Loading...
City Council Packet - 03/02/1981 Menlo- STUDY SESSION 2MEETING TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MARCH 2, 1981, 7:30 P.-M. FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL LECTURE ROOM AGENDA: 1 . ROLL CALL 2. JOINT COUNCIL/DOWNTOWN COi•14ITTEE - Discussion of request for Proposal for Downtown Planning Consultant - Roger Brown 3. ori 72NID AVENUE LTD PROPOSAL - Discussion - Director of Public Works 4. CLARIFY CONDITIONS 1 & 2 AND TIMING SEQUENCE REGARDING IMPROVEMENTS OF NAEVE ROAD AND HIGHLAND DRIVE - Summerfield #14 - John Adams 5. SITE DESIGN REVIEW ORDINANCE - Planning Director 6. DISCUSSION REGARDING VARIOUS ANNEXATION PROPOSALS - Plannin,; Director 7. CONSIDER REQUESTING BIDS FOR GAS AND OIL - City Administrator S. RESOLUTION REGARDING CABLE TV - Planning Director 9. KNEELAND ESTATES/COPPER CREEK AGREEMENT - Planning Director 10. ESTABLISHMENT OF TIGARD COMMUNITY CIVIC CENTER STUDY GROUP - Recommendation of ?Mayor Bishop 11. SALARIES DISCUSSION - Unclassified Employees - City Administrator 12. OTHER 13. ADJOU RN;1EN T T I G A R D C I_ T Y C O U N C 1 1, STUDY SESSION MEETING MINUTFS , IMARCH 2 , 1981 - 7 : 30 P.M. 1 . ROLL CALL: Present : Mayor Wilbur A . Bishop, Councilmen John C;oolc , Kenneth Scheckla , Councilwoman , Aur ie Stiml.er ( left 9 :45 P.1,1. ) ; Chief of Police , Robert Adams ; Legal Counsel . Joe Bailey ( left at 1.0 :45 P .111. ) ; City Administrator , Raeldon R . Barker ; Public Works Director , Frank Currie ; Finance Director/City Recorder , Doris Hartig ; Planning Director, Aldie Howard ; Clerk Typist II , Lowana G. Murray. 2 . JOINT COUNCIL/DOWNTOWN COINIMITTEE - Discussion of request for proposal for downtown planning consultant . Ro^,er Brown , spokesman for the Downtown Committee , said the intent of this joi -, t meeting was to bring Council up-to-date and answor any questions regarding the Downtown Committee revi.tali_zn tion plc,r. . Mr . Brown outlined the background and interest for establishir.s.o; Loo now nine member committee , to investigate possible: solutions Lo the major problems facing downtown Tigard. They identified four major problems and established a list of go;.ils to solve the: problems which include : identifying solutions to downtown traffic circulation pro- blems and formulate a transportation plan ; identify solutions to inadequate parking facilities ; stimulate means of improving commer- cial response and public utilization ; improvement of dow!itown part: areas , development of a downtown civic center ; develop a financing plan which encompasses the solutions to all goals . Councilman Cook asked where we stand receiving the HUD block grailt . City Administrator said it will be another couple of months before we are certain of receiving the grant funds . Mr. Brown said March 25th has been set aside to hold an informational meeting for all interested consulting firms at Fowler. Junior High . The Downtown Commitee will later review the proposals and select three firms for. interview. The Committee then will submit a written recommendation to Council . Mayor Bishop stated he would like to review all three selected proposals . Cc--census of C;ounc Ll and DownCe)Wn Committee was that they would keep communl.cations current and move forward to find a consultant . 3 . S .W. 72ND AVENUE LID PROPOSAL - Discussion - Director of Public Works Beth Blount, Attorney at Law, 2437 Pacific Ave . , Forest Grove , asked Council if they would re-open the Public Hearing for the 72nd LID, stating that she represented some property owners with new ili:orma- tion for Council . blayor Bishop stated that he had received more letters and a report from Tony Maksym with two and half pages of signatures which he read for the record. Legal Counsel , Bailey, stated he also had received a call from an attorney, Jeff Kline , representing a couple of property owners also asking for public hearing to be re-opened . Concensus of Council was to go ahead and hear staff presentation at this time . Public Works Director passed out information answering questions brought up at the previous Council_ meeting . The following questions and statements serve to assist Council in deliberation of the project . 1 . General Discussion - Assessment District and Assessment Method The process of selection of an assessment method chosen should be fair and equitable , must have a general cost-to-benefit relationsi3:zp, should d he uniform, should not be upset by rezoning and redivision of property, should lend itself perfectly to segregation procedures and should be capable of withstanding the tests of judicial review. 2 . Assessment of Currently Zoned Sin le Family (Comp . Plan-Commer- cia Professional) Areas that can be considered for single family R-7, to eliminate undue hardships and not upset the tests in item no . 1 above , are : senior citizen ' s property tax deferral and Council could choose to defer assessment under the same_ guidelines . 3 . Omit Cherry Drive from the Project Omitting Cherry Drive will leave a small section of street , without curbs , lighting or sidewalks , in an area that will otherwise be fully improved. Elimination of Cherry Drive means that Ident . Nos . 8 & 9 would receive benefit from storm drainage construction without contributing payments . 4. Omit Sidewalks Elimination of sidewalks all together would pose a hazardous situation and it is recommended that sidewalks be included on at least one side. 5 . Eliminate Landscaped Medians Curbed medians were proposed to provide definition and safety . b . Eliminate Parking Area Landscaping (Street Trees) Street trees were proposed purely for aesthetics , it is recom- mended that they be eliminated from the project. S PAGE 2 - STUDY SESSION COUNCIL MEETING, March 2 , 1981 7 . Railroad Crossing Protection Facilities An application has been filed with the Public Utility commis- sioner for funding assistance from the State Grade Crossing Protection Account (75%) , City ' s hare (25%) with a moderate chance of success at fretting the 75% . 8 . Traffic Signals An application has been filed through Oregon State Highway Division for federal funds (90%) . The status of this application was reviewed with the OSHI) and indication is very high that the accident history and cost-benefit related to these signals will lead to approval of the funding requested . 9 . Other Funding Assistance Possibilities Additional funding possibilities as follows : (a) Tri.-rlei_ Assistance for Turnouts . Tri-,'[et does not assist zn roa way or turnout construction . They do participate in cost of bus shelters . (b) Highway 217-72nd Avenue Interchange . No Rinds would be coming trom the Highway 217-72nd Avenue interechange project . (c) Washington County. No funds are available or will ever likely be avas a le to assist in construction of 72nd . (d) Interstate Transfer Funds (Mt . Hood Freeway & 1-505) . No funds avai_ a e to the City o Z'�.gar monies have already been committed . (e) Federal Aid Urban Funds . Funds have already been earmarked for projects already in process . ( f) Prior Funding . Funding for past proposals is lost . 10. What if Bid Costs Should Exceed the Preliminary Estimate . Assessable costs can be determined closely after the construc- tion bids have been taken . It is not anticipated bid costs will exceed the estimate if the project proceeds forthwith . If bids are high Council still has options to reject bids . 11 . Expansion of the District or. Creation of Separate Districts . Expansion of the district would add property which would not significantly benefit . Reduction or. splitting the district would destory the ability to spread costs of the many construc- tion items over the full range of property that is benefited . PAGE 3 - STUDY SESSION COUNCIL MINUTES , March 2 , 1981 Concensus of Council was they would like to see another formula be derived for the smaller undeveloped properties ; something; more equitable according to size ; possibly spreading the dollars among the bigger developers and still come up with something that wilt stand up in the courts . Also , Council suggested elimination of Cherry Drive project , putting sidewalks on one side of the street only, eliminate the medians and street trees , Railroad Crossing only if funded by State Grade Crossing Protection and signals only if funded by OSHD; Tri-Met bus turnouts to be eliminated . Mayor Bishop di_rect� d the Public b�'orks Director to check the cost per foot and see if the present figure of $284 . 00 isn ' t too high . Attorney Blount , for the record, objected to the new material that is being submitted and asked for the public hearing. to be re-opened . Councilman Cook asked the Public Works Director to have each item itemized separately on the bids so they could see exactly the cosi of each item when making the cuts . Attorney Bailey said the Council still had the option as to re-open public hearing or leave the hearings clos(.!d. Mayor Bishop recommended the 72nd Avenue 1,1I) be tabled until next meeting. Motion made by Councilman Cook to table , seconded by Councilman Scheckla . Approved by unanimous vote of Council present . RECESS 10 :00 PM to 10 : 15 PPI 4. CLARIFY CONDITIONS 1 & 2 AND TIMING SEQUENCE REGARDING L`IPROVEMENTS OF NAEVF_ ROAD AND HIGHLAND DRIVE - Summerfield r14 - John Adams . City Recorder stated this item is removed from the agenda because the problem has been resolved. 5 . KNEELAND ESTATES/COPPER CREEK AGREEMENT - Planning Director Planning Director stated that an agreement has been reached between Tualatin Development Co. Inc. , and Kneeland Estates which they have signed agreeing to the following conditions : 1 . In order to maintain the integrity of the character of the two respective developments , Kneeland Estates and Copper Creek, the temporary access to Durham Road, which is presently centered 110 feet west of the northeast corner of Copper Creek Develop- ment shall remain available as a temporary access until changed through the LID process . 2 . It will be important to form a Local Improvement District, an integral part of which will be a thorough traffic analysis to develop traffic data from SW Serena Way at Pick ' s Landing and Kerwood Estates east to the intersection of Hall Boulevard and Durham Road. A primary issue of this traffic analysis would be to resolve whether or not the temporary access at Copper Creek which is described above , should or should not be made a per- manent access . PAGE 4 STUDY SESSION COUNCIL MINUTES , March 2 , 1981 3 . The present temporary access will exist for a period of time of at least two years from the date approved of construction plans for public improvements in Copper Creek. 4 . To insure Council intent until traffic studies are performed and findings made and acted upon, the temporary access described in Finding No . 