City Council Packet - 06/29/1981 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING
JUNE 29 , 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, STAFF AND COUNCIL FOR THOSE DESIRING TO SPEAK ON
NON-AGENDA ITEMS .
5 . SUBDIVISION COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT AND PERFORMANCE BOND -
Dawn ' s Inlet - Approve and Authorize Mayor & City Recorder to sign.
(a) Recommendation of Public Works Director
6 . ZOO ADMISSION RATES : Discussion
(a) Presentation by Warren Iliff, Zoo Director
8:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING
7 . COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION CPR 10-81
An appeal filed by NPO #1 concerning the extension of Ash Avenue
across Fanno Creek to Burnham Street . An appeal of the Planning
Commission action upholding Policy No. 28 of the NPO #1 Plan at
their meeting of June 2 , 1981 . This appeal is to the City Council
to eliminate Policy No. 28 of the NPO #1 Plan ,
This hearing will be on the record and testimony will be limited to
summation of previous statements .
(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
8. BLOCK GRANT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (CDGB)
(a) Presentation by Hank March
9 . COMPREHENSIVE STREET PLAN
(a) Discussion with Council
10. ORDINANCE No. 81- AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING PERMITS FOR CERTAIN
TEMPUR—KRY LAND USES AND AMENDING SECTIONS 18.80 .010
and 1$ . 80.030(4.) OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE.
(a) Recommendation of Acting Cii y Administrator
11 . ICAP PROGRAM
(a) Report by Chief of Police
12 . ORDINANCE No. 81-52 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2 . 04..040 OF THE
C T OF TIGARD CODE, RELATING TO THE DUTIES OF THE CITY
ADMINISTRATOR.
(a) Second Reading of the Ordinance.
13. RESOLUTION No. 81- SETS CRITERIA FOR SELECTING APPRAISERS
(a) Recommendation of Legal Counsel
14. RESOLUTION No. 81- DESIGNATING A CLASS OF CONTRACTS AS PERSONAL
SERV=GE CONTRACTS
(a) Recommendation of Legal Counsel
15. CIVIC CENTER DISCUSSION
(a) Appraisal for Civic Center Property - Councilman Brian
16 . PUBLIC WORKS EXPANSION - Lease and Related moving costs
(a) Recommendation of Public Works Director
i� . ORDINANCE NO. 81—
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE PLAT OF DALE'S GLENN, BUT MODIFYIT
THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IMPOSED BY THE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION.
(a) Recommendation of Legal Counsel
_ 18. RESOLUTION No. 81- A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE CITY 'S ELECTI
TO RECEIVE STATE REVENUES _ ON
(a) Recommendation of Finance Director
19. OTHER
20. ADJOURNMENT
Xx
PAGE 2 - AGENDA, June 29, 1981
T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L
mom
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES, JUNE 29, 1981, 7:30 P.M.
1. ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor Wilbur Bishop; Councilmen Tom Brian, John Cook,
Kenneth Scheckla; Robert B. Adams, Chief of Police (left at 10:00
P.M. ) ; Frank Currie, Acting City Administrator/Director of Public
Works; Doris Hartig, Finance Director/City Recorder; Aldie Howard,
Planning Director (left at 9:30 P.M.) ; Clifford Speaker, substituting
for Administrative Secretary; Ed Sullivan, Legal Counsel.
2. CALL TO AUDIENCE, STAFF AND COUNCIL FOR THOSE DESIRING TO SPEAK ON NON-AGEDTDA ITEMS.
(a) Councilman Scheckla passed to Council members, staff and the press a
photocopy of a letter of application for Lhe ^^ as City Administrator
P Py PP po���-�•-
of a southern Oregon city from Aldie Howard. At the Councilman's request,
the City Recorder read the letter into the record. Councilman Scheckla
followed with a brief statement expressing extreme displeasure at some
comments about Tigard in the letter, and denying the accuracy of some
statements made by Howard about his work with Tigard. Howard asked
how this private communication of his got into Councilman Scheckla's
possession. The Councilman acknowledged a confidential source which he
would riot further identify. There was tentative discussion about an
executive session of the Council to consider what, if any, action should be taken
in response.
3. SUBDIVISION COMPLIANCE. AGREEMENT AND PERFORMANCE BOND - Dawn's Inlet -
Approve and Authorize Mayor and City Recorder to sign.
(a) Public Works Director recommended approval.
(b) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Scheckla to approve
and authorize the Mayor and City Recorder to sign on behalf of the City.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
4. ZOO ADMISSION RATES: Discussion
(a) Warren Iliff, Zoo Director, explained the rationale for raising the
admission charge of the zoo by the MSD Council--basically the economic
necessity to raise zoo revenues.
(b) Councilman Brian stated his feeling that to raise the rates at this time
was a breach of faith with the voters, and objected to the increase on
philosophical grounds, although he is a zoo supporter.
(c) Councilman Scheckla suggested adoption of a special rate for families,
stating he felt families with several children could very well be priced
out of the facility otherwise.
(d) Craig Berkman, Metro Councilor, reiterated the decis _i in this case was
based principally on fiscal considerations, while recognizing valid objections.
He stated public hearings were held on the matter.
8!00 P*M& PUBLIC HEARING
S. COMPREHENSIVE PLA14 REVISION CPR 10-81
An appeal filed by NPO #1 concerning the extension of Ash Avenue across Fanno Creek
MEN
to Burnham Street. An appeal of the Planning Commission action upholding
Policy No. 28 of the NPO #1 Plan at their meeting of June 2, 1981. This
appeal is to the City Council to eliminate Policy No. 28 of the NPO #1 Plan.
This hearing will be on the record and testimony will be limited to summation
of previous statements
(a) Public Hearing Opened — 8:00 P.M.
Mayor Bishop opened the Public Hearing with a denial of any conflict
of interest, financial or otherwise, in property which might be
affected by Council's decision on the matter. As previously directed, the
hearing is on the record, with proponents and opponents each allowed
approximately fives Tninutes to summarize their previous testimony. He noted
the transcript omitted to state that Ed Sullivan, Legal Counsel, was
present during this Planning Commission hearing.
(b) Planning Director Howard referred to his staff report and recommendation
prepared for the June 2 meeting of the Planning Commission. This reported
his findings and the rationale for his recommendation.
(�) Gene Richman, 13120 SW Ash Avenue, speaking as representative of NPO #1,
reiterated several objections discussed at length at the Planning Commission
hearing: traffic volumes to be generated on an extended Ash Avenue is the
principal issue--the street is a local residential street and should not have
to carry the volumes which he characterized as approaching arterial,
that are projected by traffic studies which assume the street is extended
across Fenno Creek. ::e objected to the limitations to only the year of
1985 of the ATEP/Woelk traffic. study, which he felt made it worthless.
He cited the Park Board's unanimous objection tc having a crossing
of the park by a street.
(d) Mayor Bishop called attention to a letter only very recently received from
Mr. Woelk. This was not considered lest it be characterized as new information,
and this hearing is on the previous record.
(e) The Planning Director read as his recommendation, the recommendation he made
to the Planning Commission at its June 2nd meeting: that Policy 28 not be changed,
and outlining street development (including the extension of Ash Avenue) in
con junt-ti nn with deve
------ development in the area. The Public Works Director added some
brief comments supporting this recommendation.
(f) Councilman Brian stated his conviction that additional circulation at the
northern end of the Ash area is necessary, even if there was no connection
to Ash Avenue. He questioned the time frame within which Ash Avenue should
be extended, suggesting several streets should be improved substantially
before the extension is made.
(g) Councilman Scheckla inquired about funding of the Fanno Creek Crossing.
The Public Works Director stated there are possible funding sources,
but none are presently dedicated to this purpose. The Planning Director
outlined the time table he foresees for developments in the area (perhaps
two or three years for Hill Street) , stating it is a long—term process which
depends on the market.
(h) Robert Allen of the Portland office of CH2M—Hill told the limitations of their
1979 report. The Public Works Director challenged some statements as not
being truthful.
PAGE 2 — COUNCIL MINUTES — JUNE 29, 1981
(i) In cross-examination, Gene Richman questioned how many vehicles will go down
Ash Avenue under full development.
(j) Public Hearing Closed.
(k) Councilman Cook stated the Ash Avenue extension has been considered over at
least the nine years he has been a Council member. It has always been on the
list for development but never obtained funding. He felt circulation in the
area must be provided, and is unwilling to preclude the possibility of the
extension because the north end of the street needs development. He suggested
O'Mara and McDonald be developed first, but that engineering should be done
before the extension of Ash is undertaken.
(1) Mayor Bishop agreed that according to the map the proposed extension is
logical, but stated it is not practical. He cited the unanimous vote of
the Park Board in favor of removing NPO #1 Policy # 28. He reviewed
the physical dimensions of the street, comparing them with standards for
collector streets. He felt the cost is a real obstacle assuming additional
right-of-way would have to be purchased from the present owners of expensive
homes. His opinion was that Hall Boulevard would of necessity have to be
widened to four lanes and become "another Sandy Boulevard" to handle the traffic
from the residential areas to downtown Tigard and to Portland.
(m) Councilman Brian enlarged on the idea that no one really knows what the traffic
will be in the future. In the meantime, he favors leaving the option open
for extension, but not construct the extension until other measures to protect
the neighborhood from the impacts of increased traffic are in place.
(n) Councilman Scheckla emphasized the safety hazard of putting a street through
the park, and stated he would not support the Planning Commission action.
(o) Legal Counsel Sullivan explained alternatives open to the Council.
(p) Councilman Brian regretted a decision with so many facets had to be put in
terms of black and white.
(q) Mrs. Pat Hutchinson, Chairman of NPO ill, asked of Legal Counsel the longterm
effect of deletion of Policy 428, and its possible reinstatement at some
time in the future. Sullivan suggested that on the strength of a no-extension
action by Council, it could well be that development would take place which
could make it impossible to effect the extension in the future.
(r) Motion by Councilman Brian, seconded by Councilman Cook, for denial of the
appeal, based on the Planning Director's staff report.
The motion failed 2 to 2, with Mayor Bishop and Councilman Scheckla voting nay.
(s) Motion by Mayor Bishop, seconded by Councilman Scheckla, that Policy 428 be
removed from the Comprehensive Plan as requested on appeal from the Planning
Commission, based on the transcript of the Planning Commission hearing.
Motion failed 2 to 2, Councilmen Brian and Cook voting nay, thereby upholding
the Planning Commission's decision.
(t) After some discussion, Councilman Brian moved that Planning Staff prepare and
submit to Council within 30 days an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan
speaking to the traffic issues on SW Ash Avenue, the language to prescribe steps
to be taken to preserve the local street character of Ash Avenue if and when it
is extended. Councilman Cook seconded the motion.
Motion carried 3 to 1, with Councilman Scheckla voting nay.
PAGE 3 - COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 29, 1981
Staff to submit draft recommendation to Council for review, item will then
be referred to NPO #1 and Planning Commission.
RECESS: 9:21 P.M.
RECONVENE: 9:38 P.M.
Planning Director left aL 9:30
6. BLOCK GRANT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (CDBG)
(a) Hank March of the County office of Community Development presented reasons
for Tigard to stay in the program. He quoted figures on amounts
received in the area, and stated participation must be for three-year periods.
In response to a question by Councilman Brian, he offered his assessment of
the change in philosophy of the program under the new administration,
relating it to what is needed most.
7. ORDINANCE No. 81-53 AN ORDINA14CE APPROVING THE PLAT OF DALE'S GLENN, BUT MODIFYING
THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IMPOSED BY THE TIGARD PLANNING
COMMISSION.
(a) Legal Counsel Sullivan discussed briefly the legal aspects of the ordinance.
(b) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Brian for adoption.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
8. ORDINANCE No. 81-54 AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING PERMITS FOR CERTAIN TEMPORARY LAND
USES AND AMENDING SECTION 18.80.010 AND 18.80.030 (4) OF THE
TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE.
(a) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Scheckla to adopt.
(b) Louis .Smith, an ice cream truck Vendor- innnired what effect the nrnnnSeci
ordinance would have on his ability to operate in Cook Park, permitted
under present regulations. Counsel Sullivan replied his status would be
unaffected, with or without the proposed ordinance, because his business is
considered an ancillary use of a public park.
(c) Ordinance No. 81-54 was approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
9. ICAP PROGRAM
(a) Chief of Police referred to his two-page memo of June 23rd to the Acting
City Administrator, together with attached time schedule for implementation,
and offered to answer questions.
(b) Councilman Brian requested continuing reports on progress so there would be
no serious questions at budget time. Chief Adams promised to provide
regular progress reports.
Chief of Police left at 10:00 P.M.
10. ORDINANCE No. 81-52 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2.04.040 OF THE CITY OF TIGARD
CODE, RELATING TO THE DUTIES OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR.
(a) Second reading of ordinance.
(b) Mayor Bishop cited the City Charter provision calling for appointment of all
city employees by the Mayor with the consent of the Council.
