Loading...
City Council Packet - 01/22/1979 1 TIGARD CCTY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 22, 1979, 7:30 P.M. FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL LECTURE ROOM AGENDA: NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING 1'O SP[;AK ON ANY ITEI`1 MUST SIGN THEIR NAME ON THE APPROPRIATE SIGN—UP SIIEET(S) , LOCATED AT THE BACK OF THE ROOM. PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK WILL THEN BE CALLED FORWARD BY THE CHAIR TO SPEAK ON THE INDICATED ITEM(S). 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. CALL TO AUDIENCE FOR THOSE DESIRING TO SPEAK ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS 5. CONSENT AGENDA: (All matters under this heading are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted in one motion in the form listed below. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is desired by any Council member SIM or member of the audience, that item will be removed from the consent agenda and will be considered separately.) (a) Approval of Minutes January 8, 15, 1979 (b) Approval of Expenditures and Investments: $ 41 426.88 (c) Monthly Reports - Receive and File Building Library Police Finance Planning 6. APPROVE O.L.CC. RENEWAL APPLICATIONS Lone Oak'Restaurant,' Clarence J. Hess, 11920 SW Pacific Hwy., DA Application El Gringo Mexican Restaurant, Casa De CanalInc.,; 11290 SW Bull Mtn. Rd.', RMB;Application Rcn's Green Valley Tavern, Rolland D. `& Mary Ann Dreeszen, 12470 SW Main St., RMB'Application Albertsons Food Center No. 544, 12060 SW Main St.., PS Application Sherwood Inn at Tigard, John Layson, Marko "& Betty Susnjara, 15700 SW Upper Boones Ferry Rd,,,, DA Application Town Tavern, H` & J-Operating Corp. 12370 SW Main St., RMB Application Big B Thriftway, Big B. Inc., 14365 SW Pacific Hwy., PS Application Gaffer's James H. & Kay Funk, 11420 SW Pacific Hwy., RMB Application NEW APPLICATION —_ 7-Eleven Food Stores, Southland Corp., NW corner 122nd & Scholls Ferri Rd., PS Application (a) Recommendation of Chief of Police 7. RESOLUTION No. 79- A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MAKING _ APPOINT^4ENT TO FILL AN EXPIRED TERM ON THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (a) Recommendation of Selection Committee - Doug Smith Term expiring 3/1/80 8. RESOLUTION No. 79- A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MAKING AN APPOINTMENT TO THE TIGARD BUDGET COMMITTEE (a) Recommendation of Selection Committee - Wally Hoffman Term Expiring 12/31/81 9. RESOLUTION No. 79- A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCII. MAKING AN APPOINTMENT TO FILL AN UNEXPIRED TERM OF OFFICE ON THE TIGARD LIBRARY BOARD (a) Recommendation of Selection Committee - James E. Sidey Term expiring 6/30/79 10. RESOLUTION No. 79- A RESOLUTION PRESCRIBING NEW FEES FOR SUBDIVISION AND ZONING APPLICATION REQUIRING PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL REVIEW (a) Recommendation of Planning Director 11. RESOLUTION No. 79- RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL UPDATING RESOLUTION 75-60 TO RE-ESTABLISH NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN- NING ORGANIZATIONS, ,.PRESCRIBING AUTHORITIES,; RESPON- SIBIL"ITIES AND MEMBERSHIP STRUCTURE -a (a) Recommendation of Planning, Director 12. RESOLUTION No. 79- A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING FEES TO BE CHARGED;TO PERSONS APPEALING DECISIONS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFRAYING THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE HEARING OF SUCH APPEALS BY THE CITY COUNCIL (a) Recommendation of Planning Director 13. RESOLUTION No. 79- - RESOLUTION OF :THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL TO UPDATE RESOLUTION No. 75-61 CONCERNING RESPONSIBILITIES AND MEMBERSHIP STRUCTURE OF THE COMMITTEE FOR CITIZENS INVOLVEMENT (CCI) (a) Recommendation of Planning`_Director 14. RESOLUTION No 79- RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC'IMPROVEMENT CONSTRUCTED WITHIN PENROSE TERRACE SUBDIVISION (a)' Recommendation of City Administrator PAGE 2 = COUNCIL AGENDA - `JANUARY 22, 1979 1 15. RESOLUTION No. 79- _RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS KNOWN AS SHADOW HILLS S NTTARY SEWER EXTENSION, GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH ..� _._ OF BULL MT. ROAD AND WEST OF 112th AVE., SUBJECT '1`0 A OIvE YEAR MAINTENANCE PERIOD (a) Recommendation of City Administrator 8:00 P.M. 16. PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT APPLICATION. (a) Summation of Facts by City Administrator (b) Suggestions from members of the audience (c) Consideration by Council (d) RESOLUTION No. 79- A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL SUPPORTING �'- THE APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCP FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THREE SENIOR CITIZEN CENTERS TO SERVE THE CITIES OF DURHAM, KING CITY, SHERWOOD, TIGARD AND TUALATIN, AND THE ADJACENT UNINCORPORATED AREAS CONSIDERATION OF LAND USE ITEMS 17. APPEAL - ZONE CHANGE - The Planning Commission approval of a request by Ginther Engineering for a preliminary plan and program review of a residential planned development and zone map amendment from Washington County RU-4 to City of Tigard R-7 PD on a 13.42 acre parcel, south of Bonita Road on SW 76th (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 12B, Tax Lots 4800, 4701 and 4700). TESTIMONY WILL BE LIMITED TO SUMMATION OF PREVIOUS STATEMENTS (a) Public Nearing Opened (b) Summation by Planning Staff (c) Public Testimony Proponents Opponents Cross Examination (d) Recommendation of Planning Staff '(e) Public 'Hearing Closed (f) Consideration by Council 18. RESOLUTION No. 79 A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING THE ^CITY-ADMINISTRATOR :TO GRANT REFUNDS FOR VARIOUS FEES, DEPOSITS AND BONDS. (a) Recommendation of City Administrator. PAGE 3, - COUNCIL AGENDA - JANUARY 22, 1979 19. RESOLUTION No. 79- A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ACKNO14LEDGING �RF.CEIPT OF A TRIPLE MAJORITY ANNF.i:ATION PETI`T'ION CON - SENTING TO THE ANNEXATION OF LANDS DESCRIBED HEREIN AND REQUESTING FO:LARDING TO THE PORTLAND METROPOLITAN AREA LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION (Cornutt Annexation) (a) Recommendation of Planning Director 20. RESOLUTION No. 79- A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF A TRIPLE MAJORITY ANNEXATION PETITION CON- SENTING TO THE ANNEXATION OF LANDS DESCRIBED HEREIN AND REQUESTING FORWARDING TO THE PORTLAND METROPOLITAN AREA LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION (SEVENS ANNEXATION) (a) Recommendation of Planning Director 21. RESOLUTION No. 79- A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF A TRIPLE MAJORITY ANNEXATION PETITION CON- SENTING TO THE ANNEXATION OF LANDS DESCRIBED HEREIN AND REQUESTING FORWARDING TO THE PORTLAND METROPOLITAN AREA LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION (SCROLLS FERRY ROAD ANNEXATION) (a) Recommendation of Planning Director 22. SELECTION OF CONSULTING ENGINEER TO CONDUCT TRAFFIC SAFETY STUDY (a) Recommendation of City Administrator. (b) RESOLUTION No. 79 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE APPLICATION FOR A TRAFFIC"SAFETY_GRANT AND SELECTING THE CONSULTING ENGINEER FOR A TRAFFIC SAFETY PROJECT. 23. S.W. KATHERINE STREET SANITARY SEWER AND STORM DRAIN L.I.D. (a) Recommendation of City Administrator. 24. s POLICE PATROL CAR BIDS (a) Recommendation of City Administrator. 25. REDUCE CASH BOND TO $7,594. - Sam Gotter - Pathfinder II Subdivision (a) Recommendation of City Administrator. 26. RESOLUTION No. 79- A RESOLUTION TRANSFERRING FUNDS FROM THE GENERAL FUND CONTINGENCY ACCOUNT TOCOMMUNITY PROTECTION, PLANNING, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PURCHASING A MICROFILM VIEWER. (a) , Recommendation of City Administrator. 27. ORDINANCE No. 79- AN ORDINANCE RATIFYING, CONFIRMING AND RECORDING CHANGE IN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF TIGARD BY THE BOUNDARY COMMISSION,.' ORDER No. '1320 INVOLVING LANDS OF SANDOR ANNEXATION SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP I SOUTH, RANGE 1 WEST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, 14ASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON, RECORDING EFFECTIVE DATE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (a) Recommendation of City Administrator PAGE 4 - COUNCIL AGENDA —JANUARY 22, 1979 28. ORDINANCE No. 79- AN ORDINANCE RATIFYING, CONFIRMING AND RECORDING CHANGE IN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF TIGARD BY THE BOUNDARY COMMISSION, ORDER No. 1321, INVOLVING LANDS OF GODWIN ANNEXATION, SECTION 35, TOSNWHIF 1 SOUTH, RANGE i WEEST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, WASHI ;GTON COUNTY, OREGON, RECORDING EFFECTIVE DATE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (a) Recommendation of City Administrator. 29. ORDINANCE No. 79- AN ORDINANCE RATIFYING, CONFIRMING AND RECORDING CHANGE IN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF TIGARD BY THE BOUNDARY COMMISSION, ORDER No. 1324, INVOLVING LANDS OF 114TH AVENUE ANNEXATION, SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 1 WEST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON, RECORDING EFFECTIVE DATE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (a) Recommendation of City Administrator. 30. ORDINANCE No. 79-- AN ORDINANCE RATIFYING, CONFIRMING AND RECORDING CHANCE IN THE BOUNDAIRES OF THE CITY OF TIGARD BY THE BOUNDARY COMMISSION, ORDER No. 1323, INVOLVING LANDS OF STEPHENSON ANNEXATION, SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 1 WEST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON, RECORDING EFFECTIVE DATE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (a) Recommendation of City Administrator. 31. ORDINANCE No. 79- AN ORDINANCE RATIFYING, CONFIRMING AND RECORDING CHANGE IN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF TIGARD BY THE BOUNDARY CnIelTcc TON ORDER.No. .7122, TMVOT.VINr_ LANDS OF VIEW. TEi?RACE. ANNEXATION, SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE I WEST, WILLAMETTE-MERIDIAN,-WASHINGTON>COUNTY, OREGON, RECORDING EFFECTIVEDATE`AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (a) Recommendation of Cifv Administrator. 32. OTHER 33. EXECUTIVE' SESSION - TO DISCUSS GUIDELINES FOR T.M E.A. LABOR'NEGOTIATIONS UNDER O.R.S. 192.660 ;(2) (a) 34. ADJOURNMENT P 3 4 t 7 t PAGE 5 - COUNCIL AGENDA - JANUARY 22, `1979 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR 11EETING MINUTES, JANUARY 22, 1979, 7:30 P.M. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor Alan Mickelson; Councilmen Tom Brian (arrived at 7:40 p.m.), John E. Cook, Kenneth W. Scheckla; Councilwoman Nancie Stimler; Chief of Police, Robert B. Adams; Legal Counsel, Joe D. Bailey; (8:35) City Adminis- trator, R.R. Barker; City Recorder/Finance Director, Doris Hartig; Planning Director, Aldace Howard; Associate Planner, Ken Selby; Research & Development Aide, Martha McLennan. 2. CALL TO AUDIENCE FOR THOSE DESIRING TO SPEAK ON NON-ADGENDA ITEMS. (a) No one appeared to speak. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES, JANUARY 8, 15, 1979. (a) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Scheckla to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council. 4. APPROVAL OF EXPENDITURES AND INVESTMENTS: $41,465.80. (a) City Recorder/Finance Director requested that this item be amended due to an error in the original packet. (b) Councilman Cook moved to approve as amended; seconded by Councilman - Scheckla. Approved by unanimous 'vote of Council. 5. MONTHLY REPORTS - RECEIVE AND FILE Building Library Police Finance Planning (a)- Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by; Councilman Scheckla to 'receive and file. Approved by unanimous- vote=of Council. ` 6. APPROVE O.L.C.C. RENEWAL APPLICATIONS Lone Oak Restaurant, Clarence J. Hess, 11920 SW Pacific Hwy., DA Application E1 Gringo Mexican Restaurant, Casa De Canal Inc., 1.1290 SW Bull Mtn. Rd._ RMB Application Ron's Green Valley Tavern, Rolland D. '& Mary Ann Dreeszen, 12470 SW Main St., RMB Application Albertsons Food Center Nu. 544, 12060 SW Main St., PS Application Sherwood Inn at Tigard, John Layson,IMarko'& Betty Susnjara, 15700 SW Upper Boones Ferry Rd, DA Application Town Tavern, H '& J Operating Corp. 12370 SW Main St., RMB Application Big B Thriftway, Big B. Inc., 14365 SW Pacific Hwy., PS Application Caffer's,;James H. & Kay Funk, 11420 SW Pacific RMB Application 1 NEW APPLICATION 7-Eleven Food Stores, Southland Corp., NN cotne1 122nd u Scholls Ferry Rd., PS Application Approved by unanimous vote of Council. 7. RESOLUTION NO. 79-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MAKING APPOINTMENT TO FILL AN EXPIRED TERM ON THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESIGN REVIEW BOARD. Doug Smith - Term expiring 3-1-80 (a) Motion by Councilwoman Stimler, seconded by Councilman Scheckla to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council. 8. RESOLUTION NO. 79-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MAKING AN APPOINTMENT TO THE TIGARD BUDGET COMMITTEE. Wally Hoffman - Term expiring 12-31-81 (a) Motion by Councilwoman Stimler, seconded by Councilman Scheckla to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council. 9., RESOLUTION NO. 79-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MAKING AN APPOINTMENT TO FILL AN UNEXPIRED TERM OF OFFICE ON THE TIG n LIBRARY BOARD. t - Term ,.��. TIG LI:,..AR BOARD. James E. Sidpy expiring 6-30-79 (a) Motion by Councilwoman Stimler seconded by Councilman Scheckla to approve Approved by unanimous vote of Council. 10. RESOLUTION NO. 79-07 ARESOLUTION PRESCRIBING NEW FEES FOR SUBDIVISION AND ZONING APPLICATION REQUIRING PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL REVIEW. (a) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Scheckla to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council. COUNCILMAN BRIAN ARRIVED AT 7:40 P.M. 11. RESOLUTION NO. 79-08 RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL UPDATING RESOLUTION 75-60 TO RE-ESTABLISH NEIG14BORHOOD PLAN- NING ORGANIZATIONS, PRESCRIBING AUTHORITIES, RESPON- SIBILITIES-AND,`MEMBERSHIP STRUCTURE. (a) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilwoman Stimler to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council. PAGE 2 - REGULAR COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22, 1979 12. RESOLUTION NO. 79-09 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING FEES TO BE CHARGED TO PERSONS APPEALING DECISIONS OF THE PLANNING COMMIS- SION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFRAYING COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE HEARING OF SUCH APPEALS BY THE CITY COUNCIL. (a) Councilwoman Stimler asked for an explanation of the procedures for requesting a waiver Planning Director stated that a letter of request (with justification) was to be submitted along with the fee, then at the end of Council's hearing a decision would be made on whether to return the fee. After discussion of Council, it was suggested that the procedure should involve the deposit of the fee or the request for waiver. (b) Motion by Councilwoman Stimler, seconded by Councilman Cook to table. Tabled by unanimous vote of Council. Item to be considered at next Study Session. 13. RESOLUTION NO. 79-10 RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL TO UPDATE RESOLUTION NO. 75-61 CONCERNING RESPONSIBILITIES AND MEMBERSHIP STRUCTURE OF THE COMMITTEE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT. (a) Motion by Councilwoman Stimler, seconded by Councilman Brian to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council. 14. RESOLUTION NO. 79-11 RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT CONSTRUCTEDWITHIN PENROSE TERRACE SUBDIVISION. (a) City Administrator recommended approval. (b) Motion by Councilwoman Stimler, seconded by Councilman Brian to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council. 15. RESOLUTION NO. 79-12 RESOLUTION OF, THE 'TIGARD'CITY 'COUNCIL ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS KNOWN AS SHADOW HILLS SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION, GENERALLY LOCATED`>NORTH'OF BULL MT ROAD AND WEST OF 112TH AVE., SUBJECT TO A ONE YEAR MAINTENANCE PERIOD. (a) City Administrator recommended approval subject to the one year maintenance period. (b) Motion by Councilwoman Stimler, seconded by Councilman Cook to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council. PAGE 3 REGULAR COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22, 1979 WE-AM 16. RESOLUTION NO. 79-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO GRANT REFUNDS FOR VARIOUS FRES, DEPOSITS AND BONDS. (a) Motion by Councilman Brian, seconded by Councilman Cook to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council. 17. RESOLUTION NO. 79-14 A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ACKNOWLEDG- ING RECEIPT OF A TRIPLE MAJORITY ANNEXATION PETITION CONSENTING TO THE ANNEXATION OF LANDS DESCRIBED HEREIN AND REQUESTING FORWARDING TO THE PORTLAND 14ETROPOLITAN AREA LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION (Cornutt Annexation). (a) Planning Director recommended approval saying that 100% of the owners had signed the petition. (b) Motion by Councilwoman Stimler, seconded by Councilman Brian to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council. 18. RESOLUTION NO. 79-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CIT`' COUNCIL ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF A TRIPLE MA?ORITY ANNEXATION PETITION CONSENTING TO THE ANNEXATION OF LANDS DESCRIBED HERE- IN AND REQUESTING FORWARDING TO THE PORTLAND METROPOLI- TAN AREA LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION (Bevens Annexation). (a) Planning Director recommended approval, but stated that this action would create a three lot island. (b) Motion by Councilman Cook, 'seconded by Councilman Brian to approve. Approved by 4 to 1 vote of Council, Councilman Scheckla voting Nay. 19. RESOLUTION NO. 79- A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ACKNOWLEDG- ING RECEIPT OF A TRIPLE MAJORITY ANNEXATION PETITION CONSENLANDS DESCRIBED HERE- IN AND REQUESTING FORWARDING TO THE PORTLAND METROPOLI- TAN AREA LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION (Scholls Ferry Road Annexation). (a) Planning Director asked that this be removed from;agenda as the petition plai had not yet been received. PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING WAS OPENED AT 8:00 P.M. 20. PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT APPLICATION (a) City Administrator reviewed the history of these ;grant monies and the projects we have considered applying for. PAGE 4 REGULAR COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22, 1979 (b) Fred Menzel, Chairman of Steering`Committee Tigard Loaves and Fishes, reviewed his involvement in the project stating that all of the other Cities involved have passed Resolutions to apply for the grant monies. (c) Dick Masterbrook, Executive Director Tigard Loaves and Fishes, stressed the importance of the project, described past Loaves and Fishes activities in the community, and emphasized the strong community support for this project. (d) Councilwoman Stimler expressed her support for the project and stressed the importance of taking immediate action (as the deadline for funding requests is February 1, 1979). (e) Councilman Brian stated that he supported the concept of the project, but wondered about future financial issues. Bob Tepper, Director of Washington County Aging Program, reviewed the Loaves and Fishes budget, saying that it should be adequate to cover operating costs of the renter, (f) RESOLUTION NO. 79-16 A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL SUPPORT- ING THE APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THREE SENIOR CITIZEN ITC TY C NTERSOD, FMTO S; I RVE THE CITIES OF DURHAM, , TIGARD AND TUALATIN, AND THE ADJACENT UNINCOR- PORATED AREAS. Motion by Councilwoman Stimler, seconded by Councilman Cook to approve. ._.-____e ti.., unanimous vote of Council, nYYLvvcu �� �-------- PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 21. APPEAL - ZONE CHANGE - The Planning Commission approval of a request by Ginther Engineering for a preliminary plan and,program review of a residential planned development and zone map ammendment from Washington County RU-4 to City of Tigard R-7 PD on a 13.42 acre parcel, south of Bonita Road on SW 76th (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 12B, Tax Lots 48002 4701 and 4700). (a) Planning Director reviewed the project stating that the three major issues are: floodplain, density, and streets. He went on to 'des - cribe these problems.`< (b) Gary Bullock, Attorney, 300 Standard Plaza, Portland 97204, stated that he had filed the appeal for the developer. He went on to say that the project has been redesigned to aleviate the floodplain problem. He asked Council to either modify the decision of the Planning Commission or remand the project to them. PAGE 5 - REGULAR COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22, 1979 Doug Smith, 12820 S.W. 107 Court, Tigard, Oregon, objected saying that new material (i.e. - a change in the proposed development may not be introduced) could not be introduced. He went on to say that ..c t should be presented to the appeal was the wrong process; tfie �.r.�ec -the Planning Commission again. Gene Ginther, Developer, referred to P. 37 o: the transcript, stating that the appeal procedure was correct. (c) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Brian to remand to the Planning Commission. Remanded by 4 to 1 vote, Councilman Brian voting Nay. (d) John Avery, a member of NP0 #5, complained about the lack of notifica- tion to the NPO on this project. PUBLIC HEARING 22. SELECTION OF CONSULTING ENGINEER TC CONDUCT TRAFFIC SAFETY STUDY (a) City Administrator said that the letter of intent had been sent to the Oregon Traffic Safety Commission and funding posibilities looked favorable. He went on to say that the next step was to select a con- sulting engineer and make formal grant application. He recommended STRAAM Engineering be engaged for the project. (b) RESOLUTION NO. 79-17 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE APPLICATION FOR A TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANT AND SELECTING THE CON - „TT!C TTTQwR FOR A TRAFFIC SAFETY PROJECT. SULlI vG ENIN- - - Motion by Councilman Brian,; seconded by Councilman Cook to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council. 23 S.W. KATHERINE STREET SANITARY SEWER AND STORM DRAIN L.I.D. (a) City Administrator recommended that if Council was interested in pursuing the L.I.D., the next step was to select an engineer and get preliminary cost estimates. City, Administrator recommended Harris & McMonagle, Consulting Engrs. (b) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilwoman Stimler to authorize seeking preliminary cost estimates from Harris & McMonagle. Approved by unanimous vote of Council., 24. POLICE PATROL CAR BIDS (a) City Administrator recommended acceptance of the Carlson bid. PAGE 6 - REGULAR COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22, 1979 1 (b) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilwoman Stimler to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council. (c) Councilman Brian suggested that in future bids we ask that delivery be included in the cost. 25. REDUCE CASH BOND TO $7,594. - Sam Gotter - Pathfinder II Subdivision (a) City Administrator recommended approval of the reduction in the cash bond from $15,188 to $7,594. (b) Motion by Councilman Scheckla, seconded by Councilman Brian to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council. 26. RESOLUTION NO_ 79-18 A RESOLUTION TRANSFERRING FUNDS FROM THE GENERAL FUND CONTINGENCY ACCOUNT TO COMMUNITY PROTECTION, PLANNING, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PURCHASING A MICROFILM VIEWER. (a) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilwoman Stimler to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council. 27. ORDINANCE NO. 79-01 AN ORDINANCE RATIFYING, CONFIRMING AND RECORDING CHANGE IN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF TIGARD BY THE BOUNDARY COMMISSION. ORDER NO. 1320 INVOLVING LANDS OF SANDOR ANNEXATION SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 1 WtST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, 14ASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON, RE- EFFECTIVE DATE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (a) Planning Director recommended approval. (b) Motion by Councilwoman Stimler, seconded by Councilman Brian to approve. Approved by unanimous roll call vote of Council. 28. ORDINANCE NO. 79-02 AN ORDINANCE RATIFYING,, CONFIRMING AND RECORDING CHANGE IN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF TIGARD BY THE BOUNDARY COMMISSION, ORDER No. 1321, INVOLVING LANDS OF GODWIN ANNEXATION,: SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 1, SOUTH, RANGE 1 WEST, WILLAMETTE;MERIDIAN, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON, RECORD- DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. ING EFFECTIVE DATE AND (a) 'Planning Director recommended approval (b) -Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Brian to approve. Approved by unanimous roll call vote of 'Council. PAGE 7 - REGULAR COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22, 1979 29. ORDINANCE NO. 79-03 AN ORDINANCE RATIFYING, CONFIRMING AND RECORDING CHANGE �— IN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF TIGARD BY THE BOUNDARY GUmISSION, ORDER No. 1.�l2V, 11YVVLY1Dv �� .. ...,.., AVENUE ANNEXATION, SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP SOUTH, RANGE 1 WEST, WILLA14ETTE MERIDIAN. WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON, RECORDING EFFECTIVE DATE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (a) Planning Director recommended approval (b) Motion by Councilman Brian; seconded by Councilwoman Stimler to approve. Approved by unanimous roll call vote of Council. 30. ORDINANCE NO. 79-04 AN ORDINANCE RATIFYING, CONFIRMING AND RECORDING CHANGE IN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF TIGARD BY THE BOUNDARY COMMISSION, ORDER No. 1323, INVOLVING LANDS OF STEPHENSON ANNEXATION, SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 1 WEST, KIM WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, WASHINGTON COUNTY; OREGON, RFCORD- ING EFFECTIVE DATE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (a) Planning Director recommended approval (b) Motion by Councilman Brian, seconded by Councilwoman Stimler to approve. Approved by unanimous roll call vote of Council. _ 31. ORDINANCE NO. 79-05 AN ORDINANCE RATIFYING, CONFIRMING AND RECORDING CHARGE IN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF TIGARD BY THE BOUNDARY .,,..-- nn T.,*. lliJDE Nc 1322 INgOLVING LANpR (1R VTF.W TF.R— i.vruiloo o, ORDER ....- --'--� ----------- - � - -- RACE ANNEXATION, SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 1 WEST WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON, RECORDINGEFFECTIVE DATE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (a) Planning,;Director recommended approval (b) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Brian to approve. Approved by unanimous roll call vote of Council. 32, OTHER (a) SANITARY SEWER COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT &'CASH BOND ESCROW AGREEMENT- accept and authorize Mayor and City Recorder to execute, Ken Bouman, 72nd Avenue, Sanitary Sewer Extension. Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilwoman Stimler to accept and authorize Mayor and City Recorder to execute. Approved by unanimous vote of Council. (b`) City Administrator reported that the streetlightson S.W. Lomita street have not been installed. He said that it was a delay of P.G.E., probably,due to the ice storm. PAGE 8 r REGULAR COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22, 1979 (c) City Administrator submitted a letter from St2vrollor ledger,and• regarding a proposal for data processing of p y sewer billings. He said that thrac or four more proposals were expected. No action was taken by Council at this time. er Commerce (d) City Administrator poinFireoProtection District regaut letters from the rdingfthe problem and the with the fire-aydrants. Council will consider at next Study Session ing ul da (e) Councilman Brian CinderOrdinances,d if the phad rbeen Cinscontact withStheoPlan- who is reviewing 5 ning Commission. Planning Director said that she had not yet, but that he would instruct her to do so. (_f) Councilman Scheckla reiterated his concerns over political campaign signs which are still posted. (g) Councilman Scheckla said that he hrd at essed with the Chairman Ped the Planning Qon o-tem� meeting last week and was very imp Doug Smith, and Associate Planner, Ken Selby. rding the (h) Councilwoman Stiouncilrtakeracion toing to a mimproveemo acommunicationkbetween suggested that C the Council and the Board. (i) Councilwoman Stimler reported that she had been to a H.U.D. meeting last Thursday where she met Lucy Cable. She went on to suggest City invite Ms. Cable to speak when we discuss meeting the LCDC low- income housing goal. f (j) Mayor Mickelson presented a letter oresignation from Mr. Martinez, Park Board. Mr. Martinez felt the need to resign due to business obligations. ssion (k) Mayor Mickelson reminded Coumciat°CithgHall. ormHe invited al Study eCouncil,lthe Sunday, 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p• y City Administrator and the press. (1) Doug Smith, member of the Planning Commission, asked to speak to the problem of the floodplain ordinance. He felt, that it needs re- vision and wondered who should initiate the; process of revision. Councilman Brian suggested that the Planning Consultant, Amy;,Svoboda address it. RECESS OF REGULAR MEETING: 10:05 P.M- Council went into Executive Session to discuss guidelines for T.M.E.A. labor negotiations under ORS 192.660 (2) (a). RECONVENED: 10:10 P•M. PAGE 9 - REGULAR COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22, `1979 City Administrator presented costed proposal as per Council's request last week, pointing out the differences between the T.P.O.A. and T.M.E.A. Council ri discugGathe matter at iciis%h, aTiu gc� guide'lines for negotiations. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:55 P.M. City Recorder ATTEST: Mayor i, j f PAGE 10 - REGULAR COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22, 1979 I wish to 'testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print your name) Item Description: AGENDA ITEM 16 OnM.iAIINITY nF vFLo pMFNT BLOCK GRANT APPLICATION O, 1?s (for) PP�orient Name, Address and Affiliation- , Name, Address and Affiliation , ... a .. :. 1,9 JIll Y s .fF J i MEMORANDUM January 18, 1979 .. TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: R.R. BARKER, CITY ADMINISTRATOR SUBJECT: Background Information Regarding Certain Items on January 22, 1979 City Council Agenda AGENDA ITEM NO. 22. SELECTION OF CONSULTING ENGINEER TO CONDUCT TRAFFIC SAFETY STUDY On January 15, 1979, we received a letter from the Oregon Traffic Safety Commission acknowledging the City's letter of Intent to apply for a Traffic Safety Grant. Mr. Dean Blakley, Project Director for the OTSC indicated that "through analysis of accident data available to the OTSC, the City of Tigard has been identified as a problem area, and, therefore eligible for funding. However, before a project can be officially approved it is necessary that OTSC provide the Federal Highway Administration with a formal proposal and a copy of the contractual agreement between the City and the consulting firm.. ..If the proposal is received in this office by February 9,1979, it will be possible to present the proposal to our Commission on February 20, 1979." After speaking with Mr. Blakley, I am left with the understanding that the City has an excellent chance of obtaining a traffic safety grant if our proposal is submitted to OTSC by February 9, 1979. If it is not, and has to be considered by the OTSC later at their March meeting, the possibility of obtaining a grant greatly„diminishes because there are only_$90,000 remaining, for the entire State and there are other Cities that have submitted proposals and others that will be s;?hmi.ttinv proposals. The next steps in the grant application process are to select a consulting engineer, enter into a contractual agreement with the consulting engineer, pre- pare the grant application forms, and pass a resolution authorizing the-applica- tion for the traffic safety grant. RECOMMENDATIONS Because we need to meet a February 9th deadlineinthe preparation and submittal of the grant ;application, and because we want ahigh'. 