Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
City Council Packet - 11/07/1983
r= ,TIGARD CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an SPECIAL MEETING AGENDAagenda item needs to sign on the appropriate ti NOVEM13ER 7, 1983, 7:30 P.M. sign--up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH ask to he recognized by the Chair at the start 10865 SW WALNUT of that agenda item. Visitor's agenda items are TIGARD, OREGON 97223 asked to be kept to 2 minutes or less; longer matters can be set for a future,Agenda by con— tacting either the Mayor or City Administrator. 1. SPECIAL MEETING: r 1.1 Call To Order and Roll Call 1.2 Pladge of Allegiance 1.3 - Call To Staff and Council For Non—Agenda Items 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (2 Minutes or Less, Please) COUNCIL RECESS 3. TURA MEETING 3.1 Call To Order & Roll Call 3.2 ` Business' Meeting 3.3 Adjournment COUNCIL RECONVENE Q. TOWN AND COUNTRY DAYS COMMITTEE REPORT �• 5. PARK RULES AMENDMENT DISCUSSION Director of Public Works 6. SW 115TH STREET PARKING ORDINANCE: NO. 83— (Continued from 10-10-83 Meeting) Director of Public. Works 7. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT" CPA 12-83 ZONE CHANGE 7_C 9-83 PCM ASSOC. PORTLAND CHAIN NPO #2- - APPEAL HEARING ON—THE—RECORD An appeal of the Planning Commission' s denial for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Industrial to Genera]. Commercial and a Zone Change from Industrial-Light to C-3. Located at 9770 SW Scholls Ferry Road (Wash. Co. Tax Map 1S1 27DD, Lot 2700). This will be an "argument—type" hearing only. The Council will consider only the record before the Planning Commission, which is on file at City Halla The Council shall not consider any new testimony or evidence which is not in the record. Public Hearing Opened Staff Report & Summary of Planning Commission Proceedings/Planning Staff Argument: Appellants, Respondents, Appellants Rebuttal Public Hearing Closed Council Consideration and Action i PAGE 1 -- COUNCIL AGENDA — NOVEMBER 7, 1983 i . 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 9-83 ZONE CHANGE ZC 8-83 GALLO'S VINEYARD/HERB MORISSETTE BUILDERS NPO ##7' - APPEAL HEARING ON-THE-RECORD .+ An appeal of the Planning 'Commission's denial for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low Density to Medium Density Residential and a Zone i Change from R-7 (Single Family Residential) to R-5 (Single Family Residential). Located at SW Tigard Street and SW 113th Avenue (Wash. Co. c Tax Map 1S1 340C, Tax Lot 2900). This will be an "argument type" hearing, only. The Council will consider only the recordbefore the Planning Commission, which is ,on file at City Hall. The Council shall not consider any new testimony or evidence which is not in the record. Public Hearing Opened Staff Report & Summary of Planning Commission Proceedings/Planning Staff Argument: Appellants, Respondents, Appellants Rebuttal e Public Hearing Closed Council Consideration and Action 9. CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT - INDUSTRIAL USES ALONG RR TRACK DISCUSSION Director of Planning and Development 10. DARTMOUTH STREET DISCUSSION WITH BOB WRIGHT Di-ector of Public Works 11. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 11.1 Approve Council Minutes 10/10/83 and 10/17/83 11.2 Receive and File: Departmental Monthly Reports � 11.3 Accept & Authorize Signing by Mayor and City Recorder: o Subdivision Compliance Agreements & Performance Bonds for: Morning Hill II & III Golf Side Estates Bond Park o Sanitary Sewer Easement for Bond Park 11.4 Authorize Payment - League of Oregon Cities - $500. 11.5 Approve Loan Application Oregon Business Development Fund - Bark-Well Company - Resolution No. 83-102 11.6 Approve Fee Waiver Temporary Use Permit - Sweet Adelines 11.7 Appoint Alternate Representative To Community Development Block Grant Policy Advisory Board —Resolution No. 83-103 11.8 Approve Waiver of Permit & Plan Check Fee - Tigard Sr. Nigh School 11.9 Approve Consulting Agreement- Coopers Assoc. 11.10 Approve Change Order 95 - SW 72nd Avenue LID 11.11 Approve Economic Development Committee Amendment - Res. No. 83-104 ` 11.12 Accept 72nd Avenue Street Dedications and Authorize Payment: IG 040 - Halvorson - 116,174.00 ID U67 - Rogers - $12.161.25 11.13 Solid Waste Rate Report 12. NON-AGENDA ITEMS: From Council and Staff 13 ADJOURNMENT (DH:lw/0316A) PAGE 2 COUNCIL. AGENDA - NOVEMBER 7, 1983 r. T I G A R D C I TY C0UNCI'-L SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 7, 1983 7:30 P.M. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor Wilbur Bishop; Councilors: Tom Brian (arriving at 7:50 PM)', John Cook, Kenneth Scheckla (leaving at 11:12 PM) and ima Scott; City Staff: Frank Currie, Directorof Public Works; Doris Hartig, City Recorder; Bob Jean, City "Administrator; Bill Monahan, Director of Planning &' Development; and Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel. 2. CALL TO STAFF AND COUNCIL FOR NON-AGENDA ITEMS UNDER OPEN 'AGENDA a. Councilor Scheckla requested update on Hearing Officer's report = regarding the JAFCO appeal. Staff to report back. b. Councilor Scott requested report . on SW 72nd liability regarding' non-conforming 'driveways. Staff reported all property owners have been contacted and no one has responded.,> Council and staff discussed `how to get` response. Consensus was that staff is to contact the property owners again and ask`how/if they intend to respond C. City Administrator requested Council set date for sales tax hearing. Consensus was to hear on November 21, 1983. d. Mayor Bishop added discussion'regarding Englewood park area. s 3. VISITOR'S AGENDA No one spoke. COUNCIL RECESS - 7.45 P.M. - RECONVENED AS TURA BOARD 4. Present: Chairman Wilbur Bishop, Board Members John Cook, Ima Scott and Kenneth Scheckla. Director of Planning and Development reported there were no business items for the month of November. Staff will report in December steps required to close out TURA. Meeting Adjourned 7:45 P.M. COUNCIL RECONVENED: 7:45 P.M. 5. TOWN AND COUNTRY DAYS COMMITTEE REPORT Judy Christiansen, President of Town and County Days discussed budget for neat year and Committee's goals and objectives. They would like to become more of a steering committee to allow other non-profit groups to make money. She further explained they had reviewed with staff work to be done by the City during the celebration and felt the Committee could assist and cut down the City's labor costs. COUNCILOR BRIAN ARRIVED 7:50 P.M. PAGE 1 COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 7, 1983 Discussion continued regarding the 82-83 event, centering on damage to the park, added cost to the City and direct contribution to the park system. Ms. . Christiansen stated they were distributingfliers in the community to get input for future events. 6, PARK 'RULES AMENDMENT DISCUSSION Director of Public Works summarized his memo, noting the recommended changes with respect to limiting reserved space, advance deposit for " special equipment= or service', no -refund of `.application fee policy and identification of waiver of fees standard. Council discussed the ; recommendations with emphasis on the standard to be used for waiver of fees. Consideration was given regarding waiving` ;fees for groups who contribute to the park system or contribute to the community as a whole. _ Consensus;.of Council was to refer back to the Park Board with Council's sj concerns and get their 'recommendation. Council recommendation for class ,; . two groups was to charge no fee or limit waiver of fees if applicant has contributed to the community. ' z 7. DARTMOUTH STREET DISCUSSION WITH BOB WRIGHT Bob Wright of R. A. Wright Engineering reported on progress to date and answered questions from Council. He noted the major property owners have been meeting to come to 'a united agreement and have looked at 4 different routes. To date' a feasibility study and engineering report has been prepared, however, he hopes to have more information within the next 3 weeks. Lavalle Allen, from audience, questioned what happened to k. committee that was to ; participate in the meetings. Director of Public'' Works responded it is the responsibility of the property owr.ers who call the meeting Co notify the committee of the meetings. R. A. Wright will contact the parties involved and try to correct the problem. 8. SW 115TH STREET PARKING ,' k_. Director of Public Works noted the traffic problems on SW 115th and reported the property owners have been notified of the proposed ordinance. He showed slides of the street as well as graphs pointing out the problems. Council discussed limiting parking, the bike path and width of the street. Betty Clark, SW 115th Street resident, spoke to the limited visibility and �§ was concerned regarding the safety to children. C Earl Walsh, SW 115th resident, spoke toheavy5 o'clock traffic, the school tius traffic and limited visibility. Judy Christiansen, SW Fairview Lane, reported extra vehicles parking on the street that +.w + voua llb L6lC kL V—U L GI• Motionby Councilor Scheckla to table item until more information was * received from the Police Department regarding accidents. Motion seconded by Councilor Scott. Motion failed by 2 - 3 vote with Mayor Bishop, Councilors Brian and took voting NAY. PAGE 2 - COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 7, 1183 k ORDINANCE NO. 83-50 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND SUPPLEMENTING CHAPTER ( 10.28, OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING TO SECTION 10.28.130 TO PROHIBIT-PARKING<ON A=PORTION OF '`SW 115TH AVENUE, DECLARING AM EMERGENCY AND FIXING AN EFFECTIVE BATE. Motion by 'Councilor Brian, seconded by, Councilor Cook to adopt and direct _ staff to put center yellow line wherever. appropriate. Motion approved; by 4 1 vote of Council with Councilor Scheckla voting NAY. Ordinance No. 83-50 will require a second reading. 9. ' COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 12-83, ZONE CHANGE ZC 9-83 PCM ASSOC. PORTLAND 'CHAIN,.; NPO ,#2, APPEAL HEARING ON-THIF-RECORD. An appeal of the Planning Commission's denial for a , Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Industrial to GeneralCommercial' and a Zone Change from Industrial-Light to 'C-3. Located at 9770 SW Scholls ` Ferry Road (Wash. Co. Tax Map 1S1 27DD, Lot 2700). Public Hearing Opened Director of Planning" & Development synopsized history of application. Discussion with Council followed regarding quality of transcript and 'how the 'Planning Commission voted. Those who testified are as follows: APPELLANTS: Terry Hauck, FC11 Associates, 1200 Standard Plaza, Portland, Oregon Attorney representing the applicant showed 7 minute tape of previous testimony given at the Planning Commission meeting. Mike McKenna, PCM Associates, 4005 SW Sixth, Portland, Oregon Summarized the land use history and noted the use that would be made of the property by Levitz Furniture. Terry Jaur_k, Attorney, summarized the Planning Commission's basis for denial and findings and explained in his opinion the proposal would be compatible with the surrounding area. He addressed the issue of traffic impact, improving site and higher evaluation for the City. John Nordholt, general manager for Portland Chain spoke in support of the zone change. RESPONDENTS: John Skourtes, 17010 SW Weir Road, testified against zone change. In his opinion, it doesn't fit in the block and that industrial and commercial property uses do not mix. "WISS EXAMINATION �. Mike McKenna Public Hearl-ag Closed PAGE 3 - COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 7, 1983 Mayor Bishop made disclosure statement stating he had worked with the legal firm and general contractor, but has no conflict of interest. CounciloriBrian -'discussed the compatibility and character of surrounding area and possible future uses. He supported the commercial use. Councilor Scheckla questioned the transcript and previous action of Planning Commission. Council continued to discuss if sometime in the future this area should go commercial. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Scott, to sustain the appeal to allow the comprehensive plan change and allow the zone change and direct` staff to prepare 'findings for final consideration. Motion passed by 4-1 vote of Council with Mayor Bishop voting NAY. MEETINGRECESSED10:35 P.M. MEETING RECONVENED 10:47 P.M. COUNCILOR BRIAN ABSENT 10. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 9-83 ZONE CHANGE ZC 8-83 GALLO'S VINEYARD/HERB MORISSETTE BUILDERS NPO #7 - .APPEAL HEARING ON-THE-RECORD. An appeal of the Planning ' Commission's denial for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low Density to Medium Density`Residential and a Zone Change from R-7 (Single Family Residential) to R-5 (Single Family Residential). Located at SW Tigard Street and SW 113th Avenue (Wash. Co.' Tax Map 1S1 34DC Tax 'Lot 2900). Public Hearing Opened Planning Director summarized history of application. COUNCILOR BRIAN ARRIVED 10:55 P.M. Discussion by Council regarding clarification of the transcript and voting by Planning Commission members. Those who testified are as follows: APPELLANTS: Andy Jordan, Attorney, 1600 SW Cedar Hills Blvd. noted history of their proposal, requesting change from R-7 to R-5 which would allow as many as 22 lots on 3.38 acres. He suggested they be allowed 17 lots in the subdivision by changing the Comprehensive Plan and approving the zone change. Councilor Brian noted this is new testimony. Andy Jordan responded this is a-compromise to attach as a condition. Discussion followed with the City Attorney stating the testimony may be allowed as it is a lessor use and the Council has the authority to grant it. The issue was raised if Councilor Scheckla had a conflict of interest as it was the opinion of some members in the audience from NPO #7 that his brother's property was included in the appeal. The applicant, City staff PAGE 4 COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 7, 1983 r G and Councilor Scheckla all stated the property under consideration was owned only by Mike Morissette Builders. The applicant, staff and Council urged Councilor Scheckla to hear the issues. COUNCILOR SCHECKLA LEFT 11:12 P.M. Hans Vatheuerof Alpha Engineering addressed the drainage problems and y ' noted a drainage plan had been prepared. He also spoke to density, transportation and summarized the areas of concern by the Planning _ Commission. ' ' RESP014DENTS Larry Jensen, SW 113th Place, urged Council to uphold the denial stating ; he was concerned regarding the drainage plan.. Theresa Ham-Ciapanno, 11660 SW 113th Place, urged Council to uphold denial d. and spoke to drainage problems: Richard Boberg, 10660 SW North Dakota, representing ,NPO #7, urged denial a ' ��•, and spoke to density, transpo"xtation'and drainage issues. uestioned the Nancy Robbins, 12185 SW Summer Street, Chairman NPO #7, q „ allowing of new evidence' and procedures as the NPO and Planning Commission . had not reviewed the new proposal. Bonnie Owens, member. of Planning Commission, 12450 Sid Summercrest Drive, addressed the drainage issue and found the findings of the Planning Commission to be conclusive. She felt the testimony given did' not meet Y the transportation criteria. Herb Morissette, Builder, spoke to drainage problems that develop after the buildings are complete. REBUTTAL: t�+; Carol Hardie, 11800 SW 113th Hans Vatheuer Andy Jordan Larry Jensen ` Public Hearing Closed Council discussed the testimony and property under consideration. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Cook, that the appeal be denied and that staff be directed to prepare findings for final consideration. V, Motion approved, by unanimous vote of Council present. 11. CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT - INDUSTRIAL USES ALONG R.R. TRACK DISCUSSION Due to the lengthy agenda consensus of Council was to consider this item' ( on November 9, 1983. PAGE 5 - COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 7, 1983 We 12. APPROVE COUNCIL MINUTES '10/10/83 and 10/17/83 Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Scott to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. ff 13. RECEIVE AND FILE: Departmental Monthly Reports Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Scott to receive and file. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 14. ACCEPT AND AUTHORIZE SIGNING By MAYOR AND CITY RECORDER: Subdivision Compliance Agreements & Performance Bonds for: Morning Hill II & III Golf Side Estates Bond Park Sanitary ,Sewer Easement for Bond Park G: F Motion by Councilor Cook, °seconded by Councilor Scott to accept and authorizing signing. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 15. AUTHORIZE PAYMENT - League of Oregon Cities Council discussed City's pro rata share of this state-aide issue. Motion by ,Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Scott to authorize payment ir_ amount of $150 as City's contribution. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 16. RESOLUTION NO. 83-102 A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL SUPPORTING BARK-WELL PRODUCTS INC.'S OREGON BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT FUND PROJECT PROPOSAL. Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Scott to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. ' 17. APPROVE FEE WAIVER TEMPORARY USE PERMIT - SWEET ADELINES Motion ,by Councilor Cook, seconded by Counc-lI r Scut to approve fee waiver. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 18. RESOLUTION NO. 83-103 IN THE MATTER OF CREATION OF AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 83-99e notion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Scott to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. PAGE 6 - COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 7, 1983 19. APPROVE WAIVER OF PERMIT AND PLAN CHECK FEE -`Tigard Sr. High School ` Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Scott to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 20. APPROVE CONSULTING AGREEMENT - COOPERS ASSOC.` Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Scott to 'approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present'. 21. APPROVE CHANGE ORDER #5 - SW 72nd Avenue LID Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Scott to approve. Discussionfollowed regarding the final amount owing DeHaas & Associates. Staff responded they will deduct. DeHaas share from the next payment u request. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 22. RESOLUTION NO. 83-104 A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD_ CITY COUNCIL APPOINTING AN ALTERNATE REPRESENTATIVE TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT POLICY ADVISORY BOARD. Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Scott to approve. Discussion by Council members regarding the alternate appointment. Director of Planning and Development stated he and his staff had conflicting evening meetings and could not attend. When the Associate Planner's position is filled in January he anticipated this person would be the alternate representative. Motion approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 23. ACCEPT 72ND AVENUE STREET DEDICATIONS AND AUTHORIZE PAYMENT: ID #k40 - Halvorson $6,174.00 ID #67 Rogers - ; 12,161.25 Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Scott to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 24. SOLID WASTE RATE REPORT Motion by Councilor Cook, smconded by Councilor Scott to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 25. NON-AGEI%FDA ITEMS 25.1 Public Hearing on Sales Tax to be held at Town Hall meeting November 21, 1983, Approved by consensus of Council present. PAGE 7 COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 7, 1983 _Q _ 1 r77. 25.2 ENGLEWOOD:PARK CLEANUP `w Mayor Bishop complimented staff and the neighborhood for the cleanup work accomplished at Englewood Park. 26. ADJOURNMENT: 12:15 A.M. 6vLc� Z� City Recorder_ - City of TFRard ATTEST: Mayor City of Tigard (DH:lw/0867A) NNW W40 W r PAGE 8 - COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 7, 1983 } TIMIES PUBLISHING Y Legal 7-6258 , . P.O.BOX 370 PHONE(503)684-0360 Notice i BEAVERTON,OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising a ® EI Tearsheet Notice City of Tigard PO Box 23397 ® i] Duplicate Affidavit Tigard, ORE 97223 ®: AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ass COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, 1, Sii-,an Pinkley being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am tho Advertising Director,;or his principalclerk,of the Tigard T;me G a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020;published at T3-gard in the aforesaid county and state;that the Legal Notice a printed copy of which is hereto annexed,was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for-1 successive and consecutive in the following issues: y - � �d Subscribsd and,-s' =to`before me th3 Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expi 3/16/87 AFFIDAVIT iS F�,r`atirer„irit�lPrrtAs�riix at3i3'fYltl"�i�taiYti�f c°,3ftfir"t .1� 5a. cE Di ?���ard�r 12? 1 ash?Yeapes Turd,0'pg -57223,or by callift63"171 L Skil-".f:1 i ovemtier Z 14333 z?-30 P.M. RS I JUNIOR i1{;HSC1f�D l %E01l7 ROt3 1€€S S GtI` A *q 3 ,STRfErj” GA" URVG4xW �► ? tart 1'.an' z tes r eht f r A 1 s�o�a�(3xarx a a1C 9 E3 P<3z Hand � pt Y i3 P3 exist CD;nmissIpn z Dd al PE3# 'JIM t9r laexVlve iplaa iendrregt L k Ax933 zona Cha s C 4-33 Gatlos- 4airdl,Herti,P-iso s 4t BtttldeFs�1�pe�ol<P1`d&tng'Carfim3a`ts 1S5 Strut isarliln tFrtllntarc Xi#i tf3'Slk et ID38fitl lilQ 1100 �SL7�r'g�aa�im.,sen W�,m�n.iim�4£aa"�lsenfa4'� ; IN"ZF MEN, ; v €jeffil • P} t NO 52 miggs- m - %F k: ry e Eh � a 'f`..; _ �-;u �-:na s r:k ys',. :. ,�,,,�r��:.� �'�.�`�",� y,�i4 '.y ,� ,�, "r �'�•_.!m'.a�� -,��v'Z» �.. k Date x,1/7/83 ff I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on t. the following item: (Please print your name) Item Description: AGENDA ITEM 7 PORTLAND CHAIN APPEAL '. HEARING ON-THE-RECORD` APPELLANTS RESPONDENTS acne, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation Al �.9✓� 7�� •_ate 3 oil (per) aa.o 7� r t I 1 3s �' ♦ � .�ee:l� t rye.:�/ v^:' Y � t. t Affiliation Name; Address and Affil* Name; Address an pfil�Y4 'Snjl1, v�'4.:i '7. ,4 + 3r*� ,a.�a,s 4;.k `�. ,.+, .... 3.s',:.- ss �, �, r',-� -.-; 1 'F Sam is.:: Yr- .. , - `°f- v.a r- F`$,.,! :-", •- ,g"g. ,. - '3`€r".s,- zv ?,�• ,«:..e a�..±:s.- ay rF,,..-.,.'} rf., -`--s "�ssz� - rK, a"S.. - -.a. F '",e55 ae�iaawma �c..•asa.�.+_::sravtc:r+c�.�ma�.�?_ .�� .. .^--^.•. To: Mayor & City Council 11/3/83 From: City Recorder Re: AGENDA 'ITEMS 7 & 8 Portland Chain & Gallo's Vineyard Appeals Just a 'reminder to bring the transcripts previously distributed to you. t £Y. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON � COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA ITEM e;. AGENDA OF: November 7 1983 ' LATE SUBMITTED: November i, _t983 PREVIOUS ACTION: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: T.U.R.A. ' REQUESTED BY: Business Meeting, ' CITY ADMINISTRATOR: --- DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: INFORMATION SUMMARY uncil in December on those steps requiring staff There are no business Tfor the month of Nov ember. Staff hopes items for URA to report to TURA and the City C attention between now and cicse out. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED usmaysassaamaes�ccasa:m.amamzxassagrsxcc _____________ r . SUGGESTED ACTION No action is necessary. - " 1982-83 YEAR END BALANCE OF ACCOUNT AT YEAR END 10-1-82----------------------- $5,169.14 1982-83 ACTIVITIES: INCOME:------------------ -----$12,792.27 , EXPENSE------------------------- 10,830.24 ' -------------- ---$).962.03 F 1982-83 PROFIT-----'-------------- --- 1 ---_-- _$7,131.11 TOTAL CASH ON HAND AT YEAR-END, IO-1-83-------- _ (Our 1982-83 profit of $1,962.03 should be compared [o our 1981-82 d�f.icit of $236,,53) E r s � x t , x. T ,j TM tag : BEER GARDEN 1981-82 1982-83 ' INCOME $2,793.00 $11,496.80 ' r: ITEMIZED EXPENSES Peanuts 80.70 - --- OLCC Permit 40.00 40.00 £', Entertainment 825.00 1,765.00 . 340.00 X20.00 Fencing 249.90' ' Security 142.00 Beer967.56 2,002.822 Tenting -0- ,190.00 Port-a-Potties -0- 150.00 , Total expenses $2,395.26 $ 5,917.72 E, TOTAL PROFIT $ 379.74 $ 5,5 9.087 (Our profit was $5,181.34 more than the previous yea;) i a s�n¢';FakT't.A`�+ H 7 F . Q r INCOME 1951-82 ` 1982-83 Dinner Dance $2,155.00 S -0- Donation from City/Chamber- 415.00 -0- Booth Rental 1,105.00 250.00 Trophy Sponsors 550.00 540.00 Chicken -Bar-B-Q 1,983.61 -0- Beer Garden 2,793.00 11,496.80 InterestIncome 472.48 265.47 Donation-Lamb-Weston 100.00 100.00 Hot Air Balloon Sponsors 200.00 100.00 G T-Shirt Sales 130,00 -0-- Placemats -0 40.00 Total Income $9,964.09 $12,792.27 (Our income was $2,828.18 more than the previous year) j ITEMISED LISTING OF 'EXPENSES 1981-82 1982-83 Total dinner dance expenses $1,685.45 $ -0- Festival Trophies/ribbons for parade 557.30 738.30 Entertainment-beer garden 825.00 1,765.00 Beer purchase 967.56 2,002.82 OLCC license 40.00 40.00 Bar-B-Q, costs 1,373.02 -0- Trailer rental 80.00 44.UO Electrical 30.87 -0- Fencing 340.00 520.00 Security 142.00 249.90 Park entertainment400.00 920.00 •f Snacks for beer garden 80.70 -0- PGE Electricity ., 314.87 -0- Hot Air Balloon 400.00 -0- Horse Drawn Wagons 600.00 -0- Tents -0- 1,190.00 Pert-s-Potties --0- 150.00 Bus Drivers -0- 105.00 r Striker=& Prizes at park =0- 120.00 Miscellaneous: Insurance 200.00 200.00 Paper. goods,printing,postage,envelopes,etc. 322.40 480.68 T-Shirts for committee membegD. 25.05 65.75 .. Advertising (placemats included) 1,391.01 599.70 Gift certificate for poster waking 30.00 30.00 T-Shirts - YUIK fun run 274.00 -0- T.A.C. (Parking) 50.00 -0- Coffee Maker 46.27 --0- Corporate Commissioner-Business Filing 5.00 5.00 P.o. Box rental 20.00 20.00 Luminite Sign -0- 30.00 Donation-Let There Be Light Committee -0- 250.00 Donation-Tigard J.C.'s -dor rvpf5 e-overeJ -0 _500.00 City of Tigard - Electric Panel 2� -0 450.00 Nitrolawn. (spraying of park) -0- 50.00 Lumberman's (mise. park supplies) -0 285.14 Bond for Parade Theme Winner 25.00 25.00 Darlene Moomaw (replace mirror) -0- 37.95 ----------------------------- TOTAL EXPENSES _ $10,200.62 $10,8301 .'24 (Wespent $625.62 more than the previous year) RMIRM t .��.�! *.:y.._ _. 'r.lm�9 w `i 'Sw'i7�""' '^ •TM A`i vC�MCT. ae... WS CITY OF`TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA.OF: November 7, 1983 AGENDA ITEM : oNrE SUBMITTED: October 27, 1983 PREVIOUS ACTION: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: TITLE 9 (Parks Ordinance Revision) REQUESTED BY: Public Works/Pa k Hard DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: _ CITY ADMINISTRATOR: _ INFORMATION SUMMARY Staff has 'proposed several changes in Title 9 of the T.M.C. as indicated in the attached Chapter 9.04. Additions are italicize, and highlited in yellow, deletions are crossed out. These changes affect: l) numbers of people allowed to reserve space (any com- bination of reservations in excess of 500 together with normal drop-in use< cannot be accommodated as to parking, garbage, disposal and rest room facilities) , 2) possibility of advance deposit for special equipment, service or anticipated damage, 3) statement of no refund of application fee, 4) house keeping change on title of lection 9.04.050 - .definition of group classifications, and 5) identification of waiver of fees standard. The Park Board has reviewed these changes and recommends acceptance of the limitation on reservations, the nor-refundable application fee and the advance deposit, but has suggested under the Group Classification Section (9.04.050 - Definition of Group Classifications) that we only retain the fee structure under Group I and III and that Group II organizations be combined into the Group III fee structure. .....aaaeac....aam.asaasaaaay,Gg�saQcasaa:aa=aaaaca=aca aaaaaaca arca_a:��:a,,sam ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Accept Park Board recommendation to change group classification retaining only two groups. Staff to return with ordinance reflecting same. .gffiawexmsaz.mm�a aaaasasmvvaaamasa ffiisasvaasaaaasaaaaaaa�a as6aamaaaacaaaaaaasaaa r<aa-csgscaaa=a SUGGESTED ACTION t Staff recommends approval as attached making fees for Group II and III equal, and only allowing waivers for. Group II organizations as highlited in,Blue (staff to return with ordinance) . TITLE 9 PARKS Chapters: 9.04 General Provisions Chapter 9.04 GENERAL PROVISIONS Sections• 9.04.010 Purpose 9.04.020 Facility reservation 9.04.030 Establishment of fees and crediting of funds 9.04.040 Refund of fees 9.04.050 Waiver of fees 9.04.010 Purpose: The purposes of these rules and regulations are to: (a) Facilitate maximum use of public facilities by ,the general,public; (b) Coordinate the use of park and recreation facilities, thus _assuring maximum opportunity for use through the convenience of advance reservations; (c) Provide facilities at minimal cost to the general public, but where exclusive use takes,place or special handling is required, to assess the `-appro- priate fees; t. (d) Coordinate the public use of facilities with maintenance, construction and other activities. (Ord. 78-13 81, 1978) . 9.04.020 Facilityreservation. In order to provide for the convenience of advance reservation of park facilities, the following procedures are adopted: (1) Formal application must be made through city hall to reserve any public park and recreation facility for the exclusive use of a particular group. k' (2) All applications shall include the name of the organization/group, the facility requested, date and time requested, name, address and phone number of person in charge, type of activity and any special requests. (3) A responsible person in charge must sign the application and be present at the function. R= (4) City of Tigard, School District 23J, Tigard Little League and Tigard Soccer Association sponsored programs shall be reserved through the Tigard field use committee. (Ord. 80-95 a 2, 1980: Ord. 80-83, 83, 1908: Ord. 7813 S2, 1978) . (5) Total reservations at any one time shall not exceed 500 people. " 9.04.030 Establ.2hment of fees and crediting of funds. The following fees shall be collected by the city administrator or his delegate and placed in the appropriate account: (1) A ten-dollar application fee shall be required for all park reservation - Y requests, and shall be placed in an account to be expended for administrative r activities. {Exr�pt�oes-arede-few-er�nmtni�cy-s�ra�ce-rarga�i�atixrs) . �` (2) A fee shall be collected for reservation of facilities in community and urban parks, as defined in the adopted par% standards and placed in a fund to be expended for park maintenance, according to the following schedule: (A) For reservation of picnic area (See section 9.04.050 for definition y. of group classifications) : Group IGroup II GROUP III Group of up to 50 people No charge No charge $25 '$ 25 Group of 51 to 100 $ 10 35 35 Group of 101 to 150 15 50' 50' Group or 151 to 250 30 75 : 75 Group ever of-251 to 500 50 100 100 (B) For reservation of special areas or "services: µ Ball field $' 10 Special opening/closing 10 (each hour before/after regular park rates) For extended use of facilities, (i.e., several consecutive days or weeks) the above fees will be charged as a weekly rate. (C) Additional costs incurred by the city because of abuse or excessive cleanup .repair (as determined by public works department, i.e., deposit for clean- ing of barbecue grates) shall be charged to the reserving group creating .the added costs. All such excessive cleanup/repair shall be documented by public works and t filed at city hall. " (An advance deposit may be required.) (U) fees for special equipment and/or personnel unknown at the time of application will be `billed to the person in charge after the activity when computa- tion is accomplished. (An advance deposit maybe required.) (E) Use of agency: facilities >for fund raising will be handled on an indi- vidual basis. ' Groups or individuals desiring to conduct fund raising activities should apply for a Special Use Permit on the planning Department application form and will be required to present their fee structure for _review. (Ord. 83-20 S2, 1982; Ord. 80-83 S4; 1980; Ord. 78-13 S3, 1978) . 9.04.040 Refund of fees. (a) Any group seeking a refund because of inability to use facilities as requested shall submit a written statement of refund request, to include: (1) Name of group, address and telephone; ' (2) Name, address and phone number of persons/group to whom refund is to be paid; (3) " The reason for seeking the refund and the amount requested. (4) In no case shall the $10 application fee be eligible for refund. (b) All refund requests must be approved by the city administrator. '(Ord. 78-13 g 4, 1978) . 9.04.050 Wa*ver-of-feea. Fd®-saat e�-shad-be-g�axted-exeeph-bp-app eva�-e£-eke pa�t�-beard-a�el-the-�iitp-adatin#e��ate�-afld-�r�-aeee�danee-fie-the-fe1�ebrg�a-standarel9 Definition of Group Classifications: (l.) Fee Group Classifications. (a) Group I. No fees; city-sponsored groups and programs, School District 23J, local youth groups, low income groups, Tigard Little League and Tigard Soccer. Association (ball fields only) 1 (b) Group II. Fees as listed under Group II in Section 9.04.030 (2) (A) , all nonprofit groups including churches, garden clubs, business and social clubs, fraternal organizations and government agencies; (c) Group III. Fees as listed under Group III in Section 9.04.030 (2) (A) , all other profit--making groups including company or corporate sponsored activities. �.. — a� Fees-£or-faei ��+-reservct en-;{6rertp-��-end-Greup-11I}-reap-be-waived (2) {3n-whole-or-in-par't}-Oft-a-diset et#enarp-bass;-far-gtaupe-su submitting-written � reqaesf-reasens-fer-a-den�a�-m���-be-€ear+arded-fie-the-agp�}eanf---'feed:-88 57-1948}. _ 3:04.060 Waiver o Fees No waiver shall be granted except, by approval of the ParT Boar• anU t e City Administrator and in accordance with the following stand- ards`: (y) Fees for facility reservation (Groups I1,& III) may be waived in whole or in port on a;discretionary basis for groups submitting written requests' detail- ing equal -value services to the community's 'park systema P CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY i AGENDA ITEM AGENDA.OF: November 7, 1983 px DATE'SUBMITTED: November 3, 1983 PREVIOUS ACTION: Continued from - ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: 115th Ave. October 10, 1983 (Interim) NO-PARKING REQUEST REQUESTED BY: Public WOrk�W o o sa CITY ADMINISTRATOR: DEPARTMENT HEAD OX: INFORMATION SUMMARY 1) Staff has received complaints from resident motorists that cars parked along - cause moving vehicles to crest the hill the curb (along the top of the hill) in the center of the roadway;, that this situation has resulted in many, near head-on accidents 2) Staff has investigated the complaints and concurs that a site distance/parking space/moving vehicle "obstruction" problem does exist. This problem is com- w pounded at night, :since'many residents park on the street. ' 3) Staff ultimately proposed marking a centerline along 115th Avenue, from Gaarde to Fonner Street, and installing a bike path along the west side thereof. Since 115th is 34 feet wide, this would eliminate parking therealong (resolving the t aforesaid problem) and would be a logical extension of the City's bike path system. ewacves�azsma:�srwm��naeccc.man=.asacea�a¢vczsa�aeaeemcroscccec=de-aamcsmc�agaxszRsaszacas�ss ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1) Consider installing bike path all along the west side, marking a centerline and identifying no parking on the east side (from,S.W. Gaarde to S.W. Fonner now. 2) Consider installing bike path, allowing east side parking and no centerline. 3) Install temporary "no parking" at problem areas and notify the property owners that all jarking will be prohibited.within one year to allow them:. the opportunity to make o her arrangements for harking at �� = a=tea=sem=ma==..sags=s.s=====_ s�s�asa�a�� skin ��.&. SUGGESTED ACTION F Staff proposes"'no parking" along the west side Iof S.W. 115th Avenue as indicated on the attached ordinance, from Gaarde to Fonner. ;s s October 25, 1983 PUBLIC NOTICE Dear Property Owner or Current Resident: The Tigard City Council will be considering parking restrictions along S.W. 115th Avenue from Fonner to Gaarde at its regular meeting on November 7, 1983. The City staff has received several complaints and observed several near accidents due to site distance problems and parked cars. This street is designated on the Tigard Comprehensive Plan as a minor collector street and also lis_designated for a future bike path. Several,options will be considered at this meeting and you should plan to attend if you wish to express an opinion. ` If you have any questions or suggestions9 concerning alternatives please con- tact me at Tigard City Hall,'' 12755''S.W. Ash Avenue, or phone 439-4171. Sincerely, Frank A. Currie, P.E. Director of Public Works FAC/dc f , i - - - �r LIM L— Y, ffl,/roru naLud,a imenneii riupercy'Owner or 11990 S.W. Viewmount 13680 S.W. '115th ; Current Resident Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 13485 S.W. 115th Tigard, OR 97223 rdon Walker k,, ,900 S.W. 115th Allen C. Wa e Thomas E. Hogue y 13425 S.W. .115th Tigard, OR 97223 13660 S.W. 115th Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Roger Gustafson: Pamela Bartley 13880 S.W. 115th Harold Cote 1338 S.W. 115th Tigard, OR 97223 13655 S.W. 115th TTigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Property Owner or Lyle Cox James Mohr Current Resident 13355 S.W. 115th 13850 S.W. 115th 13635 S.W. ':115th: 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR Eldon R. Branch Ray Sacker Gerald Daniels 13185 S.W. 115th a 13820 S.W. 115th 13615 S.W. 115th Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Thomas Van Cleave Gordon De Har Martin Hoogendam pport 13125 S.W. 115th (` 115 S.W. 115th 13610 S.W. 115th Tigard, OR 97223 11gard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Robert Rivera Bruce Clark William Edwards 13800 S.W. 115th 13575 S.W. 115th 1.3105 S.W. 115th Tigard, OR 97223 : Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 George Pulicella Alice & Earl Walsh St Anthonyzs Cemetery 13780 S.W. 115th 13535 S.W. 115th 2838 East Burnside Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Foreland, OR 97214 Alden Paterson William P. Nelson Property Owner or 13750 S.W. 115th 13530 S.W. 115th Current Resident Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard„ OR 97223 13030 S.W. 115th - Tigard, OR 97223 Larry Nichols Property Owner or Thomas Brubaker. 13720 S.W. 115th Current Resident 13485 S.W. Genesis Loop Ti.aard,- OR 97223 13490 S.W. 115th Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223~ Victor Lundin Donald L. Osborne George Riddle 13700 S.W. 115th 13475 S.W. 115th 13490 S.W. Genesis Loop Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 t _ _ �, _.. , _ ,.._...a:.., . .,__._. Jack Johnson 11440 S.W. Venus Ct, Tigard, OR 97223 William P. Moreland' 11535 S.W. Fairview Ln Tigard, OR "97223 Charles H. Taylor 11520 S.W. Fairview Ln Tigard, OR 97223 Property Owner or Current Resident 11510 S.W. Terrace Trails Dr. Tigard, OR 97223 Property Owner or Current Resident 11505 S.W. Terrace Trails Dr Tigard, OR 97223 GENESIS SUBDIVISION % Gene Kutsch Trustee 1113 S. Hill Suite K Albany, OR 97321 y z� CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON , ORDINANCE NO. 83- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND SUPPLEMENTING CHAPTER 10.28, OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL , CODE BY ADDING TO SECTION 10.28.130 TO PROHIBIT PARKING ON A POR1'ION 'OF S.W• X' 115TH AVENUE, DECLARING AN EMERGENCY AND FIXING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. - THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: 10.28.130 of the Tigard Municipal Code, relating to Section 1: That Section Rc cations where parking is prohibited at any time, be and the sasefollowsreby Io amended and supplemented to add thereto a new subsection reading X, "10.28.130 Prohibited at any time. No person Thal kind at an time parkor leave' standing a vehicle ;of any character, whether-motorizedor 'not, and whether attended or unattended, within the following definedportions of public streets and highways within the City: ' of the right-of-way of 115th Avenue Within the westerly half extending from the intersection with SW Gaarde Street n of SW Fonner to the intersectio '-Street. northerly , arized and directed to cause to Section 2: That the City Administrator be authVis. have the areas in which parking is prohibited as above set ' forth suitably � posted in the manner provided by law. Section ng prohibition is necessary to provide for 3; Inasmuch as this parki ' nt adequate site distance and safe vehicleeme welfare clearance of the public necessary and in to protect the health, safety and general4 particular, pedestrians on said street, an emergency is recognized to exist and is hereby declared and this ordinance shall become effective immediately k' upon passage and approval by the City Council. vote of all Council members present, after PASSED By , da f , 1983. . being read by number and title only, this y o Recorder - City of Tigard APPROVED: By the Mayor this day of 1483> Mayor - City of Tigard /PRD TOFAtorney (JH/dc-00405) r4 c, k , � a NOR t -0r�x 1 M w NO gt F V� � � t ��� • r ry 'v�.Y.a�` n"• l4sh�*�;� ,a .a�•ti�"�"�a:_. �-'�'`-�t"�=��`��'�f�.t-t- :.^ ,m,� - ' j+ t a�-�'"�-'�' ���'��' .. ...q �`-^� �� "in ,-. .:4.� ��x � �.�x-34 r c.caa ...�, # ",°�e`x i� ,��.� '�t'a-z.as.•s�u �f �.�. - ` , ��' '3,:;P`'r �. 'E �``3. .�•K �fi 3.�'...<.. ,?xa_.!:.�^ S ••=y a,,,.`�� kno-o^4 s. ;>a - - ,-,� k. ;: �' y �}.&'£` � g `sre'f� � ,.�j,�.�.:F� �+ �r..�ns�.ri�' ,rt <.;'-w.._t.;•.`: „_.c.-'�,s.-.. e�:.;;'`�',tY��+tea •:-Tr-+±. �....�+���.;F._s#�a +`� ,ti,.,'r_C��,.���a� `,*.,. �,. ��"$`><.._;t!°'..... .'�a��s-�`,< <;�.x mow,r,.4 - �r.._�G.�u�az�=z��:��i` ,.. � ,`�b.�a: �..c'��.tr=.�'� �'-s--.r.�.__r_Y?i:�:��.'.3�"�. zit�a�,.�s�:�-..h,.�.�..e:,:�?s-,;€; cx.+�..M"?�x�.?�;.i �.,� �z,<�z� e�;.t-c�z:�;�•:cs.+e��.��- �-�'.,���� :��t-�a�:.,.3..� r CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: November 7, 1983 AGENDA ITEM #: DLTE SUBMITTED: October 28, 1983 PREVIOUS ACTION: , Denied by Planning } Comprehensive Commission` -- Aug. 2, 1983. Remand from CC ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: P on Sept. 13, Planning Commission denied: Plan Amendment CPA 12-83 and Zone Change REQUESTED BY: ZC 9-83 ` Appeal PCM Assoc./Portland Chain PCM Associates ' ,e l DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATOR: HEAD OK: i 1 e INFORMATION SUMMARY PCM Associates have appealed the Planning Commission's denial of their application for a Comprehensive Plan Change from Industrial-light to C-3., The staff report recommended for denial. The vote by the Planning Commission on September 13, 1983 v_ was 4 - 2 to deny. f ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED . To accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission and deny the request, 4 or uphold the appeal to grant the request. SUGGESTED ACTION e � s g 5.1 SITE DESIGN'REVIEW SDR 26-79 Summerfield Shopping Center NPO if 6 A request by Realty Financial Services Co. for a modification to an approved planned development for the Summerfield Shopping Center. j Located: Corner of Durham and 99W (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 10D Lot 1902,-1906 and part of;1910).' o Associate Planner Newton made staff's recommendation for::approval as j ' requested by applicant. She: also stated she had attended NPO # 6's meeting where they had reviewed this application and the NPO supported the applicant's request. o APPLICANT'S PRSENTATION - Rick Lewis, Realty Financial :Services Co. showed pictures of the Summerfield Shopping Center and ask the Planning Commission to approve their request. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o J B Bishop, 10505 SW Barbur Blvd. S-300 supported the applicant's request citing it was a good location for general commercial use and the PD was an undue burdon. CROSS EXAMINATION AND REBUTTAL o Commissioner Moen questioned why the restriction had been placed on the project in the first place. President Tepedino recolleted that it had to do with the traffic and serving the needs of Summerfield. COMMISSION DISCUSS AND ACTION o Commissioner Edin moved and Commissioner Moen seconded to approve removal of the PD from SDR 26-79 based on staff's findings and recommendations. i Motion carried unanimously by Commissioner present. i 5.2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT'; PA 12-8, and ZONE CHANGZ_ C 9-83 PCM Asaoc ates/Portland chain Nib #__Z _ �r A request for a Comprehensive Plan Change from Industrial to General Commercial and a Zone Change from Industrial-Light to C-3. Located: 9770 SW Scholls Ferry Rd. (Wash. co. Tax Map IS! 27DD lot 1200). o Associate Planner Newton made staff's recommendation for denial to protect the industrial designation of the Comprehensive Plan. o NPO COMMENTS - No one appeared to speak.. o APPLIC'ANT'S PRESENTATION - Mr. Michael McKinnon, 400 SW 6th Ave. , explained the difference between PCM Associates and Portland Chain. Ile reviewed the history of the site and the core changes which occurred. He said he was never notified of the North Tigard Businessman Association meeting, which discussed how the property would be designated. Ile stated that the whole surrounding area PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August;;2 1983 Page ?. } .r ;f ' should be considered when evaluatingthe :proposed request.. This is a prime site for a retail outlet and would provide jobs as well as increase the value of the land. He felt Portland Chain was not compatible with surrounding land uses. 0 Lans Stout, Planner for MacKenzie/Saito Engineering addressed the . following four points: 1. Portland Chain as a heavy industrial use is not compatible ' with surrounding uses. 2. The area has charged since Washington County orginially - zoned the property.' It has become a hub area which would ' make it a suitable site for Levitz. 3. The site meets locational criteria for a Commercial designation. i 4. Levits would be compatible with surrounding land uses. o Dave Larson,Traffic Engineer, MacKenzie/Saito Engineering had done a traffic; survey and found the traffic created by Levitz would be equivalent to that created by; Portland Chair.. Also the majority of the traffic would enter from Scholls Ferry Road. 0 John Skourtes, member of the North Tigard Businessmens Association aid not support the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. He stated that Mr. Mckenna had been notified of the North Tigard Businessmens : Association meeting to discuss the Comprehensive Plan designations. for Cascade 'Blvd. Industrial area. Also there - are numerious ` commercial sites available which would be suitable for Levitz needs. CROSS EXAMINATION AND REBUTTAL y o Mr. McKenna responded that he had never received a letter from the North Tigard Businessmens Association. o Commission Moen questioned if they had acted on both pieces of property during the Comprehensive Plan process; Staff responded they had only acted on the "Toy R Us" site. o Terry Hauck,, Standard Plaza, (222-9981), applicant's legal counsel, stated the original Comprehensive Plan Amendment included the total site. Discussion followed. RECESSED $:40 P.M. (Toive staff opportunity pportunity to obtain files from City Hall.) RECONVENED 9:06 P.M. 0 Commissioner Moen stated the issue is what is the best use of the property now. He felt this would be a good site because it was close f to Hwy. 217 interchange. It has good access and controlled \ intersection. The site has access to an arterial and public ` transportation, high visakility and is compatible with surrounding uses. He stated that whole area is going through a evolution and ' Levitz would be an appropriate use. r . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 2, 1983 Page 3 'i F x missioners Edin and Vanderwood had mixed feelings. g o Commissioner Butler supported staff recommendation. Especially since all the industrial 'designation had been -lost in the TigardTriangle and the: Central Business District. Also Cascade Blvd was not development to city standards. o President Tepedino was not pursuaded that changing to a commercial designation would be highest and best use. o Commissioner Moen did not feel Portland Chain was an appropriate use . for long; term, nor ;was it appropriate to have Toys R Us isolated. Lenghty discussion followed. o Commissioner Moen moved and President Tepedino seconded for approval of CPA 1:2-83 and ZC 9-83 based on reason as -'previously 'stated. Motion failed four to one, Commission Moen votinges. y � a Commissioner Butler moved and Commissioner Vanderwood seconded for aenia"a , of. CPA: 12-83 and; ZC `3-83 -based-, on staff's findings and recommendations. Motion carried by, unanimous vote of Commissioners present, Commissioner Moen voting ncr. 5. OTHER BUSINESS o Staff stated because' of the Labor Day holiday the September meeting would be scheduled for September 13, 1983. 1. MEETING ADJOURNED 9:30 P.M. Diane M. Jelderks, Secretary ATTEST; Francis J. Tepedino, President i ; PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 2, 1983 Page 4 t.r T I G A R D P L A N N I N G C 0 M M 1 S S 1 O N REGULAR MEE'T'ING September 13,,1983 1. Acting President Edincalled the meeting to order at 7:40 ;P.M. , The meeting was held at Fowler_ Junior High School in the Lecture Room, 10865 ; S.W. Walnut, Tigard, Or. 2. 'ROLL CALL PRESENT: Acting President Edin, Commissioners Owens,' Butler, Vanderwood, Leverett and Fyre. ABSENT: President 7epedino; Commissioners Christen and Moen. STAFF: Director of Planning and Development William A. Monahan; ' Associate Planner Elizabeth Newton and Assistant' ilanner ;Hamid Pishvaie; Secretary Diane = M. Jelderks 3. Minutes from August 30, 1983, were considered. Commissioner Owens 'moved and Commission Fyre seconded to approve the minutes as submitted. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATION e. �i . ' o Chief .Adams appeared before the Commission as invited. He discussed . crime prevention through 'environmental' design and asked for an opportunityto ' apear before the Commission to give a formal' ; presentation. Staff will schedule. _ 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS _ x^ 5.1 ;O MpR HENSIVE-PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 12-83 ZONE CHANGE ZC 9-$3 PCM AsaocaatesJPortlaand Chi�in NPO # 2 A remand from the City Council to the Planning Commission for a Comprehensive Plan Change from Light Industrial to General Commercial ' and a Zone Change from M-4 to C-3. Located: 9770 SW Scholls Ferry Rd. (Wash. Co. Tax Map 1S1 27DD lot 1200) ' o AssociatePlanner Newton explained how the application was remanded back to the Planning Commission. She also made staff's recommendation for denial. o NPO CCI COMMENTS - No one appeared to speak. o APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION Terry Hauck, Attorney, 1200 Standard Plaza, representing the applicant, read a letter from Bruce Clark, a member of NPO # 2, supporting the application. Mike McKenna, 400 SW 6th, Portland, showed a video tape of the surrounding area and the site. The tape is to be reproduced and submitted to the city staff for the public record. Richard Wright, 'toys "R" Us, Kent , Washington, read a letter .into the record from Michael :Miller, Toys "R" Us, Inc. , Rochelle Park, New Jersey, supporting the application. lie concluded ` that ,a business is aided or hampered by his neighbor and they needed the adjoining property to be zoned commercial. ' Robert Figone, ;Levitz, Santa Clara, California, explained how the site would be used as a retailshowroom with no warehousing. He submitted' a copy of Levitz's annual report, before and after pictures of a remodeled Levitz store, photos of the site and area, and a drawing of the ,proposed building. ' Guy Barber, General Manager, Levitz, Milwaukie, Oregon, stated that he had been looking for a southwest site for the last_ five years. This is a :excellent location for their needs. Mr. Hauck 'reviewed the staff report noting that the history did not include adotption of the Comprehensive Plan which changed the site from Commerical to Industrial. He read a Letter into the record from John' B. Nordholt IIT, General' Manager for PortlandChain, supporting the rezoning. He reviewed the amount of vacant industrial land within the city. He reviewed staff's findings, taking exception and, pointing out inconsistancies which he did not feel were supported by evidence. He :explained ,how the.: site met the 'criteria for N. commercial retail use. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o John Skourtes, 17010 SW Weir Road, Beaverton, opposed the changed. He felt this would be breaking the block. If they changed one site they should -change the whole area. He stressed that the Planning commission is considering a zone change, not the advantages of Levitz over another use. CROSS EXAMINATION AND REBUTTAL o Mr. Hauck stated they were here to correct a injustice caused by the rezoning done during the Comprhensive Plan process. a Commissioner Owens asked staff to clarify why staff was requesting denial when the application appeared to meet the criteria for commercial retail. Also, Portland Chain was not an appropriate use for a Industrial Park zone. Associate Planner Newton explained how staff made their decision based on land use not on client use. Lengthy discussion followed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED o Commissioner Butler did not support. o Commissioner leverett favored the application as being the highest and best use for the land. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 13, 1983 Page 2 k.. u Commissioner 1Fyre telt it was unfortunatethat Toy '°R" Us was allowed s at this local it ji as it is ideal for Light Industrial/Industrial Park use. ions, he felt areas should be o Acting President Ed in had mixed emot protected from encroachment. There was a mistake made in zoning Toys "R" Us and he supported staff's recommendation. However`he did not see any problem with zoning the property commercial. µ ng 0 Commissioner Owens was.. concerned that 'mace they st rty owners designations' to commercial this would cause other prof y .. the area to request changes to commercial- She felt :this was a � difficult application to decide. : O Commissioner Vanderwood moved, and Commissioner Butler .;seconded to move for-denial--cf the applicant's request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Light Industrial to General Commercal and for denial of the Zone Change from M-4 to C-3. ` Motion carried by majority vote of Commissioner present, Commissioner Edin and Leverett voting no. I RECESS: 9:10 'P.M. RECONVENE: 9:25 P.M. { 5,2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMEND14ENT CPA 13-83 ` Carl Johnson NPO 4' a A request to amend policy 11.4.2, 11.4.2 a and b regarding the NPO # 4 area in , the Findings, Policies and Implementation Strategies ,. document. o Associate Planner Newton requested the Planning Commission review the information submitted and make a recommendation to City Council on the interpreation of the policy- 0 APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION - Mr. Johnson, 6155 SW Bonita, Lake Grove, explained how they were requesting that language be changed to enable development to occur west of 72nd Ave. . o NPO COMMENTS Gordon Martin, NPO # 4 member, stated that the NPO was in unanimous agreement with Mr. Johnson. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o Jim Miller 12918 SW 63rd Place supported Mr. Johnson's request. CROSS EXAMINATION AND REBUTTAL o Discussion followed regarding the LIDS in the Tigard Triangle and the intent of the City Council's policy language. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTLiS September 13, 1983 Page 3 - STAFF REPORT �. AGENDA ITEM 5.1 TIGARD. PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2983 - 7:30 Q.M. FOWLER JUNIOR HIGHH, SCHOOL LECTURE ROOM 10865 SW Walnut - Tigard, Or. 7 A. FINDING OF FACT 1. General Information CASE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 12-83 NPO, # 2 ZONE CHANGE ZC 9-83 REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from lightindustrialto general commercial, and zone change from M-4 to C-3. RECOKMENDATION: Based on staff's- analysis of applicable planning a policies and existing land uses, staff recommends that the Planning commission recommend to the City Council denial of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and deny the Zone' Change from light industrial (M-4) to general commercial (C-3). APPLICANT PCM Associate OWNER: Same (Mike McKenna) P.Q. Box 4162 Portland, Or. 9720$ LOCATION: 9770 SW Scholls Ferry Road (Wash. Co. Tax Map 1S1 27 DD lot 1200) LOT AREA: 3.71 Acres PRESENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Light Industrial PRESENT ZONING DESIGNATION:" M-4 NPO COMMENT: NPO # 2 is inactive at this time. PUBLIC NOTICES MAILED: Ten notices were mailed. No written comments had been received at the writing of this report. 2. Background Or. August S, 1980, the Planning Commission approved a Zone Change from Comprehensive Plan Designation industrial "M-4" to general commercial „C-3°1. On March 5, 1981, the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission annexed this property into the. City. le On April 24, 1981, the Tigard Planning Department approved; a Minor Land Partition request by the applicant to partition an 8.29 acre parcel into two lots 3.71'acres 'and 4.58 acres each (MLP 3-83) On May 11, 1981, by ordinance 81-21, the City Council ratified the above named annexation. On July '13, 1981, by ordinance 81-58, the City Council approved the applicant's request for a `Zone Change' from light industrial 91M-41°' to ; general commercial "C-311. coZoic On ;Auu N 2, `19 3, the Planning Commission denied the applicant's request for a `CPA From Light Industrial to General Commercial and a $.. Zone Change from M-4 to C-3. On August 15, 1983, the City Council 'decided to remand CPA 12-83 and ZC 9-83 to the Planning Commission for additional public tes� imony. ° 3. Vicinity Information 2` The surrounding land uses are as follows: The property to the west is >developed as Koll Business Center. Highway '217 is to the east. S.W. Cascade Avenue, SW Scholls Ferry Road ,and Tigard Times' building are to the north,,,and Toys "R" Us is located south of the subject site. �- 4. Site Information '' x There is an existing buildingon this site which houses Portland Chain Manufacturing. t B. APPLICABLE PLANNING POLICIES 1. Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1 THE CITY SHALL MAINTAIN AN ONGOING CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM AND SHALL ASSURE THAT CITIZENS WILL BE PROVIDED AN OPPORTUNITY I : TO BE INVOLVED IN ALL PHASES OF THE PLANNING PROCESS. ` UP All owners of record within 250 feet were notified by mail of ' this application. A notice was published in the Tigard Times on July 21, 1983. L 2.1.3 THE CITY SHALL ENSURE THAT INE>RMATION ON LAND USE PLANNING � ISSUES IS AVAILABLE IN AN UNDERSTANDABLE FORM FOR ALL INTERESTED CITIZENS. All interested parties are given a minimum of ten days to comment on all land use applications and are encouraged to do so. Staff is available to answer any questions on applications or the application process. N STAFF REPORT CPA 12-83 6 ZC 9-83 Page 2 { { 12.4.1 THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE THAT: b. SITESFORLIGHT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE: (`1) BUFFERED FROM RESIDENTIAL AREAS TO ASSURE THAT PRIVACY AND THE RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE AREA ARE PRESERVED. (2) LOCATED ON AN ARTERIAL OR COLLECTOR STREET AND THAT INDUSTRIAL -TRAFFIC SHALL NOT BE ''CHANNELED THROUGH RESIDENTIAL AREAS. C. THE SITE SHALL BE OF A SIZE AND SHAPE WHICH WILL PROVIDE FOR THE SHORT AND LONG RANGE NEEDS OF THE USE. f. ALL OTHER APPLICABLE PLAN POLICIES CAN BE MET. All applicable ,plan cpolicies, locational criteria and Tigard Municipal Code,provisions have been 'considered in review of this application. The locational criteria to be ;considered in determining ;a change to General Commercial are as follows: General Commercial (1) "Spacing and location (a) The commercial area is not surrounded by residential districts on more than two sides. (2) Access (a) The proposed area or expansion of an existing area shall not create traffic congestion or a traffic safety problem. Such a determination shall be based on the street capacity existing and projected traffic volumes, the speed limit, number of turning movements and the traffic generating characteristic of the various types of uses. (b) The site shall have direct access from a major collector or arterial street. (c) Public transportation shall be available to the site or general area. (3) Site Characteristics (a) The site shall be of a size which can accommodate present and projected uses. (b) The site shall have high visibility. l,. STAFF REPORT CPA 12-83 & ZC 9-83 Page 3 G 1:101 j _ ^ (4) Impact Assessment (a) The scale of the project shall be compatible with the .surrounding uses. (b) the site configuration and characteristics shall be such that the 'privacy of adjacent-non-cormnercial uses can be maintained. (c) It shall be possible to incorporate the unique site features into the site design and development plan. ociated lights, noise and activities shall not interfere (d) the ass with adjoining non-residential uses. The property is currently being used by the 'Portland Chain Manufacturing } which complies with applicable planning policies and locational criteria. 