City Council Packet - 04/09/1984 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an
`REGULAR MEETING AGENDA agenda item heeds to sign on the appropriate
.°+ APRIL 9, 1984, 7:30 P.M. sign
FOWLER
If no sheet is available,
m FOWLER<JUNIOR HIGH ask to be recognized by the Chair at the start '
'.Eu x10865 SW WALNUT of that agenda.item. Visitor's agenda items
_ H w TIGARD, OREGON 97223 are asked to be kept to 2 minutes or -less; longer
matters can be:set for future Agenda by con-
tacting either the Mayor or City Administrator.
7:30 1. REGULAR MEETING:
,- 1.1 Call To Order and Roll Call
4, 1.2 Pledge of`Allegiance
1.3 Call To Staff and'Council For Non-Agenda Items
7:40 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (2 Minutes or Less, Please)
7:50 .3. BONITA ROAD REPORT n
o Director of Public Works
B:00 4. CIVIC CENTER PROJECT REPORT
-_4.1 Measure #51, City,Building Bond ElectionResults'
4`.2 Space Needs Ill Report
o City Administrator
8:20 5. DARTMOUTH STREET LID FORMATION ORDINANCE NO. 84-
o Director of Public'Works
�x
8:30 6. PARK PLACE SUBDIVISION APPEAL BY WASHINGTON COUNTY/SUBDIVISION S 8-83PD
CENTURY"21 Homes Inc., NPO U3
An appeal by Washington County of a Planning Commission approval of a
conceptual and detailed'plan and preliminary plat of 'Phase 1, Park Place
Subdivision, submitted by Century 21 Properties.', The property is
located at 13900 SW 121st Avenue (Wash. Co. Tax Map ,2S1 4, Tax Lot 1400
and Map 2S1 3CC'Tax Lot 401).r This will be an "argument-type" hearing
only. The Council will consider only the record before the Planning
Commission. The Council will not consider any new testimony or evidence
' which isnot in the record.
` o Public Hearing opened
o Summation by Planning Staff
o Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross Examination
o Recommendation of Planning Staff/Planning Commission
o Public Hearing Closed
o Council Consideration/Direction to Staff
9:15 7. 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:
7.1 Approve Council Minutes - March 26, 1984
7.2 Approve NPO Member Appointments - NPO #1, 5, 6 6
7.3 Approve WCCLS Agreement
7.4 Approve Property Insurance Quote b Short Term Renewals to 11/5/84
7.5 Accept Subdivision Agreement - Bond Park II 6 Authorize Signatures
9:20 8. NON-AGENDA ITEMS: From Council and Staff
9:30 9. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive
Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1)(h) to discuss possible
litigation issues.
st ,00 10. ADJOURNMENT
lw/1402A
COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL 9, 1984 —PAGE 1
T I G A R DC I T Y - C O U N C I L
t. REGULAR MEETING MINUTES —APRIL 9, 1984, 1984 - 7:30 P.M.
1. ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor pro tem Kenneth Scheckla; Councilors: Tom
Brian, John Cook, and Ima Scott; City Staff: Frank Currie,;
Director of 'Public Works; Bob Jean, City Administrator;
Bill Monahan, Director of Plo,nning & Development; Mark
O'Donnell, Legal Counsel'; and Loreen Wilson, Deputy City
Recorder.
2. CALL TO STAFF AND COUNCIL FOR NON-AGENDA ITEMS
_ a. City Administrator reported that resolutions were distributed to
be considered' under item #7.2 for appointments to the Economic
Development Committee ind' Park Board.
b. Councilor Scott requested that #8.1 be discussion regarding
political signs.
9
C. Director` of Planning & Development distributed LCDC information
and stated this would be discussed at the 4/23/84 Council meeting.`
3. VISITOR'S AGENDA
a. ` No one appeared to speak.' ,.
4. BONITA ROAD REPORT
i
a. Director of Public Works reported that owner of property in
question was on vacation. The City still needs an easement before
work can proceed in the area. He advised Council that staff will
attempt to get an easement, but if property owner does not want to
sign the easement that the City should be prepared to condemn the
property for public safety reasons.
b. Consensus of Council was to have staff proceed to get necessary
easement and authorize the City Attorney's office to take steps to
begin the paper work to proceed with condemnation if easement is
not obtained. Staff is to report back to Council at the 4-23-84
meeting.
5. CIVIC_CENTER PROJECT REPORT
5.1 MEASURE #51, CITY BUILDING BOND ELECTION RESULTS
a. City Administrator reported that Measure #51 was approved at the
March 27, 1984 election with 1244 'Yes' votes cast and 875 'No'
votes cast.
b. Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Scott to accept
the election results report from Washington County Department of
Elections.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
Page 1 - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 9, 1984
k .
4 .
5.2 SPACE NEEDS III REPORT
a. City Administrator outlined the timetable for the Civic Center
program as set forth in his memo.
b. Consensus of Council was to have a committee of` perhaps 5 members
appointed to guide the Civic Center_`program. 2 o the members are
to have strong technical backgrounds in design/architect and the
other 3 members can be 'members at large' .` Councilor Scott
suggested advertising for volunteers in the Tigard Times or
Oregonian would be appropriate." Council agreed to advertise.
C. After further discussion, consensus of Council was to allow Mayor
pro tem Scheckla to -appoint by , May 1, 1984 members to this
committee if he obtains full consent of Council members. If full
Council does not agree on those people to be appointed to the new
committee, a'"speci'al Council meeting will be >called- on 5/7/84 to
consider this issue. City Administrator is to return to Council
on 4/23/84 with a; resolution to create the advisory 'committee and
set forth the scope and focus of the committee along with a
preliminary report on the interest applications received to date.
5. DARTMOUTH STREET LID FORMATION ORDINANCE
a. ' Director` of Public Works presented ordinance for Council
consideration and recommended approval. ' He also noted that
Council ,would.be holding�- g a pre-assessment
public hearing on April
.° 23, 1984.
b. ORDINANCE NO. 84-17 AN ORDINANCE CONFIRMING AND RATIFYING THE }
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF FEBRUARY 27, 1984, WITH RESPECT
TO THE BOUNDARIES OF THE DARTMOUTH STREET LOCAL IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT (LID #40) ESTABLISHING THE DISTRICT; APPROVING, RATIFYING
AND ADOPTING PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATES FOR CONSTRUCTION
OF STREET IMPROVEMENTS; DECLARING RESULTS OF THE HEARING HELD WITH
RESPECT TO THE IMPROVEMEN7; AND DETERMINING THE BENEFITED
PROPERTIES TO BE ASSESSED.
C. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Cook to adopt.
I
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
7. PARK PLACE SUBDIVISION APPEAL BY WASHINGTON COUNTY/SUBDIVISION S 8-83PD
CENTURY 21 Homes Inc., NPO #3
An appeal by Washington County of a Planning Commission approval of a
conceptual and detailed plan and preliminary plat of Phase I, Park Place
Subdivision, submitted by Century 21 Properties. The property is
Located at 13900 SW 121st Avenue (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 4, Tax Lot 1400
and Map 2S1 3CC Tax Lot 401). This will be an "argument-type" hearing
only. The Council will consider only the record before the Planning
Commission, The Council will not consider any new testimony or evidence
F which is not in the record. ,
4 ,
a. Legal Counsel gave information to Council regarding broader ,
implications of the issues raised by the appellant in this issue
and advised Council on the extent to which those matters were
relevant to the quasi-judicial decision before them. lie stated
Page 2 - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 9, 1984
r
that a policy issue dispute of placement of an 'extension of Murray
' Blvd. was not a basis to deny the landowner and encouraged Council
to base their decision on evidence presented at the Planning A
Commission hearing 'on the record' . '-
b Public 'Hearing Opened
co Director of Planning & Development gave synopsis of history and
stated that ;Planning Staff has tried to resolve the transportation
issues with WashingtonCounty. Staff has also presented ° a UPAA
agreement to the County and suggested a committee be formed with
County and City representatives to resolve the matter. He also
reviewed some site maps at the hearing.
d.' Public Testimony: u
1
Appellants
o Richard' Daniels, Director of Land Use and Transportation for
Washington County,, requested -a waiver of the appeal fee since
Washington County was also a political subdivision.
Consensus of Council was to hear the request for fee waiver after
the 'hearing when the facts were presented.
Mr. Daniels proceeded to present the County's concerns regarding
the proposed subdivision. He stated that approval of the
subdivision would violate LCDC goals and the County plan for the
area connecting Murray` Blvd. to I-5 and noted that the road
R, a; location is based on traffic needs. The County is recommending
that the Metro SW Corridor Study be accomplished, a Southwest
Bypass be made by Sherwood to Wilsonville, and that the County may
then look at the needs for the Murrav Blva. extension.
Mr. Daniels went on to say that once the City of Tigard supports
the regional transportation plan with the SW Bypass being shown on
the plan, the County will then commit to identifying the Murray
Blvd./Gaarde connection as a two lane facility with turn refuges
at intersections or a three lane facility with a continuous left
turn if the City wishes to allow continuous access to all
residences and not just at intersections. Until the Regional
Transporation Plan is amended, with support of the various cities,
to show a regional bypass by Sherwood and Wilsonville, traffic
will continue to increase and be a problem in the area.
Mr. Daniels concluded by requesting Council allow the objection of
the Countv to the Parit Place Subdivision. To remove the objection
by the County requested the following conditions be met:
1. The City and County must fully participate in the Southwest
Corridor Study by Metro.
2. The City endorse the western bypass to be included in the
Regional Transporation Plan.
Page 3 - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 9, 1984
3. Once the Regional° Transportation Plan is amended, the City
and County need to amend their Plans to identify the Murray
t Blvd./Gaarde Extension as a "collector" road. This
collector 'road be identified to connect MurrayBlvd.,
Scholls Ferry Road, 135th Avenue, Walnut Street and Gaarde
Street.
Mr. Daniels noted this would not have to be a straight road which
could encourage speeds' beyond neighborhood collector traffic, a u-
winding road would be adequate to meet the needs in the area. A
Park Place Subdivision, with 81T"
road, as proposed in the
intersections is totally unacceptable since traffic will exist in
the area and a "T" intersection would stop traffic and bottleneck
the flow.
4. The City deny this subdivision as being inconsistent with
LCDC` Statewide Goals #2, 11, & 12. The City requestthe
subdivision be redesigned to be consistent with both City
and County' Plans. This would also meet the statewide
planning goals.
5. Reactivate the expired Urban Planning Area Agreement.
o Mr. John Skourtes, property owner in City, supported the County's
appeal and requested Council consider the traffic congestion needs
in the area.
o Karen Thorin, resident of area, supported new street and the
westerly bypass. Concerned that vacant land could' not be
developed until 'road was constructed.
o City Attorney noted that Mr. Skourtes and Ms. Thorin did not
Commission and thus their testimony
testify before the Planning
was inadmissible as evidence in this hearing.
Respondents:
o Michael W. Fain, representing Century 21 (the developer), stated
that the development has been in the 'works' at the City since
early 1983. He was concerned that if redesigning was required
that the 1984 construction season would be lost and economically
would be difficult on the developer. He requested the appeal be
denied on that basis.
o Vince Ramsdale, 11635 SW Terrace Trails, represented NPO #3 and
stated that the NPO had unanimously approved the compromised
subdivision plan on 3/5/84. He also noted that the policy in the
comp plan is to not allow alignment of Gaarde and Murray Blvd.
The right-of-way of Gaarde is not wide enough to allow for
development of that type of street alignment.
o Bob Bledsoe, 11800 SW Walnut Street, NPO #3 Chairman, supported
the past City action in the comp plan and also the Planning
Commission recommendation for approval of the subdivision.
Page 4 - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 9, 1984
o Attorney Fred Anderson, representing himself personally, requested
Council disregard the City's Legal Counsel's opinion which was a
'closing statement' and should not be heard during public
testimony,
Cross Examination
O Richard Daniels, Washington County,.. stated that the County's' !
transporation plan in the area concerned has been approved by LCDC
and reminded Council that Tigard's plan has not been 'approved. He
also mentioned the proposed connection from Murray Blvd. to Gaarde
? Street would not be a 5 lane street but a two or three lane road. a
Lengthy discussion followed regarding the "T" intersection as a
` major issue to be resolved. i
felt it appeared that `there was lots of
o Michael Fain, .Century 21, PP `
'common ground' surrounding the issues and ,proposed continuance of
the appeal and allow the City, County and developer to -find a K "a
solution to right-of-way and street alignment. He stated this
should be a compromise matter.
e. Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor' Scott to continue
hearing to 4/23/84 and that hearing be closed except for issue of g
extension of`Gaarde Street.
asked for clarification of motion. Council
City Administrator
concurred that issue will be considered under 'Council
Consideration' portion of;the meeting on 4/23/84.
Motion to continue to 4/23/84 was approved by unanimous vote of
Council present.
8. APPROVE COUNCIL MINUTES—3/26/84
a. Deputy Recorder requested Council amend minutes on page 7, item 19
x (f) by changing the name 'Stewart' to 'Probstfield'.
b. Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Scott, to approve
as amended.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
9. APPROVE NPO MEMBER APPOINTMENTS NPO #13 5, & 6/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COMMITTEE/PARK BOARD
a. City Administrator advised Council of the following appointment
recommendations:
NPO #1 - Edward D. Duffield & Robert C. Wyffels
NPO #5 - Harry Saporta
NPO #6 - Murel Gillen
Park Board Steve Newman & Steve .Slabaugh
Economic Development Committee - Robert Williams
Page 5 - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 9, 1984
.. _
b. Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Scott, to appoint
as recommended.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
{
10. APPROVE WCCLS AGREEMENT
a. Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Scott, to approve.
° Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
11. ` APPROVE PROPERTY INSURANCE;QUOTE:& SHORT TERM RENEWALS TO 11/5/84 C
a. Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Scott, to approve. '
a
Approved by unanimous voter of Council present.
12. ACCEPT SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT - BOND PARK II & AUTHORIZE SIGNATURES
a. Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor ' Scott, to accept
agreement and authorize Mayor pro tem and Deputy Recorder to sign.
Approved;by unanimous vote` of Council present.
13. NON-AGENDA ITEMS: From Council and Staff
a. Councilor Scott discussed political signs issue noting that many
are within the public right-of-way. After discussion with
Council, Staff, and candidates running for offices, Councilor
Scott moved to have staff recommend new code language requiring an
application and bond be filed by any candidate for election or
people campaigning regarding ballot measures. Mayor pro tem
Scheckla seconded.
Motion failed by a 2-2 vote of Council present. Councilors Brian
and Cook voting nay.
Consensus of Council was to look at this issue again in June.
14. ADJOURNMENT: 10:24 P.M.
Deputy City Recorder - City of Tigard --
ATTEST:
Mayor pro tem City of Tigard
s
(lw/1457A)
Page 6 - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 9, 1984
_ l
�"� L� OCOMPANY Legal 7_6388
P.O.BOX 370 PHONE(503)684-0360 NOt1C®
BEAVERTON,OREGON 97075 'j� I CFED
L-gal Notice Advertising +V^�
® (3 Tearsheet Notice
City of Tigard p Duplicate Affidavit
®PO Box 23397
Tigard, OR 97223
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
_ STATE OF OREGON, ss
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )'s-
1,
-
1 Susan PInkle
being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising
Director,or his principal clerk,of the Tigard Times
a newspaper of general circulation as ,efgad in ORS 193.0110
and 193.020;published at-
aforesaid
trd in the
SelctedntAand
nda, Itemsstate;that e
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:
ff April 5 ,1 981'
t'
Subscribed and n to before me th'
April 1 1981+
Notary Public for Oregon
My Commission Exp re .
3/116/87
AFFIDAVIT
tstttov rems Ax + a
Rif
Pa 11
Mill 1
TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANYLegal
'
P.O.BOX 370 PHONE(503)684-0360 Notice 7-6379 9
BEAVERTON,OREGON 97075
Legal Notice Advertising
4 City of Tigard ® ❑ Tearsheet Notice'
7-
P.O. Box 23397
® Tigard, Oregon 97223 ® ❑ Duplicate Affidavit CJITY OF TIC
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF OREGON,
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )8'-
Susan Pinkley
being first duly sworn, depose and sa�that I �n e`Advertising
Director,or his principal clerk, of the a-gar Imes
a newspaper of general circulation'as`defined in OPS 193.010
and 193.020; published at Tigard in the
aforesaidcounty andstate•that the
Public Hearing NOtice
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed,was published in the
entire issue of said newspaper for----l:—successive and
consecutive in the following issues:
March 29, 1984
Subscribed and wo to before me thi 1 84
a Notary Public for Oregon
@v1Y Commission Expi : 3/16/FV
7 f ke 3F�afAdyin�in�wi3r�fp t ea ati" d P�yy -To" 4 y'�aur�c It��a
t<dA ry'Fl I�1}p1*�I.C(r S l A I+4 H .7S'�4 a 3 6u"' k1W SR
W
AFFIDAVIT Str fir t rri, 0ragr�a ks ht, -4a fan r�sx►y t ote ed n tfz �
33x07r 43*iZ c�titE ffX7t Y
a apy'{ fz3ta►t ; kyr �totx a£ft as
I Y�: r
J t$a(d��Wyrqq//y�lJ� tri
p S PfF .i1'x°yli a'e33k � W *" '� 9TaA - ¢4%, . -
t
e
AGENDA ITEM # -r2 VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE
(Limited to 2 minutes or less, please)
Please sign on the "appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council
wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, but time may
require that we schedule your items for a future agenda. Please contact the
City Administrator as to agenda scheduling. Thank you.
NAME, ADDRESS & AFFILIATION ITEM DESCRIPTION
n . �r
-
Or
s�
r
`k
DATE `f
I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on
the following 'item: ; (please print the information) .
ITEM DESCRIPTION: ►- ` ----�
��acst��Y�c���>c��ticicstrt�trcic*yc���C*��tst#�icrt***� ic�rt�Yc�ik*�tic�t��rt��yk�cfi�i+cz�+cycst.�Cxat�*��*�ittc���fcic
Respondents _(Against Appeal)
Appellants (Supporting Appeal)
!c*3t�cst�!*��z*�c9csticicfcfc**3c�c��Ycic��cat*�icic��rt� irfcyk�*fcxc�t��t�c3s��k*3c�kic*rtiticis*9cicstfcicicic�7tfcic8ciapc*�c -
ame, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation Gam'
� ��/ �--1✓I/ 1�� �" ���r, $�t�u�fie � �'��r'��
f r4i�eS —
. a
f:
V
( t
i
MEMORANDUM'
CITY-OF TIGARD, _OREGON
:
TO: Mayor pro tem and Council April 5, 1984
FROM: Loreen Wilson, Deputy Recorderz
SUBJECT: Bonita Road Report ._
This report will be verbally presented Monday evening by Frank Currie, Public
Works Directors
lw/1403A
a:
office
r oorded CITY OF z a z
n thi:. TIGARD H
shoat
v,
a -
County 3
0 0.
w
WASHINGTON 9 Pq z
U A O
W
Election z'`
MARCH 27,198
.7 F
Peg. 1 of 1 Peg- W
N W �
Ballot Number U..O O ;a D
w Name or -�
N.:of
Pr.e:.ct -� YES NO I �. o
30,-194q2 11117 "
O O .m
31
32 0O' z
33 1 1 m
34:
35 2
40 (�
41, 180
46 a r
195 �5I
w:
91 51 z
IT
I � o
a.
o"3
u .-
.d 3
3
y C
{
a.O?
Y
3
OTT
N aa®
2L v'
all/ ooNra.
_..OTAL ,2 rycr
I certify that the votes recorded on this abstract cor- S' re of ou rk: Date of Abstract
rectly summarize the tally of votes cast at the election
indicated. i 1 3 /R- _
ABSTRACT OF VOTES AT GENERAL AND ABSTRACT OF, ES AT PRIMARY ELECTIONS:
SPECIAL ELECTIONS: Separate sheets for Democrafic, Republican, Nonpartisan, and other
candidates.
Votes cast for Governor must be on separate Separato sheets for candidates for City, County (including precinct)
page or pages. and State office.
For additional instructions see ORS 250.810. For additional instructions,see ORS 249.410.
_
MEMORANDUM
4 CITY OF TIGARD, "OREGON
TO: Mayor pro tem and City Council April 4, 1984
FROM: Bob Jean, City Administrator
e SUBJECT: Space Needs III Report f
B
At the March 27, 1984 election, there were 2,119 votes cast on Measure #51,
the City Building Bond. That represents about 21%- of the City's 10,080
registered voters -- a fairly good turnout for a- special election'. About 60%
voted YES (1,244) and about 40% voted NO (875). We hope to have the official
final results from the County for your acceptance at the April 9, 1984 Council
meeting.-
...
;
Meanwhile, staff is simultaneously proceeding with three key elements to the .
Leases, Finance, and Project Management.
Civic Center program: Land and
1. Land and Leases - Joy Martin is finalizing the Sorg lease for the .
Library and working with Mr. Sturgis c as to land purchase.
Engineering is verifying the legal description. Soils tests will
be needed. Proposals have been received from three appraisers and
forwarded to Mr. Sturgis for selection.
2. Finances - Jerri Widner has contacted Rebecca Marshall and will be
submitting a recommendation as to bond marketing. A preliminary {
budget is being developed from which Interim Finance and a Cash k
Management Plan can be developed.
i .
3. Project Management - For now, I have assumed the overall project
management responsibility. I understand that there is some
Council interest in a citizen's Civic Center Project Steering t
Committee. I support the use of a Steering Committee to recommend
as to architect and design selection, and as an ongoing review
committee. We will also need to decide on whether we want the
architect to also be the Project Manager or whether we want to
hire our own Project Manager. {
I see the general timetable as follows:
i
o April/May -- appraisal and finalize land price; develop financing
plan and sell bond; select architect and final design.
i
in 85
SPACE NEEDS III REPORT MEMO
i
APRIL 4, 1984
PAGE 2
o June/July/August ' -- architect designs and prepares plans and
specifications; project programming and cash flow plan revised. F
o September -- hire Project Manager; pre-qual.Lification of
contractors and project construction bid award.
o October - close on land sale if not earlier; award construction
bid and start construction. t
O .November to May or June -- construction.
E
,.O May or June -- moving and occupancy.
A)
(BJ:pm/1403
f
qq
k
r
B
fk:
d
1
I1
Y
i
i
t a
S
i
E
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Mayor pro tem and Council April 5, 1984
Loreen Wilson, Deputy Recorder
FROM: -
SUBJECT: Dartmouth Street LID Formation Ordinance
The City Attorney is meeting with staff on Friday, April 6th, to fine-tune the
ordinance to treet LID. This ordinance will be
form the Dartmouth S
hand-carried Monday evening.
lw/1403A
o•DONNELL. DATE March 9, ` 1984
SULLIVAN & RAMIS
ATTORNEYSATLAW To Mayor Pro Temp and City Council
1727 N.W. HOYT STREET
PORTLAND, OREGON 97209
(5031.222-4402 FROM City Attorney:.