E 4. - COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 29, 1981
IN
(c) Motion to adopt by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Brian.
Approved by 3-1 majority vote of Council present, Councilman Scheckla
voting nay.
11. RESOLUTION No. 81-75 A RESOLUTION SETTING PROCEDURE FOR SELECTION OF AN
APPRAISER FOR THE CROW BUILDING.
(a) Explanation by Legal Counsel.
(b) Motion to adopt by Councilman Brian, seconded by Councilman Cook.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
12. RESOLUTION No. 81-76 A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING SERVICE CONTRACTS AS PERSONAL
SERVICE CONTRACTS_
(a) Legal Counsel explained the removal of certain classes of contracts from
ORS provisions for competative bids.
(b) Motion for adoption by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Scheckla.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
13. CIVIC CENTER DISCUSSION
(a) Councilman Brian commented qualifications and estimated completion times of
two appraisers for the Crow Building appeared to be substantially equal,
although the prices quoted wcrc quite different.
(b) Councilman Scheckla moved approval of Harold F. Meyer & Associates, Inc. ,
as appraisers of the Crow Building at their quotation of a total price
not to exceed $975.00. Seconded by Councilman Brian.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
(c) Charles D. Bailey and Associates, Inc. , are to receive a letter thanking
them for their proposal.
14. RESOLUTION No. 81-77 A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE CITV�S ELECTION TO RECEIVE
STATE REVENUES.
(a) Motion to adopt by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Brian.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
15. COMPREHENSIVE STREET PLAN
(a) The Public Works Director asked for Council guidance. He expects to
run the plan through the active NPOs, thence through the Planning Commission
to Council, perhaps by September. Means of financing would be presented--
five possibilities have been discussed so far. Forrest Brouillard presented
the desirability of obtaining computer capabilities for evaluating segments
of the plan because of the costly and time-consuming effort required to perform
these evaluations by manual methods.
(b) Consensus of Council was that staff should proceed with plan as presented.
PAGE. 5 - COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 29, 1981
lo. PUBLIn WORKS EXPA1 SI V - Lease and Rclated Moving Costs
(a) The Public Works Director reported on negotiations with Mr. Crow for City
office space in his building. Alternatives to this building were mentioned.
The Public Works Director reported "it is not out of the question" to obtain.
7,000 square feet. Negotiations will continue .
17. OTHER
(a) City Recorder explained the reason for Ordinance No. 81-55 being acted upon.
ORDINANCE No. 81-55 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE No. 80-98 RELATING
TO THE MC DONALD STREET AREA SEWER IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
(LID No. 25) BY ADDI14G SECTIONS PEP14ITTING THE
ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT WARRANTS;
DECLAR.zNG AN EMERGENCY.
Motion by Councilman Brian, seconded by Councilman Cook to adopt.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
(b) The Public Works Director asked for approval of Dales Glenn Subdivision
Compliance Agreement, and that Mayor and Recorder be authorized to sign
on 'behalf of the City.
Approval moved by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Brian.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
(c) Councilman Brian stated he will not attend the July 15 meeting, further
he requested Linda Sargent relay to Council synopsis of needs and assessment
report as it relates to the Tigard area block grant program.
(d) City staff confirmed there is as yet no report on legal status of the TCYS and
Loaves and Fishes special levies. Legal Counsel will follow up on this .
(e) Discussion of executive session to consider action, if any, in response to the
copy of application letter of Aldie Howard presented by Councilman Scheckla.
The Acting Administrator called attention to the fact that it was a personal
communication. mayor Bishop thongh't the wording very inappropriate, there
is a definite reason for an executive session.
Councilman Brian questioned whether the executive session was for disciplinary or
termination action, or simply to register a complaint.
In general, the Council is concerned about some language used in letters on
City stationery. Mayor Bishop stated response to the personal letter shall
go through the Acting City Administrator.
(f) Councilman Cook reminded Council that Civic Center Committee guidelines need
to be formulated. This has been delayed somewhat by the Mayor's recent illness.
Council to discuss at next meeting.
(g) The question of salary adjustments, previously tabled, was raised. Mayor
Bishop prefers to await the arrival and recommendation thereon by the new
City Administrator, possibly with retroactivity to July 1. Councilman Briar_
felt it unfair to the employees concerned, and that the information the Council
now has is as good as it will get three or four months from now from the new
Administrator. Councilman Cook suggested consideration at the July 20, 1981
meeting. Council concurred.
PAGE 6 - COUNCIL MINTUES - JUNE 29, 1981
(h) Mayor Bishop requested the Acting Administrator to secure copies of letters from
the Planning Director to Fred Meyer Real Estate Brokers, to a clothing store and
other developers as examples which contain statements which should not emanate from
a City official. He felt the Acting Administrator should be aware of the nature
Of some of these statements.
(i) Legal Counsel Sullivan stated he had reviewed the bids for the Hampton Street LID
and the errors in extension of costs . There is no problem in approving
bids. He also commented he is doing more research with respect to leasing the
Crow Building.
18. ADJOURNMENT: 11:10 P.M.
City Recorder
ATTEST:
mayor `�KL—
PAGE 7 — COUNCIL MINUTES — JUNE 29, 1981
$a
tia r.e
r, 1951
I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on
the following item: (Please print your name)
Item Description: AGENDA ITEM # 7
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION—APPEAL TO
Fr.T__ MjNhT P('% Tr_Y .2Sr1 MWI fiL ET Ari
Proponent (for) Opponent (against) _----- - ---
Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiiia_ion
n t��ry 14
/t f --
/ �.I. /M• 1 AU1 f l I L C
t
4
e
t
f
17
L �5 ,L L— ER
June 18, 1981
-City Administrator
-Program Management Associates
-764 LN14 4th Street
-Grants Pass, OR 97526
Good tidrning:
Three years ago I was hired under CETA as the Administrative Assistant to the City
Administrator- One year later the entire Planning Department resigned, packed and
departed. I became the Planning DirPcror_
Tigard, quite candidly, is a zoo. One year here is worth ten where you are. The
man who hired me, initially, did so on his last day as City Administrator. The
,'Mayor at that time was Wilbur Bishop- Guess What? Wilbur Bishop got elected
Mayor again last November, and the Council just fired my present boss in front of
three hundred angry people waving recall petitions. Ugly affair.
My tenure here has been a tremendous learning experience to say the least. The
Planning Staff of nine has been reduced to three and we are very busy. Other
areas of accomplishments or involvements:
. Re-wrote and implemented major changes in the Zoning Code. Streamlined the
System.
. Completed the L.C'.TD' .C. Compliance requirements for Tigard Comprehensive T_.and
Use Plan
. Supervised the re-writing of the Tigard Perscanel Manual/EEO and Affirmative
Action Plan.
. Assumed a major role in acquisition of a computer capability for this city.
. Presently serve on the Cable T,V, Board with other Washington County Cities
and the County. This Board is currently involved in studying cable franchise
agreements and drafting a "request for proposal" prior to franchising a Cable
T.Q. company.
. Alternate representative to the Washington County Block Grant Program. Tigard
has just received a grant of $200,000. to construct a Senior Citizens' Center.
. Supervise all annexations to this city. Appear monthly before the Boundary
Commission.
Involved in major transportation planning, park planning, re-development planting,
etc.
Provide' department head support to the Planning Commission and City Council,
Neighborhood Planning Organizations, citizens and developers.
Our Comprehensive Plan is before LCDC review. I completed the plan a year ago
under very adverse circumstances - it got "dumped" on me when everyone departed.
All development in this City is reviewed by Public Works/Engineerinv, Building
Department, Fire Marshall, etc. , so I have a working knowledge of these various
disciplines.
f
771
Page 2
For four years I served as a Councilman for the City of Forest Grove, Oregon. I
recently obtained my graduation certificate from Portland State University — tasters
in rublic Administrai:ion. I an a "team player" with a very sincere desire to serve
the public. You can see from my resume that I am a "generalist". Please contact
my references, and if you need more information, I will respond i=ediately.
Yours�tr�-/�
Aldie Ho= -
cirf - TDOCI E`
WASHING'eON COUNTY.OREGON
September 8, 1980
Mr. Gerald W. Crow
9040 SW Burnham
jTigard, Oaegcn 97223
Dear Mr. Crow:
You have presented =0with a very difficult situation: As you know, the
Park Board has plans for the floodplain along Fanno Creek betwesn Main
and Hall. A portion of the proposal park includes your proposal parking
lot. without adequate parking you would be unable to construct a new
building.
The Planning commission has approved_activity within the 100 year floodplain
in certain, -very limited, instances'. I doubb:.that in this case that
they will allow you to use any portio-n of the floodplain_ if by chance
the Planning Commission should--tha City Council would reverse their
decision, and you know :he Far: Board will scream.
ggstion is that we all wait and see what herons t:ith r tv Council
in November, the Urban Renewal A en-CY formation the park Board allocation
of funds, hP h strut issue, All of these things will cow t ther_
_bV .'.r-•-,=.�_' 7 _ '1 981 I still think wa can trade hank n g non the Public -
Works area for floodplain/park in the near future.
At this time my Staff Report would deny your request for Phase I1 and
the parking in the floodplain. You would then appeal to the Planning
Commission and to the City Council. This method is not the
c. i..aa u.. best_
Please be assured that i StYutatiizc dYou, a - Sv :1�h has ch_
n—=—d
.w
since you constructed your original building_ What'was possible seven
years ago is not possible today, particularly in the floodplai-i in downtown
Tigard.
Mull this over and advise me as to your desires. We will try to keep
you cognizant of activity in your area so that a resolution my be found.
Sincerely,
.40
e H
Plan g Director
AH/ps .
17d'Sfl G W MAIN P(+. RnY 77'}Q7 TIf-AQn ['nQF(-X')tJ 4077'Yq Du. Ann AI-?I —--
1hASHIN'GTCN COUNTY.O.R_CC j
1'ubruary 3, 1981
+
,Mr. Gerald W- Crow
9040 S:•: Bu nha ,
Tigard, Oregon 97223
,
REFERE14CE: SITE DESIGN REVIEW, SDR 21-80 �
Dear Mr. Crow:
! j
Apparently we need to re-focus our approach. I reviewed your past files _
+ Bruce Clark sent you a letter dated September 5, 1973 in which lie stated that
you would have to return before the Planning Co=. .,ission for any future ;
development. in reviewing your present proposal under the existing Code,
you are required to appear before the Planning Cor-Fission as a Planned
Development (PD) due to development proposed within the 100 year floodplain_
mom
I
I an, returning your Site Design Review Fee. Enclosed you will find an f
application for a Planned Unit Development and Sensitive Lands Permit_ +
1 Please complete these applications and return to me by February 9, 1981 for
.a Pl.anni ng `va.u:li SSivi, usct3iag on March j, 1981. �
! I will draft a Staff Report for your review prior to this meeting. ply
Staff Report will recommend denial of your proposal. The Planning
Commission has been very restrictive concerning use of the floodplain. The
Park Board and the City Council have designated the floodplain from Main J
Street to Hall Boulevard as a park. To allow a large parking lot right i..
Lhe middle of this proposed park does not seem realistic.
4
Your proposed warehouse would require about twenty (20) parking spaces . �
Your existing building requires the same_ At the present time, you have
approximately one-hundred (100) parking spaces. Perhaps you would co^prcn.ise
the proposed one-hundred (100) spaces in the floodplain. Your original
� Conditional Use was for warehousing. You have increased your need for
par};ing because you are 'now manufacturing electronic components and have r
1 employees. A .review of the record does not suggest that this use was mentione:
I originally. To construct another "warehouse" to be used for manufacturing i
is suspect. The only way for us to resolve what you propose and what we
I rill allow is for you to bring your case before the Planning Comriussion.
I think that you can see that Ash Street is rapidly becoming a reality_ If
your proposal should be approved__vou will berequired to improve Ash Stree t
along your entire eastern property Zine. We will ask for the dedication of r �
all land within the 100 year floodplain for a park. At the present tir.,e you
1
12420 S.W. MAIN P.O. BOX 23397 TIGARD, OREGON 97223 PH. 639-4171
Page 2
have enough parking to allow the construction of your proposed warehouse_
r f you used both buildings .for ware}iouses you woLild not have a need for
additional parking.
1 realize that this is not good news, but it is a realistic appraisal of
your situation considering all the changes that have taken place since 1973.
you- 'q 'o
A1rU oward
arming Director
AHvmc
encls.
4:7
IN 71C,'�FD i Y -0
T*:i- L 1 TOP 1.'T T P D T Z:.=,
-T. "AT
T(,
�,,ND F1_!!fG7 I- 1!,.-2C ycun
T
'!7CT; F' CF ;I:� Z1_;NTTY 7-7.
