The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 07/23/1984 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak o. an REGULAR MEETING AGENDA agenda item needs to sign on the appropriate JULY 23, 1484, 7.30 P.M. sign-up sheet(s).' If no sheet is available, " ask to be,recognized by the Chair at the start FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH v Visitor's agenda items 10865 SW WALNUT of that agenda item. TZGARD, to be kept to 2 minutes or less; longer OREGON are asked H v matters can be set for a future Agenda by con- tacting either the Mayor or City Administrator. ' 7.:30 1. REGULAR MEETING: t 1.1 Call To Order and Roll Call 1.2 Pledge of Allegiance 1.3 Call To Staff and Council For Non-Agenda Items 7:35 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (2 Minutes or Less, Please) 7:40 3. PINF.BROOK PROPERTY SALE -`PUBLIC�HEARING Hearing for sale of surplus land a06 SW Pinebrook Street, Tigard, t 83 OR 97223, (Lot 1, Pinebrook Terrace, ,A.K.A. Tax Lot 400, Section-11, T2S, R1W,' W.M. Washington County, Oregon) - Designated low density residential in comprehenive plan;zoning 4.5. o Public Hearing Opened o Summation by City Attorney opponents, Cross Examination o Public Testimony: Proponents, Opp o Recommendation of City Attorney o ' Council Discussion o ' Public Hearing Closed o' Council Action - Resolution No. 84-53 7:55 4. SALE OF CITY PROPERTY - 72ND AVENUE - BINGHAM - PUBLIC HEARING` o Public Hearing Opened o Summation by;Director of Public Works o Public Testimony: "Proponents, Opponents, Cross Examination o Recommendation of Director of Public Works o Council Discussion o Public Hearing Closed o Council Action 8:10 5. ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT-ZOA 5-84/COMMUNITY DEVEOPMENT CODE/PUBLIC HEARING Request by the City of Tigard for a Community Development Code amendment to modify the definition of "Wheel stop" in Section 18.106.050 L; to replace "Commission" with "Approval Authority" in Section 18.164.030 C. - Creation of Access Easements; to modify Chapter 18.130 - Conditional Use to include requirements for Site Development Review (Ch. 18.12oval eliminate the need for said review following Conditional Use approval; and to establish a minimum size for accessory structures that require \ review under Chapter 18.144. w � m o Public Hearing Opened ' 4- 0 ro Motion to continue to August 13, 1984 8:15 6. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT-CPA 14-84/GOAL # 5/PUBLIC HEARING A request by the City of Tigard to review Goal 5 In Order to comply statements and the floodplain and wetlands natural areas as indentified in the ESEE section of Volume I of the Comprehensive Plan. Also a request to adopt an amended floodplain and wetlands map. o Public Hearing Opened o Summation by Planning Staff o Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross Examination o Recommendation of Planning Staff o Council Discussion o Public Hearing Closed o Council Action COUNCIL AGENDA - JULY 23, 1984 - PAGE 1 own- 8:30 7,. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT-CPA 14-84/GOAL N 10/PUBLIC HEARING A request',by the City ,of Tigard to increasethemaximum number of units allowed in the Medium High Density Residential Plan designation from 13-20 to 13-25. Also a change in the zoning,district designation in the Medium High Density zone from R-20 to R-25. o' Public Hearing Opened o Summation by Planning Staff o Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross Examination o... Recommendation of:Planning.Staff o Council Discussion ` o Public Hearing Closed o' Council Action 6:45 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT-CPA 18-84/POLICY 6.3.2/PUBLIC HEARING A, request by the City of_ Tigard to,clarify the 'matrix contained in Policy,6.3.2 of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. oPublic Hearing Opened o Summation by Planning Staff o Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross Examination o Recommendation of Planning Staff'- -o Council Discussion` o Public Hearing Closed o Council Action 9:00 BREAK 9:15 9. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT-CPA 11-84/ZONE CHANGE-ZC 7-84/TIGARD WEST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL REVIEW A review 01 the Planning iCommission's denial on a request for a Comprehensive`Plan Change from Low Density Residential o Commercial General and fora Zone Change from R-3.5 (Residential 3.5 units/acre) to CG (Commercial General). Located: "10500, 13370, 13450,- 13490, &' 13530 SW Watkins Ave., Tigard, NPO # 3 (WCTM 2S1 3DA lots 4700, 4800,' 6100, and 6200 & WCTM 2S1 3DD lot 200). o Summation by Planning Staff o Public Testimony - Argument Style - On Final Order Only o Council,Discussion/Action 10:15 10. 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: 10.1 Approve Council Minutes - July 9 & 16, 1984 10.2 Receive and File: Departmental Monthly Reports Police Department Annual Report 10.3 Approve Board and Committee Appointments 2 NPO Appointments 10.4 Approve & Authorize Signatures: Borsch Street Dedication & Non-Remonstrance Agreement Wedgewood Homes - Sewer Easement Crossroads Development - Street Dedication 10.5 Approve 83-84 Spring Street Overlay Program & Authorize Call For Bids 10.6 Adopt Council Goals and Priorities 10:25 11. NON-AGENDA ITEMS: From Council and Staff 10:30 12. ADJOURNMENT 1795A COUNCIL AGENDA- JULY 23, 1984 -.PAGE 2 T 'IOAR0 CITY C 0 U N C I L REGULAR MEETING MINUTES - JULY 23, 1984 - 7:30 P.M. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor john Coot; Councilors: Toys Brian, Phil Edin, Kenneth Schec6cla (arriving Direcat 7:35 P.M.), and Imaa Scott. City StafDireckor of Plas; Bob Frank nning 8tDevelopment;or Of cl�� t Jean, City Administrator; Bill PRonahan, Associate Planner'_(arriving at 8:30 P.M.); Steve Phiefer. Legal Counsel;' and Lorean Wilson, Deputy City Recorder. 2. CALL TO STAFF AND COUNCIL FOR NOR-AGENDA ITEMS a. City inis$rator-recquested Council tate action to receive and file the public hearing notice frog-AdminWashi ton County an the 13�Sth Avenue LID`project. Also the City Administrator requested Council tali an Executive Session at the end of the meeting under the provisions of ORS 192.650 (1)(e) to consider real property transactions. ;;. Consensus of Council was to add both itemto the. agenda. i 3. VISITOR'S : No one appeared to speak. 4. PINEBROOK PROPERTY SALE - PUBLIC HEARING r` Hearing for sale of sure us a a Sod Pinebrook Street, Tigard. OR 97223,n(LoDesi Paned low Terrace,"A.K.A. Tax Lot 400, Section `11, T2S R1H, 4l.M. Washington County. Oregon) 9 density residential in ccrehensive pian; zoning 4.5. a. Public Daring (fined Councilor Scheckia arrived: 7:35 P.M. b. ' City Attorney surized history and discussed the zoning and allowable uses of the property_ He noted that are offer has been node on the property for $25.000 in cash, with 10% down and an _ earnest money agreement has been signed 4y the potential buyer. C. Public Testimony: NO One appeared to speak d.' City Attorney reccante.nded'Council approve the sale and authorize the City Administrator to sign; the earnest coney agreement if the zonditions of the sale meet Council's desires. :. ATF e. Public Hearing Closed f. RESOLUTION NO. 84-53 A RESOLUTION ORDERING THE SALE OF LOT ONE, PINEBROOK TERRACE, A.K.A. TAX LOT 4W. SECTION 11. ToWnSHIP 2 SOUTH RANGE 1 WEST. WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON. g. Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Scott to approve. a Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 5. SALE OF CITY PROPERTY - 72HO AVENUE - BIW*W - NUBLIC HEARING a. Public Hearing opened b. Director of Public Works stated that sow land on 72nd Avenue was acquired by the Oregon State g Highway Deparbnent and they have declared no further use of the property. The adjacent property owner wants the land. The City has agreed to accept the laced from the State and hold a public hearing to turn the property over to the property ower: He stressed that this should only be done if the property ower pays the saw amount the City paid to acquire the land for this process. The Director further stated that the strip of land is so narrow that it could not be developed by itself. C. Public Testisrony: No one appeared to speak. d. Director of Public Works recc nded adoption of the resolution which would allow purchase of the land from the State and allose the City to resell to the adjacent property owner for $32.600 cash. e. Public Hearing Closed f. RESOLUTION NO. 84-54 A RESOLUTION ORDERING THE SALE OF A STRIP OF LAW BEING PART OF LOTTSSS30 ARD 31 OF RDS RE TRACTS, A.K.A. TAX LOT 2101, SECTION 13, TCaiRNSHIP 2 SWTH, RANGE IWILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ORE I. g. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Scott to approve. Approved by unanir=s vote of Council present. �. Z.rfE Ga@DIHP3tcE HT ZOA 5-84 - PUBLIC HEARING nt code ndment to modif the de-ffinition of Request I 10E City EN Tigard for a �ss�l y e� fission° with "Approval Ao'I it " in Section "ttlaeel se to include atop" in Section__lT#.1tt6.05�+ L; to rep yy 18:164.030 C. - Creation of Access £asp Ch 'i8 l0a�to1nmanate he need far said re0view following requirements for Site Developrnt Review ( require review Conditional Use apppproval; and to establish a rninira�xn size for accessory structures that s under chapter 18.144- a. Public Hearing 0penesl seconded by Councilor Edin to continue to August 13. 1284 b, motion by Councilor Brian. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present_ 7. CWpREHEttSI+IE PLAID A E7 EWlf-CPA 1�8 /I�OAI # 51Pi LIC ryE�aRIP� toe 1y stAt nts and the floodplain request by the City of Tigard to review Goal and wetlands natural areas as identified in the ESEE section of Volume I of the comprehensive Plan. Also a request to adopt an anded floodplain and wetlands map. a, Public Hearing opened b. Director of Planning c4 Devel nt syvasized Poistnrg+. Ming Council request for this issue to be heard and Planning cnission appro . C. Public Testin=Y: Elton Phillips, 1.565 SH 108th Avenue, support request. d. Director of Planning R Development recomnended Council approval. e. pa,olic Hearing Closed f. IPlME W. O45 AN ORDINANCE ICE � gRif9IMlil LWE 1. BAY R03R9CE DOCUMENT H83- AMD DECLARING AN VOLUME 3. EMERGENCY (CPA 14-84). g. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Scheckla to adopt. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 8, COMPREHENSIVE PLANT X% EHT-CPA 14--8VGDAL # 10/PUBLIC HEARINGthe Medim A request by t City of Tigard to increase the Maxn€ausau n r o units change in the zoningdistrict Residential Plan designation fry 13-20 to 13-25. Also a change designation in the Mediums High Density zone from R-20 to R-25. a. Public Hearing opened b. Su tion given by Director of Planning & DevelopMent. C. Public Testimony: No one appeared to speak. d. Rec ndation of approval was given by Director of Planning & Development noting Planning commission approval. e. Public Hearing Closed VE PLAN BUILDABLE f. ,NANCEEno. 84-4 An MAP. THE Rt8ILAME ANG THETORY RC HHTAII€0 I URBANIZATION IZATION VOLS TiE- RESOURCE I.AIEi➢SCODE AND CHAPTER DEVELOPMENT £ AS8ORIGINALLY ADOPTED'By OROINANCE H83-522 AM DECLARING AHIEME 8.40 OF THE CSm°A jTf g, Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by councilor Edin. to adopt with Exhibit "A" being retyped. Approved by 4-1 majority vote of Council present. Councilor Scott voting nay. Ordinance will require a second reading on 7-30-044 HENSIVE PLAIT ENBT-CPA 18-84/POLICY 6.3.2/PUBLIC HEARI6 g, g6 RE6,3.2 of the Tigard A regUxest by the City of Tigard to clarify the roma rix con aim d in Policy CoWrehensive Plan. a Public Hearing Open1 b. Su tion of history was given by Director of Planning R Development' C. Public Testimony: Ito one appeared to speak. d. Reccowndation of Director of Plan"Wg A Development was to approve. e, Public Hearing closed f. DS'aDINANCE 4+X.4. 84-47 AN ORDIpANCE MENDING POLICY `6.3.2(b) IN FINDINGS. POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION S'I7UNGIES, VOLUME 2 OF THE CMPREHENSIVE PLN AND THE COMPATIBiLITY MATRIX,IN CPAPTER 18.26 OF THE COMMUNITY DL ELOFI�tEA1T'C 4£ (CPA 18-&40 A DECLARING P,36 EMERGENCY. g. Motion by Councilor Edin, seconded by Councilor Scott, to adopt with Section 1 reference to "raatris" changed to "matrix". Approved by unaninious vote of Council present. 1O. CMENT These item are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion" without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be. rived by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 1O.1 Approve Council Minutes - July 9 & 16, 1984 10.2 Receive and File: De~partnental Monthly;Reports Police Department Annual Report 10.3 Approve Board and Committee Appointments 2 IIPO Appointments: John Mayfield on MO #6 Christie Smith an BSO #3 10.4rove & Authorize Signatures: Borsch Street Dedication &Non-Remonstrance Agre nt - 9935 Sof Johnson Street Wedgewood Hames/Morning bill III Subd. - Serer Easement Crossroads developereent/78th;& 9910 - Street Dedication 10.5 Approve 83-84 Spring Street Overlay Prograin& Authorize Call For Bids 10.6 AdoptCouncil`Goals and Priorities a. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Scott to add to 10.2 a arm for receive and file froze Planning regarding 72nd Avenue fill issue and to approve tivv consent agenda as arsended. Approved by unanimous vote of Council,present. RECESS COUNCIL REETING: 8:00 P.M. 11. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into executive session at 8:05' P.M. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1)(e) to discuss real property transactions. < RECONVENE COUNCIL MEETING: 8:27 P.M. 12. AGEPC ITEMS a. City Administrator noted that the 135th LID public hearing would be. held on 7-24-84 at 7:00 P.M. in Washington County. The City was in receipt of the assessment notice for Suffmrlake Park in the amount of '$18,758.16. b. Notion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Scheckla to receive and file notice. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 13. COlrARENEuslvE PLAN AMEPaWTNT-CPA 11-84/ZO CHAME-ZC 7-84/TIGAB HEST 0 ELOPN7ENT COMIL REVIEW A review of the Planning Conrnission's denial on a request for a Crehensive Plan Change fran Low Density RTsidential to Commercial General and for a Zone Cham from R-3.5 (Residential 3.5 units/acre to CG (C zrercial General). Located: 10500, 13370, 134507, 13490, & 13530 SH Watkins Ave., Tigard, KPO # 3 (44x114 2S1 3OA lots 4700, 4804, 6100, and 6200 & WCTM 2S1 3OiD lot 200). a. Legal Counsel stated the applicant was not present at the meeting. tie reccended Council proceed with their consideration of the issue since the public notice for this item was scheduled for 7:30 P.M. b. Councilor Edin noted for the record that he. has had one business dealing with one of the applicant's in the past, but felt he could be objective in hearing the issue. ASSOCIATE PLAMER ARRIVED: 8:30 P.M. C. Councilor Scheckla stated he received more information at his home regarding this review and questioned whether Council should consider this additional information. d. Legal Counsel noted the review was on the record before the Planning Comission and would be conducted in an argument style only by those persons hears( before the Planning Coamission. He instructed Council to not consider any new information received at their homes. e. Associate Planner Newton noted the history of the issue and outlined the Planning Comission's findings. She noted that the Planning Commission has not signed the final order yet. f. Councilor Brian questioned why Council was seeing this issue before the Planning Comission signed the final order. Director of Planning & Development responded that applicant wished this heard as soon as possible and has waived all procedural errors in order to hasten the process. g. Public Testimony - Argent Style Jim Cox. Attorney/ for the Opponents. 8 North State Street, Lake Osbego. stated he represented 18 residents in the area and that his clients also .waive procedural errors. .He opposed the: development and upheld the Planning Ccasunission findinps stating the develo nt request has not Proven the need for more acres and encroaches on existing residential arra. h. Councilor Brian stated that the City_made. a commit:ment to the citizens in about 1978 when this site was before the Planning Commission. to maintain the dw.-Ilings on Watkins Street. After reading the transcript of the current application before Planning Caission, Councilor Brian feels the same as before. i. Lotion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Scheckla to adopt tentative findings similar to 64-01PC and direct staff to work with Legal Counsel to prepare findings for Council approval. j. Councilor Edin commented that the Com Plan was built on the prise that a strong test be given to proposed developments to protect existing, established nerghbortvods. This development does not do that with the addition of more parking which would encroach on the residential area. Secondly, he contended that not enough time has passed since the adoption of the CCW Plan to support such a drastic deviation from the original premise. Motion to adopt tentative findings was approved by unanivaus vote of Council present. 14. P,S13spt6 RT: 8:54 P.M. / r Deputy My-Recorder-- City of Tigaiff ATTEST: i C�ty�rd l 1m11829A) j 1,1 fx TIMES L6 Y Legal 7-6o6o P.O.BOX 370 PHONE(503)684-0360 Notice. BEAVERTON,OREGON 97075 tf� Legal Notice Advertising RECEIVED * CITY OF TIGARD ® Tearsheet Notice J u L 2 51984 P.O. Box 23397 OCITY OF TIGARD TIGARD, OR 97223 ® ® Duplicate Affidavit " AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, COUNT Y OF WASHINGTON, t SusancPinkley being first duly sworn, depose and'say that 1 am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk,of the TiPard Times a newspaper of general circulation T defined in ORS 193.010 - and 193.020;,published at Tigard in the afor paid cZunty'aSno state;that the G�ity Council pecial Nle etin 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: July 19, 1981+ Subscribed an prn to before me t s u 20 984 Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Ex 3-16-87 AFFIDAVIT ,�ry',yp`' ,[�yyYyiaS♦�gy$�, �yppr ,{ Y ,�id'ia:9�C[#,p, EFR.•af3y�,}�SM#fY�,' y , £rrf� " ..f'*-T,.. � '� � 4LFmJ�S,aI�.h.kt."�w33�SiVdl�¢s AYtB'i� S`i53 Y i- d � tx��rr}}��,-�v�y y, ;g�y tsg3 i}�e ��<��y�y�. v 7 �' 3`U�M1.dS'd_}J U Op'!HXC21'+& 1+f1kY'�xS ESL K.Ot�i tA-NUT�}"i f� p "411s r t31 F t+i y f rcresecss6ve&?t zne d ert;?evte =" ice Tea Mev,e Comrrtarvffi�troy"rstve t?Iatt #ttzettdaY�eat re8biz endi s Y zf #,�� fdl$ FC .EI_I aS 'fht t ' 413a{ "2�*"4nd,+ 7 ' ly" {/ xg - a`` l,2! t , ,j � a TIMES L! ING COMPANY Legal 7-6052` P.O-SOX 370 PHONE(503)684-0360 R j� Vj=D BEAVERTON,OREGON 97075 'wa Legal Notice Advertising JUL 2 0 198.4 0 CITY OF TIGARD ® ❑ Tearsheet Notice CITY OF TIGARD P 0 BOX 23397 0 ®TIGARD, OR 97223 ❑ Duplicate Affidavit .' ; � e AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE;OF OREGON, COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, 1 Susan Pinkley being first dully sworn;depose and say that l m the Advertising Director,or his principal clerk,of the'1'igar Times a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193,020; published ain aforpsaid gounty and stats;that the ublic Hearing Notice 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: July 12, 1984 Subscribed-and rn to before me thi Notary Public for Oregon My Commission'Expi s: 3-16-37 AFFIDAVIT At4 . ,at Fo T r �;aA s !$b.S hod Le.tura 86611 1C81�5 t�*ttta�ut ' St eta TIS. segs�u tnnr Worn tion,thay oYetaiz�od tzorca ttl Iti or, of a 3tc Wrack at 1275v 5W its Avpaasae, Find,qxe,gon 97223,or bi,tafting I � q! t 'afo -1°*' 5�7"'"^'f4'P kb2gFtt✓F.8**Y '- o on Iae 1s' 1 �7q' �k�$�$,xs,�°� '�f�'*,�412'1 yu➢'i#�'p�Y� fia i "i��#Si�l�F� flie �83CFTDj tot=div 2mt itaai ta7 tA� t'i ktia_to drouhly trott rri t �'s d� be3€r fyygt porlh $}ttyy3g p� '¢ 0 " e"3�te'y'�r}pAad 25 orl ZuP.M' d k j s 1$1 x t7.t'�t r Mk r+s, ' i-• C7'f -4,? ♦ sY' >e, lCh LME cowo 3�tz vo, t, to .. f a o <c . a aw asQs°- Co Oo °say �43 :'moo .a,.'0 �Q fwd U ag uv,no C7 c W .c9 a o o ocn us ,.�v nm a r caa o as as +g'w•: ,c er �r�.p o9 z,.w �;,^e m o m «f� cy,�^� oa'�. b^"my Kx,C•. yr �• C au as h m E a ua M w zd ob is °P C A u o c5 `c'� !7!' ! ns ' a41) tpp vx'F+.K C3.•^ m ;�} 1V -o cs y`.i7.a ay cts.,as,,,o a�': act cs ca t � a* = QtB-, 0)? &4:s W, 0 o C o C4` a ,V.zv racnoay ^�Fs3 ow Woasc W .a4.b s ®oasccu � � o.`, aasav O 47 .G) 7..V «S Q e..e't1 a., ,- w 6sI Qti: d3 A�'" os Ejrsz _..as a�o W t" 'tta e2�o»` bra oill, `G�fi"Q "sRp�'`�giJ` s ��8c0 oma y m A. cc e Z••- a. •o a.J w ra rs.'^'a, k' Rer c' Udcscavm C,:yy :TE7s,rs: .Nic T^ : m0+ ct7� mss aca maib, C1,, fl ccsors, ca � ar,o sy 'W $ v o c s cn c ry o ©w�ay R f1r:m �a as ry 'ti Hca as,,t,s a. C= 03 c. ,. o:ss .c y. ca3 -+ v, .�:o00go CO c..aAm, caLLIO �� Lz:.r o , eiXl�� .o u1 �; {� pciLw� rNor M ° CmicaQrS ..,O Q.•�W(S3 us^�' es cos esi tis+-•..o C& "o LL! O r c eli'.r ? (D'm 4,_a4 12. Gt ri 21 cao' L4ts;'a, `'goo as c�� c`v ca '�cv ,cco cid;g 8-14 `oa�vd m w "? G r amides Cx . 00 _1 Zea ies o Q -tdd U U U tdat C3 C�1 P3 ,;.Eb r. r fr" v C3 IDcoo z Im as m : os inU I co -0 m m 'o e:. ,coy ~o m .a c L r o Oco al r �T z" Z w C6.s c m 00 °® a ¢ dill III N cin m £ z p e ® ® L•rl ® CL J w z a 0 Card p w r� w t0 as cid = 3 o � . 0 co m iF! !� ;� mo q Z r-i m ro c m ui m U_ o , wCL a pm ��, N o ^^. Y V O aJ t4 p co C m. �l 01 ; AGENDA ITEM # _2,— - VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE ! ` c� — 3q (Limited to 2.minutes or less, please) Please sign on the ;appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from you on other .issues not on the agenda, but time may require that we schedule your items for a future agenda. Please contact the City Administrator as to 'agenda scheduling.: Thank you. NAME, ADDRESS E AFFILIATION ITEM DESCRIPTION DATE S '6 Iwish to testify before the TigardCityCouncil on the following item: (Please print the information) Item Description ) P"n2�Yese�f. P" Pe� Proponent (For Issue) Opponent (Against Issue) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation DATE • I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council or. the following item: (Please print the information) Item Description: ; Proponent (For Issue) Opponent (Against Issue) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation i DATE ` I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print the information) 4 Item Description: `"' C—^r 4 i i Proponent (For Issue) Opponent (Against Issue) Name, Address and Affiliation 9§Name, Address and Affiliation b_ E tf E, k< d i y 4 a DATE - - 7 y I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print the information) Item Description Gye'� ( w . "t g � � tom' �..4r i +-•c( Proponent (For Issue)' opponent (Against Issue) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation r ' DATE '2- 2 a `t G . I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print the information) i Item Description: } Proponent (For Issue) Opponent (Against Issue)` Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation f, t: i y t' s; REM DATE '- - "I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print the information) Item Description: &�U I **************�t***** ****�t**** ***** ** Proponent (Lo—r Issue) t�C. cJ�a Opponent (Against Issue) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation Y F EMS== SEIRM. t r r" CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY; AGENDA OF: July 23, 1984 AGENDA ITEM �� .. DATE SUBMITTED: July 19, 1984 PREVIOUS ACTION: Council Requested x- ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Pinebrook Public Hearing Set For Sale Of Property , ry Property Sale - Public 'Hearin� PREPARED BY: City Attorney N, REQUESTED BY: Council DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: --LY CITY ADMINISTRATOR: - . INFORMATION SUMMARY The City has received an offer to purchase the Pinebrook property. A public g` hearing is, required by State law to 'consider the offer. Attached is a ; resolution and sales agreement and earnest money receipt, as prepared by the Vis. City Attorney's office, which must be executed if the Council wishes to accept _ the offer. ' Over the weekend, City staff will contact the Hood's, the proposed buyers, and execute the agreement and receive the earnest money deposit in the amount of $2.,500.00. .. - ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED r. 1. ,Accept the offer and approve Resolution No...84-53. 2. Reject the offer. : SUGGESTED ACTION Staff recommends approve upon receipt of the executed earnest money agreement. lw/1803A CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: July 19$4 AGENDA ITEM N: DATE SUBMITTED: PREVIOUS ACTION: none ISSUE/AGENDA-'TITLE: ZOA 5--84< Community Development Code REQUESTED BY: Planning Staff DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: INFORMATION SUMMARY This item was advertised as a:public hearing for the July 23, •1984, City Council meeting. The Planning Commission, however, has not held a public hearing on this issue. The item was scheduled for the July 10,`` 1984, Planning Commission but was continued to July 24, ' 1984,"due to lack of time. The Commission will hold the public hearing on July 24, 1984. The City Council should open the public hearing and continue this item to August 13, 1984. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED SUGGESTED ACTION Open the public hearing and continue the item to August 13, 1984. z . i y CITY OF TIGARDe OREGON � {. x COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY p AGENDA OF: July 23, 1984 AGENDA ITEM 4f: € pREVIOUS ACTION: Discussion at July 11, 1984 i DATE SUBMITTED: — 108th/113th June 25,: 1984 City Council ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: ' g uncil Ravine - Exceptions for REQUESTED BY: City.Co � E develo ment in that area k if%f'f CITY ADMINISTRATOR: % DEPARTriiENT READ OK: INFORMATION SUMMARY the Council adopted an Ordinance At the June'25, 1984, City Council meeting, Statements. The (84-36 attached) relating to Goal r'� 5 In Order to Comply also directed staff to take the 108th/113th ravine ' Council at that meeting, 10, area north of the Tualatin 1984, River to the July of Elton Phillips at public testimony for more discussion. ' After the p and discussion among ,the meeting ;planning Commission meeting the July l0, 1984, . the Planning Commission voted to forward therecommendationCission Commissioners, see minutes attached.) The Planning w, staff with a modification. ( recommendation is to inclu e the 10tallowh/113tfore s developmentbelosignificant the c150 foot below the 150 foot elevationbut o process. An ordinance approving the Planning elevation through an exceptions p our consideration. Commission's recommendation is attached for y _ ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED : hed ordinance approving the Planning Commission 1e Adopt the attac � recommendation. 2. Modify the attached ordinance adopting an alternative to the Planning g gg Commission recommendation- SUGGESTED ACTION in Commission recommendation. Adopt the attached ordinance approving the Plann g (0522P) dmj MR CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO, 84-- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND 'REVISING THE FLOODPLAIN' AND WETLANDS MAP AND AMENDING VOLUMES 1, 2 AND 3 OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS ORIGINALLYADOPTED8Y ORDINANCE 83-52 AND SETTING"AN EFFECTIVE'DATE.(CPA 14-84) WHEREAS, the City of Tigard adopted a Comprehensive Plan for the City by Ordinance 83-52 on November 9, 1983; and ` WHEREAS, Volume 1 - Resource Document, Volume 2 - Findings, Policiesand Implementation Strategies, ,Volume 3 Community Development Code and the Floodplain and WetlandsMapwere adopted as part of.the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan was submitted to the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) on November 18, 1983; and WHEREAS, the Land Conservation and Development Commission held an acknowledgement hearing on Tigard's' Comprehensive Plan on April 26, 1984; and WHEREAS, at the April 26, 1984, LCDC Hearing, the Commission voted to continue acknowledgement on Goal #5 With In Order to Comply Statements; and WHEREAS a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on June 12, # 1984 to consider the In Order to Comply Statements and a recommendation was € made to the City Council; and s WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the City Council on June 25, 1984, for Council consideration of the Planning Commission's recommendations. E NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: E , Section 1: Ordinance 84-28 as it amended Ordinance 83-52 is hereby amended. Ordinance 84-28 is hereby amended by revising the Floodplain and Wetlands Map as setforth in attached Exhibit "A" to designate five specific areas as significant resources. Those areas are: the Summer Creek Floodplain and Riparian Forest, Krueger Creek, the Summer Creek Floodplain and Riparian Forest at the east end of SW 135th, Fanno Creek north of North Dakota and the 108/113 Tualatin Floodplain ' Ravine. Section 2: Ordinance 83-52 is amended to revise page 1-42 of Volume 1 Resource Document of the Comprehensive Plan to include a list s of those areas to be designated as significant wetlands to be protected and preserved. Language to be added is underlined below and will be inserted at the beginning of "C. Special Areas". ORDINANCE No. RG- _�G.. t - "Protect the areas designated as significant wetlands on the Floodplain and Wetlands map and -prohibit conflact_ng uses on: those sites The sites designated as significant wetlands are: Summer Creek Floodplain and Riparian Forest Krueger Creek Summer Creek Floodplain and Riparian Forest at the east and of SW 135th Fanno Creek north of North Dakota 1°Recognize the areas identified in Appendix I of the document significantwetlands, drainer eways and creeks. Allow conflicting uses as identified in Appendix I ' with limitations Require as part of the Site Development Review. process a showing of Goal -#5 compliance by, that development which "would have a significant_impact- on the -protected _areas as listed below: < Tigard/Tualatin Fanno Creek Marsh and Floodplain Tualatin River' Floodplain west of' Cook ,Park Fanno Creek Park/Main_Street Fanno Creek Hall/Bonita - Bonita Durham" Section 3: Policy 3.5.3 in Volume 2 - Findings, Policies, and Implementation Strategies shall be amended as setforth below. Items to be added are underlined, items to be deleted are shown in [brackets]. "3.5.3 THE CITY [SHALL DESIGNATE] HAS DESIGNATED THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN OF FANNO CREEK, IT'S TRIBUTARIES, AND THE TUALATIN RIVER AS GREENWAY, WHICH WILL BE THE BACKBONE OF THE OPEN-SPACE SYSTEM." Section 4: Section 18.84.'010 of the Community Development Code shall be amended by adding a new Section C. Subsequent sections shall be renumbered. Items to be added are underlined items to be deleted are shown in [brackets], "C. Development is prohibited within all areas designated as significant wetlands on the Floodplain and Wetlands Map. Development on proper v adiacentto significant we shall be done under the planned development section of the Community Development Code. In addition, no development shall occur on property adiacent to areas designated as significant wetlands an the Floodplain and Wetlands Map within 25 feet of the designated wetlands area. "j C.] D. Except as explicitly authorized by other provisions of this Chapter, all other uses are prohibited on sensitive land areas. "[D, ] E. A use established prior to the adoption of this Code, which would be prohibited by this Chapter or which would be subject to the limitations and controls imposed by this Chapter shall be considered a nonconforming use. Nonconforming uses shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 18,132 of this Code:" ORDINANCE NO. 84- Page 2 Section 5: Policy 3.1.1 in Volume 2 - Findings. Policies and Implementation Strategies shall be amended as setforth below. Items to be added are underlined- "3.1.1 nderlined.°53.1.1 THE CITY SHALL NOT ALLOW IN' A4EAS LAVING THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT LIMITATIONS EXCEPT WHERE IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT ESTABLISHED AND PROVEN ENGINEERING TECHNIQUES RELATED TO A SPECIFIC SITE PLAN WILL MAKE THE AREA SUITABLE FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT[:] (NOTE: THIS POLICY DOES NOT APPLY TO LANDS -DESIGNATED" AS SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS; ON THE FLOODPLAIN AND -WETLANDS MAP. Subsections "a" through A1et1 will remain unchanged. Section 6: Amend Volume 2 - Findings, Policies and Implementation Strategies Document adding a Policy 3.2.4 as setforth below. Language to be added is underlined. "3.2.4 THE CITY SHALL PROHIBIT DEVELOPMENT WITHIN AREAS DESIGNATED AS SIGNIFICANT" WETLANDS ON THE -FLOODPLAIN , AND WETLANDS .'MAP. NO DEVELOPMENT -SHALL OCCUR -ONS PROPERTY ADJACENT 'T0 -AREAS DESIGNATED AS SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS ON THE FLOODPLAIN AND WETLANDS MAP WITHIN TWENTY FIVE (25) FEET OF THE 'DESIGNATED WETLANDS AREA. DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY ADJACENT TO SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS SHALL BE ALLOWED UNDER THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SECTION OF THE CODE." Section 7: This Ordinance shall be effective on and after the 30th day after its enactment by the Council and approval by the Mayor. PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only this day of 1984. *Deputy Recorder - City of Tigard Jam^, �L day of c va 1984. APPROVED: This ,_- - y ity of Tigard (0476P) t ORDINANCE N0._,_84-.�J�,_ rQ+ge_._3:.. TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - JULY 10, 1984 1. President Moen called the meeting to order at 7:38 PM. The meeting was held at Tigard School District - Board Room 13137 :SW Pacific Hwy.,' Tigard, Oregon. 2. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: President Moen; Commissioners Fyre, Peterson, Leverett, `Bergmann and Owens (arrived 10:00 PM). ABSENT: ' Commissioners Vanderwood, Butler and O'Hara. ' STAFF: Director of Planning & Development William A. Monahan; Associate -Planners Keith S. Liden and Elizabeth A. Newton; "Secretary'Diane M. Jelderks. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM JUNE 12, `_1984. o .President Moen noted there were some typing errors which he would submit to the Secretary. o Commissioner Peterson moved and Commissioner Fyre seconded to approve minutes with corrections. Motion carried unanimously. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIOP7 o There was no communication. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 NPO APPOINTMENT o Director -of Planning and Development made staff's recommendation to have John Mayfield appointed to NPO # 6 and Christie Smith appointed to NPO # 3. o John Mayfield was not able to attend, however, he had called City staff and asked that staff express his desire to become a member of the NPO. 0 Christie Smith was present and explained why she would like to become a NPO member. PUBLIC TESTIMONY - No one appeared to speak. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED COMMISSIONDISCUSSIONAND ACTION o Commissioner -Fyre questioned if they was any problem with Mr. Mayfield living out of the City. Director Monahan stated the code allowed for individuals wbo worked or owned property in a NPO area could become members even if they did not live there. Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1984 Page 1 (" 3. Policy 6.3.1, which states the City shall direct its land use action toward the maintainence and the improvement of the established residential areas. 4. Policy ,6.3.3, which states that all phases of the "development" approval process in a residential established area, primary considerationof the City shall be to preserve and enchance the character of the adjacent established areas. Motion,carried three to two. Commissioners Moen, Peterson and Fyre voting yes; Commissioners Bergmann and Leverett voting no. (Commissioner Owens abstained as she was not present for the entire hearing.) 5.4 GOAL 1# 5 SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS AREAS CPA 14-84 Associate Planner Newton made staff's recommendation to amend Chapter` 18.84 of the Community; Development Code to include a new Section 18.84.045 Exceptions for Development' in the 108th/113th Ravine significant Wetlands Area. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o Elton Phillips, 16565 SW 108th, opposed staff's recommendation stating that the maps for that area were.incorrect. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION o' Discussion followed regarding how floodplain is determined and how it would impact Mr. Phillip's property. o Discussion regarding criteria number three. o Commissioner Peterson moved and Commissioner Bergmann seconded to word the recommendation to City Council to add the following section: 18.84.045 Exceptions for Development in the 108th/li3th Ravine significant Wetlands Area. A. Under the Sensitive Lands Permit process, the Hearings, Officer may allow portions of the Ravine at 108th and 113th designated as a significant wetlands areas to development provided that all of the following criteria are met. 1. All of the land (within the ravine) being considered for development is at less than 25% slope. 2. There are no unstable soil conditions on the land being considered for development. ?Tanning Commission Minutes July 10, 1984 Page 9 c i 1 a t 3. Musa comply with the tree cutting ordinance section. F Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present. 4 5.5 GOAT, # 10 MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT CFA 14-84 o Associate Planner Newton made staff's recommendation itted units p in the medium testimony on increasing the number of ' to forward a favorable recommendation density zone from 20 to 25 and c to city Council. e PUBLIC TESTIMONY a No one appeared to speak. { PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED ' x COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION 4 ' s moved and Commissioner Fyre seconded to forward ® Commissioner OwenI CPA 14-84 to the City Council with a recommendation to increase the Medium High Density from 20 to 25 units per acre. ' Motion carriedunanimously by Commissioners present. �. 5.6 CPA 18-84 POLICY 6.3.2 , S mmen e Associate Planner Newton made the staff e f co a enable staff to Policy 6.3.2 b thecompatibility t administer this policy PUBLIC TESTIMONY o No one appeared to speak. : - e PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION ard o Commissioner Owens moved and mmiss amend Bergmann Policy 6.3.2 secondedt b andthe a recommendation of approval to compatiblity matrix per staff's recommendation• motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present. 5.7 ZOA 5-84 CHANGES TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE• 5.8 SUBDIVISION S 8-84 and VARIANCE 11-84 SANDLEWOOD PARK NPO # 2 0., . Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1984 Page 10 CITY OF'TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: July 23, 1984 AGENDA ITEM #:' DATE SUBMITTED: July 13, 1984 PREVIOUS ACTION: Discussion at ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Goal 10 June 25, 1984, City Council Increase maximum no. of unitE per- REQUESTED BY: City Council'` mitted`in Med. high Den. Res. zone DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: � 1 CITY ADMINISTRATOR: INFORMATION SUMMARY At the June 25, 1984, City Council meeting, the Council voted 4-1 (minutes attached) to initiate a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to 'increase the maximum number: of units permitted in the Medium 'Density Residential Zone from 20 to 25 units per acre. The Planning Commission, at their July 10, 1984, meeting voted -unanimously to forward a recommendation to the City Council that the maximum number of units in the Medium High Density Residential zone be increased from 20 to 25 units per acre. An ordinance adopting the Planning `4 Commission recommendation is attached for your consideration. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED SUGGESTED ACTION Adopt the attached ordinance approving the Planning Commission recommendation. r 0525P dmf 1 T I G A R D C Z T Y C 0 U N C I' L REGULAR MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 25, 1984 - 7:30 P.M. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor John Cook; Councilors: Tom Brian (arrived at 7:35 P.M.)', Phil Edin, Kenneth Scheckla, and Ima Scott; City Staff: Robert Adams, Chief of Police (left at 8:20 p.M.); Frank Currie, Director of Public Warks; Irene Ertell, Librarian (left at 8:53 P.M.); Bob Jean, City Administrator (arrived at 7:35 P.M.); Bill Monahan, Director of Planning &,Development; Mark' O'Donnell,, Legal Counsel, Jerri Widner, Finance Director (left at 8:53 P.M.); and Loreen Wilson,, Deputy City Recorder. 2. CALL TO STAFF AND COUNCIL FOR NON-AGENDA ITEMS a. Finance Director requested Council consider the Municipal Judge's fees as item 14.1. b. Councilor Scheckla requested a report from staff regarding the trees down at Woodard Park. Director of Public Works stated that staff was attempting to remove the trees now which fell across the creek. r` 3. VISITOR'S AGENDA a. No one appeared to speak. 4. PRESENTATION OF KEYS TO THE CITY a. Mayor Cook presented Keys to the City to the following citizens for their service. Therese Hahn, Mike McDonnal, Doug Gates, Ricky Cantu, & John Bushbaum Portland Community College Students who did an inventory of the parks for the Park Board Jim Smith for serving on the Budget Committee since 1981. Phil Edin for serving on the Planning Commission since 1982. Madalyn Utz for serving on the Library Board since 1980. RECESS COUNCIL MEETING: 7:40 P.M. 5. TURA MEETING a. ROLL CALL: Present: Agency Chairman John Cook; Agency Members: Tom Brian, Phil Edin, Kenneth Scheckla, and Ima Scott; City Staff: Robert Adams, Chief of Police; Frank Currie, Director of Public Works; Irene Ertell, Librarian; Bob Jean, City Administrator; Bill Monahan, Director of Planning & Development; Mark O'Donnell, Legal Counsel; Jerri Widner, Finance Director; and Loreen Wilson, Deputy City Recorder. b. Director of Planning & Development synopsized history of TURA and noted the program has given Tigard the following: JUNE 25, 1984 Page 1 - COUNCIL MINUTES - l r: C. Public Testimony: No one appeared to speak. d. Director of Planning & Development recommended adoption of the Planning Commission recommendation and an additional clarification on the wordage of policy #6.1.2 to revise the language to insert a reference to homes owned and maintained by a "non-profit, 3 quasi-public or government agency". e. Public Hearing Closed f. ORDINANCE NO. 84-38 AN ORDINANCE' AMENDING POLICY 6..1.2, SUBSIDIZED HOUSING DISPERSAL IN SINGLE FAMILY ZONES, AND POLICY 12.1.1, RESIDENTIAL LOCATIONAL CRITERIA, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.' (CPA 14-84) g. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Edin to adopt. h. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Edin to amend ordinance to include new language suggested by staff and to 'delete reference in Section`.2 to '4. A. 1. [All units should be located within one mile of an elementary school.]. Motion to amend approved by 4-1 'majority vote of Council present. Councilor Scott voting Nay. Motion to adopted amended ordinance approved by 4-1 majority vote of Council present. Councilor Scott voting nay. Ordinance No. 84-38 will require a second reading at 7-9-84 meeting. 12.4 Density - 10 Units Per Acre (In Order To Comply Statements) a. Public Hearing Reopened - Continued From June 11, 1984 b. Director of Planning & Development reported that the CCI and Planning Commission favored Council passing a resolution to initiate a Comprehensive Plan Amendment process to consider increasing the number of units allowed in the R-20 zone from 20 to 25 units per acre, C. Public Testimony: Proponents Val Allen, NPO #4 Chairman, stated NPO #4 agrees with Planning Commission's recommendation. Geraldine Ball, representing DJB, Inc. and herself personally supported the Planning Commission's recommendation and filed a letter with the Deputy Recorder for the file. Jean Dawley, Iry Larson and Jim Miller all supported Planning Commission's recommendation. Page 8 COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 25, 1984 ; r r 1 121 e C Kevin Hanway, representing the Homebuilder's Association, supported a slight alteration of the Planning Commission's 3 recommendation. They suggested R4.5 and R4.5PD be changed to R-5 om 25 units to ,24 units per acre. They and R20 be changed f , stated 25 units per acre couldn't be realistically be built in and c expect an economic return on the development. Director of Planning & Development submitted'; a letter from Mr. Gary Reid, 12700 SW 72nd Avenue, agreeing with the Homebuilder's Association recommendation. Opponents: Phil Pasteris, NPO #6 Chairman, agrees with the Homebuilder's Association. Debra Naubert, NPO #5, stated their NPO already had high density and-were concerned with continual encroachment of higher density. Director of Planning ' & Development stated that Council had :directed staff to not look: at individual lots, but to take an... overview of the density issue. He stated if the Council used the Homebuilder's Association recommendation that the City would exceed the 'goal by 41 units. ing Closed d, Public Hear ' e. RESOLUTION N0. 84-48 INITIATING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS TO CONSIDER INCREASING THE NUMBER OF UNITS ALLOWED IN THE R-20 ZONE FROM 20 to 25 UNITS PER ACRE, f. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Edin to adopt. g. Motion by Councilor Edin, seconded by Mayor__ Cook to amend Resolution by changing R-20 zoning from 20 to 24 units per acre and R4.5 zoning to R-5. Motion to amend failed by a 1-4 vote of Council present. Councilor Edin voting aye. Motion to approve Resolution without amendment was approved by a 4-1 majority vote of Council present. Councilor Scott voting nay. 12.5 Manufactured Housing Conditional Use Requirements (In Order To Comply Statements) a. Public Hearing Reopened - Continued From June 11, 1984 b. Associate Planner Newton synopsized information for conditional use standards. i C. Public Testimony: No one appeared to speak. d. Associate Planner Newton suggested Council adopt Planning Commission's recommendation. Page 9 COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 25, 1984 _. ...._.._. Z INN rim TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING JULY 10, 1984 1. President Moen called the meeting ,to order at 7:38" PM. The meeting was held at Tigard School District - Board Room - 13137 SW Pacific ;Hwy.,' Tigard, Oregon. 2. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: President Moen; Commissioners Fyre, Peterson, Leverett,'-Bergmann and Owens (arrived 10:00 PM), ABSENT: Commissioners Vanderwood, Butler and O'Hara. STAFF: Director of Planning & Development William A. Monahan; Associate Planners Keith S. Liden and Elizabeth A. Newton; Secretary Diane M. Jelderks. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM JUNE 12, 1984. 0 President Moen noted there were some typing errors which he would submit to the Secretary. o Commissioner Peterson moved and Commissioner Fyre seconded to approve minutes with corrections. 'Motion carried unanimously. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATION o There was no communication. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 NPO APPOINTMENT -- o- - Director of Planning and Development made ,staff's recommendation to have John Mayfield appointed to NPO # 6 and Christie Smith appointed to NPO # 3, o John Mayfield was not able to attend, however, he had called City staff and asked that staff express his desire to become a member of the NPO. o Christie Smith was present and explained why she would like to become a NPO member. PUBLIC TESTIMONY - No one appeared to speak. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION o Commissioner Fyre questioned if they was any problem with Mr. 1 Mayfield living out of the City. Director Monahan stated the code allowed for individuals who worked or owned property in a NPO area could become members even if they did not live there. Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1984 Page 1 p s 3. Must comply with the treecutting ordinance ', section. Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present. ` 5.5 GOAL # 10 MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT CPA 14-84 o Associate Planner Newton made staff's recommendation to take testimony on -increasing the number of units permitted in the medium density zone from 20 to 25 and to forward a favorable recommendation to city Council. f z PUBLIC TESTIMONY o' No one appeared to speak. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION i o Commissioner Owens moved and Commissioner Fyre seconded to forward CFA 14-84 to the City Council with a recommendation to increase the Medium High Density from 20 to 25 units per acre: isis Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present. 5.6 CPA 18-84 POLICY 6.3.2 ndation to amend o Associate 6.3.2Planner andNewton the o patibilitystaff matrixo toene enable staff to Policy administer this policy effectively. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o No one appeared to speak. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION o Commissioner Owens moved and Commissioner Bergmann seconded to foward a recommendation of approval to amend Policy 6.3.2 b and the compatiblity matrix per staff's recommendation. Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present. 5.7 ZOA 5-84 CHANGES TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE, 5.8 SUBDIVISION S 8-84 and VARIANCE 11-84 SANDLEWOOD PARK NPO # 2 4 Planning. Commission Minutes July 10, 1984 Page 10 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: July 73, 1984 AGENDA ITEM #: DATE SUBMITTED: July 17, 1984 PREVIOUS ACTION: Ordinance 84-26 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Policy 6.3`.2b and 84-25 'adopted on April 23, 1984 REQUESTED BY: Planning Staff Compatibility Q DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: INFORMATION SUMMARY On April 30, 1984, the City Council adopted two ordinances (copies attached) which amended policy 6.3.2 b and further clarified compatibility. As staff has administered this ordinance, it ;has become apparent that policy 6.3.2 b needs further clarification and that the buffer matrixincluded in the definition of compatibility should be <labeled to differentiate between existing and proposed uses. At the July 10, 1984, Planning Commission meeting, the , Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend to Council that Policy 6.3.2 b be modified as recommended by staff and that the compatibility matrix be modified as recommended by staff. Attached is an ordinance approving the Planning Commission recommendation. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED SUGGESTED ACTION Adopt the attached ordinance approving the Planning Commission recommendation. 0527P dmj r fi TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING JULY 10, 1984 i. 3 Moen called the meeting to order at 7:38 PM. The meeting was 1. President Moe ' held at Tigard School District - Board Room - 13137 Std Pacific Hwy®, Tigard, Oregon. 2. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: President Moen; Commissioners Fy re, Peterson, � Leverett, Bergmann and Owens (arrived 10:00 PM). ABSENT-. Commissioners Vanderwood, Butler and O'Hara. STAFF: Director of Planning & Development william A. Monahan; .,Associate Planners Keith S. 