SDR20-80 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PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and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.
*00E60(.1*
'\' 10:,11 I ,
, ,
s s
., ooancnay �' e
� P.O.,BOX 127 4 TU LATIN, OREGON 97062 S PHONE 682 2601 • RUSSELL WASHBURN,CHIEF'
G � �
>4t 4 it O� •
July 24, 1980
Aldie Howard, Planner
City of Tigard
City Hall
, Tigard, Oregon 97223
. 3.
Re: Main St. Development, G.I. Joe'
Dear Aldie:
J
The preliminary site plan meeting was held with a represen-
tative of Williams and Gi l ham, Architects, and Gene Birchill ,
Sprinkler Specialist, Jim Kenworthy, Plans Reviewer, and
myself, Site Plans Reviewer, regarding site plan of the
G.I. Joe's Main Street development and other related buildings
on the property.
The preliminary plan was submitted with changes that were
made to be put on a new plan that will become part of the '
permanent file when
submitted to the City of Tigard Planning
Department. The changes that were to be made were
I. Hydrants
1. A new hydrant, beside Building #4
2. Hydrant northeast corner of G,I. Joe's Bldg. #5
3. Hydrant south center of G.I. Joe's Bldg. #5
II. Traffic Patterns
1 . The east exit near Bldg. #5, G.I. Joe's, th� I
island
shown to be only paint striping to allow maneuvering
of fire apparatus.
2. The new street to be built on the north side of the
building is only a 24' street: The street is to be
posted with a sign "No Parking" and to be 'a public
,♦ street SO that no parking can be enforced.
r,
III. As requirement to eliminate ina�e some f ire hydrants,
t he Major
building, #5, G,I1 Joe's
and the attached grocery store 4
are required to be automatic fire s....rinkleyed througho te,
q p u
III
♦
I ^ ..t luul.ln x • uu ..r♦..r 3 v. r .r ., , .. •.. ...._....a•L .n.,». .t.. ,.I• .. ., ,..0..r.. .... ... ..... ..... per... .W 1.u.. r ..r
� r , ✓ »•YiIVIW{♦IYSJ.'.•a]Y.%149N`♦""""iRP'tin, i
7 s
♦ 1 •
•
i • -
r 2
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me.
o r truly,
Y u s
„74,17 rf
4,Lyi,
Jo eph"'A. Greul,ich
uty' rire Marshal
JAG:dm
cc: Williams & Gil ham
3777 S.E. Milwaukie
Portz and, Oregon 197202 �{
4
•
I
r •
w..n W.....n. rm r.. rrr.0 i 1 .1 ., .... .•r. ..a.v .1'., 'v+• I
nr
' llri n n..�n I ...I.-.r... .,..A. . ...0 H.....�.wW ......,.. n,.-. Ir nr ..-„ 1 .v.. �.. :: :•„/ ti � I
.1
Y ,
•
'RA/T.SCk'YETI' OF PL iiNflr' ONI Sr I.Ci Ii�;ta I �C'r ':
Ap,ril. 22, 1980 - Asenda. Item 5.5 - J. B. Bishop/q.1. Joes
Fowler Junior HiEh School - Lecture Room w '
•-
1CaibS S.W. Walnut tr�3F�t - Tigard, Oregon e'
I"... Present, for this hearing:
Commission: President Tepediaio y Commissioners Bonn, Funk, Helmer, r`,
Rerr on, . Dusan, Popp, Smith, Spencer
Staff: Howard, Currie n :.;
(note Before orenivo. the public, hearing on this request, President
Teped.i ne asked chose who were going to testify to move to the first
two rows, and to limit testimony to no more than four minutes if possible, 1'0
because of the apparent nUmber of people wishing to speak. The meeting
was hold in the Lecture Room rather than in the Double Math room an
advertised.)
TeA ed _no I call for item 5.53 please. May I have the staff r port and
recommendations'
(Note: H ia.rd questioned commissioners ers on their receipt of
•
certain data) sratre of which h..?,d just been L Assed out to _thorn
,,�, t e 1-t ���yy�r,,j. to sure �✓of a had the pertinent
IL/� Se h,V ./,✓.+J. (;4i.at, to �e. C.�1.•eta c,n.fY G4.1;� LF�w 4n� w
data.)
Tepedino: As a general comment before we open this issues let me express
he president of this commission that the a lioaants
my con,r�ern. as �: t not on1 to themselves and the PP
have a responsibility y a .Tanning
Commission, but the city staff arid the city itself, to come k.
forwar d w k a complete package
. ,ic It's more than burlensame��
► I think it is rather uncommon:on, to be running up and down here .*
handing out in fo‘,ma.tion q I don't know whose fault it is--
am not interested in finding out; but to ask the Commission to •'
sit and contemplate a decision which may have far-reaching
e
impact on the city of Tigard on information that is handed out
just two seconds before we begin, I think is something that we
ct�gh.t to seriously consider as want to even go
seriously s.,.der to whether we wan
'" ferward With the entire package. 1 would be willing to sit •
here and listen to the applicant and give him the right to ,.
a public hearing, but I think it is unfortunate that what 1`
think is happening has happened.
. Speaker: mrm President, in that connection I wottid like to ei press some
concerns. In thinking about this and studying the voluminous.nous o
t�atux�i
w l that was given to us, it occurs to me that this latch
• >�.,
more important than the development of eleven acres, or, whatever .
• the acreage is its much more important than. just the anchoring
of one end o:f ita n Street I think it transcends the wishes
of i'iei8,hborhr.#d Planting Organization #1a Really) I think the
viability of downtown "�igard as is commercial area is going°', to he
determined for trs nett 50 or 60 or 80 years by that development
takes pl•sce on this property, and I am part cttlarly conoernod
1 ,
fi
w •I
I ► � 1
I
TRANSCRIPT OF PLANTING COPIli•1.sSION HEARING " j
J. B. Bishop/G.I. Joes
April 22, 19801
Speaker: with the transportation plan- -the continuation of some sort of
(Cont.) access from Johnson Street through to at least to Ash, and the
continuation of Ash Street .I . • (conclusion of remarks lost in .
change of tape).
Note: Howard then read the Staff Report and Recommendations, •
and 2* pages of "Staff Narrative Relative to this Proposal"
for agenda item 5.3, which was advertised ao follows; r
k
5.5 ZONE CHANGE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, ZCPD 6-80
A
(J. Be Bishop/G.I. Joes) NPO' 1
A request by Jo B. Bishop a d Vii. J. Buchholz of Vain Street
development, Ltd. for a Zone Change from C`•-3M t'Nain Street
Commercial" to C'-3MPD "Main Street Commercial Planned Development
N
District" Lone for approximately 11.51 acres located on the
southern end of Main Street (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2511 2AC, Tam ,,
Lots 1600, 1500, 2200, 11.00, 1300, 1200 and a portion of 200
parcel #3)
y .q The Staff Report is attached, marked Exhibit A .
Tepedino:; °
p Okay, thank you, staff. May I have the appl3,Uant s presentation?
Janik: Good evening, members of the Planning Commissions and Mr.
Chairman. My name is Stephe l Janik, and I am a lawyer repre.a
renting the applicant, and I will try to do what lawyers don't
often do very well: and that is to be brief. This is clearly
> a mayor issue for your community. It is being proposed.-not
by outsiders, but by members of your community--the Bishop
family and Buchholz fancily, who have been here for a number of
years. Because it is a significant issue, we have bad to, in
order to do our job, assemble a vast array of experts and
consultants, and all of the things that go with analysing this
thing. In fact, one of the issues tonight could be whether we
have done enough of that, and whether we have spent enough 1
0.. (a few words indistinct) ,9, analyze the traffic Problems
I hope you unnecessarily don t find it tedious, but we do want
� unnecessarily
to do our job, and most of our presentation will be conducted ^^
by the experts in Various fields
We are sorry:: I r. Chairman; that we gave you a letter tonight.'
we prefer not to do that. The reason for that is quite simple:
we ware given the staffs report late Friday afternoon, wbioh
raised a number of ieeuesa we did our best, `given the fact that
' tthree dayva time by ct af ,
we haa
f, including the weekend to met
responsive {
letters frotu the State Dc�paxratnet�t at Tx�an.spe�rt�,tion ,
addressing our concerns. Clearly had vto been given more of an
opportunity to respond to those concerts, we would have come in �.
soon.e.ro 50 we apologize for being in that position.
(• »..µ .A'M+,., „.,,,. ,w,...,e„, - , ' n«msxwwn: dlsai ,
TRANSCRIPT OF FLT°N IN°• OMMISSIGN HEARING
J. B. Bishop/G.I. Joey :•
• April 22, 1980
x Te ec i_no: Mr. �' ' g only l We g
p tan�.k are :you. talking about onl one letter. 1�e got
about four -
Howard: We have other letters to read.
Tepedino; (Continuing) And a floodplain analysis, a letter from Mr.
Johnson, and a letter from Mr. Hight, and we got a letter from
Mr. Buchholz and Bishop and ,:,r, letter from M . Geibel.
Jai : . I want to correct the record that we are not G a Q (a, few words
lost). While this is a significant project for Tigard, I think
i
is very important to focus on what the decision is before
• You. That decision is a Zone change from C-3N, which is the
correct rc?ni.ng of the property, to C-3MPD. It is not an issue
which involves the uses. All of the uses that are being sought
in this project are uses which are in conformance with its
current zoning as well as the future zoning. The only reason, •
that ve are dealing with this is because of the fact that some
portion of this site is what you have defined as sens:;tive
lands, and therefore under Your ordinances it requires a chance
to a PD designation.
Now because of the fact that is precisely the issue that is
before us, we are not asking for a substantial degree of
change. Nevertheless this obviously raises issues in your own
minds about what this poses for the future of downtown Tigard,
as, quit: properly it should. The nature of this Project is one
that has been anticipated, I think, by your comprehensive plan.
'
It is designed to anchor, as your staff has indicated, the
retail component onent of this section of downtown.
This project has been years and years and Mears in coming,
I ,think it is fair to say it started about seven years ago
with an initial study by some planners. Five years ago the
applicants were told that the city bad some thoughts about '
building a civic center, and we hear that, echoed again tonight
in the staffs report. Five years ago we took the property
off the market for over a year and a half, to wait and see what
the city would do with respect to its civic center 6 Nothing
happened;► Having kept it off the market for a year and a half,
it is now again a surprise to Us, having gone forward and
trying to put a project together which conforms to your compre-
hensive plane that we are now told by the staff that there are
big things in the works, therefore we must wait agajr.
The parts of our dispute, I think, With staff tends to be the
issue o f transportation. To pUt the matter very simply, the
staff has said to us, "We, the staff, believe that Tigard'a I
downtown is best served by realigning Johnsen Street, connecting
improving ' thing" , t� The thin that is ,6 .
• � Surprising ab rr�vi.n- Ash �tx ee
it through to and i,n
really surpa�isi g__ cut that is that eatery time that issue has
}
. > •I.r'tf.f
V n nr
•
TRANSCRIPT OF PLANNING COM Iw SION TEARING
J. B. B±shov/G.IG Joes
I • 22, 9 0 APri1 22 f•�
�.
Janik: come up to the people who snake the decisions in this community--
(Cont.) the City Council members, the members of this Planning Commission
. -that proposition has been rejected« Its very difficult ,whon'
a city' adopts a comprehensive plan, comprehensive transportation
plan, which is then held out to the public as the policies of
that community to try to conform to those policies, as this
- request does only to be told, even though your co
• .• px°ehensve
plans your transportation plan don't provide for this improve.
that's oof
sJ
fohnsorn. and Ash -nevertheless because the staff thinks
at' Perior to what the City Council has adopted, you must '
, nevertheless conform to the staff position. We tried to develop
a plan that precisely contorts to what this city has adopted
as its policies. It's a plan, that has been approved by your
,• # I surprised e criticism of
;.
NPO fr1,� and I am co hear tonight some
NPO #ls thinking bout this. , yob
� In addition to that l think
will find substantial support among your downtown merchants.
