100 year floodplain
at 16055 SW 74th Avenue (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 13A Lot 1500). The matter
is to be reviewed by Council pursuant to Tigard Municipal Code Section
18.84.250(b)(1) . This matter is to be heard pursuant to Section
18.84.290(b) and the review will be confined to the record of the
proceedings. No new evidence or arguments will be allowed. However,
parties are invited to submit written arguments only pursuant to Section
18.84.290(b). Such arguments shall be submitted to the City Recorder not
less than five (5) days prior to Council consideration. During Council
consideration, Council may pose questions to staff and parties on policy
issues.
(a) Legal Counsel advised Council that the applicant has c�7,iested the
issue be set over until after the Comp Plan adoption. 18.84.310
would allow this if all parties involved give their cons;_
(b) No one at the meeting objected to the set over of the matter.
(c) Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Brian to hear this on
January 24, 1983.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council.
27. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION CPR 4-82 JB BISHOP NPO #1
A review by City Council pursuant to TMC Section 18.84.050(b)(2) of
Planning Commission's approval of a request by JB Bishop for a
Comprehensive Plan Revision from Commercial Professional to General
Commercial on Tax Map 2S1 2CC, Tax Lots 100, 801, & 900 and a
Comprehensive Plan Revision from Commercial Professional/General
Commercial to General Commercial on Tax Map 2S1 2CC, Tax Lots 200 & 500.
Property is located on the east side of Pacific Highway approximately 1000
feet south of Garrett Street.
(a) Public Hearing Opened
(b) Director of Planning and Development advised the Council of the
Planning Commission action, presented a petition filed by the
residential property owners in the area, and set out the conditions
attached at the Commission hearing to the project as follows:
1. The improvements to SW Pacific Highway and the access points from
the site to SW Pacific Highway shall be approved by ODOT prior to
issuance of building permits. The ODOT approval shall be in writing
and shall be accompanied by a plan.
2. A maintenance agreement and plan for the frontage road and island
shall be submitted with the application for Site Design Review.
3. The applicant shall apply for Site Design Review. The Site
Design Review application shall include elevation sketches showing
proposed screening from abutting residential neighborhoods and a
letter outlining the disposition of the existing right-of-way which
the state intends to dedicate to the property owner.
PAGE 6 - COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 15, 1982
(c) Public Testimony:
Proponents:
o Robb Ball, 1 SW Main - Portland, represented the developer and
stated that the developer is willing to work out details with
residential property owners abutting the property and
addressed the concerns they raised in the petition.
o JB Bishop, Suite 303 - 10505 SW Barbur - Portland, requested
the following change be made to condition #1. (underlining
indicates new language.)
0 1. The design and configuration of improvements to
SW Pacific Highway and the access points from the
site to SW Pacific Highway shall be approved by
ODOT prior to issuance of building permits. The
ODOT approval shall be in writing and shall be
accompanied by a plan.
Opponents:
o Carolyn Eadon, 13645 SW Steven Court, appeared and spoke
regarding residential citizens concerns regarding the
development proposal. She also presented a petition to the
Council from the neighbors in the area addressing concerns
regarding site and noise pollution.
o Shirley Tuttle, 13495 SW Cresmer Drive, noted her concern with
the decreased value of property which will occur from the
development.
o Marta Frank, 13595 SW Cresmer Drive, expressed her concern
regarding the fence and berm being in place before the
development begins.
Cross Examination:
o Robb Ball presented some concluding remarks and stressed that
the developer wanted to work with the residents in the area.
(d) Director of Planning and Development presented the Planning
Commission findings and noted their recommendation of approval.
(e) Public Hearing Closed
(f) Motion by Councilor Stimler, seconded by Councilor CGok to approve
the decision of the Planning Commission with the following conditions
added.
4. That the developer, at Site Design Review, should be compelled
to address issues of the buffer zone and fence, and that these
should be in place before construction begins.
5. No cutting shall occur in the 20 foot buffer zone before site
design review approval.
6. Notice of Site Design Review shall be given to NPO #1 and all
{ parties appearing to testify at the Planning Commission and
City Council hearings.
Approved by 4-1 majority vote of Council, Councilor Scheckla voting
nay.
PAG'.% 7 - COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 152 1982
z
RECESS: 9:54 P.M.
RECONVENE: 10:09 P.M.
28. WINSOME TERRACE AND HOUSING AUTHORITY PROJECT DISCUSSION
(a) Director of Planning and Development stated the Housing Authority
Board states that the placement of four homes in the Winsome Terrace
Subdivision is not, in their estimation, a violation of policy. He
requested Council direction in the matter.
(b) Consensus of Council was to direct staff to continue to pursue a
satisfactory end and consider denying building permits for the
parcels.
29. QUESTIONNAIRE AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCE POLL DISCUSSION
(a) City Administrator discussed the format and mailing of the
questionnaire. After consideration by Council, consensus was to have
Council comment to Administrator by Friday morning. Staff will
return 11-22-82 with final draft for Council approval.
30. 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.
13.1 DISCUSSION OF COUNCIL RETREAT
(a) City Administrator and Council discussed possible dates for the
Council retreat. After lengthy consideration, Council requested time
to check their calendars. Administrator stated this would be
considered at the 11-22-82 meeting.
13.2 MAWHIRTER, ETC. PERMITS OF ENTRY AND STREET DEDICATIONS
(a) Director of Public Works requested the following documents be
approved by Council for recording and approve payments as listed for
the acquisition of property:
Right of Entry - Arlie Mawhirter - $5,400
Street Dedication - Paul Deemie - $2,702
Permanent Roadway Easement - Paul Deemie - $12260.70
Street Dedication - Lionel Domreis - $32900
Street Dedication - Martin Hunter - $1,258.65
(b) Motion by Councilor Stimler, seconded by Councilor Scheckla to accept
all documents, authorize appropriate signatures and approve payments
In the amounts listed.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council.
13.3 RECEIVE AND FILE COMMUNICATIONS
( (a) City Administrator distributed various materials for Council review.
PAGE 8 - COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 15, 1982
13.4 ORDINANCE NO. 82-75 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 10.28, OF
g" THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING
ITEM "C" OF SUBSECTION "1" OF SECTION
10.28.090, TO LIMIT PARKING ON A
PORTION OF SW WALNUT PLACE AND FIXING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(a) Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Stimler to adopt.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council.
13.5 ORDINANCE NO. 82-76 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND SUPPLEMENTING
CHAPTER 10.28, OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL
CODE BY ADDING TO SECTION 10.28.130 TO
PROHIBIT PARKING ON SW WALNUT PLACE,
DECLARING AN EMERGENCY AND FIXING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
(a) Motion by Councilor Stimler, seconded by Councilor Cook to adopt.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council.
13.6 RESOLUTION NO. 82-131 A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE NECESSITY
AND PURPOSE FOR ACQUISITION OF A
CERTAIN RIGHT-OF-T,4AY FOR THE 72ND
AVENUE AREA LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT,
DIRECTING AN ATTEMPT TO AGREE WITH THE
(� OWNERS AS TO COMPENSATION THEREFORE,
AND AUTHORIZING CONDEMNATION
PROCEEDINGS TO ACQUIRE SAID
RIGHT-OF-WAY.
(a) Motion. by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Scheckla to approve.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council.
13.7 MRS. BALL DISCUSSION
(a) Mrs. Geraldine Ball, 11515 SW Greenburg Road, questioned the zoning
of her property and whether it was being considered for de-annexation.
(b) City Administrator stated he would direct staff to research the files
at City Hall and respond in writing to Mrs. Ball within the week.
13.8 OLCC - MIKE MARR
(a) Mike Marr, 14405 SW 87th Court, requested more information on OLCC
application status for the Durham and Hall location for Plaid Pantry.
(b) Consensus of Council was to follow through on the issue of requesting
OLCC not favorably consider that location in the City. City
Administrator stated he would study the issues and report back to
Council at the 11-22-82 meeting.
PAGE 9 - COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 152 1982
14. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session
under ORS 192.660(1)(d) and (1)(e) to discuss labor relations and
acquisition of real property.
15. ADJOURNMENT: 11:40 P.M.
i
mzc c� tip•
City Recorder - City of Tig
ATTEST:
Mayor - City of Tigard
PAGE 10 - COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 15, 1982
Ip Wa%-C 11/15/82
I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on
the following item: (Please print your name)
Item Description: 10. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION
'CPR 4-82 JB BISHOP NPO #1
iponent (for) Opponent (against)
ie, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation
2
t
R
t
11/15/82
I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on
the following itea:: (Please print your name)
Item Description: _APPEAL-ZONE CHANGE ZC 12-82 &
,. SUBDIVISION S 4-82 SUNNYSIDE ::TATES NPO #6
f
-jpoaent (for) Opponent (against) E
f
ae, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation
3
z
`r
i
t
11/15/82
I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on
the following item: (Please print your name)
Item Description: 9. APPEAL-SENSITIVE LANDS PERMIT
M 2-82 JADCO CHEMICAL NPO #5
iponent (for) Opponent (against)
le, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation
��"�+ -j J•Gv ��PCZ., � ` ��� .�'.tL ��=
A
. ... - .'K-3':f!Y(. .y. y. ....eyfiifW�ij✓.i ........_ ♦....,... w.r ._.. . ...n .. _ .. ..f..... w - .ta-Zi',... "aq?.=r'fiCY., .P.'.
Date 11/15/82
I wish to testify before the Tigard City
council on the following item:
(Please print your name)
1.3 Call To Staff, Council & Audience for Non-Agenda Items Under Open Agenda
.Jame, Address & Affiliation Item Description
GQ,T-a ���� n // ',� ( ✓ i /-ui ��z, i• 'T�-- cAA I
r .
i
2UIVNNOI1S2n0 GNV 'I`IOd GUVOIZ 30 F.ZIO `IKIOI330
ruliev'I S,H210A '92H
421tJ.�II-g0'Ul)
�r
Dear Tigard Citizen:
i,
i
4
i
I
Your,
CITY OF TIGARD
t
f �
Thank you for your cooperation. Results of the poll will be reported in the Tigard Times. Results from the questionnaire
will be available at City Hall and will be used by the departments in preparing their budgets.
If you wish to volunteer for a City advisory committee, applications are at City Hall. Notices for meetings are in the
Tigard Times and are posted at City Hall. Any questions, please call.
If you have additional comments which will help us in using this questionnaire, please list below.
i
PLEASE FOLD so City address shows, staple or tape, and mail.
(Permit Mail
City of TIGARD
12755 S.W. Ash
P.O. Box 23397
Tigard, Oregon 97223
OFFICIAL POLL and QUESTIONNAIRE
-- 7 As the City grows larger facilities are often necessary and s v
1. Gentler I I Female I 1 Male often increased. Below are some possible new services or plans:
?. Check Your correct age group for Your Cityfe 'pe n'c
Check whether you "will Support', 'heti! Not Support", o
1 116 J1-40 1151-60 Know' if you feel this is a needed service or facility.[
11 31-JO 1 1 41-50 I I over 60 tt
,hQy�` IoM
a� O'�
J, The s c s of many pro Jecis depend upon c i s knowing about neve[
end underste ntl many
the issue where do your get n[o mammon aW eat I 1 I 1 1 I A aper Bal levyra,Cot a and larger building for
decisions
ec aif
ec Ing Tigard? Check how often you use the [oliowi n9 1 1 I I 1 I Expand tuser bfees Cor park use to help finance the
sourcesofinformation. park programs.
I I I I 11 Allow some development along the flood plain edges
6Fs if done to health and sa[ety s nndards since this
should improve land values, create opportunities
Ot e^ 5°�yi ite4 for mot Jobs and lower es.
Attract em a businesses todowntownTigard s
I 1 1 1 I I ntteno City Cou ncll Meetings this will.improve land values downtown end a ane
1 1 ( 1 1 I Attend City Advisory Committee Meetings tually decrease the tax rotes for the ent•— City.
Pead the Tigard Times I I I I 1 I Fo cm a pack end [ rection program with '.her
( 1 1 1 I I Pead the Oregon s.r- and ing a,—,,,tie, to be funded by use fees
I I ( 1 ( I Read the City Newsletter, All About Town and . epee lel levy.
I I 1 1 1 1 Talk to someone at City Hell I I 1 1 1 1 Municipal Court to charge a set fee for cases
I 1 I I ( 1 Talk to friends of people tail to appear e[ the scheduled time.
4. In what ways are you volved i the CAL 'a decision melting I I 1 I I 1 City Poli.¢ cake reports for lase seta... criminal
process? Check how often you are involved in the following weye. activities by phone.
`0w
Pr ticipate at City Council Meet'n9s
( 1 ( 1 1 I Tee lk o the Mayo[ and/or City Council
11 1 1 11 Talk o e to people at City Hall
1 1 1 1 1 1 Votei n City elections
1 1 1 1 I I
.,it. letters to newspaper editors n n
�- The poli - e ails about title nis that olve
I'm need1n� I'm a1 'nv t'Sat ion Some le
thatr ocher than the po laic Would resPontl h
,,,,
e sae _
no ' e or o
agencies e
__.. lice should respond to C rY call
S,. Currently City Nall is looking aC ways to[educe costs, either by calls. Others say Choi is na re.
Improving the atlminiatra Clva sy atoms or by radue ing Ina leve le of received, regardless f rudisagree t..at the police should
rvice. Helw i a t1:t of Currant services. Check whether you Check how strong lY You agree o
Chock whether yousfeeI Che level of service should be 'Me a-, is
De respond ble.
'OK Now', should to -Red-uced-, or 'Don't Knw'• es ea`ta�t
-,lpta y�d' abs S`�t'a ee O�w Sia _
O' Qe O°e
_...__.__. _.. -.. I I I I I I I Towing nw,.y abandoned vehicles
I City Hall is open to the public 40 hours a week. I I I I I I 1 1 Srlrnt trig a barking dog
1 1 I I I I I I The City Library is open to the public 48 h.^urs I I I I I I I I Invest rgatr nq a mal bites
ek. I I I I I I I in rya my nfalse fire alarm
1 1 ( 1 1 1 1 1 The City Library purchase novels and other popular I I 1 1 I I I I Inirrvenrnq ' a family argument
materials. I I I 11 I I Pet earning fund pr.per ty
I I 1 1 { 1 1 1 The City Library purchase non-fiction and reference 1 1 I I I I 1 1 Ardrny lost persons
latariela. I I I I 1 1 11 Srlencrny loud rear.a elcvrsron
I I I 1 1 1 1 1 The Cit Library purchase ma9azlneS end n mos pa pets. I I I I I I Tr.'c my :.ray pais o other a mals
1 I I I ( ) ( I The City Libary have Story times and.the[ I I I I I 1 1 I Army persons luc kedr. of 'herr house
children s programs. I I I 11 1 I Ardrny Brix ear nJu reed persons?
j- Currently the City does not allow door-to-door solicitation of sales
unless invited by the resident. This is difficult and expensive to
enforce.
(., As part of the effort to reduce costs, City Hall 1. looking ac Check whether you do or do not support the (urrent ordinance.
the Poe bility of reducing or 4lislnoting some ..rvice.. Belw
is
• list Of auto Se[vices. Cheek whether you feel the level yes 1 I No change• door-to-door talo: allowed only if
of earvlee should be 'Mote'. 'OK N--'. 'Reduce', or 'Llisinaie'. invited by the re eident. it en
No I I Allow door-to-door sales, letting each c
decide for themselves.
.—
f 1 1 1 1 I I.1 City Poll— do lnvesti9atione, Such as for drug a.
and for other serious erise!•ra¢!o of the-n.s�b+r-
City Police to keep the areaofficer.
of population per .win police
1 I ( 1 1 I I 1 City Police to keeP the ease level for traffic
Control.
1 1 1 1 ( 1 1 1 City Police to use volunteers !n N1e9hborhood
Crime Watch Programs.
l I ( J l 1 1 I Municipal court to [eachedule.ases if people fail
to appear at the scheduled tile.
-i I
I I l l f ) 1 1 tuintensnce attCookeaPearkon[the balli[ia ld. andinq.
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 °
picnic areas. 1a areas.
l 1 1 1 1 ) f l Maintenance f greenways and greenway pi
1 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 Mintenarice of-rile9hbothood pant., lneltidinq
Jack at., Woodi3 Park, and Suamarlake Park.
11 I 1 1 1 1 1 Street eleanlnq by city Cr._.
1 1 1 ! 1 1 ! 1 Street 3i9ht1r'q along main[mods.
1 1 1 1 ( 1 ( ] Street lighting in 1L"hborhobd9-
siBllsfsQsispSSBssssstBss Bolls O lost moon is as on ItsBs}■tisstifi>miiiss11f7i}n1I[llstnsst
USING TAX IHCRFI4ENT FINANCING FOR DOWNTOWN TIGARD URBAN RENEWAL
SHOULD TAX INCRM4ENT FUNDS BE USED FOR THE DOWNTO"N RENEWAL DISTRICT?
EXPLANATION
The goal of the Downtown Renewal Plan is to foster economic growth
Hark a cross 1x1 or a check [�1 inside the
in the area. a increment funds are raiaed from increases in the square to indicate your choice.
value of private property in the area from the base year o£ 1581.
These monies mould be used to fund projects in the Downtown Renewal Yes 13 I vote in favor of the City using
District. The aim of this vote 1s to get advice on the funding of No ( 1 IavotecagainstMnt financing.City using tax
such projects. incres'ent financing.
PAYMENT OF BILLS FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL
October 31 , 1982
PROGRAM BUDGET ,
Community Services
Police 21 ,237 .46
Finance & Records 4,682. 12
Municipal Court 371 .56
Library 2,544.98
Social Services
Total Community Services 28,836. 12
Community Development
Public Works 15,776. 12
Planning & Development 3, 144.52
Total Community Development 18,920.64
Policy & Administration
Mayor & Council 416.74
Administration 2,082. 15
Total Policy & Administration 2,498.89
City Wide Support Functions
Non—departmental 2,735.65
t
Misc. Accounts (refunds & payroll deductions, etc.) 37,212.79
Investments 600,000.00
i
DEBT SERVICE {
s
General Obligation Bond
Bancroft Bond & LID Expenses 618,015. 10
UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY
Contract
ALL OTHER EXPENDITURES
Civic Center Project
TOTAL AMOUNT OF CHECKS WRITTEN 1 ,308.219. 19
November 5, 1982 113
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Finance Director/City Recorder, Doris Hartig
SUBJECT: Election Process Report
Due to the recent staff error in failing to file the Tax Increment Ballot
Question with the Elections Department at Washington County, staff has been
developing a written standard operating procedure for election issues so as to
decrease the possibility of errors in the process.
As you know, the error was made because two staff members thought the other
was filing the ballot question and with the heavy workload of LIDs, audits,
other election issues, late filing of taxes, certificate of conformance, three
bond sales and the ongoing daily work, staff did not double check the system.
To eliminate the possibility of error in the future, staff is setting up a
written standard operating procedure that will include a system of checks and
balances. In the Finance and Records Department, a Clerk III has been given
the responsibility to prepare the ballot filing papers and public notice
requirements for elections and then to follow through the schedule of the
election process. This employee will report directly to the Office
Manager/Deputy City Recorder who is well versed in election requirements by
the State and will double check the process, filing deadlines, advertising and
posting steps to be taken. The Office Manager/Deputy City Recorder will file
an election schedule with progress reports being submitted checking off
compliance or completion of each step of the process with the Finance
Director/City Recorder, and a copy will go to the City Administrator as well.
Y
It is our belief that this 'double check' system will eliminate any future
problems with elections. If you have any comments or concerns regarding this
issue, please feel free to call the office.
COUNCIL ACTION NEEDED:
This item is placed on the Consent Agenda for a motion to receive and file by
the Council.
lw
i
WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON
October 21, 1982
3
i
a
f
i
Clerical Job Audit have been completed. The
At long last, the results of the Cle g
results of the reclassification study were based on an analysis of the description [
of prioritized job duties and the time audit you completed, matched with an eval-
uation of the job duties and responsibilities set forth in the Clerk Typist I, II,
and III series. fi
The Clerk I specifications include:
o Performing recurring duties without supervision, utilizing clearly Y.
outlined procedures.
o Provides visitors/phone callers with routine information.
o Forwards calls and takes messages.
o Opens, sorts, distributes mail.
o Codes information using readily identifiable and established categories.
o Computes and verifies computation manually or by machine.
o Composes and types simple letters.
o Types correspondence, reports, forms from draft, oral or machine is
dictation.
The Clerk II specifications include:
o Communicative or records processing work in direct support of agency
programs-
0 Requires judgement in applying knowledge of laws, regulations, poI.icies,
and procedures-
0 Lead worker responsibility.
o Types complex, varied materials in a production setting.
o Applies understanding of an extensive specialist vocabulary.
o Receives, checks, adjusts and records documents and reports which use
technical subject matter knowledge.
Continued . . .
12755 S.W.ASH P.O.BOX 23397 TIGARD,OREGON 97223 PH:639-4 1 71
DIANE JELDERKS
OCTOBER 21, 1982
PAGE TWO
The Clerk III specifications include:
o Communicative/records processing work to relieve a supervisor of a wide
variety of clerical tasks and administrative detail-
0 Knowledge of office management practices and administrative support
procedures.
o Handling recurring tasks on their own initiative_
o Types correspondence/reports from dictation, drafts, notes or general
instruction.
o Composes and types letters and determines formats and modes of address.
o Receives, directs calls and gives information_
o Makes appointments, travel and meeting arrangements, prepares agendas
and expense claims.
o Prepares statistical reports.
o Lead worker responsibility.
Upon review by the labor-management team charged with the responsibility of conduct-
ing the job audit, it has been determined that your work assignments and responsibilities
fall within the classification of Clerk Typist II, Step B. Salary for the position
is set at $1021 per month, retroactive from July 1, 1982. you will be eligible for
a 4% cost of living effective November 1, 1982 and merit adjustments as scheduled
based on performance goals.
{ We sincerely appreciate the patience you have exercised coupled with the time and
energy expended to supply us with the necessary data to review. if you have any
questions regarding the reclassification decision, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Sincerely,
-('4w-dx�
Cal Hackler
Business Agent
OPEU
f�
inda Sargent
Administrative Assistant
City of Tigard
CH:LS:dkr
01
_ CITYOFT11FARD
WASHII`lGTC�N COUNTY.OREGON
October 21, 1982
MR_ CAL RACKLER
BUSINESS AGENT, OPEU -
2154 N.E. BROADWAY _
SUITE 204
PORTLAND, OREGON 97232
Dear Cal:
Attached please find draft letters to be sent to employees affected by -ire clerical
job audit. I have indicated in the following the results of the reclassification
study as we discussed October 7, 1982_ I'll need your concurrence on these results
prior to processing personnel actions. :PROPOSED PROPOSED
CURRENT PROPOSED CURRENT PAY/STEP PAY/STEP NET
EMPLOYEE _ POSITION POSITION PAYJSTEP (7/1/82) (11/1/82) INCREASE
Penny Liebertz C-T_ I C_T_-ISI $1085 (E) $1160 (C) $1208 (C) 11_3%
Lowana Murray C.T. I C-T_ II $1085 (E) $1121 '(D) $1168 (D) 7.6%
Diane Jelderks C.T_ I. C.T_ .II $ 979 (C) $1021. (B) .- .$1055 .(B) 7_88
Pat Robertson C.T. I C:T. I $1085 "(E) $1085 (E) $11.31 (E) 4'.0%
I am pulling together classification specifications and -job descriptions for Clerk
Typist I, II and".III positions based on the standards set forth in- the Clerical
Assistant, Clerical Specialist;_and Secretary Series and actual job duties. As
the Assistant, Specialist and Secretary classes are not referenced in the contract,
I prefer to hold off on amending those titles until the next bargaining cycle_
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call_ In the event the draft
letters meet with your approval, please sign off. on them and return to me for
distribution:
I appreciate the productive and cooperative spirit you exhibited throughout these
audits. I believe the reclassification study has served to instill"trust and .'
provide a base for future labor-management relations.
Sincerely,
CITY OF TIGARD
i da Sargent, _
LS : dkr Administrative Assistant
Attachments -
12755 S.W. ASH P.O.BOX 23397 TIGARD,OREGON 97223 PH:639-4571
tigard community youth services 620-2621
TO: TCYS Board
From: Bill Knudsen
Re: Director's Monthly Report, August-September, 1982
Overview
Referrals for counseling totalled 16 for the two months, down some fregn
the 23 for the same period last year. Employment referrals were 18, dawn
considerably from the 64 we enrolled in August-September, 1981. The 180 job
placements the past two months compares favorably with the 185 for the same
period in 1981, however.
An updated "Guide for Making Referrals to TOYS" has been sent to schools,
CSD, and the Juvenile Department, and staff visits to elementary and secondary
counselor meetings were made to remind our sources of services available
here and to inform them of changes resulting from staff cuts.
Personnel
It is not surprising morale has been shaky the last several months given
the succession of recent assaults on TCYS's finances. There has been good
improvement since the end of September, but the uncertainty of the Office
Manager's position has remained. As a partial result, Bette has resigned
effective October 21 to accept a position in property management. The one-
quarter of the position funded by JSC will be filled inanediately by having
Lauda Reagan assist in employment 10 hours per week. I want to keep the rest
of the position open for six to eight weeks to provide a little budget
flexibility. Hopefully in that tame we can secure 2 or 3 more months of
funding. We are lining up some volunteer help to cover the front desk. Even
so, I will have to fill in as paymaster, data gatherer, and tystip.
Consortium
Metro has received approval from the State Juvenile Services Conanission
for its plan to extend TCYS's grant (Paul's Dosition) for 12 months. That
position is now secure through April 30, 1984.
Juvenile Services Ccmuission
The search continues for an instrument JSC can use to measure client
change in its funded programs.
Data collection for the study of court reinvolvement by TCYS employment
kids begins in October. The study will include nearly all youth enrolled
since the program began, so some youth will have had two years to _get re-
involved with the court, a factor that should enhance the validity of the
results. Last year's study showed employment to be highly effective at
keeping kids out of the juvenile justice system.
11981 s.w. pacific highway e tigard, oregon 97223
mama
Page 2
Mental Health Departrnent
For the second time in three years TCYS`s alcohol counseling program has
been denied funding by the MED. In the meantime, state alcohol taxes paid
by Tigard/Tualatin residents still fail to return to serve the area they
were collected from.
Fundraising
Contributions this month included $1,000 from the Oregon Econcenic
Action Council, $500 from Tigard Rotary, $100 from Tigard Methodist Church,
and $50 from Kiwanis.
The Fred Meyer grant was submitted October 1 and asked for $59,495
to replace most of what we lost this s<mr .er. Inquiries from other service
clubs have been received, and we are considering a request to United Way.
Our first full month of client fees will be reported next month. I am
preparing grant requests of $1,000 to submit to 10 corporations by the end
of October.
ra C VM
.. r 71982
tigard community youth services - --520-2521
Parent Fair Evaluation
The Parent Fair is over, and according to the written evaluations of
the participants and the feedback from workshop leaders , the event was
a success and should be repeated. Parents were given an opportunity
to comment on the organization of the event and the quality of the
workshops , both of which were highly rated. Their feedback may be
useful in the planning of another fair in the future.
Attendance was about fifty parents and another twenty-five persons
involved as workshop leaders and booth exhibitors. This is the average
turnout anticipated. for a first-time Parent Fair. One suggestion
for improved attendance and clearer communication was to complete
the final workshop schedule and publish it as the main publicity flyer.
This could be facilitates by holding the fair a few weeks later in the
Fall, as many workshop leaders are reluctant to commit themselves
until the school year has actually begun. Scheduling the fair for the
3rd or 4th weekend in October wot-ld also help avoid conflicts with
soccer games.
Commenting on the workshops , parents generally found them interesting
and practical , frequently remarking that sessions should have been
longer. Workshops presented included: Family Fun on a Shoestring,
Step-Parenting, Communicating with Adolescents , Stress Management ,
Is There Romance After Children? , What's a Father to D6? , Self-Esteem
and the Handicapped Child, Understanding Learning Difficulties ,
Family Meetings, and Self-Esteem in the Family. Although not a single
father showed up for the "What's a Father" workshop, the presenter' s
comment was that this is frequently the case with workshops on his topic,
and that it is due mostly to the fact that mothers are still more often
the active child-rearing parent (not because of a conflict with hunting
season or t.v. baseball games) . The answer may be to make a special
attempt to reach father s in next year's publicity. A similar case
might be made for the parents of handicapped children, as no one
attended the workshop on self-esteem development in handicapped
youngsters. Participants were enthusiastic about all the other
workshops , and suggestions for future topics included "Talking
to Your Children about Sex" and "Helping Your Child Succeed in School. "
We did plan the latter for this year, but after many inquiries were
only able to locate one interested leader who eventually cancelled
and could not be replaced in time.
This last problem raises discussion on the way we worked with the i
schools on the fair. The district provided vital support in the form
of a site and site personnel , smoothing out many details (lunch
plans , gym equipment for childcare, etc. ) . The helpful cooperation of
their public relations department enabled us to target our publicity
in a way we could not have done without the schools. Administrators
i
11981 §.w. pacific highway a tigard, oregon 97223 s
n
Parent Fair (p. 2)
were very helpful in providing us with access to staff meetings.
HoweverT while there was enthusiasm and practical assistance from
administrators , we were not successful in enlisting participation from
teachers and counselors, whcse expertise would have been of great
interest to parents. Considering how central the school system
is to a child's experience, it would be very appropriate to expand
the next fair to more actively cover school-related topics. One
approach to this problem would be to develop a steering committee
selected from active educators who could develop teacher/counselor
participation more effectively from within the schools.
The booths were very popular and proved to be a helpful avenue for
providing parents with information about a variety of services.
Participants included: Oregon Free from Drug Abuse, Palmer Drug
Abuse Program, Red Cross , Tualatin Valley Mental Health, Tough Love,
Tigard Library, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers , Washington County Health
Department. Birth-to Three and Parents Anonymous. The Tigard Library
expressed a paYticular interest in providing educational resources
on family life to TCYS staff and clients. Because the turnout was
somewhat low, the time allotted for booth visits was too gener. us ,
but, anticipating a higher turnout next -ime, there should remain an
equally ample space in the schedule for interaction at the booths.
The free childcare arrangement was very successful due to the efforts
of volunteers,who included former clients, a Big Sister, and a community
service worker. Having use of the gym was the key to managing
the kids for a period of several hours.
The greatest success of the Parent Fair was in getting the idea to
fly for the first time in Tigard, and the payoff for this year's
efforts will show up in the next fair, which will have the benefit
of word-of-mouth publicity and some tested techniques for organizing
the pro,jec . The fair is an effective strategy for informing the
community about resources and making parents aware of the educational
options they have for strengthening their families. Participants and
presenters alike agreed it was a fair to remember, and that it should
be a regular event each school year.
r'
WASHINGTON COUNTY COMMUNITY
® ® ® ® ACTION ORGANIZATION
245 SE SECOND HILLSBORO,OR 97123 PH.503-648-6646
t
October 20, 1982
�'- ' 5 5982
Mayor Wilbur Bishop, Members of
the City Council and the Budget
Committee
CITY OF TIGARD
P.O. Boa 23397
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Dear Mayor Bishop and Members of Council and Budget
Committee:
On behalf of the WCCAO Emergency Services and Shelter
House, I would like to express our deep appreciation for
your financial assistance to our program, as well as your
social and moral s-upport. The allocation of $1500 will
contribute significantly in our ability to continue with
the operation of our program.
Enclosed you will find compiled data from our 1981-82
fiscal year. Over the past two years, requests for our
services have increased 85%. We anticipate even further
increases over the next fiscal year. If you have any
questions regarding these statistics, please let us
know.
Again, we great-fully acknowledge and thank you for your
support!
cerely,
c ellne D. Hanes, Director
CAO Emergency Services and Shelter House
10 S.E. 12th Street
Hillsboro, Oregon 97123
648-0829 or 648-0820
cc: Jerralynn Ness, WCCAO Program Director II
�JN�TY SF9G
� m
O C
v
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER �iN/STEP
MUSM
SERVICES REPORT FROM
WASHINGTON COUNTY COMMUNITY ACTION
( EMERGENCY SERVICES & SHELTER HOUSE PROGRAM
FOR FY 1981-1982
EMERGENCY SERVICES COMPONENT
This last fiscal year (July, 1981 - June , 1982) we provided emergency
assistance to 2037 families representing a total number of 5751
individuals .
Clients Served:
Of:
554 families/2029 inddEviduals were Hispanic.
1420 families/3534 individuals were Anglo.
49 families/ 135 individuals were BlAck.
3 families/ 9 individuals were Indian.
11 families/ 44 individuals were Other.
2037 families/5751 individuals. . . . . Total .
Through our Emergency Services Program, we were able to respond to 6,812
problems that can be broken down thusly:
Problems Referred Provided Direct Assist. Gave Advice
f Food 650 527 613
Fuel/Utility Help 361 135 369
Housing/Rent 481 454 465
Clothing 76 212 64
Transportation 99 314 - 82
Employment 293 26 263
Furniture 112 30 97
Medical/Medicine 108 49 265
Welfare 250 17 237
Misc. (diapers , 128 117 82
laundry $, sundries)
2558 1881 2373
We provided emergency loans in the total amount of $5,008.34 to 481 families
representing 1423 individuals.
Of this amount $400.64 was paid back in cash and $2,624.07 was paid off
through donations of clothing, time, furniture, etc. , which as you can
see is better than a 50% return!
1
i
i
WCCAO EMERGENCY SERVICES & SHELTER HOUSE PROGRAM
FY 1981-82
Emergency Services geographical statistics:
% of Total
Name of City Total # of Families Served Known
Hillsboro 559 41%
Beaverton 249 18%
Forest Grove 128 9%
Aloha 80 6%
Gaston 18 1%
Tigard 65 5%
Cornelius 88 7%
Portland 73 5%
Cherry Grove 2 .15%
Durham 1 0
Woodburn 1 0
Sherwood 3 .22%
Raleigh Hills 4 •29%
Oregon City 1 0
Metzger 3 •22%
Olympia 1 0
Tualatin 32 2%
Eugene 1 C
Scholls 16 1%
Rock Creek 6 .44%
Gresham 1 0
Banks 1 0
Lake Grove 1 0
Milwaukie 1 0
Cedar Mill 1 0
Gales Creek 1 0
Reedville 2 .15%
North Plains 9 .66%
St. -Helens 2 .15%
Timber 6 .44%
Tillamook 1 0
Buxton 1 0
SUB-TOTAL: 1358
Unkown 679 3190
TOTAL: 2037
i
Revised October, 1982
i
-2-
SHELTER
2-SHELTER HOUSE COMPONENT
During our fiscal year (July, 1981 - June, 1982) we provided emergency
housing to 374 family units representing 618 individuals for a total
number of 4409 bed days . The average number of days each family unit
stayed was 10.8 or almost 11 days.
Of the 1136 individuals that we did not house, but who requested
housing, 585 did not show up, 292 we did not have space for, and
216 were not eligible.
Out of 374 units housed in 1981-32:
296 heads of household were male
78 heads of household were female
Situations :
67 came from out-of-state
73 were evicted
54 were destitute
18 were just out of jail
f
8 were working, no shelter
13 were transient
5 were just out of the hospital
5 were evicted from farm camps
40 were stranded migrants
4 were in-training, no shelter
1 had a child custody problem i
3 cam from out-of-area, in Oregon, no resources
1 live-in employer died
2 were abused
6 were living -in car
5 heads of household laid off
10 were traveling to other states , no resources s
2 were from other countries , no resources !
3 were waiting to enter military
4 were in family break-ups
2 pregnant, no resources
3 were disabled, no resources
1 was from very bad living situation
1 waiting for check
2 waiting for achool to open
t
Out of 374 heads of household: 113/149 Spanish/American
229/406 Anglo ,
333 were young adults (16-39) 9/34 Black
36 were middle aged (40-59) 1/5 Other `
5 were elderly
i
I
_ t
-3-
,r
REFERRED FROM: WENT TO:
149 39 .8% Hillsboro Unknown 99
115 30.7% Portland Hillsboro 55
36 9.6% Beaverton Portland 28
7 1.9% Forest Grove Beaverton 13
6 1.6% Aloha Forest Grove 12
6 1.6% Klamath Falls Out-of-state 24
9 2.5% Repeats Aloha 7
4 1.1% Tigard Salem 7
6 _1.6% Cornelius Corn6l i us 3
2 .5% Banks Tigard 3
3 .8% North Plains Jail
3 .8% Seaside North Plains 3
3 ,g% Hood River Roseburg 2Yamhill 1
2 .5% Eugene Milwaukie 1
3 ,g% Timber Lebanon 1
3 ,8% Yamhill 1
2 ,5% Scholls Military
1 ,3% Gresham Madras 1
1 ,3% Garden Home Centralia 1
1 .3% Clackamas Eugene 2
1 ,3% Vancouver Gales Creek 1
2 ,5% Wilsonville Women's Shelter 1
1 ,3% Woodburn The Dalles 1
November 5, 1982
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
I
FROM: Finance Director/City Recorder, Doris Hartig
SUBJECT: Bond Sale #16 Status (72nd Avenue LID)
On October 27, 1982, the City opened bids for Bond Sale #16 at the office of
Dick Roberts, City's Bond Counsel, at 11:00 A.M. The following bids were
received:
U.S. National Bank - 9.08767%
The Oregon Bank - 9.205258%
First Interstate - 9.2720%
Council then held a special Council meeting at City Hall at 12:00 Noon and
awarded the bid to U.S. National Bank by adopting Resolution No. 82-118.
A temporary bond was issued and on October 29, 1982 the money was received and
deposited in the bank by the City.
As of this date, the final bonds and coupons are being printed and will be
issued by November 15th to replace the temporary bond.
On behalf of staff, I would like to take this opportunity to express our
appreciation to Council for their willingness to hold special meetings in
order to facilitate the bond sale process.
lw
M E M O R A N D U M
i
i
1
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
rn
i
s
FROM: BOB JEAN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR i
DATE: NOVEMBER 4, 1982
3
SUBJECT: MACC REPORT
The following is a summary of the MACC Board activities from the
November meeting and Storer-Metro' s construction progress to date.
MACC decided that its employees will join Social Security and to
approve the Goals and Objectives for MACC.
We, as MACC members, need to now complete our FCC Waiver work-
sheet to allow us to receive the full 5% franchise fee. FCC rules
allow only a 3% fee unless actual costs of franchise administration
and community access programming justify the 5% rate. I will be ,
preparing the necessary information and submitting on our behalf
to MACC. E
Storer-Metro' s construction in Tigard this month has been just on E
f
the HUB station/studio, nothing further this month on cable
installation which should not pick-up until the HUB station is
finished. Total system construction is progressing as per the
attached report. Portions of the Beaverton system will begin
service in December.
RWJ . dkr
Attachment
C.
MINES 11 1
t
M, 0 o .Thr; •,F-EA C.. � �.;,; � . 17 ...•: � ;
y ,.;;TR,�C I Oi; R=r,SRT
';Jir'TH OF of—r.
CABLE CONSTRUCTION SYSIBI TOTALS
RES I DENT IAL
E
A001ied s sued
Permits This Month 02 I 12 t
Total to Date 1 54
Total Required
I f
P
t
Aerial Undera^ound Total ¢
Cable Placed This Month 5•42 X5.22 ` •04
Total to Date
Total Required `S'''C 'O2 G°1 .5
Aerial Under4round Total
Cable Energized This Month I
Total to Date
Total Required
® I PIST I TL�T I0:"d�L c
Aerial Under round Total
i
Cable Placed This Month
i
Total to Date
i
Total Required
Aerial Underaround Total
Cable Energized This Month _
Total to Date —
Total Required
i
l
r
F
i
I
i
h;ACC C0NSRUCT.0N RP;')RT q= 2
h=.�iE-i D AN HUBS "�� `� r
i
1 . Beaverton: Administrative Office. and Hub 'Site.
11 ,200 sq. ft. , single story $
SW. Brigadoon (near laist and Niilikan)
Peri:;it issued, construction to commence weeFc
of Nov. 2 , weather permitting.
2. Forest Grove: Hub Site. ,
1 ,600 sq. ft. , single story. #
24th between Quince and Yew Streets.
foundation and excavation work complete.
R
r
3. Hillsboro: Hub Site.
2 ,000 sq. ft. , single story.
Main Street Extension rear 12th
Foundation and excavation work complete.
Building work scheduled for early
November.
4. Tigard: Hub Site.
2 ,000 sq. ft. , single story.
SW. 85th (south of the intersection of s
Hall Blvd. and Durham Road) .
Foundation complete; external shell 75°;
complete; interior partitions in place.
f
5. Washington County: Main Headend.
3,600 sq. ft. , single story.
SW. 173rd south of Cornell Road on the
proposed Quadrant Business Campus.
One of four satellite dishes installed, block
concrete wall for headend (equipment area
space excluding offices and studio) 851
complete. Headend equipment installation
scheduled for November.
4
TIS'
f
LIBRARY
639-9511
12568 SW Main-Tigard. Or.97223 Monthly Report October 1982
TO: Library Board
City Council
FROM: City Librarian
Water Damage: The damage from the September 10 incident has been taken care of. The
carpet was. cleaned and the ceiling was replaced by the owner. The owner's insurance
paid for the damaged books and staff overtime for clean-up. The City Building Inspector
is following up on the owner's promise to remove the extra installations which over-
loaded the plumbing system.
Circulation: There has been a downturn in the daily average circulation for October.
Probable cause is the adjacent street realignment with the resulting lost parklnl.
However, it is already safer to get in and out of the available parking.
Give-A-Book: The Give-A-Book program has resulted in- 12 donations so far. New promotional
materials will be published in November to continue encouraging participation. The program
has also elicited general donations.
Fire Alarm System: In response to the discovery of the poor condition of the wiring in the
building, inquiries are being made for putting in an alarm system. Several local firms are
making proposals and Police Sergeant Martin will be advising on appropriate plans.
WCCLS: The Librarian met with Donna Selle, Coordinator for Washington County Cooperative
Library Services (WCCLS), and Susan Hardie, Tualatin City Librarian, to discuss the pro-
posed long range plan for WCCLS. Concerns about "typing" libraries according to service
levels and opening additional outlets in unincorporated areas were primarily discussed.
These same concerns were voiced at a meeting of the city and community librarians the next
day. It was agreed that further discussion should be delayed until after the November 2
election which would decide whether or not a 1� tax limitation would be imposed.
The professional board meeting for October was cancelled.
Volunteers: Volunteers worked a total of 187 hours; daily average 8.5.
Work Indicators: Oct. 1982 Oct. 1981
Adult Books 6375 6217
Juvenile Books 2426 1988
Interlibrary Loan 74 96
Magazines 422 337
Records/Cassettes 150 139
Other 27 25
Total Circulation 9474 8802
Days of Service 22 22
Average Daily Circulation 431 400
Increase - circulation 7%
Reference/Readers' Advisory 543 650
Materials Added 772 456
C --Materials Withdrawn 192 209 Storytime - Total 65 67
Borrowers:- new/renewal 218/112'- 225/no renewals
Tigard Library Board - Monthly Report - October 1982 - page 2
Youth Services: John Henshell
October 2, the Library participated in Tigard Community Youth Services' Parent's Fair
at Fowler Junior High School. We displayed books on parenting and related subjects as
well as pamphlets, brochures and TYPELINE. The display was well received and established
a relationship with TCYS.
Halloween programs were presented during the last two storytimes and for Start Right pre-
school. The Associate Librarian participated as a story teller at the Washington Park Zoo
"Sugar-Free Halloween" program on October 31.
Outreach Service: John Henshell
Large Print books were ordered. We are using the Eagles generous $100.00 gift to purchase
the first seven volumes of the popular "Wagons West" series.
The Associate Librarian attended "Workshop on Aging: Strategies for Working Effectively
with Elderly Patrons" on October 29, at Fort Vancouver Regional Library. Dr. Geri Burdman,
Ph.D. , Lecturer, University of Washington School of Nursing, did a presentation on elderly
people, and outreach librarians from Washington and Oregon shared problems and ideas.
p�
r
E
I
i
E
r
POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT
October, 1982
TO: City Administrator
FROM: Chief of Police
I. Personnel:
The department continues to be down one from full strength this month (28).
The position for police officer is still not filled.
The average daily department strength was 16.8 as compared to 17.2 of
October, 1981. By division, the breakdown is as follows: Administration
1.6; Services Division 4.6; Patrol Division 8.9; and Investigation
Division 1.7
II. Service Delivery:
The department responded to 408 non-criminal calls for service this
month in contrast to 504 calls in 1981; year-to-date total is 4,817.
Patrol Division's obligated time was 1,431.2 hours vs. 913.8 non-
obligated hours.
III. Crime:
There were 1.12 Part I crimes reported this month; only 100 were reported
in October last year. Of the Part I crimes reported, 38 were cleared, or
33.9%. The department responded to 36 Part II crimes, and 56 were cleared.
There were 67 persons charged this month as compared to 90 for this same
time period last year. Part I crimes increased 12.0% this month over
October of 1981.
The Investigative Division worked 23 active cases this month; and cleared
9 or 39.1% of the active cases.
The property loss was $62,961.39, and $12,090.05 was recovered, or 19.2%
IV. Traffic:
Patrol Division responded to 42 accidents, of that number 13 were injury.
There were 193 citations issued, as compared to 171 for this same time
period last year. In addition, 42 warnings were given. The enforcement
index was 9.53
V. Police Reserves:
The Reserve Unit worked 317 hours this month assisting the department
in policing the community. The majority of this time was spent out in
the community on patrol and assisting citizens.
See attached monthly report from the Reserves for a complete breakdown
of their activities.
t
VIII. Training:
r- A. APPRO. Chief Adams and Officer Grisham attended an Associated Police
1. and Planning Research seminar on October 8. This meeting was held at the
Red Lion Inn in Portland, and lasted 8 hours.
B. Quality Circles. Chief Adams and Sgt. Martin attended a session on
quality circles at Portland Community College on October 9, receiving
8 hours of training.
C. Juvenile Officers Conference. Officer Grisham attended the Juvenile
Officers Conference in Bend from Oct. 20 through the 22nd. Topics
discussed were the use of anamatomically correct dolls for use with
young victims of sexual offenses, and also psychological behavior problems
prevalent in Oregon among teenagers.
D. Firearms Instructor Training. Sgt. Martin received one week's
intensive training at Camp Withycombe at the Police Academy from Oct.
25 through the 29th. He is now certified by BPST to be a firearms
instructor.
E. Western States Safe and Burglary Investigators Association. Cpl.
Myers attended this 4-day seminar from Oct. 25 through the 28th in Reno,
Nevada. Topics discussed were gem printing, alarm systems, "sting"
operations, as well as opportunity for investigators to exchange inform-
ation regarding movements and M.O. of major criminals operating through-
out the western states.
IX. Community Relations:
A. Officer Grisham attended the annual fund raising benefit for
the Safety Town program on October 20. It is sponsored by the Tigard/
Tualatin Chapter of the Welcome Wagon, and ran from 11 a.m. to 1:30
p.m. There were approximately 200 citizens in attendance.