'quality study conducted, we should,, in my'opinion, select a consulting`engineer ,that has had previous experience in preparing applications for traffic safety studies and experience in conducting such studies. - It is my recommendation that the Portland ':firm of STRAAM Engineers, Inc. (Stevens, Tompson & Runyon, Inc., joined with A.A.Mathews,`, Inc.)', be engaged as the consulting engineers for the traffic safety project. If selected, the project engineer for STRAAM would be Mr. James H. Matteson. Mr. Matteson has personally conducted seven projects like the one we are considering and has worked with the people at the Oregon Traffic Safety Commission. He knows E { what they want to see in a grant application and how they want the traffic safety studies to be conducted. Mr. Matteson also understands what cities want to achieve from these projects because he has served as the full-time, in-house City Engineer -- Traffic Safety. yc I-a c cpanialty_ LOr LWU l:l L1CJ, v�+i`�" I have spoken with Mr. Matteson for over 'four hours regarding this proposed project and I have confidence that he would do an excellent job for Tigard. 23. S.W. KATHERINE STREET SANITARY SEWER AND STORM DRAIN LID Now that we have a signed petition from owners of six different properties on Katherine Street for sanitary sewers and storm sewers, the City Council should decide if they want to consider the formation of a,..Loca1 Improvement District. If you think you do, then the first step, according to section 13.04.030 of the Tigard Municipal Code, is to have an engineer prepare "plans and specifications for the rk to be done and the probable cost thereof, improvement and estimates of the wo together with a statement of the lots, parts of lots and parcels of land should pay on account of the benefits to be derived....If the City Council shall find such plans, specifications and estimates to be satisfactory, it shall approve the same and shall determine the boundaries of the district benefited and to be assessed for such improvement." RECOMMENDATION If the Council wishes to pursue the LID method, it is my recommendation that we engage the services of Harris & McMonagle Engineers to prepare the necessary cost estimates and information to assist the council in determining whether or not it will officially order the formation of an LID for Katherine Street. If the Council then`decides to order a tlli li. sjla11 dG so by -----------; inrording to section 13.04.030 of the City's Code. 24. POLICE 'PATROL CAR BIDS Bids were received and opened January 12, 1979, in the Council Chambersofthe Beaverton City Hall, for''five (5) police patrol vehicles. A total of three bids were received. All three bids are from Chevrolet dealers and are as follows: 1. Wentworth Chevy Town $6,481.85 per vehicle 2. Knauss Chevrolet 6,341.30 per vehicle 3. Carlson Chevrolet 6,311.98 per vehicle All of the above bids are on a chevr'olet, 4-door, standard Malibu Police packagevehicle. On Monday night, January 15, 1979, the Beaverton City Council voted to 'award the bid to the lowest`bidder-Carlson Chevrolet. While we would rather purchase our two vehicles from the local dealer, Knauss Chevrolet, we recommend that the City Council aware the bid to Carlson Chevrolet for the following reasons: 1. The City of Beaverton is purchasing three of the five vehicles and they have, ,based upon their attorneys recommendations, voted to award the bid to Carlson Chevrolet. a 2. Carlson Chervo�eaWabeing thethe bidlowest Should litigation $29.32 has thelitigation .32 if they are no I- " «..,00„ the Knauss and Carlson Chervolet bids would probably difference --- - 1 c.,srs_ . _In addition,. ber relatively small when compared with our ,=6-- there may be a lengthly delay in obtaining the new vehicles. 25. REDUCE CASH BOND TO $7,594 Sam Gotter (Pathfinder II Subdivision) like ould The developers of Pathfisher II bond fromlvision$152188Sto $7,594 duringrthewmaintenanceo reduce their existing ca period as provided for in the project compliance agreement. tates that "at such time as all ublic am The project compliance agreement except except sidewalks and streewithinthe subdivision have beenpcompletedrwements i , accordance with the City'srequire requirements, cerpetitioner nrbyhthe Department oftPubliche readiness for final inspectionPumi er will Works that all uiremsu£ficientemab intenancebondity have been [,et, the nif not alreadyprovidedswitht to the city good and for correction of ay ctive work or n the performance bond.. .to provide (1) yearnaftedffinal acceptance,ofethe ance becoming apparent or arising within one public improvements by the City." en et th Public Works has certified that al.1requlanditsisfr.ecommendedathatthe city hveethemCity1Council Subdivision respect to the Pathfinder II 594 for the 1-year maintenance period. authorize the reduction of the cash bond to $7, 1 RRB:lm <<etcui:.t.J rUK I.UU\l,tL PROGF..M BUDGET Corrinunity Protection 4,979.73 Police Public Works 4,049.70 04 I•�'�' 545 nn Municipal Court - Planning 1,106.14 1 U 3• I Building 231.67 ��f � 10,912.64 f09S1 .11 Total Community Protection Home & Community Quality 2,217.48 �x Public Works Social Services Library 357.12 ', S o u Aged Services 1 250.50 3,923.79 Youth Services Historical 5,531.41 S 9`_�O•S7 Total Social Services 4 Policy & Administration Mayor & Council 102.15 i Administration 738.36 -7 598.43 r Finance 1 -418-94 I`1 3S f Total policy & Administration City Wide Support Functions '.:3,982.75 Non-departmental Misc. Accounts (refunds & payroll deductions, etc.) 17,184.28 CAPITOL BUDGET Cormnunity Protections Road Acquisition & Dev. Parks Acquisition`& Dev, storm Drainage Total Community Protection a Support Services Donations DEBT SERVICE General Obligation Bond 159.38 Bancroft Bond UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY Contract 41,426 88 TOTAL ADtOUNT OF CHECKS WRITTEN ___-- a PAYMENT OF BILLS FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL PROGRA.'i BUDGET Community Protection Police 4,979.73 Public Works 4,049.70 Municipal Court 545.40 Planning 1,106.14 Building 231.67 Total Community Protection 10,912.64 Home & Community Quality Public Works 2,217.48 Social Services Library 357.12 Aged Services 1,250..50 Youth Services 3,923.79 Historical Total Social Services 5,531.41 Policy & Administration Mayor & Council 102.15 Administration 738.36 Finance 598.43 Aa8 ow Total Policy & Administration -= City Wide Support Functions Non-departmental 3,982.75 Misc. Accounts17,184.28 (refunds & payroll deductions, etc.) CAPITOL BUDGET Community Protections Road Acquisition &"Dev. Parks Acquisition & Dev.. Storm Drainage Total Community Protection `Support Services Donations DEBT SERVICE General Obligation Bond 159.38 Bancroft Bond UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY 3 Contract , TOTAL AMOUNT OF CHECKS WRITTEN 41,426.88 a. .t U O M C) D d ..� n 0 O N N W O 1 1 1 1 1 1 u-, .n co O M U U) tl ' 3 u '— O O O O _1 CLL u M U 0.8 U' ^ 0 ° N Ci N H M o w ° N ----_— --_ W H .. 0 N w In W W O n a a o ti U) �� H O Cd d a L N U n: U H O EE � a, >.,°i .N 11 G u y h b ,�. U m C b G U G .> G .OD. :. H m 3+w ran 41 .; 10,.11 m vi Pa. •N y G uJ a '•~ SU-I•E C�•p r4 m W vii G) U d y ° N G^+ N W O 4 G O V dJ y o.� w� v� yw x r b �...� v bD. q v•+�+ .Ti w.. "ui m bD o :•o a%+ Ry G bD •'I ro O..-r `��°N.:. mVLN ayT+ Waro+:.q4yJ. o.•o.a W�>.Nm. VMH o WHu nT 'r0n . o b . 'aU�' w0yO N ° r N m o �w N p N a1 0. CLZ bD 4L .0 -1 - '.. O O Q M O ol co 'J . . • H ^ H N M.. M. N ° r W P O U p O _ r�._Z O O O 0 O r V � o P U U Q N N a7 W O a w Tt U A > aJ H A el V f N G F N � Z'- O b U � n n v OE (w�F .. m �7 >, Q O 7 w w co H 0 N O O O M Q 0o N r• • N Ln N •'1 N aJ ✓ a , ao bD o +' H p 'Ao d ..a C o .d O •Na aD•1~+ G U w 'd 0.� .ai .G •Ci P. U m U N U +� d) N C 7 U N $4 O H .. U '3a y N H . N N •r1 m N O a H u a) N U y N C a N 0) ,:L U p H a N U .0 d - H •N 00 H U .--I H O C O H L.� •.I•'i cL j. A... o bD w w•N,.4) )°+ .:>..1 Ca H ::u,.� w.a 0 > w: o u aC:� p :.p b y.v N a C H .a, m W �_G .--i A a U d N •� 00'W O y 1 '-� 7 C .tl C N o o U D. A W 7, +' C N H W .] N N•.� C C O H o a O N U H a w O C o H +� D•.1 to C.•a a .•7 •.+ O b W H O Y H•.i ••.-1 ,--1'.ri U Ol l+ b H... H 0) - E C O O/?Z :..H O L U N a C a a.-i N •,•� N b C C ?' v "� C N H C) C. U�� O J-+ .-i O U N N a •-+ O. •.� bo :H•.+ •.1 O H b H N ) o •.C•1 a > ;>a U N H W C d 7 cQ a W H .o m H d N ++ H•-+ 'C O b V w H a fw a.7 C 5 H U ...a o 0) H N fA H W jai q° w w'. w s s F'; O a0 O d N vl ul O r c0 .:� C C. N n M 0 n N M n. a 7 C• �Y' ul oo N N •-i: N N' M '.O 0 N O Cl 4 xn : N M irl �0 n.. CO a, U • 'N N.. N '.N N N N Rl.. M M ,Cz U < t � o � U U Q 1 M � � b M 0 z u o C) U ai.N f1 i N N q N lO�..� CO M to o ✓� M .N a+ F W c G Cl N 7 N V O r P G 7 co o N P. co 1 ti o a w � m x . o Cri O O c: oh M 'I aJ M N 4 u U a u.�. o o .-� a H 'm v cL '.ai H V S m G •.VI N w W .-I Um O :H U a) U ro aTi -o A m r+ 14 D:3 O G ro .�.:W U W U '> ::7 w•H _ 7 aro+ G O. :.) G. 33H H a) a) w m U U A ro ,b W d (n >,y H N �j,� H':N E N ..U+ ,N :3 C3 rq aNi v,dt ur G. 3 ' q 7 u v..oa roti, o m w G .-+v v Q) w v > > v v ro w w U w a an w r o u v u ro a) w w v + G Pa E) •.+ �'o .a•-4 a) .21 m vJ •.a..-� w ro o G R o u G• $ E O +� U.• E E H O O �� EO u m ti .G T w G. G•a U U > a) G n. ti •-� -w w G. , E ++ G ro m..+ ro,-i •a T w ro E X v X a) % v O O .a v G ro •.a H o o.a ro 7 .-�..r x+ u w W w .-� ro v 3 v o v g E j a, ro ala.i a > v H � ro m m u ,� G:G • •.:+ ai a+ .w o u o u o ro > H V •-� •-).N w W :a +).[n wW w O al W V1 y q H V) G F G H G F z° z a ao w ( w aw a° a ro o 0 0 In �p N CO Q` til O M N a0 .D M to N N O M h 1�n O a0 O lo u O 1. ~ :.--Ioo � M uM 1 til .O M1 c0 O� O .-i N M 1 'til .O M1 ao •G '�.. r h r:. M1 'r r. h h M1'. rh M1 M1 r... M1 M1 V iF O U E ro •.7� h M o0 _ O Q` O O 64 O O U nA Q v m a 00 0 } N M O 7 - v ti'O'D N N Z Q• h a N �+l Pa dd q a C A r L•1OI J ^ .D.'-0 s G4 ~ N •N � 0 U J EF H } H o ¢ 3 ' a 0 y v p :a.l O v J-1 L° A U a a s N ro d czu ti o a G v Uu v v � v I o v H E .+ m C a� U 3 v ••a•d H C °D : 3 qH C Nm Q. W ro N O X G ro.O Hh + v H G m o r a 3 + a v 9 H W H W [n N V 0 f O O m O A O N U U! C••+ O -+ ro V O 'O O m ro C ,', v] a.l •p ro >,•.1 B.G. •N H :A O Z H •O H b H U U N: G O C H a O)•O 10 P. X d o A E+ w b >. H >+ W >, Ol a •1 G. �. a+ O O N N H .-1 N a O O : U ro ro • al .G ro 10 t0 ro ro M•O A X arD y x boV ro C4 (n v V : w o V U)w m w •w"w ,60 P+ :.�w vw. 1 In O H D 3: DC 0,...,.A 0 <3 H E :.C gn Ia1:. c0 d N et1- � •-i �'] M O ice.. O In O s.. y�.. .:� O• A n .:b 1:. M Q` ei n O 0` O h .D is Id .-1 G N N H .O 0 �1` ti+ �+'1 '..7 ♦O �t O0 N N M f �.: �O O. O� N M N L J EO U O 'i N M �T ul .0 M1 a0 D` O D` ci N M 1('f u1 s[l 1+1 M •D U F7—. a, v Q a1 T, t O G y �. cl � a G 17 .0 no. ¢ ¢ N v 0E N M Lf) W Pa e-I 00 H —. —. - y7 F . In v V _ W fA M 0 rn vi ca C .o ,a CGpV O u'f .D04 O� N a7 � N go m i Cl W co r co 'D O W M 'o 0' f� -C M .DMO 1� O M.�7'M �7• 7 N�tl�O M't c0.-1.--I 0,. - 1� N O c0 00.D 10 O �..0 N T 0 •� y o u'1 u v ur ff M— y a u � m vw v•.a v .� _.� v •y y : u y .N o U co ca v A U m 0 000 WO :. 00 >> 0 P4 Z m O m o m:. O.v :O U W 0 W p •�.`. ,moo '� T a.Ni 7 7 a O a r+ 00 cc O > 'al W N W: N?L boG1 cc w N 5 a a W10 M u T 00 aD Fei.0. 1 MONTHLY REPORT PLANNING DEPARTMENT DECEMBER, 1978 CURRENT PLANNING The following projects were acted on by the Planning Commission over the past month. Zone Changes: Zone Change ZC 30-78 (Sherwood Downs) Applicant: Ginther Engineering Request: For a preliminary plan and program review of a residential planned development and zone map amendment from Wash. Co. RU-4 to City of Tigard R-7 PD on a 11.25 acre parcel. Site Location: South of Bonita Road on S.W. 76th Action Taken: Approved 12/5/78 with conditions. Applicant is appealing decision to City Council on January 22, 1979. Zone Change ZC 25-78 (Winter Lake) Applicant: Krueger Development Co. _request: For a preliminary plan and program review of a residential planned development and zone map amendment from Wash. Co. RS-1 to City of Tigard R-7 PD and A-2 PD on a 27.31 acre site. Site Location: East of 135th between Scholls Ferry Road and Walnut Street. Action Tan&. is Tables d cn 121/5/78 "din^ fill 1 annexation of subject site. Planning Commission hearing is set for February 20, 1979. one Change ZC 18-78 (pick's Tandi ng) Applicants: Grimstad `and Waymire Request: For a general plan and program review of`a single family residential planned development and a zone map,amendment from Wash. Co. RS-1 to City of Tigard R77 PD on a 20.92 acre parcel. ' Site Location: 9930 S.W. Durham Road Action Taken: Approved —12/5/78` Zone Change ZC 31-78 Applicant: Fred Cooper Request: For a zone map amendment from Wash. Co. RU-4 and City R-7 "Single Family, Residential" zone to City of Tigard CP "Commercial-Professional" zone,on a .74 acre parcel. Site Location: 12700 S.W. 72nd Avenue Action Taken: Tabled on 12/5/78 pending annexation of property. Rehearing set for February 6, 1979. MONTHLY REPORT PLANNING DEPARTMENT DECEMBER, 1978 PAGE 2 CURRENT PLANNING CONTINUED: Conditional Uses: Conditional Use CU 34-78 Applicant: Jim Kosta Request: For a conditional use permit to construct three duplex units in an R-7 "Single Family Residential" zone on a .61 acre site. Site Location: 13895 S.W. 104th & McDonald Action Taken: Approved 12/5/78 Conditional Use CU 31-78 (Stevens Marine) Applicant: Page N. Stevens Request: For a conditional use permit to construct and operate a marine sales and service center in a C-3M "Main Street Commercial" zone on a 3.25 acre parcel. Site Location: 9110 S.W. Burnham Road Action Taken: Tabled on 12/5/78 due to lateness of hour. Rehearing set for January 16, 1979. Conditional Use CU 32-78 Applicant: Ted Vonada Request: For-a conditional use permit to construct a duplex unit in an R-10 "Single Family Residential" zone on a .57 acre parcel. Site Location: 13800 S.W. 110th and S.W. Gaarde Street Action Taken: Tabled on 12/5/78 for rehearing 1/9/79, item was 'approved. Subdivisions: Subdivision S 15-78 (Creek side Park) Applicant: Ed Gause Request: To subdivide tax lots 3700, 3900 & 4000, Tax Map 2S1 3CD into 15 'lots. Site Location: North of S.W.' Gaarde Street, east of S.W. Rose Vista 'Court Action Taken: Denied and sent to 'Planning Commission for review Minor Land Partitions:_ Minor Land Partition MLP 20-78 Applicant: BPEEP Company Request: To alter the boundaries of Tax Lots 1002 & 1001 Site Location: 7000 S.W. Varns Action Taken: Approved with conditions 12/26/78 Minor Land 'Partition MLP 18-78 Applicant: H.B. Williams Request: To partition'a .95 acre parcel in two additional lots Site Location: 1100o S.W. 121st Avenue 'Action Taken: Approved with conditions 12/12/78 MONTHLY REPORT PLANNING DEPARTMENT DECEMBER, 1978 PAGE 3 Site Design Review: SDR 54-78 (Gaarde Park Place) Applicant: Ted Millar - Oak Hills Investment Request: Site Design and Architectural Review of a proposed commercial office center. Site Location: S.W. Pacific Highway, north of S.W. Gaarde Action Taken: Approved (administratively) Pending: Peason: SDR 7-78 Bellwood Phase III Waiting for resubmittal of revised plans. SDR 34-78 Greenway Town Center Waiting for submittal of detailed landscape. SDR 35-78 Park 217 Waiting for submittal of revised plans. SDR 40-78 Mckenzie-Great Western Waiting for revised site plan due Chemical to improper access drive. SDR 50-78 Baskin-Robbins Waiting for revised site plan. SDR 45-78 Marciene Terrace D .screpancies with site map and tax lots. Planning Director/Administrative Assistant t w } MEMO TO: CITY COUNCIL DATE: JANUARY 22, 1979 FROM: BUILDING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: MONTHLY REPORT FOR MONTH OF DECEMBER, 1978 4 December's building activity included permits for 2 signs, 19 single family residential, 4 residential alter and repair, i 2 multi-family, 3 commercial, 5 commercial alter and repair, and 13 foundations for a total valuation of $4,285,849.00. Fees for 46 permits $11,474.75 Fees for 2 signs 50.00 Plumbing Activity - 44 3,182.00 Mechanical Activity - 56 710.00 Business Licenses -- 23 1,212.00_ TOTAL - $16,626.75 Sewer Permits - 26 $46,000.00 Sewer Inspections - 25 720.00 King City Building activity included 1 residential alter and repair for a total valuation of $24,000:00 and fees of $162.00.` C •.-i O.--t01000UOC.. CD NOL170) M nnMNMM M MMM0t-0Nto NNNNO_. Z O 000 r{ 40 Q[`- LOOOOC] L LO �' 10Lr) d [�] MNO .-•1.�0 kQ M IzZ MCDCO ':ZrM 4' �' d' L m O 000 (o -iOU7LfT Lr) n0) jd � Ln �' LNt�o Lf) LDLn (DLnLnmLr) OCI) O] C) 117Lf) O ( OOO 0) -A t)Co ko -10� M0 ?- Co CDmm -T0) LnLnn (JN N CD -I co .-i 00 NO NNNNCr) OL 1 OD CD ar ro � d dv MLr)tnLOtO LnM � � Lr) d' LOLt) LD '7Ln Od � � � Ln � U) ''TQddM117 i 0- > N N tn z z H H H H H m ro . . . . . . . . . . . . . CU m m Co M �{ ,._{ .--i,..{,-{ ,.-�.-i .-i ,-{ ,-{,� ,-..1.,.-1 ,-{ .-i.-1 .-i .-1 .•-I .-L .-I C C C C C C C C C C C C C m m m (a m (U ca m et ro ca (U ca m m LU m m N to m 7 3 7 7 D D D 7 3 D D 3 0 CO Ca ro m Cu •r1 •rt •ri..;•ri •rl•ri •a •.-t •ri•rl •rl•a •ri •rl •r! •ri •ri •r1 •ri -1 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O •ri•a •a •rt •ri 4-3 4.3 4.3.i.).N .1.) 4-3 .L.) 4-2 .{J-N -P -L-)-P-P-N-P4-3 +)-i-) 4-3 4-p- li 4- q- C4- 4--• 4--4- 4-- 4-- 4-)-P {] 4-).-i•) a)l CC C C C C C C C C C L' C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Q) N a) N N 0 N (D a) w m a) a) m a) a) m m • a) a) a) 3 O 0 N 0 0 ,r •0 -OD"0 •O77 'O •D -0D 77_077mT) "0 "07777 m 'O •D "O 'O -O 0 'OD•D 'iJ • •i-) •,A •a -A•r1•ri •a •a •ri •a -r-i • i •H •a •14 •a'r-i •a •a •A•ri - i 'r-1 •a •a •a C9 U) (a U) U) 0 U) CO U) U) U) U) U) CO CO U) W U) U) U) U) LA W U) U) CO (P U) U) U) CO U) U) (n CO U) CO U) to a) m a) a) a) a) a) co O a) a) a) O O a) O (1) a) a a) a) (i) Q) (D a) a) a) a) a) a) a) (i) a) m N W a) m a) H H H H H H H H H L-( (-) H H H H H H H H H H t-+ H H H H H H H P4 H H t-+ H H H H H H CX) 01 W (D W a) U a) 7 0. LSI a) a) a) •'•I O 9 a) a) 0 m a) a) a) a) M U > H H O 0_ a) a) > > > > > > > > > -1-) -f-) cu -1 4.30 m J a) O •-) a) D 7 •a •a•,•i •,-i •,A (D •a •,-i a) •a a) a)-4 a) 1 H t-a r-1 H En U U G H U C C H H H H H D H H 3 H 7 3 H U '0 -) r-L r) 14 LU 'O (U J 3 a) a) 0 0 0 O 0 O C O O C O C C O a) (U a7 (U C) O O 77 14 O ,-i H -1O 11 > > u) w u) ^. : � n (, (•„) U) U) W T 0 •ri O t1 O 0_ 0 U t1 ¢ ¢ 0 m m a) a) > a) 4) > a) > > Q7 -4 H •a S p..l •.i C -0 -4 O -C 0 cs- •.i "0 77 77 "O •O ¢'O Zi ¢-0 ¢..¢"L,vL:-:� (0=4 U U) U)L_C•ri •ri H 3 L L-4 3 L -L-)_C U) -0 L..0 t ••-i •a-H-r1 •,-1 •a •a • i •,i O 3 1-O Co dv 7 M: a)4-3-1•) -- U):(L) -0 -N -1.3 Q):-0 4- R).4-) (1) 7+) 4-3 -P U) U) U) (o U)L.U) U)L U) L L a) :C 4-> W ED(( O C C 0 O •)•) (1) .n .-i 71 LD N ,-1 r-1 H 1-1 C O 11 0) (n a) a) a) a) (1) .11 a) a)+-) a) -P+-) a)L rl 3-C •i O. U)1 i a) (1)OO (O1 E .,..1NO w -,.iri -0.4 N.-1,-1O L.`S -Y Y11� -IL .Y :�r-Y -7Y `> 0 m W U) C C)t r,.:- - - ,-{ S:3,--r M-A c 7 U r-i-A .-( ro (0 ro M a)0) Lo (o M ro M rn Ca ¢.:3•a ¢ 0 L 4a' JY JJJ'JJ JJ J J m 2: _0 333333' 333333 :1333333' 3 3 33 33 3 h-•L -0 U).U) U)(nLOLO33 (nU) (n(n ()7CnLn (0 cnU7CnCntn.33333()').33LJ73tocn3torncn(n 3 0 Cal co co Ln co co u7 (n Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln J LO in Ln OO Ln LnDLn000LnLnLnLnOOO O O OO tt)O O r L dLn>W -1 11mmCDNC) Nm -4tDr-i ICT N- 11N OOOC70CDCDOOI70m (0LnCDCDLn m co :LO t I:*m.m tO.ID..O m N .q n m t0 r-r- 11(0 LO m m N 1-1 0 O N d' LD N.�'N N m N:,--1 O NLn m rf.-1 0')n nC3 LI- m .-i N,-L d '- " Ln N M.-4 N � -zzi' -Y �*ko m ko Lo LI) LI- Lr) LO LO M O 1-1 to M ".-1 ri .-•I r•i 1..,-(Ot m .--1"-A r•4',-1.-•1 14 r-i.,A ,-i r-1.-1+--t ,-1 M O) (T m m -A 0) 0) r-i.OR.-1 r-i Cl) .-i,^•-1 M .--i.Lam• _C C • O O U -a -1 i] C . o C .i.) .1.) C 0 U L) O D C) 4-) f-t •• H H C C ;a U • - t L U) D N a) 00 09 CO a) H C C • • • • • • . • Q • e i C C __Q a +) m ro O O O 0 O 0 0 0 O o w o o +� H'O O U .a LA H U) a) E E UUL) (-JuUiV L.JUU Liu H Q O U)' r4 rl .• C E ri 03 O C 4- Q. ' - 7 On LT ro"CD > O O a) D C U (1) o O > > > > > > > > > > a) > •> C U 3 U 13 C= a(4 C&- a) U) S 0) '0 O: 14 S S a) a), N a) a) a) a) a)"a) (1) O m m •a 'O E (D a) C ca G.rl •a(j.-°(A.-LO rn U 1),H 3 ti t3000O00000 OO�>- H r-r..C G"m.m•N.:..._0 -a.) .a F_ v X LD LU N •� di.. a 4.3 EU ro U U•ri C O (n a) t1 7:'- •c•) CO 4-)L .J 4-) C C C'C C C C C C C C C C C ca C U) = S E-A S m U) 0n G U) f) J .i.) t •a.) C G•,+ •ri•a•a •a•,i •ri •,A-4 •a -a•ri•a 3 F- C H T 0 "C7 C. •-) H 3 H'O O O •a H 0 m (r -P .-P -N -P +) •)--(-) +)4-)) -(-) -P`•7-)+) m L.7 H C U) U Hers •tt ro. (a CO • U' CO m CO.N C) •L7 E a) t 7 E E`'ro ro CO:m (U CU m ro CO ro CO ro ro H to 0 to •a•ri L7):-i CC-0 0 > M m W (n > C� o.-r-i+-1 1-4 r-i ,-1 r-i r-i r4-r-1-4-q r-i ro •,-t u C 3 Lz H'H D m r-t a) a E E O E 4- (+- EU ro rU m CO SU ro cUro (U Lv ;m m CD 3 E 4- 3 'O LT) 03 (D (1) 0 D • 0 -0 •)•) •`77 (U CO P-i-A ro O O D D D 7 D D D D 'D D D a _)'o a)"' m O L.1ze `:e 0E-r) L3L1(nJ W LnF-tnccL7tnSSF- t- {- t-t-F- r t-F- 1-1- i--i- WJnnU C OoOC]OO CD C; m O 000000 00 I' CV •,i L7f-JOmmO U) O CD -N m (a to CD 0 to 0(`.-i re Lf) >. 1-1 N r- ,-A N +2 (a N P Sa N`N Ca Co 0 co Ca ca co (Ci Ca (a m (a (a c U U U U U U U U - •,i .. . O co S-1 N NP H N N N -V O O O O O -1m m a) m a) 0 0 0 N O O O O O E E E E E E E E 1 :3 ,-i LO W E E E E E E E E ,-i - d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (a N N CV N U U U U U U U U > # tf* t I I s 1 1 I I i CD m M C. (r �. co W W co r- L m a) m 3 m O1•t-) 5 7 E: L { i a) W C W Ol a). a) m a) 03 S a) C-) a) U •,i O 7 O a) 0 7 N W > W S C C C U C C 1= U -P O Q D t ma) m (TJma) W (n .,.I cS CL cL O O_ Q¢ E: -;-I C CD -P O O W U •-I lD -.(o 'CO 04 04 Sa C-.CV CEJ - a) mC cl- -14 L-I -(l- m 33 O 3 O u N -'(n co -0 3`333 333 m •o Ln (a (A S m t0 o O O O O� C7 O CD U7 O O h (D to Ci Li 4. [T OOUIC70U) U) -ICV LO M Com• r-L- '-I CD.Com-. M 0 :.,--I _J n U7 LO%,0N 1,0E: Q D Q D -4 D%D C .-I •-I.�i.-I L%-r-4 .-I,-1 F•- r-� h m 0 n "0 t— ,-•I I_ { OD Q m W h -4 0 0 E: I- W m u CD,m c (n m o (O m W C I S-1 P L3 m .-Jt 4J 01 C O Q I- O (J7:n O m m U H (a -V ,-i E-V-0 1 P 0 .q •.5 -d co m a co CD •,i C Cr C� G ri O 7 (n h 0 LLJ [l m, (a 3 c c -P U 0--P-W ( ( Sa .0 Z CD H _• 4•.I,C •,i W C C 6 (O Y 4-3 ob > > ca ca- co (a 0= a-) 3 (a 1- C c O 0mU- >`mm W U -a -4 1i O� CL E:E: 0+3 m (a 0 -0 4-3 U O •4 • (.1 cn E (a ,.0 (D a)Cn O,-i U)Cn Z -P O m -i-i=C-.= =: u3 U J U g;. I MEMORANDUM January 8, 1979 T0: Library Board City Council FROM: City Librarian SUBJECT: Monthly Report, December 1978 1. Administration: a. The regular meeting of the Library Board was held December 12, 1978• Minutes are attached. b. December 18 Librarian attended meeting of the WAshington County Cooperative Library Services Computer-Circulation Committee. Of interest: The Committee has been observing various systems in Eugene, Multnomah County serve and Tacoma, WA.in an effort to determine which type of system WCCLS libraries. Work continues on devising a county-wide circulation Policy. It is planned that Beaverton will begin converting and setting up of July 1979• One problem will be the initial expense of conversion and a means of cost-sharing by all libraries is being considered. c. The WCCLS professional board meeting was held 18 December. Of interest: The Guidelines for Receiving Serial Levy Funds was presented and ddionuforda P isc Greatest contention developed over the wording of the j would be hired for a library in a non-incorporated Community Librarian. (One who area.) Two board members felt that an MLS should be a requirement. Compromise was reached by requiring an MLS or equal combination of training and experience. The new contract incorporating the general guidelines was presented. The only significant change was in specifying that WCCLS will provide continuing education as a service to county libraries. Other points follow closely the draft that was attached to last month's report. 2. Personnel: Agan maternity leave December 4. ; With a. Staff member Kathy Tremaine b ry is able to remain open 59 hours extraevening W _ added volunteer help the Libraand out hiring additional help. Full time staff are working on rotation. b. Volunteer hours totaled 113.5 hours, averaging 5 hours per day. (Holiday cl,»-;ng and bad weather 'reduced hours somewhat.) 3. Statistics: a, Circulation_5-,39 Magazines 208 Adult 4177 Audio-Visual 136 Juvenile 1129 ether 8 Interlibrary Loan 81 IN-ToT,,Tn 49 Out-of-Town 68 b. User cards issued 117 C.', Story Hour- .8 average (Wed and Thurs pre-school) l Children's Christmas party 23 d. Materials added 2.88 Juvenile Fic 15 Adult Fic 24 Juvenile Non-Fic Adult Non-Fic 79 iat raperbac!� 145 Juvenile Paperback 5 xu Large Print 13 e. Materials'withdrawn ,66 i Monthly Report - December 1978 - 2 f. Money received: Fines $4.00 Lost Books $16.36 Donations $12.10 4. Programs: a. Friends of the Library held their monthly meeting on December 7. Members discussed means of raising money in addition to the annual book sale. 11 in Lirarx.rwulbe hed, withIt was decided that a "craft faith(Libbarian�was askedltto checktwithrCitys renting tables to local crafts people. Administrator on feasibility. Approval was granted.) The Friends concluded the meeting with a cookie exchange. b. A Christmas party for pre-school story time attendees was held December 21. Besides games and refreshments, the 23 children and 4 mother-helpers made Christmas decorations. c. During the�maternia tylea�uoendhhours each staff member Claire week are being conducted y g- oof four mothersa Sheldon. This is proving very successful and some very excellent programs have been enjoyed by the 'children. t r. Y MINUTES Tigard Library Board December 12, 1978 Call to Order The regular meeting of the Tigard Library Board was called and Roll Call: to order at 7:35 P.M. , December 12, 1978 by Chairman Betsy Chick. All members present. Reports: Minutes of the previous meeting were approved., f the Guidelir.As for Re- Old Business: Librarian reviewed Draft III o aim ceiving County Serial Levy Funds, pointing out revisions WCCLS Administrative and questions regarding effect on Tigard. Guidelines Comm. It was announced that the Tigard City Council had voted to treat maternity leave as sick leave. Kathy Tremaine Maternity Leave began maternity leave on December 4 and will return on her doctor's recommendation. CETA Librarian announced that CET.A employee Claire Sheldon wi_il be funded to October 1, 19'79. The slot vacated by Chrys Green will not be reinstated. Library Board Recruiting candidates for' the two Board vacancies was Candidates discussed. Members reported great difficulty finding persons who have the time. New Business; The Library will be closed 23-25 December and 1 January. Holiday Closing: - The Librarian asked Board members to review the selection policy so that it may be brought up-to-date or revised if Selection Policy deemed necessary. This will be an annual review. Budget 1979-80 Ilie impact of the new levy to begin in July 1979 was dis- cussed. The Library will receive approximately $70,000 from the levy. The Board supported the Librarian's contention that City support should not be cut because the levy was promoted as increasing and improving services and continued City support is necessary to do this. The matter of salaries was discussed. Bcard members ex- pressed an interest in comparing Library personnel salaries to equivalent positions in the City and with other libraries in the county. Librarian was asked to gather this infor- mation. Change of Meeting George>Vaternick told the Board that his teaching schedule would preclude his attendance at the January, February Motion and March meetings. Jean Carlisle moved that for those months the meeting be changed to the second Monday at 7:30 P.M.. Jeri Cundiff seconded. Motion was passed. Meeting adjourned 9:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, rene Ertell Approved: Approved as corrected: POLLCE DEPARTMENT CONSOLIDATED MONTHLY REPORT FOR MONTH OF DECEMBER 78 DLST'RIBUTION OF PERSONNEL HEM _- --------------- ----- E RAC E `------•-------------- - NUMERICAL STRENGTH _DAILY ABSE_N_G_E---- ---AVE-----R _E_F_r�:_CI_1V_F.__S_1R_E_N_GI_H End of - --- Same -------- --This - --Same This Last _ - Same - - this -� Month Month Month Month Month Mc-nth Month Last Last I Last Year --Year--- _ --Year_-- --- ------- - 117 r TOTAL PERSONNEL 25 26 _-9.1 -- ts_?_-- to• -- --iv..l L,. CHIEF'S OFFICE 2 .7 1.3 1.1 _ 1_3.-__- SERVICES DIVZS: 6 s --- 5 2.2v- 1.2 -� 3 8 - --3.1 _o PATROL DIVISION 13 _15 4.9 _ 5.0 8.1 _ __7.3 _-_10.0 TRAFFIC DIVZS. 1 --- �_-- INVEST-- SECTION 3 - 4 __1.0 1.3 2.0 _-1.8 _2.7 FORCE ONE 12 12_____ _ 4.7-- _-4.2___ .2 _ 7.8 _- FORCE TWO r8 ?------- -3.5 2.0 4.5 - _ 3_8- 5.0_____ 7 1.0 2.3 +,' 4.0 3.1 - 4.7 --- FORCE THREE I 5 _ -------�+------ ------ CHANGES IN PERSONNEL DAILY AVERAGE PATROL STRENGTH Same Month 1. Present for duty end of last month -24 _ This Month I Last Year 2. Recruited during month1. Total Total number field 3. Reinstated during month 0 officers 14 _15 _ Total to account for 25 2. Less Agents Assig- 4. Separations from the service: ned to Investigat. 0 __ 0 (a) Voluntary resignation - 0 3. Average daily abs- ences of field off- (b) Retirement 0 icers owing to: (c) Resigned with charges pending _0 (a) Vacation, susp- ension, days off, (d) Dropped during probation 0 comp, time, etc. 4 `7 4.5 - (e) Dismissed for cause 0 (b) Sick '& Injured _ a4 .2_ _ 0 (c) Schools, etc. _=2 (f) Killed in line of duty Total average daily 5.3 5.0 (g) Deceased 0 absences - Total separations U 4. Available for duty ....8,71 10.0 5. Present for duty at end of month 25 Paee one MINOR' 101 1 'f IGARD PCILICE DEPARI'll"N''r 'Monthly Report I. Calls for S(.rvice: This PIonth _553 Year to Date 7,017 — 1 181.2 B. Non-Obligated Time 915.3 A. Obligated Time , — II. PART I_CRIMES No. Cleared Arrests A. HomicideB. Rape — --— -------- C. Robbery 2---- ---- — 8 D. Assault 9 -- —8--E. Burglary 10 — ---- 6 F. Larceny 42 — ------14 --G. Auto Theft 2 65 2214 Totals —_ --_ POLICE 'E R Report I. Calls for Service: 7,017 A. Obligated Time 14,629.0 B. Non-Obligated Time 11,194.2 II. PART I CRIMES No, Cleared Arrests A. Homicide B. Rape 10 5 3 C. Robbery 17 3 2 MEMO D. Assault _ 62 ' -47 34 E. Burglary f5 --_ 22 F. Larcenv 578 168 102 G. Auto Theft 40 11 5 Totals 860 263 __ 168 III. PART II TOTALS %: ovi 486 476 TOTAL - Part I and II 1,721 749 644 IV. TOTAL PERSONS CHARGED: 644 a. Adult Male 329 C. Juvenile Male 195 b. Adult Female 51 d. Juvenile Female 69 s V. WARRANTS SERVED 86 ! VI. TOTAL PROPERTY LOSS $ 228,526.29 TOTAL PROPERTY RECOVERED $60,435.421 fi - VII. TRAFFIC a. Accidents Investigated 495 Injury Accidents 118Fatal 3 b. Citations: VBR (Speeding) 614 Yield Right of Way 121 Following too Close s? Red L;.--It 282 Stop Sign 64 Improper Turn 60Reckless Driving_9_ Careless Drivi.:g102 Driving Under the Influence182' Driving While Suspended 86 Other Hazardous 155 Non-Hazardous 648 Total Hazardous 1,706 C. Enforcement Index 14.46 d.. Traffic Enforcement Totals Citations:. 2,354 Warnings: 1,364 NOTE: _ part I Crimes (Major Crimes) Clearance Rate 30.6 . Part II Crimes (? inor Crimes). Clearance Rate56.4% F 4 } r r VIII. TRAINING A. LEDS CONFERENCE. Records Supervisor Carrick attended a two day conference in Corvallis, Dec. 7 and 8, learning updated procedures on the LEDS system, receiving 16 hours of training. B. INSTRUCTOR DEVELOPMENT. Sgt. Jennings attended the Police k's training in Instructor Development. Academy at Monmouth for one wee This class was held from Dec. 11 through the 15th. C. DEFENSE TACTICS INSTRUCTORS SCHOOL. Sgt. Newman also attended the Police Academy from Dec. 18 through the 22nd. His training was received at a Defense Tactics Instructors School. i Ix, COMt-luNl T Y RELATIONS A. KIWANIS YOUTH CAMP. On December 19, Officer Martin spent 4 hours in Salem at the BPST office, discussing further plans for I the Kiwanis Youth Camp. B. CRIME PREVENTION ASSOC. OF OREGON. On Dec. 270 Officer Martin attended another meeting in Salem at the BPST office, spending 7 hours discussing CPAO training needs. C. That same date, he spent 1-1/2 hours at a luncheon meeting with Portland Police Bureau and the Oregon Law Enforcement Council, discussing plans for a statewide crime prevention convention. D. BURLGARY TALKS. Two burglary prevention talks were held this month. One was at the Methodist Church on Dec. 5, to 30 senior citizens. -,Lt.-Rea,, Sgt. Newman and Officer Grisham gave this two- hour presentation. The other was held at Summerfield for approximately 100 adults. Lt. Rea, Chief Adams, and Officer Grisham presented this talk, spending 6 departmental man hours. a` FINANCIAL STATEMENT ti " EXPENDITURES Date-11�,rember 31, 1978 OPERATIONAL BUDGET 1978-79 Current Year To Budget Month Date 1. COQ"iUN ITY PROTECTION POLICE SERVICES 1,1 1.1 i Patrol 350,066 99,666 145-.345 1 1 2 Investigation 91,470 8 174 X9.890 1.1.3 Communication Records 99,656 7,791 42.281 1.1.4 Administration 63,328 A Anr 27.706 TOTAL $ 604,540 $46,436 $255,222 PUBLIC WORKS 1.2 1.2.1 Street Lighting 43,803 1 ,882 18,120 I 2 Traffic Signing & Markinry Sig. 19,435 1 .589 7.237 1.2.3 Engineering 41,183 3,340 20.137 1.2.4 Administration & Clerical 3,085 228 1,370 TOTAL 1072506 7,039 46,864 MUNICIPAL COURT 1.3 1 3._L Arraignments & Trials 15,738 1x9 5 6,58 PLANNING AND ZONING 1.4 1.4. 1 Current Planning 41,180 + 1,200 + 518= 42,898 4,169 20.639 1.4.2 Advance Planning 1 4 2(1) N P 0 Pro¢ram 11,515 661 3.968 1 4'2(2) "L C D C. , H.C.D.,: 12,475 2.088 9.660 1.4.3. Enforcement- 740 1.4.4 Support Services (Clerical) 14,220 1 165 6,815 1.4.5 Program Administration 16,499 1 499 ___8,65O 1.4.6 ParkAdministration 290 5, 5 TOTAL 96,919 +"1,20O+518==:2=8,637 9,587 49,737 BUILDING INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT 1.5 1.5.1 Plan Checking 14,496 1.52 Field Inspection 42,034_ _ 1 ,475 11.382 1 5 3Su"Dor t=Services (Clerical) 9,647- 80rl _' 4`,233 1.5.4 Program Administration< 10,065 795 4,742 TOTAL 76,242 4,302` 27,696 2. HOME AND CONM- NITY QUALITY PUBLIC WORKS 2.1 2.1.2 Sanitary Service 642969> 9_591 16.725 2.1.3 Streets and;Roads 102,781 3,361 19�610 2 L 4 Parks 51,742 3.848 27.731 2.1`.5 Storm Water' Control 43,833 1.761 . 