Loading...
City Council Packet - 05/06/1985 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL. PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA agenda item needs to sign on the appropriate HAY 6, 1985,;7:30 P.M. sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet`is available, - ask to be recognized by the Chair at the start FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH 10865 SW WALNUT of that agenda item. Visitor's mint s or less; l TIGARD, OREGON 97223 are asked to be kept to 2 minutes en less; longer matters can be act for a future Agenda by con- tacting either the Mayor or City Administrator. 1. SPECIAL MEETING: 1.1 Call To Order and Roll Call 1.2 'Pledge of Allegiance Call To Staff and Council For Non-Agenda Items 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (2 Minutes or Less. Please) 3, ADOPT FINAL ORDER - Portland Fixture Co. - RESOLUTION N0. 85- Planning Staff 4. �PUB--LZC NEARING - 'COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 4-85/ZONE CHANGE ZC q- 7Y.RUF PO 0>7. Review Planning Commission's recommendation for approval to move the T present eras designated C�-N (Commercial Neighborhood) from the pres preshxeatern corner of the proposed 135th Ave./Murray Road extension to nortthe northeast corner- of the future Murray Road/Seholls Ferry Road intersection. (WCTM 1Sl 33%. lot 1000)- a Public Hearing Opened 0 ` Summationby-Planning Staffnents. Cross.Examine o Public Testimony: Proponents. Oppo o Recommendation by Planning Staff ' o Public Hearing Closed o Consideration by Council g. PUBLIC IMARZNO - t3MAEHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 5^85/ZONE CHANGE ZC �=$ CITY OF TIGARD - SANDBURG ROAD Review Planning Coamission'a- l for a plan recommendation tog approve amendment from Comas gsial professional to Light Industrial and a Zona ial Professional) to I-P (Industrial Park). Change from "CP (CoMare property included era Wash. Co. Tax Nap 281 IDC, lot 1100, 3700. 37Q1, 3702, 3703. 3800, 3900. 4100; flap 2S1 IDD, lots 100. 101. 200, 300, 400. 401, 401A1, *600, 700, 701, and 702. NPO # 5- 0 Public Bearing Opened a Sumsation by Planning Staff nents, Cross Examiaa o Public Yastimony: Proponents. Oppo o gacomwndatioa by Planning Staff o Public Bearing Closed o Consideration by Council pUBLIC NEARING - COMMAN AN AMENDMENT CPA 6-85/ZC 7-85/CITY OF 6. TIS CHA'!T Z recommendation for a Comprehensive Plan Review Planning Commismian's Amaadmsnt;from IAV Density Residential to Medium Densi4.5 ty RResidenttial a 7 a Zone, Chaaga from R-4.5 (Residential. (Residential. 7 units/acre). Property located on SW Corner of Bonita Road and 79th Ave. (W= 2S1 123D lot 2900 o Public-Bearing Opened Staff a' Summation by Planning o, opponents, e Hent,, Cross Exasin o public Testisony: proponent p Recommendation by Planning Staff o Public Bearing Closed o Consideration by Council 7. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE ORDINANCE AMEND"EN2 ZOA 3-85 CITY OF TIGARD } r� Revi ping Commission's recommendation to amend sections ,18.66.030, 18.68.040,, and 18.42.020 of the Community Development code. b Public Hearing Opened o Summation by Planning Staff o. Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross Examine o Recommendation by,Planniug Staff a Public Nearing Closed 4 e Consideration by Council COUNCIL AGENDA - MAY 6, 1985 - PAGE 1 8. PUBLIC NEARING - ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA 1-85/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 2-85/ GENE AND VIVIAN DAVIS NPO 0 4 Review of`a proposal to annex 28.94 total acres to the City of Tigard. The property to be annexed 1s Wash. Co. Tax Map 1Sl 35AC lots 101, 2800, 3400, _3700,, 3800, 4400, 4500, 4600, 4700 and .23 acres of Hwy. right-of-way; Map 1S1 35AD, lots 1200,`1300, 1400, and 1500. A public hearing will be opened to consider testimony on additional land added by the individual property owners to the annexation boundary since the last hearing of 4/8/85. Those lots are Tax`Map 1S1 35AC, lots 4400, 3700 b 3800- and 217 Highway right-of-way containing .23 acres. No testimony will be considered regarding Dr. Davis' original request. o Public Hearing Opened o Summation by Planning Staff o Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross-Examination o Recommendation by Planning Staff o Public Nearing Closed o _ `Consideration by Council - on total annexation request Including new parcels 9. APPEAL PUBLIC HEARING ON RECORD- ZONE CHANGE ZC 2-85/IDRISS NPO 1 5 An spiia—lofthe Planning Cosmisalon's denial for a sone change on a 3.7 acre parcel from R-7 (Residential, 7 units/acre)- to R-12 (Residential, 12 units/acre) Located on the east side of Nall Blvd. 300 feet south of Ross Street (WCTM 2S1 12CB lots 1100 and 1200. This will be an "argument-type" hearing only. The Council will consider only the record before the Planning Commission. The Council shall not consider any now testimony or evidence which is not in the record. o Public Hearing Opened o Summation by Planning Staff o Public`Testimony: ON-THE-RECORD ONLY o Recommendation by Planning Staff o Public Hearing Closed a Consideratf.on by Council 10. LID POLICY DISCUSSION Administrative Assistant 11. SALE OF SURPLUS LAND Old City Hall City Administrator 12. POLICY REVIEW AND COUNCIL CALENDAR DISCUSSION City Administrator 13. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and say be enacted in one notion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an iteu.ba removed by notion,for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 13.1 Receive and File Community Development Land Use Decisions ly Director 13.2 Approve Council Finance i Audit Representative 13.3 Approve Partial Fee Waiver Tines Publications 13.4 Foreclosure Adjustment Approval E 14. NON-AGENDA ITEMS: Prom Council and Staff 15. ADJOURNMENT i _..,. -.---•.• 1w/2714A COUNCIL AGENDA- HAY 6, 1985 -;PAGE 2 -. .. S T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES MAY 6, 1985 - 7:30 P.M. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor John Cook; Councilors: Tom Brian, Phil Edin, and Jerry Edwards; City Staff: Bob Jean, City Administrator; Bill Monahan, Community Development Director; Mark O'Donnell, Legal Counsel; and Loreen Wilson, Deputy City Recorder. 2. CALL TO STAFF AND COUNCIL FOR NON-AGENDA ITEMS a. City Administrator requested a brief executive session be held at the end of the meeting under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1)(h) to considerpending litigation issues Consensus of Council was to hold executive session. 3. VISITOR'S AGENDA a. Bob Bledsoe, NPO #3 Chairperson,' presented a request to be heard under agenda item #13.1. The NPO is desiring to appeal a Director's Decision and requests Council waive the appeal fee. Consensus of Council was to consider under consent agenda matters. 4. RESOLUTION NO. 85-28 A FINAL ORDER IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND A ZONE _ CHANGE REQUESTED BY PORTLAND FIXTURE COMPANY, FINE N0, CPA 3-85 AND ZC 3-85, DENYING THE APPLICATION REQUESTS, ENTERING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. a. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Edwards to adopt. b. Councilor Edin stated he would abstain since he did not attend the hearing. Approved by 3-0-1 majority vote of Council present, Councilor Edin abstaining. } 5. OREGONIAN ARTICLE a. Mayor Cook advised citizens that a recent article in the Oregonian reported that Tigard was going to raise the tax base this year. Mayon Cook noted many calls have been received by concerned citizens regarding the article. He stated that the City has no intention of raising the tax base this year. 6. PUBLIC HEARING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 4-85/ZONE CHANGE ZC 4-85/KRUEGER/NPO # 7 x Review Planning Commission's recommendation for .approval to move the present area designated C-N (Commercial Neighborhood) from the northwestern corner of the proposed 135th give./Murray Road extension to the northeast corner of the, future Murray Road/Scholls Ferry Road -' intersection. (WCTM iS1 33C, lot 1000'% a. `. Public Hearing Opened Page 1 .- COUNCIL MINUTES'- MAY 68 1985 b. Community Development Director synopsized the history of the commercial property- and noted there was some controversy over the 3 notice which was given for the Planning Commission hearing. He discussed how staff had dealt with that issue and noted that Planning Commission had,approved the request by unanimous vote. 3; C. Councilor Edin declared for the record that he has been a long time acquaintance- of an adjacent property owner and has had conversations regarding this matter, but did not discuss the merits of the case and feels comfortable in deciding the case. He asked `Legal Counsel if new letters could be introduced into the record since he has received many from the residents in the area. Legal Counsel noted that information Gould be introduced into the record for Council consideration, The following letters and petitions were presented for the file: o Letter from Evelyn Karls opposing the request to move the commercial area. o Letter from Chester & Gale Stover opposing the request to move the commercial area. o Letter from Richard Daniels, Washington County Community Development Director opposing the plan amendment. o Letters dated 4122 & 4f26 with petitions from Mr. 'Mildred Davis opposing the relocation of the commercial area. o Letter from Linda Davis. city of Beaverton Planning Director, opposing the relocation of the commercial area. d. Public Testimony o Proponents Bob Bledsoe, 11800 SW Walnut, noted he was not appearing on behalf of the NPO, but wished to suggest wording the comp plan to place commercial property along Scholls Ferry Road at a later date when that intersection with Murray Road is known. o Opponents Brad Hodges, Route 1, Box 364 of Beaverton, opposed the relocation as an arbitrary move before the location of Murray and Scholls Ferry Road Intersection is known. Evelyn Karls, Route 1, Box 382 of Beaverton, expressed concern regarding traffic impact, high water conditions, and lack of notification. Howard Williams, Route 1. Box 492 of Beaverton, stated a ,traffic study was needed due to the heavy congestion and high rate of accidents now on the roads. Mildred M. Davis. Route 1; Box_ 378 of Beaverton, presented pictures to Council of the area noting concerns with Summer Creek flooding,` and poor -visibility in the area for traffic. She suggested discontinuing consideration until final alignment of Murray Road and Scholls Ferry Road is known. She also requested Council consider a moratorium in the area until the alignment is decided. Page 2 COUNCIL-MINUTES — MAY 5. 1985 Legal Counsel stated a moratorium was not an issue to be decided at this hearing and recommended against such action in the future. Gale Stover, Route 1, Box 381 of Beaverton, discussed concern regarding traffic impact, poor visibility, flooding conditions, and the possibility of road widening which would destroy liveability of homes. Recommended sending - back to Planning Commission until extension of Murray Road is resolved. Memo from Richard Boberg, NPO #7 Chairperson supporting the application with conditions was presented. o Cross Examination Russ Krueger, 3515 SW Barbur Blvd, Portland, stated that he needed to relocate the commercial development area to be able to construct phase II of his Winterlake Subdivision project. He requested that Council allow his right to the commercial designation even if the location must be moved from the requested area. o Community Development- Director, Legal Counsel, and City Administrator discussed options with Council. Community Development Director noted Planning Commission recommendation of approval for the request but stated that the Commission had not heard the testimony presented at this meeting. He recommended Council move the CN zone designation to the original location_ at the time the property was annexed into the City of Tigard which would protect the commercial designation for the developer. o Public Hearing Closed o After further discussion by Council, Councilor Brian moved to make tentative findings of approval with the CN zone designation being moved from the existing location back to the location at the time of annexation in 1983. Upon determination of the road alignment for Murray Road and Scholls Ferry Road, the property owner would be granted a fee waiver if the zone needs to be relocated again. This request will be brought back in October for Council review. Motion seconded by Councilor Edin. Councilor Brian also requested that special effort be made to notify all those testifying when the October review is scheduled. Staff to prepare. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 7. PUBLIC HEARING — COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 5-85/ZONE CHANGE ZC 6-85/CITY OF TIGARD — SANDBURG ROAD Review Planning Commission's recommendation for approval for a plan amendment from Commercial Professional to Light Industrial and aZone Change from CP (Commercial Professional) to I—P (Industrial Park). Property included are Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 10C, lot 1100, 3700, 3701, 3702, 3703, 3800, 3900, 4100; Map 281 IDD, lots 100, 101, 200, 300, 400, 401, 401A1, 500, 600, 700, 701, and 702. NPO # 5. a. Public Hearing Opened Page 3 COUNCIL MINUTES`= MAY 6, 1985 b. Community Development Director synopsized history and noted Planning Commission voted 5-1 to recommend comp plan designation be changed to Industrial Park. C. Public Testimony: No one appeared to speak. d. Community Development Director recommended approval. e," Public Hearing closed. f. ORDINANCE NO. 85-20 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA 5-85) AND ZONE CHANGE (6--85) PROPOSED BY THE CITY OF TIGARD (SANDBURG ROAD/72ND AVENUE) AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. 9. Motion by Councilor Edwards, seconded by Councilor Brian to adopt. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 8. PUBLIC HEARING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 6-85/ZC 7--85/CITY OF TIGARD/CHATtERLY Review Planning Commission's recommendation for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and a Zone Change from R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre) to R-7 (Residential, 7 units/acre). Property located on SW Corner of Bonita Road and 79th Ave. (WCTM 2S1 12BO lot 2900 a. Public Hearing Opened b. Community Development Director noted history of site noting staff made written commitment to 5,000 sq. ft. lots 1983. During approval process of comp plan, the designation was changed to 7,500 sq. ft. lets. Planning Commission voted 4-2 to uphold staff's commitment and change the designation to R-7 (x,000 sq. ft. lots). c, Public Testimony Proponents Les Balsiger, PO Box 388, Wilsonville, Or. , spoke on behalf of Mr. Chatterly noting development of the land is planned upon the approval of the zone change. d. Community Development Director stated staff and Planning Commission recommend approval. e, Public Hearing Closed f, ORDINANCE N0. 85-21 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CpNCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A; COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA 6-85) AND ZONE CHANGE (ZC 7-85) PROPOSED BY JIM CHATTERLY AND DECLARING :? AN EMERGENCY. g. ' Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Edin to adapt. " Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. Page 4--- COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 6, 1985 9 PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 3-85 CITY OF TIGARD Review Planning Commission's recommendation to amend sections 18.68.030, 18.68.040, and 18.42.020 of the Community Development Code. S a. Public Hearing Opened ' b. Community Development Director synopsized requested changes 'noting the _first amendment is to simplify the requirements for commercial retail in the I-P zone, and to allow auto painting to be considered as ai separate activity from auto body repair. C. Public Testimony: No one appeared to speak. d. Community Development Director stated staff and Planning Commission recommend approval. Q. Public Hearing Closed. f, ORDINANCE NO, 85-22 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 18.68.030, 18.68,040 AND 18.42.020 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (Z01 3-85) -g. Motion by Councilor Edin, seconded by Councilor Brian to adopt. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 10. PUBLIC HEARING - -ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA 1-85/COIPREHENSI NPOP#lA4 AMENDMENT CPA 2-851 GENE AND VIVIAN DAVIS Review of a proposal to annex 28.94 total acres to the City of Tigard. The property to be annexed is Wash. Co. Tax Map 1S1 35AC lots 101. 2800, 3400, 3700, 3800, 4400, 45000 4600, 4700 and .23 acres of Hwy. right-of--way; Map 1S1 35AD, lots 1200, 1300, 1400, and 1500. A public hearing was opened to consider testimony on additional land added by the individual property owners to the annexation boundary since the previous hearing on 4/8/85. Those lots were Tax Map ISI 35AC, lots 4400, 3700 6 3800 and 217 Highway right-of-way containing .23 acres. Na testimony was considered regarding Dr. Davis' original request. a. Public Hearing Opened b Community Development Director synopsized history. C. - Public Testimony: Proponents: p Gene Davis 6 Vivian Davis, '10875 SW 89th, supported request. 0 Joel Adamson, 4485 NW Wallowa, Portland, owns tax lot 9800 and wishes to annex to the City. o Thomas Ashlock, 9200 SW Oak, supports annexation. opponents: 0 Sohn Biomgren, 9460 SW Oak, wishes this annexation request be held until decision is reached regarding the annexation of the .total, metzger/Washington Square area. o Ron Mills, 10620 SW 95th, expressed concern regarding development j in the future but expressed no problems with annexation proposal. -- Page 5 - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 6, 1985 ti t[� P licant has waited a long d. Community Development Director stated app time for consideration and noted he had the right to apply fora piece-meal request for annexation. Cook advised citizens that the Boundary Commission would be the hearing body for this request, Council's role is to simply Mayor forward this for the hearing by the Boundary Commission. e. Public Hearing Closed. of Council was that a citizen has a right ic f torequ st f, ConsensusCity's annexation annexation and that the aggressive approach to annex Metzger/Washington Square area is an agg approach the total area. in to g, Motion by _ Councilor approvals of he total aannexatiouncilor n request m ake ding of and tentative finr direct staff. to prepare necessary documents to forward request to the Boundary commission. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. il. APPEAL PUBLIC HEARING ON RECORD ZONE zone change onPai 3.7 An appeal of the Planning Commission'sdenial fora acre parcel from R-7 (Residential, 7 units/acre) to R-12 (Residential, 12_ units/acre) Located on the east side of Hall Blvd. 300 feet south of Ross Street (WCTM 2S1 12CB lots 1100 and 1200. - e" hearing only. The Council will consider This will be an "argument—typ Commission. The Council shall not only the record before the Planning consider any new testimony or evidence which isnot in the record. a. Public Hearing Opened b, Community Development Director synopsized history and issues. He stated staff recommended sion approval Commission and planning Chamisbeen recommended denial. The Planning appealed by the applicant. C. Public Testimony: ON—THE—RECORD ONLY Proponents o Mo Idriss, 15AQ0 SW Hall Blvd. requested CouncilecCity support change from R-7 to R-12 stating this onsider zone would help plan. He also the 10 unit per acre goal set out in t bproposed development as addressed the traffic generation y the being minimal with public transit also being available. a Ryan O'Brien, ,1134 SE 23rd Avenue, Hillsboro, stated the request does meet locational criteria in the comp plan and that the plan recommends medium density for this area. eversal of recommends d. Community Development Director stated staff Commission rrecommends the Commission decision and Planning upholding their decision. e. Public Hearing Closed 1985 page 6 — COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 6, 4 F !hn _ f. After lengthy discussion, Councilor Brian moved to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission decision. Motion seconded by, . Councilor Edin. Motion failed by a 2--2 vote of Council present. Councilor Edwards and,Mayor Cook voting nay. g. Motion by CouncilorEdwardsto reverse the Planning Commission decision and approve the applicant's request. Motion seconded by Mayor Cook Motion failed by a 2-2 vote of Council present. Councilors Edin and Brian voting nay. h. Mayor Cook noted that since a majority vote was not received, the appeal would be denied and the Planning Commission decision would stand. RECESS: 9:50 P.M. RECONVENE: 10:04 P.M. 12. LID POLICY DISCUSSION a. Administrative Assistant Martin stated the Council revisions from past study sessions had been included in the draft presented and discussed key issues with Council. She stated the 'policy and code changes were scheduled for adoption on May 20th with the manual scheduled for completion in June. b. City Administrator synopsized the policy issues in the report. City Administrator also suggested the following addition: Under Feasibility Policy (Section 2.2) add the following language: a 2.2.8 City share contributions to an LID project are a City budgetary decision, not an LID policy. o Staff will add Council declared emergency to alter the time lines on priority on pages 16 .and 17 of the report. C. Council consensus to direct staff to prepare necessary papers for adoption on 5/20/85 13. SALE OF SURPLUS LAND - Old City Hall a. After discussion of Coldwell Banker's interest, Councilor Brian ` stated he would like to have Mr. Muse define his proposed marketing r.: g plan with the Council. Consensus- of Council was to }' schedule this for the 5/20 meeting. 14. POLICY REVIEW AND COUNCIL CALENDAR DISCUSSION City Administrator discussed the calendar. Consensus of Council was to have calendar updated per discussion for adoption at next meeting. . - Page7 - COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 6, <1985 15. 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 15.1 - Receive and -File Community Development Land Use Decisions By Director - 15,2 Approve Council Finance & Audit Representative- 15.3 Approve Partial Fee Waiver Times Publications 15.4 Foreclosure Adjustment Approval a. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Edin to consider items 15.1 and 15.3 separately and approve 15.2 & 15.4. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 16. RECEIVE AND FILE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LAND USE DECISIONS BY DIRECTOR a. NPO #3 requested waiver of fee to file appeal on MLP 5-85, M 1.-85, & V 9-85 (Baldwin & Ullrich) b. Motion by Councilor Edin, seconded by Councilor Edwards to waive appeal fee for the NPO and allow Planning Commission hearing. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present, 17. APPROVE PARTIAL FEE WAIVER - Times Publications a. City Administrator stated the current code seems to contradict the annexation polio; and that a reduction in fees and removal o roadblocks to logical annexations was appropriate. f b. Consensus of Council was to not waive the fee, but directed staff to change the fee structure in the code if necessary. c. Motion by Councilor Edin, seconded by Councilor Brian to deny partial waiver of fees request. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 18. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Tigard City Council went into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (h) to consider pending litigation issues. 18. ADJOURNMENT: 11:22 P.M. Deputy City Recorder City of Tigard ATTEST: or City of Tigard : LW/2750k . Page 8 COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 6, 1985 f i IQ pi `�" ' t REAMs 3Rs � a AEON - a y i fn KA JV 10 k !• & 3 A c. �. k�^s 3a ... • `fir-e:!€.. ! '-, • : . ID •cs bio g O a a_ a 0t a t po o a rj a c m N m V , co E3 13 C o �• O Q .q" ars V •- ® v o «. n �. p ® \ a > — w 0=- c < w � g o B w « m co U : lo m o in 40 co o rn N O 0 ' � o 40-6cf. az Oaf c _ va Cs« _ - CM Co 0 fn 13. Z—y Oc4)ate 3 N a a (07Q a a�=� `o ami t � r ' o °c c p . 6 SL C- ymoO a �i CD -M u -f 4- . p HJ co CO Luj ca a- ja F UC w a: A 0,40 m !9 O -r yp�,y p� •.fir r`�, <( r:. S � 1.. `Z�•Ri � �k ~'02 w/�j CL 29 O 0 ! o a -con Sm 'o r = c CO Q01 ► It z '200 > m� cc CO Cc z CL EW- � - Q 'a �. h — 3 � � m s m OE "a X Z 00 0 .. m W i 00O anmC c i yip = m t9 O 0. CL c «LL O O cu ,N O cq 0 m- pmm E z c=-o = c O cq 80m W Z� Oc0toC 3 V n; M © LL CU7 a s m r '"i a'ia ! f N ¢ a.t, 0oe S+ w 'C 1L ad LL. = m 0 O p p K 10~ d6 M _ ID O O 4. O.M CLVj 'OJ m q:.p O z CD 4) 3- m m FrU F-0S7-- c.� c 'O U —.c as m m m i AGENDA IT — VISITOR'S AGENDA DATA (Limited to 2 Utes or less, please) Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items* The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, but time may - require that we schedule your, items for a" future agenda. Please contact the City Administrator as to agenda scheduling. Thank you. NAME, ADDRESS & AFFILIATION FTEM DESCRIPTION DATE A" I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on 4 the following item: (Please print the information) ? Item Description: a e- t Proponent (For Issue) Opponent (Against Issue) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation W gjg DAT£--=�f I wish testify before the Tigard City Council on the fo. -owing iteme ase print the information Item Description: Proponent (For Issue) Opponent (Against. Issue) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation , 3 DATE ��o h I wish to testify .before the Tigard City Council on i the following item: (Please print the information) Item Description:`_ d Proponent (For Issue) Opponent (Against Issue) Name, Address and Af lAat10S Name, Address and Affiliation 0 x: 7 -9 M, DATE I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item• ase print the information)_ Item Description: r Proponent (For Issue) Opponent (Against Issue) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation a> - DATE I shish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: se print the information) a r rE { Item Description i { r Y) ' ayy .. s n Proponent (For Issue) Opponent (Against Issue) Dame' Address and_Affi� iation Fame, Address and Affiliation ( ?S" d j d j .S- _ 0 �i �'4. " o-4s E' E A6A P t DATE I'wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print the information) ITEM DESCRIPT -t— 1'S S Appellants (Supporting Appeal) Respondents (Against Appeal) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation s .-yQp yw, ld I e' 1712w - RECEIVED MAY MY OF TIGARD May 6, 1985 TO: City Council, City of Tigard, Oregon Planning Commission Director of Planning & Development 4-City Recorder FROM: Neighborhood Planning Organization Number Three (NPO #3) SU&7LCT: Minor Land Partition MLP 5-85 Lot line Adjustment M 1-85 Variance V 9-85 NPO #3 unanimously appeals the director's approval of this minor land partition, lot line adjustment, and variance, wherein two long lots are divided ego as to provide three new lots accessing Terrace Trails Drive, with the potential of two other lots in the future. All five of these proposed and future lots have access to Terrace Trails Dr. by a private drive which is shown to be about 315 feet long. Section 18.108.070(A) of the Community Development Code states that a driveway for 3 to 6 single family dwellings (on individual lots) shall not exceed 100 feet in length. The director's approval is contrary to this clearly stated limit. The lots of the minor land partition have access to the public street by means of easements across the lots nearer to the public street. Section 18.164.030(C) of the code states that access easements shall not exceed 100 feet unless approved by the Commission through the Planned Development Process. It would appear that the director does not have the authority to make this approval. The applicant must file for a planneddevelopmentto achieve his objective. i Page 2 May 6, 1985-- from NPO #3 re: MLP 5-85, M1-85, V 9-85 LL The main concern of the NPO is that access for these new lots should be to 121st Avenue, except for the one lot adjacent to Terrace Trails Drive. There are five narrow, 'deep rots on 121st Avenue, and two wide lots of the same depth, that all have this problem of access in order to develop the back portion of these very long lots. These owners should get together and plan a, public street, or other single access, to 121st Avenue. When r these properties were annexed in 19 79, the Planning Director, -Aldie Howard, wrote to the City Council that access to the back of these iota would come from 121st Avenue. This was the understanding by _which the Lanmerm.n Annexation was approved.` There is no reason to change this understanding now. NPo #3 requests that the Planning Commission consider all of our concerns, as stated in this Setter and in our letter to the Tigard Planning Dept. (which summarized our conclusions of our April 15, 1985 meeting). Also there are questions of adequate parking, since parking will not be allowed on the 315-foot private drive NPO #3 requests of City Council the waiver of fees for this appeal, inasmuch as we are the recognized public advisory committee for developments in this area. 3 Sincerely, Bob Bledsoe, Chairman, NPO #3 ,1 Qz t CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ' COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: May 6, 1985 _ AGENDA ITEM 0 DATE SUBMITTED: May 2, 1985 PREVIOUS ACTION: Council vote not to ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Final Order for adopt an ordinance of approval - 4/22/85 Portland Fixture Co - CPA 3-85 & PREPARED BY: William A Monahan ZC 3-85 REQUESTED BY: City Council DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: It", Al CITY ADMINISTRATOR POLICY ISSUE INFORMATION SUMMARY On April 22 1985, the City Council voted not to adopt an ordinance which would have approved 'CPA 3-85 and 'ZC'3-85. The Council directed the staff to draw up findings and a final order which does not support CPA 3-85 and ZC 3-85. t A resolution is attached for your review. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Adopt the attached with findings, 2. Modify,the attached resolution. a � SUGGESTED ACTION . Adopt the attached resolution. 4 (WAM:bs/1280P) CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ` COUNCTL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA ITEM AGENDA OF: GATE SUBMITTED: 4/30/85 PREVIOUS ACTION Planning Commission ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: CPA 4-85 and Hearing 4/16/85 ZC 4—e5 KRUEGER PREPARED BY: KEITH LIDEN QUESTED BY: - DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: Jl' __. CITY ADMINISTRATOR: POLICY ISSUE INFORMATION 5U,a1ARY This is a proposal to move the existing 4 acre commercial neighborhood site - from 135th Avenue to Scholls Ferry Road. The precise location of the commercial area will be determined once the i°fiurrary Road extension alignment is identified. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Uphold Planning Commission's recommendation for approval. 2. Reverse Planning Commission's recommendation for approval. 3. Remand to Planning Commission. SUGGESTED ACTION Approve F 1234P dm3 b'* ORDINANCE NO. 85— Page 91..fib6 APO JIIR IiIi- CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 85- ± AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA 4-85) AND ZONE CHANGE (ZC 4-85) PROPOSED BY MARGE KRUEGER AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. WHEREAS, the applicant has requested a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change to shift the existing area zoned C-N (Commercial Neighborhood) from the northwest corner, of the proposed Murry Road/135th Avenue intersection to the northeast corner of the proposed Murray Road/Scholls Ferry Road intersection, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal on April 2, 1985 and recommended approval: and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before City Council on April 22, 1985 to consider the Commission recommendation. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section I The proposal is consistent with all relevant criteria as discussed in the April 2, 1985 Planning staff report to Planning Commission (Exhibit-"A"). Section 2 The City Council upholds the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map Amendment as set forth in Exhibit "8" (maps). Section 3 Inasmuch as it is necessary to revise the City's Comprehensive Plan Maps to allow development in a timely manner, an emergency is declared to exist and this ordinance shall become effective upon its passage by Council and approval by the Mayor. Section 4 The necessary street right--of-way along the Scholls Ferry Road frontage, as noted in Exhibit "A" shall be dedicated before CPA 1-85/2C 4-84 will take affect. PASSED: By _ vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this -- day of 1985. Deputy City Recorder - City of Tigard APPROVED: This day of 1985. Mayor City of Tigard f;. (KSL:b3/1234P) - . ; ORDINANCE 85 85= :;Page 1 TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 2; 1985 I. 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: PresidentMoen; 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 e Commissioner Vanderwood moved and Commissioner Campbell seconded to approve minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. 4. C"ISSION 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 printed by the Tigard Chamber of Commerce was distributed. Five letters were distributed for Agenda item 5.6, Main Street Land Corp. S. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 SUBDIVISION`S 2-85 and VARIANCE V 1-85 MAWHIRTER NPO # 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 9660 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, 6150 SW 39th, Portland, representing the applicant requested that Frank Currie, City Engineer, address the issues regarding access onto McDoanld and the need for the approval of the variance. Frank Currie started that if the Variance was denied it still would not decrease the number, of driveways onto McDonald. He explained the Alignment of :the existing sidewalk and the special circumstance* involved with that alignment. Hee requested that an additional condition be added which would release the applicant from any legal ramifications related to the fmigotiadtions for €:ohdemnation of right-of-way. He Ulso .ex l differome between public easai ants and row dedications. Pained the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 2, `1965 Page 1 r 4, d to * ?' Commissioner Leverett moved and $oma at ipoli y 8 e amend 7.1.2.e were deny ,ZC 2-85 based on the findings ri s inappropate to have in the k not satisfied. That the R-12 zoning ti carried by car ,on middle of a R-7 zona and that the majority voted access to a major arterial would create a traffic problem. { , Commissioner Bergmann and Moen voting no. _ OMENT CPA 4-85 ZONE {MANGE ZC �6-85 KRUEGER QRENE�ISIVE,.PLAN WEN Request a resent area designated C-Nth Commercial- 135 Nei hba�rhood) from the northwestern southeast t Q corner f the procornQ posed future g Road. extension to the s Aye./Murray Road intersection. (WCTM iSi 33C, lot t Murray :Road/Scholls- Ferry 1000).'