The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 08/20/1984 TIGARD'CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA agenda item needs to sign on the appropriate AUGUST 20, 1984, 7:30 P.M. sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available,` FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH ask to'be-recognized by the Chair at the start 10865 SW WALNUT of that agenda item. Visitor's agenda items _TIGARD, OREGON 97223 are asked to be kept to 2 minutes or less; longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by con- tacting either the.Mayor or_City Administrator. 1. SPECIAL MEETING: *-` 1.1 Call To Order and Roll Call 1.2 ,Pledge of Allegiance 1.3 Call To Staff and-Council'For Non-Agenda-Items 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (2 Minutes or-Less,'Please) 3. TAX BASE' RESOLUTION NO. 84- 0 Finance Director 4. LID BOND SALE ORDINANCE NO. 84- (68th Sewer, 68th Parkway 100th Ave. Sewer) o Finance'Director 5. TIGARD WEST REVIEW FINDINGS o Comments on Findings & Council Consideration - Continued from 8-13-84 6. KOLL SENSITIVE LANDS APPEAL PUBLIC HEARING , An appeal of a Hearings Officer decision to approve a request to alter the topography within the 100"year floodplain to raise the elevation of the existing access road to prevent annual flooding, to provide more land for the construction of a freestanding office building and to provide parking and access areas .for Phase II and III of ,the Koll' Business Park.' Property is zoned I-P (Industrial Park) located on Sw Nimbus Avenue, Tigard (WCTM 1S1 34AA, Tax'Lot 1800 & 1900; and WCTM 1S1- 34AD, Tax Lot 6200). This will be an "argument-type" hearing only. The Council will consider only the record before the Hearing's Officer, which has been on file at City Hall. The Council shall not consider any new testimony or evidence which is not in the record. o Public Hearing Opened o Summation by Planning Staff o . Argument: Appellants, Respondents, Rebuttal o Public Hearing Closed o Council Consideration & Action a i � 7. ECON014IC DEVELOPMENT ACTION PLAN DISCUSSION o Mark Padgett 4- 8. 8. CODES ENFORCEMENT DISCUSSION o Mayor 9. ACCUMULATED TIME REPORT o City Administrator 10. LID STATUS REPORT o City Administrator 11. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 11.1 Approve Council Minutes - 8/13/84 11.2 Approve OLCC Application Royal Gate (formerly Stadium Club) 11.3 Approve City Administrator Performance Revenue Criterion 11.4 Approve and Authorize Signatures: Sewer Compliance Agreement - George Scott 11.5 Approve Washington County CDBG Intergovernmental Agreement - Resolution No. 84-57 11.6 Initiate Review of Planning Comm. Approval of Puget Corp. Appeal of Conditions 12. NON-AGENDA ITEMS: From Council and Staff 13. ADJOURNMENT CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 20, 1984 - PAGE 1 pil'1 —— 1---;---�.....��--�..�® asea+onea.amaroma.�vwewmet .. .. TIGA-RD CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL:MEETING;MINUTES - AUGUST 20, 1984 - 7:30 P.M. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor John Cook; Councilors: Tom Brian, and 6 Kenneth 'Scheckla; , City ,Staff: Frank Currie, Director of Public Works; Doris Hartig, Deputy City Recorder; Bob Jean, City Administrator; Bill Monahan, Director of Planning & Development; and Tim Ramis, Legal :Counsel; Jerri Widner, : Finance Director (leaving at 8:00 P.M.). 2. CALL TO STAFF AND COUNCIL FOR NON-AGENDA ITEMS Mayor Cook added discussion regarding a Public Facility Advisory Committee. 3. VISITOR'S AGENDA (a) Bob Bledsoe, 11800 SW Walnut, Tigard, suggested a 2-3 year serial levy rather than a tax base be 'placed on the November ballot. He , felt this=would'be in the spirit of allowing citizens to have more control and there would be less opposition. 4. TAX BASE RESOLUTION No. 84- (a) Mayor Cook announced this item would be tabled to August 27, 1984. (b) Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Brian to table to August 27, 1984 Council meeting. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 5. ORDINANCE No. 84-51 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS. Director reported bond sale would be for the following (a) Finance P z LID's; S.W. 68th Sewer, 68th/Parkway Street and S.W. 100th Sewer. (b) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Scheckla to adopt. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 5 (c) City Administrator noted that S.W. Dartmouth LID was not included. 6. TIGARD WEST REVIEW FINDINGS (a) City Attorney commented the relevant issues were outlined in his memo and testimony should be limited to those issues. (b) Jim Cox, 8 N. State, Lake Oswego, suggested Council adopt the resolution and the city would still have an, opportunity to have LUBA review the findings or Council can take another look at it and draft more findings reaching the same conclusion. Page 1 - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 20, 1984 J.B. Bishop, Suite 303, 10505 SW; Barbur Blvd, Portland urged Council to consider withdrawing the order and re-write findings and bring back on another agenda. He noted Council does not have the signed findings from the Planning 'Commission and would be basing their decision - on a transcript of the hearing. He suggested the parties would better' be served by withdrawing the item and allow them to try and solve the problems. He felt there were problems with the findings as written and would appeal them to LUBA. City Attorney responded city had two options, (one) table the item and allow 'input and amend findings; (two) adopt the findings and then wait to see if an appeal to 'LUBA is 'filed and then decide what to do; amend 'findings or bring back before the Council. City Attorney noted the city could proceed as Attorney for J.B. Bishop had waived any procedural claims. (c) RESOLUTION No. 84-59 A FINAL ORDER IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR A C011PREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND A ZONE CHANGE REQUESTED BY TIGARD WEST DEVELOPMENT, J.B. BISHOP, G.I. JOSS, AND 'ALICE TREFINGER, ;FILE NO. CPA 11-84' AND ZC 8-84, DENYING THE APPLICATION REQUEST, ENTERING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. Ar- Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Brian to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 7. KOLL SENSITIVE LANDS APPEAL - An appeal of a Hearing's Officer decision to approve a request to alter the topography within the 100 year floodplain to raise the elevation of the existing access road to prevent annual flooding, to provide more land for the construction of a freestanding officebuildingand to provide parking and access areas for Phase II and III of the Koll Business Park. Property is zoned I-P (Industrial Park) located on SW Nimbus Avenue, Tigard (WCTM 1S1 34AA, Tax Lot 1800 & 1900; and WCTM 1S1 34 AD, Tax Lot 6200). This will be an "argument-type" hearing only. The Council will consider only the record before the Hearing's Officer, which has been on file at City Hall. The Council shall not consider any new testimony or evidence which is not in the record. Public Hearing Opened Director of Planning and Development summarized the issues. Appellants: Attorney Terry Hauck, 1211 SW 5th, Suite 1600, Pac West Bldg, Portland, discussed the issue of dedication of certain property to the City_ of Tigard. He reported Koll does not own Lhe land but rather has a 99 year lease plus options to extend. He explained this is the 2nd phase of Page 2 - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 20, 1984 ffil Ionia development and in 1980 had made arrangements for development of phase Ty one and a` sublease of the sensitive lands. He suggested amending the sub=lease-which would give the city control. He 'emphasized they cannot give the 'dedication and the fee holder will not dedicate the land for greenway and open space. Director of Planning and Development commented the condition of approval was given by the Hearing's Officer and she did not have all the information. Director of Public Works recommended amending the sub-lease language issues and suggested staff work with the applicant to clarify the sub=leaseagreement. Eric Saito, 0690 SW Bancroft, Portland, Architect, representing Koll Co. spoke with respect to the NPO #7 appeal regarding the sensitive lands. He noted SW Nimbus is too low and wanted to raise the elevation. He reported they had met with the NPO and have completed the hydrology study as suggested. Their conclusion the flood plain has not been affected and discharge up and downstream will not be affected fi OPPONENT Barbara Priest, NPO °V, 10710 SW Ponderosa Place, Tigard, Oregon, read letter stating their concerns and stated she was unaware of the hydrology study and appreciated the work of Koll Company. Greg Lundeen, ;11352 SW Ironwood Loop, Tigard,` Oregon, testified in opposition to changing the flood plain. He felt it would increase the water level and affect his property. If the proposed changes are approved he would hold the City and Koll responsible for damages. REBUTTAL Eric Saito, 0690 SW Bancroft, Portland, further explained the hydrology study. Public Hearing Closed Director of Planning and Development recommended Staff work quickly with Koll Company to make new sub-lease arrangements. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Scheckla to make tentative findings to sustain the Koll appeal and deny the NPO #7 appeal; request staff to come back with appropriate findings; prepare a sub--lease with mutual agreeable amendments and require the sub-lease regarding sensitive lands. Motion approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 8. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACTION PLAN DISCUSSION (a) Mark Padgett, Chairman of the Committee, referred to items in the packet commenting the Committee feels economic development is of number one importance to the City. Page 3 COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 202 1984 Council expressed "satisfactionwith the report and discussed A whether the Committee should act as an advocate of economic development before Planning Commission and City Council.' Consensus of Council that the Committee should 'act 'as advocate, cautioning they should not represent the `applicant, ;but 'give an objective, impartial, economic impact report on the City. (b) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor .Scheckla to accept the report of the Economic Development Committee. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 9. CODES ENFORCEMENT DISCUSSION Mayor Cook requested` item be setover to August 27 1984 meeting. 10. ACCUMULATED TIME REPORT As Councilor Scott was absent the item was setover to August 27, 1984 meeting. 11. LID STATUS REPORT City Administrator ,gave progress report on LID's noting 68th Street Sewer and 69th-Parkway have gone ahead; SW 135th Street LID:may be dead as`the `property owners appear to have alternative private financing. He reported good cooperation between the City and County staff however the major property owner will decide with the next 2 weeks on what to do. If the 1-1/2% measure passes the project bonds cannot be sold. City Administrator explained status of SW Dartmouth LID noting there were 7 options available. He suggested meeting with the property owners and review the options. 1. Agree among the property owners City go for a bond sale and Gordon Martin to withdraw complaint. 2. Go through process if 1-1/2% measure fails. 3. Request voters give approval for a specific dollar amount for the amount of the LID (City Administrator recommended that option not be considered). 4. Wait. 5. Go ahead with project without Bancroft bonds.. 6. Let State build. 7. City Council change comprehensive plan and allow piece meal development. (� Council did not act on City Administrator's status report. ` . 12, 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: Page 4 COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 20, 1984 1 v 12.1 Approve Council Minutes - 8/1.3/84 12.2~ Approve O1,CC Application Royal Gate (formerly Stadium Club) 12.3 Approve City Administrator Performance Review Criterion 12.4Approve and Authorize Signature: Sewer Compliance Agreement - George Scott 12.5' Approve Washington County CDBG Intergovernmental Agreement - Resolution No. 84-57 12.6 Initiate Review of Planning commission Approval of Puget Corp. Appeal of Conditions (a) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by "Councilor Scheckla to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 13. NON-AGENDA ITEMS (a) Mayor Cook recommended Council form a Public Facility Advisory Committee. He requested staff to prepare a resolution to form committee of '7-9 members from all areas and walks of life. + Committee to participate in roads, storm'drainage, traffic:safety, bike programs, recommend priorities and engineering standards. Council concurred with Mayor's recommendation. (b) Councilor Scheckla questioned recent news article regarding lawsuit on Cable T.V. and would the city have to help pay for any deficit. City Administrator replied no and commented the franchise agreement is structured differently. MEETING RECESSED 9:33 P.M. Council went into executive session under the provision of ORS 192.660 (1) (h) to discuss pending litigation. Meeting adjourned 10:00 P.M. Deputy City Recorder - ty of Tigard ATTEST: � br - City of Tigard (bs/1902A} Page 5 - COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 20, 1984 ,, WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON August 17, 1984 NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING Notice is hereby given that a special Council meeting, called by the Mayor, will be held at 7:15 p.m.. on Monday, August 20, 1984, in City Hail, 12755 S.W. Ash Avenue, Tigard, Oregon. The meeting is called for the purpose of considering the Budget Committee's recommendation and Tax Base Election Resolution. At 7:25 p.m. the meeting will recess and be reconvened at 7:35 p.m. at Fowler Junior High, 10865 S.W. Walnut, Tigard, Oregon. s/JEC Mayor i F 12755 S.W.ASN P.O.BOX 23397 TIGARD,OREGON 972.23 PH:639-4171 - WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON August 17, 1984 NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING Notice is hereby given that a Special Budget Committee Meeting is being called at 7:00 p.m. atCityHall, 12755 `S.W. Ash Avenue, Tigard, Oregon. The meeting is called for the ;purpose of discussing the Tax Base Election Resolution recommendation to City Council Chairman CL 12755 S.W.ASH P.O.BOX 23397 T IGARD,OREGON 97223 PH:639-4171 �a w MMUMM TIMES L! 6 ANY Legal 7-6o81 P.O.BOX 370 2 PHONE(503)684.0360 Notice 5' BEAVERTON,OREGON 97075CI. D Kegel Notice Advertising (11 P CITY OF TIGARD ® ® Tearsheet Notice CITY OF TIGARD P .O. BOX 23397 0 TIGARD, OR 97223 � ® Duplicate Affidavit AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, ,ss. 1 Susan Pinkley being first duly sworn, depose and say thatal am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk,of the— Tigard Times a newspaper-of_general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Tigard in the aforesaid countyy and state; that the Pub lic' 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: Aug. 9, 1984 i Subscribed and orn to before me this Au 8 , 198 Notary Public for Oregon E My Commission Expi 3-16-87 AFFIDAVIT 7777777777 ?iae fol►o�ring<ritlZe`ecrivldar b 061111w.' Azt4, 18$4 at 7:30 P.t�l,at. d ler,Junlor Soh Scbual Lecture 1�apzn,I0. 5�l wl a3iaui� 5tteet Turd;Oregon.Ful 'er.lnformadoninaytae'obtainasl fRara the I3#r for of Pisntilti8 ile�.elopmeritat i2755'S�'A, Av�+a4ue,Ti rs1,,61regan 67228 or; 1jy.cailing 638-4171. x St.NSITIVE L o ks P+IT SI.. Kt 1i'BUSt?1 E SS,CiSRi'1"R An app al of ts,I eesin 4ffirer.deeWon to mppraae€t regqu�t to RIL the td pdgraphy wittitn;tEis f 4i€a Y fioadglriin to rain.ttte etet Sit a�f rcistin adcew ro€d to p.ei 6nt h1 ita floadin to provide i-nore land Sar the d:onstrue- ttnn of tstitlditng andl to provld",p�rlqng and acce areas for Pbase n said 1'of the w Masan arld Pra� Pperty is caned I-P.(Ind�istrial_ Fnrk3`lacrated an o f l lirme +� f tdl (NW•Igl 34AA,lot.1844, 19©4;1' TIMES IIS I Y Legal �-6090 P.O.SOX 370 PHONE(503)684-0360 �CNot lee � BEAVERTON,OREGON 97075 1! Legal Notice Advertising a CITY OF TTGARD ' ❑ Tearsheet Notice P.O. BOX 23397 ® TTGARD, OR 97223 ® ❑ Duplicate Affidavit AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, 3 COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, ass. Susan Pinkley being first duly sworn, depose and say that l am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk,of the Tiarr3 Tines , a newspaper of general circulation as defined in OHS 193.010 and 193.020; published at T; gaud' in the aforesaid county and state;that the 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: Anu_ 1ti - jqR m ' Subscribed and s' rn to before me thi Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expl. 3-16-87 AFFIDAVIT _ - � 'daa�lUS `�^ lf o€"y+s =l �izi�tlo�► ,, �.asr � 1".rft� �� c3 �' m+ f��iit�tstt�,�t2?°�t�ordtr, 1j7,j5 S*ATii97273;car by�a!Ing 639=9173 ; CITY=COVNICIl.RF_G L&Tt MEETING AtT+s-UST 24,1984,7.30 0M. BbIVI t fI�NtI4 I11GI-I SCHOOL o LE URIC 1t004I IiS86, &W WALN3i T,P),,'rREE`E", .rIGAgD,C3£iEGON d ifi�El SeasitivezLa&q-'A s4leaf Publl Hea:3ng elrfzari°r`Review, lecttoh: xes r, � .Tl asd +est�Ynal'OrderCenslsfer;3klan ��tifarceene:�t��1tYn r * asbIngt�in CoUn�r Ce t- 3 glop enii 6cildralt c Ze ttcmt r'"•.. AGENDA ITEM4 2 _ - VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE Auaus-t (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) p et for listed agenda items. The Council Please sign on the appropriate she2 wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, but time may ms for a future agenda. Please contact the require that we schedule your itea City Administrator as to agenda scheduling. Thank you. tITEM;DESCRIPTION you- NAME, ADDRESS & AFFILIATION + I �G� SW �`✓��yuST �C�p 4 d ¢s p DATE' August 20 , 1984 4 �^ a E, I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print the information) Item Description: TIGARD WEST REVIEW FINDINGS' Opponent (Against Issue) Proponent (For Issue) Name Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation j J� �� ((. \/ , {� l � 1V. a� B6$T� L((Vi .✓vYf1p � F d ' 4 k DATE August 20. 1984 I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print the information) ITEM DESCRIPTION: ' #6 — KOLL SENSITIVE LANDS APPEAL ARGUMENT-TYPE HEARING ONLY ON THE; RECORD BEFORE HEARINGS OFFICER.'- Appellants FFICER:Appellants (Supporting Appeal) Respondents (Against Appeal) 9c*icr�c��it��*�ic�ic*�Yck7cat�rc��icrtaYfcat�attcf;rtat*� 9cic&icicic�*irat�9c��xex�ataYYcrctic�**�tiicatatatatictctcicatmat -� N e, Address an , d Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation 6 Zf t Sri SPS 1071 o S '_/'Bnr . wZ- Al ec- T Ov- 5. Lj, T1 'wd C)� 174 , i�.- � R, a F ?C C B P. h. �rr rJ h{ CITY OF TIGARDOREGON r COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: AUGUST 20, 1984 AGENDA ITEM #: DATE SUBMITTER: ' August 201984 PREVIOUS ACTION: Recommendation from ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: TAX BASE Budget` Committee RESOLUTION No. 84- PREPARED BY: City Attorney's office REQUESTED BY: Budget Committee DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: J. Widner CITY ADMINISTRATOR: INFORMATION SUMMARY After meeting with the Budget Committee, it was recommended that City Council place on the November 6, 1984 ballot, a tax measure for fiscal year 1985-86. The resolution will be hand carried to the meeting August 20, 1984. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Reject the resolution. 2. Adopt the resolution for a tax base election November 6,1984. SUGGESTED ACTION As recommended by the Budget Committee, the tax base measure should be placed on the November 6, 1984 ballot. (0541F) CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 84— A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR AN ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 6, 1984, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE`STATE—WIDE'>-GENERAL ELECTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE REGISTERED: QUALIFIED VOTERS OF THE CITY OF TIGARD THE QUESTION OF ESTABLISHING A NEW TAX BASE; CALLING THE ELECTION AND DIRECTING THE CITY RECORDER TO DO CERTAIN ACTS NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE ELECTION. WHEREAS,the State Constitution, Art. XI, Section 11 authorizes a new tax base to be established by a majority of the voters at a primary` or general election; and WHEREAS, State-wide Ballot Measure No. 2 authorizes` a new tax base to be established by-a majority vote of a majority of the qualified votes; and WHEREAS, the City Council; intends this ballot measure to be effective under both the Constitution and State—wide Ballot Measure No. 2 whichever is deemed to be in effect; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that a new tax base should be established to permit the City to operate` at a level necessary; to meet the needs of the Tigard residents; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the population has grown from 15,200 people in 1980 to an estimated 20,000 in 1984; and WHEREAS, the current tax base of $745,965 has been in effect since 1980 and service needs have exceeded revenues; and WHEREAS, the City Council is of the view that the present tax base is inadequate and that a new tax base of $ should be established; and WHEREAS, this matter came before the Tigard City Council at its August 20, 1984 special meeting. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: Section 1. The ballot title, question and explanation incorporated in this resolution is hereby approved by this Council and is referred to the qualified voters of the City of Tigard for their approval or rejection at the November 6, 1984 General Election. Section 2. An election is hereby called to be held in the City of Tigard, November 6, 1984, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 P.M. Pacific Time at the polling places designated in Exhibit A for the purpose of submitting to the registered, qualified voters of the City of Tigard the measure set forth in this resolution. Section 3. The City Recorder is hereby authorized and directed to certify in the manner provided by law to the Director of Records and Elections ! of Washington County, Oregon, the foregoing measure for inclusion as a part of the regular ballot to be prepared by the Director for voting at all precincts RESOLUTION NO. 84— PAGE 1 within the City of Tigard, as set forth in Exhibit A at the General Election of November 6 1984. Section 4. The Tigard City Recorder shall undertake all necessary acts to facilitate the 'inclusion of the measure on the November -6, 1984 General Election ballot for the approval or rejection by the qualified voters of the City of Tigard, and is further directed to give notice of the election and proposals in the following;manner: a. By posting notices ofelection, one at each of the designated polling places in each of the precincts in the City, in a public place exposed to public view, and at the front door of City Hall, and also exposed to public view, not less than fifteen (15) days prior to the date of the election; and also b. By ,'publication in the TigardTimes once a week .for two consecutive weeks, the first such publication to be not less than ten (10) days prior to the date of the General Election. The City Recorder shall cause to have filed affidavits of posting and publication. , #51 CITY OF TIGARD TAX BASE QUESTION: SHALL THE CITY BE AUTHORIZED A NEW TAX BASE OF $ ? EXPLANATION: =The current tax base has been in effect since 1980. In that time the city's population has increased from 15,200 to an estimated 20,000. The need for services has exceeded revenues. The current tax base is $745,965. This measure allows a new tax base of $ It would remain in effect as provided by the constitution. Service level cuts and layoffs have occurred. Police have not added staff for five years. Emergency response times have increased. Library hours have been cut. County library funds end this year. Park maintenance is limited. Senior Center funds have been eliminated. State Ballot Measure #2, the proposed 1 1/2Y property tax limit, is also on this ballot. If approved it allows voters to authorize a local tax base increase. City Measure 451 authorizes the new local tax base, beginning with fiscal year 1985-86. PASSED: This day of , 1984. Mayor - City of Tigard ATTEST: Deputy City Recorder - City of Tigard (AB:pm/1869A) RESOLUTION NO. 84 PAGE 2 e 6 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 84- A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR AN ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 6, 1984, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE STATE-WIDE GENERAL ELECTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE REGISTERED QUALIFIED VOTERS OF THE CITY OF ' TIGARD THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE CITY SHALL BE AUTHORIZED TO ASSESS OUTSIDE OF ITS TAXING AUTHORITY IN'LID'S 'AND UPON DEFAULT ASSESS CITY-WIDE; CALLING THE ELECTION AND DIRECTING THE CITY RECORDER TO DO CERTAIN ACTS NECESSARY TO`CARRY`OUT THE ELECTION. a WHEREAS, under current law, city-wide voter approval is not required to levy assessments and issue Bancroft bonds; and WHEREAS, State-wide Ballot Measure No. 2 would require City.=wide voter approval to levy assessments outside the City's taxing authority; and F WHEREAS, .Bancroft Bonds allow property owners within a Local Improvement District to pay for the improvement over time and the 'bonds are backed by the credit of, the City in case of default and WHEREAS, Local Improvement District is a means the City uses to construct local public improvement and to date no district has defaulted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City :Council that: Section 1. The ballot title, question and explanation 'incorporated in this resolution is hereby approved by this Council and is referred to the qualified voters of the City of Tigard for their approval or rejection at the November 6, 1984 General Election. Section 2. An election is hereby called to be held in the City of Tigard, November 6, 1984, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 P.M. Pacific Time at the polling places designated in Exhibit A for the purpose of submitting to the registered, qualified voters of the City of Tigard the measure set forth in this resolution Section 3. The City Recorder is hereby authorized and directed to certify in the manner provided by law to the Director of Records and Elections of Washington County, Oregon, the foregoing measure for inclusion as a part of the regular ballot to be prepared by the Director for voting at all precincts within the City of Tigard, as set forth in Exhibit A at the General Election of November 6, 1984. Section 4. The Tigard City Recorder shall undertake all necessary acts to facilitate the inclusion of the measure on the November 6, 1984 General Election ballot for the approval or rejection by the qualified voters of the City of Tigard, and is further directed to give notice of the election and proposals in the following manner: RESOLUTION NO. 84- PAGE 1 a. By posting notices of election, one at each of the designated polling places .in each of the precincts in the City, in a public place exposed to public view, and at the front door of City Hall, and also -exposed to public view, not less than fifteen (15) days prior to the date of rhe election.; and also b. By publication in the Tigard Times- -e a week for two consecutive weeks, the first such publicatio4 be not less than ten (10) days prior to the date of the General Election. The City Recorder shall cause to have filed affidavits of, posting and publication.' #52 CITY OF TIGARD LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (LID) ASSESSMENT'AUTHORITY QUESTION. SHALL TIGARD YBE AUTHORIZED TO ASSESS OUTSIDE ITS TARING AUTHORITY IN LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS AND UPON DEFAULT ASSESS CITY-WIDE? EXPLANATION: Local improvement districts are formed to build improvements. Only property owners in the district pay ,for the improvement. Bancroft Bonds allow time payments. Currently, Tigard can sell bonds up to 9% of its latest true cash value without a vote. State Ballot Measure #2 requires voter approval on the assessment and to spread the assessment city-wide upon a default. No Tigard district has 'defaulted. This measure would remain :in effect until repealed. PASSED: This day of , 1984. Mayor - City of Tigard ATTEST: Deputy City Recorder- City of Tigard (AB:pm/1869A) RESOLUTION NO. 84- PAGE 2 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 84- A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR AN ELECTION TO BE HELD ON; NOVEMBER 6, 1984, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE STATE-WIDE GENERAL ELECTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE REGISTERED QUALIFIED VOTERS OF THE CITY OF TIGARD THE QUESTION OF - - - WHETHER'THE CITY SHALL BE AUTHORIZED TO ASSESS $1,975,000.00 OUTSIDE OF ITS TAXING AUTHORITY IN BANCROFT BONDS FOR THE DARTMOUTH. STREET IMPROVEMENTS AND UPON DEFAULT '`SPREAD THE ASSESSMENT CITYWIDE; CALLING THE ELECTION AND DIRECTING THE CITY RECORDER TO DO CERTAIN ACTS NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE ELECTION. WHEREAS, under current law, city-wide voter approval is not required 'to levy assessments and issue Bancroft bonds; and WHEREAS, ' State-wide Ballot Measure No. 2 would require City-wide voter approval to levy the assessments outside the City's taxing authority; and WHEREAS; the property owners within the Dartmouth Local Improvement District will pay for the improvement; and WHEREAS; Bancroft Bonds allow the property owners to make time ',payments and are backed by the credit of the City in case of default; no 'District has defaulted to'date. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: Section 1.' The ballot title, question and explanation incorporated in this resolution is hereby approved by this Council and is referred to the qualified voters of the City of Tigard for their approval or rejection at the November 6, 1984 General Election. Section 2. An election is hereby called to be held in the City of Tigard, November 6, 1984, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 P.M. Pacific Time at the polling places designated in Exhibit A for the purpose of submitting to the registered, qualified voters of the City of Tigard the measure set forth in this resolution. Section 3. The City Recorder is hereby authorized and directed to certify in the manner provided by law to the Director of Records and Elections of Washington County, Oregon, the foregoing measure for inclusion as a part of the regular ballot to be prepared by the Director for voting at all precincts within the City of Tigard, as set forth in Exhibit A at the General Election of November 6, 1984. Section 4. The Tigard City Recorder shall undertake all aece!.sary acts to facilitate the inclusion of the measure on the Novembe - 6, 1984 General Election ballot for the approval or rejection by the qualified voters of the City of Tigard, and is further directed to give notice of the election and proposals in the following manner: f RESOLUTION N0. 84- PAGE 1 notice precincts of election, one at each of the designated a. By posting in a public 5 polling 'places in each of; the ;precincts in the City, view, and at the front door of City Hall, place exposed to public € and also exposed to `public view, not less' than, fifteen (15) days prior to the date of the election, and also f in the Tigard ' Times once a week for two b. By publication t t such publication to be consecutive weeks, tnot less than he firs ten (10) days prior to the date :of the General Election. € Cit Recorder shall cause to have filed affidavits of posting and The y publication. #53 CITY OF TIGARD DARTMOUTH STREET LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (LID) ASSESSMENT � RS $1,975,000-00sESa DATMOUTH LID QUESTION: 'SHALL: E CITY ASIRIT ANDSUPON�DEFAULT ASSESSpCITY-WIDE? ERTY OUTSIDE ITS TAXING EXPLANATION: The property owners in the Dartmouth LID are paying fic Highway. $1'975,000.00 for the Dartmouth Street Extension does fnot require rom 1-5 to P acivote- State Bancroft Bonds will be used. Current approval ed spread the E ' Measure #2 require a- vote on the Cityasse-widesment and taxes are not affected unless the f assessment in case of default. City- 7 district defaults. No Tigard- district has defaulted. The assessment will remain in effect until the bonds are paid. 1984, � PASSED: This day of ' {6{ t Mayor - City of Tigard ATTEST: t Deputy City Recorder - City of Tigard (AB:pm/1869A) RESOLUTION NO. 84-_ PAGE 2 -. CITY OF TIGARD. OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA -ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA ITEM AGENDA OF: AUGUST 2O,• 1984 5 DATE SUBMITTED: August 15,1984 PREVIOUS ACTION: PASSAGE OF ASSESSMENT ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: LID BOND SALE'- ORDINANCES PREPARED BY: J. Willner ORDINANCE NO. 84-" s' REQUESTED BY: J. Willner CITY ADMINISTRATOR: DEPARTMENT READ OK: J. Widner k INFORMATION SUMMARY Council direction, the attached 'ordinance has been prepared Pursuant to City 1984. to enable the City to sell Bancroft Bonds on .September 11, l City Council meeting at noon on Tuesday, This sale will requite a sp ecta September ll, 1984 to accept the bid for the sale of the bonds. ALTERNATI`TES CONSIDERED 1. No sale of bonds. 2. Sale of bonds. SUGGESTED ACTION I recommend that City Council pass the ordinance to sell Bancroft bonds on September 11, 1984. (0541F) ,j i �. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: August 13, 1984 AGENDA ITEM #: DATE SUBMITTED: August 9, 1984 PREVIOUS ACTION: Council denied the ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Final Order applicant's request at'their;7/23/84 Mtg For Tigard West Development REQUESTED BY: City Council DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: WWM CITY 'ADMINISTRATOR: INFORMATION SUMMARY At the July 23 1984, City Council meeting, the Council voted unanimously to uphold the Planning ;Commission 'denial of a :Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change request for Tigard West Development. At that meetings Council directed staff to prepare a -final 'order incorporating Councilor Edin's comments. A final order is attached for your review. A" copy',of the final order has been mailed ' to the applicant, the applicant's attorney and the attorney for the :. opposition. In order to allow those parties and the Council adequate time to review the final order, no action should be taken at the August 13, 1984, Council meeting. At the August 20, 1984, meeting the Council should allow comments on the final order from interested parties prior to taking any action. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED SUGGESTED ACTION Continue action until August 20, 1984. f. ORDINANCE NO. 84-47 All ( .?NANCE AMENDING POLICY 6.3.2(b) IN FINDINGS. -POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION STIWGIES. VOLW 2 OF THE NSIVE PLAN APED 111E C(.. ATIBILITY-MATRIX IN CHAPTER 18.26 OF THE COMMIITY DE EL T C (CPA 18-84) NM DECLARING AN EMERGENCY_ g. Motion by Councilor Edin, seconded by Councilor Scott. to adopt with Section 1 reference to Imatris" changed to Imatrnx'. - Approved by unanimous vote of Council present_ c 10. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and way 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: 10.1 Approve Council Minutes - July 9 & 16. 1484 -10.2 Receive and File:" Departmental Monthly Reports Police Department Annual Report 10.3 rove Board and Co ittee Appointments NPO inbwnts: John Mayfield on N?O #da Christie Smith on P #3 10.4 Approve & Authorize Signatures: Borsch Street Dedication &Won-Remonstrance Agrent - 9935 Sot Johnson Street Wedgewood Hmms/M orning Hill III Subd. - Sesser Easement Crossroads Devel ntf78th & 99W -"Street Dedication 10.5 Approve 83-84 Spring Street Overlay Program& Authorize Call For Bids 10:6 .Adopt Council Goals and Priorities a Motion by Councilor Brian. seconded by Councilor Scott to add to 10.2 a for receive and file fro Planning regarding 72nd Avenue fill'issue and to approve the consent agenda as Amended. Approved,by unanimous vote of Council present. RECESS COUNCIL 19EETING: 8:0D P.M. 11. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into executive session at 8:05 P.M. under the ` provisions of ORS 192.660 (1)(e)'to discuss real property REC0MENE COIMCIL MEETING: 8:27 P.N. 12. ITEMS a. City Administrator rated that the 135th LID Public hearing would be held on 7-24-84 at 7:00 P.M. in Washington Countyy. The City was in receipt of the assessment notice for Suaerlake Park in the aunt of 518.758.16_ b. Motion by Councilor Brian. seconded by Councilor Scheckla to receive and file notice. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 13. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENOiE`'NT-CPA 11-841ZONE CH# ;E-ZC 7-84/TIGAM WEST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL REVIEW A review of the Planning Commission's denial on a request for a Comprehensive Plan Change fry Lola D$nsitsiulerrtial to Cornrciai General tired for a Zorn Chafe from R-3.5 (Residential 3.5 units/acre) to CG (Commercial General). Located: 10500, 13370, 13450". 13490. & 13530 SW Watkins Ave.. Tigard. NPO # 3 (WCTM 2S1 30A lots 4700, 4800, 6100, and 6200 &WCTN 2S) 300 lot 200). a. Legal Counsel stated the applicant was not present at the meting. He reccnded Council proceed with their consideration of the issue since the public notice for this iters was scheduled for 7:30 P.M. b. Councilor Edin noted for the record that he has had one business dealing with one of the applicant's in the past, but felt he could be objective in hearing the issue. ASSOCIATE PLAMER ARRIVED: 8:30 P.M. C. Councilor Scheckla stated he received more information at his home regarding this review and questioned whether Council should consider this additional inforwation. - d. Legal Counsel noted the review was on the record before the Planning Commission and would be conducted in an argument style only by those persons heard before the Planning Conmission. He ( instructed Council to not consider any new information received at their hums. ` e. Associate Planner Newton noted the history.of the issue and outlined the Planning ission's findings. She noted that the Planning Co fission has not signed the final order yet. f. Councilor Brian questioned why Council was seeing this issue before the Planning Corrnission signed the final order. Director of Planning & Development responded that applicant wished this heard as soon as possible and has waived all procedural errors in order to hasten the process. A r g. Public Testimony - Argument Style Jim Cox. Attoniey for the ts. 8 forth State Stmt. Lake,Oswego. stated he Wiresented 18 the residents in the area and that his clients also waive procedural errors. tie opposed development and upheld the Plan nie�g ission findings stating the devel .nt request has not proven the need for Rwre acres and encroaches on existirQ residential area. h. Councilor Urian stated that the C City raad0. a ccs;tez it to the citizens ;n about 1978 whenthis site was before the Planning C fission. to maintain the dtmllings onWatkins Street. After reading the transcript of the current application before Planning C issiun, councilor Brian feels the s as before. i. pbtioo by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Scheckla toadopt tentativngs foretafinducil s similar to 8"IPC anti direct staff to work with Legal Counsel to prepare j. Councilor Edin c nted that the C tab > Plan was built on the premise that a strong test nt oe to proposed developments to protect existing, established neigorhoods. This e€evelo ent'deies not do that with the,addition of rwre'parking tAich would encroach on the residential area. Secorfly. hecontended that not 'enw9h time has passed since the adoption of the coqV Plan to support,such a drastic deviation from the original premise. ori to adopt tentative findings was approved by unanimous vote of council present. qty o r - City iga ATTEST: Mayor - City of Tacgard 4 OW/1829A) MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: City Council FROM: William A. Monahan, Director of Planning and Development DATE: August 16, 1984 SUBJECT: Tigard West KK Please bring your packet of information from the August 13, meeting relating to Tigard`West,to the meeting on the 20th. (0581P) O'DONNELL. DATE August 9, 1984' d SULLIVAN &-RAMIS' A4ORNEYS AT LAW .TO Tigard City Council 9727 N W.:HOYT STREET i PORTLAND. OREGON 97209 (5031 222-4402 FROM Tigard City Attorney { RE Appeal of J B Bishop: Findings i I `have suggested previously that the parties ;to this matter may wish to submit proposed findings for consideration by ,the Council.submit pi consideration, discussion and adoption of the Counfindings should be in a public hearing. The; parties should be findings prier to permitted the opportunity to comment on.