The question has been raised as to whether the Oregon Department
of approved. this. The fact of the iattex�
- Transportation has:
is — Yes p in several letters that are 'past of Your file, and
most recently in the letter submitted tonight:. Nevertheless
staff has said we mtist go back and get approval of the Oregon `
Department of Transportation. The problem from staff's point
of view is that you have been given that approval, and that
',fo. approval is not consistent with the staff's view of the realign-
.
meat of the streets
n in the staff report about the protec
. There has been some concern
open space. our plan clearly shows a substantial amount
P
E:ion a�'
of open space as a buffer to properties adjoining us. It really
ought not to be any concern about whether that open space is
preserved, because we have agreed to dedicate to the city+
gave a contribution for the city
We spent over a year and a half in meetings with the staff,
I .. fact.:°that staff Would not , 7� rv�hen � about the
w u approve this without our, consider
and it wasn't until October, ]9 we first heard about
considering f
and modifying all of our plans to accommodate the realignment
of Johnson and the extension of Ash. It is vary, very difficult
put P importance d size for the
benefit of Tigard when we have to deal with those kinds of changes
Now I thin that y tonight N� 1,� the issues that are before... opt tong ht��and` T think
is my job as a lawyer (and this is probably my only good
function tonight),...*.is to try to focus those We are asking for
a zone change, the standards being, do we conform to your compre«�
`
hensivo plan? If We don't conform in our request to your comprei.
hensive Plan: then I think the Planning Commission. has to s' .
wh r. What conprehensi s x
.., , . �, , e elan e�.�arent� do We not confbrm to?
1
!1\ TR .,SCRIPT OF PLANNI! JONM HEARING c
+ 'r 1 � � +7l f �' �A�.7��.�U�7 �'1.u1�i.R.x11�.7 y5�
i
Jo B. Bishop/G.I® Joes
April 224 1980 I
Janie, The second requirement is that we conform to the ws.
stat - '
e de land
(cont.) use goals Those goals that 1 think are impacted here are the
' goals to reserve open space--which we have agreed to dedicate.
and the obvious goal of having a safe, efficient tram. portatior!
system. That goal will be addressed by our transportation
p J experts(
.
°1'')
Now the staff report raises a number of issues that ,: would like
• to respond to in a summary way* I, think I would like to direct
attention to page 3 of the staff report. Firsts the staff
again has the Planning Director and the Public Works Director
- have repeatedly asked for Johnson Street to be continued
through h this developir'e,u.t to eventually connect with Ash Street.
The problom that t"c1,a,tp'utU us in is the following: While the
.
staff can make r,ecommenc�ation,s--and we don't disagree 'h`rith their
opportunity to do so the City Council has made decisions which ( .
give a clear indication that that is not going to occur* If.we
were to redesign this entire project (it would be unfeasible)
b the extension of A
• sh and the continuation of Johnson, and tbeu ,
,d come before the City Council, we',.would be told.l that that eon
, .: f'7licte' ;:Jii-.h the adopted ,c of.'''..ties o f the City Couuci l i. Obviously y ''
it doesntt make sense
The issue has been raised as to whether we have control of
property that is included in our site 'that's owned by '',lestern
Oregon I,4arine. The answer is that while they do have a lease-
hold interests we have reached an oral giving understanding v:tth them
.. vine us the ri g ht to utilize gi their property, and we are await3.n
er..
draft documents from t'ieir attorney.
ry
\ f The issue has been raised as to whether we have the right to
utilize certain property that Oregon Department of Transportation
will own The answer to that, as we have set forth in our letters, '
is that property has in principle by ODOT been confirmed to be ! .
a currently negotiating �" shed from
q
surp�.'us� and that we are use al�tlasd�.s•t�.n�si r
to obtain the right to zs property, gue with them
having that p�a p?rty sold under a competitive bid and where
someone else might acquire it. .
The staff says that our traffic analysis.�. ,� only considered our
�., relation to 99W, and coup not assess the larger impact area.
point would litre tO and
k could h
One o�. I �� � erc�i�ra there i.s.,that when you
listen to our traffic expert, pay particular note to just how
mat' additional streets-...what larger area-we did in fact address. ' ,
We did confider what in our experts' opinion were the impacts
on streets other than 991
The next comment is that the staff indicates We have discussed 1
/,' the city complex idea with the city Council and consultants.
possibility of a civic complex on Ash Avenue and the poesi. "
bility of the ORE park proposals could significantly change this i M
, N
li
r
4444++++ ..•i.
TR N5CRIPT OF PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
1, J. B. Bishop/G.I a Joes
April 221 1980
Janik entire development." I don't live. in Tigard; so I don't know
Gonta j now -Long you 'have been discussing those things. Baca of you know
,
that those proposals have been agitated for years and years.
rt Would be I think unfeasible to now conclude that because , .'
p not been accepted for
.. the idea of a civic complex has
this site--has now been raised by the staff .-- should I be any '
basis for rejecting this, There is no funding, for the civic ','
complex, no definitive plans --.F. nothing6 Nothing concrete.
' :° The staff then suggests that we return to the Planning Commis-
sion only when we have a transportation study that has been
Y staff,. Again I ask you, how much sense does
approved by the sta
it make for u,s to try to live under the adopted policies of the
City Council, which precludes the very thing the staff is telling• s they want urn to do and come bads with? Obviously its ' '' ,.
,,\- ex'y difficult boy:• to be placed in,
ti .
n the experts
Edell,, ag'a.`i.:n x think I will sit down and let some of t•h
deal With l the other matters. People we will have speak to you a.
will be Hr. Potter, who is an MAXI appraiser, who will talk to
you about the economic effects of this on Tigard. Our architect
will come and tell you what its going to look like. that it --
will feel like in the community. We have an expert consultant
who twill be he to deal with the issues of drainage,' site , ';.
Then We have our traffic analysts. Finally,
./',' t�prorrements, r y`
I think the owners of the property would like to say a fear
p e but
o e •ects and what the staff
i
. words. Again g �•e w'il�, try to be as succZnt as ossibl s
we do want to do what this commission P w a
° has requested, and that is a thorough job. Thank yotx
■ `. �' gg
p Mr. Janik, before you retire for a moment: are suggesting '7
�e ed3,no o You s
that what you are hearing from the staff is not what you would
expect to hear from the City Council, and therefore you prefer
not to incorporate the staff's recommendation in your planning? ',�-
Janik; No; what we are saying is; until plans are adopted by the City
I
they�,'.• Council the: c?an't have the force of being this community's ; .
will that we have. ' .
by
wa.11 or what the law �.s. 1�e are told b the law ttla
to conform to the plans that ire do adopt., This proposal pre.*
�A
1..' ,
cisely conforms to Your comprehensive plan, your NPO #1 plans
P transportation j I
, •,r and your transportation plan. Zha•i. trans ortatio plan re. acts
what the staff is here telling What they want us to study and
propose today, And therefore we dons t think that What the Staff
is recommending has any foundation in the City Council or in
the existing plans or policies
\ Tepedino; I see. So What you are suggesting is, you think you are comply
ing with all the requirements as they stand today?
J .
g up Your
�7anik we wouldn't be tak�,n u time if we didn t. '
' I
1r \ .J, ^
_ I _ .. 11),J _ 9 ..le I 45_ it •
fM I.
TRANSCRIPT OP PLANNINu COMMISSION REARING �._.
J, Be Bisbopf'G*I. Joel „
u April 22 1980 !' ' .:
Teprdino r take it really what you are suggesting is, regardless;; of what r
the City Council makeup is today, or what their feelings are „, .
today, they are bound by the same rules. Is that right? I am
concerned because suppose the Planning Commission feels. the , /'c
same way that the staff does? Then why are we all sitting around i, ,
here at a quarter after ten? . The applicant takes his best shot
h with his best hook (9), hoping that he has yet all the require-
ments, regardless of .personal feelings of various individuals
or organizations within the city,, Is that`right? I get the ; '
sense that you are looking more at what the City Council's ,
response would be than the Planning` Commission''or the Planning
., staff.
a J n:±k Our view is very simple* We look at what the adopted plans' E .�
are, we look at that, and the law says we have to conform with
it That s what we are here doing.
r
Tepedino: Okay, great. That's your opincn, I appreciate it. Thank you,
Are there other people wishing to speak in favor of this proms
posal?
Dean potter.Y
Thank you. My name is, eaPotter, I am a real estate appraiser ,
and consultant from V wcouver, Washington. My function with
Mre Bishop and, Mr. Buchholz was to analyze and advise as to tIe C
p Buc ,
character and impact of the project on Tigard. ] approach this .
in part by attempting to understand the goals of Tigard in i
conformance with your comprehensive plans, your traffic plans, . .
and the Neighborhood,Planning Organization goals„ I have alsr,
attempted to identify some needs of the City of Tigard and evalu
ate the project in the light of these needs, I will try to be
as brief as possible, but one point I would like to make is
i
I don't intend to stand in front of
you and represent that N1r,
Bishop and Mr. Buchholz are pursuing the development of this
property y the community. Their
ro ert a.� a contribution solel, to th
intent not only is ad a contribution to the community, but for
profit. Their goal is to create a planned development of the
subject property that would not only be profitable, but Would
be of benefit to the community.
,. ft
er analyzing the NPO goals, the comprehensive Plans and other
p , u,r
p. believe this desz
documents apparently adopted by the city, I ball
I a conceived maximizes all these goals. My
total evaluation
v a
ltal
ti
o
u
` o f this project in its impact on Tigard is positiVe in nat tr
e.
have selected twelve points which'I would like to cover very
briefly.
"' The economic impact on Tigard will ho peft tl be s .
P � � y gnif�,cani„
There would be additional disdretionary,income.. We would
anticipate approximately 182 jobs being created solely by the
project. Most of these loud be second paycheck type of jobs,
Where existing residents of Tigard would possibly be employed,
" ' 4 /' r
I
.
(22
TRANSCRIPT OF PLANNING CO1•i':.,SSION HARING
d. B. Bishop/G.I. Joes
April 22, 1980
rather than drawing from other areas in the greater Portland
•
Potter:
(Coi t,) are
• .
The property will al so be a significant taxpayer. It will have .
an anticipated $5.5 million value. This would produce direct :.
.�fi. revenues to the City of Tigard of approximately $3,520 per year,
and a one-time parking assessment for systems development in the
aiiotzYtt of $26,450•
It will also supply a third comparison..shopping district in the
City of Tigard. As we have discussed,, the staff has emphasized ;
and we have discussed in our narrative to you, the project Will
anchor the south end of Main Street and help to continue the
vitality of downtown Tigard. It will further, in this same
connection, replace existing buildings on the property which •
at the present time are in a dilapidated state, and will replace
them with architecturally appealing structures,,
The project seems to be timely, inasmuch as current occupancy
of commercial properties in the City of Tigard are high, and
recent1y—constructed properties of a commercial mercial nature have ,
experienced reasonably rapid absorption in the recent pasta
The two prime proposed retailers in the development already
operate existing facilities in the greater Portland area,
They have identified Tigard as an area in which they would
like to participate as far as your retail sales, because they
Find residents of Tigard shopping in their facilities elsewhere
it the greater Portland area. They would like to bring these
y
retail services closer to the residents of Tigard, y
The City of Tigard has been increasing in population at approx..
imately 6 per cent per annum. This is anticipated in your
information I read regarding the City of Tigard through 1990 n.
In view of the increased population, it further increases the
total area affected by an income, which increases the need for
additional retail commercial facilities. The subject property
is designed to achieve this goal and fulfill this need.
As I read the Tigard economic development plan and comprehensive
Plan; I find that the `ect ro appears to be in concert With the
p J PP
information I have read. One of the more important aspects
is that the subject property is ati extremely unique resource,
of the City of Tigard;, It°s a significantly large tre,ct of
land in close proximity to the doWntovrn area. It is certainly
going to have adz impact ors the downtown area. The subject
property as proposed appears to be in harmony Oath NPO #1
Plan, and further 1 see in the NPO §1 report of the meeting on
April 2i 198O, that they appear to favor the development that
has been proposed for the south end of Main street over the
pg
•
TIWISCRIPT OF PLANNING COMMISSION HARING H1A.RING
Jo Be Bishop/G.I. Joes
April 22, 1980
, Potter: Tigard Planning staff proposal for the realignment of Main.