3. Officer Grisham gave two "Officer Friendly" presentations at Phil
Lewis School on October 5. A total of 160 kindergarten children were
contacted.
C. On October 13, Sgt. Martin presented two school programs to the
students from kindergarten through the 8th grade. Block homes and
personal safety were discussed. During the presentation, the depart-
ment's K-9 program was introduced. K-9 Joey was used in both talks.
1-1/2 hours of off-duty time was used in program presentations, and
approximately 180 students were contacted.
D. CE2 Career Seminar. On October 29, Officer Grisham attended a
CE2 seminar, spending one hour with approximately 16 eleventh and
twelfth graders.
E. Chief Adams gave a presentation to the Kiwanis Noon Club on October
20 at the Hi Hata He spent 1-1/2 hours talking to 18 members about the
�' ICAP system management program.
MIMIWK
NEI
low
NOTE: There were 574 citizens contacted by our department this
month during community relations programs, and a total of 11-1/2
man hours were spent doing this.
i
Respectfully submitted,
s
R.B. Adams 6
Chief of Police
r
i
f
r
E
I
I
f
POLICE DEPARTMENT
CONSOLIDATED MONTHLY REPORT
FOR
MONTH OF OCTOBER 19 82
DISTRIBUTION OF PERSONNEL
AVERAGE t4
NUMERICAL STRENGTH DAILY ABSENCE fi AVERAGE EF=ECTIVE STRENGTH
End of I Same This Same This Last Same
this Month Month Month Month Month Month
Month Last Last Last
Year Year Year
TOTAL PERSONNEL 28 28 11.2 10.8 16.8 16.3 17.2
CHIEF`S OFFICE 3 3 1.4 1.5 1.6 2.0 1.5
SERVICES DIVIS. 7 6 2.4 1.4 4.6 3.4 4.6
PATROL DIVISION 15 16 6.1 6.8 8.9 8.8 9.2
TRAFFIC DIVIS. -------- ----- --- -------t7.5
---------
INVEST. SECTION 3 3 1.3 1.1 1.7 1.6 1.9
FORCE ONE 13 12 5.0 4.5 8.0 7.3
,Fd TWO 9 9 4.0 4.6 5.0 5.0 4.4
FORCE THREE 6 7 2.2 1.7 3.8 4.0 5.3
CHANGES IN PERSONNEL DAILY AVERAGE PATROL STRENGTH
1. Present for duty end of last month 28 This Same month
Month Last Year
2. Recruited during .month 0
1Total number field _
3. Reinstated during month 0 officers 15 i6.
Total to account for 28
2. Less Agents Assig- 0 0
4. Separations from the service: ned to Investigat.
(a) Voluntary resignation 0 3. Average daily abs-
0 ences of field off-
icers owing to:
(c) Resigned with charges pending 0 (a) Vacation, susp-
ension, days off,
(d) Dropped during probation 0 comp. time, etc.. 5.3 5.3
(e) Dismissed for cause 0 (b) Sick A. n j,-ired - .3 I _ .9
(f) Killed in line of duty
!=2
(c) Schools, etc. -5 -6
Total average daily
(g) Deceased absences- 6.I 6.8
Total separations 0 L4. Available £or duty 8.9 9.2
5:,. .:esent for duty at end of month
e
TIGARD POLICE DEPARTMENT
Monthly Report
I. Calls for Service: This Month 569 Year to Date 6,513
f
` A. Obligated Time 1431.2 B. Non-Obligated Time 913.8
II. PART I CRIMES No. Cleared Arrests
A. Homicide _
B. Rape
C. Robbery 5 1 1
D. Assault 14 17 13
E. Burglary 25 3
F. Larceny 59 15
11
G. Auto The f t 9 2 3
Totals 112 38 31
III. PART II TOTALS 49 56 36
TOTAL - Part I and II
161 94 67
IV. TOTAL PERSONS CHARGED: 67
a. Adult Male 36 C. Juvenile Male 15
f. b. Adult Female 12 d. Juvenile Female 4 —
V. WARRANTS SERVED 5
VI. TOTAL PROPERTY LOSS $ 62,961.39 TOTAL PROPERTY RECOVERED $,12,090.05
VII. TRAFFIC
a. Accidents Investigated 42 Injury Accidents 13 Fatal 0
b. Citations: VBR (Speeding) 43 Yield Right of Way--Ll—
Following
ay11Following too Close 7 Red Light 20 Stop Sign 5
Improper Turn 2 Reckless Driving__Sl_
Careless Driving 14 Driving Under the Influence 12
Driving While Suspended 2 Other Hazardous 8
Non-Hazardous 69 Total Hazardous 124
C. Enforcement Index 9.53
d. Traffic Enforcement Totals
Citations: This Month This Year 193 Year to Date 1851
This Month Last Year 171 Last Year to Date2134
Warnings: This Month This Year 42 Year to Date 632
This Month Last Year 36 Last Year to Date 530
NOTE: n - Part I Crimes (Major Crimes) Clearance Rate 33.9%
�- - Part II Crimes (Minor Crimes) Clearance Rate 114.3%
NIQ
(IaxxoM
ava 3o usawnm
Zv.101
xsxso
xsazo
'daHlO
OIIV'HISIRIHav
sZlvzsa M )
Zviosas
c`
aHsavov oq
M q
NISIUM C-1 c�C
saoasa
SNOIZVZsB
iuiNnwHoo
SOI330
HoivasIa
:)!1T I N I V�?.T. t-•( n( ` C( cct `ZZ
Y ooxssVZO
ianoo
URROSIEd N
axoasmvxs
Zoxzva I'D
assoaula
DNIAIUG t
ZO?IZvd
aivci
i
WH
) o
U V ` I
HWP H to l
Ka W
`y
cs ( x
tTj
►-•3
b
-� rp U3 C 1
H
CITATIO.NS \_
WARNINGS
WRITTEN N H
WARNINGS
VERBAL
SUSPICIOUS
PERSONS
SUSPICIOUS -� W
VEHICLES
ARREST
ARREST
ASSIST
V't_—ATION
CHECKS
FIR' S
OTHER
ei
z
* ALARMS AND PERMIT RE-CAP
Month of SEPTEMBER, 1982
Total
This Month Same Month Last Year % Change Year to Dat
TOTAL ALARMS.. ... .. 68 63 Two
a. False.. . ..... 68 62 Q'
b. Donafide.. .., 0 1
120
PE$MITS ISSUED..... 91 ---
$1,980
PERMIT FEES.........
1435
-0-
PERMITS REVOKED.....
REVOKED FEES........
MONTHLY SUMMARY STATEMENT:
This month was a hectic one in processing the large number of permit
( applications received. However, it will slow some in the months to
follow..
If you'll note, there was a slight increase in this month's false alarms
compared to a year ago. - This can be attributed to the fact there are
probably more alarr: systems in the community now than there were then.
ALARMS AND PERMIT RE-CAP
Month of OCTOBER, 1982
Total
This Month Same Month Last Year % Change Year to Dat
TOTAL ALARMS....... 61 68 . - - 10.3%
a. _False........ 60 66 g.la
b. Ronafide..... 1 2
PERMITS ISSUED..... 25 _ ! 145
PERMIT FEES........ 405 $2,385
PERMITS REVOKED.....
REVOKED FEES..,*....
MONTHLY SUMMARY STATEMENT:
As anticipated, there is a r.!arked reduction in .the number of false alarms
occurring..
Only 25 permits were issued this month as compared to the 91 last month.
The reason for the drastic reduction is that September 28 was the dead-
line for the 60 day grace period given to come into compliance with the
Alarm Ordinance.
Y
MEMORANDUM
NOVEMBER 9 , 1982
TO: Members of the City Council
FROM: William A. Monahan, Director of Planning and Development
RE : Monthly Report of Planning and Development
The Planning and Development monthly report for October contains the
following elements :
1. Annexation Report
2. Approval Authority Actions
3. Building Activity
4 . Code Enforcement Report
5 . Comprehensive Plan Update Report
SUMMARY
The only activity in the area of annextion was the withdrawal of the
Kvarnstrom application on October 29 , 1982 .
r The Comprehensive Plan Report illustrates the fact that all preliminary
draft elements , maps , and the Community Code are complete. Review activity
by the NPO's , CCI , and Planning Commission have increased. It i5 expected
that all elements of the Plan will be presented to the Council prior to
deliberations on December 13 , 1982 .
Building permit activity increased as the Building Division collected
18 ,747 .49 for permit fees. The value of the new construction and
alterations equaled $1 , 363 ,319 . 00 for the month.
>. O 7 O
U •J JJ..i 41-4
C aJ C: iJ C aJ
U) ro a 10
E+ p 0 0 0 O U
w w w w
v1•-1 w•.a w•-1
v u ro , v41
O as, a1.. aW1,
v a a a a a s
zuzv z
N
a m
7 In
Q b
Ur-
N Jr >
U O
1n z
W '
H
Q
Ea N
o a ^I
H >,
•w ro
W
N
Z C N N N
O E U m m m
H ro 3a
at al a\
>- E >r ro .-•1 .-i --i
Q Q 7 z N
n ovm r r r
o x ro.. .
4J-4
mU 3 -Ni 0 0 0
a
a
a
Q N
D -4
z Z N N N N >
Z3 O m m m m N
C H al T a1 at 1.1
C; 1-3 -4
La OyJ
O H >.
ro y
H U 4t iJ 4
1 4;
43 V 4J �
N 0 O N
W !n (n uJy y aJ
y -4 •,.1 -1 ,G
C G C iJ
7 +4 -4 +1 •-1
O
41 y 3
H rf at n ao %0 .� o
O ul
cn v a+ ON m v .•i C C C C
.] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 C C C -+
O .-a -1 N N .1 -.. � to fo x
in co m m m m m m v o O
w w 44 w S
,H 114 W
It ro ro
Z 4J 4J 4J
U1 N N W
H 4JJ 7
ro 1 'O O N
-1 C C C
H
41 41 4-1 •p T3 b b b C ro ro ro >•
E a a N a a N a a a N a 11 + -+ --1 +•1
4 .4 4JJ {� 41 V 4-1 JJ iJ NW N •..1
U 3 d d a O. .- sJ -1 --1 -1 U
a: 4J L JJ L E E E /o It ro ro to ro ro O
>+W w N w G O O O 41 tJ V N L V JJ C c c c C
C2-04 •-1 .•i •-1 .•4 U U U 111 N N N N u1 N ro ro ro ••�
1
O 43W E E E E 41 iJ JJ JJ y iJ aJ aJ aJ 4J V 4.) JJ
Z O O O O O O O O O O O O O O '•+ O O O O
U U U U c C C C C C c C C c 3 C C C C
O
a
a u
a
,••� g ro L N b aJ O
tN Ol H O H .-1 a ro 3
U to a Ln r U b a 1yi $4 E \
y ..q ,%� 111 C- O \ L.
E .-1 $4 O 1 C N YI $4 O b• ro tr• aJ U E a
Ip ro N V N a a O +J ro •-1 C -.7 ro 171
Q s 'a m e c In yJ .-1 c v N a to c • C a
W to C O C H >. N >. C >. •-1 w C > •-1 .-d :3: 14 7
LC a ro o a u 3 to 3 a ro --4 O O a J.a ro 7 N
iC •I-.' U [O 7 Co U 1.. 0 W
LN3WIHVd3a IN3WdOI3A34 (INV ONINNV-Id - 1110d3d NOIIVX3NNV
{
MONTHLY' REPORT
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTM17NT
APPROVAL AUTHORITY ACTIONS
OCTOBER, 1982
The following projects were acted on by the Planning Commission over the
t past month.
SENSITIVE LANDS PERMIT
M 1-82 The Meadows NPO # 7
APPLICANT: Bruce Kamhoot & Associate
20 Greenridge Court
Lake Oswego, Ore. 97034
OWNER: Unified Sewage Agency
REQUEST: A remand to the Planning Commission from City Council
to reopen public hearing in order to allow the NPO and
other interested parties to input on this issue.
SITE LOCATION : Northeast of S .W. Black Diamond Way (Wash. Co. Tax
Map 1Sl 34D lot 2600) .
ACTION TAKEN : Approved October 5 , 1982 with conditions.
ZONE CHANGE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION
ZC 18-82 JB Bishop NPO ## 1
CPR 4-82
l` APPLICANT JB Bishop
10505 S.W. Barbur Blvd. S-303
Portland, Oregon 97219
OWNER: SAME
REQUEST: A Comprehensive Plan Revision from Commercial
Professional General Commercial to General
Commercial on Tax Map 2S1 2CC tax lots 200 &
500 and from Commercial Professional to General
Commercial on Tax Map 2S1 2CC lot 100 , 801 & 900 .
SITE LOCATION : Site is generally located on the east side of
Pacific Highway, approximately 1000 ft. south of SW
Garrett.
ACTION TAKEN : Approved October 19 , 1982 with conditions _
CONDITIONAL USE EXTENSION
CU 20-80 S.W. Church of Christ NPO # 6
APPLICANT: Southwest Church of Christ
9725 S.W. Durham Road
Tigard, Oregon 97223
OWNER: Same
C REQUEST: For a two year time extension for starting half-street
improvements as required under CU 20-82 .
APPROVAL AUTI-IORITY
MONTIiLY REPORT
Page 2
SITE LOCATION : 15805 S .W. 98th (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 11CD , lot 701) .
r"
ACTION TAKEN : Approved October 5 , 1982 for a 12 month time extension
with construction to be completed within 60 days of
the expiration date .
MAJOR LAND PARTITION
MP 1-82 Bonita Firs NPO # 5
APPLICANT: City of Tigard
12755 S .W. Ash Ave.
Tigard, Oregon
OWNER: Robert Randall Co.
9500 S .W. Barbur Blvd. # 300
Portland, Oregon 97219
REQUEST : For a major land partition to divide a 9 . 25 acre
parcel into 4 sections and create a public right-
of-way.
ight-
of-way.
SITE LOCATION 7955 S .W. Bonita Road (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 12BA
lot 5600) .
ACTION TAKEN : Approved with conditions on October 19 , 1982 .
THE FOLLOWING PROJECTS WERE ACTED ON BY THE _DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DURING THE MONTH OF OCTOBER.
MINOR LAND PARTITIONS
ML - eigel/Kuehl Investments NPO # 5
APPLICANT: Weigel/Kuehl Investments
6229 S .W. Canyon Court
Portland, Oregon 97225
OWNER: Hyster Corporation
7000 SW Sanburg Rd.
Tigard, Oregon 97223
REQUEST: To partition a 5 acre parcel into two lots , one of
66 ,675 sq. ft. and one of 151 ,125 sq. ft. in an
M-4 Industrial Park_ Zone.
SITE LOCATION: 7000 S.W. Sandburg Rd. (WCTM 2S1 1DD lot 100)
ACTION TAKEN : Approve October 4 , 1982 with conditions.
MLP 9-82 Kelly Center
APPLICANT: Archdiocese of Portland
2839 East Burnside
Portland , Oregon
OWNER: SAME
REQUEST: To partition a 4 . 29 acre lot into two lots , one .69
acres , one 3. 6 acres.
APPROVAL AUTHORITY
MONTHLY REPORT
Page 3
MLP 9-82 continued
SITE LOCATION: 9905 S.W. McKenzie (WCTM 2S1 2BA lot 200 & 300)
ACTION TAKEN: Approved with condition on October 20 , 1982.
MLP 10-82 K. Paul & Sharon Dahl NPO # 2
APPLICANT: K. Paul & Sharon L. Dahl
11665 S .W. Greenburg Rd.
Tigard, Oregon 97223
OWNER: Same
REQUEST: For a Minor Land partion of a . 62 acre lot into 3 lots,
approximately 11,040, 9 ,847 and 6 ,480 sq. ft.
SITE LOCATION: 11665 S .W. Greenburg Rd. (WCTM 1S1 35DC lot 2600)
ACTION TAKEN : Approved October 25 , 1982 with conditions .
TEMPORARY USES
TU 16-82 Prevent-A-Care Pet Vaccination NPO # 3
�. APPLICANT: Michael Burton VMD
14125 S.W. Fern
Tigard, Oregon 97223
REQUEST: To conduct a low-cost dog and cat vaccination clinic.
LOCATION: Big-B Thriftway on Tuesday, October 19th from
3 : 30 to 5 : 30 in the afternoon.
ACTION: Approved on October 7 , 1982
C
MEMORANDUM
t` TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE : November 9 , 1982
SUBJECT: Monthly report for month of October 1982
Building Department
October ' s building activities include permits for 5 signs , 19 single
family residential, 6 residential additions alter/repair , 9 commercial
alter & repairs , 1 commercial site work., 1 commercial foundation only,
1 fill (educational) and 2 demolitions nor a total value of $1, 363 , 319 . 00 .
Fees for 38 permits $ 11 ,556 .49
Fees for 5 sign permits 65 . 00
Plumbing Activity - 20 1 ,662 . 50
Mechanical Activity - 19 334 . 50
Business License 130 5 ,129 . 00
TOTAL $ 18 ,747 . 49
Sewer Connections - 22 1 ,905. 00
Sewer Inspections - 22 780 . 00
King City activity included 1 Residential alter and repair for a
total valuation of $ 2 ,680 .00 and fee of $63 . 53 .
C)
U
z
0
H o00000000000000000000000000000a• oro00 rn o
E+ 0000000 COOOOOOOOOOOOOUOOOuI M000 MO V' C> Ln ri co
rNOrIUIOOr OMco a% nO .-417- r') mLr) l0MHOflO V• MOOc3mcD -IOM ra � � M �
00 O Ln 0T 00 rl M 171 Ol N N r-4 r M O M V' l0 V' 1- V' Ln rl Ln ri V' oo M l0 �r 6l N Ln Lin M r- 1:. S-. M N
r l0 r r l0 Ln d• Ln d• Ul Ln Ln Ln Ln l0 Ln t,p �r tO Ln ri rl M Cl) -4 r--i r-i CD
M
B �{
() a)
017 tr r- .x (1) x
(a 170 x O S4 »J \
y�
:j U -1 O U)
i 17a .-4 -IJ 3 >1
r•i r-i H .--i .--i rl H r-•I ri .--i H r--I ri rl .-•i r-i .-•i r-1 ri CT C3.1 04 (a U) r�
ca 17t3 a) (a RS (a (a (a al 17a (a (a (a (a (a m \\ U rU (1) 17-1 C f: rti
•,--4 •ri -4 •17.1 -A •ri .14 -4 -r1 -1 .4 -r-1 •rl -1 -1 -4 •r-( -1 -r-i ro +) x x 3-1 x x x x x r♦ O O •rl
4J 4J 4J 4J +J t-) 4-1 4J aJ -P •1J dJ •iJ +) 4J 4-3 4-3 4.1 -P rO rO -1 \\ a) \\\\\•r•t -,i .,.1 +1
r0 ro r0 \ \\ O U) F:4 F:4 r I rS 171. d. CL 4J 4 !~
m a) a) a) v a) a) a) a) v a) a) a) a) a) v (a (a r0 F:4 w \\ x -4 .A C14CC) r�
w r0 r0 CO r0 ro r0 ro ro r0 ro r0 ro r0 ro 'o ro rc$ � r0 \\� \\ \ - f~
p., r-i •171 _4 •17.1 •17.1 •171 -,i •171 • 4 •ri •r-I •ri •17.1 -4 .r.l •171 -174 -4 •171 • \ U O O rn rl
7( U) N N N N u) N to Ul to N u) u) u) N N (A m (A N N U] m U2 m 3-1 6 E E r-I U)
E-4 a) Q) a) a) a) a) Q) a) a) a) Q) Q) a) Q) a) Q) Q) Q) a) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) a) O O O O 04 O O O O O rO a) Q) 4) 1
axxxr0xxxxxxczxxxxrzxrzxxrzxxx000UcnUuuuC) Q x x
� a x
O o
0 o U 1
W 1
O
x
E-(
z
� o
Ei
H
a) rc3 O
H
Sa Q)
4-3
u) U) 1n 'I g Q) a U) (1) 1n F: >1
C7 10 >1r0 r0 4J +) 4J 4J +-1 4J tJ >, In >, -4 > ro 3 3 m Q) D Q) Q) 4-1 O
z 0 (a 0 O 4J U U U U U U U rC3 -rl rO (a ri a) 9 0 a x x O r0 t3l > r-1 > > t~ +) E-+ a
H 03 O O m 0311% 03 Q) (1) >~ O d• x 3.1f:4 MFC �::s
Q ? 3 (a (a (a (a 0 ra (a O 0 > Q -,4 s~ 3 cn a) U U 1 :::s3-+ •171 S4 0 �+
3 Q)
a (a S4 X: -C: C ,~ s~ 3 1713 C 3 M � 3-1 171 s~ a) 171 •171 U] E N a) U m a) 4-)
H a) (1) (1) U U U U U U U U O r- O S4 S~ ::3 ?( Q) O (1) •ri 74 4-1 4-4 as c O x Sa O O x 0
rl a3 rl -4 17o f~ C >~ >~ >~ 10 (1) U a) (1) r0 1~ Sa C U r--1 .� +-) •rl •r 1 -r- C a) Q •171 Q) A L1 •-1 r♦ r- (a
CQ JJ S4 4J •IJ O (a CO (a RS (a (a (a CO 3.1 171 > 34 G 1-4 34 4-) C aJ 4-) +3 P Q) E N SE E N 1-1 1-4 >1
C (1) G 1~ �O Z Z Z Z Q) (1) RS -,..1 a) CN (a () (a •r-1 >~ (a (a (a ca Ln 0 34 ri G •171 •r•l G :3 ca 0
a) cn N 3 (a 17a rt (a (a (a (a U) rs4 C>~ U) M :it �l � 3 o p, p. 00 11 0 2 V z Z ::S M x
aaaaaa .-I
• 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
C�7 w 3 33333333333 . • •
H U) U) U] (!) V] U) U) U) (1] U) U) U) U) U) U) (n U) U) U) U) U) U) U)
F( Q (r) U) U) (n CO U) U) (r) U) U) U) u] U) u)
Q Ln tn OOOLr) OLnOOLf) O OOOOLr) LnLf) O OO Lr) C) O
�. O 'C Ln LnOLnO Ln LnOLnOLr) Lnr-1 01r l0 r-1 Ml0d• Oc1• Mc)• Iori Ln00 .-iOOLnLnLr) c• r-i 17'1
_1 c, mONm • OMOINr-I V' �rNr•IOMrcorN0017-1CLnt3\ 61NLn %,o -4t0Or-4 -4C) m0 00
00 Or kokoCrC' C' (n -1:3- Vd• toOMOOriNOOrIrNLnrirltorlOCdra% 00NrIN Ln
J^ 171 r r -A 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 A r-4 ra r•-1 r♦ rl 171 171 17 1 r I r r-I r ( 171 r 4 rl 171 .--I r-1 r OO ra r1 00 r--1 r-1 r♦
N rzf
+-) S4
O 0 Q) r-I
.14 -1 E Q)
(n r-1
4J 4J a) rU
U U 4J > O •iJ +) s) aJ r-1 O •171
�:% C: 4-) aJ 0 E r~ U) • S~ G S=' 4-) .14 r~
M 34 )4 Q) r~ r~ S4 Q) • Q) C 34 O N Q) U •(J O
34 4J 4J E Q) Q) R. w N E O +) u) — 4J (L) 17a -4 4J 170
a) u) (n C2. E E cn S4 C4 U Z -171 S4 U) >~ 1J -P U •i) (1) 0 N a1 r~ �4 •-)
rO SZ: r- O .1J 4-1 H a) >.r0 O 0 rl (L) >~ O U) m r- 0 34 U r- 3•( S4 (13 U)
17•-1 O O rl U) U) >~ E 17 4 .4 r0 U r I r� O r~ U) a) (L) H S4 U \ O O O 0 f~
m U U Q) (1) Q) O N O 4J CO Q) S4 3 U O E > > a (n U O .0 O O
> > > = _ _ _ _ E x C; > (a (n O 4.) ca Z C r~ a) O ;E, .Q (1) U
a X S4 34 S4 (1) r~ C O :� S4 (1) r- 7•4 -- S4 44 .C: H H O a) >~ O C (a a
U Qx Q
O G a) ) Q H " ri x r0 O a) C) 0 Q) ) —1 (a U) 34 O 04 N >~ }-+ >+
E-( . (a r-♦ +) +) O U 17-1 Q) r0 (1) +) ri 3-1 17-1 r-i -171 • aJ 34 . O 0 '0 Ei O
U P -1 +) 4-) U (1) (1) s~ U O -4 U a C 1~ (L) 4J U .f2 ri r I H .,a CL4 0 u) M 34 O 4J 34 H U)
l< Cr+ -ri O O •r-I a) (1) 0 •rl 3 •,1 •17-1 rt) a) a 0 �C 171 17 1 U 3-+ —1 (a U m ro O U H
C4 Z Ul a
0 0 r~ .a -a U) ) � r~ 44 U) &-- (D S4 x x C rl (a 0) U 3 C S4 44 O
H 44 rl Q) Q) CP (n t--F) ri v-4 C). (1) a) O 4-3 a 17-1 C C ri •17.1 rt3 w U
Z 44 >, E E 0 0 = _ _ _ = r0 (a r0 3 >y E -r+ a) 3 E tr x .x x x .r~ O -A 3-17 (a r~ 171 > 3171 z r i
h h U 0 z 0 U 3 E- 11-3 h Q U W U) '.0 (n a 0+0 0 U) a �C x U C� 0° x " x C� �G
Im—
p00000� o
H O O O O O O
H
a ov� 000 .o
p o (=3 0 -:r in
a _4inLn -VN I--
E-
0
--HO
U
Csa
E
RS
F:4
C: 4-)
-4 .D �4 �4 +j
(cs :::sain
r I 0 00
3 3 ? 3 3
cn �n cn u� cn to
(s1 M tf1 to in O
(Y, in co M M 00
(] tf1 ..O In lf1 Lf)
pp
Ol
a
w >1
� U
O �
E-1 O
U �
O N to U]
44 • �--: C~
1 rt O CT tr N
cn O--1 -4 til
u C13
a �4
E-4x -4 Cl fn 3
U] O O O
a o� a a� m�' opo "
C14 Q1 •� a;
2 Ei N •11 4J 4-) 4-
H O -•-� ::jm c •r�
N
yJ - O
U O p
to G G
p) N O >,O
> to —4 t0•.� rl
ro 4
+ d m
-,� a) v, G O +I w
tn +; _-j - 4
G-''I —4 1 fis G U N
N
U) U)i sE+ E ro
p tU O NU -,>� O G b
ac a ° N N tr > C .Ui C
E -,I 7`1 f-i •.1 '-I I I
.a to I 'I) 0
c E E G
Ga) ro ..Ni 3 0 O O a)
O Q A O U ro Ufli
O+
G
7-I N
7
.4 N rl {J
O r6 N -.-I
I wA 1 N
N
G
a) ri 10 41N I Co N +I
W W -•-I O �+-+ x o0 O 1 O G N
° U) w ro O y,
Z 14 ro w IH 41 A 0 0
1 f-t 1 G f!l N
OH ° N a,O (1) O O S4 G G
U a U O En O
O -44 3
� -) O.U •� U O
x G >. rov oro -4 ro L' r-
> ro
(3)-,4 ro Q) o o m � v o v n
-rl y --1 .14 -.-I E - Q) -,i U
44-.I > w i-) O N > r0 > aOU >O > 1.4
-.i N N ••i (0 U a)••-/ -rl yJ
A G N •moi O 3 U7 O 41 O O O�U O O
z°to Z Z U 4-3 O ro Z U tN Z ro G Z Z
L] al
to U 3
U
� w +� E 4J O
L) m ro a1)� -,i x
rt
rt +I rUt3 (n U 0) U
w > o a
Z O O G G b C A E
3 ° ° tD 1 a N
U Z W .r.i J°-I .UI -rGi C
b > A S rl
G
z a
w -.I > a 4-3 ro
W L) 0 •-4 X OG N ro C N N >.
U O w U N .4 > _++ }4 la 41
W Z W O A r0 U ° U OU r0 to U
O )., G N U
O H A b N 4-3 0
O. 1 -4 to A ::3 O
ra
Sn
Z —4 G +1 r4 Q) N +I O � Q.
a) � ra O O O
w a u) E+ M r+ m a �
ro
4-1
O ,,
X °
m y,
A c r+
+) U y caN
4J 3-1 .G �, rd G
r Z FC 0 O O
E+
3 S ar0
4; 3 x �4 U �.
pto rn v) U 3 to 4 .°x ~
H O Ln to 4-) G O W •.1
E+ to -'-1 >+ N +
N N O U JI G
U O N N G G p
p
Ln O en O N -4 P. U 5
N N N N
N N NO co O
O O O 00 000 OD co OI I 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 I I to m N O
(s7 ri V' ttl \D r r O ri - N N
E'r i 1
1 1O O 1 1 1 O O O O
O O O p O
AM
s
MEMORANDUM
DATE : November 9 , 1982
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Update Report
PROGRESS
The following describes the extent of the work that has been completed
on the Comprehensive Plan , and what needs to be completed.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REPORT % COMPLETED
1. General Policy Document 100 %
2. Citizen Involvement 100 %
3. Natural Features and Open Space 100 %
4 . Air , Water and Land Resources 100 %
5 . Economy 100 %
6 . Housing 100 %
7 . Public Facilities and Services 100 %
8. Transportation 100 %
9 . Energy 100 %
10 . Urbanization 100 %
- Annexation Policy 100 %
- UPAA The County has completed their
proposed general Urban Planning
Area Agreement (UPAA) ; and it has
been adopted by County Board of
Commissioners. The City is now
i in the process of negotiating the
specifics of the UPAA.
11. Tigard Community Development Code 100 %
12. Preliminary Comprehensive Plan
Future Land Use Map 100 %
13. Preliminary Development District Map 100 %
* Final Planning Commission Draft.
WORK SESSION
The Committee for Citizen Involvement (C.C. I . ) is now conducting weekly
work sessions, to discuss all issues concerning the Comprehensive Plan
revision work. In order to spread the Planning Commission and City
Council ' s adoption work loads , staff has requested that each element of
the Comprehensive Plan be forwarded for adoption ; once all of the con-
cerns regarding the elements have been resolved. At their October 14 ,
1982 meeting, the C.C.I. recommended the "Comprehensive Plan Report:
Citizen Involvement" be forwarded to the Planning Commission for public
hearing on November 9 , 1982. The Council will review this report on
November 22 , 1982. The "Comprehensive Plan Report: Energy" will be the
the next element reviewed by the Planning Commission.
fm
S
N N
aD 00
� � Y
•.+ G ca cn cn
c c G
b �4 •.+
G O $4 H � _4a) 41 O p S
?+ JJ N O M O
t H cts
O Ln
-4 H
N
Q)
a o o C
� ..-1 w l
' U °
cn C11 N O
to Lr) O -+ 6: 0
ca d o d
ca
s+ w
> +4-3G b
U U H •O 7+ f
'' N rI a d G
r
,4 bo a G •o
••+ o a F
..+
c� •o r, 0 0 0 �. u d a'
a
E-4 as ..4 p, d a.c
o W U a) a
O
U N a! O u
O .4 U
.a °P. o
P4 4-3 O d W 3
HCqCO . t
rn =5 caal rn c+1 r ) O O }c • s
co
r4 54 0
to P+ ca .� U ca t
0 P z P6 �' w
Ca. 4J O
U 6 a1 €
i0i v� a
H O p O O O O O 0
Ai a) Aj E E
_ �, Q ' p �O Ln N N O O Z '
cn i1 Q C
C14 N Vj- r/1 to to
W � n
P4 !
cn O
OW
H Cl
O s
T.'N Ln co c+1 cn p N
JJ 1
G M
S+ � a) i
04 c0 � L
ca
. " b
w a) 7 u yr O €
a) J.+ to G as
�a n H
,F, 4J 00
P+3-4 cn cn
00 N W L fd '
'�
co �-+ rn o n ca d H co r
;.
P+ a� H A W H
,d G Cd �.
a) 0 ,'3 to b u
ca
E
L 'G U .G1 P4 H !
o a a)
G ff' G fx vs V N w
SC/3 o .c s+
N •b L G H .� L F-. y C N WO b W
G 4) G fa
ca 0
+ L4O N O W 0 U cc Oo
co > ' £>+ vZ r L w �H v
CL) •.co� dG a) uG Hai LG
Wa+ co W a) r..� N H N W a) -14 )e d .d m G 0
u fJ Pl. co a A E U) E co 41 co b $4 00 co co0 -4 a 0 L+GO w ca O
U v 3-3 Pte+ H Kn.4 O 3
j
The Clerical Job Audit, conducted by Cal Hackler of the Oregon Professional Employees
Union ;')PEU) and our Administrative Assistant Linda Sargent, was completed in October.
The results of the Audit showed that some clerical staff should be reclassified due to
the duties and responsibilities of their position. Three of our clerical staff were
reclassified as follows: Penny Liebertz was reclassified from a Clerk/Typist I to a
Clerk/Typist III position; Diane Jelderks was reclassified from a Clerk/Typist I to a
Clerk/Typist II position; and Lowaria Murray was reclassified from a Clerk/Typist I to
a Clerk/Typist II position.
TRAINING NOTES
Bob Jean held an all-day management staff retreat at his home on October 22nd.
Doris Hartig, Finance Director/City Recorder, hostessed the October meeting of the
Oregon Municipal Finance Officers Association.
Mayor Bishop, Councilman Tom Brian, City Administrator Bob Jean, Planning and Development
Director Bill Monahan and Building Official Ed Walden attended the League of Oregon
Cities Convention held in Eugene on November 7th, 8th and 9th.
Frank Currie, Public Works Director, attended the American Public Works Association
conference from October 13 to October 15.
Bob Jean attended a Purchasing/Contracts Seminar hosted by our own Planning Commission
Chairman Frank Tepedino.
Corporal Don Myers attended the Western States 33rd Annual Investigative Seminar from
October 25 thru October 28.
Administrative Assistants Joy Martin and Linda Sargent attended the Leader Effectiveness
Training Conference on 10/13, 10/14, 10/20 and 10/27.
Lieutenant Kelly Jennings attended the LGPI seminar on Utilizing Assessment Centers in
the Selection Process on October 20th.
Patrolman Joseph Grisham attended the Police Planning and Research Seminar with Police
Chief Bob Adams on October 8th. Patrolman Grisham also attended the 6th Annual Training
Conference sponsored by the Oregon Juvenile Law Enforcement Association from October 20th
to October 22nd.
Sergeant Charles Martin attended the Police Firearms Instruction Seminar sponsored by
the Board on Police Standards and Training from October 25th to October 29th.
Administrative Assistant Joy Martin has enrolled in the Portland State University class
"Economics: Applications to urban Services. " Joy is working on her Ph.d in Urban Studies.
Planning Commission member Cliff Speaker attended the Governor's Conference with Planning
and Development Director Bill Monahan on October 26th, where they discussed the prospects
for housing construction in Oregon. i
Public Works Crew Chief Walt Zielinski attended the Hydraulic Systems class held at
Portland State University on October 28th and 29th.
Auto Service Worker Ben Tracy attended the General Motors Training Center on Computer i
Command Control Fundamentals on October 25th and 26th.
l
VOLUME V ISSUE 8 NOVEMBER, 1982
CITY NEWS AND NOTES
Our thanks to Betty Mills and Margaret Earl ! These two fine ladies volunteered four days
of their time to assist the City in registering voters before the November 2nd election.
More than 700 citizens were registered between October 28th and November 2nd.
All managers met on October 27th for the Management Team Programs and Priorities meeting.
Department, Division and Crew Chief managers have formed task forces to address productivity
circles, time management, the management systems model , the codification update, and many
other issues as well . The goal of these task forces is to improve procedures, productivity
and efficiency of City staff and programs.
Cable television will soon be moving into our residential neighborhoods. See the Tigard
newsletter "All About Town" for further details.
Motorcycle patrol is the newest program developed by the Police Department to enlarge their
patrolling efforts. Patrolmen John Featherston and Jim Newman graduated from the City
of Gresham Motorcycle Operational Training Program on November 5th; these officers will
now complete two weeks of field training, at the end of which our Motorcycle Patrol Program
should be in full swing.
The bid for a new backhoe was awarded to Case Power Equipment Company during October.
The new equipment is a much needed and welcomed addition to our Public Works Department.
The City of Tigard processed more Local Improvement Districts (LTD' s) last year, than the
City of Portland did, and we did it with less staff. The last of the LID' s processed
this calendar year was for 72nd Avenue with a bond sale amount of $1,371,200 on which the
City received the excellent interest rate of 9.08%.
PERSONNEL NEWS AND NOTES
A Factfinding Nearing between the City of Tigard and the Tigard Police Officers Association
was held November 3rd.
The Public Works Operations Superintendent position remains open after rejection of the
top three candidates interviewed in October. Oral Board interviews will be held
November 15 for the review of additional candidates.
Carole Van Eck, Senior Secretary to the Public Works Director, will be moving to the sunny
city of Visalia, California, on November 12th. We will miss Carole's professionalism
and cheerful disposition. . .we all wish you the best of luck, Carole.
Applications will be accepted until November 22nd for the Senior Secretary/Clerk III
position made available by Carole's move to California.
Members of the Tigard Municipal Employees Association received a 4% cost of living increase
effective November 1, 1982. The cost of living increase for members of the Tigard Police
1t Officers Association is still being negotiated; management employees had their pay plans
frozen during the 1982-83 fiscal year, based on last year's market wage survey.
. . . Continued . . .
RIM
Y
MEMORANDUM
October 25, 1982
TO: City Administrator/City Council
FROM: Chief of Police
SUBJECT: New OLCC Application
RE: The Beef & Barrel Restaurant
(former Burger Boy Restaurant)
11688 S.W. Pacific Highway, Tigard, Oregon
Owner: ALEXANDER, John Demos
Sir:
In review of this request for a RMB (Retail Malt Beverage) License
application, and the inspection of the place of business, and the
r discussion with the owner, it is recommended that this request be
i.
approved with the following conditions:
That all sales of beer and wine shall be consumed on premises.
That no package sales be authorized.
That the consumption of beer or wine shall be incidental to the
service of meals.
Respectfully,
R.B. Adams
Chief of Police
RBA:ac
Rim
Avoid Verbal Messages k
CITY OF TIGARD
From: t.
To: C
low 10-20-82
Subject: Liquor Licens applicant Date:
APPLICANTS ALEXANDER, John Demos
10770 S.W. Fair Haven St.
Tigard, Ph$ 639-5788
DT3As The Beef & Barrel Restaurant AKA
Burger Boy ROstaurant
11688 -S.W. Pacific Hwy
Tigard, Oregon
LICENSE REQTTESTS Retail Malt Beverage
RECObMNDATIONs Approval with condition that no carry out sales be authorized. 4
s
I talked to John Alexander and inspected his business on lO-r. e`doeshnotadvised
think
tare that it is his intention to sell only draft and bottle Hee also was in agreement s
he will be selling wine unless there
a demand
outssales, hisfintention is only to provide beer
that there should not be any carry the name of the -
for his customers who order food.
Hchaagese alsoswithaid this counterchanginghat by area he would reduce
resturant and some smallHe stated that he does not have very much of the
the amount of the minor trade.
younger grade anyway, most of his customers are adults
Mr. John Alexander has a positive atitude and indicated that if there appearedE
ult of his liquor license he would surrender the license.
to be a problem as a res
t
Fp
3
tj
I
L. Branstetter, Det. Sgt.
SD,670 u4. 6–}�ct6 P��, (� IF- 0 3 /Y
ore)= 9079 S.E. McLoughlin Boulevard
STATE OF OREGON P.O. Box 22297
PAGE OREGON LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION Portland, Oregon 97222
C APPLICATION GENERAL INFORMATION N° 5352
The filing of this application does not commit the Commission to the granting of the license that you are applying for,
nor does it permit you to operate the business named below. If a license is granted by the Commission, you will receive
a LICENSE CERTIFICATE.
No fee is collected by OLCC until a LICENSE CERTIFICATE is to be issued.
(THIS SPACE IS FOR OLCC OFFICE USE) Fleftby
IS SPACE IS FOR CITY OR COUNTY USE)
Application is being made for: CITIES AND COUNTIES: Do not consider this
BOTTLER �- Greater Privilege nless it has been stamped and signed at the
1. PL Tl R. C'I% � LCC representative.
BREWERY ,0.1 UQJ03 C^i:: 'L CJi'aUesSPrivilegeDISPENSER CLASS A New Licensee OUNCIL, COUNTY COMMISSION, OR COUNTY
DISPENSER CLASS B New Location
DISTILLERY i 1 1982 eve COURT OF —
DRUGGIST New Partner (Name of City or County)
FARMER'S WINERY CCPISE DIVI310I1 RECOMMENDS THAT THIS LICENSE BE: GRANTED
INDUSTRIAL ALCOHC
RAJILR PUBLIC PASSENGER CARRIER OR BOAT DENIED
EMALT SEVER DATE
SEASONAL
NAL DISPENSER
SPECIAL EVENTS DISPENSER BY
WHOLESALE MALT BEVERAGE AND WINE (signature)
WINERY TITLE
AUTION: If your operation of this business depends on your receiving a liquor license, OLCC cautions you not to purchase,
remodel, or start construction until your license is granted.
1. Name(s) of individual applicant(s), partnership, or corporation: ^�
n A6)AnAer 1077® S VJ �aet-�t0.L'en aar'j Ore-`� -
(Name) (Address) (City) (State) (2�p)
2)
3)
4) SRetd.si-46.
(EACH PERSON LISTED OVE USY FILE A INDIVIDUAL HI�TORY AND A FINANCIAL STATEMENT)® — l}
2. Trade name of premises _ When filed: ICJ
(Year Name Filed with Corporation Commissioner)
i
3. Former trade name 6 '
6t' ` €
4. Premises address � PQG�i_ ij C i l { � 1"ttti a I
_ Coun (State) (ZIP)
(Numbers Street, ral Route)
�) (^(CITY) ( tY) ( y
5. Business mailing address "' �\ n rr� 0 rP�Q C'R Li 1�
(P.O. Box, Number.Street, Rural Rout.) i (� [a e) taiw
b. Was premises previously licensed by OLCC? Yes No
T Year
7. If yes, to whom: — Type of license: —
S. Will you have a manager: Yes No Name
(Manager must fill out Individual History, blue page Z)
9. Will anyone else not signing tjk application share in the ownership or receive a percentage of profits or onus from this
business? Yes — No Z_ r, G {1
10. Wha: is the local governing body where your premises is located6
? -– "fou i
(Name o City o ounty)
11. OLCC representative making investigation may contact: (Name PJY
cel r�e-war ��i-a_ L,omg- 0`1 S7 R husi►�ecs
(Address) (Tel. No.—home,business.message)
CAUTION: The Administrator of the Oregon Liquor Control Commission must be notified if you are contacted by anybody j
offering to influence the Com,nission o your behalf. j
Applicant(s) Signature (1) h
(In wse of corporation,duly Iv
authorized officer thereof)
(2)
(3)
(4)
orginzi,- )government DATE 1
Sle'40MI-645
Form 04545--480 (7101) {g
i.. 4
ice? 9079 SE. McLoughlin Blvd.
INDIVIDUAL STATE OF OREGON
HISTORY Portland,LIQUOR CONTROL''COMMISSION P.O. Box 22297
Portland, Oregon 97222
f rte= Pago 2 Appllcation
All,btartka'must be filled In. OLCC
USE
If the es\tioonn does not apply to You.place,N/A(Notgpl
•Aicable)In the apace. ONLY
1. Nams tS r-t c�� i Jy{_ t) y 4 j lu���otaw)
2.Othe:names used . .i , r 1a11sf "i a a 3
f f V p)
a Address / 0 "s YIto.. _ team)- 5_ —
4. SSN 1 Date of Birth Agee[a
5. Place of Birth • (stare or co en)
t(Q - ' '+► tc4.s.L .- :..G color Eyes.—
6. Height t O Weight I /- ""(dolor Hai(
? Sex Name 01 Spouse �7 �/ •- I
(� h , / o Business Phon ���-
8. Homs Ph_.._ (�+ee ) ( )
9. U.S.Citizen: Yes No If"No"list Allen Reg.No.
CRIMINAL'RECORD:
NOTE:For your information,a criminal records"check Is made on,all Ilq'uor license applicants in the normal processing of a license
I -.request.Fingerprints may.be required.4 .
1& Have you been convicted(Including'probation'sentencing or bill forfeiture)o!any crime,violation,or Infraction of any 1@3►�7(Do
not include minor traffic violations for which a.fine or bail forfeiture of._$50 or less was imnposed). Yes No
106,Are flyers presently pending against you sny._grUhlnal-chargas;violations or Infractions of the Iwy,?(Do not Include minor traffic
violations for which a fine or ball forfeiture of.$50 or less was'ImpGsed).- Yes No-.6
to 10A or
`110B,If you have answered"Yes" `tOB,list below: dbiind state Result
offense 'Drab
(Attach additional sheet If necessary•).
NOTE:The Informatlon listed fn-1 through 10 above can protect you frcm an error in the criminal records check.
EMPLOYMENT'AND RESIDENCE HISTORY
11. List current and former employers or occupations during the past ten years:(Attach additional sheet If necessary)
r or Bu "as t Oeeu atlon Cay end 8 1a
tflortWYeer
ploy. t'From . G y oV e r1 A-)� !�u ratV RyT�Gy, n n 1 1�T,1T'/�rte—
From To J
From To
...z. _...R .. ..
From To .. - -� } i .�:'. ' s''. ... ..r•A�
12. List other cities and states where you have lived in the past 10 years ottier)han those noted In question 11 above:(Attach additional
sheet:(LFtecessaryJ.-,,, .:.. - .
City cnd O
� y3 To en�ly
V
Frorn _To
FromTo
AC£IVIT1f IM LIQUOR INDU£TRY(Insideor Outside Oregon)
13.Are you�resently�r r have. u been Ince d or to ad in the�uOjr ? u (�g 6 O Jq rte,
:s Yes No W ere&When? Q2Pr �,; 114.Have:you ever ived'e warning,a,noticeofviolation;auspansocation as a lice or permittee? i
a:
Vas No� Where&When2 ,
15. Naive you ever bee refused a permit or Iicense,'to sell serve or dispense beer,wine.or distilled spirits? .i
• Yes No= Where&Wherf?•tr,
Have you held,or doyou presently hold,a gambling or gaming Iicenseg%jn any governmental body or a Fe_derafGambling Tax
Stam?,, - �
.Yes No Where&When?
17. Have you ever he�ld/°r do yan
ou hold any finciallnterest Iurtygtor enterprise:manufacturing Importing,wholesale or retail?
No 'Who &When?
18Do ywj owe mo o any.manufacturer or distributor ot.wirte beef,or'dltstllled spirits on account of cash or credit advanced?
Yes- NoWhere&When?
19.Is your spouse or phy family member(s)working in any area of the'liq�r,Industry?
Yes No If Yes.give:: �-cr+N+) - •,04"of Ek*. ) - .F..tory a saes)
20. pjaeislrtvolered��., Trade .Name _
Job Title onio.r,sew )
corp. x
CAUTION:-FALSIFICATION OR INTENTIONAL OMISSIONS OF INFORMATION ON THIS FORM MAY BE GROUNDS TO DENY OR
REVOK YOUR APPLICATION FOR A LiCENSEI
f
f
Date:
Signature:
4
e = aryl of c otflos`yet oovy-�of)x l t 1wsuFN,2.d copr-roolFe x
tsv+ono sae
partnetSN'+gt t128t).
