08/20/1985 - Packet TIGARD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Tuesday, August 20, 1985 - 7:30 A.M.
Pioneer Pies
1. Review minutes of July 16, 1985 meeting.
2. Election of Chairman.
3. Report on the Survey Results.
4. 1985-86 Action Plan.
5. Preparation of Committee/Chamber slide or video presentation
6. Workshop with City Council - August 19, 1985
7. Discussion on field visit to view Tigard Economic Development
Sites.
8. Presentations by Developer.
9. Other Business.
10. Next Meeting - September 17, 1985
11. Adjourn
i
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF IIGARD, ORE(A.)N
TO: Members of the Economic Development Committee August 14, 1985
FROM: William A. Monahan, Director of Community Development\fv '`�
SUBJECT: Survey Results
Enclosed please find a copy of the survey results which I: have prepared for
the downtown questionaire. I attempted to draw some generalizations from the
responses. We will discuss these results at our next meeting.
Please bring these materials as well as the others sent to you with the agenda
to the meeting on Tuesday, August 20, 1985 at 7:30 AM. Please be reminded
again that the discussion with the Council originally scheduled for August 19
has been postponed to September 16, 1985.
(WAM:bs/1733P)
CF N-I RAL_ B1JSI:NES S D1.STR I( I
SURVEY ANAI._Y�:;TF,
]. . What do you feel. are the existing problems which prevent the centra].
business district from developing into a stronger center?
12 Traffic
12 Parking
3 Zoning
5 Existing business mix
15 Appearance of the area
3 Public Facilities
1 Other
Appearance of the area was cited as the major problem. One respondent
stated that public property was the problem. Traffic and parking were
also cited as mayor problems.
Among the comments provided by the respondents, several related to zoning
and business mix. There was no clear consensus, however, as some felt
that industry should be phased out, consistent with the comprehensive
plan, while others favored allowing new industrial uses. Appearance of
the area was rated as needing improvement.
Traffic and parking were rated as inadequate 'for 'the needs of the area.
Improvements were suggested.
2. Do you think the following would be positive steps toward improving the
area?
The appearance of downtown buildings was cited as the major problem. 78%
felt that property owners should be encouraged or required to better
maintain the appearances of their property . Other positive steps
identified were creation of a shopping center at the south end of Main
Street, creation of off—street parking lots, and creation of a downtown
merchant' s and property owners promotional organization. Their comments
imply a desire on the part of the property owners and businesses to take
positive steps to stimulate the level of business activity in the area.
3 . What direction should the Committee pursue to help the area change for the
better?
Mixed input was given concerning whether the Committee should be involved
or if the area should be allowed to develop on its own. The majority of
respondents dial, however, suggest that the Committee, Chamber, or City
should work to improve the area and establish a plan. Comments about
appearance were again voiced .
4 , What can the private sector, the existing property owners. and business in
the area, do to improve the downtown?
Appearance of the area dominated these responses also Improvement of
existing buildings and efforts to make a cleaner' neater appearance were
cited , Present property owners were encouraged to get together and plan
for a better downtown, spend money for improvements, or sell to someone
who will upgrade the property .
5. What are the greatest positive factors which would attract new business to
the area?
Improved appearances, parking, bringing responsible development to the
area, and improved government involvement were suggested. Improvements
suggested throughout the survey were reiterated. Better governmental
input was mentioned in terms of a need for leadership' specifically in
dealing with potential developers.
8. Any other comments?
Some positive comments were expressed, again about appearance and
attitude. Suggestions for creation of an architectural review committee'
improvement to a portal drop condition, and park improvements which would
stimulate pedestrian traffic were mentioned,
(WAM:bs/1733P)
l. . Please elaborate on your coricerris for thc:� existing problems which prevent
the central. businoss distr-i.c:t: from developing into a st:rorig er commercial
center, and other problems which you feel. exist:
X Main Strc-et traffic and parking are riot very good .
With regard to Main Street - the portion south of the
railroad tracks could benefit from a shopping center at the
south end as previously planned. This section has the
poorest appearing buildings. Building owners need an
attraction to merit improving existing buildings. This
would improve the whole street. Parking is about adequate,
though angle parking makes for difficulty in backing into
traffic.
*
Zoning on Burnham should be changed back to Light
Industrial instead of C-P.
Move business district to Pacific Hwy .
* Traffic is Circa 1985 controlled as if it were Circa 1885.
I feel there are no problems that the downtown area is
viable, etc. We are in an economic slump when Oregon and
Portland comes out of slump, downtown Tigard will be
jumping. Have you noticed some shopping malls that have a
lot of amenities also have lots of space for rent - it' s
economic times.
Post Office dropbox traffic is a mess. Create additional
drop areas such as in turn-around area at south end of
Main. (In front of liquor store if you want?) .
* The industrial area needs to be phased out - not in in the
area. The value of the property will go up not down if
strong leadership will set the goal and not waiver.
Restricting the flow from side streets onto Main. Main
Street becomes a bottleneck.
The main problem spot in Tigard is on Main Street. It is
out-dated. There are so many new business centers in the
Tigard area, that the little shops could go too. We really
need to have specialty shops - like a big parts house
leaning more towards helping industry out. Machine Shop.
Widen Main Street all along from one end to the other.
Discount Food Store should be zoned for the above.
* I think that without exception of maybe a few buildings
that the appearance of the downtown is pathetic. Maybe if
we organized effort towards this, it would help.
Particularly most of the buildings on the west end have had
little or nothing done to them in years . Another important
thing is to fill the empty buildings with viable businesses .
'
'
* TiSard needs a Lvng Range Plan for enhancement. and
development of the core area. The establishment of the
Greenway Pak and the positioning of the Civic Cenier were a
good start Now there is a need to establish a time frame
on getting the industrial uses out of the core area.
* If relocating the railroad is not an option then the next
best thing would be to beam it or use landscape materials
for site and sound screening .
* I feel that the City of Tigard should have better control
of the building that is now occurring in the City'
residential as well as commercial. As a local testing the
inspection agency, we are frequently called upon to inspect
sites in the City' but the City Building Department has not
listed on the building permits what inspection and/or
testing they require. When we have called asking for
clarifications, we get the impression that they have no set
guidelines for building practices. We suggest that tighter
controls and set guidelines be established as per the
Uniform Building Code.
* The west end of town looks terrible.
* Main Street in Tigard is often at capacity restricting the
flow from side streets onto Main. Main Street becomes a
bottleneck.
*
Most cities are doing away with center dioideru, and having
left turn lanes . We fuel the dividers tend to push the
traffic on through. If it isn't easy and convenient to get
into a place of business, most people will look for a place
more convenient.
* (») We need an easier access to Main Street at the north
entrance — like a right turn at Green6urg R6. to Center
Street and then down to Commercial and under the overpass .