1 shall be posted as "temporary", and Tualatin Develop- ment shall provide notice of the status of the access within its documents of conveyance. Planning Director recommended approval of the agreement , it is satisfactory with his department and with the Public Works Department , and asked that the Mayor be authorized to sign , stating that this agreement will take care of the appeal . Councilman Scheckla moved to authorize the Mayor ' s signature on the Kneeland Estates/Copper Creek Agreement , Councilman Cook seconded . Approved by unanimous vote of Council 6 . SITE DESIGN REVIEW ORDINANCE - Planning Director Planning Director and Council went over a draft of the Site Design Review ordinance making several language changes and amendments . Planning Director will bring, the revised ordinance along with the original ordinance pointing out changes, to the next regular Council meeting. 7 . DISCUSSION REGARDING VARIOUS ANNEXATION PROPOSALS - Planning Director Planning Director showed Council on the map areas of proposed annexa- tions that will be brought before the Council at their next regular meeting . These annexations included Bennett , ( 10 lots on Durham) ; Grass (2 lots on 115th Ave) ; McIntosh ( two lots on Durham and 113th Ave . ) ; Chatterly (one lot on Bonita) ; Frewing/Barnum (26 lots on Garrett Street and Frewing) , plus several petitions in area of Walnut/121st Street. Councilman Cook encouraged the Planning Director to get more petitions signed, especially in Walnut/121st area . Formal Resolutions will be brought to the next regular. meeting . 8 . CONSIDER REQUESTING BIDS FOR GAS AND OIL - City Administrator City Administrator stated that since the new President has abolished the gas and oil allocation system, and even though we are happy with our current suppliers , he recommended that we prepare proposals for bids and check current prices . vim Motion made by Councilman Cook to prepare proposal bids on gas & oil , seconded by Councilman. Scheckla . Approved by unanimous vote of Council present . PAGE 5 - STUDY SESSION COUNCIL MINUTES , .larch 2 , 1981 ;hr 9 . RESOLUTION REGARDING CABLE TV - Planning Director Planning Director presented a resolution establishing a method of allocating revenues and expenses resulting from cable communica- tions francise . Two percent of franchisee ' s total gross revenues paid shall be retained by the commission to improve and operate non-entertainment channels . Three percent of franchisee ' s total gross -revenues paid shall be distributed to the cities . Planning Director recommended Council approve the resolution and stated it will be back at the next regular meeting . 10 . ESTABLISHMLIDIT OF TIGARD COMMUNITY CIVIC CENTER STUDY GROUP - Recommendation of Mayor Bishop. Mayor Bishop recommended that a group of people that have showed interest in the civic center be formed into a committee along with representatives from each of the boards so something can be started before we lose their interest and support . 11 . SALARIES DISCUSSION - Unclassified Employee., -- City Administrator City Administrator expressed staff ' s displeasure at treatment of the unclassified employees in relation to other city employees in regards to cost of living and other benefits . After several meet- ings of the unclassified employees they presented to Council a com- bined package (representing all unclassified employees) dealing strictly with cost of living and fringe benefits - not merit increases , total increase of package 14 . 25% . Concensus of Council was that they would like to have a full Council present to make any decisions and asked City Administrator to bring the request back to the next regular meeting . 12 . OTHER (a) City Administrator passed out information received from the Fire District for Council ' s review. One item was fire prevention ordinance and the second item was on micro-wave communication system. City Administrator recommended the items be discussed at the March 16th Studv Session. (b) Councilman Cook stated that Council had received a letter from Frank Ivancie, Portland Mayor, regarding a Tri-County Area officials meeting set for next Monday, March 9th, 7 :00 PM suggesting someone should go and represent our City. (c) Public Works Director asked Council ' s approval in changing the date on the McDonald Sewer LID Ordinance bid opening from March 9th to April 9th . Councilman Cook made motion to change the date from March 19th to April 9th, seconded by Councilman Scheckla , Approved by unanimous vote of ("ouncil present . PAGE 6 - STUDY SESSION COUNCIL MINUTES , March 2 , 1981 (d) Public Works Director asked Council ' s recommendation regarding a request for a park reservation for 2000 people . It was the decision of Council to limit reservations to 500 people and to have the Park Board evaluate the problem. (e) Councilman Scheckla inquired about the two dangerous areas on Pacific Highway if anything had been done . Chief of Police reported OSHD has been notified and the one area (Near Young ' s Funeral Home) is functioning as planned ; no left turn should be at Hall Blvd . The area at S .W. Park coming onto Pacific Hwy does need a right turn only sign. AD:!OURNMENT 11 :40 P.m. r City Recorder 1-74- ATTEST: Mayor PAGE 7 -- STUDY SESSION COUNCIL MINUTES , March 2 , 1981 r February 26, 1981 Honorable Mayor and Council City of Tigard 12420 SW Main Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Council Members: The members of the Downtown Tigard Committee have completed their work on a Request for Proposal which will enable the City to seek a consultant qualified to conduct a thorough study of downtown problems and redevelopment issues. We hereby submit the RFP for your review, and we recommend its adoption and dissemination at the earliest possible date. Over the past eight months, we have concerned ourselves with some major problems affecting the lives and livelihoods of Tigard citizens. We hope that our studies, and our search for reasonable solutions to these problems, will result in the overall improvement of our city and the accrual of benefits to each and every Tigard resident. We would direct your attention to Section I, subsections E and F in the RFP, which will provide the council with a capsulization of committee activities to date. Should you desire an elaboration of that summary or of the RFP in general, spokesman Roger Brown and other committee members will be in attendance at your March 2 meeting to provide information and answer questions. We thank the council for its attention and we look forward to further communications as our project progresses. Si el y, an Parson h irman, Downtown Tigard Committee Request for Proposal The City of Tigard invites proposals for the formulation of a plan which will serve as the basis of an urban renewal agency for the downtown area. I . Background A. History and growth Settled in the 1650s and incorporated in 1961, Tigard ei. crienced rapid ro-ELL-L (n r � � y \�.:J percent average yearly increase) during the 1970s. Growth took place over a rural road system, and the city was challenged to provide public facilities and improvements to meet the needs of a doubling population. B. Planning In 1971, a land use framework plan was adopted by the City of Tigard. Beginning in 1973, the framework plan was augmented through the efforts of seven Neighborhood Planning Organizations (NPOs) . Each NPO formulated a comprehensive land use plan (for its specific area) which was submitted to public hearings, revised and adopted by the City Council. Together with documents pertaining to the economy, public facilities, natural resources, etc., the seven NPO plans make up the city's comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan has been adopted by the city, but not acknowledged by LDDC. A review of the plan has been initiated by the City Council, enlisting NPO participation. In addition to the comprehensive plan, the city has commissioned various plans and studies pertaining to such specific concerns as traffic safety, storm drainage, etc. C. Public services and facilities Most of incorporated Tigard (and all of the downtown area) is served by the Tualatin Rural Fire Protection District, the Tigard Water District and the Unified Sewerage Agency, separate governmental entities from the city per se. The City of Tigard provides all other public services, including law enforcement, public works, planning and administration. Streets and roads within the Tigard planning area fall under one (or more) of the following jurisdictions: City of Tigard, Washington County, State of Oregon. Two of Tigard°s major downtown arterials, SW Pacific Highway and SW Hall Boulevard, are under state jurisdiction. D. Municipal offices Tigard°s municipal offices currently are housed in the following separate locations: City Hall 12420 SW Main (city owned) City PW Shops 12800 SW Ash (city owned) Police Department 9020 SW Burnham (city.owned) Public Library 12558 SW Main (leased) Municipal Court 12800 SW Ash (leased) The city also owns substantial property within the Fanno Creek floodplain between SW Main Street and SW Hall Boulevard. This site has been suggested as the location of a possible civic center complex. E. Downtown Tigard Committee In early 1980 interest in the downtown area was stimulated by a number of factors: the renewal of planning efforts by NPO 1; the proposal of a major commercial development at the southwest end of Main Street; the proposal to establish a greenway park and civic center in the heart of downtown; and Tri-Met°s announcment of intentions to locate a transit center in the core commercial area. In response to heightened interest, the Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce conducted an opinion survey of downtown business owners. Results, indicating serious reservations concerning the commercial viability of the downtown area, were submitted to the City Council in May, along with a Chamber recommendation that the highest possible priority be placed on the renewal of downtown planning. In June the City Council appointed a nine-member Downtown Tigard Committee to investigate possible solutions to concerns voiced by business people and residents. in the course of twice-monthly meetings, the committee identi' ..ed four major problems which apparently are working in -once'-- to inhibit proper development and utilization of the 'owatown commercial area. Based upon the identified problems, comn <_;.tee members established the following list of goals: 1. Identify solutions to downtown traffic circulation problems. Formulate a downtown transportation plan combining the elements of: street improvements; Tri-Met transit center; and possible light rail service. 2. Identify solutions to the problem of inadequate downtown par1cing facilities. 