`the adoption. I suggest a reasonable time limitation of perhaps 15 minutes be placed on each side in order to allow for specific comments. it is not necessary to rehear the entire case with a complete parade of witnesses. Testimony should focus on issues such as: 1. Is there substantial evidence in the record to support the proposed findings?; 2. Do the findings support the Council' s decision?; 3. Are the relevant criteria addressed?; 4. Do the findings adequately explain the decision? This is not meant to be an exhaustive list, but I wish to : emphasize that discussion should focus on the proposed findings. TVR:mch 8/9/84 f: August 9, 1984 CIWOFTIFARD WASHINGTON COUNN,OREGON JB Bishop 10505 SW Barbur,Blvd. Suite 303 Portland,'.Oregon 97219 Dear JB, At the July 23, 1984, Tigard City Council meeting, the Council voted unanimously to, uphold the Planning 'Commission denial of a Comprehensive Plan` and Zone change request for Tigard West Development. At that meeting, Council; directed staffto prepare a final order incorporating Cour_ilor Edin's comments. A final order is'' attached 'for your review. In order to allow interestied parties and the Council adequate time to 'review the final order, I expect` that no action will be taken at the August 13 Council meeting. At the 'August 20, ;1984, ";meeting the Council should allow comments on the final order from interested parties prior to taking any action. Please submit any written comments on this order by 4:30 P. Y. on Wednesday, August 15, or provide your verbal comments to the Council on August 20, 1984. I expect that the time available for verbal testimony on the final order will be limited due to the length of the Council agenda. Sin Wil iam A. Monahan Director of Planning and Development C: Attorney Steve,Janik Attorney Jim Cox, Lake Oswego (0570P dmJ) 12755 S.W.ASH P.O.BOX 23397 TIGARD,OREGON 97223 PH:639-4171 XPO #7 The r.anno Jr. an urban area which :has recently had an Jncreaz- 7`3 YFY L'iU__tr�r_'r 7`! .--L, r��_s�3:'..9�...�` '"Y upstream in 15 i i CSC"v`c'Lr_t*.+fat r�xt T- .x_t! �.L12• k3 1Fxr_2c�.�a�� t rfe elevations and flow rate of the stream. The adopted year- flood level is orc'_Y ari estimate reflecting 1G73 dischargez and Watershed. The data on Fanno Cree.{ in the Tigard area i s Pr-�orly +d OcUmell ed-.- no ,gage rerij or in-•strEa;r, flora messruements e._izt'. The, CH2M Hill retort. which establishes shes t`; '100 year flood le ::.fit BS :+'i3t ..u]"'b&>:._z2ti07'x witj it': til� ba.^a 21: w i Lr;L Yin i.riCc;ltl -`low and if no f?ooa onti:roi tas•ureu are ... implemented, floodway problems. w.2.l l be grEe!a tly =r7lt a_C7L1:"?CI e'C. ' 7,_,e intent. of the report and t, i t 2'• r i O 71t81ht.yi:! theoor -�tisting flood Inv nls;r butthe 0 increase —a, r , -` OJG Way .dui contingent, upon having the repairs nent.iomE:r,-; in the rr,p,,)i-t madeand the bridges raised. ?%rr�si i,_i• l y c.1Ya2" H l Z estinate,s on tha, -increased f 3oodoaay Ieve.l sa;jce the report was made sugg_vts an annum increase of 1= PC-. year. This is siginificant since l j,f, I-le or r mew of the improvements along the Creek have been mace_. in light of this NPO 47fee t. ,,_t �7 hydraulic st-u(a`r and perhillps -t'7dt_r A11.@VE= ttl Y1 1ch c.z" '^'°h Zi_i, ` :F'Ocsdpla.Xn e%cava4-2oTiS 3ne? 2"e+,e a- n, Jon Gcjuired i Yee w cz � ':c- proposed .. t h; ol.r' rre Eb. r. We arealso concerned .,you+- �r cy tifn Pro-p rt' R ,�MC.CJrT 'z- PC oL� rs n .,a .r 3 C; k E?' YJ c#�"C c, to c if h ,na,1,_ b z,t� ( Gm�LI G w_11 �� S ^d :y ili C r LLr t i' ,. 11�i:r i ditch xrges usinQ trl� Sac'n w.:x''e y-0,3?1 G,-.. r.S..+" _r' ., ii J:31.1iMY pro�; a1;;. The ' "en-' of Ff`.nA � � 5 } e,3 A �, t,rer y c, r,L,'.r .E demonstrate t �.st t.Y,_. clnan. .?� s.1 1; n a t a o -he 14krr 0r t10nS i.Ii the f 1 1 T4gardsr.Lr y r_-.l p:31 c�nG1 _.r_ E? Sua� r-,a thai the deYelo_3eX�muSt not only ad-ire.ss the f ood Y- p`S.laln w1h.je lladversl } .ESE'_ affected but .31So the floc; rates upstream and down. We 'eel that the study is warrented in -interest of public safety. f f. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON G_OUNCIL AGENDA IT SUMMARY AGENDA OF: _ August 20� 1989 AGENDA ITEM DATE SUBMITTED: August 8, ,1984 ._ PREVIOUS ACTION: _�proval by`_..._........ _ ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: SL 5-84 _ Hearings Officer, 6!29/84 Koll Camoanv A pea _ REQUESTED BY: Appeal filed the _ Koll' Company_and NP0 #7 _ `DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: - (PITY ADMINISTRA'TORt INFORMATION SUMMARY The Koll Company and NPO #7 have filed separate appeals on the approval granted by the Hearings Officer of a sensitive lands permit for, the Koll Company. packet of information prior to conducting a review Please review the enclosed ' on the record. 4, z ALTERNATIVES_CONSIDERFD 1. Uphold the Hearings Officer decision. 2. Modify Condition 4 but uphold remainder of the approval. 3. Require a hydrology study as suggested by NPO #7 prior to approval. SUGGESTED ACTION Conduct a hearing on the record. (WAM:pm/0575P) e 4_ i. 3 E MEMORANDUM' CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Members of the City Council August 10, 1984 FROM: William A. Monahan Director of Planning & Development SUBJECT: Appeal of SL 5-84, Koji Company On June 29, 1984, the Hearings Officer approved SL 5--84, a sensitive lands application filed by the Koji Company. Two appeals were filed on this matter: 1• By the Koji Company - seeking relief of Condition 4 which requires dedication of all unused lands remaining in the 100--year floodplain. 2. By NPO H7 (not NPO 02, the area in which the project is located) -• which request that a hydrology study be ,prepared. The review of the Hearings' Officer decision is conducted pursuant'to Section 18.32.320 '(B) of the Community Development Code which reads: The review of a decision by the Commission or Hearings Officer by the Council shall be: 1. Confined to the record of the proceedings as provided in Section 18.32.32.0 of the Code and each member of the Reviewing Body shall be provided with a transcript of the proceeding on Appeal; 2. Limited to the grounds relied upon in the Notice of Review as provided in Section 18.32.340(A) of this Chapter, and conducted in accordance with the provisions of Sections 18.32.250, 18.32.260, and 18.32.160 through 18.32.230 and Sections 18.32.240 and 18.32.310 of this Code. 3. The subject of written and oral argument. Such written argument shall be submitted not less than 5 days prior to Council consideration. 4. Reviews on the record by Council of Hearings Officer or Commission decision shall be completed within 40 days of when notice of review is filed. Attached for your review are the following: 1. Transcript of the June 14, 1984 hearing 2. Decision of the Hearings Officer 3, Appeal filed by the Koll Company 4. Appeal filed by NPO 07 (WAM:pm10575P) _ July 13s 1984 Cityof Tigard Tigard, Oregon, 97223 Re: Sensitive Lands Permit SL 5-84 Koll Business Center l'iz'fls From: Richard Bober; Chairman, NPO 7 NPO 7 wishes to appeal the decision of the hearings officer granting the sensitive lands permit. The applicant has 'not .adequately proven that the proposed alteration within the fldodway will not adversely affect upstream or downstream areas. We request that the City Council` require a hydrology study based on FEMA standards using ultimate discharges which takes into effect upstream changes and protected developments and local downstream effects. We are partic- ularly concerned with the impact on the North Dakota street bridge and the actively eroding land to the south - of the bridge. There is also an area of concern involving . the former Metzger sewage treatment plant and the erosion of the bank at the north end of this proposed development. 7 is A P&r6-F/Boaj-& AjPC, y Richard W. Boberg I` Chairman For NPO 7 CITY OF TIGARD—12420 SAV.MAIN--TI;GARD,OREGON 97723 RECEIPT Q DATE: 7%JAY AMOUNT:s OJ DOLLARS NAME: CASH: ADDRESS: y�U, (� G�°"`'.."_ �etrt CHECK: M.O.: #OF FOR: ACCT.__# PERMITS SURCHARGE AMOUNT SEWER BILLINGS 40-364 $ BUSINESS LICENSE 05-331 PLUMBING PERMIT 05-332 S MECHANICAL PERMIT 05-332 BUILDING PERMIT 05-333 SEWER CONNECTION 40-363 SEWER INSPECTION 40-365 m. SYSTEM DEV.CHARGE 25-366 PARK DEV.CHARGE#1 30-367 PARK DEV.CHARGE#2 30-368 ZONING ADJUSTMENTS 05-362 _/0- � 335.U-a TOTALS S S 1?3S RECEIVED BY: PERMIT NUMBERS ASSIGNED: Number Amount Number Amount Number Amount S S S S $ S S S S $ RECEIPT# 19422 - f sti n , KOLL5( l ti.4�.art cl;tiidt, rA z .�ECEI �C€�: Suite D Beaverton C)icgoll 97005 The Koll C omparlY (513)()2(i-3(14' July 13, 1984 HAND DELIVERED Ms. 'Loreen Wilson Deputy City Recorder 127,55 S.W. Ash Tigard, ;Oregon 97223 RE: In the matter c,.-L- the applicationfor a sensitive lands permit to 'alter the topography within the 100-year floodplain, The Koll Company, applicant, No. SL 5-84 before the hearing's Officer, June 14, 1984. Dear Ms. Wilson: This letter is to request an appeal of the hearings officer's decision on that above referenced development. Our area of con- cern is the fourth condition placed on our approval. This condition we are unable to comply with if "dedication" is being interpreted as fee ownership for the city. Since Koll's interest in this piece of property is on a long term ground lease basis, we cannot give the city a type of interest in property that we do not own. We can sublease this land to the city if that is what "dedication" means and meet condition number four. It is through this mechanism that the city holds an interest in that portion of the property that is currently a green belt area and this is how I believe it should be handled for the additional property. Condition Four: "All unused, lands remainding in the 100-year floodplain shall be dedicated to the public prior to the issuance of any permits. The dedication document shall be re- corded with Washington County after it is approved by the city." �R. REEF July 13, 1984 _Ms. `Loreen Wilson Page Two Very truly yours, THE K LL0 PANY Sonny Durdel Vice President Development Management` SD:jm Encl. (Check `- _$300.00 for fee; $35.00 for transcript) cc: Rodger Fagerholm Marion :Smith` Terry Hauck Marc Nemirow RECEIVED: By, Date: JUL 131984 Time: Cid QF TBGAR PLANNING DEPT® a� BEFORE THE HEARINGS OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION ) No. FOR A SENSITIVE LANDS PERMIT TO ) ALTER THE TOPOGRAPHY WITHIN THE ) SL 5-84 100-YR. FLOODPLAIN; The Koll Company,) Applicant'. ) The above-entitled matter came before the Hearings Officer at the regularly scheduled meeting ;of June 14, 1984, at the Durham Waste TreatmentPlant, Tigard, Oregon, at which time testimony, evidence, and the Planning Department's Staff Report were received; and The Hearings Officer adopts the findings and conclusions contained within the Staff Report, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein and marked Exhibit "A"; therefore IT IS HEREBY ORDERED SL 5-84 is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Seven (7) sets of plan-profile public improvement construc- tion plans and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate, stamped by a registered civil engineer, detailing all proposed public improve- ments shall be submitted to the City' s Engineering Division for review. 2. Construction of proposed public improvements shall not commence until after the Engineering Division has issued approved public improvement plans (the Division will require posting of a 100% performance bond) , the payment of a permit fee and a sign ; Page 1 SL 5-84' a , installation/streetlight, deposit. Also, the execution of a street opening permitorconstruction compliance agreement shall occur prior to, or concurrently with the issuance of approved public improvement plans. _ 3. In addition, the applicant shall submit an 'engineering plan showing flood flow and flood storage, which meets the require- ments of the City of Tigard engineer. 4. All unused lands remaining in the 100-year floodplain shall be dedicated to the public Prior to the issuance of any permits. The dedication document shall be recorded with Washington County after it is approved by the City. 5. A joint application to the Division of State Lands and the 'US Army Corps of Engineers shall ;be approved if required. ', 6.. This approval shall be valid for a period of one year from the final approval date. DATED this day of June, 1984. HEA GS OF ER A PROVED, i / TF1 MAO _ THE DECISIO SHALL BE FINAL ON July 13, 1984 UNLESS AU. APPEAL IS FILED. Any party �o the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with 18.32.290(A) and Section 18.32.370 which provides that .a written appeal may be filed within 10 days after notice is given and sent. The deadline for filing of an appeal is JuA 13, 1984 4:30 P.M. Page 2 - SL 5-84 STAFF REPORT i AGENDA ITEM THURSDAY, JUNE 24, 1984 - 7:00 P.M. TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER DURHAM WASTE TREATMENT: PLANT CORNER OF SW HALL AND DURHAM T.IGARD, OREGON 97223 A. FINDING OF FACT 1. 'General Information CASE': Sensitive Lands Permit SL 5-84 REQUEST: To alter the topography within the 100 year floodplain to allow for reconstructionof an existing- street and to provide additional land for the development of Phases II and III of Koll Business Park. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: I-L (Industrial Light) ZONING DESIGNATION: I-P (Industrial Park) APPLICANT: The Koll Company OWNER: Same 8605 SW Creekside Place Beaverton, Oregon 97005 LOCATION: On Sid Nimbus Avenue, Tigard (Wash. Co. Tax Map 1S1 34AA, Tax Lot 1800 and 1900; and Tax Map 1S1 34AD, Tax Lot 6200). 2. Background A zone change to an Industrial Park (M-4) designation was approved in 1979 (ZC 26-78). Site Development Review approval (SDR 8-80) was granted in 1980 to construct eleven buildings in the M-4 zone. This first phase as been completed. 3. Vicinity Information Fanno Creek runs along the west side of the property and single family residential development primarily zoned R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre) lies on the other side of the Creek. Scholls Ferry Road and the City of Beaverton are to the north, the Southern Pacific Railroad is east, and additional land zoned I-P is south on the east side of Fanno Creek. STAFF REPORT - SL 5-84 - PAGE 1 l 4. Site Information and Proposal Description The applicant proposes to raise the grade of a portion of Nimbus Avenue to prevent seasonal flooding of the 'street. An additional phase is proposed to the south of the existing development. A driveway extending south from the Nimbus Avenue cul-de-sac will provide access to this g segment of the project. The proposed driveway will primarily be within the 100 year floodplain and permission to excavate and fill will be necessary to achieve the alignment shown on the site plan. Also, grading is proposed for the parking area for; the building to be located at the corner of Scholls Ferry and Nimbus Avenue. A Site Development Review for the 'entire, project will be conducted following a decision on this application 5. ;Agency and NPO Comments : The Engineering Division has the following comments: 1. Raising a portion of Nimbus Avenue will require removal of existing pavement and concrete. Public improvement plans showing , the new 'location of all utility lines shall be submitted for approval. 2. The proposed grading in 'conjunction with the building to be located at the corner of 'Scholls Ferry Road and Nimbus 'Avenue and the southern driveway extension represent intrusions into the greenway/floodplain' but it is outside of the zero-foot'' rise floodway. The City has no mitigation standards for alternate uses of the greenway. 3. The Division would prefer excavation that would improve storm water flow rather than water storage. 4. The applicant indicates that the existing bicycle/pedestrian path will be extended -outside of the annual flood area, but the plans do not show its location. x 5. Approval should be conditioned to required dedication of all lands within the 100 year floodplain after construction. The Building Inspection Office and State Highway Division have no objection to the proposal. B. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION Section 18.84.040 of the Code requires that the following criteria be met in order to approve a Sensitive Lands Permit: a. Land form alterations shall preserve or enhance the floodplain storage function and maintenance of the zero-foot rise floodway shall not result in any narrowing of the floodway boundary. STAFF REP0RT SL 5-84 PAGE 2 nom; a r. b. The land form alteration or development withinthe ' 100-year fl floodplain shall be allowed on in an area designated as commercial � or industrial on the Comprehensive'Plan Land Use Map; C. The land form alteration or development is not located within the floodway; j' d. The land form alteration or development will not result in any increase in the elevation of the zero-foot rise floodway; , e. The land form alteration or development plan includes a pedestrian/bicycle pathway in accordance with the adopted ' pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan; ' f. The plans for the pedestrian/bicycle pathway indicate that no pathway will be below the elevation of an average annual flood. k R The Engineering Division indicates that the general concept for earthmoving within the floodplain is consistent with the criteria above. However, additional plans° and calculations should be reviewed and approved by the Division prior to the excavation work. The plans should be modified as suggested to acommodate flood flows rather than' water storage. The proposed excavation and filling will raise land elevations along several portions of the floodway/greenway fringe but this will be offset by other excavations within the floodplain. Review of the final plans by the - Engineering Division should insure that this request will not adversely effect the floodplain. The revised plans should also include the location and design of the bicycle/pedestrian path extension for Planning and Engineering approval. s C. RECOMMENDATION The Planning staff recommends approval of Sensitive Lands Permit SL 5-84 subject to the following conditions: 1. Seven (7) sets d£ plan-profile public improvement construction plans and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate, stamped by a registered civil engineer, detailing all proposed public improvements shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Division for review. 2. Construction of proposed public improvements shall not commence until after the Engineering Division has issued approved public improvement plans (the Division will require posting of a 100% performance bond), the payment of a permit fee and a sign, installation/streetlight deposit. Also, the execution of a street opening permit or construction compliance agreement shall occur prior to, or concurrently with the issuance of approved public t ( improvement plans. STAFF REPORT - SL 5-84 - PAGE 3 3. The applicant shall submit an engineering plan for excavation and 4 fulling to the City Engineer for approval prior to the issuance of any','permits. Said plans shall be modified to show the location and .design of the bicycle/pedestrianpath ;extension and grading shall be performed to accommodate flood flows as much as practical. 4. All unused lands remaining in the 100-year floodplain shall be dedicated to the public prior to the issuance of any permits. The dedication document shall be recorded with Washington County after itis approved by the City.` 5. A joint application to the Division of State Lands and the US Army Corps of Engineers shall be approved. 6. This ;approval shall be void for a period of one year from the final approval date. g` PROVED BY: William A.;Monahan PREP ED BY: Reith Lidera Director of` Planning Associate Planner Development -. (dmj 0472P)) STAFF REPORT SL 5-54 - PAGE 4 TRANSCRIPT FOR THE KOLL COMPANY SENSITIVE LANDS PERMIT SL 5•-84 June 14, 1384 "This is the time and the place set for regular agenda of the Hearings" Officer. My Name is Beth Mason, I am the Hearings Officer for• the -City.; Seated at-- the table with me, seated immediately to my right is Keith Liden who is the Associate Planner. The first item on the agendahas -been cancelled, uh the application has been withdrawn, 'so we are here tonight to "discuss one issue and thats SL 5-84, Sensitive Lands Permit for the Koll Business Center: Nowa I'll kind of state informally here that I run two kinds of hearings. I run the kind when I have a lot of opposition and I want to here from everybody and there are a lot of concerns, and I run the kind when only the applicant is present. So it kind of depends and I see here that we have a couple of faces that arn't associated with the applicants. Do you have some specific concerns that you might want to address these evening or have they been satisfied by your discussions with the applicant. where do we stand on that. unknown "Generally we would like to make a brief statement about the . . .