.. nd Associate Planner Liden reviewed the proposal and staff report a made staff's recommendation for. approval with one condition. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION' Portland, 97201, o Russ Krueger, 3515 SW Barbur Blvd. Suite ereYproposing to move the displayed an aerial map to show how they Commercial Neighborhood zone. PUBLIC TESTIMONY .. o Richard Boberg, Chairperson NPO !i 7. supported the proposed change, adding that they felt in the future there would be a need for _ lncram►sad commercial zoning-in that area- Hill Ni!!, representing the Morning Q john Morris, iig� Morning the commercial zone as far Homes Owner Association. Subdivisionsvored nas they could. away from the Morning on Rt. i Box 365, Beaverton, had questions regarding o Richard Olander. ro arty. .the : drainage and hay it would affect his p p followed bets�een the applicant and Mr. Olander, Dent }tayiks. Rt. 1 Box 385. ey w was coning cerned sidentthat hMoeneinformedproposh o through her property. "-to`extend the road spray__would have to be contacted and she would have to give her °' py'wa1 ?b@#'ore that could happen 4' :.PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED o Consensus of the Commission was to support the application. rd e Commissioner Campbell moved and Commissionerlthyra recommendatseconded to ion CPA 4-85 and ZC 4-85 to City Council rt, Motion approval subject to the condition in the staff repo carried unanimously. PLANNING: ISSTON MINUTES April 2. 1985 Page 3 N AGENDA ITEM 5.3 STAFF REPORT _ April 2, 1985 - 7:30 P.M. i TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL - LGI 10865 S.W. WALNUT TIGARD, OREGON .97223 A. FACTS 1. General information CASE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 4-85 and Zone Change ZC 4-85 REQUEST: To move the present area designated C-N (Commercial Neighborhood) from the northwestern corner of the proposed 135th Avenue/Murray Road extension to the southeast corner of the future. Murray Road/Scholls Ferry Road intersection. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium High Density Residential/ Neighborhood Commercial ZONING DESIGNATION: R-25 (Residential, 25 units/acre) and C-N (Commercial Neighborhood) APPLICANT: Russ Krueger OWNER: Marge Krueger Rt. 1, Box 792 3515 SW Barbar Blvd. Beaverton, OR 97007 Suite Y-1 Portland, OR 97201 LOCATION: Between Scholls a th yRoad and of Walnut St.5t(Wash Waco. aTaxo Map t1Sl one half mile n 33C, Tax Lot 1000)- 2. Background The property was annexed to the City on June 12, 1983 and in August, 1983, the City approved a variety of Plan and Zone designations f r the property which included Medium-High Density Residential (R-20), Density Residential (R-12) and Neighborhood Commercial (C-N). In February, 1984, the City approved the relocation of the C-N area from the west side of 135th Avenue to the northwest corner of the proposed intersection of the Murray Road extension and 135th Avenue (CPA 18-83/ZC 14-83). 3. Vicinity Information Except for several scattered homesites, this area between 135th Avenue and Scholls Ferry Road is undeveloped and or utilized to a limited extent for agriculture or is wooded. The land surrounding the present and proposed commercial sites is zoned R-25- STAFF REPORT - CPA 4-85 b ZC 4-85 - PAGE 1 4. Site Information > h The existing and proposed commercial sites are undeveloped. The commercial site is intendedtoremain on the north side of the Murray Road extension and be shifted from the west side of 135th Avenue to the east side of Scholls Ferry Road. A specific development plan has not been formulated. 5. :Agency and NPO Comments The Engineering Division has the following comments: a. Due to a drainageway that runs through the property,p y, a Sensitive Lands permit will be required prior to development of the site. b. Sanitary sewerage and storm drainage provisions will be necessary in conjunction with development. C. Site Development Review approval will be required. d. Additional right-of-way should be dedicated along the commercial area's frontage on Scholls Ferry Road for a right-of-way width of 45 feet from centerline. The Building Inspection Office has no objection to the request. The State Highway Division indicates that further study will be necessary before the need for a traffic light can be evaluated. Also, the drainage facilities on Scholls Ferry Road may not be adequate to accept additional runoff from the site. NPO #7 recommends approval. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1 and 2, and Tigard Comprehensive Plan policy 2.1.1 and Chapter 12, Locational Criteria. The Planning staff concludes that the proposal is consistent with the Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines based upon the following findings: 1. Goal #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 are met. 2. Goal #2 is met because the City applied all applicable Statewide Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan Policies and Development 14 Code requirements to the application. The Planning staff concludes that the proposal is consistent with the relevant- portions of, the Comprehensive -Plan based- upon the findings noted below; STAFF REPORT - .CPA 4-85 & ZC 4-85 - PAGE 2 1. Plan Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied_-because the Neighborhood Planning Organization and %urrounding property owners were given notice of the hearing and an opportunity to comment on the applicant's proposal. 2. Locational Criteria a. The site will be approximately 4 acres in size rather than the 2 acre guideline set forth in the Plan. The 4 acre size was established when the property was annexed to the City. This designation was consistent with the Washington County plan which applied prior to the annexation. b. There are no other commercial properties within one half mile of the proposed site. C. The commercial site will be limited to one corner of the Murray Road/Scholls Ferry Road intersection. d. No significant traffic impacts are anticipated from this move. Specific traffic related issues will be addressed during the Site Development Review process. e. The site will have direct access to an arterial street. f. The eventual development of the commercial center will be evaluated according to the applicable standards in the Community Development Code. Since the entire area is undeveloped, establishing a compatible relationship between uses should not present a problem. Y Although it is not necessary to consider specific provisions of the C-N zone, it should be noted that Section 18.60.045 of the code states that no use shall exceed a gross floor area of 4,000 square feet. A variance must be approved in conjunction with the Site Development Review process in order for this standard to be exceeded. C. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the findings and conclusions noted above, the Planning staff recommends approval of CPA 4-85 and ZC 4-85 subject to the following condition: 1. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the public along the Lower Scholls Ferry Road frontage to increase the right-of-way to 45 feet from centerline. The description for said dedication shall be tied to the existing right-of-way centerline as established by Washington County. The dedication document shall be on City forms and approved by the Engineering Section. &I/o//JAY,4 /A�d i t PREP D BY: i idem APPROVED BY: William A. Monahan Associate Planner Director of Planning b Development (KL:pm/1132P) STAFF REPORT - CPA 4-85 b ZC 4-85 - PAGE 3 IGr!ITY MAP APA AWAMEM1 IDoo' 300 { TName 4 IOo 400 yJo'�'S $oo se 103 3 0o (moo? l oZ Eos. �oo t o S 60� lo7 664 moo 'ba ( io6 Cat NA.i 1 c- 1 o 9 Ioi QOO stop >w 4 1101 p-�C IaT1 Ns� � e'a to-AA :'q,c j At— �r � � Jzoo w Imo: h I Q�c3 a CO K u�4t N uT e .: To : Tigard City Council From: Richard Boberg Chairman NPO 7 Re: CPA -85 and ZC -85 Krueger NP© 7 recommends approval of this application subject to the following conditions : 1. That the eventual alignment of Murray road extension does ,cross ;Scholls Ferry at this point 2, That when the location of the intersection is decided , the city will reconsider the siting of this commercial area so that it will be located atte most bentSicial site for all concerned . We are not convinced that this proposed site is .necessarily the best or final location for this NeI,ghborhood Commercial. We understand that a meeting is to _take place between Tigard , Beaverton, Wash. County and the property owners in the near future, and desire to have input from that group before making any binding decisions a 7' j. 3 1 ] "3. l i �M 3_ cV, .3eY' JLae�1 - May 5, 1985 3. Tigard City Counsel City of Tigard k, 12755 S.W. Ash P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 z Re: Krueger C-N Zone Change File No. CPA 4-85 and ZC 4-85 Tigard City Counsel: We, residents of the Scholls Ferry Rd. neighborhood adjoining the 'area ,,in the above referenced zone change, resist the idea of a Commercial Center on this busy narrow highway. ' This is to inform the council that some of the neighbors who have property adjoining the Krueger parcel have only recently had written notification of the proposed zone change. Most of us missed the Planning Commission hearing on April 2, 1985, because we were unaware that it was being held. Some attended E: the April 16th hearing, which was the first information we had . about this matter. Very truly yours, rEvelyn K rls , 2 Rt. 1 Box 382 Beaverton, OR 97007 / j la/4- `�ttrf civ .. } NEW SIGNATURE LIST NAME ADDRESSAFFILIATION - ER. /!t �ai.!��',sem./�'"' ? s'/i,�""', l L,6 �f -..,��.s'�"''�i�'1/✓`�,� '�j''��,i? r a p. ' l Tax Lot 501 Route 1, Box 381 Beaverton, Oregon 97007 To: Tigard City Council Re: Proposed CN zone addition to the northeast corner of TL 1000 When this area of the county was sent into shock by the blanket rezoning from RS-1 to R-25, it was assumed that the cities of Beaverton And Tigard to whom this area will eventually be annexed would act responsibly and sensitively in facilitating an orderly transition over the next 20 years, and would not overtly make decisions that would destroy the livability of our homes . We feel our livability is being threatened by the recommendation of the Tigard Planning Commission to relocate a CN zone to the northeast corner of tax lot 1000. We feel this site is probably the poorest ' choice of all the property Mr. Krueger has fronting on New Scholls Ferry Road. The proposed site is totally unsuitable of many reasong: Topography: The The road along this property is located in a low` valley. obstructing visibility. This poor visibility coupled with the large volume of traffic, particularly the heavy gravel trucks from Progress (-,uarries which pass as frequently as every 2-5 minutes during peak hours, crestas a potentially dangerous situation. Water Problems: A noted drainageway as part of the Bull Mountain watershe , t is area is transversed by Summer Creek, much of which is surrounded by a swampy and frequently flooded area during much of the winter. Road widening: The state has noted they would require a dedication of additional right of way to 45 feat from cantar line. The present road is 12 feet with a 25 foot from centerline right of way. Please keep in mind that this CN would be located right IN THE MIDDLE OF A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAS BEEN DEVELOPED for more than 15 years. When I say neighborhood, I refer to single family residences--many of which are faitly close to the road. k Widening of the road adjacent to the proposed site of the Cid (if that widening was carried slightly to the north & south) would absolutely destroy the livability of the homes in this area. rnpa memo from Jerry Kammerman, Road Engineer for Washington Co. dated 12-9-83 is stated in part 'The Southerly section of Scholls Ferry Road would be a minor lo� cal 'stree_.11 Ma D�iscre -ancies: Please note in the attached memo from Tom � Y Schwab dated 7, , there are three Pvoposed chanes f Scholls, Scholls, 135thavenueintersection. Plans A�& Bhboth show 'Davies (not Murray) intersecting New Scholls Ferry at the app--roximate location of the proposed CN. In addition, they; shew Murray Intersectin New Scholls Ferry at the Northeast corner of TL ,101, also belonging to Krueger. d M mug ,.- as 'opposed to the Scholls Ferry road frontage of TL 1000, the Scholls Ferry road frontage of TL 101 has no neighborhood developmentand Woula be n MUvrl mere sui titDie UCC -4L I OA t'o.c• rA. C11 as the whole area is unpl}iia ied and undeveloped. It is adjacent to the already .noisy Progress Gravel (4uarry (Which will eventually be a light industrial zone) and the undevelopable BPA easement. The county master plan dated April 1984, as well as any other Information from county and state proposals all show Murray Blvd. intersecting Scholls Ferry at this point on TL 101. The only map showing Murray Intersecting Scholls at TL 1000 is the one in the City of Tigard Krueger file, We 'request` that this issue be sent back to the planning commission until the all-important issues of the intersections of New and Old Scholls and 135th, as well as the extensions of Murray and Davies Road are resolved. j � r Chester A. "§-to er Gale C. Saver R '31 _ r . . t r WASHINGTON COUNTY _ Irrtcr-Dc{crNur�rtt Corre'sropuieuii To Fit From J rry Kammerman, Road Engineer subject : Meeting at Beaverton Office of Coinmunity Development, December 8th, 1983 Meeting Subject: Scholls Ferry Road intersections with Scholls Ferry, Murray, Davies and 135th Attendees Representing Frank Currie City of Tigard Tom ScH�.,; ODOT John Gillam City of Beaverton Jerry Kammerman Washington County This meeting was called to address the safety concerns of the east intersection of Scholls Ferry Road with Old Scholls Ferry Road, and with Scholls Ferry Road with 135th Avenue. The discussion expanded to include the build-out street network in the area. The Attached Plan A approximates the major street system proposed for the area by the engineers for the developer. The plan was - shown to us by John Gillam. P1 shows additional area major street. alignments we felt would e desirable. 1) Eat3 3 h . scary r' _ hou .d be tied into ,Old Scholls Fe. s � �ntise, t ttiere would be an .. -: sy, , = r cf ent 'for the motorist a.t the COX erl.y -section of Scholls Ferry Road I. Minor"' local "stye %relative to the northerly section. �). Thonnection to Scholls and A ; � o ��houlKd. not be?C. ��Gb�fore 1Murra3y►Ikoad.:is �� - ext �se South > lr� bo�.�.sa This wouldireduce the icden non-local traffic using Davies Road to get to Murray'Rsiad 3)- The existing intersection of 135th Avenue and Scholls Ferry Road will be signalized with the County's proposed LID. The State might participate financially. e _ ..... �...... --- , -:3 ' /j -�• .,,?r`sf .- � l T� ,'fir �. S , a , /.ice / �, � - rlty 1, •\1 sd _ Kms.\f �`-._.._.-... // , 1• � w.� � I is •• � (`j I. .. ,:'=,r'•'� .«a..a� BULL MTN. , ►. .,N . 111 1. Pal. _- --►urJ :dF-- t14 KING CITY r+a e■''' 1 ,-7C/ ]�`— ,�UT:.'7"� L� rua- 21 L IN M _- \ � I _u �� _�� '"°••, � _� _� ,Jew � f ' ,.•' �^.r-"=--��t`.n.� � t •mss. '/•/��' s lo BULL MTH. � _ �yT • tiM ..,.^' t it� .�.• \•��`'� ..'.=ia_���= _____� A�.� �•�s �• 'f•. JL ,...\�'� `' �•� •rr� .•.... it � GG v.r, .-- KING CITY;! C. J1 1 ��� "4( !]Cf J� — a 1 �' Al 1 wre .. ! �''—.•C..� _ �,t �" era �•---� { moo= 5,.�;.:.. ' y���: �� ..,: f JUL \ f �' �••`''•.' a/•� t � �' / per• �• ~/r DULL tdTH. , �?^ F. Jif �:. `4 �...... _. , � � .�.�'.4��a •. �f•• s • S�_ � ++•M • in� I i+� �l`y � _.tee FIF �— .• rw. s, a ,y ''��.°°�� T(. ..,! J �� '. _KING CITY �. ia3Jvtiw7f:abra:. ��' arry� x=x �� � •�� ._,n.- �S ,. ! .� �:• I •,•;, rt alt � •. �� �.�;--'fir-••-•� � f : `-'+1 � -- WASHINGTON COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING - 150 N. FIRST AVENUE �•rr , Fi�Fo HILLSBORO, OREGON 97124 CIT r OF j��ARD BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DEPT.OF LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION Planning Division WES MYLLENBECK, Chairman 2nd Floor BONNIE L.HAYS.Vice Chairman (503)648.8761 EVA M. KILLPACK `JOHN E. MEEK May 6, 1985 John Cook, Mayor City of Tigard P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 SUBJECT: CPA 4-85 AND ZC 4-85 (KRUEGER PROPERTY) The Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation requests that the Tigard City Council continue the hearing on CPA 4-85 and'ZC 4-85 to a future date. It is our feeling that unresolved issues relating to the future connection of Murray Blvd, and 135th/Walnut warrant this continuance. We are not opposed to the concept of moving the neighborhood commercial designation from 135th Avenue to Scholis Ferry Road. We are, however, opposed to the plan amendment because it will allow final approval of the Winter Lake II subdivision. Development of this subdivision as proposed will preclude one of the two pro- posed intersection options of the Murray Blvd. connections with 135th Avenue. The Urban Planning Area Agreement states that neither party will take actions which will preclude options. The Department feels this northerly intersection is preferable to the tither option which lies to the south at the intersection of 735th Avenue and Walnut Street. The southerly option is a poor candidate because of the existing intersection angles. The Department would have commented at the Winter Lake II subdivision hearing had we been aware that it was under consideration. To the best of our knowledge, we received no formal notice of the hearing. A copy of the subdivision preliminary _plat was sent to a transportation technician, but this person had no knowledge of the Murray Blvd. issues. All such notices should be sent to the Director, in accord with provisions of the County-City Urban Planning Area Agreement. The City of Beaverton has also requested that a decision on this plan amendment be delayed. They have invited the City of Tigard to participate in a joint study to determine the appropriate location for the Murray Blvd. connection. We strongly support this approach for finding solutions to the Murray Blvd. issues. an equal opportunity employer o e mix _ -- John Cook May 6, 1985 Page-2 If Washington County can be of assistance in initiating and conducting a joint study between the cities of Tigard and Beaverton 'to resolve these long-standing issues, please let me know. Richard A. Daniels, Director RAD:KM:mb c: ' Linda Davis, City of Beaverton T r a Y=� F �7 „ 'titr.,:e-sir-•z_.r�rt`5.:r`* tam - - aes April 26 , 1985 city of Tigard 2755 S.W. Ash P.O.Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 Mr. Mayor and Council Members: The attached signature list represents citizens from Tigard , Beaverton, Washington County, Multnomah County and Clackamas County, who are concerned with the safety of motorists at the intersection of New Scholls/Old Scholls/135th Street. We realize Tigard also recognizes the extremedangersat this intersection. Therefore, we hereby request that Tigard send a " letter to. Mr. Ed Hardt Metro Region Engineer State Highway Department 9002 S.E. McLoughlin Blvd. Milwaukie, OR 97222 stating the intersection of New Scholls/Old Scholls/135th Street is extremely dangerous ; that correction of this intersection should be given top priority ( due to rapid development of surrounding area) ; that Tigard considers the intersection of New Scholls/Old Scholls/135th Street to be of top priority. Please Note: We are making this request to Beaverton, Tigard and Washington County. Respectfully yours, )h 14M xav_ ' Mildred M. Davis Rt. 1 Box 378 Beaverton, OR 97007 Phone: 646-.6010 MMD:dh Encl. cc: Representative Paul Phillips CPO 06, Washington County NPO #7, City of Tigard � Joan Herman, Va� i�y Times 1 =r File SIGNATURE LIST AME ADDRESS AFFILIATION sd f Ua. •7r"c, r P 3 z L, tfi ; �S April 22, 1985 Route 1 Box 378 Beaverton, Or. 97007 Tigard City Council / 91-0 12755 S .W. Ash C7 S, P.O . Box 23397 -- Tigard, Oregon 9722 3 Council Members: We, the undersigned property owners, request a moratorium on approval of any and all development,his agents onrTaxlor Lotsr1000eand 101, p the City by Mr. Russell Kruger and/or .his g until such time as the State of Oregon, Washington County, nsive of Tigard and the City of Beaverton can agree on onea ea�' possible plan far: Murray 'Blvd. extension (in, this planning extension of Davies Road to New Scholls, and for the intersection of Scholls/Scholls/135th Sincerely, Mildred IA. Davis Name Address �Rfi i 504.A �-�Y i C�1z albal COw 7 ,06 7 ���� �'� r i / ���� d z 3 �1 �"0'& . 9 q-Zoo 7 z ;Z� a'a 3 �"Ar. '. `�7Q14 4.t � ,z2 emz, C/"72-23 � Ji WASHINGTON COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING - 150 N. FIRST AVENUE HILLSBORO, OREGON 97124 (S �,ij 198,5 s/6�gS Or T104RD BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DEPT.OF LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION Planning Division WES MYLLENBECK,Chairman 2nd Floor BONNIE L. HAYS,Vice Chairman (503)648.8761 EVA M. KILLPACK May 6, 1985 JOHN E.MEEK John Cook, Mayor City of Tigard P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 SUBJECT; CPA 4-85 AND ZC 4-85 (KRUEGER PROPERTY) The Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation requests that the Tigard City Council continue the hearing on CPA 4-85 and ZC 4-85 to a future date. It is our feeling that unresolved issues relating to the future connection of Murray Blvd. and warrant this continuance. We are not opposed to the concept of moving the neighborhood commercial designation from 135th Avenue to Scholls Ferry Road. We are, however, opposed to the pian amendment because it will allow final approval of the Winter Lake II subdivision. Development of this subdivision as proposed will preclude one of the two pro- posed intersection options of the Murray Blvd. connections with 135th Avenue. The Urban Planning Area Agreement states that neither party will take actions which will preclude options. The Department feels this northerly intersection is preferable to the other option which lies to the south at the intersection of 135th Avenue and Walnut Street. The southerly option is a poor candidate because of the existing intersection angles. The Department would have commented at the Winter Lake II subdivision hearing had we been aware that it was under consideration. To the best of our knowledge, we received no formal notice of the hearing. A copy of the subdivision preliminary plat was sent to a transportation technician, but this person had no knowledge of the Murray Blvd. issues. All such notices should be sent to the Director, in accord with provisions of the County-City Urban Planning Area Agreement. The City of Beaverton has also requested that a decision on this plan amendment be delayed. They have invited the City of Tigard to participate in a joint study to determine the appropriate location for the Murray Blvd. connection. We strongly support this approach for finding solutions to the Murray Blvd. issues. i an equal opportunity employer r� ter_ __-- -- -- . ..- ---------- ---- -- John Cook ,{ May 6, 1985 Page 2 If Washington County can be of assistance in initiating and conducting a joint study between the cities of Tigard and Beaverton to resolve these long-standingissues, please let me know. Richard A. Daniels, Director RAD:KM:mb c: Linda Davis, City of Beaverton f April 29, 1985 BEAVERTORf Planning Commission I City of Tigard Po Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Commission Members: The City of Beaverton respectfully requests on on on the by request for a plan aimendment and rezoning to commercial Property on New Scholls Ferry Road be continued until the final alignment on the Murray Rd. extension is decided. Different alignment alternatives would place intersection make of`sig i Murray i cant and New Scholls at different locations. This would seem f difference in locating a commercial center. I- have made a proposal to Tigard Planning Director Bill Monahan for a joint study of the alignment question ofothese facilities rave a majorn of the eimpact Scholonfthe Scholls intersectin owners and residents in this traffic circulation in the area. because the decisions on roads general area feel they are in no Beaverton and and streets involve four jurisdictions - the State, the County, have the greatest interest in the U derea Tigard. Beaverton and Tigardlve it. therefore I believe we should u cool akethe conceileadership eadersably h i p t some coal i gnment choices proposal I have made, developed by July 1• Thank you very much for your consideration. Sincerely, Linda L. Davis, AICP Planning Director 0249-LD-L2:28 cc: Bill Monahan Larry Cole, Mayor of Beaverton City of Beaverton ® 4950 S.W.Hall Boulevard 8 Beaverton,Oregon 97005 • (503)644-2191 C y plioNB 644.3049.. G. V. Pl1MOSE 143009-W-OLD 6CHOLLS FERRY ROAD - ROUTE 1.BOX 964 6EAVERTON.OREGON 97007 May 5 1985 r The City Council of Tigard _ 12755 S. W. Ash Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97223 i Bear Council Members: apicatonInthe matter of Russ Krueger'sourlfilei during youdo.tCFAe4-85iandd r May 6th meeting, y ? ZC>4-85, some of the neighbors are contending that this application should be posponed until the hazardous condition of`Scholls Ferry Road and the intersection with Old Bcholls Ferry Road is corrected. I don't believe this is right. The application should be decided on merits and should not be confused with the hazards of the road under present best tant I'm sure the Hyway Departmentwillselect the best plan ve reduce these hazards and without delay due to the new developement in the area. There is a simular crossing on Scholls terry Read where it _- crosses Bertha-Beaverton at Raleigh Hills- Here traffic lights have been doing a good job as far as I know since 1945. yours very.1 ,yl, 0. v. Palmrose OS r 6A X149 7 � April 22 1985 t Route 1,_ Box 378 Beaverton, Or. 97007 1 Tigard City Council g 12755 S.W. Ash P.O. .Box 23397' Tigard, Oregon 97223 , i Council Members: We, the undersigned property owners, request a moritorium on approval of any and all development, commercial or residential, by Mr. Russell Kruger and/or his agents on Tax Dots 1000 and 101, until such time as the State of Oregon, Washington County, theCity of Tigard and the City of Beaverton can agree on one cosi repossib Murry Blvd. extension. (in this planning area, possible � plan for: y d to New Scholls, and for the intersection extension of Davies Roa , of Scholls/Scholls/135th Sincerely, VIC" blildred M. Davis NameAddress N CL R 110,' 613X ?0Ova Z �Jftsa �v� �Zc'D7 t.lusl� Co. 3 �Jco^ .� 1/l 10��0 13 S - S W r=te►, S �ca.��t tib a:3 3 �i ;cr y cry a 'S4-) �� �,�r f U,�'. C17�d'� 19S SP 1 c 5V11— �c . 0Z, r/ z2 3 .,,-.e �c t_•�d � -r.�.Ss+ tr 4 c sv.,L F,jd tom".#" rsy _�.'7 4a`�}��• ��'�� �� � t t : °. .,, ;� ',.:C�.�.!]a2s '•r+�yri�.il '� a - H �"y z�..r `t•• � < i...X-I�Kl ems+ ,a;+,. �", 7F.'.S :-1 r ^t Af3P.`+.�L�S�Fri�� t-Z'� "f•� s ++ "'*^ �,y � �+�' +t -Y 41 .« a BEAVERTON t : L Apri 1 '29, 1985 `; i's� :•. .s .-�' {..- ..env ,w. y," '1l'aC<' z. •;;"4•.: c rstac •a- - ••v fir i"erR-.�R•srs'- 'a Dear Bill '.. n ilr4(.� � : w- . . -.. -J s.- #—....•F K-.O'y'.. •Feta.. .• r' As we -discussed on the phone last week, Beaverton would be _interested Mand a .idlling' to participate with Tigard 'in developing 'so 'rbligement€;aiternat ves , for Murray 'Rd: ' extension and =some alternatives ,forw,'redesign -of t+the New chol 1 s, Old Scholis intersection. ..Both the-Count and the .State"=are equall �w� asjaQ interested. ..�. ;._ �,. YruC '}Y , �t w z. ; r 1✓ .A :. - -• .ap,E•M 'J` s' E ' ��.'d1. x. sZA though' flew =Schol l s Is '"a state 'owned '.fac l 6 ty thij wi l l put o xp � ,`t�ei ht ;on,-; ' (Beaverton, :Ji.gardIand he punkyl dQsire'M4114 urra., as :ultimately in_ourhastds ,asfaras :the ninen_ .. a �.. 9 i i ng ;+ , improvement--is concerned. although ,ihe;;CounW;j1i have an T=,interest s n' : , a thai:itbpeets .functional requirements as envlsi©ned y .the Plan. �I sense:that Y we"4.'need4Ao take ' the .leadership ..to resolve:rthese' two ' particular �_-"mutuai i nterest and concern. 4 . I ` c ,ti..... 11 w yi,,.. - ='r ��. .• -c ._ • '• i r .< ::wa 1adt. t �'My� roposa� ould'be'that one or the other :of�.uSA a a �tezaporary� aplaye Mfoe^ ` P. . , �'�vapproximatel our. weeks with'-the :other-contributi ng Yabou �half�the�n ' d sal�ry Th'i t�ul d be` about $1200 maxi�nU n MS9T iig �lnthr for i'O hours; I would`prefers°to-;canplete TtheV roject�,th s tscai-u.ear -.fn. . order, to utilize ome remainin funds n'rth =yea s budget. .. 9 r ,, let s talk atiout t is as soonas possible,s®•�a��a �, ate same hie 4 a +� I nda4M Qav1 s; 'AICPilkFi Planning Director ' �;':;\•a :ie r ws - K' '..r.._- w t" n ss'a res. V rx .� li et rt�y t ,,-na4� �i� s g°'a�hbp-'. 4�:�-* Imo• • , . x yet City of Bea rton ®4950 S W �RII Boui�v�rd® Beau®rton,Qregofl 97,005 " 503 644'219 r.pril 21, 1085 a Mildred Davis Route 1, Box 378 Beaverton, Oregon 07007 r Ed iiardt Netro Region EnFineer State Highway ;Department 8002 S .E. hrichoughlin Blvd. � i•ai.lwaukie, Oregon 6,7222_ - the ur�dercr-. na,d �.ie re�icents of i�ew Sebolls Ferr)v 210 . ��e request ,r Scatty Highway R v�cst of 135th Street , txl:�o �nortiri r-., reduction in thr Deed on our section of higYivray from the current e x -peed reduction or c�:ution. to 35NIPH a.nd t'i *'her ,�xgns stzlti-ng F that is r3ctutslly feel that �tiith si( ns fend £L ,peed rEdution, on thi3 section of rood, the extremely dangerous traffic enforced, be flour at the intersection of ScYtolls/Scholls/1 35tlthreevstreeto. ficial to all motorists ciurren► using any of these The excessive trEiffic flow from Old .;cholls into 3hat�,'hislb�r�d swiftly on ,Iip-hwLy I() -41s currently extremely dangerou i s-ituation is z(iade woz•se by the continual flow of lame. �T poor l°�.bili overloaded, .tFropress �:uai•ry' s dump trucks and by the o the curve and contour ° E.t the intersection that is due tmoo imit yv ^.1-G at the iritex•sectior, cf Scholls/Scholls in such close p of 135th. set dye understand that there already hive been funds ($70,000) - • de- for the UDU7:' proposed project for 5choll.sj5cholls/.135th that asp year highway improve- is slated to be constructed according to the saxtern temporary solution . rr.ent :program. tih�:t v:e are asking for is only p until the Scholl.: /Scholls/135th project is completed• lives ehope'Ey t v.-ill give this request high priority as we feel our Make ever ytime we travel through the Scholls/Scholls/135th inter- ection. Sincerely, ' lgildred M. Davis i PLEASE SEL ATTACHED LIST OF SI.G14BES NIr. Bruce vieLi•ner. e. Repre Paul Phillips, cc. . rar. Bud Georg p Valley Time^ h Liden John Gil?�Lni ( BeuvertQn) Keit 4._ Site Information ' a The existing and proposed commercial sites are undeveloped. The commercial site is intended to remain on the north side of the Murray Road extension and be shifted from the west side of 135th Avenue to the east side of Scholls Ferry Road. A specific development plan has not been formulated. 5. Agency and NPO Comments The Engineering Division has the following comments: a. Due to 'a drainageway that runs through the property, a`Sensitive Lands permit will be required prior to development of the site. b. Sanitary sewerage and storm drainage provisions will be necessary in conjunction with development c. Site Development Review approval will be required. d. Additional right-of-way should be dedie ted along the commercial area'a frontage on Scholls Ferry Road for a right-of-xray width of 45 feet from centerline. The Building Inspection Office has no objection to the request. The State Highway Division indicates that further study will be necessary before the need for a traffic light can be evaluated. Also, the drainage facilities on Scholls Ferry Road may not be adequate to accept additional runoff from the site. NPO #7 recommends approval. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1 and 2, and Tigard Comprehensive Plan policy 2.1.1 and Chapter 12, Locational Criteria. The Planning staff concludes that the proposal is consistent with the Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines based upon the following findings: 1. Goal #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 are met. a 2. Goal #2 is met because the City applied all applicable Statewide Planning Goals, City Comprehenside Plan Policies and Development Code requirements to the application. The 'Planning staff cogcludes that the proposal is consistent with the - relevant- portions of the Comprehensive Plan based upon the findings noted below: STAFF REPORT CPA 4 85 6 ZC 4-85-7 PAGE 2 ` ....- .._. .. - - - i s m nci ° - coy a E e Y '� ; ; c N - 6 > n c p u u O at _ o rac> > am n Y ° _L c 3 c o y > a O p m d 7 M g c �'� ° 'N ` E G ° u o ° " c O Qj E - � pp ° m ALO, v c � La. c _ arc a t�3 C c '� E $ E 6/ u `o E a ar cc 0. c�± 4 K a m E c u a` .4 ec a'� E v u M o q,ami 0 _o �.G Ea c E.« m u_ q� c `... A �.�. m e A y. .� a " '" ac o V Y G O a q < �� $'u E A ` , o nn, ,c, ° ac > v -V • d 7 Y 'G p q..�-> >Va. m y \ q C C.E C tC.+ U n R n N pi y� O.p _ 07 ` d C U 3 N C a.L 4 ?.. n n A u L .. f�. n« C V .E Q` > ` u ry�S A•,cO _� r' y� A> �A. !.rtr+ iAOp �M�«E � c' «V q •j- ,>e GY'��du$ __ �\ r .u 2 Mc n £ ° rLr_ -cu. aGu .yNG c er p ,a> r"_ >0QU cvbz $ y �vs.vCu,,. 49 t EyC emr m Si FFta to • 1tJ E s } V U U V V A 40 1( OFs i( ( �i �" - - - -- ---------- Ell -- --- :—._ A.--- • =g4�.� Lai: . ". .. cc U M U� ,�'a `v� a Tr z on ILAs y RON y�q. ,�µ� � w.Maa: �" -��'.'�'�. RC6. �'H� ..Z..�::�'1��.'!�3>�i�a.._ ,�a.".�.°TINN;�y•Sn�.'iw+' i O c i Oa 4 N i s c «� Ms u 5 ` �� ~ yi F- o ae C - N _. O .� ... •. _ c N O •� 'O ro 4. ~C .O .+ !^ r uqg 149 . tc v 'N° 1�'S AC CN.•aA+"aS w.g` CaAo pa o0 c�Q3 • "NA 4tNNGo.T=V '�Ma ae e..'NOO«° •a`_+ o:.¢ Aa C'cr�o '$aa «a.ws►. c�on.0uA` .2N isy% yE O o ce a c - NndC C 'M . tv C � � LO' �aiOAA 9Ca � co A CNyyro Ep CQ ipH a ^d 0 c p O �,•+ A N 1'0 = •- A •A _ j] r. q a A p a .0 Nj N p a a N 7 N .+ U S C Vai 00�j'fl �•C •.. C �„ ,n c to _ 0.. .`+ as c ,_v r a ^ c u N c A a u .. u a c p y N y .p a °Q !s- w CJ = c '•° '° Ce } S y T� Ano Vk V N -W mC N V c O V A � � `m ?