3. identify means of improving downtown public and private facilities in order to encourage greater commercial response and public utilization. 4. Investigate potential for improvement of downtown park areas and for development of a downtown civic center complex housing government offices, meeting rooms, library, etc. S. Develop a financing plan which encompasses the solutions to all four of the above stated goals. F. Redevelopment,/Urban Renewal Recognizing the scope of Tigard's downtown problems, the Downtown Tigard Committee voted unanimously to ` pursue urban renewal and tax increment financing as the means of funding further studies and remedies. Pursuant to that decision, the committee: (1) studied the redevelopment efforts of other cities and gained familiarity with the urban renewal process; and (2) recommended that the City Council obtain funding for an urban renewal study. The city recently gained approval of a $20,000 HUD block grant application for funding of an urban renewal study. It was the feeling of the council that a plan should be commissioned prior to formal agency formation and, therefore, no formal steps have been taken to establish a Tigard urban renewal agency. Finally, it should be noted that neither the City Council nor the Downtown Tigard Committee assumes that urban renewal will provide all the answers to the problem of downtown revitalization. It is recognized, in fact, that such projects as the construction of a civic center are not likely candidates for tax increment funding. But it is the city's firm conviction that downtown problems are so interrelated as to require a unified approach and a cohesive set of solutions. II . Principal tasks for consultant A. Provide financial analysis of the downtown commercial (Main Street) area, examining factors which contribute to, and detract from, viability as a commercial center. B. Draft a plan for the redevelopment of downtown Tigard, utilizing the five major goals established by the Tigard Downtown Committee and outlined in Section I, subsection E of this REP. Specifically examine the feasibility of funding transportation and other improvements through tax increment financing. Data to be supplied with the urban renewal plan will include the following: 1. in'ormation describing the downtown market area in terms of historical significance, rehabilitation potential, commercial appeal, and appropriateness of lard use. 2. Data which defines the ownership, size and value of properties within the downtown redevelopment area. 3. Data pertaining to the adequacy of present public facilities within the downtown area, and the projected land needs for such public facilities. 4. Information regarding any physical or financial constraints and inhibitors which apply to downtown redevelopment. 5. Information substantiating the logical boundaries of an urban renewal area, and information relating to the financial resources of such an agency, along with any data on the availability of state and federal money for project implementation. C. Develop a time frame for the establishment of an urban renewal agency, the implementation of tax increment financing, and the execution_ of urban renewal plan goals. D. Draft original ordinance establishing conditions of blight, forming an urban renewal agency, and outlining powers and responsibilities, in accordance with ORS Ch. 457 and Ch. 521 Ore. Lavas 1979. Outline all legal steps involved in agency formation and prepare, or advise in preparation, of such legal documents as may be required by the Washington County Department of Assessment and Taxation or any other governmental body. III . Format of proposal A. Outline urban renewal and related financial planning experience of firm and of key staff members who will be assigned to this project. B. Describe specific capabilities of firm as they relate to tasks required for this project. Also describe any portion of tasks in this RFP which consultant firm would propose to subcontract. C. Outline firm's approach to this project and supply any preliminary ideas for carrying out tasks described in the RFP (particularly II, S) . Specifically describe the firm's approach to soliciting citizen opinion and involvement with this project. D. Submit a schedule for each work phase associated with this project and provide some indication of what the city's next few steps will be once consultant 's work is concluded. E. Submit a statement of costs to the city for firm's completion of tasks described in the RFP. F. Specify degree of staff support which will be required from the Tigard Planning Department and other city employees. Iv. Selection process The Downtown Tigard Committee will review all proposals and may select up to three firms for interview. The Committee shall then submit to the City Council a written recommendation and a contract for professional services, which the council may accept, reject or modify. Deadline for submission of proposals is May 1, 1981. The Committee shall make its recommendation to the City Council no later than June 8, 1981. It is anticipated that work will be in progress by the end of July, 1981. The Downtown Tigard Committee will hold an informational meeting for all interested consulting firms on March 25, 7:30 p.m., at Fowler Junior High School. Other questions k_ regarding this project should be directed to Aldie Howard, Planning Director, City of Tigard, 12420 SW Main Street, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171. 72nd AVENUE L.I .D. At the regular Council meeting of February 9, 1981 , the Tigard City Council after hearing testimony from twelve citizens, moved to bring the L.I.D. to the March 2nd study session in order to review the testimony, various aspects of the project and evaluate alternatives. The following discusses the salient points which have come up and should serve to assist the Council in their deliberation on this project. 1. General Discussion - Assessment District and Assessment Method In selection of the final scope and boundaries of the 72nd Avenue L.I.D. , great important was placed on including all property which benefited from special con- struction items, in order that the costs thereof could be spread equitably and would not be a burden on just a few. The entire process of putting the 72nd Avenue L.I.D. together has been structured around selection of a District boundary and a design which would tend to relieve the property owners in any specific area of excessive assessments . Singling out special areas of the project for either elimination or separate assessment districts wroul d increase the total costs and tend to upset the equity of assessments. It is important to emphasize strongly that the process of selection of an assessment method should not be taken lightly. The method chosen should be fair and equitable, must have a general cost-to-benefit relationship, should be uniform, should not be upset by rezoning and redivision of property, should lend itself perfectly to segregation procedures and should be capable of withstanding the tests of judicial review. The effects of choice of assessment methods are far-reaching and long-lasting, having influence not only on the properties within the District but adjacent properties and the entire city as well . Personalities or present ownerships can change instant- ly and should preferably be given little, if any, weight. Care should be talon to treat properties uniformly. The =lection of a district boundary and the assessment method proposed appears to meet all the tests discussed above. r 2. Assessment of Currently Zoned Single Family (Comp Plan-Comm.ercial Professional ) A concern has been raised that the assessments proposed for property currently zoned single family R-7.5 (but designated CP-Commercial Professional in the Comprehensive Plan) may cause an undue immediate hardship. While Council should be careful not to make exceptions that would upset the tests in Item No. 1 above, there are several areas which could be considered. s a) Senior Citizen's Property Tax Deferral . An Oregon homeowner age 62 and over living on the property and meeting a few basic and simple requirements may delay paying assessments on his or her residence. The assessment must be paid, with interest, when the owner dies, sells the property or begins earning excess income from the prop3rty. This certainly eliminates any person over 62 and perhaps retired, from the threat of having to move or sell because of the pressue of an L.I.D. assessment. b) For those property owners who do not meet the age criteria of a) above, the Council could choose to defer assessment under the same guidelines, except for age. 3. Omit Cherry Drive from the Project. Property owners of Ident. Nos. 8 & 9 have requested that the improvement of Cherry Drive not be included in the project. The continuity of storm drain facilities for the overall project requires storm drain improvements in Cherry Drive. Omitting Cherry Drive will leave a small section of street, without curbs, lighting or side- walks, in an area that will otherwise be fully improved. Also, improvements made at a future time will likely be more costly to the property owners because of economy of scale. Although elimination of Cherry Drive means that !dent. Nos. 8 & 9 would receive bene- fit from storm drainage construction without contributing payments , that burden spread overtheentire district would be small . If Council is comfortable with leaving a section of street in this area without curbs, sidewalks and lighting, is willing to shift an apportionate burden of the stcrm drain costs to the remaining properties within the district and is willing to accept in- creased maintenance costs until such time as appropriate improvements are made, Cherry Drive could be omitted from the project. 4. Omit Sidewalks. Some property owners have suggested that sidewalks be eliminated, while others have asked that they be included. Initial consideration was whether to have sidewalks both sides or just one side. Tri-Met service on 72nd is scheduled for 1982 or 1983. Elimination of sidewalks all together would pose a very hazardous situation, regardless of the amount of pedestrian traffic. It is recdrarrended that sidewalks_bQ­ lsClude—fin at least one side. 5. Eliminate Landscaped Medians_ Curbed medians were proposed for the project to provide definition and safety. Such medians are usually landscaped for increased definition along with aesthetics. -2- Because the median area would otherwise have to be rocked and paved, elimination Of the medians would save only $22,400. Because the medians are a functional aspect of the improvement, it is recor"mended that the medians be left as a final design segment to be coordinated with the various property owners involved. 