The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 04/29/1985 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an ' SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA agenda item needs to sign on the appropriate APRIL 29, 1985, 7:30 P.M. sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH ask to be recognized by the Chair at the start 10865 SW WALNUT of that agenda item. Visitor's agenda items TIGARD, OREGON-97223 are asked to be kept to 2 minutes or less; longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by con- tacting either the Mayor or City Administrate-- 1. SPECIAL MEETING: 1.1 Call To Order and Roll Call 1.2 Pledge of Alegiance l,. 1.3 Call To Staff and Council For Non-Agenda Items 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (2 Minutes or Less, Please) 3. RECOGNIZE NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH COMMITTEE RESOLUTION NO. 85- o Chief of Police 4. DISCHARGE OF FIREARMS ORDINANCE NO. 85-17 AMENDMENT (second reading) 5. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PD 1-85 ZONE CHANGE ZC 5-85 MAIN STREET LAND CORP. NPO #1 Review Planning Commission recommendation for conceptual plan approval of-a 221,000 square foot.retail center on a 20.3 acre parcel; and mor approval of a Zone Change from R-12(PD) (Residential, 12 units/acre) to CBD (Central Business District) for a 3.19 acre parcel on the southeast side of Ash Street, (WCTM 2S1 2AC 1200, 1300, 1400, 1500, 1600, 2200, 2300, 2301, and 201; WCTM 2S1 2DB 300). This will be as "argument-type" hearing only. The Council will consider only the record before the Planning Commission, which is on file at City Halla The Council shall not consider any new testimonyor evidence which is not in the record, o Public Hearing Opened o Summation by Director of Community Development o Public Testimony - "on-the-record" only o Public Hearing Closed a Consideration by Cou"Pil 6. A14NEXATION POLICY SCS USSION o Director of ommun t eve o mend 7. POLICY REVIEW o City Administrator 8. 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: 8.1 Approve April 22, 1985 Minutes. � 8.2 Accept the Recorded Sanitary Sewer Easement for "Paris Street Square" 8.3 Approve Final Accept. Public Sanitary Sewer-Park Street Square Resolution No. 85-� 8.4 Appr.vve and Accept Public improvement s-Kevington Subdivision Resolution No. 85- A&8.5 Approve and Authorize City Acceptance for Subdivision Compliance Agree. 6 Performance - Bond-Colony Creek #3 8.6 Approve and Authorize City Acceptance for Subdivision Compliance Agree. 8 Performance - Bond-Colony Creek #4 9. NON-ACENDA ITEMS: From Council and Staff 10. ADJOURNMENT (pm/2677A) COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL 29, 1985 - PAGE 1 �W TIGARD CITY C O U N C I L SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 29, 1985 - 7:30 P.M. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor John Cook; Councilors: Tom Brian, Phil Edin, Jerry Edwards, and Ima Scott; City Staff: Bob Jean, City Administrator Bill Monahan, Community Development Director Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel; and Loreen Wilson, Deputy City Recorder. 2. CALL TO STAFF AND COUNCIL FOR NON-AGENDA ITEMS a. No one appeared to speak, 3, RESOLUTION NO. 85-27 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON, ESTABLISHING A NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE a, Captain Jennings synopsized purpose of'committee, introduced John Sedey who has been working with the Police Department on this project, and recommended adoption. b, Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Edwards to approve Resolution No. 85-27 and acceptance of the procedures manual for the committee. Approved by unanimous vote of:Council present. 4 ORDINANCE NO. 85-17 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE 7.32.120 DISCHARGE OF WEAPONS BY PROVIDING FOR THE TESTING OF WEAPONS BY GUNSMITHS IN APPROVED SHOOTING BOOTHS AND BULLET TRAPS. Required Second Reading. a, Motion by Councilor Edwards, seconded by Councilor Brian to adopt. Approved by majority vote of Council present. Councilor Scott voting nay. 5, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PD 1-85 ZONE CHANGE ZC 5-85 MAIN STREET LAND CORP. NPO #1 Review' Planning Commission recommendation for conceptual plan approval of a 221,000 square foot retail center on a 20.3 acre parcel; and for approval of a Zone Change from R-12(PD) (Residential, 12 units/acre) to CBD-PD ,(Central Business District) for a 3.19 acre parcel on the southeast side of Ash Street, (WCTM 2S1 2AC 1200, 1300, 1400, 1500, 1600, 2200, 2300, 2301, and 201; WCTM 2S1 2DB 300). This was an "argument-type" hearing only. a. Mayor Cook outlined the type of hearing and process which would be used in the public hearing. Legal Counsel stated a petition was circulated in the neighborhood and if;Council had received copiee they should disregard, as this was new evidence and not aft"i.ssible: Page -1 - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 29, 1985 ,Vw Councilor Edin stated he lived 250' away from the subject site and has been a neighborhood advocate on transportation and ( neighborhood issues for many years. However,- he does not feel a conflict of interest exists. He has had contact with the applicant regarding a transportation matter but did not discuss the merits of this plan at that time. Councilor Edin further stated that he will hear this matter with an ;open mind arui make a finding that will uphold the Comp Plan. Councilor Brian also noted several contacts with residents from the; area and stated he has had previous contacts with the applicant's attorney Mr. Ball. He stated these contacts would have=no<effect on his decision, b. Public Hearing Opened C. Director of Community Development synopsized the history of the issues, noting that there were two separate requests. Consideration of the conceptual plan For the development and a zone change request. He noted Planning Staff had recommended approval of the originalconceptual plan and denial of the zone change request, and that Planning Commission recommended approval of both, with the zone change requiring a covenant toberecorded which would not allow any construction on that particular lot Director of Community Development stated Council then called this _ matter up for review.' d. Public Testimony: Proponents: o Mr. Robert Ball, applicant's attorney. 101 SW Main, Portland, spoke to their desire for Council approval on the conceptual plan. He stated the Planning Commission record shows no conflict with TMC Section 18,80.120 which sets the only approval criterion for planned developments. Attorney Ball continued to outline the history of the site, phasing plans, buffering concerns, and noted the development meets economic development requirements. _ He also ': . stated the requested zone change was consistent with the Camp Plan map_which was the underlying zone requirement. We noted that a sensitive lands permit is needed from the Heraings Officer. The project must be completed in less than seven years, consistent with the Code. A street vacation is needed. The applicant will ' dedicate the street created on the new alignment of Ash Avenue upon completion. o Mr. Dennis Brun, applicant's architect, stated that the. original site plan has been'modified to address some of the concerns heard at the Planning Commission hearing, He noted the modified plan would include more landscaping, design to limit noise, and stree. - alignment modification. He discussed the phasing of the project and explained the elements of each phase. o Mr. Wayne: Kittleson, applicant's traffic engineer, distributed a letter from Kittleson and Associates which addressed trips per day and other traffic impact 'issues. He noted that the angle parking h.. has' ;been,,.modified in the new plan to be over ;200 feet inside the i Page 2 COUNCIL MINUTES — APRIL 29. 1985 2 ...M - t development and would allow for 9-11 vehicles to stack before interrupting the traffic flow on Main Street. o Attorney Ball synopsized the presentations and drew attention to the sidewalks and bikepaths within the development along with a 30 foot set back along the south side of the site. Opponents: ' s o Gloria Johnson, 9300 SW Hill Street, opposed the zone change and addressed concerns regarding inadequate buffering. She expressed opposition to the original traffic pattern concept in the first site plan and submitted a letter of concern, o Emmett Whitaker, 13250 SW Burnham Court, noted he circulated the petition discussed 'earlier by the City Attorney. He received late notification of 'the' Planning Commission hearing on this issue and expressed concern about traffic volume/impact, air quality, and noise. Mr.' Whitaker feared the zone change area proposed for Cosco employee parking wouldnotallow for public park—use parking. o Dan Gott, 13230 SW Hill Court, opposed the traffic congestion the development would create and stated the traffic statistics which were used to plan this development were over 10 years old and insufficient. o Anita Edi.n, 13110 SW Ash Drive, opposed the first conceptualplan presented to Planning' Commission. The modified plan looked better, however, the visual impact upon the neighborhood would be unacceptable unless some guarantee could be given that the buffering would be high enough and maintained over the years of the development. o Gary Ott, Acting Chairman of Np0 01, stated the NPO discussed the project and was concerned the applicant does not show a 30' buffer zone on the south side of the site as stated. The NPO voted against the zone change request since TMC Section 18.56.030(3)(b) requires that all land within a COD zone remain residential along Fanno Creek. The NPO was concerned that the development maintain and protect the existing neighborhood area. Rebuttal: o Attorney Ball addressed the following areas of concern: o air and noise pollution would be addressed and controlled by DEQ. o employee parking area would allow park-use parking. o landscaping would be maintained and is usually spoken to in the conditions of a development approval. o the zone change is a hybrid use and would not allow construction on the site, thus isnotagainst the intent of ,- the code. z Attorney Ball recommended'approval of the requests. ' o Wayne Kittleson, explained road trips and discussed impacts of'new, trips on 99W would not 'sufficiently increase the traffic problems there. Page 3 - COUNCIL MINUTES — .APRIL 29, 1985 a��ltloMM at Y o Gary Ott mentioned no legal opinion has been received on those issues questioning compliance with the Code. e. Public Hearing Closed f. Council Consideration Lengthy discussion followed. Councilors discussed their concerns regarding traffic impact, _ zone change inappropriateness, Ash Avenue/Johnson Street connection, Ash Avenue alignment, landscaping and berms, and homeowner involvement in placement of landscaping on south side. g. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Edin to make a tentative finding of denial for the zone change request with the exception of that parcel of land west of the proposed Ash Avenue right-of-way realignment as depicted on themodifiedplan and direct staff to prepare necessary papers for final action. Approved by majority vote of Council present. Councilors Edin and Scott voting nay. h. Motion by Councilor Edin, seconded by Councilor Brian to tentatively place a PD designation on that portion of tax lot 300 of the modified site that is currently zoned CBD and 'rezone that portion of the modified site on the west side of SW Ash Avenue proposed right-of-way to CBR-PD and direct staff to prepare necessary documents for final action. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. i. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Scott to tentatively find the conceptual plan as modified, be approved with the following conditions and modifications and request staff prepare the necessary documents for final action incleading appropriate findings set forth in the staff report. o Shopping area shall not allow traffic to access Ash Avenue. o There will be no public streets within the parking lot. o No parking lot shall be constructed for employees east of SW Ash Avenue realignment. o Phase I construction shall include: o the retail building; o all parking lot and parking landscaping shown on modified plan phase I; o all ingress-egress to Main Street and 99W; o all improvements bordering the greenway, bikepaths, or t . pedestrial walks o 'realignment of Ash Avenue; o grading of phases II and III areas; o finalized landscape plan shall guarantee proper installation and perpetual maintenance :. o retail building in Phase I shall be set back 50 feet from south property line 'of development as it adjoins the existing residential neighorhood. Page 4 COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 29, 1985 o Dedication of necessary right-of--way which is required so the applicant can building Ash Avenue. o Conceptual plan approval subject to staff review of traffic study information, o The park land shown on the plan, including greenwaylfloodway areas, shall be dedicated to the City. o A thirty foot setback along the south property ;line as it adjoins the R-12 zone will be maintained. o All subsidiary applications, documents, and fees shall be filed with the City. o Staff conditions from the April 2, 1985 staff report, items 1-4, must be complied with, as follows: o Sensitive Lands approval will be required for all grading and improvements within the 100 year flood plain. A Sensitive Lands approval shall be obtained before the Detailed Plan is submitted for review. a A Detailed Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval that is in conformance with the requirements in 18.80 of the Cole. - In addition, said plan shall include the following information or modifications: a. Buffering and screening consistent with Section 18.80.120 (a) (3) (S) and Chapter 18.100 of the Code. b. Identification and location of noise sources within the western portion of the project and a method for shielding adjoining residences from excessive noise impacts. C. The landscaping plan for the development shall preserve as many trees over six inch caliper on the site as practical. o Specific conditions relating to public improvements shall be applied upon Detailed Plan approval. o This approval is valid if exercised within one year of the final decision date. Approved by unanimous .vote of Council present. j. City Administrator stated that appropriate;documents would be back to Council at least by the 20th of May. k. Councilor Brian stated that it is the intent of Council to call up �n for review the site design review of this project. RECESS: 10:20 P.M. RECONVENE: 10:35 P.M. , Page 5 o COUNCIL MINUTES — APRIL. 29, 1985 d , These items are considered to be routine and may be 6 CONSENT AGENDA: arate discussion. Anyone may request enacted in one motion without sep € ' on for discussion and separate action. that an item beremoved by moti Motion to: [ $.1 Approve April 22 1985 Minutes. 8.2 Accept the Recorded Sanitary Sewer Easement for "Park Street Square" 8.3 Approve Final Accept, Public Sanitary Sewer-Pak Street Square r Resolution No. 85-25 ept Public Improvements-Kevington Subdivision 8.4 Approve and Aco Resolution No. 85-25 8.5 Approve and Authorize City Acceptance for Subdivision Compliance !!! Agree. & Performance - Bond-Colony Creek #3 ` 8.6 Approve and Authorize City Acceptance forSubdivision Compliance � Agree. & Performance - Bond-Colony Creek ##4 l Brian, seconded by Councilor Edwards to j a. Motion by Councilor approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 7. POLICY REVIEW a• City Administrator discussed quarterly policy review with Council and stated City needs to take a serious 1004 at traffic issues ssed policy calendar and requested City city-wide. Council discu Administrator and Mayor reschedule some items and 'bring back for consideration. 8. ANNEXATION POLICY DISCUSSION a. City Administrator stated the Council needs to have an update on the Metzger/Washington Square annexation status and then discuss its 'policy on annexation. Then Associate Planner Newton and the Director of Community Development presented the information they gave to a recent annexation information meeting. b. City Administrator discussed the financial impact of annexation of the Metzger/Washington Square area and suggested Councilat they discuss whether the current policy in the Comp an is to use. should C. After lengthy discussions. Coua�in t og E�intmtal annexation tated the y of the take an at rel Metzger/Washington Square area, however also continue to accept small parcels that are submitted for annexation consideration. to uphold Councilor Edin's suggestion. Consensus of Council was 9. ADJOURNMENT: 11:40 P.M. p ` ATTEST: Deputy City Recorder City 0.1 Tigard - City ;of Tigard /2718fi , Page b - COUNCIL "MINUTES APRIL 29, 1985 TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY N tice7 X345 ` P.O.BOX 370 PHONE(`.03)MM-0360 BEAVERTON,OREGON 97075 ��b . fr9��Y 3 Legal Notice Advertising 19 ❑ Tearsheet Notice C!t' , 0F City of Tigard 6 PO Box 23397 • I] Duplicate Affidavit }` Tigard, OR 97223 ,r • AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGOtd, COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, yss. jaa uelyn Agee I-- being first duty sworn, depose end say fiT j�a the meeising Director,or his princlpat clerk,of the f a newspaper of;general circulation as defined in ORS t@ nthe �10 and 193.020;published a �i ersrA aforesaid earentY and t is-that the GitY�'ou $t�ecial Mestin�� a printed copy of which is hereto annexe d,was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for successive and consecutive in the following issues: it 25 1985 _• # ri 29 985 Suacrtltsod an or o before rrno this S'A 1 s 1 _ otary Public for Oregon yrasion> 9/20/88 I3I=FIDAV9T AGENDA ITEM # VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE (Limited to 2 minutes or less, Please) ii Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items• but wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, `require that we schedule your items for a future agenda. Please contact the City Administrator as: to agenda scheduling. Thank you. ITEM DESCRIPTION NAME;, ADDRESS & AFFILIATION t -------------- CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMAP.Y AGENDA OF: April 29, 1985 AGENDA ITEM It: DATE SUBMITTED: April 1985 PREVIOUS ACTION: N/A ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Neighborhood - Watch'Cannittee Recognition PREPARED BY. Neighborhood Watch Committee REQUESTED BY: Chief R.B. Adams DEPARTMENT HEAD OK � �,Lle CITY ADMINISTRATOR; POLICY ISSUE' City Council continued interest in citizen volunteer groups to aid in city goals and objectives. INFORMATION SWMARY' The Neighborhood Watch Contni ee sbeen .in operation as an informal crime prevention organization for the past several months, assisting the police department in this program, and have done an outstanding job. This committee has developed a comprehensive operation manual to provide guidance and manage- rt of the program, present and future. (Sae attached manual). react It is recommended that the Steering Committee ccarposed of five members be the official members of the Neighborhood Watch Committee reporting to the City Council as required. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. The police department staffing - constraints prohibits or limits its ability to maintain a Neighborhood Watch Program. 2. Establish a citizen volunteer group to aid the police department in this crirre prevention program to reduce the frequency of burglary, theft, and vandalism in neighborhoods. SUGGESTED ACTION 1 Reccmrend to City Council to recognize the Neighborhood Watch Committee as an official ccamittee' of the City of Tigard, and accept the CcmnitteeIs' objective statement and procedures manaual Respectfully, ,dam_ s Chief--of -Po l 14e �r C ti TISARD NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH OPERAT I ONOS PROCEDURE 4 1h u i� 3 ; g - r} Presented by• Tigare! N�s'c3hberho©d la4atoh Steering Committee - � =, CONTENTS OBJECTIVE ., . 3 LIABILITIES;' SCOPE . • 5 ORGANIZATION CHART. . b OPERATIONAL- DETAILS • q RESPONSIBILITIES. 14 GLOSSARY. • FLOW CHART. . . FORMS . . . - x•.K k e .. q`f OBJECTIVE The objective of the Tigard Neighborhood Watch is ico @revent neighborhood crime by: 1. Creating neighbor to neighbor awareness 2. Making homes more secure by hardening 3. Identiiying home items (operation I.D. ) 4. Placing Nei gbM:biooc_i tilat9b si9al of compliance Zz{ LIABILITY Participation in any or all facets of the Tigard Neighborhood Watch Program does not imply a guarantee against crime. - L Y 2 { s � t SCOPE The Tigard Neighborhood 'Watch is a citizen operation with the cooperation of the Tigard Police Department. The primary function is to protect residences from crime. Under certain conditions it can be extended to include close proximity businesses. Tigard 's population is approximately 2 0,00 equates to 5,000 homes. It is estimated that 500 homes0areich in the program at this time. The purpose of this document is to present an operational program which will permit rapid coverage of_remaining homes in the least amount of time. Also, as members leave, a written program will allow replacements to carry on with little or no effort. The Neighborhood Watch Program is voluntary and must be requested by the neighborhood. Assistance and guidance is furnished by the Tigard Neighborhood Watch Implementation Committee (IC) . The IC will operate with instructions, guidance, and polic furnished by the Tigard Neighboehood* Watch Steering Committee y (SC) . The SC shall be composed of five citizens. All Citizens shall function without compensation. The responsibilities of x this committee are outlined in their respective "Responsibility" sections. The IC is composed of all SC members and other citizens, Tigard Police_ Department representatives, and Area Coordinators required to do the job at any given time. The responsibilities Of this committee are outlined in their respective "Rossonsi bi l i ty,, sections. The Area Coordinator 'will interface directly with an assigned representative of the IC. After the neighborhood is established, the Area Coordinator will interface with the Tigard Police Department Crime Prevention Detail. The IC will be advisory. z -4- rt ORGANIZATIONAL CHART a,. CITY COUNCIL STEERING COMMITTEE a IMPLEMENTATION TIGARD POLICE COMMITTEE DEPARTMENT AREA COORDINATOR BLOCK BLOCK IBLOCK BLOCK COOR`1INATORS COORDINATORS COORDINATORS COORDINATORS THE NEIGHBORHOOD ; -5- 385 Y Y OPERATIONAL DETAILS ADVERTISEs Any method that brings Neighborhood Watch to the attention of Tigard residents. i.e. newspapers, brochures, word of mouth, televisiori, schools, etc. REQUESTS -The initial contact made by a person (s) inquiring or desiring information about Neighborhood Watch. It is expected that .most contacts will be with the Tigard Police. In all such cases,- -the Tigard Police Department will give the inquiring person (s) two telephone numbers. This will permit them to make contact with the, IC, ACKNOWLEDSEs The IC contact person, upon receiving this initial neighborhood information. The call , will request pertinent parsons) will be informed that an IC memberwillbe assigned to this; case and will return a call within 7 days to set up a personal contact meeting. The IC contact person will consult with. the IC chairman to determine the member this new case will = be assigned, (Acknowledge and History Information Form) ANALYZES After the follow-up telephone contact, the IC member shall obtain a map of the neighborhood from the Tigard Police Department. An analysis will indicate whether the neighborhood a is within the boundaries of an existing Area Coordinator or if a new assignment is required. At this time a preliminary subdividing of the neighborhood into blocks can be made, each consisting of 7 to 15 homes. This grouping can be revised by the Area Coordinator at his or her discretion. MEET AND INFORMS The first personal contact meeting is small and informal , consisting of the person (s) making the request, the Area Coordinator (if known) , and the IC member. The IC member will give copies of the preliminary map to the participants. It will be explained that since they know their neighborhood best, they determine the person within each block to fill the Block Coordinator assignment (s) . Also, if the neighborhood is not within the boundaries of an existing Area Coordinator, then they 3 must fill this position. Briefly discuss security surveys, - target hardening, quantity and cost of signs, duties of `Area and Block Coordinator, etc. Explain that these will be covered in detail at' future meetings. Meet and In List) -6- NEIGHBORHOOD DECISIONS It is important that be-Fore this meeting adjourns, a decision for Neighborhood Watch be made. The next two stepsdependon their willingness to proceed. _If the neighborhood rejects the program, this terminates the process until they contact us at a future date and start over. ORGANIZEa The person (s) requesting Neighborhood Watch now have a map of the neighborhood with preliminary subdivisions into blocks, as well as brief duties of BlockCoordinators. It is - their responsibility to canvas their neighbors for those willing to be Block` Coordinators. This also applies for an Area Coordinator, if required. If the Area Coordinator position is already filled, then he or she can assist with the Block Coordinator requirements. PROCEEDs The Area and Block Coordinators are now known. The Area Coordinator notifies the I:, person responsible for the successful completion of this assignment. KICKOFF' MEETINGs The first organizational meeting with the Area and Block Coordinators is chaired by the IC person. At this meeting, the Block Coordinators are informed of initial block meetings and asked to schedule them within the next 21 days. It is the Area Coordinators responsibility to assist with scheduling to prevent same date meetings. Also, at this meeting, the sign quantity andcostshould be determined. The IC person should exert firm but subtle pressure towards establishing dates and keeping momentum going to completion. (Kickoff Meeting Agenda) BLOCK MEETINGSs Meetings are scheduled by the Block Coordinators, chaired by the EC person with the Area Coordinator and a Tigard Police Department representative assisting. The IC person may delegate this meeting to a seasoned Area Coordinator, but this does not relieve him or her of any overall responsibility. k (Block Meeting Agenda, Attendance Form, Phone Tree Alerting Farm) SECURITY SURVEYSs These are seges&ed on-site home visits u y conducted by the Tigard Police Department, their reserve officers, or trained and authorized citizens. The surveys are to r determine weak spats in .home security with recommendations. It is the homeowners responsibility to make corrections.- SIGNS *1s The IC treasurer, upon receipt of funds and quantity from the Area Coordinator, will place the order for the signs. Signs received will be turned over to the Area Coordinator. It SIGNS *2s The placing of the signs shall be a joint responsibility of the Area and Block Coordinator with emphasis on block participation. -7- ines ication NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH ESTABLISH® rmal 1 mento CrimenPreventiOne established with the Tigard police • ''V Detail and severed with the IC- (Although IC will always be ready to advise and serve- ) Responsibilities at this time are: TPD' - Telephone alerting (via phone tree) D'- Follow-up surveys when requested AC Liaison between TPD and Block Coordinators BC - Greet 'new'neighbors BC Follow-up block meetings at least once a' year BC - Maintenance of signs ALL - Recruit new neighborhoods (word of mouth) and refer to IC k f a a STEERING COMMITTEE RESPONSIBILITIES Fire citizens _that: 1. Set policy Write procedure 2. Are full functioning meeabers of 1C s` 3�. Meet .as required Y, 4. No meeting minutes S.; Resolvg 'procedural' problems encountered by .IC 6. Critique progress } 4 r IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE RESPONSIBtILITIES Follows, procedure obtained from SC, A. Membership 1 . Five SC citizens - 2. Other; citizens (4 maximum) 3. All Area_coordinators y 4. Tigard Police Department Co jj 4. B. Membership assignments to citizens 1. Chairman t .. 2. Contact Person 3. Secretary 4. Treasurer P*+. d Participating members 5 �.�..� r.,,cs�r•� C. Monthly progress meetings 1. Attended by all IC members (Area Coordinators as required) 2. Minutes required and copies sent to IC members, City Council and Chief of Police D. Interim meetings 1. Only those member, involved in �41em solvin in a particular case 2. No minutes required e .a . AREA C013RDINATOR RESPONSIBILITIES During neighborhood implementation. the Area Coordinator reports to the IC. After the neighborhood is on 'line, he or she will report'; to the Tigard Police Department. A 1. To provide a Block Coordinator for each 7-15 houses 2. Assist the Block Coordinator with scheduling of neighborhood meetings 3. •Assist IC in determining sign quantities and cost 4`. Attend. annual block meetings 5. Forward money for signs to the IC Treasurer fix. Promote ongoing awareness of Neighborhood Watch 7. Monitor the maintenance of signs S. Receive alert calls from Tigard Police Department and initiate the phone tree 9. Maintains an upto date list of Block- Coordinators with alternates ,r • T h _ BLOCK COORDINATOR RESPONSIBILITIES Block Coordinator reports to the Area Coordinator and is } responsible for. 1. Scheduling neighborhood block meetings a. initial block meeting b. annual follow-up meetings 2. Developing phone tree 3. Collecting money for signs and forwarding ,to Area Coordinator . 4 Promoting the welfare and maintenance of Neighborhood f Watch signs 5. Meeting, welcoming and informing new neighbors of the Neighborhood Watch Program. b. Passing can any pertinent alert information received from Tigard Police Department or Area Coordinator via phone tree ,,.�e Ay k � t v ' -'M.'t =K."'_.r'x,,,�xw.�h2r.`o;}�M�.-.,..�.a«��.s..+�.3 ..,.....s�«.� .v.,..x .rcvaL�,,,.,h ...s..: _„ r�•La«"a".tY sh....,{ ._1,. 's"ts �-lr.._tw.r;. TIGARD POI..ICE DEPARTMENT RESPONSIBILITIES The Tigard police Department is the in crime prevention.icial law it is T 9 oa nt them. agency and an important focal P prevention bring natural that any ,first thoughts in crime p to mind Neighborhood Watch cThistinvalv�menincludes:their cooperation and involvement. 1. Telephone answering service for new inquiries on the IC (head of crime 2. Provides a, representative ; prevention detail) , 3. Provides neighborhood maps to IC 4, Assists in block muting presentations a. attends in uniform b. shows movie c, discusses target hardening , d, shows dead bolt lock assemblies e. demonet;-ates home security, #, introduces Operation I.D- 8, discusses phone tree alerting h, accepts questions 5. Conducts requested security surveys dintors b. Keeps,and updates a list of AreahorhoodCooraWatch Frogram participating in the Tigard Neig 7. Provides telephone alerting e�oCthe ed inator neighborhood Area Coordinator or alternate ch signs. S. Maintaining gateway Neighborhood Wat -1.3- GLOSSARY ADVERTISE any method making the public aware of Tigard Neighborhood Watch AREA COORDINATOR (AC) - person responsible for certain functions within a neighborhood BLOCK a *group of residence and their coordinators BUCK COORDINATOR (BC) person responsible for certain functions within a block BLOCK MEETING - a planned and coordinated meeting of participating residences within a given block IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE (IC) ongoing committee that actively installs Neighborhood Watch Program KICKOFF MEETING - the first formal meeting of IC, AC, and BCs NEIGHBOrRHOOD {BATCH - a program created to obtain citizen involvement in discouraging and preventing residential crime OPERATION I.D. - marking household items: decals in windows PHONE TREE - a rapid downhill communications system RESILIENCE - one horse or apartment within a block SECURITY SURVEY - close examination of a residence to determine weak spots in home security STEERING COMMITTEE (SC) - establishes policy for Neighborhood Watch Program TARGET HARDENING -- correction of items discovered by a security survey BI RD POLICE DEPARTMENT (TPD) - The official Tigard law agency -14- ACKNOWLEDGE INFORMATION FORK! Name. _ -------Date---------------- Address---------------------------------------------Phone--------------- Closest ---- ---Closest cross street-------------------------------------------------- Neighborhoods ------------------------------------ ------Neighborhoods name-------------------------._. -----------_-_------- Other interested persons Reminder: Inform inquirer that an IC person will return their call within seven days. IC member assigned-____----__ YES Neighborhood Decision _-- NO Signed---- Date Neighborhood Watch Established Date R. {+ MEET'AND INFORM LIST 1. Have map marked with Block Coordinator 's zones to give to person(s) 2. Discuss briefly. the duties of a a. Area Coordinators b. Block Coordinators c. Initial block meetings d Annual follow-up meetings e. Security surveys f. Target hardening g. Quantity and cost of signs 3. Decision to proceed (signature rewired) KICKOFF MEETING AGENDA 1. Establish block meeting dates 2. Provide block meeting agenda 3. Suggest adults only (not a requirement) ' q. Provide a copy of Area and Block Coordinators responsibilities 5. Discuss sign placement, quantity and dost 6. Provide preliminary map with block boundaries n � r t J` rj �1 w BLOCK MEETING AGENDA i. Block Coordinator introduces IC and Area Coordinator 2. IC person, or Area Coordinator, gives a brief history of Tigard Neighborhood Watch and goals progress report a. First started in Summerfield M b. Genesis, part of Englewood c. About 500 homes participating r d. Citizen volunteer program, non profit e. Tigard Police Department assistance ' CI f. After new neighborhood is in operation, may volunteer for IC as vacancies occur 3. IC person for Area Coordinator) introduces Tigard Police 4Y Department representative ' 4. See Tigard Police Department responsibilities S. IC person (or Area Coordinator) discusses signs and �. costs, phone tree, etc 6. Block Coordinator circulates attendance form, collects money to be given to Area 'coordinator, and closes Y meeting 4 Y �* � PHONE TREE ALERTING 11 = - - " .PILEASE: l+ there is no answer, continue on through the------------- :tree! ^ BLOCK MEETING ATTENDANCE FORM HOME EMERGENCY NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE TELEPHONE PAID •T r METHOD OF IMPLEMENTATION FLOW CHART Advertise ADVERTISE (any method) Neighborhood group or person indicates desire for Neighborhood Watch. REQUEST All requests forwarded to IC. IG (T IC contacts group or person and sets up ACKNOWLEDGE meeting. (phone call ) k f 4 IC obtains neighborhood map. Draws tentative block ANALYZE boundaries. IC IC meets with group or person to go over neigh - borhood map and explain MEET AND INFORM what Will be required of them. IC V. 3/85 1111=11111 oil �a . .S 1 • Group or person NEIGHBORHOOD accepts what is NO DECISION required of them and agrees to proceed END OF REQUEST YES Select, appoint or canvas for Area Coordinator (AC) ORGANIZE and Block Coordinators A Area Coordinator informs PROCEED IC ready to proceed P IC meets with Area and Block Coordinators to i:ICKOFF MEETING explain neighborhood meeting process. Schedule meeting, determine sign quantities. 3/85 s t t i �s -Hold initial block meeting, show movie Explain: Operation I..). D hardening D I signs I BLOCK MEETING T money required T T phone 'tree T Q etc.: Q` Demonstrate home security IC Signs ordered SIGNS #1 IC Signs placed and maintained by SIGNS #2 neighborhood AC--PC Ongoing maintenance NEIGHBORHOOD of the neighborhood WATCH Lr organization ESTABLISHED FAF DG TPD _1_ x s . 3/85 RESIDENTTAT• SECURITY SURVEY CHECK LIST 1. Exterior Doors: All exterior doors should be a solid [yes) Lnr' core contraction, a minimum of 1-3/4 thick. 2. Hinge Pins: Exterior doors with hinge pins that are [yes] [no] exposed should have pins that are non-removeable, or pins that are welded. ; 3. Door Viewers: Dv*erior doors should be equipped [yes] (no] with a wide-angle viewer (180 degree view) to allow the occupant to view visitors without opening the door. x4. Dead-Bolt Locks: Exterior doors and doors leading [yes] [no] to garage areas should be equipped with dead-bolt locks with 1 inch throws of case hardened steel. Those doors that have windows within 30 inches should have double cylinder dead bolts installed. (The key should be left in the interior while house is occupied) 5. Door Frames: Exterior doors frames should be [yes] [no] reinforced by adding shims between the door frames and studs where necessary. _ - 6. Strike Plates and Boxes: Reinforced strike plates [yes) [no] and boxes should be used with double cylinder locks. Screws of 2-1/2 inches to 3 inches should be used. 7. Sliding Glass Doors and Windows: Should be equipped [yes) [no] with a keyed locking device. A Charlie Bar or broan handle may be laid in the track to prevent opening. Two screws placed in the upper track protruding downward approrirrately 1/4 inch to prevent the doa� frau being lifted out. 8. Double Hung Windows: May be secured by drilling a (yes] ir�J hole downward at a slant through the upper corners of the inside sash, and part way into the outer sash. Nails or metal pins should be placed in the holes to prevent .the windows frau being pried 9. Basement Windows: These windows should be secured [yes] [no] with bars, screens, or grills (if not used as bedrooms): 10. Garage Doors: May be sired by placing a case [yes] [no] hardened padlock on.existing locking bar. Door wi±:n panels less than 1/2 inch thick should be reinforced with expanded metal grate. Y a 11. Lighting: Exterior lighting should iliminate (yes) [no] possible areas of concealment. 12. Souse Address: should be in conitrasting numerals Eyes] IBJ and'plainly visible from the street. Address numbers should be illuminated during hours of darkness. 13. Iands52LIPin9: Should not conceal doors or windows [yes] InoJ offeringa place for burglars to hide. 14. Identification: All property should be [yes] [no] engraved with the owners Oregon driver's license number proceeded and followed by the letters ODL. Property that cannot be marked should be photographed- 15. , Smoke Detectors: Should be placed in corridors; near [yes] IBJ rooms used for sleeping. 15. Alarm installation is a personal choice IyesJ [no] that should be weighed,against the cost of the system to what is to be protected. Proper permits and emergency information should be listed with the Tigard Police Department- If you have any questions regarding home security, please contact the Neighborhood Watch caunittee or the Tigard Police Dept. r� VW w a � r ��v .rrrr aim wmjwff� Tigard, Oregon April 19, 1985 RECeiVED Mayor John Cook �� 2� 1985 Tigard City Council Members Tigard, Oregon. 9?223• OF QII 1dGA�p Dear Mr. Mayor and Council Members: This letter is in reference to the Main Street Land Corporation request for conceptual and detailed planned development approval for a 228,000 square foot retail center and related facilities on a 21.8 a- re property zoned CBD (PD) and for approval of a Gone Change from R-12 (PD) Residential, 12 units per acre to CBD (Central Business District) for a 3.19 acre parcel. The above is on your April 29, 1985, Agenda. File No. PD 1-85 and zC 5-85- After my Wife and I went to City Hall to look at these plans, there are some things about the plans that we are very concerned about. No. 1: The Comprehensive Plan of the City of Tigard says that established single family residential areas should be protected. There is about three acres of land next to the Philadelphia Square Apartments that they want to ate into a large parking lot for 60 cars or more to accommodte 'the_ 150 employees of the _large _building on the Plan. These employees So several work on two shifts. cars would be parking about 7 AM and the second shift leaving about 10 PM. We feel that this parking lot is not compatible with the surrounding neig iehborhood want tha and would create excessive noise and air pollution. zOntrig ; to stay R-12 (PD) residential. We strongly oppose a zone chalig0 to CBD (Central Business District) as this land is design- ated Greenway and Flood Plain which accosting to an earlier NPO#1 Book was to remain a Greenway and Flood Plain area and be a buffer as and the Central Business District. between the residential are There is wild life in the area such as ducks, pheasants and other rare birds. A few years ago this area was- like a large lake after several days of heavy rains'-with water up to the Philadelphia Square apartments. This 3.19 'acre of land was not included in Mr. Bishops 'plans of two years ago. No. 2c The plan Mr. BidDp had about two years ago was more compatible with the large surrounding residential neighborhood. The _plan did not have a sweeping road from Pacific Highway going into the low density single family residential areas or a large parking lot across Ash Avenue to the East into the Flood Plain, Greenway and Park area which is a buffer for these residential areas. Continueds Page 2 of 2s The present proposed plan has two streets coming into the residential area from Pacific Highway and Main Street. Later when Ash Avenue is extended across Fanno Creek to Burnham 'Street that would make three streets disrupting a residential area with aheavy'traffic volume which will far exceed the allowed traffic volumelimiton residential streets. Also, there would be excessive noise and air pollution. Hill Street which is now a dead-end street will be opened next year to Omara Street with 67 additional homes being built by- -Century 21 Properties on the Omara Site. The Omara Site was rezoned for a higher density than was 'first accounted for in the original traffic ` studies made by Mr. Butke, thus making the traffic volume on Ash Avenue and Hill Street far exceeding the allowed limit. These residential streets were:not made to take the volume of traffic t„at will be generated by the propsed shopping center if all these streets are allowed to come into these neighborhoods. We feel that the traffic volume of over 11,000 cars per day projected by the present plan is too much for this residential area to accept. We are requesting that the proposed shopping center not be allowed to back door any streets into these residential areas so as toprotectthe character and livability of our neighborhoods. When we purchased our land and built our: home ter. years ago, we were assured by the City of Tigard that the only streets to be extended through' ou- area, would be Ash Avenue 'and' Hill` Street. No streets were on .the map to connect Ash Avenue with Pacific Highway. Also, that the Greenway was to remain our buffer from the Central Business District. Since then a steady erosion of the livability in this neighborhood has occurred. We wish to retain what character is left of this unique area. So whatever decisions are made will affect the permanent livability and character of this established low density residential arca of several hundred homes. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Sincerely, < a' Paul and Gloria Johnson 9300 S. W. Hill Street Tigard, Oregon# 97223• :W s r4 t _ AW Pk 34:42 .Mtge A _ IT 0 CITY OF ;ARD OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: April 29 1985 AGENDA ITEM #: DATE SUBMITTED: April 25 1985 _ PREVIOUS ACTION: Council action to ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Review of Main call u b resolution for review , 85 gtreet Development Corp. PD 1-85 PREPARED BY: William A. Monahan id Zone Chae ZC 5-85 REQUESTED BY: City Council ang —_ RE Q DEPARTMENT BEAD OK: j,4,4f7A CITY ADMINISTRATOR: , POLICY ISSUE .�._ INFORMATION SUMMARY Attached is the record of the Planning Commission hearing on PD 1-85 and ZC 5--85. The Council should conduct a public hearing on the record. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Accept the Planning Commission's approval. 2. Revise the Planning Commission's approval. 3. Deny tha Planning Commission's approval. a. Remand the application back to the Planning Commission for further input. _ SUGGESTED ACTION Conduct a public hearing on the record and determine if PD 1-83 and ZC 5-85 meets the approval. criteria. of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan and community Development Code. 1277P MEMORANDUM '; CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON April 25, 1985 Members of the City Council TO: Development William A. Monahan, Director of Community FROM: SUBJECT: Main street Development Corporation PD 1-85 and ZC 5-85 for review the application April 8, 1985, the City Council voted to call uP A Pu blit hearing was for PO 1=85 and ZC 5-85. by Main Street ;Land Corp. Commission's approval scheduled for April 29, 1985, to consider the Planning -85. Of PD 1-85 and Zr 5 are enclosed ,for your review of the record of this The following documents hearing: I. The staff report dated April Z. 1985- 2. Exhibits submitted at the hearing. Street Development Corp. a. Fannoeplan Crook Masterted y Main b. Plan C. Letters from: Saub 1. Larry & Lucy 2, Mr. & Mrs. McBath 3, Paul and Gloria Johnson _ q, Bruce Clark, Economic Gary Ott, Acting Chairman of NPO # 1 S. Bill Monahan memo for moved for this site- d. Site Plan from CPA 8-81 approved Commission meeting. g. sign up sheet from the April from 4, _ Planning Caenmission minutes frim April 2, 1gu5 lied to Council members t of the April 2, 1985, meeting ( to the meeting). 5, Trans lea e, bring your copy on April 2.2, 1985, -, p 6. final Order for PD 1-85 and ZC 5-85 provided at the meeting which have or will be Further eioouments will be P which relate to the record of submitted following the April 2, 1985 meeting those will be the Park Board's comments which were made the meeting. Among until April 17. prior to April 2. but not transcribed f The council should conduct a review of the aPPlica'tion and tats notion based on the record. 1277P dm j MW STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 5.6 April '2, 1985 - 7:30 P.M. ` TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION FOWLER JUNIORHIGH'SCHOOL LCI 10865 S.W. WALNUT, TIGARD, OREGON -97223 A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE:. Planned Development PD 1-85 and Zone Change ZC 5-85 REQUEST: For Conceptual Plan approval for a 221,000 square foot retail center on a 20.3 acre property and for a Zone Change from R-12 (PA) Residential, 12 units/acre) to CBD (Central Business District) for a 3.19 acre parcel on the southeast side of Ash Street. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Central Business District ZONING DESIGNATION: CBD (Central Business District); and R-12(PD) (Residential, 12 units/acre, planned development) APPLICANT: Main Street Land Corp. OWNER: Same Suite 303, .10505 SW Barbur Blvd. Portland, Oregon 97219 LOCATION: Southwest corner of Main Street and Pacific Highway (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 2CC, Tax Lot 1200, 1300, 1400, 1500, 1600, 2200, 2300, 2301, 201 and 2S1 2DB, 300). 