City Council Packet - 04/28/1998
CITY OF TIGARD
OREGON
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
MEETING
APRIL ZSo 1995
COUNCIL MEETING WILL NOT BE
TELEVISED
1Aadm1jo1ccpkt3,doc
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772
Zr jff y f~ r FY ff • r.{r •F a • . y+.:.:
r ~}•,2.'} yr f#:;s . } y y :}f } +{fir. F}:
L. f; G: ice'.` v2Fis. ES`. ::'f.C3~;s~0; •:rf1F^•: hs:r.s
~:i+v~:,'F~1,'i.~ ! :8},{ F' • rJ. } %~~}::F$}~:{$, ~.YI,:S::{`+y+jf~•4
CITY OF TIGARD
'•+•.',;•r': ':';;:.~c,:`r.:,•:;<•rY.::••:
`r;:•rrv~
•'{rr°•n< R}Y;:~ .+1.. /''yi${+`'{'rJ•'f:rS,;}~;:,+re,•`r};{:'rc}N':T.•'$.
/ rF.
~1.:}i'••.' + Fr:u~ri':}r~~ir ~`i #::•.•p:+f r~.•i~f
S;: Cv:y{. iff., C';4.. +F/;A`'}';•:{::r;:.:ivi:;i%:Y.R•:;:i;~%r;;:! fs.
...F.: c.,};+.ovf<••'::.r:~:{.:r.:ib:.r:...•.'•'3:C•FS.":f,r:<+ii:;}:':•,^: t3 i:{:': ii{:::: ~::r::nr~S{
s: f + :?'•l.•::+r,r ~;iSi;iiv}:Fi~•.:v:•::{::Ffi.s.'+:
?i:~}:.,, i,:~,.;.' ,+'•.r> : l . : ~S:'F:n'F }3:4n~ ii r':{'} y:•$ri%Jii}: }
:::V: : v~::":r. {••S{;}v'~:.i{+.'Y.iw: r:: ii : Sk : rr%:x:%:Jii r:• +i:iS:f:p+.i:
{t:..ti f}:::ir;}•}r,.}?#;r f:: {{J{.•: • ri•r,..•:,.arr..: f.',:;; w:'c::r',•'s }{:}:i::ii:::s%}.f i
{:if :.`+..R:::'{;.SY.'+s:{{{. m;:SiF::;?$:. :.rv::•J}•i>::::.xf'v:Y+.f;.:}^~i
nr•~:%i%^yF'F::•s::<:lriA%%F:•.; •{w:: vv; : iF::{F}:: v: S: .lv}{{%:F:
w:v in }v f:{i•~{}{j: 'y+' O.}br v:~s:ti <fF4: ;x%%~Fi.v,.$.{{; ;::.:.S. F,. '4:::~i:J:;{i:f:{;:,'{!{iFi:{~}••:F::n
{:{i }k{v?f>:{f iii{:'FRi? {iF :r~%v'f.::{.: iY.~•.:rh3:•:v:ti n %:Sl:.i:^Yi:+R'i:•:•:::{FF:
PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the
appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the
Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be
two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting
either the Mayor or the City Manager.
Times noted are estimated; it is recommended that persons interested in testifying
be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda
items can be heard in any order after 7:30 p.m.
Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and
should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the
Council meeting. Please call 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD -
Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf).
Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services:
• Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing
impairments; and
• Qualified bilingual interpreters.
Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is
important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your
need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone
numbers as listed above: 639-4171, x309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD -
Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf).
SEE ATTACHED AGENDA
COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL 28 1998- PAGE 1
AGENDA
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING
APRIL 28, 1998 - 6:30 PM
6:30 PM
• STUDY SESSION
> Introduce Susan Koepping, Volunteer Coordinator
> EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive
Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to
discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and
pending litigation issues. As you are aware, all discussions within
this session are confidential; therefore nothing from this meeting may
be disclosed by those present. Representatives of the news media
are allowed to attend this session, but must not is close any
information discussed during this session.
> Tour of New Police Department Addition
7:30 PM
1. BUSINESS MEETING
1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board
1.2 Roll Call
1.3 Pledge of Allegiance
1.4 Council Communications/Liaison Reports
1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda items
2. PROCLAMATION - PHYSICAL FITNESS AND SPORTS MONTH AND FITNESS
DAY IN OREGON
Y Mayor Nicoll
3. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please)
4. 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:
4.1 Approve City Council Meeting Minutes: April 7, 1996
4.2 Award Contract for Audit Services to Pauly, Rogers & Company
COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL 28 1998- PAGE 2
o Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion: Any items
requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate
discussion will be considered immediately after the Council has voted on
those items which do not need discussion.
6. REMOVAL OF PARKING PROHIBITIONS ON SW 66TH AVENUE AND SW
LANDMARK LANE
• Staff Report: Engineering Department
• Council Discussion
• Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 98-
6. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - RAZ TRANSPORTATION APPEAL OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S MODIFICATION CONCERNING A
PREVIOUSLY ISSUED DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION RELATED TO THE
STATUS OF A NON-CONFORMING COMMERCIAL USE
a. Open Public Hearing.
b. Declarations or Challenges
C. Staff Report: Finance Director
d. Public Testimony
e. Staff Recommendations
f. Council Questions
g. Close Public Hearing
h. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 98-
7. NON-AGENDA ITEMS
8. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive
Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss
labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation
issues. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are
confidential; therefore nothing from this meeting may be disclosed by those
present. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this
session, but must not is close any information discussed during this
session.
9. ADJOURNMENT
I:\ADM\CATHY\CCA\980428 P. DOC
COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL 28 1998- PAGE 3
11111; 11 111 11111 IN!,
Agenda Item No. 3,1
Meeting ®f Wa314g
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 28, 1998
• STUDY SESSION
> Meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. by Mayor Jim Nicoli
> Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Brian Moore, Bob Rohlf, and Ken Scheckla.
> Staff Present: City Manager Bill Monahan; Asst. to the City Manager Liz Newton; City ~
Recorder Catherine Wheatley; Community Development Director Jim
Hendryx; Risk/Management Analyst Loreen Mills; Legal Counsel Tim Ramis;
and City Engineer Gus Duenas.
> Volunteer Coordinator
Liz Newton, Asst. to the City Manager, introduced Susan Koepping, Volunteer
Coordinator. Ms. Koepping expressed her appreciation for the Council and staff support of the
volunteer program, as evidenced by the Volunteer Recognition Dinner. She reviewed her
background in working with volunteers.
> Bond Measures
Bill Monahan, City Manager, announced that staff has scheduled a briefing on opportunities on
election law for elected officials, staff, boards, and volunteers for the May 26 meeting. He said
that they would invite the Planning Commission and Library Board to attend.
> Executive Session
The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:40 p.m. under the provisions of ORS
192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and
pending litigation issues.
> Executive Session adjourned to Study Session at 7:00 p.m.
> Agenda Review
Mr. Monahan advised the Council that Mr. Hendryx was prepared to handle Martha Bishop's
question regarding preapp conferences. He noted the addition of the "Be Kind to Animal Week"
proclamation. Mayor Nicoli asked for further discussion of the 2040 planning group list.
> The Council took a tour of the new addition to the Police Department.
1. BUSINESS MEETING
1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board
Mayor Nicoli called the business meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Boy Scout Troop 423 led
the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. The Mayor thanked the scouts and the Council
distributed lapel pins.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 28, 1998 - PAGE 1
1.3 Council Communications/Linison Reports: None
1.4 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items
Mr. Monahan mentioned the "Be Kind to Animal Week" proclamation, discussion on the
appointment of the Washington Square Task Force, and his report on the April 22 meeting
of the downtown group.
Mayor Nicoli said that he had a report from the meeting he had with the Mayor of
Wilsonville and the Tualatin Valley Water District Board Chair.
2. PROCLAMATIONS
The Mayor announced proclamations for Physical Fitness and Sports Month and Fitness Day in
Oregon and for Be Kind to Animals Week (May 3 - 9).
3. VISITOR'S AGENDA
Martha Bishop, 10590 SW Cook Lane, reported that the developer meeting with a CIT
regarding a day nursery school on Park Street did not include any of the usual information
presented in the past to a CIT on a potential development, such as neighborhood impacts and
traffic impacts. She said that she wrote a letter to Tim Ramis asking if traffic impact studies were
not a requirement of the Code.
Tim Ramis, City Attorney, commented that the Code was somewhat ambiguous about traffic
studies. He said that they would try to tighten up the Code provisions on requiring developers to
address traffic issues. He noted Ms. Bishop's other question regarding pre-app conferences. He
said that the preapp conference was a valuable tool for both the developer and the community to
figure out a way to do the development.
Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, mentioned that in a letter Ms. Bishop
requested more information on pre-app conferences. He said that staff would evaluate what
information should be shared at CIT meetings and alternate methods of providing more
information to the neighbors. Ms. Bishop commented that notifying neighbors within 250 feet of
a proposed development was not sufficient to inform a neighborhood about a proposed
development.
4. CONSENT AGENDA
Councilor Rohlf asked if cost was the reason that Coopers was not retained as auditor this year.
Staff explained that Coopers did not bid this year, as they were getting out of the municipal
business.
Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Moore, for adoption of the consent
agenda.
Motion approved by unanimous vote of the Council present (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Moore,
Rohlf, and Scheckla voting "yes.")
4.1 Approve Council Minutes: April 7, 1998
4.2 Award Contract for Audit Services to Pauly, Rogers & Company
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 28, 1998 - PAGE 2
5. REMOVAL OF PARKING PROHIBITIONS ON SW 66TH AVENUE AND SW
LANDMARK LANE
Mayor Nicoli declared an ex pane contact. He said that one of the property owners contacted
him but he referred him to staff.
STAFF REPORT
Gus Duenas, City Engineer, said that staff received simultaneous but separate requests from the
property owners on Landmark Lane and on SW 66"' Avenue to remove the parking restrictions on
those streets. He reviewed the locations of the streets on a map. He said that staff reviewed the
requests and saw no reason to retain the parking restrictions. He recommended approval of the
ordinance lifting the parking restrictions.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Mayor Nicoli asked for public testimony. There was none.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
Councilor Rohlf asked if there would still be room in the streets for safe vehicle access if they
allowed parking on both sides of the streets. Mr. Duenas said yes. He explained that Landmark
Street was primarily a business street, and staff was not sure why the parking restrictions had been
placed on it in the first place.
Councilor Moore suggested in the future documenting the reasons for placement of no parking
signs. Mr. Duenas said that the restrictions were placed as an emergency measure in 1982 but the
traffic foreseen never developed.
Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, for the adoption of Ordinance
98-09.
The City Recorder read the number and title of the ordinance.
ORDINANCE NO. 98-09, AN ORDINANCE TO REPEAL SECTIONS 10.28.130 (51) AND
10.28.130 (52) OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE PROHIBITING PARKING ON SW 66TH
AVENUE AND SW LANDMARK LANE RESPECTIVELY.
Motion passed by unanimous roll call vote of the Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors
Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voting "yes.")
6. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL): RAZ TRANSPORTATION APPEAL OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S MODIFICATION CONCERNING A PREVIOUSLY
ISSUED DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION RELATED TO THE STATUS OF A NON-
CONFORMING COMMERCIAL USE
a. Mayor Nicoli read the hearing title and opened the public hearing.
b. Declarations or Challenges: None
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 28, 1998 - PAGE 3
MINI
c. Staff' Report
Dick BewersdorfT, Planning Manager, presented the staff report. He explained that Planning
Commission modification required that the northern 200 feet of the Raz property be returned to
an unused state, consistent with the staff recommendation.
Mr. Bewersdorff reviewed the history of the matter. He said that on April 12, 1997, Raz applied
for a Director's Interpretation concerning the previous use of the property because it had split
zoning (general commercial to the south and R-12 medium density residential to the north).
Relying on affidavits provided by Raz concerning the historic use of the property since 1944, the
director found that bus storage was consistent with the non-conforming provisions of the
ordinance.
Mr. Bewersdorff said that when the neighboring property owners appealed the decision to
LUBA, the director requested a continuance for further review. Based upon new evidence, the
director issued a new interpretation. During the public process the property owner submitted
affidavits supporting the previous interpretation.
Mr. Bewersdorff reviewed the Development Code provision on non-conforming use which stated
that if a non-conforming use was discontinued or abandoned for a period of six months for any
reason, any subsequent use of the land would conform to the uses permitted by the property
zoning. He said that the Planning Commission found persuasive the aerial photos submitted to
demonstrate the lack of use of the property for pe-iods of time exceeding six months, and the
corroborating neighbor testimony.
Mr. Bewersdorff explained that the applicant appealed the decision based on procedural issues.
The appellant contended that the Commission did not have the jurisdiction to make the
modification decision, and that the property owner Mr. Aman had only five days to respond to
the staff recommendation. Mr. Bewersdorff noted the City Attorney's finding that Section
18.32.390 did assign authority in the matter to the director and the Planning Commission.
Mr. Bewersdorff said that on November 25, 1997, Raz Transportation was notified by the
director that he was initiating a new review of the previous director's interpretation. Staff
notified the property owner Mr. Aman on December 8, 1997, and provided him a period in which
to respond to the aerial photo evidence (which he did through affidavits on the previous use of
the property). He mentioned that Mr. Aman received notice of the Commission hearing 20 days
in advance with the staff report mailed seven days prior to the meeting.
Mr. Bewersdorff noted the evidence of the aerial photos and director's interpretation versus the
affidavits and testimony. He recommended upholding the Commission's decision that the aerial
photos and testimony indicated that there was not a continuous use of the property from
approximately 200 feet from the northern property line.
Councilor Scheckla asked what the property had been used for. Mr. Bewersdorff said that
according to the affidavits the property was used; according to the aerial photographs the
property was not used, except for occasional storage of materials. He confirmed that the aerial
photos were taken on different dates.
Mayor Nicoli asked for clarification on the LUBA appeal. Mr. Bewersdorff explained that the
property owners to the north (who did not receive notification of the interpretation) used their
right to appeal the decision to LUBA. However, LUBA did not render a decision because of the
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 28, 1998 - PAGE 4
i;
oil
JUDITH KENT
TEACHER - COUNSELOR
CHILD DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST
15170 S.W. 133rd Avenue
Tigard, Oregon 97224
(503)620-3666
agreement between the appellant and the City.
d. Public Testimony
Mayor Nicoli read the hearing procedures and criteria.
PROPONENT
> Steve Moskowitz, 111 SW Columbia #1080, Portland, representing Walter Aman AKA
Business Services, the property owner, contended that the issue tonight did not involve a land
use issue but rather a noise problem which the Planning Commission decision would not solve.
He referenced the acoustical engineer's testimony before the Commission that the decibel levels
emanating from the property were within the city code standards. He stated that moving
operations back 200 feet from the north property line would not change the decibel level
appreciably.
Mr. Moskowitz mentioned confusion among the Planning Commissioners at the hearing as to
whether the Code criteria regarding non-conforming uses was applied to an increase in the
intensity of the use or to the expansion of physical space for the use. He argued that the criteria
referred to expansion of physical space.
Mr. Moskowitz referenced the five affidavits from individuals who represented the various uses
of the property from 1943 to the present; the affadavits testified that the property was used for
buses, heavy construction equipment, and trucking operations covering the whole property site.
He noted the opposing testimony from three neighbors and a maintenance supervisor that the
operations had not used the full expanse of the property. He said that the argument seemed to be
that grassy areas in the aerial photos indicated no bus use while areas with no grass indicated bus
use. He cited Mr. Kessler's testimony, a tenant from 1979 to 1993, that the photos were taken in
the middle of the day when the buses were off the lot. He mentioned that currently Raz assigned
60 buses to this lot, most of which used it in the late afternoon or night due to the nature of
school bus and touring bus operations.
Mr. Moskowitz commented that he thought that the Commissioners were frustrated because they
did not believe that they had the authority to reach a compromise solution. He said that they said
that they accepted the staffs arbitrary recommendation of 200 feet because they had nothing else
to go on.
> Walter Aman, 10626 SW Barbur Blvd., Portland, property owner, commented that they
found the photos to be somewhat dubious evidence. He held that everyone involved in this
matter recognized that they were dealing with nuisance issues but because the nuisance did not
violate any city ordinance, land use law was used to try to solve the problem. He stated that
there was no question as to the historic use of the property, as anyone living in Tigard for any
length of time could attest.
Mr. Aman spoke to the staff argument that the existence of grass meant that an area had not been
driven on for any six month period (based on the annual aerial photos). He contended that grass
grew well in Oregon. He said that the ground was hard and that the yard has been used as a
construction yard, storage area, and bus facility for a number of years. He stated that they never
said that every square inch has been parked or driven on every hour of every day for any period
of time. He said that based on his personal knowledge as the property owner since 1993, the
property has been used extensively. He said that they did not back up right to the fence nor use
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 28, 1998 - PAGE 5
it as intensely as Raz has.
Mr. Aman argued that the 200 foot setback would not solve the problem of the noise and activity
level that disturbed the Sleepy Hollow residents. He said that he planned to make major property
improvements to abate the noise but has been prevented from doing so by the proceedings of the
past six months.
Mr. Aman held that the City's policy on notifying property owners of nuisance issues was either
vague or nonexistent. He said that since communication was with the tenant, not the owner, he
had not been in a position to intervene to protect his rights as a property owner and prevent the
land use action from occurring in the first place. He asked the Council to address this problem to
see that property owners were notified of nuisance issues in the future.
Mr. Aman reiterated the suggestion he made to the Planning Commission to set a 100 foot
setback as a compromise solution that was consistent with the evidence. He said that he would
then proceed with noise abatement improvements that would satisfy the neighbors' concerns and
allow operations to continue on the remainder of the property. He mentioned that he has
discussed noise abatement improvements with staff. He commented that while he had
understood from the deliberations that the Commission felt such a compromise was more
equitable and consistent with the evidence, the Commission did not feel that they had the
authority to accept such a solution, and instead accepted the staff recommendation of a 200 foot
setback.
PROPONENTS
> Jack Orchard, 1100 One Main Place, representing the Sleepy Hollow property owner,
noted that the Commission decision made two separate findings regarding the non-conforming
use. He said that the Commission found that there had not been a continuous use made of the
most northerly 200 feet of the site, and that Raz Transportation had already exhibited an
intensification of use. He commented that he disagreed with Mr. Aman's description of what the
Commission said. Mr. Orchard said that they appreciated that Mr. Aman has offered a
compromise on nuisance issues but contended that this was a land use problem, a problem
created by the use of the most northerly 200 feet of the property which was not used previously.