7,300 2.1.6 Soecial' Proiects 20,009 1.676= 8.620- 2.1.7 ;620.2 1 7 Ancillary Service 28,858 9.556 13_090 2.1.'-- Engineering' 42 892 4,GpF,- -19 92 2.1.9 Administration & Clerical 3,084 230 1,397 Z%i L _nsEt Control 8,800 3,550 TOTAL 366,968 19,429 117,615 trans f er.ed from Cc,^_t ingency EXPENDITURES Date - ember-3 -1-XPi - OPERaTIONAC. BUDGET Pace 2 Current Year-To 1978-79 Date Bud�etM-Mop.th 3, SOCIAL SERVICES 23 824 3 322 13,187 LIBRA 1 7,873 Technical Services 1;371 __,_____- 3.L. l 15,57_8_____---617'- __3x482 3.1.2 Co .nunLtr, Services 033 7 508 3. .3 0 erations & Maintenance 15 X93 1,338 x= --- Adm- -s tra tion 6,648 32,050 TOTAL YOUTH & AGED SERVICES 3- 5,000 1 991 3.1.L Loaves & Fishes ---- 1,R 008��_��°25�_----_-5,,924._ _7_ 3.2-'L ^Youth Services 3.5-L Historical ---`-"$ 23 5175 7,821 TOTAL 4, POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION ` MAYOR AND COUNCIL 4.1 11 123 1,105 4'123 4.1.L Policy. and Direction10,606+ 517 = 2,165 13,943 t4.2-1 ADMINISTRATlp_ N 4•? 28,335 6s2_78 1L'777 1,260 �Management Functions 265 1,611 4.2,2 Staff Functions - 3 54l '�� 4'2 3 Ancillar Functions 3,690 7.1,832 $ t�6� ,603 T,._ TOT;L FISCAL ADMINISTRATION AND RECORDS 4.3 : 60 '710 564 }Q�240 x+.3.1 Finance Program 60 225 +-485 = 213070 _ 648 0 7_.,- 2 Cites ;Records _ ' S 087 "•'• cu Dort ,Serv,_ 42,468 4.3.3 Mana ement 7,204 - 89,382 + 485 8y7 �- TOTAL ��- 5, CITY WIDE SUPPORT FUNCTIONS � �^ NON-DEPART'ENTAL FUNCTIONS 5.1 22,500 48,475' -q,253-- S 5.1.1 5.1.1 .Legal Services Insurances 24,375 ' ��5 5.1.2 6,916 5.1.3 Utilities _--- 5,1„"4 Rent 8,293 5.1.5 Postage 7,250 5.1.6Audit 8,742 5.1.7 Memberships , 2,000' t Codification of Ordinances 2,500 249 5._.8 345 3 9 r F;.Supo1_-ies 2,000 2 822 5.1.y Statiore-, epair _452 PIF-- Bldg- " Equip. hfai.nt. & R_, 6,755 595 13,000 595 5.1.11 Contractual .Services 99 2,,000 _ 5.L.L2 Unemployment Reserve - ' -"12 5.1.13 Donations a_tions 1,457 S.L,14 "Publicity & -CopmLLt_t iY RGL 00 5. L.15 Materia Ls & 5, p 5� L_h_pavrol_ L00486 - 1 20c) - 1 520 197 766 84,459 5.L.19 C r;noencY �: 455 '--r� ' 358,011 - 1,200- 1,520 = 355,291 ----- TOTAL CAPITAL BUDGET x Date Page 3 1978-79 Current `fear-To Budget Month Date 6. MD1UNITY PROTECTION HOME AND CO'DIUNITY QUALITY 6.2 6.2.1.3(7) Road Acq. & Development $ 331,330 ' 6.2. L.4(3) Parks Acq & Development 74,354 6.2.1.5(3) Storm Drainage 43,832 19 41.96.6 DIVISION 6.5 6.5.1.13(1) Donations 2,000 TOTAL $ 451,516 19 41,966 7. DEBT SERVICE 10,000 21,000 7.1 General Obligation Bonds 21,000 7.1.1 General Obligation Bonds (Int.) 1,649 791 Unappropriated Balance 23-253 TOTAL 45,902 10,791 22,649 7.2 Bancroft Improvement Bonds 39,000 7.2.1 Bancroft Improvement Bonds (int -) 11,449 Unapprooriated ,Balance 128 810 TOTAL 179,259 1,028 16,159 TOTAL $ 21530,428 168,513 :7771242 Tzansfers' from Contingency MONTHLY REPORT PLANNING DEPARTMENT DECEMBER, 1978 CURRENT PLANNING The following projects were acted on by the Planning Commission over the past month. Zone Changes: Zone Change ZC 30-78 (Sherwood Downs) Applicant: Ginther Engineering Request: For a preliminary plan and program review of a residential planned development and zone map amendment from Wash. Co. RU-4 to City of Tigard R-7 PD on a 11.25 acre parcel. Site Location: South of Bonita Road on S.W. 76th Action Taken: Approved 12/5/78 with conditions. Applicant is appealing decision to City Council on January 22, 1979. Zone Change ZC 25-78 (Winter Lake) Applicant: Krueger Development Co. Request: For a preliminary plan and program review of a residential planned development and zone map amendment from Wash. Co. RS-1 to City of Tigard R-7 PD and A-2 PD on a 27.31 acre site. Site Location: Last of 135th between Scholls Ferry Road and Walnut Street. Action Taken: Tabled on 12/5/78 pending full annexation of subject site. Plann_ng Commission hearing is set for February 20, 1979. Zone Change ZC 18-78 '(Pick's Landing) Applicants: Grimstad and Waymire Request: For a' general plan and program review of'a single family residential planned development and a zone map amendment from Wash. Co. RS-1 to City of Tigard R-7 PD on a 20.92 acre parcel. Site Location: '9930 S.W. Durham Road Action Taken: Approved - 12/5/78 Zone Change ZC 31-78 Applicant: Fred Cooper Request: For a zone map amendment from Wash." Co. RU-4 and City R-7 "Single Family Residential" zone to City of Tigard CP "Commercial-Professional" zone on a .74 acre parcel. Site Location: "'12700 S.W. 72nd Avenue Action Taken: Tabled on 12/5/78 pending annexation of property. Rehearing set tor.,. Fet,_uary ,6 1971. lll.LLQt MONTHLY REPORT PLANNING DEPARTMENT DECEMBER, 1978 PAGE 2 CURRENT PLANNING CONTINUED: Conditional Uses: Conditional Use CU 34-78 Applicant: Jim Kosta Request: For a conditional use permit to construct three duplex units in an R-7 "Single Family Residential" zone on a .61 acre site. Site Location: 13895 S.W. 104th & McDonald Action Taken: Approved 12/5/70 Conditional Use CU 31-78 (Stevens Marine) Applicant: Page N_ Stevens Request: For a conditionaluseper-it to construct and operate a marine sales and service center in a C -3M "Main Street Commercial" zone on a. 3.25 acre parcel. Site Location: 9110 S.W. Burnham Road Action Taken: Tabled on 12/5/78 due to lateness of hour. Rehearing set for January 16, 1979. Conditional Use CU 32-78 Applicant: Ted Vonada Request: For a conditional use permit to construct a duplex unit in an R-10 "Single Family Residential" zone on a .57 acre parcel. Site Location: 13800 S.W. '110th and S.W. Gaarde Street Action Taken: Tabled on 12/5/78 for rehearing 1/9/79, item was approved_ Subdivisions: Subdivision S 15-78 (Creek Side Park) Applicant: Ed Gause Request: To subdivide tax lots 3700, 3900 & 4000, Tax Map 2S1 3CD into 15 lots. east�� e S.W. ra s�,=ta Court Site Location: North of S.W. Gaarde Street, east-Of <.. s - Action Taken: Denied and sent to Planning Commission for review Minor Land Partitions: Minor Land Partition MLP 20-78 Applicant: BPEEP Company Request: To alter the boundaries of Tax Lots 1002 & 1001 - site Location: -7000 S.W. Varns Action Taken- Approved with conditions 12/26/78 a Minor Land Partition MLP 18-78 Applicant: H.B. Williams Request: To partition a .95 acre parcel in two additional lots REM Site. Location: 11000 S.W. 121st Avenue Action Taken: Approved with conditions 12/12/78 _ _ f ( MONTHLY REPORT PLANNING DEPARTMENT DECEMBER, 1978 PAGE 3 Site Design Review: SDR 54-78 (Gaarde Park Place) Applicant: Ted Millar - Oak Hills Investment Request: Site Design and Architectural Review of a proposed commercial office center. Si to Locati.c.i: S.W. Pacific Highway, north of 5.4J_ Gaarde Action Taken: Approved (administratively) Reason: Pending: SDR 7-78 Bellwood Phase III Waiting for resubmittal of revised plans. SDR 34-78 Greenway Town Center waiting for submittal of detailed landscape. Waiting for submittal of revised SDR 35-78 Park 217 plans. SDR 40-78 Mckenzie-Great Western Waiting for revised site plan due to improper access drive. Chemical Waiting for revised site plan. SDR 50-78 Baskin-Robbins SDR 45-78 Marciene Terrace Discrepancies with site map and tax lots. Plaraing Director/Administrative Assistant i' A� id Verbal Messages A-1 CITY OF TIGARD From; Doris Harti¢ T Chief of Police Date:— Jane.. 12 1979 — S u OLCC License A lications — the listed applications for January 22, 1979 Please review and make recommendation on Council meeting. Albertsons Food Center No. 544 12060 SW Main Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 pS - Package Store Application Layson, John R. Susnjara,Marko A. Susnjara, Betty M. Sherwood Inn At Tigard 15700 SW Upper Boones Ferry Rd. Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 DA - Dispenser Class A Application H & J Operating Corporation Town Tavern 12370 SW Main Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 Application RMB - Retail Malt Beverage mm Big B Inc. Big B Thriftway 14365 SW Pacific Highway Tigard, Oregon : 97223 pS Package Store Application The Southland Corporation - NEW APPLICATION 7-Eleven Food Stores NW Corner 122nd & Scholls Ferry Road Tigard, Oregon, 97223 pS - Package Store Application Contact Gary F. Oxley for further inforsuppliedon 4to9city Hall.) (This is all the information that was supplied y/2 CC: RRB /� ` �./� LV 77 i Avoid CITY OF `j'IGARD To; _ Chief of - D Z t c�:_--,7 nu y_..1 Z _—.------- Suhject: OLCC Application --- FOLLOWING RENEWAL APPLICATION WILL BE CONSIDERED BY COUNCIL THE f AT THE JANUARY 22, 1979 REGULAR MEETING. James H & Kay M Funk Gaffer' s 11420 SW Pacific Highway Tigard, Oregon 97223 RMB Application - Retail Malt Beverage CC: R.RB own Avoid Verbal :Messages mo CITY OF TIGARll From: To:_ 1 „_ -- ._.._- Subject: -r' — `1, 110 W, ai,�;L.:. � •.0 ..�.i.t c . ,- :c ..:r..-: ollanl Lies :, Clarwnr_e J. alley 1cr" Lone (;ai_ '.o..sLauxant 1%t7 0 .3i- i'trect U930I:I: c t'� "f Mrd, Uie:,on J r ? . ils urcl, Ore:^or+ J '17� ;,email alt _,vera,n License DA - Dispenser Class ice Asa Casa De Canal Inc. 11 Crin,to „e_--can ,est:a Lvrant !1290 SW "Jul! an. ;,c-• i.;;ard, Oegon 9722 „xA3 - :'retail Walt a cvera;e License - n�. nrw vTT t Avoid Vernal 1-Iesscvjes CITY OF TIGARD Chief o£ Police From : Det. Sgt. L. Branstetter ` _ _ To: -- -- --- -- Date: 1-11-79 Subject. business License Renewal ---_---- ---- Lone Oak Resturant El Gringo Mex. Resturant Green Valley Tavern The above businesses have been checked for problems over the past years refer attached records, no real problem shows so license renewal is receomended. L. Branstetter, Det. Sgt. � � J T I G A R D P L A N !1 I N G C O M M I S S I O N Verbatim Minutes for Planning Commission Hearing - December 5, 1978 Appeal: 5. 1 Zone Change ZC 30-78 (Sherwood Downs) TRPEDINO: Let's go on 5.1 zone change - Sherwood Downs. May - we have the staff report, please. SELBY: A request for preliminary plan and program review o.` a residential planned development and zone map amend- ment from in Washington County RU4 to Cityof Tigard The R7 planned development on the 13.42 acre parcel . location is south of Bonita Road on southwest 76th and fronting on the east side of 79th. Mr. President , with your permission, I would like to continue with a 'verbal direction of the particular concerns of this particular subject sight as it relates tthe 76thfcon- fic situation and the adjacent greenway proposed tinuing to the property in the flood plain. And I have some photos to present . K First, for a more general view that would indicate where this property is at the moment. This being 79th which is presently ' in the county except for certain sections of subject site located by the existing city limits from this point cohere there is an existing apartment of the city on either side of 76th and the subject site beginning about at this point, where they will include 76th and you can see proposed 76th goes straight down which is in the flood plain area. This is the general view and a more detailed portion you can see on this vicinity map of the outlying plots and their sizes. Here again is the apartment complex. Two;parcels that are on the east side of 76th just as North of subject property and has subject property one half off of front 79th and the remainder of on either side of 76th and the flood plain runningsome- where in, in fact , this project 567o of it is in the l flood plain area as illustrated in this nex� ine- ve1 is 133 snowing in the dark The existing contour 12 blue line how in meanders through this property. Any attempts to fill on this property is certainly going Page 2 (5.1 Zone Change ZC 30-78 Sherwood Downs) to encroach into the flood plain to some extent. This outline, to get into this more specifically, is a pro- posed site cut and fill relocation. Also, tni.s map will show how the proposed developer is going to vacate MM EMN 76th and meander around site flood plain acid extend it REM on down or have it extended on down in the future. RM EMMA These drawings are rendering of what the iriproved site would be, and more precise views of the particular site improvement and housing. To illustrate some scenery as to what this property looks like in the surrounding areas and its roads, I wish to submit these photographs that were taken by our engineering department . They're labeled in red what locations they depict. We're talking specifically now about the condition of the outlying roads being 76th and 79th of the surrounding property lakes and how some of the property looks from the road, and the elevation of the road. These pictures will detail the proposed road onto 79th, comes in the center of the tax lot. Just north on 79th the elevation is higher , approximately three to four feet higher, and on the south of the property it 's somewhat higher - four to five - in elevation so basically there is a valley in between the two higher elevations at this point. The site distance is somewhat restricted on 79th. 79th is presently paved to '15 feet wide. On 76th, the two parcels that are just north ---being in ,the county at this time. This road is unapproved with heavy pot marks and broken-up paving and a narrow paving of 15 feet and then the road is improved in the areas around the apartments, with, good paving, but it is restricted and has not all sidewalks. Bonita is also concerned and that will be one of the major roads that the pro- posed development will use to administer traffic <flow to their jobs and some community. That, according to my studies, has i-ndicated that it is near capacity and we have some recent accounts from the city that the 'ADT is around 3,400 ;cars per day. ADT and the county has informed me that their standard for a- collector street which is what Bonita is designated as, in it 's present condition, can handle 3,500. So, with this information, it would sound like there are possibilities that any more developmcnt would certainly make it over capacity. There is some question, 1 _ Page 3 - (5. 1 Zone Change ZC 30-78 - Sherwood Downs) however, as to what the true fast level of that speed is, that with further development , better SM road improvements come and the flexibility of traffic management which have also indicated in staff report can be a consideration. So, with the traffic con- ditions on the outlying roads as what they are, we felt the limiting of the number of units as appro- priate. Also, of one concern that staff would not take sides on because it is something we felt manage- ment should agree on, its that small detail - and that is what the effect of cuting and filling, and MTM how extensively cutting and filling will be needed. In order to place a number of the units out of the { flood plain, developer proposes that cutting down the number of developments to try and stay out of the flood plains. Are there any questions on the r photographs of the presentation? WOOD: You say that he is in the flood plain - is that also a designated greenway? 1 SELBY: Yes, there is a greenway that is part of the overall greenway in the city which runs parallel and equal to the flood plain contour line. It is my understanding that this designation of, thegreenway for the previous staff who wrote this up for the _bark board to adopt in their plan .'; They stay within the flood plain be- cause that is 'easy to identify, however, to exact widths and such as an official or specific plan is not submitted and that we look at each particular individual` site. I have walked this site, and I feel _ that potential greenway can be somewhat flexible. In other words, cutting and filling into the greenway is certainly not disturbed and considered to preserve the greenway other than maybe the hazards of having to work -in the greenway cutting and filling displacement. So, to answer your question, this is the green:vay. According ,to our ordinance, we are to maintain parti- cularly open and unattached to development . However, I think that is probability because there is nothing ,` 't devel.on this parcel, OSSll:i a.i saying that we %ais r - and I think its pretty certain that staff would be in agreement in. . . Paige 4 (5.1 Zone Change ZC 30-78 - Sherwood Downs) -WOOD: Did the plans say how the greenway would be dealt with? Did he say it was contiguous to the flood plain? SELBY: It does not identify - the comprehensive plan designates that it runs along the flood plain, but it does not say how to measure the greenway - but it gives specific detail as to what it wants in the greenway - and using those measures as an adequate width for the equestrian trails and the bike paths and such to be taken into consideration to fulfill that requirement. Now, I would like to read you portions of the staff report that are appropriate that were in writing if there are no other questions on my verbal testi- mony. TEPEDINO: Staff, ah, do we have any aerial photographs of the area? 9 SELBY: No, we do not. I. have asked the engineer for infor- mation like that and he did not have any. TEPEDINO: Q.K. SELBY: 1. ) The site is designated as Urban Low Density Residential on' the-NPO #5 Plan, and is presently zoned R-7 "Single Family Residential" 2. ) The applicant proposes to develop 18 single family _- detached units, two (2) attached units, and 44 town- houses; for a total.` of 64 units. 3. ) Section 18.56.110 of the Tigard Municipal Code allows a" l0% density bonus for compensation of land vacancy in a `Planned Development project. Therefore, 69 total units would be permitted. A 1 The site is presently vacant with , a combination of heavily ,grouped native scrub vegetation and pasture s .,,,;n¢ elevation moving west to land. The site uas r east with a severe drop along the flood plain contour area. r' Page 5 - (5.1 Zone Change ZC 30-78 - Sherwood Downs) 5. ) The surrounding land uses are single family units to the west across 79th, south, east and north- west; with apartment units north along 76th. 6. ) The existing roads that will support the dis- tribution of traffic circulation for this project are 79th and 76th. Both streets are substandard with limited paving, no curbs, sidewalks or improved surface drainage facility. 7. ) Sewer will be extended from the Fanno Creek interceptor line which runs along the eastern edge of the property. Water service will be supplied from S. W. 76th and S. W. 79th by the Tigard Water District. 8. ) The subject site is within the flood plain area contributed by Fenno Creek and the "Greenway" system. Conclusionary Findings: 1. ) Both S. W. 79th and S. W. 76th have site distance restrictionsdue to the swell and narrow street con- figuration. Therefore, street improvement, traffic controlling markings and signs will be needed to alleviate the problem along with phasing of additional average daily trips, by new development, until street improvements are made. Encroachment of the town houses on the slope line cause a `cut in the fill and flood plain can be alleviated by;restricting development on the flood plain area and, constructing the frontage lots ,along southwest 79th for townhouses Deviations of the public right-of-way standards are; not necessary ex- cept ''to allow thedeveloperthe convenience of lessen- ing costs. TEPEDINO: May I have the presentation of the applicant, please. GINTHER: Mr. President, members of the Commission. My name is 'Gene Ginther. ' I 'm engineer for the applicant and I c Page 6 - (5.1 Zone Change ZC 30-78 - Sherwood Downs) put together a little handout here that will assist you in following the presentation. From the very first page - starting things out right - I forgot to include one of the things we are up here for . Would you pencil in, in addition to, "secure an approval for a preliminary development plan" , we would also your approval of our zone change. Now that booklet !includes two sheets from the first couple pages of the Tigard Zoning Ordi- iaa detail the preliminary nance which describes general plan, a copy of the staff report, and there is a copy of some traffic criteria that I , this afternoon, received from Washington County - finding I was supposed to include also the suggested form of the motion in finding , hopefully, you' ll agree with when we get through with this. Assisting me in the presentation tonite will be Mr. Phillip Architect retained by the Thompson, who is our applicant to assist in the planning and design of the structures -- and Phil will have a portion a little later on. I think that our proceeding tonite will be a matter of touching each of the several bases that your ordinance requires in the form of zone change ordinance and also the types of requirements that are listed in the general plan - I 'm sorry - the preliminary plan of development for a planned development. So, with that, the nature of the proposal is that we are asking for a change in the current RU4 which is county zoning - which was the zoning when these two parcels, the larger six units to the east were annexed to the city last September and the smaller one on the west was annexed at the last boundary hearing. We want those to be zoned R7. The R7 zoning that we request is in conformancewith Tigard's adopted comprehensive plan. NPO #5 adopted plan designates the area as urban low-density with G a greenwa.y. According to NPO #5 and its policy #1 maximum overall density development will be four dwelling units per acre or 12 persons per 'gross acre. g Page 7 (5. 1 Zone Change ZC 30-78 - Sherwood Downs) Therefore, in order for us to comply with policy #1, we must change to R7. We are also requesting an overlying planned develo;ment designation. This is supported by the NPO #5 test. The test states that planned unit development is often capable of producing more desirable living environment and therefore is recommended that large and vacant par- cels be developed as PUD's. One such method employs the 'clustering of houses into groups of three to seven with the land that is not used for dwellings going to open areas. When the housing policy #4, ,which i s on � f the h....s ,which ., page o - housing policy, policy #4 says that planned unit developments would be en- couraged on tracts large enough to accomodate ten or more dwellings, and policy #9 on page 3 states that when developments are proposed in urban low- density areas for sites which include identified natural features preservation planned development concepts shall be utilized. The Planning Commission determines what is the best method of preservation. So, one of your chores tonight will be to determine if the planned unit development will be the best method of preserving the natural amenities of the site. It is our 'contention that since the size will support rr�- more than ten units and since.a portion of it is within the Fanno Creek `greenway, a planned 'develop- ment reservation must be acquired in 'order to be in compliance with the comprehensive plan. Your zoning ordinance also requires that we address community need and or public benefit derived from the proposed action. According to the Tigard housing t' plan, and I quote now from page 8 of the plan whichr was adopted by the city council in April, 1977, the Tigard area does not presently have adequate numbers of dwellings in the types and densities demanded in 4' all price ranges. Housing is a serious iroblem for middle income wane earners that might want to settle k in Tigard. The proposed development, therefore, will assist in providing the necessary housing for Tigard `. Page 8 - (5. 1 Zone Change ZC 30-78 Sherwood Downs) plus providing opportunities for middle income housing. T might also add that of all jurisdic- tions - are now dealing with the struggle to comply with the terms of LCDC. LCLC is one that is bother- some for everybody. The range and mix of the housing types that we will supply with this project will aid the city with its compliance to LCDC goals. Our client advises us that the town houses that are proposed will have a price range of from $50,000 to $60,000 and be soles as individual units. We anti- CipBcipate h.. fountain area for the land under .�c having a, ivuu��r.ir. ..,. common ownership - to be owned by a homeowners association. inaudible A large amount of open space has been retained, as you can see, from the proposals back there and it is our proposal that those will be retained for recreational and garden opportunities. Our plans, as you can see later on, is providing areas where each of the residents will be able to have their own garden. This ;type_ of layout - this type of structure arrangements are further supported by some additional policies from the Tigard Housing Plan. We refer;now to the policy #t2 on,page, 2 and it goes ` on to the pertinent sentence, "that such housing should include, but not be limited to single family residences, duplexes, apartments, mobile homes, condominiums and ". Policy #15 urges that we provide a greater diversity housing density such as duplexes, fourplexes' and condominiums,, etc. So with respect to those two policies of the Tigard Housing Plan ,the proposal conforms precisely. Public benefits, we believe, will also be provided by the ,upgrading' of the vacant parcel when its approval of the development portion . in addition with; the `necessary_,housing. Further, we are required to respond to the kinds of impact the project of this nature may have upon the i f Page 9 - (5.1 Zone Change ZC 30-78 - Sherwood Downs) an natural environment we anticipate saving - whatever possible. maybe the vegetation and existing pasture land, which is primarily the flood area now, will be landscaped with d shrubberies and trees and groundcover. Of course, those are things which will come out of the general review stage - but those are plan in the design the things that we want. From impacts on the economy, it is our position re development to provide full term employment during construction. rrwC expect the local services � � will benefit because we will increase the marketing and add to the available income for the market sources. Under .social (inaudible) Impact on social conditions - we expect to be minimal. We do not anticipate any significant social impact on the Tigard community. We spoke to Bob Green in the Tigard School District. According to Mr. Green, there is no forseeable problem servicing the site. Elementary schoo'_ children will be sent to either Durham or Ft. Lewis. Enrollment burden in these schools to` be relieved by construction to the ele- mentarly schools in Tigard and`Tualat The Junior High in Tualatin which has a capac %y of 970, appearing at an enrollment of ,770. Tigard Senior High has a`` capacity level of 1,450 and its current enrollment is at 1300. Based on a projected number of dwelling units the statistics supplied by the school district;, and verified by other ratios that 'I have used, indicate there will ,be 32 1/2 students, or shall we say 33. .68 of a student per single` family dwelling and .43 of a student per townhouse F now. Those are aggregate figures and I have a breakdown for elementary, junior high and senior high,, if that would be of interest to you. At. this time, i am going to introduce PhilThompson --- _ .. +- -f 'nl anning and I want Phil to address the conuu v r and the architecture that went ",,to our layouts.' a _ Page 10 -- (5. 1 Zone Changs ZC 30-78 Sherwood Downs WOOD: Sir, can we ask questions when your all finished or TEPEDINO: Yea, some of you wanted to ask questions of the applicant . Let 's ask questions of the applicant at the end of the presentation. THOMPSON: I am Phil Thompson, an Architect with a planning firm in the City of Portland. We have been retained to do some of the site design and the design of some of the buildings on the property. The site is suitable for the development technically because it within the City of Tigard urban growth boundary - has water, sewer and utilities on the site. It is an intriguing site because it has high land on the north, high land to the west and has a large large area of flood plain which slopes almost minimal. Now I have been called in to look at flood plains a lot and often flood plains are flood plains which get wet every year. We have looked at this property and (inaudible) on the 100 year flood plain here shows no evidence of inundation on the open places. The _reason I am pointing this out :is that what we've got is very large flood levelarea and it might drop off steeply into Fanno Creek.' As far as we can tell from the research we've got - is a flood plain which is truly a 100 year flood plain and not a five-year flood plain. The property slopes at 3 o 4% from the westerly boundary down to the flood plain line and it continues to slope about afoot' before it levels off into the flats. It appears to us from looking at it that sometime in the past previous owner has 'taken some dirt off the property and probably created part of the flood plain itself by removing some soil. The property is fedbyboth 79th which has access onto Bonita and Durham Road and S.W. 76th fed by 76th Ave. We're proposing a combination of townhouses S;and ngle family, in-_i tc_ Re single fa.'nily units are toward the west and north adjacent to the and, 4�� - Page 11 - (5. 1 Zone Change ZC 30-78 - Sherwood Downs) what we would say, to be future single family units, the townhouses isolated by single family units we proposed and adjacent to the flood plain. Your NPO #5 encourages planned development in an area such as this and only to provide necessary housing for the LCDC goal #10, yet maintain a greenway corridor as specified in your parks and open space plan. I think environmental design will work with this plan -- we have a copy for your review. Policy #7 of that plan states that a direct public benefit can be derived adjacent to residential development. �_ u•y Jl1VU1U VC ucvCtVFJCU 1VY" fJd.5s1Ve--' recrea- tion and a pedestrian bikepath. What we've got here is - we've got an alteration of the flood plain and still provide approximately four acres - I think its 3.9 acres of greenway - which can serve the uses of that policy and the new requirements for the green- way - simplifies the soludious environment for the people. Public services are available, sewer and water from Fanno Creek which your staff has said will come from the presently existing sewer in Fanno Creek on the east end of the property. Water from southwest 76th �.nd southwest 79th,' public transportation from the bas line 43, approximately 1/2 mile, that is in proximity to retail service provided by Tigard and, according to NPO #5 , a neighborhood shopping center will eventually be,permitted on the corner of Hall and Bonita`. Fire ,protection provided by the Tualatin' Fire District - nearest station about<,1 1/2 miles from the site. And, as we said, the school busses pass r for the students coming from the project. I want to point out what we're asking and presenting tonite, a preliminary plan according to your ordi- nance asking for a zone ,change - which; is a ` technical item to change to RU4 which is R-7 in the county '- t to R7 which is .R-7 in the city, and to present to you our preliminary plan for the development of this property. According to the ordinance after we have i E 8 BMW Page 12 - (5. 1 Zone Change ZC 30-78 - Sherwood Downs) presented the preliminary plan, and you say what you want to say, and make the decisions that you want to make, then we make a. final development plan which returns to you through a review. According to the ordinance of density computation - is apparently set up in that ordinance 18.56.020, quote, "we have 13.42 total acres or 584,575 square feet to which we have to deduct 207a for the roads. That gives us 467,700 square feet provided by a •• i; _i um lot size of the underlying zone of 62 some odd units and we just add 100 - (inaudible) providing greenway We looked at the site and we didn't think we could get 68 units on there appropriately and are pro posing 64 units because we think that it does pro- vide the appropriate amount of open space. We looked at the flood plain and know that you have a flood plain alteration ordinance and thought that due to a cut in the flood plain, and due to the fill, would provide a better environment for the number of units that we are allowed and we tried to limit to within the boundaries of the flood plain. -We thought that this alteration was a minor alteration. i think Mr. Gin-her will latex explain ;the flood plainalteration to you, but essentially, the main thing is - same amount of storage capacity is re- tained - by providing greater storage for the cut and filling up to the units. We looked at the environment and saw that S.W. 76th` has the in of problems that I think you probably, found from the photographs you saw. We decided that we should design the development to allow the continuation 'of S. W. 76th through the property but to :encourage in every way possible all access on S. W. 79th - to the point where we have proposed essentially a crash gate for emergency access only on S. W. 76th and ;we've heard other concepts since. This ;would take the traffic from this development and ,snlit it essentialiv between the new development and the Durham road. ' f I t' Page 13 - (5. 