(») Business overny and property owners need to improve
their existing premises modernize and landscape. (»)
Parking could be placed on the railroad right—of—way
between Hall Blvd . and Tideman with cooperation of SP &
BN. («) Storm drainage and street improvements in the
downtown area would keep as was planned under urban renewal
— The tin building along Fanno Creek should be removed and
Tri—Met Transfer station put there.
*
Living in Seattle and not gutting to Tigard often' it is
hard to make decisions.
* The City owned property is unkept and ugly . No or low
maintenance such as around creek and bridge, bridge needs
paint and cleaning. Area around railroad tracks is
overgrown and needs grass or planting or something that
appeals to the eye. Most private property is well kept.
Those properties that are a6ondoned should be weeded or
maintained at owners expense' even if that includes City .
loo heard to drive to and park in downtown liyard . No ed
larger areas for general -commercial zoning.
Anything - almost -- done to the south end of l i.gard would
be an improvement. Clean up around Girods Bldg. would help
too -- seems the bus stop there is always a mess.
* Do not feel Tri Meat is worth 'its' expense, and feel service
should be limited - not expanded.
* The continuity of charm, character and architecture are
terrible not just poor. Signs are not uniform — yards are
not maintained. The Payless shopping center and the City
entrance are not well kept — weeds and uncut grass are
almost year round. Poor leadership and very low—standard
thinking dominate the community leadership. No identity to
downtown. People ask where is downtown Tigard?
2, Do you think the following would be positive steps toward improving the
area?
YES NO NC
7 16 Development of a Tri Met transfer station at the site of
the Tigard Auto Body.
15 8 A shopping center- at the south end of Main Street.
8 13 2 Rezoning of land along the railroad tracks on Burnham
Ave. to allow industrial uses.
13 81 2 Creation of off—street parking lots.
18 48 1 _ Encourage or require property owners to maintain the
appearance of their buildings.
13 8 2 Creation of a downtown merchant' s and property owners
association to promote the downtown.
3 . What direction should the committee pursue to help the area change for the
better? (Let the area develop on its own, represent the business
community before the City Council., etc . ) .
* The committee should speak for the community in a for,
organized way .
Let the area develop on its own. There are already too
many groups and committees in Tigard .
* Continued Chamber contact with Council .
Let the area develop on its own.
The area needs a shot in the arm — sidewalks, streets,
sewer and storm drains to get: the area cleaned up —
somethi.ng like urban renewal. .
'
'
* I definitely feel ihat every ciiy needs oareful planning to
attract ohopperx . (Rep resent business community)
* Call in groups of downtown property owners Co discuss the
future with the Economic Development Committee and then net
some goals and projects .
*
Sponsor a competition among City planners to 6eu8in the
ideal city plan for Tigard. Get the best kinds available
to 6o some long range possibility thinking.
* I believe the charm of Tigard is one of old town and small
and that to promote that theme of omall town in the complex
world is refreshing.
* Industrial Business. Keep runt within reason. Have a
speed zone that is mandatory for the trains going through.
Sometimes it looks like they pass here at 60 mph.
* Improve the overall quality of the area. For instance the
park on the east end is a mess most of the time.
* There used to be such a committee and that seemed to be
helpful .
* Get a better anchor store than Costco for downtown shopping
center idea. G.I. Joe' s was perfect! Too 6a6 about that
one. Even though it would have hurt my business mightily! !
* Set up a master plan - Set high goals. I really question
the judgement in allowing a body building business in a
downtown retail location. U.S. Bank was allowed to build
an ill--designed parking lot and color their building with
unattractive colors . No common sense sometimes .
4. What can and should the private sector, the existing property owners, and
6uoinuuy in the area, 6o to improve the downtown?
*
Push for off-street parking lots, get together on Pushing
for promotion.
* Start over and remove old existing buildings and create a
new imag for downtown.
*
Spend some money improving total properties.
* Nothing.
* If a group generates the leadership and communicates to the
public, the viability of downtown.
* Some of the current property owners should meet with each
other - those who have vacant land or marginal buildings -
and discuss the possibility of jointly putting their
property together to encourage a large developer to come in
to the downtown area.
X Keep it clean.
Spend some motley or sell out to someone whin Wi.l.lhave
quality business, paint, remodeling, landscaping, improve
traffic flow or patterns, etc .
More and responsible development.
Make a real. effort to make their properties as attractive
as possible. And take an active part in the decisions that
need to be make in working toward the goal. of the ideal
community.
Keep the front of their business neat. City Hall. building
is one of the worst about doing this. Old Planing Mill
Bldg. and A-Boy West are a disgrace. Perhaps the owners
could be encourage to take some pride in their buildings.
Maintain their buildings better, provide off-street parking.
Get a plan together and spend $$. It takes $$ but
communites like Lake Grove and Beaverton are the
progressive leaders - Just look and see what they are
doing! !
5. What are the greatest positive factors which would attract new business to
the area?
Additional off-street parking. Better traffic flow between
side streets and Main Street.
* Parking and neatness.
Need a traffic building in Gi.rod' s (food warehouse) old
location.
Clean looking attractive community with a progressive
business community. Good leadership - Tigard is Famous for
it' s do-nothing backwards leadership.
* Parking, nice appearance, zoning.
Low rents are currently the attraction. Also - many
tenants prefer downtown to the Hwy. 99 locations with the
extremely heavy traffic and difficulty and danger i.n
getting into the parking areas.
* New City government.
Development of south end of Main Street as an anchor plus
Main Street bridge reconstruction, plus overall improvement
of properties in area.
*
Location and identity . Main Street is especially easy to
direct people to.
,
* Street s, sidewalks, signals where needed' sewer and Storm
drains - solid le�Aderxhip and ouppnrt for- 6eveIopnvnt .
* I definitely feel the traffic dividers are the biggest
problem.
* Putting together a large tract of the downtown area for
development of a large and responsible developer.
* An old town theme.
* City maintaining things butter and existing building owners
doing their share.
* A demonstrated sense of fair play and cooperation with
developers by the City staff, Planning Commission, and
Council in fostering new projects of mutual interest and
henifit.
7. Please check the item which best describes you:
Owner of property in the downtown, and
business operator in downtown.
12 Owner of property in the downtown.
Business operator in the downtown.
8. ANY 0T14ER COMMENTS?
*
Downtown merchants and property owners 6u not seem to be
nearly yn concerned as area residents and City staff -
after 15 years of looking at little change I'm wondering if
industrial development might be more appropriate.
* In business myself since 1972 in Portland and Tigard .
*
Tigard needs an architectural committee with some higher
standards. Bob Randall' u building on Sroffinu is ugly
looking - no trim paint used and they painted the cedar
shakes! I must say McDonald' s has net a high standard for
looks which is a national policy - Beautiful yard, etc. !
