Loading...
City Council Packet - 04/14/1980 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING APRIZ. 14, 1980, 7:30 P.M. FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL LECTURE ROOM NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK, ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIR NAME ON THE APPROPRIATE SIGN-UP SHEET(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). AGENDA: 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 or member of the audience, that item will be removed from the consent agenda and will be considered separately.) (a) Approval of Minutes: March 24 & April 7, 1980 (b) Approval of Expenditures and Investments: S 138,544.14 (c) Approval of Compliance Agreements & Bonds Kazebee-MarshallConstruction Inc. Sanitary Sewer agreement for McCoy Sanitary Sewer Extension Godwin Construction Co. Street Dedication agreement for SW 93rd Court (d) RESOLUTION No. 80- A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTSrKNOWN AS'THE-72ND AVENUE SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION (TIGARD FRIENDS CHURCH), GENERALLY LOCATED BETWEEN HAMPTON STREET AND GONZAGA` STREET. (e) RESOLUTION No. 80- RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTED WITHIN WILDERNESS SUBDIVISIUN. 5 (f) RESOLUTION No. 80 RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS ,CONSTRUCTED'WITHIN GAARDE PARK PLACE SUBDIVISION, SUBJECT TO HEREIN SPECIFIED CONDITIONS. (g) Ratify & confirm'Council :action of April 7, 1980. (Items approved) OLGC Approval - Summit Sandwich & Coffee Shop - 12180 SW Scholls Ferry F - Road' - R Restaurant application. 4 RESOLUTION No. 80--28 A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL INITIATING A. REQUEST FOR 'ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TIGARD OF LANDS 4 DESCRIBED HEREIN AND REQUESTING FORWARDING TO THE PORTLAND METROPOLITAN AREA LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION. (Short Title: Ventura Court). Approval of landscape architect for Senior Citizen's Center Walker, Macy, Mitcheltree & Erickson - $1,600. Insurance renewal approval - Deans & Homer - $3,249 6. CONSIDERATION OF REMONSTRANCES - Varns Street Local Improvement District. (a) Recommendation of Director of Public .Works. 7. ORDINANCE No. 80--- AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING TRANSFER TO THE GENERAL FUND OF THE CITY OF TIGARD OF $170.40 REMAINING IN THE GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND ACCOUNT, NIXING AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (a) Recommendation of Finance Director. 8. CANVASS OF VOTE - Tigard Community Youth Services measure March 25, 1980 election. (a) P,eport by City Recorder. 9. APPROVE LICENSE FOR CONSOLIDATF 0 SUPPLY CORPORATION - Public right-of-way useage. (a) Recommendation of Director of Public Works. 8:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGS 10. PROPOSED VACATION OF A PART OF A CERTAIN REAR LOT EASEMENT IN YE-OLDE-WINDMILL SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON. (a) Public Hearing Opened (b) Summary by Director of Public Works (e) Public Testimony Proponents Opponents Cross Examination (d) Recommendation of Director of Public Works (e) Public Hearing Closed (f) ; Consideration by Council (g) ORDINANCE No. 80- AN ORDINANCE VACATING A TRACT OF LAND IN YE-OLDE-WINDMILL SUBDIVISION, IN THE CITY OF TIGARD WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON, RECORDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 11. CONDITIONAL USE APPEAL - CU 1-80 '(Titan Properties Corp./Winscm Terrace) NPO #3 The Planning Commission approval of a request by the Titan Properties Corporation for a Conditional Use to construct 10 attached single family units on a 3.28 acre parcel zoned R--1O "Single Family Residential" located fronting on the west side of Grant Avenue, 60' south of School Street and 228' north of Park Street (Wash`. Co. Tax Map 2S1 2CB, Tax Lot 800), which decision has been appealed to the City Council. (a) `, Public Hearing Opened (b) `;Summary by ;Planning Director:. (c) Public Testimony,llimited to summation of previous statements) 'r Proponents ( Opponents Cross Examination (d) > Recommendation of Planning Director (e) ,Public Hearing, Closed (f) Consideration of''Council. PAGE 2 - COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL 14, 1980 12. COMPUTER STUDY - STATUS OF CONTRACT (a) Recommendation of City Administrator. 13. ORDINANCE No. 80- AN ORDINANCE RATIFYING ANNEXATION OF LANDS BY BOUNDARY COMMISSION, ORDER No. 1531 RECORDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE ANU DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (GREF.NBURG ANNEXATION). (a) Recommendation of Planning Director. 14. ORDINANCE No. 80- AN ORDINANCE RATIFYING ANNEXATION OF LANDS BY BOUNDARY COMMISSION, -'� ORDER No. 1543 RECORDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (HILLVIEW STREET). (a) Recommendation of Planning Director. 15. ORDINANCE No. 80- AN ORDINANCE RATIFYING ANNEXATION OF LANDS BY BOUNDARY COMMISSION, ORDER No. 1544 RECORDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (STONEKING ANNEXATION) . (a) Recommendation of Planning Director. 16. ORDINANCE No. 80- AN ORDINANCE RATIFYING ANNEXATION OF LANDS BY BOUNDARY COMMISSION, ORDER No. 1545 RECORDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (VREDENBURGH ANNEXATION). (a) Recommendation of Planning Director.. 17. ORDINANCE No. 80- AN ORDINANCE RATIFYING ANNEXATION OF LANDS BY BOUNDARY COMMISSION, ORDER No. 1556 RECORDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (SATTLER ANNEXATION - DURHAM/HALL). ' (a) Recommendation of Planning"Director. 18. AWARD BID;- Sewer Reconditioning. (a) Recommendation of Director of Public Works. 19. RESOLUTION No. 80- RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ACCEPTING THE FINAL PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTED WITHIN PATHFINDER No. 2 SUBDIVISION'. (a) Recommendation of Director of Public Works. 20. RESOLUTION No. 80- A RESOLUTION TRANSFERRING FUNDS FOR UNFORESEEN EXPENDITURES. (a) Recommendation of Finance Director. 21. PROCLAMATION -;National Transportation Week. (a)J Recommendation of the Mayor. 22. DISCUSSION - Circulation Plan for Main Street. r (a) Recommendation of Director of Public Works. 23. OTHER PAGE 3 — COUNCIL AGENDA APRIL 14, 1980 n 24. EXECUTIVE SESSION - Under the provisions of O.R.S. 192.660 (2)(a) the City Council will recess into executive session to consider TPOA labor negotiations and personnel matters. 25. ADJOURNMENT F. r ji t PAGE 4 - COUNCIL AGENDA APRIL 14, 1980 f i. T I GAR D CITY COUNCIL f.... REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 14, 1980 - 7:30 P.M. 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT Mayor Alan W. Mickelson; Councilmen John E. Cook,. Torn Brian, Kenneth W. Scheckla; Councilwoman Nancie Stimler; Chief of Police, Robert Adams; Legal Counsel Joe Bailey; City Administrator, R. R. Barker; Director of Public Works, Frank Currie; City Recorder/Finance Director, Doris Hartig; Planning Director, Aldace Howard; Administrative Secretary, Loreen Wilson. 2.. CALL TO AUDIENCE FOR THOSE DESIRING TO SPEAK ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS. (a) Mr. Jack Orchard, representing developers for Ventura Court requested that Resolution No. 80-23 be removed from the consent agenda for discussion. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 24 & April 7, 1980. (a) Motion by Councilman Brian, seconded by Councilwoman Stimler to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council. 4. APPROVAL OF EXPENDITURES AND INVESTMENTS: $138,544.14 (a) Motion to approve by Councilman Brian, seconded by Councilwoman Stimler. Approved by unanimous vote of Council. 5. APPROVAL OF COMPLIANCE AGREEMENTS & BONDS. Kazabee-Marshall Construction, Inc., Sanitary Sewer agreement for McCoy Sanitary Sewer Extension. Godwin Construction Co. Street Dedication agreement for SW 93rd Court. (a) Motion to approve by Councilman rBrian, <seconded by, Councilwoman Stimler. Approved by unanimous vote of Council. ' 6. RESOLUTION No. 80-29 A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC SANITARY SEWERIMPROVEMENTS KNOWN AS THE 72ND AVENUE SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION (TIGARD`FRIENDS CHURCH), " GENERALLY LOCATED BETWEEN HAMPTON STREET AND GONZAGA STREET. (a) Motion to approve by Councilman Brian, seconded by Councilwoman Stimler. Approved by unanimous vote of Council. 7 RESOLUTION' No. 80-30 RESOLUTION OF THE;TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTED WITHIN WILDERNESS SUBDIVISION. (a) Motion by Councilman Brian, seconded by Councilwoman Stimler to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council. : d i z 8. RESOLUTION No. 80- RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC s IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTED WITHIN GAARDE PARK PLACE SUBDIVISION, SUBJECT TO HEREIN SPECIFIED CONDITIONS. { (a) ?Motion by Councilman Brian, seconded by Councilwoman Stimler to remove from agenda at the request of staff. Approved by unanimous vote of Council. 9. RATIFY & CONFIRM COUNCIL ACTION OF APRIL 7, 1980. (Items approved). OLCG Approval - Summit Sandwich & Coffee Shop - 12180 SW Scholls Ferry Road R - Restaurant Application. RESOLUTION ND. 80-28 A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL INITIATING A REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TIGARD OF LANDS DESCRIBED HEREIN AND REQUESTING FORWARDING TO THE PORTLAND METROPOLITAN AREA LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY 4 COMMISSION. (Short Title: Ventura Court). Approval of landscape architect for Senior Citizen's Center - Walker, Macy, Mitcheltree & Erickson - $1,600. Insurance renewal approval - Deans & Homer - $3,249. e (a) Motion by Councilman Brian, seconded by Councilwoman Stimler to remove f Resolution No. 80-28 from the consent agenda for discussion and to approve remaining items. a a Approved by unanimous vote of Council. 10. RESOLUTION No. 80-28 A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL INITIATING A REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TIGARD OF LANDS DESCRIBED HEREIN AND REQUESTING FORWARDING TO THE PORTLAND METROPOLITAN AREA LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION. (Short Title: Ventura Court) f (a) Planning Director stated that the area was not an island at this time, r however, the land surrounding the .property is before the Boundary Review Commission and should be annexed shortly;. The Planning Director also: G discussed the problems which will be presented at the time of annexation if the development, which is proposed, is constructed at Washington County standards as the City: of Tigard's :standards are much higher. (b) Mr. Jack Orchard, Attorney representing the Ventura Court Developers,' 555 Benjamin Franklin Plaza, Portland, requested Council not take action at this time as it would place a financial hardship on his client ,and noted the developer plans to.proceed with his development in good faith according to Washington County specifications. Mr. Orchard also stated that the location was not an island at this time and therefore, would be wrong for p the 'Council to initiate an 'annexation request at this time. (c) After lengthy discussion between Council, staff and;audience, Councilman Brian moved to table Resolution No. 80-28 until staff could come back with more information regarding issue. Motion was seconded by Councilman Cook. s E Motion to table was approved by unanimous vote of Council. 