The URL can be used to link to this page

CPR 10-81B POOR QUALITY RECORD PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and put on microfilm. The following document is a copy of the microfilm record converted back to digital. If you have questions please contact City of Tigard Records Department. r C:1�NS � REVI.STC c 1(}1c.31 r. 28 of N � Ash AvenLie • • • s. 1 � tt 1� I t I I ,}i is b , ' I I r ; I � 3ia 1, A . �r C.' a p;: ' o ' i "',ailo W.W. Ash Drive ' Tigard, Oregon 97223 October 7 1981 Mern 2 s of City Council City of Tigarc , ear, Council Member: On Monk.a: e' 'ening, October 19th at the Council study session, i hy .• you will be eviewing the AshAvenue issue . Specifically you willreviewing Frank Curie's presentation and recommenda ,on concerning time table for development of Ash Avenue as well as design features, etc. In addition you ' will have communications from the affected neighborhood as Well as the NPO. Much of 'what Frank presented is good and 'I is acceptable to Me pers,2nall. as well as to the other interested parties. How-, ever,: like attention another proposal T would to bring to your attention which I believe is worthy of your consideration. That 'proposal onnect with , � t directly north to c S�rou:Ld be to extend` O'Mara Stree y Hill Street. (See attached maps showing two• alternatives. ) II The logic .s as follows: All the pro testimony to date from staff, planning commissioners and Council members has been that- we need' to extend Ash Avenue for the; benefit of the entire city. '' Ash Avenue is seers as an al-Lernative to people, using Pacific ighwayor Hall 1vd. � The argument isoover ��he future projection of` traffic volumes At this point, staff and the neighborhood argue strenuously. ' If. O'Mara Street (4h ..c" ispresently used by roughly one-halE. I of the ) ere extr.r ded' directly to ill Streets there res:�d::�x�t�, ' would be two direct North ;fat - South West alternatives to Pacific Highway and Hall t .vd 3 It is oresumc l that people 'resenLly tisIng the O Mar route . A '''•'. „ I i Ash Avenue The closer• to ' would continue to use it n people would choose t4 use Ash Avenue. The proposal then, would be to develop two residential routes (rather than one)' with the expectation thatIeach would carry 1 I I , 1 ; 50% of the traffic volume. .: {' Attached are two maps showing altrnative methods of extending O'Mara Street. Alternative A wbu3'..d be the most direct route, but would Most likely require System Development Funds to pay for one-- half the ;, '.:treeextension. staff Opposes this, but I believe if we can spend Systems Development Funds to build a. bridge/culvert ti. over Fanno Creek, sidewalks :-along Ash Avenue, both ft the benefit of the city, wcouldcertainly justify assisting the development l of this short extension. ' , I Altenate. e+I.v E would be t o move the extension the width of one lot to the east. This would allow the developer to have the street servta lots on, both sides of O'Mara. Ey doing so the full cost of .. the street extension would be borne by the developer. Perhaps some R5 and/or duplex zoning could be a trade-off to the Pcooperation. dewelo er I , for his It is Ott hope that by having an opportunity to review this pro - Y` P posal prior to Monday evening the 19th, you might be able to gives ', • it the reflective thought that it deserves. If you have questions, • pleaselcall me. Sincerely, • ,. Phil Edit 13110 S./. Ash Dtive Tigard, Oregon 97223 639.9406 , I 1 ' 0. .I na'.e.w AAL YAivl SECTION 2 T2S RIW 'W" WAS HtNtUTON COUNTY,OREGOrr' I ,•;'' • ` SCALE l''t 400' • , ",..:. '"" w trrt SraCCT .,," ,z-z-- w...w...�--,, , G" II �/••w `.,; SEE M4P `i;5 .?AB #� >r`° �p i. • SEE tYraP •,, /� 'C1c�,,,, r p,° SEE MAP 25 t 2 B B I w ° ..' f' "w,' ;' " 25 L 2AA °tw i SEE �,lAp. ..4,*r. 4,4,41,'''','„,•••.* "`% _'''',5,F,.'"' 3,7 + ^ r,r"x• w :,,,„ , , ,./.jc..."; , f., A,, , , e. �,•' r¢ r xi- ` r7 ,"'��''° �#'x. �i� ft•; �, + ra f.F A .t.:.',,,,, 1. M. W '''''''*`:,:'.';'''t. 'w"`r,i;\. 25' a,'.., "'+� y/ • EE P "44,,,,,,,...,./1 SEE t~«AP '.„• SEE MAP / r, fiY rr ,,,•„;*,,.., MA fi'''',..„,,_,, �, 2s t ,p, , ,xr j I At .' r % }fir` �'S s " C ,� ^„ i" '' , >52 r " r c x , / :' ., i k”,." ' X,,,,,,, . �y ' "..47,,,,„,w ' y t ..* 1 \ • .r*4> ," .% `„ t .'T ISEE MAP s, s�E MAP � '~ `" ,. w '"SEE MtIP tr 25 t 20A SEE hAt4 ,C 2..512EA j"i, *' .`s'c5 ' iyt)+ ty t' rl' • g. \...,', t ' /.. . .v.,' c . . „, ,_j, • 4•41,, , ,.., "*0 . i, / *nu..trsit r ,, , , ' St`t MA0 `' i V a I I 25 1 2C/° v.�c �'t' I ; 'SEE MAP � ,:.=•-/'' SEE M A , 5`b ---------1,.,11.,,I,...._, : w'"w. '''-.„ '*//41'''' i • i''''''''''''''' "- '''' 2s 1 SDE ., ,8 +". �,t .fir+ ....., , : '' • x„ , ., ,--, ---7. -'t,,,:'-t7--7e--,,--‘—'i,.",;r--,-..t t.----,-- , --...._,.“.,„ .._ \ 1 tt 5EE t+ F' 1 i, , SEE MAP '. , t, 1;1 1 • "','1 gs.'t tr BO ,.' SEE' '• 4..'' '0, .t 11,1E3,, r C 'wz t t tsBA l , ,I I ' - ' ' 1 842 ' ' . ' , , *; a_act * • , • • L ' I I , • k; r .;'. I SECTION 2 x'2.5 RI d� 'W..� _ „,,'^*5r.NL;TQN COUNTY ORE' )()A0 SCALE 4or,f w._..a.• .....�.1it..ttir.i ., ,-,„c1,-r,„„,,.„. ,"”'+ ........_.,. ., < , r. + ►l ;a . Al , , -----,,,,-...i....„„.., .,,..' "L\ "` C S E f' MAP. %).'S i G AB �0 `N 1/ a '' • I :a ! : e_ a r.,,,_ ,p+,� /. .•' /. 'i • M • SEE MAH2 'c' / ' c,' 4<\ ' s SEE M AP 25 t;2F,B 4Q� '�, ��C{`�� ", ti, '� � 2$1'AA SFE 'N,A° 3f wi 25 t 2S01 / W` , +�/ sc , t.,) s $. / ".. '''''' ,.//\,. .,'T , 1 r 0. / // .f C. rr $ /.+!`» \ M ..• 5EE *A.�'`.`a 4p�E'*,,•,• ,• ,r fi Y� • . y-kJ5EE MAP `� 25 s'2Rr' sr•.u. ' SEE MAP k.,, ,+", + • a, 2S 1 GBG .ti•. �jt .4s. 1 2AC S ,,, i ..,,, / -,„,,-,......, ,,-.—,,A.. /.••.•" ,, ,, ,,,,,,,„,'.. w h r '"'""+ ///,,,,, j \ 't , I y R "s V... +, ,,II' a 1, If + r V .0 m° I ,l' �'E� '' , n( ''''.‘ o ^' .0 ,#, / *.s / .` '..‘ vxr '. ': ✓��;. rW p.. Sir f1ti r I L Er'4 `:\h, EiE Al p� •, w'`,s rt,„ + ';',7E E'M At•1 „. ,,S t• 1 SEE'4.MAP, a r'Y IY'a�‘,�. y$ t 6r"i'�. �µ �'I', M.. rr+ki5 'M1 r� S.. +ii \ ..,,,,, , ' \ °,° �"e,r r N V ' I s ICSE ,,,,,,A" •\.,„,•,.,'', , /' Lr � MSF N u X \ „j ?;• , • 2 0 , Al,.... zca ,� . sSL t zac:"° —.=„11113..—"-- ► 'yi � c, MAr Wr Jy, r_,.,) 6 N 5. r- «.� 1 v�-r,,,.� r y4-.., -.—j e,iq hL »msµ, 1�1 ,i . � t" 1 ' f * 'aYf I i T' s p1 w .W r y. I , . Ii !I k Cki.W�,W, � � I ..�..... a}�j} °'' IM i� StE NOP a a d 1t 144. SEE'lrSE ,pi Vl r; W �' 251 14N rrw L r I rZ ' w i ' I'd k n M l , 3,).-5) .0 1 d 4 1 'y . JJ 9590 S. I W. Brentwood. Place Tigard, 97223 ,,' • cast 2 1 .� I Dote 1° _i 1.I A�; K �' `, • Cityof 11 ate. '' 4" iii , k I To � 'fi T .4..i'-' ,.�•r''''`zk13,.u•' ,. City Hall g I • • '• Address ;. ' ? 'x r t • T °d a OregQYl :• ,•. ° ' , „ i . -r�.nw.in6..SlaYrw.rw� �• - ..arr,v � � . .os r znide eri, month Of iftlig,tvst, '1981; .• i Di*' l"" 4l'ixit.1 ty.olalg of m .'Y ' eE6!_ ' of P1onning Commission meeting of • .st4, 1 — 5lloureC ` 5.00 25 00 1 .., r 1. ' I Drafting minutes of public portion of { 6a gust 17 City Cotmcil 'nee 'r?•.0 I bourn cgl 647 5 511" 25 '4"011,,,,/1(, T'tansoript of diaoussio ,,(irtioa of Atgust 13 Cir 0 u .+• 1 l: on. Ash 50 00 .4t ' ' a r. wYl.;w Yom+.. 4 , i. , .„ , , i re,Y�+,W+`.•+�dt��w..dW.+Yra<pwr.W ...� . :.. .. J • ,, .„ '. , t.,,,,,,,4.,,,',,, ',, .... • M iYu,+ik• � ^A-:',`'''''' '.0,..,..,11 e "`".,. l r r �4� .�f, .' tis/,i, � •:,�'� ""Y"y ',4 L. a ,1 „ fir. ai I Y 4µo Yr /y �� 4 s .4 • r: • an .....-.a.. ...„.......... ... .._ ..: .. . •.:_ ...,i...:,. -- a r.N141..e,•, .YI,.,,.. wa,:iN i`s<+ 4 , ua. ' 11 �A4 .,r%pa.,Y F N. w... •,.r ww,.4Fn1 ,r + y.Kpw,y.+x >-r K s K n A, vs tt py , • r tm CITY OF TT `+AR41").1 OREGON � • PUBLIC IiCEA,I%INCxS' 4 ,.�. AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION y ,; . K ,;. Notice is li,�.re.,,rr ga',t►n that the City Council• ,will cou Oisider°the following at,, y ss. Fowler Junior High. School. Lecture i ”' STATE F oREuON, COUNTY OF WASIHINGTON, Room. 1.0865,5'�l,'Walnut,Tigard, Ore- , • " gon,on,august 10,,1981,at 8:00 p rii. JOHN W • .NIARLING� APPEAL Cori 0 s �� i being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am. the publisher _ _. �o... - ,. ».. , �aVad Schlaht ofthe , \\I TigardTimes, a newspaper of general circulation, as defined PueS1 b g Comms Sport for ission denial p dit ^ wl, of The Y by ORS 193.010 and 193:020, publi'hhed at Tigard, in the aforesaid county and al US fox' .fa,rt,iily game cert i;r,i.acal��4' . ed in the Canterbury Shopping Center.. Y . . state; that the legal notice la printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was Wash. Co,Tax tfap 251 loA,lax Lot 1700 which det.tisionlieS been ap ;e; . r' saidsuccessiveCouncil. q newspaper :-., Pealed to the Ci:r w news a er for .. ..,..... and Testimony will be published in the. entire issue of Testimonylimited to SUr�M,i ,<,. , M "• consecutive weeks in the following is: $ 1 'natio: of Previous statements d /` CCIMPREUENSWE PLAN REV:ISIOI'' ' r r� V�� •y. ~ r _._ , r A request by the City-of" igard for , :). ' .,, _ .t , ° • ..7 a Corrpreherisive'Plan;R evision to add: (•5ignatu ) he ex of from. :H I • , Burnnarn Stree o onimercial Street ;f w \ i./. to the 1 NPO#1 Plan. .a +.Subscr' aal ,rr�.\t, befo a this.,.r,,.r. .,..... _.. .,..—... day of ..., i' ,. 1 This hearing will be a full ev den» , ' tial n.ear'ing..Both proponents.and op- : • �' ,��".�'-: �a�.`... is � '� ponents will be girrft��.aii� opgorivni�:. �'. �", � to give evidence arid to cross-e�caminn�„~ j � ,,,0,- ,....�' .Y --,.ri COMPREHEN`ST E PLAN REVISIO ,1 rrrr«,-Yr• ..r,M ..„r ,ren ✓ ._,.,w• ,,.♦ ,M.,. • " Notary f Oregon1✓NTE t, �, � Pu#il�c o TIONrequest yr the P"enterra Corpora' 4, My commission expires ,.. ..,..,, xs.. ...:, i 14 p ,„ h � Re ' C � enaa a Plan vi ., ytion', fora �..�p sian front It-7 (Single:Fahtily Residen.: hal)to A-12(Multi:family Residential) a--. on 11.54 acres located on.the westside tm of 130th.Avenue,sotitti of Scholls' :Fer= ;. `k' '• ry-Road(Wash.Co.Tar map,1St 33D,. Tax:Lot 200). 1 This hearing will be.a mall evidt•a tial .Bearing.3tfa'prcaponerat5l and op- ponents will be given an opportunit!,r 1 to give evidence and to cross-examine, 13?OR13E1Z OF'TI18 CITY COUNCIL., " - I:)o.risI a tig „ I , Cl ,Recdrder :� TTb052 — Publish imAugust�pA 0 ,, t � + M i i, • 4 H }x , • k ,�• „i,,.ry Y `� �; h „.".�Y. , �. ,hM '�.�. C , �.M �,, JV - i y T: A tSCI I P OF A iOBTIO13' OF TI GARD CITY CO17NCI?� ubARXNG August 10, 1981 - Compr:hensive'Flan Revision CPR 11-81 E tension of A.�h Avenue between Burnham and Commercial Streets Applicant City o; Tigard ower junior r R n h_sohoQ'. . Lecture too �. � 10865 SW Walnut St. Ti.g rd, Oregon Presen', and participating 4,1.n this hearing: Council: payor Wilbur Bishop, Councilmen Tom Brian, John Cook Kenneth F checkia; I Councilwoman Namcy Sttm1e Also present and pr rtit ipal,ting: Aldie toward, Planning Director, and End. Sulii1tan, City Counsel '$ Stenographer I s note: Tine recording of this meeting f poor tuaiity from which to make an accurate transcript. None of Councilwoman Stimler's' speech in this portion of the t meeting is clear enough to transcriber According to the e; minutes of the meeting she'moved tabling in order to' get facts needed to make a proper determination, but this is not discernable on the' tape. (The motion failed anyway.) Some discussion was lost ,�. tho change of tai:)es early in .n , 1 y: M. only Y this tranocr F, t, Which covers the Goincd.l. discussion . and action. Siah,p: Any other questions from the public or Crose.ezamination2 If not, then I am going, to close the public hearing' and have Council. discussion. w SChecklat There is one question 1 have is, we really haven,ot formulated revitalization program as such and allocated the money ,,'o,go forward one way or another a '.. (Some discussion lost in change of tapes) Brian (Z) . . . 1 would like to have the legal, Mr. , 'ort answer that. $u:'iliv, �, the.It is passd.b,��e comprehensive Anderson has something. There is, no provision err ive planrw Which puts thr.ugh a street that` configuration. Youareutalking tonight about doing it. d• y. ,f some,, ..lar y crame in tomorrow morning and asked for a building permit on, the t site, . Jo*ard would have 'rc+ go through rit'h its Biehapt fou are correct* . . (A little dia� ��sn a�r�gpi sing Direct or howard and Council members lostbecause several persons talking' at the same time. some of this discussion concernedtabling', the matter.) i u, t, 4 • TRANSCRIPT o1 TI`SARD CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION ' �.I August 10, 1981 .. Comprehensive Plan Revision CPR 1181 . .. Bxtensian o t Ash Avenue between BurthaZi, and Commercial Streets • Bishop: Wc11.,, I think that is l,lsaving us open in a a use. I would rather deide it tonight y a _ Brian: l would like to ask'a question. If in, fact we deny, or do not hane thec ' g � dlmprehenisiv�t plan, isn't 3,t always the Councal s P . c a 1,atea+^' date based on nay information ora ,. reroga�;, ve to at study such as the wntawn, plan to Pra r e :gain an extension, based on those facts , ' t Bisho : certainly.' t.� abort commenby Stimler not clear; prabably, about tabling' the mation.,`I . . Well, then, you. are avoiding a decia .on. • a s Brian: we are, sayingtwo' different, things thoug•,z . I think to table it, that leaves the que ;ton more wade op n 'than if we say; we gill not change the comprehensive playi at this time, based upon whatever { . our reason# are; and if some subsequent study. -.if in fact we can ' fund one for whatever-'.sows that 'there 1i.0 a public need, and that it is f�.na�iC�.allY feasible;,' then we 'can go about a comprehensive , e, p .en change then a : Stlmler, (An, unclear comment With respect to a study. 1•..` Briant Well, but that study, e ' l don t' think �*�► my impression of it isn't forthe type of atrafficc study think e s going to be too' general i3 gar,. study. . . . (Sometbecause several tar .ng at once. ' h Bishop A traffic study is another �?,900--moneys bar the City somewhere »n addition to the Bot'ntoi Plan. (In 'response to 'a 'brief objection from Stim1er) Well, I am just you :ask is it going to be (done? To, it isn't going to 'be done. timler; y��y a�{+y� objection,. r �,a mo oy. o table.) Yi f .1 �; „ L1.r1�lCi�iL �i. possibly her W.4K!tZ V�4.G' tV Bishop:Bishop: Thereere h4e'been, a :mation,, but no second. ("gape not clear,: but Cook.appax'ently secontiad the motion.) Bishop: moved and seconded to table. Allin av+ r sigxr,ify by seying. _d ei i. atimler anal Coakt Aye 1 I Bishop: Oppbsed7 B1shap, Brian and. Srneckla,: 'o.. I , ,ah otLon loses. We do riot have ;ann d,rdinaa:o e app before us* : are in consideration by ,the' Council, however. We have 'sot had. it read,. o We ,ha��s tot hid, it read or lai ed, � We are d ditctt4bion I I I „, NMI } .r.N • TRANSCRIPT OF TT GARD CITY _COUNCIL DISCUSSION August 10, 1981 - Comprehensive Plan Revision CFR 11-81 Extension of .ash Avenue between Burnhan and Commercial Streets Brian; XV' observation is that the Planning Commission did take a hard look at this matter, and I think properly identifiPA the major issues. the docume:ttation of need, the priority and cost of crossings.. However myinterpretation c u3.sa,tion th��'rail ur land a: • . from reading the transcript is that these were .rriewed as serious matters, but with all due respect to the Staff, I feel the sugges- tion was made that their dec'is ,on could be made free of financial pstudy, and free of the railroad feasibility, of a plan.andtransportation �' crossingissue free sia7gissus resalved that the. CounciX has to grapple .�.� and that Ms true. ra le with' those issues But with those qualifiers, What is really said is it Would be nice to haveBaostreetthrouh there. And I agree it would w.e`nice to have through a street through there. And I think this community, five ten, twenty yenow, through years ' � better off from moi �.d beto have a street there' to have that extra traffic circulation. However' the , question is how to pree er....a tahat land for futare potentia, years ." : and thus eompeusate thepec', v ownership; and as much as T might feed. 'that we will have public need for that street in the future, X don't feel that we are justified it does need an extension in the comprehensive plan at`this time--primarily because, first of all we do not have any city documentation or technl cad. studies which support from or trap t vision P that if we ,did ato revise thescomprehensive�plannintthisemann r ande effectivel condemn comprehensive does effectively � the property, which creates at obligation which obligation We are not now able qq :for the city to pray for it, '1 , to meet.eemeet. And if me could affordthere it, theis re additional question, Wainld this be a priority use for our dollars? It may be; I, donut knew that. We dont lo „ that. So my feeling is that if a future study or finding 'shows both the public need and the at that time. But laity, it can': be eonsderty • financial feasibility d � think eventually I think we are in a tough spot here, because it would be beneficial for the community to have it. But its either pay now or pay later. We cannot Pay ioa so we must pay ;.. later. go doubt it will cost' more. it might be cheaper at that time to go straight on Ash rather than leaning to, the right because the bn.ilding that would be built will be older. . • It might be cheaper than new stuff/ " • a Bishop: Not likely, the way costa are and inflation * . « . Will be elder . . . . there's no question, about that. Councilman Bria'r~, i thank you, very much for those comments. I. to go into a lengthy. :. . • , �thin.k you probably pers�.tac�i�(idiscussions me not da.sau You said it in much f iwer 'words. This one basic thing reiterate, of course ,and that is the fact of the coat of it. The city does not, have the mine ` to purchase its 1 a, r' e vti.th you that if thtr decision Was made to put that street 'through Aott, the citv would be obligated to purchase that property from those ose two basic propl)rty owners o and, the city is in no position to do that. If we wished to put the street through, wt era to kiag about • r • r. _ ,., ..,,:•,.,.«moi ww<,.m_,,:�., .._.R,», ..i+,.a»...w ..«., ,,. ,_` .yy A wrv;';, N � , i r TRANSCRIPT OF TIG RD CITY COUNCILS DISCUSSION 10, l981 - Comprehenbi 'e Plan Ievision CPS 11-81 RIctens on of Ash Avenue between but;uha,m and Commercial Streets Siehopg millionz of dollars. 4ad I am not talking about, just across railroad tracks(Cont.) 2am talking about Ash Strf%)t. I have reiterated , that before in the other Ash .Street (hearing,, We are taking about five to eight million doll ars if we do it right, ;,td this ,, •. city has no way to get five to eight million dollars to put One street through about a half a ,mile long. And thatincludes acqui- sition ac ui.sition of Property, and those figures can be verified. I dontt need to speak any more on that except to say that the PUC has opposed it, the railroad companies have opposed its»-both of them they advise against it. They have got problems in Beavertoni, as we are well aware of They are trying to close railroad cross"aingc; they are adding one, but they had to close one, whet they adder one. It can be done. - . I Just deft think the city should undertake the obl,irat ion w... we cannot fiu.anCially '- I personally will not finyaicially take the res onsibility of paya ,g the weo�ert� ownersr supporting it, °... ski obviously I am not go/,,ng to support the extension across the railroad tracks at this tine, I dontt deny that it, wouldn't be a practical thing-.-it looks god on a. map. It maybe could have been at another time, but it's not practical at this time. These are my positions on lit., Council, do you have any other questions? Scheckla: I have nothing more to add. I think you aAd 'Tom have •t$ .terated my sentiments. if you are looking for`a motion a.d..a. - Bishop: deny ordinance before we have not read the ordinance, � I� we the I think We can �- we need to read. the"ordinance? Or can a simple motion handle it? Sullivan: A simple,Motion will handle it. Only if You Would adopt the ordi nonce would it have to be read 1,9• l\ Bishop: All �ight� then.: I �au.l� encourage a motion, and the Council has ,^( a. consensus ,.w Scheckla: 1 move that Comprehensive plan Revision CPR 11-$1, requested by kw i,► of Tigard for a com r . 1;ensiie Plan ch � p p hangs, ,be denied.. ' triansh second. • q. p Sis�hopt loved arid t�ecoz�ded that the c3Yty s re des for a. e'o,m rehehsive ply. reVision for the extension Of Ash Street from. Burnham to ommerc , 41. street be dented Sullivan lar. MaYort taY I 4elit eithet the meker or the seconder to :fie ec+te by findings vtith respect to the denial, eo that 'chey are set forth fear the roc ord ^' • ow } !j a 4w 4 M,r 1MR $C IP»i OF TIGARD CITY .i. '� COUNClL DISCUSSION August 10, 1981 = Comprehensive P1axt Revision CPR 11-81 tenoion of A.sh, Avenue between Bunn z' and C°111mercil Streets Bisb<p: Would yell �d the findings/ And those findings Would, be ..a nat? The qb1 ,�",atton of the city? Or what? A / understand 'it Su�.3 .van:. � » '' •` " , there were at :Least three of th0m 4 w pr'obaL, g going to be wrcyng by too few •reasons. I uniersta'n Councilloan Brig and Councilman Scheckla . q . .motion .cox°-» r tl'r 'to indicate no justification in terms of eithet Public n or fiscal resources necessary to undertake a str st, of that • nature' secondly, the full cost of the street not bei4l4g ItuOWn to put it through, including signalization, right-of-way ,acquisition I' .`• and .m'pravements; and finely, the iEsue of the railr i d crossji ngs in testimony (r) of Mr. Graw (?) whi,„^h Council believe is a majorit:r of r. AAstii 3 s represontative s Mr. ( Gilley, which is or record in tht' Manning Commission. Scheckla; (WOrding unclear, but approving.) Brian: Just one minor comment. I mould. say that there is not ohM demon-, strated need1' -- that there is ''Aa lack Of sufficieatl.' SullIvatt I should amend, that to say in th* record, 'tlackk Of suf 'diem" Bishop: Is the mLtion clear withthe findings? Is there discussion on ro. the motion? Sohecrkl&: queston. Bishop': not . If .not, �� Qre is no furtherfurtherdiscussion then, all in faltor ,, d .�� signifr �y saying 4rs .1: Aye. BisboP: Opp)sed? (1 o" response.)) is aniz ously carried then.. . � The motion e♦ i . kl P s ' 4, 6 E.‘VEO 97 0 S :�.. O'Mara ti t: t~ard , OR97223 t • Tigard City Council' it/75+ trt Ti er.d Planning Staff Gkj Xy • , rhr x . ;ard OR 9722," Regarding. Comprehensive Plan Review) Ash "venue extension' : from Burnham to Commercial. Item 5.7 7/7/81 Planning' Commis-- , ion T=�e& cir,s Agenda r , NPO #1 MinoritYne'Port Based upon the information presented at the 7/7'/81 .Planning Commission meeting, l feel th t the Compre't nsi e Plan Change (extension of Ash Ave. from Burnham to C orgmercial) should bar • denied for the following reasons: . 1) "The City of Tigard has llot demonsti '°ed wi uh piny factual studies the need or cost of the ; tension, " The city needs factual data and demonstrated "public" reed to make a sound decision on an issue that will financially impact the city and its resident taxpayers with perhaps � y . as much �.s a hal: million dollars , or more. µ 2) "The idea of a Comprehen,a tv e Plan suggests that the just entire plan area should be reviewed all atonce*, j not �.st { ,:: ; a one block area. Funding. is eminent for the Downtown Revitalization. Study which has traffic as its highest r. priority* " City Council should acoellerate the stud'*s i implementation whereby the entire area can be reviewed as a whole and: future needs more d. .equately Ide ti ied 3) "Financial consideration Gk lulcbe given to the 'in nci � . dost bene�'�.t ratio o.�' this street* Also liar bility to the city and its residents may he considerable Fin-ancing methods should be addressed." if a comprehensive •a plan. change _is approved, a believe the property owner are entitled to just c•onpetsa tion b 0.t ". for their of property. Tradeoffs by thew for future site development' may not be adequate comp ei at on ) Craig 3, Reile Rail a tete and Service Division Public Utility o missioner rep esentati e' enumerated the p C s • I •e' • AAyy i t ,s with a n. a. a point two on lM railroad crassa. t this n-� h h crossings not 1000 feet apart. His position was vex' negativp a to the placement of a c;t'ossing at the proposed . - location. Even with a Com rehensive Plan Change and ex~ pensive l and ;acquisition, the road naj never be compif'..ted ,. across the railroad tracks. With this fact alone, l feel, the proposal borders on incoo npetance. •.` 5) LeRoY G. Hummel Southern Pacific Transportation,.ion Com- pa y(Puoiiic Projects ects Engineer) spoke to -6.1-,,e inadvisability R of a railroad cr(' ssing; at the proposed location due to the A close proximity of the other �uo crossings and a road`s' effect on spur traffic. He also stressed the cost invol- ved in signalizing two sets of railroad track d synchro- -L. nixing them to the other nearb7r ",-',1lroad crossings. ) 6) No parties except the City of Tigard supported this proposal at the hearing. - , `. ili In c'orclusion, it 3.s mY opinion that pertinent informatioullu, 0k of i t, was generally �.: 'e I � • • ~ �� or` thea � � was d by the P I.a:nnin.g Com- mission. " •�, mission. �.�awtur.1. "public* need and t4 favorible cost,/ benefit ratio should t. remonstrated before this Com rehensi' e Plan , moreover, ab(2ve a.l,l,, the is ppr ;� � �ved,� pity should ex en p d no public funds until a railroad c"*'ossing is authorize , ,: •. bythe Public Utility Commission. Please, read thisletter 4� 4r • into tkhe public record at the Tigard City Cc�incilMeetin.g that { , 1 has tni.s item on its agenda and include it into tho written s public record on this issue. Thank you. Sincerely, 1 I i,„„,,,tt, A P . ,. ,R.J.,„,.,,, ....,,.....„ ,-:(i/1 John A. futler PO '"--------*I These quote8 taken from the 3o Julie 1) I 'Nps #1 \\ Special Meeting Lettr to the Plannwng CommIss&oto. a w .. «.....;y. �,,. ,w... -w.m.w,+w ..c..w.• ...,...urwo... lr.. & .�,,f i'�t '? ' Awa ra '.. • ' ter`, 4'tl i.a 'ay a. F \r'"" "s1 • - \ y tom' - - _ -....... - - a / - - 1- AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION _.. ,r.,_..,--.-.:--4 ' STATE O;'OREGON,. JY =t1ticiI _moi _.>_det the q Ow ; CO'E1ITrY OF VYASHINGTON, j `Fowler-;Junior�Higti.School curb Room,10865 S{ mut,Tigard,Ori- =gun. The- bll g) L ._ :•JOHN:.=teT---.,,IllARLTNG.__. __ _ opened an co- d ntin don u t y 1981 at 8:00 p.mn.Pub i };npuioniy.. beingfirst dulyswr rti depose and that I am the publisher -._--- ..w._- "` 2 F sayb �=�,wp�ed s9�� C zEii�'�� a hearing on June--29c 198 4, 1 of The Tigard Times,a newspaper of general circulation, as defined ; ` ' ; -_. _ ,_.._ at:lt�/lrr��7�(�a'�riln ltic�'':��lro��(.��-��~ ��;;''7� �p_�_(.� - -- j COMPREHE10SI E. PLA 4- v— c - by ORS 193.010 and 193.020, published at Tig,'d, in the aforesaid county and _ 0. 1. _▪ ,1..,:.._-,--_.._-::[,,...., I rS��l.C�)��1 aJ: t b,An app fed by 4 = coag state, that the legal notice, a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was . ._ .� moi-- �^�ung the exfiensi��i��h�� s�enu��- 1 t c.€n,; Fanno c. --k to =. ,rntia published.in the entire issue of said newspaper for __t•_.._,.•_.- successive and ,..--. --a _ �� e� .#fin_ appeal of,,,the., �annxn#t n ac€�on ti�hRldirg��'n?e1. consecutive weeks in the following issu :,,1,4,,,,,,,::: . ...,-- ., i.8.r.w..�._- .,-_ ._._ 1 t. .e n'lL ti ig f',1:11tun ,-,,,,f,,,,,t311I..' ar �—�, Oat yIIy��( bb/I��}• . £ g F .�, of -:,! f p 4.0.=:`,ptf ti" t ,'1 S Y. (Signature) rv,z- rlitit t i .. ct �.z t - _ • ii 1F(� til- - - �-- 'h.- i , ,/.4.,,- ,. r_ g li_ .L L!'Y 4 yam ice..-€-,rS ski- -,. – ::-'-'-4-- - : ..:= } v i o�! e o tement1 _ ��1 Su sc-ibed and= rn°to before me is --day of..__---- .' a�.. lE __ a aify _ b - R st ._ s &; C corsieir•• r> 4g � Stab c,,'-',,,-: '�_ - '� .�Y J.�Y� -1,- s p"" s "1.____,..7 , ..„4/ - =_a+t a v �' r-- Notary Public cif Oregon ,,,,,:.- 0 r ..f.-„ i.-4 V .i.! .e...„ 5- 4:Fr;,...-- - i :- bIy CUmniishii explreS .. ...��. 19': a --...- 8 ir__________ AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION z„4 ' W-- #. ,ate F.-- ,TATE,(1F`OREGON - . . 1 �` ss, :',::::413;1_1.4...,, -' i a _ C©IT)!ITY OF SVASHINGTON, .- �� tI � r 8T 4� f+ i a�>��> ,t ovule junior Hi CI , ct JOHN W TMTJ T Roam,1088 -SW Wa1nu Ti r - .._ r..., ...�„ -_•.�._ 'ARLIN . gflAiva Tune,' 1l + , / CO PPtEHENS 7 p.FA] 4 being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the publisher .„ iSIOLaI:_CP 0i8 tl:= ,' x§ �._of The Tigard Times a newspaper .> t ei r _. ,._ g , oz general circulation, as defined Iv'c-0�A1.It �tle..g 'ISI�DTt0SAI A_ by ORS Y�2.alo193.020, '� published and P ed at Ta ash :r the ;_; _ .�f �; -�"--- � atf�igfrYPITIziltj g _,E aforesaid countyand _-_ o � _ mi i2 n action 41 h s 1 states that the legaln - _ - :_61$0-1' . - �>��. , :-. z� � . ��' "> rnotice, a printed cot _. ., p�' of evn:tih is hereto annexed,: wase: -��a .- © - t ingnoir n 2k _'9 ` -IIS r. - ,.., `:. pubiished is the entire issue of said newspaper for 1�_ ...�_ successive and _ *thei- itn a_.__ di - a t21 t #41 pian. -- {_ rcnsecutzve 4eks•in the folIowi n a s t jU le 1l ,L,8 .. i _.- r , _.� rlia _ `s ' '� ,4A;�j �an�opt ��u�. pT�I�n��►`Fri� t T. ; 't (.S't nature:' �� e t > Subs 'tii.- rand =w r to before me .� '.------7'...- -7-"- f '4.- f'--•-- .. .•.,._,.___._day of IjF'= Q i jj�]�.�j 1 ,{-s Y S i 4 i:".- , 1 1 r a _ - � '� #tet! #� + . .,-. / j ,+F � , - otary Public of•-;-,------- regon yi________-Mycommission expires_ 1 3 , at i f f - •- 3 - - s i t a i I , ...,....<wws..x.w...w.«...,n..>:,"w+,....w{k-4a_«..xL.,:s...xww,....a.w.».ak+,..,i.w..,.+r.x,.:....,sw„ ...r...+«.,...x«nn..,.x...k;.w........+..nr.,w y„.+.. ..k4..wm<.....+,.«u.+.ww✓.w,..n a«•«.ww«.....,;,ww».,,w wa..w.w ,,,r..n,. w..«,«,.«tr.«w,„+,«,ssw.,u.,.+.+....uw.+-s.w u.+..rw,w»w..aa..w.,.:a k i. ,,,,,,,,,,*,,; ;').r CI ' .filif'4F Tigr- '* ,4 1 WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON ' i. 0.. 4 I: June 16, 1981 t' Gene Ri.chm,aza 13120 SW Ash Tigard, Oregon`97223 r. i, \ Re: AppealHearing Avenue Extension Across ' . public - Ash fanno Creek .1.),.c.'-:-.1.,r ,4r.. Richman: 1, The Tigard City Councildetermined at their special meeting of June ' 151981, that the above mentioned appeal hearing would be heard 'on 1 . records. No new testimony will be received during the hearing, but a spokesperson will be`allowed to sneak regarding the issue. We !' •.I; enclose a copy of the transcript of the Planning Commission hearing of. June 2, 1981, for your use in preparing for the Council public hearing, The open the public hearCounc�.l. wi,zLl....,' _. ng for the Ash Avenue Extension i on June 22, '1981, at 8:00 P.M. At thistime however, no discussion will be heard. The Council Twill continue thepu'.i1ic hearing until. June 29th at 8:110 P.M. o•ndl will then hear the ilsue. !". If you have any questions regarding this hearing format, k,lease con- tact this office. Sincerely,r r_,_)„,. / , . ,1 • y.__. Doris Dar t;ig. City Recorder iiolir L , Etit. S i f . 12420'S.VV,MAIN P„,0+ BG '23597 TIG ,RD (OREGON 9722 P 639.4171 i, 5 h r��s rM}4rM.«rwMn.»m�Lwn.4• .«<ir.M:.YXa-+Ir(..1•..._..+F.+}.++`rt.w�Xwka+,Y•t«.araq wFMsY.e.{... X.uwMrt,rwrrar Ww+hnuM'^rL,1.+n+.a.H....++,.r,-u.,h.«,..ar..K.ayw.w.rllHwf.AY+.<f4'w+v.»r..•4.rMe+N+xpr•nn..r.»vp+ u1Pi.W u.e.Y,rnWNYl4uHwXw4Y.w.NUNMrI«r+rxr+!✓•a✓MlvM.4 WtIn W.Yysir'YM t.I'hrVW';.X ♦ryw�+wgryXr�w�at..,'.xi ....... rwr�trwi {{ •a r WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON Ii June ;16, 1981 , J. B. Eshop 10505 S.W. Barbur, Suite 303 Portland, Oregon 97219 Re: Appeal Public Rearing - Ash,Ave }ue Extension Across 5 Fano Creek Dear i'. 111r. Bis17p•� The Tigard City Canci . determined at their special meeting of June 15, 1981, that, the above mentioned appeal hearing would be heard 'on record'. No nn r testimony will be received during the hearing, but t. a spokesperson will be allowed to speak regar(iiug the issue. We enclose a copy of the trap cript of the Planning Commission, hearing Q f June 2, 1981, for your tise in preparing for "the. Council .public hearing. TheCouncil will the.o ez� u�slc hearing pp r g for the Ash Avenue Extension on 2 June �` 1981, at 8a0t�� 'P.11.: At this time h4wQve:c, no disouss,�ott • will be heard. The Council will continue the public hearing until June (�C P.M. and, will. them hear 29th at. 8, the issue. y � If youhave any questions regarding this hearing format, please con- tact tach this office. `ce. Sincerely, .°Doris City Recorder Enc. I. I 1C1 S.V41IM,AIN' P40 BOX 2� �7i��A� �OREGON 972 � "4 659, 171 I I x „-'..--N .. .v.,.....v..,..,..«.w, ..... .: ,.. a r .,. .:r.w... i...r..../...iA:.,N..r,r..1,':„w,H..r......:« .bp:...,»._..r:.u-a,.,,,.a.--•=..=:a.w.N+....«r+ry«Kn.., 'iN..,..y ,»........ ..........M.,..;n1mw�.�U..+wJA.+w:.'+;nar:i�ww:..,.:.0 re,,____ w.A Q ' CI ''q TITA'”' , . WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON fl , June 16, 1981 I , .... PatriciaatrA. Hutchison is n 8940 S.W. Edgewood ` Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: Appeal Public Hearing -- Ash Avenue Extex sion Across Fanno, Creek Dear Ms. Hutchison. The Tigard City Council determined at their special meeting of June 159 1981, that the above Mentioned appeal hearing would be heard 'on record'. No new testimony will be received during the hearing, but a spokesperson will be allciwed to speak regarding the 'issue. We copy `p of the Planning Commission hearing .. ' s of June cfore Your re preparing for the Council public 2, 1981, �` P p � _ g w hearin ' , r” open. the public beari'oa for the Ash Avenue Extension .gni Council will u on June 22 1.981 , at : :00 P.M. At this time however, no discussion ‘ will be heart . The Council will continue the public hearing until dune 29th at 8:00 P.M.. and will then hear the issueN If regarding have any questions Sega g this hearing format, please con- tact this office: Sincerely, Doris liar City Recorder b1� 1m Enos _ I Ij- ;..... 1.24' ,S,,W. (MAIN P.CI, BOX25807' T( , RO, OREGON;9722,1 H:689.41 '1 " m. � 14 1 ° BEFORE THE d = [4Oib""'F"4'ITCARD ` OREGON NOTICE OF APPEAL rile No. 1. Name; NPO #'1` c/o bene Richman °0 2. Address Street/P.O. Box) r _QR 9n1-3 i (State) (Zip Code) 3. Telephone No. ; Telephone (H) '62 C3-4786 (0 ) 238-5565 . 4. If servingas a representative of other persons, list " P their names and addresses : yTSP #1 _ A 5. What is the decision you want the City Council to review?' (Examples : denial of zone change; approval of variance. ) o f ?fanning Co mxni s s`` _ ec5i�n re�;a.rdr�.g;,_�'�sh Ave e�:Eer.�s.�on Reversala�n c� , . to Bu.rnhaxn The decision being appealed was announced by the Planning Commission on 6/2/81, (Date) 7+ On what grounds dc you claim status as a party? (See Section 18.92.020 Tigard Municipal Cdde ) NPCa #1 8. Grounds for reversal of decision. (Use additional sheets if necessary: ) Your zespottse should deal with the folloving: (a) �xglain how your interest is damaged. (b) Tder,tify anyny incorrect facts mistakenly relied on in the deci,sion or recomtendatior from which you appeal M (c) Identify any part o� the zoningbode or other law which y o . claim has beerviolated by the decision or recommendation a from which you appeal. (d) Describe what decision vou are asking the City Councilto make • 1' 1111 I.: ,g t7 A 1 rif it _ R,_ r, .01010.0 . Aw WJ�rY+ti+w-.. �wryr�rra�rw�r!" wirwwlrrM w.�rwr rNrl _ 9. Estimate the amount of titne you will need to preseut your ar3ument nt the CityCouncil. (The Council w11 schedule more than It5 minutes per side only in extraordinary circumstances. Each side will be given lengthpresentation. ) its the same of time Ifar Signed. � ��t� - •�"'� Date: , u if/ �L .t �t.,t� ;c,r1. :t .0 .� �c. :u fir. .u.f####''''''######## I.ts. �u,! .t� ##r###############$########7r####7r'7t7t�# ## �T-'r�tA7t##77j i ######7 #; 7t;r#71^7't7 ###rr'######## -.. FOR USE BY CITY , Date and time of filing* .. ! Date of Planning Commission decision: L►ai.t.. set f r Council crnridera t .on I �.. allowed dor argumexts 'lzm pex sale Entered b • • mount paid» Receipt I 'age :2 c • o'tite of Appeal rte M1 I fh Note 1 Grounds for reversal of the planning commission decision are as follows: ,I 1). The NPO document is in conflict with LCDC ,goals number & 12, Removal of policy 28 will correct the conflicts. 2). The planning commission made a predetermined, opinionated decisic:,n. facts subritted by the applicant and proponents of the deletion of t policy 28 were not listened too. 3). Findings of fact used in the staff report were in e/',,."oxo and unreliable. ( Park Board and Woelk's traffic reports.) Sufficienzt facts on which a justifiable decision could be made were not presented by the staff. 4) . There was very little discussion of the facts presented by the planning commission.' This was probably attributable to the time this issue was heard. There was insufficient rebuttal time. 5). The issue is one of traffic circulation. Staff has no reliable evidence to indicate that they,have a better t1unwritten plan" than the recommendation submitted by NPO 1. 5000 cars per day thru traffic is too many vehicles for the residential neighborhood to bear. 6). Additional facts are available on transcx pt ar!d caul be reviewed from that document. The Cityagree ) the �� Councilhould with the N��?. 1, �ecam�rtendation todelete policy28 from t document.1 Not. 2`` ' I A �. A request for a hearing tit on the recordtr from the Tune 1981 meting is 'requs�ted. 4 Providing the transcriP t is available a 5 minute summary is suff.1^lent c. it I e,*,f5,,,.,,,,Ic.,,,,,,,,7 , , ' ' ill.,'.4,;4i..0 0,W ' ''' ' Y �.. a.. _ J i • I � I , 4 A c„,,,t tit . ,;*-4-,,,r,,,. 6 (" k - •ivy 4'' 9`' , '\'.\01. * , 111411,:r1P iiili l'\ CI1YOFTI6RD June 9, 19 81 ti EL 4$01, WAS/.:11 GTO' ,IcOUNTY,OREGON t'llitAl'WMr. Gene Richman 13120 S.W. Ash Ave , Tigard, Oregon 97223 _ 1 . REFERENCE: CPR 10-81 Ash Avenue Extension Revision of NPO #1 Policy #28 Dear Mr. Richman: that the Tigard, .` their Please be advised PlanningCommission at th regular meeting of June 2 , 1981,. denied your request to delete Policy #28 from the approved NPO #1 Plan. Actions of the Planning Commission are final 'unless notification of hn appeal to the City Council is filed with the City Recorder within t n 20 days of the Planning Commission Action. J If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call this office at 639-4171. V P ging birkector ANHe an 12420 S.W„ MAIN P.O. 80X 23397 TiGAID, OP,EGON 97223 PEtt 639-41'71 • \1 ,41 I4 NOTE: Signbelow'..t�, acknowledge cored ,tions set forthfor this project and a-eturn to the City c.,. Tigard Planning Depar'tment. Failure to E.cknowledgb r _ w:,11 result"in no further action on this project with regards to issuance of Building pernit;, or engineering approN .l , Signature y'C(Property Owner) Da .� � Date 1, Signature (Applicant if different) Date, • TRANSCRIPT OF PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING .June 2 o 1.981. - ,Agenda Item 5.3 M Policy #28 of NPO #1 Plan •- Ash Avenue Fowler Junior High School. Lecture Room ti 10865 45W Walnut street .. Tigard, Oregon n , Present for this hearing: Commission: President Tepedino, Commissioners Bonn, Funk, Hayes, •• Reimer, He ^ 'on, ,Nolleas, Sneaker Staff: Planning Director Howard, Newton City staff in audience .. Prank Currie, :Public Works Director Time: Approximately 10:00 p.m. to midnight. I ' I, I I I • Tepedino: I callfor the, staff report and the recommendation on please-, " Howard: (Howard then read the staff report and.. its recoMmenda,ton. II In your packet you have received many pieces of vorrespondence whith have all been made part of the record. I have received two '•,. :, additional letters* one from Floyd H. Lissy, 1. 270 SW Ash Drive, and another one from Douglas R. Saxon, 13415 SW Village Glen Drive in Tigard. T ere was also in your packeta memo from the chief police; there vas elso in your packet the Park Board minutes in which they addressed some of these issues; and you ' have also received'a Transportation Analy eis ofExtending Ash venue, A to Hurnhan Iqoa,d in Tigard, Oregon, this was prepared by Associated Transportation zngineerix g (& planning, Inc.) Tepedino Thank you, staff. The letters that we do not have in our packets recently received -- can you character t.:,e the letters for us? Howard: They are oppoe d to the extension of Ash Avenue across Panne Creek.. Tepedino: Thank You. ,day we have the presentation p by the applicant,`please? chman,; I'm Gene Aiohmanz 15180 SW Ash Avenue. I am speaking on behalf of 11P0 1. Before begin nxr �pre�entat�onat thebeginning • oz � this meeting the President indicated that a complete transcript of this meeting--or an agenda item, I presume-..could be m ae available 04 specificuest�, At his or her owrn time and cost. Richman, see, Gan I • ask a mooed r,Aa .stionl This tatter is coming before,: council on 'June i�f und,eretancd: it. h.ot does the council, rece,Iv p set chat was discussed' here? Could I � e a c�5m Ilete D� '� request uest tha ► epedino: Aldie, can you:address that-in. ter. Words or less' HoW'ardil It all depends upon the action here touight. If you Were to uphold ,y decision to uphold policy 28 .and not rrmnove it from the I I q ' ' - , , . „r Y TRANSCRIPT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REARING: .. Policy I28 Jt NPO #1 Plan - Ash avenue` � June 2, 1981 , �. ' a Eoward: Plan, then that recommendation would go forward to the city t'founcil, (Cont.) and included in that packet would be all the material yo?..!‘ ha!,',g received, plus, the minutes of the Ilanning commission, °0"vi, obvtous;'ly, the issue is of such note that all of this testimony ,11,111, be repeated, I have no doubt, before the city cov;.nc.,t1. So if a transcript needs to be matte wire' can do that; but it }.ou do that, when you get to the council level they might dt.^.id. not '.... / ' to her, :,,; ,y other testimony except what is on the. prespnt record, a T<a'ped no: I take it the peal would, be an appeal.''from the roa�ord, rather than 4 hearing On the issue. ' This does not have toe ..P . 3twarc 7 an �� comprohsnsi v"'g'plan change.� neal has to be forwarded to. the, city ''council for, final rt:,,sol`v'e. P I unders tan me edintc. d, okay, does that►°t clarify it. for ;fou': ichm€nt Will they get a copy? .Laugttea`^*r , Tepedino. Why do you ask Such simple questions? (Nor : ?.ughtea , -, 1 oward: ;;hey will net get a transcript artless there, is ',.''