Stationery store is rual sharp too!
*
There is no pedestrian traffic in the area. An attraction
for people to walk thru the business district would
definitely be helpful. Many businesses will not locate
here because of this lack.
*
We are renters who manufacture products for the lumber and
paper industry so are not too concerned about the downtown
area an a retail business would be.
* A positive attitude would help! That means the City ' s as
well as property owners and businessmen.
Start with one project at a time fi.ni.sh it. - evaluate it:
_ proceed to next: project. I sincorely beli(.,vo postal drop
i.s the most important 1st: priority .
The Civic Center _ Hiking and Fanno Creek developments
should be used to trigger the development of Downtown
Tigard Main Street as a commercial business center. It
should not be downzoned or put back to industrial or
strictly Business—Professional. It should become retail.
A viable economic center.
# I am the past elected committee person for my precinct
#33 . I am involved as much as time and money will allow.
I am very concerned about our town and the quality of life
we all have to live in. I am very conservative by nature
and make do with what I have, and I believe Tigard can do
the same.
I have thought something like this is way overdue. What is
happening on Pacific Highway only shows that we are in the
dark ages. Hillsboro tried something similar, spent a lot
of money on a study and an individual, with basically
nothing coming out of it.
(1697P)
NAMES AND ADDRESS OF SURVEY RE:'l URN`:;
Jackson Pacific Garry Helmer
8900 SW Burnham E-3 1.0585 SW Walnut:
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223
(639-7391 or 693-2224)
J. I. Mitchell Jerry Cash
9117 SW Burnham St. Cash' s Realty
Tigard, OR 97223 12525 S.W. Main Street
Tigard, OR 97223
(639-4137)
Chuck Woodard Patrick J. Furrer
12490 SW Main Street 9185 SW Burnham
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223
(639-1483)
Richard and Melvin Armstrong Wilbur Bishop
E. 9922 Montgomery 12290 SW Main (Bus. Prop. )
Spokane, WA 99206 10590 SW Cook Lane (Home)
Tigard, OR 97223
Warren W. Johnson Allan Paterson
10275 SW Hoodview Dr. 12.700 SW Pacific Hwy .
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 972.23
Bark—Well Products, Inc. Harriet Bolman Busby
P.O. Box 23602 512 So. 145th St.
Tigard, OR 97223 Weattle, WA 98168
(206) 244-2691
John Judge Pioneer Pies Restaurant
John Judge Plumbing & Bakery, Inc.
P.O. Box 23934 E. 9922 Montgomery
Tigard, OR 9722.3 Spokane, WA 99206
Howard J. Tremblay Paul E. Miller
Evergreen Pacific Tree Service Rt. 2, Box 346
8905 SW Burnham St. , Tigard Hillsboro, OR 97123
PO Box 19273, Ptld, 9721.9(Mail)
Carlson Testing, Inc. JoAnn Corliss
Doug Leach Tigard Machine, Inc.
P.O. Box 23814 P.O. Box 23054
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223
Jerry Springer David Wilson
7970 SW Northvale Way U.S. Van Supply
Portland, OR 97225 8900 SW Burnham St.
Tigard, OR 9722.3
Jim Atwood Carl H. Johnson
33 SW 3rd 8973 SW Burnham
Portland, OR 97204 Tigard, OR 97223
Robert C. Moore George C. Kadey
PO Box 23098 Tigard Cycle & Ski
Tigard, OR 97223 12551 SW Main St.
Tigard, OR 97223
Ed Tarbell Richard N. Sturgis
14570 SW 144th 2216 SW Sunset Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223 Portland, OR 97201
(1697P)
CITYOF TIGARD
12755 S.W. ASH
P.O. BOX 23397
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CHECKLIST — July, 1985 TIGARD, OR. 97223
Tigard Economic Development Committee, c/o Dept. of Community Development
12755 S.W. Burnham St. , Tigard, OR 97223 — Phone (503) 639-4171
THE TIGARD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE IS INTERESTED IN HELPING YOU TO MAKE
CONTACT WITH THE GOVERNMENT ENTITIES AND UTILITIES WHICH YOU NEED TO
COORDINATE WITH AS YOU BECOME A MEMBER OF THE TIGARD BUSINESS COMMUNITY.
The Committee hopes that this list suits your needs. If you have further
questions, please call the Department of Community Development at 639-4171 .
CITY OF TIGARD INFORMATION
[ ] LAND USE INFORMATION
To obtain information about zoning, the Comprehensive Plan designation for
your business location, uses allowed in your zone, division of property,
or development standards, contact:
Department of Community Development, Planning Division, City of Tigard,
12755 S.W. Ash Avenue, Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 .
[ ] BUILDING PERMIT
To obtain a building permit for construction or alteration for your
business, contact:
Department of Community Development, Building Division, City of Tigard,
12755 S.W. Ash Avenue, Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171.
[ ] PUBLIC FACILITY AVAILABILITY
To find out if public facilities such as sanitary sewers, storm drainage,
or streets are adequate to serve the needs of your business, contact:
Dept. of Community Development, Engineering Division, City ' of Tigard,
12755 S.W. Ash Avenue, Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 .
[ ] BUSINESS TAX
Anyone doing business in the City on a temporary or permanent basis is
required to pay a business tax annually . Included are all subcontractors,
service providers, home occupations, and temporary uses.
To find out if you need to pay a business tax to operate your business,
contact:
Business Tax Information, Finance Department, City of Tigard, 12755 S.W.
. Ash Avenue, Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 .
[ ] SIGNS
To obtain approval for a new or altered sign for your business, contact:
Department of Community Development Building Division, 12755 S.W. Ash
Avenue, Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171.
[ ] HOME OCCUPATION
To find out if your proposed home occupation meets City criteria to obtain
a permit, contact:
Department of Community Development, Planning Division, 12755 S.W. Ash
Avenue, Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171.
[ ] TEMPORARY USE
Any business wishing to operate for a limited period of time or in a
non-permanent structure requires a temporary use permit in addition to a
Business Tax Receipt. For information, contact:
Department of Community Development, Planning Division, 12755 S.W. Ash
Avenue, Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171.
OTHER RESOURCE CONTACTS
[ ] UTILITIES-ELECTRICITY, NATURAL GAS, TELEPHONE CABLE TELEVISION, SOLID WASTE
Most of Tigard is served by the Tigard Water District. Some northern
properties are served by the Metzger District. The Tigard Building
Division can advise you as to which district to contact.
To obtain information about the following utility services for your
business, contact:
WATER - Tigard Water District, 8841 SW Commercial St. , Tigard, OR 97223
(503) 639-1554.
- Metzger Water District, 6501 SW Taylors Ferry Rd. , Portland, OR
97223, (503) 245-3331
ELECTRICITY - Portland General Electric, Western Division Center, 14655
S.W. Old Scholls Ferry Rd. , Beaverton, OR 97005 (503) 643-5454.
