Loading...
City Council Packet - 09/10/1984 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on ar. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA agenda item needs to sign on the appropriate SET.T. 10, 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 of that agenda item. Visitor's agenda items 10865 SW WALNUT TIGARD, OREGON 97223 are asked to be kept to 2 minutes or less'connger matters can be set for a future Agenda by tacting either the Mayor or City Administrator. I. REGULAR 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 t 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (2 Minutes or Less, Please) 3. ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZCA 6-84 the A request by the City of Tigard to amend the following Sectio., of Community Development Code: 18.31.120 Notice of the Decision by the Director 18.108.060 Inadequate or Hazardous Access Process 18.136.020 Administration and App rovalo Open Public Hearing o Continue To October 5, 1984 4, ANNEXATION ZCA 11-84 ELTON C. 6 S. JEANNE PHILLIPS NPO i 6 A request for a resolution to the Boundary Commission recommending City of ard. Property will be R-1. Located at 52 acres 16565 SWt108t a (WCTM 2S1 15A, zoned 5A, lots 100 and 1102). o Open Public Hearing o Summation by Planning Staffonents Cross Examination o Public Testimony: Proponents, opponents, pp , t Recommendation of Planning o Public Hearing Closed t Consideration of Council o Resolution No. 84- 5, APPEAL OF SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 8-84A PUGET CORPORATION NPO N 5 A review of thePlg forSDRcommission 8-84AisioTheorproperty m is trance a zoned I P condition of approval (Industrial Park). Located: 7440 SW Bonita Rd. Tigard, (WCTm 2S: 12A, lot 800). o Summation by Planning Staff opponents, Cross Examination o Public Testimony: Proponents, o Consideration of Council 6. REVIEW FINAL ORDER, RESOLUTION NO. 84-59, TIGARD WEST o Planning Staff 7, CONSENT AGENDA: These items a:- considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without sepa*ate discussion. anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 7.1 Approve Council Minutes - August 27, 1984 7.2 Approve OLCC Application - Round Table Pizza, 11940 SW Pacific Hwy. Tigard, Or., New Partner Application (R) 7.3 Approve and Authorize Signatures: o Titan Properties Right-of-way Acceptance o Gallo'sVineyard Subd. Compliance Agreement & Performance Bond o Bingham Investment Co- Street Dedication )Iden[ N 54) 7.4 Approve Resolution No. 84-_j'L For Western Intl IDR Bonds 7.5 Approve NYU Appointments 7.6 Approve Resolution No. 84- Re: City Administrator Creek III on 7.7 Approve Resolution No. 84- g Maintenance 7.8 Approve Resolution No. 84-_�,L Placing Bond Park I on Maintenance 8, t:ON-AGENDA ITEMS: From Council and Staff ll 0 into 9. SessionVunder Sthe provisions eof ORS rd Y192 6601(1)i(h) gExecutive ECUTIE to discuss issues relating to pending litigation. 10. ADJOURNMENT lw/1938A COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 10, 1984 - PAGE 1 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 10, 1984 - 7:30 P.M. t s 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor John Cook; Councilors; Tom Brian, Kenneth Scheckla (arriving at 7:55 P.M...) and Ima Scott. City Staff: ° Doris Hartig, Deputy City Recorder; Bob Jean, City Administrator (arriving 8:05 P.M.); Bill Monahan, Director of Planning & Development; and Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel. 2. CALL TO STAFF AND COUNCIL FOR NON-AGENDA ITEMS: a. Mayor Cook noted Agenda Item 5 Appeal of Site Development Review - Puget Corporation would be set over to September 24, 1984 and that Agenda Item 7.6 was hand carried and Council should review before the Consent Agenda. 3. VISITOR'S AGENDA a. No one appeared to speak 4. ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZCA 6-84 A request by the City of Tigard to amend the following Sections of the Community Development Code: 18.31.120 Notice of the Decision by the Director 18.108.060 Inadequate or Hazardous Access 18.136.020 Administration and Approval Process a. Public Hearing Opened b. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Scott to continue to October 8, 1984. Motion approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 5. ANNEXATION ZCA 11-84 ELTON C. S S. JEANNE PHILLIPS NPO #f 6 A request for a resolution to the Boundary Commission recommending annexation of 4.52 acres to the City of Tigard. Property will be zoned R-1. Located at 16565 SW 108th (WCTM 2S1 15A, lots 110 and 1102). a. Public Hearing Opened o Director of Planning and Development summarized memo and noted there might be a problem with incorrect publishing as R-1 instead of R-2. He suggested Council act contingent upon verifying the sufficiency of the legal notice. If legal notice is found to be deficient item will be brought back at next available meeting. b. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o Elton Phillips, 16565 S.W. 108th, Tigard, applicant, recommended annexation CC. Public Hearing Closed o Planning Direction recommended adoption COUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 10, 1984 - PAGE 1 d. RESOLUTION No. 84-68 A RESOLUTION FURTHERING ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TIGARD OF THE TERRITORY AS OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT "A" AND DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED (Phillips) ZCA 11-84B e. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Scott to approve resolution, subject to verifying legal notice sufficiency and if not bring back at next available meeting. Motion approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 6. APPEAL OF SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 8-84A PUGET CORPORATION NPO # 5 A review of the Planning Commission decision for a nonremonstrance as a condition of approval for SDR 8-84A. The property is zoned I-P (Industrial Park). Located: 7440 3W Bonita Rd. Tigard, WCTM 2S1 12A, lot 800). a. Public Hearing Opened b. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Scott to table to September 24, 1984 Council meeting. Approves y unanimous vote of Council present. 7. CONSENT AGENDA: These items, are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Councilor Scott requested item 7.6 Approve Resolution N0. 84-67 Re. City Administrator be pulled for discussion. Motion to: 7.1 Approve Council Minutes - August 27, 1984 7.2 Approve OLCC Application - Round Table Pizza, 11940 SW Pacific Hwy., Tigard, OR..., New Partner Application (R) 7.3 Approve and Authorize Signatures: o Titan Properties Right-of-way Acceptance o Gallo's Vineyard Sub . Compliance Agreement 6 Performance Bond o Bingham Investment Co. Street Dedication (Identification #54) 7.4 RESOLUTION No. 84-64 A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ENDORSING WESTERN INTERNATIONAL PROPERTIES APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL FROM THE STATE OF OREGON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO ISSUE INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BONDS 7.5 Approve NPO appointments Sandra Leihn 14875 SW 103rd NPO #2 Naida James 15100 SW 119th NPO #3 COUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 10, 1984 - PAGE 2 7.6 RESOLUTION NO. 84-65 RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTED WITHIN COPPER CREEK III SUBDIVISION, SUBJECT TO HEREIN SPECIFIED CONDITIONS 7.7 RESOLUTION NO. 84-66 RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTED WITHIN POND PARK I SUBDIVISION, SUBJECT TO HEREIN SPECIFIED CONDITIONS a. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconc:ed by Councilor Scott to adopted Consent Agenda and delete item 7.6 Res. 84-67 City Administrator. Motion approved by unanimous vote of Council present. COUNCILOR SCHECKLA ARRIVED 7:55 P.M. 8. REVIEW FINAL ORDER, RESOLUTION 84-59, TIGARD WEST a. City Attorney noted the petition for review does not apply in this instance, however Council has the authority to hear the matter if it wishes to do so. o Council discussed whether to review the matter and consensus was the applicant had been given a fair treatment and agreed with the findings adopted August 20, 1984. There was no motion for review f and the matter was concluded. ( o J.B. Bishop, Suite 303, 10505 SW. Barbur Blvd, Portland, Or. noted he had signed up under the Visitor's Agenda under agenda item #6 and requested an opportunity to speak. Council considered and allowed 2 minutes. Mr. Bishop testified he had responses to the City minutes and hopes the Council will give the item a fair and open hearing. He further stated he will appeal to LUBA. o Dennis Owens, 10745 S.W. Fairhaven Way, Tigard, Or. representing "Save Our Neighborhood Committee" wanted to verify that Council had received Attorney Cox's letter regarding this item. 9. NON-AGENDA ITEMS: 9.1 RESOLUTION 84-67 A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL PROVIDING FOR AN ANNUAL UPDATE AND AMENDMENT TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND ROBERT W. JEAN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR a. Councilor Scott commented she did not feel the city should have a contract with the City Administrator and requested Council to review the contract. Council and City Attorney discussed terms of the contract. Councilor Scott requested item be discussed when full Council is present. City Attorney to review and report back on issues COUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 10, 1984 - PAGE 3 b. Motion by Councilor Scott, seconded by Councilor Scheckla to table to earliest date possible when it can be reviewed by full Council Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 9.2 TRAFFIC PROBLEM TIGARD HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL GAMES a. Oouncilor Scheckla requested the Police direct traffic at the 3 # future foot ball games at the High School. Staff to give report on arrangements. 9.3 Councilor Scheckla noted City Hall is closed at 4:30 P.M. and wanted to be sure all citizens receive fair treatment. The use of employee side door entrances by the public is to be discouraged 9.4 Councilor Scott referred letter from citizen regarding timing of traffic signals on 99W to Director of Public Works. Staff to respond to letter. 9.5 Councilor Scott in response to complaint by Bev's Secretarial Service, requested copy of revised business tax form. 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION 8:26 P.M. Council went into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1)(h) tc discuss issues relating to pending litigation 11. ADJOURNMENT 9:15 P.M. Deputy City Recorder ATTEST: City of Tigard dh 1961A) OOUNCIL MINUTES — SEPTEMBER 10, 1984 — PAGE 4 TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY Legh 7-61o8 P.O.BOX 370 PHONE(503)684-0360 Notice BEAVERTON,OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising • CITY OF TIGARD • ❑ Tearsheet Notice P .O . BOX 23397 0 TIGARD, OR 97223 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss. I, Susan Pinkley being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of the Tigard Times a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published At Tigard in the aforesaid county and state; th t the Cid Council Regu� ar Meeting 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: Sept . 6 , 1984 Subscribed and rn to before me th' S t 5 , 1984 Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expi 3-16-87 AFFIDAVIT AA A F - "11Ai Nwin . IdltatefJoo t lrl► li i11 CNy Isow,der. fi N: TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY P.O. BOX 370Legal 7-6103 PHONE(503)884-0360 Notice BEAVERTON.OREGON 97075 RECEIVFp Legal Notice Advertising *CITY OF TIGARD � j•y�'Q • 0 Tearsheet Notice (;�� P 0 BOX 23397 OF TIC4Ra •TIC.;RD, OR 97223 • 0 Duplicate Affidavit AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss. 1, Susan Pinkley being first duly sworn, depose and say that 1 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- aforesaid in the aforesaid county and stathat the Public Hearing l�otice 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: Aug. 30, 1984 Subscribed a rn to before me is 30 , 19 8 4 Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expi 3_16-87 AFFIDAVIT h rti ^r Caw Ai" aw Da te__ 9/10/84 VISITO R'S AGENDA - ITE24 # 2 I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print your name) f Item Descriptio :dame , Address & Affiliation DATE 9/10/84 C I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please Print your name) ITEM DESCRIPTION: AGENDA ITEM It 3 ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ACA 6-84 PROPONENT (For) OPPONENT (against) Name Address a d Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation l DATE Sept. 10,1984 I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: . (Please Print your name) ITEM DESCRIPTION: AGENDA TTE� # 4 ANNEXATION ZCA 11-84 ELTON lr�c� � �m• PHTT.T.TP4 PROPONENT (For) OPPONENT (against) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation DATE Sept. 10. 1984 C wish to testify before the Tigard City Council [ on the following item: (Please Print your name) ITEM DESCRIPTION: jig; APPEAL OF SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR n cin vr= (nRP0RATTn r rvn #3 PROPONENT (For) OPPONENT (against) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation h i 1 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: September 10, 1984 AGENDA ITEM #: DATE SUBMITTED: _September 6, 1984 PREVIOUS ACTION: — ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Zone Ordinance Amendment ZCA 6-84 PREPARED BY: REQUESTED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: _ li�— CITY ADMINISTRATOR: INFORMATION SUMMARY ZCA 6-84 relates to housekeeping revisions which the staff is suggesting be made to the Community Development Code. These items were postponed from the Planning Commission meeting of September 4 until October 2, 1984. As a result, the Council should open the public hearing and then continue the hearing to October 8, 1984, to allow Planning Commission input. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Open the public hearing and continue to October 8, 1984. SUGGESTED ACTION The Council should open the public hearing and continue it to October 8, 1984. (WAM:pm/0618P) CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY i AGENDA OF: September 10 1984 AGENDA ITEM #: DATE SUBMITTED: August 31, 1984 PREVIOUS ACTION: None — ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Phillips Annexation REQUESTED BY: Recommendation of _ Planning Commission DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: INFORMATION SUMMARY On August 7, 1984, the City of Tiqard Planning Commission, unanimously by those present, voted to recommend to the City Council that the Council approve a resolution forwarding the Phillips Annexation request to the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission. At the same time, the Commission voted to assign the R-2 zoning designation to the property in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. The R-2 zoning designation will be effective upon Boundary Commission approval of the annexation. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Act-.apt the Planning Commission's recommendation. 2. Reject the Planning Commission's recommendation. SUGGESTED ACTION Accept the Planning Commission's recommendation and adopt the attached resolution. (EAN:pm/0614P) i TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - AUGUST 7, 1984 t Vice President Owens called the meeting to order at 7:38 P.M• The meeting 1' tic School District - Board Room - 13137 SW Pacific Hwy- was held at the Tigard PRESENT: Vice President Owens; Commissioners Fy re Butler, 2• ROLL CALL: Bergmann and Peterson. Vanderwood, ' ABSENT: President Moen; Commissioner Leverett. A. f Planning and Development STAFF: Director oWilliam and Mona'.an; Associate P1Keith Secretary Diane M. Jelderks. EliLabeth A. Newton; 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM .JULY 24, 1984 mann moved and Commissioner Fyre seconded to approve o Commissioner Berg Motion carried unanimously by Commissioner the minutes as submitted. present. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 APPEAL OF SDR 8-84A PUGET CORPORATION NPO # 5 .,tn� Director's conditions one through four An appeal of the Plar_ b improvements for approval of which require dedication and half-street imp R the Site Development Review. o Associate Planner Liden reviewed the Director's decision and conditions that were being appealed. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION: o John Osborn, Attorney for the Puget Corporation requested that street time due improvements not be required at this to the economic factor. to o Derek Hogarth, 7440 SW Bonita, Operations Manager for Puget Corporation read and submitted a letter into the record offering et sign and record a nonremonstrance agreement for the street improvements. suported the nonremonsstsaae nc o Jeff Levear, President-General �rugect was being financed by agreement and explained how the p j Economic Bond for 20 years. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o No one appeared to speak. CROSS EXAMINATION AND REBUTTAL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 7, 1984 PAGE 1 The sanitary d storm em 5• homeowners e association n except for the shall b mainsewer ntline dserving the project. 6. All sewer laterals serving more than one unit will require a joint maintenance agreement to be approved by the Engineering Division and recorded with the plat. 7. The storm and sanitary manholes at the north end of 114th Avenue shall be encompassed by public easements. 8. The on-site drainage ditch(s) shall be constructed to provide for ease of maintenance (wide 6 shallow, grass lined) and public safety. 9. The detailed plan shall be submitted for the Planning Director's approval prior to issuance of building permits. Said plan shall include the following modifications: a. Revised landscaping plan which is consistexit with the Visual Clearance Chapter 18.102 of the Code. b. Buildings shall be relocated to meet the setback provisions of the R-20 zone. 10. Applicant will work with the NPO to address concerns for the location of the swimming pool and the 100 foot buffering strip. Applicant will work with Engineering staff to see if an alternative for the cul-de-sac is possible. 