+ ,Q a 'c - ( i ' � •6L w _ c - b C JG N a a+ y ,• C. 3 •• � A N � A c � � oci� N v A a _ O C N •P� O w p. A ro ._ 7 E C to G .A+�j ,''. , --i my von''• a c V y t= b r- "�b O O � N�Ly `„ • �`y w C N ro T N w A ..,. - .....----- ._(. i , r C A rot Owl v- ya « ... .. CuO C ro ,•- ..r .• ro L� . .3 o N w a CO S r w t. O Y.J. �, °' y E y•«. '^ V �' ro ✓ C J+ A Zo « s- A - ...1\ �.,�•` _ ^L ��Vf •w C c y •�Q •+.� « A O N O C p O N i 5 3 r 6 • �,.. _._.�..,. ..-i-.___..-._J r! }i ,Y? :° d0 A L toto �.,, •4 �..s p •a C ro O Nas b O �'} ~ •N' £ `'" ` N N V O O N row C = Do ~ •d� T 7 N ► •+ I' C J'•'' N pro vAi S N C Map •' C ✓ i..�. A E Q . aro+ i C d ro QD W'fl i0 G' d.~ a ..N •�' •ro+ ? p eE'0 • M cz V m t� Y .✓ 7 C ro -0 y L N �.. T ` C •+ v O A.j mE i N N 'N ro ro p.•+. E 111.V A N N - G m CL p� N.-` L.V1 � ... N N'O V ^- A •+ a s 5 N N:A a � 0 Com..`. N NL V � �QJ� •' t V:a.CCi7A� C! C7U N.VOt/1 + Cor � ho�o � She � Dunci � in c� 0 CITY`OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: May 6, 1985 AGENDA ITEM #: DATE SUBMITTED: APri!1 30 1985 PREVIOUS ACTION: Planni� Comrnissian __ ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: April 16 1985 Hearing PREPARED BY: Keith Liden CPA 5-85/ZC 6--85 — REQUESTED BY: �` CITY ADMINISTRATOR: DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: - POLICY ISSUE INFORMATION SUMMARY percentage of The City initiated this proposal to eliminate the high After ublic amending non-conforming light industrial uses on Sandberg Street. thed sign t n for testimony, the Planning Commission recommends only the central portion. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1.- Approve amendment for the entire area. 2. Approve amendment for a portion of the area as recommended by the Planning Commission. s 3. Deny. SUGGESTED ACTION Alternative 2 -- (129ep), TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING APRIL 16, 1985 1. Vice president Owens called the meeting to order at 7:38 PM. The meeting' was held at Fowler Junior High - LGI Room - 10865 SW Walnut. 2. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Vice President Owens; Commissioners Butler, Pyre', Vanderwood, Bergmann, and Peterson. ABSENT: President Moen, Commissioners Leverett and Campbell. 3.` APPROVAL OF MINUTES o Commissioner Butler noted spelling errors to be corrected. J B Bishop requested changes be made to his testimony as reflected in the transcript. ' * Commissioner- Peterson moved and Commissioner Butler seconded to approve the minutes as corrected. 4. COMMISSION COMMUNICATION o Vice President Owens 'stated she had received a call from David Oringdulph prior to the meeting and would make her comments at the end of item 5.1. 5. PUBLIC BEARINGS 5.1 SUBDIVISION S 3-85 KRUEGER DEVELOPMENT CO./OR-AK CORP. NPO # 7 Request to divide a 10.7 acre parcel into 63 lots ranging from 5,000 to 6,000 square feet. Located west side of 135th Ave. between S.W. Morning Bill Dr. and S.W. Winter Lake Drive (WCTM 1S1 33C, lot 1000) Associate Planner Liden explained that the applicant, after receiving the 5 staff report, had submitted a new proposal with only one access. -Be made f staff's recommendation for approval with 16 conditions. Also, he } explained that Engineering would like to see an LID for 135th, however, the applicant was willing to put an 2" overlay from the project to the b, Intersection of 135th and Scholls Ferry Road. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION o Gordon Hobbs, OR/AK Corp, 13050 SW Forest Meadows Way, Lake Oswego, Ore. requested approval for the single family development. They concurred with the staff report and were available for questions. o Russell Kruger, 3515 SW Barbur Blvd. Y-1, Portland, 97201, submitted an aerial photo of the area and noted where the sewer and water was available. Discussion followed regarding the overlay the applicant had offered to place on 135th. r -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 16, 1985 Page 1 o Commissioner Butler stated he didn't like condition number 10, he felt the City should require a 100% bond. Also, he didn't like condition number11, he felt it should be amended to say "the northern boundary of the property to Scholls Ferry". * Commissioner Butler moved and Commissioner Fyre seconded to amend the motion to change condition number 10 to require an 100% performance bond and to amend condition number 11 to read "the northern boundary of the property." o Further discussion followed regarding amending the motion. * Vice President Owens called for the vote on amending the motion as made. Motion failed three to three,_ Commissioner Bergmann, Vanderwood, and Owens'voting no. * Vice President Owens called for the vote on the original motion made by Commissioner Bergmann, and seconded by Commissioner Vanderwood. Motion carried by majority vote, Commissioner Butler voting;no. 5.2 SIVS PLAN.AMENDMENT, CPA` 5-85 An ZONE CHANGE NZC PO -6-85 I'C. --------- A request for a Plan Amendment from Commercial Professional to Light Industrial and a Zone Change from C-P (Commercial Professional) to I-P (Industrial Park) on the following_Washington County Tax Maps and Lots: 2S1 1DC, lots 1100, 3700,, 3701, 3702, 3703, 3800,-3801, 3900, 4100; Map 2S1 1DD, lots 100, 1_01, 200,- 300, 400, 401, 401A1, 500, 600, 700, 701, cli 701). Associate Planner Liden reviewed the history of the properties and explained the different concerns which he had received. Staff felt the best compromise was to change the zoning to IP, however, several different options would be appropriate. He read a letter form Pacific Western, whom opposed the zone change. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o Steve Finney, representing Hyster, 7000 SW Sandburg, Tigard, explained that they were already an industrial use. They had complied with the Code at the time of construction, now with current zoning, - they can't expand. o Larry_ Miller, RFD Publications, Inc., 6960 SW Sandburg Street, Tigard, would like to expand, but was concerned that the code required 25% landscaping. They were not even sure if the existing property is in conformance with the Code. a Lengthy discussion followed regarding the landscaping requirements and thepossibilityof getting a Variance. o Discussion followed regarding which properties should be rezoned and the options available. il 16, 1985 Page 3 :PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Apr PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED * Commissioner Bergmann moved and Commissioner Peterson seconded to forward CPA 5-85 and ZC 6-85 to City Council and recommend 2 IDC t 1 following be changed to Industhe trial Park: Wash. Co. Tax Map lot 1100; Map 2S1 1DA, lots 100, 200, 300, 401, 701, and 702. RECESS 9:15 PM RECONVENE 9:30 PM 5.3 VARIANCE V 8-85 CITY OF TIGARD NPO # 3 164 070 of the Community ; Request for a Variance from section 18.164. walks be constructed to City Development code which regif rs tha s would allow the requirement for standards. The variance, approved, sidewalks in front of lots 39, 40, and 41 on SW Novare Ct. to be waived. Director of Community Development, Monahan reviewed the history of the recommendation for approval with one condition. variance and made staff's Discussion followed regarding location of sidewalks. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o Dennis Stolarski; 11160 SW Novara Ct., lot 41, asked who had opposed . -Staff stated that Mr. Saylor had opposed. granting the variance o Irwin McCuen, 11170 SW Novare Ct., lot 40, stated they were the first people to move and did not know that a sidewalk was required. Discussion followed. o Commissioner Vanderwood asked why there wa opposition. Staff for the safety of children. explained the concern was Discussion followed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED o Commissioners Bergmann and Fyre favored and Commissioner Butler, Vanderwood, Peterson and Owens were concerned for safety- +� Commissioner Vanderwood moved and Commissioner Bergmann seconded to approve Variance V 8-85 with one condition based on staff's findings and conclusions. Also, to request staff to prepare a final order and have.Vice President Owens sign the final order. Motion carried by majority vote. Commissioner Butler voting no. 5.4 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 6-85 and ZONE CHANGE ZC 7-NPO 5 Y OF TIGARD JIM CHATTERLY Request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low Density Residanti8l to Medium Density Residential and a Zone Change from R.4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre) to s-7 (Residential, 7 units/acre). Located on the southwest _ corner of Bonita Road and SW 79th Avenue. (W�TM 251 12BD lot 2900). y PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 16, 1985 Page 4 :.. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY' AGENDA OF: May 6, 1985 AGENDA ITEM DATE SUBMITTED: April 30, 1985 PREVIOUS ACTION: Planning Commission ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: CPA 6-85 S Hearing 4/16/85 ZC 7-85, for Jim Chatterly _from PREPARED BY: Keith Liden " R-4.5 to -R-7. - REQUESTED BY DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: �/, --"' CITY ADMINISTRATOR: POLICY' ISSUE INFORMATION SUMMARY A commitment was made by the City that 5,OOO square foot lots would be allowed on the subject property. . Several months later, the plan adopted in November, 1983 only allowed for 7,500 square foot lots (R-4.5 zone). The applicant, who lives in California, feels that since he had an earlier subdivision approval, 5,000 sq. ft. lots are appropriate for the site. The Planning Commission voted 4-2 to recommend approval. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Uphold Planning Commission's recommendation. 2. Deny. SUGGESTED ACTION Approve Alternative 1. - �1298P) TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - APRIL 16, 1985 1. Vice President Owens called the meeting to order at 7:38 PM. The meeting was held at Fowler Junior High- LGI Room - 10865 SW Walnut. 2. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Vice President Owens; Commissioners Butler, Fyre, Vanderwood, Bergmann, and Peterson. ABSENT: President Moen, Commissioners Leverett and Campbell, 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES o Commissioner Butler noted spelling errors to be corrected. J B Bishop requested changes be made to his testimony as reflected in the transcript. a Commissioner Peterson moved and Commissioner Butler seconded to approve the minutes as corrected. 4. COMMISSION COMMUNICATION o Vice President Owens stated she had received a call from David Oringdulph. prior to the meeting and would make her comments at the end of item 5.1. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 SUBDIVISION S 3-85 KRUEGER DEVELOPMENT CO./OR-AK CORP. NPO # 7 Request to divide a 10.7 acre •parcel into 63 lots ranging from 5,000 to 6,000 square_feet. Located west side of 135th Ave. between S.W. Morning Hill Dr. and S.W. Winter Lake Drive (WCTM ISI 33C, lot 1000) Associate Planner Liden explained that the applicant, after receiving 'the staff report, had submitted a new proposal with only one access. He made staff's recommendation for approval with 16 conditions.- Also, ' he explained that Engineering would like to see an LID for 135th, however, the applicant was willing to put an 2" overlay from the project to the Intersection of 135th and Scholls Ferry Road. APPLICANT'S.PRESENTATION o Gordon Hobbs, OR/AK Corp, 13050 SW Forest Meadows Way, Lake Oswego, Ore. ,requested approval for the single family development. They concurred with the staff report and were available for questions. o Russell Kruger, 3515 SW Barbur Blvd. Y-1, _Portland, 97201, submitted an aerial photo of the area and noted where the sewer and water was available. Discussion followed regarding the overlay the applicant had offered to-place'on-135th. PIoA �M 00M1gISSI0�0:E_ IUMS April 16, 1985. Pagel- :, i' PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED * Commissioner Bergmann moved and Commissioner Peterson seconded to forward CPA 5-85 and ZC 6-85 to City Council and recommend that the following be changed toIndustrialPark: Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 `1DC, lot 1100; 'Map 2S1 IDD, lots 100, 200, 300, 401, 701, and 702. RECESS 9:15 PM RECONVENE 9:30 PM 5.3 VARIANCE V,8-85 CITY OF TIGARD NPO # 3 Request for a Variance from section 18.164.070 of the Community Development code which requires that sidewalks be constructed to City standards. The variance, if approved, would allow the requirement' for sidewalks in front of lots 39, 40, and 41 on SW Novare Ct. to be waived. Director of Community Development Monahan reviewed the history of the variance and made staff's recommendation for approval with one condition. Discussion followed regarding location of sidewalks. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o Dennis Stolarski, 11160 SW Novare Ct., lot 41, asked who had opposed granting the variance. Staff stated that Mr. Saylor had opposed. o Irwin-McCuen, 11170 SW Novare Ct., lot 40, stated they were the first people to move and did not know that a sidewalk was required. Discussion followed. o Commissioner Vanderwood asked why. there was opposition. Staff explained the concern was for the safety of children. Discussion followed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED o Commissioners Bergmann and Fyre favored and Commissioner Butler, . Vanderwood, Peterson and Owens were concerned for safety. e Commissioner Vanderwood moved and Commissioner Bergmann seconded to approve Variance V 8-85 with one condition based on staff's findings and conclusions. Also, to request staff to prepare a final order and have Vice President Owens sign the final order. Motion carried by majority vote. Commissioner Butler voting no. 5.4 COMPREHENSIVEPLANAMENDMENT CPA 6-85 and ZONE CHANGE ZC 7-85 CITY OF TIGARD - JIM CHATTERLY NPO # 5 Request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and a Zone Change from R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre); to R--7 (Residential, 7 units/acre). Located on the southwest corner of Bonita Road and SW 79th Avenue. (WCTM 2S1 12BD lot 2900). PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 16, 1985 Page 4 Associate Planner Lid reviewed the history of the site stating that the �` property .owner had a letter from the City verifying that he would retain lµ , his S,OOU square foot lot zoning. Also NPO # 5 had reviewed the e members and had no;objections. application with only thre K PUBLIC TESTIMONY o Les Balsiger, `PO Box 388, Wilsonville,Oregon, Barron Construction, had a copy of the letter staff had referred to. He would be bringing a subdivision application forward if the Commission approved- the change requested. i. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED o Commissioner Vanderwood had some concerns about rezoning the property. She felt it was the intent of the NPO to have the property zoned R-4.5 during the Comprehensive Plan process. o Discussion followed regarding the expired subdivision plat. * Commissioner Peterson moved and Commissioner Bergmann seconded- to forward CPA 6-85 and ZC 7--85 to City Council with a recommendation for approval. Motion carried bymajority vote, Commissioners Butler and Vanderwood voting no. .rt 5.5 ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 3-85 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE - Request to amend section 18.68.030, 18.68.040, and 18.40.020 of the w Community Development Code. Associate Planner Liden reviewed changes being proposed and recommended forwarding the changes to City Council. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o Larry Abel, 502 SW College, Portland, 97201, supported amending section 18.42.020 as proposed by staff. Discussion followed regarding painting and repair shops. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED o Commissioner 'gyre was concerned on how to control Auto Body Shops versus Paint Shops. * commission Vanderwood moved and Commissioner Peterson seconded to forward ZOA 3-85 to City Council supporting staff recommendation. Motion carried by majority vote, Commissioner Pyrevotingno. o Commissioner Pyre requested concerns be forward to City Council PLAPdNZNG S COMMISSION MINUTES April 16, `1985 Page. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: May 6 1985 AGENDA ITEM 0: DATE SUBMITTED: April 30, 1985 PREVIOUS ACTION: Planning Commission- ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: ZOA`3-85 Hearin 4/16/85 Amending 18.68.030, 18.68.040, & PREPARED BY: Keith Liden 18.42.020 of the Community Development REQUESTED BY: Code f �- DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISI'RATOR POLICY ISSUE INFORMATION SUMMARY The I—P zone allows for limited amounts of non-industrial or business uses. The amendment is intended to simplify the requirements for commercial retail and other uses by maintaining the present limitation of these uses at 20% of the total floor area. The second amendments will allow auto painting to be considered as-a separate activity from auto body repair. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Uphold Planning Commission recommendation. 2. Deny, SUGGESTED ACTION Approve. (1298P} TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION' SPECIAL MEETING - APRIL 16, 1985 1. Vice President Owens called the meeting to order at 7:38 PM. The meeting was held at Fowler Junior High - LGI Room - 10865 SW Walnut. 2. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Vice President Owens; Commissioners Butler, Fyre, Vanderwood, Bergmann, and Peterson. ABSENT: President Moen, Commissioners Leveret and Campbell. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES o Commissioner Butler noted spelling errors to be corrected. J B Bishop requested changes be made to his testimony as reflected in the transcript e Commissioner Peterson moved and Commissioner Butler seconded to approve the minutes as corrected. 4. COMMISSION COMMUNICATION o Vice President Owens stated she had received acall from David Osingdulph 'prior to the meeting and would make her comments at the end of item 5.1. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 SUBDIVISION S 3-85 KRUEGER DEVELOPMENT CO./OR-AK CORP. NPO ! 7 Request to divide a 10.7 acre parcel into 63 lots ranging from 5,000 to 6,000 square feet. Located west side of 135th Ave. between S.W. Morning Hill Dr. and S.W. Winter Lake Drive (WCTM 1S1 33C, lot 1000) Associate Planner Liden explained that the applicant, after receiving the staff report, had submitted a new proposal with only one access. He made staff's recommendation for approval with 16 conditions. Also, he explained that Engineering would like to see an LID for 135th, however, the applicant was willing to pint an 2" overlay from the project to the intersection of 135th and Scholls Ferry Road. APPLICANTtS PRESENTATION o Gordon Hobbs, OR/AK Corp, 13050 SW Forest Meadows Way, Lake Oswego, Ore. requested approval for the single family They development- concurred with the staff report and were available for questions. o Russell Kruger, 3515 SW Barbur Blvd. --1, Portland, 97201, submitted an aerial photo of the area and noted where the sewer and water was available. Discussion 'followed regarding the overlay the applicant had offered to place on 135th. �i PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 16, 1985 Page 1 Associate Planner Liden reviewed the history of the site stating that the property owner had a letter from the City verifying that he would retain his 5,000 square foot lot zoning. Also NPO # 5 had reviewed the application with only three members and had no objections. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o Les Balsiger, PO Box 388, Wilsonville, Oregon, Barron; Construction, had a copy of, the letter staff had referred to. He would be bringing a subdivision application _forward if the Commission " approved the change requested. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED o Commissioner Vanderwood had some concerns about rezoning the property. She felt it was the intent of the NPO to have the property zoned R-4.5 during the Comprehensive Plan process. o Discussion followed regarding the expired subdivision plat. * Commissioner Peterson moved and Commissioner Bergmann seconded to forward CPA 6-85 and ZC 7-85 to City Council with a recommendation for approval. Motion carried by majority vote, Commissioners Butler and Vanderwood voting no. F. ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 3-85 COMMUNITY_DEVELOPMENT CODE -Request to amend section -18.68.030, 18.68.040, and 18.40.020 of the Community Development Code. Associate Planner Liden reviewed changes being proposed and recommended forwarding the changes to City Council. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o Larry Abel, 502 SW College, Portland, 97201, supported amending section 18.42.020 as proposed by staff. Discussion followed regarding painting and repair shops. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED o Commissioner Pyre was concerned on how to control Auto Body Shops versus Paint Shops. * Commission Vanderwood moved and Commissioner Peterson seconded to forward ZOA 3-85 to City Council supporting staff recommendation. Motion carried by majority vote, Commissioner Pyre voting no. o Commissioner Pyre requested concerns be forward to City Council PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - April 16, 1985 Page 5 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ( COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: May 6 1985 AGENDA ITEM #: DATE SUBMITTED: May 2, 1985 PREVIOUS ACTION: Public Hearing On ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Zone Change 4/8/85 By Council Annexation ZCA 1-85 — Davis PREPARED BY: Bob Jean REQUESTED BY: Dr. Davis DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR; POLICY ISSUE Council policy, is that the City will support annexations from the Metzger/Washington Square community. INFORMATION SUMMARY The Davis annexation proposal is a_ triple majority request representing a majority of the land area, assessed value, and residents in the proposed annexation boundary. The City of Tigard has the means to provide urban services in the area. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Reverse policy and deny annexation. 2. Approve annexation request per policy. 3. Table again. SUGGESTED ACTION Approve annexation request and forward to Boundary Commission. lw/2716A MEMORANDUM f CITY OF TIGARD. OREGON TO: City Council / May 2, _1985 FROM: Elizabeth Newton, Associate Planner /Q(-D SUBJECT: Davis Annexation At the meeting of April 8, 1985, the Council voted to continue action on the Davis annexation request to May 6, 1985, to allow the public notice to be corrected and to hold a discussion on an annexation policy on April 29, 1985. Since that meeting, the owners of three additional properties have asked to have their property included in the annexation request. The addition of these properties brings the total acreage to 28.94. A map is attached which outlines the new area under consideration for annexation of this time. A public hearing will be held only on the parcels added by property owners since the April 8, 1985 hearing. These are indicated on the attached map with slash-marks. No testimony will be taken concerning Dr. Davis original proposal. Please bring the information that was provided in your April 8, 1985, packet on this issue to the May 6th meeting. 1296P dmj _ W Z spa `�_,,, ___. s.N.'y• u °� i_ c —. ...+�-�=ice_° � 1 f i. -� 1..i_ '{`�.`. I Nmoi• ` an.�',,M+ —... �. �t{ y o f j » M cr »_ II z t, 3nN3AV 60 AAS I� Ul r 8+ � gg tm eo O_ ' \\ 1 %A. y \ .� Y W 1311 ` ' x i \\S�°n i+ ,t4,• �`ta i Ib"f N L y�H ty kn f- ". a �� � 1 h ♦ �) u3nN3Ab CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 1, COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: 5/6/85 AGENDA ITEM #t: DATE SUBMITTED: 4/30/85 PREVIOUS ACTION: Planning Commission ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Appeal Hearing 4/28/85 z -- of Zone Charge ZC 2-85 PREPARED BY: Keith Liden REQUESTED BY: Applicant DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: �,/ � CITY ADMINISTRATOR: + � POLICY ISSUE INFORMATION SUMMARY The , Planning staff recommended approval of the Zone Change but Planning Commission denied the application. This decision has been appealed by the applicant. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDEREO 1. Uphold Planning Commission decision. . . Reverse the Planning Commission descision 3. Remand to Planning Commission. SUGGESTED ACTION 1. Review of the Planning Commission action. 1300P dm j Sam Iffm W-0 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON April 30, 1985 TO: Members of the City Council p, .FROM: William A. Monahan, Director of Community Development Uul" SUBJECT- ZONE CHANGE (ZC 2-85) IDRISS On April 2, .19850 the Planning Commission voted to deny the application ZC 2-85. The denial has been appealed by the applicant, The following documents are enclosed for your review of the record of the hearing: 1. Appeal letter from applicant. 2. Final Order for ZC 2-85. 3 Planning Commission minutes from April 2, 1985. 4. Transcript of the April 2, 1985. 5. The staff report dated April 2, 1985. 6, Narrative submitted by the applicant for the April 2, 1985. The Council should conduct a hearing on the of the application and take action. 1300P dmf � U RYAN O'BRIEN Planning Consultant 1134 S.E. 23rd Ave. • Hillsboro, Oregon 97123 (503) 648-4061 Tigard Cit TO: City of Ti g y Council FROM: Ryan O' Brien, Planning Consultant SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission denial of ZC-2-85 DATE: April 15, 1985 On April 2, 1985, the Planning Commission denied an application to change the zoning of 3.7 acres of land from R-7 to R-12. The purpose of this report is to file the appeal. A detailed report describing our position will be submitted to the City prior :a the City Council Meeting. We feel the Planning Commission errored in their decision for the following reasons: 1 . The Plannning Commission denied this request based upon noncompliance with LCDC Goal No. 10 (housing), the inadequacy of the transportation facilities in the area, the lack of bus service and that R-7 zoning would remain on 3 sides of the property. 2. We disagree with the Planning Commssion as LCDC Goal No. 10 is more satified with R-12 zoning .than retaining R-7 zoning. All of the R-12 zoning in the area has developed with single family residential houses• ' However, this type of development was not intended for the R-12 zone. Therefore, allowing this zone change to occur will encourage multiple family development in this area. Further, this development will help bring sanitary 'sewer service into this area economically. 3. The adequacy of the transportation facilities were demonstrated. Addition information from a traffic consultant will be provided. Further, the net difference between 7 unit per acre single family developmnet compared to 12 unit per acre multiple family development is very-little. Single family produces 10 trips per unit which equals 70 trips per acre per day. Multiple family development produces o trips per day per unit which produces 72 trips per acre. The difference is less than 3$ or 2 trips per acre. The subject property is 3. 7 acres, so the total difference is 7 trips per day. This level is hardly enough to use to deny this zone change. 4. New information shows that bus service is available in the area. 5. Property to the west is zoned R-12. Property owners on the other 4 three sides have been contacted regarding; R-12 zoning for their property. =; they indicated they did not want to rezone their property at the pr�ssent -time,, but may` do so in the future. Past trends show that property along major street Eike Hall Boulavard do eventually convert to multiple family residential. This `zone change is in line with this trend. CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION }._. FINAL ORDER NO. 85 49 PC A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS, WHICH DENIES AN APPLICATION FOR A ZONE CHANGE (ZC 2-85) REQUESTED BY DARWISH IDRISS. The Tigard Planning Commission received the above application at apublic shearing on April 2, 1985. The Commission based its decision on the facts, findings, and conclusions noted below: A FACTS 1. General Information CASE: Zone Change ZC 2-85 REQUEST: Change the zone designation on a 3.7 acre parcel from R-7 (Residential, 7 units/acre) to R-12 (Residential, 12 units/acre). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential APPLICANT:` Mo Idris: OWNER: Datwish Idris: 10053 SW Nimbus Ave. 1341 Via Milcumbres Beaverton, OR 97005 Solana Beach, CA 92075 LOCATION: East side of Hall Blvd., 300 feet south of Ross Street ('hash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 12CB, Tax Lots 1100.and 1200). 2. Background No other land use applications have been reviewed by the City. 3. VicinityInforsation The surrounding properties are large acreage hosesites and vacant parcels ranging from 1 to 20 acres in site. Kona of the adjacent propertied are presently served by sewer. The area on the east side of Hall Blvd. Immediately adjacent to, the subject parcel is also soned R-7 and the land on the west side of the street is zoned R-12. These properties ars all within the designated "Developing Area- in the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Site Information The property is undeveloped excapt for a residence on Tax Lot 1200. It Is flat, wooded, and free of any apparent physical constraints. The sena change is desired to. allow for a aulti-fainly development in the future. is � . 5. Agency and NPO Comments The Engineering Division has no objection to the proposal but it is recommended that additional right-of-way be dedicated along the Hall Blvd. frontage to meet the City standard for arterial streets. Street improvements alongthe Hall Blvd. frontage will be required in conjunction with the development of the property. The State Highway Division has no objection to the request, however, it is noted that additional right-of-way and street widening will be a condition of the development. The Building Inspection Office and the Tigard School District have no objections to the application. NPO 05 and #6 jointly discussed the proposal on February 20, 1985. Concern was expressed by both NPO's regarding traffic impact on Hall Blvd. and the intersection with Durham Road and the lack of street improvements performed by the Highway Division. Although a quorum was not present, the members of NPO #5 recommended denial. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, and 1O, and Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies` 2.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.8.1, 8.1.3, 8.2.2, and Chapter 12 Locational Criteria. The Planning staff concludes that the proposal is partially consistent with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines based upon the following findings: 1. Goal /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 are met. 2. Goal 02 is not because the City applied all applicable Statewide Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan Policies and Development Code requirements to the application. 3. Goal i10 is not satisfied because the proposal will not provide for housing as contemplated by the City Comprehensive Plan. The Planning staff has determined that the proposal is partially consistent, vith;.,the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Plan based upon the findings noted beelowt 1. Piarxl! .ldl }is satlefled because the Neighborhood Planning 0rgani +ett3,by",and gumunding property owners were given notice of thm hsari sandr'at� .opportunity to common on the applicant's proposal. , - — 2. Plan Policy 7.1.2 is not satisfied because adequate service capacities are not available in the immediate area. 3. Plan Policy 7.8.1 is satisfied because the Tigard School District was informed of this proposal and no objections were raised. -4. Plan Policy 8.2.2 cannot be satisfied at this time because Tri-Met does not offer bus service on Hall Blvd. or Durham Road. 5. The Locational Criteria in Chapter 12 of the Plan are partially satisfied for the following reasons: a. The property is within a "Developing Area" which is not committed to low density development. b. The parcel has direct access to Hall Blvd. c. Development limitations are not evident. Public facilities do not have adequate capacity to serve the property. d. Public transit is not available. e. Convenience retail service is available at the Durham/Hall Intersection and general commercial and business centers are 1.5 to 3 miles away. f. Public open space is available nearby at Cook Park, Durham Elementary School, and Tigard High School. C. DECISION Based upon the above findings and conclusions, the Planning staff denies 2C 2-85. It is further ordered that the applicant be notified of the entry of this order. PASSED: This day of , 1955, by the Planning Commission of the City ofig-'F aMe Donald Moen, President Tigard Planning Comission (ELtpa/U31P) x WE 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 ButlerQverett. Vanderwood, Bergmann, Campbell, Peterson, and Owens (arrived 7:45 P.M.) STAFF: Director of Community Development William A. Monahan; Associate Planner Keith S. Lidera; Secretary Diane M. Jelderks. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner 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 hlsoumbe of the Comprehensive Plan Applications which need processing. printed by the Tigard Chamber of Commerce was distributed. Five letters were distributed for Agenda item 5.6, Main Street Land Corp. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 SUBDIVISION S 2-95 and VARIANCE V 1-95 MAwHIRTER NPO 0 6. Re4uest for preliminary plat approval for a six lot subdivision and to allows two 7,125 square .foot lots where a minimum of 7.500 square feet is required. Located 9690 Sid McDonald St, (WCTM 291 11 lots 104 and 200). Associate Planner Liden reviewedthe statith 11us of tie application and m10-0staff's recOMOndation for approval eye APPLICANT'S PRESENTATIM Vern Lentz. 8150 8W 29th, Portland. representing the applicant requested that Prank Currie, City Engineer. address the issues regarding ag_-cess onto Mcooanld and the need for the approval of the variance. would nat' Frank Curries stated that if the. Variance was denied lestilllained the decrease the near .of drivesweeAys onto McDonald. _ alignaint elf they Kix9�8tieg sldswaalk tit e►tt o�in additional Condispecial tance tioz+8 added with that tits"M, � rested which Id ass a thea .+appltoant trees, any legal remifications raUted to q f�-ions f o r .eshdsp bort fright-of- y. a also .e�xpinineid the Win:'.pub11d*;Aii004nt6 and row dedications. it 2. 1945 page~ 1 k _ r � Vern Lentz continued that the application is in conformance with he Code �.., and that the Variance is minimal and not out of line. Requested the Planning commission grant approval. Don Silvey. 