6. Eliminate Parking Area Landscaping (Street Trees) Street trees were proposed purely for aesthetics. Inasmuch as a number of property owners have suggested that the street trees be eliminated and as they are not essential to the project, it is recornmended that the street trees be eliminated from the project, reducing costs by *32,500. 7. Railroad Crossing Protection Facilities It would seem mandatory that railroad crossing protection facility improvecznts be made as a part of this project. Costs are estimated at $190,000. An application has been filed with the Public Utility Commissioner for appropriate funding assist- ance from the State Grade Crossing Protection Account (75%) and the Southern Pacific Transportation Company (20%) . - If the application is successful , the City of Tigard's cost (cost to the assessment district) would be 5%, or $9,500. This would reduce the assessable cost by $180,500. The status of this application was reviewed with the PUC the morning of March 2, 1981 . The application is being processed. Willingness on the part of the City of Tigard to finance portions of the project enhances the success of the application. If, for instance, funding can be obtained only from the State Grade Crossing Pro- tection Account (75%) , the City's share (25%) would be $47,500, reducing the assess- able cost by $142,500. Discussion with PUC officials seems to indicate a moderate chance of success at getting at least the 75% funding. 4 _3- J 8. Traffic Signals. The traffic signals are perhaps the most important improvement item on the entire project. Costs are estimated at $190,000. An application has been filed through the Oregon State Highway Division (OSHD) for federal funds (90a) through the 1973 Highway Safety Act, Title II, Section 209. If the application is successful , the City of Tigard's cost (cost to the assessment district) would be lON or $19,000. This would reduce the assessable cost by $171 ,000. The status of this application was reviewed with the OSHD the morning of March 2, 1981. Highway Department officials in the Portland Metro office are indicating very high optimism that the accident history and cost-benefit related to these signals will lead to approval of the funding requested. Funds are available. One of the questions posed at the prior public hearing was whether there would be warrants for the signals i f only traffic accessi na abutting properties were con- sidered. Traffic engineering calculations reveal tl-t signals are warranted now without "pass-through" traffic and will be requi rF d E . _n :-ore as abutting properties are developed. An addendum prepared to the original "Intersect-. ;naiysis" reveals many benefits to the road user and property owners which can be converted into economic savings alone of $144,099 per year. b a ' l —4— Z'117 9. Other Funding Assistance Possibilities. J Several additional funding possibilities have been mentioned and are discussed hereafter: a) Tri-Met Assistance for Turnouts. Tri-Met, as a policy, does not assist in roadway or turnout construction. They do participate in the cost of appropriate bus shelters. Therefore, no funds are available from Tri-Met to offset the proposed assessable costs. b) Highway 217-72nd Avenue Interchange. Some misleading statements have been made suggesting that the Highway 217-72nd Avenue interchange project proposed by the OSHD would extend improvements or funds for the City's L.I.D. project. Such is not the case. The Highway 217 project involves the interchange only and is reco mended to receive t41 ,905 this year -f6r preliminary engineering work. Pio funding is recommended this year for either right-of-:ray purposes or construction. (See 2/27/81 Tigard Times)7/11__ c) Washington County. It has been suggested that funds might become available from Washington County. It can be stated positively that no such funds are available or will ever likely be available to assist in construction of 72nd Avenue. d) Interstate Transfer Funds (cit. Hood Freeway & 1-505) . The Interstate Transfer Funds have all been committed to various projects throughout the metropolitan area. None are available to the City of Tigard. Recent news (see Tigard Times 2/18/81) indicates that there is danger of even loosing all or part of those monies that have already been comitted. e) Federal Aid Urban Funds (FAU) . FAU funding in the entire Portland region is limited to 272,000 per year and has been earmarked for projects al- ready in process . f) Prior Funding. Any funding for past proposals such as Washington County's S.W. Hunziker-Lower Boones Ferry Road section of 72nd and the straight- through connection of Durham Road is lost. 10. What If Bid Costs Should Exceed the Preliminary Estimate. This L.I.D. is not unlike any other L.I.D. in that final costs are not known until the project is complete. However, assessable costs can be determined closely after the construction bids have been taken. If bids exceed the preliminary estimate by a significant margin, Council could proceed with one of the following options: a) Reject the bids and call for new bids; b) Call an additional hearing to seek further advise from the property owners. -5- .1 The estimate for this project was carefully prepared, previding for- all items anticpated and allowing a contingency for additional unknown items that might sur- face during the course of the project. Bids are projected to come in near or belo:Y the estimate. 'it appears that the climate for receiving excellent bids is exceedingly bright during the current time frame. Delays in the project are forecasted to cause price increases of between 10-15% per year. Increases in liquid asphalt costs are pro- jected to exceed other increases. In summary, it is not anticpated bid casts will exceed the estimate if the project proceeds forthwith. Should the bids come in significantly high, the Council still has options to reject bids, call a public hearing before proceeding further, or stop the project. 11 . Expansion of the District or Creation of Separate Districts. There have been comments both that the area of the L.I.D. should be expanded and that it should be reduced. The philosophy and care of selecting the L.I.D. boundaries was discussed in Item No. 1. Expansion of the district would surely add property which would not significantly benefit. Reduction or splitting the district :soul d destroy the ability to spread costs of the many construction items over the full range of property that is benefitted. One suggestion was the elimination of the portion south of the intersection with Upper Boones Ferry involving land owned by Pac Trust, Bingham and Washington County. A brief look at this suggestion reveals that it would shift the signals costs, the railroad crossing protection costs, intersection realignment costs and major drainage costs all to the .remaining portion of the district. In addition, Pac Trust has indicated that their development is imminent and they have already requested that some of the improvements, such as storm drainage, be constructed as soon as possible in order to accormurodate their anticipated construction. I �. ,�lam'J✓��- �-� !�".. If -6- February 1981 ADDENDUM NO. 1 to "Intersection Analysis Proposed S.W. 72nd Avenue L.I.D. December 1980" TRAFFIC SIGNAL BENEFITS & NEEDS The three traffic signals recorrumended for this project will incorporate design features that would provide many benefits to the roadway user and property owners. These benefits are: 1 . Increase roadway capacity; 2. Reduce traffic accidents; 3. Energy savings; 4. Economic savings; 5. Reduce response time of emergency vehicles. These traffic signals are warranted by the traffic being generated by the existing properties taking access from this project. Therefore, these signals are needed today in order to reduce the impacts of future developments. Capacity A properly designed traffic signal system, as is being recommended, will process more vehicles through an intersection than a "STOP" controlled intersection. The ability of an intersection to process vehicles is expressed in capacity terms as "Service Levels". These levels are designated by the letters 'A' through 'F' . Level 'A' means "no delays", while Level 'F' means a "traffic jam". A traffic signal in- stalled at a previous "STOP" controlled intersection can improve its service level by at least two full levels. Therefore, these signals are expected to improve the present level of "excessive delays" to only "occassional delays". Traffic Accidents Each user of a roadway is exposed to a potential for a fatality, injury or property damage traffic accident. Converting a "STOP" controlled intersection to a traffic Msignal reduces this traffic accident potential . It is estimated that this poten- will be reduced by: 1. 85% for fatal and injury accidents; 2. 70% for property damage; 3. a) 55% for school--aged pedestrians; b) 85% for adult pedestrians Addendum No. i Pana 1 of 3 Energy Savings A properly equipped and operated traffic signal system, as proposed, can save gasoline. For these three signals, it has been calcuated that they can cause a gasoline savings of 20,690 gallons per year for the next twenty years. Economic Savings The above benefits have been converted to dollar values and are tabulated as follows for these three signals: 1 . Reduced traffic delays = 22,135 travel hours per year at minimum wage = $108,419.00 2. Reduced traffic accident 3. Energy Savings - 20,690 x $1 .30 = 26,897.00 Total (for three signals) $144,899.00 per year There are other related benefits which a dollar value cannot be placed, such as: 1 . Deliveries and shipments being delayed; 2. Loss of customers due to traffic congestion; 3. Loss of an employee's productivity because of injury or tardiness; 4. The trauma of being involved in a traffic accident; 5. The frustration of being in a traffic jam; 6. The loss of a human life. These are benefits to the road user and property owners. Emergency Vehicles Our cost estimates include the provisions for emergency vehicles "pre-emption". This will provide an emergency vehicle with an "assured green" signal when ap- proaching these intersections. This "assured green" will mean that life saving services will not be delayed due to being involved in a traffic accident while en route to an emergency. Traffic Signal Needs These three traffic signals are warranted based upon the intersecting traffic volumes on the major and minor streets. The traffic characteristics of these streets are very similar to other streets nationwide. These similar character- istics indicate that not all of these traffic volumes have destinations on these streets. Addendum No. B Page 2 of 3 In fact, many use these streets as a regular "pass--through" route, while others use these streets as a convenient route occasionally. As with most streets, these three categories of street users may be identified for these streets as follows: 1. 