7� �
9079 S.E. McLoughlin Boulevard
P.O. Box 22297
STATE OF OREGON Portland, Oregon 97222
OREGON LIQUOR CONTROL'COMMISSION
PAGE APPLICATION FINANCIAL STATEMENT
Name
ASSETS(Owned) AMOUNT OFFICE LIABILITIES(Owed) AMOUNT OFFICE
USE USE
Cashon hand (not in bank) Accounts Payable (Schedule D)
Cash on deposit: Notes Payable (Schedule D)
Checking atr-Frsi Contracts Payable (Schedule D)
Checking at Real Estate Mortgages and Contracts S
Savings at Ar VQ es OO lo6 J I Payable (Schedule A) / I
Savings at W'I
Other (Describe)
Cash valve of:
Vehicles 000 no
Life insurance 0 b
Machinery and equipment 80
Merchandise inventories. if L,Ob
Stocks and Bonds (Schedule B)
Z
Real Estate (Schedule A)
- O �
Accounts Receivable(Schedule C) D N
Notes Receivable(Schedule C)
Contracts Receivable(Schedule C)
Other personal property
Other Monies Available (Describe) / 5 -
TOTAL LIABILITIES
NET WORTH
TOTAL ASSETS TOTAL LIABILITIES AND NET WORTH
'To arrivo at NET WORTH, subtract total liabilities from, all assets.
I -
l. Annual Income: Last year's total salary $� Explain:
61 nd i)fie rem
2. Have you any assets or liabilities not listed on this financial statement? Yes Ne
If yes, explain why not included
. Are you art endorser or guarantor for others? Yes _ No->�. If yes, explain:
4. Have you any judgments or suits filed against you? Yes _____ No -�C. If yes, explain:
5. Have you ever filed a petition in bankruptcy or been adjudged bankrupt? Yes No If yes, explain:
Year: Court: City: State:——
(Attach additional sheet if necessary for any question.)
CAUT(06. FALSIFICATION OR INTENTIONAL OMISSIONS OF INFORMATION ON THIS FORM MAY BE GROUNDS TO DENY
bb OR REVOKE YOFOR A LICENSE.
Signature
(Spouse,if this is a joint statement) "t COPY—Applicant
n zDate )C__
SP19M6 345
Roan 8}ytT=a�4.(1IB0)
'Y
;t
Al E M O R A N D U M
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JOY MARTIN, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
DATE: NOVEMBER 4 , 1982
SUBJECT: COST EFFECTIVENESS OF THE RENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE
MAIN COPIER
PURPOSE
Approve or disapprove changing the type of agreement for the main
copier in City Hall .
FACTS
On March 1, 1982 , Council approved the City entering into a
rental agreement with Automated Office Systems for the Canon NP
400 . The cost per month is $299 for the first 10 , 000 copies,
plus $ . 02 per copy for the next 10 , 000 , and $ . 017 per copy over
20,000 copies. Automated Office Systems has made available
a three year lease-purchase agreement which the City has the
option to enter into. The lease cost is $373 . 24 per month plus
maintenance at $ . 008 per copy with a $1. 00 buy out at the end
of three years.
DISCUSSION
The copier performs satisfactorily for our needs . Attached is a
graph comparing the monthly costs. The lease-purchase option is
less expensive if over 19 , 500 copies are made. During October,
when the machine was the main copier, copy volume was 26 , 995.
The copy volume for the main copier has been over 20 , 000 since
last January. The average copy volume for the main copier for
the past 12 months is 24 , 969--ranging from 10 ,469 in December
to 36 , 641 in January. Cost savings at the average volume is
$51 per month, or $612 per year.
RECOMMENDATION
The recommendation is for Council to authorize the City Admini-
strator to enter into a three-year lease agreement -'or the
Canon NP 400 with Automated Office Systems, with a one dollar
optional buy out at the end of three years. This recommendation
is made for the following reasons:
1. Cost savings; and,
2 . Equipment has proven to satisfactorily
meet our needs.
JM : dkr
Attachment
W
N
Q
U
Q.
W
N
Q
• W
\J
Z \ O
W O
� O
N
\ O
\\ O
N
\ O
\ O
M
N
O
S O
j4O
N
t O
.Si O
O
\ N
\ O
\A O
O
O
O
\ O =
O �
� O
O h
O C,
\ O d
i O O
`f U
U O
C \ O
CD
1 R O
O
d \ b
Z
O
O
O
Z LO
.ti
C)
Z
d
U
t
O O O O O O O
N O QO l0 <t N O CO t0 'I*" N O
l0 l0 LAI U) In LO UY ct
N
O
U
MEMORANDUM
TO: Members of the City Council
From: William A. Monahan, Director of Planning and Development
DATE : November 5 , 1982
RE: NPO # 5 Membership
Recently much discussion has centered on the composition of
NPO # 5. One of four former members requested that he be recognized
by the existing NPO # 5 as a certified member. Research of
municipal records indicates that the formerly constituted NPO was
disbanded due to their failure to hold a meeting after City Council
approval in February, 1981 . The attached letter from former Planning
Director Aldie Howard shows that the members , in particular the
acting chairperson John Smets , were urged to meet and discuss issues .
In addition, on a regular basis city staff corresponded with the
NPO concerning neighborhood issues and the need for NPO action. No
action was taken.
The attached resolution contains the history of the dispute
and the present composition of NPO # 5 .
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council pass the attached resolution.
CITYOFT147APM
February 24, 1981 WASHINGTON COUNTY.OREGON
Mr. John E. Smets
6830 SW Bonita Road
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Dear Mr. Smets:
The City Council at their regular meeting on February 23, 1981
approved four members for NPO #5.
Four out of seven does not make a quorum and I doubt that you could
take a "legal" stand, however, I do not think that this fact should
prohibit you from meeting or offering policy impact to Staff.
Please strengthen your membership roaster. I will be ready to take
your requests to the Planning Commission and City Council for
membership appointments.
You t
Aldie ward
L Director
AHvmc
12420 S.W. MAINP.O. BOX 23397 TIGARD, OREGON 97223 PH: 639-4171
d` M E M O R A N D U M
c
TO: TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
FROM: MAYOR WILBUR BISHOP
DATE : NOVEMBER 12 , 1982
SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD
The Parks and Recreation Board currently has a vacant
position, and it is my intention to fill that vacancy
at the November 15, 1982 , meeting of the Tigard City
Council .
After reviewing applications with the Appointments
Advisory Committee, and discussion with Parks and
Recreation Board Chairman Ron Jordan, a recommendation
for appointment has been made.
It is my recommendation, as Chairman of the Appointments
Advisory Committee, that the Tigard City Council appoint
Mr. Charles A. Gutweniger , of 14355 S.W. McFarland Blvd. ,
Tigard, to the vacant position on the Parks and Recreation
Board. Mr_ . Gutweniger ' s application, for appointment is
attached for your review.
I request your concurrence with my recommendation at the
November 15 , 1982, meeting of the Tigard City Council .
WAB : dkr
Attachment
INVENTOHY OF CI'T'IZENS
Sug;'?ested for Community Service
DA`'' 7 September 1982
E
CHARLES A. GUTWENIGER, DDS. , MS RES . PHONE 620-9042
Id AME_
14355 S.W. McFarland Blvd BUS . PHONE 225-8874
ADDRESS—
LENGTH
LENGTH OF RESIDENCE IN TIGARD 1 1/2 years SUGGESTED BY
WHERE DID YOU LIVE PREVIOUSLY? Beaverton 3 years
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND 3 years of pre-dental , 4 years of dental school , 3 Sears of
post-graduate traininy.
OCCUPATIONAL STATUS AND BACKGROUND Periodontist and presently a faculty member at
the Health Science Universtiy, Portland Oregon
PREVIOUS COMMUNITY ACTIVITY None however 7 was
duty in the United States Air Forficer as well as on
committees here at the Health Science University
i
ORGANIZATIONS AND OFFICES Presen
the Academic Dismissel Council .
F
OTHER INFORMATION (GENERAL REMARKS) During my many assignments wh;iP nn
throughout the United States as well as the word I
bring this experience to the council .
BOARDS OR COMMITTEES INTERESTED IN Neighborhood Planning Organization or 'the Tigard
__Parks Xrslt7on: inard-------------------------------------------------------
i
Date Received at City Hallhf
� _ Date Interviewed
Date Appointed Board or Committee
INSIDE CITY OUTSIDE CITY _, __
SUBDTViSLO ! ACREENE-NCC
THIS AGREEKENT dated the __2h-Cday of Nnvemher 19 82 betaeez ch
CITY OF TICA-RD, a municipality of Oregon, hereinafter termed the "City", and
Century 21 Homes, Inc.
hereinafter termed "Petitioner".
+d I T N E S S E T H
VVEREAS, Petitioner has applied to the City for approval for filing in WashiogtoQ
County, a subdivision plat known as
Cambridge Square (Phase I - Lots #1-6)
located in Section
-Willamette Meridian, Washington. County, Oregon; and.
WHEREAS; t_ze City of Tigard Subdivision Ordinance requires the subdivider to
insLatil streets, sidewalks, street lights, 'storm sewers, sanitary sewers, underground
utilities and other public facilities for the development and requires the payment of
fees; -and
,WHEREAS, the City has approved and adopted the standard specifications for Public
Works construction by APWA Oregon. Chapter and the Unified Sewerage specifications' for the
sanitary sewers prepared by professional engineers for subdivision development; and
WHEREAS, the public improvements required to be constructed or placed in petitioner
evelopment are incomplete, but petitioner has nonetheless requested the City to pe•rmic
=ogresslve occupancy and use of property in the subdivision, and the parties desire
nereby to protect the'public interest generally and prospective purchasers of lots in
said subdivision by legally enforceable assurances that the public improvements will be
installed as required and completed within the time hereinafter set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and the covenants and-
agreetler is to be kept and performed by the Petitioner and its sureties, IT IS'REREE:
AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
(1) Petitioner shall proceed with the development, with the intent and purpose to
complete all public improvements except sidewalks and street trees of said subdivision
not later than two (2) years from the date of this agreement, and Petitioner is hereby
bound to comply with all subdivision standards as set forth in said Subdivision Ordinance
and the standard specification adopted by the City of Tigard, or as may be otharwise
approved by the Public Works Department and to use only such material and to follo.7 such
designs as may be required to conform thereto.
(2) To assure compliance with the Cry's requirements and the provisions hereof,
Petitioner tenders herewith to the City a surety.bond in form approved by the City, with
liability in the amount of $ 27,690.00 a copy whereof is hereto attached and by
this reference Cade a part hereof.
(3) In the event that Petitioner shall fail, neglect or refuse to proceed with
e worK in an orderly and progressive manner to assure comoletion within the tioie limits,
on ten (10 days' notice by the City to Petitioner and Petitioner's sureties, and such
default and failure to proceed continuing thereafter, the City may at its' option proceed
to have the work completed and charge the costs thereof against Petitioner and Pet_=ioner's
sureties and in the event same be not paid, to bring an actio- on the said bond to recover
ion be brought, petitioner and petitioner's
the amount thereof. In ttie event such act
ureties promise and agree to pay, in addition to the amounts accruing and allowable ,
=ch sum as the court shall adjudge reasonable as attorney's fees and costs incurred
the City, both in the Trial Court and Appellate Court, if any, or the City may,
at its option, bring proceedings to enforce against the Petitioner and/or Petitioner's
sureties specific performance of the contract and compliance with the subdivision
standards and ordinances of the City of Tigard, and in such event, in like manner, the
City shall be entitled to recover such sum as the court shall adjudge reasonable as
and for the City's attorney's fees and costs, both in the Trial Court and Appellate
Court, if aay.
(4) Partitioner, concurrent with the execution hereof, has deposited with the
City an amount estimated to equal rental and maintenance fees with respect to the street
lighting facilities within the subdivision, according to Portland General Electric
Schedule #91, Option "B", together with a further sum equal to the estimated cost
of providing electrical energy to energize the street lighting facilities for a period
of two (2) years from the date of initial energizing of said lights. Said amount
being $ 88.80
(S) The City agrees to make and provide periodic and final inspections which in
the City's interest are desirable to assure compliance herewith, in consideration
whereof the petitioner has paid prescribed inspection fees.*
(6) The City agrees to install street identification and traffic signs within
the said subdivision, in considerarion of payment in the amount of $ 136.85
(7) At such time as all public improvements except sidewalks and street trees
_chin the subdivision have been completed in accordance with the City's requirements,
itioner shall notify the City of the readiness for inspection and upon certification•
by the Department of Public Works that the requirements of the City have been met,
the petitioner will submit to the City a good and sufficient maintenance bond if not
already provided with the performance bond form approved by the City, in the sum of
$ 5,53_8.00 to provide for correction of any defective work or maintenance becoming
apparent or arising 'within one (1) year after tentative acceptance of the public
improvements by the City.
Upon receipt of certification by the Department of Public Works, that all
requirements have been met, and a One Year Maintenance Bond, the City Council agrees
to tentatively accept the public improvements subject to the requirements for correction
of deficiencies and maintenance for a period of one year as hereinabove set forth.
(8) That in addition to or supplementary of the requirements of the City's Sub-
division Ordinance and the provisions hereof, Petitioner binds itself to conform to
the following requirements, scheduling and limitations:
(a) None of the lots of petitioner's subdivision as described may be
occupied for residential purposes until an occupancy permit is issued under authority
of the City and no occupancy permit shall be issued prior to the acceptance of the
subdivision and to the time that the sidewalk paralleling the street for each developed
lot proposed to be occupied, is installed as a part of the development; provided that
all sidewalks as required by the plans and subdivision code shall 'be installed throughout
'.d subdivision not later than 3 years from the date of this Subdivision Improvement
t -itract.
*Project Fee $ 874-00
Sewer Fee $ 100.00
-2-
IME
ae' ♦ 11t. f e- ;� j1 { tj; {,�+.t'�' , s_i 1. .� { __ i-� �'' in.IR
j
s>r r
..z.• �i3`y > `(b) ,A11::1'andscap n&,!- s 'on that.. portion:.:of each lot between" the pu 7.41
3
va7�ks. a� S�.r�Agired,-shall- be planted and=�in place Praia ,�,i- _•�
final"irisgection`and issuance' of,- occupancy permit for.each such "lout in,=the sub= 's
n_,rision.= -.1provided ithat :fix:al inspection-"and" applicant--for-occupancy:permit occurs?z�^. r�
ithin.zny{calendar mon €rom.October to<April.:of'.any year,':such=:plantings; may be `
.t
eferred:=until the next:; fol�owing�gsoaing-.sea cn.=- Intany.•event, :a11-Iandgcaping 'andIn
'•trees an;-a1Lareas "ahall be planted,�and.-in place within :theentire subdivision withi$r 'rA
' thsee:=(3)',,years £rom-:the.£,date o.f:,th4 zsut'division i�proVementx;contract
.� _ ,, t
Afperitentative -City acceptance o£ thewpixblic-improvements thee` a �
peeitloner agrees eo place"a• one,�;(1)�Auch� asphaltic concrete_Class °tC""'�veilay oa Ai
�:_...... 1 ,
=roads within that"de�ielopme n tm;.p laceuiait scheduling'to be. pp�oved liy•t a qty.
• '. ."_ „�:1: rte_ J �"' .: '-. _. .. f ... •' ... .' Y`�•... t
(d) .:;Compliaace.withal •-terms-and provisions specified.`.thereto£or said.=. L
subdivision development-by;*the Council'�and=the Planniug .Commission of. the=,City
Tigard, Oregons a�nregard to variaace's`_:a11 wed from the.subdivision- ordinance, con-
i
ditions specified-by the zone use classification and,`.also, on.-the approved plat(s)
and plan(s).
(e).: Petitioner' agrees -to provide for correction of any .defective work
and/or 'ma, becomiag-,appareat or arising during=the- givarautee-period as here
inabove set forth. T
(9) At such time-as allr..publi.c- improvements have-been completed in accordance .
with the City's requirements', petitioner shall notify the City of the readiness for-
f.
or-finspection and upon certification by the Department of Public Works that all
r airements of the City have been met, the Council agrees to accept said.-improvements
ff operation and- maintenance responsibilityathere inregard, and release the petitioner's
guarantee bond. t
(10) The parties hereto hereby adopt the form of performance bond, copy whereof +4
is hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, and petitioner agrees to cause
to have said bond executed and filed-with the City concurrently with the execution of
this agreement at or prior to the time this agreement is executed ba'behalf of-the
(11) The specific requirements of Paragraph 9 hereof shall for all_purposes be
included as a part of the obligation secured by the aforsaid performance bond and
the City shall be entitled to recourse thereto in the event of default on the part
of the petitioner with respect to any requirement thereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, petitioner acting by and through its duly authorized under-
signed officers pursuant to resolution of its Board of Directors has caused this
agreement to be executed, and the City acting pursuant to resolutlaof its Council
adopted at a meeting thereof duly and regularly held on the I/ of ,
1981, has caused this agreement to be executed by its' Mayor sndZ_Wcorder.
CENTUR21 �ipM^S;
By: %
By:
THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
By: {
Mayor
By: f
Recorder
-3-
I
Q
ISM ff�WRRF
.ATE Ote'. OREGON ) "
) ss. da of November (1982
Cuunty of Washington ) On this 2nd — Y
'before me .appearedDAVID L. :DRINGDULPH :, arxd
to me'personally
nown, :who, sing- u yiiswnrn-,: L say t. a e,St e.•.Sai nevTn t '`nR1N 1)ULPH
a - .
1s -the . president xdx Acxzickt�eXXRAdA xxxxzxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Ysxf�xeci-i�ncxxxzxxXxxzxxxxxxxxxxx of k �&
the within iiaiiied 'Corporatgon,=.an that^the- sea�•�a fixed to sax instrument is _
the corporate. seai�sof said: �:orporation, and that'- the. said instrument-,was-, _
signed- and sealed=.in•;-behalf- of.'.said Corporation by authority of.: its.,Bard. of
Directors, and . • -1nin PH
acknowledged said instrument- to e the free acts an ee o saa Corporation.
„ ... .. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my--
hand and affixed my official seal the day
and year last above written.
Notary Public for Oregon.
} .�;f•, My Commission expires Qctnhe,r 27. 1986
- e
STATE OF OREGON ) ss.
County of
on this day of , 19_, before me appeared _
and , both to me
personally known who, being duly sworn, did say that he, the said
is the Mayor, and she, the said
is the Recorder of the CITY OF TIGARD, a municipal
corporation and the said and
acknowledged the said instrument to be the free act and deed of said municipal corporation.
IN WITNESS i-MER OF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal,
this day and year in this my certificate first written.
Notary Public for Oregon
My Commission Expires:
LETTER OF COMITIIFNT
(Performance Bond)
We have received from FAR WEST FEDERAI cAVTNrq AND I nAN (lending institution)
a loan commitment in the amount of $ 27. . 690-.00 , to finance the improvements
of a subdivision located in the City of Tigard , said subdivision being commonly
known as Cambridge Square This loan commitment is specifically for con--,
struction purposes for: KXxacxCxxx
(strike- preceeding
inapplicable part) 1) public -streets, including driveways, aprons, sidewalks,
lighting and curbs 2) sanitary and storm sewers 3) domestic water 4) under-
ground telephone and power 4) gas S) landscaping. All such improvements are
to be completed in cogformity with City approved construction plans and the sub-
division compliance agreement thereinregard.
We have agreed that disbursements of the $ Z7,`9o'F9will be made in accord with the
following schedule upon completion of each, or all, item(s) ; but not including the
hold-back described below.
ITEM AMOUNT
Site Preparation/Grading 63 0.00
Concrete Curb 2,230.00
Street (base rock, leveling rock, base A.C.) 02 0.00
Sanitary Sewer & appurtances 5,8 0.00
Storm Sewer & appurtances 2,970-00
Water Line & appurtances 3,Soo.00 Q
Gas Line & appurtances ---
Underground Telephone & Electrical , 2 0.00
Concrete Sidewalk & Driveway Aprons _ , 30-00
Asphalt (street overlay) �,0,0.00
Street Lighting 600.00
Miscellaneous (pathways, landscaping,
mailbox clusters, etc.)
We have entered into a Subdivision Compliance Agreement" whereby we have
agreed to install all improvements in accordance with the requirements of the
City of Tigard and we are hereby authorizing you to hold the above-stated funds
to pay them to us only when the following has been adhered to:
That the City of Tigard has provided certification
acknowledging completion of any or all work pursuant
to the above itemized schedule of improvements.
Pursuant to the above schedule, 20% of the commitment funds (i.e. , $5, 538.00 )
will be held back through the normal one year guarantee period or until final
City Acceptance of the project takes place or until the City is provided with
a separate maintenance bond, effective for said one year period from the date
of Council tentative acceptance of the work, to assure continued freedom from
defects, and maintenance, during the guarantee period.
s
c
Page 2
Letter of Commitment e
2
Concurrent with the final release of these funds, establishment proceedings will
k
be instituted. 'x
It is understood and approved by all parties of concern to this letter of commitment '
that the City of Tigard shall have first claim and priority to the sum of $27, G 9�•�, i 'r
less disbursements approved by the City of Tigard, in the event of any defect(s)/orq
failure(s) to correct such in the construction of the required improvements. }
It is further understood and agreed that the aforsaid priority of claim is
paramount to all parties including the lending institution making the loan and
that the lending institution has covenanted and agreed that the sum of $ 07, 4 90 00
less disbursements approved by the City of Tigard shall be held available to
satisfy any aformentioned claim by the City notwithstanding default on loan by
borrowing party or termination of loan by lending institution.
DATE= Roy mP ber 2. 1982 Sincere
yours,
Presidelnt
Approved and Accepted:
�Fede�ral Savings & Loan CENTURY 21 HOMES, Inc.
b
(Le_ ing ns ution)
BY: Vice President (Attach notary information and
(Title) signature(s) authority)
k
STATE OF OREGON )
ss.
County of Washington ) ;
i
On this 2nd day of November, 1982, personally appeared before me the
above named DAVID L. ORINGDULPH, President of Century 21 Homes, Inc. , and acknow-
ledged the foregoing instrument to be his voluntary act and deed on behalf of
said corporation and by authority of its board of directors. E
1
Notary Public for Oregon
Oregon
My Commission expires: October 27, 1986 k
Page Three
Letter of Commitment
STATE OF OREGON )
MULTNOMAH ) SS.
County of 9&_c0 ggtGR)
On this 3rd day of November 1982 , personally appeared
before me the above named Thomas o Siostrom
who did say that he is the Assistant Vice President
of Far West Federal Savings and Loan, the within named lending institution,
and that said instrument was signed in behalf of said lending institution
by authority of its board of directors and he acknowledged the fore-
going instrument to be the voluntary act and deed of said lending institution.
Notary Public for Pregon
My Commission expires:
My Commission Expires May 12, 1986
1
i
F7
Q�
Approved: L. E. George
MCH:pf
10/5/82
Revised: 10/13/82
Misc. Contracts & Agreements
No. 7749
COOPERATIVE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION FINANCE
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the STATE OF
OREGON, acting by and through its Department of Transportation, Highway
Division, hereinafter referred to as "State"; the CITY OF TIGARD, a munici-
pal corporation of the State of Oregon, acting by and through its City
Officials, hereinafter referred to as "City"; and J. B. BISHOP, a company
authorized to transact business in the State of Oregon, acting by and
through its Company Officers, hereinafter referred to as "Company".
W I T N E S S E T H
t
RECITALS
1. For the purpose of providing an acceptable traffic circulation
pattern on public highways and roads in the vicinity of a proposed com-
mercial development on property owned or controlled by J. B. Bishop, the
State, City and Company plan and propose to install traffic control signal
equipment on the Pacific Highway West at M.P. 9.53 (Company Access), in-
cluding an interconnect system to the existing traffic signal system on the
Pacific Highway West, hereinafter referred to as "project". The instal-
lation will be financed 100 percent by the Company with no expense to the
State or the City.
2. By the authority granted in ORS 487.850, State is authorized to
determine the character or type of traffic control signals to be used and
to place or erect them upon state highways at places where state deems
necessary for the safe and expeditious control of traffic. No traffic con-
trol signals shall be erected or maintained upon any state highway by any
authority other than State, except with its written approval .
3. By the authority granted in ORS 366.425, as amended by Chapter
365, Oregon Laws, 1979, State may accept deposits of money, or an irre-
vocable letter of credit, from any person, firm or corporation for the
performance of work on any public highway within the State. When any money
or a letter of credit is deposited, the State shall proceed with the pro-
ject. Money so deposited shall be disbursed for the purpose of which it
was deposited.
i
I.
c
i
4. By the authority granted in ORS 366.770 and 366.775, the State may
enter into cooperative agreements with the various counties and cities for
the performance of work on certain types of improvement projects with the
allocation of costs on terms and conditions mutually agreeable to the con-
tracting parties.
NOW, THEREFORE, the premises being in general as stated in the fore-
going RECITALS, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows:
STATE OBLIGATIONS
1. State shall , at Company expense, conduct the necessary field sur-
veys and traffic investigations, identify and obtain or issue the required
permits, arrange for relocation or adjustment of any conflicting utility
facilities, perform all preliminary engineering and design work required to
produce plans, specifications and estimates, advertise for bid proposals,
award all contracts and furnish all construction engineering, material
testing, technical inspection and project manager services for admini-
stration of the contract. The traffic signal installation may be accom-
plished by the use of State forces, by contract or by any combination of
these methods, as State shall elect.
2. State shall , upon completion of the project, perform all necessary
maintenance for operation of the traffic signals at no expense to City or
Company, and shall retain complete jurisdiction and control of the timing
established for operation of the traffic signals.
3. State shall , at Company expense, lay out and paint the necessary
lane lines and channeiization, and erect the required directional and
traffic control signing on the Pacific Highway West and the unnamed con-
necting city street at M.". 9.53.
4. State shall compile accurate cost accounting records and furnish
Company with an itemized statement of actual costs to date at the end of
each State fiscal year. When the actual total cost of the project has been
computed, State shall furnish Company with an itemized statement of said
final costs, including preliminary and construction engineering, contractor
payments and all contingency items attributable to the project.
CITY OBLIGATIONS
1. City hereby grants the State the right to enter upon and occupy
city street right-of-way for the performance of necessary maintenance of
the traffic signal equipment, including vehicle detector loops.
2. City shall maintain the asphaltic concrete pavement surrounding
the vehicle detector loops installed in the unnamed city street in such a
manner as to provide adequate protection for said detector loops, and shall
adequately maintain the pavement markings and signing installed in accord
with the plans and specifications.
-2-
i
3. City shall , upon completion of the project, accept all responsi-
bility for, and pay all costs of electrical energy consumed in operation of
the traffic signals.
4. City shall adopt a resolution authorizing its designated City
Officials to enter into and execute this
this agreement, and the same shall be
attached hereto and become a part
COMPANY OBLIGATIONS
1. Company shall , upon execution of this agreement, forward to State
an advance deposit in the amount of $9,500, said amount being equal
100
percent of the estimated total cost of the preliminary engineering a
nd
design work for the project.
2. Company shall , within 20 days following the opening of con-
struction bid proposals, forward to State an advance deposit in the amount
of 100 percent of the estimated total cost for construction of the project.
No contract shall be awarded or work commence until said advance deposit
has tbeen rceived by heecourse of the tproject, the e. In the vState ent hmay at crequest ost radditruns iidentified
additional
� during ng
deposits.
Upon completion of the project and receipt from State of an itemized
statement of the actual total cost of the project, Company shall pay any
amount which, when added to Company's advance deposits, will equal 100
.� percent of the actual total cost of the project, including preliminary and
construction engineering, contractor payments and all contingency items
attributable to the project. Any portion of said advance deposits which is
in excess of the total actual cost will be refunded or released to Company.
3. Company shall provide the necessary right-of-way and easements for
any required roadway widening and for installation and maintenance of the
traffic signal equipment.
-3-
GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. State, City and Company agree and understand that a mutual review
of the plans and estimates will be conducted prior to advertisement for
construction bid proposals.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and
affixed their seals as of the day and year hereinafter written. City has
acted in this matter pursuant to Resolution No. adopted by
its City Council on the day of , 1982.
The Oregon Transportation Commission, by a duly adopted delegation
order, authorized its Chairman or Vice Chairman to act in its behalf in
approving this agreement. Approval was given for this agreement on
by , which
approval is on file in the Commission records. The delegation order also
authorizes the State Highway Engineer to execute the agreement on behalf of
the Commisson.
APPROVAL RECOMMENDED STATE OF OREGON, by and through
its Department of Transportation,
By Highway Division
Region Engineer
By
State Highway Engineer
Date
J. B. BISHOP, by and through CITY OF TIGARD, by and through
its Company Officers its City Officials
By By
Mayor
Title
By
Date City Recorder
-4-
C>Z �
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: WATER STUDY COMMITTEE
DATE: NOVEMBER 12 , 1982
SUBJECT: 90-DAY EXTENSION OF WATER CONTRACT
i
t
i
The Water Study Committee, at its regular meeting of November 10,
1982 , voted unanimously to request that the Tigard City Council
pursue a 90-day extension on the water purchase contract with the
City of Portland.
The Water Study Committee respectfully requests that the Tigard
City Council pass a resolution requesting the 90-day extension
at their meeting of November 15 , 1982 .
As Chairman of the Water Study Committee, I expect to attend the
November 15 , 1982 , City Council meeting, and can then answer any
questions you may have as to the request before you.
� �4:ek
Bruce P. Clark, Chairman
Water Study Committee
BPC: dkr
P
I
E
i
G
r
i
i
MEMORANDUM
TO: TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
FROM: E .T. Walden, Building Official
DATE: November 10 , 1982
SUBJECT: Tigard High School Building Permits
Tigard High School has for the last four years conducted a class
in Home Construction at Tigard High School. They formed a non-
profit organization called Building Construction Careers Inc. and
as part of the program constructed a new home each year.
This has proved to be a great benefit to a number of High School
Students . Last year, the City Council waived the permit and plan
' check fees.
This year the High School has requested this beneift again. They
will pay the sewer hook-up fees and the street and park development
fees, also the plumbing and mechanical permits.
If the Council desires to waive the fees again this year , the staff
would recommend this action.
s
November 10. 1982 g
e
MEMORANDUM
r
TO: City Council
FROM: Doris Hartig. City Recorderu
SUBJECT: Liability Insurance Renewal
Attached are the quotations for Liability Insurance Renewal. It is
recommended to staff to receive and approve the quote from Gulf Insurance
F
Company which is well within the amount budgeted for in the 1982-83 Budget. f
fi
pm 4
i
3
(File 0333A)
r
a
t
e
4
7
i
R
t
1
F
r
S
F
t
t
y�...._ �`�• ata � �{g�" "}���}•s'> }yam• ,N - �' irL.i.�.� ''t �Y,{ � _ }
•� � " i1 � - r ttt J1f' Ij' ` •Vii. 5 �" d� �F f S^Yw�M �J� �`�� J .K. 7C Yt:�'4C •S
,�1' r• Y,,� �' 1 ti (r•� t i �, t ..+- r �rw r ) r- :�r r. � c
r r�Fi 3 .�y z rY,+'�' i,jE.�. ',.;Y. r E�' �"' '.k $ .F-2'rt+ � U �� rL +�i-��•1?�i•ti�r's-� ''".. j .r�. ^� t.a .r rr �:'Ltti. '`� r t-r ,
r_. - r -. .. j.� .�T-y � ..; .1;5•t, -. it y( ( r .J .,fir+' ��• r :.2..�_
'`r f'i�l�Al lwT•��,Xf" "a �} � � t -S :.�ri t. r c11c•Ai � � „y;rh• f }a�,�� '.1 „i, .t, 49'r;
(Jt ,la+�� •Pa,; f
r r�r `L N. � gy'�r�a•.�,;.i
;fit i t"f�'�.. 'T+Zi:'2. -_ i r.F'� � 1�l t .: ="Th-�.�,.{{S -t 4v t �.. > ''°`` i f3 - �t'�a' ��•r' -
J.u•.f�r '' L 1 gy.. 44.��3.,t�.,.. S -1 ` >. J _ � at' �a.
..^ r Q r; r t r - s t �, Y+='C� a r•"� fi^'f t - 1 d` zy
. r ,i 1 X23 ' ' � �,j'�y,. � „fir �Y 1 )- _ ,t 'Ni j.•�' r `� Y� ����pa� �t 7 {r� �� 1 7
a Y
v=t�:
,� �����„�'�/>.ji ),r�(, t3`- ���r� .� r`k'��V�.r� r,. -• .n �:�
)�
y *, t'• 3 '� V• Y J ct lis'
- S •"K '. '1 i t ti x 3 -r�A.-n .. ] �y� 't r s+ +� w'a�
,•' ':f }r- , �v r�. 73' s� S .•5 SFr- ^�;,��"�k .t�Q s.s, � v-� '+' ti .r.. _.c.
3s ct"
`-
`:Y�.'' � F- i+..:`�-. ... � '21�r-._1-L..•_ �,_ ).F.yy. :��j� 4 ��^� ... s ri..��:'6. X„�KaC
QTY OF TIGARD
TIGAM, OREGON
Liability Insurance Prcposal
November 5, 1982 - 1983
Leonard
Adams
Company
11420 S.V"anyon Road
P.O.BO`x AA =' T
„r -� z •8eavgrtoOreg 97005
d P r±l Y t�' .- y C+!•rN _�F.oP3 d +LSU]? 44G ' .r a -•--4 '.—' i-". �r
'� _ 1�.� ! /r.r ��.�1� rt""r• .�. � i� � 4X4 S
y.. 4 �f,�. � s''' ''y P r%•�" _..,• L 3.: � .e��'' � r 3-licb"gq �
• '4l •/ I l 3:° ♦ {• t�" S.A' 4 3 I .� .L c� r 1•:Y i4'1;r:'.� t .�, 1�.i t 3•a ,,y v:^b. i •'"o t
Ala
"'rT 7 J 1 �j: � '.� -:1 s tj: ..� � •S'� tc� ;r ! .k Fy YL �i �..> t � ✓.�' ti1 �4r-/<. 7 �. r.
f. 1,rZ '1•y.� 1.}^. < tc y. k h_. ,ter+ '�i,{z 7 .�. Y ?c i';cArr J � r s.3 •.}.�
� ,�,rl l: r .f ' -• act 4 S r1 � �_�'i 1���t.i! f :, j s.. ` � � Com. fr. i
f- - + +^ r .+,c 'r-7- :.t 'r s L t � t�.s }t �,S'• � jc - r . a
t..ir .. :r'ar Ei�'s"s'°•�t..Ilk r i�i�''� yb .��}h�• c` �'�§ _ 1. -t.s�c• t "r.j.`:F` - 7 �-y. +
MSURANCE Prupa6 L'.: �; o
LIABIII' .-INSURANCE PACKAGE
f 14overcber, 5, 1982 1983
�.�r I 1 '�• J �. 1.RY I 1 6 _7 � M' .. 5 S ` i Y
t
Quotation Frau League of Oregon Cities
- General Liability Insurances
-T
Limit-OCE L. 3-ability $100,000 Bodily Injury per person
300,000 Per occurrence
50,000 Property Damage Per occurrence
Coverage: Premises & operations liability
f Products & carpleted operations
False Arrest
Errors & omissions
Civil Rights
Ccntractual
Autcmobile Liability Insurance
Limit of Liability $100,000 Bodily Injury per person
300,000 per occurrence
50,000 Property Damage per occurrence
Coverage owned and-nonowned autrn'ObileS�- � •._
�., ysical-damage on vehiclesa
s•
Ltnbrella'�..�_aYiility .-
Limit of Liability $1,000,000
Annual. Premium,
$20,954.72.
League of Oregon-Cities y
Administrative Fee 208.89
$21,163.61
".el
PF:;
Elm
RE-
M zA K
39; RJCW7qWx--- ff-W rs"'k-
All
MERWI W
R -k AWN,
,gm - 0
-Q..�71
7�ve• Ny
A �?R
`;MliM
�
"F'n isi ON I
ir —--1.5- -*-
i -, , --'s tpn,
�..�iawd
-3/Um
=214-9 1P
� S
31------,
'ar
-7v
EVA
a. z
rr
llm-�i 0�.
iia o
V.
MWIF-RA
..I
Zoe
• Die
.�rr
C.iT:iTLS AUDIT FOR CITY of TIG%RD-----October 25, 1982
AVIO LOSSES - - -- —
YrE or TOSS CLAIMANT DESCRIPTION NADUNr PAID OC'I.N- 'TCr.;:n
L2-1-75 Michele Manasse clmt rearended insured none cl.osesl %-1/0 p. y
—2-11-76 ? insured backed into #2 $30.00 closed.
,f- 4-7-76 insurt�d right door glass broken $31.75 cloy xl
C 3-31-76 ? insured made u turn hit $1,962.03-PD closed
#2 $ 592.40-Coll
8-24-76 insured unknown kicked dent in $69.60 closed
police car
11-3-76 1tinrnie Holmes #2 made left turn in front $293.50 closed
of insured
11-2-76 insured bicycle tore seat when $15.00 closed
officer put in back seat
11-2-76 insured suspect kicked door $47.75 closed
11-15-76 Dorothy Moxley ? none closed w/o pay
12-9-76 insured officer hit black ice, $2,349.62 closed
hit bridge railing
1-21-77 Grace Winegarden insured turned left in $1,228.11-Coll closed
front of #2 $3,008.11-APD
$111500.00-BI
11-2-77 Vance Hoyt pedestrian hit by insured none closed w10 pa
6-13-78 insured insured slid on pavement $535.29-coli closed
$623.49-PD
8-20-78 William McCauley #2 made left turn in $573.90-0011 closed
front of insured 80% subro recovery
8-16-78 Parry Anderson insured backed into #2 $124.80-PD closed
8-24-;, S Anna Frank insured backed into #2 $357.06-PD closed
parked car
10-31-78 Steven Graham insured backed into #2 $138.08 closed
parked car
10-4-79 Wakehouse Motors insured on emergency- $2,981.29 closed
#2 failed to yeild
3-8-80 insured insured slid on wet $2,557.34-Coll closed
pavement-hit embankment
-13-80 insured varr3alism to insured $118.00 closed
auto
5-18-80 Edwin Greer insured ran red light $804.00-Coll closed
C hit #2 $2,418.95-PD
7-80 insured vandalism to insured $1,478.00 closed
auto
8-29-80 A.J. Wedding insured rearended #2 $139.20-PD closed
4-8-81 Darryl Kennedy insured rearended #2 $131.95-PD closed
11-5-81 Bev Lawlor insured backed into #2 $167.35-PD closed
10-11-81 insured #2 failed to yeild-hit $1,148.49-Coll closed
insured 100 : subrr. recovery
Cl-kUmS ,'LMIT FOR CITY OF TIGARD---------October 25, 1982 cont.
AUTO LOSSES
DATE OF LOSS CLFLTMAJiT DFSCRIPTION nr✓O MP PAID nt,t ;_(•i,'?='l
11-4-81 insured #2 failed to yeild $3,267.66-C,oll clos-ed
li-14-8= inic;uryd insured hit fallF.n $1,150.81-Co].1
tree
1-3-82 James Prouty #2 failed co stop none clo:�;Od v:/o Ik1y
hit insured
4-1-82
insured #2 slid into insured none closed %:l/o !:,,ay
parked car
1-14-82 John Welter insured hit #2 parked $135.00-PD closed
car
L
CLAM-IS AUDIT FOR CITY OF TIGARD,---------Jt.ber 25, 1982
FALSE ARREST CLAIMS
i-J-)35 f DESCaIPTTon 0�
5-14-77 Joseph Derl-ley false arrest none closed vi/o pay i
19-80 1:,Iyrz-ond Beasley false arrdst $350.00-DI cl-.,
$202.00 expense
12-13-78 Patricia Berrier false arrest $129.00 expense closed w/o pay
3-18-80 Patrick Edwards cimt alleges injuries none closed w/o pa
due to handcuffs
6-9-80 Linda HurlbUtt c1mt alleges mistreatment none closed %-J/0 L-Y
by officers
8-31-80 Larry Allison false arrest none closed w/0 pay
9-12-80 Michael Schrreck cimt alleges slander $593.78 expense closed v7lo paj
by officer
11-4-81 Michael B. Rush false arrest $750.00-rI closed
C12-28-81 Robert Lynn Anderson clmt alleges injury none closed %.710
paj
due to arrest
CU1,L-S'I�CJDI;i FOR CITY OF TIGARD--------0ctobPY 25 1982
PROPERTY LOSSES
11-28-79 fire damage to sewer plant bldg $3,187.61.
9-10-82 water pipe broke in ceiling- none clo-sCd
damaged contents
DEC 1 19$2
November 2, 1932 UL lr ; : �
Mr. Brian Dooney
Leonard Adams Company
P.O. Box AA
Beaverton, Oregon 97075
Subject: City of Tigard -
Dear Brian:
This fol l ovis up on the request that I had from Bob Jean and yourself
to elaborate on some points that were brought up for questioning :
lurt Liability - Anti Trust Liability All that I can say in col ,-tent
on ttlisiss tTiat we ave e en e nt! Trust suits, for the same county
where Tigard is located. It is munderstanding that this is done on themy
basis of our policy language which under Tort coverage (E & 0) says
and the company shall have the duty to defend any suit against seeking
damages on account of breach of duty, even if any of the allegations of
the suit are groundless"-
Tort
roundless".T ort Liability. On the policy and the renewal policy there is a
form called GL-23 which enumerates the Tort coverage, as well as the
reference to tine Federal Acts that are included in our coverage.
Puolic Officials Liability Insurance. In looking over the presenta-
tion that came rom tie nternationa City Management Association , I
noticed that this is tiie old "public officials liability" coverage that
has been available in this state from such sources as International
Surplus Lines Insurance Company; Transit Casualty through Bayly Martin
and Fay (International Association of Chiefs of Police); the Republic
Insurance Croup; Unimark - McDonald's, Inc. of Dallas, Texas (the old
ICMA deal ) and other Association sources. This incidentally is an officials
policy, just by itself, and there is no other coverage included in the
policy. So, a comprehensive policy would still have to be carried else-
where and this spreading of coverages over different carriers is perilous.
Most of these policies are on a claims-made basis , while our form gives.
an extra 24 months discovery period after termination. It is based on
the "wrongful act" form, nfi i ch you will find on our policy too. Very
often these policies exclude boards of utilities, which might leave the
water department of the City of Tigard up in the air. It gives $1 million
dollars worth of coverage while in Oregon the City is only liable for
$300,000. All the coverages that this policy would dive are already
included in the PS policy that Tigard has now, for it' s officials , directors,
employees, etc.
g
AOX
x
Faye 2
Mr. Brian P.00ney
November 2, 19112
f:
Attorney's Fees. As I indicated during our lunch, we now have an
extension avallable on the PS policy which would give attorney's fees
coverage, if the city Is sued in an action that does not involve "damages" .
The cases that come imnediaL-ely to mind would be actions such as inJunc-
tive relief or declaratory judgment. If there is interest in this feature,
we will be glad to quote this addition.
4
Hope that this will answer your questions.
_ s
Sincerely,
J.G. NEhfMAN CO. �
Charles de Greef
3
CG:jh
. T
Mimii
f
4
}
1
t
#'e
7
t
S
3
{
I
November 12, 1982
He MO DUM
TO: Mayor & City Council
FROM: Joy Martin
SUBJECT: T.U.R.A. Advisory Committee Report
Six members, one staff member and one guest met on November 10, 1982. The
following points are from the major discussion:
1. Members should encourage people to volunteer to serve on the
committee since new appointments need to be made.
The majority of the members present expressed a strong belief
in the need to improve the downtown area for future economic
growth. The negative attitudes are often due to
misunderstanding tax increment financing, not realizing the
plan is a limited plan controlling urban renewal, and without
improvements the cost will be greater in the long term for all
of Tigard. with tax increment financing, the cost is at a
minimum, and the benefits are much greater. The committee
needs TURA•s support.
3. The tax increment financing official city poll was discussed
again, the Committee feels Council should believe this is the
best thing for Tigard and should therefore support it.
JM:ch
1
.t
E
i
r� !
ti c
i
E
t
November 10, 1982
MEMORANDUM #
a
TO: City Council
FROM; Doris tlartig. City Recorder
SUBJECT: Ordinance Regarding Fire Code Ameadment for Washington County Fire
t
District ail
i
The attached Ordinance regarding Fire Code Amendment for Washington County F
Sullivan and Ed Walden and is presented to
Fire District #1 was reviewed by Ed
you for adoption.
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance Regarding Fire Code Amendment for
Washington County Fire District #1.
Pm
(File 0333A)
T
November 9. 1982
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Administrator
FROM: Chief of Police
SUBJECT: Ordinances scheduled for City Council Consideration
November 15, 1982.
Be: (1) Agenda Item G: Dob Control Ordinance Amendment
(2) Agenda Item 7: Antique Dealers, Secondhand Dealers, Scrap Metal
Dealers, and Precious Metal and Gem Dealers
Sir:
Request the above two agenda items be withdrawn at the time due to the
following:
• Washiagton County Council will be amending their Dog Control Ordinance in
the near future. Their ordinance is the same as the City's ordinance at
this time; therefore, it is not timely to mate the changes I have
recommended, until the County ordinance is amended.
e There is a conflict between the Antique. Secondhand, Scrap Metal, and
Precious Metals and Gem Dealers ordinance and a companion ordinance that
addressed Transient Merchants to be recommended at a later date. There is
considerable overlap and an inconsistent fee schedule between the two
ordinances. In review of these issues with the City Attorney it is felt
that the two ordinances can be combined and resolve the problems mentioned
above.
I hope to have these ordinances in order and rescheduled -or December 20, 1982.
Respectfully,
�R. �Adamsea_ ,t
Chief of Police
pa
cc: City Attorney
November 9, 1982
MEMORANDUM
TO: Members of the City Council
FROM: William A. Monahan, Director of Planning & Development
RE: Appeal of S-4-82, 2C-12-82 Sunnyside Estates
The Robert Randell Company has filed an appeal on the above named
application denied by the Planning Commission on Sept. 7, 1982. The applicant
requests that the City Council review the decision and remand the decision to
the Planning Commission.
The applicant requested a zone change from R-7 to R-5 Single Family
residential as well as approval of a 25 lot subdivision on 3.89 areas. Staff
recommended denial based on findings that the proposal violates policy 2 of
the adopted NPO #6 Plan and the F, -oposal is not compatible with existing
surrounding land uses.
Attached are the following:
1. A copy of the transcript of the Sept. 7, 1982 Public Hearing
2. Staff Report - Sept. 7, 1982 Planning Commission Meeting
3. Minutes of NPO X66 June 17, 1982 meeting
4. Staff Report - earlier consideration of the proposal when
it was titled Golf Side Estate on February 20, 1982.