Mr. Orchard stated that clearly Raz had the right to use much of the site. He mentioned the split
zoning. He argued that the aerial photos clearly showed that the south half of the property up to
the 200 foot line has been in commercial use. He noted the oval track worn by vehicles using the
site for years. He contended that the aerial photos documented a travel and use pattern on the
property in the area where Raz belonged. He reiterated that testimony before the Commission
indicated that the northern part of the property, adjacent to Sleepy Hollow and Hawthorne Villa,
has never had buses on it.
Mr. Orchard reviewed the evidence presented to support the argument that there has been a
discontinuance of use for at least a six month period on the northern 200 feet. He referenced the
aerial photos demonstrating that the area was unused or had only incidental use, and the
testimony of the neighbors, especially the longer term residents (more than one year). He
explained that Sleepy Hollow units were townhouses. Therefore the residents testified not only
what they saw at ground level but also looking down on the property from the second floor. He
pointed out that the Commission found the eyewitness testimony of the Sleepy Hollow and
Hawthorne Villa residents persuasive.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 28, 1998 - PAGE 6
Mr. Orchard said that Mr. Aman has conceded two points: the Raz use was far more intensive
than what has occurred on the site before, and storage on the property has been scattered. He
contended that Mr. Aman and the Raz people could not tell the Planning Commission that there
was consistent, concerted use of the northern 200 feet of the property. He argued that the aerial
photos provided the evidence to demonstrate where the activity has occurred and where it has
not.
Mr. Orchard reviewed the evidence supporting the contention of an intensification of use under
Raz. He mentioned the testimony of the neighbors regarding the change in use and impacts from
the increased number of vehicles, and the evidence of the aerial photos that the northern 200 feet
was an undisturbed area of grass without tracks. He noted the testimony that a bus got stuck in
this area, indicating that the ground had soil spots and was not used for bus storage. He pointed
out the installation of lights in the northern half of the property by Raz, asking why those lights
were not installed before if that area was used continuously.
Mr. Orchard commented that this has been a fairly civilized discussion for an issue on which
emotions ran fairly strongly. He held that the original director's decision was based upon
incomplete evidence, pointing out that the neighbors did not have the opportunity to present their
evidence at that time. He spoke to maintaining the 200 foot setback designated by staff as the
appropriate area of non-activity. He said that the Sleepy Hollow owners were comfortable with
the staff recommendation.
Mr. Orchard reiterated that this was a land use issue. He said that that portion of the property
was zoned residential. He stated that the multifamily apartment complexes to the north and west
of the property were the type of uses allowed by the zone. He spoke to the Commission's
careful review of this matter before reaching their decision that the 200 foot area should be
eliminated from Raz's area of operations (which were non-conforming uses for residential). He
stated that there was no argument that Raz was free to use the remainder of the site to the full
extent that it could.
> Dawn Holland, Sleepy Hollow Apartments resident, 10900 SW 76`h Place, testified that when
her family moved in 14 months ago, the Raz property was an open field with no activity. She
said that last June/July, they noticed surveying activity, and then in September, the buses came.
She stated that if they had known what would happen, they would not have selected Sleepy
Hollow to be their home. She reiterated that from March to September there was no bus activity
in that area.
Ms. Holland recounted an incident in which the noise from the buses was so loud at 10:30 p.m.,
her 11 year old daughter woke up thinking that her alarm had gone off and it was time to get up.
She mentioned that Raz has put a caution tape up since the Commission's ruling and seemed not
to be using the area. She asked to keep the 200 feet setback in place.
> Amber Hubbard, 11845 SW Reid Court, Beaverton, stated that she managed the Sleepy
Hollow apartments from May 1991 to March 1998. She said that when she moved into Sleepy
Hollow in March 1991, she had a clear view from her unit of the field in question. She stated
that it was a grassy field with buses further back by the large maintenance building. She said that
as manager, she frequently looked over the fence to see whether the blackberry bushes needed
trimming back or to use the view of the open grassy field as a marketing tool with prospective
tenants. She said that until Raz moved in, she received no complaints regarding bus noise. Since
then she has received numerous complaints. She confirmed to Councilor Scheckla that there
were 65 apartment units.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 28, 1998 - PAGE 7
> Carol Getkin, Sleepy Hollow resident, 10900 SW 791h Place, mentioned that she and her
husband-to-be chose Sleepy Hollow three years ago to be their home because it met their criteria
which included a quiet setting. She said that they toured their unit at 6 p.m. on a Wednesday
evening and saw a few buses on the property a long way from the back fence. She stated that for
the first two years they rarely heard noise from the backlot area but, beginning with the Rose
Festival in June last year, the bus activity and noise level began increasing.
Ms. Getkin testified that she and her husband called Raz in July and began proceedings as the
noise and activity levels increased to all day every day. She said that with her need for surgery
and the deleterious effect of lack of sleep on her general health, in September she and her
husband moved to a different unit on the north side of the complex. However they could still
hear the noise of the buses. In addition the bus fumes were so strong that they could not use
their patio or keep the windows open. She held that their quality of life has deteriorated
significantly since Raz moved in.
> James Thorpe, 8440 NE Sumner, Portland, said that he was a Maintenance Supervisor with
Harsch Investments, owners of Sleepy Hollow. He said that he has worked the Sleepy Hollow
property since July 1991 with numerous occasions to see the field while working on the back
fence or on the roof. He said that he has never seen a vehicle on the 200 feet in question,
although there was activity further back but not so as he noticed. He reiterated that it was an
empty field.
> Stacey Morgan, 10900 SW 761h, Sleepy Hollow resident, said that she has lived at the complex
since October 1992. She explained that her entire apartment lay along the fence line. She
testified that for many years the property had grown grass to a foot high against the fenceline.
She said that other than mowing machines, there have not been any vehicles in that area for quite
a long time. She said that she first noticed increased activity when the lights were put in closer to
the fence around March 1997.
Ms. Morgan said that at first one bus sat in the field for two or three months and then they
started bringing buses right up to the fence line. She said that both she and her husband have
been woken up numerous times at various hours of the night by the revving and idling of the
buses. She expressed concern about the fumes, the ugly view, and the bright lighting. She said
that Larry at Raz was very nice but their efforts to provide him with bus numbers did not slow
down the activity. She said that she has had walls shake with items falling off and breaking.
REBUTTAL
Mr. Moskowitz noted that concerns expressed here tonight dealt with increases in the level of
operations or the numbers of buses. He reiterated his contention that intensification of use was
irrelevant to the Tigard City Code on non-conforming uses which stated that there should be no
enlargement or expansion of the area being used for the non-conforming use. He said that the
question was how much of the property was used for this particular purpose, not how many buses
were using it.
Mr. Moskowitz referenced the affidavit testimony that heavy equipment used the full length of the
property. He said that while Raz may have intensified the use, that was not the Code standard.
The Code standard was how much of the area of the property was being used in the non-
conforming use.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 28, 1998 - PAGE 8
Councilor Scheckla asked for clarification on the location of the Hawthorne Villa Apartments. Mr.
Aman pointed out their location on a map. Councilor Scheckla asked why no one from Hawthorne
Villa was here to testify, since a noise problem should affect them also. Mr. Bewersdorff said that
staff did receive testimony from Hawthorne Villa that they have received similar intensity complaints
about noise in the area. He mentioned that the units were further separated from the Raz property by
a parking lot.
Mr. Aman clarified that the caution tape currently in place on the property was set at the 100 foot
mark. He reviewed the noise abatement suggestions they have discussed with the planning staff: a
10 foot berm running the full length of the property(50 to 60 feet wide at the base), planted with
vegetation and trees. He said that it was more visually attractive than a concrete noise abatement
fence.
Councilor Scheckla asked about the blackberry bushes. Mr. Aman said that since he bought the
property in 1993, no vegetation has been removed from the back portion of the property which was
covered in buffalo grass and weeds.
Mr. Aman said that the ground was hard and historically had been covered in gravel. He reiterated
that they have never said that the intensity of use has remained constant but they did contend that
the property has been used to store equipment. He said that he has personally parked equipment
on the back lot beyond the 200 foot line but not the 100 foot line. He mentioned the historic
circular driveway used to back vehicles into the service area. He stated that there was no question
that the more intense use would be closer to the building because drivers parked as close to the
building as they could get.
e. Council Questions
Councilor Rohlf asked if the proposed berm would be effective in mitigating the noise and view.
Mr. Bewersdorff said that staff did not have any experience with this type of berm. Councilor
Rohlf commented that he did not think that a distance of 200 feet would help much with the
noise problem, although it might help with the fumes.
Councilor Rohlf asked if staff has explored mitigation proposals with the neighborhood to see if
they were willing to test mitigation efforts. Mr. Bewersdorff said that Raz talked with the
neighbors about berming but he did not know if they have discussed Mr. Aman's latest proposal.
Councilor Moore asked for clarification on non-conforming use. Mr. Bewersdorff explained that
the use preceded the zoning by a considerable period of time. He said that it was used for
storage of heavy equipment in 1944, possibly in conjunction with building I-5. He stated that
staff found persuasive the aerial photo evidence of a discontinuance of use for six months on the
rear 200 feet of the property.
Mr. Ramis said that the first question in a non-conforming use case was whether or not one could
establish that the use existed and predated the zoning requirement. If so, then one had to
establish some level of non-conforming use. He explained that in the Tigard Code, if a property
owner abandoned the use for six months, he lost his "grandfather" right. He noted another
question regarding whether or not a use could be intensified. He pointed out that one side
argued that the Code did not take into account intensification of use, the other side argued that it
did and that owners were not permitted to intensify a use. He said that the Code was somewhat
ambiguous on this point; it needed a Council interpretation.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 28, 1998 - PAGE 9
Councilor Rohlf asked if the noise and fumes spreading beyond the property lines constituted an
expanded use of the property over an expanded area. Mr. Ramis said that that was another
possible interpretation of the language and reiterated that the Council needed to determine how it
interpreted the Code language.
Councilor Scheckla asked about intermittent uses. Mr. Ramis explained that the law allowed
uses to stop and start when the character of the use was intermittent, such as mining.
Councilor Scheckla mentioned a truck operation on the site years ago that apparently generated
no noise complaints. Mr. Bewersdorff confirmed to Councilor Rohlf that the City records did
not go back far enough to verify that there were no complaints.
E Mayor Nicoli close the public hearing
g. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 98-24
Mr. Bewersdorff recommended upholding the Planning Commission decision to modify the
original director's interpretation.
Councilor Rohlf said that while he could support the staff recommendation, he would like to see
the groups try to reach a common solution that allowed the property owner the use of his
property while protecting the neighbors' enjoyment of their property. Councilor Scheckla spoke
in support of the berm proposal.
Mayor Nicoli asked for clarification on what the Council could do this evening. Mr. Ramis
explained that on appeals, the Council could affirm, reverse or modify a decision, including
imposing conditions. He said that to impose the berm condition, Council would have to find that
there was a non-conforming use existing on the site to some extent, and that they resolved the
conflict with the 100 foot setback.
Councilor Rohlf asked if they could affirm the Commission's decision but postpone its taking
effect to allow a time period for the parties to work out a solution.
Councilor Moore expressed his belief that not even a 400 foot buffer would sufficiently alleviate
the noise or the odor problems. He spoke to finding a better solution to the problem. The
Mayor held that the neighbors' testimony indicated that the problems of noise and odor did not
occur until they started parking the buses next to the fenceline. He commented that this situation
should have gone to mediation first.
Mayor Nicoli said that while he would like to see a better solution, he thought that the
Commission made a correct decision. Councilor Rohlf said that no one was saying that the
Commission made a mistake. He asked what was the extent of the Council's power to modify
the Commission's decision. Mr. Ramis said that whatever Council did, it had to be consistent
with carrying out the Code based on the evidence in the record.
Councilor Scheckla spoke to continuing the meeting to allow the parties to find a modification
agreeable to all, and then return to the Council.
Councilor Moore asked if the Council could uphold the Commission decision and then the
property owner return with an application modifying the original request.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRII. 28, 1998 - PAGE 10
Mr. Hendryx noted that there were two separate issues in the discussion: Did Raz expand the
non-conforming use into the 200 foot area or not, and the noise issue. He said that if the Council
decided to require the 100 foot setback and a berm, then they had to find that the owner had used
the additional 100 feet continuously over time. He mentioned that the Council could make the
interpretation of the existing provisions that an increase in the intensity of use was another type
of expansion, requiring mitigation. He commented that he could not guarantee that a berm
would solve all the problems. He pointed out that staff looked at this matter solely from area
space - did they utilize more of the property than they previously had - not from intensification of
use, which was another interpretation.
Mayor Nicoli asked how staff arrived at the 200 foot setback. Mr. Hendryx said that based upon
the evidence, staff found that the 200 feet had been discontinued from use for a period greater
than six months.
Councilor Rohlf reiterated that he supported the findings of the Planning Commission. He said
that he had no doubt that the use intensified and that they were using more of the property than
they previously did. He commented that he did not think that the decision provided a good
solution for the neighbors; a berm would have a better chance of mitigating the impact.
Councilor Moore concurred.
Councilor Moore spoke for the property owner returning with another application. Mayor Nicoli
pointed out that if they found that the land was abandoned for six months, the owner could not
convert the use under the current zoning. Mr. Ramis explained that zoning codes were tools to
use in regulating land, not tools to stop everything. He said that the Council could amend the
Code to allow expansion of non-conforming uses as long as they did not increase the impact on
the surrounding property (similar to the County statute). Mayor Nicoli said that he did not have
a problem with that.
Councilor Scheckla asked what penalties would be imposed for violation of the 200 foot setback.
Mr. Hendryx said that they had a Code Enforcement Officer to work on correcting violations.
He mentioned that this property was under a Code Enforcement review and action initially
because of the noise issues.
The Council discussed the difficulties in this decision. They agreed that the Planning Commission
made the right decision but wanted more flexibility in what they could do to remedy this
situation. The Mayor noted Mr. Ramis' suggested language changes to the Code to allow a
property owner to expand a current use but only if he could alleviate any problems coming from
the expansion for the adjoining neighbors. They discussed the aesthetics of a concrete wall
versus a berm.
Councilor Moore suggested upholding the Planning Commission decision and instructing staff to
research the Code to see what they needed to do to allow greater flexibility in a case like this.
The Council discussed how to proceed. Mr. Ramis suggested that Council make a tenatative
decision, pending submission of draft findings by the attorney on the prevailing side, and set a
date certain for the continuation of the hearing. He explained that this would allow the attorney
to put forward the best set of findings possible to defend the decision in the event of litigation.
The Council discussed setting the matter over to May 26 but the neighbors asked for a quicker
resolution.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 28, 1998 - PAGE 11
Mr. Orchard expressed his appreciation for the opportunity to submit draft findings, stating that
he would write findings to reflect the City's consistent position on the legal issues involved. He
said that he could have the findings to staff by May 1, thus allowing scheduling of the final
decision on May 12.
Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to continue the hearing to
May 12 to review the proposed findings, keeping the record open till May 1 at 5 p.m. for
submission of findings.
Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors
Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.")
> Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting at 9:05 p.m. for a break.
> Mayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting at 9:10 p.m.
7. NON AGENDA ITEMS
> Mayor's Meeting
Mayor Nicoli reported that he met with the Mayor of Wilsonville and the Tualatin Valley Water
District Board Chair. He reviewed the site now proposed for the new prison in Wilsonville, a site
surrounded by industrial park zoning, as opposed to the Dammasch site which was surrounded
by residential development and slated for residential development in the City's Comprehensive
Plan. He stated that the new site was on Wilsonville's Urban Growth Boundary and would be
annexed into the city. He noted the opposition of Tualatin to the new location.
Mayor Nicoli reported that while Wilsonville has not yet signed an agreement regarding the
water system, the Wilsonville Mayor has indicated that the Council would support participating
in the agreement. He mentioned that Wilsonville would have to raise their water rates 100% no
matter what they did. Mr. Monahan said that he was meeting with the Wilsonville City Manager
and the Tualatin Valley Water District on Thursday to discuss the draft agreement.
Mayor Nicoli said that Wilsonville was going through a series of public meetings to allow citizen
comment on the options. He said that the Mayor indicated that they would go out for a vote on
the November ballot, though they were not sure at this time of the ballot content. He reported
that he told her that Tigard would move forward as soon as staff analyzed the $800,000 study
they would receive in December. He said that he offered to break out in the report Wilsonville's
involvement in order to facilitate Wilsonville's process. He pointed out that the only things that
Wilsonville was doing jointly with Tigard were the intake facility and the water treatment plant.
Mayor Nicoli stated that both he and the TVWD Chair told the Wilsonville Mayor that they
would prefer no surprises in the press reports. He said that he also mentioned the option of
Tigard building a water treatment plant of sufficient capacity to handle Wilsonville's water and
then selling them water, if Wilsonville voters turned down the City proposal. He commented that
with the resolution of the prison site issue, Wilsonville was ready to move on with the water
system matter.
Mayor Nicoli said that the Mayor told him that if the people voted the measure down, they did
not know what they would do but they knew that they had to do something because they were
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 28, 1998 - PAGE 12
facing a 24 month deadline from the state. He mentioned that they have agreed to meet again in
a month. He said that he understood from the Mayor that the concern behind them not joining
could be resolved by the attorneys; the opposition came from their City Manager.
> April 22 Downtown Meeting
Mr. Monahan reported that 16 people, in addition to the City and Chamber representatives,
attended the meeting. He said that he thought the people heard staff's message that they were
there as a resource, not there to run the meeting, and that the downtown program should be
supported by a consensus of the downtown property owners. He mentioned that the Chamber
Business Advocacy group acting as facilitators helped move the meeting along in a positive
fashion.
Mr. Monahan said that the downtown property owners have scheduled a second meeting for
Wednesday, May 18 to discuss boundaries for the downtown. Ms. Newton explained that this
second meeting was a brainstorming session which the business owners preferred to not have
City staff attend but to discuss matters amongst themselves. Mr. Monahan commented that he
was encouraged at the variety of interests represented by those who attended the meeting.
Councilor Moore mentioned that the City representatives were very clear that staff time was
available to assist the group but the downtown merchants had to come up with a plan themselves
and submit it for Council review.