1 Zone Change ZC 30-75 - Sherwood Downs) Access on to S. W. 79th which is essentially a pretty good access point - the staff has pointed out it is at the bottom of the hill and the site distance is adequate as far as we' re concerned in each direction. We provided 3.9 acres of open space which will be essentially designed for passive recreation, grass which is cut, play area and we're going to set up an area for community gardens so the people within this development can have their own garden plots with the flood plain area. So, what we propose is a mix of single family development adjacent to where we believe single family development will continue - which is essentially to the northwest. Townhouses buffered by single family along a wind- ing road, either via landscaping or , . , , . We will design the townhouses so each unit gets a courtyard and each one gets individual entry and work out ways to get lighting in the middle of the units, and so on. That's all I don't know - I would just as soon answer questions at this pc>intbefore Mr. Ginther -talks about-the'technical- ities of the situation or would you rather TEPLDI1"M Weil, 1 would like to finish the whole applicants presentation.` GINTHER: O.K. I want to ask you to watch me back here. I am going to approach the drawings because I am going to talk about traffic circulation. ; We propose that these be shown on here an additional five feet -of dedication - and that's one of the conditions in your staff report. Now, I think traffic is an important= consideration here'. Our project, as we propose it, with 18 single family detached and two single family attached and 44 townhouses will generate 495 ADT. Now, we don' t 'want` these down in here as a general .lulu fvr Q.wo reasons. One is that there we already { Page 14 - (5. 1 Zone Change ZC 30-78 - Sherwood Downs) have two sets of apartments up here and we feel whatever percentage of this that goes that way will just create a safety hazard. And, on top of that , the site distance is horrible. There' s just no site distance at all so its going to be fender bender junction. So, it is our pro- posal that all traffic will go this way or this way. Now, hopefully , Bonita and Durham will be the roads that collect it. I spoke with Tom Speer at 4:00 this afternoon and in the handouts that I gave you near the back you will see the unlimited information on the streetways, and let 's take a look at that because I think it is something we really want to look at . According to the county, a street such as Bonita and Durham which has at least 20 foot pn,'ement width and has at least two lanes of traffic have a statistical capacity of 3,480 ADT. Now, this is a substantially larger number than what Ken gave you, however, the 3,550 that Ken gave you may be unappropriate - but for a small subdivision. It is not appropriate for a larger collector such as Bonita and Durham. These capacities, 8,400, are for service level B. Now, service level B is one designated as typi- cally ;,average and physically adequate, whichever term you prefer - (inaudible) Service level B indicates moderate, congested peak hour "services and tolerable waiting periods at major intersections that means that ;;your 'going to have to wait a little bit to get out of here during peak hours. Well, right now, according to Ken, Bonita has 3,500 ADT, about . According to Washington County, Bonita and southwest 81st - a block over has 4,600 ADT. Now, this is kind of important . The traffic flow tells us that 10`,"0 of the daily traffic occurs during the rush hour during a 60 u ..,,g minute period. You get 107o of this - which will i Pago 15 - (5. 1 Zone Change ZC 30-78 - Sherwood Downs) make it 460 cars during that one hour - an hour has 3,600 seconds and the question is if your waiting to get on , hoc• long to figure your going to have to wait. Well , 460 cars in 3 ,600 seconds is 7. 3 seconds and if I can read the second hand, about 8 seconds. Start from now. It ends now. That ' s just a period of 8 seconds. So certainly within a period of time you'll be able to get out onto the street. If, for instance, we take the figures that Ken has suggested that turn out 3,500, it is slightly over 10 seconds for traffic and I don' t want to go through that little act again -- I am sure you can guess how long 10 seconds is as well as I - but certainly adequate time to pull out . Now, on that exhibit , you will note that I also chose some current ADT's for Cornell, Murray and Olson. Those are there to show you what can happen if you change the level of service. In other words, if your willing to limit the numbers of access points onto, let's say, driveways and things like that, if your willing to tolerate a slightlylonger wait at an intersection, you can j bump as in Murray Road - north of TV Highway some 16,000 ADT. Or Cornell - where it goes into the city of Hillsboro, 13,000 ADT or Oleson Road just south of 'Raleigh Hills - 13,500 ADT. Those : ; are listed to demonstrate to you the difference that the service level makes. It is still the same width of paving within a couple feet. But, ;.there are different :characteristics about it . We are talking about a service level 'media which provides that gobble-de-goop pot I just mentioned. So, it is our feeling that even if all of this' were' re- flected either to Bonita ,or even to Durham in its entirety would :not make a substantial effect Bonita has 4,680 ADT, according to; the county, and !' 3,580 ADT, according to your own staff. Durham, according to thecounty, has about 7,000 ADT. It .r t is our estimate; that; Durham will receive 'about one third of this which is something like 15 and the rest will be about 320. So, that's about the breakup we see in the traffic. Page 16 - (5. 1 Zone Change ZC 30-78 - Sherwood Downs) GINTHER: One last word on t.ie existing natural features - I'm, as I said, giving wanting to touch all these points because they are required by the ordinance aid we want to at least attempt to do things properly. The existing natural features are important to a portion of this site. Tigard has -re eway that needs to be looked after. Your ordinances adopted, or not adopted, do not particularly become the greenway. As a matter of practicality, and as Kent said, because it's easy to find, we normally Look Boom at the 100-year floodplain as a delineator for the greenway. Tigard also has an ordinance which permits remodification of the floodplain, 100-year floodplain. So our position here is we are going to retain the greenway and do propose to provide a dedication for the greemay as suggested in the staff report. We also propose to modify the floodplain and remain consistentwith everything. ' The greenway will still be able to meet at the 100-year fl.ocd- plain level and the 100-year floodplain level will still be able to be modified in accordance with the ordinance. We find nothing contrary to that in the language of the city ordinances. We spoke briefly in the beginning of the presentation, about the market. It's selling homes in this area - selling living environments, and it 's their impression, it's their position that the reason they are here - that there is an inadequate response to the market for housing, and therefore, it is our position that this will assist the city in requiring that response. We have been asked in your- ordinance`to speak to the proposed ownership pattern of operation and maintenance proposal, and therefore, , let 'me read this directly. "Each single-family lot and each townhouse unit will be under individual ownership. All land "designated`as common .area will be under the jurisdiction of the homeowner's association." We are also required to reiterate the services that are available - waste disposal facilities there is a city waste disposal contract street lights, and heat, Tigard Water District. '; TriMet provides a 'form-of public transportation. Schools have already been mentioned. The libraries are here. Fire protection is here.` Shopping adjacent to the property is not adjacent, but near the property is Payless and Albertson's, and the Tigard-Plaza' is situated in theTigard Commercial area and is close to Washington Square. The general timetable of development which is, like B under your ordinance, we 'anticipate` development in the Spring and Summer of '79. ' We're also required to list those variances which we propose - that ;is to say,' those variances of the Tigard Municipal Code. 'I am surprised to say there are five of them, and briefly, the first is the; change in the } . r I t Page 17 - (5. 1 Zone Change ZC 30-78 - Sherwood Downs) minimum lot area. The second is the change in the front yard setback, and third is the change in the sideyard setback, and the fourth is reference to the rights-of-way, and I will speak on that just briefly. We propose a 40-foot right-of-way with 32 ft. of pave- ment, and 24 ft . of pavemenu, I beg your pardon - trying to get this out quickly, for the stretch of road from 79th into the project, we had proposed a 40-ft. right-of-way with 32 ft. of pavement. Ken would like to see a 50-ft . right-of-way, and we don't have any problem with that, so we would suggest that the entrance roads from 79th to the road which is an extension of 76th be the 50- as opposed to the 40-ft . that is indicated on our plans, and have 30--ft -avemeni Tt is our position with the street from 76th South should be only 24 feet width which area is going to generate substaalally fewer traffic loadings than you would anticipate on a normal street, and as I say 495 ADT. Ken has asked that that be a public right-of-way and we don't have a problem with that as long as we get to maintain the physical geometry of improvements that are shown on the plans so we would suggest that the main or south road where the 40-ft. right-of-way dedicated with improvements as indicated on our pian. There is a variance for sidewalks requested in the variance that sidewalks be allowed on one side of the street and be allowed to meander, or abut as terrain dictates. This arrangement is similar to that which we proposed for another development called Morning Hill. I would like to being to go back to the board and talk about the floodplainalteration feasibility statement.` If you have the little brochure that I turned in, with the application, it's right near the end of it. As you know, one of the things that is imporant for about a re floodplain, is it be able to retain the volume of the flood waters - that's why the_floodplain. And, so, it would be promiscuous to dump dirt - dumping provision for that volume because we're going to raise;havoc with the people down stream. I think it also makes us liable, and we don't like to do that , so our proposal is right here, is the one that represents the existing ground. May I see that Commissioner? GINTHER: I have taken a cross-section through the property and this represents existing ground. Now it isourproposal that in areas of the structures, it would look like that, come out in the excavation area the requirements are that the area .that' is excavated have a volume of at least equivalent to the volumes taken out by the filled` area and secondly be self-draining. Our proposal is further that we do that { Page 18 - (5. 1 Zone Change ZC 30-78 - Sherwood Downs) that with these offsetting volumes, and we have things like 3 and 1 typical slope with maximum 3 ft, vertical change. It appears from the preliminary, that there is a preliminary calculation of 96,000 square feet of surface area required. I don' t know what the personal experience is of the flood- plains we' ve dealt with them extensively in Washington County, and in other jurisdictions. We anticipate that the volume of fill that we're going to be working with is around 10,000 cubic yards (not a great amount) , unless you need to have an idea of this. Yes, those drawings are exaggerated in vertical scale so you can see obviously that if we had the same scale vertically as -- horizontally, you would never be able to see two feet - it 's not really going to be as tall as a house, it's going to be about this deep. OK, we're also required to go through the design team credentials and you can read that out. T don't want to go through that. The maps, which are part of the exhibits are listed in the back. The vicinity map, you all know what that is, on maps under "B" . We tried to indicate the use of some of the existing land uses, primarily, the locations of the single family units. It is important to us that we do not create a big impact on existing neighbor- hoods. We have some concerns, and the staff, of course, recommends that the multi-family units be located in the area, how if we look at map B, where it says, which is a little portion adjacent to - here it is - that 's the portion <of the property adjacent to 79th, and we feel we would be visiting an impact that would be intolerable upon the neighbors if multi-family units were there. And> so, ,while most of the other aspects of the staff report we agree on, we probably take exception to that portion. We, obviously, also take some exception to the concerns for 32-units as opposed to 64. > In talking with Ken, lie mentioned the presentation that's been arrived at because of his concerns about traffic. We demonstrated by the county's people that the traffic and roads are adequate to tolerate this. Ken' s concerned because his experts say, that they are not. One solution that Ken and I 'arrived at in the spirit of friendly negotiations, so say was' that' the question of density be allowed to ride until the general plan in that I bring in a third party expert. ' And I am thinking now of using Consultant's: Inc. . That perhaps we would 'allow them to do a ,traffic study and that seems to meet with 'Ken's approval.. And of course, I have to speak to that . Again, in accordance with the ordinance, we are required to supply you with certain letters and you will find those in the back. The Fire District letters, the Sewer District letters, and the Water District letter, and all of them are at the back of the project . Gentlemen,' thank you for your attention. That concludes our presentation, and Phil and I would be happy ;to answer` Page 19 - (5. 1 Zone Change ZC 30-78 - Sherwood Downs) any questions. . . . TEPEDINO: Thank you Mr. Ginther. Are there any questions from the Commissioners? WOOD: Could I ask you some questions about the floodplain? GINTHER: Sure. . . WOOD: It is my understanding - GINTHER: Oh well , I 'm not Phil, did you say Phil , Phil?. . . WOOD: Did I understand you correctly, that you're saying that there's not going to be more than 3 feet of fill? The reason I am curious about that is, I assume from the map that the floodplain is at 133, and I see 130 contour line and you seem to be going much beyond that, you know, in your floodplain. r PHIL: Yes, it levels out at 130 flood contour line where that 130 contour line exists, it tends to just do that. That's what I was trying to describe about the property, it slopes rather evenly, and all of a suddent, it just levels out. WOOD: I see. And on the excavation, to compensate. What's going to happen to that main line, you've got it sloped for a garden, etc. , , but if than isexcavatedout two feet down from where it is now, isn't it going to flood a great deal? GINTHER: No - you remember that the criteria is the volume that's inundated in the 1% storm, or 100-year flood plan. We go_ down here, oh nuts, .I 've managed to mark that one up. . . ' The .Fanno,Creek bottom is about 120, and the top of that bank is about 127 or so- so, if we're down there, maybe get down to, we have a number of ways to deal with it and a gentle slope like that, we can have a separate basin with an island 'that 'drains separately,you know. But will not be in an area where we still are going to be inundated, because that's the idea. WOOD: I 'm curious about it , it looks like that land is going to go down about 'six feet below the present 100-year top of the 100-year flood, and are'nt we going to have a situation where the much of the area supposedly is common .open space " but then can be converted into flood retention are, and going to be wet a good part of the time. GINTHER: Well, it's going to be wet statistically-more than it would be in the 1% flood area, because it would be longer ;than that. But, it will not be necessary to utilize the entire surface there. There are a number of ways to deal with that. We can use. a shallower depth in a longer area, or use a greater depth and not use such area. x" OEM Page 20 - (5. 1 Zone Change Z,C 30-78 - Sherwood Downs) WOOD: This square footage you've indicated takes a majority of the area. GINI'iIER: At those depths. NUMM OEM WOOD: Do you have, I guess what I am curious about, is there a study which indicates you've got uses for this with various trees, and all the recreation, do you have a study which indicates what increasing the flooding of that remaining land will be produced by this cut and fill. In other words, have you got any study that indicates how much cutting that the remaining land back to make up for the fill would increase its own rate of flooding. GINTHER: O.K. The question is what percent storm is this new level reduced to on this map, and is there a study to that . The answer is yes. That 's part of the thing that we go through when we design. Understand that this is just a piece of the whole thing. WOOD: You don 't know now, though. GINTHER: Oh, no, but one of the reasons that we presented it like this is that there are a lot of times where the contributory trunk, in this case, the creek is so high that there simply isn 't any room to do the excavating with it a self draining. The point of this stuff is that you can show that you can excavate the desired amount of fill and still have self draining', and still be above the ;stream level. Exact "numbers I' couldn't answer. WOOD: How much additional cut and fill would be required to comply with drainage ordinance; and handle the runoff from the <contents? GINTHER: Well, that 's the 10,500 figure that I 'mentioned. That come, we've got the by complying to your storm drainage detention ordinance. WOOD: I thought that was the cut and fill for the fill in the flood plain? GINTHER: I 'm talking about two different things'. I wonder if we're talking about two different things. Total manipulation there requires adherence to the 100-year floodplain ordinance '- the 100-year floodplain alteration ordinance, and it requires it to draining. WOOD: There is a second ordinance, as I understand it which requires, ;;that drainage ordinance - which requires that even if ,you have no floodplain at all, we have to have sufficient drainage, in order to keep the additional runoff when you 're paving over the land. I assume -that it would take Page 21 - (5. 1 Zone Change ZC 30-78 - Sherwood Downs) additional storage, and I wonder how much more storage you've got to have for that . GINTHER: I don' t - I mean it exists - the requirement does exist it is a calculation that's difficult to do and have it down at this point. I can give you parameters . I know that the runoff coefficient is about 25. We' ve got 13 acres, etc. I can ' t tell you exactly, because I don' t happen to have storm monographs for the stream in that area. I can get that when the general plan starts. WOOD: I 'm just curious. What 's the average daily traffic down on Scholls? Does anybody know? TEPEDINO: Staff? A feel for what these numbers are like. SELBY: For Scholls Ferry? TEPEDINO: Yes. SELBY: Average daily traffic, I understand, is something around 14,000. WOOD: I want a feel for what 3,500 and 4, 500 were like with the street I have to get out. I was also curious - you say that your lots of 5,600 square feet are comparable in size to those approved for the Inglewood Planned Development? Where in -Inglewood-is there 5,600 square feet single family lots? GINTHER: I am going to have to plead some ignorance on that part. I didn 't".yrite that �,Ano but T_ d0 know that the 5.600 compares favorably with the Morning Hill 'Project, .and the Summerlake Projects, so there is some; adherence to `the city. WOOD' I - I just want to point out that I live in Inglewood. I live on about a 9,000 square foot lot. I':think lots typical.` GINTHER: I understand that there are some townhouses in :Inglewood`, but WOOD:` They're apartment houses. GINTHER: Is that what they are? WOOD I thought I hid some more, but tha't 's' all TEPEHIN'. - Aly other, commissioners? Commissioner Smith? SMITH: Presently, the floodplain area is predominantly flat. GINTHER: Yes, the majority of it is. You have to raise uD a little bit to get to the 130. Page 22 _ (5. 1 Zone Change ZC 30-78 - Sherwood Downs) SMITH: So the drainage in that area right now is probably, is somewhat rated. GINTHER: Yes sir. S`IITH: In your plan for providing additional storage in there.tht Would you be able to so desigt n this storage as togive floodplain a tilt of at least a three foot drop, IN referring to towards Fanno Creek which would essentially provide a dryer floodplain environment for the greenway than it is at this point? The floodplain area now goes out straight and drops to Fanno Creek - Are you moving material to provide additional storage after it, as you've so done that you have a tilt rate that might provide draim—P. in that area for the BERM greenway systems as opposed to what looks like maybe digging holes in the floodplain. GINTHER: Well yea, normally that is one of the requirements that is necessary that in addition to offsetting thewiluaefdisplaced that it will also be self--draining. an and I think your question is also asked for some vegetation. SMITH: Well , we're talking about providing retention contours which also provides a downhill slope and a downhill slopetryinis Fanno Creek from the floodplain. Iguess hole - you can go to establish;what ;your ,plan is in digging out on a floodplain and dig a: hole and 'say I 'm now providing 1X" amount of retention. THOMPSON: You want to know, if after we get done, the flood waters will drain out as the flood subsides. SMITH: Yes, essentially right now it"s that. flood gets on there it's going to take longer for THOMPSON: If the the water to, get ,out, and we're saying that once we've done the alteration;, yes indeed even according ,to your ordinance the flooded area will drain and flood waters will drain off TEPEDINO: Any more questions? I have one question, and it ties in with Mr. Smith's question. If your altering the elevation of the bottom surface of Fanno Creek, 'about three feet did I hear you say that, of the floodplain - THOMPSON: Our level is 7 - 8 or 10 feetabove -thesbottopace of ftthehen creek. If you come across this big level you get to the edge of the creek, she drops off a good hefty amount, I don't know what it is Gene does have it on his drawings But i.t does drop down.'`. . . Page 23 - (5. 1 Zone Change ZC 30-78 - Sherwood Downs) TEPEDINO: What I was concerned about is if your altering the bottom of the plain by three feet, you can only alter that plain on the property that the principle owns. When you get to the property line of the adjoining property owner, you can ' t alter it without his consent. So we'll work with the plain of that property and what I am concerned about is if your modifying a cross-section area at that juncture, you 're placing the velocity of flow - you're affecting the veclocity to flow then someone up stream is going to see a larger amount of iiovding when he ordinarily would, if not. An I am wondering how you can get over that. . .. GINTHER: You' re stating you're going to have a velocity modification, and I 'm not certain that ' s a valid assumption. eTOICE• Interruption - inaudible. � �.■i 1.011 UEJ(,iVLI THOMPSON: . . .There are two things to consider in floodplain areas. The flood way, which is wherethevelocity of flow is, and then there is the overflow area which is the flood- plain. On our storage bin - on our property, the flood way is very narrow. It is confined essentially to Fanno Creek and may be 20 feet wider. We have: had six acres of storage for a 100-year floodplain. With which I 've modified now to about 4 acres, but it is not flood way in a sense it's the overflow and storage. TEPEDINO: I thinkitdoes resemble a floodway though, if there is a `sufficient 100-year flood. Flood,dy changes take it as volume of waters. GINTHER: We're not talking about flood waters, we're talking about flood plain - we're talking 'about storage details. TEPEDINO: Have you made a study that will show which way you will persuade this body that in fact, when you do this excavation that lowers the level of the =floodable areas, but does not adversely affect the floodway. THOMPSON: That 's what we do next with final plan, once the preliminary plan is approved. And then we come back and you can still tell us :what you think. TEPEDINO: I just don't understand how you can stop at the top of the property boundary ;line with your cutting and filling operation and not expect there to be some 'adverse or some modified' behavior' of the waters the storage'waters, or water from the floodway at the junction - what effect would that have on the downstream people as well as the upstream people. I see what you want to do for your client, that 's wonderful . Develop this property, but I 'm concerned about what 's happening to the people.' Page 24 - (5. 1 Zone Change ZC 30-78 - Sherwood Downs) GINTHER: It 's important that we entertain the distinction and the words that we are using - storm way and storm plain - which is the subject of the ordinances; the subject of the discussions of the proceedings are different . It is not anticipated that the floodway itself will change at all, and that 's where velocity occurs. The storage is what the floodplain is, and we need to have a place to put the water r=hen it gets there, and 100 year - a one percent storm. TEPEDINO: Let me borrow your pen. Let me show you what I am concerned about. I take it from looking at this - let 's take a typical cross-section. I 'm saying right now this is a floodway and that 's where the water.will be actually rushing down Fanno Creek. If we get a lv:i-year flood, 1 expect , 1 don 't know where it's going to be - maybe it will be up here. Now, what I am concerned about is what you're suggesting I take it as is really not to affect the creek itself , but what you 're suggesting is cutting back some of this. Let it run three feet down, filling in some of this. We're not concerned about it - that's wonderful for this property owner, but what happens to this poor guy up here, and the poor guy down here - well your not permitted to cut his property up. GINTHER: This cross-section that we're dealing with starts here. I 'm; not 'sure where I'm going to start,, and comes up; and we' ll be filling some in here, and excavating either in here or down like that. That's a cross-section and,in an area that if we used all of it , say, if we really limited down to 'depth' we might have a detention area with this . So it comes -' this is all drainage. It's all self-draining like that . And these are the 3 to 1 side slips I was talking about . TEPEDINO: Apparently, the creek runs this way, it comes down.. . .. (Interruption by several voices) TEPEDINO: Your projecting a change in the direction of this runoff. GINTHER: No. Your stream bed is in. The drainage is still this way. We're not changing the bearing of the drops of water as they go down to the stream. TEPEDINO: Any further questions from the Commissioners? SMITH'. Mr. Chairman, ' I do have one. The material that you excavate 11 from the floodplain - will that be your fill material for your structures? GINTHER: The answer is probably no, but I don't know the answer for sure. Page 25 - (5. 1 Zone Change ZC 30-78 - Sherwood Downs) SMITH: If the material turns out to be sufficient for engineers to fill , it could be otherwise. GINTHER: It ' s a possibility - I don't know it 's bearing capacity . SOUTH: Just a note to staff that there will have to be some engineering. Quite other the floodplain materials is not suitable fill. But you can let the city decide. GINTHER: I believe the ordinance requires that if you plan to construct on fill land, there has to be certain soil compaction tests. TEPEDINO: Any further questions from the Commissioners? Hearing none, I would like to ask any other proponents who wish to be heard on this issue. Those in favor? . Any opponents, those opposed to this - who wish to be heard? Yes maam, will you step forward to the podium, please. Barbara Webb I 'm Barbara Webb. I live adjacent to - katty corner to this property as is proposed, and I believe in progress, and I 'm sure that this area in here is going to have to be used, so I 'm not trying to say - you know - no progress at all in this area. There are some things which I think I should bring to your attention. I am a graduate of the School of Architecture, of the University of Oregon, so I have had a little background in this plus I have kids that , so I `m familiar with this have played in this area for years area The first thing I would like to ask you is how many people have actually how many have actually seen this property. I would love to have you come out and I will give you coffee and you bring your boots, and we'll walk over this area. Voice: Beautiful`! Barbara Webb: There are ,some problems involved, and I am a little concerned about, so let me say briefly, one is the topography. You people have asked very quietly about the floodplaihs, and I :really can't tell you much about the floodplain- , as such- I have lived in :that area 24 years, and probably 11 or 12 years out of that 24; years, the kids have played with their boats on the part of this property. That's been berries, and its' flooded probably 12 times at least in the last 24 years. That might - the way they designed it, be the reason 'they , can't put any houses there, is because that floods every year; or almost ,every year. OK', so I; would say that if you people could read:e the topography of this between that floodplain area and north is a hill that is probably 60 feet, and I kind of question how that 'road' is going to come whipping down that 60-foot hill.. Also, let me explain this to you a little bit to give; you a little idea: 1 Page 25 - (5. 1 Zone Change ZC 30-78 - Sherwood Downs) OK topography of this is that there' s a hill on 79th 'it 's low here. It goes up here approximately 30 feet to the top of the hill. Which is right about here. OK, and then this point of the road is higher than this point. So from this point to this point is probably 30 feet, and probably from this point to this point is probably 60 feet. OK, so t'Liis is a problem. It looks fine on a flat plan, but when you figure that this ground looks like this there are some problems there. I think probably, other than this flooding often, and this has got - if I recall - there is a shale that comes down through here. People have built over here, and have had a terrible time, because there are springs up here and there is drainage that comes all the way through this area. So these people may end un with flood backup over here But I really think that the worst problem is the road situation. OK, if there were a 15 foot road, and how wide is a car? OK, two cars is twelve feet . How do you get past? You stop when a car comes; and one car goes by. Plus, the fact that this is a country road, and we have also had to pay for our own oiling, and it 's not very good, it gets holes in it fast, but. I think the worst problem is this little 79th, with all this park room. It's 15 feet wide. The school bus has to stop on it 's route at the top of the hill. It 's too dangerous for her to park here or park on the other side because people to whipping up the middle-of- that hill. Also, there are driveways on both sides of :this: hill_. If we 've got a 100 carrs coming out; here, these driveways just over the side of this hill are death traps. They're death 'traps now, and we don't have that much traffic on the road. So it would be just a real good idea for your people to take a look at this. It 's a little surprising to see what the problems are that we have here. I am sure that you wouldn't want to O.K. this and then discover that 'these people are going to have problems in flooding or drainage problems like the people over here have. I would like you to really think about the roads. OK, ,now, ;to make the road situation worse, look at the intersection of 79th and Bonita <Rd. Bonita has a swale that goes this way, and' has :a shale that goes this way, and' the`one here hides a car. So when you're` coming this way, you can miss that car when you turn in. Therehavebeen some very 'bad accidents at this inter- section with the few cars that are on 79th now. So that 's another problem that you should think about . I think that about does it I did want to let you know that really, since the topography is very. . .lots 'of highs and swa.les, and lots of variations, lots of lows, that probably causes some_problems 'that you should consider. I cant to check my notes and see if there is anything else'. { BE Page 26 - (5. 