6240 sW Burlingham, Portland, representing that applicant. supported staff's recommendation stating that the subdivision meets the criteria of the Code and that this is the highest and best use for the proposed. size' PUBLIC TESTIMONY - No one appeared to speak PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED a Consensus of the Commission was to support the proposal. a Commissioner Owens moved and Commissioner Peterson seconded to approved S 2-85 and V 1-85 subject to the conditions in the staff report. Modifying condition ' number three by changing major to minor. Modifying page three of the staff, report to eliminate item b. Plan Policy 3.1.1. Also. add conditions number 12. Applicant -grant release from any .._.conditions related to previous negotiations for condea�na►tion of right-of-way initiated by the City. Nation carried by majority, vote. President "Moen voting no, Commissioner Butler-abstaining. .2 ZONE CHANGE zC 2-85 IQRIss NPO M 5 Request;. for the zone designation on a 8.7 acre parcel from R-7 ,(Residential 7 units/acre) to R-12 (Residential, 12 units/acts). Located. on the east side of Hall Blvd., Soo feet south of Ross Street (WCTM 2S1 1208, lots 1100 and 1200). Associate Planner Liden reviewed the request for a zone change and made staff'sracosimendation for approval with one condition. APPLICANT'S PRESEXTAT19ft Ryan, O'Brien, , representing tha applicant reviewed why the applicant should be allowed to rezone his property from R-7 to R-12. PUBLIC TESTIl9M - So one appeared to speak. - PUBLIC NEARIW CLOSED o Commissioner Leverett, Campbell. Fyre, Vanderwood; Peterson, and Moen a change. Commissioner Bergowu favored the opposed the the tone proposal. Cos issioner Mans had nixed feeling WWCaaasissioner Butler had no comment 6'LAlN91SiYG QL1t�MI8SI01M mumApril 2. 1985 Page 2 e Commissioner Leverett moved and Commissioner Vanderwood seconded to deny ZC 2-85 based on the findings that policy 8.2.2 and 7.1.2. were not satisfied. That the R--12 zoning was inappropriate to have in the middleof a R-7 zone and that the access to a major arterial would create a traffic problem. Motion carried by majority voted Commissioner Bergmann and Moen voting no. 5.3 COMPREHENSIVE PIAN AMENDMENT CPA 4-85 ZONE CHANGE ZC 4-85 KRUEGER Request to move the present area designated C-N (Commercial Neighborhood) from the northwestern corner of the proposed 135th Ave./Murray Road extension to the southeast corner of the future Murray Road/Scholls Ferry Road intersection. (WCTM 1S1 33C, lot 1000). Associate Planner Liden reviewed the proposal and staff report and made staff's recommendation for approval with one condition. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION , q Russ Krueger, 3515 SW Barbur Blvd. Suite Y-1.- Portland. 97201, displayed an aerial map to show how they were proposing to move the Commercial Neighborhood zone. PUBLIC TESTY o Richard Boberg. Chairperson NPO N 7. supported the proposed change, adding that they felt in the future there would be a need for Increased commercial zoning in that area. o John Morris. 11900 SW Morning Hill. representing the Morning Hill Hoaxes Owner Association. favored moving the commercial zone as far away frog the Morning Hili Subdivisions as they could. o Richard Olander, Rt. 1 Box 365, Beaverton, had- questions regarding the drainage and hoar it would affect his property. ,Discussion followed between the applicant and Mr. Olander. o Denise Hawks. Rt. 1 Box 385, was concerned that they were proposing to extend the road through her property. President Moen inforwred her that , she would have to be contacted and she would have to give her approval before that could happen. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED o Consensus of the Commission was to support the application. y * iorissioner Campbell moved and Commissioner Pyre seconded to forward CRA 4-85 and ZC 4-85 to' City Council with a raaeoesoMation for appe�avmI subject to the condition in the staff report. Motion carried unanimously. ..-PLAlBYIl1Ka COMISSION MINUTES April 2. 1985 Page 3 TRANSCRIPT FROM APRIL 2. 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ZONE CHANGE ZC 2-85 = IDRISS Moen. Okay, moving onto item 5.2, staff. Liden, This proposal is for a zone change on a 3.78 acre parcel which is located on Hall Blvd. , on the east side of Hall approximately 300 feet south of Ross Street. I don't know .if everyone is familiar with Ross Street, but it almost coaxes into Hall Blvd, where Sattler does. There off set just a little bit. and uh. the proposal is to rezone property from R-7 to R-12. a Comprehensive Plan Change is not necessary, because both of those zone categories fall with the medium density residential plan designation. The property is surrounded, primarily by large acre home sites and vacant parcels which are, run generally between one and twenty aeras. None of the, none of the adjacent property owners our currently served by sower and the area on the oast side , or the opposite side of Hall Blvd, is presently zoned R-12. The property is undeveloped at this point, except for one house, which is on tax lot 1200, and that tax lot shows up on the asap submitted by the applicant, there is two tax lots involved and the southern one is about one acre . .. . . .. Its basically flat and wooded and, there are no apparent physical development. Uh. . . . . the staff report includes the agency and NPO comments, in the Comprehensive Plant' a listing of the relevant criteria uh Statewide goals and guidelines and the Community Development Code, and we conclude that the proposal fit, fit those criteria and we recoare � nd approval basad upon one f condition that the additional right�f-a+ay be dedicated along Hall Blvd. . . . . Moon, Thank you, staff. Botlar. ,. • ...this site is in the middle of a large it--7 area? Linen, Yes. KI TitA�IBBCRIPT ZC.,R -Bb Ig3RIg$ Pa !`� ' F _ � l � Moen, Okay. Could we have the applicant's presentation please. My name is Ryan O'Brian, I'm here representing the applicant, and uh, uh, the comment I wanted to make about the middle of R-7, I, uh, thats one of the things that we looked at, and uh, as you can see ,up on that map . . . . . . Sattler is . .. . .all the is acres that are around that property, is not available for development at the present time. .. . . . no intention of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . as time goes on, we're probably going 'co see some type of a single family residential development, per the use that, I'm pretty sure, just looking at the way things have been occurring along Durham Road, that that property just directly , to the south, . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . Uh, of course they do have R-12 right across the street and uh. . . . . . compatible . . . . . . . . . . . the property to the 'north is pretty much vacant land and one reason that no development has occurred there is that the sewer hasn't been extended, and see this is . we look at . . . . not than much of a problem and we probably being taking the access off the southerly end of the property, which will make it really good because its a good distance between Ross and Sattler Road and also DorburYt Placa. . . . . . • . . . , four or five hundred feet away from . . . . . . intersections It will give you _a good e location for an access. I think that the rest of the property to the south of Sattler property will also will be served . . . . . . . . . Dorburn Place. . . . . . . . . . We found, it this particular area there is really no development trends other than across the street on the west side theres 7,000 square foot lot subdivision, that this property is somewhat removed from that. What we have found is that, I'm sure that the Planning Commission is very familiar with this, all that land to the south, south of Dorburn Place, uh, there hasn't been any multi—family development in that area. It all been single family residential. 1 think the main reason for that is because sewer hasn't been extended up Hall Blvd. one change is, of course is the Randall property, they •changed it from R-12 to R-7, it seems kind of a fluke but I think it had more to do with uh, economic trends and what, and what they like to market . .. .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . thats on the south, well actually _its the northwest corner of Durham and Hall Blvd. It shows as a R-7, that was originally was a R-12, . . . . . .. planned at some time ago to become multi-family but they couldn't . . . . . . . . several people talking TRANSCRIPT ZC 2-85 IDRISS Page _2 3 l , . So I guess the biggest things why we favor of this property is, this is the first person that come forward to actually with a multi—family development all the rest of the R-12, is all . . . . . . single family development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Of course the locational criterial, we meet all of that. And uh, say one thing on multi-family development encourage has 10 units peracre . . . .. . . . . . . . Beautiful site, it has a lot of trees on it, and . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . .. We did meet with the NPO, and uh, we didn't' get a favorable response from them, but I think thats probably a typical situation, . . . . . . . . . . . people . . . . . . . . . multi-family development. . . . . . But its definitely something that is needed, and very strongly encouraged by the Comprehensive Plan. One of the concerns they had. was of course traffic, and uh we know that the only time your going to get any street improvements to occur is when development is proposed. . . inaudible So with that I will just ask if there are any questions? Butler, I got one of staff. Wasn't that other parcel change too from R-12 to R-7, between the northwest corner of Durham . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . O'Brian, I think there are two parcels that are R-7 . . . several people talking. .. .. . . . . Butler,. this .was just . . . . . .. . . you narrative says two -parcels totaling approximately 20 acmes at the corner of Niall Blvd. and Durham Road was changed from R-12 to R-7. Unknown. Right Butler, Was there two parcels there not one, or is it, Liden, This area that the applicant has on the neap that shown R-7, theme are two parcels within that area. ....... inaudible. .. TRANSCRIPT ZG 2-95 IDRISS Page 3 Moen, Any further you want to add? O'Brian, No. Unless you have any questions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . inaudible. . .. . , Liden No, I don't have anything from the NPO. g just noted their their reaction. and their comments, Butler, Has there been anything more, on that, Z remember I raised that concern when the property on the corner of Durham and Hall developed about signaliaation and all of that . .. . . is there any more plans for that. Liden, Fair as I know, nothing Moen. There isn't any one signed up to speak . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . with that Z`11 '. close :the public hearing portion of the hearing . . Mr. Levarett? Leverett, . . My feeling is that the trends show not to put R-12 in R-7, . T,m . . . . . . . . . . .inaudible. . . . . Moen, Okay, . . .. • . . . . . Commissioner Vanderwood. Vanderwood, well. Y don't like it either. I .. . . .. . . . . • • • • inaudible .... agree with Mr. Leverett, I don't think that R-12 should be in the middle about the lack of. . . . ... . inaudible . . . . of R-7. Uh, Y'm also concerned Moen. Commissioner Fyre. Fyro. I'm not crazy about the proposal either. it seems like its very ` difficult to develop-the R-7 . . . behind the R-12 out in front. I don't think that the R-12 belongs there. Y don't think that they've do aanstrated �fit(�AESC�ZpT, ZC 2-55` MRISB . R-12 across the street, . . inaudible . TM . .lengthy amount inaudible Owens, . ..inaudible.. . . . . sticking up out of the field at this point, but down the line, it isn't going- at it that way .inaudible. • • to look like that. Looking . , . • • Moen, . . . . .inaudible. . . . Bergmann, The site is surrounded at this time by R-7. I would feel very that that property when development comes, probably comfortable in knowing would be requesting an R-12, its adjacent to R-12 . P ersonally I like to see that streets be the dividing line between . .. . . . . . .rather than property line, you have less conflict that way, Moen. Commissioner Peterson. Peterson, Well I think uh. over the years your going to see a lot of trade off in zoning between sites and its a little difficult with the first one. I here that would look okay with think they probably could put a project in t that zoning, but. I guess the problem with the street is the problem I'm going to sae having the traffic come out. I think that if it was zoned to uh, if therms was a minor street there I think I might go for it, but I would be opposed to it. M time, since the applicant. inaudible . . . . . . ,island Moen, Okay. My . . . . . . . . .putting it along Hall in the middle of a R-7 zone. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • • Blvd. it the right place to put it. I would put it there. end of tape beginning of tape. TRIPT IC 2--85 IDRISS Page 5 Commissioner leverett moved to deny Zone Change ZC 2-85. . . . . . . several people talking. Moen, we need some findings for that. .several people talking go along with plan policy 8.2.2 Vanderwood. . . inaudible.. .. . . . . ften. You concur• with that i.everett, I concur with that. Moen, Okay. do you want to second the motion Commissioner Vanderwood.. .noise. . . . . . Could I have some clarification on the findings. p lease Secretary. Vander+►ood, what clarification? Secretary, What was the .finding. . . . • . . . . . . . did not satisfy the policy, plan policy 8.2.2 Vanderwood. . . . . .. . . . .... . . Secretary, Okay.' and that was the only one. ppropriate . . . . . . 7.Y.2, also Vanderwood. No, the other one is that . . . . s, in site the fact that the has only one access for them to go through. { Moen, We have a motion and its been made and Seconded. any further discussion? that Commission Vanderwood . . . .. I Omens, Yes, well on the last finding, est that that think that we could state that more specifically, uh, I'd suggest stated plan policy 7.1.2:is not satisfied because inadequate uh road uh has to r.'`. be .. .. :available In than immediate area. . iQ'C aC 2--85 IORISS page 6 .. .. . .inaudible. . . . . . . . Moen, Okay, we have a motion with findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . call for the question, all -those in favor of the motion that has been made and seconded, signify by say Aye, Aye. .. . Those opposed flay. Moen, Okay, CommissionerButlerand Commissioner Bergmann vote nay. The motioncarries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . end TRANSUIPT.: ZG 2-85 IDRI5S page 7 D' STAFF REPORT ' AGENDA ITEM 5.2 (- Apri1,2, 1985 7:30 P.M. TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION " FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL - LGI 10865 S.W. WALNUT TiIGARD, OREGON 97223 A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: Zone Change ZC 2-85 REQUEST: Change the zone designation; on a 3.7 acre parcel from R-7 (Residential, 7 units/acre) to R-12 (Residential, 12 unita/acre). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION Medium Density Residential APPLICANT: Mo Idriss OWNER: Darwish Idr3as 10053 SW Nimbus Ave. 1341 Via Milcumbres Beaverton, OR 97005 Solana Beach, CA 92075 LOCATION: East side of Hall Blvd., 300 feet south of Ross Street '.: (Slash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 12CB, Tax Lots 1100 and 1200). 2. Background No other land use applications have been reviewed by the City. 3. Vicinity Information The surrounding properties are large acreage homesites and vacant parcels ranging from 1 - to 20 acres in size. None of the adjacent properties are presently served by sewer. The area on the east side of Hall Blvd. immediately adjacent to the subject parcel is, also zoned R-7 and the land on the west side of the street in zoned R-12. These properties are all within the designated "Developing Area" in the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Site Information The property is undeveloped except for a residence on Tax Lot 1200. It is flat, wooded, and free of any apparent physical constraints. The zone change is desired to allow for a multi-family development 'fn the r future. STAFF REPORT ZC 2-85 -,PAGE 1 J 5. Agency and NPO Comments _ g The _Engineering Division has no objection to the proposal but it is recommended that additional right-of-way be dedicated `along the Hall Blvd. frontage tomeetthe City standard for arterial streets. Street improvements along the fall Blvd. frontage will be required in conjunction with the development of the property. The State Highway Division has no objection to the request, however, it is noted that additional right-of-way and street widening will be a condition of the development. The Building Inspection Office and the Tigard School District have no objections to the application. NPO #5 and #6 jointly discussed the proposal on February 20, 1485. Concern was expressed by both NPO's regarding trafficimpacton Hail Blvd. and the intersection with Durham Road and the lack of street Improvements performed by the Highway Division. Although a quorum was not present, the members of NPO #5 recommended denial. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, and 10, and Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 7.1.2, 7.8.1, 8.1.3, 8.2.2, and Chapter 12, Locational Criteria. The Planning staff concludes that the proposal is consistent with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines based upon the following findings: 1. Goal #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 are met, 2. Goal 02 is met because the City applied all applicable Statewide Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan Policies and Development Code requirements to the application. 3. Goal #10 is satisfied because the proposal will provide for housing as contemplated by the City Comprehensive Plan. The Planning staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Plan based upon the findings noted below= 1. Phan 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, y, STAFF EEPOET 2C 2-85 - PACE 2 .4 2. Plan Policy,6.1..1 is satisfied because the zone change will allow for multi-family'4development. in 1984 the City approved a zone change from R-12 to R-7 on two parcels totaling approximately 20 acres at the corner of Hall Blvd. and Durham Road. Also, Bond Park subdivision, located north of Durham Road on either side of 79th Avenue, is a single family development occurring on: land which is zoned R-12 and eligible for multi-family development. This proposal will help supplement the inventory of land in this area of the City Which is available for multi-family development. through the Metropolitan Housing The City of Tigard is obligated Rule to provide for an equal mix of single family and attached units with an overalldevelopmentdensity of 10 units per acre. The City must ensurethat sufficienthigher ,density areas are available so the intent of the housing rule can be met. 3. Plan Policy 7.1.2 is satisfied because adequate service capacities are available in the immediate area. Some utility extensions (eg. sewer) will be necessary to serve the property, but this can be accomplished as a condition of developing the site. it is recognized that traffic volumes have increased on Hall Blvd. and Durham- Road. However, additional development can be adequately served with the existing facilities. 4. Plan policy 7.8.1 is satisfied because the Tigard School District was informed of this proposal and no objections were raised. _ 5. Plan Policy 8.1.3 will be satisfied as a condition for development of the property. If an apartment complex does materialize, it would first require City approval through the Site Development Review process. - The necessary right-of-way and street improvements would be required at that time. 6. Plan Policy 8.2.2 cannot be satisfied at this time because Tri-Het does not offer bus service on Hall Blvd. or Durham Road. However, both streets are arterial routes and logical choices for future bus service. 7. The Locational Criteria in Chapter 12 of the Plan are satisfied ' for the following reasons: a. The property is within a "Developing Area" which is not committed to low density development. b. The parcel has direct access to Hall Blvd. C* Development limitations are not evident and public facilities have adequate capacity to serve the property. iq' d. Public transit in not available presently, but Hall Blvd. or Durham Road are'logical *routes' for future service. STAFF REPORT..,--6.$ZO 2-85 PAGE 3 e. Prior to development, the- Cdde requirements for screening and bufferAg will be required during the Site Development Review process. f. 'Convenience retail service is available at the Durham/Hall intersection and general commercial and business centers are 1.5 to 2 miles away. g. Public open space is available nearby at Cook Park, Durham Elementary School, and Tigard High School. C. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above findings and conclusions, the Planning staff recommends approval of ZC 2-85 subject to the following condition:. 1. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Public along the S.W. Hall Blvd. frontage to increase the right-of-way to 45 feet from centerline. The description for said dedication shall be tied to the existing right-of-way centerline as established by the , State of Oregon. The dedication document shall be on City forms and approved by the Engineering Section. F 'may PREPARE Y: Keit idea PROVED BY: William A. Monahan Associate Planner Director of Planning b Development (IC* :pm/1131P) 41 STAFF REPORT Z 2-85 -- PACE A 1 J RYAN O'BR1EN Planning Consultant 1134 S.E. 23rd Ave. • Hillsboro,Oregon 97123 (503)648-4061 February 13, 1985 Request: Application for a Zone Change from R-7 to R-12 in the City of Tigard. Legal Description: Tax Lots 1100 and 1200, Map 2S1_12CB Location: East side of Hall Boula-vard, 300 feet south of Ross Street Size: 3.72 acres (387 feet by 405 feet) Existing Use: One Single Family House. Proposed Use: Approximately 48 multiple family units. Applicant: Mo Idriss Property Owner: Darwish-Idriss INTRODUCTION This application is a request to change the zone of the property in order to develop approximately 48 multiple family units. The subject property is designated medium density residential on the Comprehensive Plan Map. Both the R-7 and R-12 zones implement this plan designation. This property was purchased by the owner in order to build a multiple family development. This decision was based upon knowledge of the medium density designation and the City' s intent to allow R-12 zoning in the medium density zone. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Th; subject property is very flat with a 1% to 2% slope to the south " easterly direction. It is located near the top of a slight hill in the 200 foot plus elevation as shown by exhibit "C". The subject property contains numerous mature trees. It contains no drainage swales or other environmental hazards that would affect development of the property. Hall Boulavard contains no eight distance problems that would restrict access to the subject property. Because of the location of the Sattler and Ross Street intersection, access to this site would probably be limited to one driveway at the southern portion of the site, approximately 500feet south of SatiUr Street- and 400 feet north of Dorburn -Place. Hall Boulavard is 'designated a minor arterial street on the County Transportation Plan. The County reouirements limit new access to 600 foot intervals. A variance to develop, a new access may be necessary. Page 2 Idriss Zone Change SURROUNDING PROPERTY Property to the north is developed with rural residential houses on 1 to 3 acre lots (Exhibit "B" ) . Thesehousesare ,on septic tanks, as sewers are not available in the area. These properties are used for limited agriculture. All forest trees have been cleared from the land. These properties are designated medium density residential on the Comprehensive Plan and zoned R-7. Property to the east and south is zoned the same. It is vacant and under one ownership. This property contains natural vegetation and mature coniferious trees. It totals 18 acres and is not available for development. Property further south is very similar to property to the r_,orth. No development trend has occured in the area because of the lack of sanitary sewer service. Properties to the west are zoned R-12 and used for agriculture. They are over 10 acres in size. Property to the southwest is under construction with 5000 square foot lots. The zoning was changed to R-7 to avoid set back va ri an ci a s. SOILS The subject property contains 3 soil types. The location of these soils ( are shown by Exhibit "A" . A description of each soil is as follows: Soil 1 - Aloha Silt Loam : This soil is some what poorly drained. The top—soil is 811 thick and contains dark brown silt loam. The subsoil is dark brown mottled silt loam 38" thick. The substratum is dark yellowish brown mottled silt loam about 19" thick. Permeability is moderately slow. This soil is fair for road fill and good for topsoil. It is moderate for dwellings and local roads. The AASHTO standard is A-4- The high water table is 1 . 5 to 2.0 feet and bedrock is over 5 feet. Soil 1 = Day-ton Silt Loam: This soil is poorly drained. The top soil is Ta—'r--brown silt oam 1 " thick. The subsurface is gray silt loam 6" thick. The subsoil is dark gray mottled clay and silty clay 2.391 thick. The substratum is gray brown siltyclay loam about 1111 thick. Permeabilit is slow. This soil is sevgre for dwellings and roads, and poor for top soil and road fill because of wetness, shrink-swell and low strength. The AASHTO standard ranges from A-4 to A-7. The high water table is 0• to 2.0 feet and bedrock is over 5 feet. Soil 21-A - Hillsboro Loam: This is a well drained soil formed in mixed; . ,silty anloamy, 011 a uvium on terraces. This soil is very compat- ible with the growth of Douglas Fir Trees._ The surface layer is dare .,brown loam 1211 thick. The subsoil is dark brown loam 37" thi�Zn thick substratum is dark brown fine sandy loam and fine sand about �. 'Permeability is moderate. This soil is moderate for dwellings and roads, andfair for roadfill and topsoil. The AASHTO standard ranges from .t" A-2 to A-Q. The high water table is over 6 feet and bedrock is over 5 feet. Page 3 Idriss Zone Change PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES Trans ortation: Access to the site is Hall ; Boulavard, a minor arteria ros on the County Transportation Plan. Currently, this road is improved with 2 lanes. Three lanes are identified by the County in the future. Year 2000 PM peak hour traffic is 270 to 340 vehicles north bound and 250 to 300 vehicles south bound (Exhibit b1D"). This level of traffic is about } of the traffic expected on Durham Road to the south. utur The current right-of-way is 60 feeet$deed Fuateecapacityf toaaecomis odatesdevel- to be 90 feet. Hall Boulavard has q opment of the subject property. Sanitary Sewers: An 8" sewer line is available about 750 feet to the north west ,at the intergebltei'n��ffeehdirectlyand eastaatltheer sintersection Sewer service is also avail 4 of '79th Avenue and Gentel Woods Drive. Both of the lines- can provide gravity sewer serviceto the subject property. Water: The Tigard Water District recently installed a 12" water in front of line and ire hydrant along the subject property. This line the Chas adeequateHcapaof all oltyatooulraccomodate 1.8 multiple family dwelling units on the subject property. Storm Drainage: A slight Swale is available at the south east corner of the site. About half of the property will drain to this swale_ and the balance to the ditches along Hall Boulavard. No storm sewer pipes i" able theare or maintained drainage ch of storm drainage from thesitewillanot�causeinegativaeeffects onount surrounding property. Schools: The Tigard School District has indicated that adequate capaciFy is available to accomodate this development, but that "this development in combination with other developments in the area may result in the need for alteration of elementary school attendance boundaries" (Exhibit "E")• Police and Fire Protection: The City of Tigard provides adequate an a Tualatin Rural Fire Protection District provides police protection adequate fire protection. Other Public Services: All of the other ,public services needed to accomo ats tis eve opment are available and no impact to the quality of these services is anticipated as a result of this zone change. e only service not available is Tri-Met. DEVELOPMENT TRENDS There isa combination of single family and multiple family .development a ea: Single .gamily houses on 7,000 square foot lots in,.the surrounding r g r rak tar. Pa ge 4 Idriss Zone Change r are developed to the northwest. Single family on 5,000 square foot lots are developed to the southeast and southwest and to the north. The Bonita Firs Condominiums are located to the north and apartments are developed at the intersection of Bonita and Hall Boulavard. In the immediate area, there are no development trends. Both single family and multiple family development would be compatible in this area. COMPLIANCE WITH THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE Development of thisproperty can be designed to comply with all of the following code requirements: 3,050 sq. ft. Minimum lot size 12 units/acre Maximum density 20 feet - Front, rear and street side yard - 10 feet Interior side yard 30 feet - Side and rear yards adjacent to R-7 zoning µ 60% - Maximum building lot coverage 20% - Minimum landscaping 1 . 5 - Parking spaces per unit (one covered space per unit) LOCATIONAL CRITERIA The following are factors used to designate property medium density on the Comprehensive Plan Map: (1 ) Areas which are not committed to low density development. (2) Areas which have direct access from collector or arterial streets. (3) Areas which are not subject to development limitations such as topography, flooding, poor drainage. (4) Areas where the existing facilities have the capacity for additional development. (5) Areas within one half of a mile of public transportation. (6): AA re which can be. buffered from low density residential areas in < . -order to maximize the privacy of established low density residential areas:; r Page 5 Idriss Zone Change The 'following are factors used to determine the density range in the medium density land use designation: (1 ) The density of development in areas historically zoned for medium density development. (2) The topography and natural features of the area and the degree of possible buffering from established low density residential areas. (3) The capacity of the services. (Q) The distance to the public transit. (5) The distance to neighborhood or general commercial centers and office ` business centers. (6) The distance from public open space. Comments on Locational Criteria: The location of the subject property Complies with all the omprehensive Plan Map factors for medium density. R-12 zoning for the subject property complies` with all of the density factors for the following reasons: (1 ) No development pattern has been established in the immediate area. (2) Direct access is available without going through an existing low density single family residential area. (3) Medium density is the primary land use designation in the area because of the significant amount of vacant land. (4) Multiple family development is encouraged in this area in order to meet LCDC requirements for an average of 10 units per acre and 50% single family and 50% multiple family development. (5) Adequate natural vegetation is available to screen the 3 houses adjacent to the subject property. (6) Adequate public facilities and services are available. (7) Transit is not available in the area. However, the low density of this proposed multiple family development will probably only encourage vehicle oriented and not transit oriented occupants. (8) Only limited commercial uses are available in the. area, except for a small convenience store at .the intersection of Hall Boulavard and Durham Road. Major shopping is 2. 5 miles to , the north along Pacific Avenue. (9). Tublic open space is available at Cook Park, Durham Elementary Sche 1 d�Tigard,,High School. Public swimming facilities are available also at the .High;=School. MEW Page 6 Idriss Zone Change LCDC GOALS Goal 1`:_ Citizen involvement. Comment: Citizen input will be available at a joint NP0 5 and 6 meeting on February 20, _1985. Additional input will be available at the Planning Commission and City Council Meetings. Goal 2: Land use planning process. Comment: This property wasdesignatedmedium density through a Gomprshe^ nsive Planning process. An adequate procedure is available for rezoning. Goals 3 & b: Agricultural Forest Lands. Comment: Does not apply. Goal s Conserve open space and protect natural and scenic resources. Comment: The property is not designated open space and no scenic resources ars located on the land except the trees. Preservation of these` trees will be addressed when development occurs. Goal 6: Air, water and land resource quality. Comment: Compliance with the City Code will protect these resources. Goal 7: Natural Hazards. } Comment: None exist on the property. Goal 8: Recreational needs. Comment: Recreation is provided in the area and some open .space will Ve provided when the property is developed. Goal Improve the economy. Comment: Develapment of the property will help stimulate the economy =F and pro a _construction fabs. JGoal 10: Housing. Comment: This rezone will help provide the opportunity for housing divers Eff ca ion and alternative housing types. 4 - Page 7 Idriss Zone Change Goal 11 : Public Facilities and Services- y public facilities and services are Comment: A11 of the necessar provided. Goal 12: Transportation. Comment: Adequate access is available to the subject property. Goal 13: Conserve energy comment: Multiple family development consumes less energy than single family development. Goal 14Urbanization transition_ Comment: Does not apply. COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Policy 2.1 .1 . Citizens shall be involved in all phasesOff the Planning process. This application will be reviewed by NPO 5 and 6. Policies 3• .1 and 3•x•2 The City shall protect naturand al habitats itimbexf areasttoabe nd areviewed through require developments in designate m property contains the PUD process to minimize tree removal. she subject prop y some mature arses that probably should be preserved. Policy 5. 