The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 01/30/1984 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA agenda item needs to sign on,the appropriate v JANUARY 30, 1984, 6:30 P.M. sign-upsheet(s). If no sheet is available, Q, cd FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH 'ask tobe recognised by the :Chair atthe start ro.E 10865 SW WALNUT of that agenda item. Visitor's agenda items are m o TIGARD,-;OREGON 97223 asked to be kept to 2_minutes or less; longer H matters can be set for a future Agenda by,con- tacting either the Mayor or City Administrator. 6:30 1. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Council and the Library Board will go into Executive Session under the provisions of, ORS 192.660 (1)(e) and (1)(h) regarding Real Property Transactions and Possible'Litigation. 2. SPECIAL MEETING: 2.1 Call To Order and Roll Call 22 Pledge of Al',giance 2.3 Call To Staff and;Council'For Non-Agenda Items 7:35 3. VISITOR'S AGENDA (2 Minutes or Less, Please) 7:40 4. MAYOR - COUNCIL VACANCIES AND ELECTIONS 4.1 City Attorney Report 4.2. Ordinance Amending TMC —Ordinance No. 84- 7:50 5. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS REGARDING COUNCIL AND ADMINISTRATOR SECTIONS OF TMC 5.1 Mayor and City Attorney 5.2 Ordinance Amending TMC —Ordinance No. 84- 8:00 6. SPACE NEEDS III REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT' 6;1 Library Board Report 6.2 Council Questions and Discussion, 6.3 Council Consideration and Decision - ResolutionrNo. 84- 9:30 7. PARK PLACE/BECHTOLD APPEAL HEARING This will be an "argument-type" hearing only. The Council will consider only the record before the Planning Commission, which is on file at City Hall. The Council shall not consider any new testimony or evidence which is not in the record. 0 ' Public Hearing Opened 0 Staff Report and Summary of Planning'Commission Proceedings By Planning Staff o Argument: Appellants, Resondents, Appellants Rebuttal 0 Public Hearing Closed o Council Consideration and Action 10:45 8. 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 by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 8.1 Approve Board & Committee Appointments Economic Development Committee - Resolution No. 84-t?L_ 8.2 Approve Council Minutes - 1-9-84 8.3 Receive and File Departmental Reports ;t 8.4 Approve CDBG Policy Advisory Committee Alternate Representative ypes.&y-d9 8,5 Approve OLCC Applications For Following: 0 Lone Oak Restaurant, 11920 SW Pacific Hwy., A License 0 Safeway Store #383, 250 Tigard Shopping Plaza, PS License a Coco's Famous Hamburgers #116, 10900 SW 69th Ave., R License 0 Bus Stop Deli, 10240 SW Nimbus a1-4, RMB License n Stein 5 Burger, 11688 SW Pacific Hwy., RMB License 0 Bergmann's Restaurant, 12725 SW Pacific Hwy., R License 0 Albertson's Food Center X1544, 12060 SW Main St., PS License 0 L'Ecurie, 12386 SW Main Street, DC License p. Banning's Restaurant & Pie House, 11477 SW Pacific,:R License 0 Fred Meyer's, Inc., 11565 SW Pacific Hwy., PS License 0 Fred Meyer's - Eve's Restaurant, 11565 SW Pac. Hwy., R License o Payless Drug Stores NW, 12080 SW Main Street, PS License 0 Silver Palace, 14415 SW Pac4f4c Hwy., DA License 0 Hi Hat Restaurant, 11530 SW Pacific Hwy., DA License 0 Sherwood Inn Restaurant, 15700 SW Upper Boones Ferry Rd., DA Lic. 8.6 Call Special Council meeting on 2/20/84 at City Hall at 6:00 P.M. on Council Groundrules, and authorize Sheldon Edner as the facilitator on an hourly basis of $50/hour not to exceed $450 (9 hours). 10:55 9. NON-AGENDA ITEMS: From Council and Staff 11:00 10. ADJOURNMENT lw/316A PAGE 1 - COUNCIL AGENDA - JANUARY,30, 1984 -� WM j T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 30, 1984 - 6:44 P.M. 1. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council and Library Board went into Executive Session at 6:44 P.M. under the provisions of ,ORS 192.660 (1)(e) 1 and (1)(h) regarding real property transactions and possible litigation. x i SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING CONVENED AT 7:30 P.M. 2. ROLL CALL: Present: Council: Mayor Wilbur Bishop; Councilors: Tom Brian, John Cook, Kenneth Scheckla, and Ima Scott (left at 9:04 P.M.); Library- Board Members (joined meeting at 8:15 PM) Chairman Walt Munhall Jane Miller, Susan Mueller, Peggy Ober, and Madalyn Utz; City Staff: Frank Currie, Director of Public Works; '`Bob Jean, City Administrator; Joy Martin, Administrative Assistant; Bill Monahan,; Director of Planning & Development (arrived at 7:45 P.M..); Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel; and Loreen Wilson, Deputy City Recorder. 3. CALL TO STAFF AND COUNCIL FOR NON-AGENDA ITEMS a. City Administrator requested item 9.1 be added to the agenda 72nd Avenue Change Work Order #6 b. Councilor Scott requested an item be discussed as 9.2. C. Mayor Bishop requested comp plan situation be discussed as 9.3. 4. VISITCR'S AGENDA (2 minutes or less, please) - a. No one appeared to speak. 5. MAYOR - COUNCIL VACANCIES AND ELECTIONS a. ORDINANCE NO. 84-05 AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR A FILING DEADLINE FOR THE OFFICES OF MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. b. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Cook to consider ordinance for discussion only. C. City Attorney referenced his memo and stated that due to a change in state law the City may wish to adopt an ordinance to answer questions which have arisen regarding the procedural implications of the Mayor's recent resignation announcement, The ordinance would set a filing deadline for the Mayor's position of 31 days before the date the Recorder is required by law to transmit to the County Clerk a list of the offices to be filled and the names of the persons to appear on the ballot. Any petitions filed for Council positions must be filed with the Recorder 11 days before the County filing h ^ Council vacancy is advertised deadline. Ln1S would assure that at.. .� with enough time to allow citizens to run for the office. City Attorney also encouraged Council to look at a review committee being formed to look at election and charter issues in the City. PAGE l -- COUNCIL, MINUTES �- JANUARY 30, 1984 DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ARRIVED: 7:45 P.M. dty from Councilor Brian stated he felt the ordinance was necessary to help bring order to the unusualsituation by protecting the communiosition the possibility of a Council 'member` filing c°tizen to the orun or that and not allowing sufficient notice for any vacant Council position. ' Cook amended their motion to adopt Ordinance No e• Councilors Brian and • 84-05. pt was approved by a 3-2 majority vote of Council. Motion to ado Councilors Scheckla' and Scott voting nay. Ordinance No. 84-05 will require a second reading. f. Mayor Bishop stated that he would call a special Council meeting for the second 2-6-84 at 7:00 P.M. at Tigdeadlines set for hreard City Hall toe ar in the and nanceadirg of this-ordinance due to the COUNCIL AND ADMINISTRATOR SECTIONS OF TMC 6. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS REGARDING j a, ORDINANCE NO. 84-06 AN ORDINANCE OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ND&MENDING SECTION 2,04YOCOUNCIL�RUI.ES IN SECTION T GARD MUNICIPALCODEING ADMINISTRATOR AND. CIT � DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. b. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Cook to consider i ordinance for discussion only. C. City Attorney reported that he prepared the ordinance at the Mayor's request with the intent to codify the current policy. He noted that �o vote on the ordinance provides for a full 5 member Council appointment or removal of the City Administrator. g to table Cook movedF d. After lengthy discussion ani cxe°nested staff to amend tordinance 11to � until February 13, q Cit include all officers of the City and (Cit .,ReCity )Administrator, mi istr for Brian Attorney, Municipal Court Judge, y ; seconded the motion. Approved by unanimous vote of Council. 7. SPACE NEEDS III REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT a. Walt Munhall, Chairman of the Tigard Library Board, presented the Committee's report and favored option was the Sturgis proposalthe record noting that the most ber, Council, and staff discussed the report. Board mem b. Library iven a chance to pose questions to the Members of the audience were g Council regarding the various Options' Ar to call for a short recess. C. Council consensus was RECESS: 9:04 P.M. PAGE 2 - COUNCIL MINUTES - JANUARY 30, 1984 COUNCILOR SCOTT LEFT THE MEETING: 9:04 P.M. RECONVENE: 9:26 P.M. d. Various members of the audience and Library Board expressed their support of the Sturgis site. e. Mayor Bishop stated he would support 'studying two options further; Crow and Sturgis. f. Councilor Brian ;felt the City should proceed 'with 2 sites in -further study; Sturgis seems to ;be most attractive (need to look at easement/cons true tion/acqui'sit ion/cos ts closer) and Crow site based only on sheer economics. He felt priority should be given to study of the Sturgis site and develop some figures. g. Councilor Cook suggested that Air King site should be compared to the Sturgis site as they are both sites requiring new construction. h. After further discussion, Councilor Cook moved to 'proceed to compare and negotiate the Sturgis and Air King sites for a possible May election. Councilor Scheckla seconded the motion. Motion failed to have further consideration. i. After lengthy discussion between Council to decide which site should be considered, consensus was to have the Air King and Sturgis sites studied since there was already, adequate 'information on the Crow option. Councilor Brian moved to have the Space Needs III Committee Chairman, J� or his designee, and ,a representative from the City Attorney's office authorized to obtain necessary expertise to determine acquisition costs, building standards and specifications, site improvement costs in general terms, and actual space requirements needed to build, with up to $1,000 allocated for those expenses as needed. Motion seconded by Councilor Cook. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 8. PARK PLACE/BECHTOLD APPEAL HEARING This will be an "argument-type" hearing only. The Council will consider only the record before the Planning Commission, which is on file at City _ Hall. The Council shall not consider any new testimony or evidence which is not in the record, a. Public Hearing Opened x b. Director of Planning and Development advised Council that a letter had been received from the Appellant, dated January 27, 1984, requesting a 2 week delay to February 13th for the hearing. The Director further stated that the Appellant wishes to modify the proposal and recommended Council approval the extension of the hearing to the 13th. PAGE 3 COUNCIL MINUTES —JANUARY 30, 1984 a r z C. Motion: by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Brian to continue the hearing to 2/13/84 as requested by the Appellant. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. d. Council requested that staff make the modifications available to the S citizens concerned. 9. RESOLUTION NO. 84-08 A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MAKING ` APPOINTMENTS TO THE TIGARD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. a. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Cook to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 10. APPROVE COUNCIL MINUTES - JANUARY 9, 1984 a. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Cook to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 11. RECEIVE AND FILE' DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS a. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Cook to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 12. RESOLUTION NO. 84-09 A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY "COUNCIL APPOINTING AN ALTERNATIVE REPRESENTATIVE TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT POLICY ADVISORY BOARD. a. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Cook to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 1.3. APPROVE OLCC APPLICATIONS FOR THE FOLLOWING BUSINESSES: z o Lone Oak Restaurant, 11920 SW Pacific Hwy. , A License o Safeway Store #383, 250 Tigard Shopping Plaza, PS License o Coco's Famous Hamburgers #116, 10900 SW 69th Ave., R License o Bus Stop Deli, 10240 SW Nimbus #1-4, RMB License o Stein & Burger, 11688 SW Pacific Hwy., F01B License o Bergmann's Restaurant, 12725 SW Pacific Hwy., R License o Albertson's Food Center k544, 12060 SW Main St., PS License o L°Ecurie, 12386 SW Main Street, DC License o Banning's Restaurant & Pie House, 11477 SW Pacific, R License o Fred Meyer's Inc. , 11565 SW Pacific Hwy. PS License o Fred Meyer's - Eve's Restaurant, 11565 SW Pac. Hwy. , R License o Payless Drug Stores NW, 12080 SW Main Street, PS License o Silver Palace, 14455 SW Pacific Hwy., DA License o Hi Hat Restaurant, 11530 SW Pacific Hwy., DA License o Sherwood Inn Restaurant, 15700 SW Upper Boones Ferry Rd., DA License a. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Cook to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. PAGE 4 -- COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 30, 1984 14. CALL SPECIAL COUNCIL 'MEETING - 2/20/84 at , City Hall at 6:00 P.M. on r Council .Groundrules and authorize Sheldon Edner as the facilitator on an hourly basis of $50/hour not to exceed '$450 (9 hours). a. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Cook to remove from Consent Agenda for discussion. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.- b. Councilor Scheckla requested another date since the intent of calling the special meeting was to have all 4 'Councilors present and lie would be out of town on the 20th. Consensus of Council was to consider at a later date. 15 NON-AGENDA ITEMS: From Council and Staff 15.1 Director of Public Works requested approval of Change Order No. 6 for 72nd Avenue LID #21 in the _amount of $7,076.53. He noted these were extra costs from closing out the project. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Scheckla to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 15.2 Councilor Scott had requested an item be considered at this point in the meeting, however, she had left the meeting. 15.3 Mayor Bishop stated he wished the Planning Department and Council would look at,;; and hear,- a Comp Plan Amendment regarding care centers. After lengthy discussion, consensus of Council present was to have the City Attorney advise Council if anything pertinent comes to light in the future but this is not an issue to have lengthy research on at this time. 16. ADJOURNMENT: 10:15 P.M. 1 Deputy City Recorder City of Tigard ATTEST: Mayor - city �oiT3.ga'rd (lw/0867A) PAGE 5 - COUNCIL MINUTES - JANUARY 30, 1984 T- TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY Legal P.O.BOX 3770 PHONE(503)£04.03£0 Notice 7-6306 BEAVERTON,OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising ❑ Tearsheet Notice City; of 'Tigard e PO Box 23397 ❑ Duplicate Affidavit` Tigard, OR 47223 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss. I, Susan Pinkley " being first duly sworn,depose and say that I am the Advertising Director;or his principal clerk, of the_ Tigard Times " a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020;published at Tigigrd —in the aforesaid county and state;that the Selected Agenda Reins a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for 1 successive and consecutive.in,the following issues: Jas 2'6 ' 19��a Subsciiied, dvgzlss to re met anuary 30, 198 Notary Public for Oregor. Ply Commission Expires: 2/24/86 AFFIDAVIT r� ��dii'�}}l�, $�'fb��t� p^'sgtq�g�y� d,R.'A`i�e7p'W#{,g!_F.fi'6�rgNvpZ4y�pP�fl��d4 uFaY Kv 4: t .FSG�'F.G dP'F I✓68�TLIiA.�ifAt } y�yu�1Y' � °R'� YfsL-i x3 4 > is t Y: { TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY Notice 7-6299 P.O.BOX 370 PHONE(503)684-0360 BEAVERTON.OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising 0 ❑ Tea,Sheet Notice City of :Tigard ® ® Duplicate Affidavit PO ;Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 e AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, COUNT`(OF WASHINGTON. )ss' being first duly sworn,,depose and say that i am the Advertising . , Director,or his principal cleric,of the a newspaper of general circulationasdef a gdard�3S 1�in the and 193.020; published at------- aforesaid county and state;that the Pu ublished in the a printed COPY of which is hereto annexed.was P successive and entire issue Of said newspaper consecutive in the following issues: ,Tan 19;,. 198)-E g S{1� ° to before ma this u r, 20 1981+ Sa�eaGr:bed a8(iCt � Notary Public for Oregon � Szs Mf . tl my Commission RfcPP 3�16�87 s � �� (ltrl �gy', AFFIDAVIT �( i aXt@ 1 [flcsfft7tef:�cfl aid 11a1YStll�'� -41 03 foggigi: $i�rira5•Z�i.i nrq��}.�y�i�_e�:#Fk'St��}��1p5-if�Yt�?�y+�p. r.s,rw "� s $'��trAq)(y.�i;�lyyryv�,��a��y�y'''`p+1++9�x��}}��jyy�.��X�'4i�7{�.� �+,.y.'gGy'3�h�7.�py�iZ y` 7"•p{ f�ey. { �1 5. 'F fi 3 5=.' ,ti y tl., �' E Sk �iI rr; Tt2�f,r��. � iu+ ( '1iTi1Z3iLL a.•1 cros�c�p.�ft�aatkc8 def`,a11�gftta�a�si pr�l3a�4aas�.�� .; OEM CITYOFTIFARD WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON SPECIAL EXECUTIVE SESSION MEETING NOTICE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND LIBRARY 'BOARD Notice is hereby given that a special Executive Session meeting has been called by the Mayor pursuant to ORS 192.660 (1)(e) and (1)(h) regarding real property- transactions and possible litigation. The meeting will be held � January '30, 1984 at 6:30 P.M. in Fowler Junior High School, 10865 SW Walnut Street, Tigard, Oregon. Mayor — City of Tigard UAB:lw/1184A 9 �t ��— 12755 S.W.ASH P.O.BOX 23397 T'IGARD,OREGON 97223 pH:639-4171 s i ITEM TO BE HAND CARRIED At the ;time of packet distribution, the City Attorney was revising his commentson the Mayor - 'Council Vacancies` and Elections. This item will be hand carried to you on Saturday, January 28, 1984. lw/1184A �ti MMMBM M- a EMISSION NBE O'DONNELL. DATE January 26, 1984 SULLIVAN & RAMIS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1727 N.W. HOYT STREET TO Tigard City Council PORTLAND, OREGON 97209 15031 222-4402 i FROM Tim Ramis, City Attorney 9 RE Issues Regarding The Mayor's Resignation n regarding the , procedural implications of ; the Mayor's Questions have arise recent resignation announcement. The following issues are 'addressed in this memorandum: 1. When is a vacancy created for purposes of preparing for an election? 2. Can a resignation be withdrawn? 3. What is the time table for filing nominations? This memorandum addresses these issues and proposes the adoptionof an ordinance which clarifies filing dates. i. ' Creation of a' Vacancy Section 32 of the Tigard Charter provides that an "office shall be deemed vacant" :upon resignation. Under the Charter, resignation is not synonymous with termination of office. Section 7 of the Charter clearly treats resignation as the announcement' of the intention to leave office. The actual act of ending .the exercise of authority is referred to as "termination". Under the Charter a vacancy is deemed to occur when the announcement of future cermination is made. It is the announcement which triggers the process for determining the date of the election. This seems to be a reasonable policy decision in the Charter because it permits an early start for the process of filling the vacancy and because it allows a council position to remain filled while a successor is chosen. II. Withdrawal of Resignation Whether a resignation may be withdrawn depends upon the purpose for which the resignation is submitted. Under Section 7 a resignation submitted for the purpose of qualifying to run for another city office "shall not be withdrawn". The Charter contains no such restriction upon resignations which are for purposes other than qualifying to run for city office. The result is that a resignation by a councilor_ who intends to run for Mayor may not be withdrawn. The Mayor's resignation, on the other hand, can be withdrawn. III. Time of Nomination As indicated in the August 19, 1933 memorandum' from the Assistant City [{ Attorney, May 15th will be the date of the election to fill the vacancy in the t office of Mayor. The list of nominees must be given to the County Clerk by f O'DONNELL: DATE January 26, 1984 SULLIVAN &'RAMIE ATTORNEYS AT LAW TO Tigard City Council 5727 N.W.;HOYT STREET PORTLAND, OREGON 97209 15031 222-4402 FROM Tim Ramis, City Attorney RE Issues Regarding The Mayor's Resignation Page 2 the City Recorder 61 days prior to the May 15th election. Historically, ten additional days have been required in order to enable the City Recorder to verify signatures on nominating petitions and secure nomination acceptances. The result would be a March 6thdeadline for filing nominating petitions with the City. This date, however, causes a potential further complication.' If a member of the present council submitted a resignation letter on or before this date, a 'vacancy would be created that would require ,an election: to fill the vacancy on May 15. This creates the potential problem that' a late filing and resignation by a council member would leave only minimal or no time for to run for the vacant council position to circulate nominating persons wishing petitions. I' am concerned that, ' while this result may appear to be permissible under the Charter and statutes, it creates procedural unfairness. Fortunately, the statute mandating filing deadlines has been repealed by the last session of the Legislature. The Secretary of State's office advises that cities are now free to designate filing deadlines. {:- As a solution to th,e problem, I am recommending the adoption of the a tacked ordinance. The ordinance would require that a nominating petition for the vacant mayoral position be filed with the City Recorder 31 days 'prior to the deadline for transmitting nominations to the County Clerk. The City Recorder then has ten days to verify signatures, obtain acceptances and any required letters of resignation. In the event that a current council member resigns in order to run for Mayor, a second filing deadline for the newly created Council vacancy would be established 11 days prior to the deadline for transmitting the nominations to the County Clerk. This will give sufficient time to verify signatures, obtain acceptances and transmit the list of candidates to the County, Clerk. There is noting sacrosanct about these time limitations. I view them as minimums. The actual number of days chosen is up to the discretion of the Council. If the ordinance is adopted as proposed, the deadline for filing nominating petitions for the vacant Mayor's position would be February 13, 1984. �pf TVR:lw/1188A 1/26/84 i �5 SEE FEBRUARY 13, ;1984 MINUTES FILE FOR 1 ITEMS 5, , end 7. E 's f P f 4 } s 7 } E f b { ralphPPlrraan 12555 & halt blvd hyar2i r,r 97:[ 6 539-9744 _ x t 27 January 1984 F Robert W. Jean, City Administrator 12755 S.W.Ash' , Tigard, Oregon97223 4 Dear /Or. Jean: t To supplement the 19 January proposal to alter the Crow Building for the City of Tigard uction budgets that would satisfy 10 year space needs space needs, I have prepared constrE and that required for growth. a I request that you distribute the material presented with this note, to the Council, the Library Board, the Librarian, the Chief of Police, the Budget Director, the Administrator and anyone that you feel is important to the decision making process. Respectfully submitted, I P Ralph A pleman i. r i P E L t vs '�;.�. .>?,'. in "�� _.ria.`�'�� xr •� ��.�� u��+•. - �"� �s�. -`k..�1�'�k � '� ti, " `� �t " t F t �'a:' .o-,`. � 1 _« t "' z!. ;rE �! ,..:.,, 1 •_ rt;�i- �iR.t i � �tegi Syy - �t4��:'. <,.i ..,„r• s R., :air��-�: �r.a.r z �.rg �a! IN ll .01 14 k" s .Ranr?' ♦.- ✓�� r '�"�ixMly dw t 't Will li 3 "�f��.}tt�; �*•?+.ri.a:{per .� A .tgg f.ir »r}s k, 'SS?"rt�?i. f •;" � ,-�..fwg.....cr�,i,`s k.: '� us :.� 'at ^ 2;' '•x a{'. •k „ x,T;. .;.n..3.».r yY`r'."•r= -=€;.: ., -...MfisM ,� .w .;.o- ... -}. ��.... — _,.'t' s^ e•,.ea..w. i' c:.. :,,_ .: ^ �. •+y"",r+ '- a , ... _ 3 _..;.,.: -:�.. y ��+c. �r,xYy, :�:X+..��r. .-Z"l,. +tn.,..-. � S--.'. �- �.�S:�.k.... ..:�: �.c,'�i3h� s 3 3'`• sn ,d. aP✓ - �q5^: .��,,,.r-t.r �-. ,:, -,��- � ..�. . 4.vrx�-A"�t...��}. k-.5 -�;.,. _. ��... •—.a .:,�a. .sJ,. �,�-✓ � ,; '��} #_ aF":`' _> '�•�,"x, �� '.s r �«.. ,: •t"*-_�`u• SY�°�','�`',' y�,� .�-�: '�s'��,+-far�.�'3'�'�`�,g,�,..'xY 5, ';i.:s:', � •-...., s,-�n .:, 2 '�a:•_ IS��``. < x-;.- •".-:•�",.'��`,r� ,? �`x-'>Pr. c-«;� � v•� a.��.,'i u'!�.�. i'i�:"c`.�~—.. "��'*+ i7w�S._r"r�rsa'�_4�_''�te�v� �sr?�-a4�,.t sd,�+.�c.<t� •�lf' .> _. a� � �• ��'�"��'r�.ea�-�.. �i..�i�`'�t��.ai �3..Ji.�`el,, Qvc rsl ( pages I-3� lrg�e�tltgtl►Otlag+7+�°-1�eit��l�jti►�tltg°!t(a�=1sT39TTlp7i7 jri' I�ia 'f�3�7i f!' tls rli t e i i t a t a f o a 4 t t t t a�a s ret +ti rig r ?10 NOTE: IF THIS MICROFILMED. (tt ORMUZ IS LESS CLEAR THAN 7 f3 0 THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO ..__ THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DRAWING. 0£ 6z 82 ZZ 9z 5Z >z EZ a IZ oz -61 8i—LI - S!--sr vi cl zi_._.j1____w s 9. 1 9 S__._b _ _e Z I— ... ry ¢ P R IltaHgtirt�nttl + lift 90 M'Anuti Ana ualne uulnn uaiGN 1 _, _ r � r 6J�� t� � '� a�4 i rl � �°c,;," i 4ryla�Itw IRr'.• �'N1 ' ` JI"P r LOOKING NORTH FROM FANNO CREEK SECTION LOOKING EAST LOOKING SOUTH FROM BURNHAM Si. ! 634 i C lar ! l r r i r s a a i i r r T r r 1 r 1 !-�] 7}1�7j (fel Il �rld i�� ala LlT IlU ifl i i'}'1 Ill f}[ 19 i III i r 1].9 1 r J o 1 1 1 t I ' � � � } _� R I � � � (� � l � ! � ! � i } f � 1 } 1 � 1 oal�alioila611a�rlr�rle}lla�a�a}tla •�-, NOTE: IF THIS HICRDFILNED - i — - _.. 2 3 '¢ 5 6___._ 7 $ _ 8 o l l IQ v DRANING IS LESS CLEAR THAN � it , lf4 THIS NOTICE. IT IS DUE TO – _ ...___._._._. i. '. THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DRAWING. az Sz oz ez az IZ —O—Z -6-1-81-21 91 sr �e el__ .Z�__i -os 6 e.. _ 9 S._._o -—e- '4 a . ._Z }} yy pp CTV ''dlllUlil�118ii111ElIti�lailllgNN11�N.•�rr�r H'�l+x p'4"°l°rJ.IF...�.•°.a.��l•'•o - •�L.. 1 .1 --.►...1..1 ( 1 f a 1 I I 9MAPARM d 21990 �f a < FI ��\\t ADMINISTRATION \ 7-711177 NORTH POLICE + 1—� t� 0 5 16 7d 3 40 L8 56 64 77 80 58 96 107 FEET BI vuvx wnicx �cxrtcn RR - .. .—_�`- e:iti'�=M __:_a,.- .-.—u m-•m•..-ny,: h to �i rtl17►Caril��°��9'!°('#re�eEtj°Aa!°;'Irerla+a.�?Ir1�� 1.�t'P aia�fr-;�j r[e�r+a f+r r+s al t�f r+tai c a r r t!a a a i:o B a a ara a a r r r t a s a a r a t e ars r i tta �...s._:. NOTE, IF THIS MICROFILMED DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN _ x THIS NOTICE. IT IS DUE TO - THE (QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DRAWING. oe a3z sz—�z sz sz �z ez zz az az asr ei��"si—5f—�,� E�__Zi___�� of 6 _Q_ ......1 16 x cnataNrlauaEa►talaaar�uuhuaf _ 'mmm A.9 R C H ----------------- 1 7 I • 1 .r BURNHAM I i I I LIBRARY ADMINISTRATION O ASH e� NORTH --- - ' _ . • r -- — GAILERY POLICE o 9 J.. -- 6 79 TIL JANfill -- IIIA - a 0 B 16 24 32 d0 d8 6 6d ]2 80 88 96 102 FEET - -- BI� uirn.rr.ew..,wenn -- _ sevisso oi.n ieu ............ $ '.; J-I. ._0..J _.._ _•• — ---.... __ ._ .—___..,: -"--.--.:. ^=.,+...rz_:�� ar7�7�7�7031JI+C+IaJlal�'a1�191l��lfa�7�7ia17�+a+Japl�egl�lp! ,, ii ___._...J 2 3 4 5 6 _ 7 g g A0 LE DRAW: IF S MICROFILMED _ _ DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR AFlAN! AHIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO - ' THE QUALITY Of TF¢ ORIDINAL DRAMING. __ oe-13z sz a 9L, 5z- IrZ -.Ez zz 13 6z 6P ei ti.__._Qf..__5 -_ ! .el_._z� - !!of -. -illtTlHIiIUIIaHi!!!NIllu3iNN11�01o1u1:{n.. s ii _ / 77aaagalp�aai► s .,--. MT% AnuH 71 s SPACE NEEDS III COMMITTEE REPORT RC1 1 WASHINGTON!COUNTY,OREGON January 27, 1984 The Tigard City Council on November, 21, 1983, by unanimous vote (Bishop, Scott, Cook), directed the Library "Board to serve as a Space Needs III Committee'. OurCommitteebegan its work with an organization meeting December, 8, ''1983, and is presenting its report to the City Council January 30, 1984. The Committee 'decided to provide a maximum amount of public input at each of its meetings. The Committee tried to do its homework and to provide good questions for the staff members and people" presenting proposals. The public was then better able to .follow the questioning process and provided much quality information on their own. Our meetings were well publicized but the turnout was not large. But what they lacked in 'quantity they made up' for in interestand real public concern. We .wish to thank the citizens of Tigard who attended our meetings either once or on numerous occasions. Their participation was welcomed and appreciated.° We also wish to thank all city staff members who participated in our discussion or gave us back-up support to make this report possible. As one reads this report, one should keep in mind that we did not campaign for this assignment, but we accepted the Council's decision and went to work. We have tried to be as open-minded and fair-handed as possible: i If we had only to search for a library solution, our task would have been easier and there would have been fewer conflicts. As you proceed from studying this report to making the necessary decisions to meet our present and ! long term space needs, we urge you to make a commitment, and then campaign i vigorously for what the majority selects. This community does not need further divisiveness. It is hoped that this report will aid in bringing the Council together, looking out for what is best for the citizens of Tigard. r Space Needs I and Il were reviewed and the participants listed. Space III ` Needs were discussed; modifications noted; and accepted by this Committee. We feel we have brought numerous proposals to you for discussion. These r proposals were developed individually and in combination with another proposal. They were evaluated against thirteen different factors. These E factors included cost, adaptability, longevity, transportation, location, etc. After much pubic input and discussion with staff, architects and sponsors, the Committee selected the projects in four categories - rental/bond, new construction, remodel and lease/option. 9' The Committee forwards to you the following proposals as requested in your instructions: t 12755 S.W.ASH P.O.BOX 23397 TIGARD,OREGON 97223 PH:639-4171 MIN m 2 - 1. `Rental/Library Bond -- The GTE building, as a- rental/li'brary bond. We do not ,recommend this short-term solution since it will require a ,Space Needs IV -Committee to go through 'a similar ,process: Based on our space needs,, this proposal becomes quite expensive. 2. New construction' in rank order - Sturgis (1); Sundeleaf (2); R.A. Gray (3). - A majority ;feel that the Sturgis proposal best represents the future of Tigard, providing a modest initial structure for library, police and city staff on a. beautiful site adjoining the Fanno Creek parkway. This site and building proposal would' initiate a sense of "civic pride for Tigard. This 'proposal ranked 'high in the non-economic evaluation. Saul Zaik, architect, ranked this as his lst`choice'. A majority feel the Sundeleaf proposal, freeing up the public works facility for a civic center and moving FW to 72nd Avenue, would utilize land presently owned .by the city and would provide the citizens of Tigard a city center on the 'parkway and centrally situated. This proposal should be studied for short and long term purposes.' Public Works would be moved immediately or perhaps in stages. A majority , felt the R.A. Gray proposal was: most suitable for economic reasons but Tacked the attractiveness of the other two sites which looked out onto the parkway. The surrounding areas were not as pleasing aesthetically. Saul Zaik ranked this as his 2nd choice. 3. Remodel -- A retodeling of the Crow building was found to be the least expensive solution for the long_term.needs _of the city.. It, is centrally located and appears capable of providing sound, sufficient space for civic needs for twenty years or more. 4. Lease option -- A majority of the Committee felt the Sturgis site provided the best lease option possibility with R.A. Gray's proposal on the Air Ding property a close second. We felt if we had to lease, why not lease ` on our first choice site Sturgis. We do express a particular admiration for the Sturgis site, and we are inclined to believe that it is a concept Tigard citizens would support. To a Large extent, this is true of both the Sundeleaf and Gray proposals. It was not our charge to select a project based on political feasibility. However, we have no real optimism for the passage of yet another Crow building proposal, however economical. The three above-mentioned proposals seem to offer the possibility of coming in with an initial cost of under $2 million, at least $200 thousand less than the proposal defeated recently by a scant 13 ` votes, leading us to believe that the community would support a facility in this cost range. In considering these proposals in their various categories, we urge the � Council not to 14=it their imaginations to the proposals as -stated.. In .fact, �. we encourage creative thought be given to combinations of proposals, modular development of some, and finally a search for the solution to providing the ( City of Tigard a center of activity of which our children can look upon with _ 3 _ z, j>- { E, pride. We believe it most practical to think in terms of long term needs, and we want the Council to feel free to call on the committee and interested citizens to discuss these needs as your deliberations proceed. ,j Because of limitations imposed on us, we have not used costs as a primary F factor in the choices we have made. At the suggestion of our consulting architect,and upon the advice of the City Attorney, we hove -assumed that all new construction= and :remodeling ',would 'have `a common cost. Obviously, ,there } are differences in estimates made by those who have made detailed proposals, and the figure of -$55 per square foot in new 'construction and ';$38.50 on T remodeling; is just that...an estimate. We believe that this is on the high r side, and we hope that your consideration of various sites will 'allow for this. For example, at least two builders have professed the belief that the F entire first construction phase can be brought in at well under $2 million, and this would require construction at considerably less than $55 per square s foot. We believe that this study will have been purely academic unless the entire Council unites to support a single proposal. Speaking as citizens, we feel that' this `is not just feasible, it is absolutely necessary. We have reached a critical stage in our city's development, and all the rhetoric in the world cannot change the pressing need we have for adequate city facilities. The 4 city; library and the police department sites are a disgrace, and it is a tribute to our City Librarian and our Police Chief that both departments function as well as they do But they 'should not be expected to continue to operate in the face of adversity which can be removed by unified action on the part of the Council. ` Contrary to the 'words` of doom' and -gloom which-mark_ the statements of some of our citizens, Tigard is not a poverty stricken area whose future is dismal and whose economic status is desperate. We have both the means and the resources to set an example for the communities which surround us, and it is sad to see them moving steadily and creatively ahead while we hesitate to make decisions, spending an inordinate amount of time on issues which are often irrelevant, frequently merely political. y We have the resources, we have the means. What we have not shown is the generosity to respact the views of others and a willingness to compromise he f order to move the city forward. We do have the means, we do have the resources. It is time to demonstrate that we have the will. We wish you well in your deliberations. Sincerely, G Walter F. Munhall Jr., Chairman i Richard Bendixsen Jan P. Miller Susan Mueller Peggy A. Ober Dorene L. Thomas 4t Madalyn Ute k E f (WFM:pm/1189A) G b € 3 ., �r AM ME- F. gggem 4 'rz"� '�;x Fes•., �4� f.. 4�-. x=-� -_°y - .F4 T' � �-�'.?,K Fv.=.?'I�.s � <,� �� » d i z lib + Y' 4-fir?�'.'iYY` ,�t q fi }A INs✓"i r3�! � � y,��Ti$'�+sY=a tri.,rye e..+' .yw� ". f*'h 3' ,� ,�?k'd .alb F•'°b- � '�' ,W s`` '� �' ,r'S T�� `-uf�� "� �..1S".�`� �«�'"� _ x �`e�. �'i-yt�u �tam z'•� `l�""t� �,us« c,u� t � � , 3 � �ti '' .�"�. ��?�.��r��±f,�x.•7z�;�..f�.�5s �'{t r.'� �'""��'��;+:..,,+�>.;,-�„�„a?t�:.r� ��:n[�. .�� '� ,�*.�.n��'j� .��`�� `��s,.�T��,�'�,�.�:��'� ��s��a`",,�.a^7� + �r ; Yt<c.y, .�� 'x.F"Y"€5,'�'s�� .w x'�`4y�' �'u '�'"':��3 ��;�.' '�"�� A� ;'� ,��`�� a a'z$��"�a-.��•��+��,. $'S ��a M.-M5, �m7 h.r—'ria t s t y t � s3 �j"e s M� Y ra` }� g £ ..�v�' MUNION 'r' ^` ' ��: `r ;�{-•'`�3^,r�' t MINE e� "H at � ��' d �� i �� "+a, vY�im" '�� a�^Y ��.t,��' ,^°t `�"�,i'#..w�. _ �.-_.k ;� xTs.�"l .�•.�=. �M��=,. .'+»�.�i..,,. g�.. `r-" ,`k,�.,��„u'��,#�: x a x } ixq 1} f�5r`ST� il+'SZ:is y.:t 't z�Kr ��Af X t G�s EYP MM,C, r ai ra -'`,'x,,�e,£"A•K:�'° rim'* s ftr, a _ � .a � � as93: M € �E y t; i x CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ` January 30, 1984 SPACE NEEDS III REVIEW COMMITTEE SUMMARY A. Charge By City Council action on November 21, 1983, the Tigard Library Board was appointed to be ttie Space Needs Review Committee and to "review all information to date as well as be free to consider new information." -"The ri Space Needs Review Committee shall consider: rental, library bond and rental, build-to-suit 'lease 'purchase, and Civic Center `bond options." (Minutes of City CO meeting, 11/21/83.) B. Review: Preliminary proposals were received December 8-19, " 1983 ;and categorized as: I - rental only, for all city departments; II - library bond, rental for police_ and administration; III build-to-suit, lease or lease purchase; -1V - bond election; V - other proposals not fitting the preceding categories. : The proposals (13) which were received are as follows: F - Acreage Category ; R Proposal Location 4.8 III/IV 1. Sturgis 13055 S.W. Hall 2. Sorg 12568 Main St. Unknown V 3. Davis 8973 S.W. Burnham 1:42 V g a 4.. Sundeleaf City Property `Burnham/Ash 3.72 IV �. 5. Air King Burnham/Ash 2 + 1 III II) I 6. Weigel Crow/Build-to-suit 4 (2.5 usable �. 7. Bishop Crow/Bond Remodel 4 (2.5 usable) IV 8. Wyffels GTE/Rent/Lease Build Library .92 + lots II s 9. Maksym 14750 S.W. 72nd 2.94 IV 10. Moellman 9960 S.W. Walnut .22 V 11. Tarbell 9735 Shady Lane ? II F 12. Gardner Williams G.T.E./8205 S.W. Hunziker •92 IV 13. Ruff 9025 S.W. Burnham .39 Copies of each proposal worksheet summary are in "Additional Attachments." The original 13 proposals were reviewed separately or in combination with other proposals in an attempt to find all possible options and to place all complete proposals on an equal comparison, i.e. space, longevity, cost. Seven proposals emerged from the original list. They were reviewed and put into a comparable analysis b Saul Zaik, Architect, using common cost factors. These costs were given a financial evaluation by Foster and + Marshall. A further evaluation by Foster and Marshall was made when an 8th proposal emerged, "Ash/Burnham" site. A further review of these proposals resulted in additional eliminations. Ash/Burnham was eliminated because of physical constraints; 72nd site was _ eliminated because of location; the Crow/Weigel proposal was a more r expensive duplicate of the Crow/Bishop. Though the 72nd proposal was eliminated as a site .for police, city hall and public works, it was retained as a possible public works site under the Sundeleaf proposal which would build city hall, police and the library on the present public works site. i Of the remaining five properties (Sturgis, Air King, Sundeleaf; Crow and GTE) a subjective analysis was conducted, weighing such factors as location, enhancement of community spirit, cultural qualities, efficiency, and longevity. (This assessment form is in Section V of report.) Cost t4 _ was not part of the analysis. On this basis the proposals rated as follows: 1. Sturgis 57.4 2. Air King - 54:8 3. Sundeleaf - 51.8 4. Crow-Bishop - 47.4 ' 5. GTE - 26.8 At the final meeting the Committee chose sites in four different categories. That listing is below in paragraph D. ff i C. Firtdin s: After 6 public meetings and a tour of the sites; presented ` for consideration, the Committee has formulated some findings which should be helpful in any final evaluation. These findings concern location, availability of land, costs, public property taxes and public input. F 1. Location: All of the sites listed as recommendations in Section' D of this summary are located near the Main Street area which is recognized r as the "center" of Tigard. Location was primary concern in Space Needs I and II. Location was a primary factor in this Committee's consideration of siting for a central facility for city services. Another factor in location was nearness to the planned Fanno Creek park area. The Committee weighted this factor rather heavily. Two of the sites would satisfy this aesthetic consideration. 2. Availability of Land: The Committee was gratified to realize that there is land available in the preferred central location and that € most of it is reasonable. Some is already owned by the City. Adequacy and/or expansion was a factor which the Committee weighted very heavily and several of the sites provide this option. Expansion was a frequent topic of discussion in that the initial amount of i frontage to be programmed could be modest- enough to answer immediate needs, but good " planning would provide for future needs as inexpensively and with as little disruption as possible. 3. Costs_: The sites recommended fall within a close range cost-wise. The figures used for comparison do not reflect actual costs. That would be determined in. a bidding process. However, the financial analyses, using the common cost factors, revealed that renting, whether it is for all or only some departments, is the most expensive long-term option. The least expensive long-term option is the remodel $ 4' ` t F: q S G q program. All programs offer similar short-term cosCs. How much of a fect project is programmed initially well front, the directly flower the long-range t casts. The more that is. programmed up + cost and the higher the nitial cost. axes: Most of the 4. Property Toptions considered require two bonding phases- Some require rental at the beginning only; uld require ears oranges from rental and bonding. The average tax rate over too,', are part of the 20. These numbers, 0.13 cents per thousand to 0. common analysis, not true costs. The rental options fall at the . again. The lowest- rate is for the: remodel, in that the higher end ag of the project. programming is all at the beginning ted 5. Public In ut: Inasmuch as thessible City Council Committee requestedindicated that it anand as much participation as possible, These listened are citizens win s meedet ileinrethe ss tmi minutes andalsowere concerns _recognition of the, taped, ; These concerns can be summarized as: concern for City's 'need ,for space, particularly police and library; term and short-term; a desire for something; Tigard can costs, ' long-, The are concerned with good take pride in but ,is not ostentatious. Y planning for future needs as well as immediate needs. there r city To `conclude: there is a real ensed tteerermore space area variety oof options c with different are central locations available; options. The Committee aesthetic features; there are a variety it funding op that the report will give City Council the information it requested and hopes expected. D. Recommendations: Based on all information submitted and discussed, the Board offers the following proposals as possible solutions to the City's space needs. I.' Rental/Bond - GTE/Davis/Tarkanian 2. Remodel - Crow - a. 3. New build {ranked by the Committee as aesthetically desirable} Sturgis, b. Sundeleaf, c. Air King 4, Lease/Build-to-suit -- a. Sturgis, b. Air King are all The first three categories bond proposals, in part or iwhole. ch both Sturgis The latter is an all rental, on whi der a lease option, and Air King have indicated their willingness to cons a ;a tx� ..v.-� a :iii,. .5.<��; •ice.' •e �•� � ,fir? r ••• - ••. •• •• ��•. 4 r. w � d MR INE ON u Kill, ZKk IM iAgv vi _ z � ��'�F 2„s«:...�,v."-� *"i•:,. � ;=r' �.��'"'-� �� x+� ,�-.Ys��„F'� �,'x�,.r M ',"x�� ,ri�'.e Y a' �°.. ��v�-�`'��A�'�,7a�{ .u��:� #r. .....:k-s•sa> ..r..��,..�wa r,:.-� �:� *� z �-r�kf .'�-�[:ati ..�.;5_<... �s�aas.�.�_ .n`�, .�i..,t �+ 5-�.a, v �t'�c_"'.`?� �� ..�w:: x`�a...r.��_. �G o-� r- � :.��,-4t ,y ar ti�a=�.'t� xe._ x .�.,. ;,-s��o •3- a ,.� a .r. ,ice`' ,».�,. ,r, . x3 ��:,5.�z�`� <�w� �, f;��.,��k ..�,N' a� >�T: ---------- .ae Y gh ky � s d r' �� "tea�.�,�""�'� <ski ,, ,� • �.. r„- s SY,'yW". d"iarix""x•'i.z..%i_ x �.sF.s . 'Uc, r ,eR S a x," ��, ��'" t"6.i.�o�4§`S•F�5�+ r��¢�*-s-,ry h�,i.:[ti 7#`-n3��rr�'Ff..Cff=St �`'�iE��r',.sczT.,;. _ �� t fiM OR . .x`-� ,.g. t� "1- rz,.,�3x+:•'t4„r` s'? `Sa,b ""r? .:. ..-a ;..;'. `K-'x'•"+ e "`. a ;.«rr; `-« �,� �. sv ':`�,F`r =s-- '."� ,�. ' t�ti.•, a�-ta'-' _.a:'`a.x- •?_ ,-i.. -: z _'` s .a;.'",.y,. a. � . '7sty �.�`�`w.. ,€y.r,.*'�._ .x.;v�sa,. .,_�. �� -�:� �--2�.��-�.�.".-��'�T �'�- �-'�`•�,,.a .. :��"��'�" "`�L�cW��7'' t�-s�;r..... x,^�i ;x,a �.- '�'�4 : :u'4.�.-C`4:Yrs� -�#,+� c�,:z _. •,a ', ''3`�s.^ �%' *A. � r. r,. +`Y �zra y"a�� A, f .r�?" }zf'',� � .�.x.Fse: • ly" ffi a- {S4' "X��."' .-ice s#. r �..—.�^� goo NA I LLLK 'At kI,,4^. Ilk 111 UI A,0 III C1S January 9, 1984 TIGARD CIVIC CENTER PROPOSALS' (Revised Jan. 10, 1984) 1, ASH ST. 152,000 1964 - purchase 1 acre build *23,000 s.f. 1,412,614 1989 - build *23,000 s.f. 1,412,614 $2.977.228 2 SUNDELEAF 1984 purchase 100'x1001 35,000 f - build *23,000 s.f. 1,412,614 "< 1,447,614 1989 - build *23,000 s.f. 1,412,614 purchase new public works site (assumed 700,000 price) 2,112,614 $3,560,228 3. AIR KING SITE - R.A. GRAY 455,177 1984 - purchase 3 acres build *23,000 s.f. 1,412,614 1,867,791 1989 -:build *23,000's.f. 1,412,614 ' $3,280,405 4. GTE BUILDING - RENTAL (12,650 s.f.) 1984 - purchase Ruff/Davis prop. 1.8 acre 353,000 build '10,350 s.f. 594,090 prof. fees 41,676 sell Police Dept site ( 70,000 J purchase 1 acre (AirK) -152,000 T,-070766 1989 build *23,000 s.f. 1,412,614 rent''accrual ` 480,000 build 12,650 s.f, 777,693 " purchase 1 acre 152,000 remodel contingency 100,000 993,073' 2,922,307 $3 5. 72ND AVENUE 700,000 1984 purchase site 462 000 remodel 12,000 s.f. building addition 16,000 sf 918,400 prof. fees 96,628 Purch. Davis Prop 1.4a. 235,000 sell public works ( 457,380 ) build 18,000 s.f. Iib. 1,033,200 prof. fees 72,324 sell Police site ( 70,000 ) 2,990,172 $2,990,172 6. STURGIS 1984 - purchase 3 ac @ 4.50 588,060 build *23,000 s.f. 1,412,614 2_,0_00,614 * 1989 - build 23,000 s.f. 1,412,614 $3,413,268 7, CROW OPTION - BISHOP/PIEIGEL LEASE BACK 1964 - remodel 27,000 s.f. 1,039,500 - purchase prop. 1,000,000 prof. fees 72,765 2,112,265 1989- add mezzanines - 12,200 s.f. 469,700 prof. fees 32,844 502,544 $2,614,809 *23,000 s.f. - $1.412,614 includes exterior development landscaping and professional fees NOTE: Land values assemed @ $3.50/5.f. New construction costs assumed @ $55/s.f. Alterations, remodeling @ $38.50!s.f. ZA IK/ NAILLEP, h_ iill Clti lL �i�:S ¢ . '.•.1thi...N I.SINit1 U':.ti�fflltClS t{t, January 9, 1984 TIGARD'CIVIC CENTER PROPOSALS" 1. ASH ST. 1984 - purchase d acre $152,000 1 build *23,000 s.f• 1,412 _614 564;614 ! 1989 - build * 23,000 s,f. 1,412,614 $2,977,228 I SUNDELEAF/7c212 1984 -_purchase 100'x100' 35,000 build *-23,000 s.f. 1412,614 1,447.614 19g9 - build *23,000 s 1,412,614 f. 700;000 purchase new public $3,560,228 workssite (assumed 2,112;614 price) 3• AIR KING SITE R.A.GRAY 455,177 1984 - purchase 3 acres -'build *23,000 's.f. 1,x:12,614 1,867;791 1989 build * 23,000 s.f. 1,412;614 $3,280,405 4• GTE BUILDING - RENTAL (12,650 s.f.) .984 -'purchase Ruff/Davis 353,000 prop. 594,090 build 10,350 s.f. 41,676 prof. fees. 70,000 ) sell Police Dept site purchase 1 acre (AirK) 152,000 1,'070,766 1989 - build *23,000 s.f. ,412,614 rant accrual 1 000 892 614 $2,963,380 • 5. 72ND AVENUE 1964 - purchase site 700,000 remodel 12,0095.f. 462,000 building addition 918,400 prof. fees 96,628 1.4 ac purch.Davis prop 235,000 57,380 ) sell public works ('4 build 18,000'sf library 1,033,200 prof. fees 72,324 $3,060,172 3,060,172 6. STURGIS 1984 - purchase 3 acr a 4.50 588,060 -� build *23,000 s.f. 1,412,614 2,000,614 $3,413,288 1989 - build *23,000 s.f. 1,412,614 7 CROW OPTION - BISHOPi\5'EIGEL LEASE BACK 1984 remodel 27,000 s.f 1,039,500 - purchase prop. 1,000,000 - prof, fees 72,765 2,112,2G5 1989 add mezzanines 469,700 12,200 s.f. prof. fees 32,844 $l'614,809 502,544 *23,000 s.f, - $1,412,514 includes exterior development, landscaping and professional fees NOTE: tend lafues assumed $3.50/s.f. New construction costs assumed $155/5.'. Alterations, remodeling @ $38.5015.f. 12 R Foster & MarshaU/Aniericall Express h-ic. Ovsnn of SnnarsonrAmcr can E.puss INVESTMENT BANKERS AND BROKERS 4800 S.W. Macadam Avenue, Suite 309 • Portland,Oregon 97201-3980 (503)241-7243 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF CIVIC CENTER OPTIONS FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD The City engaged Ms. Rebecca Marshall and Mr. Eric Johansen of Foster and Marshall/American- Express` to perform a preliminary financial impact analysis on the following financing options: 1. Sundeleaf Bond both Phases 2. Air King Site - Rent phase 1, then Bond Phase 2' 3. " Air King Site - Bond both Phases 4. GTE Building - Rental Phase 1, Bond Phase 2 t, 5. Sturgis - Bond both Phases 5. Crow Site A - Bond both Phases; collect rental income and use to lower cost of Phase 2 by $150,000 7. Crow Site B - Bond Phase 1; finance Phase 2 from rental income 8. Weizel/Crow Site - Rental Phase l and Bond Phase 2 9. 72nd Avenue - Bond all in Phase 1 10. Rent as Needed Phase 1 is the 1984-1988 financing period; Phase 2 is the 1989-2009 financing period. Bonding was assumed to be General Obligation Bonds only. All but Phase 2 of Crow A were 20 year terms at 10% interest. Crow A Phase 2 was 15 years at 9.5% interest. All calculations are preliminary and intended to provide rough comparisons ` - cntyv No refinements, such as earnings on bond proceeds are included here. L��nLheofoptiionve been narrowed down, a closer look should be made. Member of all principal security,option and commodity exchanges. ncipal cities of the Pacific Pdorlhwest and Alaska.Affiliate offices throughout file U.S. f r {pp F - f 1 i Foster & Marshall/American Express Inc. INVESTMENT BANKERS AND BROKERS 4900 SW. Macadam Avenue,Suite 309 Portland, Oregon 97201.3980 •(503) 241.7243' The tables which follow include:' (1) Issue Sizing - Provides the bond amountscalculated from the architect's cost estimate plus other sale related costs. (2) Crow Site Rental Sinking Fund - 'Shows the collection and investment of-'rental '`income for the available space at the ' Crow Site during Phase 1. (3) Computer Tables - Financial Analysis of the first 9 options. (4) Rent as Needed - Rental costs as estimated by the City. (5) Summary Table Provides a comparative summary of the financial analysis. 1" 1 Member of all principal security,option and Commodity exchanges offices in ilia principal cities of the Pacific,Northwest and Alaska.Affiliate offices throuW-ut the U.S R f - T 0 - r O 0 O LnO O O to to O O 'O 0 to O 0 O N:p p v r M V) ,O -.O• r N P to to o0 i;M Ol 00 r- CO r4 0 00 -N .0, tti V 4 .0 G N 1 N d r-t r-e rd ("') M N r-t N M 0.-.0 W 89 H....0 R+ iY. a9 v W G G U ltit O �? In In O O O O O OC 0 to to M to '�0:(M M: N r W ..d M 1f1 ra t0 I A G O eU y 0? O 0 0 0 O o 0 00 0 0 0 N ;.:N.N : : N.,N.N N.N 'N N N .. ..N s-t N r• .r.a W C9 41I ;� p tos O0 O 0 0 O C O O O O O 0 �.g U N M M N N N C'rD M M NM N M .Ow ep W 00 M 0 M O t" y to O. O` O Cl) O W 1 %0 r-4 I 00 1 t. I 1 00 I d C) r-I y to N C O ye V2 r N 0 r. N O N O O N N M r.3 T .-4 00 10 -4 r N O+ O r-+ r-f to r-4to N O C+ M -0 _ (7 1-4 N M r-a 1-4 r-t N N N H N N 11 Im a3 09 W W C n W tt4 bo C L toLm i G 0 n�x CROW SITE - RENTAL SINKING FUND Rental Earnings Balance Year Income At 8% End of Year 1984 14,250 0 14,250 1985 28,900 1,140 44,290 1986 28,900 3,543 76,733 1987 28,900 6,138 111,771 1988 28,900 8,942 149,612 i -vmw=�� F r, I t` sum CITY OF II ARP . . SUNDELEAF (ALL NUMBERS IN )HOUSRNDS) 3' DISCOUNT RATE FUR PRESENT VALUE= 7 z � L YEAR-1 ANNUAL DS-2 ANNUAL DS-3 RENTAL TOTAL LESS BALANCE PRESENT ASSESSED TAX ' €: PHASE t PHASE 2 COST COST RENTAL INC COSTS VALUE VALUE-3 RATE 19b4 4171 s0 $45 $222 s0 $222 $222 x775.325 $0.29 _ F 19bS _ $180 $0 s0 $180 so " $180 $168 $852,858 $U i 1986 6177 $0 s0 5177 $0 $177 $154 $938.143 $0.1? 1981 $t/4 s0 $0 $179 $0 $179 4146 $1,031,960 80.17 7988 5180 so 30 SIBO $0 $180 $137 $1,135.150 sO.Pb SUBTOTALS .4892 $45 SO X91 1 .' 1989 -$181 $330 $R $511 s0 $511 $364 $1.248,670 $0.41 1990 $177 $330 $0 $507 $0 6507 $336 $1,373,540 $0.37 1991 $177 $330 $0 $507 s0 $507 $315 $1.510,890 $0.34 1992 $177 $329 so $506 s0 $506 $294 $1,661,900 $0.30 ; 1993 $182. 5327 30 $505 g0 3509 $277 $1.828,180 $0.28 1994 $180 5330 $0 5510 $0 $510 $259 $1,965,290 50.26 1995 $178 $327 $0 $505 s0 $505 $240 52.112.690 $0.24 1996 $181 $329 $0 1509 $0 $509 5226 $2,271,140 40.22 fi t 1997 $177 5329 $0 $506 $0. $506 $210 $2.441;470 $0. 1998 $17b $329 s0 $507 $0 %507 $19b 82,624.580 54.11 4 1499 417E 3327 $U $505 s0 $505 $183 52,821.430 $0.18 2000 %177 $310 0 $507 $U s507 $172 $3,033.040 so.17 {` 2001 SIM $331 so $511 $0 $511 $162 x3.260,510 sU.la 2002 $182 5330 s0 $512 80 $5i1 $15t 83.505.050 $0.15 x 2003 $181 6328 so $510 s0 $510 $141 53.767,930 $0.14 1. 2004 $U $SSU s0 5330 s0 $S30 $85 $4,050.530 $0.08 2UU5 s0 s329 so s329 SO s329 879 s4.354.320 %0.08 2006 so %317 $0 $327 s0 15"827 174 54,660.89U su.07 2007 $0 $321 150 $327 s0 8327 $69 $5.031.960 $0.0b 2008 5U 3350 5U $350 $0 $330 165 x5.409,350 $0.06 1 1009 $U $5.815.050 $0.00 50 $0 s0 so s0 to 10TALS $3.576 $6.575 $45 $10,196 $0 $10,196 $4.727 I 1-YEAR REPRESENTS FIRST YEAR OF FISCAL YEAR, IE..1984 1S 19B4185. �. '[-PHASE i ISSUED JUNE 1984 WITH TOTAL PRINCIPAL $1.520.000 AT A RATE OF 10.0007 ' 3-PHASE 2 I55UED JUNE 1989 ZITH TUTAL PRINCIPAL $2.800.000 AT A RATE OF 10.0007 1 3-INCREASED AV BY 10.0007 FUR FIRST 10 YEARS, THEN INCREASED BY 7.5001 E: .-I T Y -1_J F i"i 0�aK L) H 1 h t::.1.Nb JtK;i l_UPd FA Kt 1`4 1 1 HtIV BLJI`41.) t fi CALL NUMBERS IN IHOUSANOSI DISCUUNT RATE FOR PRESENT VALUE= 7 1 YEAR-1 ANNUAL U5-2 ANNUAL DS-3 RENTAL TOTAL LESS BALANCE PRESENT ASSESSED TAX PHASE 1 PHASE 2COST COST RENTAL INC COSTS r VALUE VALUE-3 RATE 1984 s0 s0 $145 $145 $0 $145 $145 $775.325 $0.1° 1985 s0 $0 $200 $200 $0 $200 5187; $852,858 $0.1-13 1986 s0 s0 $200 $200 s0 $200 $175 3938.143 $0.21 x>'; 1987 s0 s0 $200 $200 s0 $200 $163' $1,031,960 $0.19- 19bb $0 s0 $200 $200 $0 $200 x153' 911135.150 $0.18 SUBTOTALS $0 $945 40 $2 qd S 1969 $0 $505 50 $505 $0 $505 $360 $1.248,670 50.40 1990 30 $507 $0 $507 $0 5507 $338 $1,373,540 $0.37 1991 so $504 s0 $504 $0 s504 $314' $1.510.890 $0.33 1992 60 $505 $0 $505 $0 s505 $294 $1.661.980 $0.30 1993 10 5505 s0 $505 $0 $505 $275` $1.028.180 $0.28 1994 s0 $504 $0 1504 s0 $504 $256 $1,965,290 $0.26 1995 so s507 s0 $507 $0 $507 $241 $2,112,690 sO.24 1996 10 $504 $0 $504 s0 $504 $224 $2,271,140 su.22 1991 $0 $504 $0 $504 $0 $504 $209 $2.441.470 $0.21 1998 50 $503 50 $503 s0 $503 $195 $2.624.580 sU.19 1999 so 5506 $0 $506 s0 $506 $183 $2.821,430 $0.18 2000 so $506 $0 $506 $0 1506 $171 $3.033.040 $0.17 'LOOT s0 $505 $0 $505 s0 $505 $160 $3.260,510 $0.15 2002 s0 $506 $0 $506 $0 5506 $150 $3,505,050 s0.14 2003 s0 005 s0 $505 s0 $505 $140 $3.767,930 $0.13 2004 so $506 s0 $506 s0 $506 $131 $4.050,530 $0.12 2005 s0 5505 i0 $505 s0 $505 $i22 $4.354,320 $0.12 2106 so $505 s0 $505 s0 $505 $114 $4.680,890 $0.11 2007 $0 $502 $0 $502 s0 $502 $106 $5,031,960 s0.10 2008 10 $506 $0 1506 $0 $506 $100 $5,409,350 $0.09 TOTALS $0 $10.100 $945 $11,045 s0 $11,045 $4.904 I-YEAR REPRESENTS FIRST YEAR DF FISCAL YEAR, IE.,1984 IS 1984/85. 2-PHASE 1 ISSUED JUNE 1984 HITH TOTAL PRINCIPAL t1 AT A RATE OF 10.0001 3-PHASE 2 ISSUED JUNE 1989 MITH TOTAL PRINCIPAL $41,300.000 AT A RATE OF 10.0007. 3-IgCREASED AV BY 10.600X FOR FIRST 10 YEARS, THEN INCREASED BY 7.5001 l Multi 11 A i i AN o� P e t l ; VE H.S I CJN 1=: L+CJfJI) 1 11TH F'HA�� a (ALE. NUMBERS IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT'TAX RATE! DISCOUNT RATE FOR PRESENT VALUE= 7 I BALANTAX YEAR ANNUAL DS-2 ANNUAL DS-3 RENTAL TOTAL LESS RENTAL INC COSCE VALUE NT VALUE-3 RATE PHASE I PHASE 2 COST COSI s0 $279 S279 s775.325 $0.16 1984 s234 30 345 6279 1 $221 $852,858 $0.18 1485 x236 s0 s0 $236 so $_36 SO fp 6237` s0 $231 8207 5938.143 SG'S d 1986 $231 $233 $0 $233 $190 31,031.960 SO 23 1981 s233 so $0 so 3233 $178 s1.135.150 50.21 3 1988 x233 SU s0 4233' SOBtUTALS f1.113 $45 fU j(f/2 18 $p $450 $321 s1.24B.67u $0.36 1989 s233 5'217 s0 $450 $0 6452 $301 51.373.54u $0.33 1990 s2'S2 f22V $U $452 f0 s457 $285 $1.510.890 sU.3p 1591 s236 s221 s0 $457 s265 $1.661.180 $0.21 $U 3456 1992 52S4 $212 1U 3456 $454 5241 $1.828.180 30.25 1993 s232 s222 so $454 s0 $U $451 so 1451 3229 x1,965,290 %0.23 1994 $234 s111 gp', $457 $217 $2.112,690 $0.22 1995 $235 3222 $0 34518456 $0 $456 $202 52,271.140 $0.20 f - t w 1996 $iS5 $221 $0 $p $454 5188 12.441,470 $0.19 1991 x234 s'12p _ s0 454 so 5450` 5115 52,624,580 $0.17 I 1998 $132 $218 s0 1450 gp 5454 b0 $454 $165 $2.821,430 50.16 i 19V9 s234 s220 $456 f0 3456 3154 $3,033,040 $0.15 2000 5234 f222 $O $p $455 $144 $3.260.510 $0.14 2001 x233 $222 s0 $455 $p $458 $0 s458 f136 33.505,0511 30.13 '1002 $236 $221 $456 $126 $3,767,930 s0.12 2003 6236 $220 $0 $456 s0 2004 $U $218 $0 $218 f0 f2tg 356 $4,050,530 10.05 $p f214 S53 $4.354,320 $0.05 2005 f0 $219 s0 $19 219 $p $2 9 $49 $4,680,890 $0.05 2006 s0 $219 $0 $218 $0 $218 $46 45,031,960 $0.04 2007 $0 $218 SO fp $220 $43 $5,409.350 $0.04 2008 so $220 4U $220 TOTALS $4.683 $4.400 145 19,128 SO s9,128 $4.478 f t i 1-YEAH REPRESENTS FIRST YEAR OF FISCAL YEAR, IE..1984 1S 1984/85. i 2-PHASE 1 ISSUED JUNE 1984 WITH TOTAL PRINCIPAL 11.445.000 AT A RATE OF 10.4001 ? s-PttAS£ 2 ISSUED JUNE 1989 WITH TOTAL PRINCIPAL ;1,875.000 AT A RATE OF 10.000% j 3-INCREASED AV BY 10.000% FUR FIRST 10 YEARS. THEN INCREASED BY 7.5091 s 4 ME 11 111121 1 I . r I i f. G1t-� }il11LL�1.!`J�-Fi�l`11F1L (ALL NUMBERS IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT TAX RATE) DISCUUNT RATE FOR PRESENT VALUE= 7 1 YEAR-1 ANNUAL 05-2 > ANNUAL DS-3 RENTAL TOTAL LESS BALANCE PRESENT ASSESSED TAX PHASE 1 PHASE 2 COST COST RENTAL INC COSTS VALUE VALUE-3 RATE 1984 $133 s0 $96 $229 $0 $229 $229 $715.325 $0.310 1983 $131 so $96 $221 s0 $227 $212 $852.858 $0.27 1986 $134 s0 $96 $230 $0 $230 $201 $938.143 $0.25 1987 sisi $o $96 $227 $0 $227 $185 $1,031.960 $0.22 1968 $134 $0 $96 $230 s0 $230 x175 $1.135.150 $0.20 SUBTOTALS 6663 $480 $U 1989 $131 $450 $0 $581 $0 $581 $414 $1.248.670 $0.47 1990 $133 $453 s0 $586 $0 $566 $390 11,373.540 $0.43 1991 $134 $451 so $585 $0 $585 $364 1.510,890 x0.39 1992' s135 $453 s0 $588 $0 $588 $342 $1.510,890 $0.35 19Y3'' 8131 $454 $0 $585 S0 $585 6318 $1.028,180 $0.32 1994 $131 $454 $0 $585 $0 $585 1297 $1,965.290 50.30 1995 $131 $453 s0 $584 s0 $584 $277 $2,112,690 $0.29 1996 $131 $451 $0' $582 s0 $562 $258 $2,271,140 $0.26 $588 ti 1997 $135 $453 s0 $0 .8588 $294 $2.441,470 $0.24 1998' $133 $453 s0 $586 $0 $586 $227 $2,624,580 $0.22 1999 $135 $452 s0 S587 $0 $587 5213 $2,821,430 so.21 2000 $132 $450 80 $582 $0 $582 6197 $3,033,040 10.19 2001 $133 $451 s0 $584 s0 $564 $185 $3,260,510 $0.18 2002 $133 $450 $0 $583 $0 $583 $172 $3,505,050 $0.17 2003 $132 $452 s0 $584 $0 $584 $161 $3,767,930 $0.15 2004 $0 $451 $0 $451 $0 $451 $117 $4,050,530 $0.11 2005 $0 $453 $0 $453 $0 $453 $109 $4,354.320 $0.10 2006 $0 $452 $0 $452 $0 1452 $102 $4,680,890 $0.10 2007 $0 $453 $0 $453 $0 $453 $96 $5,031,960 $0.09 2008 $0 $451 s0 $451 s0 $451 $89 $5,409,350 $0.08 TOTALS $2,653 $9.040 $480 512,173 $0 512,173 65.578 1-YEAR REPRESENTS FIRST YEAR OF FISCAL YEAR, IE..1984 1S 1984/85. 2-PHASE 1 ISSOED JUNE 1984 WITH TOTAL PRINCIPAL $1.130.000 AT A RATE OF 10.0001 3-PHASE 2 ISSUED JUNE 19W 91TN TOTAL PRINCIPAL $3.8bU.000 AT A RATE OF 10.000! 5-INCREASED AV uy 10.U00X FDR FIRST 10 YEARS, THEN INCREASED BY 7.500% l l i Y L)!- I l 1 I J K U 1 tt (ALL NUMbERS IN IHOUSANUS EXCEPT fAX KATE) UISSCUUNI RATE hUR PRESM VALUE=-7 2 YtAk-! ANNUAL US-2 ANNUAL DS-3 RENTAL TOTAL LESS BALANCE PRESENT ASSESSED TAX PHASE ! PHASE 2 COST COSTRENTAL INC COSTS VALUE VALUE-3 RATE 1"4 s244 s0 $45 $289 $0 $284 $289 $775,325 $0.37 1985 $245 s0 $0 $245 $0 4245" 4229 $852,958 10.29 1986 $246 ; $0 s0 $246 $0 $246 $215 $938,143 $0.26 1987 $242 s0 $0 $242 $0 $242, $198 $1,031,960 40.23 1988 $242 s0 s0 $242 $0 $242 SIB5 $1,135,150 $0.21 SUM TALS $1,219 $45 $0 10- 1989 5247 $217 40 $464 $0 $464 $331 $1.248.670 $0.37 1990 $246 $220 s0 $466 f0 0466' $311 $1,373,540 $0.34 1991 $245 $221 s0 S466 30 $466 $290 $1.510,B90 $0.31 1992 $248 $222 $0 $470 s0 $470 $274 $1,661,980 10.28 1993 $245 s222 40 $467 $0 $467" $254 $1,828.180 $0.26 1994 s246 $217 $0 $463 $0 x463 $235 $1;965,290 $0.24 1995 6247 $222 $0 6469 $0 $469 $223 62,112,690 $0.22 1996 $246 $221 $0 $467 $0 $461- $207 '` $2,271,140 $0.21 s 1991 1245 ' s220 $0 $465 50 $465 $193 $2,841,470 $0.19 ( 1998 $247 $218 s0 $465 s0 $465 $180 ` $2,624.580 $0.18 IM $248 s220 s0 $468 b0 $468 $170 $2,821,430 sO.17` ; 2001 $248 $222 su $470 $0 $470 $159 $3,033,040 50.1:; .2001 4246 s222 s0 $468 $0 $468 $148 53.260,510 $0.14 2001 $242 $222 $0 $464 s0 3464 $137 $3,505,050 80.13 2QU3 $247 $220 s0 $467 s0 $467 $129 $3.767,930 $0.12 2004 $0 $218 $0 $218 $0 $218 $56 14,0501530 10.05 22005 s0 $219 s0 $219 $0 $219 $53 54.354,320 $0.05 2006 10 $219 $0 $219 $0 $219 $49 $4,680,890 $0.05 2007 $0 $218 $0 $218 $0 $218 $46 55.031,960 $0.04 2008 5U $220 $0 $220 $0 4220 $43 $5,409.350 $0.04 MIALS $4,912 $41400 s45 $9,357 $0 $9,357 $4,604 T• 1-YEAR REPRESENTS FIRST YEAR OF FISCAL YEAR, IE..1984 IS 1984185. 