1 Zone Change ZC 30-78 - Sherwood Downs) SELBY: Mr. President , I would like to pass on this topography map my engineer put together that will show - depict I have circled it in black - the sloping hills at the north of the property to the floodplain. True, part of the property shows the level elevations, and both the hills. They are not as high as she .has indicated but they are severe, and in our estimation, there is site distance problems here - there is site distance problems at Bonita. . . . . B. WEBB: I am sure I am being very probably - from that property up to the top of the hill, I think .I have underestimated the 30 feet - that's a 30-foot hill that goes like that in the road which has cars on both sides. What about the cars that come out - on, those cars will come out 25-feet below the top of that hill when they come out. On a 15-ft. road, and a car comes out like this - how much road do they take when they turn out? The whole road, so when somebody comes over the top of the hill the other way, OK, the only other thing that I have is the problem - we have apartme tts on the other adjoining area of our property , and according to the City of Tigard specifications, they were to have a six foot fence, and they were also to have land scaping. Well, I think somebody used the boards from the fence for their fireplace, because there is no fence anymore it wasn't six feet - it was a four foot fence - somebody called them on it, so they moved the boards up two feet so all the kids crawled under the bottom. Anyway, ;'there is a problem with the fencing if its' backyards and etc. , all of the garbage cans were out there and also they were to have landscaping in an area where the water came through the back of the property. Well, it' s just 'right now full of tin cans and junk, and if these things are going to happen, they're going to have to happen so that as they mentioned, they didn't want to offend the neighbors. ' It 's possible that the neighbors might be a little offended. Particularly ,our people, with traffic because that's the one situation. Anything else - any questions? TEPEDINO: Are there any questions? WOOD: hos. Webb, when you say, .talk'about the floods that you have had 11 or 12 `times 'since you have,been there, were you talking about the flat ;pasture area? B. WEBB: Yea, that flat area there. How often had you had floods. TEPEDINO: But what I would like to ask you to present your case, and if there are-others. B. WEBB: But I was asking him - he used to own the property. How often? TEPEDINO: Any other; questions of urs. Webb?' Thank you Mrs. Webb. Are there any other opponents that wish to be heard in this issue? Those opposed? May I have a staff recommendation, please? Page 37 - (5. 1 Zone Change ZC 30-78 - Sherwood Downs) SELBY: I would like to read the staff recommendations assince this presented to you, but keep in mind, please, was put out to you - published, I did discuss a possible FMconditioning of eliminating now any number of units approved, but I would read the staff report as published. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat/program, subject to the following conditions: 1. Tha i- five (5) feet of right-of-way be dedicated to the City with half street standardimprovements on S. Y. 79th. 2. That the present right-of-way of S.W. 76th throught the development be vacated and be altered to meander along the floodplain contour, not vodencroach th, and fon thecal floodplain, with 50 right-of-�i'ay street improvements. 3. That the street into the development of S. V. 79th be 50 foot right-of-way with full local standards improve- ments with a street plug until S.W. 79th is improved from S.W. Durham north to Bonita. 4. That no dwelling units be permitted onto the floodplain and that no cut or fill be permitted onto the floodplain except in minimum amount to create; the S.W. 76th-right- of-way through the project . 5. That the total number of dwelling units be limited to v?, of which 16 are to be single-family, and 16 are .to be attached single-family. 6. That the construction be in two physes, of which the first phase is to be completed (final building inspection approval) :prior to the issuance of. building permits for the second phase. All public works con iructland utilities shall be 'installed in the beginning of the first phase. 7. That the applicant submit an agreement of dedication to he City 'along the floodplain area as a "Greenway „ through applicant' s pr Y staff . Are there any questions on the Staff TEPEDINO: Thank you, Recommendations from the Commissioners? Let me ask one, staff. Your suggesting in No. 4 that no dwellings be permitted on the floodplain is that right? SELBY: That ' s correct. TEPEDINO: You take "exception to what the applicant is suggesting? SELBY: That is correct . TEPEDINO: Now, this is a period of time for cross-examination and FA Page 28 - (5. 1 Zone Change ZC 30-75 - Sherwood Downs) rebuttal. Does anyone have any cross-examination or rebuttal? Recognize Mr. Brian, please. BRIAN: Yes, I do have some questions of staff. Before you read the recommendations, you said these were printed prior to some discussion here with the applicant. Are these still your current recommendationo, or do you have some amendments to these? SELBY: I feel with the two separate conversations; one with myself and the county,and the developer's conversation with the county, getting two different informations - that with the traffic loads, which is part of my reasoning for limiting the density. In fact , I feel that there needs to be some Sort, of a concrete final study taking int- consideration of this impact of this development on the outlying roads, ah, because of that kind of misinformation, so I would be willing, as a staff member, to leave off the exact number until this goad consideration of impact can be cleared, and come up with a new recommendation. However, if the number of units can also - if I felt the floodplain issue, although I have no staff information as to discredit cut and fill in the floodplain, other than it would be encroaching in the greenway, and scarring and then have t:j manicure a flood- plain area, other than that, the staff person you may feel at your will to eliminate - restrict some members of units on that basis. However, well, that 's my_ statement- on that. But I wanted to read for the record, since `this ' is `the way it was printed. TEPEDINO: TEPEDINO: So you'remodifying your recommendation No. 5 - is that what you're modifying? SELBY: ' Yes, based on the reasons I specified. ' TEPEDINO: You delete the specific number of units in Staff Recommendations is No. 'S? ` i SELBY:'' Yes. No. 4. Yea, it was No. 5 - that is correct. TEPEDINO: Any other questions thus far on the staff recommendations, before we go to cross exam? f SNOOD: Why wasn't - When you say that the street development on 79th be 50 foot right-of-way - Why does this have to be 50 foot right-of-way? t SELBY: Into the development? TAT Yes SELBY: That 's our standards for street. I feel that that proposed by the development he 'shows no cause since there are no significant trees there to save, 'which is no reason that we Page 29 - (5. 1 Zone Change ZC 30-78 - Sherwood Downs-) shouldn' t have the street standard. Also, on 76th, since it ' s going to run from Bonita down to Durham someday , 76th will go through. That is sort of a major collector also. TEDINO: I will open up the cross-examination of the rebuttal of any of the testimony or evidence presented tonight . Yes sir, Mr. Thompson, THOMPSON: I guess I first have to ask Ken which, in fact you said that from the staff standpoint there was no ordinance limitation or, construction in the _floodplain. SELBY: There is an ordinance limitation - it 's up to the Planning Commission to choose, to approve it or not, and therefore, the staff did not want to make any recommendation one way or the other. THOMPSON: What I would like to say here, is that we've proven that we can construct within a. floodplain without creating any harmful circumstances . I would like to get some of the numbers of Mrs. Webb's statement correct . The hill on our property is approximately 30 feet - not 60 feet. We have been very careful as to the location of the streets on S .W. 76th, as we meandered around to make sure they can get down that hill without hawing inordinant steepness - without going over there, I cannot tell you what percentage it but ;I am sure we are talking about 10 or 12 percent. The hill that she mentioned from our access on to S.W. 79th going north is '16 feet high according to the contours - the t�ity tii Tigard %oritt3urS., The site distance from our access 300 feet, which is certainly to the top of the hill is adequate for a neighborhood street. The dip which she mentions on Bonita Road, and it's junction with 79th is 650 feet , 'which is also considered adequate site distance for that height'. All of these figures are taken of of your contour map. -Staff mentioned that we have no justification for asking for ,the 24 foot width of the street, and 76th and as a matter of fact, 'I guess wasn't pointed out in our presentation, but is in our book. We will allow no parking on our portion of that street. We are providing off-street parking. On all of the units within the area, a 32-ft. pavement is a 32-ft. pavement, so that parking can run at random along the street, and we're providing f trees.: parking. :'ic wiil prefer Ll �+ d�.i L�;ei�.. Wldtis pavement to keep speed down, in order to keep amore residential environment would occur in this townhouse cluster F with' a greater width. In reference to his, Mr. Selby's E `request for 32 dwellings, as a matter of fact, the plan was submitted' to you has 42 dwelling units that' are' not on the floodplain at the moment . And ;;,e chose, as designers, to this site, do the flood plan alteration after looking at r s s' Page 30 - (5. 1 Zone Change ZC 30-78 - Sherwood Downs) and designing a development which would allow the number of units, or would contain the number- of units which are allowed under the ordinance , and essentially, I am required to do this under LCDC Goal #10. We were able to get a higher density without going into the floodplain than the 42 I just mentioned. We believe the development by doing this minor cut and fill situation is a better development, provides a greater degree of open space for the people who live within this development, and still maintains a high integrity for the greenway and the open space. I think that 's our critical - this is as much a design decision as a have to decision. We can do a better development the way we proposed it, and we can still provide you all the safeguards you asked of us. I_n_ `i F reference to S .W. 79th at �I-� �• :vide, Z have to confess I hadn't measure? it. My impression out there was similar to most older country roads, we gravel shoulders - the county roads that Mr. Ginther has mentioned mostly are on the 18 ft . pavement . There is no reason to think this was less, but we should point out that we are proposing to dedicate and improve that road in this area to City standards. Any questions? GINTHER: Just to reiterate that what we are asking is that the number of the total number of units be decided on the general plan, and that one of the major functions in that decision be this other traffic consultant that *,e talked about . That the street from 79th to 76th be the 50 foot with 32 feet improved with what Ken has suggested, and that :76th be 40 ft. with 24 ft. of improvement, one thing that I think is really important from a design standpoint Phil has touched on this, and I want to hit on it too, is that we disagree on this with Ken, that the street ought, to be along the floodplain. We don't think we should - we think that living units should be there. Some of those policies that Phil read to you were the reduced part of the presentation - require that living units be adjacent to the greenway, not adjacent to the street adjacent to the greenway. That's what we're concerned with. It would be intolerable - that' s why we're where we are, that 's why we designed them this way. We could put all 64 units to the street, nluR requirement number 4 I believe is inappropriate. -1—i o-n we can do it We've demonstrated that through goo, v--, as Phil said, it sn't .a have-to, it 's a we-want-to. So we think we can.'Number 5, we already talked about. Number 6, I don't see that phasing a '64 unit project is, makes sense. It just doesn 't make sense. I see no reason for No. 6 to be there. No. 7, of course, is part of the requirement. TEPEDINO: Thank you Mr. Ginther. Is there any other party that wishes to speak in cross-examination or rebuttal with anything ;that was presented as heard. My name is Norman Webb. I would like to comment a little bit further on what my wife said about 79th.' Page 31 - (5. 1 Zone Change ZC 30-75 - Sherwood Downs) TEPEDINO: Will you give us your address? WEBB: 14790 S.W. 79th. I cannot question the gentlemen' s KOWA statement that that hill is only 16 feet. It may be, I have not seen a topographical map of that area. But I would like you people to go out there and take a look at what that hill - how blind it is to traffic in either direction. I would also like you to take a look at the width of that road - whether it is la ft , or 20 ft . , it is a darned narrow road - it is overgrown in many places with blackberries. There is no shoulder of any kind - the road is strictly on oil paving. And, when you get another 3- to 400 cars a day on that road, it is going to break up fast. It is i..,,+ chuckholes. Thank y o11, going to deteriorate to nothing uE TEPEDINO: Thank you Mr. Webb. Is there any other party that wishes to be heard in cross-examination or rebuttal? I close the public hearing on this :,sue. Commissioners? FUNK: I might `add that I did spend some time on this the other day. I think the public would be surprised that the number of trips most of the commissioners made to most of the issues that are heard. They don' t of-ten get to see every one of these parcels - every week = but most of us make a valiant effort to see at least most of them. Thank you, Commissioner . TFPr..nrun Cni..missieners. Commissioner Brian? BRIAN: I actually tend to agree with what the staff recommended - The floodplain to me is the critical point. I think we can go overboard on our flood plan interpretation, we've talked about fences, Parking lots, and other things,' and I think we need to look at that. I see this as a pretty clearly, a major excavation of that property, and I don' t think that the Tigard community needs, or housing plans call for the diversity that necessarily warrants this major alteration to this particular piece of property. I think that answer to both the: community needs and the Tigard Housing Plans on a property w4.th less alterations. That is my basic concern, traffic is the lesser concern. The other variances , I agree with the applicant on No. 6 - to reduce the number of: dwelling units, then I don' t see any point_U_L «aV�„S o p.=ase them in I agree with longer it ends',up that the dwelling units should be next to the ,greenway rather than the street. I would be willing to leave the exact number of units to; the general plan providing we don' t see the ae(rtain number of units main after the 12 without being the floodplain - that might be 'a targe to go; for. This is only a small comment, when you `require no parking,, it 's easy to require no �i Page 32 - ( 5. 1 Zone Change ZC 30-78 - Sherwood Downs) parking, but then the burden to enforce that falls on public services. Specifically, the Police. And if we can avoid creating that burden, that would be good. I think that ' s all the comments. TFPEDINO: Thank you, Commissioner. Commission Smith. SMITH: Basically, I like the plan. First of all, the proposed variances. I would have to go along with their variance in terms of thelot size and setbacks, including the zero lot line variance. I think that based on the types of accomodations we've been talking about , including smaller lots, etc. , that this is comparative with that , and also, � concerning those sidewalks, I think this type of plan - it should not be necessary to extend the code on the sidewalk requirements. In terms of the staff recommendations, ah, I had a little question concerning number 2, ah, to develop as a 50 ft. right-of-way, the 76th Ave. through development with full local street improvements. I was hoping that the overall vicinity map - I very much doubt that 76th Ave. will ever be a major traffic area from parcels southwest up to Bonita. I think it would be appropriate to allow a street through there - possibly of smaller size without the full improvements. Aiming south on 76th is more likely to go down to the Durham Road or over to 70th. In terms of the floodplain, which I think is _going_ to ':be the real issue here, I'm rather'`impressed with the engineering concept in the way that they 're proposing to modify tho floodplain for this park. I think this varies quite a bit from other proposals that we have had before which we have basically turned down, in that the other proposals wanted essentially to modify floodplains increase their use of buildable land area without providing any compensation for this. And I think that the planning the detail we have differs in that it provides what -f think is. a very 'interesting development in their compensation for the loss of floodplain. And,= I think if we were to categorically turn down their use of all the floodplain open to use based on' the 'fact =that 'we have done this in the _past, I don't think that it would be a fair thing to do because past applicants essentially have not proposed compensation for that retention. However, I do not support the total quantity of area of floodplain that they are proposing to modify; but on the other hand, "I do not go along with staff suggesting that they remodel that. I think that somewhere in between there is-a compromise that would be 'suitable to both. I `wouldn't go :along`with staff recommendation No. 4, that no dwelling units be;permitted in the floodplain area. As far as the total number of units, once again, I think that the 64 figure is going to be too high ;- yet, I 'think we can go a little higher than 42. Page 33 - (5. 1 Zone Change ZC 30-78 - Sherwood Downs) Allowing some marginal use of floodplain, and one of the ng things that is asagrea with thetapplicantis 7thAthatve. cit should down - I definitely not follow the floodplain contour line, it should be set back a little farther and possibly their sd be tructuressto mighthe east which their lots and possiblythat extend out on the floodplain. Now, not to floodplain theythey propose now, but I think the probably the residenS ff11t�co oodat recommendation king Lip 2, whichhstreet. Says So, in that regard,that 76th Ave. should meander along floodplain contour - I don' t think I could support that . TEPEDINO: Thank you Commissioner Smith. Commission Speaker. as mine. In �n�ouFR : Uh, some of Mr. Smith's feelings are the same_ i"5,tivo general, I like the concept. 1 think i` �' �" - behind and innovative, and apparently has good engineering it. Main some cooperns of change fromhone is anythingthat thatthe use we have the f loodp�aln is a maj Y y me I have been on the Planning considered in the short ti before I would like to vote on it , Commission, and frnakly, I discussion among the commission would like to have more and with staff. In other ;ords, this is my hang-up on this particular application , at this time. I think we need to do some internal work on what we feel is proper for tconstruction floodplain . The second thing is the impact of on - trucks and then later the residential traffic on what I know are very poor streets in the area. I feel ,this is a. development of good concept and design, and situated in han a suburban area whose street ated by a rural, rather tconstruction ment does not support the traffic afficgeZnrotherwords, ;it' s a and later the residential pattern. development a little bit ahead of its time based on the urban development that is not their yet. TEPEDINO: Thank you Commissioner. Commissioner Funk_ in PUNK: Well, I too feel that it' I a fairly decent plan there is acquisition here today. some ;of the greenway area could be reclaimed in use of the land` I think that's all I have to say. r r rt TEPEDIN40: Commissioner Helmer. HELMER: I have no comment. TEPEDINO: Commissioner Wood. WOOD: I have some serious problems,ems, ,and as it stands now, mY vote = ust the would be to deny. Let ane ��p I——ain why. Not J floodplain. I' do appreciate what Mr_ Smith said - 'there Page 34 - (5.1 Zone Change ZC 30-78 - Sherwood Downs) is this area of flat area that there is more ability to compensate, on this land than there is on a lot of other land. Other problems of concern to touching the flood- plain. I think that this plan represents somethings that we ought to, that we need to address directly . It seems to me it uses the planning and development to get around a general comprehensive plan. _ Let me explain what I mean by that. This is an R-7 zone. Now, we may have - may be looking at a housing plan and the need for more small lot sizes, and that sort of thing. But , as of the present time, the plan we are supposed to enforce - it has^�this 7,500 sq. ft . , four unit per acre. Now we allow in pl�. ned it developments in the past , smaller lot sizes in exchange for trade-offs of open space to make it attractive to the developer to contribute that open space. Look what ' s happening here, when you look at the order to comply with the floodplain ordinance at all. The developer has to leave a fair amount of flat pasture land. There is no other way for him to develop. He' s got the floodplain ordinance to comply with, and the drainage ordinance to comply with, and calamity that you've heard of the floodplain only. If he' s not to go more than three feet , he has got to have more than two acres for the fill - he's also going to have some additional for the retention. If you come into the subdivision, these lots are most single-family, 5,000 - averaging 5,600 - less than half of that for the townhouses. This is being developed at approximately twice the density he 'could have put on the same land had he subdivided. There isn' t a lot on this, I don' t think, maybe,"4 and 5 -maybe a COUpiC off. r them - em but 1 doiiht if any lots that are the = minimum 'lot size for this site. The 32 units the staff referenced is probably about what you could have on a standardsize'' lot, or bigger in this ,zone. So he's ,not trading off smaller lots for giving the Commission something, he's trading it off basically to give land he couldn't possibly develop in the floodplain ordinance, even if we gave him as much encroachment as he could possibly get. Very little more he could take. I think that our concern with the housing plan of the smaller units has to take into account the fact we changed zoning without respect to what the neighborhood plan did. : As far as the floodplain_ itself ,' i still have some 'concern. We heard a good plan, but in very general terms. We know that we have had more than two acres of cut,_ We know that we haven' t even addressed the retention yet - storm water retention. We hear that this, that every year or two - this pasture is under water, and no idea when you cut it back where you would be or how often it's going to flood. I haven't heard 'Li developer that tells me the developer anything f r oii� sue u����.,N...� knows either.' This supposedly is to have ,a community garden ,in it. And the usual , but I am not sure to what extent along this much encroachment of the greenway we effectively permitted the use of the;remainder of the greenway, and also how the use is going to be affected by Page 35 - (5. 1 Zone Change ZC 30-78 - Sherwood Downs) what kind of vegetation is going to be that much cutting, I am very concerned able to grow with that much flI would feel much more about the extent of the cum that there should be any cut comfortable, I 'm not saying, but if there were much less, to make the land more usable, it my inclination would be toolat 32�1ots.1fI would ethink - ut subdivision whit is. They say the density I don't exactly - however many it give it from moving this fl.aodplain back from trade-off we' 1L g ou can get and still do your cuts. the maximum expansion, Y r ading off to the But we not giving trade-off for g That 's my major concern. development, what you can' t develop. That ' the staff about the To share the neighbors, I agree I don't think street plug on 79th. Until it's developed, that there's an immediate the, _b,to that traffi ah, primarilythe state of developme��t o - I don't I don' t agree with Ken or Commissioner Brian reason why agree with Condition No. 6. I don see an ifythey're can' t go in one phase, particularly they basic concern looking at a smaller number of units • My something unless is if we're to approve or not to approve, Q is IN somebody can build on this all we' re approving parcel. generally. As much difference as Tososed�,�I disagree ought to be developed and what 1an.has beThaen p 'spwhy I think I with the basic concept of the p or at have to deny and ask them to come back with general, I 'think the idea least from my town view that would somewhat more closely align with what I think the zone calls for- eneral plan of holding the number of units back to the g but the rPrson review is not .going to accomplish very drawings and try to that. will ch timewith whetherdetails should berthat bnumber of decide at t you say half - then the units or half that, that tells you - Y whole plan has to be totally redone. Arid it seemobablmedeny t' s the kind of %recision you make here and I would probably this particular. . . of this - TEPEDINO: Thank you Commissioner. Commissioner Seeber. Overall , I do believe that we can claimsome S EEBER: he extent that is Wand down in he floodplain, may already shown here. I- also: believe that the density is � littl high and in the floodplain area possibly we can p don't think we should . over on the other side of the roadink . _L _L ld be able to have to build in phases project at once, and I do feel as though build the whole p ossibility somebody should look into the idea of the p that 's what is going to happen to the road off of Bonita - tion. After construction, and that construction.79th - during bad ter e. i hope that some- road seems to be in pretty P body can do something about that. Page 36 (5. 1 Zone Change ZC 30-78 - Sherwood Downs) TEPEDINO: Thank you Commissioner Seeber. Commissioner Kolleas. KOLLEAS: I agree. . TEPEDINO: i feel , my feelings have been pretty much summarized 'Here. I don't think that reconstruction has to be limited to two phases. This doesn't make much sense to me to do that . I have some concern that the number of dwellings look pretty dense and I agree with Commissioner Woods' comment that on trading off property that could not possibly be developed in calculating that in the grass allocation for building units. That ' s a tough problem we've had some difficulties with in the past. The floodplain is, in my estimation, in material is a substantial problem. In the past, we have been hard-nosed in allowing construction of floodplains. I think the applicant has done much more work than most people that have come before us - in terms of trying to engineer -out the problems. And I can understand and feel that with appropriate engineering - some of the land, perhaps, could be reclaimed for use of dwelling units, but I am concerned about the extent of that , that to me is .a rather substantial invasion into the floodplain, and I don't know the ramifications of that will be because once you do that , that is a permanent implacement. We don't relize our mistake a year from now, and take the houses and the fill out . So I-am concerned about permanently changing the topogr'a.phv in the area. So I am concerned about I bues the magnitude of that. TEPEDINO: Do we hear any questions on that. Maybe something can be is done.' So I would agree that most of the ,staff 's recommendation - except No. 6 - five I 'm bothered by because I don't know about" dividing up units and '`I don't fully agree: with No. 4. I think with appropriate engineering, some dwelling units could be submitted -- as 'far as what the proposal; is now - I would have to deny on that basis because I think that we have been burned in the past.: Allowing a building/developer to go through the preliminary process of the final review, j and then attempting to make changes, and modifications - and that 's compromising,not only the public - who has to go out again - but the time of the City and the volunteers on the a Planning Commission. So I don't agree with the concept that anything goes in the preliminary, because you can get it in the final. I don' t think that 's right'. I think if you r aregoing ,to stop stomething or ;add `something to a proposal F well modify it like you do on a preliminary` basis. And for that reason, I 'am opposed - against this invasion in ;the floodplains. Some other encouragement`, as ;I say, I -might be willing to agree with but notsosubstantial. Those are my feelings. x Page 37 - (5.1 'Gone Change ZC 30-78 - Sherwood Downs) Any other comments? -President - I have a question maybe of staff and SPEAKER: hir. Pres the applicant . Of the staff - is it possible to bring in, in other" words, could the applicant legally bring in the fill without taking it out of the floodplains? Is that - is that legal? You mean filling in the plain without cutting it someplace SELBY: else in the floodplain? SPEAKER Right. SELBY: Well , no. Basically, he then would not be - well he can bring in other dirt, but he would have to cut out of the e to displace the water because floodplain someplacu basically what it would be doing is filling p and he will- be illbe raising the level of potential flooding area. He has to allow more flood area by cutting into it someplace else and allowing that water to go someplace after ekhasnow f1iled up that portion. He can bring in finer dirt - You for engineering grade compaction, but he would have to cut in floodplain to water detention misplacement . someplace in the SPEAKER: That answers my ibility might question. I thought the poss _ be - I recognize it would .reduce the - shall we say the volume ofthefloodplain -- was that if he brought in the- about' 10,000 yards more of fill from somewhere else and left the rest of the floodplain contoulrwitheconceivab1y10,000 yards of water that would be disc___ that 'concept of 'maintenancing. TEPEDINO: Any other thoughts before the Commissioners. SMITH: If there are no other comments, I wanted to propose a motion that . . . TEPEDINO: Gene, do you have a quick comment?' GINTHER: Well, yea TEPEDINO: We're not taking public testimony. I understand that. I think it ' s valid concern about GINTHER: No, appropriate magnitude floodplain, and I think d might We app p use the same technique that we used on the Wedgewood Project. If we could give it whole concern, we could revise this and bring it back to you when. TEPEDINO: I think that probably we'd be; open to that. SMITH: I make a motion that we approve this application with the following recommendations: Page 38. - (5. 1 Zone Change ZC 30-78 - Sherwood Downs) 1. That five (5) feet of right-of-way be dedicated to the City with half street standard improvements on S.W. 79th. 2. That the present right-of-way of S.W. 76th through the development be vacated. 3. That the street into the development off of S.W. 79th be 50 ft . right--of-way with full local standard improvements with a street plug- - - plug - are you talking about a fire plug? SMITH: What is a street I 'm not. Basically it`s a metal barrier upheld by three SEL•BY`: No, I ' osts in the ground, and it's shown on the final plat ; or four p as being a streetplug so that any time in the future, the . City has the right to pull that out and have the access lock it off by development. through, and no one can b #3 as it reads, and that #4 be deleted, SMITH: At any rate, leaving and amended to read: 4. That the fill of the floodplain be allowed only to the 130 foot contour. continue? mr4 sj___-r, would you like to SJ1V TEYL1u: �n or SMITH: That five (5) be modified to read: 5. That the total number of dwelling units be limited to 42 and that the make-up-of -the dwelling units be decided at the general plan review. That six (8) be deleted, and a Condition #8 be added: 7. That the applicant submit an agreement of dedication to the City along the floodplain area as a Greenwayll through applicant's' property.` v, That the applicant renew S.W. 79th after construction to is in presently. the same or better condition as it 1 Page 39 - (5. 