City Council Packet - 04/27/1981 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 27, 1981, 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 separaL, discussion of
these items. If discussion is desired b 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: April 13 & 20, 1981
(b) Approval of Expenditures and Investments: $ 219,156.54
(c) Written Communications - Receive and File
Transmittal from John E. Carroll, Jr. re: National Transportation Week
Transmittal from LCDC re: Maintenance Grant Funding (see agenda item 20 )
(d) Approve refund - duplicate payment of Bancroft #12 billing -
Western Foundry $810.60.
(e) Monthly Reports - Receive and File
Building Library Police
Finance Planning
(f) Proclamation of Mayor declaring National Transportation Week - May 10 - 16, 1981
6. RESOLUTION No. 81- A RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TIGARD,
OREGON. (North Dakota Island Area)
(a) Request of Council.
7. CANVASS OF VOTE - 3-31-81 ELECTION FOR TCYS LEVY
(a) Report by City Recorder
8. RESOLUTION No. 81- A RESOLUTION TO AMEND RESOLUTION No. 80-46 WHICH CREATED THE
DOWNTOWN TIGARD COMMITTEE.
(a) Recommendation of Planning Director.
9. SW McDONALD STREET SEWER LID BID OPENING
(a) Recommendation of Director of Public Works.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - 8:00 Y.M.
10. VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE APPEAL - V 15-80 & CU 14-80 DAVID CHURCH NPO #2
A request by the Tigard City Council to reopen a public hearing which was held
on February 23, 1981 by David Church appealing the Planning Commission denial of
a request for a variance and conditional use to construct a single family attached
unit in an R-7 zone on a .52 acre parcel lcoated at 12533 SW Grant Avenue (Wash.
Co. Tax Map 2S1 2BB, Tax Lot 1801) .
Testimony will be limited to summation of previous statements.
(a) Public Hearing Opened
(b) Summation by City Attorney
(c) Public Testimony
Proponents
Opponents
Cross Examination
(d) Recommendation of. City Attorney
(e) Public Hearing Closed
(f) Consideration by Council
11. ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 7-80A (PLANNED DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 18.56
AMENDMENT)
A request by City of Tigard for an amendment to Chapter 18.56, Sections 20, 30 and 40
relating to Planned District Development and deviations or variances from standards of
Title 18 and Title 17.
(a) Public Hearing Opened
(b) Summation by Planning Director
(c) Public Testimony
Proponents
Opponents
Cross Examination
(d) Recommendation of Planning Director
(e) Public Hearing Closed
(f) Consideration by Council
(g) ORDINANCE No. 81- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18.56 OF THE TIGARD
MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATING TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (P-D)
12. ZONE ORDINAI4CE AMENDMENT, ZOA 1-81 (A70-80PD HOME FOR THE AGED)
A request by the City of Tigard establishing certain criteria to be met in the
A70/80PD Zone.
(a) Public Hearing Opened
(b) Summation by Planning Director
(c) Public Testimony
Proponents
Opponents
Cross Examination
(d) Recommendation of Planning Director
(e) Public Hearing Closed
(f.) Consideration by Council
(g) ORDINANCE No. 81- AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 18.25 HOME FOR THE AGED
MULTIFAMILY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (A70/80PD) TO THE
TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE DELCARING AN E24ERGENCY AND FIXING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Home for the Aged A70/80PD)
PAGE 2 - COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL 27, 1981
13. ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA 6-81 NPO #2
A request by property owners and City of Tigard for a zone change from Washington
County M-1 "Industrial-Light" to City of Tigard M-4 "Industrial Park" and annex the
area into the City limits in the area of SW Cascade Avenue (Wash. Co. Map 1S1 35B,
1S1 35C, 1S1 35BA, Tax Lots 1200, 1201, 1202, 1304 , 1305, 1305, 1609, 1611, 1802,
2800, 3300, 3302 & 3303.)
(a) Public Hearing Opened
(b) Summation by Planning Director
(c) Public Testimony
Proponents
Opponents
Cross Examination
(d) Recommendation of Planning Director
(e) Public Hearing Closed
(f) Consideration by Council
(g) ORDINANCE No. 81- AN ORDINANCE RATIFYING ANNEXATION OF LANDS BY THE
BOUNDARY COMMISSION, ORDER No. 1667, AND ADOPTING FINDINGS
WITH RESPECT TO AN AMENDMENT TO THE 1970 ZONING MAP
OF THE CITY OF TIGARD TO CONFORM WITH THE NPO #2 PLAN AS
ADOPTED AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY AND FIXING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE. (Cascade Annexation)
PUBLIC NOTICE HEARINGS
14. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CPRPD 3-81 (ANGELYNN/HAMREUS)
R7 TO Al2PD PRELIMINARY AND GENERAL PLAN REVIEW NPO #2
A request by Calvin Hamreus for a Comprehensive Plan Revision from City of Tigard
R7 "Single Family Residential" to Al2PD "Multifamily Residential Planned District
Development" preliminary and general plan review taking in all the lots
surrounding SW Angel Place (Wash. Co. Tax Map 1S1 35CD, Tax Lots 2401, 2402, 3900,
44.00; 4100, 4200, 4300, 4400, 4500. 4600; 47nn) ,
(a) Recommendation of Planning Commission
(b) Consideration by Council
(c) ORDINANCE No. 81- AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO AN APPLICATION
FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION TO THE 1975 NPO #2 PLAN MAP
OF THE CITY OF TIGARD DECLARING AN EMERGENCY AND FIXING AN
EFFECTIVE. DATE. (Argelynn CPR-PD-3-81)
15. COMPREHENSIVE PLANE REVISION PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CPRPD 2-81 (EDWARDS INDUSTRIES
MEDIUM TO HIGH DENSITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGE ) NPO #6
A request by Edwards Industries for a Preliminary Plan Review for a Comprehensive
Plan Revision from City of Tigard A-12 "Multifamily Residential Urban Medium Density"
to A-20PD "Multifamily Residential Urban High Density Planned Unit Development" to
build a home for the aged located at 147.40 SW Pacific Highway (Wash. Co. Tax Map
2S1 10A, Tax Lots 302, 400, 501) .
(a) Recommendation of Planning Commission
(b) Consideration by Council
(c) ORDINANCE No. 81- AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO AN APPLICATION
FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION TO THE 1978 NPO #6 PLAN MAP OF '
THE CITY OF TIGARD DECLARING At; EMERGENCY AND FIXING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE. (Edwards Industries CPRPD 2-81)
16. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION, CPR 5-81 (GALLO VINEYARDS R7 TO R5) NPO #7
A request by Herb Morissette Builders for a Comprehensive Plan Revision from City
of Tigard R7 11Single Family Residential 7,500 square foot lots" to City of Tigard
R-5 "Single Family Residential 5,000 square foot lots" to build single family and
PAGE 3 - COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL 27, 1981
(a) Recommendation of Planning Commission
(b) Consideration by Council
(c) ORDINANCE No. 81- AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO AN APPLICATION
FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION TO THE 1979 NPO #7 MAP OF THE
CITY OF TIGARD DECLARING AN EMERGENCY A14 FIXING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE. CPR 5-81 (Gallo's Vineyard) .
17. ZONE CHANGE ZC 5-81 (DUNHAM COMPANY RU4 TO CP)
NPO 464
A request by Gary Dunham for a zone change from Washington County RU4 to City of
"Commercial Professional" located at 12720 SW 67th
Tigard NPO 464 Plan designation CP
and east (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 IAD, Tax Lots
and lots adjoining north, northeast,
100, 200, 600 and 700).
(a) Recommendation of Planning Commission
(b) Consideration by Council
(c) ORDINANCE No. 81- AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO AN APPLICATION
FOR A ZONE CHANGE TO THE 1978 NPO {64 PLAN MAP OF THE CITY OF
TIGAKD, DECLARING AN EMERGENCY AND FIXING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(DUNHAM CO. ZC 5-81)
18. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION, CPR 4-81 (HAMPTON STREET RU 4 TO CP)
NPO 464
A request by City of Tigard and the NPO 464 Members for a Comprehensive Plan Revision
from Washington County RU4 to City of Tigard CP "Commercial Professional" located
d 72nd (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 IAC, Tax Lots 1100,
on SW Hampton Street between 70th an
1200, 1300) .
(a) Recommendation of Planning Commission
(b) Consideration by Council
(c) ORDINANCE No. 81- AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO AN
APPLICATION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION TO THE 1978 NPO
#4 PLAN MAP OF THE CITY OF TIGARD DECLARING AN EMERGENCY AND
FIXING AN EFFECTIVE DATE, (Hampton StreetjCiCy of Tigard)
19. RESOLUTION No. 81- SOLUTION OFETHE
ENTIGARD
CITY COUNCIL TRANSFERRING FUNDS
FOR
(a) Recommendation of Finance Director.
20. LCDC MAINTENANCE GRANT - $7,662 - APPROVE AGREEMENT
(a) Recommendation of City Administrator.
21. ANNEXATION STATUS
(a) Report of Planning Director.
22. STATUS REPORT - PINEBROOK PROPERTY
(a) Report of City Administrator.
23. PRELIMINARY ENGINEERS REPORT - TIEDEMAN SEWER LID PROPOSAL
(a) Report of Director of Public Works
24. PROGRESS REPORT - SELECTION OF CONSULTANTS FOR URBAN RENEWAL
(a) Report of Planning Director.
25. OTHER
26. ADJOURNMENT
PAGE ,i ,,.- COUNCIL_AGENDA - APRIL 27, 1981
T I G A R D C I T Y C 0 U N C I L
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES , APRIL 27 , 1981 , 7 : 30 P.M.
1 . ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor Wilbur Bishop; Councilmen Tom Brian ,
John Cook , Kenneth Scheckla ; Councilwoman Nancie Stimler ;
Chief of Police, Robert Adams ; Legal Counsel , Joe Bailey
(left at 10 : 28 P.M. ) : City Administrator, Raeldon R .
Barker; Director of Public Works , Frank Currie ( left at
8 : 55 P.M. ) ; Finance Director/City Recorder, Doris Hartig ;
Planning Director, Aldie Howard ; Administrative Secretary ,
Loreen Wilson .
2 . CALL TO AUDIENCE FOR THOSE DESIRING TO SPEAK ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS .
(a) No one appeared to speak.
3 . APPROVAL OF MINUTES : April 13 & 20 , 1981 .
(a) Motion by Councilman Brian , seconded by Councilman Scheckla to
approve .
Approved by unanimous vote of Council .
4. APPROVAL OF EXPENDITURES AND INVESTMENTS : $ 219 , 156 . 54
(a) Motion by Councilman Brian, seconded by Councilman Scheckla to
approve .
Approved by unanimous vote of Council .
5 . WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - Receive and File
Transmittal from John E. Carroll , Jr. re : National Transportation
Week.
Transmittal from LCDC re : Maintenance Grant Funding (see agenda
item #20)
(a) Motion by Councilman Brian, seconded by Councilman Scheckla to
receive and file communications .
Approved by unanimous vote of Council .
6 . APPROVE REFUND - Duplicate payment of Bancroft #12 billing - Western
Foundry $810 . 60
(a) Motion by Councilman Brian, seconded by Councilman Scheckla to
approve refund request for $810 . 60 .
Approved by unanimous vote of Council .
7 . MONTHLY REPORTS - Receive and File
Building Finance Library Planning Police
(a) Motion by Councilman Brian , seconded by Councilman Scheckla
to receive and file .
Approved by unanin;ous vote of Council .
8 . PROCLAMATION OF MAYOR - Declaring National Transportation Week-
May 10-16 , 1981 .
(a) Motion by Councilman Brian, seconded by Councilman Scheckla
to acknowledge proclamation signed by :Mayor.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council .
9 . CITY ATTORNEY SELECTION PROCESS
(a) Mayor Bishop read his memo from the April 23 , 1981 , meeting
regarding aele.ction process for the City Attorney position. He
recommended Council appoint Ed Sullivan to that position
effective May 1 , 1981 . He advised Council that a special meet-
ing would be called April 28 , 1981 , at Tigard City Hall at
3 :30 P.M. for consideration of appointment and interview with
Mr. Sullivan.
(b) City Administrator questioned Mayor Bishop as to his intent
in the following excerpt from the memo : "and to work and advise
the Council in its current administrative level needs" .
Mayor Bishop stated this was speaking to the legal advice the
administration level of the City needs .
(c) Councilman Brian expressed no objection to Mr . Sullivan, however,
wished to interview him before any motion to appoint would be
considered.
(d) Director of Public Works questioned whether staff would be
given an opportunity to discuss with Mr. Sullivan their par-
ticular concerns at the April 28th meeLing .
Mayor Bishop suggested staff meet with Mr. Sullivan and Council
at the meeting scheduled April 28 .
(e) Motion by Councilwoman Stimler, seconded by Councilman Scheckla
to meet . with Mr. Ed Sullivan and other persons from his firm
for the purpose of hiring.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council .
10. RESOLUTION No . 81-41 A RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNEXATION TO THE CITY
OF TIGARD, OREGON (North Dakota Island Area) .
(a) Motion by Councilman Brian, seconded by Councilman Cook to
approve _
PAGE 2 - REGULAR COUNCIL MINUTES , April 27 , 1981
Approved by 3 - 2 majority vote . Councilman Scheckla and
Mayor Bishop voting nay.
11 . CANVASS OF VOTE - March 31 , 1981 ELECTION FOR TCYS LEVY
(a) City Recorder reported that the levy was approved by a 674 to
624 vote .
(b) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Brian to
certify as presented.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council .
12 . RESOLUTION No. 81-42 A RESOLUTION TO AMEND RESOLUTION No . 80-46
WHICH CREATED THE DOWNTOWN TIGARD COMMITTEE .
(a) Motion by Councilwoman Stimler, seconded by Councilman Brian
to approve .
(b) Mayor Bishop requested that the resolution be amended in
section I second paragraph first sentence to read as follows :
"All appointments shall be made by the Mayor with the consent
of the City Council . " (underlined section is to be added) .
(c) After lengthy discussion regarding affect of revision on cur-
rent members , Mayor Bishop moved to amend Resolution No . 81-42
as noted. Motion seconded by Councilman Brian .
Approved by unanimous vote to amend resolution.
Approved by 4-0 vote to adopt resolution as amended. Council-
womuu Stimler abstained.
13 . S .W. McDONALD STREET SEWER LID BID OPENING
(a) Director of Public Works advised Council that 19 bids were
received the low being approximately $98 ,000 with a high of
$265 ,000. The engineer' s estimate was $150 ,000 . He recom-
mended awarding the bid to the apparent low bidder, M.E.M.
Corporation of Corvallis in the amount of $98 , 207 . 85 . (See
attached exhibit "A") .
(b) Motion by Councilman Brian, seconded by Councilwoman Stimler
to award the bid to M.E.M. Corporation in the amount of
$98 ,207 .85 .
Approved by unanimous vote of Council .
PUBLIC HEARINGS - 8 :00 P.M.
14. VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE APPEAL - V15-80 and CU 14-80 DAVID
CHURCH) NPO #2
A request by the Tigard City Council to reopen a public hearing
which was held on February 23 , 1981 , by David Church appealing
PAGE 3 - REGULAR COUNCIL MINUTES , April 27 , 1981
NMI M
the Planning Commission denial of a request for a variance and
conditional use to construct a single family attached unit in
an R-7 zone on a .52 acre parcel located at 12533 S .W. Grant
Avenue (Wash . Co. Tax Map 2Si 2BB, Tax Lot 1801) .
Testimony will be limited to summation of previous statements .
(a) Public Hearing Opened
(b) Legal Counsel advised Council of reasons for hearing appeal a
second time. Those were as follows :
(1) Notice of the appeal was not furnished to Council in their
packets at the time of the first appeal hearing.
(2) At the close of the public hearing, Council did not make
tentative findings to be adopted by Ordinance .
For these reasons , Legal Counsel requested appeal be heard again .
(c) Public Testimony
Proponents : Mr. David Church, 6328 S .C;. Haynes Road , Portland
addressed his concerns regarding the procedures
used in the application. He discussed the
variance and access problems in the request and
stood
stated that he felt the Planning Director misunder-
the City ordinances and questioned his
ability to administer the zoning ordinances . Mr.
Church requested that Council reverse the Planning
Commission decision and approve the conditional
use request for attached single family dwelling on
PUBLIC HEARINGo
oCLOSED
(d) Legal Counsel requested Council make their findings in the form
Of a tentative decision based upon a statement of facts and
findings giving an idea of the areas of concern and then
instruct staff to prepare a statement of findings and facts
in ordinance form. Legal Council confirmed review was only of
Commission on denial of Conditional Use Request .
(e) Mayor Bishop moved to reverse the Planning Commission decision.
Motion seconded by Councilman Scheckla .
(f) Councilman Brian, Cook and Councilwoman Stimler expressed their
concerns with the use of the lot .
There was agreement and
sympathy with the developer in regards
ing the need for a variance , the to the confusion regard-
three members of Council
expressed their concerns with the nature of the setting, quot-
ing Tigard Municipal Code Section 18 . 72 .010 which reads in
part "If the site is inappropriate for the use requested,
the Planning Commission may deny approval of the conditional
use . "
PAGE 4 - REGULAR COUNCIL MINUTES, April 27 , 1981
(g) Mayor Bishop expressed his feelings that the owner of the ��"`'C�
property should have the right to decide what type of develop- Tt
ment to place on - the site / His opinion was that Council did l-
no t have that choice. 7if it does not voilate the permitted uses in
that zone.
(h) Councilwoman Stimler expressed the concern that the City is
not going to correct errors in poor planning by continuing to
do poor planning.
(i) Motion to reverse the Planning Commission decision was denied
2 to 3 , Councilmen Brian and Cook and Councilwoman Stimler
voting nay.
(j ) Motion by Councilman Brian to uphold the Planning Commission
decision preliminarily, based on a general finding of fact
that the site is inappropriate for the use requested with
specific concerns expressed regarding the access feasibility.
Motion seconded by Councilman Cook .
Motion to uphold the Planning Commission decision was approved
three to two, Councilman Scheckla and Mayor Bishop voting nay.
(k) Councilman Brian spoke to the inadequacy of the Conditional Use
code regarding the denial points of a request, leaving it up
to a matter of opinion as to whether a request should be
approved or not . Consensus of Council was that this section
of the code should be examined at a future date .
Public Works Director left 8 : 55 P.M.
15 . ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 7-80 (Planned District Development
Chapter 18 . 56 Amendment) .
A request by City of Tigard for an amendment to Chapter 18 . 56 , Sec-
tions 20 ,30, and 40 relating to Planned District Development and
deviations or variances from standards of Title 18 and Title 17 .
(a` ,-ibiic Hearing Opened.
(b; -lanning Director stated that the request would eliminate
some of the problems addressed in the David Church appeal .
(c) Public Testimony: No one appeared to speak.
(d) Planning Director recommended approval ,
(e) Public Hearing Closed
(f) QRDINANCE No, 81-19 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18 . 56 OF THE
y° TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE , RELATING TO PLAN-
yyY...'
NED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (P-D) .
fY'
�f-
F
(g) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Brian to
approve.
.y
t
14i
PAGE 5 - REGULAR COUNCIL MINUTES, April 27 , 1981
Approved by 4 to 1 majority vote of Council , Councilman
Scheckla voting nay.
Ordinance No. 81-19 will require a second reading .
16 . ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, ZOA 1-81 (A70/80PD HOME FOR THE AGED)
A request by the City of Tigard establishing certain criteria to
be met in the A70/80PD Zone .
(a) Public Hearing Opened .
(b) Planning Director discussed purpose of request by the Cite.
(c) Public Testimony.
Opponent : Ms . Pat Hutchison, NPO #1 Committee Member , request-
ed Council rewrite the portion of the ordinance
which addresses building -ieight requirements . She
expressed concern , on behalf of the NPO #1 committee ,
regarding the emergency and fire life safety feat-
ures of an eight story building as required in the
code proposal . She also addressed the subject of
where a convenience retail outlet should be located :
inside vs outside the building for the aged .
Mr. LaValle Allen, NPO #4 Chairman, advised Council
of his concern regarding height of building request-
ed Council reconsider this section of the code .
Cross Examination :
City Administrator questioned NPO #1 members as to what build-
ing height they would consider appropriate fora home for the
aged.
Ms . Pat Hutchison responded that 35 ' to 40' would be much more
acceptable .
Lengthy discussion followed between staff, Council and NPO #1
members regarding aspects of the projects possible under this
code .
The following amendments were added to the code proposal .
(1) 18 . 25 .020 Permitted Uses . Section 3 is amended to read as fol-
lows : Convenience retail facilities offering services to
these residents shall be constructed internally for the use of
the residences within the complex. "
(2) 18 .25 .050 Building Height . is amended as follows :
"The maximum buz ing eight allowed in this zone shall not
exceed eight (8) stories or eighty-five (85) feet , whichever
is less . "
PAGE 6 - REGULAR COUNCIL MINUTES, April 27 , 1981
(3) 18 . 25 .060 Additional Requirements .
lastSection 4 is amended in the
sentence to read asoTows:
"All buildings included on site which are separate from the main
living units must meet their respective parking space require-
ments under the code. "
(4) 18 . 25 .060 Additional Re uirements . Section 6 is amended to read
as o ows : A eve opment shall be a
the appropriate fire r tpproved in writing by
approval shall specificalladdresstherescueandfire life
on dittmhh
y
safety aspects related to the proposed development . "
(d) Planning Director recommended approval with amendments as
stated .
(e) Public Hearing Closed.
(f) ORDINANCE No . 81-20 AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 18 .25 HOME
FOR THE AGED MULTIFAMILY PLANNED DEVELOP-
MENT DlcrrnTr. (Ki0/80PD) TO THE TIGARD
MUNICIPAL CODE DECLARING AN EMERGENCY AND
FIXING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Home for the
Aged A70/80PD) .
(g) Motion by Councilwoman Stimler, seconded by Councilman Brian
to approve Ordinance No. 81-20 as amended.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council .
RECESS : 9 :391 P,ii_
RECONVENE: 9 :48 P.M.
17 . ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA 6-81
NPO #2
A request by property owners and City of Tigard for a zone change
from Washington County M-1 "Industrial-Light" to City of Tigard M-4 "Industrial Park" and annex the area into the City limits
the area of S .W. in
Cascade Avenue (Wash. Co. Tax Map 1S1 35B, ISI 35C ,
& ISI 35BA, Tax Lots 1200, 1201 , 1202 , 1304, 1305 , 1609 , 1611 , 1802 ,
2800, 3300, 3302 & 3303) ,
(a) Public Hearing Opened
(b) Planning Director gave summary of annexation area and request
noting that zone change will be to the comprehensive plan
designation.
(c) Public Testimony,
Opponents : Mr. Lee Heath, 10450 S .W. Crestwood Drive , Beaverton,
filed objection to annexation because of additional
taxation which will be experienced by his company
(National Appliance Company) .
-; PAGE 7 - REGULAR COUNCL MINUTES, April 27 , 1.981
Councilman Brian clarified that Mr. Heath was not in this
annexation but would be considered in the near future by the
Boundary Review Commission per Resolution No. 81-41 .
(d) Planning Director recommended approval .
(e) Public Hearing Closed .
ANDS
(f) ORDINANCE No. $1-21 BY OHEIBOUNDARYTIFYING COMMISSION, ORDER NO.N OF 1667 ,
AND ADOPTING FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO AN
AMENDMENT TO THE 1970 ZONING MAP OF THE CITY
OF TIGARD TO CONFORM WITH THE NPO #2 PLAN AS
ADOPTED AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY AND FIX-
ING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Cascade Annexation) .
(g) Motion by Councilwoman Stimler, seconded by Councilman Brian ,
to adopt .
Approved by four to one majority vote of Council , Councilman
Secheckla voting nay.
Ordinance No . 81-21 will require a second reading .
18 . COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CPRPD 3-81 (ANGELYNN/
HAMREUS) R7 to Al2LD PRELIMINARY GENERAL PLAN REVIEW. NPO #2
A request by Calvin Hamreus for a Comprehensive Plan Revision from
City of Tigard R7 "Single Family Residential" to Al2PD "Multifamily
Residential Planned Development District" preliminary and general
plan review taking in all the lots surrounding S .W. Angel Place
(Wash. Co. Tax Map 1S1 35CD, Tax Lots 2401 , 2402 , 3900 , 4400 , 4100 ,
4200 , 4300 , 4500, 4600 , & 4700) .
(a) Planning Director advised Council the Planning Commission recom-
mended approval . He also advised Council that a transportation
plan had been made for the area surrounding the site of the pro-
posal and will be adopted as part of this request.
(b) Discussion followed regarding the circulation plan . and types
of housing to be developed in the area.
(c) ORDINANCE No. 81-22 AN RESPEDCTNTOCANADOPTING APPLICATIONDFORSAWITH
COMPRE-
HENSIVE PLAN REVISION TO THE 1975 NPO
#2 PLAN MAP OF THE CITY OF TIGARD DECLAR-
ING AN EMERGENCY AND FIXING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE. (Angelynn CPR-PD 3-81)
(d) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Brian to
adopt.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council .
PAGE 8- REGULAR COUNCIL MINUTES, April 27 , 1981
19 . COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CPRPD 2--18 (EDWARDS
INDUSTRIES MEDIUM TO HIGH DENSITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGE)
A request by Edwards Industries for a Preliminary Plan Review for
a Comprehensive Plan. Revision from City of Tigard A-12 "Multifamily
Residential Urban Medium Density" to A-20PD "Multifamily Residential
Urban High Density Planned Unit Development" to build a home for
the aged located at 14240 S .W. Pacific Highway (Wash. Co. Tax :lap
2S1 10A, Tax Lots 302 , 400 , 501) .