11. CONSIDERATION OF REMONSTRANCES - Varns Street Local Improvement District. E; Page 2 - Regular Council Minutes April 14, 1980 _ 1 (a) Director of Public Works stated that the assessment notices had been sent nd this : time is set aside to hear any to the concerned property owners a € assessments. He noted that Council had remonstrances against the proposed a copy of a letter from Mr. uanley Galton, Tax Map 2S1 1OB, Tax Lot 900, objecting to the assessment as distributed because a portion of the land being assessed is being taken by the Oregon Department of Transportation (O.D.O.T.) for the 72nd/217 interchange project. f tax (b) Mr. Galton, representing the owner oro°erty which )ch is being discussed by d with Council the problem with assessing p p Y the state for development and will not truly be improved by the L.I.D. (c) After discussion with Council and staff, Legal Counsel requested Council allow him time to investigate the matter and report back. Two property owners - Bloodworth (2SIADA, T.L. 2100), and Smith Richie Corp. (2S11DA, T.L. 900), have not responded. Staff to contact them. the matter at the April 21st study session. Consensus of Council was to consider 8,00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGS 12. PROPOSED VACATION OF A PART OF A CERTAIN REAR LOT EASEMENT IN YE-OLDE-WINDMILL SUBDIVISION IN 'ff E CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON. (a) Public Hearing Opened. (b) Director of Public Works gave brief summary of issue. (c) Public Testimony No one appeared to speak (d) Director of Public Works recommended approval (e)- Public Hearing; Closed LDE- CTE IN YE (f) ORDINANCE No. 80-25 WIrIDMILLASUBDIVISIONG INTTHECaTY OFLAND TIG_�.RD,�WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON, RECORDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (g) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Brian to approve. _ I Approved by unanimous vote of Council: 13. CONDITIONAL USE APPEAL - CU 1-80 (Titan Properties Corp./Winsom Terrace) NPO #3 The Planning Commission approval of a;request by the Titan Properties Corporation for a Conditional Use to construct 10 attached single family units on a 3.28 acre parcel zoned R-10 "Single FamilyResidential" and located o aced froftingk ton hetwest s.de of Grant Avenue, 60 south of School County Tax Map 2S1 2CB, Tax Lot 800), which decision has been appealed to the City Council. {` (a) Public Hearing Opened Page 3 - Regular Council Minutes - April 14, 1980 (b) Planning Director described plat of Winsom Terrace and history of request, (c) Public Testimony (limited to summation of previous statements) Proponents: RaNaye Hoffman, 12880 S.W. Watkins, discussed traffic problems, safety for children in the area and dissatisfaction with common-wall dwellings. Opponents: Tim Ramis, Attorney for developers, 1727 N.W. Hoyt, Portland, presented information regarding traffic, children's safety and the need for common wall dwellings for moderate income families, noting these would not be rentals but only sold to individuals for their own use. Jim Brown, 12250 N.W. Barnes, Portland, endorsed type of housing for moderate income families. Steve Bleak, 18935 S.W. Heightview Court, Beaverton, Titan Properties Rep., discussed the number of children using the streets and what safety hazard this might create. Cross Examination: i Councilman Brian asked Mr. Bleak if he would be willing to sign an agreement with the City that the homes would only be sold for single family owner- occupied homes. Mr. Bleak said language to that effect would be acceptable to the developers. fV Legal Counsel stated that language would be difficult to draft, that would met Council's intent, since there would be little that could be done to stop a' second generation sale to rental property owners. Mrs. Hoffmandiscussed her concerns regarding the way in which the public hearing was handled. (d) Public Hearing Closed (e) Council and staff'discussed the ownership;of School Street,' items of concern with the plan i.e. children without sidewalks, traffic circulation, and the - true meaning of "buffer zone" zoning in the NPO text. (f) Motion by Councilman Brian, seconded by Councilman Cook to uphold the 'appeal and deny the conditional use request based on the NPO goals and guidelines. i Approved by unanimous vote of Council i RECESS: 9:33 P.M. F' f PAGE 4 - Regular Council Minutes - April 14, 1980 I 3 P r + ^4 _ RECONVENE: 9.52 P.M. 14. ORDINANCE No. 80-26 AN ORDINANCE .AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING TRANSFER TO THE GENERAL FUND OF THE CITY OF TIGQRD OF $170.40 REMAINING IN THE GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND ACCOUNT, FIXING AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (a) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Brian to approve. (b) Finance Director recommended approval. Approved by unanimous vote of Council. 15. CANVASS OF VOTE Tigard Community Youth Services measure March 25, 1980 election. (a) City Recorder stated that the measure for $59,825 passed with 832 votes YES and 539 votes NO. (b) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Brian to acknowledge the the passing of the TCYS measure. Approved by unanimous vote of Council. 16. APPROVE LICENSE FOR CONSOLIDATED SUPPLY CORPORATION - Public right-of-way useage. (a) Director of Public Works recommended Council allow the Corporation to use the portion of the 30° wide strip of roadway between the railroad tracts and the Southern Pacific Industrial Park location. (b) Motion by Councilman Brian, seconded by Councilwoman Stimler to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council. 17. COMPUTER STUDY - STATUS OF CONTRACT (a) City Administrator discussed the current status of the software contract negotiations. City Administrator, Council, Telios and Wang representatives discussed at great length the option of purchasing a 26.8 megabyte disc instead of a 10 megabyte disc. The City Administrator recommended Council would make future expansion easier and purchase the megabyte disc since it >'not as costly as the larger disc offers more cost effective expansion possibilities than originally proposed. For an expenditure of ,an additional $7,835 the larger megabyte disc would more than double the capacity of the " computer. The City Administrator pointed out that the decision on which megabyte to,purchase would need to be made before the software contract - could be finalized. (b) Terry Fleming, representative from Wang discussed the function of the computer and how the different size discs would affect the growth capacity of the system. (c) After some discussion, Council requested this item be held over until the Study Session of,April 21, 1980. PAGE 5 Regular Council Minutes - April 14, 1980 Councilman Scheckla left the meeting. 18. AWARD BID - Sewer Reconditioning. (a) Director of Public Works stated the bid opening was held on April 4, 1980 and presented the following as bids received. Bidder Bid Dale's Sand & Gravel Co. $ 4,500.00 18600 S.W. Pacific Highway Sherwood, Oregon 97140 Salem Sand & Gravel Company 7,520.00 P.O. Box 1008 Salem, Oregon 97308 Tobey's Excavators 8,650.00 ' 33003 S.W. T.V. Highway Hillsboro, Oregon 97123 All bids were accompanied by bid bonds. Director of Public Works recommended Dale's Sand &` Gravel. Company be awarded the bid in the amount of $4,500 to put in a 26 foot deep manhole on S.W. Commercial Street which will accomodate sewer service in the area. (b) Motion by Councilman Brian to award bid to Dales Sand & Gravel for $4,500. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Stimler. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 19. RESOLUTION No. 80--31, RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ACCEPTING THE FINAL PUBLICIMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTED WITHIN PATHFINDER NO. 2 SUBDIVISION.' (a) Director of Public Works reported that the Planning Commission had been the ones to declare the sidewalks not,necessary on Pathfinder. He recommended Council approve and accept the improvements. (b) Motion by Councilman Brian, seconded by Councilman Cook to approve. Approved by unanimous .;tote of Council present. (c) Councilwoman Stimler requested staff send letters to the ,property owners on the cul-de-sac to advise them why there were no sidewalks. Councilman Scheckla returned to meeting. 20. ORDINANCE No. 80-27 AN ORDINANCE RATIFYING ANNEXATION OF LANDS BY BOUNDARY COMMISSION ORDER N0. 1531 RECORDTNG APd EFFECTIVE DATE`AND DECLARING AN 'EMERGENCY. (GREENBURG ANNEXATION). PAGE 6 - Regular Council Minutes - April 14, 1980 (a) Planning Director recommended approval. (b) Motion by Councilwoman Stimler, seconded by Councilman Brian to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council. 21. ORDINANCE No. 80-28 AN ORDINANCE RATIFYING ANNEXATION OF LANDS BY BOUNDARY COMMISSION ORDER NO. 1543 RECORDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (HILLVIEW STREET). (a) Planning Director recommended approval, (b) Motion by Councilwoman Stimler, seconded by Councilman Brian to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council. 22. ORDINANCE No. 80-29 AN ORDINANCE RATIFYING ANNEXATION OF LANDS BY BOUNDARY COMMISSION ORDER NO. 1544 RECORDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (STONEKING ANNEXATION). (a) Planning Director recommended approval. (b) Motion by Councilwoman Stimler, seconded by Councilman Brian to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council. 23. ORDINANCE No. 80-30 AN ORDINANCE RATIFYING ANNEXATION OF LANDS BY BOUNDARY COMMISSION, ORDER NO. 5145 RECORDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (VREDENBURGH ANNEXATION). (a) Planning Director recommended approval. (b) Motion by CouncilwomanStimler, seconded by Councilman Brian to approve. I - Approved by unanimous vote of Council. - r 4 - 24. ORDINANCE No. 80-31 AN ORDINANCE RATIFYING ANNEXATION OF LANDS BY BOUNDARY COMMISSION,;ORDER NO 1556 RECORDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (BATTLER ANNEXATION - DURHAM AT HALL). ` (a) Planning Director recommended approval. f: (b) Motion by Councilwoman Stimler, seconded by Councilman Cook to approve. Approved by majority vote of Council, Councilman Scheckla `abstaining. Ordinance - r nce No. 80-31 ,�i11 require a second reading. 2.5. RESOLUTION No. 80-32 A RESOLUTION TRANSFERRING FUNDS FOR UNFORESEEN EXPENDITURES � 1- G PAGE 7 - Regular Council Minutes - April 14, 1980 ' 1 Up n # Cz� E (a) Director of Public Works recommended approval. He noted that to qualify for funds to improve bridges we must have bridges inspected and so $2,825 was requested which $2,075 represented an overdraw from that account. He also stated that $4,500 is being requested for insect con- trol. (b) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Brian to approve resolution. Approved by unanimous vote of Council. 26. PROCLAMATION - National Transportation Week (a) Mayor Mickelson declared May 11-17, 1980 as National Transportation week. 27. DISCUSSION - Circulation Plan for Main Street (a) Removed from the agenda at request of Director of Public Woks 28. OTHER (a) Director of Public Works discussed a street and sewer L.I.D. petition which had been received for the McDonald Street area, After noting the locations on the map, it was suggested that this be discussed at the April 21st Study Session. (b) Planning Director asked Council what action they wished him to take on the Ventura Court annexation matter. Council directed him to bring it `Jack to Council as soon as the area was annexed by the Boundary Commission and to keep close watch on this situation. (c) Councilman Cook stated that the appeal process for Planning commission decisions 'should-:be discussed at a future Study Session. Planning Director stated that the Planning Commission Chairman had written a letter requesting a meeting with the Council in May and that this could be added to that meeting's agenda. ' (d) Councilwoman Stimler requested staff to work on getting the sidewalk con- (d) on:S.W. Park Street. Planning Director stated that staff is work- ing on the problem and will continue to do so. RECESS: 10:07 P.M. RECONVENE:' 11:15 P.M. Mayor Mickelson reconvened the meeting in executive session under the provisions of O.R.S. 192.660 (2)(a) to discuss TPOA labor negotiations and personnel matters. City Administrator distributed tentative ratification of 1980-82 contract 'reached withTPOA.' Specific items as well as the entire package was discussed by staff and Council. Council rejected the tentative agreement and instructed staff regarding further negotiations. ( PAGE' $ - regular Council Minutes-- April 14, ..1980 X. g- 1 nom, As it was after midnight, Council did not discuss other personnel matters. Meeting adjourned 12;20 P.M. City Recorder ATTEST; J r� J yor i PAGE 9 — Regular Council Minutes — April 14, 1980 1 Date 4/14/80 AGENDA ITEM #4, CALL TO AUDIENCE I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item.- (Please tem:(Please print your name) Name, Address & Affiliation Item Description j C<c L Q r c- �q Gc ,-J 3-e,, QVS• RC1. C7-Z Qi 1 I tt 1: I • }I 7q S i, F, E e L e IY.. b t Date 4/14/80 r , I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print your name) AGENDA ITEM # II I tern Description: CONDITIONAL USE APPEAL n Proponent (for) Opponent (against) Name, Address and .,Affiliationivame, Address and Affiliation l So 'Rt it Rkx, s��a `l ,{ , / V'oW v1 _ C4 o-p,, MMI fi .. PAYMENT OF BILLS FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL PROGRAM BUDGET March 31, 1980 Community Protection Police 39,940.90 Public Works 4,956.64 Municipal Court 181.81 Planning 1,570.37 Building _ 97.2.75 Total Community Protection 47.572.47 — Home & Community Quality Public Works 19,758.07 Social Services Library 3555-99 Aged Services 287.40 Youth Services 2,132.44 Historical Total Social Services 5,975.83 Policy & Administration Mayor & Council 679.91 Administration 666.56 Finance 2,079.20 Total Policy & Administration 3,425.67 City Wide Support Functions Non-departmental 4208.59 Mise. Accounts (refunds & payroll deductions, etc.) 23,622.10 CAPITOL'BUDGET Community Protections Road Acquisition & Dev. Parks Acquisition & Dev. 163.29 Storm Drainage Total Community Protection 163.29 Support Services Building Improvements 4,145.03 DEBT SERVICE General Obligation Bond Bancroft Bond UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY Contract29,673.09 TOTAL AMOUNT OF CHECKS'WRITTEN 138 544.14 mcm ! tt 31 fi - rt rt �sn _ 1 ry,.'� !, _4� � .a4--+--r-r-r—t"r"---"r*'T"m"''TT-rT--T"---''•_'�i..''�'TTr'—- - —�+.