(Cont.) Streets
And finally, the subject design is such as to not encourage
traffic traveling to the development to travel through existing
residential districts. The project itself, the specific design,
r
will preclude any adverse effect on adjacent residential areas.
' It is oriented to existing arterial streets, away from rest-
dential neighborhoods; there will be abundant landscaping and
, a donated buffer area at the rear of the site. Eight accesses
currently existing on Main Street will be eliminated and be
replaced with two accesses. The architectural des
. _gn will be
This aesthetically pleasing�i t. will not be garish. ±�^.s 1prelonment
is intended to be 'a longs-term investment by existing and former •
residents of Tisard. We will anticipate prudent maintenance
of the property both with respect tc landscaping and the ;
buildings. I note in reading the NPO #1 plan, the subject
project appears in conformance with a good number of NPO goals,r
•
most specifically NO 22 which cites the tow►ntown should
provide cnnvehient she 11n7ann' the subject development will
assist in this NPO goal; Policy No. 23 relative to the red,— ti
velopment of downtown, and Policy No. 19 relative to clustered
parking
In summary, it's my view in reading your information and docu
mentation about your comprehensive plans, that the project is
in conformance with the comprehensive plan, Tigard+s goals,
and the 'NPO #1 plan. It will represent an anchor at the south
end of Main Street and minimize impact on adjacent residential. , e
areas by orienting traffic down to the Main Street area away
from existing neighborhoods. That was how brief T was, Do
you have any questions, sir?
Tepedino: Not now. Thank you. Other applicant`s s representatives?
My Kehle; offices in Seattle, 1932 First Avenue,
I�ohle. name is
David
+ and I am the project architect in coordination of site develop
went for G.I® Joes and am doing the design development for
Weremart and overall coordination on the site. ,
One thing I would like to do we have the overhead prof eetor' -
it would be more beneficial to look at a larger size site plan
than you have in front of you and maybe for the public.,
( otet There was a little byi►play between Mr. i eblo and )
President Te p edxno, whose interest Was keeping it brief. The
opaque projector Was not made to werk, so architectural renderings
aere presented instead
w ,
t . rd
• _ n
, TRANSCRIPT OF PLANNING yO i;,w.asiON H, . NG 'W..
J. B. Bishor/GiI. oes
r ' 1: April 22, 1980
T,..
Kehle: Easically the design parameters for the project were Fanno Creek,
the proposed paark z the greenbelt that goes
along the back of
property, traffic flow in and around tLe site, as well as our
tenants* requirements and needs for the facility. This is a
rendered site plan of the project with proposed internal parking;
area and building configuration. One of the things that we have
been trying to do is to try and minimize the impact of some
large buildings, , n the site as well as the
large facilities, a
surrounding areas.
l'nder the C�
-,. ., zoning, as Aldie has naenti.oned, as the staff
report has mentioned, they are permitted uses in the C-3 zone. We
. ,W are a proxi,natel 25 Per cent site coverage ratio under the
'. under i ying zoning as C-3M, there is actually no maximum lot
coverage requirements we comply with the building setbacks
. ,
required by the C-3Pri zone. In fact we have exceeded It n
several areas. The 10 foot front yard, the 5 foot side yards
• are very well established, and we are trying to buffer the
impact of the paring areas., the impacts of the building con-
figurations from tributaries south, Main Street, the Fanno
Creek parkwa , and the residential areas aroland, We have a
Marking ratio of one to 27$ one parking stall for every 278
square° feet. The building code requires one to 400
. Cxe of the main concerns that we
had was the
large impact of
the bu � a have some of o split between the Varemar t
and the G.I. Joels. We have allowed--we are allowed, excuse
mem-35 foot height maximum in the Zone, and our maximum struct°.ire
is going to b 24 fet high, to try and minimize the
tress of the structure, and also by 3 ? ? trying
,r to eliminate that massiveness again, whereas one building would
be three times ad large as two smaller buildings ' ,
The traf: ie circulation, internal--we have limited our access
points and egress points to two points-.-one an 999- and one on
Main Street. Our traffic consultant will discuss the internal
movements, external movements, onto site, off the site; and
• one of the thin,gs I would like to point out is that,in our
1 schemes we have analyzed and tried to come, up with a. scheme
that would lessen the impact on Johnson' street. Hence we have
onlY put in a right-ou.t only on our northern exit, as Bell as to
plan two internal and one external right turn to try and lbsesn
the Impact on Johnson Street, forcing people out onto the Pacific
. , Hi.gbwat south, at the southern end.
ft There are two phases to the project..-the initial Project M .
ihclu.ding G.I. Joe's and a Waremart, shops, restaurant, to be a e
completed in the summer of 1981; and the bank to be completed
eomio" imi,,'late in 19$1
•
•
• N
o
TRAITS
• CRIpT OF PLANNING COMMISSION.REARING ,
J. B. Bishop/G.I. Joes
April 22, 1980
Kehle to use is internally directed.d.
The lighting system we are v � rec ye
g g
1 (Gott.) We use a non-glare ? ? outside fixture, r.hiCh basically
_ it eliminates overspray ane, 31are. Al]. parking lot lighting
will be dl.rectad internal to try and minimize that overspray.
" Tri-Met$ -one e of the comments in the "staff report was on Tri--Seta I
a o e
�'ri list will have no reason, nor do 'th Y want to realty enter,
our site, because it would break up their traffic flow and x';
T break up their stops. And presently there is a Tri.v,Met station
in front of the library- that would be adjacent to the site '.
and would handle that Try.-Met question
We have ,,ried to reels impact the area with '!andscaping. 4
trying to buffer the ,! j aot and park and b s. ay and pathway,
also trying to estab' a as much landscaping as we can to try
?,..., to buffer the project from Main Street and Highway 99. We ,
' have also broken up ' a sea of asphalt by the elimination of
parking stalls) and putting landscaping in the islands as .;
required by the design review, which was suggested 70 feet on
center., and ours are actually 60 feet on center and 9 feet xa
width, whereas the design review requires 8 feet. So what we
are trying to do is to really give you more than under the rw
design review, giving .,kfr..0 an anchor to Main. Street and solving
g which will
some of the tra"fig.w
congestion on Johnson Street vrh
be addressed to you by the traffic consultant.
to
At this time I would like to introduce LeW Gilhsm of Gil. Joe's.
Be is their architect, from
, Willis ari and Gilham. They have a
rendering of their proposed faciIity. 6 . (Business of disc
playing rendering.)
Gilliam: r , l.-..a u •e are the
architects for the G.I.iamse andi3� am, Architects.arasr I can keep
project._
this within the four minute time limit. i .:
G.I. Joe's will occupy the southerly portion of the site. we
will have 55 thousand square feet of retail space, and approxi.
mately 4500 feet of enclosed but not roofed garden space.
All of our services Will be in the rear of the building, We
will have our direr
t P srk3..ng graded with the rest of the shopping
center and the landsca
Ping, of course, will also be included.
The exterior design will be compatibleth the rest of the'
project. We are using concrete traSon''y construction cap'pe'd
with a softening wtc'od fascia and e . . , (balance of his
presentation lost in change of tapes.
#e listed eXperts ho were present but would not be J ani?� . . * • called
;, on in the interests of time) . . b discuss technical engineering
_: n g , our landscape
subdr��.�,�ge and hydrology, cY d Geor e �tt�r.
�all
•
t
.. TRANSCRIPT OF PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
J. B� Bishop/GPI. Joe6
April 22$` 1980
g g �
Janik: architect; traffic consultant
ect and I think, we shall go right to
the
. (Cont.) CE2Mr,x"ill, Mr. Bob Allen.
Hobson: My name is Dean Hobson4 represent Chi-Bill, in Portland,
and we are the traffic consultants for this project.
We were engaged in march, 1979, to perform a transportation
analysis, and we considered the proposed laud use for the site
and some written comMeuts fr ova the city dated December 27, 1978,
and ODOT written questions about the project dated December 22,
1978- nun work was to be compn-tibie with the adopted city
Plans and policies, and with the objectives and plans of ODOT's
'r ansporta.t :on Systems:Management. Plan :for Tigard on. Highway ,
_ 99W. We performed a comprehensive traffic_analysis of .xisting
projected weekday, peak hour, and offs-peak hour cond .tions,
including traffic impact through the Main Street Development
project. For the existing and 1985 normal growth volumes on a
pacific AighwaY and approaches to the Main, street intersections
at Jo1xnsoa'and'Oreenburg, we used, ODOT's volume characteristics
that were developed for the Tigard 'TSM project! since they were ,
Obviously acceptable to ODOT and the city.
We supplemented this data with traffic volume counts along
Main, atreet. our traffic analysis included estimates ,
weekday and peak hour trigs generated by the project's land use. 1
Assignment of these trips to the principal impacted street
systems included Pacific Highway, Main street, Johnson, areenburg; ti
and we also prepared an evaluation of the impact of the site
generated traffic on the principal street systems' operational !'
characteristics. This impact analysis included determination
of intersection capacity, signal system Warrants, signal system
progressive movements) potential conceptual design for the
Main-Johnson--Pacific Highway West intersection, and design
of alternative site access plans. �!
A detailed Preliminary report was Provided to 4:±ty and
,
state in May, 1979. At a meeting � June, onal.
`� g �Ta. June 1979 m a,ddit�,
.. V city ODOT letters
concerns ttxthex' than, those identified in sit and
of December, 1978, were discussed, We were asked to address
these concerns in a supplemental analysis. A comprehensive'
submitted in Jui e y 1979, .
and it also incorporated a su. pleme
P g analyses was these ax�aly
�taZ..analysis a,Y
p p., sand the tZ
report covering , r.
report, so the second report was made at that time.:
FolloWing the review and discussion of the May and June, 1979,
reports, ODOT and the city requested that some further °'Additional
concerns be analyzed along, with the pz;opossd revision that had ,,
eurxed an Proposed site land use Plans due to the leng th
Y
delay ±nvo1ved>. A second supplemental report Was submitted in
I :.
p'
. nawaw,mvxn..r.pamo-.- „
•
°
w
TRANSCRIPT OF PLANNING COMMISSION''HEARING
Je Be Bishop/G.I. Joes
April 22, 1980
Hobson: September, 1979, which addressed the above iteme. You can see
* (Conte) we generated some data here.
A request from, the city was received in Octoober, 3.979, to prepare
additional analyses of the potential. diversion of site--generated
traffic to new street systeme s additions-M-that might be i.mple
mented by the city at some future date. These are the street
systems that we were referring to..--extension of Johnson, Main
Street and Ash Street--°-so it was October, 1979, before we
received requests to analyze these additions. A brief report
covering this request was submitted in October, 1979, indicating
1
lg '
our estimate of
�s Dece�:bert �,l traffic changes,. and for this w'eused
1973 report on traffic circulation--
that°s for e,sh Aveuue..Dowutowt Plan, his basis background data.
This analysis does include traffic estimates of project' impact
on Ash and other streets surrounding the site* That was this
brief document here that was submitted,
A major change proposed by o
r e from site land use was our client in
March, 1930,E
an
A detailed report on the traffic eea„lN sie nr, thi
currently.proposed Project land use plan was submitted ,ai March,
1980, and this ie the report for that
don't propose to go into the details of the comprensive data
methodology traffic flow characteristics, intersection capacities -
and so on, since they are fully documented in these five reports
that have beet submitted to you. However I would like to briefly
summarize the basic findings of our analyses. We feel that
transportation analyses have been comprekl°ertsive, impartial,
within the site deve1optent parameters established by our client
and performed in accordance with accepted traffic en ineeritg
operational procedures. Construction of the site development
will have a measurable traffic impact on adjacent street systems.
We have identified these by impacts in the respective reports,,
We feel that through cooperative efforts of ODOT, the city; and ,
our client in the final design we recomeended site access
improvement, that these impacts will be minimized, and, that
efficient, safe traffic flow and circulation can be provided.