(a) Planning Director recommended approval noting Planning Commis-
sion approval of plan and request .
(b) Mr. Michael Lyons , Wilsey & Ham, advised Council that the
preliminary approval. has been received from the Federal Govern-
ment for federal funding assistance 'n this project if the home
for the aged is constructed.
(c) After discussion regarding site and parking space requirements
in relationship to a home for the aged, Councilman Brian
requested another condition be added to the ordinance to
read as follows :
"11 . The only residential use for this parcel shall be a home
for the aged. : "
(d) ORDINANCE No. 81-23 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINnINGS [JITH
RESPECT TO AN APPLICATI::c; v-UR A COMPRE-
HENSIVE PLAN REVISION TO THE 1978 NPO #6
PLAN MAP OF THE CITY OF TIGARD DECLARING
AN EMERGENCY AND FIXING AN EFFECTIVE DATE .
(Edwards Industries CPR PD 2-81) .
(e) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilwoman Stimler
to approve with the addition of condition No. 11 .
Approved by unanimous vote of Council .
20. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION CPR 5-81 (GALLO VINEYARDS R7 to R5) NPO#7
A request by Herb Morissette Builders for a Comprehensive Plan
Revision from City of Tigard R7 "Single Family Residential 7 ,500
square foot lots" to City of Tigard R-5 "Single Family Residential
5,000 square foot :lots" to build single family and single family
attached homes located at the southeast corner of S .W. Tigard and
S .W. 113th Avenue (Wash. Co . Tax Map ISI 34DC, Tax Lot 2900) .
(a) Planning Director stated the Planning Commission requested
approval . He gave brief synopsis of request and recommended
approval .
Legal Counsel left 10: 28 P.M.
(b) Discussion followed regarding the street plan and school land
development.
PAGE 9 - REGULAR COUNCIL MINUTES , April 27 , 1981
(c) ORDINANCE No. 81-24 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS WITH RESPECT
TO AN APPLICATION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
REVISION TO THE 1979 NPO #7 MAP OF THE CITY
OF TIGARD DECLARING AN EMERGENCY AND FIXING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE. CPR 5-81 (Gallo ' s Vine-
yard) .
(d) Motion by Councilwoman Stimler, seconded by Councilman Cook to
adopt.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council .
21 . ZONE CHANGE ZC 5-81 (DUNHAM COMPANY RU4 to CP) NPO #4
A request by Gary Dunham for a zone change from Washington County
RU4 to City of Tigard NPO #4 Plan designation CP "Commercial Pro-
fessional" located at 12720 S .W. 67th Avenue and lots adjoining
north, northeast, and east (Wash. Co . Tax Map 2Sl IAD, Tax Lots
100 , 200 , 600 and 700) .
(a) Planning Director noted Planning Commission approval to change
zone to the Comprehensive Plan designation.
(b) ORDINANCE No. 81-25 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS WITH
RESPECT TO AN APPLICATION FOR A ZONE
CHANGE TO THE 1978 NPO #4 PLAN MAP OF
THE CITY OF TIGARD, DECLARING AN EMERGENCY
AND FIXING AN EFFECTIVE DATE . (Dunham Co .
ZC 5-81)
(c) Motion by Councilman Brian, seconded by Councilman Cook to
adopt.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council .
22. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION, (CPR 4-81 HAMPTON STREET RU 4 to CP) NPO#4
A request by City of Tigard and the NPO #4 members for a Compre-
hensive Plan Revision from Washington County RU4 to City of Tigard
CP "Commercial Professional" located on S .W. Hampton Street between
70th and 72nd (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 IAC, Tax Lots 1100, 1200, 1300)
(a) Planning Director stated the Planning Commission recommended
approval to the comprehensive plan designation.
(b) Mr. J . B. Bishop, Barbur Blvd in Portland, requested clarifica-
tion of April 7 , 1981 , Planning Commission minutes regarding
this issue . Specifically that a report comment by Legal
Counsel stating that the NPO can "undo" something that they
have done or approved in the past .
Staff and Council affirmed the fact that the NPO can request
a change in the NPO Plan, however, the Planning Commission and
Council are the only bodies that can approve the change
request .
PAGE 10 - REGULAR COUNCIL MINUTES, April 27 , 1981
(c) ORDINANCE No . 81-26 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS WITH
RESPECT TO AN APPLICATION FOR A COMPRE-
HENSIVE PLAN REVISION TO THE 1978 NPO #4
PLAN MAP OF THE CITY OF TIGARD DECLARING
AN EMERGENCY AND FIXING AN EFFECTIVE DATE .
(Hampton Street/City of Tigard) .
(d) Motion by Councilman Brian, seconded by Councilwoman Stimler
to adopt .
Approved by unanimous vote of Council .
23 . NPO #1 LETTER OF REQUEST.
(a) Mayor Bishop stated there was a request for consideration of
this item by the NPO #1 .
(b) Mr. Gene Richman, NPO #1 representative, requested Council con-
sider waiver of $500.00 filing fee for a comprehensive plan
change request they wished to submit to Planning and that the
item be considered on the May 5, 1981 , Planning Commission
meeting since other items affecting this area are being consid-
ered that evening. The Comprehensive Plan Request (CPR) request
is to redesignate Ash Street from a "collector" to "local"
street . Mr. Richman advised Council that the April 15 , 1981 ,
NPO #1 minutes reflect a motion by the committee to delete
condition No. 28 from their plan which deals with Ash Street
and its proposed extension.
(c) Planning Director stated that there was inadequate time for a
public notice to be liven for this to be considered at the May
5th Planning Commission hearing.
(d) Discussion followed, at great length, as to whether a CPR
filing was necessary and at what time and place the considera-
tion of the Ash Avenue extension would be considered.
(e) Consensus of Council was that the public hearing would be in
June before the Planning Commission to consider the CPR request
by NPO ,{#1 to change their NPO Plan by deleting condition #28
which allows the extension of Ash Street. However, all
aspects of the Main Street development proposal will be
discussed at the May 5, 1981 , Planning Commission meeting.
At that time, discussion would be considered regarding the
extension of Ash Street at the time of development of the
project.
Council also advised the NPO that their policy is to waive
fees for NPO `s who officially request changes to the code .
24. RESOLUTION No. 81-43 A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL TRANS-
FERRING FUNDS FOR UNFORESEEN EXPENDITURES .
PAGE 11 - REGULAR COUNCIL MINUTES, April 27 , 1981
(a) Finance Director stated that the transfers included in the
resolution were according to Council requests from previous
meetings .
(b) Motion by Councilman Brian, seconded by Councilman Cook to
approve.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council .
25 . LCDC MAINTENANCE GRANT - $7 ,662 - APPROVE AGREEMENT
(a) City Administrator requested Council approve an agreement with
LCDC which would make the City of Tigard eligible to receive
$7 , 662, upon acceptance of the Comprehensive Plan, from LCDC .
(b) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Brian to
authorize the Mayor to sign on behalf of the City.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council .
Mayor Bishop requested that agenda items No. 21 through 23 be considered
at a future meeting.
26 . PROGRESS REPORT - SELECTION OF CONSULTANTS FOR URBAN RENEWAL.
(a) Planning Director reported that only one consultant had applied
at this time for the study. Mayor Bishop reminded staff and
Council that the request of Council was for three consultant ' s
proposals be GO11Sidered in this study.
27 . OTHER
(a) City Administrator stated that rough draft letters to the
Senators and Legislators were distributed for Council consid-
eration which will file the City 's request to not approve
the current legislation on Municipal Court and Building Depart-
ment fees .
Council expressed their desire to sign original letters at the
April 28th Council meeting.
(b) Planning Director advised Council that an appeal had been
filed against the Dale ' s Glenn proposal .
(c) Councilman Brian reminded Council of the Chamber of Commerce ,
First Nighter Dinner to be held on May 1 , 1981 .
28 . ADJOURNMENT 11 : 10
ity Recor er
ATTEST:
Y 77JJ /
Mayor
PAGE 12 REGULAR COUNCIL MINUTES April 27 , 1981
�r.. ..i.. Y+ ; l+:..'
Date 4/27/81
Z wish to testify beEore the Tigard City Council on
the following item: (Please print your name)
Item Description: AGENDA .ITEM #12
T79_41nvn H-W-e r- the Acid ZOA 1 -$l
roponent (for) -
Opponent (against)
ame, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation
1
l
Date 4/27/81
I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on
the following item: (Please print your name)
Item Description: Ar.FWrIA T'rF,M E 1 -4
ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION Cascade Park ZCA 6-81
roponent (for) Opponent (against) .; ` `:,
ame, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation
�tt
t,
Date �A, 177/ 1
I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on
the following item: (Please print your name)
Item Description: 7Y,� HE2A J'i #1!jRM #1
EDWARDS INDUSTRIES CPRPD 2-81
Proponent (for) Opponent (against)
Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation
� • L.
��eL�
Da to
I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on
the following item: (Please print your name)
Item Description: AGENDA ITEM #18
HAMPTON ST CAR 4-2]
Proponent (for) Opponent (against)
Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation
r-.
N.
eye p
S.W. MCDONALD ST. SANITARY SEWER LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (CONT,)
CONTRACTORADDRESS
`---- PRE QUAL. Bid Bond BID AMOUNT
27. Artco Constr. 12510 SW Scholls Ferry Rd 97223 ^�
X
2.8. Don McLau hlin
----___..__8 8925 SE Monterey,
29. AP 97266 DS E uipment X 1441839
9.._- PO Box 515$97208
30. SCCI. Inc. 1922 McGilchrieC 97302 -s—
31.
Ta_%I- uaa Co. 12020 SW Tonquin 97140
32. McCormick Pipe PO Box 157_, Hills. 97123
_ _.__. _
33. Parsons Excay. Rt. 3 Box 560 Hillsboro 97123 __
. _. __._.___ _._i..______.--.__-•_ _.....__...` _ X X -----__1701403.85
34. Bowers Excay. 3427 Washburn Wa _ K. '
--•-- _.-Y r_ Fa 11s, OR X
35. .M.E.M. Corp
p _... ..____P0 Box_966.,__Cprvallzs X7330 __—
36. . Doug-__Constr. X --•
98,2Q t.83
.._._.. __.._._ PU. Box
37. United Pipe PO Box 17048 Portland 97217 —
38. .Lord Bros. Constr .__ . __ -
---
.. Bo?�.1.7.1:9I�Pux�.�._.4Z217
39. .1A.-Moore Inc. ._.__.__ PO Box 12368 Salem 97309
V.A. McQuezr '�--~-------- — X 147,756-.80
Y 6878 Burnett St. S.E., Salem, Oregon 97301
aLae.r c -� X
� 162,322.53
BIDS WERE OPENED 3 :30 P.M. Thursday, April 9, 1981, City Administrator's Officer City Hall
and the above listed bids were received.
�-r
C1 y Recorder
NMIi
S.W. MCDONALD ST. SANITARY SEWER LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
/CONTRACTOR ADDRESS FRE UAL. Bid Bond BID AMOUNT
1. Marshall Assoc. Box 278,, Tualatin 97062 X
2. Eortland Conerete Pipe Box 248. Tualatin. 97061.
3. 1 Exc.-C91 15880 SW 79th. Tigard X 102,545.22
4. K & G Constr. 340 SW 209th Ave. Aloha 97007__ , X
5. Warren__jMw.jj ___ _ PQ BOX_23.�1. , Tigard _r r-._�.------
6. Tobey's Excay. 33003 SW TV Hwy. Hillsboro 97123 X X 133 521. 0
7. Wer Wet _ 5606 NE 16th . Portland 97211 X X 101.455.80
8• G _ 1021 Elm Stree ,_Forest Glove 97116__7{ ` _� _X __ l22�961.40 -
9. Miller-& .Sons-.__._-_ _Rtt_5, Bo�c_62,._$hexwood�J_140 X 127 965 90
10. Eclipse Constructio'L ,M0 Box 3 Sand 7005
11. Ken Hood Constr. 16740 SE Vineyard Rd.. Milwaukie X -
12. Hinds._Supply_Co._- 4000 SW dockens Ave., Beaverton _ -
13. Hydronia Inc. -
14. tJeK1477 SE Brower Rd., Clackamas
15. Bill Pae Constr. PO Box 498, Newberg X X _ `-164 203._50
16. Tom Ault -11
j5--L14 Tiedeman - -
17. LibertCanstr. Box 384,.,_Qackamas -)L- X _lll 832.71 --
18. O.!%_i4cCallen Constr. 8475 SW Murray_ _ X X 145,552.90
19. Kurt Kimsey Constr.** --_15252_SE LaBonita�, Milw. X_ X 165,476.00
20. Bones Constr. _-508 SW 209th Aloha 97007 _ X_ X 265, 138.45
21. Paco Pump_s...__- -- _--- PO_Box_4285,___---
22. System Constr. 8130 SE Tolman Portland Xy
23. Oregon Elect. Con - 4824 NF 42nd, Portland
24. Fuiten Plg. Heatint; 2004 Main St. Forest Grove 4
X 1.74,543.6. .._._._.. .
25. Cascade L�itehing.._�-.�.,�Z�.�L�,b�ty
26. �1204„__Portland
**No signed addendum
PAYMENT OF BILLS FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL c i
PROGRAM BUDGET
Community Protection APRIL 27, 1981
Police 6,739.39
Public Works 8,093.50
Municipal Court 802. 11
Planning 1 ,645.54
Building 771 .40
Total Community Protection 18,051 .94
Home & Community Quality
Public Works
4,989.28
Social Services
Library 1 ,565. 16
Aged Services
Youth Services
Historical
Total Social Services 1 ,565, 16
Policy & Administration
Mayor & Council 399.61
Administration 614. 16
Finance _2,353.30
Total Policy & Administration 3,367.07
City Wide Support Functions
Non-departmental 6,625.75
Misc. Accounts (refunds & payroll deductions, etc.) 1202431 .59
CAPITOL BURET
Community Protections
Road Acquisition & Dev.
Parks Acquisition & Dev.
Storm Drainage
Total Community Protection
Support Services
Building Improvements 63,657.00
DEBT SERVICE
General Obligation Bond
( Bancroft Bond 468.75
\ UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY
Contract
TOTAL AMOUNT OF CHECKS WRITTEN 219, 156.54
National Transportation Week
af
F14C CORPORATION
April 7, 1981 P.G. Box 3616
Portland, Oregon
97208
The Honorable Wilbur A. Bishop
Mayor of Tigard
10590 W. S. Cook Lane
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Dear Mayor Bishop:
President Reagan has proclaimed the week of May 10-16 as 1981
"NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION WEEK." Joining in this proclamation is
Oregon's Governor Vic Atiyeh and other mayors in Oregon. We are
asking your participation in NTW by proclaiming this week as
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION WEEK" in your city. (An example is
attached for your perusal.)
This educational event is sponsored by the transportation industrN
to dramatize the importance of all modes of transportation in
our societyr and its impact on the day-to-day lives of our citizens.
There is a heavy emphasis on discussions of career opportunities
in transportation for young people.
In addition, the general public is invited to view a display of
transportation equipment and demonstrations of their uses, along
with a variety of films, slide shows, and other materials designed
to explain the transportation industry.
This project has been very successful in the past for our state and
our industry, and with your participation this year should be even
better.
Would you, therefore, please participate by issuing a proclamation
on your city's official seal and returning it to me? We are most
appreciative of your involvement in making Oregon an active voice
in the 1981 "NATION21L, TRANSPORTATION WEEK."
Sincerely,
1hrnA1E. Carroll, Jr.
Oregon State Chairman
National Transportation Week
0
SPRINGFI'-=LU. OREGON 37477
325 NORTH A STR`E'f
OFFICE OF THE 726-3700
MAYOR
CITY MANAGER
PRQCL,!1'.i LT IO\
j's�IITslZ-L•AS, -the tralispor-ta tion ii)dUSt2'y is recoglii�ect �a s an c�a trE Il)ely
vital :force in the economic j°:elfwre Of the United States o:F
America From the local to the i.nterenatiOnal level ; and
17IIEREAS, the economic welfare of the State O- Oregon and all it.�
cor:rnunities is highly ciepenctent upon the tra.IIspox-ta-tion System; and
l'III3REAS, transportation provides great benefit to our nation a_n
providing; the mea.t)s n"f transpar'L:i.ng ec.OI)omic goods to 1))a7'i:et areas
from the local level to tl,^ in tez u.ltTonal level , and ill providing
the _fzcilities for tYlc 1:10 .. °:,c lz t of passengers; tinct
1vI_Ir:urc%g; the transport-,ltjon industry provides essent Tal Mployment
.for millions of people in the nation and m^tce_: €>1c:� t c.on�r _L«tio=ls
in ederal and state t-UXes•
�OZ�', 'THEREFORE, I , tTern P.Ieye)-, 1.1ayor o.0 the City of Springf:ield,
I
Oregon , do hereby proclaim ..the viceo f. T.ta�' l l thx'oiLl;'h .C7, 1980 as
NATIONTAT., T pLAT�SPORTATION I';UUK
and call L).p011 all c:itizen,. to gi`Te full recognition and s}1Ppoz't
to the 'transport2_ti.on industry in Spr:i.ngrf-i.0-10t and in the
United States..
In testilc)ony ti�l'lerc o-C, I hereunto
set m}� hand anct bare caused to be
VY
. ;T" ''Y! affixed the Sect1 of the City Of
t
Spr-in€,'f_ie7.d, Oreg'On , this 17th day
'v-y of Iaarch , 1tJa0_
l;-
a 1
Mayor, City Ofgl field
.� 7 J
!fi
Department of Land Conservation and Development
vecrOR AnYEH 1175 COURT STREET N.E., SALEM, OREGON 97310 PHONE (503) 378-4926
OOvltNOq
April 13, 1981 RECEIVE®
APR 17 1581
Chief Administrative Officer CITY OF TIGARD
City of Tigard
P.O. Box 23483
Tigard, OR 97223
RE: MAINTENANCE GRANT FUNDING
The Department of Land Conservation and Development has been holding
a Maintenance Grant to be paid to you upon acknowledgment of your
comprehensive land use plan by the Land Conservation and Development
Commission. Eligibility was established for this grant by your plan
submittal and request for acknowledment during calendar 1980. The number
of plans submitted during 1980 has exceeded the Department's and Commis-
sion's capacity to adequately review, however, and delay has occurred.
' The Department now finds itself in a position with time running out on
its funding. As a result, I would like to enter into an agreement to
reser e these funds for which you are eligible. The
to you following the Commission's action on grant will be paid
- addition to an funding a your plan, and will be in
Y g ppropriated by the legislature for 1981-1982
Maintenance Grants.
Upon acceptance and execution of the attached agreement b an authorized
OTT7Clal lease re�urn �t immed�atel to the Department of Land Conser-
vation and Development in Salem. If t is agreement is not returned to
the Department before June 30, 1981 at the absolute latest, we will be
unable to reserve the 1980-1981 Maintenance Grant amounts for you and
these monies will be lost to the local planning effort.
Should you have any questions on this agreement and fund reservation,
please contact your local LCDC Field Representative or John Vaughn,
Administrative Services Manager, in Salem at 378-5881.
Cordially,
P. J!. Kvarste-n
Director
WJK:JV:mh
4748A
DEPARTMENT OF LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT
It is agreed between the parties:
I. Parties and Term
This agreement, dated March 30, 1981, is between the Department of Land Conservation
and Development (the Department) and the City of Tigard (Grantee) . This agreement
is effective March 30, 1981, and terminates June 30, 1982.
2. Financial Assistance: Ackn—led ent
The sum of $7,662 will be granted to Grantee upon action by the Land Conservation
and Development Commission acknowledging the comprehensive land use plan to be in
compliance with Oregon's Land Use Planning Goals. This represents the amount of
financial assistance that would have been provided by acknowledgment prior to
June 30, 1981.
3. Financial Assistance: Continuance
An amount not to exceed $7,662 will be ?Wade available to Grantee upon its acceptance
of any Continuance Order issued by the Land Conservation and Development Commission
after review of the land use plan. This represents the sum that would have been
available upon acceptance of continuance order issued before June 30, 1981. Any
payment made as a result of a continuance order shall reduce the amount payable
under Item 2 above.
4. Allowable Expenditures and Conditions
r
Grantee ensures that fands will he ��so,J ,..
exp^=�nsc yr maintenance of its acknowledged comprehenfOr sive landnt or eimbrsementuseuplan, oro
othehe
expense of actions identified in a continuance order issued by the Land Conservation
and Development Commission. Grantee agrees to all comprehensive plan maintenance
agreement conditions (see reverse).
5. Execution
All terms and conditions of this agreement are accepted:
FOR THE DEPARTMENT:
FOR THE GRANTEE:
Name (Print)
Name (Print)Sign
Signature
Title
Title
joem
Date
Date
J'J:of
4752A
DEPARTMENT OF LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT CONDITIONS
A. Standard Conditions
1. A report of work performed as a result of this grant and the expendit-
ures during the grant period shall be submitted by the Grantee to
DLCD at the term of the agreement. Eligibility for subsequent
comprehensive plan maintenance funding is contingent upon receipt of
such reporting by the Department of Land Conservation and Development.
2. The grant funds received by Grantee pursuant to this agreement shall
be expended only to accomplish and carry out the activities either
appropriate to ma i ntenanCe of an, acnnt w"&edged land use plan, c a
described in the LCDC continuance order.
During continuance, the Grantee agrees to use the maintenance grant
monies disbursed solely for the correction of plan deficiencies
listed in the Commission adopted Continuance Order and further agrees
to resubmit its pian and ordinances for acknowledgment by the end
-date of the Continuance period.
3. Standard accepted accounting and fiscal records will be maintained by
Grantee of the receipt and expenditure of funds pursuant to this
grant agreement. Grant accounting records will be separately
maintained from other accounting records.
4. The Attorney General of the State of Oregon and the Director of the
Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) or any other
duly authourized representative, shall have access to the right to
examine any pertinent books, documents, papers, and records of
transactions related to this agreement for three years after the
final report is submitted. During the grant period , reports on work
activities will be furnished promptly to the Director of DLCD if
requested.
5. Ir Grantee slide; fain to comply with any of the requirements u.
conditions of this agreement, the LCDC may, in its sole discretion
and without incurring liability therefore, refuse to perform further
pursuant to this agreement, except that LCDC shall make further
disbursement to Grantee necessary to pay for services accrued, but
not paid prior to the date of such refusal. Grantee shall upon
demand by LCDC promptly repay LCDC any unobligated funds.
B. S�,eci al Conditions
JV:mh
S028A
....i..w�.- e.�i•`. ....-Rr.�. ...+ecHf..ti..a-5ar+. - ...J� .. _ .__. .. .
3
Avoid Verbal Messages
CITY OF TIGARD
To 0 t- - ------- From :
Subjec' QANC) re) + Date: 14 - ;L
-- I� � :R Apr ; 1 pA,,,n•�[a"�
6 L i toe i"c, -�'o '? a X vL,--
13-S I `d 16Aeo
�ec . �S�'l�'i � -1a.g � �e �•��
Bum
Elm
Im
t �•rt. t'4�r
1N,�
1 t
MEMO
TO: CITY COUNCIL
DATE : APRIL 27, 1981
FROM: BUILDING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: MONTHLY REPORT FOR MONTH OF MARCH , 1981
March' s building activity included permits for 13 signs ,
23 single family residential, 4 residential alter and repair ,
1 commercial, 13 commercial alter and repair, 1 site grading
and 2 miscellaneous for a total valuation of $1, 792, 517. 00.
Fees for 45 permits $ 8903. 80
Fees for 13 signs 265. 00
1000. 00
plumbing Activity - 35 556. 00
Mechanical Activity - 29 1186. 00
Business Licenses - 32
TOTAL - - - - $11910.80
Sewer Permits - 2B $19325. 00
Sewer Inspections 725. 00
King City did not have any building activity this month.
C . . • • • • • . • • • . • • • . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .
O OCSOOOOOOCOC) OOO00000m 000OON0000CD CZ) C) O000) OO
•-I G 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ln O O O O Ln O O O O O O m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
+3 C) O IZT m N -4 O cn O 4.0 N N m CO N N m L; O M U7 LO %D O _-; LO M O O Cl 00 O O U7 L[7 O Q O
CO
3 kn -jDriNr- OL- MNNr-c .--ir- M N -400r- d -,-r C14 N CDt�7d' L1) ON � MLr) M -1 -4 -1 " M
1-1 [` U)LD M L- ::I' U7 U7 CD LO 'l3 U7 Ln --J- ';T Ln Ln 7 1.13 l0 -7:3" N Ln .-1 ri 1-4 .'-i M
(O N
> 4M
H 4 H H
\\\\ 4 H 4 H H 4 H H H H 4
m ro m co \\\\\\\\\\\
W c0 CU ro Lo CU co m w m co
cC3 cc co m co Lo CO co lu CO Co CO CO co co m CO co CO CU Co CO co cu CO co CO •-I ri .-i .-i .-i r q .-i r i --i r-i r-i ri
rI --I.-I •rl --1 -4 •-1 •.--1 ••--1 -pi •r1 •rf •ri -r4 -A -r-i •ri -H •ri •r-1 -q -1 -r-I •.-I -r-i •ri •ri CU CO CO CO CO CO W CO CO CO CO CO
4.3 -i-)'ice -cam 4.3 +) 4-7 +P 43 4) -P 4-3 4.7 -F-l' 4-) 4-' 4� +J 4J -N �) +3 -I-3 -Ft -N -P 4-3 -1 .r-i -H •r-1 •r-i •.i -H •.-i •r-1 "-1 •.i -r-I
m i C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C 0 0 0 U U U U U U U U U
m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m w H H H 4 4 H H H H H 4
'D - '0 -0 "O -0 -0 -O "0 '0 '0U a 'D -0 -0 � -v -a -0 -0 -0 -0 U
'O A .,-I HE E E E E E E E E E E E
+3 .,-I •rI'
M M m In M m M m M m M M M m M M m 0 m m M M m M m M M E E E E E E E E E E E E
ri m ow m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m In m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ca H H H 4 H H 4 H H FC H H H H H FH H 4 L-H H H H H H H H H U U U U U U U L) U U U U
m
r-1
U
Q
E
lr
I m
CG) O3 •ri (O m H
> H O O H
H •r-i r-1 T Cr Cr- m >,
H m CO +3 Li CO
CD C m Cl) 3 m >, >1 3 m
LJ cu +3 CO Ol m U +3 L m H 4 CO L 3
C1 m 4_3 J H 3 4-3 -O m +3 m m m m -P m m m m m4-�' 4-) 3 m CO M +3 Ol H H 4 m Ol C m
1 H 3 C H •r-1 3 H > > > > H > > 3 3 > H H C 3 r-I m -0 .,i +3 m m C •ri m 3
C.3 CO 3 F3 O m 3 Cr 4-3 C 3 -ri •ri •r-1 •r-1 3 -H -1 C C C 7 3 m C C1 C m cu = CO L- L- O = > C
Z ___1 0 0 H U > 0 111 m O H H H 4 O H H m m m O O > m M H O O S m
H U 0 3 ct U T 3 > 0 00 a 0 U m 0 > > > U U cC » > --3 Cr U M M M m U CL
a 4 3 o C m o CC ¢ ¢ ¢ Cr H CU CO •r-1 c r-1 r-1 -r1 m o
J m L H U co t .0 C U "O C C C C -ice C C _0 _ L cD L cu 4-- .-I r-i r-i H o- 3 0
H E 4-3 m 014-3 4-3 E -13 C m m m m C m m _0 U -O C C +3 -0 L H m 4-3 •ri C- O O m •-1 -0 _3 S
E CD > -N H M CO -H -43 H N .--1 -4 r-4 r-1 CO r-1 r-1 4 H H N N t0 H U •ri C CO -rc U 4- -C L a U E -P
m 3 Co"i C O Cv r-1 L C M 4 r; - r, H r-i ri M c^_ rn Cy N O M H CO H N C CO O D U CL CO •-1 H Ln
M M r-I= CO i= r I r-i U m CO r l -r-i •r1 -1 •r-1 LO • 4 •r1 M CO a) -4 1-1 -4 m Q Li CO co O O. U CO u) O 0- z •r-1 M
Q M :1 i= =� -4 m cn lL
m 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 CL 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
c¢ HCncnCn3Lncnu7u73Cr3U73333u733tncn v) cncncncntncn3 :BmnLo cnmmm3m
L9 cr) cn U) U) cn cn c,7 cry u') v cn co u)
" O m Ln LO U7 co O O Ln Ln 11-173 0 0 0 0 Ln Ln C) O H LO O I'D O O O U7
(-j CO Ln U7 m 1117 t0 O M M O O co m O C) O LO LL's U7 O N tD CO UD O OJ U7 m m co O r--1 O Cl- lD N N 1-1 O M
CJ m MM r-i M m N m N m m N -:* uD C7 _4 -:T N LD m O O ri l0 w O m N m [ N N N N ri r- N
r ! M MM r-I N M M Cts � N N N N N O N N m IT d -4 N r- t.0 Ln O -4 -H N M N N N U) N O O t0
r 1 ri m ri .-I r-1 r- m '-i r-i m m m m rJ m CT% r-i r-1 r--L r-i r-1 r-i r-1 r-I .--1 C� F- L- r-♦ 00 r-1 r•i r-I r-1 r-i N .-♦
M
M C
• H m m m
co • -0 E O C
4.3 M --) •ri C C C C C C C U U CO C 4-3 U m m C 3
m M C m 94 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • C C m O C CO 94 4 O Z
m C 0 O C M CL M M M M M m M 0 .-L H t M O M m ri 3 a Ol
E 0 U U C 0 m Fa >, >, >, A >, >, >, U H >,-4J m C M > r-i +3 +3 3
O U 0 U E m CO CII m w CO co 03 • m co 3 •rl 0 m C M X X m ca m
_ >, M O H 4-3 H H H H +3 H 4 H + m to -CH m 4-3 M 4.3 H '0 -1 •ri m -Y
H H m-Y >, H = C m C Lo L3 LD C' +3 L^. U L7 H H m m .b3 L_I _I C H m H C Li Ls atS H U
0 1 m m H > N m 0 3 LTJ m m +3 E E C •rl m r-i 3 co cU m Lo
-4-3 H 4JI Co CU m H +3 'O m m >. >, >. >. E >, >, >,.-i M O 0 m >, m 3 0_•-3 O r-1 M -0 •0 4-3 m +3 0-
C.) CCI 4.3 U 3 Cl m •N O ri O M H H H H E H H H r--I C S :L 3 H U -0 04-) 1 r1 C C M 3 C E L i
Co E O O 0 m J C 4 4 H H W H H 4 -ri O H C O H .r.1 u) -r1 4-3 CO cO 3 .0 " 3
H m C3 >. m -O • LO 3 ;2t C m m M CO CO m Cii Ie U O O i-3 m m L7 CZ Y = H r-C -1 H C" 4
4-) 'L) H U C 3 Ol C O _J _3 J J m _i J J U U 4-3 J H C O) 4-3 --3 -i-3 O r-{ U s'
C cO E H 3 CO E -O -0 = 'O > E L,_ C C •ri 3 C C3 >,L Y -0 H H U C .-i x
O H (O 0 H H . m m O O CO • s • M • 0 -ri -1 94 • CO C In m O CO O O 0 CO 0 0 CO
U F- commC_7mm:D mC') 2: 4Q C-- QO ex ct cc t-- " L-)Lime _ :x 0- mnOCrCL CL CL c3n,c
J
C
N O O O O O O E-
.,4
•ri O O I Ln O O d
CD -i•= O .--I I N O O co
CT ro
cD :3 Ln I r-I O •n
CL r-4 Ln �D
ro �
P k
W m
-1 r-a 1
1-1� Y
C C�
•r1 •r-1 `1
k k k 1
CL O_ O �.
In Ln 3 w In
m m m i C C
H k -ice cT Q1
k H k •r•I •r1 ••-I •ri
ct.- Ct— Cl) m CO
ca ro ro N N
r--I q r j ---I r-I rq `� •�
m ro ca ro ro ro
.,-i •ri •ri •,A •r-1 • 4
m U U U U U U
P k k H k k 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O
E E E E E E O O N C4 O O O '-D O O M N
-i-� E E E E E E m
E E E E E E CO
O O O O O O m
= I
U
CC
Q
� I
Li.
O
_ rD
F- m
T O m m
ro m m m ca ro
m 3 c7 u k 3 3 3
D L r•i I •P 4-3 L L L m m U
m C On T1 m •-) O LO cn m 01 01 OI U +3 C
O m •r-I m m m LL 7 •r1 •-1 •11 ca m ca
C = S = Q N J CCCC
m
j ¢ U CL� � ¢ 'm-1 .ro T U U U 4.3 m
¢ ro -4U)U) F- U U ¢ --I -r-4 •rI c Cr) c k L
O C" 'O O k N (t 4- m r I [b O
L A •rd ^ k Cn F- m m "O -H •14 •11 U C 4-- E
W 4-3 E U M ro C E E c U U U k •r-I 4-- S
co 117 •r1 ro N rn k E E CV ro ca ro c0 ro O C F-
m m Q ca -,ICU O OC L' O. O. C) FcnJ O
-4 U U Cl
3 3 3 0- 3 3 3 -4 3 3 3
0 cn cn cn 3 3 3 cn cn n cn r-1 cn crl u7 3 3
ro 'O Ln Lo CO cn N c17 c17 CD
0170 O H 000 (TO O O
c0 co \0 ro N Ln Ln Ln O N N 1 r-I Ln %-D O O L-
" r-i tD 01 C'7 O Ln Ln r-I '.O kD k kD -4 r-I L-- C-1
ko O r-♦ -1 Ln r-I Ol O\ tD Ml n CO -4 N N [ C'7 J
O M -4 r-I r•i CL r--I r-i --I CO N
O
m
D1 G
-4 O
.-I
cn
= U
U m C U
C m
3 O O O O O C is
UUUUU •ri co (E)z 4--1E G L cn E -r-
0 m I C C C C C Z) OI-P C c i -I-3
O r1 C =1 m
-N Co N O k •ri cn Qi cn 07 O O J •ri C3 01
N . Q
N � � .i .,. .r{ . i a Lr) m rI r4 m
m m
M cn cn cn cn cn I o u7 ro o
>, c
4� 4-3 L 4-� O O_ IY m m m m m t` 4-3 C T O C
C I-•q C U -N U O LJ -ice 4-3 4-3 -P -N -A •r-1 •.3 •r•1 •r1
Oc c cn •-I k Cl. .,.i •ri •ri •-I -i N U -H m
Ll C Y Q CL c G C c C N k c wcO .-I T z •r•i •r-I •ri •-I •rl .Y m C 7 m c
x C T-.8 C3 C' E E E C C k m Oi U E OI
ro O O m CO F+ 3 n D > D c0 O •r1 m •r1 •ri
En �:4 F-- CL cn _j -i -j CL m U,3 cn C1 Ln
Date:_MA&Q aL. 19R1
FINANCIAL STATEMENT
EXPENDITURES
OPERATIONAL BUDGET
1980-81 Current Year-To
_Budget Month
Date
1• COMMUNITY PROTECTION
Police Services 1.1
1.1,1 Patrol 499,459
1.1.2 Investigation 120,366 43,369 380,896
1.1.3 Communication 145,272 11,005 82,891
1.1.4 Administration _74,302 12,412 106,874
TOTAL --B39,399 - 6 817 _45,544
73
____-
.603= 616,205
Public Works 1.2 ====Z=====
1,2.1 Street Lighting 83,000
1.2.2 Traffic Signal-Marking-Signs 33,467 13,236 54,780
1.2.3 Engineering 43,721 2,113 22,402
1.2.4 Admin. & Clerical 25.706 2,627 25,915
_
TOTAL 185.894 2,227 18_985_
===202203 122 082
Municipal Court 1.3 =_--
1.3.1 Arraingments & Trials _ 29.605
====22618=_ _ 212672__
Planning & Zoning 1.4 --
1.4.1 Current Planning 80,728
1.4.2 Advance Planning 10,413 7,053 56,417
281 2,243
TOTAL _ 91,141 ===7,334=_ 58 660
Building Inspection & Enforcement 1.5
1.5.1 Plan Checking 27,811
1,5.2 Field Inspection 50,574 2,423 20,501
1.5.3 Support Services 11,141 4,617 37,399
1.5.4 Program Administration 969 8,236
1� __ 1,199 10,452
TOTAL 103 399
===92208___ 76,588
Page 2
EXPENDITURES
1980-81 Current Year-To
_Budget Month
Date
2. HOME AND COMMUNITY QUALITY
Public Works 2.1
2.1.2 Sanitary Service 182,971
2.1.3 Streets & Roads 341,358 9,008 81,021
2.1.4 Parks 70,792 2,472 143,665
2.1.5 Storm Water Control + 1600 50,646 = 52,246 7,492 51, 136
2.1.6 Special Projects 13,736 5,445 45,439
2.1.7 Ancillary Service34,999 1,152 9,616 2,1,8 Engineering 71,356 2,578 22,680
2.1.9 Admin. & Clerical28,407 5,981 53,710 2.1.11 Insect Control 91000 2,726 21,229
-0- 7,662
TOTAL + 1600 _803,275 =304,875 36,854
4362-D8--
3. SOCIAL SERVICES
Library 3.1
3.1.1 Technical Services 29,026
3.1.2 Community Services66,240 2,223 20,729� 3.1.3 Operations & Maintenance 3,134 5,909 51,868
3.1.4 Administration 14,072 377 2,342
TOTAL
1,139 10,006
112,472
9,648==_ 84,945
Youth & Aized Services 3
3.3.1 Loaves & Fishes 6,000
3-4.1 Youth Services 20 5,442
59,825 116 53,442
TOTAL 65.825 --__136 58 884
4. POLICE AND ADMINISTRATION
Mayor & Council 4.1
4.1.1 Policy & Direction 10.982 1,459 _
====6'---388==
City Administration 4 2
4.2.1 Management Functions 43,750
4.2.2 Staff Functions23,580 3,469 30,364 4.2.3 Ancillary Functions 2,018 14,920
4,424
351 3,075
TOTAL _71,754
--_52838= 48 359
Fiscal Administration 4.3
4.3.1 Finance Program +157 92,891 = 93 048
4.3.2 City Records ' 7,087 67,921
30,969 2,492 19,865
4.3,3 Management Support 10,609
TOTAL
904 8,005
+157 134,469 =134,626 10 483_
====2= _-_ ==95,791===
Page 3
EXPENDITURES
1980-81 Current Year-To
Budget Month Date
5. CITY WIDE SUPPORT FUNCTIONS
Non-Departmental Functions 5.1
5.1.1 Legal Services 22,500 5,213 17,871
5.1.2 Insurance - 8,000 46,875 = 33,875 1,107 36,167
5.1.3 Utilities 44,872 2,806 24 106
, ,
5.1.4 Rent 7,975 885 6,020
5.1.5 Postage 7,000 220 830
5.1.6 Audit 8,500 8,160
5.1.7 Membership 10,848 10,803
5.1.8 Codification of Ordinances 3,700 1,057
5.1.9 Stationery & Supplies 3,000 359 2,955
5.1.10 Bldg. & Equip, Maint. & Repair +781 7,500 = 3,281 355 2,411
5.1.11 Contractual Services 21,260 4,084 17,122
5.1.12 Unemployment Reserve+750+1600+1000 1,000 = 4,350 1,573 4,264
5.1.13 Donations 2,000 -0-
5.1.14 Publicity & Comm. Relations 7,225 11 139
5.1.15 Materials & Supplies 700 4 147
5.1.16 Printing 500 277 300
5.1.17 Office Equipment +1219 60,442 + 67,661 62,389
5.1.18 Unclassified Personnel 100 15 1,401
5.1.19 Contingency -1600 -157 -100() 309,180 = 306,266
5.1.20 Elections 1,700
TOTAL -+5-93 566,877 = 567,470 __162909__ __1962142___
6. COMMUNITY PROTECT?ON
Home & Community Quality 6.2
6.2.1.3(7) Road Acq. & Development 728,192 473 120,721
6.2.1.4(3) Parks Acq. & Development 77,893 35,758
Total 806,085 473 156=479___
Divisions 6.5
6.5.1.13(1) Donations 2,000 130
6.5.1 Bldg. Inprovement 287,000 10,411 230,925
TOTAL 289,000 ==102411== ==2312055=_=
7. DEBT SERVICE
7.1 General Obligation Bonds 10,000 10,000
7.1.1 Gen. Oblig. Bonds Interest 638 213 638
TOTAL 10,638 ====_2l3__
7.2 Bancroft Improvement Bonds 62,090 20,083
7.2.1 Bancroft Imp, Bonds Interest 21,451 60 8,476
TOTAL `_L 541 ======60---- __282559___
GRAND TOTAL -x•2350 4,204,356. = 4:206,706 _205.450==== 222482605___
tt-1�n i H G MJN O I
~1 2Nw� o
IV1 of c0 O II
WGOit: a o J
{ :i rn ao
ai o n
O a` Com?
<J
., W I r a-0
H "0 O .N-+ co a0
co J r .0 c0
r �7 n
IV C •� M �D C �7 f� N 10 N
cn
cn W ON• N M .�-1 s O
W O
O
G 0 .0 o CD
O
M
W O r M O
r
•]C H C N cl M
d o s
cn 0
$4 b O r 10 M
H a r. O O• M M
o a s .o clo
N co W O C` N M
F V + 10 s o
W ^
W
x m >
o fn a a
M
6 W 7 07 r r
co 00
Er
O W Ln
Ln ur II
H O 7
C.7 O a W M M
d
O m
C-1 Iz 10
O
CD a
IV H lu
O o0. c0
rn y r r
fn
W N H O
u a>i co r
W fLfn �
•10 rl O d rn r . co
�
N � O u1 +n •-+ N c0 � C
COQ r .Ma m M O
^ +h O M �O R• r T N 10 c0 M M "'+ ' • M M N
O! 10 10 +fl N r O r R• O
M O G w s +(1 N c0 IT ^ O h^ c0 N M N 10 w w 1
E O C .D c0 d c0 Vl aD J s c0 -." a` N Q'1 O� c0 0;, •-+
E I In •D 0• M n Q• O` s S .--+ In +[l 0� N N .-1 10
Vv .-d .--1 .-1 ^-1 �I M M N +t'1
v N v
O a) a) H
b A• U fq E al O N W
> y v 93. d v
W m u fn w a 7 E N E G +� E G A 'n
V) ca a)
a) O a)O au E z aEl Gw •.+ •>
fy .•1
04 A G G a) H O '-+ m „dj O. J H O O W H
H J
V J G b O N H G
(: ...y W •.-1 O al -r� G G u L L C' y Q' 7 H E W L a >
Co J0 M �-+ F LL' a) a H G O O H 00 a W a) H
F E Pq y 4'• J N N .0 Q)
`A W 1J •ri Q al �J y H H W fn
to 0 0 +T V oOC .00 ¢ b H JH Q) a1 +•f > O
nn H V H c0 '9 •.� a1 H •O •-+ ai •H v O N H of
G W 'O C M 3 W .G +•+ H .a G .0
F H d a) d 3•+ a) 'O D H QJ 0 7 C) W U +� +-+ Q
m Qa p E > O G
F " R. U O on U ¢ 'R W ¢ ¢
i
MEM
r CITY OF TIGARD .2
COMBINED BALANCE SHEET
as of MARCH ilg8l
Combined Federal State County Major St Park & Bond Special General General
LIABILITIES (Memo General Revenue Tax Road Road Cap Proj Recrea Sinking Sewer Assess Fixed Long-Term
Only) Fundi Sharing Street Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Assets Debt Fund
Accounts Payable 30,344 4,287 21,741 4,316
Accrued Interest Payable 9,773 9,773
WH & Accrued PR Taxes 120 120
Due to Other Funds
Deposits Held 38,025 38,025
Deferred Credits
Bonds Payable 214,000 204,000 10,000
Warrants Payable 301,747 301,747
RESERVES & FUND BALANCES
Res. for Taxes, Contracts
& Other Receivables 338,611 267,611 10,000 61.,000
Investment in Fixed Assets 841,471 841,471
Contributions 2,151,963 1,948,646 203,317
Fund Balance 1,395,243 436,583 13,991 108,402 40,883 671,650 62,945 60,789
Retained Earnings ( 125,581) ( 125,581)
Current Year Revenue
Over (Under) Expend. ( 534,114)(295,741) ( 21,662) ( 29,792) 2,772 8,736 31,383 ( 7,575) ( 100,025)(122,210)
4,661,602 450,885 ( 7,671) 78,610 43,655 8,736 703,033 55,370 10,000 1,805,781 458,415 1,044,788 10,000
CITY OF TIGARD
COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES 3
FOR THE turntt MONTHS ENDEDJyeuru 3, tout
Remain- BUDGETED Combined Federal State County Major St. Park & Bond Special
REVENUES ing 1980-81 (Memo General Revenue Tax Road Road Cap. Proj Recrea Sinking Sewer Assess.
Balance Only) Fund _ Sharing_ Street Fund Fund _ Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund
300 - TAXES
301 Property 37,813 205,717 167,904 167,904
301 Loaves & Fishes 578 6,000 5,422 5,422
301 T.C. Youth Services 6,499 59,825 53,326 53,326
302 Prior Years ( 1,059) 19,000 20,059 20,059
309 Others 100 100
310 - FROM OTHER AGENCIES
311 State Gas Tax 80,98.1 221,859 140,878 140,878
312 Cigarette Tax 10,144 32,818 22,674 22,674
313 Liquor Tax 55,496 129,046 73,550 73,550
314 State Revenue Share 30,641 98,094 67,453 67,453
315 County Road Levy 15,774 70,000 54,226 54,226
316 Hotel/Motel Tax 19,847 40,000 20,153 20,153
318 Federal Revenue Share 49,858 103,000 53,142 .53,142
319.1 State Subvention
LCDC 7,500 7,500
BOR 10 10
319.2 Federal Subvention
Senior Citzen Ctr. 134,208 287,000 152,792 152,792
321 County Subvention
Unified Sewerage -0- 23,108 23,108 23,108
322 County Subvention
Library -0- 77,744 77,744 77,744
323 County Maintenance/
Repair Tax 10,712 29,700 18,988 18,988
329 Other
Library 405 3,000 2,595 2,595
CITY OF TIGARD
COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES fv`
FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 1.981
Remain- BUDGETED Combined Federal State County Major St. Park & Bond Special
ing 1980-81 (Memo General Revenue Tax Road Road Cap. Proj Recrea Sinking Sewer Assess.
Balance Only) Fund Sharing Street Fund Fund_ _ Fund Fund Fund Fund _ Fund
330 - Licenses & Permits
331 Business Licenses 15,743 60,000 44,257 44,257
332 Plumbing, Heating,
& Mech. Permits ( 4,621) 16,500 21,121 21,121
333 Building Permits 31,810 130,000 98,190 98,190
339 Others 2,030 6,000 3,970 3,970
340 - Fines, Forfeitures & Penalties
341 Court Fines, Forfeit.
Defense 14,582 54,000 39,418 39,413
350 - Use of Monies
351 Interest on Investments
General Fund 11,625 44,000 32,375 32,375
Sewer Fund 12,204 29,000 16,796 16,796
State Tax Street 241 7,000 6,759 6,759
Road Fund ( 177) 1,900 2,077 2,077
County Rd. Rep. & Maint( 284) 284 284
Federal Revenue Share 334 595 261 261
Major Streets ( 8,764) 37,000 45,764 45,764
Park & Recreation.. 685 5,000 4,315 4,315
Special Assessments 11,145 21,451 10,306 10,306
Bond Sinking Fund 2,800 2,800
352 Interest on Assessments 7,789 17,500 9,711 9,711
359 Other '
CITY OF TIGARD S
COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 1981
Remain- BUDGETED Combined Federal State County Major St. Park & Bond Special
ing 1980-81 (Memo General Revenue Tax Road Road Cap. Proj Recrea Sinking Sewer Assess.
Balance Only) Fund Sharing_ -Street Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund_ Fund
360 - Charges for Current Services
361.1 Subdivision Street
Lighting 937 10,500 9,563 9,563
361 Subdivision Application( 240) 3,000 3,240 3,240
362 Zoning Adjustment ( 4;233) 15,000 19,233 19,233
363 Sewer Connection 42,345 87,400 45,055 45,055
364 Sewer Service 36,196 157,622 121,426 121,426
365 Sewer Permit Inspection( 846) 5,800 6,646 6,646
366 System Development Chg. 24,461 127,400 102,939 102,939
367 Parks #1 6,280 13,200 6,920 6,920
368 Parks #2 ( 7,300) 7,600 14,900 14,900
369 Others 4,458 10,000 5,542 5,542
365.2 Public Works
General Fund 7,972 20,000 12,023 12,028
380 - Franchise Revenue
381 Portland General Elec. 147,696 147,696
382 NW Natural Gas 295 61,010 60,715 60,715
383 General Telephone 3,180 80,357 77,177 77,177
384 Garbage 10,642 22,000 11,358 11,358
389 Others ( 770) 1,000 1,770 1,770
390 - Nonrevenue Receipts
391 Donations/Gifts 4,000 4,000
399 Others 4,785 5,000 215 215
Sale of Land 30,000 30,000
CITY OF TIGARD 6
COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 1981
Remain- BUDGETED Combined Federal State County Major St. Park & Bond Special
ing 1980-81 (Memo General Revenue Tax Road Road Cap. Proj Recxea Sinking Sewer Assess.
Balance Only) Fund Sharing_ Street Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund
400 - Recovered Expenditures
401 Transfers ( 757,539) 757,539 757,539
401.1 Bancroft Transfers 3,170 3,170
Overhead
Administration 1,754 2,825 1,071 1,071
Engineering 21,647 21,647
402 Other Recovered Exp. ( 23,082) 5,020 28,102 28,102
403 Collect on USA Contract -0- 10,638 10,638 10,638
TOTAL REVENUES 112,457 2,698,152 2,585,695 1,913,664 53,403 147,637 56,3031 19,272 148,703 26,135 10,638 189,923 20,017
.FUND BALANCE
General Fund 382,306 382,306
Sewer Fund 191,818 191,818
State Tax Street 120,907 120,907
Road Fund 49,458 49,458
Federal Rev. Sharing 14,474 14,474
Major Streets 644,702 644,702
Park & Recreation 60,747 60,747
Special Assessments 50,316 50,316
Bond Sinking Fund 24,601 24,601
Assessments Receivable 62,090 62,090
GRAND TOTAL.REVENUES 1,713,876 4,299,571 2,585,695 1,913,664 53,403 14/,637 56,303 19,272 148,703 26,135 10,638 189,923 20,017
CITY OF TIGARD
COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES �J
FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 1981 /
Remain- BUDGETED Combined Federal State
ing 1980-81 (Memo General Revenue Tax County Major St. Park & Bond
Balance Road Road Cap. Proj Recrea Sinking Sewer AssessSpecia.