!�77,R TOLD T'-7-,- C17
-A
IFMjT-:: -0 A PC-':!T _:IAT_ 7 .7 r C:.7
ISCUCT-- .J Alf-IC-T E7RY P-77,:37:- CP :L,.`T
TA`_-1-1 T'ITW CUT CF Cr:".__._.. COLORFr, '_-.__AiITY TO X7 YCUR
CI-M M1_-:"3K7-n= T�17:7r7lll TC THIE
C 0 1 T Y
YOUR. MCST 'nr: CF !:. -C:i 21, 1-379 l*No Jokinz .:at ter"
C2
IS --yPICALLY FALS:" , =SIZAZIN_ ;.VD 1:1, - .rT-.-. '.�T P=i A3CUT'
TIGARE'S ROADS wKRE ?ICT TO = A 1 P_1S'PICUS W177I W,
I SAY THAT T`E p7opIr 1, ': '71 - 1� tiA7- -1Y FCR
-Hj.,7 CC. 1ITY `J'I L TO rl
STREFT INCLUE-7 =71Lv- AT 'zf1Ef7;T-NT 1-17-M 119E
-T'� 3-2-CAUS7 WT� Do NOT -:-1AVr '_-::ICU.AP= UrgA?Lr --o I1'-,:vM`,1r_- T7C- ST=
I FEEL T---LPT T-r--- STFT-F-2 O=?LAY P, PLIC c:: T-1•- EFRIOUZI-Y
STUDIEED 37CAUS-7 1 T:41',77: 777LAT '-:7 Ait- jTjl:T C077%F.1N5 UP 7_EPL
PROBjFj-:S Cr RAC-3 T-7 1 _r= `7 ARE
UZI111G A CC .=TIC A??RCACH Tr. A 7M,%_ ''::C'! '1IL-1 -.AV-=
MIjj.ICf1_c 0-- -CIJ_AqS TO rO-IPj-r---- ;t',sD lc'T�- -;.'ITr H:^VZE TC
2.
CC:.U-' _'t1:a3;1T OUT OF CU- PCC7 T�;- 111-T TH-7 FCT7 7f: .:=7 C,
T F=SE LIVES: -" F!11GHT- T^ 'rC:; I.Arl-7 T-Tx7---
Cc, :;r. :7C-._--:TTj.., C j IT.
y CUp riv
X- pja?_AGF_1j?H 12 F'-.-'-LLv- T*17 CziX-c 71:. 7
FOR Ta-' n!TCTE WHIC'l YOU _1T_'2i:I_,-_,UT- 77C I O-E,T-r'_- TC =_-1773 C41-17--
y-
AF,3 c7F SE.-cVIC-.. hTrE
CALI:7D UN-.1.77RICA' :7-1ooT IY ;CAT_ 1C 70
rt-7SDONSI1VE TO C:JCS= T77'-.- CT
I—. C- -C
N-RITTENS71,7-1 AE POUF_
FCP. FC.17rT C-7CY" FC= FCT�F' Y7S7_"- I.' T71i, Z. 47=11_
1,�,A-111,1-,, 7 t.FxT- RIG-,iT rr- C-7. rl_Lc
TC T*E 7wrPi: 1j*7,-L PC 1_T,7 YCUF TT7-z'!_' -=N `7 L`oT
YCU ILL VcF- IC !--!_[T_1 "!_-17.
".A.T.*P=1✓ !ICT TO 7NT! !70 P_ ::-- IXA-: , ill" "'crt.
c1A'17 TH: T
F C . , I 2F7F!tK V7' Ti.
f:ys-,r.,r.* mm Hc'..., IT I ift!-: T.:CT Ar:1;171:. 0.7 FUDI.IC -r-3.`,
I J-_1AV'_r TI-EE COURAGE TO ATTACK vC;J. "Crt A77,= OF -,If--. TJ.T-.
yCU ;4IDr 3-:'tjIND A v.ooaICZ7c
C.T IT ^.0 7U-7�
SPAR AT TPAT WHICH YOU LC INCTT'-E-ri-iLC YCU
2.
TFUL" !Tt n?"?iIi1G 1 T YC-'j Y OT
L. C)-! ,j,.rjD-, D TC '-'C(1 B'., C:�LF: C;" "CU;t G.
yoU :1:k7!_Tjj, C0N!,1D=0 'YC!T A '.:!,!:TCrv' YCU
So II- r2-jp— -C71,7 To
T"
Yort: P� (7 T- C
1. ,-F
!1!.A_r ITT P7F7=V7 CC _fCT: C rU L C
T
NOW 117 7%-.!7_-1.Y •"A�,TT TC LE71F T-IIS I01!AN7 TO !EMP
C-F :'`TI': CR7__!JTZ"-I0T-.1, I SUGGEST TH-'T -_CTj
M AI!7, CTF-_ 7 7'__r:TB77_
T
VG1lJl`!TF7T. , TO .13"RT- CN TrE: B=C7_r7l. (7,07--7 11 TFP,rK 3C
A =7CIAZ STUEY GRCUI;' c7 ?7='4 11 -
o-...AFI FZ YCTj 7HOULD MUSTF7 VV:-RY 0 'T
Cr -?(J:". FOR CITY CCMICIL. PUT IT ALL ON T:
s7F 7
:U4 _V
-77'.7 THIS CC:" :U'
UP FRCN'- OF TJS/ ACTICT! IS AND *,.i--7-.M-V VICE:
FACTS A7-T- BE AN AS7ET TO T*IIS =74LU-NITY 1NST7AE OF -A FAR,' IN
TH-7. ASSET
RI T. I ]:.CN'T
FROM THIS `1C!Y.MT Or,! YCU "IAC B77T27.1. 07T TIT7 F.ACT'! RIC?T.
M-77.VF T'IIS
ANTICIP,77 T:LFT YOU "!'ILL
I TAV7 SU,!C,,:-C Y(".r CO CCN2AC_'
So I -GLrL.:� E!TCC!!.
ALL Tli-, IN T*r!T-:-, OTN TILT. PUBLIC R-CC?.-C. I
PRO.-NIFF TO OBTAIN A7 I!,T=C?. r" TIOn YC? -1
FG-U-ZT. YOU A. PAYING
A
A P.A7,t, CT:, AFF AC A -A7_,P_'YHR YCT ;srITF
F
T:-T-. RIGHT TC DF�CATTD Ti'f7, 73UT ZC'!'T 1-r.,.-TF IT.
1: = 9 A -
.121 CK A I. -
G"T T-7 FACT3, Ar1r; v -Up Sl.!o 1) FC US- vCU
'!ILL FAT' TO ::FF7ND YO;.'- f77T.F FVC!l PTC*.! fV
TR ,..I .i T`7 PTSILIF ITI-y OF ST-7:, A r,
UT-4. NT
07 A 17R7!1,-!7 TTAV TF, N YOU.
AlEAC-r Nr- ~OWARD Afo jo;rwng
p,p.'T!JjkJ3 :;T7k7TOFI
Matier
To the Editor:
CITY OF TIGAPn- What kind of people are you payinz-
to run your little mini-city? Your
=2
E
xi E
5! 4 C. re E.
cevm
g t: 3TG6umy 'a
a. E Z.
aEu ZLII C
E 0
T t
z
. 5 E
G t
. - I- = M =.�2 ; A
!! 5 zz!
.2
!y TTL
-
s.s
%
-6 .
6
BEFORE THE d.T'Z-"-r -;GT-9--OF--TrGARD;- OREGON
NOTICE OF APPEAL File No.
1. Name : NPO 01 c/o Gene Richman
2. Address :t ;2n s w, A�� A�7e.
(Street/P.0. Box
rd. . OR 3
1tY State Zip Co e
Telephone i1v. to/ '2 V-g%zsb (7 ) 238-5565
4. If serving as a representative of other persons, list their names
and addresses :
NPO #1
S. What is the decision you want the City Council to review?
(Examples : denial of zone change; approval of variance. )
Reversal of Planning Cornrnission decision regardine Ash Ave extersion
to Burnham.
6. The decision being appealed was announced by the Planning Commission
on _
Date
7. On what grounds do you claim status as a party? (See Section 18. 92.020
Tigard Munici-al
NPO #1
8. 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.
S_P�__atharhPd »nhP 1
Paas I of 7
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. )
Signed :
Date:
TTT77'7ft7rT7f71` 7th 'fir7T 77fJL
IrT V7r7T'TV7rVT 7T7r�T��7T77T.T:T7fTi7`�T.�"1��.-.- �i7�uu 7i7 tff77rTTTi-7i-7TTT7TTT-r7r
FOR USE BY CITY
Date and time of filing:
Date of Planning Commission decision:
Date set for Council consideration:
Time allowed for arguments : per side
Entered by:
Amount paid: Receipt 1'
Page 2 of 2
Notice of Appeal
r
Note 1
Grounds for reversal of the planning commission decision are as follows:
1). The NPO document is in conflict. with LCDC goals number 2 & 12.
Removal of policy 28 will correct the conflicts.
2) . The planning commission made a predetermined, opinionated decision.
facts sibmitted by the applicant and proponents of the deletion of
policy 28 were not listened too.
3) . Findings of fact used in the staff report were in error and unreliable.
( Park Board and Woelk's traffic reports .) Sufficient facts on which
a justifiable decision could be made were not presented by the staff.
4) . There was very little discussion of the facts presented by the planning
commission. - This was probably attributable to the time this issue was
heard. There was insufficient rebuttal time.
5) . The issue is one of traffic circulation. Staff has no reliable evidence
to indicate that they .have a better "unwritten plan" than the recommendation
submitted by NPO 1. 5000 cars per day thru traffic is too many
vehicles for the residential neighborhood to bear.
6) . Additional facts are available on transcript and can be reviewed from
that document.
The City Council should agree with the NPO 1 recommendation to delete policy 28 from
the NPO 1 document.
Note 2
A request for a hearing " on the record" from the June 2, 1981 meeting is requested.
Providing the transcript is available a 5 minute summary is sufficient.
71
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO. 5.3
TIGARD PLANNING CLN IISSION
JUNE 2, 1981 - 7:30 p.m.
Fowler Junior High - Lecture Room
10865 SW Walnut, Tigard
NO SUB:%1ISSION OF ADDITIONAL MATERIAL BY APPLICANT SHALtL BE !MADE AT THE
U-L- L",; !MNG UNLESS '11M APP1-!C27 NT IS REQUESq ED TO DO SO. SHOULD THIS OCCUR,
UNREQUESTED, THE ITEM WILL, BE TABLED UNTIL THE, FOLLCWLNG HEARING.
DOCKET: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION CPR 10-81 NPO # 1
Policy 28 of NPO # 1 Plan
APPLICANT: NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATION # 1
City of Tiara, Oregon
REQUEST: A request for a change in the NPO # 1 Plan, Policy 28,
Page 39.
"Ash Avenue should be extended across Fanno Creek,
enabling access to the Neighborhood's commercial area
without using.Pacific Highway. Design features should
be-used to slow traffic and make the street as safe as
possible."
SITE LOCATICR-17: SW Ash Avenue - From Frewnng Street to Burrh am Street
in the NPO # 1 Planning Area.
PREVIOUS ACI'ICN:
On April 27, 1981, Neighborhood Planning Organization (NPO) # 1 member
Gene Riduna_n submitted a letter to the City Council requesting a waiver
of the Comprehensive Plan Revision Fee of $500.00, and asking that Ash Avenue
be redesignated from a "collector" to a "local" street. The fee was waived,
but the issue was not clear as the City does not include street designations
in the NPO # 1 plan, but rather in the Street Inventory Plan. The Planning
Director suggested that Mr. Richman re-draft his letter to request that
Policy 28 of the NPO # 1 plan be deleted.
Obviously this entire issue has arisen because of the pending developmant
of sixteen (16) acres of property between Highway 99W, Main Street and SW
Ash Avenue. The NPO has been involved with this project for more than a year.
Daring this time various traffic circulation patterns have been proposed.
We are finally at a stage where decisions have to be made.
The Council was asked to have a joint-session with the Planning CcnuLission
and all interested parties, but they declined in favor of the process before
the Planning Cimmission, and then to them for a final decision.
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO 5.3
TIGARD PLANNING CayZaSSION
JUNE 2, 1981
CPR 10-81
Page 2 of 3
Mr. Ashley, member of NPO # 1, recently gave a historical perspective to
Policy 28 and Staff would like to share this history with the Planning
Commission.
The NPO # 1 1,7as arrlov=d by the Council on May 20, 1974 by Ordinancy 74-25.
Ordinance 75-16 adopted the NPO # 1 Plan Book and Comprehensive Plan Map
on March 24, 1975 by a three to two vote.
Since 1974 some very dramatic changes have taken place L-1 the NPO # 1
area. The important thing to realize is that the Council added Policy
28, and then approved -the NPO # 1 Plan by a three (3) to two (2) vote
after much ccn mnity trauma_ We have all returned to this issue, but the
terms have changed due to development pressures.
I. FINDINGS OF FACT
1) NPO # 1 Poli V 28 was adopted by the City Council on March 25, 1975,
Ordinance No. 75-16, which adopted. the NPO # 1 Plan and Map.