Mayor Nicoli reported that he and Mr. Monahan met with the railroad people today on several
issues. He said that they discussed a prior suggestion of his that the railroad abandon or shift its
tracks in downtown Tigard. He explained that the railroad needed only one of the two lines on
the south side. He stated that the railroad representative was willing to consider taking out both
the tracks, installing a new line as close to the north line as possible, and letting the city have the
land. He pointed out that they would have to negotiate with ODOT because technically it was
their property.
Mayor Nicoli suggested hiring a consultant to investigate how many parking spaces for the
downtown they could get out of that land. He pointed out that the City creating a parking lot for
the downtown would demonstrate their willingness to help improve the downtown area. He
discussed the suggestion made during the meeting last week to eliminate the parking
requirements for all or part of the downtown. He said that he thought doing so would encourage
the continuation of the revitalization of the downtown area that has been occurring over the past
two to three years.
Councilor Scheckla suggested installing a restroom facility if they built the parking lot. Mayor
Nicoli commented that a parking lot and landscaping would aid the police in monitoring the area.
> Washington Square Task Force
Mayor Nicoli expressed his concerns regarding the Task Force list. He explained that he wanted
to see a balance between property owners (and/or business interests) and special interests where
the property owners would have 50% of the vote. He said that he felt more comfortable getting
Council input on the list as opposed to approving it on his own authority.
Mr. Hendryx explained that the intent was to bring all potential interest groups to the table to
avoid potshots from the sidelines. Councilor Scheckla supported the list presented by staff.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 28, 1998 - PAGE 13
Mayor Nicoli pointed out that the boundaries of the study have not yet been defined, making it
difficult to know exactly who should or should not be included from the outlying areas. He
commented that the Triangle Task Force was an active and involved group that he saw as a
model for how a task force could work.
Councilor Rohlf asked if staff had a structure in mind to move the process forward in spite of the
diversity of the group. Mr. Hendryx said that staff would work with the consultant to move the
process forward. He confirmed to Councilor Moore that there were two groups, the Task Force
(a policy group) and the Technical Committee.
The Council discussed the matter. They directed staff to call down the list to see who was
interested. Mayor Nicoli asked to see the final list.
> Washington County Long Range Planning
Mr. Hendryx reported that staff has discussed with the County the possibility of the City taking
the lead in long range planning for the Bull Mountain and Metzger areas, since ultimately the City
would annex those areas. He noted the many questions on this matter that he raised in his memo.
Mr. Monahan mentioned that the County was not asking for a commitment by the Council, they
only wanted to know if the Council was open to the idea.
Councilor Moore said that while he was open to the idea he was concerned about reaction from
the Metzger residents. Councilor Scheckla said that he was also open to the idea but he wanted
more information, especially on what the County would provide to the City to do this.
The Council agreed that they were open to exploring the matter.
8. EXECUTIVE SESSION:
The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 9:58 p.m. under the provisions of ORS
192.660 (1) (d), (3), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and
pending litigation issues.
9. ADJOURNMENT: 10:25 p.m.
rA=Ib"' ~oh-e
Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder
or, City /o~f,, i and
o~
Date:
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 28, 1998 - PAGE 14
COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal
P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice TT 910 3
BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075
Legal Noicc® Advertising
• City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
• Tigard,Oregon 97223 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit
*Accounts Payable •
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF OREGON,
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss'
I.- Kaf-hy Snyder
being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising
Director, or his principal clerk, of the Tigard-mna 7 a+; Times
a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010
and 193.020; published at Tigard in the
aforesaid county and state; that the
Cit V Counci 1 /Cantr af- RPyi pw MAn+Fin
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the
entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and i
consecutive in the following issues:
i
April 23,1998
Subscribed and sworn to be re me this 2 3rd day o f p r i 1,19 9 8
0 OFFICIAL SEAL
Nota ublic for Oregon ROBIN A. SURGEM
NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON
My, Commission Expires: COMMISSION NO. 062071
AFFIDAVIT MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 16, 2001
The following meeting,highlights are published for your information. Full
agendas may,bb obtained from the City Recorder, 13125 S.W. Hall
Boulevard; TigaM, OregoA 97223, or by calling 639-4171.
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
AND LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD MEETING
April 28, 1998 - 6:30 P.M.
TIGARD CITY HALL - TOWN HALL
13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON
• Updates:
> Community Policing - Washington Square
> Status of Police Department Remodel
• Public Hearing: Raz Transportation Appeal "Partial Revocation"
(Director's Interpretation Modification)
• Consider Ordinance to Repeal Parking Prohibitions on SW 156th
Avenue and SW Landmark Lane
• Executive Session
TT9103 - Publish April 23, 1998.
COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal
P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (603) 684.0360 NoUce TT 9 0 9 4
BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075
Legal Notice Advertising
• City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
• Tigard, Oregon 97223 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit
i'
• Accounts Payable •
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF OREGON, )
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss-
1, Kathy Snyder
being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising
Director, or his principal clerk, of thdPi garr1-Tjia1atin Times
a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010
and 193.020; published at Tigard in the
aforesaid county and state; that the
Appeal Planning Commission/Revoke
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the
entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and
consecutive in the following issues: {
April 16,1998
I
f
Subscribed and sworn to afore me thisl6++'h HA)r_of A= r; 1,1998
OFFICIAL SEAL
N ry Public for Oregon I ROBIR, A. BURGESS
NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON
My Commission Expires: ! 91" COMMISSION NO. 062071
1eY COMMISSION EXPIRE-111 MAY 16, 2001
AFFIDAVIT
i
,
The folic+vvio *H be cottijred by the Tigard City Council on April
' adl~A$. al Room,
1312~al d written'
stimony iinvited. The public hearing on this matter.will be conducted
in accordance with the rules of Chapter 18.32 of the Tigard Municipal
Code, and any rules and procedures adopted by the Tigard City Council,
or rules of procedure set forth in 'Chapter 18.30.
Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter at some point prior to the
close of the hearing on the request accompanied by statements or evidence
sufficient to allow the Hearings Authority and all the parties to respond on
the request, precludes an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals based
on that issue, and failure to specify the criterion from the Community,
Development Code or Comprehensive Plan at which a comment is
directed precludes an appeal based on,.that criterion; F4 ther information is
available at City Hall and may be obtained from the Community Develop-
ment Director or City Recorder at the same,-location, or by, calling (503)
639-4171.
PUBLIC HEARING
> APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMIM SSION'S DECISION TO
PARTIALLY REVOKE A PORTION OVA PREVIOUSLY ISSUED
DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION CONCERNING THE EXTENT
OF NON-CONFORMING COMMERCIAL USE ALLOWED ON A
RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY <
An appeal has been filed by the property owner concerning the Planning
Commission's Modification of a previously issued Director's Interpreta-
tion concerning the extent of non-conforming use allowed on a residen-
tially zoned property, to require that the northerly 200 feet of the subject
property be restored to its previous unused state and not be used for com-
mercial purposes. LOCATION: 11655 SW Pacific Highway; WCTM
1S136CA, Tax Lot 01600. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Com-
munity Development Code Sections 18.12, 18.32, 18.54 and 18.132'.
ZONE: Multiple-Family Residential, 12 units per acre; R-12. The:pur-
pose of the R-12 zoning district is to provide for,single-family attached
and multiple4amily residential units for medium density residential
developments.
i
s - f~IJJI n~
I~ ~-I1.~1_rllll~. Z Ir I f L
1111it JI
t,'~ 1l 1 1 t I
• `r 1 I
f~l.f4.41. l i-
•rr r. l- - 1 1 r -
CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DMSION
TT9W4 - Publish April 16, 1998.
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
In the Matter of the Proposed
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Washington ) ss.
City of Tigard )
WA first duly sworn, on oath,
depose and y:
That I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance
Number (s)
which were adopted at the Council Meeting dated 19 copy(s)
of said ordinance(s) being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the _
day of 19C~
_!_S
1. Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon
2. Tigard Library, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon
3. Tigard Water Department, 8777 SW Burnham, Tigard, Oregon
Subscribed and sworn to before me this (vt~ day of n1&4
?FFICIAL SEAL
M JO ANN HAYES f4 Notary blic for Oreg
NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON
COMMISSION NO. 042148 !
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 05, 1999 My Commission Expires: vwj,,,
1Aadm\jo\affpost.d0c
L
' CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 98-(::S
AN ORDINANCE TO REPEAL SECTIONS 10.28.130 (51) AND 10.28.130 (52) OF THE TIGARD
MUNICIPAL CODE PROHIBITING PARKING ON SW 60 AVENUE AND SW LANDMARK
LANE RESPECTIVELY.
WHEREAS, in 1983, Ordinance No. 83-28 prohibited parking along that portion of SW 66'h Avenue lying
within 225 feet northerly of SW Hampton Street; and
WHEREAS, Section 10.28.130 of the Tigard Municipal Code identifies those portions of public streets and
highways within the City of Tigard where parking is prohibited at any time; and
WHEREAS, the prohibition of parking on SW 66'h Avenue is listed in Section 10.28.130 (51) of the
Tigard Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the business owners of the property immediately adjacent to that area of prohibited parking
have requested that that the parking prohibition be removed; and
WHEREAS, an inspection and review of that area indicates there is no apparent reason for the parking
prohibition to remain; and
WHEREAS, in 1983, Ordinance No. 83-29 prohibited parking within the rights-of-way of SW Landmark
Lane from its intersection with 72"d Avenue, westerly to the terminus of said SW Landmark Lane; and
WHEREAS, Section 10.28.130 of the Tigard Municipal Code identifies those portions of public streets and
highways within the City of Tigard where parking is prohibited at any time; and
WHEREAS, the prohibition of parking on SW Landmark Lane is listed in Section 10.28.130 (52) of the
Tigard Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the property owners on both sides of the street along the entire length of SW Landmark Lane
have unanimously requested removal of the parking prohibition; and
WHEREAS, an inspection and review of the area indicates there is no apparent reason why the parking
prohibition should remain; and
t
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the requests for removal of parking prohibitions and finds
that the public interest will not be adversely affected by removal of the prohibitions.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Y
SECTION 1: Section 10.28.130 (51) of the Tigard Municipal Code relating to prohibition of parking
on SW 668' Avenue is hereby repealed.
ORDINANCE No. 98-
Page 1
SECTION 2: Section 10.28.130 (52) of the Tigard Municipal Code relating to prohibition of parking
on SW Landmark Lane is hereby repealed.
SECTION 3: The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to remove any "No Parking" or
other related signs that have been previously posted in these two areas.
SECTION 4: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by
the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder.
PASSED: By Ut nit vmau5 vote of all Council members present after being read by number and
title only, this day of (26L.&- L 11998.
Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder
APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of L 998.
J Nicoli, Mayor
Approved as to form-
C~y Attorney
Z- I g, l C~~
Date
iAcirywide\ordUm1n66th.doc
ORDINANCE No. 98-6f
Page 2
i PIW;2828; _ 19 L
(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 asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through
staff. Please contact the City Manager prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you.
STAFF CONTACTED
NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC
14
1: \ a d mV o %v1 s 1 t t h t. d o c
. (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 asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through
staff. Please contact the City Manager prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you.
STAFF CONTACTED
NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC
is\a d m\j o\visitsht.doc
AGENDA ITEM #
For Agenda of 4/28/98
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Award contract for audit services to Pauly Rogers and
Co.
PREPARED BY: Cyndi DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
The City's contract for audit services with Coopers & Lybrand expired with
the completion of our 6/30/97 audit. Shall the City award a new 3 year
contract for audit services to Pauly, Rogers and Co.?
-
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends awarding audit contract to Pauly, Rogers and Co.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
We received 4 qualified proposals for audit services. Our audit committee,
which consisted of Wayne Lowry, Cyndi Turner and Mary Gruss (Finance Manager
with the City of Hillsboro), interviewed the following firms. Nixon Abbey,
Grant Thornton, Talbot Korvola & Warwick, and Pauly, Rogers and Co.
Proposed fees from each firm are as follows: Nixon Abbey $17,420, Grant
Thornton $26,200, Talbot Korvola & Warwick $22,500, and Pauly, Rogers and
Co. $20,500.
Each firm was graded based on their qualifications, level of experience,
ability to take on an audit of this size, and contract price.
After consideration of the capabilities of those audit firms interviewed, it
was determined that the selection of Pauly, Rogers & Co. would provide the
highest quality of services to the City of those considered.
Pauly, Rogers & Co. is a local firm which has been providing quality
auditing and advisory services to numerous non-profit and municipal entities
since 1947.
As part of the proposal review process, we asked Roy Rogers to address
potential conflicts of interest set forth in ORS 244. His response is
included in the attached letter.
-
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Choose alternate audit firm.
FISCAL NOTES
Contract price for audit services from Pauly, Rogers & Co. are as follows:
1998 $20,500
1999 $21,200
2000 $21,925
Audit fees charged by Coopers and Lybrand for the June 30, 1997 audit were
$26,770.
I Uri PAULY, ROCKERS AND CO., P.C.
® CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
• 12700 SW 72ND AVENUE • TIGARD, OREGON 97223
. (503) 620-2632 • FAX (503) 684-7523
April 17, 1998
Mr. Wayne Lowry Finance Director
City of Tigard, Oregon
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard Oregon 97223
Dear Mr. Lowry:
RE: Potential Conflict of Interest
I understand you are considering accepting the proposal of our firm, Pauly, Rogers and Co., P.C., to serve as
auditors for the City of Tigard, Oregon, for the year ending June 30, 1998 and beyond. We are pleased and
proud of your tentative decision. As we discussed, you are aware I am, in addition to my work as a Certified
Public Accountant, a Washington County Commissioner.
I am aware of, and have continually followed, the provisions of Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 244 regarding
ethics. Additionally, I am subject to stringent professional ethics requirement based on the requirements of the
Oregon Board of Accountancy and my membership in the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants
(AICPA) and the Oregon Society of Certified Public Accountants (OSCPA).
It is conceivable, although we consider it highly unlikely, that there could be a situation where an issue related
to the finances or other activities of the City which we audited could cause some real or perceived conflict of
interest as it relates to the County, or could result in a benefit to me or the firm. Were any such situation to
arise, I would, of course, disclose the situation and abstain from any discussion and voting on the issue at the
County. If there were any personal or firm-related conflict I would discuss the issue with you and, if
appropriate, with appropriate City or firm legal counsel. Serving as the auditor of the City would not be a
conflict of interest under the AICPA Ethics Standards. It is also not a conflict according to the Oregon
Government Standards and Practices Commission.
Additionally, although we believe it to be unlikely, should we discover any issue or situation occurring at the
City that would potentially be detrimental to the City or its employees, I would follow our normal process of
informing the appropriate level of City management about the situation, and providing our evaluation of the
situation, and any potential consequences.
You are aware that Parry Ankersen will be the shareholder-in-charge of the City's audit. My position as the
concurring shareholder is one in which I provide advice and counsel to the audit team, and provide a review that
assures we meet professional standards, with my involvement being generally in the planning stage and toward
the conclusion of the audit process. As a practical matter, most day-to-day issues that would cause difficulty in
an organization like the City would be routinely handled by Wayne Laird, the in-charge accountant, and Parry.
Mc. Wayne Lowry Finance Director
City of Tigard, Oregon
April 17, 1998
Page 2
I would seldom be involved unless the issues were extremely difficult or Wayne or Parry would not be
immediately available..
As you know, I am familiar with many of the office holders in the County and several in your City. While we
are generally friendly, our relationships do not extend to discussing client-related matters that should be held in
confidence. As you are aware, we are a firm with one of the larger governmental clientele in the State. Strict
adherence to client privilege and the ethics of the CPA profession has allowed us to appropriately serve these
clients without a hint of a conflict of interest for over four decades.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to discuss these matters in this letter. As you know, I am going on
vacation for two weeks beginning April 18th. If you have any questions regarding this, please call after May 5th,
or Parry Ankersen should be able to address any issues.
Sincerely
Pauly, Rogers and Co., P.C.
" '7r" /C l
RoY?Rogers, CPA, shareholder
Cc: Parry Ankersen
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF A12ri128, 1998
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLES Removal of Parking Prohibitions on SW 66th Avenue and SW Landmark Lane
PREPARED BY: A.P. Duenas DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK 14 A
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Shall City Council remove parking prohibitions on SW 66`h Avenue and SW Landmark Lane?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council repeal Sections 10.28.130 (51) and 10.28.130 (52) of the Tigard Municipal
Code, thereby removing the parking prohibitions on SW 66th Avenue and SW Landmark Lane respectively.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Section 10.28.130 of the Tigard Municipal Code identifies those portions of public streets and highways within the
City of Tigard where parking is prohibited at any time. In 1983, Ordinance No. 83-28 prohibited parking along that
portion of SW 66th Avenue lying within 225 feet northerly of SW Hampton Street. That prohibition of parking on
SW 660' Avenue was subsequently listed in Section 10.28.130 (51) of the Tigard Municipal Code. The business
owners of the property immediately adjacent to that area of prohibited parking have requested that that the parking
prohibition be removed. City staff has inspected and reviewed that area and finds no apparent reason for the
parking prohibition to remain.
In 1983, Ordinance No. 83-29 likewise prohibited parking within the rights-of-way of SW Landmark Lane from its
intersection with 72"d Avenue, westerly to the terminus of said SW Landmark Lane. That parking prohibition on
SW Landmark Lane is listed in Section 10.28.130 (52) of the Tigard Municipal Code. The property owners on both
sides of the street along the entire length of SW Landmark Lane have unanimously requested removal of the
parking prohibition. City staff inspection and review of the area indicates no apparent reason for the parking
prohibition to remain.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Maintain the status quo - Do not take any action to remove the parking prohibitions.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
This action supports Goal No. 4, under target area Growth & Growth Management, " Local and small
businesses are encouraged as an important part of our community and economy", Strategy No. I "Retain and
assist local businesses." Removal of the parking prohibitions will assist the local businesses in these two areas
of Tigard by providing more on-street parking, which should improve access to the various businesses.
FISCAL NOTES
No cost to the City, other than removal of the signs, which can be salvaged for use elsewhere.
I:\Citywide\sum\1and66.doc
AGENDA ITEM
For Agenda of: Apri128, 1998
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Raz Transportation Appeal of the Planning Commission's Modification Concerning a
Previously Issued Director's Interpretation Related to the Status of a Non-Conforming Commercial Use.