RE Park Place Appeal
ed me to identify some of the broader
The Mayor Pro Tem has ask
implications of the issues raisedby the opponent in this case
and to advise the council on the extent to which these matters y
are relevant to the quasi-judicial decision before the Council.
My primary concern is that the decision be reached based upon
the criteria in ourordinanceand Plan rather than upon
considerations which have broad policy implications, but which
go beyond the burden borne by the applicant in a quasi-judicial
case'.
PLAN ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The County does not dispute that its appeal in this case is
related to its challenge to the City's Comprehensive `Plan
acknowledgment and that bothstrategies are, intended to force ,
the `f City to agree to the plans for road extensions contained in
the County Comprehensive Plan. Councilman Brian has ,indicated
that the County Planning Director has told;him that the City's`
i. acknowledgment is fully'dependent' upon concurrence by the County
and _that `concurrence would be withheld` unless the City's Plan
and intergovernmental agreements conform to the County Plan.
t
As a legal matter, the County' s claim of a veto 'power over plan
sA acknowledgment is incorrect. Objection by a county normally
causes a continuance by LCDC, but it does not ultimately block
acknowledgment after resubmission of the city's plan. This
gambit has been attempted by counties objecting to the urban
growth boundaries of cities such as Hood River and Medford.
After a continuance to enable further negotiation, the growth
boundaries of both of these cities were acknowledged. County
objections did not result in a veto.
The reason that the County has no veto power in this situation is
_ that the LCDC Goals require "coordination" not "concurrence."
The cases construing coordination find that local jurisdictions
must make efforts to conform their plans, but that neither cities
nor counties have the power to veto each other's provisions by a
failure to cooperate. The County's leverage is, therefore, not
described to Councilman Brian.
as powerful as it was
I must emphasize that any leverage that the County may have over
the City' s plan acknowledgment, whether real or imagined, is not
a proper subject for findings or a proper basis for decision-
making in the case which is before you.
TVR;mch
4/9/84
Page 1
}
o'DONNELL. DATE March 9, 1984
r SULLIVAN & RAMIS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW TO Mayor Pro Tem and City Council
1727 N.W..HOYT STREET
PORTLAND, OREGON 97209 -
15031 222.4402 FROM City Attorney
RE Park Place Appeal
L
FINANCIAL LEVERAGE'
The :dispute over a connection between Murray Boulevard and Pacific
Highway has also raised the specter of a financial battle. If the
City is not acknowledged by July 1, it could face a cutoff of
state funding. The County's vulnerability: relates to its tax base
which needs voter approval.
The financialimplications of the County's strategy are also
irrelevant to this quasi-judicial case.
You should also be aware that LCDC has informed the City that
the:state fund cutoff provision of the statute does not apply
where a jurisdiction is making reasonable progress toward
acknowledgment. It is ;designed, .instead, 'to provide an incentive
to jurisdictions which have not cooperated in implementing the
state land use program.
PROCEDURE
If the hearing on Park Place becomes a forum for discussion of
the various transportation issues that confront the City and the
County, it is important that the broad policy questions be
separated from the quasi-judicial issues__when-making a_ decision.
My suggestion is that after close of the hearing and discussion
by the City Council, the parties be directed to submit findings
to the Council for further consideration at a later meeting.
The broad policy issues can be handled separately through a
letter to the County Commissioners or by direct meetings and
discussions. The possibilities for resolution of the conflict
are numerous. The County is on record with LCDC as offering to
extend the 1983 Urban Planning Area Agreement through June 30,
1984, thus allowing acknowledgment of the City's Plan while
providing ample time to renegotiate transportation issues. g
Alternatively, the City and County might agree upon a new UPAA
or upon certain Plan amendments prior to our acknowledgment
hearing in late April. A further alternative would be to accept
a continuance from LCDC and continue discussions until the Plan
is resubmitted to LCDC.
TVRamch
4/9/84
Page 2
t
E
CI-rY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
1984 AGENDA ITEM Y:
AGENDA OF: A ril 9
SUBMITTED: Aril 5 1984 PREVIOUS ACTIONe S 8-83 PD was approved .
DATE U p } 1984.
b the Plannin ' Commission On March 6,
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: -
REQUESTED BY: Appeal filed by
Park Place A peal Washington`County
CITY ADMINISTRATOR:
DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: ��=----
INFORMATION SUMMARY
application fox S 8-83PD was,approved by the Planning Commission
Century 21 domes' app y, As you recall, the Planning
on March 6, 1984 and appealed by Washington Count1984,
by council application-
ry 13,
after
action`foappeal d an earlierremand uPlanningeCommission nden alaof the appl
after .the developer appealed g the staff
W.. A copy of the County's appeal, a transcript Of the March 6,
hearing
- and other documents were sent to you in the mail on April 2, 1984. ' Please
Y
_ report, A letter from the Mayor of Tualatin and an article
' bring those';materials with you.
reporting the appeal are attached.
- --------ersva-------------------------s-.-assassa-.ssssss-----------ass-msaea �
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The Council may hendecisionpublic
the Planning Commission.aring on the appeal and
1, uphold t application.
2, grant the appeal and deny the
SUGGESTED ACTION
x
3
P
18880 SW MARTINA2:Zl AVE- -OF TUALATIN
CITY
SAX 369
TUALATIN,OREGON 97062-00369
(503)692-2000 �
S
4
March 30, 1984
p
Tigard City Council
City of Tigard -
P.O. Box 23397
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Dear Council Members:
�s
The City,of Tualatin would like to express its support of your decision
regarding street alk Place Subdivision.
ignments in the Par
We are opposed to any street alignment that would extend 117urray Road
through Tigard to Highway 99W. If such an alignment were to occur, it
would only further exacerbate the problems thatweexperience on Tua-
latin Road and that the City of Tigard is experiencing on Durham Road.
In our discussions with Washington County, 'we believed that all juris-
dictions were goingto work together for the Norwood Expressway as a
solution to the problems which would occur if the old alignments were
constructed.
We urge you to uphold your Planning Commission's decision regarding
the street alignments in the Park Place Subdivision.
Sincerely,
—727 -
Roy R. Rogers
Mayor
RRR/j n
cc: Mayor Tobias, Sherwood
Mayor Young, King City
Mayor Morgan, Durham
Dave Atkinson
Eunice Day
i
,
i
3
Man
I
r � Lim-
__ NA 992
WIN1
-
l
4M-MW DI
The Oregonian,Wednesday,March 21, 1984 Section
General News �
f,.. County to appeal approval of prOJEhCt
l HILLSBORO—Washington County west Gaarde Street has drawn opposi- As thesubdivision is laid out and �
will appeal Tigard Planning Commis tion in Tigard. approved by the Tigard Planning Conn
sion approval of a subdivision that In preparing its comprehensive land- mission, the Murray extension will not t
would block a future southward exten- use and transportation plan, the county go through and other streets in the area
sion of Southwest Murray Boulevard. scaled down the width of the proposed would be overloaded with traffic.Rich-
The county Board of Commissioners connector from five lanes to three.The and A. Daniels, county director of land {
approved the appeal Tuesday.Under Ti- county plan would route additional traf- use and transportation•commented.
gard procedures, it must be filed by fic between Tualatin and the Aloha- County Commissioner Lucille War-
March 22 Hillsboro area an a new beltline road ren said she sympathized with Tigard's
The proposed extension of .Murray that would be built west of Bull Moun- desire for less traffic on its streets.But. {
to connect with Oregon 99W via South- tain in the next 20 years. she added. "Our comprehensive plan [
has to be upheld." ((
In appealing the Tigard Planning I
Tigard candidates t® speak at forum Commission decision before the i IN r
Council. Daniels said the county will
TIGARD — The three men running LaValle Allen, 55; Philip k. Edin, 42: strive for a compromise solution. nuc
for mayor and the three vying fora City and Mark C.Padgett,35. that will not result in a"wen-lose•"situ-
Council seat will speak and answer Each of those running for mayor ation.
questions at a forum sponsored by the will have four minutes for an opening If the subdivision �e'as laid •sit >•
Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce at statement;council candidates will have that individual driveways don'! enter
noon April 3 at the Chalet Pancake three minutes. All will then be asked the new Murray extension. the street
(louse, 11680 S.W.Pacific Highway. the same questions by Jack E.Schwab, can be held down to either three Lows
Candidates seeking to succeed re- chairman of the chamber's public af- or to two lanes with left-him n loge.at
tired Mayor Wilbur A. Bishop are John fairs committee,and then will be given major intersections.he said
F. Cook, 57; Prank J.Tepedino. 46;and a minute each for closing statements. If"Tigard does not limit acre. lo the
Robert C. Wvffels, ml. Seeking the The public is invited to atlend the street, it will have to he a wider to.10.
-ouncil position va aU d by Cook are forum. he said
d
a ;
w
i
i
t
4s
i k
y -
W-
------
._. _�. ,�a.x .�vau m� _ .� .rte•^. ,.,,s �`� ,-.,xa3�„..vs. ..:�-�..
s�-„- �-mom:.._a�� �»s -.�-`�*'�'. 4 -¢ "^ s•_- au --� � `” ... .,� - _ _. _
Y
x
es..
>
r
u"mss * d .€ :. '. °.�. •. e �' c',+ ✓. _ _ _ ae�. ,r .: ': 3,-c' '-e,.�.x .�' s -::.$=„s..k._.
_ NA
$�
L.- 7 ` y ya
a N y7.•O N 7L A
u qL - O O u c I
T I.
C A `
C q
lbU N L O
0.0O
:G O w V
y q{ yy Y
> O O A a
r l/ i L O
U A
�.. 4 7 V N J 0 N
\ U d•V tl q N &E 6 C i
�a•- .t.A ii � Q C pq t� u O� a
F u O'O d�.9
ucy7 ;: 8 aw¢ m A �3 q�qu
_.A O 0
C O
C ` A:.0 C
b 7 O.
` u O c 0 0 O'c•� Y C C I
qE� " c O w A �, Y
O C 4 C N a m
b
2 L y O.d O C y O �.V t
ma
Y^ A o aw > q post _ e
Y C Y
' C V
.a n H E m 7 u.L.
v cO Y v ur G s u r
G
Q ^
qq
0 °
g i!
C T
L A A ti 'O I'C u V H
H W }, q G V O�Q .�.. N O ��N•.Nl•} T
tN N u A N v1�F• C O O U W O
Wye \rj a u m
p
O -e
P. �- A O 0.5 cc_ pU` A
Z !1
N Ql ✓M•• V O V r
2w Cc
O. 7 qU L 3x70 J YO C y g1
1• c4 Y q V J O O O O E V q O `
5 > 3 mO �"• �. V _
4)'D C Y a C N p AvYp, O b0 V lyC
$ um C VL q tic � C im
Nov Eioocc
F03
NNtl —y OV
Zpp P tl Y C de
q,{0.2
twO
' w in m COp,N O
V A — q V O 7 q 0.2
— e 6 C >
�� •O� Oa Y�.V 7 s'Ci�v st C vr� NCC 3
0.O w �• w v V A Y V UUOaO.
�. d
C T
Now 1••_ ' A `�p dQ w� VU 1�� W C O C C > ..`. Cpp N �•
ic Q a1C GC 14 Cv
td Vs N d T^ b N M >Y O g > C
M. A �.• N C O p� � � O�O q � D� 1 l�.
� � O L• mp — 9 'O C N
l N tc3 N N q S.0
z
L
N + C V N (
qq Vtla2 a y d
tli M VV�$ >w R y C ��q,. - C Y W d 10 c `
a ® N
cc
N U
6 a° ' $g� N °� = rx�F$ a�c � 1vAo
of A Ct A � m v 6��•
tj
303-0
c
'THE,PROBLEM
Projections of future traf€ic volumes for the area which lies generally northeast of 8u11 mountain Indicate that traffic
on the local streets will increase sigglficantly as the area continues to develop. ;There are five streets which act as
the principal collectors for locally generated traffic. These are Sbf 121st and 135th Avenues. Sb Gaarde and Walnut
Sirgats.and Bull Mountain Road. it is anticipated that Walnut and Gaarde Streets and 121st Avenue's streets
be areplanned significantly
aed by the increase in traffic res
a.-
the development of the area if no now collector streets mra planlrad
a. constructed,
„ • taken In the ugf6with
the
traffic
olumoB o
ected
iahenprojectionsanrnbTa prob � streetswil be iltbythat date. ( TrafficAnalysisTable).
thatno
A
far i99g. mTassumx
-STMUD
uncil adopted the NPO 3 Neighborhood Plan in November 1975 it directed the Planning Depart nt to
When the 7igard.CiYy Co
E conduct a study:af the"circulation needs for the area south of Scholis Ferry eoad Washing
CRAG and tthe dOregon
135th Avenues. Their directive also urged-that the other public agencies, 9 Y
State Highway Division, whicl- Were responsible for community development and transportation planning workonthis;studh
lth the city staff. As an extension of the work done by Tigard, the Washington County Planning Comnisslan directed the
`Planning city staff.Staff to prepare a report'on the future circulation problems of this area and to reeomsend solutions.
Phis native Department
iefly describes alternative solutions In
by the County Planning and Public Works Department i
staffs, and contains the Joint recommendation that will be made to the Pianging Commission an June 29, 1977.
1 c0 _
i
F 7AUL
STUDY AREA
Ldtt y�GT.t � DAKOTA: a<-
-
, _ aP s ` TKsAriD n..
a �
M 1
F pfw - AIW if. _
TI.GARD
E� t •.
.CT• WAINVr 1 �_»� Mfw Ili. D rowvfA rt. v G v
P�
r w € wsay��.PCW. rva.wa�po0.1OA76
Al([RTALN
rOwwfw iR. ___.Pi¢ _ £ �Iy�T•
am '
amsm
erg :
o)[vw,A _ IAMv[w _ �p walvrtW Ci.
O
BULL MTF7• 1rr wmawAw
�HIt Yl6 - A'% 1 of ISA �(lD9M.t,.i
R.
W sad tl. ✓ .® H 6AM %t S
r aR
%Ul MfA, .I < 1 ^°�A yl d +ea ; • ntST csC
It
Slam 'BULL
_ � T
TIz z
ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS
Three alternative solutions have been developed for the Planning Commission to consider. Each approaches the problem in a
different manner, and provides a possible solution for the circulation needs of the area in keeping with the objectives'
and assumptions made in each case. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT NONE OF THE ALTERNATIVES ANTICIPATES IMMEDIATE MAJOR
CONSTRUCTION,EITHER ON EXISTING STREETS OR OF NEW STREETS. `THE ALTERNATIVES DEAL WITH POSSIBLE LONG-RANGE SOLUTIONS.
{
Note; rr Numerical figures next to streets indicate projected average daily traffic'(ADT).
ALTERNATIVES ja AND lb_
Objective: Provide for future local traffic circulation needs without the construction of any major new facilities.'
Assumptions: 1. All increases in traffic volumes will be absorbed by the existing street system and its extensions.
2. That it is feasible to modify the existing streets to some degree in order to increase their
_capac!tyand relieve congestion'. (Widening, construction of left-turn lanes, removal of parking, etc.)
Note:' Alternative la assumes that Gaarde Street will be improved to increase its capacity, and signalized at Highway 99W.
Alternative ,lb remgves`Gaarde from the collector street network and assumes that �o major improvements or signal-
ization will bo made on it. ' Additionally, 121st Avenue would be extended to connect with Bull Mountain Road, and
the alignment of Walnut Street at Tiedeman would be improved.
i
i
�.
S, TUD4
t,r rl!,•....
tP BOUNDARt$
uJ
DAKOTk y
�, uJ a TIGARD
6TU D4
k� Q s~ �E-T tr f e r!r;:. }• AtZEA
' mop a1rtG BOUNDAR4
yV q
SIG NAIIZE wRa p � t.tt, ®SV r
W!" 1 TE0.SEL7tON ` t
l� �� R� ~ FOHNER �$ •`• 1i Rv.
; ® - DAKDTA
ui
A8 - r ® ulBo �4o Frrrf4pUi..
(.'AA RDE ¢®v REET nouv fir.
F ,• JntEasECT� •� 8 � � �� � Ao .
13ULL MTM. Rp z - Qv 0 WWI o® •,,c.Hl;�tzc $ro ®�.
d FG}JlrrR
hti y�.•.
�Il!!llllltltlitlllil{{Illltilliltllltlllil!lillliillilililllltllttt111tIIlip
GAA7..GF Q
COW w�`9
`' o r
C.Lf 88mcULL l�9 e a�� Z Y 121 ST. V
SCALE 1"—9000 flllt1111111t1{1111111!itintiutniin�iinililliinunuinnlititiililt q`t
ALTERNATIVE 2
Objective: Select a corridor for a collector street which will provide an efficient link between Scholls Ferry Road
and Highway 99W.
Assumptions: 1. The increase of local traffic on the 'existing collector system will be reduced, principally Gaarde,
Walnut a.-.d 921st.
2. Direct connections between the new collector street and the existing network will not be made. improve;`
meets to existing streets will be required to handle future traffic volumes. Three traffic lanes in`the4
future will be necessary on 121st and 135th north of Walnut. All other streets will remain two lanes.
3. The,new collector street will be built coincident with the development of land in the area, with a
minimum of impact on existing development and at minimum public cost.
Note: This alternative, coi=only known as the 135th Avenue Extension, had been recorrr!ended to the Tigard Planning
Conmisr•lon`by NPO 3. The Tigard Planning Commission has, in turn, recommended,it to the City Council for
inclusion into the NPO 3 Neighborhood Plan.
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS TABLE
1990 PROJECTED
STREET 1976 COUNT` AVERAGE DAILY,TRAFFIC
SW Gaal
East of 121st 4,904 (7.500
North of'Highway-95W 3,073 ,000
SW 121st Avenue
North of Gaarde 1;904 ;300
South of Walnut 2,381 7,400 x
North of Walnut 3,126 ?K0:f~C'TI0NG %A150> UPON 7.600
SW walnut Street EXi-IT1NIG, ROAUP NG.TWOP844,
West of 131st 2,554 5,900
s Eas, of 121st 4,756 6,000
West of Fonner 4,070 6,500
SW Bull Mountain Road
West of 133rd 2,245 5:500**
East of_133rd 2,296 6,500**
West of Highway 99W 2,725 7,000**
*Based on Carl H. Buttke report- Traffic Circulation NPO No. 3, April 16, 1975.
**Washington County Public Works Department projection.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT BULK RATE
ADMINISTRATION BLDG.
u.s. POSTAGE
150 NORTH 1ST AVENUE PAID
HILL R®RO, ORE. 97123 HILLSBORO, OR.
PERMIT NO. 53
ems,
Fog
BE
'—D'U L L M
�s
Q �d10
R T1 a
SIC LINA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE IIASIIINGTOH COUNTY PLANNING COHMISSION AT ITS MEETING CH WEDI;:SCAY,.JUNE 29, 1977 AT
7.:00 PM IN Ill 402 OF THE ADMINISTRATION CUILDING OF THE WASHINGTO11 COUNTY COURTHOUSE COMPLEX, 150 NORTH FIRST
AVENUE, NILLSOORO, OREGON, WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING ITEM:
NUMBER: 77-248-M
NORTHEAST BULL MOUNTAIN CIRCULATION S16_Y
THIS PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNS. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION POLICIES WHILH ARE BEING -nOr s: FOR TRAFFIC
_ CIRCULATION IN CONTIGUOUS AREAS OS THE CITY OF TIGARD AND WASHINGTUt -!E :GR WHiSH TiPOLICIES
WCULD APPLY IS CONTAINED WHOLLY WITHIN SECTIONS 32,.33, 34, AND 35 OF 'now, W.M. frlJ sE". -`. 2, 3, . 5. 8..9.. g'..
AND 10 OF T25, alW.M. THE AREA UNDER STUDY IS SHOWN ON THE ACCOhrANYIl MAr.
THE PUBLIC HEARIRG ON THIS MATTER WILL 1!E CONDUCTED IN.ACCORDANCE WI -- Th" }at!E3 OF PROCEDURES C THE PLANNING '
CCN.MISSION.- ANY PERSONS HAVING
114TEREST 111.THIS'MATTER MAY ATTEND AND "2 ifAll n+ ;rc;,30hY MAY rE'SUBMITTED IN
::RITING:TO:BE ENTERED .INTO THE BECORD.OF THE INITIAL NEARING. .ONLY T 1. ii�..:T nI ! ,EN _
TESTIMONY MAY PARTICIPATE IN FUTURE HEARINGS SHOULD THIS MATTER BE r„R FUATHEF 1NF„_,.'!,.N, E'_EASE CONTACT
THE BASHINGTON COUNTY.PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT Lid^ci rl..
a AI_1 t Kr4A Q V t -3
oJeetive Select a cc ,'u:.r'f:?- - t .l,. >` ,.meet which can c—iTtently;accoremodate nc tf-south movement, and which
will primarily re r,-! th-. new;•,-de"I"ing areas on Foil Mountin and,those immediate Iv to the north in the
vicinity of 13 thr_:ve-a?'Pnd :r-1n "treet.
Assumptions: 1. -.raf` , ^Iwc ..t' ^arat^!'In newly develop;-+- are-as should be kept fro-, ir.,psetin f already developed
P.rear.
2. ThA witi, !ur d•va: t of land In tM arra. with a allaioe,w of impact
on e,-latl-r. 4e"nam "tr• wtm public. wymnge.
3. 1:*.provc..,ints t, . •;_.J., c:or streets will .also be necessary to hula rss-ssra traffic volumes.
i"'ist .-, ,"5th north of Valnut omit renelra tbrem traffic Eaten, all aftr stteeis
n�
e e ,
.QST UD4
i;il,tt.�, „ AREA
.+ 1 VDARIj
IMPROVED
iAfTCRSLCmI0N ,.„s _
uj
3.
� • �~ � C13 / :
a — ,..• AREA
r BOUNDAR4
uAA,FiDE- ^ `
( F L r
SNCL MT M. Rp
[SYCn^u In
�Illllllliilliiil11111111IIIIitt(IIIIt1►I1181P.:1ltlRr(!!'+giUlllll111 qZ- '` v o � ,� oxo
N 3 RECOMENDATION r �f�U ®�WALN A M FONNER Z ,��
TIGARD PLANNING COMM16ION RECOMENDATION
(yo Its $ 3 �a
/ CAA RDGp
vCALE I' Dill Iilliniltll1111111111lium.,1..1111nnniillil(1(Itilllu
RECOMENDATIONS
The Planning Department and Public Works De^art-,ant staffs will make the following joint recom-.rJ-"'it)ns to the
Washington County Planning Commission:
1.` A collector street should be deveioped in the future along the corridor described by Alternetve 3.
2. A policy requiring that sections of tills street be constructed as an lntegral part of the development of property
in the corridor should be adopted. '
x
That the following deign and development standards for the street be adopted:
a. Curb to curb section equal to 4p feet.
b. Nominal right-of-way equal to 60 feet, Including sidewalks and public utility casens:nts.