3 The proposed commercial/retail use is not <compatible with ; surrounding; nonindustrial uses (except Toys "R" Us whichis located to the south and in retrospect it seems inappropriate), which include Tigard Times o the north and'-Koll Business Center to the west, 'both of which are defined as } office and business activities and are permitted in an industrial park zone, whereas the commercial/retail use is not :allowed. Further, the applicant's argument on the ground that there is, a need for additional commercial/retail space in that are due to its vicinity to the Washington Square Shopping- Center isnot valid, < since, Highway 217 separates and ' divides these two areas and there is no direct access from the shopping , • center to the site except a visual one.- Also, the applicant's own traffic impact 'analysis shows that the numbers, of total daily trips would increase ` from 94 to 186 trips which puts additional burden on SW Cascade Blvd. , a substandard major collector. 2. TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE Comprehensive Plan Amendment - All of the requirements of the Tigard Municipal Code have been considered in review of this application. C. CONCLUSIONS The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment does not meet applicable planning policies. D. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to general commercial, based on the following: 1. Intent of the Industrial land use designation is to protect existing and potential lands suitable for industrial development from encroachment by non-industrial or incompatible uses. STAFF REPORT CPA 12-83 & 2C 9-83 Page 4 z tl � 2. There is ample supply of land suitable ` and zoned for c commercial/retail use along .Pacific Highway (99W), which may prove to be more 'desirable for the proposed use. RECOMMENDED MOTION Should the Planning Commission agree with staff's recommendation, the following motion may be made: "Move for recommendation to City Council of denial of the applicant's request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Light Industrial to general Commercial and for denial of the Zone Change from M-4 to C-3. NOTE: Should the Planning Commission not adopt staff's recommendation, findings will have to be adopted with the motion. �V PREPARED BY: APPROVED BY: S. Hamid Pishvaie William A. Monahan Assistant Planner Director of Planning and Development 1t. STAFF REPORT CPA 12-83 & ZC 9-83 Page 5 4 COMPA..T OF OREGON' The swejcn below ismode soicly for the purpose of o.,.srin� in ioco�r,9 so.d rem, rG hty for vonoi ops°;f any, in d,mensions and focohon ,sc crioined b P ses and tha Gompo'.y csc�re; by survey p a. SEE' ?AAPw_• MS Wo IS I 27D are. ` � 62 °� .. ,.�,• ®� to / ash`s' ` '•-b c MAP 9f 1,s s = ..!"�• portio � � ' 7Ct ; � r. '� •.f an loran,' �• 6 y L IIYG 41.4 DL24 A•8 ` ► - F4 CA- To PaL 'Dsltffi VA bn 7 rC.Op 11 . s' M PBr i a w � 5H -50 9 9w / 4 . o . � "' ® °'_ '� sem' C.S. $506 , SEE MAS z Is 34AA: 2742 to 51 MAP 3.' M! 11101 y- '7 OEIVED NOV - 3 1983 CITY OF TIGARD 1 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TIGARD 2 In the Matter of the Appeal of ) CPA 12-83 ` 3 } ZC 9-83 4 PCM ASSOCIATES, ) PETITIONER'S BRIEF AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT 5 ) Petitioner. ) 6 7 NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS ` 8 This is an appeal from the decision of the Tigard 9 Planning Commission in cases CPA 12-83 and ZC 9-83. Petitioner 10 brings this appeal pursuant to City of Tigard Zoning Ordinance. 11 Petitioner, owner of the subject property, is PCM 12 Associates, an Oregon general partnership. Its address is P.O. . 13 Box 4162, Portland, Oregon 97208. 14 Petitioner has requested a Comprehensive Plan amendment 15 from "Light Industrial" to "General Commercial", and a ,zone change 16 from M-4 (Industrial Park) to C-3 (General Commercial) . 17 Petitioner hereby requests oral argument in this pro 18 ceeding. 19 STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND 20 COURSE OF PRIOR PROCEEDINGS 21 1. The Property. 22 The property which is the subject of this proceeding is k: s 23 described as Washington County Tax Trap 1S1 27 DD, Lot 1200. The 24 street address is 9770 S.W. Scholls Ferry Road; the property is 25 located at the corner of Scholls Ferry Road and Cascade Boulevard. 26 PCM Associates acquired this property in 1979. Portland Pagel PETITIONER'S BRIEF AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON,WYATT, MOORE & ROBERTS Alt% Ys at Lavv 1200 Standard Plaza Portland,Oregon 97204 Telephone 222-9981 k. 1 Chain Manufacturing occupies the land under a lease and operates a 2 heavy manufacturing facility on the property. 3 2. Zoning History. r 4 The history of the zoning of this site can be summarized s parcel was zoned for industrial uses 5 briefly. Prior to 1980, thi ; dunder the Washington County Zoning Code; the property was then a 7 part of unincorporated Washington County. , In August of 1980, the 8 Tigard Planning Commission approved a plan change which designated 9 the land "General Commercial. " On April 24, 1981, the Tigard 10 Planning Commission approved a minor 'land partition which sega- 11 rated the subject; 3.71-acre parcel from a larger 8.29-acre piece 12 of property. A few weeks later, on May 11, 1981, the Tigard City 13 Council approved the annexation `of this land and zoned the prop- ? 14 erty a C-3 (General Commercial) . Petitioner agreed not to resist E 15 the annexation on the express condition that the City of Tigard 16 zone the property for general commercial uses. 17 On March 2, 1983, the City of Tigard adopted the Tigard r z 18 Comprehensive Plan. This Plan changed the plan designation of the 4. 19 property to "Industrial" and the zoning to M-4. This change of 20 the Comprehensive Plan use designation was accomplished without 21 _written notice to Petitioner, and, as a result, Petitioner had no 22 opportunity to appear before the City Council and object to the ions applicable to the property. 23 change in land use designat 24 On August 2, 1983, the Tigard Planning Commission denied 25 petitioner' s request that the plan and zoning be redesignated -z6 "General Commercial" and C-3, respectively. Thereafter, p eti- f aj;eI2 PETITIONER' S BRIEF AND REQUEST FOR ORAL, ARGUMENT SCHWABE,.WILLIAMSON, WYATT, MOORE & ROBERTS Att.—Ys at I 1200 Standard Plaza Portland,Oregon 97204 Telephone 222.9981 k. 1 tioner timely appealed to the City Council and requested that the 2 Council remand the proceedings to the Planning commission for 3 additional evidence. The matter was: remanded by the City Council 4 to the Planning Commission, which held a second hearing on 5 September 13, 1983. At the conclusion of the hearing, the 6 Planning Commission denied Petitioner' s requested Comprehensive 7 Plan change and zone change. 8 Petitioner appeals from the denial by the Planning 9 Commission of petitioner' s request that the property be rezoned 10 C-3 and that the Comprehensive Plan be amended to designate the 11 property "General Commercial. " 12 3. The Evidence Presented. 13 A. The Property And The Surrounding Uses. 14 The property is located near the Washington Square 15 Shopping Center. It is bounded on the east by Highway 217, and on 16 the west by the Koll Business Center. To the north are S.W. 1.7 Cascade Boulevard and S.W. Scholls Ferry Road. Immediately south, 18 on the other portion of the partitioned land, is Toys llRi1 Us, a 19 large retail toy store. Immediately across Cascade Boulevard is 20 the Times Building, a general office building. Doxol Substation 21 and Power Rents, both of which are wholesale/retail commercial 22 activities, are located immediately south of the property. To the 23 north are Canned Food Warehouse and the Malibu Grand Prix, as well 24 as a new retail complex in the process of being developed on the 25 Viewmaster site, extending to Hall Boulevard. See Report, 26 "Portland Chain Manufacturing, " § III; a part of the record of the Page3 PETITIONER` S BRIEF AND REQUEST FOR OPAL ARGUMENT SCHWABE,WILLIAMSON, WYATT, MOORE & ROBERTS Attorneys at Law 1200 Standard Plaza Portland,Oregon 97204 Telephone 222.9981 1 August 2, 1983 Planning Commission hearing hereafter referred to 2 as the "Report. " 3 Mr. John Nordhold, III , the generalmanager of Portland 4 Chain Manufacturing, described the surrounding area, in a letter' 5 to the Planning Commission, as predominantly commercial in 6 character. He traced the history of the area from a time when an 7 industrial classification may have been appropriate, to the 8 present day when a commercial designation would more accurately 9 reflect current uses. 10 "I support the rezoning as a recognition of 'a change in the area in which our business is 11 'located. F;hen ;the `plant <was constructed over 15 years ago, the area around it was mostly 12 rural and `consisted' mostly of farms and just 'a gr~ few businesses. Portland Chain with its heavy 13 equipment, noise and industrial look operated 4 with little or no notice in this open setting. 14 Since [sic] situations have changed dramati- cally since those early days, we find our- 15 selves as a nonconforming member of the community. The area around our plant has 16 grown to be the largest retail hub in the State of Oregon and is comprised of retail and 17 commercial establishments. There are a few true industrial users further down Cascade 1E Boulevard. However, they, as ourselves, are in a minority because of the changing area. 19 We recognized this change in our neighborhood a number of years ago and made the conscious 20 decision to sell the land and building and take back the lease for a medium term. 11 21 (9/13/83 Tr. 6) [Emphasis added. ] 22 Mr. . Mike McKenna testified before the Planning Commis- 23 sion along similar lines. He noted some of the particular factors 24 which have led to the evolution of this area. 25 "* * * the area has changed dramatically since that area was zoned industrial. It was zoned 26 industrial, I believe, under Washington page4 PETITIONER'S BRIEF AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON, WYATT, MOORE&.ROBERTS Attorneys at Law 1200 Standard Ploza Portland,Oregon 97204 Telephone 222.9981 k 1 County' s jurisdiction sometime during the early 1960s.` Since that time, of course, 2 Washington Square has come in, 217 has gone through, the area has developed as a regional 3 retail 'center as witnessed by the fact that Toys "R" Us chose to locate there. " (8/2/83 4 Tr. 4) 5 The effect of these changes has been to make this area a 6 major commercial center. The subject property, by contrast, has 7 been termed a "non-compatible industrial island" (Report § III) . 8 B Compatibility Of The Proposed Use. 9 Petitioner has requested that the zoning be changed to 10 the prior Commercial designation so that a Levitz Furniture` 11 showroom can be built on the property. 12 Bob Figone, Regional Manager of Levitz Furniture, 13 testified that his company intends to renovate the existing' 14 improvements on the property into a furniture showroom, with no 15 manufacturing or warehousing facilities. Customers will come to 16 the showroom, but all furniture will be delivered to customers 17 from a separate warehouse facility (9/13/83 Tr. 4-5) . The 18 furniture showroom will be open on weekdays from 10:00 a.m. to 19 9,00 p.m. , on Saturdays from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. , and on 20 Sundays from noon until 6:00 p.m. (9/13/83 Tr. 4) . The majority 21 of the customers of Levitz Furniture will come to the showroom in 22 the evenings and on weekends since "those are the times when 23 couples can get together to make a [furniture] purchase" (9/13/83 24 Tr. 5) . 25 Petitioner had reached an agreement with Levitz 26 Furniture to establish this furniture showroom. However, the gae5 - PETITIONER' S BRIEF AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON, WYATT, MOORE& ROBERTS Attorneys at law 1200 Standard Plaza Portland,Oregon 97204 - Telephone 222.9981 1 recent Comprehensive Plan adoption has delayed the project. , The 2 current request seeks to allow the planned development: of the 3 furniture showroom in place of Portland Chain Manufacturing. 4 In support of the proposed use, the Planning Commission 5 heard the testimony of Richard Wright of Toys "R" Us, the neigh 5 boring use, and of Bob Figone and Guy Barber of Levitz Furniture x 7 (8/13/83 Tr. 3-5) . In addition, the support of PCM and of 8 Portland Chain & Manufacturing has already been noted. Finally, 9 Mr. Bruce Clark of the NPO reported to the Commission that Iiis 10 discussions with some of the area business people revealed "little 11 or no objection" to the proposed use (9/13/83 Tr. 1) . 12 No one testified against the proposed use on any sub- 13 stantive basis. The only evidence in the record opposing the 14 return to commercial uses is the report of the Planning Staff 15 ("Staff Report") . The Staff Report recommended denial of peti- 16 tioner' s request for two reasons. First, the Staff Report indi- 17 cated that traffic would be increased by the proposed use. 1$ Second, the staff found that the present heavy industrial use of 19 the land is "compatible" whereas commercial or "non-industrial" 20 uses would be "incompatible" (Staff Report, p. 4) . Specifically, 21 the staff made the following findings: 22 1. "The property is currently being used by the 23 Portland Chain Manufacturing which complies with applicable 24 planning policies and locational criteria" (Staff Report, p. 4) . 25 However, a member of the staff (Newton) testified before the 2g Planning Commission that Portland Chain Manufacturing was in fact page6 PETITIONER' S BRIEF ANI? REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON, WYATT, MOORE & ROBERTS Attorneys at Low .1200 Standard Plaza Portland,Oregon 97204 Telephone 222.9981 1 "not appropriate" as` a use of this site (9/13/83 Tr. 12) . 2 2. "The proposed commercial/retail use is not compat`- 3 ible with surrounding non-industrial uses (except Toys R Us which 4 is located to the south and in retrospect it seems inappropriate) , 5 which includes Tigard Times to the north and -Koll Business Center 6 to the west both of which are defined as office and business 7 activities and are permitted in an industrialpark zone, whereas 8 the commercial/retail useisnot allowed" (Staff Report, p. '4) . 9 However, the oral evidence at the hearings and the visual presen- 10 Cation on videotape are all to the contrary (`see 9/13/83 Tr. 2-3) . 11 3. "Further, the applicant' s argument on the ground 12 that there is a need for additional commercial/retail 'space in 13 that are due to ,its vicinity to the Washington Square Shopping 14 Center [sic] is not valid, since, Highwav 217 separates and 15 divides these two areas and there is no direct access from the 16 shopping center to the site except a visual one" (Staff Report, 17 p. 4) . However, the evidence before the Planning Commission 18 showed the direct access available to the site (see 9/13/83 19 Tr. 2-3; 8/2/83 Tr. 5-6) . 20 4. "Also, the applicant' s own traffic impact analysis [ 21 shows that the numbers of "total daily trips would increase from 94 , 22 to 186 trips which puts additional burden on SW Cascade Blvd. , a G 23 substandard major collector" (Staff Report, p. 4) . This conclu 24 Sion is contradicted by all of the evidence in the record. This 25 evidence is summarized below in the discussion of the testimony of 7 e ?5 Mr. David Larson. pabe7 PETITIONER'S BRIEF AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON,.WYATT, MOORE& ROBERTS Attorneys at Law 1200 Standard Plaza Portland,Oregon 97204. .. Telephone 222.9981 - .. i I SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 2 There is no evidence in the record to support the 3 proposition that an adverse traffic impact would 'result from the 4 ;proposed land use. Further, all of the evidence in the record 5 indicates that the proposed use is consistent with surrounding 6 uses and would in fact be` a beneficial use of the property. The 7 staff position -- that a use is incompatible if it is not a listed 8 permitted use in an area -- is without support in law 'or logic. 9 ARGUMENT 10 1. There Is No Substantial Evidence Of An Adverse Traffic 11 Impact. 12 Land use decisions are reviewed to ascertain whether the 13 decision making body has reached a decision which is supported by 14 substantial evidence. Reviewing bodies search for "substantial 15 evidence in the whole record" when analyzing the decisions of 16 local governments. See 1979 Or Laws, ch. 772, § 4(7) , as amended 17 by 1981 Or Laws, ch. 748, and by 1983 Or Laws, ch. 827, § 31(11) 18 (Land Use Board of Appeals Review); and see 1979 Or Laws, ch. 772, 19 § 6a, as amended by 1983 Or Laws, ch. 827, § 35a(8) , (9) (Court of 20 ' Appeals Review) . Under this standard the reviewing entity must 21 ask whether the record, taken as a whole, including all contrary 22 evidence, supports the decision under appeal. See Filter vv. 23 Columbia County, 3 Or LUBA 345, 358 (1981) ; Sane and Orderly 24 Development v. Douglas County Board of Commissioners 2 Or LUBA 196 25 (1981) . In all events, a decision which is not supported by 26 substantial evidence in the record cannot be upheld.- Morrison v. Page 8 a PETITIONER'S BRIEF ANIS REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT SCHWABE,WILLIAMSON, WYATT, MOORE& ROBERTS Attorneys at Low 1200 Standard Plaza £ Portland,Oregon 97204 Telephone 222-9981 1 City of Cannon Beach, 6 Or LUBA 74, 78-79 (1982) . F; 2 Applying these rules, it becomes clear that there is not 3 substantial evidence in the 'record to: support the findings of the 4 Planning Commission. � 5 The proposed use will not create new traffic problems. 6 The staff alluded"only'to "access" problems and to petitioner's 7 own impact study which reveals an increase in the number of daily F 8 automobile trips to and from the subject property. Nonetheless, �M1 a. 9 the staff made the findings quoted above. 10 The staff analysis cannot suffice in light of several g„ 11facts supported by the Report, by the testimony of Mr. David '. s. ct, 12 Larson, ' a civil and traffic engineer (8/2/83 Tr. 5-6) , and by the " t 13 testimony of Mr. Bob Figone° (9/13/83 Tr. 4-5) . The 'current > 14 traffic to the site consists of 94 vehicle trips per day, mostly s,l:, 15 at "rush" hours due to employee commuting, with some truck traffic 16 to the factory. In "better economic times, " traffic to Portland s`s 17 Chain Manufacturing would average some 275 trips per day. By 13 contrast, traffic to the proposed use will total approximately 186 19 ;trips per day. However, Mr. Larson and the written report explain ; 20 further that: ;µ 21 _(a) This traffic would be spread throughout the day and 21. 22 on weekends, rather than concentrated at rush hours (9/13/83 23 Tr. 4) 24 (b) Virtually no truck traffic would be involved 25 (9/13/83 Tr. 4)' `+ 25 (c) The great bulk of customers would come from Scholls pago9 - PETITIONER'S BRIEF AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON,WYATT, MOORE & ROBERTS Attorneys at Low 1200 Standard Plaza Portland,.Ofegon 97204 Telephone 222.9981 i I Ferry Road where access presents no problem (8/2/83 Tr. 5) . 2 This evidence establishes that.no adverse traffic impact 3 would result from the proposed use. There is no evidence to the `f' contrary. 5 2.: There is No Substantial Evidence That A Commercial Use 6 Would Be Incompatible` With Surrounding Uses. 7 The only evidence in the record regarding compatibility 8 is that offered by Petitioner. The planning commission heard the 9 testimony of long-time observers of this area. Further, the 10 Commission observed a visual presentation of the commercial and 11 general office uses which literally surround the subject property 12 (9/13/83 Tri 2-3) . The evidence entirely supports the conclusion 13 that a commercial use: of the subjectproperty would be both 14 beneficial and compatible. 13 The staff argued, however, that a commercial use could 16 not be compatible in this area because the area is zoned for E• 17 industrial uses only. The staff concluded tautologically that an 18 unlisted commercial use cannot possibly be compatible with z• 19 "industrial. uses" (Staff Report, p. 4; 9/13/83 Tr. 12) . k 20 For several reasons, this conclusion cannot support the 21 Commission' s decision. 22 First, the conclusion is not supported by substantial �5 23 evidence in the record. Rather, the evidence demonstrates that a' 24 the surrounding area is largely commercial and has been for many 25 years (9/13/83 Tr. 5-6) . This evidence also establishes clearly 26 that no change of circumstances had occurred between the time of '. PagelO PETITIONER'S BRIEF AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON, WYATT, MOORE & ROBERTS Attorneys at Low }, 1200 Standard Plora Pomlond,Oregon 97204 Telephone 222-9981 ce Y 1 the May 1981 commercial designation and the adoption of the Tigard 2 Comprehensive Plan in March of 1983. This portion of the Plan, 3 adopted without notice' to petitioner, changed a commercial `desig- 4 nation to an industrial designation without any showing that the 5 commercial character of the property had or has changed. 6 Second, the staff errs in asserting that compatibility 7 occurs when a proposed use appears on a list of permitted uses. 8 Compatibility is not a defined term in the zoning ordinance; it 9 thus 'should be 'given its plain and ordinary meaning, Blalock v. 10 City of Portland, 206 Or 74, 291 P2d 218 (1956) . A compatible 11 use, in common parlance, would be a use that can .co exist 'harmoni- 12 ously with surrounding uses, ;regardless" of its presence or 'absence 13 on a list of available uses. 14 Third, compatibility -nust be determined by reference to 15 the standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance for proposed uses, 16 and not by reference to currently listed available uses, NOMORE v. 17 Polk County, 7 Or LUBA 1,3 (1982) . The applicable Comprehensive 18 Plan standards are enumerated in § 12.2(2) . This section of the 19 Plan defines a linear (general.) commercial use as follows: 20 "Linear Commercial areas are intended to provide for major retail goods and services. 21 , The uses classified as Linear Commercial may involve drive-in services, large space users, 22 a combination of retail, service, wholesale and repair service: or provide services to the 23 traveling public. The uses range from automobile repair and services, supply and 24 equipment stores, vehicle sales, drive-in restaurants to laundary establishments. It is 25 intended that these uses be adjacent to an arterial or major collector street. " 26 Comprehensive Plan § 12.2(2) pagoll PETITIONER' S BRIEF AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON, WYATT, MOORE G ROBERTS AttorncYs at Law 1200 Standord Plaza Portland;Oregon 97204 Telephone 222.9981 K - 3 M; a F. 1 In deciding whether a Commercial use is appropriate, the 2 Comprehensive Plan directs °attention' to both the "Scale" and k ' 3 "Locational Criteria" applicable to the proposed use. At issue in , 4 the current proceeding are the locationalcriteria. These 5 criteria are: 6 "B. Locational Criteria % "(1) Spacing and location. ri 8 "(a) The Commercial area is not surrounded by residential restricts on 9 more than two sides. h 1Q "(2) Access. 11 "'(a) The proposed area or expansion of an existing area shall not create (: 12 traffic ingestion or traffic safety problem. Such a determination shall be 13 based on the street capacity existing and projected traffic volumes,` the speed 14 limit, number of turning movements and the traffic generating characteristics of 15 the various types of uses. 1- 16 "(b) The site shall have direct access from a major collector or arterial 17 street. 18 "(c) Public transportation shall be available to the site or general area. 19 "(3) Site Characteristics. 20 "(a) The site shall be of a size 21 which can accommodate present and projected uses 22 "(b) The site shall have high 23 visability. 24 "(4) Impact Assessment. " 25 "(a) The scale of the project shall be compatible with the surrounding uses. �. 26 Page12 PETITIONER'S BRIEF P-,WD REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT SCHWABE,WILLIAMSON,WYATT,MOORS& ROBERTS ?: Attorneys otlaw 1200 Standard Plaza _ Portland,Oregon 97264 _ ., ` Telephone 222.9981 t j 1 ";(b) The site configuration and characteristics shall be such that the 2 privacy of adjacent non-commercial uses can be maintained. 3 "(c) It shall be possible to 4 incorporate the unique site features into the site .design and development plan. 5 "(d) The associated lights, noise 6 and activity shall not interfere with adjoining non-residential uses'. " 7 Comprehensive Plan §_ 12.2(2) 3 As noted, the Planning Staff asserted only problems with 9 traffic, as discussed above, and problems of compatibility with 10 nearby uses. 11 However, applying the Comprehensive Plan standards to 12 the record developed in this case, it is clear that the proposed 13 use is compatible with the surrounding area. While the Plan 14 requires only compatibility of scale -- and the scale of the 15 existing use will not be significantly altered by the proposed 16 use -- it is clear that the proposed use meets each of the 17 standards embodied in the Comprehensive Plan. 18 1. The Plan states that a commercial area should not 19 be surrounded by residential districts on more than two sides. 20 The subject property is surrounded by commercial uses; it does not 21 border on any residential uses. To the contrary, the current 22 zoning has made Portland Chain "an island within this area of more 23 moderate uses, Koll, Toys, Times" (8/2/83 Tr. 5) . In effect, the 24 Portland Chain property has been "spot zoned" by the adoption of 25 the Comprehensive Plana 26 2 . The Comprehensive Plan calls for adequate access to Page13 PETITIONER° S BRIEF AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT ?_ SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON,WYATT, MOORE& ROBERTS - A7torneYs at Low 1200 Stendwd Plaza Cortlond,Oregon 97204 Telephone 222.9981 R' 3 1 the' prop�sed use. This matter has been discussed above in § 1 of 2 this argument. It should be noted that Scholls Ferry Road is a nd will continue to, provide sufficient 3 Designated Arterial Street a 4 access to the subject property. Further, traffic at the 'irtersec s 5 tion of Scholls Ferry Road and Cascade Boulevard is controlled by 6 a traffic signal with a refuge lane for use of vehicles `entering 7 onto Cascade Boulevard (8/2/83 Tr. 10) . The property is serviced 8 by public transportation (8/2/83 Tr. 5) . 9 3. The Plan suggests that the site of the proposed F } 10 commercial use have a high visibility and be of a sufficient size ; 11 to accommodate present and projected uses. As demonstrated by the 12 visual presentation made to the<Planning ,Coirmission, the site is s 13 visible from Highway 217 as well as other major thoroughfares 14 including Scholls Ferry Road (9/13/63 Tr.. 2-3) . The site has been 15 shown to be adequate for the proposed use by the testimony of two 16 officers of Levitz Furniture, the proposed occupant of the site 17 (9/13/83 Tr. 4-5) . Further, it must be recalled that the subject 18 parcel is only 3.71 acres; the parcel is thus "on the small side" 19 for industrial use, and is definitely too small to justify desig-- 20 nation as an "industrial park" (9/13/83 Tr. 7) 21 4. Finally, the Comprehensive Plan calls for an 22 assessment of the impact of the proposed commercial use. The 23 proposed use, which is a renovation of an industrial use to make 24 it suitable for commercial use, has not been assailed on this 25 ground. Any particular problem areas, such as lighting, can be 0ti handled in the design review phase of project development. Some page 14 - PETITIONER' S BRIEF AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT SCHWAEE, NW ILLIAMSOtJ, WYATT, MOJRE & RCIEE RTS AttorneY$at Law 1200 Standard Plaza Portland,Telephone 222.99 104 T-7- _— �t 1 concern was expressed that the proposed use would "break the 2 block,," that is, create a trend toward commercial uses in this 3 area ('8/2/83 Tr. 6) . This expression misrepresents the proposed 4 use in that (1) until a few months ago, this property was appro 5 priately zoned for commercial use, as is the neighboring parcel, 5 and (2) this property is surrounded by commercial and retail uses 7 and not by a "block" of industrial uses (8/2/83 Tr. 10; 9/13/83 ' 3 Tr. 2-3) (video presentation) . 9 This analysis demonstrates that the proposed use would 10 be compatible with surrounding and nearby commercial uses. The 11. Staff position, that any use which is not on a list of available 12 uses must be "incompatible", must give way to' a more detailed 13 analysis of the, goals and criteria contained in the Comprehensive 14 Plan. Such an analysis shows that the proposed use would be 15 compatible with the subject area. Commissioner Moen conducted a 16 similar step-by-step inquiry at the first Planning Commission 17 hearing. After pointing out the accessibility of the site and the 13 lack of nearby residential or industrial uses, the Commissioner 19 found, based on the evidence, that this area has undergone an 20 "evolution" from the time that this property was "all farm fields" 21 and the Portland Chain plant (8/2/83 Tr. 10) . Having reviewed the 22 evidence, the Commissioner concluded that the proposed furniture 23 showroom would be compatible with the surrounding commercial/ 24 retail uses, and would thus be "an appropriate use" (8/2/83 25 Tr. 10) and would correct the fact that "we've created that island 26 * * *" (8/2/83 Tr. 12) pagol5 - PETITIONER'S BRIEF AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT SCHWABE,WILUAMSON, WYATT, MOORE &ROBERTS Attorneys at law 1200 Standard Plaza Portland,Oregon 97204 Telephone 222.9981.... tk t>; C== . is I Further, the proposed use should be permitted because of 2 its beneficial results to the City. Several propositions' are r 3 evident. First, the proposed use will give the City of Tigard a 4 substantial increase in assessed value for property tax purposes. ; S Second, the renovation of the Portland Chain Manufacturing plant will remove a noisy eye sore from the area (8/2/83 Tr. 4) . ai ..r, 7 Finally, considerations of fairplayand fair treatment S suggest 'that'the "City of Tigard should change the zoning; of this 9 property back to General Commercial. This property was annexed to t Z�_ 10 the City, without' objection, with the agreement that it would 11 continue to be available for commercial development. The owners 12 of the property relied on this commitment of the City without t 13 which they would have objected to annexation, because, among other 14 reasons, annexation has caused the owners to pay substantially 15 higher property taxes. This is particularly true in light of the 16 fact that the *property has been assessed and taxed at rates - 17 appropriate for commercial property. As Commissioner Vanderwood 18 pointed out, the owners of this property clearly "banked" on the 13 City honoring its commitment (8/2/83 Tr. 10) . a;- 20 The same is true regarding Toys "R" Us, the neighboring 21 commercial use. This company purchased its land and built its 22 store in reliance on the commitment of the City to maintain the 23 commercial zoning of this area. This company has spent "millions 4Y 24 of dollars" to develop a retail store because the City of Tigard 25 Planning Staff recommended that a furniture store be built on the 26 adjoining property and then recommended that the City pass -- and p,1ge16 PETITIONER'S BRIEF AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON,WYATT, MOORE& ROBERTS Attorneys at Low 1200 Standard Plaza Portland,Oregon 97204 Telephone 222-99&1 '`,'• I the City did pass -- the necessary zoning ordinance in connection 2 with the annexation (9/13/83 Tr. 3-4) . 3 The proposed use is both compatible with surrounding 4 uses and mandated by its benefits for the community and by the 5 past commitments of the City and the property owners. b CONCLUSION 7 The decision of the Tigard Planning Commission is not 8 supported by substantial evidence. The zoning and Comprehensive 9 Plan designation of the subject property should be returned to 10 their former Commercial status to allow the proposed compatible 11 and beneficial use. 12 SCHWABE, W I LL I`AMSON, WYATT, MOORE &'' ROBERTS 13 14 By. 15 rry C Hauck,40SB# 7107 Of Att rneys for Petitioner 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 �.. 26 Page 17 - PETITIONER' S BRIEF AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT SCHWABE,WILLIAMSON, WYATT,MOORE&ROBERTS AftorneY%at Law .1200 Standard Plow Portland,Oregon 97204 -z `Telephone 222-9961. LJ mom=I a t MEMORANDUM To: City Council 10/26/83 From: City Recorded , Re: Portland Chain Comprehensive Plan Aniandment CPA 12/83 Zone Change ZC 9/83 - NPO # 2 Appeal of Planning Commission's Denial The above item is scheduled for a public hearing on November 7, 1983. Enclosed for your review and study is a copy of the transcript of Planning Commission meeting minutes of 9/13/83. a i /03 > Page 1 of 13 APPEAL - PORTLAND CHAIN CPA 12-83 ZC 9-83 � I Edin: We will move to Item 5.2 please. May I have the staff report and recommendation. L Newton: This is a request for Comprehensive Plan amendment from Light Industrial to,General Commercial and a Zone Change from M-4 to C-3. The c property is located along Cascade Blvd, and it is the Portland Chain site which is right north of Toys 'R' Us. There is some vacant lard up here, the area designated for Light Industrial and e M-4. -The it isebasicallyiseToyspeR' as Light Industrial-Industrial Land Use type, y p t Us which is 'a commercialsite. That land was rezoned back in 1980-81 to to lop the Commercial to suit the needs of the people who were goingindustrial Toys 'R' Uv site. -The staff feels that, the area being primarily and the existing uses in the area being industrial, thatthat ant points lout hthat sthere 1on which should be protected for that area. The app are commercial uses across Highway 217, Washington Square. The staff feels w that 217 is a good divider and: buffer and that character does notcarry over � into' he Cascade Industrial Park as is known by the peoplewho own and operate ' businesses in that area. The staff would;recommend that the Planing Commission recommend a denial of this request :for Comprehensive ;Plan Amendment and forward that recommendation of denial to the City Council and also deny the zone change. Edin: Is there an NPO on the denial? or a CCS°? Is the applicant present? � McKenna: Good evening Council members, Mr. Chairman, and Commissioners. I am Mike McKenna.. I ain with Simco Properties. Simco is a management group that handles the affairs of various partnerships. I want to make a distinction tonight. There is also Portland here, It is PCM Associates who is the applicant , d I will go into that just Chain Manufacturing, which is a different entity, an a little bit so that we keep "the characters straight of who's who. PCM Associates is a group of limited individuals in the area who for a general partnership and invested in this land back in 1979. Portland Chain is a heavy manufacturing facility which has no connection with PCM Associates other than to lease the facilities that are on the land right now. I have other people with me tonight who will follow my testimony. They are a group of individuals I put together to present this. They are MacKenzie/Saito in the form of Lans Stout, Land Use Specialist, and Dave Larson, who specializes in Traffic, and Mr. Terry Hauck of Schwabe Williamson, who is an attorney who has a specialty in land use planning. I will go into a number of different points, trying to keep them brief, and these gentlemen will follow behind me. 1, PCM Associates, the owners of this land, purchased the land back in 1979 from Webster Industries, who owned Portland Chain Manufacturing, This is where the confusion gets into it, but we own the land ,and the buildings that are now called Portland Chain site. We also used to own the land that is Toys 'R' Us. We approached the City of Tigard back in 1980 for a zone change, and in a series_ of discussions and negotiations arrived at a zone change to C-3 for the entire parcel which is a little over 8 acres and agreed to the annexation within the City of Tigard which became a matter of record in 1981 with the City ordinance, and I believe it was August sometime in 1981. This was done by PCM to facilitate what they ( believed the highest and best use of the land was, and this Commission. not necessarily these members, but this Commission, approved the zoning of C-3 back in 1980. The reasons that the Commission chose to approve of that are still valid today, and my associates a APPEAL PORTLAND CHAIN CPA 12-83 ZC 9-83 Page 2 of 13 4 f x' will, go over those reasons and get into them in more detail a little bit later. The change did happen. We negotiated the sale of approximately half the parcel of land, the south half of it towards us, with the condition ''that'it be -zoned'C-3. 'Once the zoning was accomplished < ' Toys "R" Us built the facility that is on the site right now, but they built it with the understanding that the adjoining property, the PCM site, was zoned C-3 and would become some_kind of retail ' k establishment in the future. Now there is a lease on the land for _ Portland Chain site that Portland Chain Manufacturing has with us, r and it has its term yet to run, and then we have the right to exercise what- ever powers to eitherre-negotiate the lease, or they can choose to leave, but Toys "R" Us did build the facility and continue to operate. We, in the form of myself, offered the remaining parcel ' of land for sale this last spring, put a big sign up on the Portland Chain site "For Sale, Zoned C-3" and entered into some very serious negotiations with Levitz Furniture Company out of Miami, and that's, their headquarters. After '4 months of some fairly,intense negotiations we arrived at a final earnest money agreement which contained the standard contingencies for checking on zoning and land use and financing and the building facility and what-not. In their investigation Letitz called me in a panic one Friday in early June and said that the zoning is not C-3, it M-4. That was the first indication that we had that in fact our C-3 designation had disappeared. We then, after ; a few startling'moments, approached Bill Monihan to find out what r had happened and' we learned that during the fall and winter the Comprehensive Land Use Plan had been discussed, approved, adopted, and that's all fineexcept ;that we never knew about it. Now, the proper notice 'did go in the newspaper, and I have no great argument t; with that. I''live in Tigard, But PCM has other holdings'in-Tigard. We have t%70 large apartment complexes right down the street. We are interested in the community, and we do follow it, but we just didn't happen to read that newspaper, I guess, that day, and we missed any input, nor did the staff make any approach to this ownership soliciting input as to a change. We ended up without a C-3. We are, to my knowledge, the only parcel adversely affected (adverse from our position, please understand), and we just feel that it would have been proper and judicial to have at least gotten our input. They solicited input from another group, the Tigard Business Association,' but their input wasn't in keeping with our intent or use for the land. Nonetheless, it was there, so after more discussions with Bill, he advised that we approach the City Council and ask for . permission to submit a zone change and plan change which is why we are here. That leads us to this event. I've gone through the City Council. We're here tonight. We employed MacKenzie/Saito to prepare and update the Frank report which was done in 1930 which was the basis for our submission at that time. They have done that. I believe you all have a copy of that report. We feel that the reasons and input that were valid then are just ever so more valid right now. The land in question is at the very north end of the City of Tigard. I can't believe that we can ignore the surrounding territory. 21.7 they said was a buffer. It's a road that goes through the middle of a community. Part of it is Washington County, part of it is Tigard, part of it is Beaverton. There is a large regional shopping center and large retail use there that we are in fact as owners of that land part and parcel. of that community. APPEAL - PORTLAND CHAIN CPA 12-83 ZC 9-83 Page 3 of 13 The adjoining properties aren't all industrial. Koll Business Park is far from being industrial. It is a wholesale/retail/small business/ light industrial type of thing. Golf clubs are made 'there, things like that but they aren't, it isn't "Industrial."" The people/landowners; down the Cascade are a mixed variety of landowners and users which Lans Stout will address. We feel that the user/owner, Levitz, that we have:been fortunate enough to come in contact with, is an;excellent user/owner for that parcel of land. It is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, `compatible;with 'Goys "R'" Us. It is a good owner. Levitz has a good reputation. We have nice plans for that facility. They have chosen that site above any other site and don't want to lose it, but they are getting up against'a time schedule. They ,want to get this done, sit down with the Chain people, negotiate, do something, end up with possession of the land without the 'lease and get the store in operation. The'store, is a retail sales store. It is not a wholesale facility Per se and certainly isn't a warehouse. They have their warehouse over on 205, -1 forget exactly where, and that will remain their major warehouse. They have identified this site as their,prime site that they want to use for this regional area for sales, but;they are against a'time«line. We;were supposed to have closed this transaction in late June. We obviously have missed that date and keep pushing on. They haven't finished any great schematics of the building simply they don't know whether they can take possession of the land or not. It will be a typical Levitz store which is done well, appointed well, run well. It is a good employer for the City of Tigard. It increases the land value for tax'purposes that are derived from that, not to the detriment , of anybody else but in fact to the value of the city and the other citizens. The Portland Chain site that is there `(manufacturing site) right now is a heavy industrial manufacturer. It has been there for an awfully long time, long before the rest of the civilization caught up with it in the present use that's there right now. It isn't compatible in our eyes. We don't feel it is compatible in as far as land use planning. It is something that existed before and has been outdated by the growth of the community. Toys "R" Us (their regional man from Seattle could not attend tonight, back in Fort Lee, NJ at some conference on toys, I suppose, but he wanted me to convey the fact that they are not happy with the prospects of living next to a chain plant). They bought it thinking there would be a retail facility there, and at this moment that is an impossibility under the zoning. They had a zone change that they were not aware of either. They went to C-5. They haven't fully understood the impact of that, and that's their business, but I'm sure you'll see them in =she future. In summary, our timing is critical. We have to do something with Levitz, or they will move on. Now, the staff report- suggested that they move to Highway 99. I have spoken to Levitz, about this, and I can assure you they have no interest in it. There isn't anything about Highway 99, it is about location, and they absolutely want to be in the hub of that Washington Square (and I use that as the identifier) source, and that's the site they want. If they can't have it, Lord knows where they'll go or what they'll do, but it has to be a major error. We feel that we have cooperated with the City of Tigard, and initially, of course, we were shocked and bewildered and wanted to stand up and throw rocks and do all the other things that people do APPEAL - PORTLAND CHAIN CPA 12-83 ZC 9-83 Page 4 of 13 ( when they feel injured, but the process istocome before you, submit the proposaland hope that reason will prevail, as it did , back in 1980. We have every reason to believe that Levitz is an asset to the community and a good use for the lan6, and again the reasons back in 1980 mean justthatmuch more right now. And now Mr. Stout would like to carry on. STOUT: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. My name is Lans Stout. I am a planner for MacKenzie/Saito in Portland. I would like to make several comments tonight and address 4 general points which I think Mr. 'McKenna initially hit upon. The points I'd like to make are not intended as restatements which were in our transcript and I don't want to regurgitate and waste your time right now, but'I think it ;is important to catch these main topics. First, from a 'planning standpoint, it is our position that Portland Chain, as it now_exists, incites heavy industrial use, and as it is defined in the Tigard Comprehensive Plan (I believe it is Section 12.4): "Light industrial uses are ,generally compatible with other non-industrial uses and have no offside effects." I think if you are 'familiar with Portland Chain and how they go about making ;the large, heavy product they make, it involves some pretty heavy duty equipment--forges, presses, punches,-;etc.- and -there is a certain amount of noise associated with that kind of activity. Also, it requires a-lot of stuff sitting around;outside, and aesthetically it may not be as pleasing to some audiences as some 'other 'kind of activity. Therefore,, we conclude that it is heavy industrial use, and `therefore it is not compatible with its surroundings as it may have been initially when they rezoned. Secondly, the area has changed dramatically since that area was zoned industrial. It was zoned industrial, I believe, under Washington County's jurisdiction sometime during the early 1960s. Since that time, of course, Washington Square has come in, 217 has gone through, the area has developed as a regional retail center as witnessed by the fact that Toys "R" Us chose to locate there. They are a regional or at least a sub-regional activity. They don't have a store in every community shopping center. They are dependent upon the buyer/consumer who comes from more than just Tigard to shop at their facility. Likewise, the facilities in Washington Square, the office complexes going up on the Greenburg Road area, Koll Business Center, to some extent, is the same way. I believe that the development in the Southern Pacific Industrial Park to the north would be in that same realm of things, so there are uses which depend upon a larger area than just this immediate community. That is exactly why Levitz would like to be on this site. As Mr. McKenna indicated, their warehouse is maintained in Milwaukie. They are not storing furniture on this site, it would be a showroom with sales personnel and adminis- trative personnel, and they will depend upon the regional consumer x. market to come to this site. Therefore, they are dependent upon being in an area which attracts that type of flow as that type of consumer pattern.- That is an important point because I believe the staff report implied that our p position is that there is a need for more commerical in the area because of Washington Square. There is a subtle distinction there. It is not a need, necessarily, however, it is an opportunity. APPEAL - PORTLAND CHAIN CPA 12-83 ZC 9-83 Page 5 of 13 to take advantage of this regional attraction and to provide activities like Levitz,and Toys "R" Us, and as Mr. McKenna indicated, Levitz has looked at a ,lot of other sites in the area and found none that is suitable, given that kind of 'criteria. Third, from'a more technical standpoint, this "site meets locational criteria for commercial as defined by the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. . It is adjacent to major collector, has direct access to a major collector, it has no residential neighbors, it has access to public transportation, it certainly has high visibility, and we believe that with Levitz there it would be compatible with the adjacent businesses. -Fourthly, my last point, is that Levitz would be compatible with its surrounding neighbors. To emphasize that' I would like to show you . I have several copies here and will set them on the table. (displays map) This is 217, Washington Square, Scholls Ferry Road, the site in question here with Cascade 'Avenue' in this location, the Times Publication office building'`located here directly across Cascade from Portland Chain in the 'triangle. To the south we have Toys "R" Us the propane facility (inaudible, rustling of map) Immediately across the track is the Koll Business Park and there is additional bank over in this area. The SP Business Park is over in this area and the Datsun facility and warehouse and creek. In looking at this from the standpoint of relationship of land uses and compatibility, Portland Chain stands out as an island within this area of more moderate uses, Koll, Toys, Times, what may occur over here and Washington Square It is easy to isolate because (inaudible) and I believe that on that basis the;conclusion will be reached that it ;will be compatible. This concludes the points I'would '.like to make on planning. I believe Dave Larson has a couple of points on traffic. LARSON: Members of the Planning Commission, my name is Dave Larson. I am a civil and traffic engineer with MacKenzie Engineering in Portland (change of tape) Portland Chain within the neighborhood of 94 vehicles per day, including employees and service trucks. The: projected vehicle trips for the Levitz facility would be in the vicinity of 186 trips per day. In discussing the matter further with the Portland Chain we find that in better economic times they could expect up to 100 factory employees and 30 office employees. That would involve in the neighborhood of 275 trips per day. Assuming no shift changes during the 4-6:00 p.m. peak hours the Levitz facility would get roughly 44 vehicle trips in that 2 hour period. That relates to about 1 vehicle every 3 minutes entering or exiting the site. In comparison PCM ? should generate approximately 41 employee exit trips at their (inaudible) PM peak hour. Therefore the impact on street capacity would express this vehicles in PM peak hours roughly equivalent between the two. That is assuming that Levitz would generate their traffic on an even basis throughout the day, however, they are going to have a peak at their opening and closing hours which are 10:00 a.m. opening and 9:00 p.m. closing from their employees who enter in the morning and leave in the evening. As is true of Toys 11R°' Us the majority of traffic entering to the �. Levitz facility would enter from Scholls Ferry Rd.,--estimating that in the vicinity of 60-80% of their customer traffic would come from Scholls Ferry Rd. and thus would impact a very short length of Cascade Avenue. By offsetting the peak hour traffic demand the mix of zoning uses, . i APPEAL - PORTLAND CHAIN CPA 12-83 ZC 9-83 page 6 of 13 lr industrial and commercial, allows the most effective use of the access capacity on Cascade Avenue. 'Industrial use on top of the industrial uses will continue to keep down the AM and PM peak hour traffic,'problems. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone who will speak against this proposal? SKOUTES: My name is John Skourtes. I have no vested interest in this argument'. I am against it. We are talking about a: zone change. We're not talking about conditional use. We're talking about a zone change,` and I'm here strictly to maintain the integrity of the planning process. I want to ask staff a couple of questions. My testimony is two wrongs do not make a right. All we are talking about, ladies and gents, is economics. These people bought this property. In other words, anyone can come here and say, "You have to change something cause they are going to loss a million dollars." Well, it's all economics. That's what a zone change is all about. These people, if,you read this file, they bought the place, in fact the parcel where Toys "R" Us is at and we've got to get back to some history. That's why we're here tonight When Toys "R" Us was purchased, that property was for 'sale prior to that time, and everyone knew it was M-4 zone. It was no secret. All you had to do was inquire. It was listed by Norris Beggs„and various realtors. It was listed for $1.50-$2.00 a foot. They turn around and get a zone change and sell it for $6 a foot. It is the American way to make money, isn't it? From $2 to $6' Nothing'wrong. ` How did they get the zone change? Well, you remember. We had Barclay as City Manager. We had Howard. Howard ran the City of Tigard. If you go back and look at all your maps, Tigard had a comprehensive zone map. ., That was always M-4. Next thing we know, we do some razzle-dazzles and we get a zone change. We break the block. What does it mean, breaking the block? Once you break the block and put in commercial, commercial and industrial is not compatible. Mr. Larson is a civil engineer. He is not a traffic engineer. He comes out and rattles off some figures. I can rattle off some figures. ,Once you change that zone Levitz might go broke tomorrow. Eight years ago Levitz almost went broke. Their stock was down to $3 a share. You change that zone to commercial, we could have another Washington Square over there. Once you break the block, let's face it, you might as well push out all the light commercial accounts. Secondly, the M-4 zone for the City of Tigard is most lucrative. You can have some retail, you can have office buildings, you can high light commercial. They use the argument we have heavy industrial with General Chain. OK, maybe they are heavy industrial they have the lease until 1989. They can stay there and make all the noise they want. Nobody is complaining. See the problem is two wrongs do not make a right. No. 1, Mr. McKenna was sent the letter by North Tigard Business Association, which belong to, and we had the planning people over there to tell us about the new comprehensive plans. Everybody knows we have been working on comprehensive plans for the last year. Now he is going to say that nobody notified him and he didn't happen to read the paper that day. That's nonsense. How many meetings has the Planning Commission had on comprehensive plans. We just adopted two months ago and now we're going to start changing ---t already? That's poppycock. Let's get down to summarize :it. I could bring in here planners, and I could have hired guns and they could tell me this is not good planning, and I could have traffic counts, but that's not how the game is played, and I believe in the integrity of the system. r WL N KE APPEAL PORTLAND CHAIN 'rCPA 12-43 ZC 9-83 Page 7 of 13 I agree at times I wonder if it works, but two wrongs do not make a right. These people knew that when they got that Toys IV' Us they were told and was 'fully aware that the rest of the zoning was M-4. He can't say now that all of a' sudden overnight .we changed the zone. We didn't change the zone. How long did the plan take? 6 months, 9'months? How many meetings? He says there was no other location available. Well, apparently G.I. Joes is not going to'build. They must have found another location. s I had heard ,that was the only location they could go on down`-on-Main St.. There's Kruse Way, you have the Southern Pacific;parcel across the road.` That isn't an argument that there is no other location`available. That's nonsense. That isn't for you to worry about. That's the marketplace blame. That's the only place in Washington County for Levitz. I mean that isn't even an issue. In summation, the M-4 zone that property is zoned for they can put s in a little office building. They can put in a'Koll Center. They can do a lot with that site. Economically they can put offices worth about $3; a foot. I guess if they sell it to Levitz they'll get $6 a: foot. Again a' we are talking economics but we still have an integrity of the planning { process and we cannot make exceptions. CHAIRMAN: Any parties wish to speak against this proposal?` Now is an opportuity for cross-examination and rebuttal of any of the evidence and testimony, presented tonight. Are there any questions on cross or rebuttal? ` Mc'KENNA: I would just like to make a few comments. The lease for the Chain y site does go to 1989. At the election of the landlord it can be terminated 3� within 2 years by written notice. So, Portland Chain is in a precarious = position and that's for 'their own determination a matter for the landlord. . We were not invited to participate in the input by the North Tigard x. Business Association which we were last winter. We did not receive a letter, and that's a matter of record, and Mr. Skourtes' initial comments of the fast one 1 take as a personal front. The 1980 process was done properly through the Commission, through the Council, through the whole proper channel as is this one. We just follow the rules. Thank you. + CHAIRMAN: Any other questions on process? ' ?? (1ornlh*,t'5510116 One question in my mind. When the Commission acted on the Toys "R" .' Us parcel and made that C-3 did they also act on the parcel adjoining? MUTON: No, the ordinance in 1981 that we looked up just is for 4.5 acres, according to the ordinance. HAUCK: My name is Terry Hauck. I am an attorney. I practice law at 1200 k" Standrad Plaza, Portland. the partnership of Schwabe Williamson Wyatt Moore & Roberts, phone number 222-9981. The intitial zone change back in 1980-81 was for the total site. That included both the facilities upon which the Chain plant is presently located and also the Toys "R" Us site. At the present time Toys "R" Us is a C-5, and through the Comprehensive 9.; Planning process the Portland Chain site existing parcel right now is changed back to the industrial use, but the initial zoning was for theF_ total site. I may have misunderstood. - I thought there was a comment from y � the staff that only Toys "R." Us rrE14TON:There were two zone changes. s b F k, A,ppFAL - PORTLAND CHAIN CPA 12-83 ZC 9-83 Page 8 of 13 4 HAUCK: Well, no, it was consolidated because the 'zoning was changed before the land was partitioned. ??s-Wv , Right, and then it was changed again. i g HAUCK: In the Comprehensive process. ?? No, it was changed again after that. HAUCK: No, The sequence was that there was a zone change t, andhat the time annexation. Then there was it came inat was the to the cityioved he annexation it came into the city and the city adopted and app.' , at that time the zoning came on under the commercial category and immediately after thereafter it was partitioned. F ?? The partition occurred before the ordinance was ratified by the City �+ Council on the annexation. The annexation ordinand�signated theollection J' and according to the staff report that we wrote, ` property'M-4. That apparently wasn't the original intention. So the zone change was adopted about a month later to change it to the ys "R" Us is to a commercial designation. commercial pardon where To (inaudible sentence discussion between 2 members)' HAUCK: It did not fall through the cracks. We were very concerned about s zoned C-3. The documents s�fmontha it was C-3 because I have lthat that, and the whole site wa ookeri' at them just in the p` ?? I just wonder why there was a diversity of opinion. Q HAUCK: it is the first that we've ever heard that that site was not in fact C-3 all along. is researching that cross-examination CHAIRMAN: , Any other questions while the staff . or rebuttal or (inaudible)? (Sound of the rap of the gavel). Let's take a 10 minute recess while the staff looks this up. . . Let us re-convene have the Planning Commission meeting. Let the record reflect public hear ng doDuring sufficient members of the Commission to conduct-a public hearing. the temporary hiatus of the meeting we asked the staff to do some research. Has the staff uncovered any of the documents that would be appropriate to enter into the record. Id be helpful for me to go over the background, You have NEWTON:Perhaps it woufront of you notations on ordinances. On August 5 the Planning in rove a zone change from M-4 to C-3. That was t Commission did indeed app ' for parcel that is now both parcels, It is two parcels now. It was one parcel. C „?'