PREPARED BY: Mark Roberts DEPT HEAD OKCITY ADMIN OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Should the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's modification of the previously issued Director's
Interpretation and require that the northerly 200 feet of the property at 11655 SW Pacific Highway returned to an
unused state?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's modification of the previously issued
Director's Interpretation.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
On April 12, 1997, Raz Transportation applied for a Director's Interpretation concerning the previous use of the
property at 11655 SW Pacific Highway. The Interpretation was requested because the property has split zoning.
The southerly portion is zoned General Commercial. The northerly portion is zoned R-12/Medium Density
Residential. The Director's Interpretation relied on affidavits provided by Raz Transportation concerning the
historic use of the property since 1944. The Interpretation found that bus storage was consistent with the non-
conforming provisions of the Development Code. Neighboring property owners appealed the Interpretation to the
Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). The Director requested a continuance of the appeal to allow further
review (EXHIBIT B).
The neighboring property owner then submitted a new Director's Interpretation application, including aerial
photographs, requesting a Re-Interpretation concerning the extent of the properties' historic, commercial use. The
Director found that, because the neighboring property owner did not own the subject property and did not have the
property owners permission, that they could not initiate a Re-Interpretation. However, based on the new evidence
submitted, the Director initiated a new Interpretation. The property owner then submitted affidavit statements
supporting the previous Interpretation (EXHIBIT Q.
Section 18.132.040(B)(1)(d) - Non-Conforming Situations portion of the Development Code states that, if a non-
conforming use is discontinued or abandoned for any reason for a period of six (6) months, any subsequent use of
the land shall conform to the uses permitted by the property zoning. This requires that once a non-conforming use
has been abandoned on all or a portion of a property, that the use cannot later be expanded back into an area it
formerly occupied. The Planning Commission found that the historical aerial photos provided by a neighboring
property owner were persuasive evidence that the northern portion of the site has had periods of time that exceeded
six (6) months where it was not in continuous commercial use.
These photos indicate that commercial activity had not occurred up to the northern property line. The distance
scaled from the northerly property line to the area of apparent continuous use is 200 feet. The Planning
Commission also received extensive testimony from residents of the neighboring Sleepy Hollow Apartments and
from property managers that they found persuasive as to the use of the property. For these reasons, Staff
recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's modification of the previously issued
Council Agenda Summary Page 1 of 2
Director's Interpretation finding that the northerly 200 feet of the residentially zoned section of the property has not
continuously been used for commercial purposes.
The stated basis for the appeal concerns procedural issues. The appellant states that the Planning Commission did
not have jurisdiction to make the modification decision. The City Attorney found that based on the
modification/revocation process set forth in Section 18.32.390 of the Community Development Code, the Planning
Commission does have this authority. The appellant also states that the property owner, Walter Aman, had only
five (5) days to respond to the staff recommendation concerning the modification. On November 25, 1997 Raz
Transportation was notified that the Director was initiating a new review of the previous Director's Interpretation.
On December 8, 1997 the property owner, Walter Aman, was also notified that a new review of the previously
issued Director's Interpretation was being initiated by the Director. The Director provided Mr. Aman with a
response period from November 25, 1997 to December 19, 1997 to submit evidence. The property owner
responded to the aerial photographic evidence by submitting written affidavits as to the previous use of the
property. The property owner was then given notice of the Planning Commission Public Hearing 20 days prior to
the hearing. The staff report with recommendations was then mailed out seven (7) days prior to the meeting as
required by the Community Development Code (EXHIBIT E).
The appellant also states that the Planning Commission erred in its application of Section 18.132.040 B of the
Non-Conforming Situations section of the Community Development Code. The Planning Commission found that
Section 18.132.040(B) applies to this case. This section states in part that, if a non-conforming use is abandoned
on all or a portion of a property for a period of six (6) months, that no such use can later be moved in whole or in
part to any portion of the lot other than that occupied by the use on the effective date of this title. The site was
annexed to the City in 1987, the Planning Commission considered aerial photos from 1984 to 1996. None of these
photos showed use of the northern portion of the property for commercial purposes.
The appellant also states that the burden of proof concerning the historic use of the property was incorrectly placed
on the property owner. During the Public Hearing, the City Attorney stated that no one was specifically
responsible to prove the historic use of the property. The Public Hearing was conducted to take testimony from
interested persons concerning the property's historic use and to make a determination. At no time during the
Public Hearing did the Planning Commission state that the burden of proof was on the property owner.
The appellant also states that the date of the filing of the final decision is unknown. The final decision was filed
within 10-days of the completion date of the Public Hearing as required by Section 18.32.260. The Final Order
was issued on March 5, 1998 and was based on the decision the Planning Commission made at the conclusion of
the Public Hearing on February 23, 1998. The March 16, 1998 final appeal date was listed on the Final Order
Cover Sheet and acted upon by the appellant. Because the modification of the previously issued Director's
Interpretation was initiated by the City, the Director can extend the 120-day rule as necessary to accommodate a
decision by the City Council. Attached is a draft Resolution, the previously issued Planning Commission Final
Order No. 98-01 PC, exhibits relied upon to reach a decision and the appeal submittal.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Modify the Planning Commission decision to allow more or less area of the northern portion of the
property to be used for commercial purposes.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
Not Applicable
FISCAL NOTES
Not Applicable i:\citywide\sumVazint.sum Mark_R 03-25-98 10:15 AM
Council Agenda Summary Page 2 of 2
9
Res.
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
RESOLUTION NO. 98-
A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
MODIFICATION AND FINDINGS (EXHIBIT A) CONCERNING AN APPEAL BY RAZ
TRANSPORTATION OF A PREVIOUSLY ISSUED DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION RELATED
TO THE STATUS OF A NON-CONFORMING COMMERCIAL USE.
WHEREAS, on April 7, 1997 Raz Transportation requested a Director's Interpretation concerning the
non-conforming commercial use status of the property at 11655 SW Pacific Highway;
WHEREAS, on April 28, 1997 the Director did find, based on the historic use outline provided by Raz
Transportation, that continued commercial use of the site complied with the non-conforming use provisions of
the Development Code (EXHIBIT B);
WHEREAS, on November 20, 1997 a neighboring property owner submitted a new Director's Interpretation
application requesting a re-interpretation to further address the historic use of the northerly portion of the
property at 11655 SW Pacific Highway. This request included a series of historic aerial photos of the subject
site (EXHIBIT C);
WHEREAS, on December 8, 1997 the Director found that the neighboring property owner did not have the
authority to file a Director's Interpretation application for the subject property but the Director did initiate a
modification/revocation review process. At that time, the Director did allow the property owner time to respond
to the new evidence;
WHEREAS, on December 15, 1997 the property owner submitted affidavits in response to the new evidence
submitted (EXHIBIT D);
WHEREAS, on February 23, 1998 the Planning Commission did conduct a Public Hearing and took extensive
public testimony concerning the historic use of the northern portion of the subject property and did modify the
previously issued Director's Interpretation to require that the northerly 200 feet of the subject property be
restored to its previous unused state; and
WHEREAS, on April 28, 1998 the City Council did conduct a Public Hearing concerning an appeal filed by
the property owner of the Planning Commission's decision to modify the previously issued Director's
Interpretation (EXHIBIT E).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that:
SECTION 1: The City of Tigard, Oregon hereby determines that the Planning Commission's
modification to the previously issued Director's Interpretation complies with the
applicable approval standards of the Development Code and denies the appeal filed by
the property owner, subject to the previous findings made by the Planning Commission
as described in the attached "Exhibit A."
RESOLUTION NO. 98- Page 1 of 2
PASSED: This day of 1998.
Mayor - City of Tigard
ATTEST:
City Recorder - City of Tigard
i:\citywide\res\razint.res
Mark R/25-Mar-98!10:23 AM
RESOLUTION NO.98- Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF T16i1 o,®t OEr -
SON ,
t P NNING 10MMISSION ( - CITY Of TIAARD
who"9~►
Ik. 91771
A FINAL ORDER INCORPORATING THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS MODIFYING A PREVIOUS
DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION DETERMINING THE E DENT OF A NON-CONFORMING USE
THE CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION HAS REVIEWED THE APPLICANT'S PLANS, NARRATIVE,
MATERIALS, COMMENTS OF REVIEWING AGENCIES, THE PLANNING DIVISION'S STAFF REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE APPLICATION DESCRIBED IN FURTHER DETAIL BELOW. THE
COMMISSION HELD A PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON THIS APPLICATION ON
FEBRUARY 23, 1998. THIS DECISION HAS BEEN BASED ON THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
CONTAINED WITHIN THIS FINAL ORDER.
SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY
FILE NAME: RAZ TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION APPEAL
PROPOSAL: The Director requested that the Planning Commission consider
revoking or modifying a previous Director's Interpretation concerning
the non-conforming use status of the property at 11655 SW Pacific
Highway.
APPLICANT: City of Tigard OWNER: Walter Aman
Jim Hendryx AKA Business Services
Community Development Director PO Box 19089
13125 SW Hall Boulevard Portland, OR 97280
Tigard, OR 97223
SPLIT ZONING
DESIGNATIONS: The property has a split zoning. Approximately half of the
southern portion of the site is zoned General Commercial (C-G).
The General Commercial Zoning District permits the provision of a
range of commercial goods and services.
The northern half (approximately 400 feet) is designated
Medium Density Residential (R-12). The Medium Density
Residential (R-12) Zoning District permits the provision of detached
single family residential development and low-to-medium rise,
multiple-family residential development.
LOCATION: 11655 SW Pacific Highway; WCTM 1S136CA, Tax Lot 01600.
APPLICABLE
REVIEW
CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.12, 18.32,18.54 and
18.132.
NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 98-01 PC PAGE 1 OF 5
RAZ TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION APPEAL
SECTION II. DECISION
The Planning Commission, hereby, modifies the previous Director's Interpretation
and finds that the northerly 200 feet of the residentially zoned portion of the
property has not been continuously used for commercial purposes. For this
reason, the Planning Commission orders that the northerly 200 feet of the propertyshall be restored to its previous undeveloped state and not be used for commercial
purposes.
SECTION 111. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Property History:
On April 12, 1997, Raz Transportation made application for a Director's Interpretation
concerning the previous use of the 5.81 acre property at 11655 SW Pacific Highway. On
April 28, 1997, a Director's Interpretation was issued finding that the use of the property
by Raz Transportation was consistent with non-conforming use provisions.
The interpretation was requested because the property has split zoning. The southerly
portion of the property is zoned General Commercial (C-G). The northerly portion of the
property is zoned Medium Density Residential (R-12). The Director's Interpretation relied
upon an outline of use that was provided by Raz Transportation concerning the historic
use of the property since 1944. When neighboring property owners learned of the
issuance of the Director's Interpretation, they moved to appeal the decision with the Land
Use Board of Appeals. The Director requested that the appeal be continued and a time
extension be granted to allow the City to further review the use issue.
On November 20, 1997, neighboring property owners submitted a complete application,
including aerial photographs and requested a Director's Interpretation concerning the
historic use of the property.
On December 8, 1997, the Director found that because the applicant was not the property
owner and did not have the property owners permission, that the Director's Interpretation
could not be initiated by neighboring property owners. Instead, a modification or
revocation of the existing Directors Interpretation would be initiated by the Director, as
allowed under Section 18.32 of the Community Development Code, if appropriate. The
Director provided the property owner with an opportunity to respond to the evidence
submitted by the neighboring property owners.
On December 15, 1997, the property owner submitted evidence in support of the previous
Director's Interpretation. This evidence primarily relied on affidavit statements concerning
the past use of the entire property.
NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 98-01 PC PAGE 2 OF 5
RAZ TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION APPEAL
Vicinity Information:
The site is a flag lot with access frontage on SW Pacific Highway. The property is
adjoined by multiple-family residential development to the west and to the north.
Undeveloped areas and an existing detached single-family residence exist to the east.
To the south, the site is adjoined by a bank that has frontage on SW Pacific Highway.
Site Information and Proposal Description:
On February 23, 1998 the Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing to consider
modifying or revoking the previous Director's Interpretation. At this hearing the Planning
Commission found that the historic aerial photos are the most persuasive evidence
available that the northern portion of the site has not been used continuously. This
portion of the property has had gaps of time longer than six (6) months where the
northern portion of the site was not in continuous use for commercial purposes. These
photos indicate that since annexation of the property in 1987, the apparent equipment
storage commercial activity on the property was 200 feet from the northern property line.
This is in line with the northern side of the second most northerly apartment building on
the adjoining Hawthorne Villa Apartments site.
SECTION IV. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Raz Transportation has proposed to become the sole bus service provider from the
existing facility and intends to continue to use portions of the property that are presently
zoned for residential use. The applicable regulations are set forth in Section
18.132.040(B)(1)(a-f) of the Community Development Code. These standards have
been addressed as indicated below:
a. No such non-conforming use is enlarged, increased, or extended to occupy
a greater area of land or space than was occupied at the effective date of
adoption or amendment of this title. The proposed bus shuttle service use
does not appear to increase the intensity of use on the majority of the property.
However, this type of use would increase the intensity of the heavy equipment
use that has taken place on the northerly 200 feet of the property in recent years.
Both the scaled distance from the northerly property line, and the distance scaled
from the northerly property line to the second apartment building landmark are 200
feet. The Planning Commission also received extensive testimony from
neighboring property owners, property managers and residents concerning use of
' the northern portion of the property. The Planning Commission, therefore,
modifies the previous Director's Interpretation and finds that the northerly 200 feet
of the residentially zoned portion of the property has not been continuously used
for commercial purposes. For this reason, the Planning Commission orders that
the northerly 200 feet of the property shall be restored to its previous undeveloped
state and not be used for commercial purposes.
NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 98-01 PC PAGE 3 OF 5
RAZ TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION APPEAL
Sol
b. No such non-conforming use shall be moved in whole or in part to any
portion of the lot other than that occupied by such use at the effective date
of adoption or amendment of this title. Except for the northerly 200 feet as
discussed in Section "a.° above, the entire site has apparently been utilized for
this purpose or other heavy equipment uses since 1944. The property was
annexed to the City of Tigard in 1987 and since that time, the non-conforming
uses have continued except for the northerly 200 feet of the property.
C. The non-conforming use of land is not discontinued for any reason for a
period of more than six (6) months. This request for non-conforming use
status does not involve the use of a non-conforming structure. The existing
structure on the General Commercial zoned portion of the property
accommodates permitted office and related storage uses. The remainder of this
property is undeveloped. Based on the evidence and testimony contained within
the record, the Planning Commission finds that the commercial use was
discontinued on the northerly 200 feet of the property for a period of over six (6)
months.
d. If the use is discontinued or abandoned for any reason for a period of six
(6) months, any subsequent use of land shall conform to the regulations
specified by this title for the zone in which such land is located. At such
time as the use is discontinued, this standard will then apply. Based on the
use history that has been provided for the site, the property has apparently been
in constant use by the non-conforming land uses prior to annexation of the
property into the City of Tigard in 1987 except for the northerly 200 feet as
previously discussed.
e. For purposes of this section, a use is discontinued or abandoned upon the
occurrence of the first of any of the following events:
(1) on the date when the land was vacated;
(ii) on the date the use ceases to be actively involved in the sale of
merchandise or the provision of services;
(iii) on the date of termination of any lease or contract under which the
non-conforming; or
(iv) on the date a request for final reading of water and power meters is
made to the applicable utility districts.
When any of the following events has occurred, the current non-conforming use
status will no longer apply to the site and it will then be required to be developed
to current City Development Code Standards of the zoning district. The northerly
200 feet of the property may, in the future, be used only for conforming
residential use upon receiving appropriate permit approvals.
NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 98-01 PC PAGE 4 OF 5
RAZ TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION APPEAL
f. No additional structure, building, or sign shall be constructed on the lot in
connection with such non-conforming use of land. Through the
determination of this use status, no structures are proposed to be constructed on
the property. The heavy equipment uses on the property have not been
discontinued for any six (6) month period since the 1944 except for the northerly
200 feet of the property.
.It Isfurtdier ord[ed that the applicant and the parties
se proceedings b~`notified of the entry of this or er
..t n ~ .qha•. -
PASSED: This 23 day of February, 1998 by the Planning Commission of the City of
Tigard, County of Washington, Oregon.
Signature box below
/~,-e.Y Joy
Nick Wilson, President
City of Tigard Planning Commission
i Acurpln\mark_rlrazflnal.doc
NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 98-01 PC PAGE 5 OF 5
RAZ TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION APPEAL
1 p C
Magoon=
$t' ) R
10
IL
AVENUE-
r \
0 P)
rn - z rn - I..... 1.~. - I
n 7-
"o 0
7° m 0 p~N1VIN~ DIVIStC.yty
OF TIGAR
CITY
- _ OlOOR11/NIC IM/O~Mi{140M tr~Ci[Y
-T STT
OAK MANNING DIVISION
inc,Nffv fup
px"UspolaRTION
RM K
PINE ST
Renegdono4apef"n a
ovectot's lnalpfe n
concerning a groom
non-contofinmgueona
00monof aveaidend8%
ST n SPRUCE zoned WPM
4
ST
a
W
N
a
w u 1~ wo soo F"
r= as W
CAgard
QP ~W be vwf- 13125SVIFts~Btrd
Tlpr,d, ott 9=3
~y03) p39-4fT1
httpltwrw.d.iqud.a. 9p<
- - Plot date: Feb 3, 1998; c:1ma91c1m89
Community Development
EXHIBIT B
Apn1 28, 1997
Henry S. Raz, President CITY OF TIGARD
Raz Transportation Company OREGON
1660 SW Bertha Boulevard
Portland, OR 97219
Pe: Director's Interpretation of Non-Conforming Use Status
Dear Mr. Raz:
his letter is in response to your request for a Director's Interpretation of the non-conforming
use status for the property located at 11655 SW Pacific Highway in the City of Tigard. This has
been requested because the site presently has a split zoning designation. Approximately one-
half of the southern portion of the property is zoned General Commercial (C-G) in both
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designations. i ne ncrthem half of the property has a
Comprehensive Plan designation of Medium Density Residential (6-12 dwelling units per acre)
and an R-12 residential Zoning designation. Presently, the property is being used for bus
shuttle service providers and for construction contractor uses.
Paz Transportation has proposed to become the sole bus service provider from the existing
facility and intends to continue to use portions of the property that are presently zoned for
residential use. Upon review of the historic use overiiew of the property and a site inspection
of the current property improvements, the proposed non-conforming uses of the commercial
and residential portiom,: of the property are in compliance with the non-conforming provisions of
:.,e Community Cevelcp:nent Code.
nese provisions are set forth in Section 13.132.040(8)(1)(a-0 of the Community Development
Ccde. The standards have been addressed as indicated below:
I
a. No such non-conforming use is enlarged, increased, or extended to occupy a
greater area of land or space than was occupied at the effective date of adoption l
or amendment of this title. 7 he proposed bus shuttle service use does not appear ,o
increase the intensity of the heavy equipment type uses that have taken place on the
property since 1944.