5.1 The City shall promote diversification of economic opportunities. Development of this property will help promote this as well as providing multiple family housing Opp ortunities for people that work in the general area but do not want a single family house. 3 ' poli cv b.1 .1 f n' The City i�ball provide -an opportunity for diversified housing densities Moat of the medium and dousing types ;at various price and ,rent levels. ificantlr• density land has developed with single family housing which :jgn limits -alternative housing ;opportunities in,-the area. s Page 8 Idriss Zone Change v° policy-6. 4.1 The City shall encourage flexible thiearea�complieslwith this policy* area. Multiple family housing in s Policy 7:1 .2 Redevelopment shall be conditioned on the availability of public services ices and facilities. All of the necessary public seryand facilities are available to accomodate development of the subject property. Policy 7.8.1 School districts shall be involved in land use planning. Following no tificatio, they have indicated school capacity is available. Policies 8.1 .1 8.1 .2 and 8.1 .3 The City shsll provide a safe and efficient transportation system to meat the growth needs of the community. Adequate transportation facilities } are available to this property. Policy 8.2.2 The City shall encourage the use of transit by locating more intensive uses close to transitways. Hall Boulavard' and Durham. Road are not transit streets. They are bath arterial stxQets• and good candidates .for transit streets in' the future. policies .1 .2 and 9.1 .3 The, City shall encourage a balanced transportation system which complements attachland and emphasizes conteormajor transportaiionifacilher itiestPromotessa res- units next 3 balanced transportation system. T.� t ��+'- '.e-�z S.¢:-e�Y'`�`�Y e�vz M# r :. � T-c � r > a,� •`"+bh""�.�,.,a ;.a 23-74 J U i� NiN. T SW V4 SECTION 1-US . •, waSHoolooN CUU141T 0"1+10/1 • 100 $ $CALL 1'•100' M6 Two (w•1 1 1 KK owl) feoo Imo taulII Ww P Q. » woo ». L�/ I L r 0 ill ACRE =+ � » t STREET REILING I '� IOIW �� }100 Ita••aTl •T- • W 1► M How a wsie w MW welm o _ !nbo F; a faoo I w -Ilom locos � » � T1ao ,1ca /Tos �,». a........--....------^—^""""420/SS •.. � STRf Kao Ilsoo , loos 11/1 S.W. •••� ~ ; tl {i ye � ..n R� / ♦ . __ w. 100 It + •», �• :.G00 000 Ir �! J•K 1 f0D On- ..arJr saa. —•�a:s�'�+�'Iv..�«e•w4r�wery SIREE�'°sv'.�ar aT.Jell ItTIER �A ,rpOO .< aoe Q ,MK ' -T4 • MiR. r ti }Ti Y 1100 74 SID t xffEt,. 7 f fiJt1+YtN1► �. 5 fas a Or T g4DRT - a • 3. 11.0 OL A. MACE t00 •."•wa ted • 1 ,ti � oyo taste � � a.Ti - w f 9K t A 100 t 4 >I¢ 1 Z 0 m • - Hill 1sT i Oto � Omar p w c► L , ' �-i rut. •. { ��,� •�� -=L 1 --4.S r � A w rS p , swo LH L Ott %$ / MPELTON �; ,; �,- L:EAA. �.,..- � � �I''L � CHOOI. �--- ! a a s •oLt sTpcf. 1 Mae �OOtlu•r • . � -; t• .t 1,4 i 5 a i TI GARD IF! MVH U.S. A. • MEMO SCHOOL ` 'REATNI�PJT • e. PLANT \w ' !. 4od • Is fffff Tx��r.., 16 •° • • t ,°l ASch` o Ci I'hSI Le 'i' L T' sty -1 rd Se 0 • `•s : �`� l�t�� '� '� tip• �:. IN161 �• r, • Com--. 39 200 50 IT •• t! j • o f @ I • w i • A7'T ER P f . • ; l0 1 x _ •. to OD ROS! «F w w TODcgrsvhy Imm eth,t phot69r4ohs by DhOtOQ?ammltt,C n►tth06i �SrAtE o z t W. E C6hTGUd 11Q71 34 r ^�.-ssr.- ._•.-�.aerw ,i,• f! �i75t�+�.itiF �i Sels.i�[ nUt�� {'`�_ �F �� �'� �•S; 4 •,1 _ _ ! ,' t. •--�•` -�-- 3�� _ - i 3$00 6100 ^� % ( ..1 M�. ;�3L ryr;3: �\� _�i saaaaa.� •. +f� a< <=/ � _'wry � �� r , • t 1 ,w asagi, • i • ti.�y� • a .y ;h! t.t 1 4.. It : 1 .ems.. d.� �•. sf , i�'. .ti1 t'��t.,••.� . 1 _ a sw i i O �1 to� ,�il:>a•ts,�+ �,® Q 3 OSI�i, If�t��`', j - • ��1�''("t4*.i'hR�='Y.�a c J � � ` Q'9 O =J saw :.•v L. ff"�o" ( - 1 • a .... 2 ti qtr`'t ( :.. •� It�t �Oa .I�.t� ". Jy <f.,._ �%•'' � ' - : ter."1"�'= G,»'•2 — '~��P L� ni —N �!1'Y ♦ g+1f'•• •.. .'k 6 ifF i•j'f 3�1•.. �'� •T 1 ..1� \'li. N �t ._ t a• g� �T A 30 I= �far"'q.1 ' " \Y••A �'(j/7 !1 {lQ�� N �ti •� .�i3.'. i i s It .�1 50` 4. a , 300 cis.- Jim w 'do so 450 JI 900 100 100 !' 1 T.r� w � iC r ...Jir •t•• l�.e• y IT i C i:r w e'9s ` E> j ( 1100 1 �` �+ r p; :! .1 zoo 1100 .a.aa,•Ito.•.�te.. , �r �.� w►•g��i.:.a '•. '5400�r 1300 r 1`100 2 t ' `" h . - FWW 22 ., ' ' �• a d o r.� Project®d p flak Hour, asEso_n 8� 1laWJ>4a ar aw®anon - eat#1 �n = y o! log . X£ oun a,a.4 1 TIG ARD St8L41h�1T�Yt�r�a r "� PUBLlG V41pRlt5 essmiss;v • m fto FACS a . i.,�. n..� r '�=. ,+ �-6 ^ :. n"4 •. '.7E".v.�+__� V i..4 ka C.w +mhM_r .5_..:i x ..;.,.- WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING OEPARTMENT January'4, -1982 ,w `._ SCHOOL IMPACT STATEMENT ' FOR RESIDENTIAL_� OEVELOPMENTS OR 4 UNITS OR MORE s 7" %Since one aspect of development impact relates to schools, the following infor• .' motion most be camletod, and this sheet submitted to the Planning Department with the affected application. Please call 6484761 if therm are any questions. 1. THE F LLOWING IS TO 8E COMP ETED. Y THE DEV WPER . Proposed name of Subdivision fV F (� Cv - Maar of person or firm de etcpi:'!g the property Person to contact Phone number UC Mailing Address ...has ., 5�.� .oma A V c"A . t]' Legal description of proper being propos dor dove pment — �C�-q7 number and tax lot(s) numbarr .I I Cam ...�,5 1 ,._. In order to expedite responses froom the school district involved. please < indicate a general vicinity description of the property being proposed c, for development. (Enclose a vicinity up showing tax lot numbers.) A • ���JJJ goes t4a proposed development require a: (Please chock appropriate box) �. Pl aA lwndaint ,' ., Zbhe Change r• 'Subdivision VarianceCD CondieiQnal= Use, Permit • w : Total ntarker of . rowell ing units being proposed Z j , t �• x R- . "t, f E t� f R Page 2 • •� Type of units being proposed: ':. Single Family Number of units � Attached Single Family Number of units Y Duplex Number of units j Condominium Number of units - multiplex Number of units ,. •; ,. Multifamily Number of units Other (explain) Number of units • How many bedrows in each unit: Rt' Single Family .o.... Attached Single Family _mow "t Duplex Condominitae Multiplex Multiple Fad Other (explains �• 171, ref • proposal Holy many acres are involved in this p ro Z. P Eben is construction likely to begin: Peer Month Is the development to be completed in phasesL PV If iso, how • r •r�.r.Ar many and over..what ti= period 7 , z • When is the last. unit scheduled to be A'5 month. completed?eted? .Year .q ^ II SUBMIT THE C6t�Rt.ETED FORM TO rNE BUSINESS OFFICE OF THE SC�DISSTTRICT III THEIOLLOuING is Tia BE COMPLETED BY APPROPRIATE SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICIAL �• I jn SCNAME ,� E,�7tIST ENR, ESI', CAPACITY k Elnta!= Durham -Elementary 131 147 i _ ,rsrrrO Intermediate Trrality-drisioT BUIL . 816. 1 956 , High Tigard Senior High 1459 1500 . Additional Comments: This development, along with other s4agle-family arid' ffiaitspleofamily developments planned for the same general area, may result In the meed for the school district to alter some elementary.: tory school attemderece areas. . School inforsadtion provided by:.__ • Telephone .lumber: 684-2209 Date: February 12,' 1985 ry IY: RUMN TO FOti SUBMISSION.WM APPLICATION (Name 4'address on ;age e kL -, 2/26/82 , 4_ May 2, 1985 P.E. Inc Robert Keech, , 1990 NW 119th Portland, Oregon 97229 pF Z�G ���• (503) 641-6333 Ryan O'Brien Planning ConsultantQ� /� 1134 SE 23rd Ave. Hillboro, Or. 97123 t RE: Review of Proposed Access on Hall Blvd. South of Sattler Street Ryan: The following are findings of a preliminary investigation of a proposed 'access 'On Hall Blvd approximately SSO feet south of Sattler Street and SSO feet north of Dorburn Place: TRAFFIC GENERATION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: The site (Tax Lot 1100 & 1200 Map 2al-12cb) is 3.72 acres (1) in size. The existing zoning (7 residential units/acre) would generate approximately 260 vehicle trips per day <23 . The proposed use (12 residential units/acre) would generate approximately 297 vehicle trips per day (3) . The reason for the 71% increase density only increasing traffic generation by 14x is the size of families occupying the units and the characteristics of their activities. TRAFFIC GENERATION DURING PEAK TRAFFIC FLOW PERIODS ON HALL BLVD. : it would be anticipated that the proposed use would generate 27 and 39 vehicles per hour during the AM peak period and the PM peak period respectivily. EXISTING TRAFFIC FLOW ON HALL BLVD: The existing traffic flow on Hall Blvd. in front of site is 7,800 vehicles per 0 vehicles per hour, during the day. There are 550 and 70 AM peak hour and PM peak hour respectivily (4) . TRAFFIC FLOW CONDITIONS DURING THE PEAK HOURS: The critical traffic movement of this new access would be the left out of the site to travel southbound on Hall Blvd. There would be capacity, for 241 and 147 vehicles per hour during the AM and PM peaks respectivily for the left turn movement out of the site (5) . The capacity is based on the limits of .a delay that is considered acceptable to the motoring public. The demand for the left turn out of the site' will; be 11 and 6 vehicles per hour AM and PM peak periods respectivily. Future traffic growth on Hall Blvd. would decrease this capacity. Metro's estimated 29x growth between 1977 and the year 2000, if applied as a current 20 year project would decrease the minor approach left turn capacity to 158 and 7S AM and PM peak respectivily. This still e lever of crevice. would provide a reasonabl INTERSECTION SPACING ON HALL BLVD. ; The spacing of . '` intersections is based on two criteria; "Is there sufficient room` for left turn refuges", and if the intersections are to be signalized, "Will a signal at this, location effect the ability to coordinate the other traffic signals along this roadway This intersection would not be signalized so the latter criteria would not apply. The left turn refuges criteria Would be applied to the spacingbetween this proposed intersection and Sattler Street, which would be the more critical. A mimimum storage length of 75 ft (6) would be sufficient for this proposed access. This would leave approximately 425 feet for a transition section (180 ft) (7) and vehicle storage for 'Satt]er Street (245 feet) , which would be adequate. FOOTNOTES: (1) Information fron Ryan O'Brien, Planning Consultant.- (2) ITE "Trip Generation" Report Land Use Code 210. (3) ITE "Trip Generation Report Land Use Code 221. (4) Traffic Counts from ODOT and Survey done on April 30 and May 1, 1985. (5) ITE "Trip Generation Report Land Use Code 220 per person rate at 2.1 persona per unit. (5) ODOT Minimum Desirable Standard (7) L-(width of lane)x(apeed)f(3);w=12ft. , a=45mph If you have any questions please call. VY. yA Robert Keech, P.E. {{ i l� -_ — TRI-COUNTY / METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION VVV LLL��� DISTRICT OF OREGON 1138�j C11 1r a� TIGARD PLANNjNG DEP T• TORI-MET 4012 SE 17th AVENUE PORTLAND,OREGON 97202 April 12, 1985 Mo Idriss 10053 SW Nimbus Avenue Beaverton, OR 97005 Dear Mr. Idriss: Y Service to this proposed development is provided by line 43-Taylors Ferry Rd, Line 43 operates from Tualatin to Portland via Tigard, Washington Square, Taylors Ferry Road, Barbur Station. South of Tigard service operates rush hours only. The bus stops closest to your proposed develop- ment would be at Nall Blvd, and Durham Road. Enclosed is the schedule and route map you requested. If you have further questions regarding service on line 43, don't hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, All William J. Coffel Service Planner rm Encl. Mill LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT POLICY AND PROCEDURE REPORT m MAY 2, 1985 DRAFT: FOR DISCUSSION ; PURPOSES ONLY CITYOFT11FARD + i a? •-'" ti.m.. `ar ?y �, - �, 77777 —„ yet...._., u TABLE OF CONTENTS P, age Introduction 1 0. General Policy Intent- 3 1. Initiation 9 2. Feasibility 13 3. Formation 19 $ Improvement 23 S. Assessment 27 6. Finance and Closure 32 ( Appendix 38 (0095p) SLY LIST OF TABLES Page definition. 7 Table 1 The LID process sum and key decision lead responsibility y for each stage: Table 2 The LID process: Major actions. Products 8 and decisions. 17 Table 3 Key completion dates for different types of projects. essments. when and how Table 4 Types of ass 29 they _occur in the process a LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT POLICY AND PROCEDURE REPORT The city should efficiently and effectively process proposed and established LID projects by adopting standardized procedures and guidelines, keeping in mind the needs and interests of current and future users of the service system. s INTRODUCTION In the past the City of Tigard has allowed Local Improvement Districts (LID's) to form for the multiple purposes of (1) constructing localized capital improvement projects to the city's standards, (2) providing to the owners of the benefited property a method for financing the costs through special assessments, and (3) controllingthe construction "so the city is better able to operate and maintain the systema The mandated requirements and process guidelines currently used by the city for the entire process are listed below: o ORS 223.005-223.020: Condemnation for City Improvements; Special Procedure o ORS 223.105: Municipal Condemnation Proceedings o ORS 223.205-223.295: Financing Improvements in Cities (Bancroft Bonding Act) o ORS 223.387-223.401: Assessments for Local Improvements o ORS 223.405-223.485: Reassessment o ORS 223.505-223.650: Methods of Enforcing Liens and Collecting Assessments o ORS 223.705: Financingof City Improvements; Rebonding;' Reinstatement; Type of Bonds Accepted in Payment of City Liens; Assessment of Public Property o ORS 287: Borrowing and Bonds of Local Government o ORS 288.520: - Public Body Issuing Bonds, Interest; Discount; Terms of Redemption; Maximum Interest Rate for State Bonds o TMC Chapter.13: Local Improvements o Local Contract Review Board Rules Some of these sections of legislation are basic minimum requirements. The state statutes provide for a wide range of differences across cities, and in many cases the application of policies may differ across LID's within a city. This is partially due to the many variables which may or may not be present in any proposed project, and partly due to vague policies which allow flexibility in the process. The city is now in a position where some policies can and should become more specific. Problems in the areas of project design, project control, cash flow, and citizen involvement have led to a study of these policies and procedures. The goal of this effort is to establish effective and efficient LID policies and procedures for the city which will promote desired development and also ensure the protection of the city's future fiscal resources. Within the context of the city as a whole, the LID Policy fits with Council's goals in addition to the financial issues facing the city at this time and the city's long-range plans. The LID Policy has been a goal since the increased LID activity in 1982. Other related goals since 1982 include the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Capital Improvements Plan, other capital project plans and a long-range financial plan. The fiscal condition of the special assessment fund has been of major interest and itis being monitored closely. The LID Policy needs to be compatible with the various community development plans in that approval of an improvement needs to be in agreement with relevant plans or else the plan should be revised. Otherwise only the procedures need to be coordinated. LID POLICY AND PROCEDURES DRAFT (5/2185) PAG£. 1 US a This report is organized into seven sections or areas of policy, the first covering basic policy issues which are not specific to any one stage of the process. The remaining sections .are for the six "stages" of the LID process. Each section is introduced with the intent of the city within the policy area, followed by a brief narrative on the policy area and current practices. Text is a listing of "Findings", including facts and statements on what sometimes occurs either in Tigard or in other cities with similar policies The "Policy" statements are then given along with "Key Administrative Actions". "Implementation Strategies", which complete the section, further define the policy and give a plan or direction for administering the policy as proposed. Y w {st � tt AE- LYDyPOL-YCY AWPROCEDURES — DRAFT (5/2/85). . PAGE 2 man O. LID GENERAL POLICY INTENT LIQ PAGE 3 POLICY-.AND PROCEDURES DRAFT (5/2/$5). r 0.0 LID GENERALPOLICY INTENT the city should efficiently and effectively process proposed and established LID projects' by adopting standardized procedures and guidelines, keeping in mind the needs and interests of current and future users of the service system. A Local Improvement District or LID is a means to improve a defined ,land area with city services to the quality levels set by the city._ The process includes both construction' and financing and involves property owners, city staff and Council. financial institutions and various private contractors. Alternative methods for local capital improvements are available to property owners, but LIDS have been a service provided by the city. In the past the primary reason for the city to form an LID has been to provide the homeowner in a developed area an opportunity to finance the costs for public improvements which specially benefit the property. Some districts are formed because they promote economic development or else the improvements complete portions of an adopted city plan. The third type of district which has been contemplated by Council in the past is one in an undeveloped residential area. A fourth type of district which has not been pursued in the past but is a special case is one formed as an 'emergency. The advantages to the property 'owners include the city's coordination efforts with surrounding property owners, the assurance that construction plans are consistent with city standards, the opportunity to share costs Keith, other property owners according to 'special benefit to the property, the use of the city's expertise in capital construction projects, and the option to finance costs through the city. Not all reasons apply to all property owners, for instance some property ''owners may be seeking to form a district only for the financing option. The LID process begins with a need for a local capital improvement. If a project is constructed the process does not end until ten or more years later when all finances are cleared. The efficient administration of the process depends upon the timely coordination of many activities and people. Effectiveness includes both the quality and "smoothness" of the process and is provided by a just and reasonable review of proposed projects, by constructing the improvement according to previously accepted standards, by carefully documenting the process, and by insuring the protection of both the city's future fiscal resources and future citizens. Effectiveness is more concerned with minimizing the long-term, costs for operating, maintaining, and replacing the _system, and the involvement of the various people. The successful completion of a project depends upon the cooperation of the current and future owners of the benefited property. The city intends to maximize citizen input at the right times in the decision making process, balancing it with the Tong-term needs of the community. 0.1 FINDINGS 0.1.1 It is to the city's advantage' to facilitate the process by controlling the types and quality of the improvements. 0.1.2 In the past, public use of private facilities has been a problem for the. city. Similar' problems exist with private reimbursement contracts for private construction of public facilities. �tr LID POLICY AND PROCEDURES DRAFT (512/85).. PAGE' 4 0.1.3 The timing of both construction and bond sales is critical, therefore control by minimizing delays is needed in addition to =" minimizing decision points and requirements. 0.1.4 Decisions are sometimes delayed due to the lack of some required information, thereby causing inefficiencies in the use of Council's, time and inconveniences by delaying actual construction into the late fall and winter months. 0.1.5 Inconsistencies due to delayed decisions or misunderstandings have tended to increase conflictsin _a_process which needs consensus building. 0.1.6 Policy indecision at any one point in the process, leads to the development of dual or multiple policy proposals, creating inefficiencies due to increased staff time, increased vulnerability for Council, and confusion for the citizens involved. 0.1.7 It is very important that the city keep the files and documents current at each step in the process. 0.1.8 The ORS requires at least one public hearing with notices during the normal process and two opportunities to object, the first is on the formation of the district, and the second is on the spreading of the assessments. 0.1.9 Informal meetings with property owners at various times during the process have been beneficial. 0.2 LID GENERAL POLICY 0.2.1 THE CITY SHALL ADOPT A SET OF POLICIES WHICH CLEARLY REQUIRE CERTAIN KEY DECISIONS BY COUNCIL AT SPECIFIC POINTS IN THE PROCESS, THEREBY INCREASING THE EFFICIENCY OF THE PROCESS. 0.2.2 THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE CERTAIN DOCUMENTS DURING EACH STAGE IN PREPARATION OF THE KEY DECISION, THE MINIMUM BEING THAT MANDATED IN THE ORS. 0.2.3 THE CITY`S POLICIES SHALL CONSIDER THE LONG TERM INTERESTS OF THE COMMUNITY, AND DECISIONS CONTRARY TO ADOPTED POLICY SHALL DEPEND UPON COUNCIL CHANGING ADOPTED POLICIES AND STANDARDS. 0.2.4. THE CITY'S POLICIES SHALL REFLECT THE VARYING DEGREES OF ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES TO FORMING AN LID. 0.3 KEY ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS 0.3.1 For each stage of the process a single person will be responsible for coordinating activities and monitoring the process. _0.3.2 If conditions in a specific proposed project or district are unusual, staff shall advise Council of the circumstances, the potential impacts and how these relate to policies and past practices. PAGE 5 LID POLICY AND PROCEDURES --- DRAFT (5/2/85). AM 0.3.3 Within the service level set by Council, staff will attempt to increase the common understanding of the process by disseminating materials and letters, and by attending informal meetings. 0.3.4 Proposals for forming an LID will be considered in terms of the overall advantages and disadvantages for the specific type of proposed project. 0!4 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 0.4.1 The LID process will be outlined as consisting of a series of stages, each of which requires a key decision which must be made before proceeding to the next stage, The stages and the key decisions are shown in Table 1. 0.4.2 An outline of the normal process showing the required actions and reports for each stage shall be a guide for monitoring the process of each LID. The major requirements for each stage as proposed in this report are shown in Table 2. This same information in the form of a flow chart is given on each of the remaining divider pages. 0.4.3 One person will be designated as having lead responsibility for each stage which includes responsibility for coordinating the various activities, monitoring the process, and preparing status reports. The department which will have the lead responsibility is shown on Table 1. 0.4.4 Wherever possible, the LID process will separate LID proposals 5 into general categories which will have varying requirements. =s E 3 LID POLICY AND PROCEDURES DRAFT,(512i85). PAGE 6 w a1 cl G C & F C rai a' a° j o 60� o L ° u °° a 4 e 1 w e4 .0 O ..+ O go A "i0. 4+ . G e v L . ..+ o a a a LA d C m to C Z w to toC ,° _o L - o d do C m C as d ..i d L � x O .N ,,,t O u C «.t G I goO � � «S -+1 d 0 0 .. + O L L C �? C L to to d o «a o u .a .4 4A o C d d a so w w to o •4 o oda aw s O d a w a ago v a 2 p sa m > q>qtt o a1 a a. t°+ +Li o w t"+ 00 a d .r a G si to 04 .� o a L a � d O +► a c ° e m 0 � u u � °04 0 � � Q ea w d o ° ..s ..+ a a a4'o o o td+ G 6+ b t! d u +n ay d La.,a ..4 wOedap' oa v u b k a s tda td+ u a eAj o 111 .0 d d aA ..e ..� u v a to woC +1 4 w G d1 ..� L Or qu aLi a m o a _ +' tie m w�u ao +1 ctl m d 0 9 a 31 to +a .+ A A ad y d A 4) L O tm L a L1 w C Ccoo -•t +� C a ••+ d C O u to 3t toP. to G s� sl vmvp. g Le «d a -4 d L .0 C 1 .1a a. a ° 4.1 0 A i/ u .4 L.4 u to to L a 41 .-t C .0 > u O ..+ tI a HO OAd d u +) .d u d 43 LA o a u d 41 4 to d a O W t0 j1 d O O b to O a cD L U a to GC C d u a c1 to L -4 ar L u L u .0 C c i1 d d ..+ 44 d L d V O ++ 0 ,0 +) a to 44 td a .0 d to d C C 4a u to 60 L + brC C u G u d to C a. 0. d .c O A oea b -0 O •-+ d ytimd ..+ d aC a aboN A -wu 60 C w A A d w L .0 w W '+l1 to 4j 4J i1 C v e0.0 to s0 Ai i/ 40 .O d) w a e0 C 43 h0 tN :e.Ga a0 0. ., C ao C rn eo G o G W OW ° A -+ C «+ w C G ° L N d to �+ C 60 r4 C �+ G a 4440 C G G L (0 ••+ .0 C d .+ ..t A .d..e w4 C dA t10 C b� N ..+ U G d .5 Ls 90 ..4 C or 60 t) y d •.t � As d «+ a •.+ G �++ a L fA C 0 ml C a c1 d v to d as 00 A�"; •.+ d«+ t+ >.•d t0 .4 .4 .c ..+ .4 60 u o) m »+ to t0 .4 w .4 ] L w .a to O A C > AO -4 ri O d d o a L vCtom .0tj doad ° e 11 .40pg s, tomw0. t. o0AorMo m x 5.w a IS a A ce to a. 41 to 41 v d co ) Ldb a . d to A u to A ceA u aA-u -0 to .0 u a A u c d .-i o q d d ' to 0 -04 .a yOj .y p L Vp, C°�. M lu CN C a v ✓ o i w 4 4 4 J 4 Q r V r C ++ N r or Y c Y .+ u • c r o uac a o• o - y w u A.4i :v .c• :1 :C Jw..M.4..•C a61 z: N d 10 16 >W J ~ aw a d U V O i J/ 9•a Ov Y C J • J • 0C,OC o • C✓ < Y Y d O V 6 O < O N sa✓ >.4 J ��••r M 4 p J N n Ll • AJ V E Y 4 w C L O✓ R J M O.< C C r r:Y d✓ A O�+ • C a s Y v O r 7 4 r O r • O 44 C O a'I J R 1 u✓w u d • w7 V p�yi • O✓ ® C+�'O r g p a Irl✓.... J ar C:V d.Ca p.J..C• OY -..3 MWwfJC O C...B. • 7 �i y.• D - Y.O JM Y D .3 06 Ow 7O N w+. 4 Yw Y..,.4M 4wrl.•-Iw 7r Yea 4Nwwm w a 0 w a r tl r 0 tl v u.a gg O .. Q 00 1.,w Y �✓ w JY AvN r r • :+v aJA C c a {. N 4 N 4 Y 4 • O • O 4 • 4..•+. O+• •'*Cb O 4 a O a a • • O J96 dpxo{ x6poQr.c�rmJ xo < V mms+ hpw O ad w CN 6 w —r. a 7 C p C V i .0. A Y 4 ..0. r O� Y w ✓ M Y p Y r Y 4 V Y ✓ CY Y • A Q ✓ C L Y ✓ M.Y C N J p• C N MD.- O >n w 4 C w N✓ C O w 6M < +� b 4 V r O Y Y..• O .• O O • - N Y at Nv 4 w v 4 v.• N U C v m O v w v oma O.WN 0 0 W O� 016i. O M V t i. c w o • c r • a :+ 4 • N tl w 4 > a✓ u e • ea+ •s ✓ 6 .�0.. r Y A L • Y M.M'O N r �. ✓ J Ja Y bM ✓tl Y • C • C • W • • w u a'•1 �+ • +.+ b d O • L O w • o... C - ✓ M 4 a '•1 p 4 O N C aw O.4 a J r J C O d a •�^ii V O YI Y r✓ o- .0. 1. v w •w ..Gevv r....w.. _ J F a ✓ AJ O tl C to wJv w '96 C C aJ✓ v ✓ r L r • a O u a C O' b O O w Y _ • OV WP wM✓ a bi •1 •w •.VA r• v W W • -4.7 a+ N W• L. Oa bf ✓a+10 ►a wr•✓.4 C• 6 O Y a p Y 0— N d4a• J$•ow.OYNo•lr U � s A a Y S yl i b A^. 1 4 i M M M o Y � • a U 0 Y O s • v Y ..✓+ 6 J Y✓ a •J w 0 iO ap •a w u 4 D J✓ ba1 M w w Y O •v V a Y • • a N- a. ..�. 4 w e J • rb C• ✓ O a • C C Y N C Y • Y • Y • w O d 6 b a .+ 4 0 w g>w wil -r b s as J 0.-0 M M d..• U Y 6 4 O o b V 4 • a r ✓ a Y J v v as N M Q Y C M J r Y Y O d 4 p • !✓C O N C a o✓ N N W Y Y M 4 Y@ +1•.• 4 6 N'O • d N M Y Y 4 4✓ a 4 O 9 a v j BrYOMp Y06y • N • � Ypo ao • .Li W • x N40a O • O Is L 4 V :. Lh B1Ir+ V MC W I✓ o f Y R r Y a.4wrvr u6-0 a • F —w • • x • <w •w•LN awJ p O ; ✓•/J"a.J�` r6br rO 4 JV✓Yb Q•� OL W d..• pp v✓ Y a-• aw.. 6a •w a 6 96 ma 6vw w✓ d✓ WJQ rY LlYrYia ✓ • f au0 • •O • C • Cw rwa ra N W 3 J N 6 w p < N v x O •S Iil I d G 6 d W 4 p d 4 b 0 • a 0 0 0 ti' drdn rn.•67 M V ` Y r r L 4 r C 4 r L Y O J O Y F Y a O C J M r 4 V M w 5 • d p W w O 4 J 6 7 4 b a A N 4 p w ✓ J.r Y+v aq Y ✓ Y a 4 • Y �✓ OM 4 N 4• 4 O O N w p J F✓ > O tl J d C 0 Y 6 N • O • a Y.• • ism p} Y L a 0 ✓ m N 4 t Y w Y 4 r p 6 4 L ✓✓ O .1a o Y o o✓ r A w Y w 6 Y`O r a Q ao x r ✓ C •is a ✓w r o b Y v w c b s.+ C u h F a w ✓ - M r Y G M J/C Y • 6 Y ✓ N 4 a • 4 4 Y 7 N r a O L O'V 41 V 4 ii.. ✓ a • 4 M 4 G Y a+L • 4 a+• a C w 4✓ O ✓ a Y O i 'D S Y F .• O O A•w J 6• r Y < • • Y L L p J W ✓ C L. r ✓ OJ A S O • O C Y 4 • R A a ✓ .•. .i' V : aa+..a.N :0 O•.ar N O r O V O b d b w O 6✓W oa 0 < a in d10 *2 .Y r V 02 a A p y w ^ a w e °zi �Q7 a,. ..r y 1. INITIATION f Citizens/ Indication of Property Interest Owners Informal Meeting with Staff Staff Informal Meeting with property owners . LID Interest Petition Key Administrative Preliminary Actions Evaluation Report by J Staff f Key Decision Resolution Directing Staff to Prepare the Preliminary Engineer's Report FEASIBILITY Documents LID Interest Petition . Preliminary Evaluation Report . Resolution to a Prepare } Letter informing M NPO of status ,y ` LID POLICY AND PROCEDURES DRAFT (5/2/85). PAGE 9 � w �m►�rt�s�ta� — � t 1.0 INITIATION POLICY INTENT the city should have a set of eligibility requirements for prospective projects and guidelines for setting the parameters. The key decision for the Initiation Stage is a resolution to prepare, directing staff to prepare the Preliminary Engineer's Report. For efficiency. the information required . in this stage must be sufficient for this decision and also provide adequate guidance for the next stage. For effectiveness, the process must consider the ,expectations of the current property owners. The information shared at this point is a foundation for the entire process. Currently interest is usually expressed by a petition (a copy is provided in the Appendix). The _basic plan is discussed with staff who then advises the property owner(s) of city policies and procedures. Staff then meets informally with the property owners to answer questions on LIDs and on their proposal. Once there is general consensus among staff and property owners to proceed, the petition is presented to Council ,by staff for a decision of whether or not to further study the proposal. 1.1 ; FINDINGS 1.1.1 The ORS allows a wide range of improvements, providing the city the authority to decide on eligibility requirements. Section If of ORS 223.367 states "any other local improvement for which an assessment may be made on the property specially benefited". 1.1.2 The successfulcompletion of projects depends upon physical, economic, and political factors. Some proposals are immediately. known to not be feasible at this point in time. 1.1.3 The current petition serves as an indication of general interest to further study the proposed project, however the language on the petition may appear to some as being a greater commitment on the part of the property owner. 1.1.4 Sometimes the petition is misinterpreted to mean those signing will support the formation of the district, which is difficult to assume before the district is better defined. 1.1.5 Often the only information a property owner receives is that given by neighbors which may not be accurate. This sets false expectations which may later create problems. 1.1.6 The boundaries of the proposed project follow only general guidelines, with variations often made depending upon the city--wide plans, citizen interest and political factors. This sometimes slows or stops the process, and is therefore inefficient. 1.1.7 During the beginning stages there are often different opinions about which improvements to include in the LID, e.g. , a street LID may also include sidewalks, lighting, etc. UV LID POLICY AND PROCEDURES DRAFT (5/2/85). PAGE10 ' 1.1.8 The NPO or the general citizenry is sometimes unaware of the potential change. 1.1.9 There is no rigid guideline on when a petition is brought to Council. 1.2 INITIATION POLICY t 1.2.1 THE CITY SHALL NOT PROCEED TO THE FEASIBILITY STAGE AND THE PREPARATION OF THE PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S REPORT UNTIL THE FOLLOWING IS COMPLETED: I (A) PROPERTY OWNERS ARE ADVISED OF POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, (8) PROPERTY OWNERS INTERESTED IN PROCEEDING HOLD MORE THAN FIFTY PERCENT OF THE PROPERTY ESTIMATED TO BE BENEFITED. (C) STAFF PREPARES A PRELIMINARY EVALUATION Of THE PROPOSAL, (0) COUNCIL PASSES A RESOLUTION TO PREPARE DIRECTING STAFF TO PREPARE THE PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S REPORT. 1.3 KEY ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS 1.3.1 A person from the Community Development Department is designated as having lead responsibility. 1.3.2 The interest petition shall indicate only an interest- in possibly forming an LID. 1.3.3 An LID information meeting 'shall be held with staff where the interest petition can be updated. 1.3.4 When defining the improvements to be included in the LID, staff will include everything as defined by City plans in the defined area which will avoid future reconstruction when adding standard services. 1.3.5 After staff meets with the property owners and sufficient interest is filed, staff will prepare a Preliminary Evaluation outlining the general scope of the project and the interest expressed. Staff then forwards the LID proposal to Council. A decision not to forward is based upon city standards. 1.3.6 Staff will determine, and report to Council in their Preliminary Evaluation, whether- to forward the petition to Council using the following guidelines for when it should not be forwarded: (a) improper design (b) unreasonable operating costs (c) unreasonable maintenance costs (d) inappropriate boundaries (e) not in the best interests of the city at this time (f) insufficient interest is expressed by property owners 1.3.7 The .Preliminary Evaluation by staff will include a recommendation on whether or not to proceed with the next stage based on the general nature and timing of the project. LID POLICY AND PROCEDURES DRAFT (5/2/85) PAGE 11 1.4 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES E 1.4.1 To improve effectiveness at this stage, staff will prepare general information materials on LIOs to e—tribute to interested citizens and will meet informally Lith property owners to discuss this information and its relatior . ?p to the proposed project. 1.4.2 To avoid confusion on the intent and purpose of the petition, it will be revised. Tha new version will be standardized. to be used in all proposed projects. 1.4.3 More extensive research, and therefore costs, are necessary to make a determination on the feasibility or eligibility of the project. Therefore more specific eligibility guidelines are given in the next stage, Feasibility. 