The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 03/24/1986 Tl:GARD CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak can an EGULtR MEETING AGENDA agenda item needs to sign on the app�rooriate BUSIN SS AGENDA sign-up sheet(s).; If no sheet is available, MARCH 24, 1986, 7:00 P.M. ask to be recognized by the Chair at the>staat FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH of that agenda item. Visitor's agenda items are 10065 SW WALNUT asked to be to 2 minutes or less. longer matters TIGARD OREGON 97223 can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or City Administrator. ' 1. REGULAR MEETING: 1.1 Call To order- and Roll Call 1,2 Pledge of Allegiance 1..3 Call. To staff and Council For Non-Agenda Items: Motion to approve - as amended. VISITOR'S AGENDA ,(2 minutes or,Less, Please) 3. "-SENTATION OF KEYS TO THE, CITY aMayor Cook 4 EXECUTIVE SERVICE ORDINANCE NO. 86- a City Attorney 5. PUBLIC HEARING - SU6 N4ERf_AKE III SIDE YARD UTILITY EASEMEWT VACATION b Public Hearing Opened o Declarations Or'Challenges k o summation By City Recorder � o Public: Testimony: Proponents, opponents, Cross Examination o Recommendation Sy City Recorder . o Council Questions. Gr Comment's Public Hearing Closed o Consideration By Council 5. APPEAL PUBLIC HEAR - ING '- SUE�DIVIt;IO?u - a 1--86 - LINCOLN SAVINGS AND LOAN A request by NPO 416 to review on appeal an approve by the Planning rotriscission of a subdivision dividing 8.68 acres into 18 lots with a minimum lot size of 7,500 SgUare feet, This will be an "argument-stype" hearing only. The Council will consider only the record before the Planning Commission, which is o�+ t'ile at City Rall. The Council shall not consider any new testimony or e�aideracs� which is not in the record in accordance with Section 13.32.320 of the Tigard Municipal. Code. o Public Hearing Opened o Dec lar°ations Or Challenges o Suil(TRation Of Planning Commission Proceedings By Community Development Staff o Argument: Appellants, Respondents, Appellants' Rebuttal o Council Questions Or Comments a a Pu.ilic Bearing Closed o Consideration By ;Council COUNCIL AGENDA - MARCH 24, 1986 - STAGE 1 i xG 7. P�;SE_IC HEARING - 'OGEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 1-86 CITY OF TIGAFtD CI`Jl L Er'SFRACTIOPd ORDINANCE CHANGES the ' rs e Community A request by the City of Tigard to reviP�+ a recommendation by planning Commission to revisethe ' Section for8 violations ons of�Title y 01 & to f Development Code to modify, p � cor4form to t°na? Civil Infractioxa Or4inance. Amendments nts to na7ties for end 15 are proposed for the Purpose; of decriminalizing p-' infractions of certain civil ordinances. €3 Public Hearing Opened _ o Dec I rations O9 Challenges 8 Community ty Development Staff :. ® Summation Y Opponents, Cross Examination cy Paabli T stia o�y: Pr`cPonerrts, OPS o t Staff Rei ommendation By Community Develo�rman o Council Questions Or Comments ' o Public Hearing Closed B., fea°unc., i I ,rp a,:orssaSseraa�.ac>>.° �. items ar•e crnsiderea3 to be routine and may be S. CONSENT AGENDA: These request � e cted in ore notion E°sithout,separate discussion. Anyone rate action. that an item be removed Eat' motion ,or disc+�ssion Anc# segs Motion t®: 8.1 Approve Council Minutes - March 3 & 10• 1996 8.2 deceive and File: az ' #D �,artaaeantaI Reports February, 1966 b CoaLmunity Development Land Use Decisions 0.3 Approve OLCC ApplicatiOns: ` es Highway, R AoP lieatiOn 66 SJ Pacific o :. Cne°s pizza Crmcary, 3 ieataon o- Pizza Caboose Ltd., 11670 SW Paacifia� �iic3Tnw�y, R �'�e 1`1445 SW (~ sa he Royal. �z ate (new 'business name pp catioseleced yet), Oaacific Highway, Dispenser Class A Application o r za¢lan Mezaican to taurant. 11619 SW P�ac. �it�ay. . � Application fective 4/1 s. 3.4 Ratify Solid Waste Rate:Increase Ef �ras�sfer�BFiRes��E6�-��s'�2 9.5 Approve Parks Maintenance Contingency Appointment Res. 86--34 9.6 Approve Uti.liti.es � Franchises Costnnrittes Aon 8.7 Authorize Civic Center Relocation Profesional'Nloving company Fore €E.8 Accept GreQp'%,�ay Dedication Summer Hills Paris 8.9 Approve Training Requests ,. o City Administa,tor RQa3ional City i°1aana ement `0$ $137.50 o 5sst. To Admin. - Regional City Mgnsrt. Conf. 8.10 :APpr®ue Mark Grounds Maintenance Proposal Authorize Agreement 9. RON-AGE#d£.A ITEMS, From Council, and Straff tive 10, EXECUTIVE SESSION The Tigard Litt' Cour;cil. will go into todiscuss Sessaora under the, Provisions of ORS- 192.560 (1.) (d) � (h) labor relatios?s and current/pending litigation issues. t1. Ai3JOi1R ENT' COUNC34. AGENDA - MARCH 24, 1.996 PAGE 9 F' v rill T I G A R D CITY C0 'UNCI L REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 24, 1986 - 7:00 P.M. 1. > ROLL CALL: Present Mayor John Cook; Councilors: Tom Brian (arrived at 7:0$ €M), and Jerry Edwards; City Staff: Bob, Jean, City Administrator; Bill Monahan, Community Development Director; Tim ' Ramis, Legal ;Counsel; and I-preen Wilson,' Deputy 'City Recorder. 2 QUORUM CONSIDERATION a. Mayor Gook noted that until Councilor Brian arrived the Council would be without a. quorum. Consensus of Council was to review agenda item, until his arrival. 3. CALL TO STAFF AND COUNCIL FOR NO?,,-AGENDA ITE r. a. City Administrator started 'staff had no Ston-Agenda items but gave a { pp��ryry��iiqq��y'�y,briy..a?f �a^{+�eerview of all i . issues. DA a, " No one appeared to speak, 5 PRESS:�dTATION OF KEYS.TO TUBE CITY a. Mayor Cook presented a trey to the City to 'Cony drl«ndini who served for 1984-85 on the Economic Development Committee. Mayor Cook also noted Lidija Balodis was not present to receive her key For service on the Transportation Committee during 1983-05. COUNCILOR BRIAN ARRIVED: 7:08 Pty? -- quorum obtained 6. PUBLIC HEARD ro- SUO,*IERLAKE III SIDE YARD UTILITY EASEMENT VACATION. . Public '.-bearing Opened b. Recorder synopsized the history"of the request and noted this was a Council initiated vacation, She stated Planning Commission and Engineering had recommended approval without any special conditions. C. Public Testimony No one appeared to,speak d. Recorder recommended approval of the vacation request and adoption of the ordinance. e. Public Hearing Closed f, ORUI;tIr�C*iaCE IVO. 8b---17 AN ORDINANCE VACATING CERTAIM SIDE YAt?13 UTILITY EASEMENTS WITHIN AMART SUf�.n'�aEE� I AKA 13:I SUBDIVISION AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. -" 91 Motion by G.oasncilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Edwards to adopt. Approved; by unanimous vote of Council present. Pale 1 - :Cl MINUTES w MARCH 24, 1986 ghffi �t 7. PUBLIC VE-ftV= - 7KME MR 1-'96 — CITY OF TIGARD CIVIL TVIFRRCTIC N ORDINANCE CHANGES � A request by the City of Tigard to review a recommendation by the Planning Commission to rev ise erection 18.24.090 of the Community Development Code to modify the penalty' 5 for violations of Title , 4 1 conform to the Civil ;Infraction Ordinance. Amendments to Title Vis, 1'1 and -1.5 are proposed for the purpose of decriminalizing penalties for infractions` of certain civil ordi.nances.' a. Public Hearing Opened b. Community Development 'Director synopsized the request noting the changes was needed to allow for the decriminalization of civil ordinances. He, stated the Civil Infraction Ordinance would be presented at the 4/14/86 meeting. c, Public Testimony - No one appeared to speak. d. Community _Devel.opment ,Director recommended approval and stated the Planning Commission also recommended approval. e, Public Hearing Closed f. ORDINANCE NO, 86-18 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 10.24.034 OF THE. TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE. g, motion by Councilor Edwards, seconded by Councilor Brian to adopt. Approved by unanimous vete of Council present. 8 EXECUTIVE SERVICE ORDINANCE a, City Administrator stated the Council had directed all. officer's and department heads should serve "at will except for those incumbent department heads. b. councilor Edwards stated his intent has all. department heads and officers currently serving would be considered incumbents with only new hires coming under the "at will,, option. He also had a few questions for the City Attorney regarding this issue. C. Motion by Councilor Edwards, seconded by Councilor Brian to table to 4/21/86 for further consideration. r Approved by unanimous vote of council present. 9. 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 fo;• discussion and separate action. Motion to: 9.1 Approve council Minutes - March 3 10, 1986 9.2 Receive and File: a Departmental Reports -- February, 1986 b Community Development Land Use Decisions page 2 - COUNCIL MINUTES — MARCH 24, 1986 , f r 9,3 Approve OLCC Applications: , R o Capar�eI s Pizza Company, 13066 Sin Pacific Hig! way, Application Application . 1 ti o pizza ;Caboose Ltd. , 11670 S€r5 Pacific Highway. _ Apet 5.1445 � feae Royal Geste (nes business name not selected yet), o' , Dispenser Class A Application SW Pacific Highway, p 1619 SW Pac. Hwy. R o Mazatlan Mexican Restaurant, Application Increase Effective 401/86 •- Res 86--32�6- 2 9.4 Ratify Solid,iraaste'RateRes. r , Approve Parks Maintenance Contingency �ra� ppointment $Res. Q 9.5 9.6 {approve Utilities & Franchises Committee App ; g,7 Authorize Civic Center' Relocation Professional Moving Company Hire q 9,8 Accept Greenway De ii ;i'on -- Summer Hills Park 9,9 Approve Training Requests � Tonal City Management Conf. o city Administrator Reg ;137.5© $137.50 � o Asst. To Admin. proposal City fiinc�mt, Conf. - Agreement J. 9.10 Approve Park Grounds Maintenance Proposal & Authorize Ag , { Councilor Edwards, seconded by Councilor Brian to a. Motion by � approve -the consent agenda without 9.6 ,which is to be discussed and 9.2b decision for VR 6-86/V 5-86• .,a pp A roved by unanimous vote of ComnciI present. � , .2b Community Development director discussed concerns about the sidewalk deletion. decision Councilor Edwards moved 'to ca7.7. fere ' up for Council review on April 14, 1985 Motion by Councilor Brian. Approved by unanimous vote of council present. ; c ,4 senior Planner Liden requested Council amend the resolution to include a new Exhibit "A" which sets forth the correct rates for solid waste pickup. Councilor Edwards, seconded by Councilor• Brian to Motion by Exhibit "A" with corrected amend resolution by replacing figures. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. d. 6 Consensus of counciI was to hold this it_m for consideration at a future meeting- _S eeting- til. SPP At P45Bt l H A�� - 'SUgOl�F�.caI£`N S 1--26 - UNCOLN SAVXNC ��planning sal an approval 11y A request lay NPO #6 to review ori app8,€e8 acres into 12 lots with a Commission of a. subdivision dividing minimum lot size of '7,500 square fgonlity yl1 be an the record s Wi beforebthe hearing only.. The Council will consider• Planning commission, whish is or evidence n file at Cwhich is not T in the record in not consider any new testimony .32.320 of the Tigard Municipal Code, accordance with section 1f3 a, Public Hearing Opened Page 3 - CouNCIL M;t�1s5TES - MARCH r4, 1986 b. Senior Planner Liden synopsized the history of the issue noting Planning Corfamission approval on 2/4/86 and NPO #6 appeal of that decision. Council and staff: Discussion the code requirementsfor notification of WPO''s during the planning 'process. Staff stated s the code 'requi'red ltd days notice, however, there were many times when NPO's did not have a meeting scheduled during that 10 day period of time for review of an application prior to the Planninz� Commission hearing. C. Argument: Appella:cts o Phil P'asteris NPO #fib Chairman, noted that the 'NPO did not have time to call a meeting Prior to the Planning Commission hearing. He further stated tete neighbors in the area of the proposed subdivision were very concerned about floodplain/greenway issues which weren't addressed at the Planning Commission. He discussed the importance of the neighborhood process and its impact on the planning process` of the City. o Mr. Guy Mount, 9500 SW Riverwood Lane, represented the neighbors in the area and outlined concerns regarding traffic impact, potential wetlands impact stating there world be a material change on the environment in the area which was not sufficiently ';addressed at: the Planning Commission level. Respondents o. Norman .Harker, Alpha Engineering, .represented -.the applicant. � Lincoln Savings. He noted the project was originally approved in 1981 as substantially single family dwellings. Lincoln Savings ::and Loan become the owner of -the lana through a repossession process and now wishes to develop to sell, He noted offers to meet with the property owners had been given by Lincoln but the property owners did not seem to want to meet He understood the following issues to be foremost to the citizens., Riverwood Lane Extension (which is part of the City's comp plan; NPO Notification (which was accomplished according to code requirements) and Wetland Impact (noting 100 year floodplain is not the floa6way of the `Tualatin Rieger" and over half of, the site is already given to the City for open space. d. Council, staff, citizel.,s discussed how to marc the intersection of Riverwood Lane and 92nd Avenue' safest, how and when to conduct a traffic study of the area, vertical alignment of access from lots 17 6, 19 to 72nd Avenue, and concerns about staging t"+e right•of--is.,ay completion andguaranteeing t. is with perhaps a performance board. Page 4 —'COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 24, 1986 0 :E e, After 'further deliberation, :Councilor Brian inoved ; ta table the issue 'to April *1.4, 1986 to give the applicant, staff, neighbors, and the ?klpo time to address, and hopefully resolve the issues surrounding :the development of the subdivision. Motion 'seconded by Councilor' Edwards. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. f. City Engineer was directed to work with the group to assist with any redesign suggestions or meeting problems. 1J.. CITY ENOXWEER City Administrator introduced Mr. Randall Wooley who has been hired as the City Engineer. � `i RECESS: 9:32 P.M. � 12. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive i SeRsion under the provisions: of ORS192. E (2� (r & {hs to discuss labor "relations and cur-rent/pending litigation issues, 13. ADJO RNMENT. 3:52 PM Q Pty City Recorder - City of Tigard ATTEST: City of Tigard r� L3iJ3x}6A Page 5 - MUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 24, 1906 TIMIES -PUBLISHING COMPANY- Legsl 7-6653 Q P.O.BOX 370 PHONE(503)68-4-03 0 BE VERTON,OREGON 97675 Legal Notice Advedising o $City of Tigard ° [3 ` earsheat notice P.o. ;fox 2 339 7 13 Duplicate Affi aevii CIT OF Tigard, OR 97223 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, � COUNTY OF WASPtNGTON, )ss. �. gaS�epharnie Nt auer _ being first duly �v+acrn, chap®�e and say that'I am the Advertising Director,or his principal clerk,of the---T a rtawspiaper of general cirrulatirsn au defined in ORS 193.010 and 3t33.®2c? published at Tigard. 'in the aforesaid couna y and state:that the ea printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the ;• entire:s ue of said nawspapar for L---successive and consecutive in the following issues: March 20, 1 986 ' 3u#srrrrst3E3st,�rist;sWarai Gfaaria m8 tfiiu—__"ar�h r�-NQr Puli�fob�r®nGn '. hjy ots;T miis±;§on Expires: 9/20/88 AFFIDAVIT Pit-1 64 W . `,zits ?1 P I y L` .tggn�g�^yiyt�a$�g,��qq=_yyb;yy�t'-M�t.ws� �.� � tX` '.itiA} . F77 tF .f+C a r fie+ SA' � 1 $�, t * � aa W_44iF am c t B CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING In the Matter of the Proposed STATE OF' €RE€ON } County of Washington) ss City of Tigard � r I• _1,G tks being first duly sworn, on oath depose a�sd say; That I costed intQt�fh� e "off log in Ablic and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance Number(s) s% � --,yy Which were adopted at the Couhcil. Meeting dated __. -'a'�L_,' .�)_. � copy(s)' of said ordinance(s),ce(s), being hereto attached and by re errs e made a ;- mart hereof, on the � day of 190;;, Subscribed and ,worn to before me this /t�" day of- Notary fNotary Pu bl.is for,Oregon My Commission Expires; v� 7 IONIZE Imi WIN Ff 4' G r . CITY of TIGARD', OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 06– r AN ORDINANCE VACATING CERTAIN SIDE YARD UTILITY EASEMENTS WITHIN AMART SUMMER LAKE ill SUBDIVISION AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. s WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council initiated this vacation request pursuant to Section 15.08.040 of the Tigard Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the reason' and purpose for this vacation is to return the side yard utility : easement areas to the adjacent property; owners to facilitate development of the lots within said subdivision; and t` WHEREAS, the vacation is recommended by the Planning Commission and the City " Engineer; and - g WHEREAS, in accordance with ORS 271.100, and TMC Section 15.0 3.110, the Council fixed a time and place for the public hearing and the Recorder � published notice and posted notice in the area to be vacated; and WHEREAS, notice" has been mailed to sill property owners abutting said vacation area, and all owners in the affected area, as described in ORS 271.060; and WHEREAS, the Council, having held a hearing on March 24, 1986, finds the public interest will not be prejudiced by the vacation as providers by ORS � 271.120 and TMC Section 15.08.1.30; and � r- 141HEREAS, the Council finds that it is in the public interest to approve the � request to vacate the side yard utility easement areas within said subdivision because the public interest will not be prejudiced; and WHEREAS, the Council finds that the following condition is necessary to vacate said land: Y The vacation shall not be effective until the effective state of this ordinance and it shall not be effective until a certified copy of this ordinance has been recorded with the Washington County G°lerk, � Assessor, and Surveyor. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS Section 1. The Tigard CityCouncil hereby orders the vacation of that portion of ide yrd sautility easement areas within Amart Summer Lake III Subdivision � as described on the attached Exhihit "A" and shown on the attached Exhibit � "5", and by this reference sada parts herecof. Section 2: The Tigard City Council further orders that the vacation be subject' to the following condition: tr ORDINANCE NO. s6— � s Page 1 t lw/3690A F ;. ill X EMN The vacation shall not be effective until the; effectivedate of this ' 1, ordinance and it shall. nrt be effecti.vo until a certified copy of this 'ordinance has been recorded ,with the Washington County Clerk,` Assessor, and Surveyor. Section 3 In no situation shall this ordinance be effective until the 31st day after its enactmo-nt by •the City Council and approval by the Mayor. PASSED: 8y �- 3'a n c vote of all Council nembers present after being read by nu-mbar and title only, this � of 1986. - day P Loreen R. bdilson, Qa uty g�ecordea� APPROVED-' This SLS dealt of 1986. J6hn` E. Cook, Mayor 5y kr, x ORD161ANCE i'Vj. 86 Page Z , lw 36900 g F_ E EXHI RODAVID EvAn, �� 1 I iii is�c: 2626 5UJ CORBETT AVEnUE PORTLAnD.OREGon 9721 503/223,6663 ART021 2-4-86 LEGAL DESCRIPTION portion LAKE NO. 3, a plat of recora A pon of AMAf Section ; in the RT SuMone-quarter, o 33, Township 1 South, Range Northeasti 1 Oregon, recorded West, `VeilIamette Meridian, Washington County, Plat Records, in Book 60 Page 37 and 38, Washington County t of the utility easement created said portion beincl that par along all side lot lines by plat restriction number 3 on said plat of AMART SUMMER LAKE NOM 3, which lies along the lines common to Lots 153 and .154, Dots 154 and 155, Lots 155 and 156, Lots `156 and 157, Lots 157 and 158, Lots 158 and 159; Lots 159 and 1.60, Lots 160 and 161., Lots 16i and I:62, Lots 163 and 164, Lots 164 and 165, Lots 165` and. `166, 'Lats 166 and 167, Lots 167 and !68, Lots 163 and 169, Lots 169 and'170, bats 170 and 171, Lots 171. and 1.72: Lots 172 and '173, `Lots 173 and 174; also that part which within Lot 150 along the line common t to Lot 150 and "Lot 149; also tha `part within Lot: 151 along ..._ the line common to Lot 151 and Lot 150; also that part within Lot 1.52 along the line common to Lot 152 and Lot 151; also 3acent to the westerly line of Lot that dart within Lot 152 acl 152, all lots being within AMART SUMMER LAKE NO. 3. RN00 �� V �s O RE CON ELAi�i 13F3 a EXHIBIT "B" ti �` �s^`i dS= ,��nom• ( rya �, f` }� 'J r s •' 6.i• B � pe h.d�JS a. S a DIX ILIg Wftnvim Ld 4i�1� � „6$ � m � '`�,., r • Y Txfcsa`e+$�ee r4s ..t 6A4 =RRS E44$ S;i � 6� � Rai �s n d aeea�sg®a�� , t0a�' xE8A8rA3SS��r;�o:? r Fj ef in � F a z - / --L• � ya a ti •4 r erg. • N'� P �, eZo t •pS � 3r� N n{ S � rd V 1. F iIR� t:e T� p � 9 moi - a q .f f,C`�. 6 � a c{ Bs. ♦.afr Y^�d4 �t M e4.Zile Aj .+ of `kT / °Q. 1 ik�. g 7�c l.� e v Btd.EwS $p0 :9 9S z J E AS moy.`?f�Y �O� ®tn �aa�b�Sw3mona }i° '13 FspTT as �:: r x .. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 86— AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 15.24.030 OF THE TIGARD h1UNICIPAL COLE. } WHEREAS, the City will be adopting a Civil Infractions 'ordinance which will classify violations to the Tigard Municipal Cade as Class ;I, Class II or Class III Infractions; and WHEREAS, Title 38, the Community" Development Code is part of the Tigard Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Cite Attorney has recommended that violations to Title 18, the Co=raunity Development Code, be classified as Class I Civil Infractions; and WHEREAS, in order. to conform to the new Civil Infraction ordinance, Section, 15.24.030 of the Tigard municipal Code needs to be modified. THE CITY OF 'TIGARD,ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS, vection I: Delete the following from Title 18 of the Tigard Municipal Code- 18.24.030 ode-18.24.030 Pena� Any person violating a provision , of this Coyle shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished in accordance with Title 7 of the Municipal` Code. A 'person 'violating a'provision of this Code in guilty of a separate offense for each day during which the violation continues. Section 2: Add the following to Title 18 of the Tigard Municipal Code- 18.24.030 Penalty P- A violation of this title shall constitute a Class I Civil infraction ' which stall be processed according to the procedures established in the Civil` 'Infraction Ordinance, Sections 1 through 11. b. Each violation of a separate provision of this title shall constitute & separate infraction, and each day that a vio'Aatioit of this 'title is commlitted or permitted to continue shall constitute a separate infraction. C. A finding of Ra violation of tFtiis title shall not relieve the responsible party of the duty to abate the violation. The gen-al:ties imposed by this section are in addition to and not in lieu of any remedies available to the City. ORDINANCE NO. S6 Sage I a d. if -a provision of this title is violated by a firm or corporation, the officerorofficers, or person or persons responsible for the violation shallbe subject to the penalties imposed by this section. Section 3: ` That this ordinance shall be effective on and after the 15th of May 1986. PASSED: 8y °� � vote of all Council members present anter benne read y ncamber and title only, trig ��i�n day of 1986. i.rs;^een R: �ilscao8• 3�eputy_Recorder APPROVED- This �� day of 4 1386. Cook, Mayor �N i tbRDINAINCE NO. 86— Page 2 +��ivG4S_�or_. — .•••.e+nem+ovm.�rmwm env. �.aw.aeaw.e....wo.wso.. ea�c . te "'.` ISI�'OW,tea,`AGF `JR i3F1TE_ S ch•--lam— c9$6 {Lxmitnd to 2 minutc-s `rsr less. Please) Please sign on the approPs iate sheet far listea� agenda encia L but asksThe thatCouncil YOU wishQs to hear frog+ you oca other issues not ort>the ag first try to resolve your concerns through staff. Please contact the City Aiesinis gator' prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you. p-, TOPIC STAFF CONTACTED Ei3tk"1E ROiJRES$ ` 1 g f' a i - A4 .. } DATE March 24. 1986 I wish to aestify before the Tigard Citi} Council on the following l off ash it a (Please priest-the infors tion) k Item Description #5=„�P��i✓IC" �'�Iiett� acz ; :TI5 dg-'tale'i, Enserdent V tion proponent (For Issue) Opponent (Agai nst Issue) Name, Address and Affiliation dame., Addresa and Affiliation ii : AM DATE wish to testify before the Tigard City Coasaaoii on t the:following lob tr a (Piaaae'print the i o tion Item Description. o zan oat (far xss Opponent (Against Issue) Names Address and AffilifitiOn Name,, Address and Affiliation 21 c 5, ,d p BATE March 24, 1986 I wish to testify before the'Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please'print the i nf -oration) Item Desoription:' ERIN' G �x?� Pl1T°$t ('T l P3 l i E �1iAGES 1}A 1-- -` ��c�fnwax��:s§t4�;dt��fk�`e�+i��ale��i�t�ra��t'4a':a°csta�#s�kal�rss t��s�s2ft�9r��s�a��a�isk�k4rakxJsS'tt ak��a��a��zxk��aY�as�t'c Proponent (For Issue) Opponent (Against Issue) R1a e, Address and Affiliation Address and Affiliation a - i. CITY OF TICIA.RD, OREGON COLzI3CIL•`AGENDA ITEM SidMticRY W AGENDA OF. Marci,. 24 19$6 AGENDA 3TE.ai DATE SUBMITTED March 19, 1956 PREVIOUS ACTION: ISSUFMAG DA TITLE: Rev to the Gity PREPARED BY: Donna Corbet REQUESTED BY: Council DEPARDiENT HEAD'OF CITY ADMINISTRATOR: � POLICY ISSUE INFORMILTION SU!Qtdi:Y k The following persons are being recognized by the City of Tigard for service on a board or committee; Li.dija Balodis - Transportation Committee Tony Orlandini. - Economic Development Committee ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED meas_frc:o..-»Baa.-arsrasa.�src>zwaac.aux»a_�a=rcm.-r..x..,..:a:o�.:-s=1:�x�z:caa_zeAa�».-z-.a»»mmsa.»�m-raaae»ram^» SUGGESTED ACTION Present Keya to recipients.' CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL A,ENDA ITEM SUi�"tARY t AGENDA ITEM AGENDA 4F; t�a�cFt 24, 39k�ts DATE SUBMITTED: larch 20 1986 PREVIOUS ACTION: Executive Service` 'ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Exeeutive Emplaument Created — --service Ordinance PREPARED BY, Chuck CoCEjcLan` REQUESTED BY: Bob 3e .4 DEPARTMENT HEAD Olt: CITY ADMINfISTRATOR POLICY ISSUE City Council hats set the policy that all newly hired City Officers and Depaxtment Hes ds should serve at—twill, IP+FQRfaAT ION UWIARY Legal Counsel has drafted .an ordinance to define those' positions ?hat would fall. t.nder'the Execaative Service At-Wil'l. policy. The attached ordinance is in draft form. Should staff or Council haveany revisions to this document, they can be discussed Monday evening. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Approve ordinance: z Amend ordinance 3. Take no action at this time. s SUGGESTED ACTIO staff will make' recommendation for approval Monday evening with some possible amendments. i lw/3585A t 3 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 96- AN ORDINANCE OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL, ADDING 'A CHAPTER 2.07 TO THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL_ CODE 'RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE EXECUTIVE SERVICE CLASS OF EMPLOYMENT 1•0 THE TERMS ;OF EMPLOYMENT OF THE EMPLOYEES IN THE EXECUTIVE SERVICE CLASS AND 'THEIR CONTRACTS FOR EMPLOYMENT, AND DECLARING AN_EMERGE%CY. WHEREAS, Section 10 of the City Charter establishes the officers:of the City as the Municipal Judge, Recorder, Finance Officer, and such other officers as the Council deems necessary, and establishes that the ;Officers may be removed by the Mayor with the consent of the Council; and WHEREAS, the Council has by - ordinance established the office of City Administrator, and has authorized the'Ci.ty-Administrator to appoint and remove Department Heads after consultation with the Mayor and City; and WHEREAS, City Officers and Department Heads serve at the will of the City Council and City Administrator, respectively; and WHEREAS, the job duties of City Officer!; and Department Heads , include the participation and the formulation of City policy, exempt them from the coverage of the Fair- Labor Standards ;Act (2a USC § 213), and other-rise create a unique class of City employees appropriately denominated as Executive Service; and WHEREAS, the efficient administration of City business ;is served by the use of individualized at-will employment contracts -For City employees in the Executive Service class; and WHEREAS, the orderly administration of City business requires that the d membership, termination procedures, and contracting provisions for the employees in the Executive Service be established as „oon as possible, such that an emergency exists. NOW, 'THEREFORE, THE CITY OF 'TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1, There is hereby added to the Municipal Code of Tigard, Chapter 2.07 which is to read as follows (underlined material is -to be added): "° hapter 2.07 "EXECUTIVE SERVICE "Sections: 2.07.010 _ Establishment of the employment class of Executive Service 2 07.020 Membership of the class 2 ,.07.030 Eppointi.n _ uthorit 2.077.040 Al:-will emplolMent 2.07.050 EMplayment contracts "2,07.010 Establishment of -the employment class of Executive Service. There is terE_by _establi.shed the a_mp meat class of; Executive Serviced "2:07.020 Membership of the class, The e„followig9 es*ap_10 ees .shall be includedin the"om lovment class of Executive _Service: ORDINANCE 140, 86- Page i of 2 a' All City officers appointed bee Cita Council aursuant to Cbr ZII ssection 10 of the Charter Of the City includinc bLat nrst' ligraited to rityAdminastrator, Mraniiaa1 recorder, Finance officer aced C1 y_Awlarmani as 0 ill De as teem heads includinq.,Jbut: not :limited to, Chief of -P t Devele� s��rtt. C�irec'C. Police, Head Ubrar�ian, aced Caans�un; '>2 Q7.O Q A eoa?�thoritl�. For_ os2s o tris Chw;watGr, the appoint"enc• authority shall be: Lal. Pursuant to Cha t�;�r_Iig Sect 10 of_tt�e City Charter, for Ci ?fficers, the City council; Vinci " Pur,u r t. to ��arci lunici al Code__2.04.040,. ams for e r €��n_t He Is the City 'Administrator.< "2.07_ t)40 At-will empl ent. Natwithstandi!B ane ersonhel rule, gioxicy, or protZedure to the contrary e�:s�al�sv�es ire the '�mAcra�ave Service class shall serve at the pleascare of tE�eiraaintive authority and shall pee' subiect to dismissal at--will and without cause e . t as 2.Q7.050 Em oimpnt Cont ac- I. " T he a�spsointive autharit cr its abgr�nt shall neaotiat� '(21ear lovennnt contracts usith 1i.cants far new or continued la`ament in the Execaat_xvn Service lass. it b Exa to rent contract entered into by the ap�oointive aa�thorit ar:d ,thf aRplicant pursuant totosubsection (17 wild become affective_and bindzn only uu on aoszrova3 °-apt a resolution-of the Cites Council_: ' SECTIO ' 7.: EFFECTIVE DATE. inasmuch as it is necessary that the orderly � administration- of City business requires that the membership, termination procedure's, and contractive, provisions for the employees the 'Executive Service be established as soon as possible, an emergency as herepay' declared to exist, and this ordinance shall become effective upon its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor, and posting by the Recorder. _ vote of all. Council members present after PASSED: y being read by number- and title only, this day of 1906. Eorec_n R. Wilson, Deputy Recorder APPROVED: This play of _ - - -�' 1986. Tohn E. Cook, Mayor CE FJI ORDINAN 86 age 'z ofNP 00 d r AMENDIMEN`f TO EXECUTIVESERVICE ORDINANCE SECTION 3: Positions immediately affected: Sections 2.07,040 �> 1 to the City and 2.Q7 a 050 shall irra - ediaelyPp y clministrator, Chief' of Police, Finance officer, City Recorder and. City attorney. The incumbents currently holding the positions cif E�ead Librarian and Compquility Development Director shall be exempt from these sections unless, .at their; option, they choose to the contrary. All new, appoi r tees to the; position of Head Librarian an and Com*t:unity Ueveiopment W rector shall be subject to the provisions of these sections. t I y s L .. F.. {F CITY OF TIGARD, !2REGON . COUNCIL AgENGA !TES biLO ARY AGENDA OF: *larch 24, 1986 AGENDA ITEM j DATE sUBMITTrD. march 18, 1.986 PREVIOUS ACTION: _Passed Resolution ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: AssamSummer Callinsa !'or Publi.2 H-arin� V �.:. g Lake III Sides Yard Utility Easement PREPARED BY: Loreen Wilson � n1 L+ac tior P Es�ic lie ri.nS REQUESTED BY: Art Lutz OEPARTMENT HEAD tll<: CITY AI]MINTSTRAT0R: POLICY ISSUE Councilinitiated Street placation request — consistent With Council policy as adopted by Resolution filo. 05-30. INFORMATION SUMARY On February 17, 1906, Council passed Resolution No. 86-23 to call for a public hearing can Council initiated request to be held at 7:00 PM on 3 '24/86. Staff requested :a Council initiated vacation -to vacate' the side yard utility easement areas within Amart Summer' Lake 1.11 subdivision located on S# 127th Court and Std Springwood Drive. leo objections were filed by utility companies. Planning Commission and the Engineering Division Dave recommended approval. The hearing was published in the Tigard; Times according to City and State requirements and all abutting and affected property owners have been notified by .rail. All fees will be paid by Art Lutz prior to recording of the ALTERNATIVES COWSIOERED 1. approve vacation request as shown. 2, Approve vacation request with amendments. 3. Request staff to prepare resolutlon denying proposed vacation based on objections and remonstrances received during the public hearing.' SUGGETlE7 ;ACTION staff recommends alternate #1. Motion to. approve ordinance as presented. lw/3690A MEMORANDUM CITY 4F T'IGARD, OREGON TO: Mayor and City Council March it'. 1356 ROM: Randy'Clarno, Engineering Services Manager SUBJECT: Amart Summerlake III Side Lot Line Utility Easements Vacation The Engineering Division recommends the vaczetion known as "��sart Summerlake III Easement Vacation" he approved without special conditions. This recommendation is based "on there following '�findings: (a) There is no effect on 'traffic, pedestrian, or bicycle circul«tion. No r~e�porsr± was received from fire or-. police relative to response time. Drainage in the area can be adequately provided for without use of the side lot--line easements. No response was received from any utilitycompany relative to existing or proposed facilities; ( ,) The proposers vacation is not contrary to the transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan; and (c) The vacation is not contrary to the Capital Improvements Plan. lw/3793A MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREOGN r TO: City Council March 12, 2986 FROM: Keith Lidera, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Planning Commission recommendation for vacation of Suminor Lake utility easements :4t the March 4, 2986 hearing, the Commission reviewed the proposal to vacate speIcific side yard utility easements within Summer Lake Mo. 3. The Commission has no objection to the vacation of the easements shown on the attached copy of the plat, KSL:bslol v. IS IN ME I Iii 1 : 1: a, A R _ ; r.^,, -. t ..{�. l � x � � � � r, .�� ...�� `� � �.y (k f ii( F, �. .' f - E {ip.. E' �` t � p CITP ©F 7ZG�►Ri� {�£3£G AGF-NDA ITEM 9 AGCNIDA OF: _L8 6 DATE .SWMITTE�: 311?�85 P3:E.:Vzo s ACTION: Co appro�„ar� 2.,4i its ISSUEJUDA TITLE: 8� w8� Keith 3 idea r — Lincoln Savings & Loan, PREPARED BY' � Cneela.d Estates EtE X13 BY: CITY AGNIN11TRATOR: �. 0EPARTMAT HEAD 'OK: LICY ISSUE �— w�8F�3�'�Idl� gM4A Y rove 1986 r iiPO id 6 appealer the Plaon nning Cominui rementission e fort i�POt# 5i.p A On Marc11 i0s Council waived the fee eq S l—$6. ' On the same dates be fore the Council. Copies of dPO �F' S ` hearing base upon the record must occur transcript and minutes from the oppeal 'letter'� Planning Cammiss'on Final girder; public hearing, petition and letters =submitted at the hearings list February 4s 1985 hearing; and affidavit of mailing with notice of. of speakers,_stef., report; attached. site plan, and mal .ling list are 1. Uphol.cl the Go-Tanission. Decision. �; Reverse the GO .isgion Decision. 3. modify the Com`nissiorq Decision - 3. Remand the issue back to the Commission for further consideration. i z y a -- ro , iate. ,t Itcview record and mage a decisaa:� as appp 10 3,230 March 1 O, 1986Notice of Appeal (. j planning Commission 4ase Number: S t-$6 8 , a' APO ppr=altnc Part{: Ndighborhood Planning Organization ��c� 5JR is. Jpca � � Gg f A Final Decision Date: March 10, 1386 4;I,0PfA ' F�A&A � The Neigiiborhood Planning organization (NPO) is appealing Planning k re mission Case Number S >i-86, addressed at the Februaryenu , 1986 be Planning omm fission meeting. The NPO requests _ "Che following provisions for this action �. remanded back to 4 , ctt�ng �, r under section 18.32.370 of the development coder 1. Due to the timing of the Pl�.rsn,,ng C ammission public notice, the landowners were no able to deet with the NPO end voiee their '. ecision with ssion d concerns. meetings held after the Planning sol ed yin very constructive the neighborhood 'and NPO c►�airman have re invola+ement regarding development of the proposed land. The NPO did not have the regdred input to make an info decision regarding this develcpmer�t, thus the request for denial at the Planning Coramisian meeting. has. research conductrduced ed by residents of the neir.