2) An unimproved dedicated public right-of--way connects Ash Avenue
across Fanno Creek.
3) The ORB Group Park Plan has been preliminarily approved by the
Park Board and City Council. Ash Avenue is important for access to this
Park.
4) The Main Street project anticipates considerable grading activity
in the Fanno Creek floodplain. A portion of the right-of-way along Ash
and park t,.,r,r,.sr0V„C 1.--11�._
x s will be made conditions of development for the
Main Street project.
5) Hill Street will eventually be completed to O'Mara Street to the
East as development takes place.
6) Ash Avenue between FYewi.ng and Garrett will be completed as development
takes place.
7) The TRFPD Fire Marshal supports the extension of Ash Avenue through
to Commercial Street and the fire station.
81 The Tigard Police De
_ . partment supports the extension of Ash Avenue
across Fenno Creek.
STAFF RgPOgT
AGENDA NO. 5.3
TIGARD PLANNING C31-VISSION
jUF 2, 1981
CPR 10-81
Page 3 of 3
9) The Public Works Director and Planning Director support the
extension of Ash Avenue across Fanno Creek and through to both
Garrett to the South and COMercial Street to the North.
10) Traffic Consultant Mr. Woe1k of Associated Transportation
Engineering & Planning, Inc., will address traffic use if this street
were a through street. Staff asked that Johnson Street from Highway
99W to Ash Street be considered by the Main Street Developnvant
Group. This issue will be resolved through the Planning Review
Process for the project.
II CONCLUSIONARY FINDITTGS
1) Development in the Downtown area and in the NPO # 1 area has
brought about a demand for increased traffic circulation in the
area. Ash Avenue should be extended across Fanno Creek to increase
circulalLon from the affected neighborhood to downtown.
2) The City is in a position to r wire major street improvemLnts from
Pending developrent in this area. Now may be the only opportunity that
We will have to make these improv_-T-6 t-_
31 The neighborhood will experience greater traffic movement along
Ash Avenue. The attitudes expressed in the related correspondance
are "isolationist". "Let the other sections of the City carry the
traffic and leave Ash Avenue alone", -.is the undercurrent here. This
is an emotional approach that is difficuit to deal t:.ilth,. Fri« a
realistic, rational viewpoint expressed by the Traffic Consultant the
increase in traffic is not severe. The completion of a public street
from Ash Avenue to O'Mara Street and Hill Street to O'Mara Street
will syphon-off/divert traffic. Ash to Burnham will alleviate other
traffic congestion. This issue must be resolved for the betterment
of circulation generally.
III. STAFF RECOMMNIDATION
Staff recnds that Policy 28 not be changed, and that steps be taken
in the near future to construct this extension in conjunction with development
in the area. A public street from Ash Avenue to Main Street along the
southern edge of Fanno Creek should be constructed. Hill Street to
O'Mara should be completed, and Ash Avenue should be completed North to
CbMercial Street and South to Garrett Street.
�� �rector
III!! Jill
72) l 3
I C,
a
23-3q7 2
-2 3
DCi ate' :.Jim S ..-:i8 -
''j
Z-
T .9 le o
c. ai
colas ?I
U 0 n Co.-Iss-y.D-1 0:
Tu�sda-,,-, June 2, 7--ie - -ropossal is t1c
dall -ate t1lie Corti on o-- t'']e Coi2r:lnan' ive
On TV' i ch s ays, tf A-vanue
across :-lan i
(,--he nei
t -7ab orin o o d t s con- a- a�oea
am-rc-L
out usin- Pacific 4- D� -7 f-
�,s
s' o;--1 d be us ed LO t r-a-L -c a^. a a t
street as s?-r- z-s inj_ it
T I f"ve on --j— al- a
r 0:-1 nS'a
r s
7,
o-
r ou n r s c ons _7 h,--- -D pas
^t
Ur
_C U 0. an-�7 %s'-
i c j 0 n, 0
t
ai 1?7
vonu- -ro---, lr 1._ t
nlalrin it .:,ficjjjt
=JJ T3 7 e S-,D
to t 1. -)o te,:'
In t e Z:1,set
.I.S t 0 J --I DT-i tO
even consirl'ar ,:3,
D
c al-1 I 'ca-'i _3S'
, 3S Flo;.
.Lnc-_, ease _fn -,7 c
7--
S n, la L i
7anno '�-_3
TIC,! �C�,Or s t r c 3 t `-o-1= o
p 'b
ro :)z)s a-, il-_ cla u n s -J n,
b-- c i y s sta.f
desturuct' ive to th,
U_ 7 C�S,
n.
x L
v a_--y e 3-s 7re to t'C._
payers
S,1111 S.I fa r
wo-ld litt'lle ac7vsntla--a tD pe,3�)!�
fic
Tall wo-..il,,, _�till be
maras . tr-;-in- -U .) -..-s -. it t-.1ac .:ay
d o is r 1 a
n i:o DL-'l z)o I an c r a t
n t"n C,i
zi )-L;ld be
S-3
i
° DOUGLAS R
13415 SW VILLAGE GLENN DRIVE • TIGARO, OREGON 97223
L
��� ,rte-x.��,�,�..d . �G'c�-��-,� .��.��s�� 2.,�.- a�c��---�.•Z�
,Ie-�ve, t"-,� /' �..��-cam �o_.G c c-1 49-7 --
��.�•��.�. ���-�/ ti����t,� tom- ���� ���.�%� t:.r
c�
m,av
����� j�%�J�� G� �C.SLL�J'�.� `�"�-� � (/[/[�'T•-G� �)7�f [fi O!��!�'� '_ _t��
•�.GC� P,s,� L�a��t�C 1•vY(//J/�FC� 7F�,s �o�lGC� UiY.y�._/Y?{1/l/?U/,v��r %/f�l.�� � l�� �.,,. µy.�
LL'�'Li- L.�..2. �-CJ- ��.� �--L .�Gt�G✓-G�-y f.�.-y,�I /'..-d�s.L.G ,sem/ -/1.��
4zmom�G'�.c /. —� -t/_cZu-Ciclzi'✓J
;6
�r
•
s
ky _
�iLI/
r _
Mol
f
r
:t
! i
t
MR
K
/ 4
• i
William J. Massey RECEIVED
9540 SW Frewing Court MAY 2
Tigard, OR 97223
CITY Of TIGARD
May 28, 1981
Dear Commissioner:
My name is Bill Massey. I have lived in Tigard for the last
seven and one half years and am extremely concerned about the
proposed Ash Avenue Extension.
It's difficult for me to perceive that the City of Tigard would
even consider routing through commercial traffic onto an established
residential neighborhood. This is in direct conflict with the
original specifications since Ash Avenue and other neighborhood
streets - Ash Street, Frewing Street, Hill Street and Village Glen -
are not designed to be integrated as part of a major collector.
Even now, it's difficult to get onto Ash Avenue from most of the
connecting streets.
Safety of our neighborhood children is another of my major
concerns. It's my understanding there are approximately 250
single family homes plus a considerable number of apartment units
throughout the neighborhood. Ash Avenue alone houses 75 children
according to some recent statistics. It's my hope that the safety
of my 2 children and those of my neighbors should be of high
priority for those directing Tigard's best interests. Additionally,
I understand that the proposed extension of Ash Avenue to Burnham
and the extension of Johnson to Ash is not a concern of the Main
Street Development, but only the City of Tigard.
After being in the title insurance business for 15 years, I
have seen cities that have opened and extended streets to allow commer-
cial traffic onto residential areas. In almost all cases, this has lit-
erally destroyed the neighborhood environment as to physical
appearance and. upkeep, with the result that commercial rezoning
replaces the residential area.
Therefore, it's my sincere hope that after years of controversy
over this proposed extension, that you, the commissioners, will con-
sider the best interests of the neighborhood and reject the
proposal to extend Ash Avenue as well as Johnson to Ash.
Thank you for your time.
Since ply,
William ,,..Massey
.�" E—1:S
UHL bfu PROWTION DISIRIC
r P.O. BOX 127 a TUALATIH. OREGON 97
062 o PHONE 682-2601 a RUSSELL WASHBURN. CHIEF
May 78, 1981
Aldie Howard, Planning Director
City of Tigard
Planning Department
City Hall
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Ke: Extension of Ash Street
Dear Aldie:
At the present time Tigard has only four (4) major North
South streets and two (2) of these are state highways - 99w
and Hall Blvd. 72nd Avenue and 121st Avenue are used for
industrial traffic and residential traffic. It therefore seems
reasonable to complete additional North South traffic circu-
lation patterns to move residential traffic to the commercial
areas.
As the traffic increases on Pacific Highway; o��r ab 1 4i to
respond to fires in the Ash Avenue area decreases. We have
for many years "looked" South from the fire station on Commercial
and "wished" that we could obtain a direct rout to this area.
It is possible at this time to construct Ash Avenue across Fanno
Creek to Burnham thro„nh property North across the two c
ets
of railroad tracks to Commercial . From a logical and realistic
viewpoint, we encourage the construction of this major circulation
system as soon as possible.
The major development proposed on sixteen (16) areas between
Main Street and Ash Avenue strengthens our case. An East and
::est access to this area is very important from a fire and life
safety standpoint.
If you have any other questions, please feel free to call me.
Yours truly,
6s ph A. Greulich
..puty Fire Marshal
JAG:dm
NES ORANDL1f
May 29, 1981
TO: Aldie Howard/Planning Director
FROM: Chief of Police
SUBJECT: Staff Report
RE: Ash Avenue Devclopmert; LN v 471 Plan, Policy 28
The following information is provided to assist in the decision
making process relative to the Ash Avenue extension, proposed
development; and subsequent implications of emergency service access
and response, crime, and vehicle traffic.
1. Emergency Service
The lower portion of Ash Avenue north from Village Glenn Drive has
only one access point. Subsequently, if there should be a natural or
man-made disaster in that area, emergency response by the fire depart-
ment, medical rescue and the police would be severely restricted.
It is therefore desirable to recognize this possibility, and consider
alternative access routes to provide for the aforementioned emergency
services. Rapid responses are particularly critical to emergency life-
saving efforts, controling or containing fires, and the apprehension
of criminals of crimes in progress calls.
2. Crime Impact
In contrast, the Ash Avenue area from the north or deadend of Ash to
the south at the McDonald intersection, the frequency of crime for
1980 was as follows: Residential Burglary - 6
Theft - 3
Criminal Mischief - 2
(Vandalism)
In comparison of the above time period to other similar residential
neighborhoods with collector streets and much higher traffic volumes
that exist on Ash Avenue today, the crime frequency is comparible or
less than the Ash Avenue area resident experiences at this time. A
few examples are as follows:
a. 95th/Center Streets between Greenburg and Main Street:
Residential Burglary - 0
Theft - 1
Criminal Mischief - 2
' Asti 'Avenue Development
' May 29, 1981
Page 2
(
b. Greenburg Rd. between the west city limit and 90th Avenue:
Residential Burglary - 3
Theft - 2
Criminal Mischief - 2
c. 121st from Scholls Ferry to Walnut:
Residential Burglary - 4
Theft - 8
Criminal Mischief - 4
Subsequently, the extension of Ash Avenue to Burnham should not generate
a significant ci.ange in crime frequency that exists at this time.
3. Traffic Volume
This neighborhood is now experiencing just under one thousand vehicle
movements per day. As development takes place, and if Johnson Street
is extended to Ash Avenue, and Ash is extended to Burnham; the following
volumes are projected.
By 1985; taking into consideration normal growth and development, the
traffic volumes are forecast as follows, which includes that volume
generated within the Ash Avenue neighborhood.
y
a. Ash at Johnson (volume) 2,640
b. Ash at Frewing (volume) 2,280
c. Ash at Burnham (volume) 3,480
It appears from the above data that 310,1. of the traffic at Burnham and
Ash terminate at the proposed Johnson Street and Ash Avenue intersection.
That traffic traveling south on Ash from Johnson is then a volume
increase of 1,667 vehicles per day to Frewing.
It appears that the 1985 projected volumes are manageable on Ash in the
affected area. Also, NPO #l, Policy 28 provides for design features
to slow and regulate traffic, "to make the street as safe as possible."
Therefore, it would be my recommendation that Ash Avenue be extended to
Burnham consistent with Policy 28 of the existing NPO #1 plan.
Respectfully,
52
�.B. Adams
Chief of Police
RBA:ac
NPO 1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION REQUEST
THE DELETION OF PLAN POLICY 28
swam
Prepared By
NP 1
Pat Hutchin-sChairman
May 28 , 1981
This report submitted without access to or analysis of
Richard L. Woelk's
Associated Transportation Engineering & Planning, Inc.
Ash Avenue Traffic Study
May 7 , 1981
Mr. Aldie Howard
Planning Director
Tigard Planning Commission
Tigard City Council
P. O. Box 23397
Tigard , Oregon 97223
Dear Mr. Howard:
NPO 1 is requesting a comprehensive plan revision.
The action requested is to delete policy 28 from
the NPO 1 plan for downtown - Ash Avenue .