1.4.4 Prior tothe proposal being forwarded to Council, staff will include a -copy of the proposal to the appropriate NPO chairperson for their next meeting, inviting written or oral comments from the NPO. LIO POLICY AND PROCEDURES DRAFT (5/2/85). PAGE 12 s 2. FEASIBILITY INITIATION Citizens/ May have to Property pay fee for the Owners Preliminary Engineer's Report Staff Prepare the Pre— liminary Engineer's Report Send status letter to property owners and appropriate NPO Key Administrative Priority Ranking Actions by Staff Key Decision Resolution of Intent and setting the date for the Public Wearing ' ^ FORMATION Documents Draft of Preliminary Engineer's Report Status Letter Resolution of �. Intent �g 3 LID POLICY AND.PROCEDURES — DRAFT (5/2/85). PAGE 13 4 _ 71 2.0 FEASIBILITY- POLICY INTENT the city should gather the information necessary in order to determine the priority of the proposed project and to define the city's tentative description of the entire project. The key decision for the Feasibility Stage is a resolution of intent to form the district and to set a date for a public hearing. Again, the processing of information is the ,primary factor for efficiency, _ In addition, recent changes in the_bond registration costs and the construction limitations posed by the weather can increase both time and financial costs if not handled efficiently. Effectiveness can be increased if staff is sensitive to the interests of can owners • yet not swayed from the accepted city Policies. standards, and practices. Currently the Preliminary Engineer's Report is either prepared in-house or a staff.supervises ,a consultant, On nerly all covered by city-funds ts re until the spreading of asses ments.gl The lcosts ng �fora the engineering study are then included in the total cost of the Typically the engineering Proposed project. study concentrates on the physical aspects of tthe Decisions on the eligibility of the practice of discouraging Project have been guided by the general 9 ng proposed projects formed for the improvement of raw or undeveloped land. Highest priority is for improvements in an established residential'-area where the improvements are to upgrade to standards for increased capacity or to replace services which are no longer satisfactory. 2.1 Fi_nd_ingg 2.1.Y The costs associated with financing are minimized if multiple LIDs are processed together instead of separately. 2.1.2 Slow economic times have increased the chances for defaults b individual property owners, creating a Possible cash flow for the city. The risk increases if the future problemy future sales of newly developed land. Springfields payments rely upon the Appendix) (see Springfield article in 2.1.3 The potential economic return to the community from an LID requires a certain amount of risk. 2,1,4 More information is needed in the Preliminary Engineer's Report on the financial feasibility in terms of the city's ability to finance the project. 2.1.5 In general, the City's financial far. oversizi Participation in an LID has been ng and extra-capacity and varies due to the fund balances in the appropriate funds. This level of city participation has therefore been inconsistent. 2.1,6 The costs for this stage are paid from the city's operating funds until the spreading of assessments. This impacts only the city's cash flow, however if the district never forms, it is a financial loss in the operating fund. LID POLICY AND PROCEDURES — DRAFT (5/2/85) PAGE 14 Engineer's Reports, if done by consultants, do 2.1.7 The Preliminary fort, creating problems and added expense not use the same later in the project. staff. the consultants are 2.1.8 When consultants are used by staff;' indirectly accountable to Council trolugandntisVetherefore more staff has a more end vulnerable The limit on city indebtedness set by the state in ORS 2.1.9 „may incur indebtedness in the form of 223.295(1) is A city virtue of the Bancroft_Bonding bonds and other obligations by Act to an amount which, exclusive her indebtedness of theindebtedness for �cityl utilities but inclusive of all of shall not exceed .09 '(9X) of the ..latest true cash valuation of issue the city. Regardless of the above 'limitation. a O3 cit(3%)yof the bonds under said aluationn of the unt ty "noTheinggislature is hoar latest true cash v the limitation• considering revisir►g has been reluctant to form LID`s for T 2.1.16 In the past, the City z land since it aides a business venture ThewCity unimproved, raw term risks ,on the City. also can' place;additional longior residential area has much les hesitation di trios in V the ed,elopresidential of economic improvement. even Council the greatest difficulty in proposed development have g determining a policy. lcu : lating benefit which may basic meths 2.1.11 ca There are three o n combi ation�r These are be used solely a. By area, i.e. by lot, square footage, dwelling units, equivalent dwelling units, etc. b. By zones or zonal, i.e. the band of area closest to the more than the band(s) further away• improvement benefits c, By frontage. i.e. front footage. 2.2 FEASIBILITY POLICY 1 ATION STAGE AND THE PUBLIC THE CITY SHALL NOT PROCEED TO THE FORM S REPORT AND HEARING UNTI� ACCEPTING OF� INTENT ITo YFORM ENGINEER THE , DIST R CT AND PASSING THE RESOLUTION SETTING THE DATE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING. PAGE 15 LTD POLICY> ANO PROCEDURES = DRAFT (5/2/85) ' 2.2.2 ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR -LIDS SHALL DEPEND UPON THE USE OF THE LAND ., (a) IF THE PROPOSED DISTRICT IS IN A DEVELOPED AREA WITH LESS THAN FULL TO STANDARD SYSTEMS, ELIGIBLE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE FOR THE PURPOSE OF UPGRADING THE SERVICE(S) TO THE PROPERTYORSURROUNDING AREA AND SHALL INCLUDE: (1) THE CONSTRUCTION OR RECONSTRUCTION OF SEWERS, STREETS, STORM DRAINS, SIDEWALKS, AND/OR ANY OFF-STREET MOTOR VEHICLE PARKINGFACILITY; (2) THE INSTALLATION OF STREET LIGHTS; (3) THE UNDERGROUNDING OF OVERHEAD UTILITIES; (4) THE MAINTENANCE OF NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS. (5) OTHER IMPROVEMENTS MAY BE CONSIDERED ONLY IF THEY SUPPLEMENT THE LID PROJECT, (b) IF THE PROPOSED DISTRICT IS IN AN UNDEVELOPED COMMERCIAL AND/OR INDUSTRIAL AREA, ELIGIBLE PROJECTS SHALL BE: (1) FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPLETING ELEMENTS OF AN ADOPTED CITY PLAN, OR (2) TO ENCOURAGE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND SHALL INCLUDE THE CONSTRUCTION TO COMPLETE THE SEWERS, STREETS, SIDEWALKS, AND STORM DRAINS. (3) ° OTHER IMPROVEMENTS MAY BE CONSIDERED ONLY IF THEY SUPPLEMENT THE LID PROJECT. (c) IF THE PROPOSED DISTRICT IS IN AN UNDEVELOPED RESIDENTIAL AREA ELIGIBLE PROJECTS SHALL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING: (1) THE CONSTRUCTION OF SEWERS; (2) THE CONSTRUCTION OF STREETS, SIDEWALKS, STORM DRAINS; (3) OTHER IMPROVEMENTS MAY BE CONSIDERED ONLY IF THEY SUPPLEMENT THE LID PROJECT. 2.2.3 PROJECTS ARE PRIORITIZED ACCORDING TO THE ELIGIBILITY CATEGORIES AND FEASIBILITY INFORMATION. FIRST PRIORITY IS PROJECTS IN DEVELOPED AREAS (AS DESCRIBED IN 2.2.2(x)). SECOND PRIORITY IS PROJECTS IN UNDEVELOPED COMMERCIAL/OR INDUSTRIAL AREAS (AS DESCRIBED IN 2.2.2(b)). THIRD PRIORITY IS PROJECTS IN UNDEVELOPED RESIDENTIAL AREAS. 2.2.4 THE CITY SHALL. MANAGE IT'S ANNUAL INDEBTEDNESS SO THAT IF THE INDEBTEDNESS IN ANY YEAR GOES OVER THE LIMIT, THE CITY WILL ADJUST THE FOLLOWING YEAR. THE FORMULAS ARE: AVAILABLE ADDITIONAL DEBT = STATE DEBT LIMITATION — EXISTING DEBT (debt includes principal and interest) AMOUNT AVAILABLE FOR 10% x AVAILABLE ADDITIONAL DEBT PROJECT CONSTRUCTION = 2 COSTS PER YEAR 2.2.5 THE CITY SHALL FURTHER PRIORITIZE THE TYPES OF PROJECTS TO BE CONSIDERED BY IMPOSING TIME CONSTRAINTS AND BY GROUPING SIMILAR' PROJECTS TOGETHER FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPETING FOR LIMITED FUNDS. TABLE 3 OUTLINES THE TIME CONSTRAINTS FOR EACH TYPE OF PROJECT, LTD POLICY AND PROCEDURES — DRAFT (5/2/85). PAGE 16 ' Table 3r Key completion dates for different types of projects. Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Undeveloped Undeveloped Developed Commercial/ Residential Area Industrial Area Area Resolution to Prepare September 15 September 15 or while there (Initiation-Stage) are 'sufficient funds. Ordinance to Form March 1 March 1 March 1 (Formation Stage) Spring/Summer Spring/Summar Construction Spring/Summer 5 June/July June/July June/July Bond Sale Minimum Estimated Three or more Two or more More than Total Size property owners tax lots one acre A No Yes Yes Application Fee - - - - - - ,x 4 2.2.6 PROPERTY OWNERS MAY BE REQUIRED BY COUNCIL TO PAY A FEE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE FEASIBILITY STAGE TO OFFSET COSTS RREQ DURING '. THIS STAGE IF THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT IS IN AN UNDEVVELOELOPED AREA. 2.2.7 LID PROJECTS ARE TO BE DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ADOPTED CITY i STANDARDS. 2.3 KEY ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS 2.3.1 The Community Development Department has lead responsibility during this stage. 2.3.2 Given staff workloads and -expertise required, staff recommends whether the City`- should contract out the preparation of the Preliminary Engineer's report . { 2.3.3 The Preliminary Engineer's report shall include the following financial data: (a) The city's calculated limit for bancroft indebtedness; �. (b) Cash available; (c) Type of interim financing to be used; *- (a) Special concerns for the taming of the project for financing; tisj The assessment- histories of the current (e) owners for outstanding as property (f) City participation or other funding. PAGE 17 LIO:POLICY .AND PROCEDURES DRAFT (5/2!85). 2:3.4 The Preliminary Engineer's report shall include the following: (a) The benefits to the city the project serves, i.e. completing a system, economic development, or health andsafety; -(b) The percentage of owners and the area represented who are proponents; (z) The boundaries, the general design of the project, and the facilities approximate location; (d) Estimated total cost; (e) The list of, _property owners, addresses, property descriptions (tax lot) and proposed assessments. 2.3.5 Staff shall project the priority ranking of a proposed project according to Council's guidelines. 2.3.6 The method used to calculate special benefit depends upon the particular mix of improvements and the special conditions such as the landconfiguration and slope. In general, the following guidelines are used: (a) Sewers by area or per equivalent unit - (b) Streets by _a combination of area and frontage, or a special application of zonal, i.e. zoned use calculated from anticipated trip generation (c) Storm drainage by equivalent service unit (d) _Sidewalks by linear foot (e) Parking by an equivalent unit, i.e, floor space f (f) Undergrounding by area or per equivalent unit or by zoned use, i.e. density. 2.3.6 If consultants prepare the report, they will also present the report. 2.3.7 Staff may "batch" the proposals at this stage so it is more efficient and easier to prioritize the projects for the available funds. 2.4 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 2.4.1 Standardize the requirements for the Preliminary Engineer's Report. 2.4.2 Keep current the list of consultants eligible to do the Preliminary Engineer's Report. 2.4.3 Determine the basic' service cost for the Preliminary Engineer's Report. 2.4.4 At thebeginningof the stage, staff shall send a letter to property owners within the district and to the NPO(s) which are involved 'stating the status of the project, the next steps in the process and a tentative timeline. f PAGE 18 LID POLICY AND PROCEDURES — DRAFT (5/2/85). 3. FORMATION . ' FEASIBILITY Citizens/ Opportunity to file Property Remonstrances to Owners the Formation of the District Staff Publish and mail notices Finalize the Preliminary Engineer's Report when necessary_ Key Administrative Arrange for Actions _notification and for the Public Hearing on Ordinance Key Decision Ordinance to Form the District } TM 0nVEMENT i Documents Notices 4. .. Finalize the Preliminary ' Engineer's Report . Ordinance Forming the District LTD.pOLTCY AND PROCEDURES DRAFT t 2/85). PAGE !9 _ - [w 3.0 FORMATION POLICY INTENT . . the city should provide to citizens_ the opportunity to question and make statements in a public meeting with regards to the proposed project and whether it meets established policies and procedures The key decision for the Formation Stage is an ordinance formina the district. This follows a public hearing on the project as proposed. The state has clear requirements assuring the citizens the opportunity to object which is reflected in the city's current code and practices, Currently the city publishes the notice at least twice in the local newspaper and sends the notice to all property owners. Property owners have at least ten days from the first publication of the notice to file a remonstrance to the formation of ,the district. If "owners of sixty-six and two-thirds percent or more; in area of the property within the assessment district may make and file with the city recorder written objection or remonstrance against the proposed improvement, and, such objection or remonstrance shall be a bar to any further proceedings in the making of such improvement for a period of six months,_unlessthe owners of one-half or more of the property affected shall subsequently petition therefor" (TMC 13.04.050). 3.1 ,FINDINGS 3.1.1 ORS 223.389 states, "Provision shall be made for at least 10 days' notice to owners of property within the proposed district in which the, local improvement is contemplated, which notice may be made by posting, by newspaper publication or by mail, or by any combination .of such methods. Such notice shall specify the time } and place where the council will hear and consider objections or remonstrances to the proposed improvement by any parties aggrieved thereby." 3.1.2 Sometimes the city does not have the correct names and addresses of the current owners because the listing in the county taxation and assessment department is only periodically updated. 3.1.3 More accurate names and addresses can be obtained through title searches, which are more time consuming and costly ($50 or more per property or tax lot). 3.1.4 Currently, if the public hearing is continued to a later meeting, new notices are sent to the property owners, an extra cost of time and money. 3.1.5 Sometimes during the process of the public hearing the recommendations change, thereby changing some of the remonstrances. The remonstrances however are still counted in determining whether or not to proceed. 3.1.5 Sometimes certain weather conditions or political issues require rapid processing and notice requirements waste precious time. 3.1.7 There is no policy on future re-submittal of a proposal once rejected by Council for reasons ocher than filed remonstrances on v sixty-six and two thirds percent or more of the property area. PAGE 20 LID POLICY AND PROCEDURES -'DRAFT (5/2/85). , ti agreements with property owners on property 3.1.8 Non-remonstrance g h has -been sold sometimes createndenforcement, for the City iculties what to the new owner an r- in transferring i� 3.2 FORMATION POLICY 3.2.1 THE CITY SHALL NOT PROCEED TO THE ICS oUNTIL COUNCIL RECEIVES PREPARATION OF THE FINAL PLANS AND SP OBJECT AND REMONSTRANCFORM THE DISTRICT- AND IS CT FORMATION OF THE DISTRICT AND PASSES AN ORDINANCE TO NTICE PRIOR TTHE SHALL HAVE AT LEAST 10 3.2.2 PROPERTY OWNERS EN OBJECTIOHgSORO REM4NSTRANCEo WITH PUBLIC HEARINGS TO FILE WRITT THE CITY RECORDER REMONSTRANCES CAN BE REVERSED ONLY BY THE PROPERTY OWNER TWO- THIRDS OF TOTALNG MORE THAN REMONSTRANCES ARE RECEI 3.2.3 VE CIL MAYI IF REDECIDE NOT TO PROCEED. THE..AREA IN THE DISTRICT COU : IR NCE THE 3.2.4 IF ALL PARTIES AGREE IN WRITING TO WAIVE MAKE EA DECISION ON ON THE COUNCIL MAY WAIVE THE TIMELINE AN ORDINANCE FORMING THE DISTRICT. GENERAL LOCAL NEWSPAPER OF RECEIVE 3.2.5 THE CITY SHALL PUBLISH IN A 10 DAYS PRIOR TO RECEIVE CIRCULATION THE NOTICE FOR A E LEASTPUBLIC HEARING TO HALL OBJECTIONS AND REM0111S'tRANCES MEETING..:... THE OATS, TIME AND PLACE OF THE PUBLIC MEETING S 8E GI G. IF THE HEARING IS CONTINUED. ANOTHER NOTICE SHALL BE PUBLISHED IF TIME ALLOWS. COUPICIL WILL STATE 3.2.6 IF COUNCIL DECIDES NOT TO FORM THE DISTRICT, (�NDTTIONS. WHETHER PROPERTY OWNERS CAN RE—SUBMI CERTAIN PROPOSAL EITHER BY ER GAINING MORE SUPPORT OR BY MEETING CER 3.3 KEY ADMINISi'RATIVE ACTIONS Department has lead responsibility The Community Development 3,3.1 during this stage. ublic hearing. 3.3.2 Staff will follow the state requirements for the P to known nd At the public hearing staff will be evs ions to thprepared to en Preliminary 3.3.3 recommending policies and past problems either by by reporting the relevant - Engineer's Repo decisions- possible. 3.3.4 Record all non-remonstrance agreements as early as 3,4 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES publish when the the notice and be ready to P Staff will prepare 3.4.1 resolution of in is Passed. -owners- a r"o �-letter to be used -if property • 3.4.2 Staff will prepare thereby saving time xz the . ,< want to waive their remonstrance. process. PAGE 21 LID POLICY AND PROCEDURES DRAFT (5/2185). YJ r yf _ _ 3.4.3 Staff will review the language on the non-remonstrance agreement so it will conform to the City's intent. 3 7 PAGE LID .POLECY ;AND PROCEDURES _— DRAFT (5/2l85). 22 �i, i• 4 4. IMPROVEMENT FORMATION Citizens/ Remain in contact Property with Staff Owners Begin to arrange financing 1 � 1 1 3 Staff Prepare—Fina1_ Plan and Seecs Bid Process Manage the construction Prepare the Final R. eG►ort Key Administrative Resolution by ' t Actions he Local Contract Review Board to Award the Contract Key Decision Resolution Accepting the Final Report ASSESSMENT Documents Final Plans & Specs Res. Award. Contract Constr. Contract . Final Report Resolution Accepting the Final Report LIDPOLICY AND PROCEDURES — DRAFT (5/2/85). PACE 23 • 4.0 IMPROVEMENT POLICY INTENT the city should proceed with the construction and financing of the improvements, controlling the project so that it is completed to the specifications ascloseto the estimated cost as possible. he final The key decision for the Improvement�Stage mediate decision for Couns a acting re rt. This stage also includes as the Local Contract Review Board and that decision is a resolution awarding the contract. The efficiency of both the construction and financing processes can be enhanced ;if the project can take, advantage of favorable weather and market ncy and effectiveness can be facilitated at :his conditions. Both the efficieithe construction, which includes coordinating stage of the process by managing is done by with the finance department. This ' ' staff clearly stating s to the contractor. and by expectations and requirementstaff providing frequent status reports to Council. If changes occur, previous documentations are needed in order to recognize the change and handle it effectively. Currently, after ' Council passes the ordinance forming the district, staff prepares the Final Plans and Specs which lowest qualifying bid is any of the awarded the construction is not done by staff, the contract. Staff manages the construction by frequent inspections receives periodic the use of monetary penalties when necessary. status reports dependent upon the level of activity and the presence of potential problems. 4.1 FINDINGS ors 4.1.1 The purchasing system he Contractor isiselected st of land thgible e termsand addresses how a is made and used, ho conditions for performance and payment. 4.1.2 Guidelines on the issuance and approval of change orders are part of the Local Contract Review Board Rules and in the contract document. ` 4.1.3 Waiting for approval of change orders, not having clear communication and documentation of communiccatiieons, and a^�having obtained all the rights-of-way, all waste case inefficiencies. 4.1.4 Interim financing must be secured, and the type of financing depends upon many factors. 4.1.5 If the project is funded by pre-assessments, the people forget or fail to understand that they may have to start payments before the construction is completed and they have a finished product. 4.1.5 Unless there is a pre-assessment, the owners forget their options for financing, with the next stage becoming more of a shock. 4.1.7. Final payment to the contractor depends upon the staff tentatively �q accepting the improvements. i5 PAGE 24 LID POLICY AND PROCEDURES DRAFT (5l2l85). 4.1.8 At the end of the construction, a final report on what has occurred and of the information needed for the next stage needs to be produced. 4.2 IMPROVEMENT POLICY 4.2.1 THE CITY SHALL NOT PROCEED TO THE ASSESSMENT STAGE UNTIL PASSING A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE FINAL REPORT ON THE PROJECT.' 4.2.2 COUNCIL SHALL PROCEED ACCORDING TO THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES OF THE LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD AND THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS IF ALL OR ANY PART OF THE IMPROVEMENT IS TO BE DONE BY PRIVATE CONTRACTORS. 4.3 KEY ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS 4.3.1 The Community Development Department will have lead responsibility during this stage. 4.3.2 Staff shall prepare the final, plans and specs, 4.3,3 The designated project manager has the authority to approve change orders consistent with the Local 'Contract Review Board rules and adopted city purchasing and contracting procedures. 4.3.4 The designated project manager has the authority to tentatively accept the improvements, thereby releasing the final payment to the,contractor. 4.3.5 Staff shall prepare the final report at the conclusion of the construction which will include sections on the improvement, finance, and legal summaries. 4.4 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 4 - 4.4.1 The city will record with the county "lien intents" on the properties, increasing the likelihood that title companies will be aware of a possible lien if owners of property change. 4.4.2 Once the contractor is selected and the timetable is agreed upon, staff will send a letter to property owners advising them of these things and of who to contact if they observe any problems. If the contractor uses subcontractors, these names will also be given. 4.4.3 In order to keep property owners informed of the special assessments and to allow them sufficient time to decide how they will pay their portion, staff will send a letter stating their estimated assessment, options available to make payment, and the anticipated timetable. An installment application with terms and conditions will be incluied which will have to be completed at the Assessment Stage ,if the property owner decides to pay by installments. f LID POLICY AND PROCEDURES — DRAFT (5/2/85)'. PAGE 25 4.4.4 A set of form letters will be developed , and used to aid in managing_ the project, making it easier to document the improvement for future reference. 4.4.5 To facilitate the transfer of responsibility for the next stage the Final Report will include the following information: (a) names and mailing addresses of owners the (b) property descriptions (tax map and lot numbers), assessed values and size of the property (c) area of benefited property (d) the assessment method and the computer! assessments CIS LIQ POLICYAICD FRUCEOURES — OR�AFT (5/l/85) p '2� 5. ASSESSMENT IMPROVEMENT Citizens/ Opportunity to Property object to the Owners spreading of assess— ments in writing Staff Prepare notices for the spreading of assessments _ Publish and send notices Key Administrative Preparing the Actions proposed assess— meats Key Decision .fthe ance spreading ssessments FINANCE AND CLOSURE Documents Notices Ordinance Spreading the Assessments 57 Lao POL.ICYAND PROCEDURES — DRAFT (5/2/85). PAGE 27 Y MOM I 1 5.0 ASSESSMENT POLICY INTENT the city spreads the assessments across the properties according to the benefit the property derives from the improvement. The key decision for the Assessment Stage is the ordinance spreading the assessments. This stage is simply theofficialadoption of the assessments, or, portion of total cost, to be charged to each of the owners of specially benefited -property. ._ It is similar to the formation stage in that the property owners have an opportunity to submit objections about this part of the process. The determination of assessments for each property is proposed in the Formation Stage. Usually a formula is adopted which considers the types of improvements, the land use, and any special characteristics of each_lot-of land. Currently the city mails to the property owners a notice of their estimated assessment and the date by which time objections shall be filed, which are to "state the grounds thereof" (TMC 13.04.080). City Council is to consider objections and staff's estimates and may "adopt, correct, modify or revise the proposed assessments". Assessments are for total costs and include the "cost of right-of-way and expenses of condemning the land, all costs of engineering, superintendence, advertising and ,legal expenses and also any and all other necessary and proper expenses" (TMC 13.04.080). _ The assessments are entered into the city's lien docket, thereupon becoming a lien upon the property assessed. The assessment process as outlined in this section may 'occur after formation and before or during the initial period of the improvement if the city decides to have an "initial assessment" (pre-assessment). The amount to be spread is based upon the engineer's estimate of total cost. If this is the case the process at this time is either to do a final assessment, adjusting to the actual final costs, or to issue refunds. The different types of assessments allowed by state statutes and how each fits into the structure in this report are shown on Table 4. Efficiency can be greatly enhanced by standardizing the process,- letters and forms which will also improve effectiveness by streamlining the documentation. The quality of the city's LID process is also dependent upon Council making decisions which are consistent with the current or revised policy. Special interests can sway decisions and set precedents that may not be beneficial in future decisions with other LIDs. 5.1 FINDINGS 5.1.1 ORS 223.389, "notice of such proposed assessment shall be mailed or ,personally delivered to the owner of each lot proposed to be assessed, which notice shall state the _ amounts of assessment proposed on than property and shall fix a date by which time objections shall be filed with the City Recorder. Any such objection shall state the grounds thereof. The council shall consider such objections and may adopt, correct, modify or revise the proposed assessments and shall determine the amount of assessment to be charged against each -lot within the district, according to the special and peculiar benefits accruing thereto from the improvement, and shall by ordinance spread the assessments." LID POLICY AND PROCEDURES DRAFT (5/2/85). PAGE 28 b 61 w a In ... .e I � aa +� O.4.1 m y C 1 tj 39o aav to r-4 I Aj .0 a C K t7 m a► _d b p 0 Ll p tw 43 In d C 4 Q com odd R � m 'O 0 4A 94 a Q' bpi a a m 44 =u o j; a► ,, G? m .0 m a � G 41 to a M a 3f 0 IN 4) R a t} Cr W A In Wd 0Aj m mr1 O I V . ami C 0 4d -4 97 p to O a '0 I O O ewe..p+ d13 AJ ` m .pr b 41 m ' m aC.41 6f U a �' .�' 41 a C1 i,1 V 0 0 -4 b 0 ® 1 .0 d1 0 0 .0 r p 0 r+ a► a a m M m 00 m 0 a�o u „ a e + v 0 -0 sa.+ o b .0 Q O iii 0 < U V. 9 83 LI La 10 0 w d .In d m+ O m C1 L l�f laLa parva cp� �a+ v m acv cpCIS a a o4 CO a 02 Aj s a Q b Edi !�A S W Id a H hl InM In Ow .. y� a m H 14 toa cow to to r4 H N vlt. qd y C ol Ogo .av LID POLICY AND PROCEDURES`-- DRAFT iljll/8g? PAGE 29 5.1.2 The ORS does not require Council to have a public hearing to hear objections. 5.1.3 Property sold during this time is not noted in the County's tax lot records until later, makingthe identification of the current owner difficult during the next stage. Also, the new owner often is unaware they must soon pay the special assessments. 5.1.4 The problem of unknown mailing addresses of owners is addressed in ORS 223.391, "Whenever a notice is required to be sent to the owner of a lot .if the address of the owner or of the owner's agent is unknown to the recorder, he shall mail the notice addressed to the owner or his agent at the city where such property is located. Any mistake, error, omi Sion or failure with respect to such mailing shall' not be jurisdictional or invalidate the assessment proceedings .. ." 5.1.5 "If the initial assessment (pre-assessment) has been made on the basin ofestimated cost, and upon the _completion of the work the cost is found to be greater than the estimated cost,; the council may make a deficit assessment for the additional cost" according to the standards stated above, with a notice and opportunity to object. (ORS 223.395) 5;1.6 "If assessments have been made on the basis of estimated cost, and upon completion the cost is found to be less than the estimated cost, provision shall be made for refund of the excess or over-plus" (ORS 223,395). 5.1.7 The administrative costs of determining who should receive a refund and the amount of such refund may exceed the total amount available for refund. 5.1.8 In the past objections have been treated like remonstrances in that policy goals have been violated in order to make exceptions for individuals with objections. 5.2 ASSESSMENT POLICY 5.2.1 THE CITY SHALL NOT PROCEED TO THE FINANCE AND CLOSURE STAGE UNTIL PASSING AN ORDINANCE SPREADING THE ASSESSMENTS. 5.2.2 THE CITY SHALL PROVIDE NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNERS OF THEIR PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS AND THAT COUNCIL WILL BE CONSIDERING WRITTEN OBJECTIONS AT A SPECIFIED MEETING PRIOR TO SPREADING THE ASSESSMENTS BY ORDINANCE ACCORDING TO THE SPECIFICATIONS IN T14E ORS. } i f PAGE 3O LID POLICY AND PROCEDURES — DRAFT (512!85). s � a w 5.3 KEY ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS "` 5.3.1 The Finance Department has lead responsibility for this stage. C 5.3.2 Staff will follow mandated requirements for the notices. 5.3.3 Standardized terminology to agree with the ORS. - z- 5.4 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 5.4.1 Send a copy- of the installment contract early in the previous u stage which clearly outlines the terms and conditions of payment by installments. 5,4.2 At the time Council considers objections to the proposed assessments staff will review for Council the proposed ` assessments, and the rationale and policies supportingthe proposals. 5.4.3 ` The problem of keeping a current and accurate address list is minimizedif the city makes more frequent personal and mail contacts. 5.4.4' Sta►ff will have a record. of actual personnel costs for each L.I.D. which will be us in calculating the total cost. . .. w -...E .. r k LID:POLICY AND PROCEDURES = DRAFT, (5/2/85). PAGE 31 a: z 6. FINANCE AND CLOSURE ASSESSMENT Citizens/ Pay assessment in Property cash or arrange to Owners pay in installments pay assessment as billed Staff Prepare bond prospectus Bond Sale Lien Docket Key Administrative Local Contract Actions Review Board accepts bids for bonds by resolution Key Decision Closing accounts and releasing liens on all benefited properties Documents Bond Prospectus Resolution Accepting Bids for bonds Lien Docket LID.p@LiCY AND PROCEDURES --,DRAFT (5/2/85): PAGE32 Y yr. az, oaf MM 6.0 FINANCE AND CLOSURE POLICY INTENT the city should provide a financing option, should enforce payments so the project does not impact other operating funds, and maintain the improvements according to agreements and city policy. The Finance and Closure Stage is not completed until all assessments are paid and the bonds are retired. It is primarily a stage of staff activity unless more extreme enforcement procedures become necessary. The key,decision for the Finance and Closure Stage is actually an intermediate decision and doesnot mark the end to the stage and the project. The "key decision is the resolution accepting bids for bonds and to pay-off warrants, for long-term thereby recovering the city's costs financing along with the total amount property owners agree to pay in installments. The final decision for this stage is an action closing accounts and releasing liens on properties as they are paid. The LID is not actually ended until all accounts are closed and the bond is retired. Currently, once assessments are 'spread, staff receives cash or applications to to pay in installments within some specified time period. Staff then proceeds with bond `counsel`through the bond selling process according to Local Contract Review Board rules and the ORS. Once this 'initial activity is completed,- there are three major activities, first with 'collections, second with changes which occur to the property ownership, .and third with maintaining the new system. Bills for those paying in installments are currently sent twice a year. Billing costs are estimated and become part of the total amount bancrofted, No penalties are charged for early pay off. If owners of property sell any part of the property which has a special assessment, the city in the past has had a "due-on-sale" policy. 6.1 FINDINGS 6.1.1 Whenever there has been a special assessment placed upon a property for a local improvement, if the owner is assessed in the sum of $25 or more, at any time within 10 days after notice of such assessment is first published, may file a written application to pay part or all of the assessment in installments. (ORS 223.210) A property owner cannot apply to pay in installments if the amount remaining unpaid upon such assessment together with the unpaid balance of any previous assessment for improvements against the same property equals or exceeds double the assessed valuation of the property as shown by the last county tax roll. (ORS 223.220) 6,1.2 On the computation of installments, "with interest at such rate as the governing' body of the city may provide on all unpaid assessments, together with an amount sufficient to pay a proportionate' part of the cost of administering the bond assessment program and issuing' the bonds . . . including, but not limited to, legal, printing and consultant's fees, such amount to be determined by the governing body (ORS 223.215). C LID .POLICY AND PROCEDURES - DRAFT (5/2/65).' PAGE ' 33 6.1.3 The maximum effective rate of interest which general obligation bonds shall bear is 13 percent per annum, unless the agency is unable to sell the bonds after a reasonable marketing effort, - thenthe interest may be increased but shall not exceed 14 percent per annum (ORS 288.520(2)). 6.1.4 "The actual rates of interest paid are determined by a combination of the general market levels, the security behind a given issue, the pattern of the maturity of the debt, and the credit standing of the city. The city can do something about each of these, except the general interest level prevailing in the market." (from Moak and Hillhouse, Concepts in Finance, cited in the Guide for Local Government in Oregon) 6.1.5 The interest rate charged to those bancrofting their assessments has been determined in varying_ways on different LIOs, thereby making the interest rate a political issue instead of a technical issue to be applied consistently. 