'Liden and Elizabeth A. Newton; Secretary Diane M. Jelderks• : 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM JUNE 12, 1884. o President Moen noted there were some typing errors which he would submit to the Secretary. ved and Commissioner Eyre seconded to approve o Commissioner Peterson mo Motion carried unanimously. minutes with corrections. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATION E U There was no communication- 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 NPO APPOINTMENT o -Director--of--Planning_-and--Development made staff's recommendation to - have John Mayfield appointed to NPO # 6 and Christie Smith appointed to NPO # 3. . however, he had called City o Joh_n Mayfield was not able to attend, � staff and asked that staff express his desire to become a member of the NPO. o Christie Smith was present and explained why she would like to become a NPO member. PUBLIC TESTIMONY - No one appeared to speak. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION o Commissioner Fyre questioned if they was any problem with Mr. Mayfield living out of the City. Director Monahan stated the code allowed for individuals who worked or owned property in a NPO area could become members even if they did not live there. Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1984 Page 1 IN r 3. Must comply with the tree cutting ordinance section. Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present. 5.5 GOAL # 10 MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT CPA 14-84 k o Associate Planner Newton made staff's recommendation to take testimony on increasing the number of units permitted in the medium density zone from 20 to 25 and to forward a favorable recommendation to City Council. PUBLIC TESTIMONY ° o No one appeared to .speak. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION o Commissioner -Owens moved and Commissioner F'yre seconded to forward CPA 14-$4 to the City Council with a recommendation to increase the Medium High Density from 20 to 25 units per acre. Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present. 5.6 CPA 18-84 POLICY 6.3.2 o Associate Planner Newton made the staff rec of men enable staff ation to eto Policy 6.3.2 b and the compatibility administer this policy effectively. ` PUBLIC TESTIMONY o No one appeared to speak. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION o Commissioner Owens moved and Commissioner Bergmann seconded to foward a recommendation of approval to amend Policy 6.3.2 b and the -compatiblity matrix per staff's recommendation. Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present. 5.7 ZOA 5-84 CHANGES TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE. 5.8 SUBDIVISION S 8-84 and VARIANCE 11-84 SANDLEWOOD PARK NPO # 2 ly 10, 1984 Page 10 Planning Commission Minutes Ju '00 Will i HE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 84- J AN ORDINANCEAMENDING POLICY 6.3.2(b) IN FINDINGS, POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES, VOLUME 2 OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (CPA' 8-84),; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. WHEREAS, ; during the Ccmprehensive Planning process- the City Council adopted policy 6.3.2(b) to address housing development compatibility; and WHEREAS, 1,000 Friends of Oregon objected to the vague and discretionary language contained in the policy; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on April 3, 1984, to consider an amendment to this policy. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Policy 6.3.2 b shall' be amended to delete the words within brackets below: WHERE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ABUTS AN EXISTING HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, THE HOUSING TYPES SHALL BE COMPATIBLE. [FOR t EXAMPLE:] [1. TWO HOUSING UNITS WHICH ARE ATTACHED ARE CONSIDERED COMPATIBLE WITH A DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY UNIT: BUT] [2. MORE THAN TWO HOUSING UNITS WHICH ARE ATTACHED ARE NOT CONSIDERED COMPATIBLE WITH A SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED UNIT.] Section 2. Inasmuch as it is necessary for the peace, health and safety of the people of the City of Tigard that this amendment be made with the least possible delay, an emergency is hereby declared to exist, and this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon passage by the Council and approval by the Mayor. PASSED: By the City Council by (�rl�i��ii.:� 5 vote of. all Council members present, after being read by number and title only, this 3y day of f,Zui , 1 1984. Deputy Recorder City oflard ( APPROVED: This 3y day of a,-;/ , 1984. Mayor pro tem City of Tigard ORDINANCE NO. (0407Pdmj) CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. '84- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18.26, DEFINITIONS, OF THE TIGARD 'COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE .ADDING DEFINITIONS FOR "HOME OCCUPATIONS"; "REMODEL0/9 "ADDITION"; "COMPATIBILITY"; "WINDOW"; "FACE"; AND "STORY HALF"; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. WHEREAS, it has become apparant that additional terms should be defined in the Community Development Codec to avoid confusion; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held .a public hearing on April 17, 1984 to consider tate definition of these terms. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 18.26 of the Community Development code shall be amended to include the following definitions which' will be inserted within the section in alphabetical order: Home Occupation. A home occupation exists when a dwelling unit in a residential`zone is used for commercial purpose. See Chapter 18.142. Story, Half. A story under a gable or gambrel roof, the wall plates of which on at least two opposite exterior walls are not more than two feet above the floor of such story. If the finished floor level directly above a basement or unused under-floor space is not more than 6 .feet above grade as defined herein for more than SOX of the total perimeter or is not more than 12 feet above grade as defined herein at any point, such basement or unused under-floor space shall be considered as a half story. Face. Directly confronting. Window. Any opening constructed in a wall to admit light or air, framed, and spanned with glass. Remodel. An internal or external modification to an existing building or structure which does not increase the site coverage. Addition. A modification to an existing building or structure which increases the site coverage. Compatibility. Shall be interpreted as capable of orderly efficient integration of housing types in a harmonious combination. Compability shall be determined in accordance with the following matrix. t , E Cached 3.F Detached obile Hm Park uplex S.F. Attached Multifamily F. De (Zero LotLine) S.F. Detached YES YES Conditional YES YES 2 units NO No-over 2'" S.F. Detached (Zero Lot Line) YES YES Conditional YES YES NO Mobile Home Park `Conditional Conditional YES YES YES YES Duplex YES YES YES YES YES YES ; S.F. Attached Yes 2'units: YES YES ' YES YES YES Multi-family YES N0 N0 YES YES YES Section 2. Inasmuch as it is necessary for the peace, health and safety of the people of the City of Tigard that this amendment be made with the least possible delay, an emergency is hereby declared to exist, and this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon passage of the Council and approval by the Mayor. PASSED: By the City Council by Li! lti9irr7rll 5 vote of all Council members present, ' after being read by number and title only, this 3 0 day of /I ( 1984. Deputy Recorder - City,rd Tigard APPROVED: 'this fit; day of d;,- _( 1984. Mayor pro tem - City of Tigard 0407Pdmj e i CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: July 23, 1984 AGENDA ITEM #: DATE `SUBMITTED. July 17, 1984 PREVIOUS ACTION: 1 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Tigard West' Development (CPA 11-84 and ZC 8-84) REQUESTED BY: Planning Commission DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: INFORMATION SUMMARY On July 102 1984, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider a Comprehensive Plan Amendment request and a zone change request for ,Tigard West" Development on SW Pacific Highway between SW Park and SW Watkins. On a 3-2 . vote, the Planning Commission denied the applicants' request.' A transcript of that hearing is attached with the final order. A signed copy of the final order will be distributed at the July 23, 1984, hearing. Under the provisions of Section 18.32.090 C. 2. of the Community DevelopmentCode,' the City Council ._. must review all Comprehensive Plan Amendments. The review should be conducted as set forth in Section 18.32.320 B. of the Community Development code. An ordinance will be prepared based on the Councils findings for adoption. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Adopt findings supporting the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change request. Direct staff to prepare a final order for adoption by resolution on August 13, 1984. 2. Adopt findings reversing the Planning Commission recommendation for denial and approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change request. Direct staff to prepare-afinal-order and-ordinance-for-adoption on-August-13,^1984._ SUGGESTED ACTION Adopt the findings upholding the Planning Commission recommendation for denial of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change request based on staff's recommendation. Direct staff to prepare a final order for adoption by resolution on August 13, 1984. (0529P dmj) MOM CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 84-01 (061 JB BISHOP, FINAL ORDER IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION PgTIGARRDOWESTOR A DEVELOPMENT,ENSZVE PLAN A r ZONE CHANGE REQUESTED AMENDMENT AND A FILE N0. CPA 11-84 AND ZC 8-84, DENYING THE , .. GI JOES, AND ALICE TREFFINGER, APPLICATION REQUESTS, ENTERING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS- Commission at its regular 1'tze Tigard Planning Commission heard the above application their attorney a licants appeared along meeting of Ju I0, 3984. The PP Barin for the` opposition' were> a number 'of interested and architect. Appearing property owners, represented ,by legal counsel and the Neighborhood Planning ` Organization (NPO # 3)• following FACTS in this matters The Commission finds the t applicants for this matter, Tigard West Development, JB Bishop, 1, The requested a reclassification from R 3.5 GI Joes 'and Alice Treffinger, nations which would allow for single b zoning and low density designation,a - ; residential units to a (C-G) General Commercial designation family Tax Map 2Sl 3DA on a parcel o£ lard designated as Washington County Tax Map 2S1 _ Lots' 4700, 4800, 6100+ and 6200 and Washington request re 3DD lot 200. The informaCounty is found in File Tax k, tion supporting No. CPA 11-84 E [ applicant's justification is presented in the minutes for the 2. The app Commission meeting. The applicants at that Planning July 10, 1984, Stephen 3anik, spoke to issues relating i time, represented by Attorney to squaring off a pitted to coma change parcel that is 80% comm potential negligible traffic impact on neighboring streets, to a commercial designation which would be better for lane policies, residences, the conformance of the application to the P question whether the residential zoning on the 5 residential lots in was a mistake, and the increase in jobs for local residents and the t conformance o the application to locational criteria. de he 3• The relevant approval criteria 9, 0, 11 case 13 & 14.StGoals i3, Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, of Tigard not apply- In addition, the City g 4, and 15 19 do 6.3.3 and 12.2.1. Comp i rehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1,5.1.4, t he following FINDINGS in this matters The Commission make t has adopted a 1• State-wide Planning Goal # 1 is met becauseSeviewe of all development Citizens 'Involvement program including In applications by the Neighborhood Planning Organization (NPO)- re met. addition all public notice requirements we Goal i# 2 is met because the City applied all 2, State-wide Planning Gaels, City Comprehensive Plan applicable State-wide Planning Policies and Development Code requirements to the application' 1 1 because no open space i 3. State-wide Planning Goal # 5 'does not apply would be created or removed by this application proposal. P 4. State-wide Planning Goal # 6 does not apply because caster, air and k land resources quality would not be affected by this application proposal. 7 does not apply because there are no 5• State-wide Planning .Goal ll Y natural hazard areas on the property- 6 recreational State-wide Planning Goal 4l $ does not apply because there would be no facilities being constructed or removed as a result of this proposal 7, State-wide Planning Goal 9 does nportion of not apply because the ercia3 is land being proposed for the change from residential to comm too small to impact the City°s employn'ent picture. Goal # 10 does not apply because the removal of 5 $• State-wide Planning i stock would not have a great impact '" 'homes from the City's housing city-wide. Goal # 11 is met because public facilities are 9. State-wide Planning t available to the site. Goal &` 12 is not satisfied because SW Watkins` 10. State wide Planning standards and, is inadequate to carry Street is not improved to City resent time° g heavier volumes of traffic at the p k # 13 does not apply because 11. State-wide Planning Goal there are no s great . energy savings to be gained by changing the five residential -- properties to commercial. : 12. State-wide Planning Goal # 14 doss not apply because the proposed change does not affect rural land. Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because 13• City of Tig surrounding property were the Neighborhood Planning Organization po t nity nton comment on the given notice of the hearing and an opportunity applicants proposal- 5.1.4 is not satisfied I4. City of Tigard Comp , Comprehensive Plan Policy because approval of the applicants request would allow commercial development to encroach into a residential area that has not been designated for commercial use. Comprehensive Pian Policy 5.3.3 is not satisfied 15. City of Tigard Comp a Plan request will not preserve and because approval of the app enhance the character of the adjacent established area. Comprehensive Plan Policy 12.2°1 is satisified in that 16• City of Tigard Comp lied to the all of the appropriate locational criteria have been app project, however, not all of the locational criteria can be met by the applicants' proposal. ARM The Commission adopts the following CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: - No. 10, the Commission has determined that; SW I. Based on Finding increased , Watkins is not improved' to standards adequate to carry traffic loads. Based on Finding No. 14, the Commission has determined that the applicants' request to redesignate '5 single family residential lots encroa to commercial would for commercial ocuse into a ld allow commercial de velopment tresidential area that has not been desig t the sed on Finding 'No. 150 the Commission has determined et ermnd enhance 3. Bathe granting of the applicants' request will p character of the adjacent established area. 4. Based on Finding No. , 16, the Commission has determined that the applicants' request does not meet all of the locational criteria setforth in Policy 12.2•1. locational criteria (1) (a) is not' matesurrounded . ..,The. Specifically, loc ) commercial area is not d. by residential districts on more than two sides." It is, therefore, ORDERED that, based on the above Findings and `Conclusions, , Amendment and Zone Change is this the application for a Comprehensive Plan ` ' (( matter be, and the same hereby is, denied. It is further ordered that the applicant be notified of the entry of the this order. 1984, by Planning Commission of the PASSED: This day of City of Tigard. President - Planning Commission City of Tigard 0529P dmj TRANSCRIPT { COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 11-84 ZONE CHANGE ZC B-84 TIGARD WEST DEVELOPMENT COMPANY' July 10, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING President Moen, "Item 5.3 please." Associate Planner Liden, "Okay, this is for a application for Comprehensive President Moen, "Could we have it; quite hear, so we can hear the staff report. Liden, "Okay, this application is for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zane Change, Uh, for five parcels that are located on Watkins Street or Avenue and south of Park Street, and the proposal is to change the Comprehensive Plan from Low Density Residential designation to Commercial General, and also to change the zone designation from Residential to Commercial General. the property involved is right here. Located right over here and this is Park Street and Watkins Ave. and its the first five parcels that are south of Park Street. The staff has reviewed the applicant' s proposal, the applicant- has addressed the relevant policies in the the Comprehensive Plan and in our staff report we do yo through, what we feel are the most relevant policies in the ComprehenF= �e Plan which relate to this type of proposal. Uh, one of the first sections of the Plan talks about implementation strategies and says that the Community Development Code shall provide, uh, for changes in the t. Comprehensive Plan Map, which may be initiated, uh, if the City finds that the - 1 - a I plan policies, change of physical changes consistent with applicab circumstances has occurred since the original designation, ora mistake has been made in regards to the original land use designation. Following that we lysis of the relevant, uh, policies relating to air have gone through an ana quality, uh,, noise, versification of economic opportunities, enhancement of trict as the primary commercial area in the City. Bh, the Central Business Dis ial development should not encroach" on That new commercial and residentf residential neighborhoods. In addition to the policies, there are some locational criteria that are located towards the end of the plan that relate to things that the City should consider when a change in use from to a 1 commercial general is proposed and those locational criteria are also contained in the I staff report. In summary the requested,plan and zone change does not appear to be consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan for � use from residential to commercial will the following reasons. Change in encroach upon an established residential neighborhood. It will initiate the replacement of five residences with commercial development and will probably set a precedent for the establishment of commercial activity on the east side e of Watkins Ave. south of Park Street, as well as other areas along Pacific Hwy. Number two the Comprehensive Plan can encourages the continued development of the Central Business District as a commercial center an f _ enlarging the inventory of commercially zoned land along Pacific Hwy . contradicts this policy. The effect is recognized as minimal given other factors which make the Central Business District less desirable for commercial development at this time. And then three, the applicant has not demonstrated the need for the zone change, the property to the vast appears to be capable of accommodated a large variety of commercial activity without requiring additional land. So we are recommending denial of this proposal." _ 2 - A OR President Moen, "Okay, thank you staff. Uh, is there anyone here From the CCI wishing to speak. The NPO. Okay, now" Duane Ehr, "Yes sir, yes we do." President Moen, "Okay, NPO. Duane Ehr, "NPO ## 3." Moen, "You want to give your name for the record please." "My name is Duane Ehr. 'The NPO has given unanimous opposition to the zone change, due to the fact that there were some recent" changes in the application. I understand from 20 feet to 40 feet, or something like this?" 4 Moen, "No, I don't think there was any changes . Duane Ehr, - "Well this is want was discussed last night at the NPO meeting. - Uh, we were still in opposition to the zone change due to the fact that, uh, well, what we thought were changes in the application doesn't seem to satisfy the NPO. Uh, 7B were there some changes. 7B, "There's been no changes since the submittal of the application in March." Duane Ehr, "Well, uh, we had some misinformation, but at this present time the NPO is, is in unanimous opposition to the zone change, primarily due to the fact of community opposition. Thank you" — 3 m milli A 10: s President Moen, "Okay, Thank- you. Uh, now is the opportunity for the applicant to make his presentation. May we have the applicant please. "Good evening, members of the Planning Commission, my name is Stephen Janik, ;J A N I K, ;and I'm a lawyer and I represent several parties who are applicants in this matter. Irepresent, under the direction of the United States Bankruptcy Court, the assets of JB Bishop, which are now as you know are now _ under the administration of the court. I represent the developer of this project, which is Tigard West Development Company, partnership, and in this matter I'm representing GI Joes, who is the intended user of this. I`do not represent one of the property owners, who consented to and - signed this application. One of the residential„ properties which lies to south of the subject site. The, our request- to you tonight is to prove a comp plan change ( and zone' change to general commercial to basically square off a parcel that l you have already 80% committed to general commercial development by including the five houses that are the subject of this in a Comprehensive Plan Change and Zone Change that will allow general commercial. All of this is to allow us to go ahead a put a GI Joes store on this site. Now, our plan, can best be illustrated by the drawing prepared by our architects, Brun, Moreland and Christopher, who are here tonight; and also with me here tonight is Mr. Wayne Jackson of GI Joes who can answer any questions you might have. 'This shows Pacific Hwy. along here, Park Street, Watkins Street, the property that is in question is located right along here. These are residences that will remain as residences. There are existing commercial uses here. There is a open area here, not yet developed for commercial. The site of the store is here. The related parking will be here and here. Along this area we propose a buffer strip, the buffer strip will be 40 feet in this area and given this row of parking here will be twenty feet along here. The buffer strip will not only maintain the mature trees that now exist, which I will show you in a few 4 minutes with some pictures, but will have several other features. First there will be a significant amount of additional plantings of mature trees, 12 to 14 feet high when they are initially planted. In addition to that there will be a six foot high fence on the inside, with the landscaping on the outside facing the residential uses. And finally to insure that there would be no commercial penetration back to the neighborhood, we have offered to deed this strip to the City and maintain our responsibility to maintain it. So that there is no possibility once we deed it to the City, that we would have the opportunity to request any kind of Commercial curb cuts or access from Watkins Street. Now, this ;also illustrates that the loading activities will occur here. The operator GI Joes will not,conduct those activities at any offensive hours, in other words they will be during daytime hours, when people are not sleeping, not at night time, and we urge that as a condition if the Planning p� Commission decides to approve the request. Again that would be buffered by ` the fencing itself and by the plantings that now exist as well as those that would be installed. All of those details would be subject to further evaluation through the Site Design Review process. Your going to here, based on the size of the audience tonight and the opposition of the NPO, I'm sure, a number of concerns about this request. One of them may very well be access. What we propose, your going to hear neighbors, perhaps testify that if you put this use along Pacific F9wy. your going to have cars going through the neighborhood, I suggest to you that that is not a very likely situation, given the fact that the access points (laughter). . President Moen, "Could I have order please. Go ahead sir." Given the fact" that * the ingress and egress points as you can see here, three f of them are along Pacific Hwy. , The only access point which is on Park Street is an exit only, which would allow cars, as you can soe from the configuration 5 to move toward Pacific l9wy. There is no access point into the site along Park Street. Along Watkins Street, there will be the guarantee by the deeded of this strip to the City, that we cannot' later`'on come in and request that there would be any access. It seems somewhat difficult to surmise that if all the access points are along Pacific Hwy. that anyone 'seeking to 'gain entrance to this would somehow move throughthe neighborhood and impact neighborhood 4 streets. Seems also unlikely to suspect that someone leaving through this i exit only on Park Street, given the orientation toward Pacific Hwy. , will none E the less somehow impact the neighborhood streets: Now, that, I think gives you a view of what we are trying to build here, what we are trying to propose. What is really at issue here tonight is simply these five houses that lie along a strip immediately adjacent to property which the City has designated general commercial. The area that we are dealing with, I think has F been erroneously characterized by the staff. This diagram shows you ' t surrounding vicinity, the subject property is located here. 'This is another s commercially designated area known as Tigard East. This is the recent project ' that you've approved, that's now under construction which is a 100 or 200 feet i away. In addition to that, this is another area of general commercial that t has been designated on the plan. And what I would like to emphasize with this point is the fact that this property has general commercial on this site, on this side to the south it has residences that will remain here but it has an existing commercial building here, commercial here, and in addition to that this commercial intrudes well into this residential neighborhood. The fact € already approved and created by the City, So tonight when you hear the y4. arguments about the horrors of an intrusion of commercial into the # neighborhood, I would ask that you consider the fact that the City has already i done this. I would ask that you consider the fact that the City has recently, in this Planning Commission, has recently approved this project, which has residential zoning and planning designations on all three sides, As you hear I i the staff's argument € _ r a 4 for 'example that you can only have commercial, or residential rather, on two 4' sides, consider what this Planning " Commission has 'already and recently approved with residential designations on three sides. As you hear the neighbors ' arguethe horrors of an intrusion into the 'neighborhood from commercial, consider the fact that what we're proposing is a substantially ` buffered strip along here and a street before you reach the neighborhood, whereas here you see intrusions immediately adjacent to the neighborhood. In' the case of this project you can walk out the door and you can see the fact that this project abuts houses by a distance of 10 feet. A project recently approved by the Planning Commission. Now, I would also like to illustrate that point by providing you with a more detailed illustration` of that project, which shows, residential here, residential here, residential here, and with 10 foot separation'between the residential and the commercial was approved by the �r Planning Commission. : That can be also illustrated by these pictures, ;which ` show you, and these where taken Sunday, which show you, just how close you have approved commercial in this immediate vicinity to existing residential uses. This area here, sort of the brownish yellowish colored grass area is where the commercial is going to occur, You can see the residential area immediately across the street. Similar over here you can see the close . . . . . position of this project to residential uses, similar to this photo as well. These photos are a closer documentation of what's now under construction. Showing for example the close proximity in this photo of the access way to the existing residential neighborhood, separated only by a modest 10 or 15, excuse 20 feet and this curb cut and immediately adjacent residential neighborhood. In addition to that, these photos show what's now under construction and show you the close proximity that's already been approved. And here, I think is another good illustration showing you the house and the commercial development that been approved in this project that is immediately across Park Street from 7 — w us. And I urge you when considering the arguments about, again what this project will do to the residential neighborhood, that you view that in some perspective as to what the City in its comp plan ,has done and what the Planning Commission has recently done with respect to this property, Now to give you 'a better view of the buffering that we've proposed, we have a number of ;photographs that are here. These are somewhat small, perhaps if you would like to take a closer look at them, what this is intended to show, with the green line is the -approximate location of where the buffering area would start. The store area would be back in this direction. This would be the buffer area and this would be Watkins Street. Similar we choose existing mature plantings that will be maintained through the site and design 'review process. It riot as though all of these significant ' trees' are 'going to be removed and destroyed. Some of them will and that will be"under-the control of the Site Design Review process. But for purposes of this comp plan "change and zone change a relevant criteria is the degree to which we buffer ourselves from the neighborhood. What we are trying to document for you in these photographs, is that this is a very significant effort to preserve the plantings that are there. Its a wide and large buffer enhanced by Watkins Street with no access and further control by the City on precisely the dimensions and character of this through the Site Design Review process. You compare what's being proposed here with what- has been approved previously, across Park Street and one has no ask a serious question of those who would oppose this. Of the consistency with which this Commission as well as the i City uniformly applies its standards. How can one on the one hand allow a modest 10 foot separation with virtually no mature planting and landscaping and immediately accepted arguments that say that we would cause offensive intrusions of the neighborhood with the much larger buffer which is proposed here. Its not as though we are talking about different areas of Tigard, these two parcels are right across the street. Now, I think its fair to deal with the Planning Commission decides riot to approve our request. If the Planning Commission decides not to approve our request, there are five houses out there. They will stay, they will most likely end up 'being rental units. This is commercially planned and zoned property'. It shows up as such on the plan. Those five houses will then abut -commercial property and they will most likely, because of that circumstance to narrow island strip about "a 120 or 130 feet wide, be rental properties. I would have to ask you the question, would you as a citizen, and not only that but a Planning Commission member; think that it is a good result, because of our opponents here from the neighborhood, say no, that we don't want a GI Joes 'store on this site for Tigard, forget it, you can put other commercial uses there. Lets leave-those- five houses there, lets let five families live in those houses, rental or otherwise, they will have a far smaller buffer from the commercial area, because of the much, I guess more liberal requirements of ,the Code. They'll experience a situation like the property across Park Street. That is the end result. That's what those here who oppose us are arguing for. Leave that strip there and I submit to you that that is not a good result in ter-ins of the issues that the neighborhood is concerned about. And I don't believe its a good result for the City in terms of the benefits that are here in this project. Now, one other point I would like to make in explaining the vicinity, is to point out the sort of front door orientation of the number, of the residences that will remain. These arrows are approximate indications of where the kind of front door, looking through the family room, or living room windows, of these houses w are. You can see that these two houses are oriented across Watkins Street back to the neighborhood. This house is oriented this way toward land that is planned and zoned under the City plan as general commercial. This house is oriented in this direction, one house here is oriented in this direction, i which will see the landscaped buffer we propose. This house in this direction 9 P and another 'house in this direction looking directly into the 40 foot landscaped buffer that we have talked about before. Another house here, another house here, and of these houses along here four Took into this area, across Watkins Street. Now, this is not 'a decision that is going to be made by the number of people here who support my position, of which I'm sure there are very few, and -I guess that' s fortunate for me. Rather its 'going to be a function of what the applicable criteria in the comp plan. We come before you based on two grounds. Your plan says that if we can demonstrate that we are in conformance with the policies of the Plan, then we have the opportunity to obtain this plan 'change. That is to say look at all the other textural policies of the plan and see if we conform to the those that ,we impact on. The second ground is to say, was there a mistake. - Was there> a mistake in taking 80% of the parcel that is created between Watkins, Park, and Pacific Hwy. and making 80% of it general commercial, changing it from Commercial Professional, which is what is was before, when Tigard did not have a entirely unified plan and making twenty percent of that, five houses, not commercial but residential. We submit that under both grounds there is an appropriate case for the change. I would like to briefly summarize what we have already submitted extensively in writing. No question about policy three, which talks about natural features, no significant park land here, no significant wetland, we're not within the 100 year floodplain. Under policy four, in volume one of the comp plan there is an important acknowledgment, and that is because there is a inadequate amount of retailing activity focused in Tigard, people in Tigard are driving elsewhere to do a lot of their retail business. Now, you know for a fact where the nearest GI Joes store is. It is a specialty kind of retailer, if you want to buy something at GI Joes, there's nothing in the vicinity that you can go to. So you have to drive elsewhere. That confirms { what your comprehensive plan tells you. Now, the implication of that policy is to provide more of this kind of retail activity in downtown Tigard so that _ 10 — people don't have to do that. That's precisely want this request involves. Policy number five, which is your policy to further tho economy of Tigard, says what we really want here is we want local jobs. Now, what this will produce is a 150 construction jobs and 60 full time jobs. And those jobs will be heavily oriented towards those who are residents here in Tigard. Taxes of forty to fifty thousands dollars a year in addition to that. Now, that policy also says, don't allow commercial in areas that would intrude on residential. ' And not withstanding the heart felt and perhaps emotional concerns of citizens here tonight, I find it hard to ,believe, given what the Planning Commission has approved in the vicinity of this projectwith ten foot buffers, that one could conclude that this project with no access to Watkins, with a substantial 20 to 40 foot buffer, with mature plantings, deeded over to the City separated by a street can possibly intrude into this neighborhood, given what now exist.' With respect to housing, we don't violate= that policy that five houses that will be displaced here is a diminious number in terms of Tigard's housing stock. There is no questions under policy seven, all of the utilities necessary for this are available. under the energy policy, policy nine, to the extent that people are able to perform these shopping trips without going outside of Tigard, you will reduce the consumption of energy. Now the staff in there report criticizes us for somehow violating policy eleven, which is to further the development of the Central Business District. How we do that on land outside of the plans designated Central Business District I'm not sure. And if you read the staff report you can't find a single fact in there, a single fact, that says how the development of commercial residential, or retail activity outside of the CBD, outside the jurisdiction of that policy entirely, adversely affects the CBD. The fact of the matter is GI Joes is not going to go in the middle of downtown Tigard. By agreeing with the staff and denying this your not going to enhance the CBD. Your not going to get GI Joes down there. Mr. Jackson is here and will tell — 11 — you the same thing. So is the staff's approach to say, turn this down; not s have retail here, not have a significant quality retail and that's going to help;the CBD. I leave with ;you the question of whether the CBD is going to be better off' encouraging and attracting more retail' if it has this substantial quality retailer here'. Now much more likely is it that people once coming here will continue a few thousand yards down the street to the Central Business District to shop and visa versa. The staff without any facts simply , says its possible that this might adversely affect the CBD. Now, 'under your commercial policy, policy twelve, you provide ce°-tain standards for locating' general commercial and what you say is that general commercial is designed for large space, large scale retail` users, That translates to me into 60,000 ' ! _s square foot (3I Joes store. And the crux of the problem we have here is that there is an inadequate site area, without converting these five houses to b commercial to accommodate the GI Joes store. Now we have before, ;and you'll here tonight from some of our opponents, who were at a bankruptcy court f hearing, were I was involved. You will here that we said yes it is z theoretically possible to lose all the benefit of the frontage along Pacific _ Hwy. and move the GI Joes store forward, if GI Joes agrees, if you look at the amount of land area, you could technically accomplish that. The fact of the 4 matter is GI Joes does riot desire that, is looking at other sites. There have i already been other commitments made for comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance approved retail uses along that frontage, which would have to be E terminated to accomplish that. No one in the private side of this sees that f as a realistic or even feasible alternative. It is possible. So your locational criteria say take those larger sites that accommodate larger users and make them general commercial. But we submit what happened here was, you made 80% of the site, which is a natural site, given the three streets. Made 80% of it, but not 100% of it general commercial and left these people to be a residential buffer for the sake of the neighborhood, I guess. Secondly that — 12 — } policy says we should be required to adequately buffer ourselves from the existing residential. I won't belabor the points I've made 'before about the substance of the buffer that we are proposing. ; The next element of that policy says than if we can show you that we are major retail user along a major arterial or collector, we meet that standard. No question about how Pacific Hwy, conforms to that. Now, there's a interesting for standard that's says, Oh by ,the way if your going to be general commercial you shouldn't ' be surrounded on more than two sides by residential. That's interesting for-a lot of reasons. First, its about as vague as one can get in µ dealing with an irregular shaped parcel. And list me show you the problem. If you look at the configuration of our property, the property here at issue,; which is, this is the zone change plan change property, we' ll you've got commercial on one side. If you look, don't be with "us, look at the whole site, fine. Look at the whole site, it looks something like this and goes like that. You've got commercial over here. Staff says no, you don' t really have commercial, its there but we don' t acknowledge it, you've got residential, and therefore on one side you've got residential. The problem is, you tell me what a side is. :If this is the edge of the project that we're developing, we've got commercial here and we've got commercial here, and we've got to residential here, tell me what's a side. We've got residential here, no question, after this is over we' ll have residential here, we think that's two sides. Now lets look at a recent example in the neighborhood of how the Planning Commission interpreted this policy. There are three sides to this site, which is a five -sided site that have residential zoning and planning on it. Now what can one make of the staff's comment that somehow we have residential on more than two sides. I think, that at best, you can say that's ambiguous, it has not been applied that way by the Planning Commission in the past. Now finally, we believe that those arguments and points which we've also made in writing relate, respond to all the relevant comprehensive plan s. policies and the locational criteria for where you locate general commercial. And based on those facts we believe and adequate case has been mads to justify _ the plan and zone change. An alternative ground, is the ground of an initial mistake. There maybe some reason that someone can explain, but I can't see it, as to why you wouldtake and leave five single family residences immediately' adjacent, with little protection_from an area that you designate ` as general commercial. We believe that that was a mistake, that was done without our involvement. That was done in the comprehensive planning process. Its illogical, we 'submit, to 'leave those five houses< and to not take full 'advantage of the separate parcel created by the three streets. Now, the staff has made a few other comments I would like to respond to. The staff says quote, no access to: Watkins Street is desired. Staff leaves the lingering implication that 't-here may be access desired in the future. I find thattobe a kind of argumentative statement when in our application we've { said, not onlydo we not desire it, we're going to deed g g you that strip City so that you can control that, to preclude any access. Why they staff report doesn't say access from Watkins Street will precluded by the applicants offer s of City ownership of this strip, I don't know. The staff says that the State Highway Division stated that our project could, quote, potentially affect } Watkins and Park. That was not a quote from the Highway Department, that was a characterization by the staff. But then the staff goes on to say, and on by t the way the Highway Division has no objection to it. So how can you on the one hand, have this inference that there could potentially be problems and yet s the Highway Division says there's no problem. Again, we would point out by denying GI Joes on this site, your not going to get them in the Central Business District and your not going to get them on Mainstreet. The Mainstreet site, right now, for example is subject to lease negotiations with .. another major retail user, GI Joes will not go on that site, so for the staff in there report to say, denying this is going to help the CBD, and improving it 14 — i> w �t f } is going to hurt it. There's simply ,no factual bases for that. Now, the staff also says that this could possible cause a precedent, well, I guess that On the one hand I'd like to say to you, arguments got to cut several ways'. Z would ' like ` to use the precedent of what's been done here, on a number of issues in this case. On the other hand Z would like to say to you, that if you think this is going to cause ,a precedent then what is it a precedent for, what its a precedent for is if there's another piece along Pacific Highway, 80% already designated general commercial, separated from the existed neighborhood by another street, with no access to that street, and a 20 to 40 foot planted, landscaped, and fenced buffer, then I guess that's a precedent, and I think that's a goad precedent. What it is a precedent for is establishing the kind of controls for the commercial along Pacific as they , abut the residential behind: I don' t think that's a dangerous precedent. Now in summary, we wanted to take more time than we usually would tonight, and we appreciate your patiences, because its obvious there's a lot of citizens here who are going to say a lot of things. If there are some new items that come up we would like to come back and respond to those. But really, I think there are three alternatives, three practical alternatives that you face. One, .approve this request, obtain for the City of 'Tigard a GI Joes store, with the additional taxes, 60 permanent jobs, 150 construction jobs, the buffering of the neighborhood that has been proposed. That's one alternative and that's what we request. Next alternative, that a lot of the people here are going to argue for tonight, is to turn it down. Okay, you turn it down and what are you going to find. Your going to find, at best, that there will be commercial development here and everything that they say about what commercial development here is going to do in terms of (end of tape). . . . . . . . . . . . . . You'll lose some additional commercial activity here and no big deal. Well the fact of the matter is that is a very naive and simplest view of what is a fairly complex problem, its simply is very very unlikely to happen. GI Joes is 15 - y i. Elift ; i not interested in it, we're not interested in it. The bankruptcy court that I represent is not interested in it, and I submit that your not going to have, if you do that, if you push the GI Joes snore forward, your not going to have the area to create the landscape buffer between the houses that you will leave and the GI Joes, there' s simply not the site area to put 40 feet oflandscape c c ` _ buffer here. So again, you're saying to whoever lives here, renter or homeowner, your going ,to be immediately adjacent to that. Those I submit are the three alternatives and we think if you look at the facts, if you look at what's occurred in this area, what the plan provides, what the real standards t r are, that no matter how emotional the 'testimony is here tonight, for whatever c 't - reason, that the first of those is the best alternative for the community as a whole. And we respectfully ask that you approve this. If you have questions ' <a of me or Mr. Jackson from GI Joes, or the project architects we'll be happy to p respond to them and we would like three or four minutes to briefly respond to any new items that may come up. President Moen, "Okay, Thank you Mr. Janik." pp i } Janik, "'Thank you, we would like these to be made part of the record in this t case. t Commissioner Moen, "Okay, We' ll move onto the public portion of this hearing. I would make a brief comment that we have about 16 people signed up to speak this evening. Sixteen time 5 minutes a piece, is about hour and r twenty-.five minutes and we have to make a decision at the end of that. So, c what I guess I would ask, I would ask you to keep that in mind, try to be as brief as possible, five minutes might be a good rule of thumb. If you can say { what you need to say in less, we would appreciate it. Uh, we will, we are here to hear all the people who wish to speak and we're going to attempt to do - 16 - that this evening. Thank you for your patience. Okay, we're going to start with those in favor of the proposal. I have a fist here, starting with Mr. Paterson I believe, J. Paterson." "I'm Alan Paterson, 11605 Sw Manzanita, and somebody had to sign up on the other side, so I started it off. I just want to say that I basically for development and for this development. And I would like to see a conciliatory attitude of whether we can work something out to make this succeed. Such as was exemplified by the first item on the agenda tonight with Morning Hill people. And that's all I have to say, President`Moen,' "Okay, Mr. Skourtes" . Mr. Skourtes, "I' ll pass for now." President Moen, "Okay, that was brief. Uh, Dennis Brun. Dennis Brun, "I will hold my testimony until later . . . . . . . . . I'm representing the developer in this issue. President Moen, "Thank you Mr. Brun. Uh, Mr. Bishop. "My name is JB Bishop, Suite 303, 10505 SW Barbur Blvd. I am one of the property owners of both of commercial property and also one of the residential houses which is under question here. ' My comments are as a backup to Steve Janik as a presentation. Obviously I think its appropriate to point out that (' one of the issues that you need to deal with, I am a former resident of the - neighborhood, grew up in the neighborhood, is that currently that we have a — 17 — e street system on Park street and we have a street system currently on Watkins S that is 'unimproved, without sidewalks, without curbs, without gutters, and as children, myself and myyoung brothers' and more importantly , the -younger children in the neighborhood today, they do not have the benefits of having those public facilities. As a condition of this zone change and as a condition of the site design review it absolutely is a precondition that we i net only acknowledge, but that we adhere to as Park Street ;Square to sidewalk, curb, and gutter along Watkins, which would be an effect of this zone change to these five homes. It would be a substantial increase and the ability to have that kind of a urban service on that location. More importantly what we do not have in the aerial photographs and the cioseup photographs show along Park Street is the adequate - right-of-way for the appropriate use of that r street even as it is now for the residential neighborhood, There would be- a half street improvement, as you see in the example of what will come in in the Park Street Center coming in off of 99 going onto Park, you can already see- the eethe impact of what that half street will do when it is completed. What you don't see is what will be part of the successful development of this project and that is the half street improvements along the south side of Park Street all along from Awful Brothers to the corner of Watkins an eight foot wide, extra amount of asphalt, sidewalk, curb, and gutter and no longer any ditches, which are unsanitary and have been a real problem with the DEQ over the years and the neighborhood can also back that up. That would be culver•ted and handle the storm drainage and take care of any this seepage from the septic tanks. But, we would have not only the proper improvements but the required improvements that would go in at the cost of the development as appropriate, should be. The other brief comments are specifically that a GI Joes or any retail use on that property as enhanced by the zone change obviously creates for this community, not only the stated amount of jobs, of approximately 60 jobs, but I do want to point out and stress that for the most part a retailer - 18 - such as GI Joes and other retailers, primarily provide employment for the ( secondary wage employer, employee within the community. Usually at least 70 80 percent of that employment in a firm like that is a Mrs. Spencer who "lived in one of the houses', who worked for Payless, over at Benard Mall, the woman and or the men need that opportunity for the ongoing cost that we all have on a day to day basis and that secondary 'wage earner needs to needs to be catered to and that's what happenswith a GI Joes and other retail use. Secondly, an actually just as important,' when we were growing up in the fiftiesand sixties here in Tigard, we had canneries, both here and. in Sherwood for summer jobs and Chris jobs. Both us as high 'school and collage and more importantly for the teachers who work nine months of the year. Those are not available anymore. Where do we provide ,in Tigard for summer 'employment and for the Christmas Holiday employment. We don't have that base and we're not encouraging that base. Finally I need to point out very` clearly that the buffering that's been referred to, which is 40 feet along Watkins, is double what the Code requirement is, which is 20 feet. That buffering as explained in our memorandum as part of our presentation, will be fully enhanced by trees coming in, evergreen, not deciduous, to back up and add to the enhancement of what is already along there in the front 40 feet along Watkins and down towards, as most of us in the neighborhood know where the England house was, which is the yellow house on Watkins, should be lowered down to 20 feet because the building won't be along there. The building goes from Watkins 20 feet in down to approximately the beginning of the Klumpke house. This is names that most of us in the neighborhood are aware of and most of those behind me are aware of those homes. That forty foot buffer begins twice and is enhanced by the trees of 12 to 16 feet, that will be brought in with tree spade. A tree spade is exactly what happened with the Christmas trees that were donated at the north =xn6 south ends of Main Street, successfully developed, put in "and maintained, and yet those are two trees. What we are — 19 — talking about tere is a expenditure in excess of 30,000 dollars in excess of 280 trees. What you end up with is the buffer, that T respectfully submit to you that you have now on the west side of Watkins Avenue. All of us know the Hudson gas station which has been vacate and 'empty for a number of years'. Many of 'us may not know , that that "commercial zoning of that property goes always back to the residential house, which is at least 60 'feet on the radius curve into the west side of Watkins. The aerial photographs show that very clearly. You'll notice that in;each one of these photographs, coining from the different directions, that the buffer that provide the buffer between the R-3`.5, the same buffering that is on these five homes, except that the five homes also have the buffer of the street, the additional 60 feet right-of-way. That buffering is the natural foliage 'that' s been planted there by the commercial property owner in the pass years and yet its had the benefit of time and growth to get to the stature that it is now and the neighboring property owners can't see through it to see what would be developed on there in the normal setbacks of 10 and 20 feet, depending on what orientation that building has. Similarly to the orientation that you have here on the Park Street Square except that you don't have the benefit of the property owner with the foresight in the past to have planted the type of trees to buffer that R-3.5 and so what you and up with is a Shucks, with a small amount of minimum requirements of landscaping which are enhanced from what we use to have in the Code, but a new plan, but very minimal in scale, scope, depth, and width, and certainly not to provide for a visual buffer or for a sound buffer. You do have the Hudson Gas station on one end as an example of what is the beginning of a rational coalition of C-3, right now C-G, commercial general as our new Code calls it and R-3.5. Directly contiguous, not separated by a street and not separated by AO foot buffer or even a 20 foot buffer. Final comments, our that the existing five homes, of course, are owned by myself, Tigard West Development, and GI 3oes. All five homes are not owner occupied currently. - 20 SIR - All five homes are part of the ownership for the development of the property. Final comment, is that on Plain Street, because there will be comments from the audience on wants going to happen if GI Joes doesn't go here, and previous consideration that possibly GI Joes might go back to Main Street, as Steve Janik represented, on behalf of myself, as my attorney, GI iJoes is not going there. There is a major retailer that I have consummated lease negotiations with, and that major retailer will be taking the back' 10 acres of my property. Allowing for the proper updevelopment of the front 9 acres and you will have a major commercial center there, a community shopping center and there is not any room for GI Joes there. Thank you." President Moen, "Thank you Mr. Bishop. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this proposal at this time. In favor.; Okay, we'll move unto those in opposition. Uh, 'I have a list here, we will start here with the top of the list. Mr. Jim Cox. Will you give address for the record please. °'Yes I will. It will take me just a moment to get• my paper sorted out here, it will go faster once I do. I have offered a written sheet stating our position in more detail. I' ll give my address in a moment, I haven't forgotten that. I have copies of it here for each one of the members of the Commission if you wish to have it as a matter of convenience and one for planning staff. My name is James A. Cox, I'm attorney, I reside in West Linn, but my office address is, 3 North State Street, Lake Oswego. I represent, formally, uh, a group of eighteen people who's names and address appear on this sheet, for the sake of the record I won't take time to go through all of them right now. I have extra copies of it here if any of you would like to take a look and see whom I'm representing. Generally speaking, they are the people immediately facing the proposed zone change on Park and Watkins, together with some selected home owners a little further away, but in the immediate neighborhood, I said I am formally representing these clients, I'm sure thate " there is no secret about the fact that an informal committee, called Save Our Neighborhood, was formed some months ago when this project came on line, was being proposed and the people I 'represent, and my fee has been paid by passing' the hat among the informal Save Our Neighborhood Committee. The reason I'm not saying I represent the Committee is because it is amorphous adhoc committee with no real legal existence. But, in once sense of the word they do exist and you see a good many of them here tonight. Uh, Our method of approach this evening, with your permission, is going to be to get right to the point. I'm not going to do all the talking, or even most of it. Uh, what I am going to do is respond briefly to Mr. Janik's comments and to a couple of points about JB Bishop's testimony and kind of set the outline of the points that are going to be covered. Uh, then at that point Mr. Doug` Nicoli, uh, will speak and will address issues related to neighborhood impact, non traffic issues. Uh, Dennis Moonier, will speak briefly about the compliance, or maybe I should say the lack of compliance with the plan standards and the history of the zoning on this piece of property, pre 1983 plan. Dennis Owen will discuss the traffic +mplications, Uh, George Fitzgerald will present a petition, as far as I know that's going to be. our presentation. They may be other people who I don't formally represent who wish to speak, I have any control over that one way or the other. I would like to say at the outset, that perhaps its good tactics for Mr. Janik to anticipate, try to defuse our opposition by characterizing in advance as an emotional response. Uh, I'm sure there is some emotion involved here, but in so far as I and the people that I represent are concerned, we're not going to get up here and beat the drums, we're going to make this a completely, we hope, objective and responsive opposition to this project, responsible opposition. We hope to address the issues. Uh, we don't think it is a Save Our Neighborhood Committee against JB Bishop issue. CWe don't thinks its a us versus GI Joes store issue. Those to us are false issues as many of the things that you heard from Mr. Janik are really not the — 22 — true issues before you. Uh, we think that;the issues here are plan compliance and the integrity of the basic planning process and I hope that' s whate address and hope that we can focus in those things. I'm not going to try to go :through everything in detail, nor are the other speakers going to go through everything in detail that is in are written presentation. Simply for reason of time and your patiences, however, the things that are in here we �. believe are factual and correct and will supplement and add to the other testimony that you will hear from us. Are these documents being assigned Exhibits numbers or how should I refer to this, any particular way." Secretary, "Just your submittal." "Okay, our submittal. Uh, I made some nukes on Mr. Janiks and I'm ,going to follow it through in order. Uh, he said that the purpose of the application is to square off a parcel 80% of which is already committed for commercial use. Uh, in the first place, the proposed -addition of this residential property to the existing undevelopment commercial property adjacent to it is approximately a 38% addition. In other words they are adding approximately 38% and the statics are in our opposition statement. Its not 80% committed. I have, may I pin this up on the board so I can show it to you. Probably not quite big enough of a scale for all of you to see it perfectly, but we do have some color coding on there which may help. The area is indicated in a dashed red lined, or as I understand it the undeveloped commercial properties controlled by the applicants in this case. Excluding the service station on the corner of Park and the Iiwy. which is in a completely different ownership, excluding the Pietros Pizza site, which at one time, not to long ago was under Mr. Bishops control, but is now owned by Pietros Corp. , a subsidiary of Campbell Soup. Uh, little old underdeveloped piece of property which is now used as a appliance store, belonging I believe, according to the Assessors - 23 - mom s record, to some people name t-uty and finally some property at the extreme 4 southerly portion of the track, which not to long ago was developed for some small office uses by Mr. Bishop and is still controlled by him, which is being purchased under a contract, together with involvement of the bankruptcy court. Uh, the property is proposed to be changed is circled in solid red. ' - Uh, the southern most of those lots is Mrs. Treffinger's lot, of course she does still live there. Uh, its owner occupied. Several of these others' were owner occupied until fairly recently, until they received offers they couldn't refuse. I'm not going to talk about the quality of those homes because that's going to be Doug Nicoli's, 'a part of his presentation. But I am going to talk about values now. Mr, Janik mentioned values, he talked about economic benefits and I recognized that sometimes in planning circles we don't want to talk about dollars because' that somehow taints the process. But le=ts do that, they open up the door, lets us walk into it. Uh, of course, sizeable piece of undeveloped commercial property fronting on Pacific Hwy. is valuable. I{ow much is arguable. Its obviously worth a lot less after you take right out of the middle of it, the choices piece and break up the site to put a Piotros Pizza on it, a fast food operation. But even so, the remaining property has, obviously, substantial value. what about these homes back here, the ones circled in red, the subject properties. They are similar in character and quality, or at least they were until they began to be run down a few months ago with this proposal on the board, to all the properties in the adjoining neighborhood. The subject properties, according to the Washington County Assessors office, the five lots together have a fair cash market value of just under $300,000.00, as residential properties. The properties immediately facing this site on Watkins and Park, which are marked in solid yellow here, most of whom, most of who of those people I formally represent on my list. There properties have a assessors true cash value of $745,600.00 and the two parcel down here in dashed yellow, at least one of whom I also represent, _ 24 _ RNA which will become orphans, if you will, if this were to be approved, have a ` fair cash market value for those two of $131,000.00. So we're not talking about peanuts when you talk about the residential values that are at stake here; so don't be dazzled by the jobs that might, or might not be created or the tax consequences of a 55,000 sq. ft. building. Uh, two football fields if r you will, 'uh, GI Joes Store. Plus its not just a GI Joes store, ;read their 1 materials, follow GI Joes ;stated marketing strategy, this is going to be a mini mall, it not going to"be just a GI Joes building, its going to be other; retail users that are going to be constructed there with GI Joes as the hub' tenant under their 'plan. And, I might call it the invisible plan. We couldn't see it when Mr. Janik was showing it to YOU, and that's 'perhaps not to important because you are the ones who have to study it. But the staff hasn't seen it, its not part of the application and anything that you approve here is going to be an approval of a land use, not an approval of a plan. The plan make pretty window dressing. Not out of disrespect, but I've been in this business a long time and we sometimes call it the dog and pony show that you go through, show the pretty pictures. All the beautiful things that are going to happen. Don't be deluded by that, the issue here is land use planning. Should five residential houses, lots fully developed, be converted from single family residential to commercial, that's the issue, not whether GI Joes would be a good store, because indeed GI Joes may not build there. You can't say we approve this on condition that GI Joes builds there. Uh, many of the things that Mr. Janik talked about, the fencing, the trees, the buffering, the offer of a deed. These are all things that are property addressed at the site design/development review level, at that stage of the game, not at this stage of the game which is the land use stage. A conditional Comprehensive Plan change, in otherwords conditioning the Comprehensive Plan change on a development as explained by Mr. Janik would indeed be a strange creature and would completely thwart the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Janik didn't 25 BE report to be a traffic expert, I will give him the benefit of that, but he did t tell you a lot of things about traffic impact, or lack thereof. What disturbs be about that is, when I read their report some weeks ago, I expected to find sometime along the line here a "C112M traffic report, which they promised, and which nobody has everseen. So how does Mr. Janik gain the expertise and the authority to tell you what the traffic impact, either on 99W or the overflow impacts into the neighborhood would be from this zone change. They haven't submitted the traffic study which they promised in there own materials. Uh. The land in question, that is the subject property, has always been single family residential and it has always abutt-od commercial property of one kind or another from the earliest times of zoning in Tigard as I understand it. And that distinquishes the situation from what Mr. Janik was talking about on these other applications. ' Those other applications did not involve, ; as I understand it, a zone change, this was talking about developing land that was already zoned. As contrast to the case before you now, where your talking about adding 38% to a commercial site to allow for additional commercial land to be developed, that's the difference. Secondly, those other applications, or other developments that he referred to where not done under the 1983 Comprehensive Plan and Development Code. They were done under different plans and different ordinances and different times and they did not involve zone changes. So the analogy to the present situation is pretty remoter The old plan and the old ordinances did 'riot have the buffering and screening requirements and the setback requirements and all of the other criteria that must be met under the present plan. It's probably a minor point, I guess I could just simply say that Mr Janik is not a traffic expert or a energy expert, and there is no other evidence in the record to support his conclusion, but I guess that my conclusion is just as good as his. He said that this development would be energy efficient, or this zone change would be energy efficient because people wouldn't drive as far to go to GI Joes, uh, — 26 WIN that's a completely unsubstantiated, unqualified statement. uh, I can equally well say that if you put the store, including the new land, uh, it would bring more people in from further away, or I could also say, and Dennis Owens is ay about this, that if you put that many more ging to have a lot to svehicles fivemiles an hour, they suddenly average on Hwy. 99W and instead of averaging ; energy � two miles an hour and are sitting there idling, uh, howgy efficient is that. There is no minimum parcel size or lot `size on, in the general it was for big developments like `GI JOes. commercial zone. Mr. Janik says Well if you have a big enough piece of property I guess it is. But that's not part of the zone requirement, or, the camp plan requirement. Any size parcel f E is permitted in that zone. Uh, Mr. Janik also anticipated that he was going c to be quoted as to what he testified to on May 2, 1984, at the JB Bishop c E . to quote himI'm not going to read 3 bankruptcy hearing and indeed I am going F all of it, 'althaugh its not to lengthy, but I'm going to make this deposition a part of the record of this transcript of his testimony a part of, this t proceeding. Because the things he told, testified to under oath there are rially different from what he told you here. I'm not substantially and mate going to read it all, but I'm just going to read a couple of excerpts from it, but I invite each and every one of you to read the whole thing. And uh, I'll let you be the judge as to whether this is materially different or not. on udge Sullivan asks him, page eleven of the deposition, Juh, do I understand very desirable for lots of your testimony to be that, while the zone change is reasons, its not critical to the development of the property. Answer by Mr. Janik. "That's correct, its critical to maximizing the value of this total { piece of land, if we don't get the zoning on the four lots behind there is a feasible alternative, which is costly to the bankruptcy estate, but we could move the store forward." Then continuing on on page twelve, line eighteen, or line fourteen, excuse me. Question: "Can I assume then that if the store C isn't built and if the property doesn't go for whatever reason, then that 27 figure agreed upon in the lease is meaningless' as an indication of value." Answer: "No I wouldn't agree with that, your honor, ' I think the land has a value based on its location and its utility and that's not merely a function of the fact that we now have a deal' with GI Joes. If our development fell apart the land becomes worth less. That's what he testified to there and there's more along that same line 'about 'moving the .store and there's also a awful lot about commitments that he 'made to the bankruptcy court about time frames and things that were going to happen which have not proven to be true and I wonder if there are additional commitments and representations to you about what would happen in the future, would be any `more true than what Mr. Janik testified to at the bankruptcy hearing in May. , To point out that Mr. Janik does not wear- any official mantel, in this case, he does not represent the US Bankruptcy :Court. The US Bankruptcy Court supervises and either approves' or disapproves JB Bishops' insolvency chapter 11 proceedings, or things that are done in those proceedings. The trustee or the debtor in possession are the ones he represents, riot the court, the court, the bankruptcy court just like any other judge does not go out and hire lawyers to go out and do land use matters. I resent the fact that he holds out the economic carrot, uh, in terms of additional jobs or additional taxes generated. If that were sufficient reason to do things then I guess maybe we should put a slaughter house down here someplace and it would hire lots of people. And if the existing zoned property, itself, where to be developed to its proper potential, whether its with a GI Joes store or some other store, I don't know, but there's a lot of land there that's already ready to be developed, all zoned. If that were to be developed that would create a lot of jobs a lot of tax benefits as well. So it isn't as black and white as he would lead you believe. With regard to the traffic on 99W, one other point, the traffic corridor study on 99W, I understand, is the only one in the entire metropolitan area that hasn't been completed. So really, in terms as to what 28 — the impacts would be, of that, or the development across the street or any 1 other significant development on 99W, pretty tough to predict, without the ODOT, 99W corridor studies, its not ODOT its one of the governmental agency. Three sides requirement, that the residential property shall not have commercial property on three sides. He said, that nobody paid any ;attention to that on some of these other things he was pointing out. Well, the reason y; is that is the requirement of the 1983 plan, it was "not requirement when those E z developments came 'on line. About, Uh, I understand that Alan Paterson is a real estate developer and or broker, is that correct Mr. Paterson?" Mr. Paterson, "That's correct." s+ , Mr. Cox, "Other than that I have nothing to say about his testimony." , Mr. Paterson, "How about the nine years I spend on this Planning Commission?" s Mr. Cox, "I'm not criticizing you personally . . ." President Moen, "All right, lets stick to the issue." Mr. Cox, "Uh, maybe that should have been in cross examination. s President Moen, "I think so too." r Mr. Cox, "The only other thing that I'm going to say in conclusion is that, uh, 1978, on this very same piece of property, not including the newly rezoned but on the then existing commercial land, Mr. Bishop w ited to put a GI: Joes . store. He was turned down. Your own records will show you the minutes and the reasons behind all of that. Uh, the impacts to severe, traffic, etc, etc, — 29 - 2 f etc, you applied even your more liberalstandards then in effect, declined to ` allow a development of that magnitude to built on that site, uh, so then Mr. Bishop came back with a modified ; plan, which included some office commercial uses, mixed and some 'duplexes along Park, some residential units committed for, ,and other things. That plan was, amended plan of his was approved in 1978, uh, instead of following through with that plan, he took the prime piece of property, right out 'of the middle of it, the Pietros Pizza site, and developed part of it there. Developed the offices down at the far southern tip, the rest of it evaporated. Now, before the ink is scarcely dry on the 1983 plan thein coming in and wanting to change it on the bases of some kind of a mistake or whatever. Because we took the heart out of our 1978 approval and wrecked the site you've got to allow us to move further into the neighborhood in order to be able to now do' what we would like to so that we can maximize our profits. Well, that's what's really behind this application. President Moen, "Okay, Thank you Mr. Cox. , press on here, Doug Nicoli. Unknown Person, "May I ask a question? In fairness do you let them talk on any subject for five minutes or does it have to pertinent to the zone change." President Moen, "We would like to testimony only pertinent to the zone change. Unknown person, "The traffic issue, uh, is not a part of the zone change, I'm not sure." Unknown person, "It certainly is." ( President Moen, "Sir, we' ll accept, see what the testimony is. Mr. Nicoll." 30 r7, for five minutes while he President Poen, "We're going to take a brief brake want to caution you not to discuss. . . . . sets up. Commissioner, ._ Secretary, "Time is ten minutes to ten." Secretary, ,Time is ten o'clock." Secretary, "You are?" SW Park, which is about two doors "My name is Doug Nicoli, I live at 10655 down from the intersection.of Watkins and Park Street. Commissioner Fyre, "Are you on this map here?" Watkins at Park, okay, going to the Mr. Nicoli, ,you see the intersection to left, one, two, three, across the street." President Moen, ,About there." Mr. Nicoli, "Yeah, I think just outside the 250 foot notice limitation, whatever. lf as President of I should also identify myse the Save Our Neighborhood Committee, which Mr. Cox explained to you is nothing more than an adhoc committee, which grew out of the concern of almost everyone living within the boundaries as here shown, (referring to slide). "Mr. Nicoli, could you Director of Planning and Development, Monahan, for the record so that its on the tape. identify each slide as you go Mr. Nicoli, "Meaning, in what manner?" 31 Director Monahan, "When you, slide number one then do your presentation. i Mr. Nicoli, "Okay, your going to have to turn the lights back on a little bit. President Moen, "Staff would we request that these slide be submitted as part of the record." Director Monahan, "Yes, definitely, slide are part of the record. President Moen, "Okay, we'll need a copy of the slide for the record." Mr. Nicoli, "Okay. , As you will note the, well first of all this is the extended neighborhood, I, and, as you will note, the thing that holds us together are the common bond here, if you will, is our dependance upon Park Street, Walnut Street and 110 to get to and from our houses. Staff, "Would you identify the slide please." Mr. Nicoli, "Slide number three, I'm sorry, and because they requested zone change affects five parcels of property which borders two of these major streets, all of us have, or share some kind of concern. Okay, slide number four, uh, looking at the, a little closer; the subject property, if you will. What we have before us tonight is an application to grant a zone and comp plan change, uh, involving these five, uh, parcels. Currently these parcels are 3.5 and this is consistent with the use of this land since it was originally developed in and around 1955 through 1960. Okay, lets .look at the individual parcels now and see what is there and we will start on the top end with, what we refer• to as the Schram property, and I think most of the houses that we are talking about, the neighbors refer to them by the names of the people, or the — 32 last owner occupants. okay, and that,s why we call this .the Schram house. f ' Staff, "That's slide number five. t, a Mr. Nicoli, "That's slide number five. Slide number six is taken from the intersection of Park and Watkins looking at the property. You will notice 'off i to the left side is the peak of a house, over and above the former shrubbery y and also the bushes that existed there. Uh, this is 'a picture of, slide number 7, is a picture of that house. Whether or not this house is capable of ; being resurrected for family residential use, uh, I don't know, It's been , vacant for some time now and Iunderstand that inside there is certain T° aspects, or its certainly not in, the best shape. However, I would like to emphasize that it is on this piece of property that in 1978, that this g Commission with the approval of the City, Planning Commission, or the Plannin or of the neighborhood, said they could split it into three individuals lots c and build single—family residential design. So whether or not this house will be retrieved, the neighborhood is already saying, that if they want to remove j it, feel its uneconomical, go ahead and we'll let you build three other houses, which are probably would be smaller than what the rest of the homes F are in the neighborhood that already exist. Okay, what number am I on? (Staff, number eight.) Okay, number eight shows the location of the spencer house. This is a picture of the Spencer house. (Audience, Nine.) Your right, this is a picture of the Spencer house that was taken last April, the Spencer's moved out sometime in late fall, uh, I think some of the picture E that were presented by the applicant showed this house, uh, in a greater state ! E. of (end of tape). . . . last December, as Mr. Cox indicated, when they got a offer they could not refuse Uh, as a idea of how meticulously they keep the inside and the outside of . their house, just look at the hedge in the foreground. Eddie did that himself, perfectly square. He was okay. Am I on — 33 number ten. This is the location of the Klumpke house, this is currently not occupied, has been a rental and was until May 31st, was owned by the former owner who did use it as a rental. Again, this picture was taken this weekend, the yard has not been maintained since May 31st, but as I- will show you in a minute the renter who lived there kept this yard, uh, also the house, well maintained. Number twelve, this is showing the location of England House, a picture of the England house taken this past weekend. Now, the renter who lived until May 31st in the house next door, moved in this house on May 31st. You'll noticethat as a renter he does maintain the property in a very appropriate way. Okay, number fourteen, this shows the location of the Treffinger house and this is a picture of the Teffinger` house. Uh, until tonight when I gleaned a glance at the back of some of the pictures that Mr. Janik was showing, it was unclear touswhether or not this property was going to be included in the development. We know that Mrs. Treffinger joined in with the other developers, or with the developers in asking for the zone change. It has been stated by her daughter at NPO meetings that the main reason she joined was that she felt that if the house, if they were going to change the zone designation on the rest of the property beside her that the only way she could save some value for her house would be to also, to go along with the, and also have it changed on hers. Now I understanding, looking at the site proposal, uh, designs which were presented her by Mr. Janik, this house, in fact, is not designated, or will riot be part of the proposal. Okay this is slide number 16, and again all I want to do here with slide 16, which is of the Spencer house, slide 17, which is of the Klumpke house, and 18 of the England House, and 19 of the Treffinger house is emphasize again that these houses, in and of themselves do not warrant removal or destruction to make way for commercial development. They have been an intregal part from the very beginning of ou-r neighborhood and the people that have lived there have been intragal part of the neighborhood. In fact this is the Treffinger house 34 - Mrs. Treffinger, tonight { John Skourtes, "I thought you said five minute limits, Chairman," your being unfair, he's been going on for ten." (Several people' speaking same time.) President Moen,' "Your out of order Mr'. Skourtes."- John Skourtes, "This is completely irrelevant, we don't want to stay here half the night. Okay, so someone lived there for 20 years, so what." President'Moen,, "Mr. Skourtes." John Skourtes, "I thought you said five minutes limits. Your beirig completely unfair in running the meeting." President Moen, "Okay, duly noted. Go ahead. Doug Nicoli, "As I was saying, Mrs. Treffinger is not here tonight, I understand, she is taking' care ' of Mr. Fred Brown, so that Mrs. Brown, who lives down the street, could attend. The neighborly thing to do. Okay, my problem here is that I have had a couple of slides that were put in . . . . . . . . . Uh, number 20. Some of the results of the change, that's what I want to discuss now, in the, one of the main things is that there will be an € encroachment into the residential area that is established. Uh, the borderline right now 'between the, uh, neighborhood and the commercial general J property is that back property line. Once that property line is crossed there has been encroachment and I think that's a violation of what we find in the comp — 35 — ON plan. Also, changing the zone designation on those five residences is going to isolate two homes at the south end of Watkins and probably,, if Mrs. Treffinger's property is not included, it will isolate her house also. Now this is Mrs. Gilberts home ,at the far south end and Mrs. Parrot's house, number 23, next door. Both of these, again, are well maintained, high quality homes and one of the results, like I said will be to isolate them, out there kind of in no mans land. Okay, the last thing I would like to talk about is applicants are making a big deal out of the buffer situation, because the Y promising that will buffer the development substantially from the neighborhood. I submit that the buffer that exist along the back property t line, these properties, provide a more aesthetically appealing buffer and its one that going to be because it is established, it is going to be more efficient. Uh, skip over, this is Mrs. Brown's residence. She lives directly across the street from where the Spencers lived. Currently this is the view that she has, uh, frum her from house, and that's number 26, the Spencer house. First of all notice the treeline which is behind their house. Now g this house and those trees will be removed and be replaced with something like , this. This is a picture of the GI Joes store in Beaverton, taken from approximately 120 feet away, which is the same distance from Mrs. Brown' s . front porch to about where the closest area where the store could be set. I t don't know where they are going to put the store, but this is about the closest area, distance the store could be provided. There's been much made about a five foot, uh, fence with slats in it, uh, but that certainly does not i cover what appears there. There's also been much made about planting, or there was mentioned in the narrative by the applicants of planting established ten foot, fifteen foot trees. The tree on the right is approximately 10 feet tall and its going to take a long time for that to develop sufficiently to t� further hide the building." 36 ON . Director Monahan, "This is number 29, but we are sort of getting into some of the Site Design Review process that the attorney spoke of earlier. Mr. Nicoli, "Right, okay, I will go on then, slat fence, typical slat fence. ' Number 30, uh again, this is pictures of trees that are approximately eight to ten feet tall behind the GI Toes store in Beaverton and again at this time I am about 110 feet away from the store. Okay, I guess I'm going to skip all,: right through all this. What I was trying to do in here is show you the houses that exist at the present time, and there relative location to the project and indicate that the :project itself, by coming into the property under questions, thesubjectproperty, are going; to provide the same kind of front door or back yard, if you will, view for these people in these homes.` okay, I want also to emphasize that the existing, uh, vegetation on-the back line property, the back property line, of the subject property, properties, is well established, it is going to provide a better and more efficient more aesthetically pleasing screen than could be developed for many years by the developer. This is a picture taken from the larger pieces of property looking towards the Schram house. Those trees, the taller trees, are either on the property line or very close to the property line. This is picture from the roof of Eddie Spencer's house. I think I pointed out once before the trees that were behind there. You can see the fence, you can also 'see that those trees which are very mature, uh, a provide a very good screen, uh, are all within that fenceline. picture taken from the back of the Klumpke house, its the same situation, well established buffer, some deciduous, some coniferales and again this is a picture taken from the England house. Uh, and I, uh, what I really want to emphasize here is that the houses and the existing back property landscaping is going to provide a much better, uh buffer, than the developer could ever hope to fulfill in there That about all, that's all I've got " 37 i President Moen, "Okay, Mr. Dennis Moonier." p a "My name is Dennis Moonier, and I live at 10634 SW Kirk Lane which is this I residence right here and I will adhere very closely to the five minutes. I do i want to begin by saying that neither myself or the Save Our Neighborhood Committee are here to oppose the commercial development on the CG parcel in question. I'm not here fighting against any specific development at that { location, however, as a citizen of the community I'm here to speak about the preserving the integrity of our land use planning process and comprehensive plan and as a resident of the immediate area I am here to address the adverse impacts of commercial encroachment into established and viable family ` neighborhoods. The Tigard West application states, and I quote here. "The purpose of this plan "and zone change is to bring this strip into conformance= r with existing commercial designations of land fronting Pacific Highway, if the change is not allowed the effect will be to create a conflict between this strip of residential and the commercially planned portion of the property." First of all I want to reiterate that this is not a isolated strip of residential land, it is the eastern limit of a large residential area. Second, there's no historical precedent in Tigard's past zoning, comprehensive plan or commercial development proposals that any conflict in these uses is present. As a matter of fact, I was a member of the NPO committee at the time this was changed from CP to CG and at that time it was my understanding that the plan change was made simply to bring that parcel into harmony with existing and new comprehensive plan definitions and the existing surrounding uses.' I would like to quote only a few of the pertinent section from the comp plan, because there are a lot more quotes in the presentation given you. Section 6.3, states and ' I quote, "A major concern of the community is the viability of established residential areas and the effect of these areas from change and growth. The intent of this plan is to use buffering, screening and - 38 — SUM: V -- MEM transitional techniques." Policy, 6.3.1 states "The City shall direct its land {F use actions toward the maintenance and improvement of established residential' areas." 6.3.3 "In all phases of the development approval processin a' residential "Established Area," 'a primary consideration of the City shall be to preserve and enhance the character of the adjacent established -areas." Section 12.2, it is the intent of the plan that commercial areas be planned at a scale which relates its location, site and type of stores to the trade area to be served and that surrounding residential areas are to be protected from any possible adverse effects. Policy 12.2.1; President Moen, "Sir, we are familiar with the policies in the written testimony has spoken to that. Mr. Moonier, "I just, I am trying to reiterate and emphasize the polices of the plan that state that a primarily consideration of the plan is to preserve residential areas, from any adverse impacts, that statement is used any many places. Approving the the zone change to allow commercial encroachment into residential areas does riot preserve and protect the residential area. It doesn't do it here and it doesn't do it in the next location where the developer simply wants more land to build bigger stores. Buffering, screening, and locational criteria, not demolition, are the methods that the planning uses to protect existing neighborhoods, The comp plan already requires this and as Doug showed, there is at least a good start on that screen in that area. The comp plan would require additional screening in addition to that. The existing CG Site has all the capabilities of sustaining the applicable locational criterial without a zone change. In fact there alreadyis a commercial development planned approved on this site. The history that Jim Cox talked about, is that in 1978, a GI Joes proposal was made at this location and the Commission denied it on February 23rd. The 39 - A. Ur reason for• that was 'traffic, size, and scale and proximity to other locations such as this that were proposed or 'already been developed and the adverse affects on the neighborhood. The developer then,designed a conforming use to the 'CP site, however, in the -interim he 'revised the plan and immediately jumped on that to come in with the big proposal again. In fact, he seems to have made it even more outrageous in scale than it was before, because he wants to add additional uses on that site and take away residential uses. In conclusion that it must be keep in mind that this is an application for a comp plan change and zone change, ' however, the majority of the application addresses itself to plan concerns. The real questions here are not how big the 'building is to being constructed on the site, or how much screening is required or whether street rights—of-•-way ,need to be dedicated. The real questions are, :is the zone change a reasonable and logical land use decision ( and if so is it consistent with the comp plan and I don't believe it is. President Moen, "Thank you sir. Dennis Owens." "Good evening Mr. President and members of the Commission and City staff, My name is Dennis Owens of 10945 SW fairhaven Way. I will discuss some of the traffic concerns we have. In the interest of brevity and clarity, the reference to various documents are cited parenthetically in your copies, and I won't read them each as I go along. And I want to say very briefly that I am not a traffic expert. This is a result of a research project into the traffic aspects of the code and various other traffic reports effecting planning in Tigard and other documents that I've gone into and I'm not presenting myself as a traffic expert but just raising questions. The applicant states that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change requested will not add any vehicle trips, since the area of the Plan Amendment will only include a small portion of the store. Their basic contention, however, is that the site is 40 — i inadequate without the change and if that is true, then the entire traffic addition can reasonably be assigned to this plan amendment. However, analysis of the site indicates that approximately 6.1 acres of land zoned General Commercial in the parcel is entirely undeveloped. The proposed store would occupy 1 1/4 acre, required parking less than 2 acres. This leaves 34 ' r acres for landscaping', setbacks and •buffering, plus a considerable amount of ', additional commercial development. In excess of 20,000 sq. ft. of further retail space and required parking is possible, 'without the additional land ' covered by the camp plan amendment. Therefore, enlarging the commercial, zone available for development by 38%, as requested here, increases substantially ' the future vehicle trips to be generated by, the intensive development anticipated on this site. I won't read this section, I have, gone into the trip generation tables of the Institute of Transportation Engineers and estimated some trip generation factors for the site and then added in for the additional development that seems possible and the further additional development, that would be enabled by granting the plan amendment. Carl Buttke's, 1979 traffic study done for NPO # 3 counted about 25,000 trips per day on the affected area of Pacific Hwy, Oregon Department of Transportation counted about 28,000 in 1982. According to my estimate which may very well be wrong, it would seem that the comp plan amendment requested here would alone add 1/3, or more, in otherwords about a thousand trips of the traffic per day growth that occurred over that seven year period on that stretch of Pacific Highway. The LCDC transportation goals and the comp plan both speak of minimizing adverse social and economic costs and of developing a safe transportation system. The applicant says that this development will not create traffic hazards. According to the comp plan seven of the twenty most hazardous intersections in the city are on the stretch of Pacific Hwy. most affected by this proposal. The comp plan discusses the problem of motorists diverting onto residential streets to avoids hazards and congestions. Approval — 41- of this comp plan amendment will only exacerbate this hazard. The applicant first states that no vehicles will divert through that neighborhood, then later hope that they won't to any appreciable degree. The-CH2M Hill report, entitled "Traffic Impact Analysis" with the Main Street center prepared in March of 1982, admits to the inevitability` of diversion through the adjacent local streets and for that particular project estimates the degree at that diversion at 4%. for the following reasons, this proposed 'development; seems likely to cause even more, traffic diversion onto our internal streets. The Buttke study found that about 12% of all the traffic in the NPO N 3 area entered and left by each of SW 121st and SW Tiedeman Ave., both on the 'north. Y A shortcut from Washington Square, with traffic and signal bypass to this site would follow Greenburg, Tiedeman and Walnut. The congestion developing at Pacific Hwy and Walnut could be .avoided by .cutting through the neighborhood on Watkins to Park, From the Greenway area the route is 121st and Gaarde. Both the comp plan and the Buttke study refer- to the volume of through traffic already utilizing Gaarde Street. By cutting through the neighborhood on 110th and then on Park, traffic could access this particular site by making a right turn onto Pacific Hwy rather than by fighting across and making two left turns across Pacific Hwy. from Gaarde and then into the site. While the applicant asserts that there are no substandard streets affected the comp plan admits that many of the collector streets are now below standard. Gaarde, 110th, Park, Watkins, and Walnut are all classified as collector streets, all are in or adjacent to our neighborhood, all will be affected by this project, and none of them comply with standards. The impact on all of these substandards streets would in fact be also exacerbated by granting this ' comp plan amendment. The internal neighborhood streets most affected are also all particularly hazardous. Watkins is a narrow and winding street with a rise and curve coinciding midway to create a blind hazard. 110th is only, well its called a half street improvement but it isn't really, because it isn't curbed, 42 — l there' s no sidewalk, its just a half pavement width ;with a: ditch on the side from Garden Park Place to Fairhaven Way and is the balance of it is hilly, winding, narrow and very`'much of it is blind. The completely blind, hillside, 90: degree intersection of Park and 110th is terribly treacherous. The proposed development raises questions about both hazards and congestion on PacificHwy and on the collector streets. The comp plan and the '`traffic studies repeatedly' cite the increasing congestion and hazards as causing increased diversion onto internal residential streets. The city and the developer have an obligation to address these problems so that whatever i development occurs on this Parcel does .not spill traffic hazards into our neighborhood. Again, these problems would only exacerbated by the granting of this comp plan amendment. And finally, the applicant says that the additional vehicle trips can be accommodated within the existing capacity of Pacific Hwy. And as Mr. Cox referred to earlier, Metro is now working but has not completed the corridor study for Pacific Hwy, so this is entirely unknown and it premature to say that it is. Thank you. President Moen, "Thank you Mr. Owens. George Fitzgerald." "My name is George Fitzgerald, I live at 13145 SW Watkins, I am a member of the neighborhood group opposing this zone change. I would like to submit to you a petition signed by 184 members or residents of this neighborhood who also oppose this zone change. This number, 184, represents a very ' large majority of the approximate 200 homes in this neighborhood. The petition reads as follows. We the undersigned being residents of the area circled on the enclosed exhibit, which I will make available to you in a moment, oppose the the rezoning of Washington County Tax Lots 4700, 4800, 6100, 6200, and 200. Said lots being adjacent to Watkins Avenue, oppose the change for R 3.5 Single Family Residential to Commercial General. 0ur opposition is based on one or — 43 — more of the following reasons.l 1. This is an established high quality residential neighborhood. Any commercial encroachment into, this residential area will destroy the character of the iexisting neighborhood. 2. Any commercial development requiring such a zone change will be totally out of scale with adjacent uses and will adversely effect them by increasing beyond a reasonable point traffic, ' noise', glare, dust, and loss of privacy. 3. The safety and well being of the many children in our neighborhood will be jeopardized by the unreasonable increase in traffic, noise, and unnecessary exposure to a unknown transient population. 4. Ingress and egress to this development will create extreme traffic congestion and. hazards. Arid 5. This developmental proposal without the need for rezoning residential property was rejected by the neighborhood and City Government in 1978. There is no reason to 'reconsider that decision now. This is the petition and I have copies for each member. President Moen, "It's sufficient to leave it with the staff. Okay, thank you sir. Uh, Ted and can hardly read your, Ted Pazde. . "Pazderie, I'm Ted Pazderie, I live at 13435 SW 107, adjacent and effected by the area that is under consideration for the zone change. I'm in opposition to the zone change because of the precedents that could be set, or that could be and will be set by change, by taking residential property, high quality neighborhood such as this is and changing it into commercial and I do not see where there is anything etched in stone that says, when you people are no longer on this that the safe guards that were brought up by Mr•. 