35% wish to access abutting properties; 2. 40% use the street for an occasional "pass-through" route; 3. 25% use the street as a regular "pass-through" route. Based on the existing traffic volu.nes and 35% of these vehicles wishing to access abutting properties, these three signals are warranted by the traffic being gener- ated by the properties taking access from these streets proposed by this project. Therefore, these traffic signals are required now and will be required even more as more of the abutting properties are developed. r" Addendum No. 1 Page 3 of 3 City Council February 20, 1981 Tigard, Oregon 97223 REMONSTRANCE: Re:LID 21 68 a 68 b Honorable Members: I would respectfully request deletion from the proposed LID assessment rolls. We have previously contributed frontage and other considerations for the improved street which includes curb and paved walkway. In addition we have financed the sewer along with Gevurtz from S W 72 to our respective properties. r However, in the spirit of community improvement and cooperation we will be willing to contribute up to $500.00 toward a greatly reduced project cost such as three lane only to include a center turnout lane, curb, and storm drainage. Sincerely, John . Smets President SMETCO, INC. 6830 S W Bonita Rd. Tigard, OR 97223 620-1607 COMMUNn -Y PUMICUTIS INC. 6960 SW SANDBURG ST. TIGARD OR 97223 (543) 620-4121 February 10, 1981 Mr. Wilbur Bishop Mayor City of Tigard 12420 Southwest Main Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Mr. Bishops I am writing this letter regarding the L.I.D. project involving the improvements on 72nd Avenue. After attending Monday night's meeting on the matter, it becomes more obvious to me that the City Council should not proceed with the project as it currently exists. Seventy- Second Avenue does need to be improved, in order to handle the higher volume of automobile and truck traffic that has resulted from the buildup of industry in the area. But it is also obvious that 72nd Avenue is a main thoroughfare for other types of traffic. In my discussions with other people in this area, and in all the discussion during Monday night's meeting, I did not hear anyone say that the street did not need to be improved, nor that anyone would oppose such an improvement if it is done on a reasonable basis. I think most of us are also aware that if the work is to be done, we are probably r going to beathe cost of it. Since that is the case, the people and businesses which own the property along 72nd Avenue should have a much greater voice in what those improvements- should be. Given that voice, I am sure you would hear virtually every property owner express the same reservations as those stated in Monday night's meeting. The street improvement is needed, but it makes no economic sense whatsoever to include landscaped meridians, street trees and other aesthetically nice but impractical items in that improvement. Given the current and projected economic climate, practicality and functionality should be the guidelines for any project undertaken by business and government. in addition, I feel that an analysis of the traffic on 72nd Avenue to This Week compare the number of vehicles which are actually traveling to and (Portland) from the businesses and property on the street, to those people who are using 72nd Avenue as a connecting route to other areas, would be in The (Portiand) order. A possible starting point would be to ask the businesses along Downtowner the street to compile a list of the employees driving to and from work, as well as an approximation of the commercial traff is in a given week. The Oklahoma This could then be compared to an actual traffic count on the street. Journal Although this is not an exact measure of the traffic, it would give us some idea of the street's use and would be substantially less expensive 71-- (Spokane) than some type of formal survey. r a munity Press The (Hawaii) - continued - Sun Pry Mr. Wilbur Bishop February 10, 1981 Page 2 one final point which I would like to make involves Mr. Curry's comments, made near the close of the meeting, regarding the analysis of the *number of people who are remonstrating against the improvement project. He pointed out that, after subtracting those people who had signed agreements not to remonstrate, only 36% of the property owners are against the project. I submit to you that virtually every one of the property owners along the street would vote against the project as it exists if they really understood the substance of it. Most of us have now become more aware of the problems, as indicated by the petition submitted by Mr. Meecham. I think that many of us who signed that petition were just becoming aware at that point of what was really involved in the proposed project. Although it is too late for us to u1,117111,1.V LC1liV:latl all l^..G j, it w.i ..vt �^.., �`�c for the amity �v...1Cii to r..... nize, as practical people, that the project as proposed is not the kind of project which they would like to pay for in front of their own property, whether business or residential. The goal of improving the street could be accomplished with substantially less money being spent. We feel, just as you would if it were happening on your own street, that our voices should be heard, since it is our money that is being spent. Sincerely, Larry F. iler Publisher LFM:km R 0 U G fI Chapter 18.59 DESIGN REVIEW Sections: 18.59.010 Purpose of provisions 18.59.020 Administration Action 18.59.023 Fee Required 18_59.024 Modification .of Plan 18.59.030 Applicability of Design Review 18.59.032 Appeals procedure 18.59.040 Conditional Applicability 18.59.050 Matters Exempt 18.59.060 Design Review Procedure 18.59.061 Application for Design Review 1'.59.0'2 Standards and Criteria 18.59.063 Additional Requirements 18.59.064 Aesthetic Design 18.59.070 Minor Deviations 18.59.080 Bonding and Assurances 18.59.090 Validity Period 18.59.100 Offsite Improvement of Right-of-way 18.59.010 Purpose of Provisions. The intent and purpose of design r review is to promote the general community welfare by encouraging attention to site planning, with. regard to the natural environment, creative project design and the character of the neighborhood or area, It is also in the public interest and necessary for the promotion of the safety, convenience, comfort and prosperity of the citizens of the city of Tigard to: (1) Preserve and enhance the natural beauties of the land and of the man-made environment, and enjoyment thereof; (2) Maintain and improve the qualities of and relationships between individual buildings, structures, and the physical developments which best contribute to the amenities and attractiveness of an area or neighborhood; 9/80 ` 12/4/80 - 1/12/81 Page 2 (3) Protect and insure the adequacy and usefulness of public and private developments as they relate to each other and to the neighborhood or area; (4) Irsure that each individual development provides for a quality environment for the citizens utilizing that development as well as the community as a whole. Stimulate creative design for individual buildings, groups of buildings and structures, and other physical developments; (6) Encourage the innovative use of materials, methods and techniques; (7) mntegrate the functions, appearances and locations of buildings and improvements to best achieve a balance between private prerogatives and preferences, and the public interest and welfare. 18.59.020 Adminsitration Action. Within thirty (30) days of receipt of design plans in conformance with all aspects of this code, the Plannincr._____1. director or his agent shall 'approve, disapprove, or aprrove <.aith cona3tions all design review plans , _ _ except as may be otherwise provided under Section 18.55.040, Conditional Applicability. Page 3 18.59.023 Fee Required. At the time of the filing of the application for approval of a design review plan, the applicant shall pay a fee to be determined by resolution of the city council. 18.59.024 :Modification of Plan. P_ request for modification of an approved design plan shall be submitted to the appropriate city department and shall be modified or denied in writing by the department head_ 18.59.030 Applicability of Design Review. Action by the planning director or his agent shall be based upon findings pursuant to the criteria Of subsection "d" of Section 18.59.060. The applicability of development requirements contained in the Tigard Municipal Code shall be determined by the planning director relative to each application for development -made to the City of Tigard. t All new buildings, structures and relocation, addition, extension, and exterior changes of or to existing buildings, structures, and physical site improvements shall be subject to design review including preparation of a design plan. ("Physical improvements", as used in this chapter includes, but is not Limited to, parking lot areas in excess of three spaces, loading areas, retaining walls, signs, and cut and fill or grading actions.) 18.59.032 Appeals Procedure. Action of the planning director or his agent may be appealed to the planning commission by the applicant or adjacent property owner provided: (1) A written notice Of appeal is recorded stating reason(s) for the appeal based upon the criteria of this chapter_ ' Page 4 (2) Said written notice of appeal is received by the City Recorder within twenty (20) days of the applicant's receipt of notice of action by the planning director or his agent. (3) Action by the planning commission may be appealed to the City Council as outlined in Tigard Municipal Code Section 18.92.020. 18.59.040 Conditional Applicability. The planning commission or city council may, as a condition of approval for a zoning ordinance amendment, or conditional use approval, require conformance to the requirements of this chapter and may specify design approval authority. 18.59.050 Matters Exempt. Single-family detached dwelling structures and accessory physical improvements are exempt from design review. 