11. The project may be developed in phases for up to seven years from the date of detailed approval. A new application shall be required after seven years have passed. Also the additional phases are to be postponed until the September 4, 1984, Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present. 5.3 ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA 11-84 ELTON PHILLIPS NPO # 6 Req.iest for recommendation to the City Council annexation of 4.5 acres into the City of Tigard and a Zone Change on the property from Washington County RS- to City of Tigard R-2. o Associate Planner Newton made staff's recommendation to forward the annexation to City Council and approve tae Zone Change. Discussion followed regarding the zoning being requested. PLICANT'S PRESENTATION d he was not roposing o construction at this time.5 SW 108th, twouldtbeeinstalling sewer pany Elton Phillips service. c PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 7, 1984 PAGE 5 PUBLIC TESTIMONY o No one appeared to speak. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION o Commissioner Bergmann moved and Commissioner Fyre seconded to forward the annexation request to City Cs•:.ncil with recommendation of approval and approve with the zone change from Washington County RS 1 to City of Tigard R-2 upon approval of the ^^vexation by the Boundary Commission, based on staff's findings and the following conditions. 1. The annexation proposal shall be reviewed and approved by the Tigard Police Department. 2. All future development on the property shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Tigard. Motion carried unanimously by Commissioner present. 6. Other Business o Tigard West final order held over to August 22, 1984. ` o Sandlewood Park final order Commissioner Bergmann moved and Commissioner Peterson seconded to approve the final order as submitted by staff. Motion carried by majority of Commissioners present. Commissioner Vanderwood abstaining. 7. Meeting adjourned 10:20 PM Workshop followed until 11:15 PM. Diane M. Jelderks, Secretary ATTEST: Bonnie Owens, Vice-President 0598P PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 7, 1984 PAGE 6 STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 5.3 AUGUST 7, 1984 - 7:30 P.M. 13137 SW PACIFIC HIGHWAY TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION TIGARD SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION BLDG. A. FINDING OF FACT 1. General Information CASE: Zone Change and Annexation ZCA 11-84 NPO #6 REQUEST: For consideration and recommendation to the City Council on annexation of 4.5 acres into the City of Tigard and a Zone Change on the property from Washington County RS-1 to City of Tigard R-2. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential ZONING DESIGNATION: Washington County RS-1 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning staff recommends approval of the annexation request with R-1 zoning designation. APPLICANT: Elton Phillips OWNER: same 16565 SW 108th Tigard, Oregon 97223 LOCATION: 16565 SW 108th (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 15A Tax Lots 1100 & 1102) . LOT AREA: 4.5 acres NPO COMMENT: No written comments had been received from NPO #6 at the writing of this report. 2. Background No previous land use actions have been taken by the City on this parcel. 3. Vicinity Information ' The property involved in this request is surrounded by large lot homesites. 4. Site Information There is a single family residence on the property which the applicant lives in with his family. There is an out building in the northeast corner which is used as a work shop. There are several large fir trees around the house and work shop and some seedling fir trees planted south of the house. The property slopes to the southwest toward a drainage swale. There are large firs and alders along the drainage area. STAFF REPORT - ZCA 11-84 - PAGE 1 5. Agency Comments No agency comcsents had been received at the writing of this report. B. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION Mr. Phillips has requestei annexation into the City to obtain sewer service. Mr. Phillips would like to increase lot 1100 from 1.61 acres to 2.27 acres and divide this equally into two lots. He is also proposing to improve the roadway and build one house on each lot. In the future, Mr. Phillips would like to develop the property into 10,000-20,000 square foot lots. In addition, Mr. Phillips would like to obtain sewer service for the property. The City has adopted policies relative to annexation and extension of City services outside the City limits. The following policies apply to this annexation request: 10.1.1 PRIOR TO ANNEXATION OF LAND TO THE CITY OF TIGARD: a. THE CITY SHALL REVIEW EACH OF THE FOLLOW' SERVICES AS TO ADEQUATE CAPACITY, OR SUCH SERVICE: BE MADE AVAILABLE, TO SERVE THE PARCEL IF DEVELOPED TO THE MOST INTENSE USE ALLOWED*, AND WILL NOT SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE THE LEVEL OF SERVICES AVAILABLE TO DEVELOPED AND UNDEVELOPED LAND WITHIN THE CITY OF TIGARD. THE SERVICES ARE: 1. WATER; 2. SEWER; 3. DRAINAGE; 4. STREETS; 5. POLICE; AND 6. FIRE PROTECTION *Most intense use allowed by the conditions of approval, the zone or the Comprehensive Plan. 10.1.2 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED ANNEXATIONS OF LAND BY THE CITY SHALL BE BASED ON FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE FOLLOWING: a. THE ANNEXATION ELIMINATES AN EXISTING "POCKET" OR "ISLAND" OF UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY; OR b. THE ANNEXATION WILL NOT CREATE AN IRREGULAR BOUNDARY THAT MAKES IT DIFFICULT FOR THE POLICE IN AN EMERGENCY SITUATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PARCEL IS WITHIN OR ( OUTSIDE THE CITY; STAFF REPORT — ZCA 11-84 — PAGE 2 c. THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS COMMENTED UPON THE f " ANNEXATION; d. THE LAND IS LOCATED WITHIN THE TIGARD URBAN PLANNING AREA AND IS CONTIGUOUS TO THE CITY BOUNDARY; e. THE ANNEXATION CAN BE ACCOMMODATED BY THE SERVICES LISTED IN 10.1. 1(a). 10.2.1 THE CITY SHALL NOT APPROVE THE EXTENSION OF CITY OR UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY (USA) LINES EXCEPT: a. WHERE APPLICATIONS FOR ANNEXATION FOR THOSE PROPERTIES HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE CITY; OR b. WHERE A NONREMONSTRANCE AGREEMENT TO ANNEX THOSE PROPERTIES HAS BEEN SIGNED AND RECORDED WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY AND SUBMITTED TO THE CITY; OR C. WHERE THE APPLICABLE STATE OR COUNTY HEALTH AGENCY HAS DECLARED THAT THERE IS A POTENTIAL OR IMMINENT HEALTH HAZARD. 10.2.2 IN ADDITION TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF POLICY 10.2.1, THE EXTENSION OF SEWER LINES OUTSIDE OF THE CITY LIMITS SHALL NOT REDUCE THE CAPACITY BELOW THE REQUIRED LEVEL FOR AREA WITHIN THE CITY. The property is presently served by the Tigard Water District by an 8" water main. The property drains to the southwest into the 108th/113th ravine. The Tualatin Rural Fire Protection District serves the property. There is a fire hydrant within 300 feet of the property. The City of Tigard Police Department should not be adversely affected by the annexation of the property since there is only one home on the site with plans for only one additional unit in the near future. 108th Avenue has been annexed into the City, however, it is still under the jurisdiction of Washington County. 108th Avenue is designated as a local street under the City's Comprehensive Plan. The standard right-of-way width for local streets required by the City's Comprehensive Plan is 50 feet, 25 feet from centerline. Currently, the right-of--way on SW 108th is 40 feet. The applicant stated in his application for annexation that he would like to develop the property sometime in the future into 10,000-20,000 square foot lots. The present County zoning on the property is RS-1 which allow one unit per acre. On April 30, 1984, the City Council passed an or.iinance relating to zoning designations on newly annexed parcels. The policy is as follows: "10.1.3 Upon annexation of land into the City which carries a Washington County zoning designation, the City of Tigard shall assign the City of Tigard zoning district designation which most closely conforms to the County zoning ( designation." STAFF REPORT - ZCA 11-84 - PAGE 3 The City zoning designation which most closely corresponds to the County RS-1 zoning is R-1 which is single family, one unit per acre, with a minimum lot size of 30,000 square feet. The subject property is designated as a developing area on the Established/Developing areas map which is a part of the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. The standards for approval for annexation into the City of Tigard are set forth in Section 18.136.030 of the Community Development Code as follows: A. The decision to approve, approve with modifications or deny an application to annex property to the City shall be based on the following criteria: 1. All services and facilities are available to the area and have sufficient capacity to provide service for the proposed annexation area; and 2. The applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and implementing ordinance provisions have been satisfied. B. The plan designation and the zoning designation placed on the property shall be the City's zoning district which most closely implements the City's or County's Comprehensive Plan map designation. C. The determination of whether the property is an Established Area or a Developing Area will be based on the standards contained in 18.138. All services and facilities are available to the site and have sufficient capacity to provide service as discussed on page 3 of this staff report. The applicable Plan policies pertinent to this application are discussed on pages 2 - 4 of this staff report. Staff is recommending, the City's R-1 zoning designation which most closely conforms tG ;,he County's RS-1 designation. As stated above, the property is designated as a developing area on the City's Established and Developing Areas map. C. RECOMMIENDATION The Planning staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the annexation request to the Tigard City Council and approve the zone change to R-1 subject to annexation of the property based on the following findings: 1. The applicant's request conforms to applicable Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, 11 and 14. 2. The applicant's proposal conforms to applicable City of Tigard Plan policies 1.1.1, 2.1.1, 3.4.1, 6.4.1, 10.1.1, 10.1.2, and 10.2.1. STAFF REPORT - ZCA 11-84 - PAGE 4 3. The applicant's proposal conforms to applicable sections of the Tigard Community Development Code: 18.136.030 ind 18.38.030. D, CONOITIONS the following conditions be attached to approval Staff recommends that of ZCA 11-84. 1. The annexation proposal shall be reviewed and approved by the Tigard Police Department. 2. All future development on the property shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Tigard. ����403B PRO ED BY: William A. Monahan PREPAR : Elizabet �. Ne�wton pirector of Planning 6 Associate Planner Development (EAN:pm/0558P) 1 STAFF REPORT - ZCA 11-84 - PAGE 5 �f �- � l � S �e �5mmTnli F*ilrn _ 11 P3►gr9a'a�a�rla air8a3c :1r efo eta t1t tII t1t �� r R m t1ar t!r IJjT �17 ifi t�_I. 5 . _�_ NOTE: IF THIS MICROFILMED __!1. ___._.._12 DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN '� THIS NOTICE. IT IS DUE TO � THE QUALITY OF TF€ ORIGINAL '.. DRAWING_ _ ,I OE BZ 8Z LZ t3Z SZ vz 6Z ZZ IZ OZ 6t BO LI 91 SI' 41 'BI Zi t1—0! 6 B ( ._ 9taus. F we+r°ndaur�aulm+�uuha�eur�u�rrm1 1 u�Uli�liBtllnl -- I MARCR 199 f ...._ f — ------------------- I uj CULTIVATED / \ FI E L D 1 BER i3o )13 x L Tot o I PATR U 1i1 �— X157.8 �,fiELD X'.3 rl1 ❑ —x © .� / 154.0 X BRUSH _ 0 , XI4A5 _ X BRUSH •,n• E�J9 --- x120.2 AIL IN P { BRUSHP asp /60 f © Q _ 160 D 0 z � s I 1/ f / -- '.^:.. ...:....: .i'4:.:.'ac{ 5'"" .:... .i r.A>. ._=_^-mN ..�...�r- t� 'A^.h+r a....... .n•r.n .. .. -, ••..t-.._-. �.`jillal'I�II.III(Ii111rilyrf-ITTi� 1111111IppflIgrl.q��9I1_�-1mpj�IIII�Tjll11111lrp(IIIBIII�Ijl11(III�III�I111111l1lajal if r°l�1' fill!I'f 1►!ll.I11'f°.idl° '(IIa�lia+ailjlll�lla�lla'liljFll i_ y NOTE: IF'THIS MICROFILMED � .—.---1. 3 _ J _ 7 $ g !] DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL -- -- - __ DRAWING. - LAE 6Z 9Z LZ 9Z SZ YZ EZ ZZ IZ OZ 6t 81 LI 91 �5��--bl - EI ZI 11 01 6 8. 1-� �._ -S._._....ti - S -2 Imo• e .nl�wlbul�uallaul�mlhal�am9nealpl• i W�Iwiuo Mum AIR(43 A E 7 ' � 190 r� Anda �I . ... !�rlilJ.►i°1liP;Il1'1ir11i111�ir1 l(li1;1.1;Bila) 0Irljljl jTpmwpfrpl,ljFl ITITIFT9I.rlI!;_11,11 pli'11 `T131i1 t;r�lr"1 Irtllri 1 P�IrY Irlllll 11111 I I 1 til lil lith 111i111�ry-11111; NOTE: IF THIS MICROFILMED 3 4 -- - _ cJ DRAMIN^i IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TOMW THE QUALITY OF TIE ORIGINAL '. 0 - DRAWING. _ o� sz ez t11z >�aaz sz-ez _-ez zzia oz si BI—LI - 91 Sf'�-bl 6!__ZI (l�01 s 8 1 --9-- 5 ___� __. e .Z Bim'• 1 e' - rr 11111HIUt11_fMitll ,_ ,>ur�rr�a11. tlN1111111N1l�IIIIt1111irIN� � ._ o CH �p�� r.' 199 '�Pt�E Zo cit- / ,,O:vS .GOA' /I,�o•�-LeT /�0 Z � /*� Fc, T'a?� Jul�N� 1 Z9 {— 467° 1 f s. o • 347 Q �ID� r_ Pl F a 80 . ° ® . s LND r �A •®° ,• _ 183•� -- � 2, ° • ' -;!� h lb • 5�$, 7G S 6Q F'T �2.SGt .rs) ca • o 4 o JVD 0 ® � y A O e a � • i s V W — o 0 —9 0 P y C • t14 _I 0 •�` o t 6 ' � t r � d o e ®.• • Axl' rN Q el*��J e4D • •® • t•� IRS 0 S_wEgd 347 � �d.F Lh TIw/ f1 ays{I s .ter aF a Y — \L oT 30 pnna�ls TRoM LoT2grJ-c'7-3o SEs CG"i/,Artt", '4V S:G, IS- (,vi 11c w 13 oa%C F^ �,� wA s A. G-ry., ��`' 8*-�f -L % I j 1 �aflla!►�tgi91yany111y1 tg,l°gt aga{tia.ala{lia'1lIJIP 11 m Iia Ir ayT R agl ►Ii ,11 r!i t( mill t f I � ._.. .) 3 l �. S { � � � Jill {IglB°gt{t10�t1�1-1itltl°Ilic�tlyllt lir(Rt�tlt(Iil t1yNr{ttil4u, ., NOTE: IF THIS MICROFILMED _ _ - 9 !! i2 DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN - THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL ' DRAWING. OE &Z BZ - LZ 92 SZ 4Z EZ ZZ IZ OZ 61 91 LI 91 Sf' 41 EI -ZI 11- OF` 6 ®_ ` 9__ S ___.b c -2 'awra. ikNt�1tI111111�1111111gI111liiHi�N�lli�l� . _ 1 _ _ _ )i111�y1f1111 1 e' -" M AIR C il'i"r 7 990---1------------- k v !'1U\I.l liC F01) 11 a h BO UN1):1111 (:11:\X01 DA*1:11 tiIif 1:1 1 _ FXISfING. co,an-TIONS I,N .W—'.A R) B1. r\tiXliXiil> A. land Area: Acres __4_52 _ or tiyuare Miles B. General description of territory. topol;raphic features such as slopes, vegetation, drainage basins, floodplain areas, whicil are pertinent to this proposal) . ---.SEE-ATTACHIED-EX114BITS '-'A"#. il$u, AND RICH-. -- - - ----- C. Describe land uses on surrowuiil parcels. use tax lots as reference points. North: TAY LOT - 110.1 RES LDENTIAL---2.29--AC. --- ------- — South: ------------- ----- South: TAX LOT - 600 OPEN FIELD - 3.89 Ac. ( IVCSt:_ TAY I0T 21nn nPFN FTI=T_n_�__31b9-AC. D. Fristing Land Use: Nim►ber of single fermi ly Lin its-1 Number of multi-fainily units 0 Number commercial structures _ O___ Number industrial structures 0 Public facilities or other uses A. Wbat is the current use of the land prOPOSCII to he ;Inncxed: RFS DEmTIAL-� STNGT E FAMILY--. - - - E. Total currcnt year Assessed Palliation $ 139,900- 1=. 'Total existing population-2 ---_- -__ _ — _ _ .. __ A 11. RFASON FOR BOUNDARY CHANGE A. ORS 199.462 of the Boundary Comrission Act states: "When reviewing a boundary change, a boundary commission shall consider economic, demographic, and socio- logical projections pertinent to the proposal , and past and prospective physical developments of land that would directly or indirectly be affected by the pro- posed boundary change." Considering these points, please provide the reasons the proposed boundary change should he made. Please he very specific. U5&'. additional 12agess if ac.Q� - cThis infornrntion is often quoted in the Staff Report, so be thorough and complete) --- SEE EXHIBIT "D•' -- - ---- - - --- B. I f the property to he served Is Viet i i-C 1V or suhstallt ►a 1 ly undeveloped, what are the plans for future development? lie specific. Describe type (residential, industrial , commercial , etc. ) , density, etc. r -- -- - - - _Fl1T1�0USE URE - SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPOSED -- III. LAND 11SE ADD PIANNING A. Is the subject territory to he developed at this time? — 13. Generally describe the anticipated &-velopment (bur ](11111; types, facilities, nwnber of units). INCREASE. LOT #1100 FROM 1.61_AC. TO-2.27 AC_and_divide_equally into 2 LOTS, IMPROVE ROAD MAY AND BUILD-ONE HOUSE ON EACH LOT. C. If no development is planned at this time, will approval of this proposal increase the development potential of the property? _ If- so, please indicate in terms of allowable uses, number of D. Does the proposed development comply with applicable regional, county or city Ccomprehensive plans? Please describe. YES -- AS REQUIRED BY CITY OF TIGARD. E. What is the zoning on the territory to he served? PRESENT IS WASHINGTON COUN4- 115-1 40,000 SQ. FT PER IAT F. Please indicate all permits and/or approvals from a City, County, or Regional Government which will be needed for the proposed development. If already granted, please indicate date of approval and identifying number: Approval Iro'ect File # Date of Approval Future Requirement Metro UGB Amendment City or County Plan Amendment — - - --- - -- - -- --- Pre-Application Hearing (City or County) Zone Change (City or County) XX Preliminary Subdivision Approval--- XX -- ----- ----- - Final Plat Approval ------- -- --- -- ------ Land Partition --- -- - - - - - --- - - Conditional Use -- - V.11-i;ulcr ---- - - Suh-SM-faCC selvage Disposal -- -- — B111 I d►n!; --- !'lease submit cop►cs of pru�ec'c!►nl;� rrl:it ►nt; to :ury of the c►hcwc pe Ili or approvals which arc pc rtincnt to the annrxation. •' G. Can the proposed development ht, accomplished under current county zoning. 