�ica For the entire property. 1:4EWTON:The 8 acres. On March 5 the Portland Metropolitan Area Boundary Commission annexed the property into the city. arOtition1creating�2Planning parcels.D1On�May 11 approved a minor land ;, torP the City Council ratified the annexation. This occurred after the minor land partition. When the City Council ratified the annexation they set an M-4 APPEAL - PQRTLAND CHAIN CPA 12--83 ZC 9-83 Page 9 of 13 zoning designation on the whole area which included these 2 parcels. On May 24, which is not in your notes a Site Design Review was approved ;by the Planning Director for Toys ''R" Us under M-4. ' On July 13 the Ordinance 81-58 adopted by the City Council approved the request for the zone change from M-4 to C-3 on both parcels. The reason that I was under the impression that it was only the `1 'parcel is the ordinance only speaks to 1,parcel, 1 tax lot, which was the original tax lot number. Of course when this was approved it was 2 tax lots, ,and they had different tax lot numbers, but the map clearly shows both`. pieces and speaks to the original tax lot number which was the whole'8 acres. Then when we were going the Comprehensive Planning;process most recently Jeremy and myself made the determination that Toys "R" Us was developed as a,'' commercial use to make it so as to be conforming to its zone. We decided that it should have a C-3 designation, and with the input fromthe ` North Tigard Businessmen's Association, that we should have the remaining property be M-4, which does relate to a change for that northern piece' which had not been developed, or Portland Chain. ?? But that's still M-4 even with this last step, if I understand what you're saying. NEWTON: No. It had been changed on July 13, 1981. rmYntS ? You said that when you were reviewing this with Jeremy that you changed Toys "R" Us to C-5. The C-5 designation ac opposed to C-3 for'my clarification, ( 9tWTON:It's retail commercial. However, I would like to point out (excuse me, highway commercial) and we felt that would be more compatible with industrial. rather than retail'. I would like to point out that the new Development Code` eliminates C-5 in the zoning designation. Everything will be C-3, so that point's new there. CHAIRMAN: Does that information modify at all your recommendations to the Planning Commission? NE43TON:No. We still feel that the designation adopted in March and again in May to change that, property to light industrial M-4 is more appropriate. CHAIRMAN: Now we are still in empirical cross-examination. I would like to re-open the public hearing because of the new evidence for cross-examination and rebuttal only. Is there any cross-exam or rebuttal to any of the testimony presented tonight including the latest information. (gavel) We close the public hearing. Commissioner Edin. EDIN: I have mixed emotions. MOEN: I don't know if I share the mixed emotions. I was a party to the original decision. I think what we're here to decide in part really is not, and I think the staff probably agrees with me from this standpoint, we're here to decide what the best use of that property is. Certainly in light of what has happened in the past, and that might have some bearing on it, but primarily what is the'best use for that property and what is appropriate. My feeling is that I don't concur with the staff that the M-4 is appropriate in that area. I think it is an ideal C-3 site, and I think it is appropriate for it and I would like to outline the reasons. APPEAL - PORTLAND CHAIN CPA12-83 ZC '9-83 Page 10 of 13 Highway 217 is a major highway section. We have a good interchange in both directions now. We didn't have that before when it was made into the other type of zone. ' We have good access. We have a lighted intersection here,' controlled intersection both ways. From the standpoint of does it create traffic congestion or traffic safety I don't think it does, I think it is appropriate.' Is it surrounded by any residential areas? It is not. It does have access to a major collector arterial. Does it have direct access to public transportation?'' There is a bus service going back and forth. -I think that does .the site have a high visibility? I think 3cholls Ferry Road is just, coming into its own. and as this *chole area develops there is an awful lot of traffic back and forth that is going to be passing the site. I think Washington Square is a regional center. I don't think Tigard can ignore what is - going' on in Beaverton and what is ,going on over here in Washington County. I think that has impact`.in this area. In terms of Beaverton this building here now is a warehouse<building/food store and the Datsun thing'. I think the warehouse food is indicative of what's happening in the area. w Up here we've got the Malibu Grand Prix, whichisthe type of use that involves a fair amount of traffic and people coming and going, etc. The GAF property is the property that in the past was industrial property. The plans now, as-1 understand it, are to convert that into a shopping area possibly with a hotel complex and there are a lot of things that have been discussed. But that property in a sense has a history very similar to Portland Chain. It was developed out here when there wasn't anything around, and now it's going, through an evolution, and the planning process in part is an evolution. At one time Portland Chain area was all farm fields, and where I live is a farm field. I think it is going through a change.' Particularly this section here has good,highway access and I think it has excellent view from the highway here, and I think it is an appropriate use. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Vanderwood. VANDERW00D: Boy, he gave a good presentation. I have some real mixed feelings about it. I thought that Toys "R" Us was inappropriate when that went in there, but I do have some problems about the fact that he was given a C-3 and now he doesn't have it, and obviously he banked on that fact. Although economically that shouldn't concern us, but it is a real mess. I don't know. CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Butler. BUTLER: I don't have any mixed emotions. I agree with the staff. Going back to locations criteria, it fits for the industrial uses like it should be. It's real near a railroad, and after seeing all the land that got taken out of the industrial use go by-the-by in the Tigard Triangle and the CBD, I think it would behoof us to keep any industrial land we have left as industrial. Also I see comparing the use of the job being tacked under economy. They could probably close at any time but I'm seeing now there would be upwards to 100 jobs there as compared;to Levitz, and I think there was a mention of 37 or 44 jobs. I also don't think that Cascade is that great of a road for any big increase in traffic APPEAL - PORTLAND CHAIN CPA 12-83 ZC 9-83 Page 11 of 13 and people coming in and out. That's secondary really. The only thing I haven't covered that should be left up to the marketplace' is the cost of the property per square foot. TEPEDINO: I think'there` is a lot of change going on in that neighborhood, and I think part of :it is the changing conditions of the roads and the expansion of Scholls and other things happening in the immediate area. My problem is with the roads, as mentioned by Commissioner Butler. I drove down there the other day again. Is that a substandard rating? (inaudible) TEPEDINO: If that area was developed would that possibly be a condition for development on that property? (inaudible) TEPEDINO: The thing that it comes down to is the applicant always has the enormous burden of carrying the case and convincing the Commission. I 'am not fully persuaded that he has done that in this case, which means that even though he hasn't done it today he could come forward again in the future and that persuades me not to make a change now, knowing that he has the option to raise the issue again as the surrounding land uses change or the road improves. I'm sensitive to the fact that there is a willing tenant but as mentioned by one of the people testifying tenants come and go, and we don't know if it is going to be a Levitz or some other tenant, and once you change the zone it is changed, and it would be terribly embarrassing to go back and say you had made a terrible mistake and flip it back 'again, 'and that's what bothers me about this particular application although`I do see some advantages to making these changes but I guess I'm just not over that 50% mark. K MOEN: I'd like to make one more comment. I don't think Portland Chain as it is now is an appropriate use the site long term. When I bought my home in Englewood there was'a disclaimer at the time that Portland Chain generated noise. T wouldn't say that they've genera'-ed a lot of t: noise. It's been very quiet considering the kind of operation they have in there but longterm I don't think it is an appropriate use of t the site, and I don't think it is appropriate for Toys "R" Us to be f isolated out there either. I think those 2 properties would make a reasonably good commercial development together, and part of the traffic problem could be addressed by proper antry and exit. ?? I can see that. I tend to agree with you Commissioner that 5 years that may all be (inaudible) ,• I think it is evolving in that direction, and I kind of question whether it is fair if it is evolving in that direction I think it is kind of arbitrary from the applicant's standpoint to say, "I don't it's time yet." Well, that's fine if that's what you think but if you think it's * going to change down the road, I think basically the interchanges are in and the light is in, everything's in, we'll do it now. It's kind of arbitrary to say we can't have it now. Have to wait 5 years. ?? Had I been on the Commission back in 1980 I would have favored leaving it M-4. I'm not persuaded there is a reason for changing it, but I ` also feel there is a question of justice here. I am very concerned about the fact that we gave it a'C-3 designation at one point, and in my mind �t. G ------------ APPEAL''- PORTLAND CHAIN; CPA "'12-83 AC 9-83 Page 12 of 13 we have taken it away via the Comp Plan. My question is on what basis does one voce to allow C-3 if it's a "justice" issue. " Is that a-legal basis for voting for a zone change? NEWTON:In terms of legality I don't know how that would stand up in terms of findings because the Comp Plan and zoning and all that is supposed to " be a document that changes with time. Our concern area is that the whole area should have been looked at when Toys "R" Us was allowed to go commercial. My particular concern as a staff person is having every piece ofproperty and every owner or anyone in the area ` having problems renting or selling coming in and getting different zone changes at different times. I think it is important to look at that waole specific area that is bounded by Cascade, the freeway and Scholls` Ferry, and that's sort of developed as 'a little area. They call it the Cascade Industrial Park. My concern is not so much whether it is commercial or industrial but that it not be pockets of different types of uses, that it be consistent. Another concern that we had is the appropriateness of Toys "R" Us and whether or not it is compatible with the other 'land uses in the area, and although we share the concern expressed by some of the other commissioners, the outweighing concern that we had was, what's more appropriate, ,Toys "R" Us in relation to the other surrounding property or waiting,and letting the whole thing go commercial at some other time and also the fact that we iust adopted a Comprehensive Flan, the Council and Planning Commission have an opportunity to redesignate the:whole area at that time, and- I am 'concerned that we are setting precedent in this area 2 months after we finished a Comprehensive Plan which established it as bascialiy industrial park area, not a light industrial or heavy industrial; area but an industrial park area, and now is eroding away at that by changes. ?? Toys "P" Us would not be permitted in (audible) NEWTON:No, that's why it's not designated for it. ?? I think you can maintain the integrity of the rest of the area, and I (D6�t,551cnw;`think what you have done is created an island up on the north end, and that is past history. We've done that. We've created that island, and I think it would be more contiguous to fill that little island in than to leave it that way. I don't think the rest of the area is appropriate � to change at this time or any time in the near future. CHAIRMAN: Any other comments on this issue? MOEN: I'd like to move for the approval of the Comprehensive Plan CPA 12-83 and Zone Change ZC 9-83 based on the reasons I gave in my comments. TEPEDINO: I'll second it. Motion has been made and seconded. Any further discussion? I'll call for the question. All those in favor of the motion as made and seconded signify by saying "Aye" and those opposed Motion failed. F BUTLER: I move that we deny a move for recommendation to City Council of denial of applicant-'s request upon Comprehensive Plan Ammendment CPA 12-83 from light industrial to general commercial and denial of a zone change from M-4 to C-3, Zone Change 9-83. _ APPEAL - PORTLAND CHAIN CPA 12-83 AC 4-83 Page 13 of 13 CHAIRMAN: Motion made for denial Seconded. Further discussion. BUTLER: Do you need my reasoning? CHAIRMAN: No, it's based on staff findings. All those in favor of the motion as made and 'seconded in favor of denial signify by saying Aye Those opposed Motion carries for denial. Are there any other items? Other business then? ?? May I just point out that I feel strongly that that area of the G city should be changed -to commerical Comp Plan and Zoning Designation. 'V If you`could`initiate, come October, another look at this as a larger,concern rather than 1 individual piece of property. ?? Are you making an inventory of areas like that? ' ?? That's one of our projects to do. We will be doing inventory. CHAIRMAN: Any other business? .a ` r_ x g APPEAL - PORTLAND CHAIN CPA 12-83 AC 9-83 S^ 3) t1e) Page 1 of 16 r CHAIRMAN: Before I open public hearing I'll attempt to tell you from t memory what our normal commissioner reads. We do have a procedure that we try to follow to make this an orderly form of business. Basically the agenda follows this, with a staff report,, then asking r for any`reports' from the NPO or the Citizens' CCI committee, then a presentation by the applicants, at that point we open it for V public testimony, first those in favor and then those against. ; We then give some time for cross examination and rebuttal. We then close the;public hearing portion at which time thecommissioners deliberate and finally take a vote, then we go onto the next item. So with that preliminary, I open the public 'hearing Agenda Item 5.1, which is a Comprehensive Plan amendment CPA 12-83;and Zone Change 9-83. This is a remand from Council Staff, would you like to explain how you got it. NEWTON: I think most of the commissioners present recall this item on August 2 o this year the Planning Commission denied the applicant's ; request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from light industrial to r general commercial and fora zone change from M-4 to C-3. You may recall the property is located in this area here, near the Toys "R" Us c., site in Cascade Industrial Park.' On 9ugust'15 the City Council voted to remand this issue back to the Planning Commission for additional _ public testimony. The item is going to be appealed to the City Council , and the applicant pointed out to the staff and the City Attorney's office that they had new information that they would like to present. It £y. was on the advice of the City Attorney that the City Council remanded M the item, because the new information would not have been appropriate under appeal of the City Council. The Council has remanded it. You do have the staff report as well as the minutes of the August 2 meeting k in front of you as well as The staff is still recommending that this application be denied. CHAIRMAN: Do we have anybody here from NPO? CCO? OK applicant. HAUCK: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. My name is Terry Hauck. I am an attorney. I practice law at 1200 Standard Plaza, Portland, Oregon, telephone number 222-9981. In respect to the inquiry as to the NPO we talked with Mr. Bruce Clark of the NPO, and as you are probably aware, NPO issortof loose and not totally active. I will put this into the r record but I would like to read it to you. It's to the Tigard Planning Commission from Bruce Clark, NPO, re: PCM Building, Cascade St, "I have had discussions regarding the PCM Levitz proposal with some of the area business people, which leaves me to conclude that there is little or no objection to the proposal provided that traffic be oriented to exit and enter from Scholls Ferry Rd. in order to minimize the traffic impact on Greenbury-Cascade intersection. The existance of Toys "R" Us certainly has not,produced detrimental neighborhood`impact today." It is signed by Mr. Clark. What I would like to do if I may . . . We were unable to have some people come and testify that we thought would be of value to you, ( and also, and this is my fault, operating under the presumption that it was normal staff procedure to have pictures and _ of the , site and surrounding area. Much to my chagrin, and I apologize that I just assumed that would happen, and what we have this evening is a video tape and some pictures plus we have a gentleman from Toys "R" k APPEAL - PORTLAND CHAIN CPA 12-83 AC 9-83 Page 2 of 16 Us, Mr. Wright, and we have two gentlemen from Levitz who we are proposing use the site if we can get the land use necessary to convert from industrial use zoning to commercial zoning. That is Mr. Figone and Mr. Guy Barber.- What I'd like to do if I may with your permission is have Mr. McKenna from PCM show a videotape and also some pictures: I would like to have the representative from Toys "R" Us testify, and at the conclusion of those gentlemen, I a ` would like to address you once again. We have 'somewhat of a problem with the tape. We can't leave;it with you tonight but we want it part of the record, and I was wondering if it would be possible to have a .videotape 'of it made tomorrow, certified, by the company that makes the videotape, and get it back to you. They'simply could not get it done in time. inaudible HAUCK: OK. The other problem we have is people from Levitz have a big picture of what they would like to do at the site, and they can't leave that with you. They are trying to get some more prints of it made, and they will give you back the one they want to show you this evening. It is just a-logistics problem. No problem. VIDEOTAPE: The following video presentation was made on behalf of PCM Associates to depict the scene of the Portland 'Chain site which is the motion before you for land use plan amendment and zone change. The beginning shots are aerial depictions of the site itself starting at the intersection of Scholls` Ferry Rd. and 217 sweeping east to show the site beginning at the Times Building through the Portland Chain site, Toys "R" Us store, Washington Square in the foreground, then continuing on down Cascade, the Par Gas facility, Electrical Transmission substation and Seaman Ellis. In the background is the residential area and Koll Business Park. Next scenes show the area in question beginning at Greenburg Road and sweeping north along the S-P railroad tracks and encompasses most of the area in question. The facility immediately in the picture now is Seaman Ellis, followed by the storage facility for vehicles, Transmission site, Par Gas, Toys "R" Us and Portland Chain. Coming into view now is Koll Business Park which is located immediately west of the subject property. These scenes include the SP Business Park which is located just across Scholls Ferry Road from the site. The following scenes are another sweep down 217 capturing the entire point which includes the Times Business facility and the Portland Chain site. The next scene includes a shot from the west looking east toward .the site over the residential area which includes Englewood neighborhood and the multi- family units on the left side. This scene shows the Chain plant from the ground level through the residential area and we were fortunate to capture an SP train going by the tracks. Now we are on the ground level taking a motor trip down Cascade Blvd. beginning at the intersection of Scholls 'Ferry Rd. and Cascade. The first site is the Portland Chain site followed by Toys "R" Us. The tour continues down Cascade. The next site the Parr Gas facility followed by the,electrical transmission site and vehicle storage and Seamon Ellis as the next principal facility along Cascade. The following scene is vacant land which has sold to another user, continuing on down to Greenburg Rd. are a vareity of retail/wholesale facilities 5 Page 3 of to APPEAL - PORTLAND CHAIN CPA 12-83 AC 9-83 i' and manufacturing depots. The journey begins again at Greenburg Rd. f heading,back towards the subject site and the next facility•is;the Franz Bakery which includes a retail outlet for consumer-use and immediately behind is the Mayflower storage facility, vacant land which is presently unused, ;and just following that vacant land is a facility used by Oregon State for vocational rehabilitation. And 1 finally, the facility called Power Rents. The remainder of Cascade Blvd. beyond Power Rents is unusable space which borders Highway 217 { until you, get to the Times Bldg. again which concludes the sweep along the north'side.' Following sites are taken from the Koll Business site looking wast toward the Chain plant, and we tried to capture in these scenes a panoramic g.. view of what the back side encompasses including he Koll Business,Park X which is primarily a-commercial/retail center. Scholls`-Ferry Rd. provides a border between Koll Business Park and the SP Park directly across the street. The next scenes are taken from Washington Square and include ; the. sweep from the Times Bldg. , ,a commercial office building, to Portlandy Chain site. The traffic in the foreground is from 217. . Following scenes are taken from ground level immediately surrounding the site itself, and we begin at Toys "R" Us looking more towards the back undesirable side of the Chain plant complete with'chemical storage facility and large storage areas of chain and other metal. ' The scenes which you have just seen depict the machi.nerg and noise generated by the production levels inside the big plant'. This concludes the presentation. ` These are the pictures. They are aerial photographs in color which show �. the sites from different angles, and .theca .are some that are the same. I �s will leave these with you to pass around. CHAIRMAN: Any questions? WRIGHT: My name is Richard Wright. I am an area supervisor for Toys "R" Us,in byF ng and my address is Kent, Washington. I think I should beresidenteof1real ' a letter which has been forwarded oto me by our vice p estate, Plichael Miller. He was instrumental in finding the location we are currently located on on Cascade Blvd. and in sealing the deal. ` The letter is addressed to Mr. Frank Tepedinc, Chairman, City of Tigard Planning Commission, regarding Toys "R" Us retail store, Portland Chain Manufacturing Co. and PCM Associates. Dear Mr. Tepedino: Toys "R" ; Us has been notidi_ed by PCM Associates that the zoning designation for Portland Chain Manufacturing, a neighbor to the north, has been changed #. from C-3 to M-4. Such a change is very detrimental to our interests, and we find it amazing that such a change could be made without our input and without notification. We purchased the land upon which our retail store now sits from PCM Associates in 1981 with the knowledge that the zoning and land use criteria allowed commercial and retail establishments on our land, and that our neighboring property, Portland Chain, was zoned the same way. The Chain plant has been allowed to exist as is for the term of its lease which we knew would end by at least December 31, 1985. PCM Associates discussed their long range plans with us at that time, and we knew that it would only be a few years until the unsightly neighbor was gone and a more complementary neighbor installed. We also relied on the documentation provided by the City of Tigard Planning staff as we find in that staff report where they specifically recommended a retail furniture facility or the like as the best use of the Chain plant site. The City of Tigard ordinance specifically APPEAL - PORTLAND CHAIN CPA 12-83 ZC 9-83 Page 4 of 16 -changed the zoning to C-3 on those parcels and set in concrete all of the plans for our facility and to: the ultimate rehabitation of the Chain plant. We have,commited millions of dollars to our investment which is ;irreversible. If the Chain plant and industrial C-4 zone is allowed to remain, it would seriously impair our business and our economic investment. The unsightly nature of the chain''plant, ;the noise chemical smell, and the activities surrounding the manufacture of heavy :chains is not the least bit conducive to a retail sales establishment. I'm sure I'm not just 'speaking for ourselves since nearly all our neighbors in that retail hub are commercial businesses. The City;of Tigard has in fact created an island out of your property. The rezoning of the"Chain-plant heavy industrial leaves the Toys ''R" Us store as an isolated retail establishment. We feel very strong that the petition by;PCM Associates to have the Portland Chain site rezoned to C-3 needs to be approved on the basis of the land as well as the fact that the zoning was C-3, and there appeared to be no logical reason for it to revert into M-4. All of the reasons.which led the City of Tigard to change this land to C-3 in 1981 are even stronger today as we witness the growth of the regionalhub which is commonly known. as the Washington Square Retail Center. We urge you to approve and rezone the Portland Chain site to C-3. Sincerely, Michael Paul Miller About the only addition I have to-that'is that our business is severely hampered or aided by who our neighbors are, and when we went into the venture it was thought that the neighborhood was changing. We would wish that that would continue. Anything I could answer for you? CHAIRMAN: It would be appropriate later on to ask the questions. Mr. Figone. FIGONE: My name is Bob Figone. I am the Group 7 Operations Manager for Levitz Furniture Corp., and my office is in Santa Clara, California. I am here tonight to tell you a couple of things, one of which is to tell you a little about the nature of our business and also what we had planned for this Portland ChaiD Bldg., and I have some pictures which I will leave with you. I'll get to those in a moment. Our plans, I guess you know, for the Portland Chain Bldg. are to convert it completely into a retail furniture showroom. This showroom would be quite a bit different from our operation in Milwaukie, Oregon where we have a showroom and a warehouse attached to it. Again, the Portland Chain Bldg. would be entirely a furniture showroom. All the warehousing would be done in the Milwaukie store. This being the case, we would not have furniture delivery trucks coming in and out of this area. All of that would be done in Milwaukie. About the only delivery trucks we would have would be a once or twice-a-week shuttle between the warehouse and this store to bring over new merchandise and floor samples. Again, as I said, the entire building would be turned into a furniture showroom. We would have a small office space, small storage space, and the rest showroom. The nature of our business here would be that customers would come to this location, and they could purchase and complete the entire sale at one time, pay for it, whatever they were going to do, and then either go the Milwaukie store and pick up the merchandise if they wanted it right away or have it delivered directly to their home from Milwaukie. So it would be a one-stop transaction. ., It would not necessitate coming back and picking up something another day. Our hours of operation are Monday-Friday from 10:00-9:00, Saturday 10:00-6:00 and Sunday noon-6:00. Our heaviest traffic times, when the majority of our business is done, is in the evenings and on weekends. Most furniture APPEAL - PORTLAND CHAIN CPA 12-83 ZC 9-83 Page 5 of 16 purchases seem to be made by couples and those are the times when couples can ,get together to make a purchase. We area high volume operation but we also are a big ticket operation. Our average sale runs several hundreds of 'dollars, so that we get a lot of volume without a lot of people. We are not a high traffic operation that some other high volume operations are. As far as projected sales in this area, it's tough to say. We would project sales`in 'this area of about $400,000 a month, with an employment of around 25-30 people in that location. Customer traffic, again it is hard to say at this point, but based on our history in Milwaukie we are probably looking at an average of 75 people coming to this location per day. As I mentioned, I brought some pictures, some that I can leave and others I'd like to get a copy back to you. These that I can leave, these before and after pictures of a`building in Atlanta, Georgiathat was recently converted. It was a roller skating rink, and we turned it into a furniture showroom. The small ones are before and the big ones are the'after." This is the one I can't leave. - It is building that is currently under construction in Oxnard, California. If we were converting the Portland Chain Bldg., disregarding this back here because it is a little different situation, this is the type of entrance, etc. T can get you copies of these. Lastly I'd like to leave this copy of our annual reports for last year so if 'there's any ,further information about our company that might be beneficial to you. Thank you very much. BARBER: My name is Guy;Barber. I am the Branch Manager at the Milwaukie Levitz store, and I_will also be the Branch Manager at this store when the transaction is complete. I am going to briefly `explain' to you why we would like this site. I have been up here about 5 years and we have looked at many different sites since I've been here. We have been looking for a building on the west side for quite some time, I personally have been looking for 5 years. When I looked at this site it was obvious to me that this was the ideal location we needed. When we look for a site for a satellite operation, which is what this would be, with the warehouse on the other side, we need something that is far enough removed from your present site so it doesn't interfere with your business, so if you're getting mostly plus business in your new site, so you need to be 20-30 miles away from your original site, which this site is. We would like to be in an area where there is a tremendous amount of retail trade going on already. Obviously with Washington Square right across the street and Toys "R" Us right next door, this is an ideal location from that standpoint. P The freeway access is very, very good, in fact it is much better than what we have on the other side. 1 almost wish this store was my original but we don't feel that we could get a better location as far as access for people to get on and off and get into our shopping area here. That is all I have to address. HAUCK: The first thing I'd like to make reference to is in respect to the staff report on page_2 of the staff report where it's going back to the history, the background. There should be an entry between July 13, 1981 and August 2, 1983 entry. That entry would be the one where the Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning by the City from commercial zoning and Comprehensive Plan designation back to industrial. I have a letter from Mr. Nordholt of Portland Chain Manufacturing Co. that is directed to Mr. Frank Tepedino. I'd like to read that into the record. APPEAL —PORTLAND CHAIN CPA 12-83 2C 9-83 Page 6 of 16 Re: Portland Chain Manufacturing Co., Tigard, Oregon Rezoning Petition by PCM Associates. Dear Mr. TepedinocThe purpose of this letter is to express our support for the zone change and Land Use Planning change for PCM Associates as applied for on the land commonly known as the Portland Chain site. Portland Chain Manufacturing is a wholly owned subsidiary of Webster Industry, an Ohio concern, and as its General Manager, I have direct responsibility for the operation of this facility. I support the rezoning as a`recognition of a change in the area in which our business is located. When the plant was constructed over 15 years ago, the area around it was mostly 'rural M and consisted mostly of farms and just a few businesses. Portland Chain with itsheavyequipment, noise and industrial look operated eLL with little or no notice in this open setting. Since situations have changed dramatically since those early days, we find ourselves as a' , nonconforming member of the community. The area around our plant has grown to be the largest retail 'nub in the state of Oregon and is a comprised of retail and commercial establishments. There are a few true industrial users further down Cascade Blvd. However, they, as ourselves, are in a minority because of the, changing area. We recognized this change in our neighborhood a number of ,years ago and -: made the,conscious decision to sell the land and,building and take back 4 a lease for a medium term. This, provided us with the flexibility to re-locate to another area. The pressures which have led us to the need to re-locate-'are not confined to the 'fact that we are surrounded by commercial retail establishments but go further to the cost of operating our facility. =Items such as real estate taxes and municipal services � .. have increased dramatically over the bast few years, and we believe } that our facility is better suited in'a true industrial area away from commercial and residential neighbors and quite possibly in an area where the tax burden is not quite as heavy. The net effect of _ the Chain plant moving from Tigard is negligible when you consider . that the disposed use of the site is an active retailer who will employ as many or more employees than our plant done. We have not yet selected an alternative site, and it is within the realm of possibility that our relocation could be within the City of Tigard in another area. The present lease does not have the possibility of expiring before December 312 1985, which will allow us time to conduct further studies on alternative sites. We are supportive of the initial, successful efforts by PCt_ R Associates to zone the land C-3 back in 1980--81, recognizing the facts that I have previously mentioned. We feel that re-designation was not . correct and ask that the Planning Commission strongly consider granting the petitioner their request for a C-3 zone on this property. Very truly yours, John Nordholt, III, General Manager. I think the original was sent to the Planning Commission. Behind are f, several maps that we have produced. One we had previously, the 2nd one in. That is an aerial of the vicinity. The second is an inventory of industrial lands within the City of Tigard. We prepared both of those a and I'd, like them to be part of the recor . The inventory of industrial areas shows that there is in access of 100 acres of industrial land along that corridor in there that has not been developed and is vacant '" that is available for future development and present development for ` industrial purposes. I make that reference in respect to your staff A reliance upon preserved industrial lands. What I am trying to suggest to you is there is a substantial. amount of industrial land that trulyt' E Page 7 of 16' APPEAL - PORTLAND CHAIN CPA 12-83 2C 9-83 is appears to be suitable for industrial land. It is our position that the parcel we are dealing with tonight and discussing is truly in nature commercial property and is clearly not,industrial property, ' and one other crion pae teria your comprehensive P1aForetourrinformatgon3 s£ of the staff report provides the following. Y, "The site shall be of a size and shape it is down on 12.4.1(c)• _ which will provide for the `short and ol°matra elyg3.7One ehuse." acres. Thats11 I The size we're talking about is ape for industrial use. not a very large tract of land to developracticing real In fact, it a bit on the small side. ; I've been and I;have,not been _estate law for approximately 12-13 years now, involved in many transactions where a parcel of industrial land this ly utilized for industrial development. I'm suggesting small was actual that t he-'site does not meet the criteria set forth in the staff report because of its 'size.' a e 4. _ I'd also like to make reference to, througlrome athose nandgdiscussg They're not numbered but I'd like to g them. Thefirst 'one some of those findings and comment regarding used by the reads as follows: "The property is currently being applicable planning Portland Chain Manufacturing which compliesittakeexception to that policies and locational criteria." I strongly finding. I don't think it is accurate in all due respect. What you �, you have a use that was appropriate to the surrounding have there is y m going area a long time ago :but as times have changed in that area, g no longer; aFpropriate, and-I think the best example, into a detailed discussion on that poi manufacturing is the ring facilitiesrt of twere v videotape which actually shows what the manufacturing Once again, like, the noise that was involved and that type of thing. T- e that that staff finding is accurate, with all due cannot believrespect. r I don't think it is supported by the evidence. &,. reads as follows: "The proposed commercial retail use The 2nd step non-industrial uses (except Toys "R" , is not compatible with the surrounding seems inappropriate) us, which is located to the south and in retrospect it - ` which include Tigard Times to the north, Koll Business Center to the west, tFY both of which are defined as office and business activities and are not ` commited in an industrial park zone whereas commercial retail use the facts. allowed. Once again, I think that that finding is j F I would like to just point out on the map back here --the back portion o£ this property from all this to Ko11 Industrial Park that's on the tracks but is called industrial zo other side of the railroaning, d r Business Cer but that's the Koll Tigard office andu salesses n(change ofetape) virtually all, with a minor exception, Toys ht, it is don't thinklthelstaffThere wouldhas been quarrel testimony tonight, good idea to have comment is Lhat in won'retrt quarrelspect th�thatsbuttituis there. The Times Toys in there. I won t q facility is an office building. The retail type use that is permitted under the commercial zoning is clearly compatible with that. whatsoever. no factual evidence on the record to show any incompatibility supported b We do what we can here. We have a negative statement not Supp Y any facts that is not n the general le ne alrI think when they look at the type commerci 1 use, the office activities ` of use permitted within the g- goingon there, I think that that in and of itself. shows compbiout- There is no reason it would not be compatible. Also it was pointed _ a A APPEAL - PORTLAND CHAIN CPA 12-83 ZC 9-83 Page 8 of 16 at least with the case of Levitz is the hours don't even coincide. We have a user here whose hours are basically 10;00-middle evening. The office is a daytime office. I think also when you're talking compatibility and it gets down into that finding and I '11 make - reference to it right while we're at it is that the applicant's argument on the ground that there is a need for additional commercial and retail space in that arc, :and'I'm just reading that the,way it is, are due to the vacinity to the Washs.ngton Square shopping center to Highway 217 separates and divides these two areas, and there is no direct access from the shopping center to the site except for Once again, with all due respect to the 'staff report, I have to take'exception to that finding. There is a great deal of continuity between Washington Square on one side of 217 and the other businesses that are conducted on the opposite of 217., That has been one of the attractive features of Toys "R" Us. It is one of the attractive features for Levitz. Immediately north of Cascade Blvd. your uses are all commercial up in there. You've got the Canned Food Warehouse, the Malibu, and I'm not sure if the 'Datsun office space is still there or not but with it going into the old'Viewmaster A site it is a,retail development. I'm not exactly sure what the configuration is but it's in access of 108,000 sq. ft. of office space, and they Fare also planning ,to put in offices, hotels and the like, so what's really happening in there is along;Cascade Blvd. on the westerly side the old uses that at one time were appropriate to the area are starting. to phase out, and;the kind of changes and the technology of changes in , the industrial area you are also having to change the ;type of user, and I think that is evident by what is going on in that area, particularly looking at the change of use, as example the Viewmaster site. That also emphases another point of view and that is the continuity between the Washington Square center site on one side of 217 and the activities on the other. There is very good access across the freeway at that point, and becuase of that I really think staff finding. The last staff finding that I want to discuss reads as follows: "Also the appllicant's ,traffic impact analysis showed that the total trips will. increase from 94 to 186 trips which puts an additional burden on Cascade Blvd., a substandard major collector." The one thing the staff fails to point out in that respect is true, not quibbling about the numbers, because the proposed traffic help would be somewhere in that neighborhood. But they're not on peak hours. The traffic is not there during the busy time of the day. What is most likely to occur is that the peak traffic hour is going to be less if you have something other than an industrial user in that location, solely because general commercial, by and large, traffic impact is at non-peak hours. That is true of Washington Square. Their traffic does not coincide with traditional peak hours. Levitz won't, and that's generally the case with Commercial type users. With respect to that, I'd just like to point out one thing by inference. That's on the letter to Mr. Clark. Made the statement in that that there has not been any adverse impact of Toys"R" Us. My feeling is that if in fact a commercial user in that location would cause an adverse impact Mr. Clark, familiar with that area, would be awaze of it and would have mentioned it or he would not have made x that statement in the letter. Also taking into consideration traffic is the people from Levitz feel that the access is exceptional. .lust to put that into perspective, we have a lighted intersection at APPEAL - PORTLAND CHAIN CPA 12-83 ZC 9-83 Page 9 of 16 : Cascade Blvd. and Scholls Ferry, and we have a lane for turns into m that site: Furthermore, that site is the first site as you enter Y. onto Cascade Blvd. It is `estimated that virtually all or in excess .` a of 90% of the traffic or more will be: coming into that site as it does ^ to :.Toys "R" Us from Scholls. There is basically..none if any impact. on the balance of the Cascade Blvd. property. Because of the proximity of; the site to Scholls, to the light, ;to the refuge, and coming right into that site, I really fail to see how there is any adverse traffic. impaet "particularly taking into consideration the low volume ,' of 'traffic that is anticipated and the timing of that traffic in respect to this proposal. ' One of the things I would like to go through relates to the criteria of comprehensive planning to the part of the staff report for general commercial locations. It mentions on page 3 with the underlined r` Land Use General Commercial, The Spacing and Location: "a. the ; commercial area is not surrounded by residential districts on more than 2"sides." This site is not surrounded at all by residential ` districts. It's bounded by basically commercial on the north and a little bit to the northwest is the SP park. On the *gest behind the railroad_tracks is the Koll Business Center, which is bascially a combination of commercial type uses. To the immediate south and further on down there Is no:residential uses, in the immediate proximity. The only residential uses are back on the other'side of Fano Creek with the residential development on down west on Scholls Ferry Road. The second criteria is access. It says, "The praposedarea or expansion of an existing area shall not create traffic congestion or as . traffic e:afety problem." What I said just previously to this is extremely applicable to this situation. Considering the traffic, the timing and the light, which I mentioned before, I do not feel 'there will be any adverse traffic impact if this proposal is granted. To continue with that, it says, "Subject determination shall be based on street capacity existing and projected traffic volume, speed limit, number of turning and the traffic generating characteristic to the various types of uses." The site is immediately there. You come off of Scholls Ferry at the light and are immediately into the site. You don't have to traverse Cascade Blvd. any great distance. There's no turning movement 4 once you get off the freeway or Scholls Ferry, you're right there Section b in regard to Access: "The site shall have direct access ' from a major collector or arterial street." It is immediately right there. ' Criteria c: "Public transportation shall be available to the site or , general area." The Washington Square center is a honeycomb of transpor- tation. Public transportation is everyplace around there. �� General Characteristics (3) Site Characteristics (a) The site shall be of a size which can accommodate present and projected uses." This , site is large enough for a numerous amount of general commercial type �V uses, and you've heard tonight that it adequately meets the needs of Levitz for proposed activities on the site. Criteria (b) "The site shall have high visibility." I don't think you could find a better site in respect to visibility. It has visibility from 217 which is a major thoroughfare. It's highly visible from Scholls Ferry which is also a � major thoroughfare. Criteria (4) Impact Assessment. (a) "The scale of the project shall be compatible with the surrounding uses." I don't think that will be a problem. " That is to some extent a question of design review approval. z. APPEAL - PORTLAND CHAIN CPA 12-83 ZC 4-83 Page 10 of 16 But theproposalthat you've seen tonight is basically,a renovation of what's there and kind of `cleaning it up a little bit, modifying it and making it more aesthetically pleasing to the community and in line with the; commercial use. Criteria (b) "The site configuration and characteristics shall be such that the privacy of adjacent non- commercial uses can be maintained." In this case I don't there is a use around that is not commercial in'nature. If screening of the':light is desired, I'm sure that can be facilitated through design review. Criteria (c) "It shall be.possible to incorporate the unique site features into the site design anc `` development plan'." That's something that can be addressed when we get to that point, if we do. Subsection (d) "The associated lights, noise and activities shall not interfere with adjoining non-residential uses." Once again, there do not appear to be any non-residential uses to impact, and to the extent that the staff . feels there needs to be:some modification, that can be accomplished in the design review function. As .I view land use matters there are two essential elements that I think could be addressed by everybody and that includes the Planners and k the Developers. They are site suitability'and growth`management. ` In this case I think we have made an extremely good case for site suitability, in all honesty. I--think ;the site is highly suitable for the proposed use that we are proposing for it and;to the contrary to that, I think the site is inappropriate for the type of use for which it now exists. Secondly, on growth management, the only question I think can be involved in the growth management`question is the traffic, and I feel- I have adequately addressed that for you. That is all I have. Thank you. If_ you have any questions I'd be more than happy to do so.` CHAIRMAN: I do not have anyone signed up to speak in favor. Is there anyone in the audience who did not sign up? Those opposed? Mr. Skourtes. SKOURTES: I came down here tonight because I heard we were going to get some new testimony, but all I've heard is a re-hash of August 2. My name is John Skourtes. I live at 17010 S. W. Weir Road, Beaverton. So, if he can re-hash what was said on August 2, I guess I can re-hash what' I said on August 2. Ladies and gentlemen, we are talking about a zone change. I don't care if it's Levitz, if it's General Motors, if it's Chrysler or Meier & Frank, we are talking about a zone change. Of course Levitz likes that site. It's a beautiful site. We're talking zone change. Let's get back to the traffic. You and I know you cannot control traffic. If you come down I-5 and take the exit to go to Washington Square, there's two exits, Greenburg Road or Scholls Ferry. If you want to go to Levitz or the commercial site, you can go right down Greenburg Road, turn right on Cascade Avenue. They may say they're going ' to control the traffic from Scholls Ferry Road. In fact the left turn signal. from Scholls Ferry Road stays there for about 2 minutes, so if you want to make good time you come around Greenburg Road. We are going r" to start breaking a block, I think we should, every parcel on Cascade Avenue should go commercial right now. What was the testimony on August 2? Maybe 5 years from now it's OK. At some point you've got to draw the line. That's how the game is played. Now we're talking about economics. The people who bought this parcel bought it as industrial property. �. They didn't buy it last week and pay $6 a foot for itand now they're going to lose half a million dollars. For your information, this property x APPEAL-- PORTLAND CHAIN CPA 12-83 ZC 9-83 Page 11 of 16' dd is not heavy industrial, it's M-4,, and as you know M-4 lets office !mm buildings in'there, light commercial, etc. We know that the Chain Company is leaving'. We've heard that all along. What we are talking about, the property the :way they want to use it will be worth one million' dollars for the land versus M-4 value of about half a million. I don't blame Mr. McKenna coming back and spending a,little-money ; to impress you people. He's talking about making another half a million dollars. It's the American way. Now if we lived where we had no zoning, no Comprehensive Plans, great. You can do anything you want. Here we have system, and whether we like .it or not, that's how the game is played. We can't have high powered people coming in here and changing the ,system'because it is economics. _ I don't blame them. We all like;to make a buck. It's the American way. We just went through_a Comprehensive Plan. _How many months did we spend? If I owned 4 acres Is sure would make sure I knew what was happening if I were talking half a million versus one million. We're talking a zone change. We're not talking about Levitz, about Toys "R" Us, about' individual tenants, we're talking .:one change. I 'want'to clear something; about that tape. It says the Kol1 Business Center "=s a `retail` center. It is not a retail center. I am against it because we have to draw the line. We cannot have high powered economic interests change the system. You all know how many times I've been before the Planning Commission whenever I want to do something. A lot' of times I lose.- That's how the game is played: I don't like it, really. I wish we were living in Houston, Texas, but we're not, we're living right,here. We just have to play the game. That's all I want to say right now, CHAIPM%N: Anyone else wish to speak? Appropriate time now for cross-examination and rebuttal HAUCK: In respect to Mr. Skourtes' statement, that was a mis-statement on tape. It wasn't intentional, just a flat slip of the tongue. That is not a retail center under any stretch of the imagination. I would like to make one comment. My client is aware of the system, I am aware of the system, and that's why we're here. We went through a zone change once. Things happened, and it was re-zoned. We're not quarreling about that. I don't want to make a big issue out of that tonight but we're here because of what has happened through the system, and we're trying to work within the system to correct what we think was an injustice. CHAIRMAN: Any other cross-examination? Questions from Commissioners? OWENS: As I look through the staff report that was prepared I find it hard to see the conclusion that they came to, so I guess I want to ask you if you can give some more background, impact or reasoning on why you are recommending denial. Maybe we could ask what in particular you take issue with. Is there anything there that you feel was :misstated? OWENS: I don't think it was mis-stated. I was not here for the first hearing on this, so tonight is my first time to hear a lot of this testimony and also to really review your report, and as I did review it the other day my response to it was the locational criteria that you site seems to act to ;support a general commercial, I guess I. have a question as APPEAL - PORTLAND CHAIN CPA 12-83 ZC 9-83 Page 12 of 16 ` to why (page 3) the 12.4.1 was included for light industrial because it already is light industrial and the request is for it to be changed from that so I. didn't understand why that was put in. I looking instead for information to be put there regarding generalcommercial. When I initially,read this I' felt'"there was a `conflict in the report. On page 4 after the Impact Assessment Statement the paragraph begins "The property is currentlybeing'used `: which 'complies with applicable planning policies " then somewhere in the report it seemed to me that there was either a locational criteria or something that was sited x that seemed to actually say that if it remains light- industrial that Portland Chain would not be in compliance with that. NEWTON: First of all, the reason we included 12.4.1 is that we are in essence defending the industrial_designation-and so we needtoinclude those locational criteria so that,you car_ see why we feel that it is appropriate to go industrial. I think it is important in the first sentence of the analysis . Portland Chain Manufacturing is not an industrial park type use. It in itself is the applicant's track in saying that that is not appropriate for the industrial park zoning. What we were talking about here was industrial park zoning versus general commercial zoning. It is the staff's thinking that Portland Chain is not appropriate there either.. What we're dealing with is whether the use on,that site should be industrial park, ;which the Times Bldg, is allowed the industrial park zone, the Koll Business Center is allowed the industrial park zone, however Toys "R" Us would not be. General commercial allows 'retail, and r' that's what Toys "R" Us is. So what we're talking about is not Portland �., Chain versus Levitz, but industrial park versus general`commercial. ' And it is staff's opinion that because most of the area is developed in more industrial uses, with'Koll Business Center and the Times and some of the other uses that are permitted in the industrial park zone, that it is more appropriate to leave the site as it is rather than eroded away at that industrial park base and changing it to commercial. The applicant is also correct in outlining the fact that we have industrial sites in other parts of the city, only those are light industrial sites and heavy industrial sites down in the Bonita 72nd-74th area. There is not a lot of industrial park land down there. It is important to make that distinction. As Mr. Skoutes pointed out we are talking about a zone change. The staff is not concerned about what tenants are in there. We are not looking at that specifically. We are looking at what the land base would be used for in that area. There are other commercial sites. As you all know, there are 16 acres in downtovm Tigard. There are 10 acres on Tigard West, there's more land in Tigard East down along Pacific Highway. The argument can also be made that there are other available commercial sites. So we're not really not speaking about Portland Chain or Levitz or what, we'-re talking about zoning and what's appropriate in that area and we feel that particularly because of the good character of the area, the other uses that are already there and the availability for that area to develop as an industrial park area with the vacant land and also the impact on Cascade Blvd. if the area goes commercial retail you have different types of traffic impact into industrial park zones. True, you have a different pattern. You may have typical peak hour traffic, 8-5, that type of thing, but retail traffic - if that whole area went retail -- definitely has a different impact on traffic and traffic pattezns in the area. APPEAL - PORTLAND CHAIN CPA_ 12-83 ZC 9-83 Page 13 of 16 So, we're looking at industrial park versus general commercial, and we feel because primarily of the area and how it's developed, the fact ' that:we would like to protect industrial park land in the city and traffic and _conditions of the street that industrial park is a better use for that area. OWENS : Thanks for your explanation. The other question is rather than assume that I know the answer to this, I would like to ask you, why has it become more appropriate with the new Comprehensive Plan for this to be light industrial when prioraction'had granted it be ;general commercial designation? NEW-LON: For this particularsite you mean? Prior to 1981 the whole area was zoned light industrial park, 0-4. When Toys "R" Us came in in 1981 they were awarded a Comprehensive Plan change. There was a minor land partition and an annexation and several things that occurred all at the same time. Apparently, from reading the record, both properties, Toys "F." Us and Portland Chain, were given the C-3 designation. That's what the record indicates. Because, when they were doing the Comprehensive Plan, ,Jeremy and I discussedwhether or not we should designate the whole ,thing industrial park or leave Toys 'T," Us as commercial, and we battled about it long and hard and decided that since Toys "R" Us was a fairly' new tenant and the building had not been there very long that it would be appropriate to 'leave'that as C-3 although in our opinion it.would constitute sort of a spot zone, but because it was there, it hadbeen built, we decided that we did not want to'make'it nonconforming. However, f, nothing had happened on the Portland Chair. site. It was Portland Chain and was really, in my opinion, heavy industrial user more than industrial property zone. We decided that we'would rather see that to be industrial park. ?? When you're considering the other various industrial land in Tigard, really we have substantial industrial park land directly across the street. Do you give that any weight? I realize that is Beaverton. We have to consider that we don't live in a little vacuum here, and a user doesn't consider Tigard he considers a general area (inaudible) and this site, when there is ample industrial park site across the street which, in my opinion is better as industrial park land than the site . . . NEWTON: I guess there are two points on that. First of all, the character of the area would be our first concern. Second of all, there is also substantial commercial property that is undeveloped in other areas that is not divided at mucb from Washington Square as this is. In other words, on the other side of Washington Square and close to Washington Square without crossing 217 you have a lot of available commercial land. It's a balancing act, and you can go either way, but basically because that area is already zoned. ?? What area are you talking about. NEWTON: Over near Lincoln Center area and over in there. The View Master site. HAUCK: Number one, there is no more commercial land available in the immediate proximity of Washington Square. I represent Washington Square, and the only properties available is the of Washington Square between Exit Road 2 and Exit Road 1. That now is in the process APPEAL = PORTLAND CHAIN CPA 12-83 ZC 9-83 Page 14 of 16 of being planned out, and that is committed. There is the old farm people that have that house up there that nobody can ever talk to about anything, and that's going to stay that way for a longtime. But over on the other side of Greenburg, basically the commercial land has 'been'committed and is,gone, and Washington County is absolutely hostile to any further incursion of commercial uses into that residential area. on the View Master site that is being developed right now. They're in the planning process. That is 'going to be developed either as 180,00 square feet or 108,000 square feet for retail commercial, and also in conjunction with that is a hotel and office. There truly is not a great deal of commercial land' available. < Furthermore, in response to that, bascially speaking, the old criteria of available property similarly zoned within the community is no longer within' this `criteria CHAIRMAN: Are there questions? OWENS: Perhaps I could request one more explanation from staff. Both the applicant and the staff cite the other users in the area in their argument for why the site should be zoned one way or the other. So, what I'm wondering, and I did not go through the ,list of users, I guess my confusion is that perhaps there is some ambiguity in the character of the area so that maybe there are some retail things that are not appropriate in an industrial park area but there are also some very appropriate industrial park things there that would not be compatible with the area going commercial. Is that an appropriate conclusion? NEWTON: My comment would be obviously since office like the Times Center and Koll Business Park and some of the other users in the area obviously since they are permitted in M-4. The site would be more compatible with th the Times Bldg. and Koll Business them. If Levitz was compatible wi Center they wouldn't need a Comprehensive Plan Amendment because the uses in terms of compatibility would be permitted. OWENS: Let's take some of the other users iii the area? Power Rental. Is that industrial or general commercial? NEWTON: That wouldn't- be commercial OWENS: So then the applicant is somewhat incorrect when he refers to the area as already having other commercial users other than Toys "R" Us. NEWTON: To be fair to the applicant I think it is a matter of how you define r.ompatibility. We happen to define compatibility as users that are permitted within the zone, OWENS: I want your response as to what the criteria are since I did not - specifically look up all those various uses of all the different trades along Cascade Blvd, NEWTON: Most of the things that are there now, not all, but most would not be included in general commercial. Like I said, there are some exceptions, OWENS: The exceptions are some that are not compatible with the industrial park. NEWTON: Like Portland Chain. • APPEAL`- PORTLAND CHAIN CPA 12-83 ZC 9-83 Page 15 of 16 t� OWENS: Right, and like Toys "R" Us. What are they compatible with? a Let's not talk about Portland Chain or Toys "R" Us'right'now NEWTON: Some of them would be more appropriate in light industrial. That would be the other zone that would be appropriate. OWENS: Are there any that would be appropriate in general commercial,` other than Toys "R" Us? Or Levitz?' NEWTON: I :think to be truthful a " (inaudible back and forth between Chairman and Newton) CHAIRMAN: I am going to close the public portion of this hearing. Commissioner'Vanderwood? VANDERWOOD: I was real mixed about this at the last time, as the record k. shows. 