2-PHASE 1 ISSUED JUNE 1984 KITH TOTAL PRINCIPAL $2,090,000 AT A RATE OF 10.0002 3-PHAE 2`ISSUED JULIE 1989 WITH TOTAL PRINCIPAL $1,875.000 AT A RAFE OF 10.000% 3-INCREASED AV BY 10.00OX FOR FIRST 10 YEARS, THEN INCREASED BY 7.500% r c , 1:LPAIrAL .)L,ar.J.Nt, t Ljf4L DEL,FtE' :. :. FWA E i by sl.�c,v�,�, TALI f+jM8EHS IN fHUUSANUS EXCEPf [AX RAPE! D1SCUUNT RATE FOR PRESENT VALUE=-7 1 YEAR-1 ANNUAL US-2 ANNUAL DS-3 RENTAL TOTAL LESS BALANCE PRESENT ASSESSED TAX PHASE 1 PHASE 2 COST COST RENTAL INC COSTS VALUE VALUE-3 RATE 1984 6262 $0 $0 $262 40 $262 $262 $775.325 $0.34 1985 *258 s0 $0 5258 s0 3258 $241 $852.858 30.30 1986 $259 $0 s0 $259 s0 $259 $226 $938,143 $0.28 1987 1254 $0 $0 $259 $0 1259' $211 $1,031,960 $0.25 1988 $260 , $0 $0 $260 50 $260 $198 $1.135.150 $0.23 SUBTOTALS $1,298 $0 s0 P 9V 1989 $259 $61 s0 $320 s0 $320' $228 $1,248.670 $0.26 1990 $263 $60 $0 $323 $0 $323 6215 $1,373.540 $0.24 1991 $261' $64 s0 $325 $0 $325 $202 : $1.510,890 $0.22 1992 $26,_ $62 ' $0 $326 s0 $326 $190 $1,661,980 $0.20 1993 $260 165 s0 $325 30 $325 $177 $1.1;28,180 $0.18 1494 $261 563 %U $324 60 5,324 $165 11,965,290 $0.16 1995 $261 $65 s0 $326 $0 s32b x155 $2.112,690 $0.15 1996 s2b0 $62 $0 $322 $0 $322 $143 $2.271,140 $0.14 1497 5263 $64 s0 €327 $0 $327' $136 $2.441,470 $0.13 i 199W $265 $61 $0 S32b s0 1326 $126 62,624.580 $0.12 1994 6265 $63 60 $328 $0 $328 $119 x2.821,430 $0.12 2000 1263 $64 $0 $327 $0 $327 $111 63,033,040 $0.11 ?J01 $260 165 $0 $325 s0 $325 $103 %3,260,510 $0.10 2002 $260 $60 s0 $320 $0 $320 $95 $3.505,050 $0.09 2003 $264 $60 $0 5324 s0 5324 $90 $3.767,930 $0.09 2004 s0 s0 $0 $0 $0 s0 s0 $4,050,530 $0.00 2U0S $0 $0 $0 s0 $0 $0 s0 $4.354,320 $0.00 2006 so s0 so s0 $0 50 60 x4,680,890 $0.00 2007 $0 s0 60 $0 $0 s0 $0 $5.031,960 $0.00 2008 to $0 6U so s0 s0 s0 $5.409,350 $0.00 TOTALS $5.227 $939 $0 $6,166 $0 $6,166 $3.393 1-YEAR REPRESENTS FIRST YEAR OF FISCAL YEAR, IE..1984 IS 1984/85. 2-PHASE 1 ISSUED JUNE 1984 WITH TOTAL PRINCIPAL $2,220.000 AT A RATE OF 10.0001 3-PHASE 2 ISSUED JUNE 1989 WITH TOTAL PRINCIPAL $490,000 AT A RATE Of 9.500% 3-INCREASED AV BY 10.000% FOR FIRST 10 YEARS, MEN INCREASED BY 7.5001 , r 1. 1 Y L)F- i Lto1-1f•d- tai0W : IIH - RENTAL :i7.Nk.lN6 FLMD FULLY 1-LJNL)S PHASit ' (ALL NUMBERSINTHOUSANDS EXCEPTTAXRATEI DISCOUNT RATE FOR PRESENT VALUE= 7 I YEAR-1 ANNUAL US-2 ANNUAL DS-3 RENTAL TOTAL LESS BALANCE PRESENT ASSESSED TAX PHASE 1 ' PHASE 2 COST COST RENTAL INC COSTS VALUE VALUE-3 RATE 1484 $262 s0 SO $262 $0 8262 $262 $775.325 $0.34 1985 $258 $0 $0 $258 $0 $258 $241 $852.858 $0.30 1Y86 $259 $U so $259 $0 $259 $226 $938.143 $0.28 ; 1987 $259 sa sU $259 $0 $259 ` $211 $1.031.960 10.25 1988 f260 $0 $0 8260 s0 $260 $198 $1.135,150 $0.23 L SUBTOTALS $1.298 $0 $u � 0 19b9 $259 s0 50 $259 $0 $259 $185 51.248,670 $0.21 1990 $263 sv sU $263 $0 $263'' $175 $1,373,540 10.19 1991 $261 s0 s0 $261 $0 $261 $163 $1.510,890 $0.17 h ' 1992 $263 so $0 $263 $0 $263 $153 $1,661,980 $0.16 1993 1260 : f0 so $260 50 $260 $141 $1.828,180 $0.14 1994 $261 s0 so $261 s0 5261 - $133 $1,965,290 80.13 1995 $261 s0 s0 $261 s9 $261 $124 82,112,690 80.12 1996 $260 $u $0 $260 f0 $260 $115 $2,271,140 $0.11 1991 $263 s0 s0 $263 $0 $263 $109 $2.441,470 $0.11 1998 $264 s0 $0 $264 10 $264 $102 $2,624,580 $0.10' t 1999 $265 s0 so $265 $0 $265 $96 $2,821,430 $0.04 s 2000 $263 $0 $0 $263 s0 1263 189 $3.033,040 $0.09 r, 2001 $260 $0 50 $260 s0 $260 $82 $3.260,510 MOB 2002 $260 $0 $0 $260 $0 $260 177 $3,505,050 $0.07 2003 8264 f0 40 8264 $0 f264 $73 $3.767,930 $0.07 2004 f0 $0 $0 f0 so s0 80 $4,050.530 $0.00 20US $0 $0 40 40 $0 s0 s0 $4,354,320 $0.00 f. 2006 f0 $0 s0 $0 $0 s0 40 $4,680,890 $0.00 c 2007 $0 $0 f0 $0 $0 s0 $0 $5.031,960 $0.00 2408 s0 s0 $0 $0 $0 f0 f0 15,409,350 $0.00 f z . t TOTALS $5,225 so so s5.215 s0 $5,225 $2.957 ec, 1-YEAN REPRESENTS FIRST YEAR OF FISCAL YEAR, IE..1984 IS 1984/85. # 2-PHASE i ISSUED JUNE 1984 WITH TOTAL PRINCIPAL $2.220.000 AT A RATE OF 10.000% 1 3-PHASE 2 ISSUED JUYIE 1N89 WITH TOTAL PRINCIPAL $0 AT A RATE OF 0.000% 3-INCREASED AV BY MOM FBI( FIRST 10 YEARS, THEN INCREASED BY 7.504% t C t L f � ) 77 t at--L L,*kMq 'UF-I 1 LJf-1 � t 1 ' T f (ALL NUMBERS IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT fAX RATE) 1 DISCUdNT RATE FOR PRESENT VALUE= 7 1 I YEAR-1 ANNUAL DS-2 ANNUAL DS-3 RENTAL TOTAL LESS BALANCE PRESENT ASSESSED TAX PHASE 1 PHASE 2 COSTCOST RENTAL INC COSTS VALUE VALUE-3 RATE 1984 50 $0 $317 $317 s0 $317 -5311 5175,325 $0.41 1985 su s0 $317 $317 $0 $317 - $296 $852,858 s0.37 # . 1986 $O s0 $317 $317 s0 $317 $277 5938,143 $0.34 _ 1987 $0 $0 $317 $317 $0 $317 %259 S1.031.160 $0.31 1988 s0 $0 s317 $317 $0 $317 $242 $1,135,150 $0.28 E SUBTUTALS 5u 51.965 80 �1��✓ 1989 $0 $405 s0 $405 s0 $405 '` s289 $1.248,670 $0.32 1990 50 $404 $0 5404 $0 5404 5269 11,373.540 sU.29 1991 50 $408 f0 $406 $0 $408 s254 $1.510.890 sO.27 z 1991 so 5405 su $405 $0 $405 $236 41,661.980 s0.24 a 1993 $0 $407 50 $407 $0 5401 $221 $1.629,180 50.22 1994 $0 s403 s0 $403 $0 $403 $205 sl'.965,290 sO.21 c 1995 sp $403 $U $403 $0 $403 $191 52.112.690 $0.19 1596 $U 540 $0 $408 $0 5408 $181 $2,271,140 $0.18 e. 1997 50 $406 so $406 so $406 4168 $2.441.470 $0.17 1998 50 $403 $0 $403 so 5403 $156 52,624,580 $0.15 1999 505404 so 5404 so 5404 $146 $2.821,430 $0.14 2000 $U S404 80 8404 s0 $404 $137 $3,033,040 $0.13 2001 so 5406 so $406 50 $406 $129 $3,260,510 60.12 2002 50 $407 $0 $407 $0 %407 $120 53,505,050 $0.12 2003 s0 $407 s0 $407 s0 $407 $113 $3.767,930 $0.11 r 2004 s0 $404 so $404 $0 $404 $104 $4.050.530 $0.10 r 2005 so $403 sU 5403 $0 5403 497 $4.354.320 $0.09 2006 %U $406 4U $406 $0 $406 $92 $4.680.890 $0.09 2007 so $405 s0 $405 s0 $405 $85 $5.031.960 $0.08 I 2008 50 8401 LU $407 $0 5407 $80 $5,409,350 $0.08 TOTALS $0 58,105 5!,585 $9.690 $0 $9.690 $49666 1-YEAR REPRESENTS FIRST YEAR Uf FISCAL YEAR, IE.,1984 IS 1984185. 2-PHASE T ISSUED JUNE 1964 11ITH TOTAL PRINCIPAL s0 AT A RALE OF 0.000% 3-PRASE 2 ISSUED JUNE 1989 WITH TOTALPRINCIPAL53.450,000 Af A RATE OF 10.000% 3-INCREASED A4 BY 10,000% [-OR FIRST 10 YEARS, THEN INCREASED BY 7.500% f i } 4 Y f ::Ili OF (IbAFD 1'NU'AVENUt t i { (ALL NUMBERS IN THUUSANDS EXCLPI TAX WE) DISCUUN[ RA[E hUR PRESENT VALUE= 7 1 YEAk-1 ANNUAL US-2 ANNUAL OS-3 RENTAL TOTAL LESS BALANCE PkESENT ASSESSED TAX PHASE I PHASE 2 COST COSI RENTAL INC COSTS VALUE $410 VRLUS775`.325 RATE $0.53 1984 x365 $0 s45 $410 s0 $410 - su $364 $0 $364 $340 $852,858 $0.43 $0 1985 SS64 $363 50 $363 $317 s938.143 $0,39 1986 $363 s0 SO $295 $1,031.460 $0.35 1981 sS62 $u so $362 $O 6362 s0 $365 $278 $1.135.150 50.32 198B $365 $0 SO $365 SUBTUTALS $1,819 $45 $0 $1,864 s0 $367 f0 $367 $262 $1,248,670 $0.29 s0 1989 $367 4363 50 $363 $242 $1,373,540 s0.26 1990 SS63 50 $0 $226 $1,510,890 $0.24' 1991 6363 s0 s0 $363 50 $363 $0 s0 $363 s0 $363 $211 $1,661,980 s0.22 1992 $363 50 $366 $199 $1.828,180 s0.?0 1993 $366' s0 40 6366 s0 s0 $363 $0 $363 $!85 $1,465,240 $U.18 1994 $363 3 S0 $364 $173 . 62.112,690 $0.17 IV95 $364 $0 $O $364 $u $U $364 40 $364 $162 $2,271,140 $0.16 1946 $364'. $362 $150 $2,441,470 $0.15 $0 s0 $362 $0 $0 so $363 $0 $363 $141 $2,624,580 $u.14 199] $362 IM 5363 . so $36.3 6132 $2.821,430 $0.13 $365 1999 $363 s0 s0 $36 . 5365 $124 s3,033,040 s0.12 2000 5365 so $U s0 $365 $11b $3,260,050 $0.10 510 $0.11 au! $365 s0 s0 s365 2002 $363 s0 $u $363 $U 1363 $107 $3,505,930 $0. 10 ZUu3 s363 s0 s0 $363 s0 $363 $100 $3,167, 0 $u so $U $u su $4,050,530 su.vi: 2004 $U $u $0 so sU $4.354,320 $0.UO LUUS $0 $0 s0 $U $u $0 $0 50 $U $4,630,890 $u.OU 2006 $0 3V s0 sg s0 s5,031,960 SO.Ou Zuu] so s0 $U so $o SV $0 $U $5.404.350 50.00 2008 $U $u so fUTALS $7.276 s0 645 s7.321 s0 s7,321 $4,170 1-YEAR KPRESENTS FIRS] YEAR (IF FISCAL YEAR, LE..1984 IS 1984185. 2-PHg5E 2 ISSUED JUNE 1984 NIlH TOTAL KINCIPAL ,3,100.000 AT A RATE OF 10.000% 3-PRASE 2 ISSUED jLKE 1989 OTTH TOTAL PRINCIPAL $0 A[ A RATE OF 0.000% 3-INCREASED AV BY IO.CO0% FOR FIRST IU YEARS. THEN INCREASED BY 7.5001 1 my imi r.. OPTION #9 - RENTAL-AS-NEEDED RENT AS NEEDED (1) Annual Payments Year: 1 23,000 x 7.50 = 172,500 2 23,000 x 7.50 = 172,500 3 23,000 x 8.50 = 195,500 4 23,000 x 9.10 = 209,300 5 23,000 x 9.20 = 211.600 6 33,500 x 10.40 = 348,400 7 33,500 x 10.40 = 348,400 8 33,500 x 11.40 = 381,900 9 33,500 x 11.40 = 381,900 10 33,500 x 11.40 = 381,900 11 45,000 x 11.50 = 517,500 12 45,000 x 11.50 = 517,500 13 45,000 x 12.00 = 540,000 l4 45,000 x 12.00 = 540,000 15 45,000 x 12.00 = 540,000 16 45,000 x 12.00 = '540,000 17 45,000 x ' 13.10 = '589,500 18 45,000 x 13.10 = 589,500 _ 19 45,000 x` 13.70 = 6.16,500 20 45,000 x 13.70 = 616,500 20 yr. subtotal: 8,410,900 - 21 45,000 x 14.00 = 630,000 22 45,000 x 14.00 = 630,000 23 45,000 x 14.00 = 630,000 24 45,000 x 1.4.00 = 630,000 25 45,000 x 14.00 = 630,000 -0 11,560,900 - 25 years rental (1) From City Administrator { DO . D O 00 F d N N 0 O O O O 0 0 O O O d 0 O O O O c1 P 9 00 A N N ^ A > A M rd W O O O O ey N 4 M L N 00 P •C CO O O H K 00 O O 0 N 00 O O O W O O O N , O 00 O O O v W O O O O C 4 �O M N a 00 W Q� .+ A N •n P P o o p •O N r-� M N v U � N N •D ('1 N W O O O O O W 00 0 0 0 - m N .100 O O O n r W a�C ob Pf :.00 O O 0 00 O O O O A tNJ � C rte+ O O N vl 00 O O O O. OO O O O - v. C C O C O C tl •O 'o O OW N N 04 }G N N O O O N R O o O C O F0 O.O R O 4 m L o 4 F P• M v m F d m o W N O O O 4 O d M 'a Ka v Vi n N P P O O J u a a p p p d C F p O W P F F F C v cnr uta w d u n wa a cstnpcape 14 -. o o o A Fra H d. H •,. T ,� e-,r A-.Fx�'�� +�`•'`" �°� ��-�ixS�'..c�s�� ,r:k .� .e-. �7zz".^a��.�."�tJ.,,x,., s�r� sS;:,,.-a�.�.s_, �'�'�` fas¢, j I IM zi Kx ( y�¢. K� .,5, mx,c .,4..*xL-t 'i' x`k5*rs ,.t''*+ #� 9.r1}m 't".z 7 �s�u��`TY±�'`a �'�i "�T"� { `'�S"�'-�'� yG�'' �.;rte ,'�t��.,La.�7 `s'�.3'x�`a�r,�'y.a� ":� �y��*�. 1.'�F�''.F'�'�'�`�a��"�{''�'r✓i' '��`�� s�" %d'+�+ri�x"'"��.�;��-"�'�}4,Ns-„�;,�s�� a.r��r.�ae."��;#1.�"�`, L`rtu.�r�p'�s��34�-�'�:.t�'�s,.: �.' r,.x�F'e�. �,yr3a.��^�.. ,,.�.n....,_sf_ .-ter.�.,€�,-�~<. a�.�3�"rax�3;�..�,.;r�r�:cs3s��,.,�x�v-a,.�..'�lsr�.��7,•.Fs..,.�+; 0 M E M 0` R A N D U M` CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Library Board 1/19/84" FROM: Staff SUBJECT:' "Space`Needs' III With 1-10 and 11-20 Year Options Per our instructions from Chairman Munhall, staff has updated Mr. Zaik's cost assumptions assuming a decision now to provide for year 1 - 10 needs as Phase I' and year 11 - 20 'needs as Phase !I. Financial analyses will be presented at your Thursday meeting by Clements and Marshall. The nine options are as follows: 1. ASH/BURNIIM SITE (Munhall) Bond Purchase Davis $ 235,000 Purchase Ash House 35,000- Build 33.500 S.F. * 2,057,570 Phase 1 (1-10) $2,327,570 Build 11,500 S.F. * 706,330 $3,033,900 2. SUNDELEAF (PW now) Bond Purchase Ash House $ 35,000 Build 33,500 S.F. * 2,057,570 Purchase P.W. Shops Site 700,000 Phase I (1-10) $2,792,570 Build 11,500 S.F. * $ 706,330 $3,498,900 3. AIR KING Bond (Lease Available) Sell Police $( 40,000) Purchase 3 Acres 455,177 Build 33,500 S.F. * 2,057,570 Phase I (1-10) 2,472,747 Build 11,500 S.F. * $ 706,330 $3,179,077 * If 23,000 S.F. = $1,412,614 Zaik ... then $61.42/S.F. x 33,500 S.F. $2,057,570. 1 4. GTE RENTAL/NEW LIBRARY - Bond (Short-Term Lease) Purchase=Davis/Tarkinian $ 400,000 Sell Police Site ( 40,000) Build Library 15,000 S.F. -* 921,300 Purchase 1 Acre Air King 152,000 Rental Year 1-5 N/A~ Build Year 6/18,500 S.F. * 1,136,270 Phase I (1-10) $2,569,570 Build 11,500 S.F. * $ 706,330 $3,275,900 + Rentals 5. 72ND AVENUE SITE - Bond Purchase: Site $ ,700,000 Remodel 12,000: S.F. * 462,000 Build 9,000 S.F. * 552,780 Purchase Davis 235,000 Build Library 15,000 S.F. * 921,300 Sell Public Works ( 387,380) Sell Police Site ( 40,000) Phase I (1-10) $2,443,7100 Build 11,500 S.F. * $ 706,330 Build 4,500 S.F. P.W. @ $40.00 180,000 µ 886,330 $3,330,030 6. STURGIS - Bond Purchase 3 acres @ $4.50 $ 588,060 Purchase Easement 50,000 Build 33,500 S.F. * 2,057,570 Sell Police Site ( 40,000) Phase I (1-10) $2,635,630 Build 11,500 S.F. * $ 706,330 $3,361,960 7. CROW SITE - A (Zaik Assumptions) - Bond Purchase Property $1,100,000 Remodel 27,000 S.F. 1,039,500 Professional Fees 72,765 Phase .I (1-10) ' 2,212,265 Phase lI Remodel $ 502,544 $2,714,809*** * $61.42/S.F. Total Rate *� 2,500 S.F. Shops Purposes . 45,000 S.F. Library, Police S City Hall 8. CROW SITE - B (Appleman Estimate) Bond Purchase Property $1,100,000 Remodel 1,000,000 Phase I (1-10) �2,I00,000 Phase II Remodel $ 300,000 $2,400,000*** Rental ( 300,000) 2;100,000 9. RENT-AS-NEEDED $2,803,900 - I $5,607,000 - II $8,410,900 *** Less rental income into Sinking Fund . (pn/0189p) f,. ME Foster & arsha.fl/American Express Inc:. 6 . ............ INVESTMENT BANKERS AND BROKERS 4800 S.W.Macadam Avenue,Suite 309 • Portland.Oregon 97201.3980 (503)241-7243 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF CIVIC CENTER OPTIONS' FOR THE; CITY OF TIGARD As per the instructions of the Library Board and City, Administrator, we have performed another financial impact analysis relating ,to funding of the Civic Center. g fi Major changes include extending the Phase I "period from 1984 to 1993; Phase Il now includes 1994-2008. All bonding was 'assumed to be general obligation bonds only. All Phase I projects were 20 year terms at 10%. Phase II projects were 15 year terms at 9.5%. f The GTE option now 'includes an additional phase (mid-phase) which overlaps Phases I and Ii. Bonds for this phase were set at a 20 year term at 10%. All calculations are preliminary and intended to provide rough comparisons only. No refinements, such as earnings on bond proceeds are included here. When the options have been narrowed down, a closer look should be made. ; ! The tables which follow include: (1) Issue Sizing - Provides the bond amounts calculated from the , architect's cost estimate plus other sale related costs. € (2) Crow Site Rental Sinking Fund Shows the collection and investment of rental income for the available space at the Crow Site during Phase 1. (3) Computer Tables Financial Analysis of the first 9 options. (4) Rent as Needed - Rental costs as estimated by the City. (5) Summary Table - Provides a comparative summary of the financial ) analysis. Member of all principal security.option and commodity exchanges i s Offices in the Principal cities of the Pacific.Northwest and Alaska Affiliate office.thrnug!loul thn:l,S - - { ISSUE SIZING :onstrur. Inflation Sale Discount or site at 5% Costs Rems (2Y) Total Ash/8arnhas Site O! ---2327.6 -- — 30 2G 48 2425 2.425.121 (2) 706.3 1151 20 is 24 1209 1,209,248 5und21eaf (1) 2792.6 — 30 20 57 2849 2,899,421 (2) 706.3 1151 20 15 24 1209 1.209,248 Air Kina (1) 2472.7 -- 30 20 50 2573 2,573,202 (2) 706.3 1151 20 15 24 1209 1.209,248 ` 5TE (1) 1433.3 20 20 29 1503 1,502,766 (2) 106.3'` 1151 20 i5 24 1209 1,209,248 011D) 1136.3 1450 20 20 30 2520 2,520,004 72nd Avenue (1) 2443.7 -- 30 20 50 2544 2,543,574 (2) 886.3 1444 20 15 30 1508 1,508,313 Sturgis 11) 2655.6 ` -- 30 20 54 2760 2,759,743' (2) 10.1 1151 20 15 24 1209 I,204,Z48 Cram Site — A (1) 2212.3 -- 30 20 45 2308 2,303,510 (2) 502.5 419* 20 15 9 46.3 462,663 CrOM Site - @ (1) 2100.0 -- 30 20 43 2193 2,193,000 * Rental offset of 400,000 is included RENTAL SINKING FUND (ental earn i nas Balance Year income At By. End of Year ---------- ---- ----------- - "' -_--- 14.s50 1`M4 14.25U t i 44.290 1C't3`, 28.90() l0 14U 76* 733 1986 ?t�.9tji f 3.543 76.7'a .8 19ti7 9UU 111.772 b 2 . 139 1 E38 28,9006.942 145+.614 1989 31.000 1 1.96;, 192,56:3 23 1990 :31.c:u::tc'a 15.407 6,989 19. 119 .89, 108 1991 :1.UOU 1 ,9 343 237 1992 :3l. ,3. 1993 31.00® 27.459 401,696 r, 01 1 ,'ITY OF TISARD C TALL NUMBERS lM THO<tSANDS EXCEPT TAX RATE) DISDMI RATE FOR PRESENT VALUE= 7 YEAR ANNUAL DS-2 kWAL DS-3 RENTAL MID BALANCE PRESENT ASSESSED TAX PHASE 1 PHASE 2 COST PHASE COSTS VALUE VALUE-3 RATE '984 $287 s0 $45 s0 $332 s332 x775.325 $0.43 1985 1283 s0 $0 50 $283 $264 $852.858 50.33 1986 $283 s0 s0 s0 $283 $247 s938.143 $0.30 1987 $283 $0 se s0 s283 $231 $1.031.960 50.27 1988 s283 $0 s0 $0 s283 $216 51.135.150 $0.25 1989 $281 so so `so $291 $206 $1.248.670 10.23 1%9 1285 s0 $a s0 $2135 $190 $1.373.540 $0.21 1991 $287 s0 so 50 $281 $179 51.510.090 $O.i9 1942 5284 s0 s0 s0 $284 6165 $1.661.980 $0.17 1993 4285 so s0 $0 s28✓ $155 s1.828.180 $0.15 SUBTUTALS 62.847" $45 so s2.892 1994 s2K5 sl i. s0 so %440 Q24 $1.965.290 s0.2r 14'45 sm $156 so so $440 $209 $2.112.690 $0.21 ''96 x287 115? so s0 $444 $197" 82.271040 sO.20 ,941 3283` $152 s0 $0 $435 $181 $2.441,470 $0.18 1998 4284 $152 so $0 $436 $169 $2.624,580 $0.17 1995 92PZ s152 s0 $0 $435 $158 $2.821,430 $0.15 1000 9285 $1556 so s0 $441 $149 $3,033,040 $0.15 2001 $286 5155 $0 s0 $441 $140 $3,260,510 40.14 2002 $284 $153 $0 s0 '$437 9129 $3,505,050 $0.12 2003 6286 $t55 $0 s0 $441 $122 $3.767,930 $0.12 2004 s0 $156 10 s0 $156 $40 $4,050,530 $0.04 2005 s0 $152 s0 s0 $1,52 $37 $4.354,320 $0.03 2006 so $157 $0 s0 $157 $35 $4.630.$90 $0.03 2007 s0 $156 $0 $0 3156 $33 $5.031,960 $0.03 2008 s0 $153 $0 s0 €153 $30 $5,409,350 $0.03 TOTALS $5.694 $2,317. $45 s0 $8.056 $4,037 AVERAGE TAX RATE _ �.!'� I-YEAR REPRESENTS FIRST YEAR Or FISCAL YEAR, IE..1984 IS 1904185. 2-PHASE 1 ISSUED Jt?tE 1984 WITH TOTAL PRIt4CIPAL $2.425.000 AT A RATE OF 10.00w- 3-PHASE 2 ISSUED JURE 1989 WIN TOTAL PRINCIPAL $1,210.000 AT A HATE OF 9.5002 3-ItI-KEASEO AV 8Y MUM FM FIRST 10 YEARS. THEN INCREASED BY 7.500% l r WRIN m, 30 _ ; 11 Yut 1 1601 atJNllCLI i�� vtK.:i IIJN tALL NUMBERS IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT TAI RAIL) DISt11UNT RATE fW PRESENT VALUE= 7,1 MID BALANCE pkLcr, ASSESSED TAI YEAR-1 ANNUAL DS-2 ANNUAL DS-3 RENTAL PHASE COSTS VALUE VALUE-3 RATE -'PMSE 1 Pkat 2 CAST 1484 ` s340 s0 $45 s0 $385 $385 $775.325 $0.50 1985 $340 $0 *0 40 $340 8318 $852.858 E0.40 1486 $339 s0 s0 $0 $339 s296 8438,143 *0.36 s0 s0 1941 8338 $0 6338 $276 81.031,960 10.33 1967 $342 s0 s0 so $342 $261 $1.135,150 $0.30 $0 4339 $242 $1,248.670 x0.27 1989 433 $0 9 s0 s0 4341 s227 81.373.540 $0.25 :990 8341 s4 $0 bQ $341 $214 11,510,890 10.23 1991 8343 s0 s0 %342 $199 81.661,9W 80.21 1992 $342 s0 80 $0 : 80` 4341 8185 01,828,160 60.19 1993 834150 *0 bUBIDTALS'$3.405 s45 s0 43.450 %0 50 $494 $251 11,965,290 10.25 1994 SS39 $155 s0 $4"r; x237 ' 2.112,690 $0.24 2'795 $342 $156 s4 so 8494 $222 52,271,140 x0.22 '996 5342: $157 so so 40 $493 8203 82.441,470 80.20 s 97 x341 *152 50 %495 $192 s2,624,580 $0.19 I99d 8343 $152 *o 50 *491 *178 82.621,430 *0.17 iv99 *339 8152 s0 L0 b0 $499 5169 5.3,033,040 $0.16 2000 1543 8156 *o 1494 $156 $3.260,510 $0.15 2001 5339 $155 $0 EO 10 *492 8146 $3"505,050 *0.14 2002 8339 $153 84 $496 $137 53,767,930 $0.13 2003 8341 8155 s4 $157 $41 *4,050,530 50.04 2004 10 1157 80 84 so *552 $37 $4.354,320 80.03 20005 $0 1152 s0 $157 $35 14,680,890 $0.03 2006 50 $157 s4 $0 *156 $33 $5,031,960 $0.03 2007 s0 $156 $0 130 85,409,350 $0.Q3 2008 s0 $153 80 s0 $153 TOTALS $6.833 82,318 $45 40 s9,176 $4,670 AirEmE TAX RATE $0.20 1-YEAR REPRESDTS FIRST YEAR OF FISCAL YEAR, IE.91984 15 1984/85- 2-MSE I ISSUED JWE 1984 HIT4 TOTAL PRINCIPAL 82,900,000 AT A RATE OF 10.000: 3-PHASE 2 ISSUED JUNE 1989 UITH TOTAL PRINCIPAL 61.210.000 AT A RATE OF 9.5401 3-INCREASED AV BY 10.000X FOR FIRST 10 YEARS. THEN INCREASED 8Y 7.500: { r l T Y UF -1 16ARI) H1K KING - VEKUiUI`i tALL NUMBERS IN']HlXJSANDS EXLEPI TAX RAIE) DIa)JUNT RAFE FUR PREsud VALUE= 7 YEAR-1 ANNUAUAL DS-2 ANNUAL DS-3 RENTAL HID BALANCE PRESENT ASSESSED TAX PM1 Pt1ASf 2 COST PHASE COSTS VALUE VALUE-3 RATE 1984 s302 $0 $45 s0 $347 $347 $775.323 40.45 1985 084 s303 SO s0 s0 $303 $283 sB52.858 $0.36 19b6 5303 $0 10 s0 $303 $265 $938.143 $0.32 1987 $302 s0 s0 s0 $302 $247 $1.031,960 s0.29 1988 $301 s0 s0 s0 $301 $230 $1.135.150 40.27 1"9 $305 s0 s0 s0 $305 $217 11.248.670 10.24 1990 s302 s0 $0 s0 3302 $201 $1.373,540 $0.22 1991 $304 s0 s0 $0 5304 $189 51.510.890 40.20 1992 1300 s0 so s0 $300 $175 $1.661,920 $0.18 1991 $301 50 $0 s0 $301 $164 $1.829.180 $0.16 S•UbTOTALS $3.023 $45 so f�jrOG 1994 $Soo $155 so $0 $455 1231 s1.965.290 $0.23 1995 $304 $156 50 s0 $460 $219 42.112,690 60.22 V)6 1501 SISI s0 s0 $458 s2O3 s2.271.140 40.20 :t$7 $302 $152 s0 s0 5454 $188 62.441,470 $0.19 19ti 3501 fia? 4U so 3453 $176 $2.624.580 $0.17 1 1999 1304 1152 $0 s0 $456 $165 $2.821.430 $0.16 2000 1304 $156 $0 $U s456 $154 s3,033.040 10.15 2001 $300 $155 so $0 $455 $1441 43.2e0,510 30.14 2002 $302 $153 6U s0 $455 $13z $3,505,0 $0,13 203 4302 5155 s0 s0 $457 6126 $3.767.930 $0.12 2004 so $157 s0 s0 3157 $41 $4,050,530 $0.04 2005 s0 $152 s0 s0 4152 $37 $4.354.320 $0.03 2006 s0 $157 $0 $0 $157 435 $4,0,890 $0.03 2007 so $156 s0 s0 $156 $33 $5.031,960 $0.03 2008 40 s153 $0 $0 $153 $30 $5,404,350 $0.03 TDTALS $6.039 $2,318 $45 s0 sB,402 $4,235 ANERME TAX RATE $0.18 I-YEAR;4E RESEF1T5 FIRST YEAR Or FISCAL YEAR. IE..1984 1S 1984/83. 2-fME 1 1faMED JUNE 1984 41TH TOTAL PRINCIPAL 12,575,000 AT A RATE OF 10.000: 3-MIS .2 ISS1leD JURE 1969 1111H TOTAL PRINCIPAL 91,210,000 AT A RATE OF 9.50011 3-I SO AV DY 10.000% FOR FIRS4 10 YEARS, THEN INCREASED BY 7.5001 f CITY OF TIGARD ATE -- VE RS10N (ALL RUNBEn IN TKMANDS EXCEPT TAX RATE) DISCOUNT RATE FOR PRESENT VALUE=,7 I YEAR-1 ANNUAL DS-2 ANNUAL OS-3 RENTAL H1C BALANCE PRESENT ASSESSED TAX PHASE 1 PFS 2 - COST PHASE COSTS VALUE VALUE-3 RATE 198. $175 s0 $96 €o x271 €271 €715.325 €0.35 13th $1l7 so $96 s0 s273 $255 €R52.858 €0.32 1986 $174 so $96 $0 x270 $236 9938.143 $0.29 1987 S176 s0 $96 $0 $272 $222 11.031.960 10.26 1968 $17t1 s0 196 $0 $274 $209 $1.135.150 $0.24 1989 $119 $0 $0 $177 $356 $254 €1,248.670 s0.29 1990 $174 s0 $0 $179 $353 $235 $1.373,540 $0.2b 1791 505' s0 s0 $176 1351 $219 11,510.890 $0.23 ).992 €flys $0 s0 $178 $353 $205 $1.bb1,980 10.21 1995 $114 50 $0 s160 $354' $193 $1,828.180 s0.19 bUBTUTALS $1.757 5480 $890 1994 $178 $1515 €U $181 $514 $261 91.965,290 $0.26 995 $176 $156 $0 $176 $508 $241 $2.112,690 60.24 i 1996 $174' $157 s0 $177 $508' $226 $2,271,140 $0.22 19Y7 5176 €152 $0 $177 s505' $210 €2.441,470 ' ' $0.21 1990 $117 $152 $0 $181 $510 1198 $2,624,580 30.19 1999 €117 $152 s0 €180 $509 $184 12.821,430 €0.18 2000 $176 $156 s0 $178 $510 $173 53,033,040 $0.17 1001 €179 $155 s0 $180 €514 $163 $3,260,510 50.16 2002 $175 $153 s0 $177 $505 $149 13,505,050 $0.14 2m03 $176 €155 €0 €178 $509 1141 $3,767,930 S0.14- 2004 10 ss157 s0 $178 1335 $87 $4,050,550 0.00 2005 f0 $152 s0 $177 $329 $79 $4,354,320 $0.08 2006 $0 6157 €0 €180 $337 $76 14,680,890 10.07 2007 50 5156 €0 $181 €331 $71 65,031,960 €0.07 2008 $0 SiS3 s0 $181 1334 $66 $5"W9,350 $0.06 TOTALS €3.521 n,318 $480 $3,572 $9,891 $4,623 AVERAGE TAX RATE $0.20 i-YEATt REPRESERTS FIRST PEAR OF FIIiCAL YE4R, IE.,1984 1S 1984/85. 2-Pt E 1 ISSUED Ahk 1984 141TH TOTAL PRINCIPAL $1,500,000 AT A RATE OF 10.000% 3-PHASE 2 ISSUED JUNE IM H11H TOTAL PRINCIPM $1,210,000 41 A RATE OF 9.5001 3-WiEASED AV;BY IO.M% FOR, HRST to YEARS. THEM IRCHASED BY 7.5001 i- CITY OF TIGARD 72ND AVENUE - VERS1UN (ALL NUMBERS 1N THOUSANDS EXCEPT TAX RATE) DISCL4MI RATE FUR PRESLHT VALLE= 7 Z , YEAR-1 ANNUAL US-2 AWJAL DS-3 kENTAL MID BALANCE PRESENT ASSESSED TAX PHASE 1 PHASE 2 Cosf PHASE COSTS VALUE VALDE-3 PATE 1454' 8299 sU 045 s0 8344 6344 s775.325 x0:44 1981 ssuu so so su $300 $280 $852.858 $0.3` 1YU6 $300 su $0 $0 $300 x262 s938.143 $0.32 1981 f2Y4 s0 so so $299 3244 $1,031.960 $0.29 s298 $227 $1.135,150 a0.2b ivbb a248 0u s0 SO 1909 297 su $u su $297 $212 s1,248,670 SO.24 1490 x300 SO s0 s0 x300 $200 $1.373,540 $0.22 1991 $300 so so s0 $297 $185 81,510,890 s0.20 1492 $299 s0 $0 s0 s298 $173 $1,661,980 $0.19 1993 $299 so $0 s0 x299 $163 $1,1129.180 $0.16 SUBTOTALS s2.907 $45 s0 ®3'' 1994 $299 $193 s0 s0 $491 $250 $1,965,240 €0.25 T5 $297 $194 s0 s0 1491 $233 $2.112,590 $0.23 8996 6299 1193 SO $p $492 $218 02,211,140 30.22 1997 300 $193 50 $O $493 $205 52,441,470 $0.20 5 1998 $300 $192 50 $0 $492 $191 $2,624,580 $0.19 1999 $298 $195 50 $0 $493 $179 $2.821,430 $0.17 2000 $299 $192 $0 s0 $491 1166 $3,033,040 $0.16 2001 $299 $194 s0 s0 $493 $156 63,260,510 $0.15 2002 $296 $190 $0 $0 $486 $144 $3,505,050 $0.14 2003 $297 6191 s0 s0 $488 $135 13.767,930 $0.13 2004 50 195 s0 s0 3195 $50 $-4,OS0,530 $0.05 $ 2005 s0 $193 s0 s0 3193 $47 %4.354,32.0 50.04 2006 so $191 a0 s0 $191 $43 $4,660,090 x0.04 20fl7 so $192 s0 $0 $192 $41 $5.031,960 50.04 2008 s0 $192 so $0 s192 $38 $5,409,350 $0.04 TOTALS $5.970 62,890 $45 30 08,905 $4,385 AvEE TAS RATE = su.!? 1-lEA.R )T1nESENTS FIRST YEAR OF FISCAL YEAR, IE.,1984 IS 19B4B.5. s 2-Pt41S`E I ISSUED JUit 1984 WITH TOTAL PRINCIPAL $2,545,000 AT A RATE OF 10.000% f 3-PHASE 2 ISM JUNE 1989 N1TH TOTAL PRINCIPAL $1,510,000 AT A RATE OF 9.500% 3-INIXASED AV by 10.000% FOR FIRST 10 YEARS, THEN INCREASED BY 7.5001 I i ITT i i ii -�;I 1-Y OF: T 1GARD �LUf=thl�� - VtKS1UN .' (ALL NUMBERS 1N IHOUSANbS EXCEPT: TAX WE) DISCUUNT P.AfE FUH:PREsw VALUE= 7 YEAk-1 ANN11Al. DS-2 HPWAL DS-3 RENTAL MID BALANCE PtcESENT ASSESSED TAX PHASE I PHASE 2 COST PHASE COSTS VALUE VALUE-3 RATE 1984 $326 s0 845 s0 $371 $371 $775.325 $0.48 198 $326 s0 s0 s0 1326 5305 $852.858 $0.38 1986 $325 s0 s0 s0 ' $325 $284 5938:143 $0.35 1987 $324 50 $0 s0 s324 $264 $1,031.960 $0.3: 1988 $323 $0 $0 $0 $323 $246 81.135,150 $0.28 1984 $321 s0 s0 $0 $321 $229 $1,248.670 $0.26 . 1990 $323 $0 40 $0 $323 $215 $1,373,540 $0.24 1991 '$325 s0 s0 $0 $325 202 $1,510,890 $0.22 r I992 $325 s0 s0 $0 s325 $189 31.661.980 60.20 1993 9325 $0 $0 $0 $325 $177 51,828,180 $0.18 SUBTUTALS x3.243 $45 s0 so/3,% 88 1994 4323 $155 s0 $0 $44778 $243 $1,965.290 $0.24 1495 $321 $156 s0 s0 x477 $227 52.112,690 $0.23 1996 4322 $157 b0 s0 $479 213 $2,271,140 $0.21 197 $322 $152 s0 s0 $474 -$197 x2.441,470 $0.19 19'78 $326 $152 $0 s0 $478 $185 $2,624,580 $0.18 t 1999 $322 $152 s0 $0 $474 $172 $2.821,430 $0.17 2000 $322 $156 $0 so $478 $162 $3,033,040 s0.l6 2001 s32i $155 s0 s0 $480 $152 $3,260,510 $0.15 2002 $321 $153 s0 s0 $474 $140 $3,505,050 $0.14 21103 %324 8155 s0 0 $479 $132 $3.767,930 60.13 2044 s0 $157 s0 s0 %157 $41 $4,050,530 10.04 2005 so 8152 so s0 5152 $37 $4,354,320 $0.03 2006 s0 s157 40 $0 $157 535 $4,680,890 $0.03 2007 $0 1156 s0 $0 $156 $33 $5,031,960 $0.03 2008 s0 $153 $0 $0 1153 130 55,4+39,350 $0.03 . [DIALS $6.471 $2.318 545 $0 $8,834 $4,481 AVERAbE FAX RATE = $0.19 1 1 1-YEA.R PakESENTS FIRST YEAR OF FISCAL YEAR, TE.,1984 IS 4984/85. 2-PHASE E YSSi3ED JIM 1934 IlITH TOTAL PRINCIPAL $2,760,000 AT A RATE OF 10.0001 3-PHA41 2 ISS1tF.D ME 1989 PITH TOTAL PRINCIPAL $1,210,000 AT A HATE OF 9.500X 3-ItEREASED AV BY 10.000% FOR FIRST 10 MRS, THEN INCREASED BY 7.5001 € 1= 1 r7 ' s z S Ciff OF MARP CkOO SITE A - VERSION 3 (ALL NUMBERS IN THOUSANDS EZCEFI TAX RATE) DISCOUNT RATE FOR PRESENT YALuE= 7 % 41D BALANCE PRESENT ASSESSED TAX YEAR-i ANNUAL DS-2 ANNUAL DS-3 RENTAL PHASE COSTS VALUE VALE-3 RATE PHASE ! PHASE 2 COST s775.325 $0.41 40 316 4316 0 5271 $0 645 $272 $254 6852.858 $0.32 t 1.84 SU s272 ss s0 $�72 1238 $938,143 $0.2° q 1986 1272 50 s0 s0 $272 5222 $1.031,960 50.26 19Bb $212 s0 s0 SO 5272 1208 S1.135,150 sO.24 1487 s0 E0 3271 $193 11,248,670` s0.22 527 1988 2 f0 f0 1�q ; s271 f0 so 6264 1179 s1,373,544 $0..20 . i440 6264 50 s0 ` €272 $0 661 5157$169 11,510,890 $0.18 r f0 $0 $1 930 $0.16 1991 6272 ss $264 , + s0 $147 51,828,160` $0.15 ' 1992 5264 3G s0 6271 1993 ' 5211 f0 5U t bl)BTUTALS 52.711 145 s0 $2,756 4 f0 6330 1168 $1,965.240 sO.17 t 1994 $211 $59 b0 8329 $156 $2.112,640 $0.16 E. 50 $0 5147 52,271,140 $0.15 095 $271 658 s0 $330 ,446 i'Ib9 $61 30' 5331 s137 $2,441,470 10.14 f0 s0 12,624,580 $0.12 199] s272 s59 50 $326 s126 1998 s2bb $58 50 53$4 $121 S2.621,430 $0.12 561 $0 SO 29y9 6273 6324 1111 $3,033,040 s0.11 : 50 50 204 $271 $58 s 6105 83,260,514 $0.10 5 $bi 30 s0 698 03,505,050 $0.09 2001 5272 40 $330 2001 $212 $58 6329 44 $91 83,767,930 $0.04 , 50 2003 S2fi9 $60 50 $62 $16 64,050,530 $0.02 2004 s0 S62 f0 L58 814 84,354,320 $0.01 $58 so 50 613 04,680,890 10.01 .2005 S0 $s $54 2006 s0 $59 $G $60 $13 05,031,960 50,01 $0 s0 $60 2007 $0 ss $6G 812 55,404,350 S0.01 2008 s0 $60 $G s0 56,356 $3,412 TOTALS (5.419 $892 $45 AVERASE TAX RATE _ $0.15 x 2-'"EAT; REPRESENTS FIRST YEAR OF FISCAL. -,EAR. 1F.,,1984 1S 1984/0.5. PRINCIPAL 62,310,000 AT A RATE OF 10.0401 2-F)�gSE 1 ISSUED 3L 1984 WITH TOTAL 3-PHASE 2 ISSi O 3061£ 1984 NITN TOTAL PRINCIPAL $465.000 AT A RATE OF 9.500% 3-INCNEASED AV ®Y 10.0001 FOR FIRST 10 YEWS, THEN INCREASED BY 7.500x t` l t ) ik R1E.xema[kk%s,✓+.s+wtsxauwcw..:- .:...s .-� .✓ .ntsat��,. v.-an. 1 ' CITY O1: TIGARD 1 CROW :SITE 0 - VER!310r4 (ALL MUADERS-1N Tl+MANDS EXCEPT TAX kATE) DISCOUNT-RATE FOR PRESENT VALUE= 7 X YEAR-1 ANNUAL DS-2 WNUAL DS-3 RENTAL 9ID BALANCE PkESENT ASSESSED TAX PHASE I PHASE 2 CUST PHASE COSTS VALUE VALUE-3 RATE 1984 x259 $0 s45 s0 5304 x304 $775.325 s0.39 i985 5260 $0 IU s0 $260 1243 5852.858 $0.30 3986 $256 s0 s0 s0 5256 $224 $938.143 $0.27 1987 521,6 s0 s0 $0 $2j6 Q09 $1.03!,960 s0.25 1988 1256 $0 so s0 5256 11°5 $1.135,150 $0.23 1989 5256 so su s0 $256 $183 51,248,670 $0.21 1990 $260 s0 s0 $0 $260 $173 $1.3173.540 $0.19 1991 $258 so so s0 5258 $161 111510,8%0 s0.17 1942 $255 $0 s0 so $255 5148 $1,661,980 $0.15 IM $257 $0 sx: $0 $257 $140 $1,828,180 $0.14 SUB70TALS $2,573 $45 " s0 $2,618 1994 $259 so so $0 $258 1131 $1,965,290 $0.13 t -°Y5 $258 $0 s0 $0 ' - $258 $123 $2,112,690 $0.12 .96 $257 s0 $0 s0 1257 $114 12,271,140 $0.11 1991 1255 $0 s0 s0 $255 5106 62MI.470 50.10 1998 $257 s0 s0 $0 $257 5100 22,624,580 $0.20 1999 $258 $0 $0 s0 $258 $94 $2.821.430 $0.09 2000 $257 $0 s0 s0 1257 $87 131033,040 $0.08 2001 $259 s0 s0 s0 $259 582 $3,260,510 $0.00 2002 $260 s0 s0 so $260 $77 $3,505,050 $0.07 2003 $258 s0 s0 s0 $258 171 13,767,930 $0.07 2004 s0 s0 10 s0 s0 $0 54,050,530 $0.00 2005 s0 $0 s0 s0 s0 $0 $4,354,320 $0.00 2006 so so s0 so s0 s0 14,680,890 $0.00 2007 s0 s0 s0 10 s0 s0 $5.031,960 $0.00 2001 a0 to s0 $0 10 10 $5,409,350 $0.00 TOTALS x5,150 s0 145 50 $5,195 s2,964 AVERPa TAX RATE = 60,13 R. -YEAR REKESEMIS FIRST YEAR OF FISCAL YEAR, IE.,1984 IS 1984/85. 2-PHASE I ISSUED AM 1984 N1TH TOTAL PRINCIPAL $2,195,000 AT A RATE OF 10.0001 3-PHASE 2 ISSL£D ME 1989 VITH TOTAL PRINCIPAL $0 AT A RATE OF 0.000% 3-1WREASED A9 BY 10.000% FOR FIRST 10 YEARS, THEN INCREASED BY 7.5002 b g. RENT AS NEEDED (ear Annual r`av- Amount F-V_at / -- --}J---- 7. ,V 1 1 ,UV 1 72.SUU '1 UVU _ i, 13.Ulja i 1.:7i i 1 72. 161 ..115 .000 B.50 195.500 110. 757 �!:_.1 (_) Y: Li! "�'�i9,•3tiii 1 4 7al.t351 to Ui>U 9.10 11 1.60v 161. 429 - ttil <'4B141j4 6 10. 41i 3413.4 7 3 .SOU 10. 40 348.400 •7`. 1 g :�.51 0 11.40 .`38 i,yt_)i I '3713 ?B e q 33.500 11. 40 381.900 2 269 11. 4i1 :30L.yciaj 07.728 E - 11 i yEi4F< FATAL 2B2.5(.)(j 1.131 j: .9i as:a 1 .985. 136' 11 45.000 11.50 517.500 263.071 12 45,000 11.50 517,500 Ic j 245,861 13 45.-000 12.00 540- 224.081 000 239. 766 14 415,000 1'2.00 54(.),Ij17Cp 224.i jEi i 15 45.004 12.00 540.000 209. 421 e i6 45,ij<jcj 1'2.00 540.000 195,721 199.b84 17 45.000 13. 10 589,500 18 45,ds'0 13. 10 589.501] i86 621 18 45.000 13.70 616.500 182.400 � 20 45,c1iJt7 13.70 616,500 1"lit,4'u7 �... 21 45.000 14.00 630,004 162,804 ' 22 45.000 14.00 630,out) 152, 153 23 45' 000 14.00 6z-0.000 142. 199 a 24 45.000 14.Ijlj 6-io,I jI jI j 1 J2.897 L5 45,000 14.00 630.000- 124.202 { 25 YEAR TOTAL 1957.500 11. 5609 904 4,816.464 1g 1- 4r 1 s; N 0 Ci Ct .oma-- aCI Ys „� y r r r 1 p �.. O p r to E.. r:':S ^ iT h..: m -• m m.. Y 0 N O.•O aTf to ^ .7 coN O � h O 1 M- O rl sr Ci � E N a a 44' m -• tz M'D. IlinLA gl '.•Y. Cl• GT C`G ?� r N L ra V4 D•'•' v h _r_- CL- Ln!ZLn C CY S ems.. Q1 3 cs a �. ® O to T+ m N O Qi3 l� LL. Q n O N Cn3 ri RO M1 y r« s �55f 3nsi�� .fit•♦ R.�.•�. tt_•.�., t t!.t..� �f�� , , , 4 x55 s,. f - ._. .._.. ..., fir -••••i" rf bY" �` �.,r"cw3 k �� x. . ........:......... ... .. . . . .. .. :. �"' ii•i moi• ii •••••Y�� 4y` MIRE' £ { ��ME i ,,.r�. -. .y, � Vii; :`• i, al � -M_ '■ <W �, m��.� Fl,"r.,��s`-: ls�"€�z �r � �.._�. .. - ;,ms`s-�,. .. -ir;w. ..€. - -` :..s..F,-� r...�,,,. � =^ RM str -yvs.:;z" K_.... ->r s'5 '»• ,; ,-e �.:. '3r„� ,� ':.eF-�Y 12a.,�""'ci�A,. „ ..a Lam.��arr��',{ x...�@"i.,�'�.='.;k.sr.�. '�+ �,.1��'"• % _ '�^.' -` '''+.��: ,�-,'��s�"G_2iz..f..,F.s`...�.,..,J.�T�rs:Z-�'�c-•`�:.:� <r a:.i�S'r-,3,r r.,_ . �"sz.-,�-�"''.t'.....,..._ �!'a=�:so: � .f:. ,y •eri � x 3 � uk w G ...w f. ,. .r.. x. �i'h .�� ii`3Jv °€.^9�a 3.ilk-. F r F 3 k i V y �s � _. r s' rr , s r c '.'' .i .. (" w. y slf. r r_�,.,.i � v i. • •'� �., � t t i ; 41 T» f: ! •. i it �, , � r s ►f • ► I f Ir f �M l >i , t ,t.. � A � r YP?�..�..$,' aa.x. ffi v{ 5 ¢ ..�in,:m .:...,. ,.ten i� ,r-;:�. .,..i�.y. »,.2,n .� 7�. ya. t .�. " tit ''S�''' s,,. ,�;sa,s-at7 _J•;'^, 'M,�`Y n a. .-gyp- cs e�,wr.'.c� � � AL Y e r. .F 4 s+a �^-mss"! 'c. - .s'� w� '`. + _` w?a � ♦ s•, �.•r .• ,_ ♦ - f•.� �.�. ;. •-.. �, !. ,•.` •.- trs �'' �� . n i r X . s , fti S e� s'�y r♦ i I� I i ! 1 I I �� + �� I c r -"• ...-. ., ..,.-. z.....,, Y;.^...F. -.a,-s.. ;., .r 44`az.^ k:r'�> ;X�. r s•..a.��..3,ai,,s-:+��'.'� .'�.'°�...s:.f�:-, .i4+'.*u._s'<';a.:bu.F�.�.'�' .."5.Ty.:.,sk:y'..`;c..±-„,y€v„r}-w}er5'rc.a.5.ai�:xce�.... �-s:K-��'Yh`-�=-.r3-�.,,<.s-�'`ya-.C.x�'Y'.'�—r.G." "1.a.. phH.ES,�.°?.6 iMq�#->s§ +� ia # �,� pr�"�tl•,•'� 4'm- '*� H?'.:i.r"',1'.... Y�"t-.Fx��' .:3a.vv car„ ,.»', F�-w. 11 �i ..�:a°. k-i, �;5:"*t"�.X .r ..:.,a^e =�.� ��a-- s„':a" r�r'�"x=^*.'' .:.,s� ..�.,t•,., ,��t...v!f ..a�.3� Cin._,e�'f.� ��.��P�:sfif f*r. :y'.a,.x..w.,�-_ �. ,- .-car - �. � aaP .., �. --•�c� •r-. :. E "G iV 1�5+ Z �b/•r�y1tl�q r 4 +�s rOr vm Rv ,. .. •, ,r ._�• �iw...• � w vR • j"� '• Y'�'�+. "sok..,° +� ig g - k. CwF -r w . .. t_r s. 4�#'�:•: r 3,.r. ., ^e, +u� Sm.' '..'i::°srFr b - +.4 :•"1` ,:X`u` is}'L�,,s7' t.•'+�.'j', Sr-.sTrak'�.y,.�•,aa-t. -:L• .,"mo,'�...=.. 4; 'y ,. *K.. ..,,�� `•e3f �'3t�`.k`.'•.3}i„� �'.r�i��.��a�,-' ..�:�iti-":�'�i=:=�1�.s.rutM� ��.','�:�~��"a�'.��'�"�.-" ?,i.� ��Ms� E"�� °ase �+ -�. ,� .. .. '"'a' i'Y�j� -fir�"c��'� ��.,. CF3- ,u. fi"'r -•� a+:, :r`�,a�.._•w�-x�.�:��>�extTc'�.5gs�`cir,�� -.�"?�,,�.� {, t�_ z��,' ,.�� F � « Mat- }i x m E agg M; M%ia, f .y h 3C�kj i i r . t. - 3'y. ":✓-a ,r N�.xsui2' ..,�" i ��s`"4,'�':�„..ca.,.7..a.�`-#.”%.x°FY.r.�.:..:;„-.;�a,..a.`,.h.s�.k"`'�.1.�`��4"S}�'2.Y'y:�-�isF,?_:Vi�.'.a"...-s.�.^:-��'-�--:cs,:�••.-r+�.�;s-'.=ms��..'s..�'�-,,».r.-�+Z..�riL�c'4..,y-.�..[.`.i.::..�t��1,:".-c�„^�+o-,:_:.'�;�,r-;-•.z��,.vn�'.>:a,-,a':'-..�..r-,.r. , i.-�".05i.i`�;'er"n�y'f*.�,,tr.�e,3.3�.x.£-af�-+��e'Sfitd-�:,�Y..Y."..e�-''�-eFs"��']t'-d_T,x.�3er`�'>s.�.r�^��+r-�.'�-a'-_::.+;�v4F,�`y--'T'�.?'�r;°�4:-.,<qsA•.�a."n`}�c-as�r-.-y..s�+,+_,�,.-"..?.mai'x.Y°s�"F•°�tl-dr3�'''�.."'�k_,Fa.�-ict.,s�,. :a.' e�r" .#.f -9 ENE.' �L- 11x..,+*"''s"�€x..-.'r3.'-:"..°_`•.iwY,-s��,"v�'sW's`aY u'macx•:� �RN'Ai Ay N a, 5" M- -,M, N e R VgS a �r fW 4 f ' h � Y• �� .► =._'.. .a s.. s' ,r s_ ."�: r "n, R - Z,::. - �r# µ�.�•. .�• R; -i a,-�. ,a '�it��. y � �'� _ •�, #>ram; 3 ti � 'j1 : E r g . �uz NO ..-E. G� .!•�. �'.h * �... r 'y ",.` r � � `, � .._ �/ '1 I ,�YI * ..S �'• � i .c�,��cr Kim,- .�r+Lt cax.�., : ,*,"*a �'.i '4gs.�-��i3��4 ...� �. d�E�,,r us-1rSCi$.#"�sF''•�r�tt. »�tYf`°'v 5;t..:. 'y �'.,.� �'.. .�rer.�'` �.: '�� :.':.'>��3"!�. ��v"r�r. a �i �v-.�. ..�.�'m':v>-�, ��`�-,�...`=�.�`��r��w�"��u.:+ .xs;'� �.w�'�s��a,�;.�...��` 'sc��t-�.:.�`..� .....=;aE-.•.?��.�`:'�'-�.�"'�R�?�:...,a :�x�..�`.�.�.�.v r��.' �:..yrs....�..G�...�� '.�i, *':�''z5 �'�.'�•� �»�-,a,.-r,��xr^. . ; 3 3 i`"• i ry T 3 4 �r��? i , i y. �� a ,�, r..4 r r' � ;i �. . i •:�. � i`y. *^. ,�.��a; .•�sr�»�a �. _ • i' •» ►.„ �'x } � dlµ .�' z'Ek � 3 .ti ..,. .<- ;.�.•� a�= h_.v" �'+*+t -7^rn .�.e�..7b .,,. -, L:�,m`t �.. �a - 'i•'a.-: b7 t �� 4 .,.F�'pt } ' �. 4M�.E•-a�-,�. -_•,�.,. K s..,.,,..h! t -.� t .� ,-`L�1` - s,. .4.,-�. -+� �-« ..��• .�,x. � :Y= �r�*' .-,.^�:�' r'Trx. err a'�• .;i. w:. s.:-rr .,y'`, �c. t�'�.Y�n'=�� g .�ss z `} sk �' � .-.y�, �€�, !`"s"'"r �x'�`� fi ��' w"�'�s��'� '�,� f✓ 7Y"��Is�--w �rt-a,i. a..,.,y��.- ir''�5� �'' -�.� ��.s.�^e._�,,� .�.t #:�a��.�:��a��., .z•.��` e�:t`�.us..,. 9'_ Fes« -�,�€,.�;� z �.�:��-r�Q��n.,-�s�...;mx.�w;s_x.��:�'_..a.-� sa.ry�.�z.,i�,„mss!--,=`�. n� Ye-A 630 560 f qzo 0 360 `t 280 �a 2!0 i -x0 r #� 8� �67 le °en 4041 9 15 14 tS v., r1 ia 19 20 ?A Zz ?3 Z.4 Z5 ZfPlEAR 4.: A TA'A RATE/ Y f co Y�J Mt] S So ap � �V'®.rte ®e•� I 4® +8� DAME °� 07 0�09 - lEAR t 5 6 7 8 9 10 1t Q- 13 14 15 9, ►7 18 19 w 7-t ZZ Z3 V 25 ?Jh a x t x x w_.' SF's•< �'g r �S�s ^ tip �ti � -Air # { WIN—, .fs..n�°' ., 'a'`'.�.;...i3.. r ``zd r '-T°` r`- r.R?K 3 kfr4Wa., 5 j r r.�" KY�g3?a,*`ua�•-w. aY-K3�" tr, > s< ` , LIBRARY BOARD - SPACE NEEDS III REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA December 8, 1983 -`7:00 P.M. TWALITY JR. HIGH :SCHOOL 14650 S.W. 97th Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 1. Call To Order 2. Roll_Call 3. Space Needs III, Review Committee discussion:' a. Extract of City Council Minutes, November 21, 1983 Chairman 4. Public Commments 5. Process and Timetable: r, a. Memorandum, Chairman 6. Priorities and Criteria, Committee Discussion: a. Staff Comments b. Work Sheets and Application Forms 7. Coamnittee Discussion: a. Space Needs I b. Space Needs II 8. Adjournment (pn/0102p) M. Ra SPACE NEEDS III REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES -<DECEMBER 8, 1983 TWALITY JR. HIGH SCHOOL 14550 SW 97th, TIGARD, OREGON Chairman Walter Munhall called the meeting to order at 7:15 P.M. Madalyn Utz was excused. Peggy Ober" arrived at: 7:35 P.M. All other 'Board members were present:;, Susan Mueller, DickBendixsen, Jane Miller, Dorene Thomas. Chairman Munhall read the extract of the Tigard City Council minutes of November 21, 1983 establishing_ the Library Board as the committee to "review all information to date as well as be free to consider new information." Munhall promised that the Committee would be expeditious, fair and open. Munhall requested audience input from those who had signed up. All declined to speak until later in the meeting. Munhall read a memorandum` outlining his suggested process for the Committee to follow and a tentative timetable for 'accepting and considering proposals, meetings, consultation and final report. There' was _discussion by the Board. Bendixsen moved that the timetable be acceptedas stated in the memorandum. Motion was seconded and passed. J.B. Bishop, audience, questioned who the architect consultant would be and how chosen. Board members indicated that the choice could be made prior to the meeting of December 15, but Chairman would 'check with .staff' to see what the, process and alternatives are. Anthony Maksym, audience, questioned authorship of the packet material that was available to the Committee and audience. Munhall replied that it was the work of Librarian Irene Ertell, Police Chief Bob Adams, himself• and the City Administrator. Maksym then asked if the Library Board was to be the "exclusive" committee to review proposals and recommend to the City Council. Munhall referred to the Council's action on November 21, 1983. Maksym suggested that the Committee should accept any individual, who came forward and offered their views or help, as a member of the Committee. He felt that this was necessary if the Committee wished to maintain its credibility. Bendixsen pointed out that under the process as outlined in paragraph l.b. (5) that the Committee was prepared to incorporate any views and listen to anyone who had an idea. He also questioned having an open-ended Committee. Maksym questioned the Committee's authority to make final decision. Bendixsen pointed out that the Board would only be making recommendations to the City Council who would make the final decision. City Councilor Ima Scott, audience, asked whether or not people were being adequately informed regarding the City's space needs search, especially in light of the December 15 deadline for applications. She asked Munhall about his earlier statements regarding newspaper_ ads to publicize the search. Munhall read from an ad that had been placed in the Oregonian and Tigard Times on December 4. He also stated that he had received many personal inquiries as well. PAGE 1 - SPACE NEEDS III REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES - DECEMBER 8, 1983 .. _$ .. is i _ Munhall asked for criteria input from Police Chief Adams Adams indicated very strongly that any rental option for police 'should be short term and at a conservative square footage. A lease option or bond would be appropriate for long term, considering the costs of buildinga police facility and its inflexible work environment. In answer to questions for Susan Mueller and Bendixsen, Adams indicated that 10,000 square feet was less than the original Space I plan for the Crow site,, but adequate for present planning and current needs. Adams,, in answer ,to Munhall`s question, toldmembersthat the present facility is 1600 square feet. Munhall asked Librarian Irene Ertell to review criteria for the library. Ertell listed as primary concerns: ,'siting - easily accessible by the public, initial need of 9,000 to, 10,000 square feet; 20-year needs' are 18,000 square feet; 'adequate heating and air conditioning; usable, interchangeable space; _ secure books 'drop into building; security for persons and materials; adequate parking'. Ertell also expressed preference for library as part of ,a civic center for sake .of, economy. In answer to Munhall's . questions, Ertell cited 5,300 square -feet as the present space. Following questions from Munhall and Bendixsen, Ertell -cited advantages to civic scenter as a "one stop" for citizens with city and library business, enhanced communication and working relationships with other department, sharing of such things as word processing, security in nearness to police. Ertell assured Committee that initial' 10,000 square feet with room .to expand to 20 'years is adequate planning. Bishop queried Munhall as to when and how criteria =would-' be set to 'satisfy paragraph I.C. and 1.d. of the process concerning submission of recommendations to the City Council. Munhall answered that the ;cork sheets in the packet would help answer that questions. Maksym asked the Committee to consider "tailoring" the space requests for police and library in view of Oregon's diminishing economy, voter's previous refusal of larger facilities and the competency of the police and library staff in being able to operate in 106 and 25%, respectively, of their projected 20-year needs. Bets} Chick, audience, commented that there are limits to maintaining good service provided by competent and well-trained staff in substandard conditions which presently exist in police and library, facilities. She warned against "burn-out" and urbed a '4niddle road" between excessive spare and appropriate care of personnel. There was discussion between Bishop, Maksym and Chief Adams regarding Tigard's growth in spite of state-wide economic downturn. Bishop foresees continued growth for Tigard; Maksym cited WPPS as example of miscalculation; Adams cited Tigard's growth from 15,100 two years ago to today's 18,364. The Committee reviewed the worksheet on square foot requirements and costs �_ c 1n ..d ?11—..n n,- n ;.rtinn in gnn7P detail. Members related t_- thee 5$ v, 2,. »� _J------- questioned how sheets should be used by persons making proposals so that the Committee could do comparisons. It was pointed out that the space requirements on the form were taken from a 20-year space projection chart adopted by the City. Munhall also pointed out that summary sheet would also be a source of information on costs. PACE 2 - SPACE NEEDS III REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES - DECEMBER 8, 1983 ,;,• - 4 i Maksym urged the Board to consider something other than Crow site, considering it to be a "proven lo ,. He also likened consideration of the Crow site to "flogging a dead horse" and "an exercise in futility-" Bibianne 'Scheckla, audience, expressed a desire to see other members of the community on the Review Committee. She also felt that the reason for all the prior failures; of civic center elections reflected people's feeling that the projects were too costly ,and that the Committee should consider the cost of ld suggest as primary importance. Munhall asked if there was an amount she wou ed to name a dollar amount, saying that reasonable. Scheckla ;square declined footage should be a primary concern, but that the Committee needed to come up end. Bendixsen that with a lesser 'cost for whatever they recomm : o o als.ou Maksym the Committee would have to work with whatever came in as prop argued that the cost added by, a bond proposal is measured by its impact with other taxes in place. He also said that, credibility of Committee would be harmed by rehashing same propos and that the Committee must show interest d that economics would be of prime in'saving taxpayers money. Munhall assure ` concern. Ober questioned the present cots per $1000' for city ,space facilities. ; answer being available. Munhall 'referred the Discussion ensuedwithout an question for staff to research. Mueller questioned amours*_ of space for city hall on the work sheet. Discussion ensued re the 20-year needs. Munhall told Committee`members that they would use those figures and match them with proposals best they could. There was also more discussion regarding the summary sheet. It was pouted`out that other papers could be attached by those making Proposals. Councilor Scott asked whether or not the Cocmnittee would "share" all proposals with City Council. Munhall replied that information regarding the his understanding of the City Council posmoton appointing but Committee d tonly was the Coimnittee would review all proposals publicly, recommendations for Council's review and choice. Councilor Scott maintained that Council should see all information received by the Committee. Munhall countered that in that case the Me^ho11dcb nosot need dthat the separate Council delegated Mike Marr, audience, supported ail the research to the Committee and asked them to bring several alternatives to the Council. Bendixsen pointed out that Council could dismiss any recommendations made by the Committee. in the Scheckla recommended that persons making proposals should see materials t r jived any packets. Discussion centered on making sure that applicants information necessary. Committee assured that any information requested would certainly be provided in addition to summary and worksheet in the packet. Maksym suggested copying all summary sheets for Council. Committee agreed to consider suggestion. Bendixsen emph^sized that the Committee was not trying to keepsecrets, but to do the job it was given. Munhall stated that the Co M,itree would do its study, make recommendations and submit with those and materials to the Council for its own study. recommendations all proposals ation of information to garner support for any Scheckla urged wide dissemin proposal that the Committee recommends. DECEMBER $, 19B3 PAGE 3 - SPACE. NEEDS III REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES - Final review of forms by the Committee brought out concerns regarding {Y applicants' responsibilities in filling out ;space :needs cost form and clarification of City Hall space ;needs. The Committee asked that: staff review' applications and try to have information ready for their review at the next" meeting. Adams reiterated his concerns for short term/lung term "space in relationship to rental or 'lease purchase. The Committee discussed altering the form to address this issue and suggested putting in rental or lease/option columns. Ober questioned whether citizens preferred short term solutionover long term. Discussion on what was available and practical was seen as determining factors. Bendixsen; expressed concern that time for submitting applications was inadequate and suggested . that the time be extended: from December 15 to December 19. By consensus the Committee decided to extend deadline for fe applications to December 19, 1983. f There was discussion regarding additional "advertising to solicit; proposals. Suggestions were made by members, of audience regarding places to ;post notices but it was pointed out that time was short for extensive notification. Maksym pointed out that local realtors would be aware of the information already., � Bendixsen` moved that: the worksheet and the, information worksheet`, summary be accepted with changes'`suggested. The motion was seconded and:passed. Gary Ott, audience, suggested that the Committee should establish other site ; selection criteria besides 'cost. He felt that location should be a primary h' r concern. Munhall answered by Exhibiting a 'proposal assessment form which the t Committee would be using to assess all factors relative to recommending a a site. The form will consider all aspects of a site, i.e. affordability, ` adaptability, land area requirements, -longevity,` adaptability to municipal ' services, efficiency, transportation, geographical center location, economic : impact, cultural impact and basic needs of city. Munhall acknowledged that t values placed on some categories would be subjective. i. _ r Munhall stated that Council's charge included a review of past proposals as g well as new. He reviewed the names of persons on original Civic Center (Space Needs I) Committee. Munhall talked about the long hours and hard work of that committee, commending them. He reviewed six properties that the committee had considered and asked for questions. Betsy Chick said that she was aware of credibility problem with the Space Needs I proposals for the Crow Site. However, she stressed that the committee had been thorough, fair and unbiased in considering all proposals. Munhall listed the Crow Site, the Air King and Zoop's as options in the first study with 2 options on the Crow Site. c Maksym stated to the Committee that he was still concerned because it was a °1select committee" dictating an encumbrance on the taxpayers. He maintained r that the 1°decision was not put in tete hands of the ordinary, average taxpayer" and thus the Committee would suffer lack of credibility with the taxpayers of Tigard. Committee members disputed this, with Ober citing the education and average income of Tigard as reflective of the Committee. Don Forrest, audience, made query as to how long there had been a Library r Board and whether any of the present members were on the original Board. The answer was that the Board had been formed in 1972 and that none were original members. He also questioned why the library had been placed in such a poor PAGE 4 SPACE NEEDS III REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES — DECEMBER 8, 1983 facility. He recommended that: police should be placed on land' adequate to ( meet expansion following 'a reasonable start. He also recommended a separate library'',building, with renting city administration facility at present. He also suggested that the committee consider Sears site at McDonald and _Pacific Highway. Munhall related that he had checked out the site, but',was told it was not available. Ober asked Forrest whether he felt decentralization or cost most important? Forrest replied that even if it cost more, he "would go for a free standing library." Councilor Scott inquired regarding the Board's perusal of Fred Meyer trust money. Munhall explained the difficulty of getting private trust money or federal ; grant, monies without matching funds or support. He also explained that a` former :Board member had made inquiries into various foundations. Scheckla' asked about the availability of vacant buildings :in the city, i.e. Park 217. Munhall replied that the'-Park -217 buildings had been investigated and were too large and/or too expensive. Maksym and Bendixsen discussed pros and cons of a civic center versus' a free standing library/community center with Maksym endorsing the latter. "Civic center' leaves me cold." Munhall reviewed Space Needs II. He listed the choices as: the' Zoop ;(Girod) site, the Crow site, the old City Hall on Main, Air King site and Park 217. The Crow site, Zoop's and Air King' were the top contenders. Zoop's failed because of lease' encumbrances and Air King came in too high as ' a build-to-suit. That had placed the Crow site on the".ballot as measure #51 in November. In answer to questions regarding cost of sites, Bishop furnished information: cost of Air King site, 5.1 acres at $750,000; cost of Crow site, 34,000 square foot building on 5.1 acres (2 1/2 usable) at $1,250,000. Maksym questioned why Committee had asked for another appraisal of Crow site and wh4:her this was meant to establish a price for the site. Committee members felt that there was a need for updating the information and that perhaps the appraisal had gone down. Bishop and Maksym disagreed, saying the appraisal had probably gone up. Ober, addressing the audience, asked what people felt was important to consider in regard to costs and decentralization. Ober asked whether decentralization was important even if it cost more? What would pass with voters? Do we worry about costs or do we worry about where each is located? Wyffels expressed view that by keeping City Hall out, "almost anything will fly in this town." He supported rental for City Hall at present; take care of police and library needs first and cost will be lower than the Crow site. He felt that costs could be contained by surveying city-owned property and finding better utilization for some of the land it has. Munhall urged Wyffels to submit a proposal incorporating his claims. Munhall asked for a show of -- hands in audience favoring decentralization and a central facility. The vote was in favor of decentralization. PAGE 5 SPACE NEEDS III REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES - DECEMBER 8, 1983 f Maksym said that he felt effort should be made by the; Library Board for a s f` separate location, "Modest" space claim for 5 years with room for `expansion. He advocated a project to arouse civic pride. He also suggested that the Library; Board had been constrained by the City on the basis of economics, but he felt that there was a "better shot" for just the separate police and ' separate library'`facilities.` S s.. Gary Ott, audience, expressed his concern about location of the library, preferring a downtown location rather than being on the edge of town or in the middle of an industrial park. ` Bishop maintained that decentralization would not necessarily cost more if "you start with what you own," i.e, present police site (recommending also the 5 police and public works) and star small. acquisition of land parcel between Munhall quoted city policy 7.10.1 which recommends that local government and administration facilities should remain centralized in the central business ' district, Voted on unanimously by the present City Council. Discussion also W continued on decentralization versus centralization, with Mueller emphasizing Committee's role to recommend to Council, not decide the issue: F� Ransome Boyce, audience, suggested that the "quantum leaps" in the 'space proposed for various departments was difficult for the public to understand. starting small to reduce initial' He suggested a "plan expansion, concept," costs. Some more discussion on decentralized rather than centralized ensued, with Mueller:sayingthat ,the committee is able to recommend only. However, one of its recommendations ,would be for decentralized. k. Munhall urged people to Ar.-�a� fit_--ead the word."word." In answer to a questions,. Munhall - announced that the Committee would deliberate in open meeting. Meeting adjourned at 9:20 P.M. t i- NOTE: The timetable was later amended to accommodate the December 19 deadline for applications. The December 15 meeting was moved to December 22. ' I (IE:pmf1115A) Irene E. Ertell t t r . E i s PAGE 6 - SPACE NEEDS III REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES - DECEMBER 8, 1983 ("'ITARD LIBRARY PUBLICiPhore 639-9511 12588 SW Main Tigard, Or.97223' TIGARD LIBRARY BOARD - SPACE NEEDS III COMMITTEE' Thursday, December 22, 1983 7:00 PM' Durham Treatment Plant at Hall Blvd. & Durham Rd. 1. Committee First Review of Proposals _ 2. Referral to Architect for Review i l WE RM Space Needs III Review Committee UBRARY PUBLICphons 639-9511Minutes - December 22, 1983 12588 SW Main,Tigard,Or.87223 Durham Treatment Plant at Ha 11 ,Blvd.<& Durham..Road Tigard OR 97223 Chairman Walter Munhall called the meeting to order at 7;10 PM. Madalyn Utz, Dorene Thomas and Dick Bendixsen were excused. Board members present were , Susan Mueller., Jane Miller and Peggy Ober. Chairman Munhall announced that 13 proposals for Space Needs III had been received and that the`Board"would receive further information from persons in the audience who had submitted' a proposal. Persons in the audience who provided information on particular proposals were Bruce Clark for R.A. Gray at the old Air ,King site on Burnham and Hall, Gardner Williamsforthe GTE building at 8205 'SW Hunziker, and Anthony Maksym for the site at 13565 SW 72nd Avenue. Chairman Munhall briefly reviewed all proposals which were not represented at the meeting. He also reviewed the locations on .a map of the city. It was announced that the Board would tour the sites before the January 5 meeting, and that firstrecommendations would be at that meeting. Munhall also announced that Architect Saul Zaik of Zaik & Miller had been selected as the consultant. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 PM. Respectfully submitted, �ti Irene Ertel]. City Librarian t IM MINMEN 11110 (`-19ARD LIBRARY PUBLIC phons 839-9511 12588 SW Main a Tigard. Or.97223 ` TIGARD LIBRARY BOARD SPACE NEEDS III COMbSZTTEE Thursdays 3anuary 5s 1984 t 7:00 PM 6; Durham Treatment Plant at Hall Blvd. & Durham Rd. t 1. Architect's Report E 2. Study & Discussion of Proposals t 3. Referral to Financial Advisor F' t ff' Z E j { { S 4 i F _ e i i f i ENEW41MMM MINUTES LIBRARY BOARD - SPACE NEEDS III REVIEW COMMITTEE JANUARY 5, 1984 DURHAMTREATMENT PLANT HALL BOULEVARD.AND DURHAM ROAD TIGARD, OREGON 97223 s;. Call to Order - 7:05 P.M. iller, Walt Munhall, Members present: Dick Bendixsen, Susan Mueller, Jane Mi Peggy Ober. Absent: Madalyn Utz, Dorene Thomas (illness). Chairman Munhall' announced that the meeting would be different than ;planned in that the -Aichitect, r` Saul' Zaik, would not hand over his findings and ing• Zaik recommendations regarding the Space Needs III proposals at this meet } had 'asked for more time, as well as a chance: to get more information from the Board and members of the public. Zaik's job is to evaluate the proposals on a ` from an Architect's viewpoint. Zaik reviewed his 5 to 10 to 20 year program involvement to date and the' fact ' that he needed more time. fie also expressed a desire to have more information from any proponents of a particular proposal f ch had evolved from the who might be in the audience. He presented S plans whi 13 original submittals. 6 other plans; 1. Currie (Ash Street) evolved from discussion of ans; involves trade or purchase of land (Crow) and realignment of Ash Street to allow s building new Civic Center with Public Works on same site. oot Civic Center on Public Works 2. Sundeleaf - build a new 46,000 square fZaik site, using present police site and adjacent Publico biorkck tog.another x commented that in discussing this site, moving site had been considered. 3. R.A. Gray - Air King - 2 acres with new building for Civic Center, add 1 acre later for a free standing library. 4. GTE - rental or lease/purchase; police and city administration in 12,000 square feet; new library on police site or on the Ruff and Davis lots on Burnham Street. 5. 72nd Avenue - locate city administration, police and Public Works; build library on police site; sell Public Works property. t 6. Sturgis - at Hall Boulevard and Burnham; 5 acres; purchase site and build i Civic Center. E E i z Minutes - Library Board - Space Needs III Review Committee - I/5/84 ;_.. Page,- 2 - t 9 7. Crow/Bishop purchase Crow site; remodel 27,000 square feet; rent out first floor of present area being occupied. 