NATURAL GAS - Northwest Natural Gas Company, 220 N.W. 22nd Avenue,
Portland, OR 97209, (503) 226-4210.
TELEPHONE - General Telephone, 17855 N.W. Cornell Rd. , Beaverton, OR 97229
(503) 645-6454.
CABLE TELEVISION - Storer Metro Cable, 14200 SW Brigadoon Ct. , Beaverton,
OR• 97075, (503) 644-3188.
SOLID WASTE - There are three providers of solid waste service in the City
of Tigard. These providers operate under exclusive franchise with the
City. For information on which provider serves your business, contact
City of Tigard, 12755 SW Ash, Tigard, OR 97223, (503) 639-4171.
[ ] FIRE PROTECTION
Most of Tigard is within the Tualatin Rural Fire District's area, however,
the northern portion is within Washington County Fire District #1. The
Tigard Building Division can advise you as to which district to contact.
To obtain information on minimum fire protection standards, contact:
Washington County Fire District #1, 20665 SW Blanton, Aloha, OR 97007
(503) 649-8577.
Tualatin Rural Fire District, P.O. Box 127, Tualatin, OR 97062
(503) 682-2601.
[ ] ELECTRICAL PERMITS
To obtain information on electrical safety and permits, contact:
Oregon State Department of Commerce, Building Codes Division, 2300 S.W.
6th Ave. , Portland, OR 97201 (503) 229-5758.
[ ] HEALTH CODE
The Oregon Revised Health Code Standards for food service govern this
area, for information, contact:
Washington County Health and Sanitation Departments, Washington County
Courthouse, Administration Building, 150 N. First, Hillsboro, OR 97123
(503) 640-3538.
[ ] FOOD HANDLER'S PERMIT
To hand food in your business, you and your employees must acquire a Food
Handler' s Permit from:
Washington County Health and Sanitation Departments, Washington County
Courthouse, Administration Building, 150 N. First, Hillsboro, OR 97123
(503) 640-3538.
[ ] TRI-MET PAYROLL TAX
To obtain information regarding the Tri-Met Payroll tax, contact:
Collection Division, Department of Revenue, State of Oregon, 955 Center
Revenue Building, Salem, OR 97310 (503) 378-3390 or Toll Free
1-800-452-7813 .
[ ] LIQUOR LICENSE
To obtain a license to serve or sell alcoholic beverages at your business,
contact:
Oregon Liquor Control Commission, 217 Plaza Complex, Building Three, Suite
"E", Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 229-6113.
[ ] LABOR LAWS
To find out which labor laws affect your new business, including
affirmative action, wage and hour claims, working minors, employers'
permits, etc. , contact:
Bureau ,of Labor and Industries Technical Assistance Unit, 555 13th Street,
N.E. , Salem, OR 97310 (503) 373-1435 or Toll Free: 1-800-452-7813,
Ext. 1435.
[ ] SAFETY REQUIREMENTS
To assure that your business complies with employee safety requirements
under the Oregon Safe Employment Act, contact:
Accident Prevention Division, Oregon State Worker's Compensation, 10700
S.W. Beaverton—Hillsdale Hwy . , Suite 414, Building 4, Beaverton, OR 97005
(503) 643-0100.
[ ] STATE LICENSES AND PERMITS
To obtain specific state professional licenses and permits to operate your
business, contact:
Economi..c Development Department, Regulations Assistance Center, 155
Cottage Street, Salem, OR 97301 (503) 373-1234.
OTHER IMPORTANT NUMBERS
[ ] Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce, 12995 S.W. Pacific Hwy . , Tigard, OR 97223
(503) 639-1656.
[ ] Tigard School District 2.3J, 13137 S.W. Pacific Hwy . , Tigard, OR 97223
(503) 620-1620.
[ ] Beaverton School District 48, P.O. Box 200, Beaverton, OR 97075,
(503) 649-0283 .
(WAM:br/1431P)
REPORT TO THE BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ON
A FEE-BASED
TRAFFIC IMPACT
SYSTEM
W A S H I N G T O N
COUNTY
- PREPARED BY
THE WASHINGTON COUNTY
GROWTH MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE
JULY 31, 1985
t
TASK FORCE MEMBERS
KIMBALL FERRIS, CHAIRMAN
WAYNE ATTEBERRY
LINDA DAVIS
BOB RAPP
STU MOORE
LINDA PETERS
HANS VATHEUER
STAFF
JOHN E. ROSENBERGER, MANAGER, LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
TOM TUSHNER, TRAFFIC ANALYST
PAULA CALVIN,ASSISTANT PLANNER
EDNA McCAUVRAN, SECRETARY
RON TALACA, GRAPHICS
Report to Board of Commissioners
on
A Fee Based Traffic Impact System
Table of Contents
1 . Introduction
II. Recommendations:
A. Cost Recommendations
B. Background for Cost Recommendation
C. Policy Recommendations
III. Conclusion
Attachments: List of participants contacted ------ Appendix #1
Calculation of Base with
Recommended Reductions ------------- Appendix #2
Revenue Estimate Based
on Proposed Fees ------------------- Appendix #3
Land Use Absorption and
Trip Rate Assumption --------------- Appendix #4
County Road Costs Included in
the Base Within Cities -------------- Appendix #5
Report t^ Board of Commissioners
Fee Base traffic Impact System
Page 2
I. Introduction:
On March 26, 1985, the Board of County Commissioners reactivated the
Growth Management Task Force to review the January 15, 1985 document
prepared by the Department of Land Use and Transportation entitled
"Analysis and Methodology for the Creation of a Fee Based Traffic Impact
System". The Task Force was requested to (a) review the policy choices
identified in that document and those additional choices presented to
the Planning Commission on February 15, 1985, and (b) make
recommendations and propose alternatives for the Board of Commissioners
and Planning Commission consideration regarding the adoption of a system
by which new development would be assessed a Fee designed to pay for the
costs of improvements to the arterial and collector road system in
Washington County caused by that new development.
The Task Force was directed to consider the impact to the road system in
terms of the number of vehicle trips per day generated by the new
development. It was recognized that all the citizens of the County, and
not only those involved with new development, are responsible for the
needed repairs to and future maintenance of the arterial and collector
road system. Consequently, the Task Force was directed to consider the
cost of bringing the existing County road system into compliance with
required County standards only insofar as such consideration was
necessary to accomplish its primary task.