1 t,', XX- Ni) - I f No,---has a zone ch;irigc hm ren sought frothr coiulty e•i ther formally or informally. Yes XX_ _ -- No- -_ Please describe outro►1x' of :'•oirc' change request ►f answer to previous question was Yes. To-CIT*--OF-TIGARD-;C- RRGPOS B- -S-INGF-ANN�AT-IAI� ___---- ---- ---CITY _0_F TIGA_RD -- - - H. Is the proposed developnent with tilt, citv's comprehensive land use plan for the area'? Yes_�� NO__----- [✓ity has no flan for the arca_-- --- ------ with any as the proposcdc�deve,opment ►been,iicicc►ssed either fon�►lly or informally of the following City planning; Staff XX City Planning Commision--_ -- ----_-_- (:ity Manager _ City Council ___--_ _ -- - ersons or Please describe the reaction to the proposed development from the p agencies indicated above. _ — ��neTTT ►C --- ts in the area of the annexa- I. If a city and/or county- sanctioned citizens' group exis tion, please list its n.3me and the name and address of a contact person. IV. SERVICES AND UTILITIES A. If the reason for the annexation is to r1)tection,cetc` ,mpleaseaindi ateservicethc water service, seweragsuch as e service, fire p following 1. Proximity of facilities (stick as water mains, sewer laterals, storm drains, etc. P1eaSe to the territory `to lain iclhtrh-im Rd r500'nf ru►ntr.►stccdgcnof f territory)S-- or exarnhle: 8" watt, m. are and whether in fact these facilities will be indicate whose facilities they long to the ones actually providing service to the :irc:r. If the facilities will provide an governmental entity, explain the agreement by which they P the service and what the city's policy is on subsequent withdrawal and/or com- pensation to the other unit• c�rriTf'I'1 ounaRA'i'N �•�-•-------►— SEWER APPROVAL 2. SFI'fER MAN HOLE NEAR �Vl CORNER OF PROPERTY (L)T R1100). _ LF.'ITEZ'I'1'EZ FROM 11NIFIED SEWER AGENCY -FOR CONNECTION ATTACHED. N TUALA_7'IN RURAL FIRE.DISTRICT_ _(FIRE_-HYDR�T_ 1�fITTIT —_ 3� FIRE PR T2'ES�T I4N- — 300' OF PROPERTY) - --- -- '. Ilte t ime at which .erA it :ui hr r :i uirihly provided by the city or district. -WITHIN. -_ 45_QAY$ n�_APPLICATION.. 3. the estimated cost of extending such facilities and/or services and what is to he thc• method of financing. (Attach any supporting documents.) WATER COST - 51000 PLU�SHOOK-UP. FINANCING - CASH. -----SEWER-COSf--'-MW-- u 000-44AJS-HOOK CASH. 4. Availability of the desired service frcm any other unit of local govern- ment. (Please indicate the government. ) R. if the territory dt•;crihed in the proposal is presently included within the boundaries of any of the following types cif governmental units, please so indicate by stating the name or names of the governmental units involved: City Rural Dire Dist. T11ALATTN County Service Dist.WASH. CTY Sanitary District UNIFIED SEWER AGENCY Ilwy. Lighting Dist. _ __ lt'atet• District TIGARD Grade School Disi . 23J Drainalc• District. 7 Iligh School Dist. 23J__, _ Diking District 7 Park t; Rec. Dist. 7 C. If any of the above units are presently servicing the territory (for instance, are residences in the territory hooked up to a public sewer or water system) , please so describe. ALL PROPERTIES ADJOINING LOTS 1100 and 1102 ARE ON TIGARD NAT DIS CT_ LINF.S. LOT 1102 HAS 500' ARTESIAN WELL. APPLI(ANT'S WIE ELTON C. PHILLIPS MAILING ADDRESS 16S6S S.W. 108TH AVE. TIGARD, OR. 97224 'I'1:LE11K)NI: NUMBER RETIRED (SOS}b39�9218---- (Res.) RFI'RIiSG!v H NG: DATE: t STATEMENT OF SEWER SERVICE AVAILABILITY This statement is supplied at the request of Elton Phillips dated 7/5/84 A copy of the request is attached. The property here- inafter referred to is the property described in the request. 1. The Unified Sewerage Agency has authority to and will supply sanitary sewer service to the property subject to compliance by the property owner, his agents and employees with all applicable rules, regulations and laws related to sanitary sewer service. If construction of sewer lines other than those designated for public con- struction on the Washington County Master Plan for Sewerage Works is necessary, such construction will be the responsibility of the property owner except to the extent that the Agency may agree to participate in the cost. 2. Treatment plant capacity adequate for the proposed use of the property (is) Q MMM presently available and (will) (4MAY40 be available during a period of one year following the date of this statement. If adequate capacity is not and/or will not during the ensuing year be available, future capacity is projected as follows: 3. A sanitary sewer line(s) adequate for the proposed use (is) ()(4(X%q(K) avail- able to the property. If the property is in a city that has immediate control of local collection sewer lines, no line information is available from the Agency. If an adequate sanitary sewer line(s) is not available, the nearest adequate line is from the property. The property can be served in the following manner: By connection to the manhole at Vie southwest corner of this lot or by construction of public sewer from this manhole. 4. The property OW (is not) presently connected to a public sewer. 5. Additional remarks: A facilities development fee of $4,000.00 will be due if public line is not constructed (Public line to be constructed) The foregoing statement is furnished to the person requesting it with the under- standing of the said person that it is based in part on ESTIMATES AND PROJECTIONS and DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A GUARANTEE OR COMMITMENT that adequate sewer service will be available to the property at any specific time. UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY OF WASHINGTON CO TAX MAP NO. 9S1 158 1100 By: A E HEDRICK corrected 2S 1 ISA 1100 Date: /12/84 75-52A EXHIBIT "D" REASON FOR BOUNDARY CHANGE 1. To secure sewer to lot #1100. a. Unified Sewer Agency System dead-ends approximately 30' from nay S/W corner of lot #1100. This was to be extended to lot #1100 by Tualatin Development Corp. (see Exhibit "E") and therefore I gave them an easement to cross my property so they could complete the sewer to Summerfield Housing Development. This was never done and at present is in litigation in Washington County courts between Unified Sewer Agency and Tualatin Developement Corp. b. If this is not clarified between these two organizations, I an proposing to tie onto USA's sewer and complete sewer to lot #1100 for connection to two proposed houses, with permission of City of Tigard. 2. Secure annexation to City of Tigard a. It is understood that before I may proceed as to item #1 I must secure approval for annexation to City of Tigard, but before I can receive this approval I must verify item #1. Thus, item #1 is of primary importance before securing item #2. 3. Present use of land. a. I have approximatly 1500 Christmas trees - 2 years and older planted on 1 acre plus on lot #1102. The remainder of this lot contains my home and out building (work shop) with several larger fir and cedar trees (see Exhibit "B ") b. Lot #1100 contains dam, p'ip house and pond approximately 12' deep(see Exhibit "b"). This pond was at one time used as irrigation and domestic water supply to surrounding farm dwellings (approx. 1930 plus). The adjoining area to pond is relatively flat and I now have garlic and approxi- mately 400 Christmas trees planted. These trees are to be replanted in S/M area of property aflter laying of sewer. 4. Future use of Land a. Improve road way to lot 01100 as per City of Tigard require- ments. Increase lot size #1100 from 1.61 to 2.27 Ac. by using land from Lot 01102 which is 2.91 Ac and decreasing it to 2.24 Ac., therefore dividing lot #1100 into two equal parcels approximately 4b,8bb sq. ft. each and construct a house on each parcel. EryIBIT "D" CONTINUED 8, a. The reason for keeping lots this size is to eliminate the need for cutting and 1st growth and larger 2nd growth trees (fir and cedar) which are 6" diameter or larger). b. As to future of lot #1102 it is proposed to subdivide it into 10,000 to 20,000 sq. ft. lots in 3 to S years. S. Best use of Land I believe the above proposal as to the future use of this land would fall into general plan of expanding Tigard. With all utilities relatively available, it can go only one way and that is from open fields to residential areas and some multiple dwellings. It is all around us, thus, I am falling into the so called "plan of progress." ) n CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: September 10, 1984 AGENDA ITEM #: 5— DATE SUBMITTED: Sept. 5, 1984 PREVIOUS ACTION: Planning Commis— ,Rion.-ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Appeal of Approval - August 7, 1984 SDR 8-84A Puget Corporation, Review REQUESTED BY: _ of Planning Commission Decisionnyl'� DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: lL��� -- CITY ADMINISTRATOR: INFORMATION SUMMARY On August 20th the City Council voted to take up on its own motion the Planning Commission action which allowed Puget Corporation to provide a non-remonstrance for half-street improvements rather than the actual improvements at the time of development. The Council should evaluate the Planning Commission's action in light of the Comprehensive Plan and its own policy as it relates to public improvements. The applicant's brief, copy attached, outlines the issues and options available to the City. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Vote to allow the Puget Corporation to provide a non-remonstrance agreement in place of public improvements at the time of development. 2. Vote to require half-street improvements at the time of development. SUGGESTED ACTION The City Council should determine what its policy is in terms of half street improvements. 0615P dmj ( MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON September 4, 1984 TO: Members of the City Council FROM: William A. Monahan, Director of Planning and Development SUBJECT: Puget Corporation - Appeal of Condition of SDR 8-84A The Planning Commission on August 7, 1984, granted Puget Corporation relief from a condition of development relative to hal remora trance improvements. The for Commission voted to allow the filing of improvements to Bonita and 74th rather than requiring improvements at the time of development or bonding. The Commission removed conditions 1, 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 constructions plans and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate, stampedby improvement registered shalll be submittedetto ling ng all proposed public he 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 ill P of require posting of a 100% performance bond). payment a permit fee and a sign installation/streetlight deposit. Also, the execution of a street opening pe or construction compliance agreement shall occcur prior to, or concurrently with the issuance of approved public improvement plans. The Council and Comprehensive Plan policies specified that upon development half-street improvements must be provided. The Council determined on August 20, that this approval should be reviewed and discussed. A copy of the staff report from the August 7, meeting is attached containing the SDR approval and applicant justification for the relief. 0615P dmj l 1 AGENDA ITEM 5. 1 August 7. 1984 MEMO TO: Planning Commission FROM: Keith Liden, Planning Department I w RE: SDR 8-84 Puget Corporation t 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 n4e Planning Department decision and the applicant's appeal letter. { t i `s 4 f 4 C. MILLER, NASH. WIENER, HAGER & CARLSEN ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW !I! S. W. FIFTH AVENUE PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-3699 ROSCRT S..'LLCM J.rw.NKLIM CALL( TELEPHONE 13031 224•56 56 THOMAS C.f•"o �.CONOV[w MICKI(wICE rRA"R[."ASH AKMARO A.tDWAw OS MICHAEL C. ART"LM .JONAT"ON L.GOOOLING NORMAN J.w/C"Cw OAVIO M.MVMwo TELEX 364462 K/NGMAR PTL JOHN A.LUf K♦ OAv10 W.N[wc"[M 1 ORVAL O.MAG[w JOHN R.DAKXC"f CN STEVEN O.ROSE" LOUIS G.HCMRT S CLIrrOOO N.CARLSCN.JM. LOUIS O.LIVINGSTON [VtACTT w.MOw[LANO VAL[RIC VETTCRICK t JOHN M.MILL G.1000 NORVCLL JOHN r.NCU.C.T KURT A.KN.CGE }{` cumvis w.cuT*rowTM RETCM C.RK"Ttw MART AMN rwA"T( JAMCf r.OULCIC" MAUO C O.GEORGE* OONALO A.*URNS COV"SEL OOMALO R.OOURGCOIS WILLIAM N.w4LT[wS MAwM C.M(CLANAMAM wIC"ARO A.GANAOAT JOHN W.OSDUMM *MOAN•.DOM[RTT MARK A.A".IC"SON OOMALO w.MOLMAM MICNAwO A.cANTLIN MC VIN O.RADwICK MCLINOA S.COtN R[MNCTM W MERGER M.C"MISTIC"CLM[w J[rrw(•J.ORUC KHAN PAUL A.RAVLICN MILLIAM a.[wO.T ai 0 .M.HICKS Or COUNSEL JA"CTTC M.AALOMCGTSC GACGOwT A.CHAIMOV NARV[T C.*AwRAOAR OAWO C.C\IIRC RRCw GRANT T.A"OC MSO" JC.. . C.TMCOC LOND^ RCT RSMINO GERALD A.rwo[se JAMCS M.w[STMOOO fw[Owle A.Te RKe JO MN r.rUwC[LL LINDA L.MAw*MALL COMRAO L.MOOR[ J.SAwR[TT MARKS RECE•LT w.w[LLS TALMAOG[ OCA"O.otc"AIMC OCNNIs R.wAwLINSO. DAVID W.DIIOwN JErrRCT O.AUSTIN R.ALAN W.G.T DO"MA M.CAMC"ON JC rr RCT•.MILLN[R CwICN w.MEMRILL.JR. DAVID w.MORTMLAMO JO"N J.Ot"OTT June 29 , 19 8 4 O.CRAIG MIKXCLse. wcDCCCA S.WILSON OOVGLAS M..AG[N Douce A.RVDIN 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, } A- 4 ichard A. Edwards C t 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 from 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 w 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 - "the City Engineer determines that a required street timely, or [if ] lack of_ improvement would support not be t 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 p Y with the improvement standards of the Code not be required, CDC § 18 . 164 .030 .A. 3 thus suggests that findings should be made as to timeliness of and support for improvements. Without such findings, it is impossible to determine whether the request may be granted. Puget has requested that it be allowed to give a guaranty of future improvements in lieu of present improvements . Findings as 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 unnecessar im rovements. et- - 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 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 - 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 would benefit no one. The bridge which carries Bonita Road across Fanno Creek near the west side of Puget' s property 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 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 be widened. There is no sign that similar improvements, which 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 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. 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 at this time. 3 - 3. Satisfactory guaranties by Puget that future improvements will be made when needed are available and should be accepted in liel.i of present street improvements. CDC S 18. 164 .030.A. 3 provides that the City Engineer may accept a guaranty of future improvements 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. PUGET THEREFORE APPEALS from Decision SDR 8-84 on the grounds stated herein and requests a hearing de novo by the Planning Commission pursuant to CDC § 18. 32 . 320 .A. MILLER, NASH, WIENER, HAGER & CARLSEN Ri hard A. Edwards �/) JohnA- Ost urn Attorneys for Puget Corporation of Oregon C 4 - s r , NOTICE OF DECISION SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 8-84 APPLICATION By Puget Corporation for Site Development Review approval to ro ert is zoned I-P an industrial facility and to fobtain lood lain site Lands nps Permit to allow expand Tax excavation and fill in the 100-Ye Tigard (Wash. Co. Tax Map 251 22A, (Industrial Park), 7440 SW Bonita, 8 800)- DECISION Notice is hereby given that the Planningapplic ation ctor for subject tto certain which the Director based his Tigard has APPROVED the above described app conditions. The findings and conclusions on decision are as noted below. A. FINDING OF FACT 1, Background 4 A Site Development Review (SDR 17-73) was granted in 1973 which t building. A loading area was allowed the expansion of an existing A parking area and i provided with a driveway onto 74th Avenue. landscaping was also installed on the north and east side of the building. The applicant originally applied for a Sensitive Lands Permit (SL fill within the 100-year 4-84) to allow excavation and 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. the applicant withdrew the Sensitive Lands As a result, 1984 letter from Derek Hogarth)- application (see June 13, 2• Vicinity Information The I-L (Light Industrial) zone applies to the north and east. ro ert to the The I-P (Industrial park) zone includes the P P Y vicinit other industrial use in the immediate Y south. The only ent buildings zoned R-12 (Residential, 12 lies to the east. Apartm units/acre) are located on the western side of Fanno Creek. 3, Site Information and Proposal Description with an The northeastern portion of the property is . Fanno Creek and industrial building and the remainder is vacantparcel. the 100-year floodplain occupy the western section of the applicant is requesting approval for a 23,000 square toot The app industrial building. A supplemental addition to the existing 1,500 square feet of office space may be installed in conjunction with this project or at a later date. C SDR 8-84 - PAGE 1 NOTICE OF DECISION - r 4. Agency and NPO Comments l The Engineering Division 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 7Lth 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. 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 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 right-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 portion of the necessary landscaping was installed as required by the SDR 17-73 approval. Supplemental landscaping work is proposed along the north and west side of the new addition. The street trees and other 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 C 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 - SUR 8-84 - PACE 2 I �- C. DECISION Site Development Review SDR 8-84 is approved subject to the following conditions: 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 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 120,593 and 120,387. In lieu of the additional 5-foot right-of-way dedication along Bonita Road, a 25-foot right-of-way from centerline and a 5-foot wide public easement will be acceptable. The legal descriptions shall be approved by the Engineering Division and recorded with Washington County prior 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 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 final approval date. D. PROCEDURE 1. Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall and mailed to: XX The applicant b owners CXX Owners of record within the required distance NOTICE OF DECISION - SDR 8-84 - PAGE 3 XX The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization YY Affected governmental agencies 2. Final Decision: THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON June 29, 1984 UNLESS AN APPEAL 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 days after notice is given and sent. The deadline for filing of an appeal is June 29, 1984 t 4. 4uestions: 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. i William . Monahan, Director of Planning 6 Development ATE APPROVED (KSL:pm/0480P) Sao � 1 N.1.. i —S .IEC I 1� E i { C 3� i i NOTICE OF DECISION - SDR 8-84 - PAGE 4 General Chain Har Co. :.0. Box 23333 SDR 8-84 SL 4-84 Tigard, OR 97223 PUGET CORPORATION GRANUM Geotfrey Levear P.O. Box 1530 7440 SW Bonita Road Portland, OR 97207 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Puget Corporation DAVIS/STARKWEATHER George Lund 7415 SW Bonita Road 2101 So. Mildred Tigard, OR 97223 Tacoma, Washington 98466 NPO / 5 Mercer Industries Debra Naubert P.O. Box 10166 14365 SW 80th Place Portland. OR 97210 Tigard, Oregoa 97223 BROWN/KITTLESON National Safety Co. 301 NW MUKRAY ROAD P.O. Box 23398 Portland, G_. 97229 Tigard, OR 97223 Il LICK/HARRINGTON HARRINGTON 9221 SW Barbur Blvd. 7205 East Lake Court Portland, OR 97219 Wilsonville, OR 97070 Columbia Sunday School 7455 SW Bonita Road Tualatin, OR 97223 DOBSON 10205 SW Highland Dr. Tigard, OR 97223 LOUIS/KOEBER 9320 SW 74th Portland, OR 97223 F TENNANT 0. Box 1658 ortland, OR 97207 4 4 PUGET a 3` P CORPORATION OF OREGON 7440 S.W.BONITA ROAD • PORTLAND,OREGON 97223 PORTLAND PHONE:(503)639-3139 TOLL FREE:(800)547-9690 1 4 E September 6, 1984 r s 5 It2 T City of Tigard P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Mr. Mayor: We appreciate your consideration in continuing the review of SDR 8-84A from Monday, September 10th to September 24 , 1984. This request is made due to scheduling difficulties with our people and legal council. Unless we hear otherwise before noon on Friday, September 7, 1984, we will assume this request is granted. Yours truly, G off Levear GL/j cc: John Osburn f E C CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: September 10 1984 AGENDA ITEM #: 6- DATE SUBMITTED: September 4, 1984 PREVIOUS ACTION: Final Order adopted ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Petition for August 20 1984 Review Final Order for Tiqard West— REQUESTED BY: — Resolution No. 84-59 DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: / CITY ADMINISTRATOR: �....� INFORMATION SUMMARY J.B. Bishop has filed a request that the City Council review its decision, Final Order concerning the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Tigard West, Resolution No. 84-59. The Council must decide whether or not it wishes to review the order. Attached is a copy of J.B. Bishop's request for review as well as the final order. l ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Accept Mr. Bishop's petition and schedule a review of the Resolution. 2. Deny Mr. Bishop's request. SUGGESTED ACTION The Council should consider Mr. Bishop's request and determine if the arguments which he has presented are sufficient to cause the Council to desire further review of this issue. C (cz/O617P) �q6f August 31, 1984 Mayor John Cook c/o Loreen R. Wilson Deputy Recorder City of Tigard 12755 SW Ash St. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Mayor Cook: This letter is to serve as a formal petition for review of the City of Tigard Resolution 84-59, adopted on August 20, 1984 and filed on August 21, 1984. The referenced resolution is further identified as "A FINAL ORDER IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR i CO►'.PRLUENSIVE PLAN AlNUff AE:NT AND A ZONE CHANGE REQUESTED BY TIGARD WEST DE;VEL011,1 I, JB BISHOP, GI JCE'S, AND ALICE TREFFINGER, FILE NO. CPA II-84 AND 7.0 8-84, DENYING THE APPLICATION REQUESTS, );NMRING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS". As one of the four applicants, who ,jointly requested a comp. plan amendment and a concurrent zone change rPqrnest, I am certain that I will be recognized as a qualified and appropriate party to this overall matter and in particuliar for the purposed of this petition for review. Additionally, for the record, I did appear and testify at the July 10, 1984 planning commission hearing along with other representatives of the application. My specific grounds for the requested review or rehearing of Resolution 84-59 are as follows: 1. It is imperative to note this resolution is a result of formal Council action taken at t:lie Council's July 23, 1984 regular meeting and incorporates, per (buncil direction, a staff prepared final order intended to reflect the Council's July 23, 1984 action on the applicant's comp. plan and zone change request. As noted above, the final order was adopted on August 20, 1984. I contend that the Council 's July 23, 1984 actions were in c(v plete disregard to established proceedures and guidelines, set and followed by the Tigard City Council over the past number of years..which have up until this date insured that both proponents and opponents are heard on matters of importance to the parties and which is considered testimony specifically related to the issue on the docket. Was Due process followed when the Council opened the.hea.ring prior to its established hearing time of 9:15 p.m.? Was Dueprocess followed when the Council choose to continue with the matter and to shortly thereafter resolve their intent by calling for a vote without having taken any testimony or comments from the proponents? If, in the Council's considered opinion the anwwer to the above questions is yes, then a reasonable person should deduce that the Council was certain in its knowledge that with the applicant's absence being of no imt ort to the 1 hearing, that it was satisfied that no testimony or supplemental evidence 3 could have been meaningful or availrble at the hearing representing the proponents issues which were the result of a 3-2 planning commission decision! ! 2. Did the City Attorney's designated associate attorney clearly under- stand the agreement between the applicant's and the City's lead attorney, Timothy V. Ramis, &-,,q. , regarding the July 19, 1984 written cxxrmunition from Mr. Stephen Janik. attorney for the proponents, and addressed to Tim Ramis? I assert that Mr. Pfeiffer did not. And as a further item for the grounds of this appeal, I do contend that the acceptance by the Council of Mr. Pfeiffer's advice regarding going ahead with the hearing after it was acknowledged that the proponent's were absent was directly counter to what the Tigard City Council publically 'ias stated as its priority for an open and fair hearing on all matters and L_ ues brought before the Council. Bill Monahan's ccxrmc,nts as reflected in the July 23, 1984 minutes are substantially accurate. But, again, when read in context with the July 19, Janik to Ramis memo is it consistent to believe that the issue could be fairly heard and resolved without any presentation or discussion with the proponents being present? Bill notes in 13 ( f) that the applicant wishes to expediate the process and has agreed to waive all procedural errors. This is correct. But, isn't it consistent to believe that the applicant would agree to this with the assumption that they will as you might say "have their day in court"! 3. Furthermore, a brief' review of the record of the August 20 meeting will show that the Council did not give me an opportunity to offer my explicit comments and concerns regarding the Findings and Conclusions to the final order. Once Mr. Ramis had clarified to the Council that the Council could if it wished settle their intent without a final order being adopted by the Planning Ccnmission, the Council ignored my specific request to be given the opportunity to offer my comments on the Findings, etc. As a result of the above, and in the context of the review process as outlined in 18. 32. 290 to the end of the chapter, I am submitting this request for review. Is provided, in the code, I will offer more definitive detail at the appropriate time, both in writing and at the hearing on this request. Sine rely, JB Bishop . ��C 2� ��.C:f� ,Iii ,c,:u�••�� r _ r / _y.// .i A 1i4-G� C.�� � 111 s,� /J�i/�.�f✓ �'�'� ���"LY�`� �� t "✓ t 1 ' yi �(��L C31Y OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 84-_L'L_ A FINAL ORDER IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND A ZONE CHANGE REQUESTED BY TIGARD WEST DEVELOPMENT, JB BISHOP, GI DOES, AND ALICE TREFFINGER, FILE NO CPA 11-84 AND ZC 8--84, DENYING THE APPLICATION REQUESTS, ENTERING FINDINGS AND (.nNCLUSIONS. The Tigard City Council heard the above application at its regular meeting of July 23, 1984. The applicants did not appear nor were they represented. Appearing for the opposition was an attorney, Jim Cox. The Commission finds the following FACTS in this matter: 1. The applicants for this matter, Tigard West Development, JB Bishop, GI Joes and Alice Treffinger, requested a reclassification from R-3.5 zoning and low density designation, which would allow for single family residential units, to a (C-G), General Commercial designation on a parcel of land designated as Washington County Tax Map 2S1 3DA Tax Lots 4700, 4800, 6100 and 6200 and Washington County Tax Map 2S1 3DD lot 200. The information supporting the request is found in File No. CPA 11.84. 2. The Council had before it the record of the proceedings before the Tigard Planning Commission which denied the request, with two dissenting votes, on July 10, 1984. The matter was brought before the City Council under Section 18.32.090 C. of the Tigard Community Development Code. 3. The relevant approval criteria in this case are the State-wide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14. Goals 3, 4, and 15 - 19 do not apply. In addition, the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 5.1.4, 6.3 .3 and 12.2.1. Based on the record in this case, the Council makes the following FINDINGS in this matter: 1. State-wide Planning Goal N1 is met because the City has adopted a Citizens Involvement program including review of all development applications by the Neighborhood Planning Organization (NPO) . In addition, all public notice requirements were met. 2. State-wide Planning Goal N2 is met because the City applied all applicable State-wide Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan Policies and Development Code requirements to the application. 3. State-wide Planning Goal N5 does not apply because no open space would be created or removed Jy this application proposal. RESOLUTION NO. 84- _r- Page 1 4. State-wide Planning Goal N6 does not apply because water, air and land resources quality would not be affected by this application proposal. 5. State-wide Planning Goal N7 does not apply because there are no natural hazard areas on the property. 6. State-wide Planning Goal N8 does not apply because there would be no recreational facilities being constructed or removed as a result of this proposal. 7. State-wide Planning Goal N9 does not apply because the portion of land being proposed for the change from residential to commercial is too small to impact the City's employment picture. S. State-wide Planning Goal N10 does not apply because the remo.al of 5 homes from the City's housing stock would not have a great impact City-wide. 9. State-wide Planning Goal N11 is met because public facilities are available to the site. 10. State-wide Planning Goal N12 is not satisfied because SW Watkins Street is not improved to City standards and is inadequate to carry heavier volumes of traffic at the present time. 11. State-wide Planning Goal N13 does not apply because there are no great energy savings to be gained by changing the five residential properties to commercial. 12. Statewide Planning Goal N14 does not apply because the proposed change does not affect rural land. 13. City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 2. 1 .1 is satisfied because the Neighborhood Planning Organization and surrounding property were giver, notice of the hearing and an opportunity to comment on the applicants' propez-al. 14. City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Police 5.1.4 is not satisfied because approval o° the applicants' request would allow commercial development to encroach into a residential area that has not been designated for commercial use. 15. 'City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 6.3.3 is not satisfied because the City's Comprehensive Plan was built on the premise that a strong test be given to proposed developments to protect existing established neighborhoods. This development does not meet this test with the addition of more parking which encroaches on the residential area. 16. City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 12.2.1 is satisfied in that all of the appropriate locational criteria have been applied to the project, however, not all of the locational criteria can be met by / the applicant's proposal. RESOLUTION NO. 84- Page 2 The Council adopts the following CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 1 . Based on Finding No. 10, the Council has determined that SW Watkins is not improved to standards adequate to carry increased traffic loads. 2. Based on Finding No. 14, the Council has determined that the applicants' request to redesignate 5 single family residential lots to commercial would allow commercial development to encroach into a residential area that has not been designated for commercial use. 3 . Based on Finding No. 15, the Council has determined that the granting of the applicants' request will not preserve and enhance the character of the adjacent established area. 4. Based on Finding No. 16, the Council has determined that the applicants' request does not meet all of the locational criteria set forth in Police 12.2. 1 . Specifically, locational criteria (1) (a) is not met. "The commercial area is not surrounding by residential districts on more than two sides." 5. Based on Findings No. 2 and No. 15, the Council has determined not enough time has passed since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan to justify such a drastic change by allowing this type of encroachment. ` The Council, therefore, ORDERS that the above referenced request be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. The Council FURTHER ORDERS that the Planning Director and the City Recorder send a copy of the Final Order as a Notice of Final decision to the parties in this case. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: -l!' -~-" 1984. PASSED: This c;,? day of �,.<< �s y r= City of Tigard ATTEST: , /�� G� Deputy City Recorder ity of Tigard l (EAN:pm/0559P) RESOLUTION NO. 84---r:�_ Page 3 f. ORDINANCE N0. 8+-47 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING POLICY 6.3.2(b) IN FINDINGS. POLICIES AND ( IMPLEMENTATION STAWGIES. VOLUME 2 OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IVO THE COMPATIBILITY MATRIX IN CHAPTER 113.26 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (CPA 18-84) AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. 9- Motion by Councilor Edin, seconded by Councilor Scott to adopt with Section 1 reference to 'mmatris' changed to "matrix". Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 10. 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: 10.1 Approve Council Minutes - July 9 i 16. 1984 10.2 Receive and File: Departmental Monthly Reports Police Department Annual Report 10.3 Approve Board and Committee Appointments 7 NPO Appointments: John Mayfield on NPO 06 Christie Smith on NPO 03 10.4 Approve i Authorize Signatures: Borsch Street Dedication i Non-Remonstrance Agreement - 9935 SW Johnson Street Wedgewood Hommes/Moming Hill III Subd. - Sewer Easeaent Crossroads Development/79th t 99W - Street Dedication 10.5 Approve 8344 Spring Street Overlay Program i 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 memo for receive and file from Planning regarding 72nd Avenue fill issue and to approve the consent agenda as amended. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. RECESS COUNCIL MEETING: 8:00 P.M. 11. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Ti rd City Council went into executive session at 8:05 P.M. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1)(e) to discuss real property transactions. RECONVENE COUNCIL MEETING: 8:27 P.M. 12. NOM-AGENDA ITEMS a. Cit Administrator noted that the 135th LID eublic hearing would be held on 7-24-84 at 7:00 P.M. in shington Count The City was in receipt of the assessment notice for Su mmerlake Paris in the amount of =18,7.16_ b. lotion by Councilor Brian. seconded by Councilor Scheckla to receive and file notice. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 13. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT-CPA ll-WZONE CHANGE-ZC 7-$VTIGARO WEST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL REVIEW A review of the Planning Commission's denial on a request for a Comprehensive Plan Cha ram law Oensit Residential to Commercial General and for a Zone Change from R--3.5 (Residential 3.5 units/acre) to CC (Commercial General). Located: 10500. 13370. 1345Q. 13490. i 13530 SW Watkins Ave.. Tigard. NPO i 3 (WCTM 2S1 30A lots 4700. 4800. 6100. and 6200 AL WCTM 2S1 300 lot 200). a. Legal Counsel stated the applicant was not present at the meeting. He recommended Council proceed with their consideration of the issue since the public notice for this item 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 PLANNER 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 information. 