�htrarhladd not eva table at evidence of the unique physical character of the the time of the Planning Commission mee�ting.�4 ted site by �f nce �rli�ke result of a preliminary ex�,minai ion o. the pro, _ Houck, Urban Naturalist of the Audubon ociety. inlr wetlands anuck has dd`�r mined that several lots are clearly within ex-ist g should not be built c;n rsee attached letter). 3. Several other topics were inadequately addre ed at both the NPO and Manning Carnmission meetings. These include-. haracter a. The character of the h�rc�rUsed neighborhood Esti esot ,decelonlrentc. Faith adjoining t,goper Creep- and Kn,.._Ia A more aPPOropriato out of the lots to ad acent�deJ" `lf�fen the shape and'criaracter of the tats of th� should be considered. a b. Transportation issues such as: 1. ,s cited in the stuff report. the intersection of PiverLvc�od Notice of Appeal S 1--86 Page Two Lane and 92nd Avenue will require a tr affic study addressing sight distance concerns. The neighborhood agrees with this request but is concerned with the lack of a spiecific time at which the study may be conducted (winter, low use; summer, high use; weekday or weekend; day or night). Also, no specific direction is given to the pedestrian aspects of the Study. ' 2. The character and volume of the increased traffic from Tigard �..: High School and rook Bark on Riverwood Lane through the Picks Landing, Kneeland Estates and Copper Creek residential areas was not adequately addressed. 3. too specific proposal was made to address the problem of is private driveways on lots 17 and 18 which may be directly across from Riverwood Lane and intersect with 32nd Avenue: 4. Parking problems,@rise when events are held at gook park if parking at the perk during the summer. lns forces park visitors to park -lona 9`nd Avenue as far away as Tigard High School. This overflow parking would be diverted to Riverwood Lane. The NPC) as a city recognized representative of the neighborhood requests waiver, of the appeal fees. Respectfully submitted, i" Phil Pasteris, Chairman tfi I \APO--�-- C�ttY� a AUDBON SOCIETY OF PORTLAND a A Branch of National Audubon Societe r fl'Pt7r� PHONE 292-6855 5151 NORTHWEST CORNELL ROAD PORTLAND, OREGON 97210 March 3, 1986 4 l City of Tigard Planning Department P. '0. Box 23:397 711igard, Oregon 97223 Re.-Kneeland Estates, Number 3 l visited the site recently: at the request of a local landowner and wanted to let you know I have some specific concerns about the pl.a.eement of 'lots in ,obvious wetlands. Lots: ; 2; 1, l7` and 18 are all clearly within existing; wetlands and shouldscat he built on, if the developer does go ahead with plans t develop these lots it is my 'opinion that �0� permit ' would be required and you should notify the applicant that w}xis is ;the case. As 'I haa€a'additional information at this time z will await moxa zrxatlan frau you about ;the status of this project. Sincerely, Mike Houck t ac Jack Broome, Conservancy Gene Herb, 0Dr t� BrianLightcaP, U. S. Army Coa:ps, Joe Pesek, sJDFW a I I 2F ....... ...... M WN "Abo r INNER 1�01-11 gy q l�t;;cL� •.'.sn.L ' 0 �G41i.d � d Ll .01 kC 'A'O 4 P / B a f',�✓.��. �~ ':'��''t_.�, jv'v" fill vs`k'��,::•rc,' i.e4 1615 ; 56.1cxy '�-��r�" �'i✓,�, [1 �t�C i_.'L 5�:. f'�- `+�7'� ��J fit., �-t -•L `. LiJL CITY OF TIGARD { - "Washington County', Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER – BY PLAFfNiNG COWMISSION 1. ConcerningCase Number(s): S 1 -86 2.. flame:of Owner: Lincoln S��sins s & Loan f' 3. Name,of Applicant: Same Address 'j0250 'SFt Greenbu� Rd. City' Portland State OR Zip, 97223' f; G. Location of Property: Address West of 92nd Ave. between Kneeland Estates II and Cook Park Tax Rap 11 and Lot NOW— (2S1 14A lot 900) Sa Nature of Application: Request to divide 8.68 acres into 18 lots with a minimum saze of 7 500-s -ft. 6. Action: :Approval as requested Approval with conditions _ Denial 7. Fiotice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted' at City Rall and mailed to: r: XX The applicant « o".ers p_ _ Owners of record within the required distance v The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization MX Affected governmental agencies E. Final Decision: THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON March 10, 1986 UNLESS A.N APPEAL IS FILED. The .adopted findings of fact, decision, and statement of condition can be obtained from the Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 12755 Ski Ash, P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223. 9. Appeal. Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with 18.32.290(A.) and Section 18.32.370 which provides that a written appeal may be filed within 10 days 'after,notice is given and sent. The deadline for filing of an appeal is March 10, 1986 4:30 PM _ l0. (hestions: ' If you have any questions, please call the City of. Tigard Planning Department, 639--4171. (0257P) CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING C OMISSIO FINAL ORDER NO. 06-4,UPC A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS, S:f�3�Ch1 APPROVES AM APPLICATION FOR A SUBDIVISION (S 1-86) REQUESTED €Y LINCOLN SAVINGS A14D LOAN -- The Tigard Planning 'Commission , reviewed the above at at public �. hearing on February :4, 1996. The Commission based its decision on the facts, findings, and conclusions noted below: A. FACTS 1, Geaieml Information CASE: Subdivision S 1-96 �. b EQUEST; To divide 0,68 acres into 10lots with a minimum size of_ 7,500 3care feet. �. IT COMPREHENSIVE OLAM DESIGNATION; Lova Density ;Residential ZON I D SId aF;TIf : R--45 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre) APPIICPAT: Lincoln Savings and Loan OWNER: SAME 10250 SW Greenburg Road Portland, €R 97223 LOCATION: wast of 92nd Avenue between kneelaned Estates NO. II and Cook Park 2. Beck rssa� Preliminary Plat approval was granted in 1961 (S 11-GO/CPR 12--81) for 22 � attached ;and 5 detached single family residential lots. The fin6al plat was never recorded and the approval has expired. �.. 3, Vicinit Inforraatioea Kneeland Estates No. 2 lies to the north and Tigard High School is ' northeast on the opposite side of 92nd Avenue. The €t-4.5 zone applies to this at-ea. The Copper Creek development which is zoned R-7 (PD) (Residential, 7 units/acre,. planned development) lies immediately west and Cook Park abuts the southern boundary of the property. #. lite -Lnfqn_Mtion #' s The property is presently undeveloped. The terrain slapea downward from north to south with grades of up to 30% in the northern portion of the site. The southern half of the property is within the 100 year flood '.. plain. i l' E FINAL ORDER NO 06--02PC --'PAGE 1' The applicant proposes to divide: the property into 18 single family residential lasts, all with a minimum size of 7,500 square flet Riverwood Lane will be extended from its terminus at Copper Creek to f92nd Avenue. in addition to Riverwood Lane, four, lots will have frontage an the gars Avenue cul-de-sac in Kneeland Estates NO. Although this proposal represents a reduction in the number of lots froi � 27, to 18, the subdivision layout: and street alig:sment are very similar to the proposal that VkAs approved in 1981. 5. etacy and BJPC Comments a The Enginearing Division has the 'Following comments: a. Lots 17 and i8 on the east side of 92nd Avenue will preclude the extension of _Riverwood Lane to the east. The applicant should be h sother reasonable alternatives exist for able to t.orae that providing access to the property to the east. b. The 'issueof stormwater runoff presents several problems which must be clarified. Storinwater through "Tract A" from the school prsaperty and 92nd Avenue 'deeds to be addressed along with 'the gullythrough Lots 10, 11, and 12 and the drainage over Lot a in than event of a catch hasin failure on the 93rd Avenue cul--do-sac- C. , A private; pond is located above Lot 12.: Liability for any floodimg caused by the pond and the right of this 'owner to release water onto Lot 32 is unknown. d. Slope easemer€ts alang 'River-wood Lane vii l be 'necessary. e. if Riverwood Lane does not connOct with the ceompleted portion in Copper Creek, a temporary turn around will be nece=ssary. f. Lots 7 and 8 have double frontage and access should be limited to one street. The access for Lot 16 shall be, limited to Riverwood Lane. q. R traffic report is needed indicating what measures should be taken to mitigate the site distance limitations at the proposed Riverwood Lane/92nd avenue intersection. h. The applicant -nest provide stomt.4ater runoff report addressing r proposed an and off site stor water and erosion control during and after construction. This report must ac dress tile impact Of upytcremm drainage facilities and - the 'mitigation of adverse Q stormwater impacts upon City Park and greenway areas. i. The 100 yezr flood plain should be dedicated to the City as j, A Sensitive Lands Permit will be necessary for any construction or gradrirg-within the flood plain, drainageways, or slopes over 25�• k An, reduction in the width of the City's standard street sectian, will raquis^,a the approval of a variance. FINAL ORDER NO. 06-+02PC - PAGE 2 s q The Building Inspection Division notes that the slopes on many of the lots are steep and that development and meeting setbacks standards may be difficult.` The Tigard School District and NPO #6 have no objection. No other comments have been received.' S. FINDIMGS `ASID CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Tigard Comprehensive Man policies 2.1.1, 3.1.1, 3.2.1, 7.1.2,: 7.3.1, 7.4.4, 5.1.1, and 8.1.3 and Community Development Code Chapters 18.50, 18..160, and 18.164. Since the Comprehensive Plan has been acknowledged, the Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines no longer need to be addressed. The Planning Commission concludes that the proposal with minor modifications is consistent with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Plan based upon the findings'noted below: a. 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 convent on the applicant's proposal. b. Policy 3.1.1 will be satisfied provided that any portions of the Lots which exceed 25% slope are not graded or filled without a a Sensitive Lands Pesiit. C. Policy 3.2.1 will be satisfied because development within the 100 year flood slain will be avoided, If any of_ the proposed street does encroach upon the flood plain, a Sensitive Lands Permit will be required. d. Policy 7.1.2 can be suet when additional infon-nation, noted in the Engineering Division comments, is submitted and appropriate mitigation measures taken. e. Policy 7.3.1 and 7. 8,4 are satisfied because adequate water and sewer facilities are available to the development, The applicant also indicates that these facilities will. be provided within the subdivision as required by the City standards. f. Policy 8.1.1 will he mat once the termination of Riverwood Lane at 92nd Avenue is justified or provisions for future extension to the east are made. g. Policy 9.1.3 will be satisfied when the conditions of approval relating to street improvements are completed, The Planning Commission has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of the Community Development Code based upon the findings noted below: y FINAL ORDER No. 96-02PC PAGE. 3 f __� _ al. Chapter 13.50 of; ;.he Code is satisfied %be.sause the.: proposal meets all of the requirements of the R-4.5 zone. t b. Chapter 18.1-60 of the Code is satisfied because the proposal meets the requirements set forth for the submission and approval of a preliminary plat. C. Chapter 18.1614 of the Code will be satisfied during the approval process for the final plat. C. DECISION � Based upon;the findings, and conclusions above, the Planning Commission approves of S 2--86 subject to the following conditions: T PRIOR `r0 1. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL CONDITIONS SMALL BE P1dE RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT. 2. Standard iealf-street and full street improvements ' including €` sidewalks, curies, streetlights, driveway aprons, storm drainage and utilities (delete inapplicableitems) shall be installed along the SW Sind Avenue frontage. Said improvements alo:ag SAN 92nd Avenue shall be. built to (60' R/W, ,36' Pvmt.) City standards including an 8 ft walk on the west side and conform to the alignment of existing improvements. (* note the attached section ,h was approved via Kneeland Estates`subdivision development). aha Pp 3. Severn (7) setsof plan-profile; public improvement construction plans including a site grading plan and cross sections and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate, stamped by a Registered professions, Civil Engineer, retailing all proposed public improvements shall be submitted to the Engineering Section for• approval. is 4. Sanitary and storm sewer plan-profile details shall be provided as t part of the public improvement plans. a. Slope easements along Sod Riverwood Lane shall be provided to the �. shall be on City forms or on the plat grad public. Documentation approved by the Engineering Section. 6. The applicant shall provide a stormwater runoff report addressing proposed 'onsite and offsite storater control and soil erosion control (during and after construction); said report shall alsa ` address the impAct of upstream drainage facilities on he site and the mitigation of storrwater damage to the downslope City pari: 6 open space lands. r 7. Construction of proposed public improvements shall not commence until after the Engineering Section has issued approved public improvement plans. The ;sections will require posting of a 100% Perforvance bond, ` the payment of a Permit fee and a sign . inztallationistreetlight fee. Also, the execution of at construction compliance agreement shell' occur prior to, oragreement e rt; concurrently with the issuance of 'approved public improvement plans. SEE THE ENCLOSED £°fAa4 D0uT CIVIFJr, PIQRE SPECIFIC__-_ „_TNFi RfLA1__�104 RL£GAPDING FEE SCHEILULES 80 NJ1PdC AND AGREEMENTS. . i FINAL ORDER NO. 96--Cs2PC - PAGE 4 } S. Sid Riverwood Lane will connect with Riverwood Lame in the development to the west (Copper geek). 1(7 1, 9. Additional right=-of-way shall be dedicated to the public along the Sid 92nd Avenue frontage to increase the right-ef-way to 30 feet � from centerline. The description Ifor 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 Sanction. DEDICATION FORMS AND I STRUCT1:ON ARE ENCLOSED, 1.0. Double frontage lots, namely # 7 'and 8, shall both be restricted to only one access each on the same public roadway, � 11. Lot #16 shall only have direct access onto SWRive-wood Larne. 12. The applicant shall provide a traffic report indicating measures � to be applied to mitigate sight distance concerns, at the intersection of Riverwood Lane and 92nd Aventine, to the Engineering Section. The Riverwsood Lane easterly access shall`be addressed in conjunction with this study and Lots 17 and 1S shall be platted and Tract "A" shall be dedicated to the City once the traffic study has been reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division, 13. The applicant shall dedicate lands within the 100 year ' >floodplain and the property south of the road not platted into Lots 1,2,,and 3 fog greenway+ purpolses. 14 Street Centerline Monumentcation a. In accordance wl. OPS 92.060 subsection (2), the centerlines of all street and roadway rights--of--•may shall be monumented before the City shall accept a street improvement. b. All c sterling monsaments' shall be; placed in a monument box conforming to City standards, and the top of all monument boxesshallbe set at design finish grade of said street or roadway. C, The following centerline monuments shall be set: 1) All centerline-centerline intersections. Intersections created with "collector" or other existing streets, shFAll be set when the centerline alignment of said "collector" or other street has been established by or for the City: n 2) Center of all cul-de-sacs; L FINAL OR13ER NO. 86--02PC - PACE 5 3) Curve points, points of interwection _(P.I.); when ';their position falls inside the limits of the pavement �. other-wise beginning and ending points (B.C. and E.C.). 4) All sanitary and strum location shall be placed in positions that do not interfere with centerline monumentation, 15. A Sensitive Lands Permit shall be required for any encroachment' into the 100 year floodplain or construction in drainage:vays or slopes over 25%. 16. Lot 12 shall be subject to the setbackand height requirements for flab lots contained in Sections 18.96.090 and 18.96 of the Code. 17. A tree cutting permit shall bp obtained from the City prior to removing any trees over 6 'inches`in diameter. 18. lifter review and approval by the Planning Director and City; Engineer, the Final Plat Shall be recorded with Washington County, 19. This approval is valid if exercised within one year of the final decision date noted below. : It is further ordered that the applicant be notified of the entry of this order. PASSED: This day of 1986, by the Planning Commission of the City of Tigard. A. Donald Moen, President Tigard Planning Commission (KSL:b38 ) FINAL ORDER NO. 636---02PC: PAGE: 6 TRANSCRIPT : TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION February 4, 1986 ITEtl 5.1 - LINCOLNSAVING & LOAD (S 1-86) Commissioner Butler, Peterson, C ISSIOfl'Ei'IS PRESENT: President Moen; L verett. Bergmann, Newman, and S AND LOANIK ELAPdO ESTATES III NPO # 6 SUBDIVISION s 1-96 LI.�f�OLi� SAVINGS with a minimum lot ' Request to subdivide a 8.68 acre parcel rota 18 lots, s ft. , an proparay zoned R-#.„ (Residential 4.5 4of size of, 7,500 W• Cook Par's units/acre) Located: Between' Kneeland Estates and Tigard High school (2S1 14A, lot 900 President Moen, (Read procedures onto into the record) "With that we move iter. 5.1, staff do we have a report. Newton Senior Plann4?,r I ,Item 5.1 is a propr�sal far a subdivision and the �aroposal is located to the wast of SW 92nd just north of "laok'Park., There's applicant's proposing to divide that into 18 lots, 8.68 acres involved and the app �t each. A little history, on this consisting of approximately 7500 sq. however that preliminary plat approval was granted i.n 1.9fl1, application. A p royal has expired Uh, basically the plat was never recorded, and the app applicant's proposals meets most of applicable planning the approval. p roval. Wengot code requirements, if certain conditions are attached to :the app permit, perhaps, or the property and some problems with steep slopes' u?hich would require a sensitive lands .. particular is 'she north section of the drai a ear areas would' also require a perhaps in this area here. Uh, any sensitive lands permits before development could occur. 2ivepplicant Lane would another concern and Riv d Laerwood Lane nce be �nnected�in�this re narea. staffyou'll r �notice in your propose that Riverwoo e 5, relate to Riverwood Land. staff report, condition number 8 and 9 on pag ra Desai then staff was a This conditions, 'These conditions were ox line was,ginallY p However, the surveyor has little unclear as to where this praper`tynd can be determina�d that property lines�str that theindeed aPlanningdjacent aCoanmiss oner make that a connected• So I would suggest applicant; in conditions 8 condition and not leave the option available to the app. ere and 9. Several, Tax_ Lots, or Lot I cat will neede f torma e�choiceo as 93rd Ave, and ora Riverwoo Lane. The app and which s#reet these lots will be oriented to and also -take into con. . . .. . . n. I which bels ca thane are some 'special setbacks involved, and we got to . . . , we,1, have to make sure that they conform to those-condition. Lot number 16 shall h ineerin accass onto River-,good L�anep ��1�'3n��ther to be;p�dedpcated �.nut e AE�g ll land i� the 100 year flood plat _ Department i� a little bit concernedmade a.nd bwe�would likeaccess toosee�somP�more atra+f f� 92nd, how that connection is m e mitigated. so s_a information c + how vision and access impacts might b_ rt with the a^ecs�saaanerzsis approval with the conditions also as tosbe a little t le bit conted in the staff cerned about modifications' to il. 'and 9, and al permit, because with some of the trees in the `area orad obtain a tree cutLi.ng p_ Prosian if we 1ha_-sof slag*a in the area, we could have some problem with {r, ar•z not careful in the removal of chase trees." TR #3S4:itIPT LINCOLN SAVINGS & 9.OA�l6J 4 1-85 Pace 1 a �LL , (Several people talking) V In the Engineering Division page, in regards to 1&, 17, 1 '° Commi.ssioa°rer Butler, extension of Riverwoad and 1S, could you ,address that. The lots £ Lane. s Senior Plan:�ea Newton, ,Well., yeah, Engineering Department did bring up a concern 'about the extension of Riverwood Lane, from 92nd into this area. The Transportation Plan adopted by the City Councils shows Riverwood Lane ; Transports from 9.Of3tYr to 92nd. That `connection is shown and that, is something s ude that the Commission should be aware of, east thais not, that connections we don't really want to p is'not that option. ` However, from 92nd Ave, shown an the plan We ought to look at possible connections to serve that area. The Engineering Departments primary concern stems from the fact ld mak they don't want to; BSea cause some as?flctOf- enjood Lane -that WOu ny kind of aCs there.set to �r'However, if the connection a T intersection arr were made to the north, a couple hundred fact or SOO feet north,'that wouldn't � 9 be as big of a concern. IThese concerned You might want to considerbout a close Off set eae condition 5 Band also serving the area . . . . . . applicant to come up with some sort of circulation that would ask that the appl. t plan to serve that area to the east, , t President Moen, "Mould that } t. large lot Senior Planner Newton, , 1t a here s some large rots, its pretty la" homesites, it not a , resident Moen, "Okay, thank you staff, Can use have the applicant's presentation please" � a "Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, my nas;re is Norman Harker, ti A R K r . t@, I'm with Alpha Engineering, representing the owner, Lincoln savings, y would like to, I guess Liz has given you background an this project pretty riot approval was, uh, completed by our firm and we dirt go through well. Thep plat, almost to the state of ; the engineering plans and went through the construction and at that time, 8l, the bottom of the market fell. out and the pr^oj�ct,aaas not completed. The bank then ended up with the property through a Sheriff's sale. A couple of items that I would like to clarify, agreed ed talking' to Randy this afternoon, with the Engineering Department. He agreed that that connection to north, towaere rds the east would be acceptable, thatatuthe4vaery � isn't, if you look right at . . . . . its not shown on your nigh j s° top of tract "f", going to be south boursctesS by the Tigard High School, 16 foot right-of-way, that serves tY:s:t parcel back in. And, uh, what I discussed with Pandy was the idea. of just giving tract "�" ,uh, which on your map I don't think is very well defined, Should be a line, right here, Moen "on the 160 ft „ area in there to play with, r Harker, "So that gives a. couple, 500 .{cnaa gh) . . . a are villin to deed that to € its riot really useable for the applicant and they ar(coughing). � have quite an € the City, dedicate that to the City, • . . . area in there to;determine where the access should be. And we Would also and the offset is still 5300 feet, we have no problem with that. The F-, (pause) ream on the floor (3aragYrtex) The neighborhood association, TRANSCRIPT LINCOLN SAVINGS LOAND S 1-06 Page 2 W Uh, I wait someone -talking in backgraun d, can't hear t?kay, �. gre to address there comments later then. thesstaffyaboutwe, athe report e with thWhat awe g report, we even reviewed it and talk with €, would like to`do is, �� of the coedit:.ons, we arentl uld like one of ithe 'bigeprablerr+s clarify naw. T was- talking to Liz, `cause app after we get approval and g o back in for the nitty gritty, is malting sure teat we are in accordance with what we understand,hgconditionsprior the prior commission lfinal. understands. Item number one regarding which is n assure the P approval, -L s our understanding ructionsthat %4e ofthe streets and esoyforth to be guaranteed through a bond, "est want to built prior to firing. There is no problem, with tiZut? Gkay, 3 T31uil sure that it don't have to build all the streets end the sewer . On before we can plat, , . . . .comment from s(ARe rqe not transcribable. . . . • • item two, street improve klong 92nc Ave. frontage- I would like to add . shall be installed along the 92nd Ave. frontage, like to add "lot frontage, n front of the lots. to clarify that that is the frontage i it may senior Planner Newton, ,It would be in front of all of the property but nay k clarify by the engineer condition, not be lots, along open understanding is that he'd be responsible for these, double check that_" space, we can tiar'r:ev- "What about tract '°A" Tri otherwards we would have, anding anything, that are ultimately, New-Carl, "Anything, its my underst that a or originally was part of property is what you eaoe+ld be responsible far." k Harker, "Even though we �. mewtan, "Thais standard cutler, "Well if it was a street, Y atermz�sforat wouldn't �tstr ct sidewalk on it. If its e much sense to put a suppose to be a ewtan, "He carp discuss the impraveme,'Its with a i'laen, "That something he would work out with the pity, normally he would be responsible for all his property. . . {several people talking} "Moen, "Okay, go ahead.,, a waiver or a remonstrance in the City. Harker, "Is there a mechanism for 1lh. .for ;a !_TJ. just, uh, I think Newton, "Well we're Esat using �hem ass such, ow'typically is and if you want to the conditions should be written th_ way itw appeal that you can." Okay. Item e7.even, regarding- the two lots that Harker, "Thats fair, • the put a condition on the plat Frave double frontage,P home liUh, supposewecouldlper the option of deciding w{-rich way to race°!,his ,.ame that would specif ,that there would be only one frontage on those two 0 S 1-33G Page TRANSCRIPT Llwf,-JLN SAVINGS € LOAND � newton, '"Well, we have a problem with address, which is why we would like to see them. . . . We don't want to ` have one oriented to one street and one oriented to the other, serious problems when she assign addresses before. . . . . . . so thafs the concern, Moen, "All thereasking is, Staff wants you to take either 7 and 8 and face them one way or take 7 and 8 and face them the other way. Harker, "What would happen if the builder wanted to came in and 'face his house the other way. Newton, "You would have to do an address change and you would have to notify all the utilities and everything."` Harker, "That's not a big problem." Newton, "Well., yes it is a problem, its real time consuming, it would hold up there permit process. Its not impossible, its not recommended. 1moen, "Do you as a developer have a preference?" Harker, , "No, not as a developer, we wouldn't. It would be the person who"s building the house would be the one." Uh, number fourteen regarding the 100 year f=lood plain. I have no problem dedicating the majority of the flood plain, we rho have three lots that, in order to square the lots up somewhat we encroached a few feet mato the flood plain. We would like to clarify that as saying -that the applicant proposes to dedicate the 100 year `Flood plain for greenway purposes', except those areas noted one the preliminary plan. Newton, $'We've done that in the past .and uh, Picks Larding, there is some lots that have & portion of there back yard is in the flood plain." "Harker, "Basically thats it, we, the other items Liz has covered and ohne agree with standard subdivision assurances the public works projects and so forth. Any questions. Moen, "Any questions?" "Okay, fine. Is there someone here from the NPO?," Newton, "I have a letter. To 'Tigard Planner Commissioner from Phil Pa.steris, Chairman NPO # 6. Recommendation for denial.- and referral to NPO 0 6 on application number S 1. 86 Lincoln Savings and Loan. The NPO 6 Chairman has received numerous calls from residents concerned about the above referenced application, These ' calls .resulted from the City of Tigard public hearing notice being' given after the NPO meeting whish addressed these, this application. it is clear to me as Chairman, that do to notification timing that the WIPO lacked the input required to make an informed decision. Subsequent to the: MPO meeting the Chairman has met with residents and has determined that they have a sincere interest in the planning process and are willing to work with the Developer and the NPO in resolving -their concerns. Therefore, I am asking the Commission to, number one, deny the application, and number two, recommend that the develop zrs and citizens meet with NPO 6 on February 19, 1986, to review the proposed development. " Moen, "Is there anyone harp- from the CCI? Uh, with that we move onto the ", public hearing portion of the meeting, uh, for those in favor, Pyr. Harker has already spoken, uh, Tim Patrick. TRANSCRIPT LINCOLN SAVINGS & LOAND S 1-86 Page 4 " " Patrick, No comment g i_ acn, "Okay, with that we will move onto those in opposition, uh, first Guy Mount. "my name is Guy Mount, and I live at 9500 SCJ Rivet-wood Lane, which is right, my family is, right next to adjacent to the proposed ;sub development. I appreciate the opportunity to ;speak uh to the Planning Commission this evening and I will ;be brief. Uh, before I get sta�'t:ed 1 want to do two things. First,, I want the people present from the Riverwood, the Copper Creek area, the Kneeland Estates, and the 92nd street people who are here to stand and be recognized. Uh, secondly, I would like to do two things, one is u . a petition that :the residents of the area have signed stating some of there present concerns; and also distribute to you our brief critique of the staff report that you all have dated February 4. (pause) (newton, "You should read what the petition says for, the record." Secretary, "i: also need a copy of what you give to the commissioners." fount, "Phe petition says, we the undersigned residents asked for denial of the proposed Lincoln Savings and Loan 1 - 86 ! Kneeland Estates .CII proposed development for the following reasons: i. �4otificati.or� was given after the NPO meeting. Therefore, the residents were riot: part of the established planning process at the Npo level. %umber 2. Uncertainty of traffic safety on the ,prognosed intersection of 92nd and Riverwood Lane and incr--ased traffic flow on River-wood Land and the proposed ; extension. Number 3. Concern regarding the use of the flood plain and the develaprnent of existing natural .. greenway?. Does everybody have a copy,7 short one. (pause) I just have two short items then I will turn it over to some other people who would like to talk. I have numerous concerns with respect to the. planned subdivision, talk. I live adjacent to it, my family lives adjacent to it. Some of those issues are going to be talked about tonight, but many of them are not, which leads erre to 'i overriding concern, and that is that, uh, the residents in general were not given notification prior to the NPO #t 6 meeting that I believe was January 22nd, and as residents we feel strongly that we should have the"right to enter the process at the i4!Pt? level. we gat are notices a week ago and we feel that its just not right to be able to walk into a process you know nothing about and try and uh, act in the property manner• of feel themeeting this evening is premature and we emphasize our supe Phil 'Pas•teris, the Chairperson of NPO ## 6, uh, that we should that this, for lack of a better word, meeting set aside till the residents, the developer, and the NPC? organizatiori have a chance to get togeth and go over some of these critical issues. Uh, I, I re—emphasize that., if you don't have any more questions of aye I would like to turn it over to Liz Collins who is the uh, head of Copper 'Creek Homeowners Associations. She has a couple things she wants to talk about, unless you have any questions. Mcien, "Fortunately Liz Collins is the next one on tha_ list. "He knew that, (laughter) Uh, My name is Liz Collins, I'm President of Copper Creek Pome Ooners Association and uh, Kneeland Estates Homeowners has also asked u- to represent them since we have a viable organized Copper Creek Home Owners Association up and running. Lie are not aware of whether Kneeland TRANSCRIPT LINCCTl..lc'' SAVINGS & LOAND S 1--86 Page 5 z Estates has one or not. uh, you had touch on earlier about the concerns about traffic. We very confused because in subsection S and 9 it had indicated r that there was going to be a- turnabout in River-wood Lane, therefore it would 4 be a cul.—de-sac area, it wouldn't be athru street on 92nd and Riverwood Lane, But the proposed site mala, as well as the developers application indicates that there will be a thru street so 92nd and Riverwood Lana would intersect. We have a real problem with that be 92nd on the up side is a blind gill and if that intersects in arty way, we feel that could be, there could be possibly potential for traffic fatalities with c}-sildren and gets. So `hats one of our 'concerns, I think we need to discuss if we sit dowry to talk about this at a later "ci.ze. : Uh, the Hent thing is, if indeed this, this at any time is approved, you knave, we would like to have some type, of traffic study done because Copper Creek, excuse me, Cook's lurk is a very busy park, one of the largest in the state of Oregon and if at any time if any of you have seen that park or have enjoyed that park during the Summertime you can imaging what type of traffic flows in there. Many of those people would probably like to take their shortcuts thru Riverwood Lane, which would go that � Copper Creek' Development and :uh, so thats a real concern of ours too. Uh, I would :like to turn it over to someone who wants to talk about the educational blows by adding property or houses to that. Oh; I'm sorry . . . , okay now where ,going ,to -talk about the"flood plain`. wally. ; Moen, "Before we get started with Sally are there any questions?" Collins, "I'm sorry was there any questions?" Moen, "I had one 'question, uh, with respect to the streats here, uh, are you ,aging that, what would you propose, do you have a problem with this connection to 92nd danger of the intersec3ion. Collins, "Yes, because on the up side of 92nd, its a. hill., and it, it come �P down, I can demonstrate. It cones down like this and Riverwood would intersect this way. Thats a possibility that people could be driving very quickly along 92nd and there could be a problem." Moen, 1114hat would be your proposal or alternative?" Collins, "That River-wood would not go thru." Moen, "Mould not go thru on this end or this end?" Collins, "That end." � Moen, "This one, . . . . Collins, well, we ;.could hope that maybe it wouldn't go thru at all, we like it the way it is. We don't want any changes." Moen "I understand that, Okay. Uh, next Sally Arroyd." Sally t rroyd, " rroyd, I live at 9505 SW Rivermood Lane, I'm on the other side at' the Mounts but adjacent to lot number four on the plan. I would just like to say in speaking for the citizens of_Copper Creek', Kneeland Estates, r and 92nd, uh of who were recognized here. Wz have a concern with the findings and conclusions of the staff report. with existing water and sewer TRANSCRIPT LINCOLN SAVINGS & LOAND' S 1-86 Page 6 facilities, we want to make sure that its not just adequate. We have "hears`) horror tales „where water pressure goes down and people have to come in a build �'• water towers and you ,et into a wt;ole -mass of things. tae would like astudy done to make sure that there is more than adequate water and sewer facilities to handle the expanding development. grid we also dry have a concern being on the flood plain and the impact of building within the sensitive area. Liz mentioned uh, `erne comments. erosion, things like •that, as faras the .t engineering }flan. We do what a study of that. A geological study, whatever =: you call :t. e want t43 make sure that there is going to be no unnecessary erosion that will cause'anything, any of ours to all of L sudders disappear. Ism not rtakins3 myself very char, ';bast we are concerned with, in a nutshell, with the sensitive land area issue as well as the 100 year flood slain issue. Building in, if you look at 'the plan there, of course there are three homes that will built in the flood plain, but also, ,part of the street will. .be in the flood plain, and I believe in the Engineering findings that they ;do c? the road raeri�tion that none of b; �i Moen, "According to -the reap that we have here none of the streets are in the � flood 'plain., Except for 92nd which goes down into the Park." Arr cyst, "Oh, okay, alright. its close. Its cl.os . We do want to � . . . . . .. make sure that of course the flood plain is maintained, turned to rreenwas , whatever-, Thank you. Triose are my comments. vicen. "Okay, * L Z' Arroyd, ":Any questions?" $r Iften, "I doIn't believe so, right now, thank you. 1-3h, Carl Leslie." �r :'m nastte is Dan Leslie, I live at: 9540 SW Riverwood La rse orad I'm a concerned m,, mber of the Copper geek Homeowners Association. I uh, :being an X educator I'm concerned with the growth of 'Tigard in general and in that area, having young children that lull) be attending school, and knowing that the problems that the district: is having right now with the gra:>sth, . . .