8. Crow/Weigel same plan as Bishor -xcept that it would be on a F lease-purchase. Zaik" observed that city administration, police and library presently occupy 13,000 square feet. He pointed out that ;growth actually needs to occur in first ten years, with an immediate need for 23,000 square feet and in ten years the balance (for a total of 46,000 square feet). Zaik also pointed out athroom facilities and that basic, hard costs occur up front, e.g., storage, b ; other aspects :required by law, and that expansion can come later. He emphasized that building in phases is not incremental, that the largest growth is up front. Anthony Maksym, audience, asked whether Zaik had taken into consideration, d, what the citizens of Tigard are willing to when evaluating the space require pay for, whatthey have voted against and the present climate (of feelings toward this amount of space). Zaik replied that his job was to evaluate the proposals submitted. - Frank Tepedino, ; audience, asked Zaik to summarize his approach regarding criteria and to explain the 1 through 8 priority. Zaik and t members;of the'Board -assured Tepedino 'that ,the numbering was only random, not i a ranking system. Zaik further explained that these were the relevant, viable F options which had emerged from the original 13 proposals. He also explained that he had clone some analysis,; but was not finished and was here to gather more information. ,i.B. Bishop, audience, requested further 'explanation of Currie plan #)l. Discussion ensued regarding the possible land acquisition from Crow and Bishop's adjacent ownership. Munhall explained that the Currie s plan was a result of receiving various information from all the proposals and then brainstorming to come up with a new option There was also discussion � regarding street improvements. Frank Currie, Director of Public Works, pointed out that all proposals included money for street improvements. He f expanded on various possibilities for siting Ash Street. Zaik commented that y he had not studied this particular site as yet. Some discussion also centered { on acreage available in Ruff and Davis lots. Hiliary MacKenzie, representative of Sundeleaf, Architect, gave an overview of the Sundeleaf proposal which would build a 46,000 square foot Civic Center on present Public Works site with Public Works. She recommended centralization as most economical for the City. MacKenzie estimated $45 per square foot as a no frills" building cost. She pointed out that though more money is required up front, it is Most economical to build all space at once since first costs are greatest. She also recommended leasing surplus space until the City requires usage, Frank Currie, Director of Public Works, pointed out that t Public Works could not stay on the site for a long term and that present plans include expansion to Summerlake and Cook Park. He estimated that Public Works could remain on site for 5 years. MacKenzie estimated that project would .cost $2.2 million, with $11,000 for demolition and removal of the structure from public works site and site between police and public works. The MacKenzie-proposed building would be three-storied. Discussion centered on usability, with concensus an Minutes - Library Board Space Needs L11 Keview Committee r. Page - 3 'k practicability Of such a plan. Zaik pointed out that growth of employee force would probably require - 150 parking spaces, instead of 100 proposed in Sundeleaf plan. In discussing plan #2 (Sundeleaf), Zaik proposed moving Public Works to the 72nd site and utilizing the present Public Works site for a city administration, library and police facility. This would preclude buying the small adjacent lot, and the present police site could be sold. Discussion centeredon whether' or not Public Works would be able to fully utilize the space on 72nd. Currie affirmed that they could mak goofuel tanks would be use of the o ideal five space and that the other features, i.e., truck bays, for Public Works. There was also discussion regarding the initial costs for ` new building, as well as 'purchasing the 72nd site for Public Works. Bendixsen pointed out that the initial cost for the new building could be out ntroll d by building only for first "requirements. Zaik agreed, pointing here was room for expansion. Munhall -introduced and briefly reviewed the R.A. Gray proposal in the absence of a spokesperson. Discussion focused on securing` the third acre' `or 'a library in the first phase, rather than waiting and perhaps 'inflating the price. The Board also discussed the desirability of building away from the point" of the property at Hall and Burnham. Munhall expressed; concern over r.. noise from railroad, access from Hall. Boulevard and the industrial area across Fall Boulevard. Discussion also included questions regarding street improvements and traffic Signals. Currie indicated that the same criteria would apply as in any other project and would require improvement on Hall and Burnham. He also indicated that a traffic study would be required to determine need for a signal• if only project were moved further west on Burnham (away from the "point":), frontage on Burnham would have to have street improvement and a traffic study would be done because of increased capacity. Other sites on Burnham (away from Hall) would not require a signal. Bendixsen pointed out that Che proposal included lease an/or purchase. The GTE proposal was reviewed by Saul Zaik. lie commented on need for an elevator and the fact that installing an elevator in an old building is more expensive than in a new building -- $'00,000 minimum with perhaps other code safety requirements. He also emphasized that this would be a decentralized plan and only good for five years. There ware questions regarding the solution, i.e., moving the police or city administration in five that ,years. solChief Adams pointed out at satisfying the reds for a police station would be an expensive remodel cost and, therefo- _-, it Would probably be swer to questions, cheaper to move city administration in .five year . jr, an additional parking Zaik estimated the cost per square moot at $60. Also, cost for space would need to o leased. Zaik pointed out that the ultimate spac site is need per square foot - GTE is $79 - almost the same as downtown Portland. J.D. Bishop, audience, pointed out that the average cost for suburban space similar to this is $50 to $65. Jane Miller asked Chief Adams how the location would serve the police. Adams said that it would serve well Minutes - Library Board - Space Needs L L I Review Committee - 175/g4 s Page - 4 - — L 4 and was on a par with the present Location. Bendixsen asked whether the djacent lot were sufficient for a 10,000 sq present police site and auare foot library with parking= Zaik said he would check, but doubted it. Munhall suggested that Zaik should look at the Ruff and Davis sites in connection with this proposal. 4 Munhall briefly reviewed the 72nd proposal which would place police, city 4 site, sell Works administration and ,Public' Works on that licesiteMillerssugg ested Publicselling property and build the library on the p the police site and building the library on Public Works site and increasing the park area where the flood plain lies. Munhall questioned :whether the 72nd site was 'adequate' for all 'three 'response to a question city departments. In regarding the location for police, Adams indicated that he felt the location was undesirable for administration, as well as police, in that both needed a the p central site. Munhall invited comment. Maksym reviewed how Tigar d had secured space by to Anthony Maksym, sponsorostartingrout sin, the old City Hall, then moving the police (in 1973) to the 100 square feet it presently occupies, and subsequently moving city administration to its present y rented space in the Crow building• He maintained that, the 72nd proposal fits in`with the program Tigard has been living with - "controlled growth". He stated that he believed d and built to that the police ,shount Sa saying that stabthe hewouId underline standards with adequate room form tical�to have �he police and Public Warks adequate". He felt that it was P which Public Warks handles ` in proximity because of the automobile servicing administration as being more for the police. He characterized city 8 an interim "transient" and not too hard to find space for. He suggested as measure placing certain departments of administration in the old City Hall building (on Main Street). He said that the 72nd site fit Tigard's controlled growth, was affordable and offered options. He felt that police and Public Works could be "matched" at 72nd for a long time, with additional parking being available from the adjacent Ford (automobile) delivery yard. He also suggested that future equipment storage could be found at the Washington County gravel pit "just down ;the street". He felt that "we" cannot afford $3.50 - $4.00 per square foot for land which Public Works occupies and that something else should be done with it. lie proposed using the 3rd floor (72nd site) for police with an elevator, claiming that the installation of an elevator in that building still made his proposal cost less than any of the others. He felt that the site would serve well for 10 years and be in line with Tigard's past patterns. He suggested that in 20 years there would be no Tigard, Tualatin and Sherwood, but some sort of consolidation of all services, suggestingthat it will become impossible to maintain all of the separate facilities. He again proposed moving part of city administration back into old City Hall, and in response to questioning affirmed his belief in a decentralized plan with provision first_ for the expensive components such as police and Public Works= He reiterated his belief t e the to thedTsitegarwas the most economical and the proposal most likely to appeal He reiterated his stand that the library should be a separate community facility, detached from politics and something people coupnou h t d get esund l{ orta believed that people are interested in the library but not g PF Civic Center unless it makes sense. �t Minutes Library Board - Space Needs III Review Committee 1/5/84 Page - 5 - 4 Munhall pointed out that dollars could not be the sole determining factor. Discussion followed regarding access to ;police with ' Maksym maintaining that the access is better than present location by using network of highways, i.e., Scholls`>Ferry, Highway 217, 1-5, 72nd. Zaik pointed out that by placing the three city departments in the one location, that it would cost a"lot of money and still not afford more space. Maksym maintained that it had not been established that the space proposed was actually needed. Millerasked whether or not costs were greatly increased through decentralization because of duplication of common features such as rest rooms, computers, utilities. Ober felt that putting the City's office away from the center of town was ,a detraction from Tigard and an inconvenience to citizens. Adams mentioned that railroads would be a factor in Police response time. Maksym felt that response time was not a factor in the location of the station house. He also said that his proposal was not' the rperfect answer, but that it fit the pocket books ;of Tigard. Zaik asked 'about assuming that the library should go on the Ruff/Davis properties under this proposal and the Board said yes. ; Dick Sturgis, architect, representing his mother's property (on Hall Boulevard) commended the Board and urged the Board to take an approach that would reflect the 'same pride in our community which the school facilities project - "Tigard cares He urged that cost not be sole consideration and pointed out that eminent domain can establish a fair price.- He also stressed that a-' fragmented ` approach causes additional costs,' that_ go on and on. He urged one location and spoke about the advantages of park frontage. " Sturgis reviewed plans for Phase I in an initial "foot print" depicting one story buildings for police, city hall and library with room for expansion on the same level. There is room for a future separate meeting hal].. The three main buildings would be tied together with a common covered entry. Ingress and egress would be off of Burnham as well as Hall, easements being available on Burnham. He suggested damming Fanno Creek to create . a water view from the site. Sturgis felt that prior proposals had not excited people, but that this one would. Discussion over costs followed with Sturgis pointing out that their plan was available as an outright purchase of land, a ground lease or build to suit. He used $45 per square foot for library costs, $35 per square foot for police and $40 per square foot for administration, planning 9,000 square feet for library, 6,000 for police and 8,000 for administration. The land was proposed at $4.50 per square foot for a land purchase price of $784,080 and $100,000 for site improvements. There were some discrepancies in Sturgis' figures and he was to correct them and submit later to Zaik. Parking was also discussed and considered adequate. Kay Bates, audience, former resident (member of Sturgis family), urged the Board to offer the community something to be proud of. Recounted embarrassment showing library to a real estate client. Said Tigard had "grown like Topay" and regardless of which plan the Board chose, it should be something people could get behind and that she felt it was important to plan well for the future. - Minutes Library Board Space Needs 1!I Review Committee - '1/5/84 ,.. Page - 6 Further discussion concerned flood ' plain and plans for the park. Currie explained that plans for park development woula "<begin' in the summer of 1984 and be developed as a passive park, left' mainly in the natural state with trails. The HUD 'grant funds being used provide for development , between Ash Street and Hall Boulevard.. Board memberswerealso concerned about facilities across Hall now and in the tuture, regarding parking. Rod Kamamoto, audience, said that the parking ratio was very good.'` Flood plain will preclude further development across Hall. Munhall reviewed the Bishop/Crow proposal in ,the absence of a sponsor. He noted that the public meeting space had been reduced by 1000 square feet and assigned to the library as work area and that the second floor over the administration_ had been 'eliminated. The total price is $2 million`. The mezzanine would be built over: the 'library but not utilize& in the first phase. Bendixsen noted that expansion inside the building was adequate. Ed Duffield, audience, noted that in the Sundeleaf plan, "you would be building what you want instead of a remodel" plus having the 72nd site for Public Works. Munhall noted that one advantage to the Crow site was the mall approach to city government with access to city operations. Munhall assured Maksym that each proposal would be appraised before being submitted to Council. Maksym maintained that Crow has not validated the wl million price for property. Board members maintained that there was an appraisal available which was reliable for purposesof comparison. Bendixsen "averred that Maksym t` underestimated the people of Tigard in that the recent bond election was close enough to indicate that cost was not the sole factor. Zaik pointed out that none of the prices were fixed and firm, "prices were as good as the paper they were printed on Munhall explained that the Crow/Weigel proposal was the same as the Bishop proposal except for financing in that it was a lease/purchase. Munhall and Zaik reviewed the role of Zaik in coming up with comparable costs for all proposals. Zaik also explained the varying amounts of information which he had received. 'Zaik suggested that he would establish an average cost and project it through the various proposals. In response to a question from Tepedino, Zaik replied that his task was to produce a cost package for each proposal, with some recommendations regarding space, esthetics. The Board said that they would consider subjective factors. Munhall announced that the Board would use Zaik's figures in evaluating on Monday might. He also announced that Rebecca Marshall would do the long-term finance report, that the Board would receive the financial report on January 12 and make final recommendations on the 19th. Munhall stressed that all meetings were public. Miller commented that she felt that it was important to present something people could be proud of and supporta The meeting adjourned at 9:35 P.M. Irene Ertell IEE/pn (0165p) _ // MINUTES t, LIBRARY BOARD - SPACE NEEDS 'III REVIEW COMMITTEE JANUARY 9, 1984 DURHAM TREATMENT PLANT HALL BOULEVARD AND DURHAM ROAD TIGARD, OREGON 97223 Call to Order 7:15 P.M. Members present: Dick Bendixsen, Jane Miller, Susan Muellers Walt Munhall; Peggy Ober, Madalyn'Utz. Excused: Dorene Thomas (illness) Walt Munhall "asked Saul Zaik; Architect, to review the projects. Zaik reviewed 'his role in reviewing proposals and sites, and then evaluating sites so as to provide a means fur the Board to do a final evaluation and selection. The primary component in his evaluation was a cost analysis for all 8 proposals. He explained that he used standardized costs and that he projected the first phase in the first five years and the second;phasein the second five years to satisfy the projected 20 year needs. He briefly described each proposal. He explained that the first requirement was for 23,000 square feet in 1984, which was an immediate need. Inasmuch as one could not realistically add 2,000 or 3,000 square feet per year he assumed that the balance (23,000 square feet) would be built in 1989. Zaik's projections: 1. Ash Street proposal - $2,977,228. 2. Sundeleaf - $3,560,228 (to includ 72nd for Public Works). 3. Air acing - R.A. Cray - $3,280,405 (based on purchasing all land). 4. GTE - Rental - $2,963,380 (would have to build 10,350 square feet at the same time to fulfill space requirements, i.e. library on Ruff,/Davis property and eventually building the rest of 46,000 requirement somewhere else. "Rental forever" was possible or a purchase.) 5. 72nd Avenue Site - $3,060,172 (all up front). (Purchase and remodel. Assume 12,000 square feet to be remodeled and then add 16,000 square feet " for expansion. Library at 18,000 square feet. library will not fit on police site, therefore, necessary to build new library on Ruff/Davis site and sell Public Works and police site. Possibly delay, 16,000 square foot addition at 72nd, i- Minutes Library Board Space Needs III Review Committee - 1/4/84 Page - 2 - i` uying only 3 acres (at $4.50 square .feet) 6. Sturgis - $3,413,288 (proposed b i and .building 23,000 square feet immediately and then building additional 23,000 square feet in 1984. Sturgis indicated that it was possible] on a build-to-suit lease option at $6,000 per month. Land lease would be $4,000 per 'month.). 7. Crow option (Bishop and Wei gel) - $2,614,809 (differsin that it's a 27,0 remodel with 6,800 already in office space. Remodel 00 square feet in e feet in 1989. The Weigel 1985 and finish 12,000' squar 'lease-back merely changes the financing.)- There was some discussion regarding Air King site in relation to Tarkanian site. Zaik indicated that the Ruff/Davis 'properties came to about $3.84 per pros and site. foot and Air- King is $3.48 to $3.50. Discussion ensued representative cons P 6 cons regarding the "point of the Air King site.; Bruce Clark, € of R.A. Gray, ' indicated their willingness to use either location (on the "point" or further west) but originally felt thattheCity would prefer access g to Hall Boulevard. Zaik felt that railroad noise was not a p be controlled. Zaik also felt that the industrial area across Hall from the site was not a detraction as far as generating noise and congestion. Zaik ecessary. It was also pointed out pointed out that access on Hall was not n t on Kuff/Davis/Tarkanian was not a that locating on the "point" or further wes cost factor. P Zaik discussed 72nd Avenue regarding the phasing of the 16,000 square foot addition in 1989 and also the addition of 3,000 square feet to the library at that time. This would reduce up-front cost from $3 million to $2 million, with $1 million expansion in 1989 for 72nd Avenue including library. Elevator was included in estimates. (Also included in GTE.) Bendixsen inquired regarding the adequacy of space at the 72nd site. Zaik replied that he was using the City's space projections and without the 16,000 square foot addition f the space would not meet needs. Bendixsen also questioned the cost of rpolice. Zaik did not penalize the 72nd site for some its remodeling for office arrangements. In response to a question, peculiarities" regarding Zaik replied that he used an average figure of $55 Per sgmaintained for her building. Hiliary MacKenzie, Sundeleaf representative, costs were supported at $45. She also asked if consideration had been given out until needed. Munhall to building to maximum need and then leasing pointed out that the City was not interested in leasing in response to voter discomfort in last November's election. Zaik pointed out that all proposals could be built to maximum and leased until needed. It was discovered that no police site had been put into the 72nd proposal. Zaik price for selling the figures. Ober questioned whether or not public said he would do so and revise works would sell; Zaik assumed it would in 5 years. Hiliary MacKenzie offered the information that the demolition and carting rt ng,away costs for present police and public works sites would be approximately MinutesLibrary Board - Space Needs 1II Review Committee - ` 1/9/84 Page - 3 - Zaik felt that the Ash Street and Sundeleaf sites were "off-beat" and undesirable. - He felt ,that the Air King site, moved ,to the west, was desirable. The GTE building is a ,problem because of decentralization. 72nd Avenue ''would .be against best interests' of present programming and would require; continued moving around. The Sturgis property was a desirable location and people could be proud of it. The Crow site is in -a good location, but 'Zaik"had some feelings about' the wall toward the street with its fortress-like" feeling. He felt that Tigard is vibrant, basically commercial and desirable as an industrial area. Tigard, a strong commercial area, ,has proximity to good housing and shopping. He urged getting more 'interest from commercial,people. Zaik favored any of the Burnham locations, i.e., fronting on Burnham. He felt that Ash Street and Sundeleaf sites were too far removed from Burnham, "out of the main track". Discission centered on developments regarding Main Street, the park and Highway 99, as well as the future of business in Tigard. Zaik urged trying to interest businesses like Gerber Blades. Munhall rcommented on various examples of sdisinterest of business development on Main Street. ' Zaik asked if the Board would like for him to redo the 72nd proposal to reflect selling of the police site? Munhall replied ;that he saw no reason to explore it further other than as a Public Works site. Munhall said that he could not vote to put City Hall on 72nd no matter how economical it is. He could not see people taking .pride in a City Hall "clear over' on 72nd. Utz agreed.- Zaik mentioned that the price on 72nd was very reasonable. Anthony Maksym, audience maintained that he didn't believe that cities take pride in their City Halls or police departments. He did feel that people 'take'price' in a library and community center. He felt that buildings should serve a purpose. He reiterated that people would not take pride in a city building ' unless it was a "magnificent structure. Kay Bates, audience, differed with Maksym and felt that people moving in do consider these things. Zaik agreed that a "distinguished" city should have a "distinguished" complex. Bendixsen pointed out that 72nd is an "obscure" site and can never become the center of the city. Zaik discussed the traffic pattern in the center of the city and amount of usage of City Hall for average citizens. Discussion returned to GTE. Gardner William, GTE representative, pointed out that their proposal had only been made for the 5 to 10 Year period in response to City_ inquiries. Bob Wyffels, audience, said that he had submitted a proposal including the GTE building as a 5 to 20 year proposal to give time to make peace in the community. Maksym endorsed Zaik's proposal for a "distinguished" project, but he felt that the square footage requirements needed to be scaled down drastically and an interim solution be made. Then, when Tigard gains in affluence, he continued, i.e. , when Washington Square and Metzger come into the City, a "distinguished complex" would be appropriate, but he doesn't think "we're at that point" and that the Library Board will have to make the decision to cut the square footage. Munhall pointed out that the space needs had been accepted by the Board and the Council. Maksym disagreed. Munhall pointed out that it was "in the minutes Maksym then acknowledged that the space requirements may have been accepted by the Council, but not by the voters. Maksym insisted that the Board must propose j Minutes - Library Board Space Needs III Review Committee - 1/9/84 Page - 4 - something scaled down, something that the voters will accept. Bendixsen pointed out that scaling back had been done;since the first proposals of the first Civic Center and he asked " how far they could go and still be economical. Bendixsen maintained that it was not economicalto 'build something inadequate.' More discussion ensued regarding the 'space needed for; each department in the first phase, as well as pros and cons regarding,buying or renting property at GTE. Munhall asked Chief of Police Adams if he had any 'concerns or input on any of` f the , proposals. Adams had no 'strong feelings; about any of the central r locations. He did feel that it would be advantageous to build to needs rather' € than remodel. Librarian Irene Ertell was satisfied with the choice of E locations,' but was concerned about adequacy` of the space to begin with. She felt it was uneconomical to move everything in another 3 or 4 years.' Bendixsen posed the question to Maksym as to whether or not the Crow site q would be accepted on the basis of merit. No answer. Utz expressed her strong feelings against any short term proposals,' especially ' the GTE building. Discussion ensued regarding long term versus short term and - centralized versus 'decentralized. Further discussion was also concerned with Y cost of buying and remodeling the GTE building. Zaik decided to revise the figures and re-submit tomorrow (January 10, 1984).` : Munhall asked Board members to vote on which proposals to continue studying: i 3p I. Ash Street - questioned acquiring Crow acreage - dropped from l consideration. f i 2. Sundeleaf - continue. } 3. " Air-King, R.A. Gray - away from Hall Boulevard - continue. 4. GTE continued as an alternative to centralization and/or long term { proposals. 5. 72nd - dropped site too isolated. 5. Sturgis continue - good site. c 7. Crow options- continue - to preserve comparability. Bendixsen felt that Crow was questionable to pursue unless the "numbers (costs) were particularly good. j Meeting adjourned at 9:00 P.M. X , Ire E. Ertell ., i TEE/pn (0163p) PuBucUBMWY Phone 639-9511 12568 SW Main•Tigard, Or.97223 TIGARD LIBRARY BOARD - SPACE NEEDS III COMMITTEE Thursday, January 12, 1454 7.00 PM Durham Treatment Plant at Hall Blvd. & Durham Road 1. Financial Report 2. Study & Evaluation of Proposals 1 02! NRIN MIR! I f MINuTFs l . LIBRARY BOARD - SPACE', NEEDSIII REVIEW COMMITTEE JANUARY 12,, 1984 DURHAM TREATMENT PLANT HALL BOULEVARD AND DURHAM ROAD TIGARD, =OREGON 97223 The meeting was called to order at 7:10 P.M. by Chairman Walter Munhall. Members present: Dick Bendixsen, Jane Miller,., Susan Mueller, Peggy Ober and Madalyn Utz. Excused (illness;): Dorene Thomas. Munhall introduced Eric Johanson, financial analyst with Foster and Marshall. Johanson began his review by .going .over the summary table of the Foster and Marshall analysis document. He explained the figures in the table, taking as example the Sundeleaf proposal`. He also reviewed the Air King B page in the summary to clarify particular terms and explain how :the numbers were 'arrived at. Johanson pointed out, in explaining the present value, ,that they had assumed: a 7% interest Yate each year. Mueller questioned GTE's very high total cost. -' Johanson explained that the initial rental cost- caused that. Johanson pointed out that the tax rate for Air King during the first 5 years is exceptionally :low (:19) because of the rental and 'low bond debt for separate library. There was considerable discussion regarding the total bonds in both phases, the total costs, ,interest rates and tax rates. Johanson explained that they had "assumed an annual 10% 'increase in the City's =assessed valuation over the' first' 10 years and 7% thereafter. Mueller asked why the 72nd site total. cost was so high. Johanson attributed that to the higher bonding in Phase I. (The Phase I bonds were $3,100,000; much higher than other proposals.) Johanson also stated that the assumed interest on the bonds is 10%. Munhall reviewed some informal rankings that he and City staff had done (by evaluating the various factors on the summary sheet). The rankings, as read, were: Sundeleaf - 5, Air King (A) - 6, Air King (B) - 3, GTE - 7, Sturgis 5, Crow (A) - 2, Crow (B) -1, Weigel/Crow - 6, 72nd Avenue - 4, rent-as-needed - 7. (#1 was most desirable.) Munhall pointed out that the rental options ranked lowest and suggested that the Board make some decisions on eliminating some of the proposals, reminding them that their charge had been to recommend various types of options. Munhall invited questions from the audience. Frank Teped.ino, audience, suggested that the Committee make its recommendations as to three best choices but also include a rental option for consideration since that is sure to come up. Minutes Library Board - Space Needs IIT Review Committee - 1%12/84 t Page - 2 - Anthony Maksym, audience, raised a question regarding the price of the Crow site. Munhall replied that $l million had been 'quoted, though $1.25 million ` had been mentioned at other times as a possible price. Maksym felt that the report (Foster and Marshall) was not valid if there was no firm price on the Crow options. Bendixsen reminded the .group `that inasmuch as City Council had turned down the Committee's request for a new appraisal, the price of $1 .` million had been used. Munhall- stated .the existing 'appraisal (2' years ` old) was unavailable because it had been checked out by a Council member, but never checked back into City Hall files'. Bob Wyffels, audience, said that the Crow proposal in, the November election: had a tax .rate of "11 cents per thousand. It was pointed out that this had been an average for the 20 year bond. There was discussion among- the Committee members regarding the information on the summary table (Foster and Marshall report). Munhall pointed out if they were able to narrow the choices, it would be possible to have 'Saul 'Zaik, Architect, go over the proposals more closely and have Johanson give the 'Board' more specific financial information. He reminded members that next week they would have to decide on what to recommend. 5 Munhall then announced that he had come up with yet another plan with some very preliminary information supplied by Zaik. Munhall outlined his original plan to include the 'present Public Works property and acquisition of the Davis and Tarkanian lots on Ash. (Both are ,on the market.) Initially, Munhall had considered putting the Library on the Davis/Tarkanian lots, recognizing the support for a separate facility, with Police and City Hall on the Public Works site. (Public Works would remain on the site.) After talking with City staff he decided to present his plan with the Library located on Fanno Creek on the Public Works site with City Hall. The Police Station would go on the a Davis/Tarkanian site with room for a Fire Station in the future. Fire District personnel have expressed a desire to eventually move into that area. Munhall acknowledged that he had only rough figures, but that they were "in the ball park" with the other proposals. J.B. Bishop, audience, asked whether or not the present Police site plus adjacene site wouldn't be sufficient for a new Police facility. Chief Adams pointed out that the increased traffic generated by having the joint facility on the Public Works site would require those sites for public parking. Bishop suggested that the Crow property across Ash Street from Public Works be acquired and used for parking. It is in a flood plain and unbuildable, but could be used for parking with proper contouring and not be flooded. Bishop quoted $2 square foot as the appraised price. Munhall commented that this was much like the Ash Street proposal which had been considered, and "scratched". That proposal. had called for acquiring some of the Crow property and then . realigning Ash Street so as to provide adequate room on the Public Works site . for a joint facility. " 4. t" t 3. 1 f' s Minutes Library Board Space Needs ill Review Committee 1/l2/84 Page - 3 - _ t u Munhall asked the Committee whether they felt his , proposal was worth further i investigation. Board- members ixsenp said expressed concern ft it overthe Cattractivee in that to make it proper considerations. a lot of property- had roperty. had -'the advantage of taking care. of needs without buying acquisition of the There was discussion regarding street improvement, # for decentralization, the extension of Ash properties, offering an option i zrt 1.4 acre). Saul Zaik,' Architect, said that s Street, size of Davis property ( e the Davis property is sufficient for 'Police or Library (no need to acquire Tarkanian)'. ` lic Works om the Further discussion included Director eofiPgthe view of blic Works, explained improving of Ash Library. Frank; Currie, one Street, saying that if the project is on one side of the foot t (frontage)y for side is 'improved. He estimated $125 per property improvement. re away Utz questioned the security ed factor f or the development the Ash Police as as factor i in: the complex. Munhall eliminating "isolation" of the Library. Tepedino, audience, expressed concern over the Committon is available ee's discussion moving toward its focus away from .prof°ittle sals on which much He r commendedthatt the committee bring {' one that has relatively 1 , - ,,the proposals before them with the condition that this new attention to . proposal will be developed and then hisconsideredwith information. over spending time redesigning lied b Zaik regarding his proposal. Zaik Munhall reviewed the. rough data Supp/ y ernes at $350,000, building a programmed the purchase of the Ruff/Davis prop 9,000 square foot Library for $553,000; building a 3,600 square foot Police Station for $221,000; a total of $1,124,000 in the first phase, The City Administration would continue to rent during Phase 1. it was noted that the initial cost was very reasonable and that the total cost was approximately $3,105,000. to er this Munhall asked whether theCommittee omm tteewishedget Zai and cRebecca Marshall wto=analyze explaining that he would b the project and furnish the same information as was available for the other There were comments regarding rental costs and cutting Police proposals. in space. Bendixsen maintained that he was not proposal competitive with others. cut Police space in order to make the prop Miller agreed. Munhall agreed 00 sqand uareed feetforhat he "had in Ad Administration mind 12,000 square feet for Police, , . His total estimated cost, to include square feet for the Library $2,065,500, property between Police and Public Works said ttle hsaid his figures included fees, excluding fees, utilities, etc. Za utilities, landscaping. The Committee decided have Zaik and all locationZe and thea Poexpressing Police square ( < concern over brae line, footage- Iggs 1 ,MAI 1: 121aii! MEs Minutes Library Board - Space Needs 111 Review Committee ' - 1/12/84 Page - 4 - Bishop asked how soon bonds could be sold after voter approval in March. Johanson estimated 1 to 1-1/2 'months, There was also some discussion of possible dates in May and June. Maksym objected to the validity of the financial figures 'based on the nebulous purchase prices" on a 'number of the properties under consideration. He felt that there was no accuracy in the analyses where prices had not been established. Munhall asked the 'Committee whether or not they wanted to have appraisals on the proposals : being; considered. Bishop explained that ordinarily appraisals are not sought until a specific, piece of property is being sought, :the cost usually, being $1`500 to $2000' per appraisal. Ober expressedher comfort with dealing .with the current information. Miller: agreed. Maksym;suggested that the Committee needed an "option" rather than an appraisal, explaining that appraisals are "estimates of value'." and that options are what are needed, i.e. , an offer as to ;what the owner is willing to sell for. Maksym further explained that options are as cheap as $1. Tepedino stated that he ,felt that though; the Committee was working with figures that were not firm", they were working within: the 'City Council's charge to go ahead "the best- you can" with the best' data available. He felt that it would' be reasonable,to limit the choices given to Council and then suggest getting appraisals on those few pieces, rather than stopping everything' to request appraisals now on the number of proposals before: them. Bendixsen reinforced r` that view saying that he felt the figures had been given in good faith and t reiterating that the Committee was only recommending to Council. T'epedino also pointed out that since all this information was being publicly discussed' that owners have an obligation to come forward and correct numbers that are "way off". k Munhall asked the Committee to evaluate each proposal, using the Municipal Facilities Proposal Assessment. He listed the categories: cost, adaptability (future needs), land requirements, longevity, adaptability to municipal services, efficiency considerations (single vs multiple buildings), structure (concrete, metal, wood), transportation system, center location, enhance economic revitalization, enhance cultural qualities, enhance community spirit and image, meet basic community needs. (Each category was weighed 1 through 5, 5 being the most desirable.) The Committee decided not to consider cost in view of uncertainty over some of the figures. The totals were: Sundeleaf 51.8; Air-King - 54,8; CTE - 26.8; Sturgis - 57.4; Crow (Bishop) - 47.4. The Committee emphasized tha-this was a subjective evaluation to try to determine i the most "attractive*'. The Committee spent time discussing on what basis they should make their p recommendation to City Council, There were comments regarding the various categories, i.e., rental, bonds, lease options, build to suit, which the Committee had been asked to decide. Munhall, addressing Hiliary MacKenzie (the Sundeleaf representative) explained that their proposal had come in high on the analysis because through { miscommunication, the acquisition of 72nd for Public Works was in the 6th year l Minutes - Library Board - Space Needs LIL Review Committee - 1/L2/84 Page - 5 - instead of immediately. He asked Johanson to re-run the Sundeleaf proposal ' with that correction. More discussion ensued regarding ,how many sites should ba recommended to City : Council. Munhall reiterated his request for Johanson to re-analyze the Sundeleafproposal and his proposal. For the record, Munhall read off appraisals: City Hall (Main Street) - $130,000; Pinebrook lots - $25,000. He suggested that the figures can be used later to offset costs. Bishop pointed out that the prices, though reasonable, would probably not be ;paid in a lump sum. Munhall queried the Committee as to which sites (according to category) they, wished to carry over, listing GTE as "the Library 'Board rental choice"; Sturgis, Air 'King and Sundeleaf as : the "build-to-suit"; and Crow as the "bond". Bendixsen questioned the -build-to-suit" category. - Bishop suggested- that "build-to-suit" is a rental and that bond is actually being considered for all except GTE. The Committee decided to differentiate Crow :as a' "remodel" and the others as "new construction". Tepedino suggested that the' Committee, -using' the data it has, come up with the best 3 choices for 'recommending to City ` Council, even if they are more expensive, but alsogive them other alternatives to consider. Bendixsen pointed_ out that space is the only ,factor to be used to cut the costs. Tepedino `suggested that might be a good ' point for negotiation. Munhall' ®ointed out that the "cheaper way" is to build everything at once instead of piece by piece because of rising costs. Tepedino urged the Committee to take an analytical approach with the Council and to point out practical considerations. He cautioned that the Council should not be asked to do the analysis - they have asked the Committee to do that. The meeting adjourned at 8:25 P.M. Irene—t.- Ertell IEE/pn (0178p) €ham 639-9511 12568 Sal Main-Tigard. Or.97223 TIGARD LIBRARY BOARD - SPACE NEEDS III COMMITTEE Thursday, January 19, 1934 7:00 PM Durham Treatment Plant at Hall Blvd. & Durham Road 1. Final Presentations on Proposals 2. Financial Report FF 3. Final Comments from Public 4 4. Board Recommendations 115 BOB NMI E01011 .K MINUTES + TIGARD LIBRARY 'BOARD - SPACE NEEDS III REVIEW COMMITTEE' JANUARY 19, 1984 DURHAM TREATMENT PLANT HALL BOULEVARD &DURHAM ROAD Chairman, Walter Munhall, called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M. Members present: Susan Mueller, Jane Miller, Peggy Ober (arrived at .;7:10 'P.M.), Dorene Thomas, Madalyn Utz. Dick Bendixsen, excused (out of town). Munhall read the most recent appraisal on the Crow site, as reported by Harold F. Meyer and Associates, Inc. , -dated ''July - 27, 1981.s The amount is a $1,175,000.00. Munhall also quoted $130,000 as the appraised value for old City Hall on Main Street, and $25,000 for the City-owned Pinebrook lots. Munhall reviewed the City survey results which were published in January 1983, in which respondents replied 413 "yes", 1229 "no" to supporting a separate Library bond levy; 548 "yes", 1050 "no" to a separate Police levy; and 912 "yes", 819 "no" to a Civic Center bond levy,. Munhall ,announced that the Committee would be narrowingits choices for recommendation to City Council in: the categories of a rental/bond, new construction'and remodel. Eric Johanson, from Foster & Marshall, reviewed the latest financial report, using Zaik's revised comparison costs and including the Ash/Burnham proposal which had come from the previous meeting. Johanson explained that a further change from the first report showed that the City would purchase the GTE site in year 5 with a 20-year bond which would essentially create a third phase. Several members of the audience questioned the figures which Zaik had presented and thereby questioned the validity of the financial report. Munhall pointed out the Zaik figures had been applied to each proposal so that a comparison could be gained, emphasizing that he, too, recognized the "weakness" in the figures. Munhall urged the proposal sponsors to have firm numbers available so that City Council would have that information when it studied the Committee's report. Munhall announced that the Committee would like to hear from sponsors of proposals as a recap and to furnish any new information. Munhall presented the Ash/Burnham proposal, showing a "footprint" with the Library and City Hall located on the Public Works site (with Public Works remaining) and the Police located on the Davis property on Burnham Street. This plan would require purchase of the lot on Ash Street between Public Works and the Police site and purchase of the Davis property for a total cost of $3,033,900. This would be in two phases. Discussion followed pertaining to �\ the placement of the Library and Police. It was pointed out that placing the Police on the Davis site would fit well with a future fire station on the adjoining Tarkanian lot. Putting the Library on the Public Works site would take advantage of the park area as an aesthetic feature. There was also Minutes Tigard Library Board - Space Needs III Review Committee - 1/19/84 F' Page 2 - discussion regarding public works needs. Frank Currie, Director of Public Works, pointed out that the Public Works operations would probably ,be able to remain on the site for 5 years only. Millersuggested securing the Tarkanian lot for expansion of Public Works. Currie said he preferred a central operation and also questioned whether that was the best use of the land. i Further discussion concerned parking which was designated on the Police site and :the acquired Ash Street lot. A suggestion was to acquire some of the 'Crow property acrossAshStreet. One comment concerned the community's 'reaction to this use of designated park space. Hilary MacKenzie, representative for Sundeleaf, presented that proposal. She reviewed the„plan to -buy the Asir` Street lot 'between Police and Public Works, using it and the Police site for parking. Police, City Administration and the Library would be built on the Public Works site, with Public' Works remaining on the site initially. Discussion concerned how to treat Public Works relocation in 5 ,years. MacKenzie expressed the opinion that the 72nd site was too -large; for Public Works and that $700,000 was too expensive for that kind of operation. MacKenzie also reiterated that the : true 'cost ,for her proposal- was $45 a' square foot which would reduce the cost of her proposal from those figures used by Zaik. Police Chief Adams pointed out that the average cost for 'a Police facility is higher. MacKenzie acknowledged that the cost for Police was higher and that $45 is an average. i Bruce Clark, representative for R.A. Gray & Company, reviewed the proposal for the Air 'King site. He felt that in averaging the costs for the various sites ' that criteria had been overlooked. He reviewed the criteria and compared his s proposal to those requirements, i.e. , location, accessibility, usability. He emphasized that the Air King proposal would offer a building that would last a hundred years, and would have low maintenance, noise control and expandability. He offered $3,002,740 as the firm price for two structures, totaling 45,200 square feet on three acres. In answer to a question by Mueller, Clark affirmed the $3,002,740 as a "firm price". In the discussion k which followed, Clark pointed out that the buildings could be located "on the point" at Hall and Burnham, or further back and that further development in j the area would be commercial/professional office space, whether or not the City "goes in". In liscussing the noise from the railroad, Clark assured the Committee that the noise could be handled with a blank wall and appropriate i landscaping. f Gardner Williams, representing GTE, also expressed concern over Of "numbers issue", feeling that it has clouded the issue". He pointed out that the GTE building can be an interim proposal, as well as a firm proposal with a lease or a sale price, all negotiable. He emphasized thaT the GTE building would be appropriate for the Police for twenty years if the City chose to decentralize. He further stated that the building is available on 5, 10, 15 or 20 year lease options and that his client, GTE, was willing to accommodate the City. (The GTE building does not address library space needs.) Discussion which ensued expressed approvalof the building as an interim measure for City Administration and Police and a long term solution for Police or Administration. Other points discussed -included whether or not Police would need all the space in GTE (as a sole occupant) and where would Public Works -locate if Police and/or Administration were eventually moved to the Public Works site. One suggestion was to split Public Works administrative M 11 Q it Minutes Tigard Library Board Space Needs III Review Committee - 1/19/84 (' Page - 3 - space and ;place :engineering in old City Hall, on Main Street. The suitability of the ;space was questioned. Williams observed that if the City 'decides to pursue a -centralized facility, the GTE rental could solve the immediate problem. Dick Williams, representing the Sturgis site on Hall Boulevard, reviewed his proposal stating that the one-story building could be built for $45 a square foot or less. He presented a plan for a 46,000 square foot building costing $2,070,000 plus three acres of land for $588,060n and site improvement for $50;000. - Phase I of this proposal would cost $1,674,000. He reviewed the ' site with pictures, ,pointing out desirable features. Points of discussion concerned easements for access to Burnham, which Sturgis had discussed with adjacent property owners, ;and improvements 'required on Hall Boulevard. There" were favorable; comments regarding the proximity to the park and the senior center. Ralph Appleman, architect, reviewed the remodel proposal for the Crow site. He`,`pointed out the changes from his original proposal which eliminated the mezzanine for the Library on the first floor. City Administration would occupy all present ,space and then less space in the present warehouse area. The meeting room would accommodate 98 persons. The Police would` occupy two floors for a total of 10,000 square feet. He gave the total price as $2,283,000 for 48,786 square feet at $50.36 per square foot, with no Phase Il: required. Discussion was concerned with heating the two story ceiling area of the Library, desirability of building, outside the original building for extra Library space rather than building a mezzanine which would require an elevator and the placement of the Police exit way. Appleman pointed out that one of the reasons for his lower cost was programming the entire project at once with no later phasing required. Recess: 9:00 P.M. 9:05 P.M. Munhall read a letter from Tigard Municipal Court Judge, Anthony Pelay, Jr. , outlining the present and future space needs for the Municipal Court. Librarian, Irene Ertell., presented the schedules for City Council, City Boards and groups who also require meeting space during a month's time. Discussion focused on other community groups, e.g. , Tigard Garden Club, who require meeting space. anthony Maksym, audience, questioned pricing for Police and Public Works sites (if sold). Munhall pointed out that the Police site price was based on the price for the adjacent lot which is near the same size. Munhall had no answer for the price given for the Public Works site. Munhall introduced a chart that he had devised 'which used $2.2 million as the amount available to build under the various proposals for a 10-year solution with 33,500 square feet. A 7-1/2-year solution with 28,250 square feet and a third alternative, building 25,000 square feet, were also presented to show lower initial costs for various proposals. Discussion concerned the fact that reduction in initial square footage does not reduce long-term costs, that more money would be needed within 10 years. Sturgis suggested that the Committee get "new numbers" on proposals before taking them to City, Council. Gary Ott, audience, suggested that the "equitable way" might be to ask for. a $2.2 i � a Minutes Tigard Library Board Space Needs III Review Committee` - 1/19/84 _ k ' Page 4 - k million bond levy a then go into a bid process to see what <various bidders might offer for that sum. Maksym suggested that ,the Committee submit these alternatives to City Cou_1ciI- More discussion ensued regarding , the 4 feasibility of reducing footage, political climate, cost considerations and ' Frank Tepedino, audience,: suggested what will best suit the City needs. cutting footage ,in order to "make an 'airplane" that will fly'. He also urged the Committee to "call it as you see _it", but to offer alternatives to the City Council. Discussion then followed on the subjective criteria for the various proposals. Munhall closed off audience comments and announced that the; Committee would make its choices for the categories to be considered;; by City Council. He withdrew his proposal for the Ash/Burnham sites. - For the rental/bond choice, ` ITE rental for :Police and City Administration and the Committee designated the site. As the re - a bond to build the Library on the Davis model choice, the Committee designated the Crow _proposal, to buy and ' finance with a :bond. Choices for nese construction to be financed by- a bond were ranked in the following order: First - Sturgis; Second -lSundeleaf; Third Air 'King. As a fourth <choice, the Committee decided to ind-cats its choices for a straight build-to-suit lease. " Siurgis was first choice and Air King was second. Prior to- ranking the new constructianproposals, ,members of the Committee discussed the pros and cons of each one in some detail. Location, cost, access, noise, revitali' ation of the area were all considered. Munhallthen asked the y Committee if it was ready to decide on one proposal as their prime recommendation to City Council. ' By consensus, the Committee declined to make one choice. Utz had commented that all proposals were well done and "in the same ball park" (financially) and so she would recommend sending only the categorized choices. Ober requested that persons in the audience inform others about the need for space and urged people to support Council's decision. Munhall announced that the Committee would meet one more time before presenting the report to the. City Council on January 30. This meeting was announced for 6:30 P.M. at fowler Junior High on January 30, 1984. :Munhall expressed his thanks to members of the public, City staff and Committee members for all their input and participation. The meeting adjourned at 10:05 P.M. Irene E. Ertell IFF/pn(0210p) l ' a w x � r sr s VINg �s t5 r € z E e =s$i t 4c �A, c ua st i 1 s e Dt p�3aY `mg 'x b7{ rt xa u I vt t�N T r�k w t ar tom} c Y b �' -: s- •*u �z3;wt� - m.:'. xc,m3 •�*�_�, ,�.}.c M E M 0 R A N D U M December 8, 1983 TO Members, Library Board — Space Needs III Review Committee 9 FROM: Walt Munhall, Chairman SUBJECT: Process and Timetable for Space Needs III 1. Process: In order to accomplish the task delegated to us by the Tigard City;Council as expeditiously as possible, I,propose that we establish a process as follows: a. Technical information and assistance regardingspace allocations and criteria be provided by the Chief of Police, Bob Adams, and the Librarian, Irene Ertell. Assistance will also include administrative support for meetings, i.e. , agendas, notices and minutes, as well as receiving materials from the public, preparing it for the Committee's study and formulating the reports and recommendations of the Committee. b. The Committee will categorize each,proposal as follows: (1) Rental only, for all depatments. (2) Library bond, with rental for Police and Administration. (3) Build to suit, lease or lease-purchase option. (4) Bond election (for a Civic Center or decentralized) (5) Other proposals which do not fit the above categories, but also meet the criteria will be considered. c, The Committee will select no more than the three best from each category for final review and selection by the City Council. d. The Committee will submit its selections to the City Council with its own recommendation for the best in each category. e. A schedule of public meetings should be decided upon and published.. I suggest each Thursday through December and January, excepting December 22 and 29. f. I recommend that this Committee request funds for arr_hitecturel technical assistance. g. I recommend that this couramittee request funds as needed for appraisals of Preliminary Final Selections h. I recommend that this Committee request funds for a financial reviewofPreliminary Final Selections. SIZEs Members, Library Board - Space Needs III Review Committee Process and Timetable for Space Needs III December 8, 1983 Page - 2 - 2. Timetable: The following timetable is recommended in the interest of having a thorough and comprehensive report in to the City Council for theirconsideration on 'January 30, 1984: *12/8/83 - organizational meeting: public in-put, criteria and process 12/9/83 Specification sheets and applications available at City Hall and the Library *12/15/83 Cut-off for applications and first review by Cocmri t t ee 12/19/83' - Request to City Council for money ;for architectural technical assistance and financial consultant review 12/20/83-1/5/84 Architect/Staff review of all proposals *15/84 Committee review of proposals *1/12/84 f Committee preliminary final selections 1/13 - 1/18/84 - Financial Consultant review *1/19/84 - Committee final review and recommendations 1/20/84 - =- Committee report to word processing and;press release 1/23/84 - Report available from word processing 1/30/84 City Council special meeting to receive 0?mmittee report x Indicates Regular Committee Meeting It should be noted that in order to place an issue on the March 27, 1984 ballot, the filing deadline is February 22, 1984. WM/pn(0103p) POLICE FACILITIES LOCATION FACTORS I . CONSIDERATIONS . ' A. MAXIMUM ACCESSIBILITY TO AREA BEING SERVED ` .1. Public convenience 2. Central location to area served 3. Central to othermunicipal facilities, courts, meeting facilities, etc! 4. Adequate ground space for expansion, and off-street parking for future needs. 5. Designed for future needs. (Police Administration, O.W. 'Wilson, 2nd edition; and Police Administration, `Wilson/McClaren, 3rd 'edition) B. POLICE DEPARTMENT'S PHYSICAL LOCATION SHOULD BE AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE TO THE CENTER OF OPERATIONS. 1. The work center of police activities, as determined by research, is the desirable spot .for headquarters. (Municipal`Police Administration, 5th edition) C. LOCATION SUMMARY: (Bureau of Operations and Research/International Association of Chiefs of Police) The site should be located somewhere near the geographical center of the city or in an area favoring the apparent growth direciton of the city. Some cities are growing rapidly in a given direction and on a long-range projection, this should be considered. Several factors should be taken into consideration when selecting the site including location, available land area, configuration, and relation- ship of the site to major arteries and main highways that extend through- out the area. Primary consideraiton should be given to the selection of a site that will provide maximum accessibility to the community being served. The facility should be as close to the centers of business, industries, schools, welfare agencies, and the courts as circumstances permit and in an area which can be served by public transportation. Not only will this facilitate the use of such resources, but problems in staffing are simplified when there are not tiring and complicated daily trips to and from the facility. 0 Residents can best be served by the central location of all criminal* justice components and activities in a centralized design concept. A location in the "activity center" of the community is a definite asset to the police department concerned with developing strong citiz n support. 21.` t SQUARE FEET � POLICE DEPARTMENT 100 } *Police Officer 150 � ' *Administrative Secretary 150 Community Officer d00 `Clerk/Dispatcher (4) 200 Chief's Office 200; Lieutenant's Office 600 Conference/Prisoner LineuplMulti-Purpose 420 Crime Analysis 300 Detectives Office 375' Division Commander's Office 200 Equipment Storage 400 S.I. Room 650 Squad Room Male 300 Female 160 Shower Room Mate 80 Female 500 Physical Fitness ROOM 240 Briefing Room 200 patrolDivisionCommander's Office 500 Records Room 150 Supervisor's Office300 Communications Center 200 Police Library. 225 Report Writing Room 350 Records (Microfilm) 430 Supplies 430 Evidence/Property 200 1,440 Recommended not on premiseE Armory Firearms Range 250 Equipment Room 480 Holding Cells 180 Prisoner.Booking Room 300 Interview Rooms 575 Exterior space Prisoner Dock 380 Reception Area 400 *Conference Room Circulation/Mechanical/Janitorial/Resi:•rooms 1,241 13,656 TOTAL: 48,16 GRAND TOTAL: Added to department's estimate of need t *Changed, from department's estimate =m"A qARD PUBLICP 639-9511 12568 SW Main•Tigard, Or.97223 MEMORANDUM November 18, 1981 TO: Civic Center Development Committee 4 FROM Tigard Library;Board ' SUBJECT: Library Building Criteria After careful consideration and discussion, and following consultation with representatives of other library districts, the Tigard Library Board respectfully submits the following criteria for a new library for the City of Tigard: 1. Siting a. The library should be located in order to reflect that ,most library activities and pursuits are literary, cultural, and esthetic and the environmentshould foster and encourage,these pursuits. b.` The building must be efficient and flexible, to meet changes in needs and technology. c. The site should be within an area commonly traversed by patrons and away froms noisy locations such as afire station. 2. Size and configuration a. The library should have at least 12,000 square feet of usable area, preferably on one floor. ` b. The :space should be essentially rectangularsand approach a square in proportions. C. Provision should be made for future expansion to'a minimum of 202000 square feet. 3. Access a. Adequate and safe foot passage should be provided. b. Public transportation should be readily available. C. Easy_auto entry and exit should be provided along with adequate parking. d. Handicapped persons should be adequately provided for. 4. Liveability a. Adequate heating, air conditioning, and ventilation should be provided. b. All areas should be properly illuminated for their intended uses with some provision for natural light. c. Sanitary, maintenance, rest, and conference space should be separate and adequate. d. Alternate energy systems should be incorporated. 5. Esthetics a. The exterior of the building, should be esthetic-illy pleasing. b. The library should look like a "library". C. Landscaping should be attractive and relatively care free. d, interior decoration and furnishings should be tastefully chosen and arranged. 