Policy 28 of the plan states "Ash Avenue
should be
extended across Fanno Creek, enabling access to
the neighborhood ' s commercial area without using
Pacific Highway. Design features should
to c and sake the street assafe as
ea
slow traffic passible . "
Please attach this letter to the application dated
April 27 , 1981 .
Ver truly yours ,
Pat Hutchins n
NPO ��n
PH/Ir
c�
NPO 1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION REQUEST
The Neighborhood Planning Organization No . 1 (NPO 1)
recommends ammendment to the policys formulated by
the citizens committee of NPO 1, adopted by the Tigard
City Council May 20 , 1974 , Ord. No . 74-25 , Amended
Ord. No. 75-16 ; Ord. No . 75-22; Ord. No. 75-39 .
The Plan consists of two parts , narrative and policy.
Both parts are to be jointly considered when using the
plan. This plan revision requests that Policy 28 be
deleted. Policy 28 states , Ash Avenue should be
extended across Fa.nno Creek , enabling access to the
neighborhood ' s commercial area without using Pacific
Highway. Design features should be used to slow traffic
and make the street as safe as possible. "
NPO recognizes the need to change the narrative portion
and other related plan policies . The timing of such
changes will occur after approval of this revision request .
Deletion of Plan Policy 28 will :
I. Eliminate inconsistencies in the original NPO 1
document .
a
II . Provide proper planning direction for future
development .
III. Encourage the use of a natural buffer between
residential and light industrial .
IV. Maintain reasonable levels of service provided
by fire , police and other public services consistent
with the City of Tigard as a whole.
V. Protect the residential character of the entire
NNUM XPO i d ne hbohood Its „nte ity an
+b..vvrcmoo- v
The approval of this plan request :is in the best interest
of the residents and the City of Tigard. Your support
of this plan change is encouraged.
Inconsistencies in Ori final Plan Document
The methodology of Tigard City Council and the original
planning organization is adopting policy 28 as an alternative
choice fueled existing plan inconsistencies .
items inconsistent with exisitin Original plan
consistent
with the proposed amendment , that should now be reconsidered
are as follows :
1• ) "The comprehensive plan recognizes the established
character of existing neighborhood and seeks to
preserve anc? enhance existing neighborhood values .
"Page 11 , item 2 .
Page m_;o
2. ) "Fanno Creek and its tributary streams provide
natural drainage ways and make possible a sy�,tem
of greenways connecting various parts of the
city . . . " . Page 12 , item 3 .
3 . ) "Heavy traffic is noisy, smelly , and dangerous .
It conflicts with residential values and with
many of the other activities within the city.
Therefore , major traffic routes need to be designed
and located in a manner that will minimize these
inherent conflicts , at the same time allowing
motorists to reach their destinations quickly and
safely. " Page 12 , item 4 .
4 . ) "Convenience is a major objective in locating
shopping facilities and other businesses . At the
same time , their location should not conflict with
residential areas or create unnecessary traffic
congestion. " Page 12 , item 5 .
5. ) "One multi-family area is shown on the plan that will
generate some traffic on local residential streets .
This is the area adjacent Fanno Creek on Ash Avenue .
In order to keep traffic on Ash Avenue below the
1500 vehicles per day designated as the maximum volume
for local residential streets . (See Streets section a
Page 34 ) the overall development density of this area
is encouraged to be 10 dwelling units per gross acre . "
Pa e 20 .
o�-
" . . .Ash Avenue is not currently adequate to carry
additional traffic generated by additional multi-
family development . IThe plan predicates the s
development of apartments at this location upon
the extension of Ash Avenue across Fanno Creek to
Burnham Street . This provides a more direct route
out of the Neighborhood for apartment traffic and
will minimize the impact upon local residential
streets . "
1Mr. Buttke ' s traffic analysis showed volumes
will exceed the maximum of 1500 vehicles per day
permitted on a local street if additional apart-
ments are constructed in this area at this time . SAA
Page 21.
Item 5 above clearly indicates the need for changing plans
based upon the rezoning of the above property from A-12 to
C3M PD.
Eliminating policy 28 will provide a more consistent plan for
the benefit of the City. ' .
Planning Direction for Future Develo ment
Recent zone changes on property adjacent to Ash Avenue ,
north of Hill Street eliminates the major underlying �
Y o reasoning ;�:.
Page Three
which supports policy 28 of the Plan . Narrative in support
Of policy 28 states ; "A major purpose of the newly-proposed
streets is to provide access to areas reserved for multi-
family development . The residential section of this plan
states that apartment locations should be avoided where access
can only be gained by means of local residential streets . To
improve apartment area access , two streets are proposed : the
extension of Ash Avenue across Fanno Creek to Burnham Street
and the extension of Hill Street to Hall Boulevard .. These new
streets enable traffic generated from the planned apartment-
duplex development on Ash Avenue to gain access to the
Neighborhood ' s arterial streets without using the residential
streets to the south . "
It should be noted here that the remaining A-12 "Multi-
family Residential" located to the north of Philadelphia
Square encroaches upon the existing 100 year floodplain .
Additional multi-family, realistically , will never be
constructed on this location.
Times change , plans must also change. Existing narrative
in support of 28 indicates ; "An additional benefit provided
by the extension of Ash Avenue will be more convenient access
from the Neighborhood to Downtown businesses . This makes
Possible local and convenience shopping trips without
venturing onto Pacific Highway. "
It is obvious to the NPO that the above "convenience" represents
an "inconvenience" to the existing and future neighborhood.
This "inconvenience" is expressed by the entire NPO 1
residential neighborhood stretching from Burnham to McDonald {
and bordered by Hall and Pacific Highway.
do not
want the colledtor or additional traffic onTadjacent he estreets
that will be generated.
The most recent traffic counts on Ash Avenue indicate
vehicles per day. Narrative 975
in support of 28 indicates ;
"The extension of Ash Avenue considers the increased traffic
which will result and the effects upon adjacent property.
Tne traffic to be considered here will be going into the
downtown shopping area. This traffic will be generated from
the Neighborhood and to some extent the Neighborhood south
Of McDonald. The traffic on Ash Avenue will not be excessive
due to its relatively small service area and traffic volumes
are not expected to exceed 1300 vehicles per day at full
Neighborhood development . "
How can you justify spending $200 ,000 to $1100 ,000 for 325
vehicles per day more? You must be aware that all costs
borne by the developer are past onto tennants and ultimately, ,
us , the consumer.
£ If the answer to the above is that there will be more traffic
to justify the cost then lets be realistic .
traffic
over 1300 vehicles will destroy the "character dOfttheionanei
neighborhood" .
e
Page Four
Natural Buffers
The Plan indicates the need for natural greenways and
preserving the natural buffers generated. The 100 year
floodplain is continually protected from development .
Entire developments are scrapped because they encroach
upon the floodplain . How does the City justify building
a road and bridge across the same floodplain?
The ORB park plan indicates that principle access to the
park is Ash Avenue , the intention of development as a
neighborhood park for children , area residents and downtown
employees means that all those people must have access . If
these factors are mixed with a large volumn of traffic the
safety hazard with related air and noise pollution presents
another problem.
Public Services
By not extending Ash Avenue to Burnham, public services provided
to the NPO 1 area will not be adversely effected or inconsistent
with the level of service provided other areas of Tigard:
I. Police
Police department representatives do not think traffic would
be heavier on Ash if the street were extended. The response
time is not an issue since patrol cars can be anywhere in
the vicinity when called , however , a "back-up" unit would
most likely come from the station and would find the extended
street an advantage. If cars are idle at the station , tax-
payers are not getting their tax dollars worth.
2 . Fire
The "Tigard Transportation Study" adopted October , 1979 addresses
in part "Emergency Services" . The study states ' "As a
of the signal improvements part
the capabilityof Project on 99W, the TRFPD will have
pre-empting all signals on 99W from 64th to
Durham. The system being installed ( OPTICOM
radar beam from a unit installed in the emergency nvehicles Out a
On receiving the radar beam, a receiver attached to each
signal interrupts the normal signal phasing to give green time
to the direction of the emergency vehicle prior to its entering
the intersection .
Emergency vehicle pre-emption will be po:-sible in the southbound
direction on 99 ^1, south of 217 , and in both directions north
of 217 . When this system is installed in late 1979 or early
1980, it will establish 99W as the major emergency corridor
in the Tigard area, and should greatly improve the fire district ' s
response time , particularly during peak hours . "
OPTICOM is in service today. Extension of Ash Avenue to
Burnham will not alter existing fire protection routes nor
is the need justified. Only if Ash extends to Commercial ,
which requires railroad crossing right of way , and condemnation
rage rive
of private property, will "response time" be reduced. The
Fire Department would use this alternative route as presented
by the planning staff , but is not seeking this route as
mandentory.
Protecting the Residential Character of the Neighborhood
It is the objective of the NPO to gather citizen input
through active involvement in the community . NPO 1,
the first and and most active neighborhood planning
organization wants to maintain the existing qualities of
residential character. Will you reward this group with a
thorouj3hfar.e or with realistic future plans that will maintain
safety , integrity and property values of the Plan area.
The safety factor of mixing children , senior citizens , bicycle
foot traffic in a park and thru traffic has not been addressed
by the planning staff.
Conclusion
The deletion of Policy 28 will provide a more consistent
framework for future planning. Roads will not intersect
natural buffers nor will public services be adversely effected.
The safety, integrity and "residential character" of the NPO
1 neighborhood will be preserved.
The extension of Ash Avenue will not solve the problem of
congestion of Pacific Highway. It will merely create another
traffic problem on Ash Avenue . The City of Tigard needs to
indenti£y the traffic problem and correct it at that point .
i
i
F
'i
Z0:`'1' MAP K'•:c:tiD:IEtiT - CUiIPRE:iEFL.vS'V-E PLAN] R:'VIS10N - CgtvDITIO,�AL USE
- -
LE fr
TIGAR.D PLANNING DEPARTMENT 639-4173 FEE FFc'EIVED
12420 SW Main Street RECEIPT
Tigard, Oregon 9722 DATE RECEIVED
RECEIVED BY
The "contact person" named in this application will receive all
rnajor 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 1�t7{t S [�x aGh c Tigard Or. 97223
t Street City ap
Signature %
Date
ACTION REQUESTED ,T� aPlp+ ., 7Q ; 7V
• an fnr t7ncx n}•nc:rn AS{•� ANP it
PPLICANT'S -14AME Npn # 1, �n C PrP t2 F. PHinnONE (Bus.)
?38-5S_�_(Res.)620-4786_
DDRESS 13120 S. W. Ash Ave, Tigard, Ore. 97223
(Street - City - Zip
ROPERTY
maw 5tiNER' S NAME PHONE
rr/° (Bus-) N/A (Res-)_N/A
PHONE (Bus-) (Res.)
DDRESS N/A
(Street
ROPERTY OWNER RECOGNITION OF APPLICATION N/A
(Signature of owner
ROPERTY INVOLVED: TAX MAP 21129-25_1. S LOT-2 AC TAX
- (S) Refer to City right-of-wa-,
DDRESS Ash SFreet AREA MEASUREMENT
N/A
ISTING BUILDING (t and type)
RRENT ZONING Public right-of-wa�APPLICANT 'S PROPOSED ZONING
Vacant public See referenced letter
RRENT USE APPLICANT'S PROPOSED USE
j(/ SPP rP�P TPn P tPMlP
1
• APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED UNLESS FULLY COMPLETED .
0381vmc
STAB HIG23iga1,
'J
• •...•rte - tl
t v s�•_ _ _ � � ± t t
r
�• `t JJ
g
t a �
P
S.W. s>-"
SA
SE rz MAP
251
x
SEEM
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
request.
We request this item be scheduled on the May 5, 1981 planning commission
agenda.
NPO T# 1 sllQPests that council- considers at future council m et1^.g 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 iri supports, from A-12 to C 3M PL. This zone change
greatly reduces the potential residential traffic impact on Ash Street.
Vcry truly yours,
Gene Richman
NPO # 1
cc Tigard Planning Commission
c/o Mr. Aldie Howard
r
AT.. • t_t ----- -�.
'.c3Et_= =rhoeu 'Planning Organizationl�
;rl
15 April 1981
OPE;1ED MEETING:
ROLL CALL: Present-8 Absent-2 Staff; Aldie Howard/'Liz Newton
OLD BUSINESS:
A) Minutes of last meeting read-corrected-approved
B) Status report given on Chapter 18. 25 Code for Hosie
for the Aged A70/80 PD. Planning commission lowered
height to 85 feet and moved any convience store to inside
the project's main building. City__ Council to review the `
proposed ordinance 27 April 1981.
NE 111V BUSINESS: I
A) Reviewed Main Street Project. The new 16 acre project
Proposes three major stores(food, mini-depart-rient, and a
sporting. goods store) plus a banking facility and small
scale shops. Site coverage is proposed at 2
parking spaces are 1 977 and 623
planned. Traffic plans are for -in
gresses and egresses on Pacific Highway and Main Street.