No such non-*:onforming use shalt be moved in whole or in part to any portion of
the lot other than that occupied by such use at the effective date of adoption or
amendment of this title. The entire site has apparently been utilized for this purpose ,
cr other heavy ?^uipment uses since 19A-I. 7 he property was annexed to the City in
1987 and since that time, the non-conforming uses have continued.
C. The non-conforming use of land is not discontinued for any reason for a period of !
more than 6 months. This ncn-conforming status request does not involve the use of a f
ncn-conforming structure. 7 he existing suuc;ure on the General Commercial zoned
rerion of the property accor-medates permitted office and related storage uses. i re
remainder of this property is undeveloped.
Page t c. 2
_5 S%tl - c11 Elvd., iigc"a'. OR 97222 (!03) 639-11,71 -.LN) (:i~.?) 68,1-2772
d. If the use is discontinued or abandoned for any reason for a period of six months,
any subsequent use of land shall conform to the regulations specified by this title
for the zone in which such land is located. At such time as the use is discontinued,
this standard will then apply. Based on the use history that has been provided for the
site, the property has apparently been in constant use by the non-conforming land uses
prior to annexation of the property to the City of Tigard in 1987.
e. For purposes of this section, a use is discontinued or abandoned upon the
occurrence of the first of any of the following events:
M on the date when the land was vacated;
(ii) on the date the use ceases to be actively involved in the sale of
merchandise or the provision of services;
(iii) on the date of termination of any lease or contract under which the non-
conforming; or
(iv) on the date a request for final reading of water and power meters is made
to the applicable utility districts.
`Nhen any of the following events has occurred, the current non-conforming use status
will no longer apply to the site and it will then be required to be developed to current City
Development Code Standards of the zoning district
f. No additional structure, building, or sign shalt be constructed on the lot in
connection with such non-conforming use of land. Through the determinat:cn of
this use status, no structures are proposed to be constructed on the property. The
heavy equipment uses on the property have not been discontinued for any six (6) month
period since 1944.
As provided in Section 18.32.310(A) of the Community Cevelopment Code, you may appeal
this decision within ten (10) days from the date of issuance of the decision.
P!ease feel free to contact me cpnczming this information or if you have any other questions.
Sinczrely,
/4~___Iarnes N.P. Hendryx
Ccrr~;.:rt;! Cevelcpment Director
i:'r,. =nVnacx Orazl.dcc
c: Mr. Art Luckett
1997 Correspondence File
SDR 94-0017 Land Use =i!e
Page 2 of 2
MosomO Alm AM emMMs
r~ m ANNE" 0
aftwasm 40MOM AM. w Olt AW
kvars AW IM ~ so
"......r . 0
TRANSPORTATIOPI
COMPANY
'?60 $'N SVUH A SLIM
-arLANC OR 91. 19
:v=i ?+6.3301
,ace) :664901
2,96-9791
April 4, 1997
To Whom It May Concern:
s
RAZ Transportation Company will be moving its operations to 11655
S.W. 2acifi-- Highway, Tigard, Oregon, 97223. In 1944, Hall
Construction built that facility for their offices and shop for
their heavy construction business. :fall Construction later joined
with =our other companies to continue to provide heatri construction
(particularly road and dam building). One of those companies,
Me!.-c,d Trucking, continued to operate from that site until it was
turned over to Apoolo Sus Company for :our and charter bus service.
:he site continued to faci Lltata additional tour and charter bus
companies (N.W. Tours and Paci=:c Tours) as well as ?.AZ Transpor-
taticn until this date. R,AZ Transportation will now be the sale
tenant providing bus service frcm ghat site.
Sincerely,
RAZ TRANSPORTATIOrr COMPANY K z~
~?r?sident •
~tamoer
r-nn
PAGE TWO - THE FOLLOW NIG IS:
A CHRONOLOGICAL DETAIL OF THE ATTACHED COVER LETTER, TO THE
TIME FRANIES OF EACH OF THE OCCUPANTS OF THIS PROPERTY, FOR OVER
THE PAST 50 PLUS YEARS.
FOR THE PERIOD OF TTti1E -.TULY 1944 THR(; .TUi`(E 1995:
THE HULL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, A NWOR ROAD AND DANI
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. THEY BUILT A PORTION OF THE I-5
CORRIDOR, JOHN DAY DA_M, AND THE McNARY DAN(.
7HEY STAGED THHEIR HEAVY EQUIPMENT AND ROAD EQUIP.ktE`IT AT
THIS LOCATION. THIS WAS THE CENTRAL OFFICE, SERVICE AND REPAIR
CENTER, FOR ALL OF THEIR OPERATIONS DLTLtNG THIS TRAE FRAME.
DURING THIS TIME, THEY WERE A PART OF OVER 150 PIECES OF HEAVY OR
ROAD EQUIP'ME'N7 THAT WAS STAGED, DISPATCHED, SERVICE, REPAIRED,
OR STORED AT THIS LOCATION. MOST OF THIS EQUIP. NL WAS N THE
YARD DI..,'It_EiG THE WINTER yfONTIHS.
':~-HEN -HIS FACILITY WAS ORIGINALLY BUILT, IT WAS VNiDERSTOOD
i ;-i.-kT TCHE ARREA WAS ZONED FOR INDUSTRIAL USE. THIS DOES SO
LOGICAL, OR THE FACILITY, OR rr!E OPERA--ION OF THE FACILITY, WOULD
OF NOT BEEV ALLOUD, AT THAT TIME.
FOR THE PERIOD OF TTME - 1950 THRU PRESENT:
i riE A_MENZ CONSTRUC70N COMPANY, ~7vZT:-I IT'S PEOPLE AND
EQUIPNIEN T, WERE ON T::E SAME. PROPERTY, AND WORKED ON SOME OF
-L,-.E SAME PROJECTS WITH HULL. ir7r-Y .LSO STAGED. DISPATC!IED.
SERVICED. REPAIRED, OR STORED THEIR EQUIPNIENT ON THIS PROPERTY.
DC:R:G THIS TINIE FRAME. THEY WERE A PART OF THE 150 PIECES OF
cQUIP:vfENT, WORKING FROM THAT LOCATION.
FOR THE PERIOD OF TIME - 1970 THRU 1980:
MELLOW TRUCKING COMPANY, WITH aV ADDITIONAL 70 PIECES OF
EQUIPMENT, AVERAGED. RUN A LOCAL AND LONG HAUL FREIGHT
COMPANY AT THIS LOCATION. THEY OPERATED A FREIG'r: TERMINAL.
DIS?-.TCH. STAGNG AREA. SERVICE AND REPAIR CENTER_ FROM THIS
ACIL:TY. THIS WAS A VERY BUSY AREA. DURING THIS TINIE.
PAGE THREE:
FOR THE PERIOD OF TIy1E - FEB. 1979 THRU MARCH 1903:
APOLLO BUSrI'R kN. SPORTATION AND TOURf.NG COMPANY, ALSO
OCCUPIED TrUS FACILITY DURING THE ABOVE TIME. THEY OPERATED,
STAGED, SERVICED, REPAIRED, ?y'D DISPATCHED OVER 125
STAGESBUSES. THROUGH THIS F~.CILITY, DURING THE ABOVE TIME
FRAME.
FOR THE PERIOD OF TIME-- AUG. 1992 THRU DEC. 1996:
4 NOR 1 HWEST TOURS, BUS, AL-D STAGES, ?.LSO OCCUPIED THIS FACILITY
DURIENG T:HE ABOVE TIR\i E. THEY OPERATED, STAGED, SERVICED,
REPAIRED, AND DISPATCHED OVER 100 BUS/STAGE UNITS, THROUGHT-IIS
FACILITY, DURING THE ABOVE TINE FRAME.
FOR THE PERIOD OF TIME - 1993 THRLT OCT. 1996-
A SPIN OFF OF :NORTHWEST TOURS, )AADE A TRANSITION TO PACIFIC
TRAILS TOURING BUS SERVICE. OVER 100 BU'S STAGES WERE IN SERVICE.
FOR THIS PORTION OF THE TUSE OF inr_ PROPERi
T-HE AVERAGE vZNMER OF BUSES N SERVICE DURING THIS TIME, 'w AS
OVER 125 TO 150, FOR THE ABOVE TWO COMBIN7ED COMPANIES, T-HROUCH
A.ND AFTER TrM T NSIi'10N PER-10D.
FOR THE PERIOD OF TT1~tE - MARCH 1994 THRU PRESENT:
RYSON GUNITE AND CONSTRUCTION CO.. A SPIN OFF OF AMEN
CONSTRUCTION CO. Tr-Y HAVE DONE. THE SAME CONSTRUCTION WORK.
w-l`H THEIR 40 PIECES OF EOUIP:v - 7,MMNG i HE ABOVE TIME r~~ CIE.
FOR THE PERIOD OF TIME - FEB. 1994 THRU PRESENT:
R--AZ TRA I SPORTATION CO. PAS STAGED. SERVICED. R=PAIRED.
DISPATCHED, PA.R: ED BUSES 0LNT:ES ?EGPER:Y DURE G T-n'IS PERIOD
OF T MME. THEY REQUEST TO CON T I:vi.t TO CARRY ON Ti-sL
S,ACIE TYPE OF BUS SERVICE, THAT HAS BEEN OPERATING ON THIS
PROPERTY FOR THE PAST EIGHTEEN YEARS. THEY NOW WISH TO MOVE
THEIR GENERAL OFFICES TO THIS LOCATION. THE EXISTRNG LARGE
CONCRETE BUILDING WILL CONTiV1.:E AS A CO\IBINA T ION OFF ICE AND
SHOP FACILITY, AS IT HAS IN, THE PAST, SINCE 1944. THEY ESTIMATE T'rLAT
THE SAME vZiv(BER OF BUSES WILL BE USED, AS HAS BEEN IN THE PAST.
THAT BEING APPROXIMATELY 125 UNITS. THESE UNITS ARE OFF OF THE
EXHIBIT C
INVESTMENT CORD
Hand-Delivered
February 11, 1998
Mr. Mark Roberts
City of Tigard Community Development Department
13125 S.W. Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
Re: Planning Commission Hearing as to Non-Conforming Uses at
11655 S.W. Pacific Highway, Tigard, OR
Dear Mr. Roberts:
In response to your request, we are enclosing fifteen (15) sets of five (5) historic aerial
photographs of the above-referenced site for your submission to the Tigard Planning Commission
with your Staff Report. We expect this quantity will be sufficient to allow each Commissioner to
have a set, one for the official record and several additional sets.
You suggested we only needed to submit photos subsequent to 1987 - about the time
when the subject property was annexed into the City of Tigard's zoning scheme. We previously
submitted photos to your office and RAZ Transportation that were taken in 1980, 1984, 1990,
1992 and two (2) from 1996. We omitted the 1980 photo and the oblique-angled 1996 photo that
showed only a portion of the subject property, but thought that some earlier history was
educational so we kept the 1984 photo in the set. We also thought we should have a phcto taken
as close as possible to when the property was annexed. The studio had an overhead photo from
1986 available. Accordingly, the sets which are enclosed each contain the photographs taken in
1984, 1986, 1990, 1992 and 1996.
If anything else is needed from us, please let us know. We will attend and participate in the
hearing on February 23, 1998.
Sincerely,
Gregory Baum
Vice President & General Counsel
enclosures
cc w/o encls: Jordan D. Schnitzer, Pres., SF Property Investments, LLC
Harold. J Schnitzer, Pres., Harsch
Hugh D. Clark, VP, Harsch
Larry G. Scruggs, PhD., CMP, VP, RAZ Transportation
James N.P. Hendryx, Tigard Community Development Director
Jack L. Orchard, Jr., Ball Janik
. •,y `.AL'1t~`i "'~E;f ?04~+:`Ir '•QEG011 Y;^nC `,1AI? ~ n r;t ~-np :r.
Northern Light Studio, Inc.
2407 SE Tenth Ave.
Portland, OR 97214
(503) 236-2139
February 11, 1998
To Whom it May Concern:
I, Kimberly A. Solonka, declare as follows:
1. I am the office manager and custodian of the files for Northern Light Studio, Inc. I
have personally reviewed the business records of Northern Light Studio and thus have
personal knowledge of the matters stated in this declaration and could and would testify
competently thereto if called upon to do so.
2. The aerial photographs listed below and attached are true and correct
photographic enlargements from the file negatives identified by the same numbers and
maintained in the normal course of business by Northern Light Studio, Inc. According to
all file records these photographs were taken on the specified date and were promptly and
accurately recorded into our files and on the face of the negative as having been
photographed on that specified date.
3. I also certify that the reproductions attached hereto have been prepared under my
supervision from the original negative retained in our files. These negatives have never
been out of the possession of Northern Light Studio, Inc. or its predecessor Delano
Photographics, Inc. and neither the negatives or the enlargements has been retouched or
altered in any way.
4. The aforementioned photograph is identified and dated as follows:
PHOTO P092, 8-13CE
P090 8-14CE
P086 8-11 E
P084 8-12E
96045-6CEA
Signed-" Clk ~ CL Date
Kir&erly A. olonka
` J 1
7 tii;~# ~•J Y••
!w
~ mot. + F.= + t T,• ~o .
CC~ INC 17
41
4 K
r
7 T rr , i
•
t
L
w~ •
4' f
i
E • r' , t
I'
r' 7
e
394,
f. -
t
n
t ~
fo
J + 1
Sam
i
f
Adkic
' t rt
AbO
r f t7,
• J
y
Y
:~.'1.,•``'~ ~?.4 , i~. Cry
~o~ a ~-13G
~.ao-Ga
-y~ S r : y Sts-ri ~ t ~ '9: `1r~'r`j ,L' S• ~ -
r ` p r,
y
j t.
{ • # ( 4w L
lp-
• L' . a
aw
4' t a
• 7}'
S
. 4 ~ -7,: ":.S }"~'~J~~•: fit.,
E- ' :.mss Ls,;;,
:~w ■7 ` ~ AYH _ ~ .Mawr ~ ~
Ell
•
NORTtiEp~i LtC#
CopY►~91i1!~d;1r!►~-
O)t POrtter+ii.G~dyon~
•
1 ~W ~ ~ r 1 V
X00
y .r ~ w
.1
a
11 ST.S 't L..•j ~ ~f..
Aa-
-tar
~,4/[~~y'~1}'• '.v~ CIF •5 f w_~,a~ f~.. .`~w.y~w•'
~n as
Ile
Rpprzv I~~ I0o'.
{t,
• r ~Fa ,*i'4 ~S' '
~C
I It
1r`~ 1
!t •5
i
}S.
OIL
r ` ` ~ wp e
5
h- iSi•
. Y:~✓" yam}
.r'
Al% .
.T~
tit
A~~
EXHIBIT D
MOSKO WM & THOMAS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
111 S.W. COLUMBIA
SUITE 1030
PORTLAND. OREGON 97201
TELEPHONE = 227-1116
Christopher P. Thomas PAX(303)=--1015 Steven A. Moskowitz
v
December 15, 1997
James N.P. Hendryx
Community Development Director
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
Re: 11655 SW Pacific Highway
Dear Mr. Hendryx:
This letter is in response to your request for additional information regarding the non-
conforming use approved by you on April 28, 1997, for the above-referenced property. Attached
are a number of sworn affidavits and a letter ffom Raz Transportation, which provide evidence
supporting the City's prior decision. The main body of this letter identifies how the attached
evidence justifies the prior decision and responds to issues raised by Greg Baum in his two letters.
By way of introduction, I do want continue the discussion on procedure in the hopes that that issue
can be further clarified.
Procedure
It remains unclear to me the specific Code provision under which this proceeding is
occurring. Previously, I expressed that a neighbor could not apply for a non-conforming use
designation for a property it did not own. In response, you stated that: the Director has the
authority to make an application; the Director has the authority to have the Planning Commission
hold a public hearing to revoke prior approval; the Director can cite violations of the Code into
municipal court; and the Director may issue interpretations of the Code. Each of these
proceedings has a different applicant or respondent, different burdens of proof, different types of
evidence that may be relied upon, and different avenues of appeal. It would be good to clarify
which of these applies in this instance.
My understanding of a Director's interpretation is that it is not an enforceable decision as
regards a particular property, although it obviously may have significant impact on how a property
owner chooses to develop or use the property. An interpretation must be issued and may be
James N.P. Hendryx, 11655 SW Pacific Highway
December 15, 1997
Page 2
appealed in accordance with specific provisions within Chapter 18.32. Under Chapter 18.24, the
Director may schedule a hearing on revocation of an underlying approval, which hearing would
be conducted by the Planning Commission. Finally, there may be a provision for reconsideration
of a land use approval; however, I have not found in the Code the exact basis or procedures for
this.
It seems that the current process is not in the nature of an enforcement action or possible
revocation of an approval since, as stated below, the owner has been using the property as
approved by the City in its April 28, 1997 decision. Consequently, I assume that this process
involves a Director's interpretation, which is not directly enforceable but which may have
precedential significance in some subsequent proceeding and which may be appealed pursuant to
Section 18.32.310.
The remainder of this letter provides you with evidence supportive of the City's original
decision in this matter.
The City's Decision
The City issued its April 28, 1997 decision (Decision) in response to Raz Transportation's
proposal to continue to use portions of the property that were zoned residential. The City's
conclusion was that Raz's proposed use was consistent with the historical use of the property.
This conclusion was based in part on the finding that the emire site had been utilized for bus or
other heavy equipment uses since 1944. Of course, what is relevant in this matter is how the
property had been used since 1987, when it was annexed to the City. As the evidence attached
to this letter establishes, the entire property as of the date of annexation and since has been used
to store, stage, move, and repair large vehicles such as buses and heavy equipment. Harsch
Investment has not provided substantial evidence to contradict this. _
Evidence by Harsch Investment
The evidence submitted by Harsh Investment with its November 20, 1997 letter consists
of the -ollowing:
1. Aerial photograph dated 04126/80.
2. Aerial photograph dated 07/01/84.
3. Aerial photograph dated 07/15/90.
,
4. Aerial photograph dated 06/20/92.
James N.P. Hendryx, 11655 SW Pacific Highway
December 15, 1997
Page 3
5. Aerial photograph dated 03/28/96.
6. Aerial photograph dated 07/22/96.
7. Affidavit of Amber Hubbard.
Irrelevant ghotog=hs
As noted above, the essential date is 1987, the year when the property was annexed to the
City. What matters in a non-conforming use analysis is how the property was being used as of
the date the new regulations took effect. Thus, photographs of the property from 1980 and 1984
(i.e., item numbers 1 and 2) are not relevant to determining non-conforming use as of 1987.