All the specific reaommendat►ions are presented
r consideration
4
relative to the desirable Action upon d relopmentofthesit :
First, full access ess should be ed at Pacific gichway accees
� provided 4
,
points, and IiMeted access (which means no ;heft turns out of the
I s3,
to towards Pacific Highway) should be prided at P4ai Street
' • , intersections Second, the Pacific Highvay access should be
signalized, and this signal should' be interconnected into the
Pacific Highway computerized traffic control system being
installed by ODOT as part Cif the Tigard Tan project* This signal l
is warr 'ced not only because or the additional traffic genera
, ' y
y so because
ta:an on the site due to the addition o
.� �Varemr~as
t but
yy
I ,
•
TRANSCRIPT OF PLANNING COMlitt.,SSION HEARING
i J. B. Bishop/G.I. Joes
April 22, 1980
Hobson: of the restricted left turn movement at Main Street access point
(Cont.) going toward Johnson.. That required that all that traffic go
out at the Highway 99 access point.
A third point geometric design
i^d ont I want to make is that the basic geoznet
concepts shown in our March., 1980, report from Pacific Highway
west/Main street/Johnson intersection should be adopted
oetf�7ohneAn, Street Inters
as the premise for preparation of final construction design
plans.
In conclusion. I would like to point out that according to the
letter dated the 22nd of April,, of which you received a copy
•
g , .Engineer of the
tonight fr�tn. �3x�.1 Cea.bP•1 who �s the District
Oregon: State High ray Division, which peas addressed to the
` city planning director, he states that the access plan recommended
in our March, 1980, report is acceptable to the Highway Division
and that ""the ;Highway Division can live with the report t s
recommendations � highway operational axlpoixt.et We ,
feel like that��c�nra-contrary. 6 ta ff report feel
like we have 1,
addressed the issues of traffic generation on Main Street and <
the impacts that the site development on that street. We think
with the, approval of Mr. Geibel here as far as Highway 99W is
concerned, that we have met another condition indicated in the
staff report. With that I conclude my presentation.
Tepedino: Thank you, Mr. Hobson.
Bishop: This time -- I am J. B. Bishop, Tigard taxpayer and landowner
and developer -- I have appeared before you before, and I'
4e hour appear before
appreciate the opportunity at this lark,. houa to
1 now. Ch e � o and Commission members, on
behalf of my self and developer
of this property
in joint development with the Buchholz family--Mrs. Buchholz is
in joint development with her children on this property with
Hera Buchholz and and amyself re s over the last couple of months of r
p comment, p p , to m,arous discussion that
we have had then'PO, the downtown merchants ortuni
pP
the opportuni
�
ties we have had to discuss irdividU all.y with both property
No owners downtown, the city staff throughout the sixteen :months
that we have been at work on this project design-'we have been
coming up with a concept of development, working with nine
friends that have been concerned interest about locating an
anchor on downtown Main Street on property that', we originally
had for development, which was 8- acres, and which we ezihanded--
not easily, very difficultly, through negotiation,--- to have a
parcel of property that would allcw us to have a real retail
anchor, and that was by acquiring four additional parcels of
property to the south and also to the north. It is something
that wasn't given to us; something that we worded hard for, and
- r
•
•
TRANSCRIPT OF PLANNINk, ,OMMISSION HFAET'A y,
J. B. Bisbop/G.I. Joss
' April
1
9
0
P z1 22, 8
p importantly recognize that :we needed the vitality
` Bishop:� ' ceded it alz ty
Bisho . most gym• ortantl we rec
p j ect and for the anchor.anchoring of Main Street, and secondly,
for
(Cont.) of
ro
for proper traffic/transportation in and out of the ropert .
P. , .. P Y
Those are the reasons vhy that property was acquired—that's
the reason why you have the boundaries of 114 acres that are
there now as an development opportunity for full developmen ia one fell. ;'.
swoop of a large scale retail development to anchor downtown: •Main Street.
n
Mr. Buchholz and I, who hopes also to make a few comments in
R a second, are somewhat disappointed-about the opportunity to
address You this evening it the 'manner that has come to pass i ,
right now. My '.very brief comment on that. We were scheduled
at this meeting as a special meeting,..-my full knowledge -�•atxd !
I am sure commits will develop after this as a special meeting
for this issue was the prime issue of primary~ concern for the
last 90 days of the VP°, the do+tntown merchants, the Chamber of
Commerce, and we were led to believe this was the primary issue I
and the sole issue on this agenda. A week and a half ago we
were givers notice that instead of being the only issue on the
agenda, that we were number five, and that there were four. items
of a miscellaneous nature that were moved from May 20 to this
special meeting that was given, which we te, v verY a PP reciative
of having the opportunity to have April 22, even though we had
previously been scheduled for April 15• but because of the special
a a
issues we remain with your consideration a • . e to
address this issue. I am sorry' that you're tired and we lre
tired at this time in the evening, to consider a preliminary
•
plan review of a Planned unit development with the experts,
with the responsibilities p 'bilities that your planned unit development
'
ordinance calls for us to work with to guide this plan through
development to preliminary development. We have presented to
zminar
you tonight the concerted efforts and concerted time and con-
certed opinions of not only ourselves, not only of our consult-
ants, not only of your requirements of what you have foxy your
plait, but more importantly also, in the audience-. and those
people certainly y p ur for you give them
opportunity, whichI am se you ill the NPO, various merchants ts
that are affected by the city's proposed conceptual plans, and
also by our plans, and we are looking forward to hearing your
tes timony, thatll s why y we Will speed our Process u p... But we are
highly disappointed' that at 9:15 at night that we finally get
an Opportunity to make our presentation when it is highly known
that this was the major issue of focus, and this is the time
We had the opportunity to speak--number five on the agenda
I.
I guess the final point that I Want to make is that we are
resolute in our plans for development of this property. our
tenant interest, as You all know, G.1. Joe's, Was With me on
property that was not properly Zoned, and I came to you for a
9.15-
d7 I
D .,
•
•
TRANSCRIPT OF PLANNING C01,111.1.SSIOIN1' HEARING
J. B. Bishop/G.I. Joes
April 22, 1980
Bishop: planned unit development on other property and at ono u►,, . •
(Cont.) tins here in Tigard. They continued their efforts to 101 .,;e in
Tigard=r but are are having difficulties in an absolute, outright
permitted use, retaining their interest where the planning '
staff, as you will sees .and l think when they` to you
what Concept No. 11 is up there..-when they attempt to redesign
our site plan for us, and redesi1€n our buildings, our uses, of
our parking, our uses of our e4tcesses, and what we can do with.
our land, different from what you have--the Planning Commission
and City Council adopted a cote;,rehensive plan. It makes it very
diffi cttlt for us to operate after fifteen mo'rths of full opera
tional in p ut from all Parties c oncerned You see uy there ►an d
we will have in our office and at other meetings,also, because
y
this is a preliminary plan review--alterations to something we
presented. As a matter of fact the staff report even says,
"The applicant may request a redesign..." As a developer of
real estate in this community, I would never ask the Planning •
Commission to ever redesign an the
ag for me; hut :L certainly 1
will listen to your directions: to your guidelines, and your
concepts, so I can sit doon with my• consultants, with the Prac-
tical
`j assessments of what the guidelines are, and design something
and, bring it back to you. We are disa ointed we
PP with, where E
are this evening, but we cer,tanly plan to have your full
attention, and we appreciate ',1!our attention at this point in
and we do have a few other people that are highly material
to this presentation* and certainly I know you Will be interested
in taking input that has come to pass with the full disclosure
of this project up to this point. We will appreciate your
attention. We work hard at this, and we know this is a prelim
inary plant, we are looking forward to working with you through
project, nants also look forward to
fruition of this as over tenants
going with us, Mr. Buchholz?
• Buchholz: �,
]jades and gentlemen, Z will make this very brief. We have a
lot of documentation hero to present--oh, eXcuse me, I's sorry
namesisQHerm Buchholz, my address is 715. SW Barbour, Tigard,
and "
' my mother, rrah.ees Buchholz, who lives presently down
at the site.
In very short, the majority of this Property has been owned
since 1941 by the applicant. Since that time, especially from
1973 and
working with th e City council* With
the e comprehensive
h
ensve
zoning plans a lot of pe P le have been involved at this
time,
a lot of consultation, a lot of property owners, and Simply, '
i guess I am saying that the final site plan looks as it does
after viewing seven years of input, Thank You
Te pe di'no r, Thank x
ou . Buc h lolz
y
Bishop As a final wrap up of• ' ` p � presentation, we do want to Point out
(
f G
y ,
.. :..a.. ..':. . . _ •...„mil ....•... ....::... .....:.. ... .I ,I
tt
TRANSCRIPT OF PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
J. Bo Bishop/G.T. J oes
April` 22, 1980
Bishop: that you have full knowledge and full operatioral visibility on °
(Cont.) a daily; basis of the beginnings of the operational TSM program
on Highway 99, which we are a primary impactor of, with secondary
impact on Main Street, in full analysis of your traffic report
as analyzed. The TSM program, as you all know, developed with
citizen inP ut, Chamber of Commerce input, Planning Commission
review, City Council review, and approval of all bodies and
with participating funding fri the City of Tigard and also from
the state Department of, Transportation. The TSM program which
is just now going into the transitional stage of implementation,
completely reviewed all intersections and all adcesses, :nc1uding I`
P y
p Street, existing
the primary ones of Johnson' atrQet, and addressed the ex�,sti.
cotnpre'hensive plan,; the.existing transportation plan, addressed
the g ' adopted by Planning City Council �,• '
• are Commission and .Cit, Counc
t Tiortationd'plans bwhich are now in the hands o: LCDC for
ransp r plans,
,approval hopefully Per the annual report of the City of Tigard,
of 'June, 198 .
What We are testifying to tonight with regards transportation, ,
transportation and traffic--which has been the number one dispute
that ,tt.a have had with staff, I that you. u c vu
a program cu
which completely analyzes the intersection of Johnson Street-- I ,
�
there was never ever any indication of any extension of Johnson •
thr ou g h to Ash, or certainly any need for reali gnment of Main
Street through any different location from where it is The I. '
State Department of Nighway Transportation has issued a letter
in response to the staff report, which was given to us late
Friday afternoon--you have.that. All We simply want to say
before Steve Janik wraps up, is that you have a TSM ,programs
which you all know Tigard is most appreciative of having,
worked hard to develop, that complete analysis of transportation
planning, and Yon have adopted p recently is
ado tad lens recent7, both are in LCDC
hands for traffic movement and generation on oth 99 and more
1 y collector and arterial
streets in Your adopted tr_ .s ortatio plane
importantly on streets that are local,
streets y � y p plans Nowhere in those � �.
3.on
plans, from the time we £ : t analyzed '.them until now, is there
any analysis of the Projections
of 5-A, which is the realignment
o f Mai n Street impacting Private
properties, leaving the analysis e
of budget and funding, and more im p orUent.-kand also Johnson I`
,^ through to Ash. Mr. Jani k?
Janik: We're done. Thank you.
•
l'abedinot Is that the end of the applicant's presentation';
Bishop: I think it is.
Tepedirlo. We are running very late five minutes of U. What l'wot]
like to do is -'-Are there any other parties wishing to Speak in
favor of this proposal? rn favor. Yes, sir. 1i` those who want
I I
i I
v
1
+
1
JI 11 1 N
'
w 1
t t
- " TRANSC?IPT OF PLANNING: COMMISSION HEARING
i
J. B. Bishop/G.I. Joes
April 22, 1980
1 t
Tepedino: to speak will come up to the first couple of rows so that we
(Cont.) can hear you --those in favor of the Proposal.
` , Benson. I am Phil Benson, I live at 10529 SW 64th Drive. We apparently
with my partner, own the property that is Just to the east.
.
We have more frontage adjacent to this Project than anyone else.
We are very much in favor of this, for several reasons: One,
we 'feel they have done an excellent job of research,; it is
compatible with our project. Our project was basically designed
for;' empty-nesters-..retired °peop1ew.-so that they could live close
p to the city and walk to the facilities that they wanted. This
was really what wre were looking for and hoping for, is what Mr.
Bishop and fra Buchholz put' together. In no way do we want a
street to go from Mein Street through our development, though-- , ,
we are going to have se nior citizens, hopefully, wa1ki g to
store facilities. r think this is in bad taste, we are going
to have people coning from the community to the shopping center,
' it just too m uch
congestion there.