2. Background On April 26, 1982, the City Council granted Preliminary and General Plan approval as well as a Sensitive Lands Permit for the MainStreet project (CPR 8-81, CPR 9-81, and M 2-81). The proposal included approximately 16 acres of land and 174,000 gross square feet of building area. 3. Vicinity Info�ation The property to the east is designated as greenway in the Comprehensive Plan and is the site of the Downtown Fanno Creek Park. The properties to the southwest and south are zoned CBD, R-4.5, and R-12(PD) and are developed with single and multi-family residences. The properties along Main Street and Pacific Highway near the north end of the project are zoned `CBD or C-G and are devoted to commercial uses. STAFF REPORT ;- PD 1-85 b ZC 5-85 PAGE 1 tion and Proposal Descipt;on 4. Site Informae removed riot ch will This site is vacant except for two buildings [he`eastern section of the to development. Fanno Creek runs through og the site ,lie within the 100 property and approximately five acres year 'flood plain. include a parcel on the The 1982 plan concept has been revised to parcel for a total of toss floor space of this commercial project Will of Ash Street and one other small southeast side 20.3 acres. The total gross feet. be approximately 221.000 sq score large retail is to be completed in three phases with a g including an The project and the public improvements, Highway (113.000 square feet) the project _ to Pacific extension of Ash Street through of Ash Street is intended t° resenting; the first phase. A second access to MainStreet is also rep parcel on the opp°site side parking lot. proposed. The to CBD and developed as a p be rezoned from R-12 (PD) a Sensitive ro ect will involve some filling and excavation, Since the p j t of the development will will be_necessary. This aspec Lands approval a public hearing with the Hearings Officer. be reviewed at 5. enc and NPO Comments has the following comments: The Engineering Division proposed access is in general conformance with the previously a. The prop approved plan. the plan should discourage or eliminate parking on b, The detailed p to Main Street. Ash Street extension and the street leading through tension should be designed C. The Ash Street exto discourage traffic into the neighborhood. dead end street intersection should be provided for the h Street on the d• A 9oo cross Fanno Creek and join As that will eventually other side. ands plan will require the approval of a Sensitive L e. The revised P permit from the Hearings Officer. ca ed buffer should be provided along the street center from f. A lands P in cents r Ash Street and Pacific Highway- to screen the shopP g Fanno Creek Park. objection to the proposal. The Building Inspection Office has no obj - Pacific roved the proposed access on Division app the The State Highway the Division shall be available Highway. Additional comments by hearing. STAFF REPORT - PD 1-85 & ZC 5-85 PACE 2 - c ,- The Tualatin Rural Fire Protection District has the following comments: a. The barrier at Ash Street should be breakable to allow for emergency access.' b. The driveway on Main Street should allow for inbound traffic. The Park Board has no objection to the proposal. Comments have not been received from NPO # 1. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria for granting conceptual plan approval in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, and 9; TigardComprehensive Planpolicies2.1.1, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.4.2, 3.5.3, 5.1.1, 5.1.3, 6.3.3, -6.6.1, 7.2.1, 8.1.3, 11.2.1, 11.2.2 and 11.2.3; and Community Development Code chapters 18.66,_18.80, 18.84, and 18.100. The Planning staff concludes that the proposal is consistent with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines based upon the following findings: 1. Goal # l 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. Goal # 2 is met because the City applied all applicable Statewide Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan Policies and Development code requirements to the application. 3. Goals # 5 and # 7 will be addressed during the Sensitive Lands review of the project. 4. Goal # 8 is satisfied because the site plan is compatible with the Fanno Creek Park Plan. The Park Board has reviewed the proposal and no objections were raised. 5. Goal # 9 is satisfied because the development will have a positive economic impact upon the downtown area. The Planning staff has determined that the proposal, with several modifications, is consistent with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Plan based upon the findings noted below: 1. Plan Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because the Neighborhood Planning Organization and surrounding property owners were given notice of the hearing and opportunity to comment on the applicant's proposal. 2. Plan; Policies 3.2.1, 3.2.20 3.2.3, 3.4.2, 3.5.3, and 7.2.1 shall be reviewed as part of the Sensitive Lands permit process. �f STAFF_REPORT — PD 1-85`b ZC '5-85 PAGE 3 Plan Policies S.1.I. and - 5.1.3 are ME- 3. Plan Polaffect upon the local job `satisfied because this Comm Poli center will have a_positive a market and it will contribute towards establishing the downtown as the viable 'core area for the community* downtown 4, Plan Policy 6.3.3 is not completely satisfied because �t occuring is considered to be-an "Established Area" and developmen within the area is intended to preserve and, enhance the character of these areas. The proposed site plan does not provide sufficient setbacks and/or buffering adjacent to some of the existing residential uses and therefore the project would have a detrimentalimpactupon these properties. 5. Plan Policy 6.6.1 is not satisfied because no buffering is shown on the site plan between some of the commercial structures and adjacent residential buildings. Modifications to correct this _deficiency are noted below. 6. Plan Policy 8.1.3 will be satisfied during the detailed plan and constructed phases of the development. The public streets within the project will require a 50 foot wide right-of-way and a 32 foot wide roadway. 7. Plan Policies 11.2.1, 11.2.2 and 11.2.3 are satisfied because the site plan includes the extension of Ash Street to the eastern boundary of will be the pro��t• and his obstruction willbe barricade @removed in installed near dill St accordance with Policy 11.2.3- The Planning staff concludes that with the modifications noted, the portions of the Community Development proposal satisfies the relevant Code based upon the findings listed below: 1. Chapter 18.66 (CBD Zone) of the Code is satisfied because the proposal meets the minimum standards relating to setbacks, lot coverage, and building height. - 2. Chapter 18.80 (Planned Development) of the Code is satisfied except for Section 18.80.110 (c)(3) and 18.80.120 (a)(3). The staff understands that extensive grading will be necessary on the site, ,but a generalized grading concept has not been wed submitt d. The grading proposed in the flood plain may Sensitive bands review. The land form alteration to be done on the remainder of the site is critical for conceptual review in order to determine the relationship between the new commercial buildings and the residences to the south and west. Section 18.80.120 (a) (3) is not satisfied because in some cases, no landscaping or visual buffering is shown between the nearby residential uses. of particular commercial buildings and concern. are visual impact and the noise from loading areas and STAFF'REPORT - PD 1-85 & ZC 5-85 - PAGE 4 building ventilation systems. Aaditional information mist be how these negative impacts will be submitted to illustrate mitigated. The site contains several large fir trees and one significant a cluster of trees on the western boundary of the project near Pacific Village Apartments. Section' 28.80.120 (a) (3) of the Code saved `requires that trees with a-six inch caliper or _greater be whenever possible. The proposed site plan indicates that all existing trees will be removed. The plan should be revised to save as many of these larger trees as possible. This is particularly true of the trees along the western boundary of the project because of their usefulness as a landscaped buffer. Finally, the requirements for landscaping and screening will vary depending , upon the decision that is made regarding CPA 1-85/ZC 1-85 for Pacific Village Apartments. 3. Chapter 18.84 (Sensitive Lands) of the Code will be satisfied during, the Sensitive Lands review process with the Hearings Offi,er. It should be noted that it is possible that the site plan will need minor revision as a result of this review. 4, Chapter 18.100 (Landscaping and Screening) of the Code is satisfied except for Section _18.100.130 which requires a 20 foot wide' landscaped buffer when adjacent to an R-4.5 zone. The 3. loading area for the Costco store practically abuts the residential property to the west. The relevant criteria for granting a Zone Change for the parcel on the southeast side of Ash Street are Statewide Planning Goals 1 and 2 and Section 18.66.030 of the Community Development Code. 4 The Planning staff concludes that the proposal is consistent with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines based upon the findings below. 1. Gaal 0 1 is met because the City has adopted a Citizens Involvement program including reviezr of all development applications by the Neighborhood Planning Organization (NPO). In addition, all public notice requirements were met. a 2. Goal # 2 is met because the City applied all applicable Statewide Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan Policies and Development code requirements to the application. The Planning staff concludes that the proposal is not consistent with --the applicable standards in the , Community Development Code ' based upon the `following`findings: STAFF- REPORT - PD 1-85 b ZC+ 5-85 - PAGE 5 1. Section 18.66.030 of the Code indihates that thesubjeec)t hall property as well as thek� other nearby parcels zoned R-12 developed be in accordance with the provisions of the R-12 zone. A t with this provision of the Code. rezoning to CBD would conflic 2. The R-12 zone does allow for parking facilities as a conditional use. The parking lot proposal could be reviewed as a Conditional Use along with the Sensitive Lands issue before the Hearings Officer. C. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above findings and conclusions, the Planning staff recommendsConceptual Plan approval of PD I-85 subject to the following conditions: 1 Sensitive Lands approval will be required for all grading and improvements within the 100 year flood plain. A Sensitive Lands approval shall be obtained before the Detailed Plan is submitted for review. 2. A `Detailed Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval that is in conformance with the requirements in 18.80 of the Code. In addition, said plan 'shall include the fallowing information or modifications: a. Buffering and screening consistent with Section 18.80.120 (a) (3) (B) and Chapter 18.140 of the Code. b. Identification and location of noise sources within the western portion of the project and a method for shielding from excessive noise impacts. adjoining residences C. The landscaping plan for the development shall preserve as liper on the site as practical many trees over six inch ca . 3. Specific conditions relating to public improvements shall be applied upon Detailed Plan approval. 3 _4. This approval is valid if exercised within one year of the final decision date. Based upon - the above findings and conclusions, the Planning staff recommends denial of ZC 5-85. PREPARED B Keith Liden APPROVED BY: William A. Monahan Associate Planner Director of Planning S Development (1136P/dmj) STAFF,:REPORT PD-1-85z-&. ZG 5-$5 PAGE 6 - DATE ' I wish to testify before: the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print the information) Item Description; Srt r" Proponent (For Issue) opponent (Against Issue) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation ' .WAOl .tZ-d T. A L L ig- 770-1%-r-LA-;-- osBk�tlleyMAS# � LfL Fi7/36rr 1T� EIC to Cr K, kow— Ole" c 3 w ww•r� ..wr... w..w�.eelwffit M aw....w� /YfV;�� `� �;' '�, '•..' ,, � ter! ^�- �``l``•r7•. —� \ j� !\\ �� - 'CHARLES Y l TIGAR ! IX stet` �\�. , �M �(' .f• � \ ` ; { !^\tip •. J." , ` •f 0,• t• Staff/ ! �i t •f•/ r .• N r M I t1 _ to o 1 �i • 1 ` �r 1., it 1231 7 �L. 1 7fl LA arel u , ; i ` t r •It ' '' . ♦t •a • ItTWALI TY < f • . ,]FA + ., ti 1.. � �1 JJJII It t 1"1 1 1 1 . `� . e'. L � f17- � ,1R, HIGH EM. SCHOOL_ - r 7 L- •r....•.. - \,moi,•,,.. , , wcc ' cr kc ,• i cc int ull IL • � :�{t'Ri4Ni4� par ws_.a ss r y — Uz ' l Li i 5 Ln st rf, s (P2,-s o +2� I I,1,iej,l,�giir rI!J111 1IIif1r li111P fh !I i ih t� il, r�i 7� T(, ��i rIi {I�p • , t 7�N , ,�, , , r, , r, , , e , , , , r�r, r►a, ti ( ( 1' T� fml P-_ �'�`f !- � ( I ( .�' ( 11'Ii ( ! ! NOTE: I7 THIS MICROFILMED -�i_ ---.-_-..12 AM DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN ' 41111111111111 THIS NOTICE. IT IS DUE TO - T1$ QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DRAWING. - -- . OE 6z aZ lz sz Sz Vz ez zz Iz oz sr a�Li - s—SrT-4, 61- ZI i!C! 6 - g l---9 - 5-- ` --E _.z. . I,,.,i, F n,lunlo„INuluulnuusbe -_ im MAR" CH -- 1990 S.W.BURNHAM STRE �.. G O � l � h0 II 2 3 I cd Q Downtown Greenway Park Pan reek I fes+' pef I El STING SiGNPL I � C 1 I W r�. oi 1 t < -t�t MGKENZIE rn SNI- 3 HILL STREET 3 MAIN STREET Tigard.Oregon Q �y LL S.W.ASH DRIVE MAIN STREET LAND CORP 9d J6 Bishop 'C 10505 S.W.Barbur Blvd. Suite 303 d Porland.Oregon 97219 (5031 232-5599 3/29/&5 �LHM �r VICINITY MAP 1-",:100' wmc� neaa5� i pppplq,tnl(q'plInggillplgqlppp�iPpp�iPl'1'�mlm(ligm(inlnr(gglp�ngniinq nl�nlplrpppR�llggl�,ppl,til IililiigilfIlgllilnipn�lliplgilipli _ _ � ....._ .... 3 4 5 O 7 0 B IO II 12 Aloft IT,r u a .. ri[Cvuuir or n[ u� t2 6 2Z 12 O___2--61.._-Y1_'_LI Yi Lf N CI 21 it OI-6 O L Y L . [ 2 IIY�WIIIIIi w�tlild nd4iiL iie.dww.l.id . I_... YIIYYiwloiiwClWNmI MARCH 1 I If SMA+1r77S3`y` 150 i BETA L sk - y i 0 - — a BHN ' if V �I I III •.:N-txN�9 ' � I 3 I PRETAI -osTCO II r gy t WHOLE5ALE _ X ti0 FX:t.CJ i f I0,904 a5F I Ii I :STCF-l'^kT"C .,i 29' T I I I ! r h0 I FEv.IL I 77, _ � Rc Alir I 60 12— 170 CD M404 STREET I MAIN STREET LAND CORY JB 8—.P - T ❑ ----- . ... @I(lMYO/IELAMP GNRISTOPMFA _ McKEI'�ST. _... .—� .... .. .- .I I CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN �Cl` 14. � El= II I cvmco APR 25�' � ' ' Pul PI t In•Ngni�npl, � nc�mo,or nwocsr rrrt¢ v �Modc�—ml. zI sz rz ua1z _-albnztlm-ep�p_+Peaunl5 l�nuingmmpnlv n,l-irriwligrgwnclim7l w19z'r,pm�pun.l.lu a m n'Inellq,po❑e qqs m I�t'PIoitn In�l�P Irnz . . .................. ! ........�-.--_-.::r...��...-.._'^`_...�.,:__,-^...,....... �...-°-.—.,...---.._.. Inil�xlmJ�umn4mhu ---- MARCH.___ I .7 j990 �'�" t� -lots _. a , Lz acf /ham,,:, .��-«f L.:•,cl Lac rr�. .��Y't i..i..r...so.n•.Pr.1 j✓/C .in J f L` eC.fr� ll/ {- ,4 F L, "C �t'c9tr� C!.c'Cr 0�� fl` f"l'c•Prr..•..d..�. CO liy�1/'F4 n� C • <i L,y�J c• _��L?, �Y�-sJO.Sf./ pet,,- SCV ri 3 �.� .� /rlCt"CAJCO/ f'1Y7 �L T/at'✓ : .z i _S:t �r+v i//. Tl'.rc•.,�� 7za C ��7Y CGP a�Sc'd d�,rt�`�-^�/ SIO-rel fo �<•. L�G.,ST/'LSC'TCht A..G et .41s h; die .. Tl-e r s � .�-•. i.�i7F+ ; ' C. Vali.-d.� /- Cc-ot..�•-,�-.,al cr7"t o., Tut- �r Si --ice, e T•1-arch 28, 1935 APR 1 1985 City or arca F-lann n,-, Commis:-3' ':: CITY OF TIGARD Tigard , or PLANNING DEPT. 972 Fie mbe rs s Re: main street Land Corporation >vz=l nt ,• nt PD 1-85 and ZC 5-85 ?�s residents of the neighborhood abl-itirlt1e'1 rale'iu=a ti n development on 1owe:' Ash' Avenuo , we hove f, ' raped your, most e.�.re`'u1 �onsi�ieration. :unci comments we f...e� y mirary plans indicate that -he building size 1) The p relioverwh is enormous and nould ,aus'�idea othee magnitude residences. To Uzve 5 proposed building, it is of a comparable size to tine Beaverton Fred Meyers . 2) We believe it should be a condition of the ila .nine, Commission or Council to review design of b�.�ildi.n- • r is to be a tiP up, As we understand now the buildins; i� a concrete with brushed -urface painted ir,uted 'ae� e , without any break in o-si� n, different colors, offset doorways, fascia, and windows. Comment No. 2 prompts us to question the fact that 3) The the building has been placed in the correct zone . property has been zoned as Commercial Development but this particular building' resemble= a warehouse and is more c�nin---• Indeed indicative of industrial z , its function is more typical of a warehouse . 4) There is also co -icern on roof screeni.n�; and noise pollution. For instance., where will air conditioning- units onditioningunits be placed . Ife°levelsthe rcouldubeYunacceptabletto- device is used, noes those homes aadjoininghomes. Screening of rcto_r so uld not observe a distasteful tar further upon hill wo roof. Shoiild be complimentary to neighborhood . Parkins, lot li,,=htint,; could alco present a problem during 5} Paor hours• vie would find it an infringement of our eveninf, privacy to be illuminated like a neon sign in our. back yards Which face the development. The zone chane from R-12 to CBD zoning would be aUainst 5) buffer between The zone R-12 was created as a NPO #1 policy. commercialand residential. r 7) Lastly, what is the projected traffic impact on already congested streets . , �fy .fly}.,-. . T� r •�; > �,)', r�f�!'tt iC] The"-;e 71-ro a r the er��armau:; i.ci}�-pct i t •vi ,.1 n�zvL c:a c�.ir c�� t._hhorhooa a:aca l'e ;,i .)fit "L�n3i. L1Vt'.; . 'Y�h:.rt .tlt? t Du -nt lf)nt:; thf ,!Aality. his rn'l U,-..�tc�[� and (j t t'3"'t 1C1te. rlty�: of hla _r ) .� it i:: next to tc,t� t f=, j)z:>t want any anui—?ev�lopri�nt forthe City v1 meet �z "e, co ��; ti�l.t' wit`h azar smell ccmmianity• 'hank YOU, -Ind }rr . ,J'. R }Vi.^.j?."i t!l 13115 S. W. Ash i�rive Tili-ard, Or 972, ccs NPO a IA f F z p ) - µ April 2, 1985 Nr. William `Monahan, Director of Planning & Development Tigard Planning; Staff Tigard Planning Commission Tigard City Council City of Ti7gard 12755 S. W. Ash Avenue Tigard, Oregon, 97223. Dear Membersa This letter as in reference to J. B. Bishop's request for conceptual and detailed planned development approval for a 228,000, square foot retail center and related facilities on a 21.8 acre parcel. We da not wish a zone change: from R=12 on the parcel of land adjacent to the Philadelphia Square Apartments as we do not want any; more commercial' development along the Fanno Creek Parkway. Any; further' development will destroy what is left of our 'Greenway and wildlife including the nesting ducks: and Pheasants. We are concerned about the proposed street patterns in the above planned development. Itis stated in the City.of Tigard Comprehenseive Plan that: establisted low density neighborhoods are to be protected. There is a street in this plan that goes from Ash Avenue along Fanno Creek and out to Pacific Higheay with a short street branching off into -Main Street. Thus connecting -a veled Karo Street with existing major arterial highway and well-tra low density neighborhoods. When the completion of Ash Avenue to == Buzfaam Street occurs in the future, the traffic volume limit allowed on residential streets will greatly exceed the limit if these proposed streets are allowed as they will create a problem of noise and pollution in -these -low density single_ We family heighborhoods. would appreciate anew traffic_study and -the inclusion of Century 21 Y4, Properties new development of 64 homes on the 0mara Sitp which includes the extension of Hill Street to Omara. (Not on previous traffic .anaXysis} 'in',the 'position of the residents living in Please put yourself a t these neighborhoods with the negative impact of excessive traffic, r noise and air pollution which would destroy the livability of these . established` areas. _ r Sincerely, Thank you. � n Paul and Gloria ,Johnson x 9300 S W. Hill Street RM Tigard, Oregon, 97223• xZ r� r April 2, 1985 Mr. A.-Donald Moen, Chairman Tigard Planning Commission 12755 'S.W.- Ash Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Reference: PJ 1-85 and ZC 5-85 Dear Mr. Moen: The Tigard Economic Development Committee met on Monday. April 1,, 1985, to consider the Main ,Street Project proposed by J. B. Bishop. Four of the nine Committee members were presentandreviewed the proposal with the developer at the Special Meeting. The members present chase not to take a position on the zone change requested. The Committee members did 'find that the proposed development is in the best interests of the -City and fits into the central business district plan. Therefore, the Committee supports the project as it will provide a much needed shot in the arm to the area. Sincerely, Bruce Clark, Chairman, Economic Development Committee ; . (BC:br/1151P) x x mak= }q; l n63 53 5µ W. .. ,�,/ ..L,."� 'fi;.." .`._ ,+^r+,, '3S" X",'c'S RM MEMORANDUM t CTTY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Members of the Planning Commission April 1, 1985 FROM: WilliamA. Monahan. U � Director" of Community Development SUBJECT: Main Street Project, PO 1-85. ZC 5-85 Gary Ott, Chairman of NPO #1 called me at 11.40 A.M, on April 1, 1985, to report the results of NPO yi's special meeting of March 29, 1985. NPO #1 had four members present voting on the project. The results of the vote were: 1) A 4-0 consensus to recommend denial of ZC 5 2) A motion to support the staff report recommending approval of PD 1-55, Conceptual Plan Approval, received a 2-2 vote. ` Therefore. there was no consensus on the PD. NPO 81's objections related to traffic in particular: 1) Ash Avenue and its' eventual opening for through traffic, and 2) Access from Hwy. 99 and how it connects through to Ash Avenue. k (WAM:br/1148P) R nt 3 tat - II M77771f'}`fi zZ a Q <. J CL Q p o Z O w w `= I t= O n� L. J W w `.�" y uJ C.) gQ uj z Q t, gg w u_ ►— c� - r . " tu Ij a Lu rij - zzz Z77 0111 d a - a _ `y 33 -r. S�"' '.�� •g-. ..�. .�;;.� "'��Mi� .y Y-"+'�'rf,; t-J`.�,'t� r P. as DATE / o� T I G A R D P L A N N I NG C O M M I S S I O N ,NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIR NAME and note: their address on this sheet. (please Print your name) ITEM/DESCRIPTION PROPONENT (For) OPPONENT (against) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation LTJ ��1l �• •`�, �- �•�.�.�'C�� (>. - n o / Tt-ozn) CL.— vrn tz,�r MR.h,G f3ra l�oreta (; �s� a.,,: Rx. Ise �.3 x 5' s•W ct / - 4-� �- d. TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - APRIL 2, 1985 1. President Moen called the meeting to order at 7:34 PM. The meeting was held at Fowler Junior High LGI' Room - 10865 SW Walnut. 2. ROLL CALL. PRESENT: President Moen Commissioner Butler Fyre. Vanderwood. Bergmann, Campbell, Leverett, Peterson, and Owens (arrived 7:45 P.M.) STAFF: Director of Community Development William A. Monahan; Associate Planner Keith S. Liden; Secretary Diane M. Jelderks. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES * Comanissioner Vanderwood moved and Commissioner Campbell seconded to approve minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. 4. COMMISSION COMMUNICATION Director of Community Development Monahan explained that it is necessary to hold a second hearing on April 16. 1985, because of the number of the Comprehensive Plan< Applications which need processing. Also, a brochure tt printed by the Tigard Chamber of Commerce was distributed. t. Five letters were distributed for Agenda item 5.6, Main Street Land Corp. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 SUBDIVISION S 2-85 and VARIANCE V 1-85 MAWHIRTER NPO M 6. Request for preliminary plat approval for a six lot subdivision and to allow two 7,125 square foot lots where a minimum of 7,500 square feet is required. Located 9680 SW McDonald St. (WCTM 2S1 11 lots 104 and 200). Associate Planner Liden reviewed the status of the application and made staff's recommendation for approval with 11 conditions. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION Vern Lentz, 8150 SW 39th, Portland, representing the applicant requested that Frank Currie, City Engineer, address th4r issues regardir access onto . McDoanld and the need for the approval of the variance. Frank Currie stated that if the Variance was denied it still would not decrease the number of driveways onto McDonald. He explained the aligniaiant of--the existing sidewalk and the special circumstances involved with that isligrsnt. He rdquasted that an additional condition be added -which would release; the applicant from any legal ramifications related to far condemnatio the negotiations n of right-of-wa►y. He also explained the eaasstsents and row dedications. diffar*nce between public PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 2, 1985 Page 1 0 Joe Van Lom, Architect, 34 NW lst, Portland, stated that the applicants primary concern was buffering. Presently their is nothing in the Code to protect this residential use from the commercial use. He was also concern with the noise problems which would be created with commercial development. o J8 Bishop, 10505 SW Barbur, Suite 303, opposed the zone change from CBD to residential. He stated that the properties were not very wide and needed the ability to build with 10 feet of the property line. He reviewed the history of Mr. Allison site and added that they would be providing adequate buffering through the PD requirement. REBUTTAL o Mr. 'Allison stated that the Code was designed to protect people and felt his tenants should be protected with a 30 ft. setback. , which is what would be required between a commercial and residential zone. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED o Discussion followed with staff on how the site had become zoned CBD * Commissioner Fyre moved and Commissioner : Vanderwood seconded to forward CPA 1-85 and ZC 1-85 to City Council with recommendation for approval. Motion carried by majority_ vote. Commissioner Leverett, Campbell, and Bergmann voted no. 5.5 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PD 1-85 & ZONE CHANGE ZC 5-85 MAIN STREET LAND Request for Conceptual Plan approval for a 221,000 square fooT retail center on a 20.3 acre property and for a Zone Change from R-12 (PD) Residential, 12 units/acre) to CBD (Central Business District) for a 3.19 acre parcel on the southeast side of Ash Street. Associate Planner Liden reviewed the project and made staff's recommendation for Conceptual approval of the Planned Development and denial of the Zone Change. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION 0 70 Bishop, 10505 SW Barbur, Suite 303, reviewed the history of the project. He expressed his need to have the Zone Change to allow employee parking as well as parking for the Fanno Creek Park. He also explained why he need conceptual approval tonight, otherwise y theme would be no project. o Grigsby Christopher, of Brun, Moreland, Christopher Architects, reviewed the layout of the project and the design features used to protect the abutting property owners. o JB Bishop continued that they would be applying for a Sensitive Lands Permit. Also, the project has more land, however,- the ratio of land �z to parking is decreased has well as ratio of retail space to land has descreased. 4 PLANININC COMMISSION MINUTES April 2, 1985 Page 6 1W law IN (( o Dave Larson, McKenzie, Saito Engineering, was available to answer t, engineering questions. o Kevin Langford, Costco, `stated that the Costco would be hiring 160 employees, 55 % full time and 45 7G part time. Also they would only be making deliveries between the hours of 7:00 _AM and 1:00 PM only Monday through Friday. Commissioner Owens left 12:00 midnight PUBLIC TESTIMONY o Carolyn Eadon, representing NPO # 1, explained that the NPO only reviewed this project last Friday night. They had voted 4 to 0 with one abstention against the zone change and voted 2 to 2 with one abstention for conceptional approval. They requested that a condition be placed in the staff report that the 6 foot fence between the residential and commercial area be in place prior to construction. Their other concerns were for the barrier on Ash street being- removed, they felt theCommercialarea should be kept isolated, and that the streets should have sidewalks and bikepath. o Discussion followed among Commission as to whether the hearing should be over. o President Moen moved and Commissioner Owens seconded to set the meeting over to a date certain. Motion failed, Commissioner Leverett, Campbell. Vanderwood, Fyre, and Butler voting no. o Discussion followed regarding the zone change. o _Associate Planner Liden reviewed concerns from Commissioner Butler regarding Park issues. He reviewed letter from Mr & Mrs. Mc8ath, Mrs. & Mrs. Saub, Mr. & Mrs. Johnson, and Bruce Clark of the Economic Development Committee. o Jeanne Caswell, Tigard Chamber of Commerce, supported the proposal for three reasons. 1. Goal identified by Chamber and Economic Development is to establish a heartland for the community; 2. Costco would provide consumers with cost savings; and 3. Would provide employment. They also supported the zone change because it would provide parking for the park and would give the city more park land. o Gloria Johnson, 4300 Hill Street, opposed the zone change. She stated they had fought hard to get the property zoned R-12 and wanted it maintained. _ She was concerned about the project's traffic flow, air quality, and noise factor. o Emmet Whitaker, 13250 SW Burnham Ct. , stated that the Costco has limited membership, which" would riot provide shopping- for all residents. Also, the average age of employee of Costco are college 7. age or younger. tie was also concerned about the noise and traffic .._ . circulation. m PLANNING COMMISSION MINUIT April 2, 1985 nage 7 a J. L. Gehrong, 13215 SW Ash Drive, has been a resident for 19 years �-` and wanted to be sure there would be adequate buffering between the single family and commercial zone. He did not want to see Ash Ave. extended REBUTTAL a 78 ` Bishop reviewed the design of the project and ; how they were protecting the single family neighborhood with buffering. Also they would be installing sidewalks on Ash. The Ash Ave. would not be removed, other things had to occur before that could happen. He reference the DEQ report and added that the loading would take place at least 50 or more feet from the single family residential. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED o Commissioner Leverett, Campbell, Fyre, Vanderwood, Bergmann, and Peterson, favored conceptual approval and ,approval of the zone change with 'a deed restriction that it could only be developed as parking. r , o Commissioner Butler opposed the zone 'change, and favored the Planned Development, o Commissioner Moen opposed the Planned Development as lacking vision. He favored the previous approval. He felt they were right back to the big' box`and the sea of cement concept. - - * Commissioner Vanderwood moved and Commissioner Leverett seconded to approved conceptual approval of PD 1-85, adding the condition at the the issues of grading shall be addressed with the Park Board and location of the pedestrian bike path would be coordinated. Motion carried by majority vote, Commissioners Fyre and Moen voting no. Commissioner Campbell moved and Commissioner Leverett seconded to approved ZC 5-85 with-a Deed Restriction to limit the use of the - - parcel. to parking based finding that it meets ,the statewide goals and section 18.66.030 of the Community Development Code. Motion carried by majority vote, Commissioner Butler, Moen, Fyre voting no. , r 6. OTHER BUSINESS r _. 7, ADJOURNMENT 1:00 AM y Secretary Diane M. Jelderks r ATTEST: $ A Donald-Moen, President PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . "April 2, 1985 Page 8 . 1 xff TRANSCRIPT FOR MAIN STREET �f. FROM April 2, 1995 _PLANNING COP'- 'ION HEARING JB R--12 on the up. . . Where not allowed by the code . . . . . . .I need to point out to you that the building setback requirement from R 4,5, we have five single "family residences here, multi-family, Philadelphia Square, the building setback requirement is 30 feet, .. . . . what that set back is as shown. . . . . . Secondly the requirement for landscape buffer in that thirty feet is fifteen. We . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .see before you. The setback hear is the same and the same for here, ' uh, . . .multi-family uh I think its 10 feet here versus the 15, when its multi-family higher density, we . . . . . to that also here. No problems with setbacks up here, . . . . . . . . . . . in concrete, the former access, connecting to the approved the access point for Main Street and Highway 99, those where put in with LI@ 37, I paid half of, and the City's paying half of the cost of that, to the benefit of all downtown. And obviously, the . . . . . . . . anchor south end of Main Street. The final point that I think that we presume, information on your mind is that this is not a blued dyed foot print, in front you. There is a real tenant in the audience. A tenant thathas signed the contract, and the lease, the general contractor is in the audience, who is consigned on, loan has been approved, we're ready to build, its up to the subject to the procedural steps we're going through here tonight. They want to have a building open in September or late August. We can do that, if with R, the cooperation and the analysis of the issues in front of you, as you see it. Finally, the City will receive and major benefit from the rezoning that TRAIUSCRTPI FOR :P@ 1-95 6 ZC 5-85 Page 1 7 0 property. The major benefiL is Lhwt currenLly Out plans fur, Fanno Creek are sitting in ownership of land here of land here without know subject to development . . This spot over here is owned by me, I . . . . The zone change . . . . . as a trade off for the zone change, consistent with land use malas, can use with under the Sensitive Lands ordinance and the Sensitive Lands Permit. which . . . . . . . only this use, because it is both a legal deed convenant when we will be putting in as a condition of your approval. We ask you to conditions us' to have that a legal 'deed ,requirement, that not only affects me as the property owner, but any and all perpetual future uses. But the only use that this can be under the Sensitive Lands Permit to be reviewed and approved per our standards. is for the parking lot purpose, there' cannot` be a building built there,' and we will put it in the deed restrictions with your cooperations. - So their can't be a building( there. I now need to introduce Grigsby Christopher the project Cy. architect, the principle of this project. Christopher's firm also, I needn't remind you, was uh on previous designs for the Civic Center in downtown, near the . . . . .down in that area, from the . . . . . . . . but specifically, this firm was the architect for the project that you approved and gave me a site plan approval for, under the planned unit development . . .(coughing).. General plan approval in April of 1982. The reason why is wasn't built was that economic, at that time in 82, high interest rates and a lack of the approval of the second LID did not allow for the improvements to go in along with the economic realities. The tenant ` lease . is signed, the loan is approved, they now have phase I: of a 4 1/2 million d 11ar investment ready to go: Thank you. �r�s PT'-FOR-PD. 1-85 6 ZC 5-85- Page_ 2_ salon mum= My name is Grisgby Christopher, with ©run, Moreland, Architects, I will give my presentation from this plan. It's just a little _better uh over-all site uh the vicinity map so you can see how the project is long a narrow and fits into the context of downtown, this is a private road through hire, the Pacific Apartments uh. the project . • uh. retaildevelopment. . . . . . . . . . . . .downtown, . . . . . . . point out that this is phase I, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .uh, this building and the parking area here, uh, this area, next area to be graded of and . . . . . . . . here. . The kind of development along here . retail or . . . . . . or . . . . . . . . . . . . . more detailed city staff, NPO, and uh, uh, some oversites that we know about at this point in time. . . . . . . . circulation, another thing there's r 30 foot wide, curb to curb, uh streets that were improved, uh, previously, uh. . . . . . . . . . . . Street is, uh, _as `requested by the city to slow traffic down, we would like to add to our proposal, uh, speed 4= bumps. Exit bump here, this is an exit, this is an exit, barricade here, uh, 'until, uh. I guess the total development is actually done. . . . . . . . . . . the barricade. JB. Sir, the requirement for the barricade is long beyond just the development of this property and I' ll explain that .. . . Mr. :Christopher. . . . . . okay. . .. . . . . . . . . • • 38, There` were a 'number of conditions which this NPO and Che Planning Commission have _ Mr. Christopher, this is a larger` building, about. . . . . . . . , these are Y 1RANSCRTPT 'FOR:PD 1-85 b Zc:'5--85 Page 3 _ about 43, the :the elevations here, this is about 157 all through here, 157, this spot in hare is 175, ` and thats about 20 feet higher than this . . . . . . . . . . . Uh, Setbacks, uh, . . . here wo are required to have a 30 foot, uh this is a R 4 zone, we have forty feet setback, you require a 15 feet buffer, we have a 15 feet bufferrighton right on the short, strip between here and the asphalt, uh. . . . . . .. . . . . maintain, we would use, uh, forty feet of landscaping, , . . actually . in this area several years ago and nothing but marsh land along . . .. here. When we determined the setback, we comply, we did not comply until uh staff had done their report, we've made the changes in compliance with what It they wanted. . . . . basically there no more exits or entrances off this side of the . . . . . . . . . here, here, here, here, this is a loading area. so the only light that could possibly affect any could lie inthis area here, that is . . . . . . . . cutoff from the light fixtures themselves so theres no light shining in the, uh, adjacent lands owners. These apartments are higher, . . . . . . . . . . . about a half of a football field, We will provide a site obscuring fence, uh, per city code, along the property line, uh, . . . . . . . . we . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . I would like to address the concerns that the NPO had about noise. Uh, the, the air conditioning unit thats up on top of this building is centered in the middle of the building, uh, this is the one that we are going for, better idea than this one, and it going to be, you don't have . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . we'll address those in the detailed plan review. But initially we felt that this line we're going to have units back, front and back, one for the drop area and one for load ,area. .. . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . The distance here, again is, this is a-300 yard, . . . . . here, 300 yards here, about 15 feet 'i-RANSC:RIPT FOR P0 1--85 6 Zf: 5-•85 Page 4 Sl Si .�.r:'wl^'yvnre... .`�'+'+•wT'nv.+rr+. ee.w,:nr-,..».....�.. -+r-.•.wav�.......+..�-.��:...�._....-_ '_•__"__.._. ., ... _ -. :... ,.:' :. .'' - less than, excuse me 100 yards, or a football field herethe res about 15 feet left in that its uh fc�!t higher so I don't think there will be a noise problem at all. • . . . . trash compactor, or is located inside the Loading from trucks . . . . . . . . theres no loading after 12 noon. Nope` thats, uh, end of my presentation. 3Sthe issue of sensitive lands , that issue will be in front of the sensitive lands hearing at the end of this month; that is not an issue in front of you this evening, . . . . . . . . . . . . this sensitive' lands . . . . . . . . is grandfathered by the existing code and r . . . . . . . . allows for the development of the 16 acres before I purchased the additional property. It is important to me though, obviously, to ask for your The approval ^f the sensitive lands permit • . othermajor point, that is related, that the issue of the • • • • • • • • . . traffic and the barrier needs to be spelled out and maybe, probley you recall, special concern to NPO 0# 1 had, if not I would refer you to page 71 of the development code, and it further spells out in about five paragraphs what City Council ordained, and had approved as the area of special concern for NPO 1 and that is that that buffer will not be removed until offsite I and totally in the City's control and improvements, well beyond my contro 3 other private property owners jointly make development efforts, and the City make certain capitol improvement efforts, and there are those short range to open up that barricade. When it is open up, plans, two or three years, both the use of that property, street, the improvement of Ash Stmet and its a access by both the residential neighborhood and the existing Philadelphia Square Apartments, its use will be as city staff characterizes it is as a TRANSCRI:P'T FOR PD 1.-.85 6 ZC 5-•-85 Page 5 convenient route to main street. First having to go up there to Frewing, and also as an additional commute for the ].ower half of Ash to Highway 99, through private property, . . . I . . . . per negotiations and approval of the _PD and all the documQntat ions that we have. Finally, Mr. Moen, as previously in May 1903 when I came up for the first review of my planned unit development and the extension, you asked the question, from the minutes, if the plan were ,still to stand the same L say . . . . . . roads and the orientation of the buildings, it was factualthen its obviously factual now. Other than a minor change of the roads, and orientation of the buildings and the addition of some land youseesubstantially less parking thanwhatwas approved before you approved 1,220 parking spots, ,there 1,137, you approved A 175 approximately square feet of retail on 16 acres, we now have 21,5 acres and their is less retail with 213, excuse me, 217,630 square feet of retail on here, and that is less percentage of building than before and it is substantially less parking. . . . . . . , about 130 parking spots less. We are consistent with what we plan, and we have a tenant to back it up. The conceptual plan, aux! I do need to clarify this, as Mr. Grigsby Christopher pointed out to you there, the second major building, the second major retail building, will either be Marshalls, which is a national retailer throughout the_country, or Rothe Department Stores. There is firm negotiations going on with both those tenants. The miscellaneous tenants along, we need to discuss and the issue before us will be a JK Gill, will be a Hallmark card store, will be a pharmacy,_ van Dynn Candies, and Kodak/Sandy's. Those tenants are all confirmed and committed to go into there. This is a communityshopping center. I `need to also point out that Mr. Christopher says that the exterior " of the Costco building will be a retail exterior, not a warehouse, obviously, it will not be because there is a Financial incentive of 17 million dollars TRANSCRIPT FOR PD 1-85 6 ZC 5_85 page 6 ... . BOOM going on this land . . 4 1/2 million, for that kind of an investment I'm required to meet my tenants demands and my own . . . . . . . . . retail community shopping center, end result, Costco . . . . . . . . . typical of most of their other buildings in the state of Washington, headquarters, retails buildings, not the existing buildings that many of you know of on the east side, . . . . . . warehouse, which was empty, in an industrial zoning and they have used for a year and a half. The building is . . . . . . . . . . tilt up finish it has a one story height, well below the requirements that are allowed in the zone, which is '40 feet. We're 28 feet high, . . . 26, and that exterior is exactly the kind of exterior that you would of see on a GI Joes if it was there,- its what you would call a raked finish, painted, it will be the kind of oyster color like to see on the wall behind you, right now, not -a' Shuck's yellow. And it is a large building and we'll be blending in with a solid landscaping plan . . . . . . design there. The rest of the retail on that second major anchor part, phase II there, will be a combination of brick, concrete tile and glass. .. . . . . Very similar, but not quite the look . . . . . . . . . . Finally the two front pads that, there will not be any drive in restaurants, going fast food, because number one I'm not a per allowed m site plan for my permit with the state to y have a drive through, such as a fast food would have, and specifically the lower design down by Mr. Patterson's Century 21, the bottom left there, be a large service restaurant lounge similar to what we know as a Stuart Andersons or along that type, but it will not be Stuart Andersons per say. Theres negotiations with . . . . . . . . The other building will be a retail service building . . . . . . . . . . . there. And it will fit very nicely in with the other miscellaneous retails in downtown, combination of service and z retail. I would like to now introduce the civil engineer for a few comments, v f R lad uh, Dave Larson, Dave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 'TRANSCRIPT FOR PD 1-95 b ZC 5•-85 Page 7 r ass My Name is Dave Larson, I'm a Civil Engineer with for that past four years. We lon't have anything formally prepared tonight, uh, we are uh. if you might have any questions. .. . . . . . . (question and answer inaudible). . X J8, The previous approval that you gave us on this 100 year floodplain x allowed for a building of 9,000 square feet here, that- the approved building right here and we also had the revisions, which was you indication that you asked me on that next . . . . . ... . . . . . . .Mr. 'Moen. We had a second refill built in y about 35,000 square feet, the size we now have up here, which ::as a retailer r: x like the Emporium, or like I mentions Rothes, we have roughly about 10,000 _ square feet of that .building in here, which was approved as part of our existing sensitive lands permit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .moved the x road from here to here. We had . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . no building on this, ..►e had about 1.3 acres in the 100 year floodplain. The maximum amount of additional floodplain, which is roughly 5 acres, according to staff . . . . . . a little over 3 acres of property here, within the 100 year floodplain, of , . . simply asking for a zone change to CBD to use as a parking lot. (discussion inaudible.) JB, Uh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Costco manager of the Tigard store, he's been working with . . . . . . . who is the Portland manager s } TRANSCRIPT f0R PD 1-85 6 ZC.5--85 Page 0 Kevin Langford, Just a couple of 'brief comments and Lhen' I would be willing to answer any questions that you might We intendto employ approximately ;`160 employees of that 55 percent would be full time and 45 ` percent would be part time Our rate of Pay. $. . . . to about. $12.00 an hour, uh.- Christmas season, your lookiruj at adding an additional 40 to - 60 ` employees I know that noise and trucks are certainly a concern, however, all of our receiving isdone between the hours of` 7 in the morning and one PM in the afternoon,_ all by appointment only, discussion inaudible r Moen. With that the next portion we go to the NPA, is there anyone from the NPO present. Carolyn Eadon, representing NPO N i, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I would like to give you our vote . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . We divided these into two issue, one being the zone change and the other being the conceptual approval. On the zone change, the NPO voted 4 to 0 against allowing the zone change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . On the conceptual approval, two where in favor of conceptual approval and two where against, again . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . They would like to require one condition to that, That . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . the 6 foot fence that that 6 foot fence be in place before construction begins. The members who voted against conceptual approval, and also some of the . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . One being the Ash - Street connection to Pacific Highway. It's felt by the immediate neighbors Lhat the road . . . . . . proposed . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . that TRANSCRIPT FOR PD 1-85 6 ZC 5-85 Page 9 when that street is opened up that it will be as aass P through area for t` residence from neighborhoods above what is the immediate area. Part of the removal of that barrier based on the future development of Hill Street, uh, and that is not necessarily in the . . . . . . . . . .. . . . has baked at that area, and we were told by someone wh« had been in contact with Century 21, within the next two years they are hoping to complete that development which would open up, uh, Ash Street, which would thenfore allow the removal of that barrier, so then Ash Street would then Main Street and Pacific Highway . . . .'