1 Zone Change ZC 30-78 - Sherwood Downs) BRIAN: I second it . a motion made and seconded. TEPEDINO: There has been WOOD: I agree with Mr. Smith on all but one of the items, and I want to discuss the reason. I think when we limit the number of units , it is important to have, as well as we can, a principle reason for which is generally applicable. Uh, the 42 tends to be pretty well based on how to develop - to lay out -- on the site. For some reason,, he had some inside and some outside of the floodplain. I go back to two things I 've said before that are very important. On, of them is that it seems to me The second thing I think that is important is that all of you may favor various policies, I think we have to enforce the comprehensive plan for an R-7 zone. It seems to me that the principal trade-off might be to allow the developers the number of units that could have been placed in an R-7 zone in the development as drawn , but allow density trade-offs so that the number of units can be placed outside the 130 ft. contour. I don 't know the exact number of units, although the developer, I am sure could compute it to the general plan. It isn't the exact number that is important, it's that the trade-off be compatible with -comprehensive 'plan and ti at it be in effect , a trade-off with something usable so I would' oppose the motion because of the delineation of the number of units,; otherwise I would agree to it. TEPEDINO: O.K. ,-Any comments? Commissioner Smith. SMITH: If I could comment on Mr. Wood's statements, there is somewhat of a question here as to' how 'we should evaluate a°. density in terms of whether we should 'take the total+ usable land - is that land minus the floodplain land and come up with the number of units for the underlying zone or 'rather the fact that we take the total area, be it usable or unusable.: I, am not so sure that there is any ordinance that specifies howthat rule is to be applied. And, therefore, I see that decision as being a Planning Commission decision, and 'not 'any `the ordinance affected the decision. Secondly, if 42 units in number of acres, there, I am sure that, they are well below the underlying zone - like 'the cirri ed amcant - ;probably a third less - and accounting for all of them. But the reason that I do not look at a lighter all is in regards to our discussions concerning the Page 40 (5.1 Zone Change ZC 30-78 - Sherwood Towns) housing plan and probleins that the City will becfaceeddwith providing lower priced developments of lots , based on the direction that I think we are going to on that we're going to have to, and I think it is quire appropriate to allow the density that I refer to. And i think that this plan as we modified it with a motion and recommendation satisifies our requirements in terms of protection of the floodplain and also my anynmore thang our ng that, goals. I think if we reduce the density any sue may in effect take care of our needs in terms of the defeat our objectives as far as floodplain, but start to the housing goal is concerned. TEPEDINO: Thank you Commissioner. Commissioner Brian. BRIAN: One of the thoughts that I had in seconding the motion , too, is that the applicant said there were 42 units above the floodplain contour. Correct backing the fill down to the 130 feet and still holding that 42 were in effect we are decreasing the density shown here. I agree it is still somewhat arbitrary. GINTHER: 1NSay I ask a question? TEPEDINO: Yes. Is it. for Commissioner Brian? Anit GINTHER: Yes. It' s aboutnwhat there were 42said out un.itsewe2couldsgetl56aand that on that ,p la t area above the floodplain, but probably 62 units in tha we didn' t like the way it looked. BRIAN: My position doesn't change. This reflects 42 and allowing 42` except allowing fill to go out to 130 ft. elevation hat level. I also, ah,` there' s also `a lot of recrepeopletion tthere. might, well recreation space' available for thObiosl I want to make a comment on `t he floodplain y from anything this is a fairly dramatic departure much as past in my IS months here. We haven't allowed o much a, fence in the floodplain. I think that there is a uniqueness about this land and the large amount of flat space here, so by ;restricting the fill only 130 ft. , we are bothreducing` the fill and increasing the flatarea theThat's ' developer has to play with for offsetting the only reason that I would consider the floodplain fill. TEPEDINO: Any other comments. Yes, Commissioner Wood. <, r; b,-�t I think this is important. I appreciate WOOD: Very ,,, �e� , seem. to Mr. : Smith' s statements of their. three points that ���___ me to be significant. One of them is the idea of the fact the planned development ordinance may be ambiguoussnaas to what the figure for that developable acreage whether it includes the floodplain or not. However, reading the ordinance`, I cannot find that it was its' intent to one of unusable space for you know, permit the trade-off of Page 41 - (5. 1 Zone Change ZC 30-78 - Sherwood Downs) the vehicle by which developer whose land is largely unusable- or partially unusable to take considerably greater densities than he could have ever gotten by subdividing. I do not think the trade-off here intended for that purpose. Secondly , I appreciate the housing goals . Though, I think it' s important to recognize that we have not yet amended the comprehensive plan and that we do hate a function hereof enforcing gacompri ensive plan as written by the nein ns and seeing whether it is questionable to take an action unless we believe it was important to enable to plan.use weLike the presently- adopted comprehensive plan, k that, that the neighborhood plans we may after a public hearing, rezone. TEPEDINO: Any other comments from the Commissioners? Can I ask how you' re going to improve 76th Ave. to Bonita FUNK: Road - while this piece of property is improved? In other wcovds, we're 'limiting access on 79th Ave. ? GINTHER: O.K. Well , yea. FUNK: Well , what about 76th? GINTHER: We don't particularly want to come out 76th. We think that weaving between these apartments and the site distance on Bonita is-a significant problem and that 79th is not. ,,TG granted. 79th isn' t the world' s greatest; speedway, ti v:r'r a but the motion included that there be a provision that restore it to conditions that is better but y ou there is one staff recommendation that we are going to have to make improvements on it. FUNK. We're talking about putting a plug here. I GINTHER: Yea, I know you are. I wish you wouldn't . PUNK: In other words, you're going to channel all this population out to this unimproved lots 490.0 and 5300. GINTHER: If it goes through, the plug, in my view ought to be at the north end of 76th - night. VOICE FROM AUDIENCE: May I ask a question? TEPEDINO: Not now unless. . : The publicsheariyourngojs closed undess one of the commissioners. WEBB: This is just that we were talking about. I want to ask the question why should one of those streets be plugged. It would certainly 'cut down the traffic situation materials, if both access roads were opened. Page 42 - (5. 1 Zone Change ZC 30-78 - Sherwood Downs) TEPEDINO: Let me pose a question while the commissioners have discussion. Why do you want to plug that street? SELBY: I want — first by plugging it, someday when the roads are adequate to handle the travel circulation and the street is in use - iu other words, it 's a temporary closure and it is intended that someday 76th will be used and 79th will be used to distribute traffic. Closing 79th now until it 's improved to handle the traffic load, 76th - there is a small portion much less of an area between those two lots to be improved to standards that can handle the passing much more than 79th. A lot more to do on 79th distance wise. Area to be improved - the City should almost - in it's budget now with the FTC afford to pay for improvements on 76th. So, it would be much more, and I understand from the police who went out to the site and looked at it with me, that they feel that for safety that the site distance on 76th is much greater than on 79th. Those are my statements. FUNK: Are we assured thenthatthe City would improve the rest of 76th Ave.? SELBY: We're assured from me talking with our traffic engineer that the funding we have we have an unaccountable one-third of FTC funds - given that there is no legal tie-ups on it that we can improve that in smaller distance than any other areas to improve, cost-wise. The lik- ihood is much greater. TEPEDINO: Thank you. Any other comments? Commissioner. SMITH: I missed: that. I still have some confusion on essentially what you're talking about is plugging their access to 79th and not using 79th. SELBY: Not immediately - 'but someday it will be opened up. SMITH: I would, I kind of have a question that somewhat so for one thing I think I would 'like to see a half-street improvement on '79th SELBY: These will be - the condition asked for 79th half-street improvements. The more the development goes around, the more the improvements will come.` TEPEDINO: O.K. We have a motion on the floor that's 'been made and seconded. Any discussions continuing. SMITH: I was just wondering is the rnotion "technically workable in ``terms of the street access? Page 43 - (5. 1 Zone Change ZC 30-78 Sherwood Downs) TEPEDINO: Well the motion is - the motion made agreed with staff recommendation #3 and seconded so that where it stands right now. SELBY: The way that I understand that you made the motion#2 that the right-of-way on 76th through the development be vacated. SMITH: O.K. , I think I see the error in that line. It should read that present right-of-way of S.W. 76th through the develop- ment be vacated and relocated. TEPEDINO: Do you withdraw the motion? SMITH: I 'm amending the motion to read that staff recommendation - #2 to read "the present right-of-way southwest 76th through the development be vacated and relocated." Now what's your problem with the fact that when we vacated the street. SELBY: If you vacated the street then they wouldn't , then 76th wouldn' t exist - 79th is plugged - then you wouldn 't have any way in or out of the development . BRIAN: What wording do you recommend- allow to meandor, or. . . SELBY: No, I think - and relocated - for traffic circulation would be a clear statement. SMITH: I think we' ll leave that up to the developer at this time to bring that in on his next . SELBY: Fine. SMITH As far as location - as far as your location because its going to your - your going to do some of the layout and just as soon, do the density changes. TEPEDINO: The risk - we don't want to get into re-designing the applicant 's presentation here, but your motion now is attempting to modify the #2 and #3 - the present right- of-way of '76th `- this development be vacated and relocated. SMITH: Yes. TEPEDINO: O.K. that firstmotion was seconded - BRIAN: I . seconded it . TEPEDINO: Motion made and seconded and allotted discussion on it. One point I will make - some of the points that were brought up that I agree with - I, have a real problem with the major change of policy that was made tonight by encroachment in the floodplain. The thing that bothers me is not so much. the change in policy, but how we' re doing it. The applicant came in and suggested a major encroachment in the floodplain and he offered to offset that encroachment by saying, look, Page 44 - (5. 1 Zone Charge ZC 30-78 - Sherwood Downs) 1 will give you an engineered plan that will alleviate or eliminate the potential adverse impact on the adjoining landowners. It sounds like the people that made the motion and seconded it say all right , we'll allow you to encroach on the floodplain, but not as much as you wanted to - and that ' s it. 1 think what we fail to realize is that what we've done now and if this passes, we allow him to encroach the floodplain but not as much as he wanted to - but we have allowed him to encroach in the floodplain and we have forgotten about the offer to make the engineer analysis and study to make the changes necessary to avoid adverse impacts. And I have a real problem with that because next week I bet you a dollar to a doughnut that there will be somebody else up here that will want to make a major encroachment to the floodplain, and he' ll be expecting that he'll get it - not all of what he wants, but some of what he wants and not be asked to make the engineering analysis - as far as the impacts on the floodplain. GINTHER: We have to do that anyway. SOUTH: I made an error in my assumption that the engineering analysis would have to be done anyway. Do you feel that it 's necessary to do that in the motion? TEPEDINO: I think it would be - in my _estimation - I 'd feel much more comfortable if we stated it as one of the conditions. Along with some of the other conditions - it could be also considered to be implicit in whatwe're asking him to do. relocate the road.'. . FUNK: I think that there are a lot of things here that are vague here so far. TEPEDINO: Yes, and what I would like to do is because of this major change in what we're doing, I 'd feel more comfortable if we said we'll allow you some encroachment because I think we have to make sure that ;the developers are forced to weigh burdens and benefits of the floodplain. If we say look, you can go and encroach in the floodplain, you've got to compose convincing and persuasive findings, and what we're really looking at this in terms of adverse impact. Try to minimize it. BRIAN: I think the motion of at least on my part assumed that the same engineering study would have to take place and an explanation to the degree necessary. TEPEDINO: O.K., I see, I don' t have any problem'. SELBY: It 's in the ordinance and he would have to comply with the ordinance. Page 45 - (5. 1 Zone Change ZC 30-75 - Sherwood Downs) TEPEDINO: I hear what you're saying - a lot of things in the ordinances that we don' t have any enforcement policy to go around and get people to comply with ordinances and frankly , I would like to see it here a motion made and seconded. However , we can vote it up or down. Any other discussion? SMITH: Mr. Chairman, do you feel that the motion ought to be modified to include a statement . . . TEPEDINO: I would feel more comfortable with it because six months from now, there wouldn't be any question on that it's right there and. . . SMITH: You would formally draft that as item or condition #9. I would formally add that to the motion . WOOD: You mean the motion that I 'm going to vote against. SELBY: Yes. BRIAN: How about adding to #4 where it says fill the floodplain only to 130 ft. conditioned upon satisfactory engineering. TEPEDINO: Eng..neering analysis . GINTHER: To comply with 1857 that comes right out of the ordinance, just put ``that in there. TEPEDINO: Well, that ' s not good enough; - you know, you might just say comply with the constituion-of the United States , that 's ` not ;good 'enough. Six months from now when the staff has, changed, maybe, when the planning commission is different . WOOD: Why don't you just say that the construction in .tue floodplain will be accomplished,in the manner not to reduce the holding capacity of the floodplain. SMITH: I shall move that be added to our original' modification. TEPEDINO: Seconded. BRIAN': Seconded. TEPEDINO: Any further discussion? Hearing no one, I am going to call for question, and all of those in;'favor of approval. with the staff findings and recommendations, as modified by various planning commissioners signify by saying Aye. CO1%.1111ISSIONERS: Aye TEPEDINO: Those opposed NOMA Page 46 - (5. 1 Zone Change ZC 30-78 - Sherwood Downs) C0MIMISSIONEBS : No. SELBY: May I have a raise of hands for no. Thank you. The vote passes. i 99 /G77 GARY M.BULLOCK ATTORNEY AT LAW 300 STANDARD PLAZA PORTLAND.OREGON 97204 i TELEPHONE 228-6277 Our filen0._ DecerLber 221 1978 a=''��-�-- Tigard City Council City Hall Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: Ralph W. Scheidt, Sherwood Development } Gentlemen: Ralph W. Scheidt CSherwood Development) submits the following information as a basis for an appeal to the Tigard City Council, of action taken by the planning .commission pursuant too Tigard Municipal Code Section 18.92.029, and this letter shall serve as notice under that section of such appeal. 1. Name of the petitioner: Ralph W. Scheidt of Sherwood Dev�21opment.* t; 2. Date of the action being appealed: December 5, 1978. i F ann=a Pd: .The action being appealed is 3. Action a decision of the Tigard Planning Commission to ap- prove our request For preliminary plan and program l review of residential planning development and zone reap amendment _frons Washington County zone R(J-4 to i City of Tigard zone R--7 plan development on a 13.42 acre parcel south of S.W. Bonita Road along S.W. 76th Avenue and f,-opting on the east side of S.W. 79th Avenue; further identified as tax lots 4600, 4709, i ton County Tax Map '2 S 1 12B. 4791 and 4800 on Washingk 4. Reasons for this appeal: Certain of the conditions which were attached to the approval are onerous and 4. gill `work a hardship on 'the applicant. Further, cer- � A- conditions are stayed with insufficient ' taln of Ae � titioner to comply precision so that attempts by pe , Frith conditions may be frustrated`. fi LMMM l t ' i To: Tigard City Council December 22, 1978 Re: Scheidt -- Sherwood Development Page 2 The applicant wishes to appeal as follows: Condition Number 2: Condition number 2 should be reworded to state, "That the present right of way on S.W. 76th Ave- nue to the development be vacated and be relocated to a horizontal and vertical location and with a structural cross-section all of which will be approved at the general plan approval Planning Commission meeting. Condition Number 3: Condition 3 should be reworded to Gtatei "rr,},at a street plug containing a barricade will not be required adjacent to S.W. 79th Avenue.." Condition Number 4: Condition 4 should be reworded -to state, "Any alteration which will occur in the flood plain will be accomplished and managed strictly in accordance with the Flood Plain Ordinance of the City of Tigard, and specifically, the alteration will be carried out in such a manner that the total storage capacity of the flood plain will not be diminished." Condition Number. 5: Condition 5 should be re-,;orded as ollows., "That trie total number of dwelling units shall be limited to sixty-eight (68) total dwelling units in accor- dance with section 18.56.110 of the Tigard Municipal Code and as further called out in Findings of Fact number 3 in Section l of the Staff Report for Agenda Itein nLauber 5.1 dated December 5, 1978. Petitioner respectfully requests a hearing before the Council as soon as possible. We enclose the required:fee herewith. Respectfully submitted, PAUL G. ROBECK of Attorneys .for Petitioner Ginther Engineering, Inc. was inadvertently named as applicant by the Tigard Planning staff. Ginther Engineering, Inc. is responsiblefor the engineering and`,planning for this ,project. cI P(-P. .�_..ks ?IGIF-D PIANNING CO%D1:ESSIO"i' Racer"bar 5, 1978 - 7:30 P.M. Fowler J:ulior High School - Lecture Room 10365 S.t4. walnut Street - Tigard, Oregon 1. Open '.fleeting: t The meeting was called to order at 7:40 P.M. E 2. Roll Call: Present: Tepedino, Smith, Speaxer, Funk, Hel.icer, Seeber, Kolieas, Wood, Brian Staff: Selby, Mackenzie � i 3. Minutes of Meeting oE: 1' The minutes of November 14, 1978 meeting were approved as submitted_ 4, Planning Comrlission Communication: i None 5„ Public Hearings: NPO n5 5.1 Zone Change ZC 30-78 (Sherwood Downs) A request by Ginther Engineering, gor a prelimiandvzonenmapd P program review of aresidantiat Plannedgar.•d R-7 planned amendment from Wash. Co. RU-4 to City of Ti Development on a 13.42 acre parcel, South of Boni4701, 47nS.W. 00and4600) . 76th (Nash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 12B, Tax Lots 4900, A. Staff Report: presentation and reads the staff report. Selby gives a verbal B. Applicant's Presentation: Gene Ginther.. Engineer for the applicant presented the reauect for inary plan approval of the planned development. zone change and prelim SLa.ie�: that the o0e� space could be owned-by a homeowne association. mhE �ownhauses would be sold individually and have separate garden plots. ti w f the Project stated that there was p sillip .homoson, Ar or p e5cribad `;^,e site and stated..that JT g"f large ('_OU year} flood plain area) - were allowen 68 units but only request 6? units. Planned om doing Explained design of t� axinor cutting and filling .in the flood plain. tr and the layout of the single family dwellings and townhouses. y " < _ Cinther spoke on the traffic situation, Said they had estirtated 17 15 trips south exiting Ont onto Road and 325 trips exiting to the north onto Bonita. r Wood aSkeda' out the amount and manner of the cut and fill in the flood plain? .; :Xli' MINUTES TIGAPD PLAN-N[NG cOmmiss ioN De Cember 5, 1978 - 7:3j p-fit. Page 2 Smith as'.:gid if tha greer..ray area col: d be sloped at least 3 feet rather than cutti-q holes in the Flood plain area, and if the cut from the flood plair., could be used for fount-1--tion material for the dwellingc? C. Public Testimony: Barbara web asked ho.� many coca-issioners had been to the subject site?� Stated that the area flooded alccost every year_ Thought roads were the worst problc. e Ear tha de,elc_innt. Descrired the site and entrance onto Bcr:ita. D. Staff recoav;iendations: Staff recccn:.ended approval with the following conditions:. 1. That r=ive (5) feet of right--of-way be dedicated to the City with half street standard improv=_.cents on S.W. 79th. 2. That the present right-of-way be dedicated to the City with half street standard improvements on S.W. 79th. 3. That the street into the development off of S.W. 79th be 50 foot -right-of-way with full local standard improvements with a street plug until S.W. 79th is improved from Durham north to Bonita. 4. That no dwelling units be permitted onto the flood plain and that no cut or fill be permitted onto the flood plain except in m.ni-rr.UM amount to create the S.W. %6th-right-of-way through the project. 5. That the construction be in two phases of which the first phase is to be completed (final building inspection approval) prior to the " issuance of building permits for the second phase. All public works construction and utilities shall be installed in the beginning of the first phase. " 6. That the applicant submit an agreement of dedication to the City along the flood plain area 'as •ai"Greenway" through applicant's property. Phillip Thompson, Architect, corrected the elevation figures given by Ms. Web_ Stated that no on-street parking would be allowed in the project's , portion of the street. Stated that the developer was going to improve o_*J , Norman Web stated that the traffic situation was the greatest problem ': E. Commission Discussion and Action: o Brian agreed with the staff recommendations generally_ Thought that the street should not be on the flood plain side between the open arca and the dwellings. o Smith 'thought that the development was a good` one. Did not thin: that S.W. 76th needed to be;improved to full local street standard's. Thought that the applicants were approaching a reasonable way of dealing wit," the flood plain. Did not agree with the staff recommendations 72 or i.. - RICO, A TIGAF.D PLANNING CQ%2-IISSiON Decemher 5, 1978 - 7:30 P.M. Pale 3 E. Commission DiscussionandAction Continued: o Spanker liked the concept of the pm.� roject. Thought the conisslon needed to think about traffic and street development during the construction process. o Funk thought part of the greenway area could be reclaimed for denial of the request. Stated that if the project were a subdivision, applicant would only be allowed to have half the density proposed_ Did not agree with staff condition M. o Seeber thought that some of the flood plain area could be reclaimed. Maybe the density was high in the flood area. Thought the road (79Lh) should be repaired after and during construction. Did not agree with staff condition. #6. o Kolleas was concerned with the condition of S.W. 79th during constriction. o Tepedino thought some filling was possible on the flood plain, but not to the extent proposed. Was for the denial of the project. o Smith moved to approve with the following conditions: 1. That five (5) feet of right-of-way be dedicated to the City with half street standard improvements on S.W. 79th. 2. That the present right-of-way of S.W. -76th through the develop- ment be vacated. 3. That the street into the development off of S.W. 79th be 50 foot right-oE-::ay with full local standard improvements with a street plug until S.W. 79th is improved from Durham north to Bonita. 4_ That the fill- of the flood plain be allowed only to the 130 foot contour. 5. That the total number of dwelling units be limited to 42 and that the make-up of the dwelling units be decided at the general plan review.. 6. That the applicant submit an agreement of dedication to the City along the flood plain area as a "Greenway" through applicant's ` property. 7- That the 'aolicant renew S.W. 79th after construction to the same or better condition as it is in presently. -�t � o Brian seconded. x' of o Wood opposed the motion because of the delineation of the units.., Stated ! commission has to support the Comprehensive Plan. t o Smith stated a means to arrive at a 'density figure. Agreed to a higher. than subdivision density due to the housing problems:the commission e would face in the future and the need to comply with the LCDC - reauirement' k10_ o Funk asked :bout 75th Avenue and the access for the project? '`z a MINUTES TIGARD PLANNING CO7 I• SISSION Dev�n?o-r 5, 1978 - 7:3U P_M- Page 4 o sritn modified condition #2 to read as follows: COQ jDI',Tiom 12 MODLHE:D: That the Present right-of-w,ay of S.W.76th through the development be vacated and reloca=ted. o Smith, as per suggestion by Wood Condition #4 was amended to read: CONDITION 44 N-1END6D: That the Fill of t'cie flood plain be allowed only to the 130 foot contour. That construction in the flood plain will be accomplished In a Inner not to reduce the total capacity of the flood plain. o Briar. seconded. Motion passed 7-2. Recess 10:00 P.M. -- 10:10 P.M. 5.2 Zone Change ZC 25-78 (Winter Lake) NPO w7 A request by Krueger Development Co. for a preliminary plan and program review of a resid-ntial planned development and a zone map amen!Inent from Wash. Co. Rs-1 to City of Tigard R-7 PD and A-2 PD on a 27.31 acre site, east of 135th; between Scholls Ferry & Walnut Street (Wash. Co. Tax Map 1S1 33D, Tax Lots 500, 600, u01 and 602) . A_ staff Report: Aldie HOJard Presented the p opOsal. stated that the southern portion of the subject site was not within the city limits, and that the developer had agreed to table tha request until such tine as the parcel_ teas annexed to the City. Stated that the site would be in the City by February 6, 1973. B. Applicant's Presentation:` None C. Public Testimony: D. Commission Discussion and Action; o Brian moved to table the request. o Smith seconded. ILPassed unanimously. 5.3 Zone Change ZC 18-78 E ZC 13-78 (Grimstad P Waymire) NPO #6) A request'by Neil K. Grimstad' and Kenneth L. Waymire for a general plan and program review of a single family residential planned"development and _ STAFF R PORT • 1 ACENDA 5.1 TICA_R_D PLANDIING CO UIISSIO^1 Cuacember 5, 1978 - 7:30 P.M. Fowler Junior High School - Lecture Room 10365 S.`J. walnut Street - Tigard, Oregon Docket: zone Change ZC: 30-78 (Sherwood Downs) Planned Development Request: For a preliminary plan and program review of a residential planned development and zone map amendment from Slash. Co. R11-4 to City of Tigard R-7 Planned Development on a 13.42 acre parcel_ Location: South of Bonita Road; on S.W. 76th and fronting on the east side of 79th (mash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 12B, Tax Lots 4800, 4701, 4700 and 4600) . applicant: Ginther Engineering, Inc. I. Findings of Fact: 1. The site is designated as Urban Low Density Residential on the VA NPO 45 Plan, and is presently zoned R-7 "Single Family Residential." 2. The applicant proposes to develop 18 single family detached units, two (2) attached units, and 44 townhouses; for a total of 64 units. 3. Section 18.56.110 of the Tigard ;tunicipal Code allows a 10% density bonus for compensation of lard vacancy in a Planned Development project. Therefore, 68 total units would be permitted. 4.- The site is presently vacant with a combination of heavily grouped native scrub vegetation and pasture land. The site has a sloping elevation moving west to east ,with a severe drop along the flood plain contour area. 5. The surroundingland uses are single family units to the west across 79th, south, east and northwest; with apartment units north along 76th. 6. The existing roads that will support the distribution of traffic circulation for this,project are 79th and 76th. Both streets are substandard with limited paving, no curbs, sidewalks or improved surface drainage facility. 7. Sewer will be extended from the Fanno,Creek''interceptor line which runs along the eastern edge of the property. '.eater service .will be supplied. from-S.W. 76th and S.1I. 79th by,the Tigard Water'District. 8. The subject site is Within the flood plain area contributed by Fanno Creek and the "Greenway" system. II. Conclusionary Findings: 1. Both S.W. 79th and S.W. 76th have site distance restrictions due to the swell and narrow street configuration. Therefore, street improvement, traffic controlling markings and signs will be needed to alleviate the problem along with phasing of additional average daily trips by new develop- ment, urtill street improvements are 'made. STAFF REPORT t AGENDA 5.1 TIGARD PLANNING COiLdISSION DECEMBER, 5, 197a - 7:30 P.M. Page 2 2. The encroachment of the to%�.nhouses on the flood plain causing a cut and fill in the flood plain can be alleviated by restricting development on the flood plain area and constr-ucting the frontage lots along S.W- 79th for townhouses. 3. Deviations of public right-of-way standards are not necessary except to allow the developer the ccnvvenience of lessening cost. III_ Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat and program subject to the following conditions: 1. The five (5) feet of right-of--way be dedicated to the City with half street standard improvements on S.W. 79th. 2. That the present right-of-way of S.W. 76th through the development be vacated and be altered to meander along the flood plain contour ( not to encroach) with 50 foot right-of-way width and full local street standard improvements. 3. That the street into the development off of S.W. 79th be 50 foot right- of-way with full. local. standard improvements with a street pluq until S.W. 79th is improved from Durham north to Bonita. 4. That no dwelling units be permitted onto the flood plain and that no cutor fill be permitted onto the flood plain except in minimus amount to create the S.W. 76th right---of-way through the project. 5. That the total number of dwelling units be limited to 32; of which 16 are to be single family and 16 to be 'attached single family. 6. That the construction be ir, two phases of which the first phase is to be completed (final building' inspection approval) prior to the issuance of building permi-ts for the second phase. All public works const;,uction and utilities shall be installed in the beginning of the first phase. -- 7. That the applicant submit an agreement of dedication to the City along the flood plain area as a' "Greenway" through applicant's property SUITE 276 « y GINTHER, INC. 3800 S.W.CEDAR HILLS BOULEVARD ' ENGINEERS/PLANNERS/SURVEYORS BEAVERTON,OREGON 97005 (503)643-5475 ZONING 14AP A,2•fENMIENT Tax Lots 4600, 4800 , 4701 & 4700 N.W. =4. Section 12 Township 2S , Range 1W Willamette 'Meridian Washington County City of Tigard i For: i Ralph W. Scheidt 11135 S.W. Capitol KwY Portland, OR 97219 _ k E Engineer: Ginther Engineering.' Inc. 3800 S.W. Cedar Hills Blvd. s Suite 276 Beaverton, Oregon 97005 '503) 643-5475 I C^ 5ia- ° 71 Y 10, ✓� T. 01 f I November, 1978 r FA 4 TABLE OF CO.dTE\TS P__� I. Request F II. Fasano Requirements 2 III. Preliminary P.D. Requirements 7 IV. Proposed Variance 12 V. Flood Plain Alteration 13 Feasibility Statement VI. Design Team Credentials VII. haps I VIII. Correspondence t e 4.. f 4 P F SHE R:d00D DOUNS PLANNED DEVELOP-•---NT Q i- i 4i4 ¢t TABLE OF CO dTE\TS Pace_ I, Request II. Fasano Requirements 2 III. Preliminary P.D. Requirements 7 IV. Proposed Variance 12 V. Flood Plain Alteration 13 Feasibility Statement VI. Design Team Credentials VII. haps i VIII. Correspondence Request t We are requesting that preliminary approval be given for an R-7, P.D. , for a 13.42 acre parcel, south of Bonita Road (Washington County Tax Map 251-12B , lots 4800, 4701 , 4600 and 4700) . 