II. Recommendations:
A. Cost Recommendations:
1 . The Growth Management Task Force recommends that the Board
consider adoption of the following schedule of fees for new
development within Washington County:
Residential (All ) $100.00 per trip
Retail Development (all types) $ 19.00 per trip
of retail and commercial )
Office Development $ 91.00 per trip
Industrial Development $ 96.00 per trip
Institutional Uses $ 37.00 per trip
It is anticipated that the fee will be collected at the
time of issuance of the building permit. It is estimated
that adoption by the Board of the above recommended fees
should generate sufficient revenue to improve the
arterial and collector road system in Washington County
consistent with the impact caused by the new development
between now and the year 2000. If experience indicates
that the fees are insufficient they should be adjusted
upward. If the fees generate excess revenues, abatement
in the fees may become appropriate.
Report to Board of Commissioners
Fee Base Traffic Impact System
Page 3
The recommended fees are based upon anticipated trip
generation from new development as assumed in the
Washington County Comprehensive Framework Plan. The
fees, however, do not include trips generated within
incorporated areas. The Task Force views enactment of a
flat fee for all Washington County, including
incorporated areas, as administratively convenient, but
respects the integrity of the separate jurisdictions in
the incorporated areas of the County, and recognizes the
jurisdictional inability of the County unilaterally to
adopt such a system County-wide. If a flat fee is
enacted County-wide, however, by negotiated agreement, the
Task Force recommends reducing the level of the fees
imposed by an amount equal to the new trips generated in
cities less those arterial and collector improvements
anticipated within cities between now and the year 2000.
2. The Task Force recommends that if the Board implements the
recommended impact fee for new development, that fee should
replace the existing Growth Management Standards and systems
development charge (SDC) currently assessed on new development.
The recommendations presented above are based upon a review of the
information presented in the January 15, 1985 document prepared by
the Department of Land Use and Transportation, and information
presented to the Task Force by the Department and representatives
of interest groups within Washington County. Those interest groups
included the Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland and
the cities of Hillsboro and Beaverton. All cities in Washington
County, CPO's, Chambers of Commerce and parties previously
expressing an interest in these matters were notified of the Task
Force deliberation and invited to participate. Appendix 1 is a
list of those persons, agencies and interest groups contacted.
B. Background for Cost Recommendations:
The cost recommendations presented in the preceding pages are based
upon information provided to the Task Force by the Department of
Land Use and Transportation. The information is based upon the
January 15, 1985 document prepared by the Department of Land Use
and Transportation as well as a report prepared by Wilsey and Ham
regarding the methodology and distribution for creation of a fee
based traffic impact system
Based on review and analysis of the information presented, the Task
Force has recommended fees for various land use categories within
the County based upon trip generation caused by new development.
The amount of the fees recommended was based in part on assuming
that the projected land use absorption identified by the Community
Plans of the Washington County Comprehensive Framework Plan will
occur between now and the year 2000.
Report t^ Board of Commissioners
Fee Bast -raffic Impact System
Page 4
The total investment required to improve the arterial and collector
system within Washington County between now and the year 2000 was
initially estimated by staff to be $189 Million in 1984 dollars.
That total was intended as a conservative estimate incorporating
all reasonably foreseeable improvement costs based upon current
adopted County road standards and certain other assumptions
identified in the January 15, 1985 staff document. It was the view
of the Task Force that this conservative approach, while
theoretically justifiable, was unrealistic. The Task Force
determined that the underlying assumptions of the staff
recommendation should be rigorously examined to determine if the
$189 Million number could be reduced to make a fee per trip system
more realistic and feasible. The Task Force members agreed that an
unrealistically high cost would deter development from locating in
the County, which was contrary to County policy.
The Task Force reviewed the Staff cost estimate and assumptions as
a frame of reference and concluded that certain reductions in the
$189 Million estimate are warranted and recommended: (A graphic
presentation of the recommended reductions is presented as Appendix
2. )
1. The original base estimate of $189 Million included a 40
percent contingency factor, reflecting projected engineering,
survey, administration and financing costs. After careful
deliberation and analysis of the line items comprising the 40%
contingency factor, the task force recommends that this
contingency factor be reduced from 40 percent to -13.5
percent. The recommended reduction amounts to a $34 Million
reduction in the base while still prioritizing an adequate
contingency reserve.
2. The Staff base estimate included an assumption that all roads
analyzed would include bicycle improvements on both sides of
the road. The cost of that assumption was $28 Million. The
Task Force considered that bicycle improvements of this
magnitude, equallying approximately 15 percent of the Staff
projected base cost, was unrealistic. Metro estimates that
approximately 5 percent of existing home-to-work trips are
made on bicycles. The Task Force recommends that an
equivalent percentage of the base can be applied to bicycle
improvements. Consequently, the Task Force recommends that 5
percent of the cost of improvements, excluding bicycle
improvements, be added back to the base figure as a more
equitable amount of bicycle improvements. The Task Force
further recommends that the allocation of that sum should be
determined only after the County reviews its road standards
and transportation plan and identifies those arterial and
collector routes most suited for bicycle trips. The Task
Force recommends additional input from the bicycle riders to
establish priority needs in this area, consistent with the
available funding.
Report 3oard of Commissioners
Fee Based Traffic Impact System
Page 5
3. The Task Force recommends use of a more optimistic estimate
for outside State or Federal funding of improvements to the
arterial and collector roads within Washington County. The
Task Force considers that outside funding for arterial and
collector improvements may be forthcoming between now and the
year 2000 and that such anticipated revenue could be used to
reduce the base in order to reduce the overall fee per trip
assessment for new development. The Task Force has
recommended the base be reduced by $1 Million per year for
funding from outside sources. This recommended reduction
should be monitored on a periodic basis to ensure that the
anticipated outside revenues are actually received for county
improvements. In the event that outside funding is not
available, the fee per trip should be adjusted accordingly.
4. The Task Force recommends a 10 percent reduction of the base
estimate to reflect that a portion of the improvements are
estimated to be made by the private sector. This reduction is
based upon an indication that County construction projects
appear to have extra built-in cost factors that do not
normally exist when projects are built entirely by the private
sector. County construction projects which are subject to
State and Federal hiring requirements have a tendency to
increase overall construction costs by as much as 25 percent
over private sector construction costs. The Task Force has
assumed that 50 percent of the total construction anticipated
in the year 2000 improvements will be built by the private
• sector. The Task Force has used a 20 percent factor for the
cost differential between public and private construction. If
50 percent of the new improvements are made by the private
sector, 10 percent of the base may be reduced to reflect that
difference.
5. The Task Force recommends the base be reduced by $2.8 Million
to reflect committed lottery funds the County will receive for
transit improvements that were assumed within the original
$189 Million base.
6. The Task Force recommends the base be reduced by approximately
3 percent to reflect development that will occur due to infill
and land use changes (e.g. , zone changes and plan amendments)
that were not included in the Staff base estimate.