Insubstantial Phnt Z=h%
Several of the photographs provide no level of detail from which one can determine the
nature and extent of activity occurring on the property. Those are item numbers 4 through 6. In
any case, the attached affidavits prwAde substantial evidence in support of the City's Decision.
Photog=h Item Number 3
Thus, the only relevant photograph is item number 3, which was taken on July 15, 1990.
However, the persuasiveness of this photograph is undermined by several factors. No evidence
has been introduced to establish that the photograph represents the nature and extent of activity
on the property on a daily basis. In fact, in the only sworn testimony presented by Harsch
Investment, Ms. Hubbard admits that she was not at the property in 1990. Additionally, the _
attached affidavits establish that the photograph does not in fact represent the nature and extent
of activity on the property during 1990 or any other relevant period.
Affidavit of Amber Hubbard
Nis. Hubbard's testimony is that she never saw vehicles on the area "nearest the Sleepy
Hollow property line." This testimony is substantially rebutted by the attached affidavits.
Evidence by AKA Properties and Raz Transportation
As presented in the original proposal from Raz Transportation, the subject property has
been continually used by a variety of transportation-related companies for the staging, storage, and
repair of various heavy vehicles. This activity has extended the full length of the property,
including that portion now zoned R-12, all the way up to the fence abutting the Sleepy Hollow
Apartments.
James N.P. Hendryx, 11655 SW Pacific Highway
December 15, 1997
Page 4
Affidavit of Jules Kessler
Mr. Kessler was Secretary-Treasurer of the Apollo Bus/Transportation and Touring
Company during the period 1979 to 1993. During that period, Apollo leased the property at
11655 S.W. Pacific Highway, where it staged, repaired and maintained its fleet of vehicles. This
was a 24-hour per day, seven days per week operation. In addition to Apollo, Mr. Kessler
testifies that three other companies used the property for their heavy vehicles. This activity used
the full extent of the property, including all the way to the fence abutting the adjoining apartment
complex. Finally, Mr. Kessler rebuts the inference drawn by Harsch from the only relevant
photograph (item number 3). He testifies that the photograph does not represent the true nature
of activities on the property, since touring buses and construction equipment were generally gone
from the property during the daytime.
Affidavit of Lonnie Norris
Mr. Norris is President of Lamar Enterprises. During the period of October 1993 through
March 1997 Lamar Enterprises stored its equipment and vehicles at the subject property. He
states that large numbers of commercial vehicles parked throughout the property, including all the
way to the line bordering Sleepy Hollow. Like Mr. Kessler, Mr. Norris testifies that L amar's
equipment would leave the property in the morning and generally return late in the evening.
Affidavit of Dale Bl it
Mr. Blair was present at the property as an employee of Rayson Construction during the
period October 1993 through mid-1997. He testifies that the commercial tenants of the property
used the entire extent of the property for their vehicles, including the Northernmost portion near
the fence next to Sleepy Hollow. Like Mr. Kessler and Mr. Norris, Mr. Blair testifies that these
commercial vehicles came and went during all hours of the day and that vehicles would generally
be away from the property during the day when good weather prevailed, such as during the
conditions shown in photograph item number 3.
Affidavit of Doaa'.d W. Hall
Mr. Hall was the prior owner of the property, from 1943 until its sale to AKA Properties
in 1993. Mr. Hall testifies that the entire subject property was continuously occupied and utilized
by trucking, construction and tour bus companies during that period. He further states that these
operations occurred indiscriminately throughout the entire 5+ acre property, including the
Northern most portion bordering the Sleepy Hollow Apartments.
James N.P. Hendryx, 11655 SW Pacific Highway
December 15, 1997
Page 5
Letter ®f acre S oc
Mr. Scruggs is Vice President-Operations for Raz Transportation. Mr. Scruggs' letter
summarizes steps Raz has taken to address concerns of neighbors about the impact of his
company's operations. During the past four months, Raz has held three neighborhood meetings.
In response to neighbors' concerns, Raz has: discontinued the use of backup alarms; staged diesel
buses away from the North end of the for turned off lights at the North end and arranged with
POE for the installation of shrouds on those lights; repositioned propane buses so that fumes are
not directed into neighbors' yards; and repositioned buses to eliminate vibrational impacts on
neighboring homes. Raz has also dis=Lwed with neighbors the installation of landscaping to better
scmen the perimeter of the property.
Summary
The City correctly issued its original Decision. The property has been continually used
during the relevant non-conforming use period for the purposes of staging large commercial
vehicles. This activity has occupied the full extent of the property, including all the way to the
fence abutting Sleepy Hollow. Raz Transportation has been responsibly addressing neighbors'
concerns about light, noise, odor and vibration. Upon the reaffirmation of the City's Decision,
Raz wt11 continue those discussions and proceed with plans for landscaping and better screening.
On behalf of both AKA Properties and Raz Transportation, I respectfully request that you
reaffirm the City's. decision to grant non-conforming use status for the use of the property as
proposed by Raz Transportation. Thank you very much for your attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
ffven r-~/•-
~ Oyu :
mA. Moskowitz
cc Walt Aman, AKA Properties
Larry Scruggs, Raz Transportation
Henry Raz, Raz Transportation
Paul Elsner, City Attorney
i
1 AFFIDAVIT
2 !
1
3
4 State of Oregon }
SS. AFFMAVIT OF JULES KESSLER
5 County of Mulmotnah )
6 I. Jules Kessler, being first duly sworn, depose and say-
7 I was Secretary-Treasurer of Apollo Bus/Transportation and Touring Company (Apollo) during
3 the period 1979 to 1993. In that capacity I was fully aware of all of that company's operations.
9 Apollo operated a transportation service that provided charter bus service and a touring
10 service.
I I During the period of approximately February 1979 until March 1993, Apollo leased the
12 property located at 11655 S.W. Pacific Highway. During that time Apollo used that property to stage,
13 repair, and maintain its fleet of vehicles. Vehicles entered and exited and were maintained at that
14 property 24 hours per day. 7 days per week.
13 Prior to Apollo's operations, the property was also used during this time by Hall Constriction
16 Company and !Mellow Trucking Company to stage their vehicles and spare parts and to repair
17 equipment. I personally observed on a regular basis the following being located on the property all
131 the way to the fence abutting the adjoining apartment complex: lumber, truck bodies, boats, mobile
191 homes. spare pans, and flatbed trucks.
20 ( During the operation of Apollo. Northwest Tours also used the property, with the exception
2 t of some ground that would not support the weight of the equipment when the ground was wet, for the
purposes of staging vehicles. repairing them. converting them, and storincr related parts and
equipment.
24 I have viewed the aerial photograph of the property on the back of which is the date July 15.
2 5~ 1990. I note that there were at the time it was taken few vehicles at the site and none on that portion
~6 I
26 Page 1 - AFFIDAVIT OF JULES KEMSLER MO KOWrIZ do THOMAS
27
111 S.W. Cotumba. Suite 1080
23 Portland. OR =01
(503)=-1116
f
i
I where grass is present. This representation does not in any way conflict with the use described above.
2 Due to the nature of the business of construction, trucking, and charter bus service, the fleets of
vehicles were generally engaged during the day. Although the larger portion of the property was
4 either graded or otherwise removed of vegetation, the vehicles regularly used most of the grassy area
for parking and turning around.
6 DATED this day of December, 1997
7
9 State of Oregon Cules Kessler
ss.
10 County of Multnomah)
II
12 On this+ day of December, 1997, before me personally appeared Jules Kessler, known
1: to me to be the person named in, and whose name is subscribed on the foregoing Affidavit and
14 acknowledged that he executed the same as his free act an dead.
15 < < >r
No, Public fdr Oregon
16 My Commission Expires:
.
17 A&A LYLE T MeWftM
NOTARY PUBUf,.OR¢rpp
13 COWNS 1Ca
O
WV' CO~331CN EVRE3 APR 211.22W, ~Sh
:•est
to s +col~a Y
19;
NOTARY PIIBUC-OREGON
C 31Qa tro=p=
cowmStON EXPI);ES APR 21.2pp1
2U I
21
2
r
233
1
I 1
26
Page 2 - AFFIDAVIT OF JULES KESSLER mosxowrrz THOMAS
111 S.W. Columbia. Suite 1080
23 Portland. OR 97'01
1116
AFFIDAVIT
I, Lonnie Norris, do hereby assert the following facts based on my personal
experience and knowledge and in my capacity as President of Lamar Enterprises.
From the period of October, 1993 through March, 1997, Lamar Enterprises was
a tenant at 116 5 5 SW Pacific Highway. During that time, all Lamar Enterprises
equipment and vehicles were stored at that address. In addition, 1 observed
large numbers of other commercial vehicles, trucks, busses and various trailers
and construction equipment as well as motor homes and passenger cars parked
throughout the property. At no time was their any rhyme nor reason to the
parking or driving arrangements, and vehicles were regularly parked in all areas
of the property including the extreme Northern portion bordering Sleepy
Hollow.
In the course of business activities, Lomar employees and equipment would be
started and leave the Pacific Highway property at all hours of the early morning.
The vehicles and equipment would typically be gone all day during good
weather conditions and frequently return very late in the evening. I observed
these same levels of activity as concerned other vehicles and equipment on the
property.
At no time during the period of Lamar's tenancy on the property was there any
time period during which such activity was not apparent on the property.
Lonnie Norris Date
State of Oregon, County of On this -B---day of - /Yz 19_9? before me, fan Blair, a Notary
Public, personally appeared Lonnie Norris, personally known to me to be the
person whose name is subscribed to this Affidavit, and acknowledged that he
voluntarily executed same.
My commission expires
' fan Blair, Notary Public
J
H
O
J OFFICIAL SEAL.
J JANET M SLAIII
NOTARY PUBUC-OREGON
COMMISSION NO. 300222
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES APR 15. 2001
AFFIDAVIT
Statement of Dale Blair:
1. Dale Blair, was present at 116SS SW Pacific Highway on a daily basis from
October of 1993 through mid-1997 as an employee of and sub-contractor to
Rayson Construction. My observations of the business and vehicle activities
present on the property are as follows:
Numerous vehicles were parked indiscriminately throughout the S acre property.
Tenants of the property included tour bus companies, numerous construction
contractors, distribution businesses, mail houses and even a church! In addition,
numerous individuals rented parking space for motorhomes, boats, trailers and
passenger cars at various times. Contractors also used the property to store all
kinds of equipment, trailers, merchandise and salvage.
No specific parking or traffic pattern was enforced or observed on the property.
Tenants were free to park throughout the property including the Northernmost
portion near the fence next to the Sleepy Hollow apartments. There were no
obvious roadways, driveways or parking places in the Northern half of the
property, tenants just parked wherever there was space. In general, the areas
closer to the buildings were the preferred parking areas - so the Northernmost
part of the property had the most variation in the number and arrangement of
vehicles and equipment.
The number of vehicles present on the property varied significantly from day to
day and week to week due to the transient nature of the tenants and the
business activities they pursued. Also, the number of vehicles present on the
site varied greatly from day to day as contractors had trucks and equipment out
on job sites whenever weather permitted - seriously reducing the number of
vehicles present during the day in good weather - and busses came and went on
a constant basis, while there was no reason to keep any kind of count of the
number of vehicles parked or coming and going, they were numerous - at least
several dozen.
Contractors and tour bus operators do not observe normal business hours.
Throughout :he three plus years, vehicle activity at the property took place
during all hours of the night and early morning. Busses returning as late as 2:00
or 3:00 AM and contractors pulling out for jobs as early as 4:00 AM pretty much
consisted of a round the clock level of activity at the site.
These conditions, while varying with time of year and day of the week, etc...
existed pretty much the same over the three and a half years that I was regularly
present at Pacific Highway.
Dale Blair Date
Subscribed to and executed before me on this - L4 day of , 1997 in
Multnomah County, Oregon.
_~4r!~cse4~J
Jan Blair, Notary Pu61ic t"ICiAt, SEAL
JANET M STAIR
NOTARY PUBLIC OREGON
My COmmISSIOn GYpireS_ COMMISS;-.I ao6a=
WYCOUiuISSfON EXPIRES -a tS, 2001
AFFI DAVIT
I, Donald W. Hall, do hereby attest to the following facts based on my personal
knowledge.
1) I am the owner of the property 1 1655 5W Pacific Highway, and have been
since 1943. The property was sold to'Nalter S. and Walter L. Aman in
October of 1993.
2) The entire subject property has been continuously occupied and utilized by
trucking, construction and tour bus companies since 1943.
3) In the normal operations of these tenants and users of the property, heavy
equipment, trucks and busses have parked indiscriminately throughout the
entire 5+ acre property including the Northern most portion.
4) Operations including motor vehicle entrance and exit have occurred around
the clock, seven days a week, in the normal course of events.
5) There has never been, to my knowledge, any period of continuous time
exceeding a few weeks during which the property was not occupied in this
manner from 1943 to the present.
6) The number of vehicles and pieces of equipment utilizing the property has
varied from a few dozen to 100+ at various times over the fifty plus years.
TTonald W. Hall Date(
State of Oregon, County of
On this /4 day of 19, before me, fan Blair, a Notary
Public, personally appeared Donald IN. Hall, personally known to me to be the
person whose name is subscribed to this Affidavit, and acknowledged that he
voluntarily executed same.
My commission expires /5-
Jan Blair, Notary Public
ORFM0IAL 3M
JAKV 9 SWIM
NCTAM PUSUC-OREGON
COMMISSION N0.300223
Ma C01AiMMM EXPIRES APR 13.2001
v r.®sa s a1O0°i
~M W
®~rs os v
TRANSPORTATION
COMPANY
11655 SW PACIFIC HWY.
PORTLAND. OR 972,'3-8629
(503) 684-3322 (888) 684-W22 .2CLFPE--
(503) 968-3223 - FAX
EMAIL: razO raztrwm=m
December 12, 1997 WE& razV=.=m
Steven A. Moskowitz, Attorney at Law
Moskowitz and Thomas
111 SW Columbia, Suite 1080 •
Portland, OR 97201
Re: Directors Interpretation of Ion-Conforming Use for Raz Transportation
Dear Steve:
For the past 4 months Raz Transportation has beea worsting with its neighbors to mitigate impacts
caused by our use of the property at 116» SW Pacific Hwy. The following is a brief m=mary of
the steps we have taken to date:
I . Neighborhood meetings and individual complaints.
We have held 3 neighborhood meetings to discuss issues and concerns expressed by our
neighbors. Those complaints have fallen into 4 general areas: noise, lighting, odors, and
vibrations, each of which will be discussed below. During the neighborhood meetings we
had a free and open dialogue which resulted in both sides developing an understanding of
the needs of the other. Representatives from the City of Tigard attended the last '-7
meetings and discussed the options available to the neighbors. Both sides agreed not to
hold another meeting until the issue of non-conforming use has been resolved.
Each individual complaint has had an immediate response since September. In most cases
the information was given to all interested people through Amber Hubbard, the manager
of the Sleepy Hollow Apartments.
2. No is e.
C
' Noise caused by backup alarms and idling engines has been the major concern of our
neighbors. In the past 4 months we have discontinued Use of backup alarms in the lot -
Y
except for the 6 school buses which by law have to have a backup alarm at all times. We
have reorganized parking in the lot to place the diesel buses farther away from the North
end of the lot. We have also met with our staff and drivers and trained them in the need
for reducing noise in the lot.
I have not received a complaint about noise in more than a month.
® ' 1 ~p oh~i
America" 5 ®Nwncww~ TOUa n
Yl
of Travel , iem
r
Steven A. Moskowitz
Directors Interpretation of Nonconforming Use for Raz Transportation
12-12-97, page 2 of 2
3. Lighting.
Our neighbors were concerned about the brightness of the lights in the North end of the
yard and one light in the middle which was visible to the North end. We have turned off
the lights at the North end and redirected the one light so that the bulb cannot be seen
from the North end. We are also working with POE to install shrouds on the lights at the
North end so that there will be no spillover into the apartments. When the shrouds are
installed there will be no light spillover into the Sleepy Hollow Apartments. We will not
turn the lights back on until the lights are fully shrouded.
4. Odors.
We had several instances where buses were parked too close to the North fence and the
exhaust fumes blew into the neighbors yards. We have repositioned the buses so that the
propane buses are about 100-150' from the back fence and are the closest to our
neighbors. The diesel buses are farther away. These steps should mitigate the concerns
about odors.
5. Vibrations.
We have had several complaints about buses parking too close to the apartments and
vibrations from the engine causing vibrations in the apartment. We have repositioned the
buses so that no bus is closer than 100-150' to the apartment and have had no complaints
about vibrations since October.
We also discussed with our neighbors the possfaility of installing a berm, trees and shrubbery
around the perimeter of the lot to minimize the visual impact of the lot, the equipment, lights.
noise. and odors. However, we all agreed at the fast neighborhood meeting not to meet again or
pursue this option further until the non-confoniring use decision has been completed.
Sincerely,
Raz Transportation
Larry G. S~rugas, Ph.D., CNQ
Vice President - Operations
EXHIBIT E
RECEIVED
MOSKOWITZ & THOMAS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW MAR 16 1998
111 S.W. COLUMBIA
SUITE 1080
PORTLAND. OREGON 97201 COL1?AUNIiY OEVELCPMEH
TELEPHONE (503) 227-1116
Christopher P. Thomas FAX(503)227-3015 Steven A. Moskowitz
March 12, 1998
City of Tigard
Community Development
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Re: Notice of Appeal
Final Order No. 98-01 PC
To the City of Tigard:
In accordance with City Code Section 18.32.290 (B), Walter Aman, AKA Business
Services, files this notice of appeal and provides the following information required by Section
18.32.340:
1. The decision to be appealed is Final Order No. 98-01 PC.
2. Walter Aman, AKA Business Services, appeared both orally and in writing before the
Planning Commission at its February 23, 1998, meeting .
a. As owner of the subject property, Mr. Aman was entitled as of right to notice and
hearing prior to the decision to be reviewed.
b. Additionally, as owner of the subject property, Mr. Arran's interests have been
adversely affected as a result of the Planning Commission's decision to resmict current use
on a portion of the property.