. . . . . . . . , end of tape DEC) study has been done on the impact that that may cause in that small area, ar- DEQ study to be required. Also, . . dedicated street, we would like to see, since that is being` built with a idea of being dedicated to the city, we would like to remind everyone that we would like to see that developed to City requirements requiring sidewalks and bikepaths through that area. Thank you, Moen, We , , , , , , , , , , , , , , those in favor and those against . . . . . (coughing). . . • . . . . . . six signed up against. , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Uh, with that in mind I think that the most useful thing, at this point, would be to poll members of -the Commission, to see if you have any questions, or anything, firstofall I feel we're going to have to put this over . . . . . . . . . . . I think it would be beneficial for the developer to have some input, at this point, any questions you might have, anything which he or staff , with that I like I might ask the Commissioners, Commissioner l.everett leverett, I have no questions, TRANSCRIPT FOR PD 1-85 6 'LC 5-85 Paye 10 w_ �•ur ( Campbell., I would hate to see this set over, I notice an awful lot of people . . . . inaudible several people inaudible. . .. . . . . . . . . . Commissioner Butler, I have some an the ORB Master Park Plan . . . . . . . . . . . there was some requirements or conditions, if the Sensitive Lands permit is still valid, does it cover. I understand there was grading in the pond and all grading plans for this and the bikepath r Owens, I"m`not going to be able to stay past midnight, I think you'll still have a'quroum. . . . . to the parking lot, there was a counterdiction Bergmann, Questions relating between Keith °and Mr. Bishop's presentation as to what is zoned R--7 and CBD about the parking in the flood plain, that needs to be settled, if we set it to another date certain Petersen, I have no questions other than that question he asked: T, Moen, . Consensus about carrying this thing on. I'll make a motion to set this over to the next meeting of the Planning commission. Bergmann, That 11 be the 16th. G` ._.. �S ' RAriiSCRIPT.:FOR;PD' 1-85:,& LC 5 �'S;. Page 11 Moen, The 16th of April. I' ll go ahead and make that a motion, looking for- a second and we'll tote one it. Owens I'll second. Moen. All those, further discussion, I guess. Bergmann. Does it have to been the next meeting. Why can't we set it over for a special a date certain, spend a hour and a half or two max r Moen, We can set it over to any mutual date that we have Monahan, As long as its to a date certain, theres no notification problem. Moen, What does the next meeting look like. Monahan, Well you have a copy of the Agenda before you and it looks like a full night. . . . .several people talking . . . . . inaudible. . . . . . Moen, Whats the possibility of carrying it over to a . . . . . . . . . . . . uh, whats you feeling on a time . . .. .. . . . .. Monahan, Well, Keith's going to be preparing the staff reports for the 15th. Would you prefer to, all together, or . • ' TRANSCRIPT FOR PO 1-85 S ZC 5-85 Page 17 I Liden, We have as many items, I don't believe they, ,Are going to be quite as controversial or take as long, Usually I don't get a good idea which ones will be controversial until Lhe notice goes out, and I start getting phone calls. Moen, Okay, I would like to make the motion that we set it over you Saying that „ lets just take a' vote on whether we want to set it over to begin with. We'll decide on the date later. All of those in favor of the motion of setting it over to a date certain, sayAye, . ..Moen, .Owens, and Bergmann, ayes, MOEN, "Nays", Leverett, Campbell, Vanderwood, Fyre. and Butler, Nay. Moen, Okay, with that in mind, , , . . . . , okay, carry on then. . . Alright, with that in mind, several People talking Liden, Question on the parking lot, Uh, Mr, Bishop is correct that in a residential zones you are not permitted to make modifications in the flood plain for additional development, grading and so forth. I have not seen a l drawing depicting where' the floodplain actual a y isI know that portion of that property that include the parking lot is within the floodplain, how much, I'm not really sure, So, if most of thats in the flood plain then there would be a definite conflict there and we'll be ab ' le to get a Sensitive lands ' approval Bergmann, Can we restrict the use of that if the zone ._' is changed to Cf9D, so_ that you would know that there would never be a building built on it: TRANSCRIPT FOR PD 1---85 6 7t� 5-..85 page, 13 ' Liden, No really, don't really have . . . . - Monahan, I think you could place a deed restriction. Bergmann, Deed restriction. Monahan, But, I think thats going beyond the issue, the first issue is, is thezonechange justified based upon the standards in the code. Thais what our staff analysis was_based on. Not on a matter, well, Uh, In terms of using - this for a parking lot, should it or shouldn't it. The parking lot is a secondary issue, the first issue is should it be changed to the commercial, put I think if you did find that it could be changed to commercial, you should require a deed restriction. _. Bergmann, so what your saying is thats its already in the downtown area and its R-12 and you can't build anything on it because its in the floodplain. Monahan, That is to be determined once the information on the sensitive lands is provided, flood question. we have representative map that shows where we think the floodplain line is. Bergmann, And it appears that most of it is in the floodplain. Monahan, But its up to the individual property owner to Then show, what the actuallocation is, also, just because a_ piece of land is designated as s residential or commercial, if it has these, uh, environmental restraints, ufi, t`RAN;i;R L'I�1 FOR, PD 1-85 & 7_C 5-85 Page lA .:r ME city obligation then to, find a solution to make the piece of land paveabie, which is what we're basically talking about. Bergmann, But at least if it was a parking lot, and it was paved the 100 year <floodplain put water on it, it isn' t going to move anybody out that just like park land. Monahan, I don't think that a parking lot is just like parkway. I think that it can be engineered with an overall concept that the damage can be mitigated, from one section to another. But thats a sensitive lands issue, thats not really a zoning issue. r Butler, What about my other question? . . how to satisfy the grading, hows it coordinated, Liden, Okay, as far as as the park plan is concerned, it was at least staff's perception that those would be dealt with during sensitive lands review, for example, in the condition of sensitive lands approval in the 100 year floodplain, any bikepath or pedestrian path that is contemplated in a plan would be installed as a part of the Sensitive Lands approval. Also, at that point . review the grading For anything inside the floodplain. So it is our thought that that would be addressed for the Sensitive Lands Portion. Really most of the park issues, I would be taking at that time. Now the, uh, the Park Board did not voice an objectionto the site plan, however, after taking a look at the Fanno Creek study, master plan for the park, it does show some of the areas, at least conceptually, uh, back up, 'shows some areas conceptually in here that are indicated for park purposes on the site plan . . . z 1'RANSCRIPI" FOR PD 1-85 S ZC 5-85 page 15 develop, so, uh, th(-r-e would have to be some -review, and Sensitive Lands to what areas are approFriate for, Parks. There were also some letters that at least I will just note, I believe all these are in your packet. Secretary, They were handed out at the beginning of the meeting. Liden, We received a letter from Mr. and Mrs. McBeth, with a list of 7 concerns regarding the development. We have a letter from Mr. and Mrs Saub,- also voicing some, some concern. You have a letter in your packet From Mr. & Mrs. Johnson with some concerns about the development. And we also have a letter from uh, Mr. Clark, who is the Chairman of the Economic Development Committee for the City, and he indicates that there where four members of a their committee who reviewed the proposal and they choose not to take a position on the zone change request and did_support the project, otherwise as far as being a economic benefit to the City. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Okay thank you. Moen, Those in favor of going forth with the hearing, Mr. Caswell? "It not Mr. is Mrs. laughter. . . . . (several people talking), . . . . I'm Jeanne Caswell, and I'm here for the Tigard Chamber of Commerce and I'm here to be very brief with you, I know its late, uh, We are in support of this conceptual project that JB Bishop has presented to us, primarily for three, reasons. Number 1 its been a goal identified by, identified by the Chamber and of the City Economic Development Comnission that downtown Tigard, without the Urban Renewal Program, it does need revitalization, anybody who approaches Tigard from the south end knows that it looks ;real ugly, its very TRANSCRIPT`FOR"PO 1-85 6 7C 5•-85 Page 16 .. a a. x ON Z unattractive for business, its even more unattractive to people who choose to { live here, uh, I'm sure you have heard of questions, as many times as I do every day, where is the heart of Tigard, there isn't one. you know, it could be Washington Square, it could be down by the Post office and the Health Habit, it could be out on McDonald, it could be Tigard High School Theres not a heartland, and frankly that offends folks, it offends businesses, and it offends people who move hear. I think this project provides a wonderful anchor for the south end of Tigard. It gives us same depth in the Community instead of what we all kind of laughingly refer to as strip zoning along Pacific Highway. It provides a shopping Center for the Community. Uh, the nextreasonwe are in support of it, is that Costco,in particular provides our A Tigard area consumers and option to high cost spending things that we all pick up at Washington Square. We can buy brand name products out of the Costco Store` aIt not necessarily the same cost that we pick those thing up over at ' . Washington Square. Thats a wonderful option for our consumers and _handy . The third reason that we support it, obviously is that is provides a plan for our community. I've been told that, that the predominate employee is a primary wage earner. We have a real problem in this community with unemployed woman who are supporting households of children and they are not necessarily skilled, not necessarily skilled in the labor force. This provide an option for them for employment, along with many other kinds of folks. So that would be the third reason why we would support it. Secondly, with regard to the zone change, uh, obviously its a very tough position for you to blend the business community and urban community together so that they flit together. We're supportive of the zone change, primarily for two reasons. Number one it provides a parking facility for park land, that hopefully will be used extensively in the Community. I think its far preferable to have a parking' TRANSCRCPT FOR PD 1-85 6 ZC 5 135 Page 17 lot where folkscanpark their car than to have them abandoning their cars in t the driveways and on the street of Ash Street, and Frankly thats where they will be. Jack Park and Mary Woodard Park currently face that problem and its a pain in the neck for the residences. I'm sure you've heard that from other, folks_ before. Secondly, theres an advantage to the City, frankly the City does not have money to do a lot of developing, the developer has indicated, he would be willing to dedicate some park land that would help complete the Fanno Park Way. I think thats a real advantage in . . of our City officials to look at those gifts, even though we are in a crunch situation, I think we need to look at those tnings Those are the primary reason for the support, as the Chamber support this planned unit planned developmgnt, and uh, we recommend support and approval of that as well as the zone change. Any questions? Thanks. Moen, Okay, we' ll now hear those in opposition, Mrs. Johnson? The only thing I wish to discuss, I guess everybody is discussing it, is the zone change on the, the main reason why we are protesting is just because of, the NPO wanted, and all the residences within the immediate area O'mara, Hill and Ash Street, fought so hard to get that into, well our situation, to protect the residential area and to protect the greenway, because we knew 'the situation, and all this . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . so thats the end of that. Well the traffic flow after studying the map, the long way, when I saw it at the NPO,'-I saw it in a 'different perspective, now I'm seeing it as a resident of that area, and the area that I do live in isaboutthree blocks from_where the large buildings going to be, thats not the point, its the street pattern that we are worried about, because I've been talking to some of my neighbors, uh, TRANSCRIPT FOR PO 1-•-85 & 7-C 5-85 Page 18 this type of- . . . and its connection with Pacific Highway is a terrifying i aspect for them, because they feel that this flow of traffic is a tremendous • find a opening and zoom, in they come. Now, we have very low density area, most of the lots are 7500 square feet and up, and its been that way for years and we wish to . . . . . I just, since theirs going to be a extension of Ash Avenue, eventually, its on the agenda, theres this street coming around and then theres a little one that goes off into Main Street and the it comes and angles and goes to Pacific Highway. That makes tentatively three streets coming into Ash and going to be filtering to Burnham Street from this development, we'll have traffic from Village Glen, Ash, Drive, and Frewing and then Garrett and the who NPP residential area. Which is what that mostly is, all residential. Well thats is that. And uh, we understood from the new comprehensive plan, thatthey were suppose to do something to protect the establish areas, especially the low density single = - family areas and the concern of that street its the main thing, its, do they have to have this thing backyarded into the neighborhood. Thats what I'm trying to `say. Is there anyway, just that back dooring business here that next problem that someone mentioned. Theres going to be a lot more cars and what not, shopping center . . . . . But, the air quality in that little dip, has it been studied, or whats going to happen . . . , , , , . . . . . . . . „ , , , , and uh, unfortunately for us, where we live, and is the noise factor comes from the west and north and we get the drone from Pacific Highway, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . okay, Sunday event, noise factor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . after you stop and think and listen to it, the proposal its there. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . and thats it. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TRANSCRIPT FOR PD 1--85 6 Z.0 5-85Page 19 Moen, Okay, f. Mrs. Johnson, Oh, I forgot to give my address its 9300 SW Hill Street. Moen, E. Whitker? I'm Emmet Whitaker, 13250 SW Burnham Court, uh, I wouldliketo start out by addressing a couple of things that the woman from the Chamber of Commerce addressed. I think one, that as far as providing shopping area for all of Tigard residence, I think that thats a misnomer because of the fact that Costco has a limited membership and so it will not provide shopping facilities for everybody, per say. And the other one is that it will provide jobs for uh, single family with children, and if you look at the average of the Costco employee on their existing site on the NE side, you will find that most of them are college age or a little bit younger, so I think again that there may be, their higher practices, are such that uh, they won't provide jobs either. Then I would like to get into some of the other items that I would like to talk about here. One is that I am concerned with the noise that is provided by the loading docks. We have a fifteen foot setback from the loading area which will be almost immediately adjacent to that 15 foot setback, so uh, theres considerable amount of noise generated from tractor trailer rigs as they are manuvering to go into the dock or whatever, or pulling away from the dock. So its there, and it was our understanding that we could possibly see loading as early as 6:00 o'clock in the morning. Well, I don't know to many z ' _people who would like to wake up at 6:00 o'clock in the morning with a disel rig, "uh, waking them up instead of an 'alarm,- or something. So that is a' concern. The next item, is that is was our un_derstandi.ng. ask a rz rRANSC.R EPT FOR PO 1-85'& ZC 'S-85 Pdge 20 question of, what would the volume of cars that would be generated by this ( Well I've calculated that out on a facility. and it was 11,500 cars per day. eight hour basis and I calculated out with two access roads and then the three access roads. If we had two access, that would me that we would have to have 12 cars per minutes come in and go out. And if its three your looking at 8 cars per minute I don't think our roads can take that kind of volume out of the access that are talked about right here. uh, especially Main Street, I don't think that Main Street could handle it. A volume of that type. And I think that uh, those factors there, uh, I think that a lot of people do not hnow if Ash Street put through and it was drive Pacific Highway of the traffic would come, through proposed that only 2the neighborhood area. I think that is a misnomer because a lot of people will not drive Pacific Highway. They will find other routes to go. I know myself, I find other routes. Its been about fivemonthssince I've drivenon Pacific. I only drive on Pacific Highway now if I have to stop at a shop close to . • • . place then I get back off of it again. So I think that we're looking at, looking at a lot greater amount coming through a neighborhood area and again the traffic speed is going to be such that, I don't think your going to be able to hold the traffic down to 2.5 miles per hour. We have had children I think we are just increasing the volume of injured on Ash Street before. traffic through the neighborhood and we're going to be looking at increased potential _accidents with children . . . . . . there still going to be children. go with those in mind and because of the controversialnature if the Planning'Commission does see fit today to approve the zone change and approve the {cough).• . . if you could bring this back before the Planning Commission as far 'as the detailed plan study, it could come back again before you thank you. TRANS(,R CPT FOR PO 1-85 & IC 5-85 Page 2.1 Moen, called name (inaudible), Person decline to speak because neighbors had expressed her concerns: Moen. Called two other names (One . no answer one declined, concerns expressed). "I think you either mispronounced or overlook 3. L. Gehrong on Ash Drive. Moen, I mispronounced it. 3 , Gehrong, 13215 SW Ash Drive, Uh, I have been a resident of Tigard in that location for 14 years. At the time that we moved in and subsequently there to, it was understood by myself and other residences that there would be a buffer zone, mainly of multi dwellings or apartments houses between single family residences and the commercial zone. The other night, on friday night at a meeting that was held, I understand that thats been changed. I don't think that the homeowners, with his investment, should have that sort of thing changed secondly, when Mr. . . . . . . . . was mayor, you will problem remember, the meeting ,that was conducted at the Charles F. Tigard School, this goes back to about, 10 years ago. in which we was overwhelmingly, debated, put down, the people of the neighborhood did not want Ash Street, Ash Avenue its were arguments called now, extended down. There brought up that it made it opened up Main Street easier access for fire equipment and and it develop A the downtown uh, city area. As recently as two years ago, the vote From the people, or the area said that they did not what it extended through. And the i'RANSCRIPT FOR; PD 1-05 6 `7.0 5-85 Page 72 People -I talk to don't like to have their will changed at this time or the immediate future. Uh, You mentioned children, on Ash Street. Its a very interesting thing, the recent snow fail, the only way out You get from the lower area upon onto Ash Drive is to make a right turn, and I come aooMing around the corner, up the incline of Ash to get up to Frewing. You can't do that. Because you know why, the kids are sleigh riding down Ash Ave. and thats it Moen. With that thats the conclusion of those in opposition of the proposal . i This s the opportunity for the applicant to,^ .rebut the items in the testimony. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , JB- If I may, just briefly, before that point - may I ask if it is at all appropriate as a point of order to ask if you would give any consideration to, 3 because of the hour, andour Y considerations personally, uh, that you might ' want to set this to a date certain for the next phase of this. Because their t is a substantial amount of information that would take a reasonable amount of time to reviews. F Moen, Next phase, meaning the rebuttal. J8, Yes, sir, rebuttal, and obviously your consideration. . . , groans. .several people talking, 771 Moen, . .asked if midnig �ht would be a reasonable hour to do that, uh, x TRAflISCRIPT �vR p() 1 85 6 ZC 5-85 . Page �,� ... ..n r 1 ..-1,.r w t 'li,,",,... �; "•'f.3Ync':C, _ p press on . . , . . . . . . JB, The specific issues that we want to raise is that conceptually we would like you to understand that the sight plan both city data that we have and also specific property data shows that the request on the zone change from the done before the Fanno Creek Parkway Plan and city engineering map, which was the City Hall plan, this is the 100 year floodplain. and along on the issue of the zone change, the legal description of the tax lot, of which I own, which is 3.19 acres, which is adjoining the city shops, this part would be dedicated to the city for the park, which is a new configuration versus the mailed out show the old configuration of Fanno Creek notices that the city staff sent five years ago. The creek it now down here. The before USA changed it about ORB plan, Mr. Butler, which we're familiar with also made the mistake of F showing the creek in the wrong location from the old city data, it doesn't show it in its new location as relocated in 1977 by USA. It was an oversight made when we were first working with the NPO, when. . Moen, 4lheres Ash Street on there? 38, Ash street is right here it terminates at the far north end of the existing Philadelphia Square Apartments, the property line allows for a small ' above grade level ground, here, and a very small amount amount, excuse me, of here. Theres over 85X of the property that is in the 100 year floodplain and this is from the aerial photography and the individual grades that we've done our boundary survey on and we're submitting to the sensitive lands hearing• We obviously with city staff that the major part of the site, 8 5% C 5-85 Page 24 TRANSCRIPT FOR PD 1 -85 6 7_ ..�,�.------.-.--._.�..,A,�--..,;�,.�...<r.«..,�.,�•--gin. _. :.--. .. ..: _ .-- _ _._:: . . -: �-". .�; is in the 100 year floodplain . . . . . . of the overall site, of the existing use with the creek as it exist now. Moen, Your talking of 85% of . . . . . J8, . . . . . . . . , The R-12 zone is for all the property. It includes the property that is . . . . . . . . . . this side of the creek. Moen, The questions have. Could you show us where the property line is,, uh of the whole proposal y` R J8, Directly adjoins the city shops, goes from the city shops, where the old sewer plantuse to be, down to the far back Line, the east line of Philadelphia Square, comes across to the improved surface of Ash, and goes up { Moen, . . . . . .inaudible. . . . . . J8, . . .okay, normally the line is right here along the creek, right on the edge of the creek, literally it goes into the creek. It follows the creek up to the city library, the city library's back, about fourteen hundred feet. The other, point that needs to be trade is that the, deal with the Parks Board and and it would deal with the NPO, consistent with the previous approval of this planned unit development, . . . . . . provision in our detailed submittal of plans to the city staff for a sidewalk, for sidewalks to be installed, which isn't there now on the Philadelphia Square property, a full sidewalk along up ' x ( and into the end of the creek. A full sidewalk improvement, plus the city standard of 32 feet, which is the requiremereL for the full street improvement TRANSCRIVII FOR PD 1-85-6 T_C',`a-85 Page 7`i that Commissioner Moen had asked fur at the time this project was approved in 1982. You held out for full street improvements, thats what we have now, with ownership on both sides. Secondly, the sidewalk here connecting sidewalks all along here all the way here all the way up to Highway 99, ,and also all along 99 and down to the city's existing library, which will be a vacated building or other uses then:_ But full sidewalkaccess to both Main Street and Highway 99. The bikepath we will install on as prescribed and as reviewed with both the Park Department and with the planning staff, where' they need to go is where they will be installed. ; , through , here, and obviously for me' make arrangements Philadelphia Square, to . . . . . . . . . . . . condition of this development. The one note that we didn't, because of brevity of r time, will then . . . . . . . . . .that the line up you see here, consistent with the alignment you saw and what you approved;two years ago is a circulars route, specifically to mitigate the impasse of a straight shot through, which the existing right—of-way provides for, and that is for the s curve their, which I certainly think will accomplish its purpose . . . . . The barrier is not to be taken lightly. . . . . . . . . . . . . the specific background, the barrier is an impasse that is required by the NPO, . . . . . . . by city policy, that barrier is not to be removed as someone thought previously, obviously they had not look clearly at the code. Hill is extended to O'Mara. . . . . . . . . . . . . two to three years maybe and little sooner, maybe a little later. Thats only one of about four other things that have to occur and I would be more than pleased, if the city would like to add another imposition to the opening of that, which isn't there now, and that is also the institution for a establishment of a bridge here plus' the improvement. We don't care when this opens up. I'd be `happy to have the city if they-want',to further condition that until the city makes the improvement .to the bridge 4' TRANSCRIPT" FOR "PD 1--85 6 ZC 5--85 Page 26' 'z" Moen, I think the Ash Street situation has been throughly hashed out in the past, and I ' think, our, we went through the whole procedure quitelengthily and the decision was that certain conditions on AshStreet . .. . . . lined out. J8, . . The location of the barrier was not defined in the code, we specifically are suggesting a location of the barrier in negotiation with Philadelphia Square, be right here, so that they will not have any further access onto Hill but all the traffic right from the beginning of the improvement of the street with approval of Philadelphia Square will be solely through this property. Philadelphia Square from the day this improvement is completed and the barriers installed will not be utilizing Ash Street, because they will not have an access to Ash Street Moen, Is there any other items you wish to address . . . . . . . J8, Comments from the NPO Chairman, Vice Chairman, uh, Carolyn Eadon, with regards to relationship of the zone change, uh, no reason to make a zone change because they want to preserve the low density relationship, I respectively submit to you that the existing zoning of Philadelphia Square Apartments is not low density, and thats where I'm directly abutting there, is not R-4.5, isnot R-7, it is multi-family Philadelphia Square. And we show a large buffer, substantially in excess of the setback on that issue. The DEQ permit which was in existence at the approval- . ; 1982, when you and subsequently City Council approved it, is still the DEQ permit, which permitted 1,230 `cars on that site. I plan now shows 1, 137 cars. It was a TRANSCRIPT, FOR PD 1--85 S ZC 5-85'. Page 27 w4W fully engineered analysis by DEQ, the engineering that went into it was very . . Uh, we are more than willing to address the issue of grading and the ORB plan and _deal with that directly subject to also review with the Park Board and any other direction we have Finally the issue of the establishedareasprotection. I think it is again addressed that I don't view the existing medium to high density use of Philadelphia Square Apartments as being low density residential, as we've tried to protect . . . . . . . . . Picks Landing, and other areas of Tigard, where we have a medium size residential lot to another size residential lot Uh, the employees age, and membership of Costco, versus, the full use of the site, and ,other retail development which is an outright permitted use on the site. I think, are obviously city wide issues that you as the Planning Commission would deal with, The loading docks are substantially away fromthat15 foot landscaped area.. The loading docks are approximately, would be about 70 feet, 80 feet, (voice. , 40 + 10) So fifty feet, and that loading dock is for miscellaneous bread deliveries and small trucks, the other larger trucks are further in the site, we specifically gave strong attention with the tenant to the placement of the loading area, and we really hid it in comparison to where the old design had. The 2% traffic issue, in regards to what Ash Street will have when its opened up and thats from the CH2M Hill documentation, and the calculations on ,a eight hours day versus and . . . . . . . . hour day I have a hard time perceiving, when traffic engineers and the city does the analysis for the state. . . . .coughing. , . . . . twenty—four hours basis and when they know when the hours are open and when they are closed and are plan shows that we would be more than able to handle, with the approved access on Main Street and Highway 99 the traffic within the site. Other than that there is no other rebuttal. TRANSCRIPT' FOR PD 1--85'& 7C 5-85 Page 78 v. Moen, Close the public hearing Someone. . . Amen! Moen, Commissioners, we put ourselves here, so, what I think I would like to do is run down the line here, any questions you might have any comments. . t Leverett, What do you want, questions now? Moen, Yes. Leverett, I have no questions, • • • • • • . . . tape inaudible. . . . ;• , several people talking same time. , Moen, I have a question of staff, the Park Master Plan shows a significant amount of the property is in the . . .Gough. . . Park way and I would like you to comment on that, . . • some conflict there. Liden, Okay, the Park Board reviewed and the said y they didn't have any particular objection to it. I think as far as floodplain with infill, is that ;after . . . inaudible As far as Fanno Creek inaudible • . . . • . . . . some variation allowed on the plan, some of the things that went into that plan arn't going to happen now, for instance the City Hall was � . TRRNSCRTPT FOR PD 1-85 6 7_C 5-85 Page 29 proposed to be on the Crow site, and the lake was going to be located directly behind the crow. Since the City has not purchased that site, I don' t think that Take be developed Also, our purpose is to acquire ownership or preservation of the continuousstrip of land along, the creek from 'one end to the other, as long as we, are abletodo that we don't have to have both sides developed. So I think that could be modified somewhat. 78. Commissioner Moen, one brief point. . . submitted data to the City, it was two; years after ORB finished their plan and what the City now uses as its base data, with us as property owners, as ... . . . . . . , i substantially a different in many areas along the Fanno Creek Park Way than what ORB had. ORB s was schematic and was not'at' all tied to what later, . . . .cough. . . revise flood n point section set by the Corp. , and if you now took the 'ORB plan and tied it in with the Corp. plan, you would substantial revisions especially along this side of the creek versus the other side. p x several people talking. . . . . . . . . i l.everett. I'm in favor of both the planned development and the proposed zone , change. I-think . . ... . . . a Vanderwood. I agree with that. 1 _ E Campbell, inaudible. . 91 ��` fRANSI.RiPT FOR Pp 1 /c 5.-85 Pagel-30: Moen, I flipped this down because this is just reference that I think that, t this is the plan that was submitted before. Okay, and I'm not saying that a gentleman should be held to want he did before, necessarily, uh, but in my opinion this plan had real vision for the south end of Tigard. It was really positive plan, it addressed a number of concerns that we had at the time. I've been through this thing three times with Mr. Bishop. The very First meeting I ever came as a Planning Commissioner, was the Main Street Development, that was how many years ago', I don't know. (JB, 1979). Okay, the very first meeting I came to, and the very first time we did, we had what was at the time a :GI Joes, okay. But the basic problem we had with the development was that it was a one big large box plopped in the middle of a sea of concrete with some, very few, almost none specialty shops around it. That was not what our vision of the south end of Tigard was, okay. We went through the plan process, we started out with, the next proposal was one where there was a rather large drawing with some staged development along this edge, okay. And, the consensus at that time was, well, we're putting all of that development right up against the residential area, thera's got to be a more imaginative way to put this whole thing together, okay. And, the last point I think Mr. Bishop, came up with is this one before, and that one addressed a whole bunch of issues. It got the buildings away from the corners of the lot it created a Main Street section, okay, that was basically two streets going through here, a . . . • • . . shopping area, okay. It did a number of things, another thing that it did is get rid of a one large box . . and I think it hada lot of vision, it had a restaurant and a lake and a lot of amentities. In my thinking, and its only one persons opinion, I_ think that we are right back to where we got a big box, almost in a sea of concrete. Its a little bit better than that, but that store, if my -inclinations are right, and L, its closely . . . . .`. . one store, close to square footing, equivalent uF a Fred TRANSCRIPT FOR,PD 1-85 & 7..0 5--85 Page 31 Meyers . . . . . �tn J8 Fred Meyers 235,000 square feet, this is 108 Moen, Okay I stand corrected, not to far ofd'though. Uh, also, the original of development going, devoted to the park part of the plan, there was a lot plan up there. Mr. Bishop had committed to grade the park, upgrade the park, creating a lake, doing alot of things . . . . . . . . . . . . . I don't see; I guess, Y think that the south side of Tigard, the Anchor for Tigard, better have something thats, it is very important, the Chamber of Commerce is right, what goes in the south end of Tigard will determine how,Tigard will develops as a Community in that Central Business District. I think that it meets some certain needs . . . . . . . . . for one particular customer, which is admirable. But, I think sometime, Uh, I don't think its right for that site. I think maybe that with some adjustment with way things are put together it could be made but with wants there I don't think see it . . Commissioner Butler. Butler, You said you've seen this plan, uh, but I think I've seen this plan more, longer than anybody, . . . . laughter . . . . . Chairperson of NPO # l who brought it through. F Moen, I'm close. } Butler, - Your close, coughing. . . am I incorrect, the conceptual view, should we approve ,the use, basically that building may or may not end up there, right, thats the site design review and thats later on. TRANSCRIPT FOR PO 1=85 6 7.0 5-85 Page 32 ( Liden, The conceptual review you would be looking at and approving or denying the 'basic layout thats proposed Butler, Basis Liden, Everythings all moved around and the streets systems different the parking different , Butler, We already know that, phase II is going to be different. 01r Liden, Right. ?. _ . . . . . . . . , .several people talking. Butler, You think we're approving the big box . . ..(coughing/laughter). . , if the big box will fly, let here fly. I am against the zone change, because I've been on the side of the neighbors and I've been on the Planning Commission and I think . .. . .. . . . kept that zoning as R-12 PD for that area, and that was many sessions not just one, and I think that ought to say. I the planned development I can see the zone change I can't buy. Thats all Moen, Mr. Bergmann, a TRANSCRIPT FOR PD 1-85 6 ZC 5-85 Page 33 ' Bergmann, I ,would like to say first that I own property across Pacific Highway close enough to this to be legally notified of this project, although I feel I have no direct conflict of interest I shall be voting. I agree with our chairman to some extent that conceptually I like the buildings in the tenter as the former plan shows, with parking around the perimeter. But, its not going to move, and to some extent you have to let people . . . and design what they want as long as those things that are of public interest are really- taken care of. I would be in favor of both the pian approval and the zone change, so long as we tie the deed restriction parking, and the extra . . . . . . . . Moen. Mr. Peterson. 01 Peterson, Well, I don't have much to add, I agree with the zone restriction and I have concerns about the traffic, but, -the centers got the right to go there I guess. and, uh, I'll go for• it. Moen. . . . . . . . . . . . . I have a question of staff, this is the general plan review. theres specific plan approval . . . . . . . . . that involves the site details in parking . , . .inaudible. . . . , . . . Manahan, Could be, depending on when the applicant Moen, I think it would be appropriate, inaudible. . . . . For a planned development is it appropriate for us to hear that, r , LAII Z TRANSCRIPT FOR Po.1-85 6 IC 5-85' Page 34 '- p <. a -a`.?x Monahan. I don't know if you have the right to make it a condition. The way ( the Code is `written, it says that when more than one aare Filed at the same time that are to be heard by a differentbody, they shall be combined into one hearing, or one application-for 'one body. Now -Lhe conceptual plan came to you tonight, and the detailed and the Sensitive Lands where not ready at this time. It is possible, that an interpretation could be made_ that, since you began the hearing on the entire application, that perhaps we could combine them all together. ;I'11 check into that. The other option is that if x its not passible, since we've already had one portion and theses only two portions left to go that the other two could be combined. But both of those ether approval don't come before the Planning CommiAsion, One is a Directors Decision and one is a Hearings officer. If only those two are combined then they would go to the Hearings officer. Under one hearing. But if you want to make the motion that if its at all possible to combine those :cough• . . together and have it come back to you, make that a motion, we'll check into it, Moen, I'm a little bit surprised, uh. . . . . . . . . planned development as far ' Manahan, Th ats not how the Code is written. The Codes written that the conceptual review is a priority of the Commission, the detailed review is the the priority of the Planning Director, . . . . . . .interruptions. . . Moen, . . . . . Site Design Review? Monahan. Ina way. 4 h� TRANSCRIPT FOR PD 1-85 &.ZC 5-85 Page 35 L _ WKE Moen, . . . . . . . . .inaudible Monahan, well, thats not what the Code says, the Code was drafted specifically to outline what the duties of each one of the hearings bodies are. And as I pointed out to you during the break, slot of the flexibility that we had in their that one body could pull up and review something else, thats all out of there, because of the change in the law two years ago, that no longer can cities hold up the approval of a application beyond a 120 days. So we had to streamline our plan, and I think that was explained all along in review and the development of the new Comprehensive Plan and Code. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .several people talking Vanderwood Umm that we approve Planned Development PO 1-85, per staffs conditions, Secretary, Don't forget to include part about completing the final order and for President Moen to sign off on that final order. Vanderwood, okay, included. Secretary. who's my second. (Commissioner Leverett) Fyre, Further discussion? Moen, ' Further discussion? TRANSCRIPT" FOR'PO 1-85 6 7.t: 5- 85 Page 36 Butler, I have a point I would like to bring up, since you were saying theres iJ a lot of grading and stuff on the original, when this came through a long time ago, I wonder if we could put something in there to the fact that the bearings Officer, when she looks at the Sensitive Lands would look at that again. uh, coordinate the grading, the pedestrian/bikepath which is whatever, I know the original ORB Fanno Creek Study may not be accurate, but . . . . . . . Parks Board would like to see happen. Can we have them put that as part of a condition under 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vanderwood, I have no problem with that. 01 Leverett, Thats fine. Secretary, . . . . . . . clarify. . .. .. . Liden, Just add the condition one, you just what another sentence. Butler, Just another sentence that the original ORB Fanno Creek Study Park Plaster Plan, or as designed by the Park Board, uh, shall be address and the pedestrian/bikepath located along with grading plans coordinate. Thats up to her to figure out what exactly that . . . . . . . . . . . . . park board to figure that all out Moen, Further Discussion? Call for the question all those in favor of the motion made - and, seconded signify by saying aye. Leverelt, Campbell, Vanderwood, Bergmann, Peterson, and Leverett, aye. CW TRAIUSCRIPT FOR`PO 1--85 6 ZC 5-85 Page 37' Those opposed. Nay Moen and Eyre. Moen, Motion carries, uh six to two. Okay second one. Commissioner Campbell, Uh, Approve ZC 5--85 along with : . . . . Secretary, We also need findings with the approval. Campbell, Findings on that? Secretary. Yes. ^ + Campbell, Also, . (coughing). liden, Right now, I have the relevant criteria, goals statewide planning goals 1 and 2 and we say there that the proposal meets those. Those are more procedural. The only thing that I, uh, that seems to pertain to this is section 18.66.030 of the Code, which indicates that the subject property, as well and . parcels shall be be . . . . . . . . . . . . . uh. What would you like to use as a interpretation or a finding. Anyway, I was just saying chat I . . . .. . . state goals are more procedural that what would be your finding in support of the zone change. We have one portion of the Code that says this portion of the Code says that this area will be developed according to R-12 criteria. Uh, is there something in the plan or uh, we were discussion some of the things . . . . . . . . . . . . . buffer zone. -- TRANSCRIPI ,FOR Po 1-85 d ZC_5-85 - Page 38 eamea a Is that just ' a zone change or a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, when Butler. you talk about changing that from R-12 to CBD. Liden., Just a zone change. Campbell, inaudible- - . . Central Business Distract Liden, Right, it has' a Comprehensive Plan. I mean a Plan designation so it is only a zone change. Campbell, .inaudible. . '' for arking, I guess you Liden. If you go along with the deed restriction P could took at is intent, your just allowing as not really circumventing the the establishment of a Barking lot under the Sensitive Lands procedure where if it remained R--12 it wouldn't be permitted. . . . . several people talking. . Butler, is that subject to the Sensitive Lands permit also? Secretary, Okay, do I have a second? Dean did. okay Moen, The motion has been made a seconded all those in favor of the motion signify by saying Aye, Commissioners, Leverett, Vanderwood. Campbell, BAy.-- Whose opposed, May, Bergmann, and Peterson, Butler. FYre. Moen. Moen, Motion carries 5 to 3. a y TRANSCRIPT FOR PD 1_85'd ZC Page 39 -z ..m ;- .: gi�Ilii1RII��IMIflI ea � Moen, . . .noise. . . . . I _would like to just make a note that the Decision ( of the Director on a detailed development plan maybe we feel that the applicant . . . Commission Monahan, Appealed to the Planning Commission. Hearing ,Closed - - i TRANSCRIPT'FOR PD 1' 85 6. ZC 5'-85 Page 40 2. the City shall coordinate ;and cooperate with the private sector< to promote their -participation in t:ho revitalization of t.hr_ Central Business District. B. ASH AVENUE FINDINGS o The extension of Ash Avenue is expected to increase' traffic from the downtown area to the adjacent neighborhood; thus potentially increasing the adverse impacts upon the adjacent neighborhood. o Improvements to adjacent street, e.g. Hili, O'Mara, etc. can alleviate traffic impacts on Ash Avenue. POLICY 11.2.1 ASH AVENUE SHALL BE EXTENDED ACROSS FANNO CREEK, ENABLING ACCESS TO THE NEIGHBORHOODS AND COMMERCIAL AREA WITHOUT USING PACIFIC HIGHWAY. DESIGN FEATURES SHALL BE USED TO SLOW TRAFFIC AND MAKE THE STREET AS SAFE AS POSSIBLE. ASH AVENUE SHALL BE DESIGNATED AS A MINOR COLLECTOR IN .CONFORMANCE WITH THE MASTER STREET PLAN. DESIGN FEATURES AND MITIGATION MEASURES SHALL HOLD TRAFFIC VOLUMES TO THE MIDDLE LIMITS OF A MINORCOLLECTOR. 11.2.2 IMPROVEMENTS TO S.W. ASH AVENUE FROM S.W. HILL TO FANNO CREEK SHALL .BE CONSTRUCTED AS A CONDITION OF DEVELOPMENT OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES, THE STREET IMPROVEMENTS ALONG WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MAJOR C(X''MERCIAL SITE WILL INCREASE TRAFFIC ON ASH. A BARRICADE SHALL BE PLACED AT HILL STREET APPROXIMATELY AT THE END OF THE EXITING PAVEMENT TO PROTECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS FROM THE COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC. 11.2.5 METHODS OF MITIGATING THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD SHALL INCLUDE, IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER OF IMPROVEMENT, CONSTRUCTION: a. IMPROVING S.W. MCDONALD STREET TO INTERIM MAINTENANCE STANDARDS TO ENCOURAGE TRAFFIC FROM SOUTH OF MCDONALD TO USE MCDONALD TO EXIT TO HALL AND/OR PACIFIC HIGHWAY. b. IMPROVEMENTS TO THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION OF ASH. FROM HILL TO FREWING. THESE IMPROVEMENTS COULD INCLUDE LIMITED PARKING, A- DELINEATION OF TRAFFIC LANES AND SIDEWALKS ON ONE OR BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET. c: THE EXTENSION OF S.W. HILL TO S.W. O'MARA AND/OR THE IMPROVEMENT ► nom OF S.W. ASH FROM FREWING TO GARRETT. THE EXTENSION OF S.W. O'MARA TO S.W. HILL PARALLEL TO S.W. ASH. a.. REMOVAL OF THE BARRICADE IN PLACE ON ASH AVENUE AT S.W, HILL. f. IMPROVEMENT OF S.W. O'MARA STREET TO INTERIM MAINTENANCE STANDARDS TO ENCOURAGE ANALTERNATE ROUTE. II - 72 ` g. INSTALLATION Of' TRAI F IC INII1111 TORS TO lift" RFSTDt NI"[At. PORTION OI" ASH I AND WIII.N IRAFf`IC VOI UMLS LXCI'LD lift M.IDDI I RANGtI OR A MINOR COLLECTOR. TRAF1 [C INHIBITORS INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT L:IMItt.D TO PLANTING ISLANDS, SPEED BUMPS, BUTTONS, TURNING RESTRICTIONS, . ` LOAD LIMITS AND ENFORCEMENT. 11.3 NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATION k3 -Many of the older residential neighborhoods in NPO N3 were developed along country' roads that were lightly traveled, but which are now more heavily traveled- Some of this increased traffic results from local development, and some of it is through traffic which must use these roads since no arterial route has been built. Further increasesintraffic, and consequent widening of these roads, may adversely impact the quality of the residences along these roads This is particularly the case with 121st Avenue and Gaarde Street, which have right-of-ways of 40 to 50 feet that are offset it some places. The comprehensive plan for NPO N3, adopted by the City of Tigard in 1975, supported and implemented the conclusions of Carl Buttke, the consulting engineer who performed the traffic studies for the various NPOs. These conclusions were that 121st Avenue and Gaarde Street should be developed as two lane`roads' limited to a total of 30 feet "to avoid motorists from forming a third <lane, but providing sufficient roadway width for turning vehicles." The 1975 plan included provisions for these roads to have pedestrian-bicycle paths, and to have restrictions on parking. Also, low densities were planned for the neighborhoods serviced by these 'streets; one reason was to avail further overloading of these streets with additional traffic resulting from higher densities. The City of Tigard, in the 1975 plan for NPO 03, opposed a proposed Murray Boulevard Extension through NPO #3. It has been the opinion of both the City and the, local residents that the Murray Boulevard Extension to Pacific Highway should be located to the west of Bull Mountain. Completion of this arterial linkage could remove much of the through traffic from what should be neighborhood collector streets. FIMOINGS o The development along most of the collector streets in NPO #3 is predominantly low density residences which are in good condition. o The present right--of-way along much of S.W. 121st Avenue and S.W. Gaarde street is 40 to 45 feet wide, with offsets in some places. Widening these streets to major collector standards would impact some of the existing homes on these streets. o Some of the traffic now using S.W. 121st Avenue and Gaarde Street is not local, but rather through traffic, which could be better provided for by a properly located arterial connection between Murray Boulevard and Pacific Higy, Q . o Future development on the land along 121st and Gaarde -will add to the traffic volumes on those streets. 