18.59.060 Design Review Procedure. Following a preliminary review of the design plan with the planning department, the applicant shall prepare final plans incorporating all aspects of the design review plan and file three (3) copies with the planning director. If the final plans are found to be in compliance, it shall be so certified in a staff report. A copy of the certified plans and staff keport will be returned to the applicant. Attached to the staff ,report shall be an "acknowledgement" statement. The applicant will sign this statement agreeing to the conditions stated and shall return an acknowledgement copy to staff prior to the issuance of any permit by the City. A copy of the final plans with the staff report and conditions shall be distributed to the building official and placed on file with the planning department. Page 5 (1) Conformity to Site Plan. (A) No building, grading permit, parking permit or sign permit shall be issued, nor any use continence or be enlarged, changed, or altered until a design review plan, as required under this chapter, is approved by the planning director or his .:.gent. (B) As may be determined by the planning director or his agent, a grading permit, parking permit or sign permit may be approved after preliminary consultation with an applicant provided adequate evidence and findings indicate compliance with the intent and purpose of this chapter. (C) The planning director may approve changes in approved design plans when he determines the changes will not significantly alter the character, density, intensity,or otherwise significantly change the plan. Significant changes must be approved anew as required by this chapter. (D) The applicant shall demonstrate continued compliance with • the approved landscape plan twelve (12) months from the date of issuance+ of an occupancy permit for a site. Noncompliance with the approved site plan, or conditions placed upon the site'in the staff report, pursuant to this section, shall be treated as zoning ordinance violations. Page 6 18.59.061 Application for Design Review. The applicant for approval of a design review plan shall consider the intent and purpose and the standards of this chapter in preparing a design plan as herewith required. The application will not be processed by the planning department unless it is complete. As a minimum, the design plan must contain the following: (1) Site plan, including vicinity map; (2) Architectural drawings including elevations preferably prepared by a licensed architect; (3) Landscape plan with irrigation plan, and plant material index, preferably prepared by a licensed landscape architect. (4) Site drainage plans. Parking configuration plan_ The application, design plan and supporting documentation shall be submitted in the form as required by the planning department. If the planning director determines it within the public interest, due to the complexity and/or uniqueness of proposed project, to require the services of a licensed architect and/or landscape architect, this may be mandated and applicant shall pay all expenses incurred. Page 7 18.59.062 Standards and Criteria. The review and approval of design Plans and proposals as set forth herein, based on the following criteria, shall assure that developments and physical improvements are designed and located in a manner which will best satisfy the purpose and intent of this section. (1) It will not impair or interfere with either the development use, or enjoyment of other property in the vicinity, or the orderly and Pleasing development of the neighborhood, or the design functions of public lands and rights-of-way. (2) It will not directly, or in a cumulative fashion, impair, inhibit, or limit further investment or improvements in the vicinity, on the same or other properties, including public lands and rights-of-way. (3) It will be adequately served by public facilities including, but not limited to, sewer, streets, water, and power. The Public Works Department shall make a determination as to the availability of public facilities. Adequate parking shall be provided. All plans for public improvements shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. (4) It will properly and adequately perform or satisfy its functional requirements without being unsightly or creating substantial disharmony with regard to its locale and surroundings; (5) It will provide a safe, pleasing and liveable environment for those people utilizing the development, and immediate neighbors or community as a whole. (6) It will be properly and adequately landscaped with ma;imum retention of trees, minimum soil removal, and minimum grade changes as shall be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighborhood or area, and the safe, efficient and attractive development of the site. Page 8 (7) It shall provide a minimum onsite landscape area of ten (100) percent in accordance with the following formula: Residential Zones -- Front twelve (12' ) feet from the street right-of-way Commercial Zones -- Front ten (10') feet Industrial Zones -- Front twenty (201) feet 18.59.063 Additional Requirements. In certain instances the following additional requirements may be applicable. (1) All areas not occupied by paved roadways or walkways shall be landscaped and maintained. (2) Tree and shrub planting areas of a minimum eight (8`) feet in width within parking areas shall be provided and maintained at approximately seventy (701) feet on center each way or an aggregate amount. (3) A minimum five (51) foot landscape strip along any lot boundary shall be installed. (4) All off-street parking and loading areas shall be effectively screened from view from the public right-of-way. Page 9 18.59.064 Aesthetic Design. Ail projects will minimize or eli*ninate adverse visual effects which might otherwise result from unplanned or inappropriate development, design, or juxtaposition. Such adverse effects may include, but are not limited to, those produced by the design and locational characteristics of: (1) The scale, mass, height, area, and materials of buildings and structures; (2) Surface and subsurface drainage and appurtenant structures; (3) Cut and fill or the reforming of the natural terrain and structural appurtenant thereto such as retaining walls; (4) Areas, paths, and rights-of-way for the containment, movement, or general circulation of persons, animals, vehicles, and conveyances. (5) Other developments or improvements such as, but not limited to, utI lity lines, storage or service areas and advertizing features, which may result in a diminuation or elimination of sun and light exposure, views, vistas, privacy, and general aesthetic value of the neighborhood or area. Page 10 18.59.070 Minor Deviations. (1) Landscaping" required by the underlying zoning district may be varied up to twenty (20%) percent provided said variation is demonstrated to result in a superior design in the public interest or relates to a practical difficulty associated with the natural character of the site. (2) Parking required by the underlying zoning district to twenty (20%) percent where special conditions warrant said variation, and considering such factors as the following: (A) Availability of public transit; (B) multiple or joint use of parking facilities; (c) special conditions such as housing for the elderly, low income, or studio apartments_ =s IF Page 11 18.59.080 Bonding and AsE-:urances• (1) The planning director may require a bond or other adequate assurance as a condition of the design plan that conformance to the approved design plan is completed. The bond or other assurance shall be released when conformance to the design plan is certified by the planning director or his agent. (2) Landscaping shall be installed prior to issuance of occupancy permits, unless security equal to the cost of landscaping as determined by the planning director is filed with the city recorder assuring such installation within six months after occupancy. Security may consist of a faithful performance bond or letter of credit for 100% of the cost payable to the city, cash certified check or such other assurance of completion approved by the city attorney. If the installation of the landscaping is not completed within the six month period, the security may be used by the city to complete the installation. i Page 12 18.59.090 Validity Period. Design plans approved by the planning director shall remain valid for a period of one (1) year following the date of its approval. If at the end of that time construction has not begun, the site plan approval shall lapse and shall be in -ffect only if resubmitted to the director and again approved. All construction and development under any building permit shall be in accordance with the approved design plans. Any departure from such plan other than provided for in Section 18.59.070 shall be a cause for revocation of a building permit or a denial of an occupancy permit. Any proposed changes in an approved plan shall be submitted to the planning director in accordance with Section 18.59.020 mor review and approval. Site development shall be completed before issuance of occupancy permits unless an extension of not longer than six (6) months is granted by the director. 18.59.100 Offsite Improvement and Right-Of-Way. Dedication of necessary right-of-way, street improvements, pedestrian ways, lighting, and signalization may be required by the City as a condition of development, if it is found that a need for such is caused by the development under consideration. ANNEXATION SHORT TITLE: BENNETT TAX M-r%P 2Si 12C, 4700, 4800, 4900, 4901, 5000, 5100, 5380, 5200 TAX MAP 2S1 13B, 400 500 .! � tCS.fic.120 X41 600 y�, 198 • � 4 stC. ::e.3300 GSPtanl08331 r S.W. 00+-R BU R N �- PLACE ® c. ,a 220 ,► _ loo a 4+ V_ 2rer9°3a r. zzz �' 400( tly4 .?C. E.Z00 4002 41000/ 4200. 4300' SWAG 3t}0o •� ^.JJ.1a o 414r7c 173 A,-' J.78 Ac. 32&S4° Q ZA •9 cs' 4OG W.iao' " f.dd J� a C2 0 0 4400 0 - V O_ L - ' P J` X cQ3es' Z W.zed - is 4004 ® o ed�. 300 4504 W._359, AKIO .� P ;� 'd3tsAc. o en ^ e _ } .Q L'.339' 1 3. � 4003 - z< 45 /.91 etc A 9.84°36•W foo' �O8.Y1 188 ! - `Z81rr3 1�0. w� 89033"F- na 9' 5000 5100 5200 53 4701 4800 4401 - sesc� tar 1; _ c s.O9 • � ae ' CFO, 3EP d1 n } 163.49 os o.Zv ae $i n F� yy 02 b,.. • a cA P P+ ^ ^ ! •_ o C. V 4700 1 " P _ 1 o2 .79 00 a J ...mit 4.99, -. �► -- -V --�,.. _ _:SO . .o,l _A--'- DURHAM ' ` ''"ROAD ( • 311.9' �'. ` 142• 123• 8g'-- ~= ze',4.6 504 400 : 300 200 :9 43 3 f /.3BAa. t•OSAC. :5.36,1c� _ 03.48�c. 0 600 a s ? 1� i SW 1/4 SE ANNEXATION SHORT TITLE: GRASS TAX HAP 1S1 3400, Tax Lots 100 & 101 1 25 20 639.80 Al 890 41' W 260.90 Wo 200 SEE MAP 89Ac. Z.92 AC. IS 1 34 CA L3.1 174.30 4.28 S .40 17.. (C.S. 3090 {sea N �- 11�Jc 5 1 r H - v, o (C-S. No. 6747) cr � p c a C.S. No .471) t7 376 — ► - _ S 890 41 E 358.90 er! 890 41 W. 190.90 700 (C.S. No.5301) 600 1.96 Ac 1.05 4c. N N i C _ ._. � (C.'-. No. 6747) s INITIAL POINT m CHERRY HILL ACRE TRGCTS 260.90 25 O N 890 5" W 378.90 S 69 a St' E 190.90 � o i (C.S. No. 13,079) �S® Qo r 9 930 4S +5'E 252 ` 78.82 �1.�8 W 30 79 .To 9E93 M x•09 k 89 46,15 W a k 89046 18-'WV- 50 R.10 2700 800 W 900 a �2400 4P00 4900 .O7.4c. 2800 3 H I o 2 w 17 0. - 6$ 36 e? C o .n y r 76.62 ~ 65.80 r 103 a ) 26 N 890 58 41' - 144.62 @ k 89058 41`E; 4700 m 1 10000 2300 ^ N Pj b 1n P 111.13 II 02 1 I19.13 11 2590 5 46 ^ 5000 1100 2&'83 � 2200 3 � 25 L e 4 m 15 � ¢ "� '0 It6A3 < 1 120 !e9 019 5 e 12 0 0 �--� (C S. No. 13 100. 4500 CL 100 24 M 514 a~ 4 �j2o 10 �-i 17 N 1t m1 11? 118.03 JGOD W 1 2000 m O .rr cf 1300 \� e...a o '• 4400 23 8 � � 13 � � � 5`� \ lzo a e EE MAP cj ^ ---s 51-1 0. 