(dote: Slopes or curve easements will be required where dictated by topography.)
C. Recom,mnded speed not to exceed 35 mph.
d. Maximum slope of finished roadway not to exceed eight per cent except whore corridor
`coincides with already developed streets.
r a
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD,;OREGON
F=
4
r
TO Mayor pro tem & City Council � April 2, 1984
FROM: Loreen Wilson, Deputy Recordery
SUBJECT:- Park Place Appeal III`
�s
The Council will hear an appeal on the Park Place Subdivision proposal at your
April 9, 1984 Council meeting, which was approved by the Planning Commission.
g Enclosed is a copy of the appeal letter from Washington County and a verbatim
f transcript. This is being sent to you early to allow more time for your
t review. '
F
lw/1399A _
} Enclosures — 2
- P.S. Also enclosed is_ a memorandum from Bob Jean regarding the rescheduled °
candidates briefing.
k `
YON
"NASHINGTON COUNTY
4
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING— 150 N.FIRST AVENUE
HILLSBORO OREGON 97123
. e M
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(503)648-8761
WES MYLLENBECK, Chairman
-BONNIE L.-HAYS,.Vice:Chairman `
EVA M. KILLPACK
JOHN E.MEEK �rL��
LUCILLE WARREN'
^ :-CEI /ED: 3,Z2 2,
y uJ�ei
March 21 1984 y:i a�=h
Jeri Widner, City Recorder t
City of Tigard
P.O. Box23397
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Subject: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSI N DECISION;ON S 8-83PD/
11194-- lyi 04 pxle
In accordance with the provisions of .Sections 18.32.340 of the City of Tigard
Development Code, Washington County hereby requests that the City Council
t review the decision made by the Planning Commission on`'Subdivision` S 8-83-PD,
Park Place. K
Washington County has standing to appeal according to the provisions of
j
Section 18.32.290. Washington. County has been a party, to the proceedings
on S-8-83PD through its entire hearings process. Most recently, 'County staff
presented oral and written testimony at the Planning Commission public hearing r
on March 6, 1984. According to Section 18.32.130 (c) Washington County is
entitled to mailed notice of impending land use actions as an affected g
governmental agency. The County is aggrieved and its interests adversely
affected by the Planning Commission decision on S 8-83-PD as discussed below.
s
The Park Place development lies within the general alignment proposed for a
street which will ultimately connect Murray Blvd. with S.W. Gaarde Street.
The future construction of this street is vital to traffic circulation in this
area of Washington County. The Acknowledged Washington County Transportation
Plan indicates that the Murray Blvd./Gaarde Street connection should be con-
structed as a major collector facility in order to handle projected traffic.
On March 6, 1984, the City of Tigard Planning Commission approved an extension
of SW Gaarde Street through the Park Place Planned Development which is incon-
sistent with Washington County's standards for a major collector for the
following reasons: d+
1 . The prr;posed "T intersection is inconsistent with Washington
County design considerations for major collectors because it .
impedes the smooth flow of traffic through the area.
2. The proposed 60' right-of-way is inadequate for a major collector. �.
an equal opportunity employer ''
Jeri °Widner
Appeal of S '8-83PD
March 21 , 1984
Page 2
y
i
3. The;proposed improvement width is inadequate for a major
collector:
4. Direct access to the Gaarde/Murray Blvd. connection is allowed a
for some of the dwelling units. „This is inconsistent with
County design considerations for major collectors.
a Additional information regarding the design of the Murray Blvd./Gaarde 'Street
connection is contained in the attached letter submitted to the Planning Y_
Commission at their March 6, 1984 public hearing on S 8-83PD.
The City of Tigard has failed to coordinate itstransportation plan with that
of Washington County. This failure to coordinate violates the existing Urban
Planning Area Agreement between the City of Tigard and Washington County, as _.
well as the Urban Planning Area Agreement which expired on January 1 , 1984,
which was specifically designed to prevent a land use approval such as Park
Place from occurring prematurely. Furthermore, the ,approval of S 8-83PD
violates the following provisions of LCDC Goals 2, 11 and 12:
Goal 2: City, county, state and federal agency and special district plans
and actions related to land use shall be consistent with the compre-
hensive plans of cities and counties and regional plans adopted
under'ORS 197.705 through 197.795.
All land use plans shall include identification of issues and v
problems, inventories and other factual information for each
applicable state-wide planning goal , evaluation of alternative
courses of action and ultimate policy choices, taking into con- A`
sideration. social , economic, energy and environmental needs.
Goal ll : Urban and rural development shall be guided and supported by
types and levels or urban and rural public facilities and
services appropriate for, but limited to, the needs and require-
ments of the urban, urbanizable and rural areas to be served.
A provision for key facilities shall be included in each plan.
To meet current and long-range needs, a provision for solid waste
disposal sites, including sites for inert waste, shall be included
in each plan.
A Timely, Orderly and Efficient Arrangment --refers to a system or
plan that coordinates the type, location and delivery of public
facilities and services in a manner that best supports the existing `
and proposed land uses.
,t
t
r
w�
S
Jeri Widner
Appeal of S 8-83PD
March 21 , ,1984 `
Page 3:
4
Uoal '12: A`transportation plan shall (1 ) consider all modes of'transpor-
tation including mass transit, 'air, water, pipeline, rail ,
hiyl�way, bicycle and pedestrian; (2) be based upon an inventory � a
t of local, regional and state transportation needs; (3) consider z
the differences in social consequences that would result from
utilizing differing combinations of transportation modes;
` T (4) avoid principal reliance upon any one mode of transportation;
(5) minimize,adverse social , economic and environmental impacts
and costs; (6) conserve energy,; (7) meet the needs of the
transportation disadvantaged by improving transportation services;
(8) facilitate the flow of goods and services so as to strengthen,
the local and regional economy; and (9) conform.with local and
regional comprehensive land use plans. Each plan shall include
a provision for transportation as a key facility.
The City of Tigard has provided no factual justification supporting the con-
tention that the indirect minor collector' approved for the Park Place Planned
Development will q Y be adequate carr future traffic: Based on the preceeding
discussionWashingtonCounty requests that the Tigard City Council review the
Planning Commission decision on S 8-83PD.
The required appeal fee of $300.00 is enclosed. Washington County requests
that the City Council waive this appeal fee and the transcript fee. Should
the City Council chose not to waive the fees, Washington County will submit #
the required $500.00 transcript deposit. g �_
Richard A. Daniels, irec or
Land Use and Transportation
RAD:KM:mbm
® c: Board of County Commissioners
3
WE
PEE
AGENDA
WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF I:OIVIIVIISSIONER cif
Department of Land Use and Transportation
Agenda Category „C„ Appeal of Tigard Planning Commission Decision-on the Park s
Agenda Title Place Planned Development
Tobe presented by Richard A, Daniels Director
SUMMARY (Attach Supporting Documents ill Necessary)
Attached please find two memos regarding appeal of the Park Place Planned Develop-
ment approval to the Tigard City Council ;and_a letter re: "Extension of Gaarde
Street Through the Proposed Park Place Development" which constitutes the County's r
position on this proposal as presented to the Tigard Planning Commission.
The street circulation design of the proposed Park Place Development is contrary'
y to adopted.County transportation policy and, if built as'proposed, would have a
major negative impact on traffic circulation in the southwest portion of the
County.
An appeal fee of $300 and a transcript foe deposit of $500 may be required;
requests for waiver of these; fees may be filed. v.
DEPARTMENTS REQUESTED ACTION:
The Department of Land Use and Transportation recommends the Board appeal the
Tigard Planning Commission's approval of the Park Place Planned Development to
Tigard City Council . The Department also recommends the Board request a waiver
of appeal and transcript fees for such an appeal .
� E
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVED WASKINGTON COUNTY
ROARD OF CO:.1Mi7SSIONE/RS
?:INUT=ORDER.k ..G✓..: .•-./...� .
P
DA � —_� �L�... ,� Agenda Item No.
CLE O H -E :iT�
ai 4:3 ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON COUNTY
' T; ,I_ ADMINISTRATION BUILDING- 150 N. FIRST AVENUE .
HILLSBORO,OREGON 97123
-
PLANNINGDEPARTMENT
COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF COMMISS
1503!648-8761
WESMYLLENBECK,Chairman _
BONNIE L. HAYS, Vice Chairman
EVA M.KILLPACK
JOHN E.MEEK
LUCILLE WARREN
March 6, 1984
Tigard Planning Commission
City of Tigard
P.O. Box 23397
Tigard, OR 97223 _
RE: EXTENSION OF GAARDE STREET THROUGH THE PROPOSED PARK PLACE DEVELOPMENT
Washington County staff has reviewed the proposed Park Place Planned Develop-
ment to be considered by your Commission on March 6, 1984. Washington County
staff finds that the extension of S14 Gaarde Street, as designed, is inconsistent
with the Washington County Comprehensive Plan. _
The extension:of SW Gaarde Street will ultimately become part of the Murray Blvd.
Extension. The acknowledged Washington County Transportation Plan states:
� y
Extension of MurrayBoulevard:
Existing as well as proposed development within the Cities of
Beaverton and Tigardwill increase the need for improved access
between these municipalities. Lacking this interconnection, local ,
short distance trips will plague and congest travel on Highway 217
and Scholls Ferry Road. County analysis indicate that a two to
three lane minor arterial or major collector extension of Murray
Boulevard south of Old Scholls Ferry Road, preferably to Gaarde Road
which connects to 99W (Pacific Highway), will accommodate Year 2000
travel projections.
Assuming that an Aloha bypass is constructed west of Bull Mountain, the Murray
Blvd. Extension could be designed and constructed as a major collector rather
than a minor arterial . (The process used to determine the functional classi-
fication of the Murray Blvd. Extension is contained in Attachment A.) The
County's Transportation Plan describes a major collector as follows:
(3) Major Collectors: (Example, Rock Creek Blvd. and Parkway)
Functional Purpose: In most instances Major Collectors are intended
to carry traffic from Local Streets or Minor Collectors to Arterials
and are public thoroughfares with a lesser degree of future traffic
{ than an Arterial ..
all equal opportunio- cinplover
Tigard Planning Commission
March 6, 1984
s Page 2`
Design Considerations: A Major Ctrafficcratlspeeds ll be tof betweewo to n
lanes wide and designed ,to Y
35 and 45 miles per hour. On-street parking will not be providby
ed.
Sidewalks will be provided and'bicycle Plan.l i ti j ores e Collector will
the Pedestrian-Bicycle porta
be designed.to allow for' the efficient movement of
be
in mixed a
t
traffic
The design of a Major Collector will include�atcompaeretranve land-
sportation s
" scape plan including street trees (which do
safety), ground cover, and provisions for minimizing the impact of 5
overhead utilities-and outdoor advertising. ,
5 Land Use Considerations: Developments likely to generate a high
n Major
volume of traffic shouaediscouy
resident al,ageddistricts. Rfrom loc esidential
CollectorsCollectors that also serve
development adjoining a Major Collector will be carefully buffered
from the right-of-way. have a;
ed
County road design standards call th of
for major collectors eon�tructed Po�"t he preceeding k
Co y
40' - 46' located within a 70 right-of-way. aswel l .m.
standards would adequately e carry
rsons livingCi between thevicinity tof the Murray as well as
providing good access top
Extension.'
essary
In light of the preceeding discussion,
PlaWashington
nnedDevelopment forstaff
thefinds
following creasons:
to object to the proposed Park Place
ington
1. The proposed "T"intersection is lllectorsnconsistebecause int with ,tstimpedes thenty smooth
design considerations for major co `
flow of traffic through the area. fi
P,
2, The proposed 60' right-of-way is inadequate for a major collector.
'Ilector.
3. The proposed improvement width is inadequate for a major co
4, Direct access to the Gaarde/Murray Blvd. Extension is allowed for
its. This is inconsistent with County design
some of the dwelling un
considerations for major collectors.
County have been aware of the inconsistent designation
ior of thtime. €
The City and the Cou Y
Murray Blvd. Extension within their respective Transportation Ti and Urban
This issue was specifically addressed in the WAreanAtreementtcontained the following _
Planning Area Agreement. The Urban Planning 9
language:
4. Resolution of outstanding transportation issues between the parties;
�: including:
h
i
Tigard Planning Commission
March 6, 1984
Page 3 '
a -a. consistent street classification standards;
b. the status of Durham Road; and
C. the need and location of the Murray Boulevard Extension and
Scholls Ferry Road to Highway 99W. >
Until resolution of these transportation issues, the parties shall
: take no action to preclude alternative solutions to those issues.
As of January 1 , 1984, this Agreement shall lapse and the agreement currently
in effect between the patties shall revive, unless: k
1 . The parties resolve the issues set forth above; and
F
2. ' The parties extend the time in which to reach agreement.
The purpose of this language was to indicate that an inconsistency existed and
to assure that a solution would be achieved prior to any development taking place. '
For whatever reason, the City of Tigard has decided not to extend;the Agreement.
A Washington County is ready and willing to move toward resolving these issues. x
Please enter this letter into the hearing record. If you have further questions
a
regarding this matter, please give me a call .
e
and A. Daniels, Directo Land Development and Transportation Division g
RAD:KM:MBM
3
s;
c: Commissioner Wes Myllenbeck
Commissioner Lucille Warren r
Donald D. Stilwell , County Administrator
Brent Curtis, Planning Manager
Jerry Kammerman, Road Engineer b
Bob Jean, Tigard City Manager
Frank Currie, Director of Public Works, Tigard
William Monahan, Planning Director, Tigard
Andy Cotugno, METRD
r,zons A a_ ® F 9�a dtV6L—I V a 0 A
b � �� WASHINGTON COUNTY
•� - =
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING — 150N. F IRST AVENUE
HILLSBORO,OREGON 97123
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS February 3, 1983 DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS
WES MYLLENBECK Chairman ROOM 201
BONNIE L. HAYS,Vice Chairman 1503)6488a86
EVA:M. KILLPACK,
JOHN E. MEEK
LUCILLE:WARREN
T$^1
i
i3w
Mayor, Council and
City Manager
City; of Tigard
P.O. Box .23397
Tigard, OR 97223
RE: Status of County Planning "
for Roads in -Tigard Area
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Washington County Commissioner Lucille Warren has asked that
I prepare for you a report of the County's recent efforts to
plan for County facilities in the Tigard area. Two reasons
have generated this need:
"1) Development of the County's Comprehensive
. 'r
Land Use Plan, and
2) the feasibility analysis of a Local Improvement :
District in the 135th-Walnut area,
Commissioner Warren has also asked me to summarize this
Department's position on Durham Road in 'light of recent studies
carried out on that roadway as well as in relation to our trans-
portation planning efforts.
Sincerely,
-je4
Larry Rice
Director o ublic Works
LR:MCN:ss Martin C. Niz ekk, n
Attachment transportation Manager
CC: Board of County Comm.
County Administrator
Rick Daniels
Frank Currie
ael rqual oppormaity employer
p
i
COUNTY 'ROADPLANNING
a
( r ,
In the spring of `last year the County contracted with Metro and {
el
jointly developed of of upgradneeds. Th9somodelrencompassedrthe aentire
used for analysis - allowinga detail of
urban area, including the City of Tigard,
traffic analysis to at least the arterial and major collector system
never available to Washington County jurisdictions previously.l
H.
County Planning staff (assisted
In the late spring of '.last.. year the ity'
by Metro staff)c collaborated
with
c ionstforsuse nto tthe1transportation
, " mo populationemployment
� model. --. While staff representatives from; Tigard were made aware of
this effort at 'interagency coordinating meetin-gs (Planning' Directors'
meetings) as well as through correspondence from Metro staff, no
input was received from Tigard: s .
Given the City' s non-response to requests to participate in reaching
a mutually agreeable set of population and employment projections,
to
Metro staff'utilized previously adopted regiobsequentrol totalsntly the computer
estimate -Tigard' s share of future growth. Su
bseque
model was run to analyze road needs.
One readily' apparent problem to the transportation planning staff
i" throughout the analysis process was the magnitude of congestion to
be witnessed along Highway 217 and sections of Scholls Ferry Road
and the increased encroachment this would generate to local Tigard
streets such as Walnut. Given the fact that the County functional
well as the Regional Transportation Plan have
classification plan as
for some time called for the Murray extension, it was logical for
staff to investigate this alternative.
I would note here, as I do under discussion of the 135th Local
Improvement District, that County staff has made every effort to
the land use and the terrain of this area.
respect the character of
In this respect efforts to minimize the size of ariy extension of
e explicit and this was one of the primary reasons
Murray were quit
for looking into the Aloha bypass using Beef Bend and Reusser Roads.
This brings us to the County' s evaluation of the traffic requirements
in this area. Attached you will find diagrams which evaluate the
following configurations:
s 1. No new road extensions.
x 2. Murray extended to 99W.
3. Beef Bend-Reusser bypass.
4 . Beef Bend and Murray extension.
1
_ I would note that Metro staff has informed us that Tigard staff has
made partial use of the information at Metro but has not used the
model to evaluate its proposed transportation plan.
E
i
County Road Planning
Page
2
Not having benefit of the City' s transportation analysis efforts we
are not able to contrast these values o the City' s. We stand ready
to do so, 'however.
in viewing the alternatives shown in the referenced diagrams, staff
noted the congestion on Highway 217; a facility which I 'm sure you x '
will agree would be extremely costly to expand given the existing
structures and -land costs in the area.
We feel it is important, however, to recognize the regional
a significance of improving the accessibility' in this area. Frankly, `
given: the vacant developable lands not only in Tigard, but in Beaverton` '
and other areas of the County, the` only sound planning approach is
to provide; the urban services which will be necessary to 'accommodate
this growth.
Finally, I `would note that our plan recommendation (which has been
available since mid-November of last year) embodies the objectives
discussed above. That is, improved Washington County accessibility
to meet State planning guidelines are met while minimizing neighbor-
hood encroachment as well as potential -casts to the public for new
roads
�r 135TH-WALNUT LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
As you are most likely aware, 'the County and City staffs have been
cooperating in establishing a Local Improvement District to place
improvements on portions of these facilities. I would like to take
this opportunity to note to you two efforts which the County has
absorbed to further this effort.
First, in May of 1982 the County expended some $2000 for services by
Metro to carry out a special traffic analysis. The purpose of this
study was to provide preliminary %reformation to the Local Improvement
District consultant on the traffic which a Murray extension would
carry and, thus, the relief to 135th and Walnut. (This effort, of
course , was superceded by the broader Metro modeling effort completed
last September.)
The second effort which the County has supported to assure the
provision of appropriate urban services was' a supplemental $6000
agreement with the Local Improvement District consultant to evaluate
alternative alignments for the Murray extension. (This process is
nearing completion and an alignment map will be presented in discus-
sion with your Council. )
In summary, we feel our process has been open, cooperative and
comprehensive as LCDC would require in meeting the intent of the
goals . We hope, when briefed on these facts, you will realize our
attempt to respect the neighborhood needs but, also, the need to
consider the broader travel needs of other County residents.
aF County Road Planning
Page 3
DURHAM ROAD
In joint discussions with Tigard and Tualatin staffs last year, it
was decided that a series of studies be carried out to investigate
the following:
a 1. The need to restrict truck traffic (over 30,000 pounds GVW)
on Durham Road,' and
2.. the feasibility of using the Tualatin-Sherwood bypass as an
alternate route.
Several studies were carried out in this regard and, while we have
not been able to compile a final report 'on these efforts, the
following represent -the' major conclusions which can be drawn:
1. The averaae (three axle +) truck traffic on Durham Road
(99W to Hall Blvd,. ) is 200, per 'day during weekdays and"about
75 per day on weekends.
2. Very few of these heavy truck movements occur" between 10 :00 `PM
and 6: 00 AM. An average of only about six per night was
determined.
3. Noise studies carried out by the USDOT over a one day period z
found only two violations, neither of which were heavy trucks_
4 . The Oregon Trucking Association looked into speeding on this
facility and found that smaller, step-type vans and delivery
vehicles are responsible for speeding violations, not heavy
trucks.
5. The Oregon State Speed Control Board carried out speed and
accident studies and found the existing 40 MPH limit to be
appropriate.
6. The proposal to route truck traffic to Tualatin Road and the
Tualatin-Sherwood bypass cannot be enacted at this time because
of the inability of a number of intersections to safely accom-
modate trucks.
7. Metro and ODOT will be conducting a travel survey in this area
later this year. Additional data could be developed from this
study (if appropriately structured) to determine if the
proposed Tualatin truck route would divert a significant
number of trucks to make this a viable option.
In summary, I cannot recommend the limitation of truck traffic at this
time on Durham Road. Further, the transportation modeling effort
previously discussed indicates the need for Durham Road to function
as an arterial street_ given projected development in the area. (See
previous figures in this report. )
County RoadPlanning` '
Page 4
It may be possible to improve Durham Road while protecting and
buffering surrounding residential neighborhoods.' The County 'stands'
ready to discuss this option with Tigard and, indeed, we need to
move forward in; thisarea ,given new development that will require
County i'permits in order to access Durham Road.
Finally, it appears that both the County and City transportation
planning efforts have arrived at differing conclusions as to the
appropriate functional cl'assificat'ion for Murray' s extension rand
for Durham Road. I would` greatly ,.appreciate: the- opportunity to
review the technical information supporting the .City's recommendation
and the subsequent opportunity to work with, your staff in resolving
the differences.'
MCN:ss
'6 -
1 `?o
s
O
J
N 735�
Z/3
M U KIZAll, � N
LEGEND <
Lane Requirements (�
EXISTING/ YEAR 2000
Congested Road Section
...........
(Levet cf Service 'D')
......................
�OZ�, (Level of Service 'E' or Werse) � a�Ei- rj�}. �i ?L7.
� lR
_ -- - i
-' ashington .-1 a Kt5 Q u l FIEF mF.14Ts
s aunty M., NSIONIS
s-
4
R
{
5 � '
O \?5 + Ilk
2 ja
v
Va
13541-1
c ~ T
M u F-RA.-,t
Z15 G
e
LEGEND �
Lane Requirements }
E X ISTf JG/ YEAR 2000
c
Congested Road Section
(Levei of Service 'D-)
(Level of Service 'E' or Worse)
Z13 1
ashington U1 F,F,M S V4T
ounty
Pt:BLIC WORKS
L ' o
S�
� l3
243 .
O iZ5'k�.
S c.1
�i
� a
13541A 'Os
Wt U KKA.'e
•s
Z15
m
LEGEND f�J
Lane Requirements
EXISTING/ YEAR 2000
Congested Road Section
(Level of Service •D•)
(Level of Service•E• or Worse)
�g BEE1= BEN® KR
r
�-ISMnston
oust Ut
PUBLoC%'.ORKS 1 0 g 10
w
a
o
z
- :W.�. -• � 66 I Sys � . ,
a
w 5 • u
s
135 4% ®�
t
M IJ
D
4 i
LEGEND qJ
Lane Requirements
EXISTING/YEAR 2000
a
Congested Road Section a '
i (Level of Service 'D') t
� ® (Leval of Service 'E' or Norse)
2./5
k
_ ashington
ounty _
PuOUC WORKS i �
� .LsL
m
5.6 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT S :8-83 PD (Park Place) NPO #3
The applicant is requesting conceptual and detailed plan approval of
' a 'planned development and preliminary plat approval of Phase 1,
consisting of 39 units.