`.not audible. . . . . . . . . . . . . Beth Mason, "Okay, Mr. Boberg." Transcript Hearings Officer 6/14/84 - SL 5-84 Page 1 Mr. Boberg, "uh, my concerns are primarily from a member of our NPO who is within the notification area, of this. I' called her to let her know that the hearing was going to be and she was notified. She has been trying to get a hold of whomever, _ o that she could look at this thing prior to, she' s tried to get a hold of the NPO 7 chairman every since last week. Has not been able to look at 'anything. This development and anything that may happen along there 'really effects NPO # 7. We are substantially downstream from there and we have major flooding problems. NPO 7 would like a chance to review this. `Beth Mason, "Okay, Keith what about that." Keith Liden, "Okay, the property is inside of NPO H 2 and we notified number two and informally or verbally discussed it, that this project was coming with NPO #-'7, but they did not receive any formal notification of this proposal." Beth Mason, "Are you saying that you have meet with NPO 7 then?" Keith Liden, "Well we met NPO 7 several weeks ago on a unrelated matter, and hink someone from NPO # 7 who lives on the the, somebody asked, in fact I t other side of Fanno Creek asked about the Koll Business Center and I told her at that time that I was expecting it an application, virtually in a day and then uh, later on when I was talking to Mr. Boberg on the phone, again about something else, gold him that, uh, oh, by the way the Koll Business Center is iri for Sensitive Lands and told them that we would meet tonight. But they didn't receive an official notification and request." t .f Transcript Hearings Officer 6/14/04 — SL 5-84 Page 2 Beth Mason, "On the notification policy of the City, as T. 'understand it, is only the NPO in ,which the actual application is located is notified. Is that right?" Keith Liden, "Thats correctand then—" Beth Mason, "You don't have a difference procedure for Sensitive Lands permits which effect downstream properties?" Keith Liden, "About the only thing that I can think of where we would and should notify other NPO is for example, if we have a, a'good ,example would be highway related thing. Determining what should be an arterial, for example we had the Murray Road and the Gaarde Road extension controversy and in that case some, even though maybe some of the alignment at 'issue is in one NPO it would certainly affect another one. In any case, I think other NPOs have been notified, but generally speaking its just which, whichever NPO is, where the project is located." i Beth Mason, "Mr. Boberg, how long would it take for NPO 7 to review it, a week. a Mr. Boberg, "If we could see this we could get it done quickly, I think. We are not desiring to hold up the applicant on this, I mean, that is not our issue at all. The applicant seems to be, y pP to me, ver reasonable, in discussion that I've had on the phone. Its just a matter of, we really want to a, the woman who is on the NPO, who borders this property is very Transcript Hearings Officer 6/14/84 - SL 5-84 Page 3 Fil knowledgeable on this thing she has been Beth Mason, "You still haven't answered my question, I asked you could you do it in a week?" Mr. Bober•g, "We could do it within a week." ' Beth Mason, "Now let me ask the applicant and there representatives, uh, I. don't believe that I am required to delay this hearing because NPO 7 hasn't reviewed it. I think the City policies are consistent and have been consistently applied. However, if you wish to delay the hearing on this for one week, to give NPO 7 an opportunity to review it, I would be willing to consider that at this time:" Applicant, "Well, we've talked about that, and we think thats certainly an option. We feel good enough in terms of what we are proposing and terms of the success we have with the, presenting it to the NPO, we also, we ask that you consider making a decision, hopefully in our case is an approval, uh, which, at I believe still leaves enough time for . . . . . NPO so that if they take exception to our proposal they can go file an appeal to the decision. Beth Mason, "The difference there is, uh, the cost associated with an appeal and I'm not sure, do NPOs have to bear that cost to file an appeal or is that fee waived for an NPO." Applicant, "I, I don't know that either." t : E: Transcript Hearings Officer 6/14/84 — SL 5-84 Page 4 gmg Keith Liden, "Waiving fees is, is determined by the City Council." Beth Mason, "I don't know' that answer to that then off hand, but if they would have to incur, ;if they subsequently disagreed with you. As I said at the beginning, I'm certainly` not required to continue this hearing so I'm just asking you 'what'you would like me to do?" Applicant, "Well, I think Mr. Boberg has explained by Greg, we are under some pressures, ;we are, the reasons that Greg contacted;you, was to try to set-up a meeting with, not only SensitiveLandsportion of the project but `the entire project, and we think that in two weeks, but, but if we can do it in four, maybe with an appeal time, so that, we're not trying to get a decision Chats going to cause the NPO to loose any of their rights in terms of opposition or anything else, from that standpoint, but we woUldli.ke to be able to stay on Vthe schedule that we are on, because it is a tight one and if we can, so for that reason, I said, if, if it is possible to hopefully get a decision at this table. Uh, we would be more than willing to sit down, whenever you are ready and go over everything, not, not, not necessarily just the sensitive lands portion, there's more to it than that . . . . . . . And I know everbody, the NPO group, uh, back in 1979 was concerned about a couple of issues. One of course, was the floodplain, that and also the greenway issue, in terms of maintenance, problems with the mosquitos and I think there still are, at that point . . . . . . the other was, general appearance, siting, noise, those kinds of things. We would like to be able to address all of them at one time. Thats one of the reasons we haven't come to you with the engineering documents that Transcript Hearings Officer 6/14/84 SL 5-64 Page 5 t: we submitted because, uh, they ar•e a ' little bit more difficult for an NPO group, as a- whole, to maybe get a good;feel for the entire project. But we are willingto do it in Our discussion just a. before the meeting started in, if you like I can go thru that again, and I 4 think that, in itself, at least from their standpoint in time, I know I can't speak for . . . . . . 'the NPO at this point, but that in itself, I'think>will give you a better level of assurance as to`'what it is we're' doing. In terms of - understanding what we're requesting. Uh, I realize we have had the chance for anybody, I guess, on the NPO hasn't had a chance to 'look at this drawing. i Beth Mason, ". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr'.` Boberg, I'm more than willing to give time 5 to do that right now. A s Mr. Boberg, "That would be good for my information but that isn't going to . help anybody else concerned. Applicant, "I'm not suggesting that as an alternative to getting to go to the NPO, I think we need to do that, and I, at this point refer to you as to when that should occur, and hopefully from our standpoint, and maybe from yours too, as soon as possible." Mr. Boberg, "You see, I'm kind of caught in a way here, because this one person, who really wanted to find out about it, could not get access, even � w when she tried, hard, and she was to be called by this applicant on Tuesday night, she was hope after 8:00 o'clock, and still nobody called her. She , really wants to see it, and she is within the notification area. Transcript Hearings Officer 6/14/84 - SL 5-84 Page 6 - Beth:Mason, "Why isn't she here tonight?" Bober•g, "Umh? Beth Mason, "Whey isn't she here?" Boberg, "She has another obligation tonight." Beth Mason, "Oh, uh, you know, as far as I'm concerned I've heard from the applicant, and your ,position is proceed tonight and your position, apparently is, please delay so this woman can participate. .Had she not been within the notification area, I ' might be inclined to delay it, but because she received notification and her`priorities were a different obligation then, thats. e Boberg, "What I'm saying is she asked to be able to see the plans and to review them, in advance, could not get them, you see, especially" Beth Mason, "She could be here tonight, which is a public hearing and the plans are here, or some of them are. So I think I am going to go ahead a proceed tonight, uh, I will note your objection for the record and, and perhaps her objection, you know, you making her objection. Uh, I know that there is some question under the ordinance, thats, its, the question has come up in another sensitive lands application, whether the plans need to be submitted, as a part of the original application, resubmitted subsequently to engineering." Transcript Hearings Officer 6/14/84 — SL 5-84 Page 7 m .. t Boberg, "The ones that we've had to pass, the plans which come in with the original application." Beth Mason, "I don't know. (pause} I ;just want to confirm, .uh, as I read q, the application, what I was submitted, I certainly wasn't submitted a full set of engineering plans. Uh, and one of the conditions of approval was those will be submitted to Frank Currie's r-eview, of the Engineering Department. Uh, but is it correct that no 'full plans have been submitted to date." Keith Liden, "Well there, there, I think quite detailed as far as what areas are going to be affected and then there is uh, uh' document with many of the calculations, and of course may riot be mentioned here, I don't. ." - Beth Mason, "And how long has that been in the public record?" i( Keith Liden, "That has been in public record since they applied. That came x.: with the application. So there's quite a bit as far as facts and fiqures Beth Mason, "Your talking about the Koll Business Park brochure t-hats been r submitted?" Keith Liden, "Thats correct. The one dated May 18th. t- Vieth Mason, "So Chats been available. Anyone who went down to City Hall, opened that file and take a look at what they submitted." Transcript Hearings officer 6/14/84 - SL 5-84 Page 8 g Unknown, "Were not the plans, would that not; Keith Liden, "Well the drawings were, yes, yes, that in addition to this. Thats right." Beth 'Mason, "It is my impression that there will be further plans submitted a to engineering. Unknown, "Based on the condition, number two, I guess it is."' Beth;Mason, "One or two, yeah. Unknown, "I, T think thats where they need more sets of the engineering 6`4 documents, which are part of the, • • • . • • • . . submittal and . . . . . . . . . . Keith Liden, "Part of the Engineering documents too relate to the actual road improvement itself. Which is a typical condition to have, to occur after an approvals granted, rather than before, for road improvements. So conditions one and two really relate to the road improvement itself, not really to the sensitive lands issue. And then numbers three through five relate to the floodplain issue. Unknown, "I have a couple,questions, I don't know if now is the time to bring them up." Transcript Hearings Officer 6/14/84 SL 9-84 Page 9 Beth Mason, "Well, We haven't really gotten into a fortinal process yet, so go ahead." Unknown, "More a point of clarification for us, on ,condition three, were we talking about flood flows as much as practical, is that something that, that determines with the engineering done in . to the staff, ,"engineering,staff, is that how that would. . ." Beth Mason, "Thats what was suggested by the condition of approval. (several people talking same time) Unknown, "Item four, uh, the unused 'lands within the 100 year flood, that are asked to be dedicated. The Koll project is a little bit particular in that the land is not owned, it is leased, it is a land leased. Its "got about 96 years left on the original lease, with some 25 year extension, uh, in 1979 when we went through the same process with the Aloha Master plan, uh, the same issue came up. The property was not dedicated, but the rights to the property that were unused, were given to the City some arrangement was made, uh, that transfers whatever rights the developer has to the City without . . we would propose to do the same thing and that was one that had gone through the Council and the City Attorney's approval and that was fine. We can't dedicate it because we don't own it." Beth Mason, "What, kind of requirement ordinance could the owner apply, so that you would have a waiver from the owner .. . . . . . . . . submission on an �e Transcript Hearings Officer 6/14/84 - SL 5-84 Page 10 Keith Aiden, "Yeah, I don't, as lona as I've been here, for the five months, we have been getting something ,from the property',owner'. I know that's been a: question before. When they've said well, we're only leasing the property, we a can't for example, dedicateright-of-way." Beth Mason, "You may have a problem right there, if you don't have the owner as a co-applicant, or a statement from the owner authorizing this application and consenting to conditions." Unknown, I would just add that I believe the original owner was on . . .`. . . . . . was held to that . . . . . . . . . . . . . (riot audible). . . . . Beth Mason, "This is precisely the reason why we like the owner as the - co-applicant, because there are certain conditions we require which are . . . . . . . female voice . . . . . . . .(not audible). . . . Beth Mason, "Thais an interesting option, I'm not sure that the polices of this City are the same as they were in 1979. Things that flew in 1979 may not fly now. We're following more by the book now. So everyone knows what the rules are and everbody can play the same . . . . . . . . . Uh, I will have to take a look in the ordinance and see whether I have jurisdiction to do it that way 'transcript Hearings Officer 6/14/84 S!_ 5-84 Page 11 r Keith Liden, "One thing I would like to mention is, it may prove that condition four would be really redundant in that there will not be any additional land to dedicate other than what is has been taken care of already." a redefining of the land that had already Unknown, That's correct, its just been taken care of with-the original application. I would think uh, that they would find tract A and B, AB, the unused floodplain, wetlands areas, part of the greenway area and BB the strip of proposed down. We're talking about,,' . . . . . . . . . . another legal description . Beth Mason,' "You have to understand that if it is back in front of me, however, even if its the same land that was approved in 1474, its within my r. jdiction to apply the ordinance that is the format. I'm going to have to ristake a look at it again. Okay." Unknown, "On item five, were joint application to the Division of State lands and US Corps of Engineers be approved, we're assuming that stipulation is r there if they are required, if the applications are required. We're not sure r. that they would be at this point. An I think number six has a typo in it." (several people same time not audible) : Unknon "If its appropriate, I sure would like to, at least go through the w a proposal for anybody thats interested. We have Dave Larson, who is the Engineer with our firm that has been the principle defining engineer on the project. Sonna Durdell and Greg Moxford are here representing the Koll Company. Transcript Hearings Officer 6/14/84 — SL 5-84 Page 12 a k s R 3 mom Beth Mason, "if its, okay what your missing in terms of the application right is that correct?" now is your engineering contracts, excavating and filling, Unknown, "No, we believe we have that all here. I don't think we are missing anything in the application, I think that item one is basically. . . ." Beth Mason, "Yeah, that the- stuff. . . . . ... Kieth Liden, "My understanding from Frank Currie is that there was sufficient detail, engineering detail, for him to know what, what was proposed and what's going to be excavated and his primary concern was, and unfortunately since he was preparing to go on vacation, he' s been very hard to get a hold of, for the.: a laced last day or so. Uh, was that, he wanted to see a little more emphasis p µ flow as opposed to on the excavation work for accommodating flood .. thats accommodating flood storage. That was real l� his only comment and uh, what really what's meant by, well by, also part of three dealswith the bike _ path. So his proposal was really when. they come and they are ready to do the excavation work that they, that the, I guess that the engineers from both groups just sit down and perhaps make some modification, some slight modification to the proposal." Beth Mason, "Okay. Well I've noted your objection, Mr. Boberg, on behalf of your member, your NPO member. Boberg, "Could I say just one other thing?" Transcript Hearings officer 6/14/84 — SL 5-84 Page 13 L a, A I'll 3 Beth Mason, "Yes." x z Boberg, "Th I have to say this publicly, e reason that I am here, and I gu is not that I don't trust the applicant, but Frankly I don't trust the City Engineer, and the NPO really wants to review the engineering plans in detail, because in past things we have found misstatements, and omissions on the part of the City Engineer and thats why we are here. So, at that stage is where we wouldlike to be able to review the thing. And t-hats why it hake me a little uncomfortable to see a permit given and then have the bureaucracy make the decision of whether it is okay from that point. Beth Mason, "I guess, if uh, I 'were satisfied that the plans hadn't been in be inclined to say, maybe you have a point." the record since May 18th, I would Boberg, "When was this ready, this detailed engineering . . . . . . (Several people talking) Beth Mason, ,with this, right here, at the same time. So its been available. And, you know regardless of whether your person or your NPO could contact arty particular person at the City, anyone can walk into the City and pull that file and look at what's in the file. Uh, so I think you have had access to the material, and I think that you had it in plenty of time the hearing." Transcript Hearings Officer 6/14/84 - SL 5-84 Page 14 Unknown, "May I interject, again it is our intent to sit down with the NPO whenever its convenient, probably soon, uh, on this matter and the rest of the project. Also, there are other approvals that we will have to be, which I believe Keith, is the Design Review we can take another, stand. Keith Liden, "Yes. Design Review there's a notification requirement, its an ad in the paper, ad in the paper, and all property owners within. 100 feet." Boberg, "But who makes that decision?" Keith Liden, "Its an ordinance." Boberg, "But who make the decision, who is going to hear that?" ' Keith Liden, "Planning staff. Boberg, "Its not done at the Commission level. Keith Liden, "No, there was a special decision made by the planning Commission to review Russ Krueger's proposal, for example, through the Commission, since it was so controversial and thats the Planning Commission or City Council's preogative. They can call something up if they fear a hot potato, but otherwise it goes through the ,planning staff. Boberg, "With provisions for appeal?" Transcript Hearings Officer 6/14/84 SL 5-84 Page 15 p v Unknown, "I guess my point is, we don't believe,' at least, that this is the s only time during the process of this particular project that other people ' outside of the City staff themselves have opportunity to input. We're not . . . that way. Boberg, "I think I see a way out of this. Would it be possible for this to: proceed and at the site design review for the NPO to request that the Planning Commission review it, it we have objections?" Beth Mason, "You and request it. Uh, its up to them whether they honor your request. I can't order them to honor the request." several talking. _ Beth Mason, "Sorry, but you know about the first time that I said to the Planning Commission you will do this, they would say its been nice having a hearings officer, . . .laughter.. . i just don't have the jurisdiction to say to them. Now, my gut reaction is, if you raise enough of a stink their going to do it. Thats just my gut reaction. Because thats what they are there for. So from a practical point of view, if you want them to review it, they would probably review it. But I can't promise you that." .several people talking. . . . . . . Transcript Hearings Officer 6/14/64 SL 5-84 Page 16 Keith l_iden, "The design reviewprocess is approximately 30 days; and then there is a 10 day appeal period after that." Unknown, "So we'-re talking a minimum of 40 to Boberg, "See this is all what if thing too, because I suspect what's going to happen is that we may not have objections, or we just may have comments." Beth Mason, "Sure." Boberg, "So at least it will be sometime in July. Sonna Durdell, "Submittal is 7/13, if we stay on schedule." Boberg, "Okay, thank you. Well I'm confident that if we ask the Planning Commission hear it too, request that they review, that they would do it. So on our relationship with them, I guess I'm not going to worry about it. But I would like to see this before the NPO, probably on the 27th of this month. We have a meeting. Is that possible. I even make a wonderful offer, I schedule you first." . .laughter. . . . . Beth Mason, - "I wish I could get started . . . . . .several people speaking same time. Transcript Hearings Officer 6014/04 - SL 5-84 Page 17 IRMO i Boberg, Its a 7:30 meeting. So i will put you absolutely ,first on the agenda, I think it will take 5 or 10 minutes then. Can I get a copy of the plan so. I can give it to Barbara, she's always reviews them and she the one who gives" Unknown,; We 'would be glad to do that, or if you like, we contact her, go over it with her, leave the plans so that you can look at them and maybe save some of her time too. Because we can walk her, would she be able to evaluate the engineering calculations too. We can walk her through those and maybe save her some time and trips- just sorting through, leave them with her . .no audible. . . . . . - several people talking. . . . . .