` Y —"� CITY OF TICARD 12420 S.W. Main t Tigard, Oregon on 97223 ti t !: P RO CLAMAT I ON - - - _ — +� WHEREAS, the economic well-being of our City, State, and Nation is dependent upon a sound, modern transportation system, and i WHEREAS, transportation, in all of its varied modes, makes all other f industries possible, taking grain to the mills, raw materials h to the factories, finished products to the market, and i 3 WHEREAS, the military security of this country and of the world depends y on the capacity of the transportation industry to move our goods 'd, and and our people throughout the land and around the won, WHEREAS, the men and women who constitute the work force of this vast transportation industry should be recognized for their out- transportation standing contribution to the daily needs of every farm, home, and business in the communities throughout the land; NOW THEREFORE, Z, Alan W. Mickelson, Mayor of the city of Tigard., do ` z hereby;proclaim,the week of May 11-17,, 1950, to be z NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION WEEK o � t F and urge all citizens to join with me in recognizing andig appreciating he vital role our great modern transportation_ system plays in our daily lives and in the defense of the Nation. 1 E ". .! MAYOR �aa.At $".� 11 �.: . t Ile. z � ` ,{,. s V, y n WASH ViGTON - —�, sl,.. COUNTY c p ° v .A..1 C.„nsy - Y g�a Washington o¢ w o¢ w --- ----. J C J JCL J ELc41on o J w J w March 25, 1980 ; m o m o ,aJ. - 4 Ce c .q Cif O w m0 w - 9.g. 1 of 3 a sn c s sn N.m.or8.110 N-6.r 2 2 1 1 D N..of P, ;s d YES 110 I YES I NO I I I_ n m - t O -tJA20 -� -_ 0 A _ 3 J2/1 $4 _` f�- --'— �' 5. 25 �7Ljf4 I "' - -- 6, 35Dr .5.7' -j1�7 �--- I— - _ 7 to .7 ' '� --- --1 8 Lf ��Dnn _ 9 g s�1 1d zis �- 10, 131 --- 11. 12 �57I 13 IP2911 1,12, 14, 20 X15 19 _ _��3� - 21. 37 22, 23 H5 1- 24—_ I �� �� lrvL 26 62 - -- --- 2728 30 31 32 O / ) I 33 O � 34 `a D 413 38 �L i 42 43 ya A 44. 50 36 5 23645,..47 48 53 1 , 4 _- 49 LpL �2 _ 51ar / rV� / r ;I•iV TOTAL 1.certify that iho votes recorded on this abstract cor- Sig of of County C Dale of Abstract racily summarize the tally of votes cast at the election - 1-�Q indicated. - ABSTRACT OF VOTES AT GENERAL AND ABSTRACTOF V TES AT PRIMARY ELECTIONS: - SPECIAL ELECTIONS::. Separate sheets for Democratic, Republican, Nonpartisan, and other 'Votes cast for Governor musf be on separate candidates. pago or pages. Separate shoats for candidates for City, County (including precinct) and.Sielo off co. For additional insirucfions sco ORS 250.810. For additional instructions,see ORS 249.410. 1 WASHINGTON -- - --" • .dad I Z N fhls COUifTY > I p f Cuun1Y J Y, b.'�j^ Washington �I M ELcfian ---. U �) � d o cc J wr W J W w - -CC CC vi m a N March 25, 1980 de mo 2 3 c rx >Psq• of yg•. w 1 1 2 2 (A1 N•ro•or c 6•I:ol Number — No. YES NO YES N0� j —� D m 520 o --t— --- — — 0 z --- 57, 60 - -37 9 �� /-Y l -- `' �C� .� —oYI1��s -- I T _ fT1 59. 96 63, 93 Ia 64 65.-6 56, 92 67 69, 91 70 - -- 71. 72 -Ag /21 - 73 74, 90 �./Z�/_2 f_ I - 76, 89Jam/ _ �— s / i�----" — _ Cl 3 77 ��s 1z / :5 _ 3 78 79, 97 -4-T- 80 . r _83 ��3rf�7 o2f�Ja� -� — ---— -� o o -2 3' - - — - -- - I _�— aa 14695 — 102 ---- `� d ._� 11 103 104,"108 �79iA,/=i35 6— m i05, 150 o_.a��1,.��' rZ,//�ma� � �r ' •' 106 107 — /O ' TOTAL f certify that iho votes recorded on this abstract col- Siga of County k: flat.of Abstract racily summarize Me taGy of votes cast et the of .f;on indicated. s„J 3_3('Q G ABSTRACT OF VOTES AT GENERAL AND ABSTRACT OF OTES AT PRIMARY ELECTIONS: :SPECIAL ELECTIONS: 'Separate sheets forpomocrafie, Republican, Nonpartisan, and other- Votes cast for Governor must Lo on separate candidates. page or pages. Soparaie shoots for,candidates for City, County (including precinct) and State office. For additional instructions see ORS 250.310. For additional instructions,Soo ORS 244.410. 1 t7AS1IIr;GT0'f >;w a} —COUNT Y. - County W W s D Washington r r C.-i ¢ Cl z .� E�•ciion o -J-i w � �w cC =z oz w ¢c[ w March 25, 1980 a C, r.q. 3 of 3 va•r w of tLmr or Ba!Iot Numoar 1 1 2 2 YES NO YES 110 — cwt O. 110,111,11_8 a o 112,122v og1i � f'_ — - - Cm O z ---- 114.117 M h 115,144,145 Ivo 116,127,130 121 124 /7 11� ' �• 12J _ 126 128,141 AO ; 615" 129 9 VJ /&F _ 132 Z _ 133 Y 134,143 ' g a�_T _ 135,153 �75� Al - 136 137 x 138 : 3 139 G — 140 147 2-7e 9"O 142So 148 ^. o 152 D Y-2 '7d / ABSENTEE r•fir— _:. ;r i• k � a _ TOTAL !/d V,rC /0O /a?, I certify that the voies recorded on A s abstract cor- Signarur�of County Cle Data of Abstract rattly summarize the tally of votes cast at the election 3- VO Indicated. _ i'Z.Avg ABSTRACT OF VOTES AT GENERAL AND ABSTRACT OF V fES AT PRIMARY ELECTIONS: SPECIAL ELECTIONS: Separate sheets for Democratic, Republican, Nanearfisan, and other cands. Votes cast for Governor must be on separate Separate he page or pages. Sop nd S sheets iforce candidates for City, County (including precinct) end State office. For additional Instructions see.ORS 250.010. For additional instructions,see ORS 249.410. { ots<. CITY OF a --'— raacrdad TIGARD sbea't —:n e y S_ C0u0y Washington March 25, 1980 Page 1 of 1 Pages. v � V � T .{ y Nam.or Ballo!Number 5� 55 7a y _ YES tIO ( I fD9 rrs c' —f O i 30 O O 31 0 o 33 7/ _ 34 _2-6I/74( I _ 35 32- ABSCITEE 3 71 -- — _ t — — 1 r 3 � I n 0 - i r. o TOTAL ���✓�� I I certify that the votes recordod on this abstract cor- Si # o of County C 1—lkk: Datu of Abstract recilysummarize the tally of vote;cast at the election Cf �? ' 3--. indicated. C t - d"I t,.�.Mi iti} 1 ,�--31'c40 ,ef -p M ABSTRACT OF VOTES AT GENERAL AND ABSTRACT OF YOTU AT PRIMARY ELECTIONS: � � m SPECIAL ELECTIONS: Separato sheets for Democratic, Republicaa,',Nonpartisan, and other n F11 Votes cast for Governor must bo on separatoanedidates, t page or pages. Separate sheets for candidates for City, County (including precinct) and State office. CO m For'additioonl instructions see ORS MOW. Fer additional instructions,seo ORS 2 AMO. � Q 0 � t <z rr { LICENSE This license, given by the City of Tigard, entitles Consolidated Supply Corporation (hereafter "grantee"), their successors and assigns, to the certain limited, described uses of the real property described in ' Exhibit "A.", which will hereafter be referred to as "the subject property". r The subject property is a portion of a dedicated but undeveloped and unaccepted public street right-of-way. By this license the City of Tigard grants to grantee the rights to make the following uses of the subject property: 1. To park cars, trucks, and other machinery. (This right includes the right to pave, to mark the pavement, to construct curbs, and make such other improvements and alterations to the land as may be reasonably necessary to facilitate the described use and to meet relevant requirements of the Tigard Municipal Code and such land-use requirements and limitations as the City may impose from time to time.) 2. To landscape. 3. To place upon the subjgct property piping, wiring, meter boxes, and such other similar ancillary equipment, machinery, and supplies as may be useful to any legal business or residential`;use of the adjacent parcel described in Exhibit "B" which is hereby incorporated. The limitations on this license include the following: A. If at any time the City or any other government or any person, partnership, or corporation proposes the opening, improvement, or governmental acceptance of the subject property as an improved public street or road, grantee shall remove at his, f expense and within 90 days of receipt of written notice to do so from the City any curbs,',fences, walls, berms, trees-, or other impediments to the opening of the subject property for public travel. (The `City_shall not give the described notice until it has authorizedthe improvement of the subject property as" a public street or road ana; satisfied itself;as to the proposed developer's good faith intent to make the improvement ✓ and his or its capacity to accomplish the project.) The opening, improvement,, or governmental acceptance of the subject property as an improved public street or road shall' not give; rise to an action or suit for damages to grantee, ' their successors and assigns. It is specifically agreed by grantee ,that if the opening, improvement, or governmental acceptance of the subject property occurs any violations of the land-useregulations of any government caused by the loss of use of the subject property shall be the responsibility of grantee, { their successors and assigns, and they shall take such action as may then be required by relevant laws and land-sue regulations, without costs to the City or any other government. B. Grantee accepts responsibility for the care and maintenance of the subject property, and agrees to hold the City and any other government harmless from any claim arising out of the maintenance of the subject property, its condition, and the overation, condition and maintenance of all equipment, supplies, structures, and artificial conditions placed upon or created upon the subject property. C. This license shall not entitle grantee to use of the S subject property for the purpose of providing access to any tract of land other than that described in Exhibit "B". D. This license shall expire 99 years from the latest date written beside the signature at the end of this document, } unless sooner terminated by other conditions recited in this document or by the consent of all parties. E. Grantee will sign a non-remonstrance agreement on 72nd Avenue street improvement L.I.D. Executed this day of _ 19on behalf of the City of Tigard: Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 9 19 Notary Public for Oregon ' My Commission Expires: u'• 19 '� Executed by Consolidated Supply Corporation this I/, day of , r Subscribed and sworn to before me this �h 19 Ya day of �'��-�� Notary Public r Oregon My Commission Expires:L� /oT ♦,fi g_ PAGE 2 LICENSE 6 t EXHTBIT "A" Description of 30 foot Roadway That certain strip of land 30 feet wide lying between the westerly line of Lot 4 of the Southern Pacific Tigard Industrial Park and the easterly right- of-way line of the Oregon Electric Railway in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 12, T2S, R1W, W.M., Washington County, Oregon, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of Lot 4, Southern Pacific Tigard Industrial Park, thence South 88"29`35" West, 30.02 feet to a point on the easterly right-of-way of the Oregon Electric Railway; thence North 03028'12" West, along said easterly right-of.-way, 1168.70 feet; thence North 88029'35`° West, 30.02 feet to a point; thence South 030 28'12" East along the west line of said Lot 4, 1168.70 feet to the point of beginning. s PAGE 3 - LICENSE r or EXHIBIT B Description of Consolidated Supply Property Real property situated in the City of Tigard, County of Washington, State of Oregon, being all of Lot 4 as shown on map of SOUTHERN PACIFIC TIGARD INDISTRIAL PARK, filed for record December 19, 1978 , in Book 44, page 18, Washington County Plat Records. s� i i I PAGE 4 - LICENSE LM Z < _—'n«x .. V 17 -;Y( R � EfD vF-i CgJ •.r p��F h c v. o N i 13 its c ° 3fNVl 312VNI r - Q �'I'•SF 62o 39S^ Z. - r M.SF 6Z.BA s -r �^AS,: 3 66 a/: fA_SF 62e4A6� U � ,e r oH� ♦ Qph yC �� ERI S su la NO Ills CSOztOHJ.SSIL — _-�O� '.03e8�.S `a'LPOd f6!!1✓8 �.fXJStti'Y.,L':6e.dd S ' JH'Si d7�'3SJvdS 02• �e I TIRLUISCRIP`.t OF PI AIM,I" CO�NCiISSIOLI HEaING February 5, 1980 - Agenda Item 5.3 - Vinsom Terrace Subdivision Fojler Junior High School - Lecture Room 10865 S. W. Walnut Street - Tigard, Oregon Present for this hearing: Commission: ;resident Tepedino, Commissioners Bonn, Funk, Herron, $olleas, Popp, Smith, and Speaker Absent: Commissioner Helmer Staff: Howard and Selby Tepedino: Item 5.3 please staff report and recommendations. Howard: Planning Director Howard read the Staff Report, which includes staff findings and staff reconmenda.tions, attached as Exhibit A. Tepedino: Thank you, Staff. May I have the presentation by the applicant, please? Bryan; My name is David Bryan. I am a consulting engineer, With offices at 12385 S. W. Allen Boulevard, Beaverton. I represent the appli- cant, Titan Properties Corp, the developer of the property, and Ron Phair, the owner. ' i "there is not much I want to add to the staff report. • We do have a rendering, though, of the property showing how we Mould propose to use it. I would like to display that for you. '(Mr. Bryan then presented a large map-of-the area and a rendering of one of the proposed structures.) (Indicating) Forth is up in this direction, this is S. W. Grant Avenue. ; Schocl Street access to the property is along here. Park Street access is in this direction and moves into a loop. g The original ten lots are outlined (indicating 1, 2, 3, 4), and you see there are still ten structures as originally proposed.. They are changed primarily--the structures will now be common wall attached single-family, rather than ten single-family residences. The overall lot coverages will be very much like it ,would be, and we would hope to have the appearance of the attached singled family structure,-, in scale and size approximately the same as single-family. Across the street to the east are some existing single-family and small apartments, the single-family structure on this site, and the single-family structure on this site separating it from the Day Care Center located right at the corner of the property. There are single family properties all to the west, but they are back; yards of single-family;dwellings that are fronting on 71ath3ns Street. They are very nicely and naturally shielded from this property by. the native trees. There are also native trees ? 