7anik, would still be in effect. So I see no reason to change this at this pointand everything else I have to say has been covered. Thank you — 44 - President Moen, "Thank You. Jeanette Kromer. i f "I'm Jeanett Kromer and I live at 13465 SW 107th Ave. My point in this is that as a mother I have threechildren right now that are walking to Charles F. Tigard, uh, its my understanding that there are 26 to 30 elementary age area and children which have to go along the Park Street -an equal number of i preschool who have to take the same pathway and I feel that by bringing the zone change in and allowing this store to be located closer to the street its 4 t more of a safety hazard, even considering the sidewalks, 'I still feel this a F , greater hazard to the kids to be walking along the back and side of' a store f than it is to be coming up along a residential area until they can turn off f ' s onto Grant Street, as you can see on the map. Uh, and I just want to say that s I oppose it and I feel it should be taken into consideration that it is very E close to an elementary school that we are making this. i President Moen, "Okay, thank you very much. Uh, Jim Nicoli." "My name is Jim Nicoli, I live at 10710 SW Fairhaven Way, which is within the S neighborhood, I think the location is important. I have several items I was going to point on and I think that the group this evening dial an exactly job of presenting a lot of facts and a lot of very relevant facts. Uh, a couple of things though, I guess I would like to maybe dwell a little bit heavier ` on. GI Joes has, from what I've considered, thrown out a carrot to the # neighborhood, uh, one that has no substantial need. That is that they are going to deed over to the City a large piece of property and have it landscaped. Uh, then give it to the City so the the City can assure that they never walk across it or drive across it and I want to propose, uh, that that's one of the biggest jokes that I have ever seen. First of all the City, I don't feel is in a position to accept property to landscape it for a developer — 45 — M- HOUSE and then to be the watchdog for that developer to be sure that they don't go over it. I also feel that, uh, that these thing, uh, were mentioned sooner that only last a year or so and people forget that the offer was made, that that's what the piece of property was originally intended for as a buffer zone. It would make an excellent piece of property to originally expand on and I'm sure that GI Joes, 'uh, would pay a very substantialfee to buy that back from the City. Uh, and so I consider that a-very void offer by GI Joes. I would suggest although, that if that is done that a more substantial offer by GI Joes would be to put very severe deed restrictions on their property, k those deed restrictions would lie with their property . and legally prohibit them and that would be enforceable in court, and their offerthatthey made, I just find no bases for it. The otherthingthat hasn't been discussed this evening at all, or even touched upon is the fact that, if the subdivision is allowed to move up to, or excuse me, the development is moved into the e property in question, up to the street, you now open up access for juveniles, s uh, who don't always pay attention to fences or trees or whatever is in their way and I would suggest that if the houses and the properties stay as they are and people do eventually move back into those homes, that they are going to refrain from allowing kids to enter through the back property line. Fences or no fences, whatever, but they are going to protect their property. If they move up to the street, then you leave that whole street open for juveniles to move through there to disturb the landscaping, climb over the fence and again, neither the City is in a position to put a police officer out there to stop that kind of activity, its the type of things that makes neighbors mad that have to sit and watch this type of encroachment take place, and I think that those types of security problems ,and everything have not been discussed by anyone and I think they should be considered. The other thing that's been mentioned, I .just want to suggest .that GI Joes talks about 120 jobs for construction people, that's fine, they talk about 60 jobs permanent. I'm not in — 46 — 4„ favor of throwing anyone out of a community , that's bringing jobs to the f community, I just like to suggest that I think that most of the jobs that GI Joes is going to offer is minimum wage type jobs. I don't think they pay all of their employees 30 to 40 thousand a year. I think that there are some people in that store that will make that kind of money. Uh, if the property is left as is; uh, and be developed, I think, uh, GI Joes has said in court that they said they will still go on, uh, that's kind of up in the air, but whoever moves into that property, those jobs may be more pay, if they are smaller businesses ,people are going be, uh, sustaining it themselves and therefore paying themselves a little bit more money. They, I guess the last thing, I= had several more things things here I 'wanted to "say, but one thing that hasn't been said by, again ,by anyone here this evening, uh, the neighborhood first was begun in 55, 56, somewhere in that time, zone`, uh, I moved into that neighborhood, 'uh, oh, I 'must have ,been four or five years old. Uh, lived there, I believe there are occasions when the Planning Commission can justify allowing commercial development to move into a neighborhood, I believe that there are times when there are grounds to allow that type of thing, but I guest I wanted to point out why, uh, in this case I don't believe so. This neighborhood, and you look and the entire neighborhood, is a_very well maintained neighborhood, this neighborhood has 5 continued to grow, to develop, people have added on, uh, landscaping, you drive through the neighborhood, you see beautifully maintained homes. As I walked through the neighborhood today I see people that have been living there all their lives and their still living their. I don't think that this is a declining neighborhood. I think it is a very positive neighborhood and I think it has a good many years of being a neighborhood. There's nothing in the neighborhood except for the five houses that GI Joes and the developer have left go to extremely poor maintenance. I'm almost ashamed to see those homes and what these developers have allowed them to become in the last four or five — 47 a months. I 'think' its a disgrace and I think that we can look at that as what there intent is when they do move into the 'neighborhood, that's the type of thing that they have to offer us. My finally point that I would like to make, now I'm not very good at this, this is my nephew, I don't know if ,my brother signed up to talk or not (Comment from audience, he did.) . There are, right now there are four Nicoli's living in this neighborhood that exist. This is the third generation Nicoli that I'm holding here. I think that this neighborhood is going, to be a very positive thing. When he becomes of age, that he will be able to live there too, if he so desires. I can't leave this with you, as evidence, uh, _I would like to end my presentation there. Thank you. President Moen, "Donna Grossman. We would appreciate it if, we would appreciate it anything that you can do to help speed the testimony along and not repeat what other people have testified to." "Sure, I'm Donna Grossman, I live at 13485 S.W. Watkins, and I just want to show you where I live because I think that its relevant, significant. I live right here, so I'm one of the houses that will face GI Joes, or the back of the GI Joes and I would just like to say that some of the things that Mr. Nicoli, the first Mr. Nicoli said about the buffer zone, some of the slides that he showed. You know a twelve foot tree is not going to hide GI Joes building and the trees that he showed in his slides, obviously are hiding, or would hide a building that was built back there. And when we bought our house, uh, three years ago, one of the things that we considered was the noise from 99 and we actually went into the yard and waited there and listened to the traffic and you can't really hear the traffic, uh especially from our back yard, but from our front yard its very well buffered and by a line of twelve foot trees and a fence, I don' think, I'm sure that the noise from 99 and from — 49 — a , RM the parking lotwillnot be buffered to our house. Uh, another thing I would ( like to say isthat ,visually, I: think that anybody in this room would 'rather look at a nicely keep house, than look at a fence with twelve foot trees and see ` a building and parking lot behind it. uh, I don't think anybody ,doubts that, if they were -buying a house, if you consider buying your own <house, which would you rather look at and that's what I will be looking at if the GI Joes goes in. I would also like to re-enforce what that 'second Mr. Nicoli said about what's happened to those houses; since the renters moved out. They are really very unkept and we are tired of looking at them and we both, all feel that if this is what these people our going, if this is how 'these people are treating us now, do they really care about us, about what we are looking at. Obviously right now, they don't care about what we are looking at, and we don't think that they will care once; they :put the GI`Joes in. Another thing just on the traffic, uh, and this thing was covered by the person who talked about the traffic, I think really well, but I would just like to say that's how, to re-enforce that personally I live in this neighborhood and that is how -I get home from the whole area back by Fowler Junior High and Washington Square and there a lot of residential neighborhood back in that area and that's how all of those people access 99. Because that's the quickest way, you don't have to deal with any lights. So personally I would just like to re-enforce that I'm positive that the traffic will use that route. Also, that I have a two year old child and so does neighbor who lives two streets down who is on the corner of Park and Watkins and those two children will be living on that street will be having a lot more traffic and that's another thing that we considered when we bought our house, is the amount of traffic that went by. And then another thing is that the applicants were referring to this, as a real emotional reaction that we don't want this here, but, I think if you were in our position and owned a house in that neighborhood and were thinking of reselling the house within the next few years, now that's not a emotional reaction, to realize that the value of your house is going to be significantly 49 - 5y W .,b«s •.. .YYpr.. depreciated by having a< GI Joes being the scenery from your house. That `is not a emotional reaction that is an economic reaction to my husband and I. Thanks 'a lot. President Moen, "Thank you. Uh, Duane Ehr." F ; "My name is Duane Ehr, I live at 30425 SW Park, which would probably be the 4 center of the yellow to the 'north of the empty lot.' I wanted to commented on but, it was primarily was aimed at, at a major the application as a whole, commercial development and the economic advantages it was going to bring to the community. As far as I can see, right now the only ,economic things that uction of five estimated $80,000 homes to are going to happen are the destr 3 i' start 'r with, , that have been there for 30 years or more. Which I don't think should really happen. They talk about abutting residential neighborhoods with 3, ( commercial development, we're not talking about abutting the, we're talking about the residential zone change as you are well aware of . I live right on the corner from the proposed zone change and I just feel that its grossly E unfair to the people who live there, myself, uh, all the neighbors that would be abutting this commercial development as our investments would be grossly ff taken away from us if this zone change were to happen. Probably loses alone, uh, would come to no less than 109°, property value loss, which was quoted to me by JB Bishop at the March 26, NPO meeting. I don't really believe, myself ; on a economic standpoint, my neighbors can really afford to have the -none change go into effect and have a major commercial development built on our afront doorstep. It just seems very unfair to me and to my neighbors and I E think, and I appeal to you, Planning commission, that you see in our favor a held keep our beautiful neighborhood as a residential, keep our residential as residential and commercial as a commercial development. Thank you. — 50 — : President Moen, "David Nicoli. okay, Charles Atherton. (both had 'left) Bob ' Bledsoe. "My name is Bob Bledsoe, I'm chairman of NPO # 3, I'm sorry I was late for the meeting, I was suppose to speak for the NPO at the beginning. The NPO did ' k meetlast night and we, after reviewing the earlier proposal and the recent change which involved the dedication of the land strip, we concur with the staff report, that the revised proposal does not meet the objections of the rch 26th meeting as outlined in March 29th letter, neighbors in our Ma especially concerning the encroachment of the commercial property into the established residential, uh, neighborhood, contrary to Policy 5.1 .4. I would like to point out concerning Mr. Janik' s testimony, that he refers to several of the policies and locational criteria which are Chapter 12, those apply in this case where you are transferring property from one use to another, in this case residential to commercial. (end of tape) several years ago, what happened was that you changed them back and forth from one commercial to another, you went from commercial professional to commercial linear and then one they got changed from one thing to another, commercial general so one by but they were, actually the lines were not changed. In this case, what he's calling for here is a change from one basic use to another use and in this case the criteria should apply to his, where it would not apply to an area which was already zoned. He's mixing apples and oranges. President Moen, "Thank you sir. Anyone else wishing to speak in opposition to this proposal. Okay, now is the time for cross examination and rebuttal, uh, we'll start with the audience, is there anyone here that wishes to make a statement with regard to that. . . . . Okay, Commissioner, do ( you have any questions that you would like to direct to the audience at this time. Commissioner Fyre." 51 — Commissioner Fyre, "None at this time." Steve Janik, "Mr. Chairman, when you refer to the audience to make a rebuttal did you include the applicant in that." c President Moen, "I certainly did." Steve Janik, "I'm sorry,, I would like to do so for a few minutes, I . President Moen, "I think that's appropriate, now is the time." Steve Janik, "I have a number of fairly brief 'points. Uh; Mr, Cox started out is argument by -saying, lets talk about what are the comprehensive plan policies and what are the land use issues` and then he spent most of his time personally attacking me. (laughter) I don't think that's particularly relevant. He referred to some testimony in front of the bankruptcy court, the testimony is as in the deposition, which you can read, and is as I said to you here tonight. There is another, there is a feasible alternative of moving the store forward. That is feasible in the sense that there is sufficient land area. Now that is what we were talking about in that testimony and here tonight. You also find that from the point of view of not only the asset that are in the bankrupt estate that I represents, that is not desirable and GI Joes would here tonight tell you, uh, that is not something that they would do. That has been their consistent position. Its been recently even more underscored by the developments. Now Mr. Cox's says that we're going to take 38% of the property, I think that's a little bit inaccurate. What I was referring to when I held up my drawing and drew the triangle, it was the entire piece, both piece that is subject to this change for five houses and the rest of the property. If you look at the facts the totality of of those 52 — two pieces is 10.8 acres.` Twenty percent of that is 2.3 acres, '80% of that balance is what I was referring to is already being general commercial. Just so happens that 2.3, 2.36acres to be accurate, is the strip ;that we are talking about here. In "otherwords 'that's 20% of what I referred to the balance 80% is general commercial. ` Mr. -Cox's written material, he sa„ s there's lots of room for the site that GI- Joes site only needs 1.25 acres. Well that's because you take 60,000 sq. ft, of the store building itself and he says therefore there's over three acres to use landscaping and buffering ` and other purposes. He ignores the access ways the parking and all those other things, In fact the store requires 5.2 acres. Mr. Cox says that its inappropriate to have a conditional comprehensive plan change or zone change. I don't 'think' I need to tell you that in your experience most of the comprehensive plan and zone changes are subject to certain conditions. There was a reference to the 1978 application that was made on a portion of this property, the inference was that because something occurred in 78, it was a denial of the request for change to commercial, you should not now tonight allow a change to commercial even though there's been a passage of six years a change in the plan and a number of other thinks. I think in addition to those differences, in 1978 what occurred was that the property that is not now before you tonight, that the property that was originally CP, was the site of a request to change to allow 'CG. Transcript of those hearings will indicate that the Council at that time had no interest in any retail on that site. That is the 80% that I have been talking about. The five houses that are at issue here tonight was not included in that application and the Council's position was at that time no retail, but leave it as CP. We're dealing with different facts, different requests at a different time. Now the concern, about the GI Joes screening at the Beaverton store. I think that Chairman of the staff accurately pointed out that the quality and the details of that is subject to site design review. Suffice to say that once that issue has been raised here, I won't to negate the 53 — Al 1 L visual inference, that' s not what we're proposing here, we're proposing ! substantially wider, more dense, and different buffer. The Carl `Buttke report is referred to as though it wereto say that there is an inadequate road syFirst of all that report was done in 1975, stem to accommodate our traffic. did not address this site or this proposal, it covered a much broader area as study should not be used to draw inferences part of the NPO thrust. That about the impact from this project today, a number of years later. In fact a - required at this stage of the approval traffic study and report is not process. It is required at the site design review process and one will be provided at that time. What we have here is the fact that Pacific Hwy, which l tate Highway Department, is the provider of is under the jurisdiction of the Ss the access to this site. The State Highway Department has in there commentary to your staff indicated that that highway can accommodate the incremental traffic from this project. The testimony that you've heard by inference from Y' z what Metro may be doing and otherwise, I don't think is really pertinent testimony as to what the agency that deals with that highway has to say and that is that traffic can adequately be accommodated. One, a lady was E S concerned about noise, and she pointed out that trees provide a noise buffer. s Well, the fact of the matter is that I think that you know as a matter of your experience as members of the Planning Commission that more effective of the € more interment buffering caused by trees is the fact that the noise from i Pacific Hwy will hit the building that is being proposed here and that those r noises (laughter) 4 President Moen, "Okay, let the gentleman speak." The noise will be intercepted by the very structure of the building. In fact 4 you would not have the same sound continuation without a building at that site. I guess I have no response to some of the other points, such as the t gentleman — 54 — who brought his nephew up here, I certainly couldn't attempt to respond to s F that. I think what the real issues are tonight, its five houses, a strip of five houses, that if you turn this down you will leave sandwiched and it was very interesting here tonight, as a lot of the neighbors who are across Watkins Street .are saying. Please leave the five houses there to buffer our neighborhood, acknowledging that whoever ;lives in those ' houses, renters, single family owners, and whatever, ;will be performing that function for the rest of the neighborhood abutting this commercial` development which is designated on the plan. The issue is whether that is appropriate policy for you to adopt. It may be what those immediately across thestreetdesire, but fi I don't think its good policy. The next issue is I think, how does a store 60 to 80 feet away separated by this landscaped buffer and a fence encroach, crawl across the buffer and encroach across Watkins Street into the neighborhood. I guess we have 'heard a lot of people say it will encroach and gm r fear it, I ask you the question factually, how does that really ha � y q y, y peen. Given the fact that, again that this neighborhood, in close proximity to Pacific Hwy and a commercial designated area that's already shown on the plan. We don't diminish the neighbors concerns, that's we proposed well more that what is required Code in terms of a separation between ourselves and the residential a neighborhood. But truly don't believe that there are any facts to indicate that we're going to cause any other portion of this residential community on the other side of Watkins to be -change to commercial or to be otherwise affected by this development. We appreciate you attention. Thank you. President Moen, "Any further cross examination or rebuttal. Mr. Cox are you. Mr. Cox, "Is it my turn if I wish." President Moen, „Yes, please keep it brief." — 55 — "I will. If you grant this zone change and comprehensive planchange, what zone 'boundary in the City is safe. This is a zone that, as I 'said before, has existed from the beginning of time, particular location has always been the boundary between residential and commercial and I not going to repeat everything" else- that everyone else has said. But I have a hard time conceiving of any zone change that could not be justified, that this one can be justified. President Moen, "Okay, thank you very much. Okay, close the public hearing. Commissioners, ,its time for comments. Mr. Bergmann. Commissioner Bergmann, "I can "see, obviously many good arguments on both side. I have to say that 'I look at planning as a process ,and not>a product, its never finalized and we established zoning, I thinking back atwhat happened in what happened in this case. Whether it was right or wrong or whether it is right the way it is today or wrong. If there were houses there - when we adopted zoning that land became residential. It didn't necessarily mean that it was good, that that's the zoning that it had, that maybe it t should have been something else, but that's the way it all started. And we will have commercial development on that site, with or without the additional ' land and I liken that very much to the Fred Meyer site of Tigard and I can 4 remember that there was a lot of concern in the Metzger community and E ' apparently the traffic generation out to the rear never• materialized, though } the site is almost the same with Pacific Highway and 72nd at a angle just like i i that. Most of the traffic at Fred Meyer' s still uses the front. That doesn't . mean to say that they wouldn't here. It seems that if I was one of the people g that lived across the street I would really like to have my neighbor across ' the street buffer me, but is that really right if we're really concerned -about the whole neighborhood. I think that those five houses would make an adequate buffer 56 — Probably a forty foot strip, well designed could make just as good of a buffer and therefore not makeone of your own` neighborhood community people provide that <buffer for the development.` I've nottotally made up my mind, I' ll listen to the other comments from the Commissioners and weight some of the testimony that I've recorded here as it was given earlier and when the vote comes I shall vote. Thank you." President Moen, "I would like to take, just a brief 'interrupt the process w here. We're certainly not going to get through all the items here tonight, if uh, I` think we should take a consensus from the Commission, I would say that the subdivision item 5:8, I'don't think'that ,we should, would take action with ' this one, but to put it over, so if there's anyone here for that regarding that. Application S 8-84 and Variance V 11-84,' the Sandlewood Park area. e . 4 (Discussion not relevant to comp plan change item) President Moen, "One other statement I would just like to make here tonight, ' we did get a petition, or a signed sheet here when we started this thing about people having difficulty coming to the meeting. I guess we just want to make comment that we are going to record that and duly noted. I think I object to # that, as to what was said in the statement. Maybe you could make a comment k staff as to regard to the placement of the meeting. Just briefly. { E Director Monahan, "Well we felt that that petition was submitted to us at the time before the hearing actually began and :the end of the first hearing. At the end of the first hearing several people left the room making available S room for additional folks. In addition I think there's a reference there to the meeting location actually being changed. That isn't totally correct in that the location was designated as the Tigard School District, the error occurred in the newspaper advertising but not in the notification that went out, 57 - 09 • F 4 the official notifications that went out. We have had a policy as a result of our inability to control our own destiny, I guess, by not having our own meeting place, uh, we've been in a situation with the School District owning the schools has not allowed us to use Fowler Junior Nigh School for the last couple of'summers and I'm not sure, Diane how. . Secretary, "For the last three years, I've been here we've had to use this. President Moen, "we've met here for some, I just wanted to have that for the record and lets go ahead with Commissioner Peterson. Commissioner Peterson, "Okay, I can be brief. Basically I would like to see a GI Joe on that particular piece of property. But the concern here is that an encroachment on the commercial, excuse the commercial," if we change it would be an encroachment on the residential neighborhood and was there a mistake made from the original zoning was made here with the comp plan. And in listening to the testimony, I feel that the residential neighborhood left as is would be a better buffer than a 40 ft. buffer deeded and treed and I think I would be reluctant to go for a change in zone at this time." President Moen, "Okay, Commissioner Leverett.'° Commissioner Leverett, "Staff what's the current buffer now that will be required for existing commercial zone to that residential zone." Associate Planner Liden, "Well, if there some significant vegetation the trees and so forth, they could be required to retain those as part of the development and then there would be a 10 ftwide landscaped buffer with screen that would be a requirement, 150 'i President Moen, "If the present vegetation was outside the ten foot area j r would they be required to possibly keep some of that as part of site design i J review." Associate Planner Liden, "They could be, although if we get outside of the 10 foot buffer it might become a little more vague on whether or not they would be required to retain it." Commissioner Leverett, "I guess I'm inclined to feel that, I don't whether 40 feet is enough, but, I think that I 'would be more inclined to go with the change of use and make a significant buffer, 40 feet or maybe somewhat larger' than that could be a substantially better buffer than the residential. I guess basically that's my position." President Moen, "Okay. Commissioner Fyre." Commissioner Fyre, "Question of staff to start off with. Is there any guarantee, and I think I know what Lhe answer is, that a GI Joes will go in if we grant this comp plan. So there's no guarantee at all what sort of, is there any way that we can guarantee limited access to Watkins Street. Perhaps through,a site design review." Associate Planner Liden, "Site design review certainly" Commissioner Fyre, "But it would be very difficult though wouldn't it." Associate Planner Liden, "I would say that there would be enough in the plan and in the code to not allow commercial access onto Watkins. But, how access are restricted all the way along and eventually" — 59— Commissioner Fyre, "We can'tcondition , really condition this comp plan change, it would be very difficult to do so." Director Monahan, "I don' t think that you can condition it, I think you have to rely on the language of the Code, as Keith's referring, We believe we have enough protections in the Code that when a site design 'review does come up, we would be able to limit access. And that brings us to another point that Commissioner Peterson raised, the whole issue of, whether or not a mistake was in fact made. Keith" reminded me earlier that our feelings are that a mistake' was not made and that if the Council had 'made a change, intended to change that land to commercial it would have made five additional parcels of lands commercial that. each 'would 'have a legal access to Watkins, you would have five` commercial access to Watkins. It sort of dispels that notion, we feel. f Commissioner Fyre, "Well, we've heard a lot of good input tonight, some of it was very sophisticated, some of it was very emotional but effective. What I try to do myself is to sort through and find some fact, some real facts. What I didn't hear was any compelling reason to make a camp plan change. Compelling reason means that as you say as mistake was made, uh, that commercial development couldn't go forth unless those five parcels were a part of the larger piece .of property. One of the things that I do see and its contained in the criteria here, is that the City shall insure that new commercial or, and industrial development shall not encroach into residential areas that have not been designated for commercial or industrial use, What I see here is a definite encroachment, your taking over five parcels of t residential land and not only that, you have a side encroachment, a commercial encroachment, because you' ll have commercial on one side of the street, residential on the other. If your talking about buffering, its much better to look into someones elses front yard and if you have to abut commercial its much better if the back 60 part of your house abuts the commercial. I think I've said enough, I think you have a feeling of how I'm coming down on this issues." President Moen, Okay, I guess its my turn. Uh, make a couple of comments,`' in looking at one of page two of the staff report it discusses items to, any development code should provide quasi—judicial changes to the comp 'plan, which may be initiated by affected parties and approved by the Council if the Council finds the changes consistent with applicable plan policies. I have a problem with that in this case, ; uh, I'm not sure that it is. The change of physical circumstances occurred since the original designation. I don't see' any `changes in physical circumstances. A- mistake was make in the original land use designation. I definitely don't feel that was the case. Uh, I guess my feeling is that this does encroach on establish single family neighborhood andel guess in that sense I'm opposed to it. I have, looking at the staff findings, uh, I find some of them to be a little circumstantial or not really germane to the issue. On item one, I think the main issue is the change in the use from residential commercial encroach on the established single family neighborhood. That's true, the rest of it, I don't know if its pertinent. Item two, I don't know if that's pertinent. Item three the applicant has not demonstrated a need for zone change. The property leased appears capable of accommodating a wide variety of commercial activities without requiring additional land. I think that statement is true and I agree with that. Uh, elsewhere here in my little, uh, I had one other point I was going to make, if I can find it. It is basically, I think, ,is an established area and how the 1 City shall direct it, this policy 6.3.1, states the City shall direct its land use action toward the maintains and the improvement of the established residential areas and 6.3.3, states that all phases of development approval t process in a residential established area, primary consideration of the Cityrr I shall be to preserve and enhance the character of the adjacent established t - 61 — areas and I guess` I agree with Commissioner Fyre when he`says, ,I think what we have here now, the present state of affairs is the best means of interfacing a commercial area to a residential area. I think what we've got now is the best way to go and changing it would be a mistake. So with that, uh, I think what I t we need, I think 'there a consensus on the Commission, I think what we need is a motion that says what we talked about clearly and supports the' . . . . . . . . , findings, I think. Mr. Fyre. € E _ Commissioner Fyre, "With some help here I'll move. I move that we deny Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 11-84 and Zone Change ZC 8-84, uh, based on E the findings, so stated here tonight," s President Moen, "Based on the findings, uh, as, maybe we can use the findings 'r that, uh, I discussed just now. I think'%we ought to outline those." ' a Commissioner Fyre, "Okay, based on the findings that you discussed, based on the findings of staff in the summary, findings one and three in particular. , President Moen, "Okay, think we ought to strike two." F 4 Commissioner Fyre, "Strike two." President Moen, "Okay, we have a motion." ' Commi3sioner Peterson, "Second." President Moen, "Second, any further discussion. All those in favor of a motion as made and seconded signify by say aye. (three ayes) Opposed. (two no): Okay lets have a roll call please. 62 — a Secretary, "Okay. Don Moen," "Aye." "Milt Fyre" "Aye " "Deane Leverett" "No.-" 4 "DavePeterson" "Aye " "Floyd''Bergmann "No.,' President Moen, "Okay motion carries three to two." a _ 63 _ OEM To: The Honorable Members' of the City 'Council of the City of Tigard, Oregon RE: File No. CPA 11-84 and ZC'8-84. WRITTEN ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION' I. By Whom' Submitted. This argument is submitted by James A. Cox as attorney for the eighteen homeowners named on the: attached list, which includes most of the residences adjacent to the subject property on Park and Watkins, plus additional parties owning homes in the nearby residential neighborhood. The role of the informal Save Our Neighborhood Committee, and the attorney's relationship to it, are explained in the Planning Commission record. II. ' Source and Scope of Argument. An extensive record was made before the Planning Commission,' and a transcript of,the testimony is available to each Council member. Without attempting to be critical of 'Diane Jelderks who had the unenviable job of preparing the transcript from the tapes under extreme time pressure, there are quite a few errors in the transcript which make it sometimes difficult to follow. Nevertheless, the transcript is no doubt better than trying to listen to three hours of tapes -- but it will take some careful reading. In addition to the transcript, the Planning Commission record to be reviewed by the Council contains the staff report and numerous other writings, documents and photographs of equal importance to the verbal testimony. Also -- and this is particularly important for an understanding of the history of the applicant's adjacent commercial site, and to an understanding of what occured on other commercial properties which applicant mistakenly relies on as setting a precedent for what is proposed here --- the Council can take official notice of the City's own ordinances (present and past) and of the City's official actions. This argument will be based on information from those three sources -- the Planning Commission hearing's testimony; the Planning Commission hearing's writings, documents and photographs; and the City's actions and ordinances which can be deemed part of the record under the "official notice" doctrine. -1- RE: File No. CPA 11-84 and ZC 8-84 WRITTENARGUMENTIN OPPOSITION We will not attempt to add new evidence, which indeed we are not entitled to do. Nor will we attempt to repeat every argument and objection made in our written or verbal presentations to the planning Commis- sion. Those arguments and objections are already part of the record and should not be considered waived simply because they are not restated here.' III. Integrity of Planning Process; Timin2 of ApAiication. Tigard's new Comprehensive Plan -- including the Community Development Code was adopted November 9, 1983, effective December 9, " 1983. The Council is well aware of the rthousands ,-and thousands of hours of citizen and staff time which went into the formulation of these basic land use documents designed to ;plan for the City to the year 2000. About two months after the new Plan went into effect, ,JB Bishop filed the Plan Change and Zone Change application now before us. The Planning Commission hearing was postponed serveral times because of incom- plete submittals or at applicant's request, but the fact remains that the ink was scarcely dry on the new plan before the application was filed. If the integrity of the planning process is to be preserved, and if the monumental planning effort is to have real meaning and significance, it should take a very strong showing to justify a significant change in allowable land uses, such as is involved here, only a few months after adoption of t,e plan. No such showing has been or can be made by the applicant. Certainly there was no material change in circum- stances in two or three months. Nor was there any "mistake" in the adoption of the plan. It was a conscious decision to leave the boundary between low-density residential and commercial uses exactly where it had always been -- at the back lot line of the existing houses on the west side of Watkins. The Comprehensive Plan should have more permanence than a sand castle which can be washed away by the next high tide of economic gain to a would-be developer. -2- RE: File No. CPA_ 11-84 and ZC 8-84 WRITTEN ARGUMENT IN_OPPOSITION e IV. The "Subject Property." The property proposed to be changed consists of five developed residential lots covering approx. 2.3 acres'. Four of the homes are good quality, consistent with the residential neighborhood. The fifth home, the northernmost one on the corner of Park and Watkins, is a'different situation. It may be " beyond repair, but the large lot on which it is located is, already approved for three dwellings. See Sec. History of the Commercial Property. The four homes have been occupied and well-maintained, at least until the last few months. The values of these, and of the nearby homes, is substantial and is shown in the record. These homes are compatible with the viable, stable neighborhood which they are on the easterly edge of. They were built in the 1950's and certainly aren't a blighted; area. All of them have mature landscaping (trees and shrubbery) on the rear of the lots which effectively buffer them, and the rest of the neighborhood, from the commercial property to the east. f . F s -3- RE: File No. CPA 11-84 and ZC 8-84 WRITTEN ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION t, V. The ProposedDevelopment of the Property. The change of 2.3 acres from low; density residential to general commercial would add about 38% to the approx. 6.1 acres N of undeveloped land controlled by applicants which is already designated general commercial. As stated by applicants' 'attorney, Mr. Janik, "All of this is to allow us to go ahead and put a GI Joes store on this site." (Transcript, page 4. ) . ~What the applicants don't say .much ;about is the fact that the GI Joes store, "proposed `to be 'a 60,000 square foot building, would be just the anchor tenant --. situated at the rear of the site -- with other proposed retail-commercial buildings situated closer to the front near the highway. GIrJoes itself could be sited on the existing 6.1 acres. But, as stated by Mr. Janik, "GI 'Joes does not desire that . . . There have already ;been other commitments made for . .` approved retail uses along that frontage, which would have to be terminated to accomplish that." (Tr., p 12). See also the parking and traffic circulation lay out of the site submitted to the Planning Commission, showing about 325 parking spaces with blank spaces apparently indicating the areas where buildings would be built.. Thus, what we really have is a case where a GI Joes store could be accommodated on the existing 6.1 acres, but instead of going ahead with such a plan, the applicants want to put GI Joes toward the back and into the area which is now residential, thus enabling them to put other tenants toward the front in the high- visibility, highway-frontage portion. We have no quarrel with the profit motive; but the opportunity for financial gain is not by itself justifi- cation for a Plan or Zone Change. Yet that motive is what is really involved here as illustrated by Mr. Janik's sworn testimony before Judge Sullivan on May 2, 1984, in a hearing held in JB Bishop's Bankrutpcy Court case: JUDGE SULLIVAN: Do I understand your testimony to be that, while the zone change is very desirable for lots of reasons, it's not critical to the development of the property? MR. JANIK: That's correct. it's critical to maximizing the value of this total piece of land. If we don't get the zoning on the four lots behind, there is a feasible alternative which is costly to the bankruptcy estate, but we could move the store forward. (Tr., p. 27; see also the transcript of Mr. Janik's entire Bankruptcy Court testimony which is a Planning Commission exhibit.) RE® File No. CPA 11-84 and ZC 8-84 WRITTEN ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION s VI. History of the Commercial Site. The residential land developed as such. The has always been designated and present commercial site has likewise been designated for some 'sort of commercial uses as far buck as'we have been able to go. The 1971 Tigard Community Plan designated a it "Residential-Commercial." On December 15, 1975, by ordinance 75--55, the Council adopted the NPO#3 Plan and k , designated it "Commercial-Professional." s In early 1978 Rembold/Bishop, Properties applied for a Comp Plan Amendment and Zone Change on the property. We .understand 'that this:was to be for a proposed GI x does store at that time. But the requested plan change from Commercial-Professional to Retail-Commercial was denied. Later that year the parties submitted an amended zone change for a +Commercial-Professional Planned Development overlay. This request was ultimately approved by Ordinance No. 78-55, on September 25, 1978. The approved site plan included a mix of retail and es',alon Park and three office uses plus some duplex g � single family dwellings on 'Parcel A," the large loton the corner of Park and Watkins which remained zoned R- 10 but wbich was included in the overall Planned Development site plan. After the 1978 plan approval the applicant did not proceed to complete it. The choicest, most valuable portion was developed and sold as Pietro's Pizza right out of the middle of the 7.8-acre site. A group of small offices were built on the southerly end on the , highway. None of the less profitable duplexes or , houses were built, as should have bean done to balance out the site plan. Now, after chopping up the 19178 site and skimming rt off the cream, the applicant wants the City to allow the commerical property to move back into the residential area to regain a larger commercial site. . -5� 11-84 and Zc WRITTENIARGUMENTAIN OPPOSITION 8-84 VIZ. Nei hborhood Encroachment and Buffering: the True Issues. The applicants offered evidence of the steps that would be taken to allegedly buffer the remaining residences from the 'impacts of an expanded commercial site. For example they offered to deed to the City a 20 to 40- foot landscaped buffer strip along Watkins, with no access points onto Watkins. There are several reasons why this`,approach puts the cart before the horse. A. The threshold question is not whether adequate buffering could be provided if the boundary is moved, but, rather, whether the land-use boundary needs to be moved at all. Only if it is first decided;that"'the land use should be changed (which is the true issue in this hearing) would it then be relevant and proper to consider the developer's plans for the lay out of the , site and to determine what conditions and restrictions should be imposed to minimize the impacts on the remaining residential neighborhood. The consideration of the plans and the imposition of necessary conditions and restrictions are part of the Site Development Review Process which is not before the Council. Nor should the focus be on whether to approve the change for the purpose of encouraging GI Joes to build. The change could not be approved subject to a GI Joes Store going in. GI Joes might not proceed, but once the land was approved for G-C use, any lawful development for the zone could be pursued. B. From the standpoint of good planning the more logical place to draw a line between residential and commercial land is on back lot lines, rather than separating the uses only by a neighborhood street. A residential street serves to tie a block together, and should not be a line of separation between two disparate uses. Back to back juxtaposition of uses is less of an encroachment into the neighborhood and has less adverse impact on the neighborhood. C. Applicants have called the subject property a "strip" of residential property intruding into a commercial site. This is an invalid characterization, especially since this land has already developed residentially as part of an established neighborhood. This land is no more a "strip," insofar as the neighborhood is affected, than is any piece of property along the edge of a land use boundary. -6- IMF Amm REF: File No. CPA 11-84 and ZC 8-84 WRITTEN ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION D. The boundary is now on well-buffered back lot lines, approximately 130 feet east of Watkins. - No matter where the commercial boundary is, ;either on the present line or at the edge of the Watkins right-of- way, the Development Code requires that the developer provide minimum 20-foot building set-backs and` a minimum ' ten feet of buffering and screening within the set-back area. Thus, if the line is left where it is, the residential neighbors will have not only the mature landscaping on the back of the subject properties but also some additional buffering and screening on the commercial site. But if the line is moved up to Watkins facing the houses across the street, there - would only be newly planted buffering and screening as would occur in the proposed 20 to 40-foot strip. E. Applicants' plan for development does not include the: southernmost of the five lots on Watkins. It is occupied by its: owner, Mrs. Treffinger. Applicants' attorney, Mr. Janik, does not represent Mrs. Treffinger. The offer of a deeded buffer strip with no access onto Watkins could not be fulfilled as to that lot. If the application were granted, the Treffinger property would be in a strange situation -- it would be zoned general commercial but presently used for residential, with no street access except onto Watkins, and without being integrated into the development of the GI Joes/Bishop property. REQ File No. CPA 11-84 and ZC 8-84 WRITTEN ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION VIII. Traffic Impacts. In their written submittal to the Planning Commission the applicants said they would file a CH2M traffic study. But they did not. Our. 'written submittal to the Planning Commission specified in detail the unanswered traffic`concerns, both as to mounting pressure on Pacific Highway and as to' the -short-cut and spillover traffic into the residential streets. These concerns are based on earlier data and studies `which' are cited` in our submittal. There will be enough tough traffic problems connected with the development of the existing 6.1 acres, plus the other undeveloped commercial property in the immediate area and along Pacific Highway. Certainly there is no justification for adding to these problems: by increasing the commercial site by 38%, at least without some stronger' evidence 'than',Mr. Janik°s unsupported contention that the added traffic problems would be non-existent or minimal. w8` PRIME f RE: File No. CPA 11-84 and ZC 8-84 WRITTEN ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION t IX'. Lack of Demonstrated Need. The applicant did not introduce any evidence to show the -public `need' for 2.3 acres of additional general commercial land, either in Tigard generally or at this location in particular. Nor did the applicant introduce any evidence that, if there was a need, the subject land was the only or best available. Nor has the applicant pointed to any Comprehensive Plan provisions which indicate an intention to have'the general commercial lands expand (particularly to 'expand away from the highway into existing residential neighborhoods) , or whichsetup criteria and standards to govern such an expansion. In the absence of all of the above, the approval of the application would be about the same thing as what we used to" call -spot >zoning; and we submit that it would-be contrary to the requirements of Fasano v. Wash- ington County, even as a comprehensive plan amendment. X. Conclusion. The applicant has utterly failed to meet the burden of proof. All of the Plan standards, cited extensively by the staff report and in our submittal to _ the Planning Commission, emphasize the overriding objective to preserve existing residential neighborhoods. This application, if approved, would have the opposite effect. If this application should be approved it is hard to imagine any residential area in the City where the Plan could be relied on to protect from commercial erosion. Respectfully submitted, Ja s A. Cox At orney for Objectors -9- if 1 JAMES A. COX, Attorney - List of Clients for whom formalappearance is 'made RANDY GROSSMAN DOUGLAS NICOLI DONNA GROSSMAN 10655 SW Park 13485' SW' Watkins DENNIS OWENS KEN GROSSEN 10945 SW Fairhaven Wag 10570 SW Park ALEX MACKIN` RANDALL BURKE A 13120 'SW Watkins 10475 SW 'Park DENNIS MOONIER 10634 SW cook Larne GEORGE ;FITZGERALD 13145 SW Watkins VIRGINIA BROWN 13365 :SW Watkins (All addresses are: DUAPiE MEYER Tigard, OR 97223.) ~ 13210 SW Watkins JIM CAMPBELL 10365 SW Park DUANE EHR 10425 SW Park EUNICE PAINTON 10395 SW Park JIM HATCH 13205 SW Watkins BERTHA GILBERT 13610 SW Watkins ALICE PARROTT 13570 SW Watkins KENNETH FORBES 13525 SW Watkins t 4 TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIALMEETING - JULY 10, 1984 _ 1. President Moen called the meetingto order at 7:38 PM. The meeting was held at Tigard School District Board Room - 13137 SW Pacific-' Hwy., Tigard, Oregon. 2. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: President Moen; Commissioners Fyre, Peterson, Leverett;, Bergmann and Owens (arrived 10:00 PM). ABSENT: Commissioners Vanderwood, -Butler and O'Hara. STAFF: Director of Planning & Development William A. Monahan; Associate Planners Keith S. Liden and Elizabeth A. Newton; Secretary Diane M. Jelderks. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM JUNE 12, x1984. o President Moen noted there were some typing errors which he would submit to the Secretary. o Commissioner Peterson moved and Commissioner Fyre seconded to approve ` minutes with corrections. Motion carried unanimously. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATION o There was no communication. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 NPO APPOINTMENT o Director of Planning and Development made staff's recommendation to have John Mayfield appointed to NPO 9# 6 and Christie Smith appointed to NPO 4# 3. o John Mayfield was not able to attend, however, he had called City staff and asked that staff express his desire to become a member of the NPO. _A o Christie Smith was present and explained why she would like to become a NPO member. PUBLIC TESTIMONY No one appeared to speak. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION o Commissioner Fyre questioned if they was any problem with Mr. Mayfield living out of the City. Director Monahan stated the code ': . allowed for individuals who worked or owned property in a NPO area could become members even if they did not live there. Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1984 Page_1 a 11. A 'dedication document including a legal description shall be r' recorded with Washington County for the 3.4 acre park land. The dedication documentwill be reviewed and approved by the City , prior to recording.'' The ' park shall< be dedicated prior to the issuance of Building permits. 12. The applicant shall be responsible along with the other x developers of Winter Lake £orthe grading and seeding of the park. The method ' and timing of the improvement shall be approved by the City prior to issuing' Building permits. 13. This approval is valid for the period of one year. 14. Adjust the buildings at the south eastern end of the project to complete drive north to Park Street and close of the loop. i 15. Staff to seek NPO input prior to approving,the landscape plans. 16. The western half of the 130th Ave. Right-of-Way adjacent to the subject property shall be bacated. The applicant shall initiate the vacation procedure and City staff shall provide assistance to expedite this process. 17. Accomodate any utility easements with the vacation of 130th Ave. 18. Have a two way access onto 135th from Pond Court. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously by J Commissioners present. 3 5.3 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 11-84 and ZONE CHANGE NZC 8-84 TIGARD WEST DEVELOPMENT CO. Request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment . from Low Density Residential to Commercial General and for a Zone Change from R 3.5 (Residential R 3.5 units/acre) to C-G (Commercial General). Located f 10500, 13370, 13450, 13490, and 13530 SW Watkins Ave. (WCTM 2S1 3DA, -lots 4700, 4800, 6100, and 6200 and 2S1 3DD, lot 200.) o Associate Planner Liden reviewed the staff report and made staff's recommendation for denial. s NPO COMMENTS o Duane Ehr, NPO # 3 member, stated that the NPO unanimously opposed r the Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change based on City Policies and neighborhood opposition. # APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION o Stephen Janik, Attorney representing all but one of the applicants, reviewed the site and how GI Joes would be placed on the Site. He stated that they would deed property along Watkins to the City so Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1984 Page 5 there could not be any future access onto Watkins. ( They would also provide a 20 to 40' foot-buffer between the commercial and residential properties. He noted that all accesses were oriented on ro properties, Pacific Highway. He reviewed the zoning on surrounding p p commenting that the proposal does not encroach into the neighborhood anymore than surrounding commercial properties. He reviewed how the licies and the benefits the'project would be plan conforms to City po for the City. He questioned how the staff had applied .the City's policies to this proposal. PUBLIC TESTIMONY Proponents '.o J. A. Paterson, 11605 SW Manzinita,;:supported the proposal. o J B Bishop, 10505 SW Barbur Blvd. 5-303, pointed out that Park and Watkins are unimproved streets and would be improved by this project. This project 'would provide numerous jobs. Also the 40 ft. buffering 'is 20 feet more than the code required. He also "stated that GI Joes would not be built on any other site in Tigard if not here. Opponents o James' A. Cox, 8 North State St.,, Lake 'Oswego, Attorney representing surrounding property" owners submitted written testimony as well as the names of the people he was respresenting. He responded to the applicant's proposal by reviewing the subject site. He commented that this project would not be just a GI Joes but rather a mini shopping center, which is the practice of GI Joes. He stated that the buffering is a site development review item not a land use item. He noted that the applicant had promised a traffic study which had never been submitted. He continued that the subject property has always been zoned residential and the other propertiestreferred development to by Mr. Janik were already zoned commercial prior b Mr. Janik to proposals. He submitted a copy of testimony given y the bankruptcy court, reading portions into the record. He stated that a corridor study has never been completed for Pacific Highway and it was impossible to project the traffic impact this proposal would have. In conclusion, GI Joes had been denied in 1978, now that should the site has been altered with the construction of Pietros, it be denied again instead of encroaching into the residential neighborhood. Commissioner Owens arrived o Doug Nicolai, 10655 SW Park St., President of Save Our Neighborhood showed slides of the surrounding area and the properties included in the zone change request. He emphasized that these properties do not warrant destruction for commercial use. He submitted that the buffer which exists, provides a better buffer against commercial development than the,40 ft buffer proposed by the applicant. He maintained that the rezoning would be an encroachment into the single family residential neighborhood. July 10, 1984 Page 6 Planning Commission Minutes 5 n o` Dennis Moonier, 10634 SW Kirk Lane, wanted to go on record as not ,the existing commercial site but only ,the opposing development on encroachment into the established single family residential area. He quoted :comprehensive plan policies ; which were written to protect established residential areas. He opposed the zone change as not being consistent with the: Comprehensive Pian. 2 o Bennis Owen, 10445 SW Fairhaven, 'raised questions regarding the } traffic' that would be increased if the Commercial site is enlarged. He explained ''how the traffic would impact the residential areas and y the inadequate road conditions. Also it Cass unknown etro fiwhatas o�the completed the corridor study for Pacific Hwy would be. ® George Fitzgerald, 13145 SW Watkins, a member of Save ' Our " ubmitted petitions signed by 184 neighboring Neighborhood, read and s individuals opposing the application. o Ted Pazderie, 13435 SW, 107th, opposed the application 'because it would set a precedent and that the safe guards proposed by Mr. Janik could not be guaranteed. o Jeanett Kromer, 13465 SW 107th, opposed the application. Her concern was for the safety of the children who had to use this route to walk to school. o Jim Nicoli, 10710 SW Fairhaven Way, felt the offer to 'dedicate the property to protect access onto Watkins was a void offer, that a deed restriction would be a better method. He felt if the houses were left it would keep the juveniles from crossing into the commercial site over the landscaped and fenced areas. He felt there would be jobs created even if the site would develope as is. He also stated that the neighborhood is a well maintained neighborhood and is not declining except for the homes that the developer has purchased. 0 Donna Grossman, 13485 SW Watkins, opposed the zone change. Her house the proposed development. She stated they had will face the back of purchased their home because the existing buffer was adequate protection from Pacific Highway noise and the commercial property. If this application is approved it would decrease the value of her home. o Duane Ehr, 10425 SW Park, opposed the application as not being economically feasible. He appealed to the Commission to deny the the residential land as residential and application and keep commercial land as commercial. o Bob Bledsoe, Chairmen MPO # 3, stated that the NPO had met the night before and reviewed the application and concurred with the staff report, especially the encroachment into the residential neighborhood. Also, this application was calling for a change from one basic use to 'another use and should have to meet the necessary criteria.. July 10, 1484 Page 7 Planning Commission Minutes CROSS EXAMINATION AND REBUTTAL o Steve Janik responded to the public testimony concerning the amount _ of land needed for this development. He opposed the use of the Carl t Buttke ' traffic study as not being pertinent to this site. He commented that the'noise would be better blocked by the building than by the existing buffer and that if it was left the way it is the existing houses would be the buffer against the commercial site. He did not feel the zone change was an encroachment into the f neighborhood. o Jim Cox asked if this zone change was approved what boundary in the City would be safe. This property has always been the boundary s between residential and commercial and he did not feel the zone change could be justified. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION o Commissioner` Bergmann felt this development was likened to the Fred Meyer site. He had not made up his mind and wanted to listen to the other Commissioner's comments. o Commissoner Peterson stated he would like to see a GI Joes, but was concernedwith the encroachment into the residential area. He felt �- the residential area as it is would be a better buffer. o Commissioner Leverett was inclined to support the zone change with sufficient buffering. o Commissioner Fyre asked staff if the comp plan change could be conditioned. Staff stated it could not. He didn't feel there was any compelling reason to make a comp plan change. He saw it as a definate enchroachment. o President Moen reviewed the staff report and applicable policies. He felt the zone change did encroach into the residential neighborhood. o Commissioner Fyre moved and Commissioner Peterson seconded to deny CPA. 11-84 and ZC 8-84 based on the following findings: 1. The change in use from residential to commercial will encroach upon an established single family neighborhood. it will initiate the replacement of five residences with commercial development and will probably set a precedent for the establishment of commercial activity on the east side of Watkins Avenue south of Park Street as well as other areas along Pacific Highway. 2. The applicant has not demonstrated the need for the Zone Change. The property to the east appears to be capable of / accommodating a wide variety of commercial activities without 1, requiring additional land. Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1984 Page 8 t 3. Policy 6.3.1, which states the City shall direct its land use {` and the improvement of the action toward the maintainence established residential areas. ` i e 4. Policy 6.3.3, which states that all -phases of the development approval process in a residential established area, primary consideration of the City shallbe to preserve and enchance the character of the adjacent established areas. Motion carried three to two. Commissioners Moen, Peterson and Fyre voting yes;; Commissioners Bergmann and Leverett voting no. I (Commissioner Owens abstained as she was not present for the entire hearing.) 5.4 GOAL # 5 SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS AREAS CPA 14-84 Associate Planner Newton made staff's recommendation to amend Chapter 18.84 of the Community, Development Code to include a new Section 18.84.045 Exceptions for Development in the 108th/113th Ravine significant Wetlands Area. PUBLIC TESTIMONY O Elton Phillips, 16565 ` SW 108th, opposed staff's recommendation stating that the maps for that area were incorrect. E PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED r PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION o Discussion followed regarding how floodplain is determined and how it would impact Mr. Phillip's property. o Discussion regarding criteria number three. o Commissioner Peterson moved and Commissioner Bergmann seconded to word the recommendation to City Council to add the following section: 18.84.045 Exceptions for Development in the 108th/113th Ravine significant Wetlands Area. A. Under the Sensitive Lands Permit process, the Hearings Officer may allow portions of the Ravine at 108th and 113th designated as a significant wetlands areas to development provided that all of the following criteria are met. 1. All of the land (within the ravine) being considered for development is at less than 257. slope. 2. There are no unstable soil conditions on the land being considered for development. Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1984 Page 9 'a CITY CF July 16, 1984 1 IU64 Tigard City Council a Tigard, Or. R Reference your recent letter advising you will consider Application for zone change file No: CPA 11-84 & ZC 8-84. Please enter this and the att,.ched into the record. Whether you are elected or ap•..ointed to positions in city gogeriment, your prime responsibility is to the people of Tigard. The people of the Derry vell/Fairha�en districts have spoken twica: Once-at the NPO 3-meeting and again at the Planuing �;orv.Assion raeLting. The respective com,,ittee's concurred with the people and voted against the proposed zone change. Can you do otherwise? The argument that the Tigard Planning Commission has approved other zone chagges simi.liar to ,the proposed change is not applicable. Each consideration should be judged on it's own merits. Tile proposed change does not affect just property boardering on Pacific Highway but would place Commercial General on Watkins St. and into a strictly residential neighborhood. (See attachement) In May you asked for our support for new city quarters. ,e gave it to ym . NOW we are asking for your support. We request that you vote against the proposed zone change. Yours truly, o�d. Braden 13175 S. W. Watkins St. Tigard, Or 97223 t s s> r r 4 - 4Y'�f 0 n_ a ..a 4 Y.. -.1„ nt:: +:k ra., a •...,i�� F.Tia §h :♦ .ti Y - • R �x a � aY f ,+# M #...ie C n. •d �. � Fn`C .i. W f R 4 �:+ _ �; C f`"«a 3 i�Ar� 't Y - Yom.. i 5+'� ! ,.+ •..Y. �� i Q • '..u v ��t -��.�`, G S .., x r y�$ f k..! °t.T• L r t% h:• ^J $ X ;"F > - _ t -Ell I Ea RA UE-1 NY B-111L I C?hale 53C-9511 1�1� t' �CU'j` .:nE 1oc., 2568 Ste. Main-Tigard, Dr.97223 - Library beard T0: City Council F'ROYI: C i, t - W CL Le\`\': 1„= - ^:S 11 1 0r: i v\' for Wa l tom, O,, was a�pproN ed. D1 �rorer5 O lllnE 6. T'�e LiL cry `> ,c rC and service �J spent Eud�.E.t Ccl�,,lt:ee Will rEC2i_.cilC tG CiL\' Co n��`I t-he c7DrVp'- a iC L.: UB I L'P.Y " 954- '� .Gal �'e8'' TRE LS Lrare will eC c1vE S162,2"7- rCli:.. f'r7E ley�'. .F 2 C 3 IE,, .IDL_._ E_,aC:.ep i.0 �. -u _...1 c r_. Part Pc r t i..0 a^:' a time :'_S CE tie accfr A pool of fire part-time aides rias Gee, ester •I,sREd tG fill the ab a'`nder of part-time hours and to work or. call wnen regular staff aide is Volunteers: Twenty-three volunteers worked a Ictal of 249 hours, dfG - � average of 9.6 hours. `Coms. nunity service persons worked a total of Hour youth Services: Sumner reading program registration totaled 2-14. Last year's 337 This is attributed to reduced open hours. On June 26, registration was David 1 eIc a m.i re, 'nerfo -et ano ave f tem -r este workshop. ti record attend Ed. Circu,at o tnc a roa_, was cJv.'r` OMEWRat, again attributeu .. . �v _fewEr open hours. (A <<torE dE a ped report i_ ava�lab!& at the Library. WORK INDICATORS: June 195 June 193 3 169 7931 Adult Materials �_ 4451 3527 Juvenile Materials 696 17e3S2 Total Circulation 7� Day31 %s of Service 17 63 Average Daily Circulation 5 56 Increase/Decrease Circulation 366'° 4.61 _ Reference/Reader's Advisory 737 Material&. Added 719 10 } nater?als Withdrawn 62 �c Story Time Total 136 Special Programs 202 Borrowers: New/Renewal 169/119=288 276/127=403 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON t COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: July 23, 1984 AGENDA ITEM #: DATE SUBMITTED: July 19, 1984 PREVIOUS ACTION: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Monthly Report - June - Planning and REQUESTED BY: Development DEPARTMENT BEAD OK _ v CITY ADMINISTRATOR: INFORMATION SUMMARY Attached is the monthly report for Planning and Development for June, 1984. Enclosed are: Cover memo - including Comprehensive Plan update Building Division Report Planning Commission minutes and Planning Director Decisions Annexation Report Code Enforcement Report Economic Development Committee Report ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED xsaxxa=axxaa-x=axx=aaaa=x==a==a=xc=axa=aaa===_ _a__=xx._=a=xa-_-xa_=__====xxx__x SUGGESTED ACTION Accept and place La file. 0487P dm3 MEMORANDUM' k CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Members of the City Council July 19, 1984 FROM: William A. Monahan, Director of Planning and Development SUBJECT: Monthly Report - June, 1984 Attached,please' find the Monthly report for June,prepared by the Department of Planning and Development. Elements of the report are: Building Division Report Planning;;Decisions Code Enforcement Report Annexation Report Economic Development Committee Report Building and Planning Activities were below the level achieved in June of 1983. Fifteen single family permits were issued. Compared to 1983, through June, building activity is running lower than 1983. Following is a comparison: Through June 1983 Through June 1984 Single Family Permit 121 104 Commercial permit 8 17 Building Permit Fees 55,950.53 51,852.60 Plan Check Fees 35,225.33 25,620.06 Plumbing Permits 15,170.00 18,104.80 Mechanical Permits 3,006.44 2,623.02 Sign Permits 1,025.00 1,250.00 Valuation 11,662.434.00 10,903,905.00 Comprehensive planning activities in June were directed toward completing all In Order to Comply conditions of LCDC. On June 29, 1984, we delivered a package of materials to LCDC which addressed the various concerns raised. During July the City will adopt a number of ordinances to complete the acknowledgement process prior,, to our hearing in September. 0487P 4 { A l -' MEMORANDUM p TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPART14ENT DATE: July 5, 1984' SUBJECT: Monthly Report for month of JUNE - Building Division � a. June's building activities irlclude permits for 5 sign, 15 single family n residential, 7residential alter/repair,' 4 commercial, 7 commercial alter/repair, 1` fill, 1 grading, 1 religious A/R and 1 swimming,,pool for a total valuation of $2,251,799.00. i x a Fees, for 37 permits $13,338.87 Fees for 5 signs 285.00 ° t a Plumbing Acitivity - 21 2,170.00 c �..,- Mechanical Activity - 20 327.00 4 TOTAL.......$ $16,120.87$20 ' D Sewer Inspections - 17 $ 625.00 g o ® Qo ® o4aoO00000c00000 0 000000 OOOOOoO0000aco ,�' o ®:OO.AOO:. 000'O ® OOO.O.00OOO. O.000OO � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a' O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 ® a' O 0, 0 9 0 0 C; 0 O..O"0 0.O.O Cc; 80 80 Cc; ® O O.O A 0..O 0.0.,0 0 0 r�..vOi O.00 O OQ ® b..O 4n;0 O OO A O O O ,� .. •Q eY ro O6 M SO N 0 Ln O O M O.N -a cn m M N.in r4 r-1 N O r4 r to 4n re W D 10 co qo %n 400:D 10 M n n r:c® CO D a. 10 N N N + r0 o r4 r4 r-4 1-4 ri � -4 rj 4 � R. r-1 r-4 r1 r-1 Pi r♦ �i4 �- @ 4TJ O td 4� ,4 r^4 r^4 .-4 r'4 e^4 co to ca cd 4o w w) go '.d ..+ .N •N ...t e4 ..4 ... ..-� ..+ ed ai 4>1 m d r4..ra ..•1 ..+ •.�:..-c.�.) ..i ,y .1.).:.a-) aJ .�..d� .r+ ..a ..� «s ba ..+ ..a .0 ..+ .ra .0 o 9: 4v.4 S4 O � � .bora .al r4 •0 •re.P. .0 .r4 •r4 .r+ ..� .r• •r4 •r4 •r4 •r+ •.. .v4.r4 .r4 •r+ •.. •r4 .•-1.•eM ' PA W fR m to;.N m..cm C) N V to N to tA! N N to N Q to 4) 4S 4) d 4) 0 6) Q) 4) 4) 41 4) 4) 4) 41 6) 4D tV 4) d N N O 9 O O O O O O O /9 O 7 Cd . • • • (n tft d to r°4 O p �] .� U V O .1.) ••w� ... a �0 L 0 0) � G V) • S& 9.4 •'° co o 4.3 V C ra O � V r4 r1 S4 O O .d R7 .N O m •r�.4 Co W to A O R$ 4) d t 'd 41 'd 'd C f3 N O O i-1 y ...4 to W ® - 4 O O .0 0. O 41 �y Z9 4)3 'd ri 'O r4 3t r4 .ra A. N 04 N M N N Q N <9 M d 4) O R9 Oe N r+ nO G) w 'd O 8® bo W r F- 4 r 4)p r r � ro V 01 H ® C�4 Oa .�.4 O 14 f�7 CO'9 O 0 V k,.1 r+ "X• 'O$+O' ,� m 33 t tA � � � � y3$ m3t � :F 3 33$ to uJ � � � � � � cn � oarrJvswawzen � v3cncr� enw � � 4nNtn00 tnLnL � V9 VJ t/3 t/A ® H U'4 y vy.411 t!9 O 1n O yn � O4nQOO � 4n4n4n 4esO .o .Ln 484n - <>- +'c T nr�•. O4�nvarw cto4n4s4Ar4 � vV-4wtoo4roi0 � $ ® �4 � 4r4MOO 4n 4ntn .oLM0% 110 t� � r�ir� poO 444O4r�4 ®' g,3enrvir'4C9MO+ enrN0un �n •^1 �ON �o � unO00rO+ '� C� Q %0 N CO 4r % 4n N N 4'7 r e7 �p r4 M O r4 r^4 � +A 0% r 04 r4 r4 � r4 r r4 r) r+ 4. r'4 r'4 rn rs e-4 r'4 r'4 .p rd R� O ay' 4 w4 Q) m to (D O 4.1 y4 CL 4D r 4 r4 0 0 Na) &A 0 'd is ritfta 92 c"4) to V 0 'CJ W?•4 W S4 -0 * � O O q OU' 6�'.� dJ w ta-44 V .j r-t � _4 A o S®e rte°°+ O c�7 ® r4 rr4� 36 0 r°4 - ® 4) 4) 0 r-4 cm -4 S+ U to..tea 4S .ea V1 O 4) •r+ 6+ 3!. IV + w Q ® ta ® r�4 'd tea.4 � ...4 b 'd en to P-1 a O a ® O .�.. '� -r4 �' ..4 csi Q t-+ en � rpt 0 b4.4 ra �s q 0 9 4 3a O r�-4 H H °r0° Q) 0 3 ho— Q LO oaoe� a m � ssy � ® e44 � .caa0 r�4 m r4 4f0 m A o O a. n .. S+ c+ �a a r4 44 ra �e Sre Ee A m S4 em w 'ty C to ��.a p w 4 c4 41 m 4A a9 44 d a {yo°sc �s � a� ra � U )a � raQ/� .a4C'A saand3SALa7aaSa &4 �+ 3� R46b+ R+ � c9Z7a7C7C7R� � SIGN PERMITS June 1984 CONTRACTOR ADDRESS VALUATION Sign Cropt. 11525 SW Pacific Hwy. N/A Chuck's Auto Supply 13145 SW Pacific Hwy- 2,500.00 Sign Craft 12264 SW Scholls Ferry,Rd. 800.00 Time Oil Co. 15900 SW Upper Boones Fy. 500.00 Cascade Signs 10830 SW Greenburg Rd- 5,000.00 rt Total 8,800.00 i d O 40 O OD ' p 00 ip~ y N b QI tl � o- M N 10 ;. u ( u tl I v C O O O � N ulto v v v v v v M N 91. u _ tl co 10 1;1 vl NI In 0 n a � v C In .. U DA vpi o r'd o q P pOiO T } Go O N u1 O m O. O) C .5 9 tl Cl 1� O tin 41 10 S co 41 Y > u C a I f • C. 1 k k k I I I i H C a � a C a � w C d cn U. W b a0 0 m a e N a e v ' Q e aa+ o �a V 'O b C 6 C i W S C C C 641 O m O m w :: H U a. W A. W a d W O. W Q I to Odp z a rn m ca c mas v bio m m coI • Cf 61GI14 14 PI Pf PI { It .+ O O < O Q w PZ N y W $ V33 1A A y O y Q O C d I y 9 d i m C O b N a .C. it V r4 N r'i i ? '.3 y m m to .. mca y tbR p d wa D jA } 'C9Is � r I 1 t I L4 I N 1 k I 60 64 b 1� 09 N W W m G 02 bo so G G C W is G a W W W 0.0 W W N P. N rl f I q yp W co co co ep 4 B .o 00 co Wj 1 1 1 1 I co W W co O N a r w N C C4 C4 cq GA ' $ a0to H .G.. o a a a a• a o 3 y 0.0 VI 84 C4 51 14 4 to Ad iA M N w N aho N I ® 7�' a m k 1 O w0 14 00 y N i9 N V 0 93ti 50a ° �. r �aa t r 9 I 1 f a w06a a a a 1 41 w 00 000 r d d y y .✓ y �� a w7 � j td 09 oC d d. N d 1 y 11 v .y ® ® <v NOWN in to i l9 N N • N • N � • . . . r w w .! M .d VI ed CAa o v v m m m w m 1 s < a Go G w w m w 40 co 00 00 w w00 co to Go M '• N NI N j' N ail W W N .O N93 P an of ai+ w M N ® phi 47 O M e•1 N.. d A O i4 R7 e d v u tye w A G9 g� it a9 .p m P' tel 4n co co P IA w y 1 y Aj ri 00) bob* UWUUU 60 u rA w ® a j j -Y H 'va p wd w 0 w W R z 4q i 4< I 1 Ml OR F 00 to to ta se J w om an a.7 .0 eG ea + ! M i a a m a m O a m a m m m m a -w a a a v a a a c o u abi L N 41 111.. aai .13 aJ - L 4 4 4 Y 4 4 4 4 4 4 S j: d r7 m co: s ® m o v e9 ao eYa eai o m d e JJ N .Y Y R9 .N y y so is Ri 'O Al JJ m 4 m A j a a m m m m a. m 4 m m a O a a NY m to rn >n H a a m N �A In cu cq m m m m w mm m m CO m m m m <r s , I i. i .. 1 1 1 f I i o I 1 / m m d d. N N �. d N N W m M1 I d d d d d N N N N N N N cq N N N u'f m 1 1 1 1 i p Id as mliab m A a ® H as G bel Y r V d a 1 q41 ,bi L d j m. b m as 9 4 d M as m A a O C m 4 a/ o- O d N LO .e.b MO CO s'S m m M Oo e W M d M tea. tj rd ve w O O O en O 4 en A j j m n ai N 6 Go v+N N d A .o. Pi co m m N dO y9 M1 a : o O d m 1 O O C ' P2 1 e M M M M M M M M M M W G M M l 4 !! M M N M ®4 N M M m Q g I , I t - L i e � !N N 1 . a I V O ' m 01 a 1 .o a v cv 1 a0+ R C w a cS u o 0 0 � to N y N tog m �` t m a a u a m u u a a Is °m to a 1�ri i�+i c a a Wool w w a 9e14 14 Dftm { - IsY U {`' p I OWN MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Members of the City Council July 19, 1984 FROM: William A. Monahan, Director of Planning and Development SUBJECT: Economic Development Report - June The main topics of discussion at the June meeting were l) survey results and 2) the costs associated with developing in Tigard. A new chairman, Mark Padgett, was 'elected. The guest speaker scheduled for July is Allan Mann of the Oregon Economic Development Department. Total cost associate with the Committe 'amounted to $8.00 to 'cover expenses associated with the June meeting. A copy of the June minutes are attached. 0487P ami TIGARD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES OF JUNE 20, 1984 7:30`P.M., :'PIONEER PIES RESTAURANT Members Present: Patrick 'Kennedy, Vice Chairman; Jim Corliss; Robert Williams; Amo 'DeBarnardis Bob 'Nunn; Mark Padgett; William Monahan, Ex-officio and Diane Jelderks, Secretary. Other Present: Phil Edin, Katie Brand (TVEDC), Iry Larson, 'Nancy Campbell Bill Monahan distributed a packet of information containing survey; results, a Comparative Study of Development Requirements completed by the City ; of Forest 'Grove; a memo on draft strategies, a letter from TVEDC regarding information, and excerpts from the city bond circular concerning econcomic development. Pat Kennedy chaired the meeting in place of Bruce Clark.` The minutes of the May ,16, 1984, meeting were considered. Jim Corliss moved, seconded by Mark Padgett that the minutes be adopted as written. Passed unanimously. ' Katie Brand of the Tualatin Valley Economic Development Corporation (TVEDC) was introduced. Katie pointed out that Pam :Ragsdale, President of TVEDC, will be attending future Committee'meetings. Bill presented the draft survey results which do not include the results of the preliminary test survey. Forty-five surveys were returned. Bill asked for assistance in analyzing the comments concerning experiences with dealing with City staff. A subcommittee made up of Amo, Jim, and Tony was formed to review the comments received. Katie Brand described the TVEDC, its purposes, and desire to work with Tigard. The TVEDC hopes to act as a resource center. The election of Chairman. took place with Mask Padgett elected unanimously -ta-serve-IInt l-i-/16f84, the of tis-ter��-Motion was made try-Jiur,-seZ ond�d------- _ _ by Amo. Mark took over as Chairman. Committee members discussed their experiences -in visiting selected companies to aid in completing the survey. Mixed results were obtained. Discussion took place concerning negative comments about GTE service and its effect on companies considering locating in Tigard. A representative of GTE will be invited to speak at a future meeting. The Comparative Study of Development Requirements prepared by the City of Forest Grove was discussed. Tigard°s building costs appear to be high but they are in line with Tualatin and Beaverton. Draft strategies for the Committe were discussed. Members were asked to review the draft and be prepared to discuss the issues further at the next meeting. The next meeting will be held on Thursday, July 19, at 7:30 AM at Pioneer Pies. At that time Allan Mann of the Oregon Economic Development Department will be the guest speaker. A notice will be placed in the newspaper that the public is invited to attend. Copies of the Program Guide prepared by the state will be sent to all members. The meeting adjoured at 9:00 A.M. G O v w k - a; e P y r E M co 00 H � �7 °i4 to C*4 - C 00 co i 0 6 00 rn 5 ~ d m N v G r in 0C y 0 O O C O c N Q W W 44 In Td d d 00 � Q to G .1.) 41 d ed W Aj to to 0 40 Aj Aj 93 C B 09�3 V �a � G Q p. 99 92 44 40 PA 92 Id b O 4 14 1 P� ~ M r. Ne s-4 r4 2V C4 LA g� s TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING`- JUNE 5, 1984 1. President Moen called the meeting to order at 7:40 PM. The meeting was held at Fowler. Junior- High School -- LGI" Room - 10865 SW Walnut, Tigard, Oregon. 2. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: President Moen; Commissioners Fyre, Butler, - Peterson,, Owens, & Vanderwood. ABSENT: Commissioner Leverett. STAFF: Director of Planning & Development William A. Monahan, Associate Planner Keith Lidera, Secretary Diane M. Jelderks. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM MAY 8, 1984 President Moen noted that the Commissioner's name was left off the motion at the bottom of page 6. Owens moved for approval of .minutes with addition of the Commissioner who made the motion. Peterson seconded. Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATION o President Moen read letters of resignation from Phil Edin and Frank Tepedino. o Vice President Owens commented she had been contacted by church -- -- members-in-her--neighborhood regarding-the-135th LID. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 SUBDIVISION S 6-84 CECIL BOONE PARK Associate Planner Liden made staff's recommendation to set this item over to a date certain. Discussion followed. Commissioner Owens moved to set over to August 8, 1984. Commissioner Fyre seconded. Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present. 5.2 SIGN CODE EXCEPTION SCE-2-84 two freestanding signs which exceed maximum To allow the replacement of height and area standards where only one is permitted. LOCATION: 11834 SW Pacific Hwy. (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 IBB, Tax Lot 301) Associate Planner Liden made staffs recommendation for approval of Sign Code Exception SCE 2-84 with conditions. PLANNING COMMISSION June 5, 1984 Page 1 NPO-CCI - No one appeared to speak. Applicant's Presentation - Richard Webb, Architect, 10320 SW Washington Street, explained howTexaco was cleaning up their signage nationwide. Agreed to drop first free standing sign to 22 feet. Also he had made a calculation error and total face should have been 148.8 instead :of the 164. He expressed his concern for staff's request to drop second sign to 35 foot height because of visual clearance and requested the Commission to allow the increased height. Discussion followed. PUBLIC TESTIMONY - No one appeared to speak. CROSS EXAMINATION AND REBUTTAL. ' o President Moen questioned if staff had a problem with raising the height. Staff stated they had recommended what the code' allowed for an outdoor advertising sign. o Commissioner Owen questioned staff how they had determined that the 35 feet would be adequate. Discussion followed'. o PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: o Commissioner Fyre supported the applicant's request for 40 feet. o Commissioner Butler saw no reason to oppose as these are standard signs for that Company nationwide. o Commissioner Owens questioned if our sign code is inappropriate for what is being designed. Was concerned whether the extra height would be sufficient. o President- Moen- questioned the -height - of--the - existing---sign.-- -Discussion,-- - - followed with applicant. _ _oCommissioner Peterson supported a sign height of 40-48 feet. Was concerned with second sign but was willing to support. i . o Commissioner Vanderwood supported applicant's proposal. o President Moen agreed with Commissioner Butler regarding the use of standard signs. o Discussion followed regarding the signs on Pacific Highway. o Commissioner Peterson moved for approval of Sign Code Exception SCE 2-84 subject to the following conditions: 1. The two existing freestanding signs be removed. 2. The freestanding sign at the corner of Pacific Hwy. and Garden Place _ shall be allowed the exception of 22 feet high, 150 total square feet with an 8 foot visual height clearance. PLANNING COMMISSION June 5, 1984 Page 2 3. A second freestanding sign shall be permitted with an orientation to 217.= The maximum height shall be 48 feet and the maximum area shall be 170 square feet for each side for a total of 340 square feet. 4. All other signs on the property shall be removed or brought into conformance with the Code prior to erection of the replacement signs. 5. Building 'permits shall be obtained from the Building Inspection Office. 6. : This approval shall be valid for a period of one year. Commissioner Vanderwood seconded. Motion carried unanimously by commissioners present. 5.3 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 9-84 VARIANCE V 9-84 WINTERLAKE For approval of a =160 unit apartment development and a variance to the requirement for one covered parking space per unit (CDC 18.06.030). LOCATION: Ease side of SW 135th Avenue, 1/2 mile south of Scholls Ferry Road (Wash. Co. Tax Map ISl 33DC, Tax Lot 500). Associate Planner Liden made staff's recommendation for approval of SDR 9-84 with conditions. He explained there are two errors on the staff report. '' One, the density transition did not apply because the °adjoining property to the east is developing not established. Second was the requirements for a '100 foot wide density strip would be required along the ' f southern boundary. Lengthy discussion followed. , John Klein, developer of Morning Hill, commented that Morning Hill had been approved for R-4.5 zoning and never was approved for R-7 zoning. Staff continued that the variance request needed to be discussed with the Commissioners before staff could make a recommendation. - Discussion-between Commissioners and staff regarding information-subm-fitted--- ' and who would approve requested changes and how to proceed with motion. NPO COMMENT;_._._ o Richard Boberg was concerned that the NPO had not reviewed proposed plan. He felt the proposal should be remanded to the NPO. He then read and submitted letter stating concerns for this proposal. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION: r Ron Johnson, representing the applicant, took no exception to staff's recommendation. They would like to amend their proposal to allow for the E 100 foot buffer. He continued how they would like the variance approval for the covered parking. He stated reasons why they felt approval should 6 be granted. They also would like to meet with the NPO but were concerned because of the time frame. They would like conditional approval at this time. _ RECESS: 9:10 P.M. i RECONVENE: 9:25 Y.M. ! r f PLANNING COMMISSION June 5, 1984 Page 3 t. IN y consensus of the Commission was to set this o President Moen stated that the item to.adate certain. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o Bob Bledsoe, NPO #3 Chairman, commented that NPO #3 was concerned with the alignment of 135th 'Avenue LID. s b Mike Bonebraker, 13265 SW Falcon Rise, read and submitted into the record aletter from the Morning Hill Homeowners Association stating their concerns. He continued by addressing specific concerns for safety and the adverse effect the ;project would have on the neighborhood. oDave and Judy Cox,, and David and Ginny Waind of Morning Hill Subdivision supported the Morning Hill Association letter. o John Morris, 11900 SW Morning Hill Drive, had concerns regarding the { zoning. He wanted to bring to the attention of the Commission that- Pond Court was not originally zoned R-12. ' He recommended retaining the cul-de-sac instead of a through street to 135th. He questioned if the Park improvement, from November 9, 1982 decision,` which required 100% bonding for the Park improvement,' would this still be : required to be done? - Discussion followed. o Deane Alterman, 8740 SW Hall Blvd., was hired to market Morning Hill. He did not feel that a parking lot was an adequate buffer. Also with 160 units, ou wou Yld need more accesses. . s, SW Falcon Rise Drive, moved to Morning Hill to get o Jerry Barnett, 13090 nt, Opposed as not being compatible or away from such a developme consistent with surrounding properties. o Scott 'Yale, 13355 SW Chimney Ridge; Jan Hasty, 13065 SW Falcon Rise Drive; Marilyn Bonebraker, 13265 SW Falcon Rise Drive; Mary Malone, SW Falcon g - --------Rise --Drive-; Tess---Ratty; -Vaughn Hickman, 13145 -SW -Falcon Rise- Drave;..------- - - - Richard Burke, SW Morning Hill, supported letter submitted by the Morning F Hill Association. o John Klein, Morning Hill Developer, stated that the most density he could get was 5 units per acre and he developed at 4.8. He did not feel that a parking lot should be a part of the buffering area. He also was required to leave 200 feet setback between single family dwellings and his attached units- o Mark Ohlson, Morning Hill Subdivision, was concerned with traffic hazards ' from 135th onto Murray Blvd. CROSS EXAMINATION AND REBUTTAL o Russ Krueger, 12225 SW 2nd, stated that the property was zoned so he could t put 180 units. However, they felt 160 would fit on the site better. He E responded to the concerns of the adjoining property owners. Also stated Cthere is a need for multi-family development. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED { s PLANNING COMMISSION June 5, 1984 Page 4 COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION o Consensus of Commissioner was to set over public hearing to a date certain and for the staff to research inconsistency with the proposal. Discussion followed regarding''history of the proposal. ' o Commissioner Butler requested :staff provide more detailed information for ' the site development review. o President Moen suggested setting over to July 10th. o Director Monahan questioned if the. Commission had any recommendations or direction regarding the variance to the one covered parking area per unit. o CommissionerButler stated he did not see where they had met all the variance criteria. commissioner Owens agreed. o Discussion followed regarding variance for covered parking. o Consensus of Commission' was for the plan to include one covered parking space per unit. o Richard Boberg, NPO #7 Chairman, announced that on June 27th there would ._ be an NPO #7 meeting at City Hall to review this proposal. o Commissioner Butler moved to continue SDR 9-84 and V 9-84 to July 10,' 1984. commissioner Peterson seconded. Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present. 5.4 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 7-84 WGK DEVELOPMENT For approval of an 80 unit multiple family residential development. LOCATED: Northwest corner of Beef Bend Road and SW Pacific Highway, Tigard (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 10AC Tax Lot 1000). Associate Planner Liden reviewed staff's recommendation including Engineering's comments and Washington County's recommended conditions, stating they needed some clarification regarding the lighting and improvements required for SW Bull Mountain Road. NPO COMMENTS Bob Bledsoe, NPO # 3 Chairman, stated their NPO had met on May 14th and they voted to support the proposal with one member abstaining. APPLICANT: Ryan O'Brian stated he felt they had provided everything necessary for approval. He reviewed the layout of the plan and the need for the exemptions for several internal setbacks. Also they would be changing to bay windows. They agreed with all conditions except for the requirement for Bull Mountain. Road and frontage, as their project did not effect that street. He was also concerned with City Engineering Division condition. He felt they needed to sit down with the City Engineer to work out details of the storm water drainage and access. PLANNING COMMISSION June 5, 1984 Page 5 , t PUBLIC TESTIMONY: } o Fred Anderson was for and against proposal. He favored the concept. He submitted letter and attachments on legal decisions and pertinent information regarding storm water drainage. He, wanted to be assured that the water problem is resolved prior to construction. He opposed the setbacks of the 28 feet he felt it should be at least 50 feet. Also felt Utility Easements should be drawn up to include sewer and approved prior to approval. o Dick Bancroft, Civil Engineer for Applicant, agreed there :is a storm water drainage problem and have proposed :a detention pond which should mitigate scussion followed. any problems on downstream properties. Di o Jean Young, Mayor King City, 'submitted and read into the record a letter ge problems, traffic problems created by regarding the storm oraizaa constructionand traffic problems in the Beef Bend/99W area. a Roger Anderson commented that the :conditions of the. CPA and ZC were not included as conditions of approval. He did not want the applicant to be ->able to change from the plans submitted. Wanted to see dedication of utility easement prior to occupancy permit. CROSS EXAMINATION & REBUTTAL o Ryan O'Brian stated they have no problems with utility easement or having - . He then addressed to comply to CPA and ZC conditionssetbacks along the northerly boundary. He also felt information submitted from Fred Anderson dealt with Agricultural Land and did not apply to Urban Development. a Discussion on open space/recreational area, storm drainage and sewer PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED o--Commissioner Fyre —supported with conditions from --Engineering-- and- Washington County. o Commissioners Butler, Peterson and Vanderwood supported the proposal. o Commissioner Owens supported with staff checking with County regarding signal on Bull Mountain. o President Moen commented that driveway proposed was the best alternative and supported the proposal. o Commissioner Owens moved to approve the Site Development Review SDR 7-84 subject to the following conditions: 1. The landscaping plan shall be modified in order to meet the visual clearance requirements of the Code (CDC 18.102). 2. The landscaping materials shown on the plan shall be installed prior ( to the issuance of occupancy permits. 3. A utility and sanitary sewer easement shall be provided from Beef Bend Road to the northerly property line prior to occupancy. PLANNING COMMISSION June 5, 1984 Page 6 p. 1 j sight obscuring fence shall be installed along the f 4,; A 6 foot high, permits. northern,property line prior to issuing occupancybe as shown The building setbacks dewed by PlanningoCommiss on the n on June 5,t1984an 5. , - labeled-"Plan 7601", re ' 6. This approval is valid for a period of one year. � driveway accesses, storm drainage and holding tank 7. The two specification to be worked out with staff. permit from Washington County. Access permit will E 8, Obtain access p i -address roadway drainage and sight distance prior to issuance of a building permit. Assure -construction of a sidewalk to 'County standard prior to 9• ermit. issuance of a building p 10. Dedicate additional right-�of-way to provide 35 feet from; centerline of Beef Bend Road adjacent to the site prior to issuance of a building permit. larify if 11. Assure installation e f access stree drivetSand tatf to the cintersecti nseSof meanof illuminating) at tstaff to clarify frontage road with both ull MountaBeef Bend Roadpriorto issuance ofaa Bull Mountain is necessary) building permit. Comissioner Butler seconded by motion. Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present. � 3 _ 5.5 APPEAL HOP 4-84 FERD MORENO NPO _____ the Planning o Monahan reviewed package of information that was submitted to Commission. Discussion on how to proceed. stated the NPO unanimously supports the O Bob Bledsoe,. NPO n Chairman, application had appeal .especially on the grounds that apparently a false app been submitted. o - Attorney Josselson requested the applicant speak first. o APPLICANT' Ferd Moreno, 14430 SW McFarland, responded to allegations made by the appellant. U Discussion followed on the lateness of the hour and when world be a good time Co continue to the hearing to to the o Commissioner Butler moved to Commissioner continue Peterson84seconded.Jun Motion Planning Commission meeting. { unanimously by Commissioners present. o Staff noted the next meeting would be held at the Tigard School District Building on Pacific Highway. PLANNING COMMISSION June 5, 1984 Page 7 6. OTHER BUSINESS President Moen suggested staff write a letter of appreciation to Phil Edin and that the Commissioners get a token of; appreciation for Frank Tepedino for the number of years he was on, and chaired the Planning Commission. 7. Meeting Adjourned: -12:15 A.M. k: i-. i k ATTEST: Diane M. Jelder , Secretary 5 k R A. Donald Moen, Commission President f? 0469P x. t' is 4 PLANNING COMMISSION June 5, 1984 Page 8 �e TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING JUNE 12, 1984 1. President Moen called the meeting to order at 7:40 PM. The meeting was% held at Tigard School 'District - Board Room - 13137 'SW Pacific 'Hwy., Tigard, Oregon. 2. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: President Moen; Commissioners` Fyre, Butler,' Peterson. > ABSENT: Commissioner Leverett, Owens, & Vanderwood. STAFF: Director of Planning & Development William A. Monahan, Associate Planner Elizabeth A Newton,' Secretary Diane M. Jelderks. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM JUNE 5, 1984. President Moen requested that on page five that "most adequate" be changed to "most appropriate". Commissioner Peterson moved to approve minutes as amended. Commissioner Fyre seconded= Motion carried unanimously by the Commissioners present. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATION o President Moen stated that staff had checked with legal counsel to determine if a meeting could be held with four Commissioners present, since there were only seven members on the Commission at this point. Staff had been advised a meeting could be conducted. 5. PUBLIC HE&RINGS 5.1 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT TO NPOs Director of Planning and Development Monahan made staff's recommendation for Russell Krueger, 12225 SW 2nd, Beaverton; and Lee Cunningham 13385 SW 115th, Tigard, to be appointed to NPO # 7. Each applicant was present and addressed the Planning Commission as to why they would like to become a NPO member. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o No one appeared to speak. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED { Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1984 Page 1 COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION " - o Commissioner Butler moved and Commissioner Fyre seconded to forward recommendation to City Council for appointment of Russell Krueger and Lee Cunningham to NPO # 7. Motion carried unanimously. 5.2 APPEAL OF HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT HOP 4-84, FERD MORENO NPO # 3 An appeal of of the Planning Director's approval to operate a-residential home for the handicapped on property zoned R-2 located at 14430 SW McFarland (WCTM 2S1 10BA lot 3800). Director of Planning and DevelopmentMonahan reviewed the packet of information distributed to the Commissioners. He then reviewed the criteria needed to approve a' home occupation permit and how they had been applied to this application for it to be: approved. o Frank Josselson, Attorney, objected to the way the proceedings were being' conducted. o President Moen stated that the staff's report and ' applicant's presentation should be allowed to be heard again. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION - "Ferd, Moreno, 14430 SW McFarlandreferredto Senate Bill 478' which allowed this type of use. He then reviewed the criteria which he had met for approval of the Home Occupation Permit. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o -Frank Josselson, 838 SW First Ave., representing the petitioners, stated he would speak after the other public testimony had been given. o- --Michael Smith,- 1-1645- SW---Gloud--CourtT _.showed- slide--of___the__area._ - -- (Discussion followed on what issues needed to be addressed.) Mr. Smith continued how angry he was that approval had been granted for the Home Occupation Permit. He felt it violated the Community Development Code. His main concern was that he felt the applican had mislead the City and neighbors with the actual use of the home occupation. He requested the Commission to deny the Home Occupation Permit. o Harry Backeberg, 11750 SW Wildwood, supported the appeal. He felt the home had been increased in such a size to make it a commercial use and it did not fit into the single family neighborhood. Requested the Commission to deny the application and have the f facility torn down. o Rob Walsh, 11545 SW Cloud Court, felt a degree of antagonism with Mr. Moreno. He felt there was a possibilty of 12 to 15 bedrooms. He did not feel it was a single family use. Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1984 Page 2 t ! 8 J o Cathie Sorensen, 11515 SW Cloud Ct.; Penn Stohr, 15575 SW Cloud Ct; and Ronald Grant,, 11865 SW Wildwood, all supported the appeal to have the Home Occupation Permit denied. r o Charles A. Gutweniger, 14355 qWMcFarland Blvd.`, requested the Planning Commission deny the Homc ')ccupation Permit. He felt a motel - had been added in a single famil, residential area. He felt the _ 3 , applicant was circumventing the la o Frank Josselson, Attorney, reviewed the history of the application, beginning with the building permit. He stated the construction is not for a single family residence, rather` a group residential facility or boarding house. He contended that Mr. Moreno 'lied to the City, misrepresented the use `of the facility and has violated almost every City ordinance dealing with single family residential use. He was concerned how the facility would be regulated and enforced. CROSS EXAMINATION AND REBUTTAL o Mr. Harold Carlson, Bull Mountain Road, stated he had ,visited Mr. Moreno's home and was 'impressed with the interior and exterior: looks of the facility o Julene, Carlson, 14615 SW Hazeltree, commented that the house is big, but it was also immaculate. v a Ferd Moreno, explained why the lower portion of the house was the way . it was and that it could not be used for additional bedrooms. t a Mr. Walsh added that the heat pump was not a problem. Also, the vacant lot adjoining this property had not been built on because Mr. Moreno's home had ruined the lot. o Commissioner Butler asked several questions regarding the use of the -- --- facility and-how- calculations were done-to determine the usef-or--the - --- — -� Home Occupation area. k' o Associate Planner Newton reviewed the floor plans which had been submitted by the applicant. Discussion followed between Commissioners, staff, applicant, and neighbors regarding the number & of individuals living in the facility, square footage and how it is ? being used. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION AND ACTION o Commissioner Butler commented that all of his questions had been answered and that the criteria had been met by the applicant. o Commissioner Peterson felt all the criteria had been met. Planning' Commission Minutes June 12, 1984 Page 3 r" o Commissioner Fyre had some concerns that the primary use is residential. He felt, maybe, this matter should be taken to LUBA. He was of `the opinion that the Home Occupation Permit should be denied. ® President Moen was concerned about the square footage being within the 25%, however, he had recalculated and it was within the 25%'- He then reviewed each of the criteria and felt the applicant had met all of them. o Commissioner'Butler moved and Commissioner Peterson seconded to deny the appeal to deny'the'Home Occupation Permit HOP 4-84. Discussion followed regarding the findings. Frank Josselson objected` to the proceedings of the hearings. Further Discussion. a Motion: approved by majority of Commissioners present, Commissioner Fyre voting no. o Further Discussion regarding written findings. o Commissioner Fyre moved and President Moen seconded to reconsider the approved motion. Motion carried unanimously- 0 Commissioner Peterson -moved and 'Commissioner Butler seconded for tentative denial of the appeal of HOP 4-84 until written findings could be furnished by City staff. e of Commissioners present with Motion carried by majority vot Commissioner Fyre voting no. 5.3 a. GOAL #6 5: OPEN SPACES, SCENIC AND HISTORIC AREAS, AND NATURAL RESOURCES Associate Planner Newton reviewed the Goal 5 In Order to Comply statements and how the City might amend the plan to bring it into compliance. NPO/CCI COMMENTS No one appeared to speak PUBLIC TESTIMONY o J B Bishop, 10505 SW Barbur Blvd. Suite 303, objected to adding paragraph number two without having additional public input from the NPOs and CCI. On Item ## 4 he was confused where the conclusion above was. Discussion with staff followed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION o President Moen felt this is a clean up item and he had no problem t , with the additions. Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1984 Page 4 o Consensus of the Commission was to require development under the Planned Development process only. o Commissioner Butler moved to submitstaff's recommendation to ;City Council, with the _modification of deleting "and require additional -setbacks" under Exhibit "A", second paragraph, with recommendation of approval. ' Commissioner Fyre Seconded. Motion carried unanimously by the r Commissioners present. 5.3 b Private Outdoor Area and Shared Outdoor Recreation areas requirements (Chapter 113.120) - Community Development Code <y 3 pt, Associate Planner: Newton reviewed the o ion chosen by staff for the � red Outdoor Recreation Areas Requirements. Private Outdoor Area and Sha (Exhibit A) '` President Moen questioned if any one of the finding or all of the findings would have to be met to grant the exception. Staff stated that any one or more of them. NPO/GCI COMMENTS- No one appeared co speak. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o No one appeared to speak. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION o Commissioner Butler suggested adding the words "any one or more of the following findings" after the words "based on". He f avored --__ having--pr-ivate-or--shared-outdoor-areas - -------- o Commissioner Fyre and Peterson agreed. o President Moen moved for the following language:: C. The Director may grant an exception or deduction to the Private Outdoor Area and Shared Outdoor Recreation Areas Requirements provided the application is for a use designed for a specific purpose which is intended to be permanent in nature (for example senior citizen housing) and which can demonstrate a reduced demand for Private Outdoor Recreational Area based on any one or -more of the following findings: 1. There is direct access by a pedestrian path from the proposed development to public open space or recreation areas which may be used by residents of the development. Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1984 Page 5 a S - 2. The development operates a motor vehicle which is available on regular basis to transport residents of the development to public open space or recreation areas. 3. The required square footage of either the Private Outdoor Area or the Shared Outdoor Recreation Area may ;be reduced if °together the two areas equal or exceed the combined standard for both. ! a Commissioner Fyre seconded the motion. Motion 'carried unanimously by the Commissioners present. 5.3 'c Policy 6.1.2 - Subsidized Housing Dispersal Associate Planner Newton stated that there were several objections to this Policy being discriminatory. She explained that staff had done some research and found that the City< of Salem has an acknowledged Housing; Dispersal policy 'incorporated into their Comprehensive Plan by, reference. Staff is recommending a policy similar to the one currently in use ;by the City of Salem and adding section 4 to Policy '12.1.1. as listed in staff's memo.' CCI/NPO COMMENTS f o Bob Bledsoe, 11800 SW Walnut, NPO # 3 Chairman, proposed adopting something more in tune with the feeling that was adopted when we lan instead of something similar to Salem's. originally adopted our p He proposed changing 30 percent to 20 percent and allow no more than two instead of three subsidized housing units to adjoin. Discussion followed. o Geraldine Ball, commented that she attended the LCDC hearing and this -- -__bras_- the biggest issue-that--Tigard--had- PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION AND ACTION. o Commissioner Fyre supported Mr. Bledsoe, however, he did not want to impede the process. o Commissioner Peterson supported the staff recommendation. o Commissioner Butler stated that he could live with the 30 percent, however he would like to see the three changed to two. O. President Moen questioned the use of "should be" versus "shall be" and why staff had dropped "should be located near shopping and health care facilities". Staff stated that the word convenient was ambiguous. Discussion followed regarding two or three subsidized {' housing units adjoining. Planning Commission`Minutes June 12, 1984 Page 6 a o Commissioner Butler moved to recommend approval of 5.3 c to the City', Council with the change of no more than two subsidized housing units shall'adjoin. Commissioner Fyre seconded. - Motion carried unanimously by the Commissioners present. 5.3 d Density - 10 units per acre. Director of Planning and Development Monahan reviewed the present density and how LCDC had rejected staff's approach to takecredit for additional units` within redeveloping areas of the .the Central Business District and the CP areas of 'NPO # 4, which 'left 9.1 buildable, units per acre. Staff' then reviewed the four'alternatives they had investigated. CCI/NPO COMMENTS Staff presented the CCI minutes which supported alternative number two as being the most desirable, number one being poor but possible, the third being poor and destroys the character of the plan; and four being preferable to, option one, because it leaves the best vacant land for commercial, but unrealistic as it involves a major change of the Comprehensive Plan. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o Jim Miller, 12910 SW 63rd Place, Portland, Or. 97219, opposed changing the property in NPO # 4 from Commercial Professional to Residential 40 units per acre. o Bob Bledsoe, 11800 SW Walnut, opposed alternative number three, considered number 2 as being possible. He suggested taking high density to 50 units per acre. (Staff commented that we can only get credit for 40 units per acre). PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED o Commissioners Butler, Peterson and Fyre favored option two as being the best and easiest way to go. o President Moen, felt the Council has two options. If they choose not to fight LCDC, then the only option is alternative number two. The problem being that LCDC won't allow residential to be counted in the redeveloping Commercial zone. If we were to fight LCDC then he would suggest that we create a special zone called residential/commercial professional and do something on that order. Discussion followed regarding readdressing the redeveloping issue. o Commissioner Peterson moved to approve 5.3 d alternative number two and forward the recommendation to City Council. Commissioner Fyre seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present. 5.3 a Conditional Use Standards for Manufactured Housing Units. Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1984 Page 7 "^ Associate Planner Newton reviewed the objections as being more restrictive' k for manufactured homes'. Staff recommended removing the requirements in the conditionaluse standards as they are also required in the subdivision and site development review process. CCI/NPO COMMENTS No one appeared to ,speak PUBLIC TESTIMONY o Don Schaeffer 15685 SW Upper Boones Ferry Rd., Space 6, commented that manufactured homes should be permitted in 3.5 and 4.5 zones as there is a great need for this type of housing. o Staff commented that this was one of the options that was proposed, however, staff chose the option to amendtheconditional use process. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED o Commissioner Fyre and Peterson supported changing the conditional use requirements. p Commissioner Butler stated he would like to see them as a permitted use in the 3.5 and 4.5 zones. a President Moen stated there had been a 'lot of. public input to have ` them as conditional uses` and supported keeping them as conditional uses. o Commissioner Fyre moved to approve 5.3 e, the conditional use portion of the recommendation and forward to the City Council for approval. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion. Motion carried by unanimously by Commissioner present. 5.3 f Manufactured Homes - Needs Assessment. G Associate Planner Newton explained that in order to gain acknowledgment the plan needed to be amended to include an assessment of additional ` manufactured homes, a needed housing type, that are projected for the planning period. Staff explained the methodology that they had used to ascertain need. ; o Discussion followed as to why this was needed and the difficulty in doing a projection as there have been no manufactured homes built in €: Tigard in the last 10 years. CCI/NPO COMMENTS - No one appeared to speak. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o , Harry Fields, 15685 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road, questioned the method used for the projection. He quoted fiqures for other areas for manufactured homes stating that they are a needed affordable housing. He wanted to know if 1.9% wasn't limiting. Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1984 Page 8 1, IBM 'E o Mr. Monahan commented that these figures are only projection and do not limit the growth to 1.9%. f o Clyde Johnson,12120 SW Summercrest Drive, commented that there is no place to put mobile homes for individuals evicted ,from the Terrace Heights Mobile Home Park. Discussion followed. f s o Niel Miller, 11480 SW Royal Villa Drive, commented that there are no spacesavailable for mobile/manufactured home and there needs to be. } PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED COMMISSION'DISCUSSION AND ACTION o Discussion followed regarding the methodology used for the; projection and what the impact would be. o President Moen moved to recommend 1.9% and requested staff to research to see if a better methodology could be established. Commissioner" Peterson seconded the motion. Motion carried' unanimously by Commissioner present. 6. OTHER BUSINESS t o There was no other business. 7. Adjourn 11:40 P.M. s r Diane M. Jelderks, Secretary ? ATTEST: A. Donald Moen, President 0483P:dmj I ` Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1984 Page 9 RECEIVED AIN 1 1981 CITY OF TIGARD BEFORE THE HEARINGS OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL TO No. OPERATE A CHILDREN'S DAY-CARE FACILITY ON PROPERTY ZONED R-4.5; CU 1-84 Start Right, Inc. , Applicant. The above-entitled 'matter came before the Hearings Officer at the regularly scheduled meeting of May 24 , 1984, at' the Durham WasteTreatmentPlant, Tigard, Oregon, at which time testimony, evidence and the Planning Department's Staff Report were received; and The Hearings Officer adopts the findings and conclusions contained within the Staff Report, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein and marked Exhibit "A" ; and The Hearings Officer further finds that Tax Lots 800 , 900 " --"- - - these applicants as a single business, and 1000 are operated bj even though there is a separate dwelling unit on each tax lot. Therefore, the Hearings officer finds jurisdiction over all of the ownership involved in the operation of this business, and conditions of approval of this application as follows: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED CU 1-84 is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. An access permit shall be obtained from the State Highway Division for any new driveway exit onto Hall Blvd. ( 2. The proposed site plan shall be modified to include a Page 1. - CU 1-84 i i . t - 1 i E 6-foot tall sight obscuring fence along the eastern boundary of the subject property (TL 800) and a minimum of 6 parking spaces which i conform with the standards in the Code (Chanter 18.106) . These i revisions shall be approved by the Planning Director prior to issu- ance of building permits. All construction shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. 3. A 6-foot tall, sight obscuring fence shall be provided along the east boundary of TL 900 as per the condition of approval for SDR 1-81. All construction shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. 4. Waivers of Remonstrance shall be filed for improvements along Hall Blvd. for Tax Lots 800, 900 and 1040. In addition, sufficient property shall be dedicated along Hall Blvd. to provide ,. the necessary right-of-way for future street improvements. The amount of property required for dedication shall be determined by the City Engineer. 5. The applicant shall obtain a building permit prior to the installation of any signs. 6. This approval is valid for the Period of one year from the final decision date noted below. 7. The property shall be accessed only by a one-way traffic pattern entering the property off Knoll and exiting the property on Hall Blvd. , using a shared driveway between Tax Lots 800 and 900. The traffic pattern shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. DATED this 1�1 day of June, 1989. 4. HE ARINGS/O,,FFICER APPRS3VB � Page 2 Cu 1-84 BETH_MASON _._ Big C)IE RT BEFORE THE HEARINGS OFFICER JUN 2G 1984 FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD CITY OF TIGARD EL&WINQ ®_ IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION ) FOR A SENSITIVE LANDS PERMIT TO ) No. ) r ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A SEWER TRUNK ) LINE IN THE SUMMER CREEK FLOODPLAIN; ) M 3-84 changed to: SL 3-84 ) Unified Sewerage Agency, Applicant. ) The above-entitled matter came before the Hearingsofficerat the regularly scheduled meeting of April 26, 1984 , at the conference room of the Tigard City Hall, which meeting was continued for further hearing on May 24, 1984, and at both hearings testimony, evidence and the Planning Department's Staff report were received; and The Hearings Officer adopts the: Findings and Conclusions as set forth on the attached, incorporated by reference herein and marked "Exhibit I and IT IS HEREBY ORDERED M 3-84 is approved subject to the following conditions: e Ci` 's _:Ln -tcir--sha3l--al -contacted--prior -to -uncover-ri-ng— and covering existing City sewer lines. 2. The road-crossing shall be reconstructed to as good or better condition and in accordance with existing City standards for interim street improvements. 3. A detour plan shall be submitted to the City 24 hours in advance of any street closures on SW Tiedeman Street. Plans shall include methods of signing and controlling traffic and shall state times and dates of closure. 4. Design of the overflow channels shall be in accordance with the general guidelines of the Tigard Master Drainage Plan for Page 1 M 3-84 e l 'EXHIBIT I" r CITY OF TIGARD FINDINGS AND DECISION OF THE HEARINGS' OFFICER E File. No. M' 3-84 E Applicant: Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) ProposaZe To construct a 30-inch sewer trunk line in the Summer a Creek floodplain Date Application Filed:` April 6, 1984 Decision Rendered: June 25, 1984 t Last Date to Appeal• Judy 9, -1984 Staff Recommendation: Approval, with conditions x Staff Representative: Keith Liden Public Hearings: The public hearings were held as follows: On m April 26, 1984, at 7:00 P.M. in the City x Administrator's office at the Tigard 'City Hall on May 24, 1984 , at the conference room at the Durham Waste Treatment Plant, at 7 :00 P.M. The matter was taken under advisement for a written decision. € Speaking in Support of the Request: (Z) Robert Cruz. ' (2) Terry Chamberlin Simto_t-heCnaakinTin (nn, itoPa11la_ROSS-S1.w—a- n(2) Elizabeth ( k Exhibits: (1) Planning Department Staff Report with attachments (2) Background information for M 3-84 (3) Engineering maps of proposed trunk line development (4) Stream Diversion Details mao (5) Application for M 3-84 (6) Area Map for proposed project ) (7) 9 pictures with explanatory map (8) Section 18.57.070 of Tigard Code (highlighted) Section 18.84.020 of Tigard Code (highlighted) C � /(10) Page III-142 of Tigard Code (highlighted) (11) Page 10 M3-81 transcript (highlighted) 1 ' (12) Section 18.84.050 of Tigard Code (highlighted) (13) Section 18.150 of Tigard Code (highlighted) (14) Last page of Council decision M3-81 (15) 2 page newspaper article (highlighted) �(17) 16) Letter from Dena Charles Whipp, Jr. Park Board approval dated 4-12-84 (18) Map showing entire Scholls Tr. FINDINGS AND DECISION - M 3-84 - Page 1 of 5 Stormwater Management and shall be included with the construction plans. The 'City of Tigard shall apply for a nationwide permit from the Corps of Engineers, if necessary'. 5. Provision shall be made to connect all flows upstream from the pump station located in the floodplain at approximately sw 113th Avenue into manhole V. p 6. Plans for floodway improvements, including bank re-construction, shall be reviewed and approved by the City engineering department. Such improvements shall also include erosion control both during and after construction. 7. Applicant shall remove as few trees as possible during and after development. Applicant shall secure the necessary permits from the City prior to removing any trees. ✓ 8. This approval is valid .for the period of one year from the final decision date noted below. DATED this 25th day of June, 1984. HEA'IYGS. OFFICER -Z- ARP ARP ROVFE7: ZETHASON THIS DECISION SHALL HE FINAL ON July 9- 1984 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. Page 2 M-3-84 { FINDINGS: LL A. Subject Property: 1. Description: The proposed trunk line crosses the property of 'several individual owners, as set forth on Exhibit "A , attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. The property is not owned by the USA, nor will it ever be. Rather, USA must negotiate and purchase permanent and tem- porary easements for the construction and placement of a trunkline. '-The hearings officer takes judicial notice of their statutory authority to acquire such easements. In such acquisitions, there is no issue of whether they are able to acquire the easement, only an 'issue of the value and payment of that easement. 2. Location: The proposed' trunkline is between 121st Avenue and T ei and Avenue. It begins at 121st Avenue approximately 300 feet north of Katherine Street. It proceeds east, para- llel to Katherine Street, crosses 116th Avenue,, then travels 1000+ feet to the southeast before it again heads west to Tiedeman Avenue. The entire route is within the 100 year floodplain of Summer Creek. B. Vicinity Information: Except for three houses on the east side of 116th avenue, the proposed line will not be in close` proximity" .. to any developed areas. C. Applicable Ordinance and Plan Considerations: 1. This application is governed by the Tigard Comprehensive Plan sections on Public Facilities and Services, particularly those sections regarding Storm Drainage and Wastewater Manage- ---- _-- meat and SeweService- -part.icu.lar_y_, S-ections .7__( ia_ _introdtQ_ry_--.---------- - material) , 7.1, 7.2 and 7.4 govern this application. Those sections are incorporated by reference herein, and LCDC Goal 7. 2. This application is also governed by-the Tigard Code, Chapter 18.84.040. That portion of the Code is incorporated by reference herein. D. Issues Regarding the Application: 1. The applicant is not the recorded owner of the property, or an agent authorized in writing by the owner. 2. Will the proposed development result in erosion, stream sedimentation, ground stability or other adverse on-site and off-site effects or hazards to life or property? 3. Does the application contain a list of the names, and ( addresses of all persons who are property owners of record within 250 feet of the site? FINDINGS AND DECISION M 3-84 - Page 2 of 5 z a 4. Do the drawings show the site locations of trees with 6" caliber or greater measured four feet from the ground? 5. will the removal of trees during development adversely affect the aesthetic character of the area? 6. Does 'the application meet the applicable statewide planning goals, specifically Goal 7? E. Discussion of Issues Raised: 1. All parties concede that the applicantisnot the owner of the property in question, nor their authorized agent. However, as noted above, due to the nature of the applica- tion and the applicant, such authorization will be avail- able vail-able to them at any they wish, regardless of the wishes of the property owners. That is substantially a different situation than the ordinary application where ownership is critical. : 2. Mr. Whipp testified,through his letter,' and his wife Ms. Rossi`, that they have suffered from up-stream development in that Summer Creek receives the storm drainage for the area He reasons that development within Summer Creek will aggravate the problem, rather than serve to alleviate it. He analagized 'that Summer Creek could be considered dike a flower box with a finite capacity, and that the addition of the sewer pipe will absorb part of that caps- city, thereby raising the level of the water during flooding. The engineer for the USA disagreed and testified that with the bed of gravel which acts as a drain for_the ditch holding the pipe and thereby a conduit for the storm sewer, the water will flow faster through the area, reducing the problem. USA -plans a bed of 12" of gravel under the trunk- " line pipe, together with that gravel in the ditch up the- -- - sides of the pipe to the half-way point. He testified that with that addition, there should be more, not less, capacity f to accomodate-storm-sewer- In Summer Creek. , 3. The ordinance requires that the applicant submit an applica- tion on forms provided by the Director, and that application 4 shall be accompanied by the list of persons who are property owners of record with ni 250 feet of the site. The hearings officer did not have access to the complete staff file, but staff assured the hearings officer that such a list was provided and in the file. The additional list attached to the application was not intended to be the list in question, 1 -- but only the list of property owners whose property will be f' crossed by the proposed trunkline. 4. The drawings do not show the location of trees with 6 caliber or greater measured four feet from the ground, 3 X44 however, those trees are protected by the Tigard Code section requiring a permit to cut any trees, which section is cited by Mr. Whipp. , FINDINGS AND DECISION -- M 3-84 Page 3 of 5 � r 5. Mr. Whipp argues that the removal of trees during devel- opment 'will adversely affect the aesthetic character of the area. It is possible, of course, for a property owner to argue that the removal of any tree would be adverse and therefore, no trees 'should:be ;removed. However, the hear- ings officer does not believe that is the intent of the Code, but rather the intent is to balance development against the aesthetics of the area. It is the stated intent of the USA to preserve as many trees as possible during development, and the hearings officer will require that as a condition of approval, if necessary. 5. As to whether the application meets the statewideplanning goals, specifically Goal 7 , the hearings officer considered ' primarily the language of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, those 'sections noted above, which incorporate`the provisions of Goal 7. In this application, the stated goals of pro- viding 'sewer service appear to conflict with the timing of the provision of storm sewer service. USA is now ready to complete their trunk line which will allow'a significantly large area of the Tigard Planning ,Area to be served by sewer, but the City Council of Tigard has recently questioned whether such development should go forward until the storm sewer system is in place (see Exhibit 15) . The issue becomes one of which is more important, sewer 'service or storm drainage service? And if sewer service is more important, . can it be provided now without adverse on-site and off-site effects to life or property? The USA engineer believes that it can , and that while this project is not a storm drainage system, it will serve a dual function to some extent by enlarging the drainage capacity for Summer Creek with the gravel bed and the overflow channels as required by staff. The opponents provided no engineering evidence to the con- trary. on- trary. CONCLUSIONS: 1. While the applicant is not the owner of the property- in question, under applicable statutes, they will have the right to acquire the property when needed. This require- ment is irrelevant to the application. 2. The engineering submitted for this development has persuaded the hearings officer that the development will improve the storm drainage in the area with the use of the gravel bed and the overflow channels required by staff. Therefore, this application will not result in adverse on or off-site effects or hazards to life or property, as conditioned. 3. The application was complete as submitted. ( 4. The drawings do not show the locations of trees as required, but that requirement will be satisfied by the condition of approval noted below. FINDINGS AND DECISION - M 3-84 - Page 4 of 5 2 4 5. Removal of the trees is a necessary evil for development such as this. The number of trees removed will be minimized by the conditions of approval set forth below. At the time an applicationis filed' for permits to, remove trees, each permit will be required to meet the applicable criteria of the Code. The applicant' is not required to meet those criteria as a part of this application. 6. Applicable statewide planning goals have been met, and the hearings officer finds that it is more important to provide adequate sewer service to the area dbe to potential health hazards, than to further delay this project until the entire storm drainage system is in place. RECOMMENDATION• Approval , with conditions. DATF?'thi 25th day of June, 1984. AR OFFIC i f` FINDINGS AND DECISION - M 3-84 - Page 5 of 5 1 t BEFORE. THE HEARINGS OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION ) No. FOR A SENSITIVE LANDS PERMIT TO ) ) ALTER THE TOPOGRAPHY WITHIN THE ) SL -5-84 100-YR. FLOODPLAIN; The Koll Company, : Applicant. ) The above-entitled matter came before the Hearings Officer at the regularly scheduled meeting of June 14, 1984, at the Durham Waste Treatment Plant, Tigard, Oregon, at which time testimony, evidence, and the Planning Department's Staff Report were received; and The Hearings Officer adopts the 'findings and conclusions `✓ contained within the Staff Report, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein and marked Exhibit "A"; therefore IT IS HEREBY ORDERED ---— -------SL-5-84 -is approved aubject- to the-following--condi ion_-. ---- — 1. Seven (7) sets of plan-profile public improvement construc- tion plans and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate, stamped by a registered civil engineer, detailing all proposed public improve- ments shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Division for reviews 2. Construction of proposed public improvements shall not commence until after the Engineering Division has issued approved public improvement plans (the Division will require posting of a 100% performance bond) , the payment of a permit fee and a sign Page 1 - SL 5-84 installation/streetlight deposit. Also, the execution of- a street opening permit or construction compliance agreement shall occur th the issuance of approved public prier to, or concurrently wi improvement plans 3. In addition, the applicant shall submit an engineering plan showing flood flow and flood storage, which meets the require- plan ments of the City of Tigard engineer. 4: All unused lands remaining in the 100-year floodplain e shall be dedicated to the public prior to the issuance of any e ' ermitsi - dedication document shall be recorded with Washington . _R County after it is approved by the City• r. of State Lands and the 5. A joint application to the Division Corps of Engineers shall be`approved' if required. US Army one year from 6. This approval shall be valid for a period of F z the final approval date. ° i' DATED this day of June, 1984. HE, GS OF ER - - -- — ---- A PROVED TH MA 0 _ r L IS FILED. THL DECISIO SHALL BE FINAL ON July 13, 1984 UNLESS AM APPEAL wth mm appeal this decision in aceosdancea Pp peal Any pasty o the decision Y provides that .\a written 18.32.290(A) and Section 18.32.370 which P igen and sent• may be filed within 10 days after notice is 8 4,30 / The deadline for filing of an appeal is Jul l3, 1984 l - Page 2 o SL 5-84 �x STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 5.2 THURSDAY,; JUNE 14, 1984 - 7:00 P.M. TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER _ DURHAM WASTE TREATMENT PLANT CORNER OF SW HALL AND DURHAM TIGARD, OREGON 97223 A. FINDING OF FACT 1. General Information CASE: Sensitive Lands Permit SL 5-84 I REQUEST: To alter the topography within the 100 ;year floodplain to allow for reconstruction of an existing street and to provide additional land for the development of Phases II and III of'Koll Business Park. , COMPREHENSIVE'PLAN DESIGNATION: I-L (Industrial Light) s, j:. ZONING DESIGNATION: I-P (Industrial Park) -4 APPLICANT: The Koll Company OWNER: Same 8605 SW Creekside Place Beaverton, Oregon 97005 LOCATION: On SW Nimbus Avenue, Tigard (Wash. Co. Tax Map 1S1 34AA, ? -- — -- ---- -Tax-Iot 1800 axed 1900; and Tax Map 1S1 34AD,- Tax-Lot 6200-s- -- -- -- --- - : __s..__.B,ackground - - f A zone change to an Industrial Park (M-4) designation was approved in 1979 (ZC 26-78). Site Development Review approval (SDR 8-80) was granted in 1980 to construct eleven buildings in the M-4 zone. This 4, first phase as been completed. lli 3. Vicinity Information Fanno Creek runs along the west side of the property and single family residential development primarily zoned R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 i units/acre) lies on the other side of the Creek. Scholia Ferry Road and the City of Beaverton are to the north, the Southern Pacific Railroad is I east, and additional land zoned I-P is south on the east side of Fanno [ Creek. ' STAFF REPORT - SL 5-84 - PAGE 1 r i i' 4. Site Information and Proposal Description The applicant proposes to raise the grade of a portion of Nimbus Avenue i to prevent 'seasonal flooding of the street. An additional phase is j proposed to the south of the existing development. A driveway extending south from the Nimbus Avenue cul-de-sac will provide access to this segment of the project. The proposed driveway will primarily be within the 100 year floodplain and permission' to excavate and fill will be necessary ;to achieve the alignment shown on the site plan. Also, ;4 w grading is propose for the parking area for the building to be located € at the corner of Scholls Ferry and Nimbus Avenue. A Site Development Review for the entire project will be conducted following a decision on this application. 5. O Comments The Engineering Division has, the following comments: e will require removal of g 1. Raisin a portion of Nimbus Avenu existing pavement and concrete. Public improvement plans showing the new location of all utility lines shall be submitted for approval. grading in conjunction with the building to be i 2. The 'proposed g g ' Scholls- Ferry Road ;and Nimbus Avenue and located at thecorner of the southern driveway extension represent intrusions into the ; - greenway/floodplain but it is outside of the zero-foot rise floodway. The City has no mitigation standards for alternate uses of the greenway. 3. The Division would prefer excavation that would improve storm water flow rather than water storage. 4. The applicant indicates that the existing bicycle/pedestrian path -- _____.._--------- --kill be extended outside_of the annual flood-ifrea; -bu-t -EW-Plans do not show its location. 5. Approval should be. conditioned to required dedication of all -lands within the 100 year floodplain after construction. _ The Building Inspection office and State Highway Division have no objection to the proposal. B. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION Section 18.54.040 of the Code requires that the following criteria be met in order to approve a Sensitive Lands Permit: a. Land form alterations shall preserve or enhance the floodplain storage function and maintenance of the zero-foot rise floodway shall not result in any narrowing of the floodway boundary. STAFF REPORT SL 5-54 - PAGE 2 b. The `land form alterationor development within the 100-rear floodplain shall be allowed on in an area designated as :commercial or"industrial on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map; C. The land form alteration or development is not located :within the floodway; d. The land form alteration or development will not result in any increase in the elevation of the zero-foot rise floodway; e. The land' form alteration or development plan includes a pedestrian/bicycle pathway in accordance with the adopted ' pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan; f. The plans for the pedestrian/bicycle pathway indicate that no pathway will be below the 'elevation of an average annual flood. The Engineering Division indicates that the general concept for earthmoving within the floodplain is consistent with the criteria' above. However, additional plans and calculations should be reviewed and 'approved by the Division prior to the excavation work. The plans , should be modified as suggestedto acommodate flood flows rather than' water storage. �.._ The proposed excavation and filling will raise land elevations along = several portions of the floodway/greenway fringe but this will be offset by other excavations within the floodplain. Review of the final plans by the •Engineering Division should insure that this request will not adversely effect the floodplain. The revised plans should also include the location and design of the bicycle/pedestrian path extension for Planning and Engineering approval. The Planning staff recommends approval of Sensitive Lands Permit SL 5-84 -- _—._-- ----_ .__ subject-to the fol-lowing--conditions: __ 1. Seven (7) sets df 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 (the Division will require posting of a 100% performance bond), the payment of a permit fee and a sign installation/streetlight deposit. Also, the execution of a street opening permit or construction compliance agreement shall occur prior to, or concurrently with the issuance of approved public improvement plans. STAFF REPORT - SL 5-84 - PAGE 3 3. The applicant shall submit an engineering plan for excavation and filling to the City Engineer for approval prior to the ;issuance of any permits. Said plans shall be modified to show the location and design of the bicycle/pedestrian path extension and grading shall be performed to accommodate flood flows as much as practical.' 4. All unused lands remaining in :the 100-year floodplain shall be dedicated-to the public prior to the issuance of any permits. The dedication document shall be recorded with Washington County after it is approved by the City. 5. A. joint application to the Division of State Lands and the US Army, Corps of 'Engineers shall be approved. 6. This approval shall be void for a period of one year from the final approval"date. 4L PREP D;t: Keith'Liden PRUNED $`1: William A. Monahan Associate Planner Director of Planning Development (dmj 0472P)) STAFF REPORT - SL 5=84 PDGF. 4 F- 7 place Under City of Tigard Oregon SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 10-84 GREEN VALLEY DEVELOPMENT NPO # 2 The Director of Planning and Development 'givenSite Development Review approval to construction a 12,640 sq. ft. building and related facilities on property zoned I-P (Industrial Park) located at 9460 Ski Tigard Ave., Tigard (WCTM 2S1 2BA lots 1000`& 1800). The adopted finding of facts, decision and statement of conditions can; be obtained from the Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 12755 SW Ash, P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223. The 'decision shall be final on July 13, 1984. ' Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with section 18.32.290(A) and section 18.32.370 of the Community Development Code, which''provides that a written appeal may be filed within 10 days after notice is given and sent. The deadline for filing: of an appeal is July '13, 1984. The hearing on an,appeal will be De Novo. SUB JECS TT Publish July 3, 1984 € Place Under City of Tigard Oregon HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT HOP 5-84 DAVID & JOANNE WHITTINGTON NPO # 3 The Director of Planning and Development has approved a Home Occupation permit to have an 'office in their home to process maritime documentation papers. Property 'zoned> R-4.5. Located: 12635 SW ;Pathfinder Ct. (WCTM 2S1 2sC lot 5800). The adopted finding of facts, decision and statement of conditions can he obtained from the Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 12755 SW Ash, P.O. Sox23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223. The decision shall be final on July 9, 1984. Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with section 18.32.290(A) and section 18.32.370 of the Community; Development Code, which provides that a written appeal may be filed within 10 days after notice is given and sent. The deadline for filing of an appeal is July '9, 1984. The hearing on an appeal will be De Novo. II 1\\\II �WALNUT CE f 1.V S. E AOL )TtI EFI \ 1..}.. is Tr Publish June 28, 1984 .. Place Under City of Tigard Oregon HOMEOCCUPATION! PERMIT HOP 6-84' HAROLD 6'GAIL DOWLER; NPO # 1 The Director of Planning and Development has approved a Home Occupation permit to operate a mail order business in a portion of their home. Property zoned R-4.5. Located: 9600`;SW Frewing Ct. (WCTM 2S1 2CD lot 400). The adopted finding of facts, decision and statement of conditions can be obtained from the Planning Department, Tigard City ; Hall, 12755 SW Ash, P.O. Box '23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223. The decision' shall be final on July 9, 1984. Any panty to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with section .18.32.290(A) and section 18.32.370 of the Community Development Code,' which provides that a written appeal may be filed within 10 days ,after notice is given and sent. The deadlinefor filing of an appeal is July 9, 1984. The hearing on an appeal will be De Novo. TT Publish June 28, 1984 , �rtr Place Under City of Tigard Oregon SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 13-84 TRAMMELL CROW COMPANY NPO #6'5 The Director of Planning and Development has given approval for a commercial development and related facilities on two parcels zoned C-G. Located: 11400 and 11250 SW Garden Place, Tigard (WCTM 2S1 1BB lots 1300 and 1500)`. The adopted finding ; of facts, decision and statement of conditions can be obtained from the Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 12755 SW Ash, P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223. The decision 'shall'. be final on July 30,' 1984. Any party to the decision may ;appeal this decision in accordance with section 18.32.290(A) and section 18.32.370 of the Community Development Code, which provides that a written appeal may be;filed within 10 days after -notice is given and sent® The deadline for filing of an appeal is July 30, 1984. The 'hearing on an appeal will be De Novo. j .\ 1J •� SUBJECT ILL SITE e � TT Publish July 19, 1984 Place Under City of Tigard Oregon TEMPORARY USE TU 12-84 TIGARD TOWN AND COUNTRY DAYS NPO #f' 6 The Director of Planning and Development has approved Temporary Use Permit to hold Tigard Town and Country Days in Cook Park on July 27, 28, and 29, 1984. (WCTH 2S1 14A lot 900). The adopted finding of facts, decision and statement of conditions can ,be obtained from the Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 12755 .SW Ash, P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223. The decision shall be final; on July 30, 2984. Any party to the decision may appeal this decision !in accordance with the Community Development code, section 18-32-290(A) and section 18.32.370 of which provides that a written appeal may be filed within 10 days after notice is given and 'sent. The deadline for filing of an appeal is July 30, 1984. The hearing on an appeal will be De Novo. Bunc.ar�a . COOK'..: . ' - p JECT S EPasx D i F T LAT N TT Publish July 19, 1984 f g z 1111M I'j'EM-F.M1111 SO y Place Under City of Tigard Oregon SITE DEVELOMENT REVIEW SDR 11-84 TIGARD PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 23J NPO # 6 The Director of Planning and Development has approved-a request to allow the installation of temporary classrooms for Tigard High School. Property is zoned R 4.5. Located: 9000 SW Durham Rd., Tigard (WCTM'2S1 14A, lot 100). The adopted finding of facts, decision and statement of conditions can be obtained from the 'Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 12755 SW Ash, P.O. Boat 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223. The decision shall be final on July ,30, 1984. Any party to the decision may aPPeal this decision in accordance with section 18.32-290(A) and section 18.32-370 of the Community, Development Code, which provides that a written appeal may be filed within 10 days after notice is given and sent. : The deadline for filing of an 'appeal is July 30, 1984. The hearing on an appeal will be De Novo. 14 TI GARS? HIGH SC _ ®L SUBJECT SITE e BRP AS6Pi TT Publish July 19, 1984 l a Place Under City of Tigard Oregon TEMPORARY USE TU 9-84 ST. ANTHONY CATHOLIC CHURCH NPO U 2 The Director of Planning and Development has approved Temporary Use Permit to hold Tigard Fiesta Days from July 22 'through July 24th at St. Anthony School, 9905 SW McKenzie Street,(WCTM 2S1 2BD-lot 100, 200, 300). The adopted finding of facts, decision aril �t.,Ls,n,�nt` of conditions can be obtained from the Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 12755 SW Ash, P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223. The decision . shall be final ;on July 9, 1984. Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with section 18.32.290(A) and section 18.32.370 of the Community Development code, which provides that a written appeal may be filed within 10 ,days after notice is given and sent. The deadline for filing of an appeal is July 9 1984. The hearing on an appeal will be De Novo. TT Publish June 1984 POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT z June, 1984 A). and 4i { Six 'Month Recap, k TO: City `Administrator/City Council FROM: Chief of Police I. Personnel: The 'department `is full strength this month, due to the recruitment of Karen Rowden, police dispatcher. There were two turnovers of personnel this first six months of 1984,, one dispatcher and one officer resigned. The average daily department strength this month was 16.7 as compared to 15.5 for June, 1983. By division, the breakdown is as follows: Administration 1.7, Services 4.0, Patrol `8.0, ,Traffic 1.0, and Investigation 2.0' i` II. Service Delivery: The department responded to 609 non-criminal calls for service in contrast to 536calls in June, 1983. The combined total non-criminal calls for service the first six months of 1984 was 3,879; for this same time period in 1983 the total was 2,907. Patrol Division's obligated time this month was 2,053.1 hours, for the first 6 months it was 11,885.8 hours. The non'-obligated time this month was 461.$ ; hours, for thehalf it was 3,181.1 hours. III. Crime: f There were 83 Part I crimes reported this month as compared to 87 for June of 1983, down 4 crimes in this classification, or 4.8%. There were 31 Part I crimes t: cleared this month, or 37.3% !, The total Part I crimes reported this half was 508 in contrast to 616 for this same E period last year, a decrease of 21.2%. The clearance rate for Part I crimes this half is 36.0%, or 183 cases. In contrast to the same time period of 1983, 33.3% were cleared, or 205 cases. i; There were 100 Part Il crimes reported this month, of that number 49 were cleared, € or 49.0%; for the same month last year, 57 were reported, and 27 were cleared, or }; 47.4% The total Part II crimes reported this half was 499 in contrast to 419 reported 4 the first half of 1983, 'an increase of 80 cases, or 19.1% There were 318 Part II cases cleared this half, or 63.7%; for this same time period in 1983, 202 cases were cleared, or 48.2% The investigative division worked 28 active cases this month, and cleared 13 or 46.4%-. The total active cases worked this half by the Investigative Division was 186, of that number 87 cases were cleared, or 46.8% I 4 ME- The reported property loss this month was $78,324, of that amount $33,647 was 'recovered, or 42.9%" The combined total property loss for this first 6 months was $401,764, of that total, $81,178 was recovered, or 20.27. IV. Traffic: Patrol Division responded to 25 accidents, of that number 6 were injury. There ` were 381 citations issued this month as compared to ,164 in June of 1983. There were also 428 warnings issued this month in contrast to 44 for this same time period in 1983. Patrol Division has issued a total of 2,610 citations this half in contrast to 1,513 for this same time period last year. There has been a ,total of 185 accidents reported this half, and 190 were reported for this same time period last year. There were 39 injury accidents reported this half, 43 injuries were reported last year in the first half of the year. The Enforcement Index for this half year is 41.74, in contrast to 26.32 for this same half in 1983. V. Police Reserves: " The Reserve Unit worked 255 hours this month assisting the department in policing the community; through this half the Reserves donated 1,212,hours of community service. See attached report from the Reserves for their total training and activities. .. VI. Special Assignments: A. K-9.Recap. (see attached report from Lt. Wheeler) B. Motorcycle Program (see attached report from Lt. Wheeler) C. Alarms and Permit Recap (see attached reports from Capt. Jennings) Also included in the Alarm Ordinance Recap for FY 83-84 VII. Training: A. New Age of Thinking in Public Safety. Lt. Wheeler and Services Manager Carrick attended an 8-hour training course on facilitator training for.this new concept of thinking in law enforcement. They have been certified by the Board on Police Standards and Training toholdseminars and act as facilitators for same at police agencies throughout the state. B. Firearms. All sworn personnel spent` 2 hours each, qualifying at the quarterly firearms shoot. 44 man hours were spent receiving this training. C. Police Chaplain. The Chief and Captain met 2 hours with the police chaplain on June Ila, getting this program initiated, setting up guidelines. ZEEIff =L mom MIN z _ t m n 4 C Roz � c� $a Nsp G� `d�T • a URT ASsj; j - _ D/ splTC N/,yG; _. h4 o C .s 41 ADM//y�sT t �TO �N 2., _ c� --� �. � c•s � �� ray 1 t,, T° E cry ,� I Tq� ';v fTl O v Q,4r,0Ms Wq�MfMGs �r/i�rr�M l(�q1N/MGs SOD p p�8so S(�sp �Fy�cCFs Fsrs gsss�. E cyFc� COMMENTS CITY OF TIGARD t, MEMORANDUM TO: Chief of Police FROM: Lt. Wheeler SUBJECT: K-9 Team Report RE: June, 1984 There were 19 calls the K-9 team members responded to during the month of June. Of the 19 calls there were i building searches conducted, 4 track calls, and 8 area checks made. Six tracks were developed to a known direction of travel, and .in a recovered stolen auto case, a-track was developed to locateevidence of the crime, and an arrest was made. A fleeing suspect was apprehended and arrested for curfew in another case. There was one outside agency assist for Lake Oswego Police Department. The total time spent on the above calls was 4.25 hours. Total training time by all K-9 team members was 36 hours. Officer Nerski is ready to go on line with K-9 Buck, they have met all their proficiency tests and are building training hours. Officer Nerski received his handler's certificate from Chief Vickery and Officer DeVeny at this time. r 4 , r . r CITY OF TIGARD MEMORANDUM :k i 1 TO: Chief of Police `k FROM: Lt. Wheeler motorcycle Traffic Unit Report SUBJECT: k RE: June, 1984 i 6 injury, 19 non- V 23 accidents for same time period last year , the month of June 1984 there were 25 accidents, During ares to injury. This comp 5 injury, 18 non-injury. by traffic unit, ,or 567.• a 14 were investigatedas compared to 22.60 for Of the 25 accidents, The traffic enforcement index this month is 34.50 the same month last year, and the two (2) the Patrol Division, or 37.8%• The 144 are broken down as There were 381 citations. issued by motorcycles issued 144 of the 381, follows: 97 hazardous and 47 non-hazardous. There were 5 hit and runs reported during the month of June 1984. { FA iji ALARMS AND PERMIT RE-CAP Month of JU°'r, 1934 (January 1 - June 30, 1934) THIS SAME 'MONTH TOTAL TOTAL MONTH LAST YEAR CHANGE THIS YEAR LAST YEAR CHANGE TOTAL. ALARMS. . ..`.. 59 35 + 690/3 284 223 + 27% a. False.. ..... 58 34 + 71°x° 272 212 +'2.8% b. Bonafide. .'. . 1 1 -0- 12 ' 11 p°,° Permits .Issued. .. . 12 2 5000A .45 ; 36 + 25% Permits Renewed... a -- --- 29' - -- Permit Fees... .. ... $135 $25 440°'S X860 $605 + 42 Permits Revoked. . . 6 3 100% 16'' 17 - 901f, <Revoked Fees. . . . . . $340'• $100 ?_40,° °� X1;220 -,1,015 + 20°, MONTHLY SUMMARY STATEMENT: ''Note there is a large increase in false alarms while comparing this month to same month last year. However, when comparing totals for year-to-date, there is only a 287, increase while there has been a 36°4 increase in permitted systems. The difference being an overall . eorease in false alarms compared to on-line systems. C M CITY OF TIGARll MEMORANDUM TO City Council and City Administrator July 10, 1984 FROM: Chief of Police SUBJECT: Alarm Ordinance Recap for FY 83/84 During Fiscal Year 83/84 there was an increase of 36% in permitted alarm systems (202 to 275). With this increase in systems being installed, it was predictable there would be,an overall increase in false alarms. However, 'there' was a' 25% decrease in the number of false alarms per number of systems permitted (595;to 567) . This means each system was averaging . x 2.5 false alarms, and is now down to 2.0 per system per year. The revenue generated by the alarm ordinance for FY 83/84 was $6,670. This covered the administrative costs in both the police and finance departments. It is this department's opinion that:,the ordinance is accomplishing the desired effect in the overall reduction of false alarms the police respond to, which translates into allowing more time in other areas of public safety in the community. It has been found that the national trend is for police agencies to be withdrawing from alarm system monitoring, because of the ever-increasing number of systems being installed and the space needed for the equipment. The department would recommend to Council that effective July 1, 1985 the police department no longer have alarm systems wired directly into the .police station, but instead into central monitoring stations available through the alarm system vendors. Respectfully, R.B. ADAMS CHIEF OF ,OLICE 1� it Ci L 6' By: Cad, Keil fey D. Jennin 0 rati s Commander RBA:KDJ:ac i POLICE DEPARTMENT CONSOLIDATED MONTHLY REPORT 3 FOR AfONT(1 OF JUNE j9 84 --� DISTRIBUTION OF PERSONNEL r �AVERAGE ( Y t NUMERICAL STRENGTH DAILY ABSENCE { AVERAGE £FFECIIVE STR.ENH _G'[ End of Same This Same { This �, Last- Same this Month Month Month Month Month Month Last Lust Month Last Year Year Year K TOTAL PERSONNEL29 28 12.3 12,5 16.7 _ 16.4 15.5 3 1.3 i.6 1.7 1.7 1.4 CHIEF'S OFFICE 3 - SERVICES DIVIS. 