Also ono thing 'luau �t ink5 :should be b.t oug,h a vu at vus.o �. nic
• is that I went with my engineer, Dick Drinkwater, to the office
of the city planner one week :we were :aware of this -- and
we had before had V ilsey and Hand, en engineer - Dick Drink- C,
�• �, of Johnson, me hi
,
water and I. went over and met with �I.r� Ho xard and at the time
he explained that there would be a realignment
"y would be something ... it
which was very new to us that this w
was Out indicated to us that
of the blue.
At that time it was �.ndi
we did haVe - our city had the approval of Mr. Bishop and Mr.
Buchholz to put Johnson extension through to our property.
I had met with Mr. Bishop, by phone, the day prior to, and he said
he did not agree to an extension of Johnson through his property
r this, P
to ours. t '` e somebody working two people e against and �, attic
ularly don't lam, definitely not favor of th1gain:st each other
when we have found tha': . we are, working very close together, and
the people, that are interested in buying the units in our
development are, like I say, senior citizens, and we have a lot
• of people that are interested in 'buying these; and if, We start
p putting a street through--a major street-.through our project,
we are going to lose a lot of sales, and who wants
(3 or 4 words lost).
T� r.diJo. Thank y o►�, �W . Beason. y other Parties wishing
o �speak
in
favor of this proposal?
P uimb . I an Eleanor cuimlay, 11480 SW 'oriner. Aa a former XPO member;
I like this project. They have done something that I think all
the Npos . . and that is no more strip development:
I think' it 16 a little bit late for the City of Tigard now
circulation. here were those, of us who Mien
for the traffic cir . T ,
r
18M to
qq
� Y
vA
w
tra.
■ TRANSCRIPT OF PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
J. BO Bishop/G,I, Jogs
April 22, 1980
Quimby: the cit y first became a city-•that we suggested traffic circula-
' . (Cont.) tion, and no one took us too 'seriously at the tine. The PIanain g
Commissi n turned_down G.I. Joe's that Mr. Bishop brought up
off. Park Street, and one a
• ��' .. r � of the reasons at that time that it was
turned down, was because of the amount of traffic that would go
through an exi..sting residential area By cutting Johnson Street
through to Ash, we would be creating exactly the saae type of
situation that was un there.
" My concern in the realignment of Main Street is that it would
be forming a cul-de-sac on what is now the south end of Main.
I think this would be very unfair to the businessmen that have
been there for years .---• Dr. Parting ton, Ti.gar�, Cleaner �-... I
also Wonder what could happen to A-l Electric, Valley Auto
parts -- to these people there. Where is the city going to get
the money* to condemn all of this property?' I ;think it's time
that the City.of Tigard has watched their levies being defeated
Year after Year--I think it+s time that t hey start being real
istic and know that the money s .riot there to do this. Had
the started fifteen ears age I: thick that we probably could
5 Y ago, P Y
^� have 'a good circulation, problem traf.f .c-wise in the city, and
we could try to get this on some of the new developments that
went through,. and'we had trouble even, getting the streets wide
to get' fire engines dovtn theta , you know - it's beer.
I can a reciate the cit. wanting enough it
a problem all. along. '' PP city g to have s.
proper circulation of the 'traffic,'` but 11'm sorry,' 'it's like
locking the barn door after the horse has been stolen, and. I `'
Would' urge you gentlemen-rand 'ladies-- to look very favorable
on this project--I think it+s something that we can use here
` i n Tigard---it will help our economic base, which We certainly .
need, and this has probably got to be one of the best projects
that T have seen Mr. Bishop come up with, and I heartily support
it. Thank you.
Tepedino Thank you, Mrs. Quimby. Are there other parties Wishing to 1.
"84 speak in favor?
Burgess: Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, my name is George.
Burgess. 1 live at 13475 SW Village Glenn, And I guess I just
want to talk to you--yeah, br efly- as a resident of the court n. yw
ity and as a consumer. And I think this kind of a development
is quite similar to others that we have in the community It
adds a little more variety to the kinds of things that we have
�..� y bit er e
around 1 pat much dlftnynknx.tthus the Payless
bhi, a of `'
4
of Main Street. 2 think t`►.onal I;• •,
just adds a., o
shopping that we can have. t
I get a little tired of e.'ery time I hear of a new development
• being done in the City of Tigard, though, ''to have the extension
of Ash Ash atreot brting into it. It seethe like e Yery tine, something ,
re,µ
TRANSCRIPT OF PLANNING CGNai SSION HEARING
j. B. Bishop/G.I./G.I. Joes
�
April 22, `1984
Burgess: comes up we have to talk about extending Ash Street again. Now
Cont.) I live on Village Glenn, which is Up in that area*.which would
betron impacted by that. It a s a closed residential community
g , you that u and we're going
with
.. Pa
h no through streets. and ou ona�a, t
to have cars coming through there, our kids aren't going to be
safe on the streets. However, I would suggest, though, that if
You do gent too en that u through there the way to do it is
'' Y P lP g y �'
with a bicycle and pedestrian bridge across Fenno Creek that
would .feed directly into this kind. of a Project..-,people could
,r walk downtown and do their shopping, and it would be a lot
better for traffic--you wouldn't have more cars coming down
.
through there; it would solve some of the traffic problems that
:' you are cbvtously ooncerned with.. It would also give people
/I, an opportunity to get in and out of there quickly from that '
i
.< conmun it y without using additional energy, tf which
we quite
y short at the moment. Thank you.
,,,..i°d, Tepedino: Thank you, Mr. Burgess. Other parties wishing to 'speak in favor
); 4 of the proposal's
r1 Yes. My name is Mel Lester. I represent A-Boy Stores
S,ester. , Stores,
and,
I h r obviously representing another
have an interest outside of o.
business ahi ch is downtown, in favor of this project. We feel
that we are a competitor of C.I. Goe's, and we look very favor-
ably upon their introduction into our immediate area. I
personally an admirer of the way G.I. Joe's as ,a local organiza-
tion has conducted their business, and how the applicant specify-
kcal ly. -as differentiated from G.I. Joe's--has made every effort
to inform us of their plans and how these plans ---» they suggested
some ways these plans might impact us as a business.
I am also interested, inasmuch as I am no longer a Tigard rr
resident, in the way that this development..laremart, G.I.
Joe's, the bane would impact Tigard. I have very warm feelings
for Tigard--YI wOn't go into a big long discussion of it--`but
m y y g ,
e in this particular store (the first ainful. employment
• hosts man�i�t came to work for �. Bob ten earsga o as a F�ymont
I had, supportin my family) every chance I get back into .
�; y Y
Tigard, I have an extremely personal interest in this store and
the con men ty.'
We think that if someone is going to come in--particularly a
p couldn't think of a better, more worthy one
., We
Competitor
that G.I. Joe's' We like the way they do b . ness--we like
the Way they integrate themselves into the communities ; - go ,
out into the areas of r ilWaukie' and Oregon
`7 � Oregon t+3 tY and other
places that they are--look at their original site) what they
''� hay`e done With that °°•• my goodness,, 1 wish we could do as wei.i
and I am very much impressed With the presentation they made,
not to mention money it must have obviously host Mr. Bishop and
i
I'llANscP,IPT OF PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
' .. J. B. Bishop/G.I. Joes
April 223 1960
• T,pater. his associates to get this, far, and I think that all this..-.t"hat
Lester:
(Cont.) A-BoY are very eager to see them break ground and get going on
this. Needless to say, its going, to cramp our style a little
bit if Main Street runs through our showroom, but that is some
thins I suppose we will have to defend with down the road.
Thank You,
Tepedino: Thank you, Mr. Lester. Any other parties wishing to speak in
favor of this proposal7"
Nolan: My name is John Nolan. I own the property A-Bo Y is on, and am
present on Nr t r, Street. What I ate concerned about is that the
Neio12box°l;ood Flann,ir�g commission..a..they' seem to b 7 in favor of
not putting through this improvement of Main Street, so called, ;!
or the extension of Johnson Street, and here it is brought up
again. And personally, to solve a practical problem, I cantt
see why they would bend the street around, right turns, and what
not--usually, money today, they would straighter the street i'
• out it s uraight, keep the traffic going right, but here, i '
W = T gue_m. the staff has n different ±dea_ Sn t o make it short
herea I think G.I4 Joe s has a.s put in a lot of wurk were, and we
should appreciate it--not take the idea that your staff is
always rig ht-«I think they have made a big
mista ke here by going
against the neighborhood planners, g oing a gain.
a lot of other r
things that I can see obvious -- straighten the street out
instead of making it crooked. That's about all I have to say.
Tepedino: Thank you Mr. Nolan. Any other parties Wishing to speak in
favor of this proposal? Before you start -- FioW people
�rariy P p
want to s p eak in opposition -» those against this proposal? t
Voices Define opposition,,,
Tepsdino Those who are against this proposal, „
l`ol c e r Against the proposal as written by staff? ;k
Te edihoo Against the proposal ao presented by the applicants.
West: My hate is Craig West. I at an attorney, T practice law in
iTialatz . am al so a resident o f Hill Street,
and . m e
I'll be short, I'll try
to shorten down my remarks. d
T am opposed to opening up Ash Street in any way, wtether it v s
realigned main Street or whether its straight through to Burnham
Street. They neighbor. I have a very
• neighbor e from Village Glenn hit
important point: the neighborhood has to come dowtu quite
frequently either`to this meeting Or Other meetings, and
quite frankly it's hard to get the vote out every time to come
dorm here to protest any kind of proposal as to the extension
, I
•
TRANSCRIPT OF PLANNING Cori: SION HEARING
J. B. Bishop/G.I. Joes
T April 22, 1980
West: of Ash Street. So here we are again--the staff made a recbmtnenda-
(cont.) tion, and quite frankly I get a little bit irritated when the 9.
staff continually tries to shove this down our throats, despite
the fact that:it has been continually rejected. The staff is
just ignoring the facts here, and the people in the neighbor
hood there, and they should be reminded that we are the tax-
payers
,/' .� payers, and we are the ones they represent in this matters
At the BPG meetings there was substantial testimony from the .
neighborhood and businesses there.- I think that is important
for review the N
f you to keep in. mind when you revie,r � `PO y
P y Paragraph three••-•
it wan't drafted lightly, it was given careful consideration,
and the etensi_on of Ash Street was rejected. In fact, the
hi Shest priority according to the NPO is of course the res
, s
dential neighborhood. Another point is that there Were certain
alternatives discussed at the NPO tneetings p and we heard one
regarding a foot bridge over Panne Creeks There,was also a
i " discussion about putting Ash Street through, but putting a
barricade Up so emergency vehicles could barrel through the
barricade,, but that the residents could not have acce ,, or other
cars could not come up Ash Street, but TIould. hate. f�/�cce s for.
cars nnid`1 �•4- n �a ��,� Ash Q retie•?• » Would have
emergency vehicles. There Was some mention of cul-de-sacing
Ash Street. I was somewhat.surprised in that these alternatives
have not been mentioned tonight and I think it, is so ething
that, staff, should be brought to your attention.
There are a number of ifs and contingencies as to the plan--I
think' page L. and 5 of the staff report indicate that there are .
some major changes and considerations going on. I think Mr.
Janik, mentioned that, however, there are no concrete plans;
that there is a substantial cost to all these things. I noticed
just this last month in the Tigard Times the mayor was reported
as eying the civic complex center is a pipe dream`--ji.t's a longs
long aWay all; the transit center is another mere possi-
bility.apt at all. and
bility. We are talking o t, g and I
about some remote contingencies,enc3.es, �ln
think the staff is working here with some nice ideals nide
possibilities- -but they really lose tract of reality. Some of
the realities I would like to mention to you, just running
through my concerns: First; Ash Street is a residential street,
it r s a residential neighborhood, it's too narrow and substandard
for any type of major traffic. You reroute Main Street up to
Ash, it's just too narrow a street. Right now, when two cars
park on both sides of Ash Street and two cars try to pass each
other, there's just not enough root. As I come down Ash Street
you gotta weave in and out as oars pass each other. It's
dangerous. Youtd create a terrible traffic problem if you put
, tiore traffic Onto Ash. In addition there is substantial use by
pedestrians and children in this area. It's a neighborhood
area. There are no sidewalks on most of Ash Street ton y oh
the lower end are there any sideWalks.' People Walk in the
o
*TRANSCRIPT OF PLANNI�'' sorr iiSSzoN HEARING u}w,
J B. Bishop/G.I. Joes
April 22, 1980
West: streets. In addition they walk on the streets on Frewing. A I
(cont.) lot of people from the apartments and from the neighborhood
walk up Ash, then up Frewing to catch the bus, and of cours'A
Frewing is not a good street--it's a terrible street on which
to :funnel your traffic; if you come do wt Main Street, funtol
people up Ash and out to Frewing you bring them in to another
ter.,rible street. In addition I ask you to maybe drive,by .64h.