4aybe this has given me an advantage to look back in retrospect at something we did and maybe take'another look at it. I thiuk we made.the right decision. I don't see any new evidence here tonight. I think it was just done fancier than it was done last time. It's the <same stuff. Ithink Toys' "R" Us was a mistake, and I don't think`2 wrongs are going to make it right, and I think it should; _ be left industrial. i _ BUTLER: I haven't changed my mind. (inaudible) LEVERETT: I wasn't here at the last meeting. However, I did have the data, and I am very familiar with the site, have looked the site over. I believe that the highest and best use of the site would be for Levitz or some appropriate use. As far as blending I think that would blend itself to Toys "R" Us and commercial sites there. would blend that area and be substantially more compatible with the uses that are there now or could be in the future. It has all the outstanding assets of high visibility. I don't think you can call it spot zoning. Toys "R" Us has blended in a lot better and I think it is substantially a better use of the property than before. It has substantially increased the value of the property and that goes right back to tax base . I think it is the highest and best use of the property with a commercial F use such as Levitz. PYRE: I wasn't here at the last meeting when this was discussed. I read the material, and I didn't see significant differences tonight. Ply feeling is that maybe it should go back to the City Council. It is unfortunate that Toys "R" Us is in that area because from my way of thinking in a purely planning perspective this is a perfect area for light industrial. It is well buffered from residential areas, and the City needs a certain amount of light industrial as called upon in the Comprehensive Planning, and I think this could be it. I support the staff's recommendation. CHAIRMAN: I was also one that had very mixed emotions the last time we heard this. I've read the aterial and have had a chance to reflect on it considerably more. It seems to me it boils down to there is no question there is a good case for the use being commercial There APPEAL`- PORTLAND CHAIN CPA 12-83ZC 9-83 Page 15 of lb is a good case for industrial park. I could make an argument either " way. As 1 have testified before, I am very bothered when people pay taxes and use a property, on the basis of one zoning and then we down-zone it. We ought to avoid that whenever possible. The opposite issue is the one the staff ;has raised, and that is encroachment. That is the problem. How do we protect that industrial park area and "still honor the zoning,the way it was. Given just those facts I support the same way as I did before and that is to support the staff. But as I look at it now I am hard pressed to see why that corner couldn't be industrial park. It isn't going to make any iota of difference on therestof that property. It is already buffered by the railroad tracks, buffered by Toys "R" Use buffered by the Times Bldg, and I don't think"which°ever way it is used is going to make a whole lot of difference. I really don't think it's going to break the block. On the other side of the Times Bldg. I would say it would, and I would be totally opposed to that. OWENS: Your comments certainly reflect or express for me the ambivalence I am feeling` too. ' I heard persuasive arguments both ways tonight. I am bothered bythe issues or the facts that are a problem now for Toys "R" Us. I appreciate the concerns of the 'applicants who would like to have Levitz there. if I'm swayed' toward the,staff; side I have to take into account that we are a land use planning body and have a-lot of issues to take into consideration above and beyond those kinds`-of concerns. I would feel very concerned allowing that to go commercial if that would then set up the possibility of all those properties eventually over time wanting to go general commercial.' When I think about what's there I`think that couldn't happen, but it could happen. I, for instance,' had-no idea that Portland Chain was not going to be there until this issue arose. I just thought it would be there forever. As the area developed they did become more and more glaring as inappropriate in the area. This is a difficult one for me to decide. That is all I'm going to M say right now. CHAIRMAN: Any further comments. I would just like to address the audience. After we take this vote we are going to take a short recess. Some of you are here to hear Item 5.3, and I apologize for not announcing ahead of time, that is not going to be heard tonight. The applicant has withdrawn. That will be heard October 4, and I apologize for keeping you here this length of time and not announcing it. Would somebody like to make a motion? VAI4DER140OD: I would like to move that the City Council deny the applicant's request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment from light industrial to general commercial. CHAIRMAN: Motion has been made and seconded for denial. All those .n favor say "Aye." Opposed, Nay. Passes. (inaudible) At this time we'll take a ten minute break. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: November 7, I983 AGENDA ITEM h: y DATE SUBMITTED: Oct. 28, x1983 PREVIOUS ACTION: Approved by Planning.Comm. n ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE- C:mmnrahana;ve July 19, 83. Remand by CC. ' Plannin Comm. denied Auust 30, 1983 4 Plan Amendment CPA 9-83 and Zones REQUESTED ilk: Appeal - Gallo's Vineyard' Change ZC 8-83 Herb Mori sSt e Builders Herb Morissette 'Builders DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: Ate_ CITY ADMINISTRATOR: x INFORMATION SUMMARY Gallo`s Vineyard/Herb Morissette`Builders has appealed denial of CPA 9•-83 and ZC 8-83. e The denial by the Planning Commission followed a remand by the City Council of an earlier approval. The remand was granted when the NPO asserted that they had not received notice. At the second hearing, neighbors spoke in opposition. The vote to deny was four to one. 4 Staff recommended that the changes be granted and provided findings in support. The Planning Commission, when denying the application, made aIternative findings. Staff has provided a memo analysing these findings. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED To accept the recorimendation of the Planning commission and deny the request, or uphold the appeal and grant the request. SUGGESTED ACTION ��r 1521 1 y, OCTOBER 26, 1983 4 i Plannng Commission TO: t k,+ FROM: Planning Department UP r SUBJECT: CPA 9-83 and: ZC 8-83 Gallo's vineyard After staff's analysis of the Planstaff Cconcludes ,sthatFindings findings relative are' denial of CFA` 9-83 and ZC 8-83, ,:applicant does meet the locational criteria that shall be inconclusive and the ' determinants of the areas designated for medium density. Staff's the conclusion is based upon the following facts: A. (3) Areas which are not subject to development limitations such as topography, flooding, poor drainage. tl the Though the neighbors have expressed their concernsover has also poor drainage problem in the the subject area, the applicant expressed his willingness to submit complete and rainage Division t(�Plansled ashowing plans for approval by the City Engineering different approaches ;for solving the drainage , prul-Aem)• taff believes that it was premature to deny CPA 9-83 and ZC 8-83 prior the Engineering Division's review of these plans. (5) Areas within one half of a mile of 'public' transporation. There are two bus stops in close proximity, ranging in distance from one mile (at the intersection of 121st Ave. and Scholls Ferry Road) to 1.4 mile (on Walnut St. and 116th Ave.). 1lowever, it is important to note that the proposed development is the same in character as its surrounding areas, i.e. , dettached single-family residential ents or multi-family housing projects which development and not apartm require close proximity to public transportation. B. The following factors will be determinants of density ranges allowed through zoning in the medium density planned area: (1) The density of development in areas historically zoned for medium density development. policy 6.3.2 (a) allows for a density increase and transition Plan Map in an up to 25% over the density shown on the Comprehensive for the adjacent established area (within 100 feet of each proprty line). would. -reale density by only 13% over the The proposed development area, therefore, it is well within the density in the adjacent permitted density transition limits, (2) The topography and natural features of the area and the degree t, of possible buffering from established low density residential areas. The subjectsite slopes gently to the south (4%) and it is covered atural features have been discussed before under with native grass. �l A.3. In ;terms of buffering the de_c1„p::cnt from established low density residential areas, this factor shallnot be applied"to this case, because the character and nature of proposed development is similar to that of its surrounding areas, i.e., dettached single-family housing. (4) The distance to the public transit. This factor has be discussed under A.5. (5) The distance to neighborhood or general commercial centers and office business' centers. The subject site is located within one mile of a general commercial shopping ,center (Greenway 'Town. Center). Further, this factor does not specify the actual distance to a 'commercial center. HPsdmj(0158P) i r � ® 26, 1983 were considered. Minutes from July 26th minutes President Tepedino moved and Commissioner Moen moved for approval' of July submitted. ' Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present. esCed the Commission con:.:inue the ESEE Associate Planner Newton sugg ; until September 13, 1983, to give staff an opportunity to make corrections. to e President Tepedino moved and Commissioner Butler Coal deeds to `continued Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 14-83, September 13, 1983. I Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present CHANGE ZC 8 ' 1dE83 5.4 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT GPA ,9= 4 7 Ca1Ia`s` Vineyard/Herb Mor isseCte Builders NPO-#� inpu A remand from City Council tfromilLow for Density to 7Mediumt Density Comprehensive Plan Amendment from R-7 (Single Family Residential) to Residential and Zone Change . R-5 (Single Family Residential).' ; made staff's recommendation for approval. Assistant Planner Pishvaie representing NPO 7, oppossed the increase ® NPO COMMENTS Bob Boberg, t. in density. P Hans J. Vatheuer, Alpha Engineers, ® APPLICANTS PRESENTATION: - commented they had gone before the NPO, that staff had recommswed approval and that the Planning Commission. had previously app ested the Planning Commission again approve this application. He requ the request. , . PUBLIC TESTIMONY ® Leonard Scheckla, 10200 SW Durham Road-, • supported the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change. He also asked the Planning Tk�tSa 1S1 34DC lot " Commission to include his property (i7ash. Coy P . __ 2800) with this application. ® Theresa Hams-Ciepanno, 11660 SW 113th Place, opposed the application because of the drainage problems in the area. 113th Place, submitted a letter opposing the Carol. Hardie, 11800 ea application (staff read). She gave additional testimony regarding the drainage problem. She felt increasing the density would only p increase the drainage problem. � . Larry Jensen, 11638 SW 113th, opposed the application because of the drainage problem. He also did not want density g increased to tfrontage frontage of property to be 33 feet as surroundin pro g average 70 feet. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 30, 1983 Page 4 E � f CROSS EXAMINATION AND REBUTTAL ® Comsissioner Owens question 'AL ha Engineering how they would deal : r with the drainage ;;problem. Mr;. Vatheuer said they, would be submitting a drainage plan for approval by the city engineer. '6 .Lengthy discussion followed : regarding the drainage problem which would:be created with the increased density. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED © Commissioner Moen commented he had originally favored the change,' however, since going ahead with the Comprehensive Plan process he did notfavor making the change. a Commissioner Fyre felt the applicant and NFO should work together to come up with an agreement. ® Discussion followed whether or not the criteria had been met and if they should' give the ' applicant 'back what he had been previously approved.. Consensus of the Commission was that the Comprehensive Plan had been adopted ,and not enough of the determinants for density ranges had been met. a Commissioner Owens moved and Commissioner Fyre seconded to deny Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 9-83 and ZONE CHANGE ZC 8-83' based on policy 12.1=1- b, failure to meet determinants A 3 and Ss and B 1 2, 4 and 5; and also based on the additional information submitted by the public, the NPO, and the failure to meet the Current Comprehensive Plan. Motion carried by majority of Commissioner present, President Tepedino voting no. 5.5 ZONE CHANGE ZC 10-83 Boberg/Chapelle/Sorenson/Larson/Sollars/Zimmerman A request for a zone change from R-20 to R-10 for the following properties: 10570, 10600, 10660, 10730, 10750, 10770 and 10800 SW North Dakota (Wash. Co. Tax Map 1S1 34DA, tax lots 2300, 2400, 2500, 2600, 2700, 2800, 3100 and 3200)• a Associate Planner Newton made staff's recommendation for approval with conditions ® NPO COMMENTS - Mr. Boberg, representing NPO # 7, supported the Zone Change 0 w APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION: Mr. Boberg, 10660 North Dakota explained the history of the change, explaining how they had acted in haste during the Comprehensive Plan hearing process and were now requesting ( R-10 zoning instead of the R-20. ti PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED PLANNING COM?4ISSION MINUTES August 30, 1983 Page 5 �P STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM August W, 1983 - 7:'30 P.M. TIGARD,SCHOOL DISTRICT` ADMINISTRATION BUILDING BOARD ROOM 13137 S.W. Pacific Highway - Tigard, Or. A. FINDING OF FACT 1. General Information CASE: CPA 9-83 Gallo's Vinyard Comprehensive Plan Amendment ZC 8-83 Gallo's Vinyard Zone Change REQUEST: For a 'Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low ''Density to Medium Density Residential and for a zone change from R-7 (Single FamilyResidential) to R-5 (Single Family ;Residential). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential ZONING DESIGNATION: R-7 RECOMMENDATION Based on staff's analysis of applicable planning, policies, Municipal Code provisions, existing' land' uses and staff's field investigation, staff recommends approval of the applicant's request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low Density to Medium Density. In addition, staff recommends approving the zone change request from R-7 to R-5. APPLICANT: Herb Morissette Builders OWNER: Same 7470 S.W. 76th Ave. Portland, Or. 97223 LOCATION: S.W. Tigard Street and S.W. 113th St. (Wash. Co. Tax Map ISI 34DC tax lot 2900). LOT AREA: 3.38 Acres NPO COMMENT: No written comments had been received from the NPO at the writing of this report. PUBLIC NOTICES MAILED 13 notices were mailed. No written comments had been received at the writing of this report. , 2. _Background preliminary plat for a On June 23, 1978, the Planning Director approved a P 1979, the Tigard 14 lot ' subdivision with conditions. 0n November 13, s nary plat Planning Commission granted an extenuncion il approved lalComprehensi•Fe�Plan, :- 1981, the Tigard City P 1983, the On April 27, On May 9, ; Revision from R-7 to R-5 for the 'subject property• designating the Tigard .City ,Council adopted the Comprehensive Pan satin the propethe property low density and the Interim Zoning cl approved a street vacation on On August 8, 1983, the City 113th Ave. -A realignment of SW 113th will be dedicated when the final plat is recorded. 3. Vicinity Information The surrounding land uses are as follows: , The land to the north is designated low density, zoned R-7 and developed as large lot single family residences. The property west of the site is developed as a single family subdivision at R-7 densities. . family residence on S acres. A To the south of the site is a single portion of that land lies within the 100 year floodplain. The land east of the site is vacant and is owned by the Tigard School t District. 4. Site information south and is covered with native The site is vacant, slopes 4% to the brush and grasses. B. APPLICABLE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING POLICIES: 1, Comprehensive Plan Policies. 2.1.1 THE CITY SHALL MAINTAIN AN ONGOZtvG CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM AND SHALL ASSURE THAT CITIZENS WILL BE PROVIDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE INVOLVED IN ALL PHASES OF THE PLANNING PROCESS. within 250 r is Notices were sent to all property s in the Tigard Time on application. A notice was published August 12, 1983. In addition, NPO # 7 has been notified of this application. PLANNING 2.1.3 THE CITY SHALL ENSURE ANNDER TA pABL�FORM FOR ON ALL EINTERESTED ISSUES IS AVAILABLE CITIZENS. STAFF REPORT CPA 9-83/ZC 8-83/S 7-83 Page 2 4 . (( All interested parties are given, at a minimum, 10 -days ;to respond in writing to the application and request under consideration and are encouraged ;to do so. The planning staff is available to address any specific questions concerning the _application or the application process. Iz, 6.1.1 THE CITY SHALL PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR DIVERSITY OF HOUSING DENSITIES AND RESIDENTIAL TYPES AT VARIOUS PRICE AND RENT LEVELS. 6.3.1 THE CITY SHALL DIRECT ITS LAND USE ACTIONS TOWARD THE MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT OF ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL AREAS BY: a. DESIGNATING ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP : THE "ESTABLISHED AREAS°1 COMMITTED TO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA. WITHIN THE ,. "ESTABLISHED AREAS" NEW DEVELOPMENT WILL BE OF THE SAME TYPE AND DENSITY IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE CHARACTER OF EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS. - 6.3.2 IN THE TIG COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE A DENSITY TRANSITION WHEREBY INCREASED RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES ARE ADJACENT TO ESTABLISHED AREAS IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: - a a. THE DENSITY WITHIN 100 FEET OF EACH PROPERTY LINE SHALL NOT EXCEED 25%' OVER THE DENSITY SHOWN ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE ADJACENT LAND UNLESS THERE IS AN INTERVENING ROAD $: (MAJOR COLLECTOR OR 'ARTERIAL) IN WHICH CASE THIS 'PROVISION k SPALL NOT APPLY. X34 k, b. WHERE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ABUTS AN EXISTING HOUSING ;., DEVELOPMENT, THE HOUSING TYPES SHALL BE COMPATIBLE. FOR t EXAMPLE: 1. TWO HOUSING UNITS WHICH ARE ATTACHED ARE CONSIDERED : COMPATIBLE WITH A DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY UNIT; BUT 2. MORE THAN TWO HOUSING UNITS WHICH ARE ATTACHED ARE NOT ; CONSIDERED COMPATIBLE WITH A SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED t} UNIT. ,;. 6.3.3 IN ALL PHASES OF THE DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PROCESS IN A RESIDENTIAL "ESTABLISHED AREAA1, A PRIMARY CONSIDERATION OF THE CITY SHALL BE TO PRESERVE AND ENHANCE THE CHARACTER OF THE ADJACENT ESTABLISHED AREAS. µ. The site is within an established area and abuts single family , home. The applicant s iiproposing to construct single family homes which will be of the same housing type as the homes to the west. The applicant is proposing to construct 9 single family , homes within 100 feet of the 8 existing single family homes, only a 13% increase in density. STAFF REPORT CPA 9-83/ZC'8-83/S 7-83 - Page 3 M 110 G I IRE 12.1.1 THE CITY SHALL PROVIDE FOR HOUSING DENSITIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH: a, THE APPLICABLE PLAN POLICIES. IX b. THE APPLICABLE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA. THE APPLICABLE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN'r CODE PROVISIONS. C. All applicable plan policies, locational "criterias and Tigard Municipal Code provisions have been considered in' review of this � application. T ` nsidered in determining a change The locational criteria tobe co ^F to medium density are as follows: , .X 2. Medium Density Reside t_al E A. The following '.factors will be determinants of the areas, designated for medium density on the plan map: J (1) Areas whict-. are not committed to low density development. (2) Areas which have direct access from—collector or arterial streets. �(3) Areas which are not subject to development limitations such as topography, flooding, poor drainage.` (4) Areas where the existing facilities have the capacity for additional development; �(5) Areas within_ one half of a mile of public transportation. (6) Areas which can be buffered from low density residential areas in order to maximize the privacy of established low density residential areas. of density B. The following factors will in the determinants medium ty planned ranges allowed through zoning area; (1) The density of development in areas historically zoned for medium density development- (2) The topography and natural features of the areas and the degree of possible buffering from established low density residential areas. ('3) 'The capacity of the services. (4) The distance to the public transit. STAFF REPORT CPA 9--83/ZC 8-83/ S 7-83 - Page 4 ` (5) The distance to neighborhood or general commercial centers and office business centers. (6) The distance from public open space. The property has access to a collector street. There are no development -limitations ' on the property. Public facilities to the site are more than adequate to serve the applicant' proposed development. There is public transit on SW Walnut,, SW 121st and SW' Greenburg Road. The Tigard School District owns the property east of the site which is presently 'vacant but ,is a potential school site which will provide additional open space and recreation. 2. TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE PROVISIONS: All of the requirements and provisions in the Tigard Municipal Code have been considered in review of t«Is,application. C. CONCLUSIONS Staff finds that;the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change conform to the applicalbe Planning Policies. D. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendsapproval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA 9-83) and Zone Change (ZC 8-83) request as proposed by -the -applicant. Further, T staff recommends that Applicant's Subdivision request to be remanded to the NPO # 7 fortheir input and be heard again by the Planning Commission at a later Sate. In additiou staff recommends that the Planning Commission modify the above application to consider a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change on Leonard Scheckla°s property (Wash. Co. Tax Map 1S1 34DC lot 2800) RECOMMENDED MOTION: Should the Planning Commission decide to approve the request as presented, the following motion may be made: "Move to forward recommendation of approvaltothe City Council for the royal Comprehensive Plan Amendment from low density to medium density, app of the Zane Change to become effective upon Council apprava of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment PREPAREA EY: S. Hamad pishvaie AP OV ED �Y: William A. Monahan Assistant Planner Director of Planning and Development NOTE: Should the Planning Commission pass a motion other than that recommended by the staff, findings shall be adopted with the motion. STAFF REPORT CPA 9-83/ZC 8-83/S 7-83 Page 5 z.3 COMPREHENSIVE 'N AMENDMENT CPA 7-83 Commop• lalthRealtors Group a Inc. NPO # 5 � u- This item was set over to afford the applicant time to meet with the ' NPO # 5 and 6 on July 20, 1983. 45.4 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA -9-•;3 ZONE CHANGE ZC 8-83 SUBDIVISION S. 7-83 Gallo's Vinyard/Here Morissette Builders NPO # 7 A request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low Density to Medium Density ,Residential and Zone change from R-•7 (Single Family Residential) 'to R-5 (Single Family Residential). Also approval of a 22 lot Single Family Residential Subdivision for 5,000 sq. ft. ,lots on 3.38 acres. Located: SW Tigard St. and S.W. 113th St. (Wash. Co. Tax Map .1S1 34DC lot 2900). o Associate Planner Newton made staff's recommendation for approval. A o Hans J. Vatheuei, IAlpha Engineers,` 1750 S.W. Skyline, representing available to answer 'an " the applicant stated he was y questions. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o No one appeared to speak. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION o President Tepedino questioned the condition of SW Tigard St; ° Associate Planner Newton stated the street is 'scheduled far a , ' dition of SW 113th and overlay. Discussion followed regarding the con , SW Tigard St. o Commissioner Owens questioned why there were survey conditions on the 3 staff report; Associate Planner Newton explained this was being done at the request of the Public Works Director. o Commissioner Butler questioned why there was no School Impact-report with the subdivision; Associate Planner stated there was one in the file and unless the Planning Commission requested a copy was not normally given to the Commissioners. o Coaae°issioner Moen. movedand Commissioner Owens seconded to .recommend of Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 9-83 approval to the City Council and approve Zone Change ZC 8-83 and Subdivision S-7-83 per staff's recommendation and conditions. Also, correct the spelling of the ward "there" to "their" in the survey conditions. ` Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present. x . &M, - ]q,30 I r+ (C.S No. 3090) 500 I J 2 526 .4c. N (C.S. No. 6747) e V1 m�0. d O 9 318.7 350.90 N 99• +i w 190.90 Y (C.S. N0.5301) 600 i 405 Ac. ' a: r , n a � 2 o•1 �N N N I O a o' (C.S. No. 6747}� _ ! (C.S. No. 5305) o � TS m 260.90 2 09.59• E ` 378.90 i 4 a9°.Si E 180.90 ♦ 98.56 EAST - ♦ N i (C.S. No. 13,075) ♦ Co. Rd. No. 916 • • 539- i 45. :232.09 n T2- . o. ....9304.,• ....i ....w'�y� Bfl99 A 10J T2 3 B9° q5 3/4• E m 69144'i8'ra 50 ° 4900 A7 2900 ® x`00 � � '' J 2t3C?O;a o ZfAc. T 3000 120 It z0 $0 0_ m /6.53Ac. 17 os g 9 C.I 103 26 "Yz% 1 !,, W 09-56'41"E I I Y 2300 4700-, m - 4901 SCHOOL O,S74,CT 1z510 200 r 4600 5000 1 : 15 3 25 1,0.09 Ste 129 ry 4500 CL. 5100 100 4 12 ,< 24 6 5 a, e4 .�•, 999 uaos 5200 120 9(]� a , 000 g 4440 a 23 G n a >I 13 R 5 '�� Ila 1 119 5300 900 4340 � �� 22 � 12 p 6 0 5400 w. 1 p04.38 ai®.0g ! 1 5%*41 E �. �t11 4200 �y'y a� z 5500 20 aS' 4100 aZa 1 INIT6A i�Cc. 2 — INITIAL POINT R.20t 72 4•--- 5600 WWI INLET t— �, � e53. August 30, 1983 Transcript of Assistant Planner Pishvaie presentation to Planning Commission. P.amid Pishvaie: This ' application is for Herb Morissette and he his requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low Density'; to Medium Density '~ Residential and a Zone Change from R-7 to R-5. After staff's analysis of the planning policies anti location 'criteria, Engineering Division's review of the proposal, availability and adequacy of public, services to the site, staff believes that the ;proposed density _transition from R-7 to R-5 is appropriate for this site.and staff recommends approval of the request. � CASE No. GENERAL 'APPLICATTON FORM - 'PAGE 5 CITY OF TIGARD, 12755 SW Ash , PO Box 23397 igard, Oregon'.97223 _ (503)639-4171 ` THE FOLLOWING PEOPLE, AS REQUESTED BY THE APPLLCAN`C, SHALL BE NOTIFIED OF EACH HEARING. Staff Notice (e.g. Attorney, Surveyor, Engineer) Notice Report ' Decision of Review Name Alpha Engineering Inc Street 1750 SW Skyline blvd Suite 19 x X X X city Portland State OR Zip 972?] Name Street City State Zip Nau� Stree t Cite State Z. Name k - Street City State Zip kPPLICA Herb orissette Builders, Inc. X x ------------------ OWNEIZ Herb Morissette Builders, Inc. x October 27, 1983 r r a Re: Gallo's Vineyard/Herb Morissette Builders Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 9-83 �a Zone Change ZC 8-83 - NPO #7 � Appeal of Planning Commission's Denial The Tigard City Council at their meeting of November 7, 1983, at 7:30 P.M., at Fowler Junior High School Lecture Room, 10865 S.W. : Walnut Street, Tigard, Oregon, will consider the above item. Enclosed for your review and study is a copy of the transcript of the Planning Commission meeting ' minutes of 8/3 /83. Sincerely, Doris Hartig �~ City Recorder . GENUAL APPLICATION FLA - PAGE 5 CASE No. CITY OF TIGARD, 12755 Std Ash, PO Box 23397 0- Tigard, Oregon 97223 - (503)639-4171 THE FOLLOWING PEOPLE, AS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT, SHALL BE NOTIFIER OF EACH HEARING. r (e.g. Attorney, Surveyor, Engineer) r .Staff Notice NoticeRe ort Decision of Review Name Mackenzie/Saito & Associates, P.C. (La_ns Stout). Street '0690 S.W. Bancroft Street X X X city Portland State Zi Name Terry Hauck, Attorney Street 1100 S.W. 6th Avenue — X X X X City Portland, State OR Zip 97204 Nasi Street ` City State Zi Name Street city State Zi �F PCM Associates APPLICANTMike McKenna " PO Box 4162 Portland Ore.. 97208 X X X X OWNER t; October 27, 1983 Re: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 12-83 Zone Change`ZC 9/83 PCM Assoc.'- Portland Chain Appeal of Planning Commission's Denial TheTigardCity Council at their meeting of November 7, 1983, at, 7:30 P.M., at Fowler JuniorHigh;School Lecture Room, 10855 S.W. Walnut Street, ;Tigard, Oregon, will consider the above item. Enclosed for your review and study is a copy of the transcript of the Planning Commission meeting minutes of 9/13/83. Sincerely, Doris Hartig City Recorder �i MEMORANDUM To: City::Council 10/26/83 From: City Recorder O/ Re: Gallo's Vineyard/Herb`Morissette Builders Comprehensive,Plan Amendment CPA 9-83 Zone Change ZC 8-83 NPO #7 Appeal of Planning Commission's Denial g' The above item is scheduled for a public hearing on November 7,; 1983. Enclosed for your review and study is.a copy of the transcript of Planning Commission meeting minutes of 8/30/83. lia APPEAL - GALLO'S VINEYARD CPA-7-83 Page 1 of NEWTON: This is a request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and zone change and approval of 22 single-family subdivision, which would be single family residences. The property is located at Tigard at 113th Avenue. A couple ofpoints about the subdivision. It has been approved before with an R-5 designation. The applicant intends to construct the same "subdivision that was approved the R-5 designation. However, since low density on the plan map no longer include R-5, R-5 is now medium density, the applicant is now requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a zone change to bring the property so he can develop :the subdivision which was approved a couple of years ago on the property. A couple of reasons that he hasn't developed: 1) the market and 2) he proposes to vacant S.W. 113th and rededicate a realignment to make ` the property more useable. You can see it on the plat. Right now S. W. 113th is a very narrow gravel road which goes,down and serves as access to the property to the south. He intends to realign it and connect it up with the existing drive to the property to the south'. The staff is recommending approval of this based on the applicable policies subdivision, ordinance requirementsandlocational criteria. If you have any questions aboutthis I can answer them. CHAIRMAN: Any NPO or CCI report? May I have the applicant's report please. MORISSETTE: I've gone through the staff report, and I have no problems with it. I 'think everything is covered quite well including the history of this, so I 'am just here to answer questions at this time. CHAIRMAN Any other party wish to speak in favor of this proposal or against? Cross-examination or rebuttal. The only question I would have to staff is that Tigard St. is in a terrible state of dis-repair. Have you looked at that in your suggestion that we approve this? NEWTON: Improvements would be made to Tigard. Also the survey crew chief has informed me that Tigard St. is getting an overlay in the fall. CHAIRMAN: All of Tigard St.? NEWTON: Yes, they're working on getting it in our jurisdiction, and I understand from Randy � - (?) Survey Chief that they have shot the street, ders a survey on it and that it's up for overlay this fall. Now that isn't going to include major improvements, but at least the surface will. be better. ?? 113th, is that the one being vacated? As a fully improved street? NEWTON: Then being rededicated. That will be improved to 'local street standards and to the end, of the property and then of course Mr. drive. ?? Are they going to make some sort of a circle or put a cul-de-sac in for say fire protection. NEWTON What they're going to do is make a cul-de-sac or a hammerhead at the end with provision for Mr. to use the edge of +' the cul-de-sac so there will be a driveway cut for him. �? How far is this distance from here to there, over 200 feet, right? NEWTON: Yes, it's been approved by the fire department: } _ _ .. i: AAA APPEAL - GALLO'S VINEYARD CPA 7-83 Page 2 of ?? It has? NEWTON: Because they intend that this street will go through. B-f�,�„th y\" do not want people to go;down here. If they continue they'1'h` iie g Mr. _°s driveway basically and have trouble turning around. So what it would be is a-temporary ?? Is that in the flood plain of this property? NEWTON: Mr. 's property has a flood,plain in it, not this site though. One quick question. It says "Sidewalks will be located adjacent to curbs." 'lite That means-without an ? NEWTON: That means without a- strip. Their public improvement plans had a grass strip between. CHAIRMAN: Any other questions? ?? Yes, I would like to know what were the particular reasons for including the survey conditions in this? NEWTON: Mr. the Survey Crew Chief is going start requiring survey conditions on most subdivisions and minor land partitions, because they're trying to get the whole city surveyed on a grid. If he can require on subdivisions he tie it to the grid, so " you are going to be seeing these on subdivisions in the future. CHAIRMAN: Any other questions? ?? Is this the report now? Once it's approved it'll be into action, right? ; NEWTON: The Comprehensive Plan Amendment and zone change will have to go 4 to Council that has been approved of course. ?rr� Where in the process do we get the school report, would that be after this one? NEWTON: It was submitted. You didn't get a copy of it. t' ,90?� If it's negative you would be sure to include it. ? 1� We were going to change it so we'd be more in touch. Usually they were rubber-stamped, and you were starting to suspect that they were even looking at them. Is it easier to include them or is it easier to include them in your report? NEWTON: We can include them, because today we established a new procedure. ?? Why I asked was that last summer we ;were hearing how packed the schools s d�E were and kids were being transferred all around, and now all of a sudden we've got subdivisions all over and we don't hear anything about it. e r APPEAL GALLO'S VINEYARD CPA 9-83 Page4 of CjjAjRMAN: Close of public hearing. Commissioner Moen. F, MOEN: I think I remember hearing this before and if my recollection is right if this is bascially the same development we saw before I nsity is appropriate, and for think the use is appropriate, the de things too short here, I'd like to make those reasons, not to cut motion that we recommend approval of CPA 9-83 to the Council, and Item 2 that we approve Zone Change 8-83 and that we approve the S-83 subdivision with the further staff findings and with the recommended itions, item 3 ection on survey cond ik conditions, including a spelling corr I believ that should read their CHAIRKILAN: Motion made. Seconded. Further discussion? All those in favor of the motion as made signify by saying Aye. Those opposed7 Motion the staff report. ousiy. Next item 5.5. May I have carries unanim. HE ME- PIN WM on=- =-M I APPEAL - GIALLO'S VINEYARD CPA 9-83 Page 1 of 9 (meeting of 8-30-83) CHAIRMAN: We'll move now to Item 5`.4. May I have the staff report and recommendation please. PISHVAIE: (sorry, couldn't understand any of it) CHAIRMAN: Thank you staff requesting approval of the applicant's request for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment andalsothe zone change from R-7 -to R-5. NPO or CCI 'input on this issue? BOBERG: I'm Richard Boberg, representing NPO 7. You're going to hear from homeowners adjacent to this dealing;with a lot of standing water on tnis land we're talking; about. I don't care to address this issue. I think they are going to cover it very well. What I wish to: talk;aboutis the Development Code vs. the staff report on this issue. There is not adivate access totransitor shopping for a medium density dwelling. Tigard St. is a minor collector, and in one that you're going to hear later in this it says that low density residential policies include the following: areas where.street facilities are limited to collectors and local streets. ' There's some kind of a division between this report that I have on N. Dakota, and the one that staff has written on Tigard St. where they say a multiple can go on a minor collector, and on this one it says it shouldn't, so I question that very much. Also, we were shown a plan for this _22 units. Inside: the zone that they are asking for the average lot with 50 feet is required, and they are showing lots' in-here with 34 feet. There's no way that they can get 22 - lots in there and stay to average lot width of 50. What we're doing, if we give them a zone change to 5 is that we're opening the door for them to go into medium density in an area where the Comp Plan has been decided low density. The entire area around there is low density, NPO 7 has : consistently opposed any changing of zoning from low density to medium : density. We feel it is inappropriate in this area. , In addition to this, it says something about approving the 22-unit site plan. Thdt was never the intent of. NPO. All we had was just the51V, request for zone change, so I don't believe it is proper for this body its to even discuss the 22 unit development. Thank you. , CHAIRMAN: CCI report? May I have the applicant's presentation. VATHEUER: My name is Hans Vatheuer. I'm with Alpha Engineering, representing - Morissette. ' Liz, I wonder if you could clarify the position that you're ° taking on the zone change. NEWTON: 'Tonight we are asking the staff and Commission to consider the, Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the zone change. We would, should the Commission approve it, like to ask that they remand the subdivision to NPO 7 for their input. CHAIRMAN: Did the NPO understand that? . BOBERG: No. CHAIRMAN: Did you understand what she just said now? t; BOBERG: Yes. " APPEAL - GALLO'S VINEYARD CPA 9-83 Page 2 0£ 9 VATHEUER: As you probably all realize I was here July 19, and this proposal` was approved by you, that is, ;the plan amendment, the zone change and also the subdivision, and subsequently we went to the City Council, and it,became apparent that the NPO had not been notified. . I believe that all other notification was correct, talking to the staff, so that was the only improper notification, and I'did go back to the NPO and am really here wanting to answer questions, if you have any, and also to answer any questions that the opposition may have. rz CHAIRMAN: So, you're in favor of the staii report? VATHEUER: Yes, totally. I think it is just like last time. CHAIRMAN: Any parties wishing to speak in favor of the proposal? l4 SCHECKLA: My name is Leonard Scheckla. I live at 10200 SW Durham Road, and I've got a piece of property that's right up; in the corner on Tigard Avenue Tax Lot 2800. L am in favor of this zone change, and I also wanted to request°a zone change on my piece of property to: ' be put in with Morissette property-at the same zone change, and I ` wanted to request for the fees to be waived. NEWTON: You could' modify the application to include this property, and we have suggested that you do that. You'll see under recommendation. E, CHAIRMAN: Any other parties wishing to speak in favor of this proposal? Parties to speak against the proposal. I have a' list`of people. Theresa'Hams-Giapanno. _ d1 Imo: I'm Theresa Hams-Ciapanno. We live at 11660 SW 113th. I live in Nutley's Addition which this other property is right behind, Lot 25, so we're high up. What we're concerned about is that we have a :'' drainage problem, just like everyone else lower in the street, plus ; our property sits higher than the Gallo property, and every winter our flower beds in the back and _ y get washed down, and our dirt and everything goes down to the neighbors, gets stuck on the fence and we get water underneath our house about 6 months during the rain. It comes up clear high to our ducts so the insulation starts to get wet, so we have to dig a ditch on the opposite side of our house so it drains out. CHAIRMAN: So you're suggesting that the site is flooded? HAXS: If we're sitting so high and this property is lower, we all have ^ that drain problem, and what's going to happen to these people that buildFy over here. We're also concerned that if this does go in is it going to affect our drainage problem at all. We have a bad problem already, we don't need it any worse. A house went in right above us, and we were concerned about what that would do. I have called up and talked to someone " about that and he said, "Oh your drainage will get better." It's '. still the same. You walk out in the backyard during the winter ';' months, and you just smash down in the grass, there is so much water. - It doesn't have anywhere to go but downhill even though it sticks house under our ^ , so it is just a bad problem and should be taken into consideration. Thank you. �. CHAIRMAN: Carol Hardie. ' NEWTON: She's asked me to read her letter first. "Tigard Planners: Since I APPEAL GALLO'S VINEYARD CPA 9-83 Page 3 of 9 am unable to attend tonight's meeting, I will voice my concerns ; regarding Morisette's zoning plan change A couple of; years ago Mr. Mgrissette attempted to build on the 'property in , question, and I wrote you in detail then regarding my concerns as to the drainage in our area. My property Lot 19, backs directly on the lowest area of the proposed site. Water stands on the property behind our home practically year-round. The drainage on our property is terrible. We have approximately 3-6 inches of water under our :house , ` year-round, in spite of the drainage pile system installed in our ,backyard. , Our property 3.s approximately 2 ft. higher, than the property Mr. Morissette (line left off letter). ,It is my understanding that houses should not : be built in the swampland on fill. How does Mr. Morissette plan to solve this problem? More to the point, how does he plan to buildon this small a property without making our drainage problems even worse. When this discussion was last held, it was my understanding that the Planning Commission voted that the drainage situation would have ;to be solved before the Plan would be approved. I hope this is still the case. We attempted o solve our drainage problems for the past 6 years unsuccessfully. V I hope Mr. Morissette will be more successful in addressing;the drainage in the proposed development than he was in ours: Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely Carol Hardie. �. I had justoule points that I wanted to add to that letter also. a� a couple s C' The reason we really found out we had a bad drainage problem under our g. house was that we had to have some work done on our furnace, and Mr. Morissette's representative came out to work on the furnace and found at that time that the water was, so bad they .; had to`bring-in sump pumps to 'pump it because they could not get under the house to work on the furnace. After that day Mrs. Morissette called me and said, "I'm sorry, we'll fix it this time but in the future it's your responsibility." So we have been working for the past'six years trying to solve this problem. We had a friend of ours, an engineer, come in, lay out for us a drainage system as best he could that would try and alleviate the problem, and the water in our house last year was 3 inches deep. Before that it had been up to 6 inches deep or deeper. We have standing water in our back yard all winter long. Our grass is `¢ practically under water. We have one whole area of our backyard that simply rots because nothing will grow there because the land is so low. Our land is 2-3 ft. higher than the land directly behind us. Our fence keeps falling over because our land is so wet and soggy. Our fence is now tied up with stakes because we've had posts sunk in 4 ft. of concrete that won't hold them up. I hope that you will seriously consider this drainage problem. I'm really concerned that if more property is put in there,and that property is filled or in any other way brought up to where it could be built on it is going to make our drainage problems even worse than they are right now. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Jensen. JENSEN: My name is Larry Jensen. I live at 11658 SW 113th Pl. I have lived in the area since 1945 (change of tape) . We are high up on 113th. Our neighbor across the street from us has had his furnace put out by standing water under his house. Secondly, our area has 70 ft. frontage lots. Some of these proposed sites have as little as 33 ft. frontages I don't think the two areas are contiguous one to the other. What kind of a house would you put on a 33 ft. frontage single family dwelling? APPEAL - GALLO'S VINEYARD CPA 9-83 Page 4 of 9 I think I 'would'speak for most of the rest of the people in the area who do not want to see the zone change. CHAIRMAN: Are there any others in opposition? Now is the time for- cross- examination and rebuttal. OWENS: How are you going to deal with this water problem? VATHEUER:! In April of 1981 we had an R-5 approved, and we did some plans. This is the proposed subdivision, this is drainage here, this is the manhole and a 12 inch line. We plan to run this down the existing right-of-way and then as far as lots down here, :it's about 1/2% slope down to here, so we plan to take ;some off here to fill this in somewhat to build the loss up and give proper drainage into the drainage system here. If'you'd like to look at a; profile of what it looks like, I have 3 profiles here of how the land. Rere's a profile so you can see down here is the existing 12 inch line. You can see that it starts up here and drops. The lower portion is very flat. It's about 1/2% right now. You say you're going to fill some of the lower lots to allow those lots to drain properly into your storm sewers. - VATHEUER: The street will be lower than the lots to give drainage for the crawl space. { ? How is that going to affect the property on the adjacent property-- 010 help'their'problem, hinder it or ` VATHEUER: I believe these lots are, as some of the people indicated in the existing subdivision, Nutleys, are 2-3 feet higher down below, so quite a bit of fill was put in there. I don't believe that we need to put in that much fill if we have proper lot grading towards the street and provide for crawl space drainage. DVAp When you get done filling in your corresponding lot down in the lowest section of Nutleys, what kind of effect do see having on the lower lot. VATHEUER: It would be pretty well neutral. One thing we could do and we may need ,to do if we can't get the proper lot grading would be to put up a perimeter drain between the proposed subdivision and Nutleys, which would be fairly simple to do now, and other people could tie into that. If we can't build our lots up enough to get good for front, we'll do the same in the back and run another drain line in the back and it could be sized adequately to handle adjoining property. ?! Would the amount of fill that you need for the back of the proposed area make the elevation higher than say, Lot 19? VATHEUER: No, I don't believe so from what I hear. I believe their lot is 2-3 ft. higher than where we are. If ours were higher for sure we mould have to put a drain in to make sure no water would go onto that lot, because that would alter the natural drainage if we dumped off of those lots. We'd certainly'catch it before it gets there. APPEAL - GALLO'S VINEYARD CPA 9-83 Page 5 of 9 OT ?? Has the City Engineer looked at these plans? Does he know the situation? k I would question at this point that the remain for the 5 subdivision itself. (inaudible) Y`� aa�It seems to me the main things to consider are the density issue and � 15° that's it for now. ",t.6,1\The say that we shouldn't be blind to the burden that we carry for the health, safety and welfare of the population, but on the other hand.this is a zone change item, and nothing the Planning Commission can do 99 I think those issue, should be noted at this point and brought up at that �s�^u time, because I think that is very germaine to;.the final development of that property when the subdivision comes through at that point. Hopefully the situation can be fixed. CHAIRMAN: Any other questions on cross-examine before I close the hearing?'' Are there unusual circumstances that underly the need for the zone change? Why are you asking for it? VATHEUER: In 1981 we came in for both the subdivision approval and also Plan Amendment to an R-5.B:ecause of economic reasons we didn't go ahead with it. In those days an R-5 was allowed in a low density, and now itis not and that's why ;the Plan Amendment CHAIRMAN: Any otherquestions? What we've been discussing back here just a little bit was the drainage issue really needs to be considered, but I'd like to know where the developer really plans to go with this thing when the plan he's shown us shows these very narrow lots that don't even come close to meeting minimum lot width. What we're doing, in effect, if we give him the zone change, is let him go into medium density without knowing what he really wants to put on there cause there is no way that this plan could be put in. I just can't see this body or council letting him have 33 or 34 foot lots on there. CHAIRMAN: Staff, do you have a comment? NEWTON: First of all, there is no minimum lot width. Under the proposal, the development proposal, there is. It would be 50 feet. Second thing, is the engineer has told myself and other planners that they intend z to modify the plans and draw up fewer lots. We haven't seen that, so I don't know ?? But is that your �^ for the zone change? NEWTON: Not particularly inaudible r ?'W�PIf we would decide to approve this request tonight, it certainly does X00\ not close the door to those kinds of concerns that you're raising that they would have to be dealt with, but in the next step of the hearing, l 5 APPEAL - GALLO'S VINEYARD CPA 9-83 Page 6 of 9 So our approving it, if we do that, doesn't mean that what he's shown you is what would happen. ?? Our question is just to point out that he submitted as evidence a suggested development for this that cannot possibly fit the piece of property,, so really that shouldn't be considered at all. You shouldn't even 'look at it because it can't be on that property. And that:opens the door then, if,we go multiple into medium density, we've gone over the step into an area that was low density and then he can have outright permitted use of'other`things more dense this, and do a lot of density transfer and get a lot of houses really tight together up at the top of it and leave the wetland at the'bottom, and I'm not sure that that would fit, so we're going to 'allow him to go down a path that will eventually end up in a dead-end, and I'm not sure that that': good, NEWTON: What the applicant is asking for is R-5. That'sapproximately 7 units per acre, and under the current'Code, single family or single family attached duplex style would be allowed. The duplexes would have to be approved under the conditional use. Under the new code you can have attached units as well in there and they are permitted to be R-5. However, unless be gets a zone change, he couldn't go any: more dense than R-5. He'd have to do , 7 units per acre if he could do that without a zone change. I might suggest you could as a body, apply the PD destination if he felt that was apppropriate for the R-5'. And again, as Commissioner' Owens pointed out (inaudible) CHAIRMAN: Close public hearing on this issue. Commissioner. Moen? MOEN: When I first heard this I was a little sympathetic to the point that we'd been through this once before, however I've had my thinking rearranged a little this evening. It seems to me inappropriate that we make a decision based on the fact that irrespective of what happened in the past, we are going forward with the Comprehensive Plan. Somebody fell through the cracks unless there's some overriding reason for change, we should continue on with the Plan. The Plan has gone through the whole process, and the applicant had the opportunity to put his 2e in. This area has been designated low density or resiential, and what we want to do now is come back and change it. Every time I see low density residential on the map the first thing we see going through is, let's change it toR-S. Then when we get- it to R-5, and I think what NPO was saying, and even though we don't develop it for a few years, but now the Comp Plan has changed to medium density, it's sitting at R-5 and next time it's going to be a little bit nicer. We decided when we went through the whole plan with the infield input and everything else, and we decided it should be R-7. I'm not sure we should be changing it. FYRE: I agree among the thoughts that were just said. To me it seems like a speical piece of ground and perhaps the back end need not be developed.. Maybe you could get a little higher density closer to the road if the backend was left untouched. I suggest you work closely with the NPO and come up with a suitable plan as a suggestion. I agree with the commissioner as far as the density issue goes. Earlier tonight we had a similar situation. We can't go back and undo everything that the plan did. APPEAL - GALLO'S VINEYARD CPA 9-83 Page 7 of 9 F� - CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Owens. OWENS: I don't have anything. I don't have any comments above and beyond what's already been said. BUTLER: I`don't know what to say. They're right when Before when this, came up I was, R-5 was ,great,;but when we look at it in that light we're creating'`a highland of R-5 in a sea of R-7. It will be a more dense area in a less dense sea. ?? The point is, where do you put on the brake? BUTLER: That's what I'm saying. You're not really helping the plan along by creating,all -these little cislands inside of big seas. VATHEUER: My thoughts were that if you were asking for increased density on the city you were asking for an R-5 there because you 'could build { on it. - �{ 7 ?? There is a provision for that on R-7 if you put an R-7 PD in there P you could do something on it. ?? If that's so, I think (inaudible) ?? My concerns "I guess, in listening to all the evidence and testimony, ri 55►111C don't unless uldprecludethis application addressed u onfor taking p-roof.. Whatanything t did you see, rpMM why did you think it ought to be approved? Why do you recommend it? I'm looking for something to hang the argument .99? One thing I look at is that it's right on the edge of a developing iRh1i5s� ;p area, and it's right on the fringe. I thought may be that was their �S? E i NEWTON: Bascially, we felt it met most of the criteria for locating �A ?? It doesn't meet the number 5, it's more than a half mile to a shopping iJ center, I'm sure. ?? Few other problems. I believe that the area is not subject to development under topography, flooding and poor drains. Areas within one-half a ' mile of public transit. I doubt that it's closer than one-half mile to public transit. Item B1. Density for development of areas historically zoned for . CHAIRMAN: Why did the staff ? STAFF: First of all, the requirements, it does not point out that each of those has to be met. ' We don't normally have 3 of them that are not met. ,1)0 ?? t.y concern is that this issue was before the Cemmi.ssion before, and the only reason the Council sent it back was because the NPO did not ° Stir. receive proper notice. No one complained that individuals did not - receive notice, and the Commission had a different make-up of individuals sitting at that time. I'm concerned that we're dealing with 5 individuals tonight so there's 4 out of the how many were here last time. q 161 a APPEAL - GALLO'S VINEYARD CPA 9-83 Page 8 of 9 I'm just wondering if there's 'a procedure problem here. ?? I hear that but I would say that same concern came up earlier with the :other item. ?? I think we can see the likeness to the other item we just reviewed. That's what Lame to my,mind. CHAIRMAN: I would submit that we had input from NPO ?. We did have ' additional input, and we've had a `chance`to discuss this, and fortunately or unfortunately for the applicant, the ;applicant must deal with the quorum which is ,present at the time. I think most° of us were here for that. ?? I don't have a procedural problem reversing a decision. ?? We have a Comp Plan now that was not in existence previously. ?? There is sufficient evidence which casts a different light on it. We've heard the whole thing on a basis. ?? I think they're concerned about the water' over `there`before but Nce�ti55eonE! I do not remember having this amount of in-depth input from the neighborhood, on the water, the extent of the water. r? Not only that, but the zone trouble because I'd like to address whatever our response is to the application of the e . ?? I suppose there's one thing that the applicant brought out is that �,,r\YR-5 was permitted before the current Comp Plan, so he isn't really E o'Mn'55 asking for an increase of the one he would have had before the current Comp Plan ?? And that was the issue that was raised at the last public hearing. ' h nC-r The applicant was really asking to get reapplied that designator that had been applied before the Comp Plan had been changed. ?? That's correct. That's the same thing that happened to the people with Portland Chain when the Commission decided that with Portland y} ISSIONC Chain they would stick with the Comp Plan even though they had approval and everything else '?? But the facts were different. CHAIRMAN: I'd like to ask the staff if they've changed their position at all having heard the additional testimony. Close the public hearing on this issue, and I've gone up and down and all the commissioners have : had a chance to speak. Any further comments? Call for the question. Is there a motion? OWENS: I move to deny. CHAIRMAN: Motion made to deny. OWHNS: Based on B 12.1.2 b 1, possibly 2, 4 and 5. CHAIRMAN: You say the application fails to meet these determinants. APPEAL GALLO'S VINEYARD CPA 9-83 Page 9 of 9 - e r:. .M OWENS: Yes, and a 3 and a 5. w ? One applies to medium density and one applies to zoning. c OWENS: ` Yes, and the additional evidence supplied by the public and NPO. CHAIRMAN: Motion made for denial based on the failure of the application to meet those determinants defined by Commissioner Owens, and also she's suggesting based on the evidence of testimony presented by the public and NPO representatives, and failure to meet the current Comprehensive Plan. ?? Second. - CHAIRMAN: Further discussion. Call for the question. All those in favor of the motion as made and seconded signify by saying Aye, those opposed. Motion carries by majority. r s t CITY OF'TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY a AGENDA OF: November 7, 1983 AGENDA ITEM #: DATE SUBMITTED: November 1, 1983 PREVIOUS ACTION: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: CBD Industrial Uses Along Railroad Tracks REQUESTED BY: Property Owners In The CBD t?:WARTMENT BEAD OK: f/ Y� CITY:ADMINISTRATOR: INFORMATION SUMMARY Several property owners in theCBDhave expressed concern that industrial uses no longer are allowed in°the CBD. The property owners expressed their views at the public hearings on:the Development Code in September. The Council has'since 'satisfied its intent to exclude:.:industrial uses in this area. The property owners are proposing that only a limited strip of land along the railroad tracks be 'designated as allowing industrial uses, one third of;the property or 115 to 120 feet from the track. The remainingportions of the properties would be commercial A map of the area of concern is attached as well as a letter supporting this change. The item is on the agenda as a discussion item-. If the Council wishes staff to proceed with modifications to the Comprehensive Plan and Code, a decision must be made concerning the timing of the modification. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The Council may reject the proposal or authorize staff to proceed to modify the Comprehensive Plan and Development Code to include this modification. i SUGGESTED ACTION Staff recommends that the Council conduct the discussion giving proponents and opponents an opportunity to speak. Staff then would like direction from the Council. October 28, 1983 a r Tigard City Council City Hall' 12755 S. W. Ash Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Council Members: We were very disappointed to learn that your City Council decided at the meeting on October 10th to omit Industrial Zoning in the new Central Business District. A special committee appointed by your council' Oroon which one of us, rtr. Van, Camp, served) investigated uses in the CBD and voted 5-1 to allow dight industrial uses. This committee report, however, was overlooked during your discussion of the Development Coda. Some of us owning property along Burnham Street '(which is now in the new CBD) hazri'testified at City Council meetings and planning Commission'meetings that the railroad running directly behind our properties makes that back pa of our properties undesirable for office commercial development. Yet there was no consideration given to this problem of the railroad during your discussion of the Development Code on October 10th. Those of us with properties bordering Pi$°dham Street and the railroad track do not object to office commercial zoning on the front parts of our lots. However, the back parts of our lots are definitely not suited to that use because of the railroad bordering them. These back pieces would, however, be 'suited to light industrial zoning, including light mEmufacturing. A rail- road id a decided advantage for light industry as a transportation factor in moving goods in and out. A railroad next to office commercial, however, is a disadvantage because of its distraction of noise and appearance. When we bought our properties along Burham St., the zoning was M-3 (light industrial). Many of us have existing uses as M-3 on our properties, and have had for many ,years. Some of us have bought our properties on Burnham to ex- pand present businesses. Now that our properties have been placed in the very restrictive CBD zone, we property owners find that our light industrial uses have been eliminated. Therefore, we cannot expand our present businesses, we can not develop any part of our properties as future industrial uses, and if our buildings are destroyed by fire or other peril, we cannot build another' structure to house our present businesses. Also of primary concern is the restriction which the CBD zone places upon our properties if we wish to sell. As a case in point, the Joe Davis's have had their property at 8975 Burnham up for sale for the past 14 months. prospective buyers were considering the purchase of the business, Davis Cabinets & Store Fixtures, until they learned of the restrictions of the new code. `Phe Davis's have not been able to sell with the CBD zoning. At a time when the Portland area is the second highest in the nation in commercial office vacancy rate (according to rational news media) we feel that your council has overlooked the real need for small developments of light industrial nature. We would like to propose that the rear 1/3 of each property Tigard City Council October '28, 1983 Page '2 abutting the railroad, from Hall Blvd. cp to but not including I°Iaain Street, should be designated as light industrial zoning in the Development Code. This would encompass from 1151 to 1201 from the railroad toward, Burnham St. This clean, light industrial area which,would'not in most cases be directly visible from Burnham, could be the ideal buffer between the railroad and the Central Business District. We would like to see this zoning change made before your final meeting on' Nov. '9th concerning the Development Code and without cost to the property owners involved. Attached is our 'signature page. Thank you for your attention. g 't TIGARD CITY COUNCIL � Tigard, Or. ;97223 Gentlemen: Inasmuch as our total property has been zoned commercial and the rear of the property abuts the railroad which is riot good for a commercial use, we request that the zoning be changed to light industrial for the rear 1/3 of the proper- ty abutting the railroad, 6 1P � - �q- ° S k � r M A 4 S k S r - y 7 x MOMAO ONLAi ��� % 'ter,,' - •s s - _ r 4 Mpg ' -- .-'a�''7!^t ` EF'`w .M"lir`SP.zS .',"�.,'�sr 'arxxd•+, ""'` .,<r � } };� :..0 •�,:.�.+�-�.. .,__, _�.y-... .,_4:_. _zt .-•`'�, _ r.�'s,a �,L�;w.,,..... 4�..��. '..,,,,�� ,,.�� _ `�+�`;�.:`���.-'.,-,.,zys�,w''a1=,x__ Y,-"n +rt;--:.H.%s" /��..✓.s�:+�: :•-���`.. ..:�:�+�r S.x �$�' .! ��-,32,x. �...•-,._��,.+�...F .yrc.«.<..: "_� ,.*�.-:: _... ,,::-f"r=_c�'�"k- `--"�`i+z=�. �,a�,: ,a., a. F,����'t�',d. ---------------- 11. , M E M O R N D U M DATE: October 26, -1983 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jerri L. Widner, `Finance Director SUBJECT: SEPTEMBER DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY REPORT < ACCOUNTING: During the monthof September, a total of 440 payroll and accounts payable checks were written, 441 _receipts were written, 1327 sewer bills were processed and 1433 sewer payments were received. The audit was completed and will be reported to Council November 14, 1983. The Accounting Manager began her vacation the last week of September. The staff continued the implementation of new journal entry forms and some streamlining of'work loads. WORD PROCESSING: tDuring the month, 4,378 pages of documents were processed by the division. Time was spent on revisions to the development code and comprehensive plan, strategic planning, storm water billings, the disaster plan and the purchasing manual. The operator's manual is nearly completed. The manual is to be distributed to the primary users of the system. The division has been concentrating on writing operating instructions for each of their job functions. These instructions will assist cross-training for absences, vacations, etc. RECORDS, COURT: Business tax collections totaled $5,095.00 for 87 businesses. Court collections for traffic finis were $3,006.50, an increase of $109.50 over August, however the number of citations received for processing were 8 less than August. The number of traffic citations received for processing in September, 1982 totaled 80; September, 1983 totaled 171. The receptionist received 8,100 telephone calls and 2,030 walk-ins. Tae City ,Recorder time was taken up with the September election, personnel recruitment assistance, working with the purchasing consultant, street vacation follow-ups and insurance proposals. JLW:ms (0106F) LEGAL REPORT ., SEPTEMBER, 1983 JULY AUGUST SEPT Y.T.D. VARIANCE BUDGET Council 1918 1291 1421 4630 Administration 3941 3401 2630 9372 Municipal Court 412 1460 287 2159 Police -0- 585 585 Planning & Dev. 529 651 405 1585 Public Works 212 244 550 ].Ola S-T Operaions= 7012 7047 5888 19947 R [Budgeted) 149003 149001 [49001 1147003 <5247> [587253 Civic Canter 2775 784 167 3726 Litigation 283 60 354 X697 4,. S-T 10070 7891 6409 24370 TURA 220 537 757 [Bud etcadl 201 37' 757 -0- 100 S-T 10290 7891 6946 25127 LTD's 662 369 329 1360 TOTAL 10952 8260 7275 26487 (HS:pm/0087F) xoftmt��MI! a LIBRARY PUBLICPhone 539-9519 12588 S`dd Main.Iigard.Or.97223 MONTHLY REPORT SEPTEMBER, 1983 TO: LIBRARY BOARD CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY LIBRARIA'�� WCCLS Levy 1984: At s meeting for City Managers and Public Librarians on September 13, eight of the -Libraries voted to support budget #3, without modification, at $2..2 million for the new-. 3-year county-wide serial levy to be voted or. in March 1984. Cornelius and Beaverton voted '"no". However, ' the issue was presented; to the County Commissioners at a work session on September 27 and no further disagreement was 'voiced by either library. Mike Dowsett, representingBeaverton ,City ' staff, acknowledged that library's continued participation in and support for the 1984 levy. At this same work ;session, ummings presented the levy proposal to the WCCLS Acting Coordinator Peggy C County Commissioners. There was 'discussion 'concerning ,the amount of the m budget, the feasibility of charging user fees and the issue of double taxation. All issues were addressed by Ms. Cummings and several members of the library representation. No vote was taken. The matter will be considered at a regular -meeting and a vote for placing the issue on the ballot' in March will betaken at that time. WCCLS Professional Board MeetiuL The WCCLS Professional Board met on September 29. Items of interest: (1) It was decided to participate with Clackamas County in a public relations campaign this fall. The suggested theme is "Libraries...the Price is Right.11 The estimated cost is $4,000 and will be paid from cash carry-over. (2) TheBoard voted to continue charging , the full cost for specialized on-line data searches. Building Repairs: Two places in the floor had to be replaced because of dry rot. The landlord did the repairs expeditiously. New Shelving: On September 12 and 19, the Tigard Lions Club moved and added to the large print shelving. It is now in the non-fiction room, more visible, more accessible. The group also built some shelving for the fine arts books, relieving some crowding in that section. The Lions Club has paid for all materials. Personnel: Tammy Bayer, Library Aide, gave notice that she will be resigning in favor of another job. Volunteers: Eighteen volunteers worked a total of 222.5 hours; daily average 9.3. Youth Services: As practiced annually, there were no Story Times or special programs in September. Groups, from Kinder Kampus and St. Anthony's School visited the library for special orientations. All juvenile fiction is being relabeled to match the catalog cards. Thanks to the friends of the Library, there are nearly 100 cassettes available for young people. WORK INDICATORS: September 1983 September 1982 Adult Books< 6384 6356 "Juvenile Books 25632139 Interlibrary Loan 51 79 Magazines 444 448 Records/Cassettes 103 145 Other 31- "'21 Total Circulation 9576 9188 Days of Service 21 20 Average Daily Circulation 456 459 Reference/Reader's Advisory 385' 480 Materials Added 684: 583 Materials Withdrawn 188" 46 Borrowers: New/Renewal 189/85=274 185/110=295 (ZE:pm/0923A) Z '. CITY OF TIGARD. OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA_OF: Nov. 7, 1983 AGENDA ITEM N: /! 7 DATE SUBMITTED: October 31, 1983 PREVIOUS ACTIdN: ISSUE/AGENUA TITLES Departmental Report.- Public Works REQUESTED BY: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: DEPARTMENT' HEAD OK' INFORMATION SUMMARY Attached are the monthly division reports for Public Works Operations and Engineering Services. �t e mmassea�9sss�m>mmmsam��mxttams��asevs�>e���etattiaearcmasemamaievante¢amass¢�scsersacmrasaraamtsase¢:smarm semsasaac�esns ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED P e warwss.�mesmeeawaats raommsata¢aau¢ea ewxaesrsasaxsammtasmmests�aemss®aaatewe«este:s¢ss .................... SUGGESTED ACTION Receive and file CITY OF TIGARO Fs PUBLIC WORKSOPERATIONS Sept . Report DATE: October 5 1983 OPERATIONS OFFICE: p . PARKS: (Greenthumb labor) 1. 94 hrs mowing 39 hrs mowing 2. 11 hrs ,irrigation 3 hrs irrigation Iy? 3. 59k hrs restroom maintenance 33 hrs restroom maintenance ..��.. 4. 2 hrs res, equip. maintenance 5. 1411 hrs landscaping 5 hrs landscaping 6. 10 hrs trail maintenance 7. 78z hrs construction ti STREETS: 1. 50 hrs street cleaning 2.191' hrs patching 13 hrs patching 3. 2 hrs paint . & street mark. 4. 11 hrs sign maintenance 5. 38 hrs brushing & limbing 2 hrs brushing & limbing 6. 32 hrs grading & rocking 1 WASTE WATER: 1. 11 hrs T.V. inspection 2. 20 hrs sanitary sewer clean 3. 7 hrs storm drain clean 4. 11 hrs sanitary repairs 5 6 hrs manhole repair 6. 11 hrs flooding 7. 59 hrs ditching 8. 75r hrs storm drain repairs SUPPORT SERVICES: 1. 34 .3 hrs P.M. on equipment 2. 115. 5 hrs scheduled repairs 3. 22 .9 hrs unscheduled repairs 4. 4.3 hrs tire service 5. 3 hrs road service 6. 26 hrs building maintenance 7. 11 . 5 hrs general support ' Total Greenthumb labor : 95 hrs MEMORANDUM TO: Frank Currie, Director of Public Works d . FROM: John Hagman, Supt. Engineering'Division SUBJECT: Monthly Report - September, 1983 DATE: October 6, 1983 I. ENGINEERING'SERVICES SECTION: A. Subdivision> late `letters 1. Barbee Court-letter to developer 2. Creekside park-letter to developer B. Subdivision sent to Council for approval a, 1. Scheckla Parc Estate request to drop;maintenance bond and give the 'City a sidewalk bond'. 2. McDonald Acres - to be placed on maintenance. 3. London Square II-to be placed on maintenance. C. Subdivision up for review. 1. Morning Bill II & III - plan check and bonds to prepare 2. Golfside Estate - plan check and bonds to prepare 3. Bond Park -- Sent pian back to engineering to do over. 4. , Brittany Square - working with County on getting an OK for entry on to SW 135th Avenue. 5. SW 97th Avenue- °� street improvements plan check. D. Street Recondition Program 1. Working on contract and quantity E. Training 1. Supervisory Manager Training at Corvallis 2, Wild-Herbrook instrument seminar at Wilsonville F. Worked on Manual " G. Performance Review 1. Bob Landis H. Storer Cable 1. Working;with Cable Company 2. Routine office work II Inspection A. Routine Inspection 1. Driveways 2. Sidewalk 3. New subdivision inspection 4. LID inspection 5. Worked on street overlays I.' EXISTING STREET RECONDITIONING PROGRAM A. Completion of 'final construction drawings for S.W. Tigard and S.W. O'Mara Street projects (easements pending) . ," IY COLLECTOR STREET CENTERLINE MONUMENTATION PROGRAM A. Commenced research work for S.W. Greenburg Raod project (From Hwy 217 to Pacific Hwy) IIL' SECONDARY CONTROL NET PROGRAM Activity within this program for the month consisted primarily of records management, mapping and calculating. IV OTHER A. Fanno Creek Park 1. 90% completion of topography mapping, 2. 70% completion of boundary mapping, R. "EXODUS" storm drain easement stakeout. C. Preparatibn of legal descriptions for easements on Tigard St. and O'Mara Street. D. General Information Mapping Upgrade and Update 1. 70% completion of address maps, 2. 15% completion of annexation & road jurisdiction, 3. 80% completion of Land Ease maps. �4 POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT September, 1983 and Nine Month Recap TO: City Administrator/City Council FROM: Chief of Police I. Personnel The department continues to be at full strength this month with 29 employees. The average daily department strength this month was 16.5 as compared to 16.3 for September, 1982. ; By Division, the breakdown is as follows: Ad.minstration 1.6; Services Division 4.1; Patrol Division 8.2; Traffic Division 1.1; and Investigation Division 1.5. IIs Service Delivery The department responded to 516 non-criminal calls for service in contrast to 460 calls in September, 1982. The combined total non--criminal calls for service the first 9 months of 1983 was 4,650; for this same time period in 1982 the total was 4,409. Patrol Division's obligated time this month was 1,834.7 hours, for the first,9 months it was 13,199.6. The-non-obligated time this month was 558.3 hours; for the third quarter it was 6,882.9 hours. III. Crime There were 123 Part I crimes reported this month as compared to 81 for September of 1982, up by 42 crimes in this classification, or 51.8% There were 27 Part I crimes cleared this month, or 21.9%. The total Part I crimes reported this third quarter was 919, in contrast to 916 for this same period last year, an increase of .03%. The clearance rate for Part I_crines this third quarter is 30.0%, or 276 cases. In contrast to the same t-me period of 1982, 22.4% were cleared, or 205 cases. There were 59 Part II crimes reported this month, of that number 29 were cleared, or 49.1 for the same month last year 80 were reported., and 40 were cleared, or 50.00/6. The total Part II crimes reported this third quarter was 593 in contrast to 619 reported this same time period of 1982, a decrease of 26 cases, or 4.2%. There were 269 Part II cases cleared this third quarter, or 45.4% this same time period in 1982, 331 cases were cleared, or 53.5%• The lnvestigative Division worked 43 active caves this month, and cleared 5, or 11.6%. The total active cases worked this third quarter by the Investigative Division was 2.52, of that number g•T cases were cleared, or 34.5%. x, The reported property loss this month was $116,893.04; and we recovered $7,203.39 worth of stolen property, or 6.2%. The combined total property loss for this first 9 months was $531,086.41) of;that total $102,623.50 was recovered, or 19.3%. IV Traffic Patrol Division responded to 28 accidents, of that number 9 were injury., There were 208 citations issued this month as compared to 119 in September, 1982. There were also 35 warnings issued this month, which is the same number ;that were issued for this same time period in 1982. Patrol Division has issued a total of 2,150 citations this third -quarter in contrast to 1,658 for this same time period last year. There has been a total of 290 accidents reported this third quarter, and 258 were reported for this same time ,period last year. There were 80 injury accidents with no fatal accidents reported this third quarter; 72 ;injuries plus no fatals were reported last year in the third quarter` of the year. The enforcement index this month was 17.55, as comapred to 9.83 for September of 1982. The enforcement index for this 9 months is 19.92 in contrast to 13.48 for this same time period in 1982. V. Police Reserves The Reserve Unit worked 148.0 hours this month assisting the department in policing the community,' through this third quarter the Reserves donated 2,480.2 hours of community service'. See attached report from the Reserves for their total training and activities. VI. Training A. Oregon-Washington Lawman's Association. Dets. deBrauwere and Goldspink attended the OWLA meeting on September 2, receiving 16 man hours of training on homicide investigative techniques, topic being the Atlanta 1.4urders. B. Advanced Officers School. Officer DeVeny received 40 hours advanced officer training. This course was held at the Police Academy, and sponsored by Board on Police Standards and Training, and was held _9/12-16. C. Disaster Preparedness Training. Capt. Jennings and Lt. Wheeler received 16 man hours of training by attending a workshop on 9/14; topic was disaster prepardedness. Class was held at Portland State University., D. Traffic School. Our motor officers, Newman and Featherston, attended a traffic school in Coos Bay on 9/15-16. 32 man hours of training were received. E. Mid-Management Training. Lt. Branstetter received 40 hours of training by attending the Mid-Management course at the Police Academy on 9/26-30. VII. Community Relations A. On September 13, the Chief gave an overview of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. This was presentedto the Planning Commission, and lasted approximately 112 hour, B. On September 22; .Chief Adams and Capt. Jennings attended a 2-hour Washington County Law Enforcement Council meeting. Discussion was held on joint inservice training among the county law enforcement agencies. C. On September 23, Chief.Adamsattended a meeting of the metropolitan Chiefs of Police in 'Forest Grove. They discussed immigration and natural- ization issues. This meeting lasted 2 hours. u D. Chief Adams and Capt. Jennings attended the retirement dinner and presentation given for Sheriff Warren Barnes of Washington County Sheriff's Office on September 28. They spent 3 hours there. VIII.- Special Assignments A. K-g Recap (see attached report from Sgt. Martin). B. Motorcycle Program (see attached report from Sgt. .Newman). C. Alarms and Permits Recap (see attached report from Capt. Jennings). r D. !CAP Report (see attached report from Officer Grisham). Respectfully submitted, R.B. Adams Chief of Police RBA.ac t rri M m �s —3 4b Sa S i AgTe104 TN 04 r , -� {3 G ; - � js (� CIO IN Y3 e C - � c'�ss�oo DjSAgeC � yG H tcF T/ ae, n ^' 'V 1116 0 Tie��Unr �M -a • s. A E ar -v a*7 9 X34 � 5 s S �T S j • Y �i 3 s+ s�x ;# .'°"`' 3 ,� m ac'3^s'':�_ �•✓ x✓bLi 'C 4ii 7 dn.;r ,y,.....ry k�3--''ver-k- a'`:�'y, " ;*� _ .s __j. <, � e€---._' i.. . .>6-'a 'r z5`¢`-�.�"i=�^.:t•wt' �-t" 4�:52,; �: :� t. .. -w�=_._._?,. '•-._�,. ,�-;�c't'-.'.�#� ��.has: �:;-n "��4,a..i..z.,�,,,'x'..xd �iai'r _.�+7,..-.a .. `-�s"•..:aha �;x -';i• .�$__ - .k �� �.�� .,��..acs�.�._ �. Y`'�,^."�`.. y.�..J� a'��c.T.:."vrfr �;vT..- •� ,F �'�a§�,'9,`�'J"i'!;',e5s+.&."S. ¢..".�"'..r� _ry.y-i:-'�,�.._�'wF� ,`e+�-''.�. r F..,_ '�`: ,•.-.�'.:.` e�.,. ti ^-,.. ,. .,.�F`�:.a:.Fd.H,n..�."�:�"�s. ::a.� .... ate' �.w .. � ;�: t.. -� �'` '�`,.n .�"� c�.,v..,,� s.:- .�s 2,�� �. ,r.� _:.'fir a.. t,..:1:a-� a!fs6,x�7 .�x„�„3[�'�� .r,rh#�e.�r�.��..�.�,'��-,1. k � -.�....r-w�„r,..�t� ..,w.�:.N:-$�,:�.x,.w•.�#,,.�s.-�,.��,.... s:���f..r°�--�%�°.:�i-ta� ,m...r�.;z�.��'��„sS'��cit��r�...,..-.. y'�i=... MEMORANDUM ti R October 11, 1983 TO: Chief of Police FROM: Sgt. Martin SUBJECT: K-9 Report RE September, 1983 Sir: The month of September was .the busiest month of the quarter, with a total of 21 calls for service. During the month the Team logged two more finds, one for our agency and one for Lake Oswego Police Department. The K-9 Team has a total of 21 finds with 18 of the finds resulting in arrests for criminal matters, and 3 others for matters other than criminal. 11 of the calls resulted in tracks, the remaining 1.0 were building searches. The'Team has acquired a new K-9 and handler. Eric Schober was selected as a`handler,_and was assigned K-9 Jake. Officer Schober will begin training with Jake in the spring of 1984. Our newest K-9, Major, was acquired from Stayton Police Department. He was assigned to Officer DeVeny, and will be undergoing two creeks of training and testing before assuming fulltime duties in mid-October.. - Respectfully subaitted, SGT (2 W.fJ_e_K Sgt. Chuck Martin `t K-9 Team Leader CM:ac n MEMORANDUM October 11, 1983 TO: Chief of Police FROM: Sgt. Newman SUBJECT: Motorcycle Traffic Unit Report RE: September, 1983 Sir: During the month of September, 1983 there were 28 traffic accidents; 9 injury, 19 non-injury. this is an increase over September, 1982 which had 24 total accidents, 6 of which' were injury and 18 non-injury. Of the 28 accidents this month, 11 were investigated by the Traffic Unit. Enforcement index this month is 17.55 compared to 9.83 for the same period last year. Traffic Unit issued 95 hazardous, 25 non-hazardous, for a total of 120 citations. The-first`"Motorcycle Safety Riding Clinic" was held September 10, '1983 at Tigard Methodist Church. Officers from Beaverton Police Department, Gresham Police Department, and the Washington County Sheriff's Office assisted Officer � Featherston and Officer Newman in both the classroom presentation, and field riding held in the parking lot. All participants enjoyed themselves, and learned safe riding techniques. -Officer Featherston is to be commended for organizing this safety clinic. He spent 40-50 hours, much of it on his own time. Rcspectfully submitted, Sgt. John Newman Traffic Team Leader JN:ac ALARMS AND PERMIT RE-CAP'` 'January l - September 30, 1983 Month of SEPTEMBER THIS SAME MONTH A TOTAL TOTAL' MONTH LAST YEAR CHANGE THIS YEAR LAST YEAR CHANGE TOTAL ALARMS. . ...'. 60 68 - 11% 442 a. False'.. . . ..'. 57 68 - 167, 434 --- b. Bonafide.... 3 0 -- Permits Issued.... 6 91 -- 70 ` --- --- Permits Renewed... 55 %N/A -- 105 --- --- Permit Fees... .. .. $660 $1,685 -- $2,485 --- --- Permits Revoked... 3 N/A -- 25 --- --- Revoked Fees. . .. .. $255 $245 -- $1,925 --- --- f MONTHLY SUMMARY STATEMENT: As noted, there is a decrease of 16% in false alarms received this month compared to a.year ago. As the number of systems being installed increase, and the percentage of false `alarms decreases, this gives the indication of the direct correlation between theAlarmOrdinance purpose and its impact on reducing false alarms. I.C.A.P. REPORT Nine Month Recap 01/01/83 Through 09/30/83 The ICAP system has been on continuously for the past nine months with no problems in hardware or programs. During this period, the three crime analysis files have,�contributed to the identification of 'suspects and to the development of investigative leads. These files are: l) field interviews; 2) crime specific; and 3) pawn activity. , The ICAP system's traffic activity file keeps track of all traffic accidents in the city. A daily printout of accident information furnishes thetwomotorcycle traffic units with current information to help structure the selective enforcement program. The most recent addition to the on-line files is the Investigative Manage ment information; System (IMIS). This file tracks the progress of investi- gations and can provide the Investigative Division Commander with current case status reports. Reviewing the case loads and, clearance rates reflected in this file can also help him in evaluating productivity and justifying manpower requests. New programs now being written include an Overtime Tracking File; Dispatch Response Time Study; Missing/Runaway Children File; Traffic Citation File; and an Officer's Activity File. E" Training for Services personnel in data entry is coming along well. ` Dispatcher; Crow is proficient, and Dispatcher Killion w..,__L! be trained shortly. Because of the growing number of files and the increasing volume of data, this cross-training is essential. he ICAP system will continue to manage information and As it expands, t provide assistance throughout the department. As a side note, several other Oregon law enforcement agencies have copied the Tigard prototype ICAP system. Some of the agencies that most recently did this are Prineville Police Department, Junction City Police Department, and Marion County Sheriff's Office. iy 22WitI t. + POLICE DEPARTMENT CONSOLIDATED MONTHLY REPORT 1 z,m• FOR MONTH OF SEPTEMBER 19 83..._ x DISTRIBUTION OF PERSONNEL. AVERAGE y { I;:T.LY ABSENCE 1 A�ER!>.GE ETFEGTIVE STRENGTH WUMERICAL STRENGTH I _•_._`� _ .___^ Same + ��This Last. End of Same This Same this Month Month Month Month Month Last month Last Last t Month . Year- Year Year 12.5 11.7 16.5 14.9 16.3 TOTAL PERSONNEL 29 28 -- 1.4 1.0 ' 1.6 1.7- 2.0 CHIEF'S OFFICE 3 I 2,'g 3.6 4,1 3.9 7 7 3.4 SERVICES DIVIS. PATROL DIVISION 14 15 58 6.2 8.2 6.5 8.8 9 0 1.1 1.3 0 TRAFFIC DI VIS., 2 0 1.5 1,5 1.66 3 3 1.5 1.4 INVEST. SECTION FORCE ONE 7.6 6.8 7.3 11+ 12 6.4 4.7 1 9 3.0 4 0 5.0 4.5 5.0 M, : TWO 8 y 3.1 3.0 R 39 -_ 3.6 4.Q FORCE THREE 7 7 . e DAILY AVERAGE PATROLSTRENGTH CHANGES IN PERSONNEL This Same Month 1. Present for duty end of last month 29 Month Last Year 2. Recruited during month 0 1. Total number field 3: Reinstated during month 0 officers 16 15 Total to account for 29 0 2. Less Age0 ned to Investigat.nts Assig_ is Separations from the service: - (a) Voluntary resignation 0 3. Average daily abs- - 0 I ences of field off (b) lietirement icers owing to: R esi ned with charges pending 0 (a) ti'acaon, days o (0) b ension, days of£, p 6.2 6.0 (d) Dropped during probation compo time, etc. .2 0 (b) Sick & Injured •2 (�) Dismissed :for cause -- (c) Schools, etc-. .3 0 (f) ICilled in line of duty ----- Total average daily 0 6.7 6.2 (g) Deceased absences' Total separations 0 _= 4. Available for duty 9 3 8.8 - 29 ' 5; resent for duty at end of month TIGARD POLICE DEPARTMENT Monthly Report I. Calls for Service: This Month 698 Year to Date 6,162 A. Obligated Time 1,834.7 B. Non-Obligated Time 558.3 II. PART I CRIMES No. Cleared Arrests A. Homicide -- -- h. Rape C. Robbery 3 D. Assault 11 3 E. Burglary 55 45 F. Larceny' 60 18 12 G. Auto Theft 4 —2 2 � Totals 123 27 22 III. PART II TOTALS 59 29 23 TOTAL Part I and II 382 56 45 IV. TOTAL PERSONS CHARGED: 45 a. Adult Male 23 c. Juvenile Male 15 b. Adult Female 2 d. Juvenile Female 5 V. WARRANTS SERVED 9` VI. TOTAL PROPERTY LOSS $ 116,893.04 TOTAL PROPERTY RECOVERED s 7,203.39 VII. TRAFFIC 28 injury Accidents 9 Fatal 0 a. Accidents Investigated � y -- — b. Citations: VBR (Speeding)__65 Yield Right of Way Following too Close 2 Red Light 34 Stop Sign 4 Improper Turn 8 Reckless Driving 1 Careless Driving 3 Driving Under the Influence 4 Driving While Suspended 2 Other Hazardous 24 Non-Hazardous 50 Total. Hazardous 158_ c. Enforcement Index 17.55 d. Traffic Enforcement Totals 208 Year to Dade, 2150 Citations: This Month This Year Thus Month Last Year 119 Last Year to Date 165 `aaxnings: This Month This Year 35 Year to Date 299 ., This Month Last Year-35 Last Year to Date 590 NOTE: - Part I Crimes (Major Crimes) Clearance Rates 21.9% -� - 49.1% Part II Crimes (Minor Crimes) Clearance Rate r TIGARD POLICE DEPART.,=T 9-Month :Report I. Calls for Service: 6,162 `A A. Obligated Time 13,199.6 B. Non-Obligated Time 6,882.9 II. PART I CRIMES %' Na, ClearedArrests A Homicide B. Rape 3 4 2 C. Robbery 16 13 12 D.. Assault 79 60 5.1 E. Burglary 238 40 F. Larceny 497 148 123 G. Auto Theft 40 13 8 Totals 919 276 236 III. 'PART II TOTALS 593 269 281 TOTAL Part I and II 1,512 545 517 IV.., TOTAL PERSONS CHARGED: 517 ` a. Adult Male 231 c. Juvenile Male 176 b'. Adult Female 60 d. Juvenile Female 50 V. WARRANTS SERVED 85 VI. TOTAL PROPERTY LOSS $ 531,086.41 TOTAL PROPERTY RECOVERED $102,623,50 VII. TRAFFIC ai. Accidents Investigated 290 Injury Accidents 80 Fatal 0 b. Citations: VBR (Speeding) 776 Yield Right of Way 52 'Following too .Close 25 Red Light 2.46 S too Sign.64 Improper Turn 38 Reckless Driving 5 r Careless Driving 76 Driving Tinder the Influence 41 Driving While Suspended 69 Other Hazardous 192 Non-Hazardous 556 Total Hazardous 1,594 c, Enforcement Index 19.92 d. Traffic Enforcement Totals Citations 2,150 # Warrnings`: 299 A?OTE; - Part I Crimes (Major Cximes) Clearance Pate 30.MIS a Part II Crimes (Minor Crimes) Clearance Rate CITY OF TYGARD, OREGON €c COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY A !!� AGENDA ITEM #: ,� AGENDA OF: October 24 1983 i`. DATE SUBMITTED: October 14 PREVIOUS ACTION:1983 E ; ISSUEdAGENDA TITLE: REQUESTED BY: Departmental Reports CITY ADMINISTRATOR: --__�---- ' DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: INFORMATION SUMMARY - Attached;please find the Departmental Reports of the Department of Planning and Development for September, 1983. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Accept as presented r .......... a s=�a:e.�=,==seat:.a-:aa�aaazsc=ace=x� SUGGESTED ACTION Accept as presented F.: WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON MEMORANDUM ce TO: Members of the City Council FROM: William A. Monahan, Director of Planning and Development DATE: October 14, 1983 SUBJECT: DepartmentalReport - September, 1983 a The following monthly reports are attached: 1, Approval Authority Actions and Planning Commission minuted from September. 2. Annexation Report 3. Code Enforcement Report t 4. Building Activity Report During September, public hearings were held on the Community Development nts to the Code based on Council action in order that Code. Staff made amendme to the Council on October 10, 1983. a revised code would be presented W. Building permit activity again continued to be strong. e r' s WAM:dm_i(0203p) ... 4171 12755 S.W.RSH P.O.SOX 23397 TIGARD,OREGON 97223 PH:839 1 MONTHLY REPORT SEPTEMBER, 1983 PLANNING AND DEVELOP14ENT s. APPROVAL AUTHORITY ACTIONS FOR DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AND TIGARD'S HEARINGS OFFICER ' 1- The Following project was actad on by the Director of Planning and Development in the month of'Septmeber. TEMPORARY USE PERMIT t TU 11-83 Southwest Office Supply Applicant and Owner 12245 S.W. Main St. Tigard,; Oregon REQUEST: To operate a parking lot tent sale on September 7, 8, 9 and 10. ACTION: Approved by Director of Planning and Development 9/5/83. There was no action taken by the Hearing's Officer in the Month of September. �t. 9 } T I G A D P L A N N I N G C 0 M M I S S I '0 N REGULAR MEETING September 13, 1983 1. Acting President Edin called the meeting to order at 7:40 P.M., The meeting was held at Fowler Junior High School - in the Lecture Room, 10865 S.W. Walnut, Tigard, Or. 2. ' ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Acting President Edin, Commissioners Owens, Butler, Vanderwood, -Leverett and Fyre.` ABSENT: President Tepedino; Commissioners Christen and Moen. STAFF: Director of Planning and Development' William A. Monahan; Associate Planner Elizabeth Newton and Assistant Planner Hamid Pishvaie; Secretary Diane M. °Jelderks 3. Minutes from August 30, 1983, were considered. Commissioner Owens moved and Commission Fyre seconded to approve the minutes as submitted. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATION o Chief'' Adams appeared before `the Commission as invited. He discussed crime prevention through environmental design and asked for an ropportunity to ;spear before the Commission to give a formal presentation. Staff will schedule. 5.' PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 12-83 ZONE CHANGE ZC 9-83 PCM Associates/Portland Chain NPO # 2 A remand from the City Council to the P1,^ening Commission for a Comprehensive Plan Change from Light Industrl;_? to General Commercial and a Zone Change from M-4 to C-3. Located: 9770 SW Scholls Ferry Rd. (Wash. Co. Tax Map ISI 27DD lot 1200) r o Associate Planner Newton explained how the application was remanded back to the Planning Commission. She also made staff's recommendation for denial. n NPO - CCI COMMENTS - No one appeared to speak. o APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION - Terry Hauck, Attorney, 1200 Standard Plaza, representing the applicant, read a letter from Bruce Clark, a member of NPU # 2, supporting the application. Mike McKenna, 400 SW 6th, Portland, showed a video tape of the sdrrounding area and the site. The tape is to be reproduced and submitted to the city staff for the public record. s Richard Wright, Toys "R" Us, Kent, Washington, read a letter into the record from Michael Miller, Toys R Us, Inc., Rochelle Park, New Jersey, supporting the application. He concluded that a-business is aided or hampered by his 'neighbor and they needed the adjoining property to be zoned commercial. Robert Figone, Levitz, Santa Clara, California, explained how the site would-be used as a retail showroom with no warehousing. He submitted a' copy of Levitz's annual report, before and after pictures of a remodeled Levitz` store, photos of the site and area, and a drawing of the proposed building. Guy Barber,' General Manager, Levitz, Milwaukie, Oregon, stated that he had been looking for a southwest site for the last five' years. This is a excellent location for their needs. Mr. Hauck reviewed the staff report noting that the history did not include adotption of the Comprehensive Plan which changed the site from -Commerical to Industrial. He read a" letter into the record from John ` B. Nordholt III, General Manager for Portland Chain, ewed the amount supporting.the rezoning. . He revigutakin industrial land within the city. He reviewed staff s findings, g p and pointing out incoubistancies which he did not feel were supported by evidence. He explained how the site met the criteria for commercial retail use. PUBLIC TESTIMONY ( o John Skourtes, 17010 SW Weir Road, Beaverton, opposed the changed. He felt this would be breaking the block. If they changed one site they should 'change the whole area. He stressed that the Planning commission is considering a zone change, not the advantages of Levitz over another use. CROSS EXAMINATION AND REBUTTAL 0 Mr. Hauck stated they were here to correct a injustice caused by the rezoning done during the Comprhensive Plan process. o Commissioner Owens asked staff to clarify why staff was requesting denial when the application appeared to meet the criteria for commercial retail. Also, Portland Chain was not an appropriate use for a Industrial Park zone. Associate Planner Newton explained how staff made their decision based on land use not on client use. Lengthy discussion followed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED a Commissioner Butler did not support. - o Commissioner Leverett favored the application as being the highest and best use for the land. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 13, 1983 Page 2 o Commissioner Fyre felt it was unfortunate that Toy "R" Us was allowed at this location as it is ideal for Light Industrial/Industrial Park use. o Acting President Edin had mixed emotions, he felt areas should be protected from encroachment. There was` a mistake made in zoning Toys "R" Us and he supported staff's recommendation. However he did not see any problem with zoning the property commercial. o Commissioner Owens was concerned that once they started changing designations to commercial this would cause other property owners in the .area to request changes to commercial. She felt this was a difficult application to decide. o Commissioner Vanderwood moved, and Commissioner Butler seconded to move fordenialof the applicant's request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment 'from 'Light - industrial to General Commercal and for denial of the Zone Change from M-4 to C-3. Motion carried by majority vote of Commissioner present, Commissioner Edin and Leverett voting no. RECESS': 9:10 P.M.`` RECONVENE: 9:25 P.M. 5.2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 13-83 Carl Johnson NPO # 4 A request to amend policy 11.4.2, 11.4.2 a and b regarding the NPO # 4 area in the Findings, Policies and Implementation Strategies document. o Associate Planner Newton requested the Planning Commission review the information submitted and make a recommendation to City Council on the interpreation of the policy. o APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION - Mr. Johnson, 6155 SW Bonita, Lake Grove, explained how they were requesting that language be changed to enable development to occur west of 72nd Ave.. o NPO COMMENTS - Gordon Martin, NPO # 4 member, stated that the NPO was in unanimous agreement with Mr. Johnson. 4 - PUBLIC TESTIMONY o Jim Miller 12918 SW 63rd Place supported Mr. Johnson's request. CROSS EXAMINATION AND REBUTTAL o Discussion followed regarding the LIDs in the Tigard Triangle and the intent of the City Council's policy language. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 13, 1983 Page 3 ' t ti PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION _t " I Commissioners Butler and Vanderwood, both stated they had attended the City Council public hearings and did not support the change. w y Commissioner Fyre supported the NPO's recommendation. o Commissioner Owens did; not feel there was enough information to make a decision, espcially since the NPO felt one "way and the City Council another. o Acting President Edin :was sensitve to NPO it 4 concerns, however, there is merit to the City Council decision and he supported the , existing language. ;n oCommissioner Butler moved and Commisioner Vanderwood seconded to keep j` policy 11..4 as stated in the Findings, Policies and Implementation m Strategies document. Motion carried by majority vote of the Commissioners present, , Commissioner Fyre voting no. 5.3 SUBDIVISION '- PLANNED DEVELOPMENT S 8-83 Century 21 Homes NP0 # 3 v This item has been withdrawn and will be reheard on October 4, 1983. f' 4, 5.4 ANNEXATION - ZONE CHANGE ZC 12-83 S.W. 78th and Pfaffle. A request by residents of SW 78th Avenue to consider a petition for annexation to the City of Tigard. Also, to assign a low density residential Comprehensive Plan designation and a R-7 zoning x' z- designation. Location: (Wash. Co. TAx Map 1S1 36CA tax lots 400, 500, 600, 700,800, 900, 1000, 1100, 1200, 1300, 1400, 2000, 2001, ;;: 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 4800, 4900, 5000, 5100, 5201, Iv,: 5300 and 5500). ' o Assistant Planner Pishvaie made staff's recommendation for approval. n o - NPO AND CCI COMMENTS - No one appeared to speak. o APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION - Steve Mosbacher, 11115 SW 78th, respresenting area requesting annexation stated they were unhappy ' with the Metzger Plan. They had problems with the condition of their street and it being opened to through traffic. They hoped to be annexed to the City of Tigard and that the City would help them maintain their residential character. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o Shirley Rowe, 10307 SW 90th, Chairperson for the Metzger CPO, stated the plan recommended there be no piecemeal annexation donee They did : not support the application unless the whole Metzger CPO area would d be annexed. �Y PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 13, 1983 Page 4 , 4 o Mary ;Bartlett, 11045 Sw 78th, stated they not only had a traffic problem but, also wanted police protection. There is also a drainage problem which they felt the City would be able to help them correct. CROSS EXAMATION AND REBUTTAL o Commissioner Owens questioned if any other people were interested in annexing to Tigard and why was staff recommending a piecemeal annexation, o Director of Planning and Development Monahan explained that the Urban Planning Area Agreement does not allow the ;City to initiate piece meal annexations`. However, if property owners initated the petition then the city could accept.. No one else in the area was interested in annexing. Co1MISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION o Commissioner Butler was concerned about the substandard streets and if the policy was being followed as stated in the Policies document regarding nonremonstrance agreements against the formation of LIDs. o Lengthy discussion followed regarding the condition of the streets and who was responsible for bringing them up to standard. Consensus of the commission was that they 'supported the zone change annexation with the signing of nonremonstrance agreements. commissioner Butler moved and Commissioner Fyre seconded to forward a o recommendation ' of :approval` to ,tl-_� City Council for the proposed annexation, and for approval of the Zone Change to R-7 (single family residential) become effective upon Council approval of the annexation with the condition that policy 10.1.1 b, c and d for LIDs be required for annexation. Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present. 5.5 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 14-83 LCDC Goal # 5 A request by the City of Tigard to update the Comprehensive Plan to comply with LCDC Statewide Planning Goal # 5 considering an analysis of Economic, Social Environmental and Energy (EESE) factors. a Associate Planner Newton reviewed the document requesting the Planning Commission make a recommendation to City Council. PUBLIC TESTIMONY - No one appeared to speak CROSS'EXAMINATION AND REBUTTAL o Commissioner Edin questioned if an operating Tree Farm would be able to cut trees. Associate Planner Newton explained there was a Tree Cutting Ordinance which exempts individuals who belong to a certain Tree Farming Organization. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 13, 1983 Page 5 o Mrs. Rowe, Metzger CPO Chairperson, questioned why all the Greenway area were not colored in on the Map. Staff explained that this map , only showed items covered under the Goal # 5. ' o Commission Owens requested that the first paragraph on page fourteen be clarified: n' o Commissioner `Leverett moved and Commissioner Vanderwood seconded to forwardComprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 14-83 to City Council with a recommendation for approval. Motioncarriedunanimously by commissioners present. 6. OTHER BUSINESS oCommissioner Fyre stated he would be out of town until October 17, 1983 and .would not be able to attend the next Planning' Commission � meeting. . 7. Meeting Adjourned' 10:45 P.M. Y` gyp. Diane M. Jelder Secretary s ATTEST: Phil Edin, Acting President �; ry PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 13, 1983 Page 6. i i } a � 3� O V U W ' r 4t t i 4 cnl � rn H f{ V I G U imim G N H pF] W O` P' P al .4 02 0 r+ M fr1 1 Hol N r4 a Q y d G. W V7 0 en M t co Go co O y r4 rl d G G M w awgo i a P y a 7G C C C ¢ P b pd co H N b U O 4) ab rn H O� b M Rl A M wd wd Wd it y� W 00 CO M w y 4J ++ Wyi 14 d d d �.7 � •7 it JJ � d it J�1 d •ei M Pw n� 91 �N Us r 4 G 1•` G C o.{ � ri N N N d d q r� a � � N Id 63 V N e7 O14 0 41 r U q H x x > o a3 fill MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT' DATE: October 17, '1983 SUBJECT: Monthly Report for month of SEPTEMBER August's building acitivities includes' permits for 2 signs, 22 single family : residential, 10 residential additions or remodels, 4 Commercial, 5 commercial alter/repair, l demolition, 1 garages for a total valuation of 2,970,829.20. Fees for 43 permits 19,112.35 ~ Fees for 2 signs 20.00 Plumbing A.citivity - 28 2,903.50 t Mechanical Activity - 18 529.50 f TOTAL....... 22,565.35 Sewer Connections - 26 21,600.00 Sewer Inspections - 26 955.00 King City Activity There were 1 permit issued for King ' City for the Months of September, 1983. TO NOOtlOO 0OO0000OOOOOOOOtlOOO.O000OOOO OO OOOO OG V 'N c O V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 6 N O.O O.O..O d.•Q.@OO O OtO O O O O w,C ll O- - - wP.M OOO.wOOO.O:O O O.00d.•S W r� PMO.6+W..r. PNM@KAP O..O MSO O•w'MO W OO•@ W'O O•W 0.40�O N wM OO.w @ iC.0 ...0 - s. •O w •S M.ow..o r.O•D O•M@ @M @@ r.•O:Y!w d M N'... d w 1M d:N N M w W'. r M @ M N P N 40 pd M 0.S Od P&d4 RP G fd @i aedaddddde m m m m m m m m V'm m m ffi m ffi m m'.m m m.ffi.m G m m m M.mi�.ffii�M an d d d dd d d d.d e a.i .a.;.y..+a..ia:. ....... _ m GGGGeceeccceGeGCGGGCGeeGGGe GGGcu4•u 4oa'u'u�o� - a.'a 0-0.0-W a a a a a 0 a a a N N N N N H N N N a .b..'q'tl W.W•p m WN 10 W mtll m W..Wm W W.m.W W WW W W mos tll N aN W m W a:a a W as a a:a a as 0 a:as as a s aa:a a aaa a s a.0 O OO O O OO.O a m y .�.0.5 P3 P'.W, �x-w w W Pd a!as P Od 4,CS 91?f 09 m 9'S Cf R3 P3 pP;d.cs df Of P1 PS 0.f.0 U U U:U V U U.0 p V 'a y F H In d m m W m m m •0 p y� m m w a ma 60m C7 uG .1•.p p N m N a • d W N C 7 a•.�d ..p aOAy sd+� daeffiF WO GCZm xA 4,/ t:m.dm m C C� C� C�s'UC�J'Ue dNma,G NaV m a•UC+7 pa Nua.a Offi tNCO.NGm a> s> a au.�.0� CA N >maV mj MbN, abw 0 u O w w 0 av0dc0000 o T 14 u 11 ave OumuW 00VW u O.CGeVW v) UVC m 0 N O.N N N m m m m m m•.< >+ mm o W u W s a o 0 0 0 0 o m d B m W pmR 2HO > aarr ravx V aa .s As ..� m maaa.�aa v dam a '� sh . z .. .. A Ove 3raiaw � mN yS 3�n m'.Y.• �Z $�7s� Pn m's,@mLlm Fnm C4 V) • mm mmm mm m �pmy V1 w O m m w O w m m m m m m m fJ nw0 Owww OwO O ww w W www O B•r gV wwr .O•/7W@Ob Wrwtl@K/OWO.@BOO w dPPPOM+Ow OOw bNNr T@P@N@ d@ W d.O @ r T w W O W W 0 r•P d d w r N N r 0 Rf P W d O• W d W d.N-1 eW�P O.O.O•d`P P d W W V,W4 W W e••�r-�d W P W W H d d Q H H W d U N O y N V w POj r0.+ = T 14 xMa9osMsotl xWa xWW8o•deNa�. 9a'Nn• � WWtl xm Mm m N M W W . .. . momw mm N A N A IN C) a a a a a a 4) a. O o4 6 gE06 6 e a e a. 00+ N.• o s0xxxxVa a > ms > C e dC p N NN d N�+ Naqa.dAro d0�.n�. 00aAuWxO G>+m+a ANG • 7 d rt N N N a 0 1 6 O- 4 4 yW.+ O A A A....I . a N N m m V.a 0 w w a a N . w e G a O a a a a s m a m O a N Q a a a a a 0 0•N m m m m m N a 0 m N N N N !'� a',T O m m a ii U� O7 V U V Uti ran Cmmx V UUUUUOQ..1nH 3CZ OOOO mm HOO7d F N O Ci ad m in J F+ m U N W m U J H e ye U1 co 0 C. q r+ H U H 93 d :g S 0 -O & O O O >... to � r+ m � 4 O H H :c Ad cd a Do z A. co S x N O. C. i yr ytA ca .+H 4!4! m R CITY Of TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA.OF: AGENDA ITEM 4: DATE SUBMITTED PREVIOUS ACTION: Phase 10/17/83 I gf�l4rnina Hill ISSUE/AGENDA 'TITLE: Acceptance is now in its Maintenance PeIr'LS�S� REQUESTED BY: Wedgewood Homes of of Morning Hill II '& III Compliance '� Portland and Public Works Department Agreement and Performance Bond DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: _ INFORMATIONSUMMARY Wedgewood Homes of Portlar3 has signed a;Compliance Agreement and Cash Bond Escrow Agreements for the construction of the public improvements within 'Phase II and Phase III of Morning Hill Subdivision. Plans have been checked and fees have been pain for both phases. \ saacnsse=======oeeae�=c=nese==acs===a asscsar=acasasaaaassaaaasammseaaaa,Qasaaaoesaa�=$$ ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Deny acceptance for Phase II & III until Phase I tins been completed, ea ataas ovss acnrza aaeceasmae®ecaamsmaasaa as ate csaa�xessacacssn e=nanaoa cssnaaa==noseseena SUGGESTED ACTION �c Staff recommends acceptance of the Compliance Agreement and Cash Bond Escrow Agreement for Phases II and III of Morning Hill Subdivision. WASI-IINGTON COUNTY r\UMlNltil R/>1 IC)N'BUll.l)IfVG — 150.N.FIRST AVENUE F / HILLS130110,OREGON 97123 . ww October 13, 1983 DEPT.OF PUBLIC WORKS RD COMMISSIONERS ROOM 201 . `MY BECK,Chairman 4503)6484388e,-- ��- - YS,Vice Charman - 'M." ACK 4'. N E, K ' MLLE`, RREN Z' Frank Currie .,. Director of Public. works , City of :Tigard ` p 0. Box 23397 v 97223 Tigard, Oregon � i�. X. Re Morning Hili No: 2 & No. 3 " L; Dear Frank: ' ` This is to confirm our phone conversation that Morning Hill }ib No. 2 and No; 3 are grandfathered, that is, our growth . A 4nanagement standards cannot be made retroactive. I have asked the owner to execute a waiver to aa1'LSD on 135th and on Walnut, which he has done. You may get right-of-way when a final design on 135th is completed, but that should not stand in the way of the development. 3k 7 . T idered our needs in this matter am pleased the City fully cons ' - and hope the development can proceed quickly now. Sincerely yours, Larry Rice k. Director of Public Works > LR`ja:l : l cc: Ginther Ln(JJjI- Tiny, In ,,n.r_ rlrur ll� ren�rlrrr 1 91 SUBDIVISION COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT dated the day of , 19 between the CITY OF ,TIGARD, a municipality of_Oregon, hereinafter termed the "City", and Wedgewood Homes of Portland Inc.. an Oreaon Cornnrarinn hereinafter termed "Petitioner11. W I N E S S E H WHEREAS, Petitioner has applied to the City,, for approval for filing in Washington County, a subdivision plat known as Morning Hill #2 Located in Sec ttign 4 Township 2 a atb- Ran{ 1 wast imlamette' Meridian, Washington County, Oregon; and WHEREAS, the City has approved and adopted the standard specifications for Public Works construction by APWA Oregon °Chapter and the Unified Sewerage specifications for the sanitary sewers prepared By professional engineers for subdivision development; and WHEREAS, the public improvements required to be constructed or placed in Petitioner's development are incomplete, but Petitioner has nonetheless requested the City to permit progressive occupancy and,use of property in the subdivision, and the parties desire hereby to protect the public interest generally; and ; prospective purchasers of lots in said subdivision by legally enforceable assurances that the public improvements'` will be installed as required and completed within the time hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and the covenants and agreements to be kept and performed by the Petitioner and its sureties, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: (1) Petitioner shall proceed with the development, with the intent and purpose to complete all public improvements except sidewalks and street trees of said subdivision not later than two (2) years from the date of this agreement, and Petitioner is hereby bound to comply with all subdivision standards as set forth in said Subdivision Ordinance and the standard specification adopted by the City of Tigard, or as may be otherwise approved by the Public Works Department and to use only such material and to follow such designs as may be required to conform thereto. (2) To assure compliance with the City's requirements and the provisions hereof, Petitioner tenders herewith to the City a surety bond in form approved by the City, with liability in the amount of � 65.3Q2.00 a copy whereof hereto attached and by this reference made a part hereof. (3) In the event that Petitioner shall fail, neglect or refuse to proceed with the work in an orderly and progressive manner to assure completion within the time limits, upon ten (10) days notice by the City to Petitioner and Petitioner's sureties, and such default and failure to proceed continuing thereafter, the City may at its option proceed to have the work completed and charge the costs thereof against Petitioner and Petitioner's sureties and in the event same be not paid, to bring an action on the said bond to recover the amount thereof. In the event such action be brought, Petitioner and PecitLoner'S sureties 'promise and agree to pay, in addition to the amounts accruing and allowable, such sum as the court shall adjudge reasonable as attorney's fees and costs incurred by the City, both in the ;Trial Court and Appellate Court, if any, or the City may, at its option, bring proceedings to enforce against the Petitioner and/or Petitioner's sureties specific performance of the contract and compliance with the subdivision standardsCand r ordinances of the City of Tigard, and in such event, in like manner, y shall be entitled to recover such sum as the court shall adjudge reasonable as and for the :City's attorney's fees and costs, both in the Trial Court and Appellate Court,` if any. (4) petitioner, concurrent with the execution hereof, has deposited with the City an amount estimated to equal rental and maintenance fees with respect to to the street lighting facilities within the ", together with a according Portland General Electric ��91, Option "B", g to gize sum equal to the estimated cost of providing electrical nerg€rom herdate the street lighting facilities for a period of two (2) years initial energizing of said lights. Said amount being $_312_2.E (5) The City agrees to make and provide periodic and final ;inspections which in the City's interest are desirable to assure compliance herewith, in consideration whereof the Petitioner has paid prescribed inspections fees.* (6) The City agrees to install street identification and traffic signs within the said subdivision, in consideration of payment in the amount of (7) _At such time as all public improvements except sidewalks and street trees within the subdivision have been completed in accordance with the City's requirements, Petitioner shall notify the City of the readiness for inspection and upon certification by the Department of Public Works that the requirements of the 'City have been met, the 'Petitioner will submit to the City a good and sufficient maintenance bond if not already provided with the per °to F ance Ovide oEor form approved by Che City,in the sum of $ 13,078.00_arent or arising correction of any defective work or maintenance becoming app within one (1) year after tentative acceptance of the public improvements by the City. :upon receipt of certification by the Department of Public Works, that all requirements have been met, and a One Year Maintenance Bond, the City Council agrees to tentatively accept the public improvements subject to the deficiencies and mainte:aance for a period of requirements for correction of one year as hereinabove set forth. (S) That in addition to or supplementary of the requirements of the City's Subdivision Ordinance and the provisions hereof, Petitioner binds itself to conform to the following requirements, scheduling and limitations: s *Project Fee $ 1746.12 Sewer Fee $ 100.O0 -2- k s ' 4 (a) None of the lots of Petitioner's subdivision as described may be occupied for residential purposes until an 'occupancy permit is issued under authority of the City and no occupancy permit shall be issued prior to the acceptance of the subdivision and to the time that the sidewalk paralleling the street for each developed lot proposed to be occupied, is installed as a part of the development; provided that all sidewalks as 'required by ,the plans R and subdivision code shall be installed throughout said subdivision not later than 3 years from the date of this Subdivision Improvement Contract. (b) All landscaping trees on that portion of .each -lot between the public sidewalks and the curb (parking area) as required, shall be planted; and in place prior to final inspection and issuance of occupancy permit for each such lot in the subdivision.' Provided that final inspection and applicant for occupancy permit occurs within any calendar month from October to April of any P year., such plantings may be deferred until the next followinggrowing season. - In any event, all landscaping and trees in all areas shall be planted and in place within the entire subdivision within three (3) years from the date of this subdivision improvement contract. s (c) After tentative City acceptance of the public improvements, the Petitioner agrees to place a one (1) inch asphaltic concrete ;Class "C" overlay on all roads within the development; placement scheduling tobe approved by r:; the City. (d) Compliance with all terms and provisions` specified theretofor said;subdivision;development by the Council and the Planning Commission of the City of Tigard, Oregon, in regard to variances allowed from the subdivision ordinance, conditions specified by the zone use classification and, also, on the approved plat(s) and plans(s): (e) Petitioner agrees' to provide for correction of any defective ;_ work and/or maintenance becoming apparent or arising during the guarantee period as hereinabove set forth. (9) At such time as all public improvements have been completed in . accordance with the City's requirements, Petitioner shall notify the City of the readiness for final inspection and upon certification by the Department of Public Works that all requirements of the City have been met, the Council agrees to accept said improvements for operation and maintenance responsibility, thereinregard, and release the Petitioner's guarantee bond. (10) The parties hereto hereby adopt the form of performance bond, copy D, whereof is hereto. attached and by reference made a part hereof, and Petitioner X agrees to cause to have said bond executed and filed with the City x concurrently with the execution of this agreement at or prior to the time this agreement is executed on behalf of the City. , (11) The specific requirements of Paragraph 9 hereof shall for all purposes be included as a part of the obligation secured by the aforesaid performance` bond and the City shall be entitled to recourse thereto in the event of default on the part of the Petitioner with respect to any requirement thereof, �r -3- J. b and through its duly authorized IN;WITNESs WHEREOF, Petitioner acting Y pursuant to .resolution of its Board of Directorspursuant has to undersigned ,officers p and the City ;'acting p caused this, agreement ; to be executed, and regularly held thereof duly resolution of its Counci�l..,�/adopte�ml� g , has caused this agreement to on the � day of /11 be executed by its Mayor and Recorder. Byl , By: ��-- THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON By; Mayor By Recorder r ; STATE t)F OREGON ss. ",unty Of 1196rj, before me appear -d t U t nth; § On this -J day of �_ _uvQ,-���cY__ - _� .