6. Security a. ;-adequate fire and access alarms should be provided. b. Emergency access and exit should be considered. p C. Passage to employees parking .should be exposed and illuminated. ` d. The book drop should be incorporated in the building so that returns will go ` into the building. e. Patrons and staff should be visible when approaching and entering or leaving the building. r W MIN Em mm INEMMEMMIES LIBRARY SQUARE FEET Reference 1,150 Quiet Area 500 Adult Reading/Stacks 6,000 Audio-Visual/Periodicals 1,000 Young Adult 1,000 Children's Library 2,000 Entry & Exhibit 500 Service Desk 800 Work Room 1,400 Librarians' Offices/Small Conference Room 1475 Staff Room 270 Rest Rooms 500 0 Janitor's Space 200 Meeting Rooms (2) 500 - 1,500 City Archives 200 Dead Storage/Utility; Room 1,000 TOTAL: 18,895 CITY HALL Executive City Administrator 300 Administrative Secretary 200 Administrative Aide/Assistant (2) 250 Council Chamber 2,500 #Jury Room 250 } *Judge's Chambers 200 *Court Administration 200 'Attorney 200 #Secretary/Reception 200 Finance , Finance Director 250 Administrative Secretary 200 Accountant Sr. 200 Accountant 1 150 Billing Typist (2) 200 City Recorder 125 § Administrative Secretary 125 Clerk II 80 Clerk II 80 Clerk II (Bldg. ) 80 Billing Typist 80 Vault 80 `Conference Room 225 1 Computer 300 *Reception 300 - "Added to Department's estimate of need O-Changed from Department's e timate r I : i CITY HALL (Cont. ) Non-Departmental Square Feet :;Cashier -- 150 Information Specialist 125 (^ Computer' Programmer 0 5 Data Entry Operator (2) 30 30 }Conference 00 200 0 *Copy Center 250 Reception 200 Mail Room Planning, Building, Public Works 250 Planning Director 150 Assistant Planner Clerk II ( -5) 100 100 Code Enforcement Officer Building Official 150 Chief' Plans Examiner 150 Building Inspector (2) 200 Clerk Il 100 Code Enforcement Officer 100 Public Works Director 150 Clerk II 100 Clerk I1 100 Engineering Superintendent 150 Engineering Tech. 1 (3) 300 Engineering Tech. II (3) 300 Engineering Tech. II1 (1) 100 Conference -Room 225 *Conference Room II 150 *Conference Alcoves (2) 100 *Vault 150 Drafting Area 300 Storage, 600 *Paper Storage 100 *Reception 300 Urban Renewal Agency *Staff (3) 450 *Secretary 150 Circulation/Mechanical/Janitorial/Restrooms 1,340 TOTAL: 14,745 GRAND TOTAL: 47,296 *Added to Department's estimate: of need O-Changed from Department's estimate SPACE NEEDS III 5-YEAR 5-YEAR 10-YEAR 10-YEAR 20-YEAR 20-YEAR MEASURE X151' REVIEW COMMITTEE NEEDS NEEDS NEEDS NEEDS NEEDS NEEDS CROW BLDG. WORKSHEET PER #1.1 PER L.B. PER #1.1 PER L.B. PER #1.1PER L.B. PLANNED LIBRARY: S.F. 9,000 15,000 18,000 11;000* a (Net) $/S.F. 7.18 $/Yr. 81,046 l t' ------------------------ POLICE:" S.F. 6,000 8,500 13,500 10,500 r (Net) $/S.F. 7.18 $/Yr. 73,390 ---------------------`-------- ----- CITY HALL: S.F. 8,000 12,000 14,500 7,000 `(Net) $/S.F. 7.18 $/Xr. 50,282 — ----------------=— € . PUBLIC: S.F. In Above In Above in Above 7,000 slance) $/S.F. 7.18 �. $/Yr. 50,282 t --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E, FACILITY. S.F. 23,000 35,500 46,000 35,500 : SUB TOTAL: $/S.F. 7.18 $/Yr. 255,000** , --- ---------------------------- -------------------- -------------------------------As Is As Is {y{{ OTHERS: Shops As Is As Is � Court Church.. Church.. Church.. In Above.. Mtg.Rm. School.. School.. School.. In Above.. Moving * O.T.O. Misc. 06M.. OEM.._, ODM.. N/A Cl - -------------------------- ------ TOTAL: $/Yr. N/A N/A N/A 255,000 NOTES: *Average $25,OOO/move or $5,000/Year on 5-Year cycle. (10 + Year) *Addition contingent upon sale price (10 + Year) **Assumes rental reduction. . . Year 5 10 requires completion of 2nd .floor or use of rental offices. . (pn/0104p) s . CATEGORY: SPACE NEEDS LII PROPOSAL INFORMATION WORKSHEET SUMMARY (e1Cy use only) k NAME: ADDRESS: t TELEPHONE: F DATE: ° s 3 1. Suggested Site: (Must be within City of Tigard). A. Address: B. Description of Property: 1. Acreage• 2. Square-Footage-ofBuilding/Buildings: - E 3. Present or Proposed-ingress/Egress: i x- e 4. If parking area is in place, how many spaces: C. Availability: Z- 1. Present encumbrances, i.e., existing leases, dual ownership, etc. s 2. Estimated purchase price 3. Use attached worksheet for rental, lease estimates. D. Suggested use of property/buildings (indicate 1 or any combination): Civic Center with Police, Library, Administration Decentralized facilities t Police and Administration Police and Library Library and Administration l e Police only Administration only 5 Library only Other (describe) ADDITIONAL MATERIALS MAY BE SUBMITTED AND ATTACHED TO THIS WORKSHEET SUMMARY. --------------------------------------------- NOTES: (City Use Only) a � o o N a o = > 0 N N o a 7 0 $ O C r P N N t r <_ Opp O Opp O O Q O O OIO O d Ov It 0 0 0$._ 0 0 0. o oo•, ,00, ,oan v uooi `� .o n �' W o o o .00n ^`p^ " _ #P ... ,o„ mom v, mN o `^ oo, N -- � rm cr G •O c u..i - ` P G O �. $ �� ®H O O^ a � e e•1 x� N r P .-. O e �� V O r Ut r m Yr O r N6.IH M c� zld $ amu 8 �� o�g. 0 000 Y I ��IO .O.OI CJ O •I� � p �'f _ r .D -'r� Vr ��r- .O Om P m. O ••I.n O.1 rly� H.r� - � O E V r� 4 � • r r �D P N n O O i 2- h q ooS i> m u o 0 81 C; $ Z LL • �NI a µ• VIN < J N N S a C Z <_r a t7 V C 6 Clr V x r o a d V GJ V tl i i i ' 1 ..---------- CD f; , f C4 z �' F q Al e9 yY�� croF �a u.!:C112, .V q 0.nAv � i I> DATE trinNsuEsl;Hte•I Il .Lass Puy — ._ _ — LINES All E AD AOIVS? 'b�S RnR CM nit6t �,, ,IniE Lr.anGE R nAwAlyr. I I I II l t 1 I t I i i 1 I 1.201' THr: CITY 'IH t71 ;. 1: i 3 i 1 2. 37.70 1 t3 ?7.7 1 I I I k 710') tir7t rX1 1 I t rl -.I i 1 : z• 1 S I I i 1 1 I ..ODES . _ 3 7 p/ 1 . .S x FER CMA 6114 CREDIT" REFUND FER CHARGE ORAE9iT G!RATF?ADJUSTMENT TOTAL LINES PAPER THIS STATEMENT O`�OREGONIA+N ESUp:{DJU57"ARENT r MJSC ADJUSY,4ENT ! BJE,�TTO, AF�NED i;ATESA6,yAdJ$GOU 'T.§L.. ' d4- IAN PUBLISHING COMPANY CONTRACT INFORMATION 4221 PORTLAND,OREGON S 97203 PAPER EXPIRES SIZE CONTRACT Y.T.O.LINES TIi;ARl CITY n =lI �SZb �1y� f d . 0 ACCOU--,i--T4.D 6 ADVERTISING DUE AND PAYABLE °N RECEIPTOF THISSTATEMENT. i AP€iROPR3ATIOtd'RALANCE �3Amount / Initials Til U i APPROVALS: ^ °ION MANAGE R (Less than $lash �-- UEPARTMENT HEAD CITY 1DP5PISTRfT0 _-_-_ ------_- ACOUtG PURPOSES ONLY --- --------------- _- -- ----- --- Checked Arl Paid _ 777777777 M E 0 R'.A N D U M December 9, 1983 s i n , c TO: Those` Submitting Facility Space Needs Proposals r -s FROM: Library Board / Space Needs III Review Committee SUBJECT: Submittal of Proposals The Tigard Library Board has been asked by the City Council to act as a Review Committee for the City's Space 'Needs : III Study., The Library Board/Review Committee will consider any proposal which 'meets the City's Library, Police and/or City Hall office space needs. The City Council has asked for a report on January 30, 1984. Proposals at this stage should be complete enough for preliminary feasibility ` evaluation. All proposals must be submitted in writing on the attached form. The Head Librarian, Police Chief or Public Works Director may be contacted for further information. A site rap is preferred. Additional materials may be attached to the application form. Formal' bids` under Oregon law may be required later prior to final selection. Information submitted becomes a // matter of public record and is subject to the Oregon Open Meetings Law. 4t. Monday, December 19, 1983, 5:00 P.M. , is the deadline ` for 'submitting = 5 proposals: Ob Tigard :City 'Hall, P. 0.' Box `23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223, or : delivered to City Hall at Burnham and Ash Streets. t The Library Board/Review Committee intends to categorize proposals as follows (1) , Rental only, for all departments; (2) Library bond, with rental for Police and Administration; (3) Build to suit, lease or lease-purchase option; (4) Bond election (for a Civic Center or decentralized sites) ; E, (5) Other proposals which do not fit the above categories, but also meet the criteria will be considered. The three or so best from each category will be selected for final review. Proponents may then be asked for additional information. , Thank you for your interest and assistance. ¢g` k (pn/0I1Pp) CATEGORY:. CIIY I OF TIGA (City Use Only) WASHINGTON COUNTY.OREGON SPACE NEEDS III PROPOSAL INFORMATION WORKSHEET SUMMARY NAME: ; ADDRESS: f TELEPHONE: v DATE: 1. Suggested Site (Must be within City of.Tigard): i A. Address: B. Description.of Property: 1. Acreage': 2.. ,.Square CootageofBuilding/Buildings: ' 3. ':Present: or Proposed Ingress/Egress: " 4. - If parking area is in place, how many spaces: 2. Availability: A. Present encumbrances (i.e., existing leases, dual ownership, etc.): <, B. Estimated purchase price: 3. Any Other Major Factors: COMMITTEE USE ONLY BELOW THIS LINE ..LAND ONLY LIBRARY SHOPS CIVIC CENTER POLICE DECENTRALIZED. .CITY HALL k NOTES* (pn/0105p) { 3 CITYOF TIFARD WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON SPACE NEEDS III WORKSHEETS .REVIEW COMMITTEE 5-YEAR 5-YEAR. 10-YEAR. 10-YEAR 20-YEAR 20-YEAR 'tea I"-NIMUM REQUIREMENTS -NEEDS PROPOSAL 'NEEDS 'PROPOSAL NEEDS' -PROPOSAL'. ..' LIBRARY: S.F. ?,000 15,000 18,000 $/S.F. :,N/A N/A N/A': .$/Yr. NIA NIA NIA: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLICE: S.F. 6,000 8,500 13,500 $/S.F. N/A N/A N/A $/Yr. 'NIA N/A N/A. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CITY HALL: S.F. 8,000 10,000 12;000 '$/S.F. NIA NIA NIA :$/Yr. N/A N/A N/A - - �Sr9CJ MEETING S.F. Schools Schools 3t-4;wls } HALL: VS.F. N/A N/A NIA $/Yr. N/A N/A NIA ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUB TOTAL/ S.F. 23,000 33,500 45,000 FACILITY: $/S.F. NIA NIA NIA $/.Yr. NIA NIA NIA ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OTHER: NIA N/A NIA TOTAL: $/Yr. NIA N/A NIA i COMMITTEE USE ONLY'BELOW THIS LINE . . . (pn/0104p) o � , 0 S o 0 0 0 o vpi o o N .� o 0 00 00 - ON r m P O n Clw ^I r r.0 P O C 9 v 0OO OON OHO O C ON O 0000 :O O ^ p O VOl O � _O O• VOi .[0f O O O O O H O aI rP a p rP O O O O O O O OO O O O NN O O O O O O O C� o # `0OO o olo 0O o o coo ory �A n.v, v+ o00 o oHo � �€:: a o o o o,o o .A � o o a c � o N o 0 0 0 0 -•o w O ff $ 0 0 0 o c 0- V al m P m P m •-+ a n w - m P � �: : m C � C N C � v C � � r.� P •+..y b .+ C n O v C O O , O O b O 2 VO 0 .10 HS- m •I C n 6r •NA C iP+. C O P( r C O+ C. .... C ~ C O O �. m p a E O O pppO O O aS qm N O .^i• N N N O vOi r O G O 0 0 p • W Om P N V m P S m• O - erf ^ [A P Q O- b I y n. c ^ y�. n. ..• c a v� ppp SS8 ppO pp. w .q� w .D 'O N O V O tJ V OIS O .00 Ni O �O vpi N N q � � O N O O O P V+ O a L O N QQ� OO pp pO pOpp Gp pp O p O O O 0 0 0 N O O O N o 4 O N O �O O O O • p O W vNi O w of N O A O 0 m b m J+ zz f• m C N�M C.`r� Nk d k m b [( �.. • • .I LL LL > LL K LL LL 5 , O� a iii a v u z u s w V a v t _ upp CATEGORY. i \ (City Use Only) CITY OF TI WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGL7 SPACE NEEDS III PROPOSAL INFORMATION WORKSHEET SUMMARY - NAME: RICHARD N. STURGIS A.I.A. :. SUNSET BLVD. , PORTLAND, OREGON 97201 ADDRESS: 2216 5. -. TELEPHONE: 503-246 6520 _ DATE: 12/18/83 ° 1. Suggested Site (Must be within City of Tigard): YES`, IT IS. IN C.B.D. A. Address: 13055 5.'f;. HALL BLVD. . TIGARD. OR':GON+ B. Description of Property: 1. Acreage: ALL OR PART OF 4.8 ACRS, 384'FRONTAG7 ON HALL 2. 'Square Footage ofBuilding/Buildings: AOLL 'EXISTING, TO SUIT.- 3. 'Present or Proposed,Ingress/Egress: - 11A1,'L BLVD. :AND BURNHAT� AVE. 4. Ifparking '.area is in place, how many spaces: NONE EXISTING, WOULD PROVIDE AS MANY AS 'NEEDED 2. Availability: A. Present encumbrances (i.e.,, existing leases, dual ownership, etc.): _ NONE, AVAILABILITY IMMEDIATE B. Estimated purchase:price: ; $6.00/SQUARE FOOT WOULD ALSO CONSIDER A GROUND LEASE Any Other Major Factors: WOULD CONSIDER ALL CATEGOTIES, NO. 1 THRU 4 3. THIS PROPERTY FRONTS ON THE PARK FOR OVER 500' ON THE SOUTH AND OVER 200' ON THE WEST. THE PARK DEVELOPMENT IS THE BEST AMENITY THE C. BD. TO OFFER. WOULD BE A SHAM1E NOT TO LOCATE NEXT TO IT. COMMITTEE USE ONLY BELOW THIS.LINE . LAND ONLY LIBRARY SHOPS - CIVIC CENTER POLICE DECENTRALIZED CITY HALL NOTES (.pn 10105p) id ICATEGORY: OF TWA (City Use Only) .'WASHINGTON COUNTY.OREGON SPACE NEEDSIII PROPOSAL INFORMATION _WORKSHEET.`SUMMARY NAME: Estate of: Otto Sorg., Per Rep NorrLIn :. R--- _ ADDRESS: 148£5 SX. 72nd Ave., Ti;-.rd, Ore;'on Q7223 a TELEPHONE: 63"9515 DATE: Deccnbvr 19 10£I5 ' 1 Suggested Site (Must bewithin City of Tigard): A. Address: 12568 :lain-St., Tigord, .Ore„on 972,10 B. Description of Property: 1. Acreage: Unknown 2. Square. Footage'of:Building/Buildings: as ..per existing 3. Present. or Proposed Ingress/Egress: as por existing, proposed unkntryrn 4. If parking area isin place, how many spaces: an per existing 2. Availability: A. Present encumbrances (i.e., existing leases, dual ownership, etc.): Existing lenses t B. Estimated purchase price: Lnknorn 3. Any Other Major Factors: Ex`.stinL; Tonlnt has Right of First ]!eftuse.l. COMMITTEE USE ONLY BELOW THIS LINE . LAND ONLY LIBRARY SHOPS CIVIC CENTER POLICE DECENTRALIZED CITY HALL NOTES: (pn/0105p) CATEGORY: //''�� `1� (City Use .Only) all 6 OF 71 SPACE NEEDS III WASHINGTON COUNTY.OREGON PROPOSAL INFORMATION WORKSHEET"SUMMARY t NAME: Joseph W. Davis ADDRESS: 8975 S.W. Burnham St., Tigard, Oregon 97223 639-3308 DATE:TELEPHONE: ` December 19, 1983 b 1. Suggested Site (Must be within City of Tigard): d. A. Address: 8973 S.W. Burnham St. a.- k B. Description of Property: - e 1. Acreage: 1.42 Acres Z._ Square �(Footage �oJf�LBui`ldidnlg/Builddi�ngs: 1 3, Present`or Proposed Ingress/Egress: 170, frontage on Burnham (370' 'frontage on proposed Ash Ave.E 4. If parking area is in place, how many spaces: None 6 2. Availability: A. Present encumbrances (i.e., existing leases, dualownership, etc.): Immediate Availability - Mortgage approx'. $4S,000. E B. Estimated purchase price: Land & existing buildings $235.000. �'ja 3. Any Other Major Factors: Property available as is or will build to suit, lease or lease-purchase option r¢ COMMITTEE USE ONLY BELOW THIS LINE . . . LIBRARY SHOPS LAND ONLY t i CIVIC CENTER POLICE _. --- DECENTRALIZED CITY HALI, i NOTES: s t (pn/0105p) tr CATEGORY: r F F TIOA (City Use Only) CITY r,wASMINGTCSN COUNTY.OREGON :SPACE NEEDS III „. PROPOSAL INFORMATION WORKSHEET SUMMARY 1 t Richard Sundeleaf, A.I.A. NAME: 4512 SW Kelly - ADDRESS: lf` december 16, 1933 TELEPHONE: (503) 227-3401 DATE: 1. Suggested Sit- (Must be within City of Tigard): (tax lot 2800, 2900 8 3000) 9020 SW Burnham, 12800 SW Ash and ` A. Address: the intermediate iot B. Description of Property: 1; Acreage: ' and acres total: 3.72 acres 2, Square Footage of Building/Buildings: y y _mately 5800 1gft existin additional 46 OGOsgft.p'ropo'ed 3, present or Proposed Ingress/Egress: t , xi in in, ress e ress from SW Ash is in Place, many`.spaces: area 4. If parking P aproximately 40 spaces on site, additional 60 _proposed T 2, Availability: A. Present encumbrances (i.e.,. existing leases, dual ownership, etc.): . tax`lot 2800 & 3000 currently owned by the City of Tigard, lot 2900 privately owned • D. s Estimatedpurchase'price: tax lot 2900 assessed at $37,000 3, Any Ocher M8]OZ Factors: Site is of adequate size to contain the City's needs for the next 20 years It is centrally located_ and is nearly entirely t City owned. COMMITTEE USE~ONLY BELOW THIS LINE . a f _ LIBRARY SHOPS LAND ONLY � -"— CIvIC CEiNTER POLICE € t i DECENTRALIZED CITY HALL NOTES: w f (pn/010SP) / `CATEGORY: CI F TITA (City Use Only). WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON SPACE NEEDS III '...PROPOSAL INFORMATION.WORKSHEET SUMMARY NAME:.. R A. GrAy GO - AQh Gra)' / ADDRESS: P O Box 23516 Tigard OR 97223 TELEPHONE: 639-6_27 7 DATE: December 15, 1983' 1. Suggested Site (Must bewithin'City of Tigard): A. Address: Burnham at Hall (old Air King site) B. Description of Property:. 1. Acreage: Two Acres With One Additional Acre Available 2... Square Footage of Building/Buildings: 25,200 square feet' 3. Present or Proposed:Ingress/Egress.: Two shown: One at Burnham and One at Hall 4. iftparking 'area is in place, how many spaces: 99 'spaces.(proposed) 2. -Availability: A. Present-encumbrances (i.e., existing leases, dual ownership, etc.): No encumbrances two tenants on 30 day rent with 10 day notice rQauired B. Estimated purchase price: $1,750,00Q Five vear 'ease triple'net at $200 000/vear 3. Any other Major Factors: New Structure All Concrete lease-Purchase Option Available COMMITTEE USE ONLY BELOW THIS LINE . . . - LAND ONLY LIBRARY SHOPS. . CIVIC CENTER POLICE DECENTRALIZED CITY HALL _ NOTES: (pn/0105p) CATEGORY: I�� ®� (City Use Only) WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON S AC NEEDS III PROPOSAL INFO ION WORKSHEETSUMHARY NAME: ADDRESS: L7�7 S LU TELEPHONE: DATE: �i 1. Suggested Site (Must be within City of Tigard): A. Address: C,gcL-0 WV4e=F-Afl(2LF B. Description of Property: 1. Acreage: 2. Square Foo Cage of Building/Buildings: �a� y 3. Present or Pro sed Ingress�ress: 4. If parking area is in place, how many spaces: 2. Availability: A. Present encumbrances (i.e., existing leases, dual ownership, etc.): B Estimated purchase'price: .T 3. Any Other Major Factors: 4 COMMITTEE USE ONLY BELOW T}1IS LINE . . . LAND ONLY LIBRARY .SHOPS CIVIC CENTER. POLICE - DECENTRALIZED CITY HALL NOTES: f (pn/0105p) I CATEGORY: CITYOFTIOARD (City Use Only) WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON SPACE NEEDS' III PROPOSAL INFORMATION.WORKSHEET.SUMMARY a NAME: WILBUR'BISHOP ,MAYOR n" ADDRESS: C/o City Hall, Tigaid, Oregon t TELEPHONE: 639-4171. DATE: 12/12/83. 1. Suggested.. Site (Must be..within City of Tigard): A. Address: --Burnham.& Ash (Crow Site) B. Description of Property: 1. Acreage: Approximately 4 acres (2%2 useable, 1' floodplain) 2. Square Footage of. Building/Buildings: 27,000'sq ft warehouse + 6,800 sq. ft. (2-story)'otfice 3. '. Present or. Proposed',Ingress/Egress: Burnham & Ash 4. ` if parking area is in place, how many spaces: over 100 2. Availability: A. Present encumbrances (i.e., existing leases, dual ownership, etc.): Crow ownership, Tek Lease & City Leasee B. Estimated purchase price: $1 million (including legal costs).. 3. Any Other Major Factors: If Tek renews lease beyond June 30, 1984 may have relocation costs... COMMITTEE USE ONLY BELOW THIS LINE . . LAND ONLY LIBRARY SHOPS CIVIC CENTER POLICE DECENTRALIZED CITY HALL NOTES: (pnl0105p) CATEGORY: SPACE NEEDS III' t ,:.PROPOSAL INFORMATION WORKSHEET.SUMMARY (City Use Only) NAME: ---- ADDRESS: Z"'! e Sf i911ral TELEPHONE: L42 O— DATE: / I. Suggested Site: (Must be Within City of Tigard). ' n� A. Address: t ��S SW. PTNnZ,/fG✓ rr` �77o S6t%.T7S — Pa 1:c-e S-ht,-fi� B. Description ofProperty: 1. Acreage:) 7nn� Ary — © /00 X X00 4 00` C 15� of 2. Square Footage of Building/Buildings: Po/:cG F- Z2,6 /JElriarL Hao,s--c-s 3. P;gse t or;P osed Ingress/Egess: (.3J vz �tscsJ o,, uh2 �� 14CC.es5 Bu�� 4 If p king area is in place,-. ow many spaces: 62 s�ez r5- (3�7o Le C c�T�`ru<i C. Availability: 1. Present.encumbrances, i.e., existing leases, dual ownership, etc. O" `v twe.s a,-G Sea v! Jroc S J1 CZ—re12res by /M .A f+ aWS -5 hl:ffi'ao. �lli ttrit4 / /it��D+ mss. . /ittte+�SG f�2l K�. 2. Estimated purchase price: AZ �Sb-�s-yCoo. -- rn%�L s: C4 Dwhed 3. Use attached worksheet for rental, lease estimates- D. Suggested use of property/buildings (indicate 1 or any combination): Civic Center with Police, Library, Administration X Decentralized facilities 1 Police and Administration C .s 7'j yz. tvt' Police and Library Library and Administration Police only Administration only Library only �(JJ�,_:/ 4Other (describe) l/ti/ Erle —r 51 he4 bc+}�Cz t - �w 7n•� L:brs-�/ cfJo�r�x. r'07DUD- /�/000�1a f ADDITIONAL MATERIALS MAY BE SUBMITTED AND ATTACHED TO THIS�WUFKSHEET SUMMARY. ------------ -L2__"P-___L'.__Ict a__ ...t7-< NOTES: (City Use Only) -- ---- CATEGORY: ' gym (City Use Only) y' CITY OF T1 SE NEEDS III WASHINGTON COUNTY.OREGON PAC PROPOSAL INFORMATIONWORKSHEET SUMMARY ; NAME: Anthony Mal•sym (real estate broker) ADDRESS: 13565' S.W. 72nrl Ave., Tigard, Creeon 97223 _ TELEPHONE: 639-4552 DATE: December 1A, 1983 1. Suggested Site (Must be within City of Tigard): A. Address: 14750 S.W. 72nd Ave B. Description of Property: 1. Acreage: 2.94 acres 2. Square Footage;of Building/Buildings:, 8,000 square feet, main floor (three stories hieh) 3. Present or Proposed Ingress/Egress: 72nd Ave. in,place, how many spaces: 4. If parking area is Up to 2.94 acres' _ _ 3 2. Availability: ' (i.e., leases, dual ownership, etc.): A. Present encumbrances When sold, the property could be delivered free and clear { of all Liens and encumbrances. B. Estimated purchase;price: `8700 000 00 ( Seuen hundred thousand dollars)` that could fill 3. Any Other Major 'Factors: This is a unique property the reasonable space requirements for police, public works, c and administration for the next 20 years. COMMITTEE USE ONLY BELOWTHISLINE L LAND ONLY ---IBRARY SHOPS CIVIC CENTER POLICE — DECENTRALIZED r_ CITY HALL _ NOTES: (pn/0105p) CAIECORY: a lTyOFTIOARD (City Use Only) WASHINGTON'COUNTY.OREGON SPACE NEEDS LII PROPOSAL INFORMATION WORKSHEET SUMMARY NAME: CIJ//LY/ ADDRESS: /.'-.-5 7:0 S.L.cJ r ..•C' S/(7c 7-16--4 i2- 2-2 3 r?tr-c t? 1 .; TELEPHONE• 1. Suggested Site (Must be within City of Tigard): :. f A. Address: 1 U 0 S'cc% tJAC-/l.'ll% B. Description of Property: ;E C 1. Acreage: ?- f�c',.s /cf S• z 73X /37 'X <J 2 x 2. Square Footage of Building/Buildings: s� /6w S-o —//C" S;i�, /fla— W " /O30 S fi u,/// (?. //IJy.S�< G��s�.• 3: Present or Proposed Ingress/Egress: k 1. t k✓i� s7 Fc'V= ,gin C..J JJ n c-.v.t i S Fla c --- it 4. If parking area is in place, how many spaces: 2. Availability:` A. Present encumbrances (i.e., existing leases,.:dual ownership, etc.):: Ewe<7 rRCC GI613i2- c < ,.,,�?n`.--s B 2c B. Estimated purchase price: 8�% oo cs , Cri• ?C N+3 S t7:�) ^' —2;c 7 r ;7N `j c'cca /C J T /Py:r1 r�r �.-..J t. t r ! A.n cRTic---P is 3. Any Other Major Factors: - �EFj«7 l.[. e c-cD x COMMITTEE USE ONLY.BELOW THIS LINE . . LAND ONLY LIBRARY SHOPS _ CIVIC CENTER POLICE _ DECENTRALIZED CITY HALL NOTES: d.. i i (pn/0105p) t 3i 'CATEGORY: I (City Use Only) 8 9 OF 111 ' SPACE NEEDS III WASH NGTON COUN`.ORE' PR POSAL INFORMATION WORKSHEET SUMMARY SAME: rr ADDRESS: -- TELEPHONE: DATE:- 1. Suggested Site (Must be within City of Tigard): A. Address• L us 1B. Description of Property: ' 1. Acreage: 2, Square Footage of Building/Buildings: 3. Present or Proposed Ingress/Egress: 4. Ifparking,area is in place, how many spaces: 2. Availability: A. Present encumbrances (i.e., existing leases, dual ownership,:,etc.):. :B. Estimated purchase price: 3. Any Other Major Factors: C0Mct1TTEE USE ONLY BELOW THIS LINE . LAND ONLY LIBRARY SH-PS CIVIC CENTER POLICE v DECENTRALIZED CITY HALL NOTES: pn!0105p) Cl1 OF IGARU C1 O '� � py (City Use Only) EJ SPAC1 NEE'S III WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON � - I PROPOSAL INFORMA0 ` ORKSHEET SUMHARY NAME: Robert W. Ruff ADDRESS: 9025 SW Burnham St. , Tigard, OR 97223 TELEPHONE: 620-7915 DATE: December 19, 1983 1. Suggested Site (Must be within City of Tigard): f A. Address: 90'25 SW Burnham St. , Tigard, OR B. Description of Property.: }# 1. Acreage: ..39 ,acres € ` 2. Square Footage of Building/Buildings: 1800 ft 3. Present or Proposed Ingress/Egress: Burnham St. 4. If parking area is in place, how many spaces: Paved pi^rking for six cars 2. ..Availability:: A. Present encumbrances (i.e., existing leases, dual ownership, etc.): ' lst mortgage about $40,000.00, 2nd TD `;18,000.00. ' g, Estimated purchase price: $118,000.00 3. ' Any Other Major Factors: see attached for alternatives to an outright cash purchase. ' COMMITTEE USE ONLY BELOW—THIS LINE . . LAND ONLY LIBRARY SHOPS CIVIC CENTER POLICE DECENTRALIZED CITY HALL - NOTES: 1 k f 4 (pn/0105p) II¢`t 1 ' CATEGORY: CITYOLr ®IG (City Use Only) WASHINGTON'COUNTY.OREGON SPACE NEEDS III PROPOSAL INFORMATION WORKSHEET SUMMARY NAME: &A90, WM %'il AGP'WT F'un �fAeKT Assoc. c,—ll NOXTNP_'W+ ADDRESS: tool SW sr. 7u' 5Lrf[ f3o� Po4Tt-AAeO ! D/L6Gd�I 9790-4 TELEPHONE: Z41-ll DATE: 1. Suggested Site (Must be within City of Tigard): A. Address: �zt7� s.;�✓ ��CsslzJ/GJ".2. B. Description of Property:: 1. Acreage: .gGfR S 2. Square Footage of Building/Buildings: IZC,.�V JQ a✓J- 3.'' Present or Proposed Ingress/Egress: d�� {dUlJ211t,F2. 4. If parking area is in place, how many spaces: 1.2- $®69C.�5 QPE.s i4TfG1'Y.� 2. Availability: A. Present encumbrances (i.e., existing leases, dual ownership, etc.): rit,r lata lrsncp£ .r�ln/ L T�' ./s:.sau2f✓Scrr v� //a'G�45G.00a B. Estimated purchase price- �r.S C1GO Q/{. ' �ifc1V /Mo. NNiJ X75• 3. Any Other Major Factors: pL�r 4"4ll 0,SSC$,,ar70lf 1Ne:t CAaJ? COMMITTEE USE ONLY BELOW THIS LINE LAND ONLY LIBRARY SHOPS CIVIC CENTER POLICE DECENTRALIZED CITY HALL NOTES: t, (pn/0105p) 1 I ' I I � I I I I I I I I I I I I 8 I 1 o I I c I I u° y o 0 of of o I I i 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I , 1 s I I 1 w � x I I i a a a . u x 3 i I I u I 1 , V I I I 1 m I 1 I I i I c z v I I I w I I u roc E✓ I N I � a l O � g I 1 � ci - � 1 a t� RZI E r 4 � FROM 4W ,►��i� OPPIP2 IN . ,';.�..„..ti .. ..,,,,y .m.... -,, y..r€ :-..y t ,:S,v�- v •%?'1:-""°r .r,. sS'�F',i+'Y r. rvz t�. :.r.�: -.2 ;. -d:f.. "� °�75,, .:$*c.. ^E�'v, dsl�a�r�.a�. ..,�{.i � ��,,. l+`�..,Nw -irs,...�'n-t i,ay>. z� �c�..e-a •..c�+.a +v}�n.,�..^G,�.�, ..a.:dr� ^x r z� .�i+i1; , � �.k.�T•�, t�,r.n v�� may , „d,�.,.;�e-.r E. .,.,.--. 7� _: M��' ,?.�,..,,. � �.rt t^'Lx .. �.�_. `moi a..4y�,. s r,�3Z...w �. ,r,- rs'_�,. ^�..1,..,. -�...}, S PRESENT VALUE RANK ORDER SUMMARY OPTION 5-YEAR COST /''RATE TOTAL COST PRESENT VALUE Crow Site - B $1,298,000 / $":28 $ 5,225,000 $2,957,000 (Bishop) Crow Site A $1,298,000 / $.28 $ 6,166,000 $3,393,000 (Zaik) 72nd Avenue $1,864,000 / $.40 $ 7,321,000 $4,170,000 Air King - B $1,218,000 / $.27 $ 9,128,000 $4,478,000 (Bond Now) Sturgis $1,264,000 / $.27 $ 9,357,000 $4,604,000 Weiggel/Crow $1,585,000 / $.34 $ 9,690,000 $4,666,000 Sundeleaf $ 937,000 / $.20 $10,196,000 $4,727,000 i. Air King - A $ 945,000 / $.20 $11,045,000 $4,904,000 (Rental & Bond) GTE $1,143,000 / $.25 $12,173,000 $5,578,000 c,< t Rental $ 961,400 / $.22 $11,560,900 ----------- 6 z r (pn/0164p) l i f i C 1 N �+ C r4 FT ,pa`' wee 3.: o a d 1ma Sy�yes ., �I EJraJtal QJa O: 1� s � cJ c m ro Chi �pt+ •�:•L m ce ec°a�,o rv�ra'�ayyro �� u teak l�y L r !! GeoSta� m.w i 1 met N N cep L L �o D a m tar ro m m of a5 > u ta�s4toa "C ere' u C eF ofNoo 0 , co Jt 3 me�a��a�y o o co ncy °�5•p1� L a: Lo C I ��Cyybetar.�yQ1e � o tia�y1 L rn Paae c�Qa c �Jo�'icey .r N o�F'ellyl =ar E~ heiJeat� z w m lu c �' QJ1 ro m v o �a°�yt eea5\ m N 0 C C N S D E E D °oy w CC°t • a a aPa a / N to H � T N W q Q oz N rA rn rel •.�1 Y 1 W bo fGo O � N rn J Ifl W t-: G7� 4. SPACE NEEDS ALTERNATIVES (To meet 2.2 Million Bond) S TO: Library Board FROM: Walt Munhall A B* ,.:C** 10-yr. lst alternative 2nd alternative Library 15,000 12,000 10,500 P. D. 8,500 7,250 = 6,500 Admin. 10,000 9,000 8,000 33,500 28,250 25,000 23,000 s.f. - $1,412,614includes exterior development landscaping and professional fees ` A B _C 10-yr. Ly-ear 7.5 yr._ 1. ASH/BURNHAM (Munhall),- Bond Purchase Davis' $ 235,000 $' 235,000 $ 235,000 Purchase Ash House 35,000 35,000 :35,000 Build'33,500_a.f, 2,057,570 1,735,115 1,535,500 $2,327,570 $2,005,115 $1,805,500 2. SUNDELEAF (PW - Now) Bond Purchase Ash House $ 35,000 $ 35,000 $ 35,000 Build 33,500 s.f. 2,057,570 1,735,115 1,535,500 Purchase PW site 700,000 700,000 700,000 $2,792,570 $2,470,115 $2,270,500 3. AIR KING (R.A.Gray) Bond (Lease available) Sell Police $( 40,000) $( 40,000) $( -40,000) Purchase 3 acres 455,177 455,177 455,177 Build`33,500 s.f. 2,057,570 11735,115 1,535,500 $2,472;747 $2,150,292 $1,950,677 4. GTE RENTAL/NEW LIBRARY (Bond - Short term lease) Purchase Davie/Tarkinian $ 400,000 $ 400,000 $. 400,000 Sell. Police site ( 40,000) ( 40,000) ( 40,000) Build Library 15,000 s.f. 921,300 737,040 644,910' Purchase 1 acre Air King 152,000 152,000 152,000 Rental 1-5 N/A N/A+ N/A+ Build year 6/18, 500 a.f. 1,136,270 552,780 491,360 $2,569,570 $1,801,820 $1,648,270 +Rent -'$96,000 a month 480,000 480,000` $2,569,570 $2,281,820 $2,128,270 5. STURGIS Purchase 3 acres @ $4.50 $ 588,060 $ 588,060 $ 588,060 Purchase Easement 50,000 50,000 50,000 Build 33,500 a.f. 2,057,570 1,735,115 1,535,500 Sell Police site ( 40,000) ( 40,000) ( 40,000) $2,655,630 $2,333,175 $2,133,560 6. CROW A (Zaik) - Bond Purchase Property $1,100,000 $1,100,000 $1,100,000 Remodel 27,000 s.f. 1,039,500 1,039,500` 1,039,500 Professional fees 72,765 72,765 72,765 $2,212,265 $2,212,265 $2,212,265 7. CROW B (Bishop) - Bond Purchase Property $1,100,000 $1,100,000 $1,100,000 Remodel 1,000,OOn 1,000,000 1.,OOU.000 $2;100,000 $2,100,000 $2,100,000 F ' Space heeds Alternatives - page two f a 8. Rent-As-Needed $2,803,900 *Halfwaybetween 5 b 10-year needs **halfway between A 6 B SPACE NEEDS ALTERNATIVES TO MEET 2.2 MILLION BOND A, g C 10-year 1st Alternative 2nd Alternative Library 15,000 12,000 10,500 Police Dept. 8,500 7,250 6,500 Administrations 10,000 91000 8,000 33,7500 28;250 25,000 Proposals qualify as shown' 10-year 7.5 year Median Proposal Pronosal Proposal Crow Crow Crow Ash/Burnham Ash/Burnham Air King Sundeleaf Air King . GTE Sturgis 1/19/8k �, 4 ss,, 4 January 19, 1984 Mr. Bob Jean' City Administrator City of Tigard 12755 `'S.W. Ash Tigard, Oregon 97223 Reference: Court Space Needs Lear Mr. Jean: I would like to indicate my concern that with the steady increase in the docket load of the MunicipalCourtof the City of Tigard, we are in need of better facilities for the holding of court. We now having court sessions every Tuesday night at the Tigard Baptist Church. These premises will not accommodate jury trials and we must address this problem in some manner in the immediate future. Our work load has increased by roughly 30% over the last`'two "years and we anticipate a 50% increase within the next four months. We are molding arraignments at City Hall every Thursday morning. We are scheduling a full day of attorney trials every other month. It is becoming apparent that in ,the near future additional time is going to be necessary to accommodate the ever increasing case load. The majority of Municipal Courts are able to meet their case load demands by use of city facilities such as Council Chambers, in lieu of a single use court room. I recognize such facilities are not available in Tigard at this time, however, I would hope that the needs of the Municipal Court in this re- gard can be borne in mind in any future city plans. rely.,. � Anthony 1? ay, Jr. l� t Tigard Municipal Court Judge A1?/lm 1: E F! t P ` r Real Estate Appraisals and Consultations F Phone 1593!648-8908 , 408 S.E.Baseline P.O.Box 178 OLD F.MEYER, M.A.I. Millsboro,Oregon 97123 ARA--Res.357-3439 ` r rG.Ritchey-lRes.357-7313 Ju1V 27, 1981 a G.Humphrey-Res.635-.6926 rd G.Tisdale-lRes 985-7146 m A.Larick- Res.357-7790 � v y. Mr. Frank Currie t Acting City Administrator City of Tigard i P. 0. Boar 23399 Tigard, Oregon 97223 � Rea Crow Engineering Property x Our File No. 7321-1 P Dear Mr. Currie; In response to our agreement under my letter of July 3, 1981, I have prepared an appraisal of the Crow. Engineering property after a complete Inspection of the property and faall analysis of the problems involved in reference to economic and social data and their Impact upon price variables. After analysis of all three approaches to value, it is my opinion and I estimate the Fair Market Value of the property to be, as of July 15, 1981, Y� ONE MILLION ONE HUNDREDSEVEiy'fY-FIVE THOUSAND & N01100 DOLIA.RS �.. vyz:� ($1,175,000.90). I direct you to the attached report for our findinFa and conclusions and the rationale and supporting data. I have assumed title in fee simple, but no responsibility is assumed for conditions of title, nor matters of a legal nature, nor matters which a competent land survey Haight shQv, nor for purported facts or data furnished to un by others, however I believe this same to be true and accurate. No responsibility is assumed for any conditions not visible to the naked eye. f 5,1111111 1: 6111 A i Mr. Frank Currie• ^ Ac•tinv C:ify Admini°alrateir Ctt �lccf Tif:arcl lul: 'L7, 1981 la VC madca cer•lain a.,Mllr1••c•d,Irlain ;tad Which ` rite int ludod h• t"•in. I w,ncld draw,y•recr• :11 14.111 it'll h, 1:t-m. ;his appraisal has In M Ill:edc: in ac:c�ird;arcce will' lilt• 5l:and;ttcis of Practice and the Rules of ►si:hics ctP the Nnoeicall lnstilutiuf ileal Estate Appraisers and the Society cif Real Esi:alc Appraisers, bill it carries the official sanction Of neither bcxiy. 1".c• thank puce:very nfuah for t1,4• upportunily of tic•in!, c+f �,.r �ice to vou.' ►f thcrrc: are ;illy priest icsn-:. 'gtic:rsc: do m'1 hcsilalar i+: ask. Enclosed Voll will find 1 sfalc.rmc:rtl fill. our ::c•t•vievs.' Sitx:erely your.-;, Harold F. Meyer, M.A.Y.'. S.F.E.A. °lF`M/ew Enclosures r 101 0 _ t l t NEW rl.((I Sf'ACl•: N1- -'.1)S ) t; PUBLIC WORKS 01'I'RATIUNS t I'!(IiSENT I -'_ Y rs 5-20 Yrs ,-Operation Office & Employee Area 3 ,000 3000 7 ,000 tt t- ,,'Maintenance Garage 1,800 5 ,000 6, 500 } Warehouse & Storage (lieated) -0- 1 ,000 1 ,000 Warehouse & Storage (Not Heated) '' -0- 1 ,200 1 ,200 6' Sign Shop 360 500 500 - 400 600 1 ,000 Sign Storage -- Carpenter Shop & Storage 500 700 700 e+ Outside Storage Rock ' 1 ,`000 1,000 1 ,000 y' Outside Storage Sarkdust 1 ,200 1 ,200 1,200 ( Outside Storage Fill Dirt 700 700 700 r' 1.'. -Outside Storage Drain Pipe & Tile 2 ,000 2 ,500 3,000 s E: -Outside Storage Sewer Supplies 1 ,400 1 ,800 1,800 { Outside Storage Misc. 500 -500 500 'Outside Storage Equipment 1 ,800 2,000 2,500 -Equipment Storage Covered & Heated 1 ,500 1,500 1 ,500 ! ,Equipment Storage Covered 1 , 500 1 ,500 1 ,500 ! t Covered Storage for Street Sand -0- 400 400 Wash Rack 720 720 72.0 Road Area 19 ,600 20,000 30,000 larking City Equipment 11 ,000 18 ;000 30,000 F - c - Parking Employee (Operations) 4 ;000 5 ,400 6 ,400 F . f Parking Employee ( City) 5 ,(100 F Parkins; Visitors 800 300 300 Pnd irc S t o r a o 5,400 5'.. 50.0 '1'01"A1. 65-, 4140 80, 120 1 1 1 ,620 s �i4 Ac , 1 .84 Ac 2 . 56 Ac did rip Ai NO MW 1IR3 SG"'ASS, >,e i kic ab s: 3 S IM - 'r � w r . ll® It ci I I f 1 1 i 1 I 1 I I w I 1 1 I I I 1 I t I 1 I I 1 a I l y S. o 0 o I l y o 0 e 0 0 o� o z � o �' o I .x i � x � o o •I z •I o f o 0 1 00 • I 1 I i I I 1 1 1 1 I i 1 I I ¢ 1 I I I I I 1 I I I 1 i 1 F 1 I I I i I r F I I I I n. I I 3 6 4 4 4 Q 1 C 2 4 i O 2 •• a I_.a zo I z I I t I I 1 r, 1 I 1 xl o d o I i 1 1 o I i1 i I 1 o I la•. I � x y I Z c I i I I I a I 1 I I I u~oi I y o q t a a m wl 11 w o •I 9 � SI O ..1 1 W D H 21 O UI H W N T. 2 o Doome JAN. 25, 1984 a ATTN; WALT MUNHALL TIGARD LIBRARY 'BOARD ' TIGARD, OREGON THE FOLLOWING IS A RECAP OF INFORIvtATION I SHARED AT � THE MEETINGTHURSDAY JAN. 19TH, 1984• POSITIVE SITE FACTORS FOR THE STURGIS SITE i! 1'.GOOD SITE DRAINAGE, ALL ABOVE THE FLOOD PLAIN. 2.8" SEWER LINE RUNNING DOWN BACK OF PROPERTY WITH SEVERAL CONNECTION "Y"s. 3-PARK CONTIGUOUS ALL OF SOUTH AND OVER HALF OF WEST BORDER. 4.EXPENSIVE LANDSCAPE MATERIALS ON'SITE 'AND AVAILABLE. ` 5.CONTIGUOUS TO THE ATTRACTIVE G.T.E. ;BUILDINGS. 6 . THREE MEANS OF INGRES$,EGRESS TO TWO STREETS, 7.AN- ESTHETIC SETTING. x 8 NO DEMOLITION COSTS. ' E COST CONSIDERATIONS 1. 1.BUILDING COST PHASE I, 23,000 SQUARE FEET @ 45.00/S.F. ---------------------- ----= $1,035, 000 ' 2.SITE IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING HALF—STREET , IMPROVEMENT(FIGURING FULL 385' FRONTAGE--= 100, 000 3.EASEYiENT(YOUR FIGURE, I THINK IT IS HIGH)= $ 501000 4. LAND COST @ $4. 50/S. F. (3 ACRES1,130,680 S.F. ) 588,060 TOTAL PHASE I -------------------- $1: 773, 060 F 5.BUILDING COST PHASE II, 23,000 SQUARE FEET @ 45.00/S.F. ----------------------------= $1,0?25, 000 6.TOTAL PHASE I AND II---------------------- 2 $ ,808, o6o IT HAS BEEN A PLEASURE WORKING WITH YOU AND YOUR COMMITTEE. : THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THIS PROPERTY FOR THE TWO CATEGORIES OF PURCHASE OR BUILD TO SUIT AND LEASE—BACK. SIN RELY e I _RD s •RICHARD N. STURGIS A.1.A. 2 216 S.W. S 11 N S E T B L V D. PORTLAND, ORE. 91201 5 0 3 2 4 6 6 5 '2 0 �i pp.--yy RS. C4 R.a.G1 a=- C: cons' ruc.T R. A. Grayz& Co. Proposal I. -Site The Civic Center complex should be centrally located in the downtown area. It 'should:have good access, it should be visibly prominent, and easy to 'find. The expenditure of public;dollars should be maximized by encouraging further development and/or redevelopment by the private sector. Finally, the land should be reasonably priced and should provide room for expansion. Our proposal meets all these requirements. The proposed Civic Center will occupy a prominent entrance to the downtown area. Access is avail-able from both Hall and Burnham'. By locating the Civic Center in this location, adja- cent lands will become.more appropriate for development of related commercial/ professional uses. The site is reasonably priced and provides room for expansion. e II. Structure A Civic Center structure should be of long life, low maintenance, energy effi- cient, have good sound control, and maximum interior flexibility. Our proposal is specifically tailored to these criteria. III. Cost Given the above criteria, the City should be assured of the lowest cost that provides the amenities and criteria necessary to a public structure: We are making this proposal complete with a price as shown on the sheet entitled, "Current Prices." Our price for the two structures, totaling 45,200 square feet on three acres, is $3,002,740. 1 m7mm77� -5 f3.c" .Gray S C®. g conSTrUCTion g 1 - Current Prices Phase I Two Acres 100+ 'Parking' 25,200 square foot building t R 87,120square feet of land (two acres) at, $4.00/foot $ 348,480 Site Development $1.32/foot $ 115,000 Includes Demolition (three acres), Utilities, Parking, Curbs, Stripes, Lighting,` Flagpole, Etc. Irrigation and Landscaping Building 25,200 square feet at $51 .05/square foot $1 ,286,520 4 Sales Price Through 1985 $1 ,750,000 Triple Net Lease $200,000/Year SUBTOTAL $1 ,750,000 E Phase II _ One Acre Property Under Same Lease $1 .00 per Year (Cleared) • €1 Current Price Phase II Land $ 174,240 Site Development $ 57,500 20,000 square foot Building S1 ,021 ,000 TOTAL C1.'RRENT PRICE COMPLETE`C0'1PLEY., 45,200 SQ. FT. 3 ACRES S3,002,740 G t - Richard tiin delcof January 6,, 1984 Mr. Walter Munhall Chairman, Library Board City of Tigard 12755 S.W. Ash Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Mr. Munhall : I've confirmed figures on the return the city' will get on building for 10 or 20 year needs. Assuming the 'city builds >a 46,000 square foot building and can lease 23,000 square feet of this structure for 5 years, the city will realize a return on their investment of 1 .38 to 15 million dollars for the five year period. This is assuming the current market rate of $12.00 to $13.00 per square foot per year. This money could go towards the ultimate development of a public works facility at the 72nd Avenue site which we feel would be a satisfactory solution for all concerned. Again, we appreciate your consideration in this matter. I Yours truly, s Hilary 14ckenzie HIM:1mf cc: Saul Z.aik t i s � t 77 t — .:}u � i.e.. r ��•,; . s Tf < f! ccc� stan-te ✓ui lc_r.0 )000 sq, ^t ?_� _ $'I 125,OO�.CC ^nd 25 ac - 00DC .ril, Site 4=Isro-events• tion, c� in:- ialr.;scPr•irr, cdin, ' -) Gi' mac. _ 1Cy` Scree --- ares _ -.v. ��:Tr iV cars pg� _C,J UG } ..u ••.....c. . ... .. . e... —%9000,03 10-20 year cost estimate: ldSAC T,cra1 —71,COO _ ..00...... u ... • .. .o ,. .cr'• C.ry,•' '" a "i tc , 3 L _ _ e .... . . .. . . . .. . . ... .. ...... ..... . .. _ E L. •.' .. ... • .. .,. . . Tann r' ulb•l iC ._ .. ..... o r ..ems ... • .. .e s .. • .... 19-r. ) •..a\1 c. r q MOM .n.. Vi1 ` 22= ar o nr ; =7 daM BIM r` w i �• = t w t � ��`' � I . iYr •� e � , „ I "��--may',, �a W— o i ..--1 �_;. �. }x z3Yi�r_{`rt F .i.✓'x nr.au;... �' i..QEF . 'P s.». r.' 5r. rt�.e' 'i Y fi' .. '.�: ."`t` W..".!.5+ _Vk. ��+i�.,i � Sz'�' - _,.:x. Gt `�-,�t,,'!6 �e.�-� n.... ...., z,•. 4 hC '.' � ..�.r• x. ; .-,`dd..-Y�,f,. :a#..r?.... z•..,� .-r.;ta4 x „, "� ,_,xy,�,e„}'��-• ��j,=-t''�.b�. .._ � �� . '�.Fjr�„ � 1... x4��t+y? +z � sw�- fid$_. ,,.,+n.,r �: .�`� r � ,sj�s.� ��e �”i��{L. ��." .+��" �� .,�.s'�,'��.c`,:��_.,� ��`��i�,,.�� ,..-�...,« s ..� *um�.�s.�s...,.��e -..:f?�-_ r , � .�i:.�r �=•d�:`;w �"'` ��'ti;� Commercial,Industrial&Investment Real Estate Brokerage NORTHE Northern Properties; Inc 1700 Orhanco Building 1001 Southwest Fifth Avenue Portland.Oregon 97204,503241-0711 January;23, 1984 Mr. Walt YAuihall 14805 S. W. 103rd Tigard, Oregon suwBcrc City Office Requirements/G.T.E. Proposal Dear Walt- The purpose of this correspondence is to suninarize and make two changes' to our proposal on the G.T. E. Building. As I have pointed out in several of the library board meetings the owners of the building are quite flexible in regard to the terms of the possible lease to the City; of Tigard. Our formal proposal was for a five year period however they could look at'a longer term and would consider an option to purchase if You so desired. The changes I'would> like to make at this time are twofold. First in / regard to our lease proposal, the owners would additionally give a t, $25,000 allowance towards tenant improvements and could further finance 6' any reasonable amount over that which they would amortize over the lease term, This would allow the City to rtmve into a turn key situation with first and last months rent as the only immediate out of pocket expense. In regard to a sale I would like to further represent a reduction in the asking price from $995,000 to $950,000 or $45,000. Again as I have said our lease proposal is one which would allow the City to immediately solve the City Hall and Police requirements with no cash outlay except additional monthly rent. The building is of high quality concrete and steel construction and I think most would agree it would be a definite improvement over your present facilities. I woui: appreciate your bringing this correspondence to the attention of the City Council during your presentation at the January 30th meeting. Very truly yours, NOIMM2 bl PROPERTIES, INC. -Gardner L. Williams GLWcssh/3 cc: S-eaport Associates Mr. Harry Horowitz Z A IiK/" J- M January 24, 1984 City of Tigard Library Board c/o Walter Munhall 14805 S. W. 103rd Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE-: Tigard Civic Center Proposal Comments: Dear Board Members: After spending three (3) 'rather concentrated weeks reviewing proposals, visiting 'sites, meeting with the Library Board Members`and the public, and also discussing proposals with the proponents, 1 have some general and pertinent comments to offer. The City of Tigard is a healthy, robust, growing community. It has an enviable geographical position in terms of transportation access, proximity ;to nearby population markets, excellent school system, ample desirable industrial and commercial centers, and a'well 'diversified housing population. It has certainly grown away from the original Main Street. However, Main Street and Burnham/Hall Streets still remain at the centroid of the growth boundaries. I feel that the Civic Center Complex should remain physically close to this area. With the new park along Fanno Creek, and the familiar historical locale of City services in this area, it is natural for the Civic Center to stay here. The community has to look at this project in a 20, 50, 100 year outlook. It will be seen, used, and have to function for the future. The submissions varied between $2.6 to $3.6 million (my estimate) based upon completion in 1989. 1. Ash Street: Main problem here is buying an additional acre here ou*�he flood plan and there is a question about the size of this existing public works site. Parking could be a problem. 2. Sundeleaf Proposal: A question about finding a new public works site in 1989. 1 liked the idea of being able to build a new group of buildings, exactly fitted to the needs of the separate departments. Rather an expensive solution. 3. Air King Site: My 2nd choice. Property could be concentrated toward the North. Access could be on Burnham, near the existing Police and City Hall facilities. Could provide an opportunity for phased development with ample land for future use. An opportunity a to build a fitting Civic Center facility for the community. 4 City of Tigard c/o Malter Munhall RE: Tigard Civic Center Jan. 24, 1984 page two 4. G.T.E. Building: Fine for rental, very expensivein long run. Fragments City ;facinties. 5. 72nd Avenue: Poor location for any facility but public works. Simply does not work. 6. Sturgis: A fine site in an appropriate location near existing 'facilities, oca ed on the park. An opportunity to provide adequate land for future needs. ``<A distinguished project could be developed here with unlimited;used for the whole community. My 1st choice. 7. Cron: Option: Good location, reasonable price. I :question the reality of a public use building without an open feeling to street and surroundings. I feel it fails the prime requirement of public identification and visual access. Please feel free to'call me if you have any questions. I will be very happy to help you in any way 'I can. Sincerely, i ZAIK ILLER, ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS 4 aaal Zaik, F,A�A;' SZ:pw i Kill 1 11 oil rM k ITEM TO BE HAND CARRIED The Council has requested a verbatim typed transcript of the hearings on the Park Place/Bechtold Appeal. The transcript is being prepared and will be hand carried to you on Saturday, January 28th. Thank you for your patience in this matter. Iso/I l 84A i 50 i; js i r f COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY , AGENDA OF: January 30, 1984 AGENDA ITEM I DATE SUBMITTED: 1-26-84 PREVIOUS ACTION: Denial by PanninQ t ISSUE/AGEND& TITLE: Park Place Commission December 6 1983 P eal S $-83 PD REQUESTED BY: Century 21 Homes Ap r e is CITY ADMINISTRATOR: DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: � F s INFORMATION SUMMARY S 8-83PD at the Planning Commission on. December 6, 1983, The denial of Subdivision of several documents has been appealed by the applicant, Century 21 Homes. Copies including minutes from the November and December Planning Commission meetings are has also written a memo to clarify some issues raised at the attached. , Commission, t' for the two meetings were supplied to the Council at an Copies of the audio tapes earlier date. A transcript to supplement the tapes is being prepared. It will € be delivered on Saturday, January 28, 1984. T-ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED t s s The Council may uphold the PlanningCommission action or vote to accept the appeal. t d SUGGESTED ACTION - -__- - ___ -__=_-_' __•--- - Staff suggest that the City Council conduct the appeal hearing and base its decision or, the testimony given. ; Em MEMORANDUM JANUARY 26, 1984 LkL TO City Council i l WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON FROM: Steve Skorney, Assistant Planner sS:r- SUBJECT: Park Place Development Appeal S 8-•83 PD The Planning staff has reviewed the Planning Commission's findings concerning the denial of S 8-83 PD. ? The Planning Staff feels that the application was complete.' The Planning Commission based their denial on the following findings: 1. DENY DENSITY TRANSFER TO PHASE I BECAUSE THERE WAS NO SITE PLAN FOR PHASE II. The issue of the :density transfer was cited as a reason, for denying the planned development application. The Planning Commission was concerned with (a) the appropriate number of dwelling units that could be transferred from the unbuildable land in Phase II ,of the project to Phase I; (b) the `possible duplicative transfer. of dwelling units from the same unbuildable land to 'buildable land in Phase II of the, project;; and (c) the lack of a site plan for Phase II. a. The Community Development Code states that 25% of the number of units which could be accommodated on undevelopable land may be transferred and placed on developable land. However, the transfer of the density shall be limited by 125% of the top of the range of the residential plan classification on the developable portions of the site. Phase I of the site covers approximately 8.50 acres (tax lot 401 7.78 acres and a portion of tax lot 1400 - .72 acres). The site is zoned R-4.5; which means a net density (subtracting 20% of an acre for public facilities) of 4.5 dwelling units per acre. Phase I is allowed to accommodate 38 dwelling units (8.50 acres x 4.5) without the density transfer. There are five acres of unbuildable land within Phase II (land with slopes greater than 25%). The applicant proposes to take credit for the maximum density transfer allowable from the five acres, 5 units, to Phase 1. Please note in the new Development Code there is no provision for density bonuses for dedication of land. 12755 S'N.ASH P.O.BOX 23397 TIGARD,OREGON 97223 PH:639-4171 b. The Planning Commission';was concerned that the' undevelopable land in Phase II would be used for more than one density transfer. The Code does not allow this practice. This fear can ,be eliminated by conditioning approval of Phase I to not allow any further use of density transfers for additional ,phases : on the site. c. The applicant requested conceptual and detailed planned development approval, and preliminary plat approval for Phase I of their project. The Code' does not state that in order to transfer density, the unbuildable land must be part of the phase seeking planned development approval. The Planning Commission did not have the authority to require submission of plans illustrating the siting of dwelling units in ,phases- that are not contained in the application. This ' should not have been considered when the Commission took; action on the application. 2. PRIVATE STREETS ARE INAPPROPRIATE. The Development Code allows the use of private streets within planned developments. The design standards, though, must be 'established by the City Engineer. The City requires legal ;assurances for the maintenance of private` streets such as a bonded maintenance agreement and the creation of a homeowners association." It should be noted that the applicant, Century 21 Homes, Inc. received approval from the Planning Commission on May 3, 1983 for a subdivision (London Square, 11900 S.W. 98th Avenue) with private streets. The applicant is proposing the same private street plan for Phase I of the Park Place project. The Engineering Division approved the concept of the 24' wide private streets. The Tualatin Fire District approved the private street plan with the condition that parking be allowed on one side of the streets, if traffic is one-way. The enforcement of the parking restriction was not foreseen as being a problem. The applicant stated that the Homeowners Associate would handle the violations as any owners of private streets do now in the City of Tigard. 3. ` INCOMPLETE AND INACCURATE INFORMATION. The Planning staff concludes that the applicant is correct when stating that the finding of incomplete and inaccurate information is not a basis for denial. Specific factual findings in support of a decision are 'essential. If the Commission felt that insufficient information was submitted for the Commission to make a decision., the Commission had the option of postponing their decision until the missing information was supplied. (SS cpm/0298P) t I NEW c ENTERTHE 0��-® UE CENTi URY 21 PROPERTIES J December 22, 1983 FTigard City Council 1 City of Tigard, Oregon City Hall P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 . Dear Counclmembe rs: Re : PARK PLACE Planned Development S 8-83 PD eal of the Planning Commission Please consider this as our app decision k of December 6, 1983 to deny this development. Century 21 Properties is the applicant for the subject development. i We specifically object to the ;findings in the denial . A motion to ted on without findings.' Findings were deny was made, seconded and vo individual commission members after made by informal suggesstion by the vote to deny was carried by a our t.1ree vote. Moreover, the findings not substantiated by any appreciable testimony during finds weis the inglic`hearings, thereby eliminating any opportunity for us tc 'speak to the alleged shortcomings. '; The findings 'state: 1. Incomplete and inaccurate information. 2 . Private Streets inappropriate. i 3. Deny (Density) transfer to Phase l was inappropriate without see (seeing) the plats (for possible future Phases it or 111) . This development was originally scheduled to be heard on Sept 13, 1983• On Sept 8, planning staff delayed the project until additional information could be gathered. Sub�ogainandmeetings proaectnwaseiedareschedule . iency of detail suffic- to meet staff's app The Planning Commission did not request additional information nor was there testimony that information presented was either incomplete or inaccurate, No testimony was pr•esentect that Pr i,,,aTE Streets are inappropriate . Testimony was presented thi-it tttey were specifically appropriate y this project . Density Transfer is inappropriate as a finding because the application willis for 43 units on 47.0 acres. ensi requestedTonnsfer any possibleyfbuture I concern if additionalunits are applications. We respectfully request to be placed on th(: earliest possible Council i adjenda. Very truly, Robert N. Miller Vice President -- _ -- .�. Y t. e.vvitgn Ii RI«lelr.Hvvv Sune 112 p,rtland,UrKo7972"2.:. (5031 2J7 1493 _ - ;..,r. ,;,•" m,,.� ,� ._ hw�t��.-` „:r .fit"::" '`� �� • M tom` �.� ` � y•��,x�s`�a�' c—S € a � �y� r'rt errs ., ., `...i-n ..t, yr' ... :vt ""_..:: # ±i `t-'cx• ,'ws c �? -a.;S^'�'s.- y. Sa *uv`�'�' 3m�?..d'.`{-�"+ "� ., .:-..Yr g -. gg x. ''�: n- 9z -"rs. Mi'sC', cr.,'. '3 -. '"✓'.-i" _ ,,a, ". n,. c ..n,.rx .z.:=.-,: re- a."" C.n a;•:f�F rr�S'a.: .; ' �`•�,,.�' ..:.�y;3,,...�. r�7-*`moi � ' �, "-..'".• -a.:�'�,. �.�.,x 'a�}�t�.. s� '�eN'�`Y's .tr��F`. '`� "fix SAs`�.:..� �,�t .' Sc^�-�m--u�- `tic.��:,•.'��.�z?�,.-."': a�t:��.,..��-.* �� •.�s..;'.�. � �=�°e'h��*€.r�:n.x,��.. `,.�'ra''�'s� ""eke."_s:�.� �wo-tu'E'+� ,��•,`�� '. ,�.�r�✓J ,cam-, ��,��• �-�.�c � �� `��y�� :.. �".� tazl�,e ega �.-.s(/`-E'Ci• �r'l' 4r. ��L. ({�" �C.�'71 /yyre� '�'NT.oldy� 1 _ ,: '�"-.e � ��^ w �� a�� . �,�, rte"* ti �� °` � � �` fi�� a �� . � � �� ` �� ,fir �� +�"�„ 4 t� � �� • � �-' �� i � .�' r �� ,t� ��:a � / / �' � -� � �p�� ,� , r :, � � � � ��-��• � �x� � i f �- `� -�; 4 � / i �� • � r �� `'—�� sit � �. � c3�� '�� i �� , �� ` ` �� ' 4 �� f €"mow'. ��,..�r> i - � ,ate: �� ' � � � (. +yam-td+�: f J ,1. �+��..�a �� / � ��t✓Jir i i' SKr� � - . � � �� i�� ,z.�+,.i �� s � / 'mid &s"�>r / � �� &"�A1C � �i �� r �� r �� i�� / ��< �'�.�. : �` ` ` i r'"�`�'1� �+'E� x '�T_I i� j �� 7 a; 1 ��{-^ lit}a X26 � 'T4Y(',�5:� „��''ki�� r �� ' �'. T'x�a:.� r�f�-,� .. .. �t--.+,mak yi„� '�ait��''..'„�.l'f. .y, �..;.s3'�,,,Y ;,.li'r a � .�`4;r �:7'�xh+s�.�gf� 7” ��5 �`..: �3�.- �r..��.�.�,_ .�,,.�..� _��r�,-� ,.,._tris ria-�'�;�t�:*rr,.1�.� �:�._szs,. .:f uaP .�'?�.x2 �f '*' s�.;�r=.,, �� -- r.,�.-�.. _`��^� ,� �z .max_ _=t: "�i .u� _� .-. n-�+:n•.s �.-n; #G;'�x�x�. .-�' s,:.;� �e ...',g-�H., mrd � `.�' a :� '"%rte ''�• yet a �.,,;, 4fj .� x� "� z,.y- _;x .,�".; _-�'..,:. -"*�r,.��' - .�s a,.s�P�°r�-'��"��.,.r�i�,`. :.-�.��e�``''�- n. ��1��;`'�`'^€.�z1t 'Y'� �. ?�,.e..- �. ,��tSr.�. .:k °''•r-. ' '�� r..,s�:�:�`-'t .�" x..�«�:„w. i�-f � :�� .�� r-,r�.a_.s"b� .+.. .^z:� .x'S ��7""$�r-'4�-"k�=r �L�'l .' -ti^�� ,. t.c v �.,_ . ,.��'#� �1.. ,sir s x �� .�t?. ...^s ye. .�rz....� „',�. �� ... ,...;.,k .,..v S� .. ?vr ......_ u��,N:£'. �,.a�„{i' �.is �'a�-•�.Mt'� s` _ a.zr�i�+ :��` �� r .,� T i4,��,�.;� ,�,� "sst +�.� -, iE�".:� ��w�`��3,;�"��L'� ��p�� n:��'�.*_a".��i`;� �'��"3a...��rs��s-t' �` ".'�;�2 w;l:r�":.+ ...yr.✓rr`-!rs, �.��#:.� _ri..`�+��f,�:s�-�.'�,v.r.� Cs§r'r.5'..�..-Yaw.`",t[7'�`L!�.�.!.:^`.��.L'-W....-,s#.'�a"�F: X�C.�.�,�iSt.+Kk^?. "m1&.. 'FY3w.SSE.Z�VAR„�.:�,� aia?LL:Yt'+..c+.. s�x. ;..:x�.?�.'�w.s�=�s:a..-e3�€.u?% d�r�'^#x:ss r fi f / c`rFr ! sill a . . / e »v f H, 8'"+ ,:was. ....- a:.. .. � .: ..rat n, �.r: .. X12 .z y ;'-s�j _.;�.y ni`�.��±lR+ zl :=j�ja' ...z�."'M .,aers`z•:�t p�Gu3' >S"� 42'x`7..:t'?yr"'u'�� .3;z`5#`—�" ,-��"a"` k �'L"�-k` - i '�� ' �,$` .,£�:.! fix' 9. €�.,i�G` ��=•�cv�� ,m�+ "re,�`�.:'Y��-1- '�.��: �. eSs��t`�<��-�?��`" '' " '..n"_''�'�Yv''�.,_s�smer ,�i'.�.:r-�.��.;��`��3�1'��f�»s;��'�s:��ttr��f�,��:_:, "�d��3'�Y�.��.�.s��x'rr.'.r•#'w4`.'� i�sic� A=n�.-.tis&?� ''�'. `� r�.�a �x, ti v �z r T P k i � v 4 om IFS b Ilk �a.r`�r+�t.c..-.�,*rx"<+.-'.<,,.`��,,.',s c :.,Zt..;°",.tS..ss1sk..u'�,t?_s'vtr,-';*v-��-sN..*,��'rve.x.".vtz3e-rhr:��Ts."5-�-,,`..,a:t„s...-szssyr,...`.."-.�.:c-��:�g-:f:t�.r+.'..,..- , r,�.:»---i^ra£�-,:-��.r., ,f,.t'ck..^r.,#r_...x.✓:r��.3v..x�-".n;r.,td.a.•..,:E«.n5.�,��i.+,..#,a."5-.,:-.Fx,�.a',sh,.�t,SSar�i"„3,4ar'...''b.,.;;'.�,,+'`2"s+.-avw¢...�.».�.'.��:.�.;._€•;s�-'F:°wy:-. -+,-':.r.t�,..,.•.Fg,az.,–-„8k°"'"'S.;n-�'r,-L f -�,�di.' �.f".. +ts.�"m�.'�,..' ' s �- � gy1r KIM- 17 .F' a-1x .:.. c,. �W `�,m�'+. ��a�Y'r�+ t'�.�=. -,._ �A � .,.. --�a -•.., � -,tea r { rc� Mlc ,. "-.:,- -'�i,�a ;.,,�� -k x-. •.;,+ C�' r� ..k', '..+''C�..3'=4''-i° ;x'',i, ,' 5'" 'nks�uzv t '$,M a� .y,�,ak�''k'z5,5�-�'*YrF,� t .z£��}r.�,' •.'��Y+fi:,k^+-�''"'.r w�:� ��`�sr r��...<,.�1T�.�' t t a,T"+�k?^'� 1.+-..=;._.�.�L«G v�Nr, '�. .�..�2,� ar'.M` 75"q 3 235 ...x3 a.«'�* •��pJ^". K�r�,.. '�. s:.. � ��-:"; .�'r:.e�. .:=��r �:-.. 3.'X�a .p�'.+.s � „�� s�...e`�it.4��' .�sr�.. '..9xi� "53i1a'.° �„`��".,.,"'°L�_• �.�•:�', c �:�„ aY"h.�,�"'� �-:�'+(�ex�r_--'' #; ea3 ��.�'��.�. �E. �:� �'��sF.€�s tri.�-_r,;:r�. ��_��,:.nt�°. �'�'."�t� �z��-.sr>� -s�+�r�� +,5-�'�:�v "� a��MS•�� rar� �i,�s��"�.�-'�a�Y:,e�. '�•f.�f � �7 S_ x 'Sk'gy#C w 'c € k h mM Ry t,5'tig��_;��.s ... ,:�� .+�.._� .•+=< r ,:.s� v„.w:zt trx' .� +v. zg?,�i"+ t�rSn'�-7 s� +` P MR- Nn r NON 1&1 �tlY NPO #3 MEETING MINUTES s .m. October 24, 1983 I. Called to order at 7:45 P.M. , the delay being necessary to obtain a quorum. II. Roll call: present were Bledsoe, Fyre, Porter, and Moonier. Excused absent were Ramsdell, Smith, and Mortensen '(who was sick). Staff was Planner Steve Skorney. Visitors were Geraldine Ball, Larry and Debby Barnum, J.B. Bishop, RobertCampbell, Bill Clyde, Duane and Julia Ehr, Ralph;Furrer, Jo Hobbs, Jim Horsley, Jeanette Kromer,r, Chuck Lehman, Alex Machin, Lindzey McArthur, Bob Miller--Century 21 Properties, Mark Neer, Eunice Painton,` Marty Poorman, Roger and D. Regehr, Bibianne Scheckla, Ima Scott, Mary Stanford, C.R. Stearn, and Joe Van Lom, archetect- along with about 5 others associated with his project. III. Minutes--Due to the delay in starting, review of the minutes will be postponed until next meeting. IV. Review of Joe Van Lom's project on Pacific Highway between 'Park Street and School Street: The development proposal consists of 4725 ft Retail/Automotive next to School Street, a 3260 sq.ft. Fast Food Restaurant--it will be Dairy Queen which will move here from the other side of the -highway--, a 5700 to ,7100 sq.ft. Retail Shop Building, and a 2400 sq.ft. convenience store next to Park Street. Thene is a 30 to 50 feet wide landscaped area to buffer the convenience store from Grant Street. The plan shows two 24-foot access driveways on the highway, one access ,on Park Street, and a service access on Grant Street. The entire complex is to be design coordinated, and it will be developed under the existing (old) code. The complex will be devided into 3 lots, with different owners -.p, and therefore may not be built as one phase. To keep a clean appx2ance the owners will sign a maintenance agreement. The convenience store will apply for an OLCC license. In order to protect the convenience store from loitering, a video arcade will not be allowed. So 'far the only firm committment is the Dairy Queen. Southland (7-11) and Schuck's Auto Supply have shown interest. This information was/given by Joe Van Lom in his presentation and in answer to questions. k Almost all of the visitors asked questions and/or made comments about the development proposal. The primary concerns seemed to be traffic safety and the safety of children walking to and from Charles F. Tigard School. s In regard to the children, it was agreed that a route other than across the access points on Pacific Highway is important. There was a division of opinion among the citizens and neighbors about an idea of opening up the service- way to allow pedestrian traffic through the rear of the site. One or twb said the children have learned to use Grant Street and there is no need to open up the short-cut again. Problems of liability to the owners was mentioned. The representative of the school district mentioned € concerns about the back passage in reg . :d to possible attacks as occurred //on a Beaverton bikepath reoent�Ly. f il 21:0 k �g Page 2--NPO #3 Minutes, October 24, 1983 In regard to traffic, several people expressed strong opinions that the deceleration lane to School Street should be extended, so that cars don't suddenly stop to enter as they do for Wendy's. Also .it was expressed that mere than just a' sign or arrow was needed to guide traffic ,to the right upon leaving the Dairy Queen, probably some curbing. There was concern about the possibility of an excess of trafficonGrant Street, and it was suggested that speed bumps be installedA to discourage use as a thoroughfare. Mr. Van Lom was agreeable to all of the above traffic suggestions. The feeling'. of NPO #3 seems to be generally: good in relation to this initial proposal. The motion was made and passed unanimously that NPO #3, go on record to concur with the concerns raised by the citizens and ne-ighbors in attendance, concerning the problems of traffic and safety of children; and that we encourage staff to work with the developer to address these problems. A sign-up ;list was passedaroundfor those who wished to be notified of the decision of the Planning Director, and several signed it. NPO #3 would of course want to receive the decision. fOther items that this writer forgot to include above are: The vegetation in front will be kept low so as not to obscure vision for cars accessing the highway.'' There will be a solid fence and vegetaion along the rear property line. Mr. Van Lom said 'there were about 106 parking spaces in the plan, whereas only 76 were required (I have counted 99). The r proposal calls for a fence along the back corner by school street up to { the Auto Supply building, but not along the side of the building, and especially not in front. The placement of signs was not established yet; each occupant would be entitled to at least one sign. The staff wa.l�supply the NPO with a copy of the final site plan as submitted for .a"ipproval. V. Review of Park Place development application for 47.8 acres at SW 121st and S:J Gaarde. Robert Miller of Century 21 Homes presented the proposal. We had seen some of it in our last meeting but Mr. Miller did not come £ because Planner Hamid Pishvaie had told him the meeting (at Planning Commission) was cancelled. Apparently there was some confusion in communication between Mr. Miller and the planning staff. The application is for single family detached condominium cottages u, said to be priced at about 880,000 per unit. For comparison. a �- conventional development that would normally cost $65,000 to 580,000 could be reduced to the cost of 348,500 to 870,000 by using the techniques employed by Century 21 in this application. Thede techniques s were employed at London Square off of Greenburg Road in Tigard. ' This will be a phased development because of City requireinents--all they really want at this time is approval of Phase I. There will be a requirement in the homeowners Association that the grounds be maintained; members of the NPO pointed out the difficulties of actually enforcing } those provisions. The one-way private drives will have parking allowed on one side, which they hope will meet staff's parking requirements. s Page 3--NPO #3 Minute's, October 24, 1983 { i Joe Gruelich of the Fire, District said that was O.K. from their point of 'view. ' Mr. Miller said that the- constraints of locating a major road through the project, which could not be used for individual conventional. , forced this .type of development instead of something of Herman Porter'' requested staff to look intoPthlacinalofymany tsingle ership, not of lots," but of buildings, and'also th placing family detached structures on an individual lot; the NPO concurred in this request. Bob Bledsoe noted h the initial application the following major concerns wit forms, submitted in September, 198; Site Plan Check e--page Site Development Analysis Form lica- l. Page 3, #12; 2. In all these items the aPP Sensitive Land Areas; Narrative--page project -tion asserts that there are sens�tve land forms within the p J 2 �� This may be true of Phase I, area, and that there are no slopes over 5p• not true of the whole which is mostly in Lot 401, but it is definhanyany similar size area project--Lot 1400 has more slopes :over 25% in Tict--Lo planning area. Since the application is for the whole area, rd's the ektent and location by needs tregistered2professionalsloedreas engineer. to be specified and certified g 4, #23; and Site Development Analysis Form. The 2. Page 3 #18; page application specifies attached units in Phase d u This requires conditional use permit'; and either the> attached units should be omitted, or else a complete conditional use permit application should be submitted a in detail. s to 3. Page 4, #21 and #23, and the Density Calculation Forma There seemboth be serious problems with the number of housing units applied for, 4 No density bonus for the total project (215) and for Phase I `ears to use some of the has been applied for, but the application app density transfer provisions allowed in the Cop �vopen space. application shows 12.58 acres dedicated as "permanent" of tine narrative?) ppl .ca that word in quotation marks on the first page (Whyualify for density transfer, but that has not Some of this land may_q public dedications and been shown. The number of square feet shown in public facilities definitely s Ina .atemzntTwhereeitoisPhase listed as not stated except on the Sc P dated August 15, 9.6 acres; but by subtracting the other areas on the map 1983, one arrives at 8.64density-the area far PhaseJI. planner hould be eSteve arly sSkorney� the determination of the said he had c�lculatcd 168 units for the total project, and that the density transfer provisions would have to be met in order to achieve the ..densities shown in Phase I• ,�8 at the bottom of the page- it age• South of the proposed development 4 Page L, and this fact calls for is not zoned R-7 as shown; but itartis cular the need to move the private { appropriate considerations: in P and to drive at least 5 feet northward, away from the property line, Page 4--NPO #3 Minutes, October 24, 1583 Mf V provide some, buffering landscaping in this area. See item 4g in the NPO #3 minutes of September '12, 1983- 5. The application appears to be specifying street width less ;than the standard for Questor Blvd. The last sentence on the page entitled, "Park PlacePlannedDevelopment," refers to a 32-foot wide`conventional street. Probably this was part of the basis for the area of public facilities listed in the Density Calculation Form. Questor' Blvd. should be clearly 'specified and built as a standard local or minor collector road. b. The 12.58 acres of "permanent" open recreational space is not included by the Declaration of Covenants, `Conditions and Restrictions as part of the common-area 'owned` by the association. In addition, minor problems noted with the initial application included the following: of Tax Lot 1400 is a farm, and to the west Page 3, #9A. To the north ' of Lot 1400 is vacant.4 8. Site Flan Check List #A? states that transit facilities are not applicable to the application. Bus #45 traverses 121st Ave. and Gaarde Street, and u bus stop and possibly a shelter would be appropriate, especially since w.. -the project is for more economical housing. Certainly a bus turn--out lane on SW 121st Ave. 