The first hearing on the project is 5 Way 1981 and will
be for a Comprehensive Plan change on land near Ac
h
n to C3�1 PD) and seek an overall plan review. The
area residents, NPO, and Planning Staff expressed the
following concerns: Volume of traffic generated, traffic
flow, buffering o-r project from local single-family -
idences, filling of sensitive lands, and theextensioes-
of Ash Avenue -and Johnson Street. r_s
Motioned-Seconded-A roved to: (POLICY IT-
,yT1ER A`rTACHED)
i) Approve the concept of the Main Street Project
2) Support the Comprehensive Plan change of the land
adjacent to Ash Avenue from A-12 to C3M PD.
3) Recommend to the Tigard Planning Commission and
Tigard City Council deletion of NPO
#1 Plan Policy #28.
B) Motioned-Seconded-Approved -co adjourn the meeting.
NEXT (MEETING: 6 may 1981 -
Secretar
CCNPO #1 Main Street Project Policy Letter dated, I15
1981 and Ash Avemue residents ' letters and April
petitions.
Neighborhood Planning Organization
• 15 April 1981
Tigard Planning Staff
Tigard Planning "Commision
T3"gard City Council
Re_ NPO al Policy concerning the new Main Street Project by Main
Street Land Company.
Over the past months NPO al has reviewed and discussed+a number o
Of issues relating to development and planning for the NPU
al area. We feel that our discussions have led us to con-
senses on several issues and as such we wish to provide our
thoughts '0 the ci=y planners and decision makers_ We hope
to provide assistance in the interpretation and update of
the original NPO 91 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•'s Main Street Cspecifically the Main Street
Proj ect) as- well as the Tigard Planning S taff 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 c3ey,bl rp_
ment is consistent with the current NPO Plan for two primary i
reasons: j
1. The proposed development, in fast, has greater fron-
age on Pacific Highway than it does on South Main Street and
as such complies with Policies 18 and 19, suggesting the
avoidance of Pacific Highway st_.zp r1levelopment. By the use
v of controlled access to Pacifi. :iighway, this t
ype of devi
elop-
ment provides common t
P parking facilities to clusters of businesses.
2. The proposed development is further consistent with
3
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_ WTith the sufficient customer draw
pro-,.-,,'
ro-,:.• .
vided then on both ends of Main Street, the Tigard dowptown -_
development of small shops and a "unique 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 extensaon -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 insta7lat-ion- - Of con- '
trolled accesses -to Pacific Highway and Main Street aiid the
Johnson Street/Pacific Highway intersection recoizstruction
addresses the development*s 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 Fanno Creek Study of July 1980 indicates a
possible - �
alternate route to O*Mara Street_ We wish to identif
support for the desiraty of the
bili Y our -
extension and suggest
t4iat should development occur in this area, the connection
Hill Street to O'Mara. should be assof
_ assured. -
IlI. Ash Avenue Extension
i
We have reviewed the Ash Avenue Stree
4 since it was raid 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.
OR3's Fanno Creek Study of July 1980 expressed a concer`xi that the
principle access to the Fanno Creek Greenway was at the
Ash Avenue_ The NPO does not see a need to extend Ash (,venue.
However, Ash Avenue - ight,of-Way will be preserved for future
park access.
Also, a zone change • from A-12 zone, multi-family,
Ash to C3M PD, adjacent to
will eliminate vehicle traffic that .iaould' have
been created by At-12 zone development
R igh priority should .fieg.even to the Protection of -
the "residential
character" of the Ash Avenue neighborhood.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. NPO 41 su ,
pports the concept of the Main Street Project. I
2- 'O1 approves of the Comprehensive Plan change from
A-12 to C31+q PD on
the Property adjacent. to Ash Avenue.
3. NPO Vl recommends o the Tigard Planning g Commission and
Tigard City Council delete NPO
11 Plan Policy 428 t•:hic�2
r relates to the extension of Ash Avenue across Fanno Creels. `
.g
Y
i
•.-
�T orego■locates! May 25. 196! t 1
i'siton
Tr f is rodem n
® easily salved
"a L at story of a aorta corner oa a lived oa'a Rib-ver at Brazet St..not "std bumps in the �sremeat were
hand. rtsideatla!as ag L few Port• tar from slit boat door o! Grant Nlge ruled out because can Could be damaged traffic for a tests lasitag a few months
Yntt School. Some people Liked teem.Others dian't
It IS arae a genet tsar and their owners conceivably could we •he temporary barriers came down
ym tarp IImd as. For years tee attractive resldeatlal tee city.The same raaaoa tlJminated some-
aoealc taws. It is ant a serast that you 079a,was the rase*of elm-slated sguIr. land of mon subaanclal barrier—like an The engineers raid they would stud)
would remember rating and even drag rates between Neaa-��� oak fret pleated m slat Ntlddlr of the
darthAkAd high school driverthe traffic count;and evaluate a question- -
pat•Ucslarly as- s paired Of., eu-ret. Dart distributed to nearby rendrou
kaae you Ln soar cora by two. We didn't bear anythlag for mon Ns.So
tr• The nolle Irritated and frnatrated Stop dams and flashing caution;Bghu Somebody called the engineers to find out
Bot It 4 a Suva �eQ.SQy$ sdtebors.Parents worried about small also were rejected by traffic tagloeers. what had happened.-1 will tall you.but I
that teaches as 14d1,q a at lgo±;+•!a,n cc They said drivers simply taaore Lhem= `•^••'. - rr.,as ta writin said one
"'Ol where the r., writing.'!
"m°ions about dry itis irlaygrouad abut NE 36th. ®+ll NKv°Ont they kora they are root public servant In a hil:h-level sob
llappllY,one of those Iernea to tket It was 1973 irbea the adghborbood Seriously threatened by ocher drivers. This ptlszled us.But we learned some_
zz= i_ Uit abuse an sdghborhood sett u arsaxlart%decided be mak the they Cavern. Aad th" there wart fin wglan andthing 66t about city government.Ample
can be onatrollad.Ler happily.You may cant to consider a trofflc harrier that polite Care.Whatever kJrd of karrfe se- wbo put thl1196 in writing sometimes re-
fstl half the age Of blethuselith before
you!,dther Wow down Care or Interrupt bctsd; Its d to be capable of bafag �t later.
a atCaea c Haim t refers to a task
year bon b atuditd the flve•block drag strip between US. breached emagaocy vehicle It Dec.
Rudled a6ain ash—atartyu _ Grant Place sad Xaoet Street on 16th. tarry. fdoaths passed.We Acrd norJlnj.Then
nn+fb bulb T'�b when we started hero!y that After a couple years.oar p6eu ware came a Stew protcsal,followed by more
I knows Thi ese�he�p stg�t �hatriea are daagaW aocrs by law- �,y� Thou- Qa ria,lotkawed by acether tam- .
by tfafllt endasars Brotaikd nra 6oesry barrier.
_- Tat rsr3ad pias tact all the water"at
t W IAT 5 ALI TIA-1 the city government.Eves the lawyers.
Let this 6ring,more them five years
�'•' klO1SE !LI -ME T►tVE�' after the nelthbory and the city govern-
STkZ T-r mens started thinking together.workers
QkAG poured curbs-blocking off HE 36th at
VnCF Bt•pre. Nut breaking up tAr Old sag .
strip.
They soca[ In a sidewalk between the
curbs and set out some ptanu.Smali plan-
- tic markers with reflectors sotily cars
thea the Street Is blocked.The markers
r+�� �l ..i•'< bend over if a fire truthn _i; .
"" e l �"° `•.'�' `-eg^��� to barge through:
i S � _ Y• Things chanted in theneighborhood
during the Intervening years.
• (Me mea on my block was killed when
'a' ' 'a. 1' •. ... be backed out of his driveway and was
��� �. "!'I•-,l.^ struck by an on-comta6 car.
` y Aly cdn to the aorta with two
young children moved out. They didn't
n._'`� like the traffic and roue.The man who
a a, fIK306CEDURei trwm in atter them dr
_ _ back �i�dead In Au
• \;.} r /l �E��J( yard. Moocher family whb ;coo
l L lea young chlldreo moved In.
The neighbor girl on my south side
graduated from Grant. went to eollegr.
graduated.married,tot a good sob son
p� _ moved away.
The new barrier is functional.It Is
sociably,nice job with
it. .I think the sty did a
aitt job with it.
�' 1ya In Its own modest way, it will show
�1a1l�Il�tw`J—rCl j .c:pe:,pir in Portland that automobiles
v• r
- �vl• �\ don't have to rwn good neighborhoods
••-\` a• I hope the neighbors on 36th like it i
hope the barrier works.
But 1 can't tell you those answers for
Sure I don't live thtre anymore,tither
Fred Lenon is a Journar star/writer.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
WASHINGTON COUNTY
AREA: 716 SQUARE MILES
POPULATION: 245,633
COUNTY SEAT: HILLSBORO
MEDIAN INCOME: $20,900
PRINCIPAL INDUSTRIES: MANUFACTURING
ELECTRONICS, LUMBER, AGRICULTURE,
FOOD PROCESSING
OREGON
IN PARTNERSHIP WITH:
BANKS FOREST GROVE NORTH PLAINS
BEAVERTON GASTON SHERWOOD
CORNELIUS HILLSBORO TIGARD
DURHAM KING CITY TUALATIN
�t
lic 11 -1
mill
The primary goal of the Block Grant Program is to improve the living
condition of people with low and moderate incomes. With this goal in
mind, Congress established the following objectives for housing and
community development programs:
* To eliminate slums and blight and prevent the
decay of neighborhoods
* To eliminate conditions that are unsafe, un-
healthy, and socially and economically harmful
to communities
OEM
* To conserve existing housing and stimulate new
construction to provide everyone with the
opportunity to live in a decent home and neigh-
borhood
* To improve public services that support community
development
* To improve the way land and other natural resources
are used
y To restore and preserve historic structures for the
use and enjoyment of future generations
WHAT IS A BLOCK GRANT?
The money that pays for Washington County's Plan for Community Development comes
in large measure from yearly Community Development Block Grants, although other
funding sources are increasingly being explored. Block Grants are "blocks" of
funds awarded to cities and urban counties by the federal government allocated for
a wide variety of housing and community development projects.
The Block Grant Program was first authorized by Congress with the passage of the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. Block grants replaced a number of
previous grant programs such as Urban Renewal , Model Cities, Open Space and
Water and Sewer. The new legislation provided a more flexible approach to commun-
ity development for two reasons:
* Although certain federal standards and requirements are prescribed,
the program is planned and controlled locally.
Cities and counties with populations of over 50,000 and 200,000
respectively are guaranteed funding under this program.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is the federal agency
responsible for administering the Block Grant Program on the national level .
It is an ambitious program and each city and county is required to work toward
accomplishing these objectives on a local level .
To do this, a community can use Block Grant funds for a wide variety of locally
chosen housing and community development activities including:
Repairing and rehabilitating houses
Improving streets and utilities
Acquiring land and buildings for parks, public
facilities and other projects
* Encouraging economic development
Building or rehabilitating senior and community
centers
Constructing wheel chair ramps and other improve-
ments to increase across to facilities and services
for handicapped persons
* Preserving and restoring historic structures
While there is a great diversity as to the types of projects a community may
undertake to fund with Block Grant dollars, there are also some activities
which are specifically excluded. Block Grant funds cannot be used to build
schools, government offices, sewage treatment plants, museums or public sports
stadiums. New housing construction cannot be funded through the Block Grant
Program. Public services such as fire protection which are not tied directly
to other community development activities are also ineligible for funding.
On balance, however, the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 and sub-
sequent amendments provide large cities and urban county consortiums with a
powerful and flexible tool to improve the quality of life for residents of their
communities.
WASHINGTON COUNTY'S BLOCK GRANT PARTNERSHIP
Washington County qualified to apply for Block Grant funds in July, 1978 when
its population reached 200,000. In order to count the total population for grant
purposes, the County signed intergovernmental cooperation agreements with all
twelve of the community's incorporated cities. In these agreements, the County and
participating city governments pledged to work in concert to design and implement
community development activities for residents throughout the county.
PROGRAM STRUCTURE
Policy Advisory Board
A 13-member Policy Advisory Board (PAB) has been established to help shape Block
Grant Policy, planning and program development. The membership of the Board is
composed of representatives of city and county government. Board members identify
local needs, define policy and review program goals and strategies. The PAB also
helps select projects submitted for Block Grant funds by member jurisdictions,
County agencies, and non-profit organizations.
Citizen Advisory Committee
A Citizen Participation Plan has been developed to involve area residents in all
phases of the Block Grant Program. The most direct form of citizen involvement
is membership on the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) . Eleven persons serve
on the committee, two representatives from each of five geographic districts and
one at-large representative. People with low and moderate incomes, senior citizens,
minorities, and the handicapped are well represented. There is a mix of city
residents and people living in unincorporated areas.