5. Site Plan
6. Title of Appeal, October 5, 1982.
ch
Page 1
SUNNYSIDE ESTATES
ZONE CHANGE ZC 12-82
SUBDIVISION S 4-82
President Tepedino: I have the staff report
Associate Planner Newton: This is an application for a zone change from R-7
to R-5 single family and request for approval of a
25 lot subdivision on 3.89 acres. The property is
located south of Sattler and east of 100th in NPO
#6. In 1979, the City Council approved a zone
change from RU4 to R-7 and in 1980 the Planning
Director approved a 15 lot subdivision in the R-7
zoning for the property. The subdivision being
proposed or proposed to staff by the applicant is
shown here. There are 25 lots. The applicant or
the staff reviewed the application with NPO #6,
reviewed the application with other city staff ,
Public Works Director, Building Official and after
a review of the area and the review with the NPO #6
policies, staff feels that this layout does not
suit the character of the area and it violates
Policy 2 of the NPO plan and therefore recommends
denial of the zone change in the subdivision layout.
President Tepedino: OK. Thank you staff. Is there a report from the
NPO please.
Jane Miller: I'm Jane Miller and I live at 10920 S.W. Highland
Drive and I have been asked by the Chairman of NPO
to read the comment. NPO 6 does not support the
zone change from R-7 to R-5. The NPO feels the
zone designation should remain as R-7. Further,
the NPO feels that the flag lots and increased
density does not suit the character of the
neighborhood. The NPO voted unanimously to support
the original subdivision plan for 15 lots approved
on February 20, 1980.
President Tepedino: Thank you Mrs. Miller, I appreciate that.
President Tepedino: Is there a report from the C.C.I.? (no response) .
OK. May I have a report by the applicant please.
Presentation by the applicant.
John Gibbon: Ladies and gentlemen here, my name is John Gibbon,
I am a staff counsel for the Robert Randall Company
and here the proud recipients of the famous or
possibly the infamous and soon to become infamous
Randall diary which we plan to submit to all
Planning Commissions and other bodies at any time.
There's one for each member of the Planning
Commission there at any time we make an application
Page 2
President Tepedino: Mr. Gibbon, let me ask you a question. Is this
just a recapitulation of the historical events?
Mr. Gibbon: It is a recapitulation of the historical events in
the matter of the Gulf side Gulf side subdivision.
President Tepedino: OK because we would not accept any new matter but
since it is a recapitulation it's more than regular
history I guess.
Mr. Gibbon: Yes and I think it's a valid type of item to be for
any group when they consider an application like
this. And I think this one summarized briefly will
a show you that there has been a variety of false
starts and mixed signals that have come from uh
public agencies and the economy and everything else
and the development of this particular piece of
property what it basically boils down to is we come
up with about three different plans based on two
different ways of designing a sewer system for this
particular piece of property. Right at this point
we have a commitment from the Unified Sewage Agency
in the City of Tigard that we can hook into the
Summerfield line located at the southwest corner of
the property and frankly, we're a little bullish on
t
the economy and we'd like to build the subdivision
this fall, if at all possible. Uh. .. I think there
should be a couple things added to this diary just
so we know exactly where we stand. I think under
the listing of fall of 1980 you should note in
September of 1980 bonds were given to the City of
Tigard for the to pay for the subject improvements
for the 15 lot subdivision referred to earlier and
those bonds will expire this month unless they're
expended. Um.. ..and secondly, you should note in
December 30, approximately of 1990 a plaque
notice the Gulf side, that's with a G u, was
recorded at Washington County for this piece of
property and I think if we get nothing else
accomplished here tonight we would like to get the
name changed because I don't know where the nearest
Gulf is but we sure would like to get some changed
bad. Maybe it is the Gulf between us and the
neighbors. I hope not. Um. ... .to go on and
briefly state again. The situation that we're in
is that we have gone s_hrough a long and torturous
process and laying out where we are going to put
our sewer for this particular piece of property.
At one time we intended to hook into the line
that's located in Summerfield as I said to the
r southwest part of the property. Somewhere along
the line, and I frankly don't know why because I
wasn't involved in all of the negotiations, they
Page 3
John Gibbon: decided that that wasn't going to be feasible and
we went out and acquired or thought we had acquired
an easement from the property owner adjoining us
from the east so that we could bring the sewer line
through and hook into an existing sewer in Lakeside
Drive which is to the east of 98th Avenue. When
the economy went sour and the deal didn' t go
together as quickly as we'd like to, the property
owner recinded that transaction. So out of the
last fall we were in the situation of not having
the sewer. At that time it became apparent that
TDC wasn't going to get the Summerfield trunk line
built on the schedule that they had committed to a
number of years ago so we entered into negotiations
with the City and Unified Sewage Agency to acquire
access to that that line and had been told by USA
that there is adequate pumping capacity to handle
the sewage from this particular property at this
time. Uh in the range of 22 to 28 units on that
property. So at this time our plan is to hook into
that sewer line. And with that plan came a
determination that given the market conditions that
have redesigned the subdivision to accommodate
5,000 square foot lot was what our company felt was
best in the market at this time. Uh so we have
gone through a process since then working with the
NPO and other people in developing this site with
our these goals in mind for the Randall Company.
One is to utilize that sewer line. Two we thought
to minimize the use of attached homes or units in
this area. We didn't feel that we really wanted to
have anything but a single family subdivision
here. I suppose you might think that's a little
bit of break with tradition from the Randall
Company but I don't think if you really look at our
record as a subdivision developer as opposed to a
condominium then a harbort(?) developer you would
see that that is really two different we've
used we've developed at a variety of densities.
Uh . .. and. .. .but I think that underlining all the
densities that we've come into and applied for in
the past is the fact that we are looking to develop
urban land to an urban standard and produce good
neighborhoods. Um... I think the third goal that
we had when we came back with this 5,000 square
foot plan was if you're familiar with the
topography of this particular site and because I
was very interested in the property at the time
having at that time I was living on the house
there, we were looking to maximize a solar — the
number of solar lots on that site and it is the
property to what would be the north side of Kable
Road that we analyzed has the right slope facing
Page 4
John Gibbon: south to take advantage of this solar potential and
we would like to see the number of lots increase in
that area. I think that as we went through the
process of 1) analyzing the market and 2) talking
with the neighborhood, we came to the conclusion
that another goal that we should have is to
minimize the use of unimproved flag lots in a
subdivision. Our lot salesman who has done a
tremendous job for us in the last year and sold on
the order of 600 lots has said that he just doesn't
want flag lots that don't have improved driveways
on to try to sell. And so he urged us to look to
plans that layed out and put in as private drives
the flags. Uh. . . . and then finally and then
keeping with our goals to bring things up with to
maximum urban standards we sought to maximize our
lot yield and at the same time we have sought in
our negotiations with both the NPO and with the
staff to look to something that would produce some
good livability for the site. Uh. . . we came up
with the 25 lot plan you have before you but I
think that our body line in this is we need the
flexibility of the R-5 zone change. Because of
considering the other goals that we have and
considering the neighborhood and the configuration
of the site we need that flexibility but we're not
married to that 25 lot plan and have some other
proposals for you tonight and develop working with
staff that we would like you to consider.. . . I
think the main thing we are looking for tonight is
some certainty I mentioned. ? The zone change and
some idea and what everybody is can come to a
concensus as the good number of lots for that site
and then we'll get down to the P's and Q's of
getting a final layout done and getting on with
fulfilling the subdivision. And I'm going to turn
it over now to my planner from Waker & Associates,
Joe Walsh, to give you some more ideas on the
constraints and the other issues that would come
into the foreplanning.
Joe Walsh: As John said, my name is Joe Walsh and the Planning
Director of Waker Associates in Beaverton. And we
have been commissioned to take a look at this
property and redesign it to what we believe is the
neighborhood need and the property owners wishing
itselves. If I can just take a minute I will put
up a couple of examples or that illustrate more
clearly more where the property lies in
relationship to the surrounding neighborhood. If I
can just talk up here for a second, I will try to
Ctalk a little bit louder. Um... this is our plan
right here of the 25 lots and I'll get into where
and how we arrived at that a little bit earlier but
ti
a
y
Page 5
t
Jae Walsh• since I'm up here I'll explain right now. This
shows some possible building site locations as far
as the plan shows itself. Until the named public
street, which is already dedicated, Kable Street,
and can use some improvements to the named
driveway, which in the shaded areas here, here, and
here, to allow for access to our lots on both of
these already areas served. They are they all
have public access to or access to a public road
but improvement is done by the developer in the
shaded area and we _estimate the wide ? be the
driveways to end of ? itself But you have
access to all the lots and apparently weight the
problem with any flag lots ? This does
make my... the utilization of the property yard by
density. Now the plan itself is in an area of
older homes on 10,000 square foot lots which was
platted through the County and the time they were
built on these lots the was the septic tank
limitations back in ? you can see the size. That's
one of the main reasons an that's the only reason.
Since then the property has rather been annexed.
The piece has been in for three or four years or
whatever and we did have a plan 7500 square feet..
square foot lots. Now we bring the sewer and
location down here and built into the site if we
bring it up to here to be extended on f or the
future development that any property that picked up
a hundred ? or wherever the drainage would sewer.
So as we all from one time opened up a little bit
more land to develop in the future. In the
meantime, we're dealing with
(change tape to side 2)
in the near future. The same one ? all serves as
available. Summerfield No. 12 over here is also
4,000 square foot minimum lot. For an area on the
outskirts of this older neighborhood in the area of
developing a new neighborhood, we have a Church
here that constraints us from going south with the
development at all. So we're right at the tail end
of this neighborhood which leaves it the R-5 is the
best suited for a ? this site. Some of the
constraints that we had on this property is 1) the
dedicated road right through the middle of the
property that left the area to the north and the
south side of that street rather difficult to plat
out as 1) an R-7 subdivision and 2) getting public
improvements in there. Um.. . between the two it
takes up to much land lost in street dedication and
C right-of-way to develop the size of any um yield.
So we're looking at this plan that you see up here
as totally designed through the R-5 zoning
designation and through the subdivision ordinance
itself. It meets all the criteria of the
MUM
Page 6
subdivision ordinance under an R-5.
Um.. . the
Joe Walsh:
staff report talks about the incompatibility o* the
surrounding uses and I think I earlier discussed
those about how we feel that we're compatible with
the newer developed area in here and that um we are
just making a better utilization of the remaining
square chunk of land that's left between Sattler
and 100th Ave. and 98th. Uh. ..public improvements,
we would be bringing up the sewer that's fully
serviced with water right now. It would be adding
just about 300 feet of water line. There is a
drainage problem in the southern end of this
property where we would be tying into an existing
storm drainage and alleviating that problem with
the development site. Some concerns that the staff
had when we met with them after we received the
staff report were there weren't really problems
with the zoning itself, it was mainly with the
configuration um of some of our lots that we had um
some lots that were served with our private access
roads of more than two units on the private access
roads. Um. .. . that was the main concern that the
staff had that they had f elt lacked in the R-5
proposal and subdivision. So we went back and
looked at the plan problem but still w ut
d do to
alleviate that p make a viable
project. And what we did was eliminate the
hammerheads uh configurations that the eastern
portion of the property and put in now the plan
we've come up with is to utilize just two lots off
the individual access roads which would be improved
with the subdivision so that we don't have three or
four lots on a private road. We would just have
two fuel lots now and that's the situation that did
drop um three lots from our original proposal of 25
so we would be down to 22 in this. Our average lot \
size in that case would be about` 69,165 square feet
per lot. So we feel that compromise that we have
come from our original approval of 15 lots with
possible duplexes on three of them, um t o at least
ea25
ground units we have kind of hit a happy n
in our terms of developing this property.uUl. • • •
and as John said is the main influence we need to
understand tonight is the R-5 designation on this
site. It allows us the most flexibility um to
design the lots here and still come up with our
yield. One other thing is that when the NPO plan
was uh approved or adopted back I believe it was
around 1975, the City didn't have an R-5 zone at
that time. It's just recently been put into the
ordinance and the R-5 zone is still one of the
single family zones in the City- And I think since
that time this is one element that may have been
IMINEWAMELGR�in M so-Mal
Page 7
Joe Walsh: overlooked in the NPO of not allowing in the
difference in density of the single family uh. . ..
zoning constraints that they have come up with now
where as there, there were going to the R-7 as
being the lowest single family designation. So
with that I think I finish my presentation. If
there is any questions I will be happy to answer
them.
President Tepedino: OK. Thank you sir. I appreciate that. Are there
any parties wishing to speak in favor of this
proposal. Those in favor.
Any parties wishing to speak in opposition. Those
against the proposal.
Bob Maddy: My name is Bob Maddy. I live at 10185 S.W.
Hoodview Drive which is in this one of these older
established areas which this gentleman is making
reference to. But I think what will be probably
pointed out by some of these other homeowners here
tonight, I am going to probably be perhaps be a
little bit repetitious on some of these things but
I think our primary concern in the area is um
simply some of the items that the young lady on the
end here brought out. We got an established
residential area that right now contains on the
average of I'd say 100 to 150 thousand dollar
homes. Some of them probably in the area of 200 to
250 thousand dollars. And I think the concern that
we have as established homeowners is the type of
development that is being proposed for this area.
There is a couple of other things I think that
haven't really been brought out. Uh. . . access into
this area is going to be extremely limited because
there is no dedicated, to my knowledge anyway, no
dedicated roadway other than the partial access
from Kable into the development. The remainder of
the traffic pattern has to come down 100th. Which
is the only access into this particular established
residential area we're making reference to. I
think if nothing else just the increased traffic
pattern is going to be created by homeowners living
in a 22 to 25 unit complex using sole access which
right now is the worst in county road and has not
been repaired for probably oh I'd say four or five
years. There's nothing that the City of Tigard
will do relative to the conditions of this road at
the present time; Beings it is a Washington County
road. Um.. . I think those are some of the primary
concerns, there was another comment brought up
relative to the solar application which kind of
caught my attention. I've been in the con.. . .. in
i
i
AM
i
Page 8
i
F
Bob Maddy: the mechanical contracting for 25 years. The slope
of the particular development has absolutely
nothing to do with any advantage relative to solar E
heating. The only advantage that anything would
have relative to solar would be the lots on the {
southern portion of the development. Everything
else from that point up is going to pretty well
obliverated by the Jason Construction. So that's
all I have.
President Tepedino: Thank you Mr. Maddy. Anyone else wishing to speak
in opposition.
i
Bill Carver: My name is Bill Carver, 10155 S.W. Hoodview Drive.
Uh I would suspect that the majority of the lots,
I live again to the west of this, are substantial
larger to the 10,000 square feet because we are on
septic tank. My lot runs just a little over 17,000
square feet. And I don't care what you call it x
this is an apartment complex. It's flat. It is an i
apartment complex when you get a density this
great. I will reinterate again one of my main
concerns is the road. There is Only one road going
into that area. And right now with the it is in
pretty bad shape. And I would just be wondering if
it the Washington County road who would take care '
of it. It's going to get alot more traffic.
There's alot of cars going up and down that road
today. Uh... . just the picture alot the building r
the location is just really not that big. I just j
can't visualize 25 or 20 lots on a site that size. '
Uh. . . I don't know if I can talk out here, I was
kind of curious to what the value the home value of
these houses would be . . I'm just curious what they
would be selling for. Any idea? I'm kind of
asking. ..
President Tepedino: You will have the opportunity to cross examine.. . .
Bill Carver: OK. Um I had a question about sewers but that was
brought up. Um road design was another question
but that explains it. But those again was my E
concerns that the road accessibility. It's a E
relatively high dense area for a neighborhood that
really is not in its character to what this many
lots in the section of that size. It seems out of
character as the NPO brought this to the attention
that this doesn't meet with their ?
President Tepedino: Thank you Mr. Carver. Other parties wishing to
speak in opposition. Those opposed? Yes sir.
Dave Atkinson: My name is Dave Atkinson. I reside on SW Century
Oak Drive. My position here as an opponent is
i
a
Page 9 {
Dave Atkinson: actually in the form of an inquiry. And I wonder
if I might direct my inquiry to Liz Newton. Liz
this subject hasn't been addressed. But I'm
concerned and several others are most concz!ned if
the City has any future disposition I-an for
Southwest 100th Street. Uh.. . the main reason is
that it would develope a quite a bit of
consternation or is the bit of extended of the
street to be taken care of. Uh. . . . what we are
primarily concerned is that in the distant future
that perhaps some sarpticious manner, some
mysterious manner and all of a sudden have a
petition confronting us. Like moonrising. So
consequently we are interested - Has the City had
any particular disposition in the future on 100th?
i
Associate Planner Newton: Mr. Currie contends is to have 100th be a
cul-de-sac here. He doesn't feel that there is any f
need to connect 100th with Highland Drive. His t
only idea would be to perhaps allow some sort of an !
emergency plain through here. There is public
right-of-way and that would give fire and ambulance
vehicles another way in. But in terms of making _
? improvement to connect this area with this
area, there are no plans to do that. And he would
at the subdivision stage, it is my understanding f
that this to be a cul-de-sac.
Dave Atkinson: Well thank you Liz. Your cooperation in front of
all the public is appreciated
r
President Tepedino: Thank you Mr. Atkinson. Any other parties wishing
to speak in opposition. Yes sir.
i
John Ulwelling: Mr. Chairman, for the record my name is John
Ulwelling and I live at 15165 S.W. 100. I have not
signed up on your list initially. I came with the
idea if the spirit so moved me I would speak. The i
spirit has moved me. I would think because I. . I
live directly across from the project and I agree
with what Mr. Maddy had to say but I also thought
you might want to hear from those homeowners who do
not live in 150 to 250 thousand dollar home.
Uh. .. . We live in an older home that was built
about between 1910 and 1920. And we live on 38,000
square feet. And we're almost part of our house is
directly across the street from the project. Our
neighbors to the north of us right next door have 7 '
acres. So I want to give you the, I want to add to i
what the other previous speakers have already
� . said. This not an area made up of lots of
apartments, condominiums, or what have you. This
is made up of sophisticated homes between 150 and
250 thousand dollars and those other areas that
Page 10
John Ulwelling: have not been developed, places like ours have one
acre land, junior acre, next door neighbor has
seven acres, we both have sheep, so it's a it's an
kind of area the kind of development that I
personally have felt has been incentive to what has
been going on in the neighborhood. And I think the
general feeling, at least to the people I have
talked to before when there was fifteen houses
approved for the development, I have walked that
area many many times trying to figure out how they
are going to put 15 houses in there and I figured
well somebody must know better than I. And when I
saw this 25 houses I said this is enough and I
think some of the neighbors f elt the same way and
decided to come down and share our views with you
this evening. Thank you very much.
President Tepedino: Thank you Mr. Ulwelling. Any other parties wishing
to speak in opposition?
Tom McQuire: Mr. Chairman, my name is Tom McGuire. I live at
9975 S.W. Sattler. First of all by showing the
people here tonight that aren't saying anything, I
think that shows the support in the whole
neighborhood the people that are against this. And
may I use the . . I think originally you know when
this was our semi ? You know, if we
had to have something done down there. But if you
go ahead and approve an R-5 zoning here we have
these end zones blocked right now. Pretty soon
they'd come in an want an R-5 zoning just because
these people could have it like when they do. Then
all the density would be batted up here. So
eventually this thing would be all stopped in with
housing. Uh... I justed wanted to make a point
that pretty soon this would just be a
conglomeration of houses uh everybody trying to
escape up 100th that is right on the corner of
100th and Sattler. It is busy enough right now
with the Hoodview complex and everything else.
Uh. . . once you start bring 25 families up this
street down Sattler uh we'd just have a mess. So
I just wanted to go on record as saying uh letting
you know about that.
President Tepedino: Thank you sir. Any other parties wishing to speak
in opposition. Those opposed.
Steve Davisson: I also do not... . My name is Steve Davisson. I'm
at 15040 S.W. 100th. I'm two `souses above Tom who
spoke a minute ago. We have a parcel of land
within that block - Sattler and 100th and 98th. It
is yet undeveloped. Just above me and across the
Page 11
�. Steve Davisson: street is another parcel of land which is
undeveloped. When we moved into that area, like
these other people have stated, the lot sizes were
large. That's one of the things that we felt gave
our house our home value. Uh... as they say
there're sheep across the street, there's a very
open field in there. Uh. . . if as Tom says this
allowed to go through with a density level less
than it is now, I don't think any of us are happy
with the R-5. But if it goes in even as R-7, that
still more dense that a lot of the lots a lot of
the development that has been done in that area.
And it's just going to set a precedent for the rest
of the builders who are going to go in there.. I
can see um I mean economical advantage or some
place between an advantage and greed in trying cram
that many houses into that small of an area.
Uh. . .Tom mentioned the traffic between 100th and
Sattler. There's no other access to Hoodview
except down 100th and Sattler. There is no
provision made there for multiple ways out of that
area. As Hoodview developed, the traffic on 100th
uh became heavier and heavier and if you put the
traffic from this development plus any future
development in that area, 100th is going to be
very, very heavily trafficed and it's not
adequately maintained. It's also narrow and
there's a very, there's an offset up on the corner
of just above that, on the intersection above
Sattler. Um.. . the intersections are very hard to
see around you know. Pulling onto 98th and Sattler
is taking your life in your hands right now because
you can't see around the corner. And I just don't
feel that added density in that area would be
anything a detriment to us and I don't think it's
going to do anything but bring our property values
down. Thank you.
President Tepedino: Thank you. Any other parties wishing to speak in
opposition? Those against this proposal.
Malcolm Jones: Hello, my name is Malcolm Jones and I reside at
9885 S.W. Sattler. I had list of questions and
subjects that I want to have covered have already
been covered. I just want to go on record that I'm
in agreement with the City and the NPO and the
other opponents. If possible, I don't know what
the procedure is, I would like to ask some
questions.
President Tepedino: OK. We have an opportunity for that in a few
minutes.
Malcolm Jones: Alright keep me in mind.
Page 12
President Tepedino: Any other parties wishing to speak against this
proposal.
Associate Planner Newton: Chairman Tepedino, I have a letter that I would
like to read.
President Tepedino: OK why don't we read for the record this time.
Associate Planner Newton: "City of Tigard, Planning Department. In regard to
your letter on the Hearing of September 3rd, of the
Robert Randall Company, no change request, I have
no objections to the building. However, I would
object if there is a road put in from the property
joining Highland Drive as it would be very close to
my back door in creating traffic noise and all that
would go with it. When I bought this house in
Summerfield, I was under the impression the roadway
would be vacated as it is passed Highland Drive to
the south. I would like to be informed of the
decision as I will not be in town for the meeting.
Sincerely, Noldrum L. Lewis"
President Tepedino: OK Thank you staff. Any other parties wishing to
speak against this proposal. Vote against this.
Thank you. We will now move on to the cross
examination and/or rebuttal. There is a concern or
? several questions. First, for the applicant.
Yes sir.
Bill Carver: Yeh uh. Bill Carver again. Um dollar value of
homes? Anybody ? What these homes would be
selling for?
John Gibbon: We recently had an appraisal on that house that was
there. I guess the appraisal was done on part of
my divorce settlement as a matter of fact. Um. . .
it's
Bill Carver: On that house that's there?
John Gibbon: That house that's there. That house is an
architecturally designed house built by uh. . built
in about 1960. It's designed by a
? free spirit
John Gibbon: Yeh I would say a free spirit. Uh.. Mr. Zake went
on and designed the Portland General Electric
building is more of his recent work. It was
appraised at 78,500 and I would not think that any
houses in that area would go appraised at anything
less than that. If we can keep them single
family. And that's what our goal is.
I
i
Page 13
Bill Carver: What a. . • single level?
John Gibbon: Single and double level on the lots of around 6,000
square feet we are looking at 2 story homes.
Bill Carver: I would hope they would not block my view of the
mountain.
John Gibbon: Well I would ? without a view of the mountain too,
so yes I understand that one.
i
Bill Carver: Um.. . Would all the homes be build at once. Is the
whole development be completed or/as ordered or..
John Gibbon: No the public improvement would be put in,
utilities would be put in each lot and then they p.
would be sold to individual builders. It wouldn't
be any kind of a track homes. It would be custom r
homes.
Bill Carver: Um.. Would Randall Company be responsible for
taking care of that road - 100th coming in there E
now or is the trucks, the caterpiller going to chew 4
it up . . . . . .
}
John Gibbon: The original approval contemplated building a €
half-street on 100th north of Kable, a full-street
improvement to Kable, a full-street improvement
south to the property line on 100th and half-street
on Sattler across the length of the property and we i
have always assumed that those were going to s
continue to be ours ?
i
Bill Carver: And viewing it from here, are those driveways going
out onto 100th.
John Gibbon: Those, Yeh.
Bill Carver: And up on Sattler. Up on top, those are three
driveways.
John Gibbon: Right.
Bill Carver: And did I hear you mention that you had some l
duplexes in mind in there.
t
John Gibbon: Under the original plan three of the lots were t '
large enough, well four of the lots were large [
enough to accommodate duplexes under City°s [
ordinance. Three of them could have been built on,
in fact, the two to the south of uh under the
�. original plan had 20 foot flags out the street so
they were contemplated for duplexes. At this point
what we want to do is single family structures in
this area and no attached homes are planned under
this proposal. Primarily because of our
interaction with the NPO and their concern.
F
Page 14
4
i
�* a
`r Bill Carver: Sewer would be coming down 100th there connecting
in that direction, coming straight on down.
i
Jahn Gibbon: Sewer would go down 100th past the existing
Summerfield development.
Bill Carver: Through that cul-de-sac?
John Gibbon: Through that cul-de-sac and manhole there yes.
Bill Carver: As I say we are all on septic tanks and I don't
want them to get the idea yet the sewer is ready
there.
John Gibbon: No.
Bill Carver: I haven't had to have it pumped yet so we are OK.
That's all I have. Thank you very much. 4
President Tepedino: Are there other questions. E
t
i
? I would like to address my questions to that
gentleman from Beaverton, your planner. This might f
seem rather elementary to you, but can you tell me
what you had in mind when you drew these two little
i
lines down here?
Joe Walsh: That outlines the area of the lots that are 4,000
square feet. Minimum of lot size.
? This is a continuation of 100th.
Joe Walsh: Not contemplated. There is public right-of-way
dedicated south.
You came right down to a ?
Joe Walsh: No, that wasn't. .
Did you have a contemplation in mind when you put
this down?
Joe Walsh: No that comes straight off the Tax Assessors maps.
Just shows the outline of the lots.
You yourself didn't make any predetermined ideas?
Joe Walsh: No, that shows the existing...
especially on 100th street.
( Joe Walsh: Absolutely not. .. . . .... .
This is a field you know. This is a church.
t
Page 15
Joe Walsh: Yes that is a church.
. .... . . .. . . ..?
Joe Walsh: And I watched the soccer players down there for two
years. No we did not intend to extend that
street. We always have assumed it would stop at
the end of the property line.
President Tepedino: OK other questions? Yes {
s
? Was it part of the denial that recommendation from
staff and rep NPO that they did not comply with the
storm drain or was there adequate storm sewer?
Associate Planner Newton: This wasn't a subdivision proposal for this
particular . ..we weren't addressing storm drain.
i
? Has there been any addressing of the water problem
with that property.
John Gibbon: We have under the original subdivision we had plans f
approved for storm drainage off that site going
i
down into the Summerfield lines. And as you know I
having watch me wade out of my distance the last
( two winters there is a storm drainage problem
there. One of the things that we were working on
under this new layout was with us being able to go
to .sewer in Summerfield it's keeping all of our °
utilities in one line coming right to a storm
drainage line serving in the top part of the
property with half-street improvements catching it
coming down where on the east side the existing
house where the neck is. The smaller piece of the
west side the line being east of that coming down
straight down straight through the property making 1
one turn and then coming out through the south end
and down through the Summerfield line. So it would
be fully storm drained. I think at the bottom end
we're looking at a what was it, a 40" pipe, no I
think it was a 36" pipe and the half-street
improvement all away around has some storm drainage
that comes off the hill.
President Tepedino: OK I'll have to take one other quick question and
quick answer. Is there one other question? Close
the public hearing portion on this issue.
Commissions? Commissioner Moen? .
S
Commissioner Moen: I have a couple of questions. Which are mostly for
i
staff. Staff what is the overall in our new
Comprehensive Plan that we are looking at, what is
the planned density for this area?
I
Page 16
Associate Planner Newton: I think it was medium.
Commissioner Owens: Uh Liz? It hasn't been decided yet, we need to get
on the night of the 16th.
Associate Planner Newton: But under a, I think you're talking about staff
proposal.
Commissioner Moen: When the NPO 6 reviewed this, there seemed to be a }
couple of objections Uh. . . Was the main objection
the lot layout or here or the overall density?
Associate Planner Newton: Both.
f
Commissioner Moen: Both, so not only didn't they like the layout, but
the density ? UM. . . that's all I have for right
now. I may have some more comments later.
President Tepedino: Thank you Commissioner Moen. Commissioner Speaker?
Commissioner Speaker: Uh. . . I have a question and three or four
comments. Of staff, if we approve tonight this
zone change to K-5, what further steps does the
developer have to take. I'm thinking particular
will we look at it again as say a subdivision?
( Associate Planner Newton: Under the current administrative procedures, you
will under the administrative procedures, the
subdivision will come before the Planning
Commission.
Commissioner Speaker: OK. Then uh uh the applicant is absolutely correct
when he says I want R-5 to give flexibility. Now
even here his average lot is considerably more than
5,000 square feet and apparently he is already
reworked some of it to a reduced uh the 25 to 22 t
lots. Something like that. But, my point on that
is that the people who are concerned and the
Planning Commission and the staff have another
crack at what will finally be built there.
Associate Planner Newton: Correct.
I
Commissioner Speaker: OK. Uh- ..1 have been sitting on the Planning
Commission for over four years now and quite a few '
of these arguments are uh kind of like a crack
record. Uh.. . I would say this to the objectors
who live in , staff am I correct that this Hoodview
addition on Kable and Hoodview is not in the City.
Associate Planner Newton: It is now.
Page 17
Commissioner Speaker: It is now? Uh Ha. Well, they protest about the
poor roads and don't want any more travel on them,
but they have the opportunity to form an LID to get
roads. And the last time I was up there it was in
the spring, in this Hoodview area and I was kind of
appalled at the lack of street drainage up there.
It seems to me that uh that's something that, it's
apart from this development but, it's something
their eventually going to have to take care of.
Now, another thing when lot 400 which is lies
between this development and SW 98th. Staff
correct me, but I presume SW Kable Street will go
directly to 98th.
Associate Planner Newton: Yes
Commissioner Speaker: OK. So, uh you presently go around, you have to
come out Kable Street whether you live on Hoodview
or Kable or whatever. But you will be able
eventually when development takes place on lot 400,
which is now vacant, and when utilities are
available. Undoubtedly it will not be too long in
development. You will have better access than you
would have even with improved street 100th and SW
Sattler. OK. This is something that has always
bothered me with people who have large lots and
uh. . .Well we bought because it was large lots. But
what they overlook is that this is now, whether
they like it or not, whether anybody likes it or
not, this is now an urban area and really their 1
acre lots or their 7 acres lots are you might say
undeveloped and eventually will be subject to
development. Uh. . I would also like to point out,
that adjoining this Hoodview development is
Summerfield. Uh. .. which I don't think anybody has
to be apologetic for. After all I live there. The
density is actually much greater than R-5. And
also to the east there, where SW Kable Street will
go out; that Lakeside Drive, the lots are smaller
than R-5. OK they bring up a point the density is
not as I stated because of the gulf course. But
that is open space but these residential lots are
actually much less than R-5 even though within that
total development the average land per household
could be greater than R-5. But you people in
Hoodview are looking down on houses on housers that
are on smaller than R-5 lots.
President Tepedino: Do you have any more comments sir?
Commissioner Speaker: I think that's it.
Fl
i
Mnff
I
Page 18
'r
i
President Tepedino: OK. Commissio^er Owens?
Commissioner Owens: I had a que; ion that I think I should have asked
t
it during cross examination. It was . . ... . So I
will just make a comment and you have already
addressed it anyway. That was, my question was
What is uh, I was wondering what the opinion was uh
just the lots in Summerfield, the size of the lots f
in Summerfield, some of the people who spoke, who
were residents of houses on larger lots. I don't F
have any other comments now.
President Tepedino: OK. Thank you Commissioner. Commissioner Christen? 3
Commissioner Christen: Uh the only comment I have to say is one of the z
gentleman was opposed to it because they lived in
an area of 150 to 250 thousand dollar houses and I
don't really think that is a valid argument for you
know people who live in big houses shouldn't look
down on people who live in little houses and if
they are going to build an 80,000 dollar house
below what difference is that going to make to
you.
6
President Tepedino: Thank you sir. Commissioner Bonn?
Commissioner Bonn: Looking at the latest plan, I prefer that than what
was given to us in our packet. I do not E
particularly like flag lots, and I hate to see flag
lots on any development. Although it does look
better than many of them I've seen. Looking at the r
total number of units, under the present R-7 zoning E
that they have, they can put a total of 19 units
based on the 4 duplex lots that are arriving of a
duplex and compared to the R-5 which they show here F
i
of 25 units. So what they are talking about
basically is a six unit increase for this 3.9
something acre site.. . 3.89. The area of course
uh ? two 4,000 square foot lots is a sort of
competition area between large very very large lots
and of course the 4,000 square foot in
Summerfield. I wish there was some way they could
develop this without flag lots, but uh with the
street passed in stone I would say it looks like it
is impossible. {
I
President Tepedino: Thank you sir. Commissioner Edin? i
i
c
i
4
Page 19
A couple
of comments. I think in general Z am in
Commissioner Edin: P
ag:'eement with Commissioner Speaker in terms of the
road. Z think that the ? be it my neighborhood
be forever is eventually property owners are going
to develop. The issue of condition has got to be
addressed. Sooner or later that is going to come.
So I find it hard to say don't develop because it
is going to tear up the road. That's an issue that
has got to be decided on. However, I think there i
is another issue of incompatibility with parts of
the neighborhood, and unfortunately a difficult one
and a real question to all of us is "Where do we
draw the line?" Look at that map that I guess is
over there now. We find some part of it that are
4,000 or 5,000 lots. This would set very well.
This is very compatible with that side of the
neighborhood. If you look atthehe lookher at many You
that
look at the minimum of R-7, you
are 10,000 or larger. The seven o be edevI duly
suspect sooner or later are going
It's not going to take seven acres for ever. But
certainly there are many of them that are 10,000
and that is the compatibility issue that I don't
think is really been addressed very well. I guess
the question that I would like to ask and didn't
get it said during the cross examination anybody
looked at the possibility of perhaps
R-5 be
Kable and R-7 above. Using- Kable as the medium for
helping draw this line between Summerfield on both
sides and keeping the R-7 larger above it. I'd be
far more open to that. It seems to me that there's
kind of a natural break there. That hasn't been
addressed. I think there is an issue against the
From what I look at it I think it's really a. ..
what boils down to an issue of compatibility.
President Tepedino: Thank you Commissioner. Commissioner Moen?
Commissioner Moen: I tend to agree with those comments. I think that
maybe uh now we sit on this Commission uh and hear
these arguments time in and time off and uh for
someone who hasn't been here very often the
condition of the roads uh. . . it certainly ? Po
int
however, it's something that sometimes we don't
have a lot of control over. And I don't think we
can refuse to develop an area because of a road
because the road are going to have to be squared
away sooner or later and hopefully din this some of s the
developer would be involved ng should
Uh however, I think the density issue um. . •
not be made light of. Uh. . we know some members, I
r' know some members of the Commission feel we should
a. It should
that yes Tigard is an urban are
Page 20
Commissioner Moen: develop to the maximum density that you can
really. Uh. .. I don't necessarily agree with
that, I think that uh people that have uh have
homes that are medium density to R density have a
right to have those homes and certainly have a
valid concern as to what kind of home they are
going to go in near. I think we should definitely
take that into account. And I don't think also
make light of the recommendation of NPO 6. We
asked those people uh to put provide us with input
and opinions on developments and I think we should
give them due consideration. Uh I think there is a
density problem here that I'm not so sure was
addressed properly when we had an R-7 zone. Um. . .
and I think it may be unfortunate that uh people
may not express that concern most nicely best
sounding manner regard to value of homes and so on
that they could find the value of homes is now
becoming not so much the respect to the lot size,
whether you have a 10,000 square foot lot or a
5,000 square foot lot um.. that the house is
determine how much the lot's worth . . .. just the
same I think there is a problem in shifting density
and I guess I would have to come down personally
on the side that opposed to this development based
on that and the recommendation of NPO 6.
President Tepedino: Thank you Commissioner. My comments are the change
in the zone I feel the request for that change has
just been not been carried to my satisfaction by
the applicant. I'm not persuaded that we should
change this from R-7 to R-5. The applicant at one
time applied for and was granted an R-7. And uh
in while I can understand the point that may be
relevant in so far as the neighbors having larger
lots and they don't want the neighborhood to go to
hell in a hand basket and all that, I'm not
persuaded that's going to occur either. But the
problem that dealing with is the transition upon
some of the surrounding areas um... where there are
smaller lots even higher density than the pie that
was illustrated here to the areas in Tigard where
there is less dense and fewer homes. And I think
that as far as anything on this Commission we
should look for smooth transitory changes rather
than abrupt changes; like gas stations next to
schools, those kinds of things and we have been
trying to fight that for many years. And I see a
problem here in joint in something like this
application were, it's quite a dense application,
lots of homes. I'm concerned also about the access
for emergency vehicles which is a big problem; Fire
and police. They only have respond during the day
Page 21
President Tepedino: when the sun is out we wouldn't have much of a
problem perhaps, but that's not the case. Where
I'm concerned and I feel that the applicant hasn't
really convinced me that this is in the best
interest of not only the neighborhood and the NPO
and the City and applicant and everybody else that
we ought to change, and I'm not convinced we ought
to make the change.
Every Commissioner has had an opportunity to speak
now. Is there some Commissioner that would like to
make a motion. Commissioner?
Commissioner Owens: Well I didn't really make a comment.
President Tepedino: Oh, I'm sorry. Did I miss you?
Commissioner Owens: No. I just didn' t .. .
President Tepedino: Didn't verbalize.
Commissioner Owens: didn't verbalize when it was my turn very much.
Um. -so I will now without trying to repeat
everybody. Um.. -My I think my general feelings
about the higher density is negative. However,
when I hear and what I say doesn't necessarily mean
that I persuaded in the other direction. But when
I hear the arguments that I've heard tonight and
I've hear lots of times before and I have made
before Planning Commissions myself, before I was on
a Planning Commission, uh makes me want to at least
be an advocate to the other side just because there
is sometimes room for thought on the need and
reality of smaller lots and smaller homes and the
fact that there are smaller lots south of this area
um. .. really does not make it 100% out of place at
all. Um.. . I think that I'm interested in um
Commissioner Eden's proposal of split density and I
don't know if we even want to discuss that tonight
or can't um. . but uh it is not a clear cut issue
one way or the other. A difficult one to decide on.
President Tepedino: Thank you Commissioner. Any other comments from
the Commissioners before I ask for a motion?
Commissioner Bonn?
Commissioner Bonn: OK. I make a motion based on information submitted
by the applicant, the applicable NPO, policies and
staff investigations, I recommend that we vote
denial of Zone Change 12-82 and Subdivision 4-82.
�=� President Tepedino: OK. Motion made.
f
Page 22
Commissioner Speaker: Mr. Bonn, are we voting on the subdivision too.
Commissioner Bonn: Yes
Commissioner Edin or Commissioner Christen: Second
President Tepedino: Motion made for denial based on staff findings and
recommendations and the evidence
4
l
i
® t
S
i
f
i
i
f
f
i
4
�F
(tFC
i.
MEN IMM
ITEM 5.4
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 5.4
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 7, 1982 - 7:30 P.M.
FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL - LECTURE ROOM
10865 S.W. Walnut Tigard, Oregon
A. GENERAL FACTS
CASE: ZC 12-82 Zone Change Sunnyside Estates NPO # 6
S 4-82 Subdivis=.,n
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a zone change from R-7 to R-5 Single
Family residential and approval of a 25 lot subdivision on 3.89
acres.
RECOMMENDATION: Based on information submitted by the applicant, applicable
NPO goals and policies and staff's field investigation,
staff recommends denial of ZC 12-82 and S 4-82.
APPLICANT: Robert Randall Co. OWNER: Same
9500 S.W. Barbur Blvd. S-300
Portland, Oregon 97219
SITE LOCATION: 15280 S.W. 100th Avenue (Washington County Tax Map 2S1 11CA
lot 900) i
( LOT AREA: 3.89 acres !
NPO COMMENT: NPO # 6 does not support the zone change from R-7 to R-5.
The NPO feels that the zone designation should remain as R-7.
Further, the NPO feels that the flag lots and increased density
do not suit the character of the neighborhood. The NPO voted
to support the original subdivision plan for 15 lots approved
on Febru2 � 20, 1980.
BACKGROUND: On June 25, 1979, the Tigard City Council approved a zone change
from Washington County RU 4 to City of Tigard R-7 with conditions
(ZC 12-79).
On February 20, 1980, the Planning Director approved a 15 lot
subdivision at the R-7 density with conditions. (See attached
S-5-79 staff report.)
AREA CHARACTERISTICS: The surrounding area has been developed primarily as
single family residential. The Church of Latter Day
Saints lies directly to the south. The lots to the
west and north are developed to the R-10 density. The
property to the east is vacant.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS: There is an existing house and garage' on the site which
will remain as a part of the new subdivision. The site
slopes to the south and is grass covered. There are
a few trees on the northern portion of the site.
i
STAFF REPORT ITEM 5.4
ZC 12-82 & S 4-82
Page 2
B. APPLICABLE PLANNING CRITERIA AND STAFF ANALYSIS
1. LCDC GOALS AND GUIDELINES
a. Citizen Involvement - The purpose of this goal is to provide
the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all aspects of
the planning process. In the case of this application, all
owners of record within 250 feet received notice of the time
and date of the public hearing on this matter. In addition,
a public notice was published in the Tigard Times on August
26, 1982.
b. Land Use Planning - All applicable LCDC Statewide Goals and
Guidelines, NPO # 6 Plan Policies and City of Tigard Municipal
Code provisions were considered in review of this application.
C. Housing - The purpose of this goal is to ensure affordable
housing and a_ wide variety of housing types for the citizens
of the state. • The subdivision proposed by the applicant offers
single family dwellings on small lots which may reduce housing
costs.
d. Public Facilities - The purpose of this goal is to ensure that
public facilities to the site are adequate. Sewer is available
from an 8" line south of the site at Highland Drive and S.W. 100th. !
There is a 6" water line in S.W. 100th and an 8" water line in S.W.
Sattler. There was no' storm drain plan submitted with the preliminary t
plan_. Fire hydrant locatipns were not indicated on the preliminary
plan. There was no response included in the application from the
Tigard School District indicating available space in schools to
serve future residents of the subdivision.
t
F
2. NPO # 6 POLICIES
y
f
Policy 2. The maximum overall density of development will be four
dwelling units or 12 persons per gross acre. This amounts to a standard
of 7500 square feet of land per dwelling unit allowing for streets and
other open space. Some areas will have a lower density owing to topography,
existing development patterns, or the desire of individuals to own a
larger lot.
Policy 3. Residential subdivisions will be developed with paved streets,
curbs and gutters, street lights, and walkways, according to city or
county standards. All utilities will be placed underground.
Policy 4. Development will coincide with the provision of public streets,
water and sewerage facilities. These facilities shall be (a) capable of
adequately serving all intervening properties as well as the proposed
development, and (b) designed to meet city or county standards.
r
i
t
STAFF REPORT ITEM 5.4
ZC 12-82 & S 4-82
� Page 3
Policy 5. Planned unit development will be encouraged on tracts large
enough to accommodate ten or more dwellings. Planned unit development
will permit a degree of flexibility in design that will enable a higher
quality of development in accordance with zoning standards.
Policy 6. The single family character of the area designated on the
plan map as urban low-density residential is viewed as a positive asset
to be retained. Projects proposed for this area must be judged according
to affects upon this character.
The density of the proposed subdivison exceeds the maximum recommended in the
NPO # 6 Plan but retains the single family land use. Public facilities and
services are available to serve the site. The applicant has not requested
the PD designation.
3. TIGARD MUNICIPAL'CODE PROVISIONS
17.16.100 Tentative approval.
(a) Within sixty days of the date of sumission of the preliminary plat,
the Planning Commission will review the plan reports of the agencies listed
in Section 17.16.090 and may give tentative approval of the preliminary
plat as submitted or may modify the plat or, if disapproved, shall express 1
the Planning Commission's disapproval and reasons therefor.
(b) No tentative plan for a proposed subdivision and no tentative plan
for a major partition shall be approved unless:
(1) Streets and roads are laid out so as to conform to the plats of
subdivisions or maps of major partition already approved for adjoining
property as to width, general direction and in all other respects,
unless the City determines it to be in the public interest to modify
the street or road pattern.
(l) Streets and road held for private use are clearly indicated on
the tentative plan and all reservations or restrictions relating to
such private roads and streets are set forth thereon.
(3) The tentative plan complies with the comprehensive plan and
applicable zoning regulations of the City then in effect.
i
(4) No tentative plat of a subdivision or map of a major partition
shall be approved unless there will exist adequate quantity and
quality of water and an adequate sewage disposal system to support
the proposed use of the land described in the proposed plat.
fit. STAFF ANALYSIS
After reviewing the proposed plat and making a field investigation staff
concurs with NPO # 6 that the proposed R-5 density is incompatible with
surrounding land uses. Further, staff feels that the lot configuration
and acesses proposed in the original proposal (S 5-79) makes better us
of the property.
y
STAFF REPORT ITEM 5.4
ZC 12-82 & S 4-82
Page 4
5. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of ZC 12-82 and S 4-82 based on findings as
follows:
I. The proposal violates policy 2 of the adopted NPO # 6 Plan.
2. The proposel is not compatible with existing surrounding land uses.
PR RED BY: Eli a eth A. Newton APPROVED BY: William A. Monahan
Associate Planner Director of Planning and
Development
MINUTES
NPO #6 -- JUNE 17, 1982
1 . ) The meeting was called to order at 7: 39 p.m. tt
2. ) Roll Call K
NPO #6 Members: Phil Pasteris (Chairman) , Don Quinn
John Arrigoni, Jane Miller, William Frederick,
Marge Davenport
Guests: Bob Bledsoe (NPO #3) , John Gibbon (NPO #6
member - Randall Co. ) , Mike Man (NPO #6 !
member) , Loretta Allen, Mike Sheppard.
City Staff: Jeremy Coursolle
3. ) Approval of Previous Minutes
-- Approved as written
4. ) (Golf Side Estates
-- John Gi on representing the Randall Company presented
three 4_te designs.
* Plan A aas presented to NPO #6 April 15, 1982, and showed
20 dei---loped lots
* Plan B was new and showed 25 developed lots. This was a
variation of Plan A clustering flag lots.
* Plan C reconfigured Kable Street to a "T" and provided
25 developed lots.
The NPO reviewed these designs and indicated the flag lots and
increased density did not fit the character of the neighbor-
hood. The NPO then reviewed the approved plat for that area.
It was noted that the approved plat was significantly.
different than Plan A. The main difference was the orientation
of the flag on lot 11.