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 Commission. He instructed Council to not consider any new information received at their homes. e. Associate Planner Newton noted the history of the issue and outlined the Planning Commission's findings. She noted that the Planning Commission has not signed the final order yet. f. Councilor Brian questioned why Council was seeing this issue before the Planning Commission signed the final order. Director of Planning t Development responded that applicant wished this heard as soon as possible and has waived all procedural errors in order to hasten the pi S. g. Public Testimony - Argument Style meted 18 ts. 8 North State Street. lake ps�rego. stated f'�� tAe Jim Cox. Attorney for the Opponen also rad errors. Ne opposed residents in the area and that his o l enter findings stat_oc the development request has not development and upheld the Planning L n the need for more acres and encroaches on existing residential area. ilor Brian stated that the City made a commitment to the citizens in about 1978 then this was before the Planning Comniss,on. to maintain the dwellings on Watkins Street. After he Commission. Councilor Brian = ng the transc�i t Of t current application before Planning the sane as ore- n by Councilor Brian. seconded by Councilor Scheckla to e findi�tfor Councilapw�al- to K and direct staff to work with Legal Counsel to prepare Plan was built on the premise that a strong test be given ilor Edin commented that the Comp , This development does roposed doaelopmants to protect existing= established oaighborlaods. do that with the addition of more [srking which would encroach on the residential area. tlp� � the Corp Plan to ndly. he contended that not enrmgh time has passed since the adop - ort such a drastic deviation from the original Premise- unanimous vote of Council present. to adopt tentative findings was approvedby 14. ADjoLwM1ENT: 8:54 P.M. ATTEST: Nayor - City Of Tigard Ow/lem) t t 4 / I T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 209 1984 - 7:30 P.M. Councilors: Tom Brian, and ' 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor John Cook; Director of Kenneth Scheckla; City Staff: Frank Currie, Bob Jean, Public Works; Doris Hartig, Deputy City Recorder; S City Administrator; Bill Monahan, Director of Planning Development; and Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel; Jerri Widner, { 0 P.M.). Finance Director (leaving at 8:0 2. CALL TO STAFF AND COUNCIL FOR NON-AGENDA ITEMS Mayor Cook added discussion regarding a Public Facility Advisory Committee. 3• VISITOR'S AGENDA year serial (a) Bob Bledsoe, 11800 SW Walnut, Tigard, suggested a 2-3 y tax base be placed on the November ballot. He rather than a levy irit of allowing citizens to have more felt this would be in the aP opposition. control and there would be less 4• TAX BASE RESOLUTION No. 84- 1984. (a) Mayor Cook announced this item would be tabled to August 27, (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. ollowing (a) Finance Director reported bond 68th/Parkwayewould be for the Street and S.W. 100th Sewer. LID s, S.W. 68th Sewer, (b) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Scheckla to adopt. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (c) City Administrator noted that S.W. Dartmouth LID was not included. 6. TIGARD WEST REVIEW FINDINGS (a) City Attorney commentedtherelevant limitedtto those issuesissues were utlined in his memo and testimony should g N. State, Lake Oswego, suggested Council adopt the (b) Jim Cox, would still have an opportunity to have resolution and the city LUBA review the i8s or Council can take reaching the same co clusion. look at t and draft more findings 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 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND A ZONE CHANGE REQUESTED BY TIGARD WEST DEVELOPMENT, J.B. BISHOP, G.I. JOES, AND ALICE TREFINGER, FILE NO. CPA 11-84 AND ZC 8-84, DENYING THE APPLICATION REQUEST, ENTERING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. 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 accLss 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 6 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 ary 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, C discussed the issue of dedication of certain property to the City of Tigard. He reported Koll does not own the 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 .+ uv�vntL.L. DATE January 12, 1984 SULLIVAN Q RAMIS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1727 N.W. HOYT STREET To Bob Jean, Frank Currie ill Monaha PORTLAND. OREGON 97209 15031222.4402 FROM Adrianne Brockman RE Nonremonstrance Agreements You have asked me to review a number of nonremc,- strance agreements. Recently, you have asked me to review a form en* i.ed "Consent to Annex to the City of Tigard and Waiver of Ri�,,.t of Remonstrance." The purFose of this memorandum is to raise what may be legal defects with this process and to recommend that nonremonstrance agreements be used as a last alternative. You should understand that I am not signing to the effect that a nonremonstrance agreement is legally enforceable when I sign it as to form, but rather that it is proper as to form. The question is whether nonremonstrance agreements are legally enforceable and, in fact, I am of the opinion that they absolutely are not enforceable if they are not recorded. The following are the issues which I see. You may wish to direct us to research the matter, but I want to caution you that it will be time-consuming because this issue has not been litigated, yet. It has not been litigated because jurisdictions have "backed off" when it has come to the doorstep of litigation. The issues are: 1. Is the right to remonstrate a "right to vote?" Certainly it has that effect because if the people owning 66% of the property object to the project, it is dead for at least six months. So, the right to object is, in fact, a right to vote. 2. If the right to remonstrate is a "right to vote, " under the U. S. and state cLnstitutions can the city hold services, etc. as a hostage until the property owner relinquishes or signs away the right to vote?; and 3. Under the constitution can you enforce a contract with someone whereby the person has contracted away- their constitutional right to vote? 4. Assuming the nonremonstrance agreement process is legal with regard to the person who signs the agreement, can I take away the right of some future owner' s right to remonstrate? That is, if I sign an agreement, can I b-ind the purchaser of my property to a nonremonstrance agreement? Hopefully, the above questions will assist you to see the possible problems. Therefore, the city should not rely on the remonstrance agreement as being anything more than a bluff. I am not suggesting that you do away with the process because it may be legal . Rather, you should use it but be conscious that we may not be able to enforce it. AB:mch 1/12/84 i f JAMES A. COX C CHAS. CLEVELAND ABBE 301 LAKESIDE PLAZA ATTORNEII a AT LAW S NORTH STATE STREET LAKE OSWEGO,OREGON 97034 TELEPHONE (503) 638-3646 September 7, 1984 L� _� L The Honorable John Cook Mayor City of Tigard 12755 S.W. Ash Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 3 RE: City Council Resolution No. 84-59 Dear Mayor Cook: Yesterday I received a copy of JB Bishop' s letter to you i dated August 31, 1984. Mr. Bishop designates his letter as a "formal petition for review" of the above resolution. He has mistakenly sought "review" under sec. 18.32.290, et seq. of the Community Development Code. Those sections set up the procedure whereby a decision of the Planning Commission or a hearings officer can be reviewed by the City Council. i re requiring the City Council to They do not set up a procedu again re ew its own earlier decisions. In other words, requ re reil to ew or reconsiders letter does not its decisionimadehinCadoptingity cResolu- tion No. 84-59. The next step, if Mr. Bishop and the other applicants wish to obtain a review of the City Council' s decision, is to file a timely notice with the Land Use Board of Appeals. This they have not done. My clients and I do not contend that the Council lacks the power to reconsider its decision. In fact, as mentioned by the City Attorney and me at the August 20th meeting, the Council may choose to reconsider the content of Resolution No. 84-59 (for adequacy of the findings) if a LUBA appeal t filed. Unless and until a LUBA appeal is filed, it would -e our recommendation that the Council do nothing, notwith- standing Mr. Bishop's misconceived "petition for review" . C 6 E The Honorable John Cook September 7, 1984 Page -2- Although it is unfortunate that Mr. Bishop and his attorney did not appear in time to be heard at the public hearing on July 23rd, there are several reasons why this should not cause the Council any great concern: 1. Mr. Bishop is thoroughly familiar with the City' s procedures in land use matters, and his attorney is an expert in the land use field of law. The hearing notice was for 7:30 p.m. Although the printed agenda indicated a time of 9:15 p.m. , the agenda also clearly stated that "times are estimates." Mr. Bishop and his attorney should have anticipated the possibility of an earlier time than 9:15. 2. When the Council reached this item on the agenda and the proponents were not in attendance, the Council juggled the agenda and went into executive session on another matter. You waited to the end of your meeting when there was no other business to conduct before finally going ahead with the hearing on this matter. The City Attorney's advice that it was appropriate to proceed was correct. It was the other side's application, and if they could not manage to be there when the item came up, the Council should not be charged with the responsibility for that. 3. I believe that Wayne Jackson, in charge of property matters for GI Joes, was in attendance when the matter came up. He did not speak, nor did he ask that the matter be delayed or set over until Mr. Janik and Mr. Bishop arrived. 4. The Council had before it a complete transcript and all of the exhibits from the Planning Commis- sion hearing. The Council hearing was not for the purpose of presenting new testimony or evidence, but only for comments or arguments on the record which had already been made before the Planning Commission. Thus, it is not as if the Council was deprived of the opportunity to consider all of the evidence in reaching its decision. The proponents' evidence and arguments were already before you from the Planning Commission record. The propo- nents did not avail themselves of their opportunity to submit wr3tton arguments to the Council within the time alloved before the meeting. The Honorable John Cook September 7, 1984 Page -3- 5. Therefore there was no denial of due process, no lack of basic fairness, and little likelihood that your decision would have been any different if Mr. Janik and/or Mr. Bishop had appeared to present their "legal arguments." ;AC/kls truly yours, A. COX cc: Mr. Stephen Janik Mr. Timothy V. Ramis Mr. Bill Monahan Mr. Doug Nicoli Mr. Dennis Owens Mr. Alex Mackin Tigard City Recorder t JAMES A. COX CHAS. CLEVELAND ABBE 301 LAKESIDE P �z^ ATTORNEYS AT V.W • No"r1+ sr.rE sTAEE+ LAKE OSWEGO.OREGON 97034 TELEPHONE 13031 635.3346 September 7, 1984 Lj i i The Honorable John Cook i Mayor City of Tigard 12755 S.W. Ash Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: City Council Resolution No. 84-59 Dear Mayor Cook: Yesterday Z received a copy of JB Bishop' s letter to you dated August 31, 1984. Mr. Bishop designates his letter as a "formal petition for review" of the above resolution. He has mistakenly sought "review" under Those sectionsOsettupeq• of the Community Development Code. Commission the procedure whereby a decision of the Planning Council. or a hearings officer can be reviewed by the City the City Council to They do not set up a procedure requiring In other words, again review its own earlier decisions. Council to Mr. Bishop' s letter does not refire the City review or reconsider its decision made in adopting Resolu- tion No. 84-59. The next step, if Mr. Bishop and the other applicantis s wish to obtain a review of the City Council' s decision. eals� file a timely notice with the Land Use Board of App This they have not done. l lacks the My clients and I do not contend decisionthalnthe fact�uaslmentioned by power to reconsider i the the City Attorney and me at the August 20th meeting, Council may choose to reconsider the content aof ResolutionBA appeal is No. 84-59 (for adequacy of the fap ealsis filed, it would be filed. Unless and until a LUBA appeal notwith- our recommendation that the Council dnothing, for review" . standing Mr. Bishop' s misconceived "petition l The Honorable John Cook ( September 7, 1984 Page -2- Although it is unfortunate that Mr. Bishop and his attorney did not appear in time to be heard at the public hearing on July 23rd, there are several reasons why this should not cause the Council any great concern: 1. Mr. Bishop is thoroughly familiar with the City' s procedures in land use matters, and his attorney is an expert in the land use field of law. The hearing notice was for 7:30 p.m. Although the printed agenda indicated a time of 9:15 p.m. , the agenda also clearly stated that "times are estimates." Mr. Bishop and his attorney should have anticipated the possibility of an earlier time than 9:15. 2. When the Council reached this item on the agenda and the proponents were not in attendance, the Council juggled the agenda and went into executive session on another matter. You waited to the end of your meeting when there was no other business to conduct before finally going ahead with the ( hearing on this matter. The City Attorney's advice that it was appropriate to proceed was correct. It was the other side' s application, and if they coup' .got manage to be there when the item came up, the Council should not be charged with the responsibility for that. 3. I believe that Wayne Jackson, in charge of property matters for GI Joes, was in attendance when the matter came up. He did not speak, nor did he ask that the matter be delayed or set over until Mr. Janik and Mr. Bishop arrived. 4. The Council had before it a complete transcript and all of the exhibits from the Planning Commis- sion hearing. The Council hearing was not for the purpose of presenting new testimony or evidence, but only for comments or arguments on the record which had already been made before the Planning Commission. Thus, it is not as if the Council was deprived of the opportunity to consider all of the evidence in reaching its decision. The proponents' evidence and arguments were already before you from the Planning Commission record. The propo- nents did not avail themselves of their opportunity C to submit written arguments to the Council within the time allowed before the meeting. The Honorable John Cook September 7, 1984 �. Page -3- 5. Therefore there was no denial of due process, no lack of basic fairness, and little likelihood that your decision would have been any different if Mr. Janik and/or Mr. Bishop had appeared to present their "legal arguments." Ver truly yours, i J eeiee S A. COX AC/kls cc: Mr. Stephen Janik Mr. Timothy V. Ramis Mr. Bill Monahan Mr. Doug Nicoli Mr. Dennis Owens Mr. Alex Mackin r Tigard City Recorder l CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: September 10, 1984 AGENDA ITEM h: � DATE SUBMITTED: Sept. 5, 1984 PREVIOUS ACTION: Prior Approval ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: OLCC Restaurant Application REQUESTED BY: Applicant DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: _ CITY ADMINISTRATOR: INFORMATION SUMMARY BUSINESS: ROUND TABLE PIZZA. 11940 SW Pacific Highway, Tigard, OR 97223 Classifica-lon: Restaurant Outlet (Beer and Wine) The above named business has added a new partner; therefore, they are required to file a new application under OLCC rules. The department has investigated this application, and have no identifiable objections to this request. -------------------------------- sa=saasaasaaaa=acs=sa======svvv=====____-__�_-____ ------------------- ALTERNATIVES CiNSIDERED ------------------------------ -------------- SUGGESTED ACTION Recommend approval and forwarding to OLCC. Respectfully, R.B. Adams Chief of Police MEMORANDUM August 3, 1984 TO: Chief Adams, Police Department FROM: Penny Liebertz, Finance Department SUBJECT: OLCC Liquor License Application Please review and have recommendation to us by Tuesday, August 21st so we may include it in the packet for the August 22t� Council Meeting. Thanks. Restaurant — New Partner Round Table Pizza 11940 SW Pacific Highway Tigard, OR 97223 i I J a- f CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: September 10, 1984 AGENDA ITEM N: `7 j DATE SUBMITTED: August 24, 1984 PREVIOUS ACTION: None ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE:Gallo's Vineyard Subdivision Compliance Agreement and REQUESTED BY: John Hagman Performance Bond Dept, of Development Services DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: ACITY ADMINISTRATOR: INFORMATION PJMMARY 1. The attached Subdivision Compliance Agreement and Performance Bond has been submitted to the City by the developer of Gallo's Vineyard Subdivision, in accord with the requirements of T.M.C. 18.160.170 and 18.160.180. 2. The preliminary plat for the proposed subdivision has been approved; preliminary construction plans for all required public improvements have been submittiod to staff for review and approval; all relevant fees have been paid. 3. Issuance of the approved construction plan and commencement of construction is pending Council's action to authorize City execution of the attached Compliance Agreement. asaaa==:zz:s::zsaspsa:sasaaaaaaaasasaasa:z::a:z::aasazzsz:azaa:zaazz:sa zzazsazaazz ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED aszaa:a:szzasaa::aass:a:s:aaaaasa:zasasaa:sa:asazzaasaa:aaaaa:aaaaa sazza a:zz:aazzza SUGGESTED ACTION Authorize the Mayor and City Recorder to execute the Subdivision Compliance Agreement and accept the Performance Bond, in behalf of the City, for Gallo's Vineyard Subdivsion. CITY OF TIGARD. OREGON ( COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUIBfARY r-- AGENDA OF: tember 10 1984 AGENDA ITEM if: ' DATE SUBMITTED: August 29 198+ PREVIOUS ACTION: None ISSUVAGENDA TITLE: Titan Properties Road Right-of-Nal► REQUESTED BY: Planning and pevelopmient Inc. Accept---- and Titan P rties DEPARTMENT HEAD OK. CITY ADMINISTRATOR: INFORMATION SUMMARY This road right-of-way deed is one of the conditions Place upon Titan Properties in approving their Minor Land Partition Application (MLP 1-84)- sx=s saga==ax c xazazx=xx x=sx=aa==xz..3x=3sx=sax=3=x=.: ALTZRHATIVES CONSIDERED S38a3-a=3a2--=3'Sa.