2 ? ' �B� TRIVISCRIPT OF PLAITING CO KISSI011 HEARING W nsom Terrace Subdivision February 5, 1980 Bryan to the south. We do have a rendering--there are four different (Cont.) designs proposed for the attached single-faLn-11y, but this is an elevation of just one of the units that is proposed. The same type of materials would be used throughout on all of the units. This happens to be of the two that are on the mast side of the property. (kir. Bryan then returned to the microphone.) I have nothing further to add. The applicant, as I say, is here, and the builder for the development, and they will be available to answer questions: Tepedino: Thank you, YTr. Bryan. Are there any other pstjes wishing to speak in favor of this proposal in favor of this proposal? sire there any parties wlshino to speak in opposition those against this proposal? Okay, come forward. In fact if you would like to move up forward-•-anyone wishing to, spea%, should be in the first two roves. (mere followed a little byplay :rith a woman in the back who had a bad cold. She did testify later.) . Cundiff: I am Valt Cur diff, 12560 S. W. Watkins Street. I have a petition signed by 5$ People s . . . . Of these r;8 people, they all live on School street, Grant Street, Park Street, and Watkins. Tepedino: Now those are the streets surrounding the proposed development? Cundiff: That is correct. And we all oppose the development of this land as proposed for this property. Further than that, the lot size here is less than:. 5,000 feet. The cul-de®sac takes out a goad portion of that property. In'faut I think . . , maintain 4,000 square feet . . . They can verify that. it'affects us as still a multiple-•family community. The statement was made that the Plan would give the public a choice of density and type of housin® to the people living there. The main point is economic; lots-of $23,500 Will not sell—even in Genesis you can boxy a lot for that. You can buy a lot there. These lots are overpriced— they are trying to make bucks at our expense and then leave the 6 area. Tenedino: Thank you, sir. Are there any other parties wishing to speak in ipposition to this proposal — those opposed? Yes. I am Mary Ann Gunderson, from 13000 S. W.Watkins, and we have a problem. I r:oticed last sumer that there was some kind of digging going on at the back, adjacent to our property. The property . . . develop . . that's true, but itis right at the crest of our property which slants down next to it. There is something put TRAPTSCPIPT OF PLAImING C=1-,JISSION IiEI?,G Winson Terrace Subdivision AR February 5, 1480 Gunderson in there which I thijYb: is probably an open drain area, which is (Cont.) covered up now with rocks and such, but I got the impression it was a run-off area. Well, in the past it had a full wooded area, which that was before they developed it. It had the full goods area to have rains fall on and to disperse them to the land there. A lot of that leaves, etc„ that used to absorb the :rater has been moved. This past winter my husband and our daughter and myself spent five days down in our basement dipping water out. We had a sump pump going that did not stop for five days. Noir we had not had that kind of a problem before.; Whatever it is that is np there is right at the top. Our property drains down, is right adjacent to it and goes dou-n like this (indicating), and I feel that our problem that we had with the water this past winter in our basement was directly related to what was going on up there. We had grater sitting on top of our back yard, which we had never had before. Tepedino: Thank you, Firs. Gunderson. - Selby: Will You point out which tax lot? Gunderson: (Indicating) -Here we are. T'epedino: Are there any other parties wishing to speak in opposition to this proposal — those against? , Lespe'rance; My; name is Maury Lesperance. I live at 13060 S. W. Watkins. I was an original member of the NPO 3 at the time that we discussed this piece of property, and I think Al Popp will probably remember it was discussed, rediscussed and discussed one more time. At that time tbey.were talking about using that as a buffer, using duplexes for buffers, and it was decided at that time that those buffers on the other side of Grant Street served enough as a buffer, that it wasn't necessary to have duplexes on that side of Grant Street;:. also, as staff is proposing here. They might want to call it. single-:fall, single-family homes: it is still duplexes. If you remember, when the complex was built up on Gaarde Street it was also built as single-gall and single-family residences, and they now have signs up saying "Duplexea For Sale." But anyiray, I was driving on Grant Street tonight and went around that circle; to see what it looked like, and if it goes any further I would like some serious consideration to be given to the road that goes into this thing. I doult know if any of you are familiar with Grant Street. The piece of property there on the highway, side, whose Fence comes within a foot of the :street, and it is just about where their property heads into-�thatts where Grant Street heads into their property, and it is very, very deceiving. .3.. F 1 TRANSCRIPT OF PLAMNNING C0 ^:ISSIOIT HEA-RI!dIG ' I7insom Terrace Subdivision February 5, 19£0 Lesperance I don't know about daytime, but at night time you can't really tell (Cont.) where you are going; because all, you can see is that fence on the right s ,c , and their entrance to their proosrty on the left side. It looks like there is a curve going right into it, and it is very difficult Lo Seo What is coal,ig UP Grant Street, although there are only a couple houses do7n there, and the school; but it could be a problem. Ates: these trccs that they have been taLing great pride in should be looked at very carefully. They are rotten, and a good stiff wind would blow thea right on top of their new houses. Some of those have already fallen on my fence, just not too strong a e 1.1ad—they really came down hard. BasicGlly I an not that opposed to this type of thing except for the density. It was decided back during the PITO days that each residence would produce 11 cars, and for each car you would have 300 trips a day, and now we have got 40 houses -- not 300 10 trips a day per car, so now we have gat 40 residenceu m-. I mean 20 residences; so you are talking about at least 40 cars probably, so you are talking About 4pC) t,.) 5U0 car trips up that street where the school kids. are walking again.. Alw,,,ys that concern when talking about Grant Street comes up, and all. these things are provoking (4) keep in mind: (Recording not too clear here.) Tepedinoo Thank you, sir. Are there any other parties vishing to speak in opposition to this proposal me those against? Makin. ,Al Makin, 13120 S. 17. Watkins. I would like to recall that about a'year ago a similar request for duplexes was heard here, and it was unanimously conceded by the Planning Commisusiou -not one member was for it - in fact, I don't even know why this can be brought' tap again. Shortly thereafter Approval was made .for single-family residences on that lot, and it was all planned — in 'fact, I went down to CityHall I ass not sure,; I thin:; it vra9 that gentleman there (pointing to Selby). ;7e met and explained about the property «-single-family hones, and that was final. No one in. the neighbor- hood complained. This was just what we wanted. This is what we have. This new development juts right into an area surrounded with single-family residences. It isn't in keeping with the character our our neighborhood at all. In fact, if this is approved, all of us are going to take it on the chin financially as far as the value of our property is concerned. And anybody here that 'knovs' about real estate knows that. There is no stay that that could improve or enhance our property. N07, it was all set to have single-family homes, and .this comes up. I doa*t even know why it is considered;myself — you knorr why? I don't know>the 'answer to that. Here vie defeated, single-family homes were going in, nor; THIS cores up main (with emphasis). 'I don't know why. 71ould you answer that for me could I interupt' and have you answer that? Is this allowed? -4- �• TRANSCRIPT OF PLANNING Cota. lcSION HEARING Winsom Terrace .Subdivision February 5s 1980 F, Tepedino: Well, I take it that if an applicant pays his fees and submits the proper documents and the staff confirmed that all those steps are in order, then he can come forward to the Planning Commission. Howard: As many times as he wishes. Matin: As many times as he wishes? Howard: yes, sirl Yes, sir! You could pay $500 and have any part of the comprehensive plan in this community changed, if the Planning Commission or the City Council said yes. And you could come back as many times as you wished with your $500 until whatever•happens-- you ran out of money or you got what you need. Torr that's alio red by Code. Wo cannot chaaage that. We can't turn the applicant down when he pays his money. gainst that, or a developer trying to Makin: All right, okay. I am not a make money.. _ Howard: I know that. Makin: But if it takes money out of My pocket to help them make money, I am not for it--that's shy I am here standing here like this. Okay. Novt if this is allowedwhat's to prevent anybody that has some spare property is s a lot of area — applying for an apartment house, a fourplex, a sixplex »— whatever -- there is a lot of room in that area there is room even around Park Avenue, dorm Derry Dell applying for apartment houses or duplezes? t is surrounded by single—fan I don9t think this is right. I dwellings, and it should be kept that way. Thatgs all. Tepedino:` Thank you, sir. Are there any other ;parties wishing to speak in opposition — those opposed? Yes, ma'am; I will allow you to speak from the back of the room if you annunciate loudly so we can hear your name and address. Hoffman: My name is Ratiaye Hoffman. I Live at 12880 S. Fl. Watkins. Trident Properties has not proven that a buffer Is needed for our j.rticular area. There are homes on both sides of Grant Street, there are horses on Park Street, there are homes on School Street, there are homes on Watkins Street we don't need any buffer. They 'say in their proposal that 2 ? 2 is going to be apartments. All right, that has been .? ? .? by the Planning Commission---there will be`a development of apartments and duplexes on Park Street. If we have to Dave on Park Street, why do we have to have it on Grant Street, too? We have already done our part as far as duplexes or the common wall or whatever. The roads ;oing into that development—the two roads feedin it- are substandard roads. School Street is not taken care of by the —50- - TRUTSCP1P01F PLANNING C01,DUSSIO HEr-tlrtG Wins= Terrace .Subdivision rebruary 5, 1930 Koffman City or by the County. It's a little road that only one car can (Cont„) pass at a time. Grant Street is substandard; it has got a bad curve in it. Cars part: . along the side of it, and you cannot pass on that road either. It also feeds into a Kinder College which cornea in a lot of traffic. In the neighborhood of Watkins _ along, there there is at least 75 students that come down Park Street, walk up Grant Street, go down School Street or go through the school fence yard, and that's the way they get to school. Some of the children. walk Lkirough my yard so they don't have to go out in the street, beca.us3 we don't have sidewalks on our street, and it is always being plugged full of traffic. There is no other route these caildren can Co unless they are bussed to school, which is another added expense the taxpayers will not put up ;lith. Those children belong to osta`xy;s;.^? re�rlencoi oC the neighbor— hood that are paying taxes for that achoo.t, axid children should not be deprived of a place to walk safely because some developer wanted to come in and add more confusion to what is already a bad problem. As far as emergency vehicles getting dovm ? ? ? 2 it has been brouEbt out iia the- past bcforc thair have one iiv`ck oz a time getting back in there. Several years ago an omergency vehicle had to go through one of the neighbor's yards to get back in there and help people. They could probably gc:t back in there because emergency vehicles can nowadays pretty much get into it, but how promptly, and how effectively? You cannot get down Grant Street when cars are parked on the side, as they do continually- -•I cannotget;down in there in my car. How can Jou got a fire truck back in there? Once you are back there you can't turn around, Another thing that really bothers me is the cost of these units. Mr. Blake (?) cane to any.home , had a discussion with me and my husband, told us the units would run from 50 to' 555 000. When I asked him to put that in legal writing so that he could never go back on that figure, he snickered and told me that this was economically unfeasible. whose units do not .have to sell ,for $50,000. Maybe the first One Or two of thew will, yes; but if they continue to build their 20 in there, the price of the build- ings, the wages are all going to increase, ;and those are going to go up in;price- and there is nothing the Planning Co ission, the City or the residents of the neighborhood can do about them Jacking up the price, and'they are going to wind up asking the same thing for those little common—;<rall structures as they would initi— ally ask for a'single®family dwelling, and there is nothing to bar theta from 'doing that. If they can come in and build all 20 structures over a;period of time and charge only $50,000 for them, what are the structures going to look like? What are they going to ;look °like in two years? TR.4.gSC1RIPT OF PL.01NING CO;2dISSION f.''"jLRING winsom Terrace Subdivision February 5, 1980 Hoffman if they are going to ? 