118.03 ISS 34CD p 119 tt� s' Q.� �. A,NNEXATION SHORT TITLE: MC INTOSH TAX MAP IS1 15A, TAX LATS 1700 and 1800 WASHING -4 COUNTY OREGON .� ;1EE MAP ?s 1 100 "rz 20o, �:` �. t30o - 1� 26 Lai 1301 ® — •rs sf sas.8 - 1400 200_ _ "2 CIS f�30® 220Ac. . 201 ; 75 s �• 202..1, AK gd= ?Q fASS!lEAfT A" w - - L!? �0r se.�i2o iS01 28G! r.over. 1900 1200 - $ a.ss.es . ®.er.ma. Vv A .. ge"4Z''8- -off, ob sass' x 19®is _ — v Sea GS`10070 4 g 1901 sas' A ^ ZZ9 jets ed Fs01 2100 437-0270 2 e{ 9i.!•6f ��._'`. - .. _ .._��• - — .„_ 1100 - s" Z o a ms 2291102 z en 2200. MUST Aaa` 1000 �. o°• e.�a�s 'S01 r ANNEXATION SHORP-TITLL�: CH' s .�+. ..- _ -z,• _' :� -•J; -Y'. - •fir tiyr_ TA}C'MAP_251:125'TAX LOT'QP00- n. .•Wra''--SO 3i A T -f4--Rl6AD - =� _ ;S o too ��+' - 5COG. 5200-:-, Ga 65 J.'�' _��_�.�^q�Y��=���"�"v'tl �;tw`y P• K'��• _ � __.T- Y`:_ y�-L r`3C'- !��:�Srl__'�...� ='�- w. 3 �•-1:._.. 2'B�A�r:�3�' IBS -' _- '33 -1 ES'�_._ ►+•`"�•_ r -• -r.�T. i•,•• -33c�:d=�=•� t-��.-�t�, •--�_� ��r- - �, �Vie- _• ..h� - - .330£3,._ _, qq s�ppyy � �-_ ,:�' '•.`; "_':,,. -•_• _ - _:_ , �-- = _�� ��-::. '�� ,.:-•- s..- - '-�'- +, _ rr.J •�_ �TZlJ�"a �+v •^:ca-_r�`i.- :+�{-��'..C"'.�'Y,.e+S•=�._'� �� `-R�'•:pppee.f��-.��-���♦��•ty' �..�.•r�',tie�t- =-'X_- '� �_ ,qr ..�-moi„~• .C•� _C. �'�-"`��7'--tel'.���1.' -/_ ti-�_��, a�yya f a Y•'-. _ ' -�98dC`-r""'n.,±� �� T~t gr.I4Aoac'�ta:�+-�-�'1 •_.=j-y t-�a-'��•:.a`-P '4^�v�. :ttn _ G - _ _ --_`•q''^-_ '�+_i "rl.-.= t ar:4.�� �-i:.-+.f•ai+"�- i". {•-F+:t.i -7_ � - ` ".v._� _- �i� - _ �!- _ _- -. �-5-�•.]_�_ - �^ � 'vim�-. _ _$:_ i'_�-�.�` - :"�•�-- ik1 y �. �`+'_r".'' _!'a-s i'`_f �• _ _ sem_'- `::s_ >', ;; '- %�^''•r_.r%_7:-•�==1 !`- `` '•. _ r=%` �``-� - 43VE T�.�,::a...� _ ...Ll.' .ter" • ! fir.''`' _'ar _ _ �•. �_..L,_ - .2Ai�.f'r:�:D- '�a�b�'•.'�'__3?9.2�r'--�'�=-''^C :`'T-"''1.`'',- 329:29}/'-�.:r...`� �_�;�...-�'.325?23�- - _ --r r'�`��^��7 A:! //.''��//•'''�� •_J•-•�._ t. f•��9t ai. _ctiy. R f- /�'• -',may r-_y �. g :f'+- _ _ _ .t.o;r_N:+•�=`r•'. '��VLi-:�� 7-T byO�,iltil -•r^_-ta::�`a-r,+yp�.�Yj+^.-- N�" yJ_`.'TW_MSV .`^ _ :_5 J� __ �'L• /tw -•� _ .1�"(�� ��. - -- -�-!_-BS.tCe.- '�:r: 'a-T_ZJd�'�+-�+�:-�-'��-`y _,,; _ -• � _,;�. _ _ =+r;= �...a�-�+� ;� {� .� - -�.. _�•.� 9 `~ _ .-3:3a �1.� ..t..- ,�A9+_- .... /� �.3':k"` �-++:r a •/moi_w M'`_]R -` "i _�.V'�- +.'_i _ ��•"'ms`s - '.. _ Mr�.r_,. -s: .� _ ,__ - ,a_�1 �, _j'^ = •: r7Y �'_� ._3= L�'l dj 7�:t "+Y"a'v'_a! ''�'4 ".". 'riy - _,:�,.•v.�_.a•:.ice. _ _ _-}.r+y ll` 1^-• -•x - "" - moi?/ - � i•_ mss _.. �. �►.r+s-1 �'- :b y,. T"`,• ��,�._. M .-��. _ _ r✓y .• _ tii 'C��=�=:r==_- T' ✓_^_. - CA. '1 �"'f' Z.,•�'�^�Y•ae rrr a _�j;.'-a'..- M• -C1." _ _. ,a'�'►!%J-y- ��• ,i" � -� ..:���-' J=y i -�" Yom..-`rr' _-TZ ___� >�1� �_ rs' +l _..r.t�_�.J-\✓' -'�4•u"_ -T ..s-.=�._ - ...- a.. �•v _"='�w_�+FF`".j.�T--� _S•�:x `1"%f=•:r..'-T�' ti_ •.t off,:._ :Cf_w '' s` - %-: :rti �+^x"_'-�r-=->1C .l i _- _ .._�.t� a..__ �:ib7.��:3". a�'�i`•`i_� _..-!7? _ti_ :x�•�:•,�:` _ -- �'';•+.�:_ :L„y�-'_�-� R _-•� �`' �� -�:a��� c - _� _ •.l`s•••„]--.+I�s,•�•�!4::..1._. l"��S_ :� x .��. rs., if':..a,ti=�? _ _ .. :329.�1+`�!J-•,-•r_....o � _ _:'-"�328..4T;�._:. _ : �•"'�.; _�325'4t':_. '� � 28:42.' `r";�. >a ��.-r=• • �•- 4� tr;: YGVSf-_'_Y.'a±'V•;cu-"�aY :47�Z{'3rR:-� �f,`. -t ;�_��•+d� Z•- "R' �.*. 9 - 'JSf.'ry.:a►-5�'' '•• -''�.�.- y..'i} >.'�.i'- a� 'c- -;S'G2fY- ;'-= _M •.{-w"`_ .'=T `' :f..'%!:'�"'�`= `> `_ - ,may. ::•�.� "` _ p '-t'y`t -;�;-,. J"'�.:r r'•�v- .r-_y •"^-.1�-,�{:'} 2.-.4. •may ,-:• �:r- .�� �J•-•'�r_• _•'.+..iM-F Q_ t;t��.- 4r i-- ia}a•.'}•,'•.� .-. l.a�.+�•._+aiq�Zl ^!_ �'1•'�iYL..i,�- �1 .=Y� � �1-_._ ./'9 •i MY ` _��•-�. .'i•t� tivy� ��-1�.� __ v.C-i'"-`~e•.�.�� rtr''�f�' _ -/ y�:'7b s� s�.�.`��;;. S'� ._t ?^: �'.s __•.�'�'-: �"sb� '-'�:'� a _�Y•+rr- as•'..� _ 4T-•_ -"E-yx'''_� -�'.s�•• L::s_-...±^,i....`.s,;,,-T: '...o...�'.-_ _ �.tt-+ :.;-�=.�, .i;r 3'£".42 : ...•s. -�� �w° b- T�.= _"'' :i' �o..�.•.�'+ti �` .a-.+,�" :a�_,r.,-•i� =�, ✓�•-�-. _ - - J7QT�'- _;,''+•r•-' s -� .s '="•if=:_ •Y:''"�•�:,�h�-�: �p:.s�4•�-r•%.�.'�' n"�..�sr' __ !�S-��'•%' •. .�.._�; 'o t sy 4s"�'r�:M�- ^a'_ . r••• N,/,•••�:_�.�,•.:.�,I•-�C.+tr.._ _^>;.L',•h'.,�.Y�:.�;Rty�-`�-+'•�.., �,a`--'-�.c '?_-^'..; t." .,r„_. _-•.s �MM+ILZ i_ F•�A�� .�_ `iW-^'.T `•S�-V.i•- 'I• Y� �1>� A � )M - "71 � - ,���1���_ -- ..aw +rc � .�. - t.. r_..'••„�-,•a=`�.-.:.. rl'.�._t^aC� y a•e •. '+ l /`::a::, �'"= -;' �' .. ..Tip -`�:�.'„e,...-'=• '`-: .r-�:.•- -••?'=:.�'rr-� c.y ••a-. �. �S{JQ'' ��'-r ] �'•'`+�_ r,'`_:, '�1:`_•� a.;• �:.' "•"�j�,,,t,.�_--,,L' :..Y_ �m :A. Vit, r�• - >- �-:c". �: _�,_-'_�-'r- ,• :.. psi GS:tC ;.tet.._..-• ..:.3`lSsfs �` -""�....'T _ �'- -?•-.-�� _ _ _ - :38�>;�' -3?.�10�'�;�'.'�` :� .+ t`L•-•zr'7�..�» - '.'at1:.w.-. _--1:��!:_ i-,i i:z•2:._ > .�►�-.:.• ''S-�^"��._ .� •'z••- `�'�L_ - �-�.tv�e.--�,'� �wYi..-77-- sr- r.:t>' .r:'�-L�,+'�'...s� �-_Ay.y;`�-.•_+:.�-:e�::TS�f'Y�,' _-i ,"_'�' „�- �.i;.:;-�:'}`4'> � ., _ Lam• �__.?- 4!1•.sa-• .7i.,,�1'T'� -L r '�'�' �}i K-��, -< .J7 "fig � _ f�' _- �4•!'."Lv.4'4-. s...-!� 4�w�a: C_'ter^+ 3,,t.. .A' ��� �,'•_.p s^" _: r .-� � - ti�... --� �'�-'�.+-: w�11t� �'7!sS�v.:.. TJ�l ><TS.t'rr'r�+,-.�-d':���"..L` - �A..•- Y �'rcJ_F:�T -@ �J S.T _' } i_ -=� -•�._ _ '� .�_/,_ i•..»�--.7 f« ��c..�;�`'•':-2�4:...:- R�i� --- ---..�:;T'��:-,: ,�.• w ,.._'a-''vS.a`.3�•t••t.,' _••. •�. _ *'4;.3T,gC:.•� _� _-�,: _ ...�' :�yf:•=�•+r`-i='T'�"3az _ 1�c�+.•� 7ab4• �„�•;t t�r'� 7?> �_�� =i3iQX LrHi�.P�,� _ sem-• P:.--- '►"•• 4 -t.+ 'Y 7 _a--- ',�-e_}S'7"��=^^..:^+ ��_ `-''�Ty�� -^:�'St��'_ '`y''r'=�►.•t -;�,�_����? t-��`'-,3g,�4��:•y%ri..�r_ .i�""� -TM_-._s.. '" -'== L-y,�. •�` ..�' •3 - i." f .iti7'2�68�'+'1�. L-F..:.jh:++ f-�..-•� �S'"s= "6'tt.�'��.Fs:•-" � ..:�++ 'c `r_'�: � `^+..�' ,' _..=•r '� ,,,�i..-.e,� t •a'�•'w�±' -,..i!'=.;=J t-t+►•.:,;..' ,_if":-�;.• .'fit•'_:tc`f_`." - _ 'B 9 -aa- _ ���. - "�'�}�.Y•'� �.•-;�.•. �::-.•_ate''�X�;_ �.-•G :�a S •_�:L:ra_` _:�:.._:s:- �->'• -.�-_'=_-�-' _ __'.•.,'a. �«�-nim.•^. � ,- �..�_a.� '.•�...--.+•..:.� .r'--^i' .: .- a_rG..._--_v•'' ��: '�"'-•_�f.. � :�M-� -- �O'Q a ^rte. � �=i`- _ _ 46C3--.-- --�4+� ^•?3._,'-S':'>.;�1w•,,::_a�'���_ q�._v.-�-•��:•r. ..,,.�t_wa:� .tj Y�".: - :a'"„_ v�•+..�+i+� %-i6�.:aw. �_ w.:-:yi �`v�-.:c...^-^';,�..rar < •� ,� y. _'-'. sa -r..r ti._:. �- "'-a .yt'ee =��� ,t. r-"' .le!•-.,,,_.. .n •.:� �,_ ,o t� .:5--^r::""=�:"�-_2.- - Z'T 00 _ SIv .>< '� O^� •at. ."'�.i3T. i'.'„ ra,_.s Y+ '•ti .-.�_, _ o+:i'�'.'\ _ _., m � .�. j: ' ,-OIL-L' •3 - _ir' r }'��+.• ~'aL •�:. ry_ �.. -�• l'se�a: .i.v: q. .'i;y y_ . • D•,y'.•,`-.i lti_~.+�'� �G• _ `•.O.ar: ���?: aR._^S•�i�::�-sr = _ _:`-�!• '•.�- _. •� 1 't•. -✓�r�y;J6s_ _ ...:`"'- r.�:....,�..g�TL.,. �`s �.%.,�� ~. - .� •i^`,,,� r�'a'+1,�-(: - _� -�� - 3272' - =r'i* �:r 7_i t'-^.. •- _ - � --�- "' _ - `�"-�Y- _ r:: ' y�a�-'-a.a6 ��,_ '-' �.:.e..R•..a: 4i:.:��.:a -. - �•�„^.: ._ .�L�_e." '�,:_a:_y•'_ •,;.:. _ _ iS'~ `'_� y: _^.r;,,_•- = ___ ,s•�-sem•-;=^'-:�"•' e "Yaf6_.� _ e..>.".�',_;:� - � '.�r: i".' - ''.�^ __ '_' ' - - _.�_i•at:__-ti_.r_ - - r_r..�,.. - t�:. .rw•.y.� �:.,...L'+.. '.`^"-•t:_>_i��. -¢-'y:_�. _- _�+.rr.,, -•; _ -••'1+� _ ` ', '�'+P_ ?JAI r��-- r� .- s;y.-�`_ •ti. <-.:er%•t� �._ _ '�, ••'p t.�3• =r _ r �..1• Y +L,s. .moi%; ;,'�` w-c��,��.• - _� -=r-'"-�-- yy _ `t•'•_'`� 1 'i� Ti-_ '�T`-:'a• = ♦`x-s..� --tii-s.. - .o:i� S.7•,:.�• .'ti �,. •� - }'. _!'� •.. - a, _ - 'e ."tit �•- 9d 1 �, ��yc'1-yam' - ` :�/ " `- �'•• �� - � - -�.:�y .S•`\•a�: - __•.� r _ -....,�.t tea. as Z >!•�•i�_-':r_�.•� '_ .'S'_ �R�. �-::`s-'�•.Y�"'��''- t 's�o-'..._:�r_ �r-�.,?I: [� .L-;... •_i•1.:.-� .-t' _ -+:�"�-i:_ :."r=�(- '�:r! -3 z „p.te.: :y:�r - �s.i`s.��7.�v�_} �,y�.ir•r'�y^�t•�-.✓.r.. -_*,.`3'�+-. JG'::_�_af:�-c_r�t:/:a....-�✓ _ 'i+'��' ^"y...- y � 7:..�:ar= ��'LY��v_�•.. -- ��.�:• .+'}g�•S.t•.'• �•�: - ". �� ?-„�"y i- � i.?•?`i�:�•.Fr•Zy�-'r _ `�,v- J'^,� -v� - ( =A� CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE) 'o a ANNEXATION SHORT TITLE: s FREWING/BARNUNj � o•°. / \ ',TAX MAF 2S1 2CA TAX LOTS 102, 202, a``//s 2 <� 3A0, 301, 400, 500 A N D 'f�� 'fAX MAP 2S1 2C8 TP.X LOTS 3402, 4000, 4100 N� 420R, 4300, 4400, 4600, 4700, 4800, 4900, , 74 \ + 3900, 3800, 3700 A N D ` \ MAP 2S1 2CD, TAX LOTS 1400, 1500 4y��` 'ap 1 0`;00, 1800, 1900 , 1501 301 r p3 11rti yD �. SNn.��$fi1 - t t .4400 J 3401 3504 '�- r 34 m rAC 3.+ T HUED ON REVERSE *. r 3700 0 / <! S 3800 d i 36 00 .60A . / s 10 AaN 5000 ' y aY ' yo E 4300 5100 s S4400 3 00 44 00 Ac. s was } 5 't 4100 TRW MAP CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE ar° .� 2 p9�i-' t - " 4000 '' / 0 ` Stip - 1 2z� ¢�• . ^' � � _ Act 4800 y• MAP CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE '�_ 4900 9 S • 1501 MAP CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE SAc -- —— — _ 1600 1500 49 c .45Ac 1700 100 ZJ 190 • MAP CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE SEE MAP ^ 25 i ZCC y' a •a 209 / 37-".GC X07 ov / 202 S `-;r 5 If- 201 a .15ac ti 7136 500° - . "'ra Ae ' 71 t s 4% 6 4 a +� .1.7f. Ewa t S7 ` . —7 1 0 0 7.TSAc. t7 p - 200 1400 BOsic '%i+%C .27Ac. . 'sJ !t'l'i iz�_ 'lo 4 olu 2714 J+,JC; �`y�.i 34 Ac 2708 •. 2704 "S 2700 63 Ar- 14,M 27:0 4\ 26 \ N OF BEA VER TON ss 4950 SAV flail Blvd. Bcaverton. Oregon 97005 (10:3) 644-2191 February 20 , 1981 Dear Commission Member: This is the - resolution prepared by Mike Dowsett for my signature regarding the method of allocating revenues received and expenditures incurred by the Commission following franchising. Before I sign it, I wanted to pass it by you, since the Commission decided not to have a meeting on March 4, 1981. Unless you have specific suggestions to amend the language, I will sign the resolution on March 4, 1981, which has an effective date of the date of the Commission 's motion. One other matter concerns the development of a prospective budget for the Commission. This is necessary since the franchisee is to advance necessary funds until franchise fees from revenues begin to flow to us. Mike agreed to drat t a proposal for your consideration during the relative lull while waiting for proposals. Sincerely, Jack Nelson, Chairman A RESOLUTION 81-4 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A METHOD OF ALLO- CATING REVENUES AND EXPENSES RESULTING FROM ANY CABLE COMMUNICATIONS FRANCHISE AGREEMENT REGULATED AND ADMINISTERED THROUGH THE METRO- POLITAN AREA COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION. WHEREAS, Section 6 .C. of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Agreement - Metropolitan Area Communications Commission (hereafter Agreement) requires that the Board of Commissioners (hereafter Board) of the Metropolitan Area Communications Commission (hereafter Commission) determine a method of equitably allocating expenses and revenues among the units of local government which elect to proceed with