�3a aS=3a-3-5 gUpGRSTBD ACTION Planning and Development recommends acceptance of this Road Right-of-Nay Deed- REcelt'I rir(, 2 > 1984 ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY DEED Cgly Of MAN[) WARRANTY DEED - STATUTORY FORM Corporate Grantor Titan Pro erties Cor oration Inc. a codul rporation y organized and existing under the laws of the Stets of Ore¢on Grantor, conveys and warrants to The City o Grantee, the following described real property free of encumbrances except as specifically set forth herein situated in waAh neton t County, Oregon, to-wit: A portion of Lots 3 and 4, of the duly recorded plat of Wilson Acres, situated in the NortY- east one-quarter of Section 11, Township 2 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, in the City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon, more particularly decribed as follows: Beginning at a point on the Easterly line of State Highway 217 (S.W. Hall Blvd) that is 10.00 feet South and 40.00 feet Easterly from the Northwest corner ofLot 4, Wilson Acres; thence f-om the point of beginning North 12'36'00" West along the Easterly line of S.W. Hall B1% . 124.77 feet; thence South 89"43'31" East 5.13 feet to a point that is 45.00 feet Easterly when measured at right angles, from the centerline of S.W. Hall Blvd.; thence South 12'36100" East 124.77 feet to a point that is South 10.00 feet, when measured at right angles, from the North line of Lot 4, Wilson Acres; thence North 89' 45'36" West, parallel with the North line of Lot 4, a distance of 5.13 feet to the point of beginning. The said property is free from all encumbrances except The true consideration for this conveyance is -0- (Here comply with the requirements of ORS 93.030) Done by order of the grantor's board of directors with its corporate seal affixed on A+I /`T . 19 ,84- THIS INSTURMENT DOES NOT GUARANTEE THAT ANY jBy PARTICULAR USE NAY BE MADE OF THE PROPERTYDESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT. A BUYER SHOULDCHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES. By Secretary _ (Corporate Seal) t STATE OF OREGON, County of l.�h l r1 Jw _)as. 19/ Personally appeared and who, each being first duly sw rn, 1d s that.the former is the secretary of press e t and t:w the la ter is he C �/ is the corporate a 1 of said corpo ation and that said instrument was signed and sealed In behalf of said corporation by authority of its board of directors; and each of them acknowledged said instrument to be its volunts act and deed. (Official Seal) Before me: — l -� Notary Public for Oregon, Mytommission expires: d v 1— PATRICIA L. F.I 1FN3 NOTARY PUBLIC-Gil`GU'J my Commission EtF:res Approved as to form this day of By: ty Attorney - City or Tigard Approved as to legal description this day By.^ City Engineer - City o Tigard Accepted by the City Council this I/ _day of _�ep�en.�ev . 19a?yr • CITY COUNCIL, CITY/OF 'TIGARD, OREGON By:_ L=. City eeP er - Gi 'Etter oto pu.c6 •14.�fL .._ 1pr.Db .� 4�, • *1"b 1°14-21 c � 71': .-. 's v b'i•47'41"� tO1.64' '7CJy' Z • Z3 M 8 +'� � (o4a1°I� a � 1106♦ ilk s bsvb♦ � bo 4 "s ac 1 FD.!]'4"I./• 00.41 orp.00� B o-Zv W�Ibb•4l POP...... i 4 OwIVarO HOHA Lv M. VIITUAAN Joempm &.10 pe-e-v 11016 4.C.MPWU&+iLAN DWb Mn.WNJWE.OMS-.'MSZ APrL.10 +n ANt9 A&CWT TfTAN rpoPC141E0 A.oHAT GIt �O i t CMHINEEI�-�LJWV CUK•Vt':'OK DPVIO L%1(ANC.!"L Obi. ING. U,Zb ro.W.cop-poTT AVS Pop•TI.AMb. vlim-r-S• MIWI PH. ut-v6,(p*.p L-9*9NV D 1Pf� SGT ob"X3O'M04 ROD Wr H Pl.h SOY`ML ,OW iRAt�TIG &.•r. MIN01°L pJAlqMM—F*44M Or-6UIWBY • py~l AlV*, FOUND MONUMPIW '♦A1C L47rl ' 10 2. ANt� y(IOO NO Y+~- 114 NW Y* I P R O: S S.U N.1 L' GTIY W'nbAMV, voom gvroN CVUNW, OFeA9N JRVcv 1'+ �_ ���- ' hos.UG: 1'S•�io' MAY 7i, IlD4' WPM C%NM . C/� WlOd11Kl. w� C �F� nl : r �A �ULV 14• �sas RONALa L IAMNlRt rue SUBDIVISION COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT _ 19 884 lfitj� day of u/. THIS AGREEMENT dated the —�-- of Ore on, hereinafter termed the between the CITY OF TIGARD, a munLcipality "city", and Herb Moris e hereinafter termed "Petitioner"• W I T N E S S E T H lied to the City for approval for filing in WHEREAS, Petitioner has app Gallo's Vineyard Subdivision, Washington County, a subdivision plat known as located in Section 34, Township 1 SOUth, Range 1 West and Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon; proved and adopted the standard specifications for WHEREAS, the City has ap t Public Works construction by APWA Ox: Chapter and the Unified Sewerage specifications for the sanitary sewers prepared by professional engineers for P subdivision development; and laced in WHEREAS, the public improvements requirebuto Petitioner constructed be has or no etheless Petitioner's development are incomplete, occupancy and use of property in the requested the City to permit progress protect the public interest subdivision, and the parties desire hereby to generally and prospective purchasers of lots in said subdivision by legally g public improvements will be installed as enforceable assurances that the required and completed within the time hereinafter set forth. in consideration of the foregoing premises and the NOW, THEREFORE, erfoLmed by the Petitioner and its covenants and agreements to be kept and p sureties, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: (1) Petitioner shall proceed with the development, with the intent and purpose to complete all public improvements except) rsidewalks idfcon the andstreet of trees this s of said subdivision not later than two 2toy comply with all subdivision agreement, and Petitioner is hereby i way be otherwise approved standards as set forth thin e City saidSubdivision T gacrsior Ordinance and the standar specification adopted by such material and to follow F by the Public Works Department and to use only such designs as may be required to conform thereto. (2) To assure compliance with the City's requirements and the provisions a suret bond in form approved hereof, Petitioner tenders herewith to the City y a copy whereof ith liability in the amount of by the City, wart he=eof. 00 hereto attached and by this reference made a p roceed (3) In the event that Petit o fires all mannerntola.sure completionect or refuse to within with the work in an orderly the City to Petitioner and the time limits, upon ten (10) days notice by Petitioner's sureties, and such default and failure to proceed continuing thereafter, the City may at its option proceed to have the work completed and charge the costa thereof against Petitioner and Petitioner's sureties and the in the event same be not paid, to bring an action on the said bond Petitionerto and amount thereof. In the event such action be brought, Petitioner's sureties promise and agree to pay, in addition to the amouas nts accruing and allowable, such sum as the couC rt both l inadjudge Trialreasonable and attorney's fees and costs incurred by at its option, bring proceedings to Appellate Court, if any, or the City may, ecific enforce against the Petitioner and/or Petitioner's sureties sP in like manner, the City contract and coam`pd1 inct h th such performance of the event, subdivision standards an ordinances of the City of Tigard, fees and costs, both in the Trial Court and shall be entitled to recover such sum as the court shall adjudge reasonable as and for the City's attorney's Appellate Court, if any. (4) Petitioner, concurrent with the execution hereof, has deposited with according to ! ntenance the City an amount estinatefacilities within and he a subdivision, with respect to the street lighting "� " together with a further g energize the Portland General Electric Schedule rovid ng electrical energy to energ sum equal to the estimated cost of providing of two (2) years from the date of street lighting facilities for a p 570.24 initial energizing of said lights. Said amount being periodic and final inspections E (5) The City agrees to make and provide p which in the City's interest are desirable to assure compliance herewith, in consideration whereof the Petitioner has paid prescribed inspections fees.* (6) The City agrees to install street identification iand n the traffic signs Of within the said subdivision, in consideration oc payment $ 107. 0 (7) At such time as all public improvements except sidewalks and street ith the City's trees within the subdivision have tifbeen tcoup Cityleteofithec readiness cordance wfor inspection requirements, Petitioner shall notifya good and and upon certification by the Department of Public Works that the requirements go of the City have been met, the Petitioner will submit to the bond, sufficient maintenance bond if not already provided with the performance to provide for form approved -by the City, in the sum of $26 912.fD apparent or arising public improvements by correction of any defective work or maintenance becoming PP within one (1) year after tentative acceptance of the p the City. that Upon rar Maintenance eceipt of certification by the Department of Public Works, been met, and a One Yence Bond, the City accept the public improvements subject to the all requirements have requirements for correction of deficiencies and maintenance for a period of Council agrees to tentatively one year as hereinabove set forth ry of the requirements of the (g) That in addition to or supplements City's Subdivision Ordinance and the provisions hereof, Petitioner binds itself to conform to the following requirements, scheduling and limitations: *Project Fee $2969--96 Sewer Fee $ 150.00 -2- (a) None of the lots of Petitioner's subdivision as described may be occupied for residential purposes until an occupancy permit is issued under authority of the City and no occupancy permit shall be issued prior to the acceptance of the subdivision and to the time that the sidewalk paralleling the street for each developed lot proposed to be occupied, is installed as a part of the development; provided that all sidewalks as required by the plans and subdivision code shall be installed throughout said subdivision not later than 3 years from the date of this Subdivision Improvement Contract. (b) All landscaping trees on that portion of each lot between the public sidewalks and the curb (parking area) as required, shall be planted and in place prior to final inspection and issuance of occupancy permit for each such lot in the subdivision. Provided that final inspection and applicant for occupancy permit occurs within any calendar month from October to April of any year, such plantings may be deferred until the next following growing season. In any event, all landscaping and trees in all areas shall be planted and in place within the entire subdivision within three (3) years from the date of this subdivision improvement contract. (c) After tentative City acceptance of the public improvements, the Petitioner agrees to place a one (1) inch asphaltic concrete Class "C" overlay on all roads within the development; placement scheduling to be approved by the City. (d) Compliance with all terms and provisions specified theretofor said subdivision development by the Council and the Planning Commission of the City of Tigard, Oregon, in regard to variances allowed from the subdivision ordinance, conditions specified by the zone use classification and, also, on the approved plat(s) and plans(s). (e) Petitioner agrees to provide for correction of any defective work and/or maintenance becoming apparent or arising during the guarantee period as hereinabove set forth. (9) At such time as all public improvements have been completed in accordance with the City's requirements, Petitioner shall notify the City of the readiness for final inspection and upon certification by the Department of Public Works that all requirements of the City have been met, the Councils agrees to accept said improvements for operation and maintenance responsibility, thereinregard, and release the Petitioner's guarantee bond. (10) The parties hereto hereby adopt the form of performance bond, copy whereof is hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, and Petitioner agrees to cause to have said bond executed and filed with the City concurrently with the execution of this agreement at or prior to the time this agreement is executed on behalf of the City. z (11) The specific requirements of Paragraph 9 hereof shall for all y purposes be included as a part of the obligation secured by the aforesaid performance bond and the City shall be entitled to recourse thereto in the event of def,ult on the part of the Petitioner with respect to any requirement thereof. i F t -3- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Petitioner acting by and through its duly authorized undersigned officers pursuant to resolution of its Board of Directors has caused this agreement to be executed, and the City acting pursuant to resolution of its Council adopted at a meeting thereof duly and regularly held on the 107!t- day of �'�„���„hem 19 y has caused this agreement to be executed by its Mayor and Recorder. r Herb Morissette Builders, Inc. by By: i n r. By: a rich , or sse e, a reasurer TH CITY O,F,(TIIGA/R,D,, ORE;0 By: Mayor By:LZ]a� Recorder L i C -4- STATE OF OREGON ) )ss. J C junty of «a�«.y�y-� ) On this day of t ,19c) / before me appeared Herb Morissette and Patricia A. Morissette both to me personally mown, who being duly sworn, did say that he, the said Herb Morissette is the President, andshe, the said Patricia A. Mor sse is the Secretary -Treasurer of Herb Morissette Builders, Inc. the within named Corporation, and that the seal affixed to said instrument is the corporate seal of said Corporation, and that the said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said Corporation by authority of its Board of Directors, and Herb Morissette, President and Patricia A. Morissette, Sec. Treas. acknowledged said instrument to be t e Free-act and deed of said Corporation. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed myji ic' seal the day and year last above tte Notary Pu is for Oregon. My Commission expires N. .,s :.. s. ii,:'.•^S'#;Zy�: <:. �t. . �s� - ,�fiT�s•3t 4:Yjr< C LETTER OF COMMIT14ENT (Performance Bond) O,yv re on Pioneer Savings and Loan Assoc.(lending institution) 1 We have received Ecom g to finance the improvements , . a loan commitment in the amount of $^185,000.00 ' aid�gubdivisiun be:ing. com�nonly of a subdivision located in the City ThisTloandcommitr.wnt is ape This for con- known an Gallos Q ie and of ttf! aforsaid total structiun purposes or: (or) S 134 563.00 ur osea for: (strike preceeding commitment has been allocated for construction P drivewa s", aprons, sidewalks, inapplicable part) 1) public streets, including Y All such improvements are i lighting and curbs 2) sanitary and 5�°Clandscaping, domestic nater 4) under- inapplicable telephone and power g roved constructiontplans and the sub- to be,-completed in conformity with City app division compliance agreement theceinreQard. de in rd with We have agreed that disbursements of the $134oi6 eil liteiRW; but not�including hthe following schedule upon completion of each, hold-beck described below. AlbUNT ITEM Per Contract with utap Construction. Inc. See attach'ed%, % Site Preparation/Grading ConcriteICurb rock, base A.C.) Streef (base rock, leveling • .�• Spnitary Seyer- appurtances storm Seller 6 appurtances a - Water Liae:,-4appurtances Gas Lope .&' appptances �.'. Vnd 'vgkound ,Telephone b Electrical Concrete ree Sidewalk i Driveway Aprons y Asphalt (streeC overlay) triC Stiect{'j, ghting•, Miscel.lsf�eous (pathways. -landscaping. mailbox clusters. etc.} u .i. We have,entered into a "Subdivision compliance eAgreement" with the whereby we t�entshofethe agreed to install all improvements in accauthorizing cou to hold the ab64e-stated funds City of'Titard and we are hereby authorizing y wing has been adhered to:..'.' pay them to us Only when the follo That the City of Tigard has provided certification., 'acknowledging completion of any or all work pursuacit to the above itemized schedule of improvtoentsV .y $26.912.60 ) Pursuant to the above schedule, 20% of the commitment funds (i.e. . final will be- held back through the normal one year guarantee Ci r vided with City Acceptance of the project takes place or until the City is the date ( a separate maintenance bond, effective for said one year, Pe of sepaCounrate tentative acceptance of the work, to assuure. continued. f;eedom from defects, and maintenance, during the guarantee p ( Page 2 Letter of Commitment t>c- Concurrent with the final release of. these funds, establishment proceedings will j be instituted. roved b all parties of concern to th _ letter of commitment It is understood ALRd app Y that the City of Tigard shall have first claim and priority to the sum of $ 134 �o6i,00 less disbursements approved by the City of Tigard, in the <evbe t�:4 any defect s failure(s) to correct such in the construction of the regLlired improvements. It is further understood and agreed that the aforsaid priority of claim is paramount to all parties including the lending institution making the loan and 563.00 that the lending institution has covenanted and agreed that the sum of $ less disbursements approved by the City of Tigard shall be held available to satisfy any aformentioned claim by the City notwithstanding default on loan by borrowing party or termination of loan by lending institution. r: Sincerely yours' DATE::rAUGust 24,1984 Herb j4&-i ssetW,,& esi dent Approved and Accepted: Heieb'P4�7ssette4wi-Uers, Inc. • J470 S.V---Mh . - Portland,,or..egvi� 97223 246-880.3 _..�. .—Oregon Pioneer Savings and Loan Assoc. •z Lend.ng' Institution BY: (Attach notarJ.%informatiun and # itle ,P*. Herman, Vice President signature(s) authority) PORM Ne.7"—ACKNOWLEDGMENT CORPORATION ORS 93.4STEVENSNRSs LAW-11,CO.. o.[. STATE OF OREGON, ss. County of ._ - -----Multnomah August 29 19 84 Personally appeared -- _ _ P.D Herman................... ........ who being duly sworn (or affirmed)did say that .. he the . .. - .. ----. . Vice President __ _. _ ... -._ _. .......... _ (President or other officer or officers( of ................Q1Cegon--Pioneer..-Sayings.-and--Loan-.Associat.ion_-_ ..--._ ...... - - (Nome of corporcitio,i) .