7 ? ? they will be an investor's paradise. (Cont.) I myself might consider .buying one, because you can buy it for cheap, you can turn around and rent it out, and no owner-occupant can, afford to go in there and buy one of those and live when there are rentals on both'Eides of them and across the cul-de:-sac from him. They won't do it. And in two years' time.I know what a reate_ will do to a unit, because I have had experience in that area before. It is 'a proven fact that the average is a turnover of at least four renters for .any two-year-given period of time. When they don't care about the structure and they don't care about the yard, you wind up with nothing but a mess, and you are not going to have a homeowner living nest door to that. It is a proven fact. The liveability of these units--tiro bedroom units­at 1100 square feet per unit, is not enough room for a family of three or four to live in. It's impossible. In closing I would like to say that it really bothers me that developers come in—especially thea® developers from Hillsboro-- they come in, they do their thing, they make their money, and they leave. They go back to Hillsboro or they go `somewhere else to develop. And it is the people of Tigard, the residents of Tigard, that are stuck with what they ? ? in our back yards. h _ es o£ homes ' As far as n retzlly terrific hoed for these types s it `does not balance out the problems it creates for us as far as traffic--all on roads haat we can't get fixed yet---on roads that have no uidewalks for our children--it creates more of a probability and gamble ? ? ? and I don't care how nice your neighborhood in, you always have that problem. Gaarde Park was built on Gaarde and 110th, is common-scall. They still have vacancies. Another area is Summer Lake. Mr. Lee.(?) brought that up to me also. I checked into Summer Lake. It's a development that,Art Lutz are putting in over on Scholls Ferry Road. It will have approxi- mately 120 common-wall. With all that we don't need them in our back'yard. There is no need for :hem. 'There will be plenty in the neighborhood. In this development of Summer Lake also there are going to be common-mall, 'there's going to be some apartments, and there is going to be some homes. When people g© into that development to buy a home, they are shown a map and told these things. You can buy a home, but there will be an apartment here, i there will be duplexes here, or common-wall there. They know what they are getting into. They are given that option--take it or leave it. I think that the residents of our neighborhood; the majority of us who have been here for several years,; have got the right to that option also. And on those grounds.1 am ? ? ? (the sense is, against the proposal)- TRANSCRIPT OF PLMPIING C01'24ISSION HEARING Winson Terrace Subdivision February 5, 1980 Tepedino: Thank you, `;rs. Hoffman. Are there any other pasties wishing to speak in opposition to this proposal «-- those against? Hepnner: May I say a few words? I as Bill Happner, of 13180 S. 3, Watkins, and my property doesn't quite butt onto this property. But as has been described, this property is three or four feet higher than the property where my house is, and where riy neighbor's house and A.1 Cundiff's is, and so on. So it is hard, and on these small lots where they are building on a 5,000 square foot lot, regardless- of how nice a house you put on it, you have about 20 to 30 foot width, and probably 40 foot length in order to get it, so you are filling up all of the property. They are going to be right up a3ainst our back yard, and there iG jlo provision made bore for fence or shielding or ssl7, oLrr hcus are on 1.53000 square foot lots. We have got our patio out ill back--his house-- he liar, not only a patio out in back, but he has a covered patio and may eat dinner out there during the creek in the summer time. These people are going to be- looking rig!-IL JOVJ% unto .h :3..t p.opcz:ti.es. And if this is going to be under consideration, there st:ould be zome corrections made in that thorn chouid be pr0'Ji.^JOa I 8t .east ten--root fence- not a see-through fence, but. I mean a fence that is covered so that you 'can't look through, And I want to call. attention to the fact that 100 per cent sig- 1 natures on those petitions, when everybody sued it who are hone, there is more people that wanted to come tonight but on account of the flu they called and said they couldn't cone. And I ask you - ; to consider this situation as if it was in your own back yard.. Tepedino: Thank you. Are there any other;parties wishing to speak in opposition to this proposal — those against? Unidentified manes voice: I sant to ask a question: is this property or. sewer? Bryan (?): Yes', this is on sewer. Tepedino: Any other persons wishing to speak in opposition to this proposal? Unidentified (P3ost of her presentation was Lost in changing tapes.) woaan: . I would like to have a fence as tight as possible so children and dogs do:not come through on us. Tepedino: Any other persons wishing to speak in opposition tc this proposal?' Only ne7 matter, please. F Cun3iff: Malt Cuadiff, 12860 S. u1. Watkins. "nether this is approved or disapproved, houses ;o or this goes .in, I Grant to point out_a. pipe , a culvert . s . (obscured by shuffling of gapers): . x i ' c� a TRANSCRIPT OF PLAtn4ING COiwiISSION aEARING Winsom Terrace Subdivision February 5, 1980 Tepedino: Do you know, staff? Cundiff: (A map is unfolded, he moves away from the mike) Right in front of my property. Yeah, it is right here--this corner of the property, right here.. It's a catch basin here, and the pipe comes across—we can stand for that. The catch basin here, the pipe cut off, 10 inch (?) ripe . . . . The waiter ran off . . . (some.- thing about water runoff). I want to go on record in case some- thing happens . . . . take care of it. Tepediio: Okay, thank you, sir. I would like to move on to cross exam-Laa_ tion and rebuttal, any questions or cross examine any evidence presented tonight. A Bryan Mrs Chairman, there was a reference to a ten-foot fence. Does that man that v- ghat you are referring to is a ten--foot high fence ®-. or did he misspeak? Unidentified I stated that I 'would like to have some kind of permanent woman: fixture there that would keep the children and dogs from coming through. C. Bryan Of course you really didn't mean a ten-foot high fence? woman: I Stant it high enough so that they Bryan: Okay. I just wanted to clarify that,. Tepedi.no: Any other questions or cross examination before I close the`public hearing and open it for the Commiesioners' 'action? Yes, sir. Bryan: I do have one thing I would want to comment on. Selby: Identify yourself, please. Bryan: David Bryan, Bryan Engineering, representing the applicant. The first ,gentlemen that spoke talked about lents averaging about 4,000 square feet. The smallest lot per unit would be 5,000 square feet. There would be no duelling on a lot less than 5,000 square feet. The other thing that I would like to comment on - I don't know horn familiar all of you are with this site. The trees that are shorn on the west side of the property are all native:trees. I do have slides looking into the provect, and you virtually can't even gee the houses along Watkins Street on the:back side of this. If you are interested in viewing the slides,,I would like to show that. If you are familiar with the site you probably . wouldn't want to see them. �9- 1 fiRa2MSCRIPT OF PLANNING COI-MISSION HEILIRING Vinson Terrace Subdivision February 5, 1980 Tepedino: Unless sono commissioner specifically asks, in the interest of brow-1ty I mould like to rove ahead. Man's voice: Could I speak to that point, please? Teped1no: Yeah, this is the opportunity to cross ex=ine, so why don't you come up and ideatify yourself, and make it as short as you can, _ Lesperance: 2•!y name is .Maury Lesperance, 13000 S. 71. 'Vatk:ins. These trees that he has been talking about these last two or three creeks, there has been peu_le out there frith saws cutting then dostn, so they aren't blocking anything out. I anent through that whole circle tonight, and I could see every house, the back yard of every one of thea, and like 1 6a:id . . . , be there another year at the most; the wind ;mocks them over. Tepedi-no: Thank you, sir. Yes, ma'am? Co Makin: I am Carolyn Makin, 13120 S. 17. Watkins Avenue. 1'1e have 11ved in this area I presume for at least 25 years. All of those trees that we are talking about--there are some of thea that are pine trees that are getting old and they are losing a lot of their foXiage at the bottom. There is one nice tree there probably, that is the Port Orford cedar, and it will probably live as long as we do; but there are a lot of seedlings of pie cherry trees in the area, and they are just growing up all over the place-.® and who wants then?_ And,then besides that there's pie cherries all over the hack of your yard,and everything else, so by rights they should all be cut down. They are a hazard.` Tepedino: Thank you, mad.am. Are there any other questions, or comments of cross examination and rebuttal? I`close the public hearing por- tion on this issue. Commissioners? Speaker: Mr.' President? Tepedine: Yes, Commissioner Speaker. Speaker: I have a question of the applicant. ' I am looking at apparently what is his presentation; the second paragraph says, PThe reason for requesting this action is economic. Because of the current market conditions, the lots have not sold for detached large lot housing. ' However there is a current market for smaller homes on smaller lot=." Can you tell us what -»- should we say — market- ing efforts you ,have made on behalf of these lar„er lots? Bryan: I an going to defer that to Mr. Duncan, 1f I may- Vu n c ay.Vunc14y,name is -Mike Duncan, and I am from Duncan Properties, and we ars the°original developers of the ten--lot site, and what are hwve c TRA TSCRIPT OF PLAIMING COMAISSI021 HEA NG Vinsom `terrace Subdivision Fabruary 5, 1980 Duncan done in the way of marketing--just to answer that question first, (Cont.) is -- If you would like the names of about eight or nine firms that will all be readily recognizeable to you because they have been around for a good number of years, and are quality builders, and we know that because we have seen their product and we know their fi..nancial capabillties — I personally talked with probably a dozen firms who have the capability to buy these lots, and left the option of price open to thew, and asked thea for an offer on the lots. As is mentioned in the report, we started on the project in October of 178 and finished the project up some months ago, and have made a significant marketing effort, and as one gentleman mentioned we would be asking 523,500 a lot for 10 to 12 thousand square foot lots -- we didn't think that being too far out of'line, and in comparizon to some other lots that were available that were smaller lots and maybe didn't have some of the natural amenities such as the trees that have been mentioned; and I have gotten a universal decline to make an offer of any kind on the property, and primarily it has been because of the cost of housing increasing so much in the past few years, people are kind of getting away- from the 10,000 and 12,000 square foot lots because of the price of the final home they are required tri put ca there, and the market just isxa't there, or there's such a narrow portion of the market that are capable of buying expensive homes, they are telling me— at least what they are saying by their decline .to buy the lots is that there ien*t a market for those homes. And like I says, there has been a dozen of these firms. One, a well-known company In the Tigard area, Tualatin Development Company, who has just r flatly turned It*.down. There has been approximately 300 other- building'firas that ire have contacted through mail to offer these lots for sale, and we have had no interest in them. So in tsar way Of thin]sing that there is a statement that there is just no market for the lots, and it has been my experience in the last eight years In being In real estate that a single-family home-a neer single- family home that would be the minimum home that could be purchased brand new, which yo'x know;most starter hoaxes are that couples are hying to get in--has got;from that time, 1972-the price of $16,500,to a price range o about $55,000 today. And so our company here is trying to produce a productthatsome young couples,; first-time home buyers, have the capability of buying. ; I have a personal friend who just bought a home in the Hillsboro area--I apologize for being from Hillsboro—but I have a personal friend there who just purchased:this small. 