Only) Fund Sharing Street Fund Fund
OPERATING & CAPITAL EXPENSES - Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund
1.1 Police 223,194 839,399 616,205 616,205
1.2 & 2.1 Public Works 430,929 989,169 558,240 558,240
1.3 Municipal Court 7,933 29,605 210672 21,672
1.4 Planning 32,481 91,141 58,660 58,660
1.5 Building 26,811 103,399
76,588 76,588
3.1 Library 27,525 112,470 84,945 84,945
3.3 Aged Services 558 6,000 5,442 5,442
3.4 Youth Services 6,383 59,825 53,442 53,442
4.1 Mayor & Council 4,594 10,982 6,388 6,388
4.2 City Administration 23,395 71,754 48,359 48,359
4.3 Fiscal Administration 38,678 134,469 95,791 95,791
5.1 Nondepartmental 61,558 257,697 196,139 196,139
Contingency
General 144,257 144,257
Sewer 25,044 25,044
State Tax Street 27,973 27,973
Federal Revenue Sh. 12,325 12,325
Major Streets 80,910 80,910
Parks #1 5,529 5,529
Parks #2 3,125 3,125
Road Fund 7,317 7,317
County Road Rep. 2,700 2,700
Debt Service 95,217 95,217
6. Capital Budget 573,800 1,095,085 521,285 387,534
1,�y73�49205,392 2,343,156 2,209,405 "- 132,751
133,751
CITY OF TIGARD v
COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES 4
FOR THE Ninth MONTHS ENDED March 31, 1981
Remain- BUDGETED Combined Federal State County Major St, Park & Bond Special
ing 1980-81 (Memo General Revenue Tax Road Road Cap. Proj Recrea Sinking Sewer Assess.
OTHER EXPENDITURES
Balance - Only) Fund Sharing Street Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund
`
Transfers to General Fund ( 757,539) 757,539 75,065 177,429 53,531 10,536 117,320 33,710 289,948
Transfers to Other Funds
Use of Money & Property
Interest Expense 12,975 22,089 9,114 638 8,476
Payment of Bond Principle 62,090 72,090 10,000 10,000
Total Other Expenditures ( 682,474) 94,179 776,653 75,065 177,429 53,531 10,536 117,320 33,71.0 10,638 289,948 8,476
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1,179,76 4,299,571 3,119,809 2,209,405 75,065 177,429 53,531 10,536 11.7,320 33,710 10,638 289,948 142,227
Current Year Revenue
Over (Under) Expenditures ( 534,114)( 295,741)( 21,662) ( 29,792) 2,772 8,736 31,383 ( 7,575) .
(100,025)(122,210)
CLTY OF TLGARD q
COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES /
FOR THE MONTH ENDED MARCH 1981
Combined Federal Stale County Major St. Park h Bond Special
REVENUES (Memo General Revenue Tax Road Road Cap. Proj Recrea Sinking Scwer Assess,
Only Fund Sharing Street Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund
300 - TAXES
301 Property 9,712 9,712
301 Loaves & Fishes
301 T.C. Youth Services
302 Prior Years
309 Others
310 - FROM OTHER AGENCIES
311 State Gas Tax 16,377 16,377
312 Cigarette Tax 2,681 2,681
313 Liquor Tax 9,023 9,023
314 State Revenue Share
315 County Road Levy 11,750 11,750
316 Hotel/Motel Tax 6,080 6,080
318 Federal Revenue Share
319.1 State Subvention
LCDC
BOR
319.2 Federal Subvention
Senior Citzen Ctr. ( 4,006) ( 4,006)
321 County Subvention
Unified Sewerage
322 County Subvention
Library 25,915 25,915
323 County Maintenance/
Repair Tax 977 977
329 Other
Library
I
li�ill Is
CITY OF TIGARD
COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES "� /a
FOR THE MONTH ENDED MARCH 12R1
Combined Federal State County Major St. Park & Bond Special
(Memo General .Revenue Tax Road Road Cap, Proj Recrea Sinking Sewer Assess,
Only) Fund Sharing Street Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund
330 - Licenses & Permits
331 Bisiness Licenses 1,186 1,186
332 Plumbing, Heating 1,556 1,556
& Mach. Permits
333 Building Permits 8,968 8,968
339 Others 994 994
340 - Fines, Forfeitures & Penalties
341 Court Fines,. Forfeit.
Defense 4,869 4,869
350 - Use of Monies
351 Interest on Investments
General Fund 4,576 4,576
Sewer Fund 4,478 4,478
State Tax Street 287 287
Road Fund 270 270
County Rd, Rep. & Maint 79 79
Federal Revenue Share 38 38
Major Streets 2,176 2,176
Park & Recreation 94 94
Special Assessments 31 31
Bond Sinking Fund
352 Interest on Assessments 1,863 1,863
359 Other
CITY OF TIGARD
$Y' p COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
FOR THE MONTH ENDED MARCH 1981
Combined Federal State County Major St. Park & Bond Special
(Memo General Revenue Tax Road Road Cap. Proj R(.-crea Sinking Sewer Assess.
Only) Fund Sharing Street Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Pond
360 - Charges for Current Services
361.1 Subdivision Street
Lighting 995 995
361 Subdivision Application
362 Zoning Adjustment 4,410 4,410
363 Sewer Connection 4,325 4,325
364 Sewer Service 12,685 12,685
365 Sewer Permit Inspection 534 534
366 System Development Chg. 10,400 10,400
367 Parks #1 1,000 1,000
368 Parks #2 1,300 1,300
369 Others 316 316
365.2 Public Works
General Fund 336 336
380 - Franchise Revenue
381 Portland General Elec.
382 NW Natural Gas 22,994 22,994
383 General Telephone
384 Garbage
389 Others 1,690 1,690
390 - Nonrevenue Receipts
391 Donations/Gifts ( 231) ( 231)
399 Others
Sale of Land
F,
CITY OF TIGARD
COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
FOR THE MONTH ENDED MARCH 1981
Combined Federal State County Major St. Park & Bond Special
(Memo General Revenue Tax Road Road Cap. Proj Recrea Sinking Sewer Assess.
Only) Fund Sharinp Street Fund Fund F-nd Fund Fund Fund Fund
400 - Recovered Expenditures_
401 Transfers 106,727 106,727
401.1 Bancroft Transfers
Overhead
Administration
Engineering
402 Other Recovered Exp. 25,712 25,712
403 Collect on USA Contract _
TOTAL REVENUES 303,167 234,503 38 16,664 12,020 1,056 12,576 2,394 -0- 22,022 1,894
FUND BALANCE
General Fund
Sewer Fund
State Tax Street
Road Fund
Federal Rev. Sharing
Major Streets
Park & Recreation
Special Assessments
Bond Sinking Fund
Assessments Receivable
GRAND TOTAL.REVENUES 303,167 234,503 38 16,664 12,020 1,056 12,576 2,394 -0- 22,022 1,894
Sill
CITY OF TIGARD
COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES 3
FOR THE MONTH ENDED CH 1981
Combined Federal State County Major St. Park & Bond Special
(Memo General Revenue Tax Road Road Cap. Proj Rccrea Sinking Sewer Assess.
—Only) Fund Sharing Street Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund _ Fund
OPERATING & CAPITAL EXPENSES
1.1 Police 73,603 73,603
1.2 & 2.1 Public Works 57,057 57,057
1.3 Municipal Court 2,618 2,618
1.4 Planning 7,334 7,334
1.5 Building 9,208 9,208
3.1 Library 9,648 9,648
3.3 Aged Services 20 20
3.4 Youth Services 116 116
4.1 Mayor & Council 1,459 1,459
4.2 City Administration 5,838 5,838
4.3 Fiscal Administration 10,483 10,483
5.1 Nondepartmental 16,906 16,906
Contingency
General
Sewer
State Tax Street
Federal Revenue Sh.
Major Streets
Parks #1
Parks JI2
Road Fund mmWN
County Road Rep. too
ME
Debt Service
6. Capital Budget 52,308 10,884 41,424
246,598 205,174 41,424
CITY OF TIGARD
COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES '
FOR THE MONTH ENDED MARCH 1981
Combined Federal State County Major St. Park & Bond Special
(Memo General Revenue Tax Road Road Cap. Proj Recrea Sinking Sewer Assess.
Only) Fund Sharing Street Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund
OTHER EXPENDITURES
Transfers to General Fund 106,963 16,025 27'809 4,403 82 236 3,233 55,175
Transfers to Other Funds
Use of Money & Property
Interest Expense 219 219
Payment of Bond Principle
Total Other Expenditures 107,182 16,025 27,809 4,403 82 236 3,233 55,175 219
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 353,78g_ ZQLJJA- 16�QZ L —D—$Q2 —A 82 736 x.744 GI_�4�
Current Year Revenue
Over (Under) Expenditures ( 50,§1329,329 ( 15.987 11 145
A�'
TIGAM
LOLIBRARY
PUBLICPhore
8?9-9511
12558 SW Main•Tigard, Or. 97223 AGENDA April 13, 1981
1. Call to Order
2. Reports
a. Minutes - March 9, 1981
b. Monthly Report for March 1981
C. Friends of the Library Building Committee
pU ICLIBRAW
SJhore 689-9511
12568 SPIV Main-Tigard, Or. 97223 MEMORANDUM April 13, 1981
TO: LIBRARY BOARD
CITY COUNCIL
FROM: City Librarian
SUBJECT: Monthly Report, March 1981
1. Administration:
a. Library Board held its regular meeting on March 9. Minutes are attached.
b. Librarian attended Washington County Cooperative Library Services (WCCLS)
Citizens Advisory Board (CAB) meeting on March 11, to present Tigardes Needs Statement
for a new facility. Copy of the statement is attached. The WCCLS CAB is collecting
needs statements .from all public libraries in the county with a view toward placing
a bond issue before county voters to build and improve library facilities in Washington
Countv.
c. On March 13, two members of the Library Board, Walt Munhall and Madalyn Utz, and
Librarian inspected the Christ the King Lutheran Church, at Pacific Highway and Bull
Mountain Road, as a possible site for relocation of the Library. The 4,400 sq. ft.
building, sitting on 2.51 acres of land, is for sale at ;x580,000. A report will be made
at the next Board meeting, April 13. A report will be made to City Council on April 20.
d. On March 16, Board member, Jim Sidev, installed alarms on both side doors of the
Library. Doors can be opened for emergencies, but are no longer used as regular entry
and exit. It is hoped that this will curtail the number of books which "disappear. "
e. April 17, Librarian attended a workshop sponsored by Oregon State University on
effective discipline.
f. April 23, the Library had to be evacuated for about an hour because of gasoline
fumes caused by someone pouring gasoline into the sewer system.
g. April 23, Public Works returned the book drop with a more secure lock installed.
Person, or persons, had broken into the book drop twice, ruining the original lock the
s.econd time. It is not known how many items were taken.
h. Librarian attended WCCLS Budget Committee meeting. The Committee recommended that
the remaining per capita star- aid e„ [inn of f ,r � spent oil maintaining the union catalog at
for lack of funding. ��,�� u
Pacific University, inasmuch as the computee rized e circulation system is stymied at present
i. Librarian attended WCCLS professional board meeting. Of interest: 1. WCCLS
accepted the Budget Committee's recommendation for state aid. 2. There is legislation
before the Oregon House on two issues of interest to libraries: House Bill 2823, which
would authorize the creation of library districts, House Bill 2679, that would make
it information submitted to obtain public library card and circulation records of
public library that show use of material by named person exempt from public records law."
The former bill would facilitate formation of a county-wide taxing district which was
mentioned in last month's report. The latter will be of significance if and when the
libraries computerize their circulation system.
L. Personnel:
a. Volunteer hours totaled 130 hours; Andrea Asbell worked 31.5 additional hours on
outreach; the daily average worked in the library was 5 hours.
b. Community Service volunteers worked a total of 29 hours.
_Tigard Public Library - Monthly Report - March 1981 - page 2
3. Statistics:
a. Circulation 9450 (450 per day)
Books 8791 Magazines 352
Adult 6184 Audio-Visual 183
Juvenile 2607 Other 36
ILL 848
b. User cards 290; in town 152 - out-of-town 138.
C. Story hours: 100 total; 12.5 average.
d. Materials added 600.
e. Materials withdrawn 64.
f. Money received:
Fines $21-50
Lost Books $54.70
Misc. Replacement $9.05
Donations $3.01
4. Youth Services - Kathy Tremaine:
"Spring Reading" and "A Time for Romance" were displays in the Childrens/Young
Adult's room.
Special "Garden Party" storytimes were held for the 3-6 year olds on March 18 and 19.
The gerbil, who has lived in the children's room for 3-� years, was put to sleep after
it was found that he had widespread cancer. Free medical care was given by Main Street
Pet Clinic.
5. Friends of the Library:
Friends of the Library- Building Committee held a meeting on March 16, to consider a
logo and other public relation ideas to promote a new library facility. A series of
fund raisers is being planned to include selling buttons, a flea market and a "build a
library" poster in the library for people to buy bricks (paper), place their name on it
and place it on an outlined building until it is filled with bricks. They are also
planning a campaign for direct solicitation to local businesses.
s
ruBLICPhona 639-0511
12568 SYd Main o Tigard. Or. 07223 MINUTES Tigard Library Board March 9, 1981
Call to Order The regular meeting of the Tigard Libiary Board was called to
and Moll Call: order by Chairman Betsy Chick, at 7:05 PM.
Absent: Dick Bendixsen.
Reports: Minutes of the previous meeting were approved as circulated.
Librarian briefly reviewed the monthly report, explaining in
more detail the impact of budget cuts at the Oregon State Library.
Madalyn Utz reported on the Friends of the Library Building Com-
mittee meetings. She described plans for slogans, logos and fund
raisers. There was also discussion concerning the need for a new
location and building. The Board specifically discussed the possi-
bility of relocating in the Christ the King Lutheran Church which
is for sale. It was decided that the Board and Building Committee
members should tour the church building and site as soon as possi-
ble. Madalyn offered to arrange for such a tour and notify every-
one.
Old Business: Librarian explained that she and ,;im Sidey had not gotten together
Loss of Books on the door alarms, as planned, but would do so as soon as possible.
Reciprocal Librarian reported that the City Administrator had concurred with
Borrowing: Board's decision to charge out-of-county users, except for Clack-
amas Count; users, and persons working or attending school in
Tigard. He instructed Librarian to discuss fee and procedures
with City Finance Director. Librarian will accomplish as soon as
possible. "-
New Business: Librarian reported that there was absolutely no chance of putting
WCCLS Tax the computerized circulation system on the county ballot for this
District year. In light of this and the gloomy financial picture for Wash-
ington County generally, the Washington. County Cooperative Library
Services (WCCLS) Citizens Advisory Board favors forming a special
taxing district for libraries. Librarian outlined procedure, ex-
plaining that it takes about two years to accomplish. Disadvantages
lie in increased administrative costs.
Motion: Walt Munhall moved that the Library Board state that it is in favor
of pursuing this method for library financing and request that the
City Council send a resolution of support to Washington County Com-
missioners. The motion was seconded and passed.
Meeting adjourned at 8:25 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
_ Q
'Irene Etr ell
Accepted: City Librarian
Accepted as corrected:
f
PON I III I
t.
MONTHLY REPORT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MARCH 15, 1981 - APRIL 15, 1981
The following projects were acted on by the Planning Commission over the
past morith.
ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
APPLIC&NT: City of Tigard
REQUEST: ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, ZOA 7-80A (PLANNED DISTRICT
DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 18.56 AMENDMENT)
A request for an ordinance amending Chapter 18.56
Sections 20, 30 and 40 relating to
Planned District Development and deviations or
variances from standards of Title 18 and Title 17.
ACTION TAKEN: The amendments to the ordinance be recommended by
the Planning Commission for adoption by the City
Council.
APPLICANT: City of Tigard
REQUEST: ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, ZOA 1-81 (A70/80PD
HOME FOR THE AGED)
Planning Commission review of a zoning ordinance
establishing certain criteria to be met in the A70/80PD
zone.
ACTION TAKEN: The Planning Commission recommended the draft of
Ordinance 18.25, as amended in two places by
staff, be adopted by the city council.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISIONS
APPLICANT:
Herb Morrissette Builders (Gallo Vineyards) CPR 5-81
REQUEST: A request for a Comprehensive Plan Revision from R7
"Single FamilyResidential 7,500 square Reet per lot"
to R5 "Single Family Residential 5,000 square feet
per lot" to build single family attached homes.
MONTHLY STAFF REPORT
PLANNING DEPARTI4ENT
MARCH 15, 1981 - APRIL 15, 1981
Page 2
LOCATION: The Southeast corner of SW Tigard and SW 113th
Washington County Tax Map 1S1 34 DC Tax Lot 2900.
ACTION TAKEN: Approval of Comprehensive Plan revision CPR 5-81
based on staff findings and recommendations.
APPLICANT: City of Tigard CPR 4-81
REQUEST: A request for a Comprehensive Plan Revision from
Washington County RU4 to City of Tigard CP "Commercial-
Professional".
LOCATION: SW Hampton Street between 70th and 72nd.
Washington County Tax Map 2S1 IAC Lots 1100,1200 & 1300.
ACTION TAKEN: Approval of Comprehensive Plan Revision CPR 4-81
based on staff findings and recommendations.
APPLICANT: .Tim Chitt,-,rley CPR 6-81
REQUEST: A request for a Comprehensive Plan Revision from
R7 "Single Family Residential 7,500 square feet"
to R5 "Single Family Residential 5,000 square feet".
LOCATION: The Corner of SW 79th Avenue and Bonita Road
Washington County Tax Map 2S1 12B Tax Lot 4000.
ACTION TAKEN: This Comprehensive Plan Revision was tabled to allow
staff to work further with the applicant in the light
of concerns expressed.
ZONE CHANGES
APPLICANT: Gary Dunham ZC 5-81
REQUEST: A request for a Zone Change from Washington County
RU4 to City of Tigard NPO # 4 Plan Designation CP
"Commercial Professional".
LOCATION: 12720 SW 67th and adjoining lots north, northeast,
and east Washington County Tax Map 2S1 1AD
Lots 100, 200, 600 & 700.
ACTION TAKEN: Approval of Zone Change ZC 5-81 based on staff findings
and recommendations.
r
€ MONTHLY REPORT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MARCH 15 - APRIL 15, 1981
Page 3
CONDITIONAL USE
APPLICANT: Neil and Victoria Mc Niece CU 3-81
REQUEST: A request for a Conditional Use to build single
family attached homes in an R7 "Single Family
Residential" zone.
LOCATION: 11835 SW 95th
Washington County Tax Map lsl 35CD Lot 2500
ACTION TARN: Approval of Conditional Use based on staff findings
and recommendations. The Street Plan marked Exhibit
"A" dated April 7, 1981, be recommended by the Planning
Commission to the City Council for adoption.
The following projects were acted on by the Planning Director over the
past month.
MINOR LAND PARTITIONS
APPLICANT: Jon Girod MLP 2-81
REQUEST: To partition two lots into three lots to build
a single family home on the rear lot. The lot sizes
proposed are 13,791 sq. ft. , 14,641 sq. ft. and
7,554 sq. ft.
LOCATION: 11390 SW 92 & 11420 SW 92
Washington County Tax Map 1S1 35 DB, Lots 3800 & 3900.
ACTION TAKEN: Denial.
APPLICANT: David Metzger MLP 1-81
REQUEST: To partition a 4.78 acre lot into two (2) lots 2.71
acres and 2.07 acres respectively.
LOCATION: 13265 SW 72 Ave
Washington County Tax Map 2S1 1DB Lot 800.
ACTION TAKEN: Approval with conditions.
s
MONTHLY REPORT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MARCH 15, 1981 - APRIL 15, 1981
Page 4
SITE DESIGN REVIEWS
APPLICANT: Par Gas
REQUEST: To transfer conditions set by Washington County
to City of Tigard, which will be zoned M-4 when
the Tigard City Council approves the final
annexation ordinance.
LOCATION: 10075 SW Cascade Blvd.
Washington County Tax Map 1Sl 35 B Lot 1609
ACTION TAKEN: Approval subject to conditions.
APPLICANT: Tigard Stadium Committee
REQUEST: Site Design Review of Tigard Stadium.
LOCATION: Tigard High School, 9000 SW Durham Road
Washington County Tax Map 2S1 14A Lot 100
ACTION TAKEN: Approval siibJect to conditions.
APPLICANT: Mercer Industrics
REQTJEST: Addition to King Business Center
LOCATION: 14900 SW 74
Washington County Tax Map 2S1 12A Lots 1600, 1700 & 1800
ACTION TAKEN: Approval subject to conditions.
l
POLICE DEPARTIMENT
CONSOLLDATED MONTHLY REPORT
FOR
MONTH OF MARCH 19 81
DISTRIBUTION OF PERSONNEL
- - ---• --
AVERAGE
NUMERtICP.L STRENGTH DAILY ABSENCE �I AVERAGE EFr s'ECIIVE STRENGTH
End.of Same This Same This, � Last Saone
this Month Month Month. Month Month Month
Month Last Last Last
Year Year Year
TOTAL PERSONNEL 26 29 10.5 11.4 15.5 16.5 1 17.6
CHIEF'S OFFICE 2 2 .8 .7 1.2 1.1 1.3
.SERVICES DIJIS. 7 8 3.7 3.3 4.3 4.4 4.7-
PATROL DIVISION 14 16 6.1 6.4 7.9 9.0 9.6
TRAFFIC DIVIS. -------- ------------------ --------- --------- -------- ------- -------
INVEST. SECTION 3 3 1.0 1.1 2.0 2.0 1.9
FORCE ONE . 12 1
FORCE TWO 7 8 2.4 3.5 4.6 5.1 4.5
FORCE THREE 7 7 3.0 2.4 4.0 4,5 4.6
CHANGES IN PERSONNEL DAILY AVERAGE PATROL STRENGTH
1. Present for duty end of last month 26 This Same Month
2. Recruited during month 0 Month Last Year
3. Reinstated during month 0 1. .Total number field
----- officers 14 16
•Total to account for 26
2. less Agents Assig-
4. Leparatilons A.rom. the service: ned to Investigat. 0 0 -�
(a) Voluntary resignation 0 3. Average daily abs-
(b) Retirement 0 ences of field off-
icers owing to:
(c) Resigned with charges. pending 0 (a) Vacation„ susp-
(d) Dropped during probation 0 ension, days off, -
comp. time; etc. 5.3 5.8
(e) Dismissed for cause 0 (b) Sick & Injured _ .2
(f) Killed in line of duty -0 - . (c) Schools, etc. .8 .4
(g) -Total average daily
Deceased 0
_ absences 6.1--- _b.4
Total separations . 0 e,. Available for duty 7.9 1 9.6
5. Present for duty at end of month _
Page o_c
TIGARD POLICE DEPARTMENT
Monthly Report
i. Calls for Service: This Month_ 585 Year to Date 1
v 756
A. Obligated Time 1252.4 B. Non-Obligated Time 860.1.
II. PART I CRIMES
No. Cleared _Arrests
A. Homicide
B. Rape -1 - 1 1
C. Robbery
D. Assault 4 3 3
E. Burglary 33 6 ----�—
F. Larceny 60 29 — ---
G. An to The f t 5 2 I
Totals 103 41 33
III. PART I2 TOTALS ** 71 26 25
TOTAL - Part I and II
174 67 58
IV. TOTAL PERSONS CHARGED: 58
a. Adult Male 29 C. Juvenile Male 20
b. Adult Female 4 d. Juvenile Female 5
V. WARRANTS SERVED 3
VI. TOTAL PROPERTY LOSS $ 329879.41 TOTAL PROPERTY RECOVERED S 12,814.24
VII. TRAFFIC
a. Accidents Investigated 18 Injury Accidents 5 Fatal 0
b. Citations: VBR (Speeding)65 Yield Right of Way 2
Following too Close 0 Red Light
-2—.P' p Sign 3
Improper Turn 0-Reckless Driving-L--
Careless
riving1Careless Driving
__2_Driving Under the Influence 5
Driving While Suspended 12 Other Hazardous 7
Non-Hazardous 123 Total Hazardous 107
C. Enforcement Index 21.40
d. Traffic Enforcement Totals
Citations: This Month This Year 230 Year to Date 655
This Month Last Year_25-6 Last Year to Date_ 752
Warnings: This Month This Year 65 Year to Date 222
This Month Last Year 125 Last Year to Date 333
NOTE: - Part I Crimes (Major Crimes) Clearance Rate i
a Part II Crimes Minor Crimes)
( Clearance Rats 36.6%
• 'l1ciAKSJ Y. JLl:.'. uarp�i::.tai
1st QUARTERLY .Report
I. Calls for Service: 1,756
A. Obligated Time 3,839.3 B. _Non-Obligated Time 2,679.2
If. PART I CRIMES No. Cleared Arrests
A. Homicide
B. Rape 2 3 1
C. Robbery 3 3 2
D. Assault 21 15 12
E. Burglary 87 15 14 r
F. Larceny 177 54 47
G. Auto Theft 13 3 1
Totals 303 J93 7-7
III. PART II TOTALS 206 100 113
TOTAL - Part I and II -
509 193 190
IV. TOTAL PERSONS CHARGED: 190 ,
a. Adult Male 103 C. Juvenile Male 55
b. Adult Female 13 d. Juvenile Female�9
V. WARRANTS SERVED 27
VI. TOTAL PROPERTY LOSS $ 104,676.40 TOTAL PROPERTY RECOVERED ,540,531.35
VII. TRAFFIC
a. Accidents Investigated 80 Injury Accidents 19 Fatal 0
b. Citations: VBR (Speeding) 147 Yield Right of Way 16
Following too _Close 1 Red Light 38 Stop Sign.- 18
Improper Turn 4 Reckless Driving---2—
Careless
riving3Careless Driving 14 Driving Under the Influence 21
Driving While Suspended 35 Other Hazardous 29
Non-Hazardous 329 Total Hazardous 326
c. Enforcement Index 17.15
d. Traffic Enforcement Totals
Citations: 655
Warnings: 222
NOTE: Part I Crimes (bfajor Crimes) Clearance Rate 30.70/-
�:� - Pari II Crimes (Minor Crimes) Clearance Rate 48.5%
VIII. TRAINING
'A. Advanced Officers School.