.o. appealli or u lless you pay for the transcrLpt. And ,yogi can go and ask. them tb waive the fee, and have.theA prepare-it; but f i that $,you do th,a g I suggest' to gg you, that they *Ay hear thisisOte tram that transcript, and;not allow public testim(ht'. members I would like' to share with the c o ►iss�.tonmembers a abort eltcexp from their ,,prig. 7 Tigard Planning Cort ..,ission r eeting, and under; Item. 3.6 as I res.d, i-t was a comtprehonsive plan revision initiated by ,14110 44 and. I would like to quote a s'.3etion of the minutes, ".,..- 1 , Ir. 1owa'rd is 'spea ng: Since the applicant is' JPC #4- and the ,c+�,� sj,re f. repot j`� o '{ {y� `� Cants reee yty�oy� �,:i.�Y, � the +�iJ r..4J f report ka'.F,� is :alSo►�M,� the Gi�ilp+a,A��r+'�•L#�.V�S7, A S.S:5r,t.11 V�tGA�N«4:VdA M - .oward reported hit inquiry of ci :,y Counsel about vrhether this ' can be done without a vote o-f the residents' (this being i n one of the so-called *oon,v'ersi.on districts' which require, til q ;ree.:,fourths of the residents to change from. ;resi.den.tial). and counsel reported *What the 11PO di,4,!,',, they could undo.in I just wanted to share than thought with you.. That t s What tiv, are here for.. The NPO has created a docutent es c:abylish±ng ,Policy ?8, since that time the w H NPO has cutxged, times have Shamed, To clarity the action* the action reques waed in your application is the deletion o. ',Policy 28. I waAt to make that clear. It other 'Words the PO , ' does n.o want to extend Ash to nurn'h xt. NPO , .,,document consists primarily of two parts*-moi; consists .of. a narrative :and a p+oli.cy both parts should be 00A8idered jointly when,, using it. The, Policy 28, is in conflict with, the tat t .v in the Plan. deletion, of Policy will eliminate ncousis. e ,cies in the o igi al. PO 1 dooument. Izn m4 .re. ort (yI . j I r TRANSCRIPT OF k {.LNN;,NC COMM1SSIo -- Policy #28 of f20 #1 Plan - Ash Avenue gune It �• 9 1 r, • Richman: which I hope you all have had an opportunity to review, it (Cont.) enumerates five conflicts that are specific examples of incohi aistellcies in our Plan. And the narrative supports the non °'I exte s .on' of ASh. Policy 28 contradicts the narrative. The only narrative reasoning in support of the e:t ;asion c;.,, tes the addi» tonal traffic z�ne�ated by multifamilyconstruction. , I At your last meeting you changed the zoning old an A.-12 piece of property to C-3rd/PISfor the Main Street Land dlevel opment project. p proper �?e1�tior. oi Policy28 willrortid® ro er planing di.vaction for future development in keeping tune with the times.: Our changed Plan must also change. I jus: mentioned the rezoning of A-12 multifamily , to C»,�1,�'P�1, The remainingzoning �.s the A-1.2 north of Philadelphia square at t:he end of Ash Avenue. That property P Y P b encroaches u,boln, the lC !ye,r flood plain. If ire, have is be realistic the fact is that multifamily develop nent never Will be, ' constructed in. that area because of its encroaehmertt upon the p , l o l ing commission flood lama an,i cons�,st�nt- with what the ., planning -' has done iii the past. f The deletion of" Policy 28 Will encourage the use of. a•natural. b r s - buffer 'between the residential and light industrial. The Park:.. .. Board in its las, minutes atkits last meeting -which l believe you have a copy of the minutes in y6ur packet.-indicates that they do not want any streetsbisecting the park, as is currently proposed at the end of A h Avenue, The park floarA recognizes , the need to separate tT:W children senior citizenns and traffic. By deleting Plan Policy 28' it will maintain a reasonable level �, afser vice: provided by the fire, police and other public services, o '. consistent with the Citof Tigard as a whole. Our , epresentatives met with representatives of thr�3 police and fire departments, The l es;�ective representative w�.s asler;� specifically if their department would independent,,y Seek the street extension, for improved service. Their reply, ,' sollon But since the plarning staff brought it up, they wouuld sure us, it as an alternate route.. As you are aware,, it iu e#".sfter to IAr{SSr ac'tir�n. up it. a4i,CJ� to +J.�L•�t�r ML.GRU� J.; 1.: orse something' ghen. I , someone else brought A 1. would also like to sha'r'e ith you that the Tigard. ', ranspartion tudy ;Adopted 0,ctoh 9r , 1979„' under the emergency se.,Viees category, a res,Aes th1 use of O IdO14» I tm su re we ars all aware of the be :aware that it is installed in the use. Of C�PTICv4-�art�. �thrata�.d , fire department emergency vehicles, l would like to emphasize one sP, tJsqof that plan, a...nd I WoUld like te hnet e from that '. T rsport t.b t ,Whet this system.. r PtIGO , ,s installed in late - , 19?9 or early l98O.; it Will establish 99W ao the major emergency corgi id`r In the Tigard area, Atia greatly mpro',n the fire depart merit x s r osponse time particularly during peak. hours. . P OP PLANNING COMMISSION HRA�R NG Policy TRANSCRIPT of NPO #1 Plan - Ash Avenu® June 2, ; 98l Ric: ;xan: The deletion of Policy 28 will protect the residential character (rant.) of the neighborhood. It will.insure the integrity < and safety. when I speak of the neighborhood, I Ireak of the entire NP0 residential' neighborhood�---not the Ash Avenue Neighborhood. The through strati+,,' fe•ram what is propose, ,`by the city.—.from Lommeroial through to ViciDonald-, laecauseyon a are look„ng at.two links proposed ' by thr, city that would create a through street from McDonald �yry down to Commercial. That through street we have gone out and done our homework, and talked to people in the community and outside of the cozmunity. . We have talked to people residing on Bull Mountain. They said they would love a way to get from their house to commute to work in Portland. Now thatts the way to ruin a neighborhood, by putting a street through. I d rna t think th s city staff has adreressed the problem of the safety factor. I mentioned childrr,n, senior citizens, bicycle- foot traffic, arld in the park, /nd througb traffic. The extension of Ash Avenue wall' not .,olve the problem of congestion r of Pacific Highway, bit will merely 1,l4reate another traffio problem on Ash Avenue. The deletion of xolicy 28 will provide a more rr. consistent framework for future platningt, goads will not inter- sect ntersect natural buffers, nor W .11l public services be adversely affected. The safety, character and re:siential character at the iWPO` 01, neighborhood will bo preserved. Think you. Tep�txnl » Thank you, sir. Are there aAy parties �shingto s ak in favor of this proposal? In favor? Sir R+ in: qtr. Pr..es;$dent, fellow Commissioners: may name 4,s Pf r,.1 Edin, and I live at 13110 SW Ash Drive. l am here il l s eve a n:g representing a considerable number of the residents of Avenue. The neigh bor}houd has requested to pre cent our views in a �` �, d several of us professional manner without a lot of emotion and without repeating the same ponts endlessly. With this in mind we have ,hosen rave Sosd Jeff Graham and myself toak. Our presentation consists of a general. Presentation of finding' and uestions, a discussion of traffic issues, and, a refutation of somef staff i s opinions. We have done what we feel is our homework,...,*. we have talked to staff A ,ie have talked to the Main Street Land Development, we have a .xked to their architects we have talked to their traffic engineers we :have talked to mr. Woelk -we fool that we u �r addressed It as Well as can as laymen. e would like to limit our presentation to apPreximately 20 to 22 minutes":. - that's what we Lie,ye in mind. We Will do out; beat to keep to that. i. o e t st that each. o3 ou, has With �.curd:,to the neighborhood w r visited the areaand you ate familiar with. Ash Avenue---its present traffic level and physical limitations on carrying high volumes ( - (, '1 r 6'i is yi TRANSCRIPT OP PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING Polic r #28 of Nle #1 Plan - Ash Avenue Ju.11e 8, 1981 • Bdirt: of traffic. 1"mao street presently carries approximately 1,000 cars tont.) per day, and. in the interests o+ being fair and objective, we would acceptup to 1500 cars per day, and I might note that the 1500 car figure is one trz\ffic engineers, generally use r-',ir.W Buttke uses it -as far as being an upPer limit on a residential. street. The neighborhood interest inmatter is not merely whether this a roadway is built across Fanno Creek, but instead is whether a roadway will develop traffic levels that are in excess of the 1,00 car level. Vie:believe that the extension of Ash Avenue to Burnham and Johnson to Ash will open up the neighborhood to th;•oA;gh. traf fig and e eate traffic levels fax in excess of what :Ash Avenue can physically`,.hand":e, and what any residential area can be expected to accept. The current XPO 1 Plan designates Ash Avenue e as a collector street from Burnham to Hill--that's just the bottom tisection.-and has, it as a local street from Hill all the way up to 4 McDonald. The public works director has sub rLitted a master street plan to the city co nci1 which creates a new designation called a minor collector, and this p• "La . shows Ash Avenue used as a minor collector front Burnham to Mclwonald'-t.akk5ng it all the way. It should be noted that that .utter street plan has not been adopted by the council at this time _ Also in theStri Tigard Safety`Study of October, 1979, Ash Avenue is classified as a local street rather than a cos.lector. I bring these up becaus( -thea= designations, 'ire feel, are Lmportant in terms of looking at the capacity of that street. Ash Avenue has 50 feet of right-.aft-way and 32 feet of pavement. The NPO l Plan states that a collector street is 1c be 60 feet of right-of-way and /1.4 'feet of pavement. Local streets are to have 50 to 60 feet of right.of-way, 32 to 36 feet of pavemer:' The new minor co\lec tor standards as submitted to the city covhcil consists, of 60 feet of right-ofi-ways and 1.0 to 1+4 of paving. And the Stra.ns report states that for ,local street the ri.,ght..ref»war is to be 50 feet ant the pavement to ie 34 feet itb Ash Av4nue having the minimum right-of-way and barely enough paving for a local street, how can anyone seriously advocate changing :tts use to a collector? In our opinion the physical li �t�t�,.'ns of Ash Avenue are being ignored bythe city staff and its consultant*. In'addition to ° . p , wte havesome, �.he �:ss�.e o�,: hys�.t;»al. .imitat�.�►ns serious questions regarding the volume of tras"rio that the neigh boyhood will have to deal with. Since 1974* planning decisions rrelate4 to the projected, traffic volumes within the NPO 1 and the do is*n area have been b ti upon Carl Tiuti;iv,a t a traffic stud that is dated Beeembor, 26, 1973, poet recently the public works directors master street plan. and .MrA Woelkts own JObnebn ,Street II TRAITSCPIPT ,OF PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING Policy #28 of NPO #1 Plan - Ash Avenue June 2, 1981 Edin: extension study dated just three weeks ago, May 5, have accepted (Cont.) Mr. Buttke4s project;,ons as reliable. Since the traffic volumes of Mr. Buttke's study will not support the staff's wishes to extend the street, they ,have within the last three weeks decided, that Mr. Buttke l s projections are no longer valid. A comparison of Mr. i Or lb•e reports which you have in your packet with 5 oJ I Buttket`s study shows a substantial reduction with respect to traffic levels. The reason this is so is because aai+ of the basic .assumptions are not comparable. d'e would encourage you to ask the following questions that vie have asked: (1) Whydid Mr = Woelk choose to project his study only to 1985, when Mr. Buttke projected .his volumes to full:. development? (2) Why did Mr. Woelk choose to ignore the extension of Hill Street when Mr. Buttke included 'the Hill Street development in his numbers, and the NPO is on record of encouraging Hill Street to be extended? (m.,) Why dice Mr. Woelk igno) the extension x of Ash Avenue to Commercial and to Scoffins when the ,staff is pushing so hard to have this connection accepted?, , ? We'd like to ask the question, Who decided to have the report cover a definite time period and a lesser:°number of streets? Was it done to take the Projected traffic levels what the staff,Y.u.' es them to be? When Mr, Woelkt s own admission When talking to 31 w to have used the full development time period and the extension i of Hill Street would have produced much higher traffic volumes? We have talked to Cart Buttke r e ardin :Mr. Woeik.is approac,hl , and he made the following observations; When planning a street system a minimum forecast shouldbe for 20 years or for full development;, whichever occurs f rst. Secondltr, you don't design the neighborhood :or a city traffic pattern for a 3i, y.ea,r period. To Violate these principles will result'-n an outdated, under- desizne4 street system with more tr ;:fic.-than. you anticipate. We would encourage you to reject Mr& Woelkt s report on the basis that it fails to incorporate all the, necessary ingredients that. you need to make an intelligent decision., Our, next speaker will be Mr. Swent old,, who will address some of '{ the more pertinent. engineering ga,neerng. aspects concerning this. Thank you. Tepedino: Thi you sir. S ron o, d 4 commissianers, my name it Bays n old . I reside at lJlko SW a ' Ash Avenue. titte.... "Bdtn has indicated the tr,.ffic, volutes, generated 4 by the proposed emtensien exceeds the deli ed oapac ty of . 8h Avenue. phis isnoted in every traffic st.',dy to dates including Ass ooiatcd ` an,bportat,.en inginoerin and Plenniuge s latest effb 't TRANSCRIPT OF PLAN t 1 ' IN G CO.MMTS,SI OIC, HEARING Policy #28 of NPO #1 Plan - Ash Avenue June 2, 1981 Swenwold: All the Tigard traffic studies since 1973 .kf«';ve used the traffic (Cont./ study by Carl BUttke dated December, 1973 as a base. CH2M. Hi l has used it extensively in preparing reports for Main. Street Development. Frank Currie, the city engineer, refers to Carl. Buttke's study in the 1981 comprehensive street plan. Assoc . ated Transportation Engineering & Planning refers to Carl Buttke in both of their May, 1981, transportation. studiee. Carl Buttke ro jected traffic volumes on Ash Avenue to beper projected �SnC� vehicles day if Ash Avenue is completed from Burnam to, 100th. These Projections are .an alternative for those adopted by the NPO: (1) Alternative No. 6 of Buttke's report analyzes the connection of Johnson Street to Ash Avenue without the extension' of Fish Avenue to .Burnham Street. He projected a volume of 3300 vehicles per day on this connector, and 5,000 vehicles per day on the lower end of Ash Avenue. At NPO l meeting on April 150 1981, the planning staff proposed that an Ash Avenue.,Ma .0 Street connection and the extension of Ash ;Avenue across Fanno Creek be condition for development of Main Street Development. Planning Director Howard further stated that Ash Avenue `bs extended to SW Burnham soon after after the proposed development is completed. At that meeting Wayne Icittelson and Bob Allen of the engineering firm of CH2M_Hill Northwest ine,icated the traffic volume on Ash Avenue would be 5,000 to 5,000 vehicles per day if these proposed street connec- tions Mere made. Associated Transportation Engineering & plannin is report of May 9 y 1981, prop?ec to traffic volumes on Ash Avenue of 1900 trips per day. This exceeds the maximum acceptable limit by over 23, per cent.. HoWever the large disparity between Buttkees findings and A'TBPa s report can be attributed to seveal things: First, Mr. Buttke assumes foildevelopment, or 1990 conditions. ATgP':' only projects 34, yearto 1983. Buttke analyZd Ash Avenue Vith Rill Street extended to Omar , AtTf? did not. A,' BP assumes that Hall Boulevard and :McDonald Streets will be improved to arterial L street standards. theWithout �mrovement of both Hall Boulevard and Merna1d traffic will inc.reame on Ash Avenue. improvements' to Hall boulevard: are ranked :N'o.. 6 mnd. 7 by Stram, Bngineers in their Traffic Safety Study. , However it isnlit listed among the 24 priority streets to be improved in the Tigard comprehensive street plan of 1981. Therefore We must assume that Hall Boulevard will not be improved in the near ,.futur} The severe constraints on the scope of they std ' will by" ,ATB � ll cans$ their report to be of little value to judge the longterm effects of the extension Of Ash Avenue* As treViously noted,. Ash Avenue cannot possibly handle these projected traffic volumes. These proposals 'Would promote Ash Avenue as a bypass to other areas Of the city. vo umes Of 5 to 6 thousand vehicles per day are not generated in, the Ash Avenue neighborhood.* rarric studies it t TRANSCRIPT OF PLANNING COMMISSION HBARING , Policy 028 of NPO 01 Plan -, Ash Ave4ue June 2, 1981 , Swenwold: other areas with the same characteristics have found that through (Cont.) traffic bypassing congestion on nearby arterial roads and; inter • Ilit sections is usually caused because of .high residential traffic volume. This is documented by D. C. Bug;bee, "The Effects of Traffic Flow on Residential Property Values,".6ourtal of American 11 Association, January, 1980. This practice is also documented in a study by Dr. Philipos ?17 entit1e0 "Non-local Traffic in a Residential Neighborhooc2.o ;Gari: Buttke ;also addresses `, this Problem in his report w ren he said, 1" The The preservation of neighborhood streets is dependent on the efficient operation of I° the surrounding arterial L'trreet system, When the arterial streets t become congested, motorists usually seek alternatives through residential neighboi hoods.0 The Tigard comprehensive street plan of 1981, recently completed by Frank Currie,' "As Pacific Highway says:y g y becomcts more congested and ultimately reaches capacity, the need for an alternative route to bypass the congestion will be looked for by motorists passing through Tigard, as well as those living in the newly developed areas around Durham Road. As a result you can and wiT1 see an increasing number of motorists developing alternate routes of through travel." The traffic volume on Ash Avenue in the city plann$.ng staff's proposed connections would approach the traffic v 1me now on , some sections of Nll Boulevard and SW Main Street. The generally accepted upper limit for traffic on a .local. n: ,ghborhood, street is lin vehicles per day. All the staff's proposals substantially . 1 ezced thkt,t accepted standard, some by as much, as four times t��he accepted volame. The concept of routing through traffic into a neighborhood street is in conflict with generally accepted engin- e sring rat ,.� . It also violates NPO 1 Policy No , .2 , P tir�.G l's, ',1'''!,�' fet V s examine bztefl the consequences of high traffic volumes 4 , on a residential deighborhood pPe and Pearson & Liddel ,n their study 'Livegble t'rban Streets-—Managing Auto Traffic in r ,, Neighborhoods": 'When the high. traffic volume lowers social Vinteraction, wt icn in turn lead to a reduction of neighborhood t, ol'esion and, ultiate :yY in a decline in homeowners° incentive to t maintain theirF .residences. Nigh traffic levels are also associated .1 with rapid population turnoverx, and with. encouraging change of ` I lands y�ul use from residential to cozercia1 i. The volume and speed of M, traffic threatens safety .� f ye 93 per a �• the iM�K+V'.� of residents. � }�y, y�.yy„fir µ� �", t�t',�n,t� V f ou,t� � p door �.ct .vibes take place in, the .streets,; alleys fent yards` ; .. porches and ,sidewalks ''ather than in a park, 4 per Oerat of child auto accidents hipper within one-half mile of home, and in over 70 per cont of these the child is the cause of the accident because heed Skills to react to, or she has not yet developed p ' ' r'a, fit ov` mo t.t: w .. Y'f • TRANSCRIPT OF PLANNIN COMMISSIONAlARING , policy #28 of NPO #1 Plan - Ash Avenue June 2, 1981 Swenwoldt The city planning staff has told us at i PO l meetings that con (Wont.) struction of Ash Avenue crossing Fano ,',leek is merely a matter of dropping a couple of culverts in thi direek and; covering them with dirt. The engineering firm of is currently doing , a shady 04 the Faun() Creek drainage sstem for the City of Tigard. Thb't.,r report on the drainage system t ecommends that all future structures over Fanno Creek be desi4;ied to accommodate 5200 cubic, feet per second. This requires a br;:dge 90 feet long and, 15 feet high--not two culverts. If this brige were to be constrac ted to collector street standerds c t' 44 fQt in width, the bridge would cyst a minimum of $1; '11ANSORIPT OF PLANNING GOMMISSION HEARING policy #28 of NPO #1 P,. .n .. Ash Avenue June 2, 1981 4 Swenwold: If good traffic circulation is defintld as providing additional ; (cont.) arterials to and from downtown, then another route should be ►,used because) Ash Avenue cannot support arterial traffic volumes. The AT1iPs report documents (the) only effective vo ume control method as identifying the source of the problem and stopping it at that point. This can be done very effectively at this time for Ash Avenue by simply adt)pting NPO l comprehensive p% n amend- ment which•-terminates Ash Avenue at the south edze of the proposed Park* Tepedino: Thank you, sir. Any other parties Wishing to speak in favor of this proposal? Graham: Good evening. my tic. ie is Jeff Graham, and I reside at 13290 SW Ath ]rive. In representing over 150 resident on and around Ash Avenue, we have thus far outlined in a responsible manner many reasons why you should accept and endorse N'3ts request this evening. In addition to the points alreadymadewith regard to the staff report, We would make the following observations. First of all, a general observation. The report consists of numerous statements, but few facts or specifics} It offers no justification for the staff's opinions. Via) Under the Finding of tact No. 3, it is stated that the ORB Group park Solan has been preliminarily approved by the Park Board and city council. "Ash Avenue is important for access to the park.0 On Mach, 28 the Park Board realized what impact ' the street would actually have on the park and voted to recommnd against the extension of Ash Avenue across the park. Under finding of Fact No. 8 it is stated that the, police department supports the elctension, of Aah Avenue across. Fenno Creek. ... lIn reality,e t , member of NPO Chris McBat1t, spent an hour discussing the I) extension with Chief Adats and Lieutenant Jennings. Atthat time ti+ y told her thatWhile they certainly would use the street such an extension was not particularly important to them. N'o't, in a letteri to city staff,, Thef Adams s tronglY suppo 4';s the extensi4 n,. Thistype of contradiction should be considered in evaluaLing hisul't'imate recommendation. Consider:, ' here do the chiefs s nutters come from? Thee' are higher than Woelkos and lower than Buttke t s There has been no claim, that he is a qualified traffic engineer. I would also question what per+;entag a 041. total calls are handled by cars on patrol, and also bow many calls are handled in this area as a •,;otai, Under the Finding Ot Pact Na 1it ie indicated that the staff intends Lo ,resolve the issue of a7ohnso Street_to Ash Aven'de through the Planning 1eview process* feel that the issue of �1G TRAN6CRIPT OF TIGARD PLANING CONI4ISSION HEARING Policy #28 of NPO #1 Plan Ash Avenue June 2, 198 i Graham: Johnson to Ash is as important to the traffic im a,.t question as (Cont.) ould request tb t you address 3s the Ash Avenue extension. We w both issues, jfst as NPU #1 and the Park:_Board has. Under Conc1usid°rnary .FindiAgs No. 1, staff states that there e is Ufa demand" for better circulatiokx, and there is a ndtd to increase circulation from the neighborhood to downtown. What 's the basis p4 for this conclusion, as, we can find go one else Who demands tt? under Conclusionary }'finding of Fact No. 3, staff calls us '"iso- �<< lati�nists�', "irrational'l.a while staff is deemed to be ovrea1i;.stic s{ This evening we have presented facts which ;read to justified op:tnions. This is far from irrational. We would ask your the commissioners, after hearing our presentation, to :onsider it on its merits, based on facts and evidence in the recd od. The staff ra ort and testimony by public works department fails to give evidence of cost of construction for the extension, or any ) relationship of those costs to the benefits received. I think we can only assume that this lack of benefit justification is the result of there being iio such justification. I encourage the planning commit;sion to require,. staff to provide specific -justifi.- cation, so that you and city councilcan make an educatedand intelligent des Lsion on the matter. Furthermore, if we accept Mr. Woelk s traffic volumes as the maximum levels that will travel on Ash , vent.ie, how is the extension ,justified in terms of cost benefit? The volumes presented by N . Woelk this evening tell us that there will be an increas of approximately 1200 cars per day in the intersection of Ash and Frewing, and only 2,640 cars Per day on Ash between Hill and II aohnson. It is difficult to believe that; there is enough benefit justification with this projectlo cost to our neighborhood. Oh, yes; staff states, "The developer will be the ne who will pay for it, not the City's residents." however we all know that any costs of development will ultimately be passed on to those who patro:niZe the stores in terms of increass:d costs of goods that ) they purchase. On the other hand, if we are more realistic and plan for the future .,,:nd 4ontt accept the volumes presented by r, WOG:Litt. and " 01y on Mr' . Buttkeo s volumes which project traffict full development farit excess of 3,000 cars per day, We have a real problem,;; since the traffic far exceeds the volume of traffic that neighborhood streets'should :handl a. Also in the original tWd 1 document witch the. Cityof ' and g g has beenfollowing for some eight years new, the section ion on street designation dictat ie that Ash Avenue shall be a Loral street with no more. than 1900' cars per day traveing on it, The public Works, department in a. recen: .proposa , to city' cost neil redssigna'tea Ash Avenue as a, minor collector, 'parrying, up II ( t, ! 4 A es. " .� i' HANNSCRTr Or TIG.iW ;LANNING COMMISSION HEARING Policy #l!8 of N. O #1 Plan Ash Avenue June a, 1 z III Graham: to 3 000 cars per day. City staff and public works department (Cont.) have obviously seen a need to solve a problem which would be created by the increased traffic caused by the. e.ttensio . of Ash IIIavenue--not through good engineering, but by la prg a:grthe:street designation from local to minor collector. By m re17- changing A. the classification of a street is a way to solvea'seriouss problem .,,. in a residential area, but not a, very sound one, The eliminate on of Policy 28 will also rid us of a serious conflict within the co reben.s ,ve plan `where it concerns ,itself v'ith traffic on and around Ash Avenue. Policy N'o, 27 of the plan Wr ic,h staff bases,its position on, simply states t,hatf.-and I quote-- , . oThe uote-- oThe movement of through traffic should be restricted within. the 4 residential, portion of the nei.,hbo :hood. Furthermore, the ' �r 40 narrative goes on to conclusively state that all streetsin a residential area are to be of a. lolocalstreet type. And it Ash . , becomes a collector, a contradiction occurs within the plan, N which violates Goal 2, Part 1, Paragraph 3 of the Oregon LCDC Goals and Guide ines document, which should be adhered to. Fu st,'y, I will address the problem of safety on Ash. It is a' residential area, and those who live around it use it for travel as well as the children use it for play. If the volt :t -4 projected become a reality, we can expect severe traffic c probl+e rs ,and:.. safety problems. Total volume per day is a difficult number to relate •(to) so I have attempted to display it in more understand: ble terms. Common engineering guidelines-..and you can ask any tine of the engineers here this evening--tell us approximately 80 per cent of a days traffic travels between the hours of 7 o'clock in the morning and 7 o'clock in the evening. dust some simple math will tel us that within that 12 'hour Period, a: daily volume of` ' even 2. 1#8`k oars yield at average of one car every 2P, second for;. that _a-hour period. No pers6n or engineering report has ever refuted M . Buttke+s report fog full development. If those volumes become a ri�eality-wand. they will when we have full develop- ment in the area-:,,the pr je ted Volume will between, a500 and 5500 cars per day., .This mean.t, that the'people and. children who use Ash Avenue ,will experience on the average onecar every 21 secon64 to onecar every 10 seconds,*-tor 12 solid hours. In; conclusion I submit that we have presented you wit4 deo:inl';,e facts giving you the tools to make decision in support o1 t%0 regaest of 1. We would hope tht you Moulddonothing s.., art of totally_endorsing the elimitatiOU Of Policy. Vb. 28. You, Ste. Anyother parties wiebbxn to speak in favor of e ed � . � Thank, o this proposal/ Those in favor' es, sir. ,�y riyy.��{{ Phil yy�y�y/��4 �i wy 64th y�y k, 2y� y�{1� B011E1 /1 k 1 Beneot,' at 10,59 ,D+ iVe. I have priWbaUl the Largest piece of property abutting Ash street that i , iuvolved I.' . J � I ' TRAM, OJIP T OF TIGARD, PLANNING,COMMISSION REARING . Policy #28 of NPO #1 Plan - Ash Avenue June 2, 1981 T Benson; in this projeot. I currently am in the process of selling part (Cont.) of this property to N n Street Development. The reason for the sale of this -- l didn't want to see the traffic Problems created on Ash Street by a large multifamily development. In working out ,r, the sale, it was brought out that traffic could, go back to Main Street and not through Ash Street. In attending r an;r NPO meetings one ,of the main concerns was traffic from a multifamily development. That is why I chose to sell part of that parcel of land. Z put my money where my mouth is, just like all the neighbors in the neighborhood where I purchased 'that, property. We da 't want all these cars from the shopping center-.proposed shopping center --going up and down Ash Street. I am putting a lot, of money into four duplexes, hopefully, that are going to front Ash 6tree . It is going to be pretty tough to rent those or sell them as condomi .uxs , f we've got the traffic flows that these fellows are projecting--and I believe that they are real. I put my .money on the line..-they put their money on the line--» we bought that as a residential neighborhood and so did they. I think this ought to be considered- Tepedino: Thank You, Mr. 3enson. Any other parties wishing to spew in .t favor of this proposal? Yes, malam. °,/, Thomas: Doreen Thomas, 13165 SW Ash Avenue, resident there for the past six years. , It kind of embarrasses me to read the� t��caff�•.c circulation studies by mr, Bunke and the transportation anaiYses of Nay a and May 29 of Vliro woelk and listening to my fellow neighbor,. There was one ,„ thing 'definitely miss ing in the data presented in the reports, and that is that there isn't, any act'%a : or factual need for the accessib .',3 ty to Ash Avenue. . Carl, Buttkee s traffic circulation re��t ct dated December 26, 1973, it,eas, done on the assumption that other Ileighborheeds Were using Yrew ,ng Street and Ash Avenue ne g "bor hood as shortcuts to get to Pan fic Aighway« In the mti`,mths of October and November, 1973, 'ti'e made actual car counts, ca this is, of the information I have4 gathered, the only actual ezph»rl Cental data other that rorrest Greer's (.) counts for his comprehensive street plat and maintenance that is before the city planning staff now for approval is a' Along with making the actual ear count Of khat Went up and down! the street, he also recorded the license plates of the Vehicles, Then §he sought out the ownersso he could ascertain the origin o f the traffic through the area. s s very good, although , the thing' mie ing from this report is that hhe ascertained the origin, but not their destination* $0 it was- made npPa ent to Myself that even though there was traffic ,flew or 100 tars a day ) , Ta.A:N'$CRIPT OF TIGARD PS.` NTNG COMK SS13N' `.HEARING Poli y #28 of NPO #1 Plan w Ash Avenue * dune 2, 1.981;, Thanas. along Frewingat that t. te,- 900 running betWeen Ash. Av();:ue and (Cont.) Pacific Highway, .he finally found there were 85 from a nb 7.ghbor hood south of Fswng, south`'of McDonald, which is approximately 5 per cent that he d d not really know where they were gong or that they really had an avid desire to go down Ash Avenue aZd into the City of Tigard on Main Strs'v. S'ix hundred cars per da;> , started and ended their trips on Ash Avenue north,of Frewing, using Frewing to get to the Pacific Highway,- e found, that out-- bat again he didn't find out where their destination wasp_ la doing traffic studies it seems to me that what is important is the site of origin, the final destination, and the route taken to get there So far in the studies, this hasn't been made clear, for actually it cancels it to final destination, and therefore the need for accessibility of Ash Avenue to get to downtown Tigard. Ho did propose on page 1119'7 p , thing of h�.6 1�'r re ort a called a trip generation computation where he ftnall7 decided to change, with the aid of several studies--a Portland,Vancouver study, the ' Institute of Traffic Fng .veers' study s id other State Highway Department studies,..-that he could be ps:atty well assured that 20 per cent of the flow of traffic would be in the internal area. - F By that, being internal would be within the neighborhood, going to downtown or close to it. If 20 per cent of the daily total. • vehicle trips would be internal, that would have to be divided. three ways. About 7 per cent of that, or 62, would be going ' I downtown. ExPanding on this and coming up to date because of the ° more recent transportation analyses--and I want to make a differ- entiation ifferentiation between transportation analyses and Mr. Duttkets actual, study,.; Mr. Huttke actually studied and counted cars and recorded licenses, got origins. Transpo'tation analyses simply took all previous material anl put it into another report, so this isn't an actual count for May 29, 1981. Butt e s xatexialand three other sources, Mr. Woelk presented a directional distribution of trips in his figure, which' on your May 29 , 1981. - port which shows that...'>tt hen you put , it in terms of 2 $ because 4t • 9 per cent of the traffic volume in. the Tigard area, and he has his arrows pointing north att northeast -23 per cent going north,, 26 per cent northeast a r cent going northwest, with only oris-»third or 19 per cent total south of Ash Avenue and/or Frewing Street. That `as broken down mn per cent southwest and. 16 per cent south, of Tigard,, So using the 20 per ceh.t traffic volume for internal traffic volute as outlined in nutt 'eke report, this would leave this internal traffic dor downtown Eros the south end of Ma1n. Street, Tigard,, aP:rox-» imate Ly 103 per cent of Tigard'stotal traffic volume that Would be expected to go` to downtown Tigard., Presently this traffic a being split between the s.rtoria1s--Pacific Righway and, Rat . B' 'ulevar .. , r TRA1,$014,IPT or TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION 1 ARINCr Polk r# 28 ofNPO #1 Plan - Ash Avenue June, t , 1981, ' ''..,Thomas* One of the questions I haysh l's that if' given the option, :how much '. (Cont.) of this traffic would then ,gt down Ash Avenue into downtown Tigard? Using the present traffic data and the projections, a need for a . valve or opening into the downtown core area from south Of M�?onad does4,0t seem to exist, or has not been jus,ified with the present data. 411d traffic analyses ar,,id counts. Coming the other direction, using Forrest Greeri s car count. figures w for 1980, where he actually counted the traffic going first one direction on Main Street from Rurnhm to Pacific Highway to the post office, :he eam= upwith 3,420 a nay. Going from Main street a bridge to Pacific Highways th�o pp oosite d. ,h .rection, e counted 1.,2?O per day. Thisg ivess a total count on Main street, then, of 7,690 per day. Main Street is listed in his comprehensive' street development and maintenance program report, page 2--which is in rough draft at present--lists the Main Street as a major collector, anti -a'major col?ectu " is one that is defined as being able to accommodate 10,000 care per day. Right isnot, then, there is still a little buffer there, but as ' ru ,know it is pretty congested at certain times in the ever ng on Main Street and Tigard, just trying to get aecriss ` Lity to Pacific Highway. N'oi, grs;z ��,ed that the proposed development on, the south end of MM�ain Street is goinc to ad to this and increase this,, thin still doestn 't g~.re a need for a valve going out, ,or an opening, onto ,Ash Avenue' when they still `lave other openings off Ma.r; Street b example, Commeral and Burnham hick is also listed as Another major collector' capable of accommodating 10,004 cats. The 1979' count gave 'Burnham traffic 34004 oars ,per days There is still spade and room to go off' ort those other openings from - Main; 'Street in Tigard. The extension' of Ash, Avenue, then, is not l a so ►.cation to the .lain Street traffic congestion,; it thatis what . it is intended for. And, :Mr. 'Woelkts transportation analysis of Ash Avenue being extended to turnhati which ,,e submitted Say 294 181t would like to agr . second concl . atement, ee with hit 'union st and that is that The ro osed development will impact the . urM p P p r)unding arterial,and collector street system wit::: or without. the, + ^ , extension of. Johnson: Street or Ash AIenue00 That is one,. of M ''S oe1k's conclusions So it doesn't seem, to matter about she' ',traffic impaction whether, or ;not Ash Avenue goes through ,or, not* y question is, teen,' on this issue, WWlt'y extend Ash At(11ANtAde, it it isn't going tor Make- any difference there with the the,' impaction. on. Halt, Street? And the ,other queticr,n I would like to pose is that, , Has there been factual tr actual ,data. showing that people thtrt ' aro ttaltoling in the :south of Tigard: actually 'pant to or intik d to go to 04Atown Tigard 1 support. tPC�'s requoot, for the deletion .o Polity r 8 f __ .' ., .....41,,,....I _ / TRANSCRIPT OP .T,IGARD PLANNING COMMISSION H.EARIN, Polic t #28 of /IPo #1 Plan w Ash Avenue JUne 2, 1981 Teped�no: Thar, you, r :dam o An other � 1. y par'ties �ris,h.�ng to speak in favor r�:., of this proposal.? In favor? Are there any parties wishing to speak in opposition to this .proposal? Those against? Nov is an, �! opportunityfor any cross-examination and rebuttal on the test: -'' many presented tonight--is there any of that? Cx'os•examination?' Waeik: Mr. chairman:, T guess ,I am'in opposition as fart as staff is concerned. , Tepedino: e , sire woelkt Ir I may, I would like to bring this over, and use the overhead. My name is bice Woelk. I was hired by city staff to do a review of the 1.coposed development and the extensions of Ash Avenue and . Johnson Streets'. I am a managing partner ih the firm, Associated' p g gMy dregs is 5 SW adnel►ake Oswego.ianxin n Inc. ac o x the scope of Tour work--and I will try to address the audience as Well--the purpose of this report and the scope of our 0 work was outlined to assess tho traffic impact of \.he proposed street in the project, namely Johnson Avenue to Ash Avenue and Ash Avenue to Burnham nam Roadproposed _y.. Y , and the development impact on the surrounding street 'system and the downtori, street system. There ere several concerns that have been raised this evening, ening, and I would like to address several of them at this point. No. 1, this traffic report is based on same assumptions and those assumptions are outlined and: listed in my report, except for to which isisthat the City of Tigard will not ex service , the: study area within the study time� frames �Tha.�t�"�e�,ngbecaus6 ( " time, the developabl'' area cannot be developed because at of�the� o fsewers. �� lack if s�wers were extended during the timethe study is for, then it would increase the traffic volume and therefore the' figures would be significantly U higher -han I predictedd No. � 2 itis' a. comparison between cap. re: oM r4r re,port and Mr. �'�t tke s p That r s sort of _comparing apples and oranges as far as r the actual reports are concerned. In Mr. buttke*s 1973 report he does newt ad4ress .a certain, time frame for his figures e Ata 3 �+oosible acres only states at. full development O� the 3�� .� develop able Within the projet t areae The project time. y riod of our report coincides with the development of the i gin street project all. reliable data data that can be found from the CR2M-Hill red carts et Develo tent, and. also the k �,985 ��ClE� projections Oa the Main .�r� p' �, . done by the Oregon DepartMen,t of T.raneportation. 00 therefore, L I our report is only to address the impact t" that short time "peri,od.. I is r.. TRANSCRIPT OF TIGARD PLANNING C01,%XSSION REARING , Polic; #28 o f NT° #1 Plan -• Ash Avenue dune 2, 198 : i.a. the ,u over full Woelk�. The report' does not attempt to say �.i�et.��.r or not '� r (Cont.) developable time frame that the ircul.tion, patterns will remain constant. Mr 6 Buttke does an excellent job of forecasting full deve :;pment, and we will not ad:r to :hat. N'o. 3, the only question was z e.;i about the alternatives coni- '� sidered. Bealcall r the on`.„1 alternatives considered were the extension of Johnson Street to Ash, and Ash Street to Burnham Road. This was done b4ccau�e in the ae; NB) neighborhood plan itself itrecognizes the fact that 1 :.11 Street should be, and probab .y ,�� . _ . ..�.4 a ,. Street �! ��.1�.,be, connected. M . .�.. p t for x.11 dered Rill Street out it is our con and can��. �, � Y � .�evela menred opinion that � side Street Will n.it, be built within the tile frame to l985. Because it will on.l.y be developed by the developMent built in that area, Until s4twors are developed in that area it will not be built,S so during the time frame it wasn't consdered; therefore It. not a residential street and as :d ntial consideredsuch. d is �. Before I continual would like to say that with any traffic circulation plat or : tk-„dy, the hardest part in develo,Ping a , circulation plan or study is determining that is best for all for our re ort was to prcvide those concerned. The basic promise repor..,;..,,, the beet circulation system from an ng 4a.eerirg standpoint. The basics for the determ.na ion' of vmatis best in the neighbor— hood is a decision for tr'hi ccanmission and council not our r .