11 - 73 r KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES TRANSPORTATION PLANNING/TRAFFIC ENGEERING 512 S.W BROADWAY a PORTLAND.OREGON 97205 (503)228-5230 April 29, 1985 F 6.00 Mr. J B. Bishop Main street Land Corporation 10505 S.W. Barbur Blvd. , Suite 303 Portland, Oregon 97219 Dear Mr. Bishop: In accordance with your request, I have reviewed the .current proposal for the Main Street Development in Tigard in relation to an analysis conducted by CH2M HILL for this same site in March 1982. Based upon this review, it is my conclusion that the CH2M HILL report is still applicable, and that there will be no significant differences, in terms of traffic volumes and traffic-related impacts, between the current site plan and the plan that was under consideration in March 1982. The basis for this conclusion is provided in the following paragraphs. The primary factors affecting the traffic impacts likely to be associated with a particular development are the total amount of traffic volume that will be generated, and the location of the development's access points in relation to the surrounding street system. Neither of these factors has changed substantially from the conditions that existed at the time that CH2M HILL's March 1982 report was prepared. With respect to traffic volume, CH2M HILL estimated that the site would generate approximately 11,900 one-way vehicle trip ends on a daily basis, representing 5,950 entering vehicles and 5,950 exiting vehicles. It was also estimated that the site would generate 1,000 p.m. peak hour vehicle trip ends, with 4170 entering and 530 exiting. Based upon the current site plan, which contains 221,100 gross square feet of retail and commercial floor area, it is estimated that upon full buildout the development will generate approximately 11,200 one-way vehicle trip ends on a daily basis, and 1,060 p.m. peak hour vehicle trip ends. This projection is not significantly different from the projection that was prepared by'CH2M HILL in March 1982. The proposed location of, site access drives has also not changed substantially since March 1982. In fact, they only change is the relocation of the accent drive onto Ash street Mr. J.B. Bishop _ April 29, 1985 Page Two from the north end of the property to a point farther south. This relocation will not affect the ability of vehicles using Ash Street to get into and out of the proposed development, but will tend to discourage vehicles from using the site's internal circulation system as a way of traveling betweeen Pacific Highway/Main Street and the Ash neighborhood. Furthermore, it is proposed that at the time that. Ash Street is connected to Burnham, this sole access drive onto Ash Streeet will be closed to all but emergency vehicles. The effect of this closure will be to reduce the number of vehicle trips using the site's access onto Main Street by about 140 vehicles during the evening peak hour, since this is the number of vehicle trips that would otherwise use the site's Internal circulation system as a short cut between the Ash neighborhood and Pacific Highway/Main Street. You have also asked that we consider the currently proposed angle parking along the access drive leading to Main Street, and evaluate the likely effect that it will have on the operation of the Main Street/Accnus Drive intersection. Generally, angle parking can cause significant disruption to normaltraffic flow during typical parking and unparking manuevers. However, three factors associated with your site design effectively neutralize any potential adverse effects on the operation of the intersection. First, a 30-feet wide roadway is provided for two-way traffic flow in the vicinity of the proposed angle parking (By comparison, a typical roadway width would be 24 feet) . Second, angle parking is allowed on only one side of the roadway (in the inbound direction) . Fi ally, the angle parking Is located �, � oxluately feet away from the Main Street/Access Drive Intersection; this distance will allow for the storage of -1( vehicles without affecting the operation of the intersection. Taking all these factors into account, it is very unlikely that the proposed angle parking will have a significant effect on the safety or operating characteristics of the proposed Main Street/Access Drive intersection. In summary, the traffic impacts associated with the proposed development ,will' not be substantially different from those that were 'de*cribsd'.in CH2M HILL's March ?882 report. By following the..recommendations contained in that report, the site can be develop as planned with minimal impacts on the surrounding street system. tffi ■®tom WN Mr. J.B. Bishop April 29, 1985 Page Three I hope that this information is sufficient for your_needs. Please_do` not hesitate to call if you have any 'additional comments or questions related to this matter that T may be able to adnswer. Sincerely eipK Kitte son, Q:E.ri E)vc rsl 1ed I)OMMM oy -2q -g5 .nit1�6i(1111111111111:.(i 011 11111111111 IAC ► 11 -- ! � ! E � I-( � 1�.� t 1117 T Tml'('f�(�['Ir�T��1►'►i►(I I(1,1(i I(f�i71 1(1�1(f ;1 1(1 1(1 1(r IIT 111 I(T 111 0(I I(I r(r 111 I(1 i►I I(I X11 I►I FII N0T'c: IFTHIS MICROFILMED .I. Z _12 .. DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN .� THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DRAWING. ,-.-:, —, OE—6Z BE LZ 82 SZ�y>2 -BZ 22 IZ OZ 61 BI U —91 -51 bl EI _Z►__.`f___O!—S 8 9 5 b gZ tNit1111�111011111(0111{tIIIrINIhN��1l,�N(l�I,a►�tL�cu±� I�I)y)Iyj�ll�j�an ' .... J _Iu�o _ �7__ r_� __ T l _ 1 ' a �.. ot- t IV Artists concept sketch Costco, Tigard Or. I,7t��irsJlt6�l�1 lae�otoletY�l[I Itl�ltl i0n:111 ILIJt;[7 1 jm flt t3 tiT !1 1;f 1�1 tt! 1�1 EjI Tl It EI1 1 t• 1 6 7 1 E 1 1 I171 � 7 7 i : { l 1 ISJtg �e e o 1 11111111- 1i1 { 1 ►.�'� Itlt � tl � � , � iitJ' ll NOTE: IF THIS MICROFAMED .— ._.__—. 1. 2 - 3 _- _ S 6_ _ 7 8 9 Q ��..- - 12 DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN ___ THIS NOTICE. IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DRAWING. -- - 0fZ sfz etZ tz 9z SZ--oz—Ez z2 IZ 0z 6t @i [i —91 Sf 41 eE zi 11 of— B ® L g S > --—c1I�Il1U711UU 1 iNlllNlSIIIIJNti�1111J1111�ew��eill�il_Hj�� ,. E ------ A R C"Hr ij Tigard, Oregan April 19, 1985 - -' (� 541g5' i° Mayor John Cook l Members N Tigard City Counci �� NOGG Tigard, Oregon, 97223- Dear 7223•Dear Mr. Mayor and Council, Members= This letter s in reference l°andthe detailedStreet planned Corporation request for ca 228,ufoot ter development approval for a 228;000 square arty zoned1CBDn(PD) and related facilities on a Change Residential, and for approval of a Zone Chang o CBD (Central Business District)$ for enda. 12 units Per acre tparcel. The above is on your April 29, 19 5� g 319 acre p File No. PD 1-85 and ZC 5 5• ent to City Hall to look at these Wife and I w After my s about the °plans that we are very plans, there are some thing concerned about. e City 1: The Comprehensive plan ofth tial areas°shouldrbesay� No. le family residen ` established sing Protected. There is about en+sethattheyf want to the thatinto a Philadelphia Square Apartm to accommodate the 150 r parking lot for 60 cars or more to ees large p on the. Plana These, employees 7 Ab; employees of the large building ving about 10 PM. We feel that this work on two shifts. t loo several cars would be parking e and the second shift and air pollution• We want the Orkin tat is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and would create -12exc ( iveresidential. Weasstrongly landpisedeSign- zOr►itig , to stay R-12 (PD) chahgd to CBD (Central Business District) an earlier NPOff be a. buffer ated Greenway and Flood e lain andcFloodoPainng tarea and District. ; Book was to remain a Gr pheasants and other- between the residential areas asuchhas�ducks� Business lake after There is wild-life in the area to the Philadelphia ago tzis area was like a large rare birds. A few years g several days of heavy rains=wiacrewater land was not included in square Apartments. This 3.19 Mr. , plans of two years ago Bishop,s . ears ago was more The plan Mr• Bide had about two Y neighborhood. �o" 2° a surrounding residential Haig oing compatible with the large an did not have a sweeping r°aresidentiallareas lorwaylarge The plan le family into the low density sing to the East into the Flood Plain,_ parking lot across Ash Avenue wa and Park area which is a buffer for these residential Greenway areas Continued: ..:.'max.moi`_.,•1.-'-- c __ _ _ MW Page 2 of 2 s The present proposed;plan has two streets coming into the residential area from Pacific Highway and �1ain Street. Later when Ash Avenue is extended across Fanno Creek to Burnham Street that would make three streets disrupting a residential area with a heavy traffic volume which will far exceed the allowed traffic volume limit on residential streets. Also, there would be excessive noise and air pollution. Hill Street which is now a dead-end street will be opened next year to Omara Street with 67 additional homes being built by--Century 21 Properties on'the Omara Site. The Omara Site was rezoned for a higher density than was first accounted for in the original traffic studies made by Mr. Hutke, thus making the traffic volume on Ash Avenue and Hill Street far exceeding the allowed limit. These residential streets were not made to take the volume of traffic that will be generated by the propsed shopping centerif all these streets are allowed to come into these neighborhoods. We feel that the traffic volume of over 11,000 cars per day projected by the present plan is too much for this residential area to accept. We are requesting that the proposed shopping center not be allowed to back door any streets into these residential areas so as to protect the character and livability of, our neighborhoods. When we purchased our land and built our home ten years ago, we` were assured by the City of Tigard that the only streets to be extended through our area would be Ash Avenue and Hill Street. No streets were on the map to connect Ash Avenue with Pacific Highway. Also, that the Greenway, was to remain our buffer from the Central Business District. Since then a steady erosion of the livability in this neighborhood has occurred. We wish to retain what character is left of this unique area. So whatever decisions are made will affect the permanent livability and character of this established low density residential area of several hundred homes. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Paul and Gloria Johnson 9300 S. W. Hill Street Tigard, Oregon, 97223• T P BACKGROUND c - ' QL _ The following data was reviewed and evaluated as pertinent to the objective of this transportation analysis. n An Informational Report, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Tri Generatio 975.. Ni hwa Ca acit Manual -Hi hwa Research Board S ecial Re ort #87, 1965. Interim Materials on Hi_qhway Capacity, Transportation Research Board Circular o• Other background data and sources included: DATA `j SOURCE Ti 1) "Traffic Circulation - Ash Avenue", City of Tigard Carl Buttke, December 26, 1973. 2) "Application for Comprehensive Plan Revision for Main Street", Boutwell , Gordon, Beard and Grimes, April 10, 1981 , with 1"=40' site plan map. 3) CH2M-Hill Reports for "blain Street Development-PUD", dated May 1979 June 1979, September 1979, October 1979, March 1980, July 9 BASIC ASSUMPTIONS ource Predicated on review and evaluation of the he ng basiclassumptions le local bwere rmade toound guide data rofethisstransportation�study. the peformance o This Shopping Center will be developed in general con- formance to the Site Plan. o Land use surrounding this site willremainbasically constant until completion of the development. o This development will generate vehicular trips at a level comparable to the average characteristics of similarly sized developments nationwide. o -The directional orien'ct�eneaon �atedf thebyxthejdevelopmentr traffic and the traff g will be proportional to similar development types in the area. o The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) will install ressive 'signal system on Pacific Highway. k a coordinated Pro g Copyrights Aaeociatea Transportation Engin & Planning, Ine- �� -7-7-777-771-77777 s•man seal ae . CAM � P EXHIBIT i LEVELS OF SERVICE Level of Service is a qualitative measure of the effect of a number of factors which include ,speed and travel time, traffic interruptions, freedom to maneuver. safety, driving comfort and convenience, and operating costs. o Level A. (Free Flow Relatively) No delay due to other vehicles. o Level B (Stable Flow Slight Delay) An occasional delay due to other vehicles. O Level C (Stable Flow - Acceptable Delay) ' Most drivers feel somewhat restricted, but not objectionably so. o Level D (Approaching Unstable Flow - Tolerable Delay) L Vehicles may be delayed during peaks within the peak period, but a low demand to permit periodic clearance to prevent excessive queues. o Level E (Unstable Flow - Congestion —Intolerable Delay) There may be long queues of vehicles, and delays may be great. o Level F (Forced Flow - Jammed) The traffic system has basically broken down. Source: Highway CaDacitY Manual, Highway Research Board Special Report $87 1965. NINE I AT P INTERSECTION CAPACITY r"" L --- The measurement of a roadway's ability to process the demand of vehicles is f expressed as Levels of Service (LOS). These various levels are defined in Exhibit 1. The maximum LOS "E", is known as capacity. , The capacity of a E roadway is measured at the location of least capacity, such as approaches to intersections. The intersection of Pacific Highway at Main Street represents the, point of -least capacity. { Based on recent published research of intersection capacity, ATEP calculated the capacity of each turning movement at Pacific Highway and Main Street. These calculations are shown in Table 2. TABLE 2 Pacific Highway at Main Street LEVEL OF SERVICE i by Approach Direction and Alternative Approach Alternative North South East West Bound Bound Bound Bound A A E B A B A C N/A D F .:, A C N/A C 4 N/A = Not Applicable, movement does not exist at proposed intersection alignment. The traffic volumes used for this analysis are shown in Figures 6, 7 & 8. CONCLUSION Based upon the above analysis, the following conclusions have been made 1 . Alternative 'C' progresses more vehicles in the southbound direction € during the p.m. peak hours than the other alternatives. 2. Each alternative provided adequate storage area at each signal approach. - 3. Alternatives 'B' and 'C' increase the ability (capacity) of Pacific Highway at Main Street to process vehicles. -.. Alterna'tive `'G' offers the least traffic-"impacts. ' The above Conclusionshave been tabulated as a summary of traffic impacts in Table 3. 4 # copyright: ; Asso`w- •-d Transportation'Engineering,& Planning, Inc. air — - -----'•- _ ""'......... _�_ s� 0040■rams rau■aa■4a - a4rra0■.4r ,.. .alai... � '� ranur4■ 0r■■04war+ � � 4444.4444 n: i0a0w0aa00MMr0 -� Oa##r4Y - ra4a44.4u4r•i■ ■n4r■•� loss ru0■4rarr 4wr■ 0w.■r■0r rY�.■444044a4r4 � �_N.444J4w1 0i 044..0 4.0044 ` + r�Yr4r4�i r/■r4rw.M4600m4 . aamw4.rw 4arua r0ar■a0 .•erraa4wr.w4ra 440464r 44ayr0ur/ww i rs444r44r4r4 0.400 44.444■r■4s�44 ru�rurr4 ■■ U4r14Y4rra4■. taY •4a4r ■r/rY - 4444. 1 rra.■ , a - isrrJl raa#r# * •asrra i4.wr4 s: 4400 Orr a4a/ s4aua �y :Sao 44aur4r - ruuu4a ir.w.0ares 4.444.4■4s - - -:rrrw4aw44a qb irr Z P-: 7 \ \ 1 SPEC y �` �• `- wt r ! YA §.+� ♦ci f t RYK f 4'r' `,fir � '1 ,�,. +e ' �+�tay�'?< •� a ;t�L �';..wa�.t� •��h��•� ' k7'.�'' \ i Sy ,,• �� '��t� ! �b ,• .y � .. _ y � ;fyyti a'� W4+ •4 vim, h t,: .a�wi�� 4�T p�L�. .st��+�*�'ay++ 'S,,, » R ?{5 • Ise ,4. j,.�- rt 9 x.1 .4 �G w ,tt 99 p•�Jjt, fE< 9 f' ,s- � x; sa'`. :3,1ir ► '� - 3''lAn, ,,�. + 4 ��t.1. �y,,-4� r •• c'�+ � �t�� +�'Y �r �+'t . a! �a,.� 1"'��.ji� 17 ta \i � to y71.i ,•A` �1 •.�.� �rJ ��n� ��f,�. i�,%' �S1a`#�yi.A�_ t y;-.r. uneTFi � ,+r4....r.a+vi.. •`�Y".^'�4:S +TYf _ - _ - _ � - x. ' t loom gatt t � 4 10,41 S�usrc.u: CH-1n^-wrt ` a � , VI ': '� {ii,.tr H,"lc r ` ;��1 •� ,�r• [5 �Y�y D �. fig;_�ly, '_ r ,s`' - �t>K?,-1 � :'��y t .x h�,' �.. - eve-• _, i � }.�{ y- .�r • i ��., .��. .1 �,C 'a y~��? j t t,y �Jf� i� ,� � �. y.,yam,� f fr '° '� :+S�n. 3 5 •'� '._ `•iz�s w��s $3 � ,•. � ' _ �. .'`" ,r .�vr .:� '3i.{.� �A. I y• '� f j +f E3 �•5�i+"•it•� '.; r fi: � e��l hr n•+§# i;�y, y y� q ''• . Y.�a 2,� * ��,�-,usj. a�,�r�t� � •�tf �*C..t�.s�i(1� -� ,'d � y�? t�`gwtEi� .F�'`� r . s. ♦- ?• ••. jr�•�ti �h+ • l�v` t Ae1 K �yy.�� ! �, i �yY •i �#� � �� ,c•nS7: '• rr� r �� +l4'.h� �'.� 7 �� ? '. KKK ��_ �' •` k,�` *',{ t - •�c ''''i; i5 y5•.,P s � ,.�y it ..� T �_� + - t sy.. r tiP.t�..�� ro� s..}r �`5° t- � i�'7i�r ,$s.�y:• v �' y_. � ltt►*�� '�..�� ., .��..��..4��w 4 �l -.4 �'��t�' Y .!• '� .�•`e:��sl4 r:+`W.• .��Is,��ri�r•'�P'': wl �.:w,rl i+!. /f:�'..�t... M -w. LA OA.Y HOHVW 90 1 J s16M LI39 ' so \ ( �% —7� � ...�..... a•! .,,.- '� ' �• / -Sk i Wil,: , �;: :• �• 1 i 'eA ffin rti;�.i:�v:~• ••;•,+}•.�vtitiy.'e erMe�i'~•• '.ti}r•••� •,r s� • e } • F/G URE 2 f1L Ei ,41,4 T�9�E 'B" Copyright: Associst rawpostatiou Engi -ns • ONLY fid I ` � . \• 0ll• yi e�• Wi d AL T,61P.iil.A T/V� �: Cd�ytf�lttt ' 11+�aoci�t^ ' �t•�potctatioa bins®tiu� fi 41�asit�, Ifac• 2 ka Raw* WIMMM�mMma J rr�varcl F .. .l, NI j .i ' � ,.;Vii;.;; } � •�; •'. .01 r � TS�`�3?i1 fi'��LLQ w:.�•:•:TL:t,.•:fj?:••:: �; � F/GImo*ge s Now i CoP Ishht: -kaaociat� Truhaportstiou En8in®ariag b PI i�$• IaSC. CITY OF TIGARD FINAL ORDER NO. 85- 07 PC A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS, WHICH APPROVES APPLICATIONS FOR CONCEPTUAL PLAN APPROVAL (PD 1-85) AND A ZONE CHANGE (ZC 5-85) REQUESTED BY MAIN STREET LAND CORP- The Tigard Planning Commission received the above application at a public on the facts, hearing on April 2, 1985. The Commission based its decision findings, and conclusions noted below: A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: Planned Development PD 1-85 and Zone Change ZC 5-85 REQUEST: For Conceptual Plan approval for a` 221,000 square foot retail center an a 20.3 acre property and for a Zone Change from R-12 (PD) Residential, 12 units/acre) to CBD (Central Business District) for a 3.19 acre parcel on the southeast side of Ash Street. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Central Business District ZONING DESIGNATION: GSD (Central 12usiness uniis/acDrestplannedand development) (Residential, APPLICANT: Main Street Land Corp. OWNER: Same € Suite 303, 10505. SW Barbur Blvd. Portland, Oregon 97219 LOCATION: Southwest corner of Main Street and Pacific Highway (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 2CC, Tax Lot 1200, 1300, 1400, 1500, 1600, 2200, 2300, 2301, 201 and 2S1 2DB, 300)• 2. Background On April 26,. 1982, the City Council granted Preliminary and General Plan approval as well as $ Sensitive Lands Permit for the Main StreToximatet project ly s (CPR 8-81, CPR 9-81, and M 2-81). The proposal Included app 16 acres of land and 174,000 gross square feet of building area. The Planning Commission granted an extension for this approval on May 3, 1983. This extension has expired. 3. Vicinity Information a The property Co the east is designated as` greenway in the Comprehensive Plan and is the site of the Downtown Fanno Creek Park. The properties to the ' ed CBD, R-4.5, and R-12(PD) and are southwest and south are zon developed with single and multi-family residences. The properties along dp a Main 'Street , and Pacific Highway near the .north end of the project are zoned CBD or C-G and are devoted to commercial uses. PACE FINAL ORDER N0. 85- 7 PC PD 1-85 b ZC .5-815 - 1 l Description Proposa 4. Site Information cior except for two buildings which will be removed p This site is vacanttIInno Creek runs through the eastern section of the to development. F five acres of the site lie within the 100 property and approximately year flood plain. of The 1982 plan concept has been revised to include a parcel on the Ash Street and one other small parcel for a total ill southeast side -of-As p project 20,3 acres. The total gross floor space of this commercial p 3 be apply roximatel 221.000 square feet. hales with a large retail stare ro ect is to be completed in three P improvements, including an Thep j and the public imp (113.000 square feet) ro act to Paeific HiBalso hy extension of Ash Street through the p j teat is intended to the first phase. A second access to Main Street is representing osite proposed. The side of Ash St parcel on the opp CBD and developed as a parking lot. be rezoned from R-12 (PD) a Sensitive will involve some filling and excavation. Since the project This aspect of the development will Lands approval will be necessary• be reviewed at a public hearing with the Hearings Officer. 5 Agencz and NFO Comments The Engineering Division has the following comments: the previously conformance with a. The proposed access is in general approved plan. should discourage or eliminate parking on the b. The detailed plan o Main Street. Ash Street extension and the street leading C The Ash Street extension should be designed to discourage through C. T traffic into the neighborhood. 90° intersection should be provided for the dead end street d. A join Ash Street on the that will eventually cross Fanno Creek and other side• plan will require the approval of a Sensitive Lands e. The revised P s Officer. permit from the Hearing provided along the street connecting f. A_landscaped buffer should be P Ash Street and Pacific Highway to screen the shopping center from g Fanno Creek Park- to the proposal- proposed Building Inspection Office has no objectionDeed access . on Pacific Highway Division approved the Pf°P available at the The State Hig Y the Division shall be Highway. Additional comments by - t hearing. FINAL ORDER No. 85- 4 E�- 11) i-85 b %G 5-85 - PAGF The Tualatin Rural Fire Protection District has the following comments: s a. The harrier at Ash Street should be breakable to allow for emergency access. - b. The driveway on Main Street should allow for inbound traffic. -' The Park Board has no_objection to the proposal. Comments have not been received from NPO 0 1. _ B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria for granting conceptual plan approval in this case are Statewide Planning *Goals 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, and 9; Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.4.2, 3.5.3, 5.1.1. 5.1.3, 6.3.3, 6.6.1, 7.2.1, 8.1.3, 11.2.1, 11.2.2 and 11.2.3; and Community Development Code chapters 18.66, 18.80, 18.84, and 1$.100. The Planning Commission concludes that the proposal is consistent with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines based upon the s following findings; 1. Goal i1 1 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. Goal / 2 is met because the City applied all applicable Statewide Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan Policies and Development is code requirements to the application. 3. Goals 1 5 and i` 7 will be addressed during the Sensitive Lands review of the project. 4. Goal ill 8 is satisfied because the site plan is compatible with the Fanno Creek Park Plan. The Park Board has reviewed the proposal and no objections were raised. s 5. Coal 0 9 is satisfied because the development will have a positive :Y -economic impact upon the.downtown area. The Planning Commission has determined that the proposal,; with several w.E =� modifications, is consistent` witi-, the relevant portions - of the Comprehensive, Plan based upon the findings noted below: :-u 1. Plan Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because the Neighborhood Planning Organization and surrounding property owners were given notice of the hearing and opportunity to comment on the applicant's proposal. 2. Plan Policies 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.4.2,. 3.5.3, and 7.2.1 shall (eF t3 be reviewed as part of the Sensitive Lands permit process.` 1 -FINAL, ORDER N0. 85- �� i'G ',D',I-85 S ZC 5-85' - PAGE 3 MW 3. Plan Policies 5.1.1. and 5.1.3 are satisfied because this _commercial center will have a _positive affect upon the local job market and it will contribute towards establishing the downtown as the viable core area for the community. 4. pian Policy 6.3.3 isnot completely satisfied because the downtown is considered to be an "Established Area" and development occuring within the area is intended to preserve and enhance the character of these areas. The proposed site plan does not ' provide. sufficient setbacks and/or buffering adjacent to some of the existing residential uses and therefore the project would have a detrimental impact upon these properties. 5. Plan Policy, 6.6.1 is not satisfied because no buffering is shown on the site plan between some of the commercial structures and adjacent residential buildings. Modifications to correctthis deficiency are noted below. 6. -Plan Policy 8.1.3 will be satisfied during the detailed plan and constructed phases of the development. The public streets within the project will require a -50 ;foot wide right-of-wray and a 32 foot wide roadway. 7. Plan Policies 11.2.1, 11.2.2 and 11.2.3 are satisfied because the site plan includes the extension of Ash Street to the eastern boundary of the project and a temporary barricade will be installed near Hill Street. This obstruction will be removed in accordance with Policy 11.2.3. The Planning Commission concludes that with the modifications noted, the proposal satisfies the relevant portions of the Community Development Code based upon the findings listed below: 1. Chapter 18.66 (CBD Zone) of the Code is satisfied because the proposal meets the minimum standards relating to setbacks, lot coverage, and building height. 2. Chapter 18.80 (Planned Development) , of the Code is satisfied except for Section 18.80.110 (c)(3) and 18.80.120 (a)(3). The staff understands that extensive grading will be necessary on the site, but a generalized grading concept has not been submitted. The grading proposed in the flood plain may be reviewed during the Sensitive Lands review. The land form alteration to be done on the remainder of the site is critical for conceptual review in order to determine the relationship between the new commercial buildings and the residences to the south and west Section 18.80.120 (a) (3) is not satisfied because in some cases, no landscaping or visual buffering is shown between the commercial buildings and nearby residential uses. Of particular concern are visual impact and the noise from loading areas and FINAL ORDER N0. 85-; 07 PC - !'U 1-85 6 GC 5-85 - PAGE: 4 ' building ventilation systems. Additional information must be submitted to illustrate how these negative impacts will be mitigated. The site contains several large fir trees and one significant cluster of trees on the western boundary of the project near Pacific Village Apartments. Section 18.80.,120 (a) (3) of the Code requires that trees with a six inch caliper or greater be saved whenever possible. The proposed site plan indicates that all existing ' trees will be removed. The plan -should be revised to save as many- of these larger trees as possible. This is particularly true of the trees along the western boundary of the project because of their usefulness as a landscaped buffer. Finally, the requirements for landscaping and screening will vary depending upon the decision that is made regarding CPA 1^85/ZC 1-85 for Pacific Village Apartments. 3. Chapter 18.84 (Sensitive Lands) of the Code will. be satisfied during the Sensitive Lands review' process with the Hearings Officer. It should be noted that it is possible that the site plan will need minor revision as a re'sult of this review. 4. Chapter 18.100 (Landscaping and Screening) of the Code is satisfied except for Section 18.100.130 which requires a 15 foot Wide landscaped buffer when adjacent to an R-4.5 zone. The loading area for the Costco store practically abuts the residential property to the west. �a The relevant criteria for granting a Zone Change for the parcel on the southeast side of Ash Street are Statewide Planning Goals 1 and 2 and Section 18.66.030 of the Community Development Code. The Planning Commission concludes that the proposal is consistent with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines based upon the findings below: 1. Goal 0 1 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. Goal # 2 is met because the City applied all applicable Statewide Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan Policies and Development code requirements to the application. The Planning Commission concludes that the proposal is consistent with the applicable standards in the Community Development Code based upon the following findings: FlNAl. ORDER No. 85--07 11c: - 1'U !-H5 h Z(,' PAGIi 'S - 18b5.030 of the 1. Section . Code indicates that the subject property Se well' 8. the other nearby_ parcels zoned R-12 (PD) shall be as developed in accordance with the provisions of the R-12 zone. The parking facilities as a conditional use. R-12 zone does allow for 2. However, the Code does not allow grading to; be done in the flood plain. By limiting the Commercial Use of the parcel to parking, the intent of the Code will not be compromised. A Sensitive Lands Permit must be issued prior to construction of the parking lot. C. DECISIOii Based upon the above findings and conclusions, the Planning Commission grants Conceptual Plan approval of PD 1-85 subject to the following conditions: 1. Sensitive Lands approval will be required for all grading and improvements within the ;100 year flood ;plain. A Sensitive Lands approval shall be 'obtained before the Detailed Plan is submitted for review. 2. The grading of the entire site, including the area within the 100-year flood plain, shall be reviewed by the -Park Board. The location of the pedestrian/bicycle path shall also be reviewed by the Park Board priortofinal approval of a design. 3. A Detailed Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director or Planning Commission (depending upon the Director's findings in condition 2 above)• for approval that is in conformance with the requirements in 18.80 of the Code. In addition, said plan shall include the following information or modifications: a. Buffering and screening consistent with Section 18.80.120 (a) (3) ,(B) and Chapter 18.100 of the Code. b. Identification and location of noise sources within` the western portion of the project; and a method for shielding adjoining residences from excessive noise impacts. C. The landscaping plan for the development shall preserve as many trees over six inch caliper on the site as practical. 4. Specific conditions relating to public improvements shall be applied upon Detailed Plan approval. S.'. This approval is valid if exercised within one year of the final decision date. x , x f� r� t tNAI ORI)i c)x NHS—� Y( PD. Based upon the above findings and conclusions, the Planning Commission approves°ZC 5-85 subject ;to the following condition: laced upon Che parcel (1S1 2DB, l• A Deed `Restriction shall be p p =' TL 300)` limiting the Commercial Use of the property to parking. 3. It is further ordered that the applicant be notified of the entry of this order. PASSED: This 1985, by the Planning Commission day of of the:City of Tigard. A. Donald Moen,.President . Tigard Planning Commission f, (1136P/dmj) _2CYt J L; y� giNAL_ORDER NV. 85- _ PC PD 1-85: 6 2C 'S-85.`-- PAGE 7 . 0412-9105 �enda �.5 M Ln N PC) #I s i I (?Wfs --3> P Itr1iq I I#I III I I I a i°I a1114111111111111111111111111r" rn(m III IIrt1 DRAWING DRAWINGc Is °Py� � � P t r� °�. ill!°�°i11°tr(J�1�11�!°11I°!°�°!i;>tI°'°IT�RIa�°lai°lad NOTE: IF THIS MICROFILWD = .._..t. Z 3 4 _. $ _ 6.. - 7 8 9 _ 0° 2 1I --.. ._- 1 r LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE. IT IS DUE TO _ THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DRAWING. _ - 4E GZ 8Z LZ 9Z SZ bZ EZ ZZ IZ OZ 6f 81 L° 9t Sf4 be° ZI -11 OI 8 8 1 - g i 5 .._._b _._e_.. _� ¢ :n1�alnlun�nuhaq�watMx�RR1dn J!luiWlllH i _ MARCH11 - 7 1990 w _ ) Ivy f o. �l \ice•��'. ` o ?u( 7 GO U SECTION A_q 41 SECTION S -B A(- -ro�n✓�R r_c o.ms �gpIPASR.EET T..igard,Oregon sem✓o.SG� � ---- __—_—'--� .. .. _ .. ___ I GGA,Go A'�E^X �a .,�.,.,o 2AA N STREET LORD CORPJ13 alchopsc,0 c, 10505 S.W.Barbur Blvd. Suite 303 Portend,Oregon 97219 0503)232-6599 — SECTION C -C ti �✓ 4/26/85 CHRISTOPHER FRESHLEY L..N D S C A P E .4 R C H I T E C T • iAWL I&AW _+npnlnq�opnplq 1 t 1 lygn,piq,nl'I'PPlmlm mim nli!I, nin a�19�n�m n m II o u, .,.,...,_.-1..._...,.,. 1 I r 7 -! 1 1 9 I'!' P I ningngq'pup,qmpopf�Jnq,npul�nl„gn�lnq r: 1 2 3 4 5 a T 8 9 (0 11 12 mwnc¢«.n'• rx¢xmo:,n�s u[m I M P'rsrtt or 11c a�o¢u can a ia -- MARCH e v i -o s •. � 7'�7 199® z I I f r 42.W-439.551 ,F Phase 3 RETAIL \' -- - - _ Fanno Creek O 12000 G6F ° Ww I I' ' • - �- -- --- - - - e \ Phase 3 �. KE TAIL I III I li Iy// 14400 bSF _ I h V_ SIll : • w I Ia u'u wnei MRRIPA y ) Phase 2 1 Phase 1 jl i /. 9e+ /� ••s RETAIL PPCOSTCO 11570F GSF S I - 1 STOPY NOT TO EXCEED 1T 10890¢GSF H T 2 IS 10 SroF-Y NOT To EXCEED 29' 1 d.J Phase 2 l I y I 3! RETAIL ASDING 23a IC STOGSF 15TOPY NOT TO EXCEED 25 "I� + til a Phase 3 7 ° I� .. F ' I __..._. _ - _. - .-_._._.. __..... � • 6'S�-IT cmGUKIIJb 9600 65 I II• 'w w w.�•� A — �NEGH. UWiTeO ��, - •� Ex tS q Mot-Family R-12 ° `. RETAIL t�HPZIx Phase 2 iI . PPprO.ed 511— c0,' _ 15TO9iY NOT TO EXCEED 1./ ra�1 T. Rwldtd I r :�. .r^'w o IE Exit ng Phlla&iph 59-- Apartments /� 120.0 I Exi5tJn9 Commercial CBD \ v'-HT C ywWi MAIN STREET ,ao 121,11W.N�TI-FAgILY L6p�(/^\j1 A 1 �i JS Bilh.P MAIN STREET LAND CORP j � + (•' • h I i �c4.: � • � • ^u^�2NRA�.1 TD�• U�EO .�PPRovED PX 1 �+ = TOTAL BUILDING AREA: 4 GSF E - • " r TOTAL PARKING:1320 SPACESACESj '�i'v. ��•`" > V CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN' -- - RCHRISTOPHER FRESHLEY Legend CIO C PRIN7[p MAY,•7 W ., - "'�:..,-...•..•-....�::.e...�.......«.::.�':.� .....-n:._.. �-.•smeaa�cs'e•eerWcmc':wm..+.w�ra _,...... .. -...-,s.y,.4 .-.�.....__...�...-� .. ,__ ..._, plllnyng111 IRp4 n9nr Ilgn+IIIPI'g7nl I rim m ql Illlnr nglu I I 19 I I 1 I I IIPII m,1,III Iu,III,I I I I I I III Iv nl I,.I - ra�+.�a,:�iss:�.c. ._ ._.,.. -.- i I I I I I I PPr I I I I Int n1 IP n nllnl I III I I III I.I 1 1 1 1 I J I I 1 I I I I I I+I —._---�-s-�,-..•......_.-._.._. VL AV 1 2 3 4 5 8 ] 8 9 rO II �2 OC p2 - _2--_- R R IZ u 61 pl pl ♦I GI II G Y [ Z .n61mw 11•dw<z M PILL[r�• R K ZI Gf OI [ p I. I • 32 MRCH 17 1 I9 990 . j ETAIL Fanno Creek I g o oer N444 l6W 3194 j • - - - i Phase 3 I ;'� •u TAIL i Es Phasexisti g sgnat ', ��ULL999 3 , _-- _ I WA 9 P O� 2 Tp r 24 wide aisle.'h• I.. +� .. .......... F.+,..' ...,... ..—. `"I'� �<, -- , Phase 1 L RETAIL COSTCO 30 17200 G5F Yr fi'�Q 1 STOPY NOT TO EXCEED 17' 10590 t GSF 1SMC Y NOT TO EXCEED 29' I Q}F � •'�. m Phase 2 �F ! RETAIL 2 N ISTONY NOT N EXCEED 25' F RETPhase 3 AIL Ssrrr co-..cuzlNe I - 9voo e sF _ n / Q gRcor MFI-H UNITrEv I Existing Multi-Family R'12 _.. RETAIL - o 2400N C6 P4P'v'�5Ee 'STONY NOT TO EXCEED 17 Sigral To Prwldd _ - a eY - ° - Exlstirly Philadelphia 59-- ' 720.0' Existing C--.1 CBDMAIN STREET MAIN STREET LAND CORP ! EXMULTI-F?HILYL61) Q ; I�I�--'IIII�I S C W :. ' , � � .u, .. •• / I i s I dM.Rl£R1 TO PL RENpyEp TOTAL BUILDING AREA. GSF IV I II y'j L o ' WMeN n,P. Pw TOTAL PARKING:1320 SPACES e.r u'ry a.o srsnmam ^F-ac JENVE Existing Residential K-4.543'LS'21 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN- ® Y:40' J 2ND t C tmlxr;o tAA'f'7 Ve6 M I PI 191 PpP n'PP q'pP IPVV ql IR 1 I I p 19 I.I 1 11 In I Pp1114q'uJlul 1 pPpninglul uplglPppplq III Pvpppu �. Is TMs•:wr uFD '._ I 2 3 0 punc[s I[s5 clu twx ', Ix¢wna,is Is m r.6 wstm or rl6 w 06 4 4--12-p2R32X �2 4 22 -IE-02-a-plLl pl LI- t.l CI 21 11. 01-6 p < p L • 6 2 I� IIWwu.dwlw4W. MARCH L7 1,1990 ' - i M!,ilia RIM K ii s MEMORANDUM i i CITY OF TIGARD OREGON March 25, 1985 TO: Bill FROM: Liz �j SUBJECT: Meeting with Jim Hendryx and Linda Davis regarding Shared Planning j Areas of Interest. { 1985 I met with Linda Davis and Jim Hendryx at their rions roffices to discuss the City to On March 20, of Beaverton posit of Tigard and the City them that annexation in their respecncern areas about the City of Beavert n'sinterest. i explained o annexation the City of Tigard is co , in the area referred to as "the football". Linda informed me that strategy � the property owners desired extension °revent a�"moratorium'lOon@development annexation was approved' essentially to p of the property. - <Jim added that development Pressure to the east at the the property-will -increase with the annexation der°propertyowr+eal. Linda indicated car 4 este for City of Beaverton is merely responding have an aggressive annexation annexation at this time and does not currently program in that area. on Linda also indicatedthathnh�ei es availableity Of from the eCity nof Beaverton. preparing a report on Ues The report entitled Washion the City of Beav rton's next step cwill ebe. oLinda in draft form. According are an annexation policy using the information in the service report, to prep F and strategy. j Another issue that concerns Linda is the issue of Urbaet together andervices iadopt na She would like to see the Cities of Washington County gfeels that e unified policy on the issue of duplication of urban services.h cities ing the County and in Washington ` this issue will be a major one fac County in the months to come. She feels strongly that if the cities can adopt a unified positions on the issue, the County will be forced to deal with it on a countywide service delivery basis. After meeting with Linda and Jim, it appears as though the City of Tigard's rt interests would be well served if we could prepare an urban services repand € completed, develop annexation policies and similar to what Beaverton has just comp , cities v coordinate strategies. In strategies and then meet with adjoining addition, it would probably be good public relations to inform Linda or Jim in advance of our position relative to future annexations in our common areas of interest, 1117P MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council April 22, 1485 FROM: Bob Jean, City Administrator SUBJECT: Economic Impact of Metzger/Washy gton Square Annexation This memo `should be considered a prospective evaluation based on available information and my judgment of the urban economics involved in annexing the Metzger/Washington Square community to the City of Tigard. This memo should be considered preliminary and for discussion only. AREA OF INTEREST: The City of Tigard has declared the Metzger/Washington Square community as an Area of tnterest, in its Urban Planning Area Agreement with Washington County. This has no special legal standing as to annexation, only that Washington County has agreed to notify the City of any proposed land use or related actions in the area. Beaverton and Portland have also declared overlapping Areas of Interest within the community, Only Tigard has declared the entire community area as an Area of Interest. ` The community has expressed a desire to remain intact and address annexation comprehensively rather than individually. The Boundary Commission has shown an increased preference for Urban Service Plan studies as the basis for deciding individual annexation requests. The City of Beaverton has recently completed such a study. The City of Portland has so far focused its efforts in East Multnomah County, but is again showing a Westside interest. Other than our lower tax rate AND general community orientation (Post Office, School District, Water District, Chamber of Commerce and proximity), the City of Tigard may be at some disadvantage before the Boundary Commission in any contested hearings. EOOE ICS; The Metzger community contains about 6,500 residents or about 2,600 households. Tigard's average residence is about $72,000 assessed value. Metzger's average household is projected at $67,000. The residential Metzger community assessed value is projected around $174 million. The Washington Square/Lincoln Center area is projected at some $456 million, The = total Metzger/Washington Square community is assumed to be about $630 million. If annexed to Tigard, the City's Tax Base rate of 87f/1,000 would be multiplied times the $630 million new assessed value and could add about $548,100 to our current $800,000 Tax Base. Per capita revenues (Gas Tax, Cigarette and Liquor Tax, State Revenue Sharing, but not counting- Federal Revenue Sharing) would be about $35 times 6,500 for $227,500. Franchise fee revenues are estimated at $175,000 per year. Annexation of the Metzger/Washington Square community would add about$950,000/year in community revenues from which to provide basic urban services. Utility services have y � been assumed constant in these calculations. Assuming one police officer per 1,000 'for Metzger and three-four officers for Washington Square, Core Level I Police Services would cost about $350,000 $400,000 per year. Library_ ' services at Core Level apart from any WCCLS monies would add about $50,000. Added Parkservices including Metzger Park would run ,$50,000 - $100,000. Total added costs of basic municipal service would be about $500,000 ,per year for the Metzger/WashingtonSquare community. Annexationofthe Metzger/Washington Square community potentially' represents about a 2:1 positive budget situation for Tigard. Annexation of just Metzger represents more of a"' 1:l or breakeven situation. Annexation of Washington Square alone represents about a 4:1 favorable ratio. OOMMUNM: RESIDENTIAL & COMMERCIAL TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE Tigard $620 $300 $ 920 million (65%) (35%) (10074) Metzger tL74 -0-- '$ 174 Sub-Total $794 $300 $1,094 million (72X) (28%) (100%) Washington _ Square -0- 456 456 $794 $756 $1,550 million (51x) (49x) (100%) Since commercial/industrial properties contribute more than they consume in urban services and since residential properties ` contribute less than they consume in service costs, a higher ratio of commercial /industrial to residential assessed values is economically favorable. Tigard has a favorable ratio of residential to commercial/industrial at 65:35. Beaverton's current ratio of 75:25 is a healthy well-balanced ratio, Annexation of Metzger only would place Tigard at a 72:28 ratio - healthy, but still with a tax shift from commercial/industrial to residential properties. Annexation of Washington Square and Metzger would result in a very favorable ratio of 51:49, and a sizeable reduction in the residential tax burden, Unless Tigard annexes Metzger/Washington Square and offsets the proportionately greater residential to commercial/industrial growth, residential taxes will increase disproportionately to commercial/industrial tax shares. SUMMARY: Annexation of the Metzger/Washington Square community is feasible and economically workable as far as basic services are concerned. Capital improvement costs are largely unknown but appear manageable from gas tax and utility revenue shares if scheduled on a 5-10 year basis. Long-term economics seem advantageous for Tigard and the Metzger/Washington Square community. (97:p1/2682A) S� URBAN SERVICES ANNUAL TARES AND USER FEES FOR $80,000 HOME (1984-85)* Beaverton Metzger** Tigard Portland City Prop. Tax $441.60 -- $ 84.80 $514.40 57.60 County Prop. Tax 157.60 157.60 157.60 1--- Unif. Sewer Agency 39.20 39.20 39.2Q --- Water Dist. Tax --- 56.80 29.60 Water Sarva Charge 96.00 78.00 60.0Q 19.80 Water Use (1000cf/mo) 72.00 68.40 22.80*** 51.60 Sewer Sate. Charge 111.00 111.00 105.00 76.20 Tual. Hills P&R Dist. 96.80 --- --- 216.80 --- Wash. Co. RFPD # 1 -'_ _ _ _ 2A9.6Q --- Tualatin RFPD - 9.60 - - Metzger Paric District --_ $ 1014.20 $ 737.40 $ 718.60 $ 819.60 * %xcludes Public Schools, Metro. Port of Portland. and Portland Community College. e* Tax Code 23-64 *ss 600 c.f. of water included in service charge g I COST COMPARISON$ Op URBAN SERVICES PROVIDED BY CITIES FOR $80,000 HOME (1984-85) 1500.00 i250.Q0 . UZ 1168.20 1000.00 Rnfi 750.00 500.00 250.00Portland3 Ti Beaverton Metzger gard2 1 Ansumes continuation of Metzger Park Dist. fees. Wash. Co. RFPD $ 1, Metzger Water Dist and adds City tax. _2 Assus deeluction of Metzger Parc Diet. fees, deduction of 6.00 difference in .-sewer service charge. -continuation of Wash. ' Co. RPPD $ 1 and `Meetzger Water District and adds City tax. 3 1lssuwes deduction of,.Metzaer •pack.Dist. fees._Deduction of $34.80 difference in sewer service charge, continuation of Metzger dater fees, Wash. Co. RFPD # 1, and adds City tax. 1267P } O �V yI�17iGNNN� La � q L V V. .4 W m ce 01 151 03 406 PU 6 4 ac w cc 4A w 04 1 22 40 eo a fi rA fW am A A 41, cOoQ[ 33t el G i.. C-C .• X 4 ae s�a � • • v N eh w • • • 4 LS t u o + Isla # �W u yy �.0 N fi • �a • e • �N NI u.w LAA us am 41 F US r r Y • r • • silt...�� 88883333 6 t� °:o: v u �► �Q rd�- 00 0 P }{ Nq W • •• •• � Ops '9 u 5 �' d ba CITY OF TIVA WASHINGTON COUNTY.OREGON POTENTIAi. Tigard s greatest assets are its potential 5 for continued quality growth and com- Vancouver mitment to excellent development stan- dards.Since incorporation in 1961,the City has rapidly become an urban community Portland 205 with a strong tax base and diversity of International business.Tigard"s tax rate of$1,19 per airport thousand thousand is among the lowest in the Portland metropolitan area.The low rate is credited to sound fiscal management and a strong economic base.industrial and commercial properties represent a PORTLAND large proportion of the Tigard tax base. i Pending local improvement districts will open up large sections of the community 126 405 to future development thus further strengthening the base.Two areas are N?-.26 the focus of Tigard s economic develop- Beaverton 26" rent effort,the Tigard Triangle and the t 99 central business district. 2y j g9ry�5 GROWTH POTENTIAL (( Tigard is a fast growing community with 205 further rapid development anticipated. T1 ard The City's Comprehensive Plan,adopted Lake In November,1983.is structured to best / Oswego ' accommodate new growth.New city 99W policies encourage the opening of large tracts of land to commercial and industrial activity,thus increasing an Tualatin already strong economic base.A new Community Development Code Is in 20 place as well as an'Economic Develop- ment Committee.These are further 5 Indications of the City's desire to occom- 99e nxxWe new businesses.Tigard s permit processing system has been streamlined. Tigard Is Interested In keeping and attracting high quality commercial and industrld concerns. LABOR FORCE LABOR FORCE AND Persons 16 Years of Age and DEMOGRAPHICS Over in the Labor Force The City of Tigard's population has grown TiGARD WASHINGTON PORTLAND by over 185` since 1970.This tremendous COUNTY SMSA growth coincided with the rapid 1480 1980 1980 development of Washington County as a high technology center and,more impor- tant,an attractive place to live.The Mc�e a X122 78.050 L Force 635-500 County and City labor force are highly Fernde 3.971 63,710 unemployed 1 educated with a substantial percentage 39.900 of professional and technical workers. TOTAL 8.333 141160 Unemrby.Rate 6.3 Tigard's labor force is continuing to grow as employment opportunitiesdiversify. Souce:aur,or the Comm PSU. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT EMPLOYMENT IN TIGARD COMMITTEE A nine member Economic Development TIGARD'S LARGEST PRIVATE EMPLOYERS Committee was created in 1983 to JULY.1983 develop the City's economic strategy. The committee is made up of citizens NAME OF FIRM PRODUCT OR SERVICE EMPLOYEES representing industry,baE iiiii g.co i- Farmers 975 merce and education.Four Special areas mb- Insurance Insurance 235 of economic concern are represented Ger Lamb-Weston Leggin Food Products 200 Gerber Legendary Blades Cutlery 190 on the committee.These areas,the focal RFD Pub4ccations Publishers points of the City's program,are:the Fred Meyers-Tigard shopping Center 172 wmams Air Control Motor Vehicle Parts 141 Tigard Triangle,the Central Business Tel 134 District,the 72nd Avenue Industrial Area. GTE-Tigard eP 125 SerTtrol Inc. Electronic.Components 125 and the Cascade Blvd.Industrial Area. Siemer,;-Alis Hugh Von.Discon.Switches Coe Manufacturing Machinery 100 other weN known frrna having G"A,ates n TiWd Mk,de TIGARD TRIANGLE Tektran,X.HOW.cx,orgto tOirx and SWough: Early In 1983,the City annexed 162 acres of the Tigard Triangle,This very desirable area is bounded by three major highways;Highway 99W,Highway 217 and 1-5.No more accessible or visible AVAILABLE INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL SITES developable property exists in the Portland metropolitan area.Most of the area lends itself to general commercial. DOS.FFT. 54 T.. PLANNED commercial professional and Industrial NAME sa t. parks.Completion of the Haines Inter- 1, Pocrrust's Oregon Bus.Park 810,000 258,544 Change of 1-5 and two Local Improve- 2. !Coll Business Center 187,762 155,000 ment District Road projects will further 9. Park 217 15.5,950 99,850 enhance public services and accessibility 4. Tigard Industrial center 120,000 NIA to the area. 5. Commerce Plaza-Hampton& 72nd 77,845 NIA r 6, Fir Loop Business Area 59,264 NIA TIGARD CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT The central area of Tigard is the focus of a revitalization effort.improvements to roads,storm drainage and railroad cross- BUSINESS PARKS ings will be completed.These public facility enhancements will add to the NWABER OF ecor+omk;development potential of the NAME ACREAGE PARCBS 187 acre area.Planned are a major shop- ping center,a government office/park A, Tigard Triangle 170.34 many complex.and a new city pork. B. Durham Road 50.5 1 C. Hurulker 37.5 2 D. SW 85th Ave. 16.4 2 72ND AVENUE INDUSTRIAL AREA F. SW 74tE. 74t Ferry 1h Ave. 1 22 1 1 The bulk of Tigard's industrially zoned land G. SW 72nd Ave. 11.1 2 Is located In this area.Three major HL Cascade 6.1 1 business parks already are In place as well as a large number of nationally known firms.Public facilities are in place which contribute to the growth potential of the area. , CASCADE BLVD. INDUSTRIAL AREA The northern most tip of Tigard Is the location of several nationally known In �nx dustrial firms as well as the Koll Business Center.The area is adjacent to Washington Square and has direct ac- cess to Highway 217.The Oregon Human Development Corporation is strategically located here as well. """"I FA 110 w 2' SFIOP'iRIG AND SERVICES n Tigard Is served by several major shop- PIg centers including Tigard Plaza,can- ,turbury Square,Fred Meyer's center, € Greenway Town Center,and Washington Square.Together they prcvide abundant • �` �'.` (� and convenient shopping opportunities V4_ to meet the varied needs of area corn e• a l +! sumers.Washington Square,a regional t e 3 , shopping center,has lis stores on a 122 '+' i, �•;�- acre site providing the most modem of Sr t + 2�: A ,� shopping opportunities.The center has c ' over 1.100,000 square feet, There are thirteen hos;;"tals in the Portland Metropolitan Area vAthin thirty ® ...,r minutes travel time of Tigard.These major 4. ..._ health care facilities offer a full range of programs to meet the needs of area citizens.Two major hospitals are within --� ten minutes of most Tigard residents. ro l DISIRIB if ION OF EMPLOYMENT AMONG �,.n/y� moi, OCCUPATION GROUPS BY JURISDICTION OF I&NDENIa TiGAttD COt3K A a 73 _� SA E hAanutactvinp 1 Doable 1.321 27,078 83,570 NbndLrabie 355 5,521 31,700 Tracie Wholesale 478 7,814 45,400 RetcA 1.231 19,858 98,800 Finn..hu..Real Est. 738 10,384 44,500 Transm Carrm.util, 649 &770 35,W0 Corutn�ctiion 474 7.272 28,000 SPECIAL ARW OFF ECIC CONaRN c' } 303 30,941 81,270 1-$AVAiable IrldltStPiOt/CarrlrTlerClAl Sit@S AgrbAttird 59 2,771 4,100 A-H&ASir16SS Parks Services&IVIISQ 1,799 3,992 '107, 0 ` TOTAL. . . 7,404 124,202 558,100 __.x sowcel IWOC&MB ®w HOUSING RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES EDUCATION Tigard has a wide diversity of housing Tigard is easily accessible to many ex- Tigard residents are served by the styles and prices.New single family cellent recreational opportunities:the Tigard and Beaverton School Districts construction is taking place in several, recreation and cultural facilities in as well as a good private school planned developments throughout Portland,Mt.Hood seventy miles to the system.These systems provide quad Tigard.During 1983,over 240 building east and the scenic Oregon coast educational programs for students, permits for single family homes were eighty miles to the west. from kindergarten through high school. processed as building activityreached The City of Tigard owns and maintains Higher education is available from a height unparalleled since the 1970s. Cook Park.the only regional park in both public and private education in- The average cost of a single family Washington County.The City operates stitutes.Over 40,000 students are home In Tgard is S76,623 although the this 57-acre multi-facility City parkas pursuing careers in the arts,engineer range is substantial, well as several smaller neighborhood ing,the sciences,medicine,law,and Within the city and county areas sur- parks and an expanding greenway other disciplines at area colleges in rounding Tigard,other housing oppor- and bicycle path system. close proximity to Tigard.Specialized tunitles abound.Styles ranging from The Tigard School District,with its programs of study for people modern condominium and single fami- modern school facilities and new employed in the high technology fields ly homes to well preserved farm auditorium at Tigard High School,offers are available at the Oregon Graduate homes are available to meet many in- a full range of indoor and outdoor Center and Portland State University. dividual tastes.Homes priced for ail in- recreation year-round to Tigard's Industry-specific training is offered in come levels are available in the area. citizens. Tigard by the Oregon Human Develop- Tigard's housing stock is in excellent Citizens of Tigard are committed to 'ment Corporation,in cooperation with condition with contemporary houses providing recreational opportunities to the Private Industry Council and the dominating Duplexes,apartments and all members of the community.In 1980, local Service Delivery Areas. condominiums are available In several citizens conceived of and variety of price ranges.The average organized an effort to raise funds for rent in Tigard Is$320, the construction of a new high school football stadium.This community effort Is typical of the strong community attitude existing in Tigard. 1..._. POPULATION COLLEGES AND UNiVERSiPIES-ENROLLMENT 1982 1970 19e0 x Increase NAME STUDENTS LOCATION DISTANCE Tigard 6,300 14,855 136 % wosWngton 157,900 245,808 56 % Ptki.Metro.Area 1,007,130 1,242,594 23.4% PRIVATE George Fox 666 Newberg 14 Mies in 1983 Ttgord popilaton was 18,3h4.drnost tr0e Lewis&Clark 3,054 Portland 7 miles the 1970 population Linfield 1,496 McMinnvile 28 axles Morylhurst Ed. 840 Portland 10 Mies Ore.Grad,Ctr. 60 Beaverton 5 Mies Pacific Univ, 1,071 Forest Grove 25 miles For Further Information Contact: Reed Cortege 1,122 Portland 10 Maes t Deportment of Planning and Development PUBLIC City of Tigard Univ.of Pttd. 2,872 Portland 16 miles Burnham&Ash Ave. Ore.hth.Sci.Univ. 1,431 Portland 7.rales ► P.O,Box 23397 Pfid.St.Univ. 14,541 Portland 6 Mies Tigard,OR 97223 Ptld.Comm.col. 14,363 Portland 3 nAes (503)639-4T71 Mt.Hood Comm.Cd. 5,971 Grestx" 25 miles Tigard Chamber of Commerce Clock.Comm.Col. 3,851 Oregon airy 12 miles :12955 SW Pacific Highway Tigard,OR 97223 (503)639-1656: TlGAR®,,A CITY' CA 0 /ITS CITY OF-TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY APAII .29, 1 T5 AGENDA OF: A -�L lge5 AGENDA ITEM #: DATE SUBMITTED: March 29, 1995 PREVIOUS AC'T'ION: None- ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Dr. Davis_ Annexation PREPARED BY: Elizabeth Newton REQUESTED BY Dr. Davis DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: � CITY ADMINISTRATOR INFORMATION SUMMARY On March 5. 1985, the Planning Commission considered a request by Dr. Gene Davis to annex approximately 21 acres into the City of Tigard, At that meeting, the Planning Commission voted to forward consideration of the annexation to the City Council. In addition, the Commission would dike the Council to return:some indication of policy regarding future annexations. A copy of the Planning commission minutes is attached. A meeting was held before the Metzger area CPO on this issue on March 28, 1985. The consensus of the small number of people at the meeting was not to support the annexation because the Metzger citizens do not favor piecemeal annexations. A resolution to forward Dr. Davis' request to the Boundary Commission is attached for your consideration. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Approve the resolution attached, forwarding the request to the Boundary Commission and forward annexation policy guidelines to the Planning Commission. 2. Deny the request and forward annexation policy guidelines to the Planning Commission. SUGGESTED ACTION Approve the resolution attached forwarding the request to the Boundary Commission. The property owner has requested the annexation and the request conforms to the City and County Urban Planning Area Agreement. The County has taken the position that they will not object to annexation of property in the Metzger area to the City of Tigard, (EAN:pm/1145P) ter. .... . . aWw CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 85- A RESOLUTION FURTHERING ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TIGARD'OF THE TERRITORY AS OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT "A" AND DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED. (Davis) ZCA 1-85. WHEREAS, "consents" in the form of a- petition have been presented to the City of , Tigard requesting annexation of a certain tract of land presently contiguous to the corporate limits of the city; and WHEREAS, the consents in the form of a petition were signed by the owners of said tract of land; and WHEREAS, the 'City of Tigard Council has reviewed the consent and set the final boundary for the annexation as required by ORS 199:490(2): and WHEREAS, subsequent to the setting of the final boundary, the consents of land r contained therein represent "more than half of the owners of land in the territory, who also own more than half of the land in the contiguous territory y and of real property therein representing more than half of the assessed value of all real property in the contiguous territory;" and WHEREAS, the proposed annexation therefore is in accordance with QRS 199.490 and constitutes a so-called "triple majority" annexation under ORS 199.490 a "minor boundary change" under Boundary Commission law, ORS 199.410 to 199.510. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council, se municipal corporation of the State of Oregon, at a regular meeting held on the 8th day of April 1985, that: SECTION 1: The Council hereby approved the proposed annexation and requests the Commission to approve it and effect it as soon as possible. Sfi SECTION 2: The City Recorder is hereby directed to file certified copies of the statements of consent and of the Resolution with the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission at once. PASSED: This day of 1985. Y 4 Mayor - City of Tigard ATTEST: Deputy City Recorder - City of Tigard (EAN:pm/1145P) RESOLUTION NO.`85-- _ Page1 �— — --- AVENUE N Cc ' I- roti y + :• so�� C m o_z _ X t r, ti ,tP Yom_ ... � •� N do � :" 1, }. 1 tM ! i A 1 1 ' >tq Was'-s m # '•• »«• «« «.�: (fir x � SM* 89 w AVENUE N S m i It E 00 R x _ to al R z v � � •� Ron - R _ z R.+ ;• Li - p s: h. - r r l k �., �y ' � �} s:.f� T I� IR�2•^•�� A:K �ti�.-�,n, '�:'i'fr r t '� t •, , at %64 x 16 Vo s ICtit r r.. ilk fit •t � .r .` � K Ili It In K ,, �_. �•� thy( � _ �.- �• ^Z I 1[k '�-' l Kl r I "` F~ I`a-_,°i •s Y �t �wa'" ( f�,_- I.7 �.. +�� f l:;L � i j` , � � ` s'�* F�K.•! J 1.��.� /� }►r.j. !. `.�� j •) _ •f �, .� ,-•.,Zt rte• _ � , . 91 7`7 _ • _ f A portion of Lots 12, 13, 17, 18, 20 and 21, ASHBROOK FARM, in the County of Washington and State of Oregon, described as follows: } i Beginning at a point in the east line of said Lot 17 which is South 0° 44' East 205.45 feet from the northeast corner of said Lot 17, said beginning point being also the southeast corner of the tract conveyed to John 0. Wick by deed recorded in Book 468, Page 261; thence continuing South 0° 44' East along the east line of said Lot 17 a distance of 280 - feet, more or less, to the southeast corner thereof, a point on the northwesterly right of way line of the abandoned OregonElectric Railroad; thence South 0° 42' East a distance of 65 feet, more or less. to the northwesterly line of said Lot 18; thence Northeasterly 30 feet, more or less, along the northwesterly line of said Lot 18 to the north line of said Lot 18; thence South 85° 45' Fast along the north lines of Lots 18, 20 and 21, a distance of 1100 feet, more or less, to the west line of Lot 13, ASHBROOK FARMS; thence North 000 42' West along the west line of Lot 13, a distance of 470 feet, more or less, to the southwest corner of the Terry W. Mills, et ux tract described in Deed Book 679, Page 146; thence East along the south lines of the Mills tract, the Hardee S. Skolnick tract as described in Deed Book 837, Page 878; and the James L. Seakel, et ux, tract as described in deed Book 548, Page 67, a distance of 299.20 feet to the southeast corner of the Senkel tract; thence North along the east line of the Seukel tract; thence 170 feet to the north line of Lot 13, ASHBROOK FARM: thence East along the north line of Lot 13 a distance of 220 feet, more or less, to its intersection with the southeasterly right of way line of Southwest Oa;L Street; thence Northeasterly along the said southeasterly right of way line 60 feet, more or less, to the east line of Lot 12, ASH.BROCK FARM; thence South 00° 07' East along the east lines of Lots 12 and 13 a distance of 375 feet, more or less, to the northeast corner of the Peter 0. Juve, et ux, tract as described in Deed Book 333, Page 353; thence West along the north line of the Juve tract 266.24 feet to the northwest corner thereof; thence South 00° 07' East along the west line of the Juve tract and the west line of the Clarence A. Cole, et ux, tract as described in Deed Book 334, Page 91, a distance of 327.23 feet to a re-entry corner in the west line of the Cole tract; thence West along the boundary of the Cole tract 184.26 feet to the most Westerly northwest corner thereof; thence South 00° 07' East along the west line of the Cole tract 69.26 feet to the north line of Southwest Spruce Street; thence West along the north line of Southwest Spruce Street 25 feet, more or less, to the west line of Southwest 89th Avenue; thence South 0" 17' West along the west line of Southwest 89th Avenue 504.4 feet to the northeast corner of vacated Lot 35, GRAHAM ACRES (Lots 31 through 35 of said GRAHAM ACRES are now vacated); thence West along the north lines of vacated Lots 31 through 35, GRAHAM ACRES, a 591.96 feet to the northeasterly line of State Highvray 217; thence Northwesterly along said highway line, 85 feet distant from centerli:.e ` (when measured at right angles thereto) a distance of 870 feet, more or, jl less, to the Northerly extension of the west line of the east half of � �® t DESCRIPTION — Continued Lot 19, ASB$ROOK FAM4; thence North along said northerly extension 180 feet, more or less, to the northwesterly right Of way line of the abandoned Oregon Electric Railroad; thence Southwesterly along said northwesterly right of way line 140 feet, more or leso, to the northeasterly line of the tract conveyed to the State of Oregon, by and through its State Highway Commission, by deed recorded in Book 441, Page 298; thence Northwesterly along the northeasterly line of the said State Highway Tract a5 feat, more or leas, to the easterly line of the tract conveyed to the State of Oregon, by and through its State Highway Commission, by deed recorded in Book 451, Page ,203;, thence Northerly along the easterly line of the last mentioned State Highway, tract 250 feet, more or less, to the southwest corner of the tract conveyed to Jack D. Godwin, et uu, by deed recorded is Book 443, Page;186; thence South 88° 25' East slang the south line of the Godwin tract 185.05 feet to the southeast corner thereof; thence North 00 38' West along the east live of the Godwin tract 146.3 feet to s point on the`south line of the tract conveyed to John 0. Wick, et ux by deed;recorded in Book 468, Page 261; thence South 880 25' Fast along the south line of the Wick tract 103.57 feet to the=point of beginning. SAFECO Title Insurance Company of Oregon has prepared the above description at its customer's request using only information obtainable from Washington County Deed Records. While this description is presumed to be correct, SAFECO Title's liability for any loss caused by errors or omissions in = this description is limited to the fee paid for the preparation thereof. n F < I r o$"'Y_ fr vt ;3 } 3 .2k AFF- ®® M1 •��rmw•ssm TIG¢RD PLANNING CQNMISGION REGULAR MEETING - MARCH 5, 1985 1. President Moen called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM. The meeting was held at Fowler Junior High - LCI Roos - 10865 SW Walnut. 2 ROLL CALL: PRESENT: President Moen; Commissioners Butler, - Fyre, Owens, Vanderwood, Bergmann, and Campbell. ABSENT: Commissioners Leverett and Peterson. STAFF: Associate Planners Keith S. Liden and Elizabeth A. Newton; Secretary Diane M. Jelderks. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES e Commissioner Pyre moved and Commission Bergmann seconded to approve minutes as submitted. Motion carried by majority vote of Commissioners present, Commissioner Ovens abstained. 4. COMMISSION COMMUNICATION o Staff distributed copies of sections of Land Use Procedures and Practices in Oregon. Also, ,a letter from NPO # 3 was distributed regarding agenda item 5.1 (ZOA 8-84). ` 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 8-84 (COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE) (5.1 a.) Review Section 18.26, 18.94 (Manufactured Homes), (5.1 b.) 18.96 and 18.98 (Flag Lots and Height Limits). 5.1` a. Associate Planner Liden explained that the information on Manufactured Homes had been taken back through the NPO process. He reviewed NPO 3, 5, and 6's comments. The other NPOs had not responded. He requested that the Commission make a recommendation to City Council whether or not manufactured/mobile homes should be allowed on individual lots. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o No one appeared to speak PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED COMMISSION DISCUSSION AS ACTION o Consensus of the Commissioners was that Manufactured Hames should be allowed if they net the :standards as required by stick built hones and have criteria which_ they would have to meet to be allowed on Individual lots. Also, they felttheir was a need :,for a strong definition between manufactured homes and mobile homes. 'PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 5, 1.985 Page I _ _ - - CY, * Commissioner Owens moved to table S 2-85 and V 1=85, requesting that the staff and applicant get together and review the impact that this number of access would have on McDonald, possible joint access. Motion failed 3 to 3, Commissioners Fyre, Vanderwood, and Bergmann voting no, Commissioner Butler abstaining. o Further discussion. +� Commissioner Campbell moved and Commissioner Owens seconded to table S 2-85 to allow staff and applicant to review the impact of five accessonto McDonald, and to reset the hearing to April 2, 1985. Motion 'passed by majority .of Commissioners present, Commissioners Fyre and Vanderwood voting no, Commissioner Butler abstaining. 5.5 ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA 1-85 AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 4AMENDMENT CPA 2-85 GENE AND VIVIAN DAVIS Request to annex 13.19 acre ,parcel into the City of Tigard and approve a Comprehensive Plan 'Amendment from Washington County office Commercial and Residential (5 units/acre) Metzger Progress Community Plan designation to City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Designation Commercial Professional and Low Density Residential; and for a Zone Change From Washington County OC (office'Commercial) and R-5 (Residential) to City of Tigard CP (Commercial Professional) and- R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5/units/acre) on property bounded by Highway 217, SW 95th, SW Oak and SW 89th (WCTM 1S1 35AC, Tax Lots 101, 2800, 4500, 4600, 4700; and 1Sl 35AD, Tax Lots 1200, 1300, 1400, and 1500.) Associate Planner Newton reviewed the staff report and made staff's recommendation for approval with two conditions. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION o Gene Davis, 10875 SW 89th, stated he had lived on the property for 18 years. He wanted to be annexed into the City because the City Code addresses, runoff problems better than the Washington County Code. Also he had been burglarized five times and would like to be able to call the City of Tigard Police. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o- Reid Iford, 9970 -SW Greenburg road, CPO 4 - Metzger Chairman, supported the annexation. He was concerned that he had not been properly notified of the hearing. He felt the applicant had been the victim of inaccurate. information through the Washington County process and should be allowed to annex and develop in the City of Tigard. o Hazel Lyon, 10440 SW 87th Ave. Portland, 97223, opposed the annexation and `read her concerns to the Commission- 5, PLAAINING COMMISSION MINUTES lurch 521- 1985 -Page o John Blomgren, 9460, SW Oak, Tigar4, apposed the annexation as being piecemeal. He stath that. the Metzger Plan did not allose for piece meal annexation, it is to be all or nothing. He was concerned when the property developed that it would affect the existing traffic problems on Greenburg and Oak. He felt the property should be developed as a park as most of the property is in the floodplain and is a drainage, pond for the entire area. REBUTTAL o Mr. Davis agreed their where flood problems and that he would like to improve them but could not unless he was allowed to annex into the City of Tigard. o Lengthy discussion followed regarding Police service, floodplain, traffic, piecemeal annexation, the Metzger Plan, and the , Urban Planning ,Area Agreement. * Commissioner Owens moved and Commissioner Butler seconded to forward CPA 2-85 and zCA 1-85 to City Council requesting that the CPO and Metzger Residents be informed of this hearing. They would like City Council to act on this application and return some indication of policy regarding future annexations in the Metzger area. Commissioners Moen, Campbell, and Bergmann favored the annexation, Commissioners Fyre and Vanderwood opposed the annexation and Commissioners Butler and Owens were undecided. 5.6 SIGN CODE EXCEPTION SCE 1-85 CROW/SPEIKER/HOSFORD (PARR 217) NPO # 5 Request for approval of a second freestanding sign and to modify oocateda non-conforming sign on property zoned C-G (Commercial General). 11860 SW Pacific Hwy. and Garden Place. (WCTM 2S1 1BB lot 400 and 1400). Associate Planner Liden made reviewed the staff report and made staff's recommendation for approval with 4 conditions. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION o Randy Mawhirter, 9350 SW Tigard St., representing the Sign Company was available for questions. o Marin. Rockwell, Trammell Crow Co., 10300 SW Greenburg Road, explained their need for the additional sign and why they were modifing the existing signs. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o No one appeared to speak. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED o Consensus of the Commission was that the sign was justified. Page 6. PLANKING'COMMISSION MINUTES March '5, ;1985 '- .5 AGENDA ITEM 5 STAFF REPORT TUESDAY, MARCH 5, 1985 - 7:30 P.M. TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION' FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL LGI 10865 S.W. WALNUT TIGARD, ,OREGON 97223 A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE; Comprehensive , P18n Amendment CPA 2-85 and Zone Change Annexation ZCA 1 REQUEST: annex a 13.19 acre parcel into the City of Tigard. Also, for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Washington County Office Commercial and Residential (5 units/acre) Metzger Progress Community Plan designationto City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Designation Low Density Residential (1-5- unite/acre and Commercial and; for a zone rcial Profession , Zone Oc change, from the Washington Counprofessional) zonefito Commercial) and R-S (Residential Tigard CP (CoProfessional) zone and R 4.5 (Residential, 4.5/unite/acre) zone. Washington County office Commercial COMPREHENSIVE FLAN DESIGNATION: and Washington County Residential (5/units/acre). ZONING DESIGNATION: Washingtoh County OC (Office Commercial) and R-5 (Residential). APPLICANT: Gene Vivian Davis OWNER: Same 4550 SW Lombard Beaverton, Oregon 97005 SW 95th and st LOCATION: North of 217, south of ySWMOak, East AC flots 101, 2$Oti,�4500E SW 89th. (Wash. Co. T p 4600, 4700, and Wash. Co. Tax Map 1S1 35AD, Tax lots 1200, 1300, 1400, and 1500.) 2. -Background The City has not processed anty. City y other application on this propeannexation staff has had numerous discussion with Dr. Davis regarding into the City• 3. Vicinity Information sitis ted in All of the property to the north nd east 5of the units per�acreaesThe aDennis the County for residential development zoned R-12. The James apartments lie to the southwest on property property is,'also bordered on the; south by Hwy. 217. Access to the site , is currently available from SW 95th, SW Oak or SW 89th. 'STAFF REPORT - CPA 2-85'& ZC' 1-85 = PAGE 1 . . NNW W 4. Site Information and Proposal Description AAW- There is one single family residence on the site which faces SW 89th Avenue. Most of the remainder of the site is in use as a cow pasture. Ash Creek runs through the site, and under Hwy. 217. The property slopes toward Ash Creek and Hwy. 217 There are some ash trees on the property alongHwy. 217 There are no immediate plans by the property owner to develop although the portion of the property currently zoned OC is for sale. 5. , Agency "and NPO Comments NPO # 4 has the following comments: There was no quorum present but no members present objected to annexing the Davis property into the City. The Police Department has the following comments: The proposed annexation of undeveloped land poses noimmediate police service impact. However, as the property develops, police service will increase and be provided as _required' under a limited priority service delivery as is_provided to the rest of the Tigard Community. No other written comments have been received. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, and 14; Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, 10.1.1., 10.1.2., and 10.1.3 and Chapter 18.136 of the Community Development Code. The Planning Staff concludes that the proposal is consistent with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines based upon the following findings: a. Statewide Planning Goal # 1 is met because the City has adopted a Citizen Involvement program including review of all development applications by the Neighborhood Planning Organization (NPO) In addition, all public notice requirements were met. b. Statewide Planning Goal # 2 is met because the City applied all applicable Statewide Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan Policies and Development Code requirements to the application. C. Goal # 14 is met because the City and Washington County have adopted an Urban Planning Area Agreement which provides policies for annexation of property,from Washington County into the City. n ;. The Planning Staff has determined that the proposal as submitted is consistent with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Plan based upon the findings noted below: STAFF REPORT -`CPA 2-85 A, ZC 1-85 - PAGE 2 a. Plan Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because the Neighborhood Planning Organization and surrounding property owners were given notice of the hearing and an opportunity to comment on the applicant's proposal. b. Plan Policy 10.1.1 is satisfied because the required services either currently are provided or can be adequately provided to the site. C. Plan Policy 10.1.2 is satisfied because the annexation will not create an irregular boundary or an island, the Police Department has commented on the annexation and the land is located within Tigard's area of interest. d. Plan Policy 10.1.3 is satisfied because upon annexation the land will be zoned the City zoned which most closely conforms to the County zoning designation. The Planning staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of the Community Development Code based upon the findings noted below: a. Chapter 18.136 is met because the applicant has met all of the approval standards. b. Chapter ' 18.138 is met because the , land does not meet the definition of an "established area" so it shall be designated as a "developing area". C. RECOMAfENDATION Based upon the above findings and conclusions, the Planning Staff recommends approval of CPA 2-85 and ZCA 1-85 subject to the following conditions: 1. The property shall be designated as a "developing area" on the Development Standard Areas map. 2. All future development on the property shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Tigard. PREP FD BY: E .a a Newton APPROVED BY: i liam A. Monahan Director of Planning Associate Planner Development (1059P/dmj) ZC 1-85 PACE 3 STAFF' REPORT CPA 2-85'& - _s- w Y ^7 City of Tigard' 12755 h.W. Ash Tigard Oregon 97223 The applicants of the comprehensive p p plan amendment and zone change are in the process of annexing their properties into the City of Tigard. The property to he s annexed consist of approximately 21. 89 Acres. Approx- imately 13.19 acres are zoned R-5 in Washington Co. , and Approximately 8.7 acres are zoned C-O, Commercial Office in Washington County. The g applicants -intend to keep the closest City of Tigard zone designation on -U, their respective properties. This will comply with r the Statewide planning goals and guidelines. Fd WASHINGTON COUNTY Ai SERVICE PROFILES (1984-85) a=Y t. �r Prepared for: - City of Beaverton By: Don Barney & `Associates 1211 SW Fifth, Suite .1200 Portland, -OR' 97204 77 5 February. 198 s TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 1 SUMMARY 1-2 SERVICE PROFILES Washington County - 3 Cities City of Beaverton 4 ° City of Hillsboro 5 City of Portland r 6 City of Tigard 7 City of Tualatin 8 Service Districts Beaverton School District 9 Metzger Water District 10 • Tualatin Hills Park & Recreation District 11 • Tualatin Rural Fire Protection District 12 • Unified Sewerage Agengy 13 Washington County Rural Fire Protection District #1 14 Washington County Rural Fire Protection District#2 15 West Slope Water District 16 a Wolf Creek Water District 17 COMPARISONS Cities 18 Water Districts 19 Rural Fire Protection Districts 20 County/Special Districts 21 SERVICE COSTS TO PROPERTY OWNERS Annual Taxes & Service Fees for $80,000 Home 22-23 Annual Taxes & Service Fees for 5120,000 Home 24-25 Annual Taxes & Service Fees for 100-Unit Apartment 26-27 Complex (52.1 million assessed value) BIG o ' INTRODUCTION This report shows 1984-85 service characteristics Of selected local governments which provide services in eastern Washington County. The profiles cover population served, budget, bond rating, service capacity, personnel , assessed value, taxes, and service charges for each agency. , E Jurisdictions profiled include Washington County; cities of Beaverton, t Hillsboro, Portland, Tigard and Tualatin; Metzger, West Slope and Wolf Creek water districts; Beaverton School District; Tualatin Hills Park & Recreation District; Unified Sewerage Agency; and Washington County Rural Fire Protection Districts /l and l2, and Tualatin Rural Fire Protection District. ; In addition to the service profiles, the report presents cost comparisons for E three property types: single family residence with $80,000 assessed value, 5120,000 residence, and 100-unit apartment. Costs are compared for various possible east county locations within cities and unincorporated areas. SU MMAR Y The service profiles and cost comparisons demonstrate that the City of Beavertonisnot yet competitive with other service options available to pro perty owners in unincorporated east Washington County: Ce The City of Beaverton is currently the most costly service option in east Washington County, with higher total taxes and service fees than neighboring cities or service districts, for all categories of property. For residences, Beaverton costs 15-30X more than other service options. At present, the cheapest service option open to most single- family residential property owners in the unincorporated area around Beaverton is to remain in the unincorporated area. However, annexing to Portland would provide modest savings to owners of 580,000 homes (except in the West Slope Water District). Owners of $120,440 homes living in the Wolf Creek or West Slope Water districts enjoy about S75/year savings over Hillsboro or Tigard, or 5200/year savings over Portland. In the Metzger Water District area, owners of $120,000 homes would save 5150/year living in Tigard, or would break even annexing to Portland. For industrial , commercial, and multi-family residential property owners with significant water and sewer demands, and for developing properties, the City of Portland appears to enjoy a cost advantage. Portland has a' substantially lower sewer and water fees and assesses the lowest development charges. With Portland's capital needs growing less rapidly than the other jurisdictions, and with Portland's Aaa bond z rating giving the city cheaper borrowing costs, it seems likely Portland's cost advantage for sewer and water service will continue and widen. z qu Costs for sewer and water service, including monthly service fees and systems development charges, are roughly the same in Beaverton and all other east county areas (except Portland). ' Some of the special service districts in the area appear to be experiencing high costs. ' Washington Rural Fire Protection District #1 and Tualatin RFPD assessed district taxpayers $2.71 and $3.12 per S1,000 of assessed value in 1984-85 for a single service. The City of Portland paid comparable wages and assessed $6.43 and Beaverton assessed 55.52 for all City services in the same period. Service district tax rates also appear to be growing more rapidly than cities. Beaverton is not currently the largest provider of key services in east Washington County. For fire protection, Rural Fire Protection District #1 hasthree times as many employees as Beaverton, and pro tects about three times as much population. Washington County Sheriff has four times the manpower of, Beaverton Police (although many of- the' Sheriff' s staff are assigned to corrections rather than patrol duties). Wolf Creek <Water Distrl'ct has 2.5 times Beaverton's capacity, serves twice as many citizens, and has four times as many employees. Beaverton provides a significantly higher overall service level than all other Washington County cities (except Portland). Beaverton has 8.5 employees per 1,000 residents, Hillsboro 5 employees, Tigard 4.2, Tualatin 5.8 (Portland 11.5). The City of Beaverton and Fire District #1 provide a level of fire pro- tection which is much higher than neighboring jurisdictions. Beaverton and RFPD #1 both commit .64 employees per .1,000 residents for fire pro- tection while RFPD #2 (.28/1,000), Tualatin RFPD (.36/1,000), and Portland (.41/1000) commit 36-56% fewer fire fighters proportinately. Also, Portland and Tualatin RFPD have equivalent or superior fire ser vice ratings to Beaverton and RFPD #1, 'S 4 �a �h 1;= LFA u eq SERVICE PROFILES F7 aR, r 6 +r" WASHINGTON COUNTY t. POPULATION: -267-. 400 `(1985 est . ) EMPLOYEES: 850 BUDGET: $69,558. 805 BOND RATING Moody' s A. S&P A+ TAX RATE: $1 .97 ASSESS VALUE: $8.773.513 .800 POLICE Paid personnel : 214 Budget: _$7,913 , 748 LIDS Paid personnel : 0 Budget: $8, 109 ,499 STREETS/MAINT. Paid personnel : 36 fund, largely from System Budget: $928,602 (Capital Projects Development Charge) $4 .5 million (Gas tax) $5,428 ,602 Total LIBRARY Paid personnel : 9 _Budget: $2, 148,800 cooperative Library Service) (Wash. Co. belongs to the Wash. Co. Sources: Washington County: Washington County 1984-85 Annual Budget; n Center for Population Research and the Census , Summary of Washington County Assessment and Tax Roll ' ,t 1 CITY of BEAVERTON POPULATION: 33,050 EMPLOYEES: 280 BUDGET: S40.030.928 BOND RATING: Al TAX RATE: $5.52 ASSESS. VALUE: 51 ,417.341, 200 POLICE Paidpersonnel : 53 Budget: $2,380,634 FIRE Paid personnel : 51 .5 Budget: $2,429,829 Rating: 3 WATER r Paid personnel: 9.25 Budget: $4 ,241 , 822 volume: 189,508, 100 c.f. of water sold ( 1983-84) Prices: Connection fee -- $620 System Bevel. charge -- $305 Service charge -- $8.00/mo All water -- $.60/hundred c.f . .SEWER Paid personnel : 10.25 Budget: $3,316,836 Miles: 156 STREETS/MAINT. Paid personnel : 18.5 (from Street Fund) Budget: $1 ,515,751 (Street Fund) $416,856 (Street Devel. Tax Fund) Miles: 110 STREET LIGHTING (special property tax levy) Paid personnel : 2.5 Budget: $466,714 LIBRARY Paid personnel ; 22 Budget; $707 ,018 Sources: City of Beaverton: City of Beaverton 1984-85 Adopted Budget Center for Population Research and the Census, PSU : ? Assessment and Tax Roll 1984-85 Summary of Washington County CITY of HILLSBORO s POPULATION: 29,650 ( 1483 est. ) EMPLOYEES• 150 BUDGET: $5,421,875 BOND _RATING: 'Moody's Al TAX RATE: $4.23 ASSESS. VALUE: $859,699, 100 POLICE Paid personnel: 47 Budget: $1,649,006 FIRE Paid personnel: 31 Budget: $1,375.872 Rating: 3 WATER ' 0 Paid personnel 14 Budget: $5,118,718 $1 ,131,980 sinking fund Volume: 226 Million c.f. (1983-84) Prices: Connection fee -- ' $1,590 Monthly rate --` $5.75 (includes 200 c.f . ) Next 4800 c.f. -- $.69/hundred Next 5000 c. f. -- $.64/hundred Over 10,000 c. f.- S. 60/hundred SEWER Paid personnel: 2.3 Budget: $4, 161,488 $221,040 sinking fund $13,276 sinking fund Miles: 133 Prices: Connection fee -- $1350 Service charge -- $9.25/mo STREETS/MAINT. Paid personnel: 8 Budget: $3, 120, 133 Street fund $428,587 Street Develop. Charge LIBRARY Paid personnel 12 Budget: $388,025 Sources. City of Hillsboro; City of Hillsboro 1984-85 Annual Budget; Center for Population Research and the Census; 1984-85 Summary of Washington County Assessment and Tax Roll ) -.. n .. CITY of PORTLAND POPULATION: 365,000 ( 1983 est. } EMPLOYEES: 4 , 215 BUDGET: $722.1 Million BOND RATING: Aaa, TAX RATE: $6. 43 ASSESS. VALUE: $12 , 765, 171 ,802 POLICE Paid personnel 891 Budget: $39, 224,488 FIRE Paid personnel : 888 Budget: $37,606,892 Rating: 2 WATER Paid personnel : 428 " Budget: $30,093,932 Volume: 4 .1 Billion c.f . ( 1983-84 ) Prices: Connection fee $460 System Bevel. charge $150 Service charge -- $1 .65/mo All water - $.43/hundred c. f. SEWER Paid personnel: 233 (Bureau of Environmental Services) Budget: $23,300,045 (Bureau of Environmental Services) 3,`925,723 (Bureau of Maintenance) $27, 225,768 Total Miles: 1800 Capacity: The City operates two treatment plants, Columbia Blvd: 100 MGD capacity, averages 70-80 MGD. Tryon Creek: 8.3 MGD capacity, averages 5.5-7 .0 Prices: Single family dwelling -- $6.35/mo Multiple family dwelling -- $4.35/mo Senior citizen dwelling -- $3 .55/mo STREETS/MAINT. Paid personnel : Budget: Miles: 1470 STREET LIGHTING Paid personnel : 5 Budget: S4 , 846`,OiB Sources: City of Portland: City of Portland 1984-85 Approved Budget;` s Center for Population Research and the Census, PSU;:. Multnomah County Summany of Assessment and Taxes . 1964-85 CITY, of TIGARD POPULATION: 18,200 ( 1983 est. ) EMPLOYEES: 77 BUDGET: $7,300,000 BOND RATING: `Moody's A TAX BASE $1 .06 ASSESS. VALUE: $852,748,700 POLICE Paid,personnel: 29 Budget: $1 ,330,500 FIRE (Tualatin RFPD) Talc Rate: $3. 12 Paid personnel: 130 Budget: approx. $7,600,000 Rating; 3r r WATER (Tigard Water Dist. ) Tar. Rate $.36 Paid personnel 12 Budget: $2,000,050 SEWER Paid personnel: 5.75 Budget: $591, 122+ $111 ,379 Capital budget. Total $702 .501 Prices: Connection fee: $960 Monthly charge: $8.75 STREETS/MAINT. Paid personnel: 4.75 Budget: $187,000 + $205.088 Capital budget. Total $492,088 Miles: Responsible for maint. of 59 miles of roads STREET LIGHTING Paid personnel : 0 (PGE does all maint. ) - Budget: $159,000 , LIBRARY Paid personnel: 4.5 j Budget: $139,328 Circulation: 126,000 ( fiscal 83/,84) Sources: City of Tigard; City of Tigard .984-85 Budget ; Tigard Water District; Center for Population ' Research_ and the Census, PSU; 1984-85 Summary of Washington County Assessment and Tax ,Roll i. I'MI IM t CITY of TUALATIN POPULATION: 9.750 EMPLOYEES: 57 BUDGET: $2,308,980 BOND RATING: Moody's A TAX RATE: $3.51 ASSESS. VALUE. $4.07.379,300 POLICE, Paid personnel: 12.5" Budget: $491,033 FIRE (Tualatin RFPD) Tact Rate $3. 12 Paid personnel: 130 Budget: approx. $7.600,000 Rating: 3 x: WATER Paid personnel: 2 .5 Budget: Approx.$1,300.000 Volume: 54 trillion c. f. ( 1983-84) Prices: Connection fee -- $200 System devel. charge -- $750 Debt charge -- $100 Service charge -- $6.90/mo All water -- $.90/hundred c.f. SEWER Paid personnel 3.5 Budget: Approx. $1,300,000 Miles: 40 Prices; Connection fee -- $925 Service charge -- $9.25/mo STREETS/ MAINT> Paid personnel: Budget $312,871 Miles: 26 STREET LIGHTING Paid personnel: 2 (approx. ) Budget: $76.340 Sources: City of Tualatin; Center for Population Research and the Census ,, PSU; 1984-85 'Summary of Washington County Assessment and Tax Roll ' fry, • SERVICE DISTRICTS n, Jz a �b r s X S. - ��M L _ _ .y! —ry am mv=it in iii a 1UP BEA'VERTON SCHOOL DISTRICT POPULATION: 129,200 STUDENTS: 21 , 543 EMPLOYEES: 2. 226 BUDGET: $76,862,248 BOND RATING: Moody's Al TAX RATE: $13.76 ASSESS. VALUE: $4 .436,750. 100 Sources: Beaverton School District; 1984-85 Summary of Washington County Assessment and Tax Roll P i t x METZGER WATER DISTRICT POP.. SERVED: 16. 507 EMPLOYEES: 7 ' BUDGET: $1 ,350,000 BOND RATING: Moody's Al TAX RATE: .71 ASSESS. VALUE: $694,075,600 Volume: 91,016.700 c.f. ( 1983-84) 'rices: Connection fee -- $945 Service charge - $6.50/mcg. (includes 400 c. f . ) Over 400 c. f'. -- S.95/hundred Sources: Metxger ;Water District; 1984-85 Summary of Washington County Assessment and .Tay Roll 0 r TUALATIN HILLS PARE: & RECREATION DISTRICT POPULATION: approx. 150. 000 EMPLOYEES: 64 BUDGET: approx. $4 million BOND .RATING: Moody's Al TAX RATE: $1 .21 ASSESS, VALUE: $4,228,992, 500 a Sources: TualatinHills Park and Recreation District; 1984-85 Summary of a Washington County Assessment and Tax Roll Ji TUALATIN RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT POP. SERVED: 47, 600 EMPLOYEES:; 130 ;. BUDGET: $7,600,000 BOND RATING TAX RATE: $3. 12 ASSESS. VALUE: $1.611.959,300 f Service rating: 3 vU Awl Sources: Tualatin iRFPD. 1984-85 Summary of Washington County Assessment and Tax Roll ra 4 y�g +sr t 1 C is All ti', etc tee'. UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY s.' POP. SERVED 214, 244 EMPLOYEES: 212 BUDGET: $32,000,000 BOND RATING: Moody's -Al , S&P Aa TAX RATE: 49 ASSESS. VALUE: $7,108. 119.900 k USA owns and operates 480 miles of trunk lines (larger than 22" ) and six ,treatment plants. Durham: 20 MGD capacity, averages 18.6 MGD Rock Creek: 15 MGD capacity Forest Grove: 5 MGD capacity, averages 3.6 MGD Hillsboro: 3.5 MGD capacity, averages 2 .5,MGD Z Gaston: approx. 5 MGD capacity Banks: approx. 5. MGD capacity The Agency collects user fees directly from property owners in unincorporated areas, and collects-pass-through fees from r incorporated areas. The percentage of fees that is passed through varies from city to city, ranging from 30% to 80 A typical percentage is 70% „£ Prices: Connection fee -- $925 Service charge -- $9.25/mo b Sources: Unified Sewerage Agency; 1984-85 Summary of Washington County Assessment and Tax Roll };; WASHINGTON COUNTY RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT til POP. SERVED: 104 ,030 EMPLOYEES: 162 BUDGET: $9, 870, 131 BOND RATING Moody's Al TAX RATE $2.71 ASSESS. VALUE: $3,651, 280, 800 Service rating: 3 m Sources Washington County RFPD #1 ; 1984-85 -Summary of Washington County Assessment and Tax Roll 14 ffi u WASHINGTON COUNTY RURAL FIRE PROTECTIO14 DISTRICT 92 POP. SERVED: Approx. 20,000 :y EMPLOYEES: 7 BULGET $507,000 n BOND RATING: None TAX RATE: $1 .40 "- ASSESS, VALUE: $346,000,000 Service rating: 4 ' Sources: Washington County RFPD #2; 1984-85 Summary of Washington County Assessment and Tax Roll WEST SLOPE WATER DISTRICT POPULATION: 11 .789 EMPLOYEES: 6 BUDGET: $823,500 BOND RATING: None TAX RATE: None. Funded completely by customer fees. ASSESS. VALUE: $450,507, 300 Volume: 54 Million c.f. (1983-84 ) Prices: Connection fee -- $200 Service charge $13.50/2mo. (includes first 1000 c. f. of water) First 1200 c. f .-- $1 .35/hundred Next 800 c. f . -- $1 . 20/hundred Next 2000 c.f. $1 .05/hundred Over 4000 c. f. --, $.90/hundred r Sources: West Slope Water District; 1984-85 Summary of Washington County Assessment and Tax Roll 16 WOLF CREEK WATER DISTRICT POP. SERVED: 55.654 EMPLOYEES: 37_ BUDGET: $20,083, 189 BOND RATING: Moody's Al. S&P Aa TAX RATE: .73 ASSESS. VALUE: $2.595.859, 800' Volume: 505 Million c. f. (1983-84) Prices: Connection fee -- $955 Service charge -- $8.64/2mo All water -- $.89/hundred c.f e Sources Wolf , CreeWater 'District • 1984-85 Summary of Washington County k `.Assessment and Tax Roll .°, h 17 4U r COMPARISONS s J th �j �XX� yy SERVICE SUMMARY: CITIES ----------------------- Beaverton ----- --------- ----Beaverton Hillsboro Portland_ Tigard Tualatin POPULATION 33,050 29 , 650 365,000 18, 200 9 ,750 EMPLOYEES 280 150 4 , 215 77 57 EMPL. PER5, 8 1000/POP. 8.5 5 11 . 5 4 . 2 BUDGET $40 m $5.4 m $722. 1 m $7 .3 m S2.3 'm TAX RATE $5.52 $4 . 23 $6. 43 $1 .06 $3 . 51 ASSESS. VALUE $1 , 4 b $. 86 b $12.8 b $.85 b $.41b BOND RATING Al Al Aaa^ � A RVICES INFORMATION _ WATER Tigard WD Budget $4 .2 m $5 . 1 m $30 m $2 m $1 .3 m Employees 9.25 14 428 12 2 .5 k_ Tax Rate --- --- $ .37 Volume54m cf (annual) 189m cf 226m cf 4 . 1b cf i42m cf Connection $620 $1590 $460 S775 $200 Fee (SDC) $305 (SDC) $250 (SDC) $150 (SDC) $750 (Debt) $lOc Service Charge $8.00/mo 55.75/mo 51 .65/mo S10.00/2mo 56.90/mo ( inc. 200 cf) (inc 800 cf) Water All water Next 4000 cf All water Over 800 All water Charge $.60/h.cf $.69/h.cf $ . 43/h.cf S .95/h.cf S .90.h.cf Next 5000 cf $ .64/h.cf FIRE Tual . RFPD Tual . RFPD Budget S2 . 4 m $1 . 3 m $37 .6 m S7 . 6 m S7 . 6' m �4 r Employees 51 . 5 31 888 130 130 Rating 3 -3 - 2 3 3 SEFtVICE SUMMARY: WATER DISTRICT S West Slope WD ----------------------- ---- ---- ----- - - Wolf Creek WD Metzger WD POPULATION 55.654 16.507 11 .789 - SERVED 6 37 7 EMPLOYEES PER 4 , 5 ; EMPL. 6 1080/POP. $,82 m S20 m $1 .3 m BUDGET None TAX RATE $.73 $.71 ASSESS $.69 b $.45 b VALUE $2.59 b BOND RATING Al Al None' SERVICES INFORMATION Volume 505m cf 54m cf gim cf (annual) Connection $945 $200 Fee $955 Service $6.50/mo S13.50/2mo Charge $8.64/2ma (inc. 400 cf) ( inc . 1000 cf) All water All other water First 1200 cf Water $.95/h.cf $i .35/h.cf Charge $.89/h.cf Next 800 cf $1 .20/h.cf ' Next 2000 cf S1 .05/h. cf Over 4000 cf $ go/h.cf 4 . F 4 + -9 <1 iC; SERVICE SUMMARY_: RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICTS --------------------------------------------- Washington -Co. Washington Co. Tualatin RFPD 91 RFPD 02 RFPD POPULATION SERVED 104 ,030 20, 000 47 , 600 EMPLOYEES 162 7 130 EMPL. PER : , 1000/POP. .64 .26 .36 BUDGET S9,870, 131 $507.000 $7,6000,000 TAX RATE $2. 71 $1 . 4Q• $3. 12 ASSESS. VALUE $3.6 b S. 35 b $1 . 6 b BOND RATING Al None None Ual LL Notpn 3. :x SEKVICE SUMMARY: COUNTY A14D OTHER DISTRICTS Unified` Tualatin Hills Washingtc Beaverton County School Dist . Sewer. Agency Park & Rec. Dist . POPULATION 214 .244 150,000 267 , 400 SERVED 129,200 EMPLOYEES 2.226 212 64 850 EMPL. PERl 2 . 3 . 1 1000/POP. 5.8' BUDGET $76`.8 m $32 m $4 m $69 .5 m TAX RATE $13.76 $..49 $2 . 21 $1 .97 ASSESS. $8 .7 b VALUE $4.4 b $7. 1 b $4 .2 b - O2tD RATING Al Al Al A z Ri 3C� w T SERVICE COSTS TO PROPERTY OWNERS a tx ad INNE a nN?JUt�L TAXES ANDUSER - SES FOR $80 . 000 HOME ( 1384-851, v -------------- -- -- - -- Beaverton Hillsboro Tigard Portland City Prop. Tax $441 . 60 $338,40 $ 84 . 80 514 . 40 County Prop. Tax x 157 . 60 157 . 60 157 . 60 157 . 60 Unif. Sewer. Agency 39 . 20 39. 20 39.20 29 . 60 Water Dist. Tax --_ --- = 60.00 19 . 80 Water Serv. Charge 96.00 69. Water Use (1000cf/mo) 72 .00 66. 2244 22 .80' - 51 .60 Sesaer 'Serv. Charge 111 .00 111 .00 105 .00 76.20 96.80 --- -- Tual`. Hills P&R Dist. Wash Co RFPD #1 - --- --- --- " ' Tualatin RFPD, --- --- 249 . 60 --- } $1014 .20 5781 .44 $746 .60 $819 . 60 TOTAL �v t _ 1 A DEVELOPMENT AND PERMIT CHARGES O _vim Systems Development --- - $150 Charge Water $ 305 «« 300 $ 500 Street 320 $ ..« 700 Sewer 4000*** 4000 4000*.* Water Connection Fee 620 1590 775 460 Sewer Connection Fee925 1350 960 Varies l * `800 c. f . of water included in Serv. Charge *� Charges based on actual costs: wide variation Cost per `tai: lot f x,. 