7. The original fee per trip system recommended by Staff in the
January 15, 1985 document was predicated on an assumption that
development would occur regardless of costs, and was intended
to project the maximum cost of improvements based on projected
new trip generation for all land uses. After review and
consideration of that assumption by the Task Force, it is
recommended that the proposed system must also be sensitive to
market place considerations for office, commercial and
Report ' loard of Commissioners
Fee Basea Traffic Impact System
Page 6
industrial development. The Task Force was advised that a fee
in excess of 1 .5 percent of total construction cost for
commercial , office, and industrial projects would act as a
competitive disincentive for these types of development to
occur in Washington County. The Task Force concluded that a
1 .5 percent threshold for office, industrial and commercial
developments is approximately the percent of "tax" that could
be absorbed and still make the project of this kind feasible.
Using the 1 .5 percent threshold the Task Force factored the
percent of new trips anticipated from these land uses against
the overall base with the reductions outlined above to arrive
at the recommended fee per trip for office, industrial and
commercial uses. The fee recommended for these uses is an
average fee and does not differentiate between high and low
trip generators within these categories.
The balance of the projected cost was absorbed by the
residential development community. Representatives of those
development interests indicated that costs at the resulting
level probably could be absorbed in the cost of housing
without deterring residential development. The calculations
are reflected in Appendix 3.
C. Policy Recommendations:
The Board of County Commissioners directed, at the request of the
Planning Commission, that the Task Force give its opinion on the
Policy choices identified in the January 15, 1985 Staff document.
The majority of the time spent by the Task Force was in the area of
cost recommendations. It was in this area that the Task Force
considered it could be of maximum assistance to the Board and
Planning Commission. Policy determinations are more amenable to
the public hearing procedures of the Planning Commission and do not
require the work session approach used by the Task Force.
Nevertheless, in order to be responsive to the direction made the
Task Force makes the comments indicated below with the
understanding that the comments made reflect deliberations
incidental to the making of the cost recommendations.
1 . The Board must determine that the costs to correct existing
deficiencies in the existing system are the responsibility of
the County as a whole, not of new development. Fiscal
implication . . .. $232 Million to the County
• The Task Force has assumed that the cost of correcting
existing deficiencies is the responsibility of existing County
residents. The cost reduction recommendations presented in
this report can in some areas be transferred to the existing
deficiency problem and thereby reduce the existing problem
base. The Task Force operated on the assumption that the
development community would be responsible separately only for
the additional burden placed on the transportation system
caused by the new development.
Report 4 Board of Commissioners
Fee Base_ Traffic Impact System
Page 7
2. The Board must determine that new development has only the
responsibility of building new road capacity to accommodate
year 2000 growth. Fiscal implication .. . . $190 Million to
developing properties.
The Task Force recommends that the Board determine that new
development is responsible for building new road capacity to
accommodate the growth associated with that development and
that the recommended fee per trip identified in the previous
pages be adopted to meet that anticipated need.
3. The analysis and the total cost for year 2000 capacity
improvements include collector and arterial roadways under
County jurisdiction inside city limits. The Board must
determine whether or not these costs are the responsibility of
development in the unincorporated area. Fiscal implication
.... $31 Million. (This figure is included in the $189
Million need identified in #2 above.)
The Task Force recommends that the Board strongly encourage
cities to participate in the fee per trip system in order to
improve all city and county arterial and collector roads and
to reduce the overall fee charged per trip.
4. The Board must determine that costs to developers for past
conditions and improvements for off-site arterials and
collectors can be credited against the fee-per-trip for
developments that have multiple phases. (Examples would
include Tanasbourne Commerce Center, National Semi-Conductor,
Riviera Motors.) Fiscal implication . ... Dollar for Dollar
credit to developer.
The Task Force finds that implementation of the fee per trip
system will cause certain inequities to development projects
that utilized a multiple phase approach to complying with
Growth Management Policies after September 1983. Such
inequities contravene County policy of encouraging
development. The Task Force recommends that the Board
consider these inequities and establish certain criteria and
standards to provide a credit to those developers against the
fee per trip that would otherwise be charged under the fee
per trip system.
5. The Board must determine that refunds or credits will be given
for developments which construct improvements needed by the
year 2000 but are installed early as a convenience to the
proposed development. (An example would be a signal which is
not warranted today but is installed to make a development
more attractive or accessible. ) Fiscal implication . ...
Dollar for Dollar credit if the project is identified as
needed by the year 2000.
Report to Board of Commissioners
Fee Based Traffic Impact System
Page 8
The Task Force recommends that credits be given for
improvements constructed by development that are part of the
base used for development of the fee per trip system, but are
put in place at developer's expense prior to the time
otherwise established for installation of that improvement
under the Capital Improvements Plan. These credits should be
allowed on a dollar for dollar basis.
6. The Board must determine that safety improvements would be
mandatory at the time of development and that these safety
improvements can be credited against the fee-per-trip charge.
Fiscal implication . . .. Dollar for Dollar credit.
The Task Force recommends that safety improvements included as
part of a development proposal that are part of the base used
to calculate the fee per trip system should be eligible for
credits on a dollar for dollar basis.
7. The Board must determine time limits for off-site credits. 1
year, 5 years, 10 years, or indefinitely. (Staff assumed 16
years time frame 1984-2000 to time from our analysis. )
The Task Force recommends that credits be allowed for a period
of years.
8. The Board must determine whether the fee-per-trip is to be a
flat fee assessed County wide or a variable fee assessed
within specific districts. (The consultant's recommendation
to the County is outlined in Section III of this report. )
The Task Force recommends that the fee per trip system
identified above be a flat fee.
9. The Board must determine if the County will dedicate funds
collected to specific road district accounts. (Staff assumed
"yes" based on advice of Counsel . )
The Task Force recommends that the funds collected from the
fee-per trip system be dedicated to specific funds for
specific road projects. Fund disbursement shall be determined
by the Board of Commissioners under the Capital Improvements
Plan.
1-0. The Board must determine if it is the responsibility of
developers to dedicate necessary rights-of-way required by the
Comprehensive Plan. Fiscal implication .. . $10 Million to $20
Million. (Staff assumed we would require dedication but would
still have to purchase $10 Million of Right-Of-Way over time.
The Task Force recommends that right-of-way identified as part
of the fee per trip system be dedicated as part of all
development proposals.
Report 3oard of Commissioners
Fee Base. Traffic Impact System
Page 9
11 . The Board must determine the responsibility of developing
properties to provide the ultimate year 2000 improvement with
curbs, gutters, sidewalks, drainage and bikepaths. Fiscal
implication . . .. $94 Million. (Staff assumed "yes" since
these are current road standards.)
The Task Force recommends that the road standards of the
County be scrutinized to determine if current standards are
realistic and consistent with the desires of the citizens of
the County. For example, the Task Force recommends that the
level of service required by the County Transportation Plan be
adjusted as a method of reducing the overall improvement needs
for the year 2000.