Street and see the slope of the street. it's a downhill shot
from Frewing, down to Burnham where it would go through to
Burnham. In being downhill even I driving down have
.
couple of children, I know the neighborhood children--I catch
myself oi.Yz too fast sLassubstantial ild gas hi.t t
here. It
creates a problem„ year ' sla e.•.t
p he natural
g
tendency is. to go too fast. I: You open ,.,,
,� it up for a fu�th:ar
distance, its going to be more of a straight speedway. ItIs
a straight shot; you can see that on the map, but I also ask
you to drive by and take a look at it--it°s al'l', downhill.
And finally-..this is the most important) point--and that :, if °
you open this area up to commercial traffic you naturally open
u.13 this whole residential area to commercial traffic, and in
that You jeopardize what's near to what I want tq talk about
my fundamental right, fundamental, idea.-that's
that�s m f�tnda.me our
neighborhood.,-those are our homes, and you are jeopardizing
costing , f p;
btht ttmox eoimaort�antl ou areddestros destroying -pocket dollars;
p y, you yi g our peaceful neighbori»
hood and our homes, and that--I don't know how many wars you
can that--but it seems like everyone has said i" in many
different Qa y s- that'a what it really comes down ;r here-..you
are destroying our neighborhood and our homes, 4;1,1d that's some..
thing not to take lightly, So I would oppose any extension of
Ash street. (Applause from audience.)"
Tepedino: (Gavellin^' for order) I don't,want any outbursts in this Meeting.
If you are going applaud) appreciate your leaving the
building. Now what Would like to do is, we
hoard almost 01
two hours of the applicants and the proponents of this; I would
like to ask people that are opponents of this..-those against »
and I didn't see anyone who would like to speak (interrupted)
Voicel represent a hundred people, s
epedino: Are you opponents or proponents?
Voice: I'm an you can call me Wi:'atever you want,
Teped±no: Well, I have to know, e r, ,because
Voice call me at opponent to tho staff1 a plan-
p I need 'to know--are' You�e ed3n,o i need � an opponent Or a proponent of the i
application as it Was filed with the City of Ttgatd
I t c'1
jj
rr
TRANSCRIPT OF PLANNING CO ..SION HEARING \
1 J. Ba Bisbopf G.T, Joes
r
April 221 1980
Y
Voice: I am an opponent.
is
'fiepedino: Okays fine
r ,
Smith: Mr. Chairmen, I think at this time �c.t would be a good idea to
clarl.fy: I would like to ask here . How many people are here .
for the purpose of opposing the extension of Ash Street to
Burnha ? Hay I see a show of hands? (Murmur in audience)
Vto are here to oppose the -idea of extending Ash Street thTaugh
to Burnham
prom audience: Or Johnson!
5mith; Now, ? woA.zid like to ask, another gttestion: How many of you are
a; here specifically for, the Purpose of supporting the application
of this develoy4ent .."4; aside from extension of any other streets?
Tepedino: , Commissioner Smith, would you tr to focus the issue? •
• Well Y
Smith:
That's why I am trying to clarify--there's an awful lot of a
neQp1e here, and I'm trying to a dentfv: Ape you here for thw
purpose of supporting the 4a',C. Joe's developments or are you
r here voicing your `desire not to
• primarily hez a for the purpose of vo .,
� r - r
have Ash Street extended? ;
From audience: Both (several voices). ,
Y to speak "
Tepedin.o. Al right: the city Planning peak
All right We are entertaining people that would like ng staff,
,
on the issue that has been presented to y .,-
g Now if there are ancillary
and also the Planning Commission.
° issues that directly relate to what we are trying to hear
,. , tonight, that's fine; but I doubt think n we have the tim e
I am afraid what we are hearing, though,h essentially con', the
gavelled Smith:
wrong issue. (Outburst from audiences g ve led• down by the
President.)
Tepedino:
All right, I'm not going to have any public outbursts „here.
Voice: You'll get fired -
-- red if you don't listen -
k
:s Tepedia•o. That's fine; if you would like to try it, give me your:name an
address You on the Planning Co mmission as soon as
there
Nlay I spear, begaUse 1 think I represent a large n`
■
Voice: j represent umber of
people
Tepe .no Okay f are You an opponent or a pro;pahent of something that's .
u sue
being talked up t+at��.�,ht/ We are only talking about the
wrv..
I Y ,•
TRANSCRIPT OF PI ANNI L COMMISSION HEARING ,,..
• B. Bishop/G•..I Joes
April 22, 1980
Tepedino: that has been presented, and thatls all I am going to take
(cont.) evidence on, testimony on. If you have some ether .. •
Smith: I would like to clarify one item: If, regardless of what
happens here tonight, the Planning Commission- tonight is not,
' roving'the extension o f Ash Street: that is not
in any gray� aPP a
the issue. We cannot essentially- approve that issue tonight.
• pp
been submitted to us`b the a cantor disapprove what h
What we can do tonight �s to approve
by PPli for that development.
d important 3i' speak to that issues The issue {
of As Street is somewhat a seP arate issue. Now what I think
is happening,here is, many of you here are speaking on the
issue
of the extension of Ash Street. We can talk
about that
all -night.. Iu, the and, we must make a decision based on the r.
a 1icant s - what the applicant has presentee.. °
Tepedino: And that is basically a zone change• ZCPD 6.-80. That's what ,
we are hearing tonight, and that's what we are going to make a
decision on No do you Want to be .recognized, sir, or not? !'
1 ce nderneath thie restri a;-i ve constraints of that statement.
.oi--"q - -
I cannot testimY.
p o: Thank you. there Te edx» u. Zs thex e axzyon.e wishing to speak in opposition to
the proposal that we have before us tonight, and that's ZC?D
f 6..3O. Yes, sir.
Sattb: Mr. Chairman, Commission members, staff: I am C. R. Saab • a
freeholder on Burnham Court, intersection with Hill Street. I
opposition proposal he applicant to instal],
G.Ii.nJoe sandWaremart as they have tbresented it. Conversely,
t outlook in approving it contingent upon
I favor the staff's°G oc�t:i.e� it n ; 4h
that thoroughfare there, which certainly appears to be a retest.
• traffic analysis as presented
the a extensive and exhaustive i
by the he pplicant appears to be after the fact, and intended,
apparently, to serve their own needs as the design they had
already submitted retriousl . Thank You.PP Y° � ^
Y P �'" � ern
Tepedino: Thank you, Mr. parties wishing to speak'ih
Sat�.bd Any other
opposition to this proposal? Tee, sir.
Johnson: I have a letter here
• Tepedino: Do you watt to read that into the record? Would you like to
give oral testimony on that, sir? Or de ,you want It read into t
the record
Johnson: ]dead' it into the record
Tepedi•nb; okay
I
. 4.
4 Y "a(y J e
q M1 ♦ _ ` '
... .w ..J ._ .»>.•+..144 R ...
TRANSCRIPT OF PLANNING' COMMISSION HEARING
1 J« B. Bisho Gr es,
April 22, 1980
Howard: (Read d lettez dated April 22, 1980, from Paul E. Johnson°re;
opposition to construction in floodplain, and lengthy,'suggestion
for solution of Ash Avenue problem. see Exhibit 13.)
Tepedino: okay, thank you staff, Are there any other parties wishing to
: nx speak in o pp a sition to this P ro P osa,7
Johnson: Can I show you on the map hod' this plan would work oiaithe
blockade
Tepedino: Well, ok a , if You will do it very quickly.
►,
.y (Mote, The tape was changed during tile Presentation by Mr.
Johnson of his idea to prevent hearing,)traffic on Ash, which
e through
;'- really had no pertinence
Smith: T' really appreciate the idea, but 'I don't think this is the
appropriate forum.
Tepedino: Any other parties wishing to speak in opposition to this proposal?
Howard.
• Yes, sir; a copy of r. Butler's letter to be made a part of
•
the record, and each member of the Planning Commission will get
a. copy Unless you want it read now,
Tepedino; Yeah, why don't we read it •-- That's in opposition to this
proposal?
• Ha ward, Well, haven't t read it myself* (�c
1amation from audience.)'
Well, I just got it this evening, if You don't minds
Tepedino: okay, 'thy don't you read- it for the record.
(Read letter from John A. Butler advocating from the
Ho��3:.�rd oaat�ng access f
rear to the project; see Exhibit C0)
Tepedino:
Thank you, staff* Any other parties fishing to speak in opposi.
tion to this proposal?
Voice: Mr. Cha rmax , I think you should
T+epedito: If you want
to speak, you are going to have to come up and
identify yourself, please.
Voices My name is Gary ????`'"??, and I really feel that You should
extend the cci,:rtesy to the representatives of 100 citizens of
Tigard as you did to Mr. Joh:.usonm
p p
Ts edino« '. . citizens of Tigard hex°e?
Is the representative of a hundred, c
P P
Are you in �'avor or in o pos�,t�;r�n td' thiS pro'vsal? (aUtburst
c
TRANSCRIPT OF PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING l
. J p Ba &a,s r,4p/G.Ie Joes
April 22, 1980
T e edi o f ro m audience.) /o u know, this s is not a g e
general forum where ,
(cont.) anyone who wishes to speak on any subject can walk in off the
e -» ► this 3
. street. We �e taking evde�c s a form,a7,. hearing,
we operate under the Tigard r!,nicipal Code ....- it you have some
problem with that, see the v,ity Council -'--
•
Popp: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry. I have sat in the part of Chairman
of this Planning ,Commission, and I think we are the way to hell
right
riff skew nor. Frank is absolutely correct in asking,
somebody, "Axe you either 'opposed, or are you in . avor." Now
• that's no t too much to ask of this gentlemen whether he's
Just a minute, sir •r-» whether hells representing himself or 100
no It's a simple statement,neighbors, or w'hrae.ger he is. '�� elther ,, '
You are speaking it favor of a proposal or in opposition to j
proposal. Now that is a e t and I think
. simple statement of fact
he is entirely correct in asking for it Not the only other
point I pant to make: I think the conduct of some of the people
here tonight has been pretty dauk,k bads When you s eak
a you are
given an opportunity to speak, and I think we owe it to each
fl other to shut our mouths and, listen to the op13o211-tion speak;
whether we like what they say or whether we don't like what they
say. But we've got an obligation I think, and of right and of
as far '1
i fellow courtesy to afellow citizens to hear them out. Note
as I am conuerneda we are talking about a J. B. Bishop/Buchholz
developmeat here, and I think that's what the issue should 'oe.
, I an sorry, Mr. chairman.
'epedino Thank you, Commissioner Poppy It .rau've been in this chair, and
/ know where y ou stand. Okay. Anybody
wishing to speak
eak
in opposition to,the proposal? Op osition—th se against?
y you have to keep the Mr* Chairman, what authority do P he prbpanents
of this to stop thel from speaking? They havens t 'finished yet.
Is that democracy
(several 4 1e s eakin at once. President
p p p g' gavelled frax...ordei*)
Voice: I'll identify mar 4
� �' y�e1f as in favor of the proposal as stated by
Mr. Bishop.