The following resolution was unanimously passed.
NPO #6 favors the original approved plot of 15 lots with the
potential of three duplexes making a possible maximum of 18
dwellings. This will be presented at appropriate Planning
Commission hearing.
5. ) Review of Annexation Policy Report
Jeremy Coursolle reviewed the report and said that the City
would now emphasize the annexation of some "bits and pieces"
of land vs an old ploxy of "large area" annexation. Also,
the City will not approve extension of USA lines beyond City
limits unless annexation applications have been filed.
t
Continued. . .
iJ
f
Dim
STAFF REPORT
FINAL ACTION
TIGARD PLANNING DEPARTI•ff-;NT
Tigard City Hall
12420 SW Main St-, Tigard
February 20, 1980
DOCKET: SUBDIVISION, S 5-79 (Golf Side Estates, P_ef. ZC 12-79)
APPLICANT: ROBERT RANDALL COMPANY OWNER: SAME
9500 SW Barbur Blvd.
Portland, Oregon 97219
CONTACT: DON DRAKE, PROJECT 14ANAGER
9500 SW Barbur Blvd.
Portland, Oregon 97219
APPLICATION
DATE: January 23, 1980 QJ� •
i
SITE i
LOCATION: 15280 SF 100th, southeast corner o£ attr-an0th (Wash_
Co_ Tax Map 2S1 Z1CA, Tax Lot 900) t
REQUEST: To create a fifteen (15) lot subdivision on a 3.89 acre parcel
in an R-7 Zone, "Single Family Residential". !
SITE `
DESIGNATION: The site is presently zoned R-7 and is designated R-7 "Single
Family Residential" on the Comprehensive Plan. '{{
t
PREVIOUS
ACTION: - A request by the applicant for a zone map amendment from !!
Washington County RU-4 to City of Tigard R-7 on the subject
site was approved by the Tigard City Council, June 25, 1979,
with conditions_ (ZC 12-79) ,
A request by the applicant for approval of a subdivision
preliminary plat on the subject site was tabled by the Tigard
Planning Department in June 1979, until a sewer easement to
SW 98th could be acquired through the adjoining lot to the
6
east, Tax Lot 1100. (S 5-79)
I. FINDINGS OF FACT:
t
1. The applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval in accordance with k
Section 17.05 of the Tigard Municipal Code to subdivide a 3.89 acre
parcel into fifteen (15) lots with a minimum lot size of 7,500 square
feet, four (4) dwelling units per gross acre.
STAFF REPORT
FINAL ACTION
TIGARD PLANNING DEPARTMENT -
February 20, 1980
Page 2
2. Applicable policies from NPO #6 Plan are as follows:
Policy 3. Residential subdivisions will be developed with paved streets,
curbs and gutters, street lights, and walkways, according to city or .
county standards. All utilities will be placed underground.
Policy 4. Development will coincide with the provision of public streets,
water and sewerage facilities. These facilities shall be (a) capable
of adequately serving all intervening properties as well as the proposed
development, and (b) designed to meet city or county standards.
3. Section 17.06.065 of the Tigard Municipal Code states the following
criteria for approval of preliminary plats:
"No preliminary plat for a proposed subdivision and no map or major
partition shall be approved unless the Planning Director finds:
(a) Streets and roads are laid out so as to conform to the plats of
subdivisions or maps of major partitions already approved for adjoining
property as to width, general direction and in all other respects,
unless the city determines it to be in the public interest to modify
the street or road pattern.
(b) Streets and roads held for private use are clearly indicated
on the tentative plan and all reservations or restrictions relating to
such private roads and streets are set forth thereon.
(c) The preliminary plat complies with the comprehensive plan, the
applicable zoning regulations, and the regulations within this title.
lity of
(d) There will
disposalquate quantity systemto Supportdtheawater
and an
adequate sewagedispp Y
proposed use of the land
described in the proposed plat.
4. The site has one single family house located at the center of the proposed
subdivision, with access from Sint 100th. The site slopes downhill from the
northwest to southeast corner. It is a vacant field except for lines of
trees on the south and west sides of the house. The house is served
by overhead electric lines from Sattler Street.
S. Surrounding land uses include single .family housing to the north and west,
a baseball diamond and church to the south, and a vacant field (Tax Lot
1100) to the east.
6. A 10 lot subdivision is under consideration for the adjacent lot to the east
of Golf Side Estates. (Tax Lot 1100, Ottoman property) . A preliminary
subdivision proposal for the adjacent lot was submitted by the applicant,
showing the extension of Kable Street as a through street from the east
line of Golf Side Estates to the intersection of sw 98th and Lake Side
Drive to make a 4 way intersection there.
STAFF REPORT
FINAL ACTION
TIGARD PLANNING DEPARTMENT
February 20, 1980
Page 3
7. The nearest available sewer to the site is located in SVT Lake Side Drive.
This line is presently under the control of the Tualatin Development
Corporation, until such time as it is accepted by the city for city
operation and maintenance. A ten (109 foot sewer easement has been
granted to the applicant Iby the owner of the adjacent lot to the east
(Lot 1100) _ The easement follows the south line of Lot 1100 to SW 98th
Avenue.
8. Water service is available to the site from Tigard Water District lines
on SW 100th or SW Sattler.
9. Traffic movement to and from the site will be served by SW 100th, SW Kable,
and SW Sattler. NPO #6 Plan designates Sattler as a collector street
(366 - 44' pavement) and 100th and Kahle as local streets. SW 100th
and SW Sattler are county streets, presently in substandard condition,
without adequate paving width, right=of-way, curbs, or gutters. St-7 100th
does not presently extend south of SW Kahle Street.
As part of its approval of the Sum*nerfield Planned Development, the
Tigard Planning Commission approved a forty (401) foot pavement along
SW Sattler Street at the north side of Summerfield No. 7. The Tigard
Municipal Code 17.28.040 requires a minimum fortyfour (44') foot pavement
for collectors.
10. Applicant proposes to dedicate ten (101) feet of right-of-way along
SW Sattler Street and 25 x 73.91 of right-of-way along SW 100th at the
southwest corner of the site, as required in the zone change for this
site. (ZC 12-79)
11. Sewer, water, and drainage plans, and lot-line utility easements were not
indicated an the preliminary plat.
12. Off-site drainage from the southeast slope of Little Bull Mountain collects
In the southwest corner of the site, via open drainage ditches on SW 100th.
There are swampy conditions in portions of Lots 10, 13, and 14. The
nearest storm drain to the site is on the west side of SW 100th, about
100 feet south of SW Kable Street.
13. A school impact statement from the Tigard School District, January 23, 1980,
stated that "no negative impact is anticipated" from the proposed subdivision.
14. Lots 1 and 2 on the preliminary plat are only 6,920 square feet each (not
including the ten (101) foot street dedication on SW Sattler Street) .
Tigard Zoning Code Section 18.20.035 requires minimum 7,500 square foot
lots in R-7 Zones.
STAFF REPORT
FINAL ACTION
TIGARD PLANNING DEPARTMENT
February 20, 1980
Page 4
15. The street cross sections proposed on the preliminary plat do not comply
with city standards.
II. CONCLUSIONARY FINDINGS:
1. The proposed preliminary plat conforms to NPO #6 plan, in that the lotting
pattern is for single family residential purposes. The gross residential
density 'of 3.86 units/acre conforms to the R-7 Zone requirements, but
Lots 1 and 2 are substandard. Lot 3 to the south. of these lots is
- nearly double the 7,500 foot minimum size, 'so an adjustment to the south
lot lines of Lots 1 and 2 could bring them into conformance with the
R-7 lot size requirement.
2. Both sewer and water service are available to the site to facilitate
the proposed density. An adequate sewer easement from the site to SW 98th
has been obtained by the applicant_ However, since Tualatin Development
Corporation presently controls the sewer on Lake Side Drive, the applicant
must obtain permission from the Tualatin Development Corporation to tie
Into, that sewer or wait until that sewer is accepted by the city for city
operation and maintenance.
3. Adequate right-of-way has been indicated for SW Sattler, SW 100th, and
SW Kable Street on the preliminary plat.
4. The proposed extension of SW Kable Street through the site and the
adjoining lot to the east (Lot 110U) would be desirable to provide
better access for property owners in Golf Side Estates and better traffic
circulation for the surrounding area. The Tualatin Fire District
(Joe Gruelich) concurs in this judgement.
5. Surface drainage is poor on the southwest portion of the site, due to
the topography of the site and the runoff from uphill properties.
Drainage will need special attention on this site. The applicant should
provide for improvement of drainage throughout the site and downstream
thereof.
6. Applicant should revise the street cross section plans after consulting
with the Public Works Department and before submitting grading and _
improvement plans for street improvements.
7. The City Council should. adopt the Comprehensive Plan (NPO) street standards
by ordinance, so that the previously approved forty (401) foot pavement
width on Sattler Street at Summerfield #7 can be permitted on the north
side of Golf Side Estates, without unnecessary variance procedings.
STAFF REPORT
FINAL ACTION
TIGARD PLANNING DEPARTMENT
February 20, 1980
Page 5
Ill. STIXF RECOi•114ENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the lot size on Lots 1 and 2 be adjusted on the final plat to allow
for a minimum of 7,500 square feet per lot.
2. Public water service and sanitary service shall be installed to this site
prior to the issuance of a Building Permit including the existing house
on Lot 6.
3. That applicant obtain permission from Tualatin Development Corporation
to tie into sewer on Lake Side Drive or wait until that sewer is accepted
by the city for city operation and maintenance.
4. That applicant convey a one (1') foot street plug reserve strip at the
east end of SW Kable Street to the City of Tigard.
4, 5. Storm drainage plans for the site and downstream thereof shall be submitted
and approved by the Public Works Director, and install storm drainage
system to the site prior to issuance o£ a building permit.
6. Grading plans and construction plans on all public right-of-ways shall be
submitted and approved by the Public Works Director prior to commencement
of work.
7. No changes will be made to approved plans or specifications unless formal
application is made to the appropriate city department and changes are
approved by that department. Application for changes will be made in
writing and shall include applicable drawings.
8. Fire hydrants be placed as per Tigard Water District and Tualatin Fire
District regulations.
9. All existing or proposed utilities shall be placed underground, including
the existing house on Lot 6. Street lighting installations shall be
approved by the Public Works Director.
10. No Occupancy Permits shall be- issued until all conditions placed upon
this development by the City of Tigard have been satisfied and inspections
verifying this have been carried out by the appropriate department.
C
STAFF REPORT
FINAL ACTION
TIGARD PIS NNING DEPAP0111ENT
February 20, 1980
Page 6
11. That ten (10') feet of right-of-Tway along STA Sattler be dedicated to
the county along the frontage of the site with Washington County approval
to improve SW Sattler to collector street standards prior to issuence of
building permits.
12. That twentyfive (251) feet of right-of-way along the southwest side of
the property on SW 100th be dedicated to the county (the area is approx-
imately 74 feet in length) _ Half street improvements are to be made
along Sw 100th from the intersection with SW Sattler south to the
intersection of SW Kable Street. Full street improvements are to be made
along SW 100th from SW Kable Street intersection south to the end of the
subject site property line.
13. That street improvements be constructed to the approval of the Public
Wor'xs Director prior to the recording of the final plat or issuance of a
Building Permit.
Action of the Planning Director is final unless notification of appeal to
the Planning Commission is filed with the City Recorder within twenty (20)
.days of the Plannir a Director's Action.
Prepared by Richard Ross, Approved by Al d' card,
Intern Planner P1 in Director
vmc
This acknowledgement must be signed and returned to the City of Tigard,
Planning Department. Failure to return this acknowledgement will result in
no further action on this project with regards to issuance of Building
Permits or engineering approval.
i
Signature Date f
I
SEE MICIP
2S I I 183
cr- Z'
C R ric
CR 1!0 857
S.W.
89, 5:3 v;
400 jrt
700 31
.m. 800 12-3 c
Li
goo 44.4c
6-3 A C
38914C A R
TS N
133 3
146-5
sap ;-13
UJ
500
es�5a �00
5e 33, 5 -AIL
v%.z 10 670
1100
I� BE
-T! 4c
KABLE Si �e.
S T R E E"T 0Ic
r
E
781
co 9
Z7
C
47-
(3 3 5C5 H 11+1111 oic
1, 1000
71-1 4c
the obert `
ri ail
company
Kristin Square• 9500 S.W. Barbur Blvd_ • Suite 300• Portland, Oregon 97219• (503) 245-1131
Telex #360557
October 5, 1982 ®
OCT 5 1582 �
To the Mayor and Members of the City Council CITY OF TIGARD
C/O William Monahan PLANNING DEPT.
Director, Department of Development
CITY OF TIGARD
P. O. Box 23397
Tigard, OR 97223
NOTICE OF APPEAL - S-4-82
ZC - 12-82 - Sunnyside Estates
15280 SW 100th - 2S1 11CA Lot 900
Dear Mayor and Councilpersons:
t This letter will serve to notify you that the Robert Randall Company, the
applicant in the above referenced action, hereby appeals the September 7,
1982 decision of the Planning Commission. The applicant requests the City
Council review the decision of the Planning Commission and remand the ap-
plication to Planning Commission with the condition that the R-5 zoning
designation is appropriate for the site provided that the subdivision be
limited to no more than 60% of its lots of less than 7,500 square feet
or a maximum of 21 single family lots.
The applicant notes as of the date of this application, neither the minutes
nor the transcript of the hearing of September 7, 1982 is available, and it
therefore requests the opportunity to submit further written testimony upon
the availability and review of those materials. The applicant's assertions
regarding the Planning Commission's hearing and its deliberations are based
on its own notes of that meeting.
The crux of the issue is of course whether or not the applicant has submit-
ted evidence sufficient to permit the zone change from R-7 to R-5 to occur
upon this parcel. A review of the record will demonstrate that while the
Planning Commission clearly felt that while the applicant has not establish-
ed that at the density of 25 lots it originally proposed the zone change
was appropriate, a conditioned utilization of the R-5 zoning would be ap-
propriate for the site.
To the Mayor and Members of the City Council
October 5, 1982
Page 2
While the Planning Commission Chairman indicated the applicants plan re-
quired more justification, he also indicated that the site did require a
careful consideration of the transitional of nature of its location. Such
a transitional character can be achieved through a mixture of R-5 and R-7
lots allowed by the conditioned approval.
The applicant's burden of proof in this situation is clearly to demonstrate
such an approval's conformity to the comprehensive plan for the area that
of NPO #6.
The staff report on this application emphasizes that the application vio-
lates Policy #2 of the plan requiring 4 units per acre or 7,500 square
foot lots. NPO #61s policy number two also suggests that 12 persons per
acre is an appropriate density for the area. When it was written the plan
assumed that a household population of 3 per living unit was normal. Cur-
rent statistics demonstrate a typical household size is nearer to 2.3 per-
sons. A condition permitting only 21 homes on the property would result
in an average density of only 12.42 persons per acre.
The application conditioned in such a manner should be carefully judged
against the currently approved R-7 plan, which allows 19 units in the area,
including eight duplex units. Its impact is minimal in terms of an in-
creased numbers of units and it furthers several of NPO #61s other goals.
- NPO Policy #6 which emphasized the construction of single
family homes.
- NPO Policy #7 which recognizes the need for buffers between
various densities, in this case Summerfield's 4,500 square
foot lots and the larger lots of the other neighborhoods
in the area, a fact recognized by several planning commissioners.
While several commissioners suggested a split zoning for the site the ap-
plicant believes that a mixture of R-5 and R-7 densities across the site
is more appropriate because it permits the greater utilization of the
areas south facing slope(in accordance with NPO Policy #8.)
An approval conditioned in such a manner is appropriate in relation to the
applicable LCDC Goals: r
- Goal #1, in that it is responsive to the NPO's input concerning
the single family character of the area.
- Goal #2, in that it responses both to the NPO, the staff and
the planning commission's concern regarding the over utiliza-
tion of private drives.
- A conditioned approval would permit a design for the subdi-
vision which takes account of, in an efficient manner, the
existence the private open space adjoining the site, en-
hancing Goals 6 and 8.
i
f
To the Mayo., and Members of the City Council
October 5, 1982,
Page 3
- A conditioned approval of this request would permit a re-
design of the subdivision to more efficiently solve a
serious drainage problem previously identified on the
site, Goal 7 is therefore addressed.
- By removing further governmental restrictions on the de-
velopment of the lots, avoiding the duplexes conditional
use process, it enhances quick economical development of
the property, addressing Goal 9 concerns.
- Goal 10 is furthered by providing a few more, individually
lower priced, homesites for the more preferred housing al-
ternative, the single family residence.
- Goal 11 is enhanced because a re-designed subdivision would
produce a more efficient sewer system utilizing a closer USA
connection as well as solving the drainage problem discussed
above.
The Planning Commission's record clearly shows that the street
improvements proposed by the applicant, improvement of 100th,
Kable and Sattler, was adequate in relation to Goal 12 - the
Transportation Goal, in the judgement of the Commissioners.
- Goal 13 is served by allowing a higher single family density
on a south facing slope where greater potential for the use of
solar energy exists.
- Goal 14 is furthered by the infilling of vacant land within a
build up area at a density which is reasonable in its transi-
tional character between a higher density PUD and lower density
single family homes and underdeveloped properties in the area.
It is apparent from the comments put forward by the Planning Commission in
its deliberations on the matter that no opposition evidence was presented
at the hearing to under cut the applicants basic proposal. The question
was a close one at that time, an adequate transitional solution was what
was sought. The applicant believes an approval conditioned on a mixture
of no more than 60% R-5 sized lots or 21 single family homes resolves
the transitional issue. A choice between 21 single family homes or 19
homes including 8 duplex units it submits, should be resolved in favor
of the single family homes as more in keeping with the character of the
neighborhood.
The applicant respectfully requests the representatives of groups
seriously interested and with expertise in the issues raised by this
appeal, the Metro Home Builders and 1000 Friends of Oregon be permitted
l
To the Mayor and Members of the City Council
t October 5, 1982
Page 4
to make oral presentations to you at the time of your deliberations on
the matter along with the representatives of the applicant. We recognize
the same opportunity should be afforded members of public with opinions
on this matter.
RYnT.
tfully submitted,
J Gibbon.
Secretary/Counsel
JTG/cl
C
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
f_
CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON
IN THE MATTER OF THE ) ZC No. 12-82
REZONE 4 PRELIMINARY ) S No. 4-82
SUBDIVISION APPLICATION ) Address: 15280 S.W. 100th
FOR SUNNYSIDE ESTATES ) Legal :T 2S, R1W, Sec. 11 CA, Gulfside Estates
The Robert Randall Co.
9500 S.W. Barbur Boufevard, Suite 300
Portland, Oregon 97219
Applicant-Owner-Appellant -
APPELLANT'S ARGUEMENT BASED UPON TRANSCRIPT OF
PUBLIC HEARING
Appeal from the decision of the Tigard Planning
of September 7, 1982
John T. Gibbon, Counsel for Appellant
\ ~ t The Robert Randall Co.
�`. 9500 S.W. Barbur Boulevard, Suite 300
�r G(�9' Portland, Oregon 97219
�O�,y_ \���Q�• (503) 245-1131
Qv The appellant hereby requests the City Council, upon review of
the record and the arguements befor it, remand the zone change and
subdivision applications to the Planning Commission with the following
conditions:
1. R-5 zoning may be approved for the site provided no more than
60% of the lots may be less than 7,500 square feet.
2. A maximum of no more than 21 single family lots may be
approved for the site.
The appellant bases its request on the following findings of
facts and statements in the transcript:
(1)
Commissioner Owens at page 21 states, "I think that I 'm interested in
Commissioner Eden's proposal of split density and I don't know if we
even want to discuss that. tonight or can't. . . but it's not a clear
cut issue one way or the other.
(2)
Chairman Tepedino at page 20 while stating, "I'm not persuaded that we
should change this from R-7 to R-5.11, does state "(On) this Commission
we should look for smooth transitory changes rather than abrupt changes".
( (3)
Commissioner Edin at page 19 states, "I guess the question that I
would like to ask and didn't get it said during the cross examination
is has anybody looked at the possibility of perhaps R-5 below Kable
and R-7 above. Using Kable as the medium for helping draw this line
between Summerfield on both sides and keeping the larger R-7 above it.
I'd be far more open to that."
The applicant submits that these statements indicate a desire on the
part of the Planning Commission to create a compromise on the density
issue, it believes the suggested conditions represent such a compromise.
II _.
The Planning Commission's decision was based on the Staff's recommendation
of denial based on the following findings -
1. "The proposal violates policy 2 of the adopted NPO #6 plan."
2. "The proposal is not compatible with existing surrounding land
uses."
The applicant believes it was error to rely on those findings for the
following reasons:
(1)
NPO #6 policy 2 is out-of-date having been adopted in 1975 and is
contradictory based on current housing statistics.
Policy 2 states, "The maximum overall density of development will
be four dwelling units or 12 persons per gross acre."
Density requirements for the areas within the Urban Growth Boundary
such as Tigard have, since 1975 been established as 6 per acre by LCDC
and Metro. More importantly, Tigard's current Draft Housing Element
indicates household size has shrunk from 3.0 assumed in 1975 to 2.3
assumed currently. Therefore an approval conditioned as suggested by
the applicant will result in a ratio of persons per gross acre closer
to the 12 per acre suggested by the NPO policy than that allowed under
the current R-7 plan.
(2)
Reliance on NPO #61s Policy 2 alone is not sufficient when
reviewing the application, it must in fact be balanced against compliance
with other NPO policies. If conditioned as suggested by the applicant
the proposal will comply with NPO policies 6, 7 and 8, in that it will
emphasize single-family homes in the area, it will provide a transitional
buffer between Summerfield's higher density areas and both the large lots
and the undeveloped tracts in the area, finally it will reflect a concern
for the natural topography's constraints and opportunities of the site.
(3)
The compatibility issue raised by the staff and the NPO related
to the applicant's original complete R-5 25 lot subdivision proposal.
If the conditions suggested by the applicant were imposed, compatibility
with the 3 diverse elements existing in the area can be accomplished.
The three different densities with which this proposal must be compatible
are:
1. The 4 ,500 square foot lots adjoining the site in Summerfield.
2. 'ie larger lots adjoining a portion of the site
f
t
3. The numerous undeveloped tracts adjoining the site, which will
eventually be developed at urban density. 4
�r The applicant submits that by mixing the density across the site
compatibility with this diversity of adjacent land uses can best be
achieved.
III
i
Testimony by opponents of the proposal centered on two issues:
1. The value of the homes constructed in the area. t
2. The concerns regarding roads and access to the property.
In regard to the first issue Commissioner Moen was, the applicant
believes, right in his characterization of the value concern articulated
by the opponents as really a concern with density and compatibility
(page 19) , the applicant believes that the conditioned approval will '
address these concerns. Moreover as Commissioner Speaker (page 16) and
}
Commissioner Owens (page 18) indicated in their statements, value
compatibility between the mid-$70,000.00 homes proposed by the applicant
and the existing homes in the area obviously will exist.
i
(2)
The traffic and access issue raised by the opponent's is clearly f
the most valid of their concerns. On this issue the Planning Commission
supported the applicant.
Commissioner Moen at page 19 says, "And I don't think we can refuse
to develop an area because of a road; because the roads are going to
have to be squared away sooner or later and hopefully in this case the
developer would be involved in doing some of that."
Commissioner Speaker also discusses the issue at page 17 and
concludes that the benefits which will come from the development include
both improvement to 100th and Sattler as well as the beginning of the
obvious link-up needed for Kable between 98th and 100th.
The applicant also notes that Sattler has been planned as a minor
collector in this area and that 100th will obviously over time become
an important access route to new commercial facilities in West Tigard as
well as the downtown area.
IV
The application to change the current 15 lot (19 unit) R-7
subdivision to a 21 lot R-5 and R-7 mixed subdivision is based on the
following considerations and constraints:
1. Redesign of the current plat is necessary to utilize the sewer
in Summerfield as suggested by the City staff.
2. In its revised proposal the applicant has eliminated all
attached single family homes in conformance with the NPO's
policies.
3. The proposal has sought to maximize solar orientation for its
lots.
4. The application has, in response to the NPO's concerns, reduced
the number of homes using the flag lot driveways and rationalized
the locations of their entrance onto the adjoining streets.
S. The appeal proposes a conditional approval which will produce
a neighborhood with all essential urban services that will
still be compatible with areas near it which were developed
without those services.
The-constraints affecting this application included accommodation
of the existing improvements on the land, a street configuration
dictated by the City's needs and the limitations produced by size and
shape of the parcel of land to be developed.
V
The applicant in its Notice of Appeal (pages 2-3) set forth the
reasons that its proposal complies with the Statewide Goals it adopts
by reference that statement into this agruement.
Attached as exhibit to this agruement is a letter from an
organization with an interest in the outcome of this matter and
expertise in the issues raised, the Metro Home Builders which supports
the appellants proposal.
VI
For the reasons set forth above the appellant respecfully requests
the City Council remand these matters to the Planning Commission with
the conditions explained herein.
HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN PORTLAND
V. ElANG7 A0,AD. tiUiT= 30?
,Cc -S;V!EG0. )REGGE2 0; :j: .:3,34-IC8.1
THE METRO HOUSING CENTER
November 10, 1982
City Council
City of Tigard
P.O. Box 23397
Tigard, OR 97223
RE : Appeal of ZC12-82 „54-82 , Gulf Side Estates
Dear Mayor and Council Members :
The Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland
supports the Robert Randall company ' s request on appeal
for a remand to the Planning Commission to consider a
new plat meeting the conditions proposed by the Randall Co.
The blend of R-5 and R-7 lots suggested by the Randall
Co . complies with the comprehensive plan low density
designation while at the same time solving several problems
that this site suffers from. The proposed redesign satisfies
the NPO plan policy encouraging the retention of the single-
family character of the area. It provides for a gradual ,
rather than an abrupt transition from the large lots on
one side to the smaller R-4 lots on the other side of the
subdivision. The new proposal will also result in a more
efficient road and sewer system.
Most importantly, the redesign will create the opportunity
for the construction of housing more within the abilities of
potential buyers to pay . Despite the three-year recession
in the general economy, home prices have on the average
held stable or decreased only slightly. Our association's
economists anticipate that when the economy improves ,
home prices will once again climb steadily. It is important ,
therefore, to provide lower cost housing opportunities to
meet both short and long term needs.
Smaller lots, in the R-5 range, will be much more prevalent
in the future to meet these needs. The proposal for
Gulfside Estates presents an ideal opportunity to begin
to meet that need.
f
Incerely,
i!��J,�tHan y
Staff A
KLH:tic
rini
YZ 11!!
NOV le 10,82
654
.
u` -
i_;! 1 ! �i 1��.=:! r 1 r ,..! :1 rel r=.`! t ! �� �� �~ ` - -- °`
��f <. �... _ ;�
. .;. ,, _
A !
:,/::
/�
' /
/ � / / / / S.
_ ' � � / /
/ is - .S i ,' � � f
I ,,
/ � � /
t ��
\ ' � , �
./� �
- - � / i �,
i �
� / i
�,_..
�i�
- � � � I - �
r
� ,
i /
�/' � �
�f r i i 1
�� � , i
� � � � �
S � , ' / '
/ � � � �
�! �. /
- �
_.,.,z.:k..
:��.
� � "'
l� ' /
— - _ / � � /
r i � o'
/ � � i.
�, ��
- - � i i i �
- - / /
_ _ ., -
. .
:. r
_;
..
. .. � -.
_ . . .
L.���v`ter+---' � "'' !:�'. � � + 1 rv'��...1 ���r 1 '.�/ � j ✓q .-r
c
y •
j
{
At M,,,Ll d�JC21qOlLev6�-L)
- C-n<o--,& a(L(- ✓,,iCtilvvun (G'�YL�r�i
P17 V-
LX-
/17
1 ,
1 !liJ vLJ httil?-� a C
CJ
i
to tke, �2� t<�I QJ �C���n �r✓/�'Y�v����c,�'C�
C .eJJ tial G h aue Yn
i- �
CIA �1��- t -C X a f to-ii ct.f f- H )u �aAx- )� � - a-
X10 to tk -r1'-)a22 Citqatvt&
tk
a- Ju-HL -Wv- t( tc /a,tz 6C,
ul
tv � 16,,/ ;� tz)
C�iyi_GH o 1,c luny Al
- -- -- ---- - - - - - - l t ��
k�2
G'S71V
4-1 e 740 7///J,
7 7,r 112 A/ "aZ,01
d7eny pope
in 7`jIs Ae
roc/ �A�F 2�re r<e�S �� o/�� ire f�i� c %��d� Aar
e 117
pleee 1woo7z:21 eve haveTo
1.20
� �
Zv-7
AO
7�1
Alh.,g7-z 1Z OY1,51
/��'�� �' CI�' �"!/..tom ��iG be°i� /h C� -S� ��/7�/�i'`/.��j��/��
//4-w- 11,117;�XV 4e
fey w�Qf
74-se cklco-e�;�, 1.111'u- ze ;a/,.- -1b
r.
November 10, 1982
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council j
FROM: Loreen Wilson, Deputy Hecorde��\�i'
SUBJECT: Item #9 - Appeal-Sensitive Lands Permit M 2-82 Jadco Chemical NPO #5
Please bring with you to the November 15. 1982 City Council meeting all the
information distributed to you in your previous Council packets of
November 1, 1982 regarding Sensitive Lands Permit M 2-82 - Jadco Chemical .
Pm
1 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TIGARD
2 In re the Appeal of )
No. M-282
3 JOHN DUNCAN and JANICE )
DUNCAN from Hearing Officer ) REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE OF
4 Determination with Respect to ) COUNCIL HEARING
Appellants' Land )
5
6 John Duncan and Janice Duncan, being the fee title owners of property
7 at 16055 S.W. 74th, Tigard, Oregon, further described as Tax Lot 1500 2S1 13 A,
8 hereby request that the appeal pending from the hearing officer's decision con-
9 cerning said lands as now scheduled for Monday, November 15, 1982, be taken off
10 the docket and continued to a later date on the following grounds and reasons:
11 (1) The apparent ambiguities between the various applicable sections of
12 the Tigard Municipal Code has already been cited as requiring additional study
13 and consideration in order to bring all matters into a consistent outlook in
14 the public interest.
15 (2) That the decision of the hearing officer as heretofore rendered and
16 which is the basis for the appeal in this case, is wholly lacking in support in
17 the regulatory ordinances, as well as by the officers of the City who must deal
18 with such matters on a day to day basis, namely, City Administrator, City Engineer,
Z �r
g dr,-. 19 City Planning Director, etc. whose analysis of this matter is already in the
a 3
0
<"'o^ 20 record.
E?�� 21 (3) The order given by the hearing officer stating "applicants shall re-
aar 22 move all fill material previously placed within the flood plain of Fanno Creek
5.
W m
a S6 23 no later than November 15, 1982" obviously is without legal standing, for the
d
24 reason that it is subject to appeal, and further purports to deny John Duncan
25 and Janice Duncan's constitutional and other property rights, and in the absence
26 of a continuance and re-evaluation and restatement of the applicable regulatory
Page 1 - REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE OF COUNCIL HEARING
1 matter, the undersigned must necessarily bring declaratory proceedings in the
2 Circuit Court of Washington County, including injunction, wherewith to obtain
3 a determination of property rights, public interests involved and other elements
4 of important nature.
5 (4) That the matter is set for hearing on the record on November 15, 1982,
6 before the City Council, and the notice of the hearing states that no new evi-
1 dence or arguments will be allowed, "however, parties are invited to submit writ-
8 ten arguments only reserving to the council the right to pose questions to staff
9 and parties on policy issues." In view of the ambiguities and differences already
10 developed, both public and private interests in this matter are best served by
11 efforts of the council to redefine the applicable regulatory matters prior to
12 any further expenditure of public funds on the part of the City and private funds
13 on the part of the undersigned appellants.
14 The foregoing is totally consistent with the request heretofore made to
15 the council by officers of the City concerned with this matter for a total review
16 of all provisions set forth in the City's ordinances with respect to this matter.
17 For the foregoing reasons, a continuance of this matter as requested is of such
18 vital public economic importance, not only to the public, but to the undersigned
z19 that the continuance requested herein, if granted, will preserve the integrity
c3
0
aoho- 20 of public hearing processes, and further written argument on the part of the
.�, -ea
.9. 21 undersigned is not being submitted as solicited in the expectation that the City
ES g
a€;pR 22 will grant the continuance without opening the hearing or otherwise compromising
W V5 23 the rights of the undersigned until all aspects of this matter have been fully
6d
2 24 evaluated and remedial ordinances or amplification of the ambiguities are made
25 available.
26 In further support of this request, it is to be noted that appellants have
Page2 _ REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE OF COUNCIL HEARING
1 expended the approximate sum of $ 3,000.00 in connection with the current problem,
2 and it is of utmost importance that the related problems indicated in the attached
3 copy of Mr. Monahan's memorandum of October 15, 1982, concerning comprehensive
4 plan hearing and other legal aspects be considered by the council precedent to
5 a review of this appeal by the City of Tigard.
6 Respectfully submitted,
7
�dA AAA tnn=--
Joh uncan, Appellant Janice Duncan, Appellant
10 ANDER,S DIT TMAN & `ANDERSON
B
11 Fr . A. Anderson
12 Of Attorneys for Appellants
13
14
i
15 i
16
17
8 1$
h
Z `^N^ 19
P
W C
3'
z �- 20
a.
21
E 218
�g� 22
ft
a Qo 23
dd
T
24
25
26
Page 3 - REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE OF COUNCIL HEARING
MEMORANDUM
TO: Members of the Tigard City Council
FROM: William A. Monahan, Director of Planning & Development
DATE: October 28 , 1982
RE: Hearings Officer Order Number M 2-82 , Appeal of Findings
by John A. Duncan.
Attached please find a set of documents which are pertinent
to an appeal filed by John A. Duncan on the findings of Hearings
Officer Beth Blount. " The appeal will be heard by the City Council '
on November 15, 1982.
This package is being provided to you in advance of the
_hearing in order that you may become familiar-with-,the issues'.
_ You may also wish to consider the issues raised by this appeal
C in light of the existing Floodway/Greenway issues which will be
discussed at your November 1 study session with the Planning
and Development Office.
Please note that another appeal, that of the Robert Randall
Company concerning Sunnyside Estates , will be heard at your
November 15 session. A package of materials will be transmitted
to you as soon as the transcript of the Planning Commission's
hearing on the issue is completed.
r"
i
i
i
i
WASHRgGTON COUNTY,OREGON
t
k
October 15, 1982
MEKORANDUM
TO: Affected Property Owners
FROM: William A. Monahan, Director of 21—ring & Development�
SUBJECT: Durham Island Annexation - Zone Change (ZCA 3-82)
Required action by the Tigard City Council .to revises the zoning designation
for the Durham Island Annexation has been postponed from October 25, 1982 to
January 24, 1983. This action is required since the City's revised
comprehensive plan is not yet completed. The issue of which zoning is proper
for the above .named area has not adequately been addressed or resolved.
Therefore, at this time the City cannot hold an adequate public hearing to
determine the appropriate zone for thi$ area. Please be advised that the
Tigard City Council will hear this issue at a public hearing on Monday,
January 24. 1983 at 7:30 P.M. at Bowler Junior High School, 10865 SW Walnut
Street, Tigard, Oregon. Please note that this is the only written notice that
you will receive for this hearing. Thera will, however, be a public notice
publicised in the Tigard Times at least ten days prior to the January 24th
hearing.
h
12755 S.W.ASH P.O.LOX 23597 TiGARD,OREGON 97223 PH:639-4171
V .
F
L
July 19, 1982
CMOFInIFARD
WASHR4GTON COUNTY,OREGON
John Duncan
Jadco Chemical Ltd.
16055 S.W. 74th Avenue
Tigard, OR 97223
Dear Par. Duncan:
The recent "Fill". that.has taken place on your property raises
concerns of possible Mnicipal Code violations.
Chapter 18.57 addresses use of "Sensitive Land", and as your
property is designated as such, it falls within the bounds of
this section.
Any fill taking place within a drainage way, or- floodplain,
requires a special use permit, which is issued by the Planning
Commission. In addition, any fill in excess of 50 cubic yards
requires a permit issued by the Building Official.
C As the City has no record of any such permits being issued, you
are hereby notified to cease any further filling, and contact the
City Planning Department so it may be determined what action will
be necessary to eliminate the violations.
Contact will be required within two (2) days of July 19, 1982.
Sincerely,
Brad C. Roast,
Code Enforcement Officer
/br
l_
12755 S.W.ASH P.O.BOX 23397 TIGARD,OREGON 97223 PH:639-4171
k
E
F
S
S
tt
S
k
L
t
Fif L
T0: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: NPO #5
i
RE: JADCO CHEMICAL `
4
i
DATE: NOVEMBER 10 , 1982
c
1
s
s
1
The NPO would like to make the City Council aware of our concern regarding
the filling of the Fanno Creek Floodplain/Greenway.
t
The Fanno Creek Floodplain/Greenway provides a natural buffer between the
Industrial area to the East and the Residential area to the west. The
NPO #5 Plan (Ord. 77-69) addresses the importance of preserving this buffer
by the following policy statements:
r
Policy 4: The plan is particularly concerned about achieving a
comparability between the broad range of land us categories
which exist in the neighborhood. This is especially important
in relationship to the developing residential area west of
Fanno Creek. The creel-, the trees and other vegetation found
along it, provide an excellent opportunity to both separate
and buffer the residential area from the industrial development
associated with S.W. 72nd
Policy 5: B. ) Provide protective buffers for residential areas by use
of such natural features such as the Fanno Creek Greenway,
Policy 6: In order to enhance the environment of the residential areas,
natural amenties such as Fanno Creek and its tributaries as
well as existing stands of evergreens, thickets of deciduous
bushes, shrubs and trees, particularly where they form a buffer
between land use types, should be retained.
We ask that you consider these policies when making any decisions regarding the
I
Fanno Creek Floodplain/Greenway. p
i
t
i
i
NQV 1 = P11�NNING DEP t.
YOF 1IGHKD
pljANr:Ih1G DEPT.
ABEL
October 19, 1982
To: Planning Director City of Tigard
From: John A. Duncan
Subject: Appeal findings . of hearing officer case No. M-2-82.
Decision rendered October 7, 1982.
Please process my appeal to be heard after inconsistencies within
The Comprehensive Plan have been effectively refined and clarified.
Reasons:
a. We are not affecting flood plain.
b. Findings of hearing officer based on a document that
at best is inconsistent and not in accord with pending
comprehensive plan.
C. Confiscation of property without due process.
d. Land 400 feet west of subject property owned by applicant
is more than adequate for future greenway.
e. Staff, after thorough review of facts, recommends
approval.
Additional informationto be furnished prior to appeal hearing. ?
Enclosed please find the applicable Appeals Fee.
\Sincerely,
A. Duncan
t
JADCO CHEMICAL LTD.
"Specializing in Formulated Chemicals"
-0044
16055 S-W.74th AVENUE84
PORTLAND.OR 97223
-- - L
5
BETH BLUNT
ATTORNEY AT LAW 2437 Pacific Avenue, Forest Grove, Oregon 97116
Telephone (503) 648-4887
October 7, 1982
Liz Newton
Tigard Planning Department
12755 SW Ash
Tigard, OR 97223
Re: Hearings Officer Order M2-82
Dear Liz:
final Order, including Findings
Attached please find my s
and Conclusions, in the above-referenced matter. Also
attached are all of the exhibits I receiveRdcorder gfor
e `
hearing. Please submit this to the City
filing. '
i
Very truly -y,0s, i
f
4
H BLOUNT
earings Officer
BB/cem
l
BEFORE THE HEARINGS OFFICER
FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR ) No.
A SENSITIVE LANDS PERMIT TO FILL AND )
M 2-82
LANDSCAPE PROPERTY WITHIN THE FLOOD- )
PI.AIN OF FANNO CREEK; John and Janice
Duncan, applicants. )
The above-entitled matter came before the Hearings Officer
at the regularly scheduled meeting of September 23, 1982, at
which time testimony, evidence and the planning department staff
report were recieved; and
The Hearings Officer adopts the findings and conclusions
as set forth on the attached, which is incorporated by reference
herein and marked Exhibit "A" ; therefore
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
M 2-82 is denied. The applicants shall remove all fill
material previously placed within the flood plain of Fanno Creek
no later than November 15, 1982.
Dated this 7th day of October, 1982.
HEARINGS OFFICER
APPROVED:
B 0 T
( CITY OF TIGARD
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE HEARINGS OFFICER
File No. M 2-82
Applicant: John and Janice Duncan
Proposal: To fill and landscape a portion of the Fanno Creek
floodplain, for future development of a building.
Date Application Filed:
Decision Rendered: October 6, 1982
Last Date to Appeal: October , 1982.
Staff Recommendation: Approval, with conditions
Staff Representative: Elizabeth Newton
Public Hearing: A public hearing was held in the conference room
of the Durham Waste Treatment Plant, --igard, Oregon, on Thursday,
September 23, 1982, at which time the matter was taken under ad-
visement for a written decision.
Speaking in Support of the Request: (Z) Dohn Duncan
ave Larson
(3) Bob Bledsoe
Speaking in Opposition to the Request: (1) John S7'iwartz
(2) Clifford Speaker
(3) John Havery
(4) Bob Bledsoe
Exhibits: (1) Staff report
(2) topographic map with cross sections of site
(3) Tigard Planning Commission memo
FINDINGS:
A. Subject Property:
1. Description: Tax Lot 1500, WCTM 2S1 13A, City of Tigard,
Washington County, Oregon, containing approximately 6.9
acres.
2. Location: The property is located on the northwest side
of S.W. 74th Avenue, northeast of Durham Road.
3. Zone: M-3 Light Industrial; Greenway
I
{ Page Two
John and Janice Duncan
M 2-82
4. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Industrial and Greenway/
Open Space
5. Site Description: There is an existing warehouse on the
site which occupies approximately 1/4 of the total land
area. A little more than 40% of the property lies within
the 100 year floodplain of Fanno Creek; the property
slopes toward Fanno Creek.
B. Vicinity Information:
The property to the northeast and south is developed for
industrial uses. The western portion of the property is
within the 100 year floodplain of Fanno Creek. The property
west of the greenway is currently designated urban low den-
sity residential and is partially developed.
C. Public Facilities and Services: The provision of public facil-
ities and services is not relevant to this application as no
development is proposed at this time.
D. Applicable Ordinances and Plan Considerations:
The application is controlled by the comprehensive plan for
the City of Tigard, adopted in October, 1371, but not yet
acknowledged; by the Environmental Design and Open Space Plan
adopted in August, 1377, but not yet acknowledged; the indus-
trial an' narks and open space sections of the plan adopted
by NPO #5; Section 18. 57 of the Tigard Municipal Code; and
applicable LCDC Goals. The provisions of the Tigard documents
are incorporated by reference herein.
The comprehensive plan for the City of Tigard contains the
objective to "utilize the natural drainageways provided by
Fanno Creek. . . as the basic element in a system of
connecting open spaces. " (Objective 1, page 51) . It also
states that the greenway system will " (a) tie together recreation
areas, schools, and their service areas; (b) provide protective
buffers between incompatible land uses; (c) reduce flood hazard
by restricting development along natural drainageways; . . .
(f) preserve the amenity of the area. " (Objective 3, page 51)
The comprehensive plan for the City, under the policies and
standards section provides that the City should "Preserve
natural drainageways by prohibiting development that would
obstruct the flood plain. . . " (Standard 2,page 51) , but
then states in a subsequent standard that the City should
"Encourage developers on both sides of Fanno Creek to con-
serve all trees within 50 feet of the adjoining bank. This
Page Three
John and Janice Duncan
M 2-82
will create a physical buffer over 100 feet wide (including
the creek channel) to separate potentially conflicting land
uses lying on opposite sides of the creek. Since the 100-
year flood plain ranges from 100. to 800 feet in width along
the creek, the buffer will not upsurp [sic] land that is
suitable for development. °' (Standard 4 , page 52)
Standards 2 and 4 seem incompatible on their faces, one
suggesting that the flood plain should be retained for open
space, and the other suggesting that only a buffer of 100
feet should be retained, so land "suitable for development"
is not usurped. Unfortunately, Standard 4 does not define
some of the key words used to describe the Fanno Creek area,
such as "adjoining bank" or "creek channel" . Those words
have specific meanings in most flood plain ordinances, al-
though they are not defined specifically in ordinance 18. 57
of the City Code. However, in 18. 57.020 of the Code, under
the definition of "flood" , "stream channel" is .used to mean
"nor
ma
flow of water" distinguishing
that area carrying the "no
that area from the area that floods periodically. If one
uses that definition, reading Standard 4 of the comprehen-
sive plan, only a buffer of 100 feet, plus the channel width
of approximately 5-10 ' would constitute the only buffer
between the industrial zone and the residential zone in this
area. The balance of the land (on either side) could be
filled and used for development, so long as the storage
capacity of the floodplain, and the carrying capacity of the
floodplain, were preserved under the guidelines set forth in
18.57 of the Tigard Code.
However, in 1977 , the City of Tigard adopted the Environmental
Design and Open Space Plan for the City. That document re-
cognized that " [wlhile Tigard is fortunate to have a viable
orm of industrial and commercial
employemnt [sic] base in the f
businesses, it is fundamentally a residential community. " (p• 12)
busl ees es to say " [a] residentianvironment calls for a
It In
community design then,
pleasant, relaxing atmosphere. The
should include those aesthetic and natural features considered
complimentary to a desirable living environment. One of the
key features is the maintenance of a sense of openness. Open
space not only provides visual relief but also recreational
opportunity. Therefore, one of the objectives of this section
is to ensure that a full complement of open space, in both
large and small reserves, is provided as future development
occurs. Once again, nature provides the essential ingredients,
as well as a development guide. Fanno Creek and its tributary
�. system provides an excellent opportdnity for linear open space,
linking the entire community together. (p. 12) Based on
those conclusions, the City adopted Policy 7, which states:
t
t
Page Four
John and Janice Duncan
M 2-52
Retain the 100-year flood plain of Fanno Creek,
its tributaries and the Tualatin River as be an estab-
open
preserve
i erasbenestab-
preserve (Greenway) , The Greenway
shall
fished as the backbone of the open space network
irect public benefit can be derive ,
and when a developmn
i.e. , adjacent resideeaifordpassiveerecreation and
way should be develop
pedestrian/bike travel.