1 i j ANNUAL TAXES .AND USER FEES FOR $80, 0000 HOME ( 1984-85) Unincorporated Wash. Co. by Water District Y Wolf West Metzger r Creek Slope City Prop. Tax -- County Prop. Tax $157 .60 $157.60 $157 .60 =` Unif. Sewer. Agency 39.20` 39.20 39 .20 Water Dist. Tax 58 . 40 00.00 55. 80 Water Serv. Charge 51 .84 81 .00 78 .O0 Water Use cf/mol 106.80 00.00•` 68.40 111 .00 Sewer Serv. Charge 111 .00 111 .00 Tual Hills P&R_Dist . 96.80 96:80 96.80 Wash. Ca: _ RFPD1 216. 80 216.80 --- 249 .60 Tualatin RFPD --- --- TOTAL $838.44* $702 .40 $857 .40 7 DEVELOPMENT AND PERMIT CHARGES ZIA Systems Development Charge: Water $ 755 S 000 Street 400 400 $. 400 Sewer 4000*** 4000**** 4000"* Water Connection Fee 200 200 945 v Sewer Connection Fee 925 925 925: * S735. 24 Total for Wolf Creek area in Wash. Co. RFPD 92 •• 1000 c . f . of water included in Serv. Charge **• Cost per tax lot b - .3 m ANNUAL TAXES AND USER PEES FOR $120. 000 HOME ( 1984-ts5) ------------------- Beaverton Hillsboro Tigard Portland City Prop. Tax $662.40 $507 .60 $127. 20 $771 . 60 County Prop. Tax 236.40 236.40 236.40 236..40 --- Unif. 58.80 58 . 80 58. 80 ' Sewer. Agency. _ 43.20 Water Dist. Tax -- Water Serv. Charge 96.00 69 .00 60.00 19 .80 Water Use ( 1000 cf/mo) 72.00 66.24 22.80* 51 .60 Sewer Serv. Charge 111 .00 111.00 105.00 76.20 Tual. -Hills P&R Dist. 145.20 - -- _- Wash. Co. RFPD #1 --- ~ ___ --- 374 .40 --_ Tualatin RFPD --- --- TOTAL $1387.80 $1049 .04 $1027.80 $1155 .60 DEVELOPMENT AND PERMIT CHARGES Systems Development Charge: Water $ 305 --- $50 $150 Street 320 S 300 $500 ** Sewer 4000*** 4000*** 4000*** 700 Water Connection Fee 620 1590 775 460 Sewer Connection Fee 925 1350 960 Varies * 800 `c.f. of water included in Serv. Charge ** -Charges based on actual casts wide variation Cost per tax lot. r. d- w ANNUAL TAXES AND USER FEES FOR S120 ,0O0 HOME ( 1984-85) ---------------------------- Unincorporated Wash. Co: by Water District Wolf West Metzger Creek Slope City Prop. Tax -" ; $236.4O $236.40 $258.8O County Prop. Tax58.80 58 Unif. Sewer. Agency 58.80 .80 Water Dist. Tax 87 . 60 00.00 .20 78 Water Serv.- Charge 51 .84 81 .00 .00 Water Use ( 1000 cf/mo) 106.80 00 00** 68 40 - _Sewer ,Serv. Charge 121 .AO 111 .00 111 .00 45.20 Tual . Hills' P&R Dist. 145. 20 145.20 1 Wash. Co. RFPD #1 325.20 3 --- 374 .40 --_ Tual Fire Dist . -- TOTAL $1123 .20* $957_.60 $1157. 40 _ DEVELOPMENT AND PERMIT CHARGES Systems Development Charger Water $ 755 - $ 370 4 Street 400 $ 400 400 Sewer 4000** 4000** 4000** Water Connection Fee 200 200 945 Sewer Connection Fee 925 925 925 * S968 .4O Total for Wolf Creek area in Wash. Co. RFPD ** 1000 cf . of water included in Serv. Charge ** Cost per tax lot ANNUAL TAXESANDUSER FEES FOR 100-UNIT (S2 . 1 MILLION) APARTMENT COMPLEX ( 1984-85) ---------------- ------------------------- Beaverton Hillsboro Tigard Portland City Prop. Tax $11 ,592 .00 $8833 .00 $2226.00 $13 , 503 .10C County Prop. Tax 4137 .00 4137 .00 4137 .00 4137.00 Unif Sewer, Agency 1029.00 1029 . 00 1029.00 Water Dish. Tax -- --- 756.00 ---- Slater Serv. Charge 2064 .00 699 .00 960.00 168.6C Water Use ( 1000 cf/mo) 7200.00 8280.00 6840.00 5520-OC Sewer '`Serv. Charge 11 ,000.00 11 , 100.00 11 , 100.00 435 .0C Tual.'`Hills P&R Dist. 2541 .00 --- --- Wsh. Co. RFPD #1 --�- --- --- --- Tual. Fire Dist. - - 6552.00 TOTAL $39663.00 534078 .00P $33600.00 $26199.60 DEVELOPMENT AND PERMIT CHARGES Systems Development Charge: Water $20,000` $25,000 $ 4500.OC Street 28,000 30,000 $30,000 *** Water Connection Fee "*** 7600 13,000-- 6000 .0C Water Meter 2000 2112 (inc. above) 1431 .00 Sewer Connection Fee 92, 500 92,500 92,500 56,000 .00 - Typical cost: actual costs may vary �- Includes cost of the meter -"- Charges based on actual costs, with a wide variation $395 per Dwelling Unit: 1/4 acre 1 DU . g ANNUAL TAXES AND USER FEES FOR 100-UNIT ($2.1 MILLION) APARTMENT COMPLEX (1984-85) -- -- -- Unincorporated Wash. Co. by Water District West Metzger wolf Slope Creek City Prop. Tax '- $ 4137.00 5 4132.00 ;Coursty Prop, -Tax $ 4137.00 1029:00 1029.00 Unif. Sewer. ';Agency 1029.00 ___ 1491 .00 Mater Dist. Tax 1E-33.00 1425.60 499.20 Water Serv. Charge 663.84 8078.40` 11,400.00 _< Water Use (1000 cf/mo) 10,680.00 11, 100.00 11,100.00 Sewer Serv. Charge 11E100.00 2541:00 2541.00 Tual. Hills P&R Dist, 2541.00 5691.09 Wash. Co. RFPD #1 5691.00 „ 6552.00 Tual, Fire Dist. --_ TOTAL $37374.84 $3400 $3874 :20 DEVELOPMENT AND PERMIT CHARGES Systems Development $18,8?5 -- $37.000 Charge: water $28,000 28.000 Street 28,000 - 4,000 _Water Connection Fee 92,500 ` 500 ` 92,500 92,500 $itwer Connection Fee * Serv. Charge includes' 25s200 c.f. of water «e based on actual casts. with a wide variation Charges r j Ult r 4, Fm 1 i '* �:'.g �t Y Now x, SERVICES AND ANNEXATION IN EAST WASHINGTON COUNTY: SUMMARY OF OPINION LEADER INTERVIEWS R 1 r x Prepared for: City ofBeaverton By: Don Barney & Associates 1211 SW Fifth, Suite 1200 Portland, OR 97204 March 1985 BACKGRQ'JND mine 's In late 1984, Beaverton City Council oPapParte�dareasudy outs�deXpresenthcitytboun- role in providing services to uninc P daries. The study was intended ultimately if any, shouldevera1BeavertontuRtimately questions facing the City: play in these areas? should Beaverton have a policy covering extraterritorial services, and, if so; what lements? should be the main policy e * had been endorsed earlier by the Portland Metropolitan Area The study concep. toward resolving Beaverton's future ser- Boundary Commission as a first step vice and annexationplans, - An outside consultant, Don Barney & Associates, was retained to perform the study. - One important study component consists of interviews conducted with close " observers of local service issues in eastern Washington County. The seventy persons interviewed include: Beaverton Mayor, City Council and staff ° Key staff of Bea verton's neighboring cities: Hillsboro, Portland and Tigard ° Washington County elected officials and staff ° Elected officials and staff of ;other area service agencies ° Property owners in the unincorporated areas near Beaverton Leaders of groups in nearby residential neighborhoods ° Areabusiness leaders ° _Other long-time observers of government and service issues in Washington County A list of persons interviewed is attached to this report. lace Burin January and February in an environment where The interviews took p 9 significanpublic discussion and debate of service and annexation issues was t - occurring In January, Beaverton had proposed a large annexation to the north- west of, the city, which was rejected by the Boundary Commission. t r < SUMMARY Areas of general agreement, and issues of debate revealed in the interviews: I. Today's service patterns in east Washington County are expected ,to change, particularly due to increased costs and growing duplication among the many jurisdictions providing services. There is strong, widespread interest in looking for ways to save money and improve services in the area. (See page 3). 2. Beaverton is encouraged by area leaders to develop a policy that clarifies the City's long-term annexation and service objectives. Beaverton is advised to prepare its policy in close consultation with Washington County, cities and special districts now serving the area (page 4). 3. Beaverton's logical service boundary is seen as the Beaverton School District area. There's room for Beaverton to take a larger role where the City is the most cost-effective option, but some doubt the City will follow through to annex and serve a wider area (page 4). 4. Community self-identity, within Beaverton asJIwell as in the surrounding neighborhoods, is viewed as an important factor in.deciding the ultimate service patternsinthe area. A long-term service 'plan for the area may open opportunities to strengthen community,identity (page 5). 5. Some observers question whether the City of Beaverton has the physical capability and management strength to deliver services over a much wider area. They note the City is not the area's largest provider for most services (page 5). 5. Beaverton's primary service advantage over outlying areas is thought to be its outstanding police force and police chief, higher level of patrols, faster response, and active crime prevention program. Other advantages named include better transportation planning and road maintenance, street sweeping, street lighting, and sidewalks (page 5). 3. Beaverton does not view itself as it is seen by others. Those outside city government believe the City has an image problem which must be acknowledged and corrected before the City can expect to be well received in surrounding areas (page b). 8. Washington County's decisions about its future service roles are seen as y; pivotal in Beaverton's consideration of its own future. Beaverton is encouraged to take part in these pending decisions. Persons interviewed cite the service transition in nearby Multnomah County as evidence of how . quickly change can occur (page 7). 9. Service costs are a key factor affecting the future. Most observers think property owners in the unincorporated area will continue to opt for the cheapest service arrangement If costs change, so willcitizenpreferences and 'service patterns (page 8). 2 STUDY FINDINGS The following summarizes key findings of the interviews: Service Patterns Are Expected to Change Many close observers believe that the present service patterns in unincor- porated East Washington County will change. Particularly among those now responsible for providing services, this change is seen as imminent or already underway. According to persons interviewed, the seeds of change include: Rising service costs in unincorporated areas, with "gold plated" service districts increasingly becoming high-cost providers. ° Likelihood of annexations further gnawing away at tax resouces of special service districts. Proliferation of overlapping services, suchas crossing water lines, an inevitable result of too many service providers crowded into a small area, creating higher total costs to all taxpayers. ° Lack of planning to coordinate delivery of services necessary to accom- modate the area's rapid growth. ° Growing unmet service needs, particularly the low level of police and transportation service in urban unincorporated neighborhoods, and rising citizen awareness and concern about these needs. ° Washington County's persistent budgetary plight. ° The need to address the "urban subsidy" identified in Washington County, with city taxpayers bearing part of the cost of municipal services outside the city. . The Boundary Commission's long-standing policy encouraging cities to serve all urban-designated areas. Influence from Multnomah County's policy to give up municipal service functions, with Portland and Gresham expanding to annex and serve the County's urban areas, while the County concentrates on its countywide functions. Not all observers expect service patterns to change. A few persons believe this service transition will occur very slowly, if at all . 3 n 'z i ' Beaverton Needs a Policy i There is consensus support for the City of Beaverton to develop a new service/ annexation policy. Mostagreethe city plays a central role in the East County, and should clarify its future intentions: Such a policy is seen as the next logical step following the earlier definition of the urban growth boundary and Beaverton planning area. Policy elements suggested include: ° Policy statement ° Boundary defining city's ultimate service boundaries Menu/description of services ,to be provided ° Policy stating conditions for 'annexation Schedule/phasing for services and annexation within the boundaries ® Interim agreements with other service providers to ensure coordination and continuity of service in the unincorporated arca Stressed almost unanimously by persons interviewed: Beaverton should prepare its policy in close cooperation with Washington County, other cities, and ser vice districts. Beaverton's Logical Boundaries Most observers agree that Beaverton's logical service area would be larger than the city's present boundaries. The appropriate area ismostoften equated to Beaverton School District- boundaries, which are similar to those for other services (Washington County Rural Fire Protection District #1, Tualatin Hills Park & Recreation District) Within this general area, most observers are flexible on the precise boun dari es, advising that a criterion of cost-effectiveness be applied in drawing long-term boundaries. Within the school district area, the future of three sub-areas is not clear to observers: Aloha area residents may choose to form a new city; the Progress/ Metzger/Washington Square area could eventually become either part of Beaverton, Portland or Tigard; and the area north of Sunset Highway might ,join another city or;remain unincorporated. While acknowledging that Beaverton's logical boundaries would be wider, a number of the persons interviewed are skeptical that Beaverton will follow through and plan for services and annexation in this expanded area. 4 ,r x N. Community Identity One question raised about Beaverton taking on a larger role concerns the city's self-identity. Beaverton has focused primarily on issues within its present boundaries over the past ,10-15 years, observers say, and has seldom expressed interest in taking on service problems in the unincorporated area. During this period, decisions have vastly strengthened the roles and capabili- ties of alternative service providers, particularly the special service districts. Many ask if Beaverton really wants to shift its past policy course, doubling or tripling its population and area,_taking on a larger leadership role in providing East County services. Community identity in the surrounding neighborhoodsis also seen as an impor- tant question. How do residents in these areas s view their future? Will close-knit neighborhoods such as Cedar Hills and Aloha prefer to remain independent? Questions about Beavertons' Service Capabilities. A number of persons question whether the City of Beaverton has adequate ser- vice capability to handle a wider area. - (The city's recent northwest annexa- tion proposal stirred discussion on this issue.) To most, the issue of Beaverton's service capability seems to be a ,matter of size. While Beaverton provides some unique services, other ,jurisdictions are the primary providers of nearly every vital service and have much larger operations and staff: fire (RFPD #1); police (Sheriff); water (Wolf Creek Water District); sewers (USA); parks (Tualatin Hills Park b Recreation District). Some see the city as caught in a dilemma between continuing as a small subur- ban city providing a relatively low level of services, or becoming a major, technically competent (and thus more costly) urban center. Several close observers outside city government believe this is really a policy issue rather than a pragmatic one. If Beaverton chose to plan and deliver services to a wider area it could easily accomplish such a policy, these persons say. Beaverton's Strengths Persons interviewed believe that Beaverton has some "carrots" to offer pro- perty owners in the unincorporated areas around the city. Foremost, the city is seen as having an excellent police department. Service levels are acknowledged by all to be higher inside Beaverton than in the surrounding areas. The Chief of Police is cited often as a superb representative of the city. 5 Another important city service thought to be an advantage is transportation planning and road maintenance. Others: crime prevention, street sweeping, street lighting. sidewalks. One service not currently offered by the city is recommended as a potential asset to attract support -- a network of active neighborhood organizations. Several observers point out a need for the city to appeal to different kinds of property owners with various service packages". Developers and industriai property owners may not desire the same services that `attract residents. for -example. Beaverton's Image The City of Beaverton has an image problem. The city does not view itself as it is seen by others. The view outside city government is-surprisingly uniform. Beaverton is seen as adversarial, uncooperative, unrealistic, inconsistent, even hostile. The negative image city's perceived approach to planning, growth and development centers on the conflicts. Decisionmaking is characterized by Outsiders as "a dogfight", "warring factions", and "a domestic squabble". The root of tha problem is said to be at both staff and policymaking levels. Because of the conflict, - Beaverton is seen as having a shrinking role in major policy decisions affecting the area. Few observers think Beaverton can successfully take on a larger service role ressed. As one local in the East County unless this image problem can be add official notes, "no one wants to step in to the middle of a family dispute." Most observers inside Beaverton city government acknowledge the criticism, but see this type of conflict as inevitable in any government handling complex urban issues. Within City Hall, Beaverton views itself as a leader in county- wide decisions. There is hope among persons interviewed that the new Beaverton administration will bring about some changes that will improve Beaverton's stature and instill a positive attitude in dealings with outside interests. Remedies suggested most often are shifts in key management posts, staff training, using a more diplomatic approach with other jurisdictions, building more productive problem-solving relations among Council members, and returning Beaverton' s _form of government to a traditional city manager structure. Neighborhood group leaders give high priority to less tangible services which might be offered, with the City providing better citizen access to decision- making, even becoming an advocate for concerns of unincorporated area residents. 6 County Decisions Affect Beaverton's Future service roles as Mary see Washington County's decisions about its appropriate as the o Beaverton. The only alternatives to cities service ecapacity eas of pivotal t upon the County to act in an expanded urban services rely P then and coordinate the network of "super-county", or as a catalyst to 'streng special districts. as the County over Close observers expect budeeticrisdisCiSThesurbanto esubsidyostudy prepared addresses its current9 believed to demonstrate a subsidy paid the past several years, which is widely dwellers, is also seen as a factor. fhasealready hbeen f resolved. by cs to ity dwe Some say the subsidy translate into fast action. future. many As Washington County officials attempt to outline the County's l the cities. and particularly Beaverton, could influence the ob5ervers fee. outcome by developing a clear, consistent position. for Beaverton to exert leadership, intro- These persons see an opportunity in concert with other ducing policy statements into County decisionmakipg, cities. The Multnomah County Model _ often mention the recent evolution of h��futuretofnWashingtonomah Observers County as having influenced their thinking abouts County services. However, most see striking differences between the two cases: g are the The special service districts in East Washington County largest and best financed in the state. There is no service crisis in Washington County. Bea does not have the leadership or service capability of the City of Portland to address service needs outside the city. on Other Washington County cities have maforatacklingf problemsninstheices. and have expressed little enthusias unincorporated area. . budget problems are not seen as persistent or Washington County's 9 rienced by Multnomah County. irrevocable as those expeation in the contrasts, a few persons evaluate the financialsforceseleadingtwo un sitU Despite with the same service a lace in ties as being parallel, eventually -to similar ends. These as evdence observers a�broaderutrend. taking p Clackamas and Clark counties 7 Service Costs A Key The cost of services to property owners in the unincorporated area is thought by most observers to be the decisive factor in future service patterns. In short, property owners can be expected to pursue the cheapest option. Most persons interviewed do not believe property owners are fully aware of what they are paying now. However, they are thought to share a general impression that the unincorporated areas enjoy a cost advantage over cities at present. As long as this perceived or real advantage remains, annexation will not likely gain broad popular support. Service professionals in the area expect current service costs to shift in the future, with the difference narrowing between cities and unincorporated ureas, adding to the potential for change. 4 WIN i .r 5 B BEAVERTON URBAN SERVICES INTERVIEWS Beaverton City Council Larry Cole, Mayor Carol Maul Ted McBride .' Bud Maguire Ann Schmidt Forrest Soth Beaverton Staff Steve Baker, Maintenance and Operations ' Larry Bauer, Asst. to Mayor Pam Beery, City Attorney Chris Bowles, City Engineer David Chen, Finance . Linda Davis, Planning Mike Dowsett, City Attorney r Jim Hendryx, Planning Michael Kronenberg, Planning Chief Sox Lee, Fire David Nelson, Fire Marshall Chief Don Newell, Public Safety Washington County L Bonnie Hays, Commissioner Wes Myllenbeck, Commission Chair Roy Rogers, Commissioner Don Stilwell, County Administrator Charlie Cameron, Deputy Administrator Rick Daniels, Land Use and Transportation Bill Probstfield, Sheriff Alan Purcell, Auditor Bob Rapp, Planning Commission Chair Other Cities Wink Brooks, City of Hillsboro Mark Gardiner, City of Portland ClBob Jean, City of Tigard � David Lawrence," City of, Portland Eldon Mills, City of Hillsboro Beaverton Urban Services Interviews Page 2 Washington County Rural Fire Protection District #1 Jim Fisher, Board Elwyn Kinney, Board Chief Tom Schriver Unified Sewerage Agency Gary Krahmer Wolf Creek Water District Walt Platt, Board Bob Rapp, Board Chair Gene Seibel, Administrator Tualatin Parks & Recreation District Howard Terpenning, General Manager Neil Winter, Financial Officer Boundary Commission Wayne Atteberry, Commission Chair Pam Ragsdale, Commission Bob Weil, Commission Ken Martin, Administrator Deniece Won Property Owners/Business Wayne Atteberry, Standard Insurance Gary,Conkling, Tektronix Gordon Davis, Consultant Jeri Doctor, Beaverton Area Chamber- of Commerce Sonna Durdel, Koll Co. Dave Fredrickson, PGE Dale Johnson, BenjFran Development Beaverton Urban Services Interviews Page 3 „x �x Property Owners/Business (cont'd) Gregory Mockford, Koll Co. Jack Orchard, Ball, Janik & Novack Pam Ragsdale, Tualatin Valley Economic Development Corp. Jim Robison, 'Nike r, Ron Roberts, Washington Square Mark Thomashow, Nike neighborhoods Steve Chassaing, Washington' County Neighborhoods - Keith £hrensing, Washington County Neighborhoods a Legrande Marchant, Aloha ' ` Judy Wood, `Metzger y 4. YN *r. Others Sonny Conder Larry Conrad, PSU Bill Dirker _Sheldon Edner, PSU' Jack Nelson Sumner Sharpe, PSU Bill Young y CITY OF BEAVERTON FINANCIAL IMPACT OF SERVICES AND ANNEXATION iPrepared for: 2 City of Beaverton By: Don Barney & Associates 1211 SW Fifth, Suite 1200 Portland, OR 97204 and Wilbur 0. Conder 3805 SE Knapp Portland, OR 97202 1 February 1985 t TABLE OF CONTENTS �� Page INTRODUCTION 1 SUMMARY w.y 1-2 STUDY AREA DESCRIPTIONS 2 a DESCRIPTION OF CURRENT SERVICE PROVIDERS r� r OPERATING COSTS AND CAPITAL/DEBT COSTS COMPARED TO BEAVERTONSERVICE z; - OPERATING REVENUES OF BEAVERTON AND THE STUDY AREA 13 COMPARISON OF OPERATING COSTSND REVENUES A 19 z APPENDIX List Of Sources Consulted �zz x-' T _ a LIST OF EXHIBITS At1D TAE;LES Paqe 3 EXHIBIT 1: MAP OF STUDY AREA/SUB-AREAS TABLE 1: POPULATION AND ASSESSED VALUE OF BEAVERTON 4 SERVICE AREAS TABLE 2: PER CAPITA OPERATING,COSTS BY FUNCTIONS Q ,(1981-83 AND 1984 { TAB LE `2A: SUMMARY OF CURRENT OPERATING COST 9 TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF MAJOR CAPITAL COSTS AND DEBT SERVICE IO PER CAPITA - BEAVERTON SERVICE AREAS' TABLE 4: SUMMARY OF COMBINED OPERATING, CAPITAL AND M DEBT SERVICE EXPENDITURES FOR CAPITAL 12 INTENSIVE SERVICES TABLE S: OPERATING REVENUES BY SUBAREA (Al - A-5) 14 - 16 TABLE 6: GENERAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES PER CAPITA 11 TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF GENERAL OPERATING REVENUES AND COSTS OF BEAVERTON SERVICE AREAS (1984-85) 20 TABLE 8: PROPERTY TAX SHIFT 22 23 TABLE-9: OPERATING REVENUES PER CAPITA ; APPENDICES: TABLE A: INVENTORY OF SERVICEPROVIDERS BY SUBAREA 24 TABLE B: PER CAPITA OPERATING EXPENDITURES BY SUBAREA 25 26 TABLE C: STUDY SUBAREA INFORMATION _ M - I NTRODUCT I ON This report evaluates fiscal impacts on the City of Beaverton of extending City services to five sub-areas surrounding the present city limits. The report is intended to respond to several important policy questions facing the City: is it feasible. for 'example, for Beaverton to serve a-wider area? Which nearby neighborhoods require the most/fewest services, and which produce the most/least revenue? The study contains the following components: 9 Study area description Description of current service providers in the study area Operating costs and capital/debt -service costs in the study area compared to Beaverton: Operating revenues of the study sub-areas and Beaverton Low and ,high estimates of operating costs of providing Beaverton service levels in each study sub-area Comparison of operating costs and operating revenues associated with each study sub-areas It should be noted that the analysis is anticipated to serve as a policymaking tool. The study examines large areas, uses general cost-of-service estimates, and does not provide the parcel-by-parcel analysis that is somtimes performed to evaluate individual annexation proposals. It should also be noted that the out- come of sub-area analysis could be modified somewhat by shifting sub-area boun- daries. For example, the Tektronix campus might be moved from sub-area 2 to sub-area 4; making sub-area 2 relatively more attractive. Such a move would not change the overall conclusions of the analysis, however. SU MAR Y Results of the analysis indicate that it would be financially feasible for the City of Beaverton to extend services to surrounding areas through annexation. Beaverton could provide a substantially higher level of services to these areas without creating adverse impacts for current city residents. Key findings. If Beaverton chose to annex and serve a larger area, the City could do so without having toassess higher taxes or dilute services to .citizens _within the current city boundaries. When comparing the cost of providing services with revenues to be gained in unincorporated areas around Beaverton, four of - five sub-areas studied could produce a modest surplus. ALM he highest priority for Beaverton services ar"jwviewea ouldxonbe�the Raleigh'trictly em the perspective of the City's pocketbook. 'ills/Metzger/Progress and Sunset Corridor-West. areas. The Sunset ;' , which is largely characterized by single family resi- Corridor-South area, eloped, would receive lowest priority. dential uses andisalmost fully dev For all key urban services Beaverton offers a comparable service level (in the case of fire protection) or a substantially higher level (Police, ,t library. transportation building/planning, zoning) than is available - currently in nearby unincorporated neighborhoods. _ Operating expenditures per capita are 5350 in Bea�entoexpend�tures225 nper ecapita run study a20 B higherthan combined capital and opera g outside the City. This implies that if Beaverton decided to annex and serve a wider area, the City could offer substantially higher service levels to �. the new territories without raising taxes above current Beaverton rates. ta" There remains a substantial disparity between the levels of long-term ..••.capital investment beingmade in Beaverton and in the surrounding areas. � MAY" DIST•j `', Per capita spending for sewers; water and transportation systems and other R.u* vew major_capital_items has grown significantly in the unincorporated area, butis still only about 69% of Beaverton's capital investment level (compared t T to 39% of Beaverton's level in 1981-82). more heavily than does the =�2 The unincorporated areas around Beaverton rely Y City on property taxes to support urban services (54� vs. 50.50. Due to ayers would have to pay taxes this difference, unincorporated area taxp '• Beaverton iftheychose o match the City's service � % higher than in Be t a - Uels through their present service arrangements. • ' ATE �tyc(�. The figures also suggest Beaverton would have to pian carefully haw City �,:T.• services would be extended. The City would be well advised to set a sche- C y, dole, seek efficiencies, and make interim arrangements with other service providers to avoid duplication. (When high service cost estimates are ��• 3 .- applied in the study area, four of five sub-areas produce a small deficit). DY AREA DESCRIPTIONS ::' ,�, :�'•' an initial starting point to determine the overall study area, we chose the " ., ndaries of Washington County Rural Fire District fl . We further refined the dy arey ;-�- a b eliminating the fire distrit areas inside Multnomah County and , se areas that extended beyond the Urban Growth Boundary. This yielded an ,•a,T -r _.•_ a; outside Beaverton containing over 99,000 people and a 1884-85 assessed ue of 53.5 billion. next divided the area into five sub-areas, with the intent of selecting con- - nous areas relataively homogeneous in regard to land use and stage of urban . t .91opment. Exhibit l shows a map of the five-sub areas and Table 1 depicts ti ir; estimated population and assessed value. sub-areas are described as follows: 2 TN-FL, e- is TABLE L POPULATION AND ASSESSED VALUE OF BEAVERTON SERVICE AREAS 1984-85 1980 Estimated Assessed Assessed Value pau_ i on value Per Ca i to 5 1,145,900 S 37,466 30,585 --------------- Beaverton ----------------------------- --- ------- ---------- - -" 31,638 x1'.023,608 32,354 A-1: Aloha aReedville A-2: Sunset Corri dor- 572,953 48,531 West 11 ,806 A-3: Sunset Corridor- 553,709 35,820 East 15,458 A-4: Sunset Corridor- 23,632 655,358 27,732 South A-5: Raleigh Hills- 651,060 39,287 Metzger-Progress 16,572 TOTALS OUTSIDE BEAVERTON 99,106 5 3,456,688 S_ 34,879. 4 Area A-1: Aloha-Reedville--Extends west from Beaverton city limits to 269-219th and south from Baseline Road to the UGB at Gassner-Weir Road. Land use is predominantly moderate to log: density residential with scattered commercial-industrial along T-V Highway._ The area includes the Intel industrial/office complex, Area A-2: Sunset Corridor-West--Extends Northwest from Beaverton city limits at St. Mary's property and Beaverton Mall to 216th Ave. and north past Pock' Creek to the UGB at Springville Road. Land use in the area includes the Textronix complex, the Sunset Corridor industrial complex Oregon Graduate Center, Tanasbourne Mall , and the Rock Creek residential development. The area presently includes large amounts of vacant land zoned commercial-industrial and residential. Area A-3: - Sunset Corridor-East--Extends north from the Sunset Highway to the Multnomah County-Vine and east from Oak Hills to Sylvan. The area contains the Oak Hiils residential development, scattered commercial development in the Cedar Mill area. St. Vincent's Hospital, and the Peterkort property zoned for commercial-residential development. Area A-4: West Slope-Cedar Hills--Extends north from Beaverton city limits to unset Highway, east to'Multnomah County line and south to Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway. land use is predominantly fully developed moderate density residen- tial with scattered commercial along Canyon Road. Area A-5: Ralei h Hills-Metzger-Pro ress--Extends east from Beaverton city limits to Mu tnomah County line-and south from Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway to Tigard city limits. !and use is mixed: industrial , commercial and residential. Area includes the Washington Square shopping center. DESCRIPTION OF CURRENT SERVICE PROVIDERS The following describes briefly the agencies currently providing services within the study area: Fire: Fire service is currently provided by Washington County Rural Fire Protection District !1. The department has 162 employees, manning eight fire stations and services the entire area surrounding Beaverton. The district's service area includes a population of roughly 104,000, with 1984-85 assessed value of S3.6 billion. The 1984-86 tax levy was S9.9 million, yielding a rate of 52.71 per S1000. Police: The Washington County Sheriff provides patrol , investigation and emergency dispatch services to the ,study area. The 1984-85 budget amounted to roughly S5.2 million and provided a service level of slightly under one person per 1000 people served. i 5 r, Parks and Recreation: The study area, along with the Lity of Beaverton, is served by the Tualatin dills Park and Recreation District, which serves a population of approximately 150,000. In 1984-85, assessed value amounted to approximately 54.2 billion: The property tax levy was S4.0 million, which yielded a rate of $1.21 per 51000. Since the Parks and Recreation District serves both Beaverton and the study area, it would be unaffected by changes in urban boundaries and service delivery. Consequently, it was not further analyzed inthe study. Building/Zoning/Planning: These services are provided by Washington County, using combination of user fees and general property tax revenue to provide the services. Streets/Transportation/Street.Lights: The Washington County Road Fund and Street Lighting District provide these services. The Road Fund resources are provided by a It County gas tax and State Transportation Fund revenue sharing. In the past, two-year serial levies have been used to increase capital outlay and maintenance services. Street lighting is provided sporadically"in the study area by a County service district,_ though a special assessment to benefiting properties. Lib__Library: Library service is provided by the Washington County Cooperative library Service Funding comes from a S2.1 million serial levy, part of which is transferred to city libraries participating in the system. Specific recipients of funding in the study area are the Cedar Mill and West Slope library cooperatives. General Administration: Includes Washington County Commissioners, administra- tor, management and budget, finance, attorney, and facilities management and other functions not elsewhere classified. Funding for these activities comes '- primarily from countywide property tax levy. Sewers Provided by the Unifed Sewerage Agency; includes sewage collection and waste treatment. In 1984-85, the USA served directly or indirectly all of urban Washington County with a service population of 214,000 and S7.1 billion in assessed value. Funding for the service comes from fees and service charges and a property tax levy of S3.5 million (S0.49 per S1000). Water: Provided predominately by Wolf Creek Water District, except in sub A area 5, where the West Slope and Metzger Water Districts provide the ser- vice. Both Wolf Creek and Metzger Water Districts have contractual debt f obligations to the City of Portland for the GO" supply main. LIDS/Urban Renewal: Provided by Washington County as part of their engi- neering ngi neering and Community Block Grant program. In addition, USA and the water districts have established their own LID programs. - G 1: , j OPERATING COSTS AND CAPITAL/OEBT SERVICE COSTS COMPARED TO BEAVERTON Operating Costs Tables 2 and 2A present estimates of operating costs per capita and staff per 1000 population for the major general revenue supported service functions. These data are presented for Beaverton and the study area for the years 1981-82 (actual) and 1984-85 "(budget). FromTable2 we conclude the following: Fire: Service levels between Beaverton and study area are now roughly equal. Small differences in service costs and staffing in 1982 may owe more to data error than actual differences. Police: Service level inside Beaverton is twice that of the study area. Conclusion holds for both 182 and '85, for staffing as well as per capita costs. Bldg./Zoning/Planning: Beaverton level of service is 50 to 70 percent higher than the study area measured in terms of cost per capita or staffing. C Library: Beaverton level of service exceeds study area by at least a fac- for of 2 and much higher if measured in terms of staffing. (Staffing levels in the study area may be understated somewhat due to contracts with private library cooperatives in some sub-areas). Streets/Transportation/Street Lighting: Service levels have changed bet- ween 182 and 185, so that Beaverton presently has the higher level of ser- vice whether measured in terms of cost or staffing. This shift results from the expiration of the County Road Fund serial levy and subsequent reductions in funding level. General Administration: Beaverton service levels are four ,times greater than the study, area levels measured in terms of per capita cost or staffing levels. Capital Costs T Table 3 shows a schedule of capital costs for Beaverton and the study area, and .indicates the following: �• .�+-�...ud.,�sfi. M k.�.,..�.,_wvsv�.a.. ..z',-z n r'` a.C_.t.r..r.fi mac-_. .-z.• �.;s i�..r r.»;v h�-c ..o- 1 . .n n ci G I n r- N co a.r.•r< ,oy, rn N t2 ¢ "^ a CLv a o C:> r� as o 0 0 0 A Q - +�O - N.--� �. �. cx O O A d O O. ✓OCj _ t O l� L to N L[1 O .•-1 N ,.lL. 0]CO In •�._,. ��_. ..GAO N O--� p to Ln q O V p tO G� O O ' � J Z O co C3 ►- Q qcm O W N n. UJ • C G4.q CL•.. CAS en M O CT -0 C C H ^ N -.4. .--/ d CU N C` cc n0" n Co rn cn w L� Cl- A o a N O N - cn v g 0 -cr Ln a tn ^. s_ r a _ - 1� 01 .-• O r th aN Co CO Q L Q i SM TABLE ?A: SUMMARY OF CURRENT OPERATING COST 1984-85 1981-82 Operating Cost Staff Operating Cost Staff Per Capita Pew Q0� pe`Ca Lta Per 1000 Beaverton 309.78 6.86 r S 348.66 7.14 Study Areas 225.48 4.12 Outside Beaverton 211.54 3.9s e 9 g e> -- Film TABLE 3 SUMMARY OFMAJORCAPITAL COSTS AND DEBT SERVICE PER CAPITA BEAVERTON SERVICE AREAS LIOs/Urban Transportation Sewers Water Renewal Beaverton 1981-82 S 18.24 510.15 $150.82 5296.22 1984-85 32.24 6.84� ' 54,22 285.96 :`G Study Area Outside Beaverton 1981-82 8.06 40.43 113.54 22.41 1984-85, 8.18 66.04 112.29 77.43 r 10 .^yss P n w++ Transportation: Beaverton service ievj�l,, are ruch higher and have increased from 1981-82 while the study area has remained constant. Sewers: Beaverton costs are lower but not comparable since study area costs include trunk lines and treatment facility expenditures. Beaverton reimbursement to LISA for these expenditures is included in materials and services (Operating Cost) . Water: Beaverton costs have decreased markedly while study area costs have remained constant. The decrease for Beaverton reflects the comple- tion of the Forest Grove-Hillsboro-Beaverton supply system, whereas study area water districts, particularly Wolf Creek, continue capital expansion programs.' LIDs/Urban Renewal: Beaverton service levels are three to four times larger than the study area. This pattern persists in both 182 and `85. Beavertonclearly is making a very :large infrastructure investment asso- ciated with" development. Table 4 shows the same capital services as above with operating costs included. In some respects, the combined costs provide a clearer picture of service level in capital intensive services. The results in Table 4 are similar to Table 3 with the following additions: Transportation: Beaverton service levels have clearly increased since 81-82, while those in the study area have decreased. Beaverton service levels were 30» lower than the study area in 81-82. In 84-85, the service levels are 42% higher. Sewers: Sewer costs are higher in the study area, though both Beaverton and the study area are part of the same system and receive the same level of service. Cost differences arise primarily from the capital costs asso- ciated with extending sewer service in the study area. Sewer costs occuring in the study area are not passed through to Beaverton users. Water: Water costs are much higher in the study area than in Beaverton. This disparity has increased markedly since 1981-82, as Beaverton has reduced its capital requirements, while the study area water districts have continued capital expansion. LIDs/Urban Renewal: Beaverton expenditures are clearly much higher in these services which include capital expenditures for roads, sewers, storm sewers and water that benefit particular areas. It should be noted that LID expenditures in the study area are understated since sewer and water LIDS are budgeted within the responsible service district. Totals: Beaverton total expenditures for capital intensive services exceed that of the study area in both 1952-82 and 1984-85. However, Beaverton' s expenditures have decreased somewhat while those of the study area have increased. -r a x - TABLE 4 SUMMARY OF COMBINED OPERATING, CAPITAL AND DEBT SERVICE EXPENDITURES = FOR CAPITAL INTENSIVE SERVICES xf; _ LIDs/Urban x Transportation Sewers dater Renewal Total Beaverton 1981-82 S 59.93 567.96 5179.70 5304,00 5611.59 1984-85 87.95 77:99 " 94.33 ' 289.69 549.96 �a x Study Area :a Outside Beaverton 1981-82 85.85 84.20 212.11 22.66 404.82 . 1984-85 61.91 115.91 198.51 81.20 457.53 s 12 3 a F TT .J OPERATING REVENUES OF BEAVERTON AND THE STUDY AREA General operating revenues ,are those defined as available to support the fire, police, building/zoning/planning, transportation, library and general admini stration functions. Parks and Recreation, normally included. is omitted, since `the`Tualatin!Hills Parks & Recreation District isassumed ,to Continue this service. a Table 5 lists the major revenue sources for Beaverton and the study sub-areas: Except for property taxes, all rates are per capita. Also, while federal revenue sharing is shown for Beaverton in 1984-85, it is omitted for the study areas under the ,assumption it will be eliminated in FY 1986. s Table 5 yields the following conclusions: On a per capita basis, the commercial/industrial sub-areas, Sunset Corridor-West and Raleigh Hills-Metzger-Progress, produce the most operating revenue. ' ° On a per capita basis, the developed, predominantly residential areas, Aloha-Reedville and Sunset Corridor-South, produce the least operating revenue per capita. - y GENERAL OPERATING COSTS OF PROVIDING SERVICE TO EACH OF THE SUB-AREAS Table 6 includes an estimate of the per capita costs of providing Beaverton service levels to each of the sub-areas. We have prepared low and high esti- mates of the operating costs. The rationale for doing this was to provide a 1 realistic range that would encompass the costs actually incurred should Beaverton provide the service. The low estimate assumes a rigorous cost mini- mization approach that would eliminate all redundant coverage areas and administrative/support staff. The high estimate assumes a more politically accommodative approach in which the concerns of existing institutions and .. neighborhoods are of paramount concern. The major results of Table 6 are as follows: The anticipated costs of extending City of Beaverton services to the study sub-areas, with one exception, are lower than current Beaverton average operating costs. - This conclusion holds with both the low and high operating cost estimates. M Att 4 sP> x 13 a t p� - k TABLE 5: OPERATING REVENUES BY SUBAREA City of Beaverton A-1: Aloha-Reedville S/1000 Pop. z City' A-1 ` Revenue Source Rate Amount Rate Amount Property Taxes S 5.40 S 6,193,329 S 5.40 S 5,527,500 Business License Tax 5.86 195,945 1.50 47,500 Franchise (w/Sewer & Water) 31.16 1,042,263 `25.00 791,000 - _ Hotel/Motel Cty 2.99 100,00 0.00 0 State Cig/Liquor 10.70 357,87, 10.70 338,500 Bldg. Fees-Licenses 10.58 353,81 11.00 348,000 Fines & Forfits 8.58 287,095 8.58 271,500 =; Service Charges/ Reimbursements/Mist. 13.46 450,100 13.46 426,000 Interest Earnings 3.59 120,000 0.00 0 Interfund Indirect _ Overhead & Reimbursements 40.33 1,349,031. 10.00 316,500 Intergovernmental Indirect State Gas Tax 14.68 491,090 14.68 464,500 County Gas Tax & Levy County Library 4.78 160,000 4.78 151,000 State Rev. Sharing 5.15 172,432 5.15 163,000 Federal Rev. Sharing 27.03 904,190 0.00 0 State 911 2.51 84,000 2.51 79,500 Total Operating Revenues 512,261,162 58,924,500 Op. Rev. per Capita S 366.55 S 282.08 14 f TABLE 5: (cont'd) OPERATING REVENUES BY SUBAREA A-2: Sunset Corridor-fest A-3: Sunset Corridor-East S/1000 Pop. A-2 A-3 Revenue Source Rate Amount Rate Amount Property Taxes S 5.40 5 3,094,000 S 5.40 5 2,999,000 Business License Tax 4.00 47,000 3.00 46,500 Franchise (w/Sewer & Water) 40.00 472,000 25,00 386,500 0,50 6,000 0.50 7,500 Hotel/Motel Cty State Cig/Liquor 10.70 126,500 10.70 ; 165,500 Bldg. Fees-Licenses15.00 177,0Q0` 11.00 170,000 Fines & Forfits 8.58 101,5(j0 8.58 132,500 Service Charges/ Reimbursements/Mise. 13.46 159,100 13.46 208,000 Interest Carvings 3.59 120,000 0.00 0 Interfund Indirect Overhead& Reimbursements 10.00 118 000 10.00 154,500 , - Intergovernmental Indirect State Gas Tax 14.68 173,500 14.68 227,000 County Gas Tax & Levy County Library 4.78 56,500 4.78 74,000 State Rev. Sharing 5.15 61,000 5.15 79,500 Federal Rev. Sharing 0 OQ 0 0.00 Q State 911 2.51 29,500 2.51 38,800 Total Operating Revenues S 4,621,500 S 4,680,300 Op. Rev. per Capita S 391.45 S 302.78 R 15 �T t ;• y' ., `:^ ., ,�.��.w+�r..•,•,,..,„<rn—.niYm....e..«+.n....�wv.....wraa��$,LT, ,�awMM.9ei?k'i.Kk Se. 'TABLE 5: (cont'd) _ OPERATING REVENUES BY SUBAREA A-4: Sunset Corridor-South A-5: Raleigh Hills-Progress-Metzger S/1000 Pop. A-4 A-5 Revenue Source Tate Amount Rate Amount Property Taxes S 5.40 S 3,539,000 S 5.40 S 3,516,000 Businesslicense Tax 2.00 47,000 7.50 124,500 Franchise (w/Sewer & Water) 20.00 472,500 30:00 497,000 Hotel/Motel Cty 1.00 23,500 2.00 33,000 State Cig/Liquor 10.70 253OOA'; 10.70 177,500 Bldg: Fees-Licenses 3.00 71,000 10.00 165,500_ Eines & Forfits 8.58 203,000 8.58 142,000 Service Charges/ Reimbursements/Misc. 13.46 318,000 13.46 223,000 Interest Earnings 0.00 0 0.00 0 Interfund Indirect Overhead& Reimbursements 10.00 237,000 10.00 165,500 Intergovernmental Indirect State Gas Tax 14.68 347,000 14.68 243,500 County Gas Tax & Levy County Library 4.78 113,000 4.78 79,000 State Rev. Sharing 5.15 121,500 5.15 85,500 _Federal Rev. Sharing 0.00 0 0.00 0 State 911 2.51 59,500 2.51 41,500 Total Operating Revenues S 5,805,162 S 5,493,500 Op. Rev. per Capita S 245.64 S 331.49 x 16 r { T G. O^ ail rte_. cli - aJ rn In N O en N aD co _ r. CD C'j q cr% co ..n.r. a .. ill p - •� ..� �.� Ln rn o f O Q rod in co , r-+ N > en cl' o a o a ►—'a O cr A :. :.4.jON to co cn ten. •d„Ce �O tU to Q f`. in •-4 O Ln N : A Com.1 10 $A co 01 M m•N„� . R N 4 Co N .10 1.a Vi M N M N4 Nen Nc"9 Nl"1 caro F--.a-(D U CL v v co%.0 W to w `a opo^ °`o°^ CO co p p ^ Cni w C Ecop o` -cr c W n• ari +cr w0. cc,.. W CL J .J YC GU W ,w Aj ¢ R _ .. �� 1n' t� - t lam")Ln Ln. - ...! a to 4A CC 4n!I'1 W .. - W C.0 `. v+ Ln N a CI coNCl. ,Acn a d co ¢r dop �� p NO —4 O «- pin CO Ul a a% Nin co co ^per ter+ ♦o CO Q• n ill n. n to t� r` N Ca (71X Cn I Cn .� v r L r✓ o n CD .o C> CD oCL• ' n/ N Ln : .aJ c > u M to 41 LA- 4/1 L4n E o A v a to Aj � .. . A Ajto CL r u O 421 O A L Q) A u `, n O O y .N -4oc z cn N 12.2 O V►. .: C A A •• A i u C u y0 co Cr C*j 46-O Q u W to to 4A U- O •C .+a. L d C �> ++ A O A 10 CT u d Ln E4A M Ln u m0 u z u CL CL41 C A O E I-o w N b , a *- t ai o an v O Ci ,0 C CV A Cn N N O yO ,/ C C •. O ' w +A+ U b O AA Vt A > " n •.- O u of u A v+ E rn O o ti.. ow 4A A d cc Ull C 1 O N O O A U a O ..+ 421 • r :O .� tr.. a ..-. ..� N. u Q u �" aj U .r E U � '^ Q 00 a m 00 x n A A N CA v v IV 4A • _ O.. O A d O E ,^ m N u oC Y tA 4A wN '.� AA kA cm ut kA O 7 :7 N` Q U _N 7 N N N t1: N N N 04n1 C Q Q Q :Q -cc ¢ Q ¢ rr� f-M � s � a 2 �� _.: .csy'•"l��„•.]f4� ��ZyP9�JT""'c�,•�*Lk.•1." .'