6.1.6 Technically interest begins to accrue when the assessment is spread,' This happens if the property owner pays after 30 days or if the owner bancrofts. 6.1.7 "Whenever all or part of any assessment for improvement was or is declared 'void or set aside for any reason or its enforcement refused - by any court by reason of jurisdictional or other defects in procedure, whether directly or by virtue of any court decision or when the council is in doubt as to the validity of all or part of any such assessment by reason of such defects in procedure, the council may by ordinance make a new assessment or reassessment. . ." (ORS 223.410) 6.1.8 The time involved in gathering applications to pay in installments is sometimes extensive either due to efforts to find correct addresses, or because people do not respect the time limits for filing, often creating problems in preparing documents for the bond sale. 6.1.9 The total amount to be bonded is the total of the assessments which have valid installment applications filed plus the interest for the bonds, plus administrative costs for the bond sale and costs which are part of all assessments, such as recording and removing liens from the county docket. 6.1.10 The City has not been recovering total costs on all of the bonds 6.1.11 Occasionallyif the property owner is late completing their installment application, Council will accept it, even though it can not be included in the bond sale, with the condition that payments will equal what they would have been if part of the bond sale. PAGE 34 LID: POLICY AND PROCEDURES - DRAFT (5/2/85). 6.1.12 In the past the city has decided not to proceed with foreclosure if the property owner makes any token payment towards their assessment, therefore possibly, creating a future deficit in the fund. 6.1.13 , Past practices by the city has created very lax, expectations on the part of property owners to the point where paying the assessment seems to have a very low priority for some. 6.1.14 Legally, if property is segregated, the assessment can be reapportioned if the property is not part of a new subdivision. 6.1.15 If the improvement - is a new subdivision, the lot cannot be segregated and the assessment cannot be reapportioned. AJL ll assessments must be paid-in-full before the final plat is approved (ORS 92.095). 6.1.16 If property is segregated, the city must be careful to make sure that the segregation is not to separate out less desirable land which the owners may have no intention of developing, or of paying the assessment. 6.1.17 The process for the collection of payments is the same for all property owners within any level of collection, i.e. the initial _ billing with an administrative charge, a reminder, and finally a meeting is set to negotiate payment. 6.2 FINANCE AND CLOSURE POLICY 6.2.1 THE LID IS NOT "COMPLETED" UNTIL ALL ASSESSMENTS ARE PAID AND THE BONDS HAVE MATURED. 6.2.2 FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES AT TIME OF INITIATION, INTEREST RATES AT CURRENT ORS LIMITS PLUS 2% WILL BE QUOTED TO PROPERTY OWNERS. 6.2.3 THE INTEREST RATE CHARGED WILL BE THE NET EFFECTIVE INTEREST RATE OF THE BOND SALE PLUS 2% FOR ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES, i.e., RECORDING THE LIEN WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY, BILLING COSTS, ETC. 6.2.4 INTEREST ON THE ASSESSMENT SHALL BEGIN TO ACCRUE TEN WORKING DAYS AFTER THE PASSING OF THE ORDINANCE SPREADING THE ASSESSMENTS FOR ALL PROPERTY OWNERS, WHETHER RE9UESTING INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS OR PAYING IN CASH. 6.2.5 IF THE CITY DOES NOT RECEIVE AN APPLICATION TO PAY IN INSTALLMENTS WITHIN TEN WORKING DAYS OF NOTIFICATION OF ASSESSMENT, IT WILL BE ASSUMED THE PROPERTY OWNER WILL BE PAYING IN CASH. 6.2.6IF A PROPERTY OWNER MISSES THE DEADLINE FOR MAKING APPLICATION TO PAY IN INSTALLMENTS, AND THE BANCROFT BONDS HAVE BEEN SOLD, - THEN- THE APPLICANT MUST PLEAD HIS CASE TO COUNCIL. If COUNCIL _ APPROVES, PAYMENTS ARE SET AT ACTUAL COSTS, WITH A PAYMENT SCHEDULE DESIGNED TO REPAY THE CITY AS PROMPTLY AS POSSIBLE. LID POLICY AND PROCEDURES DRAFT (5/2/85): PAGE 35 ■ , 6.2;7 IN ADDITION TO THE APPLICATION TO PAY IN INSTALLMENTS, A PROPERTY OWNER SHALL SIGN A SEPARATE TERMS AND - CONDITIONS I CONTRACT OUTLINING THE PAYMENT POLICIES OF THE CITY, INCLUDING PENALTIES FOR NON-PAYMENT. 6.2.8 IF AN APPLICANT TO PAY IN INSTALLMENTS IS CURRENT ON OTHER LIDS, SEWER BILLS OR PROPERTY TAXES ON THE ASSESSED PROPERTY, THEY SHALL BE ELIGIBLE FOR FINANCING. 6,2.9 IF THE IMPROVEMENT IS IN THE FIRST PRIORITY (A DEVELOPED RESIDENTIAL AREA), THE PROPERTY OWNER CAN FINANCE 1007E ALLOWABLE BY ORS IF THE IMPROVEMENT IS IN THE E SECOND PROPPRIORITY (UNDEVELOPED COMMERCIAL AND/OR INDUSTRIAL), CAN FINANCE 75% ALLOWABLE BY ORS. IF THE IMPROVEMENTIS IN THE THIRD PRIORITY (UNDEVELOPED RESIDENTIAL), THE PROPERTY OWNER CAN FINANCE 507E ALLOWABLE BY QRS 6.2.10 IF THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT (PRE—ASSESSMENT) HAS BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMATED COST, AND UPON COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT THE ASSESSED COST IS LESS THAN THE FINAL COST, COUNCIL SHALL MAKE A DEFICIT ASSESSMENT. 6.2.11 IF THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT (PRE-ASSESSMENT) HAS BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMATED_COST, AND UPON COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT THE ASSESSED COST IS MORE THAN THE FINAL COST, COUNCIL SHALL PROVIDE FOR A REFUND IN THE SAME MANNER AS THE PROJECT WAS ORIGINALLY ASSESSED. 6.2.12 IF OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY CHANGES, THE ASSUMPTION OF THE REMAINING BALANCE OF THE INSTALLMENT AGREEMENT SHALL BE BASED ON THE CRITERIA BALANCES 0� $3E000OPTD YOR�LESS ON BUT SHALL IN NO SE BE ALLOWED FOR HOMESTEAD PROPERTY. 6.2.13 INTEREST EARNINGS ON BOND PROCEEDS SHALL BE PLACED IN THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FUND UNTIL THE BONDS HAVE MATURED, AT WHICH TIME THE REMAINING AMOUNT SHALL BE TRANSFERRED TO THE GENERAL FUND. 6.2.14 IF A PAYMENT IS 30 DAYS LATE, A PENALTY OF $75.00 SHALL BE CHARGED. 6.2.15 SHOULD THE OWNER NEGLECT OR REFUSE TO PAY INSTALLMENTS AS THEY BECOME DUE AND PAYABLE FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR, THE ACCOUNT IS CONSIDERED DELINQUENT REQUIRES ANTIRERESOLUTION.BALANCE BECOMES DUE TION IMMEDIATELY. THIS Q 6.2.16 THE COUNCIL SHALL DO A FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS BY RESOLUTION AFTER ALL PENDING PROBLEMS WITH THE IMPROVEMENT ARE RESOLVED AND THE CONTRACTORISRELEASED FROM RESPONSIBILITY. 6.3' KEY ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS 6.3.1 The Finance Department has lead responsibility in this stage. PAGE 36 LID POLICY AND PROCEDURES DRAFT (5/2/85). w r 6.3.2 Immediately following the passage of the ordinance spreading the assessments, staff will 'publish in the local newspaper the list of property owners and their special assessments and mail the same to each proRerty owner along with an installment application. 6.3.3 Staff shall enter the assessments on the city's lien docket, but shall also record them in the county so title companies are aware of the assessment if property is sold. 6.3.4 The terms established for the bonds on the date of sale, the pattern of maturity, etc are dependent upon the condition of the bond market at the specific time of the sale. Therefore, staff needs the 'authority to make immediate decisions in response to the market. 6.3,5 Interest to be charged on installment contracts for unbonded assessments" is to be two percent greater than the interest charged in the most recent bond sale or two percent greater than what is charged the other property owners in the same LID, whichever is greater. 6.3.6 Prior to the expiration of the maintenance bond. staff will do a final inspection, arrange to clear everything pending with the contractor, and when cleared, informthefinance department who in turn, informs the bonding company to release,the maintenance bond, Cr 6.4 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES_ 6.4.1 The costs of issuing the bonds are estimated and added to the total costs for those applying to pay in installments. 6.4.2 Determine service charges for the successive billings, and review the rate annually. 6,4.3 Determine service charges for covering costs to update` the county's lien docket and other costs, and review the rate annually. 6.4.4 Develop and adopt a process for reviewing applications to reapportion a Bancroft account. lIQ 'POLICY AND PAGE37. PROCEDURES - DRAFT (5/2/85): ' APPENDIX w PAGE LID POLICY AND PROCEDURES -.DRAFT- (5/2/85). 38 1 _ t } Y A n TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL City of ,Tigard County of Washington State of Oregon In the Matter oftheImprovement ) of lands described as: ) PETITION FOR AND CONSENT TO CREATE A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT Petitioners hereby request that the hereinbelow described area be improved by creation of an assessment district for the express purpose of (1) That the unde.�:signed is in fact the owner(s) or the contract purchaser(s) of the indicated property(s). (2) That the undersigned represent one-half or more of the affected area as here- inbelow described. (3) That the cost of this improvement to be borne by the benefited properties and in respect thereto respectfully show: That the area proposed hereby to be improved by creation of an assessment tstrict comprises approximately acres, and is legally described hereinbelow or in the attached sheet marked Exhibit "A" which by reference herein is made a part hereof) . WHEREFORE, petitioners pray that said lands be improved by creation of an - assessment district and that the City Council of the City of Tigard, Oregon, expedite creation of the`same as provided by law, Signature Address Map # Book # Tax hot # Page # Eugene,OR Register-Guard (Cir.D.66.030) (Cir.Sat.72.321) (Cir.Sun.72.174) MAY 13 1983 P.C.s Fit. 1888 i f�efd_ gets aBancro f t cure t But the councils,swayed by developer pleas to CitA.staff las force n given the Springfieldikee a ood thing going, took only half-way pre- ho Council several dozen pages of good advice- ventative measures. And the city staff didn't do a how to get the city out of Its Bancroft bond hole and dd how to avoid digging fu uressjob of administering or policing the program. . cal pits. good Hopp 1y,the;council seems d1spased�to accept it. There's nothing halfway about the cure rec- ould lhatpast coun �ctcils had;oinly',•listened to Omffiended by the task force. d mm- s>mllar advise . dew Bancroft loans wouldbe limited to s sine:igSO f..t had,.the city's ncratt,tiale, •manageable'total of$V million a.year;with'subd!- protiably could dbe Hearty so-64"P.--l- .0 ' visions at the.bottom of the loan priority list. No Bancroft bodds:were originally conceived as a new sitbdiviston would get Bancroft loans until the way for libmec ners t$use city credit to,pay for city sells at!east 75 percent of the 350-plus proper street,sidewalk�and seder-improvements'around tics �t was stuck with through Bancroft foredo- their homes.-bities s6ld1ow4aterest bonds to rV sures, nance'the improvements and gave the homeown- Developers Xould be required to put up 25 ers i0-to-20 years to pay ahem off: percent of their project•costs in advance.•They'd But developers.dlj�overed that Bancrofting no longer be able to iLse•Bancroft financing for so was also a chow :way..to subsidize many of their mucNof'theft cosh And staff procedures would be costs in developing nevi sualivislor�. They per vastIW-Improvgd. suaded,Sprii gfieid•,to foll6w4n.;ul"4Iberal,virtu- . ally no•Ilm'lt;:Bancroft policy.that allowed,them to' . $ven if all,the policy ctianges are adopted,the borrow for more of their costs:--and!n a.greater city,will be a long time climbing out of its Bancroft total amount; than In any other Oregon city. hole..But, with luck, it should be able nce t id Great deal, while it tasted. But when the bot- having to levy a special citywide tax to finince the tom fell out of the housing industry, developers climb.. couldn't sell their lots and couldn't make their The council .seemed in agreement on the Bancroft payments. Many of them leXt.Springfield dhanges at a work session`last Monday. All that holding the financial bag ` . remals is a public hearing this'Monday and for- All this happened In just three years. During ,mal council adoption. that period,Springfield councils were warned sev it might be a good idea to add to the new eral times- by city officials and, editorially, by policies a written warning to future councils:When the Springfield !dews and Register-Guard — that dealing with the city's credit,listen carefully and ttie city was getting in over its head. • act conservatively. s, LEI 9, 2 j kF + §3F FRr i(gY IS 1. • 3 � '• � � L r st .7.'^ Oc� .-y tH6r� >" J s `xCY•tr�� Win.■- �i`. LL =Ny ... Y �i�VO•�� jrtMV�Y .;•kik ,fes• k IP • Ya °V �� a gr � F � �r•e .. Y i r. � O " • y tl Y•■ O y r. •. V ���� i C��W a� 14 l��� ii\41. JI I i�W�✓ w tl«t w jr Mr kL V �1 •+p� � • Y�s kF• �M>� i�M�Y�L ,`.r.r�w Y Cyr W -• 1 �t M Y i wi �O mow°.S°v O��N i 1+ • p w Y � �� �Mi ..�� y G r •Y O+.YY • $M c.. •+7 r 7 JO O SN �06C W I J6r.W O{GJt 'al CC M w w P >• r , w P C IS t ` t J r+ t r M Anpr& q �t`I+11!911!+(r I+IalIII J,t,�ott �l�Ittt'itlil{r ittJ�(1Ir)7�T� mjm Ilijll!}�� IliIlt_ ltIIIp IIgTfflIIIIIIfpp 111!111 111 111 +1+11111+l+ll+ll,t,itlrltft0atl � I � i t 'l. `f i I I ' NOTE: IF THIS MICROFiLMED -- 3 -_ 5 $_ f�f) .t I __....__...t2 { film dmk Am DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE. IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL ' DRAWING. �rrE 6Z BZ LZ 8Z SZ 4Z EZ ZZ IZ OZ 61 81 LI t,1111!lllillllllall1111111NlI,HIl11H1111i�t _ JJIIH. i " Uti 7 `, 1990 r } _. •'._.--- __�._._ -.-•..�...--�...._ SCF .. .. r r .. �'+?"-mai—__��-- � - • -;?.. -1. INITIATION 2. FEASIBILITY 3. FORMATION - 4. IMPROVEMENT 5. ASSESSMENT 6. FINANCE AND CLOSURE Citizens/ Indication of E have to pay Opportunity to file Remain in contact pportunity to Pay assessment in Property Interest for the Remonstrances to with Staff [--object to the cash or arrange to Owners Informal Meeting liminary the Formation of Begin to arrange ! spreading of assess-i pay in installments) with Staff ineer's Report the-District financing j ments in writing Pay Assessment as billed Staff i , Informal Meeting Prepare the Prelim-1 Publish and mail Prepare Final Plan! Prepare notices for Pre with property inary Engineer's notices and Specs �• Pare bond the spreading of prospectus owners Report Finalize the Bid Process assessments Bond Sale LID Interest Send status letter Preliminary Manage the Publish and I. Lien Docket Petition to property owners I Engineer's Report construction I send notices and appropriate NPO when necessary Prepare the Final Key Preliminary Priority Ranking for Administrative Evaluation b Staff /,/Arrange rBoard by\ Preparing the Local Contract y / notification proposed assessments Review Board Actions Report by C\ and for the eview accepts bids Staff Public Hearing ward for bonds by on Ordinance ct Resolution / Key Decision Resolution Resolution 17! Resolution Ordinance spreading C1osI�ccounts Directing Staff to of Yntent and Accepting the the assessments and releasing Prepare the setting the date Final Report liens on all Preliminary for the Public \benefited propertied Engineer's Report Nearing -_ Documents LID Interest Draft of ' — -- - - - Bond Prospectus Notices Finalize i Final Plans a Specs Notices Resolution Rcce tin Petition Preliminary I I the Preliminary . Res. Award, Contract) Ordinance Spreading P g PreliminaryP n9 Bids for bonds Engineer's Report I Engineer's Report I, Constr. Contract the Assessments i' Lien Docket Evaluation Report ;. Status Letter Ordinance Forming Final Report Resolution to , Resolution of i � the District Prepare Intent , Letter informing NPO of status \_ I � n6(ej► +It tit Iit alragt I�1 afl III Ill III tll Ij7 T Rl all I t F - I I � I � f a a € l i l � . j_ f �Ti�� � �I r IT�R�?Il{.!C�(ti+I+i!�tl�li+��l+�+fi(+a�E+i+ tNltlr th�tlr rhltla tltlel''tir,tll titlt+t Ila tlt yt'ala - f NOTE: IF THIS MICROFILMED DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN - -THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL -i DRAWING. grim 4 OC 62 -eZ LZ 9Z sZ 42 ez z2 13 Oz 61 BI—LI 91 Sf.-bl £1 Zi- it - 01 g 8" 9- 5 e_. tHI1111II1111�tIlIIla11�111alaNa�alltltla;]flet ..-_(-_-_alli4 'Ma 'AR N+ `V .J 1990 { mom CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY 1 AGENDA OF: may A* 1g8S AGENDA ITEM DATE SUBMITTED: Y2, 1g89 PREVIOUS ACTION:Lq*ters to Commercial Real ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE. Sale of Surplus Estate Brokers inviting proposals for selection _ of broker T.�a _ staxj�s Rpoor PREPARED BY: Doris Hartig REQUESTED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR POLICY ISSUE INFORMATION SUMMARY Council directed staff to follow-up the Oregonian published requests for proposals with .letters to comnercial real estate brokers in the area requesting written proposals. In response to the letters the city received the following: Brokerage proposal from: Glen R. Fotre - Stan Wiley Realtor' .s: J. Robert Muse - Coldwell Banker (distributed with Council mail 4/29/85. If you need additional copy please contact staff) Offer from Clay B. Ayers. Staff has responded per Council direction. To date we have not heard further from Mr. Ayers. Staff is request i" direction how to proceed ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED SUGGESTED ACTION ri ..x£`-�.. -�... ,e.e"...swu�Y�i`cla*.�..x�i;'�'���x.+.'�•';,.r _ Y ..,,y(. ��. .r�aa�at►a�s= ���il�/ x MENEM MEMORANDUM CITY OF.TIGARD, OREGON TO; Honorable Mayor and City Council May 2, 1985 FROM: Loreen Wilson, Recorder 40 SUBJECT: Agenda Item #12 The attached draft policy calendar and article are for your consideration and discussion Monday evening. Please bring additional information for this item which was distributed in you 4/29/85 packet under agenda item# 7. lw/2716A 4 gn ,t AIM 1 � _MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD. OREGON TO:, Honorable Mayor and City Council ' FROM: Bob Jean, City Administrator s-� I '3 �!!! SUBJECT; Council Policy Calendar 4/29 Monday policy/Calendar Review. 5/1 Wednesday Budget Committee Recommendation 5/6 Monday Council Meeting, Business Council Meeting. planning Commission/NPO �jWorkshop. 5/13 Monday41Y� 0 5/I5 Wednesday Boardsmanship Workshop 02. mhor :y o o� D" • 5/2o :. Monday Ot*Snc 1 Mae usiness (Apparent Low Bid?) CCA 5/22 Wednesday Budget Committee Workshop: (5127 Monday NO COUNCIL MEETING, Memorial Day) Council Meeting. Business (MACC Executive Sessio ► S/1O Monday _ Civic Center Bid Award) 6/1? Monday Business. Council Meeting. C sued-}?�-- rfs 6/24 Monday Council Meeting, Business. i lw/O8I3p alp '§iW^GT."`i•/�.ps�-y..Y�»,i..£-7Mc2.��'�.#.k---4-G:�_^c 1=0 Mr aft- 'f•he Following two articles arc adapted front presentations ntade during IC NIA's 1984 Annual Conference ill San Antonio, Texas. Ex•alua6011s c:tnnpletcd by conference participants rated ' thCSC SCSsiona particularly high.- --Ed. The Quality of C-M Govei_m_ __m_ _ent Mayor Henry G. Cisneros San Antonio, Texas i is my pleasure to bring you the warmest welcome i that l pos-sibly can on behalf ofthe city government t of San Antunio-uur city council—but, more im purlant. on behalf•of the people of our city. We are ccrY•proud to show you what is happening in San Anto- nio. As in any other major city, we have to walk the tightropes that balance various tensions,tugs,pulls,and K conflicts against great possibilities for the city.One of the tightropes that we think we have walked particularly well ,. is balancing the legacy of the pas:against prospects fur the future. i San Antonio is the 10th largest city in the country.We ' expect to grow at about a 30-percent rate in the decade of the 1980s,having grown at about a 20-percent rate in the Via" 1970x.We started the decade with about 850,000 popula- tion and will be roughly at a million people by the year 1490.More important than the population groxvth,how- ever,is the spreading and diversification of our economic base that is now underway. Much of that is the direct �`- result of city and private sector cooperation. projects such as the development of our medical com- plex have been a joint endeavor between the public and ptivatc sectors. Because we have targeted the biosci- ences iosci enccs as a major thrust for our economic development, we are building a 1,500-acre technology-oriented re- search park. The university of Texas %vas recently per- suaded to build its Center for Biotechnology adjacent to a complex that now employs about 20,000 people as a 11clin G.C•isnrns medical center: Recent years represent a very productive time. I am that size. We are proud to Say that all are successful and nut at all reluctant to say that the greatest period of progressive cities. prosperity for San Antonio and our greatest successes During the depths of the recession of 1982,San Anto• cart be attributed directly to our city manager form of nio's bond rating actually increased from AA to AA+, government._characterized by topflight professionals with a promise that,as our economic growth continued, within a cornrption•I•rce. fiscally sound administration, we would be on a trajectory toward AAA. This rating We believe in the SyStent.We have grown to be one of the came at a time when other cities across the county,not largest cities in the countn•kith this forma It was imple• li,rttntatr enough to have this system, were actually stented in 1952 as a restdt of a reform effort after the losing points un their bond rating. Su, we swear be the urntptiun associated with the commission form ofgoy- council-manager Berm of government, and one of the rmnew that preceded it. reasons we do is our pride in our present cite manager. Chtly Dallas. Phoenix, and Satt Diego are larger than Um Fox. Sall.Antonio in ()ill-ownpopulation group. other major I want to compliment each ul vuu indixidualh for the liliesi . acres: the cuortu%''tn the so-called Second tier pfv 4ifrssion vuu hae chosen, It ha%twee.ugrestrd that a iitell dc.Cinciirriati.Salt JoNe.'Miami.and other cities o1 part(J our work todav in tial Antonio proceeds front nth I'uhhr \taua�•rrnent .I:ttruur� -1`)�i ; li,� n'. n1.11..1„t.l' ,!`:i.l i 1i „rl, ...•11.1. t)1't Vti il1.1' t 111t.�t t: t •.11! Ihl'n t. !t.i 11 ut. tilitlt . !t,'.n, 1c'... . \:.Iu,lill. U ,•1':t ! n• ,•t VI lit n!.nt �Itat-•,, :11 rtt n lI } Jr I I,til�, 1 ,l I+, u n ! It I .I, I!t Ill !t.l••t 1 II- I I,.11,..it i II ;. 1,II , 1 ..Ilii!ii1.1! i :.,1 ! t'l it ... I nt !!ilei\ it tx•ttt t til In t! r! +t l ut t \1 ur( t\t Ili•: Int 1( t •, rl .l'1 ilnll Ir !. .1:1 I' ,� t ., t,l';-t't. ;I1 • i' },I ;Ill: ' I, t }. 1. !!;, I„ .i, 1 :n. !. :u,ultl throve a}, u!u 11 ult l� t lt.ull, l.ltll Srr ! .r..nl} ! . tit,ll It ,�„•t.. ;�tlt I}It.' Flt• .t (,.�tl, .,utf .:1� l. tilt• till �t lnv!lt !t,��al�l nlrin A„n,. 1 It-,:. II \t.I• . a} ( '.t, y.n !l .I r.ltf it I\,lilt'titkCIII u!Ili'' .'11111utt I 1 •t-,Ili i .I�t Inrnl t,l .11;. t;-nisi!{°.t.It_ ; .u .l."'+ tltfur ,t•II!,It .'n ,! i111Cn+Irlht cull,,! 1 !t e� til:A • r I h t lllit• ant! "I c, f ,I:;iu ,I,- ..l !•. till I'll]III 1 n�,:iu lll,ilt.vnlS It r11� ;• t11•,•.t'.lit:1 b �.,lil' ii X111,. 1 tt 'fC ll,tltt'lli I{'!1 ,1 tun ru 11111 vvht uc F,I. Ilit It !It imi, ituu11, tilt I't,•r Ill of lir, ! low. aivvav� h tit n< Ileav n I! It Ilv tilt !vlull „! • It It" (hila t,lit t I t4•nl Inti ht � In.1II iltl{1t t:I:Ittl \\(1iI� Tt Ill:' ill” I.1!' 11 i \ lit' !1,I„t,It:lltl \•}�;l! I:t,,t l �t`1 ,i 1",l lc'•. t 'I' l?'. .!('halt 41c tlrl 111 It I, Il I,{ic I:i Illi !,itt t :�1t;; k.il.t�t tln.: Il i,r .,. Ilt`I 'll a (I ,ter AAfill it„ 'tt,I 1 ',\ �tlllt:.h ill 1t'•t w 11 4+l.tt .!I-i n :Iii! {,till! l I.:A, II;11, !..!; .l rtt Illlt' l'• 1 ., �Ijl 1•. Ii t. ,t !n Ili •t',, !I !ht Initis\ Iltf lilt {''lilt Ict 1 ife',t t l II ” t' •u c }.,itt t I c ;i1,t t Ill,t! 1, lit, it.lit: t !>1 t!r + ilf hr:'t I11 "\ 111 II 1 ti t It +h�: . � ill:c�t•itthI.,i til lilt\ can tilt' It, tilt'(1, 1 r11 tt n.• 1t\t{t;},m II I ht c-t.`I,.II �t:t!tE�. 1II littlt'll1 : II lllt' ,ni,� ,Ilitl 11` 't1:11I:11�t`I 1:' ty•I;,,'11lit isA1`z (tlntl rn.' 't ltthilt: h,rl:lt i art onl. ,t + , ht n' i;atr_.:i tin Itt •V t•' n,tl,t , 11 t ti Iti�.utN hclulr { tvt fl lift �unitt,tl t,l hlr,r,t It_' Ih:u lt.tt Iv!' �Ivva4ttr Ir ,hc� till tircatlt': ut Ittlhl ill Ihr 1:Ic! th.ti ��c air �t!I� tl ilir� f `.ti ? ;-l1rll"Ill 'it IA I l l 111 UhC11 AAt ;1:t- :1 It it nu,rninl! Ili,, i>n .! .:Eurh �u a rill ytint .111 ht ?kt It t nnl. fill '3 l( ,ritcnl tncnt(Ilo\lll rt IR Itlfl tntlau\ ue.f t{tat tvalrt of ;If mfItt:t s• tilt lila' ! hu,tilr�� lila! v<,u tic' a1,ti i . t(it tl'• f..il,- na! tiltIt 'c the Iet 111 ct:nl ,n t t rn'L. vN ilii rtlla sallolial itI11111i,itlItm,l'I” tt•IItt1 lx't,11ic oI uul cuun(1� I t'•I111) ! tcu! vtxi 1( \1.1 :tett ttI 111 it ru;l1 tht!!ut• \r xr t l,!! _I 3!,. It,lIt .tll)tllball •1,1totA (h.tIItts fill( :ur .iu\t ti \uuI aftthatc, In! !hc 1,luh••-atIII Inannt r rl tth,l I, .1,'; t: ! lit I, trnuill Ott\ x'huuIN, A, \\r ttt-a? \\rtll Ihrst till\c,II \\Iit1 ! tul!irtu�, 1,utl.rihuol.” tlursUum, of \\hcihr rlhrir illi i t\otlId li1(, }t:ur ."Ilii' tilt illpiIl ,I: t i ?,� (that Ihr( Ia\, ant{ \t hu rct� lhrin illi' h1 rm nt•.t u ! rn.tcavt)r, lilt II is the 1u16ltc'tihu�ultt.- Ir it>c:t! 1 iii l n!,ut. 1 an! nu! lllr�untlluluu� , n 'u_h It• iia,t In , •Flt nitlxlrt:u,l uh;ct l•, t<.r t u\ 3'occrnnicntti ttI addless lulu \\tial atfritti cuut uitlnitlua! clue.,,but a au clot itI! (u\ Il2 ttlatICIN Ilia\ (t.lrn a nett lant•ualtr situ{Illi tilt-. o!hrial I ant a\carr of some of tilt Il)aicil Iht-nx•;111,11 al c 1lrorcNs Thr IAd nttratiutlt-tutc of econonttt ttc\rIo11 t!oull! to hr Ir.irav nith Ill Will tut uur hu.tut,s. nu'nt \\,I \\alrt ht,I lit trail"ptil1.11 ion, po!is, hl ltil't". In Ili\ 1ut13!Illrni, unr of {fill~, themes Ihai IN t whist, \calchcath loatl\\ac , cult! 'uch Ihr tic\\ hilrast urtult' Intl :Ihnoa a .11L lit. nu•.\ 1� lilt arnnht:utt c u! a Lint! tJ teat hc. (INa \%hole nt-•.\ L1lalugur a tint:uSaun uI \Cil .uatrgtt 111annn1lt aN,q!nrti 11.tine \!ilei) ! list-(lit !crit' 1.!rt tallua! ant! lilt t u\ ruin nt hclllut1 ute(A cl u ,tl Ilt:glc 111annn!.. 1 :Int nl,l tallni ab, Irt 11, hill hilt arallahlht\ \tuhut connnuniltrs,the tlrtllr)rta,ttr of creat 1 atilt-! ahuut `ht .unlllc rrahiauu!! tital rule'alt' ,r! Ina lisle Ir.calt h Ila(Ls,civ,1;nnlncnt•., anti thine Wille-IO llktt I:up!cr ,unit \t of nauunal {hath,• and tetrads lilt- caulk\, a10111's ilial Ir.c;urh cu:ttlrustc. Icntl to illi' 1'ht ell\ . uI\ul\rnirnl I, tlultallc tlIIp0ttaut nil; •t' : tha11 llil l'rt,11un1\ alit! !fill Ino\rltlrnl i,? l,rt>111t' :It Ills, 1,11L i t,\ l Ililicnf alit lit :1 tU1111r1'1(I\C \\'1\ \\Ilii rtfuc:l Lim ruuntrc aIt unlllrtcticIlletl ill Antrltcalt ht iur. II tilt: conil , thou' rhanitc \\,. ncrI! u: la:: •.t ral tlonal ulslIIIItl„IIN \\t,tlnig u,\\anl pretrial-+ ant! 'CL un tar: ctlut at;tnl (,t tilt- ht�hr�t yuahte, nnul\ ana tlr\!hl1 IrahUc� y t 1'uhllt \l.,na,•t'nlrnl'lamlal\ It):<' 3 junior college prugrnr.Is•se IItoI college c,II I ictlIII lms til:It (regi, vvlote the heat-.rlhng Ix,uk .�rrn . /.. Irl �clnrh tar earl fruild to existing stcnl!Ihs in the etuiunurrrtr to de.clIbcdtile ahrhc:ait'll„1.1;Ihanca•cluahtcncicIdeas altr;tt:1 :ttichuOnal jt)h. It councl►rllerllhc•t.• nla\,w.s. and to Antrrrt an,c011a1t;11101I• III-. tieLc i,uuk. //rr 1111wmed Other elected officials. In their cll,,rt to he rc,pon.ne, .ti,nrt•h,center.un the the.I.that a Itri t,i uicitculnal.and start understanding these kinds ut r..urs,civ nlanagcrs urg:uuiatulll,ut Anuruan suclrt\ u,da\ tare rile calxlr and rite aclministraurrs soon will nrcel rile ,aj�at ih to Itr to block x01011.Mill a tc\v ha%c the ahilitc it,get things implement city a and st respond to"heti dtlnc alone The nro"I ,ucce..trll oc those when hate Them will be a dimension of inttv'narlcrnal concent as mastered models ul consensus or of cat I disc u..u,tr and attracting foreign investment becomes more ilnpor7ant dialogue. I stibnrit to you that act hoc methods of doing Japanese frnms air h1111ding here; scandlnavlans arc that arc pmbabh tint trl,nlp tt, be Al that .uccc..hd In u, he thnik building here; West ("crnl:ul Inrc.,tors arc lookrrlt• lot our cltic�, we licca } 411I.e IC 11 Ut,Ll.. locations. An important ruie will be to t1evelup the aluctrred(Jc%ices and nlrclsant.nr.1it,r lLlcrng than kusu capacity of small buslncsscs within tilt, community to of dialogue. he a counutbal- expon, adding jobs through foreign trade. Phoenix has The third and final theme .t_cn's to ? been phrnonlrnalty successful at this.Tire city, working ance against Inclusiveness but It Icallr is not Conlmuni ,J with the U.S. 17rpartment of Cununerce, has created a tics, just like good corl)oraootrs. Iuri.: h:a\r :t bias fur mlmhrr of forums that now make it possible for Mort, actin Lousensu,cle uh need. to be bwh,and then we than 40 percent of its small businesses with—1—thrrlg to need to nlu�e- rnurl last and me>Lc�c nil I demonstrable J export tube uI the exporting business. It w'- nerd a real Ivgl essivenes.,and capil ity to .hoc+ result.. concern of city govcrnment,and sonic would argue that Stam thing% will change in our cuunuy as we go it still is not.The political agenda and the reality of dubs, toward,but some must stay tale same One of these c,the cl Income,who works,how much will be paid,and whether innate of. le M that has always.para boLlI cd the of lent the prosperity of the city can go forward must concernl can people. hh favorite anccdutt, abuor govcrnment city government, however These are not Sunbelt issues optimism comes froln one of tile darkest rnonrcnts in Io Phoenix. San Jose, Tucson, and Albuquerque only. American hiswn dor uIg the Civil��'ar when rhe caunu� one could make the case that they are even more impor- threatened to tear itself apart: In 1861, %--hen it was nut rant fur cities in the industrial areas where fundamental clear that rile war vrould be won ur ►liar rile counuti transition is confronted daily in the declining tax bases would be reunified, the American Cungless met arrd and in decisions about ttte use of capital stocks,declining passed a piece of legislation that has been swceputg in its bond ratings,and more dangerous fiscal situations. impact.It was called the Moral Act,which set up the land 50,strategic: vision,the developed ability to relate tilt: grant college system and put the ledrral gocernmrnt to city's future to the Forger American future as an integral the position of supporting education. In effect,the Con i part of the city governmental function,will be a charas- gress was saving."We do not know how this rear is going teristic of cities that choose to be masters of their own to turn out,but when it is over we know that we are going destinies. Cities that choose otherwise will be tossed to nerd dams and roads built, people tengineer those about like driftwood on the stormy seas of economic projects, teacher to teach. and lore ads and i change. animal husbandr}•mcrl to build the farm-►o-market sys- A second theme that 1 wish to share is the concept of tem. We are going to , and we nerd all u! those things inclusiveness to accomplish unity of purpose--inclusion nerd to invest public dollars and public talents to make of people in a structured dialogue to try to achieve them happen."That has been a major pan of rile Amen consensus. The old way of doing business from the top can story and so too will it be in the future. ret in ures within city govern- the American way, co down. from authoritative stn►ctbined with a healthy respspecct fur m i mems as well as in communities,is less likely to-,vork in the capacity of the people working together, investing the future. When this route is attempted and fails, the their resources,will help build an even greater country result is gridlock.A few years ago,a Japanese author,Mr. t i I Public M;uragenlcnt%.lanuar' IdK On Conducting the CiV*cSymphony: 'Me Role f the City Manager ^ in Modern encu } Ralph Clark Chandler I Professor of Political Science Western Michigan University Kalamazoo, Michigan Your weakness, City, is that you have a Thi bass plaver retorted that the loss of his immortal soul ...,as to be preferred to sharing a stand with such an soul.-Laurencc Hartmus impostor.Since that day. they have never lived together. City and indeed the two departments are now frequently seen on opposite sides of the orchestra. 1 Among the woodwinds, reeds comprise the burning ou are in a concert hall. it is early evening. The question before a performance. While the instruments orchestra is assembled. It is making last-minute are being warmed,reeds are being carefully tested.Some preparations before the arrival of the conductor and the are found wanting. Flutes and brass have no reed worries,of course,and beginning of the concert. The first violins are called upon for more virtuosity cavi snatch a moment's rest before the curtain. than the other strings,and so novo the plavers are looking The percussionists arc anticipating being,offbeat while at the awkward passages they will have to negotiate in a they keep track of their silence.Also,tuning the tympani few moments. One player mutters to himself that he hasalways involves the danger of putting a crick in one's tried 16 fingerings for this passage, and none of them n At l work. He asks his partner for a suggestion. At last, the moment arrives. The conductor enters to "First on E,fourth on G sharp,and pray for luck on the rousing applause. You enter to conduct the civic sym• top B.Sometimes it comes off." phony. The second violins have less interesting and exacting The cacophony is silenced as you step onto the po- parts to play, so they can be more carefree now. The po- dium. At the instant you lift your baton, the varied principal second violin does have his share of respon• elements of the orchestra come together. The rivalries sibility.though. He must lead the seconds into the diffi- are forgotten,and harmony is produced. cult entries. Let us devoutly hope. The violas are always very serious,of course.They are First Movement shuffling about with chairs to claim adequate room for Actually,as you stand there looking at what you have to their heavy instruments and overarching purposes. The cellos, always an irresponsible and cheerful lot, orchestrate.the elements of administration you have to have begun their evening by digging into the platform direct,you stand in stark terror.The program tonight is good and hearty with their spikes. A cellist must have a Dvorak's Svrtrphonv Jor the New Wurlrl.Can you bring the -state to sense of humor,since he has to spend many of his waking new world fAthens.being? Can you restore Rublican Rome,achend city Padua of hours leaning over a large box. eglory oe p The basses are the most spectacular in their prepare- Marsilius? tions.They are almost blatant in their spit and polish and You consider the plavers. Your first chairs,the depart- general grooming.Tuning among the basses,also known mem heads,are as idiosyncratic as one would find in any as doghouses among the literati, is a little suggestive of other orchestra. The personnel director is a virtuoso at stables,although the conversations of the players range what she does, but she needs to be reminded now and from masonry to poetry. again that technical competence is not everything. The There is always a good-humored war going on between budget director is very able,but he really cannot perform the basses and the cellos,each affecting a slight contempt outside the public budget,which is the score from which fur the other: it is said the feud began at the opera mam the symphony plays.The police chief can despise the fire years ago when the principal bass and the principal cello chief as much as the bass players despise the cellists,but if Ad- players.shared a music stand. Because of the sloe of the they must make music together in your symphony. Ad- larger instrument, there was a tradition that the cellist libbing on the score will not do, because it causes should turn the page. For years, the two lived together dissonance. i =` amicabh,but the day came when a new cellist declared You are in a unique position to influence the plavet. that he and his whole race had stood this indignity long because unh the conductor of ye pees onl has the full enough.and tic) more would a cellist serve a mere bass score in front u(him. >j�ch player secs only his part on the stand.fie soon know%its limitations,�s player. p�ciall if it is I'rthlic ht:uta.1'cnlei tj.lamt:nx 1955 6 t � � q ) sfi�i Y � l ...t � _ } �1t'COilti MovementIYI h:yas l can hclp:t bn hunt IIIc IUth}trach l_utn c I:r... Kathleen "tiattle Axc'• Munroe taught IIIc that a i,'I Perhaps tile• point at cchrch it is ,;tercet tot the cit.