` Boberg, "We can always get her at home, not on Tuesday or Thursday evenings however. . . . . . . .several people talking. . . . . Beth Mason, "If your comfortable continuing this informal format, do you what just tell us what you want to say or would you like to go into the formal hearing procedure." Unknown, "I don't see any reason to, its fine the way we are. some of the concerns that have already been express The Army Corp. of Engineers is going to review with the City of Tigard -application for qualification under the Federal National" Transcript Hearings Officer 6/14/84 SL 5-84 page 18 r1a �., Beth Mason, . . .not audible. . ." . . . . . . . . . . . . . and uh, Unknown, expressingconcern about the Fanno Greek, looks like some detentions been made to from my untrained eye the uh; its that, .no audible• We're not going to disrupt the flow of the creek, quite a bit of water . . . . . does stand around' a lot. Beth Mason, "Sounds like the NPO it 7 is going to'monitor carefully so you probably . . . .. . . . . . . . . not audible ' . . . . . two people talking same time. . . . . There some question whether,, this is Che second or third time I°ve seen a condition like that come through and I still haven't gotten an answer back, in fact, whether they are required to` Unknown . . . not audible. . . . . . Beth Mason, "I don't necessarily think you should say that, kro +ing what T know about Army Corp. of Engineers laughter. . . . . ..: Boberg, "Now that we have this other matter out of the way I can just speak directly from, I'm to say to what questions that I know the NPO's going to raise and that T would raise personally. When the Engineering Department is speaking of maintaining the floodway and not having storage, if they are talking about in any way removing any impediments to that stream flow. They are increasing the speed of it and they are going to be backing it up over the Transcript Hearings Officer 6/14/84 - SL 5-84 Page 19 North Dakota Street bridge and our impression of this is that we should have the storage space in there, we should not straighten this creek out, because its going to create 'tremendous downstream problems, ' particularly to the homeowner at North Dakota Street on the west side of the bridge on the south." Beth Mason, "Isn't she the one Chats `appealing the USA, I 'think thats the one, :bottom' of that one" Boberg, "I'm not sure. Well you know where there, it 'where Milwaukie Crane is, where they made that illegal fill and the creek has to make a real sharp S turn and the bank is coming out and its eroding away her property rapidly and anything that happens upstream that increases the' spoed of that flow is just going to take her land away. That another reason why NPO # 7 Beth Mason, "I think that you, I think that you have a basic philosophical difference with the Engineering staff of the City." i i Boberg, "Absolutely. i Vii.. Beth Mason, "And I think that the Engineering staff may be looking at a broader picture than one property owner. a- Boberg, "We are looking at a much broader picture than they are. We say that , they should, before anything goes on there, that they should move that bridge, n° and if they are going to straighten the creek out. They should take that xr unnatural S out of it then we wouldn't be in problems like this, you see. But; d Transcript Hearings Officer 6/14/84 - SL 5-84 Page 20 41 we've had arguments with them, and its just riot a philosophical difference either. Its a difference with Frank Currie, he's made the statement that streams tend to straighten themselves and riot meander more, He is 180 degrees wrong an that. They 'tend to meander. I've had enough geology to know that. So, thats the reason why we question his judgment on some of these things." Beth Mason "I appreciate you cantor in expressing your concerns about Frank, um, I'm not in a position that I can second guess him, I'm not an engineer, I'm a lawyer, but I'm not an engineer. Uh, and I'm not in the habit of second Your remedy For second guessing City staff is your City guesses City staff. - Council and to convince them that, if you. are correct, the City Engineer is ways and if your not inaccurate and should change his satisfied with the land use process then go at it politically. And thats an option, outside of an application, just as a flat, you know take it to the Council, thats what they are there for. But I would suggest that until you do that your going to continue to have this difference with him as each application comes up. Because this is his consistent theory and I've seen it through all of the, he wants to get the water out of there as fast as he can. Boberg, "Thais fine, if he's going to do it for the entire creek all the way down to where it dumps. But you can't do it one piece at a time. Beth Mason, "well the problem is, we only have jurisdiction over one piece at a time." Transcript Hearings Officer 6/14/84 _ SL 5-84 Page 21 Unknown, J1We work with a lot- of different , jurisdictions and lot of them are {' associated with Fanno Creek drainage basin all the way from Tualatin to the r City of Portland and over the years the attitude for the flood control has not been consistent and has been dealt with in 'a very inconsistent way. I would venture to guess more means to unify that attitude than a lot of the land use'kind of things, Beth Mason, "Which direction do you see it going, Move the water out of there or ;store it?" Unknown, Well, that consensus, I don't think has really come to a head as much elsewhere as it has in Tigard. Tigard happens to be in the middle of the stream flow on Fanno Creek. So its a different attitude than Tualatin, or upstream or parts of Portland, or Beaverton. We're so severely impacted by Beaverton that we can't do anything about that. Koll as a developer obviously has got strong concerns, because up and down Fanno Creek the've got several acres of property in different jurisdictions. So our concern as consultants for them is one that, whatever we do is consistent, because the impact from jurisdiction to another still affects the same client. Koll has property they are developing in Tigard, they have property they are developing in Beaverton adjacent to Fanno Creek, and this is not a new situation, its something they have had and developed for what since 197_, nine years, so that their interest are as strong as any other property owner up and down the creek. The Creekside project on the other side, Beaverton side of Nimbus, is a Koll project. The Koll Beaverton project on the other side of Hall is upstream again. Its another project that 1(011 . . . . . . • • . We think and Transcript Hearings officer '6/14/84 -- SL 5-84 Page 22 I think I can speak for our staff, and we've certainly had our differences with the City of Tigard, not only engineering wise but "planning wise for over the years that worked with, we've always felt that we were able to reach accord that made sense and was a fair decision from all aspects. ' I wouldn't m suggest that we always agree 100 per cent down he line. But we feel confident that we can not only work with the NPO and demonstrate that what we have done is responsible treatment, but with can work with City staff, be Frank, fine, if that be someone else, thats ' fine too. We have passed .. . . . . . . . . . This conditionis not a new one to us. Whether or riot the treatment, the final analysis has an affect on stream flow is still up in the air. I will say that the proposal here has the least impact possible. That we can. . . . . . Boberg, "Are your aware, the, do you remember the sensitive lands hearing for Rosebud Enterprises right across the way. They had some cut and fill and they had their- sensitive lands permit. There's going to be some minor alteration to the other side. Are you aware of those?" Unknown, "Rosebud, no, I guess not. I think that where they widen the channel essentially by" Boberg, "Oh no, its just basically a cut and fill, see they have to straighten it out a little bit on the other side too. And so what I would suggest is that we get copies of those and you also look at that when your making your big application, uh, because they have done over there, what they plan to do really effects your site Transcript Hearings Officer 6/14/£34 - SI_ 5-84 Page 23 y K g Sonna Elurdell, "Rosebud Enterprises, can you describe where that is?" Boberg, "7hats the Metzger Sewage,Plant land." Unknown "Is it across 'Fanno Creek?" Boberg, "Direct#Aj across Fanno Creek from Koll II, to the south, so that would just be something that I would suggest to you, to be aware of as 'your doing it. Someone asking question, not audible. Boberg, "Uh, well, Keith has the file: for them and those plans are all in the record. Unknown, "Thank you." Boberg, "As lona as your aware of that, that takes care of some of my concerns on it." Beth Mason, "Okay. Anything Else? I think to, you know we've heard the concerns and I think rather than go thru the formal process, the application is here, the planning staff report is here. (pause, door slam) We have a new player." Transcript Hearings Officer 6/14/64 SL 5-84 Page 24 �.•9q WON -0- f` Unknown person, "Well I uh, there's -just >a couple of things I 'wanted to check." Beth Mason, "Okay, we've been operating under an informal procedure. -I've given everyone the option who has been playing to this point to kick it into the formal procedure. 'I'll give you that same option." Unknown person, "No. Beth Mason, "Alright, then speak your piece. Unknown person, "I want to I assume these to be phase IT or whatever, because they are going to be single level and similar and general to the first' phase, am I correct?" _ Unknown, "There's a mixture of building types, uh, there are a proposed within the second and third phases, uh, a total of three buildings that would be two stories, the building buildings adjacent to the greenway will be . . . . . -Uh. We're trying to respond to to a change in marketing in terms of the kind of spaces that we think are in demand and some of that is the same type of same, some of it is maybe a little bit larger space. Unknown, "Your probably aware, uh, that Kolb Company has developed the creekside project on the Beaverton . . upstream on Fanno Creek. The've been very successful in things like that, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . One of the major industries that located came out of Tigard, and we're attempting to Transcript Hearings Officer 6/14/84 5L 5-84 Page 25 a create a situation now where we can try to contain some of that business in, r maybe create some of that activity. . . . . . . . So that its 'slightly different, in that this is one of the things we can vote with the NPO in terms of appearance'. Because you cannot create the same type of space with the buildings that we Unknown, "Do you have a drawing." Unknown, "I do. several people talking not audible. Beth Mason, "Why don't we take 'about a 10 minute brake and let him review that with you. Unknown, "Mr. Boberg, has not seen these either, so. Beth Mason, "We go back onto the record at the time is 8:00 o'clock. Beth Mason, "Okay, the record in this case is comprised of the staff report with the attachments which include the Koll Business Park Tigard Sensitive Lands application dated May 18, 1984, together with the engineering plans. We've held a informal hearing this evening, addressing concerns raised by the citizens in attendance, and I believe I am prepared to make a decision based on the record before me. Uh, Is there anything else you would like to add? Transcript Hearings Officer 6/14/84 - SL 5-84 Page 26 "Beth Mason, "Okay, , I will approve Sensitive Lands Permit subject to the- conditions heconditions in the staff report, uh, I'm going to hold open, `I can't tell you right now, whatmy decision is going to be on that dedication, I'm going to have to look at the ordinance. = Uhm, so the conditions of approval may not come' out exactly as they are shown in the staff report. I will add the language, if required, on the Corps. of Engineers Divisions of State Lands and ,of course, I'll change the void to valid,uh, but I'm going to have to look- at the ordinance, I don't have it clear in my head, Okay. That will conclude; the hearing. Thank you very much." f ' Transcript Hearings Officer 6/14/84 — SL 5-84 Page 27 August GO, 1984 4 City of Tigard 12755 S.ui. Ave, Tigard. Orenon Tiga.td City Gouzncil; 1 would like to go on record as being opposed to the Droposed charge in the flood plain planned by the Moll Uonipany. 7 aTI very concerned after seeing that the effects of the last so,,).th end of iNimbus toad under watereng .veering -project left the during nigh wa ter a 4ith the _gosed. change , fur t;t.a1 'rty would be directly affected by any further engineering mistakes. I the proposed changes are approved by 'the TigardOity �cuncil, the City of Tigard and moll uompa:�y svoulci be responsible for any water damages done -to our property. i es c R filly Yours, re'S l under 11352 Ironwood ,Loop Ti ziard, Oregon lr = i CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ' COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY 1484 AGENDA ITEM # AGENDA OF: August 20, DATE SUBMITTED: Aug ust l6, I984 PREVIOUS ACTION: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: °Economic REQUESTED BY: : x Development Action Plan REQ �:. 3, DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: INFORMATION SUMMARY ` actiondraft plan for The Tigard Economic D veopme Mark Padgett will prepared present to disc sstheplan. t, your consideration. Chairman ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Consider the plan and accept it as the Economic Development Committee's plan of action. SUGGESTED ACTION ( Review and accept the plan. {, F MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO Members of the City Council FROM: William A. Monahan, Director of Planning and Development le DATE: August 16, 1984: SUBJECT: Economic Development Action Plan - Draft The Tigard Economic Development Committee has prepared a draft action plan for your consideration. ; The plan includes activities directed toward apr paring and maintaining information about available sites in Tigard, p p g special area 'plans, maintaining contact with, other entities involved in economic development, and acting as advocates for the goal of economic development as well as of particular development proposals. The Committee would like Council direction of whether, or not the Action Plan complies with the Council's intent when it initiated the 'Committee. Please note, the draft plan was approved by the Committee at its meeting of August 15, 1984. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACTION PLAN Tigard`s Economic Development Committee has established as its goal the following, "Promote economic development for the good of the community". The major objectives are to identify the advantages and barriers to development in Tigard and to recommend changes needed to , improve development opportunity. Following from this, the Committee intends to develop an economic development strategy. During Fiscal Year 1984-85,' the Committee will follow an action plan designed to provide the base data needed to understand the needs of the community and - to assist' companies interested in locating in Tigard. Individual analysis is needed in each of the four target areas so that information on available land is compiled in a format which is useable by'government, real estate concerns, property owners, and potential developers and users. The following chart illustrates the planned activities of the Committee during - Fiscal year 1984-85.` To accomplish the goals of the plan will require the a following: o Designation of subcommittee leaders who will: Assist in preparing a special area plan For each of the four ureas. 2<) Downtown 2) Tigard Triangle 3) Cascade Blvd. 4) 72nd Ave. Work with the Planning and Development Department to develop an inventory of each of these areas before working on a city wide inventory. The inventory would have the following elements: a. Identification of property; b. The size, shape, and limitations of the site; C. The use of the land; d. Identification of buildings on the site; e. The name of the owner; f. THe current zoni . ; designation; g. The assessed va_ ; h. The public services available to the site; i.e. sewer, water, roads, parks, schools; i. Any known interest on the part of the owner to sell or lease the property. j. Proximity to other similarly usable land. Page 1 o Designate a subcommittee to: t. - Develop an analysis of what is right for Tigard in terms of development. Determine what is unique about Tigard and what types of businesses should be attracted to fit into Tigard's overall economy. Evaluation of: 1. Tourism and related industries. 2. Professional office development. 3. Warehousing and distribution. 4. "Incubator" space uses. o Creation of a subcommittee to work with area realtors to: Share information. - Establish an ambassador program. o Evaluation of impediments to development and steps necessary to improve development potential and opportunities. o Development of methods for distribution information of interested people and business about Tigard. o Initiation and maintainence of contact with: . Tigard Chamber of Commerce - Oregon Economic Development Department - Tualatin Valley Economic Development Co. Cities of Beaverton, Tualatin Washington County - Washington County Visitors Association Area Industrial and Commercial Realtors o Through contact with these entities the Committee will attempt to: Avoid duplication in: 1) Data gathering 2) Coat comparisons 3) Attraction programs - outreach efforts 4) Land base compilations :Page 1 o Through contact the Committee will: provide data about Tigard. o Committee involvement to act as advocates of economic development before city committees and the City Council. 1. Advocacy. 2. Education ofpublic on importance of economic development. 0574P dmj t Page 3 V5- r � •tea a "�'�t�„s�'� s..,-.. w a. F 4� q. m ,._ .. ._... ... ... .... � �>sd.�_ ,;- .. - aF ,>•r.:;��.:' .,a, c`' �._...-.�� ,,,rm�:r.,.�3','`ry,,r�'+<r�T-�._5" s��`�# :.�-,> '�°�`a�.�_ ".,,_:� _... ._... -9,,.......,. -,«- k -gin..ar€<.»,.t. - �: .a: �.Y -. . :. -.__.rMt-.». ..�<r. ,. _. � � -:_... _. _ ,.-• v -.�,- - r, �..« c....�'-._Ftp ,.. .. c<_ ... r _.. xs ,. MISS;�4..,r.,.-i,�:i:,-�.3..-....s-�...te«�._w...r�a.,•..�,�.__.-.d�.rr...�7.�-��u.�x-..�.�....?_a+te_�..,.,,,,._^,,�`..-...o�..-=.z.`�-.sz,.,.....,.t:-..��...��.. _,-"w+.'.".`.:,..Y......�:_»_...».,h__-......-.`.xasm,3.s:"�..4_....--..n._»..,.:�,-.,-,,.ss..<;,�-..,�+3.�fi".d...'�.._.._._.....�%..i�.4a.�,.,.a's.-'..-✓_a.:<�-.te.'_��a..._-...r-,,..'x,.ev,..�.¢_..;„.�.,_S.�..'�r..,':..:.-�.._�C3"'_.5'.sL,...z..._,.»-:.n.:`{7c.?.'a.',T-E�..-.�ms£,'�.. �'...,_.s.,�-..`3'_..,---n.-..mr.:..�-.�,�o-_-,r:�_..-,.3:S..,�.-,-:""_u:"_.-_,J.,..'.4..-_r.._.rC,�FN_,M.€R"�...��...._._:;F,r+.�-a,,�__.""_---..._t�;n�..r...m.:-__._"_'____'�.z-r....4M?.'�r'.i�w��s.C._�-,..-:...:_{-k��-,.,,_.-.s.".�.-,-s.».'�..,.:�:...�,..<."„f."R.'E_._^,�y'�S--,�s.x`'��N'�....,J,.�..CTi.tt,�.,-�,:...,.°��.,',.<�?..."..s.:...�t.�.,x,:,Rw�cw+�_,.#�r.-r...�...�._t.a e..vc._.A..<.�'r--'.r.r»�...',.?+e.�.�_...s+.H.,.'�..-J.ti-g..'�.-'.4�m�_,.�.':..r+.i.. v.s-,e x....w�.1�rt'-,_.'_.3__c..„v�.�.5..��'-et.,w-...a..d<...i`�a_'��.vlr'.c».�...._..-a..-efi."-e wx.[-'.^��,.r4r-�,::a.",.s..�y<a`._�.