LOCATION: " 13900 Sw 121st Avenue (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2SI 3CC, ,Tax Lot
401 and 2S1 4 Tax Lot 1400) .
a Associate Planner Liden made staff's recommendationfor 'approval
P with conditions.
APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION E'
Mike Fain, Century 21 Properties, reviewed history of the project and s'
changes which had been incorporated and addressed.'
NPO .COMMENTS
Bob " Bledsoe, 11800 SW Walnut, NPO #3, unanimously supported the
k,
application. He then addressed issues of concern which had been
resolved. k'
x,
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
f' ® Betty mccain, 13950 SW 121st, opposed the application. She felt
. the density violated the Established Area policy. ' Also opposed k
the "T" on`Caarde.
® Ralph Flower, 11700 SW Caarde, opposed .the project because of
street alignment. He submitted a June 6, 1978 letter from
Washington County concerning the future alignment of the
extension of 135th and proposed assurances.
a Kevin Martin, Washington County, opposed this development due to h
the fact that the street design is inconsistent with the
Washington County Comprehensive Plan.
CROSS EXAMINATION AND REBUTTAL
® Discussion followed regarding additional information submitted
and City Council's direction.
® Discussion followed on how to proceed with this application.
R
® Bob Bledsoe, NPO 03, reviewed Comprehensive Plan process and �
pointed out that this application was in conformance with the
adopted Comprehensive Plan.
a Commissioner Edin questioned if staff was requiring half-street
improvements on both sides of 121st. Discussion followed.
Streets would probably be 3/4 improved.
a Lengthy discussion followed regarding the private streets.
PACE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 6, 1984 ;
a Mrs. McCain asked if a guard rail could be installed to replace
trees which have been protecting her house.
® Further `discussion on private street comparisons were done
between.London< Sq. and proposed project.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
® Commissioner Butler asked that a condition be added regarding
maintenance of the private street.
a Commissioner Moen had concerns regarding private streets.
0 Commissioner Fyre felt that the plan was a compromise. He was gi
concerned with private streets. -
® ': Commissioner .Peterson also was .concerned about ;private streets.
Also he would 'like to see sidewalks.
a Commissioner Edin was also concerned regarding private street.
He was also concerned with Hr. :Flower's testimony and wanted to
see it resolved.
e Commissioner Leverett favored.
0,; Commissioner Owens :felt .the road issue must be resolved between
the City and County. She was also concerned with private roads �-
and had other concerns she felt she was not able to address
during cross examination and rebuttal.
o Discussion followed regarding the private streets.
a President Tepedino had numerous concerns regarding the roads and
traffic circulation.
® . Commissioner Leverett moved for approval of S 8-83 per staff's
recommendation and conditions.
® Commissioner Edin seconded.
a Commissioner Peterson stated he would like to see a condition
included for sidewalks and to include Mr. Butler's motion for
maintenance of public roads.
a Commissioner Leverett agreed to add a condition for maintenance
of private roads, Commissioner Edin seconded.
a ?lotion failed with Commissioners Peterson, Fyre, Tepedino, Moen
and Owens voting NAY.
0'
® Commissioner Fyre moved for approval with conditions (per tape)
a Commissioner Edin seconded.
PAGE 12 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 6, 1984
f'
' ® Motion failed 4-4. Commissioners Leverett, Butler. Moen and
Owens voting NAY.
i
o Commissioner Owens moved for. denial 'because of the private
street design. , lack of "sidewalks and lack of an agreement
' between the City and County for the arterial.
® Commissioner Moen seconded. €
® Discussion followed regarding street alignment. s
® Motion failed. Commissioner Leverett, Edin, Peterson, Fyre and k
Tepedino voting NAY.
® Commissioner Butler moved for approval based on Homeowner's By _
_ Laws reflect maintenance requirements,: that there.:.is no previous
street alignment, there be 34 s'ft.
formal agreement for the;
street, but no 50 ft. right-of-way, 12 ft. each lane and four
f t. sidewalks.
m Motion failed for lack of second.
4
® Commissioner Moen moved for approval of conceptual and detailed
planned development ,approval and preliminary plat approval of i
Phase I of S 8-83 PD subject to staff's conditions and the i
following:conditions.
Conditions:
1. The Homeowner Association By Lags will reflect that maintenance
of private streets end dedicated open space, recreational areas _
or private mini park be the sole responsibility of the _
Homeowners Assoc. with no participation required or needed by
the City.
2. Streets will be 24 ft. wide, with four ft. sidewalks on both
sides of tracks A & C, and sidewalks on one side of track B.
3. Garages will be located 20' to outside edge of sidewalk.
® Commissioner Butler seconded.
® Motion carried, Commissioner Owens voting NAY.
5.7 RESIDENTIAL HOMES ZOA 4-84
eY ® Director Monahan explained that residential homes fall under the
home occupation portion of the Code. Issue to deal with is does
the Planning Commission feel that the home occupation is a
commercial venture and if language in the Code is adequate to
handle the issue.
® Carolyn Eadon, representing NPO ul, supported staff's i
recommendation.
PAGE 13 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 6, 1984
STAFF REPORT
REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 5.8
MARCH 6, 1984 - 7:30 P.M. [
TIGARD PLANNING',COMMISSION
FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL - LGI
10865 S.W. WALNUT
TIGARD, OREGON 97223
r
� v
A. FINDING OF FACT
i
1. General Information
CASE: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT S 8-83 PD (Park Place) NPO #3 i.
s
,
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting conceptual and detailed plan
approval of a planned development and preliminary plat
approval of Phase I, consisting of 39 units.)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential
ZONING DESIGNATION: R-4'.5 (PD) a
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of S 8-83 PD, subject to the `
conditions listed in this staff report.
APPLICANT: Century 21 Homes Inca OWNER: same
7412 SW Beaverton Hillsdale Hwy:
Portland, OR 97225
LOCATION: 13900 SW 121st Avenue (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 3CC, Tax Lot
401 and 2S1 4 Tax Lot 1400).
LOT AREA: 47.81 acres
s
NPO COMYXNT: NPO #3 has not responded in writing to this revised
f application request.
2. Background
This application went before Planning Commission on December 6, 1983 for I
conceptual and detailed plan approval for a planned development and
preliminary plat approval for a 43 unit development. The proposal was
denied by the Commission for the following reasons: t
s
a. Incomplete and inaccurate information;
b. Private streets are inappropriate; and
C. Insufficient information was available to approve the density ; ..
transfer to Phase I.
i
x
s
k
/ The decision was appealed to the City Council and on February 16, 1984,
the _Council decided to remand the application back to the Commission
with the following direction: a
a. Gaarde Street should be designed to minor collector standards and
that it be aligned to provide a "T" intersection:
b. Gaarde Street also be developed in accordance with the
Comprehensive Plan. The street should be designed to discourage
the use of Gaarde Street and the development streets as an
extension of Murray Blvd.
C. The development be designed to meet the purpose of Section
18.80.010 (A)(1) "To 'provide a means for creating planned
f "N
environments through the application of flexible standards which
allow for the application of new techniques and new,',technology in E
community development which will result in :a superior living
environment."
3. Proposal Description
The applicant has submitted a revised plan for Phase I of the
development in response to the comments of the Commission and >the
Council. A '`narrative provided by the applicant outlines the; changes
that have been made to the earlier proposal. The major changes are:
a: Expansion of Phase I from 8.6 gross acreage to 9:42 acres and
reduction of the number of units from 43 to 49; r
b. Realigning Gaarde Street and modifying the location of
intersection at the west end of Phase I;
C. Individual lots are shown to clarify ownership boundaries; and
d. Private street locations have to be modified.
g
6
In addition, the applicant has submitted the following comments
regarding the development:
a. Density is now at approximately 4.5 units per acre.
b. Private drives remain at a 24-foot paved width; however, at NPO
##3's suggestion and our concurrence, the extruded curb on one side r
of the private drives shall be placed at four (4) feet from edge
of pavement to better delineate and protect pedestrian traffic.
The curb will help discourage parking on this side of private
streets and can, for emergency vehicles, be straddled if need be.
C. Afour (4) foot landscaped strip has been added between the .
private roadway and south boundary line r
We propose "NO PARKING THIS SIDE" signs on pedestrian side of
d. P p
private streets.
STAFF REPORT - S 8-83 pDPAGE 2
e, Angle parking has been 'added adjacent to lots 15 through 20.
t
f, Lot dimensions have been added. t
to be continuous through the `
g, Sidewalk and curb is proposed 6
driveway approaches to private streets. }
r.
iation
h. It is clear intent est seHomeownerts be s Assoc sole responsi.bilityhof
maintenance of the private required or
the Homeowners Association with no participation street
needed by the City in this regard. Provision for funding k ,
maintenance is made in Article IV, Section 4 o said by-laws.' In i
view of the fact that some sites have direct access from Gaarde,
vi
'
the matter he annual assessment as well as the voting percentages
will be reviewed
required to effect maintenance ewed with our
attorney. In this regard, , d include
items that will be considere
both life expectancy of pavement and replacement costs.
mos southerly of private streets, catch basins have been
i• 0n the mosaway from Gaarde to mitigate the surface
added asome distance
nd exit points.
runoff problems at the entrance a
J•
Although the plan indicates a twenty-five 5a toot twenty setback
foot
Gaarde, it is the intent of the: plan to show �
setback.
( 4, Agency Comments
The Engineering Division has the following comments:
improve the 121st Avenue frontage and the
a. The applicant must
intersection of SW 121st and Gaarde to City interim standards.
b• Half-street improvements to collector standards
project,be made` to -
SW 121st Avenue where it fronts the app
C. All on-site streets, curbs, and sidewalks shall be constructed to
City standards.
d. If the 24-foot wide private streets are made one-way, parking will
only be allowed on one side of the street.
e. The applicant must provide bicycle lanes on the Gaarde Street
extension within the project boundaries and along the 121st Avenue
frontage.
f• Fifteen-foot wide public utility easements shall be provided for
lines
storm and sanitary sewer lines in the project. Wherethe
entire
are under the private streets (Tract "A" and "C""),
tract should be used to describe the easement.
r g, Provisions must be made for adequately handling off-site drainage
Also, provision should be made for
to the west of Gaarde Street•
roof-top drainage on the northern lots.
STAFF REPORT - S 8-83 PD - PAGE 3
21
h. The proposed alignment of Gaarde Street near the 121st Avenue
intersection will apparently Necessitate right-of-way dedication
from the property to the south. A 60-foot 'wide right-of-way will
ntire length of Gaarde Street.
be required for the e
"B" should be redesigned to
i. The western end of access Tract
eliminate awkward left turn movements onto Gaarde Street.
The Tualatin Rural Fire Protection District has no objection to the
proposal.
A school impact statement has not been received from the School District.
B. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
ed Development sections of the Code
The provisions of the R-4.5 and Plann
transferring density
allow for a maximum of 43 units on Phase I without
from Phase II. The 39 units requested conforms with the R-4.5 (PD)
designation.
The alignment of Gaarde Street has been modified and appears to
successfully ,address previous concerns regarding its location. The
applicant contends this alignment is satisfactory with NPO #3.
The major features of the proposal are ,properly designed and provided
the conditions of approval below are met; Phase I of Park Place is in
- conformance with City policy and the Development Code.
C. RECOMMENDATION
The Planning staff recommends approval of the request for conceptual and q
detailed planned development approval and preliminary plat approval of
Phase I of S 8-83 PD subject to the following conditions:
1. Seven (7) sets of plan-profile public improvement construction
sty
plans and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate,osedamped public
a registered civil engineer, detailing all prop
be submitted to the City's Engineering Division
improvements shall
for review.
ction of proposed public improvements shall not commence
2. Construn has
until after the Engineering seri g Divisions will equire posting
improvement plans. The Engineering
of a 100% performance bond, the payment of a permit fee and a sign
installation/street light deposit. Also, the execution of a
street opening permit or construction compliance agreement just
prior to, or at the time of, it's issuance of approved public
improvement plans.
3. The final subdivision plat shall be recorded with Washington
County prior to the issuance of any building permits.
4. No changes or modifications shall be made to approved plans
without written approval from the appropriate City department.
STAFF REPORT - S 8-83 PD PAGE 4
5. The applicant must improve the 121st Avenue frontage and the
intersection of SW 121st and Gaarde to City interimstandards. - 3
i -
6. Half-street improvements to collector standards shall be made to
SW 121st Avenue where it fronts the applicant's project.
7. All on-site streets, curbs, and sidewalks shall be constructed to
City standards.
8. If the 24-foot wide private streets are made one-way, parking 'will ,
only be allowed on one side of the street.
G
9. The applicant must provide bicycle lanes on the Gaarde Street
extension within the project ;boundaries and 121st Avenue in
accordance with City standards.
10. Fifteen-foot wide public utility easements shall be provided for
storm and sanitary sewer lines in the project. Where the lines ' _
are under the -private streets (Tract "A"- and "C"), the entire
tract should be used to describe the easement. e
il. Provisions must be made for adequately handling off-site drainage
to the west of Gaarde Street. Also, provision should be made for
roof-top drainage on the northern lots.
12. A 60-foot wide right-of-way will be required for the entire length
of Gaarde Street.
13. The western end of access Tract "B" shall be redesigned to
eliminate awkward left turn movements onto Gaarde Street.
14. Survey Conditions:
a. Vertical Datum shall be City of Tigard (N.G.S. 1929). All .
existing and established (temporary) bench marks in the ,
vicinity of the project shall be shown on the construction .
drawing.
§ b. Compliance of 18.160.160 (all) with the following exceptions:
18.160.160 A.2
Capped 5/8" x 30" Iron Rods on surface of final lift
will be acceptable. ,
NOTE
18.160.160 B.1
City of Tigard Primary Control Surveys (CS. # 19,947 & _
20,223) Local-Ground coordinates exist for all stations.
State plane coordinates not required. City can make
transformation given local coordinates.
STAFF REPORT S 8-83 PD PAGE 5
c. Compliance with Section 18.160.190 (B):
18.160.190 Filing and Recording
B. Upon final recording with the County, the applicant
a shall submit to the City a 'mylar copy of the recorded
final,plat.
15. A School Impact Statement that has been reviewed by the
appropriate schooldistrict official must be submitted , prior to
x final plat approval.
PREPAP, D BY: Keith: Liden " APPROVED BY: William A. Monahan
Associate Planner Director of Planning 6
Development
(KL:pm/0337P) '
I
STAFF REPORT S 8-83 PD PAGE 6
�e �S� ze ee �eee
mttLn eOH -oq-S H
I - tl lac ►11 a�° leo Itl 111 It1 ip1 iii J�1 ISI Itl Ijl i' m � lOt ° 1"° T' !° ° ° 1 1 1 i "" -- ___ .__._.- _ �..:-.:--- ���._�....M ..__�. -_�_�..__._..�.,.,_.�;_=_;':
11111 Jill lrl llt(11°!i°1'ilili�r(e fIIFu ,
NOTE: IF THIS MICROFILMED �' - .!- 2 rj _ 7 8 10 i1 12ddM
DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THANIAM
' - -
THIS NOTICE, IT IS DDE TO
THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL
DRAWING.
de 62 ez 'a az sz tz ez zz Iz Oz St i31 LI 91 S1' b1 e°-_. Z1 i' 01 6- e L 9 S .. b- g. z 1
�PII°HIIIIIH(°71111111(tIU�AH9ikPli�Ult °°(�Netl�"i'e'—++�+ah°+ml+*9e=al+nzbh+=�a-"'°=•A '. 7 �j{g°(16jpy� j +aol
r u ' 1
I
S�
Ka------- -- - _.
/• /; / Q6—�S— CATCH BA51,1 /: '�i 14
WAT`E(LL-rNg
/ -- - - AISTLi4 q PRE!
/ IMINARY PLAN �}
O ' \ ! PLANNED DEVELOP E!!r e SUF,DrV151orl 6Y
)t�� CENT -f 21 10ROPCR?'IES ![-IC
.
OwN459 • PF -OFF-R • 5WGJt F_ER
P.O. Sox 1406 -1IGo S.Nl.HAZELFEIZh4
f / NoP-TH •v,¢i TUALAii1J OIcE60N 970(.2
i L� TA'Y' LCT 401 IN SEGS e,+i 10 MAP 2S 13Cr-
i T-Ax LzT-4400 ;ti• SEL. 4, !A(AP ZS ,4
T, 25, R w. W.M, GIT-, Of 716ARp
/ / I y./ASNIhi&T'CLj (',CUNT`( OREGON
CAT f x}
1
n�O P
'l '
• - - w
ter.-��L � ! � �sr..� ���' 2 � �' �, �I I� � �I � �So •-- __ . __ ._
LcT'g-A vur ��_ 1 3 t'` v,� .. —,-,_1�(r r, T I �—�-- \ �, I a .5
�.i�
V I - "! �+. i DISGai E 310 - - T/6 -Y
1:3 ' ro1,
LIGaaT 53-- S rte--, 3�0 , EECNTOLD
�...
t S vMY
0 "6d
33._ ry .,.,. �� �9 �2 o• fo' foa• �a ,o c_v
�` ? 1 � 1 }�, I i � 35 �a '+�` �a, o •���. �'� 13 I;;�I I i �r-7�- � r--- �r---
1 R^ 1
D; Ci `\ G• -r 1 ���I I i I �): - 6
712ACT _g _
3�
exr�u�-9 CuXa
? I
1 ( ( EDG✓'� OF �—, 1 —1 I3I_p�5TF`-i � FL TrPl "4"'o,
STA6L f)-FKIIJn
Tats stv691G5 OeJ 36
i
. 's�_
� P�iVP7C Oacwn.Y_.. -�_-. I 'o• '', j ._ c, .I i
,.IO
t
• 1l i � � � � v� a2: b4 _i._t� ;L'a�. L_o-? �. -!{.��' _ ��zwc,rcH
I I _
• _ . - p+,T1+`'6. - '- ..: $�; � ori AON�?
:71+g+361+}';►ta U+la:9a �'e�?<}+ afala}r lylya(7 afajai} ►Tijs7�lafi t+ a� tfa aja �r t a f I. }. } } ! t
�i l I �lijlla�t ila a'�3 ala t�t ala sia alal+1+7iltill alal+t+iifali}alafilIII aia�tlals}ajtta � m
NOTE: IF THIS MICROFILMED !' — _,.�..._.- - 2 3 4 _.. _ S _ 67 8 9 :. to -
DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN
THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TOTHE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL
DRAWING.
6E 6Z 8Z LZ 92 SZ AZ EZ ZZ IZ OZ Bt Bi LI 91 St' bi Et Zi 17 OI 6 9 I 'L S S 4 E Z a—
oai�asnlHalaauluulauaftq+laaaslaa f
1 —
VEIA
�r k
_ S `
r Q
'TRANSCRIPT - PARK PLACE
March 6, 1984, Planning Commission Meeting'
President Tepedino,_ "There being no objection I now move to item 5.8, the
• subdivision Park Place, following that we will move onto 5.9 the residential
homes questions, then pick up the other two items that are being proposed by
M. the City of Tigard. So 5.8, please may Ihave the . staff report and
° recommendation"
Associate Planner Keith Liden, "This proposal is for Park Place, this was
- reviewed by the Planning Commission in December of last year and was. denied
for the following reasons, incomplete and inaccurate information, this felt ,
information
that private streets were inappropriate, and insufficient
available to approve the density transfer in phase I. This proposal, this
decision was appealed to City Council and ,on February 16 of this year ''Council
remand the request back to Planning Commission for reconsideration. In
response to the comments received at the two hearings before, the applicant
has proposed a number of changes that are listed in the staff report. Changes a }. a
on the,previous application that you've seen. I'm not going to go through all y
of those, but I do want to bring up one thing that, actually a couple of
mistakes, on Item 3 a. on page two, and that is that Phase I will be still -°�
approximately 8.6 acres and will not be extended to the 9.4 ;as indicated,
there was a change after some of the initial information ' was given right at
end, just before I finished the staff report .. . , also the reduction in the
r
number of units will be from 43 to 39. Obviously a typo error. Okay, with
acres and the 39 units its we come up with an overall density of 4.53
units per acre. Staff recommends approval of this proposal subject to the
• conditions which are listed in the report."
President Tepedino, 'Okay, thank you staff. Can I have the input from the
NPO.11
Bob Bledsoe, "Yes, can we following the applicant."
President Tepedino, "Okay, fine. Is there anyone from CCI? Anyone from
+ CCI? Applicant's presentation please."
Mr. Chairmen, members of the Commission, my name is Mike Fain, I represent and
am employed by Century 21 Properties. I am a civil engineer, and have taken
over recently this particular project, ..... Bob, NPO records, as well as the
remand by the City Council to the Planning Commission. As a little bit of
background that you have in front of you anyway. This proposal before your is
the result of a remand by the City Council. Their main items of concern were
that Gaarde be designed to minor collector standards and provide for a "T"
intersection and that the development be in compliance with the comprehensive
plan. I think you will notice the "T" intersection has been provided, in fact
is included within the boundaries of this particular phase and that we
designed, or that we prepared, we proposed that it would be built within this
phase. Another item of concern by the City Council is that this street design
at Gaarde, be designed to discourage the use of Gaarde and other streets in
the vicinity as a extension of Murray. This we have done with two
consultations with staff and NPO, we've increase the radius, which should slow
W _._ _ _ _.
F
pbag
i
down traffic slightly. The other item was that the development be designed to
as to meet the purpose of planned development,per section 18.80.010 a. , 1., of
` the municipal code 'which 'reads, "To provide a means for creative planned
environments through the application of: flexible standards which allow for the
new technology in new developments which
application of new techniques and
will result in superior living environment." With regard to the design of the
development and section 18.80.010 a. , 1., we 'sincerely believe that due to the
constraints imposed by the alignment of Gaarde that we have designed the x�
To design it in the conventional
development in the best way that we can. `
manner would at best be a 'marginal venture resulting in a housing cost, that
would possibly be beyond the reach of any ;potential consumer. The plan as _
submitted provides a far superior living arrangement than what would otherwise r
be achieved by conventional development techniques. Some of the other items
of 'minor concern, concerning sidewalks and '24 ft. non-curbed streets and the
alignment of SW Gaarde. NPO had one concern, we have addressed all of theirs
early on, with the exception of the one lane, which we were able to iron out i
just recently. ,.And that concern was that in the by laws of the Home Owners
Association that we possibly take a hard look at the percentage voting
-u requirements
on maintaining` private streets. We have to take a look at that,
in view of the -fact that there are some loss, whose access would come off of k
Gaarde and thus may not have a interest that those people who live on Gaarde a
Street may have and far as maintenance is concerned. It would drop the fK •
required percentage to majority rather than 66 and 2/3 percent. The other '
items of "'concern to the NPO _was the $100.00 annual assessment fee for 'those -
* maintenance items. -After a brief review of that, we feel that a $100.00
annual assessment fee' is proper, that it should cover the cost of maintenance:
F of the streets. More from the standpoint that any street reconstruction would
be more from the, more for overlay "situation, 'rather than a total 'street
reconstruction. With that we feel that we have NPO's unanimous support, we
have the planning staff's support, we tried to address every issue, in the
best manner possible, in a responsible manner and with that, we ask for your
approval at this time.