'should be considered. 9. The school impact statement says there are no phases to the project, while the application itself is for a Phase-- I in detail, and a unspecified Phase II. 10. The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions refers to the rixhts of ownership as residing with the owners of lots; are these Lots 1, 2, and 3, y g are thvv legal lots? or are the something smaller? if so, a -., - Some major concerns with the supplemental information supplied with the applicant's letter to William Monahan, Planning Director, on Oct. 12, 1933, were pointed out by Bob Bledsoe , as follows: 11. Concerning SW 121st Avenue, the right-of-way for collectors is 60 feet, not 50 feet; and therefore the applicant needs to dedicate an additional 10 feet of right-of-way along 121st Avenue. Also approval of the project should be contingent upon a half-street improvement of 22 feet of pavement from the present center line, and including curbs and sidewalk and the stop sign. (Also, the reduced area of improvements for 121st Avenue probably influenced the density calculations.) 12. The application's suggestion to extend SW 121st Avenue southward beyond Gaarde Street �r-�sents an unappropriate, adverse impact on the neighborhoods to the south, which are situated along Bull Mountain Road. Bob Bledsoe suggested that the NPO oppose this suggestion and offer .8 Page 5--NPO #3 Minutes, October 24,- 1903 instead, ''-a looping traffic pattern (diagram attached) similar to Genesis hoop. Larry Barnum also testified concerning the devaluation to the 'expensive homes in the Amesand Shadow Hills Subdivisions if SW 121stAvenuewere to be extended into those neighborhoods. The NPO decided by unanimous motion to oppose theextension of SW 121st Avenue, and to offer the alternative looping,',traffic pattern for " those neighborhoods 13. Without the extension of SW 121st Avenue;, there is no need for a left turn lane east of 121st Ave. on Gaarde Street. Two lanes should be sufficient. Two minor concerns with the supplemental `information supplied on October 12, '1983, that Bob Bledsoe mentioned were the following:. 14. Double catch basin inlets will probably be needed to catch the stormwater at the bottom of those steep slopes (8-13%) on the private drives. 15. The extruded curbs on the private drives probably will soon break up, as has happened frequently at Cantebury Shopping Center.' The chairman of the NPO read a list of concerns supplied by Vitz Ramsdell ~ on October 22, '1983.: Vitz knew that he 'would be out of town, so he wrote these down for us. ' Relating to the first two maps attached to the letter of October 12, 1983, from; Robert Miller: A. Concerning the right-of-ways and traffic patterns, distinctions need _ to be mde between the following types of "proposal" shown: (1) tactual changes or improvements to be done by the developer, (2) Theoretical changes from city or county street standards, and (3) Theoretical changes that should be done sometime by others. B. Depending on the distinctions made above, there may not be enough right-of-way in the adjoining street to do t thathe developer La e what HLLANper- pr:VpVSCb' for his part of the street. C. Why is no left turn lane shown on SW 121st ;avenue southbound at the intersection with SW Gaarde Street? D. What is the status of the "proposed" continuation of SW 121st Avenue southbound to SW Hazelhill Dr. and Bull Mountain Road? If tuis is more than just a concept, then the adjacent landowners need to get involved in the specifics of the connection before the developer proceeds. E. The intended connection of the bicycle/jogging p-ith to Gaarde/121st is not shown; is it still included? F. Will the ownership and development of the greenw::;y and recreational facilities., reside with the homeowners' association or with the City? V �< a s IBM i - "i oil QY-1 ... ✓�V i qu 111 � r , CY f 'L` rl KE 6 1 ti CY-1 " t, s 'z s NPO #k3 MEETING MINUTES September 12, 1983 t a 1. Called to order at 7:25 P.M. 2• Roll Call: Present were Bledsoe, Ramsdell(7:32), Smith, Mortensen, and the Planning Commission, but he Porter.` Milt Fyre has been appointed to; is remaining ,as a ''general member of NPO #�3. Visitors were Althea Rodde and Betty McCain. Staff were Steve Skorney and Liz Newton. 3• The chairman forgot to bring the minutes of July 25, 1983. 4, Review of Park Place development application by Century 21 Homes. Bob Miller of Century 21 Homes. Bob Miller of Century 21 had said he would attend our meeting, but he never came, although Liz checked the ;lobby several times. In our review of this application, NPO #3 has the . following concerns and opinions: a. The route for SW Gaarde 'Street to 135th and Walnut is in accordance with the County's desires for 'a thoroughfare between Murray Blvd. and Pacific FFay. Under the terms of the UPA_A, the City cannot exclude er, the approval of this application -should this possibility. Howev leave open the options for a more indirect route, as specified in Tigard's adopted comprehensive plans including ,connection to SW 132nd Avenue instead of 135th and Walnut. b. The road alignment of SW Gaarde, including in particular the termination point of Phase I, should be moved westward so as to impact the Rodde property less (Tax lot 300). C. Steve Skorney reported that the City Engineer wou`"d like to see the County standard of a 70-foot right-of-way for Gaarde Street instead oftheproposed 60 feet. This is a change from a discussion that Bob Bledsoe had with Frank Curry, in which Mr. Curry said he wanted to see a 60-foot right-of-way with the contingent restrictive easement of 5 feet on each side. NPO r3 strongly supports the 60-foot right-of-way with the contingent easement. d. The County standard for major collector is a roadway designed for speeds of 35-45 mph. The `City standard for minor collector is a roadway designed for speeds at 25-35 mph. Since 35 mph is the common ground in this controversy, that is the speed that should be designed for-no more and no less. the radius agreed upon by Frank curry and Che County is 700 feet. At that radius the super elevation should be limited to 7X maximum, in order to provide for speeds of up to 35 mph- e. Stop signs should he included at 121st and Gaarde. fa Setbacks on Q.aestor. Blvd. should be 20 feet instead of the proposed 15 feet. The purpose of keepiaig the standard setback in this instance is to avoid discouraging the use of Questor Blvd. as a minor. collector. :. Although designed to local street standards, it is the only ,road that will be servicing the other side of the ravine and will therefore function as a minor collector.. t t g NPO #3 was concerned about the placement of the private road serving units 27-30 on the, property line, especially since the land to the south is zoned R-1, which is considerably different than the R-4'.5 PD i of this development`. We recommend moving the private road at least 5 feet northward, and including landscaping between the road and the property line. This area would be a good placeto extend the jogging path from Unit 32 to the intersection of Gaarde and 121st. i h. The use of the gas line easement as a jogging path and nature trail is not 'a suitable routing for those purposes.` In some areas 'where the slopes are gradual, the route is O.K. , but otherwise, the route' of the trail should be designed with the 'users in mind, not just for the convenience of; the developers. 5. Our next meeting will be the regular meeting for October. Our regular meetings will be on the Mondav of the first Council meeting of the month. That should be October 3, 7:15 P.M. at Fowler Jr. High School. (pm/0182P) 1, 't - AIR JAN January 23, 19$4 __ TIGM0 City Tigard Cy Council To: B , From: NPO #3 Subject• S $_$3pD Appeal of denial by Planning Commission for development • on the Century 21 property at SW Gaarde and Sw 121st Avenue lication was denied on the basis of insufficient information. The , This app apparent planning commission dirt- not like making that determination, but an lack of direction by staff to the applicant ]ed to this result. The and application is complicated with issues of road provided alignmen commission with about 28-30 housing density, among others. NPO 3 p objections or concerns regarding the plan as submitted; this should be included t as part of the written'testmony. (If not, we will supply copies'.) The case � was made more complicated because three decisions were combined in the application. If the council does not wish to decide on all the issues of this application, it should at least give direction to the planning commission on certain issues they felt required council decision, in particular the size and alignment Of the Gaarde Blvd. extension (Murray Blvd. extension). On this issue, at least three "questions should be answered by council: 1, What size street should be built, and what standards should `apply? � 2. Where should the street intersect, SW 121st Avenue? 3. Should the street be directed toward SST 132znd Avenue bthaAvenueindireot route {as in our comp plan), or directed toward Sid 135 near Walnut Street (as in ;the County's plan)? NPO ,#3's position on these questions is that the street should be a Minor Collector (which allot-'s 350-foot radius curves and direct access for homes and is designed fora maximum of 35 mph), and that it should be directed toward SW 132nd Avenue by an indirect alignment--the alignment shown for questor Blvd. is ideal. NPO 3 prefers a northern, offset alignment at # SW 121st Avenue. zzled Another question which putheplanning undeveldlotscommission samount It housing density allowable on th LS opeapplicant to submit � would help the commission if council„ would direct the lots which are � the number of units he is asking for on each of those big Y to be developed i.. inter phases. Bob Bledsoe, Chairman NPO #3 � �3 W PRO, } f e m_ '�tea: •�»., :, >� u.+«: , �� vhy ..... ----- x•r,,rn: 5 t r �e!"Gy'�na`4,R+�'""i Yfii`s� � h �°.Yt=.a ..,.,2 �..♦ .� ��'� . RE R i r �' �^-qui, �x ,, '��•+'; ��4 F'y� ; J !� ah ry .z ,...w .-.s.,.�r ---. ,r,;,:. ,t ,C".:x a;r. sre'r` ,r "'•a= •.t .,•,8''�+ +.. ,x,yy �4�,�`'a.M .•Y` a., Yx` sr.'a-.N+ +' s.irsv'�-"'.`;�' -?" "a,,;i-Xr.scs. rs x"4, :v' ..-. ._•..-:, '"4x-'fi`?'t3=x»..'�:w.'s'ev-`frr s-k -Lr ,,.^t ..v.ie.`.. . .. �,•� �. � '- �M�, ��., � .:,fi vS�.. .�-^ate- = R �t � ,.��"�r., .�. � a- � . ; � e . �z..n.w.., ��+, � .� `,-';� �,,,K �.``��s •zv...r'sw 'fit +��".v..�. `�;,t�'"•a� ��*''s`�-�,a�. -,;-•�ti= 4sz'. m.s.`- �-.:f � -k.• � �,�sr� '�,.._.� `�«,'�.: ...w_3:..- .r� .. � -a. A _,. a-a �k��2._��... -, ax -.:•r.,:,z:�.a-,�:x' �� a «z' .f .�,,�.�e.,x '�:��a^�i�^"�� c� =;�r -u a .��r-'�. �!..�. �y.?�,r�'��"-�i-� �-�` _ K'»,r � sCx:--r! f'd,.'�'��`�`n;�r��=.fri ,�� sxrh.��.m...- **�p�' �-:"a� +"-n.r r sy 't+;��y�� a-zi �K.+s a ;3�'�J"�+T:`�rh.�r ms`s �"�, ',�z"�' ��r� �. �i s "��4•',(.+ PUBLIC `HE:AKING OPENED 5.1 Century 21 S 8-83 P.D. It was tabled from the last meeting, so Vice President Moen, asked staff to review the staff report again. Assistant PlannerSteve Skorney reviewed the staff report to the Commissioners and Public. Associate Planner' Skorney also reviewed the conclusions and the Planning Department g : f-indings. Staff recommended approval, with conditions of the applicant's request for conceptual and detailed planned development approval and preliminary plat approval of Phase I-`of S `8-83 PD. o NPO/CCI COMKENTS o Bob Bledsoe 11800 SW Walnut, NPO #3. He stated that the concern of the NPO was that the Development Code says a single family dwelling is one detached residence placed on one lot.` He said that the NPO cannot understand why the Planning Department is approving this proposal. o Planning Director Bili Morahan, said the code concerning Planned Development speaks to the minimum land area per dwelling unit, irregardless:of ownership patterns. o Vice President Moen, asked if the land is going to be common land or not? o Director Bill Monahan said that is what the applicant wanted. He also said that the applicant himself 'should speak. Applicants Presentation: . Bob Miller, Century 21 Properties. He explained that what Century 21 Properties wanted is to put 43 units on 47.8 acres of land or they would even settle for 43 units on 9 acres of land. He also said that it would be o.k. if they only approved Phase l of the plan.. He also mentioned that the "T" intersection presented to Larry Rice from the County and Frank Currie, Director of Public Works would be o.k. He also addressed the problem about how the Fire Department was to respond to a fire in that area. He said that they can come in on one of roads that are roped off to get tc the fire. He also commented on who the was going to take care of the common land. tie said that the Neighborhood Association, made .up of the people who live. there, would be responsible for it. 6 Commissioner Edina asked Bob Miller about concerns on policing the property. o Bob Miller said that the Home Owners will do their own policing around the area, but Century 21 is willing to let the City patrol the area even though it isprivateproperty. o Larry Rice, Washington County. He said that the County was in favor of the plan and they gave their o.k. to go ahead. Planning Commission Minutes - December b,- 1983 2 o Commissioner Edin asked Larry Rice it thr ' '1Ls t000 to have -it rht west end of the:road. c Ralph Flowers 11700 SW Gaarde. lie explained that his concern was ,it you let the development happen the traffic on Gaarde and 121st will became extra 'heavy and that the light on Gaarde and 99 is already; a death trap and he said it will be worse if you put up a stop sign or improve the road. o Carl Landstrom 12000 SW Gaarde. He wanted to let the Commissioners know that his house is only 20 feet from the road and that he was afraid that the traffic will get worse than ' it is now. o Lou Ann Mortensen 11160 SW Fonner NPO #3 She asked Bob Miller if the Home Owners Association will have to file with the Oregon State Real Estate Board. She also 'asked what `would' happen if the Home Owners Association doesn't remain in existance. She was upset - that Larry Rice ?eft before any one could question him on what he commented on. 0 Bob Miller responded by saying that yes it will be filed with the Oregon State `Real 'Estate: Board. He; responded to the second question by saying R that the Home ;Owners Association will always exist if there are people living on the property.; ' o Lou Ann Mortensen asked what is going to happen with the traffic on Pacific Highway. t o Director Bill Monahan said that he and Frank Currie have discussed that problem and there will be no answer for at least a year or so. F x o Commissioner Butler asked if there will be three lanes of traffic and how t will they go. E e Assistant Planner Skorney said that 2 Lanes will be travel lanes and l j will be a turning lane. 0 Judy Fessier 11L80 SW Fanner She asked it there will be a half-street improvement or a full street improvement on Gaarde? Will the right-of-way on Gaarde be upgraded? E G; o Assistant Planner Skorney said that the only thing to be done is the sidewalks on the Park Place side, The right-of-way will be upgraded to . the standards on the Park Place side. , a Lengthly Discussion followed. t o Betty McCain 13950 SW 121st Her concern was that if they put road improvements on Gaarde that it will only be 11 inches from her house. She also said that she has trouble already with the traffic, if the development is approved she will have more. ; N o Eldon liodapp 114b0 S.W. ( aardf� His concern was. that it they widen Gaarde'"that th, natural springs wi11 be all messed up- He alst was concerned that if an accident happened on Gaarde who will he the one to respond, the 'County or the City Police Department. Judy Hodapp 11460 .SW Gaarde She wanted to explain chat the traffic on Gaarde is already bad and if more is put onto it there will be more accidents than there are now. o Commissioner Gdin said that he understands and that it will be considered. BREAK 9.45 P.M� CONVENED 9:50 P.M. CROSSEXAMINATION: o Bob Bledsoe 111300 S.W. Former NPU #3 He would Like the County r_c agree to an alignment for the Gaarde St. t extension that indirectly connects ';to the 121st and Gaarde intersection_ j He asked if there with be a continuous curb to Gaarde St after. the improvements are made- o Bob Miller Century 21 Properties r He explained that there will be 25 ft. of street on 121st on the property owners side and only 20 ft. on the development side. He said that will be the same for Gaarde St. He also asked that the 200 street improvement be restricted because he doesn't think that it is fair now because the city has no idea at all what is being talked about. As the property is developed the developer will be placing storm drains and sewer drains. If they hit anyones spring they will find where it is and fix it. o Assistant Planner Steve Skorney told Bob Miller that the 200ft. improvement 'is standard for that kind of subdivision. o Lvall Turrib:ilt 111.35 SW Gaarde e Asked if 'E.::;:k .Currie said that there is anything to be done to [tie- County side of Gaarde Street . o' Bob Millet said that he did not remember that, o Mr. . Turnball said no he was talking about street improvements. And then Mr. Currie said only if you have an LED. o Ted Dunfill 5595 SW Edgewood What he wanted to know was if they do street improvements to part of the street at a later date won' t there have to be more work done to the other streets. E; Planning Commission Mir,ut es - December 6, 1983 4 ` o Commissioner F,din` answered his question by :;ayi"K yes it docs opeii door for the other streets to br improved. o Betty McCain then said that they will be violating both the City And County setback ordinances, and once those ordinances are viol ; ed who is going to buy the 'property. o Director Bill_ Monahan said that there i.s really no answer for that because` it all depends where the house is located. The conflict is from the house to the right-of-way. He also said the problem isn't being created now, that it already exists. o Commissioner Edin asked Betty McCain it she heard` the answer Mr. Miller gave about the natural;springs and drains. o Betty McCain said that she understands, but she is not. sure that what Mr. Miller is proposing will be the answer. o Commissioner Edin told her that no one there is an engineer and that they rely on staff and staff does not know. o Commissioner Moen had a question for the applicant. Who is ,going to do the maintenance on that street and how can the city be assured that it will be maintained properly? He also 'wanted to know how the police are going to control the parking on the one side of the street. o Bob Miller said the Home Owners Association will have the responsibility to maintain the property. He said that on a private drive no one else has to let the police on, but they are willing to work with staff and come up with an answer. o Commissioner Owens asked the applicant why he asked for a private road instead of public ones. o Bob Miller responded that it will take away from the land and the land itself is only 300 ft. wide. o Commissioner Owens asked if the project is approved tonight how will the applicant address the issue of the problem with the different number of units that the staff has put in the report. o Assistant Planner Skorney said that it was Cor a decision on Phase d no, on the plat. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 10:35 P.M. o Commissioner Owens said that the road condition is a majorissuebut that is not what the Commission is approving. She also said to look at it another way the improvements will in the long run be safer than worse. She also said that traffic will increase on Gaarde regardless of what the Commission decides on this property, i o Commissioner Butler said that he has never seen a maintenance overlay like this one before. He also was wondering why the Gaarde, Pacific Highway problem -oas not regarded in the plans. Also, he would like more on the drainage systems. Pi.anning Commission, Minutes December 6, 1983 5 a I Commissioner Edin would tikt it noted how he would like to- sec `ht staff Of { report changed to conceptual detat(,ouncllW consider� appr�ovin};��oOlt? P 11 priv. zte E He would like to have the City streets and 'enforce the parking. 's- o Commissioner Edin said then the Commissions' hands are tied to do anything { about the 70: ft. right-of-way.; Do we or don't we have anything we can do about the right-of-way? o Director Bill Monahan said that no you can't do anything about it be ot violate the Urban Planning Area Agreement. the Commission can n U Commissioner -Edin Chad that thelocationc Tioinoat the 121ststreet not thereally .safe problem. He said P as thinking about putting the "T"` in the other end of thing to do. He w Phase I, maybe at the end of the ' street making cars either go left or right in Phase II. Commissioner Edin thinks this is the way Council and the neighbors would like it as it wouldn't be a-straight away shot. th o Commissioner Vanderwo d would concerns aboute#5,i shesidCommissioner thatshe has 'never `seen .street. She: has some anything like this before. She also said that 200 ft. improvement will increase traffic speed more than it is now. ing o Bob Miller said that with this conditionnt h said can see that that carsleare will goring to speed up on the 400 ft. imp faster than now. oCommissioner Frye major concern is with the traffic pattern, he doesn't: t shot on Gaarde. He also said that he does like the cars having a straigh like the offset runninginto albes b�tween1121st andng the T99oa stop sign could would be good. He said t y be put in. It is a lot of density for a zone that is single family. So he would not approve this unless it has an indirect connection. o "Commissioner Leverett said item MI5 show that we have an engineering problem and it has to be worked out and that the 200 ft. is not worded well. o Commissioner Moen comment was that we are here to talk about the development and we have done that, we have only talked about the street problems. 1{e is in favor of staffs' recommendations and one risenot (Eton put to Gaarde. Two problems by putting a 'T' on the top, the "T in without some input from engineering. The second one is that 121st is not good becausehe doesn't think hpeople would be very well served. He asked the . applicantif they plan on having any parking around the development. o Bob Miller stated that they plan on having parking on one side and have enough room for a walkway on the right-of-way. o Commissioner Edin thinks putting private drives , on this big of a development is wrong. Planning Commission Minutes - December 6, 1983 6 ORIN MW o Comm LssIone r Owens would Iike t—o know what Comm IssIone r Moenst un density are. o Commissioner Moen said that we are not here to redesign the plan. o Commissioner'Edin motioned to approve Conceptual Phase I with conditions. To add and correct staffs' conditions. The first addition would be Caarde Street be extended as shown on the plans an additional 300 ft. northwest from where it deadends now. with other proposed streets to be constructed to make a ''T" intersection at that spot. He left in item #5, because he would like to see that street improved. Commissioner Owens seconded the motion:. The motion was denied with the vote 5 to 2. o Discussion followed regarding the density problem. o Commissioner` Butler said that it is inappropriate for this density. Phase I could have been added 'only, _not both Phase I and Phase II. o commissioner' Moen asked staff how much of the density transfer is in Phase z. o Director Bit] Monahan said that about 5 units. o Discussion followed among the Commissioners and Staff. o Commissioner' Butler motioned to deny development S 8-83. Commissioner Fyre seconded the motion. o Discussion about the motion followed. o Motion was approved by 4 to 3 vote. o Director. Bill Monahan asked for the findings. Findings are: incomplete and inaccurate information. Private Streets inappropriate. Deny transfer to Phase I was inapproriate without see the plats- 6.2 Sign Code Exception SCI` 7-83 Chalet Restaurant and Bakery NPO JL4 o Commissioner Moen, said that the applicant had to leave and that he would like it tabled until the next meeting, o Commissioner Fyre motion to have it tabled until January's meeting. Commissioner Owens seconded. Unanimous vote of Commissioners present. Planning Commission Minutes December G, 1983 7 COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION o Commissioner Edi❑ moved and to Leverets seconded to forward a recommendation of approval oval of -to the City Council for the comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 17-83, from Low to medium density ; and appr the 'Zone Change ZC 13-83 to become effective upon Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. ?_ s The motion was approved by unamious vote of the Commissioners present. j 5.4 SUBDIVISION S 9-83 Bond Park # 2 NPO # 5 Assistant' Planner Skorney made 'staff's recommendation for approval f' with conditions. _ o NPO/CCI COMMENTS - No one appeared to speak. ® APPLICANT."S PRESNTATION - Bill McMonagle, 8905 SW ciaeYtwe=� they had -reviewed the staff report and had no problems. available to answer any questions. i PUBLIC TESTIMONY ® No one appeared to speak. 1 COzmAISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION no iact hool ® Commissioner Butler was concerned that there was application. The app licantcstated mphey f statement submitted with the had contacted the school and that they had no problems with the proposed development. s a Commissioner Owens moved and Commissioner Molicantosdrequestapprove a Subdivision S 9-83, with conditions, the app p Preliminary Plat of Bond Park # 2, a 24 lot subdivision. ; vote of Commissioners present, The motion was approved by majority Commissioner Butler voting NO. PMENT S 8-8a PD Park Place/Century 21 .Homes NPO # 3 5.5 PLANNED DEVELO 0 A . request for conceptual and detailed plan approval of a Planned i Development consisting of 215 single family units. s made staff's re conditions. oRIID it nsThen for a approval a Assistant Planner Skoruey also the conceptual and detailed plan with Plat approval, however asking for preliminary staff had not responded in the staff report to that issue. Also, staff had rer.eived a call S from Washington County requesting that the application betweenon tabled untthe il the alignment for Gaarde Roa1eou�dbbicagree WorksupDirector also ! City and Washington County• supported a continuance- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 15, 1983 PSge S 3 o NPO/CCI COMMENTS Bob Bledsoe, 11800 SW Walnut, NPO # 3 Chairman also supported havingthis item continued. The NPO had many concerns which had not been address including alignment of streets and density calcuations. e "APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION - Bob Miller, , 5164 Bobs Court, ,Salem, Civil Engineer for Century 21 Homes. Reviewed the history of the application:noting communication problems which had occurred. 0 Lengthy discussion followed regarding processing of the application. Consensus of the Commissioners was that the there were many difficult issues to deal with and there was confusion as to staff's position on this application. PUBLIC TESTIMONY ® Mrs. Rodde,, 13745 SW 121st, read her letter into the record opposing the proposed road alignment and requesting the application be denied. a Mr. Gordon Moore, 13535 SW 121st, opposed the proposed ,application. He stated that Washington County had planned to put the Gaarde Road Extension through the Century 21' Property and that Century '21 was aware of this when they purchased the property. Now, -Century 21 is proposing :shifting the burden onto his property and others without even contacting them. {F 8 Ray Barnum, 14405 SW Hazelhill Drive, respresenting the .::.homes= owners in the Bull Mountain area opposed the application because of the density and the gaarde/Murray Road extension. 4 Discussion followed regarding. continuance of the meeting. ® Commissioner Edin moved and Commissioner Owen seconded to table Planned Development S 8-83 PD to December 6, 1983, and requested staff to schedule a meeting between Washington County, City Staff, Applicant, NPO # 3 and affected parties to address issues of concern. Also requested applicant to provide a true school impact statement. The motion was approved by unanimous vote of Commissioner present. 6. OTHER BUSINESS ® Discussion followed regarding developing criteria for justifying changes to the Comprehensive Plan. 7. Meeting Adjourned 11:30 P.M. Diane M.4Jell ATTEST: Fran,-Ks 3. e ino, President (0227P)PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 15, 1983 Page 6 ,2M 221 11.1 I MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commiss`o.n FROM: Planning Staff (, DATE: December 6, 1983 '' SUBJECT:' Park :Place` S 8-83 PD At the Planning Commission meeting of November 15, 1983, the request of Century ;21 Properties Inc. for approval of the Park' Place development was postponed to allow the applicant to meet with the City, County and affected property owners to resolve the Caarde Street extension issue.' A meeting was held on Wednesday, November 23, at 9:00 A.M. at City Hall. In attendance were Tigard Planning Director William Monahan, :Tigard; Public Works Director Frank Currie, Washington County Public- Works Director Larry ; Rice,' support staff fromtheCity and County, NPO #3 representative Bob Bledsoe, CPO #4 representative Beverly Froude, property owners Althea Rodde and Cordon Moore, and Century 21 Properties Engineer Robert Miller. It was agreed that SW Gaarde Street would be extended to the northwest corner s of Phase I of the Park Place development. Caarde Street would not encroach more than five feet onto Althea Rodde's property. Larry Rice stated :that Gaarde= Street would not be a major thoroughfare. Caarde Street will be built to collector street standards. This will mean two travel lanes and one center turn lane. Traffic speed is a maximum 35 mph Rice said that r the County does :not currently have a program to 'pay for the Gaarde Street extension into the County. If surrounding property owners wish' to develop and need to extend Gaarde Street to gain access, they will have to pay ;for the extension. Rice concluded chat the County is concerned with the future residential use in that area and must supply a road to handle the projected housing density. The City and County agreed that Gaarde Street is not the Murray Road extension. Frank Currie said that the agreed upon alignment is in accordance with the City's transportation plan which suggests a series of indirect minor collector connections between Murray Boulevard and Gaarde Street. A follow-up Town Hall meeting was held on Monday, November 28th, at 7:30 P.M. at Fowler Junior High School. Robert Miller explained the new alignment for the Gaarde Street extension. In attendance were Frank Currie, Bill Monahan, and Steve Skorney from the City and approximately 25 property owners from the Bull. Mountain and Gaarde Street neighborhoods. After the conclusion of the Town Hall meeting, Planning Commissioner Phil Edin requested that Miller design an alternative alignment for the Gaarde Street extension. This alternative would not connect at the intersection of SBS' 121st and Gaarde, but would follow the northerly boundary of the proposed project and form a "T" intersection atSW121st. This alternative is for discussion purposes only. The Commissioners are reminded that the Planning staff is recommending approval of the previously submitted Park Place project with the street alignment that was agreed upon at the November 23rd meeting. SS:Ise/0235P e r e 6 { lE t STAFF REPORT [ AGENDA ITEM 5.1 DECEMBER 6, 1983`- 7:30 P.M. :TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION 4 FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL y LECTURE ROOM 10865 SW WALNUT STREET, TIGARD, OREGON s A. FINDING OF FACT 1. General Information CASE: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT S 8-83 PD (Park Place) NPO #3- � REQUEST: The , applicant is requesting conceptual and detailed plan , approval of a planned development and preliminary plat ! - approval of Phase I, consisting of 43 units. z COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential , ZONING DESIGNATION: R-7 (PD) , RECOMMENDATION: Based on information submitted by the applicant, � staff's review of applicable Comprehensive Plan ( policies, zoning code ' provisions, and field ' investigation, staff recommends approval of'S 8-83 PD, subject to the conditions listed in this staff report. , t APPLICANT: Century 21 Homes Inc. OWNER: Same i 7412 SW Beaverton-Hillsdale Hwy. Portland, Oregon 97225 LOCATION: 13900 SW 121st Avenue (Wash Co. Tax Map 2S1 3CC, Tax , Lot 401 and 2SI 4 Tax Lot 1400). r: LOT AREA: 47.81 Acres NPO COMMENT: NPO #3 has responded in writing to this application r request f r PUBLIC NOTICES MAILED: Seventeen notices were mailed. One written comment has been received at the writing of this f. report. 2. Background No 'previous actions on this property- 3. Vicinity Information The surrounding land uses are as follows: To the north is designated lour density residential, unincorporated and undeveloped as the present time. _ 4 , s To the south is designated low density residential, : zoned; R-20 and " undeveloped at the present time. To the east is :designated low density residential, unincorporated and developed ;as single family residences. To the west is unincorporated land which is outside of .Che City's urban growth boundary. 4. Site Information Slopes on the site are generally oriented east to northeast, with some interruptions due to 'stream dissection. The slope range is: from ' 5 to over 25%, the steepest areas occurring along the two stream incisions. I For the purposes of this analysis, the slopes are divided into 5 categories: 0=10% 9_5 acres, 10-15% 10.5 acres, 15-20% 13.5 acres,` ; 20-25% 9.5 acres, and over 25% 5` acres. The degree of difficulty, cost, f and riskof development rises proportionately as the slopes increase over about 15%. Soils on the site appear -to be silts and clayey silts of moderate to poor drainage. Depth to bedrock is undetermined, but it is probably near the surface in the higher portion of the site, while fairly deep in the lower areas. There is evidence of soil creep, stream undercutting of slopes, and small surface landslides on the property. These occurrences are not 'uncommon in this type of terrain, but nevertheless should be investigated carefully before development occurs. Potential } problems observed in the field are evidenced by: leaning and bent trees, # 3 erosion of the base of the ravines, -broken, warped__ topography, and escarpments where some shallow slides probably occurred. While the t upper portions of the slopes, ridges and terraces appear to be safe for ; development, the lower slopes and drainages should be investigated ' further if any changes are done to these areas. Specifically, steep road cuts, removal of vegetation and increased storm water flows into f the ravines could create future problems, which can be avoided by undertaking a more detailed geologic investigation at the appropriate time. Surface drainage is directed into two large ravines, both of which originate uphill of the land being considered. - The first of these occurs in the extreme western portion of the site. Direction of the drainage is to the east. Consequently, a deep ravine creates a formidable divide between the northwest and southwest portions of the property. This ravine merges with the second drainageway, and even deeper and larger ravine that orients northerly and effectively divides E F the entire property into east and west halves. This second drainage appears to be spring €ed, from further up on Bull Mountain, and may be �. perennial. A long, broad ridgeline parallels the larger ravine, causing s surface drainage in much of the eastern portion of the property to move t east--northeast. Other land forms on the site include a small, sloping terrace in the northeast quadrant, a surface depression created by a man-made l STAVE' REPORT -- S 8-83 PD, - PAGE 2 is excavation and dam along the large ravine, and a second, larger terrace - in :the southeast quadrant. In summary, th east facing slopes and ravines are the most significant topographicfeatures of the site. Vegetation growth on the site varies considerably. First, the southeast portion of the site is , primarily ra meadow with 'scattered trees, including filbert, hickory, fir 'and -cedar. - Generally this area has an open character. Adjacent to this area to the west is an old, neglected filbert orchard. To thenorthof the orchard is a pasture area, open except for another.,` smaller orchard and a stand of large, ;handsome douglas fir. To the west, a" dense woodland of Western Chinkapin, Red Alder, Bigleaf Maple, Douglas' Fir, ' Cherry, and Cedar stretches south to north ;along both sides of the large ravine, and up slope into the southwest quadrant of the site. These trees are important in that they divide the site visually ;in half, in addition to their value in stabilizing the steep slopes along the ravine. The northwest portion of the property is a large meadow, with 'a few scattered trees. It is surrounded by woods on all sides, although the woods immediately to the west (off the subject property) are more brush than forest. B. APPLICABLE PLANNING POLICIES w 1. Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1 THE CITY SHALL MAINTAIN AN ONGOING CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM AND SHALL ASSURE THAT CITIZENS WILL BE PROVIDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE INVOLVED IN ALL PHASES OF THE PLANNING PROCESS. Notices are sent to all property owners within 250 feet of this application. A notice was published in the Tigard Times on November 3, 1983. NPO #3 was notified of this application. 2.1.3 THE CITY SHALL ENSURE THAT INFORMATION ON LAND USE PLANNING ISSUES IS AVAILABLE IN AN UNDERSTANDABLE FORM FOR ALL INTERESTED CITIZENS. All interested parties are given, at a minimum, 10 days to respond in writing to the application and request tinder consideration and are encouraged to do so. The Planning stuff is available to address any specific questions concerning the application or the application process. 3.1.1 THE CITY SHALL NOT ALLOW DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS HAVING THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT LIMITATIONS EXCEPT WHERE IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT ESTABLISHED AND PROVEN ENGIVEERING TECHNIQUES RELATED TO A SPECIFIC SITE PLAN WILL MAKE THE AREA SUITABLE FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: STAFF REPORT T S 8-83 PD PAGE 3 d=.' �etdLfl k WITHIN a, AREAS HAVING A HIGH SEASONAL WATER TABLE WITHIN O— 24 INCHES OF THE SURFACE- FOR THREE OR MORE WEEKS OF THE YEAR; b. AREAS HAVING A SEVERE SOIL EROSION POTENTIAL; C. AREAS SUBJECT TO SLUMPING, EARTH SLIDES OR MOVEMENT; d, AREAS HAVING SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 25%; OR e, AREAS HAVING SEVERE WEAK FOUNDATION SOILS. 6.1.1 THE CITY SHALL PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR DIVERSITY OF f HOUSING DENSITIES AND RESIDENTIAL TYPES AT VARIOUS PRICE AND RENT LEVELS. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 3. The Tigard Community Development Code, through the Planned Development process, shall establish a procedure to allow properties exhibiting physical constraint characteristics, e.g. , steep slopes or floodplains, to develop with density transfers allowable .on the site. No more than 25% of the dwellings may be transferred. 5. The City shall encourage housing development to occur, to, the greatest extent possible, on designated buildable lands in areas where public facilities and services can be readily extended to those lands. t 4 6.4,1 THE CITY SHALL DESIGNATE RESIDENTIAL "DEVELOPING AREAS," (WHICH ARE NOT DESIGNATED AS "ESTABLISHED AREAS") ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP, AND ENCOURAGE FLEXIBLE AND EFFICIENT DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THESE AREAS. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 3. Within the Planned Development section of the Tigard Community �. Development Code: a. Development will be prohibited on lands not classified as developable as defined in OAR 660-07-140; t b. Twenty-five percent of the number of units which could be accommodated on the undevelopable land may be transferred A and placed on the developable land; however C. The transfer of the density shall be limited by 125% of the k top of 'the range of the residential plan classification on k the developable portions of the site. 4. The Tigard Community Development Code shall also provide for a Planned Development process which encourages innovative design, { more efficient use of land, energy efficiency and more flexible development standards. STAFF REPORT S 8--83 PD PAGE 4 t s 7.1.2 THE CITY SHALL 'REQUIRE AS A PRE-CONDITION TO DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL THAT: a. DEVELOPMENT COINCIDE WITH THE AVAILABILITY OF ADEQUATE SERVICE CAPACITY INCLUDING: : 1. PUBLIC WATER 2. PUBLIC- SEWER (NEW DEVELOPMENT ON SEPTIC TANKS SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED WITHIN THE CITY); AND 4 3. STORM DRAINAGE.; b. THE FACILITIES ARE: 1. CAPABLE OF ADEQUATELY SERVING ALL INTERVENING PROPERTIES AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT; AND 2• DESIGNED TO CITY STANDARDS. c. ALL NEW DEVELOPMENT UTILITIES TO BE PLACED UNDERGROUND. F 7.2.1 THE CITY SHALL' REQUIRE AS A PRE-CONDITION TO DEVELOPMENT THAT: a. A SITE DEVELOPMENT STUDY BE SUBMITTED FOR DEVELOPMENT q IN AREAS SUBJECT TO POOR DRAINAGE, GROUND 'INSTABILITY OR FLOODING WHICH SHOWS THAT THE DEVELOPMENT IS SAFE s' AND WILL NOT CREATE ADVERSE OFFSITE IMPACTS; b. NATURAL DRAINAGE WAYS BE MAINTAINED UNLESS SUBMITTED" STUDIES SHOW THAT ALTERNATIVE DRAINAGE SOLUTIONS CAN SOLVE ON-SITE DRAINAGE PROBLEMS AND WILL ASSURE -N0 ADVERSE OFFSITE IMPACTS; C. ALL DRAINAGE CAN BE HANDLED ON-SITE OR THERE IS AN t ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION WHICH WILL NOT INCREASE OFFSITE ' IMPACT; d. THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN ELEVATION AS ESTABLISHED BY THE 1981 FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY CONDUCTED BY THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS BE PROTECTED; AND e, EROSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES BE INCLUDED AS A PART OF THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN. _ 7.4.4 THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE THAT ALL NEW DEVELOPMENT BE CONNECTED TO A SANITARY SEWER SERVICE. 7.6.1 THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE AS A PRE-CONDITION TO DEVELOPMENT - THAT: a. THE DEVELOPMENT BE SERVED BY A WATER SYSTEM HAVING ADEQUATE WATER PRESSURE FOR FIRE PROTECTION PURPOSES; j b. THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL NOT REDUCE THE WATER PRESSURE IN THE AREA BELOW A LEVEL ADEQUATE FOR FIRE PROTECTION PURPOSES; AND i C. THE APPLICABLE FIRE DISTRICT REVIEW! OF ALL APPLICATIONS. STAFF REPORT - S B-53 PD — PAGE S THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE AS APRE-CONDITION TO DEVELOPMENT 4 APPROVAL THAT: a. DEVELOPMENT ABUT A PUBLICLY DEDICATED STREET OR HAVE ADEQUATE ACCESS APPROVED BY THE APPROPRIATE APPROVAL AUTHORITY; b. STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY BE DEDICATED WHERE THE STREET IS SUBSTANDARD IN WIDTH; C. THE DEVELOPER COMMIT TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STREETS, CURBS AND SIDEWALKS TO THE CITY STANDARDS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT; d. INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPERS PARTICIPATE IN THE IMPROVEMENT OF EXISTING STREETS, CURBS AND SIDEWALKS TO THE EXTENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT'S IMPACTS; e: STREET; IMPROVEMENTS BE MADE AND, STREET SIGNS OR SIGNALS BE PROVIDED WHEN THE DEVELOPMENT IS FOUND TO CREATE OR INTENSIFY A TRAFFIC HAZARD. f. TRANSIT STOPS, BUS TURNOUT LANES AND SHELTERS BE PROVIDED WHEN THE PROPOSED USE IS OF A TYPE WHICH GENERATES TRANSIT RIDERSHIP; g. PARKING SPACES BE SET ASIDE AND MARKED FOR CARS OPERATED BY DISABLED PERSONS AND THAT THE SPACES BE LOCATED AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE TO THE ENTRANCE DESIGNED FOR DISABLED PERSONS; AND h. LAND BE DEDICATED TO IMPLEMENT TRE BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN CORRIDOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH `f.'HE ADOPTED PLAN. 11.3.1 THE CITY SHALL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING WHEN PREPARING STREET IMPROVEMENTS PLANS THAT AFFECT SW 121ST AVENUE OR GAARDE STREET. a. THE IMPACT ON THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES AND THE ALTERNATIVES WHICH HAVE THE MINI14UM ADVERSE EFFECT IN TERMS OF: 1. REDUCING THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE DWELLING AND THE STREET; AND 2. NOISE IMPACTS. b. THE EFFECT THE IMPROVEMENT WILL HAVE ON THE TRAFFIC FLOW AND THE POSSIBLE NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON OTHER STREET INTERSECTIONS, t C. MINIMIZING THE USE OF THESE STREETS AS PART OF THE ARTERIAL SYSTEM FOR THROUGH TRAFFIC. STAFF REPORT - S 8-83 PD PAGE 6 i I` THE CITY OF TIGARD SHALL WORK WITH OTHER GOVERNMENTAL BODIES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN ARTERIAL ROUTE CONNECTION FROM MURRAY BOULEVARD OR SCROLLS FERRY ROAD TO PACIFIC HIGHWAY. THIS ARTERIAL ROUTE SHOULD BE LOCATED WEST OF BULL MOUNTAIN, AND SHOULD NOT UTILIZE ROADS WHICH PASS THROUGH EXISTING RESIDENTIAL AREAS WITHIN TIGARD. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES I. SW Gaarde 'Street and SW 121st Avenue (between Gaarde and Walnut) r, shall develop as two-land roads with pedestrian-bicycle paths, x _- restricted parking and left turning lanes as needed at; congested intersections. - 2. The undeveloped .land along SW 121st Avenue (south of Walnut) shall be planned for development in accordance with , the `locational i. criteria policies that apply to locating medium and higher densities close to arterials and in 'accordance with the policies for "Established" and "Developing" areas. 3. The Tigard Community Development Code shall require site development review for any development other than a single or two family structure. The site development 'review shall include review of street right-of-way and pavement location. C. TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE'. 1$.56.010 Purpose. The purpose of the planned development district is to allow"the-Planning Commission and ,the City Council the opportunity to , review large and complex developments within this community. This i designation is used to protect sensitive land areas, ensure reasonable conformance to the standards established in the underlying zones, address major transportation difficulties and allow a ' degree of flexibility not usually assoc4.ated with development. i In most cases, where sensitive lands, open space, or park areas are included Within a developme:nt, that development, whether commercial, industrial, or residential, €Tall be reviewed as a planned development district. This designation may be applied to both permitted uses and i conditional uses in all zones. (Ord. 80-94 Section 1 (part), 1980). 18.56.021 Conceptual review. (a) The Planning Commission shall review r the conceptual development plan and report and may act to grant conceptual approval, approval with conditions or modifications, or denial. Such action shall be based on the Comprehensive Plan, the standards of this title, and other regulations, and the suitability of the proposed development in relation to the existing character of the E area. r (b) Approval in principle of the conceptual development plan and report shall be limited to the conceptual acceptability of the land uses t proposed and their interrelationships, and shall not be construed to ! endorse precise location of uses or engineering feasibility. The � Planning Commission may require the development of other information f; i STAFF REPORT - S 8-83 PD - PAGE 7 s. Ems- M, f, fied in Section ' 18.56.030 to be submitted with the than that speci However, the applicant general development plan and report. fshould loodp1 e, as specific as possible 'concerning such 'issues as feta PThe more traffic circulation patterns, and density calcul,ations,, accurate the proposal, the easier it will be for the Planning Commission to render a decision. In many cases, the conceptual and detailed development plan review process can be accomplished at one hearing. (c) No appeal of a denialof a: conceptual development plan and report shall be allowed. The intent of the conceptual. review is to ascertain staff, Planning Commission, and affected citizens' concerns relative to a particular project. The applicant's responsibility is to address these concerns priorto a rehearing of the conceptual development)`plan before the Planning Commission. (Ord. 80-94 Section 1 (part), 18 5b 030 Detailed development plan and report. > (a) Upon receipt of an application for a detailed plan and report review, the payment of the appropriate fee, and the submission of all appropriate supporting appropriate Planning Director shall initiate a' reviewr of the detailed be paid to the issues plan and report. Particular attention shall developed' as a result of the conceptual development plan and report review. If -significant differences iarise, the Planning Director may :c'-xedule study sessions with the Planning Commission and the applicant to resolve the issues prior to a public 'hearing= Thereafter, if the Planning Director of Planning Commission agree, the applicant shall '. proceed to a detailed plan hearing. (b) The detailed development plan and report shall consist of final pians showing the project as it will „Ali material which be constructed. t plan. and report shall accompanied the conceptual developmen ` y the updated to reflect the conditions, concerns, and changes brought about by the deviations or variances from preliminary review approval. All ns standards prescribed by this title in and in particular, in specific variances from the standards and specifications terms, all deviations or and requirements of Title 17 of this code, which are being proposed to be varied from, shall be addressed in writing with a showing that the public health, safety and welfare will be best served by such proposal. (Ord. 81-19 Section 1 (part), 1981; Ord. 80-94 Section l (part), 1980.) D. CONCLUSIONS 1. Staff Comments There are approximately 47.81 total acres on the site; of which 42.81 acres are buildable and 5 acres are unbuildable (slopes in excess of 25%). x The buildable land will allow 193 dwelling units, 43 in Phase I and 150 in Phase YY. Twenty-five percent of the number of units which could be in Phase 11.ted on the undevelopable land may be transferred and placed on the developable land, not to exceed 125% of the allowed density on the developable portions of the site. A density transfer of 5 units can occur. With the density transfer the entire project can accommodate 198 dwelling units. STAFF REPORT S 8-83 PD - PACE 8 The applicant proposes 215 units for the site and identifies no sensitive` land forms within the project - no slopes over 25% There are no steep ,slopes in Phase but Phase II has more slopes over 25% than any similar size area in the City of Tigard. The extent and location of steep sloped areas needs to be confirmed by a registered engineer, when applying for preliminary plat approval of Stage II. The application specifies attached units in Phase Ii. Attached dwelling units are allowed only as a conditional use in an R-7 zone. The Public Works Department reviewed the project and finds the sanitary sewer and storm drainage plan acceptable. However, the Department found the public street plan for the site not ;designed to City standards. 121st Avenue should be designed for 60 feet of right-of-way and 44 feet of; pavement. Also, no provisions were made for bicycle paths on the extension of Caarde -Street'. The Public Works Department found the V-notch private streets inadequately designed. They would like to see the load design of the private streets engineered to City standards. The dwelling units , within Phase Twill be served 'primarily by the private loop streets. There will be; accesses onto the loops from public streets. The. loop ;streets will be one-way with parking only allowed on one side of the street. The Tigard Police will only go onto the private streets to answer"a call. The City- Council would have to adopt an ordinance allowing the police to enter private streets to issue traffic/parking citiations. The Tualatin Rural Fire Protection District has reviewed the project and approves of the development with conditions which have been made a part of staff's recommendation. F. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of S 8-83 PD with the following conditions: 1. Seven (7) sets of plan-profile public improvement construction plans and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate, stamped by a registered civil engineer, detailing all proposed public improvements shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Division for review. 2. Construction of proposed public improvements shall not commence until after the Engineering Division has issued approved public improvement plans. t'he Engineering Division will require posting of a 100% performance bond, the payment of a permit fee and a sign installation/streetlight deposit. Also, the execution of a street opening permit or construction compliance agreement just prior to, or at the time of, its issuance of approved public improvement plans. 3. The final subdivision plat shall be recorded with Washington County prior to the issuance of any Building Permits. STAFF REPORT - S 8-83 PD s PAGE 9 a 4. No changes or modifications shall be made to approved plans without written -approval from the appropriate City department. 5. The applicant must improve the existing right-of-way 200' north a and east of the intersection'' of SW 121st and Gaarde to City interim standards. F 6. Half street improvements shall be made to SW 121st Avenue where it fronts the applicant's project. 7. All on-site streets, curbs, and sidewalks shall be constructed to City standards. r 8. If the 24 foot wide private streets are made one-way, parking will only be allowed on one side of the street. 9. Hydrants are to be locatedat the intersection of Questor and Gaarde and at the intersections of Gaarde and the private _ streets. (Hydrants shall; be 'approved by the Tigard Water District). 10. The applicant must provide, bicycle lanes on the Gaarde Street extension within the project boundaries.- it. Phase 11 of the project, when submitted for Preliminary Plat Approval, must include a School Impact Statement that has been ( reviewed by the appropriate school district official. ' 12. An additional five feet of set back plus the required twenty feet must be maintained on either side of the Gaarde Street extension. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Should the Planning Commission adopt staff's recommendation, the t following motion may be made: "Move to approve, with conditions, the applicant's request for conceptual and detailed planned development approval and preliminary plat approval of Phase I of S 8-83 PD. " r c r E PREPARED BY: APPROVED BY: ? t F. r i Steve Skorneye Wi ism A. Sonahan, Assistant Planner Director of Planning & Development SS•lw/0233A i i STAFF REPORT - S 8-83 PD - PAGE 10 { ENTER THE WORLD 4E CENTURY '21 PROPERTIES October 12, 1983 Mr. William Monahan Planning Director City of Tigard' P.O. 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Bill: Re Park Place PD Following our' Sept 13 meeting to define a sufficiency of detail necessary for staff to review a conceptual and detailed plan and forward 'same to the Planning; Commission we have prepared the attached packet. I believe that you will find all of the data requested, Our proposal for an authority by the City of Tigard .to control traffic on the private drives without the City bearing maintenance responsibility is to place the following statement on the face of the recorded plat or "hardboard" Each buyer of a unit will then have this in their possession when they purchase. "The 24 foot-wide driveways shown hereon are hereby dedicated to the City of Tigard as easements fo.r streets and utilities. The City of Tigard will assume all rights to control traffic and parking but will have no responsibility for maintenance. Maintenance will remain the responsibility of the Park Place Homeowners Association. " l As per present City policy, installation, maintenance and respon- sibility- Of espon-- sibilityof payment of electrical power to operate the street lights on the private drives will remain the responsibility of the Park Place Homeowners Association. Mr. ,7oe Gruelich has indicated to me that he misunderstood our plans and that either 2-way traffic without parking or one-way traffic with parking on one side will be acceptable on the 24 foot private drives. We still propose the one-way pattern with parking on one side so as to provide more than the minimum allowable parking requirements. Please advise if we can be scheduled on the next available Planning Commission adjenda. Very truly, Robert N. Duller, P.E. .5, `K.fa i >6 Z r 1 Eq 11—MRSO Mom t r, �e ceM i A. r r^• Mc a .:n....a..F- -,r ';E r't::,, Ky-.'il•.t c.a ...->�.` 'ar>iE'3'�.c::,.;,•�i€1$c.. z..".'++i Yr'• aw^ic,�` j".E "�' v:._ '" 1Y--Ke;n?'6 �r,� ;i`9. 5'-'•3 :mow ,.. x .`=?,s�,'�' a ...-r il°u,.^f �, h�*� '�,,syL•.$ y,r.,, zr' i �.. '�+' a ...r'z.�' r 'k.Sc •',c t -a.... # w ti fi 5. .rx.'73i:, ,,,• xf t yr n•sn ' f� 01-1 F .. s . �*'x,,�-ti�a a �. ,s�' � .'u"`•.�� - �•G.��.'. 1,�, ,��;: - �,-�R .-.:�-s,.,a L¢ ... .r4.. ;,�4 n� �,�' ,v, G.. s» � .a._� x,....u.-.�,�- �£"?t•`-_' .z�_.:ti:.�...t� :+;,' ��.`�� ._,.. `�' _-�� x eve s.as-_x--d:'� f?'..,,--t'.,F �:.wt... s.. Fsv ..:5•c i..� ..3.ti i �� Z•�}�.. Y y,t„F� ,+s i' � &;k�i �� .��-e"�v�:F. �'C L' �i`�-Axa`-:'.x;. v :c�e•-.-., -„N'y t a a r:ac s,. �.«r? �i vis r.,m. fix. ....