µ •�.� Theplans and, recomtr e ,dations foundin our report ►• ��.�G.I�a1..t 0 � � r ` are � - �, based on.' current traffic en,yineering principles and practices, and. therefore ntuet be constdered as factual nature only* We do not- Intend nor pretend to try to got into the decisions nae by the oo ,ssion and c runc'xlb We only provide information as presented. B7,ez�cally will try to go thr ough this Jn a very manner. . (go set up the overhead.) Ag l”, I would like to reiterate the ;act that the basic premisefor 4 tbis report ;gas to a 'c:-drt in the traffic ii pant on certain alternatives on the neighbcr*z cid;or the surroundt ig neighborhood„ but also on the downtown portion of Tigard as well., This rert addresses only the ette.nsion. of 'Ohnson Street to fiLsb ani. Ash to Turnhan Roa.i. That was the scope of our works �y1' ay^n� that as Lh_i scLLope{�of our � stu1y.�J} Itndoes ,�not � }M censider, M is'extensi n of. [ a�i'h i entre to Commercial ercial owe. to Scofflns, w 1 • and it will not pretend to. The alternatives that We selected and looked at basically are sir. No. normal growth.-and that normal, growth is based upon ,heowth that has occurred within the neighborhood since 1973, ar pro, eted growth. pattern 'based upon the data, from' the Oregon Department of Transportation 198$"volume pro, ections and the data from C11' e reports for the ` Sin Street. Devel • 4 * 11 TRANSCRIPT OF TIE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING } Poa;xcy #28 of NPO #1 P7,an Ash Avenue June 2 1081 . Woell., plteruata.ve ,�, is normal growth to 1985 without the pro;��aysed ' (CoAt.) development Now Alternative A has three subsections: normal, growth to 1985 without the development, with Johnson Street extended to Ash Avenue. A-2 is n► rma1 g_~owth to 1985, again without the development, out with the extension of Ash Avenue growth to 1985withut t thirdportion of Alternative A is normal to �zrnham vad� The e deve34xament- with the two extensions. 1tex-t�ative B is exactly the same as Alternative A, only we consider the site. generated traffic on that street system: No, 1, no bui7,d, no extensions, no nothing; No. 2, t-,10 proposed Johnson Street extension, No,. 3, the Ash Avenue extension. and finally, the combination of the two. The study area, as you all, know, s the triangular area oonsistiz g of the are."* bounded by Pacific Highway, Hall Eoui evard, and McDonald. The study area covered all the residential portions of the Ash Avenue area between Burnham Road and McDonald. One of the assump 4 . tions that wemade inthe report, was..the fact that streets woulef, ,. be improved to carry the traffic that is generated. That is an assumption only",. ;and if, again--if I go back to the assumptions ....e r,� written in our report any assumptions that are changed, in the overall scope of the report, changes the report, and for example, , the extension of sewers. Okay, methodology: The methodology used in our report is the same as r. 3u.ttk:e used in his 1973 report. We used a modified version of w. at is called the gravity model of trip distribution. Basically what that means is we det'rmine the amount or the number of av4'►.ila'hlc developable lar d that is now in existenCe opi look at what was available ir, 157 ' when Mr. Buttke made his projection; We developed an average growth rate for the time period from 1973 to the present;, and .,used that proiect4d growth rate based ,0,3ron our assumptions to develop the tau' "11.:r of trips that ' cad be generatedgthe f out. of the Sze:»a. h�,�arhood �;n all' o the - study area by 1985. We broke the study arnine sub' areas and astrigred the 'traffic 'or, trips generated ''"Iµom th►."se areas on t'ee basis of the shortest, the least eongeo ted$ a td the eaoiest ' route that oould be ol_lowed from that one based upon dtstri., bution that the laay talked about earlier that is from the portland '�i .ancOuVC.'r Metropolitan 199) Transportation Sttudy, -and that 18 a1 so what, P.1. B .ttke's study was based upon, , In, 198 projections that are in; . the report and se the following, l.o'Wing alternativea have been adjusted to reflect an estimated ,20 per' cent multi i-purpose trips. This, 'is the 20 per' centthat the lady ai.Iuded to ea,: 'iior. That O per cent 'Ws oxisting tra'ff'ic that will,make one or more stops On its ,rOtute .whether it is leaving the neighborhood or entering the neighborhood) it stops it more than one ;iaoe and to shall be TRANSCRIPT IP'T OF TI GARB ,PLANING COMMISSION H;;.4BI Policy #a8 of XVO #1 Plan . Ash Aver►U e June 2, 1981 Woelk: cons dered as internal traffic, ,nd all of the numbers are relented Cont.) on that. (The following should be read in conjunction with the ATE') traffic analysis dated May 29, 19810 Figures 1 - through I00 Mr.. V`aelk showed these on. the overhead I and referred frequently to ;then . h' Figure A that I ,have .he;,e are 19?9 traffic volumes. These are existing traffic volumes that wero taken from the City of Tigard engixeering staff file, and also reported in the 1980. Strain transportation plan that was ,1. ...10d to earlier. Basically again, this is The percentage dist. `.,ution that the lady was talking about, a,,d it assumes 20 per cont internal traffic. The traffic that leaves the neighborhood or the study area foi l.vws these patterns. and that again is basedon an assumption made in the 1990 Portland netropo itan plan; therefore all of the studies that have been done have been bald upon this o,tudy.. Alternative A, whichis 198, projected tt affic volumes under g normae. rowth without the proposed development, and withaUt any t extensions. These atii numbers that Were distributed by the gravity • models, and it shows that by 1985, Garrett Street and Or4ara streets -a.?1 tae carrying the heaviest traffic increass within the neighborhood. Arid if you will notice' the neighborhood traffic ,, on Ashnue increases from 973 to 11C� ves r, ' Alternative A` � -'ls . ;eh is 1085 traffic volumes with Johnson Street extension to Avh Avenue, but without the proposed develop-, meat you will notice that it. stays--.effectively the neighborhood traffic stays effectively the same as Alternative A other than Omara Strer- ribrth of'Mcbonald Street would receive en increase in traffic, a.la Wouldsh Avenue between McDonald and Johnson Streets. That portion is by definition a collector street south of Ash Street, Alternative A-2 is the extension of Ash Avenue to Burnham load without the s tele 1985 projected traffic volume.' Under this alternative the collector and arterial 1.ttreet system such as I Ash Avenue 0 Thrtinham "dead, receives the greatest increa.+ e in traffic, wile the vesidential areas of Omara Street, ,E,dgewood - Street plvt the Ilall, toulevard and Garrfqtt, receives a 'd4 ease in tra±fit volume. This tells us that 'Lhere is an easiex 4ay for that traffic generated within those neighborhoodto travel whereve'. they rite going-,..whether it be downtown or to the main, arter .al street, system. Therefore instead of going to Hall,. McDonald, Pacific Ai way it now gray.,tater to the easy est route available that being the extension Of Ash Aven,u r TRANSCRIPT OF TIGARD PLANNING,COMMISSION HEARING Policy a8 of NPO WI, Plan -» Ash Avenue June 2, 1981 • Woelk., Alternative A,-+ ,.hick again is the combination of both A-‘3) eXtens].or1a (cont() without the development, the 1985 projected traffic volumes, those' being Johnson Street and Ash. You will notice again i`G fOUOWS the same pattern: the residential traffic volume on Otara , idgewood, Garrett, decreases, while the arterial and collector street system increases* such as Ash Avenue and Burnham Road and Hall Bculevard. That Then we get into looking' at what occurs when' . the development of the Main Street Bevelopent occurs? Tis what I call Alterna- tive B. Alternative B ttarts out with no extension, no additional, streets, 1985 projected traffic volume0', and again we find they • :have been adjusted (for internal tratt'tc?) It you will notice I boz f that while the traffic volumes within the neighhood stay at t-we exact same as Alternative A.,...-Which is no new extensions without the. site--the Main Street, Burnhad Road and AaIl Boule- vard ottle yard receive increases in, traffic. The effect of this alternative is to overload the arterial street system without providing an internal circulation plan or circulation system, within the, neigh-» horhood. And again I will come back to the premise for the report: it's to provide an internal circulation syetem for the neighborhood by 1985 from an engineering standpoint only. Alternative B-I ins basically with the site traffic and the eXten- sion of Johnson .Street. the same as Alternative It is exactly 1 A-I except the proposed development's traffic has beet added. As Figure 7 shows traffic volumes on all streets,--not only those withintho neighborhood.--will increase. This alternative does not (1) allot for the increased traffic circulation to, the downtown 'area., if that is where they wish to go nor does it reduce the neighborhood traffic ' olumAi on residential streets Alternative ,B«-2 is--coincides with Alternative A-2,0 wiliob is the extension of Ash Avenue with the site shown a reduction. in volute ' on the residential street. System again, ,andan increase in the volumes on the col-Looter street system,*' The e of t#is alternative is the same as without the site development0' It does not.-with the exception of the volume .ince a .see on Main street and Rall ; ca' ovard due to the site A terve i,ve 3 again, is a combination,. the two. This is similar to A,., "40 and is developed to show the 1.98,E traffic volume impact ,On the entire study area, and the, proposed street extensions. Figure ' shows the residential traffic volumes' decrease ; Burnharu P,oad and `Nall Boulevard traffic increases'. This increase is die ,; to ,a better circulation of traffic within the neighborhood, and better access to the' arterial and collector street system.. Under this alternative Ash A.vent r coed noes t ; serve as a nei.ghborhoo collector 'treet between ,Ronald and dewntoW. ' { %N TRANSCRIPT OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING Policy 2' ofWO #1 Plan Ash Avenue , June 2, 1 81 4 We reached 4Voells ac some, conclusions based i s sr�. upon the analysis of the above -. (Cont.) alternatives, and those conclusions are as follows: (1., By 1985 under normal growth conditions, the residential street system within the study area will be approaching collector street status meaning it will be carrying collector street volumes. Traffic will be traveling through the neighborhood seeking to by-pass the congested arterial street system. To prevent this infiltratio the arterial street system should be improved, i.e. Tail Boulevard and McDonald Street; and going back to the testimony that was P, previously given, the fact that Hall Boulevard is quite low on the improvement list. Addressing myse&f to the through traffic that we see will occur b;y- 1985 unless the arterial and collector street systems are improved,.Sir. Buttke' estimates that the through traffic through the neighborhood, based on his license plate origin and destina- tion study, was Per 'Lent. The remainder of the traffic was generated within th-e neighborhood That holds true for full development. The ,..+�'w"500 cars per day P'roe.1ected. by III'. BLtttkets 1973 report, 5 per cent of that tra fic could be expected to be through traffic; the remainder of that traffic is generated by the existing residences in the neighborhood.--not from outside traffic. Conclusion Nb.' 2: The proposed development will impact the surroundingarterial and collector street system with or without the extensions of Johnson Street or Ash Avenue. Southwest Main Street and Burnham Road and the downtown street system Will re:eine the most traffic from the development without the extensions. f,,,') If Johnson' Street is connected to, Ash Avenue, traffic will increase within the neighborhood, and the overall traffic circa ( latien system within the neighborhood will not be improved. Conclusion Xo t.: If Ash Avenue is connected to Burnham Road as Alternative B- , which is just 'the extension of Ash Avenue shown traffic volumes on the residential stregit systb'm will decrease. Mr. Buttke's 197,5 full development ii,)dicates 1,he same patter n. The volumes on Ash Avenue would in,creaae, and Ash Avenue would serve as a neighborhood collector street; and under this alternative the over-all traffic circul.atian system within the ,, study area- specifically the neighborhood—would..be improved significantly. ConclUsian No, 5Alternative B�, whichisthe extension t both Johnson Street and Ash A enue, allows the Ithreased traffic volume tb be distributedover the entire. arterial and collector street system-tanot just a selective few. Traffic c1Um s would decrease on the residential al street system, and; gain the over-all l r ' r 1. TRANSCRIPT OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION HBARING Policy #28 of NPO #1 Plan ; Ash Avenue June 2, 1981 }1, vJ Wolk circulation system within the neik7hborhood would be improved, and ' (Cont.) again I have to come back to one of the basic premises for the report was the study of a circulation ,pattern to provide access from the residential zone to the arterial and collector street system. Currently the existing street system within the neigh..' avery to boyhood---l7 Mara is a narrow street not be able carry the forecasted tura!,:fic volume withau; improvement. Garrett Stro,et has a ha14-street improvement toward Pacific Highway be',ween Pacific Highway and Ash---it would need improvement, act would Prewing One of the basic conclusions and assumptions in the report ':�n the report is t�,.a.t Ash Avenue would--between Garrett and Prewing--would, be improved. That is one cf the basic assump- tior..n.. If that is not considered, then the findings of the report are ,not adequate. As far as the development of the site, we feel that the proposed main Street Development on Main Street would occur by 1985. That is why in our recommendations we recommend the following, based upon this analysis and the premise of providing a wbr1able circa- lation pattern with low traffic volumes on residential streets. ° Two alternatives are appropriate: Alternative B-2, wh',ich is the extension of Ash Street only; and for B-, +, which is extensions " of Johnson Street and Ash Street. Vie recommend that if the site is developed,: Alternative B-3, which is the two extensions, be considered. If the site is not developed, then we would recommend Alternative A-2,. which is just the extension of Ash Street. From an engineering standpoint,r extension provides the following: (1) an adequate internal street oirculation pattern fo'r the neighborhood which travels to and from do ntwn zn the arterial street system, without using the overloaded arterial street systems as it now exists, such as Hell and, (ScDona1d and/or Pacific Highway. (a) It reduces the over-all traffic impact of the proposed devoIopment on the entire surrounding street .system.--not just a few. And (3) it has the least negative impact to the entire study area. r Would he happy to try to answer any questions if ;you Lave any. TePodinot Thank you, Nr, Are there any other parties wishing to speak in favor of this proposals In taor of this pro;Cosall Iquestion I 1�q�.c e. have would like to ash �ep . dill you, hold onpeople' speaking in. le:ed�n�* for a �o�ent� � . � P P , favor? We move on `now to crossehcanation or rebuttal, Now sour question, sirs Voi.o t ; Can I ask for the record? / °. - , a TRANSCRIPT OF TIGAPD PLANNING I1 G COMMISSION HEARING policy 28 of NPO 1 Plan -- Ash Avenue , ,' June 2, 1981 Tepedino Yes, sir; whit is it? Voice: Did you or did you not work on a project for Main Street Laud Company', with CH2M-Rill in relation to the traffic study Woelk Which study are you speakHing of? Voice: I am talking about the Maid Street Land Company: did you if my memory server r;,e correct--didn't you work on or were tired at some time by Ma i Street Land Company in respect to a traffic study, traffic flow pa:terns, in that area? I was not. Woelk: 1 No, I would like to clarify that if I may. Tepedino: Yes. Wool,k: My partner Mr. Wilbur was an employee of C S-krill. in 1979 and early 1980. Ile wrote the preliminary report With a traffic circulation plan for the Main Street development. Re was, as project manager, oversbe, or oversaw,, both reports; therefore any conflict of is terest that he may have had wal in management only. It was disclosed .� .P 1 to the City of �'�.�,'�.. d+ It WE�t t ccan.sid-- ered to be important to them. Since that time periodfivefdif fore the conflict ofour ifferent traffic reports have soye;',H. *deaf there- a is negligible it any. Period,. Tepedino: Before going on to additional cross-examination rebuttal, l± would.;like to no be that we are running substantially later than, we had, planned and Ithat, perceive 1?�1aat we Will. not be able_ to , get to Item 5,, ...that's Conditional Use, KC a s Amu'seaent; 5.5, a remand, of the comprehensive plan vevision, Will :time it.•, and S , a subdivision, Winter, Lae/Cen ury 21. I apologize to those people have been inconvenienced* I see a lot of Yawning faces text there.' Blit we ca,.i't help that. Unfortunately ;N'e have run substantietl y1on er than we expected* it those people affectet will call Aldie. 'Reward in the. morning -,.. Would you have informa- tion, Aldie,�Provide as to escheduhn �' g Gall the city tomorrow, A1dio P r Will P ov ,d.e you: with the information on rescheduling. Okays • how l Would like to continue with cross-exak, .nation,» Yes, ma'am. Blount! ,r . presidents members of the col.ssion My name is beth Blount*, I live at 2k37 Pacific Avenue, ?crest Grove o 97116, l am here again before you,-,1 was here a little while ago on a d ,fferet matter* l understand the .r .luctanoe that you must feel in having an attorhoy intervene, Really .I am only here to 'help - hese people, and .l represent the Ash Avenue group tot the 11 , the Ash Avenue Group. . * .. * . ,4, their thought.: But I do have , some sues tions for Woelk' on his traffic study, and they are 1 • 1 k TRANSCRIPTGP TIGAHD PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING Policy #28, of NPO #1 Plan, - ,Ash Avenue , June 2, 1981 Blount: quite extensive; so should I stand hereand ask them? Or -- -'..s (Cont.) Tepedino: Yes why don t. you"do that? ° , � y I hope the answers are not as ,ex\ 3nsive. (Laughter) Blount: Mr. 'l oelk, I don't know anything about your engineering background. Are you a registered engineer? Woelkt No I am not. I have a certificate of engineering training in the State of Oregon. I tookmy engineering ...ex -.-my profess» sional exam ±or civil engineering.,--in April of this year; the , results will be known July 17 If you want me to go on I would be appy to -- Blount: Dc' you have the traffic certification--that once you become an engineer then there is a certain amount of time yon, are an apprentice engineer and then you get your traffic certification-- do you have that/ Woelk: Yes, I do., I have had approximately 12 years of traffic engineer- Ing experience,:' on top of my engineering training examination and certification by the State of Oregon. Blount Okay, Ton stated that your report was based on the best vi cuI a° tion system from an engineering standpoint. What engineeri,gg standards di.a you use't Woelks Current principles and being, Noe 1, 'based'. upon the gravity model that I used, the distribution of the traffic, that the shortest, the least congested and easiest route oftravel will be`the travel pattern that traffic will take. Traffic tends to seek the path of least resistance, and that is 'basically what a gravity model is based upon. Blount: aka.y engineering standpoint, does that take into . Then from anP consideration the physical configuration of the roads that Will be traveled Woelk: The 'physical. confi ,uratione, as tar as tbo report was concerned, were not taken into consideration because of one of the assumptions Ghat we made. askedr . We wore tot >�� ourtseo e Of work to identify 0 whether or tot tate roa.ds would be able to handle the traffic that was' projected. Ne were asked to determine the .aaaunt of traffic • that would be devel.o;.ed by 1985, that t s exactly What We did If wee were to go through and, assess whether or not the traffic-- the trraffic, Icr the, streets wo lld be handled-wthe aeaum:ption we made in the preliminary report covered that-,the asswtmpt in. was that the streets. Would be improved to a level to carry the traffic that wrae' projected. f • , ` 4.. \ +. • .. 1 \ • 1 ' • ry TAN&IPTOF 'fI GARU FtANNING COMMISSION HEARING Policy #28 of NPO #1 Flan - Ash, Avenue Jane 2 19$7 // 7 Tepedino: Counsel, can I ask the ultimate objective of the questions..-are you seeking to attack the credibility of -- Blortznt: � � I have some difficulty with Mr. Woelk's report. I am a 'raid that it is being offered to support the concept--obviously being Offered :' to support the concept that Ash A,venL2e should be extended to Burnham. We ,believe that the report has some flaws in it that I Want to make sure that the planning comtission is aware of in considering that report in the light of the Nm's request and the request that the Ash Avenue group support. { Specifically, the kind of limitations that Mr. Woelk just mentioned ° is significant. You have heard evidence tonight that Ash Avenue ') does not contain either the rightof»way or the pavert width necessary to be brought up to a collector star iardo--eiter .a minor collector, the new term that is being used, or any kind ;bf a collector. Okay now. Mr. Woelk is-.-you know--is projeting numbers through there that simply cantt be handled by the road on the ground or by the right-ofway thatrc on the ground, and think that's an important point to be raised in considering how valuable this report is and whether you are going to run that traffic through this neighborhood. Woelk: r. Chairman,; if I may I will speak to the,t. rhe 'act that -,O neither does Mr. 'Buttke's 1973 report state or consider whether or not the existing road a.rstetti will be able to handle that volume of traffic at the bilme that full development cc curs Nor does our report. It w ,i.d be an entirely different subject to go out and figdre the roadway capacity of each one of those streets and be able to tell you exactly how many care per day that street, with that configuration,, could handle. ,'lat is easily done-.fit can be done •-that information can he Provided to you. w Tepedxno: But that is net part of this -.. Woelk:, That is not part of our study, nor Was it part of Carl;Buttko s s study of 1973• $lbLnl%: Okay, but the '�:'' that . . argument . 4 . issue before you .. tonight--»»+pan 'th&.t street handle that kind of traffic/ And by the: cite Own adop id standards which requires 60 foot right-,of-way ` and 44 o this right..of.way then nor is It as 'Lahle, Zr you w.11 look�at theIt wou paved th l . map fid. b o taking out several garages, a number of front yards and a third r Of their driveways just*, you know, to have that width at.‘dr that, right-of-sway w 1 The only other question that I really have ti+I thinkwe aro• going co need your overhead to view it-./ am having diffioulty iAi r , IF• 1 f F1, r q ! II is o , TRANSCRIPT OF TIGARD PtANNII G COMMISSION HEARING 1.. Policy #28 of NPO #1 Plan Ash Avenue June a, 1981 Bi.ount: understanding the numbers that you broug'At out. In ADternat ve Cont.) B-2 and l3.3. while you are getting tha,''c, maybe I can ask you this question: I appreciate the fact that you were asked to do a limited study.-only to 1985. If you develop a road, assuming the projections only to 1985, what happens, then, after 1985? Do _ the cars using that road stop at 1985 level Woelk: No. It continues to increase, and that is one of the assumptions-, Tepedinot Are we not speaking now beyond the limits? I would lke to limit the questions and answers specifically to your report. ioelk: Iri order to answer to her question -- Yes. It does continue to increase, based upon the rate of growth that has been projected since, then. Tepedino: Okay, I would prefer not to get into speculation and conjecture, or we will behere all night• Blount: Okay. 8-2. As I understand it, this shows Ash Avenue connected to Burnham aohnson not connected, but the development of the Main Street Development. Waelk: Thatte correct,. B1nuntt Okay. rn the right side going down--I guess it is a section of McDonald .and then down intq Burnham, your f .gores show a gain . late s start at the bottom, right hand corner -- okay ..- a gain,.of approximately ly 1400 cars at. one point; then you lose 1800 of those �: try the time you reach just beyond O'Mara, and 'then you ;are back up to gaining another 800 by the time you go past Burnham. Coelk: Okay, The problem with looking at specific locations s;:s fi e fact that th.t distribution of that traffic takes iro account the distribution developed that was allocatedin the 1990 p?pan, and it is based upon the amount of traffic that is ns.ratd from a site:*:and those zones and added or deleted, depending on the easiest flow and. based upon that 'diets »but4:.in outlined previously, ►o there could be a decrease or increase, depehdin; on the traffic flow from, a specific Zone. Blountg Okayo W011, I donft have your experience as a traffic engineer. Please pardon me if I ask some ril l y questions. But how dto you get fro a plus 1400 to a minus 1500, that you are los±lig 320 cars butweea ' oDonald' and Burnham elk: Okay. You will no g; :"" that the traffic is from zones..-what we tall Zone 6 in my report is the area, bounded by. 0 t tata, Mcbon .ld. nd 1/all and Garrett Streets. That traffic no longer oes tol tall. Boulevard. It generates -a portion of that traffic is ens"rated 'from .hose two cites- avitates toward .Ash to o ,!' Y I I I I A • • TRANSCRIPT OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING Policy x`28 of NPO #1 Plan , Ash Avenue June 2, 1981 ; Woelk; somewhere else based upon the distrit,`ution of the 1994 metro., ,". (Cont.) politan plan.' 13 .ount: I still guess I Am .having a hard understanding what you are saying. I , ,, Woolk Okay -- You take-- Blount: ake--Blount: If it is okay with the planning commission, I will-- Woelk: What you try to do from each zone, and you allocate zones, and you block into nine zones to try allocate those zonas so the traffic generated .from those zo ses, based upon a distribution pattr'rn. When we add another alternative for that traffic to go to, it will distribute itself in a different manner than if that other alternative want there. So therefore you will, see that the increase in Ash Avenue traffic and a decrease in the , Hall Boulevard traffic north of O'Mara. Blount: Then What 1aappens' between Ash Avenue3 where you have an increase of 900, and McDonald, where you have an incroase of Ik0O suddenly in the middle you drop with a decrease of 1800? What happens A the middle" Row do you go from a gain to a loss to a gain? Woelk: Again, itv's all basedon the number of trips generated out of that zone based upo74 the extension or the alternative routes for traffic to follow. Blount: And the only zone between those two is O'Mara" Woel : y, Z ..es 8, 7 and 6. Six is. the �h�ere is a �»-� (�lxa area bounded " 0vMara, Rall and 1+.144,I1ona16; Seve1'1 is the area bounded by retying, pacific Highway and cDonal.d and eight it the major • portion between north of O4.14ara and Frewing and encompassing everything south of .B rni.am . tad. (There were some comments from the audience, at which the president rapped the gavel.) ' Blount: Can l get fmy 'traffic person to frame it better, so we have got one traffic person, talking to enotter traffic ► raon Maybe we will all understand it better T'epewino ' Is this relevant to the issue' -- 131ou n. : That isn't they question I am asking. ' epedino : It sounds like this traffic engineer-. to me it,< sounds :ressortablo. Now Whether I understand the dYnadioe ,,o f the male fns and integral euations is something a ,s04. t ,eounds reasonable. But vot will let you. go ahead. TRANSCRIPT OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION_HEARING Policy #28 of NPC #1 Plan »> Ash Avenue A • June 2, 1981 Kitteison Okay, thank you. Let me explain the proem.'.. Speaker: Who atrs you'I 'l ittel:son:`' . y hams is Wayne Kittelson, and ;i am with CH2MHill When we rev•iewed these numbers; we started, in looking at Figure 8. We compared it back with figure 6. Figure 6 is the 1985 -build, with the developwent in, so we are saying, okay, that is the basic condition. That's what exists out there if nothing happens , except that the development is in place Nvww-. Tepedino: And your line of question, sir, is going to what, point? Are you trying to attack the credibility of this chart and the distribu. tion of the numbers? « I'm '+ � fes'" w' addup. If we lock at a.ttle b a �` san. Yeah, s��ztrg that the numbers don't _. the net gain or a. reduction on a link-by-link basis between, the Figure 6 and this figUre, or if ,You compare the nurserz on a link...by-link basis between Figure 6 and Figure 8, vx at you see -- F Let me find this, okay --what you see on Hail 'Boulevtitrd Just north of O' 4 ra -- let me go over .hers -- what you F.ee irt: this Fiection right here is a net gain over the 1983 .no-btxi ld covtdition, or a net reduction or 1800 cars. You .see a net gain over li.e of 47O0 cars, and you se% a net reduction hero of 600. So just aPPlying, the 1.aW of conservation of vehicles, you got to have a zero that .iters ction. The sum of those three nt bera to add up to zero, and it doesn't add up to zero. Weelk: He's right. 1" don't understand what. happened. (Laughter) �J,�Gpedmno: I would'like to make one announcem.4nt here. We have 25 minutes, and if we don't finishthis itemwe will all be barot hr; at t�x� next scheduled :session. Woelk: Er. Chairman, if I may make `a. statement at this Point in time. It is that ranted I don't understand theydont add up► to g n why zero either. I will be happy to g � back to my charts, follow my distribution out and find out if I -given copied down the right numbers z and in the time Trate..-I must admit the time frame that we had to do this report there may be some errors in it. But, as' far as the ovwr.all eiroulation pattern and the numbers, they are consistent leped�. �n,o: Okay, thank you, sir. Are there any further questions? , yea, ma'apt Htttoh'Ison: Pat qutohisou Chairman of Nom. first, .�� ; mean. because lw live on Ash rt of street, and it ti s is a rojeeted increase of cars of 4O, I watt to know how you ,g : ti4at, because from O'Mara cennection to Ildgwced atlddown around the uornetothere" . WH TRANSCRIPT OF EIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING Policy #28 of NPO #1 Plan - Ash Avenue June 24 1981 • Hutchison. are 42 homes there already, with teen agers coming up, and me all (C,int.) own two cars apic�e. Now bow can I only have an increase of that many cars? Woelk: Again, it Was based on the growth of that .tone during the period :fry om 1973 until present Hutchison: Okay, now, talking about that zero number, dc,vn there on O'Mara and Hall Boulevard and the decrease from Dbaara to Hall going to Commercial. Did, you take a look there at the Senior Citizens Center there there is a church there«.o»haw can you have a tion in traffic when you know there is senior citizens there and a home for the aged Where there will be driving? lbw that' growth in the area.. we just got it zones 70/80. Woelk: Okays but it isntt built and was not ts er; into conSideration the average growth of tike zone was taken into consideration, not specific derelopment4 "epedino; I think the question is answered; but the study *as made at a certain point in time, and those are the facts provided,_ ( he president raped his. ,gavel to relatore ordet.) you have a question require e. short answer Okay. Richman: NPO 1 would like to offer a cot ment in rebutta . .., eedins : Mister? Richman: Mr. The staff r11,,rpo rt whole«-h.eartedly suppcax tt the Ash Avenue extension. I picked up a copy of the staff ret;ort when the Pdocument was submitted,' for insertion in your ptl.ckets, , have commenta on the bottom that .bot Is but the NPO has a conim.eht on the bottom of their presentation that this reportis submitted without 'access to or analysis of Mr. Woelk's traffic_ analyr4is. I picked up the staff report the same day. I have to rais#, the question, Why aid the City of Tigard spend good. coney fora M traffic analysis when it wasn't considered; the document WasA0t a available; until the day after tbs report was prepared? I have to raise that question. I �au�.d like to direct that ...�... Rower ,' Why/ I poi.ntedthat out to You in the staff' port- th •, Woelk, will take the presentation be1rore'.the planting ooMmissi0n. You. will note that this entire r poI‘t, as You have known now,' since you have ,probably know mel have'' tailed for Ash AN.erilue to be extended and Johnson to 99, 'Tont, has.n,'t changed r4 io'hmaz . Your premise seems to be ,made on What was 4e0ribe4 ..I 4, earlier this evening'': l",s there a written traf'tic'' Plan for circulation that you are relying ,i)n that sho s �•f+.+ , • THANSGRIPT OF TIG4i&D PaJANNING COMMISSION HEARING r Policy #28 of HTO #1 Plan -w Ash Avenue June 2, 1981 Lowe d» No, sir; no, sir; no.i sir. There has never been, in the past year wehave been considering mr. BishOpAS proposal, and there isn't to my knowledge a plan' until, now that ever suggested those two alternatives, except Ash Avenue is called for by the NPO Plat-- v. we go by that; btt when 16 acres on Main Street came for develop- j rnent it was obvious to Mr. Currie and myself that we need a transportation system in this community. ' Ri,otmans There's a couple of other items previously addressed in the staff report by other people that I want to dwell on. I thunk the commission should address the st{ff limitations, the scope limit,c- tions of Mr. W`octl is traffic study as prtail'nsed to him by the city- • With these scope limitations that were placed upon him, « essentially I don't think the analysis has much bearing. lam , not saying that is my person ,l opinion-Mit, is the opinion of the , 0 N . Tepedino: 'ink you, sir. Richman 1 hive one more item that - (shouts from audience) - traffic anal si,s there was to _be nothat wasn't y development on Hill because to be - no sewer line by 198 . At two specific NPO 1 meetings Mrs Howard has repeatedly said that the property owners of the Property zoned multifamily along Hill have inquired to him regarding development, and he has even discussed Currently the trade-offs of density with this property owner along. Hill. Would you like to convent on that -641 it owatr : Absolute TePedinot Thank You, sir, I Would li . i TRANSCRIPT OF TICARD PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING Policy #28 N4 of PC #1 Plan ,» .v Ash enue 1 _ June 2, 1981, 'unkt '. Paci is Highway, which I fee; we need an alternative to Pacific Cont.) " ;hiya�;,r so Ash. evidently is the No, situation,�� l candidate for that posii'iion.. ',I do i't. know if L agree with the study on the need for c Johnson Street to Ash; .howeve,f, .I think there should be a co tion., ostween Pacific fligh'1t°ay .and. Ash Strew:; b a I might - sk staff w to t the' w- dth of Greenburg Road, is?: I0ward: Well, the ne* impro ued sections of that" . urriet What sectiont? ,:, } punl An old part* curries Twexity..two 'fee.•c. i 1io i rd. The something like that t And we' have of 2 feet of avin on Asl ,�,. �'' ni�.S � � � g c Ash' the places 5t harked. off. Hall Boulevard probably is roughly tine same thing. O'Mara is even less, huhu' Currie.: ' Less; 18 feet. I`ulik« I think I have absorbed everything that bat been tole to mo, and I have been out reviewing and walking around, and I jutst tantt see anything-hut a need for Ash Street to be extended w , Tepedino: Thank you, Commissioner. Comm. sston•er Bont , Bonn: One of the things ghat hap alwaym _c.on:cerned e is the need for what you might .say it. a bbaok door tothe Ma ,A Street Development and whether that connects directly ontal Ash Avenue to the south ' is ... I am ;not sure that. it, abtoluttlY absolutelynecessary; but at le ist ahack door where a south and easterly mettoo. in Which to L air: aOcett :to t'he new development, I think, is quite necessary,• and ' to pull some o, the trs fio aota.Y. ,from Main Street and from Pacific 1ghWaY4�, �' is a�xeady ,�. eavily traveled, and to disperse stme oil. the. tra fiz. Thereneeds to he, something-.-we oaIt dust st rsayr ° 'o more streets t Because 'hat i going to happen, is that we build a ,,.ar ;e shopping center with two ent:eancebi and it is going to impact the Pacitico Hisgh way ainSt eet so bad that we 'are go : g tto have ,a corinor parking, ot. I hav`'e mai ntained ' ', that all along 1'epedino: -Thank your .Com;issioner.. 'omm sa*�..t atcr.1olleas's o ioa Wells I agree with, 'r. Bonn. 'epedino: Thank, you., 1a ;ssioner' errors i e^ ` o 4 TRANSCRIPT OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION liEARING Pot c V28 of N ) #1 Plan Ash AVenue Y Juno 2: 1981 m., 1, p,1 • I have y with people � r,rc�n. �symaitt�,� the a ppon Ash Street and their concern J ,' , about the traffic '''„,tit : 'think we have to be r e/P,listic . . street 0 A t . t';ie backpart Of Tigard, and I think we need that very much so. 'epedino: Thank.vyou, matam. Commissioner Owens? , Owens: Wo11a in r�� interests of`very heavy . . . b 4 T will try to keep ,, icy comments brief. I think I have a challenge to the, residents o f Ash .etre t as well ao e- challenge t,r the planning 'commission. r My challenge to the residents of Ash Street *.its that-as to anybody who buys home any place that if you dein*t take the respc,`i2'41bil.ity* -- • to look at what is avound when you bougt it, they beaa'c a rex pOns« ability (derisive laughter from audience, gavelled down e edino, • y coo :ration and cout�..s fl you T p � I appreciate our� p� . _ '� y keep that. up '',\ i. will eject You from the meeting. Co absad. .,r OWent : And rl think that vt.heA people bought homes or. ash Street, there was obviously apA, dead bend street thst obvloUSly was going to have something done toi,',, at some point in the future. My challenge to Yr challenge to thio. plaA .ig cozr,.iiss ,on a�, staff or whatever, is that pe;tbap�s y � , My we Want to consider all the possibilities for im rove n the. P g trat. lri. flow in this, a..rea. I think its an extreme mistake to . tcnn ct Ash ,Street through because' of_thecharacter i�' ,'4e r. street, the neighborhood there -.«» it I vlsual$,ze streets in Beaverton and Portland that have been residential and that have . been allowed t:, ,have 'trafic "loW through to commercial areas, X t i,nk that � you know«,-_it is apparent� w�n some pl.r ces.r,exanpl.e,s , that you may be able to think of--that that is a bad siti anon. �..., 1 jtist cannot approve the extension of Ash Street I very Strongly feel that there is aterrible ti,a '. is ;pattern, ane eve as. a plan.zi±ng, +,`.r .r'• ....4� a .. � .. ... commission have a heavy r, spousi'bi1ity t4 oo.sidev all the issues, ... , 11,0t just one a& ' We have the entire City t. be Tigard� to rid�e have . area to be ooncend about , ' and it . to t t . . . . on our Part to say . . .. 6, bad traffic p patterns to maintain a, 'beautiful neighbor.°hood,.. l'owever,. l tI'',m; not satisfied that all e ther possibilities or objeoaions have 'been, a al.n gid. 1 am wondering;ing it it i, , p4ssibie to �` r; anently dead end Ash, extend Johnson Streeo- ,t/ Igt to a .0. it ,4,;‘,421d be the ,'i n of tho lliahop.th,',i.ng, and look at other ..- later, x o'` -- this ;is a 1,Ater thiUg "- Avh wouldn'I t h6,r,3 any connection with the tishrp thing at all; bUt rOaliZing that the treffic thin40 the roads . r W at this point get JchAsen brought down, an. *,ater con iMnue b to look for waye to ge'',, that back door open that #you 4 tot impaot t1 1 on Azh r Avenue at ali Tepe n,o» Ti4+p,:14 ;r`,nt' * Commissioner- C1ommiseioner' 'lea`k r'o '' . eA e 4 fpr , J ,C r r_ p'.4 e . 1 ...-.H p _ IR I K i '4/0 _ ., I'!W _ ..,,A-'. n .. , • y t ANSC I PT OF TI LARD PLANNING COMMISION HEAifl G' Pol coy #28 of I'PC #1 Plan - A.h Avenue June 2, 1981 fit. Speaker: "hare was one u,est3 un I want to 'wanted to -but I • know what the t ns r is Where will the cars go at the volumes o± full developngnt' that Mr. Buttke projects, if Ash Avenue is not developed? And the answer is, On .Hail Boulevard and on Pacific ific flighty/Ay both of which • , wd ll, particularly pacific Highway. NoW you take a look at the max of `No. 1 a za it's a r triangle; andithe only access--the only' aces to 1`Lownto,:in is • ,. by the r ri> ? tern, and, there bas to be-,..for any ;kind of circula tion- therj has to be something though the middle. (Illustrates map of NPO 1.) That these people have to go out to the Highway or Hall Boulevard -- frdclsly,. I just can't gee it= I never have an after &11, this ie what? About the seventh meyec ing since the first of 1979, that we have had, a this Ash Street thing I • before us; and in that 2._ years there are six of us wt, ' have . g sat through these meetings, so it isn't a neW proposition to us. • arl I. t �'.�^ ' 'tin nk that there's a preponderance of professi,onal. opinion-• I am talking about the fire marshall, the police chef, the public -ora>s ttir tor, the planning director�-«-that all agree that Asn'.Street extension is highly desirable to improve ci.rcula• t;tun F and I go al'ng w th them,,. Tepedin.o; Thank you, Colluraissioner. Commissioner Helmer • E elmer: I will have:to agree With Commissioner •;speaker, and I think we mould have the Ash Street extension. •w T d o hewn . ;. y .ings are basically the same,, Ism sympathize .. .t•��1r+\AN+a�I"N 4 Thank art sir. �� `V�� nice � .. with the people living on A'ta"�#,«�++�.t�a�'"�' have '�taC�, a very community,, +ttquiet residential of e r btv I just can't see the prevention of circu,k.ation -particular ly downtown Tigard. Ae the city grows ii Pacific Highlray is going to get more traffic, and Hall Boulevard is going to get yore, and I-think, it is a necoesi,ty, that Il the other t trer„ts .t the City of Tigard will See' more tr f C. K I doze t see any flay of avoiding ,that by artificially holding; bac'! tho,connection of Ash, which parallels the other roads. And tae•re is s some 4steets i„ the data.4 .here :�s no question :about data is ever at no - : laereci:; but I :i.ntui�ti.vo.