-_ ' and ' . J !� pc'r�nr-ally',know-n who, being duly sworn,, did say that he, the said is the ?;ayor, and she, the is the Recorder of the CITY OF 'iIGARD, a munici.p l corporation and the said uand - ----- ic kt,i.:i:-dged the saic l r;s •,•nt to be the free act , nd deed of said r;uni< Ipal 'cu:f, r it },areu;;t o set my hand ;and affixed my ofiirial al, 4 this day and yeaz in ti rrc c,-rtificate first written. votary Public for Oregon ;t ?�y GQ:.mryS�Jn L:,.pires: ,TATE OF OREGON ) S5. County of t On this — _ - - ; of ----------' 19---' before me appeared AND ' bath tome personally known whi, being duly sworn, did say that he, the said is the Mayor, and she, the said i, cc.rd -order' of the c IfY OF ["C: RD, a manic ip.il , •,rat is and the said snd tY,e .iid instrument to be the free act and deed of said municipal corporation. .1 IN WITNESS ,.;'i.':f OF, I i..:., } untq set rry t,and and affixed my of, icial s7-1 l this the day and year in this ;ny c•erti irate first written. ,.•+:.d Cy i.-.!blit for. Oregon . .' !.y C, s;on F.. *fres: STATE OF OREGON ) )ss. County of ) On this I _ day of (',Q- 'A'=' and before me appeared both to me personally nown, wio eing; u ysworn, say t et e, the said4-0 s it is the President, and he, the said is the Secretary of ��s�s�o,uac fl tda+�e� �aRtt �'z the withinithin-named Corporation,- and that the seal affixed to said instrument is the ana seal of said Corporation, and that the said instrument was signed and'sealed lin behalf of said Corpo+E <- ratioanbdy authority of its Board of Directors, and - . �bfw r acknowledged said instrument to ebetie F-ree act ani ee of saici Corporation. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have `hereunto set 'my hand and affixed my official seal the day p and year last above written. Nota u1 is for Oregon. My Commission expires—442-k-- ACCEPTANCE _ ACCEPTANCE The City above named hereby accepts the foregoing grants and agrees to comply with each and every term and condition thereof. CITY OF TIGARD 1-7 ayor a By: ca Gity Recor er STATE OF OREGON ) )ss. County'of La, ) j7. , 19 , before me on thus 7-� day of oU �� appeared y. Lkrtt S o an .r /. e both to me persona y n wn who, eing-- u y sworn, di say t at e, the said L, >c - -j {s,�l=on is the Mayor, and he, the said — 1s and /) the Recorder of t se CITY OF TIGAR_cunicip� – corporati�n, an the said l;/�i<r R �ior,; o�,s r a acknowle3ge� t e said instrument to e e ee act and { deed of sa d mun c—ipal corporation. ` IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and afS:ixed my official seal, this the day and year in this my certificate first written. N t ry Public or Oregon M `r' My commission expires .� Page 3 Easement a F f au - b CASH BOND ESCROW AGREEMENT ' L9 , between the ; THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of CITY OF TIGARD, .hereinafter termed the "CITY`, and 'WEDGEWOOD HOMES OF PORTLAND. _, ; AN OREGON CORPORATION , hereinafter termed the ' PRINCIPAL", and BENJ.`FRANKLIN FEDERAL SAVINGS-& .LOAN ASSOC_ hereinaf ter termed the "BANK" (A -cciation,. W T H E S S E T tni;EREAS, the Principal has heretofore executed a Subdivision Compliance Agr.:prent, with respect to the development, construction and improvement of a ' reside-.ntial subdivision within the City known as Morning Hil1S II a copy of said agreement to with a particular legal description o£ said lands being attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof: and ' 4 WHEREAS, the Principal has proposed to the City that there by entrusted to the Bank the sum of $` 65 ` .00 as a cash performance bond to 392 asscr ._ the City that all requirements of said Subdivision Compliance Agreement shall be 'properly and timely performed and to assure that the costs thereof shall be timely paid and all requi.remerLcs 'thereof Tet; and WHEREAS, the Bank has agreed to take title to and hold in a trust capacity the �_m of $ 65 `392:00 and hereby acknowledges custody thereof to be tF1�1 p r_suant 'to the ;terms and provisions of said Subdivision Compliance Agreement th and define the conditions a- -h_.cct-o- attached, and itis desired hereby to set for applicable to. said cash bond. NOW, THEREFORE, if the Principal shall faithfully observe and timely comply with all requirements of said Subdivision Compliance Agreement and all ordinances and regulations applicable to said subdivision, and if the Principal shall well and truly perform all matters and things undertaken thereby and hereby to be performed and shall promptly make payment to all persons supplying labor or material for any prosecution of the work, and if. the Principal shall not permit any lien or claim to be filed or prosecuted against the City on account of any labor or material furnished, and if the Principal shall promptly pay all contributions or amounts due the State Ind:istrial Accident Fund and the State Unemployment Compensation Fund, and shall promptly as due make payment to the person, co-partnership, association or corporation ent.itle.8 thereto of the monies mentioned in Chapters 279.320 and 279.510 O.R.S. and shall pro,,,�tiy r,omply with all withholding and payment requirements of Chapters 316.162 to :,!5.212 O.R.S. with respect to the collection of taxes at source, then upon full completion of all work and the furnishing of evidence satisfactory to the shall City that all requirements hereof have been fulfilled, and if the Principal Subdivision execute and deliver to the City the Maintenance Bond described in said Subdivision Compliance Agreement, then the Bank shall thereupon release to the Principal the said cash bond deposit: PROVIDED, however, that the obligations hereof shall not apply to any money loaned or advanced to the Principal or to any subcontractor or other person in the yerforrranre of any such work whether specifically provided for by contract or otherwise. IF, however, the Principal shall fail to literally comply with all requirements of said Subdivision Compliance Agreement and all the requirements hereof, or shall in arty particular perform the work in a defective manner, upon 10 days notice by the City to the Principal and such default or failure continuing thereafter, the City is her,:_,by authorized to have. said work performed or the requirem< LILS of the Subdivision Compliance Agrr-eme t'brought into conformity,with the •terms thereof and with the City's ordinances and;regulations, and the City shall be, and it is hereby, authorized to 'c:'.erge 't_he same against the "entrusted cash deposit and the Bank agreesto pay therrf_orr all amounts certified by the'City-to be 'chargeable: thereto. Nothing herein contained 'shall'be construed to constitute acceptance by the City of any, respons- ibil:ity for a:aintenance of the improvements nor shall the City by reason thereof becom: obligated to any person or property owner for any; loss or damage arising; by reason. ofthemanner in which said improvements were constructed. Further, ;.:he City be, and it is hereby, authorized in addition to the foregoing,', in th.. :went ofrsuch 'default on the part of the `Principal to charge against said funds all `costs 'incurred by the City including attorney's fees in exacting compliance ther_witb or herewith, and the Bank agrees to disburse said funds for said purposes upon c<_rtification thereof by the City. Upon fulfillment of the foregoing in accordance with the terms and provisions here-,", the City agrees to furnish a certificate of release of said deposit or such portior•U thereof as 'shall remain after fulfillment of the requirements hereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City under authority of resolution of its City Council has ,used this';agreement to be executed by its Mayor and City Recorder, and the Principaland the Bank have affixed their corporate signatures on the day; and year / first h,.reina"ove written, 1 CITY: CITY OF TIGARD OREGON By May By: � Recorder. PRINCIPAL: By. STATE OF OREGON ) )ss. County of�Multnomah On October 13 19 88 personally"appeared Darrell F. Smith and Charles E. Olson who, being sworn, stated that the former is the ; Vice President and that .the latter is the Vice President of said Corporation and that this instrument was voluntarily signed in behalf of the Corporation by auk )rity of its Board of Directors. Before me: SEA i - Notary Public Oregon My commission expires:4� 3 � L-58A _ RF REV. 3/76 (PUPOFD) rP SUBDIVISION COMPLIANCE AGREEMEN7.- THIS AGREEMENT dated the day of ; 19 between the CITY OF TIGARD, a municipality of Oregon, hereinafter termed the "City", and WEDGEWOOD HOMES OF PORTLAND' an OREGON CORPORA'T'ION ' hereinafter termed "Petitioner". W I N E S S E T H WHEREAS, Petitioner has applied to the City for 'approval for filing in Washington County, a subdivision plat known as MORNING HILL ITT Located in Section 4 Towne Willamette Meridian, WashLngton County, Oregon; and WHEREAS, the City has approved and adopted the standard specifications for Public Works construction by APWA Oregon Chapter and the Unified Sewerage specifications for the sanitary; sewers prepared by professional engineers for subdivision development; and WHEREAS, the public improvements` required to be constructed or placed in Petitioner's development are incomplete, but Petitioner has nonetheless requested the 'City to permit progressive occupancy and use of property in the subdivision, and the parties desire hereby to: protect the public interest generally and prospective purchasers of lots in said subdivision by legally r enforceable assurances that the public improvements will be installed as required and completed within the time hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and the covenants and agreements to be kept and performed by the Petitioner and its sureties, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: (1) Petitioner shall proceed with the development, with the intent and purpose to complete all public improvements except sidewalks and street trees of said subdivision not later than two (2) years from the date of this agreement, and Petitioner is hereby bound to comply with all subdivision standards as set forth in said Subdivision Ordinance and the standard specification adopted by the City of Tigard, or as may be otherwise approved by the Public Works Department and to use only such material and to follow such designs as may be required to conform thereto. (2) To assure compliance with the City's requirements and the provisions hereof, Petitioner tenders herewith to the City a surety bond in form approved by the City, with liability in the amount of 84.883.00 a copy whereof hereto attached and by this reference made a part hereof. (3) In the event that Petitioner shall fail, neglect or refuse to, proceed with the work in an orderly and progressive manner to assure completion within the time limits, upon ten (10) days notice by the City to Petitioner and Petitioner's sureties, and such default and failure to proceed continuing thereafter, the City may at its option proceed to have the work completed .and charge, the costs thereof against Petitioner and Petitioner's sureties and in the event same be not paid, to bring an action on the said bond to recover the amount thereof. In the event such action be brought, Petitioner and P; omise and agree to pay, in addition to the amounts { Petitioner's sureties pr t shall adjudge reasonable as such sum as the cour accruing and allowable, the City, both in'the Trial .Court and attorney's :fees and costs incurred by at is option, bring proceedings to Appellate Court, if any, or the City may, K against the Petitioner and/or Petitioner's- sureties specific enforce ag' 6 in like manner, the City ' performance of the gtntofcTigard wand ii.ncsuch tevent, subdivision standards an ordinances o€ the City both in the Trial Court and - shall be entitled to recover s4efeesm as and; tcosts,he urt .shall adjudge reasonable as F and for the City's attorney Appellate Court, if any• A concurrent with the execution hereof, has deposited with . (4) Petitioner, according to the City an amount estimated to equal rental within hin and the maintenance ees with respect �. to the street lighting facilities �+ �� to ether with 'a further option B , $ ize the Portland General Electric Schedule rov p ng electrical energy to energ sum equal to the'estimated cost of Period lof two (2) years from the date of street lighting facilities for a p : initial energizing of said Eights.' Said amount being $ 625.68 f inspections (5) The City agrees to make" and provide periodic :and final in which in the City's interest are desirable dCOassure prescribed�inspe ti n herewith,fees.* consideration whereof the Petitioner has p (6) The City agrean es to install street identification ind the traffic amount gof within the said subdivision, in consideration of Pym $ 76.45 (7) At such time as all public improvements except sidewalks and street ` rdance the City's co trees within the subdivision have been cemC�tteo€gthecreadinesswfotr inspection requirements, Petitioner shall notify th and upon certification by the Department of Public Works that the requirements the Petitioner will submit to the City a good and of the City have been met, pr with the performance bond, sufficient maintenance bond i€ano the already £ $ 16 976.6c?.--- to provide for form approved by the City, apparent or arising k correction ®= any defective work or maintenance becoming ublic improvements by within one: (1) year after tentative acceptance of the p the City.- Upon receipt of certification by the Department of Public Works, that uirements have been met, and a One Year Maintenance Bond, the City all req public improvements subject to the Council agrees to tentatively accept the eriod of requirements for correction of deficiencies and maintenance for a p one year as hereinabove set forth• lementary o€ the requirements of the (B) That in addition to or supe provisions hereof, Petitioner binds City's Subdivision Ordinance and thuirements, scheduling and limitations: itself to conform to the following req ( *Project Fee $ 2379.28 Sever Fee $___1=3:0_00 -2- (a) None of the lots of Petitioner's subdivision as described may be occupied for residential purposes until an 'occupancy permit is issued under authority of the City and no occupancy permit 'shall be issued prior to the acceptance of the subdivision and to: the time that the sidewalk paralleling the street for each developed lot proposed to be occupied, is installed as a part of the development; provided that all sidewalks as required by the plans and subdivision code shall be installed throughout said subdivision not _later than 3 years from the date of this Subdivision Improvement Contract. (b) All landscaping trees on that portion of each lot ;between the public sidewalks and the curb (parking area) as required, shall be planted and in place prior to 'final inspection and issuance of occupancy permit for each such lot in the subdivision. Provided that final inspection and applicant for: occupancy;permit occurs within any calendar month from October to April of any year, such plantings may be deferred until the next following growing season.' ' In any event, all landscaping and trees in all areas shall be planted and in place within the entire subdivision within three (3) years from the date of this subdivision improvement contract. (c) After tentative City acceptance of the public improvements, the Petitioner agrees to ,place=a one (1) inch asphaltic concrete Class "C" overlay on all roads withinthe 'development; placement scheduling ;to be ,approved by the City. (d) Compliance with all terms and provisions specified theretofor said subdivision development by the Council :and the Planning Commission of the City of Tigard, Oregon, in regard to variances allowed from the subdivision ordinance, conditions specified by the zone use classification and, also, on the approved 'plat(s) and plans(s). (e) Petitioner agrees to provide for correction of any defective work and/or maintenance becoming apparent or arising during the guarantee period as hereinabove set forth. (9) At such time as all public improvements have been completed in accordance with the City's requirements, Petitioner shall notify the City of the readiness for final inspection and upon certification by the Department of Public Works that all requirements of the City have been met, the Council agrees to accept said improvements for operation and maintenance responsibility, thereinregard, and release the Petitioner's guarantee bond. (10) The parties hereto hereby adopt the form of performance bond, copy whereof is hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, and Petitioner agrees to cause to have said bond executed and filed with the City concurrently with the execution of this agreement at or prior to the time this agreement is executed on behalf of the City. (11) The specific requirements of Paragraph 9 hereof shall for all purposes be included as a part of the obligation secured by the aforesaid performance bond and the City shall- be entitled to recourse thereto in the event of default on the part of the Petitioner with respect to any requirement thereof. -3- MR 20*0 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Petitioner acting by and through its duly authorized " undersigned officers pursuant to resolution of its Board of Directors has caused this agreement to be executed, and the City acting pursuant to , resolution of its Council adopted at a meeting thereof duly and regularly held on the• .� day of a 147" .E has caused this agreement to be executed by its Mayor and Recorder. Q By: T CITY OF_ TIGARD, OREGON /1l ,�/fc �(•' rte' Mayor Recorder STATE OF OREGON ) ss. County of Washington) eared lgr, before me app On this % day °f -- - =-�= "—' , both to and / 7-is llrl�L �!� ! that hei the saa(t me personally known who, n being duly sworn, did say is the Mayor, and h e, the said o t�tr��r (� -�`5 L� al cox oration, and the said is the Recorder of the City of Tigard, a ujunicip p 7.1and ' Cr acknowledged the said instrument to be the free act and deed of said municipal corporation, hand and affixed 'my official IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, LS have hereunto set my seal, this the day and year in this my certificate first written. Notary Public,/for Oregon My co mli$Sion Expires t -4- 5 IN =� STATE OF OREGON 9 )ss. County of w ) On this _j3 day of ' before me appeared _�Q,-u,_ _. .� L ;,>yy and both to me personally known, ,w o being duly sworn, did say that ,e, t e sai is the President, and he, the said; is the Secretary of tau o.- Q -:ren, Z the within named Corporation, and that the seal affixed to'said instrument is the corporate seal of said Corporation, and that the ;said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said Corporation by authority of its Board of Directors, and '` and acknowledged said instrument to a tTie rf ee act and deed o saidCorporation. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have`,hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the Clay and year last'above written. Npary Public for Oregon. My Commission expires ACCEPTANCE The City`above`named hereby accepts the foregoing grants and agrees to comply with each and every term and condition thereof. CITY OF TIGARD By: try' Mayor By: J/;-III 1-4 City Recorder STATE OF OR::GON ) , yy / )ss. County of tjASJ1 t <t 2j ) On this day of Qfoyo"mh"' 19 '93 e before me a eared _f�f �pp and , both to me ersonaTFy Rno n�who,being t=iny sworn sayer t�h t� he, t3ie sai /A./1—r __ rs1_,�� is the Mayor, and he, the said �< �G is the Recorder of the CITY OF TIGARD, a munacipalr corporation, a�the said ililJ2y� Q�L�hL, and J�rT t� strli4 acknowledged th�id i strument to be three act and deed of said municipal corporation. IN TESTIMONY. WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal, this the day and year in this my certificate first written. G NcYtgry Public for Oregon My Commission expires Page 3 Er,sement s•t ATE OF OREGON ) s s. "oulity Of -- - t On this day of 19 before me appeared --- and both t, p,•taonally known who, ;beingduly sworn, did say that he, the said _ _is the Mayor, and she, the said- ,.----- is aid — _is the Recorder of the CITY OF-'iIGARD, a municipal rnrhuration and the said - - -- -- - - and -- :,k;i,+:..+sl ed the said .stri _.-nt to be the free act and creed of said municipal corp•, 1 r•;;ve hereunto .set my hand .and affixed my official seal, this day and y,a_- iil :r-rtificate first written.'' 3 Notary Public for Oregon. t Fey Co., nt5�'ion Expires: ---- I•A•I'E OF OREGON ) ss. ' County of On this _ _ _'ay of -- -_, 19 , before me appeared AND - btith to me personally known whi, being duly sworn, did say that he, the said _ is the Mayor, and she, the said _ — - -- _ - _-• -- . i,•curder of the cifY OF 1'IrARD, a' municii,al . . , h ,ritir.n and the said ti,v maid instrument to be the free act and deed of said municipal corporation. IN WITNESS 1'12reunto set my t,and and affixed my official s_?al, tiiis the day and year in tl!is ;fly cerLi irate ,first written. :,,_!ry p-tbl is for Oregon sign Expires { { s CASH BOND ESCROW;AGREEMENT # THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of , 19 , between the CITY OF TIGARD, hereinafter termed the "CITY", and WEDGEWOOD HOMES OF PORTTANO. AN OREGON CORPORATION , hereinafter termed the "PRINCIPAL", and z I3ENJ. FRANKLIN FEDERAL' SAVINGS & LOA14 ASSOC. hereinafter termed the "BANK" (A.==cciaticn). W I T N E S S T H 4,..3RFAS, the Principal has heretofore executed a Subdivision Compliance A`r..,,-tr ent, with respect to the development, construction and improvement of a s r� id .ntial subdivision within the City ,known as Morning Hill III a copy of said agreement together: `with a' particular, legal description of said lands being attached hereto and by reference made apart hereof: and {, WHEREAS, the Principal has proposed to the City that there by entrusted to the Banc: the sum of $ 84,883.00 as a cash performance bond to asst; e: the >City,that all requirements of said Subdivision Compliance'Agreement ti *o assure that the costs thereof shall be shall be properly and timely performed and timely- paid and all requireme-nrs thereof rret; and WHEREAS, the Bank has agreed to take title to and hold in a trust capacity the . - sum of $ 64,883.00 and hereby acknowledges custodythereof to, be held p_.rsuwnt to'` the terms and provisions of said Subdivision Compliance Agreement as attached, and it is desired herely to set forth and define the conditions applicable to. said cash bond. NOW, THEREFORE, if the Principal shall faithfully observe and timely comply with all requirements of said Subdivision Compliance Agreement and all ordinances �< . and re.gu.tati.ons applicable to said subdivision, and if the Principal shall well and truly perform all matters and things undertaken thereby and hereby to be performed s supplying labor or material for any and shall promptly make payment to all personr prosecution of the work, and if the Principal shall not permit any lien or claim to fr be filed or prosecuted against the City on account of any labor or material furnished, . and if the Principal shall promptly pay all contributions or amounts due the State industrial Accident Fund and the State Unemployrrent Compensation Fund, and shall � pr6miptly as d-ie make payment to the person, copartnership, association or corporation entiti�::d t5creto of the monies mentioned in Chapters 279.320 and 279.510 O.R.S. and .` shall promptly comply with all withholding and payment requirements of Chapters , 315.162 to 616.212 O.R.S. with respect to the collection of taxes at source, then upon full completion of all work and the furnishing of evidence satisfactory to the NA, City that all requirements hereof have been fulfilled, and if the Principal shall execute and deliver to the City the Maintenance Bond described in said Subdivision It Compliance Agreement, then the Bank shall thereupon release to the Principal the said cash bond deposit: PROVIDED, however, that the obligations hereof shall not apply to any money loan--d -;r advanced to the Principal or to any, subcontractor or other person in the pti!rfonrance of any such work whether specifically provided for by contract or otherwise,. , rr IF, however, the Principal shall fail to literally comply with all requirements of .aid Subdivision Compliance Agreement and all the requirements hereof, or shall in any particular perform the work in a defective manner, upon 10 days notice by the City to the Principal and such default or failure continuing thereafter, the City is � tiss�P'- `�.�-�" =•� maums._ "'°"Naw. _ - .:. — .m�w Ulm I E her,,1-y ,utharized to have said work performed or the requirem=_u Ls of the Subdivision' Compliance Agreement brought into conformity with,the terms thereof and with the City®s ordinances and regulations, and the City shall be, and it is hereby, authorized to cY: rgc'; the same against the entrusted cash deposit and the Bank agrees to pay therrfroue: all 'amounts certified by the City,to be chargeable thereto. Nothing;herein contained :-:-hall be construed to constitute acceptance by the City of any respons- ibility for ir.ainterance of the improvements:nor shall the City by reason thereof becorr_, obligated to any person or property owner for any Loss or damage arising by reason. of the manner in which said improvements were constructed. R,.:rther, the City be, and it is hereby, authorized in addition to the foregoing, in th. :went of such default on the part of the Principal to,charge against said funds all costs incurred by the City including attorney's fees in exacting compliance then with or herewith, and the Bank agrees to disburse said funds for said purposes upon certification thereof by the City. Upon fulfillment of the foregoing in accordance with the terms and provisions here-_,i, the City agrees to furnish a certificate of release of said deposit or such por"tiona <thereof as shall remain after fulfillment of the requirements hereof. k IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City under authority of resolution of its City Council has r =sed this agreement to be executed by its Mayor and City Recorder, and the A Principal and the Bank have affixed their corporate signatures on the day and year first h-reinabove written. CITY: CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON__ By; /'i� � r1 Mayor/ By: a 1 Recorder PRINCIPAL: Ry:_ ,� (Atte. , d Corporate By: Acknowledg ri;int, here.) , By: By: BANK (ASSOCZA ON%NJ. FRANKLIN FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSN B Page 2 Cash Bond Escrow Agreement STATE OF 0REGON County of ,w )ss, 011 October 13 19 83 personally appeared ' Darrell F. E. Olson Smith and Charles who, being sworn Vice A stated that the former is the president and that latter is the Vice President of ,aid Corporation and that this instrument was voluntarily signed in behalf of the Corporation by authority of its Board of Directors. Before me: LEA_TIZ� Imotary Public for eg®n f -5$A Sp REV, NY commission expires: C� 0 -P 3175 �PUPOFD) 6 �I i q�x F F k f' STATE OF 'OREGON ss. County of Washington) before me appeared da G.•.�,v,rd4/ _� 193 On this y of , both to o and 1 Y2v� i did say that he; the said .a -u me personally known who, being duly sworn, c ��l� �"l is the Mayor, and he, the said„ al atioand tlae said s .Recorder of the City of Tigard, a muni/cip corporn, / s , and � ed <:the .said instrument to be thefree :act and deed of said municipal acl:,>nowledg corporation- hand and affixed my official ' IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto .;set my seal, this the day and year in this ,my certificate first written. C. No ry Fublic for/JOregon My Commission Expires a CITY OF TIGARD, O__R,EGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY P .AGENDA ITEM AGENDA.OF: PREVIOUS ACTION: DATE SUBMITTED: 10/28/83 Com liance A reement &Bond in 1380 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: AccePance f New Subdivision Compliance Agreement REQUESTED BY: and Performance Bond and releasing the o`�c'Pariormance Bon (G -f Side Estates) CITY ADMINISTRATOR: _ - DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: INFORMATION SUMMARY developed by R.M.A. Con Golf side Estate, located at Sattler & 100th, is being HI struction Co. on Nov. StFerfoOrmance `BondG butInevedr actuallya City tcommencedpconstruction Compliance Agreement and the same street pattern, but of the subdivision due to economic reasons: They are currently reviving the project and are in tYie (City) Process of. replatting it, using more lots. The original preliminary plat boundary will remain unchanged and adding roved. Revised construction plans have been sub subsequently is still valid as,app- along with a new subdivision Com- mitted and reviewed and all fees have been paid; pliance Agreement and a larger Per,`_ormance Bond, which are a1980)ebe releasedeandloper is requesting that thg 'old' Agreement and Bond (Oeement and Bond. that simultaneously, the City accept the `new' Ag aassxsaaaoatwa�arsca!Asreamamssssaaxmmesasaanatasaa�asrmzassaaa�ssaxsas= ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None, since the requested action properly serves the best interest o£ both the City and 'he Developer, - uateassu9xaiss saeia rxnaerseu�semarc eem ramssssecavaeaeaa,esas:e�affi�ea Lsaac'�asaaaLs�e.�®mss= Tfd6 L."—L=6SCLLTL 6ygCL==�=L SUGGESTED AC'T'ION staff` recozrmends'that the Council accept the new Compliance Agreement and Performance 'ReCorderto Bond, authorizing the Mayor and and Bond, Bondehalf of the City, also, authorizing Yelease of the old Agreement 6 SUBDIVISION COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT t da 19 a, of THIS AGREEMENT dated the y hereinafter termed the "between the CITY:OF TIGARD, a municipality of Oregon, "City", and p7ma -COidSTRUCTION-COMPANY r hereinafter termed "Petitioner" W I lied to the Cityfor approval for filing in WHEREAS, Petitioner has app p ' bdivision plat known as —1f Side`Estates Washington County, a su 'located in Section 11, Townshi 2 Ra fe 1 West Oregon, and Willamette Meridian,'Washington County, n WHEREAS, the city has approve Or gonptaptered the s and athe spUnified specifications 4 Public Works construction by professional engineer for specifications for the sanitary sewers prepared by subdivision development; and ted r placed in WHEREAS, the public improvements requiredtogptition rr c has o nonetheless Petitioner's development are incon complete, propertyin the requested the City to;permit progressive occupancy sire hereby to protect the p; and use of ublic interest subdivision, and the parties de generally ,and prospective purchasers of lots in said subdivision by legally r enforceable assurances that the public improvements will be installed as required and completed within the time hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and the covenants and agreements to be kept and performed, by the Petitioner and its sureties, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: intent and (1) Petitioner shallproceed improvements except sidewalksandthe street trees purpose to complete all p p ears from the date of this of said subdivision not later than two (2) y with all subdivision agreement, and Petitioner is hereby bound to comply standards as set forth in said Subdivision Ordinance and the standard specification adopted by the City of Tigard, or as may be otherwise approved by the Public Works Department and to use only such material and to follow such designs as may be required to conform ,hereto. compliance with the City's requirements and the provisions (2) To assure co i Cy a f hereof, Petitioner tenders herewith to the C 126,831-00 acopy�ahereof by the City, with liability in the amount of � hereto attached and by this reference made a pahereof. roceed (;3) In the event that PetatiYnoe essive mannershall fail, ntolassure completionegect or refuse topwithin with the work in an orderly an p g the time limits, upon ten (10), days notice by the City to Petitioner and Petitioners sureties, and such default and failure to proceed continuing thereafter., the City may at its option proceed to have the work completed and charge the casts thereof against Petitioner and Petitioner's sureties and in the event dada s not paid, to bring an action on the said bond to recover the the event thereof.samIn the event ' s+ich action be brought, Petitioner and mise and agree to pay, in addition to the amounts # Petitioner's sureties promise as the court shall adjudge reasonable as accruing and allowable, the Cit both in the 'Trial Court and such attorney's fees and costs incurred by at its option, bring proceedings to Appellate Court, if any, or the City may, g enforce against the Petitioner and/or petitioner's sureties specific � . and h the on sta performance of the contract" and compliance ncsu h tevent, indlikelmanner,�dthe$City ordinances of the City of Tiger re E shall be entitled to recover such sum the courbotha in the Trial asCourt eand and for the City's attorney's fees and costs, Appellate Court, if any. t ith to execution hereof, has deposited with (4) petitioner, concurrent w t the 'City an amount estimated to'equal rental and maintenance fees with dingpeto to the street lighting facilities within the " togetheerr with a further' Schedule #91, option 8 , g to energize the, Portland General Electric providing electrical energy sum°equal;to the estimated cost of period of two -(2) years from the date of street lighting facilities for a p 696.72 - initial energising of said lights. Said amount being $ c and ns (5) It a City °agrees to mare desirableand aato assurer compliance lherewith,oin which in the City's interest aid prescribed inspections fees consideration whereof the Petitioner has p ) The City agrees to install street ididentificationinn t e traffic amos nt of within(6 gns (6the said subdivision, in consideration of payment 74.4 ide alks and (7) At cuch time as all public improvements prove en si except accordance with the City's trees within the subdivision have l requirements, Petitioner shall notify the City of the readiness for inspection partment of Public Works that the requirements and upon certification by the Degood and of the City have been met, the Petitioner will submit to the City a sufficient maintenance bond if not already provided wit20the perform to Q�de for form approved by the City, in the sum of $ g stent or arising correction of any defective cork or maintenance becoming aimprovements by within one (1) year after tentative acceptance of to public the City. Upon receipt of certification by the Department of Public Works, that all requirements have been met, and a one Year Maintenance Bond, the City Council agrees to tentatively accept the public improvements subject to the Council for correction of deficiencies and maintenance for a period of reqone year as hereinabove set forth. (g) °tlut in addition to or supplementary of the requirements of the City's Subdivision ordinance and requirements,hons sciceduling,andelimitation titioner finds itself to conform to the following *Project Fee $ 4,084.12 Sewer Pee $ 220.00 ..Z_ T x i (a) None of the lots of Petitioner's subdivision as described may be occupied for residential purposes until an occupancy permit is issued under authority of the City and no occupancy permit shall be issued prior to the i acceptance; of the subdivision and to the time that the sidewalk paralleling the street' for each developed lot proposed to be ,occupied, is installed as a t; provided that all sidewalks as required by part of the d.evslopmenthe plans ; and subdivision 'code shall be installed throughout said; subdivision not later than 3 years from the date of this Subdivision Improvement Contract. (b) All landscaping trees on that portion of each lot between the ` public sidewalks and the curb (parking area) as required, shall be planted and in place prior to final inspection and issuance of occupancy permit for each such lot in the subdivision. Provided that 'final inspection and applicant for occupancy permit occurs within any calendar month from October to April of any ay be deferred ,until the next following growing season. year, such plantings m In any event, all landscaping and trees in all areas shall be planted and in place within the entire subdivision within three (3) years from the date of this subdivisions improvement contract. (c) After tentative City acceptance of the public improvements, the Petitioner agrees to place a one (1) inch asphaltic tsctseduliugconcrete Class 'Ic" oedlay on;all roads within the development; placement the City. (d) Compliance with all terms and provisions specified theretofor said subdivision development by the Council and the Planning'Commission of the nces al City of 'Tigard, Oregon, in regard to variascification and, also, on from the subdivision ordinance, conditions specified by the zone use classification the approved plat(s) and plans(s). (e) Petitioner agrees to provide for correction of he defective work and/or maintenance becoming apparent or arising during uara period as hereinabove set forth.. . (9) At such time as all public improvements have been completed in accordance with the City's requirements, petitioner shall notify the City of the readiness for final inspection and upon certification by the Department of Public Works that all requirements of the City h e e been metand, the Council agrees to accept said improvements for op ntenance responsibility, thereinregard, and release the Petitioner's guarantee bond. (1©) The parties hereto hereby adopt the form of performance bond, copy whereof is hereto sttached and by reference made a part hereof, and Petitioner xecuted and filed with the City agrees to cause to have said bond e concurrently with the execution of this agreement at or prior toothe time this agreement is executed on behalf of the City. r (11) The specific requirements of Paragraph 9 hereof shall for all purposes be included as a part of the obligation secured by the aforesaid the City shall be entitled to recourse thereto in the performance bond and event of default on the part of the Petitioner with respect to any requirement thereof. -3- -50 USE IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Petitioner acting by and through its 'duly authorized undersigned officers pursuant to resolution of its Board of Directors has and the City acting pursuant to caused this agreement to be executed, ; reso2ation of its Council adapted at a meeting th has fduly causedathisegularly agreementeto ` on the a day of .,,la�r 29 a 3 s be executed by its Mayor and Recorder. CON R ' 0 By / By: THE CITYOF TAGARD, GON or By. .o — Recorder a, -4- A PATE OF OREGON •j,ss. 19 83 ounty of Multnomah � On this 27th day of September s -efore me appeared ROBERT D. RANDALL and JOHN T. GIBBON kind both to"'me personally '-E o- wT��riq u Y swarn, a say tat e4 t e sai xosEx°r D. xAcroPs the said President, and, he, oHN T GaBaoN s the of _s the Secretary ff :he within named crpccsaid n, andation,thattand sthatathe xsaid oinstrument rasnt xs :.he corporate; sea l of signed and sealed in behalf of said corporation by a soxo T GIBBON is Board of of ?rectors, and ROBERT D. xANDAhL and acknowledged said instrument to e e ree act and dee o sal cr orpoation. t IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my , hand and affixed my official seal the day and year last above written. Notary Pu ac o1 Or on. My Commission expires` 11/15/85` 4 6R�� ,�ii�f• '9 `-.tifk�' ` _ •.� ,;if.=+_;e•.+s.'+�w}'r+_:,��+4:+..a-..':-.WL''k•�t"= +1.� '� �. ?cp� SUBDIVISION PERFORMANCE BOND` Bond NO.G p 2 O C{ KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that we _RMA CONSTRUCTIQN C{JMPANY as Principal, and FTFPOSII rOMPANY O14ARV AN (surety) a corporation duly ahed to conduct a general'surety business in the State of Oregon, as Surety, are jointly and severally held bound unto the City of Tigard,,;Oregon, a municipality of the State of Oregon, hereinafter called the.Obligee, in the sum of $--126,331 0 lawful money of the United°States' of America, for the payment of which we, as Principal, and as'Surety,c-jointly and severally bind ourselves, our successors and assigns firmly by these present. THE CONDITIONS OF TEAS BOND AND OBLIGATION IS-SUCH, "that the Principals are,platting C01£ Side Estates subdivision located in the City;of Tigard, Oregon, and tering into a subdivision compliance agreement with,the Obligee herein,- and upon acceptance of said plat and compliance agreement,; the Principals shall make all improvements required by the City of Tigard, ordinances and Subdivision Compliance;agreement documents as .described in said compliance agreement all of which 'are, by reference, made a part hereof. NOW, THEREFORE, if the Peincipal herein shall faithfully and truly observe and comply with the terms of the agreement and shall well and truly, perform all matters and things undertaken to be performed under said;:agreement and shall promptly make payments to all persons supplying labor or material for any of the work;provided by, said agreement, and shall not permit any lien or claim to`be.filed or prosecutioned against the Obligee, then this obligation' shall be voi3, otherwise to remain in full' force and 'effect. in the event of suit or action be filed by the_Obligee hereunder to enforcc, said contract or to recover under the terms of this bond, in addition to all other rights and remedies here- under the City, in the event it shall prevail, shall be entitled to recover such sums as the Court may adjudge reasonable as and for attorney's fees. IN WITNESS WHER OF, p r es hereto have caused this.. bond to be "ecut t.i _ day of October RM, C04 10 CO)IP ' BY By; (seal) ; � / a ✓1 ! e l By: (seal) By 1 By4 (seal)_ (A true copy of the Power FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT C011PANY OF 14ARYLAND of Attorney must be attached to the original or this bond.) Surety r Attorney-In-Fact Dean L. Be- z. /STATE OF OREGON ) -)ss. County of Multnomah ) On this 27th d=y of September ,1983' before me ;appeared RaBERT D. RAbDALL and JOHN T. GIBBON both to me personally nown, who sing u y sworn, 3 s—ay that e, the sai p�R�Rm r, aAI�Tr, L• is the _ President, and he, the said JOHN T. GIBBON is the Secretary of THE ROBERT RANDALL COMPANY the within named Corpora;Elon, and that the seal affixed to, said instrument is the corporate seal of said Corporation, and that, the said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said Corporationbyauthority of its Board of Directors, and ROBERT D. RANDALL and JOHN T. GIBBON acknowledged saa.d instrument to Fe t e ree act and need of sag Corporation. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year last above written` Not �lcfo Oregon my Commission expires lila5 s5 { M1 Power of attorney r � FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND HOME OFFICE: BALTWORE, MO. ( :KNOw ALL MEN By Tim-sr PRLSENTS:That the FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLANi),a.corpora §. ._ tior oftheState of Maryland, by C. M. PEtCOT,',.JR. Vice-President, and C. W. ROBBINS Assistant Secretary,in pursuance of authority granted by Article VI,Section 2,of the By-Laws of said Com- pany, which reads as follows: "The President,or any one of the Executive Vice-Presidents,or any one of the additional Vice-Presidents specially authorized so to do by the Board of Directors or by the Executive.Committee, shall have power, by and with the concurrence of the Sec- retary or any one ec-retaryorany'one of the Assistant Secretaries,to appoint Resident Vice-Presidents, Assistant Vice-Presidents, ResidentAssistant x Secretaries and Attorneys-in-Fact as the business of the Company may require,or to authorize any person or persons to execute on behalf of the Company any;bonds,undertakings,Yecognizances,stipulations,policies,contracts,agreements,'deeds,and releases and ;assignments of judgments,decrees,mortgages and instruments in the nature of mortgages,and also all other`instruments and docu- ments which the business of the Company,may require,and to affix the seal of the Company;thereto." does hereby nominate,constitute and appoint Dean'L. Beck of Portland, Oregon. ..Aa 'I S rue and iawfu- l agent and Attorney-in-Fact, to make, execute, seal and deliver, for, and on its behalf as - surety,and as its act and deed: any;and all bonds and undertakings AMT-Me execution of such bonds or undertakings in pursuance of these,presents,shall be as binding upon said Company,as fully and amply,to all intents and purposes,as if they had been duly executed and acknowledged by the regularly elected officers of the Company at its office in Baltimore, Md., in their own proper persons. I. The said Assistant Secretary does hereby certify that the aforegoing is a true copy of article VI,Section 2,of the By-Laws of said Company,and is now in force. IN WITNESS WULREOF, the said Vice-President and Assistant Secretary have hereunto subscribed 'their names and affixed the Corporate Seal of the said.FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, this ' ------------" : 1Ot11--- - -----------day of...... November. _ ....,A.D. 19-7.---- > FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND �1 ,a.. eY ATTEST: AL �. uX .yy..�o y.....-........................ Assistant.Secretary Vice-President STATE OF MARYLAND ? Ss: CITY OF BAL'T\,(tlt day On this j-U Yj y of November A.D. 19 76 befor:- the subscriber, a :`rotary Public of the State of Maryland,in and for the City of Baltimore,duly commissioned and qualified,came the above-named Vice-President and Assistant Secretary of ti!,-FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND,to me personally known to be the individuals and officers described in and who ox(.:iited the preceding instrument,and they each acknowledged the execution of the same,and being by me duly sworn, severally and each for himself deposeth and saith,that they are the said officers of the Company aforesaid,and that the seal affixed to the preceding instrument is the Corporate Seal of said Company,and that the said Corporate Seal and their signatures as such s officers were duly affixed and subscribed to the said instrument by the authority and direction of the said Corporation. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my Official Seal,at the City of Baltimore,the ay and year first above written. _ac•. a ........... - ._ e.s. .---- ..-. ' ° = 'dot ssfon Notary public.. .-Comm'l --F_xpires..Jt?ay--x,...."1.9.7$ CERTIFICATE I,the undersigned,Assistant Secretary ofthe FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLA a),do hereby certify that the original Power of Attorney of which the foregoing is a full,true and correct copy,is in full force and effect on the date of this certificate;and I do further certify that the Vice-President who executed the Said Power of Attorney was one of the additional Vice-Presidents spe- cially authorized by the Board of Directors to appoint any Attorney-in-Fact as provided in Article VI,Section 2 of the By-Laws ofr" the FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT CO\fPANY OF MARYLAND. Tbis Certificate may be signed by facsimile under and by authority of the following resolution of the Board of Directors of the FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT CDIIPANY OF MARYLAND at a inceting duly called and held On the l6th day of July, 1969. RESOLVED: "That the facsimile or mechanically reproduced signature of any Assistant Secretary of the Company, whether '" made heretofore or hereafter,wherever appearing upon a certified copy of any power of attorney issued by the Comp any,shall be valid and binding upon the Company with the same force and effect as though manually affixed." IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name anti affixed the corporate seal of the said Company, this ; th............................dav of.. c.tCo�I'.... ............. .. 19..83.... ...................... .............. .: ................................ .4ssistAnl ecretary. L1419Ctf.—i M,9-79 20&572 ; 2EM ENSRI - -- - _ - CITY OF TIGARD. OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA ITEMft: 11 r AGENDA.OF: DATE SUSHI:TTED: 10/28/83 PREVIOUS ACTION: None ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Acceptance of Compliance Agreement and Bond for REQUESTED BY: The Developer and Bond Park Subdivision Public Works Department DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: _ INFORMATION SUMMARY Bond Park Subdivision is located north of S.W. Durham Road between S.W. 79th Ave. and S.W. 76th Ave. ;The preliminary plat has been approved by the Planning Commis- sion. There will be 24 homes built in this phase. The developer has been required by the City to build a street connecting S.W. 79th Ave. & S.W. 76th Ave. Staff has reviewed the project construction;plans andfinds them to,be satisfactory _ and further, all required fees have been paid. The Developer has signed& submitted the attached Compliance Agreement and;CashBond Escrow Agreement. Upon Council' acceptande of said Agreement and Bond, staff will issue the approved construction pland and, subsequently, construction of the project can commence. � �,�����������.a������n�.ffie,�ffi�,�����Qas�s�Q�������,��::gA���:-����__�� z-es���s��•Mgs����s� ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Deny allowing,the Developer to proceed with the development. g6ID)i61@@Ly'IQ�9@IR St@1�@SY iE Mflf ffi bR@@�@ffi@p1pL 48 b8 iC T+N WPtR 26 RTffiC R32�@fwiL^SSffi&CSII@ffiAt A4S S[PY IL IIS Y��J.Y IC'.4mRffiCiG��6RICCsffi��� SUGGESTED ACTION Staff recommends thatfthe City Council accept the Compliance Agreement and the Performance Bond for'BOND PARK SUBDIVISION and authorize the Mayor and Recorder to execute same in behalf of the City. (a,S SUBDIVISION COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT 19 THIS AGREEMENT dated the — day of hereinafter termed the between the CITY OF TIGARD, a municipality of Oregon, ,`city,,. and WAVERLY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY hereinafter termed "Petitioner". N W I T N E S S E T H WHEREAS, Petitioner has 'applied to the City for approval for filing in - Washington County, a subdivision plat known as BOND PARK Located in Section 11. Townshi-a 2 idillamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon; and WHEREAS, the city has approved and adopted the standard specifications for Public Works construction by APWA Oregon Chapter and the Unified Sewerage specifications for the sanitary sewers prepared by professional engineers for subdivision development; and Y WHEREAS, the public improvements required to be constructed or placed in b Petitioner's development are incomplete, but _Petitioner has nonetheless the requested the City to Permit progressive occupancy and use of ublictinterest r subdivision, and the, parties desire hereby to protect the p generally and prospective 'purchase�ublic s of limsin said su rovements w lllvbeloinst lledalas enforceable assurances that the p p required and completed within the time hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and the ' covenants and agreements to be kept and performed by the Petitioner and its> t sureties, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: development,d with the h (1) Petitioner shall peim improvements except sidewalksAnd eintent streettrees purpose to complete all public Pof this of said subdivision not later than two (2) years fro with the ally subdivision agreement, agreement, and Petitioner is hereby hound to comply standards as set. forth in said Subdivision Ordinance and the standard specification adopted by the City of Tigard, or as nay be otherwise approved . by the Public Works Department and to use only such material and to follow 3 such designs as may be required to conform thereto. roved . (2) To assure compliance with the City's requirements and the City a surety bond i provisions t � hereof, Petitioner tenders herewith to the a form by the City, with liability in the amount of � 15S 434.00 copy , hereto attached and by this reference made a part hereof. (3) In the event that Petitioner shall fail, neglect or refuse to proceed with the work in an orderly and progressive manner to assure completion within the time limits, upon ten (10) days notice by the City to Petitioner and peti.tioner'ss sureties, and such default and failure to proceed continuing thereafter, the City may at its option proceed to have the work completed and charge the costs thereof against Petitioner and Petitioner's sureties and in the event same be not paid, to bring an action on the said bond Petitioner to recover the amount thereof. in the event such action be brought, •s Petitioner's sureties promise and agree to 'pay, in addition to the amounts accruing ,and -allowable, such sum as the court shall adjudge reasonable as attorney's fc-=ss-and costs incurred by y, atiits both in the Trial Court bring pr ce dingsand to Appellate` Court, if any, or' the City may, _ enforce against the Petitioner and/or "Petitioner's sureties specific performance of the contract and compliance such th the event, in subdivision and City ordinances of the City of Tigard, shall be :entitled to . sum as the court shall adjudge reasonable as .recover such ; and costs, both in the Trial Court and andfor the city's attorney's fees Appellate Court, if any. (4) Petitioner, concurrent with the execution hereof, has deposited with the City an amount estimated to equal 'rental and maintenance fees with respect to the street` lighting facilities within subt�g�ghe�9w1th according dfurther n n Portland General Electric 'Schedule #91, p, sum equal to the estimated cost of providing electrical energy to energize the street lighting facilities-; for a period of two (2) years 1,042.80 from the date of initial energizing of said lights. Said amount being $. (S) The City agrees to make and provide periodic and final inspections which in:the City's -interest are desirable to assure compliance herewith, in consideration whereof the Petitioner has paid prescribed inspections fees.* (6) The City agrees to install street identification and traffic signs ;within the said subdivision, in consideration of payment in the amount of $ 146.50 ��• �. (7) At suet, time as all public improvements except sidewalks and street trees within the subdivision have been completed in accordance with the City's requirements, Petitioner shall notify the City of the readiness for inspection n by the Department of Public Works that the requirements and upon certificatio of the City have been met, the Petitioner will submit to the City a good and sufficient maintenance bond if net already provided with the performance e bond, or form approved by the City, in the sum of 31,b86.90 arentp or arising correction of any defective work or maintenance becoming app within one (1) year after tentative acceptance of the public improvements by the City. Upon receipt of certification by the Department of Public Works, that all requirements have been met, and a One Year Maintenance Bond, time City Council agrees to tentatively accept the public improvements subject to the requirements for correction of deficiencies and maintenance for a period of one year as hereinabove set forth. (8) That in addition to or supplementary of the requirements of the city's Subdivision Ordinance and the provisions hereof, Petitioner binds itself to conform to the following requirements, scheduling and limitations: *Project'Fee $ 4,508.14 Sewer t!ee, $ 240.00 (a) None of the lots of. Petitioner's subdivision as described may be occupied for residential 'purposes until an occupancy permit is issued under authority of :the City and no occupancy permit shall be issued prior ,to the acceptance of the subdivision and to the time that the sidewalk paralleling the street for each developed lot proposed to be occupied, is installed as a part of the development; provided that all sidewalks as required by the plans and subdivision code shall be installed throughout said subdivision not later than 3 years from the date of this Subdivision Improvement Contract. (b) All landscaping trees on that portion of each lot between the public sidewalks and the curb (parking area) as required, shall be planted and in place prior to :final inspection and issuanceof occupancy permit for each ` such lot in the subdivision. Provided that final inspection and applicant for occupancy permit occurs within any calendar month from October to;April of any year, such plantings may be deferred until the next following growing season. In any event, all landscaping and trees in all areas shall be planted and in place within the entire subdivision within three (3) years from the date of this subdivision improvement contract. (c) After tentative City acceptance of the public improvements, the Petitioner agrees to place a one (1) inch asphaltic concrete Class "C" overlay on all roads within the development; placement scheduling to be approved by the City. (d) Compliance with all terms and provisions specified theretofor w. said subdivision development by the Council and the Planning Commission of the <, City of Tigard, Oregon, in regard to variances allowed from the subdivision ordinance, conditions specified by the zone use classification and, also, on the approved plat(s) and plans(s). (e) Petitioner agrees to provide for correction of any defective work and/or maintenance becoming apparent or arising during the guarantee period as hereinabove set forth. (9) At such time as all public improvements have been completed in accordance with the City's requirements, Petitioner shall notify the City of the readiness for final inspection and upon certification by the Department of Public k'erks that all requirements of the City have been met, the Council agrees to accept said improvements for operation and maintenance responsibility, thereinregard, and release the Petitioner's guarantee bond. (10) The parties hereto hereby adopt the form of performance bond, copy whereof is hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, and Petitioner agrees to cause to have said bond executed and filed with the City concurrently with the execution of this agreement at or prior to the time this agreement is executed on behalf of the City. (11) The specific requirements of Paragraph 9 hereof shall for all purposes be included as a part of the obligation secured by the aforesaid performance bond and the City shall be entitled to recourse thereto in the event of default on the part of the Petitioner with respect to any requirement thereof, -3- - 4 IN WITNESSWHEREOF, Petitioner acting by and through its duly authorized undersigned officers pursuant to resolution of: its Board of Directors has caused this ,agreement to be executed, and the City acting pursuant to resolution of its Council 's o ted` t a meet's thereof;duly and regularly held on the l� day ag _JL.� , 19 ,r has caused< this agreement to be-executed by its Mayor and Recorder. Waverly Construction Co. Inc, By: c C.i: THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Mayor` Recorde STATE OF OREGON ) )ss. County of Clackamas ) On this �� day of ��t_n�,Ar ,19 before me appeared Kenneth L. Waymire and Roberta �_ w�eam�TP h both to me personally nown, w o Bing . u y ,sworn, say that e, ;t a saa Kenneth wa mire is the President, and She, the said Roberta A. "Waymire is the Secretary of the within named Corpor�on and that the sea a ix d to 'id instrument is the corporate seal of said Corporation, and that the said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said Corporation by authority of its Board of Directors, and Kenneth L. Waymire and Roberta A. Waymire acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of--said Corporation.