3. Grounds for the aprzal are:
a. The Planning Commission's decision was not based on substantial evidence in the
record.
b. The Planning Commission had no jurisdiction over the matter.
City of Tigard, Appeal of Final Order No. 98-01 PC
March 12, 1998
Page 2
c. The Planning Commission erred in its application of City Code Section 18.132.040 B.
d. The burden of proof was erroneously placed on the property owner to show that there
had been a continuing non-conforming use on the site.
4. The date of the filing of the final decision is unknown. However, the Notice of Final
Order states that the decision shall be final on March 16, 1998 unless an appeal is filed.
Mr. Aman seeks to introduce additional evidence specifically addressing the designation
of 200 feet as the appropriate terminus for the operation of commercial activity on the property.
This is based on the unusual nature of the proceeding before the Planning Commission. Although
Mr. Aman is the property owner, he was not the applicant below. The Planning Director was.
Consequently, Mr. Aman did not know until 5 working days before the hearing the exact nature
of the requested action the Director would be making to the Planning Commission. This did not
provide Mr. Aman adequate time to assemble the necessary evidence to establish that, if
commercial activity was going to be precluded from a portion of the property, 200 feet from the
property line was not an appropriate or reasonable designation.
Enclosed please find a check in the amount of $1,745.00 as the appeal fee. Thank you very
much for your attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
Stev oskowitz
cc Walt Aman
Larry Scruggs, Raz Transportation
EXHIBIT F
February 9, 1998
10900 SW 76°t #37
Tigard, OR 97723
Mark Roberts
Associate Planner
Tigard Planning Commission
Tigard City Hall
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
Re Location: 11655 SW Pacific Highway, WCTM 18136CA, Tax Lot 01600
Dear Mr Roberts:
Although my family and I plan to attend the public hearing regarding the above referenced
property and its use, I would like to submit this letter as testimony.
In early March of 1997 my family and 1 moved into unit 37 at Sleepy Hollow Apartments. Our
apartment community is at the north end of the above referenced lot and our home is almost
centered along the dividing fence line.
Our decision to live at Sleepy Hollow was based on the obvious factors of location, size and layout
of the unit and monthly rent based on an annual lease. However, there were other factors in
addition to those above. These factors included our unit having a north-south exposure with our
backyard and master bedroom on the south-side which would provide us with maximum privacy
and quiet as there was only a wonderful wild field on the other side of the fence from our
backyard. We also immediately fell in love with the joyous bird song coming from the trees and
bushes located along the fence.
When we moved in to our new home, we had no idea that a business was being operated from
the property directly to our south which is the property now under discussion. We came to learn
that Apollo Transportation operated 25 buses out of that property, but since we never heard the
buses or were effected by noise, lights or fumes from the business, we had no issue with the
company of the use of the property.
In late September of 1997 my husband observed and commented that he had been seeing people
taking photographs of and using survey equipment to evaluate the Apollo facility. We believed
that we, like our neighbors, would be receiving notice from the City of Tigard informing us Nhat
was planned for that property and when we did not receive such notice, we concluded that
wratever being planned was no longer going fonvard.
Before we knew it, our wonderful quiet community was turned on its head by our new neighbors:
Raz Transportation. Suddenly two sets of blazing-bright flood lights were installed and operable
from dusk to first light. These blinding lights not only flooded the field with light but also our living
room (downstairs) and our bedroom (upstairs) thus invading our home and privacy as well as
destroying our ability to sleep. Although one set of flood lights have been turned off which has
limited the intense light from coming into our living room, our bedroom is still brightly lit as the
bedroom is upstairs and on the same plane as the remaining flood lights even with black-out
drapes over mini-blinds.
Then came the buses and buses and more buses now totaling about 85. These buses come and
go 24-hours per day every day regardless of time of day or night assaulting us with motor noises
and reving engines, emitting foul exhaust fumes, vibrating our homes and literaily destroying a
very quiet residential neighborhood.
By early October the situation was so bad. I started (as did many of my neighbors) making formal
written complaints to the City of Tigard regarding the activities at Raz Transportation. Like my
neighbors I also started making formal written complaints to directly to Raz Transportation. To
date, I have made over two dozen written complaints to Raz Transportation. These complaints
only detail specific occurrences that took place during the night-early morning hours when
my family and I were awoken. That's right - awoken - none of these comptaints reflect the
constant bombardment of disturbances we experience coming from Raz Transportation during the
day or early evening all seven days of the week.
As result of our complaint campaign, the City of Tigard through the offices of Dick Bwersdorff,
two meetings were held to allow discussion between Raz Transportation, residents of Sleepy
Hollow and the City of Tigard. Although open conversation is very well and fine, these meetings
were nothing more than that as we the residents of Sleepy Hollow were given no relief and no
action was required by the City of Tigard in respect to Raz Transportation.
Since then, nothing has changed and we are still waiting for a decision to be reached. The issues
also remain the same:
1. If the north half of the above referenced property is zoned for multi and/or single
family residential, why is Raz Transportation being allowed to use it in a commercial
business operation? With aerial photography going back at least three decades it is
dear that while the southern half has been used for commercial purposes, such as
Apollo Transportation, the northern portion has been left unused due to this zoning
designation.
2. What specific noise, light and other pollution codes must Raz Transportation comply
with? Per the city codes, the sections pertaining to these areas are very convoluted
and circle back to one another so it is impossible for a layperson to understand. In
addition, does Raz Transportation given they are located on three sides by residential
areas, have the right to operated at night and on weekends disturbing the lives,
compromising the quality of life and depriving their neighbors of sleep?
3. If Raz Transportation was granted an expansion of business activities via licensing
and other permits beyond what was granted for Apollo Transportation: i.e., to use the
northern half which abuts our community in non-residential use, why were the
neighborhood not notified in advance and given opportunity to express concerns?
'Expansion' means installing super-bright flood lights that go on from dusk to first
light. increasing the number of buses from what Apollo had at 25 to over 85 (Raz
Transportation has told us that they plan to operate 125 buses from this property),
operating 24 hours per day, and the installation of two above ground swimming pools
which seem to be full of water but not maintained so the water is stagnant which
come warmer weather insects will certainly enjoy.
4. The destruction of longstanding wildlife habitat for a tremendous number of migratory
and permanent birds (including doves and quail), to say nothing of the raccoons and
other animals who live (lived) in the bushes and trees along the shared fence line.
Not speaking for other residents, I appreciate that Raz Transportation is caught between a 'rock
and a hard place' as we are. I also give Lary Scruggs of Raz Transportation a sincere ' thank
you' for all his efforts to soften the impact of Raz's operation on our community without sacrificing
his business' operations and profits.
Initially. I had taken the position that Raz Transportation should be allowed to use this property as
long as that use does not affect or compromise our lives, homes and neighborhood. However, I
have come to realize that by the nature of their business this is highly unlikely, if not impossible.
This leaves only two viable solutions: 1) Raz Transportation is required to honor the current
zoning (north - residential and south - ccmmerciaq and restrict their operations to the southern
half only. or 2) they ~racate the property and relocate to a move appropriate commercial site.
This issue has been going for now close to six months. It needs resolution and prompt resolution.
In my mind the City of Tigard needs to deride which is more important: the tax base generated by
Raz Transportation or doing the right thing by deciding that the city's neighborhoods are
worthwhile preserving and protecting.
Thank you.
41161avl
Dawn Holland
Fi=B-rl~?-1-x?6 Y19:26 SLEEPY HOLLOW F,PFP.TMEMTS P.02
i
Fetxuary 9. 1888
I
i I
To: tarry Scruggs
Ftax Transportation i
F= 684-88"
From: Ox" HoUan0
Resklem of Sleepy Hollow
F= 6112-9354
UC Amber. Mane of Sleepy Ho(iow'
Fmc 624.2681 i
I
Dear Larry.
Were you asleep this morning at 3:40AM? iLucky you! We weren't.... Once lagain was were
awoken by a Pena~ high-pitched motor noise comins front your operadons.... Is this a high
Pressure +23hing system. a vacuum deuM. a buffer or whorl?? Regardless. why does *us
activity need to be done at tttis t9erw of rnoraireg and why are we being woken bry it? If that wasp
enough. iram®datbety thereafter began the taw by row (or scion by section) starting of engines
and the &SSQc aiod rev-,n9 than bus 'musical chairs' which weM on and on and on tilt our atarm
clock went off tours later. ;
• I
And 0. me again. we invite you to spend a tlf m on our sofa so you can experience our lack of
sleep fitst hand.
Thank you. !
i
T~3T;L P. 0T
Jr;IV-?1-L'~St3 16:52 SLEEPY F-CLLCW APPRTMENTS P•02
.la~ntsary 16, 1998
To: tarty Scruggs
Raz Transportation
Far 36d-eW
Frt en: Davm Holland. Resident Sleepy Hollow
Far 612-9364
dC Amber, Manager Sleepy Hodow
Far 624-2651
Dear Larry.
Over the course of the last two months night-tkne fronn your balities have been slovAy but
sesaasaly kicrwasiM. As the noise errtavOing was we choose not to complain urrm last night
At 9.4SPM my family. ueduuling my step-daughter sloops in the front bedroom. were rudely
a, *ken by rtepetth a engine reeling and racing at RPWs, reeveme d'rrect1cm yarning
wing and voices of pm--z tred shouting over the of engine noises. This went on till
11.20PM.
We have net a due as to.ndra# adkAdes were taking lace and nor do we care. We do. however,
case and resent that once acjairt your company to do mejor bus movement tied engine
raong dunrig normal shmp-Was and hays had ==v test compromised.
Larry, such acuities need to cease after 9:WPM as t is not okay for a 12 year old child to loose
slip not her us or oust neighbors. either. Again. vm alai your comparrey pretend that our
neughborhoodd is your neighborhood and ow cider h you vrauid feet if your family could not
ske p ar ertlQy the quM of tare sight
1 wit etso begin again to m6ty you in writing every ' our Ilves our dklurbed by ac*4ioes or your
eornpanry. it seems fleet only with consutat remindw; does your company consider our
conunurtity.
Regards.
)aJ-J C ~
Cav n Hdtarhd
i~tv-.1-1'398 Lo: S? SLEEPY HCLLCW ~-P$;PTt'91TS P.03
I
Name: Dawn Hnilatsd
Organization: Sb:agy Hollow
Fa= 612-9354
CC: Ambcr Hubbard
Fax: 624-2691
From: Larry Scrums
OM28iMtion: Raz Transportation
Phase 6843322 cxt 789
Date: 1-1&99
Sebject: Noise Cow=
Pages: I
COiLt C=3:
Thank ytm for yvur fan this tttorc* advisin me of noise last night. Plcase accept my
apology any ' this card y'ou.
I checked with our tnainteance staff to find out w t 'append. They said that they were
4 moving our only remizzing t w3k bus to go out on trip. It bec-u= stuck m some soft dirt and
mud. The en&e ois+c that you heard was the ' , then the maintenance crew, trying to rove
i the bus. They brougkt the shop frock out to belp nave the Inz mtd got it stuck as well. That's
why is took so long.
Under rmrmal circu=;ta=ts we would have =vt d the bus earlier in the day to have it ready to
go out. If that was not an option, then we would Left the bus until the to nimg and
substirutd another bus fur the trip. However, 'sn this casc we could not do Ehat beca= we had
to bavc that bus. I have notified the maimtena= people about the probk= that they caused and
they are coam-imcd to triuciug snopac-ts from iastan~os such as this in the future.
l I wn concerned about yowr corneas that noix lass iaszeasing over the past few months.
f Sine our Iaut mec lag October 29 we have been a concerted effort to inform our people
1' about noise concerns. Also, Der-ember is our slowest mouth of the year. It staprises rue to hcar
that you feel that noise is bacremiag. Perhaps you uld put togctb%T some specifics for tae so I
can know where vre can further itaprove our, operat on.
I6:N-21-1958 Sl.E=?Y HoLLt]W APAP.TPeITS P.04
January 18. 1986
To' Larry Scruggs
Ravi Transportation
Fax 63&-W+t6
FMm: Dawn Hdtand
Siaapy Holow Resident
FMC 812-9364
clc: p4nber.11r1,arMW of Sisepy Hollow
Fa c 524-MI
Oew Lany.
Thank you trx yaw tau of JWRBWy le. Franldy. we t ore if one. two or a hundred buses get
s =K in the waft turd (so why doesn't Rau gravel grave the 1aaTdY*) "was it necessary to
Iraq & out du" normal steep hcuW Why could ham vomited M the rnorrt VI Why couldn't
a dMWwA bus be rued for rust ulp?. Larry, the line is that there is no rea v , i why a 12 year
c finds sleep (or ours) be danurbed
So tea row. where you or yore daidren woken-up ttid two the bus was being pulled out?
Horn about Sunday reverting at 8:39AW Or viftat Oft, Morning at 327AW.
Sunday moming we were awoken to the beep-bee cf a bus using driven in reverse. It only
the Schad buses have the reverse wanting akA ' would it be necmmary to move a sdtoal bus
on a day when there is no schoon
As to dtis alone M at 3: 7AM vas were awaken by a ;ta -pi dud ratline of a machine which
soeSded lifts a vacuum leaner or a bufferlpokfw 46 minutes we Werned to this noise. By
the Urre Me noise smWed and we were able to fall sleep, it was time for us to get up. We
nuvix faaz one a matt for agowirvg us to get a good s steep.
Larry. I world Tike to loners where you live. I nave to equipment v d*Z makes the
sarrielsbri& r klyd and quardy of noise. I would trhernuch for ycu and your family to
e~cpoetiertoce what vm am experienarig. I am =nfden chat it you are subjected to sametsimilar
rxii" and the frequency of the noise. Raz wcvtd c.3aNe how and when it perfomis noisy activities
immediaLdy.
fawn Magand
i
i
SLEEPY HOLLUW
a.M-
-000/~
M ~ ~P
v'
~l
P.06
kvzt- 160
~ ~1 °"'m' .e
IYM
Humane
Education
The message of this statement speaks even
- In 1933, the National P.T.A. Congress issued more directly to the 198t3's than to the decade
the following statement in support of humane ed in which it was written. Children today face the
ucation: dilemma of growing up in a world that is
"Children trained to extend justice, kindness, o{iti ma and environmentally unstable -
and mercy to animals become more just, kind, a world in which both individual and national
and considerate in their relations with each decision-making become increasingly important
other. Character training along these lines will to the survival of both humans and other animals.
result In men and women of broader sympathies, Humane Education, incorporated into the
more humane, more law-abiding - in every curriculum of our nation's schools, can help
respect more valuable citizens. children develop the sensitivity and understand-
"Humane education is teaching in the schools ing they will need to make sound personal and
and colleges of the nations the principles of political decisions based on concern for all living
justice, goodwill, and humanity toward all life. creatures.
The cultivation of the spirit of kindness to animals From People and Animals
is but the starting point towards that larger hu- Humane Education Curriculum Guide
manity which includes one's fellow of every D
race and clime. A generation of people trained
in these principles will solve their difficulties as
neighbors and not as enemies." D 0
0
3
Z
0
Al
00
. oQ
OOF THE GOVERNOR PROCLAMATION
AE OF OREGON
WHEREAS: we should be continually aware of the quality and depth the animal world brings into our lives; and
WHEREAS: the beauty of an eagle soaring over a canyon, the thrill of a whale rolling up in the sea, the majesty of an
elk on a distant ridge make our lives fuller and richer; and
WHEREAS: the animals Oregonians keep as pets also greatly enrich our lives they provide companionship to their
owners, give protection to some and a reason for being to a few, and justifiable joy to all who appreciate
and cherish them; and
WHEREAS: our pets' freely given love and loyalty deserves our recognition, appreciation and acknowledgment.
NOW,
THEREFORE, I, John A. Kitzhaber, Governor of the State of Oregon, hereby proclaim May 3-9, 1998 to be
BE KIND TO ANIMALS WEEK
in Oregon and encourage all citizens to join in this observance.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand
and cause the Great Seal of the State of Oregon to
be affixed. Done at the Capitol in the City of Salem
in the State of Oregon on this day, April 21, 1998.
??~;6
John A. Kitzhaber, Governor
?ZJ IL
Phil Keisling, Secretary of State
PROCLAMATION
Be Kind to Animals Week
WHEREAS, we should be continually aware of the quality and depth the animal
world brings Into our lives, and
WHEREAS, the beauty of an eagle soaring over a canyon, the thrill of a whale
rolling up in the sea, the majesty of an elk on a distant ridge make our lives fuller
and richer, and
WHEREAS, the animals Oregonians keep as pets also greatly enrich our lives they
provide companionship to their owners, give protection to some and a reason for
being to a few, and justifiable joy to all who appreciate and cherish them; and
WHEREAS, our pets' freely given love and loyalty deserves our recognition,
appreciation and acknowledgment.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT 1, Jim Nicoll, Mayor of the City
of Tigard, Oregon, do hereby proclaim the
Week of May 3 - 9, 1998
Be Kind to Animals Week
in Tigard, Oregon and urge our citizens, businesses and organizations to join in this
observance.
Dated this day of , 1998.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of
the City of Tigard to be affixed.