`tR;�r feel that, based on the evi.clence, pre e-.bed tonight. * ^ With tha. t I will call for °a, motion.; Do I have' t volunteer to make a motion' S ea s4:r: It1.1 move Tr p0d',~no: Commission&,r $Peaker.' _' speaker: I. m vei based on : - „I move mor& adoption o they staff. , eeommsn a• ti.on,, 4ftd 7 will red it for the aue ieu.co t tISt,•tit r commends • that policy g8 not tie changed, and that mteps be teen in the C , TRANSCRIPT Or TIGARb 'PLANNING COMMISSION YEARING policy #28 of NPO #1 Plan - Ash Avenue June 2, 1981 Speaker: near future to construct this extension in conjunction with (004-b.) development it the area." And presumably that meane Main Street Development. "A public $",treet from Ash Avenue to Main Street along the southern edge of rannc Creek, should be constructed." w That Would be the extension of Johnson, Street. 111 Street to 01Mara should be completed, and Ash Avenueshould be completed north to C ►mmercial Street and south to Garrett Star`eet s'8 I move adoption`o the staff recommendation based ,an. the 'staff report and the testimony that has been, heard on six or seven different , meetings since the . irat of Danns y, 1979• 11 Tepedino t Thank your sir. Mot`Lon is made; do I hear a second? Bonn: +'11 second it. II . I' p e edino: Motion made and seconded". Further discussion? , B. Bishop. Mr. Chairman, a point of order, please. i ► Tepedino t am sorry; 'Are you a parliamentarian? Maybe, yua can help us. � sir; e iso; direct conflict with that recommendation des thee of staff., If you. will look at page •3, Item, No. 10, it reads at 'Paragraph No. 10 which is. a directr nt of the Finding a� statement: �f pact: "The Staff' asks that �'tohneon Street and Highway 99 be Streetp Yent Group. This issue will c�`�ns�..dero:� by the Maine�.o �3ev be resoled, through the ,Planning Rev w proLess for tho project." Direct fact--finding o c` fact. In direct contravention of that thought IA the middle part of the motion, whi�:h Mr. Speaker just read. J'rom the ;r'eC ommendation, where it states the eat opposite of thO !o,, 10, reads that a *'public street from Ash Street to, Main Street along the southern cage of Velno Creeps should be oorist.zuoted. kpoint it$ that we discussed � � ° The reason Why I make i that+ Mr. �'a�aik the • at the last planningcommission meeting wa.th attorney for Main Street Land; Company, that the is6ue of Johnson to 'Ash would :not be an 1881,1t' t,t this hearings, and that it suita.bl, ould be an issue at, the JUlY 7 meeting. This " .'ff report xe.r1 ts that in Iindings of Fact. speakers 0lv r,,r0 With the c�onseL my second I will confine that to y aStk:fl,recommends that .,+l .cy 28 not be changed, and than'' '° (A little side coversation) Okay, just . just duet there, Okay. The motion isto adopt the unehanged status of Policy 280 ��r No. I think: we hallo accemPiished more ' han. that 'hero tonight', Speaker: ell, I think we have at;comp1Lehed more 'u. z: I think. expressy past the point that we would like to see Ash � r 'AO '`k «. O i dr I 0 n do • • s 11 r I TRANscRiPT op TIGARD PLA1 NTNG CO TSS IOT HtA'aINCx Po ky a$ of NPO #1 Plan - Ash A,var �e June 20 `1981 Funks Akar; Street improved im7 diatelyy-tot as 28 says, some day in the (cont.) futurecOnjunction wIth development. Speaker: Okara at the end of the first period. there Which reads: uStJ recommends that Policy 28 not be changed, and that steps be taken in the near future to construct this,extension in con jnnctiou With development in the area." okay., It stops there. Is thatmotion �°6 'ed�„21C� your sir?� p $pecker . That's my motion; and is that agree,a'ole with ,you? a +cnnz (Agrees) 'fie >..d toz M de and seco Aed. Further discussion? Further discuz sion? Hearing tote,, I call for the question. All in favor of the Motion as Made ana seconded si reify by saying aye. ChOrus: Aye. it Tepedl.na z Those opposed' Owens: No - Te edixd e Motion oatt odr One no. Motion carries. Mr. Alio AAwax4d will be available tomorrow fOr those who did not hear their items tonin • • .trJ r.»••Ia».... Q I • x ` 1.MINJTES TIGARD PLANNING COM\IISSION June 2, 19$3. .- 7:30 p' gym._ Fowler Junior High - Lecture Room 10865 SW Walnut Street, Tigard, OR President Tepedino p called the meeting to order at 7:35. . tip, ROLL cALL Present: Bonn, Funk, Helmer, Herron, Kolleas, Owens, Speaker, Teped. no Excused: Moen Staff: Howard, Newton; Ea Sullivan, City Counsel the . The May 5 meetingwere MINUTES�E�S of considered, and on motion of Speaker, seconded by Helmer, were approved as submitted. . COMMUNICATIONS: Staff reported receipt oA" a number cf .\) tions, nearly all of which had been supplied tt„le Commissioners in their' Packets. Those not so supplied would be considered when theft. pertinent p � d e agenda items are heard. r The president read the usual statement of authority for and e, procedure to be followed in the meeting. He announced the meeting would r„ clo.�e at midnight, with postponementof those issues not able to be heard`by that. hour. He .calked attention to whathe char ac*e',ized as *,. s ir±,t o _� ` y iny ertain members of the cit; a p' � ��.n�osit the w�.�-. toward � council and staff, and warned that should any slanderous uttacks occur in this meeting the individual would be ejected, and if persisted in, the meeting would be declared a,,l;ouarned. He then OPENED the meeting for PUBLIC LEA'NGS. 1 (DALES GLEur) 'PO 5BDIU'1510�}' S � � 1 APPEAL OF S�' .. Appeal. of Planning Director t s approval of a request by Falcon Construction company to subdivide. 2.40 acres (the public notice stated 4.14 acres) into 'si teen (16) lots of five thousand (5 1 square feet each at the SW corner of . t7�O ' 9,5t,h and SW North Dakota. (Wash. Co. Tax Map 181 35D8, , 5506, 5507 and 5 T� Lots 550�., 5502, 5�>03 f 5505, SCS In lieu of a foa:wn al strArr Rte, Howard read a memorandum dated may 26 outlining the history of the zoning and actions and 1aek of action, bytheprevious owner, tthe together with a, stateme�i,. of what read, issue .�. appeared to be. The memo ptcommtND8D denial of the appeal thereby allowing the subdivision to proceed as originally filet Howard stated vhere were fourteen letters in opposition to the subdivieon, all of Which hnd. been su pp1i.ed the'eem iss'i.oners .n their ' are part of the record avaibpacll ., le for review at City dal ��► and �h the . .PPLI ANTli5 ..'11.17,1StINTATION Was Made by Mussell Alen Lawrence, MINUTES TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION June 2, 1981 ,Page 2. y , president of H & L Inc., an engineering and surveying: firm, who stated s " they are asking for the same subdivision and lotting patterfl which had previously been approved, the only change being that at the request of y.. Prank CurriePublic Works Director, � the cul-de-sac Was eliminated, indicating the street`would ultimately be ' ontinued. He stated they . were asking for an outright use as zoned) and offexed, to answer questions later. , PUBLIC TESTIMONY all in opposition to the construction of the ' subdivision as planned, was presented by the following.(those designated by an asterisk had also submitted letters outlining their Views) *Geraldine Doll, 11390 iW 94th *Roger Anderson, 11385 SW 94th (2 letters) *William Webber, 11235 SW 92nd *Leonard:Dicker, `11420 SW 94th (2.Letters) *Basi: Dnytryshyn, 11300 ,SW 92nd 1,. ,. *Hichal d' Burton, 11160 SW 95th 1arl Bowersox, 11360 SW 92nd 1 *Stephanie Frankllin, 11�►15 S ' 92nd ,. Theodore .Frank;L n, 113:15 SW 9 :nd (He raised the question, declar,. by the president to be out of order, whether the planning director has indirectj subdivision. 4' • the Dales' Glenn s�A a direct oroertheZess answered no.) n financial interest i Howard nevertheless *Ed Williamson; owner of a house at 11315 SW 92nd Prin objections objectons expressed-.some by several people and some a A e considerable length--are summarized as foll.oWs,wit the number expressing the particular objection indicated in parentheses: The confusion and. alleged n a d inaccuracie3 in the notifications sent (4) ;o Criticism of informationsupplied) the, residents (2) supplied �or not ` C0 :cerning traff1c The intersection 'of 94th & Greenberg is very difficult because of width of pavement, accidents cited t4 4 Narrow pavement on 94th (16 width)16 feet inidt'h is unsuitable for additional traffic (4) The in.terseotion of 95th & Oreenburg is dan;erous (1) "Depreciates value Or my pro.pertyr" or similar Sentiment (one asserted this would be by. 30%) (4) 1 oisel ana visual pollution, ""people congestion", "herass lento (4) 1/ouseswill have to be very small or ins pensive (3) R5 lots are too Small c3) `ina,•1 decision was �,do► prelriaturyly'i prior tr. April 2'T �.�� , Legal issue that a cond.±tioi of the zone,,I:h: ge was consructUon of the cul-de-Jac (2) Hence c'ijoctior to .:i.avirg to coxae bank again (1 ) ,• CouncilIlla.tidateli a c ii'*d.e se.o at the :request of residents in 197 (1) t �4 n on . w MINUTES TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION June 2, 1981 -,• Page 3* / Because origfiinal developer did construct, it should go back to R.-7 zoning (2) The following objections were also _raised. "Unnecessary density", "spot zoning" L Obj • d MIND 7' n ' , TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Junes 9 l .ul Page -. . t lir. Burton wanted assurance that the subdivision would not adversely drainage in the neighborhood, which has .�looding problems affect, the at present. Laurence explained in some detail the procedures which will be used to alleviate the present situation. COMMISSIONDISCUSSION AND ACTION: Speaker stated his stror.� nb;ec • tion to the line of a' exzt regum p � _ ed at this and other planning comms �.�e,.nt mission hearings that the existing streets (not developed to city -) would nDt sustain the additional traffic imposed by anew °- standardly ,, developnant. He pointed out that :the,'present residents have the ability graise the standard of their public `, through formation �,�f an LID to improvements to those imposed on every developer who comes before the commission. He fel' it unfair for such residents to attempt to deny ' the right of development because of their failure, in an urbanized area, to supply their own 'urban--:Level :improvements. ' Owens opined the area is 1�._nd of a �'.�uish mash" so far as type. of g a _ g , dwellings is c reed and asked if staff felt the drac.na a issue was raisedc.h whichbeen adequately taken care of, Howard responded with an over-all view of drainage solutions in the city, and stated g the residents could, if they Would, form an LID to handle the problem-- • whetherit be pavAg at bad intersections, sidewalks, street lighting or drainage. Lawrence stated they were tieing in t0 un ex.a.sting storm 'rainy e s st m Funk questioned why staff approved this without an adequato fire t`rtturn-around. Howard stated there w atld b e a break-away barrier. ` Punk opined openingld giresidents a superior traffic pattern. Bonn stated we are not discusR-5 because it is a. fact; rather we ate looking at whether a cul-de-sac shall be constructed or not. Kolleas and uerron and Helmer stated,-ed their concerns had been addressed. Funk questioned the breakw,a5ra` barrier through a pri'rate 4 individual's garden. Howard stated the garden i ' ona dedicated public right re - a,, p d On the request of the 4rightof--�'a S eak�.:� asked staff to ex " ,public works director' that the street eve : ual ly go through. Howard spokealong lineto alloW proper circulation, streets should throu through stand he gog the �:ha.s taken since 1979. ,It was pointed out that map $ g the � � .�,ht�ws the street oi'dg through. The president read from the staff report that if 'thiA appeal_is deniod, the staff would prepare an Ordinance for adoption by the. city council (removing the cul-de-sac a�� a part of the subdivision): and that the residents could address the council with:their case. I xih 'MOVEb denial of.ti,e appeal, 'cased, on, the staff ptesentation • and the ted evidence submite . . puaker seconded the ;mtitlOn y which carried ttnanimods . o�� s5�.o�ier `B�w�in withdrew took to part g on Item $. ,. �.t3. the hem n � �"xblu �.�d ` It y MINUTES ,W' • TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION June 2r 1981H Page 5. 0 5 P�ti:� ,�. MINOR .LAND. PARTITION MLP �3 til �7�Ro� ( NPO 2 t,- °, Appeal of Planning Dix'ectorls denial of a request by Jon Girod to 'partition (2) lots into three (3) lots to bui wda Single FaniWl,y: ho; e on rear lot. Proposed lot • sizes are 13,791 s uarr feet, 1 1 1,s uare feet and 3 �9 �•� 4 7 554' say are 'frJeL. Lets are located at 11390 and 114.20 SW 92nd. (Wa/h. Co. �`6. Mali 11 35 DB, Lots 3800 aftd 3900) Howa' 3 read the brief STAFF REPORT on the''al,peal, cOrrectins; the designation eau . .Variance. v5-.81, and that the request is for the granting of a 5#_ driveway width variance (rather than side yard setback variance). He also read the staff report of final fiction on the original MLP 2-51 request. The APPLICANT'S PRESENT ,ON was made by Russell Lawrence (of the previous nearing), who concU. red with the staff recommendation .dor granting the variance so development can proceed. PUBLIC TESTIHCNY, all in opposition, was given by >the following: *** Norman. Kolmodin, 11450 SW 92nd, read excerpts from the Declaration cf Restrictions for Dogwood Ridge that constitutes deed restrictions on all property in that development, He ast..erted it was -A• ' "1 because of those restrictions that he bought originally, as he opined most of; the present residents did, and pled; reluctance, to have to go to court to enforce them, but would do so if necessary. ** Donna Sandbo, 11L 75 SW 91st, referred to the' petition of A • 6 March 22 signed by 18 neighbors who felt "This action is in violation of the Declaratio'' of Restrictions covering Dogwood Ridge." She asserted there is no need to build even a 'tdreau .home" on this lot--thure is other land available. She deplored this proposed action b • as a start on a trend for infilling. She felt it would "undermine the integrity of the .eighborhood.t¢ *1."14. John Sandbox same address, did not feel it is necessary and would affect their privacy, adversely affect the neighborhood. He felt there are alternatives other th , building new house:. *.)t.* Karl Bo'rersax', 11360 SW 92nd, referred at length to condition- b in the deed rest,ric iorrs mentioned, by Mr. Holmodin, and opined' consideraa. ` tion' of having a second house on one of ttose lots "ah outrage". At this point speaker inquired whether' the deed restrictions precluded a minor land partition. The question was passed to the - city connse1, who opined the cmtission should be concerned with the granting of the variance; that theapproval of the MLP would. not involve a the city iii a lay suite bat th the other owners could sue Mt. Gir'od oni the basis o :t the deed restrictions :should he .attempt to tn'il� on thelot carvedOut. S�llivan read the qua1±fiA.c, aI.o. n for granting Varianciro thecity cod.. I� ^ 4 \^ t MINUTES TIGARD PLANNING COM\IISSION June 2, 1981 Page 6. I , ** Geraldine L. Ball, 11515 SW 91st, raised a question about • overall density in Tigard. CROSS-EXAMINATION AND REBUTTAL: Lawrence ,addr6 ssed the four qualifications for a;variance in relation to thi s qua., iproperty. He asked where the expressed concern for the "integrity ofthe neighborhood" i was when the minor land partition on,a lot adjoining the Sandbo s s wasgranted. s. Sandbo stated they had received no considered.and.: Hrs. notice, or they would have protested.' She argued that ,;pisillustrated her assertion that granting thiq MLP would set a precedent. ^ John Sandbo reiterated this would be injurious to the neighborhood. Lawrence asked the question, "If it is an owner's right to do something, w lay should this owner not be allowed to do So?" COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION: Funk questioned the setback-- was it to the overhang, of the eaves? (It is to the foundati .) He opined the qualifications for a variance were not met. Owens ab:'eed; "with Funk. Speaker read 'a paragraph in the staff report and as 5..^d staff to enlarge on the need for infill. Howard pointed out every case is different and therefore it is very difficult to Zor ulate a general. ` infill policy. Speaker called attention to the need for greater density in order to make mass transit work, cut opined it was small individual ' ° decisions, such as this that wouldgreater density.be required to achieve Re ag'•eed with sunk the provisions for a var4 ante are not met in this caase. Funk felt the deedr : ou observed because people ' -, . bought because of them. Helmet tfavoreddenial,.�,asth t this is. not an" r r. area suitable for "a .house in the back yard". 'TePedinno, while sympa- thetic to thear��.i,carit, could not agree he qut,lified under the provi- .. sons for a ,van ,.nc e . Holleas thereupon MOVED for denial of NLP 2-81 and Variance V 5-81 as proposed.- The motion was seconded by Helmer and carried vnanimoUsly. At. 9:40 the president leclared a ten minute recess, at the con- clusion of which Cor o ssioner Bonn rejoined the cOmmis :on. COMPRE}1ENSIVE PLAN R VISION CPP 10--81 - NPO #1 POLICY 28 NPO 41 Policy #28. Which reads. Ash Avenue should be e. ded aoros tenPanne Creeks acoess to the Nei .hhorhood t �i ss oottieroial. area without using Paoi:f%c igh a Design features should be used to slo` * tra. f'io and take the street as safe as pess*i t►le«t# t ow:trd read the.: " REPOlczT and, RFc4)1.1 I tDA'P and ba led Atte.t • ,. residents included n the ,packets. tion to a. nu�ber of letters 'roa .. a I ;; • if, i ' I 41+1 MINUTES TIGAPD PLANNING COMMISSION June 2, 1981 Page 7. '�e entered into the record tao additional letters in © z. oos1 ti onto extension of Ash - Lissy, 13270 SW Ash Drive, /ill Avenue from F1.oyd. K. and one from Douglas R. Saxon, 13415 SW Village Glen Drive; a memorandum from the chief of police; a copy of park board minutes addressing the issue; and a transportation ,:analysis prepared by Associated Transporta- tion Engineering ransporta«tion. Engineering and Planning,_Inc. A.11 of these were stated to be part of the record and available for review at City Hall. several eral sectionsa The AP.P LIC, I.� 5 FR .aTATIONwas made i *** Gene Richman, 13120 SW Ash Avenue, spoke on behalf of NPO #1. He asked what the procedure would be to'appeal this matter to the city statement council, responded to� by Howard. Ra.c.hm.an cited a Made by the city counsel with respect to N i concerning conversion 1a,%stricts-- "What the NPO did, they can undo." He declared that is what they wish to do--t he NPO created a document including Policy #28, andnew they ti wish to change .the policy.' He stated the narrative and Policy'#28 are , in conflict, and it is their desire to eliminate this sand. other incon- sistencies through removal of Policy #28. Ri lcman told of ,.�i sc? sions with the police department, and cited OPTICOM and: its. use in expediting emergency vehicles on Pacific Highway. U �� Policy ,4' protect residential char- acter asserted Deletion of �28 �t�.13. the re acter of the neighborhood; it Will insure : he integrity and safety of the neighborhood.'t He predicted the neighborhood would be ruined by • putting the street through. Hesummarized that with the deletion of 4 the policy, the "safet:;, integrity and residential character of, t.he' NPO l neighborhood will be preserved.. it '' *** Phil Edin, 13110 SW Ash. Drive, representing "a considerable x number Of residents of the Ash A, .'enue n' .:g ood,j cited the physical 1 e.��•htiorh dimensions of Ash Avenue right-if-way�f-�aSaad pavement. He compared them With collector `street' standarids and asserted ltb,s physical limitations of Ash Avenue are he:5.ng ignored by the city staff and its consultant.', ° He then compared the very r.4cert traffic study by' Mr. Welk With that' of Mr. Buttl.teis Dec,ember, 19'e3 etudy, and implied it Was desigea b staff "to make the projected traffic levels where the staff wishes • them to be." le asked the Comr ission to reject, Mr. fir'`oelgc'a report J. M ', 'rod the basis that it fails) to incorporate what you: need to make an intelligent decision.*4 , sh Avenue- discussed at length I '. ' traffic projections on Ash Avenue if ecte. g t . p �sded c" 5� .� a.t�.n ft�ke �,� projection pert'. 6,000 x' or S�00 'veh' by �.cl�;� day, an.rl a, foreca.�^�. OH��. ��.��. or { per day. 11e quoted sources, describing the adverse effects of high e) traffic streets'`in resi .ential. n.eig,hborhoods• Re <compared engineering - requiremes"i,Sts for a bridge across Fs no Creek as, er m aced with th.e public works directorts statement as t , how the c.;'ossing could, be car s .. contructed. Ite stated a proper bridge would require expenditure of - , MINUTES . TIGAnD PLAN vING COM 'MISSI 'ON June '2, 1981 Page '8 • seventy-five per cent of the systems development zunde ' The extensions of Ash and Johnson Streets as proposed by ,st x"f,. he asserted, violate Policy #27 and LCDC Goal /2. He discussed the concept of`'"goad traffic c,3.rculation", Which has not been defined' by staff' and asst},r tore that, the time to travel from "owntown, to the Ash Avenue neighborhood, it " ' • highly acceptable , **4 Jeff Graham, 13290 sw Ash Drive, "representing over 150 A esden�s on or around Ash Avenue,," made several observations: the r _ staff report offers no justi€icatign for the staff's: opinion; he took exception to Finding of Fact Nos. 3, 8, X10 and Conclusionary Finding N'os.. 1 and 3. H',e noted f lure to provide cost of construction and the ' ,*, justification therefor, particularly in view of the Woelk forecast of traffic volumes. He predicted severe safety,problems, including safety of the area's child.'enb Phil Benson, 10529 'SW 54th Drive, Portland, 'speaking as a proponent, stated he sold I, portion of his property because "I didn't want to see the traffic problems created on Ash Street by a large multi-family g development. . athese cars from the sedptse : We dont want all shopping center going up and don Ash Str,:et." i h • negative impact of proposed traffic volumes on four duplexes he proposes to build. ** Doreen Thomas, 13165 SW,Ash Avesue,' asserted there 7.s no need for Ash Avenue extension, especially to relieve, Main Street congestion. Sthee vt�e.ane�.ki, nantoi.• considerable S dtt0 adiloc,�zmcietiny 1g E:B,r.u�t�t.k��e as methods Yzd report, . PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Speaking as an opponent, was Dick Woelk' of Associated Trari.sportation. Engineering and Planning), Inc., Who produced for the City of,Tigard. the report "Tran , 1;� sportationnalysis of :Mending Ash Avenue to Lu;�nam ,oad in. Tigard, Oregon" dated ?gay' 29:, 1981 Ile ,. gave the scone of the report and the as5umptions used in it, adding ;, the Unstated assumption that the city would not extend sewer service N to parts of the area until alter 1985, the time frame-for his_ ro fn t He c led attention to the, different ;assumptions, between ;his report and Buttke"s 1973 ,report,;. resulting in incomparable traffic flow figures. 7- Be stated hit report considered that is best for the city from oast eng%noering standpoint. He described the bases used, and. the alternatives considered. With the aid of the overhead. pro vector he went. into oon.'- ' siderabl.e detail on the traffic impacts of extension axt none ter cion ' f .street i., with and without construction of the proposed, Main, Street D tvelapmcv,t. This :: :ed up to the study recotImendations ; e ssenti ,ll , that from an engineering standpoint if ,ain. Street Development, does not,,,take place Ash only should be extended,, if the a .,.'Street DelrelQpment does take,place, both Ash and 'ohnson Streets should be extendod to provide the most workable circulation.pattern with lob` volumes on residential streets j MINUTES TIGARD ALATNI:IG COMMISSION Page 9: CROSS-DEAMINATION AND REBUTTAL: A man in the audience asked Mr. Woelk, ++Did you or did you not work on a project for Main Street Land Company°'' in connection with a �,raffic study for them. Woelk replied in 1 the negative, and explained h.s partner did have a management position in CH2M-Fill about four traffic studies ago; that the: possible conflict of interest had been explained to Tigard officials and was considered: inconsequential. I • (Pt 11:20 the president announced that agenda items 5.4,' 5.5 and . 5.6would not be .heard at this meeting, and will be rescheduled.) ` ' Beth Blount,> an attorney in Forest Grove and representing ”the Ash , :venue group, not tbt. NPO", had questions, of Mr. Welk with respect to hisstudy and hisqualifications. The president ascer- tained sc er-» tained that .her line 'of questioningwas x professional � �lmc:d to lead up to .her...' tioning credibilityreport. She felt it was a report to support t the concept that Ash the 7.n of the of ' pp. . Avenue should be extended, and that the t retort has some flaws in it that :he planning commission should be . armee of. She. questioned the ability of the streets to handle the \ plumes of traffic projected. Woelk pointed out nei.thher did Buttkef's teport--that' question was not part of his assignment, but it is a question which could be addressed. Blount asserted Ash Avenue does not a ha1e the available right-of-way to be brought to minor collector standards. She asked several very detailed questions, responded to by`Woelk.> • She asked that Mr. Kittleson of 0li2M-Hill continue the questioning. pointed out an. area, along where the all Boulevard i�.ttl.eson 4~ . numbers which should .have added up to zero didn't. Woelk acknowledged it, saying he di ' happened. lle admitted that inthe time allowed therecould be some errors; but over all, the circulation • s pattern and numbers are consistent. Fat 'Hutchison, chairman of PO $l, gaestion ,d the increase at ,her intersection and the effect of the .new 4:'enior; ce: ter and the Aw7O/B0 retirement home to tae build in the area. Woelk responded that it was notniit, and the a c;umptionC consider the average anticipated growth inthe specific zones, Gene Richman poi Ated out that the NFO #1 report las submitted withoVLt access to or analysis of Mr. Woelk}s report. !• He questioned why the city spent cit , money for the report. Howard responded. Richman, opined with the limitations placed upon the Wo*Ik not havefie: inquired Whethe, r Howardhas tad discussions with eo le on Hill Street Concerningd yr lo,},yf m nt along study, it does , Jm►r,ch bearing. � -",1 t illi,, Howardaffirmatively. Gb t ISS1O`t DI'SCVSSI1 t tl) ACTION'. sunk felt that the commission •" .wiwwr .ii vwri should look beyond the ds sirekk of 1750 people to the needs of all of Tigard. He felt that igard nee's this transportation plan, and that : . Aaa extended is needed. Bonn a vicessed a need for a 1tback doorrt access ..r1 ,,. _. M.. ,v.r } 4•a ,e.,n.,- i u ...moi;;. 411, .. t .v q 1 1. T 0 „ 1 ,y • w,* ., ..... r 4,+�.. , y r a r MINUTES 4 ''u TIO4RD PLANNING COMMISSION June 2, 1981 Page 10. to the Main Street development, where :.A.ccese to the east and .,south would -, be Pt lied from Min Street and Pacit'ic Highway,:, K,olleas agreed`with � roati � tF people e an Ash with the traf3c, but felt Bonn. extensioneisver muchn�Qdep - Owens .had a "challenge" to the people on Ash with respect to ` bearing responsibility--when they bought t.he: it homes I,it was obvious ` the street some day would go somewhere. Her cha l nge to the commission, staff and. council is to explore all Possible alternatives. She did not . ., feel Ash should be extended; that Johnson should be extended; and that - . there should be .,„ good look ox- other alternatives that would not imnac t on Ash. iti Speaker pointed out that the higher volumes projected would have to So on eititvir gall: or Pacific Highway if Ash is not extended. The only access to downtown by NPO 41 is viath a perimeters4 He asserted there should be access through the middle for the people in the area. He pointed to the preponderance of professional: opinion in favor of this ;ex'4onsiont the fire marshals, 't` e police chief, the public woks /I , directoP andthe planning director. He affirmed agreement with their K g Speaker,opinion, Balmer agreed with S e�:er and felt Ash should be extended. . Tepedino, while sympathizing with the Ash a7 es residents, agreed. the necessity ' ��, tv of the Amu extension. Speaker 1tO fo'� adoption of the staff recommandati.on , which he reads based on the staff report and the testiMon ' ,heard in several } meetings in. the` last 23' year at which the subject has: ,beet'discussed. Boy seconded the „tiotion. T". B. I isl op from the audience called attenw tion to au appar iht conflict between the staff recommendation and + h'� Findng�:� of 'Fact ��o. �.Q4 Auer a little discussion among staff and oommissiouere, Speaker modified his motion, with the consent of the. 1�v .y k...-. n ' �,+,' "Staff recommends that Pv is of be ha ea recommendation: Stn second to the first sent"eyn�ce of the.� staff 9r� that �.y �.} � • i � � y �.V �M 4 n� �, and steps be taken it ,�° the near future to construct this extension in Connection Witt deveioprtent in the area." The motion carried 7 t+? 1, with Owens voting .o. The presiderit ...then. . ,.And the meeting at 1 II , q I i pa I # 4 r \ aLA • STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO. 5.3 • TXGAPD PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 2, 1981 7:30 p.m. Fowler Junior. High - Lecture Room 10865 SW Walnut, Tigard NO SUBMISSION OF ADDI ':CONAL MATERIAL BY APPLICANT SHALL BE' MADE AT THE , *, PUBLIC APING UNLESS ""„ClIEAPPLICANT IS REQUESTED TO DO SO. SHOULD THIS UR, UtIREQUESTED, TKE ITEM'WILL BE y'ABLED UNTIL THE FOLLOWING WING RING I DOCKET: COM'RH iS W'VE PLAN`REVISION CPR 10-81 NPO # 1 Policy 28 of NPO # 1 Plan APPLICANT: DIEICBBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATION # 1 City of Tigard, Oregon REQUEST: A reciaest for a change in. the NPO # 1 Plan, Policy 28, ` y'. Page 39. "Ash Avenue shouldbe extend across Fauna Creek, enabling access' co the Neighborhocx1!'s cartrarcial area 6. without using. .acific Highway. Design features Should ' be used to slaw traffic and make the street as safe as possible."r SITE. . - ;'ION SW Ash Avenue - From Frew ng Street to Burnham Street in the NPO # 1 Planning Area. PREVIOUS ACTION: On April 27, 1981, Neighborhood Planning Organization (NPO) # 1 member Gene PiChman submitted a letter to the City Council recjuesting a waiver • of the Camp ehensive ',Plein Revision i e of $500,00, and asking that Ash Avenue # be redesignated from a "collectors t a "local" street. The fee was waived, but the issue was not clearCity designations in the NPQ 1 plan, but rather does not include street the; Street Inventory Plan. The anninc� ; # � � ry' Pl Director suggested that Mr. Rican re-draft his letter to request that ,- Policy 28 of the NPO 4 1 plan be deleted. obviously this entire the pending development 1, issue has arisen: because of • ;• of sixteen (16) acres of property bet "en ighwf99W, Marra, Street and, SW Ash Avenue. The NPC) has been involved with this project for more than a year During this time various traftic Circulation patterxrs have been proposed �.< P We are finally at a stage where decisions have to be tni .e M w . •. . y� The C:ounczl, was I.sked to have joint-session withthe PlanningCiam..�,>✓ a and all zxiteres� p=ties, but they declined .n, favor of the process before the Planning aumi.seion, and then to them for a final decision ,. .. .... ..., ,. .,... .o....• wA...d': )J u °.... x e..vl LN r.l,Yuye 4n+,P.r, +. t e STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO 5.3 „, TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 2, 1981 CPR 10-81 Page 2 of 8 Mr. Ashley, n nbe...r of NPO # 1, recently gave a historical perspective to Policy 28`and Staff would like to share this history with the Planning commission. .'he NPO # 1 was approved by the Council on May 20, 1974 by Ordinancy 74-25. r rdinance 75-16 adopted th NPO # 1 Plan Book and Comprehensive Plan Map c ', March 24, 1975 by a three to two vote. • Since `974 some very dramatic changes have taken place in the NPO '# 1 area. The imPortant thiD4 to realize is that the Council added Policy III 28, and then approved the NPO # 1 Plan by` a three (3) to two (2) vote after much community ity trauma. We have all returned to this issue, but the terms have changed due to develoxuent pressures. t III I, 1) NPO :F1FPolicy 28 was adopted by the City Council on March 25, 197, Ordinance NO. 75--16, which adopted the SPO # 1P1.an and Map. 2) An unimproved dedicated public righttof-way conrp its Ash Avenue across Fanno Creek 3) The ORB Group Park Plan has been preliminarily approved by the Park Board and City Courc?. . Ash Avenue is octant for access to this 4) The gain atre�� pro ect anticipates c oiderable adin activity "be ,. right--of way along Ash ti� the Farina Cry f � development or the. " 1��.p1a��, � portion. of the and, park in ovenleri,ts \krill made condi'tions of f Ma S beet roj ect 5) 'Hill 5';. e` will eventually be completed to o'M u a Street to the Bast as tlitielopment takes place. 1• 6) .Z.sh A ue betw'c.'�n Fi-et�t and Garrett� � �� 3 will be oartpletred., as tieveiopalent, takes place 5, 7) "the TRtiP1:1 Fire llarsl4:1, s � . �' the extension of Ash Av -iud dough ' : . to Co n xcial Stree .d the fire station 8) Te Tigard, police. Iperartrient $1upports the extension of Ash Avenue acrOSs VatIno Creek. ..:... ., ..;,. ,.:: ... ,Ma•warr+r,. .. .""",�.a+rauww., ^'°,SPY �✓W'�'�➢ II 1 1 { rT 7 STAFF RrIPOF P AGENDA NO. 5.3 TIGARD PLANNING C O IISSION JUNE 2, 1981 CPR 10-$1 Page 3 off: 3 r support the 9) The Public. Works' Director extension of Ash Avenue across Fanno Creek Planning and through to both Garrett to the South and Ccr_cial Street to the North. 10) , Trafficxxsportation: ,' Consultant Mr Wilk of Associated Tra. II Engineering & Planning, Inc., will address traffic use if this street wire a`through street. Staff asked that Johnson S Greet from Highway 99W to Ash Street be considered by the Main Street Development 2-- . Group. This issue will be resolved through the Planning Review process for the project. • II. CONCL'CJSIONA FINDINCS 1) L velopt nt in the Downtown area and in the NPO # 1 area has' brought about a demandfor increased traffic circulation in the: area. Ash Avenue should be extended across Fanno Creek to increase circulation from the affected neighborhood to downtown.'. -. 2) The City is in a position to require major street 5mprovements from pending develo r��.nt in this area,, No may be the only opportunity that • we will have to make these fu pravem nts 11 3) The neighborhood will experience greater traffic movement along Ash Avenue, The attitudes es expressed in the related correspondence _kt -ii. 'o,, ,sections of the care t ca"zy the are xsolatxonist. L+�t the other t, traffic and leave Ash Avenue alone:", is the undercarren here. This difficultis an to deal With. Front a realistic rational ration viewpoint expressed by the Traffic Consultant the increase in traffic is not severe, The completion of a public street from Ash Avenue to 0.-"Mara Street and Hill Street to O' Zara Streeto will syphon--off/divert traffzc� Ash to Harnham will alleviate other traffic congestion. '11,4,........s issue must be resolved for the .betterment of circulation generally. N. 'ix. STV' VECO F+END.G,.iJ..'IO lio Staff recommends that Policy 28 not be changed, and that steps be taken to const et this' extension, in con,"i lction with develo ent 3.�'l, the near futureer�sio� i the area. A public street from Ash Avenue Lo .tom Street al on tie southern edge of ranno Creek. should be c nstruc ed4 Hill. Street to 0441ara shoutl d be cctiPletedo and;Ash Avel ue Should, be ccatpleted North to . rc al, Street az d South to Barrett. Sit. '11: ► •y "M3. et't:or ,, . � �r � M yY, rye, � .. . .. �� _. w a,1 ; " ' ' . .. i. 1, T ., l 0 ••rel 1 TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS' •. O ' a . • EXTENDING ''ASH AVENUE TO BURNHAM ROAD .. � IN TIGARD, OREGON PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF •I`IGARD ASS()CIATED ,TRANSPORTATION • w. . EC GINEERING & 'PLANNING, INC. . —H, ' ' , ' ' ' 1 , ,, ' ,May 29, 9 1 #'i a7 w Got) rig,Ixt» Attsatittt. d Ttatt port tzi oti ''trigitieeti g ,&& : 1n. t ', T 1 A tl , •�.. w n ,....,,,,,,..,,,.4..,_ y,.• 1 • I • oki[11 . 4UFINI. • TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS OF THE EXTENSION OF 1 ASH AVENUE TOO BURN8AM ROAD k T11 .rtD OREGON Q INTRODUCTION +{, , 4 This .eport represents the findings of a transportation analysis concerning ,'% traffic circulation within the Ash Avenue-Downtown Tigard Area. This analysis includes the proposed development on the southwest quadrant of Main 'Street and Pacific Highway. The '`basic premise for this report was to ascertain the traffic impact of the surrounding neighborhood, but. the down- -. town' following ofalternTigard as well.ves on not only the ,, ALTERNATIVES The following alternatives were analyzed: ;,: A. Normal growth to 1985 without the proposed development (no build) : 1 . Normal Growth to 1985 and without the proposed development with Johnson Street extended to Ash Avenue; 2. Normalgrowth to 1985 without the proposed development with Ash Avenue extended to Burnham Road; 3. Normal growth to 1985. without the proposed development Ment wi ih both Johnson 5t' e extended to Ash Avenue and Ash Avenue extended to Burnham Road. B. Normal growthto 1985 with the Proposed development �na' b build)) (existing , street system only) with the proposed development and. ' the extensionG t . 1 . Normal growth to 1985 of Johnson Street to Ash Avenue; 2 , Normal growth to 1985 with,' the proposed development and the extension of Ash Avenue to 8urnham Road 34. Normal growth to 1985 with the proposed... he extension s' h level o�n�ent With t of Johnson Street to Ash ,Avenue and Ash Avenue extended to Burnham Road copyright 40e .ated ' tatspottat ott 1az: . g, Cie yi„ . A4 • 'w q • w • .:w +. OGO: BACKGROUND The following data was reviewed and evaluated as pertinent to the objective of this transportation analysis: Source Data •' City of Ti garb 1. "Traffic irculation - Ash Avenue", Carl Buttite, Dec. 26, 1973. ,ro 2. "Application fo^ Comprehensive Plan . Revision for Main Street", Boutwell , :,► Gordon,' Beard, and Grimes, April 10, 1981.. 3. CH2M-Hill Reports for "Main Street Development-PUD ', Dated May 191'9, June '1979, Sept, 1979, Oct. 397 , , . March 1980, July 1980. 4. Volume Summary 1985 Traffic Volume Projections, Oregon 9epartment of Transportaton, Metro. BASIC ASSUMPTIONS Predicated on review and evaluation of the available local background resource data identified revi ou<. �, theperformance of this transportation basic assumpt�' its were: made to guide p � r sp nation study. o This shopping center will be developed in general con- formance to the Site Plan. o Land use surrounding this sita will remain basically constant until completion of the development. o This devel oilmen t will generate vehicular trips at a level comparable to the average characteristics of similarly sized developments nationwide' r o The directional orientation of the existing vehicular _ r traffic and the traffic generated by the development will be proportional to similar de melopment types in the area. o The Oregon Department of Transportation. (000T)` will install a coordinated-Psignal rogress ve s system on Pacific Highway. a Ash Avenue between Frewing and Garrett Streets to be paved. o The traffi.L volumes projected by ()DOT and C H2m_Hill will be generated by 1985 ea�kia'ls,' ..Rarsiwq'�Y1A,' Copyright* Associated Trac pc tat ou gagineeri g planuios STUDY AREA • The studyareaconsisted ,of thea triangular area bounded ' Pacificby Highway, Hall Boulevard and McDonald Street. The study area heel ided all the resi- dential portion of the Ash Averue neighborhood between Burnham Road and McDonald Street. METHODOLOGY The method of forecasting traffic volumes on the existing and proposed street system is known as the modified gravity model of trip distribution. Based on data supplied by the City of Tigard and the report "Traffic Circula- tion-Ash Avenue" Carl Buttke, Dec. 26, 1973, the study area was divided into (9) trips n:hezones. The. vehicle e tri from each zone were distributed to the surrounding street system on the basis of the shortest, least congested, and the most logical routing for trips originating and ending in each zone. The dfsaribut on of those trip'; were developed on the basis of the existing r,? traffic distribution and those outlined in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area 1990 Transportation Study. Figure 1 indicates the directional distribution of trips used for this a alysi 3. Theroject d 19$5 traffic`c volumes shown lo the following alternatives have been ! r adjusted to eflect an Pstimated, twenty percent (20%) multi-purpose trips (20% of the existing traffic will stop, then continue to another destination) . , r. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION Alternative A Alternative 'A' is a review of normal traffic growth conditions within the study area to 1985 with no new streets being constructed and without the proposed Oeve1 opment on Main Street. Figure 2 indicates the Projected 1985 traffic volumes -( for the existing street system Figure 2 indicates that Garrett Street and O'Mara Street will carry the heaviest. increases in traffic by 1985. This is created by the lack of an internal circu- lation system connectng to downtown. within the area of Zones 6 and All thegrowth 7 (Figuretravel 10) must through ,1 M. the neighborhood to get to an arterial street such. as Hall Boulevard or Pacific H hwa gto reach downtown. 9 y .. This alternative i s not conducive to the overall traffic circulation system for the neighborhood as it does not ..... ,or neighborhood traffic to provide a means travel to downtown without going to either Hall Boulevard or Pacific Highway. Copyright. Akiasociated Tr .hsportatior Eng,ineezitg r ,'M Atittit1 , Ino. ryt • y J 1= • • • �4� far ��.,: �# ,» ' `, rya ri , •i +it. PAS ea •- x war , ♦, xf �� , �r '• ' • • y =�Y • / pkv 111,W tor '�IFM• _ 1= . stilt thiAlmly *IV t , . . , • f V Fi4ug, t)i • r` '' te :; I � � 1 'w� olo ed tratteportat.iati41t :Plartrtiosi, thou �i.s �W , ,aP .' .. ..,� .•„w..r5u..�V1 *m,%,a+, rM,.wura'HYw�wwxuwu" ...ilR'. � � •,xm,,l 9 W.., x , i - aa• = 1 s. x.j4v4,..,vu a. 1, .r. I • i IF Oi ,. ra" t ti .r n y Q• 40 ♦Q‘''',Pit ri- VV ,r . 1 Y 1 er 't- �' a r. PgAF» St 'L r' ' ' 2. - ' '. , , , , , , , ,..- 0 .,.