The CAC serves as a conduit for citizen views and comment on community planning
and development in Washington County. The committee's role is to:
Insure full opportunity for citizen participation in the
design, implementation and evaluation of the program.
Insure that program activities reflect the needs of low
and moderate-income persons, handicapped individuals,
minorities, and the elderly.
Work with program staff and the PAB to help develop
the County's
1 ) Plan for Community Development
2) Annual Block Grant application
3) Housing Assistance Plan (HAP)
4) Annual Performance Report
Program Management
The Office of Community Development (OCD) is the official County agency designated
to administer the Block Grant Program. Staff are responsible for the day-to-day
management and operation of the program.
Staff prepare and submit the County's annual grant application to HUD as well as
the annual Performance Report. The agency takes a lead role in putting to-
gether the Plan for Community Development using data supplied by participating cities,
County departments and consultants under contract. Staff coordinates: data
collection, needs assessment, and planning activities and provides technical
assistance to project sponsors. OCD's responsibility includes insuring that the
County is in compliance with HUD regulations and administrative policies.
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS
Each program year a series of public meetings and hearings are held in consortium
cities and the unincorporated County. At these meetings, residents can spotlight
local needs, suggest ideas for projects, and participate in the community
development pro-ess.
County-wide public hearings are also held at least twice a year before the Board
of Commissioners to review the County's annual grant application and assess
program performance to date.
THE BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM AND YOU
Strong, active citizen participation is a vital element in any plan for community
development. There are many possibilities for involvement.
Residents may wish to contact their representatives on the Policy Advisory Board
and Citizens Advisory Committee for more information about the program. Normally,
the Citizens Advisory Committee meets the 2nd Tuesday of each month and the Policy
Advisory Board meets the 2nd Thursday of each month. Meeting notices are published
regularly.
Citizens can aiso apply directly for membership on the Citizens Advisory Committee
and subsequently be more directly involved in shaping community development
activities expected to have significant impact on improving the quality of life
in Washington County. For more information contact the Washington County Office
Of Community Development at: 207 S.E. Oak, Suite 200, Hillsboro, Oregon 97123.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
Out•line of Eligible and Ineligible Activities*
I . Basic Eligible Activities
A. Acquisition of real property which is: 1 ) Blighted, deteriorating,
or inappropriately developed; 2) appropriate for rehabilitation or
conservation activities; 3) appropriate for historic or open space
preservation; or 4) to be used for construction of other CDBG-funded
facilities.
B. Acquisition, construction, rehabilitation or installation of public
facilities and services in support of the Community Development
strategy. Such facilities and services include:
1 . Senior centers
2. Parks, playgrounds and recreational facilities
3. Centers for the handicapped
4. Neighborhood facilities providing health, social , or recreational
services for nearby residents
5. Public utilities (except power production or generation facilities)
6. Street improvements, including lights, signs, curbs, trees, bridges,
and culverts
7. Water and sewer facilities, except treatment works and interceptor
sewers
8. Pedestrian malls and walkways
9. Flood and drainage facilities, provided that no other federal
monies are available
C. Clearance, demolition and removal or buildings and improvements.
D. "Emergency" assistance to alleviate harmful conditions or halt
deterioration of an area, such as: trash removal , snow removal , street
repairs. Such activities are especially appropriate in NSA's, and must
be included in the CD Plan.
E. Completion of activities in local Urban Renewal Plans.
F. Relocation payments for persons, businesses, and organizations displaced
by CDBG-funded activities.
G. Removal or architectural barriers, such as, construction of wheelchair
ramps and curb cuts.
Source: Title 24 Code of Federal Regulations Part 570, Subpart C
3-5-81
H. Assistance to private utilities in providing distribution lines and
facilities in neighborhood revitalization areas.
If . Eligible Rehabilitation and Preservation Activities
A. Rehabilitation of publicly-owned residential buildings
B. Modernization of public housing
C. Rehabilitation of private properties, including single and multiple
family dwellings and group homes
D. Temporary relocation assistance
E. Code enforcement to arrest decline of an area
F. Preservation of Historic Places, whether publicly or privately
owned
Ill . Eligible Economic Development Activities
The following activities can be undertaken with CDBG monies to carry out
CD economic development strategies, provided that I ) such activities are
directed toward the alleviation of physical and economic distress and,
2) if their principal beneficiaries are low and moderate income people.
HUD must give special approval before these activities can take place.
All other CDBG-eligible activities can be undertaken in support of the
CD economic development strategy.
A. Acquisition of real property
B. Construction, rehabilitation, reconstruction, acquisition, or installa-
tion of public facilities and improvements, such as:
1 . Schools and educational facilities
2. Cultural , sports, and exhibition facilities
3. Airports, and transit terminals
4. Hospitals, nursing homes, and other medical facilities
5. Treatment works for sewage or other liquid industrial waste
C. Acquisition, construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or installa-
tion of commercial and industrial facilities, such as:
I . Commercial or industrial buildings and structures, including:
a. - Purchase of equipment and fixtures
b. Energy conservation improvements
2. Commercial or industrial real property improvements ( including
railroad spurs or extensions) .
IV. Eligible Planning and Urban Environmental Design Activities
A. Development of a comprehensive Community Development (CD1 Plan
B. Development of a policy-planning-management capacity
C. Comprehensive planning activities, provided that such activities are
necessary to meet the needs of the County's CD program.
V. Activities Eligible only in NSA's or Similar Areas
The following activities are eligible only if they are located in or serve
areas where other activities included in the Community Development and
Housing Plan are being carried out, such as a Neighborhood Strategy
Area (NSA) .
A. Acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, or installation of:
I . Solid waste disposal facilities
2. Fire protection facilities and equipment
3. Parking facilities
B. Provision of public services, including -those concerned with employment,
crime prevention, child care, health, drug abuse, education, welfare,
or recreational needs .
V1 . Eligible Administrative Expenses
A. Wages. salarles, office space rental , and supplies
B. Subcontracted services, including legal , accounting, and audit
C. Provision of information to citizens about the CDBG program
D. Provision of fair housing counselling services
E. Environmental studies
F_ Preparation of app! iCations for fede:-a! programs
VII . Summary of Ineligible Activities
A. Unless undertaken in certain areas or for specially authorized purposes,
such as economic development, removal of architectural barriers, or his-
toric
is-
torit preservation, the following activities ff ay not be u rider t o Rel l
with CDBG monies:
1 . Acquisition, construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or
installation of public facilities and improvements such as:
a. Government buildings or facilities
b. Facilities used for spectator events, exhibitions and cultural
purposes
c. Schools and educational facilities
d. Airports, bus or transit terminals
e. Hospital , nursing homes or medical facilities
f. Treatment works for sewage or liquid industrial wastes
son
B. Other expenses and activities considered generally ineligible for
CABG-assistance are:
I . Purchase of equipment
2. Operation and maintenance expenses of public facilities
3. General government expenses
4. Political activities
5. New housing construction
6. Income payments, including mortgage subsidies, downpayments,
housing allowances, and income maintenance
O'DONNELL. RHOADES. GERBER DATE: June 19 . 1981
SULtiVAN & RAMiS '
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1727 N.W. HOYT STREET TO Tigard City Council
PORTLAND. OREGON 97209
(503) 222-4402 FROM: Edward J. Sullivan, City Attorney
RE: City of Tigard: Complaint about "Bucket
Flower Peddlers" , Proposed Street Vendor
Ordinance
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The complaint received by the City Council refers to vendors who
sell flowers from vehicles or temporary structures set up on private
property.
The complaint seems to rest on several grounds. First, the complain-
ant feels that the flower vendor is not compelled to meet the same
requirements to operate in the city as other businesses. Second,
the complainant feels that the lack of requirements gives the
transient vendor an unfair competitive advantage over other
businesses. Finally, the complainant suggests that such vendors
are unsightly.
APPLICABLE CODE SECTIONS - CITY OF TIGARD
The temporary flower vendor is subject to the same regulations and
taxes for doing business as other businesses in the City of Tigard.
As noted in the letter of complaint, the flower vendor must have a
city business license. Tigard City Code 5. 04. 010-5. 04 . 100.
As is also noted in the letter of complaint, the vendor is on
private property, so must have the permission of the owner. See
Tigard City Code 7.24 .120-7.24 .140 (trespass) .
Temporary vendors should also be required to comply with the City
of Tigard Zone Code. Generally, such transient vendors will not
come within the definition of accessory structure or use:
"Accessory structure or use means a structure or use inci-
dental and subordinate to the main use of the property which
is located on the same lot with the *rain use and contributes
to the comfort or convenience of persons occupying the
property, but not including keeping of livestock other than
ordinary household pets. " Tigard City Code 18. 08. 030.
If not an accessory structure or use, then the transient vendor
must apply for a temporary use permit. See Tigard City Code
18.80. 010-18. 80. 030 (temporary uses) .
RECOMMENDED ACTION
After discussions with the City Council and the staff, I recommended
that changes be made to the temporary use provisions of the zone
code as shown in the attached ordinance. These changes would
permit the Council or its designee to control vendors on public
or private property based on rational standards. Using this process,
such things as merchant's displays, sidewalk sales and the resi-
dential "ice cream man" could still be permitted if the applicant
EJS:mch
6/19/81 - Page 1
O'DONNELL. RHOADES, GERBER I DATE: June 19, 1991
SULLIVAN ec r AMTS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW To: Tigard City Council
1727 N.W. HOYT STREET
PORTLAND. OREGON 97209
15031222-4402 FROM: Edward J. Sullivan, City Attorney
RE: City of Tigard: Proposed Street Vendor
Ordinance
meets the requirements of the zone code.
If, at a later date, you find that in the interests of the public
you stall need to totally eliminate any vending activity in public
streets or sidewalks, then you could adopt the addition to the
Police Code that I recommended earlier.
The attached ordinance also requires that the holder of a temporary
use permit have the permit available for inspection at the site
along with their business license. The business license provisions
of Title 5 of the ordinance already require a business license for
each location.
"5 .04.030 (b) Each branch establishment of a business shall
be considered a separate business and as such shall be
subject to the conditions herein outlined. " (Requires fee
for each business. )
1 EJS:mch
6/19/81 - Page 2
MEMORANDUM
JUNE, 23, 1981
TO: Acting City Administrator
FROM: Chief of Police
SUBJECT: City Council Request Regarding I.C.A.P. Program Analyst
Sir:
As per. City Council request of June 22, 1981, the following information is provided:
1• Selection of Analyst: The person assigned to this program will be Officer Grisham;
in addition to the I.C.A.P. assignment, he will also work crime prevention. These
two programs go hand in hand, and it is felt that at this time, this person can
perform both functions and is trained in the area of crime prevention.
The selection of this person is based on observed prior performance as a
Juvenile Officer and his ability to assess particular methods of operation
(M.O.) relative to specific juvenile crime problems and identify possible
related suspects. This officer has had some college level education in the
field of logic, which is compatible to I.C.A.P. and computer technology.
There are two schools of thought relative to the selection of a crime analyst;
(1) hire an analyst and teach the person to be a police officer, or (2) teach
a police officer to be an analyst. It is the general belief that the latter is
the most effective course of action, which is consistant with my implementation.
plan.
In addition to the above, the Lieutenant and Records Supervisor will be trained
in this field as backup personnel in the absence of the person assigned to the
I.C.A.P. analysis function.
2. Work Plan: The preliminary work plan will require working with the consulting
group throughout the development process scheduled for July, August, and
September. (See attached proposed work schedule) . This involves; (1) System
Assessment, (2) System Development, and (3) System Installation.
In the development stage, the --signed Officer will be devoting nearly a hundred
percent of his time to the I.C.A.P. program. Once all systems are up, it is
estimated that 707 of his time will be devoted to I.C.A.P. and 307 to Crime
Prevention.
Considerable work will be required to convert existing data for computer program
entry; as examples, known offenders of specific crimes, method of operation (M.O.) files.
It is estimated at this time it will take 24 months to reach a 857 to 907 operational
level.
3. Reporting: Progress reports will be provided as the program developes as well as
program performance. Please be advised that considerable work must be completed
before the program becomes operational. Reports must be designed to meet computer
`= +` data entry formats, and as stated above preexisting data must be corrected to
acceptable formats.
be Regardles. of the stage of develo ment
;': provided ae a part of the management process. p Progress reports will
4. Replacement Personnel: Due to the assigned member to the 1.C.A.P. program, it
is essential to employ a replacement July 1, 1981; whereby recruit training
*. can commence immediately. The recruit will be scheduled for the Basic Police
Academy as soon as possible plus the field coaching and evaluation. This
position is critical to Patrol Division staffing level effective July 1, 1981.
The person tentatively selected for this replacement is one of our interns,
Steve Ober, he finished in third place in the recent recruiting process and
is ready to start work July 1, 1981.