."fryar'e5 . ., -Own� The low operating cost estimates run from 69% to 83% of current' Beaverton operating costs and the high estimates from 87% to 118% of current Beavertonoperating costs. ° The Aloha-Reedville area could be provided service for the lowest cost, `= The Sunset Corridor-West area could potentially be the highest per capita service costarea- if we assume that all fire stations will remain open and that full city services would be provided to this area having fairly low population density., However, the low cost estimate remains well below the current Beaverton per capita average_ and consistent with the low estimates for the other study sub-areas. , .r COMPARISON OF OPERATING COSTS AND REVENUES y ; Table 7 summarizes the operating costs and re"venues associated with the City of Beaverton providing service to each of the study areas. For each study sub-area, the Table includes an estimate of;total operating revenues, ,low operating costs and high operating costs. The Table also includes an estimate , - of total operating revenue surplus (or loss) for each sub-area. These data are presented on a per capita basis as well. 2 R Table 7 yields the following results: ° Sub-area A-5 (Raleigh Hills-Metzger-Progress) produces the largest per capita revenue surplus for the high operating cost estimate, while sub-area A-2 (Sun--t Corridor-West) produces the highest per capita surplus for the low operating cost estimate. Sub-area A-4 (Sunset Corridor-South) produces net operating losses for both the low and high operating cost estimates. Viewed strictly from the aspect of increasing Beaverton`s revenue } base, Sub-area A-5 (Raleigh Hills-Metzger-Progress) should be the highest priority, closely followed by Sub-Area A-2 (Sunset Corridor-West). Somewhat lower should be .A-1 (Aloha-Reedville) and A-3 (Sunset Corridor-East). Sub-area A-4 (Sunset Corridor-South) would have the lowest priority. 19 f <4 �r z: O N , co p rn N u'f ro UCD / L rcr1 ... acnr( 1 to N t U. U ice. / N. f` th '� N C __4 1 Q O N to f7.. 4t q p A 1 w d:(,7 J 1 - e 4nS , O v C •r O to rn 0 N 1 t_ Q N v 1-4 tD • 1 tp N t�'f Ln _.-t to Ln in 0 .Go 1 to st'. ,N to O0. to CNI_J -W 1 O � 0% Cl) co en CJ a 1 « w - U-S to O -Kr fn co � 4 tn 1 .tom 'N m �.. C W01 1 W Qr u - C= - 1 -- to co -Go NCC) Nix C 1 « « w « w P ^ C•1 Q ._. tx 1 .7 tt f C C M to ...W 14 fA Z t to b C fn t'1 LLJ j- a./ 1 LLJ Ce LAJ p InCA to co C%i t - Q C - X tom. / to t�l Ln 4ui cc tt tCl W ..C.v N 1 tD LIT m b G Wsj to 1 to Cl N 'tt v co tL L!3 4 A N b e b v en CO b Ir. L p m 060`A r 1 _ ^ cn r to v N ^� cd / 7 cn N 1 O C C O C C r Ln cry C to CO N to - A C •--t 1 O to C w N 1 tr 01 q to to rn L w-/ 1 cm vi H 1 4A 4j W "'Q Ln -.In W N to ,..CC CL :. C to > - - - _ .:q 1 .w N f") �► to Table 8 presents an example of property tax rate changes that would occur in. the study area. This table indicates current_residents would pay roughly S2.00 more per 31000 of assessed valuation. The increased taxes might be -offset somewhat by possible reductions in water rates, along with greatly increased operating service levels for, police, transportation and library services. More cogent from the standpoint of study area tax comparison is Table 9, which indicates ,that 64.0% of the current study area operating revenues come,from h property taxes versus 5 0.5% for;Beaverton. In order for the study area, its present tax structure, to fund a-Beaverton service level, per capita pro- perty taxes within the studarea would have to increase from S1.44 to S235 per capita. this would be 27% higher than Beaverton rates. 01 t _ 21 YL 1 TABLE 8: PROPERTY TAX SHIFT , FORE/AFTER BEAVERTON AR�1�sedXATLoalueSERVICES BF- Per S1000 Asse Rate P Before Study 0.00 2.71 � Fire:District 0.00 0.71 - 0.73* Water District 1.21 1.21 ParkDistrict*' 0.A9 0.4`3 USA 5.52 0.00 City 7.22 ,.m 5.12 - 5.14 TOTAL % change in tax rate: 40.5% Wolf Creek Water District (0.73) 0.71 . *Metzger Water District ( Metzg _ **Tualatin Hills Parks& Recreation District 22 t xi2 t. i rte, TABLE 9: OPERATING REVENUES PER CAPITA '. 1984-85 Operating Revenues X Property Property Tax Per Capita Tax Support Per Capita s Beaverton S 366.55 50.5% S 185.15 n Study Area Outside Beaverton 225.48 64.0X 144.23 ;i 23 �z Ci C! L t L N N O C N Ncu 10 M H N :1C :lc :3c3 :X is se� Ln o ca rnLn Ln 0 cr o c N r L CTS _ Cil CN N N N p jr jc 3C 3 3 3 co C.. w co a rcc a tr m A A a _ ° w cc p LI M K 1t '!t M N &n N -" -•. } A _. O coo bi : Co N a Cl- uj w G 4 U w c Cp in U v v c v U c3 U U t A 4A WN 9 m to .o to to fo .v 'o z ao. 3 3 3 3 w +z wn .,• •c as �. tr act aG a CL _ o o O O o v u V V V in V U U U U L L 61 NN N N N N N N 6i to 4.. fa to �V to=c 1 =y 3 y. N L. N_. L L ✓ d+ cu N ..,.to _ L.. N N �:. -Q1 , kn CA •L •L •L > '•L L .. •L. N N U U U L-.� C) U U U - _ A pC Co ✓ :...i, ...+ Q�+v d d Q/ C) 4W J- CI- Cl: s �',��=$'��-�� -�s�=sr r} �'" � - __ _ ��'�:�..._ �� a �- r,•_ �.s a N b CJS CT (Nj N v1 q lo Ln Ln A G r- an L A _j CL- O W L. N. a J\ n aai a a JCL' a sCC L i a --:r Ln o Cn N to W =13 `.G _ O G, Ln Ln G. O 0 -� .-� Cn to CD O.0 a.C), w L O.0 cn•- to ul� d N u'f Q m cn ^ N x Wa O O O O co en Ln en O O O O O ca :..W ca 4,41 V W CT n of r to Op •� N -Ir ^. F- J a cry !") W v v ..d .nap .q t- O N L ci oo O K¢ a. a t Ca. O O N Lf J W a p CD o en co o p a co w ON d•..a a v O a CI- A X O- eS. .�-� cN•Y - UNC O t70 Ln rn n N CC O O a _ d :.. . E 00 •-+ O X •-+ n it 0 p •�+ '-� W .-4 N `.. L Ln M - M CCD : co ^ N a r` co CL p N L- a t a ra Vim" ,^ J p Ln t/'f kD W O L L Qj a >, a >, a >' > z+ > >: A � ,F E TABLE C: STUDY SUB-AREA INFORMATION A-1• Aloha-Reedville A-4: Sunset Corridor-South Census Tract Po up lation Census Tract Population 316.02 11,148314.01 (95X) 9,798 317.01 9,603 302 5,984 317.02 4,266 303 4,819 318 (UGB) 8,121 313 (40%) (60% pop) 3,031 s less Beaverton (1,500) . ' Totas 23,632 Total 31,638_ A-5• - Raleigh Hills-Metzger-Progress A-2: Sunset Corridor-West' 597 304.0I (15X) 314.02 (less Beaverton) 0 304.02 3,352 316.01 (90%) 3,910 305 (95%) 6,777 315.02 (90%) 7,193 306 (90%) 3,697 315.01 (25X) (50% pop) 703 309 (60%) 2,149 Total 11,806 Total 16,572 R-3: Sunset Corridor-East ---- GRAND TOTAL 99,106 - 315.03 9,583 301 5,875 Total 15,458 26 1 SOURCES CONSULTED 1. Ex enditi�res for Urban Services in Washington County: A Benchmark Comparison; PSU Center for Urban_Stud�es, December 1983. 2. Ex enditures for Urban Services in Washington County: A Benchma rk Com arison Su lemental Re ort, _PSU Center for Urban Studies, August 1984. 3. 1981 $2 Revenues and Expenditures in Washington County: An Examination of Geographic Incidence; PSU Center for Urban studies, July 1984. 2. Budget and Audit Statements for: Washington County City of Beaverton 0 Wolf Creek Water District - - O Unifed Sewerage Agency ® _Washington County;RFPD #1 g Tualatin Hills Parks & Recreation District Metzger dater District West Slope dater District k 27 5 x ,xz , �i' MEMORA&DUki CITY OF TICZARD, OREGON TO: Mayor and City Council April 25, 1985 FROM: Loreen Wilson, Deputy Recorder SUBJECT: Agenda Item 07 Policy Review This item will be discussion only. The City , Administrator will bring additional materials for consideration Monday evening. 1w/2694A �F COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES FEBRUARY 20, 1985 COUNCIL + .SCOTT + TOTAL 1. Complete Performance Audit of Sewer and Storm Drainage Utilities, and Revise Rates 36 12 48 2. Review and Approve Service Level Priorities 38 7 45 3. Review and Adopt Merit Pay System 33 10 43 4. Initiate Regular informal workshops with Council, Departments, and Boards and Committees (Brunch, Tours, Etc.) 36 3 39 5. Construct Dartmouth Street LID 27 11 38 6. Adopt and Implement Computer Master Plan 35 0 35 7. Adopt Street CIP 25 9 34 8. Establish Council-Community Relations Program 27 4 31 9. Complete Traffic Plan Study of Greenburg Road 19 8 27 10. Review and Adopt Personnel Rules 17 6 23 11. Initiate Pilot Community Recreation Program 12 2 14 12. Adopt Park Plan and CIP 7 2 9 13. Assume rRPcnnncihi 1 itv f...- i 7r;+a ca.. .r+ - 44 A C*2 4-D , o 10 mcod ®co a m ca d o E E o as �' 4z � � � x � C. a U - vy CD } to a ZU �Y m - o a, a� m u, > m m 0 3 .� L m a s at a) m L m E o N r 3 � 0o � E c Via ` o� N t E -ai c > aci o (D E c ` _c ami aEi `° N U CL E c\ c a) aCl a) _ -o CAc 'm m 0 en m Ot > N N c o t E m m c� in m O . >..0.0 N cx .o m �_N c aai 3 Q m > c r m E o m E `m c� q .o D c aci m o c D m c = E m m m -a a aai m 5 m._ a`) E `m m, o ry m E - - o c o s F as _ s N o N ti a o om O m m _ m n m c > m c c .tn _a CD O . _ 7 C m 0 U'.N U. �. c4 O rn G tun >'• N L..� m a m d > m to 3 N N E co - E o v a N �.^ m a� v m a�• c o a E N c v, ca o Cl e n o L m� L a' m a- coi .E' c M �' E o > o m a) io T o Qawv 75 E m m cm U) o - � � - E �- - • 0 E .pU) CA m m'm a m m d N o o _ m 3 M 3 'QO •� U 3 'm m w m cm i s o o,m E o C m > >CT 0m n x E rcl ov wo Q o � c c c E m s e > o m a) E A ° m Ov u0 W i m-a' Lc -v . L _ _ °� f+ • co A V c = y c p "' -- °? > a�} v n a) c 7 3 y O u' 1 �1 �'{ rI 1 V t/1-. O O f0 N Y C ©. N f'J CD N C m �^P1T v�.d P� �_ a 4i - �'n Q E a: N T a, a`s L c e m o a' •c _ mCL 7; > EU o c c a m y C: 2'>^ > C9 O a d 3 c 3 �> o� U m v m aai o m O o� m_ o c Y co 3 E 'm a ~ m :' Tt v > a a'rn•o <L c E O O •O uO ami .c C Q)i 0Ci o 'o - m t`v c t0 A > m o 2 E _ > �- v v m v, Cl _ C7 -j o (D x v � 2•kx 2r ';Y. - ".; .•'1 .,a:.rr�^� #3#jti'�r�'� ;az t t 'r• .x "'"'` L co f r ' c ' a_ z ry ;: -. - - w 9 Ae f�'5 L417 Y s•n�o � ter .i-F� �.r{^c. '$ se ., � ti �-tk� xg t''��'af d.,�l.�c..�'�a•'� •��.7'��x+ati,.`i rs""'"ei'Y„�.R3?��{!'� f,°y'�� y�v xk�'�"`t'`�+� €`°�v-t ��A � �� s.��..� ��,�,�a.zrt''.e•;5� ''h .�,w, i ,r�'tg��t .., �`�4�'�s eR �k � t � _ r'�ryaj � r�'''ss 't.��.to ,re "*2��•�"1 �- � �}�-� #�,�y�',"s.tib +� R� ,� Y `y,'xs `'� - 't •, � �� 't' iso its�w < f '4 i •,t y '�T.4y+t,A ass L*tx -,�„'+'yaa +'.� t •Zx a 4 r5 t w a) _ca m O p "a1 L N O0 (v m P A m L 6 0 1] .V..3 L Ll U.. a) .n �• _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ p.. p._ n..'O C N _ = U U C W N y N .L.. O C a3 3 > O = -• Q m O CE L yAND. 'O p O O.- c. V y '> a) Q �:O N n m E o c r V) ,� °>' m N :o o �c L m o�o - E E c z7 r a) o w m > o - m c o ��„ .a C� 3 n j c 0 ro '`' 0 o � c � � n`°i 'U o a c � c �° a" r N W Ch ai t p. N f° o�'i -o g o E -)-� co L � •n coo —'o �U = m � .- ci u � co � o U) U v 3 y0 x C N 'Q C) CD C a) _ > C O ` d O N O °' g c p c� � E a o 0 o can) �- o m o o E r a t n N t c a `m' L -E U 3 E a `�' $ ..0 m M 0 U, N � o � >. d E m s a m m y O a) i. -p. C Cp C M. a a).DO a) c. d p co C D 5. >. ,c �.. _ CA ` m -N p 7 C CA l6 L �•' _ U C D U d .r G C O C y O m O a) CT 4� O N y O p m D CA Ep p m. m 7 s. y y �. w = C C U p 0 to_ O c O. N N �` c c"o c c v L N - .2 �, 3 ti n v U o N 'c U a� o �' a o a N C '- Com y .p a) C O .0 m. = N C m a) E m m N d o u a) as E a, c o U L a) c a) iv v 3 u - co U aci ro v v' m y .Y m ami a m ami w CA E m m n� o c 0 m a) y, C c c v c� a� S 'N m T Op ") = N c :c m N t t L w u e° io = 0 3 p o p m c p L = m o c E o E L .� � D N 0 3 y y ° E p .a l a o E = ro w a c m �n a� a y^ ,� a m °) L (D �, v) a > > - �, 3 °' N t N 3 u) E to > U a �' = a -0 n E g in m o m _ p ay) a a E m o g is o f u n) c �' y m N pO — ,Gy-a o m m a) 14 co 0) �L. � .d 4a.. � Qa _W L 7 .R.' -�.V d O CA U .D N E y "' D.a)_.0 C.� C U C y L]. E N.f1_ U O CA 'n C .U L n CO _ Q U O C N y '0 y n m:O N � O N d m y >� @ 3 E •O U > Q) > r c W A = y d _y ro. iti d E Q. m a D C F O a) c N. d _. -G �. N d U C O p)• to 'c m V > > C7 c p� c'o c �' E Y w y a) tE o to a N c cca L c y u c o > N > y c v n ; c d > = n E u .w n O o o a) -[S rn m C� r E C H a 0 m n 2 'E� a. (9 N O E .c D 'U n N 2 U D N r_ >. OD ca) 4mo' m � caaa� � � o Nu3 � DDc, 3 p CA= y. N j m U 'v 't7 C y O ,N N Q• 'm E t O J a7 _n to o n d -a)) Q -0 I v c O p co p N L cC A A ca io c) x fa 4) E .0 � m a, o f c v 3 a) m = a m ,- > O L .N n N D p 3. m .N N N V > cm @ o N Hco d O 43) E O ~ S.C a) c Z5 m t� U C D d O U UJ O S .0 Q) Cn _ N 'O U Z rn_ y L �- E z Q L CL y c -0 v C N in vi N..V L v j 'C} m VI d a) t6 �p - 61 N - p O fU d f� E � > L L -Ly L g ai CA 0 CL O .0 O m i�.T C) a) 3 G E cm C W L trmi Ln 3 CD M p O a) i7/ m m 'CA N u d E N '�'. m O D E C O O a O `• m L E "2 q ai rn d n) u' > -' C A o �j ' °' c°'„ p o c' toy •o o m E w o m tya L L N N C7) y N U :N L 1a M m a) p) o .0 o N O T al 'D 'm L Cr C O �V G �..1 C C N > to c C) N p •y N. m m U N p Q) o W y .0 O m o N � n 4) m y 3 n U O C E +O N U y p C '0y D U C'. C N o " C E > O a) U j m N > CAW U O ' C y m m = m D a) •= n g tp m cn N y y CA c D a) } TS m M Cu 0. y O � a) °) � O •> Q '4U O a f C..� 0'5CL 30 a) O C U m U C n--`1 C O m C 't] C U C m p n 7 D a U CL p o j 'n m E p o y a 3 y fl m m 3 cr.-•- a u, O -' a>) w d A) t, m •Q co z > o m Ocn a) m X CAC O C`l"v > y a > O) a _y L m c y X rami a) aci c E ayi V c>o an) j LL c O X:N.L_� dy U.� O.iO ,. 'd5. �plp.L e. 0 pm L.y_C y O:t_y y. • n OL m m Co E U .O O C O a) -_? CA m m ' �[ p C N Cl - N a t_A C: a> a). T O G O E m d =.• L >.. cn mCb U m ! t0 `y-?•'O �. y n y "0 p 3 E m c N c o c o 3 o c t t U O O n y E 'M- O y E E _ c o m g o o N m c i c c o c y u o CL'D > s r 0) s "> m =, > to a) o o mca c o U a) ;m o 'c a w u, m ro E p)is'y p� o m"o a) � � �� vL co a w a m, � ai � a N ¢ f0 _ � y t0 c a E >. c cD p to E ! r3 f c c n m > v aJ ,o C. C �:..a t6_:C N a)mi _ i.. m m to a) - _ O d U Q y m Q O aim coy �... t+ FS I 0) O 0. � n L m 0 CA LL] -C = N 3 .�"arT,.-,K;;. -, R .e.--•,-..a•-.sc•-.sr..!`..'�...=+-4.w,,,.�e�.+�.nx•v-m•r,A��!r...��.omm^.�'- _ _ __ _ _ �. 0. � O a=: C_.� '.m m O -E 3 NO �. 3 .0 � U 0 � Q 7 C E. j. C'..0 �. cn u' c C o o >- o o N ro N E m N 0) T o m aT 3 E m t > o 0 � c o c v m a� � L E — m a v — ,cri. m.m. ca. Uo, �. $. o "0 c m _ y = N N co cr L Eo m � -g c a $ `c' c U o cn N -o o � —U� o — T °) E c �n _ o 0 E c� L L cc N EO —rmi C-N O _.0 O W N E. o c N =.E EO = O C75 d "CJ. ;.0.C U.O :O �.;cn N r 0 U.'- a) Uf a. Q �..d O U c 3 Nff 0 3. a) 'U E -.c L N m N L C m >. j. 3 O,.U) cc 6 p N N N .D O •V. O_ E c N I C N - 0 - c.N cCL a) _- N - C, C. E $ a m,c� a m aoi m a o E S 0 0 .o 0 0, o'er N o y o�_ o ca. 0 c a E c.� N M 0 �. �.... p.0 O a. O L N. N a U N .L.O �.°';� r E Y p ... U - N U C O a - E 0 L y = m cn a) 0 U. > y y E' 0 E .�? O L 7 _ L E.. CT m 0 :3.C 0 N 0 O 0 � N �. U. 0..-0 CL C U CA �.L rB a - _ m c a n) m N m a) m [r > d O - C J 0 0 0 � � L CO�. � .� 0 N - L q�7 N C m N N C m N T L L C I O N � d -O a) 91 11 j C N .y C 0 •� C.d N c o 0 9j � N E •C N .O @ N N m Q_O 4 c y >' n 0 > t N CCp) c r. E j "V C"C y > N d.N LN. m E 0 N "fD p Q> D K y cv o o c 0 E c) t c t m 01 q $ c c o v ,a, V �' ro m 3 a� s c •_ 01 > W T �„ O d 0 CA_C d N U '=q N N C >, U) CD C o $ M m = m E orn ro c s V g 4 c $' o �, v o '- a m E ami $ ? N v a a a' E 0 m N a o m O Cl N c is N c a) Y c ro �' `�' m o o �3, 0 cn ' E o - m t 3 3 m •O N c o N ro c 0 E N - f- __ a N 0 a 3 v' v ami � ro 9 v d m N _ a,G s u; T a) cm ro 0 E ri > c �. > c c c ro m c 0 °�' v a o a, o y ro x m N Y > c a a) - _ W c 0 o ro m N $ �, m m � a c � E cp ? o $ m aEi c ro L "' � v �, o m ro 1p N H m N L y Os O ro m p m O O N > C ro N �j N cn m 0 U ..) 0 N 0 cEa O a 0 > A`! O r - N O m N Y C 0 U }. a O d m �C E ro :CO °' 0 `'..•a.-' C) j m. > I-. N a) a) m E 0 0 'i� .0 N 0 0 m y c E m o rn v c �0 :> .5 u r a) rn cm 3 3 ro 0 Q o Y �, E a C Q m E o. E O G ro �, y O N to W 0) ro ._ p N - 0 3 4) �y a) O N O +CL :1 N L CA � � ui ro O` Q. �.d :Cro. a �..0 V).� au0i t0 b >.V. y.:3 CN ; smis t 01 C Q.p '� N L m ro ro p) N L >,y ro 2 0 cn = cn L V E N C _ m o O m r o 0 3 N .0 P N - O ro E0 =3 ~ 0 > b a m ? - ro 3 N Q p .o 9 U m 0 E L N 0 � 1] o °' � ° � 0 �, n (A N m > cr CL � N.� c a CD m C c� 0 f1 c0 ? o 0 .0 o m L m. L) Cl a) v —an' m CL e %o ' E E z CD IM—aoi C N 3 uNi N `° C 0 ro c C O cu E a'.? J N o U E N a C)).- N a 5 $3: o c m $ o c o rL- sn > 0 3 u -> > "' m d w a y S t o Q $ y T C E y _o' E °_ ? o j i a) °c .0 °' y m > O m O 0 >, 0 ; 0 U a) m 0 0 0. d O E N m > L -0 LL 0 U N c o .? y cn .S c L L a o� — m o � 3 m o c o c m C v C -- 17 t — ry - d•D = C L m — v c 3 a C m t° C 3 v O .S m o C '3 N c 0 m y D N o, L R 3 0 m ami y N � a W Cc m c a N cmi o a °' 0 T c cE`v .•p d N C. '� N m .V �,.0 O O.O c O) 0 T cn 0 > 0 ? to c o A o t o o A o c 3 E c u c - 0 0 > > c y c L 0 N j O)•c «. o O) .... 0 0 0 L .N O Y 0 0 O U m O .'T - > E - N C N T.. C 0 C Y �• O - C > 3 a .0 U O: a) >, o y c cmi E $ "° o r m 0 a) - 0 > M > c ami p io L o 4 m - ti a N $ v 0 E N = 0 E a o N o m �' O 0 cm E C. �N0 in ti en c 0 p 0 >m ci c > c m c c S v vi g L m ._ a N A C. •i L p C o T C >, OQ �. Q L N C_m a V a) p O Q� O O V CU 0 CD rj T m E 0P -0 a ,c w e a) $ 0)m 3 3 75 0 nEi u' o CL o C' `°'' y M aTi a��i O 0 U G o 0Ui c i m 'N c t 6 ; E ) $ o a c r aci c'.0 o z 0 6 o Ci L m p •N c O a= E. ro E N 0 u N 0 .... x ? •- U N U E _ - L 0 a 0 0 v 0 = O y _. O L a) 0 - U d y - O .r N N N C U ,c). y C -C iV E o 3 > ro o -. m 0 > rn L ? a) m •a-) G,t v 0 0 a c a o > Co cn ca 3 () a E O O N N O a m C L N O m Q L O C CO .0 d 0 t � � •0 N 0 CA �_U) m y w 0 m vi m 3 o o'_ 0 C 3 E am, m m $ r c " 3 °) o o o 2 m 'g ro c > 3 c M a) O m 0 m x E o > c E 0 s3' O .C N'�. j, 0 vi m.. >,..6 0) � ;�,:� 0 � E -Y 0 .� >.Y W ai 0 U: m N -y `' _O N C'�''0 GC m.:0 N 0 • .ro y N C L C O Vj E. :�. c [D d Q N`m Q-C H GJ q� O Y N L.. a M E a'0 m r 3 ,Op •N �, 0 O d:> 0 j v) U.. cn 0 U �..5 > Om (6,C 7 .0.E �_O 0 � .0 0 � L L E C N .L u0i p N m N vi N" �, •0 o'ro fC c U v v-= p o Z _ c_) L a o ►- m c d �- �' �' ai =? c c c `° m a� o m m c .>- ro c a of Z ti ¢ 9 m o>m m m $ m cLi cLi a >o m E 0 0 + """T!! w•.ewim;n _ �_ ..., r cn L cn E a) u v o E c m > c CD a) aa) o a c ei � 0 c _ O O O 2) A C O m C O m C �..L a) d O C) G m c .� m �• E E N T = o U a) o CU a a m a n Y w > E ,O >'.'u, N w :.CL a_.0 Q) C > .0.t=if - E c CL.) CL Q`�.L L N_.� ,� ^ .` > C ':., O) E -C O. N 5 V..m i-. L t o L CD O.:m O) O 'm tcp. C E N C o Lc a) �..C) L o S - a) o _ v '- a > ` U a) E a) > > a =_ c E N ► N L O p G E y i)i o a U s a m m m o ,c E t>n °'p m > A L U E a0U) o m a >' N is c a Ni 'y oa = Z Q a) >, > o L �' E o o N N o to ; L .03 d.�.0 N N m �.. c'O a. fmN6 .� .�O 'U C m. Cc C �. N U T. Z "? LL a) c Q L m (T U a) A `) m m C E m' m N m N O ^ a` :n m Z'. N :v m...C N..c T„3 o C C L a) m L U a) U a) C O m N O:U c O l? a) � — v a) a m me a �y c E p a E E o) W L e Y QU) o 0 .� O = c m n a Q t'v E .0 c o m .E a 3 °'' _o m <a 3 3 s m U ? o y a d > '? > O 43 C7 N N OC — O A L> mE ax Ncc rc 3> 3 Eoc) cOm > co N a 1- U a) ai7o U nnoc Uoo oo. o eta 4) C) Q). d.co N m L 'V O C O m. N .T.d �' C I2 w m'L O C 3 C C. y c L' o u w G N d t o avi `�° c m .`� n E m E ' ' aci E y 3 N 0 C U G3 j 7 - ai a) c a) o U C v n) y - E a L d 3 j m > Q C Oo a = N CO m r m m a p c L a N ;tn a) .>- cEo m c c y m Y m to o a> - m m E N03 > p ? ? ti y m o E m E a' ami 'm -�`, c o U L a r CL W � Cl L A N p C.d C. V N d C � .'� �• OT 1J O) C E. E C c .0 a) O c0 a c G T d U 3 a in m o ao`> a Q' c h Q aci o c N � > 'E A N N N o o c @ a m m o oM L m a U N N m o a) E t7) 3 - a`� c N c 3 L cY6 cv c v E a -- N �c o,a v v a a) v ,c„ o m > v a a m w = o � r ,- N o � " E E m N �a to cc a N m m:�, a Y E c A g 3 o w o a' c JO :_ � ai o N � o 0 a) a n, c _ t 3 c 3 a m a Z CD o c O o .` >• - a) a) ar U o�a m - N CNp m O(D E A ap) ca ` pp d E ,O 0 c as aai U N'- > n N O EO j o rn m C m..0d) 0.::3: 'r, y ~ Y. UY � ON 1� �� a3 -�~ t�A. 0 �Zf- � U � Tw a) C..j 'a � ¢ roU L. m v a ro>E o ./Oi Um aE, a .� p y 3 nci t c E cmi m a E c o c m u is "-' c c c E cm a) = v d > om L r N � ' = 0. E E m O . ^ 0 jNm .OCL C E e pUC a) Od ' > ba C C N O n0 1: .. in _ c m o f o `° -E o w t t v c C� � a a E Y c E 3 "' a 3 L U m c) E �) a c aUi c a r o �' o _c c o Y m c U v c Q a) 0 0 0 �,; > m a o a, c o U - m w o w m y N 3 o m U 4 3 m U.t Q 0 F-- O o NO O E m a) N N N 8 aa)) o N L p N U) v Q 'y a ` c a v = 2 `` o 0 a) .a N � c 3 m a E � m c a m o c E a U CD O 'a•°) d o '-° v C �CD 0 ' o °' E 'a N m E N - m N E - i ami @ ai 3 c c o a 0 a C'. 75 v, � m E a=) m N o ¢ a o � L o = o � �� .c m p C)C, o o � _ , c _L .0 a O L N � a - U � U Y in � O u a) 76 > d m m .O .O Y. � C O E L F-• N O) O -` .0 'a C E a) L N a) C 4. ? I > E �. p O. O O A C O O_) O m U O m � .m a) o O C -O N L m Y > _m E_•a. � .0 --•.y m U U L n) •C, t p cm L C > U co up) N N L C 01 N 'Y a) - N L N N O CL U 3 a 7 O 0. O �' .0 � M .0' 0: CD a) ..- L -C_ O L. E 0) �..> •N. O. m Cl O N t m O c.'o c N.y ,V V A w 'O U E •`'U C s a) O O) N -D N m — C fl1 •�..p N m ? a m O y O m .c 0 ro O N O O Or C c U m tCa a) N .. a) � L tap U E m D C O L U N N r = X m Lo I = p a) -0 c m m c Q c y m o m O v 3 p V'cU 0 Cu N y m a) i c E o a) ¢) N o c vi y o a) c a m c m � d - L E E g N � � ") � a a) oE � an m m a) o U C y o C..V C '=-p >, CO C..Q) N .3.p) a) N .� c y.O aa .0 C c O .c E.= C + E N ....0 0-> o 0)ID 0 E CD r- U N aJi `CU,a:tA CD `l p :o s C t o:.N c �p .N ,�...Q�..C..a�Oi t C..S N 7 N C C.a) OUm Y m -E Y c y CD >, o' E a) O m N uc d � C .>. N C..m L O ` � .0 C O.m. O c 0 N � O = $ cfl N ,v_)-5,a CL CL o. C. Q) CL Oa. U N N O r E CL ti L L-.0 a)co U a) O-.o N.0.,� �' U 3 o o, ,v, o o m a aUi s wIn L o E c o a) axi L a U U i E °) m a a: E a) 'L N - m O mEL�, a) - o m coi a o E p T'a'o t o c N d 3 t Co y _ c £ -W .0 E O CU O..'y .m >,N a) ,O '5 76 � c t..� 3 Q) > .V'. U � � N N L y m W N m � N a) � s L cc m CL c' o Co N m o ►-- a' `� c ON E d O o m mom > m a `� N � f- n � � 5 � o m a) � Y N 3 a) 0.. N o .N 'O C a) N.p. m C., 0 0:.. OD N a) m X Co �.. aU) :C a) QL m::o N. 0 j y.O O:� a)_� > L N N 3,.> cc O 4) O to vi U a+U ,O ,'Q U ` 0 U U.-'> 0.`m a) N M >:m. 'N''U N - 'O ''m0 E t T m g 130: n = E E G p is c c LL o 'c o. . n T ro E 2 3 � � -o � N E c n 3L v a.L y D c � O. O ro O. m .0 3 j - pd T'p, U N N Y X71 0 a) C.� U a) a > 3 T aE) � > ooi m c .y o E as E E 'm ,-'c m D �' °' �c o E G E G�f O 'rop E v T O).� d `y.U Ln a) y a) U O 0 Q) c .> a N '� U. p .� c N. y ;E ro m a) O C) D ; O y L 7 C j y roro p3 O >, d ` .7 .NacNp _.p a c c v1 0 o_= o m c E -'" o `° G z o. " c =.. > :n p. O U a... c: U O)' U N V L a) 0 c y d N .0 L o a) L F� N C O - Ln a) F UO N U ro m d ., a) 'N L 3 C m CD'D 0 ro N Q 7 O C a} _O ro ro y y O m y m O R y �, N .O T T C U E U 'O U N U ccJ N _y ay o.Q, E o �,mcoi m �"' E U N n. y w E °' o_ N y °' o 0 o c N o y _ p a`) ' �'E �, C c E o m c c > W N o y 'c C o co C, E t aUi ayi N ai c m H c c o. O n) � y p E v 3 . .x.4 0 N .Q .T._ G_U:� .Y _3 � E -0 (D .p m o..0 ,°' � G m > � c > C6 o LL O Y °,. CJ CY) -p 'n C V M.>. m Cn o Q) V Y U L 5 O) m 0 m 0 __ L v o T E N i c a o N m m o w E -0 a y p o o E o N n rn E c y o o o aa) N U a: C cyi aUi C a 2 E E .0 o m gi p) 3,Q) :m.. v >. a^ c..V s (A � CD 0 aL -p0 O.O N .E N N C m0 0 �.�.Q) L _ _ _ o Ua NNCL L.U. d N O) ais L N m ' N 6i.L O w .N..y U in L m .•p.y G U Q.} c o > �' = c �° ~ N y c ai n ? a) E rte- o a m `N� C c E m c a) y N v E a m a) ,>, o u c `e c ; CL m ro m a N o c a) m N o } ti vi c ro N U o v m E m �, N m o m °� o C o - °' N N y, 3 3 O C U C C p 0 = > m N 0 N 'j N n. N_N CL U >,.A �" y .V 0 iC m E C O o c = E c N c N c' cxi N iO a) l lc .i EE o f E 1O m m a L) .> y C) a Zn � N m p c Q) a m m ;� R N n.� .T; N N a N N c 'o E U - G cco y E o a c o o@ ai 5 L n o o w a) E - C a r o Q) o m ro y E N p 0 � E y ? O p = � -' d y L � y U N � vi E, O 'O N ut C. C y N o _ G � L U G _- � O. ayi Ya7 _ c c O O m m y o c a N a s o ' .� °' ; a� N r E iri L e ro y 3 N co c E N m 3 N ) a) p a 3 c m E E u a) o N c°'i c o O m U S U c m N $ g $ ^_' o x n o v vy a0cn ? cnya � 3 Uam in at 5E mvENm : 'C U y E p o .� p d c ro v C U C Y a) O 6) O ro N N C d N m ro c N O N o '- v N = cm o o c°n m o ro °' __ c c % N E 3 > m or m a O c a c a- L c .- c y U = E m i epi c _ t H 3 U U p ro y 0 ro T m N a) d N Q p O x o U 70 ` C Nm D O ro 0 0 U ami �, U '-' L Q y ? N ], O m —p C C W C 3 C N U O. C 'j i LL U� L N 7 N Ca) .0 C m V .Y 0 .0 N (nn Q ,� V as o a) E N E �,Y `° C E o N `0 0 o E ° L 3 u .� °) a G '3 y t N C `� m m ro N E m iv N t N m o a) A o U o N `0 s L) � � � g CA =O N e d NO aLU)a) G ?� U tri N T j U .O O m W c `° Q 3 O N CM Q Q) O O• N N m N } m y y L Tin C m `a) C tpn y .N,, y L y Q E N E G .> N '� aL - N O til N C N N N � Q N 'C >` C O D U N ' C A D ro N L a c o U L E y Tcc N p N p0 3: U y r G 2 0, c' 3 c m c cm io CL m _ I > C O d `0U) m c m �u p N � � N N O E L � = L � � ,N � C) -0 C c 'V U cEo > a m �. C ' CI= ' O a X ; y c0 7 C t0 0 aCL 4) O O 'y a N N C '0 a a") io y o m o N C rn �_' a`� E c air m N 4) m .E m c o t ?• r m N �O w m ro N E N N `° c t m N m N E u t c `° > o N .a c r O aII) >, o J co O Q � a T C C U C C) L D7 ro c U L L) L .E o a O m y E N .a E N � �' C d N O N :� p 3 C N 7 N — m a 3 O m a) x E c c N T Q c z N U f-- 0 c cm v x o Q s ro v o °) N �° m U a z v N Q E ac) o E E s F- N o in o ro N vs F E m c m c o a o Qy q U o E c E o N p y o N U °' C _c m c -o t ro E c E o v o a o o c m 3 ?` coi N c ayi a`") C o L a) -oo a E y ro o y N y o m y (D 0 � C c o wo E c m Q N �' = O c .o m ax) m c c 3 E o c o c °c-' o °' •`-' E c a C7 v N o N N cm p N O .N —NC E o) O ro N Q L tyn in C a C N a) m m '> .V L m ; Z a) c t c m E N c m E a) _ 3 m �' a y T N o o m a) o m cn H L N O .O. Q.O.� m N. N Nc mm 0)cfm m.0 W.'p N :a) E. OL 3p � N a) Ja O U L C E O)= E C N N c C "�' N U C m C 4) m > m O d_cb d N m N O. 0) C axi E `¢ c .N' o o� Q a t m m c rc- E v 3 U c a o CD a m am) c Z` >1 CO c ( c i cu S2 Q � m a) h � m m N U L -o co T� O) N .0'.th 7. �. E � Q � O N c a) 2 C N '.� V) L1._-. a) N 4) 7 �+ O C C D > �2 y. C.. N (�..... m a`> E a n 0 .0 t v d rn E a E C � N c d N a) m ° " -0 °' w N L o c o m E a) m E v) c a Q N > E - cu c C O N.-'o d m, C C V) -O 0 = a) 0. V) p)..0 :. C o C) N O V C G m a1 0 C -.� _.0 0 rn m .N � 'C a .0_. a) 'C '� U O ' v 'a) 'T.> m a- .. p � �. . p':0 ._.:C O Gam; E co c ai ma_y o L a o m E n c o M W o a m i L 5 �. �' U o c > U r- p d cn U '� — y a3i a i0 - n mo a w > _> E a oo. a o c a m E a) c a a v N a o c m y U a Zs _ N a) ti w U a) E N a > o , E a 3 .o - E L; p) v) E m c) a) :N O1 c C L a) - 3 _ > 0 V m c c) G O C N iD � .V.">..0 O Ca N j,.?. �'. UT•..�" cu �..r- �..0 N a) N ) C.�.. m �::0 c cn U y Z O m m U c N O) W tOti d c` N > 6N) V 0 m Z ) C N ip .C p T a O U a) N C V) 0 O.. O L C C. E 7 c E O _ a).. C C a) Z L w U m Q) 0 s `ac o m E m N o a) ac) o m m p p > v � c—Ei t� 3 E W E_ a) c c 5 0 cn a E 0 a) g) `u ' a) c)a CLv°'i -''p x `O a c > V) aCN � O tZ. o U0 > � rmY O. C > cn ro > cN- v v `° m .0 N o = D o m >> ` c Ec Cc .o c a o > 0 y v o o W c= o CL _ L m 0 3 m oro 0 3 E O 'N c, nmol 3 � o T c L O epi �, m > a p L a o v; m p in �_ rn, a c m a d , > a c E > C: N T U O L U C —O y O. >• •U E y O y O '� C.'? m O N L a) C C4 •O C, — O d O - O a) U U P V) O Q 3 '0 _ U a) m `y O O E m U V 0 m 'O �, G a) 0 O >,'i0 O T3 m U C a c m -' N m N y g V c U 7 T > r U ti � C U — O L C a d n 0:� U.Na)..d a .�.�. o y p..y.� m.C E w �.� N .0 UO.a. o A L`U � .y .� W ~ 9 .� a, o o <a E L 0 p C Q mD - o cn c mUU v � a T a) L r- aci >' X o C CP u E U ` a) U vai:C a) _. C O d o O O Q) N _> E y ?' N p =O p L t4' L r`1 = o m C .D >.'6 a) .a is N- •n a) U C U a) N CJ O 4) y, m T !a m O m T 2 ni > > CL c U T C� .c o E ? as N d Q > u C y m t m m o m 0:�.� �. `D E .o W`d EO $ E. •V C. C) O _. .>. LaJ L U: 3.t N ul acj j,m.L d.N - L.0 N 0 a) w d C C O 0 t C L C 'O 'C 0 aN) � 0 r U C. a) C O N U N 0 a) > Vj U 0 y L m N t9 m j, 4) d a) O. L) OZ. y >T_ O y p M Cl 0 ro 0 O).D O) U G L p C C U p m r > pCi a N m CJ p O 3 m y N U L a) N 3 o m Q a) d m O Q a) O p E 3 n) U W m a o -0 o c o) m -u; Z E ,p„ ? g a 0 -upi ac) mT ig a L o)-0 L *0 N N O Ecm ° o o m e m N m N a) x C Q W _ N O C O a) D N m U U. m Q) a) ; .0 Q. O O a C t p 0 ui O E "O > V L p m a) I-- r_ C a in N `) L'FjA cC T. O L c 0 C O c •C L U E N O ") p 0 •O �. U.N N. m U N C CI- > O a) N 7 E N E v; -- y m .c - .- o c � E a) d o U E a_>) Lrn > V E .0 b c _ a) 0 _ 3 L. N U m CL a) G T a d C O O a) ca E U �p CL W V E -' c a c 0 L N L i` C y W O. 'p m U � -p m a 0 >o (y m C •u L 0 N T a) L m N i O m. m N .D .D c C .O >, C O)�' O y �. 0 �. N U •�.E ` 3 L c N _ N W CO t O fC0 m U Z) m U E = m C 4 T'> o d > C o m c :c� C > 'cn c �`m V a) �) o 'id o Eo n L axi a y a o m m E °) o - vim V a) m V 2 E P cmc CD 3 m .0 a) E E o) a)) m CD C o m m - � m Ca •V ` N N X m E .D 0 0 L N Os C V) a) > > a) a) .� U 0 Q) C �. CO m U •C m 0 'C) m O Q) C p) .a 0. 0 -0 CO N N M O) m is,-0 in y o .p .0 3 0 y:a) U :p J a>s O N O.'U U,.m r..O,� :D. U .y. Gm o _C •X .O U .-ym y NL E •p �: � � a p.0 E ',' L.. N ca LO ;. Em.: O).0 S..y t 0 T�. T� L .C :O m ,. N N .Q m N w > C .� E J �. r O y..N C O m U co U m 0_ y (j'Y m C C ... O p N 7 G m E N cv m U o)o o (n r— c') L Vo) E d - o d 0 N m a) '� a y o 03 E a v o o-�i a I cb 7 G N L a) C U T O a 4) m N N i0 O _ E E u — C .. _g N:.O > N.-.�L-. 4) 'D "' a) .m L .N. y U,N O..H � C) `) a).N Q) E oL N; a) N Q a)! m a) •� 3 N a t o 3 Y m c y _ _ > o o U � _ N! : cad p ° do c<.m _o. 0 - N o a m E an d � _u). a c d N U •0. uJ q).-0 o E o CD r E C E p U U-m a o o J--W y 0 0 UJ c a co,or` CD co ) 3 N .Y L ? 'D m u _> ca C H > a V 0 N U o N 3. C U U a C U@ U IM •O). F F ~ : a) y 3 c Q ._ o p N a) v ,a y y '0 3 ~ 3 a) 'o > a) r c a.CD ca`. m >m m m. m Cl a a) J o a a m U - nci o S w n umi A m W w E o' s 'y 3 a a 3 in o f .�mm . w NOW Ln > d a) tV a) - C IU C a) 6) a) C 1 of c0 C > Q) C x N CD m a C t r c r E i y = E ro cmi N °' U o t N � °o a m o _ - C N �' E o c E o N o w m E t o - = E o ni o o o c c a) N � a c) ro ca a o o ro > > �- N 3 a) m a� = aTi 3 ° o v - E o Cl 17 a 0 u, o m g _� -� a a ro c N a 3 a o-v Y a E cca U o a aci o fO p a) m t a a) a 0 o a C V E > U o O n C a a -3 aci L a' Cl a) h n o o O p ro L •p N , o >. a) � E o aa)) c �= E T 0 y o)-C o a. a _0 (n U U co.L 0.-0 .�..a o o - 'A0 c):� c .�, U a) E L a) N a). u- C C c N - a a o ° > ro ._ - - m m E a =� C3 tv, o f m o v E c c o a) o a) C c o t_ro is c)o f-s c m x v _ U "' `° n p r a .� m aci'c �U `° `- .� c 'a 3 E o _ cn N ro cm _ 3 m o h U a H o ro o E n u o ro o t' L a N o ro a) c 'o t S E i Fo O 0 a ? m E 0 .M N-Q o ami > m o o c cs o roi, (fl v v E p a E o c N co j a cn o = .E N o .� N �> u a nTi o a� y c v > p m Z5 co E o �ro o m > E ap�) s o) g c 'E c N o� 0 a E-> A o -cn .0 I a co 3 c E y ° y o N .>• cj p) m .C) -- g y m •o. .. O:O E Co O O °O .� _ C C a .p a O o a C) �. CD Dw n Y a t E a o U a.-' 3 5 m m E N v 6 0 E E Lv, c " E- m c o > am`� c ro N E-o c d o y. (D — > � � .c L p O U O 3 O W.O .> Q ro .0 m N p N a) - Cis - a`) a: CJ n CO. c . cC ° �. E 0N u ) Vcl0 a w -0 7 .a�� i E C 3• olaV .O U CCO a > y L - y ro aC oN m = a > o ro ai m NaVs .Q' O rnu E _ v g Eas a) aN � � = � Q � ooc ° mX5aro>oroo � a moa rn o Q Q r =c o cd o oo . n c ° o o p o E N ° Xy N ENoZ ) 3 c a' mm(u -0 c o a m e m Sn °' E 0 U _ ° coo � ro o o c yo InnhL 0T NO E co a >CD yO E O y N 0 C o' N m N E L) � d ` ° c Q n t G C a)C O N G o xmUU Ea S o p ro s mUN- a w U u ro a� Q n a� o w E °' F�- U s m pj C d a N d n , U m N 'C h N L Q a) ro r`a Q7 y h .� N > C a)' ro uM o a > a � ,rnU o � N o .s -0 E t nL r � E - 0 E ayi o E v n`j o,m L) v c' c t o ,� t m o c ro o c U E v a, is ro c o o ti c._ a) c ,c .� E o .s a c o O o E aC) L N -E E o a m > y ro ro - U a) y .> w 3 d o ami 3 t o 0 vNi o p .O N o c c ur o N L 0 )n L E rn ro F4n z O C t m N ro Q) _d C) OO fA V t Zu 10 Q a C U �' C U �..Q1 y O 0 =.L N CV '_ UO aa) .off C >. ta0 0) t6 � a) C •� ) L77 0 > r C d C U C � ro 'c CCJ > a L p .v o.� U o �i-c o a E N i. �� ro m c c_ 4 p ro ° E r_ o E o E a U o c L o o) cnn E E a a ro c E cn �o ?^ o y c a N N v -c� a' " v N c 3 0 'E o o E 'v aEi '; vi o ,aNi E aro C L o > `' `O ° U -L) G N y y .O �.. •n aLi �.'} O- o-E: V �. o - .0 p).o..V -0- E Q.E a c w y E v Tg a U o io m E m ro v c C N V N $ O O Cm h L H N N y C L Q y ro � w >: U � a L 0 .0 > as ro � � L � C aa. - L N UCL m O1 N E — U > .C - d ro ro o `) o a' a o,o c o a E c nim a' c o n d 0 Co N o' o f cpi fn o b N .:.aro C .V y ro N N .L1 -= =) N C C a m m L ° O T •U j� a) � d 0) m .N. >. L > c . c°y y T o '� c°� E E -E) o o c - > c a m d 3 cn _ aci O c 3 0) cn -c0 C.a) C S.y ° �..� -ro m - N.c4) M ` N :y,O..C.� t N.� -.a -0 O E N E j a _ro ~ C1 y a •cm > c c N L 0) C f/) fU Z] m O > N a=) N m > a a N •� k a) o p C o c° :3 c a) w c o T) o a) m >_ C o 2: X aj '00 n. �. C D) N N. O C. C a) O a) a C �� C. C a N O a) L O O d m O C a) p Y O y ' Q-O N m L °-S] lD - C a) Q) o C F•- ';r ro y a E N y ro N d N c U _ 3 o y °' > ° N E y ::a y ° a X � :11 o) .� d a o a).•Op.'O W 0)N a)OL O c .a 0)'�. p• COi �4? >. U.�. � Ep r o in:v a) >,t " "N N o ria E m m U Yv, m Q ti 'a) m m o �' L) c C w w c c o:a) = m .c m m c a N c N m m c �, E `° 3 U o E o N �' o L m A o m O° `' to >'E V a`yi m c°i o r,o -0 v o 0 0 0 =, y c�mo C ac) =~ y c N > m > ai •ro tai d a E C n O a o H �r% c E o E a 3 o N n) c a�tp ` � c � 71. > � °a a > aroi = roc a > � '� � m. E mo`dna)i oaci`o � y � co � ry� a B m _ m ._ N ° _ d c� m rn cn in ro m o c '� cv o °o) Ion Y " " s s C O '00 O m m U .d u) O c: ;tiy U E > � U p .0 N 0 > o a ai m °' - vi w " a) =' o r r `-' o o o a) U C io ? o - m E L > U -� c L y > y Zn CL)7 a) CU zL 'O .y C) .O O G C T W� c' O N C ' C) O U L N N F- N y -- 3 U C) M y C7 ro C`- O M i - 7 a) .0 O y ro a) C N ro T U Y > O C C N .... E 'o o E �OL 3 C O c c c .� o m t �, c E E E c ro c y p y y u) > O. U N ` E N L 0.i Y A O U tC 3 _r ..� ,'� O. N C O N U fD C ro UC ro C O c O ro CD tC O t- ro..�..�.O .�Q. C) -0 C C7 c G. _C C._..CC.)..C` C 4t U) .A > a >O C:C O• N CJ L QY C.t L O O G N O: Q :- fir.3 = I C ro y Q C) ro C N m o ' m T U U CM N W p) C ti j .� 0 >, a) a N U m-0 E Y y � 3 0 � U WN ro O)�O C x a) a v M O M N m 0 `, y n M W C O a) c%) g co c a) -0, N E `aa)i C a E L co O E C 9 G s a oa ac) C -0 o U E g U a M W m N o a g a) s c `a' M c Cr (M L) 2 c a y N m E cc_ ac) conC) cct y a E a u m y c M y ti c c c ro o C a o : M o n) ro E o o) '(D v c - ro a CP y c a E o 3 �' 3 a) .n n y o y c a) - c y N c >, io ro ro T c y C p ..� y U .� CL C..L.L ro C.N W C 0 :5 �. N.c'YC C U ? (Q7� a' a Ayi N. . > d N p C c C N N O) C U ro L ro s9 m ._., N a) O o >" L `� E y C O Ly V. O U 0 C o N 0...a�7 O s ] NO d J Q a r t E. v U O y a) —M y ., m c0 c: = M Cy) o >,L L O O H O �. a) ro 6 r'Ci�f y Q vi IL- L C .N C = Qi q a y = c T c- ro > U - E U) y O 5 a) U pp CD ro p C y Q) tT > U _ E y - O O r1 O c n y T a) a) CO N .O y a N C Q C E y '� .� ` N C. O a a a) C in N y ro C O L C m .o E N ti H ti o r' N > .5 o f c c) a o aci o y a rn s a y m x v a) s > m y ro m <° ro �' o c L va E E y N �, ro m co y = a o) y t > c u) E o E N a) U w m r-. i� c o)-umi croi y o ro .0 ECD o CL C a3� NVQ C Q Oc E X x a c > yO vmattyo =3 a1Eoa aECL ic o N a) S 0 ., y t ra c m A o y a c aC o > ca) oE O o N N iO N O a) E) NaNi O o oLo oro O aaE c � CL > U Ux > .0 ro o O °m ac o a - c EM $ co o a) E y o d L t M A N L y O _ y cl i0 N O C Cl. y C :O C U ? r y x C C y d N N a) ro N C 'ti Q) oro N CZ L, 0 N C > 3 N ) d o 'O N '- N co .� p a C .x C O E O C CL c O T E O. ) a C 0 E _y _�' C M a) a) O L y �- cU0 m Ll y � �, o G Q Q N c aa)) OU E G n L — ro L1 ,L C a y C y a) T M v > r N C � � O. O a U � c a u E C y > U p O > En a �.L M N o M O N C M Cc = y c V C ro c G a a) y a) z o �n t o p y c y a �_ E °' 3 c� ti m y N 'ycn aN`1 a) C ten d O. O is c ro CCJ ro M `° U j U y C — C o 4! M r d > p) r y W ro 3 y o E t O Q N a a) Q) U a y C O E a) N D d a) 47 Y d in = a) w C tNO ti O Q% y C O r0 O O. T3 Cl C O O M 0yl m CL O p L ) �O lU0 L L C t'xJr c 3 d o a ro 0 U .O �' to N o ; o s E w m a ro o .� a c ro c o n ECY) o y o a) ro y a y ti L E In ro `° o N N L ai o y U o 0 U , N C) y C N C r1 U O: cn ML- Inn d U@ p 46 cn m O > 5 X _O c 0 -0 0 r 'C � c N C E �` �� 3 ce c ro 0 .r r CO c a � a) a) o. vyNi a �, y E L m $ o a ro 'D t �; a > c0 o .o r� o f U a vi E - c c ro o a) ro C) O L '- 4) ro y �N ,d CD O _9) a) M C y U > N in y.�' umi ro cu E c > .0 R. E (a CD N = Q r :` E o o 'cn y T E o U a > o) y y > C o ai o - N L N y v a) uUi O "m ro C O 'O 'w CD c 'Y C m C p ro — O , -0 N Cj C U ` E C 1] j y C m a) (� C — c M C Cl C ro vyi >, t ro ro C C N- O. O M m a). c •Cco O x m c : ca s 0a) roE :43) 'D 0) yo � Em .o oU > mL � ymo 0o m a) E a X (D y N U d a) a o f c x o U C :� L U _ y ,O t N y ro L aw CL ) Q O 03 - :... N d y, m .n a) c 3: y N a) ro 3 ti >. -M C -0 x y y�'N y co N (NyC N � :y X C N N N 3 f L.Z O.L Q ro y M A ..- u1 m y C — C O_a M N p M ro o w`. CL(2 w ¢ 0 s ro Q m a a � L > � �o > E � C cmi y e t � � c t � E ¢ .m E c m a) � C .F" :.. N .� �..o. 70 0 Ny .N '-' MyNC0QNC '> Y � = CE >, cMy � CD (D 0 CO. aHNEU. pd6nc (OV oro . V X,..a ,a.X a) p C'N � y N CL p a) L >. O) m m a) >.ro C. c cn y C U o m ro 0. v a Q ro O m a �, Y E t 3 �''m E o) c .E c Q aci E 'y m Q n) C L C a (A aJ O : ^ a) O U O m y _ w cC _ oat E � �' � a <E Cc- a Ham y o a, > � c m C) a C &r L N.0 2 n � y F y L O E a) U O y a7 G? cn m. T O C C O L. L o p U a..' "in N -:e :a ami O 0 C ".� ? j y a.o L m �.....C U N �p C a U n Q a o � o 0 3 L c T3 3 y C n Et ao, n v C U C o c :�'Q D r O C > y o u o O c 3 = W, o o >, 'o E >OL cac� Qy n� v c 0 m N CD w o _ v, C cd E C m m v> m 3 C4 T o y 0 0 3 m o y cyi id m� E am'� D n aCi o y cca L m ; aai OL y e - Q a � Q ? F: ca a 0 C ' ar u� - y y . ..> X U OaO - D LO O ) G. O m oX-- a) c CD QE) h .O _ Lo � m o c -40) L3 � o U N o U) c L) O m ¢ E um a E c FLOr y vEm E M Cl CL o y � Qi 0 n� > i0 m � E U d e E .0. E. c CL 0i C w O O U Z; `m E o '> m E vi d > m .� a� cm N m m c v y o m>- ti m o C 0 L fn y n`> > � � � v. �S n vi �n y y v: C 3 0 � N ca L y y E t N > ,� c a m o � c y m = z o m y y m c y a rn o c m m n y o L y _ ci a Cl. c t 0 C c � .� � m m C-p c` y m o E - ca y � � o cCa m:c 0 _ O O y E 0 R„D ,> O. FL u�- CO C p _7 .. N - Q u7 L m u A D �' c y T 3 > m m t co .� o y ,E > c a E y .co c C ro u W m ._ C ai iD > 0 �- N = C d "a •u O .d CIO m y .0 n .t p y y CU a iv o E o o -0 o ;n •m o E _ UD o 0 a � M > � CD c 0 u=i �..w 0 y m c 0 rn 0 �.L c •4) 'a -0 O a.-N. E o o c o m = _ v o u ° T.y aTi s T' C `—° 0 E y o v, u c o .� y c •o �» c c a: E a y w c N y N g c 6 y T o U O i0 0 C c CL O a '� (i O N •-• YC ' E "` m 21 O y O C p�7 �i •.7• 0 �wy U_ > L 1_� 0 U Q Q •p.U m amj N n' to n Y ...7 u m �i O �'•" .R-5 UJ m ~ m S E 'a 3 :° _ ca,N 3 m m ° E '� E+ o .3 a z o a ri v0i > O Q C j o to C a U a` IC O y U m LD C T T y ^ C o aci o a m e C CD Fn y > s 0 r oi ='0 LOv 3 � m o o y X y L ; a) •C N X a) N U O y .j •p ID L r Os a1 O O y a) c a) z E 'o• E m E > o c r Y o> o�.5 t "� m m ' CD S o m m E `c o, y Q ? c o o Y =p 0 v; 3 > L t y Lv, o U W C v rn N E a' s en n a "' u' m �' w 0 cm > _ a) On 0 - U > n ,U O to N U °i aci > C U) a� — w `° N 3 C > > t o o E `.. c a� m E r L 0 E y 0a V O C O 00 � .m ? a� U. y N U 47 � .0 E a) m C E z O 'c c t o a, on c m o, E m a m m o co �- G M > "ai C n o E o vi a) cu3 y u N 3 c 0 d 0 o � > _ro vi C uoi "c � M o' d 'o ° �i t a) E Ln _a E p u O m y o 'n iy y a a U T E o' N 3 y H U 0 E L 2:' U) -a w a Q E C M 3 0 > cv > > y c �' g °7 rn c aiw a A sn c go ? Q)- 0 C1 X O O 4) .0 O N 0 ld U N > O) o .N C .O a. L Q j M C ' rA o UO -0 y � ~ Co E CD ¢ 0t w c N a>`� � 76 � -=m Y �Y u a 'o � 0 g y m o T W p 0 a c .0 O .0 p O L m ami O U O E CP c � C ">• p 'C m N C_ w o y n -- o c 0 = O -0 w H m ` Cl E >. CC T m C N �. N N Z O w CL C y d •a y V O` O y 'U C •V,.C N 0)A O m T > a—M' uU, ayi m �'.> o m u; _c n d E p:c E aui m a a s E E CD 0E CO N a y a c �v y zi E X Q N E "N (M C� c c' m v m L o 0 5 y Eo E -mm � °' = @rn� a � p �-T � m _ cmayo�cncy > acU U y U. coL a y ti m n E OC y N co L a m s m m y ami r- 0 t 'c y U "5 t m y o D mag '- E m m a °' °' E y � u ¢ c a o m c _ o t a`� rn m ni `C° m � 0 .0 — Q : E .� 3 .� m N, mv E " L u) iy u Z O O W 0 M v� N •0 �7 a� Z U C N � 0 U E c4 a L O a) N p :� '0 N � u 0 � O •a L. 0 y .-p C m 0 0 0 y U E v U 3 y p •p f0. U V a) a'.!0 N ry ` m nit •` -0 y c c m ai-� > m a y 3 — a y N w 5 w To y m; m m 'ro a' y C7 a co m 0 o E m ul c o 3 a_ y en ni .. Y Q 3 m N y o E r- o_a, y LL m r s m r N `� m a� U .� E _MI2 aci ars- m e :� 00 fd 76 N �:c9 .0, 0 C o ,:0. E E m.0 0 y 0.. cu L m q 0 r >, v� r v o� o U, o U N N m:cn o U E E y- .n F N S? a N y m _ a N O _ O_ m a =� N. c6 a - m nmi O m y. O N. L .V L O O N j O U C C .r N C.C N SL C N C. N - U. N.O.. �.�D E LJ .cn L _ d O .N U.-0 O S S... o o v a s m m .� c) o 0 o c N N U >..0) (�m0 0 0 L c 1.) D. C N a) Q N - L L .V 0 D _ m N D m c E �c o o a) c A c m E U c E o aci C N N O > 3 > 3 c 7 C cd m J N m 7 C p. a) a) O. O t C 7_- 3 U N U E `y _N O N U Q'L N L E p a) d) �- m 0 N - L C O > f > Eo o c 3 3 U 3 0 CD 'o E c �a o a ° M o o ° o m N > F >.m C O � Q '0 o..� N m U C m L O E O m N C U c r g t O`coi , m o a) N m cTam cu o r 3 a ami Q't = L � .o N N E . m O T U N L C E > E _ 0 .�f _ > C a) Y Q1 .-D _ O O = E O ..C:C cCp -00 0 C.0 c0i.'" �:. - 0 O.. N -0 �pp.� N..>. 0 -> 0 .0 L 6) 3.- O' Q) O ..07 O..0 - f >.C C a) O E C N co O U � C C .a h N y O m O cn m m a c4 L E y .O d..N N N Of C U V N 7 'n E _ cUp y E N C D .N ? O d d m a) 0 ._ 0 O � 'a _0) N C N O C N d a) a.N `-» O) "' n) `-° E' cUi o c m d C v o u 7 E o c a� `° A E U m m m n E c E ) 7 c a_) ._ c_ m c . _ tt a m Y y in O C > N E c y N ?.._ O w m. W .o D _ d N .m C O N L C C .Cil C. a) a m N U m .C C O N U U O m. U. •� L.. y •F a � A c0 O }i A E A N. O '3 O U..0 Zn t N tC v) .D N O O X Q C N N U _ is L o a, � m �, N o o,U- 75 E v) c .vl .0 C j a) F-. U) O 0 C G U t 6) �. O 0...� E co � G..� y L W e a c m x .3 o c Z > t4 0 ro o $ a Q aci c a o N .T c Q u a`ni �,a _3 u a m as umi m U vi c >M 4).0 0 Ca .3 N 4 � , m cnca ,� .� t t Cl m .� c C' _ m n o C o ai o L c aCN N -FQy l~Up a) °) v nai ami u; f9 E L = �' E ca'i c E '� -o> c E C o pQ a > E O.G a. C .N Cm Q. E C.� .ti_C m'm � � -mo qC�j O C C Q) cc m a 0 O ..CCA p �> a cu C C E y x E > li � cc E L 3 N 'o N 0 7 7 O G C .0 0 a) N C. o cJ a) -0 - N C) m O O L �+.m Q1 Vr H a) C3 C .d 7 N o a) O m f6 cls U O d L O d .� U r > v E c _ a Z o m m m U ' .c o 3 _ ,� !V �� >. aI a L E 0 D = o o o g' o a w m EUia Um �` m � y ou L > Cn p m iy Z) a' t E N N Y g N U o) a' o O L a) m N..0 0O D Q 5 5V m U O N m .O O D �.� N C L T.N N C m ►- V, m t6 ` N W O _ p a) - a) C Cl d a`) in rpp appi > J t�x-�+ C O L `J m m O O m aU) C C .0 m O V U a 0 A6J O.a E .0 � © L L - .L Z � � Y D C V U 9 o r c c o C 'D o s L E i y c L 'E n > y �' ai o > n) > L a m u a 0 = 0 U 'O m C = 3 o )-• 7 m m o N A E t -� = t U E C -. L C +J E N N m > O N '?` O 0 N .- N m y m j y a)f- O N _N N O O cp OC � C m m N N -V L A C C ,a) r- E N E L m O a m .V _. m a) Ca U cNp N .� M N O N U C U y N a m c4C m O U y O m �C - 0 C m a) i v °) ,u) m o n) vi 'n ami `c t E -C > o 0 o a) E o N c 3 m _m N t mCL C 8 -'' `-' ? O O) d U) N 0 O = o L = E p 4) ^ _ m O CL Ca m O O O U 0 O a aI N C C 'a ni U �' O a cl D m 0 CO E D N � D U J _ ai 3 m Q D c > n) a) L m o o a y _� m a m cl N E o a x c`a'a oa o `° c�co y 3 o, N caa U aE) m o o � E s N m a a) U a) o a) - c a m E o .N E N y a) o U a).� 0 N a- cL E E = U _m m lmi E m o U .._ 7 m a a) co m E E ¢ " N 0) m V .0 h U 6I > � a E U ca m >, 0 0 � N s. � %n .c 0 C D C to L T a 0 N i6 m > m E a o o .N o N =' y E y L v cryo E o y c'Y C c; U C V E y O �,t.O N U U U o Y -� O n .c D E E 7 6 N N -0 y- O U - U > a to O L E - N N m O N m U C N o ^ m E C N O N 0 .7 O >' C N C N m N m E. N .a N 7 .0 -0 0CC = 0 0 'a N L L t y O D Q O 1 V N a N .0 '� N T t O m O C N L N mU O m > U 3 m � , O N y 3 D q cC0 N Vi C t a O O 0 0 .� E a o �; a) a) E m E c Y `c -3 - a)a) .> c m E a o a c to E` -0 a it) N O 0 C N U ._ C N O d N 0 >�" O U E m c c c L m o n O °) o - M c U) o c a) L a) E N m y a'o F') c a o c) " o a) E > m m t o, a) > - a D a 0 N N C U = E E -: C) c o w > o L t� `c m o ,c D m U N _ _ c ._ m E N a) `O C 7 a_� T U m Ca 7 > y a) c N m o - 7 o s L o a o m >o a 0 m L` > L a 3 ¢ u 7 > c o) c m m A a C a) °) a' m a a) m `° o'vNi - m -a a U o c� 7 o r a) N a>i U E o 6 c ° E o -gym •� N C'� C W..� O.C N CM C E N cL N Q � N .a) a) U N O U L. C L -Q O O N N N - N .3 `° `° m m lLi .c c a) 7 m C"p1-a _r E `m = `-° r- �' o cmi o:ac) a) 'o a c aa)cn, w:, -' y �, a, ,;�. C — y_ N F-- U m _y m O A y N O)fn m m 0 0"�. C C O. L 0)70 o _O m F- :.7 0 _C a) =' � N U N O I cl)•N N N m C � � � .0 a m O y...m -0 m d? > (n a) m N N 0 O lL y U N p�c0 N •T FC c9 C ML-- = C J 'a O 0 E E m x co c } 7 C U v T N 7 m L > ±4 -0 7 U m - N C m O. _O �.•a O U a) C m U O m Q E L...O a,o o `..:.7.� C.L a) Q L m o7 C •� 0 N O U-y N O C D 'O m L 'r' N a U D a V .O > - o) ._ N U U - O C E E 'N O D cD a) U a m N Woodpw co c co r > vY' ? @ > 3 L' t� 0 y c> > c a> 3 ,c 00 m co E o -c E o 3 - p - o U -cn> E t m � .-0 m m D to > C N to tv Q> - - _0 N O -..� O 0 -- 7 O p .T- .� N O N E N -' N 3 m ?-.. m N. Y O O O t0 Ci L. to O y U o7 N N m U J. % LCD C �O C L O >.C L. � to OC_L L d x U. N > � D U B O .- C L o N C.Y - .p y a.. as m _- .c to co tv o to v E > 0 m o N M > 5 N E a c E .0 o N o E _ Cn __ > `oo 0 o E to o f a E N N D tPt U L E N L L lU N N O O m C N �- L C. C p E C p O m a N L C 7 U tU U �" E..>: 0 0 d C tU m N U 0:0 E .N m C- U 0 0 y: U Or to m O pm G O > x U trj. 7 CA `7 0 Ui O G.p G N. H.. O D ? N T C t4 Q -Dy ` N O T N U .C] m O O O`C tJ c to L to o N 76 L o E m v v ui - tv > c `-a ,H m Ca m m N d a.:C .� O ^:'cc c.'0 61 C L d N. O O E N L O tU D .D to E L C m o c °> m o U > L N a`� - D > to > E 75 7 H T v a = c N N O Y m O E .C.L N C ..: O t to .... C p T tOiI. N �.3 F...' d L O Cl. O .Np c '� m 3 o y o n e � > cv n c .ti a 81 a 3-0 v io V CL o N •o o cn o c U E tTo 0 3 E - � E air = o m a to o g O E. c G o °' a c > D -0 c p o G 3 G a c y U m @ ar c m N m N E N a`r E `r co v N -� tor, o c c a "v o G o o o ar o CL 0 cn CL 0 a o, °3 •E c T a) to U 'tn t`n o ff ?^ a T o p > o' G to E = a� _ to D 0 ar m 8 c D LD =° 3 p a > m m X to D `-° p 3 N o 5 o a n t9 io 'O U > > t^ tU C E.. co tC0 .0 A p �' C N .0 y = a 01 U •C O p ar 'D G G _ _ 0 r- 0 6r m a m .O O C ?. .... N ...r- z 'O 0 d 0. a) to -- - � 0 = m C m m M N. G.47 m L oE ov y - Ey -� poa y Ea'E ¢ 3 `Go a :°' t7 �, 0 �' a > � ? U CL c p o � o A U ? > N N m > o ar t 3 v '5 0 � N m o m m - :c '� E tam N y to a c, c N cN m o f o a v �- c C L o W a 0 o m c � a � to w - c `c o � � 0 w N 0 0 o c 0 y a CLC c >- m s = 0 o v o :? m $ 0 T ton .o- o c c E v, u, to `my o a m a) '; w 3 N c o t m m 0 to oyy o to a o '3 a m T p ,�, t) E Os 0 = y w is p tai > V e 0 a 'a o N N m E 0 fl, ton O 4 O p zi L a � N C O 'ro 0 U C m C U 0 2 0 G 5 > U O W:to O Q' Q3 m N T.! QN> N G in C N N >. y N .7..- L. y pGp •O W O iU U S C V O 1D- 0 t tl Q T tll 'N j r �- C �.Q O G N. E fn E 0 .d N D --0. ?[ :T L C. 0 0 0 m U '•' � O O 0 ty� _ to a _ o _. Q � N Ll N .C m t4 ai O z G G a O . . U N m. Q U a D U -E E -. O U L. N Ui v tca •� G 0 m tco .0 E c Q m m m L c L c aro .g g � aci r o c - o c .y '� E t. N L is V N ar .0 > a O A ; .O O fo N > Q 0 m Cl y G „! c 5 o v v v Q `a' tco °' E E m -p a ar c E > E — o m G a r y L p .0 C C N p 'o ch L X -t d L L m N O D U O m > O y .t� o C r .0 rn N o c r ; a m to � c c 0 c "4 E u 3 o v c uoi Q 'Do o t-3�i _- o _ _ o L m o o E c 0 M. O N-0 Mm a y p N L 0 m c .N p - Q _G t9 6 C Q O N U ti O tr N m a CC.. L 0 .� N ._ � U > D 0 0 0 m O .^-r I E U N 0 j N O N o 0 O a>r �' .S d y �i 0 _ Q o E .o a m .E E to N U N D to m toi c y c c L E ^-' ton c — - � S E O a y E n c c s _u o> E m C t9 0 0 U to 0 o TO O 0 d m C 0 G O m O m c G ' U 0 3 of y _ '= 0 is t C L m = L p T 0 X U U 'N C D p p m w c _O O U m-L m C L c N 0 N g U L N W �^ vi O 'O N U L N E °' •C m to. m .0o O -0 U m r. D'!c` .3 t a s L d C y 3 O .tn O W m O tri C O 'D M C O -C T 03 D H .0 0 Or U O m 0 `� O 3 E m N N 0 - Qr 0 N -p.`o U 'C L C G 0 4) _ E o m o O m E o N -6 3 C c Q 3 g' o = v - ui o f m N r v 0 ti a s o m �' o m y o y o t 0 o -0 m' rn o •0 0 c 8' a p E 2 � —oa m v n E o y o 0 c L,ca 5 N c o L O_ y •- a' m .c . ; -vi _0 n c -0 > 1. m y a O E 0 O O D 3 > y N N 0 U m 3 O E m o ti c U L '� ar O -0 � O 0 'c a E 0 .E N c o to a z � _v c 'v L m a 3 aAi C7 E- ti � a.N a' c .c � o E � E � Co o m E 3 d api 0 on E L Ei ro a N u� N roc 3 c m E to r) > w o`> o o E N :N p n 0 ai o > c In v O C:..m 0 m 0 N C Or N y N «: O E `- W 0 .•-• . 0 0 U t9 to O m ca to.."i O G to > a to c O C U 0 O O •O N U �^ a C U o '- �...., E p •C � A ,C C'Y a 0 C .0 O c L _m 0. .- C N p.0 m.C. 0 U -0 E CD c e ►- �',E v o E y ? y �y m p c E c O tv ~ y 3 a m o m o f m x m N m" >. O d O1 N C C tli tU E - 0 m ,C m E .O m N m N L.- N d E =a ui W, c U vs am N _o 'a a coi G.-' c 0 C ai y .E y e o Z N g a.0 �' p m > c"i coi 0�,uj � CM > p p �:' N U 3 •� •� y �:ca N U N "O.:C m L:.� d.N 01.0 CL a) -O.0 A? 41. 0 0 co U � O! tL.. 0 G A:N :fl;-� N � .� C G-,G.O.� > tU U Q 0 fir. 0. � $'.-D !! .0 .0 N D U;0 y:N C •a 0 C C. C tD O Q 4J.,� lcaU'� V`y •C F...T� c- -tu.0 O tn. C - m N m > I m a_ 0 E m a<9 E O E c c o c c ao N o - E °N' v V o o a U E 's c-m r M to >. O:U O.O O .O m 0.0 a:0 m A U_0 C U"T.= 0 .�.:.0 t. > E(D O CD r = .. N - 0 N 0 to m,N > Cl C D .0 0 to O m C .- N c U U O..- O N .-.,- C _ N U ABB c > z ? o 0 0 —03 �' c@ oa Zi o o �c a o c c m N o a c a Ln O a) c - C O cu V y >• ,n �6 c m N O x y c 'O N 7 r « o ; 75 @ N E a o m E y y y E �, ° o > E y Tao c� �a a) ' �j C o� - c� a o _c _- a - m o ; .0 L u a v cu y 0 "; m m o A rn U o �t 'n L c u�i p u�`� cpi °' - ami `-° E o > E A A - o y C d N a C L. a C �' E •o Cil = O ca C O E O Z_. y ) N m >' C O. y > Q L O E c°i .io W L e`y 3 L L N m aci a Y D E m E 0 y CD T c �' m ° �" E ° c > c y 3, E ° o c a� - c �o o o c A y rn ° A m a y cu y E .r cc y o y 3 a = Q : E y a) N c ° N - L w E (a cn cu a) a?.� O 01 L S C L_o z -L r Q) C .0 N .0 N W y U � .O C .O C m C (D o� o a, y a o c (n . r o o c6 E o a u = o A 0 N o� 'n > ay w = L y N-3 m c ° o o c ai , 5 o a a m L N 'ti.s6 C �. y O a) y p U m c - y z y A > T O j j �,.0 y c -0 W y > L - U O « y U > 0 E of C4 .0 u N'_ c U ° > a ° o 0 N A E u; CO u - N �, y � -y, on o c T� C Q '• O CD = m O O a) a) N m .- L_ a) OOL C) •�_a) O:= .., t p O O 'O O C '00 C. >,r d U. a O O .� C .m0 a) L N a. m 7 cn a C « m. p O p rn aY N c y U O c A C L > D Ln CO O 6cm O 3 CDT O� >'L' m *0 ch LDEd T �.L N.p...�� .� ,yp y c V N ,� N A C C fj c�..� d..j weC� u� y N y a y N N 4} y Vy O �.�.. C c.. Q`3..a) .0 :N c` m .E 3 p m is C r.C,.�: `Ri cq. cc aci;E N N m Q 3 i6 .3 m a`> 3 - O1 3 y �- c o c E d �n y N z y m y >> �? E v U c0e m W.L U. � �C..U. y .3 N c :. 