(coughing)_ Superintendent . . . • . . addressed this very issue today at the high school lavel, with the highs school teachers, trying to get some input on which F new direction they are going to take with the growth of Tigard. It seems that it is doing from na very s:rall City, 33rd in Oregon to like 13th in the Mate., as far as states go and population and I don't think this district is able to Reap up with this continued growth that has taken place. Ch, this, this new subdivision would be 'a optional area, which moans that the district cars go s; either spray yearly on which school. the students would attend. They .could attend either the Durham Elementary School or the other School, next to the Junior,High, Templeton. Ansi, this, the High School right now is experiencing terrible growing pains in that it is built for 900 to 1,000 students and its currently enrolled 1500 to 16+00 students and they are going -to have to build additional schools, as it :is already, and I'm concerned about the growth there. Another issue, dealing with the High School is the traffic created .by the High ,School and the driving habits of young high School drivers in that area. They already tend to use the hill quite a bit for different playing.. . .laughter.. activities, and they do race up and clown the hill and they do, and there is a lot of foot traffic going thru'there as well, because they like r to the access to tine park during 'the times that they are not in class, and we feel that this would also bring about some unwanted high school traffic thru 6" TRANSCRIPT LI;'CO i;9 SAVINGS LOAND S 1.-86 page 7 Vis, 211 UR �d t h� saabdzv:x_i-caareV :R'i.vz�nraoad zs i:� .s,t&rjds hats ,nay strip .s`iggre . va7ryttt'i�ag ec?aing :into �tiverwcaad,:has scop •s:ic,3ns„ it =i.ts 1f utas +no -stop st.gns 'and >doas leave atseopen to ui to a 'bit =of fast .mow G =�rzOT- AriiV we `feel Like lrf 'durz.nrg t mes that there zr�e soccer .games, a�ed faotbsill gaase a, •iAtl., '.k�ei.ng attended at the ihi�h ;school thstt therm �waaild be ,an =excess ,of traffic ;cssa�it� thru thea :a^i a, <uihere it i•s .Piot ,accessible :at the ,cur rent.' ;Any :maaestions? €aeteri mn„ `"FYiis 'infnr,Yi tanr,youur rexpress nboaat the rschodls, is this coming 1- from the school. ;distr.ict ;or is this it'sP"iiiianr" -,is .from the School D15.tr'i.ct. i tr.zed to talk to , uper•zritere israt Uoki :ray g3f today„ stae astas nest ,avaiJat le :becaaas� 'he was �speaV.ing at the :t i h school_ 'I "cial: :m� information `�hru :z teaar.?aer tV:ere:: icy a�a�fe =is .a teacher at `Igard #tiah `ciha6l, :cumentl;y, ,and :is .also very aware of the prrstila�n '.tt�mre. Moen,, l"Do :we =t� vas .a letter from the :Sdhool.:" WeL4ton., "They were motif-led arca :had no =.db ecticm— Me :alwmy.s notIfy ;the several pelgple. ILess.l:i.e, "If I •mil? 7ra�iVice =a cat€ai nt.. The hi_gta 5.sO l .pr,nciOle dict make a comirerit that itt2y cVa : :et :ge't _E7vn:lved �i this till of s�.::uat',,n and Chats .wtay they Im de nrj -colmmnt„ because they feed Uke they Ican':t ;Tey„re -,two sad there„ they <dan'`t :want to :have .anymore uirowth herre.."' sera,! 'Qk� oat cae .da:, .as ;part ,af .pal:iclr,, :s toff s required, .actaaalsl•y ,regaair es the .ap llcant acfivally't !}i`�saton., "'al+`o., ,tee'r of i F;y Ghe 'Sehooi 'DIstrict,ict °Ofcf ice •r+nc1 ;gener�ilt,y =we u�a l'1 ;get �?itrser :no cows .ent 'back .or :some ;i~}V'ormat on orL the i this arti.carlar Case aae 'have a standard fay ,thatt ;goes saaat .and 3.'ts aa�iled to ttaeaa x+zitV� a ca�'y € caf the ;t rbl osr l;,: .arr�i �,n ,emplanat'ion., :and in this .case„ 'Uh., `let -see, u'a { N"ere" ,.yeah racjht :hear., they 'E'lavQ ldhecked ;it :and says ,we have .reviewed :the r qpa al 1have tea .sVjectirns;and than ,,-Its signed ;by the !person twho .... ......... :and these •go to the tdistrildt .af,-fice.. : aePs,, ":racer .an +csppor bun y fc r =the 'E?3 strict to L•es ils,, "T rancur ,with .What 'h'is .secretary., .she ro'id .say ,thaw they do r get ,;these farms and runless there Is any ,extreme prutaleaaes they idrn ,haa;e .no la ounents., k s Caen;♦ Comfi`ssicners,, '.da %you 1have 'ar}y qLFe:tionS7" i°iaen:a Iq ;have ti.ms for 'Pebutt-4l., you ;want %you ask ,Your °questlon :now :or,,do ;yaa.i t Sat ter,, ",Lets ibri!m V tam favi.tt yen;, t6 .dcay„ Ti�av as :it s ,far as those 3.n ppPos.itim , ,Uh, =101 :one �,a <ar�eaii usittithe rebutt4l and then wn car'.as'k :our qaaew`V ians..:" several: People talking. €, -PAMv$"RIPT 'LI�Vs,LAI 'SAViCf�a3S',S 4 =Vrt)kiND ,S ��.--.36 iP�g�: £i fi 1 ,Moen "iMr. �"arker, would •you :like a few ,minute to r6bUttal. We ask that you ;address `tha Tissues tFiat'have'been spaci`fically raised:" i ,darker, '"Ok4y, r.Very .brie-fly, :r_egardin "the Neighborhood .'Association, I:idid call :Rha+1 -pr=stErzis, '.two weeks .ago, %6h, 'ho"was .ware•of ;the ;project. 'I asked of -I :coup :come :to :the ;VPO :meeting and ?I"went `to it,and,explai.rred he,p.pr :to :the!Neii*hboilicod ?'Association, ,at that :-Ame .they .passed -a.�r;sr+tion ;to �-Forward recommendation for .approval •to ithe 'Plannincg Goanrrrr.s ion and {today', "I -balked ':to:s:taff, they':had ;apparently :rhar?.ged their:mind, I'did also, uh, on,p=riday, :was =in the rGi.ty ;t_6ffice 'and met,With -staff, eand at :that .time, 'purposely to find iodt Who "the ,neijhbors .would and .how 'to :contact .ss me of the n4ighbors acid :.at that : ',time met 'With Sally fArroyd, ::and explained .a +li:ttle ,bit "of .what rthe ;pre>j. ct t.was "Tike and=have her;rry 'card and o'Ffered ;to merit .wi h :-the in4iigbhors, Duh, rain yMonday in :the ;day or• ,in the evening, :%whatever, ..and asked'her=:to„giue rare "a ca1.1 .and I .didn't :hear ;aTlJthing, .but- 'I dict Offer to meet 1with =them, iso iais 'far +as ',the .apolaicant'.s •cancerned .we',me 'tries --to work .With -the .neighbor hood assn, iatisrn and the ,nei4hbors, As `far as the ilissues `brought 1 up. 'its =pot 1 a :whdle Adt• different :from ,neighbors who buy zon a,.-dead rend ,street, ithats stuck >into::'tha woods, Nits anice itplace` to ,.live .until. .:the inevitable corner arta cih. =Several iteFts were :broucjht •up, ;one is :that Rivery iew'Lane `bein extended ,on .92nd Uwould `pro%iide a shortcut. tend V�m, 3 .1m not sure .just ,,Where, .that .would :.shortcUt to, It seems :like, ,rather .a °non 'factual':,statement ;to say ;that ? dt,would ?be;a shortcut !throucgh .someWher: I+m:not:aware where Riverview Lane',.should shortcut to. .The :.connection ,Point, As basically'.given, zthere's, `if ,we rove` furttrer away 'From ,t#te 'tgp of '.the •hill''t#rer^e would ,be -a .Into the :-flood ;plain or we "s;:aitch -.the kconnection with .RAverview <Lane` on 192rid -as far sadth as ,possikile, ;there :is about SOD 1'ea•t of ,sight .distance .available: We gree. that There .i.s --at.hi-11 at ,the 'tap, :and -Ohtei:ng"anl:obse.r=ver .that :the�high . school :students lido came .over the `hill. -fairly s}ui:ot ly, t?nd our ,paasic -feeIirr -is that :chats :an ;enforcement ,problem, and ._1V,m Lnot -sure;,What.we,as 'ai developer. ,rarreserFt:irr<a -a :r:avelriper, :could :do :about .that, :.'that � ype of :.situation. �I sympathize, 'but, .3 °m :not sure ;what :our ;perimeters .are in .there, ;I :don`.t =know ;oto iyr:uch,aborlt 'that. =Ts .there:any::questions. :Butler„ "'.Yeah, 'I °had, :was :there input :from 'the -Tj.gard ;Water'District ::about service. "Newton, "`I dcsri°;t;have :the=cu}y:of a reponse "sheet`frram:`them. Harker, 'Ne did,receiue .plans ;:previously When we :went '.thru .the ?.process in'81 :they,, ••-at that time, =:drew ttheir::cwn .plans up and, ,uh, •drew up,plans .to -service '.the ,propaety.. There :is, .there is,.aaater at both ends _acrd they, and there would Y.be :an J11intertie, Is °;rwhat ::they :,vjould ,hike Ito see ihapapen, :between ''72nd and rRaverwood tLane. 8�ttler, "'okay. }There,;weren'.t -arty .-sewerjolans, daherc 14arker, Sarii,tary ;sewer is in an 'existing :cul--dP_-sac -:and i:t goes .do south. severdl 'talking. ,.,,, The 'line =::sloes "_go ?down .into =:tire .truck line, -down by Moen, "commissioner`Levere�tt.do ;you:have 'any .s us�stiorr 'ITRANSCRI T;p.71%COLN,1.SAV1 GS ' ;:LOAND :�S )1-86 ::Page .9 Leverett, Lots !1, '2 and 3 there, them is small. portion a.n' the, flood plain. Uh, .Do 11you !-t;Wave 'any -idea if you took m,those :out of -the flood; plait,, if f,; <there uaoulc i be enough Ahere to meet the requirements?" .J the ares without a roblem, :Harker, ""Sensitive ,area? - tie could, provide N What:you would end,1'up -With ,is -xa .lot` that has a�" ].ot :of j ig3 and =jogs An At. Leverett, ""Yeah, 'I, understand that:" Harker, "For the- rperson who buys the lot and trys to build a fence, that r:re�illy'frustrating. F%Wewman, "'The land bt=.tween the 1'00 year flood . �alain and the street between ` 16ts '2 and '3, .between:l arid=''42nd €eve. . . . . . . . . :" Harker, '"+le'd�'dedicate, If t : read ,,,you right, your talking about `the small Portions, :everything ;`from ,the ' stre A ,;to tete south with the exception of the Jots wotald'' be `dedic�xtod 'to tine 'Ci.ty. There 'would be. no reason .to; have flag strips:" r ec etan, " 9ere'itsays° you tilldr'dicate area inthe flood plain." Harker, ":Right; '4No, `are intention would be ,to 'dedicate everything to the south• of:t ,e,right--of-+xray ""And my understanding is that street improvements would •be' inc luded saltang".those area`s?" z Eiarker, "'?Thats correct Wea°r€nara, "Even::though',they "don'-t abut a'la.t':" 'Harker, 'Thais, right'.'„ 'Maen, "'Okay, :,any :;other :questions?" LLeverett, °°I ,was .wond&-ing about the sight. . . . . . iI ' know the county .. . . . . .Several :talking. . . . . . . `Harker, "°Vm not sure What'the- >speed is.on .that,: on` 92nd. . . . . .. . . 3-everett ""No:I .mean ;sight 'distance :. . . . . . 'over,the -hill, Harker, 111woll, .again Chats ::predicated on'-the ;speed. If<you: have a :50 mile woad cthen the ::sight 'distance is considerably longer .than for '25 -'miles per Thr„ I:'don'.t :knaba:"- s�rveral talking. ""I':have :a .gssesticns for."fir. 'Mount, uh, .;give ybu a :chance''.to address ,that, _I.=would dike to' known:Particular>What . . . . . .. . :shartciat, -ioh¢re. would the s'raort .stat :be � csurat, ""rdell, 3'I < wasn't ;'the ,one fwho brought ..that up, but that .,brings up :another ...:.:good :paint,' --_uh, 'directly relating : to what the ,gentleman .said .eoncorrri:�g hi.sr.effo�'ts:" 00 °i E2#53t1�x:iF�3�T'LI�d04�1<Ce.; ,^a,'3eJ1r�03`S= .r.�i3R�,iD : �s:.1=a6 ':l��rie x.3.0 01= toers, °'T have to,ask. you to address my question." i NM unt, "Oh, `'T would =be, more ;than happy to.do that: Uh, :the, what you get, is you•get'' kids .going` J, 6O mi.l.e per. hour up and down 92nd And ;what we" don't € uahatl,ave� happen is' to have,< after football an, and after soccer' parties down at "Cook 'Park, havtinq "thea short- cut through< Riverwood Lane to get cap to Our•ham,-'down by .the King City" side. Uh, ire "also don't want to makel-thatl just anather avenue out at excessive rates of .speed, regardless of what •they are posted at. Uh, it brings -- back us to another issue, and thai s what the °tgentlewan" said,we <•didn't know' about any Neighborhood Planningi Organization ~ meeting,, Tf) we would have had the opportunity to -go` to 'that, uh, I would venture a".cluess that he .didn't .check to see if, a.njthi-ng,l had been sent out to the people iwho .where affected, w°nich it was not, -becausa it was done after the . �r attual meeting on January 22. P'soen, eeting requirements for NPO's is not a requirement." °:Plero*ston, "May' l: address that one .sentence? "when an 1 ap},l. cation, comes in we notify ,the applicant to contact the'NPO Chairperson. The 14PO Chairperson, who citizen".lire :a11." of You, 'who takes :his time"-and his committees -time -'to ::hold"this meeting They`'have regular meeting..nights in 'the month and. the it agendas are always' posted. They call the meat:ing at "their convenience, often :t:hey=are held before Public. notice goes out on the he=xrirag, i7ecause of the schedule of,.the peopleinvolved. Itoften happens, its .unfortunate, but, the way `the system is sial up its" between them and the developer when they.want to Sold their meeting. Mount, "Oh, and I •appreciate' that, and that just, reiterates my feeling that _4s.,-& ,nekghborhood °we aught."to" have, we "'ought to ,be. down .un the ground level, :,because that directly effects us. : And, uh,'`regardless of how much` -time it takes:-or how diff=icult it is we-feel it should be done." Moen, "Okay'.„ L ,PIewton, "Theres no . specific •uh, . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . There's no :specific sight 4 ;distance requirement, and I .think thats probably why -the Engineering 'Depa.rtment-asked for the traffic study. �r `Secretary, "President Moen, I mould like to;make one comment. That we are ,look ng• for, people "who are interested''in becoming members ore -'the NPO and if { anyone would' be interested, that if they would contact me at City Hall 1-would happy tee happy to give ;therar•.an application."� i oen, "What it- boils down 'to' is .chats 'the way'you find.:out"whats going on in �Rt #r1r� NPO is I that someone from your, neighborhood organization' be active in that. Wel .f do- have-a pr�obl.em, you 'should all be aware of that state -law puts us R11 carrder a constraint, .t;tat under. a<:certain amount of` time, from the time the dove rssers ,submits his apolicat:ion Until we have to have it . completely rracess�•d with all appeals, .acrd if:we don't; process it in that ;period of time n th. either >a "yeh or;ney its automatically ;approved as submitted. So!,we :are working 1 under a tight tine constraint. Its ; for~ everybody, to ;help :the developer. acrd to,rhelp the whole' process: . . . . . so ive don't,,get burdened: down." i R�. T'R:RN SCRIPTLINO. LN SAVINGS G l.iiAND S 186 Fuge 11. r Mount, "That. brings up another issue the I think you might want to be aware of, ',and `that -is' might what: to have the traffic 's udy done during the ; summertime ,per^iod of time, where you get a lot of people into hook Park. Ri.a,ht 'now you don't have the traffic flow going back in there.- Moen, "'We - will have to =take that into account as part of our ,decision process. Any other. ,questions Commissioner with that I close the Public Hearing Portion of the hearing, commissioners?" Newrsan, I think its appropriate, its a little late tape ended. . . . . I live on=the :extreme. ocher end -of Riverwaod lane, three lots from the other' end, so I probably should just state the '`fact that I. don't think that my li+ling that close to the 'neighborhood will affect my ability to by objective "in this particular situation. Although I have had aC lot of:input `from people in the neighborhood. Caen, "Okay, Maybe you could if there has beer anything that hasn't been F brought up, maybe you could enlighten' us to some of that input when the time corpses. Cormmissioner' Butler, do you, I'm doing to go: down `the line to get comments,' then we'll :make our decision. Commissioner Butler?" f 1 Butler, "I have no comment." e Moen, "co6missioner Peterson" s Petersen,' "hell I was a little concerned 'about the possible lack of notices the citizen had, butthere does appear -that there was some ,attempt made. The other concern i. had i.s uh, possibly, 'there is some problems with the traffic on Riverwood lane, but I do believe 'that that street probably has, been shown that i.s was going to be a thru street and if anybody araul.d check, they would E have seen that. As far as the rest of the subdivision, would be'flood'!plains grind such, I-don't have any problem. r Moen, "Okay, I have one quick question ;for staff? :If I understand it right, thv rest -of, _the ;adjoining subdivision is developed r ac�ht up to this tat line r at this point., s Newton, "It's a developed subdivision." s oen, "The road ends right where . . ." Newrsran,. "And there are houses built on those lots and they are occupied." f Moen, "°Commissioner Bergmann?11 s Bergmann, "We have two : ar three points, one being those two lots that f potentially have double- access. It would seem logical to me that all the 'houses 'should front the same street, Riverwooe, hare, but 'there might be some reason why. I'm not aware of, as to why it would be _better to have them front t an `93rd Avenue. But it seems that neighbors 'adjacent to them, and .that they { ought to have street house numbers and houses that face the same direction instead 'of having back :yards facing Riverwood lane. ' T' don't see any problem with buts 1, .2, land 3, '•slightly encroaching in the 'flood plain, that going to � be+just lawn and fence, and in most cases the house could not be built in the Mood plain Garea. Engineering Department has roquired traffic study,y, even 3 TRANSCRIPT. LINCOLN SAVINGS & LOAND S 1--86 Page 12 � z Im.arm 4� lum— F N though; that is a tight intersection created, question about number 8 and 9. A: street is a thru street, as thane $a& 9 would both be stricken from the recommendation." newton,` ' "The concern was that we might not be able to make this improvement becar.nse actually whetheror not the two improvements would meet, meet because of the property line. The survey Department has determinedphysi G that they will if gerw;ra1,e. So, �' •talked with Randy Clarno this afternoon and he had asked that the improvements be required and that the streets be required to connect." Bergmann, .,so that would strike number 8 and Butler, "So -we change number 8 to SSI Riverwood Lane woul Copper, Creek development and i.at number 9. s d connect to the it says ,something about a' turnaround in number 9 seven, people talking, several talking not transcribable . Bergmann, "I don't think it would be possible to let that dead end . such, much to ;long for safety for emergency ;vehicles Moen, Comrrsissioner Newman?: Newman, "I only have two concerns, I think, knowing the neighborhood, I think the lot size are in character with the layout and fits in real well. But, sI do ha.vca some serious concerns. The connection of Riverwood Larne to 92nd wil'1 make 7A major change; in the character' Of the neighborhood thats already •there', because of the change in access. Uh, -Regardless of whats suppose to happen on 92nd, in fact there is a lot' of traffic thatoe neighborhood- has a lot of ver g s very fast there. The y young children, andthere is very little traffic down in ;the neighborhood that isn't .people who live there because there is no connection, its not oat the way •tri anywhere. If you connect Riverwood Lane through _,cur going to open that '-up vQry, easily to traffic to coming out of Cook Park J allow the that A have anything against the High School,ri i around the high school. Not myself and drove around spent the allotted tirrre there ound a vat' while I was. doing it. But, I have some very real concerns :with Riverwood Lane being connected. The second thing is that, where it connect on 92nd, uh, I'm familiar with 92nd in that strip,; and, I don't think thats going to be a good intersection, Because of the the traffic on 92nd. I've findnature of Bit hard to envision a connection there that going be safe. And those two concerns are ver real to roe. The rof it seems fine. The encroachment on the flood plain is as was mentionedest is fence and lawn. It makes a lot more sense to do it -that way than to make it all twisty and turnie , doesn't do anybody any good. But I think that, I mean, my feeling is I think -that maybe tine developer needs to go back, get together with the people in the neighborhood and work out some, way to meet the concerns of the traffic. Uh, because as I say, I think it make a substantial difference in character of that neighborhood. Moen, "Commissioner Leverett?" Leverett, " tell, It appears to meet all the concerns for the intersection, I don't exactly gee any' waytofla. b all;:ionvt know what the screed ' limit_ is, but I knot.) theres some pretty . .fast�. ,.t:..traffic TRANSCRIPTr LINCOLN SAVINGS & LQANG 8 1--85 Page 13 coming down 92nd. I really don't know how to deal. with it . . . cul—de--sac from 'the other way. it meets all the criteria, I °guess thats my only concern and I don't know how to deal with . . . I . . . . . any suggestions ;poen, "Staff the applicant mentioned this trach "A",; does staff" have a problem with making tract "A" an access to the property. I don't quite understand . Well, you had a problem with the fact that Riverwood would riot continue across to something, Right?" Newton, "Yes." Moen, "And you inhere saying that something should be done with lots 17, 18, to allow for that iNewton, "well, the concern is that we don't just deadlock this area and treat �. it as: a no mans Land. This may not necessarily be the 'best option. If we � would get a offset of, ac ~ 'ing to Randy Clay-no of the Engineering Division, of at Least 300 feet, or '.rout Soo 'feet, that wouldn't be as major of akt concern. Moen, "Right, but we're talking here of a offset of only ,150 feet. Newton, "thy suggestion, I guess, on that, since I don't have a map that deals with -that =whole rea, is -to tie it -up I think the suggestion I would have 'too, would be, if you do decide to adopt the condition on the traffic study that you have the applicant look at 92nd and ways to mitigate turning from 92nd onto Riverwood Lane. sever°al talking . . . . . Moan, ' {'Newman?" ' Newman, "Uh, If, if the recommendation from traffic was that lot 1.6 only be accessed from Rivenjood,: my guess is that partly-because of the steepness of the street.„ Moen, "Plus the fact that 92nd is . . . . . . . . a,mi.nor collector." Newton, "But then so is Riverwood, I might add." . .several people talking evl "Etat about lots 17 and 18, wheres -there access? I mean 92nd is still 92nd several people talking Sone one from audience asked if Commissioner could please speak up. Moan "1`11. try -talking Louder." laughter. . . Newton, "I don't see anything in the actual conditions." Butler, "Remember, when I asked you in the very beginning about that? Engineering Department had a concerned with it and it hasn't really been addressed. TRANSCRIPT LINCOLN SAVINGS & LL AND S 1--86 Page 14 Newton, "Right, its not listed as one of the conditions." Moen, "I guess I would like to take this opportunity to :Hake a couple of t comments. Uh, Y, we Have 'a responsibilityto the whole neighborhood to provide access for- emergency' vehicles and a lot of other, things, we try to cut down on the number of cul-de-sacs; if at all possible. I can understand the neighbors concern's, based on the fact that this is Cook Park, but I think that the overriding concern is that we need the access from emerycrecy vehicle standpoint. One 'other, comment I would make is, requiring the developer to put sidewalks down the length of 92nd, basically on both side, uh, would have a strong benefit for the public, in terms of access, for example between the soccer fields seen people walk up and down that all the time, and it is a problem. . . .I . . . . . . . . . .`. . With that I would like to see some condition on lot. 17 and 18 :to be, there approval to be reserved until such time that the traffic study shows that we don' t have a problem with connecting up . . . . . . I think Chats a goad idea . . . . . . . . . . Traffic study should find ways to mitigate the impact on Riverwood Lane. . . . . . . . . . . . .`. . . . . . I think that :the item on lot 7 and '8, should be restricted to access on one public roadway, uh the awme roadway." "Newton, So you would like to see it on Riverwood Lane." Moen, : "I think it ought to be Riverwood Lane. I guess what we need is a motion. talking among Commissionersnot transcriable. . .:. Newton, The traffic study is going to have to be ;approved by, realistically by the Engineering Division before they record the plat. Uh, you know they will have to have gone thru public improvement drawings and all that. Do you have a problem with that. . . . several people 'calking . . . . Moen, "Commission Butler would you care to make a motion." Butler, "Yes." Moen "'four busily scribbling away there, so I going to put you . . Butler, "Yeah, I make a motion -that we approve Subdivision S 1•-86, with the conditions submitted except those -that we are going to change. Okay, Number 8 wel re gai:rg to scribble out, and were going to make it "Riverwood Lane will connect with Copper Creek Development. Now is that clear? Moen, "Is Copper Creek the adjoining development?" Butler-, "Yes, to yes to .the west. And number 9. we're going to scratch out completely. Number 13`. After the period. to the Engineering erection period. Then we'll put uh,' Riverwood lane easterly access shall also be addressed at " this tire,;'uh, and `then, I want to say something, I didn't_get this far, this is where 1. strapped, you want to address leets 17 and 18 platting, once the traffic report :is in they can decide whether they want to or not plat 1.7 and 18 or take Track "A". So somebody can be creative and TRANSCRIPT LINCOLN SAVINGS & LOAND 8 1-96 Page 15 Moen, "Riverwocd Lane Street access ,hall also be address along with the plotting of lots 17 and 18 and Tract "A" M4 Butler, `1plottingI of lots 17 and 15 and Tract "A", and the dedication of tract "Ara severaltalking. Moen; On 11, we would like Newman, "Access onto'Riverwood Lane." Butler, "Okay, 7 and 9, Is that hove the City had it planned for Riverwood mane. Newton, "It doesn't really matter" Moen', "Why don't we just say that they are restricted access one way or the other." Newton, "They both need to face the same direction." Butler, Okay, then 11. should be, restricted to the same public road. Then 14. Applicant shall dedicate lands within the 1.QO;year''flood plain, except. Newman, "Can vie reword that. to .say teat anything south of the road that is not is not: in lots 1., 2, and 3. Butler, Right, and 'then also he will still have to go thru the Sensitive .. Lands Hearing to get that cleared, so there shouldn't be any problem with that. Because he even though he is going within in that, he won't be building' within'.that. He'll still have to go for a Sensitive Lands. Newton, "Sensitive lards only goes for any kind of development, platting of the lot is not development, digging one shovel of dirt is." Butler, "Okay." Newton, "Steep slopes, ;drainageways, doesn't matter what it is, sewer line drainage." Butler, "Some of it is." Newton, "'fes, and thats addressed to." . .. . .several talking. Butler, Other- 'than that I didn't have any more that except to include that the -staff prepare the final Girder and President Moen sign off on that final order. Moen, "We have a motion, do we have a second." Commissioner Peterson, "Second." TRANSCRIPT LINCOLN SAVINGS`£,+ LOAND 8 1-96 ;gage 16 i P Moen, "Further discussion. All those in favor of the motion signify by age. 4. Commissioners Moen, Butler•, Peterson;, Bergmann, atr id Leverett Age. $ Moen, "Opposed?" New.uman, "Noy. Moen, "We have one inopposition, motion carries fi+se to one. 1R4FOSCRTP`f' LTP4COLN SAVINGS & LOAND S 1-06 Pakge 17 TIGARD PLANNING CO11iISSION l REGULAR MEETING — FEBRUARY 4, 1986 1. President 'Moen called the meeting to order at 7:'3 PM. Th meeting was held at Fowler Junior High School, 10865 Std Walnut, " LGI Room. 2. ROLL. CALL: President 'Moen; Commissioners But ler," 'Peterson, Bergmann, Newman, and Leverett (arrived 7;40). Absent; Commissioners Fyre, Owens, and Vanderwwood. Staff Senior 'Planner Elizabeth Newton and Secretary Diane H. Jeiderks. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Peterson moved and Commissioner Newman seconded to approve minutes as submitted. Motion carried by majority vote. Commissioner berg nn abstained. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION CO, `EUNICATION- President Moen announced that item 5.6 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PD 1-86, ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZClA 1-86, SUBDIVISION S 4-86 had been withdrawn from the agenda. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 Si 601TVISION S11_26 LINCOLN 'SAVINGS AND COWRIVEEL A ESTATES III NPO 6 Request to subdivide a' 8.68 acre parcel into '18 lets, with a ranimsm lot` size of 7,500 sq. ft. , on property zoned R-4.5 (Residential 4.5 units/acre) Located: Between Kneeland Estates and Gook lurk, west of Tigard High School (2S1 14A, lot 900) Senior Planner Newton reviewed the staff report making staff's recommendation for approval, modifying c9nditions number 0 and 9. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION Worm, Harker, 1750 SW Skyline Blvd. , Portland, representing Lincoln Savings and Loan, agreed with the staff report, tie stated they would be willing to dedicate Tract "A for right-of--iqay. He requested clarification on bonding for'streets, if public improvements were limited to lot frontages, if builder could determine frontage for condition 19., and if deet;:cation is only limited to land within the .100 year flood plain. Staff responder) that public improvements could be banded. That the public improvements were required along entire property line not just lot frontages If the builder determined access one lot could end up one direction and the other lot could `face the opposite direction, which is what staff wanted to tavoid, Also, the city had in the past accepted property which was not within the 100 year- flood plain. PLANNING COMMISS3:ON MINUTES F`ERRUARY 4. 1906 PAge 1 Senior Planner Newton read into the record a request from NPO 0 6 Chairman � to postpone the hearing to allow for another,NPO meeting'. PUSLI:C TESTIMONY .a a• 4 Guy Mount., 9500 Sid Riverwood Lane, requested the people stand and be recognized who wherehere to support a,denial of this application. He read and submitted a petition, .signed by 27 residents, into the record requesting denial of the application. He requested that the meeting be `set aside to allow more citizen input o Lia Collins, 16545 SW Copper Creek, President of the Copper~ Greek fssociation, also representing residents from Kneelf— asked that the application be ;postponed. They understood that Riverwood Lane would be a cul-de—sac. They where concerned about traffic onto 92nd, that traffic from Cook Park would use Riverwood as a shortcut. Discussion Followed .� regarding the'street connection at 92nd anm Ra verxaood Lane. o Sally Arroyo, 9525 SW Riverwood Lane, adjacent to lot' # 4 was concerned that the existing water and sewer were adequate. She wanted a study at , the Sensitive Lands as well as teas 100- yea ' flood plain to be maintained. o �3ar� Lesaae, 9540 SW Riverwood Lane, was concerned with the growth sand the �? effect i`& would have on the schools; Tigard High School enmllmerat is already above the number sof students that the sehosal was built for. He ,- was conce-ned `what effect the traffic a uld have oh ili�e orad; d�rae� games. Discussion followed regarding the School ' District not having any objections. ' REBUTTAL Mr. ' 4aarker stated they had neighborhood participation through the NPO process and they had moved to support the development. We had also offered to meet with other neighbors. He questioned where people would short cut to from Cook Park. !,s for the speed on 92nd, that; was an enforcement issue and did not know what he as the developer could do. o Discussion followed regarding the Water District response (no comment was received), portions of lots 1, ;2., and 3, being in the flood plain and what mould happen if they were removed. Lengthy discussion- regarding the traffic study and connection of Sty 92nd nand Riverl400d Lane. Mr. Newman commented that; he lived at the other end of Rivervanod Lane. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSES) o Commissioner Sutler had no" comment. t= Fats l�li: 'G,CL {RUARY � , Z6f {aqI:, i2 r 0 Commissioner Peterson was ;coracar•red with traffic . if Riverwood, was: made a r through street Cess maissior�er Bergmann, felt the two lots with double access should both front on Riverwood Lane. lie' had no laruble�+ with lots 1, eg � 3 encroaching ir3tcs the flzsid plain. Lengthy disc ussiren followed regarding striking conditions nuaaP.ers d and 9 o Commissioner Newman felt the connection at 92nd and Riverwood would be a mayor.change to the character of the development and was concerned because of the number of young children in the neighborhood. lie was concerned sphere the connection would be made' onto ' 92nd for scafety; reasons. He su pported hav*.ng the proposal su back to the NPO• o CowgR is 9 ioner leverett: felt the criteria had been stet: and was concerned with the 92nd connection, 'but not sure how to deal with it. o Commissioner Moen askQd about dedication of Tract 'A" and the problem with access. Lengthy discussion followed.' Commissioner Moen felt it was the responsibility of I the entire neighborhood to cut dowry on cul-sae—sacs, because of the access for eiergency vehicles. He felt sidewalks' on 92nd would be,;;a benefit. Further discussion on a traffic study. V_ Commissioner Butler moved and Commissioner; Peterson second=ed to approve � 1-86, modifying condition number E' to rya . Ski Riverwood Lane will connect Ri.veraaos;d Lane with the development to the :est (Couper Creek). Eliminate condition number 9. Modify condition number 11 to read: Double frontage lots, na l,y .7 and $, shall restricted to access the saraaA fro tc roots, . Modify condition nu-ober 13.; to add: The hive mod easterly access to be addressed after the `traffic study; also lots 1? -and 18 be platted and thF.t Tract "A" be dedicated to the Cita ,ince taddingg traffic shady had been clone. Modify condition number 14. by : "and property south of the road not Matted into lots 1, 2 and 3 Also, request' staff to prepare the final order and for President Moen to sign that final order. Motion carried by majority vote, Commissioner Newman vvti.nc) no. 5.2 SUSOIvIsION S 2-06 'VARIANCE a1 1-96 ELIZABETH LIUTLER/SAIMUEL GO TER tjP0 # 6 Request to subdivide a 1..37 acre parcel into 7 lots, minisrum lot size 7500 ft. ; and for a Variance to allow a 600 ft. long cul--de--sac where 400 ft. is required, on property zoned R-4.5 (Residential 4.5 snits/acre) Located: 335' ajest of SW 93rd and SW Inez (LJCTi� 251 ligA lot 1400). Senior Planner Newton reviewed the staff report, noting the caricerras regarding the cul-tie-sac aaersus a through street, the Problem with the ' sins• of the logs, the need for � tree cutting permit, than bike path; arid made staff's rec(Ilinmencla.ti.on fcer approval with 13 conditions. NPO COMil t TB Senior Planner Newton read a letterinto the reclu st from NPO It L c'.�airs�itar� �r recommending denial. and that :the APpif c:ati�>n be rczi.urntrd tr.) the NPO t:r) rov iewed by the conce:ri d r.c ighbar s PLANNIfiG cotvIGsION MLNUII:S 1 EBRUhRY 4, 1.906' Padre'3 5� u...;:.s:�r'.ai e-��'-.0»...v. <,v...?y�^.":�. :�ae..t-ve�..i.-.max..� .-e-;urY.1�C 2,..."._R-+-S*�raFx-,�"i^ a,.;e;:..1-M`d:_ ��^..,.+TN,tv ..ilK'c zC�.:Fe:...:c S+'i�. m' .n iC"}`•..3.,.e''S- +�.., R � 'k;i �9^Z Y _oliaswt".s`.'+ T P n'i'a.Y �"a Y,� •'ami t+��` M- Yom•. _ � ��;r,,'. ��a r Il s4 _ ss �'� >.-.�,;,.. .... ,::..,., -+r`"'t:- 3, ��?t *:.s_*"+i ... .t,..�:� �;'�5i'!x C � _'.• a 34'e)..-�.�^ F-T .,.�-z' -,;.�3r�,', �`: {#`a=�t3 ",�+i'' �>'."'�*(� ?R�y��``^,fr�.��t��.r�*�s'73 �+�.` _ '�" '•s,�n'��'�� 4.. .y-3 `-s�'SI ?# ',��''c, U ':s.`� � _¢¢.,,��,�`.".e#' i�`�� '�.��r:µ.£_ ,� �3 c .+a�'xf C,� .,`� 'c ��, �, ,� t rsx- _.'a R �.-: +, ��• x £�a?�M��.y_ �.3�-:r,» .�:<..� .3ctw�. ..., �.'�� f� �r�}..j"i`�v F#''�,� -.>"T��i�-i'fi,y9f<.�+ ,.i�" raaJ�.:.�r e�5 2 ii ''�* � s 1,, � `��' �'r, '�' � � ...�+? t 4 + K+a- fit-' *,.s.�,� .'x•s?«'�'#� �'sr *' S ,?' F'.�' �L� .,e t�'dk'�.� r � xbb`x4�..'.;-'»'tci`_a .aYu'`:5?:' ,F3?�c..!£72 .`.i+^2'nk'�`r�..,�� i y y Y keg w.�r�a�t� b Zti '"�`g, �-..* r..."3:a. �yi',�", ..�4�,.i; y..�,,,�h`"-:. y�" r-e=� .:... •a rs�`;C- >t'`rt .+�'ry'�4..'s; tav� s-..=�.. `� ��J� „��. � .,_.��r �� *� .5,, .;. _...ssr �.;F,t4'S f hs .,, _x 5, ,� r 4. � �. ):� o,N �S z �"�r✓� - �. Y _ f. s'N .'��*x-'. _4-«.0 .3n .,.. "`rSe�r'T?", }�r - �, ''� ?::.�_iT�``z�-'_t L'J,.;-'�':. �4-r'7La; L�n�'�:�.. ,^'•,•'''.�Y�S^'�",�"3-.: 11% ,� i.