Respectfully,
R. B. Adams
Chief of Police
CC: City Council Members
X-uDIIc �timinlStraLlon 6ervice 1497 Chain Bridge Road, McLean, Virginia 22101
b
N
w
E �
dl
N Ch
to
N
6S
N
. Ol eel
7
� C4 T
- o
D
U
r C4
i1. N
I
U N
rl LO
O -
� h
W -
to
to 4.1
`—' w Q
u d 3 r4 y
E v
S o f Q. a � rn c
:i � ta CL wiC O C y
LL E C C .-1 O ++ e0 w
1 1+ O -.0-� � N .G o \ O
M •-I �t 1 1 to r-1 Qi -W i tp sr
e� a co c' n �4 w m n Aj ,-
41 9 E N N .-1 A ro 7 CV to
orl 1 w ,C t+! 3 U C w
1 rri W ri 14 iJ CT to -4
E a r^I E C 7 a to 7 iU C a E E
m �� C �' hh W � nth m �
ci,
W t7 h vi .-o cv eh vii t a
l K
mom
G`DCJINNELL, RHOADES. GERBER ! DATE: June 16 , 1981
SULLIVAN & RAMIS --
ATTORNEYS AT LAW an
TO: Tigard Cit Council
1727 N.W. HOYT STREET g y
PORTLAND. OREGON 97209
(503) 222-4402 I FROM: Ed Sullivan, City Attorney
RE: Attached Ordinance regarding duties of
City Administrator
Attached please find a copy of the revised ordinance relating to
the responsibilities of the City Administrator vis=a-vis department
heads' appointment and removal setting forth that such --appointment
or removal will be done upon consultation with the City Council.
As you can see, this is a change from the last proposal prepared
for you in which such appointment or removal would be done only
with the consent of the Mayor and Council. I believe this revised
ordinance is consistent with Council direction.
As I mentioned in my memorandum to you last week, there need be no
changes made in the Tigard Police Manual; however, I have reviewed
the Tigard Personnel Manual and suggest two changes :
1. That in Section 1.1 of the Manual, adopted by City
Resolution 79-38, the following revision be made regarding the
administration of the personnel program:
"1.1 City Council.
The City Council shall excercise control over personnel
only through the adoption of the city budget, pay plan,
[or] ordinances and resolutions and consultation with the
City Administrator on the appointment or removal of
department heads. "
2 . Regarding procedures for disciplinary actions, Section
10.6 (i) , relating to discharge and dismissal, should be amended
to add a new paragraph to read as follows:
"Before a department head is discharged, the City Admini-
strator shall consult with the Mayor and City Council. The
City Administrator shall provide the Mayor and Council with
a report on the grounds for dismissal, a copy of the ;notice
of conduct violation or substandard performance which was
given to the department head, a report on the results of
the investigation, and a copy of the most recent performance
evaluation. "
I hope the above is of assistance to you.
f
EJS:mch
6/19/81
Gi
Rea/ Estate Appraisals and Consultations
Phone (503)848-8906 RECEIVED
408 S. E. Baseline -"J'fj ..
P.O. Box 178 ?2 181
HAROLD F. MEYER, M.A.I. Hillsboro, Oregon 97123 T
SREA, A R A—R es.357-3439 : . TIGARD
Roger G. Ritchey—Res.357-7313
Sheila B. Humphrey—Res.635-6026 June 19, 1981
Richard G.Tisdale—Res.985-7146
William A. Larick — Res.357-7790
Mr. Toa Bryan
Tovin Company
8558 S.W. Center Court
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Re: Appraisal, Craw Engineering Building
Ash and Burnham
Dear Air. Bryan:
After looking at the above property and reviewing some of the tiles
in o-ur office, we are prepared to f urnish you with a d ocur_ented appraisal as
to Fair Market Value of the above property within a reasonable period of time
for a total price not to exceed $975.00. We recently did the Arrow Heating
building in Tigard on an update. Much of the data in there will be ;sable.
We also understand you will furnish us with comparable sales data you may
have that might be useful.
It is our understanding that the lease to Tektronix has three years to
go. It is also our understanding that you are going to lease a portion of
the property preparatory to getting the appraisals and establishin-- an option
price.
We understand the total parcel was about five acres, with most of that
beyond the part presently utilized being in flood plain. ar appraisal would
take into consideration all of the physical, economic and functional factors
that we found.
We also understand that you are contemplating a space study for the
utilization of the building in the Long-run. We would be interested in
Mr. Tom Bryan
Tovin Company
June 19, 1981
Page 2
cooperating with an architect on this project if the City would furnish us
with their space needs. The appraisal fi-gure quoted, however. has no
relationship to any further service we might or might not f,7rnish you.
Mich of the field work and preliminary work would be done by part of
ray staff, which is qualified. Final review. exa;nivation, and signing of
the appraisal would be by myself personally.
We thank you very much for the opportunity of presenting this proposal
to you. Would you advise us as to your wishes.
Sincerely /yours,
- d
HaMold F. Keyer, M.A.I., S.R.E.A., A.A.A.
Hr.si/ew
cc: Sir. Frank Currie
Acting City Administrator
City Of Tigard
Enclosure
Professional Qualifications
Harold F. ltleyer, i\IAI,SREA,ARA.
Real Estate Appraiser and Consultant
Hillsboro,Ore,on 97123
Phone(503) 6•18-8906
Training:
Born Nov. 18, 1918, Washington County, Ore.
Educated: Pacific Universitv, Forest Grove, Ore.
Attended Appraisal I, II, VI, American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers
Attended Seminars & Conferences, Professional Appraisal Organizations
Attended Portland Community College, 3 Land Planning & Land Use Courses
Experience:
Member firm Harold F. Meyer &- Associates Inc. — 8 years
:30 Years Experience Sales, Appraisal, Development of Real Estate — Butnp & Meyer, Forest Grove, Ore.
Primarily Appraisal 23 years, Seattle, Wash. to Fresno, Calif.
Appraised homes, farms, acreages, timberlands, recreational, commercial. industrial, institutional and special
use properties for private individuals, attorneys, corporations and government agencies.
Government agencies include Federal "VA", state "G.I.", FHA, Highway Departments-Oregon, Washington,
Bonneville Power Admin., Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, Internal Revenue Service, Ore.
State Game Commission, Ore. State Board of Control, various Counties, Cities & School Districts, Bureau
of Reclamation_
Private corporations such as Portland General Electric, Crown Zellerbach, International Paper, Getty Oil
Co., Reynolds Aluminum, Deluxe Check Printers, HarveyAlw ainum, Conti ,Car, Co.Ca Nfohil ^:'
vu
Equitable Relocation Service. -0. airu
Taught Appraisal courses: Oregon State Tax Commission, Ore. State Univ., Corvallis. Multnomah Countv,
Ore.College of Education, Monmouth, Idaho State Tax Commission, Montana State Tax Commission,Clatsop
Community College, SREA Course 201 Chemeketa Community College, Course, 1B AIREA, Portland State.
Lectured American Right of Way Seminars. Lectured Graduate Realtors Institute, Oregon.
8 year member Washington County Planning Commission (2 years Chairman).
Articles Published:
Appraisal .Journal of American Institute of Real Estate Appraisors: Journal of American Society Farm
Managers& Rural Appraisers; Text of International Association of Assessing Officers, American Right-of-Way
Magazine, Rural Realtor.
Testified:
Federal Court, Portland, Tax Court San Francisco, Calif., Circuit Courts of Washington, Marion, Yamhill,
Columbia, Clatsop, Lincoln, Polk, Clackamas, Tillamook Counties, Oregon; Superior Courts of Clark, Cowlitz,
Skamania Counties, Washington.
Membership:
Real Estate Broker, State of Oregon
NAR, Washington County Board of Realtors, Past President
American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers (MAI), Past President, Oregon Chapter
Society of Real Estate Appraisers (SREA)
American Society of Farm Managers & Rural Appraisers (ARA)
National President, 1978 (Past President, Oregon Society)
National Institute of Farm and Land Brokers
f American Right-of-Way Association
Charles D. Qc 'ey
R C���E p & Assacliotes, irc.
JU,N 2 9 1981 C!-A.��_�s D.
C4pY _ : a
rEc,�Ro
June 25 , 1981
Mr. Frank Currie
Acting City Administrator
City of Tigard
12420 SW Main
Tigard , Oregon 97223
Dear Mr. Currie:
Pursuant to the request of Mr. Tom Brian, City Councilman at
Large, we are presenting a proposal for the appraisal on the Crow
Engineering building, located on the northwest corner of Burnham
and Ash.
We have made a preliminary inspection of the property in
order to estimate our fee . We feel that a comprehensive
narrative appraisal report , meeting the American Institute of
Real Estate Appraiser ' s standardz- ' can be accomplished f o r a f e e
of $1 , 900 . �'
Our report will be documented and supported with all of the
pertinent data , appropriate photographs , and a valuation b y t h e
three approaches to value ; The Cost : Market , and Income
Approaches .
We will provide two original copies 'o f o u r report . Extra
copies of the report may be ordered at our actual cost of
reproduction.
If you have any questions regarding the assignment please
feel free to call .
Sincerely,
't
Charles D. Bailey MAI
i
• ...Q(i;r..•.jam r'1:.-J�..iS� I,_,_I ��,�;,�'h b�:v° ''"(c� _ mil "Dy �:.(1d. �f(--.:;.,i':'I 3770�
--
A WEEKLY NEWSLETTER
VOLUME III Issue it JUNE 25, 1981
COMPUTERIZED CIRCULATION SYSTEM ON BALLOT
Washington County Cooperative Library Services is requesting a one time
expenditure of $1 .3 million to purchase a computerized circulation
system that will take over the majority of manual recordkeeping tasks
in the 13 public and community libraries in Washington County. The
library levy will be presented to voters on the June 30th ballot. Also ,
on the ballot will be the Tigard bikepath and pedestrian walkway levy.
The bikepath measure requests $100,000 a year for two years .
SAFETY TOWN NATIONAL AWARD RECEIVED
The Safety Town National Award will be presented to the Safety Town
Committee, the Kiwanis , and the Tigard School District at 2 :00 P.M. ,
Friday, June 26th at the Charles F. Tigard School .
TMEA SELECTS OFFICERS
The Tigard Municipal Employees Association/Oregon Public Employees Union
has selected officers for 1981-82 : Jim Stephenson, President; Walt
Zielinski, Vice-President; and Randy Stevens , Secretary-Treasurer.
HAMPTON STREET LID BID AWARDED
Council has awarded the Hampton Street LID construction contract to
Frady Construction for $354;359 . 65.
CITY RECORDER ATTENDS ELECTIONS MEETING
City Recorder/Finance Director, Doris Hartig will be meeting with Wash-
ingto-, County and State of Oregon Elections Officials June 25th. The
purpose of the meeting is to go through a dry run in elections procedures
for the June 30th ballot.
BILLING TYPIST HIRED
Laurie Leahy will come aboard July lst as a Billing Typist in the Account-
ing Department. Laurie was formerly employed with the City of Seattle
as an Accounting Technician. The assignment of Billing Typist is antici-
pated to last until October.
STREET OVERLAYS COMPLETED
Tigard, Bonita Road, 76th, Garratt and Walnut Streets have recently been
paved. Traffic markings are being installed. Shoulder dressings and
ditch repair will soon be underway.
TPOA VOTE TO AFFILIATE
The Tigard Police Officers Association has voted June 18th to affliate
with the Teamsters Union.
OVER
17�
BUILDING OF COMPLETES CERTIFICATION
Ed Walden, Building Offical, has completed certification on the 1979
Amended Uniform Plumbing Code regulations. The Building Department ha-
received the State of Oregon 1979 Amended Uniform Plumbing Code issued
by the Chief Plumbing Inspector. The Building Department notes that
the prospects for Commercial Development in the City of Tigard during
the summer looks promising.
STAFF MEETS WITH CDBG REPRESENTATIVES
Linda Sargent, Research and Development Aide, will meet with Washington
County Community Development Block Grant staff, representatives from
Cogan and Associates, and Staff from local jurisdiction June 25th in
Hillsboro to ' discuss strategies and proposed funding levels of the
aii� year Community Development Plan.
---------------
o0
N
�+ Qi
� Cl
H
a
0
x •
c x o
Z N 1 r cn
C7
rZ_, z z 1 Co
1-4
W E E� C ca f~
CU cj
U E
r� o w o �o t c�ooH W ca
!® H �0, [za p rGz'y p W O i = •• a Lz, O
N m 1 H C3%� E-� O� O� ^
L t O 0
�p cn c 1 cid H x
ry N a CD cn
14 G
ca°'
' >4 R, 0
�k
E-
C)
G
C14 )
a
00
1 N N c0
H
Q Z U tz
o ma E-
CU t z ^ w w it 1
` W O t H 1•a O
rzr4O O C=)
ry
H i Z' L=r •• r 4x O
3 rZ.- ..
N oo
N CO
O c!3
ch tp Cl) w O C7 O
Cl)
1 1 U2
i H $4 a a a
f V C) U Q�J
� ocn
OU �o CN O o O O u
U fy N C 1 Co
1
UD
f
OD
M11,11 top,