12. The Board must determine if center turn lanes are required as
part of the fee-per-trip or should be considered a frontage
improvement. Fiscal implication .... $35 Million. (Staff
assumed "yes" and included this cost in the overall estimate.
The Task Force has assumed that center left turn lanes are
included as part of the fee per trip. The adjusted fee per
trip recommended in this report includes the center lane
facility.
13. The Board must determine if State facilities improvement costs
should be included in the fee-per-trip. Fiscal implication
.... $50 Million. (Staff has assumed State facilities are the
responsibility of the State.)
The Task Force recommends that State facilities and
improvements to those facilities not be included within the
fee per trip since the facilities are not included within the
base.
14. The Functional Classification Component of the Transportation
Plan assumes 7% of the future trips in Washington County will
be on transit and the Westside Corridor project includes $13.8
Million for transit improvement in Washington County. The
Board must determine if the local match to insure the transit
improvements needed to achieve a 7% ridership be included in
the fee-per-trip. Fiscal implication . . .. $2.8 Million.
(Staff has included the local match in the cost figures for
year 2000 capacity.)
The improvement costs associated with Policy number 14 have
been excluded from the fee per trip base, based upon actions
by the Legislature and the Governor to appropriate the local
match of g2.8 Million for transit facility in Washington
County.
15. The Board must determine if the Light Rail Transit
right-of-way should be included in the fee-per-trip. Fiscal
implication .. $1 .75 Million. (Staff has assumed this
Right-of-Way in the total cost figures for year 2000 capacity.
Report tv Board of Commissioners
Fee Based Traffic Impact System
Page 10
The Task Force did not have the opportunity to address this
issue and consequently takes no position on it, other than to
note that the Task Force accepted the Staff assumption stated
for purposes of numerical calculation only.
III. CONCLUSION
Because of time limitation imposed on the Task Force, no empirical or
detailed study has been made into the specifics of any of the
recommendations presented in this report. The recommendations represent
a consensus of the opinion of the members of the Task Force based upon
the information presented by Staff and by those individuals who have
participated in the process to date.
The recommendations are intended to arrive at a fee per trip system that
would 1 ) provide sufficient revenues to pay for the needed improvements
to the Washington County road system caused by new development occuring
between now and the year 2000; 2) develop a system that meets the needs
of the County while continuing to attract new development; and 3)
balance the needs and responsibilities of existing and future residents.
emc
Appendix #1
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS CONTACTED
Cities in Washington County
Community Planning Organizations
Committee for Citizen Involvement
Sunset Corridor Association
Hillsboro Chamber of Commerce
Beaverton Chamber of Commerce
Forest Grove Chamber of Commerce
Tualatin Valley Economic Development
Group
Metropolitan Home Builders Association
of Portland
Quadrant Corporation
The Koll Company
Landsing Properties
1000 Friends of Oregon
Oregon Graduate Center
Local Engineering & Planning Firms
Interested Groups & Individuals
Appendix 2
Calculati6n of Base with Recommended Reductions
$189 Million Base (Taken from 1-15-85 document "Analysis and Methodology
for the Creation of a Fee-Based Traffic Impact System") .
- $31 Million County roads (arterial & collector) identified for
improvement inside city limits.
158 Million
- $28 Million Bike Lanes (page 4, item #2 of document) .
130 Million
- $34 Million Contingency (page 4, item #1 of document) .
$96 Million
- $16 Million Possible funding for improvements from unidentified sources.
80 Million Federal , State, Lottery, Infrastructure (page 5, item 3 of
document) .
8 Million 10% of Base for the difference between public and private
72 Million construction costs.
+ $4 Million 5% of Base for Bike facilities (page 4, item #2) .
$76 Million New Base used to generate recommended fees.
Appendix #3
Revenue Estimates Based on Proposed Fees
Residential
$100 per trip x 355,070 trips $35,507,000.00
Office
$91 per trip x 158,904 trips 14,460,000.00
Industrial
$96 per trip x 107,632 trips 10,333,000.00
Retail
$19 per trip x 398,574 trips 7,573,000.00
Lottery Funds 2,800,000.00
Institutional
$37 per trip no estimate can be made
Infill
3% of $76 Million Base 2,280,000.00
Total $72,953,000.00
` Appendix #4
Land Use Absorption and Trip Rate Assumptions
Residential :
5851 acres of SF & MF land will develop and create 44,885 units.
44,885 units will generate 355,070 vehicle trips.
A typical unit for calculation purposes was 1500 square feet and cost
$40 per square foot to build. A typical unit will average $60,000.00.
1 .5% of $60,000.00 = $900 or $90 per trip based upon a typical SF unit.
The $90 per trip figure was adjusted upwards by $10 to achieve the base
number.
Recommended trip rate for residential trips is $100 per trip.
Office:
304 acres developing at 50% lot coverage with two-story buildings will
generate 13,242,240 square feet of office space and generate 158,904
vehicle trips based upon 12 trips per 1000 square feet.
At $65 a square foot to build, 13,242,240 square feet'would cost $860,745,000.
1 .5% of this equals $12,911 ,184.00.
158,904 vehicle trips divided into $12,911 ,184 = $81 .25 per trip.
The $81 .25 per trip was adjusted upwards by $9.75 to achieve the base number.
Recommended trip rate for office trips is $91 .00 per trip.
Industrial :
707 acres at 50% lot coverage will generate 15,376,668 square feet of
industrial space and generate 107,632 trips at 7 trips per 1000 square
feet of space. At $40 per square foot, industrial space will cost
$615,066,720.00 to build. 1 .5% of this equals $9,226,000.00.
107,632 vehicle trips divided into $9,226,000.00 = $85.75 per trip.
The $85.75 per trip was adjusted upwards by $10.25 to achieve the base number.
Recommended trip rate for industrial trips is $96.00 per trip.
}
Appendix #4 cont'd.
Retail :
305 acres at 30% lot coverage will generate 3,985,740 square feet of
retail space and generate 398,574 trips based upon 100 trips per 1000
square feet of space. At $60 per square foot to build, retail space
will cost $239,144,400.00. 1 .5% equals $3,587,166.00.
398,574 divided into $3,587,166.00 = $9.00 per trip.
The $9.00 per trip was adjusted upwards by $10 to achieve the base number.
Recommended trip rate for retail trips is $19.00 per trip.
Institutional :
No assumption was made for institutional land use absorption.
Building Values per sq.ft. Trips by Use
Hospital $108 16 trips per 1000 sq.ft. gross*
Hotel $67 10 trips per room
School $51 1 .4 trips per student (High)
1 .0 trips per student (Elem)
Gov't. Bldg./Office $71 68 trips per 1000 sq.ft. gross*
Library $66 41 trips per 1000 sq.ft. gross*
---------------------------------- -------------------------------
Average - $73 *Average trips 41 per 1000 gross sq.ft.