„, , ', ' .,., .,,,, .. . . ., , 0., , . ,, , r,a,tiii '' ' T''.: , . ,, , r .,,,...,, r... . . ... : 1 . .. ,...,. ,..r........ i , . ,, rl . ot55). 4 `, . , 4.. ••tib Yti� • : . . , ; ..4,\, , ,,..: . . , ,,, , . 1,11siliiiitg - o P"tlMIN i t,. t f� } , ��MlY9RQA ti Y +iLtitt 5T IlYitaV �. ' ilk'• u • .rr v . a I , 1 �' z 1 1 : c ofytXght . A4vociAtedt TrI nfpor`tAU &n Er g1ft ari s , rtlait n t t L. ! 1� i .•i ,x<.-.M.,u.....,,.w t re,,.. .... k.rww.a��,. o..><t,ukroar�....w .�1•: -=- • T 4U ^' M Alternative A-1 Alternative A-1 as shown in Figure e 3 is an analysis of '',;he travel patterns i created by the extension of Johnson Street to connect with Ash Avenue. Figure 3 indicates the projected 1985 traffic volumes within the study area without the proposed development on Main Street. Under Alternative A traffic on O'Mara Street at Hall Boulevard, Edgewood and Frewing Streets would stay approximately the same as the no-build Alternative .p O'Mara Street north of McDonald Street would receive an increase i,n traffic as would Ash Avenue between McDonald and Johnson street,. y A Under this alternative, Ash Avenue, Garrett, Frewing and O'Mara Streets serve as collector streets to route traffic from the residential streets to the main arterials. Alternative A-2 Alternative 'A-2' as shown on Figure 4, is the analysis of norwal growth to 1985 ' with Ash Avenue extended to Burnham Road. indicates, under this alternative the collector and arterial streets As Figure 4 such as Ash Avenue, Burnham Road receive the greatest increase in traffic, while '• the resi,dential area of O'Mara Street, Edgewood Street close to Hall Boulevard,. and Garrett Street receives a significant decrease in traffic volumes. This shows that a portion of the traffic generated within the neighborhood now has an alternative route to downtown and Main Street other than Hall Boulevard . and Pacific Highway. This alternative provides a significant improvement in traffic circulation over Alternative 'A' Alternative A-3 This alternative revs ews normal growth 1985 traffic volumes with the extension .. of Ash Avenue and Johnson Street without the proposed development. (See Figure 5) Under this alternative, Street, Edgewood & Garrett Streets , ve, the traffic on O'Mara 9 decreases while trafr'i c volumai volumeon Ash Avenue, Burnham Road and Hall Boulevard increases Alternative A-3' reduces overall traffic volumes on all residential streets except Ash Avenue, which would seve as a collector street. for the neighborhood to down--' h town and Main Street. Alternative s This alternative analyzes• the. normal growth patterns t0 185 with theproposed development and no new streets. cop + i golf w scouted Tratisportatioh, Ert, ine ri g , ?ia i , ,�. ,6 •rib } • 11, • .• % • • • 4114111/1‘11 l • 64ki ,w Frra sr iSIcC) • lb isT �+„+ M tw#`ry i. ., ,., n• . X11 p lej.l.Vlt►M,Y !S'! � I'. i�M Ot*titttedatat Art W r 3 ' ; Mo 4.4ttMLie r r r (xt)i r gl Most)tiatdd `n ittooting Pl rittittg 4. • . . • I , •011" 0'(;) • • • • • 4,ek r Iy • • 4iiii • 4(def 9r I jsi `. o- • ti 61 r v • - a to ort• Nilt*PAMM e,11. jj • I 67D6S1nhi�:p ```�► 1061frd iT Ya , r '14 d4.109t41. • :1C.�" d ! ► T+ :.��,%411,164.1T ` C:o yri ht , AndociAted Tr408portatiori Eugineating P1 .t g', tuto 4 r { ...AO ` `µ r 1 a • 4' s $. i „., 1 7 C ', , 'a r CI) %iv . .- r 1"3 '''ti:. i A, 1M trate M r+"1 F��• tt.� �t A r e 4 gyp- f'. .'tor4 ,,a , 1'�x bha�ttwt -flht ' 1 ''''''' ' ' ' '' 8100c) .i. , 1 1 1 , 1 , IA Li itG: ' 1 t.1N X ^ 1+ i4it Wit 41 : ' 1� L M+ p ri ht e ocia.4 TranoPottation Engineering & Planning* Ina* + I • ar I °R • I (a* . ' tO'' i .• • •• rucaer�it^+�briaodA t ,4,r t r� r. ri Figure 6 shows that while the traffic volumes within the neighborhood` stay the same as Alternative `A' , Main Street, Burnham Road and Hall Boulevard receive 6' increases ir traffic. r The effect of this alternative would be to overload the arterial stoeet system withc t providing internal circulation within the neighborhood. ', Alternative B-1 This al te►n ti ve is the same as 'A' , except that proposed development's traffic has been added. r, ; Figure 7 shows that traffic volumes n all l streets, not only those within the neighborhood, will increase. fir! increase zn traffic to the neighborhood i relatively small compared to the ' ' The i , rc volume increases on the do . town street eet system. .,, This ss alternative does not: 1) allow fur increased traffic circulation to the ./ l'','t. own area; and 2) reduce ne)ghborhood traffic volumes. t' • Alternative B`-- ' This alternative coincides with Alternative 'A,,2' , plus the proposed devel o; lnt • 4- gene r «id traffic. Figure 8 shows. a reduction in volumes on the residential street system and an w- ' i ncre se in voi+Jmes on collector streets similar to Alternative 'A-2' . ' A The effect of ,A i s alternative is tnL; same as Alternative, 'A.-2' with the ex,cep- tion of the volume increases on Main Street .and Hall Boulevard. Ir • • y.. Alternative. B-B • Al '�� "ati ve 'B-3' is similar to 'A-3' and was developed to show the 1985 traffic + , gig ' ��+�i,ea impacts on the: entire study area and the proposed street extensions. • ri gure 9 shows the residential traffic volumes decrease and Burnham Road and Hall. Boot -yard traffic increase ° . ficantl This increase is due to bettera i tg r �n C"" circulation on of traffic within, the neighborhood and better access to the arterial ' ; s tiret s,y�stem , 1111 Under this alternative, Ash Avenue continues to serve as a neghborhood,collector I street to McDnaldStret and downtow � 0. .,;-...4( , '.: , co c' ,.oli5 _1( •• I Based on the trrfl c en gineeri ng analysis, oft he alternatives and all data \:,''''-* :. ,}- ♦ supe1aed ATEP has arrived. at the fCllownng conclusions I Ba dl�• Copy igittl At'soci,t1ted ar(s• ortati'•)n ` n, ee iti 'e 1'iatitzi 1 Trio,. N• ........,.... r . r..a r....-. , i..:'.., ri. ..... ... ••. •. .. r q r '..:.«w.w n..Ir r,...... . .......w .. .. �' .. ... a ......e I ,..�a .. .. 3w. ... �. • ,a11.131.1.K.,INtirnieNMN,isiiimpi,1 4................,..orr, 0 . • . ......,................,..,....*:,,.......„.........•....,............,..., , Q 1� T. ' w .f Q ,� • r ' • a 4' r JT o V. ; % p '�►b www��? }' v►A 4 .• ti '• ay, :' iii �. Poker q s,T `��,,y p 'II,. ' u t!ll'' /3C)0 0 P A111► ST 0 t+,,, «... ill, , v�r�t' aT N1ixN t1kt Ct .N i..,0 x r ;i t'r,i/yri, hitw Asijo4tiiited "Tratibpor't aU .Oi Eng+tte i i,ng 6. :?Lar►r in ►. trnc. a , - 1 1 •1 tb' , ' ' ' ' . 1 ' 11' '' ' ' ,,,', , , ' . . , . ' ' . '' ' , '''''''N''‘'%4*.t '4, - ' , ,, , o'' , , , , :4r , \ , ,, , , ., , , . . ,. .. , ;3,r . c.. ... , ,, ,, ,„ ,,, ., , , , ,„ , , , ,' , 1 , ,,, , ., , , ,, , ,,, ,, , . , , , , , , , 4. ' 16.,' 4'o . a4. ,1øpp1ø_, Ott • 4;- �t i d • p 'i � iJ IEf La 1', 4r �V.i r i' 1 y1 ; i i a - i } 44"'°‘'.'`.1 '01M1V V 'ii,,, .d' C' • � M.Drii�M:t Et Il $ 11" 1 tus'a ,r., r t. , :ciW t /. ' ,, , ' , ,, , ,' ' , ,O,Kt.mi,4,i.r,4,4:',4.,4 'tio0,4iTIA ' ‘, ' " ' '''' ',,i, 't,"e..i,,,,iiti.utspN&-,z4..,.4.17.•'' , . ,..1'''',. } (.c)liy i <t: M Ocia .ed ',rr tt porttir,i) Eg ie in g a. P14►ntUU'n i Tho 1. A 0 '' to r J 3' 4,r * tn� +,, t . atilt t 1p'• � 444 t .• �Yr i i 1 , p 1 d s 1 r•6) opr \ . , us 4,, ,, , 1, /000 r . r i Ft4u : r , W v (t py'rigIu got:ia ed ‘T.`ta J4,por"tat I i Etigilttii4Iti:.tiit I5r, Plalthilligo Ittit P „ i , , 0 P . . * ' H {y 4 is ('0�4 �r 4. i vto w i — kit { ;. f i 4 c a'', atC? as ..` a. ft ir.ARA. at f PPPt r ., . ... .. ... . ( . r A.A RhI II , .; t, r 0 P AItta. 6T r rV�lC,�7 iiIKYIM� .. „„„.,Q, , . ' , • , ; . . . . . 1a , , , , , ,,,, . .. , ,,,,,, , , , . .. .... ..,..„.„ . , ,, ,,• .„ riflei,ud• llkt` . . i, ,.., ,, , 3,,,,,,,,,,0 . . . .. . ,, .. ,, ; , , , , , r. ,, .,. . , ,.., , , , , , ,, , ,,„ .1 , a ; , . . , • 1 ;;, w. +ew. , , h4 ZAiu 1 r4 gip , ' , ` ropy ght ao Uat d Tranapottatioh. EtigiAebriitg & '1at .t► -int, , j/ r �. ......, I .N.. ., u r �..,.., n<.,h.. .wn »,.,_, r r.., • w >Nv-w , u ,,.»� +n'1/• f , ` t iIf ' • '.. -:--,A1,...1Y,.::,...wl....:....:.b,.J...n.1.kA::p.•..rt+.:J,w.d.•*,,•*.ia.e.4:.I;ew+0.1,1•d..r'!..e....mwd4.10”...,islu..ww.1....1:M.4.0,.,c.w..Ya#wfay....IL0.1k4,wiwn:iie.rUbn;1lxiMh4 iiiilear+rotier ttr•vrnY,tti+aC=.utmittvtkcitill`M. 4.7trei 4;4,1:tit:*CIC"44c4.1*::„A•,r*".4. ., ,. • • i1 A 14r . .. • 1 i • P.,/,.././/./4' rJ� 1 ' /'t , ' .p*. i& ,,./�b sr 4 r" • 4001001• • s r 1. 1 q, 4r "' ''''''wh..µn-' .. 666 I rWYY 1..y4 �fl , A. 44' ..,.... -- .'-- ......... > ..... • e v_ _ is 4i� .. "r O P.11C►� S1 p �,V 1 5 51k r. ` 4 w. lr r I r . r } i 'p � \ \ \ w t Y r ' 1 . , ..‘,„,,,''''::,. J"+ , s t ' \� sr / n t 1 , l I . � . YF eu r�1 � Yf.r• 1 * 1 . .01.Ili. ital101iiisiMMMile.1111..............1,1,....01k, 0........ 1.11,......1, 1 . By 1986, under normal growth conditions, the residential street system within the study area will be approaching collector street volumes. Traffic will be travelling through the neighborhood ' seeking to bypass the congested. arterial streets. To prevent this infiltration, the arterial street system should be improved, i.e. , Hall ' Boulevard and McDonald Street. 2. The proposed development will •impact the surrounding arterial 11 and collector street system with or without the extensions of Johnson Street or Ash Avenue. S.W. Main Street, Burnham Road and the downtown streets will receive the most traffic from • the development under Alternative 'B' and ''B-2' 3. If Johnson Street is connected to Ash Avenue as shown in Alter- , ' nati lter- nati ve B-1 ' , traffic will increase'within the neighborhood and the overall traffic; ci rcul a ti on will not be improved. 4. If Ash Avenue is connected to Burnham Road as shown in Alter- native ;,'B-2' , traffic volumes on the residential street system will decrease). The volumes on Ash Avenue would increase ease and Ana" Ash would serve as a neighborhood collector street. Under thi,s alternative, overall traffic circulation 1;i thi n the study area would be. improved. 5. AlternativeB-3 (Figure 9) allows the increased traffic volumes to be distributed over the entire arterial/collector street system. Traffic volumes would decrease on the residential street system and overall circulation within the neighborhood would bi)? inproved. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on this analysis and the premise of providing a workable circulation pattern with low traffic volumes on residential streets, two alternatives are appropriate: ti ve 'B-2' and 'B-3' or A 2 and A-3' (Fi g�ures '= M , ` Alternative�7a , 8:o 9, 4, 5). ATEP 'recommends Alternative 'B-3' or 'A-2' from an engineering standpoint since it provides the following: icirculation i1. An adequate internal street pa tern for the neighborhood d (allows travel to and from downtown without using Hall Boulevard or r-acffic Highway) 2, Reduces the overall traf'r`i c impact of the proposed development on tri'he arterial and collector street system ( 'B-.3' only); and 0 3, Has the least negative traffic c im act to the study area. , Copyrightt Meoo .ated TransPortatioh trtgiheetittg & Platt-ding, Tuts, r 4 • _ \ PARK BOARD MINUTES MAY 28, 1981 SEWER TREATMENT PLANT . 7:50 PM - 16580 SW 85th, Tigard, OR Meeting was called to order at 7:40 PM by Chairman Phil Hirl. 1. ROLL CALL: Betty Golden, Mary Payne, Phil Hirl, Bob Bellinger, Ronald Jordan, Roger Zumwalt Excused: Fitzpatrick Absent: Haas, Manning Staff: Liz Newton Guests: J.B. Bishop, Wilbur Bishop, Phil Bchi, Kelly Hirt,, Chuch Gordon, Pat Hutchison, Jeff Graham • 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minuses of previous meeting approved as received 3. OLD BUSINESS: J.B. Bishop,at`Ld Chuck Gordon A. Architect for Main Street Land Company Development presented additional information relating to the Proposed downtown development. Appro"' imately en hour was spent discussing studies done by US Corps of Engineers of tae flood plain and ho„). the Main St.: development followed all Fedt:;ral fi regulations for building/construction on this. site. A hydrologist was also consulted for recommendations. Specific:fic rebuttta,als to objections noted oted in minutes of April 23 were ;hear' regarding: 1. Some building of parkinglot in filledg g' flood plain�but nothing in floodway. floodplain as desined by Federal study is less than that* plotted iwrom aerial study. Mayor Bishop spoke briefly regarding the proposed Civic Center. It appears possible that the Crow civicBuilding will be acquired: for City . p fall and other purposes changing need for land on ORB Study relegated for parking, etc. and now freed up for park. apace The northern boundaries of proposed lake will be gradually sloped for recreational purposes. Lake will havaverage depth of four feet with range of three to six feet. Liz Newton reported for Frank Corrie He Neither approves nor disapproves of this northwestern part o Fatno Creek. He believes park benefits from grade . grading of lake. It was moved by Roger Zumwalt and seconded by Bob; Bellinger as follotsts Park Board recommends to City Council approval of the gain St. Plan ,••":. ,. ..,-m+w.u.-M.mv.u+N.I�uFM+wr4Wwi'+•,++w.rMN+.iMwAdN''.F4W.lwnwe., PAGE 2 , PARK BOARD MINUTES MAY 28, 1981 SEWER TREATMENT PLANT \`rtii the following restriction: 1. Northeast corner of site should not / 6astrict. park. 2. East site berm continues north and t'Ounds off NE corner 3. Direction and speed of water flow be considered to prevent', x erosion. Passed unanimously. B. Pat Hutchison of NPO #1 addressed the concerns of NPO #1 regarding , possible extension of Ash Street northward" to Burnham and several plans for extending and realigning Johnson. Either' or both of these proposals would seriously encroach on parlc. lands as well as dividing thepark and presenting traffic congestion. It was moved by Betty G Y r 'of the Park rand asoutlined that the Park en •6,y .� Board recommend that theldnteg�dgyeconded r1`. :Bob Bellinger that ;i,.a ORB study he preserved and no bisecting or intersecting streets be petritted. We are specifically against the extension of Ash St. from Hill to Burnham. Passed unanimously C. Ronald'Jordan reported p rued on Cook Park bandstand. tis contacts did not think. much of the plans and may present `alternatives, at no cost to Board. Mary Payne reported that windmill bn 121st whichhas bean considered as a possible historic site is not ho1Ve to nesting ,darn. owls �- �v;th resulting 4 loss of other bird life. Z . _ NEt;1 BUSINESS: Vandalism. in. Summerlake Park A. Motorcycles,,, overnight`'ght cat pings littering, has brought many complaints passage Ordinance 81-28, closing Park to public. Copy� resulted �,e Massa � of .: « . Ordinanc, sent to the Board members 'with minutes. 5. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned 10:00 P/, R'.spectfully submitted Betty Golden, Secretor,' ti • • 4," i • JI , o n , ' I , NPO 1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION REQUEST' S �Y 8 THE ' DELETION ,OF PLAN POLICY 2 Prep .red B,r NP C Pat Itut t, sTA May 28' 1981 p na,t- y re �i�t sn`4�•.y, ��, �,r�t�.but a�c��s ,to dx a,talyss cad'' Antoci ,ted Tr 's ,art .ton Et sneer ng & Plbfti.nk ,, Indy Ash A tiu e Trsi f± Study r. a , • May 7 , 1981 Mr. AIdie Howard Planning Director Tigard Planning, Commission T3and City g o y Council P. O . Box 23397 ' Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Mr,. Howard: NPC) 1 is requesting a comprehensive plan revision. The action requested is to delete policy 28 from n, the NPO 1 plan for downtown Ash Avenue, c Policy 28 of the Plan states "Ash Avenue should be extended across Fanno Creek, enabling access to the neighborhood' s commercial ;e.rea v&theta-t using Pacific Highway. Design features should be used to slow traffic and make the street as safe as possible "; Please attach this letter to the ap ?.ication dated Ap: w NPO 1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION_REQUEST. . The Neighbox'hood Planning Organization No . 1 (NPO 1) recommends ammendment to the pola.cyv.t formulated by the citizens 1 committee oi' NPO 1, c.;dcpted by the Tigard City Council May 20 , 1971 1, , Ord. No . 71',-25 , Amended i Ord No. 75-1(1 ; Ord, No . 75-22 ; Ord . No. 'r5-39. The Plan, consists of two parts , .arra..t .ve and policy. Both ar p jointly considered when using the lllan. This po be oxnlan' revision requests that Policy 28 be deleted. Poc i . 23 sta�..e . Ash A . nue should be extended across Fanno Creek, enabling access to the . neighborhoodts commercial area without using Pacific Highway. Design features should be used toslow traffic and make the street as safe as possible: rr NPO recognizeschange the narrative portion t r related eplan of the need to '' ' and .o he r 1 d policies ..' The tizaing of such changes will occur, a :74, er approval of this revision request . r Deletion of Plan Policy 28 will: i I. Eliminate inconsistencies ,n the original NPO l document . II. Provide proper planning direction for future development . III. Encourage the use of a natural buffer between residential and light industrial. IV. a�n'Maintain � eas �nable levels , of service rvice provided . by xire , police and other public sexvices consistent with the City of Tigard was: a whole. V. Protect 4'he residential character or the entire NPO 1 neighborhood, Its integrity and safety; a roval of this p'au3.? - thebest °P�efit pp p $.z st is • The h _ s� in �.�!'�e� of the residents and. the City of Tigard. 'Your support of this plan change is encouraged. Inconsistencies in ari:nal Plan Document The methodology of Tigard. City Cottticii. and w.the original ;' * .: p polity. 28 as an alternative 1 is adopting planting organization. . . . ice fueled existing plan inconsi;stencie,s , Oigamal plan ,'' items inconsistent with exisiting policy '$ but consistent `with the proposed amendment , that should now be reconsidered are las follows ' 1. ) The omprehensive plan r'ecogn:iZelc, the esta.hlished a character of existing neighborhood and seeks to preserve anal enhance existing, neighborhood values. tpage `:11 item; page Two its 2. ) It n�Fano Creek, and< tributarystreams provide natural drainage ways and make possible a system . of greenways connecting various parts of the city t` . Page 12 , ' item 3. t =3 ) tHeavY traffic is noisy, smelly,Y� and dangrous . us . It conflicts with residential values and with many of the other activities within the city. ,r Therefore , major traffic routes need to be designed and located In a manner that will minimize these inherent conflicts , at the same time allowing motorists to reach their destinations quickly and safely. " Page 12 , item ?+ . OTl 4. ) "Convenience e i s a'' major t�h,�,e c t1 e v in locating shopping facilities and other businesses . At the sa 'e time , their location should not conflict with residential areasunnecessarytraffic or create congestion." Page 12 , item 5. 5 none one multi_fly area is shown on the plan that' will ami generate some traffic on local residential streets . This Is the area adj a:c en's Fanno Creck on Ash Avenue . It order to keec traffic on Ash Avenue below the 15Q0` vehicles Per daY d�. ignated as the maximum volume for local residential streets . (See Streets section page 3i ) the overall development density of this area is encouraged to be 10 dwelling per gross units � g oss aere. at Page �0 • " . . ,Ash Avenue is not currently. adequate to to carH , additional traffic generated by additional multi- family development . i-The plan predicates the development of a artme p nts at this location upon the extension of Ash Avenue' across Fanno Creek to Burnham Street . This provides a more direct route, out of the Neighborhood for apartment traffic and will minimizr the impact upo.'1 local residential streets . rt 14r B1uttke' s traffir.! analysis showed volumes t will exceed the maximum of 1500 Vehicles per day Permitted on. a local Street if additional apart- ments ents are constructed in this area at this time. page 21. Item 5 above clearly indicates the teed for changing plans bssed uon the rezoning of thep .. above rop d�ty frbz A�-l� to C5Npn. { 'lim natin g Pp o1.±C Y 28 will provide a tore c ct.s is t e n tplan for the bene1 yof theCity. c Pi''ann' ri bired•ti otfor ture Deirels,tptle/it Decent zone changes on property sd 4c. dnt toAsh AVenUe :'. north of Rill Street eliminates the major under .y`ing reasoning jn ( m � h Page Three ,:. , which supportsPolicy 28 of the Pl, ��• Narrative i support C o.!' policy 28 states ,; "A. major purpose of the n;eiArl -proposed ,' streets is to provirle access to areas reserved for multi- family aeveloPment . The residential section of -thi:, •plan 4 states that apartment 3.:,)catir,.,ns 3hould be avoided where access can only be. gained by i ans of Z. r ca.l residential streets . To improve apartment area access, two streets are proos;.id: the extension of Ash Avenue across Fanno Creek to Bur.si -, :m Street and the extension of Hill Street to Hall Baa.levard ., These new streo i.s enable traffic generated from the planned apartment- duplex. deirelopment on Ash Avenue to gain access to the Neighborhood' s arterial streets without using the ',residential streets to t1,e south. " It should be noted here that the remaining A-la "multi- , family Residential" located to the north of Ph,'.�adelphia Square upon the existing 100 year fl i:. dplain. Additional. multi--famil,y:, re_iistically, will, ,aF;ver be constructed on this location Times change ,- plans must also cange. Existing narrative p i in supportof 28 indicates ; An additional benefit provided / b� the extension of Ash. Avenue will be more convenient access from the Neighborhood) to Downtown baxsil'aesses , This makes possible local and convenience shopping trips without venturing onto Paci ,7 ,...c Highway . " , It is obvious to the NPO tha'. the above "convenience" re:bresents an nia1conv nience"° to the, existing and 'future rieighborhoc d. 1/ This "incon1rev.ientte"; is exl,ressed by this entire NPU 1 residential neighborhood FJJ retching from Burnham. to McDonald and bordered by Hall and Pacific Highway. The people do not want the collector or additional traffic Oa adjacent streets that will ,be generated. The most recent traffic counts on Ash Avenue indicate975 vehicleser day., Narrative in support Apart cf 28 indicates . "The extension of Ash Avenue considers the increased traffic R which will result and the effects upon adjacent property, "' The traffic to be considered here viii be going into the downtown shopping area» This traffic will be generated from the Neghborhood. Lna to some extent the. Neighborhood south , of elle nald- The traffic on, Ash Avenue ,will not be exc ssiv ; due to its relatively small servi. c.e area and traffic volumes are not expected to exceed 1300 vehicles Neighborhood dev� meiatx per day at fuel; p... '�o. j sti±,r spending . �?'%�` can you � p ding �C�C�,y(�� to �00ibC�C7 for 3 vehicles borne r, t . '" per day� more? You. must be aware that alb. cosh` �. y . he developer are past onto tennant't1 and ultimateiy,, . us , the coneumer ° It the answer to the' above is that there will "fie more traffe gp to: justifythe �.. cost then, lets be 'realistic. � t Ad�. t,�,.e►r a l,', r a,t" , , over 1300 vehicles will destroy the "Character o*1' 'the neighborhood". It w r • • Page your Natural suffers The Plan indicates the need for natural greenways and Preserving the natural buffers generated. The 100 year floodplain is continually protected from development,. Entire developments are scrapped '- cause they encroach upon the floodplain. How does the Citi justify building a road and bridge across the same floodplain? N The ORB parkindicates that Plan principle access to the park is Ash Avenue, the intention of development as a neighborhood park for children, area residents and downtown em1t1 ees means that p y t all those people must have access . If' � - these factors are mixed with a large ;rolutnn of traffic the safety hazard with related air and noise Pollution presents another ,'ro blem Pubtic Service w, i By not extending* Ash Avenue to Burnham, public services provided '' l• to the NP0 l area will not be adversely e; fected or inconsistent with the level off service provided other areas of Tigard: f 1. Police . '..Police1! •department rePresextativsdo not thinktraffic would , be heavier on Ash if the street were eztnded. The response y patrolanywhere `in � issue`l. , time is not an ,� e since cars can „, the vicinity when called, however,, a "back-up” . be . unit waula: .1 Aost likely come from thr,� station and would find the extended `_' t g street an advantage. I , cars are idle at th,; shat on3 tai;:_ payers are not getting their tax dollars worth. 2 :Fire is t ' A ttThe tTi crd Trans ortation StudY ado ted October , 1979 addre' s s e s �,1\ in Part ► Emergency Service " i The study sta-.,es ' "As a part i ci of the signal improvements project on9W t ,,L 9 e TRFPD will have s the capability of pre—empting all signals on 99v,, from 64th to ' , Burham. The system bein g installed f }PTYCOM*i sends ot:ti radar b m from a unit installedin the emergen ..!Y vehicle. On reeiving the radar beam, a receiver attached to riacl.:, signal interrupts the norm . ig ial phasing to '.. ` al „,�zve green tlm to the direction of the emer -eri,11g the in toection pr .o� to its g�ncy vehicle end, E'mer .gen\,.w�� vehicle pre—emption Mi, ,� .��,ibl.e in the s�outhb�,�.nd , direction on , , w, south of 217 , and i.n, bot, directions north a , Of 217 , Wh:n this system is installed in late 1979 or early 1980, it vs11 establish 99W as the major eqtergency corridor In the Tig,ar4 area, and sb la greatly' improve the tire.� : r ,i. u,tr4 ct i s , response time parts c,ularl r durint paak, :to4rs . �� O T/COM is Aft service today. V tension or Ash Avenue to' :, rnhan . not al..ter, eistingprotection routes Ru w` �I is the need. .u: tirieda: Only if Ashe'Xt nds top :tire�'e "Mor' _, � � e '�; C . �rcia1 whic,1 eq ires railroad oa.d. cros,sintg righof gay', and co' demnatri.on 'i {. C s , Page Five -le of private property, will "response time" be reduced. Trac. Fire Department would use this alternative route as presented by the planning staff, but is not seeking this route as m ,ridentory Protectinghe Residential Character of ''''he Neighborhood !. o -isthe the objective• G �" NP(? to gather citizen. input through active involvement isi the community. NPO 1, the first and and most active neighborhood planning , organization wants to maintain the existing qualities of 1 residential, chara , uer. Will you reward this ,grov.p with a il, thorou-ghfare orwith realistic future plans that will maintain , safety, iiitegrity and property values of the Plan area. „ The safety factor of mixing children, senior citizens , bicycle, 1 traffic in a park and thru traffic has not been addressed foot ;. bythe planning staff. s - us1 n CCInC1 O 'Che deletion of Policy 28 will provide a more consistent ;Framework for ` future planning. Roads will not _1,.ntersect P natural buffersviii public services be�� noradversely effected 4 , The safety, integrityand "residential character" of the NPO xQ 1 neighborhood will be preserved. The extension of Ash Avenue will not solve the problem of i' °° congestion of Pacific Highway. It will merely crea+oe. another ' Tt e CityJ' of Tigard needs to '; traffic problem on Ash Avenue . indentify the traffic" , problem and correct it at that point . A q n 41111 , • ?,0�.E S•aAP V1U — � 1V U1 �LN t.. rIGARD PLANNING DEPARTMSENA: 639--417l r . RECEDED 1242.0 SW*Nain Street • RECEIPT • ri.gard, Oregcsn 91223 DATE RECEIVED RECEIVED BY • The ' 'icontact person" named in this application will rece;a.ve all major correspondence from the Planning Department and that • perscin is responsible for providing same to owner, architects, etc. • In this case the "contact persoil" •NAME NPO # 1 c/o Cr;ne Rachman PHONE PH•C (B us •)238-5565 .(Res.) 620478 f . a 2 3 a A.DD�tESS '�'a�a.�d fix. ..972 Street City tp Signature "�`` ---' Data 4 ?7 �1 ACTION REQLTESTET3 • L�� i Vii.; sh Ave ti �, I► '�• •,,,, r fn r T�ntxrTlF.`�'txTn A • APP1,ICANT'S NANM , ,� �' _ a• .��OI�'1=. ,Bus ..s -5565 (Res.) 62 $6.. kbbRE < 1312 Q S. W. Ash Ave, Tigard, Ore. 97223 (Street City - Zip) • DRIOPE RTY VER' S NAME N/APHONE 'Bus.) _ N/A, (Res.)) N/A. PHONE (Bus.) (Re .) (Re .) Ai DRES NIA • (Street - City - Zip) PROPERT' " OWNER. RECOGNITrON OF r..s-Pr IC .TION N/A r .. 1 • (Signature of owner - ?ROPERT ' It 101,WE 1 TAX NAP Z1129-28-1-2 AC TAX LO (S) Refer ;to City right-of=wa ,t)3)RESS Ash Stro,er AREA. MEASUREMENT N/A FXtSTTNG BUILD5.NG (4r and type) 1 • . ea,..i CORRENT ZONINC Public ri h_-.t- fe,. a aPPLICANfi ' S PROPOSED ZONING See refere/icecletter-. .:... -Vacant c nt public c , LAREN1 �SE PE TCAN7S PROPOSED USE » a ,APPLIC'ATION Witt NOT BE ACCEPTED UNLESS FULLY COMPLETED `ED ,wrt � )20 SalAnne rJ.t 1 • • • L a / fff , .. • : _ 1. + f • - i :• - /I I . . 0/ ., i • : _ :•. r CC3 . f 3 a / , • .r i , s..- • V + 3 _.. • - • I,; - i$• • _sem o C� . I /•••••••••••=....- � �O� I (Vjfs s � • a y , . ot,,.aip:F'''' e S+ • Y t• t • + 0 / • t .., •_;,-, . Z 1'1'1 - ••, * c„,4 • .h - a • A { . • • K +./,ji ` � •: + ..• cx i. y 1 . ,„ . .© • +- .:.,,ik, 4), t., Nii.4 w ,,,r). , . . , 6_4 t C 1 ', '•• w i tk 1 't‘‘' O4s QC • i u rI• . e• r s i• ; °its M1I' 71E•-. t • j em -' • . , •aI • "*-_ - - 16.1 - ' ,, -- - a . • le • • April 27, 1981 • U I , Tigard Council Citi g y , P. O. Box 2339'7 Tigard, Ore. 97223 Enclosed is a comprehensive plan revision requ 'st initiated by NPO # L Pleasewaive the $3.300. 00 filing fee for this comprehensive plan change • request. DSD May We request this item be s eduled on the I��a. 5, 1981 planning commission agenda. NPO # 1 suggests that council considers at a future �:ouncil meeting the rt , r'' to t 1ocal't q, redesignation cEo ��,es tion of e S e of .As Meet rorx� a c • The reason for this application is because= of the plan change request, l�P which NPO #1 supports, from A-12 to C 3M PD. This zone change residential greatly reduces the potentialtraffic imp act on Ash St,.heet. Very truly yours, Gene Richman. NPO # ,• . cc Tigardand Planning' Cyrx� �s s�(p n c/o Mr, Aldie Howard lr x I I 1 • l�Ts k borhoad PJLara1-Aing Crganiz,r ..on #1 • 1,5 April 1981 OPENED MEETING: ROLL CALL: Present-8 Absent-2 Staff; Aldie Howard/Liz Newton OLD BUSINESS A) Minutes of last meeting read--eorredted--approved B) Status report given on Chapter 18.25 Code for Home for the Aged A70/80 PD. Planning commission 'le veered height to 85 feet and moved any conviernce store to inside the ',project's main building. C�• .-C +u. ntocal. � rreview the proposed ordinance 27 April 1981. NEW BUS INESS a Al Reviewed Main Street Project. The new 16 acre project tl proposes three major stores(food, mini-d,�par tment, and a sporting,goods . store) plus a banking , facility and small. - scale shops. Site coverage is proposed at 297 and 623 ' parking spaces are planned. Traffic plan are ,for•. n. gx‘esses and egresses on Pacific Highway and s x:in Street. The first hearing on the project is 5 May 19 and will be for a Comprehensive Plan change on land near Ash Ave, (A-12 to CSM PD) and seek an overal,;- plan , '.evi etiv. The area residents, NPO, and Planning S'aaff expressed the following concerns: Volume of traffic generated, traffic flow, bufferingproject' from local single-family)f res-- dences, fill .ng if sensitive lands, and the. exter;tsi(ons of Ash Avenue .and Johnson Street. it + t o.tY;'?ned.-Seconded--A*c`croved to: (POLICY 2'., ER ATTACHED) 1) ppro re+ theconcept of the Main Street Project • Support upport t. he Co prehensive Plan c hangeof the lane adjacent to Ash Avenue from A-12 to C,3M PD Re(tlivrtend to the Tigard Plannirig CommissIon and Tigard CIt ri. '�cx; � -�° "�. ,t1.e1.e- iori, of 'PC #1 Plan Po:tic B) MVSottioned4- econded-APPr©ved to adSo r�n the+ .- eeting NEXT /IIEETING» 6 tilay 1981 Secretary IPC #1, cot Ivo #1 Main Street Project Pogo Letter df_ttea 15 April 19I and Ash AVemue residents, letters and: petLtior►' w _ r • T d ^ , ota �. l n des �zb n3n O s s c 15 April. 1981 • ' f Tigard Plarirling Staff , Tic and Planning oxnm ton Ti.gasd City Council Re: NPO 11 Policy concerning the new Mains St...r'e'Y t Project by Main Street Land COtnparYzy, MS • a Over the t stS: mon•ty- s i NPO reviewed :rid dis'cGussed a number -= � l has � of issues relating to development and ;planning for the N?O f1 area. We feel that oui discussi ns have led. us to eon- senses, on several issues and as such wish to provide our - , thoughts to the city planners and dec .si makers. Vie hope to provide assistance in the inter, retaati.on and ;apdate of the original `fit) -1 Plan as it relates =c various issues before the Tigard Planning Staff a at" the presenttamcr.r, We have ad dr ' as ed each s s suffe r both independently and as t.he; " relate to each other, and would like .to offer the followi `srg I. ,. 1"Tain Street Development We have reviewed the recent development, fGr the �I . . outh end.' of Tigard''s Main Street Cspecifically the N vL1n Street Project)' as:we1.l as the Tigard Planning Staff roIosals for dflwxttown traffic circulation We • pP tip eF of the concept of� a major :shcippixa�� area are supportive fit development at the 'South end of M .' n Street. This develo,p- • risent is consistent with the current :NPO Plan for twc pri.mra „ II reasons: 1. The proposed development, in .-r..atit0 has greater Eros- age on Pacific Higl'ivi/ay than it does on South Street' and as such cow .l.ies w .th Pali.cses 18 and 19'0 su gges" ng tie: avoidance of Pacific Highway strip deveiOpinent By the "lyse = cif controlled trol,wled: ,acce,- �I,; to .Pacific ni. hwa this w '� �'',r�t ape of de�r��oi:- Ment rovi .es consirat,n parkin.' fac�i�;it�.�:,s to clusterS of iztuSinesseS. The propoF ,ed development 18 i`u `ther oonsist n.t with Yy • • the uric/inal. NPO Plar:, that addresses the deslira.l of sup- porting the ctownto c 'Tkigard"s "small town personality" by • providing the corrunr.f.rci.al economic base to "anchor" the South end of Main Street. With the sufficient customer draw rro--' vided thenends of Main Street,t� the Tigard �U4, �toW n development of small shops and a "uni.cr i ccammercial area" more likely, '10 occur. Consideration of these point;5 favors the development that has been propcsed for, the South end of Main. Street. The city's need has not beenadequately identified forthe ��ohnson + // Ash Avenue through "theclevela� men Street e�•�;ens�.on t to We are s=upportive of development at the South end of Main Street and recognize that proper consideration has been given by the developer to the traffic impact psi:; such. a developmerit. ti It,lNwas demonstrated at the 15 April 1981 meeting by_ the 2installation of con- �affa:c consultant �� M Hill that.,.... �e trbl.led accesses to Pacific Highway and Main Street and the 11. Johnson Street/Pacific Erxgh`,a, r intersection xrecoh; tructitin'' addresses the de C1Ot meritt s ingress/egress ngre5S/egreS5 traffac concerns. '. c I sill. Street Extelnsi on to O'Mara In l5,�ne with the ar gin:al; NPO Plan, the extension of Hill Street to O'Mara still appears a 'tes ruble priority objective. J a O 's Panel° Creek Study of July 1980 indicates a possible r alternate route to 0'. ara Street. `erisb to idem i fy our . support for the desir�tbiii of the e tension and suggest. " pp that should development occur in this ar,aa, the connection of * 14i.11 Street to 0'14a.ra sht gild be assumed III. Ash Avenue ;S ei;srio %/e li v :; re ietted the ,Ash given .e Street .ten.sio i since it was rated by the Tigard P'lanni;ng Staff in its down-- • } town Tigard circulation plans. We have, evera1 times, cons d,... ered the' issues raisedby the ,Tigard Planning Staff as well as • r • those raised by the citizexns oaf Ash ;.venue and the immediate area. 4, 3's Parinaw Creek Study of 0'',1ly 1980 expressed a coxicer'xi. the • ,principle access to the Panno Creek Greenway was at the ends of Ash Avenue. The NPO does riot see a need to extend Ash Avenue, However, Ash Avenue •Right.of--Way will be preserved for '` future T _., park access. Also, a zone change':From A- 12 zone, multi-family, adjacent to Ash, to C3M pp, vehi,L-tle traffic t.hat.itmuld. have been created I A,-l2 one development, High:. P y riorit should ,be given to the protection of the "residential t A r character" of the Ash Avenue neighborh`:ed. • RECOMMENDATIONS r r . 1• NPO 43.7 supports th-: concept of the Main Street Project. 2. roveSl of the Com rehenE; ve plan change��. app .� { frozn A.-12 to C3/4 Pt,f on .. ty adjacent to Ash, Avenue. Lhe propE'.r S. tPO 01 recorairterids to the Tigard planning Con rnis sign and 4Policy Ticar fit Council� delete, SPC l: plan � t AvE.ttue ac .os . ;��""arin�r Creek. � to � e e� ensic►n of Ash a�eiat�es �' 1 ` M1>•tY 1 r..l r,.,., r .rte . r j AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I': STATE OF OREGON { County of Washinv Eon ) ss. City of Tigard ) I, Arm Gaylord, _ being first duly sworn, on oath despose and say That I am. Secretary for the planrm ng Department for the. City of Tigard, Oregon ; , That I served notice of . , � hearing of the Tigard Planning commission t f which the attached is a copy (Marked Exhibit A) upon each of the fo'.lowing named persons on the Z °' day of 198 !( P by mailing tc> each of them at the address shown on the attached the Llni.ted States Mail on the day of deposited in list (Marked .E,�hzba.t �',� said ncatice a hereto attached, postage prepaid, * V .g‘iim*'. :) vuhssr 6616 band sworn. to efore re on the t � Ore Oregon I My Comm seeSion exii e 'ry'. �•.,� * I' m I � o. { HEARINGH 1 N THAT THE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION AT ITS MEETING ON TUESDAY, ,A TICE IS HEREBY GIVEN a June 2 1981 , AT 7:30 P.M., IN THE LECTURE ROOM OF .FOWLS.= JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL, 10865 S.W 'WALNUT, TIGARD, OREGON, WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING A eLICATION: APPEAL . Appea:i. of Planning Director's Denial of a request to partition two (2) lots into three (3) lots to,build a Single Family have on rear lot. Proposed lot sizes are 13,791 sq. ft 14,641 sq. ft., and ariance of six�z(6" , 7 554 sq. ft. request r ) to required for one lot has' been added to the appeal. • . p access 'width ' ' DOC..YZT: Appeal of Minor Land Petition NMP 2-81 and Variance V 5-81/Girod APPLICANT: aOn Girod LOCATION: 11390 SW 92 Ave & 20208 SW 86 - 11420 SW 92 Ave Tualatin OR 97062 Washington County Tax Map 1S1 35DB Lots 3800 & 3900 r FILE NO.sNLP 2-81 & V 5,81 .t'i,, i 1 it dI i ', , 0 * !$ r ' o \/e. r . .-,tr7°' *Ilk * , '' ' /' n-'' 'Rir •194 y4s • •• �r' * i 4!'."wl - MY . fi e A x .f R T .;t7,0,,,,,,,;"..4.,-. ti♦ ,-i • - • co.........., 1 _,est . A,,' 4*. 1 - ,,,„‘..k.,,,..,..i.,.„ ,,,,,,l;,ii , . - 62 sI adri , , WI ��j� l ,.. .Ltiy,D - k. RU `� P��IC xEA�clrrO ON THIS MA . . ., ... � P�tSnragES • or THE PL ING COMMISSION. � PBPS NS HA�IXt1GG M`T,'EIEST]1 THIS MATTER'. MAY ATTEND AND '.;8E IREA1 .is. OR, THE INITIAI 1 ' TNG., , 'I�STt.�IC7I�' MAY BE SUBMITTED I� WRITING TO RE Et�T.BRED Si`�"�O '� 1�:CORO 'C3�` A SHOULD YOU WISH TO P L y A W T'I" 'LETTER DR ws8 TO TRS CIT3 PECORDDR . UST bE ASCSIVSO' 'tt 0? THE ,H8AP, NG.: Tr 'NOTICE' POI TO TRE sX'PY�tATION O� THE T .�NTtt� U�.Y T1rR TaDL''C�;�St�JJN" I . To ,APPSAL IS :NOT , ECEI" ri WITHIN TWENTY. nAtS r THE ACTION IS VALID. r /'0.E!, ktiRT tE 1, IIIEO MATION', Pr.JaAE CONTACT tgt P ',. i .NG ritpART. NT ,144. '. 639-417 : CX` O'F' T'tGAti.D, :.242C sq ,t,7ai,tx a _ it _ s ti R3 133.!43 t JJ If 132. ..mss.. le...R... s ' ' - ' 7,_ - — , I S _ -1.-3'r: ' ' ‘ - ,, • o .... A a k `-'061E. N :" : r1�. _.* t02 ' 33.134 0 33-34 1;3.36 R3; ti' 4. ,�.�- Tt e _ z_. fd ,,,.., _ "„-:, ai , . J \ - o- U, po ( r -F _.; cor-^�� ) Li '' `:;$ LA ,. 100° 06'W' € SOO°06"�f r f` 1i1 •v a 4,73 m ----,-.......151 55%,.......- ..,•,,-,,, t'3 408 t9G. t 3-t7 � ..r. h,++ ,ai,ae...r..,.� ./ir:/ r,.,, .�, ..r r-- - ..., �sr>>,'.. .>ri:rr..•. .i/ u. •••••••• /i/..�-3�i.�t//%�,ii.,ijrs /i/�t:i.i,/.,s.t+ �....�. r •',I-31%17., ' 121.13 -, 06.0 960 '6.0 96.0 96.0 86.0 96a 99 Eh N'00°06`E I N 03°G .4 o £� -- j f Lr z 1 Q1-"' it ` �� - 4 o - ! r �j o - .tom P`+ , k •� 04;60, '`` � .to (ia � tr. + � � in � �: ��m .1 uo m ii,to ,i, m _ 4, . ' • o � • t , ' ff. 4: '- S 00n aF* t ` t ' 1 • __ 960 96.0' •6.• _1 a ,. X56.0 101.3 t / N'3°OItE i 94 • 95 • ,.t •� 1 ! W W _ s M! U to ;( .s tt! - ^�A . 'p 0 a lt § 0 i 1 1 1 E:1 a 't'!4"— 0 tO 8 m - ?1 96 . 6. 4 C7S' I ,mo i 0 '' .sZ? f'I, . ,.. A \'N.,, CO c. i ... I . 1 _ co- . * i * 1L '' ---1 ° %a N. ,..i. . - D- (-1'_.,,i i .- ...,..................7 E N t ... i O1 f N III 4rd.. a 440 Q: 4 e 93 -, ff �,. .- ' 00°+0`E 73.8 3'4O°4o% � S GO c�1� .�- 4.- . I' _ •�• � _ �-�� 1 GUT if cRa� �" s � ►Fa:' 3 �� s5 t E�.r t as acs f.'.r _-*- 259 a : ;-, '. ...."'` • ..1•«.t+«r.t.. sa►. j '''..4f;::":'4",, ...'«vn w. ;' is ww..'. .. - It.�`• d�/ •w ';+q .. t Sr- R ..=-z... r:....n.Ir.. -r.4•r•.iir.. /:i.:.1.:/.. - _ . .... -.li. tt.:�f i/t ./'%'//t...7{r./.. ! lJfr r f :.,,€,•`r.sx_90 r.1#,f.s,. ..f..... .s,r .7_. „5 b..i- ..(.t " ®,?:.. r : !IR:.tl ,r R IS ,)1�t' NQO°t04,0,, RV ;40o.10 4Y . N 00°3Yw 349.9 N 03')3t 1 _Liiii, ._' .-_ .. - - R N ` N 2 w_ 0 Err V- ,— •'y� •t-..0�'- 11.....,,( - N 1 Cr'� A r--- 8 r-} _..,.. _... IN_N,„: 1r , -- ,,, o. ,4 ..1 .--o, .- • •t t a gr * s* 4 ` q j cA _.("Ir aww= �, �f- ?!,ft's - f! _ -- " 0.39 F s A, ��1.1 60.85 F` y._.. v- tnr„,-.W46.43 +18 b3 � I tQ ., 03' ---7a.'0-3; t ROS 8 9-5 . e .''':I, . + W i� al geo v-1 la [[. . .wawuN::WwWCYwtMfw+MNMY✓w4Y.Myi'.Mrat..MFJ.,YaWYrWrw.A'+".r.r.X+"+ry w.wa'M+w•>m'.M+.+e ..K , xRW..uL�4wY4hWA ✓iu.+/VWA4WWwr«wWr.Yr.ww�afW�w.w+WiwWwwi"N,+rw IM.GM:1. b+F 1 Giro MLP 2-81 V 5-81 PC „June 2 ,Appeal 300 feet Norman. Kolmodin, Rolland Taylor Jeff Faulk 11450 SW 92 9118 SE Evergreen 1.• vy 11435 SW 90 Tigard, OR 97223 Vancouver.WA .98664 Tigard, OR 97223 Doris Smith Occupant Everett Severson 1. 11480 SW 92 14450 SW 94 11475 SW 90 Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Lloyd Shaw Leonal er Martin Eggert 11600 SW Graenburg Road 11420 S�94 SW..Frewing Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard' OR 97223 Tigard, OR 9;223 Tina TCtu'3r Gerald Doll John Snadbo r 11390 SW' 94 11475 SW 91 1.20 0 SW I3ur1 Heights Tigard, Tigard, 4 Tigan, OR 97223 g OR 97223 Ti ard, OR 97223 Oeoixparlt John f laubke ,�[yrtle Ialzer 11590 SW Greeriburg Rd 11405 SW_92' 11520 SW 91 Tigard, ORr97223 Tigard,' OR 97.223 Tigard, OR 97223 Harvey Cnauss Virgil Johnson , Win Ball 9435 SW Eren"bwood 11375 SW 92 11515 SW 91 Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard„ OR 97223 • Bruno � arbstein Robert: Heim Paiz1. White Yw I 11275 SW 90 11.4951 SW 90 Ti erd,r OR 97223 Tigard, OR 972' 3 11580 5*+� Greenb Tigard, OR 97223 '� JI Y _ r t�evd.n Spinel Roy �rkernaar� I.ertrran Rothezberrj'er 11465 92 11435 SW 91 'leen Tigat-d, OR 97223 'Tiqa.'tcl,, OR 97223 11555 SW 91 Tigard, OR 97.22,3 • :►:nne Oates Severson. arrl Borsox Y I�� Trc�lle�� I I 11435 SW 92 10910 :`W 74 113601 S W 92 Ti , , OR 97223 T .. and OR 97223' ,► r T�,ga�d,l OR '9722,8 11570 S' Gre0 tirq ;8d 1144() SW 5 Tial, Ott97223 Tiger.,, OP, 972.2.3 (• q '. ....... ,, «•111.w...v.aa�rw.ua....44,44.74.....,,,.wwu:ti.