- - and that the seal affixed to the foregoing instrument is the corporate seal of said corporation and that said in- strument was signed and sealed in behalf of said corporation by authority of its board of directors; and . he acknowledged said instrument to be its voluntary act and d Before me: Official Notary Public for Oregon. Seal My Commission exp es DE HAAS & Suite 445 -AGC Center 9450 S.W.Commerce Circle Wilsonville,Oregon 97070 s s ociate s, Inc- (503)882-2450 Consuhing Engineers&Surveyors ; AU r G SAO August 15, 1984 Mr. Frank A. Currie, P.E. Director of Public Works s City of Tigard P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Frank: Attached are 72nd Avenue related documents which we are providing for consideration by the council. Ident. 54 (Bingham) a. Street Dedication With respect to Ident. 54, the above dedication has been provided 3 to the City at no cost in consideration of the assistance given in Bingham' s purchase of adjacent O.S.H.D. R/W. This compares with an amount of $2,067.00 if the takings h.Ad been at appraised costs. This dedication should be approved by council after the transactions discussed in our 8/9/84 letter are complete. Sincerely, MARLIN J DE HAAS, P.E. MJD/sk Attachments cc: Ident. 54 STREET DEDICATION Ident. 54 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that BINGHAM INVESTMENT COMPANY hereinafter called grantor(s)o for the sum of . grant and dedicate to the Public a perpetual right-of-way for street, road and utility purposes on, over, across, under, along and within the following described real property in Washington County, Oregon: See Exhibit "A" Attached To have and to hold the above-described and dedicated rights unto the Public for the uses and purposes hereinabove stated. The grantor(s) hereby covenants that he (she) (they) is (are) the owner(s) in fee simple and have good and legal right to grant his (her)-(their) rights above-described. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the grantor(s) has (have) hereunto set his (her) (their) hand(s) and seal(s) this 13 day of August 19 84 l'� (SEAL) (SEAL) (SEAL) (SEAL) t I STATE OF OREGON ss. COUNTY OF WASHINGTON) BE ]Y AEJVNBERED that on this yam_ day of A„g„mt bef6fd M@ Ehe ilnder§igned Notary Public in and for the State of Oregon perstoally appeardd fhd 4i6in-named _StLjart ainnh-m Sal ri Rinaham lr__ r1ark Rinnham who is (arey known to me to be the identical Individual(s) described in and who executed the withie instrument and acknowledged to me that he (she) (they) executed the tame freely and voluntarily. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this L,�,- day of Notary Pub1i or Or gon My Commission Expires: S -7-,'g7 Approved as to form this day of • 19 r •- By: -, w. Ci y orney -_uTty o Tigarf Approved as to legal description this ,./Z day of �G Approved this /_day of �rs+�s 6a� . N s=✓. CITT COOKIL. till OF TIMM. MEM By: Page 1 of 2 i Right of Way Acquisition Description Exhibit "A" Ident. No. 54 A parcel of land in the N.E. : of Sec. 13 of T.2S. , R.1W. , W.H., Washington County, Oregon, more particularly described as follows: Being that portion of !ot 30 and vacated Bradbury Court (T.L. 2101 , Map 2S-1-13A) of the plat of Rosewood Acre Tracts, lying between the centerline of County Road No. 922 (72nd Avenue) as shown on County Survey No. 19,127 and a line 30 feet easterly and parallel to said centerline. C 10/12/81 CRC 80.194.118 r `J Pag 2 of 2 I i Nor Scale: V=50' I Date: 9/21/81 existing I I I ( i I � I Additional Right of W4.Y ,Z l 10) I 0 Bradbury Court (Vacated) z a Assessment Ident. N4 54 I Tax Lot No. 2101 1 Tax Map No. 25-1-13A Deed Reference: FeelNo. 78_55656 I Owner: Bingham Inv4 tment Co. Additional Right of Way contains I 530 square feet more or less. I I I I N I I N O I i0 I c I N 8 I I I I I f 30/ I r29) I I I Hp6E�l00D I a , I ACWr I T1XtS I I 31 I\32 2 J I UE HAAS & ASSOCIATES, IWC. RIGHT OF WAY AooUISITION0P TAGC CENTER 21 S. Cater A% LID No. ILSOM/1uE, OREN(5503)682-2160. CITJ OF TIC - File: 80.194.118 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: September 10, 1984 AGENDA ITEM #: /7 4 DATE SUBMITTED: August 31, 1984 _ PREVIOUS ACTION: ISSUE/AGENDA. TITLE: Application _ for Industrial Revenue Bond-Western REQUESTED BY: Western International International Properties of Oregon Properties DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: INFORMATION SUMMARY Western International Properties has requested that the City endorse its application for approval from the State of Oregon Economic_ Development Department to issue Industrial °evenue Bonds. The company intends to develop two new 33,600 square foot buildings on the corner of 72nd Avenue and Tech Center Drive to be used by businesses requiring flexible industrial warehousing or light manufacturing space. The new construction will create approximately 324 new jobs. To be eligible for the State Authorization, the City must find that the project is in compliance with the City's local comprehensive plan and economic development plan. I have examined the application in conjunction with the Economy Element, the goals of our comprehensive plan, and the purpose of our Economic Development Committee and find that the proposal is in compliance with our plans. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The Council may: 1. Adopt the Resolution as written 2. Adopt a modified Resolution 3. Reject the Resolution SUGGESTED ACTION I recommend that the City Council vote to accept the attached resolution finding that the Western International Company project is in compliance with Tigard's zoning and comprehensive plan. (WAM:pm/0606P) C STOEL. RIVES, BOLEY, FRASER tae WY-"E A v RTNERSHIP N­' PROFESSIONAL C,�RVORATiONS DISTRICT OF COLVMBIA OFFICE IDAVIES, BIGGS, STRAYER.STOEL AND BCLEY) TELEPHONE 15031224-3380 WAS(RIVES,BCNYHADI S SMITH) 1STREET, SUITE 90 WASHI O NGTN,DCC 200345-4505 20036-4505 TELECOPIER LAW OFFICES 12021 955-4555 (5031220-2480 900 S W FIFTH AVENUE.SUITE i� 2300 WASHINGTON COUNTY OFFICE TELEX 703455 PORTLAND,OREGON 97204-1266 CABLE LAWPORT ONE LINCOLN CEUITE 400 10300 SW GREENBUENBURG ROAD TIGARD.OREGON 97223-5407 15031 220-1441 August 17, 1984 vt CIE H 1 s AUG 20 1984 Mr. William Monahan Director of Planning CITY OF TIGARD and Development "NING DEPS City of Tigard PO Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mr. Monahan: Re: Western International Properties Economic Development Revenue Bond Financing for Tigard Facility . My firm represents Western International Properties ' in connection with the proposed development of a 13-acre business park for office, warehouse and industrial use in the City of Tigard (the "Project" ) . Western is seeking to finance part of the costs of developing the Project by means of an economic development revenue bond issue to be issued by the State of Oregon Economic Development Commission. As you may know, the state law pursuant to which the Economic Development Commission issues its economic development revenue bonds requires that the proposed project be first approved by the County in which the project is to be located. To this end, we have contacted John Rosenberger, Washington County Director of Land Development, in order to secure the necessary approval from the Washington County Board of Commissioners. Mr. Rosenberger ha3 advised us that, prior to securing the Commissioners' approval, it will be first necessary to have the City Council of the City of Tigard confirm by resolution that the proposed Project con- forms to the zoning, development and land use plans of the City of Tigard. Therefore, enclosed herewith please find a copy of the application of Western International Properties to the Economic Development Commission for economic development F f f $TO F.[..RIVF.hi.ROLI" E .N K.\.4h:K&WY1h: t i Mr. William Monahan August 17, 1984 Page 2 F i revenue bond financing, which application describes in some detail the proposed Project in the city of Tigard. Pursuant to phone conversations had with members of your Planning g Department, they have indicated that, upon receipt and review of the enclosed application, your department will make the necessary recommendation to the City Council in order that it may adopt a resolution certifying that the proposed Project conforms to the City zoning, development and land use plans . We have been advised by Western International Properties that your department is familiar with their plans for the proposed Project. We are planning to have the Economic Development Commission ,consider the application for revenue bond financing of the proposed Project at their meeting to be held on September 25, 1984 and, to this end, it is necessary that we have the Washington County Commissioners approve the proposed Project on or before September 18, 1984. Therefore, we would greatly appreciate it if your office could consider the pro- posed Project and make your recommendation to the City Council so that the City Council could approve the Project prior to September 18, 1984. Thank you for your cooperation and assistance. If you have any questions, please feel free to call. Very trul yours, Edw. D. Einowski EDE: jb Enclosure cc: Mr. Jim Neuman Mr. Howard Feuerstein C WESTERN INTERNATIONAL PROPERTIES TIGARD PROJECT ( Application for Oregon Industrial Development Revenue1 Bonds November 198 NOTE: ALL RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONS SET FORTH BELOW ARE CONTAINED IN THE ADDITIONAL SHEETS ATTACHED HERETO. Company Information A. Name of Business, Address,and Phone Number. B. Headquarters location. C. Type of business(corporation, partnership, individual, sole proprietorship, etc.) D Name and title of chief executive officer. E. Other plant locations. F Is the company listed on any securities exchanges'' 1. Which exchange. 2. Stock symbol. G If not listed on a securities exchange, please list the names of all corporate officers and their titles. H. If not listed on a securities exchange, please list names and addresses of all stockholders holding 10 percent or more of total stock issued. 1. Attach financial statements for the past three years.If an applicant's company has been in existence less than three vears, attach a personal financial statement in addition to latest available statements for the company. if confidentiality is required, so indicate. ). Show type and amount of existing bonded indebtedness. K. Give a narration of company's history and type of business in which engaged. II. Project Information A. Proposed location in Oregon(street address plus access directions). The project is located in: 1. City 2 County B. Dates of project start-up and projected completion. C. Description of project.Include land acreage,proposed buildings,products,transportation requirements, equipment required,etc. D. Description of product or service to be produced and users of your product or services. E. Bond proceeds: 1. Equipment s 2. Buildings s 3. Land $ 4. Other(specify) $ 5. Total Bond S 6. Bond Issue as a %of Total Project — % F. Describe raw materials used in production process at proposed project(type, source,volume,etc.). Will rav% m:-�terials he purchased in Oregon' G. Describe anticipated market for product(s). To what type company and primary market area. Page 1 3 t ect on the local economy,specifically: H. Describe impact of the proj 1. Potential direct and indirect population impact. Gewer, water, and schools. 2. Area's ability to provide support services. Specifically, roads, 3. Local need for project and effect on local economic base,in terms of indirect jobs,diversification,tax base,etc. ounty) found the pliance its 1. Has the appropriate "aJdevelomme development plan. if project is in i corpo ated area,volt will need resoiultion adopted local economic p P from City and County. 111 Labor Force A. Total number presently employed in company. B. Total number presently -mployed at site of proposed project in Oregon. C. Additional projected number of local hires at proposed project,including hires from within a designated lagging area. D. Projected number of present employees at other locations in or out of state who will be transferred to the proposed project. E. Approximate number of positions in each labor category at proposed project(clerk,assembler,machin ist,etc.). Indicate number of existing,transfer or new positions for each category. Be specific in terms of labor category. F. Any special labor requirements? G. Do you plan special worker-training programs? If so, in what job categories? (Contact the EDD or Employment Division if you desire information about available government worker-training programs.) H. if project is in-state plant relocation, describe: (1) reasons for move; and (2) effect of relocation on company's labor force. y your employment projections with the Employment Division of the 1. The EDD will monitor and verif State of Oregon. 1V. Environmental Impact A. Water requirements. B. Will there be: 1. Air effluent?(type and amount) 2., Water effluent?(hype and amount) 3. Any solid waste for disposal?(proposed disposal method) C. Specify types,sources, and projected amounts of energy used in connection with proposed project. D. If pollution control revenue bonds are to be requested of the county,please give details. v. Projected Payroll and Profits(See Exhibit D) A. Anticipated increase in payroll direct])' resulting from project(first three years of operation). B. Anticipated increase in profit direct]) resulting from project (first three years of operation). C. Describe any expenditures by local public entites for public services required specifically for this plant location. Page 2 Attach the following Exhibits to the application: 1. Exhibit A: Attach a description of pollution control egjipment to be installed at the project, if applicable. a. Describe the equipment and the purpose it serves. h. Identify the location where the equipment will be placed. C. Estimate the cost of the equipment. d. List the name and phone number of the person at the company who will be knowledgeable about the equipment 2. Exhibit B Attach aerial photograph or map showing: a. The general location of the plant site. b. The extent of the facility which is to be funded by bond proceeds. 3. Exhibit C: Attach letter from appropriate local jurisdiction (City or County) indicating that the project is consistent with the local adopted economic development plan. 4. Exhibit D: Attach completed cost effectiveness formula (Attachment to Application). Also attach financial statements supporting projected increases in payroll and profits for first three years due to the investment. t Page 3 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL PROGRAMS FORMULA FOR DETERMINING IDRB COST EFFECTIVENESS Senate Bill 60. passed by 1979 Oregon Legislature, requires the Economic Development Commission to make a finding that each bond issue be cost effective, considering both major public expenses and major public benefits. Major Public Expenses(first year) The major public expenses can be identified as follows for all bonds issued: Federal Taxes Foregone $30,000 Loss equivalent to federal taxes that would have been gener- ated (30% marginal tax rate) if investors had placed their funds in taxable securities instead of tax-exempt bonds. 10% is assumed interest rate on alternative investments. 30,000 =1,000,000 x (.10) x(.30) State Taxes Foregone 3,000 Oregon allows interest on bonds to be exempt for individuals for state income tax purposes.Therefore the state will forego taxes based on the extent of holding of bonds by individuals (estimated at$300,000 per$1,000,000 of bonds). 3,000 = 300,000 x (.10) x (.10) Increased State k Local Borrowing Costs 3,500 Estimated increase in costs (higher interest rates)of public borrowing due to greater volume of tax exempt bonds on bond market. Total Annual Costs Per Million Outstanding $36,500 Therefore,applying the formula: Annual federal and state taxes foregone per million outstanding 33,000 x million = Increased state and local borrowing costs 3,500 x million = Expenditures by local public entity for public services(roads, sewers, water,etc.)directly caused by plant location Total Public Expense Page 4 Major Public Benefits(first year) The major public benefits are derived from employment and expansion of business volume which results in taxable profits: Total new Oregon hires due to investment Total increase in payroll due to investment Employment Growth Benefit Federal Tax benefit Gross annual payroll X .26 (.26 — marginal federal tax rate for employes) State tax benefit Gross annual payroll X .075 (.075 s marginal state tax rate for employees) Total Increased Taxable Profits Increase in taxable profits Federal tax(.385 x increase in profits) .385 — marginal federal corporate tax rate State tax(.075 x Increase in profits) .075 — marginal state corporate tax rate Total Total Public Benefits Note: While this formula is for determining IDRB cost effectiveness in the first year,the applicant and bond counsel should be aware, and the closing resolution so states, that ". . . subsequent years will show that public expenditures will decrease in proportion to the amount of the outstanding bond principal,and that public benefits will be maintained or increased." C Page 5 I. COMPANY INFORMATION l A. Western International Properties 1805 NW Glisan Portland, Oregon 97209 B. International Land Corp 2225 Folkstone Way West Vancouver, B.C. Canada V7S 2Y6 C. Western International Properties is a joint venture between James B. Neuman and Z.L.C. Inc. , a Seattle, Washington develop- ment corporation. The joint venture was formed in 1977 to develop real property in Oregon and California. D. International Land Corp. , Ltd. Gil Bradner, Chairman W. F. Dykes, President B. M. Stonnell, Vice President of Finance, Treasurer and Assistant Secretary Z. L. C., Inc. Gil Bradner, President W. F. Dykes, Vice President B. M. Stonnell, Secretary Western International Properties James B. Neuman, Managing Partner E. N/A C F. None of the above companies is listed on a securities exchange. G. See item D above. H. I. L. C. , Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of International Land Corporation, a Vancouver, British Columbia real estate development company. International Land Corporation in turn, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Hastings West Investment Ltd. , a publicly held Canadian company whose shareholders include the Great West Life Assurance Company, the Royal Bank of Canada, the Hong Kong Bank, Candou Industries and other in- dividuals. I. Financial statements of Western International Properties for the past three years are