3 story, 60,000 sq.ft. x $73 = $4.4 Million
41 trips per 1000 sq.ft. = 2460 trips
1 .5% _ $66,000
2460 $66,000 = $26.80 per trip
The $26.80 figure was adjusted upwards by $10.20 to achieve the base number.
Recommended trip rate for institutional trips is $37.00 per trip.
r
F
Appendix #5
County Road Costs Included in the Base Within Cities
Hillsboro $6,500,000.00
Beaverton 4,500,000.00
Tigard 7,600,000.00
Tualatin 5,400,000.00
Sherwood 7,000,000.00
$31 ,000,000.00
TIGARD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Tuesday, July 16, 1985 - 7:30 A.M.
Pioneer Pies
1. Review minutes of June 18, 1985 meeting.
2. Election of Chairman. 27,1-7
3. Report on the Survey distributed to downtown businesses. -
4. Economic Development Checklist.
5. Workshop with City Council - August 19, 1985,
6. Presentation by Developer.
7. Other Business
9. Next Meeting - August 20, 1985.
10. Adjourn
1601P
TIGARD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
MINUTES — JUNE 18, 1985
Pioneer Pies Restaurant
Members Present: Pat Kennedy, Vice Chairman
Kathy Budny
David Clements
Jim Corliss
Amo DeBernardis
Tony Orlandini
John Savory
Guests Present Jeanne Caswell
Sue Clark
Judy Christensen
Bill Crum
Staff Present: Bill Monahan
Pat Kennedy, acting chairman, opened the meeting by calling for a ,review
of the May 21, 1985 meeting minutes. The members approved the minutes as.
written.
Sue Clark of Oregon Human Development Corp. addressed the Committee and
explained the programs of her organization. OHDC contracts with the federal
government and provides services for migrant farm workers. They have
fifty—five staff members.
Judy Christensen of Tigard Promotions, Inc. , presented an update of TPI's
activities. The group, formed by the Tigard Chamber of Commerce, Kiwanis, and
Keowanee hopes to give a boost to the Tigard Town and Country Days by holding
their event on July 26 and 27. They decided to move the festival to Main
Street for greater visibility, and to bring business to the downtown area.
Although some businesses will be closed on the days of the festival, the
recognition factors associated with the festival should bring people back on
another day. The focus of the event will be a Hot Rod Classic exhibiting
cars, various other events will be held with booths set up between Scoffins
and Burnham. The Post Office, Greyhound, Railroads, and Tri Met have all been
contacted and were both receptive and cooperative to adjust their schedules
for that day.
Judy was asked if there was any resistance among the Main Street property
owners. Judy explained that the few individuals who had concerns have been
accommodated by TPI.
Amo requested that each member of the Committee be supplied with a copy of
the Council goals for 1985-86. A copy will be distributed.
A discussion was held concerning the downtown questionaire. Jeanne
Caswell suggested that a group of volunteers could distribute the questionaire
to businesses. Several Committee members volunteered to assist Jeanne. The
Committee reviewed the survey sheet and decided to distribute it as written.
The Surveys will be sent to 117 different property owners representing 173
properties.
Jeanne and Bill provided the Committee with an update on the activities of the
I-5 Corridor Association. The annual meeting was held on June 13 and was well
attended. Four standing committees — membership, marketing, land development,
and transportation will be activated in July. The Association hopes to gear
up for the Japanese Mayor's Conference which will be held in Portland in
September. The group plans to prepare a slide show with narration for the
conference. Jeanne reported that the Association has 32 full members and 20
associate members. Eight members of the Chamber of -Commerce are full members
so Tigard is well represented.
Presentations by developers — none were present. A discussion was held
concerning a prior application, that of Main Street Development. Bill
reported that J.B. Bishop, principal owner, has not filed a sensitive lands
application which is necessary, prior to receiving building permits. Mr.
Bishop may be seeking relief from the setback requirement imposed by the City
Council. John Savory suggested that if the Cotsco proposal falls through the,
Committee should assist Mr. Bishop to find suitable replacement businesses.
The Committee expressed an interest in helping the project develop.
Bill reported on the status of the Metzger Annexation. Tigard, Beaverton
and Portland have all expressed an interest in annexing Metzger. Tigard's tax
rate, services, community identity with Metzger residents, and size are all
favorable points which may tend to give Tigard an edge if the residents choose
to annex. The Committee expressed that it would like to be supportive of the
City efforts toward annexation.
Election of Chairman — The election was delayed until the next meeting as
Pat and John declined nomination. Pat suggested that he will discuss the
chairman position with each member and come back with a slate of officers.
A letter of resignation was received by Pat from Greg Newton who has
accepted a new position with a law firm in California. Bill will ask the City
Administrator's office to help in the recruitment of two new members. Two
positions, one at large position, and the position representing Cascade Blvd.
are now open.
The next meeting will be held on Tuesday, July 16, 1985 at 7:30 A.M.
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD' OREGON
TO: Members of the Economic Development Committee July 9, 1086
FROM: William A. Monahan, Director,
Community Development
SUBJECT: Next Committee Meeting
The next meeting of the Tigard Economic Development Committee will be hold on
Tuesday, July 10, 1086 at 7:30 A.M. at Pioneer Pies . A copy of the agenda and
minutes of the June meeting are enclosed .
(WAM:br/1588P)
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Members of the Economic Development Committee June 19, 1985
FROM: William A. Monahan,
Director, Community Development
SUBJECT: Main Street Project
The attached letter was given to me yesterday by Anita Edin concerning the
position of several Ash Avenue neighbors relative to J. B. Bishop' s project.
The letter was meant for distribution to you at the meeting yesterday,
however, I was unaware that it was meant for that purpose.
(WAM:br/2894A)
June 17, 1985
Tigard Economic Development Comyrrittee
City of Tigard
Tigard, Oregon
Dear Members :
In reviewing the minutes of the May 21 Tigard Economic Develop-
ment Committee, we see that J.B. Bishop gave a presentation on
his Main Street Development. In particular he addressed the
50 foot setback condition which the City Council placed in the
final order for the southerly property line adjoining the Ash
Street neighborhood. We further see that your committee was
requested to designate a member to speak on this issue at the
June NPO 1 meeting.
As co-chairpersons of a neighborhood group, we would like to
advise you that a number of the neighbors are very much opposed
to any change in that regard and support the Main Street plan
as amended by the City Council.
It appears to us that a building of the size and design that
Mr. Bishop proposes would be more appropriate in an industrial
zone. The City Council recognized this and appropriately modi-
fied the plan to mitigate the visual and noise impact. 1ve
believe the 50 foot setback is imperative.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Anita Edin iris McBath
13110 SW Ash :Lir. 13115 SW Ash Dr.
Tigard, Oregon Tigard, Oregon