Officer Gol Spink spent one week at the Police Academy in Monmouth. from March
2 through the 6th, attending the Advanced Officers School. He received 40
classroom hours of training.
B. Management Effectiveness.
Chief Adams and Lt. Jennings attended a 2 day workshop at Portland Community
College, Rock reek Campus, on March 6 and 7, receiving 32 man hours of training
in Management Effectiveness.
C. Supervision of Police Personnel.
Cpl. Johnson spent 2 weeks at the Police Academy in Monmouth from March g
through the 20th, attending a class on Supervision of Police Personnel. He
received 80 classroom hours of training.
D. Crime Prevention for Line Officers.
Officer Call received 16 hours of training in Crime Prevention for the Line
Officer, by attending a 2 day workshop on March 10 and 11th at Sandy Police:
Department. This class was sponsored by the Oregon Crime Watch.
E. ONEA Conference.
Sgt. wheeler and Officer Killion spent 2 days in Salem, attending the Oregon
Narcotics Enforcement Association Conference. 32 man hours were spent receiving
this training on March 12 and 13.
F. Management Seminar. A 4 day state convention for Oregon Crime
Watch was held on March 17 through the 20th at Salishan Lodge. Lt. Jennings and
Sgt. Martin spent 64 man hours attending this management seminar sponsored by
the Board on Police Standards and Training.
G. TNT Training.
Sgt. Newman attended the monthly TNT training session on March 26, receiving
additional physical fitness training. Also, they received training on building
assaults.
H. Advanced.Crime Prevention.
On March 30 and 31, a school on Advanced Crime Prevention was held at the Police
Academy. Officer Grisham received 16 hours of training.
I. -Police Reserves.
See attach..d report from the Police Reserves for their activities during March.
C�7 0
------------------------------------
t� 1� r� e� t t aj t� a s 1 U C
a e � a y I / e t e i�j c . t 1 t s� r e t ir`j 1 ■ s ;s ;�
+ hT l �j 1 p t1 r t t/''` c , @ f'�- f�C t J
f i� t� e t :_3 t m 'fix! s H �
.'"• i t� + } a l Y i f r i f 1�/ 6 G t�- t 1•-' Li a t �'' a ►�] t 7
f H t > r u 1 r t( e ! e r4 r `rte e/� r� r:� e 1�� .■ !-a r .
a n a e 1 r fes} t(�i a t 1
e o 1
t h e i tt t s i f a� ate• d� t i t i / '+ 9r� % O r
i tom• i s' ii e i e i.?! i/ e Ce^ i o
B a
---r - --� -F-------s--- --_��--___ �_-_-�_--a--- te_-�___�-_� t
J
e 11� i� e��-• ii i � i i a i a'�CI� i e i e i 1.11 e�% i d s t i
+c' + -� t se l 1 e i s I t a -� t ° r e t�� s ■ 1 PATROL
�..-..�.__._---_-_..---
t
e - t t a1 t c n t c s t e e i a t t e e a
a e t s e c a e e t e s e t DRIVING
e e c ca s ° a s s e 1 s r 1 s s t 1 ■ a
a t e n s t i o a ° t t s t a s e s ■{i'i. ...._R�. ,_!.__..Cr..-...J..__J.,,.....5�:_-.a_.,._i_....5__- - -
---__-----__-
a a 5 e
• e •a K3 ee e 1 a o 1� / t s�• ntF , i • e • 1 e e DIRECTZD
s s PATROL
s e s le e s e o a e t t e t s 1 t t a e
J---'1---1---.3,....-s.�_-•i---•t---;---4--_:.�. 4---'!._.�_.i_.�._.e.e__•r,_-_.{----..---------
s ti a °
a tt t e e at el e e r a a r SPECIAL
s(n s s t : 1 e , 1 / t ` e ! a a ■ 1
e / 1 ea c • t a t s s a s 1 e s t t a a
t m o ¢ t r t o t e s ■ DETAIL'
t
t� 1 �\'L t! 1 B 0 ! t t 1 f t - 1 1 a e 1 ■ !
-_...�-.._g_- 1 ---•1_-.�J..__3._.._1. __1'__.�i_.._1_--i_-_i-.. .6__-1'___'i-__;_-_;..-- ---••i•_-------------
e 1 t 0 0 8 ■ a-
t�t a TRANSPORT
1 !� tt ! 1 ° t e t �' 1 i �' t t - t 3 e��, a• ■
ss - l
e e e l ° t t e t a s t a t PRISONERS
o a r t e t t s e 1 ° e o 1 a t
I--- ----------+---$_-•.;-_..�--..q--------------
e i t a tt t a e s s e 1 0 ! t t a e a a t -
1� a � s ` s1 s e s 1 � 1 1 r a 1 a ct s e s ■ a
i a i ii o e i o i =i i i e i i COURT
-....�.e_-t____u___s._-s---s---j---a---y--^t---+---+---+---F---+---6---�-_-a----a--------------
s u s a c t t t e : t t e a r Is a s
o is i i $ Q TRAFFIC
e a a it t - a t a t s s 1 e t r • e e a t CONTTROL
+ t - t is 1•- a e c- a -- s 1 c 1 1 a - a t t a e
L_�_a'---tl___A--_$__'t---4---a-__d _--a-••_h-_-d---F---i'---$-- n---91---�--------
t 1 a u e
i °c---gia--..ate-_-it---+a---�a---s_-_a•-_- --_aea---�t1 s1 t aa a
CLASSROO
2i�
sQee a to i t 1 ot s � + aTRAINING
---¢---o---- ----s--------------
e t t t t a t a s a e
o • a• e u t ~ t a e c 1 t t t t B a t t a a DISPATCH
a i i ee to v o i 6 i t' i e i as 1. e a w i' OFFICE
s a f u t o e t t t s • t ° - e s 1 e s e 1
-.._�-_�---tt---;__-j^--b--- --- --- --- _--e---�---o---r---r---r---r -ro---4--------------�
s t o a e a
®e �° �° 1o t e t o f f c a ADMINISTRA
+ s t . e
i • e e o t c o e i N o�lJ s
tJ s.
o e a a 1 a a
e_-��__.s---1a---+..__s_-_+--_F_-_s----a---f---r---e----r---e----r___r---r---�a--ms-------- -
g a i i p ' e i i i CMMUNITY
as a ' i is s i i e i i e e i o e i i e i RELATIONS
a i a ee e e e i as s s e i e a i i a a s REPORT
s e 0f8 0 8 i i i a e s i WRITING
.e a . a ' ra a 1 t 1 c e . a o - t t ■ o
a_.._-c._�.a.---IZ'-•--4---e•---Q- Q'---r--_Y-r"_e---r-"-r---r-------r---r'---r---T---T----- -------
6 t • tt t 6 1 1 is-
e - 0 ■ •
is i e c i. i Ii i i�- s. s e a i e s ASSIST'
■ s s u a
i c e- i e i i a i i e to a i PUBLIC-
+L-.--rte.--+----��___r---t-_-r--^r---r---r-:-t.___6•_--r^--P-_-r--_r.�_ter---r---V---F--------------
a Jg,- it t
/a t r e r ACADEMY° 1 A 0
� t 4.'\ 1� it e a e e� t e� t e • a ° e r e a ! '
-.._r---.----e�---s--__s.--- -__a---- -.._$-------•-------
a(�! e ¢ r t e s e e t s ■ e OTHER
t s a t
e 1 r t s e o a o a
a t a s r e a a °
c__--a_-_-i_--_•;sr----i----e----°r---r---s--_-i^_--r---r----r---r---r---r'---r---r---r---r--------------
a / s ct e r s e e e e t e a e r e 1 ■ B
t•-. e` s„ t1 1 t : a, / o t a(' t t to
2COTAL
e��j i i i/-yi i � i '
A
iseC`` e i i 8 ar 9 e r �7 s e HOURS
A s c
s
c t e 11 e a t ai
B
• s t s t 1 ° a a f ° e se
a......-..r��y�_, ,,,.ZA._'.-t•_^^_C___i•__-^!.'__-P._..-r-....R'_."'S__^_e-_--B 9 1 Y i ■ i --------
f""�• t m tf t e t t a 9 c r t e • a ! e ■ 6
ii s s r s a•� t r 1 t/-� i J e i " i�' i .�e a i NUMBER OF
e
*. t � a m 1 a
Cl
Mj
Ell'
S J
• a
TATIONS
NINGS
cn
SISI OFF. n
JACCDT.
c3
SP® PERSON
o-3
c
SP.. VEHICLEN
-SES =rZSR"S
G—ATIO14S
HES
- -. _. _moi- -_.._ _. - - ..-.- ._ ... - _: • .. ..- �... .. .. � ��_.�� ._. - ._.- ..-.. _.
Iv
...,A.,fJby
PROCLAMATIONWil
:w
WHEREAS, the transportation industry is
recognized as an extremely vital force in the
economic welfare of the United States of America
from the local to the international level ; and 7= `
WHEREAS the economic welfare-of the
State of Oregon and all its communities is highly _ f
dependent upon the transportation system; and `"! },;..
WHEREAS, transportation provides great
benefit to our nation in providing the means of
transporting economic goods to market areas from _-•i
the local level to the international level and in
providing the facilities for the movement of pass- ;:.,
engers; and
WHEREAS, the transportation industry
provides essential employment for millions of
people in the nation and makes great contributions
in federal and state tares ,
NOW, THEREFORE I Wilbur A. Bishop, ".j •}j*3)'Y-4..
Mayor .of the City of Tigard, Oregon, do hereby �=
proclaim the week of May 10 through 16, 1981 as '``''t`=~ �_
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION WEEK
and call upon all citizens to give full recognition
0_1 Support to the Lraaispvi`atao: i^d,�st,-v in Tivard
and in the United States.
mom
7z •' ,..i
In testimony whereof, I here-
unto set my hand and have 1
caused to be affixed the Seal
of the City of Tigard, Oregon,
this 27th day of April , 1981 .
Mayor, City oF Tigar
X�
Ip
k �4
Tmm O T Q!',o0
o Z�. r :.e 3 o K I" •i..e
N
a n m n 0, ° 3
P 3 T
b v$ 1 A w W wpi
V7H
a O
tZ„d o o N oe w to �o
C
Y 2 m w CD I z
o
a 00
• oz o c '�P Iswe or Candidate
m aj�
o " o ` .� N Authorizing a Levy
'^ 7 r �-� W �! �, for Youth Services
N C
b p 0
G a
o O
c\
D g �
C3 O O
A i
D —
�• oo o� O �L
y � D-121
m rn
n c r 9
z .„ ( I l
•o a D
i
^ o u04+0 '01 1 Dwo(a!o!pn(• •L jv,pp05d•eo!Afin
yjvyuesaded 0041 .6 1o.!}}O OMS •9 e6i01 4v -ivfivjoa .E P-P! d .( S310A AO �.)VbISGV 0955('eN
V vo4vu0s 0jvjs .a UMMOAL•OC)PUP JO4VUOS'S'(1 'S UVVIDOjj!wwOOD IVUO:jVt4 -t un)540-45 o'a0Jas I N003a0 dO 31d1S 010=c3c
i
Ynir .fit <' A° 4keSC�� iFxJ�{ ��:«4vraotwe� ,Lyl�n�s; r" t•' ate: a6Jy_a .•..t s: :rt_.p,'
S.W. MCDONALD ST. SANITARY SEWER LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
/CONTRACTOR ADDRESS PRE UAL.
Bid Bond BID AMOUNT
1. Marshall Assoc. Box 278p alatin 97062 X e
2. X Y-166,898.40
Cortland Concrete Pipe Box 248, Tualatin. 97062
3. Spr u E c. Co. 15880 SW 7th. Tigard --�
X 102,545_22 _
4. L- -G -C2nstr_.-_ 3470 SW 209th Ave. Aloha 97007__ X
-- _.-
5.
6. Tobe�r°s Excay. 33003 SW TV_Utiv. Hillsboro 1L23 X X
- 133.521.90 __
7. Werbin West 5506 NE 16th Portland 97211 X
X _ _
8. Grm�eLt 101,455.80
E�1t� _ 1021 Blm Street - Forest Grove 92116_ R -
-'- _122961.40
9. -- —.._
Miller__&. -9714Q - X _
10. Bcl �se Construction PO Box 3 Sand _97005 -
11. Ken HoAd Constr. 16740 SE Vinevara Rd_ s� Milwaukie X -_'----1---
12. Hind s_Suppl-y Co, 4060 SW Hockens ,Ave. Beaverton —
13. jIydronix Inc. ---
2425-,SE Ochoco SC_,Portland-,_97015___
14. Wes Kms____— —14774_SE Brower_Rd,� Clackamas _X_
15. Bill Page Constr. PO Box 498, Newberg X
-- --" X 164,203.50
16. Tom Ault 117.5 SW Ti.edema�i ___ -
17. Liberty Constr, Box 384—Q,'Lkam.s
18. X
X
- -.
C.W. I2cCallen_Constr __8475 SW Murray X .
X 145552r-__.. .90
19. Kurt
K.__i_m_s_v Constr.*„* 15252_5E_LaBonitt _,-Milw. --- -- -
X 165,476.00
20. Bones�Constr. 508 SW 209th Aloha 97007`
--y-- - X _ X •265, 138.45
----
1. Paco PumP_s..._____._ PO Box 4285
22. IXELer, Constr. 8130 SE4Tolman,_F�ortland -' —
— __..__— 127 403.8
23. Oreton Elect. Con_— 4824 NE 42nd PoY;tland
4. Fuiten Pl . Heating 2004 Main St.. Forest Grove
X .17 1543 0 64__._._ .
25. Cascade Dj thing_-_—_��2 Liberty RRd,,, -
S �.alem
26• I4M_Con.r�etg— PO Box 11204A Portland '
**No signed addendum
SOW. MCDONALD ST. SANITARY SEWER LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (CONT
CONTRACTOR
ADDRESS
PRE UAL.
27. Artco Constr. Bid Bond BIDS
12510. SW Scb.olls Ferry Rd 97223
28. Dan McLau Klin X
$w. 8925 SE Montere _ ej7266
29. ADS Equiyment -_�'r P =-
30• SCCI S15S -97208 144 839_._S5
31znc, McGilch`ist 97302 �-` -"
Ton uin Quar ,_Co__�_12020 $W Ton,quin Rd. 97140 —_' X ----.__._183,_o94.Q0
32. McCormick Pi _e
. . ._ P
33. --__----
Parsons97:L23_ExcavO R_t._3-Box -560, -------
Hillsboro 97123
34, Bowers Excay. - - _.. .__.- - _ ___, X g
3421 Was_ hburii Wav, K. Falls, OR i 170 403.85
35. ._ME.M. Corp
Corvallis_ 97330
36. _Dou _ .. r__ ..._.. _
S.Constr. ..___ --_"__`---- X
PU. Box 1386.1,, Salem.97309-_ 98207.85
37. TJnZ�d pipe & Supply p0 Box 17068 Por,Hand,-97217-y-_- -_.'._.___•.________-�__�y___
38. .Lord Bros. Const
39. L.R721Z_
_. Moore Inc. PO Box 12368 Salem
V.A. McQueary _-- — 97309 — -----. ..._X
C 6878 Burnett St. S.E., Salem, Oregon 97301-
X 147,756.80
c �--
162,322.53
BIDS WERE OPENED 3:30 P.M. Thursday, April 9, t
1981, City Administraor's Office
and the above listed bids were received. City Hall
Cl- ty Recorder .G�-r
i
1
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF TIGARD, OREGON _.
NOTICE OF APPEAL File No.V15-80; CU14-80
1. Name : David Church by' Lawrence R. Derr, Attorney
2, Address : Norton House, 33 N.W. First Avenue
(Street/P.O. Box
Portland Ore on 97209
C 1 ty-)------ (State) Zip Code)
3. Telephone No. : 227-3331
4. If serving as a representative of other persons , list their names
and addresses :
David Church
6328 S W Haynes Road
Portland, Oregon 97219
5. What is the decision you want the City Council to review?
(Examples : denial of zone change; approval of variance. )
Denial of Conditional Use and Variance
6, The decision being appealed was announced by the Planning Commission
CD-
on February 3, 1981
Date
7. On what grounds do you claim status as a party? (See Section 18 . 92.020
Tigard Municipal Code. )
A2plicant
g. Grounds for reversal of decision. (Use additional sheets if
necessary. ) Your response should deal with the following:
(a) Explain how your interest is damaged.
(b) Identify any incorrect facts mistakenly relied on in the
decision or recommendation from which you appeal.
(c) Identify any part of the zoning code or other law which you
claim has been violated by the decision or recommendation
from which you appeal .
(d) Describe what decision you are asking the City Council to make.
See attachment
9. Estimate the amount of time you will need to present your argument to
the City Council. (The Council will schedule more than 15 minutes
per side only in extraordinary circumstances. Each side will be
given the same length of time for its presentation. )
15 minutes
Signed: � _.
01 --
Dateebruary 15, 1981
###########################################################################
FOR USE BY CITY
Date and time of filing:
Date of Planning Commission decision:
SJT�
ft{.L' Set 1V1 COU--; I.�.
Time allowed for arguments : per side
Entered by:
Amount paid: Receipt #:
Page 2 of 2
Notice of Appeal
ATTACHMENT TO NOTICE OF APPEAL
V 15-80; CU 14-80
THE APPLICATION
Mr. Church seeks approval of a conditional use permit to
authorize construction of two single family attached dwelling
units on two lots that will be created from an existing lot
of 15,378 square feet. Upon approval, the Planning Director
will process a minor land partition to divide the lot and, if
necessary, a six inch access width variance for each of the
resulting lots.
HISTORY
Although the proposal is very simple, a history of prior
applications affecting the property together with changes in
the Ordinances led to confusion at the initial Planning Com-
mission hearing and a denial without reaching themerits
Subsequently,
Brits
single family attached housing on the property.
Mr. Church and the City staff were able to resolve the con-
fusion sufficiently to produce a mutual request that theCity
tion
Council remand to the Planning Commission where the app
was reconsidered pursuant to a staff recommendation for approval.
` The Planning Commission again tailed to address the merits of
the conditional use application and denied the proposal after
referring only to access requirements that were not at issue
before them.
In the hope of avoiding any further confusion, the planning
history of the property and adjoining lots is set forth with
reference to the diagram attached as Exhibit "A" . Tax Loved
ts
1800 and 1801 were created by a minor land partition app
March 19 , 1974 (MLP 1-74) . Tax Lot 1801 had 19 feet of fee
ownership access on S.W. Grant plus a 10 foot access easement
across the northerly portion of Tax Lot 1800, creating a total
of 29 feet of access.
In 1976 and 1977 a previous owner sought approval to
partition Tax Lot 1801 into two lots and to build two duplexes,
one on each lot. The Planning Commission denied that proposal
for four dwelling units on Tax Lot 1801 (MLP 7-76, V 9-76 ,
CU 26-76) �
On January 24 , 1980 the Planning Director granted admin-
istrative approval for a minor partition of Tax Lot 1801 into
Lots 1 and 2 (MLP 20-79) . By deed recorded July 24, 1980 ,
Lot 2 is granted a 19 foot easement along its northerly line
f
t
E
and a 29 foot easement from its eastern line to S.W. Grant_
By a separate decd recorded the same date, Lot 1 is granted a
10 foot easement across Lot 2 and Tax Lot 1800 to Grant. The
effect is that both Lots i and 2 have 29 feet at the narrowest
point of access to Grant. Exhibit "A" shows the lot lines and
easements.
REMOVAL OF CONDITION 6 BY VARIANCE
When granting the MLP 20-79 partition, the Planning
Director noted as a finding that if the applicant wishes to
construct a duplex on Lot 1 in the future, he will have to apply
for a conditional use permit and a one foot access variance.
Duplexes are only permitted as a conditional use in the R-7
zone and 30 feet is the minimum access for three dwellings
(including the single family dwelling on Lot 2) . The Director
included as condition 6 that the applicant shall construct only
one single family dwelling on Lot 1. Although expressed as a
condition, this was simply a statement of the requirements of
the Zoning Ordinance, as noted in the finding.
Mr. Church has now done exactly what the Planning Director
indicated. He has applied for a conditional use permit and
an access variance. The CUP is for single family attached,
rather than a duplex. The access variance, which is for six
inches for each of the two proposed lots, is an administrative
matter and is not before the Council.
The City has erroneously treated the CUP application as
two applications, one for the CUP and another for a variance
to remove condition 6 of PILP 20-79. Approval of the CUP will
remove the condition. To require a variance as well is both
illogical and unfair. It converts condition 6 into a statement
that: "The property owner can never apply for a CUP. " It
requires a determination: of whether the condition can be removed
before reaching the issue of whether single family attached
hni�ai nrr chnia1A 41P Al lnwari _ This may 'k: ^=-4-4 ally "" source
of the Planning Commission's confusion that kept it from con-
sidering the proper issue. Moreover, the variance criteria
are quite strict because they "authorize variances from the
requirements of [the Zoning Ordinance] " §18. 76 .010. But the
applicant is requesting a use that is permitted as a condi-
use by the Zoning Ordinance. The variance criteria are
irrelevant to a conditional use application, impose an improper
burden on the applicant and obscure the real issue.
AFFORDABLE, OWNER-OCCUPIED HOUSING
Another source of the Planning Commission's difficulty
with this application may be that it is still thinking of a
previous proposal that it denied for four rental units.
-2-
r
Mr. Church's proposal would create a total of three units,
not four. A duplex on a single lot necessarily involves
rentals . Single family attached permits separate home owner-
ship of each of the units. Although Mr. Church would not
bother to partition the property if it were not his intention
to sell the unit, separately, it is not necessary to rely on
his promise to do so. As a result of the cost of construction
and applicable interest rates, it is not possible to receive
rents that would pay even a substantial portion of the debt
service on a rental duplex. Economic reality dictates that the
two units be separately owned. The result will be a much
needed addition_ to the stock of quality, but affordable owner-
occupied housing. Due to the unusual circumstances surrounding
both hearings before the Planning Commission, it did not
consider this fact.
ACCESS VARIANCE
Section_ 18.64.020 requires 10 feet of access for each
of three single family dwelling units (a total of 30 feet) .
The access can be provided by fee pwnership or easement.
Thirty feet is the maximum requirement for up to 19 multiple
family units as well. The staff and Mr. Church are in agree-
ment that 9. 5 feet for each of the single family attached units,
or a 6 inch variance from the Ordinance requirement is adequate
to provide safe and efficient access and the staff has expressed
a willingness to grant the variance administratively. If 30
feet can adequately serve 19 units, it is inconceivable that
29 feet cannot be designed to adequately serve three units.
Although the access variance was not before the Planning
Commission, it chose to direct the Planning Director to not
grant such a variance. Consequently, the Planning Director
needs some direction from the City Council. The preferable
course would simply be to free him to exercise his own dis-
cretion. However, if the Council believes that 6 inches is
critical, Mr. Church has obtained the assurance of the property
owner to the north that he will grant a one foot access ease-
ment to provide a total access of 30 feet. It was not possible
to anticipate that the one foot differential would be an issue
before the Planning Commission, so this information was not
available at its hearings.
PROPOSED CONDITIONS
This application relates only to Lot 1 of Tax Lot 1801
and its associated access easement. Although there is no
basis for conditions that impose a burden on Lot 2, Mr. Church
is willing to grant the Nonremonstrance Agreement for Lot 2
and develop a design plan incorporating Lot 2 that should meet
the needs of the City. There should be clarification that
Lot 2 is not otherwise involved.
-3-
Proposed conditions 2, 3, 4 and 9 suggest detailed design
requirements. Upon analysis of a site and design plan for the
property by the Planning staff, it is submitted that some of
these requirements will appear unnecessary or unwise_ For
example, the 29 foot access strip now provides off-street
parking and effective open space to the house on Tax Lot 1800,
both of which would be lost by the imposition of a 6 foot
fence on the easement boundary. Appropriate landscaping can
provide separation while retaining these values. Conditions
2, 3, 4 and 9 should be replaced by a single condition making
Chapter 18. 59 Design Review applicable to the property pursuant
to 518.59.040. The effect will be to deter decision on
specific requirements until a design plan is prepared, while
leaving complete authority with the Planning Director.
REQUESTED DECISION
A. Approve Conditional Use Permit for two single family
attached dwelling units on Lot I of Tax Lot 1801 subject to
conditions ?, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12 of the staff report and
the following additional conditions:
1. The provisions of Chapter 18. 59 Design Review
are made applicable.
2. Lot 2 of Tax Lot 1801 is subject to Design Review
only oo the extent it is affected by access to Lot 1.
B. Clarify that the Planning Director may grant an
access variance within his discretion, if any is required.
C. Dismiss V 15-80 relating to variance of condition 6
of MLP 20-79.
-4-
P20D05ED PA(2TITIOKI
—
402-
. - �•. .�.