Today, there is a marked change in attitude, generally, about
encouraging industrial development, often at the costude may befp�eher
more intangible benefits- ara-faHowevert that tattitude is not
valent in the City of Tig articularly
reflected in the adopted documents of the City, P
the Environmental Design and open Space Plan,which must guide
this Hearings Officer' s opinion. From the adopted documents
¢ it is apparent that the City has made a choice:
Of this City, lain as open space, in its natural
keep Fanno Creek flood p pedestrian/bike
state, and allow only passive recreation and
travel uses within its boundaries.
applicant in this matter met his burden of proof
While the aPP technically, that fill could safely be
paced
establishing,within the flood Plain, without reducing the carrying
l
acity of the flood plain, his appli-
capacity, or storage cap policy already established by this
cation contravenes the
City of no development within the flood plain oandaOpenCSpace
Interestingly enough, the Environmental Design
Plan speaks to the technical sipart, considering
cesslofineval-
in Fanno Creek. It states, in P
uating the plan area for flood plains and wet lands, several
informational problems were identified:
1. Discrepancies were found between calculated flood
elevations and their demarcation on the official maps.
flood3. Lack of disti-nctionbetwee the plainwfringeea of
fastest stream flow) and the flood
q. Lack of reliable hydrologic data regarding flood
levels expected from future development. " (pages 9-10)
In response to those problems, Policy 2 was written, stating:
i "The City shall initiate
anage and flood`�plain�managementtstudy
ional
water shed, storm d establish restrictive interim
of the Fanno Creek basin, an
standards for development until sufficient of adequacy. available
interim
to set standards at identified levels
off anderosioncaused
standards shall limit the rate of run
t
Page Five
John and Janice Duncan
M 2-82
by a development both during and at completion of construction,
as well as development in all flood plain and wetland areas y
identified in the physical inventory. " That study is underway
now, as a cooperative effort with the Cities of Beaverton and '
Perhaps after that
Tualatin, and with Washington County.
study is completed, the City will consider a revision to
their current policy to preserve Fanno Creek flood plain for
recreational purposes. But that possibility is not before
this Hearings Officer.
As the application fails to meet the standards and policiOfficer
of the various plans of the City of Tigard, the Hearing
has not addressed the LCDC issues which may be relevant.
CONCLUS IONS:
The application violates the policies of the Comprehensive
Plan of the City of Tigard and the Policies of the Environmental
Design and Open Space Plan of the City of Tigard.
RECOMMENDATION:
Denial. The applicants shall remove all fill material pre-
viously placed within the flood plain of Fanno Creek no later than
November 15, 1982.
Dated this 7th day of October, 1982.
HEARINGS_ J CER
BETH B UNT
i
nu
17�
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 2. 1
CITY OF TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER
SEPTEMBER 23 , 1982 - 7:00 P-M-
DURHAM WASTE TREATMENT PLANT - CONFERENCE ROOM
Corner of S.W. Durham & S.W. Hall
Tigard, Oregon
A. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. GENERAL INFORMATION
CASE: M 2-82 Sensitive Lands Permit
REQUEST: For a Sensitive Lands Permit to include landscape
and fill within the floodplain, for future development
of a building and landscaping.
RECOMMENDATION: Based on staff analysis of the technical
information supplied by the applicant and
site inspection, staff recommends that the Hearings officer
approve the Sensitive Lands Permit with the conditions listed
on Page 5 of the staff report.
APPLICANT: John & Janice Duncan OWNER: Same
16055 S .W. 74th
Tigard, Oregon 97223
LOCATION: 16055 S.W. 74th (WCTM 2S1 13A lot 1500)
LOT AREA: 6 .9 acres
PRESENT ZONE DESIGNATION: M-3 Light Industrial
NPO COMMENT: No comments from NPO # 5 had been received at
the writing of this report.
PUBLIC NOTICES MAILED: 18 public notices were mailed to
surrounding property owners on
September 13, 1982. One written response was received and
is attached as Exhibit "A" .
2. BACKGROUND
On July 21, 1982, the Public Works Director wrote a memo to
the city Council which is attached as Exhibit "B" . The owner
had filled in the floodplain area of his property without a
Sensitive Lands Permit. A Sensitive Lands Permit was filed
on September 7 , 1982.
STAFF REPORT M 2--
PAGE
--PAGE 2
r
` 3. VICINITY INFORMATION
The property to the northeast and south is developed for
industrial uses.
The western portion of the property is within the 100 year
floodplain. Fanno Creek runs southerly through the property.
All of the land within the 100 year floodplain is designated
greenway/open space on the Comprehensive Plan. The property
west of the greenway is currently designated urban low density
residential.
4 . SITE CHARACTERISTICS
There is an existing warehouse on the site which occupies
approximately 4 of the total land area. A little more than
40% of the property lies within the 100 year floodplain.
The property slopes toward Fanno Creek.
B. APPLICABLE LAND USE POLICIES AND STAFF ANALYSIS
1. LCDC GOALS AND GUIDELINES
a. Citizen Involvement - The intent of this goal is to
insure the opportunity for citizens to be involved
in all phases of the planning process. Owners of
record within 250 feet of the site were notified by
mail on September 13 , 1982. In addition, a legal
notice was published in the Tigard Times on September
9 , 1982.
b. Land Use Planning - All applicable LCDC goals and
guidelines, NPO # 5 policies and Tigard Municipal
Code sections have been considered in review of this
application.
C. Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural
Resources - The intent of this goal is to protect
land which may have a value as open space, historic
or natural resource areas. There are twelve resources
to be considered in review of this goal. The resources
applicable to the applicant's proposal are .as follows _
1. Land needed or desirable for open space; a portion
of this site is designated greenway on the City's
adopted Parks and Open Space Plan. There is a
bike path proposed for the greenway in this area
but no other greenway uses are proposed. There
is 100 feet of greenway between the residential
lands to the west and the area the property owner
has filled.
STAFF REPORT M 2-82 (---
PAGE
-82 (-PAGE 3
( 2. Water areas, wetlands, water sheds and groundwater
resources. A portion of the property lies within
the 100 year floodplain of Fanno Creek. The
applicant is proposing to remove approximately 850
yards of earth sloping to the 100 year floodplain
to mitigate the fill which will allow for construction
of a new building in the future. Section 18.57. 070
of the Tigard Municipal Code addresses standards
for reviewing proposals to cut and fill within the
floodplain.
d. Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards - In the
case of this site, flooding is a concern. The excavation
proposed by the applicant will be done to meet the re-
quirements of the City under Section 18. 57. 070 of the
Tigard Municipal Code. This code section prohibits any
fill or excavation which would reduce the capacity of
the floodplain area or raise flood surface elevations
or adversely affect flow direction on upstream or
downstream properties.
e. Economy - The purpose of this goal is to improve and
encourage diversification of the State 's economy.
Economic growth and expansion of existing businesses
should be encouraged by the City. However, the benefits
of encouraging business expansion in this case needs to
be weighed against the effect of the applicant' s
proposal on the floodplain and flood control treasures.
f. Public Facilities and Services - The intent of this goal
is to insure the availability of public services to
developing areas. Sewer, water and storm drainage are
available to service the site. Specific locations will
be addressed at the time furture development occurs.
2 . APPLICABLE NPO # 5 POLICIES
POLICY 22. The industrial portion of the NPO is seen as an
economic asset .to Tigard community and land use decisions
which affect this area must be judged according to their
economic implication.
3. APPLICABLE POLICIES FROM ENVIORNMENTAL DESIGN AND OPEN SPACE
PLAN
POLICY 1. Designate areas of physical limitation (poorly
drained, seasonally flooded, ground instability) and incorporate
these designations in the City zoning Ordinance and Map, and
develop gradutated development restrictions according to the
distinct characteristics of the constraints and anticipated
limitations.
A portion of the site is designated greenway/floodplain and
is subject to requirements under Chapter 18. 57 of the Tigard
Zoning Code.
STAFF REPORT M 2-C
PAGE 4
Policy 5. The City shall adopt an ordinance to regulate
the removal and/or replacement of existing natural vegetation
in designated areas, e.g. floodplains, drainageways, areas
of high visibility, unique habitats, or rare species.
Significant trees or stands of lumber shall be protected.
Chapter 18.57 of the Tigard Municipal Code regulates activity
within the floodplain.
i
4 . APPLICABLE POLICIES FROM THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
Chapter 18.57 Sensitive Lands
a. 18 . 57 .010 Statement of Intent - The floodplain district_
has for its purpose the preservation of natural water
storage areas within the floodplain district by dis-
couraging or prohibiting incompatible uses.
b. 18. 57. 040 Uses and Activities allowed with a Special Permit
(2) (B) Any change in the topography or terrain which would
change the flow of waters during flooding periods , or
which would increase the flood hazard or alter the
direction or velocity of floodwater flow.
The new fill and excavation proposed by the applicant
will alter the topography of the site.
C. 18 .57.060 Special Use Permits - The applicant has
provided the staff and Hearings Officer adequate in-
formation to make a decision on the proposal.
d. 18.57 .070 Standards - (a) Application for a special use
permit in floodplain areas shall be granted or denied in
accordance with the following standards:
(1) No structure, fill, excavation, storage or other use
shall be permitted which alone or in combination with
existing or proposed uses would reduce the capacity of
the floodplain area or raise either the flood surface
elevation or flow rates, or adversely affect flow direction
on upstream or downstream properties , or create a present
or forseeable hazard to public. health, safety and general
welfare.
The applicanth narrative (Attached Exhibit "C") addresses
standards required for action on a Sensitive Lands Permit
to allow fill and excavation within the 100 year flood-
plain. The City Engineer has reviewed the applicant's
narrative. His comments are attached as Exhibit "D" .
Briefly, the City Engineer finds that the proposal is
consistent with the City's "zero .foot" f loOdway ordinance
and that any change in direction of flow are not detrimental
to the health, safety and welfare of the public and will
not adversely affect upstream or downstream properties.
STAFF REPORT
PAGE 5
f
5. APPLICABLE OREGON REVISED STATUTES SECTIONS
Staff has ,attached applicable ORS sections to this report
(attachment "E") .
C. STAFF ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
After careful review of the technical data submitted by the
applicant, it is the opinion of the City Engineer and staff
that the fill presently in place, if offset by the excavation
proposed by the applicant, does not violate the intent or
purpose of the floodplain district. Further, 100 feet of green-
way/open space buffer will remain between this site and the
land designated single family to the west. It is staff 's
opinion that 100 feet is adequate for the purpose intended
for the Greenway. The applicant's proposal will not reduce
the capacity of the floodplain area, raise the flood surface
elevations or flow rates, adversely affect flow direction or
create a hazard to public health, safety and general welfare.
Remaining issue regarding this proposal involves the Greenway
Bikeway System. In accordance with the adopted Parks and
Open Space a bike path is to be constructed along Fanno Creek
within the Greenway area. (see attached map Exhibit "F" . )
When development occurs adjacent to greenway area, it is the
responsibility of each property proposing development to
complete their portion of the Greenway Bikeway Systgm, .or at
a minimum acquire an estimate for the construction of the
bike path and submit a deposit to the City to cover the cost
of construction.
Staff recommends approval of the Sensitive Lands Permit allowing
the new fill to remain and permitting the excavation as proposed
with the following conditions:
1. A soils investigation by an approved soils engineer of the
area to be filled shall be made before and after the filling
and excavation occurs.
2. The material used for stream bank protection shall be as
required on attached plan from the City of Tigard Drainage
Plan. (figure # 6 .1) The rip rap shall go in prior to
November 15, 1982.
3. All lands remaining in the 100 year floodplain shall be
dedicated to the public prior to the issuance of any permits.
The dedication document shall be recorded with Washington
County after it is approved by the City.
STAFF REPORT
PAGE 6
Conditions continued:
4 . A plan showing the topography of the entire site and
potential areas of cut and fill, if any, as a guide for
determining Greenway boundaries, shall be submitted
prior to permit approval.
5. The applicant shall construct a bikeway to City standards
the length of subject property, to meet the approval of
the City Engineer; or at a minimum the applicant shall
submit to the City an estimate for the cost of construction
for the bikepath and a deposit to cover those costs.
Should the permit not be approved the new fill shall be removed
prior to November 15, 1982.
f
I //cA// IIAIIS�11M)
AO
PREP D BY: Eliza eth A. New n APPROVED BY: William A. Mo n
Associate Planner Director of Planning
and Development
REVIEWED BY: Frank A. 'Currie
Public Works Director
i
i
s
I
3
C7 r
-'HIBIT nAn J
i_n September 15, 1982-
151
982151 1 5 S--,'/- 74th Ave l
Fp ,7 T:Lr7ard, Oregon 97225
OTigard _'earin-:s Crficee/7-Y
Plannin ,Di�shtove OF
p�NN/NG p�pD t
12755 S.'�� .
Ti�arc?, Oregon 97223 7'.
D-ar Sir: i
Re: Sensitiv�e Lards Permit M 2-82 Jadco Chemical NPO r5
As the owner of 2 acres on S.N. 74th Ave. for 40 years or so
t
I think the, permit should be denied and I ani wondering
1 . ':Why with city, county and state police passing the corner of
74th Ave, and Durham Road this illegal land fill on the flood
plain of Fanno Creek was ever allowed to start Each fall and
spring durin.; flood time the waters of the creek easily reach �
74th Ave. at this point.
2. In spite of three desist orders from the city, orders plainly
hosted on trees the dumping has still cone on and is btill in progress.
No-a besides the fill dirt rubbish and ce:_ent tailings are being
added to the fill to polute the creek.
3. Mr. John Duncan or whoever is responsible for the fill should be
required to turn the area to its original state, for the loss of
this reservoir for floodwater will push the flood crater farther �
up the creek and caused last fall the floodinm of the parking
area of the new apartments on Bonita Ro._ d.
4. To the city official concerned: It should be noted that the drain-
---- --are A-who was responsible for the fill, has neglected to place
a screen or grate over the mouth of the sewer where it flows into �
the creek and right now with the creek low small children could
creep into the tile without even ge-trtir_., their feet viet. r_ grating
should be installed at once.
Sincerely yours,
C.A. Hubbard
Carbon retained
C _.
fEXHIBIT "B" C
July 21, 1982
r
MEEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: public Works Director
f6
SUBJECT: Floodplain Filling at 74th Avenue & Durham Road M- s
An estimated 5,000 cubic yards of fill have been placed in the floodplain at
SW 74th Avenue and Durham Road without a permit.
A stop work order has been issued and the property owner given until Wednesday, 1
July 21, 1982, to pick up a sensitive lands application at City Hall.
i
This pe-.m.3t will require considerable engineering and soils work on behalf of ¢
the property owner to give us the information necessary to evaluate the extent
of the impact on the floodplain, floodway, greerlway and open space.
I anticipate allawing the property Owner until the end of August to accomplish F
the necessary engineering and hydraulics work and submit a completed sensitive 4
lands application_
I
Staff evaluation and staff report should be completed in time to allow the Hearings
Officer to render a decision in -September, in plenty of time to have any material
removed before the rainy season should that be required-
We will keep the Council updated on the progress of this issue.
I
s
i
i
i
• -- .�'% r !� f•' �til . ��
��� � O i' •''-'fir' � •\\\
{ � �- � ,� ,�� ��, \. oma. �•
1C+7 JJ
_MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED Sheet 1 of 3
EXHIBIT "C"
MEI Job #182367
JADCO
INTRODUCTION
The following narrative will provide brief responses
to the Tigard Boning Ordinance criteria for a Sensi-
tive Lands Permit. The proposal includes cut and fill
within the floodplain_, for future development of build-
ing, landscaping, and open space.
The fill material which has been placed on the site, .._
was obtained by the applicant from the contractor in-
stalling a new storm water drainage pipe in Durham
Road, as well as other local construction projects.
The applicant received the material after checking
with the State of Oregon. He was unaware that a per-
mit for filling, from the City, was required on the
assumption that disposing of the excess material in
this manner would be of value to all parties concern-
ed.
The filled area was previously a low depression, sub-
ject to periodic flooding from Fanno Creek. With the
addition of the fill, the applicant will utilize the x
a
upland area for future building, parking and land-
scaping, while the slope, floodplain, and stream chan-
nel will remain in a natural character.
It should be emphasized that although the fill has been
placed, the applicant was not aware of the necessity of
permits, and did not intend to circumvent any regula-
tions.
In addition to the following statements addressing Sec-
tion 18. 57 (Sensitive Lands) and Part II (a) 4 of the
floodplain application, a site plan has been prepared
and accompanies the application. Also, complete engi-
neering calculations have been submitted to the Direc-
tor of Public Works. '
A. The pro2osal will not reduce the capacity of
the floodplain area or raise either the flood_
surface elevations or flow rates.
The proposal maintains the floodplain capacity
in two ways:
1. The channel flow capacity is maintained
by reducing the wetted perimeter of the
channel which reduces flow resistance
and friction, and increases the hydrau-
lic efficiency of the channel. The flood Principals:
• Thomas R.Mackenz.'e
Eric T.Saito
M.M.Breshears i
1
1
1
0690 S.W. BANCROFT STREET PORTLAND, OREGON 97201 • PHONE 503/224-9560
MAC ME ZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED Sheet 2 of 3
MEI Job 4M182367
JADCO
profile is controlled downstream by the
constriction at the Durham Road bridge.
This constriction remains unc'-snged by
this proposal .
2. The storage volume of the floodplain
will be maintained by excavating areas
between the top of existing creek bank
and toe of fill slope.
The capacity of Fanno Creek, adjacent to the
subject property, has been calculated for the
following conditions:
1. Existing stream (prior to fill) .
2. Existing stream plus fill to date.
3 . Proposed total fill, floodplain alteration.
B. The Proposal will not adversely affect the flow
ci
f direton on upstream or downstream properties.
F The proposal does not include any relocation of
the main stream channel, therefore, no redi-
rection of flood flows will occur.
C. Identify any foreseeable hazards to public
health, safety and welfare, and how they
will be mitigated.
The proposal will not create or increase any
hazard to the public health, safety or general
welfare since the basic drainage way character
will not change. In most cases a drainage way
is not considered hazardous, since in its
natural state a flood water rise will occur
slowly enough to pose no particular danger.
Currently, large boulders and trees have been
dropped over the edge of the fill. These will
be removed, as they present minor flow restric-
tions in their current location (the log could
float out and result in substantial constric-
tion in the stream channel) .
MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED Sheet 3 of 3
MEI Job # 182367
JADCO
The earthwork (cut and fill) proposed will re-
suit in no change in the 100 year flood
profile, which is consistent with the City of
Tigard's adopted "zero foot" floodway ordinance. s
(see attached General Data Sheet and Computa-
tions submitted to the City Engineer) .
F
D. Erosion Control.
Erosion Control must be an integral part of the
alteration proposal. The alteration increases
the average stream velocity only about 13%,
(approx..5 fps. ) , however, the existing stream k
velocity is detrimental to unprotected native
material.
r
The relatively granular fill should be rip-
rapped
i
p-
rapped with 6" - 12" pit run rock to 1' above
the 100 year floodplain. The excavation area
should have an established native grass cover
prior to any major stream flows, as stream 3
velocities above 4 feet per second could cause y
erosion of the silty-clay soil. '
3
CONCLUSION
The proposal as herein outlined will allow industrially
zoned property to be developed to a higher level. it
has been demonstrated that the proposed modifications
to the 100 year floodplain will not cause a rise in the
flood profile; will not create re-direction or increase
in flow; will not cause erosion and sediment transport y
utilizing the recommended erosion control methods.
t
f
f
.DL/slm
W
GENERAL DATA SHEET
Backwater Curve
100 year flow rate at Durham Road - 5903 CFS, based on Corps of Engineers Data
for river mile 1. 44. Downstream control is the Durham Road Bridge, as channel
and flood profile steepen significantly downstream of the bridge.
Mannings "n" = 0. 06
Velocity Coefficient = 1. 36
Control PT elevation: C.O.E. 100 year elevation, 129 .19.
100 Year Flood Profile Elevations Before and After Construction
Sec- Elev. before Elev. after Elevation Elev. after Elevation
tion Current Fill Current Fill Change Proposed Fill/Exc. Change
0 129. 19 129. 19 0 129. 19 0
A 129. 62 129. 64 +. 02 ' 129.63 +. 01
B 129. 81 129. 85 +. 04 ' 129. 80 -.01
C 129.99 130. 03 +. 04 ' 129.99 0
Average Stream Velocity Before and After Construction
4 .- Vel. before Vel. after Velocity Vel. after Velocity
tion Current Fill Current Fill Change Proposed Fill/Exc. Change
0 7.47 7. 47 0 7. 47 0
A 4 .22 4. 86 ft/sec. +0. 64 f t/sec. 4 . 87 +.55 ft/sec.
B 3.33 3.77 ft/sec. +0. 44 f t/sec. 3. 71 +. 38 ft/sec.
C 3 .46 3. 43 -0. 03 ft/sec. 3. 09 +. 44 ft/sec.
I
now
f
COMIF
WASHINGTON COUNTY.OREGON
�VER'AL APPLICATION FORii CASE No.
CITY OF TIGARD, 12755 SW Ash , PO Box 23397 RECEIPT No.
Tigard, Oregon 97223 - (503)639-4171 _
1. GENEKd%L INFOF1-1ATION FOR STAFF USE ONLY:
PROPERTY ADDRESS . 16055 S. W. 74th. Associated Cases:
Tigard, Oregon 97223
LEGAL DESCRIPTION T25 R1.W Section 13(A) TL 1500
INTERNAL PROCESSIbW- ,:
Accepted f or Pre-rApp. :
SITE SIZE 6.9 acres _ f
PROPERTY OWN ER/DEED HOLDER John A. Duncan, Janice M. Duncan B
y= -
ADDRESS 16055 S. W. 74th PHONF. 684-0044 pre-A '
P_P .
CITY Tigard, Oregon ZIP 97223
Date &• Time
APPLICAPIT" Same as cwner
ADDRESS PHONF, _ _ Accepted for Decision=
CITY ZIP
By:
*Where the owner and the applicant are different people , the
applicant must be the purchaser of record or a leasee in Hearing Date:
ossession with written authorization from the owner or an
agent of the owner with written authorization. The written Hearing Reset To:
authorization must be submitted with this application.
2. REQUIRED LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION IS ATTACHED ❑ YES ❑ NO. Decision: filed & mailed
3. ' THIS APPLICATION INVOLVES THE FOLLOWING: APP. Accepted for Appeal: _
Comprehensive Plan Amendment FEE FILED PAID _
from to By:
quasi-judicial ------
legislative Date of Hearing:
Zone Change from to
quasi-judicial
legislative DESCRIPTION:
Planned Unit Development Comp. Plan iesignatLv
concept plan detailed plan NPO No.
Subdivision i
Major Partition
Minor Partition 'Zoning District
Design Review
Conditional Use Zoning Map No.
Variance to Zoning Ordinance
(Title 18) Quarter Section
Variance to Subdivision Ord.
(Title 17)
Sensitive Land Permit STAFF NOTES: {
_ Floodplains
Drainageways
�— Steep Slopes
'�— Other
GP.1\Ei2.Ai. APPLICATION 1`01:`i _ PAGI- 2 CASE No.
CITY OF TIGARD, 12755 SW Ash , PO Box 23397
Tigard , Oregon 97223 - (503)639-4171
C �PPLEMENTAL. INFORMATION (TO BE PROVIDED BY APPLICANT) FOR STAFF USE ONLY
Notice of Response
(
A ent
4 . DISTRICTS P
es No Yes
SCHOOL DISTRICT Tigard 23 J
WATER DISTRICT Tigard Water District
FIRE DISTRICT Tualatin Rural F.P.D.
PARK DISTRICT Tigard
UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY - Sewer Available: YES X NO
OTHER
5. PUBLIC UTILITIES
ELECTRICITY P.G.E.
NATURAL GAS Pacific Northwest Natural Gas.
TELEPHONE General
OTHER
6. PUBLIC TRANSIT (TRI MET)
NEAREST BUS ROUTE AND STOP #37 & #38 at Durham & Boones Ferry
##43 at Hall & Durham
7. . OTHER INTERESTED AGENCIES (SPECIFY)
Unified Sewerage Agency
i
E
F
S�S
P
8. CHARACTER W THE AREA
EXISTING LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION ZONE VERIFIED BY STAFF
NORTH Vacant R 7
SOUTH Psi 4
Durham Rd.
EAST 74th Avenue R 7
WEST
Vacant R 7 .
GCI\ERAI. APPLICATION FORM - PAGE 3 CASE No.
(-"ITY OF TIGARD, 12755 SW Ash , PO Box 23397
-igard , Oregon 97223 - (503)639-4171
9. CHhICGES IN THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA WHICH AFFECT THIS APPLICATION. Please Discuss:
Recently, a gradual development of property along 72nd and Durham Road of an industrial
nature has taken place. This project involves creation of additional building area for
future building(s) , and-thus would be an extension of tl4s gradual growth of industrially
zoned property in the City of Tigard.
10. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
Lot Area (acres, square feet) 6.90 acres '
s
11. EXISTING STRUCTURES ON THE SITE
Square Distance From Property-Line
Use Feet North South East West
i
Light Manufacturing 7800 3001
(County Zoning MA-1)
s
c
t
z
NATURAL CONDITIONS
12. Percent Slope:
13. Vegetation Types: Average Diameter Percent Of Each
Yes No Size Of Trees Per Size
Trees: X 2" & Less 80 %
Brush: X 10 - 12" 20 no tree removal
at t1lis,,tM
Grass: X _
14. Floodplains: X How much of the site is in floodplain? 43%
15. Water Courses X What type? Small intermittent
16. Rock Outcroppings X
17. Other:
18. Proposed Development: Please briefly describe the proposed development: The PrCPDsed
sensitive land application request includes landscaping and filling for fu_ twee building
development. The owner seeks the c-ity°s a_-roval of the filling that was acn::%x ilshed
without . The awrer s �wa'e o�t,ie ci s sensitive lands 't requirements.
CASE No.
GES EIZAL- APPLICATION FORM - PAGE 4
C .TY OF 'TIGARD, 12755 SW Ash, PO Box 23397
yard , Oregon 97223 - (503)639-4171
13. The following is is not required.® � 1
2p_ Overall Site Development
ial Open Space Other Roads Total
Residential Commercial Industr
+ Future ( a'k-nJ 7
No. of acres Building ar 3000 300,564'
or square _ -- 7800
feet per use
Percent of 96.4% 1 %
site 260 —
covert e
Type of Residential Use and Characteristics
#F of Bedrooms/Unit
T pe of Use # of Units EFF. 1 2 3 4 Proposed Density
Where applicable, please explain how the open space , common areas and recreational
facilities will be maintained.
r
F
i
4
if the project is to be completed in phases , please describe each phase of the project.
• I
r CASE No.
*-ENERAi; APPLICATION FORM - PAGE. 5
CITY OF TIGARD, 12755 SW Ash , Po Box 23397
Tigard , Oregon 97223 - (503)639-4171
THE FOLLOWING PEOPLE, AS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT, SHALL BE NOTIFIED OF EACH HEARING.
(e.g. Attorney, Surveyor , Engineer) Staff Notice
Notice Report Decision of Review
Name Dave Larson/Mackenzie Engineering
Street 0690 S. W. Bancroft Street
r
Cit po 1 State CXR zip 97201
Name
Stree t
Cit State zip
Name {
Street
city State Lip
- t
Name
Stree t
City State zip
i
FPLICANT
SER
- i
i
- r
. I
t
t
til
EXHIBIT "D"
1 . City Engineer has reviewed all calculations presented with the application
and finds that the proposed alterations to the site are consistent with
the citt.ps adopted"zero' foot/floodway ordinance and further, that any
increase/ in velocity or change in direction of flow are not detrimental
to the health, safety and welfare of the public and will not adversely
affect upstream or downstream properties. The city engineer also finds
that the proposed changes actually increase the hydraulic efficiency of _
the stream.
2. s:: applicant to provide a plan for development of the complete parcel .
(At least on this side of the creek) If no more filling is proposed in
the 100-year floodplain, then all land in the 100-year floodplain after
all proposed filling should be dedicated to the public for greenway
purposes.
3. Contribution to proposed bike trail system should be required in lieu of
of construction of a bike trail portion at this time.
4. It appears some filling has been done in the northeast portion of the
property which may also be involved in an intrusion into the 100-year
floodplain. Should be "checked out."
F
k
4
x
z
f
s
g
EXHIBIT "E"
54 1.060 NVA-TEIR
otherwise. Damage resulting from extraordi- 541.080 Suits involving water rights; +V
nary and unforeseen action of the elements,or parties; decree as to priorities. In any suit
attributable in whole or in part to the wrong- commenced for the protection of rights to
ful interference of another person or irriga- water acquired under the provisions of the Act
tion, drainage, water improvement or water of 1891, pages 52 to 60, Oregon Laws 1891,
control district organized pursuant to ORS the plaintiff may make any or all persons who : M
chapter 545, 547, 552, 553 or 554 with the have diverted water from the same stream or
irrigation, drainage, water supply, water source parties to the suit, and the court may
control or flood control works, which may not in one decree determine the relative priorities _ r
be known to the person or irrigation, drain- and rights of all parties to the suit. Any per-
age, water improvement or water control son claiming a right on the stream or source, sr
district organized pursuant to ORS chapter not made a party to the suit, may become such
545, 547, 552, 553 or 554 for such length of on application to the court, when it is made to
time as would enable the person or irrigation, appear that he is interested in the result, and
drainage,water improvement or water control may have his right determined.The court may
district organized pursuant to QRS chapter at any stage, on its own motion, require any =Yi•
545, 547, 552, 553 or 554 by the exercise of persons having or claiming rights to water on
reasonable efforts to remedy the same, shall the stream or source, to be brought in and
not be recovered against the person or irriga- made parties, when it appears that a complete - s
tion, drainage, water improvement or water determination of the issue involved cannot be
control district organized pursuant to ORS made without their presence.
chapter 545,547,552,553 or 554.
APPROPRIATION OF WATER
(2) An action or suit under subsection (1) FOR MINING AND ELECTRIC
of this section must be commenced within two POWER,UNDER 1899 ACT
years from the date when the damage is first --
discovered or in the exercise of reasonable 541.110 Use of water to develop min-
care should have been discovered. However,in eral resources and furnish power. The use a`
no event shall any such action or suit be com- of the water of the lakes and running streams
menced more than four years from the date of Oregon for the purpose of developing the
the damage actually occurred. [1979 c.882§11 mineral resources of the state and to furnish
electric power for all purposes, is declared to
541.060 Waste of water-, flooding be a public and beneficial use and a public _
premises; unnecessary diversion. Every necessity. Subject to the provisions of the rc
corporation having constructed a ditch, canal Water Rights Act(as defined in ORS 537.010),
or flume under the provisions of the Act of the right to divert unappropriated waters of _-
1891, pages 52 to 60, Oregon Laws 1891, shall any such lakes or streams for such public and
carefully keep and maintain the embank- beneficial use is granted. -
ments and walls thereof, and of any reservoir 1.120 Ditches, etc., through lands; :1
constructed to be used in conjunction there-
two or more Prohibited; use of existing
with, so as to prevent the water from wastingA.
{
and from flooding or damaging the premises ditch by others than owner; joint liability.
of others. The corporation shall not divert at No tract or parcel of improved or occupied P.r
any time any water for which it has no actual land in this state shall, without the written
use or demand. consent of the owner, be subjected to the bur-
den of two or more ditches, canals, flumes or
541.070 Ditches, canals and flumes as pipelines constructed under the Act of 1899, ±i F
real estate. All ditches, canals and flumes pages 172 to 180, Oregon Laws 1899, for the
permanently affixed to the soil, constructed Purpose of conveying water through the prop-
under the provisions of the Act of 1891, pages erty, when the same object can be feasibly and t
practically attained by uniting and conveying
52 to 60, Oregon Laws 1891, are declared to be all the water necessary to be conveyed :' c
real estate, and the same or any interest ro through such rt in one ditch, canal,
therein shall be transferred by deed only,duly g property
witnessed and acknowledged. The vendee of flume or pipeline. Any person having con-
the same, or any interest therein, at any stage structed a ditch, canal, flume or pipeline for
the purpose provided in the Act of 1899 shall
shall succeed to all the rights of his vendor,
and shall ed subject to the same liabilities allow any other person to enlarge such ditch,
canal, flume or pipeline, so as not to interfere
during his ownership.
302 �-
• 541.055
mISC ELLANEOUS l'ROVISIUNS
WATER COMPANIES ditches, canals, flumes,
distributing ditches,
ating
ORGANIZED UNDER 1891 ACT wa erfeeders
under the provisioons of the Act ofration 1891,
541.010 Furnishing of water for cer- across all lands belonging to the fStaie °s
fain purposes declared to be a public Oregon and not under contra ,
utility; rates; amendment of law. (1) The granted.
use of the water of the lakes and running 541.040 Headgate; mode of construc-
streams of Oregon, for general rental, sale or tion. Every corporation having constructed a
distribution, for purposes of irrigation, and ditch, canal or flume under the provisions of
supplying water for household and domestic the Act of 1891, pages 52 to 60, Oregon Laws
consumption, and watering livestock upon dry 1891, shall erect and keep in good repair a
lands of the state, is a public use, and the headgate at the head of its ditch, canal or
right to collect rates or compensation for such flume, which, together with the necessary
use of water is a franchise. A use shall be embankments, shall be of sufficient .height
deemed general within the purview of this and strength to control the water at all ordi-
section when the water appropriated is sup-
nary stages. The framework of the headgate
shall be of timber not less than fourr inches
plied to all persons whose lands lie adjacent to
or within reach of the line of the ditch, canal
or flume in which the water is conveyed,with- square, and the bottom, sides and gate shall
be of plank
out discrimination other than priority of con- not less than two inches.in thick-
tract, upon payment of charges therefor, as
ness.
long as there may be water to supply. 541.050 Leakage or overflow-, liabili-
ty; Every corporation having
(2) Rates for the uses of water mentioned constructed a ditch, canal, flume or reservoir
exception-
_ in this section may i,.:fixed by the Legislative co
under the provisions of the Act of 1
Assembly or by such officer as may be given e liable
pages
52 to 60, Oregon Laws l$91,shall for
be
that authority by the Legislative Assembly,
but rates shall not be fixed lower than will all damages done to the persons or property of
allow the net profits of any ditch,canal,flume others, arising from leakage or overflow of
!% or system thereof to-equal the prevailing legal water therefrom growing out of want of
rate of interest on the amount of money actu- strength in the banks or walls, or negligence
� or want of care in the management of the
ally paid in and employed in the construction ditch, canal, flume or reservoir. However,
and operation of the ditch, canal, flume or mage resulting from extraordinary and
system. unforeseen action of the elements,or attribut-
(3) This section and ORS 541.020 to able in whole or in part to the wrongful inter-
541.080 may at any time be amended by the ference of another with the ditch,canal,flume
Legislative Asse1:'''v, and commissioners for or reservoir, which may not be known to the
the management of water rights and the use corporation for such length of time as would
enable it by the exercise of reasonable efforts
of water may be appointed.
to remedy the same, shall not be recovered
541.020 Construction of ditch, etc., by against the corporation.
corporation; route across lands. Whenever 541.055 District liability for seepage
s any corporation organized under the Act of
1891,pages 52 to 60,Oregon Laws 1891, finds
and
dksa leakage
tio on commewater or ncement of
it necessary to• construct its ditch, canal,
flume, distributing ditches, or feeders across action. (1)Any person or irrigation,drainage,
the improved or occupied lands of another, it water improvement or water control district
shall select the shortest and most direct route organized pursuant to ORS chapter 545, 547,
or main-
practicable, having reference to cost of con- 552, 553 or 554 that drainage, water supply,
rates
struction upon which the ditch, canal, flume, tains any irrigation,
' distributing ditches, or feeders can be con- water control or flood control works shall be
structed with uniform or nearly uniform liable for damage caused by seepage and leak-
grade. age from such works only to the extent that
such damage is directly and proximately
j 541.030 Ditches, etc., across state caused by the negligence of the person or
lands; grant of right of way. The right of irrigation,
drainage, water improvement or
i"
way,to the extent specified in the Act of 1891, water control district organized pursuant to
pages 52 to 60, Oregon Laws 1891, for the ORS chapter 545,547,552,553 or 554 and not
i;� 301
• CHANNEL BANK PROTECTION
i
6_01 .00 General
Channel bank protection is necessary when natural bank material
is unstable as discussed in Section S. Riprap of rock, rubble masonry
with grout, sacked concrete, and broken concrete slab are most commonly =
used to protect embankment or channel slopes of unstable material .
-.02.00 . Rock Riprap
Rock riprap is either light loose or heavy loose riprap. Either
should-be p-iaced-on a one-foot thick filter material graded from sand _
to- 6 inch gravel to protect the original bank material from scour or
sloughing. The filter should be graded in layers from fine to coarse
out to the riprap. Riprap thickness should be 2 feet thick for light
loose and 3 feet thick for heavy loose riprap. The .toe of the riprap
should be placed below the channel bed a depth equal to the thickness
of the riprap.
i
OD= /DO yr depf/i
MR / or
f/after
Typica/ Roclr Pi�
f
Fig. 6-1
TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING BEFORE CITY OF TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER
September 23, 1982 - 7 :00 p.m.
Durham Waste Treatment Plant Conference Room
Corner of SW Durham Road and SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, Oregon
Re: M 2-82 - Sensitive Lands Permit - Jadco Chemical
Present as Staff: Beth Blount, Hearings Officer, City of Tigard
Elizabeth Newton, Associate Planner, City of Tigard
Note: The Hearings Officer introduced herse] and Elizabeth
Newton. She referred to the written procedures for the hearing,
and set forth the procedure to be followed. She ascertained there
were no objections by those present to her hearing this case.
s
Newton: This is a sensitive lands permit request to fill within the floodplain,
including landscaping, for future development of a building and
landscaping. The applicants are John and Janice Duncan. The property
is located at 16055 SW 74th in Tigard; it is 6.9 acres, the zoning
designation is M-3 Light Industrial.
f
We received no comment from NPO 5 at the writing of the staff report.
We mailed 18 notices, and one written response was received .
k
On July 21 the Public Works Director wrote a memorandum to the City
Council which is also attached to the staff report. The owner had
filled in the floodplain area of this property without a sensitive a
lands permit. Since then a permit was filed with the city on t
September 7, 1982. Based on staff analyses of the technical infor-ma- !
tion supplied by the applicant and site inspection, staff recommends E
that the hearings officer approve the sensitive lands permit with
the conditions listed with the staff report.
The staff has applied all. applicable 1,CDC goals , NPO 5 policies,
policies from the environmental design and open space plan, poli-
cies from the sensitive lands chapter of the Tigard Municipal Code.,
and we can go over the conditions.
's
Blount: (. . . .Suggesting she do so. . . .)
E
Newton: Okay. Staff recommends approval with five conditions. The conditions
are:
r
1. A soils investigation by an approved soils engineer of the
area to be filled shall be made before and after the filling and
excavation occurs.
2. The material used for stream bank protection sliall be as
required on attached plan from the City of Tigard P-ainage Plan. .
The riprap shall go in prior to November 15, 1.982.
-1-
t
k
i
t
TRANSCRIPT OF HEARINGS OFFICER HEARIN(;
EJadco Chemical
Sept. 23, 1982
Newton: 3. All lands remaining in the 100 year floodplain shall be
(Cont.) dedicated to the public prior to the issuance of any permits. The
dedication document shall. be recorded with Washington County after
it is approved by the City.
4. A plan showing the topography of the entire site and poten-
tial areas of cut and fill , if any, as a guide for determining
Greenway boundaries, shall be submitted prior to permit approval..
5. The applicant shall construct a bikeway to City standards the
length of subject property, to meet the approval of the City Engi-
neer; or at a minimum the applicant shall submit to the City an
estimate for the cost of construction for the bikepath and a deposit
to cover those costs.
Blount : I have one question on your recommendations, recommendation on
Condition No. 1. What are you accomplishing on the soils investi-
gation -- do they want to know whether the fill is solid?
Newton: Yes, for future building if there is to be a building placed on the
fill. And the before would be only in the case of the excavation
that is to occur.
i
Blount: But your goal in the soils investigation is to make sure that it is
E
suitable for a building?
i
f
Newton: Yes.
t
Blount: All. right. Are there any questions that need clarification regarding
the staff report? This is a time for questions, not testimony.
{
Duncan: That engineering report that you anticipate on the sensitive lands j
fill permit and the engineering report will follow?
Newton: The engineering report would be filed after the permit.
Blount : Again we are talking about the soils report? is that what you are
talking about? Any other questions in clarification? Okay. Then
I will open the public portion of tile. hearing, and I will ask either
the applicant or his representative.
Duncan: I am John Duncan. (Wrote out his name and address.) I am John
Duncan, and I am the property owner at 16055 SW 74th. . . . . .
the history of what happened, I did put the fill in, and I had
advice from certain people which didn' t turn out to be correct.
After I did this I found f heard from the City of Tigard. They
said I had to file a permit for this, and when I heard from them I
merely had the people stop putting the fill in. I fulfilled the
-2-
a
I
TRANSCRIPT OF HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING
i .ladco Chemical
Sept. 23, 1982
Duncan: request of the City of Tigard, and I hired McKenzie Engineering,
(Cont. ) Dave Larson, to do the work after the ,`.act. And that's where we
are at.
As far as hoin€ over this stuff right here (referring to conditions) :
No. 1, you know, that 's fine, the soils investigation . .
check on the material used. Going on to No. 2. The thin; that I
would like to delay is item No. 3 (dedication of floodplain) .
Blount : You just want to delay it?
Duncan: No, I would, you know, go along with this at the time we are ready
to put up a building or do something with the property.
Blount : Well, yoci are doing something with the property now: you are filling.
Duncan: Right.
Blount : But I guess I need some more information why you would like No. 3
waived.
i
Duncan: I just don' t think this is the proper time to turn something like
this over to the city.
i
Blount: Why not?
Duncan: Well, (hesitating) I just feel that when the time comes that I
1
do want to do something --- i
i
Blount : What's the difference, Mr. Duncan What's the difference between i
giving it to the city now, and giving it to the city at the time
you want to build a building? You are still giving it to the city. i
Duncan: Well , the thing of it is, you know, they might have, when it comes
time that f do, you know--when I do, if. I do, want to put up a
building, they might have some other conditions. You know maybe
I could use that property for negotiatin'; when I put up my building t
or do something, maybe for landscaping or something like this, and -
use this as a trade off. (Long pause.) That , basically, is what - -
Blount: You don' t have any objections to 4 and 5?
Duncan: Yeah, let's see here. Four, I don't have any objection to that.
No. 5, as far as -- again when the time comes as far as, you know,
putting the bike path and stuff, I don't want to put up any money
right now, but when the time comes to put a bike path up, I will
have the money to pay for it. The reason I don't want to do it at
this particular time is due to economic- conditions. That's basically
what ---
-3-
TRANSCRIPT OF HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING
Jadco Chemical
l Sept. 23, 1982
Blount : All right, thank you. Anyone el.se wishing to speak in favor of the
application:
Larson: My name is Dave Larson. I represent McKenzie Engineering, Portland.
Regarding Condition No. 4, it asks that further information be
provided on the entire site topography, and then also an idea of
what the ultimate development of this side of the creek would be.
At an appropriate time I would like to submit this.
Blount: Okay, you can submit it; but I am not a qualified engineer to approve
whether this meets city standards or not, so ---
Larson: Frank Currie asked that I generate this and have it available.
Blount: Okay, that's fine. Okay, why don't you -- Just let me mark this.
Are these three copies all the same thing?
Larson: All the same thing.
Blount: Okay, I will mark this as Exhibit 2. Exhibit 1 tonight is the
Planning staff report. So this is the topographic map? A side
view cross sections. Okay. Existing warehouse, here's the creek,
{ top of the cut, tope of the slope, top of the slope. Okay. But
you have not shown any proposed building sites here"?
Larson: At this time the applicant came to us merely to satisfy his require-
i
ment by the city to resolve this matter in ' he most expeditious
manner. He represents that there is no immediate plan for a building-,
and that at some time in the future he will be approaching the
city for appropriate permits when planning the building.
E
Blount: All right, thank you.
Larson: I preserved the work on this, if there arc any questions. 4
s
Blount : Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak in favor of the application?
Okay, I see none. Those in opposition? Okay, come up front.
Your name is --
Schwartz: John Schwartz (wrote it out) . Okay. It's not that I am personally
against a person developing their own property as they see fit.
I am very sensitive in that area myself. However, I feel that
possibly the Hearings Officer should have a little background
knowledge of how this hearing came about tonight.
Blount: Okay, wait a second. Let me state something for the record here
that will put this all in context. I realize there is a substantial
amount of unrest about the fact that fill occurred before the permit
application. I do not consider that particular sequence of events in
-4-
TRANSCRIPT OF HEARINGS OFFICER 11EARING
Jadco Chemical
Sept. 23, 1982
Blount : determining whether in fact a fill should be on that site or not,
(Cont.) because theoretically we could refuse to accept an application,
he could remove all the fill, turn around and apply, and we would
have exactly the same data before us that we are going to have
before us tonight. So I am considering this application as if
there is no fill on the property, and I am considering the engineer-
ing data that's available, both regarding the fill and the need of
protections for the fill to see whether it falls within the criteria
of the sensitive lands permit. So, keeping that in mind, and the
fact that I am aware of the sequence of events -- okay?
Schwarts: I happen to own a piece of property lying not adjacent to this
property, but on the strip --
Blount: Are you across Fanno Creek?
Schwartz: I am across Fanno Creek. I live on 76th. All the property on
74th is zoned commercial or industrial. I have a couple of concerns
on this in the fact that other sensitive lands permits have been
denied due to the flood plain issue, and I believe this is by the
county some time ago. Allowing all. the commercial to fill in to the
property lines would basically abut -- could abut industrial
properties directly up to residential which borders, and in some
cases the property lines cross the creek. Do you follow me?
Blount : No, I am afraid I don' t. You are suggesting that on your side of
the property -- on your side of the creek where the properly is
zoned commercial. --
Schwartz: No, it is residential.
Blount: Oh, I am sorry--residential. Where is the commercial property?
This is zoned industrial.
E
F
Schwartz: That's right. The property -- get a map -- (rustling of papers)
i
E
Newton: We are down here on the creek, and Mr. Duncan's property is on this
side --
Schwartz: Oka the property lines basically come right down the center
here. Okay. A corner of my property happens to be on the opposite
side, the industrial side of the creek; the property is zoned
industrial.
Now if it is a habit that we are going to allow these landfills
into the floodplain, joining thaL up, then we are joining up and
abutting up against a residential property directly adjacent to
industrial property, and which the Tigard Planning staff themselves
-5-
1
i
i
i
f" TRANSCRIPT OF HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING
Jadco Chemical
Sept. 23, 1982
Schwartz: have attempted or supposedly have attempted to put in some kind of
(Cont.) a buffer zone between zoned residential and industrial.
Blount: Okay. It is my understanding -- and let me just see if you knew
this -- that between the edge of the developed industrial. land and
your property there will be a greenway buffer on this side of it --
that's what Mr. Duncan was asking that I waive right now was that
particular greenway buffer, and that is -- do you know how wide
it is, off the top of your head?
Newton: Approximately 100 feet.
Blount: Approximately 100 feet wide.
Schwartz: On that particular property.
Newton: On that particular property.
Schwartz: Okay; but what about the rest of the property?
Blount: I can' t consider the rest of it; I don't have jurisdiction over the
rest of it right now. All I have got is jurisdiction over this
particular piece of property. Now do you know the city policy on t
that--is there an established policy?
Newton: That's what the greenway policy is for. There's the greenway policy
and the floodplain situation, and this staff report attempts to
outline concerns both dealing with the floodplain concerns. There i
is a policy in the city now to leave a greenway buffer between
commercial and residential, or indus'-rial and residential.
i
Blount: And that's part of the comprehensive plan?