- Tepedino: Well, that's wonderft\l. I'm glad to hear You say that., And
I
will recognize you ,... for about five minutes, Its nor
eleven ►
Voice: I won't,...-1 won't even take that much of your title
Tepedinoz Let reiterate, at Is shut this hearing dow`xt
Great,
p haven'b dome , be �t, and we will •
x� �`� hs. e d iivh then
it up at the next Public hearinga
1141,18 '.: My name is Steve .jausti: I am a residant of Tigard, wait en
4 TRANSCRIPT OP PLANNING COt SSION HEAPING
J. B. Bishop/G.I. Joes I
,, . Apra. 22, 1980
•qt
a
' Fausti a member of NP0, h1., and resident of the area that encompasses
51', • (Cont.) Ash Avenue. Without saying anything, 1°11 submit a petition
e that, is consistent with the plan being proposed by Mr. Bishop
anal his associates, and let the petition speak for itself as
a matter of record, and will not take any,mere of your time.
(Presented petition for record. Nate: The petition pretested.
any extension of Ash Avenue.)
Tepedino, I now close the Pro and con portion of this hearing, axi,d open -
it for cross exartnation and/or rebuttal -- if anyone has any
gross or rebuttal on the issues raised. Yes, sir.
Janik Mr. Chairman, my name ie :5tephen Janik, speaking for the applin '
�
_
can '��..e. 1�r, smitt, i.s entirely right. V'° are on a` Npecifx.c
proposal. Ni'. PaPp, I think, is equally right* The issue is ~,
not the overall transportation plan far this community, n or the
issue of a civic center. We res that po•,nd to only because your
staff's report finds those as reasons to recommend denial of
.� . . oar request We,
submit that this
request should be Judged on
its own merits apart from those larger—scale community issues
that at least t wo of Your Plannin g
CoMm;,.ssa.ain, members I think
have quite proper?y indicated are not before ';you. Thank you.
•, Tepedinar
Thank you, Mr. Janik. Any other parties wishing to speak on
• cross—exam or rebuttal? Staff, do you have an y q uestions or a'
1. comments?
Howard: Yes, Sir ,
Tepedino: I close the public hearing on this issue. Commission.(rs3' a
e roved as it is, this in If
Smith; I would like to start out, first, to settle one issue. I,
absol.utel. �o way this proposal
absolutely
P p were app v��
Street will not
guarantees the residents of the area that Ash Street
very a'�a,re of
be continued through. I would like to ,make you
that, because the continuation of Ash street is a separate item,
and whether a st,,,,eet is run through this development or not to
Ash Street has nothing to do With whether or not Ash Street is
going to be built with a.,subdivision later. 'You understand that
Ash Street does not in any way come in contact with this property.
''• n• � .. � here wuRret�attnaeinto��ax��arean . : a
So many of you who have been 4
�, +� is• t�going to guarantee
tinuation of Ash S reet t think you're getting�� r
where ha,ving this approved is no g g o g arantee what You
are soaking,
Nov I have a couple of comments on the Proposal as it is one
prblem is concerning our flood lain, area, which if I understand
g p
G+° oo��zyectl;y is also a designated greenbelt and 1 won .d like
". staff to correct mea portion of floodplain area which lies
directly under - it lo,oke like the east side —» 0
*28a
.
TRANSCRIPT OF PLANNIL COMMISSION HEARING B.,K April a2, 1980
Howard: Yes, sir, that*s correct.`
•
Smith: Has staff, worked with the applicant on this, and is there any
general agreement in resolving that?
Howard No, sir, there hasn't* We have tried to work with the applicant
but there has not been a resolve of that issue. The b7.lilc ,g as
plan P
the site late. s�soWG in in the flood lain,
Stns. h okay. And the greenviay t
Howard
Yes,` sir.
Smith: Okay. So we do have ,. « . (2 or 3 words unclear)*
sensitive 4 y application 3axids
Hov�ax�d, do, but is portion an^a 1i:cation for a
You do you also have
permit, which i a p r 'on of the record*
Smith: One of the problems that I have with the traffic circulation
Pattern is that essentially You are saying that your access to .
the a P.a c i f c Highway. t 1
�,.,. .�wv.a.�r.v at the $l?ut.l'4 end of the Project--I understand
correctly « .` . . no leaving, leaving this project,
Bishop: At the north end, onto 1.tein Street.
smith: okay, you are going to have a right turn only? At the south
end, does that have the same M « . •
Bishop, The State Highway Department letter which was issued after the
r;^ staff report Was written is absolutely` a three-phase signal
where traffic would stop coming--as part of the TSM progam—,,
coming from north and south
,.' Smith: I just needed a little extra • c . on that.
Bishorq It will be signalized.
Smith: . . * 0 (a few words lost) . Does that align with any other
streets on the other side_of Pacific Highway?
Howard: To the south? No g sir; it does not. St.
th ony e,s parking lot*
Smith Okay, what is the street .—
Hoard: McKenzie is the one-dray' street by Floyd r e restaurant. Noi sir,
it does not (cross the highway).
Smith: Oka - north access--that t a right t rn only?
�`» On the
RoWard,t 'es*.
y,
r I j�
C INSCRIPT OF PLANTING COM SION HEARING
I J. B. Bishop/G.I. Joes
April 22, 198
•
Smith: And so all traffic that wants to eater 99 and travel south
either has to go by way of the south exit or essentially through'
Main Street, around the loop. You cart.,t`get out the north end ;,
and access onto J'ohnson Street or Pacific Highway in. either
direction?
Howard: That's correct.
Smith: t
Okay. So the thing I want to say is the anl.y exit to Pacific.
Highway is the south exit/ so essentially the traffic getting
onto the Pacific Highway to go either north or south is one
exit, unless that traffic is channeled all the tzay through
:Main Street. I have a little bit of a problem with that ;due
•
to the size of this development,r I dontt know' the solui,' on
and am not proposing one; but I have a pzcblem with one exit
to 99 or otherwise channeling t.�� channelled traffic- •I can
" seepeople t eavi g this wanti g to o travel north on 9 , and their
pi might very well be tc' travel all the `ay up Main Street,
, which is already a problemp Parti :ta arly $ith
the de w olopmsnt
at the other end, At the moment ;I really, dons t care abat.t streets
g'e'tting over to Ash Gtrr.et or krte, �i n Y }� on {r , gj�,o
. . ' ...,. or err.wvr drra..g t,oh..No.M6 v., ta.k.oY�gh,
but I think there still are going to be some problems'with just
the circulation to 99 and Main Streets.
Tepedino: Thank you, Commissioner, Commissioner Popp? '
Excuse me while l cool down.
�'oPp, � \
Tepedino: okay, x011 come back to 'ou.
y
Funk:
just r9' read ever
Let �,e ust sa Mr. Chairman* that I have read y word in
this whole presentation* An d being a businessman in Tigard*
I have absolutely no opposition to Tigard O 6 . . o * s
However, until the transportation plan will benefit ever/1221E
3n Tigard I at going to withhold my approval, until somebody
out a a
works out better circulation plan.
Tepedino Thank you, Commissioner FUnk. Co seioner Bonn
Bonn; Well, I did some calculations based e estima trip
end the figure here 840ocats Pet hour that figures
out one car Per four'eeconde Thaws a hell : raffj
generation* y �
�; elZ of a lot of �ra.��'3.c
to feed oUt of this two exits. ,The other` areas in town that ,
ave verY large traffic
<hari real, late or real. ea generators)Mars, any t�l�e of the day other:
wrl� there ire a traffic f the
count line ill. the y� there. . �a� from
y way through Tigard. a . • • (lo re.�ed voice,
rote lost; conr;erned traffic) . broject lows very, nice
,
4.nc,t / am in
favor of
it When the traffic j roblen is rasaiveds
Tepedino: oomrii ssioner Helmer/
!
•
I a:
L
' TRANSCRIPT OF PLA T1 I tx CON NISStOIN HEARING '
1 J B. Bishop/GUI. JoeS
April 22, 1980
Helmer: 'dell, I have to agree with Commissioner Funk about the Maul ,
Street traffic fic problem; and also I have a problem with:the layout
of the parking lot ..- there is no way that they are going to ,
get any kind of .semi trucks across this parking lot with any
kind of traffic at all and make deliveries, and even .
• . e at night,
Tepedino Thank you* Commissioner Speaker? r ,
Speaker: Well, I agree with Mr,. Funk that there are •-- well, let's put
it this day: I think there are larger issues that have not
been faced up to, and that is that greater good to the community ,
for extension of streets.
Tepedino Commissioner Herron?
Herron: I have two questions I need clarification on: do I understand
it right that U You are coifing out the north end of the shopping '
■ you wanting to turn Johnson,
center ana ou �o �o make a 1ef.'�b,ar,d tuxn Qnta Ja
you would be crossing traffic, Is Johnson going to have traffics
•
.o '
, Howard: To the north on Main Street by the library at the present time?
Herron: Right
Howard and others: You would come out and take a right turn gym•you cannot
make a left turn. .,.
13erra>? Okay, so that would be safe so far as that -- the way it is
proposed. My other question, is it right that there is going
,' r to be a stop light at Walnut Street..-a traffic light is going
�, to be installed Walnut Street? And ,park Street?
,i/i al3.ed at �'dal.n.
Howard: Yes, ma'am,.
Herron: here, it �ratxld, meat Johnson And then if we had another light here
this street—.this intersection and Walnut-- -'
Howard: And school Street but that's a pedestrian-+actuated one ►
• Herron.
Okay. My feeling right now is I would hay() to go with Commis-
sioner Funk; I think this traffic situation 4j0 my Main, problem.
t( Tepodaho , Thank you. Commissioner T o leas
Kansas: 't'he rest have sta ted my doubts on thie Whole thing. 1 think ".
+ traffic 4 " "h more a 6 W
the traffic �: trc�Gioi�.s now. And adding that tm�lw
.. 4 town. Its terrible. And they haven t mmde that nuoh
of an effort to ease the traffic problem at all. another thing
is the .,. right at Johnson, and this one at the south; where -
' they have designated .i wouldn't this oon:f . :ct' between those
two lights/
(
_3i
r
. r
•
TRANSCRIPT OF PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
J. B. Bishop/G.I. Joes
April 22, 1980
TePedino: Staff?
Howard: Between Johnson and this proposed light is «�- 375•, 550, something
like that. That's what they call for the stacking distance.
That's mandatory.
Tepedino: Okays thank you, Commissioners. My only comments are to reiterate
what has been said here already. The other point I would have
to me
to make is, it seems first of all, it sounds like a
•,
well thought out proposal as .far as it went: Tigard would
g_
uefit from something like t
.be^ .t n` tc comments
that. But in add3.t.�o
made by my fellow commissioners, the other thing that bothers
"me is, there seems to be., ur there seems to have been, some kind
of a breakdown in communications. I hear staff saying something
about; the traffic pattern, but I hear the applicant saying
that he has already addressed it, and I can't understand haw
that happened, but maybe it's the lateness of the'hour. But
. � other than the transportation/traffic patterns, the flvodpl.aizz
"issue which was raised . it just seers that we have incomplete ,
data on this thing. That bothers me .— when Ws get data on the
"night of the hearing,`that's useless: I'm always' bothered by
that. Staff, 'do Yon have any comments?
, Howard: The reasons for denial were that -* if yeu just go through the
I specifically asked that the traffic study - yott know, that
we have taped about. A.nd the a plicant addressed specifically
the fact that a portion of the land he has included in the
Project is not Project
p 02 Now we have not had a
t under his control.
since I've been here one to us where there wasn't some atten–
tion . , am trying develop this
Piece ofproperty, and I don't control it, nordo I have a
plan
to control its" That's s a little
' disconcerting.
The impact of the large structures.--I think we can work on that
real easi there's no difficulty.culty. We have provided the PD
s
Ordinance it May mean the manipulation of a few, buildings
to serve, You know, the needs of the neighborhood - I didn't
think that was so difficult.