� dcttr.,£k` �..•..#� ;?� � ",. �„<. ,a hY �:. �^ 'r �s �� £.:.�}.`,��.•s�:� �6�=f�^�'�'��s.�_�'f?�+�_? ��e:F�� '�.-� ��'-,' �� z:��s�'�,�-,�.y.�,+,�++. ��' .� ,��-�x',��.'�'-d^^� "��`.-"-,,:: 'sr:�r;�.3�[�.',��a:w..��"y� '��: - ,,.mss cr ..a�.7 s•�'kr, k 2 ' OEM- 17 16 ° o V I � ry 1 � ti 19 � 1 ° tl\ 1 CQ� _ /2 1 1 ° i I 20 i rr , ° I o I b of , 1 + SW G f-IRDE 35'16K�SrJ �m'/°AaI°n , RIGHT-OF -W,4Y 3a' i A(?nAaa61� EXISTING AND PROPOSED E /7 !6 IBM 18 , I , , , v�E cpL ' , I , /2 o , r � ® s 1� Y 1 60 YbIQ l c o � i , i.srr rUgW LAAff —` -- —SW GA ARO -<=> i l PROPOSED U TRAFFIC f PATTERNS � r ► i r V O v 1 (ry�rry ® I 711 ms ck: F—I o Cl- ElF� El El 0 M- 1 E 3 S V r t f �_. G— e1 i t 1 1 � I o i I k a t � , gym N r W Qj i _ t Luv`� '• ® : `5k LLj j ^ n C} (, - W N OZi of r c 1 1 G LU C) LU ct f •C) I ~ ~ ! Li1 (f) ! O R! r ! � (J) I Z }- t q I - Li- cc ' ! O cr ! C) 0 LU I I� Q L'•- � t O , ct J J o ! + q Cl- it q 0 i � s n f Canterbury B , of -i 1� \- t• 1,! }'a 'I+f- µ �. Si :e- c,:•. as J• 1 i'�y•. I _3 r E Dining Ll �- [Bedroom MZ Loft, Kitchen: (vaulted) Main Bedroom t... Living Room _ � �-�iE I Living Room Below (sunken) (vaulted) D ; Canterbury MO Upper Ei®ter Plan Cstri-te 'bury Lower FIOOr Plan Garage Copyright Q 1982 by Centhery 21 lianees,Inc. t- 3111 HEMM Americanc / /r, i j •4f+r—.__ � �1,� LI•'DIY �.� ` yy•� •11 A,- I -0 ,NZ�_ •c• 14 F liaa A' : I ]C 1C_ 1 � 1 lUt��Ir `r lit F�14 � f ub 00001 Elb �L]O❑C,, I s� BedroomDining �— - Kitchen t s. P Llvinv [Loom .vaulted/sunken) yy { t DMain Loft Bedroom (vaulted) (sunken) Garage Dining/Living Room � Americana BelOv. � Walk-in Closet Lower Floor Plain � AmeflcanA Upper Floor PlAn Copyright 0 1982 by Century 22 Homes,Inc. s� ........................ NMI 0�2 4j, liz Pe E�l .. . ......... TYOFTIOARD 4 1` W�H1tqKi, CcKi t11.OREGON APPLICATION F(Jl�tl i RECEIPT No. C1TY 'OE- TiGAKI), 12755 SW Ash, Y0 Ltux 23397 — f _ 'rigard. Oregon 97223 - (503)639-4171 FOR STAFF USE ONLY: 1. GE.NEK.AL INFORMATION II Assoc iated Cases e ('I:OPERTY AUURF:SS 1320C SW 121st__Avenue —> f iLEGAL UESCIti}''fTONT gx Tot 4ol in Sec }—& 10 tax maw 2S1 3 CC _ 2S1 4;, T2S, R1W, WM INTERNAL PROCESSING: j and Tax lot 1400 1? Sec 4, ;map Accepted for Pre-App. : SITE 47 .80 Acres> PROPERTY OWNEK/DEED HOLDER* Century 21 Properties Inc BY Suite 112 PHONE 297-1493 Pre-App.: ADDRESS CI 1Y Portland Oregon zip 97225 Date & Time : APPLICANT* 'Century 21 Properties Inc. ;,[)!)E�Ess 7412 S.W. Bvtn-Hillsdale-Hw -Ste. 112 1t+oNE297-1493 , Ace ted for Decision: ZIP 97225 E CITY Portland Ore on -- By: *Where the owner and the applicant are different people, the }Tearing llate: . applicant must be the purchaser of record or a leasee in possession with written authorization from the owner or an Hearing Reset To agent of the owner with written authorization. The written t - authorization must be submitted with this application. ElDecision: filed & mailed 2. REQUIRED LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION IS ATTACHED YES NO. 3. THIS APPLICA'T'ION INVOLVES THE FOLLOWING: FILED PAID Accepted for Appeal FEE Comprehensive Plan Amendment By: from to s quasi-judicial Date of Hearing: legislative Zone Change from to quasi-judicial DESCRIPTION: legislative Comp. Plan Designation: X Planned Unit Development concept planX_detailed Plat-'X— 1000.00 NPO No. X Subdivision 80.00 Major P�jrtition —_ Toning Distric 15inor Partition — Design Review _ Zoning Map No. Conditional Use — Variance to Zoning Ordinance Quarter Section No. (Title 18) Variance to Subdivision Ord, STAFF NOTES: (Title 17) Sensitive Land Permit Floodplains Drainageways Steep Slopes Other — ? CASE No. G'ENE1:e[. APPLICATION FORM - t'i�( lz — - ,711'Y OF TICARD, 12755 SW Ash, PO B(nc 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 - `(503)639-4171 ,f )IILEMENITALINIORMATION (TO BE PROVIDED BY APPLICANT) FOR STAFF USE ONLY } Notice of Response Received DISTRICTS A es Sent_ � o Yes ,SCHOOL DISTRICT Tigard WATER DISTRICT T1 ard ' FIRE DISTRICT Tualatin PARK DISTRICT Ti and UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY'- Sewer Available: YES NO OTHER PUBLIC UTILITIES ELECTRICITYPortland General Electric NATURAL GAS NQYt�1W2St Natural Gas TELEPHONE General Telephone and Electric OTHER Storer Cable T.V. PUBLIC TRANSIT (TRI INET) NEAREST BUS ROUTE AND STOP 121 stand Gaarde IBus 45 OTHER INTERESTED AGENCIES (SPECIFY) IEEE CHARACTER OF THE AREA EXISTING LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION ZONE VERIFIED BY STAFF NORTH Single Family Urban Low - Residential Density R-7 _ SOUTH Vacant Single Urban Low R-7 Fam!V Residential Density EAST Single Family Urian Low Residential Density R-7 WEST Vacant Single Urban Low Density R-7 [Family Residential UENE;RAL APPLICATION FORM - I'\C E'. ' 1 CASL. N >. CITY OF 'CIGARD. 12755 SW Asti , PO BOX card, ,Oreeon_97223--- (503)639-4171 9. CHANGES IN THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA WHICH AFFECT THIS APPLICATLON. Please Discuss: A. The abutting land to the North and East is established single family residential . The abutting land to the South is vacant. To the 'gest the land is"owned by the applicant and is projected to be additional and residential . Q. In general , the area is developing urban residential . 10. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE Lot Area (acres`, square feet) Site 47.80acres 11. EXISTING STRUCTURES ON TETE SITh Square Ui::t rce` Froin Property Line Use Fee[ No—rt Ii 1 South East West House 1000 240 50 350 425 NATURAL CONDITIONS 12. Percent Slope: Varies from 8.5% to 12.5% usually with one section to 20% in Phase I. 13. Vegetation Types: Average Diameter Percent Of Each Yes No Size Of Trees Per Size Trees: X 6 Filberts (old) 951.: Brush: X 12" Oaks _ 2 Grass: Y 10" Firs 3% 14 . FloodpTains: X How much of the site is in floodplain?none 15. Water Courses X What type? 16. Rock Outcroppings Y� 17. Other: - - 18. Proposed Development: Please briefly describe the proposed development: Phase I is detached Single family residential units as a PUD. Phase II will be PULL attached and detached single family units. a a . ' ("E;NLI AL APPLICATION' FORM - E�ncr. 4 (:i15i'. No --- -- CITY OF TICARU, 12755 SW Ash, NU Box 21397 card, Oregon 97223 (503)6:19-4171 19. The following isE], is not ❑ required.' 20. Overall Site Development (Drives) Residential Commercial Industrial Open Space Other Roads Total No. of acres or square 7.90 acres none none 30. 12 a( -s 5.63 4.15 acH47.8Ofeer. per use Percent of 16.5 0 0 63.0 11.8 8.7 site coverage 21. Type of Residential Use and Characteristics 11- of Bedrooms/Unit Type of Use $ of Units EFF. 1 2 3 4 Proposed_`Denszty Single family resi- 215 X X X 4.5 units oer groS 5 a re dential 23, & 4 bedroom units 22. wliere applicable , please explain how the open space, common areas and recreational facilities 'will be maintained. Homeowners and the Homeowners Association will have direct control over the open space, common areas and recreational facilities and will maintain same. 23. If the project is to be completed in phases , please describe each phase of the project. Phase I %,)ill be 43 detached units on Lots 1 ,2, and 3. Phase 11 k•)ill be 172 attached and detached units on Lots 4 and 6. Please submit the following with this application; 1. Written General Narrative, number as required by Planning Department. 2. Proof of Ownership 3. Letter of authorization if applicant is not owner. 4. Tax Map Staf€ will identify for you whether this section is to be completed. C1.NERAL APPLICATION 1'ORRI PAGE j CASL' No. CITY OF TIGAW), 12755 Std A-sh , PO BOR Y339i Bard , Orel,on 91223'- (503)639-4171 THE FOLLOWING PEOPLE, AS REQUESTF.0 BY THE APPLICANT, SHALL BE NOTIFIED OF EACH HEARING. (e.g. Attorney, Surveyor , Engineer) Stilt Notice Notice Ra:Nort Decision of Review Name Century 21 Properties, Inc. Phone: 297-1493 Street 7412 S.W. 6vtn-HillsdaleHwy. , Ste. #112 City Portland State OR. 97225 Name Bob Miller Phone: 585-7471 � �- Street 5164 Bob's Court South city Salem State OR. Zip 97306 Name Street _ City State Zip Street City State Zip t aELICANT Century 21 Properties, Inc. ` BY: :f/ X OWNER Century 21 Properties, Inc SITE PLAN CHECK LIST The Tigard Municipal Code, § 18.56.020(2) requires that the site plan include the following information when applicable. The enumerated requirements are to be located on a plan drawn to scale. This list is provided to assist you in submitting a complete application. Applicant Staff Applicable Complete _ES '-SIO YES NO COMMENT' A. IMPROVEMENTS 1. Streets X 2. Sidewalks X 3. Parking areas X 4. Maneuvering areas X 5. Supply deliveryX areas 6. Ingress/egress X points 7. Transit facilities X 8. Landscaped areas X 9. Recreation & open X space meas 10. Drainage areas X' r 11. Sensitive land X areas & if: appl — cable; a tographic map is required E. NON RESIDENTIAL BUILDING 1. Location of buildings X shown 2. Setback distances X shown 3. Typical elevation X drawings included 4. Access points for X the handicapped shown C. RESIDENTIAL UNITS 1. Number of square X feet & lot dimension shown for each lot 2. Location of units X shown D. OTHER 1 Peripheral yards are X as deep as required by underlying zone 2. Lot coverage same as X allowed by under yingi , y SITE DF.VELOPtT-N'r ANALYSIS FORM b 4J N �. •� a0 C4 244 M cn t4 4J ca G; O w w u u (D ca W x p.'H U -U 'C9. " ►. u� aa o.v 0 o a' c o Total Sq. N u Landscaping $4 Total . a W � y O u O O N 0 c0 O �N O Feet P4 _i Sq. Feet` z w Sq. Feet z aq z o. ,z 0 z L) z BUILDINGS Single Family Units detached 68,800 16.5 1,312,030 1 344,000 430 1000 0 1000 0' attached or 'detached 275,200 unit Multiple Family cOMMERCIAL List each structure none I ' INDUSTRIAL List each structure none SENSITIVE LAND AREAS Greenway Floodplains Drainage Ways Steep Slopes PUBLIC FACILITIES f, Streets 180,775 s Park or Recreation Areas 547,985 Utility Easements 18,000+ Common Areas 1557,463 1557,463 LAND DEDICATED TO CITY List S.W. Gaarde St. 85,500 180,774 121st 1,430 QuestOr Blvd. 93,844 E TOTAL 082,237 ------------- M. Iry"' DENSITY CALCULATION FORMS w RESIDENTIAL DENSITY CALCULATIONS 1. Gross square foot area in applicable underlying zone 2,082,237 2. Number of square feet in sensitive land area designated as open space i (floodplains, drainageways greenways, or lands hawing Z5 slope or greater) none 3. Number of square feet in public dedications 180,775 E f 4. Number of square feet in public facilities 245 — (streets, sidewalks, utility easements, etc. subtotal 425,975 i S Subtract the total number of square feet from 2, 3, and 4 above from the gross square foot area. Net Square Feet 1,656,262 6. Net square feet divided by the minimum lot size allowed in the underlying zone equals the density allowed. 221 units Net. sq. feet 1,656,262 + Min. lot size allow 7500 + acres 215 7. Proposed number of units S. Density bonus allowed (max. bonus = 10%) MEN t r PARK PLACE ,r~ ....E —._-- Narrative` by. Century 21 Properties, Inc. Applicant, Owner, Subdivider, Engineer 7412 S.W. Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway, Suite 112 Portland, Oregon 97225 Phone: 297-1493 Tax Lot '401 in Section 3 and 10 Tax Map 2S1 3CC and Tax Lot 1400 in Section 4 Tax Map 2S1 4 Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Tigard, Washington County, Oregon. Each condominium unit is a detached structure with adjacent recreational and open space. In addition, the development will have a large open space hat picnic and other recreational facilities will separate from the housing so t not impact needlessly on the surrounding homes. The present zoning is R-7 PD and the plan designation is Urban Low Density which allows 4.5 units ;per acre. Minimum lot sizes are 7500 square feet. This proposal complies with these criteria. ting sanitary sewer An exisage manhole exists on Gaarde approximately 150 feet East of the development. ' Sewerage is shown on the preliminary plat as all draining to this ,manhole. Two major water lines front the property on 121st. Tigard Water District has advised the Tigard Planning Commission that water is available to this property (copy of letter is attached) . There are no dangers to the public health safety or welfare by approval of this application. In fact the construction of the collector street through this development will form a valuable link in the "Murray Road Extension to Gaarde" as proposed by the City of Tigard and Washington county. All public utilities and services are sufficient to serve this development. This development will provide a total of 12.60 acres of "permanant open space or, an eventual project total of 47.8 acres. This open space will be improved and maintained by an owner's association specifically for the use of its members, In addition, 4.28 acres of open, landscaped area (exclusive of driveways and roadways) will exist between the single family residences in the initial development of 43 units. The homes will be placed selectively on the sloping hillside such that the solar access and the view for each are retained. Private driveways will be designed so as to obtain grade separation froin the Murray-Gaarde extension which functions as the main roadway through this project. Although ,some use of city recreational facilities is assumed, this should not be substantial , as casual recreational and picnic facilities will be available on-site. It is projected that each family unit would average one use per month of other city facilities. This projects to 43 family uses per Park Place Narrative Page two month or 516 per year. This usag=. is assumed to be for group activities in general , such as softball , tennis, swimming, etc. There are no sensitive land forms within this project area. Internal traffic patterns are limited to a maximum of six units in a group- ; ng with all traffic impacting the Murray-Gaarde extension directly. Traffic can then move North to Scholls Ferry, Murray, Beaverton, etc. or North on 121st, which fronts the East 'side`of this project. Traffic can also 'weave to Pacific'Highway, via Gaarde which extends Easterly from this project. Public transportation is available at 121st and:Gaarde (bus #45). The density of this development is 'slightly less than 4.5 units per acre. The allowable density in the the underlying zone is 4.5 units per acre. Ownership of each individual is intended to rest with the occupant and each `owner will have the right to sell the home and the membership in the home- owner's association to another. This proposed development is a single family, planned unit development with a density of less than 4.5 units per acre conforms with having described as allowable in this 'property in the comprehensive plan. No exceptions are presently contemplated. The single family aspect of:this. proposed development is in harmony with the existing single family housing now to the North and East {' of the; project. South and West are presently undeveloped. The approval of this development will benefit this area directly as it will incorporate a key link of the Murray-Gaarde extension within it. Further, the typeof housing projected on this very visible hillside will be much more attractive than more conventional subdivisions with straight streets and houses on the same vertical plane with views from your window into your neighbor's window. p PARK PLACE ;PLANNED DEVELOP(iENT Affordable Quality Housing with Assured Public Service A 'City exists to 'assure public services to its citizens. At the same time, the Gaarde Street extension through this site sets up a' need for special treatment of the entire' development. At a point ,approx- imately;550 feet West of 121st St. the required street 'grade necess- itates ,a ten foot cut in the hillside . A' system of privately maintained streets was created`to allow solutions to the multiple problems of grades, drainage, pedestrian access to recreational areas and, most importantly, affordability of housing. At the same time, control of these streets will vest to the City to assure public ; service's to the citizen-owners of this planned development. AFFORDABILITY Summarizing the following'data, the planned development approach with its 24 foot private drives willallowunit costs more than $10,000below that which would be the resultant of a "conventional" subdivision, approach. Ibis then necessary to say that the conventional approach would end with lot costs (not profit) exceeding $30,000 ea ch. This is a result of normal street requirements competing with the extremely awkard 'size and shape of this property. It is our opinion 'that a 'conventional subdivision',could neither be financed nor sold given current market conditions. VARIED HOUSING TYPES AND STYLES The planned development approach will allow a slightly more expensive" version of the housing types' now,being created in London Square. In fact, the success of the styles, private` { drives and housing siting in London Square has allowed this proposal to meet the requirements of financial agencies. Each home can be situated on the hillside such that it is not for view ,nor will it limit the solar access of a neighbor. You will note from the contours shown on the preliminary plan that each home will be set at an elevation different from its neighbor. Most homes will access from private drives. In lot 2, the homes nearest Gaarde will be almost 15 feet above the street due to the required street cut but grades to the homes from the private drives will not be extreme. Planned development will allow separation, view and the opportunity to create housing that will affordably fit this special site PRIVATE DRIVES It is proposed that the 24 foot private drives be privately owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association. Control for traffic, parking and police and fire access will vest in the City of Tigard by easement. It would :,ourr, then that the best of both can be attained here. A street system that v-notches in the center for drainage , ease of maintenance and recces to the adjoining lots can be built. This type of street was used in London Square and is working very well. By not drawing the streets down at the edges and by not creating curb aprons to mount, homes can be better sited on the hillside and not be required to be dug deeply into the hillside. It is easy to visualize that a street cross section that goes up from the center to the edge can more easily continue up where the home is sited above the roadway. No awkward "steps" are created, less ground is taken for asphalt and more landscaping is allowed. Costs are substantially lower than "conventional' streets. A 32 foot wide conventional street costs $37.80 per running foot. A 24 foot wide a 2 v-notched 'street costs $17.00 per runnint foot. In addition, far fewer drainage structures arc required and runoff problems are lessened as more rainwater _L ; allowed to infiltrate the larger landscaped area. For this site and its peculiar property configuration, the private driveways will serve Tigard's taxpayers and the homeowners far more efficiently than "seas of asphalt WALKWAY ACCESS TO RECREATIONAL AREAS The private driveways will access to the walkway system 'shown' on the preliminaryplan as a jogging 'path and nature trail. This pathway will connect all portions of the development and will traverse the highest ,point ( elevation 412) to the lowest point (elevation 260) . The walkway has been designed to follow the existing and proposed easements for gas, storm and sanitary pipelines. " This will provide access to these easements- for the utilities involved and, pro'�-ably more importantly, assures that the walkways cannot ever be blocked off by buildings. Once; established, they will always be open.' RECREATIONAL SPACE Besides the large arnount of open space' surrounding the living units,' Lot 5 is proposed to be a permanent open space and recreational area. Ownership will vest in ' he Homeowners Association and the homeowners will decide what types to which types of recreational use it will 'be put. It has been our ,experience` that arbitrarily imposed recreational 'uses rarely succeed. If the homeowners here decide that they want picnic f acidities, playgrounds,' tennis courts or swimming pools, they will have the opportunity to (io tthem as self-help projects. This ,., will significantly reduce costs and make the purchase of their homes that much more affordable. An example might be a tennis court, prebuilt complete with lighting, is 'estimated to cost 22,000. A double ;court could cost the buyers in Phase 1 over 1000 each. Done as a self-help project the costs would be in the nature of $350 per unit, assuming of course that these homeowners preferred tennis over some other type of facility. The Park Place homeowners should have the choice to create those amenities that they prefer. DEMOGRAPHICS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING The Park Place Planned Development will be only slightly more expensive than London Square, our prototype on SW 98th Street. Here, the homes will be larger and the open space significantly more but many of the buyers will share the same housing needs. In London Square a sampling of the reserved units shows that ; of 23 units, single parents and c9n le. persons made up 14. Of the 14, 8 were women and 6 were men. Age-wise , they were all in their 30's and 1}0'0. t;le parents much prefer to have their own homes. Affordability is the key. Park Place will fill a serious need for affordable housing for many people. HILLSIDE RETAINED Almost as important as the affordability and livability of this development is the impact on the rest of the surrounding community, The neighborhood will look up at this development, literally. The Gaarde Street extension is required. 2 4 The alignment of Gaarde and the 10 feet of cut that it will createare given. The effect of this h;ts been minimized as much as is practicable by a system of private streets that will fit into the hillside and that will allow the homes to be placed on the hillside without terraces that would forever be a blight on the view from surrounding homes. Because the 24-foot private E _ drives will fit the hillside and be v-notched to the center, they will not be very visible from below. People will see landscaping, greenery, open space' and homes'. Moreover, these homes will not be s >set in rows but will be ,placed` at different levels with diferent orientations and with different styles. The homeowners will have the benefits that a' City ,exists for; fire protection, police protection,: sewer service, water service, garbage service' -- through easement access to the City. The Tigard taxpayers will"benefit by not having to maintain the private streets or the open space in Park Place. r ' N r 3,La ON 3 Lw oOa •/J�c'9 O (Q M ,OCOI1 O- ,GOI �.M2a®J/O9 3:zQoH 3 Iz QON. es or ivil to e m _ N fA Ed 'O' G! yn Al N Lr) in m� o O n ,.01'0!1 OSy._ ',Sol .901 \„ seo2 87 r /i Z @ 9 N _ / ,ZS1 a 091 09 925 s£9,T w I m 11, 'co o Q 0 u � N N w � i � I M , 1 M I i 1 Oe O M 1L) ^ C � 091 Oil _ 1 O Q 19 V31 Q ' IC b5 91Z M,S2,,S Qa S ,/ 1 U O a I m / I C O / I O 6 / _ r r. .� 1 co a' v Q' U ui Ld cn ti ; m f- z" i z N ON 4 00 o � a o O N 4 R 1 � f r 1 / - } w 0 h 1 x 0 n V O o aq cda w j c 1.t )ns3nd O1 i ��. 061 j F M O w GN I k ), o o 111 a E: LO o CVCO 0 O CJO Q N � --. R �4 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DEPARTMENT ( SCHOOL IMPACT S'IA[=:1ENT i FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOP,12NTS OF 4 UNITS OR 'MORS: s: ( k � Since one aspect of development impact relates to schools,-th following information must be completed, and this sheet Submitted to the Plannifig Ck:partm'nt with the , effected application. Please call 639-4171 if there are any questions. a` 4_ 1. 3RiE FOLLOWING IS TO BE COMPLETED BY THE: DEVELOPER �. Name of person or firm developing the property Century 21 Properties, Inc. Person to contact David L. oringdulph Phone number 297-1493 _ . Mailing address Suite 112, 7412 Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway Portland, Oregon 97225 Legal description of property being proposed for development,(map nuirher and tax lot(s) number Lot 401 _ r' 2S1 3CC and fr. Lot 1400, r lap 2S1 In 'order to -expedite responses from the school district involved, please (" inidcate a general vicinity description of the property being proposed for development. West off of SW 121st Ave at SW Caarde St. , r: F. F_ Dees the proposed development require a: (please check appropriate box) Flan Amendment Zone Cnangc XXX Subdivision ' Variance Conditional Use Permit a- Tota` number of dwelling units being proposed 43 r �t F l" r u E 3uu=all Multiplex �iul`iple Famnil]' How nary acres are involved in this proposal 9.46 — x v:hen is ccnstructin- likely to begin: year 1983 month __eUt - Is the development_ to be completed in phases? NO many and over what time period --- When is the last unit' schedled to be completed: year ur i ` ::�:n�v:n t _ ICT I14 S I>_ ,'UB SIT THE COMPLETED FORM TO THE BUS- WE' OFFICE OF THE SCHOOL _ c LjjICH THE SITE BEING PROPOSED FOR DE4'LnPt•SENT. IS --LOCATED III. THE FOLLOWING IS TO BE COMPLETED BY A'-_..' iOPRZ2�TE SC:iOOL• DISTRICT TIAL - E -CAPACITY SCHOOL NAME EXISTING EASR. Elementary Charles F. Tigard _484 intermediate Fowler J�uaior Fif�h 817 - High Tigard Senior High_ _ 127fl Additional o .:T.ents: The buildi�:._:'ectad :.ave the space to h.. r thr students who :ould be expected to coats' from this developraent. _ 684_2209 Information provided by: ��m�� r� =." lephone _ Data; May 26, 1983 -- IV. RETURN TO DEVELOPER FOR SUBtlISSION WWItH APPLICATION (Name & address on page 1) MOM { TIGARD WATER DISTRICT a®41 H.W.COMMERCIALUT. TIOARO, OREGON V7223 PHONE (503) 639-.1554 May 26, 1983 From: Tigard Water District To: City of Tigard, Planning Commission P O Box 23397 Tigard, OR. 97223 Subject: Water Availability The Tigard Water District can provide the minimum State of Cregcn ;pater ;service requirements: It is the policy of the Tigard Water District to serve water to any property within the district boundary; property owners pay the pipe, construction, and meter costs. The district buys most of its water from the City of Lake Oswego ,,(Clackamas River) and its availability to supply', is subject to a mutual agreement. Water is available for each lot at the lot line of � Bechtold Property, Tax lot 40A S 3 & 10,2S1' , Tax lot` 1400 Sec 4 , Vq at the timenof snare or lease of each lot in quantity acid quality 2S14 determined b for domestic use as a Y the Health Division of the Department of Human Resources. Owners-applicant Century 21 Properties Inc. Suite223 7412 S2 Beaverton-Hills'ra & wy, or an , R. Bechtold Description P�^ooer��'(' -x iea# 4J1L GQt_ I S � p� 9-SI 3rr e Tax lot # 1400 Sec 4 2S1 4 Robert E. Santee : Administrator/Engineer T.IGARD WATER DISTRICT CV c: Century 21 Properties Robert N Miller r EMS I h rcby cc*.,,,J r . a t•::e cad co.. ct, Is cle origi al , the W, ale thereof. FtfriT Fifc;ERICr TITLE 1;S •�C(XIP/A�NYOFBEG :J7. - UI' MAI. 1'7eU l'Clf'CY 800O2796 ° 1.IA:fr 11:N'I' i'l)!i '1'IIG Snl.t: te!1Am!,6anIrP.In•n•r•ticn��ayclDreKp,t ,r•r ' L �,l•t of January, 1980 is l+rlacoan Ll°1 1°i:\IIes1'i1iaJ1 tet.. nu l)rrywt tutiUratiwr (seller or nAtkctl�s1 � r>. l,tstx}.,..-anJ'�1:I7T1°ICY 21 i LU!LICL11 S,....IUC., all Urc.)on corporation , (tttsyec) , id 1 T N IS S S E T It k n �9 _ ttlirl:f.T,, bcllnr .letitte:r to sell turd tiu)'cr desires to bup. lite Ceal aril l:er anal (ti'o(terCy,lscreinafter described: (, NOW �t,V1 :P4l:C, in arnsic!et +tion'of tltc art c-onts herein t,, I,c nndc as 11, `tea sat z, Seller anti fos- t sa l z r.�s t terns aa\aes to ell Pu'cr aa.t l U,'et' a tees to av the t pit property t ,t lts .\•?l c. `ra`:1L ..,1'� ,i; rtes tt the ;f tCarhinvtcn. M .-.. State of Uic_ ,' re t•nt•t t.att st 1) .iese tba.i as follows. _ - j A lat.el of Al,ptoxInv ely .5 acres, a3re or 1 )ems, of tea] I,1'oi a t tl sitnaic3 is^l,as.._agton ^. :ec"' :) c part.cn]a:l.• j:\ \-e.\ A atL:,:hce9 I:ereto llrrein by t1;ac ►cfcroncc <;;creinafter called 'Che =c Trice; he total urease =-=L fl <.s C-7771, ruvchA ;- All :,: .1"..�t�,• M:' a:h )•it:vEr ]C:a?is .1 �._� -J -- ro• y=/.��Y". sort of :%la `2il,00 :ad shall ilc luy _]e as [i.ovs: l3 i" '•-, ' L+e the .a- � r •'+.ry�`�t }: •. dap) ^e cars �: :.160.000.:13 in CAST. Cm :_.e Yle s Rriy earnes7. t,t�:tey ?lerctofore aid in ,asA b. erl- ° wa t +a-•a Cbl :e rema::i:rq i:rinci,al �55a,5_2_ ,L t t is shall Lie l�jJ as ollcw sa ;e sun. o: y a ti) T i am 'of 5119y520.'OD`_.:,_11 t✓_- 1r:._._ is he aAtc o:�)C•t x:r :rJtr. - St C-r .tir.pai,9 jVrI.lon zhcre'o .:,n: �)Os i^.3 ShiC yn� __ �Yy�h. - ��..}•. ay80 2`••E`lt:ftn:�f`!' i5•. 1J.:J .:-] _..1 :-. tcr t;:: D: ":1C•.- 1 cp.err`cr 19•. ISb2 S ba 5�.1.,n1 p] nrc:'Jc• 1 :LE.=`" �..c.•. d..tiL,��..te,a. :v1^,AL 3 �J r,S2:1. {al)• •;:,c :,at7nnce o: $6CO,D.°O.OD aTra:l2re .•=:3 -:kg •'S, DuYrunnB $J 'the zcvmsvaf i'1c axisting it,aLrE,tL ,_ :L]c llErvfE•P:t ] LE SL 11 CS L:L] SEL: r y � i • tac`nn k. ;t a G.ol.i n,] F.11c q Yb t il:te:a(ment ."av rrs P,.t.lcrxor., llrtec] Sn;,:cnrar55 fag+•¢cs h .Tarn(:•-s .n,,ymc•nt into vF-Zwrt by - t. tJ N an Curr. f*E.id by 'i he rE cr N n,int anto «?rc C>_: a strblas..,e• ° . e ,_ 't}tP •�f,Elt llc•� fa Pr.l:i Far:}.7e1}.l C,•rni Ynar tF- , �.. ,rnt 4 n .}rPnsec t r 1'e,;•erg Pe :r.x a::n:omc:ndr. s:rnll .•E• nzr tete e �cntucy +^1 S~r,a+c•rttae., enc.•, ;;..t:. ftc•av(trzJn Ilot'—, i..r:.lut i��c wnrsv„zor.•..�sv--- �:•,-,- •.•.+a rr•'a 9 .. ;.a.,` w : L t- 6' 1 { breach, default, or misre .� ~.rt •• presentation in connection with any of r&, r 7�-�„�r•''• the provisions of this Agreement, the successful or prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the losing;party reasonable attorneys fees and other costs incurred in that action or proceeding �•<� J rY•. and in any appellate proceedings ,relating thereto, in, addition to any other relief to'which'such party may be entitled, 1• "' 27. Real Property Taxes: Real property taxes are to be I prorated for the:current year as;fo ,closing and personal property taxes to be prorated on a calendar year basis, 23 Number, Gender and Caotions: Unless the context other- wise requires, as used herein, the singular shall include the e„a Y ' Plural, the plural shall include the singlular, the masculine F}t�' Z, rf' and muter'sh311 each include the masculine,' feminine and neuter, ,� '� , and generally;all grammatical changes'shall be made, assumed and "WV implied; to make the provisions hereof apply equally to one or more individuals and/or corporations. ; All captions used herein are intended solely for convenience of reference and shall in no way have the effect of defining, diminishing or enlarging the rights or obligations of the parties or affecting the construction or 1 interpretation" of any party of this contract. E 29, Governing Law: Validity, interpretation, performance, iia '- remedies, and all other aspects of this' Agreement shall be : governed by the laws-of the State of Oregon. k ter, ,rte '1 30. Entire Agreement: This Agreement constitutes the .�•� -: �� p, entire, final and complete agreement between the parties relevant ' to the subject matter hereof, and it supersedes and replaces all : written and oral agreements relevant to the subject matter hereof heretofore made or existing by and between the parties or their representatives. It -r zq- 31. Credit for Attorneys Fees Seller has agreed to pay � ► eY�i� _++�s�'�o� one-half of the attorneys fees for preparation of this Agreement by Pleiyer`s attorney .and accordingly Buyer shall be entitled to �:=�z �-•-°; r. r� .w.::^. •''amu: a .credit on the downpayment in the sum of $- E,p®®.en IN t:ITNCSS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agree- _p ,, •y ment to be executed in duplicate this Z3 day of January, 1900. SELLER: LUTZ DEVELOPMENT CO. rly Ait LoLL _e�w_ �C'rC w,•' I res x t i r fp•�9G� President ,� Secretaryt,?5 BUYER: CENTURY 21 L) IES, INC, - rase ' Dy " Day' Oringdulph, President /(r/_J�p�$��r•,p4;s �'n'sti'a,s� „r2=ia•'_ - �• •„ , Xt DECLARATION OF .COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS This Declaration is made on the date hereinafter set forth by Century 21 Properties, Inc. referred to herein as "Declarant". Declarant is the owner of certain property in the county of Washington, State of Oregon, which is more particularly described as: PARK PLACE See Exhibit A' attached hereto and incorporated herein which sets out the legal description of said property. Declarant hereby declares that all of the properties described above shall be held, sold and conveyed subject to the following easements, restrictions, convenants and conditions, which are for the prupose of protecting the value and desirability of, and which shall run with, the real property and be bind- ing on all parties have any right, title, or interest in the described proper- ties, or any part thereof, their heirs, successors and assigns, and shall inure `{4 to the benefit of each owner thereof. ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS Section 1 "Association" shall mean and refer to THE PARK PLACE HOMEOWNERS ASSOC- IATION, a nonprofit corporation organized under the laws of the State of Oregon, its successors and assigns. Section 2 "Owner" shall mean and refer to the record owner, whether one or more persons or entities, of a fee simple title to any lot which is a part of the properties, including contract sellers, but excluding those having such interest merely as security for the performance of an obligation. Section 3 Y Y- "Properties" shall mean and refer to that certain real property here- inbefore described and such additions thereto as may hereafter be brought with- in the jurisdiction of the Association. r Section 4 } "Common area" shall mean all real property owned by the Association for �- the common use and enjoyment of the owners. The common area to be owned by the Association at the time of the conveyance of the first lot is described as follows: 1. All private roadways within the properties; At the time Declarant conveys the last lot to an owner, it shall' execute i a good and sufficient deed conveying the fee simple title to the tracts described r in this paragraph to the Association, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances with the exception of this Declaration and the convenants, conditions, restric� tions, easements and dedications set forth on the plat. r - Section 5 °'Lot° shall mean and refer to any plot of land shown upon any recorded sub division map of the properties, with the exception of the commmon area. 4 k Section "Declaration" shall mean and refer to Century 21 Properties, Inc., and its successors and assigns, if such successors or assigns should acquire more 'than ! one,undeveloped`lot from Declarant for the purpose of development. p ARTICLE II PROPERTY RIGHTS Section 1 right and easement of use and enjoyment in and to .Every owner shall have a g � the common areas which shall be appurtenant to and shall pass with the tilde to every lot, subject to the right of Association to dedicate or transfer all or any part of the common area to any public agency, authority or utility for such purposes and subject to such conditions as may be agreed to by the .members. No ( such dedication or transfer shall be effective unless an instrument signed by three-fourths (3/4) of the members agreeing to such dedication or transfer has r; been recorded. Section 2 Any owner may delegate, in accordance with the Bylaws,_a right to use and enjoy the common area and facilities to the members of his family, in cominon with himself. Such right shall be deemed delegated without further act to his �. tenants or contract purchasers who reside on the property. 2 ARTICLE III MEMBERSHIP AND VOTING RIGHTS Section '1 Every owner of a lot shall be a'member of the Association. Membership shall be appurtenant to and may not be separated from ownership of any 'lot which is subject to assessment. Section' 2 Each member shall be entitled to one (1) vote for each lot owned. When more than one (1) person holds an interest in any lot', all such persons shall be members. The vote for such lot shall be exercised as they among themselves determine, but in no event shall more than one "(1) vote be oast with respect' to any lot. ARTICLE 'IV COVENANT FOR MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENTS r Section 1 . Creation of the Lien and'Personal Obligation of .Assessments. The Declarant, for each lot owned within the properties, covenants, and each owner of any lot by acceptance of a deed therefore (whether or not it shall be so expressed in such deed) is deemed to covenant and agree, to pay Association; (1) annual assessments or charges; and (2) special assessments for capital improvements, such assessments to be established and collected as hereinafter provided. These assessments, together with interest, costs and reasonable attorney's fees',, shall be a charge on the land and shall be a con- tinuing lien upon the property against which each such assessment is made. Each such assessment, together with interest, costs and reasonable attorney's fees, shall also be the personal obligation of the person who was the owner of such property at the time when the assessment fell due. The personal obligation for delinquent assessments shall pass to his successors in title. Section 2. Purpose of Assessments. The assessments levied by the Association shall be used to promote the recreation, health, safety and welfare of the residents in the properties, to improve and maintain the common areas. -3- Section 3 Until January 1 of the year immediately following the conveyance of the last .lot to an owner, the maximum annual assessment shall be one hundred dollars per lot. A. From and after January 1 of the year immediately following the convey- ance'of the last lot to an owner, the maximum annual assessment may be increased each year not more than ten percent above the maximum assessment for the previous year without a vote of the membership. _R B. From and after January 1 of the year immediately following the convey- ance of the last lot to an owner, the maximum annualassessment may be increased above ten percent by a vote of two-thirds of the members who are voting in"per - son or by proxy at a meeting 'duly called for this purpose. C. The Board of Directors may fix the annual assessment at an amount not in excess of the maximum. Section 4. Special Assessments for Capital Improvements. In addition to the annual assessments authorized above, the Association may levy in any assessment year a special assessment applicable to that year only for the purpose of defraying, in whole or in part, the cost of any con- struction, reconstruction, repair, or replacement of a capital improvement upon the common area, i.ncluding fixtures and personal property related thereto; pro- vided that any such assessment shall have the assent of two-thirds of the votes of the members who are voting in person or by proxy at a meeting duly called for this purpose. Section 5. Notice and Quorum for any Action Authorized under Sections 3 or 4. Written notice of any meeting called for the purpose of taking any action authorized under Sections 3 or 4 shall be sent to all members not less than fif- teen days nor more than sixty days in advance of the meeting. At the first such meeting called, the presence of members or of proxies entitled to cast fifty per- cent of all the votes of the membership shall constitute a quorum. If the required quorum is not present or represented at the meeting, another meeting may be calked subject to the same notice requirement, and the required quorum at: the subsequent meeting shall be the same as the required quorum at the preceding meeting, No such subsequent meeting shall be held more than sixty days following the preceding meeting. -4 MEE, Section 6. Uniform Rate of Assessment Both annual and special assessments must be fixed ata uniform rate for all lots and may be collected on a monthly basis. Assessments against any one lot shall in no case exceed the value of that lot. Section 7. Date of 'Commencement of Annual Assessments: Due,Dates. The annual assessments provided for herein shall commence as to all lots: s on the first day of the month following the conveyance of the common area. The first annual assessment shall be adjusted according to the number of months remaining in the calendar year. The Board of Directors shall fix the amount of the annual assessment against each lot at least thirty days in advance of each annual assessment period. Written notice of the annual assessment shall be sent to every owner subject thereto. The due dates shall be established by the Board of Directors. The Association shall , upon demand and for a reasonable charge, furnish a certificate signed by an officer of the Association setting forth whether assessments on a' specified lot have been paid. Section 8. Effect of Nonpayment of Assessments: Remedies of the Association. Any assessment not paid within thirty days after the due date shall bear interest from the due date at the rate of fourteen percent per annum. The Assoc- iation may bring an action at law against the owner personally obligated to pay same or foreclose the lien against the property; and interest, costs and reasonable attorney's fees of any such action or on appeal thereof shall be added to the amount of such assessment. No owner may waive or otherwise escape liability for the assessments provided for herein by nonuse of the Common area or abandonment of his lot. Section 9. Subordination of the Lien to Mort9ages. The lien of the assessments provided for herein shall be subordinate to the lien of any first mortgage. Sale or transfer of any lot shall not effect the assessment, lien, No sale or transfer shall relieve such lot from liability for any assessments thereafter becoming due or from the lien thereof. L ARTICLE V ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL AND GENERAL PROTECTIVE COVENANTS Section 1• Architectural Control . The Association desires to preserve and compliment the natural beauty of e Square. To that end no building, wall or other major stricture c Cambridge shall be commenced, erected or maintained upon the Properties, nor shall any Y exterior additional to or change or alteration therein be made, until the plans and specifications showing the nature, kind, shape, height, materials, color M and location of the same shall have been submitted to and approved in writing as to harmony of external design and location in relation to the surrounding structures and topography by an Architectural Control committeecomposed of three or more representatives appointed by the Board of Directors of the Association. In the event said Board,, or its designated committee fails to approve or disapprove such design, location, addition, change or alteration ifications have been submitted to within thirty days after said plans and spec it approval will not be required and this section will be deemed to have been fully complied with. i, B. Other than as necessitated by construction approved pursuant to � Section 1 of this Article, no owner or occupant shall remove any live tree from i the properties where the diameter of the tree is equal to or 'greater than approval of the Board of Directors, and, in no event, shall four inches without app x any owner or occupant be permitted to randomly clear a lot of trees and other i vegatation. t s` C. No lot shall be used except for residential purposes. No build ings shall be erected; altered or placed on any lot other than one detached single family duelling and private garage or carport for not more than two, . : nor less than one automobile, r s 0. The construction of the dwellings shall be substantially completed within nine months after started. No dwellings shall be occupied prior to substantially 100 percent (100°x) completion. ., completed within six months of must be com E. Residential land.,caping P occupancy of any residence. , MIMI- Mn e�_ s ( F. All telephone and electric power service wire connections, 'to the main telephone and power systems shall be placed underground. G. No antenna shall be erected above a height necessary for local television reception. H. All mailboxes and standards as well as all driveway lights must' conform with `those models selected by the Architectural Committee. 1. Fences are allowed in rear yard areas only and cannot exceed six feet in height. They are not allowed beyond; 1. Depth: (a) Interior lots,: the width of the lot 2. Width: (b) Corner lots the width of the house plus interior side yard. - x Section 2. General Protective Covenants. All properties, and all living units constructed thereon, shall be , constructed, maintained and used in accordance with the following protective covenants: A. Once the initial' sale'of lots in the development is complete, no owner or occupant shall post any advertisements, posters or signs of any kind in or on the properties except as authorized by the Association. This pro- hibiti.on shall not include one political sign or "For Sale" or "For Rent" sign placed by the owner or by a licensed real estate broker, not exceeding eighteen inches high and twenty-four inches long on any lot. a B. No trade, craft, business, profession, commercial or similar activity of any kind shall be conducted on any lot, or within any structure located on any lot, nor shall any goods, equipment, vehicles, materials or supplies used in connection with any trade, service or business, nor any vehicles in excess of 6,500 pounds gross weight used for private purposes, be kept, parked, stored, dismantled or repaired upon any lot or on any street within the properties without the prior approval (each approval to be for a one year period) of the Association, nor shall anything be done on any lot which is or may become an annoyance or nuisance to the surrounding properties. -7- C. Those owners or occupants keeping domestic animals will abide by the County sanitary regulations, leash laws and rules or regulations of the Association created by the Board of Directors. No animal or fowl of any kind shall be raised. bred or kept on any lot, except that cats, dogs, birds or other household pets may be kept if they are not bred or maintained for any commercial purpose, and in any event they shall not be kept in numbers or under conditions so as to become a nuisance to the Surrounding properties. D. No lot or part of the common area shall be used as a dump for trash or rubbish of any kind. - All garbage and other waste shall be kept in appropriate sanitary containers for property disposal . Yard rakings and dirt and other material resulting from yard maintenance or landscaping work shall not be dumped onto streets or other common areas. Should any owner or occupant fail to remove any trash, rubbish, garbage, or other such materials from his lot or any street or common area wheredeposited by him within ten days following the date on which notice is mailed to him by the Association,; the Association may have such materials removed and charge the expense of such removal to the lot owner as part of the monthly assessment for his lot. This prohibition shall not include a well-maintained compost pile. ARTICLE VI GENERAL PROVISIONS Section I. Enforcement. The Association or any owner shall have the right to enforce by any pro- ceeding at law or in equity, all restrictions, conditions, covenants, reser- vations, liens, and charges now or hereafter imposed by the provisions of this Declaration. The Board of Directors shall be specifically charged with the duty of enforcing the provisions of this Declaration on behalf of the members of the Association. Except for the provisions of Article V, Section 1, subsection N,' ' any provision in this Declaration may be waived by the Board of Directors upon a petition by a member of the Association and after notice to the other members and a hearing on the petition. Failure by the Association or by any other owner- ,' s` WON RVMW r to enforce any covenant or restriction herein contained shall in no event be f deemed a waiver of the right to do so thereafter. Section, 2. Severability. Invalidation of any one of these covenants or restrictions by Judgment or court order shall in no way affect any other provisions, which shall re- main in full force and effect. Section 3. Amendment. The covenants and restrictions of this Declaration shall run with and bind the' land `for a `term of twenty (20) years from the date this Declaration is recorded, after which time they shall be automatically extended for success- ive periods of ten (10) years This Declaration may be amended at anytime by an instrument signed by not less than ninety percent (90%) of the lot owners. Any amendment must be recorded. Section '4. Leases. Any lease agreement shall provide that the terms of the lease shall be sub- ject in all respects to the provisions of this Declaration and that any 'failure by the lessee to comply therewith shall be-a default under the lease. All leases shall be in writing. ARTICLE VII MORTGAGES Section 1. Definitions. As used in this article, the term "mortgagee" shall include the beneficiary of a trust deed or a contract seller. "Institutional holder" shall mean a mort gagee which is a bank, savings and loan association, established mortgage com- pany, or other entity chartered under federal or state laws; any corporation or insurance company; or any state or federal agency. Section 2. Notice to and Consent of Mortgagees; Rights of Inspection. A. notice of Default by Mortgagor. The Association shall give each mortgagee written notification of any de- fault by the mortgagor of such unit in the performance of such mortgagor's obli- gations under the project documents which are not cured within thirty (30) days. -9- B. Written Consent of Mortgagee R_eguired in Certain Cases. Unless all institutional holders of first mortgage liens on lots have given their prior written approval , the Association shall not: (i) Change the prorata interest or obligations of any lot for pur- poses of levying assessments or condemnation awards and for determining the pro- rate share of ownership of each lot in appurtenant real estate and any improve f ments thereon which are owned by; the owner in the properties in undivided pro rata interests (common area) ; 4 (ii) Partition or subdivide any lot or the common area; (iii) By act or omission seek; to abandon the common area except ,as pro- vided by law in case of substantial loss to the lots and common area; (iv) By act or omission seek to abandon, partition, subdivide, encum- g ber, set or transfer the common area. The granting of easements for public : uti hies or for other public purposes consistent with the intended use of the common area shall be deemed a transfer within the meaning of this clause; ; (v) Otherwise materially amend this Declaration in any manner substan- f tially affecting the rights of the first mortgagee. C. Proxy held by Mortgagee in Certain Cases. � The first mortgagee or beneficiary under a trust deed may attend a meet- ing of the Association with the proxy of the mortgagor of said lot for the Pur- pose of voting to maintain the common area; provided, however, such right shall arise only in the event the mortgagee reasonably believes the Association has I failed to maintain the common area in sufficient manner to prevent excessive wear and tear. The first mortgagee shall , upon written request to the Association, be entitled to receive the same notice of all meetings thereof as is required to be given the members of the Association and shall be entitled to attend all such meetings through a duly appointed representative, regardless of whether entitled to vote thereat by proxy as above provided. t r w. D. Ri hg t to Inspect Books and Records. All first mortgagees shall have the right to examine the books and re- cords of the Association upon reasonable notice and at reasonable time and, on written request, to receive copies of all financial statements prepared by or for the Association. -10 4s { Executed by Declarant 19 ;• i By P sid Century 21 Properties, Inc. STATE OF OREGON ) ss. COUNTY OF Personally appeared •_: ' who being duly sworn (or affirmed) did say that he/she is the president of Century 21 Properties, Inc. , and that the seal affixed to the foregoing instrument is the corporate seal of said corporation and that said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said corporation by authority of its board of directors; and he/she acknowledged said instrument to be its voluntary act and deed. Before me: (SEAL) Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: ti ti 1 . CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: .34Q4. 1984 AGENDA ITEM dA'1`E SUBMITTED: January 25• 1984_— PREVIOUS ACTION: Approval of' 7 positions on Economic Development Comm- ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Appoint member to Economic Dev. Comm. REQUESTED BY: Deputy City Recorder DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: S94 CITY ADMINISTRATOR: INFORMATION SUMMARY- At the meeting of 1-16-84, the Tigard City Council: appointed 7 members to the Economic;Development Committee. The Selection Committee had recommended 8 names for appointment, however, one name was, omitted in;typing the resolution for appointment. The name omitted was Mark Padgett, the Science Sales Manager at OMSI. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ;. e:ac��+szxaw xr��xx wee seQ=Vxaccnxma a.ram SUGGESTED ACTION appointing Mark Padgett with a term expiring Adopt attached resolution 1-i6-85. EMU INVEN'PURY Ur• ctTizEN_ GiTY OF TIGARD 8 t Suggested for Community Service- ,Q DATA ^v p RES. PHONE (93� 7GI`fC� NAME I AP K BUS . PHONE ADDRESS'_1(2'70 -fbo s LENGTH OF RESIDENCE IN TIGARD SUGGESTED BY _ - WHERE DID YOU LIVE PREVIOUSLY? SC- EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND tI3 B� H 1L L ops vNdU�eslTY W(-f4! D66F�� /"�l�cil�1�'�er✓ ��Drl� Scfiro�L L. OCCUPATIONAL STATUS AND BACKGROUND OGCUP. -- a PREVIOUS COMMUNITY ACTIVITY fAAEW. -EFAK ��° GLya A�. G€¢M� ��®G R�,y �•r�/'1-� � PH-�`C. L��i..S S Cff�D L ORGANIZATIONS AND OFFICES _11 <� K(�'g'"�� cL✓� `' �� i Jy,1jfQ� el EA z, tf3v u� �'rEt D�°/7t° OTHER INFORMATION (GENERAL REMARKS)4-9 _G��R% (/`✓��.�'r�E/� - U �� r F -Al -- n��Ss10!✓ E 1 r__G._ BOARDS OR COMMITTEES INTERESTED INS-��iJ(�IG °rt ----------- Date Interviewed ---. Data Received at CitY Hal - (,aLn A{;pointed. /-1�0, Board or Conlmi ttec otITSIDE CITY i N S I D E CITY --— -- --- -- -- ---- 4 M E M O R A N D U M r" DATE: January 25, 1984 TO: Mayor and City Council, City of Tigard FROM: Jerri L. Widner, Finance Director, City of Tigard ' SUBJECT: DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY FOR THE MONTH OF DECEMBER, 1983 The month of December found the Finance department very busy with the holidays, employees on vacation and end of the year wrap-up work. Also during this time period, there was 'a major reorganization within the Department. Doris has become Assistant Finance Director with responsibility for all personnel and purchasing processes. Loreen and I are sharing the responsibilities of City Recorder, Billie is in charge of records--filing, retention etc.t and works for the support division; Lowana has become the court clerk along with cashier duties and works for the accounting division; Pat Robertson and Penny Liebertz now work for me directly. i SUPPORT SERVICE: "During the month of December, , the Support Services staff was plagued with r illness plus some vacation time was taken. There were 260 work-hours of LL absence during the month. Even with this fact, ;the WP Center handled almost 4600 pages of work." Business taxes paid during December 88 for a total of $4,035.00. ACCOUNTING: x The Municipal Court during the month of December received 246 traffic ' citations, 9 misdemeanors and 28 parking citations. The court cleared 164 traffic citations; 25 more than last year. Four midemeanors were cleared and 17 parking citations were cleared. Total collected = $3,314.50. Attached is the legal reports for November and December, 1983 and the quarterly financial report through December 31, 1983. , LEGAL REPORT 0 NOVEMBER, 1983 QUARTER OCTOBER : NOVEMBER Y.T.D. VARIANCE BUDGET ¢ Council 4630 1665 849 7144 Administration 9972 4650 3800 18422 Municipal Court 2159 -0- 315 2474 Police585 -0- =0- 585 Planning Dev. 1585 90 -0- 1675 - - - Public Works 1016 240 -0- 1256 3-T Operaions 19947 6645 5164 31556 [Budgeted) 1147001 [57501 [57601 [2627.0) c5346> 1664501 Civic Center 3726 200 3926 Litigation 697 115 15 827 t S-T 24370 6760 5179 36309 TURA 757 -0- 757 [Budmetedj 757 -0- -0- (7571 243 1000 S--T 25127 6760 5179 37066 LID°s 1360 639 453 2452 TOTAL 26487 7399 5632 39518 (HS:pm/0087P) f s LEGAL REPORT 1DECEMBER,T1983 — _ QUARTER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER Y.T.D. VARIANCE BUDGET council 4630 1665 849 615 7759 .ldministration 9972 4650 3800 3681 22103 Municipal Court 2159 -0- 315 518 2992 Police 585 -0- -0- -0- 585 Planning & Devi. 1585 90 -0- -0- 1675 Public Works 1016 240 -0- -0- 1256 8-T Operaions 19947 6645 5164 4814 36370 [Budgeted] [14700] [57505 [5760) 157501 [31970] <4753> [66450] Civic Center 3726 200 -0- 3926 Litigation 697 115 15 -0- 827 24370 6760 5179 4814 41123 TURA 757 -0- -0- 757 tBudgeted) X757 -0- -0- -0m 17571 243 1000 8-T 25127 6760 5179 4814 41880 LTD's 1360 639 453 1155 3607 TOTAL 26487 7399 5632 5969 45487 0K.S:pm/0087P3 s N -L 7-a' ! ._+ N p O L.a N O O o N C.x n 0 W c M w p m h a W ,nl m V.v C --� l p•m (y N W O� h U) to Lo N O� LO�o h rn a h at W O O ID M 'n W N d• n. W Ln C3J 7 N N W �" to td) N V rn O a W W < n d �p N F w 41 Ln O m N N p C N C7+ Lu -11 y �m�y V)4. � M .m•, J.Ws Q T � a f m +� \ C C W ti H« s•o s ") Hw o (5LLco n Lu Uw .0 r�6•p W p® CF C� N O O n a W 0 e7 p d d N F Y 41 Q a v cn r cn w ,a s� s- c v � o ,-� Gl CM O KI In No v h� W M N N iLl N T N W 6 C j i!) m O d• c � b m a W O� 4o Q' N N O .W-i o N f.- p T7 r+ W rn b m v C O O "^ N 6� O� h O D. O .Cn @' M t6 < 41 r Gi W Ln m Qt o N N tp .e ti V 4ft N N ~ V a o W dNd u r V HLU L 9 L a fn L rJ d U 7 a M LT... 0 Er s 3 M C F. ti tY ? N C C d a$ H W W F H T +^ O N o a d y OCI O H 0 � a W s+ L d M w cc u z C d a .a K L � L d !b J•1 p B ¢.� n V m L b r H s 0. 4 'O C •9 3 4- L +,+ S- o L 6 .-) s o c .r. c rCd a •3 x m �. Q O s .a U a s' H m ins a. o *+ o o rt u s a ..+ O ¢ Fl r•7 O m J C7 -w p a W m o 1 cn O r� CX al �D 4 N ti - if < a h d• b O n to M � r a a O a w a O C O O �•p N M T + � N 9 h ® O CL y..it ..� ti. 1 n N ut N Kr _ q m a N O a a d N Si v q M M U m h 6l7 L Cs C M LL)' a CL m lL N N •S� w s4 w w -Y 2 W V b b N w :4 3 O O� •-•� Um to cow a C m 61 T t � myJa c v a c s: m w U O W Q u w a I� W Y fd-p m it7 m' DO C!- Cf M al N [r 7 a C W O m{y tl Y O 41 a N41 4J N � G Co F-Co h N a ifl vo H d Q ty tV trr of a m N n n L C 3 K t0 a N m W It V to O C M a n e}• b O h T m m CT. �-+I W d :31 N M a C H lcN CD O C O I t9 4 (b Q b m N '•f �. M b .�-1 f0 .A o .c m m o N rn 0 10 H �1 h N m N b m r.• m O } CY= m fl fd W W d x w - x c a d a o, ❑ w W oa a F- u a r W �a d w m o W L m n c H M a B it 3. .-n W .-+ a .-+ > U x W m C Wr L W J fn La m n. CL a W L -Q fn .O a CI 2' .0 @ O U C w T t S U d fb m O lL H yg fg L Y T T Y \ O O- 'O Y fd f6 C r ¢ !~•1 F- L a. Y W O Q of •p fS al %d T/ cn W r-C d ti+ H 7 H.N C U Y W CL Y CL d n W0 L x -0 z L Y J -�{- H C O .•� L C Y > 4 Y O •n m C L C L :w HHm Y o+ L n f6 c i N a' C w <L. L •.a CD O Y L td O d YJ L W' W O w O I Y 'O G$ U 5W. j Q O C w O V d 9. w C L Y 4- U 40 t^ H= u U fG 7 co W O N O W W W V N C O 3 W U O a -j V C 6 CL Cs 0 0 W 3 2 O K [L' H 0 11. at U 1- {� a' N 6 1 Q SSS, CCL q.W ers � L 13 a_a CN'W ci io e AA.N 4 W Y Li ..:� co Cl) L" W 40 a a n m ~U A U.cr € W 40 ;twit a u rt M wmp�p~c ULL m LN o a a H4141 w ria X L F 40.: O .•+.a b coo H—w j t{ws a� N F W Cl N U r N QM b N Cl m M OK O L ® m aP+ O O ~ M P a Aa' I-- C7 tT N 4l O V r. e0 N 'n ® m m 4) ,Pi «i 10 In O m h n t+! O M P m b (T M t0 P �'... 4f 4� O p O w O O N O O d m @ O O W O b O O a 0 0 w » n 4 0 o a OI co Q m ey N P p .-r M O O N O w m M eft � P V .•i m N P Q 3 aeI ey .+ 0, m ,6Ay aPO .NS• .m.+ M Q Q m rn 41 O m N N m . (a? m e-e c', N m ti Oi .y Ln m M N 4l ..moi N m m P N M..N m m N �.. cq J� YNv ^+ cr N pl .61L: fib Mcn 7 J 2 Z rn f8.. uifafy5 N �. f- G7 C U L Y L .i s a L a a i o,C FL ai E a o f ai n s m 6i •rAi n Y a L. S 41 ff Y..•p y d. CNE y A A 6 O cS6 7 U .6 Y F- Y Y N U J U) fY x W W [Y J U U U O C7 � .g! ©... fNJ O N N. M v� � tD P 2 .ai q N- m CT a - Y � C7 L D h ti Mtli b h 6t C11 a N • � t W L d p m �- co 3 m M O v i O C a'U)L n a., C, L .H Cl) li O U US 0- T 1 � N d h W MIY..,•OI ,s`t to U W.y OM LLmm yam)C T 6 W.V.ham W O d iL '. LLUL)t7 q W O � O ?W N h W¢ r6 a h Z 7 i C m v•a gatiacsri W .i 14) N 01 M [X O L•D m .-i 10 141 O N F' N X11 N ® N W .� 141 N OMt G�'1 O Om1 N Oh ••f iq W M ski W N ? h h N 141 V h N N U P v 1n N LL9 N '•� U 0 0 0 0 0 ? a o o W 01 N m m h M N tl1 a O NCO In w{9 N a M M 701 h m a 1n v 10 ? M m m a) y as a, rn m a o m. 0 N h .n M 1n 10 C d fP rl M 10 01 s{ h Q C U") N R NR m 14) M.. O tC$ C h IA .-i C M N M .~-i V ri M N N v N O ci m H d d. J 4 O O !H 1C fd V LL N tr d d w e o a ° a w 4- o a u •.rt 7 ..c 7 .-1 .-+ Y h !r 4., d ~ 'O c .,. to Lk. ® SC H Gr. O C j) d ); Y O O d 44 i 01 aH Ol H) C' 141 016 `"i p '° I i In M M M ar Q IC1 It7 M 9 C, E � i C n n N •-�m W �� m U a C I O 0.� L3. .+ n G 0 m L1 m L O a 0.to li 0 ti m ir L 0 b N H d-i p LL Q N uj Ow. T n X W m 41-J �rn :7b3 < o 0 M U O UA ^m - W coC 41 F c C O:£ 3..N 7 W O M U- ZI O a 1 N < H W 1 K L ~ Q J-� IS� w � co V W pF- c a m .g C: w N(3,C; L N co c N fa A tfi xu.zm V F m O m O m mi � a rn Q 0 In N Q �p M tIn o n < Q+ ♦\ O P m L'O m a N LO a m N O O O Q m O LO n b N O 0 0 O O M Ln n m V C O N N O O+ N p t0 n n m n "I < < O+ P, O a [ E rti <. Ln w N n m N Q LOto qv N G.m Op 0 O O 0 O O oO O O O O ¢ O O O O O O O N !. a l C7 C p O O O O O O U0, A O O O O C O51 Nm> '.n N Q 10 a LO .M-1 Ol C N N O m b k m b m N O ei y Co N 4' � }C N rl E •C C t`• en N m I� a+ ut O v> O U 'O O N rn m N �o "„-- N Of O P` " m Q N N m N v cn m Q tli m ifl ... F6 E' (6 r+ N m N i{> O MH 'J� N M v 'D N m ¢I' N a, 7� . tail E. e> } C U .i1C ? » E a. a M m O .