President Tepedino, "Okay, thank you sir. Call for the NPO's presentation."
"Bob Bledsoe, 11800 SW Walnut, Chairmen of NPO # 3. We had a meeting last
night, uh, we had twice previously contacted the developer with regardtothe
development application. NPO # 3 unanimously support this development. We
had the one condition, which he mentioned in the by laws, include a lower
percentage required to special assessment group for road improvements •for•the
private roads. We thought this was necessary because of the .
interest. Uh, Like to point out that some features of this application,
previously you had a concern that the, your concern was that you were
approving things on phase II, which you do not knew really, wasn't specified
out. This application completely separates phase II from future phase, phase
I. All your including right now is the phase I and whenever the other phases u
come in you'll get to see all of them and in the appropriate proper detail.
So your not approving, giving anything away in the _future. Which was a
concern you properly had at the last hearing. Another concern that you has I _
was in regard to the private roads. We note that this density on the project
has been reduced down to the larger 43 units approximately same ... •
. down
to 39 now. This will include a lower impact on parking, and the parking is
along one side of the entire private road. Its a one way road 24 ft. wide,
p
with separated area for the pedestrian to travel. You may not noticed that,
but there is a -four ft.', the 'curb has been moved_ four feet to provide a
separate identifiable place fora .................... ..... . and there will be
parking on the other side ,of the private road. That leave twenty feet, eight
feet for parking,_' twelve for the traveling lane. Also, the new alignment of
Gaarde Street, in regard to the;parking situation, is now more clearly-a minor
collector, which is its designation'. As a minor collector it allows for
parking ;on the edge, places where its not interfering with intersection =.
�..9 traffic. The minor collector road which are Gaarde and the un—named road
headed to the north includes the "T" which is specified and is also now
designed to more clearly discourage through traffic, than some of the >earlier
plans. We support the staff's conditions, except for one condition, which the
" NPO has not taken a position on, and that is the development across the
street, on the other side of 121st, from development. Staff is requiring full
curb and . .,• we not taking any position on that. •• .
There
will be some neighbors here speaking to that particular issue. We llbe ready
for questions later on."
President Tepedino, "Thank you Mr. Bledsoe. I would like to call for public A
t comment now. First';pro, those in favor of this application. May I call for
those against the item."
"Mr. Chairman,', members of the Commission, my name is ,Betty McCain, I live at
13950 SW 121st Street. I note that they have reduced the amount of units that
they plan to put on this, but somewhere in the development code I-read that if
a new division, subdivision like this abuts a established residential area,
within a hundred feet then it has to, it can only be twenty-five percent more
n than the residential established area or there has to be a buffer, and I don't
see a buffer and I know they are within a hundred feet. A established
residential area up there is between one and three units per acre and what
their proposing is 4.53. Maybe something wrong with that, I don't know. I am s
"T" end on Gaarde. The "T" end on Gaarde on top
still very concern with this - .
of that hill is nothing more than setting it up for an extension to Murray
Road later on. The kind of traffic we get there now, the road can't, almost
can't handle it as it is. I think we are all in agreement with that. Your
going to be pouring all the traffic from the subdivision onto that road in
addition to what we've already got. Plus your opening the door for Washington
County Murray Road extension. I, there isn't a way around that. ..........
Because it will connect soon or later. It's going to connect .......... five
lanes now, you know. It would put a lot of us up there out of misery instead
of taking a piece of our land at a time. The other thing,. ..... , I know that
LCDC and HUD, or LCDC and 1000 Friends of Oregon, they've really been on the
Planning Commission back and I'm afraid that the other thing thats going to
happen up here is that Chats going to be turned into a development for low
cost housing to appease 1000 Friends of Oregon and LCDC. Thats all I'm going ,
to say."
President Tepedino, "Thank you. Any other parties wishing to speak in
opposition, those opposing it. Yes sir."
l
F
mnoma
a g
ht
"Ladies and Gentlemen, I hope you can hear me, I have a little trouble
talking. My name is Ralph Flowers," _I live at 117th and Gaarde, 117,00 SW
Gaarde. You've probably heard my talk against this project before. Mainly
for the fact ,that the they are connecting their: streets to Gaarde and for
121st. Now, several years ago when the Ames family, Edwards property were up,
for their annexation yeahfor their annexation approval we had meetings with
the Council and Washington County. We were, under the condition that we
approve, :we were promised at that time that there would be no connection, no
street connection to either Gaarde, or 121st Street. ' That; being the 'case.
Live up to that statement.` The whole- block laid out here with these streets
is contrary to; that. Now, Mr. oh gosh I have trouble with names,` uh one of '
the employees uh Monahan, Yeah one of the staff,' Mr. ;Monahan said he would,
' told me over the phone that he would go back thru the records and try to find
a record of that promise. It, he apparently couldn't find it. The statement
that he made that he didn't locate it. However, Mayor Bishop was preceding at
` the Council meeting, on the night that this was referred back to you folks and
he remembered it. He says regardless whether it is on the record or not he
remembers the statement. Alright that bears that out somewhat. And again I:
have a letter, and the NPO, Mr. Bledsoe came by ,the other day and showed it,
A that I understand ........ ....... And he told me that he didn't see where' k
there was much that I could do about this. But `I called some of my friends,
who` I hope would come up with some help and here it is. Had Mr. Bledsoe told';
me they were having 'a NPO meeting last night I- would have been there with
this, this might have helped a-little bit.' But thisis a letter from, its
dated June the 6th,, 1978, we know this happened a few years ago, back when
` Miss ............ was working for the .....-....... It from the Planning, its
Larry K. Frazier, address to Mr. Aldie Howard and its thanking him for 'trying
to; get him a copy of the material on, re: proposal to annex 142 acres lying
north of'Bull Mtn. Road and west of 121st at 114th Avenue, which covers this ;
' whole county, this area, we which is west of 121st and the Ames
property and all this other stuff uh . ....114th up ....... Gaarde Street and
uh Bull Mtn. Road. Covers the whole works. But there a ,couple of paragraphs
that come along here and then down to paragraph four, I can give you folks a
copy of this if you would like to see it and I'm sure you would. I feel bears
out my when this debate that I'm speaking on was going on, there was
an agreement that the road that is know as McFarland now thru the Ames
-- property and the Edwards property were to be extended on thru as it was needed
by these future developments and likely would come out on Walnut, somewhere in
the neighborhood of 132nd to 135th. Alright, this says a portion of the area
in this proposal has -been formally recognized by Washington County Planning
Commission as the future alignment for the extension of SW 135th Avenue. The
Ames and the Edwards developments have already dedicated and constructed
portionsof135th extension and requirement of other developments, this is
McFarland Street. If annexations occurs, assurance are needed that the
remainder of the alignment will be acquired and the roadway constructed as
�. development on the parcels occur. I think that that bears out the statement
that it was planned to take this traffic from all these developments up over
the hill, McFarland is laid out. As they are proposing on this Gaarde Street
extension that they have on there, its laid out as a aligned road to
discourage fast cars ...... ....... you won't be driving it at no 55 miles per -
hour, and Chats what we agreed to way back here when hector was a pup. And
its been lost somewhere due to oversight, change in personnel, or something,
but, I still don't ..... . ...... asking that this that you consider, serious
consideration, because this is the conditions under which the first _
annexations of the property south and east of this Bechtold property were
annexations for the beginning.
�e
ISM
' i
on
President Tepedino, "Thank you sir. I'm sure we'll have some oppoquessed
this
that. Any other parties wishing to speak in opposition, those opp
proposal.
"Chairman, members of the Commission, my name is Kevin;Martin and tonight I'm-
representing the Washington County Department of Land Use and 'transportation,
De artment and Public Works
thats the new version of the consolidated Planning p osed design of the b
F Division. I'm here to speak in opposition to the prop 'osed to the
Division.
Street extension to the Park Place project. We are not oppGaarde out
nx .
development itself, only to the `design of the roadway. ' I JuSositiona on passed
to you some written testimony, summarizing
the County's p
:y particular project. I will briefly summarize what is contained in that
letter. The general, the County's analysis of transportation needs in this
e urban area indicates that: a major collector connection
.particular part of thL
will ultimately be neededbsioneconnectlsomewhere/inWd
thev?icinityBOfd135thd
and
is:proposed that that exten
Walnut and extend Gown to Gaarde Road and 121st. The County's transportation
plan suggest that the street should be a major collector, which indicates that
he
it should be generally a ttarsectstreet
with
tight radiuses. tTotbe builthon170
of traffic, such as "T" in osin to, or
ft. right of way with 40 to 46 ft. improvement. The City is propos
a nTn
at the request of the City Council, the developer is proposing
intersection, from what .I can tell and 28 to 36 'ft. improvement60which is
es in the
right-of-way and directmajor collectorby est t S.veral Other Countystaffmembers have
inconsistent with J
been-involved"in this particular project for over a t partyWtowthose meetings(
` meetings that were held what not. I was not party
But other_ County staff members ht re. was addressed p essed lin ar theuWashington County
' enough concern to the County
Tigard Urban Planning Area Agreement, which was sig wiasscalls• for
particular condition is in the Urban PlanningAgreement
further study of the Murray Street extension and DurpaartRowouldbeing
takeone
a action
other issues, and both parties es aeed toption neither
In this case, the County
to preclude the other p preferred ro oses an indirect
prefers a major collector extension, the laced ity finTigard proposes
Urban Planning area
, az'u connection. There was a sunset clause p where
on issues
Agreement that said, if the rextendtthe agr2ement,wthatnthe agement would
ere
both parties could not agree tor
o
lapse on January lst of this year. City of Tigard has chosen not to renew the
i not
has
agreement so it has expired and nLegard1 effect th time.is to status oftheUrban Plann ngyArea
made other comments to LCDC g
the woman who testified earlier about
Agreement. Oh I might make a comment, apparently in
the five lane extension for 24urray Blvd. There Bivdas anerror,extension was proposed
one of the local newspapers, that said the Murray
as five lanes. Five lanes is the
ma.orimprovement
collector, whichdisfor
threealanes, soogthere
arterial and we're proposing a J o Are there
was an error in there and was misconstrued by a number of people.
any questions.
President Tepedino, "No, not at this time, thank you for your testimony. Any
other parties wishing to speak in opposition to this application,
other par Now is the opportunity for cross examination and or reatlthis
guess what I would like to do is pose a question to staff as to why,
late date we're getting additional information.
Director Monahan, "Your referring to the information from Mr. Flowers."
President Tepedino, "Yes."
Director- Monahan, "Well, Adrianne has the letter, the letter, second
paragraph, says, 47e have investigated the potential land use impacts of the
proposal and offer the following findings for your consideration. ; This letter
was submitted ,by Mr. Flowers and its and offer of findings, now I have not
seen this letter I don't know if the offerwas accepted or whether or not the
finding that this being' referred to by ........ development was in fact
incorporated into any decision.
President Tepedino, "If I may, it was a offer made by the City of Tigard to
Washington County.
Director Monahan, "No, Washington County offering findings tows. On some
type of negotiation`, that are taking place. It's similar to when someone gets
a land use approval and then they,
PP ........ ..... the applicant proposes R
:
findings and, the City make a decision whether those findings are agreeable. I
don't know what the status of this is.
President Tepedino, "The significants of this offeris what? Your
interpretation please."
Director Monahan, "Until we analyze whether or not, now that we have a lead
to potential dates to what Mr. Flowers is speaking of, we might be able to
find something in the records
that shows that such and such an 'agreement was
made. What standing such an agreement has now, uh, I`don't know, Adrianne?" - _
Legal Counsel, Adrianne, "Can I make two comments, one, the letter you have
there is signed by the Planning Director, it is not a official action by
Washington County in anyway. There just ............ comments saying thank
you for the opportunity to review. Here some information for you. So the
Tetter itself has no status at all. The Boundary Commission actually does, in
the annexation and so the conditions of annexation would be included the
Boundary Commission's action. The next questions which concerns me is despite
any kind of comment or any kind of things that went on about denying someone
on the grounds that
access to a public street. If you were to deny this I think there re
was inappropriate for them to have access
some really, I don't know how to phrase it, but I'm really not aware that you
can deny someone access to a public street.
William Monahan, to Relative to the County comments, the County comments are
not new. This is a continuing problem between the County and the City and I
think that the policy direction that we got from the Council is reflected in
the staff report. The Council asked us, rather asked the applicant to show
that "T" intersection. Sure, that violates the old agreement which is no
longer in effect. Thats the policy direction we got. At this point we are
trying to come up with a interim Urban Planning Area Agreement, that I will be
proposing to the Council. But I know that I can't propose an agreement that
is exactly the same as the one that we had December 31. So the proposal that
I will be making <coughing) is void of any transportation decisions, but will
set in place a procedure for the County and the City to negotiate over a
period of time to resolve the long term transportation issues. But only once
we have sufficient data, waiting for during that interim area planning
agreement."
President Tepedino, "Let me see if I'm understanding what you are saying.
Your,saying that the Council's policy, in direction to you would be to go with
this`"T" intersection not with standing the County's interest. i>
Monahan, "That is correct."
Tepedino, Now where is the County's, now where is the City Council's
direction in policy Mr. Flowers.
.... ...
Monahan, "There was no policy raised. When Mr. Flowers, Mr. Flowers is
;he brought this matter up at the City Council at the time they
correct,
remanded e back. ..'. ....s,.....found the information, I said no I hadn't
said, Well I remember that discussion."
found it, as he mentioned the Mayor
Tepedino, .(someone coughing)•
Monahan, "You have the full body of the Council's position.
Commission Edin, "My questions, I guess to Bill, ,in fact don't we have some
policies, due to the fact that we; just went through the comp, plan development
and streets were laidout. I'm bothered because we went clear through that sem:
and the time I was here. I don't remember any of that testimony. It may have
been and I was just absent.' I've heard Mr. Flowers address us a couple of
I don't remember, as I sat here in the comp; plan
times before on this issue. {
process of hearing that testimony. I may have been absent, but it seems to me
3 that_thats the policy I'm bound by is what in that 'comp plan."
' Monahan, "Well, I think you are right. Even if it was brought up in public b
hearings and Council` and the Planning Commission and the Council choose not to
incorporate I would first look at it, I
it, then its gone. Thats the way
don't know.
Id agree, the Planning Commission put together the comp
Tepedino, "Yes, I wou ¢
plan and sent it to the Citylaw.'Council to . ..... . �
Monahan, "A lot of old policies are gone now, from the previous old NPO
plans, previous ...... adopted a city wide plana
� x
Tepedino, "Mr Flowers you have a comment."
r _
Mr. Flowers, ". -••-• ••couple I was wondering about. How come you
people come up with a copy of that letter tonight. I got my saturday, from a
friend of mine."
Monahan, "That is the copy you turned in tonight. It's the one you gave to
the secretary."
Flowers, "Okay, I underlined where they in that letter, referred to this
streetthatthey have laid out through the Edwards and the Ames properties and
it refers to ... .... annexation . ........... as they development. That bears
out in my mind the fact that thats the way they plan to take it."
Monahan, "Theres no question that that opinion was expressed by the County,
but whether or not that was actually incorporated into an agreement between
the City and the County is not evident in that letter. Thats what I
d
3
�y
Mr. Flowers, Well its evident from the plotsof these Ames and Edwards
properties. That street is plainly shows' on right up to the across the
boundary of the Ames addition, which leads you right into the property were a
speaking of. It would be a logical extension through as that letter states.
Monahan, "It would be logical, but .its not the only alternative that road
could lead into. When I ....... look back into the records, : for whatever
value there might be, to see what this lead to. .'.(two, people •talking)... you
might be correct, the comprehensive plan has been changed and the
transportation map has been adopted, that ;probably is in conflict with this k.
old''agreement, if that agreement;exists.
Flowers, "Okay, in otherwords, then a governing' bodies word isn't worth the
time wasted to speak up. Is that what your trying to tell me."
Monahan, "No, the governing body has the ability ,as it develops over a period`
of time to change its policies r and 'change its programs to meet the heeds of
the population in the future. And its possible, if that was 'adopted, as a
policy, that for some reason when the comprehensive plan was adopted ,in 83
that someone had different idea, and possibly a better idea." `
e
Flowers, "Well, not to us and the neighborhood, it can't be a better idea."
(laughter)
Tepedino, "Thank you 'sir. , Counsel." '
Legal Counsel "I would sa
, g y, if it is a condition of the annexation that
access be somehow some other way then you would ,probably have to follow that.
It 'would be in a formal document, not just discussion, it would have to be
formally adopted.
(Several people talking the same time)
Monahan, "When you first ask me the question, I said, now that I've seen the
letter received today we might be able to trace it back. Liz went back, went
back through the City's ordinances and records with Loreen with the
approximate dates that Mr. Flowers gave us during his telephone conversation, +
we might be able to find something.
tar .
Tepedino, "Then the staff's position with this latest knowledge, is that a : :
ongoing search ....................... I
k`
Monahan, "I would say that we're advising that application go forward and ;.
come back to you with our finding, if we find that this has been adopted and
.... with Adrianne."
Tepedino, "Would it be a conditional approval, I'm asking the City Attorney.
If we so choose to approve it, with condition that no other agreement be found
on the part of the City."
Legal Counsel, "You could do that."
Monahan, "No other conflicting agreement."
Tepedino, "Because if there is a prior agreement, then we would be bound by
that ....... ........
m
Legal Counsel, "I'm worried about no other agreements ... At some
point this development has to be assured that. I think that you have to be
clear concisely what your'talking about. Informal discussion at
the City_ Council versus and adopted document. In other words if annexation
was conditioned upon.
Tepedino, "I take it it would have to been on or after June 6, 1978.
Flowers, "I think it probably was right around or slightly before that. It
was stated and I believe it was: recorded at Washington County Commission, I
R believe, ............ . called the annexation hearings of the Ames and the
Edwards properties.
Tepedino, "But, I take it sure that this letter is talking about a proposal."
Flowers, "Of further annexations. It says right there in that part that I �
underlined that the Ames and the Edwards additions properties` had plotted and =
built that.-road. .... ................. if annexation occurs.
F ,
x .
Tepedino, "The underlined part. :
Flowers, "That whole paragraph does"
Tepedino, "Yeah, but it says if annexation ''occurs .................. .. E ,
annexation then would be assess ` ............... . It 'sound that :it might be
almost to much of a burden to search records on this.
Monahan, "Now that we have :a lead it won't take us hardly any time at all."
Tepedino, "So if the Commission so choose to go forward with an approval
based on ......... we could make it conditional upon the actions of any formal
written agreement between the City and other associated parties for
.. Would Counsel be comfortable with that."
Legal Counsel, "Well, the Boundary Commission is the would be the
jurisdiction because of the annexation. So if the annexation is conditioned
upon that, that would be one, or I suppose the other thing is could there be
any agreement enter into, formal agreement between the Board of County
Commission and the City Council of Tigard as a precondition of going forward
with the annexation. So I suppose those two things you could have."
Tepedino, "Thank you. Any other questions on Cross Examination or Rebuttal.
_ - Yes sir."
Bledsoe, "First I'll address the issues just under discussion. The City did
adopt the comprehensive plan and what Mr. Flowers says, as far as I know, is
true about the County has implemented this provision. In all County maps that
you see, you'll see this road going thru it provide for future development.
Going from 135th and Walnut all the way to McFarland. However, the County
adopted a comprehensive plan this day, aligned the road not to McFarland any
longer but to Gaarde. ............... The City of Tigard adopted a
comprehensiveplan, .calling for a connection between, 121st and Gaarde and
�
132nd. • If this agreement your talking about affecting
both the County plan and the City plan are violated already. The development
..... ......... ........ . is within the scope of the comprehensive plan which
was sent forward by the Planning Commission and adopted by the City Council.
Im SIZE
I think you arein your proper authority to approve something that is entirely ;
within the comprehensive plan. Regarding the density transition. The project
is separated by a ,major collector, 121st is a major collector and the
transition does; not apply. I would encourage the Planning Commission to read
page 60 of your Community '.=�t-that me a Code sometime. �2re hashave
comebup andtheeen several times that I have observea that the ••-••
Code is eery clear as to what the limit is. For example for a single family
. noise much of Mr. Bledsoe testimony.- •y . '.
(tape ended) (2nd tape has loud buzzing
cannot be heard) The City Council gave: clear direction, first the "T" Y
intersection, second that it be designed according to the comprehensive plan, =
which was .......................... .......:....:..
Direct access is allowed, parking is allowed. •••These ••`features••o o the
comprehensive plan, '.......••. by City `Council are incorporated into the
plan. So we urge your support •in approving this plan.
Tepedino, "Thank you. Any other questions on Cross Examination and or
Rebuttal
Commission Edin, "I guess to staff first of -all with conditions, condition
number five. I would like it explained a little better what we mean by 121st
out the opposite side of the street?
Ave. frontage, are we talking ab
Planner Liden, "My understanding of interim standards means that
Associate
you have a
section of twenty feet and
.. . I've read it several time, you said in one condition ^
Edin, ...... ......
' that you must improve 121st frontage plus the intersection at 121st and
Gaarde, sthen we say in the next condition that must make half—street
improvements to 121st ..........• Now I can only conclude from that, that in
the first condition is that were making them do the opposite side of the -
my question. Does it have to be half
street to interim standards. Thats
f hgo across the centerline and improve the
street in front ois property this
other side to interim standards?
Liden, "Okay. someone from public works was here •to•address
this. The interim standard would be, first you start ••
. then in addition to that they
approximately in the center
wind up with
would half street improvements to there side so we th finished
street on one side plus enough pavement .. ..................
quarters street improvement.
Edin, "I guess I would like to ask the applicant, do you understand the
condition.
Mike Iain, "Commission Edin, staff and I talked with the engineering
department. We tried to get a hold of Frank Currie and he wasn't available.
I did talk with two people, one I think was Randy and the other was John
But in talking with John he indicated that to expect to the applicant
in. this case to fully improve the other side of the street was not keeping
pass process. However, he thought that it
with ...............
maybe reasonable to have a little •bit of pavement to make that turn more
negotiable ....•••••••••••••• He also stated, I might clarify that
actually come from Frank Currie,•-•••• that
•
those policy decision shouldthat would be his understanding. The last item he indicated that would
probably be resolved here at this process •-•• •-• " """"
b�
tl Tepedino, "Any other questions on cross examination and or rebuttal."