attached. CONFIDENTIALITY IS REQUIRED. J. Parkway Center Series A, Industrial Park State of Oregon, Department of Economic Development Total Bond: $6,691,000 authorized; $2,800,000 issued. Bond Guarantors: Burns-Western, Ltd. ' I. L. C. , Inc. K. History and profile of Western International Properties: Western International Properties seeks properties with development potential for its own account or will joint venture with other equity partners or lenders. Our objective f ( is to attain the highest possible return on the equity invested. We do this by an evaluation of various project opportunities and selecting only projects that satisfy established criteria. Western's development efforts are directed toward commercial and industrial projects; these include business parks, build- to-suit facilities and office and industrial buildings. Western is also involved in major rehabilitation of office buildings. The Process Western International Properties has a staff of professionals with widely diverse talents in real estate development. Each member has an average of twelve years experience in project management. Selected projects are taken through the develop- ment process from preliminary analysis to completion by proven methods. This involves the selection and coordination of consultants and specialists best suited to achieve the goals and objectives of individual projects. Western's strength lies in its ability to use the best talent available in the fields of research, appraisal, financial analysis, mortgage banking, planning, engineering, architecture, construction, property management and marketing. The effective interaction of these C disciplines has resulted in the establishment of Western's successful track record. Western International Properties has completed, or is '.n the process of developing a wide rance of industrial, commercial and residential projects in Oregon and California. The following lists the completed projects and projects currently under development: Parkway Center: a 100 acre mixed-use industrial/ commercial project in Wilsonville, Oregon. View-Master Complex: a 21.5 acre project designed for office, hotel and retail space in Beaverton, Oregon. Tech Center Business Park: a 13 acre business park for office, warehouse and industrial use in Tigard, Oregon. Park Avenue: a 40,000 square foot city block zoned for commercial use and residential units in Portland, Oregon. Langdon Farms: a 40 acre site in Clackamas County, Oregon with access to Interstate 5; designed for a commercial center. Star Building: a 40,000 square foot office and retail rehabilitation in Portland, Oregon. j Hayden Bay Townhomes: an 18 unit luxury condominium project on Hayden Bay in the Portland, Oregon area. Barrett Ranch: a 92 acre lot subdivision. in San Diego County, California. II. PROJECT INFORMATION A. The project is located at the intersection of 72nd Ave. and Tech Center Drive in the City of Tigard, Washington County. B. Dates of project start-up/completion: Phase I: Oct/Nov 1984 - Feb/March 1985 Phase II: January 1985 - April 1985 Phase III: Undetermined C. Description of Project: Tech Center Business Park is a new industrial/business park intended for businesses requiring flexible industrial warehousing/ light manufacturing space with attractive offices in a campus e environment. Site Design: 6.9 acres divided into three parcels reflecting the phases of the project. Phase I (Parcel B) is 105,465 s.f. with one building of 33,600 s.f. ; Phase II (Parcel C) is 104,357 s.f. with one building of 33,600 s.f. ; Phase III (Parcel Al is 87,693 s.f. with 1-3 buildings of 35,000 total s.f. Building configuration C 1 permits conversion of interior truck loading to executive office i landscaped courtyard. The site is now fully served by water, sewer, streets and f industrial electrical power supply. Building Design: Interior space is designed for flexible layout and expansion, with leaseable areas ranging from 5,000 s.f. to 33,600 s.f. in each building. Entry portals are provided at all corners and one intermediate location, offering distinctive corporate identity for each tenant. Interior truck loading is both dock-high and grade level. < Construction: Concrete tilt-up walls with extensive double-paned glass areas. Fully sprinklered. 1,000 amp, 3 phase electrical service with electrostatic isolation transformers. i D. Description of product or service and intended users. Same as C above. 1 E. Bond proceeds: (Phases I & II) Equipment None Buildings (Parcels B & C) $1,116,000 Land None 324,000 Tenant Improvements C ` 560,000 Fees, Interest, & Conting. $2,000,000 TOTAL BOND Bond Revenue as a % of Total Project - 66% F. Describe raw materials used in production process. N/A G. Describe anticipated market for products. The product is leaseable space in the buildings. The market area is the Portland SMSA. Targeted tenants are small to medium-sized businesses engaged in light manufacturing or product marketing and distribution. H. Describe the impact of the project on the local economy, specifically: 1. Potential direct and indirect population impact. Based on a probable net employee factor for the intended market of 3 per 1000 square feet for Phases I and II, and 4 per 10jo s.f. for Phase III, the total is assumed to be approximately 324 within the first year after completion. ' 2. Area's ability to provide support services. The project site is fully served by utilities, roads and schools, and police and fire protection services. 3. Local need for project: The City of Tigard has planned and zoned this property for industrial park based on the need for increased employment to support population growth in the area. C I. Compliance with City and County local economic development plans. Applications are pending. III, LABOR FORCE A. Total number presently employed in company: Zero (0) B. Total number presently employed at site of proposed project in Oregon: Zero (0) C. Additional projected number of local hires at proposed project: The total number of new jobs created as a result of this project is assumed to be 324 within one year of completion. D. Projected number of present employees at other locations who will be transferred to the proposed project: Not applicable. E. Approximate number of positions in each labor category at / proposed project: Labor requirements and training programs will be determined by future occupants of the project. F. Any special labor requirements? See "E" above. G. Special worker-training programs? See "E" above. H. Is project an in-state plant relocation? Not applicable. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT A. Water requirements: No unusual water requirements are anticipated. ' B. 1. Air and water affluents: No air or water problems are expected. All operations would be required to meet County and State standards. 2. Solid waste disposal: Solid waste generated by the development will be recycled or disposed of in accordance with existing sanitary landfill plans. C. Type, source and amount of energy requirements: The industrial building occupants may consist of a mix of all three (gas, electricity, fuel) energy sources. The exact requirements for each are unknown at this time. D. Pollution control revenue bonds: Not applicable. V. PROJECTED PAYROLL AND PROFITS A. Anticipated increase in payroll directly resulting from project (first year of operation) : 324 employees with a minimum average income of $15,000 per annum; $4,860,000/year or $14,580,000 for the first three years. B. Anticipated increase in profit directly resulting from project (first three years of operation) : Assumptions: 1. Land absorption: 4.9 acres per year 2. Average land value: $130,000 per acre 3. Average total facility asset value: 6 times land value 4. Minimum return on asset value (profits) : 10% 4.9 X 130,000 X 6 X .10 = Total profits per year. The total increase. in taxp:.!c profits for the first three years is expected to be 3 X $382,200 = $1,146,600. C. Describe any expenditures by local public entities for public services required specifically for this plant location: None anticipated. C OREGON DEPA TMENCIAOF ECONOMIC PROGRAMS DE,TLOrMENT FINAFORMULA FOR DETERMINING IDRB COST EFFECTIVENESS Senate Bill 60, passed by 1979 Oregon legislature, requires the Econonuc Development Commission to make a finding that each bond issue be cost effective,considering both major public expenses and major public benefits. Major Public Expenses(fist year) The major public expenses can be identified as follows for all bonds issued: $30,000 Federal Taxes Foregone Loss equivalent to federal taxes that would have been gener- ated (30% marginal tax rate) if investors had placed their funds in taxable securities instead of tax-exempt bonds 10% is assumed interest rate on alternative investments. 30,000 =1,000,000 x(.10) x (.30) 3,000 State Taxes Foregone Oregon allows interest on bonds to be exempt for individuals for state income tax purposes.Therefore the state will forego taxes based on the extent of holding of bonds by individuals (estimated at$300,000 per$1,000,000 of bonds). 3,000 - 300,000 x(.l0) x (.10) Increased State k Local Borrowing Costs 3,500 Estimated increase in costs (higher interest rates) of public borrowing due to greater volume of tax exempt bonds on �- bond market. Total Annual Costs $36,500 Per Million Outstanding Therefore,applying the formula: Annual federal and state taxes foregone per million outstanding 66,000 33,000 x 2.0 million = Increased state and local borrowing costs 3,500 x 2.0 million = 7,000 Expenditures by local public entity for public services(roads, None sewers, water, etc.)directly caused by plant location $73,000 Total Public Expense C Page 4 Major Public Benefits(first year) r,aior public ber, ..ts are derived from employment and expansion of business volume which results in taxable pvtltf: 324 Total neve Oregon hires due to investment Total increase in payroll due to investment S4 860.000 Employment Growth Benefit Federal Tax benefit Gross annual payroll x .26 1 263,600 (.26 - marginal federal tax rate for employes) State tax benefit Gross annual payroll x .075 364,500 (.075 - marginal state tax rate for employees) $6,488,100 Total Increased Taxable Profits 382,200 Increase in taxable profits 147,147 Federal tax(.385 x increase in profits) .385 - marginal federal corporate tax rate 28,665 State tax(.075 X Increase is profits) .075 - marginal state corporate tax rate $558.012 Total Total Public Benefits $7,046,112 r,the cant and Note: While this be formulaar . is for determining and the closing resp utioRB nssof states,that "in the sus�egsuent yearst Will show that public nd counsel should expenditures will decrease in proportion to the amount of the outstanding bond principal, and that public benefits will be maintained or increased." Page 5 t ir UL ju ........... N tj :1 12 183 CRESSUUR NK EC b8q S. Ar Sp W J. Km w 7i VLL Jw I RD TECH BUSINESS CENTER SITE r I,,I "T 9x 1110NITA 2 DURHAM Ck* t utt J 1 r. o T O 6.4 if V w r H 7EAW / wI dr U) m Lj 1 •• • 1 1 hWC� U.1 �� -lipAll 4110 - -� .66cm MK .. 'e �n �a t: � 'fr i . IN � I N 8 {zz{ µ N I i% �� 0 j • f 4I--. 6 L � lop ` t sr 74.r -- — 1 a ` I N e s. 1=.0 Aw" x` M � s Lp _ Y I Y 2 g o -_— P � H 4 1 f l I 1 I TECH CENTER i . . 1 AREA PLAN T'"D-0"011 �f f I � i C $ ' — S 4. .aw.-r.w.. 5 so"•r Z •w•.• 1 Sw Tscm CZNTEst DQE L N Sm PLAN F j CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON l COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: September 10, 1984 AGENDA ITEM DATE SUBMITTED: _, September 5 1984 PREVIOUS ACTION: Planning Commission ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Approved 9/4/84 NPO Appointments _ REQUESTED BY: r s DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: L -..._ CITY ADMINISTRATOR: s Z INFORMATION SUMMARY s Two �itizen3, Sandra Leihn and Naida James, have applied for NPO membership. The Planning Commission voted to forward their names to the City Council for consideration. f i } } S t ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Approve the two new members to their respective NPO's. SUGGESTED ACTION Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve Sandra Leihn and Naida James to their respective NPO's. 0615P C MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD T0: Members of the Planning Commission koftx---- FROM: William A. Monahan, Director of Planning and Development DATE: September 5, 1984 SUBJECT: NPO Appointments Two citizens have applied for NPO Membership. They are: Sandra Leihn 14875 SW 103rd NPO # 2 Naida James 15100 SW 119th NPO # 3 The Planning Commission at its meeting of September 4, 1984, voted to recommend that the City Council appoint them to their respective NPO's. Should they be appointed, the representation on Tigard's NPO's will be as follows: NPO #1. 9 NPO #2. 3 NPO #3. 10 NPO #4. 9 NPO #5. 10 NPO #6. 11 NPO V. 10 Staff recommends that the Council appoint these two citizens to their respective NPO's. (cz/0599P) c P CITYOF TIOARD CITIZEN COMMITTEE INTEREST APPLICATION NAME: _ /�/L�c 7�/� DATE: -!;z S ADDRESS (RES.) • / / c /L-). '� RES. PHONE: ADDRESS (BUS. ): ����� � l( /` < ZYBUS. PHONE: LENGTH OF RESIDENCE IN TIGARD: G SUGGESTED BY: �/�' WHERE DID YOU LIVE "REVlOUSLY? �" �✓ /�/i�t< < { t �1��� EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: �cAJ 41 n/ I- IIJ 09 OCCUPA 0NAL STATUS AND BACKGROUND:ec- .tri-� c Y-t_ HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN EMPLOYED WITH THIS FI .� IS THIS COMPANY LOCATED WITHIN YOUR NPO AREA (NPO APPLICANTS 0 LAY)? PREVIOUS COMMUNITY ACTIVITY: ORGANIZATIONS AND OFFICES: OTHER INFORMATION (GENERAL REMARKS): (t /) A—�t C A SL Qac Li -0-40 r BOARDS, COMMITTEES OR NPO INTERESTED IN: ----------------------- ---------------------------- Date Received at City Hall Date Interviewed Date Appointed Board, Committee, or NPO Inside City Outside City (0346p) t • t t CIN OF TIGARD cl'rt7.h.r+ t;OMMl 1'1'I•.t II+'fh:Kh:S'1 nl'I'Llt:n'I lur. Nnrlh.: og T Mi s AUUKESS (RES. ) : �QQ �� �� 7 ,'- • •���0 I<h':. I•IIUNI". � AUIMLSS (IIUS. ): S�J 02 �• lilt .. I'11(►Nh.: ♦Q�Ol' • "LNG-111 !IF RESIDENCE 1N -I IGAKU: � �/j/1/0• SII(;(.h.5'fh.0 ISY: -_ - • WHEkL DIU YOU LIVE; PREV1 SLY? 7V�---� D EU(1LAT ZONAL BACKGROUNU IrLIV • i 1116 tr OCLUPATIONAL STATUS AND BACKGROUND. 3jt1 i HOW LUNG HAVE YOU BEEN EMPLOYED WITH THIS FIRM? � as, IS THIS COMPANY LOCATED WITHIN YOUR NPO AREA (NPO APPLICANTS ONLY)? "ItEV1UUS COMMUNITY ACTIVITY: ORGANIZATIONS AND OFFICES: • OTIfER INFORMATION (GENERAL REMARKS) : IIIIARIIS• COMMI'1"1'EI•.S (IR NIP() INTERESTED IN: •l�• K.•crtvi•d at City Ilal I 11:114• Int.•tvtl•v.•.t 11.11r AI.In•1llt••.I li••.1Y.I !:•quWll ( .•••, ..� NI'lk 1•••.1.1. � It � - ----- - ---- Ilnt •.1J.• • 11 Y - NAIDA JAMES — Customer Representative Specialized Management Support EDUCATION - Graduate - North Bend High School Graduate - Lewis and Clark College BUSINESS EXPERIENCE -. Specialized Management Support, computerized accounting firm (five . years); City of Longview, Washington (Assistant Librarian); Washington State School for the Deaf(Teacher); Warner Southern College, Lake Wales, Florida (Reference Librarian); Teacher in Grand QCs S Cayman, British West Indies privto school; Far West Federal Savings and Loan (Personnel pepartment�wiMar�.ketin�and Research Analyst). + COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT - of •I��ll FISH Volunteer; Washington Park Zoo Guide; Old Town Ifiistoric Tour Guide; Disturbed Youth Camp Counselor; tAitheran Family Services (Publicity Brochure Chairman); Wife Artists Guild AREAS OF INTEREST AND EXPERTISE - Youth programs; special education, community fund raising, publicity and publications, city planning and development. ,:. r ; e a r.Y't.F aT3{is �'�. * s. K =* ' s t'�4" •" ', ` i lit N,s fRgfd� 1 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Mayor and City Council September 6, 1984 FROM: Loreen Wilson, Deputy Recorde SUBJECT: 7.6 Agenda Item This item will be hand-carried Monday evening, pending the results of tonight's Executive Session. lw COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 10, 1984 - PAGE 1 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: September 10, 1984 AGENDA ITEM #: DATE SUBMITTED: August 31, 1984 PREVIOUS ACTION: Acceptance of Phase ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Placement of I b 2, also Council has accepted a Copper Creek III on to Maintenance Performance Bond and Compliance Agreement on Phase III REQUESTED BY: Developer & Engineering DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: --------------------------_-aaaasaazsaasa=-=-=--za az-aria-----sasamazaaaaa aaa INFORMATION SUMMARY Copper Creek III is located East of Pick Landing II and West of Kneeland Estates I. This is Phase 3 of 4 Phases. All Performance Work has been complete except for Sidewalk which are being install as the homes are being built. About 75% of the lots have homes built on them. zsss::asszszasaasssasszssssssazsasassaasaasszaass zaa aasaaasaasaaasasaazssa:aszs ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ----------- =---------------- SUGGESTEDESTED ACTION The Engineering Division recommends that the City Council place this project / onto it Maintenance Period. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: September 10, 1984 AGENDA ITEM #: J, DATE SUBMITTED: August 31, 1984 PREVIOUS ACTION: Acceptance of ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Placement of Performance Bond 6 Compliance Agreement Bond Park I on to Maintenance REQUESTED BY: Developer & Engineering Qy� Department DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: h/-#_" l CITY ADMINISTRATOR: --------------------=-=.=------------—-----------zzzss ssssszsszaxss:a as:szs s INFORMATION SUMMARY Bond Park I is located on the East side of SW 79th Ave, North of SW Durham Rd. Bond Park I is the first phase of 3 phases. All. performance work has been completed, except for sidewalks. About 75% of the lots have homes built on them. asszss::sa:sssasasazzasaazszszs:zaasaaasazazaaaazszsazaaaszzx:---------- ALTERNATIVES saassaaszALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ::::::sass::sass:asaaassss:aa:a:a:salsa:sseas::ss:ssasaa::salsa::sasaasassxaa:s SUGGESTED ACTION The Engineering Division recommends that this project be placed onto Maintenance by the City Council. f