Jim Nicoll, Mayor
City of Tigard
Attest:
City Recorder
`~l a~ la'S
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PLAN
POTENTIAL TASK FORCE MEMBERS
April 20, 1998
NAME INTEREST ADDRESS TEL/FAX
1. Evelyn Beaverton City Council Member PO Box 4755 Beaverton, Tel. 526-2347
Brzezinski 97076 Fax.526-2479
2. Rex Burkholder Executive Director, Bicycle 1117 SW Washington St. Tel. 226-0676
Transportation Alliance (BTA) Portland, OR 97207 Fax. 226-0498
(Bicycle Advocacy)
3. Bill Buckley Tualatin Valley Economic 10200 SW Nimbus Ave., Tel. 620-1142
Development Suite G-3 Tigard, OR Fax 624-0641
97223
4. Charles Cameron County Administrator, 155 N. 1 st Ave. Mail Tel. 648-8685
Washington County Stop 21 Fax. 693-4545
Hillsboro, 97124
5. Nancy Carr Manager, Crescent Grove 9925 SW Greenburg Rd. Tel. 639-5347
Cemetery & Mausoleum (Local Tigard, 97223 Fax. 620-1264
business
6. Dr.. Gene Davis Retired veterinarian Foreign Mission Tel. 246-5862
(Development interest) 10875 SW 89th
Tigard, OR 97223
7. Jillian Detweiler Commissioner's Assistant, 1221 SW 5th Ave. Rm. Tel. 823-4321
Commissioner Charlie Hales, 210 Fax. 823-4040
City of Portland Portland, 97204
8. Cliff E ler Metzger property owner Tel. 246-5432
9. Dan Heagarty Chair, Fans of Fanno Creek PO Box 25835 Portland, Tel. 236-6663
(Watershed advocacy) 97225 Fax. 223-2701
10. Denise Jackson Nimbus Business Commuters; 8920 SW Gemini Dr. Tel. 672-7800
Building Manager, Spieker Beaverton, 97208 Fax. 672-7050
Properties (Business/
-transportation association
11. Beth Johnston Associate Vice President, Norris 10300 SW Greenburg Tel. 452-5900
Beggs & Simpson; Project Rd. Fax. 244-4400
Manager, Lincoln Center(Local Tigard, 97223
businesses
12. Jon Kvistad Presiding Officer, Metro Council 600 NE Grand Ave. Tel. 797-1549
(District #3) Portland, 97232 or 590-3282
Fax. 797-1799
13. Dan McFarling President, Association of Oregon 20585 SW Cheshire Ct. Tel. 642-4077
Rail and Transit Advocates Aloha, 97007
AORTA Commuter rail
14. Ed McVicker Principal, Metzger Elementary 10255 SW 90th Ave. Tel. 684-2300
1
NAME INTEREST ADDRESS TEL/FAX
School Tigard, 97223 Fax. 246-9803
15. Lyndon Musolf Principal, Lyn Musolf & 5480 SW Dover Lp. Tel. 768-5103
Associates (Affordable housing) Portland, 97225
16. Adele Newton President, Washington County 7700 SW Alden St. Tel. 244-1934
League of Women Voters (Civic Portland, 97223
interest
17. Jim Nicoli Mayor, City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tel. 639-4171
Tigard, 97223 Fax. 684-7297
18. Nawzad Othman President, OTAK (represents 17355 Boones Ferry Rd. Tel. 635-3618
Orland Development) Lake Oswego, 97035 Fax. 635-5395
19. Jason Rakowitz Staff Assistant, Multnomah 1120 SW 5th Ave. Rm. Tel. 306-5797
County Commission Chair 151 Fax. 248-3093
Beverly Stein; business and Portland, 97204
workforce development
coordinator
20. Jack Reardon Manager, Washington Square 9585 SW Washington Tel. 639-8860
Mall (Local businesses) Square Rd. Fax.620-5612
Tigard, 97223
21. Bob Rohlf City Council Member 12340 SW North Dakota Tel. (W) 684-
Tigard 97223 8709
22. Ted Spence Tigard Citizen 10430 SW 66th Ave. Tel. 245-1549
Ti ard, OR 97223
23. Rick Saito President, Group McKenzie 0690 SW Bancroft St. Tel. 224-9560
(Architectural consulting for Portland, 97201 Fax. 228-1285
Lincoln Center
24. Karen Wagner Executive Director, STOP 15405 SW 116th Ave. Tel. 624-6083
(Transportation Advocacy) 202-B
Tigard, 97224
25. Pat Whiting Chair, Metzger Park Community 8122 SW Spruce St. Tel. 246-7172
Participation Organization (CPO) Tigard 97223
(Alt. Mike Donovan, Chair,
Metzger Park Board)
26. Nick Wilson Planning Commission Member 12573 SW Winterlake Tel. 224-5238
Dr. Tigard OR 97223 Fax. 224-5239
2
FAX TRANSMITTAL
Date April 27, 1998
Number of pages including cover sheet
v
To: Honorable Mayor & City Council From: Cathy Wheatley City Recorder
CO: Co: City of Tigard
Fax Fax 684-7297
Ph 639-4171. Ext. 309
SUBJECT: Council Agenda Item - (Non-Agenda No. 7.2)
MESSAGE:
Following is a list of Potential Task Force Members for the Washington Square Regional
Center Plan prepared by Laurie Nicholson of the Community Development Department.
She has been checking with property owners from the Metzger Area for a representative.
(see #25 on list).
Also with this transmittal is some information on 2040 Planning Work for the Bull
Mountain and Metzger area. If time permits, this will be offered as a discussion item at
tomorrow night's Council meeting.
I: W DMICATHYICOUNCI L MASHSO. DOC
I:\ENO\FAX.VOT
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PLAN
POTENTIAL TASK FORCE MEMBERS
April 20, 1998
NAME INTEREST ADDRESS TEL/FAX
1. Evelyn Beaverton City Council Member PO Box 4755 Beaverton, Tel. 526-2347
Brzezinski 97076 Fax.526-2479
2. Rex Burkholder Executive Director, Bicycle 1117 SW Washington St. Tel. 226-0676
Transportation Alliance (BTA) Portland, OR 97207 Fax. 226-0498
(Bicycle Advocacy)
3. Bill Buckley Tualatin Valley Economic 10200 SW Nimbus Ave., Tel. 620-1142
Development Suite G-3 Tigard, OR Fax 624-0641
97223
4. Charles Cameron County Administrator, 155 N. 1 st Ave. Mail Tel. 648-8685
Washington County Stop 21 Fax. 693-4545
Hillsboro, 97124
5. Nancy Carr Manager, Crescent Grove 9925 SW Greenburg Rd. Tel. 639-5347
Cemetery & Mausoleum (Local Tigard, 97223 Fax. 620-1264
business
6. Dr. Gene Davis Retired veterinarian Foreign Mission Tel. 246-5862
(Development interest) 10875 SW 89th
Tigard, OR 97223
7. Jillian Detweiler Commissioner's Assistant, 1221 SW 5th Ave. Rm. Tel. 823-4321
Commissioner Charlie Hales, 210 Fax. 823-4040
City of Portland Portland, 97204
8. Dan Heagarty Chair, Fans of Fanno Creek PO Box 25835 Portland, Tel. 236-6663
(Watershed advocacy) 97225 Fax. 223-2701
9. Denise Jackson Nimbus Business Commuters; 8920 SW Gemini Dr. Tel. 672-7800
Building Manager, Spieker Beaverton, 97208 Fax. 672-7050
Properties (Business/
transportation association
10. Beth Johnston Associate Vice President, Norris 10300 SW Greenburg Tel. 452-5900
Beggs & Simpson; Project Rd. Fax. 244-4400
Manager, Lincoln Center(Local Tigard, 97223
businesses
11. Jon Kvistad Presiding Officer, Metro Council 600 NE Grand Ave. Tel. 797-1549
(District #3) Portland, 97232 or 590-3282
Fax. 797-1799
12. Dan McFarling President, Association of Oregon 20585 SW Cheshire Ct. Tel. 642-4077
Rail and Transit Advocates Aloha, 97007
AORTA Commuter rail
13. Ed McVicker Principal, Metzger Elementary 10255 SW 90th Ave. Tel. 684-2300
School Tigard, 97223 Fax.246-9803
1
NAME INTEREST ADDRESS TEL/FAX
14. Lyndon Musolf Principal, Lyn Musolf & 5480 SW Dover Lp. Tel. 768-5103
Associates (Affordable housing) Portland, 97225
15. Adele Newton President, Washington County 7700 SW Alden St. Tel. 244-1934
League of Women Voters (Civic Portland, 97223
interest
16. Jim Nicoli Mayor, City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tel. 639-4171
Tigard, 97223 Fax. 684-7297
17. Nawzad Othman President, OTAK (represents 17355 Boones Ferry Rd. Tel. 635-3618
Orland Development) Lake Oswego, 97035 Fax. 635-5395
18. Jason Rakowitz Staff Assistant, Multnomah 1120 SW 5th Ave. Rm. Tel. 306-5797
County Commission Chair 151 Fax. 248-3093
Beverly Stein; business and Portland, 97204
workforce development
coordinator
19. Jack Reardon Manager, Washington Square 9585 SW Washington Tel. 639-8860
Mall (Local businesses) Square Rd. Fax.620-5612
Tigard, 97223
20. Bob Rohlf City Council Member 12340 SW North Dakota Tel. (W) 684-
Tigard 97223 8709
21. Ted Spence Tigard Citizen 10430 SW 66th Ave. Tel. 245-1549
Ti ard, OR 97223
22. Rick Saito President, Group McKenzie 0690 SW Bancroft St. Tel. 224-9560
(Architectural consulting for Portland, 97201 Fax. 228-1285
Lincoln Center
23. Karen Wagner Executive Director, STOP 15405 SW 116th Ave. Tel. 624-6083
(Transportation Advocacy) 202-B
Tigard, 97224
24. Pat Whiting Chair, Metzger Park Community 8122 SW Spruce St. Tel. 246-7172
Participation Organization (CPO) Tigard 97223
(Alt. Mike Donovan, Chair,
Metzger Park Board)
25. Metzger area Yet to be appointed
roe owner
26. Nick Wilson Planning Commission Member 12573 SW Winterlake Tel. 224-5238
Dr. Tigard OR 97223 Fax. 224-5239 •
2
04/27/98 16:15 $'503 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD Q001
sss MULTI TRANSACTION REPORT
iii!!S!!!liiiii#ii!!!!i!#!##!iliiii!
TX/RX NO. 1883
INCOMPLETE TX/RX
TRANSACTION OK [ 021 639 5697 KEN SCHECKLA
[ 031 5704420 BRIAN MOORE
( 041 6208759 PAUL HUNT
[ 051 684 3636 JIM NICOLI
0 ERROR
A/c) RyFl\l0
4148 166
-rr l s cuss UYLL
CITY OF TIGARD
Community Development
Shaping A Better Community
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD
TO: Mayor Nicoli and /C' iity Council
FROM: Jim Hend x
DATE: April 23, 1998
SUBJECT: 2040 Planning Work for Bull Mountain and Metzger Area
As Council recalls, the County began contracting with the City last June to provide urban services
to portions of unincorporated Washington County, primarily on Bull Mountain and in the Walnut
Island. Urban services presently include current planning, plan review and building inspections,
building related engineering services, and road maintenance activities.
raised the prospect with the County of providing urban services to the Metzger area. I also
initiated discussions regarding the potential for the City taking the lead in providing long range
planning for Bull Mountain and Metzger. My discussion dealt with coordination primarily, but I was
also interested in what the County would consider. It seemed logical since we are providing
current planning, building, and maintenance activities, that other activities may also be desired.
Attached, is a letter from John Rosenburger, Director of Land Use and Transportation. The
County is looking for our interest in providing long range planning for Bull Mountain and the
Metzger area. They have indicated their interest in providing resources to support the City in
implementing 2040.
1 met with John to discuss this. At this point, there are a lot of unanswered questions. I would
recommend that Council discuss this idea at its next study session on April 28th. I would also
recommend that we indicate to the County that we are interested in pursuing this further. This
should be cautioned with the realization that additional review is necessary. Should it be
determined that the concept in unworkable or the tasks beyond our ability to deal with, either of us
could terminate our discussions.
Expressing the City's interest would allow the County to budget funds to contract with the City. If it
is determined that we will provide long range planning activities to Bull Mountain and Metzger, an
Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) will be necessary.
I:ICDADMUERREEUIM D4000UN.MEM
WASHINGTON RECD APR 0 6 1998
OWE" COUNTY,
OREGON
Iql1ow
April 3, 1998
Mr. Jim Hendryx
Community Development Director
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, OR 97223
Dea m.
RE: 2040 PLANNING WORK IN THE BULL MOUNTAIN AND METZGER AREA
On March 18", Charlie Cameron and I met with Bill as a follow-up to our previous
discussions concerning Metzger and the city's desire to look at a contracting
relationship for land development activities similar to the current contract for the
Bull Mountain area. Since there seems to be a higher level of sensitivity to the
city expanding services into Metzger we discussed the idea of the city doing the
2040 planning work in the Bull Mountain and Metzger areas as a precursor to
actually beginning a contract relationship for development services in Metzger.
At the meeting we discussed the idea of your staff putting together a proposal for
both of the areas which we could then review and discuss with the leadership of
the Metzger and Bull Mountain areas.
I know that the city is currently beginning planning work for a portion of the
Metzger area as part of a TGM grant next fiscal year. The idea would be for the
county to provide the city the resources necessary to expand your current work
to include all of the Metzger and Bull Mountain areas.
What we discussed at the end of our meeting would be to have you and I get
together and lay out a proposal that we could then discuss with Bill and Charlie,
and take out to the Metzger and Bull Mountain communities to see if this is an
acceptable approach.
155 North First Avenue Department of Land Use and Transportation • Administration Phone: (503) 693-4530
Room 350-16 Hillsboro, Oregon 97124-3072 FAX (503) 693-4412
2040 Planning Work in
Bull Mountain and Metzger Areas
Page 2
What I have in mind would be for the county to provide the city the equivalent of
one senior planner for a two-year period, plus an additional 30% of a senior
planner for those administrative and accessory type activities that would need to
be undertaken in order to complete the necessary work. The county would
transfer a specific amount of money equivalent to the above staffing level to the
city at the beginning of each fiscal year, beginning in July 1998. What the county
would be looking for in terms of a work product at the end of the two-year period
would be a plan and zoning designation on both Bull Mountain and Metzger that
would comply with 2040. In addition, the county would ?ook to providing a liaison
between Tigard and Washington County to coordinate the necessary ordinances
and city involvement activities that would be necessary in order to accomplish
this.
Bill mentioned that you were going to be out of town for a couple of weeks.
Once you've had an opportunity to review this, please give me a call and we can
set something up on your return to begin moving this forward. Between now and
July, we would have sufficient opportunity to hammer out the kinds of things that
we would want in a general sense, with the idea of beginning the real planning
work in July of this year.
If you have any questions concerning this or need additional information, please
let me know. I will have my secretary, Bev Aldrich, call and arrange a meeting at
your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
John . Rosenberger
Direc r
Dirrrigard2040
I~ID~~- ~J~nlo(~
Gam=
Alas 40
-For- Cli scussi utL
i
CITY OF TIGARD
Community Development
ShapingA Better Community
MEMORANDUM
~ITY OF TIGARD
TO: Mayor Nicoli and City Council
FROM: Jim Hendryx
DATE: April 23, 1998
SUBJECT: 2040 Planning Work for Bull Mountain and Metzger Area
As Council recalls, the County began contracting with the City last June to provide urban services
to portions of unincorporated Washington County, primarily on Bull Mountain and in the Walnut
Island. Urban services presently include current planning, plan review and building inspections,
building related engineering services, and road maintenance activities.
I raised the prospect with the County of providing urban services to the Metzger area. I also
initiated discussions regarding the potential for the City taking the lead in providing long range
planning for Bull Mountain and Metzger. My discussion dealt with coordination primarily, but I was
also interested in what the County would consider. It seemed logical since we are providing
current planning, building, and maintenance activities, that other activities may also be desired.
Attached, is a letter from John Rosenburger, Director of Land Use and Transportation. The
County is looking for our interest in providing long range planning for Bull Mountain and the
Metzger area. They have indicated their interest in providing resources to support the City in
implementing 2040.
1 met with John to discuss this. At this point, there are a lot of unanswered questions. I would
recommend that Council discuss this idea at its next study session on April 28th. I would also
recommend that we indicate to the County that we are interested in pursuing this further. This
should be cautioned with the realization that additional review is necessary. Should it be
determined that the concept in unworkable or the tasks beyond our ability to deal with, either of us
could terminate our discussions.
Expressing the City's interest would allow the County to budget funds to contract with the City. If it
is determined that we will provide long range planning activities to Bull Mountain and Metzger, an
Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) will be necessary.
1'AC 0 AD MU E R R E EU I M\2040C 0 U N. M E M
WASHINGTON RECD APR 0 6 1998
COUNTY,
OREGON
April 3, 1998
Mr. Jim Hendryx
Community Development Director
City of -Mgard
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, OR 97223
Dea m:
RE: 2040 PLANNING WORK IN THE BULL MOUNTAIN AND METZGER AREA
On March 18`h, Charlie Cameron and I met with Bill as a follow-up to our previous
discussions concerning Metzger and the city's desire to look at a contracting
relationship for land development activities similar to the current contract for the
Bull Mountain area. Since there seems to be a higher level of sensitivity to the
city expanding services into Metzger we discussed the idea of the city doing the
2040 planning work in the Bull Mountain and Metzger areas as a precursor to
actually beginning a contract relationship for development services in Metzger.
At the meeting we discussed the idea of your staff putting together a proposal for
both of the areas which we could then review and discuss with the leadership of
the Metzger and Bull Mountain areas.
I know that the city is currently beginning planning work for a portion of the
Metzger area as part of a TGM grant next fiscal year. The idea would be for the
county to provide the city the resources necessary to expand your current work
to include all of the Metzger and Bull Mountain areas.
What we discussed at the end of our meeting would be to have you and I get
together and lay out a proposal that we could then discuss with Bill and Charlie,
and take out to the Metzger and Bull Mountain communities to see if this is an
acceptable approach.
155 North First Avenue Department of Land Use and Transportation • Administration Phone: (503) 693-4530
Room 350-16 Hillsboro, Oregon 97124.3072 FAX (503) 693-4412
2040 Planning Work in
Bull Mountain and Metzger Areas
Page 2
What I have in mind would be for the county to provide the city the equivalent of
one senior planner for a two-year period, plus an additional 30% of a senior
planner for those administrative and accessory type activities that would need to
be undertaken in order to complete the necessary work. The county would
transfer a specific amount of money equivalent to the above staffing level to the
city at the beginning of each fiscal year, beginning in July 1998. What the county
would be looking for in terms of a work product at the end of the two-year period
would be a plan and zoning designation on both Bull Mountain and Metzger that
would comply with 2040. In addition., the ccunt`f :plc--,!d lock to providing a liaison
between Tigard and Washington County to coordinate the necessary ordinances
and city involvement activities that would be necessary in order to accomplish
this.
Bill mentioned that you were going to be out of town for a couple of weeks.
Once you've had an opportunity to review this, please give me a call and we can
set something up on your return to begin moving this forward. Between now and
July, we would have sufficient opportunity to hammer out the kinds of things that
we would want in a general sense, with the idea of beginning the real planning
work in July of this year.
If you have any questions concerning this or need additional information, please
let me know. I will have my secretary, Bev Aldrich, call and arrange a meeting at
your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
John Rosenberger
Direc r
Dirfrigard2040