`,X�.�a,'�F.> - . �z-,�:.�:.� ��.,.r�-.�..�__.._- �'.,.�.,t_.:,...�....__�_.w��,�.....� �+�,.�,+:x.�,��" `ns�.,_,.._.n, �«? ,�,_.��..._�..._�.y:._.t"'�"�,.�kN..::•'.-.��._,�k: ... _ �.r.::-....�z ,�....,..�._�n.�.z*�.__�..__-��- _.__.....r:..�...._�:�'"'�4"�tr,��._w_ Fes"" CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON MEMORANDUM TO: City Council - Date': August 16, 1984 FROM: John Cook, Mayor ve-- SUBJECT: Codes Enforcement Discussion The Codes Enforcement Discussion scheduled for this meeting is being continued to`'a later date. 1 : ....,.E rk elee a CITY OF 'PIGAPD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY b/ ' AGENDA OF: August 20, 1984 AGENDA ITEM DATE susPiITTEU: August 14, 1984 PREVIOUS ACTION: Prior approved ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: OLCC License Class A License Application REQUESTED BY: Oo-mer DOK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: DEPARTMENT HEAD INFORMATION SUMMARY The following is requested due to a change in ownership mid business name. A class A request was approvded foe namehe ofdRoyal ya Club atrthe osame locatiother cwner, n.e request is now submitted The-new owner assures us that he has no intention to pursue adult enter- tainment. Request: Class A Dispenser Outlet" Business: Royal Gate, 11445 S.W. Pacific Highway, Tigard, OR 97223 New Cfwner: LIU, Wei-Hsin, 16055 S.W. Davis Rd. , Aloha, OR ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED i_ ,I I SUGGESTED ACTION l and forwarding to OLCC based on the above information. Recamiend approya R.B. Adams, Chief of Police STATE OF OREGON Return Tojc1' <f�0j1 APPLICATION OREGON LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION GENERAL INFORMATION This application form costs$5.00.`A non-refundable processing fee is assessed when you submit this completed form to the Commission .(except for Druggist and Health Care Facility Licenses).The filing of this application does not commit the Commission to the granting of the license for which you are applying nor does it permit you to operate thebusiness named below. 09784 (THIS SPACE IS FOR OLCC OFFICE.USE) -(THIS SPACE IS FOR CITY OR COUNTY.USE) Application is being made for: NOTICE TO CITIES AND COUNTIES:Do not considerthisapplica ®:.DISPENSER,-CLASS.A ❑ Add Partner _tion unless it has been stamped and signed at the left by anOLCC ° ❑'DISPENSER,:CLASS'8 ❑ Additional Privilege -,representative. ❑ DISPENSER.CLASS C El Change Location ,.THE CITY COUNCIL,COUNTY COMMISSION,OR COUNTY ❑ PACKAGE STORE M;Change Ownership El RESTAURANT ❑..Change of.Privilege COURTOF � r• .. -aI - ❑...RETAIL MALT BEVERAGE ❑:Greater Privilege (Name of city or County) ❑ SEASOWPLMYSi0 &MIVEQ.❑ Lesser Privilege RECOMMENDS THAT THIS LICENSE BE: GRANTED ORaG=fL1(1tf %0ftWR0L COMM01Mw Outlet BEVERAGE&WINE C1 Other DENIED ❑ WINERY DATE OTHER-- .1U_1. 1 6 4 IJCQg DIVISION (Signature) — \\6 TIT1 / rtrr_��y CAUTION:if your operation of this business depends on your receiving a liquor license,OLCC cautions you not to purchase,remodel,or Start construction until your license is granted. 1. Name of Corporation,Partnership,or Individual Applicants: 3), 4) 5).. 6) (EACH PERSON LISTED ABOVE MUST FILE AN INDIVIDUAL HISTORY AND A FINANCIALS STATEMENT) -17 2. Present Trade Name r7 S)rllbi t a o 3. New Trade Name f7 f (` R)yf" (S'0'� Yearfiled p�e1 '/ tr' tt� /�r/� witph Corporation Commissioner 4. Premises address 11 4MS �3^ 'td' P066(- 11 W I 6`�`r/,o (�fi Q (Number,Street,Rural Route) (City) (County) (Stat (zip) 5. Business mailing addre e5e?Q_f. f,,S Ot-I Q_ _ (P.O.Box.Number,St.�reet,Rural Route) (City) r� �� (State) (Zip) 6. Was premises previously licensed.by OLCC? YesyG No— Year`_k*9—k& — 1 r Op � tl 7. Ifyes,towhom: Vies �hCUIt�OI{f��G.(I -- Type of license:! vIL 8. Will you have a manager: Yes— No l— Name (Manager must/ill out Individual History) 9. Will anyone else not signing this application share in the ownership or receive a percentage of profits or bonus from the - business? Yes_ NoM What is the local governing body whore your premises is located? ' (Name f �ry or County) 11./OLCC prepresentative making (investigation may contact �I._ Ek2(�f �IU�„a7A( Vf�ttInRn� ius sm. pnA6 �,,,m} ��UA U�C_. (Name) 45- (47 - aR- t 4t�-- (Adtlresa) "L19 [' (Tel.No.—home,business.massage) CAUTION:The Administrator of the Oregon Liquor Control Commission must be notified if you are contacted by anybody offering to influence the Commission on your behalf. y ^y DATE X / �/� tJ"✓" Applicant(s)Signature 1) (In case of corporation,duly authorized officer thereof) 2) 3) 4) 5) t.00el Goyemmert 6) Form 84545-480 ("2) } INDIV16UAL STATE OF OREGON 9079 SE. McLoughlin Blvd. H1$T�f'aY OREGON LIQUOR CONTROL COMMiSSION P.O Box 22297 Portland,Oregon 97222 Page 2=Application All blanks:must be filled In. OLCC r lace N/A(Not Applicable)In the space. USE if the question docs not apply to.you,P ONLY t w:t — NSy� i 1.Name i C-"". tnnr) s tMiad�el 2.Other names used - fua aaN lo<a�ri 3.Address (Nu Dor ar,d Streot) __ 4>SSN .�..1 � Date of Birth '",�T i-d Age i 5..Place of Birth�L1R7- t y. _ is t. co�mnl i 6.Height `� " Weight �!iA Color Hair_ � -q�C Color Eyes 7.Sex . _Name of Spouse_ -- 8.Homs Phone -- , ;) - '7 9(i' ; BusinessPhone coast s . fes+�1a�--,---- 1 i 9.,U.S.Citizen:Yes No_,�S-� If"No"fist Alien Reg.No.-,lam 1t>--, -� CRIMINAL RECORD NOTE:For your information,a criminal records chock is made on all liquor license applicants in the normal processing of a license request Fingerprints maybe required. 10A.Have you been convicted(including probation,sentencing.or bail forfeiture)of any crime,violation,or infraction of any la>w�?(Do } not include minor traffic violations for which a fine or bail forfeiture of SSO or lesswas imposed).Yes No 10B.Are there presently pending against you any criminal charges,violations or inlractionsof the lav}(Do not include minor traffic violations forwhich a fins or ball forfeiture of$50 Or less was Imposed).-,Yes No 10C.it you have answered-Yes"to 10A or 10B,list below. aaawt pffanaa Data City aad State 4 (Attach additional sheet it.necessary.) NOTE:The information listed In 1 through 10 above can protect you from an error in the criminal records check. EMPLOYMENT AND RESIDENCE HISTORY 11.List current and former employers or occupations during thepast ten years:(Attach additional.sheet if necessary.) Dales by Nonthlyear. Employer or ,In,,, occupation `. City and Sate _ From r k"', d1An�F/ / -ToS¢ / i=ce Ti r r 71 r From_,r�.G F To 7 {/ -C.>/o-A / Vru,� N'r'i n vT f f: From—To- 12. rom To 12.List other eitfas and states where you have lived in the past 10 years other than those noted in question 11 above:(Attach additional sheet If necessary.) 'v Date*by MonthYear City and State r G From . t [F-; �c/T / err/ �A iyiS <r-/ 4L2f1L�—fir 7- - t To ✓�r-.L --� From_��L.�ZF'—To 1 �s��/ --.7 2.o A/F o From To— ACT IVITY o ACTIVITY IN LIQUOR INDUSTRY(Inside or Outside Oregon) 13.Are you presently or have you been licensed or employed in the liquor business? C Yes No_-. Where&When?_ 14.Have you over received a werning,a notice of violation,suspension,fine,or revocation as a licensee or permittee? l - Yes No_-_�d—-Where&When? (. 15.Have you ever been refused a permit or license to sell,serve,.or dispense beer,wino,or distilled spirits? Yes No_..,>< Where&When? 16.Have you held,or do you presently hold,a gambling or gaming license from any governmental body ora Federal Gambling Tax t Stamp? '/ i Yes NO_p^. Where&When? t ( i ,7.Have you ever he d or do you hold any financial interest in any liquor enterprise:manufacturing.Importing,wholesale or retail? Yes - No ><. YVhere&When? 16.Do you owe money to any manufacturer or distributor of wine,beer,or distilled spirits on account of cash or credit advanced? Yes No-,-<— Where&Whets 19.Is your spouse or �a/.ny family member(s)working in any area of the liquor industry? Yes No-/ If Yes.give: 1rL.awl INems of Bvame,.i toy a stat.> 2o. Premises Involved: Trade em _ I t Address r 1 4 4.4 S U )t1ObTitle 1lLh - (Gry a Covnry) CAUTION:FALSIFICATION OR INTENTIONAL OMISSIONS OF INFORMATION ON THIS FORM MAY BE GROUNDS TO DENY OR REVOKE YOUR APPLICATION FOR A LICENSEI -i Signature: __�'L3✓� Dale: - t Orig1-.-Loca1 OLCC OHic 1st CON–OLCC M. Ie.2r Copt–Appncant frmb�yWi{r2A11 �.. STATE OF OREGON OREGON LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION w ace 3APPLICATION FINANCIAL STATEMENT THIS FINANCIAL STATEMENT IS ACTUAL ❑ OR PROJECTED ❑ AS OF—_ - NAME(S) !f'� �` __i Gl TRADE NAME. CAIMON: FALSIFICATION OF INFORMATION ON THIS FORDS MAY BE GROUNDS TO DENY Y0IIR AI'PLICA'riON FOR A F. ROUND TO WHOLE DOLLARS ONLY AMOUNT OFFICE LIABILITIES(Owed) AMOUNT ASSETS(Owned) 11 USE Cash on hand(not in bank) :[J l'm 70 Total Payables(Schedule D)' Cash on deposit: '11 R1 ') c 6 Checking at(I's. �fl' 4 4 �. C Checking at Taxes Due(Describe) - Savings at Savings at tJ Earnest Money,. Real Estate Debt(Schedule C) Lease Deposits. , r1 Other Other Liabilities (Describe) Cash value of: ' r — Stocks and Bonds(Schedule A) — Receivables(Schedule B) - Merchandise Inventory Fixtures and Equipment J 'c i Vehicles Real Estate(Schedule C) Life Insurance - Other Assets(Describe) TOTAL LIABILITIES -NET WORTH �7(2 TOTAL ASSETS ' h( ,J r 0 TOTAL LIABILITIES and NET WORTH "To arrive at NET WORTH,subtract total liabilities from total assets. ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEET IF NECESSARY FOR ANY QUESTION �rLast Year's Total Income: $ (, t)'" ``.Source: (' J 2. Have you any assets or liabilities not listed on this financial statement? Yes_No_. If yes,explain why not included 3.Are you a co-signer of any notes or contracts?Yes—No X If yes,explain 4. Have you any judgments,suits,liens,or tax warrants filed against you? Yes_No__ If yes, explain: 5. Have you ever filed a petition in bankruptcy or been adjudged bankrupt? Yes No— If yes, explain: CSApplicant(s) Signature 1) _ % (' OR:GINAtrteml OI.CC Offia 2) W COPY—Appli—t / Foy No,84W,482(a..-.IM2) Date 1�— State of Oregon- OREGON LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION PAGEAPPLICATION FINANCIAL STATEMENT WORKSHEET Name(s) /� /( Trade Name` Attach additional sheet it necessary. — T Schedule A STOCKS AND BONDS Number If Market Value ..Shares. Description TOTAL Schedule B RECEIVABLES-`NOTES,CONTRACTS,AND ACCOUNTS 1S _ K Payment :...: TermsR Date Balancee} '_ `., Schedule C REAL ESTATE Mortgages Type Income per Pnyment Pn,sent Market and LocationP, rt, Lien Holder Month Tema Balance Value C LEEEEELE TOTALS Schedule D PAYABLES—NOTES, CONTRACTS,AND ACCOUNTS 4 Balance I Date Payment To(Name) Incurred Tenns Due Date Collateral Original Current M. pm i j TOTAL a Applicant(s)Signature 1),.L- 2) ),L-2) _ Original—Local OLCC Office Date' rz+ Ist Copy—Applicant ° Form No.84545483(Rev.10,'82) 1 IN MEMORANDUM" 7/17/84 TO: Chief Adams, Police Department f ° FROM: Penny Liebertz, Support Service SUBJECT: OLCC Liquor License Application Please review the attached application and have recommendation to us by Wednesday, August 7th so we may include it in the packet for the August 13th: Council meeting;. Thanks. Dispensers Class A - Change Ownership The Stadium Club 11445 SW Pacific Highway Tigard, OR 97223 (PL:1154A) CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: August 20, 1984 AGENDA ITEM #: CONSENT DATE SUBMITTED: August 16, 1984PREVIOUS ACTION:' MARCH REVIEW ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: CALL EXECUTIVE SESSION AND APPROVE CRITERION FOR PREPARED BY: ADMINISTRATOR'S REVIEW REQUESTED BY: DEPARTMENT BEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: INFORMATION SUMMARY The City Administrotor's Annual Performance Review with Council is due in late August or early September. An Executive Session 'review with open press coverage is requested. State law allows such reviews in Executive Session if the criterion are set in an open meeting. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Set review for Thursday, September 9, 1984. 2. Set another review date. SUGGESTED ACTION Call Executive Session for City Administrator's Annual Performance Review on Thursday, September 6, 1984, 7:30 p.m. at City Hall and approve performance review criterion. a MANAGEMENT AND PROFESSIONAL CITYOFT11FARD EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE REVIEW EMPLOYEE Bob Jean DATE 9/6/84 POSITION City Administrator REVIEW PERIOD 3/84 - 8/84 DEPARTMENT LAST REVIEW 3/5/84 REVIEWER CURRENT'SALARY '$3,717/mo $44604/yr TYPE OF REVIEW: GOAL SETTING PROBATION PROGRESS PERFORMANCE XX 1. 'MAJOR GOALS/PROJECTS FROM LAST REVIEW: COMPLETION (0-55 % Little or No Significant Progress-.56-75% Some Progress, Most Yet To Go. 76-85% Satisfactory..86-95% Good Goal Achievement..96-100% Exceeded Expectations) o Cut-Backs and Layoffs Implementation (8/84) o WCCLS Contract &_Levy Negotiations o Lease Extension Agreements 0 LID'S: :68th Sewer., 68th Parkway & 135th Street o LID Policy Ordinance & Procedure Manual (Fall II4) o Parks Plan & CIP Adoption (Spring '85) o - Economic.Development Action Plan (Spring '85) - N/A o A.I.M.S./Financial Reporting Systems Upgrade-(Spring_'85 N/A o Expand T.E.A.M r/P.B.O. Programs (8/84)' ' o Adopt C.I.P. & Financial Plan (Spring '85) N/A o Update 5-year Financial Plan & Cut-back Options (9/II4) a Personnel Rules Update (8/84) _ _ -_____ 0 Space Needs III Implementation (8/85) _0 Develop Long-Range Urban Service Cost Projection (9/84) o Establish`Council Policy Calendar (8/84) N A o Expand Volunteerism Programs (3/85) o Streets C.I.P. &' Financial Plan (3/85) o Transportation Plan/UPAA Update (8/84) N 0 Fanno Creek Basin Management Plan (3/85) o Dartmouth LID (8/84) 0 Council Workshops (Jul & Jan) y 0 C C T N N m N Vi U) U 2. ESTABLISHED PERFORMANCE DIMENSIONS: a E >* v a x n (Explain 1's or 5's with brief footnote) _ (CIRCLE) o Oral communications 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 o Written communications 1 - 2 - 3 4 - 5 o Leadership/initiative 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 0 Problem solving/decision making 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 a o Innovation/ingenuity/creativity 1 - 2 3 _ 4 _ 5 o Planning/organizing 1 - 2 - 3 4 5 o Interpersonal sensitivity 1 2 3 - 4 - 5 o Management control 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 o Adaptability/flexibility/stress tolerance 1 - 2 - 3 4 - 5 o Resource utilization/economy/cost control 1 2 3 - 4 - 5 0 1 - 2 - 3 4 - 5 0 1 - 2 3 - 4 - 5 NOTES ON STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - FOR OFFICE USE ONLY -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EPR COMPLETED PAF COMPLETED NEXT REVIEW DATE EPR RET DATE PAF PIF C. S. & G. DATE EPR PIF SIGNATURE E 3. EMPLOYEE.TRAINING/SELF DEVELOPMENT -- LAST REVIEW PERIOD: o o' o O o 4. EMPLOYEE TRAINING/PLANS FOR IMPROVEMENT-- NEXT REVIEW PERIOD: 0 o o E o, o' ' i 5. MAJOR GOALS/PROJECTS FOR NEXT REVIEW PERIOD: O LID Ordinance & Procedure:Manual (12/84) o; Parks Plan & CIP Adoption (Spring' 85) O Economic Plan (Spring '85) Development Actio of A.I"M.S./Financial System Upgrade (Summer '85) o Adopt CIP & Financial Plan (Spring '85) 0. Update 5-year Financial..Plan & Cut-Back Options '(11/84). o Expand Volunteerism Programs & Reporting (3/85) a Civic Center Project o Labor Relations Strategy & Negotiations o Performance Report & Ausit Program u Transportation/Streets Plan &'CIP O Computer,Master Plan _o Police Dispatch Options Study, Bid & Decision o { o 0 O O 6. SUPERVISOR'S IIELP NEEDED: 0 0 0 0 0 0 7. -GENERAL COMMENTS (EMPLOYEE OR SUPERVISOR): 8. ACTION RECOMMENDED: ACTION APPROVED: NEXT REVIEW DATE: EMPLOYEE (Signature/Date) A REVIEWER (Signature/Date) DEPT. READ OK (Signature/Date) I APPROVED BY CITY ADMINISTRATOR (Signature/Date) (0298P) CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF L� " `�—'"' AGENDA ITEM h: DATE SUBMITTED: 8-15-84 PREVIOUS ACTION: None ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Acceptance of Sanitary Sewer Compliance Agreement REQUESTED BY: En&ineering & GeorZe Scott for George Scott. DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: INFORMATION SUMMARY This is an extention of our Sanitary Sewer Line so that j apartments can be served with Sanitary Sewer. The developer has give an easement paid his fees and posted a Bond for the improvements. And has signed a Sanitary Sewer Compliance' Agreement with the City. ----------- -----=S3==@ ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED SUGGESTED ACTION Accept this Agreement and Bond. c CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY r AGENDA OF: "Z� r�"I` AGENDA ITEM h DATE SUBMITTED: 8-15-84 PREVIOUS ACTION: None ISSUEJAGENDA TITLE: Acceptance of Sanitary Sewer Compliance Agreement REQUESTED BY: Engineering & George Scott for George Scott. DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: it, CITY ADMINISTRATOR: ............ ......a��:�� INFORMATIONSUMMARY This is an extention of our Sanitary Sewer Line so that 7 apartments can be served with Sanitary Sewer`. The developer has give an easement paid his ;fees and posted a Bond for the improvements. And has signed a Sanitary Sewer Compliance Agreement with the City`. c a--aars@-a-a@-----a-----------------sss-ass.-a-a-¢-xsae ---------------- _ ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED -------------------- .--@Z@------ffi---R@a-CR-S-........ ..................C-------- SUGGESTED -------SUGGESTED ACTION Accept this Agreement and Bond. y . aA`s" iAEti CG1I:Ei GC^1IANCE AGR):Ei`IENI' THIS AGREEMENT dated t`i day of _l� �'' 19 , between the THISITY AGREEMARD, a re;r.is pa` ':y :_f chr S!.ate of C`T egon, h.ereinaf t.er termed the "City", and 1—reinaf rmea "Pe i'_ic^er W I T N'E S 5 E T H WHEREAS, Petitioner has a plied to the City for approval of construction of a sanitary sewer, to be known as ` and b being within the boundaries of an area as described on the attached �l�Li + y reference made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard' requ-ires applicants for construction of sewers, and"appurten- a:-ces thereto, to submit to<co-.struction inspection, and testing therewithal, to grant public easements, therefor, and req:iires the 'payment of 'fees; and WHEREAS, the City has approved and adopted the standard specifications for Public Works construction by APWA, Oregon Chapter, and the Unified Sewerage Agency specifications' for sanitary sewers prepared by professional engineers for Public Works construction; and WHEREAS, the public improvements required to be constructed are incomplete, but petitioner has nonetheless requested that the City permit granting of the property to the public, and the parties herein named desire to protect the public interest, generally to asspre the public improvements will be hstalled as required and completed within the time hereinafter set forth NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premise and the convenants and agreements to be kept and perfomed by the Petition and its contractor and contractors i surety, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. Petitioner shall proceed to complete all public improvements as show-g on herewith y provement plan, as approved by th_ City of Tigard and prepared by , , dated �� _ Said improvements to completed no later than one (1) year from the date of this agreement, and Petiti.er_er hereby agrees to comply with all standard specifications adopted by this City, or as may otherwise be approtied by the Department of Public Works 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 thereof, Petitioner agrees to obtain, provide and tender to the City, a surety bond(s) in form approved by �thety,'W.tth liabilityin the amount equal to the contract price of $ 215.0Oprior to issuance o£ a permit for construction of said entser's contractor- shall be. licensed, and insured as required by Unified Sewerage Agency Resolution and Order(s) No 72-12 and No. 71-9- 3. In the event that the Petitioner shall fail, neglect or refuse to proceed with the work in an orderly and progressive manner to assure completion within the time specified, upon ten (10) days' notice by the City to the Petitioner and the Petitioner's surety, and such default and failure to proceed containing thereafter, the City may at its option proceed to have the work completed and charge the costs thereof against the Petitioner and the Petitioner's surety and in the event the same be not paid,, to bring an action on the said bond to recover the amount thereof In the event that such action be brought, the Petitioner and the Petitioner's surety shall be required to promise and agree to pay, in addition to the amounts accruing and allowable; such sum as the cou. ' shall adjudge reasonable as attorney's fees and cost 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 surety, specific performance - t - j adopted b;' t1-< Cj.t}' -,f Figard, and in a iy e t i' ad kid CC^tra�.t and aC p1 j !