•' ��" ."ef.1. ,,.{'� J s'S'L;..n,�':'kk �i33'�! k ,.:-.. �: .-_c:•�14 X _ .va1��,,F.. N'4;�f_3.$*'" q�� -�"'Y1 ,.• n.z ...� edt4��:t�rL�'�i�?,�4':r?3'»�,.r.�k�::4'by�a',�`. �"z��'pis?��c.�$*� ��L�L.,€v�u+�°"'•�.i}��;?��.�.xbf;�an` e. i M ebuary 4, 1986 Tigard Planning Commission Flowler junior High School-LI 10865 SYS Walnut Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: Agenda Item 5.1 Subdivision S 1-86 On behalf of the homeowners of Copper Creek tevelopment it is our desire to address the staff report regarding .issues which have been 'raised. we are unable to support any development in the proposed area until specific issues are clarified and expanded upon. SECTION Bo Findings and Conclusions Sub Section At Surrounding property owners were not given notice prior to the UPC *6 meeting. As owners we were not given any Opportunity to consult with the NPO concerning how, and by what process the SPO deals such issues. Sub Section C: Section C states "Policy 3.2.1. will be satisfied because development`within the 100 year flood plain will be avoided." after reviewing the proposed site reap it appears at least lots 1,2dand 3 will directly be within the 100 year flood plain. Those inconsistences are at best confusing. i` Sub 'Section E; ' section E states "Policy 7.3.3.4 and 7.4.4. are satisfied because adequate water and suer facilities are available to the development." Question: Has the developer had any studies done to show shat the impact of the proposed water and sewage facilities will do to the existing supplies of Copper Creek? SEC'T'ION Co Recomenda.tions Sub Section 8 and 9. Both sections indicate the potential of hwvi.ng a turn-a-round/one (1$ ) font reserve stripat the end, of Riverwood Dene in the event Riverwood does not continue/connect at the western section.. The proposed site;map as well as the developers application indicate that Riverwood Lane and ,92nd will be "pushed through" and connected. As Homeowners we are very confused as to which is being proposed--connected or not connected. Sub Section .13- it is the ,Homeowners extreme concern that the increased traffic floes from Cook Park could be a very real problem. cars i�iII reah spee a� c.Fa �v= aTi>a art Seca tsvesF vas 3 cta�t at times. xn the event Riverwood Lane is connected with 92nd the potential for traffic fatalities involving children could' be enormous The upper portion of 92nd immiedia:trl.y above the li'� 101011 ME eF e• proposed development is blind hill. The potential of cars coming over that "blind hill" at excessive speeds do�i�x .i.ntt� Cook Park again causes the existing Homeowners grave concern. We again wash to state we are;not in favor of the proposed development as it stands today. We are very concerned that Specific issues have not 'been discussed and or have been confused andover simplified. it is :our desire that 'before any further action is taken: on this ratter we the Homeowners of Copper Creek as well as other adjacent landowners affected have the 0pp6itunity to .meet Frith the developer in conjunction with the 14PO 06 to discuss specifics its greater detail before any plan is brought before The Tigard Planning' Commission.' Respectively Submitted.o 7 / K5 � �- Concerned Citizens of Copper geek z TOS Tigard Planning Commission February 3, 1986 ? FROM: Phil'Pasteris Chairmen NPO # 6� ftp � SUBJECT- Recommendation for denial and referral to NP9 # ,6: � Application # S. 246 & V 1•-86 Sasual A Cotter III (WCTM 2S1 11BA lot 1400) Application # S 1-86 Lincoln' Savings & Loan (WCTM 2S 1 14A lot;900) i t The NPO # 6 chairman has received numerous calls from residents concerned a about the abwre referenced applications. These calls resulted from the City of aigard Pub Hearing notice being given after the NFO meeting which addressed these applications It is clear to me as Chairman that � due to notification timing the NPO lacked the input required to make an informed decision., Subsequent to the NPO meeting, the chairman has met with these residents ` and has determined that they;have a sincere interest in the planning process and are willing to work withthe developer and the NPO in resolving their t � concerns. Therefore, I am asking the Commission to 1) deny both applications and, 2) recommend the developers and citizens meet.with NPO # 6 on February 19, 1986, to review the proposed developments. E NAixCE: AUL P£e2SL3tdS DESIRING °r0 SPEAK ON ANY UrEt-1' htUs'r SIGN THEIR NAMs- .., : and note their address On this sheet:. ;PleiRse Pi '�'Jtae name) ITEM/DESCRIPTION: A Oppotrr, T — f'againsti__m_�_ ' PR6PONENT (For) _---�, Nasse, Address and Affiliate ion Name, Address and Affiliation A tY-�al56�/�'�b'c Cu t i> JA;, jc7, {� f Ti; ,cj r - t Y 5 STAFF REPORT AGENDA I]-EM 5.1 FEBRUARY 4, 1986 7:30;P.M. TIGAR€? PLANNING CONk`•1I.SSION FOWLER.JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL - LCI 10865 S,W. WALNUT TIGARD, OREGON 97223 A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: Subdivision S 1-86 REQUEST: To divide 8,68 acres into 1A lots with a minimum size of 7,500 square feet. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential. ZONING DESIGNATION: R-45,(Residential. 4.5 units/acre) APPLICANT: Lincoln Savings and Loan OWNER: SAME 10250 SW Greenburg Road Portland, OR 97223 LOCATION West of 92nd Avenue between Kneeland Estatesfilo. 11 and Cook Park preliminary Plat aPnrov&3 ;u3as ;ranted in 191}7: (S 17.-90/CPR 12-81) for 22 attached and 5 detached single family residential. lcsts. The final plat was never recorded and the approval. has expired. 3. Vicinity Information Kneeland Estates Na. ` 2 hies to the north and Tigard High ScllrOl northeast on the opposite side of '92nd Avenue. The R---4.5 zone applies to this area. The Copper Creek development which is zoned R- 7 (FD) (Residential, 7 units/acre, planned development) lies immediately west and Cook Park abuts the southern boundary of the property. A. Site Information The property is presently undeveloped. Tire terrain slopes downward from north to south with grades >of' up to 30% in the northern portion of the site. The sriut�errY half of the property is within the 100 year flood plain. { 1: STAFFtlt'P432T - S.1-86 PAGE e The applicant proposes to divide the property into 18 single family residential lots, all with a minimum size of 7,500 square feet. f Riverwood 'Lane will be extended from its terminus at Capper Creek to 92nd; Avenue. In addition to Riverwood Lane, four lots will have r frontage on the 93rd Avenue cul—de-sac in Kneeland Estates fio. I1 . Although 'this proposal represents'a reduction in the number of lots from 27 to 181 the subdivision layout and street alignment are very similar to the proposal that was approved in 1921. 5. aency and Et O Comments The Engineering Division has the following comments: a. Lots 17 and 18 on the east side of 92nd Avenue will preclude the extensiaan 'of Riverwood !_ane to the east. The applicant should be . able to show that other, reasonable alternatives exist for providing access to the property to the east. b. The issue of stornxa+ater runoff presents several problems which must be clarified. Stormwater through "Tract A" from the school property and 92nd Avenue needs to be addressed alone with the gully through Lots 10, 11, . and 12 and the drainage over^ Lot 8 in t` the event of a catch: basin failure on the 93rd Avenue cul—de—sac. e, eZ private pond is located above Lot 1>. Liability far any nd and the ri hi of this owner to release flooding c�zuse�4 by the po g .pater, onto Lot 12 is unknown. d. Slope easements along Riverwood Lane will be 'necessary. e. if River-wood Lane does not connect with the completed portion in � . Copper Creek, a temporary turn around will be necessary. �. r. Lots 7 and 8 have double frontage and access should be limited to one street. The access for Lot 15 shall be limited to Riverwood .; Lane. g. A traffic report is needed indicating what measures should be taken to mitigate the site distance limitations at the proposed Riverwood Lane/92nd Avenue intersection. h. The applicant must provide stormwater runoff report add.^essinct proposed on and off site stor nmwater and erosion control during and .- after construction. This repor L must address the impact of upstream drainage facilities and the mitigation of adverse 4 storm�ater inrpact:s upon City Park arid, greenway areas i. The 100 year flood plain should be dedicated to the City as '< greenway. a . A Sensitive Lands Permit will be necessary for- any construction or f grading within the flood plain, draina ewa!ti, or slopes ever 25%. k Any reduction" in the width; of the Cit.y's standard street suction will roquire the approval of a variance. #` S GT 6tF f ft E.F>rJRI S 1- 06 PAGE 7 a The 8ui Id i.rrg'Inspection (Division notes that the slopes on many of the lets are steep and that development and meeting setbacks standards may be difficult. The Tigard School District and NPC #6 have no-objection. No other comments have been received. r , 0. FINLDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant cr-iteria in this case are Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies x.1`.1, 3.`1.1, 3.?.1, 7.1.2; 7.3.1, 7.4.4. 33.1,1, and 8.1.3 and Community Development Crede Chapters 18.50, 18.160, and 1.8.164. Since the ComprehensivePlan' has been acknowledged, the Statewide Planning, Coals and Guidelines no longer need to be addressed. The Planning staff concludes that the proposal with minor modi-t ications is consistent with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Plan based L pon the findings noted below: a. 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, t Via, Policy; 3. 1.1 will be satisfied provided that any portions of the Lots which exceed 25`sm slope; are not graded or filled without a Sensitive Lands Permit, C. Policy 3.2.1 will be satisfied because development within the 100 year flood plain will be avoided. If any ref the proposed streat _ does encroach upon the flood ,plain, a' Sensitive Lands Per-m-it will by required. d. Policy 7. 5..2 can be met when, additional information, rioted in the Engineering, Division comments, is submitted grid appropriate mitigation measures taken. e, Policy 7.:3.1 :and 7.4.4 are satisfied taecause adequate water and sewer facilities are available to the development. The applicant also indicates th�-AL these facilities will be provided within the subdivision as required by '-the City standards. ' f. Policy 8, 1. 1 will. be met once the terming(:ion of River+fioe�ci l.:an<* at 92nd Avenue is justified or provisions for future extension to the F east are made. g. policy 8. 1.3 'will be satisfied when the condit:i.onq of appyovi"ii relating to c;treEat improvements are completed. The Planning staff has determined that the proposal is, consistent: with the relevant Portions of the Community Development Codas based upon the findings noted bs?low: STArF REPOlt l' s1 1.4116 PAGE 3 i Chapter 18.50 of the Code is satisfied because the proposal meets all of ;the requirements of Lhre'R-4.1 zone. b. Chapter 18.160 of the Code is satisfied because the proposal meets the requirements set 'forth for the submission and approval of >a preliminary plat. C, Chapter 18.164 of the Code will be satisfiked during the approval process for the final plat. C. RECXNrIENDATION Based upon the findings, and conclusions above, the Planning staff recommends approval of S'1-86 sukject to the following conditions: 1'. UNLESS 'OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET PRIOR TO RECORDING 1HE FIRtAL PIAT. 2; Standard half--street and full street improvements including sidewalks, curbs, streetlights, driveway aprons, storm drainage and utilities (delete inapplicable i.tesr!s); shall be installed along lihe SW 92nd Avenue frontage.; Said improvements along ,SW 92nd Avenue shall` be built to (60' R/W, 36' pvnot.) Citystandards including an S . ft walk on the wast Side and conform to the alignment of existing improvements. ( 1 note the attached; section which was approved via Kneeland Estates subdivision development). r- 3; Seven (7) sets of plan—profile public improvement construction plans including a site grading plan and cross sections and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate, stamped by a Registered Professional 'Civil Engineer, detailing all proposed public improvements shall. be submitted to the Engineering Section for approval. 4. Sanitary sand storm sewer plan—profile details shall. be provided as part of the public improvement plans. 5. ;,Lope easements along SW Ftivervaood Linc` shall. be provided to the: Public. Documentation shall be on City forms or on the plat and approved by the Engineering Section, 6. The applicant shall provide >a stormwater runoff rc=Ftiart addressing proposed onsite and offsite storrrwate.r control and soil erosion control (during and after construction) said report shall also- address lsoaddress the impact of upstr•e&m drainage fc-aci.li.ties on the site and the mitigation or stormwater damage to the downslope City park 6 "oper! "space lands 7, Construction of proposed publ.i.c i.mprovcment:s shall not: commence until after- tho Engineer-ing Spct:ion has issued approved public improvement plans.. T'hie Sections will. require posting of a 1.00:L Perfrrmance bond, the payment of ra , pt.armit. fe_c and a sign i.nstallatior!OstrenLl.fight fee. Also, the exccut.iW1 of a construction compliance agreement Shall oCCUr prier tri, or concurrently, with the issuance of q)pr,ived publif: impr-ove:r!ivrit: plans.' SEE THE ENCLOSED HANDOUT GI:VI3�t. MORE _`jPECIFI.C" INFORMATION REGARDING FEE SCHEDULES, BONDING A!19D f�£3r1EEMENTS. ix"1AI F R'PORT S 1-86 PAGE 4 8. A one (1') foot reserve strip granted to the "City of Tigard" shall be provided at the terminus of SW River-wood Lane if it dies not connect with the western section of Riverwaad Lane. 9. If applicable, a temporary turn—a—round shall be installed at the terminus of SW Riarerwoad Land; said turn-a—round to be approved by the post office, firedepartment and Engineering 'Section. The turn-a-round shall. pie 'removed, if deemed, necessary by the City Engineer, at 'the applicants expense. R bond shall -be posted with the City to,assure future compliance. 1£). Additional right—of-Way shall' be dedicated to the Public along the SW 92nd Avenue frontage to increase the right—of—way to 30 feet from centerline. The 'description for said dedication 'shall be tied to the existing right-of--way centerline as established by 4dashirgton County.. The dedication=document shall be on City forms and approved by the Engineering Section. DEDICATIOIN FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS ARE ENCLOSED. 11. Double frontage lots, namely V : and 8, shall be restricted to atcess to only one public roadway. 12. Lot #16 shall only have direct access onto SW Riverwood Lane, 13. The applicant shall provide .a traffic report indicating measures to be applied to mitigate' sight distance- concerns, at the intersection of River-wood Lane and' 92nd ('avenue, to the Engineering Section. 14. The applicant shall dedicate lards within the 1190 year floodplain for greenway purposes. 15. Street'Cerrterline Manumentation a. In accordance with ORi3 92.060 subsection (2), the center•l.iraes orf al.l street' and roadway rights-of—way shall. bc, monumented before they City shall: accept a street improvement, b. All, centerline monuments shall be placed in a monument boa; conforming to City standards, and the top of all monument boxes shall be set at design finish grade of said street or roadway. C. The following centerli.rae 7aonaoments shall. be set.: 1) All. r F nterline-•centerline intersections. Intersection's created with "cul.l.ector" or other existirjqstreets shall be set when the centerline "collector" or other street has been alignment: of said establ ish od by fur- l.he City: 2) Center o fall cul.—de-sacs; i -AFF REPOR'l- •- tl 1--06 PAGE '� b ;3) Curve points, points of intersection (P.I.. ) when their position ells inside the limits o the pavement otherwise beginning and ending points (B.C. and E.C.). 4) All sanitary and storm location shall be placed in positions that ; do not interfere with centerline monumentation. 16. A Sensitive Lands Permit shall be required for any encroachment into,;the 100 year floodplain or constructionin drainageways or slopes over, 25%. 17. Lot 12 shall. be subject to the setback and height requirements for flag lots contairied in Sections 1.8:96.090 and 18.98 of the Code. 1t3. A tree cutting permit 'shall be obtained from the City ;prior to removing any trees over 6 inches in diameter. 19. After- r-cvie-w and approval ,by the Planning Director and City Engineer, the Final Plat shall be recorded with Washington County. 20. This approval. is valid if exercised within one year, of the final decision date rusted below. i�rtEPr `C BY: Keith Lid APPROVED BY: William A. Monahan r Senior Planer Director, of Planning & (development (KSl.:bs37) 4 a KNEELAND ESTATES III APPLICANT STATEMENT Kneeland Estates III was given praliminary approval -For a. subdiv inion in 1981> The approval was for a combination of 22 attached and 5 detached single family lots- A final plat and construction plan were completed but ttae 'project was not coniploted bacmu ae of the change in economy. ,.. The Pres-sent Prepoo-ail is to subdivide the property into 18 single family l ats. The presont boning is R 4-5. 1 I'hL- proposa?d project will l comply wage the requirements for this zone. Th minimun lot Saz3s 7, OO square 4%mat. The prr-4pos subdivision abuts Kneeland Estates No. 2 to the north. This project will complete the cul-de-sac an Ski 93rd Avenue. Capper y Creak Stage 3 subdivision l i to the wast of this PrOPOrt Va roa€way construction will complete Riverwood Lane out to S.W. 2nd Avunuee , ;thus improving the traffic circulation for the area. The property` slopes-from north to s th a Slopes %jp to 30 ase i st in the the`northern portion crF the site. The southern one, half Of the property is within the 100 yv ar flood plan and is proposed to be IL-+t in its natural state- Nater is `caval 2 ab l e In SW 92nd Avenue and SW Riverwood Lane. Sanitary !xWs- is available from !� line running south through the project from kL ` Kno land Estates 2a torrainill include c�a3lecti a drainago ��ra�a a�r�i� �$� will bw from she north a well z ��e it - The _ carried to tha natural d-aiala9a� � running through �h� �i��d t G i 7 ( I t � - ��y-^ \ �l✓ � r� .,,�, 5.t•.1K.• I tl 1®• la � �I ! I ! � 1 � WA 0.1 \ ..' -kms 4M ei MIR- �° s .�' � :� e$' � � 'yell/! 1 / ! - ��`+%I 11 Ul �i�t 9Y W 3 to a Q 1" r�% I 1: if '';14^�'� �" � -tt� �,`�'+� ,y lU�•ir¢-� J 9"i f / .�rLFt-h -L' a ! {. I j11.. f l :1 Ir 7,IF I. r `fes �� !/ i I i 1 1 i I ! +I 1 1 -r • l { I}�- 1 � / . a rrj ,yf' \r`*. �♦ ♦ �, �♦ \,. to, :y \ `\ �3 '� ` y � L`-Yi.. �.�'.,��. ter,`,\,` '�. �••,s`._��. �'\n`�� - \�.\ i r "; J � I_, ' I.. 1. ` 1• `\ �0�\:\ `v 5 �`� \y �♦ \ i. I �.. 1 l '/I /mac%.:'r-�- 7 1 l It lli� \ i � _ ''`~�_a six-�"--='--- �/�!�� .1� •!' A 4 F 11 1 r - 1 � ` � 1 l.Jl jl i 1 !f tL%'..lf r �f l��f 1 r � I /1 L ♦r 0.y;- y/,.�y'.t.,� �,.. �`•a�.ti` y : '��/'� � Via:'-�.�.� 'r/ �� ° 1 \ Ihl t j •l w j'k "�1t-say,.,� e \` }�'V•1wj \l g.. . ._ 1 V N . �3 ...... \ V, t 1 .' I '•.. '�� '�;:�,rye' it 'Z a � �� _'�� r rill ! fF JJ tl 1t� � !l f// ,�--�� a �a••'� tl� trtr 77 U J.F. N. f / 1 Qci -Z.. -Z , •� ,�, .. �� `fir l / I ,I I ! t � � 1 :41...t .s .,\ \.,• . .�.. � tea_ � �' � �:'=' F~� � ✓-� Arm ..,�o�� '.` � •-�\•�\ .;•�, ��\ ; `. / '-+ J IJ 411//l.�i ! •r r"_ _ -�f' �/t i '� l � j tt i � �'� � r`-1 /J t / _�r'��`` ��'=�•---mss;— .. = 1 -z/,�+i'?y !ivS ,.—� a: r j J J r t ti ! J , f / Lo/r/ /•/P ��iil/ //� �r r I f r ,iS � i l ! r��- �, /! ! u e. 1V / =.I J I ! �` r: ✓�.r '.!i r// �'J j /..1/ 1 r b) � I (. r J '' l } 3 f // ! ! / r / 1 �r •�,�5 r ; r, .= `i1j'./� r- �/ ,' / , ! J r I�1 ,r 1 1��.I I .'•: ,; • e� r: AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STAVE OF OREGON ) County'of Washington ) as., City of Tigaard ) being first duly sworn, on oath depose and �s -�- I'l�ease' Paint) That i sin & � for The City of a' aft, OreSon That I sev4ed notice of public Hearing for Tigard planning Commission. of t*kaich the attase aid ass cagy (kjiar'ked Ex49ibit A) upon each of the following 3 13� ri• b mailing to axamed personas on the a clay of .� y g each ,of them' at the address shown 081 t e attached:list Marked Exhibit B), said rjotic:.� ' as hereto attached., deposited in the United States "Mail on the _ day o€ ponLage prepaid. 177 lei-a-on who del> Bred to POST GFF Lt;t ti d Subscribed and sworn to before me an thr of NOTARY PUBLIC OF OREGON My Couraission Expires: F" - (€1257p), \l �f a N0 T' ICE 01: a U 3 L I C HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Tigard Planning Commission, at its meeting on Tuesday, February /per 13F35 at7:30 P.M., in the lecture room of Fowler Junior -High ;School, 10865 S.W. Walnut Street, Tigard, s2regon, will consider the following application: r FILE tRUMBE1t: S 1-86 APPLICANT: Lincoln Savings & Loan OWNER: Same 10250 SW Greenburg ltd. Portland, ,OR 97223 QUEST: To subdivide a 8.68 acre parcel into 18 lots, with a minismsm lot size of 7,500 sq. ft., on property zoned 11-4.5 (Residential 4.5 <units/acre). LOCATION: Between Kneeland Estates and Cook Park, west of Tigard High School (WCTM 2S1 14A lot 900) (See map on reverse nide) The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with the males of Chapter 18.32 of the Community Development Coda: and ' rules of procedure of the Planning Commission. Any persons having interest in this matter may attend and be heard, or testimony may be submitted inwritingto be entered into the record of the initial hearing. For further information please contact the Planning Department at 639-4171. TIGARD CITY -klftLL, '12755 S.W. Ash Avenue (Corner of -A€ah Avenue & Burnham Street), or contact your Neighborhood Planning Organization (NPD) # 5 Chairperson Pail Paster.is Phone Number 539-2342 (pm/0257P) y _ F7 1 - fMif r i i _ PA fiAr • I�'+� PD 'S t('{ is��71 ('7 71 !44- IJE ` : . t f: L. ! 1 �. �,1 "' f r ' �� l,•f t♦ !'_ u r _ $A' wI '_'77, ��+.-� �n(� ','"� __ .-.l I.::�'.- eais.',..LY�., � F-`�� -� t 1 � ✓ona�AA --� i '. V' _ -4f%+ n <.c S i 1 T�'1.}r` -' -,-�.�f-, L_ —at_✓ 'L _1�L .j 1�. .i I - , :. } 1 ` - ��, 17 t 1 ; _ ��: sic�rrc > 7 'f':. [ •: �'PrrA sT j (; "' E Y t -�, 1 .•-^ F a,�='-.-;� ' a `�ur,x oto _rfiGid Jeri � GODN ' F _ `� 1� � to j.,F v.._�.• �r \� / i iy 111 f �5 ) i Y F ''YY 9 �i 4935 SIJ Yinebrook St. r,ig,)rd, OR 97224 Kneeland Estates°111 Err L.i�seol n acv -195 and FOAM � m%-Jx' � ms 58991 Hiarol and Fruth P.D. Bos: 23457 Ur"ar S W PL <m �� Lei 9410 S.W. Millen Drive Portland, Or dd -10d q Tigard, Or 9;a 224 97223 Custom Homes by, Daws English �}1 Bit» 3, 'Box 253 Joan ( a t Newberg, Or 16493 SES 93rd 97132 Tigard, Or 97 223 { tzZL6 ja °Pawo u nee 6a_an.°°y V3 ms G6 OT l ye Manning -rd TTnAsW C11iford and Phyllis Patrick and MaryL. aasTwe t 9580 SW R4 verwood Lane 9560 SW Riverwood Lane Tigard, 0; 9722E Ta and9Qr 97223 I tz. L6 ja 'Piv o T.E. Pa 443 jada 3 ME 0MG91 l i c�aas�t llpang a r USAV4� "�° A;.jr.00 Mark B. and E3ai 3 E. Buy 111 and; Diana L. 51520 SW Ri verwood lane 9500 SES Ri verwood i..a a Tigard, Or 97224 Ti and Qr S7224 Tualatin Development Ni nt Homess xrac a �d A l ITS PUW '4-jewe 16690: S mneiwaod Ct. �� t �5€��€�g� j' •'1"iq rd:; Or Lake Oswego, Or t?7 -3� 97223 -AD d P.jW B T.L Peterson s�daTaa pace °8 1m;uva Fred M. and Dana Lynn Terry and Barbers 16540 SW Cooper Crk Dr. 16520 ISW Copper Crk Dr. Tigard, Or 97223 Tigard, Or 97223 � Ke-mads Kirk i MUT4WTJ>j PUW SAWG WWWOH Unnia?l Ken and Marie Kenneth H. 4530 SW Millen Drive 9510 W Millen Drives Ti'g mr^d, Or 97224 Tigard, 0r 97224 e W1l<Zaan Dougall WD again pUW da44da4S Loren and Connie John and Marilyn 16500`SW 93rd Ave. 101SO SW Laurel Ti_gmrd.Or 97224 Bea3ver ton,Or 97005 0A;4G rMV T j 3W MS 0o OV6 Tigard Sclool District III (' "147' SW Pacific Hwy 'Tigard Or. 9722 k CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA DA IITEM__AS_4MARY t"�• r AGENDA ITEM AGENDA OF: larch 24. :1986 -.r. DATE SUBMITTED- r`t' r1.4, 1986 PREVIOUS ACTION: NONE — ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Civil Infractinns ordinance Title 18 PREPARED BY: Elizabeth ire+ ton REQUESTED BY: Staff DEPARTMEWl';HEAD OK: CITY AD tIt ISTs�ATOR: _ POLICY ISSUE Should the Council revise the penalty for violations to Title 18 to be consistent with the proposed civil infractions ordinarice? �INFORMAT?014 SUMMARY At .the present time, the City is working on a new Civil Infractions Ordinance which will classify violations to the Tigard Municipal. Code as Class I, Class II or Class I III Civil Infractions. Title l€, the Camriunity Cievelnp:aaant Code is part'af the Tigard Municipal Conde. has recommended that violations to Title Ia. The City Attorneythe Community Development Code be classified as Class I Civil Infractions. In order to conform to the nEw 'Civil Infraction Ordinance, section 18.24.030 needs to be edified. A memo which includes the language recommended , by the City tt;sr ey`s office is attaches. At their March 4, 1986 meeting, the Planning Cna::ta".ission voted unanimously to recommend tha the City Council modify Section 28 -2.A.030 of the Tigard Municipal Code as recommended by the City Attorney's office. Also attached is an ordinance which, if approved, will adopt the Planning Cor.gmission's recommendation. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ' 1, Adopt the attached ordinance approving that Planning Commission recoolmendation, 2 Hold the public hearing on this item but postpone action until the Civil nfrac:ions ordinance is adopted. - 3. `Fake no action at this; time. SUGGESTED ACTION Adopt the attached ordinance a Oprns+inch the Planning Commi.ssioaa recraaaasaerrdayirr+. :j Agenda Item City Council { March 24, 1956 l MEMORANDUM CITY OF ;TIGARD, OREGON TO, City Council March 14, 1986 FROM: Planning' Staff , SUBJECT: ZOA 1-86 Amendment to Section 18.24.030 of the Cca� nunity Development Code. Section 18.24.030 of the Community Development Coda sets forth the penalty for violations of Title 18, the Development 'Cuda. Section IO.24.030 reaads as follows: 1.S 24.030 Penal f� �.__. Any person violating a pruvisiunof this Code shall, upon conviction thereof, he punishers in accordance with Title a of the Municipal Code. A person violating a provision of this Come is gui3ly of a separate offense for each day during which the violation continues. i At the present time, the City is working on a new Civil Infractions Ordinance which will claassify, violations to the Tigard Municipal Code as Class` 1, Class II or Class III, Civil Infractions Title 18, the Community Development Code is part of the Tigard Municipal Code-. The CityAttorney has recommended that violations to Titin 18, the Community Development Code be classified as Class I Civil Infractions. In .order to conforms to the nese Civil Infraction Ordinance, Section 18.24.030 should to be modifiers. The City Attorney's off ice recommends that Section 18.24.030 be amended as follows: 1#1.24.030 ! er��alf FA. A violation_ .of this title shall constitute' a Class I Civil Infraction which shall' be processed according to the procedures p established in the 'Civil Infraction Ordinance, Sections D. through 11. m Memo February 2.7, 1986 Page 2 b. Each violation of a separate provision of this title shall constitute a separate infraction, and each day that a violation of this title is committed or permitted to continue shall constitute' a separate infraction. C.. Fs finding of a violaLiors' of this title shall not relieve the responsible party of the duty to abatethe violation. The penalties imposed by this section are in addition to 'and not in lieu of any remedies available to the City. d. if a provision of this title is violated by a firm or corporations, , the officer or officers, or person or persons responsible for tha violation shall be subject to the penalties imposed by this section. STAFF RECOMEPJDATIO51 Staff recommends, that Sections 19.24.030 be amended as suggested by the City, Attorney's office and recommended by the Planing Commission. f (EFlfv:pm, /2385P) �y in 85 lllli, 10 Y As CITY OF TIGARD. 0REGt7N ~ COUNCIL AGg%OA ITEa°6 sl3h'IARY AGENDA OF: March 24 1986 AGENDA ITEM BATE SUBM11TED: arch 19, 1936 PREVIOUS ACTION* None _ ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: €2nthls; Retort Fet�r�tary--1986 _Com:neana��Melu �serst PREPRREL� Iii: lei. A. Monahan - — _ REQUESTED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: d � CITY ADMINISTRATOR. : v INFORM fION�S�i ARY' Attached please find the Monthly report for February, 3.905, prepared by the Department of Community oevQlopment. Elements of the report are: 1. Annexation Report 2. Building Division Report 3. Economic Development Minutes 4, Engineering Division Report 5. Operations Division Report 6. Park Boa Minutes 7. Planning Division Report 0. Transportation Committee Minutes ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED �', GGESTED ACTI(?N ' Accept Asa"',a -lace an 'f",31�t. MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD. OREGON TO: Member's of the City Council March 18,; 1986 FROM William A. Monahan, Director, Community Development SUBJECT: Monthly Report — February, 1486 Attached please find the Monthly Report for February, 3.986, prepared by the Department of Community Development. Elements of the report are, 1. {annexation Report 2. Building Division Report 3. Economic Development Minutes' q, Engineering Division Report 5, Operations Division Report 6. Park 'Board'Minutes 7, Planning Division Report Vii, Transportation Committee Minutes Following is a comparison of building activity for February of 1985 and 1986: . . Feb rua.M 1985 February, '19c36 Single Family Permits 18 43 Multi-Family ,Permits 3 (total Units) 2 Commerci:,l Permits 1 3 Building Permit Fees $ 0,010.00 $ 17,195.00 Plan Check Fees 4,610.31 9,336.95 Plumbing Permits 9,092.78 7,277.50 Mechanical Permits 594.00 927.00 valuation $ 1,776,046.00 $ 3,647,9819.00 Jan.—Feb. , 1985 �ar�. Fib. , 19s1ti Single Family Permits 29 82 Multi—Family Permits 330 0 (total: Units) Commercial. Permits 1 Building Permit Fees $ 40,502.00 � 31,U4331,043.50-x*4 8,787.31 Plasa'Check Fees 8,787.38 Permits 11,317.90 Mechanical Permits 1,380.00 1,357.50 Valuation $1.1,934,808.00 $ 6,410,915.00", a These ' totals were adjusted"to correct errors in January, 1986 monthly report totals. �. . For the Month of February, 5.986 Bssildinq - Building activity for February was more than double that of , f sin February, 1985, as the volume ogle-family permi- issuance was the highest V ra3" the 'est five y rs =; �3. !3evenues for combi ted building permits aid plan ' checks are only i,000 behind 19es even though January of 1x385 was ars extraordinary `month as pe^snits for 320 apartments were issued. Codes Enforcement -- Codes enforcement activity is quite low due' to the high volume of building permit issuance ane, inspections, coupled with the need to train new building} personnel. Until volume is reduced, only limited cosies � enforcement is expected. Economic �3evelas�ssse„t Cosrassaittee The Economic Development Committee reviewed 'a proposal bythe 'Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce to assist the Downtown Council in formation of a program to revitalize the Downtown. Area business; people and property owners voted to form a non-profit croup and begin todeuelw � comislitteo activities. (WNM:br/09500) sf;: dr f a eff-MORANDUM CITY OF TI ARD, OREGON ;larch 12, 1.906 Members of city council TO: Flizabeth A. %914ton, Senior planner SL�B3^Ci : Anneg;at:ian Activity for February, 1986 i atisns for annexation mere ,received by the Planning Department in x�l exation requests. L4ore held before the city . aE4a F'. Public hearings on ann - Febr�aary.` o co,areission during February. h coLa�cil air the3eaancaary raved icy council in �'anuary; The public hearing on the Tay3.or Annexation app will k�^ heli before the Soundary GOmmission in march. s 3a� acres i.e�t.o the city located south a, k Th€. re�a�est t© annex app roximately ' hurt► -42aa�3, a cent `�a S 1(38th wi13. tie presen 'Qd to the council some ti al in April. Y. i MEMORANDUM T0CITY COUNCIL : .- F R: COMAfUN IT Y DEV ELOME NT DEPARTMENT DATE: March 3, 1986 SUBJECT: s2EP0RT FOR ,fON": BUILDING ACTIVITY H PERM FEE PLAN CHECK 4 VALUE OF WORK IdU4, ER OF PE?iITS/TYPE $7 3 p809,SC $7 a163.03 *552.26 $2.706,138.00 4 3 new single famiiy res, 200.00 120.26 8.00 23_,2©0.00 3 res. alterations 792.13 110.26 2,769.00 1y, 870,500.00 3 new roma�ercial 41b.50 261.53 16.69 48,150.00 .. a coral. alterations mist. structures other 17,3.95.00 9,336.95 687.21 1 TOTAL VALUE39647,9`+'8.00' ,. 56 permits ` King, City ;. 927.00 —25 Mechanical permits 295.00 7,277.50 N__P1umbing Pexnits 43 $ewer Connections (207) �$8,580,000' ($19520.00) 43 Sewer .inspections $1000 lFi Amart/Wedgwood {x5,760.00) 1 Lercn gats. ($29400.00) v � V I 6 W ti m P e� a c± � sa N w ..n •r n �* m �� w W cn idi 49 'S o U P P rn m VI m a ,a G h n m u'1 Y m (Oy Cm7 to C97 P •A N ec r c m c. rn. sn a w m :J m f'T q N m m: w til m E. 4 aCL •N LF V T :j t _ :.7 N m m m m rn m m a a 4 a- a �: ..• :r. -:a m .a rn w a: :t ut r. m m 6-J H N 4 C9. U 7M p f� q a'e tl0 / �� O w w liT S41 iA eq fA e'4 W RO K1I O •ry R h : N N al it3 isl A .a3 tf5 R '.RRp C _N R NJ. Oa � � N xvs O m: R -.ti5 �U 'h aet :`• :N .+ N O sa. vt w n x N � a 0 tw9 a W m 'Yi at i.1 s N N K. et} 01 w h w re a m rb'n p . .u�y -W H �. .. "� a•J N R M t2f 67 b7 q a R 'h 46 t0 'R sa to s to c O m u�+ R m' m qtr 9 qe. m m w tl Ary 01' 13" a a In N ®= N H ..011 1 3' SJ 'M, Cd 0 INW41 s. o i L as m _ry .0 H en m J2 G_' eta p T.J1 ESS 9d R1 r '� � 1 Y U ^J 9t fct. Al .p x { 4 Cfl�lom!C DEVELOPMENT` COWITTEE February is, 1996 - Minutes pioneer Pies Members Present. aim Corliss, Kathy Dudny, John Savory, David Clements, Dick:Cochran, Susan Clark, Tony Orlandini, Juanita Caday Others Present: Bill Burton, Jeanne. Caswell, Mrs_; Geraldine , Salla Don Hanson, Deborah Stuart, Morgan Furr-er, Ryann Furrer, Bill Monahan utes of the January 21, 1486 meeting and The Committee reviewed the tt3i.n approved them as written, Jeanne Caswellof the Tigard Chamber of Commerce distributed a concept {caper describing the non-profit organi.xation proposal which will be presented at the February 20, 1986 meeting. The plan incorporates et;isting Chamber ComToittees• Two plans were presented which read TIGARD DOWNTOWN COUNCIL Plan I.: 1. The Downtown Council incorporate as a private non-profit corporation 50106• i Elect officers to draft by-lets in accordance with Oregon;law, 3. Developa budget and mens of developing revenue. Se attached Schedule. Have a "Doutntotcn" manager to be accountable to4. the Downtown council: 5. Contract with t9ae Tigard Chamber of Commerce for support services, i.e., rent, publications, clerical, bookkeeping. � plan lrl: i. Tbae €)o�niown Council develop as a standing committee of theTigard terca. The chairperson Chamber of Csmshall serve on the Chamber Board of Directors. 