-�V e> N LL .r q� Da 0 7- cn p 4. 4J U .4� a :mYi N m .y a �7+ .a C O W i rD 11 ¢ rr L ? D.. WuHi G. n m L r6 f6 F IS L .11 i a G7 C7 6 x ,¢ a s t Z A a A !8 a a W iil SI C 3 V 7T n L L ,C W C L C f9 y ai 7 7 U a O a 3 L W T Cl B � CL C 0 2 a rg k N L S Q CD N w L 0a 0 O p a. d O 4 i R, E: U 0 0 C f_5 O 40 � O O et .-e N m C in 0 0 'o t�- m C .ti � •-� N m +Y C.� .-t 4+ F n n n n cwn rmn m m n m n n m -m m m m m emn m r°ni m. n 9 r Qp d m N ^�- N y L O h Cf G m U C u CL q w "n m N6 M h 6� h L 9 hJ n d WCul �, d OI N m O O U .�+ L C7 W +p � wo c M <.LY.N tea W Linc Op 7.c"7 7 R� I t+4i ¢ U O Sa GY W LY Lam a~c � W LU U U r 5 tl' F-W.f6.X LI o�� d ► � LU rD 0 1 W d d.� =L,=ml m C C h h h m m m s 10 o E mh u O O O h 9 pOn o O U o O Cd Q 4A I� C 4p m h m a o C N 1111 f! 'fit M N h 3 d 61 v yy [ � k PAJ 0 CD 4Z a+ r iOiJ 4d- O O D W W 4a. S L lid C�7 J N m D d J w B C L ti Com+ td. a ¢ ? ? an sn <C U h' G'j N N V W J L f6 .N d x ¢ CD �a W IT ¢ Q U Fldi N V C�7 Idi fA d en Z d - L Y N i p Q¢ lil - O � I � 0 per•^ L -O N � V X • O :.L O C - 2CO LL ¢ d U O a i O CI I- Y cm in V!LLI p z w x > W C2 m C L o O 7.O 7 N W a m WT 7;.W Y 0-•O a W O 3 ti t.'U U[7 b p �W Y �.. N L5. p C.•+ CO LU 6 0 L C.L H O•dco m N Uala..K q1 p Obi b OQ+ t�tl O0 C ~ m m .� ` �m N b u7 q O O b N V N d C V' ul w b b H � U r E m N tb0 i�[t m G O b N < E£Orn O N b0 O mLn •.�� m v to H Ln ^I q U r mar m)to h O+ N O h O N m O O h U O 1 O N w i u'!a, m q O o N vt"2 O u-, 10 � :1 B, b m C1 N N b N O V a � � a C dl h N m N N m N %0 �O b O v �O M V q y O 1tT E C twl•-� m N Lf W C m an V M ut v !n h O V t .ti tG NIV M Y m •.+ y. 0 p u r+ O p J '^� L -� C t V X H M CL T j 3 SF U V N Q •.Ci J, N p U V F J 0.� ro e i N u ¢ 0 x 0 o. `a . rdL. . s- a. re i v' vi o p m •L. w H W .+ C ci C m u m h5 T Y St C C f8 fJ OG Y !!! �.. 7 •.� ..+ O .-� f8 Oi d O L L f d Q J O. W J N rJ. [l. U J V' u U d tlJ LLl .X 3C ti r-t F N C 3 O L L L Y T f$ O .i d d Y Y d Y ES VE M J, Y F- O d :-i,N m Q LLY .-� N w N M fb p _ S - - w - - N N M m M V b u W U m G N 6~i ONi •�-� 7 o U m P C n N O ,.N¢ ..LL b .moi mlli c o L.. w LLto b b 07 I Nl N� N U r` JI 11 L G C N 8. .. ^. CL W LL lo m cbn c cn to W y U N I N N b H (N:N LL G Z N d y � r X N C w woraLL oLuN U w G m e< GN W N N Cf i - o o r a�l m 0 Su-w co vM Q LL ra N L q7 o O I~•Z a+ b O b w b � r, m b + a o U N 'W W �n m Ln m m m 04 y N b gyp. L N (7S N N m r` A b a A ° C w x 5 w !9 .W H ° m.. L..A N L 0I al L W S�. C SU K 6 x •� C° O LL S Y b of -C W 4 w O c_ w i iu s01 ° w ;- A a A x O 41 L Gt p 0. 0 4-• a UBRARY PUUIC P6xn X39-9511 12568SLS Main YTigard. Or.97223 MONTHLY REPORT December 1983 TO: Library Board City Council FROM: City Librarian ' Reorganization: With the increased involvement of the City Librarian in administrative projects and the continued growth of circulation, it has become necessary to reorganize some library routines and realign staff responsibilities. In general, the process included dropping discrimina- tory tasks, postponing certain projects and reassigning duties. The Assistant Librarian is assuming some of the Librarian's in-house adminis- trative and supervisory tasks in addition to continuing :to develop and maintain the reference collection and the adult non-fiction collection, and coordinating the volunteer program. The Associate Librarian will become the circulation activities supervisor as well as continuing to be the youth services coordinator for programming and collection de- velopment. The Library Assistant will assume responsibility for inter- library loan under the supervision of the Assistant Librarian, continuing to receive, catalog and process new materials. The AssistantLibrarian and Library Assistant<will 'do all preliminary selection for new adult fiction and non-fiction, and all adult donations, subject to review by the Librarian. All staff members have assumed some of the Librarian°s record-keeping tasks and scheduled time on the circulation desk. There are many small changes too numerous to list, however, all changes have been studied and agreed upon by the staff working ;together. As the Librarian's workload changes and develops, further changes will be made and postponed projects and services will be resumed as feasible. WCCLS Professional Board: Librarian attended the monthly meeting for Washington County Cooperative Library Services (WCCLS) professional board. Of interest: (1) WCCLS libraries will participate in the "INVEST IN YOUR FUTURE: LIBRARIES" campaign with Clackamas County during January and February 1984. (2) WCCLS will submit an electronic mail grant to Oregon State Library (LSCA) if approved by the Citizens Advisory Board. (3) WCCLS approved the business outreach grant proposal formulated by Maureen Seaman of the Oregon Graduate Center after it is coordinated with Tigard and Beaverton libraries and planned as a joint project. WCCLS Lev : At their regular meeting on December 20, the Washington County Commissioners again voted down the proposed $2.2 million WCCLS operating levy. At a meeting on December 23, representatives of the county met with the presi- dent of the Citizens Advisory Board and city administrators. They devised a tentative plan for the levy as follows: They would place the $2.2 million WCCLS levy on the ballot in March as a single issue. If it passes or fails then it would also be included as part of the County's tax base in May. If the tax base passes, then the levy would not be collected and the County would sign a 5-year contracts with each city guaranteeing the levy amount annually to support county-wide non-fee access library service. If neither measure passes, then WCCLS as we know it will be at an end and other models for cooperative library services will need to be sought, i Ti ard Public Library -..Monthly Report - December 1983 - page 2 i Open Hours Survey: Withthe continued rise in workload for all staff members`, the Librarian asked the Library Board at its December meeting to,consider reducing weekly open hours .from 48 to 40. The Board concurred in the re- duction of hours, but requested that a survey be conducted to determine { users' choice for a new schedule. From December 14 through December 28, # users were asked to consider five different schedules. Out of 243 responses, 427 chose the following: Tuesday through Thursday, 11:30 AM to 8:30 PM, Friday ,and Saturday, 11:30 AM to 6:00 PM, closed on Sunday, Monday and legal holidays. Volunteers: Twenty-three volunteers worked a total of 170.25 hours; daily s average, 6.50. On, Monday, December 5, volunteers were honored at a dessert` party at Elmer's Pancake House. Friends of the Library funded the event. t .. Youth Services: A Christmas program was held on December 22, with filmstrips, a reading, word games and goodies. Nine children participated. ; Easy books traditionally is -a slow month with lots of books on were weeded as December tradit y - � the shelf. A slightly lower circulation from 1982 may also be related to the severe weather conditions experienced in December. The following chart illustrates the growth in juvenile circulation during the first half of the fiscal ;year. First Half FY 1982/83 First Half FY 1983/84 1 E 8328 8644 3.8 8269 62.5 J/Y 5026 25.3 JNF 2085 26I3 750 Lion Beak 647 TOTAL 26.07 16,086 ^- WORK INDICATORS: December 1983 December 1982 �. Adult Books 5444 5721 ' Juvenile Books 20 2136 4 4 Interlibrary Loan 44 71 356 338 Magazines 105. 173 { Records/Cassettes 17 .Other 58 � Total Circulation 8100 8456 2"2 20 Days of Service 422 Average Daily Circ 368 7 Increase in Circ -47 47 Reference/Reader's Avisory 347 426 Materials Added 376 650 �. 01 Materials Withdrawn 2 3 35 One Storytime in December 16 35 Special Program 9 5 Borrowers: New/Renewal 132/85=217 131/85=216 9, 3 TO: City Council WASHINGTONCOUNTY,OREGON! FROM: William A. Monahan, Director of Planning and Development DATE: January 18, 1984 RE: Monthly Report for December 1983 The mouth of December, 1983, was slow in terms of Building revenues. Only $6,194.00 was generated. Seven single family permits were processed compared to an average of twenty for the preceding eleven months of 1983. During the month there was really no code enforcement activity to speak of and, little annexation activity. The annexation of 78th and Pfaffle from the Metzger area was, pending a hearing date' before the Boundary Commission in January. Comprehensive Planning activity involved response to various concerns raised by METRO and review of the Community Development Code for errors. In January the staff expects to issue an errata sheet which contains corrections to typographical errors. Later, probably in <February, staff will supply a list of 'corrections which require Council action. Also attached is a chart showing the number of building permits and the revenues generated by the Building Division during 1983. 1983 was a very strong year as 230 single family, five multi—family, and sixteen commercial permits were issued. Permits for over $23 million valuation of properties were issued. dmj(0273P) 12755 B.W.ASH P.O.BOX 23397 TIGARD,OREGON 97223 PH:639-4171 —— a o O A � O �n S y H 4D'9 q o 4 [k[ O r; N M N N N r�4 •D c0 } E e 0o U: 6R -N N :. O O U O O O O O O O O O k p O w r M O r O P O O � � e O O y w M r• 0 O Q `n N . S m P O m P 4 '4 N M N 14 ,.e U V S U � i � T t tl r+ N wHd o 0 0 o w 'o a o o; b o o u U T i eD O � M M rJ W r N r r M e-� eN r4 r♦ �� N N N N aNJ O o'. O O OCD• P O w o Cn .n O Irl N P N r 7 N N F N N 6'b 14 N A N N 29Y d .t O O OO� r w ra P w to P M .D 00 O U•L v rd N M CD o MP M N C O n pi M N !4 Q* N a! M N 07 O O O O O o Lll o O O O v'1 C W vi w w O O. w 9D w O w O M ID b O*0 r4 .O W m K .® OD O P N N �O w rJ M r4 M M M w N M a s N as o4 u N ae sa 4s N as N u} aD M N CO N O a .O rd vMs N N w p Y1 w M w M CD N +t N P P 0D A M +4 N h DD P Jd OD N w M .O w N ^ o 10 P af7 O M m w O M r< O DD N rd an N u1 w r Do +O' .O N / W V N N N H iA 40 N N N N N vY N O O O O O cn N to O O OD O O w V1 eq C„y r N w n in m O b n .moo .7 U V 1� m r f-0rl P vl .0 ca c6. N N y- N C9 496 154 N N 04 N p SM m W la to yRG� OpS. 9� a A9 V O ¢7 O MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: January 4, 1984 SUBJECT: Monthly Report for month of DECEMBER - Building Division December's building activities include permits for 4 sign`, 7 single family residential, 1 residential additions or remodel,' 1 commercial, & 3 commercial alter/repair, for artotal-valuation of $535,425.00. Fees for 12 permits $3,971.22 Fees for 4 signs 100.00 Plumbing Acitivity - 19 1,635.00 Mechanical Activity - 19 488.00 TOTAL.......$ $6,194.22 a� Sewer Connections - 8 $6,425.00 Sewer Inspections - 8 $ 280.00 King City Activity There was no permits issued for King City for the Month of December, 1983. .t 000000000000 O OOOOOOOOOOOLM H 00000000000 " N B :0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ra O Ut O w 7 d 'Uf n n N N UJ O M S O Ln ? H t r t ra r4 ri I rl ri r-a W c0. W tb aj 10 e0 0 ra ra r4 r-! 43 43 aJ •N .N'•N'.N G G C U U U U r+ 0. N O/ C) 0) d 01. O y U .we .N .N .N .N •rl .N .N W O OS d 0) C? 0) O O O O 0 03 ,A i H N H P4 O y � H G..q r4 a vaasa m 0 U aro au P-f v 0 ds 'W U V b` V! '€D v O 4 r4 0 in H cn 0 w rA VS Vd 00 V) V1 U1 to VS w to 0 0 " to U% UY 0 in N 0 Q6S p lin rd N U1 %0 111 01 H M N r-1 : O O'� U H as u as az a a ra bn oW ,� � 4V =0 . . V) • bora } to ta 1-4 E'I V a.+ -.0 S7 Pi GC/ D i! Z; -0 e0 C C G 0 Q fa C. C7; 0.'0 w 0 r' r-' .-+ d w L 0 O 4 i k i E 1 0000 4 'e„11 to Vi Cs N: N { rq'!, N M F t tft c ca 6 R� bo 60 i x.ba fA w w w rd SA W d f y P. V LL 9+ i US ti co w N N n ao -�r 49% ra r4r-3 r4 ra A O U t•. Has d H O. 0. W d v° ; •� w . ' r4 o �44ciw 00 Hz c o vw y wa V 0 N d d �V <S GD P ra H G m h OHS)d N N W A Hto M .esGP ?~ E•+ m H A � Y O Q O w u u u a °I (] co aDy w a N m m a c c 13 :z a u m m N ca a m y w r Azl .0 144 o a AN m °m Da 4j Aj 0 co a °a °a o t+ u y .0 bi a Tp 4j a m A rr n H m H tr E♦ pj M lj ice.+Cd V . �+ 9 Z T I G A R D P L 'A N N I N G C 0 M M I "S S I 0 N REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 15, 1983 1. President Tepedino called the meeting to order at 7:38 P.M.. The meeting was held, at Fowler Junior High 'School - LGI Room - 10865 SW Walnut, Tigard, Oregon. 2. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: President Tepedino, Commissioners Butler, Moen, ' Edin, Leverett, Fyre, Owens. ABSENT: Commissioner Vanderwood (one vacant position). STAFF:- Associate Planner Elizabeth Newton (left 8:15); Assistant Planner Steve Skorney; Director of Planning and Development Monahan (arrived 8:10);; Secretary Diane Jelderks. 3. minutes from October 4, 1983, were considered. Commissioner Edin moved and Commissioner Fyre seconded to accept the minutes as submitted. The motion carried,by unanimous vote of members present. - 4.' PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATION 0 Respresentative from the Washington County Fire ;Department, Craig Keyes, and Tualatin Fire District, Joe Gruelich, were present to discuss issues of mutual concern. Commissioner Owens arrived 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS a President Tepedino opened the public hearings by reading the procedures to be followed during the hearing. 5.1 SIGN CODE EXCEPTION SCE 3-83 Wayside inn NPO # 4 A request for an exception from the sign code to allow the placing of an additional free-standing sign, 100 sq. ft. per face and 30 ft. in height, to identify the Wayside Motel. The property is designated General Commercial and is zoned C-5. Located: 11460 SW Pacific Hwy. Associate Planner Newton made staff's recommendation for approval with two conditions. E a NPO/CCI COMMENTS - No one appeared to speak. ® APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION: Way Lee, Owner of the Wayside Motel explained it was their intent to remove the other two signs and replace them with the larger, taller sign. Iie did not feel that staff's recommendation was suffi.cent for his needs because the canopy at the mobil station would still block the view of the sign. The motion carried by majorityvote of Commissioners present. President ' Tepedino, 'Commissioner' Moen, Leverett, Owens and Butler voting YES. Commissioners Fyre and Edin voting NO. 5.2 SIGN CODE EXCEPTION SCE 4-83 NPO # 2 A request to allow the 6' ; x 12' First Interstate Bank sign to be raised from 26 ft. to 34 or 36 ft. high. ® Assistant Planner Skorney made staff's recommendation for denial. ® NPO/CCI COMMENTS - No appeared to speak. .. a APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION No one appeared to speak. PUBLIC TESTIMONY a No one appeared to speak. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION Commissioner Pure; Moen, and Leverett support staff's recommendation. b Commissioner Edin was concerned .with denial because of the previous approval. ' 0 Cozmaissioner Owens commented that there was a difference because of the type of businessofeach applicants. The bank's ,sign need was less` because it attracted mostly people who are local. However in the case of the motel you are attracting out of town people who need to be able to find you. as Commissioner Butler moved and Commissioner Moen seconded to deny Sign Code Exception SCE 4-83 based on staff findings and recommendation. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Commissioners present. RECESS 8:40 P.M. RECONVENE 8:55 P.M. 5.3 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 17-83 ZONE CHANGE ZC 13-83 Marvin Smith NPO # 6 0 . Assistant Planner Skorney made staff's recommendation for approval of the applicant's request. ® Di.rector of Planning and Development explained why this item is before the Planning Commission again, ® NPO/CCI COMMENTS - Staff stated that they had talked with NPO Chairman, Phil Pasteris and that tie had conveyed that the NPO had heard this applicant's request several times and supported the request. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 15, 1983 Page 3 5 ® APPLICANT'SPRESENTATION — 'Dean Werst, Attorney for the applicant, supported staff's recommendation. He added they would be dedicating i approximately 14 acres of land to the City. a Henry Wong, Developer stated he was available to answer any questions regarding the development. PUBLIC TESTIMONY a Sally Thomas, 16575 SW 85th, owner of the Dairy Farm east of the propoed site, opposed the application. She;stated there is already a traffic - problem and this development would only increase the problem.. She did not feel the site was a suitable location for 'a development of this type 'because of the terrain and flooding that occurs. Shethenread a letter from Tom and Jeannie Perin, 16585 SW 92nd, who also opposed this application'. CROSS EXAMINATION AND REBUTTAL ® Commission. Butler asked how they had come up with 174 units. Director "of Planning and 'Development stated the units were not an issue for this hearing. Commissioner Moen questioned the effect on policy 6.1.1 on this application. Discussion followed. b Commissioner Edin questioned if the applicant would have access on 92nd or on 85th, Mr. Werst explained the access would be on 92nd at the top of the hill, because the 85th access was not wide enough. He also explained how they had come up with the figure of 174 units. a Discussion followed regarding dansity, the letter from 'USA and street improvements for SW 42nd. a Commissioner Moen suggested approving the proposal with a Planned Development overlay. ® Mag Shaw, 16225 SW 93rd Avenue was concerned with the effect 20 units per acre would have on the area. She also asked what would prevent them from building apartment or putting in a mobil home park if this density was approved. a Director of Planning and Development Monahan stated the application, if approved would only allow 12 units per acre with a density trans for to a miximum of 15 units per acre and the other issue would be _ raised during the Planned Development or Subdivison application process. 0 Discussion followed regarding the LCDC requirement of 10 units per acre. 0 Coamsission.er gyre asked if it would be economically feasible to �- development this property at low density. Director of Planning and Development stated it would be difficult because of the amount of unbuildable lands. e - Lengthy discussion regarding charging the density from low to medium. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 15, 1983 Page 4 COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION. ® Commissioner Edin moved and Commission Leverett seconded to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 17--83, from low to medium density; and approval of the Zone Change'ZC 13-83 to become effective upon Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment.' The'motion was approved by unamious vote of the Commissioners present. 5.4 SUBDIVISION S 9-83 Bond Park # 2 NPO # 5 a AssistantPlanner Skorney made staff's recommendation for approval with conditions. 0 NPO/CCI COMMENTS - No one appeared to speak.: a APPLICANT"S PAESNTATION - Bill McMonagle, 8905 SW Commercial, stated they had 'reviewed the staff report and had no problems. They were available to answer any questions. PUBLIC TESTIMONY a No one appeared to speak. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION ® Commissioner Butler was concerned that there was no school impact statement submitted with the application. The applicant stated they had contacted the school and that they had no problems with the proposed development. ® Commissioner Owens moved and Commissioner Moen seconded to approve Subdivision S 9--83, with conditions, the applicant's request for a Preliminary Plat of Bond Park # 2, a 24 lot subdivision. The motion was approved by majority vote of Commissioners present, Commissioner Butler voting NO. 5.5 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT S 8-83 PD Park Place/Century 21 Homes NPO # 3 ® A request for conceptual and detailed plan approval of a Planned Development consisting of 215 single family units- Assistant Planner Skorney made staff's recommendation for approval of the conceptual and detailed plan with conditions. They are also asking for preliminary plat approval, however staff had not responded in the staff report to that issue. Also, staff had received a call from Washington County requesting that the application be tabled until the alignment for Caarde Road could be agreed upon between the City and Washington County. The Public Works Director also supported a continuance. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 15, 1983 nage 5, o NPO/CCI COMMENTS - Bob Bledsoe, 11800 SW (Walnut, NPO fir` 3 .'Chairman also supported having this item continued. The NPO had many concerns 'which,had not been address including alignment of streets and density calcuations. a APPLICANT`S PRESENTATION Bob 'Miller, 5164 Bobs: Court, Salem, Civil Engineer for Century 21 Mmes. Reviewed the history ' of the application noting communication problems which had occurred. ` a Lengthy discussion followed regarding processing of the application. Consensus of the Commissioners was that the there were many difficult issues to deal with and there was confusion as to staff-°s position on this application. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o Mrs. Rodde, 13745 SW 121st, read her letter into the record opposing the proposed road alignment and requesting the application be denied. ® Mr. Gordon Moore, 13535 Sidi 121st, opposed the proposed application. He stated that Washington County had planned to put the Gaarde Road Extension through the Century 21 Property and that Century 21 was aware of this .when they purchased the property. Now, Century 21 is proposing shifting the burden onto his property and others without even contactingthem. 0 Ray Barnum, 14405 SW-Hazelhill 'Drive, 'respresenting the homes owners in the Bull Mountain area opposed the application because of the density and the gaarde/Murray Roadb _xtension. o Discussion followed regarding continuance of the meeting. 0 Commissioner Edin moved and Commissioner Owen seconded to table Planned Development S 8-83 PD to December 6, 1983, and requested staff to schedule a meeting between k*ashington County, City Staff., Applicant, NPO # 3 and affected parties to address issues of concern. Also requested applicant to provide a true school impact statement. The motion was app::oved by unanimous vote of Commissioner present. 6. OTHER BUSINESS o Discussion followed regarding developing criteria for justifying changes to the Comprehensive Plan. 7. Meeting Adjourned 11:30 P.M. Diane M. 3el r , Secretary ATTEST_.----- Erin is J. lege ino, President (0227P)PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 15, 1983 Page 6 n TIGARD 'PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting - December 6, 1983 - 7:30 P.M. P 1. Vice President Moen, called the meeting to order at 7:38 P.M. The meeting was; held at Fowler Junior High School - 'LGI Room 10865 SW Walnut, Tigard, Oregon. 2. ROLL CALL: Present: Vice President Moen,'; Commissioners Butler, Edin, Fyre, Leverett,, Vanderwood, & Owens (arriving at 7:52 P.M.). Absent: President Tepedino,(one,vacant position). Staff: Associate Planner 'Steve Skorney; Director of Planning and Development Bill Monahan; Assistant- Secretary 'Colleen Heard. 3. Minutes from November 15, 1.983, , were considered. Commissioner Edin moved to approve and Commissioner -Fyre seconded to accept the minutes as submitted. The motion carried by unanimous vote of members present. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATION o Present was Captain Kelly, Jennings, and Sergeant Chuck Martin from the Police Department to present a report on Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. o Sergeant 'Chuck Martin discussed how crimes ;happen by saying that burglars use buffers and any form of shade area. This allows the burglar to 'get away easy with no one seeing the robbery taking place. Sergeant Martin also showed slides of different buffers that a burglar uses. He was saying that overgrown bikepaths, overgrown walkpaths, and houses that have a lot of bushes or that are fenced in are what the.burglar is looking for when robbing a place or when wanting to rob you. He also handed out to all of the Commissioners a report on What is CPTED? COMMISSIONER OWENS ARRIVED AT 7:52 P.M. Vice President Moen asked if Staff had anything to bring to the Commissioners attention. ht to the o Director of Planning. and Development Bill Monahan, brought Commissioners attention a letter received from Ryan O'Brian about the 135th Annexation Area. He would like to move the Neighborhood Commercial Area from the lower level to the upper level. The only reason Bill Monahan brought it to the Commissioners attention is because they would like the o.k. to put it on the January Agenda. Bill Monahan asked for a motion to put it on the agenda, and Commissioner Moen motioned and commissioner Edin seconded. The vote was unanimous of the Commissioners present. 5. PUBLIC HEARING o ! 'Vice President Moen opened the public hearings by reading the procedures to be followed during the hearing. Planning Commission Minutes - December 6, 1983 1 5 a PUBLIC TESTIMONY No one appeared to speak. 4_ CROSS EXAMINATION AND REBUTTAL o Discussion followed regarding the need for the height of the sign to be 30 ft. a Commissioner Owens questioned if the picture showing the new sign had been done to scale. The applicant stated that it was. ® commissioner Edin questioned the ownership of the vacant land between the highway and the Motel. Mr Lee stated that the land was owned by the state and added to his visual problem. Further discussion + followed. r e Director of Planning and Development stated that staff would have no ,30 ft. sign as long as the need is met with the problem with a 22 to minimum height necessary. Further discussion regarding height. - s e President Tepedino was concerned because the Commission had denied a similiar request for a Shell Service Station on Greenburg Road and 217. Discussion followed as to how that request was different. ' Commissioner Butler asked the applicant if they had done precise measurements to assurethat 30 ft. was the minimum they required. Bob Fulton, sign' representative, stated they had used 'a fiberglass pole and tape measure to determine that they needed the 30 feet. a Further discussion followed regarding the size and height of the sign. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED COMKZSSI0N DISCUSSION AND ACTION ® commissioner Edin expressed his concern for 'approval. He felt. it conflicted with the recommendation for denial of the next sign code exception on the agenda. 9 Commissioner Owens, Leverett and Moen favored the size and height of the sign proposed by the applicant. e Commissioner Fyre felt a 24' height might be sufficient. 0 Chairman Tepedinofelt because of the safety issue the sign should be. approved. 0 Commission Moen moved and Commissioner Owens seconded to approve Sign Code Exception SCE 3-83 with the following conditions. 1. The applicant shall remove the two existing signs. 2. The sign height shall not be greater than 30 feet. 3. Maximum area for the sign will be no more than 100 sq. ft., with the major sign being no more than 90 aq. ft PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 15, 1983 Page 2 WIN PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 5.1 Century 21;S 8-83 P.D. It was tabled from the last meeting, so Vice President Moen, asked staff to '.review the staff` report 'again. Assistant Planner Steve Skorney reviewed the staff report to the Commissioners and Public. Associate Planner Skorney also reviewed the conclusions and the Planning Department findings. Staff recommended approval, ,with conditions of the applicant's request for conceptual and detailed planned development approval and preliminary plat approval of Phase I of S 8-83 PD. , o NPO/CCI COMMENTS o Bob Bledsoe 11800 SW'Walnut, NPO #3. He stated that the concern of the NPO was that the Development Code says a single family dwelling is one detached residence', placed on one lot. lie said that the NPO cannot understand why the ' Planning Department is approving this proposal. o .. Planning Director Bill Monahan, said the code concerning .Planned _ Development speaks to the minimum land area per dwelling unit, irregardless of ownership patterns. o Vice President Moen, asked if the land is going to be common land or not? oDirector Bill Monahan said that is what the applicant wanted. He also " said that the;applicant himself should speak. Applicants Presentation: Bob Miller, Century 21 Properties. He explained that what Century 21 Properties wanted is to put 43 units on 47.8 acres of land or they would even settle for -43 units on 9 acres of laud. He also said that it would be o.k. if they only approved Phase I of the plan. He also mentioned that the "T" intersection presented to Larry Rice from the County and Frank Currie, Director of Public Works would be o.k. He also addressed the problem about how the Fire Department was to respond to a fire in that area. He said that they can come in on one of the roads that are roped off to get to the fire. He also commented on who was going to take care of the common land. He said that the Neighborhood Association, made up of the people who live there, would be responsible for it. a Commissioner Edin asked Bob Miller about concerns on policing the property. o Bob Miller said that the Home Owners will do their own policing around the area, but Century 21 is willing to let the City patrol the area even though it is private property. o Larry Rice, Washington County. He said that the County was in 'favor of the plan and they gave their o.k. to go ahead. Planning Commission Minutes - December 6, 1983 2 . E 1 sked Larry Rice if the "T" is good to have at the west o Commissioner Edin a end of the road. o Ralph Flowers 11700 SW Gaarde. He explained that his concern was if you letthedevelopment happen the traffic on Gaarde and '121st will became extraheavy and that the light on Gaarde and 99 is already a death trap and he said it will be worse if you put up a stop sign or improve the road. o Carl Landstrom 12000 SW Gaarde. He warted to let the commissioners know that his house is only 20 feet from the road and that he was afraid that the traffic will get worse than it is now. o Lou Ann Mortensen11160 SW Fonner NPO #3 "E Y; She asked Bob Miller if the Home Owners Association'will have to file with the Oregon State Real Estate Board. She also asked what would happen if ` doesn't remain in existance'. She was upset the Home (havers Association , that Larry` Rice left , before any one could question him on what he: commented on. o Bob Miller responded by saying that yes it will be filed with the Oregon State' Real Estate Board. He responded to the second question by saying #, that the Home owners ' Association will always exist if there are people (" living on the property. K o Lou Ann Mortensen asked what is going to happen with the traffic on Pacific Highway. o Director Bill Monahan said that he and Frank Currie have discussed that } problem and there will be no answer for at least a year or so. there will be three lanes o£ traffic and how o Commissioner Butler asked if bill they go. r o Assistant Planner Skorney said that 2 lanes will be travel lanes and 3 will be a turning lane. a Judy Fessler 11180 SW Fonner She asked if there will be a half-street improvement or a full street i improvement on Gaarde? Will the right-of-way on Gaarde be upgraded? t o Assistant Planner Skozney said that the only thing to be done is the } sidewalks on the Park Place side. The right-of-way will be upgraded to the standerds on the Park Place side. Lengthly Discussion followed. O Betty McCain 13950 SW 121st Her concern was that if they put road improvements on Gaarde that it will , only be 11 inches from her house. She also said that she has trouble s already with the traffic, if the development is approved she will have more. Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 1983 3 . o, Eldon Hodapp 11460 S.W. Gaarde His concern was that if they widen Gaarde that the natural springs will be all messed up. He also ,was concerned that if an accident happened on Gaarde who will be the one to respond, the County or the City Police Department. Judy Hodapp 11460 SW Gaarde She wanted to 'explain that the traffic on Gaarde is already bad and if more is'put onto it there will be more accidents than there are now. o Commissioner Edin said that he understands and that it will be considered. BREAK 9:45 P.M. CONVENED 9:50 P.M. CROSS EXAMINATION: ` o Bob Bledsoe 11800 S.W. Fonner NPO #3 He 'would like the County to agree to an alignment for the Gaarde St. extension that indirectly' connects to the "121st and Gaarde intersection. He asked if there will be a continuous curb to Gaarde St. after the improvements are made. o Bob Miller Century 21 Properties He explained that there will be 25 f t. of street on 121st on the property owners side and only 20 ft. on the development side. He said that will be the same for Gaarde St. He also asked that the 200 street improvement be restricted because he doesn't think that it is fair now because the city has no idea at all what is being " talked about. As the property is developed the developer will be placing storm drains and sewer drains. If they hit anyones spring they will find where it is and fix it. o Assistant Planner Steve Skorney told Bob Miller that the 200ft. improvement is standard for that kind of subdivision. o Lyall Turnball 11735 SW Gaarde Asked if Frank Currie said that there is anything to be done to the County side of Gaarde Street. o Bob Miller said that he did not remember that. o Mr. Turnball said no he was talking about street improvements. And then Mr. Currie said only if you have an LID. o Ted Dunfill 8895 SW Edgewood What he wanted to know was if they do street improvements to part of the street at a later date won't there have to be more work done to the other streets. Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 1983 4 Y: o Commissioner Edin answered his question by saying yes it does open the door for the other streets to be improved. o Betty McCain then said that they will be violating both the City and County setback ordinances, and once those ordinances are violated who is going to buy the property. ; o Director Bill Monahan"said- that there is really no answer for that :because it all depends where the house is located. The conflict is from the house to the right-of-way. He also said the problem isn't being created now, that it already exists. oCommissioner Edin asked Betty McCain if she heard the answer Mr. Miller gave about the natural springs and drains. o Betty McCain said that she understands, but she is not sure 'that what Mr. Miller is--proposing will be the answer. o Commissioner Edin told her that no one there is an engineer and that they rely on staff and staff does not know. o Commissioner Moen had a question for the applicant. Who is going to do the maintenance on that street and how can the:city be assured that .it will be maintained properly? He also wanted to know how the police are going to 'control the parking on the one side of the street. ®_ Bob Miller said the Home Owners Association will have the responsibility to maintain the property. He said that on a private drive no one else has to''let the police on, but they are willing to work with staff and come up with an 'answer. o Commissioner Owens asked the applicant why he asked for a private: road - instead of public ones= a Bob Miller responded that it will take away from the land and the land itself is only 300 ft. wide. o Commissioner Owens asked if the project is approved tonight how will the applicant address the issue of the problem, with the different number of units that the staff has put in the report. o Assistant Planner Skorney said that it was for a decision on Phase I not on the plat. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 10:35 P.M. o Commissioner Owens said that the road condition is a major issue but that is not what the Commission is approving. She also said to look at it another way the improvements will in the long run be safer than worse. She also said that traffic will increase on Gaarde regardless of what the Commission decides on this property. o Commissioner Butler said that he has never seen a maintenance overlay like this one before. He, �also was wondering why the Gaarde, Pacific Highway problem was not regas•ded in the plans. Also, he would like more on the drainage systems. Planning Commission Minutes - December 6, 1983 5 o Commissioner Edin would like it:.noted how he would like to see the staff - report changed to conceptual detail review of Phase I only, not Phase II. He would like to have the City ,Council consider approving- the 'private streets and enforce the parking.' o' Commissioner Edin said then the Commissions' hands are tied to do anything about the 70 Pt. right-of-way. - Do we or don't we have anything we can do about the right-of-way? o Director Bill Monahan said that no you can't do anything about it because the iCommission' can not violate the Urban Planning Area Agreement. o Commissioner Edin said that the location of the street is a really big problem. He said that putting the "T" in;at 121st is not the most safe thing to do. He was thinking about putting the "T" in the other end of Phase I, maybe at ,the end of the street making cars either go -left or right in Phase II. Commissioner Edin thinks this is the way Council and the neighbors would like it as it wouldn't lue a straight away shot. o Commissioner Vanderwood would agreewith Commissioner Edin about the street. She has some concerns about #5, she said that she has never seen anything like this before. She also said that 200 ft. improvement will increase traffic speed more than it is now. o Bob Tiller said that with this condition he can see that people are going to 'speed up on the 400 ft. improvement and said that cars will drive faster than now. o Commissioner Frye major concern is with the traffic pattern, he doesn't like the cars having a. straight shot on Gaarde. He also said that he does like the offset running into 121st. ?laving the "T" on the other side would be good. He said that maybe between 121st and 99 a stop sign could be put in. It is a lot of density for a zone that is single family. So he would not approve this unless it has an indirect connection. o Commissioner 'Leverett said item #5 show that we havean engineering problem and it has to be worked out and that the 200 f t. is not worded well. o Commissioner Moen comment was that we are here to talk about the development and we have done that, we have only talked about the street problems. He is in favor of staffs' recommendations and prefers the "T to Gaarde. Two problems by putting a "T" on the top, one is not to put the "T" in without some input from engineering. The second one is that 121st is not good because he doesn't think the people would be very well served. He asked the applicant if they plan on having any parking around the development. o Bob Miller stated that they plan on having parking on one side and have enough room for. a walkway on the right-of-way. o Commissioner Edin thinks putting private drives on this big of a development is wrong' Planning Commission Minutes - December 6, 1983 6 9 7 o Commissioner Owens would like to know`what Commissioner Moens' feelings on density _are. o Commissioner Moen said that we are not here to redesign the plan. - o Commissioner Edin motioned to approve Conceptual Phase I with conditions. To add and correct staffs' conditions. The first addition would be Gaarde Street be extended as shown on the pians an additional 300 ft. northwest from where it,deadends now. With other proposed streets to be constructed to make a "T" intersection at that spot. He left in 'item #5, because he would like to see that street improved. Commissioner Owens seconded the motion. The motion was denied with the vote 5 t 2. o Discussion followed regarding the density problem. o Commissioner Butler said that it is inappropriate for this density`. Phase I could have been added only, ;not both Phase I and Phase II. o Commissioner Moen asked staff how much of the density transfer is in Phase I. o Director Bill Monahan said that .about 5 units. o Discussion followed among the Commissioners and Staff. '- o Commissioner Butler motioned to deny development S 8-83. Commissioner Pyre seconded the motion. o Discussion about the motion followed. o -Motion was approved by 4 to 3 vote. o Director Bill Monahan asked for the findings. Findings are: Incomplete and inaccurate information. Private Streets inappropriate. Deny transfer to Phase I was inapproriate without see the plats. 5.2 Sign Code Exception SCE 5-83 Chalet Restaurant and Bakery NPO #4 o Commissioner Moen, said that the applicant had to leave and that he would like it tabled until the next meeting. o Commissioner Pyre motion to have it tabled until January's meeting. Commissioner Owers seconded. Unanimous vote of Commissioners present. t� Planning Commission Minutes - December 6, 1983 7 mown EM , 6.3 NPO #6 Appointment — 'Doug Vezina t. o Director Bill Monahan said that it was an appointment for NPO #i6 and that he and Commissioner Vanderwood interviewed Mr. Vezina and recommended that his application be approved by the Planning Commission and be forwarded to the City Council- 0 NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY o Commissioner Owens made a motion that it be forward to City Council and Commissioner Vanderwood seconded. o Unanimous vote of Commissioners present. ADJOURNMENT 11:35 P.M. Assistant Secretary, Colleen Heard Vice President, Moen (0243P) Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 1983 8 J W ROW TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting - January 3, 1984 1. President Tepedino called the meeting to order at 7:35 P.M.. The meeting was held at Fowler Junior High School - Choral' Room - 10865 SW Walnut, Tigard, Oregon. 2. ROLL CALL: Present: President Tepedino; Commissioners Vanderwood, Butler, Edin, Fyre, Owens (arriving 7:45 P.M.). Absent: Commissioners Moen' and 'Leverett (one vacant position). Staff: Director of Planning and Development William A. Monahan; Associate Planner Elizabeth A. Newton; Assistant Planner Steve Skorney; Secretary Diane M. Jelderks. 3. Minutes from December 6, 1983, were considered. Corrections were made by the Commissioners. Commissioner Tepedino moved and Commissioner Butler seconded to approve minutes as corrected. Motion carried by unanimous vote of Commissioners present. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION ® There was no communication 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS • President Tepedino opened the public hearing by reading the procedures to be followed during the hearing. 5.1 SIGN CODE EXCEPTION SCE 5-83 Chalet Restaurant & Bakery NPO # 4 H A request for a Sign Code Exception to allow installation of a 100 sq. foot per face free-standing sign (to replace an existing 9° x 191 sign). Located at 11680 SW Pacific Highway. 4 a Assistant Planner Skorney made staff's recommendation for denial E based on Community Development Code. Commissioner Owens arrived. a NPO CCI Comments - No one appeared to speak. 0 APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION - Leonard Remicke, Ramsey Signs, represented the applicant. He stated the proposed sign is only 10% over the allowable size and was needed to identify the site properly. w Dennis Kaupal, PO Box 2108, Salem, Or.. 97308, owner, explained that the proposed sign is smaller than the existing• sign and it would also eliminate the flashing l,iaghts. ®': Commissionr Fyre questioned the nonconformance of the. existing sign. Discussion followed regarding sign code limitations and enforcement. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED a Commisioners Edin and Vanderwood supported request as not being unreasonable. e Commissioner Owens did not support, would rather see sign brought into conformance. s, a Commissioner Fyre and Butler supported as this would eliminate the existing nonconforming sign. They would like to see the sign code followed, however, this request would only be.a-10% increase. e President Tepedino was concerned with all the workthat'.went' into putting the sign code together, to turn around and make exception to the code, might beestablishinga precedence. He questioned if there g was some way to make a compromise. z a Discussion followed regarding minimum and maximum requirements, justifications for approving exceptions and compromises the applicant } would make. a Commissioner Edin moved and 'Commissioner Owens seconded to approve SCE .5-83, changing the height from 2412 to 22' and permitting the 100 sq. ft. for each side. Motion carried by unanimous vote of Commissioners present. 5.2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 18-83 ZONE CHANGE ZC 14-83 RUSS KRUEGER NPO # 7 A request by Russ Krueger to amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and the Zoning District Map to relocate a Neighborhood Commercial designation from the west side of 135th Avenue, south of tax lot 107, to the northwest corner of tat: lot 1000 along 135th Avenue. Assistant Planner Skorney made staff's recommendation for approval. ® Director of Planning and Development Monahan commented that the staff was committed to initiate the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the Commercial Neighborhood designation. f l ® NPO COMFVENT -. Richard Boberg, Chairperson for NPO # 7, stated they €.. . had never been notifed of the application. Discussion followed. E e APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION - Ryan O'Brian was present to answer any question for the applicant. b j 0 Discussion followed regarding the Road alignment, traffic study and € continuing the hearing to give the NPO opportunity to review. . PUBLIC HEARING OLOSEDa PLANNING COIRAISSION MINUTES January 3, 1984 Page 2 � t 4p Commissioner Butler moved and Commissioner Vanderwood to continue CPA 18-83 and ZC 14-83 'until the February meeting to allow the present t NPO 7 Chairperson time to review the application. Motion carried by unanimous vote of Commissioner present. 5.3 MOD'IFICATION TO AN APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAT S 9-83 BOND PARK II NPO # 5 A request by Waverly Construction to modify the street alignment in the approved preliminary plat for Bond Park II. Located at SW 79th near Durham Road. ® `. Assistant Planner Skorney :made staff's recommendation for approval with conditions. ® CCI - NPO Comments No one appeared to speak. o APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION - Bill McMonagle, 8905 SW Commerical, representing the applicant explained how a purchase had occurred which would enable them to construct Bond Park 'Phase III and they needed the road;alignment modification to make through streets.. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o Dorothy Gage, questioned the alignment of the street. Assistant Planner Skorney 'reviewed alignment to Mrs. Gage's satisfaction. CROSS EXAMINATION AND REBUTTLE 0 Commissioner Butler questioned the length of the streets and where the streets would come out. Applicant reviewed map of phase III, indicating proposed streets., stating the streets would be approximately 300 feet and would eventually enter onto Hall Blvd. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED i Commissioner Edip asked if the applicant had any problems with the condition to improve SW 79th. Applicant stated no, as this was originally m condition for Bond Park I. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION a Commissioner Owends moved and Commissioner Vander-wood seconded for approval for modification of an approved Preliminary Plat S 9-83 based on staff's findings and recommendation. Motion carried by unanimous vote of Commissioners present. 6. OTHER BUSINESS e Diseussion followed between Commissioner and staff concerning future staff reports and presentations; information, submitted to the Planning Commission and the need for a Planning CommissiOP workshop. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 3, 1984 Page 3 7. Meeting Adjourned 9:45 P.M. Diane M. Jelderks, Secretary ATTEST: Francis J. Tepedino, President PY.ANNIHG COHMISSION MINUTES January 3, 1984 Page 4 -REEffs 21 ,r CITY OF TIGARD MEMORANDUM January 20, 1984 p 5 TO: ; City Administrator/City Council k FROM: Chief of Police Y A n I. Personnel The-.department continues to be at full strength this month (29'). There were three resignations this year; 2 dispatchers and 1 patrol officer. Two left to go back to school full time, the other left to work for F 'another agency. E s The average daily department strength this month was 17.4 as compared to 16.8 for December, 1982. By division the breakdown is as follows: Administration 1.8; Support Services 4.6; Patrol Division 8.3; Traffic 1.2; and Investigations 1.4. II. Service Delivery The depart;menr,'respc,nded to 507 non-criminal calls for service in contrast to 401 calls in December, 1982. The combined total non-criminal calls for service this year was 6,161; for this same`time period in 1982 the total was 5,555. Patrol Division's obligated time this month was 2008.8 hours, for the year it was 19,053.0• The-non-obligated time this month was 575.7 hours; for ( the year it was 8,745.1. III. Crime _ Th re were 100 Part I crimes reported this month as compared to 95 for December of 1982, up by 5 crimes in this classification, or +5.3%. There were 33 Part I crimes cleared this month, or 33.0% The total Part I crimes reported this year was 1,230, in contrast to 1,223 for this same period last year, an increase of 5.7%. The clearance rate for Part I crimes this year is 29.5%, or 363 cases. In contrast to the same time period of 1982, 23.5% were cleared, or 2£7 cases. There were 41 Part II crimes reported this month, of that number 23 were cleared, or 56.1%. For the same month last year, 49 were reported and 25 were cleared, or 51.0%. The total Part II crimes reported this year was 723 in contrast to 775 reported this same time period of 1982, a decrease of 52 cases, or 6.7%. There were 332 Part II cases cleared this year, or 45.9%, for this same time period in 1982, 438 cases were cleared, or 56.5°l0• The Investigative Division worked 21 active cases this month, and cleared 12, or 52.1.%• The total active cases worked this year by the Investigative Division was 295, of that number 82 cases were cleared, or 27.8%. MUM ill all s The reported property loss this month was $61,351.80, and this month we } recovered $25,771:89 worth of stolen property, or 42.0% The combined total property loss for this year was $847,047.02, of that total $256,088-52 was recovered, or 30.2% IV. Traffic Patrol Division responded to 38 accidents, of that number 12 were injury. There were 301 citations issued this month, as compared to 264 in December, , 1982. There were also 107 warnings issued this month, and 33 were issued for this same time period in 1982. Patrol Division had issued a total of 2,944 citations this year in contrast to 2,`377 for this same time period last year. There has been a total of 415 accidents reported this year, and 365 were reported for this same time period last year. There were 111 injury accidents, but no fatal accidentsreported this year; 104 injuries plus Y one fatal was reported last year in 1982. ' The enforcement index 'yhis month was 16.91 as compared to 19.09 for 3 December, 1982. 3; The enforcement index for this year is 19.06 in contrast to 14.39 for last year of 3.982. V. Police Reserves The Reserve Unit-worked 181.5 hours this month assisting, the department in policing the community; through the year the Reserves donated 3,083 hours of tied report from the Reserves for their total community service. See attac } training and activities. s VI. Special Assignments r A. K-9 Report (see attached monthly report from Sgt. Martin). B. Motorcycle/Traffic Report (see attached report from Sgt. Neiman) � C. Alarms and Permit Recap (see attached report from Capt. Jennings) ( VII. Training A. Basic Crime Prevention School. Officer Ober attended this BPST school at the Police Academy on Nov. 28 to Dec. 9, receiving 80 hours of training. B. Criminal Interview Class. Lt. Wheeler and Officer Merrill attended this BPST school at the General Motors Training Center on Dec. 8, 16 man hours c. of training were received. C. Drunk Driving Detection Class. Officer Harburg attended this BPST school on Dec. 20, receiving 8 hours of training. k D. Asian Gang Seminar. On December 1 and 2, Detective Goldpsink attended the Oregon-Washington Lawman's Associaiton meeting. Topic was Asian Gangs, and 16 hours of training was received. E. Mid-Management. Lt. Branstetter completed the second portion of the Mid-Management school at the Police Academy on Dec. .5-9. 40 hours of training was received. t F. LEDS Update/Training Needs. On Dec. 5, Capt. Jennings, Lt. Wheeler and Services Manager`Carrick'attended a LEDS training seminar at Beaverton. 6 man hours of training was received. rr VIII. Community Relations A. On Dec. 6,Capt. Jennings and Sgt. Martin presented a talk on Crime Prevention through Environmental Design to the Planning Commission. This lasted approximately 1 hour. B. On Dec. 8, Capt. Jennings attended a Right to Vote Committee meeting for r 3 hours. This was held at Tuality Jr. High School. C. Capt. Jennings attended two Washington County Law Enforcement Council meetings; one on Dec. 9, and one on Dec. 15. 4 hours were spent total. D. On Dec. 14, Capt. Jennings and Services Manager Carrick attended a`911 Study meeting. This was for 3 'hours'and was held at Fire District 1 in Aloha. Y Respectfully, 5 R.B. Adams (J! Chief of Police RBA:ac Attach. 1 r rrl 71 210 o tr 1r �, �► p�IT�O 1 9 C C \ per 04 trS � OU�?r gsgo , H o G® ® Acl M'L1�FCgrfp , IC am � � Or "�$'ex. .hC' '� ms's,,,"'t,�-'s-,�— .�• -F. :�`a s: "'�- ,. � s�� _ � f ' �A x �y f �;rte Y3'y'iiyH.� s 5 - . . - ,<....11111 J.-Ill.,111 loll,Ill ,tom.--., ...,.:. .. ,^5 " e t a... =":i.id's-"+.; _�'�.,t+,° y �` s�,r '"pi-rt_- "t.�:'�'.', +`, mv ah M sFa s zY.ar w - 35� m . ,fi c>'y ': { ,,• -�, - - ,g r - xsu5 w.,s .,.+-,h- :r,•...` _-�- ..,�, c«e_,, 3 ,,r�,-.�.- r' x,:+-` rte, htr` ' .;,s '�.",t•,, fi .:..., �.T. 3 +y��`#s�' •.7r�;.:« .9�g,� r 1. -_s �. ''`�<k,.,Y''�y, [,.�;.. 1,�:�•�.w 3 .�' �'' 3k'� f, ,k.� ,.�rx. ,,�, "�s'Pw�y ik `r�.''='^ c .Yea.' s��'?ry�, .. r r C MEMORANDUM January 23, 1984 T0: Chief of Police FROM: Sgt. Martin C SUBJECT: K-9 Report RE: December, 1983 k , E. Sir: � ear of service for the K-9 team. .:The team The month of December marked one y erformth 12 tracks, resulting ; had 29 calls during the past month. The team p in 3;finds. One find was a burglary suspect that S fledcool from a vehicle aan fter a chase. The second was et1arstmente fThe thirdrfind cwas a suspect. Thisain aamenacingist to Lake Oswego Police D p ' 6: situation. i There were 13 buildings searched and cleared. The'- remaining 4 calls were area ed 8 man hours of training this month. Training consisted s checks. The team logg of building searches because of inclement weather conditions. y las County Sheriff's Office. Jake was sold to Deputy Mike Kennada of thf1De, and should be back to work Deputy Kennaday reports that Jake is doing in late January: t i t Respectfully, Sgt. Chuck Martin K-9 Team Leader t: CM:ac yy; R;' r i MEMORANDUM p January 23, 1984 TO: Chief of police FROM: Sgt. Newman SUBJECT; Motorcycle Traffic Unit Report _ RE: December, 1983 Sir: non- During the month of December, 1983 there were 38 accidents; 12 injury, 26 non e December, 1982 which had 33 accidents, 11 inju=ry. This is an increase over injury, 21 non-injury. ' Of the 38 accidents this month, 18 were investigated by the Traffic Unit. r Enforcement Tndex this month is 16.91 compared to 19-09 for the same period last year . Traffic Unit issued 118 hazardous, 46 non-hazardous citations for a total of 4 164. Respectfully, > Sgt. John P. Newman Traffic Team Leader e: JPNaac Elm ALARMS AND PERMIT RE-CAP - December 31, 1983 January 1 Month of DECEMBER;' s THIS SAME MONTH °h TOTAL TOTAL °h MO NTH LAST YEAR CHANGE THIS YEAR LAST YEAR CHANGE1 , TOTAL ALARMS.. .. .. E�59' 67 - 11% 606 -- 11% 595 -- a. False.. 9 67r - r. b. Bonafide. . 0 5 -- 90 g Permits Issued. 3 135 Permits Renewed... 5 $ permit Fees... .... $85 $85 -0- ..$3,26.0 -- 1 30 -_ -- Permits Revoked. .. $2,360 Revoked Fees.. .... - -- ms t MONTHLY SUMMARY STATEMENT; •A noticeable decrease was observed this month in false alarms. it should benoted also that 17 of the 59 alarms were caused by the severe storm of cold, wind, ice and snow. Although counted in the statistics of the 110. decrease, the alarm users were not charged with a false alarm. This report wraps up the first calendar year Jan-Dec. The first column to the right of the bold line are the totals for the 12 months of 1983. POLICE DEPARTMENT CONSOLIDATED MONTHLY RE.PORP FOR MONTH OF DECEMBER 19'83 DISTRIBUTION OF PERSONNEL AVERAGE - NUMERICAL STRENGTH DAILY ABSENCE �i AVERAGE EFFECT ixE STRENGTH End of Same This Same ; This Last Same this Month Month Month i Month Month Month Month Last Last Last YearYear Year Year TOTAL P)RSONNEL 29 28 11.6 11.2 17.4 17.5 16.8 CHIEF°S OFFICE 3 3 1.2 1.3 1.8 1.6 1.7 SERVICES DIVIS. 7 7 2.4 2.54F .6 4.4 4.5 PATROL DIVISION 111 13 1 5.7 5.3 8.3 8.7 _ 7.7 g f TRAFFIC-DIVIS. 2 , 2 .8 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.0 INVEST. SECTION 3 3 1.6 1.1 1.4 1.6 1.9 FORCE ONE 13 12 5.3 5.1 7.7 8.9 6.9 FJ TWO 8 10 3.4 4.1 L 4.6 4.6 _ 5.9 FORCE THREE8 6 2.9 2.0 5.1 4.9 4.0 CHANGES IN PERSONNEL DALLY AVERAGE PATROL STRENGTH 1. Present for duty end t&£ last month 29 This Same�Mon t:h' 2. Recruited during month 2 Month Last Year 3, Reinstated during month. . p i. Total number field officers 16 15 Total to account for 31 2. Less Agents Assig- 4. Separations from the service: ned to Investigat. 0 0 (a).Voluntary resignation 2 3. Average daily abs (b) Retirement 0 I ences of field off- icers awing to: (c) Resigned with charges pending 0 s fi _ (a) Vacation, usp- t (d) Dropped during probation 0 ensi.on, days off, comp, Lime, etc. 5.8 5.8 (e) Dismissed for cause 0 j (b) Sick & In _`+T (f) Killed in line of duty 0 (c) Schools, etc. -�3 2 (g) Deceased 0 Total average daily { absences 6.5 6.3 Total separations 2 --- � 14* Available for duty �9.5 8.7 5. ":esent for duty at end of month 29 TIGARD POLICE DEPARTMENT Monthly Report I. Calls for Service: This Month 648 Year to Date- 8114 A. Obligated Time 2008.8 B. Non-Obligated Time 575.7 II. PART I CRIMES % No. Cleared Arrests A. Homicide B. Rape 2 C. Robbery D. Assault 12 10 9 E. Burglary 26 4 2 F. Larceny 60 15 11 G. Auto Theft 2 2 1 Totals 100 33 23 III. PART II TOTALS 41 23 19 TOTAL - Part 11 and II i 141 56 42 IV. TOTAL PERSONS CHARGED 42 a. Adult Male 24 C. Juvenile Male 7 _ b. Adult Female 3 d. Juvenile Female 8 •' V. WARRANTS SERVED 5 VI. TOTAL PROPERTY LOSS $ 61.351.80 TOTAL PROPERTY RECOVERED 8 25:771.89 VIT. TRAFFIC a. Accidents Investigated 38 Injury Accidents 12 Fatal 0 b. Citations: VBR (Speeding) 50 Yield Right of Way__L_ Following too Close 5 Red Light 59 Stop Sign 17 Improper Turn 5 Reckless Driving__3_ Careless Dri_vi.ng 7 Driving Under the Influence 6 Driving While Suspended 7 Other Hazardous 37 Non-Hazardous 98 Total Hazardous 203 C. Enforcement Index 16.91 d. Traffic Enforcement Totals Citations: This Month This Year 301 Year to Date 2944 This Month Last Year 2Z4sLast Year to Date e2 6Jarnings: This Month This Year 107 Year to Date 493 This Month Last Year 33 Last Year to Date 97 NOTE: 4 Part I Crimes (Major. Crimes) Clearance Rate 33.% :{%w - Part 11 Crimes (Minor Crimes) Clearance Bate 56.10/.; E NOW M am TIGARD POLICE DRPFRill' T 1>983 YEARLY,:Report - ' i I. Calls for Service: 8,114 .� (` A. Obligated Time 19,053.0 B. .N8745.1 ,on-Obligated Time i x i II. PART I 'CRIMES No. Cleared Arrests i A. Homicide 2 ; t B. Rape 3 615 13 C. Robbery " 19 D. Assault 110 86 77. E. Burglary 382 48 48 F. Larcenv666 192 161 € G. Auto Theft 50 16 9 Totals 1,230 363 310 III. PART II 'TOTALS 723 332 337 1 TOTAL Par; I and II a 1,953 695 647 IV. TOTAL PERSONS CHARGED: 647 a. Adult gale 305 c. 'Juvenile Male 209 b. Adult Female 70 d. Juvenile Femaie ` 63 V. WARRANTS SERVED 109 VI. TOTAL PROPERTY LOSS $ 847,047-02 TOTAL.PROPERTY RECOVERED $256,x•52 OF PROPERTY RECOVERED: 30.27. VII. TRAFFIC d _ 415 Injury Accidents 117. Fatal 0 a. Accidents. Investigated b. Citations: VBR (Speeding) 903 Yield Right of 'v�ay 78 Following.-too -Close- 37 Red Light 382 Stop Sign 100 Improper Turn 47 Reckless Driving 10 Careless Driving 105 Driving Under the Influence 56 Driving While Suspended 96 Other Hazardous 292 Non-Hazardous 828 Total Hazardous 2,116 c._ Enforcernent Index 19.06 d. Traffic Enforcement Totals Citations: 2,944 ' Warnin�,s: 493 NOTE: Part. I Crimes (Major Crimes) Clearance Rate 29.5% Clearance Pate��r�—� Part 11 Crimes (Minor Crimes) f CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY- AGENDA OF: January 23, 1983 AGENDA ITEM h: -- DATE SUBMITTED: January 9, 1983 PREVIOUS ACTION: N/A ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Dept Report - December REQUESTED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: INFORMATION SUMMARY Attached please find the monthly divisional reports for Public Works Operations and Engineering. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 65 Rf4 f.:9 SK4SCR v,Yi S.S SS�.SBL"S SSSSSS SSR SRCSSSSSS-RS�SS---�.�-�•��-- �•��••••�-•_••��••• SUGGESTED ACTION Receive and file M `l-: M 0 R A N"D U M ro: Frank Currie, Director of Public Works FROM: John Hagman, Supt. Engineering Division DATE: January 3, 1983 SUBJECT: Engineering Services Section Monthly ,Report for December, 1983 I OFFICE: A. Assigned Addresses For: 1. Copper Creek III 2. Brittany Square B. Subdivisions .Sent.to Council for Approval: 1, Bellwood III - for approval of releasing the maintenance bond and accepting a new sidewalk bond for one year. 2. Copper Creek II - for approval of releasing the maintenance bond and accepting a new sidewalk bond for one year. C. Files: :Wo Ised;on files locating resolution and ordinance Number for project it"atus D. Street Mileage:. &torked.on street mileage report. We now have 47.456 miles of streets oaccepted by ®rdinanice' or.Resolut:ion.. E. 14aPSs Worked on updating 800 scale street an8 sewer maps. F. gaining: Spent four days going to a supervision/management course at Portland Community College. Attended one day seminar on mini computers Spent.'one dap working on Personnel Guide G. Evaluation: Worked on Bob Land :se •Evaluation H. Meetings; Attended three staff meetings 11 INSPECTIONS A. Crew Chief made three field tours this month r ' B. Subdivision inspection: Hours PERCENT Sanitary 1 7 Storm Sewers 7 .6 Sub-Grade 16 4. 