'Because approximately 56% of the site is within the �41100-year flood plain, a certain amount of fill is )necessitated. it is our intent that the fill be kept at a minimum while still providing enough building space for aesthetically pleasing and functional units . According to the City of Tigard Ordinance, Flood Plain Fill Permit and Planned Developments' require two separate processes. However., since the Planner. Development is dependent upon approval of a flood plain permit and vice versa, a costly"Catch 24"° can result for the developer. We would, therefore, request that the Planning Co-mamission review the flood plain fill concept concurrently with the preliminary planned development. If the preliminary planned development is approved and the flood plain 'fill concept seems reasonable to the Planning Co..aii:.ss i.on, Coraia! application will be made for s a flood, plain fill permit at the same meeting, as the General Plan. It is clearly understood that tacit aoproval will be dependent upon the abili.ty' to .confor to allportions Of the flood plain fill ordinance. t -1- TI. FASANO REQU MENTS FASAti0 REQUIRE`7" 1, mature of the proposal and the reason for requesting the oarticu�'ar action_. The subject site is^ 13.42 acres in size and was recently annexed to the City of Tigard. Current zoning is RU-4 (Washington County) which permits single family residences W3`ii �^ minimIUM of 4 7,000 sq. ft. per lot. Because of the recent annexaion, it is necessary to acquire City of Tigard zoning. it is therefore requested that an "R-7 Planned Development" designation be grantee. "R-7t1 ithat r, it complies with the comprehensive olan and n lying planned development designation , in that over the highest and best use of this land can only be achieved �'` by means of a planned development. 2 How is the proposed use in conformance with Ti.gards ' a.dopted Comprehensive Plan. a The site is in N.P.O. -5 whish desi nates the area in question as urban low density residential anu green- ciay According to N.P.O. #5 , which was aeopted by the Tigard City Council in August of 1977 "The area on the ;plan ' map designated Urban Low-Density Residential is intendedGfor singe�-'farm �y residen_ial "- policy #1 further clarifies this : s "The maximum overall density of develcpment will (; be,four dwelling units or; 12 persons per gross acre. This amounts to a standard of 7500 square feet of land per dwelling unit allowing for ;streets and other open space. Some areas will have a 'lov:er density owing to topography, existing development patterns, or the desire of individuals to clam a larger lot. Therefore, in order to complv'`•.ith ?olicy 1,' an R-7 tonin- must be acquired. 2- The request for an overlying Planned Development designation is supported by the N.P.O. 1`5 text which states : "The planned unit development (PUD) is often capable of producing a more desirable living environment and it is therefore recommended that the larger vacant parcels having natural amenities worthy of preservation be developed as PUDs. One such method employs a clustering of houses into groups of three to seven, with the land between the clusters devoted to open space." This finding was stressed by the adoption of Policies 1�4 and 7r- - "Policy =4. Planned unit development will be encouraged on tracts large enough to accomodate ten or more dwellings. Planned unit development will permit a degree of flexibility in design that will enable a higher quality ofdevelopment in accordance with zoning standards. "Policy -9. When developments are proposed in the urban low density area for sites which include identified natural features worthy of preservation, the planned development concept shall be utilized if the PC determines it the best method for preservation:' Therefore, since the site will support more than 10 units and since a portion of it is in the Fanno Creek Greenway, ,a planned' development designation mustbe acqui_-ed in order to be in compliance with the comprehensive plan.' 3. Community need and/or public benefit derived from the propose action: According to the Tigard Housing Plan adopted by the Tigard City Council April, 19 7, The Tigard area does not presently have adequate numbers of dwellings in the types' and "densities demanded and in all price ranges. . . housing is a serious problem for middle-income wage earners who might want to settle in Tigard. " The pronnsed development;will therefore provide necessa - - housing for Tigard, plus provide an opportunity for middle-income housing. t -3- .4 ce The to�.'-ihouses which will range in `.--dual L=-,d to $60,000 and will. be sold as ind governed b_ a :or.e- area gill be under common o�,nershia owners Association. As can be Sem`gas beenbV the sretai.nec for plan, a large amount of open soT` "ies . This proposal recreational and gardening opp is in compliance with Housing Plan Zoal number - and 15. ,policy Z. The community shall promote and encourage a diversity of housing densities and residential types that are available at various prices and rents to households of all incomes, age, sex, race and living patterns. Such housing should include, but not he limited to single-faniily residences, duplexes, apartments, mobile homes, condominiums and townhouses." °policy 1F. provide qreater diversity of housing density (eg. ,11duplex, 4-plex, attached single-family units, etc.) . Public benefits will be provided by the upgrading o= a vacant parcel, the development of a -onion of the Fanno Creek Greenway system, and the addition of necessary housing. 4. Impact Natural Environment: The sits is currently a mixture of t ,r native scru veg etation and pasture land. she impactOf the development will be beneficial, Natural veg- will_be saved wherever possible and the existing pasture land (primarily flood plain) will be landscaped with trees, shrubs , ,and groundcover. mumm and Filling of the floencompliance floodplain kept h allcityora- and a � inances if approved will b and policies, onsite flood water storage will remail the same or even be increased by the proposal. Economy: The development contributes to the econoW_: by rm employment during,ih$reasedconstruction. providing short te market base. Local service will benefit from an d tht he $ Social Condi�ionshavetany s gnif canis not e social impact on deve opment the Tigard community. Bobgreenwood Tigard School District , A r d ng 1_n _ ° C, ° the size. there is no foreseeable problem in servicing Elementary school children will be sent to either Durha:a or Phil Lewis . edhbyethe�co-Is_ruction of 2en on hnee schools Will be elementary schools in`�hi�h�hasna 97G1 cacitThlevel 1and uiS-h' .;ill be ollmety - Sr' Hi h School has E a current enrollment of 770.' li.gan enrolls ent a- a capacity level of 1,450 studen=s 1 300 -4- Based on the projected number of &-elling units , it is an-icipated that the proposal will generate 32. 3 students or . 68 per single family ho=e . 43 per to::=:- house. (Figures were acquired from. studies co.:moilec by the Beaverton School District.) 5 . Site Suitability The site is suitable for development since it is within the City of Tigard urban growth boundary, with water, sewer. , and utilities available to the site. Access to the site will be off of S.W. 79th which feeds into S .W. Bonita Road and S .W. Durham Road, both collector streets . The proposed land use (single family homes and townhouses) is particularly suitable for this land because of the floodplain constraints . The townhouse housing concept allows a reasonable density and still maintains a large expanse of greenway and recreation space. . 6. Impact and effect of the development on the i�roediate vicinity. As can be noted on Map B, all homes and apartments in the immediate vicinity have been pinpointed. The project was designed in order to allow a suitable transition from the single family to the townhouse units . The basic premise followed in the design is the assumption that all the vacant land bordering Fanno Creek will develop utilizing the planned development concept. In compliance witla _`!-P-0 -=3 , planned development will be encouraged in this area in order to provide necessary housing yet maintain a' greenwa- corridor as specified in' the 'CIty of Tigard "Park and Open Space Plan." ' Policy 7. Retain the 100-year flood plain of Fanno Creek, its tributaries and the Tualatin River as an open preserve (Greenway). The Greemjay shall be established as the backbone ofthe open space network and when a direct public benefit can be derived, i.e. , adjacent residential development, the Green.viay should be developed for, passive recreation and pedestrian/ bike travel . " The ca,.nhouse concept will therefore be compatible twith .he existing apartments and future development along Fanno Creek. Land not a`fected by the creek will probably be developed as straight "R-7" subdivisions . �iap 3, existing land use , demonstrates rhae most homes were built on fairly large lots (. 39 acres to 1. 88 acres) . Since this area is projected to be ,-.ithin the City of Tigard boundaries , with a minimu= lot size or 7500 square feet , resale of the homes will be based on their investment capabilities . Therefore, the land bordering S.W. 79th was designed for 12 single . - and the land in the northwest fa� ilydetached units korner for 6 detached units and 2-0 lot line units . The lots are roughly 5,600 square =eet in size , comparable in size to those approved for the Engle,.,ood planned development and the Sunmierfiel.d planned develop- ment, and will be compatible with future redevelopment. 7. Public Service Sev7er and Water: (see at let ers) Sewer will E e.exten e rrom the Fanno Creek ir.=erceptor line which runs along the eastern edge of the property. :dater service will be supplied from S .W. 76th and S .W. 79th by the Tigard Water District. Public Transportation: Bus service is not currently avai a e to t e property but Tri--:vet bus line -No. 43 which runs along S.W. Hall is approximately ,- mike away. Community Facilities: . The site is in proximity to the retai service provided by the Tigard commercial areas and to the Washington Seuare shopping cen`er. According to N.P.O. ;r5 , a neighborhood shopping center will be permitted on the southeast corner of Hall and Bonita, approximately z mile from the site. Fire protection will be provided by Tualatin Fire District. 'Their nearest station being at 8845 S.W. Commercial Street in Tigard, approximately 12 miles from the site. As had already been outlined, the Tigard School District is capable of adq,uately handli:r.ccl, the projected children from this development. 32- Y. III. PRELIMINARY PLAN yE% LOPMEV'T 'ROUP.AiS ffm PFELI:: \ARS PLANNED DEVELOP:,ENT PROGR :-' equirerents as per 18 .56. 020 o: t::e T.._ard Municipal Ccde Plan Elements A. Proposed land use and densities - 1.8 single family detached uni_s - 2 attached single family 44 townhouses Density computation (per 7.8.56. 110 of the T.N.C . ) T.L. 4800 - 1.88 AC 4701 - 5.62 4700 - 3. 75 4600 2. 17 13. 42Total Acres x' 3;_560 = 5841575 . 2 5$-x ' ,575.2 gross 4 acres 2u= = 467,660 ne= acres a - ._ 1 = 7500 (minimum lot size in underlying zone) =62. 3` units + 6' (10% dens_-v bonus) = 68 units Maximum number permitted - 68 ; proposed - 6 B. Building types and intens :- I -De Number Sc , rootage -)n 1300-1400 sc Sin�ie-family - - io::nhouse 44 '_200 sq. ft. -7- C. Circulation Pattern All access and egress to the site will be fro-: S .W. 79th. A 5 foot dedica::10r, ;:ill be made along this street in order to protide 25 foot right- o_--way from centerline as required b., the T .M.C. A 40 foot wide dedicated street :ill be provided into the site. f � It is uroposed to vacate S 76th (see Map C) and relocate it in order to follow the natural ! contours of the land and avoid the flood plain as L,J'much as possible. l -All traffic from the develop-mens will be channeled onto S .td. 79th. Emergency access only will be provided along the north property line to S. 76th. There are two basic reasons why the use of 5 .: . 76th should be discouraged. One , the high density of the apartment units on T.L. 5100 and 5200 (131 units on 6-1/3 acres) presents a T)ossible pedestrian safety probler , because of a fairly constant pedestrian flow between the two complexes . S.L . 76th appears to function more as a private drive and play area rather than a public street. Secondly, there is very poor sight distance where 76th intersec^s :ith 5 , Bonita Road. Since a safe means of access and. ,egress is provided by 5 . :. 79th, _fir and police only saould be allowed to enter this site from S . - 7 6 r:h . ;.76th D. Parris , Playground, Open Space oitatel 3. acres or 29 7 of the si_e Approxi- y be :preserved as open space. The land is currently being used as pasture with a fe:a deterioratizo scrub trees along the bank. The basic conceot will be to create a park-like setting, in which residents can picnic, play frisbee , basketball, etc. - childrens ' play area as well as a community gardens will be set aside. Each garden clot will be 20 feet ,by 20 feet in size and :ill be availab' to interested home owners , wit" a =all yearly =ee to cover :.rater costs.' il- d =''ed and inrl venous Tee greenway area :i1L c ,c4_ yr� aterial used wherever, :)ossible. The major e-:a^asis ill be placed on passive recreational areas ra__,er than active, in co-ilia ce ;.ith the Park and Caen soace plan. t i i k Open SP ace :.. Scenic Path�ra, s _o -.lee -:e a:-. as C, na_.ram =nd p•-�oose: oro " _. _ _ _ -made oeaut� :.hie'- :;_?L .-..=e_connec_ o_^ ^:e-:oers o. =he oar's: s`:S- -'. s c: 001 s , a.=c o == pudplaces . To orovide -cr conser:a_Jon Of scenic and natural areas , e-oeciallt �:a_To co_,rses and areas s Iect _0 =iooding. provide burfer areas along _ orouhfares or be_�aeen conflicting 'Lane, uses . g To ive a feeling of general. o^enness to the com=unit.: Facilities/Accivities : Scenic ways shall provide trails or walkti-:ays and trash receps_cals . THe land shall be regained ^ _-narily i : its na_ural condition aloe, and o=her areas o= natural value. in =yeas :•.here develcp)men= has occurred landscaping anc design cc n-rc_s s all be applied. �c cw s.ona'_ lancscap_n=7 s ould Res- areas be orovided aion , L_Lese Corr_. crs . j s^ould be proviced. _ - - Location: Borderir._ :ca_er;;a.:s ar.0 area) sco ec_ € _o =food :-I�� ' alor_g =-Gr_saor_ =ion and ccrridors . + d= ca _ a rovzsion;7i greenz:_­y = _ - g - v with .ain�ena e oos=c on a Ho = --e J ease _ __� ._..e ._2oend�n upon _ _snes' C'1JJol.._a'_ion t _-1. ...oe ^"=Y1 I 9g£ c= = Park Board ane. C=_ CO _ b _ Ex s -.nE NatLral Fea:_ures 6 }anno Creek :teanders aloe =he e-s= p=oaeY 14-e of si-e • T_nis portiono- ne 'geek is b= 1 . - , nam-rac�ive because o_ l,K a-o.:nt of nG ra` and , =an rade debris. Tine e­_4_-_eVie= :a,' area _ be _-'dscaped. �• :. ane ma or a on creme _ an - a-crac_ive se-_ s ing for ae c= e �-e .�. � e has n,a_s--ure `?anG e ;rears a-.c _re_oLe been -,.:sed as --no s, _nifica vegeta-_ e is_- anlong -_he c ee:- or - e so he ;est o'o= _;- --. der . Yoa Jars ere. - -•+v wil "]P,. -.2i'1-c_ -�- 2S icii.ural: CaCr:C_:•7 i0 -ne c elonricn -- - o `0 is -='` co e - -= oruJt �ai� a _pora _c' 6nC -oss_ole. Program :._ients A. .crke: Analysis of pro-POsed ase Sold- stared, the Tigard area Goes not. presen yv ^ave a equate numbers of cxell-n_s in the censi__es demanded and in all zrLce ranges . (Tigard Housing Plan) This proposal will supply media.:.:. oriced tw.;-rehouses and single family homes to the Tigard area. survey was made of local real estate firms , (Bi'-1 Snyder, Sam Gotter, and J.A. .Pa_terson, Realtors) . The consensus of opinion was tha- a strong market existed for townhouses or condominiums , particularly in the medium price range. The resire for a medium priced home is of course easily explained because of the inflationary status of housing prices . This fact o= life has helped to eliminate the traditional aversion to attached d veli-1 ngs . Linke- with this is the increased protection, co=unity atmosoner.e, and low maintenance needs of toe:. houses , which is attractive to certain spectrums o society. in particular to the elderly-, singles and cc-. ..itho-_7= children -who wish an alternative �o aoar_r.ient living Accor-4ng to Joan Hennings , manager at Bill Snyder Realtor, Co. , Canterbury rills O=fers the only" urge conce _ration of tocyTnhouses in --ne city. Turnover is minimal with a re-sale period averaging 30-50 days . However, the maj ori-ly o= people desiring tOC.'2PO se are sent t0 'other mar et areas (L a�'�_in and La"-.e Oswego) because of the lir..ited availability in Tigard. ",kr resent there are relativel-; ver%: few ::ac-.ed Co,es it T.G7rd. _ . " cZDDendix b 'C the Tigard Housing ?Ian s:ages that in \.P.O. :`5 there is only ! du-2lex and no four-plexes or t i-p exes . City-wine the ::ozal is 58 duplexes , 3 tri ale::es , and six. Y-a_eaes _or _ ,=;,tai .o_ 149 units (as of anuary, 1977) . -Mn ile is "gure will be increased b-_: nroj ects aonro ed l° 3, the need or ..i arc to ncrease t. a- 1t c= e._um priced aztach_c zoasir.� is still ...a^dated. Ooa_ mon and -=en ince --'a:::,, Propos"l _t "l Each single tail} lot and eac �oc.nnause �; X11 land de -nom-ed be under individual ot:�ers.,_p. - i be under _sdic_io -"_ as co :r':on area jai-._ p �lanr+ed develaoae�:t oinea::-.Nssoc�a io.^.. � y c, Services : ,taste disposalacilit:i-es : as _er city �:�as'=e d�scosal co _ract rtland General Electric Lighting: Po idater: Tigard t.Tater. District Public Transportation: Tri--:•et line � mile =ror site Comm-.=pity Facilities: f Schools : Phil Le-wis , Durha-i Grade Schaal Tua lity Jr. iioh Schcc_ , '1 -ard _h ..cool Libraries : li Pard public Library 12568 S .W G1i: Strc • luala.in :ire District Fire .rotect�on.. f Shop?-n v= Payless-Albertsan Cdn:er, Tigard =lata Pacific ig,-,w y co= r- ercial area D. General 'Z'imete.ble of d evelopr e: SprirS and Sw -^er, 19:9 W x IV. PROPOSED VARIANCES j 6 r c i i 4 t r a i f = 0 7D VAIZIL.:ICES TO TIG R-D C=_ _ Ji s :3. 20 X33(1_) "The minimum lot area sn.�_ be seven zousand rive ^undred square feet . . .. k ?ropose ' : 5 , 000 sq . ft_ lot area for de ached sinle a-_lily �_yn.its --, 700 sq. ft. for attached single family uni is , townhouses , lot area, building pad. 18. 20. 060(1) "The front: yard setback s all be a mi ::. nimu of 20 Beet. ?Eo posed: 15 feet for living unit only, all garages ::-ill '-ave a -znimur_. of 20 foot setback, in order to prov,ce a sufficient driveway length. _8. 20. 060(2) "The sideyard setback sha'l'l be a mini-,_:-i of 5 feet for a one story building, six fee_ for one and o^e- alf, and seven feet for a two stor.- bu-=ding. roposadA: 0 lot line setback i -o allow an a.tacned orcer _ single fa.:Lily home and to-an;-iouses . OWN _7.2S. '__'0 Local streets rivzt-o:- :ay 5_ feet , road S,_,=acing ini:Eu 3'. fee - 'I8_.. 64. -_20` 2i1 ttLisiu: _— -'4 its L �:ui1 C vei:eiit, 114 _-= -T' its Recuired n.;' .. ter t sic=::a1lra , etc.; 6 and above 1 50 ft . Dedicated street wit' standard sL..eet imorovements _Proposed: 40 foot right--o=-way , 32 feet of paving ano 2! feet pa: L\o oarli nt- 11 C iN ?L__ L_ L w- 11 VG Jew tG� V1t J S� v. V_ ..ar- 11 • :..�-. L e _ meet of pay n� Extra guest parking scalls will be :.:,ill `have 7' = 7, rovi ced along S J . 76th. S4ce ',alks Concrete amide alk:s shall be- n-::alled nnc -)-n _1Cel of eac:7 s'..'reet c corzance with andards 0TAte b:' the Citi'. Not less a 3 ece_ wide in areas :dere ane orop sed o::s are 10,0100 sq. --:'-- . or ;_ss in. size. S__e_- alks 5-all be cons-ructed adjacent to _ae orcperty line. rroaoSF- be allo:.-ec a_on_ c;_ one side o_ c.-Ie be allo:aed to meander _ ab--: _ the curb E Vit, OCD PLAINAL1�RiTIC\ FESS=3II.iT��' JAri-E.'t�.+.01 f i i r { t S' f: i. x k r. t e. i k ., t FLUOR PLAIN ALTERATION FEASIBILITY STAT::-. :NIT A large part of this property is within the Fanno Creek flood plain, (See City of Tigard flood plain neap, which shows a flood plain elevation of 1.33 at this location.) The proposed development of this property will require alteration of the flood plain in the form of filling along the western edge, and excavating, some kind of depression to offset the filled volume. The purpose of this statement is to shou she approximate extent of filling, to determine the volume of flood plain storave displaced, arid to show that it is feasible to excavate .on the property to offset the displaced storage. The proposed building layout is shoxm on the attached contour map. The eastern edge of: the _ill will be at elevation 134, and the slope froal there down to original ground will be at 3 to 1. The minimum distance from any building to the edge of the fill is 15 feet. The volume of fill below elevation 133 is approximately 10,500 CY. This volume must be offset by an equivalent excavation in the flood plain' whilch can be inundated by the creek during floods, but which is dry during; non-.flood conditions. If it is 'assumed this excavction is some reasonable " depth, say 3 feet, and that its side slopes : are 3:1, then ' about 96,000 SF are required for the area to be excavated. As is shown on the attached drawing, this area is available for excavation. The excavation sho.v« is not intended as the only arrangement ,possible; 'there are other combinations of depth and layout which would also work. Therefore, it is clear that the ^ ood plain alteration required for the proposed developren is physically easible. e � t -13 VI. DESIGN TEAM CREDENTIQT S t GINTHER, INC. sUsrE 276 e I ENGINEERS f PLANNERS SURVEYORS 383CSV..CEDAR H'G:�5 Ea LEV1 6=-aYERT0t 0-,E30%?-,XS X503'643-5475 GE" T. CINTFER CIVIL ENGINEER EDUCATION: mmam B.S., Civil EnP_reering, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, 1961 B.S., Business Administration, Oreg©n State University, Corvallis. Oregon. 1961 Post Graduate Work: 1. Financeability: A course for architects and planners in project financing. October, 1972 2. Rea? Estate Salesman License Course: A i:censing course sponsored by E.G. Stassens, Inc. :larch, 1973 3. Fasano Workshop: sponsored by t%e Ec-e B::ilde_s Associat_en of Metropolitan Portland (HBA) as a review of the F.asano.decision and its consequences. August, 1973 4. Business and Economic Outlook for 1974: A review' of 1973 and peoje ars of 1974, co-s-onsored by PS:.' and Harvard Business. Scho-o Associ2._-.on of Oregon and Stanford Business School Assoc_at-�on of Oreg3n. December, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977 5. Land Develoa*-,7Consumer Protection Se_:nar: A course sponsored by the b'BA to _anil_a-ice us with the OILSR reg'_ations and their impIications. Nove=be7, 1974 6. Evarorraphic° Sime-lat:on Course: A course sponsored by Information Sciences. Inc. dealing with sto= nate- and sanitary sewer des:en ani+ planing. w;th respect to ?a=ge _etre?o"itan"urban areas. Marc'i. 1975 7. Fede-a'_ Land Use Planninz Se=ina A se=4-na" sponsored by Le-.is and Clark Colle2e School of bay-. s-a�-{o-s &."o= all over the United States on aspects or land atanning and legislation. =arcr- 1975 S. Urban P?an :-ng: Three 3-1 c cc.•_ses taR?t by Mr. Ed Sul!-van :n ' F urban alar ._zg and t`:e leg-sla ... a°_`e _ _t. -New lard use tno 2:ht From around t*--- aor_d w2c s_•1d_ed _h pa.t.cula^ em?:�:as:s ett advances. 197!s and '.975 9. Cont uing 'egal Educat i _. on S_ _rar _ land use planning, Port'-and... or�;;s;... e✓:"e-bei. 12-13. 975 -- i l 10. A Conference on the Conflict Between Pu'-! _'c and Private Rog`.ts: A se3inar sponsored by Lewis and Clark College School of Law. March 3-5, 1'977 11. A panelist for a Natural Resources o-rksl:o? given Sv the Cente-- for Urban. Education, Portland, Oregon. Apr:_ 1977 - F_XPERIENCE: May 1978 - Present: President. Ginther. Inc. , Beaverton, Oregon Responsible for complete direction of office. Ginther, Inc. services include land development and planning projects, engineering and surveying. i July 1975 - Present: President, Ginther!SEA. Inc., Beaverton, Oregon, a branch office of SEA, Inc., Reno_, Nevada. Duties include complete responsibility for office. Office projects _nclude land develop=e::t P projects, utility projects and planning projects. The office provides services in Planning, Engineering, Surveying. ghotogra"netry and Landscape Architecture. August 1970 - July 1975: Owner, Gene A. Ginther, P.E., a single proprietorship. The firm specialized -7, sub'_=.visior. and survey+=, work and in planning natters, offering complete design and supery;s=on for proiects. from zoning to construction. Sentenber 1969 - August 1970: 'trice-President. Towill. Inc. . a ccnsulting engineering _`;---= emphasizing photograretry. •fie Portland office specialized is land development, offering design and supervision related projects. J PROFESSIONAL DATA: i Mr. Ginther is registered in Oregon, l+as _reton, Idaho. Texas.W -ing. British Colu=bia. New Mexico and Montana as�a ?rofess_onal Engine__. t' He has served on the Planning Consultants' Criteria Co^ittee f,:r Oregon's i Land Conservation and Develo�^ent Commission. a ` is 3 j6${- the in tial e! airmar, Planning Organ--nation He has served as , mon. #6, a citizens' planning group in Washington County, Oregon. He has conducted land use secinars in O-ego-. dealinc with currer._ land use problems in Zoning and comprehensive planning. tliHe has served oa acomittee eatheched State`5o edpof1EngineeringV=�a=i:aers Oregon to Wake recommendation to regarding registration of planners. He is serving as the Public Relation Chairman for the Columbia C'__an. ter of the Professional Engineers of Oregor. stablished by Professional Engineers of He :as served on a committee e regarding practice of surveying by Oregon to make recommendation registered engineers. He has served on a commitee to revise the development ordinances o` the City Of Wilsonville, Oregon. He is a member of the faculty of the Craduate Realtors' Inst.tute- He is a member of: Northwest Environnental, 0efense Center Professional Engineers c_ Oregon -agonal Society of Professional Engineers A-erican Society of Civil Engineers A=erican Institute of Planners (Affiliate) Professional Engineers it, Private ?ract ce A-:erican Water Works Association Pt:BLICATION+S: &—ass It:nact Review: Indian Meadows, Tualatin. Oregon, January. 197's i 1'974 Indian Woods, Tualatin, Oregon, ?gyp"--+ Oakbroot, Va: couver. Washington. ieeb= Heights, Medford. uarv. 1974Hiltcn Orego^., 1974 Scene Villa-le- central Point- Oregon. `+ R t Compre`.iensive P:a : Aniendment Reviews: Hybertson!Fe=er. Aloha, Oregon, 1975 Riverplains Co^_unity. Wilsonville, Oregon. '9io76 Dobai Neighborhood Center, Beave-ton, Oregon. River Ranch. Ciatsop County, Oregon, 1977 Zone Change Bullerius: Farmington Green. Planned Unit Development. April, 1975 Tee Jay, Planned Unit Development, July, 1975 Shamrock, October, 1975 Rock Creek, October, 1975 Johnston Property, November, 1975 Winford Estates, November, 1975 Normanvale, March, 1976 Parkway Acres Business Center, Wilsonville. Oregon. 1976 Bales Property, Aloha, Oregon, August, 1975 Bales Apartments, Cedar ?Sill, Oregon, 1977 Conditional Use Studies: l zoning. sanitary landfill study, Oregon City, Alford!Goheen. a sand/grave Oregon. 1975 Blue rouse Restaurant. Raleigh Hills, Oregon. 1977 Local Zzap ove=ent Districts: View- Sewerage Agency. Washington County, Orego aZ h t+-ov�nn. 1975 Valorie Park, Uni=iea aeweage Ag •`:, Wind `_ph indust_ial Par,-. Beaverton, Oietl n, '_97 Gene T. G+nthe-, P.E. /Date: NANCY CHASE URBAN PLANNER EDUCATION: B.S. , Landscape Architecture, Washington State University, Pullman Washington, 1970-1973 Undergraduate studies, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, 1963-1970. { EXPERIENCE_: F,uq, 1978 - Present: Employed by Ginther Engineering, Inc. as Urban Planner. Duties include: subdivision and planned development design; design of landscape and planting plans; presentation of proposals to public bodies; research and preparation of necessary material for �,.e , end ants and zone change, subdivisions, l:u!i�}!'s ectcnSi ve plan amendments.. exception statements. July 1976 Aug. 1978: Community Design Planner, City of Tigard. Duties ins tided: Responsible for administrative design review (this position involved coordinating with project designers on F architecture, landscaping, irrigation, parking and circulation for all projects other than single family in the City of Tigard); formal review of the applications, including staff reports and recommendations; formulation of administration design review procedures including set up of -file system, and inter-departmental coordination; design work for community projects (updating park plans, design and implementation of a new park, street tree progran),development of a greenway system plan, landscape projects for downtown area; subdivision and planned develop- ment review (provide design expertise on subdivision and planned development layouts, street patterns, sidewalk and pedestrian path _ ", . non �narA and landscape and street trP.e Plans); formulation, 7oca' ons, Prey race interpretation and enforcement of ordinances 'pertaining to zoning and design review; drafted Administrative Design Review Sign Code Ordinance; Staff ,on T.S.M. project for S.W. 'Pacific Hwy. ',coordinating with ODOT and preparing conceptual plan, which included proposed traffic lights, realignment of major streets`; landscaped median, development of u-turns and jug handles. March '1974 '- April 1976: Landscape Designer for Ernst-Malmo Nursery, Lacey, 'Washing ton. Duties included: landscape design for; residences; (gained a general knowledge of Iresidential plant materials with special consideration to lora maintenance plants); buyer for plant materials; 'sales and inventory. r1ILLIAM J. BAKER URSAN PLANNER E DUCAT ON B.A. , English (secondary education) , Reed College, Portland, Oregon, 1952. Various courses in landscape design and urban planning from Portland State. EXPERIENCE: Aug. 1976 - Present: Employed by Ginther/SEA, Inc. as Urban Planner. Engaged in comprehensive land use planning, including the elements of research and conceptual analysis, master plans, securing of proper zoning and comprehensive plan designations, environrbntal impact statements, and detail site design (lotting, streets, sidewalks, et al). Responsible for landscape architectural design as required for projects. Miscel- laneous responsibilities include graphic design, report and brochure meriting, and presentation packages. Feb. 197 - Aug. 1976: Lawyer's Title Co. of Oregon. Hired by Lawyer's up map and microfilm section. -After prior to their opening tose opening., appointed head of title plant; responsible for map revisions, posting of all deeds, mortgages, etc.; writing, researching, inter- preting legal descriptions relevant to title insurance.. Supervised five vi employees i975. Self Employed. Worked for many small builders/ ers. developWork consisted of zone changes, variance applications, feasibility studies.:' Taught course at community college in basic mapping,; property research', legal descriptions, (required for realtors). June 1972` - Seot. 1973: Columbia Custom Homes - -head of Land Planning and Development. Duties ranged from designing a 60 lot subdivision, researching and writing legal e;2scriptions. Dealt with all zoning problems. Supervised street and sewer construction. June 1969 -_June 1972: Gene T. Ginther, P.E. , Engineering/Planning. Primarily drafting and researching propertyprior`to platting. Some subdivision design and field work. Oct. 19:53`- June 1969: rrul tnomah County - Originally hired on te:-porary DaSis, ld L_er O ffe red .c _ iuw. nt job. L••1nrked.- irstin d_raftina section of ,. theAssessor's Office Revising, redrarring 'cadastral maps, running out fecal descriptions, assisting public in variety of inquiries concerning real pro erty. Later in Planning Department worked on comprehensive pian, C.R.A.G. project. ( GORDO"d M�4CPHERSO J CIVIL ENGINEER EiiUCATIO'.: S.S. , Civil Engineering, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, 1963 EXPERIENCE: 1975 - Present: Civil Engineer with Ginther/SEA, Inc. , doing varied work re- lated to subdivision development; principally design of streets and curbs, storm sewers and detention facilities, sanitary sewers, and water systems. 1973 - 1975: Civil Engineer with Stevens, Thompson and Runyan, Consulting Engineers in Portland, Oregon, Initial work with S.T.R. was in the solid waste management group, and councils of governments. Project engineer on Central Oregon C.O.G. solid waste management plan. Also as the project engineer for the proposed expansion of Portland's St. Johns landfill , pro- duced the design for the expansion, and the environmental assessment for the first phase of construction. Later work with S.T.R. was in the Civil *, Engineering Department on a variety of items including site grading, road design, sewer systems. Major task was project engineer for the design of McKay Creek Dar:, a 150 foot high earth fill dam proposed by the Soils Conservation Service. 1971 1972: Civil Engi neer with Bryan & Murphy Consulting Engineers;in Walnut Creek, California, working primarily✓ on subdivision related tasks such as property descriptions, boundary surveys, site layout and grading, and design of streets, storm drainage and sanitary;sewers . 1966 - 1972: Civil Engineer:with Lawrence Radiation Laboratory Livermore,' California. This_work was involved with the design and direction of con- struction of nuclear explosive test facilities 'i n Nevada, flew Mexico, Mississippi and Alaska. This entailed a very ;broad'scope of work including research on stemri ng and grouting materials ; tensile strength testing of large drill pipe; design, procurement and inspection of special equipment for loaering ' test explosives into deep hole,; design'of special plastic lining for test chamber; and project engineering on numerous nuclear tests. Also actively involved during this time with the`Liverrwre Civil Defense and was the Radiological Defense Officer during 1969-1970. 