PROPOSED Sit�IC-�L� _
FAMILY-ATTAC"Ep
moo
,ov
E3C1�Ti[�!C SIhIC��E �-� VIC- �O-
I~-AMl LY DWEL.LINCN
/800 Nl�
\o s
EXiSTItrtC,� SI�tG�,i= - P
PA M l LY DW ELU N C, —�
� Y
mill
TRA241SCRIPT OF PLA!"n1ING COi24ISSION HEARING
February 3, 1981 - Agenda Item 5.1 - David Church
Fowler Junior High School - Lecture Room
10865 SW 'rlaalnut Street - Tigard, Oregon
Present for this hearing:
Commissioners: Bonn, Helmer, Herron, Kolleas, Moen, Speaker
Presiding: President Tepedino --
Absent: Funk -
Chairs V ac ant: One
Staff: Howard, Newton
STENOGRAPHER'S NOTE: The recording of speakers while illustrating
points at the blackboards and those at some distance from the
recorder was not very clear. Where their words were not decipher-
able the record so indicates with I feel nothing really
-pertinent was lost, but the precise wording of Commissioner Moen's
notions cannot now be ascertained. (He was sitting farthest
from the recorder.)
The president opened this. hearing by calling for the reading of
the staff report. . . _
Howard: (He read the staff report through the staff narrative and the
Introductory paragraph of staff recommendations suggested by staff
should the commission approve the applicant's request.)
There are twelve of those. If you want me to read them now --
Tepedino: No,_I don't think so.
Howard: I don't think we need to.
Tepedino: And it's in the public record.
Howard: Right. One more thing: we have received a letter from Mona Rosa--
in fact we have two letters from Mona, and she's the owner of Tax
Lot 1800.
(He read letters dated December 8, 1980, and Janaury 30,
1981, copies of which are attached to this transcript.)
I apologize for laughing, but I talked to this lady in New York a
couple of times (chuckling). That's the record, that's the staff
report. It's in-your court.
Tepedino: May we have the applicant's presentation, please? Incidentally,
if you'd like to speak tonight, we would like to .encourage you to
move up close to the front and save a few Moments time.
r Church: I am David Church, the applicant in this case--the 9Qgreedy
_ speculator". Let's first clear up the clarifications about what
-1-
TRANSCRIPT OF P=UMING C01-IMISSION HEARING
David Church
February 3, 1981
Church: needs to be cleared. I don't know if you have had an opportunity
(Cont.) to speak with staff about the clarifications and consensus we have
reached regarding the initial confusion of access require=nts, .
and that's what I mould like to address first.
The application is for a conditional use permit to allow construc-
tion of a single family attached on the rearmost lc", represented
on that sketch back there (referring to a sketch of the property
on the blackboard). Thia would• requj_;-e` t.o 92 foot. strips---okay--
a one foot variance which is an insignificant variance, and as you
have in the staff report, could be granted. The confusion has
existed as to whether this 10 foot easement could be considered
for access purposes as part--could be considered- an easement and
not the ownership--could be considered for azacess purposes. He
have at the staff level, we have talked and clearly reached the
consensus that that is in fact possible so that we have--I doaot
know If there is any doubt here--but we have reached that level
and'consensus that In fact what we are.talking about Is-something
that can under the existing ordinances be done and that the one
foot variance is not considered extraordinary. So on that Level,
then ---
i 1-would like next to address --- maybe it needs to be, because you
are. concerned about it -- traffic or density to the area. what
I propose is an improvement over an as-travelled road, and in fact
I have been out on the ground to measure the distances involved,
and there is some reference to that in the staff report. The
actual as-travelled road in. no way encroaches upon or affects the
present use of her property in any way, including the off-street
parking which Is there. The easement--the distance of the easement
Which is shown in the left-most dotted .lir:a, :gym sor..c lO fccL,
ll-'g feet to the structure. The off-street parking that is currently
taking place there is an encroachment onto my property--one which
Is allowed and one which I wjll, continue to allow, because the
as-travelled road is further to the right on that drawing of that
easamen,t; so what my proposal has is absolutely no change in the
use of Miss Rosas property.
There are--in reference to that--I can get-to the staff recommenda-
tions noir: Item 3 is a requirement for 24 feet of the 29 foot
easement strip to be paved to serve three units for access and
egress. That requirement would in fact although it could be
i legally done, and I could do that if the planning commission so
requested--that would In fact eliminate the off-street parking
that Miss Rosa is talking about, so If that Is a consideration
I would like to address that on that ground and on other grounds.
3 would like to have the planning commission remove this recommend-
! { ation. What we .had planned to do Is to improve an as-travelled
road which is a distance varying anywhere from 12 to 16 foot. It
-Z-
1
TRAILISCRIP- OF PLANING COMMISSIOP: RRARIPIG
David Church
February 3, 1981
Murch: should be noted that the 24 foot distance of the 29 foot is
(Cont.) derived from the formula for access that 8C% : of the required
easement width be paved. The 29 foot requirement is the require-
ment that Operates for anywhere from three to thirty units. Our
request actually only concerns the single family attached, and
therefore only two. It is an incidental use of that same strip,
or boweverwise It be that the single family residence used that, so
it is argueable as to Whether there is two or three units. But
whether two or three units aAe being served, alloy, ticc� Lo-nse that
access strip. But in any event it's pretty clear that
requirement is 29 foot for two, three or thirty units, then if the
clearly something more is called for for thirty units, and something
less is called for for two or three units. So what I arm suggesting
Is that this recommendation be amended to include the Pavia- of
an as-travelled road, and I Will submit a design specifying the
actual width that staff or the building department or whoever
would like to see that.
Also Item"2, *a six foot sight-obscuring fence shall be
around the perimeter of the parcels 1 and 2 constructed
of the 29 foot easement strip. Here a and n in both sides
problem as to changing the use and enjoymenteofuthenOff-street thsame
Parking in the front lot if one did im rove
along that side. We are t p -mut a six foot fence
1 don't think that was envisionedabyuthe 0staff"when 0 fee- of fthey in and.
that -- that's the first thin Y included
family lot that is there, is of part sof�this=ap lication,parcel 1, hnotin�le
part of this proposal. We are talking about something that is
proposed on the back lot, so what I am suggesting is that I submit
a landscape plan Which includes some sight-obscuring means--1
propose some sort of arborvitae, laurel hedge--something
rough job at
of that
sort---rather than a fence. I like to do a very tho
landscaping on houses, and that plan certainly would be submitted
before to be coordinated with the Planning director or with the
building department at the time we construct. But to put a fence
all around all my parcels
1 and parcel 2--I think would
not be the best way to develop the property. It doesn't make
sense. There is already a fence that I constructed along
of that lot which does not go to the property viae, so the
side
e literal
Interpretation of that is Bre Would have a fence some ten feet neat
to an existing fence. ° I ass that that be amended to allow
a landscaping plan' to be submitted to the planning director -
-to work on that building. prior
The other recommendations, I have no quarrel with. I can live
With it, will accept.
8
_ `repedinoa Thank you, Mfr. Church. Are there any other parties wishing
o to
TRANSCRIPT OF PLANNING COrMISSION HEARING
David Church
Februa--Y 3, 1981
Tepedino: speak. In favor of this proposal? Whose in favor= Are there any
(Cont.) parties w1shIng to spear in opposition to this proposal? Now in
the opportunity for cross-examination and/or rebuttal, on any of the
evidence presented, from the public or the commissioners. Ques-
tions? Yes, sir — Gommis!3ioner Moen?
Moen: 'fes, I am going to ask Aldle for the record No. 1, what
has changed since our last act here., and No. 2a I am kind of curious
about _v on this diagram you show, us- -- right now is it proposed
that you have three driveways coag;.-
One relying on a 10 foot easement, and the other two coming off
the back — or what?
Howard: Liz Newton will, explain that diagram to you.
Speaker: Mr. President, I would like to have an explanation, and I think.
Liz can give it to us, of the history of this property -.- the
appearances before the planning commission and what was done and
the conditions that were
Tepedino: Will you yield to that on your question, Commissioner Moen? To
Commissioner Speaker's question?
Moen: I certainly will I thinlf I.t will answer my questions. Thank
you.
Newton: Okay O9 the first lot, the single family lot, was created in the
ataff report for the March 19, 1974 request to split this property.
Thia lot had already been created illegally (painting to the second
lot from the street) and a violation--a Tigard subdivision viola-
tion--was placed on the lot. When the owner found out that, he
went through the minor land partition process. He had already
created it and recorded it, but the city found out that he created
It. through their records and told him, so he went through the
process to create it through the city, and the planning commission
granted approval to create this lot with the following conditions:
that the property owner cause any lot on the proposed partition
and/or partitions to have a. minimum 7500 sgvre foot lot size,
that the property owner dedicate an additional five foot right of
gray for future improvement of Grant; that the lot be surveyed;
and that an easement be recorded guaranteeing access to the
rear portion of the parcel, said easement to be approved by tine
city attorney, so that this single family lot was approved --
Speaker: Okay, now what is the easement?
Newton: Just this one, okay? I am just saying it was approved---okay?--
wIth those couditions.. Then in 1976, September 7, a request -by
a new owner--Kelsey--for.a minor land partition, a variance of
-4-
TRA`-SCRI?T OF ?LA1, ING CoiLiISSION HEARING
David Church
February 3, 1981
Newton: driverray width--for this driveway--and a conditional use to construct
(Cont.) two duplexes. on this back portion of this lot--that was what his
request was; so that hadntt been built on yet. It was split off
okay! and his conditions were -- what happened to him
was, they were denied. He was denied on all counts. The minor
?and partition was denied because of failure to comply with ,
conditions of the previous partitioniag. He hadn't recorded an
easement, and he hadn't dedicated the right of Bray. • Okay. The ;
variance was denied because any hardship imposed was self-created,
It was determined by the planning co^==ssion, and not a creation
of the land itself. And the conditional use was denied because
conditions of the previous minor land partition had not been
fulfilled. Okay. Then on January 24 a request by Garvin, a new
owner, to partition. a .57 acre lot into two lots was approved,
with the following conditions, and there are the conditions that
we got in your staff report--Condition No. 6 being that this
be single family because of the easement situation.
Teaedino: I have a question. The single family lot had already previously
been approved. But the third owner wanted to cut it? -And what
did he want to do with that?
Ne.ton: He wanted to partition this again.
Tepedino: Just the back portion?
Newton: P.ight. So what happened was, when this guy went in he didn't
record it again -- somehow the recording was lostof this middle
lot, and that's real important -- I called today and -got some
background on it -- so it kept being applied to this split (I
forgot to tell you that) as it was originally partitioned :.as
recorded, and he didn°t-meet the conditions and it somehow lapsed,
and so this was not thereby recorded. So Aldie's request: Was for
partitioning the-lot the same way with this lot being split off
again, and this being split off.
The last request allowed this person to split this lot off and
construct a house, and that was when Condition No. 6 was applied
to this lot. However, like it says in the staff report, at that
time when he applied, Condition No. 6--based on adequate access--
was not valid, because easement situations as granted by the plan-
ning commission were okay under the ordinance. A previous ordinance
had read that each lot must abut a public street at least 10 feet
being used for easement, must abut a public street, and it must be
ownership, not just an easement situation--it must be fee owner-
ship. But on November 5, 1979, when that new ordinance was written,
that portion was deleted. I understand by accident (I was not
here)--I understand it was not intended --
tJ -
Tepedino: Okay, but the condition insofar as the use of that back lot--was
TRA_nSCRIPT OF PLAINITING COMMISSION HEARING
David Church
February 3s 1951
Tepedino: it extraneous today of the requirements - •
(Cont-)
Newton: In terns of that condition?
• L • - - __
Tepedino: . . single family-•-of that condition?
Newton: Okay; CondItlon'No. 6 exists on the property. But what I am saying.
is, the reason that the planning commission set it: or that the
staff recommended the planning commission set it, was not a valid
reason. --.The• first time it was placed on, for whatever reason
when It said that each lot from here back must be 7500 square
feet, it was valid, because that was part of the Code in 1971+;
but' 3n 1979 when-it- was'-required that this must be single family
because of the access problem; that was not a valid requirement
because it was not=covered in the Code at that time.
When I wrote the staff report for the November 25, 1950, meeting
gnd used the same argument, looking through the Code and talking
to Frank Currie, I didn't have an up-to-date copy of the Code'in
:My •offices so I found that I hadntt had the new ordinance put in.
And in talking.to Darld Churchfs attorney, he had an- up-to-date
copy of the Code, and he ?pointed out to me, and I talked to Frank,
and that is schen going through all the ordinances we discovered
that the ordinance had been rewritten with that section left out.
If we use the, copy of the Code that he had, it Isn't valid to
require that for that reason--it Isn't a valid reason.
Speaker: Well, then, we required something for the wrong reason. I wonder
If we can't require it for some other reason—for a proper reason?
Bonn: (7) 1 .have a question, then: • are you through with the history?
Newton: Yeah.
Boaas last time and finally got • . . • . . . how is it
Intended now that it is split into two lots, how is it intended
that 1800 and the two rear lots, Lot 2, have• access to the street?
Newton: Well, because --- yeah, this is an area -•-•-111ke he was explaining,
there is. an as-travelled road, and it is just about 12 feet, 16
feet
Church: It varies, because it generally-winds around some existing trees.
Bonn: Is it on Toot 18002
' Newton: Itts right here.
TRANSCRIPT OF PLAIMING C0M 11SSION AEILRING
David Church
February 3, 1981
Church: There. Okay, 1 am worried about ---
Newton: There is nobody travelling on your easement now.
Church: Is it suggested that v-
Newton: If YOU go with the access requirements for the three parcels,
you have to have 30 feet of access, which mould take you to here
for 29 feet and --
Church: Which is legal, but you wouldnIt be taking --
(Confused, because both talking at the cams tine)
Newton: Thatds a legal easement; you could use that . . . . .
Church: Okay, how did we leave it last time? I guess you denied the
request--in any case, what kind of a situation does that leave us
with? Does that leave us with a single lot in back, and both lots
would be served off that 19 foot?
Newton: _ YOU know, they would have to have a 6JLx inch variance.
Speaker: TAz, about what is the area of the three parcels?
Church: The rearmost is some 15,000 feet--the body of the lot is almost
12,000 feet.
Speaker: By the body you mean --
Church: The rectangular part. I believe you have a copy of a sketch
(Several people talking at once into the nicrnphnno.)
Tepedino: I have--since we are on cross-examination--I have a question for
staff, and the question simply is this: that this has been remanded
to us for review, and the question I have is this remanded for a
de novo review--in other words are we hearing this as though this
was a new item brought to us for our conteml?latton today, and if
that is the case and it is a de novo review, I would suggest that
--this--planning commission sit here and look at this as though it _
were a new item to us, and would then consider it under the present
requiremeaats with all the factors that we normally take into con-
sideration in this kind of a request--that is, whether it is a good
application within the confines of our goals and guidelInes of
the Code of the City of Tigard. Is that your understanding?
Howard: Yea. '
Te
pedino: Are there any other questions on cross-examination or rebuttal?
-7-
TRANscRIpT of PLA UNG C010113SION HEARING '
David Church ,
February .3s 1981
Speaker: I tell you - Ltz, the applicant gave the information I was reall-
Interested In on the size of the lots. NOW have a uest
02 c °
sa
her Is ma
line.apparently says that the house was built within a°foot
setback? s t 'szs and if so, does that give the proper
- -
Church: a can state It is not true., .
and there are stakes set I have had the property surueyeds
s and the city engineer Brent out and looked
at those stakes and he said the setback was fine. But at any rate
an I was he s1mZl aai;a t'-9y that 1s affec-t'"-g tha rear-�� lot -and not the single family that is already constructed. It's -
already there.
Speaker: We11s, I think the plannin -
consider some other thiC co!emission has the opportunity to
s
ing I
is howGZOS9 to Mrs. Rosa's house doesne hthatheasementt am ed in
Protested about, come to .her house? that She
Church: Eleven and one-half feet. :... .
Newton: Her house Is here there+ '� -
s s Zl� feet; she's got a porch which sticks
a. out from -her-house; there's 6-27 feet from the easement to the
Porch. She's got a siaole story house---at the most it could be
construed as a, story-.and-a-half, With a basement
ground level; but it is only required toslightly above
.have si
• . (Several people talking n x feet. - •
1.n here, kind of off the street. once) There•s cars parked-
Helmer: Is somebody
3-in
g In this home behind?
Church: No; it's a new, completed house. rte
s _ tha mariset.
Helmer: It Is on the market? _
%ou built it?
Church: Y acquired the
propQrty when it was partially co
completed the house. mpleted, and
Te
pedino: Any other questions on cross-examination ox-.,rebuttal? Commies
Bonn: inners?
Were all the other conditions met
that rear lot? ? Eventually they did divide .
%ou mentioned about a five foot fn the front
Newton: (Her fairly short response did not record adequately, sinc
was talking at the blackboard.) e she
Tepedino: That's a question I have, too: are we suggesting .
are some problems wi
with the lot containn or � still that there
home on it, insofar as recordation of easementaving a single family
Newton: There is a legally .
_ g ly recorded easement -..
TRANSCRIPT OF F"'PUING COI•11•IISSIOA REAPING
David Church
February j, 1981
Tepedino: But are all the conditions that were placed during --
Newton: Other than there was the one Outstanding conditIon that the
dedication of 5 feet in front of the property has not been made.
Tepedino: And everything else is --
Newton: There is a recorded easement.
Tepedino: Although when one of these movements had taken place, was notice -'
placed on the property owner that the back lot would be for a
single family type?
Newton: One time it was placed that they have 7500 square foot lots in the
rears and the other time it was that it would be single family
houses.
Speaker: Now that one that has the single family--that is better than
7500 square foot lot?
Newton: I believe so. . . . . (Several people talking at orae.)
Tepedino: Commissioners? Cross-examination?
Bonn: So down in here, then, we do not have the easement between the
right-of-way dedication here?
Newton: Across the front of this property is where we lack the five feet.
We don't have a recorded dedication.
Speaker: Now there is a ponderosa pine, I believe?
Newton: I tTiihlc it4a riahi hAre� 'i�nit i+_ M� Cs..__L..
Church: Itle within two or three foot of Grant Street, and within about
four feet of the rightmost property corner.
Speaker: I presume in site design review you would mandate that to be saved?
Newton:
One of the conditions on there is that if we decide to save the
tree, then we could thus vary the pavement slightly here . "
Tepedino: Anyfurt.er questions, cross-examination or rebuttal from the -
Commissioners? Or from the public? I close the public hearing
portion on this issue. Commissioners? Commissioner Moen?
Poen: Well --- in looking at it, I am not quite sure what
PonditIon 6 . . . . One Of. them, I am sure, is the problem of the
access; and even though that may have been one of the reasons, in
i.a looking at the lot, what we .have there, I still feel very strongly
-9-
TRUISCRIPT OF PLANNING COMMISSIOrr HaARItrG
Da-wrid Church
'February 3s 1981
Moen: that ghat we set up, which was a single family on each one of those
acts, with access to the street via the 19 foot . . . . . . .
• . looks to ate like the best deal.
Tepedino: Okay. Commissioner Bonn, do you have any com=ents?
Bonn: Yes, I have a couple. Was that coalition on the property abutting
the public street there inadvertently left out of that ordinance?
Tepedino: Mr. Church, I recognize you.
Church: Actually we are talking about the rear lots. The rear lots
actually has 9-- foot driveways. The single 'fa=ily lot is the one
with the easement, and we are not even talking about that here.
And the only comment I would have: (1) I believe you should grant
that right of way on Grant; and under Condition No. 2, my thought
on that is that the sight-obscuring fence maybe should be some
sight-obscuring materials whether it be arborvitae or whatever,
but that should be left to the discretion of the site design review.
And then on the 24 foot pavement, there are going to be three
families using that particular roadway.
Te3*dino: . . . . Com-tssloner Helmer?
Helmer: 2 think we should leave the 24 foot pavement area there, if nothing
else, for access by fire equipment and so forth, to get back over
200 foot to the rear there. If someone happened to be parked
In the .dzrlveway or blocking it, there is no way they can gat back
there with their equipment. There is--if I re=ember right--there
Is an old abandoned all company there: in fact, I thd-uk they are
Still using the storage facilities, on the other side of this,
to the right.
I ani not really sold on the idea, the way it is split up, but it
Is one Of thane tLings. I don't think that we can ask for a
five foot chunk off the street other than through the property
this gentleman has, because Lot 1800 is owned by a different
party. Thatts all I got.
Tepedino: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Speaker?
Speaker: Well, frankly, I am not very happy with the prospect. Now the - -
24 foot pavement would go up only as far as wells past Mrs.
Rosals Lot 1800 --. is that right?
Newton: (Agreed, illustrating on the blackboard. Her response
not intelligible on the tape.) •
Church: (In response to a commissioner's question about the garage and the
" driveway to it.) Where is the drive? . There is no garage, and
• `IRAiISCRIPT OF PLA N"NG Co"ISSION HEARING
David Church
February ,3, 1981
Church: Mrs. Rosa'a plans do not really take into consideration what the
(Cont.) real property is.
Bonn: You finished a new home _
Church: O.h, yes; oh, the garage to the new home? The ga"nage door is - -
Parallel with the long strip, faces the .long strip, and is within
(a or 8 feet of the property line.
Helmer: The front of the garage is: -
Church: The side. You make a 90 degree turn into the garage. . •
(Sorge indistinct discussion about whether it is a 90 or 180
degree turn. Newton at the blackboard illustrated the situation)
That's correct. But iter not that far bads. In point of fact,
from the rightmost property line the garage Is some- 10 feet at the
most- It's not practical--you could not construct a road in the
10 foot easement, the easement the gray it ssts-_you cou2dn�t
construct a road pn that easement unless you--I mean it woulda't
do any good, it would go right past (moving to bl;:-ckboard)
L. . the 19 foot strip is from,. hare. •The garage sits somewhere
this vicinity. The body of the house is something like that
it is an ell shape W:Lth this leg being somewhat smaller, 20 feet
across. It's not practical at all to parvo any more than at the
maximum 18 feet. It simply isn't practica2—you couldn't turn—
you would go right past what is normally used as off-street
parking in front of this . . . (Helmer and Church
clarified the location of the garage =d pavioment)
Yeah . - . 24 foots 19 foot here. There is a requirement of
five feet, or whatever, of landscaping on both sides. It is a
totally impractical design. You would have to place this road
somewhere In the center _ v • ,q,Y ,
piiuL viii 15 there
Is some existing vegetation--some trees--along here that that plan
would not allow to develop, consistent with the natural vegetative
line that has grown up; so that what I am proposing is simply
a landscape plan where you design for an inclusive site plan--_a
road and landscaping that are consistent . That's why
I would like it to be in site reviser.
Tepedino: Thank you, sir.
Speaker: Staff, I would ask 'what is the prospect of development -
s ndto the west
and south of that property; what is the use now, and what sort
of development is going to came in the future?
Howard: R-7 single family residential; there is one log house being built
In the field behind this one; there is a couple more on Johnson
that have been constructed similar line single farm; residential.
TRATSCRIPT OF PLA3INING COMMISSION HEARING
-David Church
February 3, 1981
Speaker: In other words, it looks as if the city is k9.nd of stuck w1th a--
well--large lot pattern that has seen better days so far as devel-
opment is concerned?
Howard: Well, that's hard to sa-w. The structures are old.
Speaker: What I mean to , it doesn't cut up into near 7,^,00 or 7500 foot _
lots without a lot of flag iota--that sort of thing.
Howard: That's exactly right; and that's why you have things like this.
And this isn't the first in that area. _
Speaker: And I don't Imagine it will be the last.
Howard: No, sir, it 'won't. -
Tepedino: Thank you, commissioner. Commissioner Her,oul
Herron: AU the questions.that have been asked have covered lay concerns.
Tepedino: Okay. Commissioner Aolleas?
Holleas: What kind of vegetation goes along that property I ne?
Church: Existing vegetation? I think it may be something like hawthorn
or I don't really know the kind. It's dormant now in this
season. I cault, really get any picture of what it will be, to
Identify It. I mean it is a height of twelve or more foot.
It's a native shrub, I believe.
Holleas: Okay. Thank you.
Te
pedino: hangs you, commissioner. I have a few comments. First, a question
mom
Of staff. Staff, what specifically is the applicant asking us
for--a variance?. And a conditional use? And a variance for what?
Newton: Condition No. 6.
Tepedino: Condition No. 6 is still in exietence•--a valid condition. Is '
that correct?
Newton: It's still a condition on the property. -
Tepedino: And Condition No. 6 required him to -�
Newton: Only construct-'a single family.
Tepedino: And that was because of the access to the street, which we found
may be in error?
-12-
TRANSCRIPT OF PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
David Church
February 3, 1981
Newton: Right.
Howard: I think we need to clarify the error now. If you would look under
the Coda for three units, it takes 30 feet. One of the points
of the variance is he wants me to grant that one foot variance.
Okay. So you have got to ,kook at that. The requirement under the
Code is exact--that you will have 30 feet abutting a public
street, but it may be by easement. -
Tepedino: And a conditional use he is also asking for?
Howard: Conditional use for an attached single family on the 10 thousand
Plus square foot lot at the rear.
Tepedino: My feelings on this application, with all due regard to the
applicant's good faith position on this thing is -- this is to me
one of the most totally confusing applications I have seen in a
long, long time; and one way to assure my negative vote is to
confuse the devil out of me, because I am not going to approve
something that I don't know ghat I am approving. That's one point.
The sea;ord point is the variance: the requirements for a'variance
are _n etty clear. He has to come forward and snow that he has been
somehow adversely impacted by something that he has little or no
` control over. And I -would maintain that people who buy sand sell
real estate have a burden to investigate quite thorough -y, I would
think, in the caveat emptor regime, what they are buying--what
they are getting into. Now clearly that's not the city'$ responsi-
bility to ascertain what the situation, the history of a piece of
property like this, has been. I think It is the burden and
responsibility of the individual investor or buyer of the property.