2, The Downtown Council develop a set of guidelines, policy and procedures r"ssr the aurposes of -promotion of downtown Tigard. To be reviewed by the'Chamber Board of Directors ' .. S2%Urin j@ -and a means of a b,syv3. lie Downtown. Council ill be part of the Chamberreteraue, See supporting schedule. VIOney w revenue �d-:inister'ed by ;,,he Downtown Council manager and council. budg4. Have a downtown manager to be accountable to the Downtown Corancil and th» Chamber Executi+ae Director. Z: Ortintij The options are in lieu of joining the Oregon Main Street :Program. plan ]. membership is $125 for a business or property owner, or based on whee for supp � members plan 2 has a d,i7ferent membership fewhether or not the � business or propva^ty owner is a chamber member. Regardless, the council needs about $2 ,,000 for personnel, plus materials to equal at least $30,000, Of the 31� businesses, Jeanne feels 1/:3 participation .is realistic. The City M contribution of up ;to $10,000 will rpt wine from the general fund. John reported that at the last downtown `meeting, held as February 6, 1986, the amber d the tY- f ' participants weY,enis the ,goal given ut �thaeea�fundshand ecommitmentsnneeded,G�Dan rA cooperative effort agreed 'there was some sentiment generated from past grudges, but, he felt they will. decide whether or could be overcome. At Thursday's tneetir1g, the group Dora .feels that if not to affiliate with the Chaaaber or form as separate group.eded. Tf a separateonjLy the group aligns with the CHanaresultsant framber, alfor-mationrman is 1ews11 push back the group ;is formed, the delay_ should have-a ad that conssnit�rse at leant a month.' Jeanne suggested tha`- the City ; , designated arember on the Downtown ' concern Lound].. Jahn and erntaaeuniform front o the council needs to work closely with the City and p �{r4 the committee, tions at the Thursday meeting, then the group � Jeanne will present the two op Johar. stated that mast of the people who : will decide which direction to go. Do have attended the meetings want to see the City wh ch®invites businessesand prepared by . Februa^y 14 1x366 lat..er prep 3t encourages participation and property oaaners to the February 20 meeting. ideas about what the group can do. �+ g` Don described the earlier eff�srts of the downtownmerchants and its accomplishments. � f. Jeanne noted that five lending institutions are within the designated downtown and which are as area, Juanita da ser ets i lowfiodirect loam Program could be opossible to assist incentive .grog property owners in the area to finance improvements disca.assion center• on the -purposes of the Tony suggested that the Thursday Council with less attention ,direct�d towards owards� thefelt thatc tyre fee structure on the efforts of the Clackamas group.sChamber membership as those who proposed gives moo much emphasis to existing would kseneTit from the Council. are already Chamber members and would dt probably be willing to contribute more. The committee point moot t agh c Corridor structure .should be looked at agRain. Jeanne painted out that ,y be a approached group has a list of major;property owners identified which may She to pro; more financing tiies ,rare provides for. -write of those properties, rerees, busnessesand banks couldunder that a at a list of actlievable the Council ba established. s nsug maje congoals contributors to participate. would be needed to help encourage Jenne announced that the Chaa�+be; has re-at"aced a lease with the City to aaaove fia�� purpose is to eventually into the former city Hall on `Main Street, purchase the building and to have it declared -a Historic property. R press conference will be held on Wednesday, February 26 at 10 AM to announce thby e cooperative effort. John. noted that: 'the 'Chamber's decision was prompted t the involvement with the Economic C: mbc r arynchcaac Coce mmittee made because Ofand the its create ba. Downtown :CoUnC commitment .to the downtown efforts, it w:a.s ,not. made because of the rent a.rraras�er�ent s. 8 r :Bill described the City effort to improve Ma i.n Street and the Clain Street to design an improved Bridge. The City has hired an engineering consultant bridge, and filain Street. The Original :plan to resurface: Main .Street has been postponed into Fiscal year 1987 because greater repair needs are needed than just ,,a resurface. Burlington INorthern has ara economic development group which should be contacted to begin discussion on the>combination' of railroad tracks in the doawntown. 'Bill reported that the new Gita Engineer, Randall Wooley, will be asked to initiate cOnversation with both Southern pacific and Burlington Northern. ode lao+a S«n Francisco has had in enforcing a color tandards s mentioned thc, success thatand a for ,:buildinags. Some discussion' was held concerning g committee review. The Committee discussed the coordination with the Chamber and how the Chamber feels about the proposed arrangement. Jeanne pointed out that five Chamber Board members have businesses in the area. The Committee discussed developments Manned for 1986 and the current vacant space relation in the Commercial and Industrial markets. John encouraged all to attend the Thursday meettng`. other €lisiness - Tone Orlandini.'s term has expired from the committee. Juanita Caday, Visas been appointed as his,r The-!''aarz h edition of Oregon Business Magazine will feature tfae I--5 Corridor and the downtown area. The next meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 18, 1985 at Pioneer Pies at 7:3C A.M. Signed 21� 1iam A. Monahan � Fiff m&MORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: William A. Monahan, March 18, 1986 Director of Community Development FROM: Randy :Clarn.o, Engineering Services Manager SUBJECT: Engineering Monthly Report for FEBRUARY, 1986 Personnel Time Spent in Functions I. DEVELOP;iMT REVIEW/PERMITS Percent Hours F A. Land-Use Application Review 66 (59) E. Public Improvement Permits 18% (174) C. Property Vacations (i.e. flats, easements, street .._,) 2% (20) ' II. SUR VUY AND'MAPPING A. Survey 1. City elide Control ...................... ............... 26 (18) 2. Public Works Operations "Maintenance" Projects 0% ." 3. Capital Projects 20% (195) B. Mapprin-gdDrafting 1. City Wide Information mapping ......................... 12% (115) 2. Department mapping . .... .. ....... . _.. 0% 3. Construction/Misc. Drawings ........................... 2% (16) z III. TRAFFIC/LIGHT ING A. Streetlights .. .. . .. ....... 1% (8) B. Signals ... ...................... ...................... 1% (1) IV. CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT A. Public Facility Master Plans/Policy Review Assistance 0� (0) (i.e. Streets, sewer, storm drainage, etc... ,) .......... H. Capital improvement Program AssistancPr`SupNat (i.e., Project Coordination, Ilan Review, Inspection) ...... 6% (56) V. PUBLIC/AQZNCY ASSISTANCE .. .e ... ...... 15% (150) VI. G ENERALDMINISTRATION AND �IISC. .•... . VII. CTIVE TIME (Holidays, vacations, sick leave, etc....,).. 9% (90) c Notes on tunes spent in functions: (1) Work on Capital Projects hes increased significantly as preliminary ni `A I engineering stages are well under way. (2) Public Improvement Permit activity should increase substantially (25Al ' - 35%) by April as many approved developments are now submitting construction glans. i7s.Revenue Aetivl.tyFY 84-85 FY`85--86 .�. Longi eexissg' Ser Fees & Charges' FEBRLTAEtY FEBRMWi 1. Improvement Permits (l.B) 6,807.58 3,8/34.80 MRUAR.Y thru FEBRUARY 52,573.97 ' 65,508.10 B. Public 'forks Operations Fees & Charges FY 84--35 FY 85--86 Febru.-tryFebruary: 1. Streetlights 725.75 a 0 2. Traffic.control Signing . 120.00 0 NMI PUBLIC 1MPROVRUNT PROJECTS FEBRUARY Koll Intereal rstreet opening permit - SW Nimbus and Scholls Ferry Road. (RSC;br/0340P) s; R T N N M A aid M G N N m 'O 0. 6i +rt M G+d N e Ii I �X.4 I i s c ml I � , i sig +NA O 1�'+� Ute'+ R SOS' N Cd 9* C '1 1 I EI CMY atc O M L? AIT h 4n d' P"i M co �" p ahy `i s"' + '' r++ :fPf 4 .q Ar7 t+y yp .✓W.. sn m M " Aa b L3 SA w"1 'SA Ge N C in� an Kd of IQ N ' %n N 1 — I fffi M fa dA A7T +fi aJJ fi . o. ems' 0 e t h Sed m �A0fyy 6's co co in v vo N M in dc7 :el Y'n .p N N an k. _ � M vq _ h l In N W QD 4A O u.R�gg O. h O M Os Q 'o c x G7 N f� O 57s In Aea 4^y. Cef Eea a �w - ST lu fR M a n _ . � Ah N tT .. 47% cc4 Y1 C'> � In RI h co 4'1 99 .Y 5+9 ♦9 Aa asT CVT Ci W tf M rn q7 A 6s rt fn P A� lA N e In as of -, rn t q7 O, M to W C7 !s as N b h <t AY1 t.1 6Fa !`� IH ' f2l ;jz — -- ch ?t ffi2 $ Q go 3 C7 A. w W) S L'd T i S/d( SPJ a Std f14 Pa . t4 ` ,y /" W a1 At 4' N 6i cif 1)i 9D0 0 u w u9. W u u 0 u u co m aT 47a "•A 4.1 "Q SJA c(8 CO >» A O N Q 'Q 4`t 0 RY A - A .-.. f �¢¢ r c +✓ .,✓ — f f<.f 7'{ /'o,-''"� ,,.y � � PV"e� vwa`"'✓Al p=y �.,. �..✓ ca✓ W 4✓ a✓ 'w✓ A✓ +..s V R✓ -�✓ °./ '�✓ V °"'� �..< V L.d d✓ V' ��iitt t O. v Ra t a.: is Q O !e 6i f} ev 96 14 9 tY C fi. W ::v L9e e•..: ro •ss' JG w' � � N W -� e21 d'D RV aw3 as ee �. .. •, . 04LO 4 lot- q q 4(f G'a 4'l, _R"J fa N I v7 cn W � N .6' vs � h R u'! n� a9. •C' cD _d .•e.a � � an m a Ut -31 M h lry Y A rM aT M CQ w � .dam� - BE srs� pl fR rn a 29 Vol v u1 w 7II o to .n :.a tg :6^. h�:lka N sa.i_V1 W N N —10 m Ch a In ! k.4 eq to P n, rt a ,t,4 �a to Ir. V � .: '1 9 I i 4 Si en m i � e� ra P en ;,., .aV, !nQp C4 ^i. FV 1 .raj,. O•r r..� 8 Ca: P &3 !� C3 I Ai .t!- 17'! N- F. e..t lV P In 'C. n M co ¢+1 YT rz v sa as xF u st 11 r 9 :1 rl I M CO ab 1 G? Cd sQ -tla at? Q c. to RR N M t� C. al -.a. Ca tl9 V"9 "K8M C fiW'!+ M r:B. yON. LA 'iq ! . a r'mt t-.: I vi a t4 o en f{I 01 ptm c3 ea ' .gyp 0 ntri, :v -M r* , I E int) 4a� MI q� G 6a O+ �4. �; tt L. t+.' to rm Ij u et i ' u xr �!' m oa w° � rr m rd S a v ed �+ 1 Ocx tr cs em 0 Cd P! ''t '�4 9p d�7 h I W !61 w w �i XP�: ,Q3 A83 Fy3 ttf. n 1 reit rj agate 11 ac t I� of al 1 y, ij c� : t 1 a i' (3) •f �c i I } '�. ^.� LL '�i� CDF N t -� , .,;, ,--. r. .-a 1 -ti •""'' til( ;V� CV "y I .^: O M co 00 co, r- CV) +A %D N cltl M; ! { ..i •s CO M CTI �U M CJCIQ Ln 17 v-i .:t ltii tai I i � t l G \ UN N 7. u'i �p o:•. N t`� 07 tT z .-t 4 CJ r- -;r :Go N v � ] { m co ri' Cl)I ID w N cyv %D l -T P F� *' CN cli: e rt t. I 1 s 4 .r, i M 1 N C11 1 1 $-4 r ! rn 00 IJ 1-1 cn f f i rq _ _ a t aL I N ON C11 cli Ln 0 M ON Ln N M O O c0 Ln cn 'IN o M �rn co N h w O N N cy N :%0 CO ON ON ( 1-4 r>.. GS w Ch O O ,00 Y �. 1b O N N 10 O �G c.a �..H isa co r^. O N W .7 cry n R. �a C41 Q 044 0. C�co o N :O L'I :ON G : co {3 E-° N M ,1f 14 -� co N O. N P. M N N .-a v1 in H C to rn C14 LD 04a � � &4 a MGNTHLY REPORT CITYOFTIOARD 'WASHINGTON COUNTY.OREC 400 DATE: 3/6186 FOR N40NTH OF: Fetirxaary 1 85.. OFF:RIINIMS OrFICE: S WASTE WATER: 2.1.2 11.0 hrs T.V. Inspection 125:5 hrs Sanitary Sewer Clean 44°.0 hrs Storm Drain Clean 2.0 hrs Sanitary Repairs 56.5 hrs Catch Basin ML eintenance 130:0 hrs Manhole Repairs 119,5 hrs Storm Drain Repairs STMEITS 2.1.3 74.5 hrs=Street Cleaning 223.5 hrs Patching 165:0 hrs SY:gn jffaintenance 70.0 hrs''B7raashing/Limbing 49.0 hrs Bridge Maintenance 14.0 hre Sanding PARKS 2.1.4 GRREN 1"r11114d_ }TOURS 3.0 hrs Restroom Maintenance S>G hrs Hall-field'Maintenance 2.0 hrs Rec. Equip. Maint. 57.0 Firs Landscaping 26.0. hrs Landscaping 43.0. hrs Trails Maintenance. 71.5 hrs Trails'Maintenance. 87.0 ears- Construction 5.0 hrs Construction 35.5 Firs Linter Patrol MO hrs Litter Patrol a SUPPORT ar.�t�'?"C:i.S 2.7..5 14.0 hrs Community Service Hours F 16.5 hrs P.M. on Equipment 157.:5 hrs Scheduled 'Repairs 24.5 hxs F7ns�ceduled Repairs 14.5 hrs Fabrication 2;.0. Fins 4 pneral support -- -- 12755 S.W.ABPA - P.O.BOX 23397 TIGARD, OREGON 97223 PH:639-4171 J COMMUNITY SERVICE 'VOLUNTEER WORKERS Washington 'County Corrections For the Month of: February 1986 City of Tigard NAZE Hrs Ordered i?rs'Worked TIGARD COURRT Brett Logan 14.5 14.5 GREEN T1 U14B Marvin Mosely 42.0 Walter Van Tuyl 89.0 7I:�q�1I tl c R,�1p1iR _____ 14.5 TQTt#I GREEN THUMB Fi15U12S 131.0 --=— 1 d �ue�.�a'� " '��a'�S�n ? �s.�� z�• �r; �,;.��,.�. r- ��'�+an �'•:.w_`�y:��.,��.."• ;,�""G��_- ::�. n�_ *. ,. a.,.: ^� c>=,-.-�ti��n:_ �s.mom :.::k" '";$.:.�.; "s�� 3�a� i` k ' re :,j} .Y;,,a„ s:;�ry ar _`Yyx 3+ �:. >ti •}.�' �t '{ .t} -�.. '�+�S`ry x: sJl y'tr 1."!?. � ._t'" .•f d.! y r� '�a,..�i 'Yfin�,.�„tis J ' ; r..5r.f 13 f y t •x' rt 5 ;k .•l' ata• �`" ss, } -•". i W � !.liiry- .' �,..- '1 r� -: .;� -.'a°a r t:*ti. ..,f::.'i .� Y ,e .r��: .Y:. ,;�.'; ! - •i,,� v -.r:= ,:. t ya. �;a.,. ., vim. �! } T �� ,,�+� g k J. t r''�. z.'yf... iY,. ,2[ ,.;ii a- ;�! _. V' �`. •rr i._ -rt`.. � �• .y • y.. _ �!; a '1.. :K' •Y,- 1 itl' i. '•.#o ,E ♦-.�� T: s � r is + x+ s; '•s r ' L a;_ f u$ �'a xt��.. S-cu 4 .,e"-."F,�ay. Tr�gr's�kFr .; .t l`._ y t .x'F r '"` '- 'Z+FI k;-, i,'`^' '�:�.3'11' ? 'P-e "° '.-'v �.�', �,`.�>} ,c Al$j aU , fh •-`dj �•e- ,�:� ..,..,, fs v ry, '� .fit•`-�+. �ctt e "��.� ,a.MIS 'zr'-: +� r `ES;r'-". � ��+£ -y„ t; '',qt� �� .. x `:Y r .� ; s ..€ v .'n ^^x�'wr s .x s Y+'�""�"+� "Pe..�'t :,'? ^.;x a - � �•• •� '+rwt-1'i t.. �� "�?:�� :_?fs,,`�w-ua�,.�F ` �. `:�'.�: -vq .'.a. a,._ � #'r3 :r', y&� '..`.=`.z r�F_�_..•:�,St': :� -... � - �.�«, -tau? ,_€,a�- *:=k �a -e'°.'c..?"r•6'1v�r`."'^ :','. .`. =a`..,� .'-'. ' 'rzF. a'F:S Erw� r T° . r 4 {1235 NX } b A kF7'�'fi'i `� fy a n�1� �k��Z }`c,x`,1�..{.� ;�aa�, r�,�-...... -<ra:;�< a c��5§ir,� k ,:y� �,...::ey'x�e;}L s'�""',a�it�. ,"-:...:• ,,.� y, 3.c.�lg�k'K`� .xy7e x��N:.''�ty` �`5,{ „�t�.�i,`:;�``- �a { �'^� t` �ri�.'�.'�'+,�•. _. Js _,:u. #'�,ti.�.d �e r'. �T��F ':'f�"'C�...� 1'-": :.A'� ...- '?h'rr.: :F: rh •;;�4+, it' �.gL'1�1. _"'9 tt e'y�,i..as`k��'f`=;��7'g4�F.$ `E':ii.�KxE,�sfi{�� "r PLANNNING AND DEVELOPMENT REVENUE REPORT -- FEBRUARY 1386 CITY PLANNING iG HEARINGS DIRECTOR"S DOCUMENT MONTHLY REVENUES COUNCIL C0A,%iISSTON OFFICER DECISION SALES Totals from JNLD 1955 $450.00 $ 350.00. $1,000.00 X1;415.00 $187.35 GT ($3,402.35) Totals from Rum 1905 150.00 3,200.00 0 2,715.00 94.65 �. GT ($6,153.65) Totals from Sept. 1985 -0- -0-- -0- 675.00 229.30 GT( 904.30) Totals from Oct. 1985 -0- 930.00 500.00 675.00 173.00 GT ($2,278:80) Total -from Nov. 1985 -0- --0-. 800.03 1,315.00 150.40 SET ($2,2645.40) ., Total from Dec. 2300.00, 200.00 -0- 1,490.00 213.00 GT ($4,203.00) ;. Total from jan. 1,275.001 1,720.00 500.00 1,625.00 144.00 �. GT $5,264.40) '. ( FEBRUARY! ° s . A li.caht/Pa ee Rnceiot , Martin Bros. 10573 35.00 'Sign E Getty Const, 10640 300.00' (S) D'S 0 Saws 10671 10.00 Sign . . Syntec Carp 10713 150.00 (Sn) Patricia Sigler 10761 45.00 Sign ➢ Columbia Sign, 10744 200.00 (SCE) OTAK 10795 200.00 (fir) Gr•aymore Inc. 10800 300.00 (SDR) . Tigard Schwinn 10942 35.00 Sign � s Patricia Sigler 10843 200.00 (SCE) Martin Bros. 1084+3 25.00 Sign Heath N49 10920 10.00 Sign .: Waverly Coast. 10925 500.00 (SL/with PD) r: Tom Fisher 11127 1000.00 (CPAIZC) � Levitz 11161 400.00 (SDR) Nieubuurt, K. 7.500 (HOP) Blaze Signs 11209 35.00 Sign Srarymare 11235 200.00 (V) Jerrie"Roussie 11290 75.00 Sign Refund Overcharge (20.00) � Allan Sorenson 75.00 (HOP) Document Sales Misc. 135.15 FEBURARY TOTALS 1,O0O.00- 1,40t oo 1,200.00 335.15 taT .($3,985.15) : . TOT S 10 DATE: $?a,1:5.O£) $7,�iO0.Ot2 $2,800.00 11,110.00 $1,577.15 ' YTD (j28,462.15) 3-; F ;- FYT0 - February 1986 PLANNING C.04A.NIISSION DECISIONS DIRECTOR°S DECISIONS - 10 CPA Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Also CC) 12 MLP Minor Land Partition. ZC Zone Change iR SDR Site Development Review a ZCA Zone Change Annexation (CC) 14 !J Variance 7 ZOA Zone Ordinance Amendment (Also CCL 5 TU Temporary Use � 4 Pro Planned Development 24 HOP Home Occupation 1 x 7 S Subdivision 10 M Misc. (Lot Line Adj � 6 SCE Sign Code Exception flexible setbacks) HEARINGS OFFICER DECISIONS 7 SL Sensitive Lands Permit 3 CU Conditional Use fi [j y, .dJ5 F; P; _ .. P: JANUARY 9, 1986 MINUTES TIG€4RD TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE Meeting opened by; Chairman Thomas J. Sullivan at '7:15 p.m. at City Full, Members pre. Thomas 3. Sullivan, Chairman; Mark Padget, Vice 'Chairman; Lidija Salodis, ilbur Bishop, Joe Schweitz, silt Eyre. Tri-Met update for transfer station in Tigard was given by Joe Schwe.Ltz, A motion was made by ,Wilbur €iisho, to table' discussion by ,Gordon Martin on alternate _to Dartmouth' LID because of court litigation. Motion seconded by Mark Padget. motion last by 3 to 1 vote with abstention.' It was then agreed to here Martin report without any comment or discussion. Speaking with Curtin was Gary Tyler, attorney for Martin, and Wayne Kittleson of CH Hill. Martin made proposal for Dartmouth LID that would skirt oast side of his property, overpass 217 with big interchange, pass through Fiunziker industrial area to Hall Blvd. and connect to McDonald Avenue to Pacific €F;ighway. Padget suggested that the map be accepted. Team and Milt present Sib Corridor study. Mark discussed 165th vs 2161219th to Sunset Highway western;Bypass alternative. Milt reminded that City and Council in Camra Plan avoided thse Murray extensions shown in Fig. 6 of SCJ Corridor Study. *d'N Milt and Mark suggested getting report from Economic Development Committee about transportation`in regards to Downtown Plan-flain Street Commitee. Milt suggested that CCI group to consider that transportation plan in the Comp ratan. SPOS to review tra€fic problems in their 1l'PO and report to Transportation Committee. Milt asked about the resolution to turn County roads over to City (inside City). County will not resolve this until :a Murray Blvd. agreement is Trade with Tigard as to direct or "T" intersection. Milt asked resolution be put on next month's agenda. Mark said county event center-•line half-street improvement from combination cased before. , so center—line is current policy. G Meeting adjourned at 9:05 Submitted by Wilbur Bishop f br49: € Emil 9 } MEM0RANDUM �a C/o, CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON i TO: Mayor and City Council March 12, 1986 FROM: Jerr•i L. Wi.dner, Finance DirectcroPrary ^" SUBJECT, peartmer al SLLn^ark for Feka scar 1926 The month of Fevrua.ry had only 19 working days. Aurin the month the department had the following workload indicators: Phone Calls 5,791 Walk-ins 2,186 Word Processing'Work Orders 201 Total Number of'Pages 5.2,500 a Average Turnaround per Work Order 8.9 Accounts Payable Checks 256 Payroll Checks 257 Casio Receipts Written 744 Sewer Bills Sent- 1,751 Piame/Address Changes 150 NSF Checks 15, Purchase Orders 44+ SAIF Claim Filed Hires 6 Recruitments 0 Terminations 2 Claim Status see attached, a t', • fi it x t 2/28/86 4' CITY OF TIG IR'D CI IM STATUS REPORT DATE OF LOSS CLAIMANT DESCRIPTION STATUS 2/13/85 Mervin Boen False arrest pending 8/21/84 George Kusiowski Ins. impounded clt`s 'car no activity (Officers Johnson, Ober, & Newman) 2/4/85 Fredric Nickel Criminal counter cplt. open (Officer Hal Merrill), 3/20/83 Fred Ozan False arrest Appeal Filed (Officer Killion) 1/11/85 Harry Field Alleges False Arrest pending; ('OfficeMerrill) Unknown George Hludaik Alleges his constitutional closed no payment rights violated Unknown Neil Gerrard Alleges his constitutional closed no payment rights were violated 7/20/85 Steven Bacon ' False Arrest (Officer Harburg) claim reopened 3/16/85 Julie B. Winkelman Wrongful Death pending 9/6/85 Farmers Ins. 'etal. Alleges officers caused pending panic stop (Officer Jim Newman) 10/16/85 Opal Kaske, Failed to yield right-of-way pending subro. $278.20 Collision paid 9/24/85 Henninia Arias Tripped & fell on sidewalk pending 12/6/85 Cpl Johnson Damaged vehicle when parking pending 11/26/85 Lujon Apts Sewer backup $237.50 (UHzpm/0886F) E , r� TIGARD LIBRARY 6 0991 2 4� airs.=Tigard, Or.977223 MINUTES TIGARD 'LIBRARY BOARD January13, 1956 Cala. to Order 7:06 PM Poll Call Excused: Dorene Thomas, Irene. Ertell. ; Present: -Jane Puller, Susan Mueller, Walt Munhall;, Peggy Ober, Dick Bendixsen, Sue Carver. Staff: Bobby White, Karrin Hawes, George Anne Miller/IE.. Reports Minutes of the December meeting were approved as written. November Monthly Report written report .,as distributed. (Oral report was given in December.) December Monthly Report was reviewed. The Board discussed the possibility of :a plaque in the library foyer with the Library` Board members and Librarian listed. There was Ia consensus to° research the possibility. Brief review of the progress of the Fred Meyer Trust Fund grant was given. by -George Anne. Friends of the Library. Susan. Mueller reported that the annual GASS is set for April 11-13, 1356 in the Fred Meyer parking lot. Walt Munhail stressed that Helen Steyaert needs" help desperately to clean, sort and price. items. Fliers were handed out. No replies yet to the Chamber of Commerce mailing sent out in late December with the Hotline. Dick Bendixsen received the information with business owners nares and phone numbers for follow-up. Irene Ertell to check with City Hall about articles on Friends of the Library drives for money and nes; members in city newsletter All About Town. WCCLS Assitant Librarian reported that the Professional Board is still Automation working; on a circulation policy. The city managers and CAB are still to meet later this week for final discussion. Peggy Ober suggested different wording in the new levy ballot re: "replace- ment costs." Instead, use of "maintenance and updating" was suggested. Access '86 Library Boardmemberswere advised that the one ,year trial cooperative agreement between Washington, Multnomah, Clackamas and Fort Vancouver Regional Library System went into effect the first of January. No fees will be charged to these residents during the trial. Civic Center Update Walt Munball reported on the progress being made by the contractor on the Civic Center. Munhall doesn't feel the contractor,will make the revised deadline. in February. AAUG7 The American Association of University Women has agreed to organize and run on-going art exhibits in the Library. Dedication Conn ittee Walt Nunhall, as a member of the Civic Canter Dedication Com- uaittiss, a0iicited suggGn..:u.ao'for dedication. CE'Teffi.`.Yn .s'n Book Security System The Librarian will investigate one more book security system by attending a demonstration of Kno-Go at the Tualatin Public Library and will reportback to the Board. F' Meeting adjourned.: 8:45 PM. Respectfully submitted, pi? A roved: Ge rue Anne Miller, Assistant Librarian _ Approved as corrected: t T'IGARD POLICE DEPARTMENT Monthly Report -FAUJARY, 1986 .1. Calls for Service: This blonth 1, 45 _ Year to ate= 1,1 5 A. Obligated Time 2,413.2 B. Non-Obligated Time `414.8 IZe FAVI I CRMS No. Cleared Arrests A. Homicide Rape o C. Robbery 1 1 2 D. Assault` ; E. Burglary 35 3 73- F. rc£'iRjT, 70 14 G. Auto Theft 13 2 1 ,arson TOTALS 119 20 14 III. PART al TOTALS 60 32 "19 IOTAS, Part I and 11 179 52 33 IV. TisAL-PERSONS—CHARGED- 33 a. Ad' Sale 19 c. 'Juvenile Male 8 b. adult Female 2 d. Juvenile Female __ V. WARRANTS SEtIVED 13 V1. TOTAL PROPFRTY LOSS $___f7,241 TOTAL PROPERTY RECOVERED 9,44 4 'SIT. _TRAFFIC a. Accidents Investigated 32 injury Accidents 6Fatal 0 b. Citations; VBR (Speeding) 64 Yield Right of Way 5 Following too Close 0 Red Lip,ht 36 Stop sign 32 Improper_Turn 14 Reckless Driving f? Careless Driving 7 Driving Linder t1le Influence 3 Driving While Suspended 20 Other Hazardots 25.a____a_ Non-Hazardous 132 Total Hazardous _ 206 c. Enforcement Index _ -34.33 d. Traffic Euforrement 'Totals wd� Ii.tat'onSa. Tliis Month This Year 338 Year to Date 338 This Month Last: Year 450 Last Year toy Da e450' wara i2&n z This Month This Yea.. 477 Year to Rate. 477 This Mouth Last Year409 :Ls t Year to 4)ate 409 Pat I Crimes (Major Crimes) Clearance k.sltj� 16.8 �.� a fart Il Crimes (minor Crimes) Clearance Pate 53.3% �; CITY OF'TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGE"DA ITEM S3ARY' AGENDA OF: March 24,; 1986 AGENDA ITEM #: , !DATE SUBMITTED, March 18, 1986 PREVIOUS ACTION: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE- Director's Decision SDP 6-86, V 5-86 - First interstate PREPARED BY: Community Development TrustREQUESTED 8Y• DEPARTMENT HEAR OK: CITY A.DMiINISTRATOR _ �xxraaaa-ci:ssxaaseum��mxzazume.�amexdau.^..azsszaas -._-.�.:..��a.�-:��.-�- - v-ssaw��mara��amm�m® _ POLICY ISSUE --re----asrs---- IN'FO STION SUMMARY Attached is the Notice of Decision for SDR 6-86 and V 5-86. Site Development Review`and Variance requestediby -First Interstate Trust to develop a-6800 sa. ft, retail/auto service building and an automatic car wash. , Variance is r quested for deletion of a portion of public sidewalk along Center Street and to allow a<landscaped area of 13.5% where 15% is required. The property is located at the northwest corner of Pacific Highway and Greenburg Road.. asamx�-------carie--sxsrxs----crass:ssaa;ama-�.:e...._....ca--max.:axs.arsaarsa------ ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Approve the decision' as written. 2. Removefromconsent 'agenda and set on a regular agenda with date certain. y i SUGGESTED ACTION Approve the decision as written. k` x i CITY OF TIGARD NOTICE OF DECISION ' SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 6-86 VARIANCE 'V 5-86' APPLICATION- Request by First Interstate Trust to develop a 6900 'sq, ft. retail'/auto `service building and are automatic car wash. A Variance is also requested for deletion of a portion of Public sidewalk along Center Street and to allow a landscaped area of .13.5% where 15% is required. The property ;is zoned C—G (Cchw.ercial General) and is located at the Northwest corner of 4 Pacific Highway"and Greenburg:Road ( TM 2S1 2AA lots 1000, 1001., a;sai 11 00 , DECISION: Notice 'is hereby given that the Planning Director for the;City of Tigardhas APPROVED the above described applications subject to certain conditions. The findings and; ;conclusions on which the Director ":basedthis. decision are as noted below. A. FINDING OF FACT s 1. Background The City has reviewed several land use applications for the property, the most recant being a Conditional Use (CU 4-82) to approve a flower shop. � 2. Vicinity Information t i The property is surrounded by Pacific Highway, Greenburg Road, and Crarter.Gtreet, The zoning on the south side of Pacific :UCjhway_is COD (Centrad Business District). The properties east of Greenburg Road are zoned C—G (Commercial General) and the parcels north of Center Street are zoned Cr-P (Commercial Professional). r r 3. Site Information and Proposal Description � e The subject property consists of three tax lots which contain ai � cow-sercial huilding a single family residence. Driveway .access is presently available from Pacific Highway, Greenburg Road and Center- �. Street. € The-applicant proposes to remove the existing building and construct a car wash in the western port-ion of the ,property , and a g retail/autoi,otive service building near Greenburg Road. One driveway entrance is ,intended for each of the three streets abutting the property. The; property will be--filled to ;yore closely resemble the grade •of '€�aci.fi� Higttway. This will require a retraining ill sohich � is as•high "mss -10 feet near the"western end of the parcel. €§ 20 foot Sigh 100 squai"a':"foot sign has also been presented for app€•rival, � arxances' aro . also . requested to reduce the required a usat csf landscaped area from 15% ' to approximately 13.5%' and to allow ttse� deletion of a`sidewalk along most of the Center Street frontage. t DIRECTOR DECISION ISDR 6-86 /`V 5-86 Page 1 x 4. Ager=cy and NPO Comments' The Engineering Division has the Following comments: a. A sanitary sewer connection permit for any new additions. b. All work performed within the Pacific Highway right—of-way will require a permit from the State Highway Division. C. Visual clearance must be maintained at intersections and driveways. d. Wheelchair ramps must be installed at all corners and on the ;proposed traffic signal island, e. A traffic control pavement marking plan must be submitted for City and State approval, prior to installation by the applicant. f. The ps oPosed driveWay on Greenburg Road' should not be installed because of the ''existing congestion at the Pacific Highway intersection, the difficulty; in prohibiting left turn attempts onto the :property, and the City policy which calls for minimizing the number of access paints on arterial and collector streets. g. The storm drain catch basin and line proposed to be; installed at the intersection of Greenburg Road and Center street needs to be { rerouted to avoid crossing private property. 3t ' is suggested that the catchhasin be connected directly to the manhole at the intersection. h. The guardrail glom pacific Highway shall be relocated not removed, i. The proposed retaining wall near Center Street is apotential eyesore,- particularly if it becomes a target for graffiti, Care should be taken to provide landscaping which will act to minimize the problem: j. No objection to the variance requests. The Building Inspection Division and Tigard Water District have no objection to the request. The; State Highway Division states that a traffic impact report is necessary to evaluate the 'impact of access alternatives. A Road.Approach permit is required and the necessary 'street improvements shall be determined after the report it completed. PGE notes that several utility poles will need to be moved. No other co !°aaant�s have been'received. DIRECTOR DECISXON SOR 618E / V 5-06 Page 2 3od } x B, ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION The proposed commercial development is basically consistent with the relevant standards and criteria contained in the Community Develc,iment ; Code. However, several aspects of the proposal including the variance t request warrant further discussion. 1. = Access The Greenburg Road driveway is not appropriate for the reasons noted by the Engineering Division'. This driveway should be removed and it is recommended that a pedestrian :link between the public sidewalkand the i project be provided in its place. 2. Visual Clearance Chapter 18.102 of the Code required that objects taller than three feet; in height cannot be 'within 30 feet of intersections and driveways. This r portion of the Code is particularly important near busy intersections. It is recommended that the two Red 'maples that are, shown closest to the Pacific Highway and Center Street driveways be eliisinated. Also, the mature height of all other landscaping material should not exceed three feet. 3.' Landscaping The proposed landscaping pian generally conforms with Code requirements with -the exception of visual clearance (discussed above), lot coverage (noted below under the variance review), street trees, and the treatment of the proposed retaining wall. The Center Street frontage does not include street trees as required by the Code, presumably because of the proposed retaining wall. The deletion of street trees appears to be justified, however, the landscaping treatment in this area needs revision. The majority of the 255 foot long retaining wall will be over six feet in height and potentially could have a detrimental visual impact, No vegetation is proposed to soften or screen the wall. A revised landscaping plan should be prepared by a Landscape architect for the retaining wall area. The plan should contain a 'justification for the proposed height of tete wall, plant materials that will screen all or most of the retaining wall, an elevation "drawing illustrating the wall and proposed landscaping, and landscaping treatment of the right-of-way area between the retaining wall and the curb. n. variances As mentioned earlier, two variance requests have been made to reduce the landscaping coverage to 13.5% and to Eliminate a sidewalk from the Center Street driveway to the western corner of -the property. Section 18.9.34.050 of the Code contains the following approval criteria For granting a ti. variance. DIRECTOR DECISION SDR 6- 86 l V 5-86 Page 3 a. The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental. to the purposes of this Code, be in conflict with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, to any other applicable policies and standards; and to other properties in the same zoning district or vicinity; b. There are special circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the letsizeor shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the applicant has no control, and which are not applicable to other properties in the same zoning district; C. Thai use proposed will be the same as permitted under this Code and City standards will be maintained to the greatest extent that is reasonable possible, while permitting some economic use of the land;' d, Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, 'drainage, dramatic land 'forms or parks will not be adversely affected any more than would occur if the development were located as specified in the Code; and G. The hardship is not self--imposed and the variance requestedis the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship, The proposed variance to the landscaping coverage requirement is minor and it will. be difficult to notice a difference between the required' minimum (6,313 square feet) and what is proposed (5,690 square feet). The property is long and irregular in shape with street frontage on virtually the: entire perimeter which has presented unzque problems I related to right-of-way d di,ca-ion, street is provements, anc6 internal circulation, T iae proposed uses acre permitted in the C-G zone `and the request will not adversely, affect physical or natural systems. Finally,' the hardship is not self-imposed because the primary reason for the variance is due to the , irregular parcel configuration, The request appears to be the minimum necessary and also, the required modifications to the site and landscaping plans will cause as slight increase in the amount of landscaped area. The proposed sidewalk variance also appears to be ,justified for the following reasons state High-way right-of-way and the embankment for Pacific Highway dies to the west of the property along Center street and the potential for any extension of the sidewalk is ninimal. - Because"of the Large amount of frontage, the applicant is responsible for a substantial quantity of street improvements and this portion of sidewalk '`would be of minimal value and it could actually cause pro?1mg 4y encouraging pedestrians to cro3s the street in the middle of the` block. . DIRECTOR DECISION SDR 6--06 f V 5--46 Page i 0 01 a y The applicant is providing all other half street -improvements as required_ by City Code and the development will be able to adequately J accommodate pedestrian and vehicular traffic on the perimeter of '.the 1,F site, k 5. Signage The applicant is proposing to install one 20 foot tall., 1.00 square foot sign and the standard Coda requirement's allow for signs 20 feet in'' height and 70 square feet+ in area. However, during -the Site Development Review process Section 18.114.130 (g) (3) allows: up to an additional 50% increase in sign copy area for developments which have multipletenants. The project will have four businesses and the proposed sign appears to be appropriate and it is consistent with City standards. 6. Pacific Highway Off-ramp to Commercial Street As part' of a long range plan to alleviate traffic circulation problems in the downtown area and on Pacific Highway', an exit ramp has been proposed from Pacific Highway adjacent to t'rc subject property , to Center Street and; then on to Commercial Street. The Engineering Division recommends that the development of this site does not;preclude the eventual construction of this exit. C. DECISION The Planning Director approves SDR 5-86lV 5-136 subject to the following conditions: 1., UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS 2. Standard half—street improvements, including sidewalk, curb, wheelchair ramps, driveway apron, storm drainage, guard rail (partial frontage) and utility signalization relocation shall be installed along the SW Pacific Hwy. frontage Said improvements along Ski Pacific Highway shall be built to Major Arterial standards and conform to the alignment of existing adjacent improvements and conditions of the State Highway Division permit: 3. Standard half—street improvements including sidewalk curb, pavexi�ent markings, wheelchair ramps, storm drainage and utility relocation shall be installed along th'a Std Greenburg Road frontage. Said improvements along SW Greenburg Road shall be built to Major Collector standards and conform to the alignment of existing adjacent improvements and conditions of the City's Street Opening Permit, 4. Standard half—street improvements including (partial frontage) sidewalk, curb, retaining wall driveway apron, storm drainage; and utilitx relocation shall be installed along the SW Center :street frap-:age. Said improvements SW Center Street shall be built to Local Street vtancards and conform to the alignment of existing adjacent improvements and conditions of the City,s Street Opening Permit." DIRECTOR DECISION SDR 6-86 / 1/ 5-06 Page 5 s iF. 5. Five (5) sets of plan--profile public improvement construction plans and ;(1) itemized construction cost estimate, stamped by; a Registered Professional Civil Engineer, detailing all proposed public improvements shall be submitted to the Engineering , Section for approval. 4. Sanitary sewer connection details shall be provided as part, of the public improvement plans. 7. Construction of proposed public improvements shall not commence until after the Engineering Section has issued approved public improvements plans. The Section will require ,posting of a 100% performance Bond, the payment of a permit fee and a sign installation fee. Also, the execution of astreet opening permit shall occur prior :to, or concurrently with the issuance of approved public improvement Maris. SEE THE ENCLOSED HANDOUT GLVING` MORE "SPECIFIC INFORMATION _REGARDTNG FEE SCHEDULES, 8OX4DING. AND AGREEMENTS, s. Additional right-of--way shall be dedicated to the Public at the Pacific Highway 'Greenburg Road intersection to provide for a turnirK3 lane onto Pacific Highway `,from Greenburg Road. 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. DEDICATION FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS ARE ENCLOSED. 9. A permit shall be obtained by the applicant, for words proposed to be r'T done' within SW ''Pacific Hightay from the Stare Highw ay' €livision. A copy'of said permit 'shall be provided to the City. 10. Visual clearance at driveways and at intersections shall be provided for in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 18.102. 11. A traffic and pedestrian control pavement marking, signal gond signing plan preparQd by a<'registered civil engineer, detailing a proposed marking, signal and signing improvements shall be submitted to- the Engineering Section for -approval and to the State Highway+ Di.wision for approval, 12. Direct vehicular ingress-egress at Greenburg Road shall not be permitted 13. Concrete sidewalk 'shall be installed from the proposed driveway apron on Pacific Highway, along Pacific Highway, along Greenburg Road, along Center Street, to the proposed driveway apron on Center Street. 