The indirect source permit — that's a toughie. There are some
problems in that particular area there are problems in Tigard
generally; we have heard comments made about air Pollutions
1p not just on this project but manY others. It would seem that
it,, ondit_.ox in the a,. scant
rather for us trying to approve it c g pp
to say, °Well, will you guarantee to us that you will in fact
live up to that dictate of 3 EQ," and they` says is rdU can't e
resalvea it's a Small loo r.: to be u i and I d like �'to see that if
. that in a pr'eserta►
or at least some attention given to
tion before this body, becauee I think it's n�pertant, and. I
�, times, to real%e
think we have heal,d, that enough
i
that the
l
r
'^rye•. ,.
yt
•
�, TRANSCRIPT OF PLANNING COMMISSION'HEARING
u B. Bishop/G.I. Joes
April 22, 1980
Howardt impact that we do create by approval should be subject to that
(Cent.) regulation.
u At 'last night's City Council meeting, Councilman Brian, with
the approval of the majority of the Council, directed that
mysel:—...meet with all interested people, set up a meeting.-we
have put out fayorsathere are invitations to the meeting on the
back table,..–there will be notices in the public newspapers,
we will contact service clubs and the organizations...–the
• Chamber of Commerce, businessmen, whoever. Their directive was
that we gather the general ,consensus of all of the people in
Tigard relative to this project and relative to Main Street
development .we are talking k•µ
. � parking and raft of other
things, and to sit in this room on April 30'at
about �r...,.1�1 a3xct a
-g p �� P 3 7".30 p.m --
The Focus on DoWntown Tigard in the 1980s. This is an invita--
tion to anyone' who is interested. We'd like you to come and
make your wishes known to us so that we could react to theme.
Council has also directed that wo seek funds for the civic
centers T he Friends of the Library have requested and will
be
granted a certain portion of money this year towards the bu lditg f
of a new library, so they are instrumental in the redevelopment
of downtowns, We have met with the Chamber of Commerce and
ether Ma be two years ago the project was dead; but
d,
I think that l get that reading, w r
groups.
that until we do � g, and I think I ,
represent the Council's wish, until we get the reading from
the people on all the issues through this informational meetinis
and sharing ideas with you, that we don't have a firm hand on
development, which will be with for many
such things as this, dev us
Years to come„
Te edino p Thank staff. Commissioners?
•
Punk: I should like to ask a question: maybe I should know the answer
myself, I don'ts Is there any way that we can salvage for the 1
applicant any portion of this application. here? Can we break
off? We cannot break off?
toward: Well, the difficulty is that
� y you break off looking for � �
• pieces when the y come back. Now we have tried this in the past,
and it ;just doeau't seem to work, that we talk about a certa i r
� st. come back with a tx•affictanal�s the devel.oprn i�t••.. wc�
base � or we talk about a e i f
it','et is,_what we are asking for
we, come '?ack with DEO ghat you're asking for »'
Tepedine t It may not be fair to the applicant, because if We break off
a piece ar.d think it's great, and he comes back and w'an'ts the
green light and we say, 'FWe :l, how, we don't like the floodplain
development, u . b 0 would you come back on that''_. ..
Fuck: I was just thinking of the zoning o o
n of it. Bu t
to
m ,
fa
I I
I1
A r
' I n
TRANSCRIPT OF PLANNING COMh. .6SION HEARING
J. Bo Bishop/GmI. Joes
April 22, 1980
Funk: restrict him to come back with a detailed traffic study and a
(Cont.) realigned Johnson Street and Malt Street, I don't think I am in
.
favor of a Main Street/Johnson Street realignment as it is proposed on the gall.
Howard: That's fine. All we have asked is for some alternatives, and:.
We have asked this now since the applicant first came through
the door: Please show us alternative plans, please provide
information so that we can ; adequately address some of our
concerns, and repeatedly we got a traffic count and the same
intersections. Now you know, that's -w- and he's known about
this up front for a long time. Okay. Now he will say to you,
as he did this evening,, "Look--you made me keep doing these
traffic counts and traffic analyses." That's right. Because
p of property.. He went down and
got aretnart*�thatawasn't it original r� osa1 to us, so
go �� original �' P
that changed the entire complex of the site. Now it's very
difficult for us to adjust to that when the project keeps
enlarging and the`uses keep Chang i,ng.
Tepedino: • Okay. Com .issionersa The hearing is closed on this• *it is up
for your action nog
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I don't really favor the staff's position of •
extending the street on through to Ash, and I think there is
a reality here that we ought to consider, and that is that we
can work out---staf f and the Planning Commission and the appli-
cant--the best
technical. detail; but we c an't ignore political
realities. And in general I don't 1114.e to give political
realities even lip service; still, they do make a point 'con ,
cerning past attitudes of people in the neighborhood; and unless
somebody here has some real indication that the City Council is
going to in the long run absorb that type of pressure, I think
that's a reality. Okay. But r"m not particularly in favor
I'm not sure, Aldie, that that is the solution to that area
Howard! ' '
I m not either.
I think there may be some compromiaea that We can deal
Smith> with
later. 13o.--but .l'm not happy with the applicant's`present'
traffic pattern, and I realize its a difficult problem, and l
don't think the applicant is hedging quite as much as you think,
but l think they've got a difficult problet to work vith, and
I'M not sure that in this particular application that we have
resolved them; and what I 'really Weald like to see is a great
deal more cooperation in the applicant and the staff to gtry to
4 ° PP tie up with some kind of a batter solution to access to 99
M o:nd the Main Street Problem* I am not`concerns& about Ash.-.
^ - 'that's a separate ±sste. But the ;Main Street problem is ohs.
the other end of Rath Street, you know;
we completely y a
realigned that; and something ia'' �oin t
o have
d
T ANSCRIPT OF pLANNIh CQ1wIIgi,ssiON HE. RING �'
1 J. B Bi,shop/G.IA Joes
April 22, 1980'
Smith: to be done with this end, whether it's of that nature or a
(Cont.) little different; I'm not sure.
The problem that I have right now is, that we don't have the
time or the means to really put this thing together and say to
the pp ..cant s o s s Thi i the kind of thing ing we would like to see."
It's a lot more complicated than that'.. And if it's necessary
to turn this down simply to get that process back into action--
and we may have to do it--and like I say, I have very little '
Problem with the rest of the concept With the exception of some
floodplai;rn issue; but I think we are going to have to turn down
simply because there is a lot more homework that needs to be
done on Main Street and traffic problems. •
TQ edino s
p Do you want to make a motion, sir?
Smith„ es: I would move for denial;1 not ba sed upon staff recommerida«•
tions, but denial based on inadequate design of access, to 99
and tie-in to Main Street, and an unsettled f. 00dp1ainigreen
belt question.
Tepedino: Motion, made »
Ko11eas Second,u
Tepedino: Seconded, Further discussion? Commissioner Popp.
Popp: Mr. Chairman" I can understand the concern that has been
expressed, since this issue I think has first come otit, In
talking with a lot of people--or at least 1 have endeavored to
talk with people around town--I think everybody has one main
hangup- the hangup I think gets back down to traffic-a-aat least
• for everybody l talked to that -- I talked to s e people who
have
buinesses on Main Street, citizens, housewives, neighbors,
c s
y y else, and I have contacted a'number of people, and
that I can very well understand; r' think everybody . a .
<> . id,traffic . don't know if at 100 per
cent
satisfied, either, with the traffic situation in fact should
d
say I knob I am not satisfied, but to be very blunt about it
. . O • . e answer right now I am not in favor denials
approving tI would feel just the opposite ray. I ant' in favor of zon e change for develops ent in, concepts with the
P p , th
stipulation that the developers and Staff get together to attempt
to iron oat--there°s too many problems that I can foreseS the
lands issue, and the traffic. T don't think either are insure,'
mountable-.I think endeavoring and trying and attempt to work
together, think these things could be ironed out, still
think there is a little bit better traffic circulation pattern.
Like I say . 0 looking at this for four days * o .
o however I do gp against the mea"
strongly � es we ,have I i
o gave to ,sur
b be
ri � because s I still very
am
von. of the proposal,.
•
�' n fa
..
•
•
•
•
TRANSCRIPT OF PLANNING COM�ii`` SSION HEARING = "' '
J. B« Bishop/G.I. Joe:
April 22, 1980
" Popp: I think, that it could be worked out that staff would help to
(Cont.) wo rk out these two P r ble s, I don't think the y are major or
obstacles.
Tepedi,no: Okay. Further discussion
Sneaker: Mr. President, I would vote aga!nat the vote for denial with '
the expectation that I think it tou1d be better to be tabled.
"
: Tepedinos I tend to concur. Rather than taking a pro or con position
i irur�
at this time I guess the major thing that bothers me is,
haven't read all the data that was given to us tonight, and
• T
that bothers 'me„
Speaker: Another thing -- I think the applicant has through this, I
think we have, too, become aware of quite a wide range of con•
cerns which I think need'to be addressed with the staff, and
the staff has the same opportunity. And by tabling I would
expect t thew to come t come to is
• p , ��ulr� com..
nge,.her, and. the staff
and say, "Well, we're getting along pretty well-..let's advertise
a meeting for another public hearing."
M Tepedino: Okay. Further discussion on the lotion
•
Smith: Yess, Aldie, what are the consequences of this being turned
down--how much time for the applicant to reapply?
Howard: Tomorrow,
Smith: okay, so this isn't 'something where they can't reapply for six
months •
Howard: I think we should answer the difficulty tonight that J. B.
brought up about '• You know -- "I was scheduled for one meeting "
There were other people that were scheduled, that had their
material in to us. Now only to be fair to them, I. can't' stack
them and say, "Well, we are having a special meeting,“ and.
ppl " up. Now that just isn't cricket. .
one applicant shr�t�a u
Smith: MY point is this:
I' think that if we are going into some sort
of . . 0 6 6, or compromise on this, I think' we 'basically have
to ask the question, would we normally permit this with other
applicants under these circumstances: are these cirdUmsta:n,ces
really that unique, and particularly in the case where the appli--
cant can essentially work his over a g ain and reapply
and d
g et r on the agenda? o n is no problem, right? I
mean it'd not like it was
a Year and a half a o When we Were
I
.
hating tour meetings a month.
BoWard: That's correct,;
!,. .;. »; ,v...r• v.....,,rya. r,.... ..
G.N.<;ory .r;•;..w .m.0 rwm ; .n a aw ,xw;n.mY.e,;rn... .;..;:.. ..'.i., ... .•. I.;. •;...•,.;f. , r w�+NYGr-'"' .
TRANSCRIPT OF PZASVVIA COMMISSION
HEARING TAG
' Jo B. B shopfG.S Foes
April 22, 1980
Smith: There's no problem getting back -- It's not my intention to
deny this �n terms of delaying the applicant, or saying, to
.•' yg, Ida,.
/ I really don't'want G.Z. Joe's there"; but its my feeling that
/ 1" there are a couple of significant unanswered problems, and I
think this is an appropriate way to put those problems back on
•
the drawing board and work them out; and I '`just at this time
don't feel that a tabling of this would really accomplish that,
' e a d o Okay, other comments?s2 We still l k av a motion made and
seconded
•
Funk: I would just like to say I see no other way to broaden the
just y Y:
commercial base of Tigard without extending it to Ash Street
or Grant Street. We have to get away from the strip commercial
and broaden the base of Tigard in order to create a community,
and not just a highway whistle stop. I would say one of the
best and only solutions is the construction of Ash' Street;
and then if there has to be either a realignment of Johnson
or Main Street...something far better than drawing
� what�s or, the _1
board could be drawn.
Te edino:
l.een made and seconded for
'• ' � .
• P Any other comments? A motion has
denial. I call for the question. All those in favor of the
motion made and seconded for denial signify by saying ayes,
4 I
Chorus: Aye.
e
no e
di cis o ose
T d
P
ThOse
Small chorus: go,
Tepedito: Can we have a Count? The motion on was made and seconded
denial, can we have a count? The ayes are for the denial,
Howard: The yes y will be for denial. Tepedino • aye; Speaker no;
Popp a no; Mrs. Kolleas . yes; Mr. Smith - aye; Mass Herron , yes; p
Mr Helmer yes; Mr. Funk �- yes; Mr. Bon '". no.
Six yes, three no.
Tepedino: The motion carries on a sixi-to-three vote for denial. The
applicant has a right to appealo
•
fie
, + .,.,., , e, u. .. i „ x... . ++.«.,4•meewrio,nxew.a.a�*v,�; ,r.,. ...e . .. I, ._I , I ,.i.l „, . ..,
`1 VImI J • '