And I Would suggest that that burden lie on the buyer, and not
come forward to me that he needs some release or relief under
our variances, which again comes forward and says, ",fell, if you
want a variance, you have to come forward and show these three or
four things," and that you didn't cause your problem, that your
Property has.been unduly burdened, unfairly burdened (the
sense being in relation to other nearby properties.)
I feel in my. own sense that the applicant has not persuaded men
and it may be due to the fact that the facts are not clear, -or
whatever. But 1. am not persuaded that .1 should vote for granting
a variance for a conditional use on this property. All the com-
Missioners have spoken on this. I would like to call for __ if
there are no further questions or cross-examination, the public
hearing is closed -- I would like to call now for a motion from
one of the commissioners. Commissioner Herron w
to volunteer? ould you like
Herron: No, I dons t want to volunteer. e
-,13- ..
TRPxsCRZPT OF PLANNING COM- ISSION HEARING
David Ctiurch a
February 3, 1981
s_ Tepedino: Commissioner Moen?
P -
Moen: I move that we deny the application for a variance of Condition
Mo. 6, and also deny the Conditional Use CII 14-$0 _
Tepedino: Okay; motion is made for denial of the variance, and also the
conditional use by Commissioner Moen. Do I hear a second? - -
Kolleas: I second. _
Tepedino: Made and seconded. Discussion?
Speaker: Yes. I would wonder if we shouldn't be rather specific in stating
why we deny it.
Tepedino: That's a good'point. Commissioner Moen, do you want to reference
your motion for denial, more specifically — the variance codes -�
staff, do you have
Speaker: We112 I feel after having read today the reasons for a variance
that the real reason for a variance in this area of large lots and
single family homes--I think it's very doubtful that the reasons
as given in the Code for a variance are there. The matter of•the
19 foot vs. 20 foot -- you might say right of gray or access ---
while it may not have been, should we say, on the city's books
at the time the application was made -- I think that we as a
commission can consider that it was not there more through inad-
vertence rather than lack of desire on the part of the city council,
and that there was this requirement of 10 foot right of gray for
each parcel to a street--it had to abut against a street. I
think there's very good reasons for that. Now we are faced with
a fait accompli on that ten foot easement, but there isn't much
we can do about that. But we don't have to, as I see it -- we
doai®t have to allow that variance that the planning director could
oa a h»t T thi_nlr
"You shall not give that variance-" Am I right on that?
Howard: Yes, sir; you are.
Speaker; If I read the Code correctly, that is an area where the planning_
commission can take authority, and I think in this case I :would
like to see us exercise that authority to that end. NOW I would
gather from Mrs. Rosate letter that whichever say we decide the
thing is going to go to the city council; but I do think that we
should make rather explJ-cit our reasons for denying the applIcantus -
request, and I think what I have just stated is Why I would vote
for them.
Tepedino: Okay; you are suggesting, Commissioner SVeeaker, that we clarify or
-14-
TRANSCRIPT OF PLANNING C0101ISSIOII HEARING
David Church
February 3, 19$1
Tepedino: at least buttress the motion for denial with some specifics--is
(Cont.) that correct? Mould you like to crystallize a few of tuose points?
Speaker: Welly I think one of them is the requirement in. this case of a
20 foot access to the street as being one of the principal ones.
Howard: It should be 30 feet for three units.
Speaker: Yes, 30 feet for three units. _ - -
Tepedino: Okay.
Church: That is not in the application. I am only applying for something
that affects the rearmost portion, as I said -- single famlly.
I am making no application
Speaker: All right, then; you have got 19 feet, and you need 20 feet and
we can hang on that, and you can go to the city council for
relief if thatas the way you prefer.
Tepedino: Since this is the opportunity for discussion, I would suggest that
the requirements for the varaance, right out of the Code, page 307,
should be the reason for der-lal. . For e:.awple, in ma; estimation
I have not seen exceptional or extraordinary conditions applying
to this property that dontt apply generally to other properties,
or which are conditions of a lot size or shape, topography, or
other circumstances over Which the applicant has no control."
But the applicant has control. I don't think the variance is
necessary "for the preservation of a property right of the appli-
eant substantia31y the same as is possessed by Owners of other
property in the same zone or vicinity.' They are single family'*
It says, "The authorization of the variance shall not be materially
detrimental to the purposes of this title." I think Its impingement on the kinds of access we neeit is by
d. ink ink do we need
access? Well, for emergency vehicles--things of that nature.
There isnit a whimsical or arbitrary type of thing that we Invented
here. And I don't think the variance is the mInImum. requested
variance Which Will alleviate the hardshipe__
In my estimation I think the requested variance falls On those _
issues---at least that's my feeling. What I would 91ke to do is
clarify that. Commissioner Moen, you made the motion for denial.
Would you like to modify that motion to include those points
that were raised?
Moen: I amend my motion to include (the reasons stated). (Note:
the record is unclear, but the meaning apparent.)
Tepedino: Do I hear a second on the modified motion?
X15-
TRANSCRIPT OF PIJaMING C01-MISSION REARING
Dagid Church
February 3, 1931
Selmer: Second.
i
Tepedino: Second; okay. Further d.I.scussion? I call for the question. All
those In favor of the motion for denial signify by saying aye.
Chorus: Aye.
Tepedino: Those opposed --• which means those Which Would be in a
Vith the proposition -® si �eemea=t
�aifzJ by &ayi ag nay.
(No response.)
Okays the motion is denied unanimously. (To Mr. Church) you have
the sight of appeal.
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA 5-1
TIGARD PLANNING CO.•LITESSION
f February 3, 1981 - 7:30 P.m-
FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH - LECTURE ROOM
10865 SW Walnut Street, Tigard
NO SUB:IISSION OF ADDITIONAL MATrRIA.L BY APPLICANT SHALL BE MADE AT THE PUBLIC
HEARING UNLESS THE APPLICANT Is REQUESTED TO DO SO. SHOULD THIS OCCUR,
UNREQUESTED, THE ITEM WILL BE TABLED UNTIL THE FOLLOWING HEARING.
DOCKET: VARIAPICE, V 35-80 and CONDITIONAL USE, CU 14-80 (Attached
Single Family Residence in R-7 Zone) NPO 02
APPLICANT: David Church OWNER: SAME
6328 SW Haines Road
Portland, Oregon 97219
APPLICATION DATE: October 15, 1980
REQUEST: For a re-hearing of Variance, V 15-80 (a Variance of- Condition
Number 6 of Minor Land Partition, MLP 20-79 - see attached) .
Also, Conditional Use, CU 14-80 (to construct a single family
attached unit in an R-7 Single Family Residential Zone) .
SITE LOCATION: 12533 SW Grant (:flash. Co- Tax Map 2S1 2BB, Tax Lot 1801) .
SITE DESIGNATION: R-7 -"Single Family Residential"
PLEASE READ ATTACHED STAFF REPOR'T'S
STAFF NARRATIVE:
on November 25, 1980, the Tigard Planning Commission denied the applicant's
request for a Variance (V 15-80) to Condition Number 6 of a Minor Land Partin;on
(MLP 20-79) which states "Applicant agrees to construct only one single family
dwelling on the rear lot". At the same Hearing, the Planning Commission denied
a Conditional Use (CU 14-80) to allow an attached single family unit on the
property. The applicant filed an Appeal of the Planning Commissions, decision
to City Council_ While preparing for the Appeal, Staff noted some inconsistencies
In conditions placed on the property and the Code. Because of this new
Information and on the advice of legal counsel, Staff asked the City Council
at the January 12, 1981 meeting to remand the matter back to the Planning
Commission for review. Council approvedthe request.
inconsistencies in the Staff copy of the Code and Ordinances are as follows:
1. Chapter 17.36.020 of the Tigard Muncipal Code reads ".._.each lot shall
abut. a public street". At a minimum, it was required that the access
width abut the street. F-urther, the required access width was to be
Ile- held in fee ownership with the property the access served. An easement
agreement to allow an access to jointly serve properties or serve one
property without Ding held in ownership was.not allowed unless the
Planning Commission granted approval.
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA 5.1/V 15-80/CII 14-80
TIGA.RD PLANNING COINMSSI0N
February 3, 1981
Page 2
2- On November 5, 1979, a new subdivision ordinance was passed (Reference
Ordinance 79-96) which deletes Section 17.36.020 making the requirement
that each lot abut a public street no longer mandatory.
3. Condition Number 6 was placed on Parcel #1 on January 24, 1980 due to
Inadequate access. _
Lot 2 has the remixed ten (10') foot access as a ten (10') foot easement
over 12535 SW Grant, Tax Lot 1800. The easement was granted by a previous
owner and recorded in Bok 902, Page 614, 'Washington County Records.
The ten (101) foot•easement leaves six and one-half Wal) feet to the
porch or. Tax Lot 1800 and approximately eleven and one-half (111s1) feet
to the structure on Tax Lot 1800 which exceeds the required sideyard
setback_
The remaining nineteen (191) foot strip (see attached map) could provide
two 9.5 foot easement strips to the proposed single family attached
units. A variance could be granted for six (6^) inches for each easement
by the Planning Director.
Single family attached units are allot-md as a Conditional Use in an R-7
Zone on 10,000 square feet_
STAFF RECOM14=ATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission reconsider Condition Number 6
placed on Parcel 1 of Tax Lot 1801 with Minor Land Partition, MLP 20-79 and
approval of Conditional Use, CCU 14-80 for the construction of a single family
attached unit on Parcel 1_ If the Planning Commission approves Conditional
Use, CU 14-80, the Planning Staff will approve Minor Land Partition, MLP 19-80
and Variance, V 19-80 to allow for two (2) 9.5 foot easement strips, on= for
each unit. If Conditional Use CU 14-80 and Variance V 15-80 are approved,
the following conditions are recommended.
1. A Nonremonstrance Agreement shall be signed for both units on Parcel 1
and the unit or. Parcel 2 for the future improvement of Grant Street prior,
to the issuance of Building Permits.
2. A six (61) foot sight obscuring fence shall be constructed around the
perimeter of Parcels 1 and 2 and down both sides of the twenty-nine
(291) foot easement strip.
3. Twenty-four (241) feet of the twenty-nine (291) foot easement strip shall
be paved to serve all three units for access and egress- The asphalt
may be narrower to accomadate the Ponderosa. Pine at the northeast corner
of the driveway, .the exact width to be determined by the Planning
Director prior to issuance of Building Permits.
t
STA-=F REPORT
AGENDA 5.1./v 15-80/CU 14-80
TIGARD PLANt Nk XNG COMMISSION
February 3, 1981
Page 3
A. Landscaping will be required along both sides of the paved access drive- - .
The landscape plans shall be approved by the Planning Director prior to
.the issuance of Building Permits.
S. A metes and bounds legal description and map shall accompany the easement
agreement for the three parcels- - The legal description shall be prepared
by a registered engineer or land surveyor. The- easement agreement shall
be approved by the public Works Director and the City Attorney_
6. No Occupancy Permits shall be issued until all conditions placed upon
this development by the City of Tigard have been satisfied and inspections
verifying this have been carried out by the appropriate department-
7- No changes will be made to approved plans or specifications unless. formal
application is made to the appropriate City department and changes are
approved by that department. Applications for changes will be made in
writing and shall include applicable dra+qi ngs.
8. Grading and construction plans for .all work in public rights-of-way and
all other public improvements shall be prepared by a registered professional
engineer in accordance with City standards, and Shall be submitted to the
Public Works Department for review.
All public improvements will require a Compliance Agreement and must be -
(design.) approved by the Public Works Depart-ment, and must be either
(1) fully and satisfactorily constructed prior to the recording of any
minor land partition, public dedication, or issuance of Building Permits;
-
or (2) bonded to the City for 100% of the estimated cost thereof prior
to the recording of any minor land partition, public dedication, or issuance
of Building Permits.
9. All proposed utilities shall be placed underground_ Street lighting
Installations shall be approved by the Public Works Department.
10. A City of 'Tigard approved t+Tonzemonstrance Agreement must be recorded by
Washington County and returned to the•City of Tigaid Planning Department _
before issuance of Building Permits or change of property ownership. .
11. All street and paxkIng areas shall be Concrete or -+asphalt. _ Al 1 s dewa1 ks .-
shall be concrete.
12. No Building Permits shall be issued until the expiration of the twenty
(20) day appeal period from the date of approval.
��Allddieoward
PereXk-dA31y Elizabeth A. Newton
Special Assistant To The Planning Director •• . Planning Director
EAN/AHvmr-
STAT'' P2VORT
AGE::DA S.11
TICwRD PL :;,VIVO CO:'u�1ISsiOrd
NOSIF-MBEP_ 25, 1980 - 7:30 pm
FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH -- LECTT.dRZ
10805 S:,T Walnut Street, Tigard
tto�submission of additional material b
Hearin uzl� Y applicant shall be made at the public
g ss the applicant is requested to do so. Shoulthis
Un-requested, Occur,
the item will be tabbed until the following Heathis _
DOCKET_- V'A4IANCE, V 15-50 and CONDITIONAL USE, CU 14-80 (David Church) NPO a2
SW Haines Road
APPLICANT: David Church
6328 G"srivas�: a'^••-- • ' _ _ .
Portland, Oregon 97219 -
APPLICATION nATE: October 15, 1980
LOCATION: 12533 SW Grant (Wash. Co. Tax Man 2S1 2BB, Tax Lot 1807.)
R-QU"'ST: For a Variance of Condition :Dumber 6 of minor Land Partit
MT.P 20-79. (See attached.) Also, ion,'
a request for a Conditional
Use to construct a single far.Lily attached unit in an R-7 Singe
Family Residential Zone.
SITE DESIGNATION: R-7,Single Family Residential Comprehensive P
Single Family Residential Ian '- g_7
PREVIOUS ACTION:
A request by a Previous owner (Finke) for a % nor Land Partition to
Tax Lot 1800 into two (2) lots was -approved by the Tigard Plannin cdivide
o
nm
!larch 19, 1974 with Conditions. (Reference MLp 1-74.) g rcanission
A. request b -
Y a previous owner (fialsey). for a Mi-or Land P
Of drive-way width, and f=r a Conditional Use Permit to construct two
duplpY�s Partition fora Variance
was denied by the Tigard Planning Commission 'on September 7 (2)
tabled in a re-hearing on February l5, 1977- (Reference 1vTI.P 7_76o V`9�66 and
CLT 26-76.)
A request b
Y a previous owner (Garvin) to partition a .'i7 acr_e -.a _
two (2) lots (MLP 20-79 - see attached Staff Reports) was a parc..l into
2980 with conditions_ PPxoved on
January 24,
Y. FINDINGS OF FACT: '
1. The applicant is requesting the Planning Comazissi -
which was placed on the Propert�s at the time MLP on on. waive
waive ve Condition Number 6 -
Condition •`lumber 6 reads as follow.-s: approved.
`°s- APplxcant agrees to construct oily one single gamily dwelling on
rear lot_p the
STA-c7 REPORT
AGENDA 5.11/V 15-80/Cil 14-80
T3CGARD pLAN;;ING CC; %=SSICN
HovEiP3ER 25, 1980
Page 2
.2. The present owner and applicant was unaware of Condition Number 6 when he
purchased the groper-y and applied for a Minor Land Partition to split
the rear lot for construction of a single family attached &selling_
3_ Attachment A illustrates Mr. ChurcF;'s present proposal. As shcrym,
Easement B would serve lot 2 and the remaining nineteen (19') foot strip
would be split into two 9_5 foot- stsi_ps tr ae===_ f0Z the
back property. Mr. Church intended to obtain a Variance fOr the two
9.5 foot strips.
4. Easement B as shown.(attaciumnt A) , to serve Parcel 2, is.a deeded ten
(lot) foot easement and not a portion of Parcel 2. Use of this easement
as a driveway is impractical, however. The existing '.'louse on the front lot
sats right next to the easement line.
5_ Condition Number 5 was placed on mLP 20-79 because of the easement problem.
The nineteen (=9') foot easement strip was intended to fulfill the ten
(IO') foot easement requix--emenc for a single family unit on Parcel land
Parcel 2 (with a Variance of six (6") inches- for each, easement being granted) .
6. Parcel 2 is technically an illegal lot_ .Chapter 17.36.020 of- the Tigard
Municipal Code reads as follows:
"Access, The subdividing of land shall be such that each lot shall abut
upon a public street_"
Easement B is not a portion of Parcel .2, therefore, Parcel 2 does not abut _
a public street. At the time :ILP 20-79 was approved, a tan (10') foot
easement strip should have been made part of the lot_
7. The Planning Commission is .governed by Chapter 18.76.020 of the Tigard
Municipal Code in granting Variances as follows:
.. Granting Conditions. No variance shall be granted by the.
PlanningCommission unless it can be shown that all; of the following
cord=tions exist: -
(1) Exceptional or extraordinar•.1 conditions applying to the
property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone
or vicinity, which conditions are a result of lot size or shape, topography,
or other circumstances over which the applicant has no control.;
(2) The variance Is necessary for the preservation of a property
right of the aapllcant substantially the same as is possessed by owners
of other property in the sake zone or vicinity;
(3) The authorization of the variance shall not be matexially
detrimental to the purposes of this title, be injurious to property in
the zone or vicinity ty in which the pzoperty is located, or be otherwise
detrimental to the objectives of any city development plan or policy;
(4) The variance requested is the minimum variance from the
provisions and standards of this Title which .will alleviate the hardship.
ST.AEF REPORT
AGENDA 5.11/V 15-$O/CU 14-80
TIGA?-O pL-a'ti:IftVO CwmISSION
` NOVro3ER 25, 1980
Page 3
IX. CO�ICLUSI0.tA_RY c INDINCS: '
1. Condition Plumber 6 of IMP 20-79 was agreed to on 3urie 3, 1980 by the former
applicant. (See attached Staff Report.) _
Z. A nineteen (19') foot strip is not snide enough to serve two Units Without- a
Variance. Serving three ualts from .a =L--leLuem- (aalr at rlp would
-11ow each unit 6 1/3 feet for a driveway easerant_
3. The applicant does not meet all of the conditions. reT.L.I.r`d. for granting a
Variance.
TTI. STAFF RECOW-LENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of this Variance based on lack of adequate easement e-
to serve three properties.
Staff also yecomnends that the Conditional Use request for singlt fa:^ily
attached be denied based on Condition Nu,-aber 6 of MLP 20-79-
Eliz eth
0-79.Elizabeth Newton
Special Assistant to the Planning Director _ . .
• 4
i
?o --0
,a'
Lots I -nd 2 PrP_ lots in 3n existing minor. partition.
I-at 2 enjoys the use o` an easement over parcel B, a 10 Eoot stri,D; and '.tercel
a 19 €cnt strip. o
i:nd•-r tl:e terms and conditions of a •recs prccax acgreement both t ni'sr'f
uiC JOsp(i
;in 1a •-rc^.._Iv Attached Dr.-11ina .wnt.1c:n ~an. use, and mai ntain a road:car c:-er.
Prrceis . and C; and have the uJe of.an easement over parcel B.
lot 2 urculd shire in the maintainancP of parcel B, and th;+t ,art of parcel A .
necessary tor his use and enjoyment of the roadway thereon(tnc;.i .dcscri^tic=:. to
specify said v r;.•}.
?�
9.5 foc.'t strip, extending t6 5.W. Grant Ave.'would be a portic•n of each unit
®f sin5je farnily attacl-ed.
TIGARD GomiLISSION
November 25, 1950 0
Pale 1-!
11 a = ?^ r staff o=-n-r, on the
adp'ard.read the 5 11?_ �Ri consisting o�
appeal- 'Xe expla3._ed that contrary to the stateaeat of the appl3_cant,
he gran not call3.ni for anyad.Aitional -m ng spa ps—ozily to brim the
Present pa-'"kl-'iS lot up to cpfde � � �
The APFLIC II-LtS PRESMIT AT was sade by./ of Seton
Johnson & Odell, consulting enGineors, Portlszd. Re read a Letter fro-.
Cseor is Pac3.fic to the- Pl• nnIng do: :�sion.butlinfno the reasoan for
constructing a. track ,vasbing,:acility, hon it would be operated, and :
I
why th®.y object to`-t&e rectti ix euent for nodificatioa of the eanloyee
park:ingarea. Ee t?:.en 'ahovea'�18 slIdea of the�GP property fron various
po33ts to''..1lustrate oxo:. 3i�tle'.of the pa_rkL�- lot cam be seer- fro=
Off the premise.
There eras no PU7B.r rC TM-CM- O-I.,
colza-assimm DISCTSSmiT s"IM 4CTIOIr: At the request of the pre3ide_t,
Edward d4lacussed the requireaent by the city council that -properties.
such as th3.s be brought up tc.'coda iiheneverper=J is for additions or
alteratIons a-a regLested. :Speaker commented fa•rorably on ►he ejfor-
to brim- older faciLties i:p a code, but.. zugaested the requirsrent tbat
every seventh space be -l.ardscaped'night be elixz gated in Itis case
because of he :desie a to.`use it at .ti :es yor track.park=no. '
Haan expressed spat ; with the'.Geor33.a PaclSic''position. Bonn
agr.eed w-I th;the idea:'.of elIA ating the.landscape islands, as did .
EeZmer and $olleas'
e r VSD re ectlo of 'sr- appe and the pho n
Sp ,0 � _ ai n_ ldi g of Site
f)esigM Review 28-80 with the exception of tine. fourth sentence in the
first staff reco=endatio-a --- m. very seventh spaccs saal.1 be a landscay sd
island.11 :Helmer seconded the motion,- which carrzed, *:Lth Moen votin.T no.
CONDITIONAL USE A±fD VARIANCE, SU 14-80/vi5-80 cDavid
Church) NM �y
A request by David Church for a Conditional Use in an H-7 - -
"Ingle Fanilar Eesidentlal" zone to construct a single
�Vam__tly attached dwelling and a Variance of coed;tion si.a (5) -
of I -nor Land P
artition
�,
�MLP 20-79, located at 125Grant3 SYI Grant
V.�.a- -'
To= ZS-2 _ ., , 14.+ Last _%wW • - - _
Eouard read the STA-.- ' RL—ORT and EECO;rdv_";TIOX5 when, although only '
the applicant, bis rjetor,'and Mayor-elect Bishop. rema-rned'in the audi--
once, it became apparent .the applicant had not yet received a copy of
the staff report, and was.unauare thi recorr.�endatioa vas for denial o;
the vax-lanCe. ' NeNton of staff explained 'atteapts to ;et the report to
h3 m; i xi any case, it WOMS, in the 'M,41.'
?'IGA.RD PLA:i_`aw; Cnm4issioit
oveaber 25, 1930
gage 12
The ! Z=-: IC4?tT's P1_RF,S=tTAT1:0?i was made by David Church, 6328 S7
Hat=es Road, Portland. He cxbon the Attachment A part
uhy by felt the discussion is the
staff report of Parcel
'To. part of the repoi-t
should have no bearing on his request for a variance and conditional
use oa Pa--cel Ma. 1, the property under c0ns1derat1on. He pointed out
h-.s request essentially is for a variance to allow fisc $ Soot driveways
back ice the proposed tiro attached single familly homes, and for a condi-
tional use to build a duplex s'tructu -e on the lot.
(Note: A, previous ocher agreed on Jane 3, 1980, to a31 . • ~-'
al= conditions of 2P 20--79. Condition 6 reads, cApplIcazit
Agrees to construct. only one single family doxepin- on the
rear lot." This prsvioi:.s orner apparently was dissuaded by
f planning staff from requesting a coaditionel use to build
a duplex on this same lot because of the complications of
• access to Grant ,Street for this lot and two others betaeea
it and the street.)
FfTBLTC T�T •:C�;? i.. favor ars given 3t' 2Tanc Doyle s ?7CQ S� ?4th
Ave., 1`j 'da a 3ealtor representing Ch�crch in his sale of the property-_
She questioned whether conditions are put on the deed, and commente-
that the Phan!& for the area area around this property has bean gulte
poor (agreed to heartily by hecard). She felt it not proper twat Mr.
Church should be made the victim of these circu:.stances. She did not
feel that the tact Lot No. 2 on the sketch Is an i??eaal lot should lnag_
a bearing on Mr. Church"s requeat. a
Howard discussed Lot No. 2, Pointing out there is legal access to
both Parcels 1 and 2 (assuming a one foot' variance is 9--anted) i; each
has only a sin-le f.-ily dsa?1+ag on it. Parcel 2 must rel- mor
by use/ownership or a l r access
part of the 3, Prot strip to the two flag Lots.
IF Parcel 1 13 to have multiple d-ening units on it, the whole ?9 foot
stria must by =¢sa o ad �:. ;ba taus 1 eavIn g Parcel. 2 completely Landlocked
and iLco"" ""mcA _'W.L._Y voc2r, xrnich calls for 10 fest oP access from each
lot, onto a public street.. As to the problem of notifying possible future
owners of 'Mations or restrictions imposed on thaproperty, Howardstated the City files a "ZOning vlolatieau Frith the couuty which does
ge-: on the title report and should alert the purchaser to ir.vesti ate
further with the City. - tinder the circumstances he counseled the cort-Aisaioa
they could not grant the conditional use to Parcel 14o. 1; both p3rcel<;
must have frontage ownership, and not access merely by easement. PDoyle
suggested a permanent casement icor Lot 2 over the Lot 1 driveSraya owner-
ship Of Which would ramain with the.Lot I owners.