` 1N TESTIMONY WHEREOF, Z have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year laqt abovp, written. Not or Oregon. My Cvmmissl expires �i C__V _. ------------ F a e � 8g r l 'E' STATE OF OREGON ) ss. C -ounty of on this 7 _day of _/�� � , l9 8_; before me appeared -_ and or�J_ �s , t,oth to :'1E'personally known who, being duly sworn, did say that he the said_ � �sf `i= - _ is the Mayor, and she, the said_'1Z. is the Recorder of the CITY OF TIGARD, a municipal corporation and the said4 ' , _(� /�,a�r�¢ andores' � -- - — --- -acknowledged the said instrurji nt to be the free act and deed of said municipal-corpoiat it',». :i I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal, this day and year in this my certificate first written.' i . _-- - -- y Natary Public for Oregon - My Commission Expires: C f in 8 - 1 _ a. PERSONAL SLiRETY PERFOR14ANCE BOND KNOW ALL MEN By`THESE PRESENTS, That we, c7aver2y Con 1, tss as Principal, al, Inc., an Oregon Cor oration as Sureties, * rR GON, as Obligee, an Kenneth L. w ,�`r oun to the C Y:OF T GAftD, are an y for the payment of which, well and in the sum of ie sa principal and Sureties bind themselves, truly to be made, their heirs, executors, adminisotrthese�prese:7tsors, and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly y The condition of this obligation is such,, that whereas the Principal entered intopartehereof, with thehObligeettClTYa0F1TIGARD, this referen , 1g�, Down as the dated the day of October ro osed Subdivision Subdivision ompliance AgrePmen or e p po Bond Pars perform NOW, THEREFORE, if the Principal shall well and truly p and fulfill all the undertakings, terms, conditions and agreements of said contract during the original term of sthe Obligeeaid , with or any extensions thereof that may be granted by _ ,. without notice to the sureties,'and shall, terms, condit onstandyagree- form'and fulfill all the'underta' ingsr meets of any- and all duly authorized modifications of said contract s that may be made hereafter, noticeof wh.'cthen athis aob7igatioitions to hto Sureties being hereby expressedly be void, otherwise to remain in hill Force and virtues In the event suit or action be filed by the Obligee hereunder to enforce Said contract or to rem dies hereunder the over under the terms of tCity, oin� h sum in addition to allshall ,s feeso the event it shalla prpvair8asonable asnand £ortattorneyr sfees. as the: Court may By: Waverly Construction Co. Inc. By`-=+ IC L. W s By: By;,� • std�•Lr-) ,..-cam PresidentBY: Roberta A. Waymire - By3 Sureties Principal STATE OF 0nON Q;C1.Q✓►"n� ss. County of )) we, Kenneth L. Waymire and Roberta A. Waymire. being first duly sworn, on oat depose an say; eat or se and not for nd a the others: (1) That 1 am a .residettworth a Sovetate oaboveOrega.11on �just freeholder therein; d That iv exempt from execution debts, liabilitieo and exclusive of property ressed in the is a sum equal to or in excess of the liability exp foregoing bond® ,ye L. W y �. Roberta A. Waymire �-j day of October _, 198.,3 - Subscribed and swam to before me this —�--� a ary, c f or Fe-19-0--nn U�b Form No. 1971-2 Comm ion Expires.: CITY OF TIGARD. OREGON q COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA.OF: AGENDA ITEM DATE SUBMITTED: Oct_ 31, 1983 PREVIOUS ACTION: Acceptance of the qub ISSUE/AGENDA TITTLE: Sanitary Sewer division Compliance Agreement and Per formance Bond. Easement for Bond Park REQUESTED BY: Developer & Engineearing Department DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: a� CITY ADMINISTRATOR: INFORMATION SUMMARY This is the Sanitary Sewer Easement for the off-site sanitary line for Bond Park. It runs from,Bond'Park Subdivision to the U.S.A. trunk line. (approx. 361 feet) This easement needs to be accepted by the City Council and signed by the Mayor and Recorder. It then needsto be recorded with a copy sent back to the Grantors. > 4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Deny acceptance of the easement. ieaaa�rx csesaceaxsam�sseat�iamxa eYxx ms�aaecs¢asaiw.........saey masy«y$�zxusx-aacsaaa�s-sass a:a=ca@m n eco c=a SUGGESTED ACTION Staff recommends the City Council accept the Sanitary Sewer Easement and that the Mayor and City Recorder sign off on it, ANDERSON. DITTMAN 8, ANDERSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW' TIGARD PROFESSIONAL CENTER 1 8865 S.W. CENTER STREET P. 0. BOX 23006. TIGARD. OREGON 87223 503 - 639-1121 FRED. A. ANDERSON DERRYCK H. DITTMAN :ROGER F. ANDERSON September 22, 1983 Conrad Sproul and Ethelyn Sproul ' Sproul Excavating Company, Inc. 15880 SW 79th Tigard, OR 97223 Although the following described documents are delivered to you in form executed by and on behalf of Knauss Chevrolet Company, same are being delivered to you on the express condition that the easement as granted will be of no force or effect for any,purpose whatever unless and until you have returned to Knauss Chevrolet Company,":a copy of the agreement between Knauss Chevrolet Company and' Sprouls and Sproul Excavating Company, Inc. , as a con- dition precedent to obtaining the signatures of the mayor and city recorder of the City of Tigard: (1) Agreement between Knauss Chevrolet Company and,Sproul; (2) Sewer Easement instrument including acceptance by the City, de- scription and easement conditions. (3) Consent and Subordination Agreements signed by each of Far West Federal Bank, S.B., and U.S. Creditcorp. The foregoing presumes that all conditions and provisions of the within documents are acceptable to you as stated. You have every right and reason to seek independent legal counsel before signing each of them, if desired. t Very truly yours, ANDERSON, DITTMAN & ANDERSON PfVd. A. Anderson FAA:sr Enclosures { 112; M � z x' S" e Project Parcel No. Legal Description Linear Feet _ SEWER EASEMENT : NAME OF GRANTOR(S) : John G. Schwartz ADDRESS: 15900 S.W. 76th, Tigard, Oregon 97223 GRANTOR, owner of the property described herein, does hereby grant, convey and warrant unto the ,CITY OF TIGARD, 'a municipal corporation n Oregon, GRANTEE, the right to lay down, construct and perp main twin a sewer through, under and along the property described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. This grant of easement shall run with the land and shall be binding upon and x shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, their heirs , successors , and assigns. This grant is made upon the conditions attached hereto, 3 marked Exhibit "B" and by this reference incorporated herein. Any temporary easement granted hereby is automatically extinguished uponacceptance of the completed sewer in the adjacent permanent easement. No structure shall be erected upon' said easement without the written g consent of the GRANTEE. hereto fi The consideration for this grant is set forth in Exhibit "B" attached / ! IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the 'GRANTOR named above has hereunto set his hand (s) and seal this day of1983 . ' (GRANTOR) (GRANTOR) (GRANTOR) NOTARIZE DOCUMENT BELOW STATE OF OREGON ) t ) ss' - ) County, 4f -- -`' Date 1983 Personally appeared the above named GRANTOR(S) John G. Schwartz _ and ackno:-ledged the foregoing i instrument to be his voluntary act and deed. , -7 Notary Public for Ore on My Coinmission expires. J, c5 ACCEPTANCE The City above named hereby accepts the foregoing grants and agrees to comply, with each and every term and condition' thereof. CITY OF TIGARD Mayor City Recorder STATE OF OREGON } ) 'ss. County of I' r c' cr. } rf< nrC2' /)2� er . 19 _. before me appeared On this -= ,day Of 1 C�'L�j2rrr /t C �5�2^ ander S t r r _ that , the both to me personally known who, being duly sworn, dial s Ythe said said L( r 1Y�i1r _ � �l/I r�" is the Mayor, ;and ��� ��� r is the R2corder of the CITY OF TIGARD, a municipal corpbration, and the said r /h ,� /�!C h � and r� r t 1-� I acknowledged the sand instrument �. r to be the free act a d deed of said municipal corporation. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, T_ have hereunto set my hand and : affixed my official seal, this the day and year in this my certificate first written. Lary Public for Orego My Commission expires /�! '� t EXHIBIT "A" A strip of land, 15.00 feet wide, in Lot 8, Durham Acres, a plat of record in the southwest-quarter of Section 12, T. 2 S. , R. 1 W. , W.m. , Washington County, Oregon, described as lying south of and adjoining the northerly line of that parcel of land described in deed to John G. Schwartz, recorded` October 29, 1982 under Washington County Recorder's Fee No. 82028245. INCLUDING a temporary construction easement, 30.00 feet wide, adjoining the southerly side of the foregoing described easement. f,1 rrT `?3�T. ;^UL : "'.C� Vl,TIIG C^'-I'AT:'Y, Ii;C . , !r D J^I:T: G.�SCH.Ji :;TZ mfr^ ;,rr:T is fox- construction of the se,.:er easement ^loan the north property line of property owned by John G. `?cher"rtz at 15900 c '; 76th, Tigard, OR 97223. It is agreed by Sproul Excavating Company, Inc. (Sproul) that the constructionof the sever shall be as to >'minimize the damage to the natural` surroundings. No trees larger than 4 in diameter at the base are to be damaged or removed %:-ith the exception of one `cedar- tree located approximately one-half the distance to :each corner of the 'property Eine points. All brush cut during the construction shall be removed from the property. Rip rap rock shall be placed at the bottom of the ditch to assure no erosion e:ill occur in the <future due to run off of the 'storm` drain. Sproul agrees to connect the residence of John C. Schi:artz on' the property to the sewer fine at no 'cost i%dth the 'exception of the ;hook-up fee to the Unified Sewage Agency. It is also agreed that at no cast to John G. Schvartz three additional se er tees rjill be installed in the sewer line at the locations designated by John G. ` Schwartz and marked with iron stakes. John_ r. Schwartz agrees to pay tiaverly Construction the s=-, of �10.0,C and grant said easement as his contribution to the seer line construction. The parties hereto have set their hands e day and y ar preceding their signatures. n Sc wartz SPRn EXCAVATING CCT.,PANY, IIVC. /�f e 17' Dated: c, By 7l 1t ' L1 Conrad A. Spro 1, President t ! AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made this 0�_ day of J'e,Ae- 4r� 1983,;between KNAUSS CHEVROLET COMPANY, an Oregon corporation, hereinafter termed "Y.nauss", CONRAD SPROUL and ETHELYN SPROUL, and SPROUL EXCAVATING COMPANY, INC., an Oregon corporation, hereinafter collectively termed "Sproul". is formalized for the purpose of recording the conditions and agreement applicable to the granting by Knauss to the City,of Tigard, a municipal corporation, certain perpetual and temporary easement rights for the construction of a sewer line over, across and within thosecertain'lands of Knauss as described on the-at- tached Exhibit A by this reference made a part hereof, and for that purpose it is hereby further stated: 1. The sewer line to be constructed within the easement area lands as described in EAhibit A will provide sewer service to Knauss lands as de- scribed on e-scribed:on Exhibit A, to lands lying easterly as well as southerly of said easement area owned by others, including John G. Schwartz et ux, and lands being acquired by Waverly Construction Company, an Oregon corporation, from Sproul. 2. Sproul hereby agrees to conform to and comply with the easement con- ditions'forming a part of said sewer,easement grant as set forth on Exhibit B attached hereto and by;this reference made a part hereof, and that Sproul,shall save, hold harmless and indemnify Knauss for and from any failure on the part of Sproul to conform to and comply with said conditions and requirements. 3. Sproul further agrees that in connection'with the construction of said sewer,line within the easement area to perform the following within the Knauss =ownership, including:, (a) Connect the present residential structure on said Knauss lands to said sewer line in the usual and customary materials and methods. (b) Sproul shall include in the construction of said sewer line, not less than three stub outs or_sewer'tees at points designates° by Knauss for the i._ use and.benefit of Knauss remainder lands. (c) Knauss shall pay all connection charges with respect to the pre- sent residential structure, or with respect to any future permits issued for additional facilities. 4. Sproul agrees to deliver a recordable copy of said sewer easement to the City of Tigard for acceptance and cause same to be recorded in the Deed Recordu of WaHhingls+n (:uwit-6 Orvgon, and deliver an accepted copy to Knauss prior to und"risklol; onti v nM sllhtn the KnatlHs lands aurhortrvd hurvuminr. IN W11'Nth8 HUrHiuls, Oh" panties huruto ha 8 t 0131 bnlcd the day and year f trot .shove wr I t I vu. - � KNAUSS C11I•.VROI.KT I;It IVANY l_ _.:��►* C..0 (:et'urgd HP ti t v ideally By 'f!t le t � s - .. Yth 1,y38� ��uuTit llsirll y 4CAVAT I �:Om"w, INC. Ti['0 ,.l4ljj.L�m:t.:...tll „ STATE OF OREGON ) - �. as. County of Washington ) On this,3 day Leo '�� - 1983 before a appeared:Can�Hd pfSL/ ' -- who being duly sworn did any that 1H the President of Sproul Excavating Company, Inc. and shut ors, inHtrumvIA w,ts algnad and uuuled is buhAlf ut maidturation wledged by authority of its Board of Direc[ors, and /{G ackno said instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation. In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year last above written tis Notary Public for Oregon My commission expires Parcel No. - - I.c:yal l)escriptiun _-- - Linear Feet SEWER EASEMENT r r Knauss Chevrolet Company-- } NAME OF GRANTORS) - ADDRESS: 11880 S.W. _2ag GRANTOR, owner of the property described herein , does hereby grant , ' convey and warrant unto the CITY OF TIGARD , a municipal corpora-tion of Oregon, GRANTEE, the right to lay down , construct and perpetually main- tain a sewer through, under and along the property described on Exhibit ' "A" attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein . This grant of easement shall run with the land and shall be binding upon and shall .inure tothe "benefit of the parties hereto, their heirs , successors , and assigns. This grant is made upon the conditions attached hereto , h marked Exhibit "B" and by this reference incorporated. herein . Any temporary easement granted hereby is automatically extinguished upon acceptance of ,the completed sewer in the adjacent permanent easement . No structure shall be erected upon said easement without the written consent of the ;GRANTEE. . 3 The consideration for this grant includes the 'easement rights hereby granted set :,)rth on Ex. A, and terms and conditions set 'forth'on Exhibit B. IN WITNESS WHEREOF , the GRANTOR named abovehas hereunto set its hand (s) and seal this 7/" day of September _, 1983 - KNAUSS Chevrolet GRANTO Company Title: STATE OF OREGON ) ss. County of Washington ) -1'Say of The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this of September, 1983, by -- n, on behalf of the corporation. a Knauss Chevrolet Company, Oregon corporatio Notary Public for Orego My Commission Expires:/-,-, _EXH1.EIi X Mill T- ACCEPTANCE The Cityabove named hereby accepts the foregoing grants and agrees to comply with each and every term and condition thereof . CITY Or TIGARD Mayor City Recorder (7' STATE OF OREGON ) ss County of On this day of tl),272embei- 19L{ ? before me appeared .,. J6LI I ck, TSi ..A0--4 and Dori: !- both to me personally known who, being duly sworn, ;did stay that the sai , Y �, iJC�� J is ; the Mayor', and the said rj:5 Hills f--� , � is the Recorder of the CITY OF TIGARD , a municipal,� corportion, and the said / /[� �,-.. and -1>,? I-, /-//L{r�J acknowledged the said instrument to be the free act albill deed of said municipal corporation . IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF , I have hereunto set my hand and affixed _my official seal, this the day and year in this my certificate first written . No ary Public for Oregn My Commission expires : r' EXHIBIT "A" F f TRACT I Permanent sewer easement from Knauss Chevrolet Company, an Oregon corporation, to the City of Tigard, within the following area: A portion of Lots 8 and 9, DURHAM ACRES, in the City of Tigard, Washington County,' State of Oregon, accord -ng to the duly recorded,plat and map thereof in the SW 1/4' of Section 12, T. 2S., R. 1 W., W.M.: Beginning at the Southwesterlymost corner of that certain;tract of lana including 'a ; portion of Lot 8, and all of Lot 9, DURHAM ACRES, as described in deed from'Milton A. Odegard and Sharette A. Odegard, husband ;and wife, to Knauss Chevrolet Company, as :. recorded in Book 754 Page 344, Records of Washington County, Oregon; thence North- easterly along the Southerly line of said land described in said deed to the North- easterlymost corner of Lot 8, DURHAM ACRES; thence North along the Easterly ;line of Lot 9, DURHAM ACRES, 20 feet to a point; thence Southwesterly to the said point of . beginning. SUBJECT TO the exceptions, terms and conditions hereinafter set forth and by this reference made a part hereof. including easements and conditions set forth on the attached Exhibit B. i TRACT II TOGETHER WITH a temporary construction easement lying Southerly of the line as drawn parallel to and 30 feet Northerly of, when measured at right angles, from the above described permanent easement area, and extending from the West line of the lands owned by Knauss Chevrolet Company to the East line thereof, subject to the terms and conditionshereinafter set forth, and all rights with respect to said temporary ease- k; went shall he extinguished and terminate upon completion and installation of a sewer - within the above easement area and acceptance thereof by grantee herein, and in any event not later than May 1, 1984 EXHIBIT "B" L•'ASEMENT CONDITIONS 1. The grantee and its contractor shall confine all operations to the designated "areas and 'observe' all conditions and requirements hereof. 2. The granteeandits contractor will make any necessary preliminary expl.ora- tions 'to'determine the location of any obstructions which may interfere with the 'construction. of 'the sewer line;, including those arising under pre- existing easements. 3. Grantee shall require the contractor to excavate and pile the top soil sepa- rately from the subsoil, and conduct the work in a manner that will replace original conditions to the utmost extent practicable, with the intent that the `contractor `shall leave the surface and soil in substantially the same ` condition as before the work was undertaken. ` 4. When sewer construction is across land on which livestock may be grazing, temporary fencing shall be erected along any open trenches to prevent live- stock from',getting into the trench. Whenever it becomes necessary to cross an existing fence line, erection of fences and barricades shall be made so that livestock are not prevented access to the water courses which they normally use for drinking. 5. During the time that the work is in progress, the contractor shall maintain the site in a neat and orderly condition. All loose gravel, rocks, residual concrete, and all loose foreign substances, all refuse, broken pipe, excess gravel or other foreign material, cribbing, etc. , shall be removed -1s soon as practicable. Should the work not be maintained in asatisfactory con- dition, the grantee shall cause the work to stop until the clean-up portion of the work has been done to the satisfaction of the owner. No excess dirt or topsoil shall be removed from grantor's lands for ase elsewhere or for off-premises disposal. Upon completion of the initial construction, all trenches and excavations shall be promptly refilled and topsoil, sod or other natural growth replaced. Loose fill material placed in trenches shall be compacted and settled, and filled and refilled, as necessary to re- establish the original topography, as often as necessary, and subject to final inspection by the grantor for compliance with these requirements at the expiration of one year after completion of all work on grantor's property. 6. Irrigation and drainage systems, if any, shall be maintained operable during construction and replaced in substantially the same good, useable condition as existed at commencement of construction. 7. Temporary construction easememts, if any, will be automatically extinguished of the completed sewer, not Inter than upon acceptance by the grantee May_ Z 2984 8. Grantee agrees to indemnify and hold harmless grantor, successors and assigns from all claims, liabilities, cost and expense, for loss of or damage to property and for injuries to or death of persons arising out of construction, reconstruction, maintenance of sewer or related use of easements. 9. No vehicular access to the property outside of established roads and ways will be permitted without the written consent of the grantor. rGrantor will be notified 24 hours prior to authorizing construction on property for ditch- ing and pipe installation or other purposes. 10. No assessments for general benefits from the construction of said sewer line within grantor's ownership;shall be made now or in the future in connection with the development of grantor's adjacent lands, provided that the pre- descrired charges for connection and service as required by ordinance or regulation shall be applicable to grantor's lands ;in any event. 11. The conditions, covenants and requirements hereof shall be construed as covenantsrunning with the land, and shall be and remain binding to the con- tractors for the protection of grantor, grantor's heirs, successors;and assigns herein, the owners;of the lands adjoining the easterly boundary of grantor's lands, devisees, personal representatives, executors and assigns, forever. INITIALS: Grantors Grantee y _ t E' CONSENT AND SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT The undersigned, having ,`a security interest in the real property of Knauss Chevrolet Company, an Oregon corporation, as described on the attached Exhibit "A", hereby consents to the granting to the City of Tigard, a munici pality of the State of Oregon, of a certain perpetual, as well as temporary easement, for sewer purposes on, over and across said premises, in accordance with the provisions set forth on the, proposed easement document hereto attachec marked Exhibit "X" and by this reference made apart hereof, and the undersigned does hereby subordinate all securityrights and interests described in said in- strument to the rights granted to the City of Tigard, as set forth in said sewer easement document. " DATED: September 20 1983. Y, PORTLAND FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION OF PORTLAND, an Oregon corporation Now known as FAR WEST FEDERAL BANK, S.-B. `f Phyllis A. Prysock Title: Vice President STATE OF OREGON ) ss. County of Multnomah ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 20th day of September , 1983, by Phyllis A. Prysock , Vice President of FAP. WEST. FEDERAL BANK, S.E. an Oregon corporation, on behalf of the corporation. --.� Notary Public for 0 egon My Commission Expires:? 1 - CONSENT AND SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT „• CONSENT AND SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT The undersigned, having a security interest in the real property of Knauss Chevrolet Company, an Oregon corporation, as described on the attached Exhibit "A', hereby consents to the granting to the City of Tigard, a munici- pality of the State of Oregon, of a certain perpetual, as well as temporary easement, for sewer purposes on, over and across said premises, in accordance' with the provisions 'set forth on the proposed easement document hereto attached g marked Exhibit "X” and by this reference made a part hereof, and the undersigned does hereby subordinate all securityrights and interests described in said in- strument to the rights granted to the City of Tigard, as set forth in said sewer easement document. DATED: y l Zen,"Jzvn �D - 1983. U.S. CREDITCORP, an Oregon corporation,' 9340 'SW Beaverton-Hillsdale :Highway, Beaverton, Oregon 97005 Title: � STATE OF OREGON ss. County of The foregoing instrumen was acknowledged before me this _10 day of o 1983, by 12�: %�Fh�e/� sSs /.° U.'S. Creditcorp, an Oregon corporation, on be— half of the corpo ation. Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires:_ 1 - CONSENT AND SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT League OT regon Cities SALEM.LocalGovemmentCenter, 1201 Court Street N.E.,P.O.Box 928,Salem 97308,Telephone:(503)588-6466 i EUGENE: Hendricks Hall,University of Oregon,P.O.Box 3177,Eugene 97403, Telephone:(503)686-5232 zf October -11, 1983 r r Mr. ,Bob Jean City Administrator City of Tigard P 0 Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 - Dear Mr. Jean: The 'Executive Committee of the League of Oregon Cities has authorized the ,preparation Of an amicus_-curiae rief, on _behalf -of the League and cities, in;_supp,,rt of a appea _ o a co ective bar ainin case before the Court of Appeais.� Your city's financial support of this effort is being requested at t h i s-__1 ime. The appeal stems from a recent Emplo ent Relations Board dec slQn whirh'fwnd that a firefighter uf�Ion sa' ety�Tprop�sal^ s�ecfing9�e number of_ firefighters that must be assigned to each piece of equipment is a mandatory "suBjec of bar= gaining. This "manning level" decision is inconsistent with past ERB decisions, and with the generally held view that manning proposals are permissive. ERB has held in recent past decisions that any. proposal that touched on manning issues would be permissive regardless of what mandatory overtones (i .e., safety considerations) the union tried to apply to the proposal . In this case, in a 2-1 decision, ERB has reversed its previous position. In addition to opening the door to many more union manning level proposals in the name of safety, this decision could have a major impact on the contract impasse resoiution. roY cess for police and fire unions. If manning level proposals are to be generally consicIere�as-man'd`atory subjects of bargaining, then unions will be able to take these issues all the way to binding arbitration. Arbitrators would then be placed in the position of making decisions about one of tiie most undam. al preserves yaf management rig is--how many people shall be employed and�-in what capacity, The City of Salem, recipient of this decision, will be seeking a reversal or at least a -remand of the ERB decision. If this ruling is allowed to stand, it could sea dangerous precedent because ERB findings form the basis for scope of t bargaining decisions effecting every public employer in Oregon. The amicus brief is being prepared because of the far reaching and potentially devastating effect of this decision on all cities and because there is some critical information that needs to be presented to the court for their consideration. OFFICERS:Mayor Gerald`Lou'Hannum,Medford,prosfdent• DIRECTORS:Mayor Dale Courtney,Milton-Freewater a Mayor Elvem Hall,Newberg a Lynn Heloitlon,city manager,La Grande• Ruth Burleigh,commissioner,Bend,vka-president a Mayor Alan mayor Jack Nefson,Beaverton,Immediate past prssider'=Sandra Rennie,counciimember,Springfield a Mildred Schwab,commis- . Berg,Corvallis,treasurer Stephen C.Bauer,executive d/rnum sioner,Pn�'and a John Shirley.ceuncilmember,Salem 0 Richard Townsend,city manager,Tillamook•Mayor Margaret Well,Gresham. INN 4 October 11, 1983 Page '2 The case record that the Court of Appeals will review is 'lacking in ;any detailed documentation of the correlation between manning levels and employeesafety or the impactmanninglanguage in a contract would have on an employer's ability to manage the assignment and use of empioyees. The City of,Salem cannot add this information to the record at the Court of Appeals. However, an amicus brief can present this information and it will hopefully have a major bearing on the court's decision. The City of Eugene's city attorney's staff, who have extensive experience in preparing collective bargaining amicus briefs, have been asked to prepare this brief. The cost of the brief has been estimated at $10,000. Because of the potential impact on all cities' that negotiate with their employees e p p the Executive Committee is asking;your 'city to participate in funding the amicus effort by contributing $500. If contributions exceed the cost of the amicus, proportional refunds will be made. Preparation of the brief must begin immediate) Time �s ofthe essence. p g Y and the League must give reasonable assurance to the City of Eugene that sufficient fund- ing will be available. We request that you take this matter to your City Council within the next 'two weeks and inform us` of their decision as soon as possible using the enclosed reply form. We are also asking whether or not your city would like to be listed as a parti- cipant on the amicus brief. A good cross section of city support will be helpful in showing the Court of Appeals that this is a critical ' issue to all cities, not just the City of Salem. The League's Executive Committee appreciates your consideration of this request. ' Vie recognize that budget resources are slim. However, we believe that reversal of this decision is most important; for if it is allowed to stand, cities could find themselves responding to manning level proposals on a regular basis with;potentially dire financial consequences if arbitrators regularly must consider these proposals in their awards. Again, we are seeking $500 contributions. However, any lesser amount will be appreci iCe-d "7 e�ase�e-1 free to contact Kirk Berger, director, LGPI (1-800-452-0332) if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely yours, Stephen C. Bauer Executive Director s pl w 4, Enclosure LEAGUE OF .OREGON CITIES Amicus Curiae Brief on Collective Bargaining Case City Our City will contribute $ to fund the collective bargaining amicus brief. Please enclose; your contribution with this reply form. ( ) Please -list our city on the amicus brief as a participant in this appeal . ( ) Please ,do not list our city on the amicus brief as a participant in this appeal . Person completing this form: Name Title Signature These actions were authorized by the City Council at its meeting on date Please return to: League of Oregon Cities P 0 Box 928 Salem, Oregon 97308 gym" CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA; ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: November 7, 1983 AGENDA ITEM h: DATE SUBMITTED: October 28, 1983 PREVIOUS ACTION: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE': OREGON BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT FUND APPLICATION REQUESTED BY: ;Robert Bayly_. Vice OF BAR-WELL PRODUCTS, INC. President - Bark Well DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: INFORMATION SUMMARY In order that Bark-We11 Products, Inc. may receive considerationfor a loan ' under the Oregon Business Development Fund, a resolution in support of the loan application must be passed by the City council.' A copy of the description of the program is 'attached as well as my analysis of the company and the loan. I .feel that the application is well, prepared and should be approved by the Economic Development Department if the resolution is approved. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Approve or deny the resolution. SUGGESTED ACTION Council should pass the resolution in support of Bark-Well Products, Inc. Application for a loan from the Oregon Business Development Fund. r MEMORANDUM' October 28, 1983 t TO: Members of the City Council ' FROM: William A. Monahan, Director of Planning and Development /y s. SUBJECT: Oregon Business Development Fund Loan Application Of Bark-Well F Products, Inc. 3 Bark-Well Products Inc., of 9117 SW 'Burnham Street, is the first applicant from either the Portland Metropolitan Area or Washington County to apply for participation of the newly created Oregon Business Development Fund. The fund was established by the Legislature to assist 'small businesses to finance i improvements. Bark-Well has applied for an $80,000 loan to assist in the expansion of its manufacturing concern. The company manufactures carbide inserted wear parts which are primarily used to replace debarker teeth used by the lumber industry= They are also expanding into the production of carbide inserted chipper anvils`. Another 'objective is to ps vtde replacement parts to various types of chippers used in the lumber industry. The company was founded in Tigard in 1978. It recently expanded and moved to quarters; on Burnham occupied until recently by Tigard Machine. Tigard Machine manufactured edgers for sawmills, thus the similarity in uses which makes this new industrial use allowable in this non-conforming use. An important aspect of the application is the creation of new jobs. Originally an employer of two individuals, the company now has six full time and two part time employees. The company has experienced steady growth with over 506 growth in this year alone. With approval of the loan, the company expects that it will shortly have nine employees. Bark-Welles expansion plans are before the City Council due to a condition of the loan approval. The Oregon Business Development Fund requires that the appropriate local jurisdiction pass a resolution in support of the loan in order that it be considered. A resolution suggested by the Oregon Economic Development Department is attached. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: I have reviewed Bark-Well°s application with Mr. Robert Bayly, Vice President of Bark-Well. I have also visited the production site and reviewed the loan program. I feel that the City Council should strongly endorse this application. The benefits to the City of Tigard are numerous, WAM:lw/0211P s iv ] Economic DevelopmentL7epa�'tment 155 COTTAGE STREET N.E.. SALEM, OREGON 97310 PHONE (503):373-120011 y TO: All Citiess- And Counties DATE: August 2, 1983 ` iet Oregon, FROM: Mark Huston, Manager Financial Services t' SUBJECT: Applications Oregon Business Development Fund Senate Bill 220, passed by the `1983 Legislature, established the Oregon ' Business Development Fund (OBDF). I have enclosed a f act sheet on the % k program and SB 220. from the You may have a business in your jurisdictian applying for a loan revision of this law requires a resolution of aloansupportfrom ,. OBDF. One p F' the-appropriate' loca1 government for:. each .project seeking a' loan from the fund. If the project is located riatenunthe it ofulocalegovvernments of an corpfr hed .. city, then the city is the app P t, project is not located within the boundaries of an incorporated city, the ( county is the appropriate unit of local government. You may wish to handle-_ this matter in one of two ways`: 1 . The elected governing board-- County Commission, County Court, or review each project itself onor City Council -- may wish to t for each case-by-case basis and pass a separate resolution of supe project it approves; or t resolution 2. The elected governingboar oryadministrativewish to pass aarrmaofelocal government designating some department to make this determination on the individual project. It is entirely at the discretion of each local government as to which ed a sample resolution for your method it elects to adopt. I have enclos review and assistance in this matter. . If you have any questions, please contact Barrett MacDougall at 373-1?_15 or me at 373-1240. Thank you. MDH:gpt 2585E Cabe Address -ORECONDEV SAMPLE RESOLUTION BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSTONFRS'/CITE" COUNCIL FOR THE COUNTY/CTTY OF In the Matter of APPROVAL OF ;) OREGON BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT ) FUND PROJECT PROPOSAL BY ) RESOLUTION f (company) 1 WHEREAS, the = County Board of Commissioners/City Council finds that the development of the '(project name or description) by (name of company), wouldfoster the:economic growth and legislative policy as set forth in ORS 280.520 and 280.585, and WHEREAS, ORS 280.532 requires, before the approval of an Oregon Business Development Fund project by the State of Oregon,' that.the r governing body of the appropriate local government recommend the project, F and WHEREAS, the Board/Council finds this project complies with our local economic development strategy, and WHEREAS, the Board/Council finds that the completion of a (project name or description) within the County/City of would be • in the best interests of the citizensof Coun ty/C i ty, IT IS HEREBY RFSOLVEO: That _ COUnty/Cit_y requests the Economic Development Commission and the State of Oregon to assist in the financing of the z. project within the City/County of through the Oregon Business Development Fund, secured by 'the improvements as provided by ORS 280.532. Dated this day of COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS/CITY COUNCIL< Chairman/Mayor 4 - Commissioner/Councilor sssionerT ounci or --- — Sample Resolution supplied by: Oregon Economic Development Department 155CottageStreet N.E. Salem, Oregon 97310 (503) 373-1200 MH:Izm 2285E c t: r a 3 ("2,1d(WJ:G()N I.I-,CJI,1;I-A YIV E ASSEMIJ 1,),-1983 Regul:,r scs 2r.i(WJ:G()NI.isCi15t_A1lV1..ASSEMRt.)'-198'3Regul:,rScs ion [ } i A- itgrt3ssd t Senate Bill 220 Ordered by the Senate March 4 [ tucluding Senate Arttendm<nts dated March 4 PRIN-IT-D PURSUANT TO ORS 171.130 by order of the president of the Senate in conformance with pres Mie L filing rules, :.oppusition on the pari of the President (at the request Of Econo indicating nniihci advtii.a�y rwrmic }evelopment 1 x DN-partrnent) SUMN ARY sponsors of eln in and is not part of the body thereof subject to the following summary is not prepared by the spa z consideration by the Legislative Assembly. it is an editor's brief statement of the essential features of the mer ere. ects Auihori�es Economic Development Commission to make loans for(caWicant."Req development cot ntyandlcity directly;to cities and other applicants as well as counties. �n i ro used projects •within their boundaries except for projects proposed by counties or cities approval of p 1x to Ito themselves. development projects. Lirruts atnotutt of loan i Extends maximum term of loans for[ct. ounty)business more than 40 points less s Of h3�of f�a roje interest�rate oes formula n�Un ted Sates determining Treasury r bills, not s lornbonds of perce g comparable r , adjusted��to development XCSt one-quarter for one loans are Amade ororevenues erived therefrom. I other than[county] Declares emergency;effective on passage. A BILL FOUR AN ACT I ovisions;amending ORS 280.520,280-522,280.525, 2 Relating to business development projects;creating new pr 80.545, 280.552, 280.560, 280.565, 280.570, 280.575, 280.580 and 3 280.532, 280.535, 280.540, 280.542, 2 4 280.585;repealing ORS 280.530:and declaring an emergency. g Be It Enacted by the people of the state of Oregon° 6 SECTION 1.Section 2 of this Act is added to and made a part of ORS 280.520 to 280.585. receipt of an application under ORS 280.522,the commission shall forward copies of 7 SECTION 2. Upon sed business development project 8 the application to the governing body of the city or county in which the propo city under 9 is to be located. An application filed by a county or er ORS 280.522 shall be exempt from this 10 requirement and the provisions of paragraphs(e)and(f)of subsection(1)of ORS 2$0.532,as amended by this 11 1983 Act. 12 SECTION 3.ORS 280.520 is amended to read: 13 280.520.As used in ORS 280.520 to 280.595,unless the context requires otherwise: 14 (1)"Commission"means tile,Economic Development Commission appointed under ORS 184.Q05. 15 (2) "(Counit•) Business development project" means the acquisition, engineering, improvement, 16 rehabilitation, construction, operation or maintenance[, in wltole or in part, including the preproject planning 17 costs,of arty development project authosfzed by ORS 271.5/0 to 27/.3"40 and 280 3110 that is undertaken by, or tvrsonal that tr used or is suitable for um by an 18 located in, one a,-more counties] of any property, reed or r 19 ,wuwn a enterprise and that will[directly)result in,or will aid,pronwAe or fadiltute,development of one or mom 20 of the following activities: 21 (a)Manufacturing or other industrial production; !VOTE: Matter in boldface in an amended section is new;matter(italic gird bracketeal is existing law to be omitted. r [z) i tilt 2,0 R, t ,I,s;t,�t i�stlun:tl dr�ri��{vncnt itr Cunt!pnt.:essing; �� (c) ,Ayu,tcullut•tl thew Ittpm ni t t ♦c<tfo x1 titu�u»tut. h (d)lkve!opts,enl ur impro"C't utihrniuru of natur.tl t,_wur c�: { 4 (e)t'ollvc,111n facilities antftradc centers: f 5 (f)'i'r.tn,ptirlatiun or freight f scilities:and economic enterprise the commission G {g} Uthet .+ctivities that represent new technology of type of t but not including: 7 determines is Weeden to diversify the economic b:+st of marc.s , (�)Cunstructiutt of office Luildings;including corf+urate headquarters;and Retail ihusinesse,,shopping Centel s or food service facilities- (13) appointed under ORS 1. y (13)Rr. vela n:ent Depar 10 (3) "Director" means the Director of the Econumse De P t t 184.135. g'Fund. 12 (4)"Fund*'means the Oregon[Conn{}'1 Basis wss Development[lZevotvin t 4 (5)"Collateral"means property subject to a security interest,as defined in ORS 79.don0 1 ration or quasi-municipal corr�sora 14 (6)"Municipality,,mear>_s any city,municipah eorpa or corpm'ation. t int venture,Partnership 15 (2}•h'ecson"rrleaR4 Any individual,a&`ociatimn of indlwlduals, as one of its primary public or Private corporation which has development group', mens any p _ IG t8) ..h�`ctl r or bylaws,�e pr•tyrnotlon of eeonontfc development in 11 purlrww, a5 4tatt'd in its ar"ticlt%s of incorPOrat10Y➢,chane t. !8 ally pau-t of the State of Oregon.• combYYuution of counties, rnurdeipaiities or person or any k ly i9) "Applicant" means any county, musticipAlity, 1N d under UlLS 280.52(!to 280.x• rwr�app, ing,for a loan front the Oregon Business Development 7r�n 0 Pz - Y tens and persons 21 Si:CTION 4.ORS 280.5'_2 is amended to read: 1 Person or my combination of counties, rrrurelcipaB� k .So.522. (1)Any county,municipality,Per• y Development - 22 from the Oregon[Count ]Business P 23 may file with the commission an application to borrow money development project as provided in ORS 280.520 to 280.585. The nt business P 1 24 [Revolving] Fund for a ("011 y] accom anied by such information as the 2, application shall be filed in such a manner and contain or be P 4 r rescribe. y ment 26 commission mai P Oregon Cotrnf ]Business Develop t 27 (2) Any [county or counties]applicant receiving a loan from the Oreg [ rtment the estimated number of jobs ,g [Revs/ring)Fund shall annually report to the P..anomic De�oorpc �financed under ORS 280.520 to 280.58S• l-he 29 created its a result of the[corjnty)business development p j 4 the receipt of the loan proceeds 30 reporting requirement under this section.shall continue for five ye:us comply with the requirements of this section 31 or for the life of the loan,whlclrever period is loa r. Agreement to comply Oregon Counfyl Btrsh69e-`s Development{lZevotving]Fund. 32 shall bL a condition for ubtainiti$a loan from the es that [ Dunt developnren[pn,tec'ts within cities shut have the«uthority tv issue revenue bands,are ineligible 31 [C3I C y 34 for funding under ORS 21`3 S^O fn 2L�i S11 f.[ ) SES ION JA.URS 2R .,'5 is amended to read: 35 522,the commission shall determine whether 2Y0S25. (1) t)pon receipt of an apPiication under ORS 2t3©• set forth in or 36 Y business development Project 37 the pians and specifications for the proposed [e'nunt ] 3t3 aceumpanyin>;lite application are satisfactory• if the commission determines that the pians and specifications 3y are not satisfactory,it[pray A'{thin 60days]shall: [ tten statement of the rcsLvon for th2t rejection;or 40 (u)Rc j*ct the application[. with A wri Won [;l A-[`ng, Sia 220 t (b) Require the applicant to sul,niit addit"),lal tnf,irmation of the plans ani] spec:fications a, ncty ix , necessary. (2)The he Commission shall charge and collccl from the applicant,at the time she aPl�ticatiGn is filed,a fee not 4 to exceed $100. Moncys referred to in this subsection shall be paid into the Oregon (Gmunty) 13115int_'ss 5 1)eve1opment[Revolving)f=und. 6 Sl3CT1ON 5.O12S 280.532 is amended to read: 7 280.532. (1) The commission may approve a [county] business development project proposed in an 8 application filed under ORS 280.520 to 280.585 if,after investigation,it finds that: ' 9 (a)The proposed[county]business development project is feasible and a reasonable risk from practical and 10 economic standpoints,and the loan has reasonable prospect of repayment. 1 t (b)The[proposed county deve!opntent project is, ire and of itself,j applicant can provide good and sufficient 12 collateral for the Doan. Business D7evelopment[Revoking]Fund are or will be available for the 13 (c)Moneys in the Oregon[County] 14 proposed[county)business development project. tS (d)There is a need for the proposed[county] business development project,and the applicant's financial t6 resources are adequate[po proride the working capitalneeded]to assure success of the project. 17 (e)if the proposed project is to be located in an incorporated city,the governing tardy of that city has executed 18 a resolution recommending the proposed project. ty (f)if the proposed project is to be located outside any incorporated city,the governing body of the county in 20 which the project is to be focated has executed a resolution reLonunending the proposed project. 21 ((eA(g)The applicant has not received or entered into a contract or contracts exceeding$250,000 with the 22 commission,under authority of ORS 280.520 to 280.585,for the previous 365 days.[provided,however,that no 23 applicant may hove]nor are there more than$500,000 in outstanding loans with the commission at any one time 24 for business development projects located in the same county as the proposed project. r 25 (2)_Preference shall be given to a [county] business development project which has a high ratio of 26 employment to [capital invested] the amount of money sought to be borrowed from the Oregon Business 27 Development Fund, which benefits businesses with fewer than 50 employes or which is located within a rural 28 area of the state or within a lagging area certified by the Governor pursuant to ORS 280.630. Consideration also 29 shall be given to the extent of participation by local development groups,and the availability and cost of money to 30 tilea applicant from,or through,comvrcial lending or fira n ial instltulions,or other financial scums,inasmuch 31 as the Oregon Business Development fund Is Intended to complement, not supplant, other sources of money for 32 economic development. 33 (3)The total amount of moneys loaned from the fund for any business development project shall not exceed 40 34 percent of the cost of the project. 35 (4)Except in case;where the applicant is a county or municipality,no money shall tee loaned from the fund for i 36 any business developnent prtrjeet unless there exsts a rorrunitmer:t from&commerciai or private fender,or a local / 37 development group,to participate in the financing of the project. (•, 38 (5) To erwourage.private sector and local development group participation in the financing of business 39 devOoprnent projects,the commission may subordinate the security position of the fund to that of other lenders. 40 SECTION 6.ORS 280.535 is amended to read: S'rnti.Jt3'—A 14J r ?t(r_5;5. II the iununt..uut.ipi raves the(r r+(+r:/ri hasitKx�dcvelr.i nicht prolcct, it,on behalf of the,slate. v arae! the .ep{,lic.tnt nary ,:nt,i int., :, lc,:ut u,nUact nl ;": marc ticur s'S0,(Hx), ecwcd by gcnxd and sufficient l� t Collate Ial,u hick shaiI utt Iill th,;ill will"uthet nt,rttcn. fl 4 (I)A plan for repaymcnt b5 the applicant tc the Otcgon (C, uart}'J Business Development[Revolving] fund 5 moneys borrowed from the-fund used fol the lrourrty] business development project with interest charged on c, those moneys at the rate of two percentage points[grevrl(vj k-ss than the(nel]prevailing interest,rate [at ahich 7 rhe most ir,z'c•nt iiategeneral ahlegati;jrr hnrtd is.+ue crus sold,]on United States Treasury bills,riches or bonds of a 8 comparable tent.,-,:. deter trained by the J Statc Treasurer]conunLssion,adjusted to the nearest one-quarter of one 9 percent. The repayment plan,aniong other matters: 10 (a) Shall provide for commencement of repayment by the [county] applicant of moneys used for the 11 [curnrty]business development project and interest thereon no later,than one year after the date of the loan t2 contract or at such other time as the commission may provide. time for making any repayment in emergency or hardship 13 (b)May provide for reasonable extension of the 14 circumstances if approved by the commission. nce of,and security for,repayment by the applicant as is 15 (c)Shall provide for such evidence of debt assura 16 considered necessary by the commission. i e period of loan which shall net exceed tine usable life of 17 (d)Shall set forth a schedule of payments and th I8 the contracted project or[1(4 ye; from the date of the contract,whichever is less,and shall also set forth ty the manner of determining when loam payments are delinquent.The payment schedule shall include repayment 0 of interest whichaccrues during:any period of delay in repayment authorized by paragraph (a) of this payments of varying amounts for collection of accrued 21 sul)scction, and the payment schedule may require J 22 interest. y indulin 23 (c) shall set forth a procedure for formal declaration of default of payment b the.commission, g 24 formal notification of all relevant federal,state and local agencies;and further,a procedure for notification of 25 all relevant federal,state and local agencies that declaration of default has been rescinded when appropriate. 26 (2)Provisions satisfactory to the commission for field engineering and inspection,the commission to be the 27 final judge of completion of the contract. 28 (3)That the liability of the state under the contract is contingent upon the availability of moneys in the 29 Oregon[County]Business dhvezlopment[Revolving]Fund for use in the(county]business development project. 30 (4)such further provisions as the commission considers necessary to insure expenditure of the funds for 31 the purposes bet forth in lite approved application. 37 (5)That the commission may institute appropriate action or suit to prevent use of the facilities of a[county) 33 busing ss development project financed by the Oregon[County] Busiaess Development(Revolving) Fund if the 14 [county] applicant is delinquent in the repayment of any moneys due the [Oregon County Development 35 Revolving]fund. r 36 SEMClN(aa,ORS 280.540 is intended to read: j leen for a lcounfy] busi+sess development protect and the 37 280.540. (1) if the commission approves a y 38 applicant has received all necessary permits required by federal,state and local agencies,the commission shall 39 pay moneys for the project from tite Oregon[County]Business Development[Revolving]Fund,in accordance 40 with the terms of the loan contract as prescribed by the commission. [5] A-Eng.SB 220 s t (2) Thu applicant, immediately upon receiving the loan proceeds, shalt pay to the commission one and 2 vnr4tatf percent of the principal amount of the loan, to be paid back to the Oregon [County] Bustne-1 3 Development [Revolving] Fund. 'ihes monevs may be paid from the fund to Foetal development fpuups for the i 4 purposes set forth in ORS 2$0.575(I)(u). 4: 5 SECTION 7.ORS 280.542 is amended to read: is F 6 280.542. (A] Any county or municipality that enters into a contract with the commission for a[count)'] x 7 businees development project and repayment as provided in ORS 280.535 may obtain moneys for repayment to Development[Revofving]Fund under the contract in the same:canner as other 8 the Oregon [County] Business 9 moneys are obtained for purposes of the county or municipality or other moneys available to the developer. 10 SECTION 7a.ORS 280.545 is amended to read: fts of money or other property from any source, given for the 11 280.545. The commission may accept gi 12 purposes of ORS-280.520zto 280.585. Money so received shall be paid into the Oregon [Count}] Business f z 13 Deveiopment[Revofving]Fund. Property so received shall be used for the purposes of the Oregon[County] [ 14 Beshwss Development(Revolving]Fund. 15 SECTION 7b.ORS 280.552 is amended to read: 16 280.552.The commission shall sulsmit to the Legislative Assembly and the Governor a biennial report of 17 the transactions of the 7regon (County] Business Development [Revolving] Fund in such detail as will !8 adequately indicate the condition of the fund. 19 SECTION S.ORS 280.560 is amended to read: 20 280.560. Except as provided in ORS 260.565,if any(county)business development project is refinanced or ' 21 financial assistance is obtained from other sources after the execution of the loan from the state,those shall be z 22 first used to repay the state, unless provided ontenAise by the commission, if the refinancing or financial 23 assistance applies only to t'lte [county] business development project authorized and does not include any 24 subsequent addition,expansion,improvement or further development. 25 SECTION 9.ORS 280.565 is am:nded to read: 26 280.565. (1)T e commission mvy authorize funds from the Oregon [Count] Business Development 27 [Revolving] Fund to be used in appropriate joint governmental participation projects or as match money with 28 any municipally,county,state or federally funded [county]business development project authorized within a 29 county or city,subject to the stipulations of ORS 280.520 to 280.585. 30 (2)Any application for a loan under this section shall be in such form as the commission prescribes and 31 shall furnish such proof of federal, state or local approval as appropriate for funding of the[county] business 32 development project. 33 (3)The total amount of moneys loaned from the fund for federal, state or local joint{county] business 34 development project purposes shall not exceed 5250,000 per project. 35 SECTION 10.ORS 7.80.570 is aimnd?,i to read: 36 280.570.If the commission approves an application for the loan of moneys authorized by ORS 280.565,the 37 commission shall enter into a loan contract,secured by good and sufficient collateral, with the [county] 38 applicant that provides,among other matters: 39 (1)That the loan bear interest at the same rate of interest as provided in ORS 280.535(1). -- { (61 s. A-Eng.SB 220 t (') Lh;u tile cuntr:rc t shall ct Perth a rttedule of payments including interest and principal for the period of r the lo.+n, which shall not exceed the usable life of the cunuacted project or'[PO(25 years from the date of the ) ng when loan payments are deling contract,whichever is less, anal shall srt forth the tnannet of determiniment 4 'I"he sonic schedule sited include repaynteiit of interest which accrues during any period of delay in repay < repayment schedule may require payments of varying amounts Y 4 p Y � S authorized by ORS 280.520 to 280.585, and the repay x 5 ' 1-luwevet.the commission may make provisions for extensions of time for collection ofthat accrued interest. if the delinquencies are caused by acts of God or other conditions beyond the control of 7 in making repayment applicant and the security will not be impaired thereby. 8 the[c'ountyJ api loaned for `(3)Such provi;iunsas the commission considers necessary to insure expenditure of the:moneys necessary E +U the purposes provided in ORS 280.565,including all provisions of ORS 280.532. F` 11 SECFfON 11.ORS 280.575 is amended to read: ; 280.575. (1)There is created within the State Treasury a revolving fund known as the Oregon (County"1 ? 12 It 13 Business development[Revolving)Fund,separate and distinct from the General Fund. Moneys in this fund are t4 continuously appropriated to the Economic Development Commission for the following purposes: r Of the commissg applications, anal investigating proposed €. 15 (a) Administrative expenses oion in process'sn licatiuns, a r; 16 [rountyl bush ss development projects and servicing outstanding loans. 17 (b)I ayment of loans to(rcrantiesl applicants under ORS 280.520 to 280.585. K IK (2)The fund created by subsection(1)of this secti- .t shall consist of: i e 19 : (a)(Applii•ation)Fees required by ORS 280.525(2)and 280.540(2). r. y or others] from the Oregon is ,p (h) Repayment of moneys loaned to counties, municip alitles or persons ( r those moneys. 21 ,Ccu4rrtyJ Business Development[Revolving]Fund,including interest on ys. s c payment of such moneys as may be appropriated to the fund by the Legislative Assembly. f 22 23 (d)Moneys obtained from any interest accrued from funds. _ 24 (e)Moneys from any gift made under ORS 280.545. L5 (f)Moneys front,any grant made to tlr:fund by any federal agency 1; 26 [(_3J Outstanding;debt on the fund shall not exceed 95 percent of all deposits, accounts payable and other �. t, [ 27 asrers of the fund 28 SECTION 12.ORS 280.580 is amended to read: Zy 2110.580. All payments, receipts and interest or any other source she/!be t from outstanding indebtedness volving Fund and accumulated for new pro%ecP dispersal All 30 retained in the Oregon County 1Jr velopmeat Re s of the fund from whatever source]shall be retained and accumulated in the Oregon[Countyl 31 interest earningF t projects]the Irueg>x of!$ee 32 Ssasiness Development(Revolving] Fund and shall be used for[county developmen . 33 fund. i 34 SECTION 13.ORS 280.585 is amended to read: � 35 2K0.585. [Na loan nuu!, to a rotlnty under ORS 2819J20 to cdOSBS shat! be considered a charge or y unty but shall//be secured solely by the county 36 obligation on the general revenues or taxing power of that co der."ved from that project which the taunty has 37 deve!apmene pr,jec'P for which the loan is made and any revenues unfei 1 under ORS 28U.520 to 260-585 shall not 38 pledged for prryrnrnt of the loan.]�heron rnsaie to a county off rcr #�tY nor a charge upUn the tax revenues of that Bounty rr 39 be a g-vneral otdlgetlon of that county or trtunleipality, 1 , n any oche, revenues or property of that county or municipality not sped"calfy 40 mussizipaiity, nor a charge ope : (71 A-Eng.SB 220 I pledged theerto. A fuan 11-de to a county or municipality under URS 2811.520 to 280.585 MAY b°u�urect b} tie business development project for which life loan is made,as well as by any revenues der-i--ed trot"that tiruject,nrxi f t}n county or municipality not otherwise pledged or cumnjilteci for 3 any nuntax-derived revenues or property o � A count us municipelfty may[, Irnwever,] repay any portion of a loan incurred under ORS t 4`. other pucposa._. Y 5 280.520 to 280.585 from any funds available to it. 6 St;C•;;�ION!4.ORS 280.530 is repealed. ssary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and 6 SECTION IS. This Act being nece 8 ;safety,an emergency is declared to exist,and this Act takes effect on its passage. Oregon Business Development Fund Program Description Background: The Oregon Development Fund (OBDF) was originally established as the Oregon 'County Revolving Loan Fund. Administrative Difficulties under the County;Revolving Loan Fund required revamping of the program and new legislation. The 1983 Oregon Legislature passed SB 220 and Governor Victor Atiyeh signed the bill into law on April 13, 1983, creating the Oregon Business Development Fund. The Fund is capitalized with $2 million in federal Economic Development Administration funds and $667,000 of State of Oregon funds. Purpose:° The purpose of the Oregon Business Development Fund is to provide financing for land, buildings,, fixed equipment and machinery, research and development, and wor3ing capital to eligible activities, which include:` ( 1) Manufacturing or other industrial production; (2) Agricultural development or food processing; (3) Aquaculture development or seafood processing; (4) Development or improved utilization of natural resources; (5) Convention facilities and trade centers; (6) Tourist facilities other than retail or food service businesses; (7) Transportation or freight facilities; and (8) Other activities that represent a new technology or type of economic enterprises that the Commission determines is needed to s diversify an economic base. Preferences: The following project characteristics are preference items of the Oregon Business Development Fund: (1) High ratio of employment to OBOE funds; (2) Businesses with fewer than 50 employees; (3) Located in rural areas of the State; { (4) Located in economically lagging areas; _ ' (5) Make use of skills of 'displaced workers; (6) Assist economic, diversification; f.. (1) Contain significant owner equity, (8) ,Maximize participation by financial instituti`ons .and local development groups; (9), Produce goods or services for export markets; (10): Increase ,the flow of capital from outside the local area; and ( 11) Do not offer severe adverse'competitive disadvantage to an existing business. Ineligible Activities: 4 (1) Construction of office' buildings including, corporate r headquarters; € M (2) Retail businesses, shopping centers, or food service facilities; and (3) Relocation of the facility from one labor market to another. Other Considerations: (1) The project must be feasable and have a reasonable prospect of F repayment; (2) The applicant must provide goods and sufficient collateral for . the loan; € r (3) The loan will complement not supplant money from the commercial financing community or other financing sources; (4) the applicant most follow applicable local, state, and federal g. rules; and � (5) The project is approved by the local city or county government. s Terms: (1) The maximum loan to any applicant shall be $250,000; (2) The maximum fund amount outstanding in one county shall be $500,000: �. (3) The maximum loan term is 25 years; ' (4) The interest rate will be fixed at 2 percentage points less than the prevailinginterest rates on U.S.