1955 - `1966: Civil Engineer, C.E. Green and Assoc., Portland, Ore-con. This won: included the ;layout, surveying and inspection of sewer and warmer syste^s, € ant rre,,ara:'ion of progress payments and property descriptions . f GORDON MACPHERSON PAGE 2 1963 1965: Civil Engineer, Departrent of 'water Resources, Orovlle, Cal ir"ornia. Field office work and construction inspection on large earth- fill dam. The work included tabulation and calculation of progress charts and reports of various kinds, preparation of as-builts, force-account administration, critical path scheduling, and inspection of embankment construction, concrete production and placement, tunnel excavation and lining, grouting. piiedriving and welding. PROFESSIONAL DATA: Member of the American Society of Ci vi 1 Engineers Registered Professional Engineer, Oregon, 1973 Registered Professional Engineer, California, 1971 1 i p k t gg[ 1 � Resume PHILIP THOMPSON Professional Experience Thompson & O'Doherty, Portland, Oregon As Principal, work involves such projects as housing evaluation and strategy formulation, urban community development plans, various com-mercial, institutional, and residential architectural commissions and the supervision of all projects that are executed by this office. Over the past ten years has provided a variety of planning and design services in the following areas: architectural, urban design/planning projects, restaurant design and space planning, multi f-,mily housing, churches, educational institutions, park master plans, and residences. Ph;.lip Thompson & Associates, Portland Oregon Responsible for architecture, land design, and regional and urban planning. Supervised the design, preparation and coordination of all projects through completion. was constantly involved with local and regional units of government and private land develop- ment clients. David E. Thompson, Landscape Architect & Philip Thompson, Architect, Associate`, Portland, Oregon Involvement included architecture, landscape architecture, and Ylp ti 1.}C urban planning. Has been _, Associate as an ��vcia�to= o.. . requiring knowled,e and underst-anding in: architecture, urban and reciona'_, p?annAng, contract document preparation, and construction supervision. John Storrs & Associates, Portland, Oregon Administrat:_ve participation included project program develop- ment for the following: St. Mary's Church, Rectory and School, Corvallis, Oregon Catli_ Cabe! School, Masser Plan and Be�?aive ff Salis an lodge 'i:.—on FS Ed"ucat10n University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon Bachelor c .' Arcz_tecture: June 1966 ` Teach 4 n,9 Ass .s.ant .n'Architect :rte'. Design The,=s Pro_ect: +n At4"_t-_d_nal ?2roach to Ar chi�ecture Universit_, of Cregon, Eugene, Orecon 11y; .tune 1964 ly Bachelor cr Art Pomona Col'_¢ge, " :are-�or` Cal:.forn_a Concen--_z.- _ _csr 196 I FM j Re istration Received license from Oregon State Board of Architect Examiners in 1969 - Registration #1100. Publications # Northwest Magazine: "Urban Renewal or Chaos" Landscape Architecture: "To Hell with Style Preconceptions" New Homes Magazine: "PUD's, Cluster Houses & Townhouses: What Do They Mean?" Portland Magazine: "Portland Zoological Gardens Master Plan" One Dollar Magazine: "The City" Communitv Service American Institute of Architects - Member Neskow'_n North Design Review Co,= .ttee - Member Clackamas County Design Review Conm4l-tee - Past Chairperson Oregon Council of Architects - Member Resume PEARSE O'DOHERTY Professional Experience Thompson & O'Doherty, Portland, Oregon involvement included coordination, preparation with landscape design and urban design projects. Has been and will continue to be involved with local and regional :nits of government gent and private land development clients. Philip Thompson & Associates, Portland, Oregon An associate and project manager for landscape design, new structure sit�.ng and development of a community landscape master g-an. Has been involved with projects requiring knowledge ir urban and regional planning. Eckbo, Dean, Austin & Williams, Inc. , San Francisco, California work involved design and production for construction documents for ma400 'landscape and urban design projects in the San Francisco Bay and Seattle areas. Peace Corns, Iran Regiona' planner consultant for the government of Iran. Retained =c research and evaluate traditional western landscape architecture design concepts being used in the Middle East. - Assisted government in deciding a.pp_opri.ateness and implemen- tation technia•res of _anc:^scape designs for urban and regional parks. California Division of Highways, Sar: Francisco, California Desicn draftsperson with responsibilities in planning, land- scape architecture and environmenta-1 planning. Education Peace 'Corns Training Program in Colorado, June 1969 ileh' Yo_y Sate College of Forestry at Syracuse University, S :--acuse, New York �acze_or of Landscape Architecture, June 1968 Syracase School of Technology, Syracuse, New York Se7te mer 1962--' 3 MUM Registration Received license from State Board of Lancjscape Architect Examiners in 1972 - Registration ; 128. Publications Insite Magazine _ "Looking at The IMandscape: The Site" ' t o r m t 1 ' k E i f I I f t f f I l II . ,P rz { .., a ,_ a ry `i \ st: K+i' in_+}.��' i _•: I n�art�'a'� ST. ' s. a/ :s as weu 'IY 11<;ly0 lo ri as Y.v a s g / ,1 ,t..era �' �+ f S •+.�ci�aT. r.4 r `� ;A ��'�� `5a�^ ^i •�. .r'�� s.I i �� i i s roc 4 > etn;$S_11 Incl j _..�--.-•:`--•-/! C a • �/' ` �o }/�-..��^�ry+{J s a:_:arLrs JJJ t'.s-. I _n, 1� ticv '+. ..s. a' �•ye' a.. � '. � s-. / i;� s3 v.>w aoo+ ,s sc jos ) I (\c/Y�[71�A �' d CMZRaY '•3' Sa IJ st L—Z • _ 4� GPI; tt�/ YILv. FF.•RAL,t� sc DH gb Sv ice. 79Cv-" 1 a Rbi7 a...sa_ >L, : ? i® /aim•">'b E Sv SePRLn. 1 Sr i.�i 5_ o ��' s ��• —`•,d, "a I _.._ p �r L�:��ter: � 11� �� �� a" y � � ..` � 7• �; 1+ eco .a _- _- T 4fi�I�4vr` :si � S4 •V.a RSIW 54 7 B 25 1 IPA T USE IEXISTN', LAI ' SINGLE, F=AMILY UNIT �� -:'� t66T7' le. { 99c 97' rte- 5f01 52(10 a s`?` �9c 97' od1 4100 I 4000 ` I Ao. L .7S+I e. s i 68 R 67 6 }�� - 65 loluu e j 3S "_� 930.10 -i 390.15' 99D t6 i.--COUNTRY– i VIEW 3900 4200 APARTMENTS 1 r,11 ; _ raaAo- c 9a ae. ;sl .APART S's 135 UNITS a ,96 UNITS Z. E m t c0 In 61 W 4300 E3 d iN N N�> 2E 9292 �! 4400 - „4 , 3800 Ga. r na•� I.as a_ - o �Q 54 io ' 53 �s-�-- c rA N N _ s 929.41. 9.42° dim® J 3700 4500 - 74. r-aT Ac. Ac !Q - 07 i — -� 5O 02 ♦ �' �' a p : 6 4 600 147:10 y i 41 3:11. 43 42 r J — csz :i+ SUBJECT fy: 3tc -_'t•stS331 C,Beco 3 - : SITE t• t:.� tii 26.c7• alb 93Ac o �5 4602 / -�--� 10 38 3400 192 ®a uI 0 95 Ar.' 4601 327.IS' r:;00 28025.76 A:. j t� 36 ciJ� 35 t 34 33 4:, ^ (C'S, Na. 13336; Z: tal { 6'. 92762' I.. 92762°_ 2Tf3Z - --- - .g '=a`•�z;sa j �' gas_' „tib - 12'Je7 i. 2801 �-�M=—'1a 401 _ �r,e� a sem. {ti .s7G 28J0 1 30 3t 32 ,2700 � w # a so Gc 2ca ' Q .�e'1302c IS cJ+ 1297 fir- �•• 9 rn sv cn . 1 • $� 1207 . :29.16 : } d f /t1, mer �9R. 7 T Tl VITT. CORRESPONDENCE r jl io s t k a f P s d ` I 3 r i 4 a T I 1 Il Cl 1 1 r, r, I I i n � 1 f f n n T I- c" ZT i nn n i ln i.i n w7 i U �jl_ i� IIUltf1 � 1- 11 ]: 1 iU 11_ l, I I U I I LI.I � 1111 L, I /;•'.Q !:•1 P. O ;'OK 127 a TUALATIN, OREGON 47062 O P-_NE 63e IBM m RUSSELL -IS"SURN, CHIEF t i t TovoVer 16, 1918 City of Ti E;ard Planning DOPartv:_nt ' 12420 S,:!'. ;'ain St. Tigard, Or 97223 ATTN: Ken Shelby RE: S; =::;JOD DCe:NS DCar Yen: f . I have reviev.ed the plans for "Shervood Downs" on S.W. 76th, scuth o; Bonita Road, and ask that the follo'aing itesr.s be met: F _ 1, :,i_C::'jSe� Of the S11e Of this de!'eiE_"",int and the potential � other develc ent in ti:e area, cc -crions need to be ;,ale { at SJ , 79th, -at S.td^ 76th from mita Road and provisions s f sc°.:'. end or the project ! to c•- r�ect to S.W. 76th at t e _h } This :ill help the corltin'ration of :.aving t"Ero.ish stree..s. 2. That the prcyosed streets less t, an the standard of 32 feet , wide posted for "no _a6ving" en both sides of tr.e streets _ _t r f OrC.. n he n,? Garr r and _ ;�'ublic streets Eor �.. o• } 3 provision for location of fire h%-d:-ants to be decide: later i by Ti card tater District and TP,FPD. 4 That the North-South streets be called "76th" and the E East- -2 ' st streets be named .ith_ C i-:s' standard street a ,ir plan =-- E zte r � Sur eels i rE �', _c - " r. UD access and turning € radius requ3 rei,=nts. Ifary other char:;es are rade to this plan, p'=ase; notify US. 1 Si n cerely- 4 Greulich Fire = gall -PD G 5 .. Azn�_ STATE'•EhT OF SET-TER SSi2E'T.CL AL'AIL413ILI'tY G, 3®�92, This statement is supplied at the request of Nancy Chase G/)V7• dated August 17, 1978 A copy of the request is attached. The prop�rlez here- inafter referred to is the property described in the request. 1. The Unified Sewerage Agency has authority to and will supply sanitary sewer service to the property subject to compliance by the property owner, his agents and e:?loyees with all applicable rules, regulations'and laws related to sanitary serer service. If construction of sewer lines other than those designated for public con- struction on the Washington County Master Plan for Sewerage Works is necessary, such construction will be the responsibility of the property owner except to the extent that the Agency may agree to participate in the cost. 2. Treatment plant capacity adequate for the proposed use of the property (is) (yst): presently available and (will) : } be available during a period of one year following the date of this statement. If adequate capacity is not ar.d/or will not during the ensuing year be available, future capacity is projected as follows: 3. A sanitary sewer line(s) adequate for the proposed use (is not) avail- able to the property. If the property is in a city that has im:^•aediate control of local collection sewer lines, no line infor-mation is available from the Agency. If an adequate sanitary sewer line(s) is not available, the nearest adequate line is from the property. The property can be served in the following manner: By construction of ptiblic sewer to the Fanno Creek In---- 4. n-Er4. The property (a) (is not) presently connected to a public sewer. 5. Additional remarks: This area has been proposed far annexation by both the City of Tigard and the City of Durham. The foregn?no' statement is furnished to the person requesting it with the under- standing of the said person; that it is based in part_ on ESTIMATES AID, PROJECTIONS and DOES NOT CONSTITLTTE A GUAPUkNTEE OR CONa`RIT�`�ST that adequate sewer service will be available to the property at any specific time. M;IFJED SEWEPAGE AGrMICY OF W_AS"ii I"Vi GT0.7 COL"TY ` ' 2S1..12B 4700, 4701, 4800 By: . -;✓tv�-i[,- �'�'� $ TomY- MAP ham` Jeanne Hedrick r 2S1 12C 102 pate: _ Auaust 28 1978 75-52A x10.17 C. 0=7rvON 'A"^23 PHCNE 1503i 639.1554 F ;t Stater District ro. : i i ties.r To: '3 jt�i Go ?' �rti�R „ INC. aBailabiliy The 7'ignrd t;nter Pintrict cast 111•12ci4le the nin:r.:in1 `�tat.e of Oregnn orator rer� ir. regitiregents: It is tht? policy of the Tipard dater Diatrict to scrv^ iter in a:y property within the district boan'arj; property a:mcrs pa}' the pipe, construction, and meter costs. The rlist-ict bugs most or its �rrter fres^ the City n; Lake Oswego (Clackamas River) and its availability to surnly is s:ib.ieet to a r7allual agreement. Water is available for each lot at the lot, line of Sap 2 S 1 126 Tax Lots '.=4000, 4700, 4701 & 4800 at the time of`sale -or lease of each lot is gLantzty and OM-s ;c „Go sus deteminea by the Health Di:i,i on of the Departr_:nnt of Human Resources. (`w. e ,,pl icar_t Ginther 'Inc. - Enffineers c, In pes tion Lots 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 51 & 52 Durham Acres .:_. . Administrator if ' u.thor�a:e.i signature and Title 1 tt y NO— f -- s- 1 y $ C �}rte+�'�{•419"'?- SEE MMP �. ax r i t a ♦`- 25 i 1 2 A � ` •,,,a„y -ya..w�rRii(q`v. ,�-.aft" 7F ,a" `,rTi�&'at'yJ. `.l.-r+•^,;�ey�,y�1Sf` i .e �'.�-�•.r_t��'k ay..���.".4-rte� ,� � _.a tTj,-f� .. Vtoo ��'� :yM•r„•/r 'A'��`�Ea�--++.v-r-rc<~�� t9 � � I Q a _%3t) 1p r• - 5101 &wa•J - „�.�� .,...._ :� ',flAe. 39Aa �. '�-'".`s�'s�«u�y��-..t;,�t�-��'�.. . ® - "� � i ��.21` ,x1r d.4 3.Y 4 R-'....,.r�+=� 3.:- • y a- � c _ �a1 - sr-r�deL� a.r�e O .•♦ - .. }n �ptY �,yzs``' "C I �.� 0.1 - - �G7i�' � ��'.�F Yti Y� `N - � - s • 1 sa ">i ""'Y}} 3'JO t3� �•' WIN sY 'T� s 7 �p.y�� t '2, � •'�� ci- '*,. -moi - O{� -7.71J1d •��j''.t-�Yy2� �.�. �^�,1i, ��}� -F'isu.Aa �t: .. 41 Ac `_ �,/t 1." .. y >y����y ��ar.����� � - yam'�s�'• "zS ...".al"� _ ' ars to' 28• AD 490 Ar A 54 !ra ail a � ,�':�� 3zs at•-A" ' � � 701. ''-" _ 10 - Soo 4 - 52 01 ae. x 9Z 4• ,27.55 a -.. r - - (®jar x'00 03 7 1 LINE-'JARS NI.KLIN DLC'NO 43 _ �. tT6£'" �.y.�.....,..,, 1''rcr•'--' .326.66� _ too `. 3�c f 1 4602 � •t � � - a 39 40 ,00 132 3 Ac. 4601 327 t3• Iy '..S?7.13 y -�r:.:. r_ - ITS OF TIGARD P.O. Box 23387 12420 S.W. Main Tigard,Oregon 9722.3 January 9, 1979 Oregon Traffic Safety Commission 895 Surtuner Street, N.E. Salem, Oregon 97310 Attentions Mr. Dean Blakley Dear Mr. Blakley: The City of Tigard hereby submits a letter of intent to apply for a Traffic Safety Grant from the Oregon Traffic Safety Commission. This action was approved by the Tigard City Council on January 8, 1979. Due to the rapid increase in land development and population in Tigard, and the surrounding area, and due to other factors, there is a definite need to update the City's Traffic Safety Program. TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS Reported traffic accidents in Tigard for the periodof 1972 through 1978 are as follows: ACCIDENT6'GLlO.ENT YEAR ACCIDENT CHANGE FATAL INJURY 1972 217 0 119 1973 227 5% 1 117' 1974 269 18% 1 78 1975 299 12% 0 84' 1976 335 12% 1 93 1.977 370 11`/, 1 103 i9lis 455 23% 3 118 MAJOR PROBLEMS Some of the City's major traffic safety problems are as follows: 1. : Outdatedtraffic safety program. 2. Several existing high hazard locations (the City ranks' 10th 'in fatal and injury traffic'accidents when compared to 26 Oregon cities with 5,000 or more population). 3. Lack of Staff training in traffic safety (street design, etc.) 4. Lack of equipment to analyze existing hazardous locations and investigate potentially hazardous locations, (traffic counters, video recording equipment, etc.). Oregon Traffic Safety Commission Attention; Mr. Dean Blakley January 99 1979 Page 2 5. No traffic safety commission at the local level. 6. No 5-year capital improvement plat for streets. PREVIOUS STUDIES In June, 1970, the Oregon Traffic Safety Commission, and the National Traffic Safety stuy for the Administration authorized a survey of traffic forc�herCityeofcTigardoa Thedstudy was development of a master street y plan completed in 1971. The National Safety Council prepared for the Oregon Traffic Safety Commission a highway safety program analysis of Tigard in 1973, when the City's population was Jay, the population of Tigard is 13,500. approximately 7,400. 'to SCOPE nr PP.OPOSED PROJECT The City is interested in a project that would include the followings 1. Updating of the City's 1970-71 traffic safety program with particular emphasis upon the followings a. Road hazard identification and problem resolution. b. Street improvement project ideatificatien, evaluation and prioritization to include a 5-year capital improvement plan. c. Street design standards and practices. �. Training program for staff memberse deo recording equipment}. 3. Purchase of equipment (traffic counters and vi 4. Formation of a local traffic safety commission. ESTIMATED OST is It is estimated that the proposed project cost would totalthe 0 20,000s oftcos proposed ssad that payments to the >traffic safety maximum amount stated in the agreement. ms The City of Tigard requests the necessary fSafficsafety atetyflinstructions Cotrrmissionfor a trprepare submit a, formal application-to the O g grant. Your consideration of this proposed traffic safety project will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely yours, Raeldon R. Barker City Administrator /br ccs City Council 1 December 18, 1978 BID INVITATION The Beaverton and Tigard Police Departments are accepting a joint bid for the listed equipment. Bid openixig will be at 2 :00 p.m. January 12, 1979, in the Council Chambers of Beaverton City Hall, 4950 SW Hall Blvd. , Beaverton, Oregon 97005. Bids will be accepted until that time. Bids will be awarded within thirty days of that date, and prices are to be effective for six months . Bidders may take exception to specifications listed, but written justification must accompany the bid. The Cities of Beaverton and Tigard maintain the right to accept or reject any or all bids. EQUIPMENT Five (5) 1979 police patrol vehicles per specifications available upon request from the Beaverton Police Department or Tigard Police Department. Delivery date for the above will be within 90 days of the award of the bid. Sealed bids must be addressed: City of Beaverton 4950 SW Hall Blvd. Beaverton, Oregon 97005 Attn: Police Vehicle Bid SPECIFIC QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENT FOR PROVIDING POLICE PATROL VEHICLE Any make and model of vehicle for vh ich a bid is being submitted for possible purchase by the combined Cities of Beaverton and Tigard, to be operated by the Police Department as a police patrol vehicle must first have passed the International Association of Chiefs of Police pursuit vehicle test which will be conducted in. Los Angeles, California. The successful bid will m t be selected solely on the basis of least cost. The successful bid vehicle must, pass all phases of C the . . I.A.C.P. tests. This requirement is intended- rc, an.gi,rp the selection of`a vehicle that meets high performance standards as well as;yields a long vehicle life expectancy. k _ s E' f E F f I j i VEHICLE SPECIFICATIONS FOR 1979 PATROL_VEHICLE MODEL 1. Four door sedan. 2. Full steel window frames enclosing all glass. - WHEELBASE 108 to 113 inches. ENGINE 1. V-8, Minimum 350 and maximum 360 cubic inch displacement 2. 4v carburetor 3. Full flow, throw-away oil filter 4. Replaceable type gas filter between fuel pump and carburetor 5. Dry type air filter RADIATOR 1. Largest available radiator for the selected model. 2. Permanent coolant protection to minus 35 degrees F. 3. Seven bladed fan with fan shroud 4. Coolant recovery system. i TRANSMISSION 1. Heavy duty three; speed automatic, column mount. r f 2. Transmission must be equipped with suitable r auxiliary oil cooler plumbed in series with the i radiator transmission cooler. f 3. Low gear lock out. r` i DIFFERENTIAL 1. Heavv duty axle with a numerical ratio between r 2.70:1 and;3.331. The ,available ratios to be stated in the bid quotation. w t .f ELECTRICAL 1. Solid state electronic ignition. 2. Solid state voltage regulator. 3. Battery to be minimum 80 amp-hour capacity. 4. Alternator to be a minimum 80 ampere with the capacity of producing 40 ampheres at engine idle. WHEELS & TIRES 1. Wheels are to be a minimum 14 x 6.0, heavy duty safety type. 2. Tires will be P205-75 R 14-B x 14, fabric belted pursuit radial, certified by the manufacturer to withstand speeds of 125 mph. 3. 'Matching spare tire and wheel. 4. All wheels to be static balanced. BRAKES 1. Power, largest heavy duty, disc front/rear brakes available. STEERING 1. Power steering with power steering pump cooler. DZTERIOR 1. Seats. a. Front seats to be bucket seats of heavy duty vinyl. b. 'Seats will be of highest quality with maximum-foam padding and support. c. Springs will be of heaviest duty. d. Rear seat will be bench type with heavy duty vinyl covering. e. Upholstery color will be selected at time of purchase 2. Headliners, sunvisors and 'door panels will be heavy duty vinyl or plastic in matching colors. 3. Armrests are to be installed on front doors only. 4. Floor mats, front and rear to be heavy duty rubber SUSPENSION 1. Suspension front and rear to be heavy duty, incl. suspension components 2. Heavy duty anti-sway bars, front and rear. 3. Heavy duty double action shock absorbers. 4. Front end allignment shall comply with factory preferred specifications at time of delivery. ACCESSORIES 1. Tinted glass- all windows 2. Windshield wipers and washers. Wipers to have two speed or variable speed action with intermittent feature. 3. Back up lights, turn signals, side lights or reflectors. 4. Trunk light 3. Tilt type, no glare, interior mirror. No glare exterior mirrors on left..and right side with left side having interior remote control. 6. Fresh air heater and defroster with multi-speed fan 7 Rear window, electric defroster 8. Factory undercoating 9. Tilt steering wheel 10. Protective side body molding v 11. Interior operated hood release 12. Remote deck lid release - electric- control on a drivers side. 13. Factory installed spot light with aircraft type t bulb. Spotlight to be mounted on left windshield pillar. r NO 11 Emil4yy: 14. Tt.ree (3) brass keys per car with single key locking system. (All cars keyed alike). 15. Disconnect door courtesy light switches. 16. All other accessories listed by the manufacturer as standard factory equipment. DEDUCTIBLE OPTION 1. Factory installed air conditioning. COLOR 1. Standard factory Medium blue. (Exact blue color to be specified at time of purchase). SPECIAL ITEMS 1. Metal radio conduit of not less than 1z inch inside diameter leading from the trunk to the leading edge of the right front bucket seat. Conduit shall be installed along the inside right side of the transmission tunnel so as to not cause wear of the floor matting. There shall be no sharp bends or turns and the conduit shall be free of sharp edges. 2.; Radio suppression package. 3. Two (2j sets of shop and parts manuals to be furnished at time of delivery. 4._ Rear door handles to be removed at time of delivery. ® residential +Acreage + lnvOstment M�oi�i REALTORS t 12995 S.W.PACIFIC; HIGHWAY s P.O.BOX 23023-"TIGARD,OREGON 97223 a (1-503) 639-1111 RECEIVED JAN -2 1979 , CITY OF TIGARD December 27, 1978 City of Tigard John Hagman Division of Public Works 12420 S.W. Main Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: Pathfinder II Subdivision Dear Sir: We would like to petiticr> the Ci- y Council of Tigard to reduce our cash bond to ;$7,594. for the maintenance period on the public improvements in Pathfinder II. Best Regards, Jackson-Gotter a partnership r Samuel A. Cotter Jr. SAG:sc PCALTOP RECEIVED Ja(d - 9 1979 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20590 CITY OF TIGARD .7anuary Vis. Doris Harti City of Tigard P. o. Bax 2339-1 Tigard, Oregon 97223 3 Dear Ms. Hartiq: Thank you for your recent iressac;e_ 1 oppose the President's decision to break our historic tianshi.p \,;i.th the goverr vert of Taiwari friendship and treaty rela and to recognize the People°s I -t:biic of China. 1xith this a loyal �:riend arc action the �xesident has *�eea3_e.ssly abandoned resolute. ally. The President has also -weakened our commitment to human rights abroad. I believe that a colCrolrise seas Possible whereby we could have maintained our stronq reTati.onshiL�, with Taiwan whine :Still normalizing economic relaticr,s v:it"a C lirla. This would have beer far prefexable to the President's �niiateral decision which I believe ;.?eakers our standinq in the international"' arena. ., Y �o -e ifl11] Thank- youagalri for taking -the t1IC'e tC C7ni: rdt i— Will c will continue to share your viPv.s with Ire. Rind regards. Sncere:iy, Clark o. Hatfield United States Senator ,SOH/arp SIMON j 4 n � f C.- t DEPARTMENT OF STATE L � —"" - � Washington. D.0. 20520 FM January 4, 1979 Ms. Doris Hartig Recorder Cj.-ty of Tigard P. O. Box 23397 ).Z420 S.w. Main Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Ms. Hartig: to I have been asked on behalf of Presideno thetCity of thank you for sending the President a copy t Tigard°s Resolution No. 78-98 concerning t U.S. interest in the peaceful resolution of the Taiwan question was a key element of the U.S. statement in the Shanghai Communique of February, 1972, and has remained at the heart of the U.S.' Position since. Perminatioresident Carter has det repeatedly emphasizedand the Unitedrmaliza- his States nandatheoPeople's tion of relations be Republic of. China (PRC) will not jeopardize the we 4 of the people on Taiwan. the Under the teras owithenor Taiwanlwill.1be terminatedon on Mutual Defense Treaty in its unilateral statement December 31, 1979. However, Joint released on December es concurrently with"continues to have ;� the United States declared an interest in the peaceful resp u`"---_ of the Taiwan issue and expects that the Taiwan issueChill b were aware peacefully � by the Chinese themselve and their statement, released mom `advance of this U.S. position, simultanof 1y; did not take issue with it. On January l the PRC announced that it would tus akequo on present realities into account and respect Taiwan. ons not to seek a military China has compelling reas settlement of the Taiwan issue would riskeitsCconstructive relae E in avoiding actions that tions with the United States, Japan, and other nations. ' Furthermore, it does not have and for the foreseeable E -- the military capability of taking future will not have t 2 - Taiwan by force. An important component of Taiwan's security has been its ability to maintain modern military forces and to have adequate armaments for its self-defense. Over the years the United States has given Taiwan access to carefully chosen defensive military equipment. The United States will con- tinue this policy after termination of the defense treaty. Economically, Taiwan's prospects are excellent. Its people enjoy the third highest per capita Gross National Product in Asia. Taiwan's foreign trade is forecast to reach $23 billion in 1975, of which the U.S, share will be about one third. There is every reason to believe that U.S. economic ties with Taiwan will continue to grow. A large number of major American corporations now do business in Taiwan and are expected to continue. Since the December 15 announce- ment, some U.S, businessmen planning to invest in Taiwan have already reaffirmed that intention, saying that they had expected normalization to occur during the term of their investments. Moreover, the experience of other countries subsequent to their normalization of relations with Peking suggests that U.S, economic ties with Taiwan should. con- tinue to flourish. J'apan's trade with Taiwan has grown over 2.33 per: cent since Tokyo established relations with the PRC in 1972; Australia's has grown by 370 per cent; and Canada's by, 539 per cent. Taiwan's underlying economic strength and its political and social cohesion and stability augur well for the future. As the President made clear in his December 15 state- ment, the people of the United States will maintain their current commercial, cultural, and other relations with Taiwan through non-official means. Except for the defense treaty, we expect that other agreements with Taiwan will remain in force until any `necessary substitute arrancTements are worked out. This 'will_permit the continuation, on an unofficial basis, of the many mutually beneficial relations that the American people and the people of Taiwan now enjoy. Sincerely, Murray � omen China._info g GrourOTaiwan i LES AUa✓OIN `11A y/ R IST OISTRIC_OfigWIQ 1 i..l l o?g CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATEC/�y OF STATES t3 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515 January 15. 1979 Ms. Doris Hartig, City Recorder City of Tigard PO Box 23397 12420 SW Main Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Doris: Thank you very much for forwarding to me the resolution passed by the Tigard City Council with regard to the Republic of China. While I support the President's action in normalizing re- lations with the People's Republic of China, I sincerely believe, as I know the Tigard City Council does, that the United States has certain moral obligations to the Chinese people on Taiwan. Under the agreement with the People 's Republic of China, , the Unied States can continue to sell arms to Taiwan. We will also continue our friendship and trade with the island. 2 intend to work in Congress to see that comesabout. Again, thank you for sending ;me the City Council's resolu- tion. With warm regards, Sincerely, ffi LES AuCOIN ember of Congress LA,/bcj j i F Y 231 C.AHmON HOH15E OFFICE BUILDING,WASHINGTON.D.C. 20515': (202)225-0055 1716 FEDERAL BUILDING.1220 SW THIRD.PORTLAND,OREGON 97204 (503)221-2601.OREGON TOLL FREE LINE 1-000-452-1020 A WEEKLY NEWSLETTER VOLU14E II ISSUE III JANUARY 18, 1979 LOREEN WILSON AND A BABY: Loreen will leave the office on January 19, 1979 to have a baby. Lowana Murray has been hired on a temporary basis to take Ms. Wilson's position. Lowana has been out of the job market for fifteen years raising her own family. Good luck to Loreen and welcome to Lowana. PLANNING COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY. Mr. Cliff Speaker, Planning Commissioner, has been very helpful at the recent meetings of the Planning Commission. He has agreed to take notes and prepare the meeting minutes. Staff has had to adjust to three Planning Commission meetings this month and has requested help until the situation "normalizes.i0 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. BUDGET. The annual scramble to assemble the budget data has begun. Labor negotiations are progressing. All Department Heads have been- asked eenasked to submit their proposals by the end of this month. COMPUTERS. The Accounting Staff is reviewing proposals from variouscomputer ' companies concerning a system to be used for general ledger and sewer functions. A final proposal should appear in this current a. fiscal year for funding in the year to come. LCDC PAYMENT. We have received a $3,253.00 payment on a Planning Assistance Grant from LCDC. We will receive a final payment, follow-Ing our completion of "close-out instructions' in May. This final payment should be approximately $1,054.00.` CONSULTANT NEARING' COMPLETION OF PLAN14ING TASKS. 3 Amy Svoboda, Planning Consultant, has 'reviewed 'the various elements 'of the Planning Codes etc. and is formalizing changes and updates. Staff expects to complete these tasks prior to the end of February and will bring a report to Council. ONE ,TAR LATER. Construction should begin next week on the Bus Shelter at Canterbury Square. Mr. Williamson c7f Tr i-Met reviewed the proposed site with 'Staff last Tuesday and agreed to start construction. In October 1977 Staff first met 'with Tri-Met. { �N as . f; ROOh9 AOS ADIAINI RATION BUILDING 150 N. FIRST AVE. /' by (503) 640 3489_HILLSBORO, OREGON 97123 BOARD OF DIRECTORS January 22, 1979 James Kincaid* (President) James Barney ' i James Becker Carlton L. Berg* Jose sustus City of Tigard Hallie Cattell Ogren Fleming City of Sherwood John Heinrich` City of Tualatin John Jensen i Hazel Kam' Paul Knepp Ruth Loomis The Board of Directors of the Council on Aging approved i Idylla Manley,-- a resolution on January 15th extending its support and lomHarsh cooperation to the applications from the Cities of Tigard, Betty Meek. reed Menzel Sherwood, and Tualatin to establish senior centers in Ted Mills* their respective jurisdictions under the HUD Community R. if. Minnicar Development Block Grant. C. 4t. Munford Birgetta Nixon- title Louis Peckham it is understood that to and operational control Phil Pyper of the three prospective senior centers s•:i 1 1 remain with Robert RiscocS M.A.F. Ritchie,', their-respective city jurisdictions, . Blanche Sweeney Robert> fagman% It is customary for the Area Agency on Ag i nq, rl 1"CC— pOn E Vern Walker ommendation` of the Council on Aging and of the Nutrition i Blaine Whipple liazel Whitcomb* Project Council , to assist financially in the operation I Elvie'WiIlett of senior centers. NUTRITION PROJECT COUNCIL Idylt Manley;: The resolution of the Council on Aging regarding support (Chairperson) for these prospective senior centers was moved by Mrs. Alma Albrccht Loomis of Forest Grove, seconded by P1r. 'Or•ten Flemming of ; Jose Gustos Sherwood, and passed unanimously. It was further noted f Owen Fleming Delores Garcia that the Council on Aging had been urging the establishment F._sd- Knepp senior or centers in this area for some time. Jesalee Mal iclicu of ne h.A,F. Ritchie* Mildred Shcets Sincerely, i Margaret Sievers ;Member Executive C omxm i t i ec J. W. Kincaid i Presedent Council on Aging i RJT:pst cc: Board of Commissioners C.A.O. B.C:G, Advisory Council to the Arco Agency on Aging € January 11, '1979 SELECTION COMMITTEE MINUTES Meeting Commenced 4:55 Y.M. Present: Mayor Alan Mickelson, Councilman Kenneth Scheckl.a, City Administrator Raeldon R. Barker. Committee interviewed the following: Library Board James E. Sidey s Budget. Committee Wally Hoffman Recommendations: 1. That James E. Sidey be appointed to the Library Board (term expiring 6-30-79) to fill the vacancy created by Nancie Stimler's resignation. 2,. That Wally Hoffman be reappointed to the Budget Co mnittee (term expiring 12-31-81) 3. That Doug;Smith be appointed to the Site Design Review Board as a regular member (term expiring 3-1-80) to;fill the vacancy created from the rianni., �v iiuclaSivu ��z•�•• by the resignation of Joanne Corliss. Recommendation from Planning Commission is to appoint Doug Smith. Meeting Adjourned: 6:00 'P.M. Respectfully submitted: �A A 09A R. R. Barker City Administrator.