1.4. Relocation of any existing utilities, poles, pipes, wires, signals, si«gnm l loops, or any such equipment 'shall be at the expense of the applicant. � DIRECTOR DE'C'ISI004 $OR 6--8€ V 5-86 Page 6 ti 15. A "revised site plan shall be submitted for Community Development Director approval which deletes the proposed driveway on 'Greenburg `., Road and' iilLt3trates the location of the proposed free standing sign. 16. A ',revised landscaping plan shall. be submitted for Community Development Director approval which is consistent with Chapter 18.102 Visual Clearance. Specifically", the two Red maple trees adjacent to the Center Street and Pacific Highway driveways :shall be deleted and verification shall be provided that the; mature height of other landscaping materiels will be less than three feet. Also, the landscaped area shall not be reduced to less than 13.5% of the total lot area. 17. A landscaping plan, prepared by a landscape architect, shall be submitted for Community Development Director approval which deals with the retaining wall including the following: a. Landscaping materials to screen all or most of the wall. b. Elevation drafsing of the: proposed retaining Mall and plant materials. c. ' Landscaping material between tl retaining wall and the curb. ' d. ; Reduction of wall height as much;as practical. 1E. Maintenance of the landscaping ;within the Center Street right—of-way shah be the responsibility of the applicant/property owner. ' 19. The orae free: standing sign shall not exceed 100 sq. feet per side or w'tat-- of 200 square fent 20, Tax lots 1000, 1001 and 1100 shall be combined into one parcel. 21. This approval` is valid if exercised within one year of the final decision date noted below. D. PROCEDURE 1. Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Nall. and mailed to sam- XX The applicant & owners XX Owners of record within the required distance XX The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization XX Affected governmental agencies 2 Final Decision: THE OECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON Starch 25 1956 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. DIRECTOR DECISION SDR-6-86 / U 5-86 page 7 gwg!1111!� 51 r 05 1 05 k: - , . ` h91 mi 01 _ 3 Rp eal: Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18,32.290(() and Section 15.32.370 of, the C-ormnunity DevelopmentCode ,which provides that •a jwritten appeal must b2 filed €with the CITY RECORDER within -IOL days after notice is asiven and sena . The deadline for filing of an appeal is :3D P.M. March 25, 199§L. R. 6�uest ons: If you have any questions, please 'call the City of Tigard 'Planning Department, Tigard City ball, 12755 SW Ash, PO Box 23397, >Tigard, Oregon 97223, 639-4171. FREPAkEb Dy: ith iders;> Senior Planner DA J_eFik7 ass; A. F�orra3�ars, ,Di�~ecEs�r of Co�art�unity Qeveloprrsent DATE-APPROVED (KSL_-2a18Pldmj) 3 � 9 s f & p LD IE f C "36� DEC S C SDS x--06 ® V 5-86 Page 5 4 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY • AGtNDA OF: Fear ch ?. 7.98 w AGENDA IT'ENi DATE YR BMdTt'ED: -March 19� 1986 PREVIOUS ACTION:^ ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Land Use _ Dec.isiosl= Final Orders for:_� SCE 2-86 Fors{ Motor Co. V 3-85 Dash PREPARED 8Y: Communit Development County School Dist levo, 48, S 6-35 Oe s C©nstructirn� Co. , _S 2-86 d _ REQUESTED BY: _ V 1-86 Elizaaeth Sutlers -� DEPARTMENT HEAD OSS: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: ---- POLICY ISSUE - - �i INFORMATION 5UMARY - c Attached are Final Orders fear': 1. SCE 2-86 Ford {'rotor Co. _ denial for a sign coda exception 2. IV 3--86 Washington County School. Dist. 448 approval for a variance 3 S 6-86 Getty Construction Co. - approval for at subdivision y 4. S 2-86 Reid V 1-86 E3izabeth Butler denial for a subdivision aro variance. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Approve as submitted. 2. Call up from consent agenda to be heard at a Later date. SUGGESTED A-,TION Approve as submitted. br5P z a "r�_ CIT; OF TIGARD PLANNING COMd4ISSION FINAL ORDER NO. '86- PC A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS, WHICH DENIES ACd APPLICATION FOR A SIGN CODE EXCEPTION (SCE 2-66) .REQUESTED BY FORD 'MiOR CO. The Tigard Planning Commission reviewed the above application at a public hearing ,on March 4. 1986. The Commission based its decision upon the facts`, findings and conclusions noted below: A. FACT', 1. General Information CASE: Sign Code Exception> SCE 2-56 REQUEST: To allow a fifth free-standing sign that is approximately 25<' 11" tall and 151 square feat where one sign, 70 square feet in area and 20' in height is permitted. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial General ZONING DESIGNATION C--G (Commercial General) APPLICANT. Heath Nor'thwast OWNER: Ford Motor Co'. 175 NE Columbia Blvd. 300 Renaissance Ctr. ,<< Portland, OR 97211 Detroit, MI 48243 LOCATION 12000 SW sibth Avenue (WCTIM 2S1. 1AA, T.L. 400) 2. Sac, rcun No previous land use applications have been reviewed by the City. 3 Vicinity Information The property to the south and west is also zoned C-G. The area to the north is xonpd C-P , (Commercial Professional) and 1-5 lies to the east and the Dart iouth/68th exit is immediately north. 4. Site Information The property is occupied by Landmark Ford. The following signs are presently located on the property: -• 2 free--standing signs similar in size to the one proposed — 2 3n.al 'free-standing signs -approximately 8 foot high anti 8 to 12 square fret in size - 1 swell sign for the body shop J. roof.sign in the front> - 1; "A" frame sign In addition, there are two signs located within the street right--of-waky at 68th and Franklin and 66th and Franklin FINAL ORDER NO, 96•-- PC (SCE, 2W86) _. PAGE 1 The applicant proposes to install a fifth free-standing sign that is 25' � III! tell with a total sign area of 302 square feet. g, III! 5. Ancy and NPO The Engineering Division has no objection. j The 'Building Inspection Division is strongly opposed because of the � precedent this request would set. " :SPO tt 4`is opposed to the request, fro other comments have been received. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant app criteria in this case is contained in Section 18.114.145 of the Community gevelopment Code. r The planning Commission concludes that the relevant Gommunity . Development Code requirements have not been met based upon the findings below: 1. In order to justify an exception to the sign code, one of the ,. following three criteria (CDC 18.114.145) must be satisfied: The proposed sign code exception is necessary ber_ause ask , conforming building or sign on an adjacent property mould limit the view of a sign erected on the site in conformance with the sign code standards. b. The proposed exception to' the height limits in the sign code is necessary to make the sign visible from the street because of the topography of the site. C. There is an access drive which services the business or service from 'a street other than the street on whish the business is located. k, 2. There are no buildings or signs (with the possible exception of those on the subject property) which block visibility from 56th - Avenue or I-5. The Landmark Ford property is slightly lower than the freeway but a sign which conforms with Code requirement3 would � . be clearly visible from I-5. 3 Criteria c. does not apply in this rase. The two existing off—site signs within the street right-of--way are iilonal and must be removed immediately. The "P frame sign on the site can be aliowad as a temporary sign. However, a permit must be issued by the City and the maximum tint' period, For such a permit is 60 days. Until a permit is obtained, tl'�i.s sign must be removed also. FINAL ORDER NO. PC (St,F_ 2--86) PA(IE 2 �- a� a F j The four free—standing signs and the roof sign do not conform with City requas�+�ments. The Cade only allow, one free—standing sign per F development and roof signs are not al `1o��ed within the City. section � .• 12.114.110 of the Code states that regar;�iess of the date instilled, all non—ronfor€ ing signs may only he continued until. March 20, 1388. �. t C. DECISION � Basedupon the findings and conclusions noted above, the Planning Comsssion denies SCE 2-86. * licant be notified of the entry of 1't is further ordered that the app this order. t � day of ►Warch,, 1386, by the Planning commission of g. PASSED: This the,Cit} of Tigard. A. Donald Moen, President Tigard Planning Coirnission (KSL:pmf239ZP) y t 5 k; a r SCE 2--06) - PAGE 3 FINAL OROF;R SHO< 06-_..�_ �C x u CITY OF TIGARD PLANNINGCOMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 86- PC i A FINAL ORDER !NC:LUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WHICH APPROVES AN APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE (V 3-86) REQUESTED BY WASHIN6GTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. fib. r: The Tigard' Planning Commission reviewed the above application at a public � hearing on March 4, 1986. The Commission based its decision upon the following facts, 'findings, and conclustions noted below: A. FACTS 1. General Information ' CASE: Variance V 3--86 REQUEST: To allow the construction of a cul-de--sac that is 470 fact E in length where 400 feet is the maximum ,length permitted., F : =IPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential ZONING DESIGN9ATION: R-4,5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre) � APPLICANT: L.A. 'Development Co, OWNER: Wa. Co, Sch. Dist. #48 8875 SW Bvtn-Hillsdale Hwy. P.O. Box 200 } Portland, OR 97225 Beaverton, OR 97075 ? i LOCATION: Southwest corner of Springwood Drive and 115th Avenue (WCTM 151;348D, ,Tax Lot 7000) . x L 2. Background On February 4, 1986 the Planning Commission approved as proposal to ; divida a 7.12 acre parcel into 33 lots (S 3-86). During the review of this application, it became ,apparent that a variance approval was necessary to record the plat as proposed, = 3. Vicinity Information All of the surrounding properties are zoned R-4.5. Single family residences abut the property on the south, east of 115th Avenue, and i north of Springwood Drive. Penn Lawn Estates is a new subdivision , located immediately to the southwest. A 4.54 acre parcel abuts thz 6 western boundary of the property. 11.9th Avenue terminates at the southwest corner (if the property: £ y 4. Site Information 9 This property is a vacant cxr ass field. Theapplicant proposes a 33 lot, € single family residential subdivision featuring two cul-do.--sac 'streets: Several lots will have direct access to 11.5th Avenue or Springwood Drive, and the majority wi11 be served by the proposed, cul-de--sac:s. The western ci.f1. c1 r*-swic is proposed to be 470 feet long. i'T.P1A1 ORDER N0:<86 PC (V 3 _96)_ PACE 1. - - G 5. kge.ncv and NPO Comments Engineering Cbi�eisio�►'has no objection to the proposal. . ; The Engin g . The Washington County dire District Wo. 1 reviewed the subdivision and chid not express any concerns reSarding the cul de-sac` iength. r10 other comments have bee received. B. FT.NDZb1lCaS-AND,0[3NCl.JSLt3NS The relevant criteria in this case are Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1 and 8.1.1 and Section le.1.60.120 of the Community Development Code. ommission concludes that the proposal is consistent with The Planning C the relevant, plan policies based upon the findings noted below: the Neighborhood Planning 1. Policy 2.1.1 i satisfied because owners were given notice Of Organization and surrounding property the hearing and an opportunity to comment ate the proposal. satisfied bagel upon the discussion of the 2. Policy 8.1,1 is variance criteria contained herein. , The Planning Commission concludes that the proposal is consistent i-cith the relevant portions of the Communis Development Code based; upon the following findings: Section 10.150.120(b) is satisfied based upon the discussion below: i. A variance may be approved, approved with conditions or denied � provided the Planning Commission finds. a, There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the c? property which are unusual and peculiar to the land as compared to other lands similarly situated; . h. The variance is necessary for the proper design or function of the subdivision; C. The granting n of a variance will not be. detrimental to the � ' public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the rights of other owners of property; and d. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment a erty ary of a. substantial prop s y fight betrut t ra cann' liance wi� n hthe hardship which would result f- —M, regulations of this 'ordina.rice. FINAL ORDER NO. 8b- PC V 3-86) PAGE 2 The applicant proposes to have a 470 foot loeig cul-de-sac street which requires variance &PProval that meets the above criteria. These criteria are met because the property dimensions are such that a >' cul-de-sac which is slightly longer than the 400 'foot limit will provide access to the proposed lots in the most desirable manner. A through street between;Spririgaaood Drive and the endof 119th Avenue could result in "an awkward street alignment. Also, a completq street connection is not . possible at this time because a portion of the necessary right-of.-xay hies within are adjacent property. The variance will not have any adverse consequences and in fact a through street that cannot be completed would temporarily, create a long dead--end street without a'standard cul-de-sac Bulb at the end. C. DECISION Based upon the above findings and conclusions, the Planning Commission approves V 3-86. It is further ordered that the applicant be notified of the entry of this order. PASSED: This day of March, 1986, by the Planning Commission of the City of Tigard. A. Donald Moen, President Cz Tigard !Manning Commission (KSL:pm6238gP) FINAL ODER NO, 86-_ PC (ei 3--86)' PAGE 3 EVA,[form HIUMI CITY OF T'IGARD PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 86- " PC tu. COQCLSIONS, WHICH APPROVES €N A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS A'[ APPLICATION FOR A SUBDIVISION (S 6-86) REQUESTED BY GETTY COO STRUCTIORI . The Tigard Planning Comim scion reviewed the above application at a public hearing on March 4, 1986. The Commission based its decision upon the facts. findings and conclusions noted below- A. elow:A. FACTS 1. Genanal InformaV2-on CASE: Subdivision S 6-86 REQUEST: To divide a 2 acre parcel into 10 lots ranging between 5,000. and 8,000 square feet in size. CO IPREHEINSIVE PLAN DESIGINATION: Medium Density Residential x ZOO mr, DESIGNATION: R-7 (Residential, 7<units/acre Const. Co., Inc. OWNER: Roy Getty APPLICANT. Getty, 18444 Mixon Ave. 19444 Mixon Ave. West Linn, OR 97068 best Linin, OR 97068 LOCATION: 300 feet east of Hall Blvd. on the smooth side of Bonita Rd. (WCTM 2S1 1.2BC, T.L. 1500) 2. €lacSs�nun� An approval for seven duplexes on a corresponding number of lots was approved by Planning Commission in 1977 and 1978 (CU 39-77 and S 14-78). The approvaLl expired and the applicant received a second approval in 1960 (CU 19--04/S 9--80) which has also lapsed. 3. Vicirsijv Information The parcel to "lie avast:on the corner of Hall Blvd. and Bonita Road is zoned R-12 (Residential, 12 units/acre) and previously had a C-5 (Commercial) designation. The property to the south is zoned R-•4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre) and is developed with single family residences. Apartments zoned R,_1.2 and single family homes zoned R-4 .5 lie to the east. Bonita Road is desi.canated as a major collector street and Hall. Blvd functions as ,an arterial. The adopt(2d Bik®w«_y Plan calls for- a bike, path on Bonita Road. FINAL ORDER SuL. 86 PC (S 6--86) ._ PAGE-1 4, Site Information Property Descripti0q The applicant originally ; proposed to The property is undeveloped. create a 10 lot subdivision served by a cu-1-de-sac intersecting with Bonita Road. The lots are intended only for single family residences. �. S 3�d upon the comments suismitted by the Engineering Division, the applicant submitted a revised plat featuring a street which terminates , at the western property line in order to allow, acces for the property to the west. S. Agency and t Pc7 comments F The Engineering Division has the following comments. a'. corner of the Wi.11ian Graham D.L.C. '#39 exists on the k property. This corner , must be protected and the County Surveyor !Host be notified prior• to site ; grading and construction. b. Alignment of Bonita Roadwill need some adjustment to meet major icollector standards, The resulting alignment and m right--of-way. requirements may require some modification o, 4 the proposed plat. c'. The method for providing storm drainage and sanitary sewer facilities must be approved prior to preparing the final plat. d. Success to the parcel to the west cannot be provided in a manner consistent with Section 18.164.� ?30=g) of the 4 Community Develo�ssnent Cope which calls for spacing of at b least 30x3 feet between "T intersections, on arterial and i Collector streets. In order to use the design proposed, the applicant should illustrate that Tax dot 15t?D could have public access to Bonita Road without having a negative impact upon traffic movement near the Na11I8onita intersection. k t The Building Inspection Division notes that the lots are quite narrow and that maintenance of required setbacks may be difficult. They Tualatin aural Fire Protection District notes that the preliminary R plan meets District standards. No other comments have been received. 9. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant, criteria in this case are Tics rd Comprehensive policies 2.7..1, 3. 5.4, 6.3.2, 7.1.2, 7.3.1, 7,4.4, x3.1.1, ;£� 1.3 and � , and Development Code Chapters 79:50, 84.7.' ifl.ib0 and 7fl.7.S4. Community Deveopme 8.4.1 and omFrrehensive Plan has been acknowledged, the 'Statewide sincePlanning Goals and Guidelinesno longer need to be addressed. FINAL ORDER NO, 86-7_—PC {S 6-•-86) - PAGE 2 The Planning Commission concludes that' the Proposal with modifications is consistent with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Plan based upon the findings noted below: �w r a. 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 comsaerZt on the applicant's proposal. b. Policies 3.5.4 and 0,4.1 can be satisfied during the final approval of the design for Bonita Road. Sidewalks and a bike lane will be Drovided as part of the required half—street improvements. C. Policy b 3.2 is met 'because the proposed development is consistent with the density transition requirements when new development abuts an "established area" (land to the 'south). There will be four residences located within 100 feet of the south property line and the density in this area will be 5.9 ,units per acre and the maximum 'density allowed in this case would be 65.25 units per acre. d. Policy, 7.1.2, 7.3.1, and 7.4.4 are satisfied + because adequate water, sewer, ;and storm drainage facilities are available to the development. The applicant also indicates that these facilities will be provide within the subdivision' as required by City standards. e, Policy 0.1.1 calls for a' safe and efficient street system that meets current' and projected needs.` The present alignment of Bonita Road does not meet major collector standards and a k- re-alignment of this street is necessary. This matter, can be addressed during the review of the final prat. A second issue associated with this policy -i.s t;-,.e provision of access: to Tai; Lot 1400 at the corner of Hall and Bonita'. Based capon a preliminary study of the situation, the Enginearing Division does not feel that direct access to either street is appropriate. As a result, the revised plat reviewed at the hearing which has a dead—end street at the western boundary of the subject property is appropriate. f. Policy 0.1.3 will. be satisfied when the conditions of approval relating to street improvements, are completed The. Planning Commission has determined that the proposal with modifications, is consistent with the relevant portions of theCoramwnity DevelopmentCode based upon. the findings noted below: a, Chapter 19,50 of the Code is satisfied because the proposal meets ali of the requirements of the-R--4.5" zone. b. Chapter 16,160 of the code is satisfied,because the proposal meets the requirements set forth for the submission and approval. of a preliminary plat. F.INAF. ORDER NIO 96--• , pC (S 6-86) PAGE .3 r i . c. Chapter 19.164 of the Code will be satisfied during the approval princess fo,� the final plat, however, several specific items ;are worth mer'tionirig. 'T'he lots meet the average lot width requirementY. of 50 feet in the R-7 zone but other aspects of the proposed lot . configurations will need :codification. The minimum required I. frontage standard is 25 feet (Sec. 18.164.060 (b)) and the eat death may be no more than 2.5 times greatgr than the `-lot width (Sec. 15.164.060(a)). Lots 4, 7 and 9 will require some adjustment to 'meet these standards. Lots 4 through 8 are fairly narrow and the applicant is advised to: redesign the lots so ,that they may be developed more easily without requiring setback variances. C. DECISION Based upon the findings, and conclusions above, the Planning Commission approves S 6-86 subject to the following conditions: 1. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET PRIOR 1"O RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT. b 3,. 2. Standard half-street improvements including sidevaaslks, bike lane, curbs, streetlights, storms drainage; and utilities shall be instilled along the S.W. Bonita Road frontage. Said improvements along S.l .' Sonita Road shall be built' to major collector street _, standards. , �. Standard street i.mprovemgnts including sidewalks, curbs, 'axril aox ' clusters, streeeliyht , driveway aprons, storm drainage sanitary ' sewer, and underground utilities shall be installed wit?'in the proposed subliv'ision. provements shall be built to local Said improvements ¢:. street standards. 4, Seven (7) sets of plan-profile public improvement construction plans and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate stamped by a Registered Professional Civil Engineer, detailing all proposed public improvements shall be submitted to the Engineering Section for approval. � 5. Sanitary and storm sewer plan-profile details shall be provided as part of the public improvement plan. 6. Construction of proposed public improvements shall not commence anti? after- the Engineering Section has issued approved public improvement plans. The Section will require posting of a 100% ;; Performance Bond, the payment of a permit fee and a sign ; instal lation/street Iirjht fen. . Also, the execution of a street opening permit or construction compliance agreement 'shall occur prior to, or concurrently with the issuance of approved public ' improvement plans. SEE _THE ENCLOSED HANDOUT GIVING €ARE SPECJ 1 �' eCdEORP1ATTON RE; FINAL. FEE S3_N±DDULES��gJ�3®ei Ai�t� ACftECEiE'S. ra a FINAL. ORDER NO. 06-" PC (S 6--136) PAGE 4 �' 7. A one (1) foot reserve strip granted to the "City of Tigard" shall be provided at the terminus of the °subdivision street if a dead-eyed street rather than a cul-de-sac is determined to be necessary by, the-City ,Engineer. S. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the public along the S.W. Bonita Road frontage. The descriptiop for said dedication shall be tied to the existing right-of-way centerline as established by County Survey 020,357. The dedication description shall be approved by the City 'Engineer for alignment approval prior to recording the dedication document. The dedication document shall be on City farms. DEDICATION FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS ARE ENCLOSED. 9. Joint use and maintenance agreements , shall be executed and recorded on City +standard forms -for all common driveways. Said agreements shall be referenced on and become part of all applicable parcel Deeds. Said agreement: shall be approved by the Engineering Section. JOINT USE AND MAINTENANCE "AGREEMENT FORMS ARE ENCLOSED. 10. Street Centerline 'Monumentation a. In accordance :with ORS 92.060 subsection (2), the centerlines of all street and roadway right-of--ways shall be monumented before the ;City shall accept a' street improvement. b. All centerline monuments shall be placed in a monument box conforming to City standards, and the top of all monument boxes shall be set at design finish grade of said street or roadway. C. 'The following centerline monumentsshall be set: 1) All centerline-centerline intersections. Intersections created with ,collector" or other existing streets, shall be set when the 'centerline alignment of said "collector" or other street has been established by or for the City; 2) Center of all. cul--de--sass; 3) Curve points. Point of intersection (P.I.) wSien their - position falls inside the limits of the pavement otherwise beginning and ending points (B.C. and E.C.); 4) All sanitary and storm locations small be placed in uosit:ioros , that Bio not interfere with centerline monumentation. 11. The "basis of bearings" for the Mat or ;Survey shall be County Survey 02.0;,307, which is a part of the Tigard Field Survey Network. FINAL ORDER No. AS.-- PC (S 6-86) - PAGE 5 12. The monument, located on site, known as the "most northerly' southeast corner of the; William Graham D.L.C. N39'° shall be protected during construction and preserved thereafter. 13. The centerlineProfile of S.W. Bonita s Road, existing and proposed, onstruction drawing for 300 feet shall be illustrated on the c (each way). Vertical and horizontal alignment is subject to approval ,by the City. 1.4.; Existing and proposed sanitary and drainage facilities shall be illustrated on the construction drawing (and are ' subject to approval by the City). Public easements, which may be necessary to enable service, shall be provided to the City by the applicant at the applicant's expense. 15. Lots abutting Bonita Road shall be restricted from direct access thereto. 15. after review and approval by the Planning Director and City Engineer, the Final Platt shall he recorders with Washington County, 17: This approval is valid if exercised within one year of the , fi.nal decision date. it is further ordered that the applicant be notified of the entry of this order. PASSED- This clay of March, 1986, by the Planning Commission of the City of Tigard. A. Donald Moen, President Tigard Planning Commission FINAL ORDER Uri. _PC (5 6-86) PAGE 6 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 86- PC ' A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WHICH DENIES AN APLICATION FOR A SUBDIVISION (S 2-86),s AND VARIANCE (V 1--86) REQUESTED BY ELYZABET14 SUTLER The Tigard Planning; Commission reviewed the above application at a _public hearing on March 4, 1986.' The Commission' based its decision on the facts, findings,, and conclusions noted below: A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: Subdivision S 2-86 6 Variance V 1-86 REQUEST: To divide a 1.37 acre parcel into 7 lots with a minimum size of 7,503 square feet and to allow a cul-de-sac of 600 feet in length where a maximum length of 400 -feet is required. CaiPRENENSI:VE 'PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential ZONING DESIGNATION: R-.4.5 (Residential 4.5 units/acre) APPLICANT: Samuel A. Gotter III OWNER: Elizabeth Butler 7710 Ski Gentlewoods Dr. 13080 SW Howard Dr. Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97223 LOCATION: Between the western end of Inez Street and 97th Avenue (Vic", 2S1 11BA, T.L. 1400) 2 -sackaround No previous land use proposals have been reviewed by the City regarding the subject property. 3." Vi.cint� Infr�rsaaatien The area on the east side of 97th Avenue is zoned R--4.5 and includes similar small acreage parcels to the north, single family residences on . 9,000 to :12,000 square foot lots to the east and Twality Junior High School to the south. The land on the west side of 97th Avenue is zoned R--3.5' (Residential., 3.5 units/acre) and it consists of a combination of small acreage tracts and single family residences. 4. Site Information and Proposal Description The property is undeveloped and except for-'a number of large trees near the eastern property line, it is covered with grass and a garden area. The terrain slope; dawn gradually from west to east, A ten foot' aside strip provides the only frontage on 97th Avenue and the southeastern corner of the parcel abuts the terminus of Inez Street. FINAL ORDER 06- PC (S 2-86 & V i_.gb) PAGE - a The applicant proposes to extend Inez Street, form a 600 foot long cul-de-sac, and create seven lots for single family residences. A portion of the street extension will utilize an existing 40 foot wide street right--of-way which lies between the subject property and the ing right,-of-way' will, be vacated. The. junior high school. The remain ten footwide access strip is, intended to bre combined with adjacent j properties and not be made' a part of the plat. 5. Agency and'NPO Comments. This Engineering Division has the following comments: a. NPO6 should be allowed to comment regarding the design question of a cul-de-sac vs. a through street for Inez as well as View Terrace and Mountain View to the north. b. An eight foot wide' pedestrian-bike path should be installed from the proposed cul-de--sac to 97th Avenue. A twenty foot wide public right-of-way should be reserved for the path or- a public easement should be created. C. the applicant' should be responsible for in procedures far vacating any remaining portions of the Inez Street right of-waw. d. Due to the amount school age children needing' safe access, the absence of a sidewalk on the south side of Inez is not recommended unless an appropriate alternative can be developed with the school district. The Building Inspection Division indicates that: the method for providing sanitary sewer should be clarified. €� #6 has no objections to the proposal, but indicates that input from the Rivard Schrol District and surroundins� property owners should be k taken into account. The Tigard School District has no objection to the proposal., provided the cul-de-sac does not encroach upon the school property and sufficient room is maintained for sidewalks and greenway. The Tualatin Rural Fire -Protection District has no objection to the request. No other` comments have been received. H FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Tigard Comprehensive Pian aralicies 2.9..1, 6.3 3, `7.1.2, 7.3.1, 7.4.4, 3.1.1, 8.7 .3, and 8:4.1 and Chapters ,16.x0, 3.8.97_, l.fi.S r17, 1S.16o, and 19.164 of the Community Development Code. ThePlanr�ing Coanetti.ssion concludes -that the proposal. i.s only partial:l.y { >^% consistent with the relavant 'portions of the Comprehensive Plan based l upon the findings noted below: FINAL ORDER 96- PC `J 9.-86) Pft4lc 2 a. Policy 11:1.1 is satisfied because the "Neighborhood Planning Organization and surrounding property owners were given notice of the hearing and an opportunity to comment on the applicant's proposal. b. F>ol3cy 6.3.3 is not met because the single family residential development is not compatible with the character of this °'established area`". The proposed lot sizes "are smaller than'those in the adjacent subdivision which average approximately 10,000 square feet. C. Policy 7:1..2, 7.3.1, and 7.4. 4 are satisfied because adequate water, sewer, and storm drainage facilities are available to the development. The applicant also indicates that 'these facilities will be provided within the subdivision as required by the City standards d. Policy 8.1.1 is not satisfied because the proposed cul-de—sac will exceed the maximum allowable length of 400 feet. e. Policy 8.1.3 could be satisfied when the conditions of approval relating to street improvements are com-leted. f. Policy 8.4.1. calls for the provision of safe and convenient bicycle and pedestrian access to all portions of the City. A bicycle/pedestrian lane is in place on the west side of 97th Avenue and eventually such a facility will be in place on the east side as well. A bicycle/pedestrian' pathas suggested by the Engineering Division would be consistent with this policy and would appear appropriate given the significant amount of bicycle` and _pedestrian traffic generated by Twality JuniorHigh School and .Templeton Elementary School. 1 The Planning Commission concludes that the proposal is not ;totally consistent with the relevant portions of the Comr+runity Development Code based upon the findings noted below: 1. Chapter 18.50 (R-4.5 zone) is satisfied. 2. Chapter 18.92 (Density Computations), met because the lots comply with'the 7,500 square foot standard. 3. Chapter 18.150 (Tree Removal) requires that City approval 'miast be granted 'before any trees with a trunk diameter of 6 inches or greater. Some of the trees at the eastern end of the propear•ty " will need to be removed but is, expected that: the mzaximum numbr..r of • trees will be retained for buffering purposes. Q. Chapter 18.160 (Land Division—Subdivision) i.s not. satisfied because Section 18:160.120 which contains the following criteria for granting a variance to the maximum length of a cul...cte-.sac (400 feet) FINAL. ORDER 86-- PC (, 2-86 & V 1-86) F't1GL .3 r,,,.,7, 71 P", a, There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property which are unusual and Peculiar to the land as '. compared to,other landssimilarly situated; �. The variance is ;necessary for the Proper design or function of the subdivision; C The gra of the variance will riotQks� detrimental to the lfare or injurious to the rights public health, safety and we of other owners of property; and �. d, The variance is necessary for- the preservation and `enjoyment of a substantial property right because of an extraordinary hardship which would result from strict compliance with the rea?ulations of this ordinance. When Penrose Terrace subdivision was developed, it was apparently that 'Inez Street would" be extended into the subject intended � . Property, Possibly to 97th Avenue. The; length of Inez Street from s its intersection with 93rd Avenue and the subject property is 330 feet.' The proposed 6t?o foot long cul-de-sac is excessive and doses not appear to be necessary. A street connection to 97th Avenue is an alternative which is not as desirable because of the relatively steep grads adjacent to 97th Avenue and the close proximity to a i. ., driveway to the south which serves the junior high scho0"s.. been evaluated. However, a. street connection to the north has not 5. Chapter 18.164 (Street and Utility Improvement Standards) is ; satisfies `awith the exception of the 500 foot length' which is inappropriate. C. DECISION ndings, and conclusions above, the Planning Commission Based a�pen� the fi denies S<2-56/el -$5; It is further ordered that the applicant be notified of the entry of this order. PASSED: This day of March, 1986, by the Planning Commission of the City of Tigard A. Donald Moen, Prasiden�— t 1"igard Planning Commi—i.ors 5 _t. F rI:C6€n� ORVC 'R 86-- �__. V196) i AC 4 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGE14DA OF: _ March 24. 1986 AGENDA ITEM #e BATE SUBMITTED. [March 19 1986 PREVIOUS ACTION:, ISSUE/AGEND-A TITLE: Land Use 'Decisions SCE 3-86 - Lockhart PREPARED BYs SCE4�n 86 - Patricia Sigler REQUESTED BY: DEPARTMENT HERAD OK: `d,� CITY ADMINISTRATOR: WaL:x��:su.��¢e�ama�masa�se:sss;s�.��_rz�ema:ar,:x:sazm=��__cex:s��m��sam��uxaseAsxssazaxc�ra�ze POLICY ISSUE •—•»^^oLffiw��r�l^e,—»L3��X^..�.rS^:�..T�^.��g�€S��>BeCG5�.�Lffi2^wiSrffi��Z9Y'«—.—^:.�.-..;5':.YS'Sw��Y5:2^�ffi.^—:tL��Y$9t Z8.�tL CS 4fi INPORYWEION SUj% 4A.RY - Ar_tached are Final orders for- 1. SCE 3-86 Denial for an application for a Sign Code Exception by Patrick and Rosemary Lockhart 2. SCE 4-86 Denial for an application for a Sign Code Exception requested by Patricia Sigler. The above two Sign Code Exceptions :dere reviewed by the Planning Commission, and have specifically requested that City Ccuncil call these applications up for review. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Approve as written. 2 Call up for review at a date set by Council. ��..., ER;;f}CSif Z9 T.FCbffiF1'.20�0.SS.C9Bti9LtA:13RIDS�ffii$3ffif36et�14;£3�ffiSS�f20 tRaaLH�L#Y¢L9S��'l�tLf>SC:t'YrY TI�'tffiffi S�Lo:kS�69�:E'.0 IC4 M AiR La mtt Y#Ad SUGGESTED ACTION Call up for review at a date set by Council. r CITY OF TTIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL. ORDER NO. 86- PC A FINAL ORDER' INCULDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS, WHICH DENIES AN APPLICATION FOR A SIGN 'CODE EXCEPTION (SCE 3-26) ;REQUESTED BY PATRICK AND ROSEMARY LOCKHART, The Tigard Planning Commission reviewed the above application -at a: public hearing on March 4 1426. 1-he Commission based its decision upon the: facts;, findings, and conclustions noted below: A. FACTS 1 General Information CASE: Sign Code Exception SCE 3-26 REQUEST: To allow a 64 sq. ft. neon wall sign;where` a 30 sq. ft; wall sign is allowed. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION ProfessionalCommercial ,ZONING DESIGNATION: C-P (Commercial-Professional) APPLICANT: Columbia Neon'Co. OWNER: Patrick & Rosemary'Lockhart 1820 East Burnside PO Box 954 Portland, OR 47214 Gresham, Or 37030 LOCATION: 12725 SW 66th 2. Background No previous applications have been received or reviewed by the Planning Department for this property. 3. Vicinity Information The surrounding parcels to the north, wrest, and south are also zoned C-P and I-5 borders the property to the east. 4. Site Information The subject property is located on Ski 66th Avenue between SW Hampton ,and SW Franklin Streets and is one of two buildings presently developed as Hampton Office Park. The Executive Center building occupies the property and access is provided by entrance on Sal 66th Avenue. A 15 square foot wall. sign ,exists on the building. The applicant is proposing to place a 64 sq, ft. neon wall sign on the eastern side of the building facing, I-5. The owners of the "building feel it is extremely important that they receive recognition from a " distance. They need identification that is visible from I--5. The applicant presents a, need argument based on survey;;_which have indicated that 64 ,square feet would be a minimum size sign capable of being read by automobile ' drivers traveling fifty-five miles per hour. He also Mentions the ,size of the building as predicating a need for at larger sign. FINAL ORDER 86- PC (,SCE 3-..86) PAGE 1 777M t= 5. ! a=_neat and N11t7 Com!'99tS NPO h polled its members and -all of chose polled indicated their approval if the sign was in conformance with the Code. The State Highway Division reviewed the proposal and has no objections. %,o comments have been received from the Building Division. ®. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant approval criteria in this case are contained in Section 18.114.145 of the Community Development Code: 1. In order to justify an exception to the Sian Code, one of the following .three criteria (CDC 18.1,14.145) must be satisfied. a. The proposed Sign Code Exception is necessary because a conforming ;building or sign on an adjacent 'property would limit tha view of a sign erected on the site in conformance with the sign code standards b. The proposed exception to the height limits in the sign code is necessary to make the sign visible from the street because of the topography of the site, c- There is an access drive which services "the business or service from a street other than the street on which the business is located. 2, The proposed sign is larger in area than that which is permitted, resulting in the need for a Sign Code Exception. Of the three criteria noted above, none are applicable. Although the sign is oriented toward the freeway, it. cannot be construed as a freeway oriented sign because: 1); it is an on-site sign and 2) such signs are not permitted in the C-P zone. The Commission finds that the Code as it is presently written does not permit anexception of °this type. motgever, this body has no objection to the sign as -proposed and it appears that a revision of this portion of the Code to allow greater flexibility would be appropriate. Further, f the Commission requests that the Tigard City Council call this application up for review. C. DECISION (lased upon the findings and conclusions above, the Planning Commission denies SCE 3--86 it is farther ordered thaw the applicant be notified of ,the entry of this order. PASSED: This day of March, 1986, by the Planning Commission of the City of Tigard. A, Gonald Moen, President - Tigard Planning Commission FINAL. ORDFIR g6-- _ PC ( CE 3-46) - PAC;E 2 M CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO 86-__- PC A FINAL ORDER INCULDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS, Wtil:Cli DENIES AN APPLICA-TION FOR A SIGN CODE EXCEPTION (SCE 4-86) REQUESTED 8Y PATRICIA SIGI-ER. The Tigard Planning Commission reviewed the above application at a public - hearing on March 4, 1386. The Commission based its:decision upon the facts, findings, and conclustions noted below: k A FACTS 1. General Information CASE: Sign Code Exception; SCE> 4--86 REQUEST: To allow two free-standing signs where one is permitted. COf7PREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: I--L (Light Industrial) ZONING DESIGNATION: I-P (Industrial Park) APPLICANT: Patricia L. Sigler OWNER same 8230 SW Spruce Street Portland, OR 97223 (LOCATION: 12530 5.W. Nall Blvd. wa: 2. Background A Site Development Review for a used car sales lot (SDR 14-84) was t approved subject to certain conditions in August, 1984. In November, - "i"U 9-85 2985, the applicant applied for.a'Temporary .Use ( ) approval for a temrorary sales office to be located on the same pr•oPerty This was approved subject to successful completion of the SDR 14-84 conditions. In January, 1986 the City Council moved to shorten the length of time allowed for the temporary use permitfrom 60 to 30 days and so an . amended decision was issued. In February, 1986, valid sign peranits were issued for one, one-sided free-standing sign measuring 27 square feet on the northwestern corner of the property as well as for two small entry and exit directional. signs. 3. Vicinity Information The surrounding properties to the north; east and south are all zoned I-L (Licht Industrial). Property sramadiat,ely west is zoned CBD (Central Business District). . s" 4. Site Information The subject property is an isolated I-P property located on H .11 BIVc'. Nall. Blvd. is a state roadway and ;dans have bsen made to 'widen it .' directly in front of the property, thus requiring a dedication of land in the future. FINAL ORDER 86- PC (SCE 4---86) - PAGE 1 * The applicant is proposing to placca' a free-st.andirig sign, identical to ,4 the first in all, dimensions and appearance, on thy_ southwestern' corner of the property. The purpose of the' sign is to provide a visibility for north-,bound traffic. Due 1:0' limited space predicated by the street dedication and lack of 'suitable space on the Hall Blvd. building wall q frontage, the applicant states there is no other- acceptable WaY to display the sign: Roof signs are also not permitted under the Provisions of the Sign Code. 5. €taaericy arid_ YPO'C0'Rm2nts Tha Building Division has reviewed the proposal and has no 'objeetions to it_ No comments were received from MPO 5. 'I'he Engineering_ Division has the following comments: The State Highway Division should be given the opportunity to comment gas well as the power and telephone companies; -the latter two should be questioned regarding telephone and power+ llin-2maintenance problems dace to the signs close proxim+itY. Also the Piecemeal submission of materials and infor-snation regarding the Bite Development Review conditions as set forth in Slit 14-84 has created difficulty in our, assessment of the ultimate overcall impact of approval of any part. ` The State Highway Division has the following comments: The entrance and exit signs are riot shown to be in the same location as previously approved by this office for the a.ccess permit. In addition, the original plat plan showed a landscape planter between the driveways. This is needed to delineate the driveway locations and will facilitate entrance and exit sign locations. i'he General Telephone Cotr:pany has reviewed the proposal and has no Objections to it. Portland General Electric reviewed the proposal. and had no objections to it. S. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant approval' criteria in this case are contained in Section 1-8.114,145 of the Comm:.snity Development Code. A. In order to justify an exception to the Sign Coyle, one of the following .three criteria (CrJC A8.11h.14:S) must be ,atisfipsi: se a a, The 'proposed sign code exception is necessary cauwosald conforming building or sign on an adjacent, property t, limit: the view of a sign erected on thn site in conformance with the sign code standards. FINAL ORDER86- PIC (SCE 4-56) - PAGE 2 ti _ } b. The 'proposed exception to the height limits in the sign code is necessary to make the sign visible from the street because of the topography of the .site. C. There is an access drive which services the business or service from a street other than the street on which the business is located. 2. The 'proposed free-standing sign is a second free--standiug sign which is not permitted resulting in :the need for a ' sign Cade Exception. Cf thin three criteria noted above, noneis applicable. After reviewing this application, the Planning Commission concludes that the proposed sign is not justified under the criteria set forth in the Code'. However, 'alternative which exist` for other types of signs allowed under the provisions of the Sign Code are either not physically or aesthetically feasible. The Commission finds that the Code as ;it is presently written does not p+erasait an exception of this type. However, the majority of the members have no objection to the sign as proposed and it appears that al rz Aaion of this portion of :the Code to allow greater "flexibility; would be appropriate. Further, the; Commission, requests that the Tigard City Council call this application up for review. C. DECISION Based upon the findings and conclusions above, the Planning Commission denies SCE 3-86. It it further 'ordered t:.at the applicant be notified of the entry of this order. PASSED: This day of "March, 1986, by the, Planning Com..mi.ssion of the City of Tigard. r A. Donald Moen, President' Tigard Planning'Commission (D S.pm62382P F;WAI C'•RD 86-: PC (SCE 4-86) 3 CITY OF TIGARD- OREGON � COUNCIL AGENDA ITF-14 SUMMAR?Y � AGENDA OF: March 24, 1986 AGENDA 'ITEM #" DATE SUBMITTED: March 19, 1986 PREVIOUS ACTION: !SSUB/AGENDA TITLE: Land Use Decisions S 5-86 & V 4-86 Robert Claus PREPARED BY: Community Development PD 1-86, S 4-86, S1, 3-86, V 6-86 - REQUESTED BY: Punchess, Nesvold, Ogle, Thom es DEPARTMENT BEAD OKo= a CITYa$ZPdISx ?eTOxr POLICY ISSUE . �:.s:ca�aan�as=a....__::��e.._..._.Aa:d.�=sm��...�.rsxex�omma�iV..s��x_..,.—._mmm_..amm:•;aammettscscacaaaaarssxs�a�.m�::eaa INFORMATION SUMARY Attached are: the Final orders for: � 1. S 5-86 andV 4-86 - approval of an application for a. subdivision and variance requested by Robert Claus. 2. PD 1-86, S 4--86, SL 3-86, V 6-86 denial of an application for a planned development, subdivision, sensitive lands permit, and variance requested by Funchess, Nesvold, Ogle, and Thoennes. g K,. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Approve as written, ':. 2. Call up for review at a date set by Council. aammm�xcaaeavasammmxrs�:tauaxesax��ras:-.:az¢aa-snaavLesmmxsaMxsa�arrmzamaeszramssaEuxn ee�mzaxs.a..s,�mrzasszsasms----------- F SUGGESTED ACTION Approve as written; " CITY OF TI:GARD PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL t:RD2 .:R NO. $o Pt' A FINIAL ORDER INCLUDING f"INOIING�; (AND CONCLUSIONS, Wkilc.H APPROVES AND APPLICATIONFOR A SUBDIVISION 5-86) AND VART.ANt;F (V 4-86) REQUESTED BY ROBERT CLAUS. - `scion reviewed the above application at a public The Tigard Planning Comma � hearing on March 4, 1986, The Commission based ;its decision upon the farts, findings, and conclusions nrJLed below: A. FACTS . 1. 'General Information CASE: Subdivision S 5-86, Variance V 4-86 REQUEST To divide a 1.25 acre parcel into six lots between 5,800 and 7,7005 square Feet and a variance to t`re minimum lot size of t 7,500 square feet. . COMPREHENSIVE PLAN! DESIGNATION: Law Density Residential OT Ii Ir DESLGS�A'Ty:OlJ: R-4 .5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre) f APPLICANT: Robert lrarees Claus OWNER: sarT1e £" Rt 3, ►3ox 169 r " Sherwood, OR '97140 3 LOCA-1IOi#; East side of 13 Uth Avenue between Fairhaven Way and Garden � Park Place 2. aacL round b On Mauch 6, 1979 the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use (CU 4-79/ZG 8--79) to allow ronstruct:ion of one duplex and four sit c3le fasril-V homes on 1..45 acres. In April 7579, the property vests rezoned From R-10 to R-7. !; The approvals that wort granted lapsed and single family residence was moved onto the northeastern corner ref the property, The property owner v-r--applied for a subdivi.sion and avariance to the minimum lot size (S 1-83/V 1-83) and the Planning Commission granted the request for the sever? Lot subdivision in March, 1983 . The final plat was riot recorded E and the City -approval caxpired for a second time,, T g An 8,736 square foot lot was crc�tt ed to :_zac.commodatta the exi sting house and therefore the current proposal as intended to create the remai.ni.rsg si:x Jots. i 3. �Pijnity _: a formation { 3.5 ur is/acre) and =" The area to the riot th is coned R-3 5 (Residential, a tieut?Ir}aec3 with single family rcasadences. lh� property on the cuesf, side 2111 of 11Gth Avenue is za3so `zontad R•-3.5` and is occupied by the church, i'�te devs�loped lots ori Garden Park Plarrr t:o the (,aast and southeast arci zoned R" 7 (Resics_nti.al., 7 units/ypCrQ), One parcel. located srJutrt and fittest r f f the sUbject property 'is rr2rrcrt R-4.5, { , FINAL ORDER: 86- PC' (S 5•-86 & V 4--M, PA � - R { - 4. Site Information and Prorosokl Description The property is presently undeveloped but a building permit is in thea process of being approved to construct one house within what is prrJpnaed to be Lot ti in the subdivi.si.on. Garden Park Place will be extended to 110th Avenue. The lot, sizes rang_ From 5,800 to 7,700 square feet. The mirai,muen lot size requirement for the R-n.5 zone is 7,500 square feet The applicant proposed to install street improvements as required by the Community Development Code except for a si.dewaU on the south side of Gardens Park Place. The existing improvements on the street only have a sidewalk on the north side. b 5. A encv and NPO Comments The Engineering Division has the following comments: a. The existing lot and residence located in the northeast corner does riot have half-street, improvements and said improvements should be installed. b. Provisionsshould be made to allow the adjacent parcel to the southwest -`to eventually coc,nect to sanitary sewer facilities. C, Street lights will. be necessary on the north side of the street. d A slope easement may need to be obtained by the applicant (from the owner of T.L. #1300) to facilitate construction of a'half-street improvement through this site. e. A potential mud-drainage problem onto the • Sant. 110thlGarden Park Place intersection could be created by installation of a, half-street improvement through this site. The design k , engineer needs to address this potential maintenance r problem, assuring in his design that such will not become a problem for the City throughout the period of time that it takes for T.L. ##1300 to complete improvement of its ' "portion" of 110th &Garden Park Place. f. Si.dewaiks do not exist, nor were they required, aloizg the sough side of Garden Park Place. y. Lot #1 should only bo allowed access onto Garden Park Place. The street reserve strip` now existing at the terminus of i.r;iproved Garden park Place needs to be. vacated. .s Further,. We ji',r id C+: c utile a reserve strip al.rJr)g the nort� line of T.L. ##:1300; adjacent to the new roadway to assure 3 future dedication of r i.tlht--of-ujay. without obstruction, a FINAL ORDER8t,.. tit, (>3 5--v6 F V 4-86) PAGE 7 f h. The downstream, off--sit.e storm system shown on thQ preliminary plat is under study and 'thci applicant shatald demonstrate that t.i�e e� i.stireg system will be adequate t.r� serve this developau!nt during the 'interim. The Building I.nspec:Li3n Division notes' that storm drainage ;plan must be submitted prior to issuance of building permits. TRFPD notes that the proposed development must provide fire hydrants within 500 feet of all buildings. No other comments have been 'received. 6. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria: in this case : are Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, 7.1.2, 7.3.1, 7.4.4 and 8.1.3 and Chapters 18.50, 18.134, 18.160, and 18.164 of the Community Development Code. The Planning Commission concludes that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Plans based upon the findings noted below: 1. 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. 2. Policies 7.1.2, 7.3.1, 'and 7.4.4 are satisfied because adequate water, sewer, and storm drainage facilities are available to the development. The storm drainage question raised by the Engineering Division' will be addresser) during the review of the final. 'plat. 3. Policy 8,1.3 will be satisfied when the conditions of approval relating to street improvements are met. The deletion of the Southern sidewalk is addressed below. The Planning staff concludes that the proposal is consistent with the relevant " portions of the Community Development Code bused upon the findings noted below: 1.. Chapter 1.8.50 (R-4.5 zone) is satisfied except for the lot size variance discussed Below. 2. Chapter 18.134 contains `the fol;.owing criteria (Sec. 18.1.34.050) which must be satisfied for granting a: variance: a. The proposed variance wii.l not be materially detrimental to the prupose5 of this Code, be in conflict with the policies of the. Comprehensive 'Plan, to any other applicable policie.' and standards; and to other properties in the same zoning district or vicinity. FINAL ORDI"tt 86- PC (t; 5--86 F:V 4-436) - PAGE 3 b. There. are special ircumstances tha{t exist which are peculiar #.o the lot si7ca or shape, topography or other circumstances ewer which the ap�?Aicant has ;no control, and which are not applicable to other properties in the same zoning district; C. The use proposed willbe the Same as permitted under this Code and City -standards will be maintained to the greatest extent that is reasonably possibZc, while permuting some economic use of the land; d. Existing physical and natural systems, such as but; not lifiited to traffic, ;drainage, dramatic land farms or ,parks will not be adversely affected any more than would occur if the' deveAopment were located as specified intheCode; and c. The hardship is not self--imposed and the variance requested ' ch would alleviate the hardship. is the minimum variance whi The variance will not be inconsistent with the intent of the Plan or Code laecause the reduction in lot size i s modest and the proposed density is significantly lower than the existing development ,to the east on ' Garden Park Place. The proposed single "family lots will , be compatible with the residences on the north. The applicant is confronted with a significant street improvement' obligation relative to the number of lots Also, the City has set a precedent by twice approving virtually the same proposal with a variance to the minimum lot size. The proposed single family residential development 'is allowed in the R-4.5 zone and the ,variance will not have any appreciable affect upon physical or natural. systems. The hardship is not self-imposed. T`se complete w subdivision as previously applicant is merely trying to approved by the City: :after reviewing the circumstances relating to this proposal, the stvf feels that it would be appropri to forthe City to initiate a Comprehensive Plan amendment/Zone Change to rezone the property to R-7 to coincide with the rest of the development on Carden Park P'i.ace, if the variance is approved. Section 18.1.64.070 indicates that the commission has the ability to approve the deZetiora of sidewalks when appropriate, The elimination of the southern Sidewalk is consistent` with tice existing development of Garden 'Park dace, The installation of the srsuthtern sidewalk would he of }.i.ttle vaZi e because `of the eastward extension of this facility is very carclikeZu and it would remain as an isolated scegmerct of sidewalk. tt f'Li4 Hi.. OPDER 5-86 ''6, V 1--86) _ PAGE C. RECOMTiENDATTON z Das ed upon tY3e firidve th" i.ngs ` and' .cunc,lurtr,to thntfo�]7.owlny cfnditEionsnir}y Commission approves `� !-5-86/V h i36 subl 1, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTE[), - A! !._ CONDI t i.<1N: ;tiRl_l k'E MET PRIOR TO RE CORDTNIG THE FINIAL PLAT (plus three foot), I' Z standard full street, and half-stree.i (p curbs, ' t> i�r:proveertts including sidewalk ctorrn`dranage and utilities shall , streetlights, driveway aprons, said the SW Garden park place •Frontage: be installed along ° improvements along SW fo-m to the alignment k Place ,ofbexist�ngtadjacent street standards and con i.mprovemellts g Standard half--street i.mprovement:s i.nc_]uda.ng sidewalk, curb, '`' streetlights, 3r ivewa aprons, storm drainage and utilities shall s installed a]:ong the SW 1l.Oth Avenue frontage: improvements' alone SW 110th Avenue shall be built to minor collector standards and conform to the alignment os` existing adjacent improvements. 4. severe (7) sets of plan--profile public improvement construction � plans 'and, one (1) itemizedc'rjnstruction cost estimate, stamped by a Registered Profess gal i;i:vi). En detailing all. pSe�ctire public improvements shall, be submitted to the Engineering or approval nlen-profile details shall be Sanitary sewer and storn> sewer p provided as part of'the public improvement plans. t onstructian of prriposed public imprc)vements shall. not comublir 6. until after' the Engineering SQCtiOn has issued ging of a u100% improvement plans. The Sectio; wi].7. regermit uire Posting and a sign performance Bond, the payment of a p i.nstailation,/street].ight f e. Also, the e agr�m nt ecution oshall woccur opening Permit or construction _ e roved public concurrently with the issuancof app prior to, or improvement }dans. SEE THE ENCLOSED HANDOUT GIVIt EEORWTS_Sr C INFO�i�?TIa R��'ARDING FEE SCHEDULEDOND7NG.R4UD AGR -_._ _--- 7. A one (1) foot reserve strip granted to the ,City of Tigard" shall be prov i.ded adjacent to the north boundary of T.L. 7#1300 S. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated ccs the public along the to 30 Ski 1].Oth Avenue frontage s to�'r of saied &f dicationashall be tied from centerline`• The ht-of w,3�+ centorlinc a:> established by to the 'existing rigbe on wa.shington County, The dedication dect�ior�� shall. FORMSoAND and �approued by the Engineering INSTRUCTIONS ARE ENCLOSED, C, r 5_.�fi 3 V 4- 86) pfiGE- 5 FINAL ORD = i mmm, portion thereof which sl.«11 be 9 A: Esc)' right--of-way, except for a p ublic for roadway purposes shall be. dedicated to; the p ; extending frim 1.50th to Garde n Park Place_ ctxlhi iid�'a 1`ght right - ,ay g said dedi.catiOn steal] be tied to th._ of 4. centerline as established by Wash+ingt.c,r, county and the formsy and r: Tigard. The dedication documen�r `;"11 be on FORMS AND E approved by the Engineering INSl-RUC171ONS; ARE ENCLOSED. lO, Street Centerline MOnumentation In ar_cordance with ORS 9'2.050 subsection (2}, the a. centerlines of all. street and roadway right--of-ways shall be menumenfied before the City shall accept a'street improvement. }�. r?11 centerline monuments shall, be placed in a monument pox and the top of all monument conforming to City standards, rade of said street or boxes shall be set. at design finish g E roadway. centerline monuments, shall be set' C. The fallowing intersections. r- l) All centerline-centerline or other Intersections created with"collector'h_e centerline existing streets, shall be set when . alignment of said "collector" or other street has been established by or for the City; 2) Center of all cul-de-sacs; x. Curvepoints. Point of intersection (P.I.) when their 3} p t Pavement position falls inside the limits of he p other-wise peginn=ng and ending points (B.C. and E.C.). x 4) All sanitary and storm locations shall be placed in positions that o not interfere with centerline d_2 monumentation. 11. the plat or Survey shall be County The "basis of bearings" for Survey x{2.0,178, which is a part of the Tigard Field Survey Network. f 12, Curb, sidewalk and driveway apron shall be installed along the frontage of the single family dwelling unit which now exists on r• applicants tract, as a part or the iircprovement required for S41 Garden Park Place. ll alled in 13 S-,,ni.tary sewer and seovicerast7a11 not l be1Qgrec?udnd 3 for adjacent such manner that -- . parcel(s) . The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of F the City Enginoer that storm drainage fz.c:ilities shall be adequate a.nd-wit 7 not adversely affect adjoining property owners � id. Applicant shall provide at- his expense to the pity or tion ny easements to faCi1.itate Cit op- which nlay be necessary { strecat systems. maintenance of 'the sanitary, storm or, a o 5-86 6, V 4--86) PAGE 6 FINAL ORDER 96.-___•.._ PC (S 7.5. Lot R1 shall be permitted direct access only onto 'SW Carden Park t Place. 7.6. After review and approval by the Planning' Director and City Engineer, the Final Plat shall be recorded with Washington County. 17. this :approval is valid' if exercised within one Near of the final decision date noted below. It , is further ordered that the applicant be notified of the entr^fir of this order.' PASSED: This day of March, 1986, by the Planning Commission of the City of Tigard A Donald Moen, Presiders- Tigard Planning Commission (KSL:pm/239'1P) FINAL ORDER 86•- ___ PC (S 5-86 V 4--86) - PAGE 7 m C11-i' OF TI:GARD PLANNING? COMMISSION FINAL ORDER 86-- PC A FINAL_ ORDER INCI_tt[)INt:, {".ifJ!?ING`: AND CONL_USIONS, WHICH DENTES AN APPI TC:TION FOR A PLANNED D17VE.L_OPNLi.[til" (PD 2 tr6), StjBtIV1SL0N (; 4-86) SFN,LI`.CV1; (:.ANDS PERMIT ($L 3-86), AND VARIANCV" (V to 86) REQUESTED BY l-UNC1HE_.S, N[SVOLD, (_)GL -_ AND THOf_NNES. The Tigard Planning Commission reviewed the above appliction at a public hearing on ' Larch 4, 1.986. The Cr ,tltmission based its decision upon the facts, findings, and conclusions noted below: A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: Planned Development FAD 1-86, Subdivision S 4--86, Sensitive Lands Permit SL '3--86, ,and Variance V 6-86. REQUEST: Approval of a planned development corzsisting of 71 detached single family residences on lots ranging from 4,800 to 8,000 square feet in si.ze with setbacks as follows: Side yard - 4 feet', rear yard 15 feet, front yard lots 1 through 71. - 10 feet and 18 feet to front of garage. Also, a request that minor lot line adjustments up to 3 feet be permitted; with staff approval, permission to construct a sewer- line and street improvements within a drainageway, and to allot., a density transfer from the floodplain over the 25% maximum. @u.. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential ZONING DESIGNATION: Washington Co R-S ' APPLICANT: Ken Waymire OWNER: Funchess. Nesvold. 101.85 SW Riverwood Latae Ogle, and Thoennes Tigard, OR 97223 LOCATION: North of the Tualatin River and east of 108th Avenue (WCTM 2S1 15A, T.L. 400 and 4lCTi" 2S1 15AD, T.L. loo, 200, 300, and 400) 2. Sackground The subject property is presently in Washington County and an annexation application is also being reviewed by the City. A final plat cart not, be recorded until. the property has been officially nne.xed. The applicant is proposing to have the R-45 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre) zone appi.ied to the property. The Zone. Change Annexation (ZCA 1-86) will. be reviewed by City Council. 3. 1/1c_i.nity Information TheA surrounding area contains a cotstbi.t•tation of small and medium sized acreage 'parcels . Except for two parcels on t:ha west side of 108th Avenge, all adj �cer:t. prc,pert,ic"s ;:�, s taro<l.r Washi.n.;tc,r, County jurisdiction. F't.NAI. ORDF"P E6- Vsl (PD 1 -fl'.:, 4 8z;, 7CA 1--86) P(aGF" 1 WPM— The entire area between Durham Road and the Tualatin River is within tho Tigard Urban Grow0i Boundary. The Tigard Comprehensive Plan has . designated the subject. property, as well as other {parcels to the s•€u rta'1 and west, for i_ow Density Residential development. The properties between Pi.ck's Landing arid the subject property are designated Modium Density,, Residential. 4. Site Information and Proposal Desc_ri ion The property contains three residences which will remain and several accessory buildings will be removed. The site is partially wooded with the majority of t1he treas concentrated near the Tualatin River and the ` east side of the property. The development features 71 lots between 4,800 and 8,000 square feet with the special building setbacks notedabove. The flood plain area adjacent to the Tualatin River is proposed to be retained by a homeowner's association for open space purposes. Public access covering the 100 year flood plain area is proposed. An 8 foot wide compacted gravel path is intended to cross this open space area from east to wast. r, The ability to perform lot ;line adjustments of up to 3 feet is also desired, The adjustments will be submitted to the City staff for approval with an .Engineer's evaluation regarding cstilities and their relocation if necessary. The development of the subdivision will require the installation of a sanitary sewer connection to the existing sewer line that lies within a drainageway on the west side of 108th Avenue. Also, the proposed location of Kent Drive will cross a small drainage. swale near its r intersection with 108th Avenue. Finally, a variance is requested to allow, for a density transfer of over 25% from the flood plain area contained on this property. 5. A�and MPO Comments The Engineering Division has the following comments: a. Street names should be reconsidered before the final plat ' is submitted rar approval.. b. That earth work south of SCJ River Drive shall occur be lvjcr,n April. �$ 30th and October lst or, at the discretion of the City Engineer; further, that c,r•osion controls bc� applied through--out, the course of constructi.orz and that' a towpor•sary (before and during construction) and permanent (after construction) erosion control, plan be submitted to and approved" by thp. City Engineer prjj r_,'tc, commencing any improvement work anywhere on the site. c. Without a utility plan it is not possible to comment on t:tae proposed building setbacks. d, fust develop sarii fury arra starm systems to assure future extension ofsorvicc to ;adjacent: ,proper ti¢s. litif3L. Of tFi? 86PC (PD 1� 25, S 4-06,, fi, ZC 1--8PAGE r e. A letter of scar v�1 e Ai l 1 i.ty must be obtained by the applicant for a cess/egr<_s.> via .,w 'Logt.h (venue, from Washington'Count_v. f. The ' applicant shal l provide a .plan to the City and Washington County, for rev iew 'andapproval, de'tailing howthe appli dant proposes to mitigate the adverse sight distance problem at the intersection of Durham Road and 1138th Avenue. 8, The applicant shall 'provide a plan to the Cityand Washington County, for review and approval,, detailing any improvement which may be required by Washington County along Svl 108th Avenue from the intersection of Durham' Road and 108th Avenue to the proposed development site. h. Any on--sine or off-site sanitary and stoma sewer easements, which may be necessary for provision of service, sha11 be on City forms and approved by the Engineering Section; on-site easements should bn denoted on the subdivision plat. i, rhe 'existing (access--egress) easement across the north end of Tax Lots ##loo--#riot? shall be vacated; the cost thereof to be born by the applicant. j. Vacation of the southerd of SW 1OSt'ra Avenue frttrr .the terminus of C.R. :#1366 to the Tualatin Raver shall be initiated by the applicant. k. The lands adjacent totheTualatin River which are within the 100 year floodplain, shall be dedicated to the public' for greenway purposes. The floodplain boundary shall be surveyed and clearly marked and said markers shall be maintained throughout the course of development: 1. The existing dwelling's which are to remain, must be connected to sanitary sewerage facilities as soon as such becomes available, since their septic drain fields will most likely be impacted by creation of subdivision lots. M. No objection to the Sensitive Lands request provide the conditions noted are required. The Building Inspection Division notes the provisions for storm and sanitarysewer must be addressed. The Tualatin Rural. Fire Protection District indicates that a1.1 streets must>have outside/inside turning radii of 52/30f-.et. Hydrants can be no more than 500 feet from any structures,' and any access roads over 150 fMet: ;in length most have an approved turn arson;. The Tigard Police` Department has no objection. r The Washington County planning Division of the Department of Land Use f and Transportation has no objection to the proposal. FINAL ORDER ;96-- PC (FAD 1-85, S 4--86 & ZCA 1-86) - PAGE 3 The Tigard W).ter'• Oi str-i ct. indicates that adequate service- Capacity is available. The Park Board reconmiends fl.00d plain dedication, paved Path meet i.1,19 City standards, and access Frohn th(> development to thr greanway The Tigard School District has no objection. PdPC3 #5 objects to the proposal '-For the following reasons: a`. Traffic problems at the 1.08th Avenue/Durham toed intersect:ion and additional traffic or Durham. b. The nurdibar of proposed dwellings is excessive Lot sizes are too sma11 and not compatiblewith Pick's Land-Ing d No access to floodplain area e. abjection of some of surrounding property owners. FINDINGS AND 'CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, 3.5 1, 6.1.1, 7.1.2`, 7.3.;1, 7.40,4, 8.1:1, and 8;1 .3 and Commu—..ity 'Development Code Chapters 18.50, 1.8.80, 18.84, 18.92, 18, 134, 18.160, 111.162, and 19.164, Since the Comprehensive Pian has been acknowledged the Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines no longer need " to be addressed. The Planning Commission concludes that the proposal it root totally consistent with 'the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Plan based upon the findings noted below: a. Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied ,because the Ne Planning Organization and surrounding property owners were given notice of the hearing an an opportunity to comment on the applicant's proposal. b. Policy 3.1.1 vii.11 be satisfied provided that any portions of Lots 4 through .13 which exceed 25% slope are not gr..d:ad or- filly-d without a Sensitive' Lands Permit- such a permit has been requested to allow construction in the drainagow_-ey in the northwest corner of the property and construction of asF.Artitary sewer line in the gully, tr review of the preliminary plans indicates that the work' proposed can be <accc=m;:rl i saieo in ':�. rr,ir!r.c r consistent'with this pcalir_y, c. Policy 7.1 .2, 7.3.1, and 7. .4 can be. satisFied because &lquiat-e water~,; sewer, and storms drainage facilities will bA r"-- roti to serve the development "prior to approval.' of the fir:al plat. The applicant also indicates that these facilities will he prc�vidYd within the subdivisirrn as require.d by .1cr city ir,drtrds. tNAL- OS7C*E 86-v�. PC {PD 1--85, S 4-86, 7.Gt1 1 gg;�: - PA Vit; d. Policy ;8. 1,1 is an i.ssijo that must be resolved relating to the present condition of 1,33th (;venuo and its intersection with Durham Road. Both of -these reads are under County jurisdiction acid approval must be obtained. n County permit will address the access problems pertaining to th.o development and a resolution of those concerns. e. Policy 8.1.3 will be satisfied when the conditions of approval relating to street improvements are completed. The Planning Commission has determined that the proposal with modifications can be consistent with the relevant portions of th,e Community Development Code based upon the findings noted below: a Chapter 28.50 of the Code is not satisfied because the proposal does not meet the density requirements of the R--4.5 zone. b;: Chapters 18.92 and 18.134 are related to the variance request to � the density, transfer -provisions :i.n Section 18.92..030. The relevant criteria for granting a variance ;Sec. 18.134.050) are listed below: c 1.. The proposed variance will. not be materially detrimental to 4 the purposes of this Code, be in conflict with the policies of the; Co�prehensive Plan, to any ether applicable policies and standards; and to other properties in the same zoning district or vicinity. ' 2. There are ypecia1. circumstances that exist which are � peculiar to the lot size or shape, topography _or other I circumstances over which the applicant has no control, and which are net at to other properties in the same :coning district; 3. The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this CodR and City standards will be maintained to the greatest extent that is reasonably possible, while permitting some ecanomic use of the land; €' 4. Existing physical and nat,ur_al systertes such as but not limited to Lraffic, drainage, dramatic land forms or parks e will not be adversely affected any more than would occur if the developm(ant were "ioraTeu '�s Sped is-d irr Lrie Ofiju; ailca t� 5. The hardship' not self imposed and the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. The applicant. Presented Calculations for determining allowable density as provided ii Chapter 1.8.52:. The calculation are as fol.lows: 61 lots on buildable! lana 3 1 deris-i t.y t.r an fc r From floodplain 2ofc,x ts'E:.incl hotx..c s t!n Fite 66 y lots total. FINAL OWWR 84-- 61,C (PO 1 £sli, S 4--85, 1Cri 1—f36) PAPE 5 m,._INMYKVmow9FLRW'WW.WEMIMA6iY�ikiPH#w8"Fii@Xm. - _..s��.ca�'rs.,-.tis:saar.