+',wWti..oroar.+...1 wm.Y.... 4.........N+..,....1..c wi:ra..,,.,,ui;,,,,,..,..L..1...»Www..+�Md«...tah...wLLMwi.4w.ax N.,...r.�..M..W/.1.�+'�'+r 4 • • ss......w.. .nu�......aw..c4...,,.wro�.„.«.,..w ..... ..w..�.ni w,.,..a.,.wxa xaxy� y e,' GrodWLP 2_81 Danni° O'Neel w , V 5-81 June 2, 1981 10175 SW Barbur # 211B PC 300 feet Tigard, OR 97223 Lleh.1.1 a Rey Bonn 92 11405.SW 90 i 11330 SW Tigard, OR Tigard, 97223 v min 9��223 OR Basil Eny'cryshy pert Nthrt 13000 SW 92 11375 SW 90 1 Tgar..d, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97228 Wilburn, ShShewmakerk , 11270 SW 92 t, Tigard, OR 97223 .. WentY,�rerth jTa,. .� ' �.�ier�casch P 17 345 BW 92 i ar t g d, OR 9`722,. T � , 1rna1d Seable 11315 �� 9?.� e r 3 o TigardOR 9722 r u 15250 SW Buhl Mt, G�'il]�x,amsen V. '1,1igard f OR 97223 1 11285 SW 92 Tigard, OR 97228. 1 1\ / Bal LIziplari, 10175, ~MW Bar j.. B1 'ot and OF 9721 , , -"Il. . w ' �, , . C w .1,a „„ ` • n n x �f xN,,, X..+d + r , : ".A i.n� .k•Y M1::. .�ii+n .h'.Wu J4,� �'�M vW4,.at' • i . R ERT DESIGN .TI NATE OF OWNER ADDRESS (Indicate 'tax Lt se . , . number axed Tow,nshi . 1 (1) ' A.1'1/1/frt,r)'\ # II/1''1 311 i I(.W' 4 ' " ' ' ' 4. t .... _ g,, L., '. 2. ,YQ.... .j..5./, 1 ' ' el ' 1 j.5"*919 ' '' 6 , . ' 14A.Atit f 5) - ±ifs ii • e , , • (6) ._.;.._.._...-. M_i�,,.r...a.rl:.l .,0 L_» , ...i....,�.: 'w/ . _° 'Q" .:a ii • , ,c„,,. ,,, .::. .r.. .......„:2z2..........._,.....,..._ , , , , P ,i/ ' ' `'1.--,1-1i, .*Z--, . Cgs . . ,.. r • ) ,,___E-4 )7' ' 0 ' ' . r . k' , (10 ,............. - ' ' ., r .. .. , , ,„ , . , 0 , ,. , , , ,, L , , . . , , , , , F c ' , . .. , , , , , . �._:. .. , , ,, . ,. . , , , 1, . , , , . .,, . .,, ,.....„......,........... „,„, , ,,,„,.,„..„.......... . . - - , .,,, .. ., , . . . . , „ . ,. ... " d - , / • • . w • PRo].x _ iAv CtER � DE • '` dot, sect'. , (In•dlea��,e - a. number qnd alj,nsY i'o • (1 I1 7 O • 1 A .) 0.,. , e",..........‘2......_.....2:2___.„........ ( } r I . ..... ., (5) � ,/1._.Z.9..___.4,--t,)_____ „ ..................,,,,.. . ,Q ' 0_iii .._.2.,_, ......____ ..,, , ,,, 1.. ,.. il .,,,,uz,, (6) ... ,,, , d . ..,,,--- / , i Y__§._____'e) ..."(_______ILL10 ,. ..ti...„-) ciii2.____I-4,..,i..4) , • ) ,,, {,. F r+vr..+..I4 ' ' s....0.4 , rr•wr.++:+:n+rM.:...?wr.r.+.1+� , ..-., :�..+s w•.*„�Gi.'n f w gj1nli[[f Y,/ .„1_1:1!,,,l'''''' ' ' ' - ' . , ri,t,m_,...... .. . , . .„. .. ., , .. . ,. ,. „ , , ,, , , (1„.. ). , . , ,./1„,„:„Ii.,,,, :.,., , ., . . , , . ,6 , , ..) , 1 , ,, .. . ,, ,. ,, „„ ,. ,,../ , , � {wyn.�+�1.Yx+diYFwMi�� ,., •� ,.,. .��•1w�i�M�+�•w1'�•%,wr�M... .. -. C,I11) ,„,c,- ' ' , '' , ,,, ' ' , - , - , , , ,. . - ,, , :, ' , : , , , .. ,, ' . f , * , _ 1 , _ saa(.,.. (1\ I „ A; I *• Havas~°.,N,s,w,+`, .°o a n r t. A.-a r•.Rn. ., t. µay f. ei, '.r.�!!1`Mn.y..l�Mral..li....lW.ww _. � ►R, wu�+rWln'N I!! • I PROPERTY D ,S1G1\T . a ADDRESS (Indicate tax i numb and Town`a111.3? i I t 1 ).:...� /(jk ♦..f.eRw!!!lr.R.nwo.l + f . • (2) :" . ��n"w WrwYY�wYrM�Y+wI,i �Y1MlXMWI.M,I++t M1trMwW�y1Ri! I.....i_Y 13oc , rte` sir - 11 >7O .. ?— . ) to cio, , 1 , ,,,,, ,j3...et.v i ! r s r}/^ F �r // � �wn.r..w.Iwa+wi Mi..it —.+. $, { ♦ � �-- i Y..� � E�,.. . ....:.. _ .. �.:: ir.r..Mw: .,w� ..: _ ...:�w.r:...r+w.r.+.�..n,.......:.v+rKrrl+�r. / S...)— / '4 . ? f . ri ate.,.-!!!+twiuy.iR.lro,l.wr 1OI .w►1.�r�..rws�N. `y ' ' (13) ' ' ' ' '''," ' r ' : . ' ' : , ' ' . . , , ...,3. 6, t" • I �I (14) • w.r j t 1 J wW1�Y r..ar wt , r..r .w.4.. .. ,,. M w wa . i.. Y,.• ..i.r....W III 1 Igi,i Ill -fl - ')' I ' fi lil --- I ir- Ifi , .......• i i -F P-1.1JT CtliJr illiflICT '. -., I Lji L 5 It' j " L I d ,"` REGONI97062 5 PHONE 682-2631 a nuSSELL WYASHBURN, CHIEF . ,y ,� P.O.FQSOX �1 • TUALA7IN. ,a 1 May 18, 1981 r Aldie Howard Planning Director City of Tigard Planning Department city Hall —• Oregon 97223 Tigard,gard, 1 Extension of Ash Street Dear Aldie: r At the present time Tigard has only four (4) major North South streets and two (2) of these are state highways - 99W and Hall Blvd, 72nd Avenue and 121st Avenue are used for • industrial traffic and residential traffic It therefore seems " reasonable to complete additional North South traffic circu- lation patterns to move residential traffic to the commercial areas. ; As the traffic increases on Pacific Highway, our ability to p i asthe Ash Avenue area decreases. We have .. resQnd to f r' in for many years looked" South from the fire station on Commercial " thats area. and ,"wished",p ' obtain a direct rout to this we could s i time to construct Ash Avenue across Fanno' Creek possible at through property North across the two (2) sets � of railroad tracks to Commercial .' From a logical and realistic viewpoint, we encourage the construction of this major circulation. system as soon as possi b1 e The major development proposed on sixteen (16) areasbe . between , Main Street and Ash Avenue strengthens our casF. An East a,ld ' West access to this area is very important frfl a fire and l i fe; safety standrni yt f you' have any 71.ther questions please feel free to call me, Yours truly, ° • pis ph A rein i ch • puty Eire Marshal JAG:dot y I 4k i C'''='' . 7n. • arajif.F 41 Yyyykr,'i m t ka , I -M'an fuw M.» irrn.3N s.urnx q-a t:,*iay.vi.wsMa+.Aail.N•Wsi ri.ii cw rM xRUV'iN Mew. .r. .::t +•M+h+rwMr-wriit+-wtas...ib w it 4,r4r1A+.1-,:. .....kIM.+:,::..!}{.,r. } • Neighborhood Planning Organization on rr t 11 1 ay 1981 Mt ri . I r Opened l'ieeting v Xol1 Csll: Present - Five, Absent - four, Staff Aldie o,z rd OLD naSfl ES$s A) eet .ng called to order, role called; minutes of last -eet ;ng read -- corrected - approved. B) Senior Citizen retirement center will open July as scheduled.. ) Status on A70/80 "will .� Czoning .,' not exceed �� :dee"'� was put into the ordinance. Small market will be inside of building. Any other bn'n3.ldings relating to the project will be judged on merit in relationship to project. NN'Y. 1• will be included inreview. site design . z . D5 Deletion of Policy #28 u'date - plan revision was filed, will P be on 6/2/81 agenda. cif City Planning Co -nission Meeting Gene �Licbman: gave ruts down on May .5th Planning Co .s:sioo meeting., NPO l wants input on Ash Avenue and c'aang 'of policy' #28 before joint City Couizcal.--City Planning Commission meeting, on decision of fate of Ash Avenue. eqcover letter front Gene R chman r 4t Bogard Bogard r u-�red a new � In and NPO on the application for deletion ou. Ir28' from NPC Plan. y+.d4pwMMM vrrava.xa:amernMarNwsrxnacix+:trorik:r[Mr�4c,.•'.t:r'xs—'+'r'. o-;,yt«N qa nrrr K'r^;ir, ms r,;„yiyy, ' ; Yoe . ?�*ct4ion to table the discussion on Comprehensive Flan changes ( tan'r., l Ash Avenue is resolvedby C: �� - seconded - approved, E) Motion to officially appoint a sub-ccmrittee to represent NPO in a for-.na.1 presentation to the City Planning Commission and Cit Ci uncii -- seconded - approved. y,. �aotioned a Secoxnded• - Approver1. to e.djourn the iueet±ng� For John A. Butler r Secretary ; 1.4 I r; I lis • r y/ r • I � A Ma`w 1981 Mr Al Ji e Howl lyd Planning Direeltor g g ommission Tigard Plannln C Tigard City Council P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Mr. Howard: NPO #1 is 'requesting , a comprehensive plan revision, , the l action requested is to delete pol;.cy 28 from the } NP'D #1 plan. for downtown I- Ash Avenue. ,•\ , Policy 28 of thert�1shshould be extended acracross �'anao Creek,s enabling access to the neighbotv'hoodt s commercial area without using Pacific Highway. Design features should be used to slow traffic. and make the street as safe as possible . rt ase at tach this l I � Ple, titter to the application' dated April 27 , l961. Very truly yours , Pat Hutchisen NPO #1 Cheirman PH f lr • ilt • , � r STAFF REPORT AG VEDA NO. 5.4 TICRD PLANNING CONMLSSION NAY 5, 198.E - 7:30 p.m., FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH -LECTURE ROOM 10865 SW Walnut, Tigard N� SUBMISSIOTJ OF ADDITIONAL, ' 1‘,ZA:1�� ' L BY APPLICANT SHAI,�i� BE .SDE AT THE PUBLIC •' ` SO. SHOULD THIS OCCUR, HEEARING UNLESS THE APPLICANT :�5 :REQUESTED TO DO UNREQUESTED, THE ITME WILL BE TABLED UNTIL TBE FO G HEARING. DOCKET:' 1) COMPREHENS V'E PLAN REVISION CPR 8--8 hi\ A-12 to C-3M (Benson on Ash STz, et) 2) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION CPR 9-8 ,,, • C-5 to C-3M PD (2totel on 99W) 3, Pn T,Tr11I`NARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 'ZQPD 5-81 Review for C-3M PD Developrrent o3; Map,2S1- 2AC • If 1... 2)0, 201 & 2801 Lots: ;1200, 300; 1400, 1�U�r 1600, 2� of appro mately sixteen (16) acres r.tween SM Main street and SW Ash Aver (Tota t3ite Designation) APPLICA T: I' ri Street Deve:Lopnnant 3602 Firs1. National Bank Center ter Portland,, OR 97201 0\1,+ER: :Sane APPLICATION DATE: April 10, 1981 , DOCZTION OF SITE: Maiii Street at, highway 99W ',arid Johnson Street,. Washington County Tax lk4ap 2S1 2.1C Lots. 1200 1300 f 1400, 1500, 1600, 2200,., 201 a,-td 2301. REQ STr': s ° F F F f. ppl.i�ation. , F F first;:. F in ��S �,Revision for There are three (3) requests The is dor a G�rrprehensive lan t .. Avenue tt �,. iron! appse�t A �.2�. ti.(�am�.la.�ee on S�' Ash� to C �, PD present y Residential k'N Street Coriurercial (Washington Cbt Ta' Niap 251 2AC; a portion of lot .2301) • second ueet- f � sive Plan :Elision+ The is or a C rehQrn • for the current site of the Va_lencia .ibtei.,; from C-5 trHighi�ta Cd,�rctie1 Zot ert C-3M 8.breet p C rcial't (Wash ngtan County Tax, 11ap281 2AC Loi 1.600) The third, e e t L5 dor t xe aaitibn of the Planned Unit 'rieveloprtnt (PD) des. gnatioi to the .4,411'1..11v' s. te' due to Sensitive ids: Areas+ + rt1ts the, �. 7 v / • , 1 i i i .11/ L M1 t,,,, 1 STAFF REPORT' AGE1\1DA N3. 5.4 TIGARD P.�,,�`I;NING COMMISSIOhT r M1Y 5, 18l FO;'TLER JUNIOR HIGH - LECTURE ROOM 10865 SW Walnut, Tigard Paget x • fact that this project will have a major ,impact on the downtown area. Staff feels it ncessary to st ,ject the developing to public reviewIts PO # 1, the P:�ann�„ng ' Commi.ssion and the City Council. ° Two additional applications have been filed in txnjnncton with this developir nt. One is for a Minor Land Pat±iticon (MEP 4-81) for the Benson property on Ash Avenue , (Wash_ington County Tax Nap 2S1 2AC Lot 2301) . One acre to the south would be split-off and developed at the A-12 "riulti-family Residential” density. This • development, Benson's, would also be sub edt to Site Design Review 'at the Staff level. Staff is processing this application now. The last application is the Sensitive Lands Pei ►,it; ' to cut, fill and build in the one hundred (100) yy'ar floodplain along 1"anno Creek. The applicanthas requested. that the Sensitive Lands Permit application not be made a part of the P,rlitni.nary Plan Review, although the information is included i~,n the Prelsrtn nary Plan narrative. Staff feels that this issue is itllportant due to the fact that a building is proposed in a floodplain area, if, the Planning COmni.i.ssion approves the cut andfill. plan. The Park.. Hoard has reviewed this situation and has expressed serious concerns for the effected park area. (See attached Park Board Minutes) Note that 1L1.5% of the proposed site is within, the one • hundred dear floodplain. (Page 9 of Preliminary Plata Narrative dated April 10'. l9ai Preliminary Hev::lo , , � pl'ent « Plan) The report does an atxeq�xate jobng the of describi effects of intrusion onto the floodplain as far as proxading ±br e avati,:in and grading to offset Cont hated ill. }Idwever, the effects on the hat t sion i.n ;') the zero� r Dot (that area. of is floodway �rr�v:�rttx water) ass�..d-off as not being s fz P � ,� "cant� refornation . on these effects is required in order for Staff and the L t.88lon to ice a decisionon the to cal nits; not to n ntion, recreational and open space oah.sideration '� oalculat�ions � s. Please re ` ry b I J r: n. r n r r w u i . 4 r. :.....4 a i. ,M..Y t.w... ., ..r '. .'M:rN . ' i�4?4;a n T� i ..a.♦ STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO. 5.4 TIG RD PLANNING COMT4ISSION Y 5, 1981 7:30 p.m. FOrbnTLER JUNIOR HIGH - LECTURE' ROOr l 10865 SW Walnut Street, Tigard Page 3 L , are based upon Corps of En neers data why 1978 exstn concition not future Ch is f0?'`: g � � runoff, Section 18.56.020 of the Code Subsection ((:) Written Report (4) states: II A description of all sensitive lands within the development and what effect the development will have on similar area.., off site. In the case of a floodplain or drainage area, this portion of, the narrative will be very specific. The City reserves the right to hire appropriate, professional, consultants to refute any portion of an applicant's narrative concerr�ir? floodplain or drainage are . The east of this corisultina shall be borne, totally by the app2,icant. � x We should discuss this issue as a p�`4rrt of the Preliminary Plan Review. Tile Ash Street extension quer tion has been avoided by the applicant. . NPO f 1 member, Mr. Gene Richman, submitted a request to the City Council on April, 27, re-designate Ash treet. What is being sugge:;ted _��, 1981, to + Street the reitloval of Policy 2$ in thea NPO # 1 Plan concerning Ash Stye Il ; across Fanno Creek to SW B,arnham PREVIOUS ACTION: I ;{ Reference: SDR 1'-80 and ZCF,'I) 6-80 - Staff Report on April 22, 1980 _ I On June 3, 1980, the'Plannwin Co fission minutes reflect the' following: � Punk ve : approval o r the Zone Change ZCPI] 6-80 based on the land uses cCinternplated by the applicant, and with the several concerns outlined in the'Staff IvIerno (of June. 3, 190) from the Plania .ng Director to' ,. Stab e.ct. Preliminaryl tie Plannarhi` ,. Con�.ss�wan 0 �CPI� 6--80, .. ±b.r awls) as proper items for 'd�.Sc11SS`•.��i at1C�, resolution between Staff an rievelo nt �." and applicant, The �.matiian was seconded n street by BOrin and carried:'' anixus1yrtl. • (See e)' ibit "A" and e.„Ichibit tune 3 r 1980 Mettri) Following this, meeting before the Plailni.n5 coion. the P.Jairi Street L evolop nt 'up ran .inter di fficulti;es No Gerierill, Planned L veloprtsnt proposal was suit fed for review. Then a new .pro was, A- fod pro•_- �� was l. and a new de to ri �. �. �4ve � �� aced� added, P p P P r. r ,,. iw _.§ a .• .. . I•: 5. v. • . ♦ .. ,lr W n r n r. i. . µ +.w,.. sw .... it ., a .... i r•. , r • i I • S'AFF RE V+v. ,. AGENDO NO. 5.4 TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION DRY 5, 1981 - 7:30 ppm. FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH - LECTURE ROOM '= 10865 SW Walnut, Tigard Page ''4 Note from the June 3, 1980, Nmorandum that Staff had several major concerns which had to be addressed; Traffic circulation, control ;,f all lb,.nds proposed for development, floodplain issue, and DEQ leguirerrnts for Indirect Source Permit. Reference ZOA 7-80, file which created a revised Planned Devfelopment District (PD) Chapter 18.56.015 states: (11 ,►w °. The initial application shall be complete in all respects as outlined in the following text or as suggested by the Planning Staff. Anapplicant pp " shall not be placed on a Planning.Commission „ Agenda unless the application is completer and is summitted prior to the closing date prior to a hearing °t Staff does not agree that this section has been adhered to in this application for the following reason. In the previous application, Main Street Developpilent, Ltd, ad not ,'control" the land upon which Western Oregon Marine is located Although the applicant apparently has entered into a legal purchase contract, Western Oregon Marine has a valid lease ag xu;ant t hich�expires on July 1, 1984. Nowhere in this application is this fact addressed. It is not the res nsibilitY of Staff to play 44., `' an investigative role; but in this instances the concealed fact seriously asters the plan by making only one (the applicant s) transportat orVcirculation pattern possi Ae 1 P y g „ is ' ge sted. that this tame no mexitlon of hasa.:n the develo nt Note �► ,► 5u e pp u}amY.. ..ed the This cavi onlymean.`that if the project is approved as , e' lease willbe terminated. This may not the Western Oregon Marine case. Realistically, this is the Sarre rain Street proposal we have oeeri befog square Frith four' (4) nore acres and additional retail G�u footage. `Pb.`: *p1lcant has steadfastly refused tt, consider alternate traffic circulation patterns ....fat- 1151 can: oars' at, the Ws Oregon Mame pa . reluctance a "cause for this reluctance to consider an alternplan.at This wl 'traffic issue was the, (elide issue before. the Planning fission last `i It is .before you ac aixi. Them City has i engaged`the sertrices of to .. :pie 7 lan . .I .: analyze the alte.>�•nate traffic engineers rev�� f � as s:�.k'rrna�-ted and. to analyze • plan, Staff hast rked out with worked out with. OD r• This presentation .: r y c presentation will be odea portion. o p ghearing.g �"� the; report at the ]:�l.annax'► Commission, 7. r \ I i p I STI`itT1 i1i.I Vim. AGENDA NO.' 5.4 TIGARD PLANING CO SSION MY 5, 1981 7:30 p.m. FOWLER: (..INICR HIGH IECITRE ROOM 10865;S. Walnut, Tigard Page 5` a . I.IFINDINGS OF FACT npamily Residential" l,. 1) The Comprehensive Plan indicates A-12 "Multi�-'-�f for Washington County Tax Map 251 2AC Lot f':!3(ii on Ash Avenue ( a portion of this lot is within the one'hundred year floodplain) , C-5 "Highway C rcial." for Washington County Tax :Map 2S1 2AC Lot 1600, and C-3M "Plain Street Cort rcial" for Washington County Tax Map 251 2AC Lots 1200, 1300, 1400, 1500, 2200, and 201. Lot 201 is shown in the one hundred year floodplain of Farm() Creek on' the Comprehensive Plan Map. 2) All of the t M sed uses are allowed in the C-3M "main StzPet ti omzsrcial'' zone. R t.!ferenc e: Chapter 18.30 of the Code,, 3) Applicant has submitted a Sensitive Lands Application to the City. ppfuture This application cation will be presented to the Planning Comcn�Bron in the �a 4) An application for a Minor Land Partition (ATL? 4-81) has been . filed to seperateapp roxiraai�`Ly one (1) acre. from Washington County Tax Map 2S3 2AC Lot 2301 on Ash Avenue. 5) Applicant has not coxWestern Oregon rued on the IMarine lease, nor has. the issue of Ash Awnue been addressed as a portion of this application. NPO if 1 Policy states: 'Ash Avenue should be ex- ended across Frio Creek, enabling access to the Neighborhood's conmarc al area without using Pacific Highway Design features .shotld be used to slow traffic and make the street as safe as possible. '' 6) Public services are avv fable to the situ `7) The narrative do es not address the unc3e�r1ying issue - Should tie� allow the four �4 acres of �� Resider sl zone change e to 0-3M iStret � � � Staff is reluctant to insist upon this because it is apparent om WO # Is recent policy Irmo that this is not a .reel issue with them. Only one Person to date has requested that the zone •ret bed.anged. The conversion of this s par�cuar frrow A-12 to C-3M could be related to the Ir-DCdensityasseif it tArr4ce riot for the fact that at soma or this - � four '(4) acre parcel is in the one hundred year floodplain and . y re for construction of t-faima� .y units.. ss ers.fmre riot sup' 1 8) This application shall be reviewed under chapter' 18.56 .plaan nevelop rout istr ct (pts i i ST REPORT AG 'NDA NO, 5. y.,, TIGARD PLANNING COMM7:SSION PAY 5, 1981 7:30 Nvx6. FOWLER JUNIOR HIL I - T ;CT RE ROOM �I 10865 SW Wa3nut, Tigard Page 6 a II. GDNG�i.,TJSIONARY FINDINGS .: 1) The plan as submitted does not address the priwary concerns of Staff relative to traffic circulation. The traffic study as submitted does not the ° adequately� address impact of this leveloprrent on traffic circulation in the entire downtown area. This traffic study is site oriented only and does not address ddress the larger issue of overall impactto Nairn Street. 2) The Planningi '� Cran'ssion dic not approve of the traffic;,circulation pattern during the previous public'process for this site. Sign.fi.c tt traffic has been added tO the site. A traffic study will be prays ►need • 4 ` g Cr .+ if )f t ;s before the Planning �.•oz�u.sson on May 5, 1981, by �r '�Toel��, .ten �'�:•:�za Staff. r 3) The uncertaintyof the lease sion relative to Western Core >n tua�y t i! 'ine prohibits any alternate transportation/c' rcu a.tion plan development on the part of Staff and Oregon Department of Transportation: (O r) , and therefore,, dictates that this devel opnent be phased,. should the lease remain in effect til 1984. No application for phased devel oprcent`has been 'rade. • • ZIT. STAFF RECONIMOArIION' Staff recbmends derv,al of this Pre1.imi.naxy' Planned. Unit IDeve3f3iorint. The t be addressed prior to the applicants re n• before follak�.n� Issues mu.C� PP ,.ur the Planning Commission. If the followingconcerns are satisfied the a plicant may request a si altar eou5; Pirlin - ;. ' Plan, Review and Genesi, Plan Review before the Planning Commission. The Staff shall determine if/when this item shall be placed on a futureaga. end . No app ication, shall be accepted by the' City �. unless these issues have been addressed to Staff's. satisfaotiin. �.� a:i.n Street Landconpany shall o.m V'ccntrol' all prape:r`ter on vh cb develo t is pro sed If the lease with 'Testa i Oregon Marne Y y ., � t pmez`� propose& ,� . . cannot be broken* this proposed de clop rent shall. not be presented to the city antic the termination date of s o d lease. 2) .Applicant shall be res ns ,oe for alteration ()f the site plan brought about by the final traffic patterns approved by the City. :s associated with traffi ► 'o signal m tt alteration. and installation shall be paid e developer, The Oregon �par t of TrEtisportad on. Zji ..,, n ..,i. ..,.:,,.,..• .,:-a' .ui., .. +s nu ,.,.cu..4e,«. ..kk .,.g s td Qt.Y: t , 1 • is Jam{ RSO AGENDA NO. 5.4 TIGARD PLANINGC }MM.ISS ION 5, 1981 - 7:30 p.m. PJWI ER JUNIOR LECTURE Page 7 and the City rrIust agree on the traffic circulatitil° patterns prior to a G neral'Review. ii 3) The Ash Street extension issue is to be resolved by the Planning t cznmission and City Council prig to a General Plan , view of this project. sr 4) The Park Board shall reviewae plans w►ch the applicant and resolve all differences "prior to a General Plan Review. 5) The Public Works Director...shall review the SExYeitiire Lands application . with thea licant and shall . w pp su�mu.� a re �-�. to the- P�,ann�,n Comma.sa�ora. with the ("tieneral Plan, Review. v. 6) All concerns of the Tualatin RuralProtection Dist.rict shall be addressed, particularly related, to the e)e:tension c:f Ash Avenue (across I ' Fano Creek) and traffic c ,rculataon on site. I , Al and 1/111 Pl. Director va .. ... •♦ u...., e .µII ♦ .,. Y i Y...M4z+t.Q•.It..t MEMORANDUM• TO: PLANNING COMMISSION 6/3/80 I 4 FROM; PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: PRELIP/iINARY ZCPD 6-80, MAIN STREET 'DEVELOPMENT/G. I. NOES Following Your last meeting with this api 1icant on April 22, 1980e the Staff met with Mr. Lou Gilham, Architect of G. I. Joes. We explained our position. • ggpresentation before you Mr. G>'. ham suggested that he be allowed to make a regent this evening. He has assured me that the Primary intent of this meeting will be to establish the land uses; as I indicated to you in my Staff Report Agenda 5.5 of April 22, 1980, ZOPD 6-80 under Findings of Fact 1., all of the Proposed uses j are allowed in the 'C-3M Zone. P � The second issue which needs to be addressed is what are the conditions under . .� which You will allow this applicant to return baa ore you for the General Plan Review. oR Mr. Gilham has assured me that he will submit alternate traffic circ :lation plans ' and: will have CIC�2Nt s comments on these various plans. These will be presented to• Staff for review so that we may evaluate them in connection with our traffic circulation proposals. concerned that all of the ro e�4 included- , Staffp p r`-y ' in this .proposal.. is not under the dire. rct control of the applicant. The O.D.O.T. parcel isin question. The We$tern Oregon Marine property situation, 'relative. 'to lease arranements � hasnot been resolved to date. These issues must. be a� C1 , r` rine prop• to the sativfactiOi of Staff prior to a General Plan Review. r • Attention is to be given to reducing the impact of large structures to - immediate surroundingareas of residential developments and the proposed �'Fantle Crek Park reenway area. Applicant to-relate this proposal more specifically ato the "intent" of the Planned Development Section of the CoOe. "PD/18“56.010 Purpose'. Applicant should have au "indirect Sourceaermit issued for this project ' e 'ronmental Quality prior to the Planning Commission's b � the' �w,. artTil�fiit� Cf EF,'l�'2. � .p ' General Plan Review Yot'x are aware of the fact that' Council has directed that a special Downtown CoMmittee be formed to prioritarize the concerns voiced in a questionnaire which was tabulated by the Chamber of Commerce.. We em pect that this Committee � willexami'fle the traffic situation, parking, library, civic compl e.2, etc. Out of this, we hope to beable to put together- a program`for the re-=develo mz.nt' bowrntown Tigard> Staff recommends that You approve the preliminary Plan for land aces only. It is further.Cwt recom�i nde�d thatthe applicant not e Pp , , be scheduled for a +General, .. plan :vx.ec� until the following issues have been addressed to the. ,satisfaction of Staff m. • rn , M Page 2, ZCPD ,y-80 ` 1. Traffic circulation whichincludes an analysis of Main Street/99W connection to Ash, Street and Ash St :._r to Burnham. The traffic impact of this development on Main Street and on the Main Street/99W connection shall_ also 'bet included. • 2. Control of all land included s c a., ded in this development. More ., eficall 1 11 the O.D.O.T. portion and the lease situation with Western Oregon Marine. 3. Floodplain issues. 4. Indirect Source Permit from DEQ. p. 0. rye, 4 .& . ard, Planning Director e P. VZilc I e Ii, r , r . __ 1` e • ♦ ... • 4. Y` x x 'Wtx -.et.y. ..t.+L.r wk..1,M.Ru ,n a e. i,..w, <,,ra.+ n... a N K•.k t..*4Lta+4 M W+-: " Z,,,, ,---. ` (,,. rt U K' f ,iii« "i -�,' lr i,. i Gr�r'�'".i"' ri-7--"—Y ��c' C..0G"Y'i V +fit i ''y"'cj�a `. V lkt,, 10 5:‘,..2. C"i' •.�ct)lJ l� it.• STA'' ' REPORT ; ' ' ,„ � 91,c../ V 1)) ')-/ ' AGENDA ',=';',.5 j , .A 0_,„,,,,,,6,,e,„ % Cc44'V'3t'f ,t',. T.I IN RD PLANNING COMMISSION ,..... ''' -: t x April 22, 1980 - 7:30 p.m. 4d ; i 2�' ...lc.) fn-► �'►1 cc.cwvt Fowler O unior it,gh DOU:1.3."'.., MATH ROOM '!` c: 7.4,t1_6,..„? Z:x; -- 4. 10865 SW Walnut Street, s .gard .. c!- r- cr DOCKET: ZO1`i}. CHANGE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, ZCPD 6-86 (Maim Street Tievelopr:ent/G.I. Jots) Preliminary Review APPLICANT: MAIN' STREET DEi,TELOPMEDIT, LTD. OWNER: J. B. bishop and, • 10505 SW Barbur Blvd., Suite 3t3 H. J. Buchholz •'°' Po;ctiarid, Oregon 97219 ., Same, Address APPLICATION DATE: March 25 1980 SITE ,j . LOCATION: Southern eild (')f Nain St; ee t (Wash,, Co. Tax Map 2 ',.',. 2AC, Tax Lots 1600, 1500, 27,00, 1400, 1300, ',200 and a portion o; '4:00 parcel 3 BEQUEST: r 'a Zone Change f.. omm C-3M �'Ma` Street Commercial" to 5 PQIrl C-3UPD "Main Street Commercial Planned Deve&' ,:crit Distrir:;tr' Zone fozc app 'oximately 11.51 acres. PREVIO1 3 ACTION: , Applican,. submitted plans for Site Design Review, SDR 1.80 on Jarrtuary 16, 1960. a The Planning Director retwrned this application and the fee. ?lpp1icant, was instructed to .request a Zone Change to C- M'";.D because sensitIve 3,arlds (flood- '• vo ` plain)� areas were involved and because tpotential tv; apthe prop�isa�. „. the � o f demanded review by the Planning Comm..sion and thra ':i .. Council,, _ `_ FINDINGS Or FACT: L All of the proposed uses are. allowed in the C-314 Zone 2. Zipp]. can t;. hag inc"1y propoS1 a Sensitive Fainlis Permit rr, uest: ttded. an this 3. App1.k ant does no-(', preg:�ently own the .14-ea shown on the site plan west cif ' the present curb of the ......-'414 sting 59W off-ramp do*.n to Main Strset. Property is owned by Oregon Department of T:arisportation (ODOir) and. will;have to be declared i'surp.ltas" arid could ti.."ari be atictioned. This pr ytet,8 ;/.s 1ongthy. ODOT, lir. fill Geibel, has in .»cater: to Staff that. in all ab lity Mr, Bishop would be the `'highest bidder";, brit 'that Is not c ,atanteedw We- ' . the City, rr011ld request .a dedication of this property t0.J the City from CDvT� This mighx't e,spedite the process. It would then, be pois,sib:l., gar the City , to lease this around to Fir: Bishop wider certain (JOnditioxis or to sell. tO !`i tet, ' 1 i 1 _, vk dg U - ..qty. \,. p Y' "� 7 . , "w s f..,,:e•- � .w, t » w a/ ( x1a119r ''' „, ' - ‘,.,, (. 1 • . STL' 'F-REPORT AGENDA 5.5 2CPxY 6-80 TIGA�?.D PLANNING COMMISSION ' April 22, 1980 • Page a? • Y �. .� 4. Applicant has not addressed the re..a'Lxgn�.nen.. of Johnson, Street through this ,. f 1 property to Ash Street. Staff has suggested this to =t)Fe applicant; but no plan was- taken. (The site p l:an does not show this re-uli pment dedication or traffiQ pattern.) The traffic study wrch was submitted with this _ application does not include an overall traffic impact assessment for the „. ”. entire Main Street area effected. It merely cunt, the cars and projects, a method to accomodate:this traffic from the site to 99W. ,'a consideration 1 . is given to Johnson, to Burnham, to Ash, etc. • .•• AfplicaL's narrative does not mention facilities.for public transportation (TriNSeton-site r other thaw, to say. ..'."mass transit, i.e., TriMet, is : available to the subject lcc.cation''. Nothing on the site plan indicates es , that public transportatS.o,rc facilities" .: �� are contemplated. The plan pxapose" ... parking for 525 cars. )n '°indirect source perre t" will be required from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Application for this permit is z.n process. 4 6. NPO l {,. Policy #28: "An addi.tional benefit provided by the ev,:tension of Ash Piveritte will be a morel convenient access from the Neighborhood to Downtown ^ 1*,,.usinesses. This makes possible loU..1 and convenience shopping trips without ' venturing onto s=ac fic ;i!ic hway. It will also aid the economic viability of downtown redevelopmellC by making the area incus easily access ,ble to a ;• larger :marks}:.)1 , II CONCLt7SIOTAA.,RY FINDINGS ' ,'ip- the primary concerns of Staff relative plan as subzn�.tted does not: addrFrss t_t�., to traffic circulatiotn (i.e. re--alignment of Johnson Street at 99WxW through i f project to Ash Street with an intet'rial connect ,on. to Main Street) The traffic study as submitted does not adequatel*� address the impact'of this ,:hi w .,, developtent on :ratf is ci:resl.a tion in the entire down town area. This r • �s tr c�c; stud is site: origin ed onl d does of addle �,��; y � Y � as the larger ,�. s�e of , overall' impact to 1..'lain. Street. , • 2. The f plan as submitted irbclurles property which ,s not now owvried/controllec , by the applicant. ' � III. STAFF' /1.8MMEND ATION Staff recortn"_nds d.:... i al: of this P e1it4; nary Alen R,evieto' .fox.. Zone thane 1 When the fol.low:in+l condi tons have been s .t isiied, Staff .recon lends that the , 4 appliceit°it return to the planning Commission: 'r • J • . . it. ..... is 1 . '.r , a p ' t:. '. . + .. . 'b . �'. ''.) a .. ....k+.n , .. w rrb ,.N 4xd N,.Y1.w Y,µ .. , w,JWk..I.✓"ra+..+:1J ' 1 ( .1 S REPORT T AF.F AGENDA 5.5 • ZCPD. 6-80 TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION April 22, 1980 Page3 I. Applicant to pry&.de a traffic study which clear y indicates the effects of this development on the entire existing and proposed transportation system he Main Street area, includingwritten ODOr concerning in the ten evaluation by " , both 99W traffic and Johnson Street, Main Street traffic. This study to include details on re-alignment isp ali ment of Johnson Street 'to Ash gn Avenue, Ash Avenue through to Commercial Street and the re-alignment of ° Mainr Streetinto Johnson Street within this development. Various alternatives should be clearly indicated and addessed. M 2. Applicant to address specifically the fact that a portion of the land he s Project. f has included in his is not now. under his Cont '="01. A method o resolving this fact must be presented.' (Applicant, `to provide adequate > facilities for public trent pori.ation (I'riMet) within this development,.) m: 3. Attention to be given to reducing the impact of large structures to immediate ' surrounding areas of residential developments and the proposed Farno Creek • Park and Greenway area. 'Applicant to relate this proposal morespecifically to the "4ntent" of the Planned Development Section of the Code included. herein: "PD/18.56.010 Purpose" (See Exl'j.it "A") Applicant " Source Permit issued for this project �' ''• 4. should have an "Indirect '' by the Depr at,: ment of Lnvironmental Quality prior to the Tanning Commission's re-hearing, unless the applicant guay antees to make aft7;, and all adjustments °' thisproposal A requirements which may'be placed on this develop- ment ro.�osa].: to meet the re uir ment' by DEcj ' STAFF NARRATIVE RELATIVE TO THIS PROPOSAL: :fie primary underlying difficulty throughout our discussions with the applicant • has been the ,. .solution of the t--ansportati.on system. The Public Works Director and the Planning Director haveedly asked for Johnson Street to be continued -�t =a r.onn�.cation to; • thro;�gh this Main dEvelop�':erit to event ,��:�`.connect Ash Street y ' `` the et ia�,th y north i',o Street crossing Fenno Creek,• � a f...�mpot�nding these difficulties is the fact that the applicant has: lease on the Western Oregon Maxine. building m which will be in effect for a cert ;in length of time, possibly until October r. Added.. this, is the problem of a.�vner�shi . .of . immediately of this e��. �dd�c� to � of traffic `, _ .. . . y p the land • p addition ffic signals at the southern ' y -b boundary of this site on 99W is rut toaquestionable also. Tnitiall�' WareMart was not in ancluded. this project. When ' . this tennant wasfound Obi ausl�. x�ts" Could th:.n b... ` , r the traffic.. signals .'to the southtrchanges�tb`� had �+ then be xr,ode to the traffic Study- However, again, the, ett<dy oily addressed the 7 r = •' y, _..z . k "*n d w / rg� , .'r , ,` .^. v , STAFF REPORT AGENDA 5.5 ZCPD 6-S0 TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION' April, 22, 1980 Page `4 site in relation to 99W and did not analyse the larger. impact area. The site plan now shows ingress/egress onto Main Street on Tax Lot 1200. The traffic study does not provide the necessary details which we feel we should have, to adequately address traffic circulation. The applicant has told us that he feels 'we should provide the details. The onus is totally born by the developer and, until Staff, Planning Commission, and City Council, is in total agreement with the traffic plans as subrKitted by the applicant, this project should not be appzu,,ed» It is anticipated thatthe applicant will tell ;You that he does not controlproposal nit the land >t~o the east of his ro osal and that• he cax� provide the necessaryy throughAsh Street. Staff has rece,�ztly� • discussed this issue with Mr. Bene to p right " .n, a ..afore developer of propert.1r on. Ash. Avenue directly east of this proposed development,. Mr. Bunsen would he conditioned to provide the connecting link for Johnson St;,uet to Ash Avenue at- the time he deve 1.o s I%-• is anticipated that the applicant will repeatedly point to the fact that the JOhnsori Street connection has never been discussed, that the NPO 41 ,plan by _, Carl Budke discouraged the alignment. Our comment 3s that timeshave changed. The applicant will relate Specifics on cost. Note that the tota,`r. cost of the proposed traffic lights on 99W south ingress/egress to project) will be paid for by the applicant if he is allowed to de' elop as planned-. It seems logical to Staff that, these traffic signals could be installed "internally" at the intersection of the new extension of Johnson and Main Street. We are considering major changes in the imm,�diate area of Burnham, Ash, Commercial, Main, and aOhnson Streets. The Park. Board has designated 'the .Panna creek area from Main Street to Hall Boulevard for priori,by park development. We have discussed the civic complex ideas with the City Council and consultants, The possibility( of a civic complex on Ash, Avenue and the ORB Park proposals 'could the eel ,er has change• e ed tocOnsider-•; o�ment of l of ate, d+ v 0 r.. fus `cothe "overall" impact this proposal a� ni�ican Fl the entire d. vel this Main Street zone To d al '. on this Y,arger area; ".` S t&ff hal5 4,0 difficulty with >of the proposed uses. We feel that this ,prt iect could "anchor" south Wain Street, and bring about, a re-vitalization of this entire Main Street (C--3M) area. It Is our feeling that the traffic cit= culation patterns Will alter the. exact :,acetent. of buildings, but that the p� 3 uses will - e, we would recommend that the applcat`it.ret��a.x.n the Th.eref+�r he instructed to return tothe Planning Commission when the trafPicy circulation patterns and traffic analysis have been approved by the Public Wctks birector, t3s,w. y x I e • STAFF .REPJRT ri AGENDA 5.5 ZCPD 6-80 TIGARD PLANNING C0MNISSIOP1 April 22, 1980 Page 5 ' iTrimet is about to propose the construction of a transfer station on Commercial. The U.S. ,Bink at Scoffins and ;Main is proposing to rebuild soon which will ♦, mean elimination f a major traffic problem in that area. ' What is being suggested throughout this narrative is that the entire area from r " this de•velorcr�nto Scoffns is Pchanging very rapidly. We have a chance now to' y- •t; align streets, to revitalize the area, to plan ahead for the improvement of this community. " NPO 41 has filed the enclosed docur,ient with the Planning Staff. (See .Exhibit "B") • under Heading 1., `south Main Bevelopuant, th? NPO `states -- "The need has not v been adequately identifies for the re-alignmentohnsor dpve of Main Street and the J Street `extension to Ash Avenue through` the l pment". In the next paragraph ' "careful consideration be given fort wre read, car he'traffic rngp act •:.)f such devE.lo merit". Heading 11' states the 'NPO's primary concern, primary priority - the extension of Hill Street to O'Mara. Heading III, Ash Avenue Extension - the k NPO does not see. the need to extend Ash Avenue across Fianna Creek' to Burnham g Ps,ec x,fic in its r and wish heir neighborhood �:�oteoted. Staff wase very p esenta- ' ' tion to this group on April 2,, 1980. The time for a tran''portation syst:m is T+ now and it includes Ash Avenue l?urnham. This has b'� discussion _en a topic of considerable 'acuss�on for years. It is our feling that Ash Avenue should be extended to and SMembers avoided the real " issues byn �.lac ,nhepriority on�the Hill eSta Street extension to O'Mara. Note that they wanted. the Ash Street right "preserved" and their neighborhood's' p 9' g Y p character" protected "residential c `.. The real issue is the "greater If ue. , public need,� a dQin fact, place a civic complex on Ash Twenue where the t e Public Works area is now, and if we do develop a park' from Main Street to Hall Boulevard, thenit seems logical to ass\une that this entire area. . rnha�a, The I ; Will change. Ash �.ven:�e will be extended to r�u NPO #1 members realize this fact.. • The a Pu d to re-des�.� ththis atla13,�,♦ 9' Commission may be asked project ' StaffHearing_nlfeels '.that this is less than appropriate. A greater Public must be served. The developer can certainly subm,tt his proposal to you, b'At g .pp � ,� y e all product sot �, . a � me following Your a rovaZ} the de v� osier tea leave u� with the liabilities, kind no insurance, for a long time to Come, Y y y Platin�n Di ec to db. . __ Pr-Pare- r I , 4 • I • • a • • 4. 9. NMACKENZIE ENGINEER11\w1. T INCORPORATE 1 \ may 1, Mr. Frank Currie 11 Director of Public Works 1 City' of Tigard 12420 SW Main °. Tigard, Oregon 97223 pM Dear Mr. Currie: RE: Main Street Land Project pAnalysis Flood lain Jrh 4 181142 The following information is offered to further I clarifythat no adverse impacts will result from '. . the proposed floodplain alteration at the Main Street >' Land Project- Specifically, this discussion deals with the zero-foot and one-foot floodways. f The Corps of Engineers, in cooperation with the Federa: p Insurance Administration, have established that the floodplain may be filled as Long as the resulting increase in flood height is not more than 1.0 foot. i' The City of Tigard, as with many cities, has chosen to adopt a zero-foot floodway, meaning that floodplain . fills are limited to those that will not raise the flood height at all. The one-foot and zero-foot floodways are plotted on . the exhibit map attached. The one-foot floodway line is taken from sheet 105, Flood Insurance Work Map, ranno Creek, as prepared by the Cczps of Engi-- neers. The zero-foot floodway is as estimated by Mackenzie Engineering Inc. , b eliminating areas of • negligible flows The project. proposes to fill wi thin the floodway, • but also p. w+ � se . to com pens-te for this restriction tion by excavating on the opposite side of the creek. The eC result is a more efficient channel sectionalong the area�� of the; overhank area on the im,p ro�rr�tcte�C�t Much t side of the � eek, due to eto Its shallow, irregular . nature, does not carry asignificantprotion of the lOa -yearf ow. BY fillii4 this area, the area of W y . . per . p �.,� used., while the wetted is modem ion rtic decreased.»: The es ,lt is a ' nrinc1 815 flow. s _,; mete. ., y rhamQs R: lcketi'i� \ reduced` stream c apacity ric 7`E alio M.M.Ibresh&ar EIANbROPT STREET . POI T'LANb OREGON EGON i7Po . Pk-kONE, Sipa/2 4.0'50o MACI<ENZIE ENGINEERIMC, INCORPORATED I ' I • • May 1, 1981 , Frank Currie Job # 181142 Page Two The compensating excavation in the park area on the the east side of the creek serves to greatly increase el , area of flow, while an insignificant increase in the wetted perimeter is generated. Thus, the channel is made more efficient by reducing the overall wetted perimeter and the accompanying friction involved in stream flow. The Corps of Engineers has further determined that overbank sections have a higher, degree of roughness than the channel, by as much as a 2:1 ratio. . The effect on the upstream and downstream. reaches will be negligible. The eff'ct on the upstream areas will oa in ii ood u to the Main ht reducti� � b., a slight heightp The b.