regulation and administration of a cable communications franchise through continued membership in the Commission; and WHEREAS, at its meeting of February 11, 1981, the Board of the Commission unanimously made such a determination by motion and authorized its chairman to sign a resolution memorializing that decision; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE METROPOLITAN AREA COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Except as otherwise provided in this resolution, the method of distribution of the franchise fee revenues of the units of local government which are members of the Commission which result from an adopted Franchise Agreement shall be as follows: A. Based upon the requirements of the Request for Proposal developed by the Commission, total franchise fee revenues payable RESOLUTION NO. 81-4 to the Commission shall be five percent (5%) of the gross revenues (as defined by the franchise agreement) of any person granted a franchise by the member units of local government which comprise the Commission. B. Forty percent (40%) of the franchise fee (or , stated another way, two percent (2%) of franchisee's total gross revenues paid according to a franchise agreement as part of a franchise fee) shall be retained by the Commission to offset the expenses of regulation, administration and operation of the Commission, including promotion, development, support and encouragement of community access channels and other aspects of the cable communications system. Any of such retained revenues which exceed expenses for any fiscal year shall be distributed to the member units of local government of the Commission, based upon the population of each unit of local government. Annual population shall be determined, if necessary, by the methods set forth in ORS 190.520 - 190.540 , or as hereafter provided by state law. C. The remaining sixty percent (50%) of the franchise fee (three percent (3%) of franchisee ' s total gross revenues paid according to a franchise agreement as part of a franchise fee) shall be distributed by the Commission to its member units of local government in the following manner : 1) that portion representing revenues generated from the residential subscriber network (entertainment uses) shall be distributed on the basis of a determination of the amount of the revenues generated within the jurisdictional boundaries of each member unit of local government; and RESOL.UAON NO. 81-4 - page 2 2) that portion representing revenues generated from the institutional subscriber network (non-entertainment commercial uses) , or from any and all other sources, shall be distributed on the same population basis as set forth in subsection B. , of this section, which pertains to distribution of revenues in excess of annual expenses of the Commission. D. For the purposes of any distributions to Washington County pursuant to subsections A. , B. , or C. of this section, it is understood that the distributions will be based on the population or the boundaries of the unincorporated area of the County as presently or hereafter exists. Section 2. For the purposes of allocation of the expenses of the Commission, individual expenses of the units of local government which are members of the Commission which may be not attributed directly to Commission expenditures, but which are determined by the Commission to be related to Commission activities, shall be paid from revenues retained by the Commission in accordance with Section 1, subsection B. of this resolution. The Commission shall establish a method for processing and reviewing such expenditures. r Section 3. Until such time as total revenues from franchise fees exceed the actual expenses of the Commission, including any advance payments by franchisee of franchise fees to fund the Commission 's expenses, the entire five percent (S$) franchise fee, reduced by any credits to reimburse franchisee for said advance payments, shall be utilized by the Commission for its expenses. Since the two percent set forth in Section 1, subsection B. of this RESOLUTISN NO. 81-4 - page 3 resolution may not be sufficient to satisfy all expenses of the Commission during the initial period of any franchise, franchise fees which are subject to the distribution provisions of Section 1, subsection D. of this resolution shall be utilized as necessary to satisfy the expenses of the Commission. However, all revenues in excess of expenses shall be distributed to the member units of local government in the manner provided by Section 1, subsection D. of this resolution. Section 4. This resolution shall have an effective date of February 11, 1981, the date of the adoption or the motion by the Board of the Commission establishing the method of allocating revenues and expenditures to its member units of local government. METROPOLITAN AREA COMMUNICATIONS C0DIMI SS ION By: JACK R. NELSON, Chairman i RESOLUTION NO. 81-4 - page 4 AGREEMENT Findings. The Planning Director of the City of Tigard has made the following findings: 1 . That in order for Larry Grayson, the developer of Kneeland Estates, to commence construction on his project , pursuant to conditional use CU23-80, the appeal filed by Tualatin Development Co. , Inc. , as a result of the Planning Commission hearing held on January 6, 1981 , must first be disposed of. 2. Among other issues raised in its appeal, Tualatin Development Co. , Inc. objected to the increase of traffic within TDC' s Copper Creek development (ZC 1-80 and S 3-80) inasmuch as TDC's access to Durham Road is temporary only and is due to expire on September 20, 1982. 3. That substantial financial damage will be done to both Larry Grayson and to Tualatin Development Co. , Inc. if: (a) Grayson' s project is delayed, and (b) if access to the Copper Creek project is terminated before all residences in both projects have been readied for occupancy. The measure of damages is unestimated at this time because of the anticipated increase of traffic flow in both projects. 4. There is a public need to commence construction of the residences as soon as practicable in both Kneeland Estates and the Copper Creek development. The Planning Commission has approved all that is necessary to be approved t before construction of these structures can be commenced. -1- Vis' ^ ! G T�� J 5 . It is in the public interest to maintain - - during the course of the construction of each project - - the integrity and the distinctions between Kneeland Estates, on one hand, and the Copper Creek development, on the other. Not to maintain those distinctions in the character of each respective project could very well lead to a diminution of market value of the property in either project. 6. Because of the increased traffic flow, it will become necessary to develop a Local Improvement District which will initiate traffic studies from SW Serena Way at Pick's Landing and Kerwood Estates east to the intersection of Hall Blvd. and Durham Road . This traffic analysis will be an important part of the formation of a Local Improvement District. 7. When both projects have been completed , there will be a total of `"living units available, plus an additional five units in Lot 116 of the Copper Creek develop- ment plan [ approved by the City of Tigard, 9/20/80] within the next three years. This may materially affect vehicular traffic on Durham Road and on all access roads feeding Durham. Based upon these findings, the Planning Staff concludes: 1. In order to maintain the integrity of -he character of the two respective developments, Kneeland Estates and Copper Creek, the temporary access to Durham Road, which is presently centered -2- j'�T 110 feet West of the Northeast corner of Copper Creek Development shall remain available as a temporary access until changed through the L.I.D. process. 2. It will be important to form a local Improvement District, an integral. part of which will be a thorough traffic analysis to develop traffic data from SW Serena Way at Pick's Landing and Kerwood Estates east to the intersection of Hall Boulevard and Durham Road. A primary issue of this traffic analysis would be to resolve whether or not the temporary access at Cooper Creek, which is described above, should or should not be made a permanent access. 3. The present temporary access will exist for a period of time of at least two years from the date approved of construction plans for public improvements in Cooper Creek 4. To insure Council intent until traffic studies are performed and findings made and acted upon, the temporary access described in Finding No. 1 shall be posted as "temporary", and Tualatin Development Company shall provide notice of the status of the access within its L'�- documents of conveyance. The Planning Staff recommends the adoption of the staff's findings and conclusions by the City Council at its next hearing on March 3, 1981 with the appropriate Passage by way of ordinance. ALDIE HOARD, Planning Director City of Tigard We, the undersigned have read the conditions above agr a to them. , Date: 3 Z f TUAL'A N DEVEL t NT CO. , INC, NEE L ND ES ATES Date: ` ,,1 �T�HE&MAYOR FOR IT' COUNCIL O� Date: TIGARD r _Qe (503) 639-3101 TUALATIN DEVELOPMENT CO., INC. 15300 S. W. 116th Avenue TIGARD, OREGON 97223 February 27, 1981 Mr. Aldie Howard Planning Director City of Tigard 12420 SW Main Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: Tualatin Development Co. 's Appeal Dear Mr. Howard: This is to acknowledge that my company will withdraw its appeal upon the enactment of an ordinance adopting the enclosed findings and conclusions at its meeting on March 2, 1981 . I merely want it understood that we do not pian to drop the appeal , unless the Council adopts the findings and conclusions on matters that you arranged between Mr. Voytilla , of my company, and Mr. Grayson and return of our $250.00 appeal fee. When I have been advised that the Council has passed the operative ordinance or resolution adopting these findings and conslusions, I will instruct Mr. Voytilla to immediately withdraw the appeal . On behalf of Tualatin Development Co. , I wish to thank you for your courteous attention to this and for your concern for all parties involved. Very truly yours, TUA�.' !N EVELOPMENT 0. , INC. i Robert C. L n President pd cc: Larry Grayson h y V f� �v 00 cn C> cli y LU o. � co cZ 5.+ a - CO �4 . . d � co C:) G+ 3 � 14 ch cnN0 4 Q, �D A. G n ~ N A H-� F:, G C 7 1 N to- E- �'� F-1 i co G wz H0 w co m{y � G = COO o cn �I z 3 vdi o3c� � � a) (D woi � [0 • •C O to O � �h H �••-� O O Qi OI GLS O .� ♦ C!� cn CL a c H.-a •t3 cn a ^, i°, > ao t z •- r+ cn � w , G v 0 o E 1 W U c� ca c/] -4 $+ a r� cC 3 o E c0 Ra 'cti = n . C14 Cl)o n Ya 04 G 1 •cn � i.J Cl o A ce) i C> C>cr) PCI c e) o c7 u a ca co 1 c.> a) G.-4 1-4 >~ O 3 a 1 O `p O p c'^ O 3 0 ,0 o v 0 0 CN � 1 7 pp r—t NO� 4 _. 04 N