Edin, "I have a feeling that when we heard this before that what was
_ bothering a number of us`, partof ` it was because it was to private streets
standards and we weren't sure • .less standard
I can I'm still wrestling withit,• •I •still don't feel comfortable• with •that
question. Yet, I don't see anything in the way of finding or legality which
say you can't have ..... So I guess I .`...... .
Fain, "If I could, maybe I ........ help explain the situation better. I
don't know if it was clarified or emphasized enough .during the "last hearing,
but the traffic is one way, with proposed parking on one -side
of the street
and if ,you allow a eight foot space for parking,' for a six foot wide
automobile, and four foot pedestrian corridor on the other side, you end up
with a 12 ft. lane.'r Now as I was driving here this evening, along Hall Blvd.
you have a similar situation,
with as pedestrian corridor on the east side
......... . ...... .
Theres traffic `there and ;the speed limit is 45 MPH.' It
didn't seem to present that much of a` hazard. Here we would not expect speeds n"
over 10 to 15 miles per hour in the private road. On that bases it appears to
be"a reasonable proposal."
Tepedino, "Okay. Any other questions on cross before I close the public
hearings. Commissioner Owens."
' Owens, "I am 'just wondering if the radius for the fire engines, I guess they
didn't have much concern aboutit, but the one way street there. could; a `fire
engine get around that corner."'
' m
Tepedino, "Staff can you address that." ° .
Liden, "The fire district reviewed the proposal and
4 Owens, "And they saw this street configuration. ................ What is
a intruded curb, I think I know, but I just want ...
Liden, ....... ............. is four feet out a would be just .....
Several people talking.
Owens, "Is it like the bike path along Farmington.
Fain, "Yes, its approximately 6 to 8 inches high and the bases of it is
anywhere from 10 to 12 inches wide, they make different forms using different
.... for extruded curbs. You see some .... ................... ...... .. .....
Owens, "Like they use in parking lots?"
Fain, "Yes."
Tepedino, "Anyone else"
Mr. Flowers, "May I make another remark please."
Tepedino, "Okay.n
' Mrs. Flowers, "I heard it mentioned a curb on the opposite side of 121st,
F .. I would like to highly recommend that one of
these curbs such as your talking about now be put on the inside of that curb.
On Christmas morning we had quite abit of iceasyou will remember.' Our
daughter lives over by Progress and didn't want to drive here car home. So I '
say' okay, sis, ;I'll take it home. Boy, she had a small car, �.ith all weather
radial on it, and we 'put on her chains'. I drove that car going west on Gaarde
street and started to make to corner on 121st and I lost all traction and went
sliding down into Mrs'. McCain driveway. Now of course something like that I
think it would-be advisable to put something up there to .....`........... ....
Mrs. McCain, "Could I suggest something. One of the things that going to
happen with this 'street improvement is that your, going to take out a 'lot of
trees along the front of my property and the side of my property and those
trees have actually :protected, we gotten tired of putting up our fence, its 4
down in one portion, every neighbor who goes by there can testify to that. We
got tired of putting the darn fence back up every; time some ran thru it. The
trees have protected us from people running into our house. If your going to u
widen the street and take out my trees, how about a guard rail in there to
protect my house. I mean a big metal guard rail."
Tepedino, "Thank you. Any other questions regarding....
Commissioner Fyre. ............. you proposed no parking onone side of the
street, ;who is going to enforce that no parking."'
t
Mike Fain, "In our discussion'- with` the NPO, we felt that by moving the
ra extruded curb out that would help discourage the parking on that particular
F. side of the street. It will be clearly indicated ............. - . .s
Fyre, Staff a question for you on the streets standards .. ................... -
(several people talking same time untranscribable)
Monahan, "Minor collectors, its generally 40 ft., looks like 34 for a local
- street, local street in a planned development is normally 26 ft.
(discussion not transcribable)
Commissioner Moen, "I have a real problem with, maybe the applicant can tell
me why he objects to building sidewalks on in this development ........
Fain, "We feel that the private roadway is sufficient for moving pedestrian
traffic to Gaarde.
Moen, "Pedestrian traffic couple of little kids on big wheels."
Fain, "I don't know if you can enforce kids from playing in the street. I
know I live on a cul-de-sac and my kids play"
Moen, "If theres no sidewalks thats where they will play."
Fain, "But again we have to focus back on the fact that speeds are only 15
miles per hour. If the Planning Commission would like to make it a conditio*:
that we ..... .......... ............ ........................ .. .
i
k
Commissioner Fyre, "I have a questions for the applicant. Your proposing
private 'roads, why not public roads? ' Could you answer that?
F Fain, "Well, I think that we tried to address that before and again I'm only
been with Century 21 a short time. I've discussed it with Mr. Bledsoe of NPO,
R # 3. We, in looking at the development as, a whole from the way the property
is bisected by_Gaarde, to development both `sides or on both sides of Gaarde in
the conventional manner in using 50 ft. right of ways and large' ........... fir , -a
you end up with something' thats 'almost unusable. If you try to development in 1O
a conventionalmanner. s.
Fyre, "You couldn't add five more feet on the side of the road .....11
Fain, "It would be difficult as it is."
Fyre, "The reason I'm asking is I've driven through London Square and it
"quite, with cars parked along the side of the road. I think the driveways
are only single car driveways and are a little short. If you have a two car
family, one car is in the driveway and one car is in front of the house. The
........ `are very narrow so cars kind of stack up in there. .......•••
The other concern I'have, and I'll make it in the form of a question, lots 16
thru 22 on Gaarde have nothing to do with the private roads,- however......... ..
-x
Fain, 11Your saying they don't have access onto a private street, is that
correct?"
Fyre, "Well, I asking if they would be paying for part of the maintenance of
the private street even though they are not on the private street."
Fain, "They are abutting a private street. ....... . . ..... ..............
Its
set up so everyone contributes ....................
Fyre, '.............. . .Is this, I can see .......... The proposal
proposal before us was for a condominium development,• where everyone own the
land, I assume that this proposal here that the land goes with the house and
these lots are fee simply by the homeowners, is that correct."
Fain, "Thats correct. Now I think ............... ...........................
in fact I pointed out to Mr. Liden, that back in September, I believe it was,
the initial application was for a subdivision PD, in fact both fees were paid
at that time. • ............ So it was intended that the land be
sold, even though it may not have been shown on the previous proposal.
(Discussion between Commission Fyre and Mr. Fain untranscribabie)
Mr. Oringdolph, (Compared this development with London square - testimony not
transcribable.)
Tepedino, "Okay, one quick questions, we have four more public hearing
items. Okay sir."
i,
Speaker (unable to identify - unable to transcribe.)
Tepedino, "Close the public hearing on this issue."
�aC-
r
Commissioner Owens, '"I was interrupted several times and I have several more
questions."
Tepedino, "You'll have your chance when we go up and down the aisle', sorry we
are running late. Commissioner Owens do you have any questions."
Owens, "No."
Tepedino, "Commissioner Butler."
Butler, "Yes, I would like to add an additional condition, if its
;,• appropriate, that would be that the Homeowners` Associations -bylaws will
r reflect that maintenance ofprivate streets and dedicated open space will be
the sole responsibility of theHomeownersAssociation, with no participation
required .by the City. And that would be reflected back earlier on page three,
where the intent of the Homeowners Association bylaws :were to do that, but
they did not include ;open ;space and ... ....... Open space .is going to come '
_ z on down the road, ....... the Homeowners Association going to be ;paying, for
those ............ Upkeep on those Phase one should be paying for
q=, _ it as long' however many other phases there are. So if its inappropriate to F ,
put that in there I stand corrected. But I feel that the City can't afford to
keep up 12.58 acres ofrecreational ..........
t _
° Tepedino, Okay, , I'll ask the staff later. Commissioner Moen."
Moen, "I guess I have problems with this Phase, primarily with the ........ . .
street improvements. I have some concerns
.(untranscribable)...... . x
€
Tepedino, "Okay, thank you sir. Commissioner Fyre."
€
Fyre, "The whole plan represents to me a compromise.
.. _.
in my mind prevent a lot off through traffic coming extremely fast
I not comfortable with the private streets, two aspects, one is the safety
-, standpoint, secondly I don't see where it contributes to a superior living
arrangement ... .......................
}
Tepedino, "Commissioner Peterson." i
i
f
Peterson, "I also have a problem, perhaps with the private street, or the
lack of sidewalks. I think I would definitely like to see sidewalks.
Tepedino, "Thank you sir, Commission Edin." €
Edin, "I guess two or three things. I also like the "T" that would solve one
of the major concerns we have. The private streets bother me, but I said in
December, I don't know what legal bases I can .......... reason to exclude
them. I haven't been able to find one. I guess I would suggest that we have
a look at that in terms of putting some standards in for private streets,
particularly the base and that asphalt and things like that. I realize that
we can't do that here tonight. I'm bothered by Mr. Flowers' testimony. I
feel like the time we should have been talking about that was during the comp s
plan. I may have been missed when we where talking about (Mrs. Flowers
interrupted - not transcribable) Z understand that and I think we are going '
to try to respond as best we can. I really believe the proper time was when
we were dealing with the comp plan, in dealing with the whole map then. Z
guess
a
- if we put a condition on that this approval is subject to investigation by
'
W staff, anyrconditions - on annexations and/or agreement between Washington i
County and City "Council, then I' could go -ahead ''a vote on this tonight.
: to oppose it. I would like to,get to the bottom of
Without that I would have
that and get it the issue resolved one way or the other."
Tepedino, "Thank you. Commission'Leverett."
Leverett, "I basically; in favor of it, I think its been very well covered by
NPO # 3 and I'm in support."
Tepedino, "Okay. Commissioner Owens would you care to make a comment." f
Owens, "Yes. I feel that the road issue is something that needs to be
County so that we can
decided between the City and the go ahead with some
clarity about how ....... planned in the whole areas that involved and not
decision after
,
comfortable with` a plan that may not fit at some future time ortunit tonight
has finally made. Furthermore I have not had a adequate opp Y $
in the cross examination to asked and address some of the concerns that I
had. And 'furthermore I am not completely ,satisfied, not comfortable with the
private roads. One of the Commissioner referred to it as a compromise, I
to the "T" and some things like that, but it seem like
think he was referring
a compromised plan to me. I do `appreciate the developers tremendous amount of
effort, time and thought `on this and I think the road questions is not
is affecting his, Chats my decision in the
entirely his problem, but it
development."
\ Tepedino, "Okay, Commission Moen.
Moen, "Two questions of staff. Is there, the only problem I have is the
sidewalks. Is there
private roads, the second problem is the •is -any.provision
which would allow the City of have a public street .
Liden, "A public street is one way and
Monahan,
"Well its under the PD concept that the application is made, isn't
it Keith."
Liden, "Yes."
Monahan, "Under the PD ........ • your saying that if it weren't a PD, if it
came in as a straight subdivision, would we grant a variance."
Moen, "No I'm .saying that ..........•.
private street
standards. I'm not trying to redesign it. But what I'm trying to say is that
I one way streets ..................(not transcribable)........
is necessary, I think under the PD concept
Monahan, I don't think a variance
you would get an opportunity to work with the applicant to come up with a
street that meets everyones.. ...
�- Moen, "It couldn't be a public street unless ..............•...... . .
Monahan, "Right."
Tepedino,` "Any other questions. My 'feelings, I'm not very happy with this
proposal. Gaarde is" a dangerous street the way it stands and I see a lot of
` little roads cutting in an out and private road ....... on Gaarde.: How do you
control them. ... ..... .... ........ .this is the right forum. Sidewalks
were mentioned,, that bothers me. ........... .not transcribable...............
.not transcribable..
Tepedino,' "Any other questions before I call for a motion on this.' t
rq..
Commissioner Butler would you like tomake a` motion.11 -
Butler, "I don't .(laughter).
Tepedino, "Commissioner Leverett.11
Leverett, "I moved that we accept this proposal."
Tepedino, "You accept as proposed with the staff's findings and
recommendations
Leverett, "Thats correct." ; .
Gam.
Tepedino,' "Motion made for approval based staff's findings and
recommendations and with their,conditions. Motion made: do I hear a' second.
(Several people talking same time)
°
Edin, "I'll second it. I would like to see some modifications
Tepedino, "Motion made and seconded." ':
` Peterson, "I think .. ... here would like to see some sidewalks and I would
say perhaps we ought ..•......... roads 4 ft. ........ I would think we could
go with a 24 ft. road with two four foot sidewalks or possible
I don't know .......... emergency vehicle access. (several people speaking
the same time)...
Tepedino, "Any other comments. Commissioner Butler."
Butler, "I was just wondering about the conditions for the Homeowners
Association.
Tepedino, "Okay."
Edin, "I think another condition we agreed upon was, I think we had a
consensus of, approval is conditioned upon, that there are no conditions
placed upon by the Boundary Commission or .......
Tepedino,. "So we have a motion made and seconded. Can we take a vote.
Secretary, "I'm confused as to what is included in the motion.
Tepedino, "We have a motion made and seconded for approval based on staff's
findings and recommendations and their conditions.
v,
a .
�`" Leverett, I would like to clarify the motion.. (several talking same time)
�ryME•.
Secretary, What about Commissioner Butler's condition.
t
_ Tepedino, "That was not in the motion that was made and seconded."
! �F
Bdin, "Thats correct." ffi
Leverett, "Thats is correct."
z .
Butler, "Then it not in here.
Tepedino, "It is not in the motion that has been made a seconded. We can
either amend that, withdraw or vote up or down.
F
Leverett, "I would like to 'amend my motion to include Mr. Butler's
' amend your condition to include Mr. Butler's
Secretary, "You want to
condition.
(Several people talking same time.) 4 _
Tepedino, , "That the Homeowners Association include responsibility for i
maintenance of
F,
Butler, "For open space and the 'private streets.
s
Tepedino, , "And the second point that was raised is the sidewalk. '
Leverett, "No, .......(several people talking)... F . ;
"Okay the second condition being that their will be no formal
Tepedino,
agreements. Isthat a part of your motion.
Leverett, "Yes."
Tepedino, "Do we have second with that. [
Edin, "Yes. (several people talking.)
a Tepedino, "All of those in favor of the motion as made and seconded excluded
the sidewalks and includes the park maintenance and open space and includes
formal agreements and excludes the sidewalks,
that fact that there be no prior
all those in favor say aye."
"Aye$
"Tepedino, "All those opposed."
"Not$
Secretary, Could I have the names of the Commissioners who voted no.
Commissioner Peterson, Fyre, Tepedino, Moen and Owens voted no.
af.
Tepedino, "Commission Fyre, would you like to make a motion."
_ what. I
gyre, "Yes I would love to. The sidewalk 'issue, .-••................
those roads widened to allowed additionalpedestrian
would like to see is
traffic. `
Tepedino, "Staff what do you suggest?"
Lidera, "Well, if your 'going to ask for sidewalks, you might as well get the E
whole thing, if
a (discussion untranscribable)
Fyre, ` "So moved."
Tepedino, "Okay,- all, the conditions, the open space maintenance, private
treets maintenance, the no prior formal agreements and the sidewalks. What
are the dimension,Phil?.11 x-
Edin, 20 feet of pavement and four ft. sidewalks.
Tepedino, "Do I hear, a second.
" a
Edin, seconded '
` those in favor, further discussion, ` further discussion.
Tepedino, "All -
r" Staff."
I did discuss this with the fire
„
Liden, I hate to ... ........ •..•
district. They did note that they did have had problems in the past ;with
enforcing of .the .parking of one side,. so they were talking about if it 24 ft. z
width, even if things get lax and cars park on both side, they can still get t
through. If you reduce the width to 20 they may have a problem.
Butler, What's a normal street 32ft. right
................. instead of
around lets just go for the whole thing. ;
.........several talking........
Tepedino, "I'll call for the motion. All of those in favor of the motion
made and seconded signify by saying aye.
"aye..
� x
Tepedino, Those opposed."
"No.n
Tepedino, "Could I see a show of hands. We have a tie so the motion fails.
Next motion. Com-nissioner Owens would you like to make a motion.
Owens, "I make a motion that we deny.
f denial."
Tepedino,
"Do a hear a seconded for motion o ..
aL�
for the denial, or does; that come now or
Secretary, Don't we need finding
r- afterwards?" - -
Tepedino, "Motion for denial do we have a seconded."
Moen, "Seconded"
Tepedino, "Seconded. Discussion. Commission Owens would you like to give us
your findings.t1
Owens, "I'm .voting for denial because, ;I am recommending denial, this is
always hard to do, how "do ,I say about the sidewalks. Do not seem to be, I
don't'know'how to say it. The design of the plan with the private streets and
the (I know the concernsof the Commissioners about the sidewalks doesn't cut
it.) how can that be worded. Would prefer to see sidewalks in there. That
the private roads remain, a concern and the other one and I don't know if this
is a valid "findingbut I feel again we are putting the horse before the cart
in trying to put a'development,in this area, when a decision has not been made
and reached between the >City: and the County regarding the eventual alignment
of the road, because I feel ,that raises some real serious concerns, at some
point a decision may finally be agreed upon for, is that major arterial, major
collector, Not a major collector, whatever the width is, I'm
sorry my , thoughts .
are•very scattered, because- 1 wasn't thinking about doing
this.
Tepedino, "Let me ask the staff to address that. Staff can you clarify the
issue."
-? Monahan, "As far as I'm concerned the City has made its policy clear that it
is a minor collector a series of minor collectors that will connect Gaarde and
Scholls Ferry Road. We are not in agreement with the County, I don't think
its a prerequisite that we ever do agree with the County. I certainly would
like for us to reach an agreement so that we can go on and have our plans
acknowledged and serve the transportation needs of the area. But I don't
think thats something we should hang this on. The City has made its policy
and its to dictate a "T" intersection on this piece of land."
Tepedino, "That's the way I read it. That the City has made ' their policy
decision that they are not going to agree with the County.
Monahan, "Thats right."
Tepedino, "That the way I see it.11
Owens, "But somehow, and it may be that I can't put that in as a finding, but
it seems to be in contest, what I hear stated by people, that they do not want
. yets thats exactly what we are creating. We are
going•to.
create. a whole series of neighborhoods that traffic is going to flow
right thru. Its a conflict and a contradiction to me and I feel its a major
' issue that we will have to live with for hundreds of years if it isn't resolve
and thought out and some decision is come to. Okay, so we can't put this in
as a finding. But, I feel that there are some valid points which could be
proposed for denial. Once would concern the streets, the narrow private
driveways, one concerns sidewalks issue. But I don't know how to say them,
because I don't know where in our code it specifies that we have to have
them. Can you Mr. Moen?
Moen, "My comments would be that private streets are
Owens, "I don't know if this can be a finding, but I did not have an adequate
opportunity in cross examination to have my some of my concerns answered. So
Tepedino,
•;•"Do•you have some particular issues you would like to address."
xamination and rebuttal time, there was some
Owens, "I did, during the cross e
4 concerns and (Tepedino, "Would ;you :like to raised them now?) Well, I 'think f
. five
.................
we're a little far (Tepedino, "I'll give you special accomplish.
to eleven and we have four more) -I don't really know what it will '
I've made a motion for denial.
Tepedino, "All those in favor of the motion thats been made and seconded for
denial signify_by say Aye•1% r_
,i
"Aye•"
w
Tepedino,' "All those opposed"
I IN
"No." (Leverett, Edin, Peterson, Fyre and Tepedino voting no
Butler, "I would like a turn. ` (Tepedino, "Commissioner Butler") I would
like to go to. Mr. Leverett's original motion which included everything and
plus the condition that I put on and the one that Phil "put on and I would like
to go to 34 ft. streets as specified in the transportation chapter, not the 50
ft. right-of-way, :out just the 34 ft. pavement width, with the appropriate
®_ sidewalks and parking. City standards except for the right-of-way width for
the local.
Tepedino, "So your suggesting a motion for approval including the Homeowners
Association for the open space and private road maintenance (tape ended.)
Tepedino, "Making motion for approval based on Homeowners Association
maintenance for open space, no prior agreements. Let me refer to Commissioner
Butler." .
ft. width on the streets, but not 50, ft. right-of-way, 12 ft. on
Butler, "34 • what
each lane, •. does that leave ... ........
sidewalks. I'•m• not an •expert on what they look like, but two lanes and two
sidewalks.
Secretary, "Okay, 34' street, 50 ft. right-of-way, 12 ft. each lane and 4 ft.
sidewalks.
Butler, That doesn't leave anyplace to park, does it? What I'm trying to do '..
is get this through, I guess I'm losing. Go ahead."
(several people talking)
,. Tepedino, Lets let this was fail for a lack of a seconded and Commissioner
Moen will you .......... .
Moen, "I don't necessarily like this, but I think, I move that we approve
F this thing with the following conditions. The conditions that Commissioner .
Leverett put -on,,,okay, the one Commissioner Edin _put on for prior agreements,
the one Commissioner Butler put on about the Homeowners about the private
.re 24' wide and four ft sidewalks
•�= street and open space maintenance, streets
on both sideof the private street on tracL�- A & C and on track B, .......
sidewalk along the north side, west side of B.
Secretary, /1Commissioner Moen, Track A C and
Moen, "Both sides on track and A &: C and on track B along the north and
easterly',side. Thats my 'motion.
Commissioner Butler, Second.
Edin, "I would like a clarification. Did you say 24 ft. and then sidewalks,
Nm .
are you ;now talking now a total of 32 ft. ...............discussion not
transcribable:)..
Tepedino, "So motion is made for approval with the Homeowners; Association
taking care of the open space and private streets, also includes no prior
formal agreements, also include a third item, the 24 ft. wide private street
with sidewalks on both side of Track A &' C, sidewalks on one side, on the
housing side of Track B. and the sidewalks are the four ft. sidewalks."
Fyre, "I have one questions, the sidewalks are part of the lot not part of
the street, so your not asking for reduction of lot sizes ........ ........
I would like to add that the garages be located 20' 'back from the sidewalk,
a. which is less than ....... ..Ulloen, "Okay.") M
Tepedino, "Motion made, do I hear a second.
Butler, "Second."
Tepedino, "Further discussion. I call for the questions, all those in favor
of the motion as made and seconded for approval with those conditions based on
staff's findings and recommendations, signify by saying Aye."
"Ayer
Tepedino, "Those opposed.t1
"Nay" (Commissioner Owens voting Nay.)
Tepedino, "One nay, motion carries. I think its fortunate that the Planning
Commission sees one of these kinds of problems once every four years or so.