_O..T G',\• k i- �U as ti?.e court may F• Di a like •r.an i er, i Ci ` th "P:ial Court and Appel Tare s � ' e,,s 3r..d cost, •o- - r rrasc,r;able for LhE Ci '-v Court, if any. s LL Yeti ticrer, con' �- with the exar:.ti n h� acf., 3grce9 the following fees '_n pay as „.q;:ired by Unifi.-:j S<. w age Agency Reso.utio^ and Orde* �... 70-12, Y Y a. A plan check fee to cover the cost of review and app,oval of construction plans and 'inscheck c e sewer construction (except house connections) in the amount a . o£ $' 1 . b. A>perm it fee to ;.over the cast= of processing ,the permit application and performiD g the inspection_ of propErcy co necticn(s) in the amount of $ _ g sanitary sewer, which C. A c.onnectic . cba d` to Bonne G directly to an existin was installed Wlt"Mit1191t (stnIke inapplicable word) cost to .the Petitioner, 3 in the amount of $ d, A mon thfy sewer scrvice c"..arge for the use of the ,pub'_ic sanitary sewer system. the execution hereof, also agrees to ,pay a 'surcharge 5 Petitioner, concurrent with in the amount of nt as required by that certain contract entered into for the by the City with IV reimbursement of 'sewer cons tructicn costs pertinent thereto. b. The City agrees to 'make periodic inspections as, in the City's judgement, is r_eces'sary to assure. compliance. of 7. The Petitioner agrees to insure thtreceives ch also, 12houradvancenoticefor aour ll requested noticence requestedfield commencement of construction and, inspections. g. The Petitioner agrees to insure that the petitioner's engineer obtains accurate to as-bLtilt (field) cc7struction records of said sewer installation and, also, ag te as-built mylar thereof. insure that the City is furnished with one accurarovmets have 9. At such time as all pub1shaLl�benrequiredbtonnotifyethe Citycofr rthcomplted in e readar_essefor city's requirements, Petitioner final inspection; upon affirmation by the Department- of Public Works that all requirements of the City have been met, the Petitioner will submit to the City a good andsufficient (20/) maintenance bond in the form approved by the City in a sum equal to twenty p of the contract price to provide for correction of any defective work or maintenance becoming apparent or arising within one year after final acceptance of the public improvements by the City. 10. upon receipt of certification by the Department of Public Works that all requirements have been met, and a one year Maintenance Bor_d, the City Council agrees to accept the public improvett;ents, subject to the requirement of correction of deficiencies and maintenance for a period of one year. 11. That the Petitioner, in consideration of the City's approval of the application to construct a sanitary sewer within the boundaries of easements held by the City, does hereby convenant and agree to save, hold harmless and indemnify the City, its officers, 3ge.nts and employees, for and from all. claims, demands, damages, and each and every ` other obligation that can or could arise from the neglectof outside ofsthe f easetneT,' Agents, ccntractors & employees, ar front trespass upon necessaril *incurred by the Citv in area, including attorney's fees and costs, if any, Y ewer Compliance - Page 2 of 3 _- d:(s�3i agai-.ct 's 3i ; w a.d p.♦ pr 0--a- tre Ci.cy shalt be made , , irc-d pay to h: 1,eld liable for in - ii 'L wi th r�spec t * � � = � q - '. c .cz_ do:* with th exF r the-o ivi?dg - 'atfo*d_d Pet_tior , t; utilize the area w L i'�ir= th City's ease*: p._rposEs: 1N WITNESS WHEREOF;, t4.- px :--s av, '-x- uted t'-.is ag.eec:e`t pursuant to authority ventedir: each of th :~ PETITIONER- (Attached Acknowledgement Hereto) CITY OF TIGARD: 0; o Recorder CZep,$y) r t Sewer Comp] iance Page 3 of 3 4 a STATE OF OREGON )ss. g unty of VPashingt,On ) th y as of August , 19 84 , personally On this 14If n, WiGeorge 0. Scott appeared the above named g to be their voluntary act and and acknowledged the foregoing instrument deed. Before mea . N ar is c for Oregon My Commission expireLe�ammtss( STATE OF OREGON ) )ss. 4 County of 19Qd'< ► before me day of r��` oh this �_____ and r o.�s u_Y� the eared Goc� duly "sworn. 'did ay that he, appeared to me ersonally known who, tithe and he, the Saidv7or�S �r «-- _ L_L_ C�,d is the Mayor, a municipal tiaid xs th�Reyorder of the CITY OF TIGARD, �`�� carporation, and the sai 1, C d and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free act an deed of said municzp a1 corporation. hand and affixed my IN TESTIMONY J111EREOF, I have hereunto metya y if* cate first written. official seal, this the day and ye otary Pu xa.c or Oregon �'r' lies NIy commission exP r r i ..{. •.t - - � .?sr rzL!.1..fS'��r.�,,' if •r,r",u7f'r�.1j 4 3...�...�z..�"-f „� m.. -?».. ..a.. xr. �.:r:� r�; ,.. t+t rr _ err- „ :r3.:. ,,, •e. ..=: - _• .` .r .. _ n... .v. ... f �� +.ca• .rkz. ..., ,.��.5 :,.,�Evfs. »�. �.mc+€:daW.a d� -- ~_ � � �.. # �i�. �`s.' s _ w3 .,n ��'. r�--ss r e -�� .�� .� rsC ...e. h .�".. � �:. �.++rh �., s•+ '�` ua� %"� ryry ;9,^...,-ryYa7t,:. -:.bra 44 F:;h..'• z.. { � ��i � t _ `K -t W� s•y'�.... -�. � �, "�” - a'" x a�aaa#� �:Sca T� -. 4 � 715 '�'�'%�� ",�,�' �. � � �e xs+� 3�� ..'�.s• -4✓✓'+. ,4w�,c-h� �`� rA'Pl—xJg'k a-->=, ,siir.. r,�'� x i,. _' x. m � •r : ate-: jrcln NO �� '�� .e 3 - ��'-S^{�� ,µum r�, r• �«+k.=r-� t'Y' .�.r�.gin r••,. t�k �� : •• i� �,�- •�� r a -� .ta . ,� �*'"M� _max. .'S� ��s�� s�- « r ..........+a��_ ^,�,�Sk� „�,� � i��i�+„;.i^y,tttsld<'�'�j+..7+.•VUes �� '"'�w�-yFi��#�'�" i�� r��' i4x „o ,s as ,r .,,,Pitt4. �-� n - .a•�:e '�-Cir,�s. _ eS��-s ��.w� .ro...�. Y {,r ne. rv3cz �.`;,,�� ,.t�.'t �'.� *+`"� ��” t'�. s ��. %�.^�3tir�. d � -. G. `�, z ,,,.'�j�, tS,,,�.�fX�!.]y''•�'iT � r{7�h.�'� 's �,�'i"�G7r��r kT�.i`�A � e�`x �:;. wa � � �'•.•`: � �,.. >M r %,$ ^E S+� „yi r'f7'�..'-y%'.s• y-•.b-�• �� r*�Fi�.,�sr' " a,t s�`"s$�.,�j``��r••��'% , r�+2Y„ :�., s•_-.. -� a � .s� v y".,t.."L+ �.,^ 4 ��a��e� "4 %�t�y"� �Ka��t�c�'t- r'"�� evr�vs' �.r� �,�. _§. •-z:..::�n.., - t '�•. "b' a� �# � - Ix«-�i+.�-"� -w..,'-s tt`N_''-. k`_`'y�`_n.``'r ��"'r"' �`� F. � ��.. )`,s ��`� , �i�N'�•a '?z�a� ,.,�-�t qs?,s")` r�+,s.� �.��..-� �- i a��,,�r' `<u'�� z, �= � Y.. -s ,.. mi ;. t_.. TY(`r^�a� �.zr"- �. -?� r.r.� �r 'z?x'4 f s' 'b�' r �t.'° �?`-e2,'�'ia•�r, � 3'a'rr^ � yc�a!"Yr`'�s'�. ,. �. ro �� s,r�, x�"` k� � �� ,��.. � �+^'-� `�.' "$ -3� =�,.. x=a'�. ^y •� R i� k s� � ,r y .z:.-., a: ...,�. t 7a,� � � �'>' '� '=i`'£rs' -yam x �.�s rT- r '-a •�C 2�� wy � � y� s. ..w �3*'..5 i t:-��i--+.5�IN+'�'ic�.y"31 "f�t��F..it �•�.f5 .a�-{"'��"��''..hY"°x:ts- �'"f��_.'..�"�'"�"�'� � � *,t�-'s'=.. ,-��, � j- �� :. �.p�.s•^"�Z��.� ,Rs� .:{s r' fi.>•� "syr.€s&-�, �y�re � ',,a�, +�._"� x�` ��s+ ,;mosey �, � �,�-��,7'��.�.+,� *. ; � tsz;?' `�.��e�{„'`r 'n�, „� `"t��,.`) !;_'! .s T. nai� �4'`� ��•�€ r �:��}cis „E,s,s�tak�'s'� '+s �s' .s �� 4s��+•�+�" �� ,a �x�. � $ 4y as• ,��.s � .+ Kr '`'irf 21°,� �")r�..•,ig�-�f4.x �z--,y i"`��- � .�.2:� n-��r-� ,-�. t' ' ,,fir tom•' � a� ` -^`�� r,� �, y ' � �� }=a £ , .';�-. mg,;,,�., ,�-2•af-` - :; ',�s .# �.C"'r-,. ,'' „* x "SFOR s '3i eY. ' Y a.�+ it—�� z �,.er.�v c �^� i'-��,fit= w, '�9��r,,.��rt�1i� is s � a�^��C �"'�' tom'.Y�`9'.G�� <*`"`a �`"� .<.�� ' s-`t�` � " "•"y' y.�', 'l 7 '{ ^�: �'S$ tt�3�`sc - s.^z+,�t `�.«. r y r� i '"",� rf�.. .�E ��.�sF.�-=+`,.r --c• '"'� tit -'moi%. = �NOt, IN C : � s: k., ::: S %�� ) M ik>�:\l af�.5 �T ,`fig'Sh4 •tzi, .ti.f '}�5y�_ '�� 7 €. �-1"in+d?.. 'h� ..'�r�"3`" � �s`�� t � _ { i'�rx'X �sa�' �a � "�f�..,.,= r'z� Mr�`;a�y�:�if �r�-:»�5�'��-Ga`� ,� `�Sro` i�t�'�"-, x •. sCF- � 'Eqgm" �' e'ri.. ��tv .psi ��"��z ` � �`N;�a #�4�'s i�.�&y zw r za �•+�,e.- z r y'� ae. - a - -t # i �'� �� ',�.Y_,F k.�rc t' '?�' `"�:.+• t .�:;'^.�i.`' - , `ansY•_a,`z... ye �.�+' F; 5" �a � .... :€ au..s.,- •a, �� 1 5„3= �`a„y-�",�s..�° a t °sem �'�s"'�,�-s�,�1�'�,-y' '-�' {i` s sv L fi k m C' Should it be necessary to cat and resbuve any brush. trees, or other matter or materials from the easc=nt-area. said brush, trees, or other =attar 'an.t'ratorialn shall be rived and diagnosed of by the City and the �^ City shall leave the casement area in a neat and workstmnlike condition. The City agrees that in connection with its use of tile:perpetual easement era Ciin inspecting, repairing, maintainlnq, or replacing said ams®r 11nos �1® City>wi11 leave the promises in a mat aced workmanlike condition and as nearly E in the pro-existing state as practical.le. The grantors do hereby warrant that thuy are the owners In foe sisapl® and have the right to grant the above described case wItmese ou ndt haa and coals this day of o 1 ,o ® (SEAL) (SEAL) s. G. (SPIAL) (O .f - G _ (SERC) -r !or a consideration, the m0rtgago ILen on the above described p-•pertics is hereby made subordinate to the easements above granted. Dated this day of --•—— e iS itie 7' m �e SIe.:S OF ORECYOt• . bas. County of 161 Y On this day of. , 19 personally ' e � appeared the above named and acknowledged the foregoing Lnetruasant to be their voluntary act ;nd deed. Bator* pry r c xtagoa ; my coacaission upiraas M1� Page 2 After recording please return toa lase nt tbflt RGE O SCOTT 11640 Bei 135th' Avenue Tigard Oregon 17223 _ k TN. 4 A ' jw d `ysr tgil pppppp sK - .n ;,„. LISM r ltf3CLgµt, MA�,`rar.+eS *s A r x Ra: ISO- " ^ ag mss= CENTER e T a Q) 4.35 f Z 50 _t 1 ® � C Af. N LI o s w 3*60 p' CONST- /VN l Ii° � 2.90#5 Q\ o D S C i 2-26115 , r 4 o I ob 1,77 H5 a'cr CLA33 fC -4 y n rt, y c � O y i c —0--N — b S.w )S*AVE._ a fU flI� O Rh _ µ •I�t6 � ST ��- © �i5lal 51 S` Sww M 4 aY0 Si S SW TRlfT'x DOn OR SilS OOlyr CT •ACnaa L. ESTwO t � 60DwiM 5 Ct,4 ONFSe[•MD n SW SIKITON ORfENwOOUI[f �✓ � w LCSUE IT, � PO ROAD S .01 �W. 4 wVR[N ST. S lC E•D S4 Sw BpNAR r-_- 1 ry.. $;'w ix, € SZDWCRElT _ I - =x. LME Mrs_ • 24 CL rST e � \� t S v ) MCNLO[K ST I 4 ST )) J• t 1_—�•�F ST. I � [OCUST PPi LN P FJ u F f `ARELEA 9E y gePtELE f 3 _ S (�a !�—?:4 ---------------------- ------- f----!� / • OAK iM cNDLLs S R �a 1 �: sO �. ...o .• _ p h��. � Sw.TMpNN/ST T .' R it . ci t..r..: cc r\'r ��` Nr v. SNnC/LAN[ h4S• � � x V € L�l J.x •At . ♦ _ /3 LONDStAFF ® ST TES^ IPlTt � k � (i ANz•N€r• �•� = E S n sr sw NDRr „ W NORTN DAKOTA r ! $ - P CIN e • , j w. N H Il -_ �wh x � n N iPF•FFLE Si. t. S SUrrE11 S m. - s ' •' ` ____] b •� O i d. S.w F' x o , yNFR[REST DRIVC J LEwiS w ! L pi`1 - i ^j j •!4r !M sx ). ). s.x. ! I 1 / ST. w F�r - sT-1 `� ERNeE !. \. ). ] KAN OT. ( rV T G N \-• �'�.��ttt^^^ 2tOA•9 N �" F'-�- l§ Sx T S A ••�C\ A..MUT ST.„ e`et rr Oy Sw >c ,At 3x.•!RI �� r •Fb (�tII/'i'' IT la -7SN• 94 S.w [ONIOL Pf �I` t,NccT s[. � b y Q�C Vl rl 6(2� 4yy f k- > � 6 � •ZJ iw. ALlERTR IT. 0. b� =W FDNNER R / 5w -w NT` IT41 - 9 B � f H. S.W. NA } AM 1T-•�5�, -_T p ;.VVV J � / `• r,� t N � 4 � � f til i sT $ i �•ii'P � UP-tiA'� r IN. O�tARA DO _ E /^ S.w xf �At•u dx. 4� fw EEWOoo ST. $ +1 b Pp ' `� _ � CT F•NNWEN a yx.L ♦ ! 1 Y CT fT OAArtD!® ® KPL. f. 4 DONALO rY w [inose DNr cREEu CT 8 \ k N S Ot 0 - .}I ! Sw FA VD fRIE[D.1 -11 y 3 fw. TAkVVI[w _ i OT I: E h CITY OF TIGARD,_OREGON` COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: August 20, 1984 AGENDA ITEM #: .� DATE SUBMITTED: August 16, 1984 PREVIOUS ACTION: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Intergovernmental Agreement - Wash. REQUESTED BY: County Community Development Block Grant Program, grogram Years 1985-87 DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: INFORMATION SUMMARY The attached intergovernmental agreement must be executed in'order that Tigard may take ;;part =in the Community Development Block Grant Program 'operated by Washington County. The resolution should be approved to authorize Mayer Cook to execute the agreement. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The Council should pass the resolution to authorize Mayor Cook to execute the agreement. SUGGESTED ACTION r Pass the attached resolution. � 3 _ t MEMORANDUM CITY OF"TIGARD r TO: Members of the City Council FROM: William A. Monahan, Director of Planning and Development DATE: August 16, 1984 � g Washin ton County' Community � _ SUBJECT: Intergovernmental Agreement - Development Block Grant Program, Program Years 1985-87 In order to participate in the countywide Community Development Velomenta Block resolution Grant (CDBG) Program after June 30, 1985 the Cityadopt in authorizing Mayor Cook. t agreement execute wos hsi a ttac nd Novembertion of 1981 efort the triplicate. A similar program ,years 19$2-84. i I have evaluated the six page document and found only minor changes which primarily update the agreement. Following are the changes: 1985-87 1982-84 Page_1 Section A delete at end ..1980 and the Department the Housing and• and andUrban ® of Housing and Urban Development has Renewal Recovery Act of adopted regulations pursuant thereto 1983; and" (hereafter jointly referred to as the "Act"); and Page 4 Item 3 add "1974, the 1983 amendments delete "1980" thereto" Page 5 Item 4(e) add at end "The County shall be responsible for annually filing Final Statements with HUD... Page 5 Item 6 1985" add "1985 through June 30, delete "1982 through June 30, 19$8" q change "qualifies"ualifies" to "qualified" Page 5 Item 6 Line 4 delete "under.. 110 = �r Page 6 add signature line for Recording Secretary Page 5. _ add to County Council approval at end -"...specifically urban renewal and publicly assisted housing." I recommend that the Council adopt a resolution which authorizes Mayor Cook to sign the Intergovernmental Agreement on behalf of the City. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WASHINGTON COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM PROGRAM YEARS 1985 1987 This Agreement is entered into between Washington County (COUNTY) , a political subdivision of the State of Oregon, and the City of (CITY) , a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon within Washington County, for the cooperation of units of local government under the authority of ORS 190.010. It will become effective upon adoption by ,the parties and will continue until terminated as provided herein. The circumstances surrounding the making of this Agreement are as follows: A. WHEREAS the Congress of the United States has enacted the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 and the Housing and Urban - Rural Recovery Act of 1983; and B. WHEREAS the Congress has found and declared that the Nation's cities, towns and small urban communities face critical social, economic and environmental problems; and C. WHEREAS the Congress has further found and declared that the future welfare of the Nation and the well-being of its citizens depend on the establishment and maintenance of viable urban communities as social, economic and political entities; and D. WHEREAS the primary objective of the Act is the development of viable urban communities, by providing decent hosing and a suitable living environment and expanding economic oppor- tunities principally for persons of low and moderate income; and E. WHEREAS consistent with this primary objective, the Federal assistance provided in this Act is for the support of community development activities which are directed toward the following specific objectives: 7 (1) The elimination of slums, blight and the prevention of blighting influences and the deterioration of property and:neighborhood and community facilities of importance to the welfare of the community, principally persons of low and moderate income; and (2) The elimination of conditions which are detrimental to health, safety, and public welfare, through code enforcement, demolition, interim rehabilitation assistance, and related activities; and . (3) The conservation and expansion of the Nation's housing stock in order to provide a decent home and a suitable living environment for all persons, but principally those of low and moderate income; and (4) The expansion and improvement of the quantity and quality of community services, principally for persons of low and moderate income, which are essential for sound community development and for the development of viable urban communities; (5) A more rational utilization of land and other natural resources and the better arrangement of residential, commercial, indus- trial, recreational, and other needed activity centers; and (6) The reduction of the isolation of income groups within communities and geographical areas and the promotion of an increase in the diversity and vitality of neighborhoods through the spatial deconcentration of housing opportunities for persons of lower income and the revitalization of deteriorating or deteriorated neighborhoods to attract persons of higher income; and (s_ 1 -2- (7) The restoration and preservation of properties of 'special value for historic, architectural, or aesthetic reasons; and (8) The alleviation of physical and economicdistress through the stimulation of private investment and community revitalization in areas with population outmigration or a' stagnating or declining tax base; and (9) The conservation of ,the Nation's scarce energy resources, improvement of energy efficiency, and the provision of; alternative and renewable energy sources. F. WHEREAS it is found that certain of these objectives are per- tinent to the concerns and needs of the COUNTY and its commun- ities; and G. WHEREAS Title I of said Act provides that urban counties may, under some circumstances, receive entitlement for community development funds in the same manner as larger cities; and H. WHEREAS one of the criteria for urban county eligibility is a county population of at least 200,000, not including entitle- ment cities; and T, WHEREAS the COUNTY desires to count the population of the CITY in order to reach the necessary 200,000 minimum population; and .7. WHEREAS the Department of Housing and Urban Development has speci- fied the minimum provisions which must be included within any intergovernmental agreement into which local governments enter to qualify for urban county eligibility; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises made herein and the mutual benefits received hereunder, the parties agree as follows. -3- 4' 1. The CITY and the COUNTY agree to cooperate to undertake, or assist in undertaking, community renewal and lower income housing assistance activities, specifically urban renewal and public assisted housing, 2.' The CITE' authorizes the inclusion of its; population for purposes of the Act, and joins together with other units of general local government to qualify the COUNTY as an urban county for Housing and Community Development Act block grant funds, 3. The COUNTY, as the applicant, assumes full responsibility, including final decision-making, and also assumes all obliga- tions of an 'applicant as specified in the Act of 1974, the 1983 amendments thereto, and the regulations thereunder, d For the purposes of developing annual Housing and Community _ Development 'Plans and Programs as requi.red .by Title I of the Act, a policy board is hereby established (or continued) which shall guide the plan and program development, make recom- mendations to the County upon the criteria to be utilized in selecting eligible Housing and Community Development Act ac- tivities within Washington County and recommend to the County the program priorities. (A) Said, policy board shall be composed of one representative or a designated alternate from each unit of general pur- pose government executing these interlocal agreements. Each such representative shall have one vote on said board. Each such representative shall be a public official or employee of said unit of government. (B) Said policy board shall adopt bylaws, study, review, hold public hearings, supervise the public review and infor- mation process, and recommend to Washington County on all matters related to the Housing and Community Development Act application. -4- ` (C) That following public hearing, the policy board shall make final recommendation on the Housing and Community Development plan and program and `housing assistance plan > which may be accepted by Washington County at public meeting and submitted to the Department of Housing and Urban Development as the Washington County application; provided that, should all or part of the recommended plan not be considered acceptable to the County, the Board of County Commissioners shall hold at least one (1) public hearing on the plan and program prior to rejection or amendment of the recommended plan. The County shall be responsible for annually filing Final Statements with HUD. (D) That projects may be implemented and funds expended in accordance with subgrant agreements between the County and other jurisdictions signatory to this agreement. Therefore,' said policy board may establish any legal method for priority MUM and funding designation so long as such method conforms to the requirements of the Act. 5. The COUNTY and CITY agree to take all required actions to comply with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, Executive Order 11988, Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, and other applicable civil rights laws. 6. This agreement shall remain in full force and effect from the date of execution for the program years commencing on July 1, 1985 through June 30, 1988 inclusive, provided that the COUNTY qualified as an urban county, and block grant funding is allocated to the COUNTY, pursuant to the Act. f; -5- a 1 11 i-01111 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned parties have executed this Agreement this. day of , 1984. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CITY OF t By: Title: s . Chairman l� Record ng Secretary I hereby find that the terms and provision of this Intergovern- mental Agreement are fully authorized under state and local law and that the agreement provides full legal authority for the County to undertake or assist in undertaking essential community development housing activities, specifically urban renewal and publicly assisted housing, County Counsel for Washington County, Oregon go 10m, t CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: August 20, 1984 AGENDA ITEM Vii`' �r DATE ;SUBMITTED: August lb, 1984PREVIOUS ACTION: Approved by Planning ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Puget Commission - August 7. 1984 Corporation - Appeal of Condition REQUESTED BY: for SDR 8-84 DEPARTMENT BEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: INFORMATION SUMMARY - - ThesPuget Corporation appealed conditions placed on SDR 8-84. The Planning Commission voted to allow relief from. three conditions including a- requirement improvements. The Council may wish to evaluate this to provide half street action in light of its policy of not accepting anon-remonstrance agreement in place of half street improvements. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Allow the Planning Commission actions to stand. 2. Review the Commission actions. SUGGESTED ACTION { MEMORANDUM CITY OF-TIGARD TO: Members of the City Council FROM: William A. Monahan, Director of Planning and Developmentf/ TATE: August 16 1984 SUBJECT: Puget Corporation - Appeal of Condition for SDR - 8-84 The Planning Commission on August 7, 1984, granted Puget Corporation crelief from a condition of development relative to half street improvements. The Commission voted to allow the filing of a non-remonstrance agreement for improvements to Bonita and 74th rather than requiring improvements at the time of development or' bonding. The Commission removed conditions , 2, and '3 shown below: 1. Standard half-street improvements ` including sidewalks, ''curbs, street lights, and driveway aprons shall be provided along the 74th Avenue and Bonita Road frontage. 2. Seven (7) sets of plan-profile public improvement construction plans and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate, stamped by a registered civil engineer, detailing all proposed public improvement shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Division for review. 3. Construction of proposed public improvements shall not commence until after the Engineering Division has issued approved public improvement plans (the Division will require posting of a 100% performance bond), the payment of a permit fee and a sign installation/streetlight deposit. Also, the execution of a street opening permit or construction compliance agreement shall occur prior to, or concurrently with the issuance of approval public improvement plans. The Council and Comprehensive Plan policies specified that upon development half street improvements must be provided. The Council should determine if this approval should be called up for review and discussion. A copy of the staff report from the August 7, meeting is attached containing the SDR approval and applicant justification for the relief. ( (0581P) 1. AGENDA ITEM 5. 1 August 7, 1984 14EMO TO: Planning Commission u FROM: Keith Liden, Planning Department ( RE: SDR 8-84 Puget Corporation On June 24 1984, the Planning Director; approved SDR 8-84 subject to conditions including additional right-of-way dedication and half-street improvements. The applicant objections to conditions one through four which require the dedication and improvements'. Enclosed is a copy of the Planning Department decision and the applicant's appeal letter. 1 y .. �: �-rte' MILLER, NASH.WIENER, HAGER& CARLSEN ATTORNEYS AND:COUNSELORS AT LAW III S. W. FIFTH AVENUE PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-3699 ROBERT S.MILLER J.FRANKLIN CABLE TELEPHONE(503)224.5858 THOMAS C.SAND P.CONOVE R.MICKIEWICZ _ FRANK E.:NABH RICHARD A.EDWARDS MICHAEL C.ARTHUR JOHATHONL.DOODLING NORMAN J.WIENER OA 10..MUNRO TELEX 364462 KINGMAR PTL. JOHN.A.LUSKY DAVID.W.HERCHER 0 VAL 0.HAGER JOHN R.BAKKENSEN STEVEN O.ROSEN :.LOUIS G.HENRY CLIFFORD N.CARLSEN,JR. LOUIS B.LIVING STON EVE RET,T R.MORELAND VALERIE VETTERICK JOHN W.MILL G.1000 NORVEIL JOHN F.NEUPERT HURT A.KRIEGER CURTIS W.CUTSFORTH PETER C.RICHTER MARY ANN FRANTZ JAME5 F OULCICH MAURICE O.GEORGES DONALD A.BURNS COUNSEL GO_ P.-BOURGEOIS WILLIAM H.WALTERS MARK C.MCCLANANAN RICHARD A.CANADAY JOHN W.OSBURN BRIAN B..00HERTY MARKA.ANDCRSON DONALD R.HOLMAN RICHARD A.CANTLIN KEVrI D.PA ORICK' MEUNOA S:.EDEN KENNETH W..HERGENHAN M.CH RISTIE HELMER JEF FR EY J.DRUCKMAN PAULA.PAVLICH WILLIAMB.CROW ..GRAHAM M.HICKS OF COUNSEL JA NETTE M.AALDREGT5E GREGORY A.CHAIMOV 'HARVEY C.BARRAGARDAVID C.CULPEPPER GRANT T.ANDERSON JEFFREY C.THERE MARGARET FIORINO 'F GERALD..FROEBE JAMES N.WESTWOOD FREDRIC A.YERKE JOHN.F.PURCELL LINDA I..MARSHALL CONRAD L.MOORE J.BARRETT MARKS REC EBLY W.WELLS TALMADGE DEAN D.DECHAINE DENNIS P.RAWLINSON DAVID.W.BROWN JEFFREY.D.AUSTIN "s R.ALAN WIGHT. DONNA N.CAMERON JEFFREY B.MILLNER ERICH W.MERRILL.JR'. DAVID W.MOR THLAND :.JOHN J.OZMOTT Tune 2(1 19 8 A O.CRAIG M.KKELS EH REBECCA S.WILSON DOUGLAS M.RAGEN BRUCE A.RUBIN LJ C.7 F 7 '3 - Ms. Lorraine Wilson Deputy City Recorder' 12755 :S.W.-'Ash Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 Subject: Appeal of Puget Corporation of Oregon from SDR 8-84 Dear Ms. Wilson: Enclosed is notice that Puget Corporation of Oregon ( "Puget" ) is appealing from decision SDR 8-84. We understand that there is no fee for filing this notice. Puget hopes to undertake and complete construction of the facilities that are the subject of its original application during the summer months. We therefore request that the Planning Commission hold a hearing on this matter as early as possible. Ver truly yours, ichard A. Edwards sil 9` m { NOTICE OF APPEAL OF PUGET CORPORATION OF OREGON Puget Corporation of Oregon ("Puget" ) hereby gives notice that it is appealing site development review decision SDR 8-84 ( "Decision" ) . The Decision was filed and notice 'given by the Director of Planning and Development ( "Director" ) on June 19, `1984. Puget is the party that filed the application to which the Decision is directed. Puget appeals' f rom the Decision on the grounds that - (1) no findings were made as to timeliness of street improvements or as to support by surrounding property owners for such improvements, ` (2) the improvements required by the Decision are unnecessary, and (3) satisfactory guaranties that improvements will be made when needed are available and should be accepted in lieu of present street improvements. 1. The Decision contains no findings that street improvement would be timely or that improvement would be supported by surrounding property owners. The Tigard Community Development Code ( "CDC" or "Code" ) imposes street improvement obligations on property a- owners planning a development. CDC § 18 .164 .030. Those obligations include the construction of standard half-street improvements and _dedication of rights-of--way. The Code contains an exception to the requirement that a property owner meet those obligations at the time development takes place. Immediate improvements need not be required if - 1 - _ c "the City Engineer determines that a required street improvement would not be timely, or [if ] lack of support by the other; property owners would prevent a complete , street improvement. " CDC § 18 .164.030.A.3. If ''a property owner requests that immediate compliance rds of the Code not with the improvement standa , be required, CDC § 18.164.030 .A. 3 thus suggests that findings should be �e made as to timeliness of and support for improvements. Without ible to determine whether the request such findings, it is imposs _ may be granted. Puget has requested that it be allowed to give a guaranty of future improvements in lieu of present improvements. Findingsas to timeliness and support therefore should have , been, but were not, set forth in the Decision. 2. Conditions 1 through 4 of the Decision require that Puget make unnecessary improvements. p-;r- CDC § 18. 164.030 clearly contemplates that street improvements should not be required when unnecessary. The Decision requires that Puget make improvements that are completely unnecessary g in light of the absence of any similar improvements in the area, the high probability that such improvements would not benefit anyone and the fact that no similar improvements will be made near Puget' s property in the foreseeable future. Curbs, gutters and lights are almost completely absent along both Bonita Road and 74th Avenue. Bonita Road extends approximately from Lake Oswego through Tigard. Along its entire length, there exist only about 125 feet of sidewalk. _ 2 E The roadway has curbs in only a 'very_ limited number of locations. : 74th Avenue is not flanked by sidewalks or curbs at any point. Additionally, street 'improvement in the form of widening Bonita Road or dedicating additional right-of-way IN would benefit no one. The bridge which carries Bonita Road across Fanno Creek near the west side of Puget's property M _ is narrower than the existing roadway. According to information available to Puget, there are no plans to widen this bridge.` Any widening seems extremely unlikely in light of the fact �' a that the bridge is the only one crossing Fanno Creek which meets existing construction standards. This bridge will therefore likely be the last of those bridges crossing the creek to w be widened. ' There is no sign that similar improvements, which 4: tr, might make improvements by ,Puget sensible, will soon be made in the area. The land across the street from Puget' s property is vacant, and there is no indication that it will soon be developed. Adjoining properties on both Bonita Road and 74th Avenue V contain no improved frontage. There are no sidewalks, curbs - or street lights near Puget's property, and the construction of such facilities in the foreseeable future is unlikely. WW h- C- Therefore, the improvements required by conditions .' 1 through 4 of the Decision are unnecessary. The burden of constructing those improvements should not be placed on Puget h at this time. 3 _ x Q 3. Satisfactory guaranties by Puget that future improvements will bemadewhen needed are available and should be acre ted 'in lieu of resent 'street im rovements. ' CDC S 18.164.030.A.3 provides that the City Engineer mai accept a guaranty of futureimprovements in lieu of ,present improvements. Puget is willing to give the City of Tigard a promise, agreement, or covenant running with the land that will provide such a guaranty. Puget' s offer should be accepted by the City in lieu of present street improvements. kk PUGET THEREFORE APPEALS from Decision SDR 8-84 on ` . the grounds stated herein and requests a hearing de novo by k the Planning Commission pursuant to CDC S 18.32.320.A. MILLER, NASH, WIENER, HAGER & CARLSEN fc ryRi hard A. Edwards John Osburn Attorneys for Puget Corporation of Oregon f. 4 NOTICE OF DECISION SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 8-84 APPLICATION: By P get Corporation for Site Development Review approval to expand an industrial " facility and to obtain Sensitive 'Lands Permit to_'allow excavation and fill ,in the 100-year 'floodplain. The property is zoned I-P (Industrial Park), 7440 SW Bonita, Tigard (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 12A, Tax Lot 800)= DECISION: Notice is hereby given that the Planning Director for the City of Tigard has APPROVED the above described application subject to certain . conditions. The findingsand conclusions .on which the Director based his< decision are as noted' below. A. FINDING OF FACT 1. Background A Site Development Review (SDR 17-73) was granted in 1973 which allowed the expansion of an existing building. A loading area was provided with a driveway onto :'74th Avenue. A parking area• and landscaping was also installed on the north and east side of the building. The applicant originally applied for a Sensitive Lands Permit (SL 4-84) to allow excavation and fill within the 100-year floodplain. However, after discussing the proposal further with the City Engineer, it was determined that the building expansion could occur without encroaching upon the Fanno Creek floodplain. As a result, the applicant withdrew the Sensitive Lands application (see June 13, 1984 letter from Derek Hogarth). 2. Vicinity Information The I-L (Light Industrial) zone applies to the north and east. The I-P (Industrial park) zone includes the property to the south. The only other industrial use in the immediate vicinity lies to the east. Apartment buildings zoned R-12 (Residential, 12 units/acre) are located on the western side of Fanno Creek. A 3. Site Information and Proposal Description The northeastern portion of the property is developed with an industrial building and the remainder is vacant. Fanno Creek and the 100-year floodplain occupy the western section of the parcel. The applicant is requesting approval for a 23,000 square foot addition to the existing industrial building. A supplemental 1,500 square feet of office space may be installed in conjunction with this project or at a later date. t NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 8-84 - PAGE l 4. Agency and NPO .Comments The EngineeringDivision has the following comments: a. An additional 5 feet of right-of-way should be required ' along the entire property frontage. Bonita Road is a collector route' and 74th' Avenue is a local street which require right-of-way widths from centerline of 30 and 25 { feet respectively. b. Half-street improvements including curbs and sidewalks which meet City standards should be required for the frontage for Bonita Road and '74th Avenue. s The Tualatin Rural Fire Protection District indicates the fire hydrants must be provided within 250 feet of all portions of the structure and automatic sprinkler protection or fire separation walls will be required. The NPO #5 Chairman met informally with the applicant and it was s mutually agreed that three or four additional willow trees should be added to the landscaping plan between the building and the apartments to the west. B. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION _ The reivsed site plan was submitted reflecting the sight-of-way dedication and half-street improvements noted above. The expansion is consistent with the use, setback, lot coverage, and height requirements of the I-P zone. The parking area with driveways onto Bonita Road is proposed to include a one-way drive with 24 parking stalls angled at 45 degrees on both sides. Six additional spaces are shown on the eastern side of the property. The applicant estimates that the largest shift will contain 30 people. The Code requires one parking space per employee for the largest shift and therefore the parking will be adequate. a A portion of the necessary landscaping was installed as required by the SDR 17-73 approval. Supplemental landscaping work is proposed along the . s and other north and west side of the new addition. The street treen plantings shown on the north side of the building conform with the Code requirements. The landscaping and screening chapter of the Code (18.100) requires development in an I-P zone to provide a 20-foot wide landscaped buffer area with screening when adjacent to an R-12 zone. The Fanno Creek floodplain will provide a natural buffer greater than 40 feet in width. A sight obscuring fence or hedge is required by the Code to fulfill the screening requirements. However, Section 18.100.080 A. 4. f. allows for alternative solutions to comply with the screening requirements. The amendment to the landscaping plan (to provide additional willow trees) suggested by the NPO and the applicant appears to be a suitable approach. NOTICE OF DECISION - SDR 8-84 - PAGE 2 { h ME t . C. DECISION ' - is approved subject to the following Site Development Review SDR 8-84 t, conditions: 1. Standard 'half-street improvements including sidewalks, curbs, F. street -lights, and driveway aprons shall be provided along the 74th Avenue and,Bonita Road frontage. 2. Seven: (7) sets of plan-profile public improvement construction plans ,and one (l) itemized 'construction cost estimate, stamped by a registered civil engineer, detailing all proposed public , improvement shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Division for review. N 3. Construction of proposed public improvements shall not commence a until after the 'Engineering'; Division has issued approved public improvement plans (the Division will require posting of a 100% , P e and a sign performance.. bond.), the payment :of a permit at _ fee installation/streetlight deposit. Also, the execution of a street : opening permit or construction compliance agreement shall occur ' prior to, or concurrently with the issuance of ,,approved public ° improvement plans. 4. A street right-of-way dedication of 30 feet from the Bonita Road „ centerline and a 25-foot right-of-way dedication from the 74th , Avenue centerline shall be provided. The 'description for said dedication shall be tied to the centerline as established by County Survey #20,593 and #20,387. In lieu of the additional " 5-foot right-of-way dedication along Bonita Road, a 25-foot right-of-way from centerline and a- S-`-oot wide public easement will be acceptable. The legal descriptions shall be approved by �! the Engineering Division and recorded with Washington County prior F. to issuance of building permits. 5. Prior to issuance of building permits, a revised landscaping site plan shall be submitted for Planning Director's approval showing a L minimum of three additional willow trees on the west side of the building located in such a manner as to prevent future problems with the USA sewer line. . 6. This approval shall be valid for the period of one year from the A , final approval date. . D. PROCEDURE 1. Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City �* Hall and mailed to: XX The applicant S owners XX Owners of record within the required distance 7: NOTICE OF DECISION - SDR 8-84 - PAGE 3 , ,a S _ XX The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization t xx Affected governmental agencies 2. Final Decision: THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON June 29, 1984 UNLESS AN APPEAL r IS FILED. 3. Appeal: Any party to the decision may `;appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.32.290(A) and Section 18.32.370 of the Community Development Code which provides that <`a written appeal may be filed within 10 daysafter notice is given and sent. The deadline for filing of an appeal is June 29, 1984 4. Questions: If` you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Department, Tigard City :Hall, 12755 SW Ash, PO Box 23397, Tigard,' Oregon 97223, 639-4171. William A. Monahan, Director of Planning & Development bATE APPROVED (KSL:pm/0480P) BOUITA SU BJEC� I �l NOTICE OF DECISION - SDR 8-84 PAGE 4 General Chain Bar Co. -- �. P.O. Box 23333 SDR 8-84 SL 4-84 Tigard, OR 97223 PUGET CORPORATION GRANUM P.O. Box 1530 Geotfrey Levear 7440 SW`Bonita Road Portland, OR 97207> Tigard, Oregon 97223 DAVIS/STARKWEATHER Puget Corporation 7415 SW Bonita Road George Lund 1 2101 So. Mildred Tigard, OR 97223 Tacoma, Washington 98466 g; i NPO # `5 Mercer Industries Debra Naubert P.O. Box 10166 14365 SW 80th Place Portland, OR 97210 Tigard, Oregon 97223 ' National Safety Co. BROWN/KITTLESON P.O. Box 23398 301 NW' MUKRAY ROAD Portland, OR 97229 Tigard, OR '97223 1, LICK/HARRINGTON HARRINGTON 922,1 SW Barbur Blvd. 7205 East Lake Court Portland, OR 97219 Wilsonville, OR 97070 1 Columbia Sunday School 7455 SW Bonita Road Tualatin, OR 97223 c. DOBSON 10205 SW Highland Dr. Tigard, OR 97223 LOUIS/KOEBER 9320 SW 74th Portland, OR 97223 TENNANT ".0. Box 1658 oxtland, OR. 97207