3100 'square foot, three- bedroom home Stith a bath and a half, a single-car garage, and he pays nearly $600 a month monthly payment on that house. And his Income is just barely sufficient, of course, because they were able to acquire financing for it. But I wouldn't scant to be paying 5600 a month for an 1100 square foot home, and so our goal is just basically to provide ,some nice-appearing,PP bs good-quality, smaller, less expensive homes to; try to provide some housing for these young people. ®ll x y a TRANSCRIPT OF PLAM;IP;c COMMISSION HEARING Winsom Terrace Subdivision February 5s 1930 Tepedino: ihanir you, sir. Selby: fir. President? Tepedino: Yes, staff? Selby I have a couple of comments I need to mice. First of all, we have a couple of additional conditions that we foal are neaded to be placed on here that we didn't road off at first because of prior commitments, we understand. One --. Te-pedino: Okay. additional conditions, on the assumption that you are still recommending are approve the requost? Selby: Yes. This :is one comment; and then I have anoti;or one: that Condition Pio. 9 be added, "That a six-foot-high fence be placed along the property line of the subject property and Tax Lot 1300.11 it was my understanding that there ata$ a c0htnitmtt nt by the developer of the sn'b4ivision and the person who cold hi-m this lot, who lives on Tax Lot 13GO. Is that correct, Mr. `Uzucam Duncan: Yes. Selby: Second, Condition Pio. 10: "That a sewer easement be provided to Tax Lot 11x00 of Tax May, ZS1 ZCB." That was another commitment that I understood was made. Is that correct, fir. Duncan? Duncan: Would you restate that? Selby: That a sewer easement be ,provided to Tait Lot 1400. Duncan: I don't recall that. I will have to look it up. b Selby: Mr. Bob 'Hudson is the owner of 1400, and that is what he claims to the Staff. Tepedino: And so this Is your recommendation? This will be a Howard: There was a lady called in about the fence, and I promised her that it would be a condition—to the lady at.1300. Duncan: Speak to Mr. Hudson, is it? Selby: Yes. Duncan: Yeah, rir Hudson has contacted me numerous times ,since early on in _ the development process asking for an easement to his lot--•a sewer easement—and I had made a comment through a. real estate repre- sentative that he has had contactinv tae that, you know, provided -12-- t TRMITSCRIPT OF PLAIRTINO COT-MISSIONHEARITiG Winsom Terrace Subdivision February 5, 1980 Duncan that everything worked out with our development, that we would (Cont.) arrange to sell him an ease:sent, or provide ar. easen�znt along there SO -- Voice: we should take that off until -- that's a private matter. Duncan: Weell take that off. Smith: I would like to point out there is a five foot easement around the lots anyway, so it would appear that this is taken care of by city ordinance anyway. Selby: I have another comment to make now, if I may. Tepedino: yes, Staff. Selby: The Staff approval—recom—mendation of approval--is not in consid— eration that the developer and present owner of the lots are in a -financial problem. our submission of approval is based on the housing survey, the hol-Ing studies, the goalsby the States st for try to acknowledge and find, where necessary., adequate. its younger, more moderate income families* We can't promise, because legislation has not been quick enough to enforce thats ent if we do provide smaller lots, smaller housing, w th subdiv-lsion standards yet not costly improvements--that the k developer will sell these at a moderate market as needed. But it's an effort that is made in an honest attempt to make that market and encourage the developer to do so. Surely enough, he is making such a profit that I can't see that he would not cooperate in ,that, but we can't promise iv ®m that's true. Another issue is that if we add on the extra conditions requested, the fencing around the perimeter of the properties, that would take some ,additional cost per unit at;time of sales, and it would be defeating the Purpose of approving the smaller lot size units. So I'would encourage you, if you find it necessary to appro ThisThis is s - condition, that you do so without any further conditions. Is n standard subdivision in the 1.i,gat that ;it meets all standard street widths and such that the surrounding subdivision houses would. None of those were required to put is fences at the time, and It world be an additional cost here and defeat the purpose of bringinS in moderate income housing. That's my staff's point of view. Tepedino: Okay* shank You- Two or (Indicating desire to speak) three voices 'Tepedino: I am sorry; the public hearing is closed., unless you are recognized —13— a TR.!U1ZCRIPT OF PLATTITING COMISSION HEAMNG Winsom Terrace Subdivision February 5, 1930 Tepedino specifically by one of the commissioners. Commissioner Popp? (Cont.) Popp: I art going to have to go back and-chow some old fat, I guess, but it was brought up a little earlier tonight about the NPO 3 hearing, and I am sorry that a lot more people aren't present or in attendance here tonight either who wore members of NPO 3 or who had the . . . v hearings, because this -Particular parcel of ground vas discussed over and over and over again on more occasions than I can remember. But anyway, it was the consensus of everyone--very adamantly, as I recall--that the development on .this particular parcel should definitely be restricted to single- fanily residences, and I think it ;,av the cousansizs and vrish of just about everyone involved in the planning process at that time that this is the only way they could see this thing developed. flow I don't know when that prior hearing was regarding this parcel of ground, but in my resod- _tion It was "m0VA10Nro in the. nature of around two years ago, a similar pro;po6al was presented to-the P_arn___ ..zl em, and t th t ' l i n !n..�. a d w.me .t vas ttluo V ry, very thoroughly and totally discussed and sheared over, and we heard much, much the same testimony that we heard again here this evening'; and so on; and in fact we probably heard even more testi- mony than we heard here this evening. However, to me, I am in sympathy with the idea of single-shall housing, and I can recall full well that we can see the economics of single-wall housing. Some of the-plans—this particular one house or t7ro houses, or whatever It may be referred to--I thins: it'makes 'a. good looking n development, and so on; and it may sound facetious to say that, "geyl That's great, but so long as it is on somebody else's lot and not mine, or not in my; neighborhood," and so on. I think that there is a definite need for single-.wall housiug. le can't restrict single-wall housing to one neighborhood, one area of the city— I think in some areas, I think it would be very well taken, and so on However, on this particular parcel I can't see this particular parcel of ground being developed in anything other than a single- family residence, adhering to the comprehensive plan, and sticking to the 10,000 square foot lots.-' Now I am sorry, I know this is a well thought out plan, and so on. I thinly there's too many drawbacks to it, and I feel very, ;very strongly in this---that the compro® hcnsive plan'should be adhered to, and that this;-- well, iter my notion and ny feeling that the conditional use request be a denied in this case. Tepedino: Is that a motion, Commissioner Popp? Popp: I make a motion to that effect. -14- TRRMISCRIPT OF PLANNING 00112-IISSION IMART_NG Winsom Terrace Subdivision February 5, 1980 Tepedino: A motion is made for denial. Kolleas: I second it. Tepedino: Seconded. Discussion? SMith: I am going to have to take exception. I mould like to point out first some things that concern .IPO 3. NPO 3 has traditionally in the past been a neighborhood of houses, moderate houses built on large lots—primarily built on large lots because these houses are somewhat older and were built prior to severs. There is no reason— able reason zot to have smaller lots in the NPO neighborhood, and.I alight also point out that many of the houses in the comzunity have failing septic systems, and this has been a. problem, and I think Washington County Health Department has documented this. It has also been interesting that any neva developments that have gone Into the NPO neighborhood have always been a positive thing to the neighborhood because it has supplied sewer to those houses wLdch didn't have sewer and had failing septic systems— Also I would like to point out that the new developments that have taken place In NPO 3 have all been a higher quality of housing than older, existing housing, and that it really isnot a very good argument that property values would be lowered. I have seen this repetition before—a development going into NPO 3, and 25 to 50 signatures. I think these people categorically reject development in their area because they have large:lots, due only to`the 'fact that they were built when they 'didn't have sewers; and I think it is an unpopular position I am taking, but I don't think that the NPO 3 attitudes are really concurrent with the economic and the real facts of life today regarding housing. r I think it's a form of discrimination. It is what we refer to as "snob zoning98. Now the reality of ghat these gentlemen are talking about in terms of what can be afforded in housing today and lot sizes, and extrapolating everything out, is that the. 10-- to 12,000 square - foot lots — the price range of the house that has to be built on these cannot be afforded by the average person in,the City of Tigard. 4 Secondly, that the value of the houses built on these lots, even as 5,000 square foot lots, may in fact,be better quality housing than many of the alder houses already existing in NFO 3- So, the only difference yae are looking at Is lot size, and septic systems versus server. • is One thing I think I well have to take an exception to in the way T IRE 4 1RF11SCRIF'T OF PLAyTiiING CO12-115SI0,1 HEARING Vinson! Terrace Subdivision February 5, 1980 Smith I am going here is that I find a problem with having common-wall (Cont.) units. The problem is a common-wall unit tends to be purchased as a duplex and purchased as a rental, and I would like to dis- courage that in NFO 3, because I think that affects the character as a single-family neighborhood. I would support the applicant. provided that the -- that is, with those lot sizes -- provided that the houses were not cor.=on-gall, and to discouraSe purchasing as duplex units, as rental units, so that you koep Ilia single-family neighborhood; but in terms of being common-wall units, I think we do halo a problem with essentially ending up viith a duplex development; so I trould support the applicant if vie could revise that. Incidentally, the ordinance regarding a duplex unit does not state that they have to be common-valla Aldie may know Howard; That's right. Smith: But I think that this particular site access i.s not through 17atkins—people do not have to drive up or down Watkins Avenue-- they do not have to essentially drive dorm. Park Street except for a fraction of a block. This access is pretty direct to 99, the Pacific Hirh%,,ay, and I don4t think that's going to hurt the quality of the Watkins Avenue area. Traffic from this subdivision will. not pass through Vatkins Avenue—will not pees down to Walnut Street. It will basically go very directly to the Pacific Highway. : nd eventuallythere is apartment to be developed ontheother side of 'Park Streets I think -that a, higher density by single- family development mould be an appropriate buffer; and other than that, I would support the six-foot fence. Tepedino: Thank you, Commissioner ,Smith. We have a motion on the floor, made and,seconded for — Yes? Speaker: I -would agree, perhaps even more strongly with Mr. Smith. I would go;a little farther. One objection was that the price of the housing would Inevitably go up. I don't think that is properly a, consideration of the Planning Commission. I think in the last - year or two we;have lost a couple of women.'On the COMmissiOn more or less on that-that we were just making it possible for the developer to mako more bucks. I do feel it is the province of the Planning Commission to Make it possible for a developer to build more moderate-priced homes. Maybe I have a personal interest in it because I have a son dorm in Los Angeles who is paying over $600 a month rent for about the sane square footage that you are talking about; and he and his wife feel that evenn with both of then working, they will never in the world be able in Los Angeles to buy a house, and they would like to. TRANSCRIPT OF PLA;rdING CQMISSION HEARING Winsom Terrace Subdivision February S: 1980 t Speaker Having been a renter six times in the last forty years myself, (Cont.) I don't agree with the fact that a renter is a second- or third- class citizen, and that it inevitably downgrades property. Neither do I feel that a well-built duplex in an area will lessen property values. .Another thing, I think, is completely overlooked is that in the last year or so we have become acutely aware of an energy crisis which hadn't even reared its ugly head when ITPO No. 3 was formed; and I think we have to face up to the fact that things are going to change. We just don't have the energy to push people out and haul them back and forth daily