\ ;,;t!>lu u, a rep+tblic, ewhteh is what it cite is, I, a le,- ntanager to ldenuh v%uh the riwlc scntplIwIN analOgv is Ihnt} pithliru- of the people Nis. Monroe would he that of orchrstralu1l dnersuw Onc n} the• mo-t obcimis ptotid io know that I renicinbcr Iniblicis is nt the genitive• chatacleristics ul centre is drnio}rapine ,Ontptevn and k ase A republic is a Ifting uI the people. 11 scents well, inlctcst group pluralism Acid tilt, high limbllne Irl pc„plr Ihrn, for us to Ir♦ to understand tilt, pre:plr as thee du moving in and out of cities. Acid the large nuniber OI Ihelr thing.01 COut-se•,the people arc uninformed,scllish, governments that meet and overlap in the cuy•s jui isdic and myopic But they are also created in the Image of ion. Add the requirements til economic develops+erns God and have an infinite capacity to be more than Add politics. Add that must mysterious 01 all elements uninformed, selfish, and mwopic. Our iob is to ttv w 'tile public." conduct thein in their blunderi ._ and meandering The result isthat the traditional 110SIXOKB tasks of ,e;trch for civic harmony. planning, organizing, staffing, directing, coordinating. It civic harmony requires economic development,iti- reporting, and budgeting must be exercised at it nee• ban renewal,jobs for the unemployed,relief for the poor, level of generality,and they must be extended deepIN int( and strategies for building Arrowhead Stadium, for ex the Cotnnuinity. The model of tilt, rite nu+naget as cngr .ample,while engaging in cutback management,it is Oreh neer does not do anymore. More gellerai liberal arts lair to say a few kind words for the embattled conductor. philosophical, and cwen theological scnsrbilihcs are rt, file tenuous nature of the city manager's job explains quired to conduct the modern civic symphum cvhy almost 30 percent of city manager•councii relation. Always in the background is Shakespeare's line In ships svere contractual in 1980.9 Some tenure in office is C'orjolt,iva that "the people are the city,"b or%Valt %Vhit required even to understand the cornplexity Of urban man's notion In Siert;of the Broad Apt'that"a great cite is problems,much less to have an impact on there. Predict that which has the greatest men and women. If it be a few ability and continuity in staff relationships are also vet% ragged huts, it is still the greatest coy in the whole inlpottant. Conductor Theodore Thomas once said he world."' w'uuld go to hell if then would 1•ivc him a permanent "The people" of "the public" is ant Idea that public orchestra. administrators have not been taught much about. Jarnet; Third Movement Kunde complains about this in a recent issue of l"!blit, Management Conducting a symphony is basically a matter of synthe- We were (asighr, inam4ge meat to it it c rune (ruin the els,with overtones of analysis.Both professionalism and private.sec•tor. We were told:let's he efficient tortl of fectire a touch of elan are needed.Elan is defined in Wehcter's We were liven a little hitt,(political theory,but n e Ira rent 5erertth New Collegiate Uiciionory as"ardor"or"dash." taught a lot about the idea of public•. What doe.. public• The skill, expertise, and sheer energy required of a oneoii iti the kind of society we have to !rare? That's t, conductor are enormous. Think of how long he must cornerstone upon which to build the rest.e sustain arm movements through a performance. Sir Henry Wood has drawn up a list of qualities a tom • conductor should possess. LeRoy Harlow has done the same for the city manager. i invite you to consider both ...�. lists in terms of their interchangeability.The translations hum One vocabulary to the other are fun to do also. First, regarding the conductor. • .•r 1. A conductor must have complete general know'l _ ,. edge of music. e +. 2. A conductor must have more than a slight acquaint- ance with every instrument of the orchestra and de- '. ° tailed knowledge of at feast one stringed instrument. 3. 3. A conductor must play the piano well. kj 4. A conductor must have an impeccably sensitive ear, 1- as well as a well-developed rhythmic and interpretive sense. > 5. A conductor must be unafraid of the art ut gesture. �. 6. A conductor must be a perfect sight reader and a sound musician. i 7. A conductor must study the art of singing. 8. A conductor must have a good physique, a good icnnper,arid a strong sense of discipline.10 Second.Harlow's thoughts on the city manager, 1. A city manager must develop plans to achieve the a objectives of his or her organization. 2. A city manager must divide the work to be done into pails,assign to each part the needed human, material, and financial resources, and then assemble the palls -- -� Into a working whole. 4 Public Managenlcnt,r.lanualx 198.5 �� tttt�■ 3. A city manager most staff the organiiation with It i, not the otitis• u•ito(•ratios, mot the Datil it./if)point, qualified people.giving personal attention ur the selec- olio hit, 1114',timig o,t,ii .trrinhled, or n•11"te the doer ii/ tion of people for key positions and providing training dr.d. cuald halm door• h,•tlrr the credit belong, to ihc• for innttediate subordinates ro( t) who t, arrtvalhv if)lht•turi,u. it-Ito",fuer i,irraried by 4. A city manager must decide among the alternativc 111,1 tinct'weal rood blood,who.trice.%valianth•, who err, courses of action open to the organization. and conies tip short again a,rd main,who knows the great S. A city manager must entrust to heads of departments enthttsiasors,the great devuiions,and spend.+Itiursel f in a part of the responsibility,authority,and accountability worthy c•atrse,a hu at heat knows in the end the triumphs delegated to him or her. of high achieve,nr►rt,acrd who at worst,if lie fails,at least 6.A city manager must super-vise in both general and fail, while durir►g greathY, so that his place shall iiever he specific terms the people in the organization directly tvah iho.w cold and tiorid wrtbs who know neither defeat responsible and accountable to him or her for accom- liar•victurv.'s plishing the organization's work. in the republic of art,those who play the second pans 7. A city manager must represent his or her orgamia• are important.One of the measures of a great conductor tion in its relations with the governing board and with is how he feels about the second violins and the player at outside institutions when requested to do so by the the end of the row. In the civic symphony,these are the governing board. people who have no power,who make no demands,and 8. A city manager must report to the governing board, who do not complain to the commissioners. These are and through it to the public, on past pe&rmance, the people without political resources or social skills. anticipated future conditions, and proposed actions They are the very young,the very old,and the poor and and goals.'' disadvantaged who live in the shadows of the city. How Common to the conducting,role wherever practiced is you feel about them, what you do for them, is the true the quality of personal authority.This is not the authority measure of your professional ethics. of position as much as it is the authority of personhood The difficulties the manager faces in bringing harmony and ideas. Others know if we have been to Delphi. to a dissonant society are substantial. But,as Edward R. Richard Strauss once said, "If you cannot control the Murrow once said, "Difficulty is the one excuse that orchestra by the quality of your ideas,you do not belong history never accepts."t•it is easier to live with difficulty in front of it."►= il•we devise ways to become a part of our own perfor• mance.Difficultv is not"out there any longer. Difficulty Fourth Movement is not the recalcitrant councilmember or the retrench ment petitions. Rather it is that part of evil we have However able the conductor of the civic symphony possessed and made so much a part of our own life might be. I cannot imagine one who would enjoy per- affirmation that it no longer has power over us. One of forming in a deteriorated concert hall with a group of the most important teachings the ancient Hebrews be- dissatisfied musicians who could strike at any moment. queathed to us is that evil has no ultimate power over The situation might also include a board of directors split good. 4-3 on the continuance of the conductor in his job,and Plato talked about becoming a part of our own perfor- an audience circulating petitions to cut ticket prices and mance when he described the qualifications of virtuous lower costs. That is the condition of life for many city public administrators in Athens. managers. Like a symphony board that is musically illiterate, Thev must have the right purl of intelligence and ability, many of you find yourselves with city councils that lack and also ►mist look upon the coint►wmvraltlr as their the intelligence,experience,and motivation to set policy. special concent—the..ort of concern that is%ed for some. Because they do not understand the fundamental divi- thing so closely hututd lip with oneself that its interests and sion of labor between the legislative and executive func- faruares,furgoud or ill,are held to he identical with one's tions of government,councilmembers often attempt to otr•11.17 become involved in the daily operations of local govern. Thus, the civic symphony is conducted by someone went. If you have difficulty explaining the dichotomy of who makes no distinction between the public good and separation of powers. I suggest that you revisit the his or her private good.The players,the instruments,the classics of our profession. score, the music, the total experience of communal Turn to Woodrow Wilson,for example,to his seminal integrity come together in the harmony of God's sound essay of 1887,"The Study of Administration. In it, he u �• Just as the music from David's lyre once said, "Administration ties outside the proper sphere of calmed the soul of the tormented King Saul,the orches- politics.1113 Or turn to Jean Jacques Rousseau,who said tra of the city plays down its disorder to pursue the new simply in the Socia/Contract:"It isnot good for him who world. makes the laws to execute them."14 The baton of autos- omy with which you direct the civic symphony must be Endnotes kept untarnished in your hand. 1. Adapted ft It is true you will be criticized for what you do with the um Bernard Shure.The Urc hrsnu speak., (Free. N.Y.:Books l()r Libraries Press, 1938,reprinted in 1972)• baton,You simply cannot please an audience so diversepp.3.8•Mr:Shari is a It,rmrr metnlx r of the British B-oadcast- that it is composed of fans of Mozart,Willie Nelson,and ing Cotttpany .Syniphutty. the Grateful Dead all at the same time.You must conduct 2. Charles Blackman. Behind the llaton (Nese York: C haros anyway,and when vour critics become shrill,remember F•nta rpt rocs. 1964),p.27. the advice-of another.public administrator. Theodore _;: Robed Baster."Tvtams til the Podium."The lowitimetatdi.t, Z Roosevelt: \•u1. I.A.Nu: 2(tia plrnihri' 1483),pp.40.41 Public Management/Janu:u� 1985 9 ME CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ^� AGENDA OF May 6, 3985 AGENDA ITEM DATE SUBMITTED Mary 2, 1985 PREVIOUS ACTION: None ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Directors Decision gr MLP 5-85 M 1-85, V 9-85. Baldwin PREPARED BY: Community Development a i 4dUllrich REQUESTED BY: (DEPARTMENT MEAD OK: L�� CITY ADMINISTRATOR: POLICY ISSUE r INFORMATION SUMMARY Attached is the Director's decision for MLP 5-85, M 1-85, V 9-85, for Jean Baldwin and Richard and Sharon Ullrich to adjust and divide three parcels into five parcels, plus a variance to allow a 20-foot wide driveway. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Receive and File, 2. Motion to remove from Consent Agenda and call up for Council review at a later meeting. SUGGESTED ACTION Receive and file. ;, CI 1Y Of 11GARD NO f Ii:E OF DLC-1134 CON . MINOR LAND PARTITION MLP 5- 8`s I_OT LINE ADJUSTMENT M 1 -85 VAR]ANCI V 9- 85 APPLICATION: Request by Bill and Joan Baldwin and Richard ,arid Sharon Ullr•ic:h to adjust and then divide three parcels of 0.2.9, 0.78, and 1 .07 acres into Five parcels of 40,300, 20,800, 8, /00, 7800, 8,600 square feat. A variance is also "requested to allow 'a 20 foot wide driveway width where 24 feet is required. The property is zoned R -4,5 (Residential 4.5 units/acre) and is located at. 13500 and .1.31130 SW 171 Ave. (Wash. Ca. lax Map 2111 30), Tax tots ` 4400, 4401 and 4500). DECISION: Notice is hereby given that Lhc Planning Director for Lha City of Tigard has APPROVED Lho above described applications subject Lr, certain conditions. The findings and conclusions ort which the Director based his decision are as noted below. A. FINDINGOFFACT 1 Background The subject properties were annexed to the City in 1.979. No other land use actions have been reviewed by the City. 2. Vicinity Information The properties to the east ori Terrace Trails Drive, one parcel on Lhe west side of 121st Avenue and one property immediate to the south are within the City and are zoned R--4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre). 'The remaining parcels are within WashingLun County. The entire area is designated for Low Density Residential development in the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. Single family residences lie to the north (Woodcrest Subdivision) and east (Terrace Trails). A long, narrow parcel with a residence borders the subject properties to the south, This southern property was originally to be considered as part of this proposal, but it has been deleted at the request of the applicant. 3. Site Znfor•mation and Proposal Description The subject property contains three parcels and two residences with driveway access Unto 121st Avenue. The properticss are Tong and narrow and they extend from 121st Avenue to Terrace Trails Drive. The property slopes gradually From 121st Avenue down to Terrace Trails Drive. C`' - NOTICE OF DECISION MLP 5-95, M 1-85, V 9-95 - PAGE 1 - The appli.cart prop0sc�s t`, �ul'u ;t.�ar�1Pt5r:rr�fTheraru 6. r,(,sulk- will 1"'l5 _ followed by a par 1.i 1:i�:,i� aF F 800, and S,600 s(It"t c ft(-k - }�arcels of 40,3()0, 20,800, 8,700. :and a pr'iv`"' drivc> is par lhrec� smaller ps�rt:el s .,ir, , undevelnpe intended to provide access to lcrracc: Trails Urivc. idth A varianco is al.st, rcaquestr..d the Code regUir'eI, 'tLho a30ncfu,t.Ww�idv requirement i n t;tce City Code The access strip or easement with a 24 tout wide, pave=c+ driveway . applicant is proposing to install a 70 foot wide drivtr within + 30 foot wide easepient along the northern prr.,perty line. 4. Agency and NPO Comments The Engineering Division has the Following t.almronts: a. Ar easement wi.11 be required for the sanitary sc'wc'r Linc . b, A street opening permit will be r-equirod to gain a"' to Terrace Trails Drive. C. Parking should be restri1tedyfor,25hould bp pr v eet rt ether side of the driveway and a stops g d. A new mailbox cluster will be required. The Building T.nspection Officers has no objection to the r•egitost . The Tualatin Rural Fire Protection District has the followi.ritj coninwnt.s' a. The vertical clearance for- the drive shall be a minimum of 13 .5 feet. 20 feet wide and capable of b. The driveway shall be at least supporting loads up to 40,000 pounds. c ,No Parking" signs are needed along the driveway. d, All portionsof the residences shall be within 500 fret of a fire hydrant. NPO 3 is opposed to the proposal for the following reasons: a Traffic of five additional houses on Terrace Trails Drive. b, The 20 foot wide private drive will inhibit pc,l i.c:o and fire .. . district access. C. The small area an Terrace Trails Drive that is north of the driveway may be a maintenance problem. Several letters have also been received in opposition to the Pr-"P ,sal . x_ The concerns related to Lhe additional traffic, emergency access, :and drainage. V 9-85 PAGE 2 i60TICE OF DECTSION - MLP 5-85, M 1- 85, IWWffr l k1. ANA!_YS.CS AND CONCLUS CON [ ' al i%s subject to the apFsli.table policies in .Lho The review of this propOs Tigard Comprehensive Plan and the relevant 'sections in Lhe Community Development Code. The criteria relevant to the lot. lino adjustment/par•tiL'ion are Plan policies 2. 1.1, 6.3.1, -b 3.2, 6.3 .3, 7.1.2, 7.4.4, and 8.1.3. and Community Development Code Chapter 18.50 and Sections 18.96.080, 18.96.090, 18,162,030, and 18,162.060. The planning staff concludes that the proposal is consistent with the applicable portions uF the Comprehensive Plan basted upon he 'following findings: -a, Policy 2.1.1 , is satisfied because the Neighborhood Planrning Organization was given an opportunity to comment .:.red surrounding property owners will be informed of the proposal. b, Policy 6.3.1. , 6.3.2 and 6.3.3 are satisfied because thr>_ proposed lot line adjustment/partition is virtually the same• as the rea. Nearby lots are 7,!iO0 to over !0,000 development in the a square feet in sixe and the lots proposed are all in excess Of 7,800 square feet. Also, detached single family residences are proposed for the undeveloped lots. c, Policy 7.1.2 is wet because the Engineering Division has reviewed the application and has found that adequate water, sanitary sewer, t and storm sewer facilities are available. d. policy 7,4.4 is met because the development will be required to connect with the public sewer system. C. Policy 8.1.3 is satisfied because the driveway access can be established in a manner that is consistent with City requirements for sight distance, public improvements, and safe access onto Terrace Trails Drive. The Planning staff concludes that the proposal is consistent with the applicable portions of the Community DevelOpMnt Code based upon the following findings: a. Chapter 18.50 is satisfied because the proposal meets the minimum lotsize (7,500 square Feet) and dimensional requirements of the R--4.5 zone, b, Section 18.96.080 is satisfied because the proposed lots arc of sufficient size without including the land devoted to the common driveway. c, Section" 18,96.090 is satisfied because adequate lot width is proposed to meet the 10 foot side yard requirement- For houses on ' "flag lots ,ICE OF" DECISION! - ML P 5-85, M 1-85, V 9-85 - PAGE 3 a d. Section 10. 1.62 .0-30 o"'d 18. 10 ,060 relining to partitirn-is �md lot. line adjustments- art! mel. becmwsw l.tira proposal C,;rrmpI ius with .All applicable City regt.iirenunt':, {'he releuanG r_riter is for; Lho vari.Aric:e roqurast arty i umprch<�nsiue Plan policy 7.5.2 and Section 18.13 040 of the CommunityOc-velopmcnt. Code The Planning staffconclude:s Lha{: Lhc variance proptj%al is c:onsist.ent with Policy 7.5.2 because the proposed driveway width of 70 feet complies with fire code 3Laruiards and the Tualatin Rura] { ire Protection District has no objection pro vide-d LhotL the conditions noted above ar-c • iaet. The Planning staff concl.ude5 that the v;oriancc is consistent wit.h the approval criteria noted in erection "18. 134.050 of the Code based upon the following findings: a. the purpose of the minimum driveway width staridard is 'primarily to provide adequate access for emergency vehicles. The firo distri.r,t has indicated that the. proposed width reduction to 20 fevt will be acceptable. b. The 24 foot width requirement for driveways also applies trt multi.-Family and commercial development which generate many tunes the vehicular traffic that will result from this proposal A small reduction in width Lhtt still allows for proper uinergenry access is appropriate. C. The proposed lots and single family residences arra permitted and except for the four foot reduction in driveway width, all other City standards will be met. d. The variance will have signific=ant impact upon physiral or natural systems. To a small. extent the proposal. will reduce the amount of water runoff. e. The proposed variance is minimal and will relieve the applicant of the expense of providing additional pavement that is unnecessary in this instance. Tworemainingissues noted_ by NPO # 3 relating to traffic impact and yard maintenance are not specifically addressed in Lhe Comprehensive Plan or the Community Development Cade. The driveway is proposed to enter on Terrace Trails Drive rather than t2lst Avenue because' adequate space does not exist between the existing buildings and property livres. Also. due to minor sight distance constraints alut this saction of 121st Avenue, a driveway at this location (if it was passible) would riot be ideal. �i t F S ; NOTICE OF DECISION - MLP 5-•85_, M 1--85, V 9-95 - PAGE 4 rurrace Trails Drivp is a local 1tret!L that ser vss '1ti lr,ts. The additional three lots from this praposa] will rcpruser,t, triffic. increase of Less than 1.0%- The proposed lot conf igurat i c,n woiild provide -the potential for< a maximum of two additional lots for a t„ta1 of five lots. Even if this possibility materi.al.izes (par•ti.t.iun approval _would be required), the increase in traf f it -would be less then 1571,. _l hi s small increase would not result in Lraff i.c val,.nncs t.h�at are tinappropriate for a -local street. The maintenance of the 'area on thenorth side of Lhe proposed driveway' will be the responsibility of the i.. owner. Considering the current homeowner,hdt ar nearby Will only impr situation, it appears Lr,. present _conditions 'i C• DECISION The Planning Director approve The 1.__95, MI.P 5-95, and V 9 8ri slab jc:c.1. W the following lO conditions; 1. UNLESS OTHERWISE NO1'ED, At.!_UNLESS SHALL Eft M11' PRIORPRIOR RECORDING THE PAR TION 2. Seven (7) sets _of plan-profile public improvement construction plans and one (1) itemi.zed construction cost estimate, stampHd by- a registered Civil Engineer', detailing all proposed public to the City's Engineering S improvements shall; be submitted rack:ir�n for approval, 3. Sanitary sewer plan-,profile details shall be provided :As part of the public improvement plans. 4. _Construction of proposed public improvements shall not commence until after the Engineering Section has issued approved public improvement plans. The Section will require posting of a 1.00% performance bond, the payment of a permit fee and sLreet light fee. Also, the execution of a streetopening permit shall occur cc of approved public prior_ to, or concurrently with the issuan improvements plans. SEE Th{E ENCLOSED HANDOUT GIVING MORE SPECIFIC INFORMATION REGARDING E SCHEDULES EIONDTNG AND AGREEMENTS. FE 5, Parking restrictions shall be posted as required by the City and Tualatin Rural Fire Protection Distric b. The access drive and tum around shall meet lualatin Rural Tire Protection District standards. 7. A new mailbox cluster shall be provided in a location approved by as theCityEngineer. $, The "basis of bearings" for the Plat or Survey sha11 be County Survey 19,947, which is a part of the Tigard Field Survey Network, lUOTICE OF, DECISION = MLP 5-85, M 1=$5, V 9-85 - PAGE. 5 f 9, the partitiunsurvuy, 1clil l description Gknd casement d .scri.ptiin shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review arid approval. "THE C11Y, S14A1..1_ RECORD FIIi.::�E DOCUMLNT Ai 1'1:R TlIFY ARE APPROVED AND A COPY SIIAt.I_ BE FORWARDED lO 111E APPl..11::ANl 10. This approval is valid if exercistud wii:hin rir{e y(,,,A r uT thea final decision date noted _brrlow. D. PROCF,DURF 1, Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at Ci Ly Nall and mailed to: XXThe applicant_ & owners XX Owners of record within the required distancca �— _ XX the affected Neighborhood Planning Orgariiration XX Affected governmental agencies 2. Final [Decision: THE: DECISION SHALL BE F1NA1. ON May_ 1985 _.�._._ UNLESS AN APPEAL TS F FEED 3. Appeal: Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in xc:i ordanc e with Section 18.32.290(A) and Section 18.32.370 uF the Community " Development Code which provides that a written appeal must be filed with the t:1TY RFCORDI�R within 10 days atter notice i.s given and sent. The deadline for filing of an appeal is 5:00 P.M. May 6, 1985- 4. 9MI tions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Department, Tigard City Nall., 12755 SW Ash, PO Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 9722.3, 639-4171 . 01, William A. Monahan, Director of Planning 6 Development DAIF APOVi.A (KSt.':dmj/1285) -i''' � ; t y ' a <f (. 4 NOTICE OF DECISION — "MLP 5 85, M 1-•85, ,V 9-95 PAGE 6 5. G S `i N May 6, 1985 TO: City Council, City of Tigard, Oregon Planning Commission Director of Planning & Development City Recorder FROM: Neighborhood planningOrganization Number Three (NPO #3) SUBJECT: Minor Land Partition MLP 5-85 Lot line Adjustment M 1-85 Variance V 9-85 NPO #3 unanimously appeals the director's approval of this minor land partition, lot line adjustment, and variance, wherein two long lots are divided so as to provide three new lots accessing Terrace Trails Drive, with the potential of two other lots in the future. All five of these proposed and future lots have access to Terrace Trails Dr. by a private drive which is shown to be about 315 feet long. Section 18.108.070(A) of the Community Development Code states that a driveway for 3 to 6 single family dwellings (on individual lots) shall not exceed 100 feet in length. The director's approval is contrary to this clearly stated limit. The lots of the minor land partition have access to the public street by means of easements across the lots nearer to the public street. Section 18.164.030(C) of the code states that access easements shall not exceed 100 feet unless approved by the Commission through the Planned Development Process. it would appear that the director does not have the authority to matte this approval. The applicant must file for a planned development to achieve his objective. - J Page 2 May 6, 1985-- from NPO #3 re: MLP 5-85, M1-859 v 9-85 The main concern oftheNPO is that access for these new lots should be to 121st Avenue, except for the one lot adjacent to Terrace Trails Drive. There are five 'narrow, deep lots on 121st Avenue, and two wide lots of the same depth, that all have this problem of access in order to develop the back portion of these' very long lots. These owners should get together and plan a public street, or other single access, to 121st Avenue. When these properties were annexed in 1979, the Planning Director, Aldie Howard, wrotetothe City Council that access to the back of these tots would come from 121st Avenue. This was the understanding by which the Lammerman Annexation was approved. There is no reason to change this understanding now. NPO #3 requests that the Planning Commission consider all of our concerns, as stated in this letter and in our letter to the Tigard Planning Dept. (which summarized our conclusions of our April 15, 1985 meeting). Also �_ . there are questions of adequate parking, since parking will not be allowed on the 315-foot private drive. NPO #3 requests of City Council the waiver of fees for this appeal, inasmuch as we are the recognized public advisory committee for developments in this area. Sincerely, Bob Bledsoe, Chairman, NPO #3 - MEMORANDUM . CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council May 1. 1985 FROM: Bob Jean, City Administrator SUBJECT: Council Finance and Audit Repr .entative At Council's directive, Jerri Widner and I net with our Auditor, John Dethman of Coopers and Lybrand, to discuss ways to increase Council's involvement in the audit process. John Dethman suggested three things that we might consider that other Councils have used effectively: 1, Council meet with Audit Parter (John Dethman) and Audit Manager in June or July at the start of the annual audit" to direct the Auditor's attention into Council areas of concern; 2. Council to designate a sub-committee or representative available ' to staff and the Auditor on detailed issues not of general Council concern; 3 Present the Annual Audit in overview and highlight policy issues slang with management issues in the Management Letter. A management response has also been suggested. Councilor Edin has been the most active in the Finance and Audit area. I discussed the foregoing with both him and Mayor Cook. They felt we should now bring this to-Cauncil for discussion and, if appropriate, designate a Council Finance and Audit Representative. The Representative would be like the Council's C08C Representative or Transportation Representative. The Representative is not a ,Commissioner" nor empowered to direct or act independently of the Council, but to review and monitor the details and help focus the policy discussion at Council. I support this suggestion. Cauncilor Edinihas expressed a willingness to support the Council's efforts in this fashion. Council _should discuss this memo, then, if appropriate, Council should, by motion, designate a Council Finance and Audit Representative. lw/2715A qqx AL MEMORANDUM 1 �3 , CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: HonorableMayor and City Council May 1, 1985 FR-OH: Bob Jean, City Administrator SUBJECT: Partial Fee Waiver, Times Pub, tions After some cajoling about civic hypocracy on double-taxation, I convinced the Times Publisher, Don Mack, to submit his annexation proposal to the City. ' The tiffs of land southeast of Highway 217 and Scholls Ferry Road where the Times offices are located is in our Active Plan area but just outside the City limits. The Time's parent company, Guard Publications, agreed to annex but was concerned about the large fee related to the decision. Consistent with Council's decision on the Davis fees, a partial fee waiver has been requested. Staff feels this entire section of our Code needs revision both to reduce cost and remove roadblocks to logical annexations. Staff. suggests motion to waive staff time ($528) but require full payment of ( all hard costs ($63) and Boundary Commission fees. lwl2716A .ate mss$ 5 Times ad 29.00 + 10.00 539.00 Mailing Costs 20 surrounding property owner letters at 200 each 4.00 Copy Costs 5 page staff reports 15 copies 9 page Boundary Commission Report - L 2 copies Letters to surrounding property owners 20.00 staff Costs Planner II - staff report. meeting 6 hrs at 19.99 119.94 Clerk Typist It - file, meeting, minutes 6.5 hrs. 78.33 at 12.05 r Office Manger - CC Meeting, minutes .5 hrs, at 21.51 10.76 OA III - Letters to agencies 16 hrs. at 12.44 199.04 OA III - Prepare requisition .6 hrs at 12.94 7.76 ,r Cut check (including computer time, paper, Finance Director's time, OAIII. Acct. clerk 50.00 p 529.93 Department Overhead + 10% 'Y City Overhead + 20% FULL COST $ 687.46 Jg ,s E f CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: MAY 61 1985 AGENDA ITEM fes , DATE SUBMITTED: April 26 1985 PREVIOUS ACTION: Council resolution ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: FORECLOSURE PAYMENT SCHEDULE AGREEMENTS PREPARED BY. J. Widner "s DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: J. WidneXe_ CITY ADMINISTRATOR: i POLICY ISSUE Allows those who would be foreclosed for delinquency to bring accounts current. INFORMATION SUMMARY Another request to bring account current and maintain payments. t - ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED n/a► SUGGESTED ACTION I recommend- accepting the terms of the attached agreement. PAYMENT SCHEDULE C/TY OF An RE EMENT rIOARD F s The Tigard City Council has do -.Led the entire assessment balance plus interest on the property described (at the time of assessment), as 2S12BD L500, Tigard, Oregon, immediately due and payable in full as authorized by Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 13 (Ord. No. 84-55), unless the property owner enters into a formal binding payment schedule agreement acceptable to the City. The property owner(s) of said assessed property have not made full and complete installment payments. The outstanding balance through December 15, 1984 is $24,843.72. In lieu of foreclosure as authorized by the Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 13 and Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS Chapter 223), the City of Tigard and Marjorie Fenwick agree to the following payment schedule: The outstanding balance to bring the account current has been paid. Beginning June 15, 1985 continue to pay semi-annual installments as they become due. Failure to comply with the payment schedule of this agreement shall be a breach of this agreement. Upon a breach of this agreement, the City shall proceed with collection by sale of the property as provided by Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 13 and Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS Chapter 223). _ Signed and dated this / 'T day of , 1985. < Il A � C a . Tigard Billing Address: 740 NW Westover Sq Al A K E Portland Or 97210 (0745F)