7 7 3.0 3.2 -_ _4 0 Y3�7 3.8 PATROL DIVISION 14 13 6.0 6.0 8.0 7.9 7.0 2 2 2.0 .8 1.0 1.3 1.2 TRAFFIC DIVIS. - 3 3 -�% 1.0 1.9 2:0 - 1.8 ' ; 2_1 INVEST. SECTION --�- ~^ 13 4.1 6.1 7.9 7.1 6.9 FON ONE 12` . OA-tTWO 8` 8 3.4 3.3 4.6 5.1 4.7' - 97 4.8 3.1 4.2 4.2 3.9 _ FORCE THREE -- 1 DAT:LY-AVERAGE PATROL STRENGTH CHANGES IN PERSONNEL - - __�-. This Same Month1. Present for duty end of last month 28 Month Last Year 2e Recruited during month 1 ® 1. Total number field r. 3. Reinstated during month officers 16 15 Total to account for 29 2, Less Agents Assig- 0 0 4. Separations from the service: ned to Investigat. M10 3. Average daily abs- (a) Voluntary resignation ences of field off- (b) Retirement 0 icers owing to: � • a (c) Resigned with charges pending 0 ( ) Vacation, susP- ensi.on, days of.E , 0 7.0 6.3 (d) Dropped during probation comp. time, etc, 0 (b) Sick & Injured •9 •1 0 (e) Dismissed for cause (c) Schools, etc. •4 - (f) Killed in line of duty Total average daily (g) Deceased 0 absences 8.0 .6.8 Totalseparations0 4. Available for. duty �8.0 8.2 � 29 . . 5. �,., asent for duty at end of month TIGARD POLICE DEPARTMENT "Monthly Report 1 198 Year to Date 7,575 Calls for Service: This Month : 2 053.2 461.8 ? A. Obligated Time B. Non-Obligated Time II. PART I CRIMES No. Cleared !irrests A. Homicide B. Rape 2 —3 C. Robbery, 4 - 1----- D. Assault i — 1 E. Burglary 27 5 "rI 17 F. Larceny,. — 48 X G. Auto Theft 3 1 s H, Arson _------ T0� AL"; 31 23 _ 100 80 62 III. PART 11 TOTALS TOTAL Part I and II 183 80 62 IV. TOTAL PERSONS CHARGED: 62 a. Adult Male 36 C. Juvenile Male 16 b. Adult Female — d. Juvenile Female��— V. WARRANTS SERVED 15 VI. TOTAL PROPERTY LOSS $ 78,324 TOTAL PROPERTY RECOVERED $ 33,647 ". VII. : TRAFFIC 25 injury Accidents— a. Fatal 0 a. Accidents Investigated y s b. Citations: VBR (Speeding)_64 Yield Right of Way 6 Following too Close 2 Red Light 38 Stop Sign 32 Improper Turn 11 Reckless Driving �__ Careless Driving 8 Driving Under the Influence 6 Driving While Suspended 12 Other Hazardous 28 Non-Hazardous 174 Total Hazardous 207 c. Enforcement Index 34.50 d. Traffic Enforcement Totals ns: This Month This Year 381 Year to Date 2,610 _or_ This Month Last Years-bast Year to Date 1513 Warnings: This Month This Year 428 Year to Date 2334 This Month Last Year 44 LastYear to Date 2333 NOTE: - Part I Crimes (Major Crimes) Clearance Rate 37.3% Part 11 Crimes (Minor Crimes) Clearance Rate 49.0% `r1GA.FD POLI"= T�EPF 2r ' :'.z. SIX-1301vTH y- RePort Calls for Service: 7,575 A. Obligated`Time 11,885.8 B. Nor.-Obligated Tire 3,181.1 PART I CRIMES % No. Cleared Arrests' A. Homicide B. Rape 3 `-6 + C. Robbery 12 6 11 6 6 D. Assault 54 —32 E. Burglary 172 F. Larceny 282 107 -- 4 G. Auto Theft 21 5 _ _�—2 Arson 6 1 --- —' H.' 508 183 134 PART.I TOTALS: 263 III. PART 11 TOTALS 499 318 TOTAL - Part I and II 824 501 397 — IV. TOTAL PERSON'S CHARGED: 397 a. Adult rale 217 ` c. Juvenile Male 8g �`.. b 6 d. Juvenile Female 25 . Adult Female V. WARRANTS SERVED 65 81,178 VI. ,TOTAL PROPERTY LOSS $ 1x01,764 TOTAL PROPERTT RECOVERED $__ VII. TRAFFIC a. Accidents. Investigated 185 Injury Accidents 39 Fatal 0 b. Citations; VBR (Speeding)551 Yield Right of Way 49 Following too Close 24 Red Light 272Stop Sign218 a Improper Turn68P.eckless Driving. 2 Careless Driving 55 Driving Under the Influence5l Driving 1dhile Suspended96 Other Hazardous 242- Non-Hazardous 982 Total Hazardous 1,628 c. Enforcement index 41.74 d. Traffic Enforcement Totals Citations: 2,610_ ( Warm= 2,334 (major Crimes) Clearance Rate 36.07 ?iOTL; Part I Crimes (� j Clearance Rate 63./7. Part 11 Crimes (ilinor Crimes, SIR PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS i FUEL USED DATE: June 1984 Gallons Monthly Using Dept. Gallons % yr-to-date $ Amount Account Number PWWW 2.92. 9 136 3, 102 .3 05-02120-650 PWST 234.5 109 39211 .`7 05-02130-650 PWSS 18.9 t009 321 .3 05-02150-650 PWP 101.2 047. 896.6 05-02140-650 ADM -0- - 373 .0 05-03200-650 ENG. 87.0 .0401 1, 162.4 05-02160-650 BLDG 65 .9 L-031 950.4 05-02220-650 PD 1,2!4 .0 .563 14 ,924.9 05-01120-650 PD 107 . 1 -05 1, 630.5 05-01130-650 oa er 481.0 Cars 33.7 .016 05-03200-650 TOTALS 2, 155 . 2 27 ,054 . 1 GALLONS`3N: 2,490. GALLONS OUT: (2, 155 . 2] NET . a + A + + iCC: Frank Currie-z" n . ;, + Jerry MCNurlin } / + Capt. Jennings + Sgt . Newman � � i !: • + Cindy Cranston ! � + • '! + I W . PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS Date. 7/4/84 _ Maintenance 4eport YEAR TO DATE CURRENT MONTH (Jun) 1984 Pw0 PD TOTAL PWO FD TOTAL Oil 33.61 19. 78 53.39 462 2 3 -0-• 380.00 380.00 2 , 192. 22 , 1, 748.96 3,941.18 Tires Maint. Labor Maint. 856.35 867 .67 1 ,724 .0211 Parts 62 .35 40.86 103.21 Repair Labor Repair 7,•747 .20 2,749.46 10,496.66 Parts 64. 13 291.25 355.38 Outside 936.15 1 ,304 .96 . 2,241 :31 Re air -0-. 25.00 25.00 FUEL 1,066:251,`531. 1 2,597.40 11 ,301.9 17 ,328.65 28,630.'58 :TOTAL 1,226:34 ,288.0- 3,514 .3$ 23,495 .8724,351. 43 47 847 30 CCs Frank Currie Jerry McNurlin _Lt_;-Vheele= Capt . Jennings • � M � n J .T � r 00 �� .O M O O. N I 1 .J M � N � O• + V ® 6 Y 09 N 1L o Y e ce.a 1+ 1■u J N N �.. b b1 N 6 C M x.a N co u".0 N OfS : S d N • co 1E:Y q• J :.q. W }g i+ } G N . u6 C Z L) ...q... 0!) p 00 C5 1-1 •. x O 0 N 'n, •� M U C Y ® M .O N J J� M M Y1 A W � •-� _.. 1•. s x v a W m M .Q 9+tm t! 100T N 7• «moi pl H M Y a' eo O 00 P r1 .O In M H ed P � O '•O Y1 J 07 N N O� J M M v1 M N M pp M 1!1P 00 q 'dW O .O J 1/1 N P M M vl W ul M V1 N • M b J o7 J m O N rn •O M J N C W N P coNa N - _ Y .OO M J O J .r M N h N M 01 J H M J In. h •o M O c0 h O+ Vl V1 p Y h M M O. .O J n M a0 to p • d N O M J Vl �O Y b J p J CO N 01 N m m O J m O O � G Go o �+ •-1•-1 • . O • P U'1 O. P N O P M Y d i K• chip h N J J J M c w v 0 p z e a ua yi s•i + N �� + •� + � � BV Vi VB 6P i0 .9tl � O 94 y0. w uM Y• • u• u h y $ L• Y} i P i Y M b 4 6 i i� • iV U C � ti i ( a a w i i m ►• w v Y u! N b ■ q > O V ! i y Y! b► y ► b a B Ji u i s d� i i ■ 4 O V 1• •y b tl y i i Y O i y 0.9 i M u u< Y W M qF !F b M O O i i iF+C tlF OA ® 7F i i �e V i 9 u u V i O 1'• O..7U •V <4 V •4614 NV A'• d n N •+ •w r O r M D •� r .i s nOn ^ r r r .. °'. w t, d M Y � 7 d O a6 b b O a A d ! a a ` « O +7 h C Y a� u b C O w c O IF -9 0 x m ' As d m I IU3 0 w 3L. O J Y S S 1 y O Y 1 QD, S Z z s ® N O N ! d V1 OS l'1 Y.y Fax M .0 0 co N PI W O l'1 O N _ Y SO N N O Y 00 O t+1 go N e C ul r .O r N O a m $4 d • b H D N O p b ~ ID d �•' O i Nb b A a Yb N A 9 tl N y t.1 u b tl'1 b 0 v H06u A e n y b ".1 O a•.2b H q4 i bb. aw 5► AV 4u W ___ h 1 h N e-t t•'1 O N � � Pl 4 O W /•'1 C1 W . 4 M N � d M ® 4 9 d 1+ b d M a4.a vl O O O. 0.4 4 Y 6V 0� 6 4 ^ m o d 0 N Y b G O .q:.0 s. xa uw �✓1.: N tit. .0 tL ~ ~ h W ce 41 ,y O 0 d W O N a ,W 'Z N V1 a ++ V C N .O O. .�.+ t•1 O. � ttt W N O. t•t - W u A .O O• O .D' � � N .O O J .•t � 4' Y O J O N � I r9 t•t N Y 4• V -1 m h b N W •D h OO Q J ..'� . -��P Z V O h ••1 .Na P M PN1 � � ~ O x x t- e o .0 O M M 0 J CD N N co 4 d w1 v 0 9 O Nt O'O h VZ U'i h N O O � W td O h J .O h q SPI M N N N O O h N J `C 1 w1 N'1 N ^i.•1 N O� W N N d rt � O. 0. D 0. b 6 q 6 O. ®i• 6 0 ® ~ r •'O A O D m V ^ A i Q�A A R� O.� O O A � t/ O tl Y O tl ! tl A �d 4 .M • Y 9 Y tl tl O V V M G .✓e .u1 i .,Vi Y i .A y w tl .� M M Y H b A.�tl d ti e �A d Y r .� .�• .1 A® N b N •i rl? 9 W d pL. OG OC Od O O O O O OV pY Y�6 btl MY MY O V YV o a c \ W CITY OF` TIGARD PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS June/84 Report DATE: July 5 , 1984 OPERATIONS OFFICE: GREEN THUMB LABOR PARKS : 74.0 hrs mowing 136.0 hrs mowing 6. 0 hrs irrigation 34 hrs restroom maint. 26.0 hrs restroom maint. h hr.restroom mainld t. 6.0 hrs ballfield maint. 8.0 hrs rec . equip . maint . 11 .0 hrs 'rec . equip'. maint . 50.O hrs landscaping 14 . 5 hrs landscaping 76.0 hrs construction 132. 5 hrs construction 40. O hrs community service labor STREETS: 63 . 5 hrs street cleaning 11. O hrs patching 39. 5 hrs painting & street marking 18 .0 hrs sign maintenance 54 .5 hrs brushing & limbing 199. 0 hrs grading & rocking 1 .0 hr sanding WASTE WATER: 221 . 5 hrs T.V. inspection 80. 5 hrs sanitary sewer clean 135 .5 hrs storm drain clean 2 .0 hrs sanitary repairs 6 .0 hrs smoke test 49 .0 hrs manhole repairs 1 .0 hr flooding 16.0 hrs ditching 22 .0 hrs storm drain repairs SUPPORT SERVICES: 16. 5 hrs P.M. on equipment 52 . 5 hrs scheduled repairs 9 .0 hrs unscheduled repairs 180 . 8 hrs fabrication 9 .0 hrs road service 39.0 hrs building maintenance 108 .5 hrs general support CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: July 23, 1984 AGENDA ITEM #: DATE SUBMITTED: July 19, 1984 PREVIOUS ACTION: Received Report ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Receive and prior to 2-13-84 File Police Department Annual PREPARED BY: Loreen Wilson Report ` REQUESTED BY: Loreen Wilson DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: INFORMATION SUMMARY Prior to the Council meeting of 2-13-84, a copy of the Police Department Annual Report was submitted for your perusal. The official presentation of this report was unable ' to be scheduled before the Council due to heavy agendas. Staff wishes to have the receipt of this report made a formal part of theCouncilrecord. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED SUGGESTED ACTION Receive and File report to formalize the Council record, lw/1803A a �'f�y+' .F' _vr.Vie'.�. 1 /�I�fF" :'(p✓ �lmr ,+� z Beard on Po/ice Standards and Training SUITE 404,"THE EXECUTIVE HOUSE,325 13th ST. N.E., SALEM, OREGON 97310-1071 PSI. (503)378-3674 OTOH AnYEH OREGON POLICE ACADEMY, 550 N. MONMOUTH AVE- MONMOUTH, OREGON 97361 PH. (503)378-2100 March 2, 1984 Chief Robert B. Adams Tigard Police Department 9020 r SIV Burnham Street Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Bob: I have been planning to write to you since our conversation the other day, but I delayed in order to conduct a little experiment first. I routinely routed your 1983 Annual Report through our Research and AZanagement' Section for;inclusion in our;resource library. Today I heard from Leonard Skinner, section chief, who commented on how thorough your report was and what a wealth of management information it contained. He was;especially interested in your use of goals and the measurement of values tiahich makes your report unique in this state. Jerry Butler, who also works in this section and who will be taking over when Leonard retires in April, has withheld the second copy from the library for a couple of months as he is planning to use it as an example when he teaches in our next middle-management class the week of April 23 to 27. I thought you would enjoy their reaction and I would like to add that I share 'their views completely. Thanks for remembering us with the copies and please pass our best wishes on to those persons who helped develop and prepare this report. Sincer , Paul Bettiol Executive Director PB:dat r I .t •� � vim- ,R OR mS, um g � z ��5'�5;��'�- Mggr, Eti;: ukr x, K.+4+�.lY ..t+i+'+�-w.e EYP,��t`n 3rvFG��`i•� TFFF�7.��45. � � { L ��k ge gip, TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Law Enforcement Code of Ethics. . Page.1 2. Dedication of the Report. Page 2 3. Personnel. Pages 3 - 6 4. The Community Crime Rate. Page 7 5. Crime Clearance Rate and Performance Objectives. . .. . . . ..... Pages 8 - '10 6. Traffic Related Activities and Performance Objectives... . .'. Pages 11 - 12 7. Calls for Police Service.. Page 13 8. Administrative Division. . Pages 14 - 19 9. Patrol Division. . Pages 20 23 ..,_ 10. Police Reserve Unit... . . .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .... .... .. .... .. ... P 24 Page ` 11. Investigation Division. . .. Pages 25 26 12. Support Services Division. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. . ... ... . Pages 27 - 28 13. Consolidated 1983 Yearly Report.. .. . . .. •.• Pages 29 - 40 �` 40 �.l � w i Er-ttforre ('Yirery m �Eandarrae,zteaL duf� iJ �o Serv¢ man ind; to Sa/es�ecard Lei and property;,to tarofect,tbzs innocent st�ainJf steer: tion,'I& weal acq'ainmt oppression or intimidation, and ffze peacelat a9am-51 f / g �1 Q vto nee or di9ordera and to reJpeet the �onStetutEOnaC Pe �t3 O�af�men t0 LEb¢Ptu� ejualety and ludlEce. ; Loop m y OrEvateCtle unJufl ed aJ an exalt,-PL to al maintain ntain eoura- geotsS ca& to t�t¢ ace O1don yerj Scorn, or rtdical develop .4811-restraint; and to 00 ®! 9 ® d / g 4t and flood in 6014. eon.Stant�y mih4juL tke we, arc o�ot�erS..l�ona3t in thoEec� P txz personal.orad o� eiaC' ¢, will �e exe,n&P arV in ole y ng fh¢ w3 0 fh¢ y f _ nd and tfte regul tionl o1 mV d¢partmenL VVhatev¢r 3e¢ or hear o�a con- d LC b �r dential Izature or that i3 confided to me in my ofllc aCg eapaeitf tui ¢ ¢pt over Secret unI m revelation iJ nec¢SJar� in the �¢r�ormance o�my dutcy. ^,3 ll never act "o��ciouJCy or permit personal leell-L93, pre)udic¢J, aninzoSitie3 or �ft¢6Td3i&6pJ to tra�6ctenC6 my d¢G[J6onS. itk no comprorittJe for crime and tuitft on of crzrn nal, J` Will enforce Ike law eourteouSty anal relentt�eSJ prosecuti • appropriatety withoeet fear Or/avor, maitce or S taIiLC, n¢ver employmg unnecessary 0rce or violence and never accepting gratuities.. Elco lad e o/mf ollce aJ a s fmbol olpullic jaitft, and ,.� rr // ®p II dp L acce t it aJ a UMC treat to to he[d so long as J` am true to tfte ethic) o/ th.e d -d police Service. J eviLL conStantIV-strive to ackove t�t¢Je 0biectivo5 an t eaad , ed icating m yJet�be °re �od to Ing eoJ¢rz pro�¢39ion [aur ¢n�orcemenf DEDICATION This report is dedicated to the citizens of Tigard for their expressed support of quality police service' provided over the past years; and to the Mayor:and City Council,;and City Administrator, for your support. As we continue into the decade of the 801s, and the challenge of pro- viding appropriate levels of police service with limited resources ; the police department will meet this challenge with innovative programs and stated performance objectives. This will be possible largely because of the 'quality and dedication of its, personnel to serve the citizens of this community, and pride in 'their chosen profession, law enforcement. In conclusion, I wish to express,my appreciation to all members of the department for `a job wellydone; for professional and dedicated service to the citizens of Tigard. ' You all have made a vital contribution to the policing of this community; for this you all have my heartfelt` thanks. R.B. Adams Chief of Police Page 2 NEMIROW NINE=1110 PERSONNEL' I. The following is a recap of department personnel, experience, education and training levels, of which I'am very proud, and that is the quality of personnel within the Police Department organization, which is its strength. The department personnel allocation is 29 positions: 22,sworn and 7 non sworn'. The position classifications are as follows: Sworn Personnel: Chief of Police; one Captain; two Lieutenants; two sergeants;;three corporals; and thirteen patrol officers`. Non-Sworn Personnel: One Support Services Manager; and six clerk dispatchers. II. , The cummulative years of experience within the sworn personnel group is 215 years and 6 months. The average years of experience per member in this category is 9 years and 9.5 months. The average years of experience of administrative, command and supervisory personnel, is 14 ,years and 8 months. The cummulative years of college education in this group is 51.2 years, an average of 2`.33 years per member. Of this group there are 13 A.S. dzgrees and 3 B.A. degrees. The 'vast majority of this education is related to Police Science/Criminal Justice programs, and 59.09 per cent of this group hold college degrees. The- level of Board on Police Standards and Training (BPST) certification is as follows: Executive (2) ; Management(2) ; Advanced (10); Intermediate (7); Basic (3). 54 per cent of this group hold Advanced Certificates or better. In the area of certified BPST training, the cummulative total training of sworn personnel is 21,546 hours, an average of 979.4 hours per member. III. The Support Services Division personnel (non-sworn) are composed of a 7 member unit, having a division manager and 6 clerk dispatchers. The cummulative years of experience in this division is 30 years and 10 months. The average years of experience per member is 4 years and 5 months. The cummulative years of college education in this division is 6.9 years. The average per member is .99 years, 28.6% of the members in this division hold college degrees. Support; Services Division personnel do not fall under, the BPST Training Act at this time; however, they do accumulate certified training. The total certified training hours in this division is 638 hours for an It should be noted that one of the average of 91.1 hours per member. members in this division is a relatively new employee; subsequently, no ( training hours are indicated at this time. IV. I have directed personnel into specific areas of training to enhance i` personal skills to deal with specific policing problems and to provide an internal training resources such as firearms training; narcotic investigations; hostage negotiations; crime prevention; child abuse; automated management,systems; K-9 program; motorcycle traffic enforcement program; and Community Crime Watch programs. These efforts are intended to develop an existing staff capability and { skills to cope with community growth and increased workload in the future. Preparationfor future;police, service delivery systems for a growing community are vitally,important. Page 4 SWORN PERSONNEL BPST Years Certifi Certified Experience College cation Training' Yrs. '- Mos. < Degree Education Level Hours Admini ration 1`. R.B. Ad 26 - 3 AS 3.3 A.M.E. 1,544 2. Capt. J,:nnings 12 - 6 AS 2.5 A.M.E. 810 3. Grisham 6 - 9 2.2 I 817 Patrol 4. Lt Wheeler 12 - 3 AA/AS/BS 4.7 A 1,378 5. Sgt. Martin 11 - 2 AS 2.5 A 2,103 6. Sgt. Newman 14 - 1 AS 3.1 A 1,749 7. Cpl. Johnson 13 5 1.3 A 651 8. Cpl. Killion 12 3 AS 3.6 A ` 636 9. Cpl. Myers 10 - 4 ' AS 2.7 A 997 10. Featherston 11 - 1 AS 2.8 A 831 11. DeVeny 7 6 2.0 I 2,115 12. Merrill 7 6 AS/BA 5.1 1 538 13. Peterson' S - 1 ` `AS 2.0 I 624 14. Bpothby 0 - 5 -0= 50 15. Schober 0 - 5 -0- 266 16. Ober 2 6 AS 2.0 B 430 17. Newman 7 - 0 1.5 1 590 �.8. Harburg 5 6 BA 4.0 B 762 9. Nerski 8 4 1.9 B 1,684 Investigation 20. Lt. Branstetter 19 - 0 AS 2.7 A 1,022 21. deBrauwere 11 2 .7 I 803 22. Goldspink 11 - 1 _6 I 1,144 TOTALS: 215 6 51.2 21,546 AVERAGES PER MEMBER: 9 yrs. and 9.5 mos. 2.33 979.4 Advanced = 10 College Degrees: AS = 13 Intermediate = 7 BA = 3 Basic = 2 Executive &"Management = 2 59.09% of the above personnel hold college degrees Police experience levels of,Administrative/Command Personnel = 14 years, 8 months 'average Certification Levels: 1. Executive = E 4. Intermediate = I 2. Management = M 5. Basic = B 3. Advanced = A Page 5 NON-SWORN .PERSONNEL YearsCertified Experience College Training Yrs. Mos. Degree Education Hours 1. Carrick 11 1 .4 278 2. Killion 7 2 121 3. Crow 4 4 57 4. DeVeny 3 - 10 AS 2.0 119 5. Ouarnero 2 - 6 AS 2.0 39 6. Cummins ` 1 - 4 2.5 24 7. Cody 0 - 7 -0- TOTALS 30 yrs. - 10 mos. 6.9 638 AVERAGES PER MEMBER: 4 yrs. - 5 mos. .99 91.1 tF College Degrees: AS = 2 28.6% of the above personnel hold college degrees t Page 6 5 , 0 THE COMMUNITY CRIME RATE I.- Part I Crime Rate: The Part I crime rate increased 0.6% in 1983; 1,230 crimes were reported ; in this class, an increase of .7 cases over the previous year. The victimi- zation rate per 1000 citizens was 66.92, a decrease of 2.87 victims per 1000 compared to 1982. In summary of Part I crimes reported, they are as follows: .POPULATION: 18,379 (1983) / 17,500 (1982) t RATE PER 1000 POP. " PART I OFFENSES 1983 1982 % CHANGE 1983 1982 1. Homicide 0 2 200.0% .114 2 66.6% . Forcible Rape 3 5 - 14 .285.6 3. Robbery 19 26 - - 36.8% 1.038 1.485 4. Assault 110 98 12.2% 6.011 5.600 ' 5. Burglary 382 324 + 17.9% 20.874 18.514 6. Larceny 666 726 - 9.0% 36.393 41.485 7. Auto Theft 50 42 + 19.0% 2.732 2.400 TOTALS 1230 1223 ' + 0.6% 66.924 69.885 II. Property Loss: The total property loss as reported from robbery, burglary, larceny and auto theft in 1983 is $847,047.02, an increase of $167,203.68 as compared to 1982; of the loss reported this year $256,088.52 was recovered, or 30.23%. TM III. Part II Crime Rates There are 22 crimes within the Part II group, which are identified in the annual statistical report attached. I will not cover these by specific classification. The cummulative total Part II crimes reported in 1983 was 723, down 52 from 1982, a reduction of 7.19%• IV. Combined Crime Rate: (Inclusive of Part I and II) The total number of crime reports received in 1983 was 1953, as compared to 1998 in 1982, an overall decrease of 45 cases, or down 2.3%. Page 7 CRIME CLEARANCE RATE I. Part I Crime Clearance: In 1983 the department cleared 29`.5% of the total Part I crimes reported, ' up 6% compared to 1982. Of the 1230 reported Part I crimes, 363 were cleared, in contrast to 287 cleared in 1982, 'a case clearance increase of 76 or 26.5%. In summary of Part I crimes cleared, they are as follows: Cases Cleared % Cleared PART.I OFFENSES 1983 1982 1983 1982 Criminal Homicide 0 2 -0- 100.00/. Forcible Rape 6 3 200.0% 60.0% Robbery 15 8 78.9% 30.8% Assault 86 76 78.20/. - 77.6% Burglary 48 33 12.6% 10.20/6 Larceny 192 152 29.00/6 20.9% Auto Theft 16 13 32.00/. 31.00/6 TOTALS 363 287 29.5% 23.5% II, In contrast to National Crime Clearance Rates of Group V Cities (10,000 to 24,999 population), Part I Crime Clearance Rate = 22.376 Tigard = 29.5% III. Part II Crime Clearance Rate: There were 723 crimes reported in this classification in 1983, of that number 332 cases were cleared, or 45.9% IV. Total Persons Charged: Part I 310 Part II 337 Total 647 (a) Adult Male 305 (c) Juvenile Male 209 (b) Adult Female 70 (d) Juvenile Female 63 Tigard Police Officers made a total of 816 criminal arrests in 1983, an average of 2.24 arrests per day. Page 8 TIGARD POLICE DEPARTMENT 1983 CRIME CLEARANCE AND PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES AND STANDARDS I. Crime Clearance 'Rate Performance Data: A. National Crime Clearance Rates of Group V Cities 1. National Part I Crime Clearance: 22.3° 2. Tigard Part I Crime Clearance: 29.5% 3. Part I Crimes: Classification National Tigard 1. Criminal Homicide 78.4% 2. Forcible Rape 51.7% 200.0% 3. Robbery 29.8%' 79.0% 4. Assault 63.3% 78.2% 5. Burglary 16.3% 12.6% 6. Larceny 21.3% 29.0% 7. Auto Theft 20.7% 32.0% II. Crime Historical Data: Clearance Rate Summary: A. Years 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 B. Population (in 1000's) 14.6 14.8 15.1 17.5 18.3 C. National Crime Rate 20.0% 19.0% 20.4% 21.0% 22.3% D. Tigard Percentage 26.8% 23.7% 23.1% 23.5% 29.5%` E. Investigative Division Clearance Rate Part I and Part II Crimes % 25.3% 40.7% 33.6% 45.80/6 32.37% F. Total Department Case Load (Part I and II Crimes) 1925 1856 1881 1998 1953 III. Stated 1982 Crime Clearance Performance Goals: . Goal Actual A. Part I Crimes 28% 29.50/. B. Part II Crimes 58% 45.9%' C. Investigative Division Part I and II Crimes 42% 32.37% Page 9 t GoalActual f D. Victimization Rate Limits: 1. Part I crimes per 1000 population 70 66.92 3 2. Part II crimes per 1000 population 50 39.34 k s E. Crimes Cleared per Officer: 18.5 19.72 1. Part I crimes i 24.6 18.04 2. Part II crimes t 43.1 37.77 3. Total Crimes Cleared € NOTE: 1983 case clearance rate per officer, 37.77; in 1982 the rate was 38:16 F. Recovered Stolen Property: 32% 30.23%' s 1 1 t is Page 10 NEW TRAFFIC RELATED ACTIVITIES There were 415 reported accidents in 1983, an increase of 50 over 1982, or up 13.7%. As indicated above, there was an 'increase in the number of accidents investigated this year. However, this is the first year in several that there were no fatal accidents. A total of 2,944 citations were issued in 1983, of that total 2,116 hazardous violations were issued. This translates into an enforcement index of 19.06. Accident and Enforcement Summary 1983 1982 415 365 ACCIDENT TOTAL 1 Fatal 111 104 Personal Injury 45 43 Property Damage 9 6 Pedestrian 121 106 Hit and Run ENFORCEMENT Traffic Total 2944 2079 Hazardous Violations 597 2116 1497 497 Other Violations 582 291 298 Parking 50 97 DWI 21 21 17 Hit and Run 215 195 Arrests, Citations or Custody at Accidents Traffic Performance Standards and Objectives: There are several elements to the management of the traffic enforcement program, which are monitored throughout the year. The following is a five year summary of performance standards and objectives. I. Traffic Enforcement Performance Data 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 Population (in 1000's) 14.6 14.8 15.1 17.5 18.4 Enforcement Levels 2193 2329 2048 2079 2944 A. Performance Data 1. Accident Rate per 1000 Population Population = Rate per 1000 Accidents Page 11 m 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 # of Accidents 410 432 347 365 415 Rate 28.08 29.18 22.98 20.85 22.55 2. Enforcement Index (Minimum Standard - 10) Hazardous Violations Enforcement Index Injury' & Fatal Accidents < 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 12:38 13.47 14.27 14.39 19.06' 3. Accident Investigation Enforcement Rate (Standard - 501/6) Citation/Arrest Accident Investigation Enforcement Rate Accidents 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 54.6 51.2 50.8 53.42 51.8' B. Quality Measure 1. Conviction Ratio (High Quality - 95%) Conviction Hazardous Violations _ Conviction Ratio 0/6 Total Hazardous Violations 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983_ 95.4% 95.4% 95.8% 96.5% 95.0% II. Stated 1983 Performance Goals: Goal Actual A. Enforcement Index 26 19.06 B. Accident Investigation Enforcement Rate 50% 51.8% C. Conviction Ratio 95% 95.0% NOTE: 1983 U.T.C. enforcement per officer, 176,2; in 1982 the rate per officer was 138.6. Page 12 Midi CALLS FOR POLICE SERVICE I. The department responded to several thousand calls for service in 1983," plus traffic accidents and enforcement. The following is an inventory of the number of calls and activities. E 1983 1982 Part I Offenses 1230 1223 Part II Offenses 723 775 Non-CriminalComplaints ` 6161 5555 Traffic' Accidents 415 365 Traffic: Enforcement 2944 2377 y 11,473, 10,295 Up ll.4F4% II. This translates into a work load per line officer (18.4 members) of 623.5 cases per year. In 1982 the case load was 541.6, this year officers invididually handled 81.9 additional cases. III. In responding to calls for police service, and patrolling the city, police vehicles traveled a total of 217,262 miles at a cost of $30,017 or 13.81 cents per mile. { Page 13 y ADMIRATION DIVISION olice I. of the There are three members within this element' anal officer Grsham, consisting of the Chief of Police, Capt. Jennings, Crime Analyst/Prevention/community Education Programs. ons II. There are a multitude of adminortroftheaoahernagvtisionsent uncAlnumerical vided',by this division in supe 'E listing of tasks are as follows: 1. City staff meetings 2. Police department staff meetings 3. City Council meetings 4. - Daily management functions 5. Correspondencex 6, Washington County Law Enforcement Council meetings 7, Community Relations programs 8. Budget management 9. Budget development 10. Programmanagement functions 11. Internal and external affairs 12. Non-scheduled conferences 13. Recruiting interviews 14. Divisional supervision 15. News releases 16. Training schedules 17, Scheduled conferences and seminars r 18. Supervision of coordination between Divisions 19. Work schedules 20. Crime analysis 21. Management information systems 22. Department performance inspections/audits 23, Work load forecasts III. Department Performance Objectives: 1983 Value Goal Actual Objectives 1. Department Crime Clearance Rate 28% 29.5% 105.4% A. Part I crime 58% 45.9%° 79.1° B. Part II crime 2. Investigative Division Clearance Rate 42'/° 32.37% 77.1% A. Part I and II crimes 3. Victimization Rate Limits 70 66.92 104,6% A. Part I crimes per 1000 pop• 50 39.34 127.1% B. Part II crimes per 1000 pop. 32% 30.23% 9IF.5% 4. Recovered Stolen Property t Page 14 NMI:: ell Goal Actual Value 5. Crimes Cleared Per Officer 106.6% 18.5 19.72 ( A. Part I crimes 24.6 18.04 73.3% B. Part II crimes 43.1 37.77 87.6% C. Total crimes cleared i 6 Total Crime Performance Goal Achievement Value: 95.03% 7. Traffic Enforcement Performance 26 19.06 73.31% A. Enforcementindex 103.60 ° B. Accident investigation' 50% 51.8% enforcement rate 95°/° 95.0% 100.0% 92.1% Value: C. ' Conviction Ratio sA D. Total Traffic Performance Goal Achievement 8 Response Time to Call for Service A. Priority Code I (routine) (1) Goal: as resources are available (2) Average response time - 11.5 minutes t B. Priority Code II (prompt) Non-emergency F (1) ' Goal:` response time 15 minutes m r as soom as resources are available (2) Average response time _ _7.5 Person may be in danger or crime may C. Priority Code III (immediate) - Per may Te—suit in apprehension be in progress, and rapid resp (1) Goal: 5 minute response standard y. (2) Average response time - 6 minutes D. Priority Code IV (emergency) - Life is in immediate danger, or in circumstance of similar magnitude when time is critical (1) Goal: 4 minutes or less response standard (2) Average response time - 6 minutes E. Priority Code V (delayed). Assigned at citizen request c (1) Respond when citizen available minutes (2) Average response time - 59 eived at ispatch Response time is measured from the ittime arriveslatsthe cdesignated hlocation. Center and when the dispatched un All calls for service require he initces ivision f a dispatch card regardless of the priority, by Support Se Summary' As can be seen from the above stated pWhenrcommunirfomance btyegrowth,ishtakenaintont performed very well overall in 1983. Page ].5 consideration and staffing remains the same as in past years, department performance was outstanding. Case loads continue to increase; therefore, low_priority`_cases receive less attention. Therefore, performance objectives may not have been met in specific areas, which is predictable. IV. Budget Management A. Administrative Budget Resource Salaries $ 95,437 Benefits 38,267 Sub total $133,704 Materials & Services 6,580 Capital 'Outlay -0- Total $140,284 Percent of Administration Division personnel cost to total department personnel cost = 12.86% The members of this division (3) worked 5,361 hours in 1983, the hourly costwas $26.17. B. Total Police Department Budget Resource Salaries 725,802 Benefits 325,246 Sub total 1,051,048 Materials & Services 95,972 Capital Outlay -0- Total $1,146,927 The members of the department (29) worked a total of 53,699 hours in 1983, at an hourly cost of $21.35 V. Programs A. Integrated Criminal Apprehension Program The Integrated Criminal Apprehension Program has now been in operation for two full years, 1982 and 1983. The program offers four basic functions that aid in criminal investigations and departmental projects. These functions are: 1) crime analysis; 2) statistical analysis; 3) informa- tion networking; and 4) format report generation. Crime Analysis Now that ICAP has been on-line for two years, the data base is significantly larger, which enables CAU to provide more extensive information back to police personnel. Page 16 film �`° Through ICAP, information has been developed which aids PatrolDivision shift commanders in designing and implementing directed_patrol'assignments targeting crime and traffic enforcement.- Information Networking Withtheaid of computers throughout the Portland metropolitan area police agencies, the Tigard Police Department is exchanging and analyzing information on a continuous basis between these other Crime Analysis'Units. Statistical Analysis With ICAP, the four divisions within the department are accessing statistical data which aids each in budget preparation and management, and 'work load forecasting. In 1983 several new programs were developed by the crime analyst. These programs are: TMIS Traffic Management Information System This system was designed to track traffic accidents by their various elements -- location, time of day,` road conditions, accident causation -- which provides valuable information in 'managing the selective traffic enforcement program. IMIS - Investigative Management Information System This program is designed to,more effectively manage the ever-increasing work load of criminal investigations by tracking assessment of cases solvability weighting, current case status. Also, through this program investigative productivity can be monitored and evaluated. This is a " valuable aid in performance assessment. Overtime Tracking File This program was designed as a management tool to assist with the allocation of manpower. During 1984 this program will provide division managers with current figures in the Divisional overtime accounts. Numbers and Evaluation During 1983 over 976 cases were entered and analyzed in the computer, and over 766 field interview cards were entered, as well as 404 pawns. There were nearly 300 requests for information from the Crime Analysis Unit (C.A.U. ) A Tigard officer recently filled out a Field Interview Report (F.I.R. ) on a suspicious person whom he had stopped for a minor traffic infraction. Networking with Portland Police Bureau regarding recent abduction and rapes of children developed into suspect identification from the F.I.R. Page 17 r 4` 3; ' G i ORIGINAL ICAP PROGRAMS AND ADDED ENHANCEMENTS y i aoas ess IT* be lea6gmalt TOS _ g w M m u ul J V ffia h tr S SOPTtl1R£ PRDDWAN' OidACNn5f0 PRaGRAM3 DES IONED OT DEPARTMENT tD 046( Page .18 4 B. Public Relations/community Education � The Tigard Police Dep artment spent 228-3/4 hours presenting various public relations/community education programs during 1983• ceive instruction from police personnel The children of the city res rethe con through high school. Depending upon the beginning in P presented range from the simple the subjects grade level contacted, preschools to the complex, sophis- { "Officer Friendly" programs �n the p t ticated search and seizure forums in the high school druoaeducation,1ng T 11 procedures,of the topics covered would includes 9 P 1. 'police careers and driver's education, bicycle safety. e police The 3 Tigard Kiwanis Clubs They contributed tfunds aid h havefinanccedthepurchase of department with juvenile programs the popular Portland Trailblazer trad lastic "Junior Policecards that ,' badges thatare on the back, and the purchase of p ) rades'P through 3. The Terrific Tigard Kiwanis Club. very popular with g Town" program that is held each is also the main sponsor of the "Safety summer at Charles F Tigard School. � o provides many types of public relations/ The police Departmentals ms for adult Tigard residents. The emphasis community education progra of these programs is usually directed at,security issues (usually arental burglary or °rape prevention) or more specific issues such as p drug education, recognizing child abuse or local criminal activity. Education. e _The'program that is.most requested covers Pan givenntal by Wheeler and This is a 2-1/2 hour multi-media presentation g d a drug kit are used Officer Grisham. Lecture, slides, brochures an to teach parents about the psychological profiles of teens, who use/ abuse drugs; drug identification; treatment resrogramlhashbeen pgiven and current drug enforcement activities. This p g to .civic* clubs, school parent organizations, and to the new "Tigard Turns the Tide" active parents group. C. Scholarship Established The fifth annual Tigard Police Officers Association charity thefpolice Tournament generated $1,500 for local charities. Each y personnel donate many hours of their own time to organize host this event. The 1.983 recipients were the Kiwanis Crippledg at Ti and Camp, and the establishment of a new T.P•O.A. scholarship High School. ' A deserving T.H.S. graduating senior will receive $500 for college based upon grades, financial need and a possible interest in a law enforcement career. The overall aim of the public relations/community education pro;rams is to prevention activities, and to promote a relationship of under- enhance crime p olice perosnnel and the citizens whom they standing and respect between the p serve. Page 19. PATROL DIVISION I. This division is the backbone of the department, being the firstresponder to the citizen call for police services. Their actions at the scene are vital as to the outcome of the request for service. The range of services are many, ranging from serious crimes and traffic accidents to barking dogs. This division is the largest component of the; police department.' Its members consist of one (1) lieutenant as the division commander; two (2) sergeants; ' three (3) corporals; and ten (10) patrolmen. This division aggressively pursues'criminals and patrols specific crime targets in the community, as indicated by the clearance rates above. This division is to be commended "for their attention to duty, and dedication to 'serving the citizens of Tigard`. All other divisions within the police department exist to support this division. II. Prevention Activity: Uniform personnel observed and reported 5,511 prevention activities, such as open windows and doors, street lights, suspicious persons and vehicles, signals out, signs down, etc. III. Calls for Service: 11,473 "IV. Hours of Work: The members of this division worked a total of 29,798 hours in 1983. The cost per hour for patrol division services was $22.35 this year. V. Patrol Division Budget: (FY 83/84) Salaries $423,206 Benefits 191,780 Sub Total $614,986 Materials and Services 51,087 Capital Outlay -0- Total $666,073 VI. Tactical Programs: A. K-9 Units The K-9 Team has completed one year of service at the close of 1983. During that time the Team responded to 214 calls for service. These calls ranged from apprehension of criminals to appearing before groups of school children. During the year the Team also underwent some changes. In August, K-9 Jake was injured ( by an automobile. Rehabitiative surgery was performed. During that time the Page 20 F Team acquired a new K-9, Major, from Stayton Police Department. Major was r" assigned to Officer DeVeny. K-9 Jake was sold to Deputy Mike Kennady of the - Douglas' County Sheriff's Office. Officer Miller resigned at year's end, and K=9 Buck was assigned to Officer Nerski. Officer Nerski and Buckare now in a training status. The K-9 team has compiled and designed a K-9 handler's course. We are awaiting certification of the program from the Board on Police Standards and Training at this time. The following is a breakdown of the Team's activity for the year of 1983: Team Totals Tracks' 88 Building Searches 95 Explosive Searches 3 Crowd Control 7 # Officer Protection'' 21 & Assistance Total 214 Total Finds and Apprehensions: 23 Average Building Search Time: 17.5 minutes Individual Handler and K-9 `Totals Officer Miller and Buck: percent of calls taken: 44% total apprehensions: 10 Percent of Success: 27% Officer DeVeny w/ percent of calls: 17.5% Jake and Major apprehensions: Jake 4 Major 2 Total: 6 Percent of Success: 33% Sgt. Martin and Joey: percent of calls taken: 37.5% total finds: 7 Percent of Success: 21% Statistical Recap The Team responded to 214 calls for service. Of the calls, 88 resulted in tracks in which the Team had 21.5% success rate, resulting in 23 apprehensions or finds. 95 buildings were searched and cleared by the Team. Three searches for explosives were conducted. K-9s were used in '7 crowd control situations and 21 times as backup for other officers. It should be noted that there were only 2 occasions in which K-9 handlers were involved in physical altercations. One concerned a mental subject where the K-9 could not be used as a deterrant. The second resulted in the only use of force by a K-9. This took Page 21 law place during the apprehension of a robbery suspect when the suspect resisted' arrest after being located by the K-9• No injury to the suspect was sus- tained. The Team spent over 350 hours in training, the majority of the time was volunteered. B. Motorcycle Traffic Unit Report = During 1983 there were 415 accidents; 111 injury, 304 non-injury. This is an increase over 1982, which had 365 accidents, 104 injury, 260 non'-injury, one fatal. Of the 415 accidents this year, 159 or 38% were investigated by the Traffic Unit. Enforcement index this year was 19.06 compared to 14.39 for 1982. A total of 2,944 citations were issued by the police department, the motor officers issued 1600, or 54% of all citations. Officer Featherston and Officer Newman received training at Coos Bay in Bilateral gaze nystagmus and computerized traffic investigation. Officer Featherstonattended a one week course at the Police Academy in "Advanced Motorcycle Riding." Both officers gave a "Motorcycle Safety Course" to the public. Officer Featherston talked with the "N.W. Cougar" car club on motor vehicle laws. t~ C. Narcotics Enforcement Task Force The purpose of this program is to target upon persons and places in the community who are active in the sale of unlawful narcotic drugs, and controlled substances. This activity is worked in cooperation with neighboring law enforcement agencies, which aid each other in specific investigations in their respective jurisdictions. This is not a specifically funded program, but relies on existing limited resources. Additional resources should be provided to allow more aggressive enforcement within the scope of this criminal activity problem, as there is a direct correlation between drug abuse and crimes such as theft, burglary and robbery. To what degree I am not sure, but evidence indicates considerable stolen property is used to support drug habits. Lt. Wheeler is the unit commander of this program, his responsibility includes scheduling enforcement activities within existing resources and coordination with other law enforcement agencies. To provide and schedule drug education programs upon request by citizens and groups within the community. There were 34 arrests made for narcotics and dangerous drugs during the 1983 ,year, and 8 search warrants were issued for controlled substances in that same period of time. Some of the above cases were worked with other police agencies of Beaverton Police, Lake Oswego Police, Washington County Sheriff's Office, Portland Police, Page 22 and we have from time to time worked with Hillsboro Police and Forest Grove ti P Police Departments. D. Community Crime Watch The purpose of this program,is to develop within neighborhoods a formal reporting system of suspicious occurrences, persons and vehicles in neighbor- hoods. To develop other crime prevention activities to protect persons and property. To enhance the harmonious relationship between citizens ,and the police departmentworking towards`a common goal, of reducing crime in the community. ' To the early identification and arrest of perpetrators of criminal activity in the community. The 'department goal is to have 10 neighborhoods that are interested in the program involved,by the end of fiscal year 84/85. This is a major undertaking. The goal for the calendar year 1983 of having 5 neighborhoods organized has been;met, and our 1984 goal is to:have 5 more on line by 'end of 1984 This program is not a specifically funded program, and relies on existing resources, ,as does the narcotics task force. Sgt. Martin is the team leader in this program, and will be assisted by the other patrol division watch`commanders and patrolmen in the total implement- ation of the program. Summerfield, Genesis, Englewood, 113th Street, and Hazelwood are presently on line, and other neighborhoods are being contacted relative to the program. Upon completion the city should experience"a significant 'downturn'in residential burglary and theft. There appears to be considerable community support and enthusiasm for the development of the program. Sgt. Martin, has been a leader in this activity, and is commended for his obvious dedication in serving the citizens of the community. 4 t Page 23 4 POLICE 'RESERVE UNIT Q I. The police department's reserve unit is a volunteer group of citizens who provide supplement police patrol services to the community, aiding the department in providing its 'service delivery responsibility within the community. There were seven (7) active members in 1983; however, four (4) new members began in January,; 1984 are are attending the Police Reserve Academy at this time at Clackamas Community College. The reserves are under the supervision of Reserve Lt. Ron Royse, and aided by Reserve Sgt: Stimler. This element has been extremely valuable to the department over the years. It is a well trained unit, dedicated to serving the community and worksin harmony ,with all other elements of the department. It is an extremely vital element of the police department. II. Summary of ;Volunteer Services Provided: Hours 1. General patrol 1489:5 2. Directed patrol 298.5 3. Transport prisoners 45.5 4. Court 277.5 5. Training 225.5 6. Dispatch duties 2.0 7. Community relations 21.0 8. Report writing 68.0 9. Reserve Academy 219.5 10. Special details 296.5 11. Administrative duties 139.5 Total Hours: 3083.0 Number of Days Reserves were on Duty: 614 III. Commendation: The Tigard Police Reserve Unit is to be commended for their interest and dedication in helping make Tigard a safe community for its citizens. They all have my appreciation and congratulations for a job well done, and for giving so freely of their time. R.B. Adams Chief of Police Page 24 rK INVESTIGATION DIVISION I. There are three members assigned to this division, consisting of a lieutenant (Division Commander), and two patrolmen/investigators. All members are active investigators, and the commander is responsible for the management and perform ance of the Division. II. This Division received a total of 1,680 cases for evaluation and investi- gation, consisting of both Part I 'and II crimes. Of that total, 906 were screened out as not having 'sufficient;leads to warrant additional investi gative time. This division actively investigated 241 Part I crimes, clearing 85 cases, or 35.3%. There was a combined total (Part I and II crimes) of 346 cases investigated by this division, clearing 112 cases, :or 32.37% of the total. III. In addition to the above, the Division Commander is responsible for the review of all OLCC andmerchantpolice and private investigator license applications and renewals. IV. Work Load Indicators Summary: Workload Indicators 1981 1982 1983 Cases:received 1489 1567 1688` Cases suspended 726 872 906 Cases investigated 375 253`' 346 Caseload/investigator 125 84.3 115.3 Part I cleared 73 56 57 Part II cleared 53 160 28 Percentage cleared 33.60/. 45.8% 32.39% Investigators/1000 pop. .198 .171 .161 Rape 6 5 4 Robbery 14 16 22 Larceny 57 39 57 Burglary 201 134 156 V. Budget Resource: WY 83/84) Salaries $ 84,750 Benefits 37, 908 Sub total $122,658 Materials & Services 9,560 Capital Outlay -Q- Total $132,218 The members of this division worked a total of 6,103 hours in 1983, at an hourly cost of $21.60 i +' Page 25 Oil 1/I. 1983 Annual I'E,r t`t,f't�rr�lii t UI•)xs� l.�/�{•� A. Crime 1, 1. Part, 1h i��Wl 2Part, I f 3. 8�!St FC�ftrc.f 4,Cr,:r i x.E �!asx: may"<,ut.S.i _R�.JfiS;/£.r✓l'M t`x i • i� f r� SL � �{ �.i i x, t >r � �<isy, r� ✓'�-` :L./�,�`+ ;,jit:3.trl, A i t rF. 1 � �� j .'3Ls _�'•��Jf _ it..r %:.:. �+✓''�v' £x x � yam'}. r -� � � - �; ... e s;� � � / != / '✓_ i 'rte >Y Y�✓..-� .�_ `1��5. �.� �5.: yr :f y1 i./: j r./ r , ,S'.v. s'} _ fi•' SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION _ This division is the heart of the police organization. It provides all of I. ent the formal communications and records manageme Support above,As stated Services Manager this division: there are seven (7) methe and six (6) clerk dispatchers. These members manage the records system, report distribution, ranscrining of;taped interviews and reports, dispatching, evidence and property, They support of all other divisions. are the first person coroviding ache cted in ss majority of all other police activity serving the community, p vital linkage between the officer on the street and citizen. hours in 1983 to provide the The members of this division worked 12,650 t'. necessary support service to the 'other elements of the department. Every activity conducted withivr police youdepartment odivisions, thegenerates othefnumbers several activities for this dision mentioned above, you can begin to appreciate the importance of, and how ) f vital this division is to the police organization. F: 4 II. Workload Indicators Summary: Workload Indicators 1980 1981 1982 1983 947 1103 1223 1230 Part I Offenses775 723 909 778 r Part II Offenses 167 5389 78 5555 6161 5 4 Non-Criminal Complaints 167365 415 432 347 Traffic Accidents 2329 2347 2377 2944 Traffic Enforcement Average # of cards typed and filed .3788 4412 4892 4920 Part I Offenses 3112 3100 2892 Part II Offenses 3636 18,483 15,501 16,167 16,665 Non-Criminal Complaints 2592 2082 2190 2490 Traffic Accidents 2329 2485 2377 2944 Traffic Enforcement 4641 4710 4871 5288 Card Load per Dispatcher 150 175 200 225 W Avg. # of Phone Calls per Day .403 .397 .342 .333 # of Dispatchers per 1000 POP- 14,855 15,100 17,500 18,379 Population Used: III.° Budget Resource: (FY 83/84) Salaries $122,409 Benefits 57,291 Sub Total $179,700 Materials & Services 28,700 Capital Outlay �0- Total $208,400 The members of this division worked 12,650 hours in 1983 at an hourly cost of $16.47. _ Page 27 IV. New Program Development: Members of this division have received or will be trained in computer .data entry. Also, they will receive training in various procedures, to include:' uniform crime reporting; purchasing/invoice processing; daily consolidated reports; processing of time sheets; and property/evidence duties. PBO facilitator training is being received by the 'Division Manager. The emergency communications systems needs to be upgraded, and it is planned to do: this during 1984. Page 28 F !` POLICE DEPARTMENT CONSOLIDATED ' YEARLY REPORT FOR YEAR OF 1983` DISTRIBUTION OF PERSONNEL MONTHLY AVERAGE I NUMERICAL STRENGTH DAILY ABSENCE 1983 1982 1983 1982 TOTAL PERSONNEL 28.3 28.6 11.7 11.7 CHIEF'S OFFICE 3.0 3.0 1.3 ' 1.3 SERVICES'DIVIS. 7.0 7.0 2.9 2.8 PATROL DIVISION 13.3 15.4 5.4 6.2 TRAFFIC DIVIS,. 2.0 .2 .8 1 INVEST. SECTION 3.0 %3.0 1.3 1.3 WA"' ONE 13.0 12.6 WATCH TWO 8.1 9.2 3.2 3.8 WATCH THREE 7.2 6.8 3.0 2.7 CHANGES IN PERSONNEL (AVERAGE) DAILY AVERAGE PATROL/TRAFFIC STRENGTH 1. Present for duty end of last month 28.3 1 f 2. Recruited during month ,3 1983 1982 1. Total number field 3. Reinstated during month officers 15.4 15.6 Total to account for 28.6 L. Less Agents Assig- 4. Separations from the service: ned to Investigat. 