� :a.Te will. tend to mitigate the Street bridge. If g ` change in elevation. did not, however, the ' effects would still not be detrimertal. As for the downstream reach, the point of retu:�r to l natural flood height may be ± 100 feet from Corp Station 4 .50.50. Any energyas a dissipation that takes place ndllv�er�. ence of esut of eddies and configuration ,� d . \.' the channel into a wider section. ; Figure 1 depicts the three stages of typical section con8truction„: ti a. Existinct Section b. Existing Section with project fill „l c. Edisting Section withproject fill and I c I ,, park area excavation , The project' s overall effect is to; shift a portion of r • flow from the west side . t the ;sty.eam to the east side of I the stream centerline. 1i has been shown that the revised channel is more efficient, this lowering the flood height adjacent to the Project. Please call ifwe can ProVide any additional inEorMa- tion. o ' Sincerely, .,,kr? d, v� ..a ��E� C. gar n. �" Project Engineer t) ./.e A,. I q A ti y % r� • • • ,, 4I • ' r I 1, R y ,, yS , i . 111.4" --v. '. 1 l ♦ "��,../ ,�,�,. ). , \ � t � �, �. � 111 �,,A 5. / it� '`...,.. �......rs+'��.,r�.:I ✓ ., . ^/IJ !.,'" / '� j, ...14._.4.. r•..., 1, a / ��ba u�yl�c111c 'P'^ i 1 - -�' s t: •I t ..,.... ...7 .... 1‘ ' 1 , ,....-. 1 ,,,..., 1 .„': iot..!t7r....,zt,..it'...e'...c.i..4;"" •:.4.. i ot e i:.0 ,,,,,,ir. / .i d 1' N t. .r n* PI.C>ODWA e *r + i R � J ' R � � , ytlik ��:g AREAt1� i` T �, -TF T 1l Ikti) G#), 16' r� I- i,,, " ,.•r.,, - T1. b� �`L ,, rA► tIJiL '1►l! E ,I liw.l r d �rh +. ► •••,,,,,,,,,,,,,...,," ' . ss,r,iM' rl 1+�4bhl��`�1�. , « ♦ M j : .---.... . " FLO 0 AY _...........�..... ,. }, . 1 Ali ,.w x Y.. . w,,. t w. . EX,V11P413 GONDFi'""*1 100 YEAR . 1 i ry } ; , ,. ft • I ‘,.r..P' ux 1 ' R � 1 1 Aeast ' Ibwt R♦ ! ► 1 L i Exis'tf4 i. 00 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN l':100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN QEF1 FILL , +ice .. :... � # .;d. _�* 'per MMMMMAI.M Y.� i1yLA*mil *s P .gyp. "}l�J .00WO Ir j)r a � # 1 4 txr+r 1 t { ► ! SECN W T FILL C , e[j EX!S G 100 VES FLt. ,, PLS Y, P .., uD P Al A P PARK F_CA tA11 ►E I otprMMM tiMAMMIOMs 1Mw�rr.tr�! tet°+:,, , rri�fb to ., , 1.. 1.10. w' S 1y` \\ 1, , M , li ...� it .. 1 • I : , 4:; . , , 0 . • , . 5, „ , - ....,_ J„,, ,, ,,.. ., , ,, .. `w � Y {, 1 tb t "1 "L"'« �.C�K" t r �f 'Set • CD i ' 0j ° ' 4°V)44 lit .""ti\ff'4' °I '/4 . 1 a p R., % it 1 4Y FiacEI, C...,) Ata r; MFR ,( 1981 ' I T ' 'april. 27, 1981i ' a ''111)gard City.. Council. ,,,,,,_ P„ �. $ax 23397 ! Tigard, Care, 9722 '" y. L7,iclosed is!a romp rehe..s ve plan revision request initiated by NPO # 1. ." Please waive,typ 3 00. 00 filing fee for this correhexa:'$�ve hart drtee. ay requestm fi a ,ze., We rt:ques tthisitem bescheduled on the av 5, 1981planning commission i` agenda:, suggests that council consider* at a future. council meeting etx NPO rr 1 gg ng the " ;,r question of redesignation of ,Ash Street from a ;"collector'' to "local'' Street. 1 ' `` The reason for this appli cation s because cf the plan change request, whichNPO #1 tz o rt�s, from l�_l2 to C"3M PD. This zone change s • pp greatly ?- --ituces the potential, residential traffic impact on Ash 'Street. very tr7ui.y. yours, 1, Gene Richman NPO # 1 ;a • cc Tigard '1anih.ng Corrirrii8siori c or, it Mr A�.d +� and I , , f X 1 ,♦,s♦.+. � «^air .a ....s k': `..t,i1`dL!v a. d.0 /1.a�Y ll� 1�,u v J.►..r:i�.i 411 .A..1. a,A w3..r w Iwo..a rv, FTL1 p SW NI NG DEP �P�`.f PLANNING .�'�P. -1�`� ,63 9-4 1 7�. a 1�.ECE�.�7'ED SW Vin Street Orel 9 722w DATE RFCEZVE J RECEIVED BY 4�,,, "contact person" named in application will receive all j;or correspondence from the Tigard Planning Department and that "�n same to owner, architects, etc. ` p responsible for providing e ns " P ex�son is z♦es o `� ♦ In this case, the "contact; person" is: :r.• NANPO # 1 ,c/o.Gene Ri�::hman PHONE (Bus.)238-5565 ♦(Res.) ME _62 0-47,c __... ADDA,70. rS - U_x��_ AGh At- �i ard, Or. 97223 , Streit "' � �� .- City - -fir)) �_.. ...._... S'i.gn Lure Date ,CTION e- # -8 „ i'� aa ♦p iLEQUESTED TCa cele —pi�iYrT ,f_]`�T..p.1.� 1 fnr l�r,�x�, f-nY=.rr k rktre�t� c�PP ►�!'�.,P.NT'S N:ME N•'Pn# 1, r/r 'Gere RidimarL _PHONE', (Bus.) 238-5565 (Res*) 130-4y8j ADDRESS13120W S. . Ash Aye, Tigax re. 97223 (Street City - Zip PROPERTY . ° OWNER'S NAME PHONE (Bus.),....1\1/A (Res..) N/A PHONE E (sus.) (Re .) PDDtEES /A (Street City - Zip) • PROI,ERTY OWNER PECOGNI ,LION Or' A."?PLICATION N/A Sig N/A ' nature of ovine � 5ROPERTY INVOL'air): TAX MAP # 2 .129.2S-,1-Z AC TP,X l',40111(S) Refer Co ADDREsS Ash .Street . AREA :v1EASDRENlENT N/A E)CISTINGt�JZLDING (# and type) .:.astc"13.3.ti; • ' • C RE,- C qT r � l s PRC]POSED 'ZC`1N�N� See r �` Z0IVINC � �'P� P, 1'� h�=�t�fwyr�" ferea�t �w'� �x'b..i e r V a tn pc�l .x APPLICANT S 'RO Y r...URRE.Ix USE �. „ APIILICATION WILL 'NC:1T �E ACCEFTE�7 Nrt:e;S: S FULtiY COIVC►EIED � . ► .� I . X205 o 0 4 , .., } , . 41A a arts .. I .. IC. '� r a -i'',. I % r _• • jam' y' - -, _ s t • ,may __ a •� . 1 • ' fes + ZJ 1 * , r. j f J ` • Y i i �• t A,* a * / ‘`j,,,, a R , /............... •••e $ ; a,,• a • •JJ D ' i .4,/, fA:•491 a.. I • „ I 4, . _ .41,t. . 411 til a 0,0 •a A a ri,,, s. r w 1 },.AAAA" p .4),'::'0 {J i• K� a .ti 1 a, ..4.3 1 ... ; . z ,,, . ..,,......., 9 tr aIC = a.., ,. 1 ♦ , c i.{ - _ L*re.ao.... .:�.mI' -.'�.!.....e......' _ ` - ......0, - 4 rid % . ii I a . _ cjE-4,) 1* . . Q. . ci. .. ; !,11. .. . • t _.",) v) )t I 1-.0 • .2,•.,.. ti-s4 - ". �•i. sy 1.` s s { .` a •_ ]. ♦ ` + -_ , a a 4 i.. ;er•:1 yaaodY a OH 11 ■Ai.e.•s Ri•.aR • ry V'. hrsfi i t ti ; .a. Ses*qi. R4•Y a .. � . - a • i♦III' :%b+ !e..S1)0 J ,, • Rif t y ` i ' a ,3 L ° erP.. 4,i { a I . , f / f..ir a t 1!a 1 .►r.• }+ta d t/ . AS I. • �' • •••••• . S`aEE MAP X51 au..ouMH tiKYMUMuk.Y.N1i'AMYY. R.L.abM,weJLL4 N.•HW+.riu.rs'Y.pN.YY,..r•ta_,,Y,YN,I1u.YYAir4Vx,v.,. N... .N p.,,ul,a:a. a,W4.WxM.. ,,W.w...m r.--: yY ur.Y4:gW"'�w- 'xi.Ai. fKYy'JIr1.Lr.y.Ami.d+WAat...W4MuerlwN,.1xa:Y.ul:`+Cwwu+..+,,.v.k MnutWE.sr.lWYayY.•p..:nt .t..Nf.4i.+<:iMr.a+Pu.YwNWr1,Y.Kita 1,+4=uiYWWA WYA4Y1 .:.W\ Ar PARK BOARD MINUTES April 23, 1981 , Durham Treatment Plant 16580 Si? 85th 7:30 PM Tigard, OR n was called to order at 7:30 PM b Chairman Phil Hirl. Meetingy • 1. ROLL CALL: Betty Golden, Phil i.Zir1s Ronald Jordan, John Manning:, Mary Payne, Roger Zumwalt a Excused: • Absent: Bellinger, Fitzpatrick, Has Staff: Liz Newton' 2. APPROVALprevious meeting approved as corrected.MINUTES: Minutes of OF 3. NEW BUS?:NESS (Towntown wDevelopment item was considered first. LizwtoltY presented lie the Main Street Land Company plan. A proposed 4000 cubic yard cut east of Fenno Creek would result in a lake. 3644 cubic yr., is of "a beon the west side.... r fill woulda utilizedl beof Fenno Creek �rtlere proposed building and parking would ' There was considerable discussion. Many people in the immediate area have voiced'objections to this plan. There would' be some construction i on the 100-year floodplain. and a loss of park space to the' parking l,ota' The concensus of thk,, Park 7�oard is t o recommend staying w: th the ORB .� plan. Tho ORB plan Las been approved by the City and the park Board, ' ' 1 as part of its Master Plan. The Mayan Street Land Company p.an of '~ ^h 74 19S], substantially diminishes the size of the p :.k: arid en-- crroaches on the 100-year ploDdplan. This recommendation was moved by Roger ttmwalt:, sc.condd. by John Mann: an unan t ou 1 a. d passedi s v n g y ii. The qUestion. of user fees for Cook Park and the coir eled areas was discuss ed. The, Park Board recommends to city Staff'that Cook d' rk be °zoned" and N ' that va' t.osr,9 for a specific area be assigned on afirst-come, , fi�'-st-served basis, ti A The toard further ret trmeuds. reideing txxst'Lng ordinances) Gln order to inc rease Che price for Cook Park spLe es such ,,:'',,.s covered arcoa, barbe4uepits, ball Parts etc . - ', J' / '' Yy -r I •�1 Y� is PAK BOARD MINUTES April 23, 19at Page 2 These two recommendations were moved bMary Payne, seconded by Ron Y Jordan and passed unanimously. 4. OLD BUSINESS The question of the proposed Cook Park 'landtand remains unsettled. Mary Payne reported on an informal meeting with members of Town & Country , .� Bays Committee. She =bras seeking a juin: meeting between Town & Country Committee and Park 15oaard to implement their promised support (financial & otherwide) for a bandstand. She was adVisld of the following: 1. They don'tproposed planprefer fiat y like ro used PCC' platform , 4; They wall not support us they plan: using the bandstand in the stadiums - The board will look at Frank Currie t Mercer Island plans again. Also, Ron Jordan is working with several contractors on a business vdntune . i ►1e will try to get some further ideas J,ronz them. 5. Phil Hirl reported on the 3udg t Meeting regarding Public Works. He testified to that committee regarding Park. Board's full support of a revised budget *` presented by Frank: Currie. Due to road levy passing: he, may get equipment and manpower needed for efficient and effective park taintenance. 6o W e ting d j ourne,,:d at 850 PM Respectfully submitted Beta Golden Seca..: Y Betty . • Apra 20, i, ?$l Y To 2 igard Planning Cornnnissi on Tigard City Cot.'cnci IL From: Joseph D. Jebbia, Subj: J.B. Bishop o iznn�dre e ce s�._t � x�t n c • _incmrself in the minority opinion:, fr the subject d vela�oment i and wish .to make the foliowing con eats in t� 2t light: .r 1. The new proposal b,. J 3 €,=;=�0 and associates i i g ym{ e than. #Y7#,:+w4 .Li 1 C.. 4 is na f.thrLLl� ?tto.c.. a relocation of buildings on expanded site. The traffic concerns • which were a primary reason ,r,cr the .urn--doom of viae original plan have not been addressed or significantly changed, • 2.: t the April 15th TP0-1 n etirigg the traffic consultant admitted that the present traffic conditions on 99W are just tttol erablett during peak;, traffic periods. Any s]'„g`nifican t .adci .t7 on are i',uo)re than likely ly to -, .,° :cnalze it ttntolerabletc in my cep?pion 3. It is Interesting 'that the new proposal reduce residential t detreloDr��ent by �. acres in�ho�.�u '.:;i,�n`if�cant' ir:a�a��ove��ent to traffic fl.oi or other trade-offs 40 The encroachment of the project arid, parting onto the flood plain is most unfort,unate. 5. In considering the re-zoning of the 14. a•.:re tract, I. woad. asi which is needed )aore,y c�L-�;�Lerc=a.L-retail de•te?oYamel'it, or residential? 6. In the present proposal less than 20,5',' of the sgca,a#, footage is allocated , to small retail type business ,which was also a critician of the prior y plan • to As I have stated in the past, the site` is not stlizable for a: large • volume traffic generating co., ;ercial development. The additional. traffic light on 99W and the additional entrance;e t on a ri street from the , , proposed center will obv-i.ou.sl: produce undesirable traffic congestion and patterli.s di e { 8The traffic analysis that ras daresentsd at the ?ASC-1 meeting a _ was ill my opinionsan ta understement and an o' er-s rl 99°,J. the e lfica pion ofimpact X n _:ain street and , • a as a busjness`'an and resident ��te� y • of Tigard, 4,11,'”? . (#4/ y. J.38,JIA a' g::rd;, Oregon copy to: Tigard Planning sp v , l' • • Minority Report NP 1 O 15 April 1981 To: NPO #1 Committee Members Re; Negative vote in connection P ° Ne with comp rehensi�re Plan Chane , multiple-family g frost A 12 zone, to C3M PD, Con nercial •Continuing ',reed to separate commercial ventures from ..,' existing residential neighborhood by buffer created ;:. . through multi-family units. L . Concerned that with a Comprehensive Plan change, ` the `II '. magnitude of the commercial enterprise will result in the extension of Ash Avenue. Theby a project�traffic' generated ro ect of this size will have an enormous impact ct qn already hiqhly` utilized streets. • Generally, the, scope of having 16 plus acres being developed at one time, especially of a highly visible f nature such. as 'this sw�roj act andi2e overalleffect , it will have on Tigard as a s ole, the NPO and City A 4 of Tigard should plan carefully. ". ti1/4,,,,,i,‘,,,,) , ,,. t;,( )c., c.ww II ..w i4. _ wm rTa' !L Nef boyhood Planning Organiza on #1 15 April 1981' OPENED MEETING: Absent-2 Staff; Aldie Howard .Liz Newton ROLL CALL:a Present 8 . . • OLD $TSS INESS -corrected A) proved Minutes of last meeting; read. B) S tatul.5 report given on Chapter 18. 25 Code for Home for the Aged A70/80 PD. Planning commission lowered height to 85 feet and moved any conv fence store to inside the project's main building. City Council to review the proposed ordinance 27 Apra.' 1981. NEW BUSINESS A) Reviewed Main S tree L Project. The new 16 acre project proposes three major store (food, mini-departments and a sporting goods store) plus a banking facility and small, Y ps g isproposed at 29% and 623 scale shops. Site coverage parking spaces are planned. Traffic plans are for in gresses, and egresses on Pacific Highway a:ad Main Street. ` hearing Project ect is 5 May 1981 and will The first on the ro " Y • be for a Comprehensive Plan change on land near Ash Ave (A_12 to C3M PD) and seek an overall plan review. The area residents, NPO, and Planning expressed ex ressed the following concerns: volume. of traffic generated, traffic flow, buffering of p.roject from local single-familyletlfamily res- idences, filling` of sensitive lands, and the extensions of Ash Avenues and Johnson Street. ,, MotLg ti,-Seconded-Appro!_gs1 to: (POLICY LETTER ATTACHED) 1) Approve the concept of the Main Street Project 2) Support the Comprehensive Plan change of tho land adjacent to Ash Avenue from A-12 to C3M PD. 3) Recommend to the Tigard Plannint Commission and Tigard >City Counoil deletion of NPO #1 Plan Policy;#28. 1i) Motioned-Seconded-Approved to adjourn the meeting. " NEXT MEETING: 6 May 1981 Secretary VPO #1 00: NPO #1 Main ► treet Prop eat Policy Letter dated 1$ April 1981 and Ash Av°emue residents' letters and petitions. Neighborh . 3 Planning Organization 01 15 April 1981 Tigard Planning Staff Tigard Planning Comm:i:s•iori Tigard City Council Re: NPO. #1 Policy concerning the new Main Street Project by... Main Street Land COmpany. Over thepast months NPO `#1 has reviewed and d�,s� �d a number .�.s s of issues relating to development and planning for the NPO #1 area. We feel that our discussions have led us to con senses on several issues and as such we wish to provide our thoughts to the ,city planners and decision makers. We hope to prcvide assistance in the interpretation and update of the original NPO 01 Plan as it relates to various issues before the Tigard Planning Staff at the present time We have addressed each issuer both independently and as they relate to each other, and Would like to offer the following: I. Main Street Development We have reviewed the recent development proposal for the Sthe end of Tigard°s Main Street (specifically Maxn street Project) as well as the Tigard Planning Staff proposals for downtown traffic circulation. w ! ara supportive, of the concept of a major shopping area J. • development at the South end of Maia Street. This develop-w meat is consistent with the current NPO Plan for two primary r easons 1. The proposed developmontr in fact, has greater fron- age on Pacific Highway than it does on South Main Street and as such complies with Policies 18 and 19 suggesting the 4. avoidance of Pacific H ghway strip deveiopmeat* qty the use .., a�o��.d: of controlled access to Pacific h Hi ,la� this� �`t `"hype' of develop .-� meat provides common parking facilt. .e�s to clusters of businesses 2. p ` The proposed d�Selo went is further consistent with ,w. '' the original NPO Plan that addresses the desirability oi sup- porting the downtown Ti ad"rs "small town personality" by , , providing the commercial economic base to "anchor;r" the South end of Main Street. With the sufficient customer draw pro-- vided then on both ends of Main Strs,aet the Tigard downtown development of small shops and a 'unique commercial area" is Y. more likely to occur. ;, Consideration of these points favors the development that has been proposed for the South end of Mai:% Street. The city's need has not been adequately identified for the Johnson Street extension to Ash Avenue through the development. We are supportive of development at the South end of Main Street and recognize that proper consideration has been given tr by the developer to the traffic impact of such a development. ,.` It was demonstrated at the 15 April 1981 meeting by the traffic consultant CH2M Hill that the installation of con- trolled accesses to Pacific Highway and Main Street amid the Johnson Street/Pacific Highway intersection reconstruction addresses the development's ingress/egress traffic concerns. lI. Hill Street Extension to O 'Mara In line with the original NPO Plan, the extension of Hill pp priority objective. Street to ��arai ; stll appears a desirable y riorit. Oz's ranno Creek Study of July 1980 indicates a possible alternate route to o 1 Mara Street. We wish to identify our support for the desirability of the extension and suggestr. :! that should development occur in this area., the connection of " Hill Street to CO wMara should be assured. .y Ash 'jf�,(;. (j�;y.,�rryF �,�.y..i +{��r�� .r.��,y iy�[ 1F,M,�^MM�uVw riJ-0�ti.rui �rFioll' 1 �`p� have reviewed "��y �.r �y .�c ��yy y.��y�w �y 'tit, . YY. 6��W+w the Ash Avenue 1«� �G�L �i��Gt3,�w'�.r�,�uoti� question, . . ,��* - �y wyr •wl .. "1" :* ,`4i'• . � �'"; ..k. ,16,k Y s. • since ince it t was raved by the Tigard Planning Staff in n its down .oYYTigard circulation plans. WQ have, several timescon sid- ered • the issues raised by the Tigard Planning Staff as well as those raised by, tb,s citizens of Ash Avenue and the immediate area, • OR$°s ?anno Creek Study of July 1980 expressed a zoncern that the principle access to the Fanno Creek Greenway wars at the ends of Ash Avenue. The NPJ do's not see a need to extend Ash Avenue. However, Ash Avenue Riht of Wy will bepreservede for future E park access. Also, a zone change from A-12 zone, multi-family, adjacent to ^, Ash to C3M PD, will elirinate; vehicle traffic that. 11,htculd have y ' been created by A--l2 zone development. r;I 1 High priority should be given to the protection of the ' residential character" of the Ash Avenue neighborhood. 1 COMMENDATIO1 S' ar' • 1, NPO #1 supports the concept t of the Main Street t pro ect+ I ` 2 NPO �. approves of the Comprehensive ve Plan change from A-12 to C3M Pr on the property adjacent to Ash Avenue, '_ • • m to: Tigard PlanningComic sttion and NPO_ �l ,recd ends the �' Tigard city Council delete N?O #1 Plan,Policy 4281 which ,1 s rano Creek, 1 . � r+e>`►.ates to thet.ensit�n of Ashx�,�tt�nue• across • .vw...qa • y yyy((( tr, w1 g JI+ •• DATE: April 15, 1981 ' T0.: The' members of N.P . #1 . I . SUBJECT : Position statement on the Ash Avenue e? tens` on �• Dear members 01, P .o. #1: .. Again the issue of Ash Avenuehas come before .You and the community . In order that you not forget how the people you rep-..y resent feel about such an extension, we are hereby resubmitting ra the attached petitions condemning any extension of Ash Avenue thru to Burnham from Hill Street. These signatures were obtained t approximately one year ago and presented to the, City Planning : Commission andremain asevidence of our feelings . We are adamant in our conviction that such an extension would result in the ruining of an established residentual neigh- , PP 4 boulevard • borhood. We are alsoo o�a°� Street�thru etolAsh bAverZe ` There- on Johnson Street fx m ' fore , ,ae urge you, a9 members of N .P.O . #1, to alter your l position this evening on the extension of Ash Avenue and establish, a position statement opposing the creation of a _Johoson ;Street ! Boulevard from Main Street to, Ash Avenue . Under t,o circumstances . I should an extension which allows auto traffic be permitted. The :. consequences are obvious. Perhaps a restatement of your position - s of a foot bridge with the capability should include the constructionP of handling emergency vehicles. This would allow access to the . proposed park and the downtown area via foot and at the same time allow the Fire Department access to the area in the event of an 'emergency a. This issue has always been hotly contested and your firm; stand against the extension would inform the Planning Commission and the City Council of the opinion of those you represent. wr Jrf ti Graham 13290 S.W. Ash Drive , I • µ Phil Edin 13110 S.W. Ash Drive • i . L wu li _ + 4 r M x a r' Neighborhood Planning Organization #�. February 4, 1981 City of Tzlgait Mayor and Councilpersons City of Tigard: 11 Tigard, Oregon 97223 �, • Since theapproval of the new A70/80 zone, serious concerns have been expressed to NPO 1 members . Accordingly, NPO 1 wishes to reserve the right to appeal this zone addition, pending clarific8,ti.on of the specific zone regulation detail. Closer reviw of this zone suggests that it has been adopted without the detail regulations for this zone in place throughout the city code . The various minimus standards for living area s zes, landscaping, parking, etc do ne, yet appear to exist. This situation gives rise to our concern and we would not only request that you, the Council review this more closely, but that we, NP01 also have the opportunity to review the more specific detail .ore closely. ' This type ofby h density zoningis new toTigard. We h\avc , • . ^ heardconcern ''or the building highth, and the possibility of small living areas, to name several. We agree with the , 1 intent of the zone but feel more specifics will better assure positive impact on the community as well as provide more complete guidelines for project developers. The details of new zones should be developed with new zones. Public review and participation should also be encouraged in the process. Considerations such as these will allow Tigard Czoning public involvement to establish higher density tonin with � in regulation and less dependence on adtinistrative judge- „ merit for regulation. The specific target of this zone change, housing for the '? elderly, is � sb ject o ch study and mandpublicatlonsb We encourage thect� toseelprofessional council in the . ,,f developement of the regulations for this new zone. Thank ytJu for considers ng our input. I Sincerely, ,., , ,...).....,......1„,,..._ ,L,,,,,,. ,A " tory �4 , i iP0cre i ,A0.0,..,, ,00,,,, ,,,,,,,,, ...),. ,000,ie 7,2/ . ' ,...,/,0,e00'' „,,e;‘,,. / . A ,, ,,,,,, , .. di,- -- rte"'” .t ' , - \ p i '', ,. I ' r . F 4° •'4 I r�Y n 1 6 w 017-•-1 1C •+ Chapter 18 . 36 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (P-0) , tr Sections: . 18. 56. 010 Purposer .. 1 . 56.Q15 Sensitive lands . 18. 56 .020 Preliminary devea,oprtant Plan and program- X General r elocrrrnt pian and ^rogram. 18 .56. 040 Action and findings . ... 18. 56 .0'50 Final plan and ; ogram. P� standards . �}. 18 . 56.060 plication of 18. 56 .070 Minimum site size. s 18 . 56 . 080 Compatibility : .th neighorhoo,3r ,,,.. 18. 56. 90 Lot coverage. �. 186 .1O0 Open space ; ..` 18. 5 6. 11 0 bens i ty' " ` 18.5.6 . 120` St.tbdivisian lot sizes . ,. . 18 . 56. 130 Staging A ' 6 .140 Permitted use-..;., districts. . .. 1.8.5 � � • ., 18.566 . 150 Majorchanges. 18 . 56. 160 Minor changes . 1 8. 56 . 165' Minimum street widths . 18.56.170 Construction time period--Extensioto. 4 ' 18 .t.S.. pttrpas e. The purpose of the planned de w eld a-. ', gent Q3,strict is to provide opportunities to create more de: .. 11, . , 7, - , _ s rab1e environments through the application o flexible e and n. 0 diversified land development standards under a comprehensive .b Plan and program professionally prepared. The planned darn Velapment district is intended to be used to encourage the ./r. --t x . t, techniques and application o�. new " new technologyto community .� " living 1•,�- deelopmx�at which will resultin superior or de�teI is further z#i.t_z d..rd •, merit arrangements with lasting values . It further � � �� ,' to achieve economies in land developmentF maintenance, street ,, e systems and utility networks while providing building gbotp Ings for p_iVacy, usable and attractive open spaces , sate circulation and the general well-being of the inhabitants. k 4 Finally, it is intended to ensure that deve7 ppme L sensitive lends shall be carred out in a manner which protects the health, sty and, welfare of the co munit (Ord. 79-47 1 (S') , 1079 ; ord. 71-4 g4,. Exhibit A (part) , , 1971: Ord. 0x.12 51.85 .1., 1.10 �,: r .8. 56 .015 sensitive Sns_,.ik .,e lands. All parcel containing ', landsiLst e r n d arfiedel 4nt °..r.C . districts before any future � �*eicement matt take placea, 1w requitement if ens�i i ,a lands a "ds are left � A' et.r�1 ., t k:alk . te planningy«.4. rfinds that a planned ��rWvtoirr�n. i,. ' 6 ( ig rd 7/19/7 ) ". .. .. es j` ♦JI fel F is Iii., ... , x /- ,may,,. �� r,,, / �',, 'c's' ,t/B J.,/ ,,...4-) C TQ: The City of Tigard FROM: > Neighborhood Planning Organization #1 � Over the past several months NPO �1 has reviewed and discussed a number of current issues relating to development and planning for t the NPO #1 area. :use feel that our discussion have lead us to conenses on several issues and as such we wish to provide our. throughts to the city planners and decitsian makers. We hope to s' provide assistance in the interpretation of the original NPO #1 plan as it relates to the various issues before the Tigard Planning Staff at the present time} We have addressed each issue, both independently and as they relate to each other and would like to offer the following: I , South Main Street Development We have reviewed the recent development,proposals for the South end of Tigard's Main S tree(specifically the proposal of Mr. b " Bishop and Mr. Buchholz) as well as the Tigard Planning Staff , proposals for downtown traffic circulation and the realignment of • , Main Street. rt We are supportive of the concept of a major shoppi. g area develop- meat at the South end of Main Street. This development is consis- tant with the current NPO plan for two primary reasons 1. The popo sed developmen t b i prfact, has greater frontage on g ..' � Pacific Highway than it does: on South Main Street and as such - '' complies with policies #18 and #19, suggesting the avoidance of JJ Pacific Highway strip development. By the+ use of controlled ac cess to Pacific highway, thIs type+ pprovides common parking facilities to clusters of buy Lnnne; ses. 2. The proposed development is further corxs iuten't with the original NPO plan that owddresses the desir�a.bi,lit o of sutporting original downtown Tigard's "sall town perso. a., li t '° tly providing the a �ir« " com rcilecoanchor o�. hndMain s +rvRwv ' r y w - qq ty. Street. With the sufficient customer draw provided then on both ends:of Main Street, the Tigard downtown development of small shops and a "unique ^ommercial area" is more likely to occure. Conside:raton of these points favors the deve iopmin t that 1,as 'been proposed .for the South end of Main, Street over the Tigard Planning '+ Staff proposal for the realignment of Main Street, which would significantly reduce the development potential of Main Street's South end. The need has not been ede yat,ely identified for tle • realignment of Main Sere-t and the Johnson Street extension to .: Ash Avenue through the develb ►Tnt. While we are sur oz tive of development at the end of Main Street, we strongly recommend careful consideration be t,,.:iven for the tr ' • lc pact of such development. Traffic is our prominent concern. Justification and instillation of controlled accesses to Pacific . • Highway at two locations should be emphasized. In general, it is our opinion that, a major development at th south end of Main Street is not only compatible with the original NPO #1 (:. plan, but with due care in the design of traffic flow control it will be an asset to th Tigard community, uni ty, II. Rill Street Extension to Omara In line with the original NPO plan, the extension of Hill . Street to Omara appears a desirable priority objective., We wish to identify our support for the desirability of the extension and .r suggest that zhould development occure in this arrta t the capability to preserve right-of-way for the connection iiiLl Street to Omara should be assured. This specific concern should be considered during the review of the Senior Citizen renter '''urrently proposed for this �y. I � d A ' «w,w W. ` �; . 'i • 11 t. Ash Avenue 2xten s?ori '.'le have r ev1e�"•w' '(d the 1.E ',. AverL1t:� trF-e`t'+ .:.i ' r,'119 i or quer- •. • 45.or 8,1, ce i t s as I"r.,,: �i by the Tigarc., it.)...11; ,- '.aptC'1* ?n 1b s :}rt{town r12 ..6„-ar+tl ci»re, t.r:titi.t"lm plan . -+.e ;a' tdi."'t 1 P'`t''C. t1r.. I. s;F1,1 r-". F•eo by the Tigca,rCI Fian�'•+ .' "t` .t I 9.s y'rC;�1 2,"1 .: k, s raised by C•�� w w t..+ .rte, .+ G+t L � ..r +,.' , + �. C:i..f sed the (i,I.tiz :tns of Ash ,ftvenut and i.;1•••,o, irrlpnts,(:i,F t. ' r»,i"(.'.': . . P cit) T1c)t, a t $1 0 this, time, se':`,..',, a r, +d ue extend pend AC1'+ .i ;~et1t .^,*`: '" the t".t ._.vet'1i i`' ,- v.i'1µ e..�:+ . M: +.� G1rt,•�+�� ri.`lu.» i.•ro -way ac:rostom? .1. r�'.'ar ro ��r Y,-^i�, s.1-1.).1 � br1 T.1"( -.•`,l t i..1,i a Fr+ ' .{.rs 1+��1 n w� ��J. C � 1 t i f.»�: d.�. � J 1+ 1.r�,�'i ion of the '`res der)tie,' cha:rac .eer'' of '`.!'1.�. yeah rt ea . .., ,r-•k t,,(,:ri'oc)d should b."4 the hi -hes f'. r•i e k i isje,. c-c `` this ca z • *4'4.. I 4 • J w Y�w� ' w Ail CiZDII .NC.E AMENDIN' SUPPLEMENTING QR I ANCE NC 74-25 AND REVISING NEIGHBORHOOD r p, \N2 .tING ORGANIZATIO�i.. ..,'LAN NUMBER' ONE ADOPTED Nay 20; 1974, TO ATTAIN THE PURPOSES AND L:-: 1 U ,ID T IVES OF ORS 197 AND 227 INSOFAR. AS APPLICABLE WITH RESPECT TO T$E ASH'AVENUE - T 1. ilII r'OWN PLANNING AREA; and FIXING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE CI'T'Y OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: section is The City Council finds that the Tigard Planning Commission, with tlxe- - assistance and guidance 4.01f Neighborhood Planning Organization Number tine,„ >• ",,g , ...."." the planning staff and the response of eitizetts'`given in, public, hearing, heretofore . submitted . t ' City Council documents comprising' a plan map and text entitled "Ne ghborh000 elan No. 1 for the Ash Avenue . Down to ,r4 Area", dated `Januar y 28, 1975. These documents representing a revision of the Plan text and map adopted o', , Nay 20, ; 1974, ordinance No. - "Preliminary :raft of the Ash Avenue -- Lowntrsia«a. 74 25 and entitled prel3��r.na 7� Neighborhood P'ar dated August 27, 1973. section 2: That the City Council further finds thatwaist documentary present ;.tion has '� as its base and background a thorough study of the nc',is of the, area for . ' the relief of traffic congestion, betteru: nt .,illousing + d.sanitation ccanditionss esta'aiishmsnt of land-use patterns with basic concepts Ar the future growth,: develop'. '. merit, and beautification of the neighborhood area, including a system of streets, parks p les as well astn plans for the proo,tion, development and regulation®ofa�ndu.,,tr-yand' the economic needs of the community,, and includes a. study "`. I and proposalosamay advisable for promotion of the. �� P P � a�. general tex't`ns of such media as tt�� be aclvr.sa - ,...,, t comfort, convenience and ~�re1f�arre of the public a.nterest,., health,thg ��or`als, safety, �.;; .. ., t neighborhood pl�..e�.ing .area;, axr� said document is attuned ,.o comply with the recri.re- 0 '..„,, i raents of a comprehensive plan as contemplated. by Chapters 22 " and 1.97, ,ORS,, to the. extent applicable$ . Se tion 3s, further .�'i:�tds, that.. after due and legal notice, apublic: hearing was held in Council � the Lecture Zoom of the Fowler muni or High School, Tigard, Oregon !. ' ', s an March 10, 1975, at 8:00 E.M. by the City Council. at which time an oral presentation and pictorial display of the plan was given, and all interested persons were afforded „. _ an opportunity to be heard with respect thereto and to comment t eeredns Section 4: In furtherance of the above findings, the city Counc,ri hereby determ...nes b. khat the comprehensive land use plan denoted Neighborhood rlanniiag t a gan,-=' ian Plan. Number Cane w with respect to the Ash Avenue-Downtown A.i a, as zevised: a sa. . s amended by exhibits hereto attached, marked Exhibit "A.", and by rete:°fenc ;. mr eade a pa ,* hereof, including a land use, and traffic circulation m:,pe constitute, an apprc; riate ,. .. ami desirable guide for early development of lands thereby affected, all of which is . r hereby adopted and promulgated as the conzprehernsive land, use plan for said area for present and, future guidance in. zoning, subdivision,.partitioning and regulatory ila.ti ing. • Of "t- the area. :-...: That ordinance o. 74-25, adopted by the Council on may 20, 1,574, `be and the same is 1.ereby amended to conform to ,hie foregoIng an,i to the extent of any inconsistenc ' bet*ot en this ordinance and said prior ordl nance No.; 74-25, the provisions hereof shall supers et e (?r d : Ince Not 74-,25, Section 5• This Ordinance shall be effec tive on and after the lst day after its ' . . passage fly the Council and approval of the Nayo'r. tits o r«t' • • * ASS L+: era Z vote 0f all Council. Marxtbers present,: after: 'being read three times by number and title only, this 24..E day 6f ,,�reh 191, , di, Re "irder " City b Tiger.' ' ' .,#':11±1' PR° Zip )3y the 14a or this ;day 45f March * 1,49' 75.4- r":- ---'--..---- ---"7,"'"----, N ..,, " a r , III MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Comni asion and City. Council FROM: Neighborhood Planning Organization DATE: October 8, 197 Priorities implementing the Neighb nc6od Plan The N.P.O. met on September 27 fir the Purpose of establishing priorities for the proposed projects and Ordinance revisions required to implerc► nt the Neighb ancoOd. Plan. Tha following is a lis of the pri mitt is resulting from this ie frt ng 4 cd ' sped into projects and ordinar cp . visions The g;tou : vn. y listed those priorities elf g tK C& st concern. Y ..ik' I. Projects , 1. The extension of Asn Avenue to Burnham Street ' .; a, ith phase I being the Construction of a bike .i$ and ped r 'crilin path fo3.lcrwiY 7 the west side of t antro Creek to Main St r°iet. When the, bridge is oons44u ted the redesigning ng 'of Ash Avenue, as 4 40' $°° pro ' ` in the Neighborhood Plan, will be accompish M .• corncu srrtl 2. Develop engineering plan for frontage roan and vacat . (. r.,. . � ra�i � at Pacific ��a � re—routing ®i road � Carret �treet � O',p •1 '. .: a Purchasethe O'Mara park site and gresrtey� • 101 11 . Ordinance Revisions , 1_ Re,zoning • w 4a x ~ 4?.. P ,.�.o o d *.'lain e n d r i l i, Odxr'ra rrt 3a Ceslg'r Review Ordinance 1 , , . _ r Fl a # s, - h ' . . . s r • f ht October - , 1973 MEMORANDUM To: City Council From: Planting Commission Subject: Neighborhood Plan #1 for the Ash Avenue-Downtown Neighborhood; Plan Implementation SummarIr For the past five months, the Ash Avenue.Downtown Neighborhood Planning Organization has worked with the staff to establish a detailer'' Land use plan for theirar..eaa The Planning Commission has now conducted two public + • hearings on the Plan and after reviewing the resultant testimony and their own deliberations unanimously recommend to the Ci. Council adoption of the Ash Avenue Dc w ntown Neighborhood Plan. Uponon adoption G y i � b� the ,its, Cor,an:ci,l,� it will sere;a as the City's official land use policy for the subject area, During the Planning Commission's deliberations, it was noted the Plan does not detail the specific planning "tools" necessary to implement the Plan's proposals. The following is therefore a recommendatiol, by the Planning Commission that. the City Councilconsider the adoption of Plan impl]mentation techniques as defined beton , Ado tion ,n inc' Adoption,» � - F""� a�ple, of these techniques will provide a Plan is.aplementatiotz framework andolic f within which the Council can formulate ,a P � specific course of action 'to implement this Plan and subsequent plans. The implementation; techniques may be described as follows: '` 1. Re-zoning: bring'ug the zoning w-,` into conformity with the . , Plan's adopted land use categories. 2, Adoption of Ordinances a. Eigh way commercial zone b, Flood Plain and Fill Zone c, Design Review Ordinance d. 'Tree Cu:tang Ordinance e. Planned Development-Incentive tone i4ey encqtirag es devel �w ers to preserve openrspal throuEb the allowance of slightly higher densities) 3. Adoption of a Street Policy) recognizing the Plan`'Is ro d propcsals ' IAcquisition of additional park Land and cone ruc}Zon of bicycle. pathways.q 5. Acquisition of t,d itionalroad ri.ht ��nf�vay to facilitate traffic ati,d h e tie ci,rrt i lationw ,`' 6. Requesting the State Hig} aav Department a tment widen Hall toulewa.rd and . ,. straighten the curve betwen Penn° Creek and S.W. Commercial. i 7, tequest Washington County adopt the Neighborhood Plat as the "definitive document" guiding i.ng all land use decisions 'within the s b e t neighborhood. City Coutici -2- October 5, #1,"73 , Allocate funds for the construction of the Ash Street bridge and the extension of Ash Street, W*t, the planning Commission, are confident the Plan presented to you is a carefully constructed document, displaying maximum citizen involvement. We look forward to its adoption and subsequent implementation. Thank you for your consideration. ;11'. • h , I . ! I`I I I .r ,*, 1 r...• y rvry e?u. 3, i tw h'.xt 4,4V(..,1fM . A•d'. �M ' i CITY OF " IGARb h NCri ICS OF PUBLIC. I1EA•RINC Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing will be held by the C :i.ty Counci1\ a',. Tigard Elementary and High School a:,, •minis tra tive Off ce.1 131,37 S.VI. Pacific TighwaY, Tigard, Oregon, on October 8 e 1973, at 8:00 P 4M. with respect to the following: 0, SUPPLEMENT TO TICAL CO L' tJNITY PLAN A proposed • su dement to the "E l art Ccurnt nit Plan which• will further delineate arid ref int tie Commu,ni ter Plan for that �c�,rntc��rn� area. ,a �v i ,�t � ar shaped� � s the area Ash-Avenue -� ° portion of the commu U 8 r ng bound by Pa ,c i": c Highway on the nortil.'t4and west# Hall B lvt.1. on the ea,it and McDonald S, to .t, on the south A copy is available ' ' ..n City Recorder'm office during normal working hours. I All iteres ted persons may appear and be heard in favor ofor against the said proposal., By Cnt ER Or a 'I'I ARk CITt`.y COUNCIL Doris Hat t .g i - Ciii) ty ty ccr TT> Publish 9/27 and 10/4/73 h. n .. I • I ' - (.. i ,..... i. ..• .» q '.....i... ,. ,... ' _.r. .•MI • ....., ' » - M ' ... .. ..�• ! ..e•r. 1' 1, `r.i w• .� 1.... va.• .'N1+aJ.e nl.)r• x� V.•wu vVl.iY.•u.r ,. ♦ / v VIEMORANOUPI. TO. City Council ;(FROM. Planning Commission „ DATE: Sept. 27, 1973 SUBJECT: Kph Avenue-Downtown NeibborhoOd Plan; Plan I plevnentatior► Bum ary For the past fiu� months '� the' Ash. Adgnte- -Downtown Neighborhood Planning d lanningOrizyonhanworkedwitht�ne staff to establish a, dataxA d landatspl� n. o� their area.'); , the Planning' Commission has iow conducted two public hearings on the Plan and after reviewing the resultant testimony and their own deliberations, unanimously recrmU end to the City Council adoption of the Ash Avenue-POwnt'own. NeiOhborhaod Plan. Upon adoption by the City council, it w ll serve as the City's official land use policy fOr the subject air ea Planning ' ions it was noted. Duringthe Ctit�a��.ssipn delzberat the Plan does not detail the specific planning "tools" necessary to implement the. P3.aan's proposals, The following, is therefore a recbmmendtion by theP`.lanning Commission that' the City Council consider the, adoption of Plan it plementation techniques as defined below. Adoption in principle', of ' these techniques , will provide a Plan implementation framework and policy within which the Council can 'formulate a specific course of action to' implement the Plan The implementation techniques may, ha daesrrih. d at follows t y i. 9 g map into cote ormity 1. �e=��ar��,r� btr�n �.n the ��ani�.n ,with the Planta adopted land use .categorises., ' . Adaption of Ordinances a. iia~ hue .� �Y Comilercial Zona b. F`Aood fPAain and f" ll dne ca Design Review Crdi.nanc d» Tree cutting ordinance Plann �ed' Develo ment-Incentive Zone (i.e. encoura gea' developer's to prsserue Open-,spate thraou h, the allowance of sl. rghtly h 'gher d+ ns t .ea 3. adotxca p n af` 'a Street' Pplio r co n xnag. the Plants road proposals • 4.14 • M1'r 4. Purchase of additional park land and construction of bicycle pathuays 5. Purchase of additional roadragFat-of-gay to facilitate traffic and bicycle Circulation. 6, Requesting the State Highway Department widen Hall Boulevard and straighten the curve betwear S.W. Burnham and S.W. Commercial 7. Request Washington County adopt the Neighborhoo4 Plan as than "definitive document" guiding all, land use decisions Within the subject neighborhood. 8. Allocate funds for the constructiOn of thai Ash Street bridge and the extension. of Ash Street. We, the Planning Commission, are confident the Plan -` r presented to you is a carefully constructed documrn t, displaying maximum citizen involvement. We look i'orwarl to its adoption and subsequent implementation. Thank you for your consideration • • 1 4 - e a Nd �� E5 T COMMISSION �°1'GAR�3 PLANNING Study session September 250 1973 City Hall present: gall, Mickelson,, crazier# Sakata Whittakerg Hartman° staff members Wink Brooks Dick Solent Bruce Clark 1. Aea Avenue - Downtown Pl -n Review 1 Ball 'eu veeted `1what the PlanningCommission adopt a 9 P • recomVn o ndat.4�on 10 the City Council concerning methods j of implementing the Neighborhood hood Plan. He stated that apparently the N .P.O. had been given the charge of re b grin a e goalseeking means Preparing P1 , � but not of the implementingpropos 1 Ball found recnmmendationa of �mplemen��n its ,_ �� concerning implementation of the Plan an appropriate Planning Commission action and that they shooed fulfill this role byor��rard � ng their recomm: n ndatioto the f city council,, should. Sall 'stated that t3-Be �,ecommer�dat�,or� Incl.ude the need for the following Aa Zoning map amendments B. Desi9.i Review C Highway r� htilra Commercial zne Cm Flood Plain and Fill ordinance C A Policyconcerning incentive zoning through perhaps# a revision in the Pyah ordinance. S tri ets Policy Tree C Tree cutt n9ordinance ance H. Implementation of thea park and greenway ayetom 1. Contin: ing status of the ,p,a jb Straightening of Hall Clvda K Request ,ng County COr 'mia ionere to recognize the Nei ghborhooC Plan rI. e 3 o The staff was requested to O a'f't the ab Fve reco amend- ations for consideration at the October. 