- Treasury Bonds of a Y similar maturity; (5) The total amount of monies loaned to any project shall not exceed 40% of the cost of the project; (6) No money may be loaned from the fund unless the applicant has secured a 'commitment from a,commercial or private lender, or a local development group to participate in the financing; 'and (7) The monies loaned from the fund maybe in a subordinate security position to that of other lenders`. Application Procedure: For further information and application information, please contact any Economic Development Department, call regional office of the Oregon 373-1240, or write: Oregon Business Development Fund Oregon Economic Development Department 155 Cottage Street N.E. Salem, Oregon '97310 2119E CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: NOVEMBER 7. 1983 AGENDA ITEM DATE SUBMITTED: Oct. 26, >1983 PREVIOUS ACTION: None ISSUE/AGEND' TITLE: Temporary Use Permit Fee Waiver Sweet Adelines REQUESTED BY: Dolores M. RuQe. West Hills Sweet Adelines Chapter DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: � CITY ADMINISTRATOR: INFORMATION SUMMARY 1The Sweet Adelines have applied for and received a Temporary Use Permit to sell holiday wreaths on November 3, 4,.5 10, 11 and 12. " In accordance with the TMC, a fee of $50. was paid. The organization has submitted documentation from the US Department of the Treasury:to show they are a non-profit agency in support of their request that the fee be waived. Presently there is no provision in the code to allow us to waive the fee without Council Action. The new Community Development Code will contain a provision which will permit us to make a determination at the staff level: ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED aa�raaxxssssc:axzsrsasmcxsassuassctes:s�aa�s=asstssm�xsxssesc==ossa^ s=--==��===�aceee=cscacs==e SUGGESTED ACTION Approve the waiver of fees for the Sweet Adelines to sell holiday wreaths on November 3,' 4, 5, 10, 11 and 12: a.vac asci ,.v✓i.. <a1. i..moi.� al iv.< (MUST BE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION ATSITE) PERMIT #'' €. FEE RECEIVED Sc� s'IGARD PLANNING DEPARTRSENT 639-4171 RECEIPT #' I5S(v0 12420 SWMain Street DATE RECEIVE /0-1-75:73 Tigard, 'Oregon 97223 RECEIVED` BY� � - BUSINES LICENSE it- BUS LIC BUS'_LIC EXPIR.E DATE The applicant named in this application will receive all ,major correspondence from the Tigard Planning Department and that person is responsible for providing same to owner. In this case the "applicant" is: West' Hills Sweet Adelines Chapter APPLICANT'S NAME (Delores M Rine Seetary� TELEPHONE (Business) (Residence) 620-2201 ADDRESS (Secretary's residence) - 8915;S.W. Commercial, Sp.#24a Tigard, OR. 97223 Street Ca t`y - ;Zip SIGNATURE Date (�� -�-e 14 3 LENGTH OF TIME/OR SPECIFIC DATES AND REASON FOR TEMPORARY USE REQUEST iv November 39' 49 5 and, November 10, 11 , & 12 (Turs, Fri, & Sat. of 1st two wks in Nov.) We would like to sell Christmas Wreaths. This is one of our ways and means projects.` PROPERTY OWNER'Si iAIVIE(S) Ao f1l l f/ PHONE (Bus) �a�-9y=r7 (Res) PHONE r(Bus) (Res) ADDRESS ! �� 3� - 4"L/ (Street - City -Z ADDRESS �. Street - Ci. Zip PROPERTY OWNER(S) RECOGNITION OF APPLICATION AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PERMISSION v TO USE PROPERTY AS REQUESTED ABOVE: (Signature of O er s r, (Signature of Owner(s Sagnat.ure of City Administrator or Planning ommlssion Chairman) APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED UNLESS IT IS COMPLETE IN ALL RESPECTS . . . . . . �3 . ,:opy to Police Department 070681smr N APPLICATION FOR RENEWALOF CHAPTER MEMBERSHIP IN SWEET fADELINES, INC. FOR FISCAL YEAR MAY 1,19_3-to APRIL 30,19 84 ,May 2 3 19 83 To: INTERNATIONAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS, SWEET ADELINES, INC. H'e, the undersignedofficers of a Chapter composed of twenty or more members, hereby apply for renewal of charter,for West ;Hills (%'%KIF of CHAPrFRj Chapter of Sweet Adelines, Inc., located at Hillsboro Washi ton tc(n! Oregon and if this charter is renewed, we assent that every m_mber who renews and,or accepts membership in this Chapter for or during this fiscal year ending April 30,114 84 thereby ratifies,accepts and agrees to be bound in all things pertaining to Sweet Adelines. Inc:`bv its Articles of Incorporation and its Corporate Bylaws,and further,every such member agrees to faithfully observe the provisions thereof: I *Note: Be sure NAME and LOCATION are the same as appear on your Chapter Bylaws. OFFICERS FOR NEW FISCAL YEAR: (SIGNATURES) ADDRESS: (President) at 139 No. Shore Road, bake Osteo, OR, 97034 (Vice resident) yea 8915 S.W. Conunercial, Sp.#24, Tigard, OR. 97L (Corresponding S retary r (Recording Secretary) Treasurer) u _ 193 N.E. 17th, Hillsboro, OR. 97123 ( Is our Chapter Incorporated? Yes_�_No. If so,date of Incorporation !Nti'1 R UCTIONS: Complete this Application for Renewal in.duplicate. Return one copy to International Headquarters. 'aur Topics of completed Certification of Membership forms (PC-1) and Chapter check (or money order) for the T0'rAI. am:WUM ,.sown on the PC-I, must accompany this application. Please make remittance payable to SWEET ADELINES, INC. in U.S. turfs r: Pai6- - 8-/9 FOLLOWING IS APT ACTUAL REPRODUCTION OF THE LETTER OF EXEMPTION rrom CERT TAIN'TAXES `ISSUED_'BY THE U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT AFFECTING ALL U.S {, CHAPTERS. w, U. S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT WASHINGTON 25 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE - a CD2WIffiIIIOM311 OF fN'RCRNAL RBVfNl6 ))` AND MEMPI TO W^ T:R:Pt,O:S FCB Sweet Adelines, Inc. c/o Ivarcille Gouger, International Treasurer Y. 4 501 'DriscollBuilding Corpus Christi,, Texas ; Mesdames: We have your letters of August 18, 1955 and October 4, 1955 in which you;request'a rou ruling covering;you and your affiliated group C chapters for Federal incase and admissions tax purposes. Oar records show that in a ruling dated September 16, 1949, addressed to you under your former ruame, Sweet Adelines in America. Incorporated, you were held to be exempt from Federal income tsx under the provisions of section 101(6) of the Cade of 1939. g€' On the basis of the information heretofore presented, which resulted in our ruling of September 16, 1949, and on the informeti-n recently submitted, it is the opinion of this office that you and your affiliated chapters appearing on the list furnished with your letter of August 18, 1955, are entitled to exemption f rom Federal income tax under the provisions of section 501(c)(3) of: the Code of 195h, ' as it is shown that you and such chapters are organized and operates- exclusively for educational purposes. Accordingly, it will not be necessary for you and your affiliatzd chapters referred to above to file income tax returns so long as theca is no change in your organization, purposes, or method of operation,or that of such chapters. Any such changes should be reported immediately to the National Office of the Internal Re=venue,Service in Washington, D. C,, in order that their effect upon your exempt status, or that of your chapters may be determined. However, you and your chapters referred to above are required •yo file annually information returns on Form 990A with the District Dia:ct; of Intaimal Revenue for the respective districts in which located co long as the exemption remains in ezfect. This form may be obtainei the District Director and is required to be filed on or before the fifteenth day of the fifth month following the close of your respe, annual accounting periods. _ y, Sweet Adelines, Inc. Chapter Guide - Section 4 K Page 27 ' 8-79 4%. 4 k 2 - Sweet Adelines, Inc. Contributions made to you and to your chaptersreferred to €: above are deductible by the donors in computing their taxable income ' _. in the spanner and to the extent provided by section 170 of the 'Code of 1954. Bequests, legacies, devises or transfers, to or for your use or to or for the use of the chapters listed are deductible in computing the value of the taxable estate of a decedent for estate tax purposes' , in the spanner and to the extent provided by sections 2055 and 2106 of the Code of 1954.' Gifts of property to you and to such chapters are deductible in computing taxable gifts for gift tax purposes in the spanner and to the extent provided in section 2522 of the Code of 1954. No liability is incurred by you or the chapters referred to above for the taxes imposed tinder the Federal Insurance Contributions Act IE (social security taxes) unless you or such chapters have 'filed waiver ` of exemption certificates in accordance with ,the applicable provisions of such Act* In the event you and your chapters desire social security coverage for your employees or have any questions relating to the filing ' of waiver of exemption certificates you should take the spatter up with your respective District Directors of Internal Revenue. �. Your attention is called to the provisions of'section 501(c)(3) of the Code of 1954 under which your exemption and that of your affiliated chapters will be revoked if any substantial part of your activities, or those of such chapters consists of carrying on propa- ganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation, or if you or your chapters participate in, or intervene in (including the ly publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public offices For the purpose of applying this ruling to Period with respect : �.:. to which the Code of 1954 is not applicable, any reference herein to a provision of the 1954 Code shall be deemed a reference to the corresponding provision of the 1939 Code. In regard to the admissions tax status of Sweet Adeli.nes, Inc., and its affiliated chapters, you are advised that the organizatic-n and its chapters qualify for the exemption provided civic and community membership associations by section 4233(a)(3) of the Code. Under this _- provision of the law, the organization and its affiliated chapters are exempt from collection of tax on admissions *to any concerts conducted by them. The organization and its chapters may establish their right Sweet Adelines, Inc. ChapterSection4 28 ,Guide Page on 8-79 z. 3, Sweet Adelina, Inco ` to this exemption by filing Corm ?55, application for exemption, with the district director of internal revenueconcerned in connec- tion with any concerts which are conducted.. Information indicating that the organization and its chapters have been held exempt under sectio X33{a)(3) and the date of this ruling mould be submitted with the application. You should flL�.ish the National Office annually, on the calelaar year basis, lists, in duplicate, showing only the names and addresses Of any new chapters affiliated with you during the year, and the des and addrnsens of any chapters which for any reason have ceased to exist. These lists should be accompanied by a statement of orae of your principal officers as to whether the information heretofore submitted by you, ,and on uhich thisrulingis based, is applicable in ell respects to the new chapters appearing on the lists. This infor- ationshould be forwarded so as to reach the National Office not Lager than,February 15 of the following year. The District Directors of Internal R.evenus, for the districts in Vhich you and your chapters listed are located are being advised of this action®` Very truly yours, Director, Tax hqi, gs sion a Corpus Christi, .Texas, and � forwarded by rry. office , same date, to me at Grand Rapids, Michigan, where it gppwqaps.. I[[qqQQ ppgg. ^^yy ^y ip� _ - g, - l It 1 MEMORANDUM t October 27, 1983 TO: Mayor and City Council J FROM. ..Bob Jean, CityAdministrator SUBJECT: City's Alternate to >CDBG Councilor ' Ken Scheckla is the City's representative to the Community Development Block Grant Policy Advisory Board. Originally we designated Bill Monahan as our alternate. Bill's -schedule conflicts with the Thursday meeting. Un.til a staff replacement for the vacant Associate Planner position is filled this January, another designee should be appointed. I recommend that Council pass the attached Resolution designating the City Administrator as the City's Alternate CDBG representative. Councilor Scheckla remains the primary representative. BJ:lw/1005A imam t CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON `' COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY �E b � AGENDA OF: November 98 7. 13 - AGENDA ITEM : !fir d � DATE SUBMITTED NNone ovember 1, 1983 _ PREVIOUS ACTION: �. ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Tigard High Building Construction ` School Building Permits REQUESTED BY: 1. Careers, Inc. DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: VV Vr\ CITY ADMINISTRATOR: INFORMATION SUMMARY The attached memo from Ed talden, Building Official, requests that the City 1 Council authorize the Building Division to waive building permit and plan check fees for the Tigard High School Home Construction Class. The non-profit corporation formed for this purpose, Building`Construction Careers, Inc., will pay sewer hookupfees,' plumbing and mechanical permits, as well as street and park development charges. The Council approved a similar arrangement in each of the last three years. C< 1`- - 1- ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Council may approve the waiver or deny it. ma:rvsaaixm=n.as acucssa==¢esasxaxsa�mca=ate=== —a-==•.•--.—_'--_ - SUGGESTED ACTION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the waiver of building permit and plan check fees for Building Construction Careers, Inc. for the 1983-84 school year. w a a MEMORANDUM F TO: TIGARD CITY COUNCIL FROM: E.T. Walden, Building Official ' DATE: November 7, .1983 SUBJECT: Tigard High School Building Permits Tigard High 'School has for the last five years conducted a class in Home Construction at Tigard High School. They formed a nonprofit organization called Building Construction Careers Inc. and as part of the program constructed anew home each year. This has proved to be a 'great benefit to a number of High School Students. Last year, the City Council waived the permit and plan check fees. This year the High School has requested this benefit again. They will,pay the sewer hook-up fees and the street and park development fees, ,also the plumbing and mechai.nical`permits. If the Council desires to waive the fees again this year, the staff would recommend this action. k i f e • wa «...�+` ._ sa'€•" n2nsa� 111 A 1, n k} CITY OF TIGARD., OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ` S� ian3 AGENDA ITEM AGENDA.OF: November _ Council actions DATE SUBMITTED: Oct. 31, 1983 PREVIOUS ACTION: ISSUE/AGENDA, TITLE: Copt with authorizing contract negotiations Cooper Consultants, INc. for REQUESTED BY: Engineering services for LID #35 CITY ADMINISTRATOR: - DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: INFORMATION SUMMARY Attached is a copy of a negotiated agreement with Cooper Consultants, Inc., for Hwy) - engineering services for LID #35 (S.W. 68th Parkway from Atlanta to Pacific Hwy) - Please note that the estimatedcotto 22�7gainnthisaproposal Engineering has eStimated risen from 15% in the EngineersReport cost of the project is only anticipated to rise about 2% more than the Engineers Report estimate. The consultant has stated that the original 15% was used as an amount the rocetty has stated in the past it would bton18treetng tLID.contribute tNo such arrangement�has ybeen 7made in This was the case on 'the Hampton articipation however. this project for extra capacity p to exceed' contract. Actual cost will be based Please note that this is a 'not ham upon billings for work done on Tasks 1 through 12 as itemized monthly. the ability to monitor this expense and make adjustments if necessary. Written modifications would be approved by City Council. .o_a_._.aas_caas¢ssaxama¢zaaas aeuaxczrsac¢z:ssmxac+rtaasasssa¢aaczmcosau.sz¢s¢aazrs¢asras¢ssazca= --- ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Turn. down this proposal and do in-house (would require additional engineering help, space and equipment) . w¢aasaan¢eceamaaaneases saaawa�s aar�a zs�sua a¢mzseaensezas aa¢zrz+sa az a:Ra zzca�aaz_s==s�aacaaaaecscc=. SUGGESTED ACTION ve the attached agreement for Staff recommends Council approengineering services with Cooper Consultants, Inc. and authorize staff to sign the agreement. p. aINC. ENGINEERING I ARCHITECTURE I CONSTRUCTION SERVICES 91675 S.W.66th AVENUE•PORTLAND,OREGON 97223 0(503)639.4972 70056 October 18,,1983 Mr. Frank Currin Director of PublicWorks City of Tigard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: Contract for design `68th Parkway LID Gentlemen: v Attached is our cost estimate, presented in the new contract format provided' by your office. r The contract price is: Lqabor = $ 70,3=.+,0p0p _ �` I.lyr�Vt ):,Xp�nSe 6,�i.�YibVtf r^ Tf3 TSI 77�53M.-O Ot this arnous�t� labor cons for .itesagn work (Tasks 4, 5,'9` i0 percent' '.of, ., a .. 1�� represen s $25;152 50;;0. 6 9,>percent rsf ��63;495, the estama#ed construction c®st..'For cori�p s<asortp ASCE f� l r average comple�tity) indicates a fey of 7»4;percent, or26;�300 ,< In our praViuus propos €6&I labor costs were shown as $67,200. R, fiectln recent wage,rate adjustme'its of about 4 percent, the labor cost he'In is 70;398,`but i� includes a 5Ilghtly larger scope (for assessment and right-of-way �✓ rk). Please review this cost proposai, and,611 me, if.you need further clarification. s We are ready tobegin wgrj< upon slgning`of the contract and your notice to r` proceed; ! Thank you for your consideration. Very,,truly yours, R LTA , TS, IfdC. =t r aul F. E ' ger, Jr., P.E. '' Vice President PFE=Ig enclosure CITY OF TIGARD SERVICES CONTRACT PROJECT/CONTRACT TITLE: Sia 68TH PARKWAY LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT CONTRACT NO: a REQUISITION NO: This Contract, made and entered into this 97 day of 1983, by and between the City of Tigard, a munrc7pal corporation o the State of Oregon, hereinafter called "City" and Cooper Consultants, Inc., (CCI) an Oregon corporation, hereinafter called "Contractor", duly author ized to perform such 'services in Oregon, agree as follows: 1. Description of Hock: Contractor shall, at its own risk and expense, K perform the work hereinafter described and, except as herein otherwise - provided, shall furnish all labor,-equipment, and material's required therefore and shall have or.obtain all licenses and permits required for the performance of such work: Preparation of drawings and specifications for roadway, utilities and drainage, in accordance with Engineers Preliminary Report; { construction management and staking; assistance in right-of-way acquisition; all as more specii'ically set forth in Exhibit ''A", Statement of Work and Exhibit "80, Work Program. 2. City's Representative:=sentative: For purposes hereof, the City's authorized representative wx The Mr. Frank Currie, Public forks Director, 12755 SW Ash Street, Tigard, Oregon 97223, phone number 639-4171. 3 Contractor's Representative: For purposes hereof, the Contractor's authorized representative will be !fir. Paul F. Ehinger, Jr., 11675 SW 66th Avenue, Portland, Oregon' 97223, phone number 639-4914. . 4. Specifications: Any specifications, drawings, data, or documents l; 7s�®r referenced herein are made and become part of this Contract. so Work Schedule: Contractor will commence performance on receipt of notice to proceed by City's Representative and shall complete same on or before March 1, 1984, exclusive of bidding and construction related tasks. 6. Consideration: As consideration for full and satisfactory performance, Cit' y shall pay Contractor a fee not to exceed $77,538.00 without prior written modification to this Contract. Monthly payments for the work shall be based on the actual hours worked charged at the Contractor's normal billing rates as shown in Exhibit "C" to this Contract plus payment for direct expenses at actual cost with -no mark-up. SW 68th Parkway, Local Improvement District doper Consultants, Inc. -1- No direct expenses shall be charged for local mileage;or for incidental survey materials. Work;required and authorized in writing by the City shall be paid for at the rates shown in Exhibit "C", "Schedule of Charges". Payments to Contractor hereunder shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of prcp, r invoice. All invoices must be submitted to Accounts Payable, at the City's address. A copy of each invoice, marked "COPY" in y an obvious manner must also be submitted to City's Representative. 7. >Indemnification: Contractor Shall indemnify and hold harmless City, its Officers, p oyees and Representatives against and from any and all loss, claims,' actions, suits, including costs and attorney's fees, for or on account of injury, bodily or otherwise, to; or death of persons, damage to; or destruction of property belonging to City, Contractor or others, resulting from, arising out of, or in any way connected with Contractor's activities hereunder, excepting only such injury or harm as may be caused solely by the faslt or negligence of the City, its Officers, Employees and/or Representatives. . 8. Insurance: Prior ,to starting work hereunder, Contractor, at Contractor's cost, shall secure and continue to carry during the term of this Contract, with an insurance company acceptable to City, the following insurance: ae Public Liability and Property Damage insurance with limits of not less than $100,000 for injury to one person, $300,000 for injury to two or more persons in, one occurrence, and $50,000 for damage to property. Such insurance shall cover all risks arising dir- ectly 'or indirectly out of Contractor's activities or work here- under,' including the operations of its subcontractors or any tier. Such insurance shall include.provisions or endorsements naming City, its Officers, Employees and Representatives as additional Insureds, provisions that such insurance is primary insurance with respect to the interests of the City and that any other insurance maintained by City is excess and not contributory insurance with the insurance required hereunder; .cross-liability or severability of interest clause; and provisions that such policies shall not be'. cancelled on its -limits of liability reduced without thirty (30) days prior notice to City. A copy of each insurance policy, certified as a true copy by an authorized representative of the issuing insurance. ccmpany, or at the discretion of City, in lieu thereof, a certificate in formsatisfactory to City certifying to the issuance of such insurance shall be furnished to City. b. Workman's Compensation from the State Accident Insurance Fund or from a responsible private carrier. Private insurance shall provide the schedule of employee benefits required by law. c. Professional Liability Insurance. The Contractor shalt have in force a policy of professional liability insurance in an amount of not less than $500,000. Contractor shall keep such policy in force and current during the term of this Contract. SW 68th Parkes Local Im rovement District - aopertants,--Inc. g. Contractor's Payments- due, promptly. as to all persor►s supplying to Contractor, labor or material for the } prosecution of the work hereunder; pay all contributions or amounts due the IndustrialAccident Fund` d frau Contractor or Subcontractor incurred in the performance of the-contract; pay to the Department of Revenue i all sums 'withheld from employees pursuant to ORS 316.167. 1f the Contractor fails, neglectsn or refuses to make prompt payment, the City may pay such claim to the person furnishing the labor or services and charge the amount of the payment against funds due or to become due the Contractor hereunder. Such payments by the rity shall not relieve:the Contractor or his sureties from obligation with respect to any unpaid r claims. : 10. Contractor's Employees Medical Payments: Contractor shall pay promptly as due, to any person, co-partnership, association or corporation x. furnishing medical , surgical , and hospital care or other needed care and attention incident to `sickness or injury to his employees, all sums which he agreed to pay for such'services and all moneys and sums which he collected or deducted from employees wages pursuant ;to any law, contract or agreement for providing or paying for such service. 11. E ual Emptoymentent:__ To the extent applicable, Contractor represersts that e wy command have his subcontractors comply with the following: t. E.O. 11246 and 41 CFR 60-1.4 and 60-1.7 Employment of Veterans; E.O. 11701 and 41 CFR 60-250.4 Handicapped; E.O. 11758 and CFR 60-741.4, Min Business Enterprises; E.O. 11625 and 41 CFR sub-part 1-13, Age Discrimination; E.O. 11141 and all rules and regulations issued thereto. 12. Inde endent Contractor: Contractor is an independent contractor and , all persons employed by Contractor in connection herewith shall be employees of Contractor and not employees or agency of City,. 13. General _Supervision: All work will be subject to general supervision r ani nspect�on by City's Representative who may exercise such control of the work as required to safeguard the City's interests and will have the authority to reject unsatisfactory work or materials. Any subcon K tractor or any persons employed by Contractor who is deemed by the . representative of City to be incompetent shall be removed from the job at the request of the City's Representative. 14. Warranties and 0a+cnership of Work: Contractor warrants that all design, . workmanship and materials shall be the best available in the industry. Neither acceptance of the work nor payment therefor shall relieve Contractor from liability under warranties contained in or implied by k this Contract. All work, materials, maps, drawings, reporgs and Information accumulated or produced under this Contract shall be the property of City. 15. Assignment and Delegation: Contractor shall not assign any rights nor delegate any duties incurred by this Contract, or any part hereof without the written cons.�ent of City, and any assignment or delegation in violatiop hereof shall be voids. SW 68th Parkway Local Improvement District " ooper ionsuTtantS, Inc. _3� 16. Subcontracts: Contractor shall not sub-contract or permit any portion o t` Ke aaoff to be further sub-contracted without the prior written approval of City, and Contractor shall be fully responsible' for the acts or omissions of any subcontractors and of all persons employed by them, and neither the approval by City of any subcontractor nor anything contained herein shall be deemed to create any contractual relation between the subcontractor and City. 17. Changes: City may at any time, and without notice, issue written direcions requiring additional work within the general scope of this Contract, or any amendment thereto, or directing the omission of our variation in work. if such direction results in a material change in the amount or character of the work, an equitable adjustment in the Contract price and other provisions of this Contract as may be affected may be made and the Contract shall be modified in writing accordingly. Any claim by Contractor for an adjustment under this section must be asserted in writing within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt by Contractor of the notification of change or the;claim`will not be allowed. Whether made pursuant to this section or by mutual agreement, no change shall be binding upon City until a Change Order is executed by -the Authorized .Representativeof City, whic�i`expressly states that it constitutes a Change Order to this Contract. The issuance of infor- mation, advice, approvals, or instructions by City's Representative or other City personnel shall not consitutue an authorized change pursuant to, this section. Nothing contained in this section shall excuse the Contractor from proceeding with the prosecution of the work in accord- ance with the 'Contract. 18. Won-Waiver: The failure of City to insist upon or enforce'strict perper�o ante by Contractor of any of the terms of this Contract or to exercise any rights hereunder shall not be construed as a waiver or relinquishment to any extent of its right to assert or rely upon such terms or rights on any future occasion. 19. Force Majeure: Neither City nor Contractor shall be considered in de- fault of any delays in completion of responsibilities hereunder due to causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence on the part of the party so disenabled, including, but not restricted to, an act of God or of a public enemy, fire, flood, epidemic, quarantine, restriction, area-wide strike, freight embargo, unusually severe weath- er or delay of subcontractor or suppliers due to such cause; provided that party so disenabled shall within ten (10) days from the beginning of such delay notify the other party in writing of the causes of delay and its probable extent. Such notification shall not be the basis for a claim for additional compensation. 20. Termination: City may terminate all or some portion of this Contract mahout cause prior to its completion by sending to Contractor thirty (80) days written notice of such termination. Upon such termination, City shall pay to Contractor in full satisfaction and discharge of all liability and obligations owed to Contractor an amount computed according to Section 6 "Consideration", for all work satisfactorily performed by; Contractor as of date of termination, SW 68th Parkway local Improvement District Cooper ConsuT�tants, Inca -q- 21. Compliance with Laws and Regulation: Contractor represents and warrants that he will comply with all requirements of any applicable � federal , state and local laws or regulation including: ORS 279.316, 279.334 e 279.342 limitation on working hours and overtime pay requirements ORS 279.318 environmental and natural resource laws and rules; ORS 279.350 wages; not less than prevailing rages; ORS 279.354 p Contractor's certification of wage rates; ORS 279.021 perferences for Oregon Contractors and reporting requirements for foreign Contractors. - 22. No Lien or Claim: Contractor shall not permit any lien or claim to be filed or prosecuted against.the State, County, 'School' District, Municipality, Municipal Corporation';or Subdivision thereof, on account of any labor or material furnished. 23. Applicable Lass: This Contract' will be governed by the laws of the State of Oregon. Duly 'executed in duplicate this day of1983. FOR CONTRACTOR: FOR CITY: 6y T r1: R Title: tTitle: -��- SW 68th Parkway Local Improvement District Cooper consultantts, nc. my_ II ji INE I ON EXHIBIT A CITY OF TIGARO,OREGON STATEMENT OF WORK SW 68TH PARKWAY LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT COOPER CONSULTANTS, INC. The Contractor shall perform all tasks numbered 4 through 12 in the Can- tract Mork Program (Exhibit B). The work shall consist of the descriptive sub-tasks shown under each task heading, and other work customarily associ- ated with said tasks as more particularly described below for design and construction management of SW 68th Parkway Local Improvement District, ,essentially as proposed in the Engineer's Preliminary Report of'April, 1983 adopted by City of Tigard Ordinance No. 83-31, June'27, 1983. The Fork Program (Exhibit B) is further defined as follows: TASK 4 -- Road design includes 68th.and Atlanta intersection (conferences with State on geometry not to exceed 12 flours) and 'r€design of 'SW 69th (outside of Pacific Highway right-of-way). Submit four (4) sets of preliminary plana and specifications for review. Topographic survey includes tree surveys. TASK 5 -- Submit four (4) sets of final plans and specifications for review. TASK 6 -- Not more than twelve (12) day or evening meetings. TASK 7 -- Right-of-way acquisitions at the cost formula stated in Engi- neer's Preliminary Report (no appraisals required). Descriptions: not more than ten (10) for slope easements; seven (7) for right-of-way; seven (7) for.construction easements. One map per parcel . TASK 8 -- Research for, property corners will not require more than sixteen (16) hours. TASK 9 -- Specifications to be APWA, except as special modifications required. General conditions provided by CiL'. Ccntractor to provide twenty (20) sets of plans and specifications for distribution to bidders. TASK 10 -- Contractor to provide: a) staking of clearing limits; b) rough grade staking - centerline and slope stakes at 50 foot intervals and at beginning and end of curves; c) subgrade - centerline and curb at 50 foot intervals on tangents, 25 foot intervals on curves, and at beginning and end of curves; and d) culverts, sanitary servers, storm drains -- at 100 foot intervals, and at 10 feet, 25 feet, and 50 feet out of manholes. Restaking to be at construction contractor's expense. Ski 68th Parkway Local improvement District Cooper Consultants, Inc. -6m TASK 11 -- Inspector will be on site only when required by the work and on . four (4) working hours notice. Appearance for fractional days will be charged at four (4) hours minimum. Total inspection time of more than forty (40) days will be as extra work. Estimated Testing: 45 in-place density tests 3 moisture density tests 1 extraction-gradation test 1 marshall test l r Additional tests shall be extra work. TASK 12 -- Contractor to provide excavation for monument boxes; City to provide box. Six monuments to be set. SW 68th.Parkway Loral Improvement District ooperonsu tants, nlnc, Id MIM i lz ME EXHIBIT B WORK PROGRAM Cost Estimate SumarY TASK I -- FEASIBILITY REPORT (Preparation of maps and determination of scope; identify ownerships; inspect site, conduct soils investigations; plan and profile route; plan and profile alternate(s); develop " cross-section(s); identify right-of-way requirements; preparation of cost estimate(s); review with City Engineer; assemble and print report; present: report to Council) Classification Hours Rate " Cost ' Senior Engineer Junior Engineer Technician Land Surveyor COMPLETED Office Surveyor 3-Pian Survey. Crew Office SUBTOTAL -- LABOR Direct` Expenses SUBTOTAL -- TASK I TO.SK 2 --- GENERAL IISSESSMEhT PLAN (Identify property values; determine assessment boundary; determine assessment methodology and formula(s); review with City Engineer; assemble and print plan; present report to Council) Classification Hours Rate Cost Senior Engineer Junior Engineer Technician Land Surveyor COMPLETED Office Surveyor 3-Man Survey Crew Office SUBTOTAL -- LABOR Direct Expenses SUBTOTAL -- TASK 2 SN 68th Parkwa Local Im rovement District ooper onsu tants, Inc. -8- TASK 3 _s E INEER'S REPORT (Consolidate Feasibility Report and :Assessment P1an; determine assessment distribution; prepare assessment roll ; prepare preliminary design plans and specifications, prepare intent resolution; prepare creation ordinance; review with City Engineer; write and print report; present report to Council) Classification Hours Rate Cost Senior Engineer Junior Engineer Technician Land Surveyor COMPLETED Office Surveyor 3-Man 'Survey Crean Office SUBTOTAL -- LABOR Direct Expenses SUBTOTAL -- TASK 3 TASK 4 -- PRELIMINARY DESIGN (Develop construction plans with topographic map and tree survey, plan view line, profile view grade, special details, cross sections and earthwork; confer with Highway Division on geometry; develop construction specifications including materials, testing, and special specifications; submit to City Engineer) Classification Hours Rate Cost Senior Engineer 132.046.15. $ 6,091.80 Junior Engineer 140.0 33.80 4,732.00 Technician 120.0 27.50 3,300.00 Land Surveyor 16.0 42.40 678.40 Office Surveyor 16.0 33.55 536.80 3-Man Survey Crew 76.0 76.30 5,798.80 Office 72.0 14.30 1,029.60 SUBTOT __ LABOR $ 22,167.40 Direct Expenses 4,500.00 Soils Report - SUBTO3A1. TASK 4 $ 26,667.40 SW 68th Parkway Local Improvement District Cooper consultants, Inca -9- ._. TASK 5 FINAL DESIGN (Finalize construction plans and specifications; submit to City Engineer; and prepare final engineer's cast estimate) Classification Hours Rate Cost Senior Engineer 44.0 46.15 $ 2,030.60 3 Junior Engineer 64.0 33.80 2,163.20 Technician 56.0 ' 27.50 1,540.00 Land Surveyor 8.0 42.40 339.20 Office Surveyor 0.0 ' 33.55 0.00 3-fan Survey Crew 0.0 76.30 0.00 Office 32.0 14.30 457.60 SUBTOTAL -- LABOR $ 6,530.60 Direct Expenses Reproduction 1,500.00 SUBTOTAL -- TASK 5 $ 8,030.60 Y ' TASK 6 -- MEETINGS/HEARINGS (Consult with City Engineer prior to Council presentations; assist with public nearing; assist with assessment remonstrance hearing Classification Hours Rate Cost Senior Engineer , 44.0 46.15 $ 2,030.60 Junior Engineer 0.0 33.80 0.00 Technician - 1660 27.50 440.00 Land Surveyor 0.0 42.40 0.00 Office Surveyor 0.0 33.55 0.00 3-Man Survey Crew 0.0 76.30 0.00 Office 4.0 14.30 57.20 SUBTOTAL -- LABOR $ 2,527.80 Direct Expenses 0.00 SUBTOTAL -- TASK 6 $ 2,527.80 Sid 68th Parkway Local Improvement District Cooper ensu tants, Inc. -10- y z, 4 e i TASK 7 -- RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION (Preparation of right-of-way maps; preparation of descriptions (right-of-way and easement); preparation of documents; negotiate Agreement(s); submit report to City Engineer) Classification Hours Rate Cost Senior Engineer 12.0 46.15 553.80 Junior Engineer 16.0 33.80 540.80 f Technician 32.0 27.50 880.00 � Lased Surveyor 20.0 42.40 848.00 Office Surveyor 28.0 33.55 939,40 € 3-Pian Surtsey Crew 8.0 76.30 610.40 Office 24.0 14.30 343.20 SUBTOTAL -- LABOR $ 4,715.60 Direct Expenses ovoo SUBTOTAL _- TASK 7 $ 4,715.60 f . TASK €1 -- STAKE RIGHT-£F-WAY ( Research and boundary resolution; set centerline''and right-of-way for review; construction bidders review; construction progress; final monumentation) Classification Hours Rate Cost Senior Engineer 20.0 46.15 $ 923.00 Junior Engineer 0.0 33.80 0.00 Technician 0.0 27.50 0.00 Land Surveyor 8.0 42.40 339.20 office Surveyor 16.0 33.55 536.80 3-Man Survey Crew 0.0 75.30 0,00 Office 16.0 14.30 228..80 SUBTOTAL -- ICOR $ 2,027.80 Direct Expenses 0.00 SUBTOTAL -- TASK 8 $ 2,027.80 SW 58th Parkway Local Im rovement District Cooper Consultants, Inc. -11- Mil i ONE iii TISK 9 CONSTRUCTION BIO (Preparation of bid packets to include bid notice, proposal , agreement, bond, insurance, general and special condi _tions; conduct packet distribution; conduct bid opening; preparation of bid summary ;and award recommendation; submit to City ;Engineer) Classification Hours Rate Cost Senior Engineer 32.0 46.15 $ 1,476.80 Junior Engineer 24.0 33.80 811.20 Technician 8.0 27.50 220.00 Land Surveyor 00 42.40 0.00 t Office Surveyor0.0 33.55 0.00 3-Man Survey Crew 0.0 76.30 0.00 Office 32.0 14.30 457.60 } SUBTOTAL. -- LABOR $ 2,965.60 s� Direct Expenses- - 0.00 SUBTOTAL. TASK 9 $ 2,965.60 3 R TASK 10 -- CONSTRUCTION STAKEOUT (Construction progress) x _ Classification hours Rate Cost §= Senior Engineer 8.0 46.15 $ 369.20 Junior Engineer 0.0 33.80 0.00 Technician 0.0 27.50 0.00 Land Surveyor 8.0 42.40 339.20 Office Surveyor 0.0 33.55 0.00 3-Man Survey Crena 144.0 76.30 10,987.20 Office 0.0 14.30 0.00 $ 11,695.60 SUBTOTAL �- LABOR Direct Expenses 0.fl0 SUBTOTAL -- TAS 10 $ 11,695.60 ' i District Sid 68th Parkwa �,ocal improvement Cooper Consultants, nc® 12 :. g F TASK 11 ---- INS.PECTION AN PAYMENTS, (Conduct construction inspection and tests incluidng submission of reports and recom+nendations reivew construction progress payments and recommend payment; preparation of extra work and Change Orders; conduct construction final inspection ,preparation of defect/deficiency;list; pursue corrections; prepare construction final payment recommendation to City Engincer) Classification irs Rate 'Cost Senior Engineer 20.0 46.15 $ 923:00 Junior Engineer 40.0 33.80 1,352.00 Technician 320.0 27.50 8,800.00 Land Surveyor 0.0 42.40 0.00 Office Surveyor ' 0.0 33.55 0.00 3-Man 'Survey 'Crew 0.0 76.30 0.00 Office 24.0 14.30 343.20 R SUBTOTAL -- LABOR $ ,11,418.20 Direct Expenses Tz:sti ng 1,150.00 SUBTOTAL -- TASK 11 $ 12,568.20 TASK 12 -- PROJECT CLOSEOUT (Monument right-of-way centerlines; prepare and record survey; prepare construction as-builts; prepare final assessment roll; submit report to City Engineer) Classification Hours Rate Cost Senior Engineer 24.0 46.15 $ 1,107.60 Junior Engineer 12.0 33.80 405.60 Technician 48.0 27.50 1,320.00 Land Surveyor 12.0 42.40 508.80 Office Surveyor 16.0 33.55 536.80 3-Man Survey Crew 30.0 76.30 2,289.00 Office 12.0 14.30 171.60 SUBTOTAL -- LABOR $ 6,339.40 Direct Expenses 0.00 SUBTOTAL -- TASK 12 $ 6,339.40 SW 68th Parkway Local Improvement D21strict Codpeir Cons- u-Ttants, Inc 13 �M k, TOTAL DIRECT LABOR (Tasks 4 through 12) $',70,388.00 TOTAL "DIRECT EXPENSE (Tasks 4 through 12) 7,150.00 CONTRACT PRICE $ 77,538.00 SW 68th Parkwa tonal Improvement District Caopeo -Con-s-ul tants, Ink. -14 9 d«. J EXHIBIT C SCHEDULE OF CHARGES LABOR Title Class Hourly Rate Senior Engineer E V $ 46.15 Junior Engineer E II 33.80 Technician T III 23.05 Land Surveyor P V 42.40 Office Surveyor P` IV 33.55 3-Man Survey Crepe 76.30 Office Clerical C II 14.30 DIRECT EXPENSES (EXTRA kIORK) Testing Field Density $ 20.00/hour Moisture-Density 100.00/each .Extraction-Gradation 45.00/each Marshall 100.00/each t It t i Sid 68th Parkway Local Improvement District Cooper onsultants,- Inc. -15- lon i NONE= ,m`- 11111 (' CITY OF TIGARD,�N COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY E' AGENDA.OF: November 7, 1983 AGENDA ITEM DATE SUBMITTED: October 31, '1983 PREVIOUS ACTION: ISSU%/AGENDA TITLE: Change Order a' REQUESTED BY: Public Works — # 5 w�. iCITY ADMINISTRATOR: _.. DEPARTMENT HEAD OEC: se INFORMATION SUMMARY g` �r Attached is change order No. 5 for S.W. 72nd Avenue L.YCD. #21. The,total amount is $8993.70 for extra work at the two railroad crossings and will be reimbursed to the city by the Engineering Consultant. &, . RSH64SSg R444HHH4 46C................. ........66 S1Rff.HlL6(RH66T..........4=OII'G.—.SS SS C46�6H ALTERMP,TIVES CONSIDERED None ' .H6.RQ6 d564L1 Q6..QRHQH R4HH.H!¢6QH@R.NFI................ ........H6K644Q.......T HQyfg HgHS446SFf44.64HH 646 SUGGESTED ACTION Staff recommends approval of, and authorization for, staff to sign the change order #5 in the amount of $8993,70, to the contract with Columbia Excavating for the construction of Local Improvement District # 21 - S.W. 72nd Ave. DE HAAS & a ' V. suite 445-AGC Center 9511-V9450 S.W.Commerce Circle Wilsonville,Oregon 97070 . . . .29 s s oc1a e s, Inco c503)682-2450 ' colrsulting Engineers 9,Surveyors RECEIVED 19193 October 26, 1983 CITY OF TIGARI) Frank A. Currie, P.E. City of Tigard P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Frank: Attached for your review and approval are three (3) copies of Change Order No. 5 with documentation for S.W. 72nd Avenue Street Improvements. Please 'execute and return two (2) copies of the Change Order. { The Change Order No. 5 was necessitated to facilitate a design change which affects the matching of gutter grades to the top of the rails rather than to the top of curb 'grades. The construction costs reflected by Change Order No. 5 should be processed with the contract .in the usual manner to keep contract continuity intact. De Naas & Associates, Inc. will reimburse the City of Tigard directly in the amount of $8,99330, the amount of the Change Order, and will make no additional charge for redesign, surveying, inspection and other related contract administration costs. ir cerely, lin J. a Haas, P.E. :pk Attachments cc: Kenneth E. Roberts, P-.C. 80.194.118 CHANGE ORDER (No. 5 PROJECT: S.W. 72nd Avenue Area Street Improvements-'LID 21 CONTRACTOR: ColumbiaExcavating, Inc. It is hereby agreed by the -EEe -ir3ee } (Owner) and the Contractor that the following changes he made in the construction of the above project: Price Agreement This price'agreement is for extra work completed at the two (2) railroad crossings to facilitate 'a design change which effects the matching of gutter grades to the top of the rails rather than 'top of curb grades The resultant change order cost is arrived at by taking the total extra work completed by the _ Contractor ($9,079.20) and subtracting therefrom the algebraic sum of the value of portions' of such work which will be paid the Contractor under unit prices for the "As Built" project ($85.50), the net total being $8,993.70. Detailed cost breakdowns are attached. The cost of these changes shall be as follows : $8,993.70 which amount shall be (Added to) the present contract sum. Time Extension for Extra Work Change Orders The time of completion of the work shall be extended 0 calendar days to allow the contractor time to complete the extra work required in the change order. APPROVED: ate: --%2 Contractor _ j� APPROVED: Date : --&T4gi4V8er Owner Project Change Order No. 5 F t Change Order No. 5 S.W. 72nd Avenue Area Street Improvements-LID 21 Work Items 1. - Remove 363 lineal feet of curb 2. Remove 3 catch basins ` 3. Construct 363 lineal feet of curb 4 4. Construct 3 catch basins - 5.' Construct 75 lineal feet of 12" catch basin laterals e 6.' Remove 150; square feet of 6" concrete apron 7 Construct,150, square'feet of 6" concrete apron Itemized Cost of Mork s 1. Saw Asphaltic Concrete a). Saw, 8 hours @ $25.00 _ S 200.00 b). ; Operator, 8 hours @ $25.00 200.00 c). Water Supply, 4 hours @ $24.00 = 96.00 � F 496.00 2.. Removal Work (Curb, Apron & Catchbasins) a).,`, 580:Backhoe, 8 hours @ $24.00 = $ 192.00 b). Operator, 8 hours @ $25.00 = 200.00 c). Dump Truck', 8 hours @ $45.00 = 360.00 d) Laborers, '16 man hours @ $20.00 = 320.00 e). Jackhammer, 8 hours @ Lump Sum $125.00 = 125.00 $ 1 ,197.00 3. Storm Drains a). 10" Concrete Pipe, 55 lineal feet @ $7.20 = $ 396.00 b). 12" Concrete R1pe, 20 lineal feet @ $7.95 = 159.00 c). Pipe Delivery, Lump Sum @ $50.00 d). 580 Backhoe, 16 hours @ $24.00 = 384.00 e). Operator, 16 hours @ $25.00 = 400.00 f). Laborers, 32 man hours @ $20.00 = 640.00 g). Dump Truck, 8 hours @$32.00 = 256.00 h). Jackhammer, 8 hours @ Lump Sum $125.00 = 125.00 i). Crushed Rock, 28 cubic yards @ $6.50 = 182.00 j), Miscellaneous Materials, @ Lump Sum $250.00 = 250,00 $ 2,842.00 4. Curb Replacement a). Concrete, 14.5 cubic yards @ $40.00 = $ 580.00 b). Set Forms and Pour, 8 hours @ $85.00 = 680.00 c). Pick up Forms and Miscellaneous Materials, Lump Sum @ $100.00 100.00 $ 1 ,360.00 Change Order No. 5 S.W. _72nd Avenue Area Street Improvements-LID 21 5. Driveway Replacement a). Concrete, 3.5 cubic yards @ $50.00 = $ 175.00 b). Set Forms and Pour, 4 hours @ $85.00 = 340.00 $ 515.00 6. Catch Basin Construction 150.00 a). Concrete, 3 cubic yards @ $50.00 $ 00. b). Excavation, 8 hours @ $25.00 = 200 � c). Pour,` 4 hours @ $75.00 = 300.00 d). Frames, 3 @ $70.00 = 210.00 e). 580 Backhoe, 4 hours @'$24.x0 = 96.00 f). Operator, 4 hours @ $25.00 = 100.00 $ 1,056.00 7. Abandon Catch Basins and Plug Lines @ Lump Sum $100.00 = $ 100.00 $ 7,566.00 Administration, Overhead and Profit (90%% 1 ,513.20 TOTAL COST $ 9,079.20 Adjustment Reflecting As-Built Pay Quantities 1. Spur Track - Deduct the contract price of additional work which will be paid for as a,part of As-Built quantities under the «, original contract. Catch Basin Laterals (20°) a). Excavation, .20 lineal feet @ $1 .25 = $ 25.00 b). Backfill , 20 lineal feet @ $5.70 = 114.00 c). Gravel Base and Pipe Zone, 20 lineal feet @ $2.75 55.00 d). 12 15 Concrete Pipe, 20 lineal feet @ $5.00 = .00 ($ 294.00) 2. Main Track Add the contract price of that portion of the original work which was abandoned and will not be reflected as a part of As-Built quantities under the original contract. Catch Basin Laterals (15') a). Excavation, 15 lineal feet @ $1 .25 = $ 18.75 b). Backfill , 15 pineal feet @ $5.70 = 85.50 c). Gravel Base and Pipe Zone, 15 lineal feet @ $2.75 = 41.25 d). 10" Concrete Pipe, 15 lineal feet @ $4.20 63.00 $ 208.50 Net Total Change Order No. 5 $ 8,993.70 k Q � -2- y CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON -COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: November 7, 1983 AGENDA ITEM DATE SUBMITTED: November 1, 1983 PREVIOUS ACTION: Approved Resolution ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Economic October 17, 1933. Develonment Committee Resolution REQUESTED BY: WAM Amendment DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: �!!�'u CITY ADMINISTRATOR: INFORMATION SUMMARY The Council approved a resolution creating an Economic Development: Committee on October 17, 1983. 1 would like to modify the resolution by deleting Section'2 and replacing it with: 2. The Committee will consist of nine members, no more than two of whom may be �t non-residents of the City of Tigard, to be appointed 'uy ; he City Council. �r. Initially, four members will be appointed for two year terms and four for one `year terms. The remaining position, that of the Mayor, will run co-terminus with the term of office. Subsequent appointments, except that of the Mayor, will be for two year terms except where an appointee is completing the unexpired term of a previous committee member. Committee members shall receive no compensation. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED �esc®�=��sxaxars=ai�a�ac,tea acffi�arcr�=azzsa —c._=..a_--._cccarc::na_ca======a_-ezexs=o�rzsas�m�mc=c=anm SUGGESTED ACTION Staff recommends that,the City Council approve this modification. l CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COU14CIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA.OF: November 7 1983 AGENDA ITEM 4: y' Z DATE SUBMITTED: October 31 1983 PREVIOUS ACTION: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Acceptance'of 72nd Avenue Right-of-Way REQUESTED BY: Public 'Works DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: � CITY ADMINISTRATOR: _ INFORMATION SUMMARY Attached are signed right-of-way and easement documents for 'Idents # 67 (Rogers-corner of Bonita and 72nd) and Ident #40 (Halvorsen) totaling $21,499.64. This represents a savings of $19,325.36 over the original estimated cost for this right-of-way. s N QRa RRRTER RRffi RRlR>ffiRR RC4B6fE[/RRQWR6®Rtbf WiaQRQFIIRffi6lSRi[88SSRffiRSIRRQSRRQ GS6LL•�RR QR RiRRffiffiS.QaRRQQ ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED n None A aRRRct..............trs....®tRRm RRsmtsesRRRt�RteRRsuaawRa Ratan Rffies euassRaau Rxmawa na Qaa Rn mQm Qs� SUGGESTED ACTION Staff recommends Council accept these rights-of-way' and easements and authorize the Mayor to sign them. v DE HAAS & 96 95 Suite 445-AGC Center ... .. ....... 9450 S.W.Commerce Circle 103 Wilsonville,Oregon 97070 . . B s s o c i a e s g c. (503)682-2450 Consulting Engineers&Surveyors October 21, 1983 Frank A. Currie, P.E. Director of Public Works City of: Tigard 12755 S.W. Ash Avenue PO. Box 23397 Tgard, OR 97223 Dear Frank: ' Attached are 72nd Avenue related documents which we are providing for consideration by the Council. Ident. 67 (Rogers) a. Street Dedication b.::- Easement,:for,Utilities c. Construction Easement d. Storm Drain Easement - With respect to Ident. 67, costs for the five (5) foot street dedication and easements are calculated as follows: Street Dedication 5,405 ft.2 @ $2.25 $12,161.25 Easement for Utilities 1.00 Construction Easement 2 1.00 Storm Drain Easement 2,803 ft. @ $1.125 3,159.39 TOTAL $15,322.64 This compares with an amount of $27,825.00 appraised for the prior taking and improvements. Please draft a check in--the amount of $15,322.64 to Susan Rogers. ' It should not be necessary -to record the Construction Easement. Inasmuch as a sale of the subject property is imminent, .Council approval should be at the October 24, 1983 meeting so that we can personally assure the recordation Of these � documents before the Rogers' sale is recorded. a Frank A. Currie, P.E. Page 2 October 21 , 1983 Ident. 40 (Halvorson) a. Street Dedication b. Easement for Utilities c. Easement for Storm Drain d. Construction Easement With respect to Ident. 40, costs for the five (5) foot street dedication and easements are calculated as follows: Street Dedication .2,048 ft.2 @ $3.00 $ 6,174.00 Easement for Utilities 1.00 Easement for Storm Drain 1 .00 Construction Easement 1 .00 TOTAL $ 6,177.00 This 'compares with an amount of $13,000.00 appraised for the prior taking and improvements. Please draft a check in the amount of $6,177.00 to Halvorson Investment Company. It should not be necessary to record the Construction Easement.' Inasmuch. as a sale of the subject property is imminent, Council, approval should be at the October 24,-1983 meeting so we can personally assure recordation of these documents before the Halvorson sale is recorded. Sincerely, Marlin J. Haas, P.E. MJD:pk Attachments cc: 80.194.118 (Ident. 40) (Ident. 67) ME OFF Ident 67 STREET DEDICATION KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that Susan V. Rogers hereinafter called grantor(x), for the sum of grant and dedicate to the Public a perpetual right-of-way for street, road and utility r. purposes on, overt across,' under, along and within the following described real property in Washington County, Oregon: See Exhibit "A" Attached To have and to hold the above-described and dedicated rights unto the Public for the uses and purposes hereinabove stated. The grantor(9c) hereby covenants that)be (she) VA)e a) is 6e=a the owner(s() in fee simple and have good and legal right to grant ftis (her) 66ladmc) rights g above-described. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the grantor(%) has ( ) haereunto set t" (her) (ts'mft) X 3. hands) and seat(S) this ��_day of .S�t°? 19�. + € t (SEAL) (SEAL) h (SEAL) (SEAL) ( I STATE OF OREGON ss. COUNTY OF WASHINGTON) ' ` BE IT REMEMBERED that on this day of5 IJ —, + 19 • before me the undersigned Notary Public in and for the ,tate of Oregon personally appeared the within-named I who is (ace) known to me to be the identical individual(:0 described in and who executed the within instrument and acknowledged to me that be (she) (they) executed the same freely and voluntarily. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this Z- day of S 19 ip I ' Not ry u Ic f regon My . omission Expires: Reproved as to form this 19.._-- ' y' ty ttorney p pity o gar ` Approved as to legal::,Oescription this w�( —day of d 19 . x t 1 ,Approved;this -day of CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON BY.. Ident 40 STREET DEDICATION KNOW-ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that Halvorson Investment Company, an Oregon Corporation hereinafter called grantor(s), for the sum of q4�grant and dedicate to the'Public'a perpetual right-of-way for street, road and utility purposes On, over, across, under, along and within the following described real property in Washington County, Oregon: See Exhibit "A" Attached To have and to hold the above-described and dedicated rights unto the Public for the uses and purposes hereinabove stated. The grantor(s) hereby;covenants that they are the owner(s) in fee'simple and have good and legal right to grant their rights-above-described. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the grantor(s) have hereunto set their hand and seals this 24th day of October, 1983 HALVORSON INVESTMENT COMPANY (SEAL) �ypAL) lCa l M. H lvorson,President (SEAL)` (SEAL) IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned corporation has caused this Street Dedication Lo he executed by its duly authorized, undersigned officers acting pursuant to recolutior, of its Board of Directors. HALVORSON INVESTMENT COMPANY Name oZdtor atBy'P By: Secretary STATE OF OREGON ) CCnNTY OF Multnamah ) On this `zth da of October 83 Y , 19 , personally appeared the above named CARL M. HALVORSOiv and acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary act and deed. Before Met o pry Publi for Oregon My Commission expires: 9/22/85 ACCEPTANCE APpr)ved as to form this day of 19_ City AttorneyCity of Tigard Approved as to legal description thisday of , 193. er Accepted by the City Council this day of , 19: By- City-Recorder yeCityRecorder City of Tigard tn 3 V D'jE._HAA$_..&.... Suite 445,AGC.Center.-..� ... .. % -•9S9450 S.W.Coe»morc;3.Circls 6!' a Wilsonville,Oregon 97070 i' ?� a9T l gInc. (503)682-2450 %. ' Consulting Engineers&Surveyors m w October 21 , 1983 `- Frank:A. Currie,` P.E. Iii rector of.Public Works >. Ci ty of Tigard ; .12755 S.W. Ash Avenue -'P.0. Box 23397 � .i gard, OR '97223 x z n Dear Frank ` ,� ,. •. tr s ` __; Attached are 72nd.Avenue"related documents,`vahich.we are provading for consa:de �taan by.the CoUn it R � Ydent. 67 R$ e�'S +[4t { 3:' > ` a 5tre d4dicati'an xxz E3seldil:aea" yq y�S �q +'y"ib �. 6 t �a/.+R7 i..S.�{.eenY „y y •i p.a yij. �,e 43 '4 �i "�. Sto9�nt'Dv'ai � a semen t .a. r*• ere! F v. :y _i g lith .respect to Ident 67, costs for the;,five (5) fort g- stre.et`:dedication°';aaad ;easements axe calculated:as fellows n S+reet; Redaction 5,405 ft..2 $2 2 $12,161.25 g 1 .00 Easement ft�r`Dti'�i"ties 1.Q0 ,u Canstructior 'Easement Storm Drain Easement 2,803,ft. @' $1 •125 3,159.39 TOTAL $15,322.64 t;q This compares with an amount of $27,825:00 appraised for the prior taking and_improvements. Please draft check in the err amount of $15'322.64 to 'Susan Rogers.,.- _7 sy It should not be 'necessary to'record,the Cons. ruction Easement. .. ;. Inasmuch as a sale of the subject Property his imminent,. Council;approval should be at the-,October 24, 1983 meeti in g so that we can personally assure the ..recordation of.these ;r '' documents before the Rogers' sale 7s• recorded. => hu F Frank:A,._,Currie, -P.E. October 21 , 1983 Ident. 40 (Halvorson) xt a Street Dedication _ b Easement :for�Utilities {; c. Easement for Storm Drain d. Construction Easement With respect to Ident. 40, costs for thefive (5) fo®t . street dedication and easements are',calculated as follO�Js t� Street Dedication 2;048'ft.2 @ $3.00 $ 6,174.,00 Easement for Utilities 1'.00 Easement for-Stcies 'Drain tonstruction�Easement 1,00 TOTAL :$ 6,177 00 This;'compares taith' an a iunt of $13,000 OO appraise1 .d for the . p�°f,or takfin ;and improvee�ts. Please drift .check :fin the V acr�unt'.oniPtmp1—CoY. I should not be.,necessar�5o rTc� �1 tt� onta^�s54��►; aent �. r } . y-`ice .,r t ;r, Ca�•Z`#., n o-1 r e e i 3^g�ja�f. j Inasmueh as a sale; oftie; et' ope�ir�, iv Gounci3 apprc►va1':shoula�tthe Ditob� ` . .q � W s® caa� yyersaanal � ^dat3e5a code IN3otonefa�e . ,may*${ s1i P' rF1 V m'v"'* R' S the Hal7orson sale 1s�re§ 41ncerelY s iarl�az-.J Haag;'P E. Attachments' cc: 80x194 1"l8 (jdent. 40) i w 3B 1 �y { CETY OF TEGARD, OREGON ISCOUNCEL AGENDA STEM SUMMARY AGENDA ITEM k: AGEHDA.OF: Nov. 7, 1983 PREVIOUS ACTION: DATE SUBMITTED: October 31� 1� 93 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Solid Waste Rate Comparison REQUESTED BY: Council CITY ADMINISTRATOR: DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: _$ GSffiL^@�@9�i'ice?:--�=cm•�23Y�Q-1flIILR�'"1SS�------ INFORMATION SUMMARY Attached for your information is .a comparison in this area. We still need to discuss a review of the components of how this rate is rtunity established and we need to reveiw SB 405 relative to providing the opp for each citizen to recycle. sxaa�amsatm:seamsa�es�mg�esreQe¢�msassssaxmmm�6aserassszerma�mesmas�maaffisa=sceacss�sccamaacamxa�csamrsie ALTERI�dATI'JES CONSIDERED f .. sasaaeum+ermasaamwsere+aaamaesmww�mnamm®�m+staaaecramm®srsmawamaseamammasacmaia rsmxaamssmmaam eicsas a.sz .. SUGGESTi?D ACTION Hold for future review. 04 >1� r � -4 N ti ro 7C C3 i ro {) U .A �:3 01 O O O Ln 4J Ln O Js 01 -,N (a U) H N (11 U .{.1 Ln Ln A ON m 00 M 04 O C Y4 0U X N>4 3 ro 4 4-) I rro7 N N LO Ln Ln O Ln N M0 «1 U 4-1 1- U1 113 U) 6l a r Ln ro o �o rn w ro c v ' o 0 U) G � � a 0 J-3 Hh to N CO tn. lO O O U '"4 > O co (3) LO 61 O V' H 0 ) M M M M: M OM.. d aU ° 0 z O cn _ H FCC 4J 04 z 0 rd 4.1 w c � � u s H LO ro S`I { H X bk z 3 in r Ln Ln w Ln Lo w rip ro OD O CO CO N CO. \. OD Y H fx N [Q Ff r4 z A � •_Y•1 H [a a-1 `o U co 5 p H r