0 0 (a) Voluntary resignation 3 3. Average daily abs- (b) Retirement ences of field off- icers owing to: (c) Resigned with charges pending 0 (a) Vacation, susp- (d) Dropped during probation _ 0 ension, days off, comp, time, etc.. 5.9 6.0 (e) Di.staissed for cat, c- _0 ! � c -__ (f) Killed in line of duty 0 (c) Schools, etc. ��---�- (g) Deceased 0 Total average daily absences 6.3 . 6.3 Total separations 3 4. Available for duty 9.1 9.3 5J,. .resent' for duty at end of month (AVG).28.3 i i Page 29 dellPSigdhY0 <Wqmugmoi`/WA AMUSQ99=IM TIGARD POLICE DEPARTMENT 1983 Yearly Report ; 19`83 1982 POPULATION: 18,379 17,500 Rate per 1000 Pop. PART I OFFENSES 19 83 1982 % CHANGE 1983 1982 1. Homicide0 2 - 200.0% 0 .114 2. Forcible Ra e 3 5 - 66.7% .163` .285 3. Robbery 19 26 - 36.8% 1.033 1.485 La. Assault 110 98 + 12.2% 5.985< 5.600 5. Burp 382 324 + 17.9% 20.784 18.514 6. Larceny 666 726 - 9.0% 36.237', 41.485 7. Auto Thef:ti 1 50 42 + 19.0% 2.720 2.400 TOTALS $ 1230 1223 + .57°/° 66.924` 69.885 PART IT OFFENSES 8. Harassment 105 91 + 15.4% 5.713 5.200 9. Arson 9 11 - 22.2% .489 .628 10. Forgery and .598 1.314 Counterfeiting 11 23 - 109.10/0 11. Fraud 11 22 - 100.0% .598 1.257 12, Embezzlement 0 1 - 100.0% 0 .057 13. -`Stolen Property: buying, receiving 5 5 0 .272 ,285 ossessin 14. Criminal Mischief 267 210 + 27.1% 14.527 12,000 15. Weapons carrying, ctc--_� 8 6 + 33.3% .435 .342 16. Prostitution & Commercialized Vice 0 2 - 200.0% 0 .114 17. Sex Offenses exce t 2 & 16 35 44 25.7%° 1.904~ 2.514 Page 30 :.. 1. TIGARD POLICE DEPARTMENT 1983 Yearly Report 19 83 19 882 i 18379 17,500 1` POPULATION: : ' Rate per 1000 Pop. 3 % CHANGE 1983 1982. PART II OFFENSES (Cont d) 1983 82 1982' 18. Narcotic Drug Laws 34 40 17-6% 1.849 2.285 0 1 - 100.0% 0 .057 19. Gambling 20. Offenses Against the 16 16 0 .870 .914 Family & Children 21. Driving Under the - 4.971, 45 87 93.3% Influence 2.44$ 22. Liquor Laws 44 57 - 29:5% 2.394 3.257 --- ------ 23. Drtinitetless 24. Di.sor(Lu rlY Conduct 4 6 - 50.00/. .217 .342 Vapr.aic ------ ---------- 25. 26. All. Ot:her Offenses 60 83 - 38.3% 3.264 4.742 (except ti:affi.c) ------ ------- --------o 27. Suspicion 28. curfew and Loitering 24 17 + 41.1/° 1.305 . .971. 39 53 - 35.8% 2.121 3.028 29. Runaways 723 775 - 7.190/6 39.338 44.285 TOTALS _ GRAND TOTAL 1953 1998 2.30% 106.262 114.171 (Part I and II) 1983` 1982 TOTAT, T?ER>OM; CTTA?�CED.___ 816 _.. TOTAL IT?SONS CHAT GF.D: 761 305 a. Adult Male 429 a. Adult Femaale 70 b, Adult Female b. Adult Female C. Juvenile 21abi 193 C. Juvenile Male 209 d. Juvenile Female 63 d. Juvenile Female 59 Page 31 PART II CRIMES #17. Sex Offenses (Except forcible rape and prostitution and commercialized vice) . Include offenses against chastity, common decency, morals, and the like, such as: Adultery and fornication Buggery Incest Indecent Exposure Indecent Liberties Intercourse with an insane', epileptic, or venereally diseased person Seduction Sodomy or crime against nature Statutory rape (no force) All attempts to commit any of the above PART II CRIMES`- #20. Offenses Against the Family and Children (Include here all charges of nonsupport and neglect or abuse of family and children, such as': ) Desertion, abandonment, or nonsupport'of wife or child Neglect or abuse of child. (If injury is serious, score as aggravated assault) F Non-payment of alimony All attempts to commit any of the above t Pats 'I7_ F Lq E : TIGARD_POLICE DEPARTMENT 1983 Yearly Report Rate per 10( E Populatior I Cases Cleared % Cleared 82 { 1983 1982 1983 1982 % Change 1983 19_ PART I OFFENSES - - 200.0% 0 .1Z4 0 2 0- 100.0% 1' 60 Criminal .326 :171 2.` :Forcible Ra e 6 3` 200.0% .0% + 10 ` 158 78.9 ° 3,' Robber 86 4; Assault 48 33 5e Bur lar 192 152 28.8% 20.9% + 26.37° 10.446 8.685 6 6; Larsen + 23.0°!° .870 .742 t 7. Auto Theft 16 13 32.0% 31.0% PART I TOTALS 363 287 z f: PART II OFFENSES 21 37 20.0% 40.6% - . 76.1°!° 1.142 2 114 . } 8. Harassment 11.1°/. 0 5.2% + 100-00/. •054 0 9. Arson 1 0 - -275.0% .217 .857 e 1 4 15 36.3% 6 .7% :163 10. Fox r & Counterfeitin 3 5 27-,2% 22.7% - 66 11, Fraud _ -_---- _-_ - I E�nbezz I omprrt _ 13. Stolen Property: Buying, 80.0% 60.0% + 33.3% :217 .171 4 ° 2.774 1.942 Receivin Pcssessin ig.l% 16.2°1° + 50.0 � + ;1�4.n_. Criminal Mischief 51 34 _`'1Weapons:.._ Carrying, _ .8 5 100.0% 83.3% + 60.0% .435 .285 Possessin .'etc- 16. Prostitution and ------- _-____ Con-merciai Vice -_--- ---28---- --60.0% 63.6% 33.3% 1.142 1.600 17. Sex Offenses (Exce t 2 & 16) 32 39 94.1% 97.5q° - 218°k 1.741 2_228 . 18. Narcotic Dru Laws 0 1 0 100.0% U 0 ^.057 19. Gamblin € 20. Offenses Against the 3 3 18.70/. 0 .163 •171 F Lilr and Children 45 87 100.07. 100.0% - 93.3% 2.448 4.971 21. Drivin Under tae Influence 41 59 93.20/6 103.5% - 43.9% 2.230 3.371 22. Li uor Laws ---- ------ -- -------- ------ 23. Drunkeness 4 3100.0% + 33.3% .217 •171 245 Disorderl Conduct ---- --------- -- - --- -- ------- ------- ---- 25. Varanc 38 - 59 63.3°k '55.2°l° 2.067 3.371 26. All Other Offenses _ _ ____ ________ ___ -- -_----- - - 27. Sus icion 25- --_i---- -104. 1°° 28. Curfew and Loi ter in 31 4 ,4 ° 81.1°° 29. Runawa s 45.9% 56.5% _ 31.9% 18.064 .028 PART II TOTALS 332 438 -- Page 33 TIGARD POLICE DEPARTMENT 1983 Yearly Report 19 83 19 82 POPULATION: 18,379 17,500 NON-CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS (1983 ) 628 23. Lost Property 33 1. Alarm 761 2. Ambulance 10 24. FIR'S 3.= Animal Problem 107 25. Narcotics Information 4.` Assist Agency 569 26. Lewd/Harassment Phone 0 4a. Assist Citizen355 Calls (refer to Part II crimes) 5. Check Building 123 6. Check Occupant ; 41 27. Traffic Arrest Reports 136 7: Civil Matter "110 28. Vacation Checks/Prowl 353 8. Deliver Message 35 Checks 9. Dog Bite 4 29. Warrants, Subpoenas, 109 10. Disturbance -284 Summons Served 11i Hazard -45 30. Drunk Person(s) 22 - 201 31. Family Fights 63 e 12. Juvenile -�- 13. : Noise Abated 159 32. Fires ' 351 33. Lost and Missing Persons 30 14. Person 15. Standby on Moveout 15 34. Prowlers 46 16. Suspicious Circumstances 464 35. Suicides and Attempts 16 17. Towed Auto 53 36. Suspicious Autos 207 18. Traffic Problem 217 19. Unfounded Call 64 20. Wire Down 0 TOTALS 6,161 21. Other 337 22. Found Property 181 Rate per 1000 Pop. 19 83 19 82 F/- CHANGE 19 83 1982 PART I OFFENSES 1,230 1,223 + 57% 66.924 69.885 PART II OFFENSES 723 775 - 6.70% 39.338 44.285 NON-CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS 6,161 5,555 + 10.9% 335.219 317.428 i 8,114 7,553 + 7.40% 441.482 431.600 GRAND TOTALS - Page 34 w,f .i POLICE DEPARTMENT YEARLY REPORT VALUE OF PROPERTY STOLEN - NUMBER OF VAIJUE OF CLASSIFICATION ACTUAL OFFENSESPROPERTYSTOLEN_ ' .....ROBBERY -- -------- - ----------- A. Highway (streets, alleys, etc.). 0 $:' B. Commercial House (except C. D,; F).. 6 $ 8,677.29'--- C. Gas or Service Station... 2 $ 767.00 D. Chain Store.. ... .. . .......... 2 $ 399.74' E. Residence (anywhere on premises)............ ... $ _ F. Bank.......................... ........... ...... 3_ $ 2,149.00 G. Miscellaneous. ... . .'... ..... ... ........... ... ... 6 _ $ 2,939.86 : TOTAL - ROiSB1:RY 19 $ 14,932.89 BURGLARY - BREAILNG OR ENTERING A. Residence (dwelling) 1) Night...............__.............. ... 54 28,138.70 > 2)`Day........ .................................. I $ 79,6607F9 9 i 3) Unknown. . s • . 82 $ 82,628.59 i B. Nonresidence (store, office, etc.) Y I) g ... ... .... ........... .... . 91 $ 115,910.69 1 2) Day.. 3 $ 215.00 4 3) Unknown.. ........ 1 $ 73,924.48 TOTAL - BURGLARY �3 2-� $ 380,478.35 Lk- ENY - THEFT -(except auto, by value) A. $50 and over.................. 410 $ 222,471.19 B. $5 to $50................ . ............ . 180 $ 3,721.12 C. Under $5... ................... .. ............... 76 $ 77.77 TOTAL - LARCENY 666 $ 226.270.08 ' AUTO THEFT.......... . . ..... ........... 50 $ 225,365.70 GRAND TOTAL $ 847,047.02 Nature of Larcenies A. Pocket-picking.......... ... . ....... $ B. Purse-snatching......... . . ....... 1 — $ 335.00 C. Shoplifting... ... ........... ..... ... 99 $ 15,242.05 D. From Autos (except E). ...................... 162 $ 57,735.73 E. Auto Parts and Accessories. .............. ... 64 $ 19,143.50 _ F. Bicycles......p........... ............. .... 64 $ � —� .90 G. From Buildings (except C and H).. ........ ... __29___ _ $ 21,276._ 37 H, From any Coin-operated Macliinc.- _1_0 __ 5 7_80_00 I. All Otter. . ,, . .. ,,.. 187 _ 5_1012993.53 ---- TOTAL - LARCENIES 666 $ 226,270.08 - Automobiles Recovered A. Number Stolen Locally and Recovered Locally...... .......... ... ... .. __ 17 ' Number Stolen Locally and Recovered by Other Jurisdictions.—, ...... 20 _ . Total Locally Stolen Autos Recovered............... ........_ . 37-- D. Number Stolen Out of Town, Recovered Locally.... ........... 8 TOTAL VALUE OF PROPERTY RECOVERED: $ 256,088.52 / 30.2'. Page 35 ` _ 4 AYk£� POLICE DEPARTMENT YEARLY REPORT TRAFFIC/ACCIDENT SUMMARY 1983 1982 ACCIDENT TOTAL 415 365 Fatal 0 w. Personat In lur 1 111 P 104 roperty Damage 45 Pedestrian 43 Hit and Run 9 6 121 106 ENFORCEMENT TRAFFIC TOTAL 2,713 2,079 Hazardous Viol,itions jill 2,116 1;.497 Other Violationsr 597 '582 Parkin DWI 231 29 / Hit and Run 50 Arrests, Citations or 20 17 Custod at Accidents 215 195 19 83Enforcement- Index; 19.06 -- Conviction Ratio (hazardous Violations); 95.0% ( 820 Gui.l.tyl 43 Non-Guilty) TOTAL 19 83 OPERATIONS COSTS (POLICE VEHICLES) TOTAL OPERATING COST 30,016.79 TOTAL MILES TRAVELED 217,262 AVERAGE COST PER MILD 13.810 w :F. Page 36 POLICE DEPARTMENT YEARLY REPORT PATROL DIVISION COMMUNITY RELATIONS PROGRAMS 1983 1982 Ride Along.. 385.2 696.8 Walk & Talk. . 142.0 1-11.0 E 15.2 3.4 Security Surveys. . ... .. .. . r Crime Prevention Programs.. 52.5 11.0.. .. .. . ... .. .. .. .. .. . k TOTAL HOURS. . 594.9` 822.2 E ACTIVITY TIME ALLOTMENT Directed _Patrol. . 2,067.5 1,102.5 F General-,Patrol.. ... . . . . . . . ....... .... ... 59296.4 7,417.2 3 Traffic Patrol:. 2,228.1 2,016.2 1,167.3 1,328.2 Criminal Investigation.. Accident Investi.gation.. 285.0 262.5 Traffic Enforcement. 932.4 729.5 Court. 152.7 207.6 �• 84.0 38.1 Jail. t Transport,Prisoriers. ..... .... . ... . .. ...... ....... 181.8 202.7 Assist Public. 403.8 517.7 k Assist Other Officers.. .. .... . . 1,334:3 1,550.8 E Recovered Stolen Property. .. . . .. ...... ... . ... 25.2 20.6 _ Recovered Stolen Vehicles.. . . .. .. ........... 13.0 9.3 Calls Answered.. . .. . . .. .. .. . . . . .. .... .. ... . ... 2,824.6 2,834.5 FIR'S. . .... . ... .... .. .. ... . .. . . .. .. ..... ,.. 132.9 136.7 Dispatch Duties. ... . .... .... . .. . . .. .... .. .. .. ... 192.4 112.0 Office Duties.. .. .. .... 591.0 721.0 Report Writing.. ... . . .. . ..... .. . . .. 2,089.2 2,203.3 Case Preparation... . . .... . ... . 57.8 52.7 Cases Cleared.. .. . ... 74.6 _ 83.7 Special Details. ... . . ... ... . . .. . ... .. ... . .. . . ... 1,112.5 1,183.7 i Training... . . .. . . .. .. . .. . 2,147.0 1,272.0 Patrol Vehicle Service.. . .. . . .. .. .. .. ... ... . .... 693.8 778.9 ° 2,077.7 2,211.4 Authorized Breaks. . . . .. . Vacation Checks. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . .7 .6 Vehicle Impound. . .. .... . ... .. .. . . .. .. .... ...... . 6.6 5.8 I Administrative Duties. . 1,625.8 670.5 TOTAL HOURS.... . . . .. . . . . ... ... _27,798.1 27,669.7 Total Obligated Hours 19,053 0 16,024.9 Total Non-Obligated Hours 8,745.1 11,644.8 /. Obligated Hours 68.5% 57.90/. % Non-Obligated Hours 31.50. I°T PATROL DIVISION= 1983 1982 TRAFFIC/UTC's 2,047 1,354 Hazardous Violations — 15 — Oper.Lic. Violations. . 96 90 Suspended Violations. . ... .. 270 327 ; Veh. Lic. Violations. . . .. .. . . .. . . .... . . .. .. .. ... 40 Equipment Violations. . . .. . . . .. . . . ... 18 15 Hit & Run. . .. . . . . . 50 99 D.U.I.L. (1st Off. ). 231 298 i Parking Violations.. . .. 2,944 2,377 TOTAL. .. .. .. .. ....... . . .. .. .. .r. TRAFFIC/WRITTEN WARNINGS 8 17 Hazardous Violations. .. .. .. ..'.. .. .... .. ... . .. ..• 1 Oper.Lic. Violations.. 3 0 0 Suspended Violations. . 12 1 Veh. Lic. Violations.. 11 11 Equipment Vi.olations... .. .. .... .. .... . . .. .. . 0 0 a Hit & RUn. . . . .. . . . . . ... .. . . . . .. .. .... .. .. . . .. .. . 0 0 z D.U.I.L. (lst Offense)• 12 3 Parking viol:at-ions. . TOTAL...r . 46 33 TRAFFIC/VERBAL WARNINGS � 219 267 rt Hazardous Violations...'.... ... ... .... .. .. .. .. .. . 28 23 Oper. Lic. Violations.... .. .... ...... . . .. .. .... . + Suspended Violations.. . ... ... .. .`.... ... .. . ... , 2 1 111 174 - Veh. Lic. Violations.. ... . . ... . .. .... .. .. .. .... . 107 177 Equipment Violations. . 2 . Hit & Run.. .. .. .. .. ..... . .... ...... . . . . .. . ... . 0 0 1 D.U.I.L. (1stOff. ) .. .... . . . .. .. ..... 18 19 Parking Violations....... . . .... ...... . . .. • •• • • 485 664 TOTAL... . . .... .. .... . . .. .. .. .. CRIMINAL ARRESTS Made Assisted Made Assisted 108 140 / 106 Felony. .. . . ... . . . .. ... . .. . . .. 148 ! 277 520 / 275 Misdemeanor. . . . .. . . .... .. .. .. 490 28 Violations. . . . . .. . . ...... . ... 125 / 20 135 f TOTAL... . . ... ... . .... 763 / 405 795 / 409 PREVENTION 55 24 Open Windows.. . .. . . .. . ... .. .. .. .. ... . .. . . . . .. . . . 62 ---U2 Open Doors.. . . . 17 ST Street Lights. . .. .. .. .. . . . . 1,639 2,938 Suspicious Persons... . . . . . * • • • •"" 3,279 4,906 Suspicious Vehicles. . . .. . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . 74 84 S:ignaU< Out. . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ----61 - 66 ----- Sign., Dorm. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 16 Neglected Property... . ... .. .. .. . 102 95 Street Defects. . . .... .... .. .. .. .. .. .. . ---2-2- 25 Dead Animal. . . . .. .... .. 47 36 Abandoned Vehicles... .... ..... 10 Fires. ... .. .. . . .. .... .. . . .. .... ..... . . 107 75 Other Hazards. 2 1 Vacation Checks. . . TOTAL. ., .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. 5.511 8,369 Page 38 t POLICE DEPARTMENT YEARLY REPORT ' INVESTIGATION DIVISION 19-83 va-- --- Total Number Of t Number Cases Cases Cleared Number Cases Number Cases Assigned Arrests Per Case Classification Received Suspended Patrol Inveaf. Patrol! Invest; Adult JuV•_ �i �— t s Homicide 5 6 3 1 — Rape 4 --t 12 g 7 1_7 Robbery 22 3 +--- 6 11 3 9 6 AUg' Assault. _ 28 8 5 32 8 89 2 43 46 Theft Under $50 ' 246 134 _ ". .- 47 29 12 29 ZV 403 296 50 49 Theft Over $50` 25 4 5 13 3 9 3 Auto Theft 47 375 204 15 156 14 3- 11 34 Burglary _ 119 RT 'I TOTALS _ 1,125 PA _ 670 I06 241 182 85 104 n - j PART Il. / 36 23 14 62 9 49 7 Assault & Related 139 1 i Check-Ol-f c rases 1 1 2 2 r' ForR� erV & Related ----- 13 & 1 11 I Weaa2ns' Cri'lles 31 7 1 16 6 10 11 4 Sex Offense _ 1 Narcotic Offenses I Prostitution 'or. Offenses Ga: _Lin Offenses i. Stolen Property Crimes _ - 42 57 41 1 12 34 Vandalism 260 135 Other. Part I.L 9 6 58 5 9 29 Crimes 118 57 I 16 9 27 83 70 PART II TOTALS 563 236 75 105 4 PART I & 11 TOTALS __11688 906 181 346 351 112 187 189 463 Total Office Hours3353 Total Training Hours164 Total Cases Cleared 181 Total. Field Hours 17981 Total Court Hours 225 Total Cases Pending Patrol me Hours349'-zTotat Other Hours 0 Total Cases Pending Investigation 346 Total Overti Total Warrants Issued 19 Total Misdemeanor Arrests 254 Total Cases Presented for Warrant Issuance 32 Total Court. Casa Hard & Di�positlons 51 --- Page 39 US POLICE DEPARTMENT YEARLY REPORT SERVICES DIVISION CLERK DISPATCHERS: TIME ALLOTTED DUTIES 3,773.2 ' Dispatch Duties 4. Cards Typed/Filed 1,129 — 9. 37.5 Letters Typed 325.9 Reports Typed 2,781.9 ` Special Details Aid Other Agency/Person 973.4 767.2 Teletype Operation 90.0 Handwritten Reports 612.0 Authorized Breaks TOTAL HOURS _10,490.5 SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER: Supervisory Details (35%) 650.0 Budget Details (57.) 92.0 Property/Evidence (15%) 278.0 Purchasing Details (10%) 185.0 Administrative/Secretarial Details (35%) 650.0 « 1,855.0 Total TOTAL DIVISION HOURS: 12,345.5 � r MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Membersofthe City;Council July 23, 1984 FROM: William A. Monahan, Director of Planning and Development a SUBJECT: 72nd Ave. Filling Issue Several complaints were received by the City concerning a' filling operation which was occurring at 12105 SW 72nd 'Street on property owned by Gordon Martin. The filling was undertaken ;with `a valid filling permit issued last July for 20,000 cubic yards of fill. Fill was transported to the site from property on Pfaffle` Street and one in Beaverton from the former View Master site. During the operation, fill :material was scattered along the road surface of 72nd. In addition, truck traffic on the site causeddustto rise and be blown in all directions.` Councilor Scott met with Ed Walden and I concerning the problem on July 18th. We visted the site and 'viewed the problem. We then followed a truck on its return route to the View Master site where Ed notified the excavators that no additional fill could be brought to the site until a water truck was provided to keep the street clean and the dust down. The problem persisted into July 19th as was noted in Mrs. Emma Wilder's letter, attached. On the 19th my letter, which spells out the condition which must be met before additional fill is allowed, was hand delivered to Mr. Martin's residence. No additional fill was brought in from that time until Monday, July 23, to my knowledge. Frank Currie's memo spells out the experience that he had dealing with the problem on Friday, July 20, when the street was watered-down, and today, July 23, when additional filling began again. The filling today was stopped immediately and the street sprayed and swept by the City sweeper. The City staff will continue to monitor the situation to assure that no further filling takes place until all conditions are met. Please note that code enforcement responsibility rests with the Building Division. All inquiries by citizens should be addressed there, not to Frank Currie. Frank is available to my department only as a resource to assist in making determinations such as whether or not a violation of the sensitive lands ordinance exists or if a public works vehicle may be freed up to assist us. Bob Jean's memo of July 19, attached, spells this out. 0539P J dmj LoP s^ 11 Will 44 8 _ a aawx. ,.. -Y mr •• 2 Cs t u f s .. ( 10 }1 a. ..a T �Y ' .,r.. ?tom ._�._.. WIN SISO u _ 5 r 3 R� s� e n Q j / 4 n r. i qN�y ` } . MME 1=1 � v ' , yrte tdt-iu AP, 3 Y l A-. IN RONI yrr ' ME �M r� _.— — _.. __— ..._.�,_..... -a_........ .,.:s.+-...,.rracz ...1.....va�'s..3<L:.YG.-aYs._m..�q,'.'�+^�i.:.-sY."�:`G'f`'✓: r; ctm �:- �, :M - i' '- T.o-; a� �;iE'a�, . IMw.•', _ �§-F• .� `� f- Tse 6�'e`gS dq sem.' .-•...n_ .� .. -�. � ,- ..: � m ..yn _ � e i a a .: v- y , J F � ;4 iAM r, , �( I i C1W OF T1 RD July 19, 1484 WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON V b Cordon Martin 12265 SW 72nd Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: Violation of Tigard Municipal Code on property at-12265.SW 72nd Avenue Dear Mr. Martin: Please be advised that the City of Tigard Building; Official has determined that you are in violation of ,`Tigard Municipal Code Section 7.40.010(7) and 7.40.030. The present condition of your property caused by the hauling of fill to the site over the past several days is in violation of the Code and ` must be corrected immediately. All hauling of fill to the site and any associated activity which may cause dirt to be deposited on the streets or the generation of excessive dust from the site must be stopped immediately. A stop work order is hereby placed on the property which will not be removed until you have taken the following steps: 1. Prepare and submit a report which states the amount of fill which has been placed on the site. Your original permit was for 20,000 cubic yards of fill. No reports have been submitted to date as required by the permit. If the 20,000 cubic yards have been deposited on site, an additional.permit and plan is required. 2. Submit a plan showing where the fill has been placed and what you intend to have as an end product. 3. Provide for a water truck on site at all times during the filling operation to keep 72nd Avenue clear of all dirt and mud.' 4. Cover the access road to the site with a gravel surface to avoid raising dirt from the site. The appropriate sections of the Code which are violated are in part: Section 7.40.010(7) Maintenance on private property of any _hazardous condition contrary to the processions of Section 7.40.030 "During all months of the year, such person shall remove and keep removed therefrom. .. Any other substance which may endanger or injure neighboring property, passersby on the health, saftey or welfare of the public. 5 12755 S.W.ASH P.O.BOX 23397 TIGARD,OREGON 97223 PH:639.4171 ME R Please contact the CityBuilding Official, Ed Walden, at 639-4171 immediately to discuss this matter. Sincerely, William A. Monahan Director of Planning and Development (WAM:ch/0531P) 4{ . i s WN IN 01 t MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON July 23, 1984 TO: BOB JEAN FROM: FRANK CURRIE, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR SUBJECT: Martin Fill & Dust Problem Friday,, July 20, 1984 Friday_ 7/20/84 Last Friday, while you were out, Jerry McNurlin received a call from Councilor Scott concerning the continuing dust problem on S.W. 72nd Avenue. I returned Ima°s call and assured her we would look into the problem as she explained it and take appropriate action. and myself indicated " A tour of the streetlin by Jerry on cNurhe street in the 12100 block.a need for some sweeping The street was flushed and swept twice Friday - once in the A.M., 6 and again between 3 and 4:30 in the afternoon. d Monday - e/23/84at Bill Monahan and myself visited the site on Monday mor i ng We 8:30. We saw three trucks - two coming out and one going sent the full truck back, and told the other two truck drivers not to return. Noticed that most dust is from the trucks within the Martin dust on trucks as they speed up upon entering property, and from the public road. This needs to be considered for future permits. cc: Bill Monahan (FAC:br/0148S) ' + 3 r is k City of Tigard, Oregon s MEMORANDUM Ys is Y: TO: All Staff July 19, 1984 FROM: Bob Jean, City Administrator SUBJECT: Non-Criminal Codes Enforcement j r f=, Effective immediately ALL Codes Enforcement questions are to be forwarded to the Building Codes Enforcement Section. If Police, ': Engineering, or Public Works assistance is: required, it is the responsibility of the Building and Codes Enforcement Section to request that assistance. It is the responsibility of EACH employee, 24 hours a day, to be our eyes and ears throughouttheCity. Please notify the Building y: and Codes Enforcement Section of any apparent violations you detect. s Thanks for your help. ' U F i r ' MEMORANDUM ` f CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON j TO: Member of the City Council July '19, 1984 FROM: William A. Monahan, Director of Planning and Development e i SUBJECT: NPO APPOINTMENTS The following individuals have applied for membership on the City's NPO: John Mayfield, 301 Madison, Oregon City NPO # 6 11555 SW Durham Rd. , Tigard Christie Smith, 13210 SW Ambiance, Tigard NPO # 3 Both applicants were considered at the July 10, 1984, meeting of the Planning Commission. if both are appointed, the NPO membership will be as follows: NPO # '1 9 NPO # 2 3 NPO # 3 9 G NPO # 4 9 ._ NPO # 5 10 NPO # 6 12 NPO # 7 10 ?. The Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council approve the membership applications of these two applicants. f 0530P dmj �l r .� CITY OF T117APDCITIZEN COMMITTEE INTEREST APPLICATION b NAME: �D Yt �� CDATE: ADDRESS (RES.): �✓'� A11,1 `'�' /Y" �ry� !.L� RES. PHONE: (BUS.) _ / r` ' BUS. PHONE: ADDRESS b � LENGTH OF RESIDENCE IN TIGARD:OfFi[ G / y rf11;?i SUGGESTED BY: WHERE DID YOU LIVE PREVIOUSLY? EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: ROUND: OCCUPATIONAL STATUS AND BACKG //��rn`�� i_ �`.Y`� �/^•!vn-t 6r��"fS Cv<� �/Z.��li'ON/ iris i�-`f•� HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN EMPLOYED WITH THIS FIRM? IS THIS COMPANY LOCATED WITHIN YOUR NPO AREA (NPO APPLICANTS ONLY)? PREVIOUS COMMUNITY ACTIVITY: .��7� % �✓� � ORGANIZATIONS AND OFFICES: 7r ��/ ✓'r'r• '"�� '`f lJ� �1�sc�� `�' .rr, OTHER INFORMATION (GENERAL REMARKS): ,� .'lei-<, +G. f-• i BOARDS, COMMITTEES OR NPO INTERESTED IN: r ------------------- ----------------- ------------------------ ------------ 'Date Received at City Hall _ Date Interviewed i Date Appointed Board, Committee, or NPO Inside City Outside City (0345p) C= RD CITY OF TIGA CITIZEN CUMH1'I7"ia INTER NAME.' I '� •�.i().t E� JrJ � Ilio 1 h � _ C11 Y OF TIGARD p 2 ADDRESS IRhs. ) : �,i 1�irx /J! J C nl1VIIVC p�. e\UDKEyS IIIUS. ): �f,(.Qi�{'? t:X.��ll.G�lV��/� � itif:,. 1'If((NI•.: � — LENG1I1 OF RESIDENCE IN '1"L(,AILI1`. - 5�� yUGGF:S'1'h.0ISY: - r r WHERE DID.YOU 'LIVE PREVIOUSLY'? Cy EDUCATIONAL, BACKGROUND: A/rj OCCUPATIONAL STATUS AND BACKGROUND: L 'XXL:IrC (.f 1 1 GYU!/YyCQ� Certs �, 1C.��GJC -..P/Yil HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN EMPLOYED WITH THIS FIRM? / IS THIS COMPANY LOCATED WITHIN YOUR NPO AREA (NPO APPLICANTS ONLY)'. al PREVIOUS COMMUNITY ACTIVITY: Q� e ,� V, ORGANIZATIONS AND OFFICES: y OTHER INFORMATION (GENERAL REMARKS): �h�i��Q/YL(�i/a�4LrLl��/�CG�1 • ��/��4/ � �r/ ze � O v' L' BOARDS COMMITTE' S (IR NI'O IN"1'h:Rh.STED IN: D;l(I• Hot. Ived at Clty IlaI I I'a Isle Ivte•vr.t ll.el e. ,\I.lu.itot e•,I It•e.eeel, Gnurnl i t e .e NI•e,. i Christie C. Smith 13750 S.W. Fairview Court Tigard, Oregon ' 972.23 (503) 639-8403 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 1980 - Present C.I.T. Corporation 1`600 S.W. Fourth, 'Suite '655 Portland, Oregon 97221 (Transfered from Spokane Division and promoted to Senior Clerk) Senior Clerk- Handle initial loan inquiries. Research application, make recommendation and if approved, process loan. Some collection work (in office) plus evaluation for extensions, rewrites and ;transfers. ' Set -up UCC sales and auctions for repo'',d equipment. Schedule:Com- modity Checks and Monthly Rental Reports. Keep up-to-date records on Insurance, Titles, and fil- ings for equipment financed through C.I.T. 1979 - 1980 C.I.T. Corporation 717 West Sprague Avenue Spokane, Washington 99201 Executive Secretary- All Division Head, Private, Confidential , and Home Office correspondence. Compile and prepare Division Head Reports and maintain Personnel files. In charge of hiring all clerical staff. A/P and A/R. Maintain _ease and Corporate ledgers. Cut all Division and Region checks, handle expense accounts, pay bilis and process the purchase of new business. Balance and forward all reports to Home Office (N.Y. ) daily. Handle all insurance, filings, UCC's and Titles for equipment financed and leased by C.I.T. Arrange air and hotel reservations, plan banquets conferences and conventions. Order supplies and keep inventory. Obtain Credit Reports. Operate CBI terminad, Notary Public. 4 9 Christie C. Smith Page 2). 1972 - 1978 Air Sea Land Travel Service Ridpath Hotel Spokane, Washington 99201 Assistant Manager, Lincoln Building Branch. Tour planning,,Tour Guide, work closely with Japanese Sister City ,(P/R) during Expo °74. Wrote Domestic and International tickets, reservations and'itin eraries. 1969 =' 1971 ' Old National Bank of Washington O.N.B. Building Spokane, Washington 99201 ` Supervisor- Employee Benefits and Trust Department. Set up Employee Benefits programs and Keogh; Plans. Work in Individual and Government Trust accounts. EDUCATION 1965 Holy Names Academy (H.S. ) 1966 1968 Holy Names College 2 years - Liberal Arts OTHER TRAINING 1968 Kinman Business School 1969 1971 American Institute of Banking 1972 United Airlines Ticketing School 1981 1982 Oregon State University Audited courses in Accounting and Business taw s CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: July 23, 1984 AGENDA ITEM k: (J• i DATE SUBMITTED: July 18, 1984 PREVIOUS ACTION: NONE ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Borsch/Street Dedication & Nonremonstrance-Agreement REQUESTED BY:Development Services Dept., For Street`Improvements and:Joseph and Lucille Borsch DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: INFORMATION SUMMARY This Street Dedication and Street Improvement Nonremonstrance Agreement were conditions of approval placed upon the Borsch's in order for us to ;grant their set-back variance. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED (t SUGGESTED ACTION Development Services recommends accaptance of both the Street Dedication and NonRemonstrance Agreement. MEN + FILE n FRCJ.1'ECZg NAME: '10 ci�'K — TAX LOT: ADDRESS. 99-15 S D1n = St._ TAX MAP: ?G1-�Da 27nCL CONSENT COVENANT (NONREPIONSTRANCE AGREE"TENT) Street Improvements The undersigned owners (including purchasers) of the `real property described below do hereby record their consent to the formation of a local improvement district by the City of Tigard for the `purposes of improving;the public street or streets upon which the described property abuts. The undersigned expressly waive all present and future rights to oppose or remonstrate for t against the formation of a local improvement district he improvement of the abutting street or streets, reserving only the right to contest the inclusion of particular cost items in d any right they may have under the laws of the the improvement district proceeding an State of Oregon to contest the proposed assessment formula- This consent and waiver shall run with the title to the described land and be binding upon for a period of fifteen (15) years from the the undersigned and all 'successor owners, date of the last signature below. The real property that is the subject of this consent covenant is described as follows: SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "A" IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the grantor(s) have hereunto set =N (their) hand(s) and seal(s) this 17th day of JuIY 19 84 ' (SEAL) (SEAL) (SEAL) (SEAL) (SEAL) (SEAL) (SEAL). (SEAL) STATE OF OREGON ) SS. County of ) On this 17th day of JutY 19 84, personally appeared the above named JOSEPH A. BORSCH and LUCZLLE H. BORSCH and acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary act and deed. Before me t *notary PuKic_for Oregon G My Commiss ion expi.tie t E ` da of 19 yam' as to legal description .this E Y BY: City Engineer:- Cit o Tigard - Aoproved as to force this 1� daY ofd f�t�� P 19 . BY: y Attorney - City of Tigard i Approved this 4' BY; Aal=,rson - City of Tigard, oregon Planning Commission , $ Accepted by the City Council this �3 day of l9? BY: a� ity Recorder;- City of Tigard c - Y BORSCH 9935 SW Johnson St® , Tigard ` u EXHIBIT "A" A portion of Lot 20, AMENDED PLAT OF NORTH TIGARDVILLE ADDITION, Washington County, Oregon, more particularly t described as follows: Beginning as the Southwest corner of said Lot 20, thence North 35 59 East, along the Westerly line thereof, 20.04 feet to .an iron pipe marking the true point of beginn;ng of the herein described property; thence continuing North 35 59' East 95 feet to an iron pipe; thence South � 0 01' East 99,72 feet to an iron pipe; thence South 35 59' West 88.63 feet to an iron pipe on the North line of SW Johnson' Street, thence North 570 40' West, along said North line 99.92 feet to the true point of beginning. INDIVIDUAL-GENERAL PARTNERSHIP STREET DEDICATION KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that JOSEPH A. BORSCH and LUCILLE H. BORSCH do hereby dedicate to the Public a perpetual right-of-way for street, road and utility purposes on, over, across, under, along and within the following described real property in Washington County, Oregon: A tract of land in Lot 20, "AMENDED PLAT OF NORTH TIGARDVILLE ADDITION",''a duly recorded subdivision in the Northwest quarter of Section 2, T2S, R1W, W.M., Washington County, Oregon, City of Tigard, said tract being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of Lot 20 and running thence N 350 591 E (CONTINUED ON REVERSE) To have and to hold the above-described and dedicated rights unto`' the Public forever for the uses and purposes hereinabove stated. The grantor(s) hereby covenants that they are the owner(s) in fee simple and the property is free of all liens and encumbrances, they have good and legal sight to grant the rights above-described, and they will pay all taxes and assessments due and owing on the property. The amount paid for this dedication is IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the grantor(s) DLWC (have)' hereunto set *AN (a4:KfX) (their) h ) and s al(s) this 16th day of JULY , 19 84' (SEAL) (SEAL) (SEAL) (SEAL) STATE OF OREGON ` ) (/, COUNTY OF WASHINGTON) as. /-7 16 , 19"/x� L Personally appeared the above named JOSEPH A. BORSCH and IUCIITr H BORSCH - who executed this instrument and each of them acknowledged to me that this instrument was executed voluntarily and freely. ///eoolv� No y Public for Oregon Commission expires: ACCEPTANCE Approved as to form this _✓ _ day of :TaIv 19& _ By. Qi Attorney - City of Tigard Approved as to legal description this day of , 19 By: City Engineer - City of agard Accepted by the City Council thisday of 19�. TY NCIL,-- ITYJJ O��FTICCGARD, OREGON By: htQ.en„ l.k_J.Aa ity Recorder - City of Tigard (1704A) (7-84) 25.04 feet along the westerly line of Lot 20; thence S 570 40' E 99.92 feet, parallel with the southerly line of Lot 20, being the same as the centerline of S.W. Johnson Ave; thence S 350 59t W 25.04 feet to -the southerly line of Lot 20; thence N 570 40' W 99.92 feet to the,point of beginning. All bearings and distances are based on County Survey No. 9365 recorded August 10, 1964.- Excepting therefrom that portion of S.W. Johnson Street already designated for Public Use (County Road No. 893).' i ,: eq � s O•o 'x 'J y, R 66 o o �U / a 23s n 500 ., ^� n �'ao ss .43Ac 304 4 2.46 Ac. r 300 E.30Ac. r s / /tii r ps 41 O P /EDF e I s , / 2300 eF c20 a, /ssc S 3r8 2000 J ; / sesF os j a 1.96 Ac 2200 ° .73 45/3J 2103 9e (, 2S Ac 74 41 2102 ry �o`yy¢ 24 Ac / / a s O /36IM Y1 1p / J 2101 b ss. / °s Q �s .ZO Ac Zsa °° / 1900' go, 2100 3 3740 \ / o. .22 Ac. 2. so f' $'� bac go• ooh °p sae °o ' a'� 1700 ' w 3gJ J ch ti�ter, �b .42Ac. ¢ SEE MAP 2S 1 2 B �y� M g cN g� CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ' COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: 77 7:7— SA:: AGENDA ITEM #: �� • 4 DATE SUBMITTED: 6/28/84 PREVIOUS ACTION: Acceptance of the ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE• Acceptance of an Performance Bond & Compliance Agreement underground sewer easement in:Morning REQUESTED BY: Wedgewood Homes and the _ s• Hill Subdivision III Engineering Division DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: --=I/�6W� �— C%TY ADMINISTRATOR: ---- ------------ INFORMATION SUMMARY This is an easement allowing the possibility of extending a sanitary sewer line from the Morning Hill II Subdivision to SW 135th Avenue. This easement did not show up on the recordedplat, and subsequently needs to be;processed as a separate document.' ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED SUGGESTED ACTION The Engineering Division recommends that the City Council accept this easement. s Project: Easement: Deed Reference: 84-010619 F - KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That we (x) WEBCO-FRANKLIN, a joint venture consisting of WEDGEWOOD HOMES OF PORTLAND INC. an Oregon corporationand FRANKLIN SERVICE CORPORATION, an Oregon corporation he termed grantor(s) , in consideration of the sum of $ none to be paid by CITY OF TIGARD, a municipal corporation of Oregon, hereinafteF termed the City, hereby grant, bargain, sell and convey unto the CITY OF TIGARD a perpetual right-of-way and easement as hereinafter described, to- gether with a temporary right-of-way and easement to use an additional area hereinafter described and designated temporary easement, for the following uses and purposes: 1. Perpetual easement: An unencumbered perpetual right-of-way and easement for the purpose of constructing, reconstructing, operating, maintaining, inspecting and repairing of an underground sewer line: and appurtenances, together with the right to remove, as necessary, vegetation, foliage, trees and other obstructions within ,the easement area, but reserving to the grantors the title to the scrient, and the right ,to make such use lands, subject to the eas thereof,'except'to constrnc;t :,ui10inas, t as will not interfec(, wits file Prposes of the easement; 7,ea j said easement area liclttri '5:08' V' ��ct on each side, when measured at right angles; Of tilt CulliniaGri-a._,cribed center line within the following designates'. priuiiseo: A tract of land situated in the N.E. 1/4, Section 4, T2S, R1W, W.M., City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon, being more particular de2kc_ribed as follows: �i Beginning at a paint on the ilea erly right-af-wa I!ne of S.W. Scotts Bridge Drive that is South 1"43152" Westfeet from the Southwest corner of Lot 71, Morning Hill No. 3, a dulyrecorded su vision• thence North 88'16'08" West 177.00 feet . to a point on the centerline of S.W. 135th Ave. and the termination point of said centerline, said point also bein South 1°43'52" West 474.95 feet from the North t 1/4 corner of said Section ,, 2. Temporary easement: Together with the temporary right of ingress, egress and regress, and use for sewer construction purposes, of additional lands South lying parallel to, along theAsideo and within 10.00 feet, when t measured at right angles, of the above described perpetual easement area, excepting and reserving to grantors the unencumbered enjoyment, use and preservation of all structures present upon the premises. This temporary easement shall terminate upon completion of the sewer construction work, at which time, upon request of the owner, the K City will issue a written release thereof. P is r Pagel Easement Deed Reference: 84-010614 Should it be necessary to cut and remove any brush, trees, or other matter or:materials from the easement area, said brush, trees, or other matter and materials shall be removed and disposed of by the City and the City:shall leave the easement area in a neat and workmanlike condition. The City agrees"that "in connection with its use of the perpetual easement area and in inspecting, repairing, maintaining,',or replacing said sewer,line,, the City will leave the premises in a,neat and workmanlike condition and as nearly in `the pre-existing state as practicable. The grantors do hereby warrant that they are the owners in fee simple and have the right to;grant the above described easements. Witness our hands and seals this 25 day of April 19 84. (SEAL) N (SEAL) Dale C. John n, President (SEAL) (SEAL) (SEAL) (SEAL) oTATE OF OREGON Deed Reference: 84-010619 ) _ - )ss. County of'Washington ) On this 25 day of April ,19 84 before me appeared Dale C. Johnson and —beth to me personally mown, who being auly sworn, did say that he, the sai is the President, i?'e-Sec tarj of Franklin Service Corporation the within named Corporation, and that the seal a fixed to said instrument is the corporate seal of said Corporation, and that the said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said Corporation by authority of its Board of Directors, andand acknowledged said—instrument to e the ree act an ee o saidCorporation. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year last above-written. -- �� i Notary/ Puollc for Oregon. My Commission expires 4/19/88 ACCEP'CAi 1C Ii \Deed Reference: 84-010619 Approved as to form this day of d t 19 Ey: — y Attorney ty of Tigard Approved as to Segal description this J1day of City Engineer - ty of Tigard Accepted by the City Council this o2 "�day of _, 19 q TY CIL,, OFF ATIGLDI•OREGON 7 By: W ity Recorder City of Tigard (1704A). . I I 3 ev 0,0 22. Lp M o � Ss.od �. /77.0 r R 3 �'os a � N , r Ti jas = t 00 i Ram CITY OF TIGARD. OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: July 23, 1984 AGENDA ITEM 4: DATE SUBMITTED: July 19, 1984 PREVIOUS ACTION: $ Authorized 1983184 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Overlay Program _ %Budget REQUESTED BY: Public Works Director DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: j CITY ADMINISTRATOR: cass=assass=aassss=g grate=---arm ----- ---------- INFORMATION SUMMARY The 1983/84 Spring overlayprogram was delayed until we knew how much our reconditioning projects were going to leave for overlay work. Current estimates indicate $76,000 are available for overlay work. The following streets are recommended for your consideration: S.W. Kable From S.W. 100th Ave. To 100' West of SW Hoodview p S.W. Hoodview From S.W. Kable North 100' S.W. Sattler From S.W. 100th Ave. To S.W. 96th Ave. S.W. Knoll- From S.W. Hall To. S.W. Hunziker S.W. Tigard From S.W. Main St. To North of 99W Overpass S.W. 78th From S.W. Pfaffl.e North 1300 feet acscsaaaaasssRssaassgzaccaamssssaasssaa=a=sassas.a=aasassasaasaa« ------•- ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED These streets were selected from a list of 35 streets by the Engineering and Operations Division, as those in most need and the best value for the dollar. aGaC=a��aCeCG ............... as=sasaa=sssaaa a.-sa-aaasaaaassaass- SUGGESTED ACTION Approve the attached list of streets for overlay and authorize staff to call for bids to be awarded by Council on August 13, with work to start as soon thereafter as possible. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCI JULY 19, 1984 FROM: Bob Jean, City Administrator SUBJECT: Council Goals and Priorities' Councilor Scheckla and I met to review the Council workshop, goals and then to input his priorities into the ,process. The Council ,should now review and adopt the following: GOAL SCHECKLA + COUNCIL = TOTAL 1 . Complete construction of Civic Center 15 58 73 2. Update and adopt Labor Relations Policy 9 57 66 3. Conduct Transportation issues workshop, and adopt; Streets C.I.P. 7 37 54,' 4. Update and adopt 5-Year Financial Plan and Service Level Priorities 10 42 52 5. Adopt'L.I.D. Policy and Code Amendments 12 37 49 6. . Start a Performance Audit Program 8 41 45 7. Conduct individual Workshops with Departments and Commissions 2 36 38 8. Review and Adopt Computer MasterPlan 14 22 36 9. Resolve Police Dispatch Issue 7 27 34 10. Adopt Capital Improvements Program 7 24 31 11 Develop Feasibility Analysis of Washington Square/Metzger Annexation 12 20 32 12. Initiate Charter Update 7 19 26 13. Conduct Urban Services/Double Taxation Workshop 1 19 20 14. Adopt Codes Enforcement Priority Plan 4 16 20 15. Adopt Economic Development Action Plan 5 4 9 16. Conduct Volunteerism Workshop 0 7 7 z i •kctdtl VED J U L 2 3 1984 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF TIGARD RE: County Ordinance No. 291 } Notice 'Mailed: July 11 , 1984 Local Improvement District } for the ProposedImprovement ) of S.W. '135th Avenue and ) S.W. ,Walnut Street and the } { Construction Of S.W. 128th ) Avenue, S'.W. 130th Avenue } and S.W. 132nd Avenue, City of Tigard Tax Lot No. 1S1-33DA, 7200 g 121420 SW Main Street } Est. Assessr�ent: $18,758.16 Tigard, OR 97223 Pursuant to a petition presented by persons owning property -in the ro osed Local Improvement District, the u�sted Localnty Improvement Di rs, on the poard of roposed and P 5th day ,of January, 1982, created the req adopted the feasibility feasibility report rta under the nd afu0rdi nancef NothoritY . 291inan is available for ' copy Of the said Room 418, Was inspection at the Board of County Commissioners Avenueoff, Hillsboro, Oregon 97124. County Administration Building, 150 N. First Avenue, The, Local Improvement District,was created for the purpose described in Exhibit "A" and by this reference incorporated herein. cal A map showing the 162 parcels ofo rolExhibit b6°�andubydthistrefehe rence Improvement District is attached here as incorporated herein. aring be held The Board of County Commissioners directed that a public he to consider said improvements. Based on current prices and trends of expected costs and without benefit of detailed engineering, the Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation estimates that the total pas3engineeringcOst candicontconstruction is f the petitioned for improvements, as well 9 $ 49032,071.00. Based on the estimated total project cost the estimated cost to your property would be as stated above. The recommended method of assessment is described in the feasibility report. ent After determination of the cost oses the improvem exceedinga$IOOnd hmay,satsthet of each property owner, payment of such as over owners discretion, be made in a lump sum payment or installment payments a period of up to thirty years at 13 percent simple interest on the unpaid balance.. at 7:00 o'clock YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the 24th day of July, 1984, p,M. , is the dateand time set BofranyfthnretbeCoto1ssioners to the proposed publicly hear and consider objections, Commissioners improvement. The hearing will be held in the Board of County Hearing Room, Room 40`2, Washington County Administration Building, 150 N. First Street, Hillsboro, Oregon 97124. YOU ARE HEREBY FURTHER NOTIFIED that if you desire to object to the proposed improvement, you must state in writing that you object and your written objection must be received by the. Board of County Commissioners, Room 418, Administration Building, 150 N First Avenue, Hillsboro, Oregon 97124, prior to the conclusion of the public hearing on the 24th day of July, 1984. No particular form is required for you to state your objection. If written ; objections are so received from more than 50 percent of the property owners ' and such property ow,-,-rs' own more than 50 percent of the total property subject to the assessment, the proposed improvement may be ,suspended and may not be reconsidered for six months or the improvement may be abandoned. If you should have any questions or want further information on the above matters or on any other matter concerning the proposed improvement before the above hearing or during the period of the proposed improvement, please contact -the Project Management Section, Department of Public Works at 150 N. First: Avenue, Second Floor, Administration Building, Hillsboro,' Oregon R. 97124, or telephone 648=-8610. ECARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON t 4252PHD/B 4 Washington County May 26, 1984 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4. x The project contemplates the following improvements: S.W. 135th Aver From S.W. Scholls Ferry Road to the West Road connection: Two lanes each 12 feet wide with a bike lane 5 feet wide and a sidewalk 5 'feet wide on each side and a 14 feet wide left turn , lane in the center adjacent to the West Road connection; i S.W. 135th Aver & S.W. Walnut St.: ° From the West Road connection to S.W. 128th Ave.: Two lanes each 12 feet wide with a bike lane 5 feet wide and a sidewalk 5' feet wide on each side and a continuous `14 feet F wide left turn Pane in the center; TM S.W. 132nd Ave.: From S.W. Walnut St. to the South limit of the LID: ... Two lanes each 16 feet wide with one 8 feet wide parking lane; . . S.W. 130th Ave.: From S.W. Scholls Ferry Road to the intersection of S.W. Katherine St. and S.W. 128th Ave.: Two lanes each 16 feet wide with one 8 feet wide parking lane. , S.W. Brittany Square Drive: From the intersection in the center of the LID area on S.W. 130th Ave. to the intersection with S.W. Morning Hill Drive: _ Two lanes each 16 feet wide with one 8 feet wide parking lane; r S.W. Morning Hill Drive: From its present Southerly teminus to S.W. Walnut St: Two lanes each 16 feet wide and one 8 feet wide parking lane; 4252PHD/8 Washington County May 26, 1984` Major intersection improvements: S.W. SchollsFerryRoad and S.W. 135th Ave.: S.W. 135th Ave. will be constructed with a 14 feet wide left turn lane; S.W. Scholls Ferry, Road will be widened along the South Right-of-Way to provide acceleration/decelerationlanes` and to add a left turn refuge ,lane. Following the relocation of the intersection:of S.W. Old Scholls Ferry Road and S.W. Scholls Ferry Road, an eight-phase traffic signal should be installed when warranted., Storm sewer improvements: Improvements will be made to the Storm Server system as" a part of the street ,improvements; " Sanitary sewer improvements: Improvements to the sanitary sewer system are contemplated as a part of all the street improvements except for that portion of S.W. 130th Ave. North of the intersection in the center of the LID area. Miscellaneous utility improvements: Various existing utilities such as gas, cable TV, electricity and telephone will be relocated during street construction. 4252PHD/B ffig Washington County May 26. 1984 APPENDIX # 5A PROJECTS COSTS The various elements of the cost of the proposed LID are as follows: F { 1. Technical fees for design and construction; 2. Acquisition of rights of ways and easements; ' 3. Project administration for construction; 4. County legal and administrative services; 5. Warrant interest; � 6. Construction of the proposed street improvements. COST ANALYSIS 1, Technical fees for design and construction: @ 7.5% (of construction cost), .Plus Design surveying and engineering Construction surveying @ 2.5%, plus Construction inspection @ 2%: $ 366,098.00 f 2. Acquire rights-of-way and easements: Right-of-way boundaries resolutions (tec$nical fees): Right-of-way purchase (583,00 Sq. Ft. @ $0.45/Sq. Ft.): $262,350,00 $5x000.®® 3. Project administration: 4. County legal and administrative §)�Comput$33@843.00 sum of construction cost and technical fees 5. Warrant interest (12% for 16 months): $295,962.00 6. Construction costs: S.W. 135th Ave.: Intersection at S.W. Schoils Ferry $38 ,430.00.W. 135th Ave.: 4252PHD/8 _ E } i' e s h {: Washington County May 26, 1984 r' S.W. 135th Ave. from S.W. Scholls Ferry Road to West Road connection: $416,465.00 Intersection with S.W. Morning Hill Drive at West Road connection: $5000.00 S.W. 135th Ave. from West Road connection to S.W. Walnut St.: $413,757.00 Traffic signals: $80,000.00 S.W. Walnut St.: S.W. Walnut St. from S.W. 135th Ave. to S.W. 128th Ave., $446,382.00 S.W. 132nd Ave. . From S.W. Walnut St. to the South limit of the LID: $26,466.00 S.W. 130th Ave.: S.W. 130th Ave. from Scholls Ferry Rd. to S.W. 128th .Ave. at � p S.W. Katherine St. : $586,178.00 € Intersection with S.W. Scholls Ferry Road: $20,470.00 S.W. Brittany Square Dr.: b S.W. Brittany Square Dr. from S.W. 130th Ave. to S.W. Morning Hill Dr.: $161,173.00 S.W. Morning Hill Drive: S.W. Morning Hill Drive to S.W. Walnut St.: $201,050.00 Sanitary sewer: $378,000.00 Sub Total : $2,773,471.00 10% Contingency: $277.347.00 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST: $3,050,818.00 TOTAL PROJECT COST (Sum of Item 1 through 6): $4,032,071.00 4252PHD/B r`_ LM MEETING SCHEDULE - AUGUST. 1954 Sd�Ni9AY gip i?AY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY` FRIDAY 3 SATURDAY 2 4 l t 7:30PH NPO I & 4 City Hall 7.00 PH CIVICCENTER CONK Sch.Diatr.Bd.Rin. 5 * 6x 7 8 9 10 11 7:30 PM PLANNING 7:00 PY4 Fowler: COMM. HEARINGS 'OFFICER. 7:30 PH NPO #7 PUBLIC HEARING City Hall Durham Tr. Plant 12 * 13 * 14 15 * 16 17 18 7:OOPM LIBR.BD. 7:3OPH NPO#5 & 6 7:30 PH PARK BD. Library City Hall City Hall 7 OOPN NPO #3 Fouler Library i 7:30AK EC_O14014IC 7:30P CCOUNCIL DEVELOP. COKK- 7:PM_gC.CTR.CONH Fowler -_ RH Pioneer Pies Sch.Oist.Board Rm 19 * 20 A** 21 22 7:OUPH a 23 24 25 HRGS.oFF.PUBL.HRG Durham Tr. Plant 7:30PH COUNCIL 7:PM CVC.CTR.COM Fowler SH � Cit Hall 26 * 27a 28 29 30 31 6:30 P C_C.C.I. City Hall 7:30PH COUNCIL Fowler * Department Head Staff i4eeting -;; 9:30 AM (City Hall) RYA - REGULAR HEETING SS STUDY SESSION * SH - SPECIAL. MEETING Hunicipal Court 7:00 PH (11075 SW Gaarde Street) * Misdemeanor Arraignments 9:00 - 10:30 AN (City Hall) i (PL:pl/0614A)