Newton: Yes; it is also part of the Code. #'
Schwartz: The comprehensive plan at this time is not complete--it is being
developed.
Blount: But it is also part of the Code.
Schwartz: That could be. Also in a letter to the city council on July 21
from the staff, when originally this problem came up, a staff report
to the council at that time was that the permit would require
consideration on behalf of the property owner to
give us information necessary to evaluate the extent of the impact
on the floodplain, floodway, greenway and open space. I do not feel
that it is proper to give this sensitive landfill permit and to
issue it until. all engineering studies have been acquired and
developed. The bridges along Fanno Creek, both at Durham and at
-6-
TRANSCRIPT OF HEARINGS OFF-FCER HEARING
Jadco Chemical
Sept. 23, 1982
Schwartz: Hall Boulevard on the other end are considered substandard and will
(Cont. ) and do at timesflood in times of high water. Filling these flood-
plains in, how is that going to assure the residents and the other
people in the area that the water -- this extra amount of fill
will not cause this water to flood more often and more deeply
across the existing bridges?
Blount : Do you understand how fill works? Fill under the Tigard ordinance
you can't just fill . Every place you fill you have to do some
compensatory excavation to handle the water that you have just
filled. So it isn't as if this property is just being filled.
That's what happened prior to the permit application, but as soon
as the application of the standards of the city were imposed, then
their engineer in fact, you know, presented us with a plan whereby
there would be fill in one location and eStcavation in another to
handle the additional water, because the ordinance says you cannot
increase the flow.
Schwartz: That's correct. And I don't see how it's possible on that particular
property until a study has been made, and how this --
Blount: Well, there has been. That is what this particular engineer did.
' McKenzie Engineering. That's his proposal. That's what I have.
That's part of the staff report. Have you seen this particular --
Schwartz: No, 1 haven' t.
Blount: Okay, this is an engineering report. It is attached to my staff
report so it is part of Exhibit 1, from McKenzie Engineering, Inc. t
And that in fact -- Mr. Larson, are you the one that in fact did
the work? Maybe it would be helpful to the people here if you
went through the work that you did and explained exactly what you
did and how you arrived at the conclusions YOU arrived at. Would
you be interested in hearing it?
C
Schwartz: Yes, T would.
Blount: Okay, why don' t we table you -- we can continue your testomony;
but let's take it out of: order and let Mr. Larson explain what he did.
Larson: (Business of mounting drawings on blackboard.) This is 74th Avenue;
this is Durham Road. The bridge is approximately here. The fill.
that was established up to this point in time is roughly in this
area as documented by an engineering, survey that was done on the 4
property. The creek runs roughly through here, and the initial
calculation on the fill indicated that: the 100 year floodplain would
rise somewhere in the vicinity of: a half an inch to an inch adjacent
to this area. The reason that is true from an engineering standpoint
-7-
i
TRANSCRIPT OF HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING
Jadco Chemical
Sept. 23, 1982
Larson: is that this land over here is fairly shallow with some grasses on
(Cont. ) it and wasn't going to be highly efficient for carrying flood
water. [dhen you fill here, indeed you raise the floodplain, because
you have restricted the stream's ability to carry the water. . The
floodplain in this area is roughly right in here, and I am taking
this section from the center, roughly in here. You can see that this
area in here is not as efficient because it is flat -- bear Ln mind
the scale is exaggerated -- this is approximately 100 feet here,
and this is approximately four feet here. But by doing this fill
that he did up to this limit, the actual 1.00 year floodplain was
raised, and when a 100 year flood comes by you are going to notice
a rise here and an equivalent rise to a certain extent for a length
upstream. In order to take care of that, you provide an excavation
adjacent to the creek. This is r.iore efficient for two reasons:
it giveg approximately the same area of this area that was filled
for the water to flow through. The other thing it does is reduces
the amount of water that is touched by land: in other words, the
efficiency of the channel is greater. This is a cross section that
is very similar to a cross section that is proposed in the City
of Tigard Drainage Plan prepared by CH2M. It is a generation of that
same cross section. What you have done is replaced the shallow
overgrown area with a seeded area much closer to the main channel
of the water., and therefore this fill in this area is mitigated by
this excavation adjacent to the stream.
It should be noted that no change in the center line of the stream
is proposed here--it is merely an offset, and you have to calculate
that at intervals to get any sort of accuracy on it, and that's
where our study was taken into accoui.,. The City Engineer reviewed
the calculations and found that we made reasonable engineering
assumptions in developing the work, and he had no suggestions on
how I might -improve on my work.
Blount: Okay, in the ? of your report , is the fill banked? Lt is rip-
rapped --
Larson: I suggested in the report that it be riprapped. That was supple-
mented by Condition, I. believe No. --
Blount: Could it be done by November 15?
Larson: Right. Condition No. 2. And that is a valid consideration, because
near the bridge the channel is restricted and the velocity is increased
and this proposal would not be survivable without the riprap. It
would risk whatever materials were subject to that high velocity
water into the stream and possibly create some constriction in the
stream or deposit material on properties downstream. I think I should
C
-8-
TRANSCRIPT OF HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING
t Jadco Chemical
Sept. 23, 1982
Larson: mention that this technique is similar to other uses along Fanno
(Cont. ) Creek in Tigard and Beaverton, in particular the Main Street planned
shopping center area was a very similar procedure and the same
general approach from an engineering standpoint. Could I answer
any questions on that?
Blount: I have a question. The ordinance provides that the proposal "shall
not reduce the capacity of the floodplain area, or raise either the
flood surface elevation or flow rate." Now if I understand your
testimony, the flow rate is increased. The water is moving faster
through the channel.
Larson: That 's correct. The way to evade that is to riprap the bank.
Blount: Does that slow the water down?
Larson: It does to a certain extent; but it is more used to protect the bank.
You should bear in mind that the increase in velocity is a small
percentage of the total, and that as it passes under the bridge,
that extra energy is more than abated. The flood profile downstream
of this bridge drops the elevation--the flood surface lowers con-
siderably as it passes through this bridge. The bridge is a
constriction and therefore does tend to dissipate the energy.
f
Blount: Is the bridge structurally sound enough to dissipate the energy of
an increased flow rate?
Larson: A flow rate of this magnitude is not damaging. The bridge was --
Blount: What are we talking about in terms of an increase? I don't recall
seeing that figure (shuffling of papers) the general ? ?
Larson: Right.
Blount: (Reading) "Vel.ocity before the current fill , velocity after
the current fill, velocity change."
Larson: At station zero.
Blount: Is that the cross section we are talking about?
Larson: Right; at station zero; at the bridge there is no change because
there is no work done right up next to the bridge. At Section A-1
it's increased a half a foot per second. Typically the soils in
this area are susceptible to erosion at 4 to 6 feet per second,
and that's why we endorsed the riprap.
Blount: And the current rate is ?
Larson: The current rate at that Fection is 4.22.
-9-
TRANSCRIPT OF HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING
Jadco Chemical
Sept. 23, 1982
Blount: Okay, I guess 1 am a little confused how you lose the increased
velocity. Where does it go? Particularly with the constriction of
the bridge? I could see losing it on the other side of the bridge
if you have got more room for the water to spread, but between your
excavation and the bridge, where does it go?
Larson: I am not sure I know how to explain that. The fact that the bridge
is there and the fact that the water passes under the bridge
through the tightening of the channel, and then it has more room
to spread. It is a transition from here to here.
Blount: So what you are saying is that the section zero is measured below
the bridge--after it has gone through the bridge?
Larson: Section zero is right at the upstream edge of the bridge.
Blount: Of the upstream edge. Well, I guess you still haven' t answered my
question then.
Larson: The work is here.
Blount: flow -- You have demonstrated, of course -- you have demonstrated
that the section A which is your section nearest to the bridge --
Larson: do the work, and I admit that we have closed the channel
down some, made less area, the same amount of water going through
a smaller area yields a higher velocity. But at roughly 50 feet
from the L_4,lge we haven't changed the work and at that point in
time we have the same section as it always had to get through.
So consequently at zero, since we haven't_changed from zero to
zero plus 50, it still has the same cross -section to go through.
Blount It will slow in that 50 feet?
Larson: That's right.
Blount-: I see what yot.i are saying. Any other questions?
Schwartz: ?) Have you ever been out there in the spring?
Larson: No.
Schwartz: Then you are guessing. All this is guessing based on engineerin
principles and hundred-year flood floodplain, and all that. Is
that really a guess? Have you ever been out there in the spring to
measure the velocity of the water, any of that?
Larson: No, I have not --
-l.U-
i
j
TRANSCRIPT OF HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING
Jadco Chemical
Sept. 23, 1982
Schwartz:
Then it's based on engineering principle's.
Larson: Based on engineering principles.
Schwartz: Purely and simply.
Larson' I don't want to admit to guess work because there is --
Schwartz: Well, okay. j
Blount: Where did you arrive at your velocity figures?
figures are the set of calculations that went to lerank
Larson: The velocity a
files. You have a summary of those
Currie. Those are in his e
calculations.
k
t
Blount: Based on your measurements on the site? Or --
f
Larson: Based on my calculations and the Corps of Engineers information
which came from the Tualatin River to about a mile above this site.
That is what they sent me. I think the information they had was
t
7.5 feet per second at the bridge. So the Corps of Engineers
recent flood study on Fanno Creek work is base information for
my calculation. It
s
Blount: Of course. How did you arrive at these figures? Can you give us
just a thumbnail sketch of how you developed these figures--your
velocity figures?
Larson: Of course. Utilizing the Corps' information on the reference of
the channel, we use what is called the Mannings (?) equation to !
determine the channel hydraulics of this reach. When we analyze
it, this was analyzed in three stages: (1) before the fill_ was �
done, to obtain a base line of the flood profile before any work
was done.
Blount: How did you get that figure if you were called in after the fill j
was done?
i
Larson: We obtained topographic surveys of the area before it was touched
by machinery to develop this cross section; and using the Mannings
equation we could determine, given the Corps of. Engineers hundred
year flow, cubic feet per second, you can determine how high that
water is. The problem is the Corps didn't take sections at every 1
hundred-foot intervals. That's why we have to develop some to
supplement their work. They have them roughly every four or five
f hundred feet, and so you can check each ? each time you hit
one of their sections. So you apply the Mannings equation to the
channel hydraulics and the amount of flow that the Corps of Engineers
i
-11-
TRANSCRIPT OF HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING
Jadco Chemical
Sept. 23, 1982
Larson: says the hundred-year flood is, and that establishes your water
(Cont. ) surface. You do that going through each one of these sections
before the work is done, based on past history and topographic
surveys. Then the surveyors picked up the actual configuration of
the fill, and that's -- I think you see it --
Blount: Elevation after the current fill.
Larson: And it shows that there is some rise in the hundred-year profile
through that reach. At that point, then, we applied what might
be an ultimate amount or work, and then also at the same time what
would be the excavation work to be done, apply the same principle
and bring it back through; and what you actually do is keep increas-
ing this area and reducing this area until you get it so that you r
have no rise in the hundred-year flood profile.
i
The City of Tigard recently enacted a zero flood floodway ordinance, t
which in essence mandates no rise in any activity in the flood-
plain, and the first review went through and it came up in the order s
of a half an inch. The City Engineer was consulted. He agreed
with our analysis that a half an inch is not acceptable. If you f
let everybody all the way up to a half an inch, the end result is
going to be a building of that amount. It is going to compound as
you get upstream, but eventually someone upstream will have an
extra foot of water. So in order to comply with the intent of the
zero foot floodway ordinance, we shoot for a zero rise or a slight
reduction.
f
Bluu.:t: Okay. Any other questions from the audience? Yes, sir. x
i
Schwartz: (?) Seeing that you are only addressing one side of the bank
C
f
r
Larson: We at this particular point in time, we are trying to address what
is in fact, I guess you could call a violation. We are attempting i
to obtain a sensitive lands permit on this side. The owner currently
has no plans for this side of the stream. I suppose it is conceiv-
able that we may come back for some other modification for that
side of the stream at some future date. It just depends on the
nature of the proposed use on that side of the stream. I will say
that from the calculations standpoint, we limited ourselves to this
side of the stream. We didn't assume there was any need to go
to the other side of the stream to abate this. That was j
sufficient.
Schwartz: Okay, if you fill in on this side--you are putting riprap and every-
thing down there to stop the erosion -- Okay, you have in fact
speeded up the stream. Now across there on the other side of the
stream, that is going to speed up the river or the creek on his
side of the creek. How can you guarantee that you are not going to
start an erosion problem on that side?
-12-
TRANSCRIPT OF HEARINGS OFFICER NEARING
Jadco Chemical
Sept. 23, 1982
Larson: Well, one answer to that is the same owner; but I wouldn't put him
in that position. If it is going to speed up on that side, part
of the property would have to be riprapped also. (Something
about the same owner)
i
Schwartz: Another question I have is --
Larson: Let me finish: If indeed it was a danker to him, I would have
pointed that out; but the reason for the r.ipraps is that either we t
are filling on a 2 to 1 slope with materials that are obtained i
off-site and may be subject to erosion; we are riprapping this bank,
and we are also going to be required to riprap this bank, where we
will have a new cut and will be taking the vegetation off of the
ground. The vegetation will add some further protection to the
erosion from the higher fill, so we are going to riprap both this 1
'r
bank here and this bank here--this one to protect this fill from
falling into the creek, and creating some kind of a problem downstream;
and this also to maintain a configuration of this to insure that the
i
creek will still have the carrying capacity. {
i
Schwartz: Then the last question I have yet is, May, we have speeded up the
flow through there--you said it is no problem. But the bridge
itself right now can take so much water through it. 6
Larson: That's right. f
Schwartz: Okay; at tames now at high water it is right up to the top. tt
f
r
Larson: At the point in time when it's up against- the bridge and is backin;;
up, then the velocity is reduced, and in a sense you have created
to a certain degree a pond, and it's like a dam. At that point
the velocity is not --
i
Schwartz: But you have reached that point now--to take all the fill put in
there--now that's like taking a batlitup of water--okay? And you
took a big rock and put it in that bathtub--that's going to fill the
water Level . So at the point in time it has come down to the bridge
with the bridge as a pool, and if as you said it is going to form
a pond that is backing up, you have already displaced that much
fill or open area with the fill that you put in it, so that is going
to raise the water level.
Larson: Yes, what you are alluding to there is what in the Code is talking
about storage flood waters. That requires that the material that
we fill under the hundred-year floodplain be balanced by the amount
we excavate. This drawing is -- I think I misplotted this line -- f
but one of the conditions that we have to meet is that the fill and i
cut be balanced under that amount, so that when you are talking
about the problem you are discussing of storage, I think --
-13-
BMW
TRANSCRIPT OF HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING
Jadco Chemical
Sept. 23, 1982
Schwartz: If there is 7.0,000 cubic yards of fill Out in, you have to remove
10,000 cubic yards?
Larson: That's right. Or more. We have to at least balance it, and those
calculations were submitted to . . . . . . . Keep in mind that
is the volume under the hundred-year flood eLevation. The owner
has hopefully filled above that level, but the volume above it is
not taking away from the volume that can be stored, because the
water only goes this way. Now that is a condition that the city
has required, that you balance the cut and fill under the floodplain,
and the fact that it piles up against the bridge is probably not
great for the bridge, and it is happening now; but it will abate
those higher velocities.
Schwartz: Where will you attempt to excavate from--from the edge of where the
fill is toward the river?
Larson: The intent of the staff is that a bench be provided between the
toe of the fill and the top of the cut for the compensation area;
this is the area that would be used for the bike path.
Schultz: Then you won' t actually dig out any of the floodplain--if you do,
{ you are going to uncover the sewer because that is not very deep
there.
c
Larson: The sewer is --
Schwartz: There is a 40 foot right-of-way on that.
Larson: It is a 30 foot easement.
Schwartz: 30 foot easement?
Larson: And that easement gees right through here, and indeed we are cutting over
the top of it. Tn a check with the Uni-Led Sewerage Agency, the
top of their Linc is about elevation 112, and at this section we
are cuttin- down to about eLevation 123 . We will still. have nine
feet of cover according to their plan. L. have not opened up the
sewer to see how deep it is, but accordin^ to their plans --
Schwartz: The fill in there now, is that the extent of the fill, or will
there be additional fill?
Larson: It will be slightly more, and it will be monitored by the ? to
assure it is not in excess of specifications.
Schwartz: Now that is the normal river level there, I take it?
Larson: Well, it is, more or less; yes.
-14-
TRANSCRIPT OF HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING
Jadco Chemical
Sept. 23, 1982
Schwartz.: Because I drive by and look at it , and it looks like there is a
couple-foot bank, and that's almost flat right through there.
Larson: Okay, you are looking at this bench. What we have done to get it
all on the drawing, we have used four feet to the inch here, and
40 feet to the inch here, and so you would need to stretch this out--
it would be ten times wider in order to represent it better. This
bank on this other side is not this steep, and in fact much less
steep. Before we filled, it was flat out in that area.
Blount: Yes, sir.
Voice: (Too low to understand, but presumably a question dealing with the
channel.)
Larson: Well, I am not sure I can answer that accurately. The corps of
Engineers cross section could bear that out. The area that it has
going under the bridge is obviously smaller and the velocity is
almost twice.
Voice: (Concerning the depth near the bridge.)
� - Larson: Well, I can approximate it , if that would be okay. Well, 134 to
approximately 1.16 from the top of the bridge to the bottom of the ,
channel is approximately 18 feet.
Voice: . . . . .
Larson: Are you asking now this elevation? That down into about in here?
Voice: What is the distance by your (?fill?) and the hundred-year floodplain?
Larson: Oh, from here to the hundred-year floodplain? That's about in the
neighborhood of. 10 feet -- 9 to 10 feet.
Voice: . . . . . . . . .
Larson: Right; we have deliberately held this excavation so that summer low
flows will not be in this area. This stream is considered a fishery
by the State Game Commission, and they have a problem with people
relocating channels to any great extent. So in the applications
that I have been involved with, we have sought to find ways other than
to alter the stream. (Tape changed, nothing lost.) That's an
approximation; I want prepared to answer that sort of question.
Voice: Okay; well even so, even if that is an approximation, I tell you that
every spring there's 18 feet of water racing underneath that bridge
._ for days on end, and there is still a great big pond bib enough for
-15-
TRANSCRIPT OF HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING
Jadco Chemical
Sept . 23, 1982
Voice: whatever you like to do in it short of: driving a yacht. If you
(Cont.) narrow that area any you are going to wash out that road because
that water will go over the road because there is nothing on the
road, but a sunken area on the other side and a sunken area on this ,
and the only reason that water doesn't go over the road right now
is because there is an area large enough to hold it.
Larson: Well, but we have met the intent of the Code in that we are storing
the same amount of water, and the difference is instead of being
wide and shallow it will be narrower but deeper, with the same
holding capacity and the same flow character.
Voice: I'll bet it welshes out the road.
Larson: Well, our proposal will not change the jeopardy to the road.
Blount: Yes, sir; in the back?
Voice 2: My property joins this gentleman's property here, and I have lived
there for over 40 years, and there isn't any erosion in my place,
and it covers about five or six acres; and as far as the water
i only stays up not over 24 hours. It can be -- I don't think it {
! gets within four or five feet of the road surface of the bridge, i
and then within 24 hours it's gone. I have a fence that runs right
it is only about four feet
through the property there . . . . .
deep.
Blount: I would like to ,--et what yot are sayicg on tape as testimony. If
i
you have a question sight now for the engineer, this i.:; the proper
time for it.
Voice 2: A question?
r
BLount: A question. But if you have got testimony, ris soon as we are done r
with the engineer I would like you to come forward and say up here
what you have just said so I have got it on tape. I can't catch
it from back there. Okay. Any more questions OF the engineer
right now? Yes, fair.
Schwartz: M You are relying on going deeper for your fill.. How will you guard
against future sedimentation when the water brings things
down . . . . .
Larson: Well, when you are talking about the silt coming down stream, you
are going to have an increased velocity across the whole channel,
and that increased velocity will be in effect very close to the
The silt is going to be in suspension
surface in this excavation. r
in the water. , and the water will still be movin11
g fast enough along
the surface so that very little if any would be deposited
some would be carried along.
-16-
TRANSCRIPT OF HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING
Jadco Chemical
Sept. 23, 1982
Schwartz: I would like to ask: I believe that is a county road? Is there any
plans for a new bridge on that road?
Larson: The Tigard Drainage Study addresses severaL bridges along Fanno
Creek, and Bonita Road is one targetted for a hopeful bridge soon.
I don't think the Durham Road bridge was endorsed --
Newton: I would like to correct myself. I believe from Hall east, Durham
is a state highway, I believe. Do you know?
Larson: Yeah; it is.
Newton: Yes, of course. It is a state highway.
Schultz: . . . . (?) contacted the state on that . . . .
Larson: On replacement? No, I haven't. I don't know what the situation of
the bridge is from the state's standpoint. CH2M drainage report
did not target the Durham Road bridge as one of the recommended
ones. They targetted the North Dakota Street bridge, and they
targetted Bonita as a hopeful; but I don' t think, according to my
recollection, that the Durham bridge was --
Schwartz: I believe that is part of the plan, and T. believe Durham Road was
one that is claimed(?) as having flood problems. ? has a map
in his office that has all the bridges . . . . . . has a flooding
problem, and I believe Durham was one.
Newton: I don't know that.
Blount: Okay; more questions? Yes, sir.
Schwartz: 1. would like to know, is tris going to change the runoff in any way
by putting fill. in there. Will the runoff still go towards the
creek, or is it ,going to to be increased drainage, and if it does,
that water from the fill down there is quite an area that would be
filled.
Larson: In the case of this fill, I would recommend to the owner that when
he moves ahead with the building plan, that drainage be diverted
here to the front, and then flora out in this direction; or if he
were to go this way, that it first be collected in catch basins
and a pipe rather than allow it to drain over the face of the Fill.
It could have some detrimental effect on the fill, although in this
area drainage is not going t? be significant. The typical practice
is to put in catch basins,PY rain drains in a pipe and drain it to
a point where it isn' t going to cause any additional erosion.
-17-
TRANSCRIPT OF HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING
Jadco Chemical.
Sept. 23, 1982
Blount: More questions? All right. Thank you. All right. Anyone else
wishing to speak in opposition?
Speaker: I am Clifford Speaker. I have a couple of statements here, and then
some observations.
Blount: Are those things you would like to submit in writing, or --
Speaker: This I will submit in writing; I would like to read it into the
record. This is to Tigard Hearings Officer from the Tigard Planning
Commission dated yesterday:
"The Tigard Planning Commission under open agenda at its
meeting on September 21, 1982 briefly discussed the Sensitive
Lands Permit Application pending before you for Jado Chemical.
The Commission has several concerns which were expressed by
individual members. Following are the comments of those
Commission members who are unable to attend the hearing on
September 23, 1982.
"Commissioner Bonn: Any amount of fill permitted must be
offset by removal of more fill so the net effect is zero or
less.
"Commissioner Edin: There is not enough depth to build on this
site even with the fill . I am not certain that they have
formed a buildable lot. I am not happy with it, however, we
can't do anything else but support the City's Engineering staff."
f
Chairman Tepedi.no, who is an attorney and is knowledgeable about
certain things that most of us aren't:
1. The landowner was, or should have been, on notice that the
was filling in the floodplain.
2. Ameliorative waste has occurred. The owner violated the
Tigard Municipal Code by performing this act. I suggest that
any decision by the Hearings Officer must be in compliance with
the Tigard Municipal Code and subsections dealing with fill..
I am concerned that this filling has vLolated the Tigard
Municipal Code. By his ..act, the owner has established a
precedent. We must stand against this by forcing the owner to
remove the fill and then apply for a permit for consideration
under the Tigard Municipal Code. We cannot allow developers
to frustrate the intent of the code.
"Submitted by:
Clifford Speaker
Planning Commissioner"
-18- p
f
O
TRANSCRIPT OF HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING
Jadco Chemical
Sept. 23, 1982
Blount: This will. be marked Exhibit 3 as the Tigard Planning Commission memo.
Speaker: Right. Now I was at that Planning Commission meeting, and because
I was going to present that they did not record what I. said, but
this in effect is what I commented on at that time: (Reading)
"I have observed for years that nothing succeeds like a fete
accompli.. I, like President Tepedino, do not feel that the
presence of an accomplished fact should sway the Hearings
Officer, the Planning Commission or the City Council from
upholding the declared and very plain intent of the floodplain
ordinances which have been thrashed out over a period of several
years in public hearings to my personal knowledge. I feel no
landowner of property in the floodplain has any excuse at this
time for being unaware of the restrictions on the floodplain
in the Tigard Municipal Code. Consequently I can only agree
with President Tepedino when he says, 'We cannot allow developers
to frustrate the intent of the Code. "'
Now I think that anybody who has followed the Planning Commission's
deliberations and actions on the floodplain--and believe me, we are
very sensitive to it--all they have to do is to see what we have -
done on The Meadows -- (To Newton) Isn't that the one down there. -
r
Newton: Yes.
Speaker: (Continuing) -- The Meadows as an example of our resistance to any
fill in the floodplain. In that case the man wanted to put a little
fill at the top of the floodplain in order to pet two or three tare
building sites, and in effect we said "NO". Now what has happened
since it has left us I don't know. I would say this, that had we
known that it was intended to put a building on that floodplain
Fill, the response would have been a resounding No! One other
observation: Our experience over the last several years is that
residents along the creek tell us the Corps of: Engineers elevations
are not accurate, and I think probably you are getting at that --
aren't you? -- that ordinary floods are higher than the Engineers
indicate for a 25-year or 50-year flood.
Blount: I have a couple of questions, Mr. Speaker.
Speaker: Yes?
Blount: First of all -- Maybe I should just make a statement. In your
remarks you urged that the de facto -- the existence of the fill --
not sway my decision. I think I can assure you, as I said at the
beginning, I consider neither its presence nor its absence in
considering the application. I will consider whether it meets the
-19-
TRANSCRIPT OF HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING
Jadco Chemical
Sept. 23, 19£2
Blount: ordinance. But I am a little concerned about what you said about
(Cont.) the Planning Commission--that you consistently approve no fill in
the floodplain. Are you saying that even if it meets the provisions
of the ordinance, you do not allow fill in the floodplain?
Speaker: No. I wouldn't say that. But -- Well, I think a review of The
Meadows would indicate the extent and the depth of our concern for
floodplain fill.
i
Bount: Does your concern go farther than--as far as to ignore the engineering
that he says we are not displacing any more water?
Speaker: I think Liz (Newton, of staff) will agree with me that Yes, inspite
of engineering that says we are gonna fill here but we are going to f
excavate at least an equivalent amount and it will not change the ,
carrying capacity or alter the stream flow adversely upstream or
downstream. We take a very hard look--I would almost say with a
jaundiced eye--at that. Would you agree with that, Liz?
Newton: Yes.
( Blount: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Anyone else who wishes to speak in opposi-
tion? Yes, sir.
Havery: My name is John Havery; I live at 19570 SW 76th, Tigard. I came to
give you some historical perspective, because I was on the initial
NPO 5 who originally set up the comprehensive plan for this area,
and apparently I am still presently a member, but perhaps the reason
you didn't hear from me before was nobody knew I was a member.
When the NPO originally did this whole area for the comprehensive
plan for Tigard--and I am glad to see some of the things are being
followed--the Creenway, the bike paths--we intended to preserve
that whole area through there, through the river area, all the way
through Tigard as a refuge for its citizens, a beautiful place to
walk, where there are still wild animals in there and a variety of
other things. I am not the great environmentalist as that may
sound; but I do enjoy seeing the wild animals there and I woul.d
hate to see them run out by the change in the stream. There are
mink back there; there are all kinds of things in that river still.
We intend to keep it as a greenway and bike paths for the enjoyment
of the people, and I do believe that the engineering, with all due
respect for the education and background and experience of the
engineers--I do not believe that what the engineer says here is
what will happen here. . I believe that either backing up that water
will wash out the bridge or will wash out the road--one or the other.--
in a very short time. As a matter of fact, when Mr. Duncan first-
applied to build over there, he went to the county and the county
sent out letters saying, "Any objection, write a letter." I wrote
-20-
TRANSCRIPT OF HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING
Jadco Chemical
Sept . 23, 1.982
Havery: a letter. They told Mr. Duncan he had to get me to release that
(Cont.) letter before he could do anything. Well, Mr. Duncan and I had
breakfast and he told me that the county wouldn't let him build
out there where he is trying to build right now. They made him
move farther back in on 74th, and I tell. you only as -- no one can
prove that lie said that to me, but I know he said that to me --
and he told me what a great place he was going to make it over there.
He was going to clean out that little pond, and he was going to
landscape it. He has done really none of. that. There is no land-
scaping there. Instead he has cut down al-.l the trees that were
between him and Durham Road. He has put that fill in there illegally.
The place has big barrels and stuff piled all around his building,
and truly Mr. Duncan has not been a good neighbor--either a good
business neighbor or a good neighbor in any way that way. He has
not bothered me other than through my eyes, to see the mess that
has been made of it. And if in 2ny way there was to be a buffer
zone and those people who do live adjacent to that industrial zone,
no trees and a big open expanse and a river that has perhaps changed
its course--and no one has talked about the downstream or upstream
implications of this fill, and I don' t know them either--I am not an
engineer--but I can tell you the NPO had an engineer on it, and one
of the things that came out as a result of the NPO or the engineering
look at the river is that that's why we did nott want the floodplain
filled anywhere, because it would affect the upstream and downstream
people. And I don't think Mr. Duncan cares about the upstream or
downstream people--I think Mr. Duncan cares about himself.
Blount: Thank you. Anyone else speaking in opposition? Yes, sir. Your
name is --
Bledsoe: Bob Bledsoe.
Blount: Which shall T put you down as--opposition or in favor?
Bledsoe: . . ? . . . I was at the Planning Commission meeting winen the state
engineer presented the master storm drainage plan. I work in
engineering as a technician. I would like to get in the area of
flood control.
The storm drainage plan for the most part advocated that Tigard is
supposed to try to move the water through faster to get it out of
the area so it is no longer -- move it out quicker so it wouldn't
cause higher flooding levels. And this is at the bottom of the
flood control area. But the aspect of the increased velocity,
I think, is actually where it came into conjunction with Ti-gard's
--at least the city engineer's--overall proposal for handling the
whole area of the basic concept of flood control. It kind of bothered
me that he only dealt with half of the stream bed study--the whole
stream bed, and he relies on increased depth to handle the water
through there. I am concerned, though, that under various conditions,
-21-
o
TRANSCRIPT OF HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING
Jadco Chemical
Sept. 23, 1982
Bledsoe: sometimes you will have a scouring loss comes out, and
(Cont. other times when the water is not that high but just a little bit
high, it starts sedimentation. And you see the way the stream has
already formed the channel through the years, that it tends to
sediment , tends to deposit sediment in that area. I think if this
is approved that the applicant should have the requirement to
maintain that depth through dredging--there should be a bigger
requirement placed on him to maintain that depth through dredging;
whenever the depth is no longer to the level which he is creating, if
that is the course he is going to take.
Blount: Thank you. Anybody else speaking; in opposition? Okay. I see none.
Is there any rebuttal by the proponents? Okay, I see none.
I close the public portion of the hearing. Are there any other
points that need clarifications--questions that haven't been answered?
Okay. Under the hearing procedure I generally issue an oral opinion.
I am not prepared to make an oral opinion tonight. I want to look
at the comprehensive plan section for NPO 5; I want to look at the
greenway ordinances in some more depth; I want to go visit the
property; I want to look at the bridge, and I want to review the
engineering report once more.
The applicant is entitled to an oral decision. If you want an
oral decision I can set the hearing over for a week and I can give
you oratorio exterogate (?) , but I can give you an oral decision
at that time. In fac, my written decision will be faster. I£ you
wish to waive an oral decision I will have a written decision to
you within ten days, or to the city within ten days. By the same
token, opponents, do you wish an oral decision--look square in the
eye and let me tell you what my decision is--or will you let me
get by on pager, huh?
Okay. All. right. But I will file a written decision within ten
days of tonight's hearing, which will be Monday, October 4. All
right, that concludes tonight's hearing. Thank you.
-22-
MEMORANDUM
TO: Members of the Tigard City Council
FROM: William A. Monahan, Director of Planning & Development "-""
DATE : October 28 , 1982
RE: Hearings Officer Order Number M 2-82 , Appeal of Findings
by John A. Duncan.
Attached please find a set of documents which are pertinent
to an appeal filed by John A. Duncan on the findings of Hearings
Officer Beth Blount. ��:The appealwillbe heard by- the City Council:
n November 15,': 1982.
This package is being provided to you in advanc,q.�,Af:,thy,
hearing in order that you may become familiar with the issues::,
You may also wish to consider the issues raised by this appeal
in light of the existing Floodway/Greenway issues which will be
discussed at your November 1 study session with the Planning
and Development Office.
Please note that another appeal, that of the Robert Randall
Company concerning Sunnyside Estates , will be heard at your
November 15 session. A package of materials will be transmitted
to you as soon as the transcript of the Planning Commission ' s
hearing on the issue is completed.
9�2
oL \
G`SNN`NG O
October 19, 1982
To: Planning Director City of Tigard
From: John A. Duncan
Subject: Appeal findings . of hearing officer case No. M-2-82.
Decision rendered October 7, 1982.
Please process my appeal to be heard after inconsistencies within
The Comprehensive Plan have been effectively refined and clarified.
Reasons:
a. We are not affecting flood plain.
b. Findings of hearing officer based on a document that
at best is inconsistent and not in accord with pending
comprehensive plan.
C. Confiscation of property without due process.
d. Land 400 feet west of subject property owned by applicant
is more than adequate for future greenway.
e. Staff, after thorough review of facts, recommends
approval. i
s
Additional information to be furnished prior to appeal hearing. t
Enclosed please find the applicable Appeals Fee.
f
Sincerely,
(OL A. Duncan
I'
JADCO CHEMICAL LTD.
"Specializing in Formulated chemicals-
(503)684-0044
hemicals"(503)684-0044
16055 S.W.741h AVENUE PORTLAND.OR 97223
November 9, 1982 /D
MEMORANDUM
TO: Members of the Tigard City Council
FROM: William A. Monahan, Director of Planning & Development
SUBJECT: CPR 4-82, 2C18-82 Tigard East Proposal
The applicant, JB Bishop, seeks approval by the City Council of a
Comprehensive Plan Revision from Commercial Professional to General Commercial
for land involved in his Tigard East Project. Planning Commission Approval
was obtained on October 19, 1982 based on staff findings and recommendations.
Attached are the following:
1. Exerpts from the Planning Commission meeting of Oct. 19,1982
2. Staff Report
3. Exhibits submitted by the applicant
4. NPO lel Recommendations
Staff Recommendation - Staff recommends that the City Council give approval to
the Comprehensive Plan Revision for Tigard East.
ch
C
10 .
5.1 MAJOR LAND PARTITION MP 1-82. BONITA FIRS NPO #5
A request by the City of Tigard for a Major Land Partition to divide a
9.25 acre parcel into 4 sections and create a public right-of-way.
The property is located at 7955 SW Bonita Rd. (Wash. Co. Tar, Map 2S1
12BA, Tax Lot 5600.)
• Associate Planner Newton presented the staff recommendation for
approval of the Major Land Partion with the condition that all public
streets within the project shall be monumented.
• Commissioner Speaker requested staff to clarify the meaning of the
term "monumented"; Associate Planner Newton stated the property had
to be surveyed and marked with monuments.
• NPO REPORT - No one appeared to speak.
• PUBLIC TESTIMONY - No one appeared to speak.
• Commissioner Speaker requested staff clarify the location of streets.
Associate Planner Newton outlined the street on a site map for the
Commissioners
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION
• Commissioners Bonn & Christen favored the partition.
• Commissioner Speaker questioned if tenants were aware of the
changeover to condominiums; Associate Planner Newton stated renters
were informed prior to renting that the units could be converted to
condominiums.
• Commissioner Bonn moved and commissioner Christen seconded for
approval of MP 1-82 with staff recommendations and condition. The
motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Commissioners present.
4
5.2 CPR 4-82REVISION AND ZC 18-82 ZONE CHANGE
JB AJJHOP NPO
A request or a Comprehensive Plan Revision from Commercial
Professional General Commercial to General Commercial on Tax Map 2S1
2CC tax lots 200 & 500 and from Commercial Professional to General
Commercial on tax map 2S1 2CC lots 100, 801 & 900.
e Associate Planner Newton made staff's recommendation for approval with
the following conditions:
1. The improvements to SW Pacific Highway and the access points
from the site to SW Pacific Highway shall be approved by ODOT
prior to issuance of building permits. The ODOT approval
shall be in writing and shall be accompanied by a plan.
Page 2 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - October 19, 1982
f
e
t
2. A maintenance agreement and plan for the frontage road and
island shall be submitted with the application for Site Design
Review.
3. The applicant shall apply for Site Design Review. The Site
Design Review application shall include elevation sketches
showing proposed screening from abutting residential
neighborhoods and a letter outlining the disposition of the
existing right-of-way which the state intends to dedicate to
the property owner.
r:
• President Tepedino requested staff to simplify the request; Associate
Planner Newton explained that property was located on Pacific Highway
with the front portion zoned Commercial Professional with the back
portion General Commercial. This change would make the property all
one zone, General Commercial, and could then be development as one
project. The Developer already has tenants who are interested in
leasing.
}
Y NPO REPORT - Gary Ott, representing NPO #1, read a letter from the NPO
supporting the zone change and Comprehensive Plan Revision.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
o APPLICANT - Dennis Brun, Brun Moreland Christopher Arch. , 1020 S.W.
10th, representing J B Bishop, stated they were in agreement with the
staff report and would not be making a presentation, but would be
available for any questions.
f
s
i
9
OPPONENT t
o Carolyn Eadon 13645 S.W. Steven Crt. , expressed her concerns
regarding traffic congestion and did not feel the need for additional
retail stores. She stated they would not have direct access to the
project and that it would only increase foot traffic, littering and
vandalism. She was concerned with losing the buffer which would
increase noise during and after construction. She did not feel land
should be developed just because it was available. k
e Marta Frank, 11825 S.W. Wildwood, read letters from Christopher Eadon
and Roy Brown into the record opposing the change stating that their
major concerns were the buffering for the residential area and traffic j
congestions. She continued by stating she opposed these change ?
because presently there are thousands of sq. ft. of space for lease
already in Tigard and didn't feel we needed more. She also questioned
if there had been a traffic study some recently. ; I
a Doug Voss, 13355 S.W• Cresmer Dr. wanted to go on record opposing this f
development because of the large traffic problems. He did not feel an
extra traffic signal would solve the problem. He also felt vandalism
would increase.
l
Page 3 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - October 19, 1982
R
y
t
o Mrs. Donnas Voss, 13355 S.W. Cresmer Dr. , was concerned because her �
property abutted this development and she does not have a fence to
protect her property. She felt we have enough shopping centers, she
further stated, however, that if this was approved she would like a
buffer between her house and the development. She stated when she
bought her house she understood the property was zoned for
Professional Use and feels she would lose the use of her yard with a
retail development.
s
CROSS EXAMININATION AND REBUTTLE
o Mrs. Frank questioned if there was a greenbelt area proposed in an
earlier plan; JB Bishop responded that he would be leaving about a 20
ft. strip of trees that would act as a buffer. He would be t
responsible for maintaining it, he said.
z
o Dennis Brun, stated that the property closest to the residential
property is already zoned C-3 and only the front portion is Commercial :.
Professional. He continued that office space was not feasible, but
the site is highly desirable for retail lease. They would only be
adding one access which would be a 40 ft. driveway across from Pietros
Pizza. He did not feel development would buffer. He stated a traffic
study had been done and would be submitted at the appropriate time.
a
o JB Bishop, 10505 S.W. Barbur Blvd. S-303, stated that all the
property is under one ownership, which totals 12.06 acres of land and
has a high market demand as Commercial Retail. The development would x
provide approximately 230 jobs and would take 6 to 7 months to
construct. He also had a traffic study done and both the City and
State approved of the accessess. He stated he was committed to work
with the neighbors and to insure sufficient buffering. He then
explained how he had accomplished this with another development. The
development would be constructed so that the front of the building
would be facing away from the residential area.
x
o Commissioner Edin question where the loading docks would be situated.
Bishop stated the Emporium was 65 feet and the Bi-Mart Store was 60
feet from the residential area with loading docks in the rear, but !
would have restricted delivery. The grocery store loading dock would
be on the North side which abuts a service station.
o Mrs. Frank question if there wasn't already a shopping center going in
not far from this site? Bishop explained that the Main/Street
development, which he owned, was a different type of shopping center.
l
o Discussion followed regarding the use of the NPO in reviewing
developments and how property owners would be notified during the Site
Design Review.
f
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
4
Page 4 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - October 19, 1982
pill I
COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION
e Commissioner Edin elated he had been a original member of NPO 01 and
Was surprised to eee the property was zoned C-3 and thought that it
was zoned CP because of the traffic congestion. He was sensitive to
the neighbors feelings. however, need was not an issue the Commission
could address. He was not totally comfortable with the change,
however, the NPO did not express concern against the change.
• Commissioners Leverett and Speaker favored the change to bring the
property all under one zoning.
e Commissioner Christen stated that he knows the developer personally
and did_ not feel the neighbors had to worry about the buffer. He
knows -the developer will work with them.
s Cotmntasioner Bonn was happy to see this size of parcel being developed
at one time as it reduced the number of potential access points to
Pacific Highway. He did not like to see property split zoned.
e Commissioner Bonn moved and commissioner Speaker seconded to approve
the Comprehensive Plan Change CPS 4-82 and Zone Change ZC 18-82 per
staff conclusions and recommendations.
a Commissioner Speaker questioned the accessibility of the access. Mr.
Bishop stated the signal would make it easier for entering and exiting
from both this project and the one across the street.
o President Tepedino questioned if a sport center had once been proposed
for this site. Mr. Bishop stated a roller rink had been approved for
the area, however, financing made it impossible to build.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the Commissioners
present.
NEW BUSINESS
s Bill Monahan, Director of Planning and Development distributed two
documents. First, he mentioned the Citizen Involvement Element which
the CCI had reviewed and recommended to be sent to the Planning
Commission. There were two modifications, the NPO map and a chart
that shows how the public could participate in the process.
The Planning Commission will review this Nov. 9th. Second is the
Tigard Development Code which will be considered by the City Council
in December. Mr. Monahan suggested that the Commissioners form a
sub-committee to review these documents with staff.
Mr. Monahan -reminded the Commissioners of the November 1, 1982 study
meeting with City Council. They would also be reviewing
FloodplainJGreenway.-and Parks and Open Spaces.
s
Page 5 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - October 19, 1982
STAFF REPOhT
AGENDA ITEM 5.2
;_. TIGA.tD PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 19, 1982 - 7:30 PM
FOWLER JUNIOx HIGH SCHOOL
10865 SW WALNUT, TIGARD, OREGON
A. GENE&AL FINDINGS OF FACT
1. GENERAL INFORAMTION
Case: CPR 4--82 (Comprehensive Plan Revision) NPO #1
ZC 18-82 (Zone Change)
Request: The applicant is reqesting a Comprehensive Plan Revision
from Commercial Professional General Commercial to General
Commercial on Tax Map 2S1 2CC tax lots 200 & 500 and from
Commercial Professional to General Commercial on tax map
2S1 2CC lots 100, 801 & 900.
Also a request for a zone change from CP/C3 to C3 on Tax
Map 2S1 2CC tax lots 200 & 500 and from CP to C3 on Tax Map
2S1 2CC tax lots 100, 801 & 900.
Recommendation Based on staff's analysis and surrounding land uses,
staff recommends that the Planning Commission
recommend to the City Council approval of the
Comprehensive Plan Revision from Commercial
Professional and Commercial Professional/General
Commercial to General Commercial.
Staff also recommends that the Planning Commission
approve the zone change request from C3/CP and CP to
C3.
Applicant JB Bishop
10505 SW Barbur Blvd. Suite 303
Portland, Oregon 97219
Owner Same
Location The site is generally located on the east side of
Pacific Highway, approximately 1000 feet south of SW
Garrett, (Wash Co. Tax Map 2S1 2CC, Tax Lots 100, 200,
500, 801 and 900).
Lot Area 8.66 Acres
Present Comprehensive Plan Designation
Commercial Professional and Commercial
Professional/Retaii Commercial. (See attached map) .
Present Zoning Designation
CP and CP/C3 (See attached map).
PAGE 2
STAFF AEPOi:T - AGENDA ±TEM 5.2
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION\MEETING
OCTOBEd 19, 1982
NPO Comment NPO 411 reviewed this application at their regular
meeting of October 6, 1982. NPO 411 noted unanimously to
concur with the applicant request for a zone change and
comprehensive plan reivisi.on. (See attached Exhibit A) .
Public Notices Mailed
47 notices were mailed. No comments had been received
at the writing of this report.
2. BACKGROUND
There is an existing building on tax lot 900 with two tenants, the
Tigard Paint Store and Feeks and Stongs Potato Pub. Feeks and Stongs
Potato Pub received a conditional use permit (CU7-82) to operate a
restaurant in a CP zone.
3. VICINITY INFORMATION
The surrounding land uses are as follows:
The property to the northeast is developed as commercial. The land !
to the west and south is zoned and developed as single family j
residential. The property across Pacific Highway is designated and
partially developed for commercial uses.
4. SITE INFORMATION f
Approximately 1.5 acres of the total 12.06 acres is developed. At
the present time, there is one retail building on the southwest end 5
of the site which is occupied by the Tigard Paint Center and Feeks
and Stongs Potato Pub. Adjacent to that is the Heinz Auto Europe ;
Auto Repair Shop. The remaining 10.5 acres is undeveloped.
The property slopes towards the southeast and has several large trees
along the south and western boundaries. The remainder of the site is
densely covered with brush and grass.
B. APPLICABLE PLANNING POLICIES
1. LCDC STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS
a. Citizen Involvement: Goal 411 - The intent of this goal is to
insure the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases
of the planning process. Notices were mailed to all owners of
record within 250 feet of the site. A public notice was
published in the Tigard Times on October 7, 1982. NPO 411
reviewed the request on October 6, 1982 (see attached Exhibit A) .
b. Land Use: Goal 412 - All applicable LCDC Goals and Guidelines,
NPU 411 policies and Tigard Municipal Code sections were
considered in review of this application.
MENEM
PAGE 3
f STAFF REPOt:r - AGENDA ITEM 5.2 \
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBE& 19, 1982
C. Economy: Goal #9 - The purpose of this goal is to diversify and
improve the economy of the State. Presently, the property is
not being utilized to its full potential. The property is in a
prime retail commercial location. The applicant intends to
construct a 122,805 square foot shopping center on the site.
The center will provide approximately 230 jobs for the
community. In addition, the shopping center will provide a
service to residents in the area.
d. Public Facilities and Services: Goal dill - The purpose of this
goal is to insure the provision of public facilities to the
site. Presently, there is an 8" sewer line which runs through
the site. The applicant has submitted a sensitive lands permit
application to relocate the sewer line on site. In addition,
the applicant is proposing to relocate the storm drain line.