City f hing City
15390 S.W. 116th Avenue
King City,Oregon
97223
April 5, 1984
Tigard City Council
City of Tigard
P. 0. Box 23397
Tigard, OR 97223
SUBJECT: Southwest Corridor/Norwood Expressway
Dear Council Members:
The City Council of King City endorses and supports
101ayor Roy Rogers letter on the above mentioned subject,
dated March 30, '1984
It would appear that those supportive of the planners
_ of an alignment of Murray road through 'Tigard to Highway 994
are only interested in the shortest distance between two
points, with no regards to the already chaotic traffic con-
gestion on the latter highway. The Norwood proposal, which
presents a more sensible route between Hwy 26 and I-5, would
not, in our opinion, have any significant impact upon present
operations of I-5 or I-205, and without having any adverse
effect upon the traffic density, on Hwy 994•
King City has supported the concept of the Ivorwood
Expressway from the very beginning, and has always opposed
the Murray Road extension.
Sincerely,
can K. You i'via�rr
City of King C.; -"y
cc: des Myllenbeck, Ohm. 4.C . Board of Co......—ssioners
Mayor Rogers, Tualatin
Mayor Tobias, Sherwood
; Mayor Morgan, Durham
f
April 5, 1984
Tigard Planning Commission APR
1984
Tigard, , Oregon
a .
RE: Murray Road and Pacific Highway connection.CITY OF TIG +R -
PLANNING DEPT.
As reported in the Turd Ties (April 3, 1984) bothz
g - the county and city plans for extension of Murray Blvd. to
connect with S.W. Pacific Highway have major flaws. IV
z
1 . Gaarde Street is not now, nor do I believe it can
ever be, a major arteriall
2. ' The Gaarde St;./S.W. Pacific Highway intersection is
now a very dangerous one —'without the increased e
traffic proposed by using it as a major arterial.
3. The Gaarde St. route is already too residential to }
consider it as an arterial route`.
4. The present plan does not solve the problem of
offering a N-S arterial route to Beaverton for
persons living West of 217.
I propose consideration of an alternate route for the
Murray to S.W. Pacific Highway connection as shown on the
attached map`.
m
It has some obvious advantages:
1 . Itis the most direct connection that can be drawn
°�.
on the map.
2. It does not run directly through any existing
housing areas big enough to appear on the map, yet
is close enough to many for all to benefit.
3. It provides a major arterial route to Beaverton/
Sunset Highway miles West of 217.
4. it will reduce westbound traffic on S.W. Pacific
Highway through Tigard.
5. A five lane arterial designed as such, will be
much more efficient than converting residential
roads to arterials.
I can think of a few disadvantages such as more new
pavement needs to be laid, new bridges, land acquisition,
etc. , but from studying a map, it should clearly stand out
as a more outstanding route than those presently proposed.
Please make my letter and map publicly available as an
alternative to the plans described in the T e .
Sincerely,
Edward B. Sinclair
15930 S.W. Colony Place
Tigard, Or. 97223
E)vc rsi zcdDomer
Eet Ln halL : OSI -C)q -3q
q�lt�► slrgr�ap �1)f�la��OoJt;r (t
a fI a
t9e
11a tjt 414gsrJT(7" yl atajt71T-aI tli aftiIIl (Ia Ra al! itf[41 a t t a t a r
0 , 1 ' la-t9 _. —l J i►1 1 R I 1 6 f 11 I i 8 1 i 1
NOTE: IF THIS MICROFILMED :�_ _y_._.I. 2 3 '4 5 6 7 g 0 �1 12 w y
DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN
THIS NOTICE, IT Is DUE TO .
THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL
w..
DRAWING. --------
Dat—sz ez 9z sz- a>z ez zz ez oz s
�ntCualuultaaicauluulsMrhytltrsJrN�i - -
<..-
a . _. I
ill
Jr-
� � r
_.. •r----- rr
Y7� A I ! C at! f f
d - � _ter-o,...� -��:•uyF'sH, 7�'�("e Y�,,.,w�- ' �I�
u..e I..pI�, ipI ♦ d y- x
.d f is/ k '.. •- , -
:F.
s .e � .n y e 3 � .... 3�I` �ill f• � j`� I 15
I
WSH®IUGTO ®
I IE 1
t _
I _
I ,d
E3
� a W' 3
RNA ISG N, CO �
u I W
} '
rtix °µ I
,mr
1
,
I 4
8 L me '�atg4�F1- r i
1 i
i
I I I I
-lett--
° 1 1 —
f I ,�Cipofe '
--- E- ---+ala m
4 ®0.
orne �
rs
I
I ®wm 1 — a---
d
,...a � �• � I M Nqq
nQUln e
,
a B C SEE MAP D E F
illlll 111 III III F11 III III 1111 1 i 1 Ill I I I t I I '%11411111,11]
�_....�.,_—
� 1�ill(l ITT<T�R Im111'�Ip�I REnt1111111!Igllglplgnl�lllplqlnpupllpllllnl,uingnlpvl nl IIIII 1111111 III'nllllil lllllll .
WZ: IF UIS MIMFIMD I 2 3 4 S 6 7 !I 0 �0 11 12
DRRMINO IS IESS LEAP TNM
TH15 NDTICE,IT 35 DUE TD
TIE QLIAtITY OF TIE MIGIN& -
DRIMING.
OE BZ 92 LZ 91Z SZ bZ EZ Z2 IZ 02 6I—���9��1���-����LII���1-9�1���'���S1�f��-�'�-�Iq E1 -21 11 of—e 9 1 9 S b E 2 �11�'°�
XIIIIIIIIIItIIIII�IIII�IIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIINIIXI1111IA111 -__IYQFpE9I9j19911FIfIjfI111pllylpFllpppllEMill IIII„ell,I FII I,N,I u•lu••I191 I 1„d 1111111111 u1 1 II�t IIIILI�tII1�11 I�DDa111him
_ ' MARCH 7 191,990
i
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON -
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY „
AGENDA ITEM 4:
AGENDA OF: Apri1,9, 1984 '
DATE SUBMITTED: PREVIOUS ACTION: Planning Commission
ISSUE/AGENDA (TITLE• recommended favorable 3/6/84
4
NPO Appointments REQUESTED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR:
v
INFORMATION SUMMARY
a
Four applicants`have been interviewed by the NPO Interview Committee
and recommened favorably by the Planning Commission. They are:
Edward D. Duffield, 8895 SW Edgewood, NPO # 1
Robert C'Wyffels, 8995 SW Edgewood,-NPO 1 � .
Harry Saporta, 7745 SW Gentlewoods, NPO # 5
Murel Gillen, ' 14936 SW 109th, NPO # 6
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The Council may accept all or some of the applicants
SUGGESTED ACTION
The Planning Commission recommends that the four applicants be approved for
theirrespectiveNPO's.
MEMORANDUM
}
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
March 9, 1984
TO: Members of the City Council
FROM: William A. Monahan, Director of Planning`& Development
a SUBJECT: NPO Appointments
The Planning Commission, at the regular meeting of March 6, 1984, voted
�. unanimously to recommend favorably the application of four applicants for
Tigard's NPO's. All four applicants were interviewed on February '13 and
recommended by the NPO Interview Committee made up of 'Commissioner Dean
Leverett, and NPO #3 Chairman Bob Bledsoe. The only ;question raised by the
Committee was whether or not a problem exists because the NPO #1 applicants
- are both from the same neighborhood as well as the NPO Chairman. The
Committee felt that the issue was not a major one since the NPO is in need of
` members. ' Although,,' ideally the NPO's would each be made up of 12 citizens
representative of all areas of the community, until there is an abundance of
citizen volunteers desiring to be members, a limitation on neighbors from one
area is not necessary.
The applicants are:
Edward D. 'Duffield, 8895 SW'Edgewood, NPO #1
Robert C. Wyffels, 8995 SW Edgewood, NPO #1
Harry Saporta, 7745 SW Gentlewoods, NPO 1#5
Murel Gillen, 14936 SW 109th, NPO #6
_ Should the City Council approve all four applicants, the representation on the
NPO's will be as follows:
NPO #1 8 members
NPO #2 4 members
NPO #3 6 members
NPO #4 9 members
NPO #5 8 members
NPO #6 8 members
NPO #7 8 members
The Commission agreed with the Interview Committee that at this time it is
proper to approve more than one individual from a neighborhood. In fact, one
Commissioner pointed out that neighbors do not always agree. The Commission
did indicate that should Mr. Wyffels be elected to political office in May, he
would be required to resign as an NPO member. Mr. Wyffels is aware of this
requirement.
Recommendation: The Planning Commission and staff recommend that the four
applicants be approved as NPU members.
(WAM:pm/0351P) -
ItawEN,ro!�y oF` cl'rILLIJ-
Sut;f,csted f'or, Communit-y L3crvic.�
IiA'CE =-- `i –
DAME >. PH():JI;
ADDRESS � BUS. pl-lo'
LENGTH OF RESIDENCE IN TIGARD SUGGESTED BY
WHERE DID YOU LIVE PREVIOUSLY? .5hc_r
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
nj
rv . OCCUPATIONAL STATUS AND BACKGROUND C1.Em -I�„z f N v lJr,• �ccc1-1�– i
ee Vo
p (Q t c Z c toJr$h�c�v�. 111e1'hca.�� r
PREVIOUS COMMUNITY ACTIVITY 0A, �; v/�n.+ f �
(,.. 1ic
,.
ORGANIZATIONS AND OFFICES _
OTHER INFORMATION (GENERAL REMARKS) �L �vr f ,%jc,�
r.
r
BOARDS OR COMMITTEES IivTL"RI;STEI? i1 /�/, D �—
(Z� __ �/, ' '--`LJ L`–•' ' 1 ` " –
--------- ----------------------- --- ---------
r oats R(,ceived at City Hk-i11 c' li�ter-viewed __--._---
Datc, Appointed _ Board or Commi +.t � ---•-._-- -
C TSIDE ri ry
I N;;1 D I'; C T•r Y –�--- --– -------- ---- — -
_ f
INVENTORY 01' CITIZ! :!-
S (2sted for Coinrmurnity ,,;rvi�-i
DATE
Iv AMED RE'S. PHONE ��L�
'ADDRESS0 �G� �— S �� �U , r BUS. PHONE
LENGTH OF RESIDENCE IN TIGARD_13 e G>Gl✓S SiJGGESTEDBY _(��/ y Olt
WHERE DID YOU LIVE PREVIOUSLY? T la fl G1 art"
EDUCA'T'IONAL BACKGROUND _ � � b�-; cc e
OCCUPATIONAL STATUS AND BACKGROUND'
PREVIOUS COMMUNITY ACTIVITY ,,/cf
1-.- r r
/� <..v C rflr G � /�14'C'•�r��lr i�la�� ��� -
W(4 CJ
_ ORGANIZATIONS AND OFFICES _ Ori
OTHER INFORMATION (GENERAL REMARKS) _
_ r
�a
BOARDS OR COMMITTEES INTERESTED IE' �
-------- ---------------------
late R(3ceived at City EEaI:I— ; tt,i lc;t r icw d --__.__-- -
i-ate Appointed Esc,,:wd r
d
N O A P P L I' C A T I O N
QUESTION: What are NPO's?
ANSWER: ,The function of each NPO is to be involved in all phases of
T' the Comprehensive Planning process and the implementation of those
plans; to review City plans; policies, projects or other actions
affecting the livability of the neighborhood, including, but noX limited .
to, land.use, "zoning, housing, community: facilities, human resources,
social and recreational programs. traffic and transportation, environ-
mental quality, open space and parks; to part i.cipate-in the process
F
me determining priorities for 'capital improvements and development
of specific project plans; to keep the neighborhood informed; to seek
neighborhood opinion on issues brought before them; to represent the
importance.
views of the neighborhood in matters of extra neighborhood
PLEASE COMPLETE THE QUESTIONS BELOW
NANIEJ 4ARl2.Y SAP®IZ i A ADDRESS 7 7_
TELEPHONE NUMBER (Bus.) ;2-36 -4.2-13 (Res.") 9' 0-4-3
PRESENT OCCUPATION CC���TY C DUTc�I/VATa
FIRM NAME I "
HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN EMPLOYED WITH THIS FIRM? I IYI?
IS THIS COMPANY LOCATED WITHIN YOUR NPO AREA?
HAVE YOU BEEN INVOLVED WITH MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS BEFORE?-Y"--S
IF YES, PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR INVOLVEMENT: .GOBS lnNT/? DL
A2A"A'(;Cn fol C/--A/Zk CounJ;r Y /Z�.si�D:y.��•Q
�c �Af£TY 0,4- cny/YT Y r10£/2S 0"A/,r 1_ AA/2S, -
,4,ITY TO ZWZPUQG/C .
`F
WHAT DO YOU FEEL YOU CAN OFFER AS A !.EMBER OF AN NPO? e'[5o>7,
/
r 27;2 r Ile
-44
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: 4_4 ( �L) / 1
DAYTIME TELEPHONE NUMBER ? /'5-3
fl RECE�V�(�
C,+r f�F TIGgk� w'
it
•, N P 0 R P P L C A T I.0 N
QUESTION`: What are NPO's?
ANSWER: The function of each NPO is to be involved in all phases of
the Comprehensive Planning process and the implementation of those
plans; to review City plans; policies, projects or other actions
affecting the livability ofthe neighborhood, including, but no.t limited
;- to, land use, zoning, housing, community, facilities,` human resources,
_ social and recreational programs, traffic and transportation, environ-
mental quality, open'space' and parks; to participate'in the process
s
of determining City priorities for capital improvements and development
- of specific projectplans; to keep the neighborhood' informed; to seek
s' neighborhood opinion on issues brought before them; to represent the M
'< views of the neighborhood in matters of extra neighborhood importance.
PLEASE COMPLETE THE QUESTIONS BELOW
7'h
NAME II��'�/__ /i f= L._ Gr / / F(V ADDRESS / _%3Z- SW �G Y
` TELEPHONE NUMBER (Bus.) (Res.)� 3 4, z
PRESENT OCCUPATION /}� j i (� f/2
FIRM NAME N
HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN EMPLOYED WITH THIS FIRM?
' IS THIS COMPANY 'LOCATED'WITHIN YOUR NPO AREA? �r
HAVE YOU BEEN INVOLVED WITH MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS BEFORE?
IF YES, PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR INVOLVEMENT:
f
ti
WHAT DO YOU FEEL YOU CAN OFFER AS A MEMBER OF AN NPO? 4,V A /V, 6'1,
r V /yj T iY A v g P1 -/V'7 74 / v�
dl /2l T/ L�f A
C-emmi-I&I Z M Z Z.G,
_ ADDITIONAL CONIAIENTS:�t.� r'n'i=) ;'N% AL'(�h
Si-- Ni ' VA /' �'V 7NF /'A%'l' Stzck cV
j FA/Zf/' Sfv L C'Z A5' iG� -
f.�LC Aim 7i Gf 77z IV 4Z/c ni (.' tx/ 7N
DAYTIME TELEPHONE NUMBER
I I 1Ah
MAYOR'SAPPOINTMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE ~
APRIL 9, 1984 `
The following positions on the Economic Development Committee and Parks
and Recreation Board require appointments:
Economic Development Committee:
Vacant term expires January 16, 1985 (72nd Avenue)li1'/ ;�
Parks and Recreation Board:
Charles Gutweniger's position expires December 31, 1985 - resigned-"'4 x5-clVt-1/1j; 1
Michael R. Heim's position expires December 31, 1987 - resigned January
19, 1984.
The following individuals have made applications for these vacancies:
APPOINTMENT SCHEDULE:
TIME INTERESTED INDIVIDUAL BOARD INTEREST
5:30-5:40 Steve Newman Parks and Recreation Board
5:40-5:50 Steve Slabaugh Parks and Recreation Board
5:50-6:00 Robert Williams Economic Development Committee
s --R
CITY OF TI(y.4Rla CITIZEN COMMITTEE INTEREST APPLICATION
DATE: M aLCh 23` 1984
NAME: r
ADDRESS (RES.) : 2325 S.W Sherwood Dr . Portland 972.01 RE
PHONE: ?-24 8725
.
ADDRESS (BUS. ): 1220 S W Morrison` 4900,Portland 97205' BUS. 'PHONE: 224-6540 — •;.
LENGTH OF 'RESIDENCE IN TIGARD:
_-- SUGGESTED BY: ---
WHERE DID YOU LIVE PREVIOUSLY?
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: B.S. Business Administration
Lehigh University
Bethlehem,' Penn.
L.P
OCCUPATIONAL STATUS AND BACKGROUND:
ao.,r Par.j f i Ras1 tv ASscx i atc's. ,
developer of Oregon Business Park I and II PacTrust Business Center and
other ro ects in Ore on and Washin ton.
HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN EMPLOYED WITH THIS FIRM? :
IS THIS COMPANY LOCATED WITHIN YOUR NPO AREA (NPO APPLICANTS ONLY)? - - -
E,
PREVIOUS COMMUNITY ACTIVITY: V' P Wi is vi CHamhe f Commerce;
� e:conomic DeveloQ
mm WLQ n vi
-.-a �womhPr - .f�1S..u�—s r'�nsortit�m• Boarcj M�mher_—
ORGANIZATIONS AND OFFICES: o„^
Portland Civic Thea er• Memb r - National As ciati n of Industrial and
office Parks
OTHER INFORMATION (GENERAL REMARKS): Previousl e loved bV Western International
Park on S.W. 72nd Avenue
Pro ert.ies develo er of Tech Center Business
w
BOARDS, COMMIT'T'EES OR NPO INTERESTED IN: R presc nL i W 12nd FConQ�_ Dr�C����'''
----------- --
----
Date Received at City Hall ___
Dntr• Ieite•rvne•ved
Kira rd, Ccinun i t t i:,• u r NPU --- --.
Dater AppoillLe I ��--
loside• City --
(U'I�e trlr)
I MEMO=
• ws� Y r' . -
s•
CITY OF TIGARD
r 1 F TIG CITIZEN COMMITTEE INTEREST APPLICATION
NAME: DATE
cc Z4411,-
r ,
ADDRESS (RES.): \ t ���C> sLJ c�St�M4A. Z4411, �.: RES. PHONE:
ADDRESS (BUS.): 3 U 5 BUS. 'PHONE: ���:�-�! 7 �-� c
LENGTH OF RESIDENCE IN TIGARD: ( ,,_ (�, UGGESTED BY:
WHERE DID YOU LIVEPREVIOUSLY?' �'-Oaf' S�.=� -••�' ts'�- � ((li
t
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND:
r
:a
OCCUPATIONAL STATUS AND BACKGROUND: _ � � n ��y�, '3f — �.�.�
HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN EMPLOYED WITH THIS FIRM? AA� r
M
IS THIS COMPANY LOCATED WITHIN YOUR NPO AREA (NPO APPLICANTS ONLY)?
PREVIOUS COMMUNITY ACTIVITY: s`
ORGANIZATIONS AND OFFICES:
i
i
_ r' r
OTHER INFORMATION (GENERAL RE[siARKS):
I
BOARDS, COMMITTEES OR NPO INTERESTED IN:
------------------------------------------;----------------- ---------
Date Received at City Hall Date Interviewed
Date Appointed Board Committee, or NPO
Inside City Outside City t`
(0346p)
l -
t CITY OF TIGA RD CITIZEN COMMITTEE INTEREST APPLICATION
MAR 3QQ�/ 19341n//
A/
DATE:
,q
NAME:
_
T-4114 RES. PHONE:' yJ" 210K
ADDRESS (RES.
,
ADDRESS (BUS.): /SCJ/ S�L) •1-G �i �z" [Ti� BUS. PHONE:
`
LENGTH OF RESIDENCE IN TIGARD: CJM d'vv1-SUGGESTED BY: A !- �✓�
WHERE DID YOU LIVE PREVIOUSLY? ��i�lYvL{/✓ /'�"� / U _
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: f` A AA4 '
OCCUPATIONAL STATUS AND BACKGROUND: �� /� SCO ' �•ry(y-
�y S�L r , r �- 7vL- tel/ A led- 6-4
�7r Urfa• r`� Cwt i ( 4 Aer
HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN EMPLOYED WITH THIS FIRM?
IS THIS COMPANY LOCATED WITHIN YOUR NPO AREA (NPO APPLICANTS ONLY)? 1(-
PREVIOUS COMMUNITY ACTIVITY: %U
' � � �� O-�Itrt•''C .
ORGANIZATIONS AND OFFICES:
OTHER INFORMATION (GENERAL REMARKS): /�1�����r-� LA2/ AAL C
a�
BOARDS, COMMITTEES OR NPO INTERESTED IN: J7�'_Ci i' }' `� 01
-
-------------------
Date Received at City Hall Date Interviewed
Date Appointed Board, Committee, or NPO
Inside City Outside City
(0346p)
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY '
g
AGENDA OF: A13,ij 9, ''9n_ap AGENDA ITEM
DATE SUBMITTED: April 3' 1984
PREVIOUS ACTION: ' None
S
' ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: _
WCCLS Contract REQUESTED BY:
' DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR:
INFORMATION 'SUMMARY t,
# _ The current WashingtonCounty Cooperative Library Services (WCCLS) serial ;levy -
will expire June 30, '1984. Washington County Commissioners have indicated that they
will include the annual $2.2 million WCCLS budget in the county tax base request to
be voted on May 15, 1984 inlieuof a new serial levy. If the tax base fails, }:
WCCLS may be able to 'go for a separate serial levy in June.
The attached contract has been written to provide for the administrative rela-
tionship between the 'public libraries and the County should funds be available through
the tax base or a levy with which to continue WCCLS. The contract does not imply
nor require support for a county tax base. It will enable the City of Tigard to -
work with other cities and":community' libraries in securing a.-.fair and realistic'
_._ contract relationship with Washington County for library services in the future.
This contract has been studied and revised several times to satisfy all parties.
It has been reviewed by the City Librarian and the City Administrator.
g
p
1
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Approve the contract.
2. Take no action.
SUGGESTED ACTION
1. Approve the contract.
�r
s
Washington County Cooperative Library Services
6,M=
1" r=
%Ia EN
1
'.. April 3, 1984
MEMO .-
TO: Washington County Board of Commissioners
Cities of Beaverton, Cornelius, Forest Grove,
Hillsboro, Sherwood, Tigard, Tualatin
Cedar Mill Community Library Association '
Town Center Public Library
BanksSchool District #13
FROM: Donna Selle, WCCLS Coordinator
RE: Interim Agreement for Library Services
Attached is the Interim Agreement for Library Services to be reviewed
and approved by the respective bodies named above. WCCLS will route
the "master" of the agreement to each body for the appropriate
signatures after your respective meetings.
The schedule for approval consideration is as follows:
Cedar Mill, Cornelius, Town Center - approved
Forest Grove, Tigard, Tualatin - April 9th
County Board of Commissioners April 10th
Banks, Sherwood - April 11th
s Beaverton - April 16th
Hillsboro - April 17th
cc: Public Library Directors
.' WCCLS Citizens Advisory Board
Mailing Address:P.O.Box 5129 Aloha,Oregon 97006 Location:17880 SW Blanton Street Aloha,Oregon Telephone:(503)642 1544
INTERIM AGREEMENT FOR LIBRARY SERVICES
s -
This Interim Agreement entered into by and between the cities of
r
Beaverton, Cornelius, Forest Grove, Hillsboro, Sherwood, Tigard and Tualatin,
Banks School Dist. #13, Cedar Mill Community Library Association and Town Center
, .. Public Library, Inc., hereinafter referred to as Contractors, and Washington ~
County, a political subdivision of the State of Oregon, hereinafter referred to
as County, on behalf of Washington County Cooperative Library Services (WCCLS).