to their jobs. Part of the problem -- part of the problems that were presented here by the people in opposition, was due to the fact that the property that they are living on is not in a -- should we say -® a properly developed area in the sense of streets and sidewalkso- possibly even in storm drainage and sewage. And if tine people who are complaining would submit to what we who have bought property in developments where we have streets and sidewalks.and sewers and street 'lights, there would not be this problem with the children going to school. In other words the people are complaining.because they have not themselves on -- or seen that they and their neighbors are providing the facilities that this development is going to have to comply with before they can get a building permit. That's all. Tepedino: Okay. Thank you, Commissioner. Any other comments from Commissioners`: Kolleas: Wells the thing that really bothers me is the traffic on Grant Street for the sc1gool children. There are so many children that walk that street and there is, like the lady said, no rooms .And my kids walk that street, and I know, and what the condition — Are they going to. improve Grant Street with sidewalks and things for the children to walk on? Tepedino: Staff, do you have a response? Selby: They are improving the portion of which they have control, of to ; dedicate the proper right of way and put sidewalks on it. , There isn°t 'adequate right of way for sidewalk on the remaining part of Grant Street. An LID would take care of that, and I' think that would go along with what Mr. Speaker was stating—that the people in that area could form an LID and get the sidewalk through they wish to dedicate Howard: one more. When we approved the Bishop property on Park - remember we talked about sidewalks -- It would cost 35 hundred bucks to fora the LID up there on Park to bring the;kids dow-: to Grant. t Now when Robinson comes in to develop there where all the black- l TP.A.YSCRIPT OF PI.iUMING COMUSSION HEARING Wincom Terrace Subdivision February 7, 10,30 Howard berries are, we are going to run a path right do-an to the school (Cont.) to protect the kids. They are not going to be in the street any more. Now that's coning. O1-shy? I think Roblason will be in this year some time; we will get that path for you, we will get the kids off Grant Street. V7e have talked a`-out this when Bishop w.ss developing;, we are going to do it. Holleas: Well, the sidewalk was supposed to be in on the Bishop property this year before school started. Howard: No doubt. Via can push just so far. Selby: He hasnft developed yet, but when he does the sidewalk will go in. Tepedino: Any other comments or questions fro,:. Commissioners? 'Je are still in the discussion phase. I have a question for staff. Do I sense that we, the City, are being ratchetted on this arrangement here? First the developer came in and he granted to subdivide into ten 10,000 square foot lots, single-family, and he got teat; and now lie has cone back and said, "Hell, you know, what I would like to do now is to ratchet you a little bit more," and I get the sense that maybe Tam being backed into a corner. I wonder: is that what's happening? Howard: 1 have been bore long enough to recognize a-ratchet. This isn't one® (Laughter) Tepedino: The second question I have is -- and I guess I read back to Com— missioner Kopp who has been In this area"many, many years -- I an' concerned about the change in the neighborhood plan, recognizing, as Commissioner Smith has made some very good points -- you. always get the problem the people don't like renters, and that kind of thing. We have several renters right hereon the Commission that always, I am sure, get bridled when they hear that in public -- but I 'am just wondering, are we changing the complexion -- Mould this change the basic complexion of the entire area if we allow this? <That's what I an concerned about. Howard: I think- you have to'look a little bit further than that. ,And I think we have all discussed these issues before, and you know you can go from energy all around PGs., and right down,anywhere you go. The entire city, the entire state, the world, is in transition. Okay? Now I am forced to tell you that I can say to my child that "You will not be able to buy a house in Tigard.21 Now I don't like that. Now we have done it to ourselves. Tepedi.no: Now I hear what you are saying; but will this change the complexion of the -- y TRANSCRIPT OF PLANNING C014iISSI01t RRA-RING Winsom Terrace Subdivision February _5, 1900 Howard: Not The whole city is going to change within this urban growth boundary. If we are going to provide housing that anyone can afford, then you are going to have to change your ideas, and you are going to have to change your attitude; and you are going to . have to put some money into streets and sidewalks co you can walk to mass transit. YOU are going to have to build closer to schools. You are ,going to have to Chane your whole mode of thinking. Slhat this says is going to stop. And this is just one small. area. We have been against it every time. Vie brought in the 5,000 square foot. ;,e bring In the mobile homes. We try to Increase the density -- for these reasons: This area is changing; the city is changing; and this is one indication of this change. It's a small one. Tepedino: Any other comments, Commiasioners? Smith: Yes. I would like to expand a little on what Aldle is saying. This particular parcel, in terms of imposing this type of change- on NPO 3 �- this is an ideal place to do it. And I say ideal because it is close to Pacific highway. The traffic from this will not flocs through streets like Y7al.nut Street or any of the you knot the better neighborhoods in TNPO 3 this traffic is not going to floe through there. Itiz going to go directly to the Pacific Highway. This exists next to a multiple zoned area. If we are going to do this at all, this is probably an ideal place to start, and not just as far as NPO 3 is concerned, but this is going to have to occur in all they NPOs. If this request were back farther in two or three blocks further back into the NPO 3 -area, I .would have to support the residents and be against it. But it isn't. It's' truly'in a buffer:area. i Tepedino: Thank you, Commissioner Smith. Any other comments? Commissioner Solleas? Kolleas: Well, I was wondering if -m you say the 51000 square foot lots. I didn't hear anyone say they were against putting a single-family duelling on a 5,000 square lot — would that be possible instead of just the duplexes? Tepedino: 'Well, that is not the proposal. ' Kollea.s: 'gall, I am asking a question: is it a. Selo;;: That would require a comprehensive plan. revision. The existing R-5 and R--7 zones allow a conditional use for attached single- family — a detached single-family 5,000 square foot lot is a comprehensive plan revision. That's why they have to go attached 1n this area. �cucdino: Any other comments or questions from Commissioner*? _19e TRIIISCRIPT OF P--VIIIING COMMISSION HEARING Winsom Terrace Subdivision February j, 1980 pope: Mr. Chairman. Tepedino yes, Commissioner Popp? Popp: Yell, there are a couple of other points that we are going to have to take exception to, I guess, to sell it. First of all, the fencing stipulation—the pros and cons on that. Fencing would help, but I have my doubts as to waether the benefit would be adequately maintained. I have seen this type of fence nearly constructed before, and invariably it is something that is very rapidly deteriorating. It would be the responsibility of the individual homeown. or to maintain his own fence. I car. understand that, but I have sews doubts as to hoar tt:ey .could be maintained. But one of the points that was brou.-ht up by Mr. Smith regarding quality of the homes being constructed today, trnd that all these homes being constructed today are so much better quality than homes, the older homes there. How this I would have to take. a lot of exception to, because I don't think it is necessarily when a house is constructed that determines the quality of the hose, as to wino is doing the constructing that determines the quality; and I think Mr. Smith would agree with that. I think that if it is built by a quality builder, yen.. However, I an sure we have all damn well seen a lot of hones today that you know I wouldn't invest 5,000 bucks into, regardless of what price tag is on the thing. And as far as quality,_I can show you some places built within the last ton years that gill be damn lucky if they withstand the nett rainstorm -com ng along the pike. A lot of older homes, maintained, I 'have seen standing 30 and 40 and 50 years, that are still in excellent shape, that have been well built, well con- structed and onnstructed-and 'good, solid foundations, proper drainage, everything, else that's necessa_Ty, it's low on 'maintenance and probably;will stand up another 50 to hundred years, long enough for some of this modern construction to be long since swept 'down the eine as well. But I don't think It is necessary to 'sit here and argue about the, quality of construction so much as the use of this pr.,perty I;am still opposed to the idea of common-wall housing on this particular property because I think regardless of whether we call it common wall or duplex or whatever we call it, it still is multiple-family housing in a single.-family,neighborhood. And I `got to picture myself as living in the adjoining house, and I would be opposed to it if I lived in an adjoining house. I think I would be ,in favor of some type of concession. Fine. I agree, too$ that at the time some of these older homes were built there on 10,000-foot lots they;were on septic tanks. If some of the septic tanks are failing, fine, that can be taken care of by having a sever put in there, .and so on — it is within the realm of the city and the county .generally take this sort of thing. c0® 1 TRANSCRIPT OF PLANIIING C01 1ISSION HEARING 4linsom Terrace Subdivision February 5, 1980 Popp I could see either reducing the lot size---I probably could see (Cont.) reducing the lot size to 7500 square feet. I think even a 5,000 square foot lot is too small for that area. I got sympathy for the people who would have to contend with the traffic congestion problem that mould be additionally created on both School Street and Parr Street; and I am sorry---as the plan stands, I am still opposed to it. Tepedino: Thank you, Commissioner. I Mould like to call for the question on this issue. There has been a motion made and seconded for denial, by Commissioner Popp. All those in favor of the motion for denial signify by saying aye. (Result not readily determined.) Could we have a roll call please. Selby: President Tepedino - aye; Commissioner Speaker - no; Commissioner Kolleas - aye; Commissioner Iferron - aye; Commissioner Helmer, absent; Commissioner Smith - no; Commissioner Funk -• no; Commissioner Bowan •- Do; Commissioner Popp aye. It is a tie: Tepedino: Fails. Notion fails. Cormissioners? Speakers Nr. President, I move approval of Conditional Use CII 1--80 based on staff findings and recommendations and -- Fen, what -- Selby: Condition No. 9? Speaker Condition No. ,9 -- six-foot high fence a Selby: To be placed.along the property line of the subject property and Tax Lot 1300. Speaker: But you are eliminating No. 10? Selby: Yes. Speaker: Okay. That's my motion. Tepedino: F.otion is made for'approval, based on staff findings and recommenda- tions, including the No. 9 six-foot high fence, Do rte hear a second? Smith: I second. Tepedino: Notion made and seconded. Discussion„ Do we have any additional discussion over ghat we have covered? i Let me explain why I wasinttlilly against this thing. I am just r r 9 } u TRANSCRIPT Or PLAMNING C01.I11ISSIONT HEARING Niusom Terrace Subdivision February 5, 1980 Tepedino concerned that maybe there is an alternative to smaller (Cont.) lots, smaller houses, in this particular area rather than apartment houses -- well, rather than adjoining single-family common-wall homes, and that is ghat bothers me. Smith: I wish that the applicant were In with a compromise plan--something like 7500 square foot lots rather than 10,000--that kind of a compromise might be more appropriate. But we are not dealing with that. And I also s:ould point out I have a concern about not allow- ing these to be detached. I think in this particular case we have to choose between an attached unit or go back to the 10,000 square foot lots. That's a big step. I think the TTP0 3 people, if they are going to end up with this many units- l thtn_L. thef W uld prefer thea to be detached. Y wish there ware some svuly around that. I think that would be a good conpromise. I think the units being detached would guarantee less of a rental type neigh- borhood.,..and I would like to see ®- Tepedino That's why I am adversely impacted by the plan. I think, you know, in my estimation the builder shot for the whole wad, which I can understand that; but the fact of the matter is I see the neighborhood as a single-family home neighborhood, and this is not what I see here. That's what bothers me. Y Speaker: One thing I wonder is if we areavt going to have to reconcile ourselves to — should we say — Multiple housing; and Tigard is going;to.be — what? -- 30,000 in -w Howard: Five years. Speaker: Where are we going to put then unless we put them on less land? We are going to have to use our land more intensively- Howard: Dcactly right. Tepedino But we have areas, though, Commissioner Speaker, within the;city limits of 'Tigard that are;,zoned for this type of application. Speaker: All right. But I am somewhat in sympathy with the applicant on this. I notice there are developments that we have approved in the past for single-family, and I don't see a single -- let's see: in one of then I see one, house going up probably a €pec house, and the others 30 or 40 acres,,and not a bulldozer dozing. Tepedino Commissioner Bonn, do you have any comments? You have been pretty quiet. 