29 1973 Planning ,; Commission meeting 4 The role of the N.P.O. was discussed and the Commission agreed that the g group should remain in existence and be given the opportunity to express their views relative to development and policy proposals affecting their neighborhood. ° agreementthis group g There was that should not hold hearings and become essentially a neighborhood planning commis ion. Their role would be advisory. 5,D Ball expressed h s dislike for the recommendation is the' Plan that; a etmootif + be selected as a th9me for the � downtown redevelopment project Atl The Commission concurred and instructed the staff to include with the recommendation to Council that they consider this proposal as a discussion o possible alternatives and nst a policy. t 2. De'. gn Review 14 Ball presented a deme t of a design review ordinance for consideration. He pointed out that this was plan ' PP oaoh9 tyke the fact that a conservative a feed by is resumed approved P P t "mess negative vote is Pr g= cast by 4 of the 5 mewb' ° serving on the board 2. In response to a question from r Brooks concerning 9 the generalness of the stan.dz'rds provided to guide actions ctions of the board Ball c board9 that 1 Ad Unlike the standards Presently incorporated in the landscaping ordinance where it is possible to enumerate specifics such as setbacks and percentage of landscaping, architectural consider- ations can not Include such specifics without Ai being unduly restrictive and arbitrary. 5. The need for a four out of five vote to: disapprove plana isa safeguard against resultingfrom the general nature possible abuses . gof the standards. 3. Ball also recommended thatthe design review ordinance, if adoptedbew merged with tie isting, site development Page 2 - p Study eS ioh - , Page 57 • 'o plan review ordinance and that the new board be charge with review authority for the newpend*t �� ordiance, He stated that the would free up the Planning Commission to d more planning and las zoning. 4.. Tom asked if the dewethpelr would be required to take an additional step toward getting hie plan approved Hail maid no9 not if _the landscap-, and architectural n ordinance were ';combined and that, in fact, the deve.- leper would be better off dealing with some ,'ne who knows what th- r are talking about 5.. Hartman moved that the ordinance draft, related reports be sent with a cover letter to the City Council with recommtndation for adoption. ` Nicoli . seconded' and the motion passed by Unanimous vote of the members present0 ' 3, priority Scheduling List 1, The discussion centered on n righbc rhood Alam ing 2. Mr. Clark augg eyed that the work schr4d& le submitted o by the staff may be too ambitious and requested a break-down of the work load into man hours required IIin order to assess its f aeib lity 3 Whittaker suggested that the Triangle Plan bra adePted by the City on an inter4m basis and that thio Creenburg NO PuOO be formed lmm. dia ely 4 Ball saugge ted that the Derry-0611 N,,p0 00 be made I the number two 'pr cavity 5, The Commissioners concurred with the suggestions of Sell and Whi,ttker 4 Rev rein of the Proposed Minor Chance S.W. Summerfield Drive-Design Standv.rds. 01 i 1, The Planning Commission aPProued the change ta 8 foot wide aide-walks, on either side` of the Spine Road in Summerfield with t concurrence that drop curbs or �e�d � �r� • I ',4arp be plac0 et intersections to facilitate bicycle travel., ti ' - Page 3 � '�'cstud)• session � tea»� �, t ab • w z MINUTES t 1''IGARO PLANNING COMMISSION r September 187 1973 ' . Toality 31°0 High School lecture room 14650 30111. 97th Aver Tigard, Oregon studyBasion 7 . 3a P , mn Hearing 8, 00 1. 1Q CALL TO ORD ',h� A The treeetiie9 was called to cid-r 7:30 P M 2 ROLL CALL A� Pr°s ane Commissioners ,Ball, Ba ;k.r,hur t Hartiltian Lewis, Frazier, Sakes, Nicoli, Mickelson; Chairman hhittake Planning Director, °recto , Wink Brooks; Associate Planner, Dick Bolan Catty Attorney g Fred Anderson 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3.1 The rcugu,lar meeting oP i\1ugust 21, 1973 -, A. The minutes were approved as ubr, heed 3.2 The regetler meeting of 8e�-�temblar 44, 197 A0 The illirieltcas were approved PUBLIC HEARING - Ashvenue a�w to. A � � �rl Neighborhood Plan • 4.1 A public hearing on a proposed detailed Neighborhood Plan as prepared by the Neighborhood Planning Crgani a ion and the City Planning Staff" 1. Testimony A� nick Soleil and Cliff Ashley, the Chairman, gAshley N ��"o d��`�b�� presented the neighborhood ��n� how the citizen group was orign ali formed and how the groupo .., itsplanning stuciy. r se to P P d the displayed play map and described the major Proposals B. Following presentation of the plan the staff and Members of the N PC fielded citLiestioris from the audience C. Mrs. Ray Rihalar expressed concern over the improvement •of Ash Avenue betteeerl Fret‘tieg ,tnd rat Streets. She stated that this would' Increase traffic in f rio iit of he home and be an undesirable result. • i • DQ Robert Jones of Garreli;t Street expressed concern over increased traffic on his street. He said in his opinion the Plan was illpr pared and illconb�ia�edd E. Mr. Bobbit of Ash Avec stated that the ares shown .fog oamme °tial—indua& rial use is more pprop i,a' Daly an office areao 't Al Hill of King City stated that this is "a fantastic plan, the portion recommending redevelopment of the Downtow,.9n0 He encouraged the Planning Commission putns soon ,, to ad'opt it and ' it into effect as a p asaib.leo"" G. Mrs Parker asked whether thearea ` � in the County would • have to be annexed for the Plan to trork0 rtr0 Whittaker 4 replied that no, the County could implement those portions under ;h~dna, r jdrisdicationo if they so ch.se�, H. Mrs,, Cggeard of Fretoing stated that the N.P.O. was given a difficult task and she felt' they had done a nova,, arndable job Staff Recommendation A. The staff recommended that the a ghbarh aad Plan be ,1 adopted based. upon the fact the testir cr y o "'f er "d at the last two public hearings has pointed out no major flaws or brought to light new areas fr,r dont aiderateonam The prob,l:,eme which have been acbased at these hearings have been considered in depth by they Na Pa a0 and tht'4 City Pl-n)eirag Staff. It is believed that the best of alternative solutions have bean chaser).. 30 Ce)t)))))i cion D sods s.idn and Action AQ Ball stated the there were some spec ?tc items that he would like to see inoluded within the Neighborhood Plan, but that thescould be adopted as a separate on to theCityand he therefore e felt Council c��a�aeradsit�, that the plan should b adopted_at this time St Hartman moved that at the Planning Commission recommend to City t:odnoil that the Ash Avenue—Doantoura Neighborhood Plan ..be adopted as submitteda Mickelsart seconded and the motion passed b . unanimous vote of the, Commission S. P1 L HEARING Conditional Use 6.1 Conditional Use CU 13-73 (Chamberlain) from August 197 �otihoed g 3 meeting ' Page 2 - Pt Minutes - 9-18-73 9 w r 4 An application' b Arrow Heating Company for considezgation pp �' of `dulex dwellingunits at a onditional ueb in an R-15 9 Single Family Residential zone. This proposal is located north of Walnut Street and 400 feet east o' 121st, adjacent the B r+ o kway Subdivision. The proposalcomprises 2.5 acres , (Tax Map 251 �i' �E3 °TaLots ' 3p00 200 ani-, 300) In Staff Finda A. Tho staff�.presented a list of 13 findings which presented facts tithe wn to th", project as well gat history ®01 past planning Commission action on this proposal. 2. Taatiwon►hand Cross Exa ;,inatio a Am Joe Chamberlain presentee his proposal to the planning, Commission and answered a list of, 7 "Tetanal?. questions supplied by staff,, II I B Bal, . questioned the staff about finding numb 4 which states that the density of davei',pa ent ,, ould be 2.7 units pr acrd. Mr0Brooks replied that the 2. 7 applies ' to the entire project r ons dered by the applicant which would include the singlefa,eily at well a duplex units. The densityof the a^°sla under confide ation was part of the conditional use would be 6 units to the acres Ball a-ked Brooke' ifhe would liketo revise finding number 4' • and Brooks dt�.ted that yeshe would. . Opponents An Mr Crittend-n of 124th Street asked if the duplex areawould h ,,, Act5 k to 24th. . Chamberlain replied that no they would not. 3e Staff Recommendation „ A. The 'staff rec.° ,;ended appr ,val based upon the presented findings and previous and testimony with a �list of 7 conditions, 4e, ComMiaaion bia cv anion and Action " A� Ball at ated hie ttissgreement a nth ata:t f finding number h S which states that the project "will not adversely affect the predominantly a ogle family character of' p �.�ad�.�� •> thy, this ne ghba hcodbo , He atatad that "Placing a cluster of singla family character of that noighborhoodo ... to th cR,p.._ N . this ,i community1��; contrarya On b�a� not vote for the request Be. Mr. crooks responded that these duj loxeswould be above average units and' in his estimation would hot, have a detrimental impact on the neighborhood. Cd Lewis movedto approve the requested conditional 0 $ upon based stafffindings and presentedtestimony . and to include the following c+ ndition page 3 - PC Minutes 5-18-7 • jillk 1. T ppU ant shall deaa,,,,_ &,e Lamthe City sufficient land to provide a 30 foot right of-way width from the centerline` of Walnut Street; 2 The applicant shall agree to support the formation / of a local improvement district to ,bring 5Q WQ Walnut Street up to City collector street standards and that the present prop-rty; owner (e) shall execute a recordable ble covenant herewith. - 3 All lots lo for duplexes A � xshall cover a mini um land area of 80000 square feet. 4 The site, landscaping and architectural plans of the proposed duplex development shall be approved bythe Planning ring Commi sion- 5 All u wil ties shall be placed uhd:=rgrot.Anda 6 The applicant shall Provide access to the subject duplex lots meeting the standards 01' the city Subdivision Ordinance, or as an alterb'ate may attempt to vary said stantiards by filing petition / for ,.=ariance as defined by Chapter 17.4G of the 3t ' Tigard Municipal, Lode 7 Vehicular maneuvering areas shallbe located on the duplex lots so that no backing movements made onto S6Wt Walnut Street. Added by Planning Commission • 8a' That the fpinal density for the applicants proposed total 9. 7 . .�ore development shall not exceed an overall density of 2.7 dulling units per acre. 5.2 Conditional Use E tsnsion CU 12-7 McClomont (Continued from Setpewber 40 1973 hearing) A request, by Tigard Gymnastic Schonlo 9'114 S.U. Tigare Street to extend their conditional use permit for an additional four > : Years. rs. The existing Permit epireSeptember� , � The existinguse is l ocated in an -45 Industrial Park ma} e. .: 1, staff Finding Ad Thestaff presented "t 'history Iof Planning j � °`, Commission action on this matter and pointed out that no problems have occu ed ,sine the original petuit ut,_ granted one year ago. However* the staff didexpress concern that increased development i8 octuring in the area which could be detrimental to the operation of school of • this nature Page 4 '' t int e - -73 ' 1 2 Testimony dnd \\\ * A Qropc vent 1. Mr, McCld ments represented himself and atrtenspted ) to answer the "fasan& related questions ,su =p Lied him by staff. B. Opponents 1. No bne appeared to speek in opposition to the request. 3a SteRecommendation A Based uponstafffindings andsubmitted testimony 'b• the staff r 3commended extension of the conditional use permit for additional 2 years. 4. Commission ssion .Discussion and Action .. A. Barkhurst moved that based upon staff find ,ng ' the condition I use be extended for a two year period. At the end of this time the Planning Commissiaa; n will again review the use to assure that it as °em mnd compatible with ' urroundin) davelopnents. Nicoli seconded the motion and it pa;`sed by unanimous vote . df the Commission present a SUBDIVISIONS Variance 6.1 Summerf e1d Phase 11 (Tualatin D ,hvelop; en ny Location t Approximately 1000 f'r.iet north of S.W. Du: ham Road betwe;n S.W. 100th and S.W. 109th Ave. 1, a Stsf f Findings A. The staff 'presented findings which included a list of those standards in the City's dubdiv sarcn ordinance which the applicant was requesting variance from. Bell stated that he had been contacted previously i the day by legsl counsel for the applicant. He supplied Mr. Nostal with information describing the procedural history of the Summerfield project. This included items such as staff sports , minutes$ and r memos from from the,.. City Administrator, dminitrator, City Att r.. n'. y andPlanning Director. Ho. pointed out that Mrb N o s al made no attempt to persuade .. him in any way and that 1 itwas his ee 1ing that his bje t 't ty' in this matter had not been nom romise . He therefore would not refrain from voting but weld invite any comment from anyone or the Commission or any interested Parties. 11 Page 5 - PC Minutes — 9-18-7S 2. Test moot and Cross Examination A. Proponents eo 1r0 Neeta;� spoke for ��h,-. applicant, beginning with a statement of the ext ;me need by the Tualatin ' Development Company for sn immediate decision on { their r questa Mr Nortel smoke ,to, several items R' as summarized below �. Thepreliminary plat submitted tanieh ,.� � nciudee s t by # from P et which was approved on August 21, 19?3 and which tar subeenuentlY die ppremred on Sepember 4th. These a -„, yl s include h.Y extension o1 the previous dead end strut h the nar hel' portion of the plat and greeter pavement widths. 2n He took issue with the City Att.orneeyf' inter- pret, tion of the subdivision ordtnancs stating that it his c pinion a lige s 1'b developman such ;, a Summerfield is not required to seek 9Pariancea for departures Prom the ordinance requirements. 3. That the Planned Developmen zone is intended to encourgo cre,,;tien, of innuvetive techiques of lend development resulting ih , superior living nnvironment and greater eanemies of h develoa� a"at� �°.06C6 ismPtin0 to utilize this intention Po the p0 zone in their development anci has been developing, the project as approved: N the City of Tig.yr d pith the - P-0 zone change. He pointed out that the approval given at the time of the zone change i c1ud_d a m; p tog ales showing street widths in the °'l.wious portions of the p !jee .. He nclu 4. Chet approval of the ' •trent width ,/ a: at the , ae the zone was changed should iuply ubsegue,:,, t approval as each phase of development ia submitted. 4. That the Planning had nog a al reast3n ?or Its eotia n of Septami3er 4th reversing its, approval of tape' Suummer ielc Phase IIp e a r plea' ! of August, het 5 , x� That the 40 dayperiod g$/en the Planning of ie iorl for oont3idetratifign rel rn n ry. Plat nex.�a�% p�q t qy a fin{#�%4F has..µpaM�4Ti r+R.Bi an an• #F�b��GN, G�V � h�G74+!d dhkib�p� has a c�i,e d upon R_"o nthe p +Q n y the been >�Li�R e'ItiWI'. ib/ Nw7iF�11 : �4 w,dy� iA A� �� 5tt4.:� � considerable' i deliberations. r Pete 6 . PC Minutes - 5 1 'a "3 ;! �4. • o 6 That the golf course has been installed aoc card,i,pg to the appy at4al given with the p-D zoneandmake to �a a Itleor alter tions now would require eh.ngipg to layout �. B. Georgie Marshall of T d D,C of srioke, stating 'that he and his beaaepany do not unders .nd the criticislira now being directed to Phase IT of the project. They have come up to all of the redeir ants of the 'original P-O zone and ° made i rows ta acct di ag to staff auggestio aae He said nttie have gone the extra mile and do not under tand the present P��hle�e°r� 2 Opponents A. There was no one pr sent it opposition to the request. , 3 Staff Rebom aend4iti an Aa Fred Anderson spoke to the legal points raised by Mr. Nostal which suemarily stated that he did not' eeneuur with his interpretations o the Municipal Code and that h. still finds it phet° ssa y for the receive applicant tovariance for the departures u a from the ordinance requirementsincluded in the submitted preliminary peat 13. Mr Aide/7son pointed out that the length of time which has been involved in considering this proposal has in it, °t been the fault of the abpi ,,carnfy. That t what has been described as acr+awhn hasty decision w by the' Planning Coda ,,ia inn " on Av.gust 21st was at the insist rie and pressure or Ceo ge Marshall v y1, �+�' TO!�OCO Due to ;the �lidga��ba resulting from this deeiaion, the Planning Commission found it necessaryto reverse Vit, positionon Septe 4th. C. In response to Mr Nostals statement that nartow streets should be per fitted to achieve the economies spoken to in the P-P zones Mr. ►Andersen stated that these economies should not be made at the expense of the pubic safety and welfare. Die Chairman Whittaker retikieeted that the Planning Corrimistiotl dite ct their attention to the items at, hand and that any further debate on the Merits o previous act .en be curtailed. Page 7 - PC Minutes . -73 .`2"i 1 ` h Meir E Mr. Brooke ;�o c mm-nd;gid approval of ,the variance with the exception that no variance from the stand- ads c the subdivision .;rd nance be allowed for i. streets with in the townhouse area. 4 Commission 01SCUeaxr,orti and Action A. Lewis moved that -'ll the requested variance in the submitted preliminary B�, Barkhurst $econued� Mr Anderson , a ttethat d C� , .� the findings providing the bases for this motion must be stated , D3 Bark. ur's't said that het the findings shouldinclude ��ncluE1e George Marshall°s lettersubmitted with the verianoe application on end testimony offered for the ppiicent tonight. E. Whitt:r:ker stated that due to testimony given by the Fire Marshal, on September 40 1973, h is concerned that approval of the variances could be adverseto t'/Ie public safety. Ea Ball °4tateo his 4greement with h tt er s statement and added that the suggestion that parking be permitted oily on one aids; of the etre, t is to hope for a solution which probably will not come,, However, based upon the 'testimony high has been given the staff aff re ou mend .tion he will vote according to the staff reeommendetion o Lewis amended his motionto include the widen,,1.ng, of Greenleaf Terrace by 4 feet of paved are, ,bnd' the radii of the two corners i:j 4 feet and to include a request to the City Council'.to restrict perking on .one side of the treat , H Frazjer co^4mented that he was concerned about the public safety a d felt that we should listen to th experts in this case the rive Marshal, when it COMBS to the needs for fighting fires. Ib Mr. Lewis's mot" vote e �.o�n was �� to which resulted in a tie and there byfailed.le . Votin yes were Lewis Ca khur t Hartman„ Nicoll, Voting no werw Call, Whittaker, kate„' and Mickllson, Pae. a PC Minutes . 9-18,073 { 1 p t ` / F •3. Ball moved to a , ov'e the variance as by staff and pr \vided that the conditions are met under the variance section of the subdivieidfµ ordinance. Hartman. -,econded. y: Ke This motion failed by a 7 to 2 vote ail Hartman � _ � � and d��.tman voting yes L. Mr. Lewis ' v with exception df 34 foot pavement widths in the 3 townhouse areas specified by the staff, Nicoli 'seconded. M This motion p esed by a majority with Barkhurst, Whittaker, and Mick :•ion' voting no; Ballo i' Hartman Lewis, Frazier 0 and Nicali voting 'yes and Sakata abstain rlga "7a SUB0IVI5I0Ns preliminary Plat Apprivai 7.1 Summerfiedl phase, I (Tualatin CeveloPment Company) Location: Approximately 1000 feet north of u h m Road between S.W 100th and -aW, 109th Aveso Staff' Finding A Mr. Spooks presented the staff findings 2 Coma iesion Discussion and Action A Lewis moved to approve the preliminary plat and t,� ivy the planning t)i ectdr authority to see that toe preliminary pile is resubmitted to reflect the changes required by the previous ianc proval Barkhurst seconded and the motion wa approved by a unanimous vote O. SUBDIVISIONS - Minor Lend Partitionir: Bel tckmann Construction Property LocationLocationg Behind Eckmann Construction located at gO3S S L.:(6Burnham Street (Tax ap 251 20 Tax Lot 16 00) Staff rindi g M . Brooks• presented the staff findings 2. Staff Recommendation The stEiff recommended approval of tt*60 request ba 'ed upon two conditions 3 Commission 'i ZY ctiSSitin and Action A. Ball moved to approve the reguutst based upon stag ? findings and including the staff recommendations that Page 9 PC Minutes - 9-'18-73 • r M le Th applicant shall submit for staff approvals P � PP s N a legal document indicating the provision for access by easement to the subject partitioning. 2m The applic nt shall agree to -upper the formation of a local improv.me' M district to bring S.W. Burnham Street up to City collector street standards and that the present property owner (8) shall execute,, a recordable covenant herewith. B. The motion was seconded by Frazier and passed by majority �vote >with Derkhur t votingno. 9m SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW 9.1 Timber�mber Oper -tore Council Locations 59555 W Sa ndbLr "trey-'t o a a 1n Staff Pkindin n Aim Mr. Brooks presented the staff findings Recommend 2. A0 The staffe recommended approval of the site development plan as ubmittedg 3. Commission Discussion and Action Re Serkhuet moved to approve the plan based upon staff findings er=d Hartman seconded. The motion passed by a unanimous vote 9.2 Ralph Leber o p company Ldcationa 6900 0W0 Sandberg Street—youth side � pe�� Toro and� the ,old filbert orchards le staff rindinda A. Mro Brcoks presented staff findings. 2. Staff Recamme�� d&tion staffA. rece)mmen ed approval of the site development plan to include three conditions. S. Commission pi aoufssion and Action A Lewis moved that the submitted sitep lan be approved and include the staff recommended conditional 1. The applicantrevise� eviee the e te len so as to eliminate the possibility "` truck maneuvering within the public t ght of-euro Pa9e lu` _P'D nue . 9'�1 7 2 The applicant submit for staff approval, revised• ' land c a plans o,.'� specific a A� �� jogland— . acaping treatment for the following deficiencies a R Lack of planting along the end of the westerly parking area B. Lack of planting along site obscuring fence 5 feet from ,,asterly property lint,,,, C. Lack of any e ocifted landscape treatment on , rear portion of, site. 3. The applicantsubmitfor staff approu;�.l s, assurance 1 that water will be ,=•vail.abla to Plant; 't ater ,la or other such assurance that plant materials will {' ' survive periods of drought. B. Nicoll seconded the motion and it - �Mj�sled b majority°, vote with the chairman voting no. , 9 ®3 Tigard Radiator . Location Buh nd Eckmann Comte located at. 9035 S.W. Burnham Strep.t. le St. ff Findings Aa Mrs Brooks Presented the staff findlr,Is 4 2., Staff Recomu'perdation A. The �f recr�a'm tided approval o�' the site ta• developu en plan with the inclusion of two conditions 3 Commission bi c.gesioh and Action A. Ball moved thkit the site development plan be approved 1,1 4,1 .¢ to include tho staff recommended canteona ti•;, l Thea llcant submit for at f?� approval reviaed } landscape plan showing a specified landscaping I r°' treatment for the strip of land located along the :,'a ouuther , half of the northwestern '� �rbpert�r �l boundary. Said revised plan to alsoindica $ r , , appropriate living ground cover In the areas where cw `inbe Cont)(4rta are proposed. The applicant ubmit for staff approval ' that water will be available to plant Materials; : or other suchassurance that all materials will survive Periods of douht6 page 11 -- pc 1U.nutee _ 'g_1'B 7 _.. .., ,r..... ... .. ...it ..-, e y ' The motionwasb seconded Hartman and passed by • a unanimous vote. 9.4 Eulburt Steak Rouse o LocationP, OnShady Lane Streete et nexP to the Shell Station ion 0 L. Staff Findings Ro Mrm,` Brooks present:'d the staff finding, . 2. Staff Reco mendatioh ,, Thethat staff recommended the site plan be approved with the condition that an additional l tree b,; placed in the center of the p&rkinr� lot. 3. Commission Discussion 11,4d Action A. Lewis moved to approve the site plate with the eondation thatthat one parkingspace the c nt4�� of theparking A Sao�. pip lot be 'removed to provide for a tree b Nicoll seconded the motion and the vote `was ue dnimoui$o la. MXSGEL[ WEOUS 10.1 Temporary Use Permit Rommel and Stahl Architects Location b 1 315 S.W. Durham Road, 1, Staff Findings A6 Mr0 Brooks proeentso the 3taff findingsM � 2 Staff Reoommendatior AO Staff recommonood approval` of the applicantos request, 3. CT .+CRV Discussion and At4iion AO Lewis moved to approve the request and Ball seconded" The vote was unanimous in favor of the motion. 10.2 Summer ,ield: Re meet forpronal of Gatehouse Use Location o Inters s tion, o f m Durham Road and L ti merf .eld Dr��y, l Staff findings A. Mr. t rook presented the staff findings 2: Staff Recommendation A Staff recommended that the u S eproposed by tile- app icant be oved�, pp om ieAction ioi Discussion and r �, A o Lewis moved to approve the request and Hartman eoon�ied. The motion was approved b � a majority� vote with 3. �� ii abstaining. 0 i 10.3 Surma erfie t`d o , m n `o r ati n re t: n ',c the apppro <a1 of minor char► ea in a portion of the Final Development Plan and Prcgr „ t by the Planning Director ,s 1. Staff Fi.t"eding A. Mr Brooks explained this item stating that the Tva atIiha Development Co„ has requested a change standards for S.W. Sdmsmser ield Dr.. relating tc) 't' ght-:t)f-way, aid-walk and bike way widths { 2. Commission Discussion/ and Action A. Whittaker stated that he eiould like a joint session arranged -betwre ern the Planning Commission and City Council and Tualatin Development Co., tCa discuss the continued development of the Summerfield psro act, B. Ball stated that hpfelt this matter was within the purview of the Planning nirector. • 10.4 Summerfield: Changes in the Site Development Plan for, the flecreatii,orl 1. Staff Findings A Mira Brooks stated that the i';hangee sugge ted are ., within his power , of approval as delineated in thle Planned Development 'Zone b;ut he was bringing these changes to the Planning Comailissi,orlas attention for y responsethey might have. 2. Commission Disc8Jssiori and Ac A. e .' w� Brooks decision � with The Planning this emmm t er and said that they had no objections, 11. NON ACES D �AS I �1 1. Lewis mt3,ved that the Planning staff be inatruc ted to revise the Subdivision Ordinance to confor to the intent of the P-D zone in the zoning ordin ; nce „., Ball eecondt.ed the motion and the vote was unanimous 3. Staff °e4uee ed that the Planning Commission instruct them as to whether feels should be charged for a temporary f uae eppliceior Page 13 PC Minutes 9-18-73 .. .• .... ., ...._. 4 :Yk.:.:_•,., ., ,,. ,.,.„ ._, ;. ,. � .,.a e v t4' _ ..a _. ..v t re,..,u.r,,,. y ,j .tluty i i 7.ry_ { 11Y 11 Aa They pointed out that the Municipal Olde does `uot prescribe a fee for the temporary use but states that the variance procedure and in .ther inetances� conditional use proeeduure9 is to be used, Both of they,a procedures have fees specified anei the staff recommended that the fee he assessed according to the procedure used O The Planning Comm ssi n corvurred with staff and instructed them to charge fees according to the proceduro specified t'k,n the Municipal icipal Cods, 11 l2. A83Oli lMEt T: 1g02 P.M. � I L I i I 9 I ' • Page 14 - PC Minutes - 9'18-73 f i 5 ' YF C. Mr* Barkhurst and Mr. Nicoll. questioned the application of "Fasanori in an extension. O. The motion passed by a majority vote (Nicola. voting no) 11 5. PUBLIC HEARING — Ash Avenue Downtown Neighborhood P�an ; An informational hearingr� o n a proposed sed de to le d neighborhood pu.an as prepared' by the Neighborhood 10 planning Organization and the City planning staff. Formal Presentation M A. Mr. Whittaker explained the Community Plan. Nr.Mrs Bolen presented Nr '�' Cliff Ashley, Neighborhood Planning Organization Chairman. Mr. Ashley introduced the planning committee members and explainer:; its function and goals. Mr. Brien presented the plan by discussing the problems anti explaining h p � g how the plan solves them. , . The' people' present initiated diocut_tssion concerning the. following: • How the City wouldlacquire the `greenweys. s O Collector streets O Traffic on Ash Avenue resulting from its extension • to .Burnham' ° Multiple family areas are more apartments needed? Neighbor rtmini tt parks as an alternative to a large neighbr a nood parka O tJiden og McDonald a O Annexation O Walkways and Bicycle paths a Main Street acceisses onto Paciof is Highway O Ash Street extension .t was moved byHartman and seconded byBarkhurst c,, to continu the public hearing until the ext regularly conihue scheduled Planning Co� n�ss� anneew� n 9 on September 10, 1973. 6. SITE btVELDPMENT PLAN REVIEW 1. Timber Operators Council Location!, 6955 S.W. Sandburg Street page '3 ' ` Pc minutes Sept. 4, 1978 t P J 9 Staff Findings A. The staff presented the following findings: 1. Staff finds the applicant has sObmitted landscape and site plans sufficient to meet the intent of submission requirements set forth in Chapter 18,58 of the Tigard Municipal Code, 2. Staff finds the applicant' s submitted landsca e. and siteP lans meet thG requirements and standards set forth in Titles 17 and 18 of the Tigard Municipal Code. Staff Recommendation A. Thustaff recommended approval of the applicant' s landscape and site plan as received by the City dated August 16, 1973. Commission Discussion and Action A. Sall moved to table the application until the next regularly scheduled meeting because at the I". revised site plan received at the meeting. ter. Hartman' seconded and the motion passed by a ,yh, unanimous vote of the Planning Commission. 7. MISCELLANEOUS 7.1 Memorandum stating the staff' s position regarding the planning commission' s acti on an the "Summerfield" Preliminary pa� a t the August 21, 1975 Planning Commission Hearing. A. Chairman Whittaker high—lighted the memo from the staff. G. Chairman n, Whittaker' stated` that the sib �h a ,1ect of con Sideration was whether the plann:ing Commission should reconsider its action on the preliminary Pleb for Summerfield, ` Phase II#, C. The staff recommended resubmittal of the preliminary plat because of the possibility that the Planning Conmission has acted outside their realm of legal. jurisdiction Page 4 - PC Niriutes - Sept. 4, 1973 11`4 planning Commission Discussion and Action A. Discussion centered on: the legality of the Planning. Commission's decision of August 21, 1973, what the applicant would have tp do in order to comply with the subdivision ordinances; the p of to `id ordinance. interpretation tion `' B. Mr. Barkhurst explained his motion on August 21, 1973 to approve the preliminary plat, saying that the staff had stated that all the submission requirements had been met and the plat was ready for review. C. Mr. Ball stated he read the ordinance and could not interpret in favor of the applicant. That a variance of the subdivision ordinance would be required. Mrd Ball also i's c,ted that at the August 7, 1973 hearing the applicant was informed of the varriant.,e requirement by the City Attorney. D. Mr, Marshal stated that the Planning Commissd,on g instructed' him on August 7 1973 to bring in a preliminary plat for the August 21, 1973 meeting and that they did not mention a variance ' E. The Chairman stated that the Planning Commission instructed, the staff to process the preliminary plat for. the August '21, 1973 meeting with the intention that the staff�e prepare listare a of what the applicant had to do, E. Barkhurst moved that the final plat of Phase II of Summerfield not be approved until such time... as the variance proness is submitted and approved by the Planning commission. on. Said approval to receive high p ' rity by staff to make the first meeting foIlowinp the submission. Lewis seconded. G. George Marshal asked if private roads could be provided in the project rather than dedicated streets. H. Fred Anderson stated concern about street standards in relation to public safety and that private ownership is out of the context of either the zoning or subdivision ordinances. page 5 -, PC Minutes - Sept. 4 1973 r / b 4 I. Hartman moved to amend Mre Barkhurst°s motion--that submission should be one week before the next public meeting. Fraizer seconded. The motion died by a tie vote (Nicoli yes, Fraizer yes, Ball yes, Hartman yes; Whittaker no, Mickelsonnos Barkhurst no,' Lewis no and Sakata abstair.ed) Fi Greulich re Marshal for� J. Gce Gr 'Tualatin Fire °Districtresented a tape of fire trucks P maneuvering un a 24 foot street. Mr. Greulich stated i~.hat the fire district agreed with the CityV s �`at re uireement b 1 it 34 foot stre q ecauae provided adequate access and fire break. K. The City Attorney stated that itwas his recommendat%oh that the Planning Commission withdraw approval of the preliminary plat. L. The motion made by Barkhurst we, disapproved by a 6 to 3 vote. (Barkh�urst, Lp; is and Nicoll voting yes. Fraizer, Ball, Jakata, ,Whittakers I . Hartman and Mickelson vofIng fico, M. Mr. Ball Moved to ;.'econsider the preliminary plat. HrhrAn se/aonded and the motion passed by a 6 tr 3 vote. (Barkhurst. Lewis, Nicoli voting no; Freize, , Sal..cats, Ball, Whittaker, Ha 'tman, Mickelst r voting yes) The staff was instructed to su bni.t findings and a recommendation concerning the preliminary plat at the next meeting. 7. 2 Puget Die Cast and Tigard Water Di st,J7iot hr. whittaker questioned whether the planning Commission should also question its action on Puget Die Casting and the Tigard Water District in that they lacked proper submittals :tt was;' moved by Hartman end ,seconded! by Fraizer to rehear th e applications. The motion died by a 5 to vote with Ball abstaining (Nicoll, Sak�ta, Barkhurst, 'Mickelson and Lewis voted no Fraizer, Hartman and Whittaker yes) { — , Sept. � Page 6 PC M�nut��s. S p�� 4, l � mr ' r A • 7. 3. .staff Report recommending the Planning Director be designated "Secretary" to the Commission so that duties outlined in the f:ity Subdivision Ordinance may be properly fulfilled. I was moved by Lewis and senonded by Ball to designate the Planning Director as, ”Secretary" to the Commission. The motion passed by unanimous vote of .14,he Commissions B. ADJOURNMENT 11:30 P.M. II • . I r , • � I r: + I Q, • CH2M t TELEPHONE CO,;, RSATION RECORD ' 11:HILL � Date Time_.—..__ __. .m. Phone NowProject No.. TC)� I o From 0 TO o Frror» y T dd dl • �T ' 41•411‘.1 ° f Z f.' '"...0. ♦, t ,,',-# •#'4i e...144. Jr • ' �/1/l 0.,/,t !!M AI., 4 '' .. s' .t x of .. �' M'.M1' ♦ J< „�, 1 j ,a T i " f ��) 1111 ' ' II 1.1,..2.___A54 ,__(,eit:I.a4.4,1:!, , 4.).e,t_lavecifidttii,..r16,4,i,,:. .46(.)-. ., AI ,- - . _ 10`)7 .._ . f(}/�y''yy'I� V `.' 0 fir'' + �`� ,` t..4.` 1 ,,5 lb 0 -. , ` f lc) ‘1'' 1 . i-,--,44'.1 ' ,zz,(14' '.1eAte.-1/5_,)35?• u.. ,, , ,,.,- .- ,. .,,. �., � raw rMw�l , w v, MMw yN I j I I ` I ,,.' Ie At4ell'eVt C r ✓ , ✓ �,,,.;....,W, it..,: .�.,v...,_ -,, ,�:..,,�, a,� � ..._...., ,�r ..: ,,.�... --=+.=`=y4N� ..� I {v �1 .ih s '�+.,w+Lu:w 't 4, 1 I +r ), • 1 I FLOODPLtiN ANALYSIS AND HYDRAULIC STUDY Main Street Development Tigard, Oregon 0. L 1 , L I I I I I' III For: Main Street Land Company I I By: Mackenzie 'Engineering Incorroratec • • 1 I I I { II , ; I I , II r I , FLOODPLAIN ANALYSIS AND HYDRAULIC STUDY • INTRODUCTION The, following report represents the findings and conclusions of an investigation as to the impact on the floodplain and the general hydrology of Fanno Creek, as affected fected by the proposed Main Stree;,. Development. The floodplain is defined as the 100-year floodplain 1 , as established by the. U. S. Army Cnrp of Engineers for the Fanno Creek drainage area. The improvements proposed within the flood- plain include fI lling for building lds.ng site and parking areas. . _ n A previous report was prepared by Mackenzie Engineering Incorporated in 1979. The project has Increased in p � �' size by 4.4 -` acres. This report will address the total revised site and its effect on the floodplain. Additionally, the Corps of Engineers has recently b released new information on, the 100-year floodplain. This new data will be utilized in this stud DESCRIPTION O ` ITETMP Q T S .AND R "V�;MEN S , The entire site lies totally within the City of Tigard, bounded on the north. by Main Street on the south by Ash Street, and or, the east 'by Fanno Creek. _.Thre.. property generally slopes .south and: east.• All e.,le'vatior;s.. referenced to i�r�r and G.S. i « 194t datum . The site in itspresent condition is under' elo... ed 1 is generally p � y" grassy, with semi trees a , d PROBLEMSTATMENT' a There are two ways that proposed construction can create a t' hydraulic impact on the flood capacity of Fanno Creek. First, the embankment may decrease the flood water storage capacity; and second, the embankment may cause a constriction tion to flows which would result in additional flooding. These potential problems are addressed in this report under the headings of "Flood Storage" and "Channel Restrictions" . IPR 0VEMENTS 'ROaSEb I� I , m The improvements to this area, which are necessary fore the Main P Street Land Project, generally consist of the fol lowing: 1. Filling within a p ortion o the .� flood lan for th:, following i. 4 ut-oes it a. building site . b. landscaping i c. parking and vehicular access - Excavation portions o of the floodplain for' the following within 2 avation Y es- a L floodplain storage displacement and improvement b. overall ,I drainage G to 1 1 P Cynt and T[t roVem c((-1---- . channel �m r��vements and open space in proposed park area. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS'. AND FINDINGS The result of the study leads to the following conclusions: A. The floodplain filling and proposed modifications to the drainage channel for Fanno Creek Basin will have minimal effect on the he flow of the creek or the floodplain downstream or upstream ream from tie site. B. The amounts of fill proposed for the project within the floodplain and the placement of this fill will result in substantial reduction of flood storage capacity. However, there is area within the City' s proposed City Park site, with adequate room for excavation to compensate for the anticipated fill. Such work could be accomplished concurrently with the. fillwork pursuant to the preliminary City Park plans, or later when City development develo ment plans are in. final form. is a H`LOQD STORAGE In order to determine the effect of the proposed construction the storage on g capacity .of the floodplain, the volume of net , the 100- ear floodain is calculated. The fill within proposed work, as indicated,.d, require .y �,&44 cubicyards of fill and thus, floodplain storage inundation. In keeping with the City of Tigard's requirements that fills must be balanced by excavation in the floodplain, an area must be located to accomplish this balance. It has been suggested that the proposed park directly across Fanno Creek could benefit g excavation. 1 This excavation, within land from regrading radon and currently included in thero•?o p � sed,. ..park could be accomplished by gently sloping down to the stream. Material excavated from • this area will be transported off site, or used to fill the b n :", southeast corner of the retail project, as the park project • has s mini`ma l' area available to accept fill material above the 100-year cloodplain. Mair 'Street Land Company has acknowledged this possibility, _- would perft rm this excavation integrally with their and ' g � project. 1 ' , � I CHANNEL R ,STR3%TT0t,,A3 The flood profile through the site was ''computed using the "Standard Step Backwater Computations" . Comparison of the results from this procedure were applied to both the existing and proposed condition Inorder to demonstrate the e`feet the proposed construction cri the floodplain elevation. Three condi- tions were addressed in this study. They are. A. The existing condition. B. The proposed project without balancing excavation in the Park Area. C. The proposed project including balancing excavation and channel improvement ,n � the park area. 4 In the data available from the Army, Corps of Erngi'r) ,yrs, it is apparent that the flow ir, subcritica.l and the floot:3 lain; elevation is controlled downstream by Hall Boulevard, which is approximately 6 000 feet d-ownstream from the site. Under these conditions, proposed ." relative differences between existing ��1nd ro o..;ed conditions can. 3.• be determined by computing the floodplain elevation from` a control i I - point downstream. The elevation of the floodplain was computed in six sections. $' The results of the calculations are tabulated on the following page ,� p Fm`�. 4 � � a,M , k. 4 ?4, k-e41x: 4,;41'17,74-x, frw Y of ,. ��,y�N , g.a ' .. ,.� yy �'p�,'k W fgmi+k,dw"a,> r�an+arMk„ ♦'uN, l� ,. ' za lz r ' A. t r.. DATA SHEET AND RESULTS Backwater Curve • 4053 flowrate; 3,00-year cfs at river mile 4.73 4042 c s at river mile 4.50 (based on recently released Ci;,5rps of Engineers' Study) Mannings "n" = 0.05 Control Point Elevation - Downstream Control, Corps from Corps of • "' 4. 50, .�ngxaneers Da�.a, Elevation 146.78 at river mile 4. a I 100-year Flood Profile Elevations Befor. e and After Construction Elev. Elev. Elev., Before After Elev. After Net Station Constr. Constr. 1 Change Cons tr.#2 Change , 4 '' C.O.E. 4. 50 146. A8 146.78 0 ''' l4678 0 1 147.11 - 147.20 +.09 147.05 '. -.06 2 147.30 147.34 +. 04 147.18 -.08 3 147. 59 147.73 +.14 147.33 4 147.67 147 .81 +.14 147.38 -.28 5 147.71 147. 85 +.14 147.40 -.30 C.O.E. 4.73 147.21 . 147. 87 +. 16 147.34 -.36 1- without Park Area excavation completed. T 2- with Park_ Area excavation completed. p , , , , , , 1 . ,,..._, , , } , ,1 4 , .. .. . ,, 1 , , 4 :. ,. .. .,,,,41. ...,1k,,,,, .. j .. , . . y ., r , -1 ' /0 /A ' ' t• ' - ' ''''-) ` i )\''' it ' ' ,,‘ ' ' ' , • . , , ,, () L t� ,, V - t • w i i t , a i a ,s '