6 5 6 Rock Base 6 , 1 .7 Curbs A.C. Pavement 0 Driveway Aprons and/or Sidewalks 3 2 2 a Project Final 3 2 C. other',Inspections, (O/L PGH. Etc.) 58 38 9.2 D. Contractor Technical Assistance 1 3 2 E. P.W. Shops Technical Assistance 3 2 F.. Routine' Field Inspections (R:D.A:'s' etc.) 13 8. Ger.:Viadi.iStddies for, •I - Streot: mprovemarit:Design 8 5.33 [T. Street 'Design Compgtations 5 3.3 Strs�ji.SAQsign-Drafting 6 . asaiiasrmftlai+3.;: 7 4.6 F t +apwo� aged R s�;aroh 0 0 7L P3�zns; h�scYc �e S 3.3 d�IR .::Plhot®, andaeatta21 Docu,�ee�etatiori 100_ SUBJECT: FIELD SERVICES SECTION'MONTHLY REPORT FOR DECEMBER, 1983 I EXISTING STREET RE-CONDITIONING PROGRAM A.. 60% completion of construction staking for S.W. Tigard Street project. II COLLECTOR STREET CENTERLINE MONUMENTATION A. - Coz-amencement a7.f /moriument sear6h" for S.W. ureenburg Road project. III SECONDARY CONTROL NET PROGRAM A. 80% completion of transferring coordinate data to computer system. IV L.I.D.'s A. 100% completion of preliminary field work for S.W. 68th Parkway Sewer L.I.b. #42. V OTHER A. Preparation of legal descriptions for EASEMENTS.:on.."Bonita slide:'.: project. This project's computations (Construction, boundary, etc...,) are in the C.E.A.D.S. System under project file PJ BONITA SLIDE. B. GENERAL INFORkIATION mapping upgrade and update: 1. 85% completion of address maps 2. 15% completion of annexation and road jurisdiction maps 3. 80% completion land base section maps. 4. 25% completion 400 scale city map. r i I CITYOFTIGARD ' PUBLICWORKSOPERATIONS December 83 Report t DATE: 1-5-84 OPERATIONS OFFICE: t t 4 E r k PARKS: Green Thumb Labor: 1. 7.0 hrs mowing 2 .0 hrs mowing 2. 13,0 hrs restroom maint. 9.0 hrs restroom maint . ? 3. 10.0 hrs building maint . 2.0 hrs building maint . ' 4. 10.0 hrs rec. equip. -maint . , 5. 26.0 hrs landscaping 12 .0 hrs landscaping 6, 140.0 'hrs construction 4.0 hrs construction - F t . STREETS: Green Thumb Labor: 1. 115. 5= hrs street cleaning 11. 0 hrs street cleaning F: 2. 14 .0 hrs patching 3. 101.0 hrs sign maint. 22 .0 hrs sign maint. 4. 15.0 hrs bike path maint. 5.0 hrs bike path maint . 5. 91 .5 hrs sanding 7 .0 hrs sanding i WASTE WATER: Community Service Labor: { 1. 93.0 hrs T.V. inspection 4.0 hrs T.V. inspection 2. 9.0 hrs sanitary sewer clean 3. 15.0 hrs storm drain clean 4. 49.0 hrs sanitary repairs 5. 8.0 hrs catch basin 6. 9.0 hrs flooding 7. 2.0 hrs ditching E 8. 25.0 hrs storm drain repairs � SUPPORT SERVICES: 1. 9.5 hrs PM on equipment 2. 85 .5 hrs scheduled repairs 3. 48. 75 hrs unscheduled repairs 4. 4.0 hrs tire service 5. 12 .0 hrs building maint . 6. 80. 75 hrs general support . E PH 11W ffil NMI: ji 4101-MMM M mi No, } � 5 CITY OF TIGARD. OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA ITEM 4: AGENDA OF: January 30 1.984 _�._.. PREVIOUS ACTION: DATE SUBMITTED: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Appoint`Alt ernate Ltepre�entative to CDBG Poory REQUESTED BY: William P M ahaa — Director of Planning & Development Committee CITY ADMINISTRATOR: DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: Ir,' INFORMATION SUMMARY The City needs to have an alternate to the Community Development Block Grant Advisory Committee. I am recommending that Elizabeth Newton be appointed as alternate to Councillor Kenneth Scheckla. h ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED _-- , . SUGGESTED ACTION I recommend that the City Council Pass the attached resolution by motion appointing Associate Planner Elizabeth Newton as the alternate representative to the CDBG Policy Advisory Board. x , i` t c CIFYOFTIFARD WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON f t !' f P T0: Members of the City Council Monahan, llirector of Planning and Development) s . FR0M: William A. DATE: January:18, 1484 RE: CDBG Advisory Committee The City is required to have an appointed representative as well as an CDBG Advisory Committee. Councilor Kenneth alternate to the Washington County ' Scheckla is the appointed representative and presently Bob Jean serves as the alternate. When Bob was appointed in November Z represented to the Council � that his appointment was temporary until a new Associate Planner was da The new P.ssociatst appointeen, w ill begin his duties on e Planner, Keith Li :- appointed. 1984. At that time, his responsibilities will relate totally to February current planning activities while Liz Newton will be responsible for long € range planning. As "a result of this division of worcad , Z recommend that the City Council pass the attached Resolution designating Liz Newton as the Cit;'s alternate CDBG representative. x t E WW1- f;dm3(0273g� -- 12755 S.W.ASH P.O.BOX 23337 TIGARD,OREGON 97223 PFI:633-4171 T' CITY OF TIGARD OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: January 30, 1984 AGENDA ITEM . ' Annual Renewal DATE SUBMITTED: 1-10-84 - PREVIOUS ACTION: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: LONE,OAK Restaurant MCC Renewal REQUESTED BY: Applicant DEPARTMENT MEAD ®K: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: INFORMATIONSUMMARY The Lone Oak Restaurant is rgquesting renewal of its Class A license. There is no change in the license classification or ownership of the business. Location`: 11920 S.W. Pacific Highway Owner: HESS, Clarence J.- -r ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED SUGGESTED ACTION - {{ Recommend approval and forwarding to OLCC. tRespectfully, R.II. Adams Chief-of 'Police OREGON LIQUOR CONTROL 639-3��0 COMMISSION '•. I984-85 l"9 P, O.BOX 22297 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION PORT LAND,OREGON 97222 LICENSE LIC. COUNTY El DATE CLASS ISSUED CD SYMBOL CLASSIFICATION FEE DIST.AREA PBC CITY DISTRICT DPIRIN f - 552-212 . DISPENSER*i OI', 04i 84 A In CORRECT ANY NAME OR ADDRESS ERRO ENDORSEMENT 11 DA-0393 i THE COMMON COUNCIL OR COUNTY COURT .12 HESS ,CLARENCE. Q1 - ONE OA'- RtSTA_UA'MT�- OF 01 '1 L920 SW PAC,IF.IC Hw � RECOMMENDS THAT THIS LICENSE BE T I GARD OR, 9722 . GRANTED F1REFUSED BATE OF ENDORSEMENT' BY SIGNATURE OF OFFICIAL TITLE RENEWAL INSTRUCTIONS..... I. YOUR LIQUOR LICENSE EXPIRES 03-31--84. YOU MUST PAY A LATE FILJNG FEE IF THIS CC4I�PLETED ' PPLICATION IS NOT RECEIVED BY OLCC ON -OR 6E.FOkE Q3-=G9-84. 2.'' THISLETE THIS I'i7�Ee9 FOR RENEWAL ONLY. IF THERE WILL BE ANY CHANGES NECESSARY -IN YOUR NEW- LICENSET *IMMEDIATELY* CONTACT OLCC LICENSE DIVISION OR LICENSE INVEST.IGATO.R FOR PROPER INSTRUCTIONS AND APPLICATIONS 3. COMPLETE ITEMS 1v 2a 5 C 6 ON THE REVERSE® 4. OBTAIN ENDORSEt4ENT I FROM YOUR LOCAL CITY CCUNC IL GP C:.JNTY COURT+ 5. MULTNOMAH COUNTY C PORTLAND LICENSEES ONLY...FILE COMPLETED APPLICATIONS Sa WITH PORTLAND CITY CGUNCIL OR MULTNOMAH COUNTY CLURT. 'COMPLETE TH& EN'CLGSEU SUPPLEMENT TO THE LICENSE APPLICATION £ SUBMIT TO OLCC WITH THE CITY ' OR- RECEIPT `F ENDORSEMENT THE CORRECT' LICENSE FEc® (OFFER) s,q t IBM 4 CITY OF, TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY M AGENDA OF: January 30, 1984 AGENDA ITEM #: DATE SUBMITTED. 1.-24-84 PREVIOUS ACTION: Annual Renewal ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: OLCC License Renewals- REQUESTED BY: Applicants DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: t INFORMATION SUMMARY The following listed businesses are requesting renewal of their OLCC licenses: PS SAFEWAY STORE NO. 383 - 250'Tigard-Shopping Plaza Tigard, OR 97223 R COCO'S FAMOUS HAMBURGERS #116 1090E SW 69th Avenue Tigard, OR 97223' RMB BUS STOP DELI - 11-0240 SW Nimbus #1-4 Tigard, -OR 97223 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED SUGGESTED ACTION Recommend approval of the applications, and forwarding to OLCC. ( . . RespectfullY, B. Adams Chief of Police i 4 3 aone OREGON LIQUOR CONTROL , CsaMMISSIONI9$�r-85 Re-e, a-Z P.o. BOX 22297 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION /-/.P- PORTLAND, OREGON 97222 1. ° E LICENSE LIC. COUNTY ENF. DATE CLASSIFICATION FEE DIST.AREA PBC CITY DISTRICT DPLRIN ISSUED CD ! ! r I' nu nit rerlte1 r.. n. ....... . �A 'O�.t S}�! � !` RETAI[ ALA t , ! I°1 19. ; CORRECT ANY NAME OR ADDRESS ERROR M I r ENDORSEMENT I 11 SU I K A T l iGtAs 5 A THE COMMON COUNCIL OR COUNTY COURT 5 _ . �.. - 1 ` =SOLiKA JiJL S-RAE STdP DELI OF r... -_(,11 :10240 SW N LMOUS• � RECOMMENDS THAT THIS LICENSE BE T I GARD uR 87'223 GRANTED� REFUSED❑ DATE OF ENDORSEMENT 1: BY SIGNATURE OF OFFICIAL TITLE RE NEviAL INSTRUCTIONS..... � " I. .YOUR LIQUOR LICENSE EXPIRES {33-31-81r. 9(DU M EST PAY A 'CATs: EFOR14G FEE IF THIS CW'PLETEO APPLICATION IS N;Cfi RECEIVED BY C3LCC ON OR BORE 03-09-84. s 2. CO+IF2 EI. 'T!'3-kr'T L?e`2I+I EOR 'RENENAL ONLY. IF THERE �, [LL BE ANY C14ANGES NECESSARY I w :.a.-.atnaex] Aldt� e. Ir�m r-v .>I:iraMs;'61IATEIaY ` COPdTACT. OLCC. .LICEIvSE DIVISION OR A ._ L ICENSE INVES t-11GATOR FAIR PROPER INSTRUCTIONS AND APPLICATIONS. 3. COMPLETE ITEMS I.s 2v 4 & 6 ON THE REVERSE. � Via. OBTAIN ENDORSEMEN$ FRZjM .YOUR LOCAL CITY COUNCIL CiR COUNTY i.UURTo '. MUL.TNOMAH COUNTY & PORTLAND ur-E''dSEES ONLY.—FILE: COMPLETED APPLICATIONS ►11TH PORTLAND CITY COUNCIL. OR _MULTNOMAH COUNTY COURT. COMPLETE THE ENCLOSE SUPPLE14ENT TO THE. LICENSE. APPLICAt'tQfq AND SUBMIT TO OLCC WITH THE CITY OR � COUNTY RECEIPT FOR ENDORSEMENT C 'THE CORRECT LICENSE FEE. (OVER) 6'- f r. i OREGON LIQUOR CONTROL to e d COMMISSION o- P.O. BOX 22297 I�84- 5 r E PORTLAN OREGON 97222 LICENSE RENEWAL-APPLICATION 4 CLASS, l LICENSE LIC.' COUNTY EN F. DATE t SYMBOL CLASSIFICATION FEE DIST.AREA PBG CITY DISTRICT DPLRim ISSUED CD r Qtp,�"IaAsAl PSPACLSAGE S I{ Ii : i I ! ; a r(;rr,r'i„r is,,,,. �`i t 01 04 84 F CORRECT ANY NAME OR ADDRESS ERROR — ENDORSEMENT 11 SAFEavAY §MIRES IN — — -_TIT E.COMMON COUNCIL OR COUNTY COURT CEI, AFENA Y' S T)!GIRD SHOT?P INN ” . A2A i sn ARD OR '97223 MA OF RECOMMENDS THAT THIS LICENSE BE t—� r g GRANTED i REFUSEDE DATE OF ENDORSEMENT u BY SIGNATURE OF OFFICIAL TITLE ' RENEWAL INSTRUCTIONS. .... . s YOUR LIJUQR LICENSE EXPIRES O3-3I--84. YOU MUST PAY A LATE FILING FEE IF s 4- THIS COMPLETED APPLICATION IS NOT—RECEIVED 3Y GLCC ON €3R ;BEFORE 03-09-84. 2. `COMPLETE THIS FORM FOR RENEWAL ONLY. IF THERE WILL BE ANY CHANGES NECESSARY rna arrxxn e,,=irs Lt'CPtiSE, '�17tiP7tt1AA IELB' CONTACT OLCC LICENSE DIVISION Up, A. aa� xa.at3n ce LICENSE INVESTIGAYCR FOR PROPER INSTRUCTIONS AND APPLICATIONS. 3. COMPLETE ITEMS 1v 2$ 3 L 6 ON THE RQ VERSE. 4. OBTAIN ENDORSEMENT Fli YOUR LOCAL CITY COUNCIL OR -COUNTY COURT. 5. MULTNONAH COUNTY C .PiRTLAND LICENSEES ONLY.o.FILE COMPLEYED APPLLCATIONS WITH PORTLAND CITY:CGUNCIL OR MUL1 NbMAH COUNTY COURT. COMPLETE, THE ENCLOSED SUPPLEMENT TO THE LICENSE APPLICATION AND SUEMIT TO OLCC r9ITH THE CITY OR COUNTY RECEIPT FUR ENDORSEMENT &. THE CORRECT LICENSE FEE. (OVER) s C tt l EGON LIQUOR CONTROL _2,0 It COMMISSION P.0.BOX 22297LICENSE RENEWAlf APPLICATION ,$//d=� PORTLAND. OREGON 97222 DATE LICENSE LIC. COUNTY ENF. ISSUED CD rR FEE DIST AREA PBC CITY DISTRICT DPLRIN SYMBOLEREST!AIJRANV GLASSiFIOATION 1 �_ 562 205 11 r1, t 7 r..jelq Ir r rr !' v• •'G 'r�I,'• '}t rf, j� I ,fi + }&'+? iil i r rYt ✓Q 0�1 01 Pitt C x CORRECT ANY NAME OR ADDRESS ERROR C ENDORSEMENT 11 GRACE RESTAURANT COMPANY THE COMMON COUNCIL OR COUNTY COURT FA€�G9S- HRt�Bl1t2GEFcS X31$ f OF - U1 L'Q90 6 'S_d 'n9TH AVE HA RECOMMENDS THAT THIS LICENSE BE TIGARD OR 972�� t .- GRANTED❑ REFUSED 1 DATE OF ENDORSEMENT BY------SIGNATURE OF OFFICIAL t' TITLE KENEWAL. INSTRUCT IOMS6.ra L. YOUR LIQUOR LICENSE EXPIRES 03-31—840 YOU MUST PAY A LATE FILING EEE IF THIS COMPLETED APPL.ICATI LUN IS NOT RECEIVED SY OLCC iJh OR BEFORE a3-09-84. COMPLETE THIS E9 FOR RENEWAL ONLY, IF THERE WILL BE ANY CHANGES ;NECESSARY 2. C Ill COMPLETE YOUR NEW LIGENSE9 *IMMEDIATELY* CONTACT OLGG"LICENSE DIVISION OR A LICENSE. INVESTIGATOR FOR PROPER IItlSTR+.CTiONS AND IAFPLICdaTIOidS® 3m COMPLETE- IT 1® 2s. 4 & 6 ON THE REVERSE. 4® OBTAIN-.ENE)(3 S-. .AENt T FROM YOUR LOCAL Cl TY COUNCIL Gk COUNTY d;GU4ZL Sa Mi3l I�CFiA19: C(l. . . . . .:�- :PORTLAND Ltd:�t4SEES ONLYe®®FILE COMPLETED .ATPPLICATIONS:' ITT PORTLAND.l CITY COUNCIL OR: MUL'i'N014AH -COUl�.I"�l COURT® CCINFE ETETHEI:E�id"1.II5EO SUP&'L.Et4ENT TO THE LICENSE APPLICATION' AND SUBMIT TO (3I Cd; i�ITfi THE* CITY OR COUNTY RECEIPT FOR ENDCRSE,MENT S -.TIME CORRECT- L tCENSE FEE® (UtfE&3)' s I CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: 1-30-84 AGENDA ITEM 4: DATE SUBMITTED: 1-16-84 - PREVIOUS ACTION: Annual Renewal r ISSUE/AGENDA TITLr , TEIN & BURGER - REQUESTED BY: Applicant OLCC Renewal Q s . " CITY ADMINISTRATOR: f DEPARTMENT HEAD Oil: # INFORMATION SUMMARY The Stein & Burger is requesting renewal of its RM3 Class license. Location: 11688 S.W. Pacific Highway 4 Owner: ALEXANDER, John Demos ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED SUGGESTED ACTION Recommend approval of the application, and forwarding to OLCC. Respectfully, i R.B. Adams Chief of Police OREGON LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION P.O. BOX 22297 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION PORTLAND,OREGON 97222 CLASS LICENSE LIC. COUNTY ENF, DATE S"' BOL CLASSIFICATION FEE DIST.AREA PBC CITY DISTRICT OPLRIN ISSUED CD i?!9B RETAIL>l�Ali �1 ,i .'••f 1' ,. s t'I:; �l'� r,� r" 011 04' 84 G 5 CORRECT ANY NAME OR ADDRESS ERROR ENDORSEMENT 11 AL EXAf OtR .0KN DEMOS- THE COMMON COUNCILOR COUNTY COURT tDl 1I6�..D 56 AC�1"�C �tY. OF T I CARO OR 97223 RECOMMENDS THAT THIS LICENSE BE GRANTED REFUSED DATE OF ENDORSEMENT BY SIGNATURE OF OFFICIAL TITLE RENEWAL INSTRUCT'IONSe.Q`®® L. YOUR- LIQUOR,LICENSE.EXPIRES 03--31-844' YGU MUST PAY A LA`T E E ltlt G EEE IF ' TaaSCoNPLTEa AIaJPLaCTaON IS NOT RECEIELI PY qCcOpt c ):603-4 —s4® C P Q Tit 5 a�1 �4; m 33E E laL O�dI Y IF .T� PtE'b�.II,l. DE ANY CHANGES RiEI;ESSARY € IM �t3ula i4�Etit';LI.CEFdS *IMMEDIATELY* ,CONTACT CJ -LICENSE DIV SZEDN IIR A LIC .. P#IFESZ€G S'f 3t, FOR PROPER INSTRUC.TiomS 4.40:'APPL.ICATIGNS® 3. COMPLETE-,11-EMS Z-9 24 E 6 ON TSE'REVERSE® -; 4m OBTAIN Ef4WFiSEP9>EN-f•_FROM YOUR LOCAL CI Y.-:C0UlNCLlL-: GR'COUNTY CCUR >v 5. M LT6dOMAH COUNTY C`PORTLAND LICENSEES ONLY. C044PLETE-3 APPLLC:hI'toNs �iI h9 P£3ft?L {D .CIT"t Cf3l11UGIL OR �ktlLTi�t�PiAR 0UI�1T`d CG11£tTm"COMi? .ETE":T:HE ENCLQ4ED S U PL-EMEN ''TIJ:"tH I._IC;E S'E APP ICA ®R! Abd[J 5 t� 3I 0 SILcc 1�3'$:T T 14E CITY 09.- COUR4T'Yf ,_ ECtIPT �O ��➢[�u Sti+EN � "s i ivasPcET;T`i.>i�»i ,eS� a-s�. . R CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: January 30, 1984 AGENDA ITEM #: DATE SUBMITTED: 1-18-84 PREVIOUS ACTION: Annual Renewal` ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: O.L.C.C. License Renewals REQUESTED BY: Applicants DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: l� CITY ADMINISTRATOR: INFORMATION SUMMARY ° The following listed businesses are requesting annual renewal of their OLCC Licenses. R BERGMANN'S RESTAURANT DC L'ECURIE 12725. SW Pacific Highway 12386 S.W. Main Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 Tigard, "Oregon-97223 _PS ALBERTSONIS FOOD CTR. , #544 R- BANNING'S RESTAURANT & PIE HOUSE _12060 S.W.` Main:Street 11477 S.W. Pacific Highway Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, ,OR 97223 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED SUGGESTED ACTION Recommend approval of the applications, and forwarding to OLCC. Respectfully, R.8. kdams - a Chief of Police t { 70 3'U OREGON LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION { �tC # /6S/-20 P.O' BOX 22297 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION PORTLAND,OREGON 97222 1 CLASS LICENSE LIC. COUNTY EN F. DATE 4 SY&ABOL CLASSIFICATION FEE DIST.AREA P8C CITY DISTRICT DPLRIN I ISSUED I CD ! I ..tl„I i� i iIi!tf + Ht in ' � 2ES�'At�R�r��?il It 1llEll�! jl�.:..�!.1 # f ? ?? r ?ate, ? �I��,� ,•,, •.� �.01:' 04: ��. c CORRE VET I EOR ADDRESS ERROR ENDORSEMENT E LL BERtiMAiN FLOYO i! ' THE COMMON COUNCIL OR COUNTY COURT OfathgAANNI5 RESTAURANT:. of RECOMMENDS THAT THIS LICENSE BE TIGARD OR ❑ t. GRANTED REFUSED , µlb DATE OF ENDORSEMENT � BY SIGNATURE OF OFFICIAL ..:. '" naafi*�r:�-.; •.. '.. , TITLE RENEWAL 114STRUICII'ON' s .m®® 3m YOUR LIQUOR. L.`ICOISE "EOIRES 03�-'31 iS4fl YOU MUST P'AY A LATE FILING FEE IF THIS COMPLETED APPLICAtION I5 NOT RECEIVED 13Y' OLCC ON OR' BEFORE 0.3-09-84- 2. COMPLETE THLS FORK FOR &ENEWAL ONLYta IF THERE WILL. BE ANY CHANGES NECESSARY IN YOUR NEW L ICENSEW *I1414EDIATEL:Y* :CIONTACT OLCC- LICENSE OlVIS'lQN GR�A 3o COMPLETE ITEMS Iv '2s 4 ;& 6 ON THE REVERSE. 4. OBTAIN ENDORSEMENT�.fROH YOUR LOCAL CITY,:C�, pAIC IL OR COUNTY COURT _s MU TNSJe�IB#$ Ct3t�N3 Y. C.PORTL.AND LIC-1.ENSEES 0NLY....FIL.E COMPLETE "•A€ �L I ATIONS W IT�i PORTLAND cITY COUNCIL. OR t�0�,"IlokCtP�.�H. COUNTY' ;C€URT- comPL.ETE .ImE ENCLOSED SU3? L cE:N Oi Tke. LICENSE APPL-I;CAT'a�JFs4 AND S,UB IT 10 OLCC WIT, THg ;�tT� :i3R :.v. N3w rasresz� sra ��ennR5E�?ENY T&IE :CRI.'ECT L.II;E€ SE FEE. t k t _ 1' { S OREGON LIQUOR CONTROL 1984-85 �'/lo�l� i COMMISSION ! ` ' TION P.o. BOX 22297 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICA PORTLAND, OREGON 97222 DATE LICENSE LIC. COUNTY ENF. ISSUED CD CLASS FEE DIST.AREA PBC CITY DISTRICT DPLRIN I SYMBOL CLASSIFICATION 84 A � o�,. "�til�i�Yj#111�L II'1,1 �1111.2 tl,llil:t�ia € DISPENSER ' CORRECT ANY NAtWE OR ADDRESS ERROR ENDORSEIIIIFNT e _ _ _ —THE COMMON COUNCIL OR COUNTY COURT y 31 OC-B i--ilti5>I'�`_ 12 .COLUMBIA CUISINE INC• OF .. L, L°ELURI E RECOMMENDS THAT THIS LICENSE BE 01 I238 6 Sk! MAIN 97223 GRANTED REFUSED T IGARD OR DATE OF ENDORSEMENT BY OFFICIAL TITLE d s RENEWAL II�i5T+Rl/&YIQEdS®®e®.- _ PAY 1a YOUR LIQUOR LICENSE EXPIRES �'�®T~RECEI'r9LC�1�®*l�d�1 GC Af4L-LlR�€#EF(36�� t09E86�fcY ' TENTS' COMPLETED APPL-ICATI3M I 2e COAPLETi` YHLS_IFORK . O�{ RENEWAL LM�EOI�ALE��YCf]hiTACT OLCCZLIGENSEN�3iJISIC3I�65OREAES IN -YOUR NEW 1 LICENSE 'I.NVESTIOATOR FOR PROPER INSTRLICTIONS AND APPLICATIONS- LICENSE C0�lf'LEYE_ ITEMS .1t:.29 5`'& 6 ON THE REVERSE. COUNTY 4. oBT-AIN ENipC""Etis: on Ba �Oh1[03�LLOCAL.-CITY G�1AiSE S ONSY..—FIL.EOUNCIL RGtSMPLETE��d,PE�I �CAifiCS+l5. 5a• 1KUi a tmI3A:�i *O�E,�. .:._ . ..r..T_. NTY to IT4i:: t�itTiL a�411 CI��'.,r®IJNC APPLICATION'OR:.'MU*LTNOMAH COU SUBMIT TOOOLGC�WI%3-d�Tt4EfiCiT�Nb?RQSEO SUF I�L&4t.9Y3 L.ICENS GCri1NTY' EC #PZ I'I}R EiJ00RSEhiEN� THE CORRECT LICENSE FEEm (C)tIER): - I GON LIQUOR CONTROL S 6 2 p- r/v D COMMISSION i P.0. BOX 22297 L984-85 { � /4, r 7 PORTLAND;OREGON 97222 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION ( /�_-9� ECLASSL LICENSE LIC. COUNTY " ENF. DATE CLASSIFICATION FEE DIST.AREA PBC CITY DISTRICT DPLRIN iSSUi D CD PACKAGE S"011921111'1' ( +I•t +'••t nfi�lt s•.1 it I .(r ui 0V 04: T- 84 IF ---- - CORRECT-ANY NAME OR ADDRESS ERROR-- - - -- -- ----- - -- _ __.7T _ ENDORSEMENT - LI. AL BER T.SUN S IN L THE COMMON COUNCIL OR COUNTY COURT OI- -AL"BERT'SONS ECMO CENT;k' NO 544 31 12066 `SW 'MAIN 'ST OF T I GA RD OR 97223 MA RECOMMENDS THAT THIS LICENSE ElE GRANTED❑ REFUSED DATE OF ENDORSEMENT BY SIGNATURE OF OFFICIAL' TITLE AEI4EvfAL--INS31RE1CT IUNS...-4. 1. YOUR LIQUOR LICENSE EXPIRES 03-31-84. YOU MUST PAY A LATL FILING 'FEE IF THIS COMPLETED APPLICATION IS NOT RECEIVED BY OLL:C ON OR BEFORE 03-09-84. 2. COMPLETE THIS FORM FOR RENEWAL ONLYo IF THERE WILL BE ANY CHANGES NECESSARY _ IN YOUR NEW LICENSE, tiMMEDIATELY* CONTACT OLCC LICENSE` DIVISION OR A LICENSE INVESTIGATOR FOR PROPER INSTRUCTIONS AND APPLICATIONS. 3. COMPLETE .ITE.�t It 21 3 C 6 ON THE REVERSE= 4. 0O AIN,.ENDORSEMENT FROM YOUR LOCAL, CITY CGUNC_IL CR COUNTY COURT. 5. MULTNOIM. H .COUNTY & PORTLAND LICENSEES ONLY.—FILE COMPLETED APPLICATIONS WITH PORTLAND CITY CCUNL IL OR MULTNOPAH COUNTY COURT. COMPLETE THE ENCLOSED SUPPLEMENT TO THE LICENSE APPLICATION AND SUBMIT TO LLCC WITH THE CITY OR CQUNTY 1ikECEIPT FOR ENDORSEMENT I. THE CORRECT LICENSE FEE. (OVER) NE EGON LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION 1984-8 r P.O.BOX 22237 PORTLAND,OREGON 97222 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION 74 CLASS LICENSE LIC. COUNTY £NF. DATE SYMBOL CLASSIFICATION FEE DIST.AREA pgC CITY DISTRICT DPLRIN ISSUED CD •tli �. t .,.,. tli N�{ H to i , Z RESTAURANT` .I ,I I l , '1 fi(;t' A 01i 04' 84 C "' ,'CORRECT ANY NAME OR ADDRESS ERROR ENDORSEMENT 11 BAN14INGS RESTAURARI T&PIE HOUSE IN THE COMMON COUNCIL OR COUNTY COURT 01, 6ANNINGS RESTAURANT&PIE HOUSE 91 11477 SW PACIFIC HWY ;OF T I GA°20 OR, 97223 ? RECOMMENDS THAT THIS LICENSE BE GRANTED IF] REFUSED DATE OF ENDORSEMENT BY SIGNATURE OF OFFICIAL TITLE RENEWAL -INSTRUCTIONS..... 1. YOUR LIQUOR LICENSE EXPIRES 03-31-84. YOU MUST PAY` A LATE FILING FEE IF THIS C041PLETED APPLICATION IS NOT RECEIVED BY OLCC ON OR BEFORE 03--09-84. 2. COMPLETE THIS FORM! FOR RENEWAL ONLY. IF THERE WILL BE ANY CHANGES NECESSARY { IN YOUR NEW LICENSE, *It4MEDlATELY* CONTACT OLCC LICENSE DIVISION CAR A LICENSE INVESTIGATOR FOR PROPER INSTRUCTIONS AND APPLICATIONS. � 3. COMPLETE i T;=MS 19 2, 4 & 6 ON THE REVERSE. 4. OBTAIN ENDORSEMENT FROM YOUR LOCAL CITY COUNCIL CR COUNTY COURT. S. AUL NOMAH COUNTY & PORTLAND LICENSEES ONLY—FILE COMPLETED APPLICATIONS WITH PORTLAND CITY COUNCIL-OR MULTNOMAH Cf�JNTY COURT. COMPLETE THE ENCLOSED SUPPLEMENT TG THE LICENSE APPLICAT€ON ANJ :SUBMIT TO GLCC WITH THE CITY OR COUNTY RECEIPT FOR eNDGRSEAENT & THE CORRECT LICENSE i-EE. (OVER) CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUM14ARY AGENDA OF: January 30, 1984 AGENDA ITEM #: DATE SUBMITTED: 1-19-84 PREVIOUS ACTION: Annual Renewal ISSUE,/AGENDA TITLE: 0.'L.C.C.' License Renewals REQUESTED BY: Applicants DEPARTMENT READ OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: %NFORMATION SUMMARY The following listed businesses are requesting annual renewal of their OLCC licenses. PS' -FRED MEYERS, INC. R -FRED MEYER'S'- EVE'S RESTAURANT 11565 SW Pacific Hwy. ' 11565 SW Pacific Hwy. Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 PS PAYLESS DRUG STORES NW DA -SILVER PALACE 120BO SW Main Street 14455 SW Pacific Hwy. Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 DA HI HAT RESTAURANT DA -SHERWOOD INN RESTAURANT 11530 SW Pacific Hwy. 15700 SW Upper Boinnes Fy. Rd. Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED SUGGESTED ACTION Recommend approval of the applications, and forwarding to OLCC. Respectfully, -17 A ams Chief of Police r"rGGON LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION P.O. BOX 22297 1984-85 PORTLAND, OREGON 97222 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION ;LASS SYMBOL LICENSE t� fC:OUNTY ENF. .DATE CLASSIFICATION FEE > .DISTRICT DPLRIN ISSUED CD' n d ..I,. 562-203 PS PACKAGE ST ..f t,..lCORRECT ANY NAME OR ADDRESS ERROR t ��4� 8 01; 04: 84 i II FRED MEYEA INC ENDORSEMENT 01 FRED MEYER; THE COMMON COUNCIL OR COUNTY COURT J1 11565; S�i PACIFIC HWY TIGAPO OP, 97223 OF MA RECOMMENDS THAT THIS LICENSE BE GRANTED❑ REFUSED DATE OF ENDORSEMENT BY SIGNATURE OF OFFICIAL TITLE RENE4AL I-NSTRUCTIONS. 1. YOUR LIQUOR LICENSE. EXPIRES 03-31-84. YOU MUST PAY A LATE FILING FEE 1:= THIS COMPLETED APPLICATION :IS P40T RECEIVED 6Y jLCC ON OR BEFORE . ()3-09-E �. 11%, -YOUR THIS ENSORN FOi� RENEWAL ONLY. IF THERE WILL BE ANY CHANGES cNECESSARY d11 YOUR 1!:Ek' LICENSE RENEWAL CONTACT OLCC. LICENSE DIVISION OR A LICEh35E ;IhlV.FST=IGATOR FOR PROPER INSTRUCTIONS .ANO APPLICATIONSw 3. COMPLETE ITE#S Jv - 2, 3 E 6 ON THE REVERSE. 4 udTAIN ENDORSEMENT FROM YOUR LOCAL CITY COUNCIL CR COUNTY COURT. 5. MULTNOMAH COUNTY S PORTLAND LICENSEES ONLY...FILE COMPLETED .APPLICATIONS h ilii PORTLAND CITY COUNCIL GR MULTNOMAH CGUNTY v6URT. COMPLETE THE ENCLOSEC. SUPPLEMENT 'Tu THE LICENSE APPLICATION AND SUBMIT Iii OLCC WITH THE CITY OP.. COUNTY RECEIPT FOR ENDORSEMENT & THE CORRECT LICfINSE FEE. (OVER) OREGON LIQUOR CONTROL- COMMISSION P. O. BOX 22297 1 484-b5 PORTLAND, OREGON 97222 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION CLASS- LICENSE i1C. COUNTY EN F. DATE SYMBOL CLASSIFICATION -FEE DIST.AREA PBC CITY DISTRICT DPLRIN ISSUED=. CD 56 2-20 5 �. R RESTAt1RA1VT Irrll!{;e I Iri Iri Cl,f�I'ir1l I r;�y '°.;i !Ii4j' •`34'.5 ' .' ;I<a7�'i6''9 A 01, 0 4 `8 4 C CORRECT ANY NAME OR ADDRESS ERROR •••••••••••••••• ENDORSEMENT It FRED MEYER INC THE COMMON COUNCILOR COUNTY COURT 01 FRED ,MEYER—'EVES BUFFET 01 11565 SW PACIFIC HWY OF ` TI GARD OR 97223 MA RECOMMENDS THAT THIS LICENSE BE GRANTED I I REFUSED DATE OF ENDORSEMENT BY SIGNATURE OF OFFICIAL TITLE :ENEWAL INSTRUCTIONSo.. 1. YOUR LIQUOR LICENSE EXPIkES 03-31-84. YOU MUST PAY A LATE FILING FEE IF THIS COMPLETED APPLICATION IS NOT RECEIVED SY OLCC "01"I C,,& BEF ORL 03-09-84. 2. COMPLETE THIS FORM FOR RENEWAL ONLY. IF THERE 6;'+ILL 3E ANY CHANGES 'NECESSARY IN YOUR NElo: L"ICENSE9 $IMMEDIATELY* CONTACT GLCC LICENSE DIVISION OR A_ LICENSE INVESTIGATOR FOR PROPER INSTRUCTIONS AND APPLICATIONS`. COMPLETE ITEMS 11 24 4' 'E 6 ON THE REVERSE. 4. 013T'AIN ENDORSEMENT .FRGM YOUR LOCAL CITY CGUNCIL CR COUNTY COUAT. 5. NUL NOMAH COUNTY & PORTLAND LICENSEES ONLY—FILE COMPLETED APPLICATIONS WITH PORTLAND CITY COUNCIL JR MULTNCMAH COUNTY CLURT. COMPLETE THE ENCLOSED SUPPLEMENT T3 THE LICENSE APPLICATION AND SU2MIT TC :LCC WETH THE CITY OR C(,JivTY RECEIPT FOR ENOORSCMENT C THE CORRECT LICENSE rEE. (OVER) :GON LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION _ P. 0.BOX 22297 1984-85 PORTLAND, OREGON 97222 LICENSE .RENEWAL APPLICATION CLASS SYMBOL CLASSIFICATION LICENSE LIC. EMF. <FEE DIST.AREA PBC CITY. DISTRICT DATE t DPL ISSUED CD QS PACKAGE S 1: ' r Irl Iit11 rljrrrr.iI'I rr ,r,r e ,"p! r y� -------- r L,97 f •f, ! ,.,.. , 'tPl r 1 :, i; ,•.a.. ., ...;r?.X fi,�2,03 r < CORRECT ANY NAME OR ADDRESS ERROR R A 0 L i O4r 84 II PAYL'ESS DRUG STORES NORTHWEST INC ENDORSEMENT 01 PAYI ESS DRUG STORE THE COMMON COUNCIL OR COUNTY COURT 12030 SW :MAIN -ST TIGARD OR 97223OF MA RECOMMENDS THAT THIS LICENSE BE GRANTED❑ REFUSED DATE OF ENDORSEMENT BY SIGNATURE OF OFFICIAL TITLE RENE fiAL IA;STR UCI IONS..... 1. YOUR LIQUOR ;LICENSE EXPIRES 03-3I--•84. YOU MUST PLY a Lr>TL- FILING FEE IF r THIS COMPLETED APPLICATION IS NOT RECEI.VE003Y OLCC ON OR BEFORE - '33-09--64. 2. COMPLETE THIS FORM FOR RENEWAL ONLY. IF THERE)itiILL :3E ANY CHANGESNECESSARY IN' YUUR NEW LICENSE, OIMMEDIATELY* CONTACT OLCC LICENSE JIVISION OR A LICENSE INVESTIGATOR FOR PROPER INSTRUCTIONS AND APPLICATIONS. 3. COMPLETE ITEC+IS Ir 21 3 & 6 ON THE REVERSE. 4. 036AIlti _E!4pOFtSs=iMEVT FROM YOUR LOCAL CITY CCUNCIL OR COUNTY CCJRT. 5. MULTNOMAH CCJtETY 6 PORTLAND LICENSEES ONLY.—FILc COMPLETED APPLICATIONS WITH PORTLAND CITY CCUNCIL OR MULTNOMAH COUNTY CLURT. COMPLETE THE ENCLOSED SUPPLEMENT TO THE LICENSE APPLICATION AND SUBMIT 10 OLCC WITH THE CITY OR COINS;Y RECEIPT FOR ENOORSC-MENT G THE CORRECT LICENSE FE- (OVEN) { EGON LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION 1984-85 { �Cc' 1Lcf7G P.O. sox 22297 LICENSE RENEWALAPPLICATI®N t-17-91qPORTLAND, OREGON 87222 , CLASS LICENSE UC,- COUNTY ENF. DATE SYMBOL CLASSIFICATION FEE. - DIST.AREA PBC :CITY DISTRICT DPLRIN ISSUED CD 0A DISPENSER i'' 'A!9 "tAl 4�iOr 001 ' 2 I' I !I I ni 562-212 i 1fi 3445 ;90237` 01; 04' 84 A ` CORRE NY ntYR'ESS ER OR t ENDORSEMENT 11 Da-O YUcN—C.ticU1VG 31 12 Gi-i�vi THE COMMON COUNCIL OR COUNTY COURT i _ I 13 SO 'WILLIAM -TAT WING OF 14 L I ti Y Ei—T Lfy RECOMMENDS THAT THIS LICENSE BE 15 CHA!d L01—FU 01 SILVER PALACE GRANTED❑ REFUSED F1 01 14455 Sir PACIFIC HWY T I GAR U ,PR 97223 DATE OFENDORSEMENT BY t SIGNATURE OF OFFICIAL „ TITLE RENEWAL INSTRUCTIONS..... 1- 'YOUR'LIQUOR LICENSE EMPIRES 03-31--84. ,YOU MUST PAY A LATE FILING FEL IF il THIS,COMPLETED APPLICATION IS NOT RECEIVED by OLCC ORI OR 6EFORL 0.3-09-84. COMPLETE THIS 'FORM FOR RENEWAL ONLY. IF THERE WILL 8E ANY CHANGES NECESSARY IN YOUR NLW 'LICENSE, *IMMEDIATELY* CONTACT OLCC LICENSE DIVISION OR A LICENSE INVESTIGATOR FOR PROPER INSTRUCTIGNS AND APPLICATIONS. f 3. COMPLETE ITEMS 1, 2.q 5 & b ON THE REVERSE. 4. OBTAIN ENDORSEMENT `Fn JM YOUR LOCAL CITY COUNCIL OR COUNTY COURT. 5.. MULTNO14AH COUNTY' ' PCRTLAND LICENSEES ONLY.--FILE COMPLETED APPLICATICNS WITH PORTLAND CITY :1 6UNC IL OR MULTNOMAH COUNTY COURT. COMPLETE THE ENCLOiSEP SUPPLEMENT TO THE LICENSE APPLICATION S, SUBMIT TO OLCC WITH THE CITY OR 1 I COUNTY RECEIPT FOR ENDORSEMENT G THE CORRECT LICENSE FEE. (OVER) i' 1 OREGON LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION P.O. BOX 22297LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION PORTLAND, OREGON 97222 I i 6LA5S LICENSE LIC. COUNTY ENF. -DATE I SYMBOL CLASSIFICATION FEE DIST.AREA PBC CITY DISTRICT DPLRIN ISSUED CD .�6.Z, z.L2. i I GA DI SPEN.SER C •;345 [I237 JL' G ' 8�r CORRECT ANY NAME OR ADDRESS ERROR- - ENDORSEMENT 11 DA-034 THE COMMON COUNCIL OR COUNTY COURT 12 HI—HAT: 114C''. of HI HAT RE STAURANTOF \ 01 11530 SW PACIFIC HAYRECOMMENDS THAT THIS LICENSE BE` I �� '• (d Gk F.O OR ST223GRANTED❑, REFUSED 't DATE OF ENDORSEVENT BY SIGNATURE OF OFFICIAL € TITLE g, RENEh3AL INSTi RUCT IOIvS....o � L.. YOUR LIQUOR 'LICENSE EXPIRES 03-3L--84. YOU MUST PAY A LATE FILING FEt IF _LCC ✓N OR BEFORE 03-09--84. THIS COMPLETED APPLICATION IS NOT RECEIVED BY � z :2. COMPLETE THIS FORM FOR RENEWAL ONLY. IF THERE WILL BE ANY CHANGES NECESSARY . IN YC1L`? taEev LICEitiSE9 tIMMEDIA.TELY* 'CONTACT` OLCC LICENSE DIVISION OR A LICENSE ;INVESTIGATOR FOR PROPER INSTRUCTIONS AND APPLICATIONS. 3. COAPLETE ITEMS It 29 5` C 6 ON THE REVERSE. 4. 3BTAIN ENDORSEMENT FROM YOUR LOCAL CITY COUNCIL OR COUNTY COURT. 5. NULTNOMAH COUNTY E PORTLAND LICENSEES ONLY—FILE COMPLETED APPLICATIONS WITH PORTLAND CITY COUNCIL OR MULTNONIAH COUNTY CuURT. .{COMPLETE THE ENCLOSED SUPPLEMENT TO THE LICENSE APPLICATION & SUBMIT TO OLCC WITH THE CITY O,R COUNTY RECEIPT FOR ewORSEMENT I. THE CORRECT LICENSE FEE. (OSIER) 1: I. t r OREGON LIQUOR CONTROL rr � 160ggd COMMISSION P. 0�- P.O.BOX 22297 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION PORTLAND,OREGON 97222 DATE LICENSE LIC. COUNTY ENF ISSUED CD LCLASS FEE DIST.AREA PBC CITY DISTRICT DPLRIN CLASSIFICATION HIM Ods• A Ei I I D I S PtNSE R714002 { i til i tt I 't tttllix7l CORRECT ANY NAME Op ADDRESS ERROR ENDORSEMENT '�'L. THE COMMON COUNCIL.OR COUNTY COURT 11 DA—0395 A,1VR9 �s=''GR1�� & S '. of BARN f��" E,EOOY' ~� RECOMMENDS THAT THIS LICENSE BE 01 SHER'WOOD INN—RESTAURANT Std ._Vf!P_ER.; SGOfdES E€iY RCA GRANTED❑ RECUSED u , CAR€; ! r', __9 I DATE OF ENDORSEMENT BY SIGNATURE OF OFFICIAL TITLE NEWAL INS' RUCTIOtNS ` 1p YOUR LIQUOR LICENSE EXPdRES 03--31�-�84. YOU MUSTNRAY A LATE. FILING EEE 1E IigS .COMPLETED APPLICATION IS NOT RECEIVED BY OLEIC MOR BE-ORE' Oar-09—£34. 2® COMPLETE ` ,HIS 'FORKF FOR RENEWAL 'ONLY- IFTHERE 1I i BE ANY, G�iA�dON, �6E�ESSAr�Y SIi9 .Y[3tIR `av LICENSE, dl�E�EOIATELY* CONTACT ;'OLCC.'•I-H� NSE OI.VIISft3;N OR .A LfC E y�;I VES_T;fC�BTdR FOI? PR,OPER.: IPdSTRP��f�lfN� APIn.:�t� L$O�a Ie3'c+l5� :•3q COt�€�I IE :iEt�.S .la 5 6 Oi�l`THE REdEfiSEm 4sR OUNTY r;GU T® a �e a� T3a1isEE�9&I't >FROM `FOUR LOCAL,, :GI�4r t� �o ;tULT � o .. ORT9.AND LEIs1E)Es ONL.y�m� sE Cf1t� tTE A�P. �1�� ®Ns Frhi ; x€1 0 : Y c u L ® I U 7'e HAS 0601 :t.0yAT. ,CO LM t�� . r� Lt15E SUPPLrEMENT TO THE. L ICE19-E—APPLLCAgION t SUBMIT •.I0 ;flLOC bJlTpi SHE :CITYr OFt COUNTYRECEIPT: FaR EiND9�SEMENT s ,`HE ClQRRECT L"d4Eff�FSE. EEE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCILAGENDAITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: January 30, 1984 AGENDA ITEM : DATE SUBMITTED: January 26, 1984 PREVIOUS ACTION: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Approval of " Change Order # 6 REQUESTED By. Public Works S.W. 72nd Avenue LID #21 DEPARTMENT BEAD OK: � CITY ADMINISTRATOR a�a......@..gam rscsaaa��uxaa@��sassa@�namaxsssa:sseffi��mcsle�assxttt�xsav�ac=c�asa��ass�dca== . INFORMATION SUMMARY Attached is a `copy of Change Order # 6 for LID #21, S.W. 72nd Avenue. Change Order '# 6 requires Council acceptance. This Change Order cleans up all the minor items of;extra;work and extra cost associated with closing this project out. The total amount,of C.O. #6 is $7,076.83. Staff has reviewed these extras and concurs with the recommendation of the engineer. as@:tsssmasa¢- --------s@sac ---------e¢--------ssm�aieee see:ac��xaad��ess¢aassar_�a�cssayse�e.¢m s ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A ...............SCI....l.Z 6t@........ t@@OMS.... CCL LS EGSAY @g SSTR CS ZC^ i SUGGESTED ACTION Staff recommends acceptance of Change Order # 6. CHANGE ORDER (NO. 6) PROJECT: S.W. 72nd Avenue Area Street Improvements - LTD 21 CONTRACTOR: Columbia Excavating, Inc. 1t is hereby agreed by, the ('inBznnex) (Owner) and the Contractor that the following changes be made in the construction of the above project: Price Agreement: 1. Extra mobilization and crew time costs related to holding back paving work at the two tracks and completing on separate schedule. (SPTC did not have track work complete.') (See back-up sheet attached.) $1,759.50 2. Cost for raising water vault at PacTrust driveway near Sta. A 28.4-50. (See back-up sheet attached.) 218.05 3. Area drain to remove waiver from Sabre Construction parking lot near Sta. E 6+75. (See back-up sheet 240.87 attached.) 4. Extruded curb replacement on driveways. (See back-up sheet attached.) 2,113.36 5. Adjust Washington County gate near Sta. A 17+50 to match new street grade. 132.00 6. Raise inlet behind curb near Sta. B 30+50 and B 58+50 to match finish grade of street. (See back-up sheet attached.) 308.00 7. Adjust Convoy Gate to match finished grade near Sta. B 50+90. 125.00 8. Adjust Allied Gate on Durham Road to match finished grade near Sta. C 6+25. 125.00 9. Signal changes required by O.S.H.D. at Upper Boones Ferry Road and Durham Road per plan revisions of March 11, 1982, April 12, 1982 and May 17, 1982. (See back-up sheet and narrative attached.) 2,668.00 10. Signal loop detector deletions on access road at Upper Boones Ferry Road and Durham Road. (See back-up sheet and narrative attached.) 612.95) TOTAL $7,076.83 d CHANGE ORDER (NO. 6) Page 2 The cost of these changes shall be as follows: $7.076.83 which amount shall be (Added to) (Subuac$hdxixam) the present contract sum. Time Extension forExtraWork Change 'Orders The time of completion of the +work shall be extended 0 calendar days to allow the,contractor time to complete the extra >work required in the change order. APPROVED �te: Contractor APPRWV� e. Rngsteeex Owner agg E INVOICE "Imagineering a better wedd" /,- �/ y INTERNATIONAL.INC. { 4=id.CHANNEL AVENUE—P.O.BOX 3320•PORTLAND,OREGON 9720&3320 503.2 9111 26 HOUR SERVICE AND 2-WAY(RADIO DISPATCHED SERVICE TELEX 151372 JOB LOCATION DATE 1€-20-S3 SOLDTO Columbia Excavating, Inc. YOUR NO P.O. Box 278 Tualatin, Oregon 97062 INVOICE NO. 10-455®8493•'Ir_CO ATTENTION: TERMS:Not cash.A service charge of 2%per Dan Martin month applied to balances over thirty(30)days past due. To invoice you for: Extra ?bbllization 750.00 Extra Crew=Time 780.00 Total Invoide $1,530.00 DISTRIBUTION: e Ship Assisting Towing*Barging a Land and Water Cranes a`,Aarine Salvage e Hydraulic.Bucket and Clamshell Dredging o Cofferdams• Submarine Pipelines Land Reclamation a Marine Construction a Piledriving o intakes and Outfalls a Land and Water Suhstr uctures e a Readyntix Concretes Sand and Gravel e Crushed Ro:;k a Flit M:'ariai e 1 rick P. N ;gr:Delivers*Asphalt o 0d Spin Clean-up e - '*r1 sa«•. c..ca. .- -'y,aE ..+ :'' ° a..: _ �,`` -k _ ' 4, ... .• ..sa ..0 .w.. a ,- _m.. ,». r my h er _n n rC- f «hT k ��3�KaS ��•�.j4�iy �., � ,._ -. .. r _:.;.. rst,h -;'� �. '�• *ri�".r�': k� *'•-- �J,�..�,k.s �z14G•:.� ,.g a ...-.�d+¢�6''wJ:N;�3'� �,..:� ,as tri 3,?`�s`�� s ir�i _�+`� �'� �f9 .kz��":• r _,.,,�-�...,-�,-`�- �?�'-,..te=e � s�si�- `��.-�� `,s''� ,.. 2r�. .0 v��..ti;J,•k �8,r s a �� . �-n��-=` .t -. {"`-r.� � r.�t>a:� £ ..{'��"�+,'.. -•-3, s.,.o'_T��- •�. '�1'�-fig` 'K� `` ,�•,� ss � �' � � -i� r �`,'f� �� ,`�r -*"�F`v.�`.f. � ^t'4 f"rx�-.,zt �Z'`. 4$ �.. � ° ._�., s " ��y <.. '� ,.ar�-•nom .�� `'� Ya:'Y i;+ ^n hi ;�.,�.�a^".�"s��sa'�.- `�a',ng-��1.5�',"'�..`a'�d ,,..�.�� '` ,... s �n } w�+� �� t'•' � .'r�"�' .F.�.Yi�s u x..-£' v�S� 's`.` � ,t T �'i��,�k��i-.'F: i. 5c .......... map ,g:jrug .f�q�t} 7: 5 r' °\° t , �°'4• °'�'F. •. i \aa - `a A ., �•: 4 .•�4 L ®_ r.• •mowZS- .g r il• ; Y�'°pii '+. Fys ° ` �i _ ` + °9. Jij a da A rt rt. -��a �,�'°a'a^- �''►,e j] -•/0q` ! .� .� �,ds'• rw�.�. 0... >�P9• t,' p4 ..'.. 'i 1 q � °t�a��;+a � [�"�.''m�•-''�' °+�..� ta...'*`t �.. i.�r i. tds. °°5.�'"''J v. J'JS�iy° .� i •e 6Qt ,� � �ps�r Bpd:J o.•: °L`��' �,"tpd�j `.\;,a '�,� Qa�!'�g t � -'fit, ,;s'8 s b�r g `�a,�' l'e'a_;; '.o s `� Zx 41 all ALOHA,OREGON 9700S 1 /� x d8*'°s�• '• j`. f ` � ,�"a e,„� � ,� .�'.tom ► ®' .�� o r�' �^. 4 �.� � � bg�2 `t,P,,, a�. ',,.,_, m�s `�a 'tea '®`•i �J ,��:r�;��,-�� e� •�.. e`�_Y: M1p�- t � e :1�6�•'"�, at �"6 � fi'r '"U • '►� "�'g�,;�,� "`•'�s 4.._� p1.4; � m~oda• x'}S,�l� y'S �¢ m r 1`F'.�h�,F'k�,�.,� p ►Y'a..£;b, .�; ]�]��__��.•� ,r�' "-L6'�.'h, 9' �$w- �i;•� � �6..;� �' is + t °Jet' �.Y s44� N '� ,� gey'a�id J'a.��&: �' y°'L . � •! # a�,i,�� ,�..��.�ti'�.. �• � �o"�`�, p r , B ��, ',}tel � -•. ',,,�3�` � tiN `t► .at 9, � �.� ! �T:�y'•�i �� w;:g-�`�C,� •.g•�� , �'�, �.:3 °t, as�. ��`� �' ate. �ur� 4 1 ••' °l• ,se a "t i `a'a/•,;�1. �G�jc� •e'•�r�fs_ 1300SW 2'&WAGR 010W 5 DATE ® ` A p� Jog 3�& ADDRESS ,oa o.scewm aueome r . }KWo® ACCo..v ewbD ow ow cl 165P@ A•� d•�(a'o�y�� tlO,./Y�p�•®O 9W AMOUNTRICE t ------------ 0i7 TITi"t° •!'•1.,-.. DESCR PT -Irs l(�a ,tam�•®iw) �� i�� . 1 g 1 S€Et9aW$: R:o °�.sahm4i�D� z a 4B�°o?pfl®�n!^sa/o ogm tr¢ow at ns of 1%t 4 i93% POP aie atn 6iS4v c4� !¢ �' piTep Add� 3¢pty iY�GR'pt�9 Qd5 Van If- : tore es CO d.7Y V'q it We f, ag -'gn -.1W,gx Jtm�s ME ARRIMME Y v a v � e • :�- • 3 �yeG�. M1 * P IA r � i m% r �� * qE , a • + 5 z F _� - ... ...„.. - ,_�.. .• ...� --.,;,,. .. ti:x.- Mrs;. ,� _ �•�* - ..��wh��:,�� +� r..�s��t��Y?Y>:'J et' r.,�,.� �•�G:� k xs:T s's�",��%.g� *��P��'�! �a��';.s� -.:„,'€ .<..+ as. c•.�a. e.-_ k. -,k.: x� +' ,.u;' M 'Y-_ .�_¢ � ,F« ^a - et... - ��? rF3•,src.>s '�-.�{, rsnr, r '3 � +v-�}-, xa"i se- ,�.,L,.,., r- g, •"�-`; ?i.r-�x�'--�' ci:>: •'t' = —.�..- :z'?-4-�.' '°• v ''�-moi .r. ;, ` �#'+.'f �t,'.' +v a+*.* `�'�" n, ;3.• -3y_- +„.`'' iS"ry -. r„�-E;€�s '.'+` �-'& • Y`"S3<ga .,- `• .,- r ,.._ .Ys. t =�xz. 3s •`. .:s'is*-..- x F;,raf`4;�:'n_Fa-"�"_ ..�a=i.- <s '+a,gl.. s3',:_*^g, . �-s Vis•�- ,,e., r � .� �- y, - � �� '--�-'� .. �=� rk...,i,,.��,��s:�`�� .�'�t- ;. t:'. _,�� ”' owl 01WIN € e sv � 44 Uw 4 Rk 77 .r, # _" � y } i �j { ! r k$g. a ". -1.111-mu.° _., £-' a a tyY Vic: ....__ „rn�• -„r..i. '» az, k'� ..u. M- 11 nr _»'.,� r. '' " .Secv.:e �•'- 4tz, --..+.. vim.” �b ..�.c� ... 9� � a T k r +ck' i.r meq. •1 ,ft �t � a' .++"' a . ,,, T 14i:In R—4-J!"'.1 4 5 w 'fes, -{5'; '• r E •:Y M+ti� Pg„&/ � '�t 'fie'{ t'- �2 T �, �`• �.?w+'{. �.� �. �{?1eF.w a't�• s. .�s.d �°i .� �a�• s, � { � •� c�� - �� ?�"� a t ;� i��• �� al ��t� r:ft �dr ��'►� , y..'1 ,�Yi.,,�4 `+s "l+.a i 7` •,, 1• ��y,-. r j;i s i•h`".Lfi.. $. a '�.t •,• t�. C. �i Oi kyLr �;�,� •S • '�J t f .'�� 6 S'�' T+?r � •'4�kYY n n.�i .Ca7y�6 �,t M1 r �E .. . kyhy.e .�x,p+ Fi Y �,•\� ; m< 1. ,. rte ;�. �''r, c4 x r: -t `"'fr+. �mf re �� " jd,r is ��.p , -`l+',m .z $•�a1� Y ti i ,, t .. .�Y _�., � r Cb n � ��$ At is �? u*,m`lyra g,�4C yB e a. ` .mT� :'� tom,.y.-A. �� wf� r :•��} K � � v,gsk�. q•pp�`!S - iz, __g�r�``__ v no r ,,y�',erg.. � �•n r �, � .. '•L Pte® �t'i' F �.T' 1'� .•. ,�y `t.i.. ., fy. ..�^r D�as'.�+r +'��° �:: e 'a�� d',r'�. 1 f i� p ,• ��wi. �:. bey =l -f.. 3.`P� Y "yyM ,yA✓ p�;' 7, t}{Cy •yam' 'i. ": P.d.BOXY,Lu ALOHA,OREGON 97006 are- DATE ' �47Q °�iQd �F *✓dESG44 S35S JOB 4 ADDRESS sem Pne..ours... war®om nesmu••e �aea.e9�•® eoamme ♦®va®ape..®. esra?env IPRICCPc AMOUNT. ¢ DFzcq PTIONI �{'!o b « I C 00 _ ma mv,e9 15 1 m .gam 2�o9eR9®-a 1 emaa ,n f If es �s4 av��"�� fits®ueri mT 0%owOwrs G.,. �r PW - m®mFe9a A �nveixa sPoea� fA9 9Ye�+ pw Wt¢eaiam Q7Si5 or � 9lmlryi9fl AL9 eta 8 af4rsl 9k9tD,69fY<54 C�� i A yrs � z 3' *: ', 6 is 1:'l + � ., rn.;r+c•�:, 1 �s 1 Y , an r o e 59 tee_. 4 ^"—Ir fF MEN.' 'X � tai y l •', '.—s r✓ ".�,•. _ '.._.. "_z"`fii ,t_4':l=1 ..�.'"'�''- _" .:t'x' frY?_.ri,_' +°l. w '� *r _..o,•,�"t cry,' x,,-,�. E.t ,•� " r ,s-yrsr`., ..,.' ,., -T.% -"c -��,s, `.;'3, -, = ,.. .4_z�: -_ ,-sem. 7S ' 9 ` � -g,. :.,ui��.' £t', -"T. *sw'.x,'., e -mss 'ts.- 3. =4WD i `.csik'= e•:, '-�.Yi"''�b`s =�'"yC-� r f t2t •. L „.. .,. ;5. ea6, ;s,:?�:' � �'� .. 1fL;�a �h�"� e' Columbia i Ejxcavatlng Saes Incorporated f P.O.Vaasa 27g a Tuslatin.orMan 97052 ® 145031 SM2 f 145031 625-6 m 1� September 28, 1983 c DeHaas & Associates 9450 S.W. Commerce Circle W�ls�nville„ Oregon 970470 � Attention: Gary .s Reference: S.W. 72nd Avenue L.I.D. � Dear Gary: On August 23, 1983, we were asked to;cap and/or wise � several inlets on the above referenced project on a force account basis. Thee cost is as follows: y �§ Finisher $' gars. $°�5.87 $ 206.96 7 Concrete 1 cy 35.20 35.20 Ro s o. ffammer 1 day @ 24.50 2450 266.66 5% Overhead 13.34 260.00 t 10% Profit x.00 .3.0.8...00 O k Additionally, on September 19, 1983, I quoted you a total price of $9079.20 to day the corrective work necessary I to bring the curbs to the correct grades at both the spur line 'ai2d. the aim lute crossings.' 3 also informed you that the ;$9079.20 did not include any cost for having to bring subcontracto:rs bac .. is to do the small amount of work necessary 'p finish the street. 1 Yesterday, September 27, .1983, I quoted you a price of p. 8135.00 each for approximately 9 "onlys". You have directed us to do bb.th. the corrective work and the additional traffic control work- . Dellaas & Associates ! September 28, 1983 Page 2 i it i please issue a change orderfor these mounts. � k .Sincerely,EXCAVATING. INC. COLUMBIA s o Donnie L. Martin t D / a s. E I� f �. Narrative for Item 9, Change Order No. 6 Item 9 of Change Order No. 6,relates back to the work indicated by Item 2 of Change Order No. 1 When Item 2 of Change Order No. 1 was negotiated with the' Contractur (Columbia Excavating), the documentation attached included both _ Exhibit "A" (a document listing basic quantity changes) and appli- cable plan sheets 19/36, 27/3.6 and 28/36 revised 4/12/82 and 28/36 revised 5/17/82. However, when the Contractor (Columbia Excavating) transmitted the documents to the Subcontractor (Hamilton Electric), the plan sheets were not attached. Change Order costs subsequently referred back to ` the Contractor from the Subcontractor related to Exhibit "A" only, and did not include additional costs reflected by the plan sheets. Item'9 of Change°Order'No. 6 .covers costs of those items reflected on the plans which were not "a part of Exhibit "A" cost items. ( 11 SIR 1� �4"' -"� mk`•" k �.. s- �. � x+" F_ ,�' +asA.�;. �• T�'ct��„Tt�:�„.yy � + w�-.�` ? '� - r�'"T ��.�..'� -:,m,�.�s. �.�v. ,.. �� .t`:�3��. a -�"i„t;??€��,�'.��•�amu. �� ,.',^�� ..�'�a�'� � �;.52 ��<..Y.�r�F ,...s'`�� ;§«�'�> ' Asa r y� � r •v �. r ,r r t 1 i ��;'w lxYi�; + �.yd� i - l � e.:i.`. s '1 Y:s '[ i•i � - • is c��,4� ;. - t 77 3i}r. Te ,,tom '�+'��• �tz.�+,�-'gyp t e,x s a r3 _. mss, s. � v;` :: .._. 3 _ w3 - ?R fit. a t r ' 3V ...W,.:'�,•r ......: ,q, ,a {� ,!+... : ....•.r„ ,vsv'i..y+.. $x: .... .t• 'C, i,. � AMEN ��-: fi s. w4s' .�. ";=,��'•• t`+. -r y. r�m. _.: "' ` "v °s`av•t`ze +�.Mrd' �a"sv .,.kxa E r5w s�wr _yR' aa.- '" m,.. tw »•-J' r,,wz ...•f ",!`.xs+.N.•?aiS'axar:. `�+:R'�Y•; t' '#31� r-.:, �'-Ah.. ,. r:.` > '+t_..g -n';ss; +""` g war a _. �..+c,....�,. ;.'k,. ;�i'�:i`msr�.".w.tF:t"it',�� —•.;":.-. .ti..��.�'�s.�.=s,...'..-s h- `�`.. '. -,.'_,.rte .v.�- _ �t''�': - : x si5. tr.€Yf ?,'' '�`, : �.,,�.t_._ .�..3..-. .-,rw .._ ..a fix• '+e3 f i s ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING January 10, 1984 ON Attachment to 12/22/83 Letter,- City of Tigard LID21 ! Breakdown of Quotation: Add - 2 Brooks 3-Boxes 219.00 Loop Casts 136.00 Epoxy 238.00 75 - Wire 27.00 .. 1250' - Beldon 673.00 250 - 0pticom 121.00 Hiscellaneous 72.00 Labor (16 hours) 805.00 Truck 28.00 Total Asad $2,320.00 } Deduct ._ Loop ( 67.00) !� Epoxy ( 115.00) { Wire ( 9.00) I Beldon ( 39.00) I Labor (9 hours) ( 293.00) � Truck ( 10.00) f Total Deduct ($533.00) HAMILTON ELECTRIC, INC. s Bett' L. Hanson BLHxgrg 4 2Z2 WEST 5th AVENUE 5W/485.4455 POST OFFICE BOX 708 EUGENE.OREGON 97440 ' I �f Narrative for Item 10, Change Order No. 6 During the project, future planning by ,Washington County, PacTrust and the City of Tigard clearly indicated that the alignment of the future access road to the southeast from the Durham Road intersection will be revised. Anticipating this change, loop detesters were deleted, reflect- ing a savings of $612.95. r �. xt• ,. �,� �rses�M.�__�� —��ss�aa...+.._.E.�.::'. .mak;K.�c:�w_.. a.�.':.x�s�rsrz:�l� �- ...a'��-�, ..k?s =' _.' ,� ;•�.`��z ,.....<..,_ �..._."..,. _ _,;,, "x-a. •��-:'h'�?��*:�: �.'�:��--s.._- '�--��f;'v� y��^'�i 55 n ♦� g '"ts.c �:� p�. �,*1 .F Sw..Y+�4T,?§ '', s y: ro �• i,i, i -,y. 9 ... 4.. :y'e�. V�r� �t k� P we,,i E. v ♦-e- y- •• -- ` _. r c r s + ".. t `- a�� '. ♦-t Y:" i� .ii.: t,� E 4 n I ORM `2��,r'�S..��"'` '�"�,,:,�PU c�y'� _� ;r� c+y.�. ,,$�•?:;�.. r�'-�-�,Sq « �..n�i-"z.=��.'� ��' wi .-�z-�' ��.� ^=.s-�•�" '.'a d ��,,x� hf�-,;s �s ...�, 42 � Yr.>>.;-•": 'F�� x�- ..- w_Y�r't`'r^.F t x�`�2.. f'KE�''+3t'�;��r �., ..,-r, - :�v �w.��z: '•� ';i",�^..�3`ud::�•F�., `•��.:�.. � ,;,, - •.-.��:: ,a-:�a _ra•�` ,lw¢ —.T. ..,...s. .r..s+5:'+.+$i Sar -.y..�., �+- € ¢-r ' ".`s '�".'".,.,_ ,cY:r - �xy� `v s +�-' tx .-k=--'-:. .,:.,. a`� '.t .i # q .•s., :•n�a.x:d a u. •-nz. P' ...Fcz n�.:5? G i ..�,,,,;.. :.„r..:,,{`.v e...Sxs.«. •�:#.'z-.'�i: ..7:t" "'av#,.,,.: .a'". ,5.i.t.. i.,.-.r c- �:. ,a .R _�°.3S'x ?� ��+.L44 1t,.. 'ws.;,.•,:n3' - .asp.;. ; `. rf ,;..s%^d,v_ yX :s' 'i�. `sf+. ,,_'-, _""' €^ .r-`a�n.r«�n"' `' �. r'. r� '. ,a. z Ii , p t ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING Etp f January 10, 1984 COX Attachment to 12/22/83 Letter, City of Tigard LID21 -t Breakdown of Quotation: t Add 2 Brooks J-Boxes 219.00 Loop Cuts 136000 � f Epoxy 238.00 75 - :Wire 27.00 12501 - Beldon 673.00 I � : 250 - Opticom 121.00 miscellaneous 72.00 Labor _.. (16 hours) 805.00 Truck 28.00 ` Total Add $2,320.00 f Deduct - ( 67.00) Loop t Epoxy ( i1�.00) � Wire ( 9.00) Beldon ( 39.00) Labor (9 hours) ( 293.00) Truck ($533.00) Total Deduct HAMILTON ELECTRIC, INC. SetLo Hanson BLH:8,rB 04 5'fl p0ST OFFICE BOX 708 EUGENE.OREGON 9P9� T32 WEST sin AVENUE _ _ 1 IN 'THE 'CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE F OREGON ` FOR;THE COUNTY OF WASHINGTON `a q 1934 2 is 3 CITY OF TIGARD, a municipal' ) corporation, 4 ) No. 83-03960 Plaintiff, ) 5 ) MOTION OF PLAINTIFF FOR Vs. ) PAF2TIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 6 ) GEORGE H. KILLIAN, PETER ) ] NORRIS, COLUMBIA MORTGAGE COMPANY, an Oregon corporation, ) $ and MARKO SUSNJARA and BETTY M. ) SUSNJARA, husband and wife. ) k 9 ) Defendants. ) t. 10 partial 11 Plaintiff moves the Court for an Order granting . 12 summary '.judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against defendant Peter 13 Norris on the ground that there is no g enuine issue as to any . 14 material fact and plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of 15 law on the la tier' s claim for direct compensation for his subsidiary 16 leasehold interest in the real property to be app-0 by t 13 plaintiff. motion g g plaintiff will rely 1$ In support of the fore oin , , ...-„�; ,,,,� and file on this action, 19 upon the provisions of ORCP 4`% , the plead-i ngs 20 the affidavit of Harold F. Meyer and plaintiff ' s Memorandum of Laws. O'DONNELL, SULLIVAN & RAMIS 21 22 /s/ Steven L. Pfeiffer 23 �y. Steven L. Pfeiffer, OSB X81453 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff. 24 25 26 Page MOTION OF PLAINTIFF FOR. SU1,I1,1ARY JUDGMENT O DONNFLL SULLIVAN 3 RAMIS Atfo—Yy at L-W 1727 N.YJ.HGYI Siktet Cetlond,O:.gon 97209 (503)"222.4.,402 i ;i "'T 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON 2 FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHINGTON I 3 CITY OF TIGARD, a municipal ) corporation, ) 4 ) Plaintiff, } No. 83-0396C 5 } VS. ) PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW : IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR, # GEORGE H. KILLIAN, PETER ) PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 7 NORRIS,`, COLUMBIA MORTGAGE ) i COMPANY, an Oregon corporation, ) t 8 and MARKO 'SUSNJARA and BETTY Mo ) SUSNJARA, husband and wife. ) 9 ) Defendants. ) I 10 s 11 By this action, plaintiff City of Tigard seeks to condemn 12 a perpetual right of way across property owned by defendant George 13 Killian, more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached to 3.4 plaintiff's Complaint and incorporated herein by reference. 15 According to the Answer filed by defendant Peter Norris, defendant r 15 claims' a leasehold interest in the: subject real property. As 17 apparent lessee, defendant Norris is authorized to operate a small L t 18 grocery store in a structure situated within the right of way to be t, . t 19 acquired by plaintiff. t` 20 In paragraph IX of its Complaint, plaintiff City alleges 21 that the true value of the property sought to be appropriated is 22 $15,200. Defendant Norris answers as follows: t 23 "IV [Defendant Norris]- denies that the true value of s the real property including this defendant's. leasehold 24 interest, is as alleged in Paragraph IX and denies that plaintiff offered to pay this defendant any .sum 25 as compensation for taking his leasehold interest. `,26 °'V [Defendant Norris] alleges that this defendant is Page 1 - PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM. OF LAW OTONNELL,SULLIVAN G RAMIS Attorneys at Low 1727 N.W.Hoyt Street Portlond,.Oregon 97209 (503)222-4402 1 entitled to recover the value of his leasehold interest in the; amount of $241,000 as just 2 compensation for the taking plaintiff seeks." 3 Stated 'another way, defendant Norris claims that, as a matter of law, 4 plaintiff is required to include the value of his leasehold interest,. 5 a ;distinct and inferior distribution of defendant Killian' s estate, ' g in its assessment of the fair market value of the property to be 7 acquired and to pay such separate sum as compensation for any such 8 interest. . g On the contrary, it is well established in Oregon that a 10 condemnation proceeding is an action in rem which involves not the li taking of the rights of persons having or claiming an interest in the 12 property, but the taking of the property itself. State Highway Comm°n � .. 13 v. Burk, et al, 200 Or 211, 241-251, 265 Ptd 783 < (1954) ; Urban Renewal '14 Ag c of Salemy. Wieder's, Inc. , 53 OrApp 751, 632 Ptd 1`334 (1981) . ,.. 15 Addressing this very issue, the Court of Appeals held in. Urban 16 Renewal Agency, supra: 77 "In condemnation cases, the sole issue in the main ° proceeding is the fair market value of the property 18- taken at its highest and best use without regard -to the various subinterests held in the property. 19 Therefore, the value of any leasehold interest is not relevant in the primary proceeding, although proof of 20 the existence of the lease is permissible to show what' the best use is. [Citation omitted] After just 21 compensation for the entire parcel is ,determined, the various interest holders may prove, in an ancillary 22 proceeding, . the values of their respective interests and have the lump sum award apportioned accordingly. 23 The evidence of the value of the leasehold would-,be proper at. that time.'.' See also State Hiahwy Comm'n v. 24 Oregon Investment_Co. , 22`3 Or lo-6-,_f_08_,-3_6_1_. Ptd 71. . (1961) . 25 Accordingly, the value of defendant Norris' leasehold interest, if .8 any, is relevant to this primary proceeding only to the extent it Page 2 - PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF LAVA O'ACNNELL,SULLIVAN h RA1.5IS Attameys at Law 1727 N.W.Hart Streat Portland,Cte9a❑97200 (503)222.4402 j� 1 would shed light on the true market value of the property itself and, 2therefore, plaintiff has no duty to include, as a separate` assessment, 3 the value to defendant of his leasehold interest in plaintiff's lump 4 sum award. 5 The ruling in Urban Renewal Agency and its progeny--that 6 the value of the property itself to a willing purchaser and, therefore, 7 the cost to the jurisdiction of acquiring that property cannot be g enhanced by any distribution of the title or contract arrangements 9 among different persons--is quite sound. When a tract of land is 10 taken by eminent domain, the public' s obligation is to pay what the 11 land is worth in the marketplace. The existence of a leasehold 12 interest or the value to the lessee of such interest has no corre- 13 sponding dollar-for-dollar effect on the value of the subject rract' 14 to a prospective purchaser. Rather, it merely suggests a `potentia 11 15 for such commercial leasing of the property and the need for a 16 corresponding consideration of such potential in the appraisal of the 17 highest and best use of the site. To hold otherwise and accept 18 defendant' s request for immediate and independent compensation of the 19 value to him or his assignees of his interest over the extended 20 duration of his lease would obviously require the public to pay far 21 more than the worth of what it has acquired; namely, the true cash 22 value of approximately 2, 100 square feet .of land. 23 The Oregon Legislature and, courts are not alone in this 24 view, as the most authoritative treatise on the subject of eminent 25 domain, Nichols on Eminent Domain, supports this view: 2s Page 3 - PLAINTIFF' S MEMORANDUM OF LAW O'DONNELL'SULLIVAN L' P.AMIS All.—Y,al Low 1727 N.W.HoYt Street PortlS nd,0.e@on 97204 1503)222.4402 1 "The fact that a 'parcel taken under eminent domain is subject to a leasehold interest ordinarily has no 2 effect on the valuation of such property;, insofar as such valuation is based on multiple ownership. The 3 award stands in place of the land, and the owners of each interest may recover out of the award the same 4 proportion and interest which they had in the land condemned. ***" 4 Nichols on Eminent Domain, 5 9 12. 42, p. 12-764 (Rev. '3d Ed. ) , � a 6 Discussing the question of the condemnor's obligation in determining 7 the amount of compensation owed, this same treatise points but: x 8 "In all cases where property taken for the public ;use is ,in multiple ownership, whether ownership is quali- E' 9 tatively, quantitatively or otherwise considered, each of the owners of an undivided moiety or an interest in { 10 or lien upon the property, has a corresponding right F to share in the award. it follows that the award may 11 be 'apportioned in accordance with the respective = interests of such owners. The matter of such appor-- 12 tionment is of no concern to the condemnor and is a problem in which only the claimants are involved. The 13 compensationthat must be paid is for the land, not for the different interests therein. Therefore the 14 duty of the condemnor to make payment is, not affected by' the` nature or the diversity of interest in the 15 property.. Pursuant to this concept, known as the 'undivided fee rule, ' the condemnor need only pay the 16 value of the land and this is divided amont the claimants ! based upon their respective interests." Nichols on 17 Eminent Domain, §12.42 [2] , 12-789 - 12-792 (Rev. 3d Ed.) 18 In recognition of this authority and the opportunity for the f 19 ancillary apportionment proceeding discussed in Urban Renewal Agency, 20 supra, plaintiff' s asks that the Court direct defendant' s claim 21 for compensation not to plaintiff, but to the other defendants t 22 who may be entitled to or claim their proportionate share of the 23 lump sum award. 24 As evident from the attached affidavit, plaintiff's 25 appraiser has considered, under the tests established in Burk and --- s 26 Urban Renewal Aqenc , the existence of defendant' s lease and the } Page - PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW r f r O'DONNHL,SUILIVAN 8.EAMIS ',ttcneys a!law 1227 N.W.Hoyt Street i ortlund,O�rgon 97209 ' 1.03)222.4402 k 1 4 { i} i market values associated with the..very; use condud by defendant to--a small scale grocery operation-- in 2 lessee pursuant theref , assisting plaintiff in making its determination as to just compen- 3 1 sation. See Affidavit of Mr. Harold Meyer'attached hereto and 4 � 5 incorporated herein by reference. Accordingly, there can be no n of calculating, dispute that no plaintiff has met its obligatio 6 offering and pleading the fair market value of the subject property P �' includin the potential for #, 8 taken at its highest and bast use, g commercial leasing. Under the authority noted above, defendant's` 9 plaintiff is 10 forum as to his claim for a share in such payment by P x roceedin , during which the award stands in 6 11 the later apportionment p g represent the pro- place of the land and the individual claimants } 12 z 13 P ortionate subinte.rests therein. As to this proceeding, however, i ..1� the 'nature and extent of defendant' s 'leasehold interest '° s of no concern to the condemnor" other than to perhaps show what the best 1.5 � 18 use of the land may be. C 17 CONCLUSION 18 Plaintiff City of Tigard has calculated the fair market in dispute, including its leasehold value 19 value of the real property 2t3 for the use conducted by defendant, and offered to pay such sum as 21 compensation for its taking. As a matter of ,law, it is not required t rate interest he may have in such 22 to compensate defendant for any sepa 23 estate, nor is the adjudication of .such dispute between multiple l 24 interests in the land to be addressed in -this proceeding. Accordingly, . 25 - the value to defendant of his leasehold interest in, the subject tract roceedin , and any claim or evidence thereof ;:S is irrelevant' to this p g t e Page 5 PLAINTIFF' S y1EMORANDUM OF LAW 0'GONNEi1,SVILIVAtd&RAWS Attorneys ct Low 17.27 N.W.Hcyt Sl,.et 1001.nd,Oregon 97274 (503)2224472 . (� 1 should be deemed inadmissible. On the other hand, defendant is free' 2 to prove the existence of such an interest in an effort to 'shed light 3 on the highest and best use of the tract and, therefore, its value I 4in the marketplace. i ,y 5 ' For the reasons set forth above, plaintiff asks that the 1 `1 6 Court grant summary judgment in favor of plaintiff and against 7 defendant Norris as to the latter' s 'claim that plaintiff has a duty 8 to consider and compensate defendant for any leasehold he may have g or claim in the real property to be appropriated. , 16i Respectfully submitted, 11 O'DONNELL, SULLIVAN & RAMIS 12 13 By; /s/ Steven L. Pfeiffer Steven L. Pfeiffer, OSB # 81453 14 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff 15 16 f 17 18 t t 13 20 2 . 2 2 E 2 2 es Page 6 - PLAINTIFF_I S MEMORANDUM Or LAW O'WONNELI,SMLIVAN.&RAMIS Aumneys of law. 1727 IJ.W.Hrrt Street i cUond,O�c5on 97204 1503)222.4402 I IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON 2 FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHINGTON ' 3 CITY OF TIGARD, a municipal ) ! corporation, 9 4, ) ' Plaintiff, ) No. 83-0396C 5` ) VS. ) AFFIDAVIT OF 'HAROLD F. MEYER 6 ) E GEORGE H. KILLIAN, PETER ) i NORRIS, COLUMBIA MORTGAGE ) COMPANY, an Oregon corporation,) 8 and MARKO>SUSNJARA and BETTY j M. SUSNJARA, husband and wife, j 9 ) Defendants. ) 10 11 STATE OF OREGON ) ) ss. 12 County of Washington 13 I, HAROLD F. MEYER, being first duly sworn, do depose 14' and say: � 15' I am'a real estate appraiser certified as` such' by-the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers and I make this 17 Affidavit in support of plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary f i 18 Judgment, 19 On or about January 21, 1983, I conducted an appraisal 20 of real property constituting Tax. Lots 700, 800 and 900, Assessor' s 21 Map 2S 1 12DC, Washington County, Oregon and described in paragraphs 22 III and IV of plaintiff's Complaint herein. In the course of 23 making my appraisal, I considered the existence of a present 20- 24 year leasehold interest in the property to be appropriated and the 25 existing grocery operation undertaken thereon in determining that 26 the highest and best use of the principal tract, including the ` it Page 1 - AFFIDAVIT OF HAROLD F. MEYER f O'DONNFti.,SUMVAN 8 RANdS Anomeys of 1.w 172714.W.Hoyt Street Foriload.Oregon 97209 t 1503)222.4402 e+muzwgv% 1 subject site, is light industrial and limited commercial. 2 The statements made above are true as I verily believe. DATED this - day of January, 1984. a _ Harold F. Mey W 6 7 g SIGNED AND SWORN to before me onJanuary , 1384 9 by Harold F. Meyer. 10 (< 11Notary ;Public for Oregon (NOTARIAL. SEAL) My Commission expires: /a 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 2® 21 22 23 24 25 Page 2 AFFIDAVIT OF HAROLD F. MEYER O'DONNELL,SULLIVAN L PAMIS Atlomeys at Low' 1727 N.W.H-Y1 S!re9f Pmfland,a'"..97209 (503)222-4402 NON h CERTIFICATE OF MAILING \ I hereby certify that I served the foregoing MOTION .OF PLAINTIFF FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT, MEMORANDUM OF LAW and AFFIDAVIT OF HAROLD F. MEYER on: David P.• Weiner 200 Willamette Wharf 4640 S. W. Macadam Avenue Portland`, Oregon 97201 Attorney of record for defendant Killian 0. Meredith Wilson, Jr. 800 Pacific Building 520 S. W. Yamhill Portland, Oregon 97204 Attorney of record for defendant Norris David Hardy, Registered Agent Col'umbi'a Mortgage Co. 300 Weatherly Building 516 S. E. Morrison Portland, Oregon 97214 Marko and Betty Susnjara 2232 N. E. 131st Avenue Portland, Oregon 97212 by mailing to said parties-a true copy thereof, certified by meas such, contained in a sealed envelope, with postage paid, addressed to said parties, and deposited with the United States Postal Service at Portland, Oregon on January 13, 1984. DATED: Jamiary 13, 1984. /s/ Steven L. Pfeiffer Steven L. Pfeiffer, OSB ff Of At for Plaintiff } 's