Water is available from a line in SW Pacific Highway in adequate
quantities and pressure to serve both fire and domestic needs.
e. Transportation: Goal 412 - The intent of this goal is to provide
a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. The site
! is accessible from Pacific Highway. The applicant has proposed
L three access points onto Pacific Highway. The Oregon Department
of Transportation has reviewed the applicant's plan and granted
conditional approval. (See attached letter Exhibit B.)
2. NPO #1 POLICIES
POLICY 18: Pacific Highway is developing as a strip commercial
highway. The traffic carrying capacity of this highway should have
the highest priority and adjacent commercial development should be
subordinated to this need.
POLICY 19: In the interest of safety and efficiency, the number of
highway access points must be kept to a minimum. Wherever possible,
businesses on Pacific Highway should be clustered and share common
parking facilities and driveways. As new development occurs, the
number of access points should not exceed the number necessary for
proper on-site traffic circulation and where possible should be
combined with access to adjacent businesses.
POLICY 20: Highway-oriented commercial businesses should have
priority use of Pacific Highway frontage because they are dependent
upon the volume of through traffic for their business.
POLICY 21: Businesses on Pacific Highway should be oriented to the
existing traffic and not draw additional traffic from the adjacent
community. Convenience or neighborhood centers should, therefore, be
prohibited from locating on Pacific Highway.
ILA
PAGE 4
STAFF REPORT - AGENDA ITEM 5.2
\ TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 19, 1982
The proposed shopping center will have three access points onto
Pacific, two which are existing. In addition, the shopping center
will be convenient for area residents allowing them to stay in the
neighborhood rather than drive Pacific Highway to shop.
3. TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
Zone Change - There are no specific criteria in the Tigard Municipal Code
which address zone changes. Therefore, staff relies on LCDC goals and
guidelines and NPO #1 policies.
Comprehensive Plan Revision - All of the requirements of the Tigard
Municipal Code will be applied to the development of the site during Site
Design Review. Included in the Design Review are parking, landscape,
access and street improvements.
4. CONCLUSIONS
The proposed Zone Change and Comprehensive Plan Revision meets applicable
planning policies. The development of the site will be reviewed and
approved through Site Design Review.
5. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the applicant's request for a Comprehensive
Plan Revision and Zone Change to General Commercial, C-3, based on the
following:
I. The surrounding land uses along Pacific Highway are of a General
Retail or Highway Commercial nature.
2. The proposed use would be compatible with the existing commercial
uses in the area.
In addition, staff recommends the following conditions be attached to the
approval:
1. The improvements to SW Pacific Highway and the access points from the
site to SW Pacific Highway shall be approved by ODOT prior to
issuance of building permits. The ODOT approval shall be in writing
and shall be accompanied by a plan.
2. A maintenance agreement and plan for the frontage road and island
shall be submitted with the application for Site Design Review.
3. The applicant shall apply for Site Design Review. The Site Design
Review application shall include elevation sketches showing proposed
screening from abutting residential neighborhoods and a letter
outlining the disposition of the existing right-of-way which the
state intends to dedicate to the property owner.
BY: (M, (� �/i • REVIEWED Br.-::57-
PREPARED1 -ter
Elizabeth A. NewCA William A. Monahan
Associate Planner Director of Planning & Development
lw
- Y
T '
IF �.
i
r � ,
i
b •'
L3
R!I—T 2A
DEAVCFS TUDN. 0;-,LCt314 P,`0142 2-'"D _5-U j 2
lhiayr 3-3 , 1982
14,-gwr
RE Transportatioll In'PzACt i-:;-IaIYOis
A j -last CC-;.-,,,mercial Dev4F.-Ioln.-tent
Pacific Ij-; g;l-.,.ay West
City of Tigard
Duar Mr . Bishop:
A Leview was rctade of the proposed -;object commercial development
and traffic i--P!-)act analysis.
conclul:ions are directed at. 211,1ternate #3 which
z:ppc-ars to i,.)E, the most desirable alternative:
1 . 1,!e wil.j. not :.ipprovt, the -%u-jtherly access. This
V,as as a right tUt' il ifl, right turn out
Z-C-rv, ,,c cril-rance . It is fc! ,L.,.-- thc, major ,Iccess
I A - -
the ijj;pro,,c--;-m1ni-s for the Park Avenue
t!jo o!,.t_ r This
.-.cc.csE: woo cl--rflict with the pr many
to th-� proje:7t.
rr.I-e -.- -�,-;. - h
-i J- r �jpprociclj should ix. dies *, Cinc:d as -z own on
ttc t a,7, r,a-*r)r .1L- W ri(--S i,;n S t I P,e t
t j.- I y z:7.i s r1C3 a 6 d r -?s the stCj rage
r-�qf i 'r r.tfor t* -j -31-it turn lane from Oregon
9911, thi-� 147-:ft tLU:n IF!110 fro-ri. 0-re-c-on 99W and the
in the aTpprrt.-tch 1--) 0-rc-gon 9911.
to ,:;e -!,.krecL1y across
Kom cj:, C,-!jr, c% 11
A the proposed
We would ask
bc f-tIpUlat.01-1
,jo c i ty plannincl process.
is t h--r :it th^ '—ot'lc '-nue approach
Oregon 99W.
a 4!
!?on Failmc-7(y�r wotild ilko space-time
1.0'r ilia !-!,7 c.-,- verifying the
'.�.\,.- rr .i' �rfj•zi�V�I i V�C7 ali �7l�. /44-,ay D[ J 1 tYlJ/i
�:�3�•• (DeSTRUC ! t-r1 I`.�%�[r -1 � /il`iSiE_ SLIP' i�i,il��71✓�l
P.U. c3:?X 5:i y. 3EA`lz. i'Q�!, k7,`REGQN ::7075-0:.65 PHONE 229 LAY,)?
4 , 1982
DISTP
NCT 2-A
i _ juti U t
J.b. 3ish0P _ =7 tl
10;,05 SW Barbur blvd.
Portland, Oregon 97219
RE: Proposed Tigard East Commercial Development
r r i Mary Access
Pacific Hwy. West
City of Tigard
Dear Mr . Bishop:
In oder to complete the surplus property sale prc-cess
of the frontage along your proposed development, we need
to have the location of the primary zaccess wore c;. _arl-
identified. Before a filial deed is prepared, we need a
QaLer de�iiilitlo21 of the proposed access locatia,�
! ;ul'cj ::ez�jt Development across Oregon
4:.:c'�r r_c 1 c-m R4 of my May 13 letter to You. r r cm
an ;n r:?,• f11- it appears that there may be- :•`Iii:
t o propo—scd accC`ss to the Ti`s;T.rt 1
Dt�;:l:•p �^n� :.nd `*he Pietr:}' s parking lot . We �^-
E c Is9t:` f-hiT, !'li;:rmation as soon as POSSIble.
'_.•. - -
5•; Goibc-1, P.E.
I-11istrict Maintenance Supervisor
C E:� 7-arC.t
Pailrn.-:�zger
Frank Currie
:':ay*:r• i t t l .,on , r lT;SM Hill <
0011 rilr_ 0+;r'6
1. NATURE OF THE PROPOSAL AND THE REASON FOR REQUESTING THE
PARTICULAR ACTION ARE AS FOLLOWS_
A. General
The site, comprising of. 12 . 06 acres , is located on the
eastern side of S.W. Pacific Highway between S.W. Park
St. and S.W. Watkins Avenue.
A single building is to house the major elements of the
property. The building will contain a 30,000 square
foot fashion department store (Emporium) , a 30 ,000
square foot drug/variety store (Bi-Mart) , a 24,750
square foot grocery store (Sentry) and 38 ,055 square
feet of smaller scale retail/commercial space for a
total of 122 ,805 square feet of space. Adjacent to S.W.
Pacific Highway an existing 4644 square foot retail/
commercial building (Shop C) will be retained. In addi-
tion to the existing building, two new retail/commercial
buildings with an area of 4200 square feet (Pad 1) and
5400 square feet (Pad 2) , whose use is projected as a
financial institution and a coffee shop, will be located
adjacent to the highway.
B. Vehicular Access
Access to the site has been given careful consideration
and the State of Oregon Highway Division has granted
approval of design.
The access point at the south end of the property will
consist of an improvement of the existing driveway adja-
cent to the existing retail/commercial building. The
improvement will consist of removing some of the parking
along the south property line to allow for an enhanced
landscaped entrance and widening the aisle between the
parking stalls to a full 30 feet to allow for smoother
access by northbound traffic on S.W. Pacific Highway.
In addition, exiting from that point will be limited to
right turn' s only onto S.W. Pacific Highway per the
Highway Division' s approval.
The central access point for the site will consist of a
new 40 foot wide signalized intersection. The access
will consist of three lanes, one for inbound traffic,
the shopping center, one for straight ahead or left turn
onto S.W. Pacific Highway, and a right turn only lane
onto the highway.
The northern most access point consists of improvements
of the existing frontage road, old Highway 99 , to align
the intersection with S.W. Park Street and to provide
for proper signalized control of access to Highway 99 .
In addition, the intersection will be widened to three
lanes, one lane for inbound shopping center traffic
C �
SCALE
f I
I P
310
o t
17 1751
200
c
tit r ; o y
r
1 =
;B.
�4
b 600 500
ego ./4Ac ooo / 419Ac 30.
rJ' `e•
4, yam' 312
k — �'J
`\
goo t
\ 0 4 69• jJ E
313
12
'7.i•\ M1
12
.9 r -5100
��\i,. \ �\ o� 1ud-- `} "5000
n
;.
X00 \ \ '•ti � 'r
96Ae.
so
4800 I
l�! w
`r ' 1 9
74.0-1
4700 P
o :
cy �\4 N 8
_ `e t
U t
w
\ r
1
Sne•'SS'w t. 1•C
Z 4 e S r. •r
i4O0 1500 1600 1700 1:73 0 i'3UQ 2000 2100
71
�ton
;Z;l _ /i '/ !;tjzl
W
12%1 U)
oa
Y Y i
o
� e
i
ooh
o £a:
z
.£
� o L
LI 3 -oga
O /
9
/ ` v
oe
c fa Z
blr WO 2S
p
QfJ
�' . ®C
s:ilrlasn•vw•i itv.•a •s:•
large enough to allow a northbound tractor- trailer
turning maneuver, one lane for-,,'straight ahead or left
turn onto S. J. Pacific Highway 'and one lane for right
turn' s only onto the highway.
C. Service Access
The site design has established a circulation pattern
for service vehicles that consists of entering the
shopping center via the southern access point, servicing
the main building on the east (rear) side and exiting
via the northern most access point to the shopping
center.
To achieve maximum screening of the service road from
the adjacent residential area, a large heavily
landscaped buffer zone has been set aside along the east
and south property line. All maneuvering of service
vehicles will occur in this screened area and at no
point will this service access open onto the residential
neighborhood.
D. Sensitive Lands
The site has a drainage Swale on the eastern third of
the property which runs from south to north that is con-
sidered sensitive land. This portion of the site will
be given special engineering analysis which will be
addressed under separate application.
E. Reason for Requesting Proposal
The comprehensive plan and zone request for changing the
existing split zoned C-P/C-3 zones to C-3 is a logical
request in view of the development trends of the area
and positioning of the existing zones on the property.
At present, the southeastern portion of the property is
zoned C-3, which is a totally land locked zone with no
means for access. The northeastern portion of the pro-
perty is zoned C-3 (General Commercial) with C-P
(Commercial-Professional) along the western portion,
which if anything, should be reversed. By unifying the
zoning to C-3 , it would allow for a more logical deve-
lopment of the -site in keeping with the development
trend for the area, NPO policies, and the planning staff
studies , which per the suggested staff review calls for
a C-G zoning designation in the future. NPO I has offi-
cially endorced this C-G designation as part of the plan
now under review.
2. HOW THE PROPOSED USE YS IN CONFORMANCE WITH TIGARD'S
ADAPTED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The proposed site utilization respects and is consistent
with the comprehensive plan dated May, 1974.
Specifically, it satisfies the following policies :
P
POLICY 18: Pacific Highway is developing as a strip
commercial highway. The traffic carrying capacity of
this highway should have the highest priority and adja-
cent commercial development should be subordinated to
this need.
- Project is subordinated to the need of traffic
carrying capacity of Pacific Highway
POLICY 19 : In the interest of safety and efficiency,
the number of highway access points must be kept to a
minimum. Wherever possible, businesses on Pacific
Highway should be clustered and share common parking
facilities and driveways. As new development occurs the
number of access points should not exceed the number
necessary for proper on- site traffic circulation and
where possible should be combined with access to adja-
cent businesses.
- Project cluster buildings for use of common parking
and highway access points.
- Access points and signaling are approved by the State
Highway ;department.
- Project uses existing frontage access of adjacent
property to the Northeast.
POLICY 20: Highway-oriented commercial businesses
should have priority use of Pacific Highway frontage
because they are dependent upon the volume of through
traffic for their business.
Project is oriented to provide commercial business
high visibility from Pacific Highway.
POLICY 21: Businesses on Pacific Highway should be
oriented to the existing traffic and not draw additional
traffic from the adjacent community. Convenience or
neighborhood centers should, therefore, be prohibited
from locating on Pacific Highway.
- Project has no traffic connection to adjacent
community.
- Project is not a neighborhood center.
3. COMMUNITY NEED AND PUBLIC BENEFIT DERIVED FROM THE
PROPOSED ACTION INCLUDE:
The development responds specifically to Policy 18 in
providing a commercial shopping area working in concert
with Pacific Highway and serving the greater Tigard
residential areas. As a further benefit, the complex
will generate additional employment of approximately 230
new jobs for local residents, and contribute to the
general economy of the city of Tigard. Tax contribution
as a result of the complex is estimated to be approxima-
tely $8 ,160 per year, vs. the current $1,020 annual
f
taxable contribution to the City. This contribution is
computed at $1. 02 per thousand dollars of 1982-83
vA,uation currently estimated at $8 ,000 , 000. In addi-
tion to annual taxes, a one time contribution of $19 ,000
will 8,e paid to the Tigard System Development Street
Fund. This sum is based on a levy of $50 on each 380
required parking spaces.
Related to traffic concerns, improving two existing
access points, the existing access point at the existing
retail building and the existing frontage road, the
shopping center is adding only one access point. Since
this point has State Department of Transportation
approved signaling, the impact to highway traffic will
be minimal .
4. ANY CHANGES IN ENVIRONMENTAL, ECONOMIC OR SOCIAL
CONDITIONS AND/OR CHANGES IN AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC
SERVICES, OR ACCESS AND/OR ANY OTHER ASPECT OF COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTLY AFFECTING THE SUBJECT SITE THAT WOULD
JUSTIFY T B REQUESTED ACTION:
Recent economic reports have projected the Tigard popu-
lation increasing 8% per year over the last five-year
period, causing in turn additional need for medium sized
retail/shopping areas and related services .
The development is zonsistent with the Tigard
- Comprehensive Plan which identified the areas as
appropriate for retail commercial activities . A recent
survey indicated only 17% of the available area zoned
for commercial use in the area was "buildable" for
future developments. This project represents one of the
few remaining sites to accommodate a full service retail
commercial center for the community, particularly in NPO
#1.
S. WHY IS THE PROPOSED LOCATION FOR YOUR PROPOSED LAND USE
MORE SUITABLE THAN OTHER LOCATIONS IN THE CITY ZONED TO
ALLOW THE PROPOSED USE:
Sites in the Tigard area adjacent to Pacific Highway
which could accommodate such a development are
non-existent.
4
- 4
G. THE IMPACT OR EFFECT THE PROPOSED.,DEVELOPMENT WILL HAVE }
ON ADJACENT SITES, OCCUPANTS OR ACTIVITIES AND ON TETE C
IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD USE:
The proposed development and zone cliange has no negative r
impacts .
- Although some of the site vegetation will be removed,
except for existing vegetation in the buffer , the
project is designed to provide additional landscaping
to buffer residential view, to provide a sound break
and enhance Lie shopping center aesthetics. In addi-
tion the plan will provide open space with generous
landscaping along the highway.
- Short term jobs created during construction and long
term jobs created during operation coupled with
increased potential to attract dollars and keep E
dollars in the Tigard area far outweigh the loss of f
one existing business on- site.
- Along a 1000 ft. frontage of Pacific Highway this
project uses two existing accesses and adds only one
new access which is potentially less access points G
than if each of the 5 parcels were developed indivi-
dually.
- Per design, we will maintain and augment the dense
natural foilage along the easterly property line
which abuts a single-family residential district. Our
setbacks, also by intent, will be much more than the
minimum required on the easterly property line and
our proposed building heights will all be 25 ' or lower.
7. THE TYPES OF PUBLIC SERVICES NECESSITATED BY YOUR
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND THE IMPACTS THAT YOUR PROJECT MAY
HAVE ON THESE PUBLIC SERVICES.
Water service is currently available along Pacific f
Highway, in adequate quantities and pressures to serve
both fire and domestic needs. Sanitary Sewer capacity
is adequate for this development. Relocation of the
sewer line will be required.
Portland General Electric, Northwest Natural Gas, and
General Telephone all have facilities adjacent to the
site, of adequate capacity to serve the project . s
4-
i
All roadways on- site will be private roads , designed to
serve the circulation needs of the project and adjacent
businesses along the northern improved frontage road.
These roadways will connect with Pacific Highway in the
following manner :
1 . Park Avenue - Signalized intersection with
Pacific Highway. Approved by Oregon Department F
of Transportation (ODOT) . E
2. Main Entrance - Signalized intersection with
Pacific Highway (across from Pietro ' s Pizza s
entrance) , approved by ODOT.
3. Southerly Entrance - Right- in, right-out only,
unsignalized currently being reviewed by ODOT. 3
The project will be served by the current Tri-Met bus
line #44.
8 . PROJECTS COMPLIANCE WITH OREGON LAND CONSIDERATION AND
DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (LCDC) STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS AND
GUIDELINES.
Goal I - Citizen Involvement - Not applicable.
Goal 2 - Land Use Planning - In compliance with process
currently required by City of Tigard.
Goal 3 - Agricultural Lands - Not applicable.
Goal 4 - Forrest Land - Not applicable.
Goal 5 - Open spaces , scenic and historic areas and
natural resources - Not applicable . s
Goal 6 - Air water and land resources quality. Project
is in compliance with this goal . Shopping r
complex is compatible use adjacent to Pacific
Highway with negligable impact to air quality. 4
Goal 7 - Areas subject to natural disaster and hazards -
Not applicable.
Goal 8 - Recreation Needs - Not applicable.
Goal 9 - Economy of the State - The project is in
compliance with this goal . Project will
generate commercial activity of greater volume
than housing.
Goal 10- Housing - While housing is zoned for a portion
of the site the zone which is designated is not
in compliance with the LCDC Goal 10 . The con-
figuration of the site , requirement of access
across a CP zone , the existance of a drainage
ditch across the site and requirement to extend
utilities to the zone could over burden the
development cost which would limit the flexibi-
lity of housing units available at price ranges
or rent levels commensurate with the financial
capabilities of the housing market.
A greater potential of developing housing in
compliance with Goal 10 exists in other loca-
tions within Tigard. }
Goal' 11 Public Facilities and Services . Project is in
compliance with this goal . See Question 7
above .
Goal 12 Transportation - Project is in compliance with
this Goal . The facility centralizes commercial
business along a high intensity traffic
thoroughfare .
Goal 13 Energy Conservation - Project is in compliance
with this Goal. Shopping center has the poten-
tial to reduce energy related vehicle trips.
Project re-uses existing previously developed
low density vacant land.
Goal 14 Urbanization - Project complies with the use of
land designated to be urbanized.
Goal 15, 16 , 17 18 , $ 19
Not applicable.
i
BMW
Octobea. /8, /982
TJTW CffY PLv4RIAg COOMISSZON
e igaad, Okeyon 97223
Cerzaenea.•
A pAopo4a l foA wmwe� developnesi a loag Paci Lc N.i.p'umy u, uxA c,®
;to be Anoun a4 llf.[ 30 fAS'T" and paeAeat ed Zo the Octo bee 6 izegu Za&
meeting o� N/V /. Th" pwpo4at Aeguea 4 ae-pr's #h.e p-reoenity
.op.Li�-Fn.ed pvzce l d involved -to C-3 and la U-6 .info "he oe 4i,;t-Ve
,&uzo66d cat e
,golzy due to the rz,a uruLl dna mage autzle ulu ch enp&eo in to
Marano Cizeeh.
NYV ! con u w u,ZA ba;tA the ae-pruing aegueat and the deve to pea.'d
pwpo.oa l Ae&;Uve to the ,4ea.6 ti_ve &vzda .invo.Cved.
/2eaPe-c'E�icGl�,
>yaa�
.e NIT
November 14,1982
We the undersigned residents whose properties and neighborhood border the
projected development known as Tigard East being proposed by J.B. Bishop, wish to
enter into public record the following statements and requests:
As residents of the adjacent area we are concerned by the impact that this
project would have on our neighborhood due to increased auto and foot traffic, security,
as well as increased noise and visual nuisances.
Because of these concerns we had a neighborhood meeting with J.B. Bishop
on October 27,1982, at which time Mr. Bishop presented some general plans and we in
turn expressed our concerns and needs relative to the buffer needed between the two
areas. Specifically addressed was the need for permanent fencing between the proposed
commercial development and our homes. Mr. Bishop expressed his understanding of our
concerns and agreed that fencing throughout would benefit his project as well as assure
the security the neighborhood is seeking.
He suggested that the appropriate course of action would be to meet with each
adjacent landowner, and with the assistance of his landscape architect,Mr. George Ott,
review the specific plans for the buffer area as they relate to each individual adjacent
property. These individual meetings were then to be followed up with a collective
meeting of all property owners to finalize specifically the type of fencing,trees,
shrubs,etc., necessary to satisfy our concerns as they relate to our neighborhood
and our homes.
v It was also felt and expressed by all present that these areas of concern
be settled and agreed upon prior immediately. All persons present expressly indicated
the need of the fencing prior to the development of the site to provide us with an
element of security before access to our neighborhood,through the open space which
would be created, would occur.
Because Mr. Bishop agreed with our concerns and indicated to us that it was
his desire to satisfy our needs and indicated his willingness to provide the necessary
fencing and large trees, shrubs,etc.to protect our homes, we felt it advantageous
to work together in an effort to bring the matter to an equitable conclusion.
We did not appeal the Planning Commission decision of October 19,1982,
because we felt that we had an agreement with Mr. Bishop, and that he fully intended
to honor his commitment to us concerning the buffer necessary between our homes and
his commercial site. Had we not felt confidence in his assurances to us, we surely
would have filed an appeal in order that the Planning Commission would reconsider.
their decision.
He did in fact contact, and promise to contact all concerned property owners,
with the intention of making appointments to address the concerns as referenced above.
In one instance a specificappointment was set up and then he failed to appear or even
extend the courtesy of a phone call. Since the meeting of October 27th, he has made
no further effort to work with us and no effort to contact us.
In light of what has happened, we now feel that another course of action is
necessary to guarantee both the protection of our homes and give us some assurances
that Mr. Bishop, or any future developer of this site,must adhere to some specific
conditions which provide protection to those property owners directly adjacent to
the site.
This is a large project that directly affects at least 9 property owners,
located directly adjasent to the site, and indirectly affects everyone in our area
aesthetically. Because it is a large commercial site and will certainly interfere
with the normal use ani enjoyment of our homes and families, we appeal to you as our
neighbors and representatives of our city to help us establish specific guidelines
to protect our homes and continued harmonious enjoyment of same.
c .
We ask that the following additions be made to the CPR 4-82 as conditions
of final approval.
1) Prior to any site development, construction,tree removal,etc.; the
developer acquire written agreements.with all adjacent property owners
stating specifically terms as they relate to fencing(height,materials,
placement,and maintenance). Financial obligations must be spelled out
to avoid future problems,
p' 2) The developer be required to state in written form directed to the
`t property owners and city officials, his intentions as they relate to the
greenbelt area; including addition of shrubs,trees,etc.,as well as the
removal of same.
3) There are several large, old trees on the property to be developed.
We realize that some of them will have to be removed, but several of them
are located in the greenbelt area. What assurances, if any, can be made
that these trees will not be disturbed. They will certainly help to break
up the view of the bare buildings which will be facing the residential
areas, as well as aid in serving as noise barriers. We would ask for
written agreement that no large trees be removed from the greenbelt area
without first informing us of the developers intentions and that he would
be required to show evidence that indeed the removal is a necessity and
merely a convenience for the commercial site. Should a dispute arise, we
would ask that both sides be reviewed by a non-biased third party, such as
the planning commission, who would then make a final decision.
Our purpose in asking for these provisions is not to prevent development
of the site by Mr. Bishop, but to protect our homes as much as is reasonably possible,
from the encroachment of a large scale, highly traff:ced shopping area.
Should it not be in the City Councils power to address these issues in the
manner proposed, we then respectfully request an extended appeal period regarding
this matter so that we may re-address our concerns to the appropriate bodies.
We feel that we are justified in making this request because of the
circumstances addressed at the beginning of this petition. We were acting in good
faith with Mr. Bishop during the period from October 19,1982, and November 5,1982,
when our original appeal period expired. Since Mr, J.B. Bishop has made no further
attempts to contact property owners in an effort to resolve our concerns amicably,
we are left with no alternative but to seek assistance from you, our City Council.
We feel it is imperative that certain conditions must be made of record(preferrably
on the deed, so that those conditions would also carry over to any subsequent owners
if the property should change hands), and that the conditions as agreed upon should
be adhered to prior to any commencement of work on the property.
i
c^^
C L<
<-�/cam
Ci�
INS
Y. November 9, 1982
MEMORANDUM
TO: Members of the Tigard City Council
FROM: William A. Monahan, Director of Planning & Development
RE: Winsome Terrace
During the past two months I have worked with the Housing Authority of
Washington County to resolve a conflict on the proposed location of four
subsidized housing units on Winsome Terrace. The City feels that the Housing
Authority's plan to construct additional units at Winsome Terrace would result
in a concentration of undue size in the neighborhood which would violate
Policy 8 of the Tigard Housing Plan. I have worked with the Housing Authority
in an attempt to identify alternative vacant plots with a goal of dispersing
units throughout Tigard.
Attached is a copy of the memorandum which I hand delivered to the
Authority on September 27, 1982. On November 1, Dayton Page hand delivered
the attached memo addressed to Mayor Bishop describing the current status of
the Authority's housing construction plan. Please note that I intend to
continue processing the possibility of finding alternative sites. It appears,
however, that the Authority feels that the likelihood of switching sites is
unlikely.
This correspondence is provided to you for your information only. No
action is required , however, should you feel strongly that the City should
not further pursue alternative sites or if you feel that more work should be
put into avoiding construction at Winsome Terrace, Council may wish to provide
staff with direction.
ch
t` ,1
No
W11 VS01 WE TERRA CE 6,,yao Englix-srkV
Apr!/, /97.9-
A
973A REPLAT OF A PORT/ON OF LOTS 30,3/,APID-W
OF NORTH T/GARDV/LLE ADD/TION ?
RHA!R..4q. OWERS aF T7ti"IV / -
EST49L/SH..`MD DECLARE rW
10E,- '"o ALL LCTrS elMw UP TXE .-
"HE WIDTHS SL•T MR7T AAV %&D
Ti¢'USE OF TT$'FUaLC AS
ET iT-YP'TH. - - )� s• -
♦. a���L J am- �1.'.a /J.Woo,
t.
'D.:,x.
`p 3�5► FGYNSO%f-•t
' x'/923 ,✓� �'gr .Qk rPtMG S/•'r v I G-
A NORr- �M V"'-AgwC G --W SAID rot=-We 3 V atuari ryy i�- 61, .f• ���b (•�L, Jr(.r.:.v. £ ��
��SRG14T4K 0v&,7-2,v. SECR£TLCT- 'fsc eEam -+c I +'� ,`�h^�j,rsi� `•.\ -rsv •/• .� 9 0�•
S."CYG D£Jti Arlo&4.YD R0IV--LD E i/4 COR&ro Be/- AV •'!� U'�d / ?'ao �1 c..J
5 AWdCEL`:M N[£N SLC 19
4A0 DFFP. FytEca.z.: SC,;a a. 7tS��.. GQ;a �.� ` ^�� .;'�. d s, -
/ 8 i I r P c,.an 0h
z VIP
vMrom
�CrLr g4TrErw ANO AiY•Xm Sesv�se-.-f—c C .cam,. (h- ` •SII "-� o y' :-s. yr, r_Qp
TH4T.or rhr w.,YAL s`1:7r ea as CIZ�+p
SE T(ON CL'RMW B£rrEFY y
',r-W S4A?rrY/T/dL PO.7V7' Ir y 10 L170 � � �r. ,s�' F o t�S d5 '`.�•/�J
:r h.54?�i•5Y%4ST f'2 CO FEET / c ^c 3 7• �-2! �l�s \ _ �•y /`7'
..v IlT,$r G,L`7/,;f%': •>£S•_�7L -i
SCALE' ':x �c�•.A __ o,• -
TN .. �.,-.. ��PP
.arr<4=zr£z �?1'4 rr.JRrr ,-, � T 7 .
:oRTrr89�3O ST'MT ST ASs at<EET : �' , J, ASO to
ID
"SIP
T CURVE DAT* 8 e�. •- Q .t MOT A Pt RT OE rAVS PLAT \\ Z\
OF(tI
q \ \
9f•2!-00 1 2D rl' 2170'
,J_as-4w sr.•s sa./2'
li-Jl-f1 20 OI /I 11'
zo-af-o+ z72s j7/�' X177 Pi 62' — Se9-JO 7T H£ ItOO!' ----
64-M-e0 >N AC? ea 41 N89.59YF77W /56.P4'�
3,-35-
-27 Q 11 IR.10' OtRA i fP_- \\ 'Ato �\
at_J7-11 62 tJ $aA(iGC/UR CaQ \ ,
=li iMK
IO-JI aL4
-/7 - ; 1o;
!e-JD-'Jrr -snav' 1967/ \\
*04v..AY-JS . '!6 N 1JAJ� / OfAeDTsS flYlrl'•K?OIN7' \ \
sl.43..97 X71./J 72.40 p. a ar*orrs 1/f JO'/I► sir ommor -
14-/9-SJ x:87 jr, 6214' APAM. /D71
Vi. 4.&ASO Of ILrARiMSS r Gd MO.JT71 fuumo S'W /0-
AFACJt7 ef0wG71t£NT'FavrrO AS MOrfO \
r
t' September 27, 1982
MEMORANDUM
TO: Washington County Housing Authority
FROM: William A. Monahan, Director of Planning and Development
SUBJECT: Potential Sites For Single Family Subsidized Housing
As discussed at your Board meeting on September 7, 1982, the City of Tigard is
prepared to offer assistance to the Washington County Housing Authority to
identify potential housing sites for subsidized housing construction.
Primarily, the City is interested in working to assure compliance with the
Tigard Housing Plan, adopted by the City Council on April 11, 1977, which
states as Policy 8 that, "low and moderate income housing units shall be
located according to appropriate standards (e.g. , not concentrations of undue
size, to minimize impacts on existing neighborhoods, etc.)." Toward this end,
the Planning Division for the City has surveyed the City to identify available
vacant building lots for evaluation by the Authority as possible alternatives
to construction on lots presently under its control on Grant Court to prevent
a concentration there that is contrary to the intent of the City Plan.
Grant Court Lots - Presently the Authority owns four lots on Grant Court, with
one lot occupied by a single family home. Two of the three z _-_.Lining lots are
contiguous, while all are within a ten lot cul-de-sac. Properties around the
site are built up with single family homes. Those within the cul-de-sac are
of various styles, all built within the past few years. Those in the
adjoining neighborhoods are well maintained homes on established streets. The
only exceptions to the high quality of residential properties in the area are
those opposite the Authority's unit on SW Grant Avenue.
Other Lots In The City - There are two sources of buildable lots available to
the Authority. One is the conventional market, that is, purchase from a
realtor or property owner, while the second is the City of Tigard which would
trade one or more buildable lots which are under its jurisdiction.
A. Conventional Market - A survey of the availability of lots through
the conventional market revealed that there are several lots now
available in various sections of Tigard. These lots range in price
anywhere from $14,500 to almost $30,000. These lots are located in
existing residential neighborhoods. It is possible that the
Authority could procure three lots in different parts of Tigard or
two in one area while building one other at Grant Court. Either of
these courses of action would be preferable to constructing three
additional units on Grant Court.
C
i
Available lots:
Southeast Tigard - A. Lamancha 5 lots
B. 88th, Reiling 6 lots
Scheckla Drive 3 lots*
89th Place 3 lots
C. 98th off Durham 2 lots
Southwest Tigard - D. Fairview Lane 1 lot*
E. 118th Ct./Creekside 4 lots*
F. Watkins Place 1 lot*
Northeast Tigard - G. Leslie St. & 72nd Ave. 1 lot
H. 92nd & Greenburg 4 lots
B. City of Tigard - The City has under its control two duplex lots in
Pinebrook, off Bonita Road. These buildable lots could be used for
duplex units or single family. The value of these lots is somewhere
within the range of the conventional lots.
Other Considerations - The City is ready and willing to work with the
Authority to develop an alternative to utilizing all these parcels on Grant
Court. Should the Authority wish to purchase or trade some or all of their
Grant Court lots the City would be willing to donate the following in-kind
services:
1. The services of a registered architect who is on staff with the City
to re-site the proposed houses on alternative sites.
2. The services of the City Engineering and Planning Divisions to draw
up topographic plans for the new site.
3. The services of the Planning Division staff to prepare landscape
architect plans.
Expertise is presently available in the form of full time staff of the City
who would be committed to assisting the Authority to disperse subsidized
housing into various sections of the City preventing a concentration in any
one area. This commitment of municipal resources is further pledged for
future cooperative efforts between the City and the Authority.
The City of Tigard, through my office, stands ready to assist the Authority if
it is willing to reconsider its position.
WAM:lw
THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY
P.O. Box 988 -- 560 S.E. Third Avenue, Hillsboro, Oregon 97123-0988 Phone: (503)648-8511
COMMIS`,.IUNERS
D t/ D.I i l...., Cl..l.11--
I J Elwl. V.r.
E Al Wall—
VV J f-P.It.r
" '' "�"" November 1, 1982
EXECUTIVE DIREC IOR
D Payu
Wilbur A. Bishop, Mayor
City of Tigard
P.O. Box 23397
Tigard, Oregon 97223
SUBJECT: Selection of Alternative Sites
Dear Mr. Mayor:
The Housing Authority, acting at the request of the City of Tigard,
has looked into the possibility of developing alternative sites for
the construction of Housing Authority owned housing in the City of
Tigard. This request comes as a result of citizen's concerns that
{ a neighborhood was going to be adversely impacted and, in some way, s
that the proposal is at variance with city policies.
We, as a Board, have reviewed the material presented to us in regard
to city policy relating to housing and find that we are in compliance
therewith. It would be impossible for us, or anyone else, to determine
what is required to comply with the proposed policies. The twenty-two
(22) units being built in Tigard are as well disbursed as possible.
We have instructed Dayton Page, the Executive Director, to proceed with
the planned development, but to also continue to work with the city, if
possible, in developing at least two alternative sites. lie has informed
us that the site selecting was a long process involving a great many
factors, including; asking for assi-stance from your Planning Department ,
and final HUD approval. He and the Development Manager looked at a
great number of potential sites prior to purchase. Later, accompanied
by Mr. Monahan, he retraced some of these same steps only to confirm that
the rational was correct for the original selection.
The Housing Authority does not have the funds available to buy alternate
sites. We have spent our allocation for surveys, purchasing, title
insurance and escrow accounts. Any alternative site, mutually approved
by the City of Tigard, the Department of Housing and Urban Development,
and the Housing Authority must come to the Housing Authority without
cost. Assurances would also require that additional costs incurred as
a result of the exchange would be provided by someone other than the Housing Authority. This would include, but not limited to, unusual site
conditions requiring additional site work, changes in foundation require-
ments, bid corrections, etc. We are not attempting to paint a rosy picture;
we see the likelihood of working with an alternative site as being very
difficult and a costly undertaking. This does not mean that it is impossible,
however, most likely improbable. Therefore, in the interest of completing both
our goals, the staff will work with you as they are able, up to and until the
time that an alternative site would be impossible to select.
We are going to bid opening for the construction of the proposed sites on the
19th day of November, 1982. It is anticipated that contract completion will
proceed in a normal course and be completed one month later. After this time,
no changes or alternative sites would be possible under our program.
Sincerely, /
Derryccz H. Dittman
Chairman of the Board
of Commissioners
DP/wrp/tv
i
I
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
ASSISTANT JOY MARTIN, ADMINISTRATIVE,
F
DATE: NOVEMBER 12, 1982
Y
SUBJECT: OBTAINING VOTER REACTION TO TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
t
t
z
REQUESTED ACTIONS
i
The following decisions need to be made if Council wants to have citizen input
on tax increment financing prior to December 31, 1982-
1. Should there be an official poll involving every registered voter, or
1
ke." The later will
"t.o occupant"? The former will be more "official-liz
mean one per address with broader community-wide but. also non-voter. input. i
2. When does Council need the results of the poll? If Council would want
to repeal the tax increment financing portion of the plan, this must be
done prior to December 31 , 1982, to take effect in 1983.
ionnaire? If so, should it be sent
3. Should the City do an attitude quest
to the entire City along with the official poll , or should it be separate,
perhaps only to a sample of the City? Cost impacts are obviously involved
f
here as well .
FACTS
At the October 18 Council meeting, the options available for obtaining citizen }
advice were discussed. The decision was to wait until after the general election
and for staff to have a questionnaire available if desired.
CESS
PRO �
The minimum amount of time necessary for each step is shown below. In order
to have the results from a poll to Council by the December 20 meeting, the
process must begin immediately:
Draft Poll/Questionnaire Staff November 15
Pre-Test Questionnaire
14 days Nov. 15-29
Revise, Finalize, Print, Mail Quest.. 5 days (maybe) Nov. 29-Dec. 3
Return Poll/Quest.ionnaire 14 days Dec. 3-17
Results of Poll to Council 1 day Dec. 20
Follow-Ups for Questionnaire 14 days (28 if nec. ) Dec. 20-Jan. 4
Coding, Preparation for Analysis
January
Analysis
. . . Continued . . .
MEMO -- MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
NOVEMBER 12, 1982
PAGE TWO
i
DISCUSSION
c
Tho purpose of the Questionnaire would be to obtain citizen quidance or attitudc's
on the importance of certain city services. It is not specifically an evaluation `
questionnaire. It. is hoped that this information will be useful to both Council
and to the Budget Committee in deciding on goals and priorities with the Y.
possibility of reduced funds. Departments will be preparing initial drafts of {
b
their budgets in February based on this process.
z
COST ESTIMATE
The following is a summary of funds available and estimated cost of preparing the
Questionnaire. y
NOV.- JAN_- MAY-
BUDGET Y.T.D. DEC. FEB. MARCH APRIL JUNE TOTAL
NEWSLETTER
POSTAGE $8,000 $2, 350785 $ 785 $ 785 $ 785 $ 785 $ 6,275
PRINTING 7,000 1,525 510 510 510 510 510 4,075 a
�^ NEWSLETTER: $1 ,500 $3,875 $1,295 $1 ,295 $1 , 295 $1 , 295 $1,295 $10,350
QUESTIONNAIRE
VOTERS LABELS $ 150 $ 150
POSTAGE (2-WAY)
3,500 3,500
PRINTING 550 550
QUESTIONNAIRE: $4,200 $ 4,200
f
* TOTAL: $15,000 $3,875 $5,495 $1,295 $1 , 295 $1, 295 $1 , 295 $14,550
i
* Newsletter and Questionnaire
i
E
JM dkr E
}
E
f
4
f
F
1,
November 22, 1982 CI TIO
WASHINGION COUNTY,OREGON
Alan G. Rogers
Director, .License Division
Oregon Liquor Control Commission
P.O. Box 2297 - 9079 S .E. McLoughlin Blvd.
Portland, Oregon 97222
IRE: Application for a Package Store License Plaid
Pantry, Durham and Hall.
Dear Mr. Rogers ,
Despite indications to the contrary, the City of Tigard
does not support the issuance of a package store license for
Plaid Pantry at 15485 S.W. Hall.
At their meeting of November 22, 1982 , the Tigard City
Council, based on public opposition voted to recommend OLCC
deny the liquor license at Hall and Durham.
We would appreciate OLCC reconsideration of this matter
as soon as possible. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
- -
- �.nc , ,.
Wilbur A. Bishop
Mayor - City of Tigard
dmj
12755 S.W.ASH P.O. BOX 23397 TIGARD,OREGON 97223 PH:639-4171
certified public accountants 2700 First Interstate Tower i principal areas of the world
Coo ers Portland.Oregon 97201
&LY rand telephone(503)227-8600
November 8 , 1982 NOV 1 0 1982
Mr. Robert W. Jean
City Administrator
City of Tigard, Oregon
12755 S. W. Ash
P. O. Box 23397
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Dear Bob:
This letter summarizes the results of our meeting
on November 4 , 1982 regarding the fiscal 1982-83 audit of the
City of Tigard. The fee for the forthcoming audit will be
$13 , 500. The fee includes all services necessary for filing
for the MFOA Certificate of Conformance Award as well as
additional budgetary detail to be included in the report for
the General Fund. The fee also includes all out-of-pocket
expenses which we will incur.
Very truly yours ,
'X
John L. Dethman
JLD: jw
U'U()NNtLL. DATE November 8 , 1982 LAWYER/CLIENT
SULLIVAN & RAMIS
-TTORNEYS AT LAW TO City of Tigard - Maksym File,',
1727 NW HOYT STREET
PORTLAND. OREGON 97209
15031 222.4402 FROM EJS
RE Conversation with Tony MaksymNOV1 0 1982
November 6 1982
On November 6 , 1982 at about 11 : 30 a.m. , Mr. Maksym called me and,
after the usual pleasantries , he asked whether the City was going
to negotiate or go to court with him. I told Tony that it
appeared we were too far apart in our positions to have any real
hope for negotiations.
Maksym said that Marlin DeHaas was the problem, in that he was
undertaking "punitive negotiations" . He inferred that he was
going to ask George Mead to handle his case and that he had also
spoken with Steve Janik. He also inferred that both of these
gentlemen thought the City' s position was "ridiculous" and that
negotiations were the best means of settling the case.
I a nootbutwthatehehhadabeenptalkingdtoeattorneyspandd that
he wasas ,
appraisers.
Maksym also said that he wanted to raise the issue of the fairness
of the Bancrofting procedure in that he had other positions that
he wanted to take, but that he would wait until after the new
Council was seated. He also said that "if the city wants a trial ,
it' ll be a hell of a trial" . He said, however, that if the city
wanted to negotiate, "let' s go to it" .
I responded to Tony that he had better prepare for a trial ,
because of the difference in positions. Maksym responecdthat he
alizing
probably would have Dick Bemis, a Portland attorney sp g
in condemnation, handle the case. I responded that we had worked
with Bemis on another condemnation case and we respected him and,
if that was his attorney, we would be glad to handle all corre-
spondence through Bemis, as I was uncomfortable in dealing with
an unrepresented defendant.
Maksym changed his tack again, indicating that Steve Janik had
suggested arbitration as a means of handling the matter. I told
Tony that I would consider that as a possibility.
I then told Maksym to have Dick Bemis call me ,
but Tony replied
that Bemis was out-of-town and that he couldn' t wait because he
of
was supposed toThave
ony tancaanswer
ll on theo9thesoothatcurtbwetcouldtdiscussas
mo
the matter again.
eared
' The tone of the conversation was friendly, although it app
to me that Maksym was jockeying for position. My tack throughout
the call was to tell Maksym that we were serious and were not
going to play games with him. We want to get this matter to trial
and resolved and that we were not going to play politics with him.
i
cc: Bob Jean
Marlin DeHaas
EJS:mch
k
t
k
1,
i
C1 F T117
WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON E
r
November 15, 1982
i.
z
t
MR. RON JORDAN , CHAIRMAN
TIGARD PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD
13235 S.W. VILLAGE GLENN DRIVE
TIGARD, OREGON 97223
SUBJECT: LAST PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEETING
i
Dear Ron: �
As you may have realized, I came prepared only to discuss
the 5-Year Financial Plan and Cut-Back Options. Frank
got way-laid at the "Let' s Light Up Tigard" Committee A
meeting and I tried, not too successfully, to fill in 1
for Frank. Please convey to the Board our appreciation
as staff for the Board' s involvement. The recent emphasis F
on the Comprehensive Plan, Local Improvement Districts,
Budget and Financial issues has taken a great deal of
our time. I hope we can find time this coming year to
again get back to Parks issues at a higher priority.
i
Attached is a Follow-Up Memo which I hope will see that
the major items are addressed. Please feel free to contact g
me if I may be cif any further assistance.
i
Yours truly,
CITY OF TIGARD !
t
f
i
Robert W. Jean,
City Administrator
RWJ dkr E(
Attachment
i
E
I
i
F
12755 S.W.ASH P.O. BOX 23397 TIGARD,OREGON 97223 PH:639-4171
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: AFFECTED STAFF
FROM: BOB JEAN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: NOVEMBER 15, 1982
SUBJECT: FOLLOW-UP FROM 11/4/82 PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD
I attended the above mentioned Parks and Recreation Board and
was not impressed by our support to them. Liz Newton is doing
a great job as the liaison staff person assigned to the Parks
and Recreation Board. We, as staff, are not doing as good
a job as I know we can in keeping Liz , and in turn the Board,
updated on items relating to the Board.
To help improve upon our relationship and support to the Board,
I have prepared this Follow-Up Memo and will ask that Liz
do so following each subsequent Board meeting. The following
items need attention by staff:
BILLPlease review with the Board, the Parks and Open
• Space Plan as it relates to the Comprehensive Plan,
Flood Plain and Greenway policies .
LIZ Work with Diane to keep a running list of Recommen-
dations to use as a checklist and report. See me.
FRANK Please plan on attending the December 2, 1982 , Park
Board to review the January-August Recommendations
checklist.
FRANK Plan on reviewing this year ' s Park maintenance
program and capital projects with the Board prior
to the february Budget process, perhaps at the
January meeting.
BOB I ' ll contact Sue Sheridan about setting up a meeting
with Tualatin, Sherwood and others on possible
Recreation Program.
FRANK Contact Mary Payne about Windmill mini-park prior
to the December 2, 1982, meeting.
FRANK Contact Susan Sheridan, Mary Ann McGinley and Bob
Bollinger re. Bikepath Phase II program. Also
s see if Councilor Scheckla and Councilor-Elect Scott
are interested.
. . . Continued . . .
MEMO -- AFFECTED STAFF
NOVEMBER 15, 1982 ,
PAGE TWO
BOB I ' ll work with the Mayor on Park Board appointments.
LIZ See that Bruce Clark is invited to the December 2 , 1982
Park Board re. Bandstand drawings and cost.
BOB I ' ll work with the Mayor as to the Liberty Park
sculpture from the 21st Birthday and report to
Park Board on status.
FRANK Report to Board on Laceleaf Maple incident at Cook
Park and Fairbanks memorial tree.
RWJ dkr
f
i
f