M WHEREAS, the voters' of Washington County are expected to approve a tax
which will allow $2.2 million annually in funds for the provision of countywide
library services including non-fee access by County residents to contracting
libraries; and
WHEREAS, the County, cities, and community library boards are authorized
to enter into agreements for the provisions of these services pursuant to ORS
357.410 and ORS Chapter 190, and the Contractors are capable of providing such
library services, and the County is desirous of contracting with Contractors to
provide the same;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein,
the parties hereto agree as follows:
A. CONSIDERATION
As compensation to Contractors for the services to be provided pursuant
to this agreement, County agrees to pay Contractors payments according to
funding formula for services rendered pursuant to this agreement, subject to
Section D on termination. For those Contractors that are municipal
j corporations, on or before December 31st the County shall pay Contractors
two-thirds of their contractual payment. The final one-third of the total
'' payment owing Contractors shall be made on or before April 15th. Payments shall
be made monthly if Contractors are private, non-profit libraries.
a
5 ..
2
" Fundingformula used to compute individuallibrarypayments:
After annual costs for .Countywide ` Services (average cost $333,000) , and
Automation (average cost $333,000)_ are reserved from the WCCLS appropriation,
the remainder is divided into two funds;_ 1) a city fund equal to 43.81% of the
remainder and 2) an unincorporated fund equal to 56.19% of the remainder. r,^
These ; per ;centages are based on: 1984 assessed valuations and as assessed
valuation (as used in ORS 308.205) within the cities changes, the computation
shall be revised annually. 1984 assessed valuation in the contractor cities
M
including 'Wilsonville `is $3,448,960,900; assessed valuation in the rest of the
County is $4,423,937,900.
From the City Fund:
1) Community libraries are reimbursed for service to county residents; who
live in contractor cities atthe rate of $1.50 per circulation. Total
annual 'circulation' will-be based on the 12 month 'period April' 1 through
March 30 immediately preceeding the contract period. Circulation per
centages will be surveyed by each library on two, two-week periods in the
12 months immediately preceeding the contract year.
2) A contractor city-to-contractor city reimbursement is made for service
` at the rate of $1`.50 per-circulation.
f ' 3') The remainder is prorated among contractor cities and the City of
` Wilsonville;based on assessed valuation.
. 5
." From the Unincorporated Fund:
1) Contractor city libraries are reimbursed for service to county residents
living outside contractor cities at the rate of $1.50 per circulation.
2) Community libraries are reimbursed for service to county residents
living outside contractor cities at the rate of $1.50 per circulation.
3) The ,remainder is reserved in a contingency fund.
• Notes•
Interest earnings on the special library fund accrue to the special library
fund. (ORS 294.080 (1).
Any remaining funds from the $2.2 million annual appropriation will be carried
' over and be considered in the next year's library appropriation to maintain the
circulation reimbursement formula.
Exhibit "A", a copy of the budget worksheet, is attached.
Exhibit "B", a copy of a three year budget projection, is also attached.
3
t
B. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY COUNTY
County agrees to provide the following services for each Contractors:'
1. Daily courier service excluding weekends and holidays 4
2. Reference services at Pacific University Library including
Interlibrary Loan and Union Catalog maintenance
� r
"- 3. Shared audio visual equipment
4. Outreach services to the elderly, handicapped and institutionalized
through Forest Grove City Library
�x
S. Books By Mail to all rural route boxholders and any Washington } � .
County resident by request `
6. Children's Summer Reading Program
7. Planning for long term 'growth and development of Countywide library it
services ,
d
r
8. Coordination and administration of above and with the Tri-County j .g
Region, State and Northwest
9. County shall provide Contractors with a copy of its annual audit {
10. Automation (See page 7)
f
C. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY CONTRACTORS
Contractors agree to provide, at a minimum, the following services:
1. Non—Fee Access Contractors shall provide Washington County residents
1-
free (non-fee) access to their normally circulating library materials s
under established circulation policies. This shall not be construed to
prohibit overdue fees or other special service fees as long as those
fees are uniformly applied to all borrowers.
2. Library Services Contractors hereby agree to expend all County funds
received pursuant to this agreement in providing library services
4
according to Contractors' established policies. The ;provision of ,
library services shallmean that the Contractors' library facility
shall be open for public use by Washington County residents.
3. Staff Contractors shall have one designated paid staff person who
shall have the responsibility for administration of the library and its
programs.
4 . 4. Record Keeping Contractors shall supply County with a copy of the
annual report it makes to the Oregon State Library in accordance with
ORS 357.520. Contractors shall also keep circulation records of use
of its library by residents of individual cities, unincorporated areas
of Washington County and other counties. Circulation per will
be surveyed by Contractors for two, two-week periods in the 12 months
immediately preceeding the contract year.
5. Financial Audit/Review Each contracting -city ;shall' furnish the
County a copy of its annual audit. Each contracting community or
non-profit library shall be responsible for obtaining an annual review
of its financial statements by an independent certified public
accountant. This review shall be performed in accordance with
standards 'established by the American Institute of Certified Public
Accountants. County shall be furnished a copy of the contracting
community or non-profit library's financial statement review by
December 31st of each year.
6. Equal Opportunity County Personnel Rules provide that County shall
enter into contractual agreements only with Equn, Opportunity
Employers. Therefore, Contractors hereby agree that its employees (and
applicants for employment) shall not be discriminated against because
of race, color, national origin, religion, physical or mental handicap,
WIN
5
sex or,age, except in the case of bona fide occupational qualifications
as defined and provided by Oregon law. E
7. Com liance with Applicable Provisions of ORS Chapter 279 Community
Librar Contractors further agree that they shall comply fully with all
y
applicable provisions of ORS 279.310 through 279.430. Said provisions
are hereby incorporated by reference and the applicable terms contained
therein shall be binding upon Community Library Contractors in the same
manner as if they,were fully set forth herein.
f
` D. TERMINATION
1. The County shall have the right to terminate this agreement upon sixty
(60) days written notice', if it determines, in good faith, that the public
interest would be served by such termination or if during any successive fiscal
year beyond the first year of this agreement the funds ,are not available.
2. The Contractors shall have the right to terminate this agreement upon
(60) days written notice, if they determine, in good faith, that the public
interest in their jurisdiction would be served by such termination or such
termination is based upon appropriated funds for Contractor being less than the
amount reasonably anticipated. Each of the individual Contractors shall have
the right to terminate their participation in this agreement without affecting
the agreement between remaining parties and the County.
3. In the event of the termination by any party, compensation to any
party or parties shall be limited to the following:
a. If County is the party initiating termination; County shall
provide Contractors monetary consideration stated in this agreement prorated to
the date of termination as compensation for disruption of service.
b:, If any Contractor is the party initiating termination;
6
Contractors shall be entitled to the monetary consideration stated in this
agreement through the remainder of the fiscal year; provided, ;however, that
Contractor continue the provision of stated library services and that Contactor
shall be obligated to expend those funds according to the provisions of Section
C.1 and C.2 of this agreement.
c. If Contractor is the party initiating termination; Contractor may
elect to receive sixty (60) day entitlement and be relieved of all service
obligations as compensation for disruption of service.
E. HOLD HARMLESS g
Each party agrees to indemnify and hold harmless each of the other
5
parties, its officers, employees, agents and representatives from and against
all claims, demands, penalties, and causes of action of any kind or character,
including the cost of defense attorney's fees arising in favor of any person on w
account of personal injury, death or damage to property arising out of services
performed, the omission of services or in any way resulting from the acts or
omissions of the party so indemnifying and/or its agents, employees,
sub-contractors or representatives. Indemnification agreed to herein is subject
to and shall not exceed the limits of liability of the Oregon Tort Claims Act
(ORS 30.260 through 30.300).
F. CAPTIONS
Cavtions and headings used in this agreement are for convenience only and
shall not be construed or interpreted so as to enlarge or diminish the rights or
obligations of the parties hereto.
ME
7
G. SUCCESSOR AGREEMENT
The County and the Contractors responsible for the provision of library
services in the respective areas, agree to negotiate in good faith a`successor
' Library Service Agreement on or before January 1, 1985 that includes the
following elements in addition to those in the cur-rent agreement:
The term of the agreement be three years with the possibility of reopening
on an annual basis at the request of any party. However, a majority of all
parties 'must agree to any changes.
The provision of an automated circulation system and public`-access catalog
governed by a separate intergovernmental agreement, vendortobe selected
through;a needs assessment and RFP process. (See Section B, Item 10)
Review and discussion of alternatives regarding the structure and
governance of`WCCLS and negotiation of any ;changes.
H. TERM
If no sucessor agreement is negotiated, the term of this agreement shall
tf be July 1, 1984 through and including June 30, -1987.
R
I. SEVERABILITY
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this
agreement is, for any reason, held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of
competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and
independent provision, and such holding shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this agreement.
J. EFFECTIVENESS
1. It is expressly understood by all parties that the WCCLS performance
of this agreement is contingent upon the passage of a county tax which will
allow $2.2 million annually for libraries.
2. Terms of this agreement shall not be effective unless said agreement
is executed by all parties on or before April 18, 1984.
WIN 11
8
P
Banks School District #13 Date '
Date.:
City of Beaverton
Cedar Mill Community Library Assoc. Date
Date
City of. Cornelius
City of Forest Grove Date
City of Hillsboro Date
City of Sherwood Date
ate
C ty of 1 and
Town Center Public Library, Inc. Date
City of Tualatin Date
Date
Washington County
r- o w r-C) cn
00 o v r\ Ln o LO
00 V' C M 1 1 ). N r,G O
r N ' :-N 0 M r iN
n n n
� _.N 'N
wCD
sz
7
a
C-
w
UO -
O LO O iD M O r- C Lr)O u')
m W O Cl) 00 m O 'T tO O O LO
O tO t\ CO O M t.0 M O Lr
Q 07 O m m to 00 N tc") N O O
W
y O) l0 M Co ^ U-) tO m k.0
N N M LO M N
L M n n
eR
N
S- a)
aJ X F- -
N > ra 2=
a o f- w
i E
W fes. a a
ea >
w 7 a (J CT C�r
c-) a a) a w
w } CL _a a
N Q U X 14 r
L w C-0 F- a W U O 'L
o a v) rn ZD
a) O N O a ro tL
> J J
ro C) Q a a a ¢
L) V) w . U V) ¢ a) w
> z
- V
TO
Ip • p 'o-O
DA-^f rVA
Om N rAC•O.•
Y
J N A J _ O A O C T U. I J -
.a Y 0 V EE Lr L OV O _n y•CN �v J Ql.t'.O'a
C V u1 N >IC E.GIO 'O L V - JC ti" YY V.A >
L J O j cu Y•� O N U V.w+ C N v •.- O v RJ
V Q O 61 L x: T •- C U v C qr J n UaO.+u L N 6Y-CC ,
N E O t d A a V J L J J O 1�. V W p O W N
q r 'Y N 1••• w 0 Y-.r V d N C 'Y d q -W
..- d V Y U N
O^ W L :..:0 O Y- C 6! A v L y A 61 n 6! U C >> N A
\ T OJCV d ✓✓ _ LO LT F L LU L U.. yYLy
Ir } N:.G'CO C. V ✓ J L L VUd O
O y C) d; C Ai M O d d V SI.V C! N N O a > N d Cl V yl C W C n N
r M V J Q 10 n E•� A J 61 V J L L E L'L J O A pl L n A
C : `•� q �A Q AE Q✓1 _ •� L n N C J 'O •^ Ql.A N..O L^ A J�
IAA Q1^
o r 0 0 dl >, C L >s •N A ¢ E
� c oe v „� In v✓. A N�q•^
.A+ In w �w > L ✓ Na r..-.'y •c �oOJ ^' c nwA
�q O Ifl O 7 61 D .•-. O
C Y 0... u V d0 V V .^- V N..A L M•V L J r y- A Nw M U L-C N
•• A C:L
.•-.b- S.
E E d.L A J c
x A O O L� .tom _.+- O+•L .
W 1--• H r V W U
0... O O a0OI r IPII IMD Imn N rn v Q N CD
CD
Q 0. O O O r
P- c O O C. 'N O m -IA P M C'! P V �O IA
a - r
. . . •
� M M O In m GO v O O IO M O
,, M M N r CO IO O P r to O IA IO IA N r
v
C co. CD. Ifl M IO {_
J
N 1 M v
1
I • 1
I
w 1 w 1 w
�Z U
a
1fl Ifl r m P C m 10 O
V N M IO T Ol V 10 1 OI
/. P 1 Q1 CO P :.1 Ol Q O
. . . • 1 1
N N Ip IIl N OI ; 10 m
1
CD
cr
>,C.
r. Y E
v v � an n c ch M In
o r
s Y J J 1 m 1 1I) m O m Ct r 1 1
TEV C ^ N
' 1
+ 1 ;
d C L 1 t 1 + 1 t 1 O—
m P
Nr
III P
H O1. O Q '7 O P m N OI wM
(8551'4) A 10 0 o p rn P N o co =
uo!7en e l ft
m
passassy i 1 V m v o 00
uo pase8 r
V C
u V C
L
suo-Aled
IC L•1 l n O 1 1 1 1 1 N 1 V
l••� 1 III 1 1 1 M O '1 Ol
q!l .wo9
r I w 1 1 1 1 1 w I w I w
p N N O IO10 1/1 It)
V N N O C1 N
!p O
0 P
SuOJ4ed P l0 1 1 1
. ! M 10
SaDLA.laS r o In In I i i M
qLl XI L] H
M M VI N N OO P M IA O
ja6pn8 N mil OA M O � O N v <
C
paAojody O M /+ Cp m O r N — — r
10 J
to .r- M tL
w w w H w w w N w H H w
v
z
i
i x
-
O C
d C A 9
J A Q/ d O O
asueav!l ! np!n! u! 0 (ed o 0 ou
i
CITY OF TIGARD,' OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: April 9, 1984 AGENDA ITEM #: /
DATE SUBMITTED: April 3,' 1984' PREVIOUS ACTION:
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Property
Q
Insurance Renewal REQUESTED BY: -Asst. Finance Director
DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR:
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Council authorized staff to seek quotes extending the current coverage on a
short term basis to November 5, 1984S. .
The following quotes were received on a pro rata basis:
Description Carrier
Chubb J.G. Newman
Property Insurance $1340. $1283.
Computer Coverage $115- $113.
Contractors Equipment Coverage $573. $573.
TOTAL $2028. $1969.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
N/A
SUGGESTED ACTION
Accept quote of JAG. Newman Co. and renewal for short term policies described
above, to expire November 5, 1984.
(DH:pm/0276F)
r
o `
Adam.
11420 S.W.Canyon Road P R 319��
P.O.Box AA:
x Bewerton,Oregon 97005
(503)644-1156 C, Of
April 2, 1984'
City of Tigard
PO )Bax 23557
Tigard, Oregon 97223
- Atten: Doris Hirtig j
t
Re: of 1=perty tslararu e .
April, 9, '198 4
Dear. D=zs:
for the .
Per � discussim, eAcl�ed 5, 1984.
insurance.mss ion a- n-Policy::#A expire
Also. as a b untsl. t ';� . are xeasr�c3 frarn
the irysiiranc
As indicated the. ni-.ax2 ,fit ws 111 ria;have'a November 5th expiration date,
reevalaaat 'a
and;tl pricingvdll , t that tial .
We. increasedhe:-va11
-st1y '� Ply '`
Please contack our_.offioe if you.la ve any. questions•
Yours trtil y t
{
Brian Doonya `
HD:jnp
Encl.
Insurance Brokers serving The Northwest since 1933
i
n4SUP11= PrCPMWT r&MM
i
CITY C' TIGAl�D
_
FO Box 23557 97223
Tigard, Oregon
� hisurance Renewal. Effective Apra 9, 1984 issued for short term
to expo Novenber 5, 1984 .
Insurancs'-
$1,736,220,00 Blanket Buildings & Contents _ All locations
I68,OOOo00 Valuable Papers - at'city Hall
Glass
_ - 12420." Maim
fixe subject 'polic9'per
conditions
CovPxage - P,11,riskincludingtendors nt build=gs
�._
l.ac nts3ildia.g5 Tlt
r � CA3t t cn b .
$500 deductible
100,000 Data Processirng
hardware egus. t
11,000 software10,000 bra �- ($500 per day)
gage'- 1. ilk' rac
'Al6 ing.fire subject to PO icy terms ticris
_
t st er geplac i .
$100 deductible
-
-
$ 311.283 ContractorsBgpipfent - Per policy schedule
u includes provision for leased, rented or borrowed � p
fire,arm theft subject to policy terms and
( iesage
All Risk includingCash Value per values shown on policy
conditions. Actual of $100 and maximum of $350
1% deductible with minun�un
x
City of Tigard
Page 2
Property Insurance $ 1,283.00
Commuter Ovverage 113.00
Cmtractors Ecluipnent Coverage 573.00
' Total Bi11iW h= -9-84 to 11-5x84 $ 1,969.00
r
t,
. �' M, -
s•
C
G
a
k -
CITY OF TIGARD,' OREGON-11
F
Y
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
t
` ✓ AGENDA ITEM #: r
AGENDA OF:
DATE SUBMITTED:- March 22,1984 - PREVIOUS ACTION: ' NONE
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: ACCEPTANCE °OF j
•. k
u
REQUESTED BY: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
SUBDIVISION COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT. AND Q
PERSONAL SURETY PERFORMANCE BOND FOR
BOND PARK II
CITY ADMINISTRATOR:
DEPARTMENT HEAD OK:
INFORMATION SUMMARY
This subdivision development project is located on the west side of S.W.`79th Avenue,
north of Durham Road, directly across from Bond Park I. The preliminary plat has
by the Planning commission. Construction drawings have been submitted
been approved
and are approvable (i.e. can be issued after the Council acts to accept the Compliance
Agreement and Performance Bond) . Subsequently, thereafter, construction may start.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
TM
SUGGESTED ACTION
Public works Department staff recommends that the City Council act to accept the
Subdivision Compliance Agreement and Performance Bond for Bond Park II Subdivision.
. c
Mom
r
SUBDIVISION COMPLIANCE' AGREEMEN"1
c
THIS AGREEMENT dated the day of 19
between the CITY OF TIGARD, a municipality of Oregon, hereinafter termed the
"City", and WAVERLY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC.
hereinafter termed "Petitioner"
W I T N E S S E T H a
WHEREAS, Petitioner has applied to the : City for approval for filing in
Washington County, a subdivision plat known as Bond Park II -- Located in -�;
Section 12, Township:2 South, Range 1 West
Willamette Meridian, WashingtonCounty, Oregon; and
WHEREAS, the City has approved and adopted the standard specifications for
n 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
but _Petitioner
Petitioner's development are incomplete, has nonetheless
;
requested the-City-to permit progressive occupancy and use of property .in the
subdivision, and the parties desire hereby ti protect the public interest
' .'
generally and prospective ;purchasers of lots n 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 $146,422.30 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
— a
r Petitioner'ssureties 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, standards and
ordinances of the City of Tigard, and in such event, in Tike manner, the City _.
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 the street lighting facilities within the subdivision,' according to
r
Portland General Electric Schedule #91, Option "B", together with a further
sum equal to the estimated cost of providing electrical energy to energize the
street lighting facilities for a period of two (2) years from the date of
initial energizing of said lights. Said amount being $ 521.70
(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
inspections fees.*
consideration whereof the Petitioner has paid prescribed
P
(6) The City agrees to install street identification and traffic signs
within' the said subdivision, in consideration of payment in the amount of
$ 347.00
(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 performance bond,
form approved by the City, in the sum of $ 29.284.46 _ to provide for
correction of any defective work or maintenance becoming apparent or arising
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
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 provisionhereof, Petitioner binds _
itself to conform to the following requis rements, scheduling and limitations:
*'Project Fee $ 4,467.48
Sewer Fee $ 240.00 `£
-2-
(a) None of the lots of Petitioner's subdivision as described may be
T 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
- - lendar month from October to April of any
occupancy permit occurs within any ca
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 q
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 "B" overlay
' on all roads within the 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 specifiedby 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-
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Petitioner acting by and through its duly authorized
undersigned officerspursuant 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
m
on the day of 19 has caused this agreement to
be executed by its Mayor and Recorder.
By: �— 2
By: is/1 '.Pr LJ . (,!/c?-!�(L2g.
tom= THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
By:
Mayor
ay•
Recorder
i
4,. z
- j
k
i
t_
j -
t
-4-
I Egg
w
STATE OF OREGON )
)ss.
t-ounty,of �� �,„`) On this day of'�j���Ul ,19f�4'
before me appeared � � � ,Y���rf and
, r�h6� Ke'
ksJnboth to me ,personally
nown, who being du y Worn,,
c1ic� say t—iat e, the said
is the President, andshe,' the said
is the Secretary of .r /y_ sow S 1w�7���aa
the within named Corporation, and that the sea affixed to said instrument is
the corporate seal of sada' Corporation, and that the said instrument was
signed ' and sealed in behalf of said Corporation byauthority of its Board of
Directors, and and
acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said Corporation. `
Iii TESTI;°SONY 'WHE'REOF, I' have hereunto set my a;
fs Band and affixed my official seal the day v
Vdr las above written.
Pu 1fo 0 gon
My Commission expires G _
l -
? EEQ,+ iM y�E f'M1 ]__ ou
r rr,e/ O � f w. +� ..Enwo]p 5• J i �•
TO
S v � ��, � ANrroX„ I•fr
5 / ST
V1RNi ST Q t
ST
� 4:T. O
`'V � SWL. .04AR♦ 3♦I
CXLRRY Sv a
v f R EDOfWOOD IT. : -
� � / SyXOBURO
w
-
/ •V
7 [LROXY CREEK GT
OSC S
Sv f
!• Ab XTANVILWS 4/
— o gr" E
111f`I - ) M LVi
INCL
_L-.E
NIT IIOAD
r • n
2 l it
sw » —EW n 1\
. DIE • _ ry
KILT u E E-I K .iii' ST
o tf• REILNIO
0
� M1.
SATTE ER T
t—� ROSS fi
rt ~
80 rlJ • Y le. .BLE ST
JRI � - r> 1 ♦ I f W.K9LE _
; •� s Of�i /R�1 yL)'
DURXAN RD.mT
4( JEIA J.
IE
le
Tt`r4� ;F vLi r BRADDO1
ii••t�•�y!�C44Ur'S;I � �l aW f if Gi. O
t ... JE.W I
C "•
B� z
. iXAwnEE SW E—AN00
LANE �S
E
a� z
.I k
:'ii w. PETERS XO ' jEp if +� §