'P-faybe you have some new perspectives. Bonn: Like I mentioned, if we deny this and they go through a zone change, I think the appropriate action Mould be to deny, and they could bring back -22- TRANSCRIPT OF PI. R=ING CO,%W11.SSION Hs ARIP:G Qinsom Terrace Subdivision February 5, 1980 Tepediro: They could appeal the denial on this. Selby: Well, a zone change --• actually comprehensive plan revision would be the only amenable way to make the alternative spoken of--a- even this ar—cement--to the zone required by NPO 3 is 10,000 square foot lots; so unless you stay within the conditional uses of a 30,000 square foot lot, which he is asking for tonight, then the only other alternative is comprehensive plan revision, which is an extra step before the zone change. Smith: Something I really ought to point out, I was referring to some alternatives; but 1 think I have to back up a little bit. I don't think the developer really has those alternatives. This developnent has already been graded and the sewer stub outs and everything are designed for that many parcels, and I think the process of going through a zone change and reparcel into 7500 square foot lots might add unusual costs due to the fact the utileties and everything are already in. I think we have to deal w-1tL it as it is—that is, either as the 10,000 souar a foot attached or the 10,000 square foot single. Topedino: Commissioner Funk, do you have any comments? Funk: I will Just say that I have been sitting here listening to both sides of it pretty well . . I don't have any problems of going to multiple housing in that area. I have done some calcula– tions tonight, and all apposition is on Watkins, and maybe that isnot the street that is going to be affected in that area. Tepedino: Coi.ssioner Herron? Herron Like Commissioner Funk said, I have been sitting here weighing both sides, and I have some concerns as far as the traffic. I still will on Grant Street, and the traffic that goes off of that onto School Street and out to the highway. 3 Speaker: All right; I would ask you, Miss Herron: Is that because of the present condition of the streets? Herron: School Street is stay too narrow, as.vras brought up earlier. Speaker: All right; but is it a street that should be developed? Herron: If it going to be developed back in there, I think it has to be developed. Speaker: Well, that's a problem that 'Tigard has --- t1hat there are lots of streets where there's maybe 18 or 20 feet of paving, and that's { it: there are no sidewalks, no street drainage, and so on. And �°z3a TR-UT1CRIPT OF PL1lt4itl.lG M-91ISSI.M HEARING Winsom Terrace Subdivision February 5, 1980 Speaker I don't know what the answer is; but I am opposed to withholding (Cont.) development on the basis of lack of development in the other portions. Howard: I night point out the applicant will pay approximately 38,000 In systems development charges for streets in this community, and probably $12000 for parks in this community. That's 9200 bucks. Tepedi.no: On this development? Howard: On this particular development, ;des, sir. Teped?no: Okay; there has been a motion made and seconded on the floor for approval. I would like to call for the question on that item. All those in favor of the motion for approval sinify by saying aye. (Result inconclusive.) I would like to have a roll call on that, please. Selby; president Tepedino .- aye; Comlaissioner Smith - aye; Commissioner Aollaas -- no; Con issioner Herron - no; Com issione� Speaker - aye; Commissioner Fknk — aye; Commissloner Bonn — aye; Commissioner Popp — no; Commissioner Helmer is absent. It's five to three; five yes, and three no. Teped.,tto: The motion carries for approval. i k —24— STAFF REPORT AGENDA 5.3 TIGARD Pr..V,N, ING CO2•MISSION February S, 1580 - 7:30 pm Fowler Junior High 10865 SW Walnut Street, Tigard DOCKET: CONDITIONAL USE, CU 1-80 (Titan Properties Corp-Alinso�n Terrace) APPLICANT: Titan Properties Corp. OWNER: Duncan Properties and 448 So. 1st ?venae Ronald E. Phair, Tr. Hillsboro, Oregon 97123 448 So. lst Avenue, Suite 200 Hillsboro, Oregon 97123 APPLICATION DATE: January 18, 1980 LOCATION SITE: Fronting west side of Grant Avenue, 60' scntth of School Street-, 2281 north of Park Street (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 2CB, Tags Lot 800) REQUEST; For a Conditional Use approval to construct 10 attached single family units on a 3.28 acre parcel Zoned R-10 "Single Family Residential". PREVIOUS ACTION: On October 2, 1978, the,Planning,,Director approved a preliminary plat request on the subject site to subdivide the`3.28 acres:into ten (10) ten thousand (10,000) square foot single family lots with conditions. (See Exhibit"A"). I. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The subject site is zoned and designated as 10,000 square:foot "single fanily residential"'=in the NPO Tr Plan. 2. The applicant proposes to construct ten (10) attached single family units on Y the existing' ten (10) ten thousand ;(10,000) (plus) "square foot lots. Each dwelling unit (20 total.) will have-a minimum of five thousand (5,000) square feet per lot. This request is in accordance with Section 18.20.02() of the Tigard;Municipal Code allowing attached single family- units on five thousand (5,000): square foot lots as a conditional use in the R-10 zone. (See attached site plan) . 3. The following NPO #3 Plan Policies are applicable: Policy #5 and #6, Page 14 Site and Public Service Improvements. Policy,77, Page 15 Duplex Type Development In The Suburban Density Area. i t STAFF REPORT/AGENDA 5.3 TIGnRD PLANNING COMMISSION February 5, 1980 CU 1-80 Page 2 4. The subject site is relatively flet and the water, sewer, streets, street lights, landscaping and drainage are in. However, the increased density will create a burden on the drainage system. Therefore, additional drainage work will be required. 5. Surrouiding land uses are apartments to the east, single family homes to the south and west, and preschool to the north. 6. The prize for each dwelling unit will be approximately $50,000.00. II. CONCLUSIONARY FINDING: 1. The proposal is in keeping with the conditional use requirements of the Tigard Municipal Code and meets the policies of the NPO for this land use. 2. Tae attached single fattiily units will provide moderate income families the opportunity of owning a private residence. Tile existing financial climate has decreased the capital investment ability of the average household. incom.:e, and, therefore, new single family residential urlitshave become limited. 3. Policy 92 of the 1977 Tigard Housing Plan states that diversified housing shall be promoted to provide residential occupancy to various age, income, sex, race, and living pattea-ns. 4. The character of the proposed development meets the desired owner occupied character of the.e:acisting residents and provides the needed price range for younger, moderate income young families. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends appr� oval of the attached single family units subject to compliance to the following conditions: 1. That construction and site drainage plans be submitted and approved by the Building and Engineering Department prior to issuance of permits. 2. That the area described as "Landscape Island" be maintained by a homeowners Association. 3. No OccLtpancy Per—its shall be issued un Cil all conditions placed upon this developmentby the City of Tigard have been satisfied a-nd Inspec:.ians ver**ting this have been caxrzed out by the appropriate deparCnent. STAFF REPCRT/AGENDA 5.3 TIGARD PLANNING COUIL`SSSION February 5, 19€10 CU 1-80 Page 4. vqo changes will be nada to aopraved Plans or specifications unless formal appropriate City department and changes are ap^licaticrn is made to the appxaved by that department. ALplication for changes will be made in wri.tyng and shal.1 include appl-cab?e drawings. S. Atj existing or proposed utilities shall be placed underground. Street lighting installations shall be approved by the Public Works Director. 6 "0 3 r—,... 11i'Lding pe it shall be .i.sseed until the e:cpization of the tr�rezty dad appeal. period from the date of approval._ 7. I-provements may be banded prior to issuance of Building Permits. a. ':haft the applicant receive preliminary plat approval for the subdivision of the attached single family lots .prior to Building Peri;.ts. p Approved by Ae ldid '01Prepared by Ken e, i ASSOC to City Planner P1ann trector t, i t 9 ' 5 , i F h j C /a .. ',�,A , n• \, 3700 ,,.'rJSo�3Y 4500 w" y& �� .3��te. �'• N dOg w J 9 702 X49 b Z 4400 { 4 3600 = .31 �4 qty .V J1 P at 99 KAR•p5 a u 3 t' 3701 e� ('• �Lc '� .0 4303 Ed rqc �, O , '° s9 3500 3200 a9 3 4300 n n ^+ -- q �iE' i�••' T� 2st1c. A 4306 CaN d " \ r- y ti} O ivy ,� / �. 933.40 w ISa34 �d4 tJ ro, a l�y 3300 4 z 34013 4304 301 I GO I co •213' Al AAA ... '.18 Bs'�±Fs €6.+_"�a.�� 130' 300 100 $ 1000 .® IN. I $900 \ ' nW - 3=+ L30 ��..• ' "`,tip •, � °�-► 400 Imo' J ` Munn UH In ,3o a ti.• 2Y 300 130 & 1400 1300 Q ,. �� g i0.4 .46Qc $ 10 S a 42 t _.w T3 TO U3.7 -iia--. . gw' 3d3Q 4O'ff 539.,0 4C E 700 00 1600 1700 I 4 �00 OAc. 7 _ o cica' r .rT."t ..., .Ci. »+� >.f,lh?�C".y. rr.> -y.'•-.,.� i;'r 1394 . :. PC TQ INITIAL POINT toll3i3 'SCE9°59'.302 'J 1dJ,94` Conditional Use Request Titan Properties - Winsome Terrace Subdivision Written Narrative 1. This is a proposal to change an R-10 subdivision, Winsome Terrace, planner' to accommodate ten (10) single--family residential structures into an R-10 subdivision with twenty (20) single-family attached residential structures. The reason for requesting this action is economic. Because of the current market conditions, the lots have not sold for detached, large lot housing. However, there is a current market for smaller homes on smaller lots. 2. The Comprehensive Plan designates this area as suburban low density residential. NPO-3 interprets the Plan to mean average 7,500 sq. ft. lots except in areas adjacent to high density residential or along major collectors. Since Winsome Terrace is in proximity to a school, a day-- care center, apartments (immediately across the street), and Pacific Highway (995')„ the property is well suited to serve as a buffer or transition zone between the heavier uses and adjacent detached single family residential uses to the west. 3. Housing opportunities for residents of any 'given area should be as varied as possible. The statewide planning goal No. 10 The Housing Goal, states that plans "shall encourage the ava.il.a b-IM ty of -adequate-numbers of housing units at price ranges and rent levels which are commensurate with the financial capabilities of Oregon households and allow for flexibility of housing, location, type, and density." By allowing this conditional use, the public will benefit from increased availability of housing that will be priced affordably and allow them a choice as to density and type. 4. There will be little 'difference between the impact of the proposed attached single family residential use and the already approved detached single family; residential use. All streets, water, 'sewer, and utility services have been installed and are adequate. 5. _ NIA (Conditional Use Permit request) 6. This proposed use will have a positive impact on the im- mediate neighborhood. Currently, there are some single- family residences in the :area,` but adjacent sites are, i ' Conditional Use Request Winsome Terrace Page 2 6. under-developed. New development should encourage up grading of this area with the addition of street lights, sidewalks, curbs, and landscaping. Where will be little, if any, difference in demand for public services from this proposed use over what has already been approved. r gone IM k: April 7, 1980 Regarding: Reconditioning of Existing Sewers Bids were duly opened at 3:00 P.M. April 4, 1980 in the office of the City Administrator, Tigard City Hall, Tigard, Oregon in the presence of the Director of Public Works and Superintendent of the Shops. The following bids were received: Bidder Bid Dale's Sand & Gravel Co. $ 4,500.00 18600 SW Pacific Highway Sherwood, OR 57140 Salem Sand & Gravel Company 7,520.00 P.O. Box 1008 Salem, OR 97308 Tobey's Excavators 8,650.00 33003 SW T.V. Highway Hillsboro, OR 97123 All bids were accompanied by;bid bonds.' Engineer's estimate $ 3,500.00 Staff will recommend award to the low bidder, Dale's Sand & Gravel at the regular Council mepting Monday, April 14, 1980. Thank you for the time and effort involved in submitting a bid. w r ank;Currie, Director of Public Works