0_L �.Y O.y 0.- cu -� U.0.. � U c..i p N � ,© .c0 °_� m E p d o a `° E C E tat m o a T} c C A `°—' C7 c y' 6i X - $ v °-�' y ci E `� 0 3 c' a� c b a o = « m v E `° '?^ t m z (D �' d `� o o'•- m = 5 0 -- y L i6 E °A' m 0 a E °' - c U m `7 a v t9 p L to A C Q `� E+ N d y O L t0 O y _�'} 'S O E tc O ? O'. a' i m e 3 y v a� H y'i6 w o E .N c y E _ � y �� nN = � u, ca� EcioCEE:5 0Ot � No ?^Er atc �- rcn� � nyuT .m - = ` y Q y m u H— = 1L 0 6, !� -2 w CL A ., = 4 y w E O � ¢Ci O y C 0 o Ep C y O t9 Q O 5 N .U . d O N L c'4 �,ip 'U i0 « to 4N CD E CL 0 a i c s u°i r c E c ' m aN' '� m a ° aa) r c `� ro a c o m z s m a u m m i6 c E o Q T ` v =° y y m E =� c v u c o 0 0 = E m aa) T —c y m .- m .o ami Fn m n� u, '0 N c n c 3 y o m v. W 3 o a� E y > o ;� m n = B o nci a y a m ti L c a m y E o c y c y y ro a ~ m 3 m Q L E '3 m a o m �� a) E _ $ O N1 O N 3 a) LnA y m z Cil >. cn O p T U O c a) C OJ gc� p - dE 76 L L N C y a 3 ,c C = aa)i O L m >� E L CO 3 m cc a) r c y > ca v > y 0 a "' A a v 3 'L E C m C- _m o z -0 o: m E S m m c E .E `^ a 41 } c c m c I'- cv Te y c E c- r x X U y y O M C y .� m C C' a `� `�' A = r 03 Q c,c « c - E A m y a - n y `° ami a y = a a o 'D o� `c' w o a c 3 _o m« - v, zy O o'0 ai m O'N c t $' y c - a cn O p O > tD > O 0' 1A 0� L a) aOj c E 0 y 0 .p,y C 0 0 C m p U U y O y O O � .N C y c 3r .Q C O V c m Crr 61 a A � >,� � m � y ti _ C = « 7 N p A >' y >. O cn O C E =.'O c m ? �—. > > L u0i O' N N cmi 3. 0 c :€ _N •0 > �.C L T.3 p 'y -`-• C to a 0 O'..3 N U y 3 L .t ti T y a c m E y 01 Y6 C m m N m A Q C Q1 O U O > u m y > 3 N c6 .G _T �.:_ `y .0 U O .N = A O = L m C O U m A sn N L = a Cl `° �, c > > a) o = m a 0 0 m .B.3 E o > N x 3 d m m c 3 t ,� y m °y 'c xa m ai E o y c '� E H s A i6 y U a ro a E t x N ° o y A m �n o y r � y a� .> o f a a� c y c a o o t6 c t _ ' p Y ° a� 5 y « > y m y 3 `° A ' o m c c m U c - O >, n y _ o o a co 0 w 0 0 A m a: a) m o ->' > C m a c - w y E c a) zy o '-` E «: a cc Co o c c m c x � .v� c y E c _ 3 y m m .0 a a� T N ' 0 c c. O >L..O cU >_.U 0?L m.4i � p E O C = C S O y �' y.:CL a cv 0 m C . . N 0 >:O j > �n U 0 ' y > •> a c @ t v `�' ai m y a' 3 c `n o .v p o' .c 3 m y s d y 0 o > u� 0 c c o � -,`�L° � y cm C c �° m N m c `-° m ;t ra ca c _N > � . • dU > > . cm x.0E 76 T >.. mpcaCtyca)Or( . 0 � ac $m.. y y U = cc - 75 y rNO� OCm 'Dm E U ay.mm U � Om aVm 0 0 toc L 0.a �m0 - Z Cc a t0 cc o co Ea m E a> a z. y CD v ," n y _ ca Ya CML Wit: • °vr c c °' ns �; a-E 'cv m o ` E 0 y o � L ao 3o •c' $ -yo o v c o n o c ro' ro _ T- .. m as s@ - m 70 its ac 3 u�i m N 3 c`_°i v: c o ° o ata o).0 v r r ti Q : N � '? O m t O O O c 0 O � 0 > m oa E E c is o a_ E o T t o, as N m0 0 o c D N c ° Qa o o u mE cpa n E a o m a`a c .E t aci m as - ` c-0) 0 M • � 3 H o c m �' O L. d ``ND O C Q� r0it •p..Cu 0 L E:.N m O U O —s 0 L y O. T ` .� a. Ep E _ .a`_) ui o ccv n a0, c as 3 0 = E o a, Q c o t a o > r-o p c v ? oT o E cp m Y o o E �;m c c N N y a n m a c z a y rs a n c - = o L -0 m v E c m c ca as ro c a, ro '_ na E v o >+ m o m ca o- 0 c o O •o m m asCD �', ccrs c c N oa c - a � t �° oa c r„ N U CD m � = c o as is U m as a ca 3 m cca N N '3 t �- a, y a m t4 3 a, a, L m a E .� 3 E L a � a = N r c`a E 07 n H N m c r a a o a E E m 0 a, m L U m as m a, m `c _c c a, m n; a c L c'-o, as as as m o 0 o c U " Ecc w o o a cxv c 5 a, - o - a p n �c mQ) 0 a ,c tcv G > y �' c o rU rn m Q as o C On. ° U o a ai "o as m o pn t o E d a c ami a E co J 3 N fa co d U E m " L E 0 N a`, a U. U E L m y. a m. .TA.. ro m ` = 0 pppm m �c. 2: ani B s Q w ca .� E a > 'G a, o .� .ro ..�. p � :� �. > . C E:la cm N C j U ~ O O C ro L '- C 'C -o j m .O m } _ N N , ; E 0 U c .�- c y L pc t�v v vi o cLi o>_d c 3 `c° L % CD y c X ai 0 j p o 'am, O J N N 0 t0 m y N L C, t» 0 - cd9 U d U S7, CL M 'm $a ��„ a vi m e d= �a> E cro as Y h a as m y ° $ N M m c o c 0 n - �_ .E d c o w ro 3 ; L �i E 3 y a vi c aca N Ca c o 0 u N > C N 3 L m C ` '� .m 0 0 Q L ro o = _ N > E c y m .c �,' > :� m to = N O t.7 �. L. G E 0 as N U 3 C Q..0 c 'N fy1 y N C E iu iu 4 iii vi E y = �' O d ro ro ua'i c° p d v> v a C 0 > _ vda C� o 0 c m E Q, w d, = E E e>`� as y c a, E' E a, E �_ L > a, c o y w C - CO Q td z m ro .._ L .� .. O ro C O Q N T Q N tm+i N ro Z7 O O N 0 �N D7 x > o: W N C E E 0 O N ro U 7 a, m C U '� L C ar t U p, a> L O 0 U - Q a E "' r. E c' m J E E ro u w o w as v m E ro .N 0 to $ o rn Q m m_a c °� c U Ep ro o �L- 0 3 �© 2. s =O a> -> c _ r i� Q1 C a, e N N •C m O N C O q, 61 N N O > j• Q Q t%! in O as Cl< G) m o A E z Q' ca c °' v = aci aoi v L L o 3 ' '8 v o w =o o c�' g a r tmn E $ m m E c ? E C Ro >. as D; A y 0 0 p, 09 as tll 0 va 0.U C, O $ ' a CCC, � ro aC, tp t G C L U .O j ,C L .L pI Q ° t � O c m Q a. m o c E m r c as y o .- m E .T > aUi c 3 S -t0 va 5 vi y .� m ro y _ � U 0 CL m o cNo E n 3 c ,`>o a to 3 m v, .c as a aai �_ E O a .5 CD — a _ _ U U > p vyy, C7a.� C m 0 a 0 0 $'. 0 ,Ga cc U 3 O tCU aha m 0 'm a y N O C .8 U a) m m_ 0 ._ m L .O L U aNa L N CD a C N Q 0 N U C L La- "' `- r m a t7 `c c m a U 3 a� � > ~vi E Cl •o E N, N a __ Qy o � a C N C C p Q m 0 h - 0 O O i !4 1] m C tU 3 C O. Oa �• 7 y d.? U m — ti.= 0 0 0 v E a c qc �a oa C ._ > y _ o _ E N �' N ro -0 N 3 2 E > L 0 p •ua E E m N ro Q N O N. c N C y 0 N 0 N A E O 3 �a w C o, o d v o ; g E r coi .S L c m C Nro U L 3 p > ;; n - N gm;o' M �oc > N �, ° t %V �' = ctoas a'a ->' $ y E oa � "' a �a o °i4 Q `c m E' o o p ro E r = _w 0 p E $ N a a N � a, m t7 0 � y w �.� 3p: y .N C � �. 4C`a = 0. a0i a`Na C E Q cw tU U .. Z m o C �_ N. O. O N 0 U o N C O � C L. cl C .c = 3 .c ro O. O t C m L U a) O O .. E E QQQ� cUCJ yO Y a y CpJ O �, a m G U O N E L U C O 0 0 = E d � O d ro O D 0 O L C ro � 'C L 0 0 T 0 'U N o ?� y of N 3 v a 3 o (Li 0 t, m tCt; c a ai 1: c CL p r is Q to > - � p c a� o ? 0 y c E c > a) o o c t E ro c Q d tri L is Q g o as . _ as y N c o aL E F- to Q " t O C O E 0 0 2 0) d S c N 0 0 v � 0 m O N ro � Z c°' >,- - .0 a E to aD y o 3 m Q rot_o a ar"i -o �n >= o $ N �" E - o E > y m m ; E E x 3 N o o (m C) c `c to E ur 3 m o c is to y h y w o r m L c as ro 'm E ro c m as y o w > T N ro _po ¢ 0 - - � c � m 0 3 c S m L c .e, , C N-� N 'n � C d L N o. >..}, E. 0) C 0..p m C N ..0 � _.� .aOL � Ty �_U � O 0 c -6 0 �. Qo 0 ro. C. y _ m N N cm m e 0. C. m L 0 N. C. O U O.(n BUY ro ._ U rn T ro C 0 E m E • 0 U ro .X 0 d 0p m N A a) O w .0 N 0 w -9 0 'C _ ZO.O Tf0. 0 to E 0 d 'N o O. f0 c O.ca .0 CL mF .oy t ,jpj0 >.� Eo N o w x ro o a� m a`a -0 o d r. �, - as E c o 0 (D ca _ -o _j ca y c v m cl � Q v � � v c 0 A m ro 0 m r_ -0 O m E t m rn = E N T'tp c c c z N �, •E �'a� _c E 6 0 2 8 3- �,« !- c " m as > p c .5 0 E m s o o a' m o C ami a`� _c E �,'E v o:c a, as ffi v o c 0 o >' coi o co, avi `m c N o E Q a 3,�a z .. ra ._ N c o c c co`0 3 :- a) A E .n v A os'm L t �'$ o 0 c E :co �_c t J MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON T0: Honorable Mayor and City Council April 24, 1985 I=RON Bob Jean, City Administrator- A� SUBJECT: Quarterly Policy Review that we shoud have a As a part of the January Goal-SettiQalit AagtheClasdeidet BoardsmanshiplWorkshop Quarterly Review of our policy and gs it was also apparent that we need to develop written oloas,pl After with tonight's the Boards and Committees based on these policy ,gChairpersons in ommitee review, I would be pleased toe them alonandg w th t Departmental Work developing _their plans and submitting Programs to the Council for review. Major policy and goals issues in process: Civic _Center — Bid call out; apparent 11low�►ryidder y 5/20; budget review o 6/10; 5/22 with Budget Committee; bid a o Labor Relations - TPOA Retirement discussion continue; Sergeant's ULP ion aappeal filed; TMEA negotiations on schedule; Salary and Classtfor Study set for May — June Council review; Council Workshop suggested 5118 brunch. o LID Policy -� Final draft typed for May Council review; ordinance in May; handbook in June O Computer Master Plan — RFP in preparation. a Sklrvice Level Priorities — Final draft per Council discussion being typed for June adoption. a Merit System Review concerns at 5/18 Workshop? a Greenbury Traffiz Study- Consultant hired; Jung report? o Dartmouth LID — On schedule per Council direction. a Streets CIP — Summer project for Transportation Committee; Administrative Planner on staff for all CIP projects. o Wastewater Audit — CPA firms being contacted re: rates; Council Advisory Committee for May discussion? 13 3 o Committee planWorkshy s - Board and committee meetings complete le £ has /of F ning Commission/NPO meeting; Boardsmanship Workshop comp k in June? 5/15 meeting; handboo �� t ■ aeis�r i� r ::. o Parks Plan and CIP - Summer Park & Recreation Board Work Plan. Y o Recreation Program - Preliminary Program reviewed by Budget Committee; Intern project for Summer? o Personnel Rules - Garcia vs. San Antonio review in process; Fall report. o Community Relations - Council Workshop 5/13? 0 135th LID - Records from County; neighborhood informational meeting in May - June? oStorm Drainage Assets - Map records update in process; some field survey work;` 2 year effort on schedule. o Revised Management Information Systems - Accounting Information Management Systems (A.I.M.S.) on hold pending Computer Master Plan implementation. E o' Accounting Policy and Procedures Manual- In process. o Improve Special Assessment Accounting - Foreclosure and collection system established on delinquent accounts; accounting improvements awaiting Computer Master Plan. Some recent issues which I suggest we also add to our list are: a _Traffic Studies - For Tigard Triangle and the McDonald/Pacific/Nall neighborhood (SOC funded). o Three-Year Finance Plan - Update. o Annexation Policy - Review. o Public Safety Review - Contracting for Police and Fire Services? o Urban Services Study o Library Policy Options o Cable TV/MACC - Review. CONCLUSION: While many in the community may wish to believe that we are still a sleepy little town, the reality is that Tigard is a rapidly growing major city, the State's 12th largest. My concern is that much of the Council's time and attention is focused internally upon administrative matters. If not the Council, then who is attending to the the major policy issues surrounding us which will really affect the community's future for Years, generations, yet to come? I believe the Council needs to review its policy, direct its time first to ,those strategic issues and then as appropriate to administrative detail. "Be not _penny • wise and pound foolish." - The Farmer's Almanac, Benjamin Franklin. 0812p WWWRINE— a { MEMORANDUM .4 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ;4 h TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council April 29. 1985 FROM: Bob Jean. City Administrator SUBJECT: Council Policy Calendar { 4/29 Monday Policy/Calendar Review. 5/1 Wednesday Budget Committee Recommendation 5/6 Monday Council Meeting, Business 5/13 Monday Council Meeting. Planning Commission/NPO Workshop, Community Relations Discussion. 5/15 Wednesday Boardsmanship,Workshop 02. v 5118 Saturday Labor Relations Workshop? 5/20 Monday Council Meeting, Business (Apparent Low Bid?) 5/22 Wednesday Budget Committee Workshop. (5/27 Monday NO COUNCIL. MEETING, Memorial Day) 6/10 Monday Council Meeting, Business (MACC 'Executive Session and Civic Center Bid Award) a 6/17 Monday Council Meeting, Business. 6/19 Wednesday Executive Session (City Administrator's performance review continued)? 3 6/2�i Monday Council Meeting. Business. i . JW/0013p . 7A5 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ` TO: Honorable Mayor anApril 29, 1985d City Council f FROM: Bob Jean, City Administrator�3 / SUBJECT: Council Policy Calendar 4/29 Monday Policy/Calendar Review. 5/1 Wednesday Budget Committee Recommendation 5/6 Monday Council Meeting, Business 5/13 Monday Council Meeting, Planning Commission/NPO Workshop, Community Relations Discussion. j 5/15 Wednesday Boardsmanship Workshop 102. 5/18 Saturday Labor Relations Workshop? 5/20 Monday Council Meeting, Business (Apparent Low Bid?) 5/22 Wednesday Budget Committee Workshop. (5/27 Monday NO COUNCIL MEETING, Memorial Day) '6/10 Monday Council Meeting, Business (MACC Executive Session and Civic Center Bid Award) �S 6/17 Monday Council Meeting, Business, i 6/19 Wednesday Executive Session (City Administrator's performance review continued)? 6/24 Monday Council Meeting, Business. q ,x :. lw/0813p MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council April 29, 1985 FROM: Bob Jean, City Administrator SUBJECT; Quarterly Policy Review (T As a part of the January Goal-Setting, it was decided that we should have a Quarterly Review of our policy and goals. At the last Boardsmanship Workshop it was also apparent that we need to develop written work plans with each of the Boards and Committeesbased on these policy goals. After ' tonight's review, I would be pleased to assist the Board and Committee Chairpersons in developing their plans and submitting them along with Departmental Work Programs to the Council for review. Major policy and goals issues in process; o Civic Cantor Hid call out, apparent low bidder by 5/20, budget review 5/22 with Budget Committee; bid award 6/10; on schedule. o Labor Relations — TPOA Retirement discussion continue; Sergeant's ULP appeal filed; TMEA negotiations on schedule, Salary and Classification Study set for May — June Council review; Council Workshop suggested for 5/18 brunch. o LID Policy — Final draft typed for May Council review; ordinance in May; handbook in June. o Computer Master Plan — RFP in preparation. o Service Level Priorities — Final draft per Council discussion being typed for June adoption. o Merit System — Review concerns at 5/18 Workshop? o Greenbury Traffic Study — Consultant hired; June report? o Dartmouth LID — On schedule per Council direction. o Streets CIP — Sooner project for Transportation Committee; Administrative Planner on staff for all CTP projects. o Wastewater Audit — CPA firms being contacted re: rates; Council Advisory Committee—for May discussion? t o Committee- Workshops Board and committee meetings complete with 5/o f Planning Commission/NPO meeting Boa►rdsmanship Workshop complete as o 5/15' meeting;` handbook in June? o Parks Plan and CIP - Summer Park & Recreation Board Work Plan. ` o Recreation Program Preliminary Program reviewed by Budget Committee; Intern project for Summer? o personnel Rules - Garcia vs. San Antonio review in process; Fall report. i o Community Relations Council Workshop 5/13? 0 135th LID - Records from County; neighborhood informational meeting in May - June? o Storm Drainage Assets - Map records update in process; some field survey _work; 2 year effort on schedule. 0 Revised Management Information Svstems - Accounting Information Management Systems (A.I.M.S.) on hold pending Computer Master Plan implementation. o Accounti Polic and Procedures Manual In process. o Improve Specia►1 Assessment Accounting - Foreclosure and collection system established on _delinquent accounts; accounting improvements awaiting Computer Master Plan. Some recent issues which I suggest we also add to our list are: a Traffic Studies - For Tigard Triangle and the McDonald/Pacific/wall neighborhood (SDC funded). o Three-Year Finance Plan - Update. o Annexation Policy - Review. o Public Safety Review - Contracting for Police and Fire Services? o Urban Services Study o Librar Polio O tions o Cable TVJMACC - Review. CONCLUSION' While many in the community may wish to believe that we are still a sleepy little town, the reality is that Tigard is a rapidly growing major city, the State's 12th largest. My concern is that much of the Council's time and attention is focused internally upon administrative matters. If not the Council, then who is attending to the the major policy issues surrounding us which will really affect the community's future for years, generations, yet to come? I believe the Council needs to review its policy, direct its time first to those strategic issues and then as appropriate to administrative detail. "Be notpenny wise and pound foolish." - The Farmer's Almanac, Benjamin Franklin. 0812p - CITY OF TIGARD OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: April #: 29 1485 AGENDA ITEM DATE SUBMITTED: April 22 1985 PREVIOUS ACTION: Acf.eptance of Public ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Acceptance of Improvement Maint. Bond Sanitar Sewer Easements for "Park PREPARED BY: Randy Clarno Street Square" REQUESTED BY: Engineering & Developer DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: POLICY ISSUE _____---- INFORMATION SUMMARY Park Street Square is a small commerc5.a1 development located at the corner of S.W. Park Street and Pacific Highway. The developer (Bedford Properties) mistakenly processed and recorded the sanitary sewer easements before Council acceptance. The City Attorney has reviewed the easement Fara recorded and has determined it as acceptable. Al.TERNATIVES CONSIDERED SUGGESTED ACTION that Council accept this 'recorded" sanitary sewer Engineering recommends ' easement. (125TP) CITY OF TIGARD OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUN'ir1ARY �� 1985 ' AGENDA ITEM #: AGENDA OF: April 29. _...----- � PREVIOUS ACTION: None i DATE SUBMITTED: A ril 22 1985 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Final Acce(at. public Sanitar Sewer constructed in PREPARED BY: Randy Clarno�w'" Par k Street REQUESTED 9Y: S uare E ineerin & Bedford K: DEPARTMENT HEAD O _ --` CITY ADMINISTRATOR: �� — pOL.ICY ISSUE INFORMATION SUMMARY Street square is a sR,a11 commercial development located at the corner of Park St The public sanitary sewer is complete S.W. Park Street and Pacific Highway. year maintenance &nd the developer has maintai Read tr�que t the sewer for hCity�tor accept the sewer for period. The developers are full maintenance responsibilities. ALTERNATIVES COOINSIDERED — SUGGESTED ACTION recommends that Council accept the public sanitary sewer . _. Engineering constructed as part of the Park Street Square development. (RC:dj/1255P) CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: April 29, 1985 AGENDA ITEM DATE SUBMITTED: April 22, 1985 PREVIOUS ACTION: -Placed on Maintenance ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Final Acceptance August 10, 1981 of public improvements constructed PREPARED BY- Randy Clarno T within Kevington Subdivision REQUESTED BY: Engineering & Developer DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: 8 CITY ADMINISTRATOR: POLICY ISSUE INFORMATION SUMMARY Kevington is an 8 lot subdivision located just west of S.W. 98th Avenue, and north of S.W. Durham Road. She developer has assumed maintenance responsibilities on the completed improvements during the required maintenance period, and is now requesting to release that responsibility to the City. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED r w` SUGGESTED ACTION Engineering recommends than Council accept the public improvements within Kevington Subdivision and authorize release of tha developer's Maintenance Bond. (1275P) � y � SW ERRui Si: jam`#f(,w ` �•a +1 ��, S+ ` f•4 • y ��5+ 11 a w�41, _ r FII � � *!` � o1111t n. s t tt�```\\``�: o+♦ 5��+ O � � ,L�y S.W. KER ..f > CARMEN .sm. AL■ENT& ST: ; 0.illwS �# �J� ; •may f+`,C ri ■1 i l i S.W. ^f AN IN. cat w ♦ �( .-„J \<6 n �1 / - ti o♦ . r y, < s�. Lr. 3 G /d',�A,p�P „ ♦ acQ'•:t ST ST. ?e �' / 1t OIT tl Oa' 1'�/. S.w 01/MA _ a r ,p>a �• /, v,W, ti� S W E(16EWOOD W Re. Y CT wNwIEM 'R I A ;W Sl fL7 � .w af>9`� AwN[ FMK FL. ••• a pl l y 3 ` 4 MA.iDDX►D T STON •+N AI ■p ''�� OSE f• r AAMEWLANE > S. 9Kw}} fE AGF Avj iW iM[2 {r Fl l • _ S SM •�- w ►EwgDON w w w 1�^'iJi-,�-j -. w w It 5 a A iw li U6(MTf » ; 1•.It.Uw o twat D art � $ (i an {; Sr. $6009ww ■ A ATT Et T ROSf al f'f i �( it r T � • SITE F >9 w a 1, • ',. l 6 ��• •aFCa>\TAI Il• �wEX A. l ■OIIMMIM h �•f f •l.•tya tF f� W.>AKII sl S :RD) !! DAA RD iii +• ' / r 1) r y ar Is*iDDly sm, i1 (KING I 1! R. J AVLV it CT i 1 r nl l w i ~ 9 rte � ■■ `�j Aw000'A'�• M t W D I IMI A� (l NA w N ss w •yl l 7wLATIM N i •4 NA r 1 > r V III ^ CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: S AGENDA ITEM #: . DATE SUBMITTED: 4/24135 PREVIOUS ACTION: none ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Subdiv. Compli. Agree. 6 Perform, Bond-Colony Creek PREPARED BY: J. S. Hagman #3--Authorize City Acceptance REQUESTED BY Development Services DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: �� CITY ADMINISTRATOR: POLICY ISSUE INFORMATION SUMMARY 1) Colony Creek #3 (subdivision) is located east of Hall Blvd. , between the intersection of McDonald 'Street and the intersection of Bonita Road. Previous phases thereof having already been constructed. 2) The preliminary plat for this phase of the development has been approved by the City. Public improvement construction plans have been reviewed and are approvable; all required public improvement fees have bean paid. 3) The attached Compliance Agreement and Performance Bond are acceptable to staff, being of the same format previously accepted by the Council relative to the earlier phases of this development. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Y SUGGESTED ACTION rte. Authorize the Mayor and City Recorder to execute the Colony ,Creek #3 Subdivision Compliance Agreement in behalf of the City and, also, accept the :=.. Performance (guarantee) Bond. (aN:pm/1270P) Tigard Department of Public Works Gentlemen: We have received from you a loan commitment in the amount of $650,000.00 to finance the improvements of a subdivision located in the City of Tigard, Washington County, commonly known as Colony Creek Estates Subdivision, Phase III. 'Loan commitment is by LINE OF CREDIT. 2 $113,425.00 of the total commitment has been allocated for the improvements and development of; 1) streets, including drainage and curbs; 2) adequate provisions so as to protect the subdivision from dangers and damage from storm, drainage and flood waters. All such improvements are to be completed in conformity with the current standards of the Tigard Department of Public Works. We have agreed that disbursements of the $113,425.00 will be made on the following schedule; ITEM PERCENTAGE AMOUNT Streets 46.2 52.400. Storm System 11.2 12,700. Water System i6.1 18,225. Sanitary System 26.5 30,100. TOTAL 100.0 113,425. We have entered into a "Subdivision Compliance Agreement" whereby we have contracted to install all improvements in accordance with the requirements of the Tigard Depart- ment of Public Works and we are hereby authorizing you to hold the above stated funds andto pay them to us only when the following has been adhered to: Tigard Department of Public Works has provided certification acknowledging completion of the work,pursuant to the above schedule of improvements. It is further understood and agreed that the aforesaid priority of claim is paramount to all parties including the lending institution makingthe loan and that the lending institution has covenanted and agreed that the sum of 113 ,425.00 less disbursments approved by the City of Tigard shall be held available to satisfy any aforementioned .. claim by the City of Tigard notwithstanding default on loan by borrowing party or termination of loan by lending institution. Sincerely, TITAN PROPERTIES CORPORATION an Ore9pn corporation epben e , res dent Approved and Accepted; ORBANCO REAL ESTATE SERVICES CO. (Lending Institution) gy dll.. �"obert uc s, en or" i-ce res ant lSTATE OF OREGON, `t Washington a'' Aril 85 county of...... - ......_........................._,. On this.... _,.day oi. April , 19.. . before me appeared.._..__.. ...Stephen,. ...Bleak........... ......................... ___. IM --- - _....._........ _•....-.--- -..-._.1M to me personally known,who being duly sworn,did say that he,the said..-...... .............. Stephen..A...9leak....._ ......... :.. . ..... .._ ..-.._ is the President,itdl SMXXXXMW.. ........ ..:............................................... . _.... axwucxxxxxxxxxxxxsrerY wjc. . .. __..........._.wr.:._Ii.tan..P.roperties...Corporation_.., the within named Corporation,and that the seal affixed to said instrument is the corporate seal of said Corpora- tion,and that the said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said Corporation by authority of its Board of Directors, and.. ,.,Stephen.JL...Rleak...........................and.. ....:-.: ........ acknowledge said instrument to be the free act and deed of said Corporation. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hard and affixed my ofHd seat the day and year last above written. PATRIVA L. FARREMS N to y fie for Oregon. Attptsstaa 'NOTT PP Ur UREGOfi : It y ; : WICK SUBDIVISION COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT dated the LC _ day of &iz 19, �_ between the CITY OF TIGARD, a _municipality of Oregon, hereinafter termed the "'CITY", and Titan Properties Inc and Oregon CorRorsition, hereinafter termed "Petitioner". W I T N E S S E T H WHEREAS, Petitt7ner has applied to the City for approval for filing in Washington County, a subdivision plat known as Colony Creek Estates No. _3 in Section 12, Township 2 SoLth, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon; and WHEREAS, the City has approved and adopted the standard specifications for Public Works construction by APWA Oregon Chapter and the Unified Sewerage specifications for the sanitary sewers prepared by professional engineers for subdivision development; and WHEREAS, the public improvements required to be constructed or placed in Petitioner's development are incomplete, but Petitioner has nonetheless requested the City to permit progressive occupancy and use of property in the subdivision, and the parties desire hereby to protect the public interest generally and prospective purchasers of lots in said subdivision by legally enforceable assurances than the public improvements will be installed as required and completed within the time hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and the covenants and agreements to be kept and performed by the Petitioner and its sureties, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: (1) Petitioner shall proceed with. the development, with the intent and purpose to complete all public improvements except sidewalks and street trees of said subdivisionnot later than two (2) years from the date of this agreement, and Petitioner is hereby bound to comply with all subdivision standards as set forth in said Subdivision Ordinance and the standard specification adopted by the City of tigard, or as may be otherwise approved by the Public Works Department and to use only such material and to follow such designs as may be required to conform thereto. Petitioner shall provide certification of installation conformance, via a registered civil engineer, to the City prior to City inspection of petitioners improvement work for City tentative and final acceptance consideration. (2) To assure compliance with the City's requirements and the provisions hereof, Petitioner tenders herewith to the City a surety bond in form approved by the City, with liability in the amount of $113,425,00 a copy whereof hereto attached by this reference made a part hereof. (3) In the event that Petitioner shall fail, neglect or refuse to proceed with the work in an orderly and progressive manner to assure completion within the time limits, upon ten (10) days notice by the City to Petitioner and Petitioner's sureties, and such default and failure to proceed continuing thereafter, the City may at its option proceed to have the work competed and - 1 - QG[ _ u' charge the costs hereof against Petitioner and Petitioner's sureties and in the event same be not paid, to bring an action on the said bond to recover the amountthereof. In the event` such action be brought, Petitioner and Petitioner's sureties promise and agree to pay, in addition to the amounts accruing and allowable, such sum as the court shall adjudge reasonable as attorney's fees and costs incurred by the City, both in the Trial Court, and Appellate Court, if any, or the City may, at its option, bring proceedings to enforce against the Petitioner and/or Petitioner's sureties specific performance of the contract and compliance with the subdivision standards and ordinances of the City of Tigard, and in such event, in like manner, the City shall be entitled to recover such sum as the court shall adjudge reasonable as and for the City's attorney's fees and costs, both in the Trial Court ,and Appellate Court, if any. (4) Petitioner, concurrent the with execution hereof, has deposited with the City an amount estimated to equal rental and maintenance fees with respect to the - street- lighting facilities within the subdivision, according to Portland General Electric Schedule f91, Option "B", together with a further sum equal to the estimated cost of providing electrical energy to energize the street lighting facilities for a period of two (2) years from the date of initial energizing of said lights. Said amount being $tom 1&.72 • (5) The City agrees to make and provide periodic and final inspections which in the City's interest are desirable to assure compliance' herewith, in consideration whereof the Petitioner has paid prescribed inspections face.* (6) The City agrees to install street identification and traffic signs within the said subdivision, in consideration of payment in the amount of (7) At such time as all public improvements except sidewalks and street trees within the subdivision have been completed in accordance with the City's requirements, Petitioner shall submit a "certificate of installation conformance" to the City to notify the City of the readiness for acceptance `y consideration inspection and upon notification by the Department of Public Works that the requirements of the City have been met, the Petitioner will submit to the City a good and sufficient maintenance bond if not already Qrovided with the performance bond, form approved by the City, in the sum of 22,685.00 to provide for correction of any defective work or maintenance becoming apparent or arising within one (1) year after tentative L acceptance of the public improvements by the City. Upon receipt of Certification by the Department of Public Works, that all requirements have been met, and a One Year Maintenance Bond, the City Council agrees to tentatively accept the public improvement subject to the requirements for 'correction of deficiencies and maintenance for a period of one year as hereinabove set forth. (8) That in addition to or supplementary of the requirements of the City's Subdivision Ordinance and the provisions hereof, Petitioner binds itself to conform to the following requirements, scheduling and limitations: Z Ic y P; *Project Fee $ 30].60 Sewer Fee g 1235.40 - 2 — (a) None of the dots of Petitioner's subdivision permitn occupancy s d described be issued under occupied for residential purposes until permit shall be issued prior to the authority of the City and no occupancy acceptance of the subdivision and roposedito e hat the occupied, isinstalledinstalledparalleling a the street for each developed lot proposed plans part of the development, provided that all sidewalks as require by the and subdivision code shall be installed throughout said Improvement Contrsion not later than 3 years from the date of this (b) All landscaping trees on that portion of each lot between the public sidewalks and the curb (parking area) is required, shall be planted such in place prior to final inspection and issuance of occupancy p applicant for lot in the subdivision- thia vanyaG iendarfinal moath from Oetobe.rand to April of any occupancy permit occurs rowing season• year, such plantings may be deferred anti the next following gin In any event, all landscaping aasarees in all i.thin threeeas(3) y alr bf o planted date of place within the entire subdivision this subdivision improvement contract. (c) After tentative City acceptance of the public improvements, the velay Petitioner agrees to place a one (1) ilacementaltic schedulingeto beaapproveobyrthe on all roads within the development: p City. (d) Compliance with a13terms cilnand the provisions Planni Planningspecified Commissiossrof4the for said subdivision development by the City of Tigard, regon�pe speciregfied therd to vzonenuse classification ces allowed from the subdivision on ordinance, con the approved plat(s) and plan(s)- (e) Petitioner agrees to provide for correction of ny defective work and/or maintenance becoming apparent or arising during the guarantee period as hereinabove set forth. ompleted in (4) At each time as =e requiremenl public ts, mprovements have been Petitioner shall notify c the City of accordance with the City q the readiness for final inspection and upon certification een been the tCouncil Public Works that all requirements of the City operatn agrees to ac Ctsereinreigard,m�d provements release the Petitioners guaranteeand bond. responsibility, (lp) The parties hereto he adopt the fossa of performance bond, copy hereo whereof is hereto attached and ondence executeda andpars filedf=with and PthetiCity agrees to cause to have said ent at or prier to the time this concurrently with the execution of this agreem agreement is executed on behalf of the City- 11) The specific requirements of Paragraph 9 hereof shall for all ecure purposes be included as a aid part ofthe °ntitied�tosrecourseythereto the f in the performance bond and the City shall event of default on the part of the Petit:oner with respect to any requirement thereof. n d 3 m. Int I�r win IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Petitioner acting by and through its duly authorized undersignedofficers pursuant to resolution of its Board of Directors has caused this agreement to be executed, and the City acting pursuant to resolution of its Council adopted at a meeting thereof duly and regularly held on the � _ day of has caused this agreement .to be executed by its tayor and Recorder. TITAN PROPERTIES, INC. 21 -s"`r�« By: THE CI 'X�¢FTI ARD, OREGON By: BY 4& *� r.' Recorder =STATE OF OREGON C�a n+.y of _ ss. CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDG!IENT On this 14hday of i �_, 190,5, before me appeared �p�� ___ _12t 6f and �—_ both to me personally known, who being. duly sworn, did"say that he, the said �R7l��.� is the ---- President, and he, the said �j l � (� ,k is the Secretary of � t�` ._�`G� the with, . name and ")at the seal affixed to said instrument is the ou.~ porate seal of said Corporation, and that the said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said Corporation by authority of its Board of Directcirs. nd ' and cknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said Corporatitr.:. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year last above written. PATRICIA L. r�s��, NOTARY F,.F�Li G ,��» ! `tAy Commission rt.ores uw G� �'(�tt) Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires 1-5 �7 -57 _ 4 _ ........... CITY OF.TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY' AGENDA OF: 1-� -Z'� " AGENDA ITEM #? �• DATE SUBMITTED: 4/24/85 PREVIOUS ACTION: none ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Subdiv. Compli. Agree & Perform. Bond--Colony Creek PREPARED BY: J. S. Hagman #4—Authorize City Acceptance REQUESTED BY: Development Services DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: POLICY ISSUE INFORMATION SUMMARY IL) Colony Creek #4 (subdivision) is located east of Hall Blvd. , between the intersection of McDonald Street and the intersection of BonitaRoad. Previous phases thereof having already been constructed. 2) The preliminary plat for this phase of the development has been approved by the City. Public improvement construction plans have been reviewed and are approvable; all required public improvement fees have been paid. S) The attached Compliance Agreement and Performance Bond are acceptable to staff, being of the same format previously accepted by the Council relative to the earlier phases of this development. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED SUGGESTED ACTION .:' Authorize the Mayor .and City Recorder to execute the Colony Creek #4 s- Subdivision 'Compliance Agreement in behalf of the City and, also, accept the Perfiormance (guarantee) Bond. (J pm/1270P) Tigard Department of Public Works Gentlemen: We have received from you a loan commitment in the amount of 8650,000.00 to finance the improvements of a subdivision located in the City of Tigard, Washington County, commonly known as Colony Creek Estates Subdivision, Phase IV. Loan Commitment is _ by LINE OP CREDIT. $63,967.00 of the total commitment has been allocated for the improvements anadequate' development of: 1) ' streets, including drainage, curbs and bike paths; ,provisions so as to protectthe subdivision from dangers and damage from storm, drainage and flood waters. All such improvements are to be completed in conformity with the current standards of the Tigard Department of Public Works. We have agreed that disbursements of the $63,967.00 will be made on the following schedule: ITEM PERCENTAGE AMOUNT Streets 37.9 24,200. Storm System 25.0 16,000. Water System 9.0 5,767. Sanitary System 28.1 18,000. TOTAL100.0 63,967. We have entered into a "Subdivision'Compliance Agreement"whereby we have contracted to install all improvements in accordance with the requirements of the Tigard Depart- ment of Public Works and we are hereby authorizing you to hold the above stated funds and to pay them to us only when the following has been adhered to: Tigard Department of Public Works has provided certification acknowledging completion of the work pursuant to the above schedule of improvements. It is further understood and agreed that the aforesaid priority of claim is paramount to all parties including the lending institution making the loan and that the lending institution has covenanted and agreed that the sum of 563,967.00 less disbursments approved by the City of Tigard shall be held available to satisfy any aforementioned claim by the City of Tigard notwithstanding default on loan by borrowing party or termination of loan by lending institution. Sincerely. TITAN PROPERTIES CORPORATION an Oregon corporation - en , ea �res ent Approved and Accepted: ( ORBANCO REAL ESTATE SERVICES CO. (Lending Institution) By /6 — rt uc s, Senor_ ce res_ ent _ - N9,M Ne.ls..,►atwovnsoars+rr_tarannoa. ,vavara..,a,a.r ru..r..ro.rura.e... srArZ OF OREGON, 85 aa. County of Wash4ngton on tla,._ day of. April 19 - before me appeared._ ..Stephen A,......e3k._. ....:::_ li" .............. ...._...... ......7b1 m to me personally known,who being duty sworn,did say that he,the said................. ... Stephen...A.-Il.eak........,_ ............. _ is the _President,d"dt74YXtalB(MM ................... .. ...... bixrbv: - srdexemaxtc _ .. a...Titaa..P.ropertieS:Corporatism..... _.. :. the within named Corporation,and that the seal allixed to said instrument is the corporate seal of said Corpora- tion,and that the said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said Corporation by authority of its Board of Directors.and.....STephen..A....Rleak.................................am............ ...........: .._: acknowledge said instrument to be the fuse act and deed of acid Corporation. IN rESrjmoNr WFIEREOF.I havo hereunto set my hand and affixed MY olfiaal eal the day year last above written PATRICIA'L FARREiNS N to lit/or Oregon. SUBDIVISION COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT dated the �� day of &_- , 1985 between the CITY OF TIGARD, a municipality of Oregon, hereinafter termed the "CITY", and Titan Properties Inc and Oregon Corporation hereinafter termed "Petitioner". W I T N E S S E T H WHEREAS,' Petitioner has applied to the City for approval for filing in Washington County, a subdivision plat known as ,SoignX Crgek Estates No 4 . Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon; and WHEREAS, the City has approved and adopted the standard specifications for Public Works construction by APWA Oregon Chapter and the Unified Sewerage specifications for the sanitary sewers prepared by professional engineers for subdivision development; and WHEREAS, the public improvements required to be constructed or placed in Petitioner's development are incomplete, but Petitioner has nonetheless requested the City to permit progressive occupancy and use of property in the subdivision, and the parties desire hereby to protect the public interest generally and prospective purchasers of lots in said subdivision by legally enforceable assurances that the public improvements will be installed as required and completed within the time hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and the covenants and agreements to be kept and performed by the Petitioner and its sureties, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: (1) Petitioner shall proceed with the development, with the intent and purpose to complete all public improvements except sidewalks and street trees of said subdivision not later than two (2) years from the date of this agreement, and Petitioner is hereby bound to comply with all subdivision standardsas set forth in said Subdivision Ordinance and the standard specification adopted by the City of tigard, or as may be otherwise approved by the Public Works Department and to use only such material and to follow such designs as may be required to conform thereto. Petitioner shall provide certification of installation conformance, via a registered civil engineer, to the City prior to City inspection of petitioners improvement work for City tentative and final acceptance consideration. (2) To assure compliance with the City's requirements and the provisions hereof, Petitioner tenders herewith to the City a surety bond in form approved by the City, with liability in the amount of $ b3.9fi7.00 a copy whereof hereto attached by this reference made a part hereof. (3) In the event that Petitioner shall fail, neglect or refuse to proceed with the work in an orderly and progressive manner to assure completion within the time limits, upon ten (10) days notice by the City to Petitioner and Petitioner's sureties, and such default and failure to proceed continuing thereafter, the City may at its option proceed to have the work competed and _ 1 _ v.mr charge the costs hereof against PetitionerandPetitioner's sureties and in the event same be not paid, to bring an action on the said bond to recover the amount thereof. In the event such action be brought, Petitioner and Petitioner'ssureties promise and agree to pay, in addition to ,the amounts accruing and allowable, such sum as the court shall adjudge reasonable as attorney's fees and costs incurred by the City, both in the Trial Court and Appellate Court,- if any, or the City may, at its option, bring proceedings ,to enforce against the Petitioner and/or Petitioner's sureties specific performance of the contract and compliance with the subdivision standards and ordinances of the City of Tigard, and .in such event, in like manner, the City shall be entitled to recover such sum as the court shall adjudge reasonable,as aad for the City's attorney's fees and costs, both in the Trial Court and ;Appellate Court, if any. (4) Petitioner, :.current the with execution hereof, has deposited with the City an amount estimated to equal rental and maintenance fees with respect to the street -lighting facilities within the subdivision, according to Portland General Electric Schedule #91, _option' "B", together with ,a further sum equal to the estimated cost of providing electrical energy to energize the street lighting facilities for a period of two (2) years from the date of initial energizing of said lights. Said amount being $_W.36 ,_.�• (5) The City agrees to make and ,provide periodic and final inspections which in the City's interest are desirable to assure compliance herewith, in consideration whereof the Petitioner has paid prescribed inspections fees.* (6) The City agrees to install street identification and traffic signs within the said subdivision, in consideration of payment in the amount of (7) At such time as all public improvements except sidewalks and street trees within the subdivision have been completed in accordance with the City's requirements, Petitioner shall submit a "certificate of installation conformance" to the City to notify the City of the readiness for acceptance consideration inspection and upon notification by the Department of Public works that the requirements of the City have been met, the Petitioner will submit to the City a good and sufficient maintenance bond if not already provided with the performance bond, form approved by the City, in the sum of $_j2 YR •( to Provide for correction of any defective work or maintenance becoming apparent or arising within one (1) year after tentative acceptance of the public improvements by the City. Upon receipt of certification by the Department of Public Works, that all requirements have been met, and a one Year Maintenance Bond, the City Council agrees to tentatively accept the public improvement subject to the requirements for correction of deficiencies and maintenance for a period of one year as hereinabove set forth. (8) That- in addition to or supplementary of the requirements of the City's Subdivision Ordinance and the 'provisions hereof, Petitioner binds itself to conform to the following requirements, scheduling and limitations: *Project Pee 1.799.88 Sewer Pee 758.80 3 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 1 acceptance of the subdivision and to the time that the sidewalk paralleling x the street for each developed lot proposed to a occupied, is installed as a part of the development; provided that all sidewalks as required by the plans l. be installed throughout said subdivision not later and subdivision codeshall 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) is required, shall be planted 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 i place within the entire subdivision within three (3) years from the date of this subdivisionimprovement contract. (c) After tentative City acceptance of the public improvements, the Petitioner agrees to place a one (1) inch asphaltic concrete Class "B" overlay on all roads within the development; placement scheduling to be approve 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 plan(s). (e) Petitioner agrees to provide for correction of any defective work and/or maintenance becoming apparent or arising during the guarantee period as hereinabove set forth. (9) At such time as all public improvements have been completed in accordance with the City's requirements, Petitioner shall notify the City of the readiness for final inspection and upon certification by the Department of Public Works that all requirements of the City have been met, the Council agrees to accept said improvements for operation and maintenance responsibility, thereinregard, and release the Petitioner's guarantee bond. (10) The parties hereto hereby adopt the form of performance bond, copy whereof is hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, and Petitioner agrees to cause to have said bond executed and filed with the City concurrently with the execution of this agreement at or prior to the time this agreement is executed on behalf of the City. (11) The specific requirements of Paragraph 9 hereof shall for all purposes be included as a part of the obligation secured by the aforesaid performance bond and the City shall be entitled to recourse thereto in the event of default on the part of the Petitioner with respect to any requirement thereof. 3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Petitioner acting by and through its duly authorized [ undersigned 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 nQ-,,'h day of , 19 has has caused this agreement to be executed by itd Mayor and Recorder. TITAN PROPERTIES, INC. By: By: THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON By: or. By ' _tw Recorder STATE OF OREGON ) CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGMENT ss. C4_ ty of_ W 111 V1. ) �. ._._ ktt�r� Q ' ` 19 �, before me appeared On this �1lday of '� _ . and h bot to me personally known, who bcinf. dulti- swQrn, did may that e, the said �u rL:___�=`_s_ Ai;; : h� Pri - irient, and he, the saidAll , �� (, __��is the SFcretsyr% of �� ' ' __— `the within named Corporation, and that the seal affixed to said instrument, is trjF. seal of said Corporation, and that the said instrument Was signed and sealed :sn behalf of said Corporation by authority of its Board of Directors, and acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said Corporation. IN TESTIM0NY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set MY hand aaffixed my official seal the day 'and n year 1"st abovewritten. PATRICIA L FAII � NOTARY PC"'fu ti:;c.v`J Lw ' Notary ub is or Oregon My Commission Er.Fsres My Commission Expires° �•� -��1 __— _ 4 _