CROSS-EX-81AM R___TIAL: Church ar red that . _
6 �.t a retarded
easement exIsts, zrhich deal g3.ve- all lots useable access. Tepedino got
clarification of lot identities and available drives
the Lot 1 was burdened u-Ith the s - � access. sae O-Glued
icnle fami2<y linitatiou, apparently
enk-aocm to gr. Church as a zvbsequent buyer. Church pointed out the
M1h'tIT=' S
TI:G.&?-D PLIUM M CCx.SSSIMH
November 25, 1980 �r
Pages 13
i
jf
practical aspects of his proposal -minimum coverage e of pavement, hone.,
? on reaacnable sized lots, etc. E'unk raised the question of a subdivision.
The possibility of -putting in a public street was rejected because of
inadeSuats width and uneconomic to serve three residences.
C)SSIOh DIScUSSYO T X-ID ACTION: Tepedino sym athized with the
t buyer who was unaware of the cond:Ltion3 placed on the property with the
agreement of a previous owner, but saw that as no reason for the city
to violate its own codes by granting this request. Ha fait to alloy
the ase as requested would be to aggravate an already bad situation.
aelmer agreed the situatlon Is bad,.and to gag along with this request
would- only make matters worse. . FUnk- wondered why a bull dlaa Da- t
ever allowed for Lot 2, and questioned whether it was a punninwas
g cads_
elan or a staff err=. Howard stated it started out at the planning _
Commission. Flank opined the best solution would be to keep __ �_-�Ie
famlzy on each Ione
Speaker agreed with :'unk and expressed concern that there ams
nothing in the title report to indieate to future purchassrs there were
some difficulties with the property. Howard explained the circumstances
In this case--the owner did not fulfill, all co
Saudi Arabia. nditions, .but moved tv -
After sone discussion as to the .proper motIon•to be made, Speaker
MOVED for a3sproval of Variance V 15-80 (so there is legal access to both -
lots), and der..ial of Conditional Vse CIT I4-80; together with a condition
the house on Parcel 2 (' the front lot") may be completed; that a singzz
fa.=IlY home may be built on Parcel 1 ("the rear lot* ); that, ownership
be transferred of what Is necessary to allose both lots ownership of
legal access to Grant Street. The motion was seconded by Helmer and
carried unagi_-Ously.
-
O referred to the appllcatioa o"' Gena P3.c$
a :PA, for appointment**to M=0 #1. Speaker ..O` n Helmer seconded, the 9
appllcatIon of the\appol.�tment of Gane a dhman to KP0_ #1- The notion
carried
ow H'owar�dstated the ply -
apni. S cozaaission Inas called for a meander-
.Ing sidewalk in. the Creekside .•Subd:CvIsion, V 3-79:.- The reason'-was to
avoid trees, which have41 &. beenre:oved. wherefore it is In der to
or
permit sidepralks to be'p� cad along the�curb here. 'Veped��+o Hp the
condition ism V 5-79 be/=adifgsct 'to ' rmi� idevralks paced nett xa�'tite curb.
The rsotion was secon ed aar� carr;,.a unaaim&sly.
r �f�
rsa Helmer uggested so
prepay ions\Shuld,lre mad_ for under-
ground instal 01 iojz of cab7>a television nnectioo s in the f ture.
discussed the present stat; of the: alt, 0. ch i %g ins � EO
r-pad`y s rind
promised to�voica the isugbeatioaa at th� na- meeting of the tom:. ttee
which Is dli ng the cable T'sr in the coups y d eltie at its ne t
/ neetino:
The president declared the meetinS adjourned �t 11: 2.
e-•
.-STAFF REPORT
00 FINAL ACTION
- - TIGARD Pr-AU"ZING DIRECTOR -
January 24, 1480
Tigard City Hall, 1.2420 SW :fain St. -
DOCKET: MINOR LAND PARTITION MLP 70-79 (Jack G- Garvin)
APPLICANT-- Jack G- Garvin -CWNER: Sauce
335 NE Birchwood Terr.
Hillsboro, Oregon 97123
APPLICATION -
DATE: September: 7, 1979 _
SITE -
LOCATIOY•i: 12535 ST-7 Grant (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2Si 2-BB, Tax Lot 1Ral) +
REQUEST. To partition a .57 acre parcel into two lots
SITE
RESIGNATION: R-7, Single Famine Residential v
PREVIOUS ACTION: _
A request by a previous owner (Rinke) for a minor land partition to divide tax
lot 1800 into two lots was approved by the Tigard Planning Co , or,
March 19, 1974 with conditions. (Ref_ MLP 1-74)
A request by a previous owner (Kelsey) for a arinor land partition, for a variance
o driveway. width, and for a conditional use permit to constrict two duniexes
was denied" by the Tigard Plann1na Commission on September 7, 1975 and tabled in
a rehearing on February 15, 1977. (Ref. MLP 7-76, V 9-76, CU 26-76)
FSNDINGS OF FACTS a
1. The applicant is requesting permission, in accordance with Section 17.24.030 of
the Tigard Municipal Cade .to partition a .57 acre parcel into 7,445 and
1.7,384 square foot lots_ The intent is to sell the rear lotand' to construct
a single fa=ily house upon it.
2. Tne site is C=Ijignatcd ac "U. -w: Low u nsi-cy= R:c--e on NPO 02 Plan and IS -
currently zoned R-7, 'Single Family Residential". `
119 . .. - - -
3_ The sate is a ,flat vacant field, except for a single family house in the -
southeast corner of:Tax Lot71801.. .
4_ Grant street is designated as a collector street in NPO Plan #2, requiring _ -
a sixty (60) foot .right-of-way and forty four (44) feet of pavement_
e ThE
(d2} fee2) feet. -right-of--way as forty (40) feet and pavement width is twenty two
'
al � iw
-�
J _
•
STAFF RETORT e
FINAL, AcTiau .
TICARp PLANNING DIRECTOR
RTT_.P 20-79 _
P_ 2
S� Sewers and wafer. are presently available on Grant Street..
6. On October ?S, 1979, the Tigard Planning Director denied a request by the
aPPLEcant for a minor land partition to divide Tax Lot 3801 into two lots
because t-he owner of adjacent lot 1800 claimed that a ten
Strip on the (10) toot easement
northerly side of her lot had not been granted.- Subsequent to
this denial, the applicant provided proof that a ten (IO) foot easement of
Zecoxd had been granted by a previous garner of 'Tax Lot 1800" recorded in Boo
902, Page 614, Washington County Records. - k_
7. Thexe is a n1netken (33) foot accesshouse on the near rovid-d for the e
hrsuse and as Proposed single faaul P lot
xisting single family
y _ Combined with
ten E30) foot ingress and egress easement on adjacent- lot Combined
this.with
es.
taf
twenty nine (29) feet access width. Section 18.84_02Q aP the Tigard.
` ip`lg Code requites a mini== of twenty (20) feet vehicular access and
• egress for, two dwelling units, with eighty (80%) percent paved Car-
(16) 'feet).. A large Ponderosa pine Stands seven (7) sixteen
feet south of the north
property Sine of Tax ioot 1801 (subject site) at• the intersection of the
driveway and ST%T Grant Street which could restrict driveway width. Exercising
fully the ten (10) foot easement over the adjacent lot 1803 would bring the
driveway agai-zst the foundat on of the house on the adjacent lot_
8. Surrounding land uses includd Tiger Oil Company and a single
the northeast on Grant Street, single family houses to the north family house to
Street, a single family house to the southeast on adjacent lot18an Johnson e
cant field and a single family house to the sothwest on Grant Street.
Across Grant .Street u
treet from the site is St_ Anthony's Church and School •g.rounds.
9• Tht- ap.licant's original intent was to
After the Planning Di rector"s iri_tial deoial,�apo3icantuplex an the rear lot_.
tion of this Minor land quested reconsidera-
Fartion J due to neo: 8�iu8nce of Proper. easements.
Staff indicated to applicant on January 3, 1980, that adequate ccess did
rat ' •.ist for'. a ald lex-cn•the•.rear 10� ( mini access thirt
twesaty four (2 4) feet paved) . APglicant stated that he understcod2 �et,
and .requested that we proceed with the minor land partition since he is Interested in selling the lots_ _ -
�ONCLUSgrDr��a� g'.TiLJDTiIdGS: - - .- .
1_ The proposal is in conformance to NPO #2 Plan and in compliance .with - -
zoning. _ - the present
2• The Proposed lot sizes exceed the minimum lot•size requirement_
3. Ade i
_ quote water and sewer facilities are available ter- the site_
�e
` ANNEXATION STATUS
SCHEDULE
1 . Robinson or Scholls Ferry
2. 217 Island '
3. Pfaffle ROW and Pfaffle "Island"
4. Durham - Bennett
5. Durham Island
6. McDonald -- Alderbrook Islands
7. Bull Mountain Road - 2 Islands on Bull 11,1t. Road
8. Walnut to Gaarde
Walnut at 121st Island
3. Hall Blvd
1
K
F MEMORANDUM
April 22, 1981
TO: City Council
FROM: Planning De m t
SUBJECT: Annexation chedule - Notification and Action
1 . Robinson: Single parcel "island:' on- Scholls Ferry Road.
R.O.W. Resolution passed by the City'-Council April 13, 1981 .
Boundary Commission hearing date
This ROW annexation created an "island" of one parcel.
Notification letter to be sent for
City Council action on
Study Session date
2. Highway 217 : ROW Annexation passed by City -Council April 13 , 1981 .
Boundary Commission hearing date
This ROW annexation created an "island" of 18 parcels _
Notification letter to be sent for City
Council action -on
Study Session date
3. Pfaffle Street ROW:
It we annex the Ptaffle ROW we create one "island" of two tax lots .
Notification letter to be sent for City Council
action on
Study Session date.
4. Durham Road - Bennett:
Resolution to Council Study Session May 4, 1981 to annex area.
LID petition for sewer is in circulation now. This will be
triple-majority process . Your formal action on the Resolution
is now scheduled for May 11 , 1981 regular session.
�. Durham "Island"
The Durham Road Annexation was recently approved by the Boundary
Commission. This created a layer "'island" to the *North of Durham
to Bonita Road. The Bennett Annexation just strengthens this
€
"island"
hotification .letter to be sent for City Council
action on
Study Session date
6. McDonald Islands :
Two large "islands".
Notification letter to be sent for amity Council
action on
Study Session date
7 . Bull :fountain Road ROW:
If Council annexes the ROW the action will create two islands
of two parcels each. This issue needs to be discussed at a
Study Session. Date _
8. Walnut to Gaarde Annexation:
Study Session date
We have enough, signed petitions to annex the property from
Bechtold at Gaarde to 135th and Walnut . if you agree to process
this under the triple-majority rule, you would create a large
"island". We have had a meeting with the residents . Perhaps
this issue should be resolved at a Study- Session.
Study Session date
Bechtold to 135th Resolution to Council
Notice to "island" residents to be sent
for City Council action on
9. Hall Blvd:
We have received a petition for a single lot annexation on Hall
Blvd. just to the north of the driveway which serves the
Apt complexes. Mr. Haglund, the applicant, has
checked with Washington County - no objection. The Boundary
Commission said that regardless of the :Metzger Plan, that they
would process the annexation if the Tigard Council said yes .
f Resolution to city Council on
April 28, 1481
TO SENATORS ONLY
Sub.-�ect: H.B. 2735, Earmarking of Building Permit Fees
The Tigard City Council and City Staff have serious concerns regarding, House Bill
2735 which narrowly passed the House of Representatives last week.
This measure would require that building permit fees be earmarked for inspection
purposes. We view this bill as a preemption of local budgeting authority and
procedures, and feel that it poses a very real financial dilemma for our City
and others with building departments.
Ire our opinion, there are already too many sources of local revenues that are
"earmarked" or in some other manner too restrictive to allow us the flexibility
we.need to administer our limited financial resources. We think our building
permit fees are reasonable and do not place an undue burden upon the homebuilders.
The City of Tigard hereby requests a "no" vote on H.B. 2735.
Sincerely,
Tigard City Council
CC: League of Oregon Cities
tw
April 28, 1981
TO REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATORS
Subject: H.B. 2955 and S.B. 541 - Municipal Courts
The Tigard City Council and our Municipal Judge have serious concerns regarding two
pieces of legislation that have been introduced in this session of the: State
Legislature. Both bills include changes which, in our opinion, would have a negative
impact upon Tigard's Municipal Court and other municipal courts throughout the State.
After reviewing the proposed legislation, it appears that House Bill 2955 could mean
the end of municipal courts in Oregon and that should this happen, the impact on the
district courts would be unbearable. How many more district courts would be required
to process the thousands of cases now handled annually by the municipal courts?
Senate Bill 541 could have sufficient financial impact to force the closure of many
municipal courts. The Bill would require municipalities .to carry a still greater
share of the tax burden in support of local and state courts than is currently being
paid by the taxpayers residing within the county. Also, more appeals from indigents
may be encouraged by some attorneys who visualize more income from additional fees.
The City of Tigard hereby requests a "no" vote on H.B. 2955 and S.B. 541.
Sincerely,
Tigard City Council
CC: Judge Pelay
League of Oregon Cities
f
April 13, 1981
FROM President, Oregon Municipal. Judges Association
TO All Municipal Judges - State of Oregon
SUBJECT: Legislative Report Requiring Your Immediate Action
Two pieces of legislation have been introduced which require immediate
action by cities having municipal courts. They are briefly outlined as
follows:
House Bill 2955. This bill would require that all traffic offense
revenues of all courts be forwarded to the Oregon Department of Revenue
which would disburse them as follows:
(a) One-quarter of the money shall be paid to the governmental unit
under whose -iur.isdi.cti.onal authority the arresting or citing
official is authorized to act. ,
(b) One-quarter of the money shall be paid to the city if the offense _
is tried in a city court otherwise the money shall be paid to
the county in which Lhr+ offense is, tried.
(c) One-half of the money shall be retained by the Department of Revenue
as the state's P01ti-ri to be disposed of as provided in this section.
Senate Bili- 541 . This bill would require:
(a) Payment by mrrni.cipal courts of fees to court appointed attorneys
at the same rates presco
ribed for state courts.
(b) Costs of appeals from i.ndiaents to be paid by the municipal court
where case originated.
(c) Permits initial court appointed attorney to continue on case through
entire appeal process.
(d) Provides for conducting appeal by higher court on the record if
the muni_cival judge is a lawyer who is a member in good standing
of the Oregon Bar Association.
As you can visualize, passage of HB 2955 would, for the most part, mark
the end of municipal courts in Oregon. The impact on the district courts if
this happened would be staggering. How many more district courts would be
required to process the quarter million cases now handled annually by the
municipal courts?
SB 541 could h -- : -,ufficient financial impact to force the closure of
many municipal co, . �, i'axpayers in the City now support the operation of
their municipal - lit: and the operation of District and Circuit courts
within their coin. , SB 541 will require municipalities to carry a still
greater share of the tax burden in support of local and state courts then
is currently being paid by taxpayers residing within the county. I have
AI I Murrir•i i ,titrlr
I.rr7i :;I,) iv,• ftr:I.r,tt N rlt:itictrl Yr,rit Irnmr ,
1:,, rlr,nhi- I ll.,f r,l„I r .rt rf,.•.l i:, I 1 :,1
r il� ii,±r•r,t o-fi I I I�r• r• ir:r;
tl •.rru•y whr, i.nl , li :. nn,r , n i,! il i•,11 r rtr.,r±r•,I l,y ,me
l l 1•`ll l.”
nl' th,• ,rel t 1 t �,• i .:-t , ,( tncl
I, ri :;l+rtnrr t,. l i. jl rllr I .,• I I it �ricnr7 in the
�•.il ±.ir.•il,:lf. i•,l, ••,. r 1, -itr - 1 �I ... ; 1 _ le:;e tai i 1:,. Your
ntlrt.,nt.
1 t Ar..,,,c
i
pr31 203 1731
To: Tigard Planning Cor.:-,dzssion
Tlgard City Council
From: Joseph D. Jebbia,
Subj: J.B. Bishop i•sainstreet dera=o-):,ent
T find myself in the ninori-ty op_r_ion_ or !-.PC-! =or t e subject de•,=loo.ent
and z•wish to make the follo-win- cO;_'"t nts i`1
1. The new proposal b�* J -, _ ; a F =h
.�.Js.::__� d assoc_� , s nom _n , .:,ore an
a relocation of bll]Sdi;, gs on aC: e,-andel site. _ e traf"ic COTICCI' S
-which were a prim ary reason for the ;.ra-dozwn or - e original plan az o
not been addressed or sign=f icant_y changed.
2.. At the April 15th i:?O-1 rieet_n� -3-tant ;+'
,:;, „ e trafl_c cons �::.;��..��d that
the present traffic conditions on are just "tolerable" during weak
traffic periods. iin�' signIfioai?t adC�ti Onj ars ?-oi'� —Jan li?.Cely to
make it "Intolerable", in my opinion.
3. It is interesting that -tie new proposal -r?1 reduca residential
deselowrient by u acres wi,_,ou•t significant iizarove.,ient .to traffic
flow or other trade-offs.
4* The encroachment of the project and parking onto the =food plain
XS most unfortunate.
i�
5. In considering the re-zoning o= the u acre tract., I would ask
which is needed more, cora,lercial-ratail derelowiient, or residential?
6. In the present proposal less than 20� of the square footage is allocated
to small retail type business aili-ch :-ras also a cz-tici-mm of the prior
plan.
7® As I have stated in the past, the site is not suitable for a large
volume traffic generating commercial development_ The adA,+;ora- trnrfic -
light on 99W and the additional entrance/exit on i_ain street from the
proposed center will obviously prodsce undesirable traffic congestion
and patterns.
8. The traffic analysis that :.mss presented at t2--e ?PO-1 meeting
was in my opinion, an understatement and an over-s=:,_plification of the
impact on __ain street and 9917.
iub.fitted as a businessL:an and -resident
o Tigard71
,
OS;aF:: D. J�3,IA
13505 J.?:. 110.h
' .gard, Oregon
Copy'to: Tigard Planning Dept..
h,rK 1981
April 27, 1981
Tigard City Council
P. O. Box 23397
Tigard, Ore. 97223
-Enclosed is a comprehensive plan revision request initiated by NPO # 1.
Please waive the$500. 00 filing fee for this comprehensive plan change
reauest.
We request this item be scheduled on the May 5, 1981 planning commission
agenda.
NPO .T. 1 suggests that council considers at a future council meeting the
question of .redesignation of Ash Street from a "collector" to "local"
Street.
The reason for this application is because of the plan change request,
which NPO #1 supports, from A-12 to C 3M PD. This zone change
greatly reduces the potential residential traffic impact on Ash Street.
Very truly yours,
Gene Richman
NPO # 1
cc Tigard Planning Commission
c/o Mr. Aldie Howard
ZONE MAP AMENDMENT - COMPREHENSIVE PLAIN REVISION -, CQNDIT.IONAL USE
FILE #
TIGARD PLANNING DEPARTMENT 639-4171 FEE RECEIVED
12420 SW Main Street RECEIPT #
Tigard, Oregon 97223 DATE RECEIVED
RECEIVED BY
The "contact person" named in this application will receive all
major correspondence from the Tigard Planning Department and that
person is responsible for providing same to owner, architects, etc.
In this case, the "contact person" is:
NAME NPO # 1 c/o Gene Richman PHONE (Bus.)238_5565 (Res.) 620-4786
ADDRESS 7Ash A. e Tigard, Or. 97223
(street City - zip)
Signature Date
_ 4-27-Al
-ACTION REQUESTED Pe f 4 n„vx„mtmxm Ash e..- �t
APPLICANT'S NAME NPO # 1r,/n Gent- R;c-h- ;;n PHONE (Bus .) 238_5565 (Res.) 620-4Z&6
ADDRESS 13120 S, W. Ash Ave, Tigard, Ore. 97223
PROPERTY
(Street - City- Zi-P
OWNER' S NAME N/A PHONE (Bus.) N/A -(Res-) N/A
PHONE (Bus.) (Res.)
ADDRESS NIA
(Street - City - Zzp
PROPERTY OWNER RECOGNITION OF APPLICATION N/A
(Signature o owner
Ram
PROPERTY INVOLVED: TAX NEAP # 21129-ZS-1_2 AC TAX LOT(S) Refer to City right-of-wa
ADDRESS Ash Street AREA MEASUREMENT N/A
EXISTING BUILDING (# and type)
CURRENT ZONING Public right-of-wafftPPLICANT'S PROPOSED ZONING See referenced letter
Vacant public
CURRENT USE --might-of-t ;ayAPPLICANT'S PROPOSED USE
fP TP rAr7 luttE'.�
i` APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED UNLESS FULLY COMPLETED .
020381vmc
s STAB FiIG �Y
el
t �a
�f ..•�..•!w
0
. .a•aa•• o�dC� Jam'-----. yrs: •--_•! -
•s•f° V � ._.iii:•- -
a -
• � a
s s �
S.W.
MAP )
Z D
Neighborhood Planning Organization #1
15 April 1981
Tigard Planning Staff
Tigard Planning -Commision g .
T3.gard City Council
Re: NPO #1 Policy concerning the new Main Street Project by Main
Street Land COmpany.
Over the past months NPO #1 has reviewed and discussed�a number
of issues relating to development and planning for the NPO
#1 area. We feel that our discussions have led us to con-
senses on several issues and as such we wish to provide our
thoughts to the city planners and decision makers. We hope
to provide assistance in the interpretation and update of
the original NPO #1 Plan as it relates to various issues
before the Tigard Planning Staff at the present time. We have
addressed each issue, both independently and as they relate
to each other, and would like to offer the following:
1. Main Street Development
We have reviewed the recent development proposal for the
South end of Tigard I's Main Street (specifically the Main Street
Project) as well as the Tigard Planning Staff proposals for
downtown traffic circulation.
We are supportive of the concept of a major shopping area
development at the South end of Main Street. This develop-
ment is consistent with the current NPO Plan for two primary
reasons:
1. The proposed development, in fact, has greater fron-
age on Pacific Highway than it does on South Main Street and
as such complies with Policies 18 and 196 suggesting the .
avoidance of Pacific Highway strip development. By the use
of controlled access to Pacific Highway, this type of develop-
ment provides common parking facilities to clusters of businesses.
2. The proposed development is further consistent with
the original NPO Plan that addresses the desirability of sup-
porting the downtown Tigard''s "small town personality" by
providing the commercial economic base to "anchor" the South
.end of Main Street. With the sufficient customer draw pro
vided then on both ends of Main Street, the Tigard downtown
development of small shops and a "uniq-se commercial area" is
more likely to occur.
Consideration of these points favors the development that
has been proposed for the South end of Main Street. The
city's need has not been adequately identified for the Johnson
Street extension to Ash Avenue through the development.
We are supportive of development at the South end of Main
Street and recognize .that proper consideration has been given
by the developer to the traffic impact of such a development.
It.was demonstrated at the 15 April 1981 meeting by the
traffic consultant CH2M Hill that the installation of con-
trolled accesses to Pacific Highway and Main Stri�et and the
Johnson Street/Pani i._- n;cTT,T.».7
a------� .�c .a- 011 iesounstructxon
addresses the developmentes .ingress/'egress traffic concerns.
II. Hill Street Extension to O'Mara
In line with the original NPO Plan, the extension of Hill
Street to O'Mara still appears a desirable priority objective.
ORB's Eanno Creek Study of July 1980 indicates a possible
alternate route to WMara Street. We wish to identify our
support for the desirability of the extension and suggest
( that should development occur in this area, the connection of
Hill Street to O'Mara should be assured.
III. Ash Avenue Extension
We have reviewed the Ash Avenue Street Extension question
since it was rated by the Tigard Planning Staff in its down-
town Tigard circulation plans. We have, several times, consid-
ered the issues raised by the Tigard Planning Staff as well as
those raised by the citizens of Ash Avenue and the immediate area.
ORB's Fanno Creek Study of July 1980 expressed a concern that the `
.principle access to the Fanno Creek Greenway was at the ends of
Ash Avenue.- The NPO does not see a need to extend Ash Avenue.
However, Ash Avenue Right--of-Way will be preserved for future
park access.
Also, a zone change from A-12 zone, multi-family, adjacent to
Ash to C3M PD, will eliminate vehicle traffic that would have
been created by Ar12 zone development.
High priority should .be given to the protection of. the "residential
character" of the Ash Avenue neighborhood.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1, NPO #1 supports the concept of the Main Street Project.
2. NPO #1 approves of the Comprehensive Plan change from
A-12 to C3M PD on the property adjacent to Ash Avenue.
3. NPO #1 recommends to the Tigard Planning Commission and
Tigard City Council delete NPO #1 Plan Policy #28 which
relates to the extension of Ash Avenue across Fanno Creek.
�r
10
1WEEFING SCHEDIIIE
MAY 1981 ,
�.SUN .._._� NON d:r...Uj, WED PC1-IU1 FI2I
1 . 2.
3. 4. 5. 6. 7 . 87.
NPO #4 9'
Lamb Weston_7_3
NPO #1
Council Planning Com. Orham_Treatmen 7 :30 pm
Fowler 7:30 SS 7:30 PM Fowler BUDGET
Final Adjustment
10' 11 12 13 7 :30 Fowler '14 15 16.
LIBRARY
Library Board
7 :30-PM _ _ _ STAFF MEETIN
10:00 am
COUNCIL '
FOWLER 7 :30 RM
L'7 18 19 20 21 22 3
COUNCIL
Fowler 7 :30 RM
a
24 .25 26 27 28 29 ,30
_ STAFF MEETING PARK BOARD
1 **H0LIDAy** 10:00 'am Durham Treatment
7 :30 p.m.
• *%'HOLIDAY-'* RM- Regular. Meeting SS Study Session
' 4