-ass�,g .... .,.. �9vrt .� ...�.�'c�ari� —• �:c,�n '--.—„s._-._...--•a. The staff calculations yielded d slightly different number based upon the following t 14.8 ac. or 641,G 8 8 sq IF - gross area ` 2.15 ac. or 93,654 sq f t. - Flood"plain area ' 1...3 &c. or' Ii?t7 0U0sq_ft. - street right:-of-viay 10.35 ac, or, 451,034 s Pt. net area 451,034 (net area) 7500 (min, lot size) = 60:14 units 93,654 (floodplain) 7500X.25 (25% trans.)=3:12 units Total Units` 63.26 Based upon the staff figures, the proposed variance request would necessitate' a density transfer from the flood plain of approximately £,0%. Section 18.92.O30(�tj(3j states that the maximum total r number of units ' may not exceed 3.25% of the number of units allowed per gross acre. This proposal of 71 units is approximately 82K -of the allowable density based upon gross 'acreage. The Commission finds that the variance request i.s inappropriate because the resulting density is nct consistent with ,the intent of the R 4,5 Zone. Also, the majority 0 the lots are small and the amenities, common open space, are riot sufficient to offset particularly the `density proposed For khe developed portions of the project. C. Chapters 3£1.80 and 18.160 of the Code are not totally satisfied because the proposal does not meet all the requirements set forth for the submission and approval of a preliminary plat.' d. Since the proposed street and sewer line are located within different "sensitive lands catergories, three sets of approval criteria contained in Chapter 18:84 apply to this proposal. i 100 year flood plain a. Land form alterations shall preserve or enhance the floodplain storage function and maintenance of the zero-foot rise floodway shallnot result in any narrowing of the floodway boundary. b. i'he Iand form alteration or development within the - - � P. . . 100-year floodplain snail designated as commercial or industrial on the Comprehensive Plan t_and Use`P1ap;' c, Vose land -Form a l.t.erati.on or development is riot located F within the floodway; d. �'he land form alteration or development, will root r resit in any increase in the olevation of thy' zero--foot rise 'f)oadway; F').PJ!?.. ORDER )16-: `. Pc (PD 1-85, :� 4 •f',fs, t„ Z:CA 1...86) PAGE 1 - Nbs4]KWTY{ 'S76&"6C,iSG"s3td"aJ3639P 1krif&SY4m3a1 *m.[:rr••••.•• iSAt.auSu.Fwsuser ,••••�•�� e. The land form alteration or development plan includes a , pedestrian/bicyc_lca pathway in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan; f.'' The plans for the pedestrian/bicycle pathway indicate that nc,' pathway will be below the elevation of an average annual flood. 2. Drairiageways a. The Extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development wi11 not create site disturbances to the extent greater than that required f, for the uses; b. The proposed land form alteration or development will. not result in erosion, stream sedimentation, ground stability or other adverseon-site and off-site effects or hazards to life or property; t c. The waiver flow capacity of the drainageway is not decreased and d. Where natural vegetation' has been removed' due to land " form alteration or the ': development, the areas not ` covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted to prevent erosion in accordance with Section 18.100 (LANDSCAPING AND SCREE!` N^v). ; 3. 108th/113th 'avenue Ravine t a. All of the land (within the raving} being can for developmen', is a less than 25% slope. b, There are no unstable soil conditions on the land being considered for',development. C. The provisions of Chapter 18.150 TREE REMOVAL. shall be Fret. The applicant has submitted preliminary information regarding the sewer line 'extension and street location. The Engineering � :- QC! th . .__a4 tha tavi-1Qn ha_ review Cr. ., .:tZ;.ndrr_� _ conditions are applied, the proposal will be consistent with the above criteria, e.` Chapter- 18.162 covers the City's requirements regarding l:ot line adjustments, The proposed ability to adjust side lot lines after _ the plat is recorded can meet City 'requirements but the proceduve � for adjusting property limes :hcu'Ld follow the process described below i �i FINAL ORDER 86- PC (FG. 1-8.5, 5 t.,:-86, & ZCA 1-06) - PAGF 7 �; The Community Development 'Code provides a two—step review of lot lime adjustments. R preliminary app lication is first evaluated .:.. and a decision is made'. if I tFme preliminary application is approved, a final. appl.icatiort is submitted conLaining the final lot line-_ adjustment map and legal descriptions. Following City < • approval., the asap and legal descriptions are recorded with w&shington County. .. Conflicts may result in relation t4 the location of utility' servicesand driveway locations. The final. lot line adjustment' map. and `legal' descriptions shall be required for each adjustment n-mat occurs under provisions of the preliminary approval. The map � and descriptions should include information regarding the precise ' location of existing utilities and driv=eways. A certification firers an engineer should be provided which indicates that the adjustment Drill not adversely affect existing utilities or that the facilities will be relocated to the satisfactio.r of those utility ;company(s) involved. Any costs associated with change in ; utility location will be borne by the developer. . The PD overlay zone 'd4es not have a minimum lot width requirement, but the, 5p+;- foot nide lots are relatively ,narrow for single family detached residences. The 4—foot side yard requirement shall remain in effect as well as; the 5—foot driveway setback regmrirsrient contained in, T,M.C. Section 15.04.080(b). Variances or waivers of these requirements shall be viewed with disfavor, e will be satisfied during the approva f. Chapter 10.164 4f the Codl process for the final plat. p� C. DECISION 4 Based upon the findings, and conclusions above, the Planning commission } DENIES PD 1-86, S 4-86, V 6-06 and S9 3-86, It is further ordered that the apPlicant be notified of the entry of this f order. PASSED: This day of March; 1906, by the Planning commission of the City of Tigard p, Donald Moen, President ` Tigard Planning Commission � 111Sl.:b r49 Fi Ai. t i�DI R' f3F-- PCjF+i7 1.-0's, S 4-Eat , ZC '1-86) PAGE G CITY OF TIGAR€3 NOTICE OF !DECISION SITE-DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SOR 6-96 VARIANCE V 5-65 APPLICATION- Request by First Interstate Trust to develop a 6800 sr,. .ft. retail auto service building and an automatic car wash. A Variance is also requested for deletion of a portion of public sidewalk alor cj Center street and to &I'low aa< landscaped 'a{rea of 13.5%, where 15% is required. The property is zoned C-G (Commercial General) and is located at the `Norttvwest corner sof Pacific Hi y vd dl tr nt�+�r Road (ta' P 25I 2 w lois IO , 1001, k il ): DECISION: Notice is hereby given that the Planning Director for the City of Tigard has: APPROVED the above "described a app;ications subject to curtain conditions. the findings dsponclu3ions on which the Director .,based t decision are as noted boal.ow. i A. FINDING OF FACT 1 Background The City; has reviewed several land use applications for the property, the most recent Bing a Conditional lyse (CU A-@2) to approve a� flower shop. f.. 2. Vicinity Information The property As surrounded by Pacific Highway, Greenburg trod. and Center Street':.;. The.-zoning an the south side of Pacific Hig9 ty.:,Is COO (Central Ousiners District) The properties east of Greenburg Road are zoned C-G (Coumercial General.) and the parcels north of Center Street arca zoned C--P (Commercial Professional) 3. Site Information and Proposal Description The subject p party, consists of three tax leets which. contain. a congrercial Wilding a single family residence. DrivGway accesz is presently available from Pacific Highway, Greenburg Road,an& Center - Street.' rhe-applicant,proposes to remove the existing building asci construct as car ash � in t1M western portion of the property- and a retail/automotive service building near Greenburg Road. One driveway entrance is._,intended for each; of the three structs abutting. the property., ale property will be filled to more closely ,resemble the g ay }of ftclfat,Highbkizy,, This will require a retaining wall which t is as-,'h gh as,,rlO feet near the western end of the parcel.. A 2£9 fbvt h:4 h.IOO squ foat sign has also baen presented approval,, u. . - ftri.ances ;are° also requested to reduce the reg'aired m%imunt�.�f .F landscaped '.area from 15% to apprnnicattily ,13.5%r and .tra'.alloaaa ':t�r� s deletion. of•a sidewmlk, along most of the Center Street frontage. A. DIRECTOR DECISION SOR 6-86 f V 5-86 Page I E k a 4. Agency ;and WPO Comments The Engineering Division has the following comments: a. A sanitary sower connection permit for any new additions. b. All work performed within the ''Pacific Highway right-of—way will require a permit from the State Highway Division. C. Visual ''clearance must be maintained at intersections - and driveways. d. Wheelchair ramps must be installed at all corners and on the proposedtraffic signal island, e. A traffic control pavement marking plan must be submitted for City and State approval, prior to installation by the applicant. f. The proposed driveway on Greenburg Road should not be installed becauseof the existing congestion at, the pacific Highway intersection,; the difficulty in prohibiting left turn attempts unto the property, and the city policy which calls` for minimizing the number of access points on arterial and collector streets. g. The storm drain catch basin and lime proposed to be installed at the intersection of Gree ebur Road and Center street heeds :to be .. rerouted to 'avoid crossing private property. It is suggested that the catchbavin be connected directly to the manhole at the intersection. h. The guardrail along Pacific Highway shall be relocated not removed; i. The proposed retaining wall near Center Street is a potential eyesore, particularly if it becomes a target for graffiti. Care should be taken to provide landscaping which will act to minimize the problem. j. No objection to the variance requests, The Building Inspection Division and Tigard Water District have no objection to the request. i"ne State Highway Divisions states that a traffic impact report is necessary to evaluate the inpact of access alternatives. A Road Approach Permit is required and the necessary street improvements shall be determined after the report is completed. PGE notes that several utility poles will need to be moved. k No rather comments have been'received. DIRECTOR DECISION SDR 6--86 i V 5-86 Page 2 B. ' ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION The `proposed conmeerci.al development is basicali consistent with the relevant standards and criteria contained in the Community Development Code. However, several aspects of the proposal 'including the variance request warrant further discussion. 1. Access The' Greenburg Road driveway is not appropriate for the reasons noted by ' the `Engineering` Division. This driveway should be removed and it is: recommended that a pedestrian link between the public sidewalk and the project be provided in its place. 2. Visual Clearance Chapter 18.102 of the Code required that objects taller than three feet in height cannot be within 30 feet of intersections and driveways. This portion of the Code is particularly important near busy intersections. It is recommended that the two Ped maples that are shown closest to the pacific Highway and Center Street driveways be eliminated.> Also, the mature height of all other landscaping material should not exceed three feet`. 3. Landscaping The proposed landscaping plan generally conforms with Code requirements with the exception Of visual 'clearance (discussed above), lot coverage (notedbelow under the variance review), street trees, and the treatment of the proposed retaining wall. The Center Street frontage does not include street trees as required by the Code, presumably because of the proposed retaining wall. The deletion of street trees appears to be justified, however, the landscaping treatment in this area needs revision. The majority of the 255 foot long retaining wall will be over six feet in height and potentially could have a detrimental visual impact. No vegetation is proposed to soften or screen the wall. A revised landscaping plan should be prepared by a landscape architect for the retaining wall area. The plan should contain -a justification for the proposed height: of tha wall, plant materials that will screen all or most of the retaining wall, an elevation drawing illustrating the wall and proposed landscaping, ;and landscaping treatment of the right-of-way area between the retaining wall and the curb, 4 variances As mentioned earlier, two variance requests have been made to reduce the landscaping coverage to 13.5' and to eliminate a sidewalk from the Center S.treet driveway to the western corner of the property. * Section 18.134.050 of the Code contains the following approval criteria for granting a variance DIRECTOR DE=CISION SDR o--HS / V 5-86 page 3 a. The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Code, be in conflict with the policies Of the Comprehensive Plan, to any otherapplicable policies and standards; and to other properties in the same zoning district or vicinity; b. There are ,special circu�ssstainces than exist which are peculiar to the lot size or shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the applicant has no control, and ;which are not applicable to other properties in the same zoning district; ' C. The use proposed w%11 be the same as permitted Bander this Code and City standards will be maintained to the greatest extent that is reasonable possible, while permitting some economic use of the land; d. Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, `drainage, dramatic land forms or parks will not be adversely affected any more than would occur if the development were located as specified in the Code and z The hardship is not self-imposed and the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. The proposed variance to the landscaping coverage requirement` is minor and it will be difficult to notice "a difference between the required'minimum (6,317 square feet) and what is proposed (5,680 square feet). The property is long and irregular in shape with street frontage on virtually e perimeter which has presented the mntirunique problems related to rigrt of .say dedication, 's'treet iraproasemants, tired internal circulation. Theproposed uses are per. ire the zone and the request will r�mt adversely affect physical or natural systema. Finally, the hardship is not self-imposed because the primary reason for the variaencsa is due to the irregular parcel configuration. The request appears to be the minimum necessary and also, the required modifications :to the site and landscapingplans will causea slight increase* in the anount of landscaped area. The proposed sidewalk variance also appears to be justified for the following reasons -- State Highway right--of-way and the embankment for pacific Highway lies to the nest of the property along Center Street and the potential for any extension of the sidewalk in minimal. -- Because of the large amount of frontage, the applicant is responsible ' for a substantial quantity of street improvements and this portion of sidewalk would be of minimal value and it could actually cause problems by encouraging pedestrians to cross the street in the .riddle of the block. . P ro DIRECTORDECISION StIR -06`i I v y-86 Page A ,. The applicariL is providing all other half street improvements as required by City Code and the development will be a ble to adequately accOmmo{3ate p;ycic>_strian and Vehicular traffic on the perimeter of the. F site. 1, 5. Signage The applicant is proposing to install one 20 foot tall, 200 square ode requirement's allow for signs 20 fret foot sign and the standard C in height and 7o square feet in area. However, dining up tSite o an Development Review process Section 18.114.130 de ( ) additional 50% increase in sign copy area for developments which have multiple tenants. The project will rsa�se four businesses and the proposed sign appears to be appropriate and it is consistent with i City 'standards. x £. Pacific 4iighway Off-ramp to Commercial Street # As part of a long range plan to alleviate traffic circulation rea and on Pacifi6 Highway, an exit ramp problems in the downtown a � x has been proposed 'from Pacific' highway adjacent to the subject property to Center Street and then on to Commercial Street. The ik property eerincg Di.v'ision " recommends ''that the development of this site ' gin doa?s, net preclude the eventual construction of this exit. t C DECISION The Planning Director approves ,SDR 6-8611+ 5-86 subject to the following .._ conditions 1, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL C0140ITIONS SHALL BE MET PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS 2, Standard half--street improvements, including sidewalk, curb, wheelchair ramps, driveway apron, storm drainage, guard rail (partial heelchai and utility signalization relocation shall be installed front : .the Sid Pacific 4iwy.. frontage. Said improclements along SW Pacific highway shall be built to Major arterial standards and conform to the alignment of existing adjacent impravements and conditions of the State highway Division permit. 3. Standard half-street improvements including sidewalk, curb, pavement markings, wheelchair ramps, storm drainage and utility relocation shall be installed along the SW Greenburg Road frontage. Said built to Majorimprovements alone SW Greenburg Road shall be Collector standards and conform to thealignmentof existing adjacent improvements arse conditions of the City's Street Opening Permit. R Standard half-street improvements including (partial frontage) 4. sidewalk, curb, retaining wall driveway apron, sto m drainage and utility relocation shall be installed along the SW Center Street frar�ta Said improue€Hants SW Center Street shLL be built to Local and alignment of existing adjacent Street standards improvements and conditions of the City,s Street Opening Permit. DIRECTOR DECISION SDP 6--96 ! V 5-06 Pane 5 �.. __ HIM MI 5. Five (5) sets of pian--profile public improvement construction plans and (1) itemized construction cost estimate, stamped by a Registered �. Professional Civil Engineer, detailingall proposed public improvements shall be submitted to the Engineering Section for approval. 6. Sanitary sewer connection details shall be provided as part of the public improvement plans. 7. Construction of proposed public improvements shall not commence until after the Engineering Section has issued approved` public improvements plans. The. Section will require posting of a 100% Performance Bond, the psaysrent of a permit fee and a sign installation fee. Also, the execution'' of a street opening permit shall occur prior to, or concurrently with the issuance of approved 'public improvement plans. SEE THE 'ENCLOSED HANDOUT GIVING MORE -SPECIFIC INFORMATION REGARDING FEE`SCHEDULES BONDING 'AND AGREMENTS`. 0.: Additional right-of--say shrill be dedicated to the Public at the Pacific Highway Greensburg Road intersection to provide for a turning lane onto Pacific Highway from Greenbury Road. The description for said dedication shall be tied to the existing right-of-A�y centerline as established by Washington C-aunty. The 'dedication document shall be on City forms and approved by the Engineering 'Section'. DEDICATION FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS ARE;EN CEOISED. g. ' pee�*at shall be obtained by the applicant, fora work proposed to be done within SW Pacific Hight. from the State ptighs g+ Division. A copy of said permit 'shall be provided to the Catty. 10. Visual clearance at driveways and at intersections shall be provided for in accordance with Municipal. Code Chapter 18 102. 11. A traffic and pedestrian control pavement marking, signal and signing plan prepared by a 'registered civil engineer, detailing a proposed marking, signal and signing improvements shall be submitted to the Engineering Sections for approval and to the State Highway Division for approval. 12. Direct vehicular ingress-egress at Greenburg Road shall not be permitted. 13. Concrete aideualk shall be installed from the proposed driveway apron on Pacific Highway, along pacific Highway, along Gree€sburg Road, along Center Street, to the proposed driveway apron on Center Street. r 14. Relocation of any existing utilities, poles, pipes, wires. signals, signal loops, or any such equipment shall be at the expense of the ' applicant. , A �h _I OIRECTO€d DECISION DR 6-•86 l Vra-S6 Page 6 15, f revised site plan shall be submitted for Community Development Director approval which deletes the proposed driveway an Greenburg Road and illustrates the location of the proposed free standing sign. 16. A revised landscaping plan sFeall. be submitted Par Community Development Director approval which is consistent with Chapter 18.102 c Visual Clearance. Specifically, the two Red 'maple trees adjacent to the Center Street and Pacific Highway driveways shall be deleted and verification shall be provided that the mature height of other landscaping materials will be less than three -feet. Also, the landscaped area shall not be reduced to less than 13.5% of the total lot area. 17. A landscaping plan, preparca by a landscape architect, shall be subitli tied for _Community Development Director approval :which` deals with ;the retaining wall including, the following: a. Landscaping materials to screen all or most of the wall. b. Elevation drawing of the proposed retaining wall and plant materials. C. Landscaping material between the retaining wall and the curb. d. Reduction of wall height as much as practical. ` IS. Maintenance of the landscaping within the Center Street right-of-way shall be the responsibility of the applicant/property osa.ner. w.., 19. The one free standing sign shall not exceed 100 sq. fQ2'ti per side or a total of 20O square feet. 20, Tax lots 1000, 1001, and 1100 s6iall be combined into one parcel. 21. This approval is valid if exercised within one year of the final decision date noted below. ?�. PR0CEDURE 1. Notice: Ptotice was published in the newspaper, boosted at City Fall and mailed to: XX The applicant & owners XX Owners of record within the required distance YX The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization XX Affected governmental agencies 2. Final Decision. THE OECISIOii SHALL RE FINAL ON _;March 25,E .1966 _ UNLESS AN APPEAL ZS FILED. F ` y . LPIREG'TOR DECISION SOR 6-06 A V 5-96 Page .' Jr 3. yneal: Any arty to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.32.290(6§) and Section 18.32.370 of the community Development Cie whichprovidesthat a written appeal aust be filed �. withthe-CM RECORDER within 1�7 mays after notice is 9iasen asent. ,. a The deadline for filing of an appeal is 2:30 P.M. March, 253 19131 4. ga s aans: 1 f ay have anyquestions, please call the City of Tigard Planning;Department, Tigard City` iia"s3, 1.2755 SW � Ash, PO Boa 23397, Tigard, Oregon 37223, 639---171. PREP€ *EBY: Keith idsen, Senior Planner gra iir-ect�s�^ elf Coarai.t3� 0eu3o} ret QF�lPPE�3 t�i3ls�:�Am4n a 2418PM-ail 4 r �2 a a .. DIRECTOR DECISION 18DR 0-86 / V 5-06 page a �, t CITY OF TI, GARDE O�tEC+�IEi C U 4i . .AGENDA TTTEM .SU�°t,ARY � s AGENDA OF -riarch :24: 1986 AC,ENDA ITEM 4T: iI #ELb ?ITTD: march I43 1.J36 �P.E'I(7US .iCTT07.: 2%Cr _ _ c TS'SUF.IAGENDA "6TTlE: kpnraa&l of r A lac loris PREPARED 0,LCC 8 f. Lcrreen ;k9i��on ; ' RFEQUESTED S`Y:, Verl.ous Businesses ; DEF`ARIz Ei'�f eQ''04 CITY ADMINISTRATiSE�.: _ poLTOY ISSUE -_ INFORM IT 9j[ ;SIS?r'VkP Y t t The �ollcawa.rE zsusiriess ha ubmita`ed ,r�enewal_R� is+c�atiz�r! for ;douraci7 ��aprou�y as C ane's Pizza :Camp rry., 3066 `SW !�ac.if�i!c €,ighwa;�, �. F The Irs�oolj wibusinesses hive_` .sUbmitted nes; �or ons dor Council zapproual� R p�.a a Caboose 'LtrJ 11670 'SW FT cafati Fi :g w F 't c p sit.•iwn T ? R al' ` &te 07taw Iuwm nest ;name :not zzelect ci ;¢), 114,45 •SU; .D.ispenser Cly ss ;+"1 :Ap}a1 +4a#i.ran L' szat3 ra i'i Xi• art Restaurant., 11619W ?aclflc. ' ijhM'HaY ,�.t51ri 'Godfather's, 'Pizza locacion;�, F! f�pplicatia�n The Police Depar tent rias conducted recaor -and `laa�hCdra+��rid r4Eeck, -and the ti cl Chief :of Palice ;re-commends ;mpprova'J. of :a;pZa:cati:vns.. - i?L.T'E��4=�� )/E : tL•01Et`,.�3;I3E�ED 1. Appmvp and faam-ard to OLCC;.. 2. ' Deny apPlacations. SUGGESTED ACTTM Alter-nate .01 i , k 4 F �. kg ZIT E`. ''IE-`.A.EtD„ C43 .x.I.xC3N (C,OUNCIL "AGENDA STEM.E3��AiARy fJ F AGENDA fF; [larch :2�„ 1986 :A $NDA:�ZTE' i';?ra: ®® ` °y -- �'R Di'�S.i5T13I�,• March 1.9„ i19Pi6 MVIOUS =ACTIOR: Council "Annr� oval 3/10t8b ZSS31EJf ASA'.TIZ�iE:: ;lrkiac�2 Franchise —_ Aa TT3M-PA ED MY: :Keith:I,iden tat in rea �— ` QUESTED=S`I: CITa Af LN-1STRATOR: f«I;I ly )ISSUE f. tDn PMar.ci 0., 1986., 'he `c-jty (Gaunail .approved an iincrease :.forrthree i,waste thauingrarrand:ses„ :of .approxzmateky 716.:5 . The+xes.oluion,_ard,raze :sat edule ihas I)aen .prepar*.id gas directed .'by ceounca_1 .ALTERNATIVES :GUSID IRED s a 41 r . L :�y}yL"..>'tffiT2^�fSS�:.�R2^.a^. �"�3'•t�^YYgSd:w2:1!r:SM:2F'C.^WSSS.:^3^..'^•SC�:itTZSSC.Y'"TdsY1 a2�=SC'y'SR13"'dLSY33"t'g3"r•&S�"-AAS'2..1_..'�:^p t," t r ` ,Approve .the rerso;lut iOn., 6a lkUNCD 'AGENOA1,_TEMtSUMARY f... � RGEEtll3t� ITEM` Csnsa_rst e . ~ � CEt®F fli F}RT£ ~Sl i�clTlEfl: 1"P.REVIOUS ACTT-ON: 'ISSUE/AGENDA 7111-LE 9 Far ks E S i +t name s: ars i� �ancV 9�FfEi�RRF BY 13ab jean aat'lor*izatian _ R� t;ESTEt) .QY; Jerr M�Sriu^ ,:'#1EPRW1 mE€11T:HEAD COK: Parkes",rdiritenance:,at o.Ic el. .T[? Vln!Au last, 's1°fi5`:C.ouncil. ,authorized .aiddition6il Par.tcs :Staff i n ..,e tit ' .a ievel' II, ,Th i's = s-swim i .caa� inu� an rPf � he.Green'T3�us b;: �t=dine:h ire. e`are ; a t°.t{�rc�e Greets' :Thueirb ;:pas tions. "-we !have `.one ;reran. fling Ahnaugh ci/.L5/�6 :Tri >�t�y a't Lew P-1 �, we t+ �'d 3:0Cu --For .two,,Part—tas�e,.Posa�fans ' sar.3e, rti se., �?�tec➢ 'to:CiVicrLente '1. 'Croy`_1co tLevdi. Z{(Cook Park~-ona y) ?.. 'uCorltract,.ottt':Civic'.Cehter :.landscaping it bot ;CS6] 15°.000. v3. i�aintaint'� vol .Tz usith ditch r;:part=time<:ar4 hiare.'neat full—',time .Staff. g -SUGGESTED RCTIW4 ITh�at 3 i6C4 be _4p rargpr.iatol `:�raare General :Fu:� -Contingency 'ro :Pail /l'ersannsl 5 +.acs =fo, .ai�editaav�al cPart=tia�ae ano �.a.�aic',:C:ethter .a�es 'tit^e .css :s, 9 Alaimo 11 NINE i. ,.P � F TO: '1Bob`Jean a WFRUHc Jerzy I4�k:urlin � aY3i3 I C = Parks �e'rsonnel add Maintenance Level s a .. 33/17186 3 As.yau-iare.taware+'of, 'the"`City'+has;;7ost: the Graea Tiiumb,saarkers. 'Without 'this pro g- " i a g ram.we=ca�xa�eitr.maiuta'an=-the' PaYks#at a'-Levu" Iltpos3 ion. ` T_.am• requestin g..that -we .hire._t ro;tpart time::helpers_that.�,JIjjl,,°work`E3U,hours=ger:week:each, Sntil Jane'3Gth :,2986. i�is .wou3 d:aequize":an v midi 4 ionad'>$3;600=00''to'be:.tran.4fered= x s p 7, 9 { { Y �t .CITY O�TIC�3RR c�REG�� Ct��l�4Ca4�AC WD A ITEM<Si9K"GARY . AGENDA ITEM it, ACEMDA Ofi�: ";,9arq�?'�.�+ 1986 .� "DATE':515ftPiEfTED: '11-- DATE; 395 Pi;EL�ZOIfS •AC�'TDiU: c? 4E IS,$•a'UEi AGENDA TITLE: gf22nk! 3�?c3ica isan of i-u� 36 Su?M-Mer hills _ PREPACtED BY:" Eliza smith A. �Ieaa on REQUESTED BY: U.S. Nfati:onal Bank Park _ DEPARTMENT. HEAD i?K: cjTY �4Dt�llkllSl RATO�: -- P :ICY ISSUE ,hoaaZd tha City accept the dedication"of approximately four acres for greenway purposes. t s1F�RHiAT OV SlIMARY or,-,,.Jr�rycaary 1 .1966, 'the gZas�nia-, a staff r�*ceived a l.ettar fa^om U.S. �9a�tional 3 r.k raffa^irag the dedication ,approximately 4 acres for greenway paarposes. i�ae Zand is located southwest of Summer Street �.lorey Summer 'Creek. A copy of the letta=r and supporting documents are at't ached. TFae Park and Recreation Besdrd reviewedthee�aaes.> =at their January meeting ; anedirected" staff to solicit ira�sat•fs-om the "aalPQ and area residents. Tete 'Planning staff .notified the MPO and mailed letters to area residents. A copy of the letter and oaad r€speaaase tett lased isattached. At tae February Park and Recreation Board meetingthe ;Board :vetted •to recommend that: Cvaiaci.l accept the dedicatioar as cppy of the:-minutes: are also attac{jed, proposed. A - ALTERNATIVES ;CONSIDERED x,•' Accep at the greenway dedication as propos by U.S. Barak. 2.= Deny°vhe,greenway dedication as proposed by U.S: Barak, gr_eenway. dedication as proposedby the U.S. a�'ational. :larsk. x. .,EAWzbiM �k SPECTRUM �RRORERTIES INCORRORATED !`1 SVV.. Fifth Ava. Suite E50 Portland, oregon 97204 trch 3;- 'i986 Li? Newton C/o Ci ty of Tigard 12755 S.W. Ash _ Tigard, OR 97223 g enclosed you will find a completed "0reenWay Dedication" form for the property, known as: Lot 3f and the Southeasterly 5 feet of Lot 293SUMMER HILi_S PARK, in the City of Tigard, .County of Washington and State of Oregon. Also, enclosedare individual plat maps which should'adequateiy identi- fy .the property intended for Dedication. if this office can he of any—assistance to you please do 'not hesitate to call me at 225-4750, ext. 304; Repsectfully, � John Wagv�r . Real 'Estate Loan Services Jh/agr Enclosure t° CORPORATION i GREEMAY DEDICATION sola :�t� F 38'�� T8E5E Y?.iE+EidTS, trat _United States National Bank of a�aon do hezhezeby,dedfcate to t $ Public for ;,ecenway.pasrpcsos tnslaaissg deaazihpd read premises in Washington County,"Oregon: Lot ifs and the Southeasterly-5 feet of Lot 29, S6MMER BILLS'FARK, ire the City'of Tigard County of Washington and State of Oregon. To have and to hold the above-described and dedicated rights unto the Public forever for the uses and purpose hereinabove stated. The 'grantor(s) hereby`covenants that they are the owner(s) infeesimple and the property is free of all liens and encumbrances, they have good and legal right to grant the right* above-described, and they will pay all taxes and assessments due and owing on the property. The amount laid for this dedicet:ion is i.taQ IN wiTNESS 'WRP.REOF, the-undersigned corporation .has caused this dedics32ion,to be exucuted`by its duly-authorized, undersigntd'sfficers acting pursuant to resolutiarc of its Board'of Directors. United States National Bank of Qrepan "'Name of �orposation Cozprate Seal By• i �3X�asC By: S.^•.crvtary _�� STATE OF OREGON } OF' T�c'� Ce4f COuMT, s ? 4 .,_� s Pew part�.� _sa 1�— Multno;0 v w_ Personally appeared Fran Matsor+ and N ;;ho,each b.in}l first duly ssaor-s, :dY sa, :that tla formex ie the Cp -'President,and'that the-latter is lac - saecretary of United States'National ansc o rz�on -- , a Corporation, and that the seal off ad to Ilse #aaegc�ing Anstrsnaent Is the corporate seal or said coraozation and that said instrument was,signed and sealed in<-behalf of said corporation b� authority of Stu' board:of dizretarcx; and each of-thew acknodsledged said inatrueaent to be its voluntary act and 'deed, 47 a ry Pu is for.:Orcgan My:Comieniou a=pares: (=Tt iIAL'SLAP}1 3 ACCEPTAIICE Approved as to fors this -01-4-0sy of %� � ,�, 19 r By: �- City A tarney ity f Tigard Approved as to legal description this day of , 19 - - By: Cit Ci y of Tigard Accepted by the Council this day of , 19 ` CETT COi711CAL, CITY OF fi 10O, OREGON By. �....�� CIty.Becordar - City of Tigard r �v'i-i�;Le"T. ,.�"E�.s+4+.'�`Y-.,,ra _§.r:_�'4 .� 'r:t�4r=.�c '�r.-*�Y.a� -`,��' r• ^*st .n�'ik� .;}'�, � `�s1-s �;,��` "": y�` '=` ,''x.,.<t"e�� «r � LX'-�+,�"s `�r�" `�" x�?"�,a+r Y SS's• r if � ,is �., �F �'•�� ,r., r'�04"`rr,r �'wee.��.�� - ��. .� � �a��^"� 3.k'. cif .r�k". t{"'�$..A.�a,_+�•et t+'1`"��.y`}}+t.�,ys�"4 ^,`sY �L y t ."��k'�'k„h "�y'Ye�-.' �Fn�a ,�� `` ,''��-t`ay�C'-` ��✓'�`�'#yt��i`�i'�.��f�'a',�P .€y..g� .f- - �c{ .a�ksa- }k 19 �.'a"a^.,+•. �" '�,�„``5.�». �t .wrt x t'*� r� �tr'1r �� r �' ;�a� r•�'$^"'�'`�`r3��`{*�f��r'�`R'',��t��"��,�?�.,FS�Ec�r'�.�`�'' �'r`�"+,vlA��isti.} '��`r "YT'S:j ,�;�+��-F ��1+�.'drys,?��p�4.Y➢�.E..e�� 'Y�5•y.�:t+�f 4'+`cl�{,�'7i'Y'Y�aF7�,e+��'Y��*�'[�R� l' •S�w`�r� ,�_ �w��1 tt�Wy�''r,J 7`3.'.`'�iLY�•`3s�'h�! � �` �' � 1 �'�'y r• q ,�,� ew� ``• '',.+�•�.T� 'tk° v„z t�,#��+fw,k? y�i rt _�t�r�.. C"•s.�' u � �,r �.,7�dt' �t 7 s�`'�9a"��s � ..i�'v�'�S.r r"'s�:��''r'`'t 't'�`��•$}��,�.}�y,�-�'4"`� �d vfk {�''t •� �`L. iw �° 2• �.��t�i{ �r,4}� s�, �iahS�^�6sf�r:�.c Y a� �+�s� `t�"'rfr�r�� n lN.iy�, SL.�n�y•�. ,, '�2_ �7x? }. tud >u',-; u.-'-;�`'��'"xe$ •+'�'.„5,� a ,3"'€ re'' � x�-s.r"�":tr y �Sh? `�" d��• `'t'�YIh`.``�� t ; ^�'� �^'r:"r`t�32��. afi�,r'r7'Ytvx*ii�f may.,., ¢Y�{r`' ,5• �� A'..�`� any, .:t�nF��:* �.�' 4t'§;� s�'r z4 wt ,y..., 5 ��' Y� '�� st.io-�'-'•� � :w�4�..+.y.:f:� k e { s2•i'. i � �t, S k �,._ .s a K�.ry�y i�,.�� ,�t w,ry '&Y.-:i da'c- �1i•,c'.b�'s`�.�"�%v" { y.:"c' �t':, W'+., MmIll ;�,�,�- �"N -k};r�t+;'ti.. -..4�Mtv3 'c' � ` - ,a- 5�k}�F '• �,usesc�� ' ,+ lr Flo it J. SCtiOliSQ� { ) f t e iK1T. m tas � Ism- a Ak rXis -17 { ?h ! " t — f+l �:. NAWMkrA � haw wraa•re •f sf � 3 " i �`�y � ; a 9 mom'. •� r�'+�� ' ""f:ei"- E,a! p AlT!!J � tl'r,a !V P'�>�.,�,.......�.:....SCROL t : •}1 f t m' scv aur t�i� �j 7 f+iir. It 3+f "Q - srr• t-uu!! a!!rl > nus II#K1ca" t'`�m•"` ;c vv �a r JAL.LNW— ( —-A;TPI _ ! lit wCam1 res 3�- c5!< i rS .n ; ; t �.,� ! _ � ' �`• ��a.«rte hFiA,•"a• YOUNGER&ASSOCIATES. Ri 11 Pla i •.� �t�r ! s+n®r.� �<<"3 hw;uo- sw E M� x ( ! Y� t < i`. i � f �•"'ta ..,.�D AM ! Vhfwg$l ~ T ��s 6 � -,�"�*z°."�i«=�v �+:v r�„1, €n is 7�3�a »r'°' ...¢a-,yr«•-�' §� sr+'"`n� � "w"r "-��,`, F-.�� :: �.s. c `�^='", J"'�`�...• �>.� �' "'^� 5�"� ' M �t i • r u - S r r; 'rj• +L4,x i4 a - t } � F r �ze xr � 4 � 10f s ari ' ' ' w>.t...;...�.�. ..,.. ,,;.• =rr.._ v- f?. -7 y`. • ,.,.wr " 2 t� „'oicic-'_ ��p, ,�i#�*;€�� 'f3 �'�' 'k .� e'•i i s c-'f- r r'"" g .: t' ' ,F, pw i F � ;- rs• ' :.. -`�.r ;.. -{. G�o.:";t .a:_ jxt�' ,�c :y."'zA..r, '=�ra '�sa:Si,�'""., s>'3.` s€�`:'_ .'Yi,'. a,,'�'+x•��? "?sY3b TI�I— .................. . I ba �i .qc l 4 Vim« E " ,- PIMP Oro pill �d�4 t sem` �r �1§+,4;• ,.• r z> s5ss e-'^-�t s a•, ?rs - `k '� 4t �' `w- '' . 9r7 r ,z�s5^n R`s,n.'�'� OZONE ,.: s ��_7 ;a ,. r ay x M " a�* "re},.:rs. .i.fl + •''�iq ... =>,;.t, -.*�5 Kf, `r, ..b �e, ? 'x. .;+ s�.?F. � y;.. �a- y `i�T F . #c 1-1 "r"IMIN ��^2- 7� w? ��s dl �„�:'�"� �.�».�"" �� ,,;;a%5�... 6¢w' m«es .; -„, �4`no..�t}''`-tea.� .4'�a�,-:.��.ts:�%-r��.`�'.°a...:��-�F' fi_ #'"�- �l�"`a`..�.,,2�,�.,,� r ,p:4iy �'as�y, �+;•a � F i kkuN- ��2 igy��7y i'q3 ..�+ •i"!`# �"x � T., 'i vl �'-'_ � e'F.'. .t � X3,.4.Sx"' S w y+r F1. }.!. � ffetR:'�' a'y�ai6 '. r. i'•.�. � 3�.j'„„ d vE *i �3 r WAIT x f. F ' a O .zg.`� �.+ .:'.��-�' -ush,x-,� �....� ..-5�.;�-�, -t+ �r �• d��k..�.�:,,r�.?{,`�t. ��:3,.� �`.as.�'�; r�'�?Jz'�,Fsu”�r�."'�Y��r�..k.�.,��.'�.r.:`3�v�..��.: S a UNITED STATES,NATIONAL BANK OF OREGON a A SubsidiarV of U.S.B---nC®rte y LGAN SERVICES GROUP JaS1u $y , �$ 111 S.W.FIFTH AVENUE,SUITE 850 P.O.BOX 4412,PORTLAND,OREGON 97208 F Liz z Newton c/o City of Tigard 12755 S.W. Ash ;Tigard, 0R 97223 U.S. National Bank is currently interested i dedicating the enclosed de- scribed property to the City of Tigard contributory consideration equal to current assessed value. I have enclosed a recent appraisal for your review. 1 if I can be of any assistance or provide any additional information to rapidly conclude this utter please do not hesitate to call me at 2?5- ._. 4750, ext. 304. If the Cit; decides against dedication please return the enclosed ap } praisal to my attention. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Respectfully, �'?hi3 Ajar RL1 Estate Loan Services age#/agr 4 Iffig Mw ME ME i a n MM r CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON � COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMSUMARY AGENDA OF: March 24 1986 AGENDA ITEM DATE SUBMITTED: march 18, 1986 PREVIOUS ACTION: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLEt _Authorize -�— —Issuance Of Purchase Order For PREPARED 3Y: Loreen �JJilson Movina Comtaare �_ REQUESTED 8Y: Loreen Wilson Y DEPARTMENT HEAD OK, CITY ADMINISTRATOR: POLICY ISSUE Council has adopted purchasing procedures by ordinance and resolution which A are to` be applied to suety +urclhase of 'goods or service. The professional movers industry is regulated by the` PUC and thus falls under Section 10.02.0'of the Purchasing Rules which states "The City may, without competitive ridding, contract for the purchase of goods or services where the rate or price for the goods or services being purchased is established by federal, state, or- local regulatory authority." INFORMATION SUMMARY In preparation of the relocation: efforts to the new Civic Center building, the City Administrator appointed a task farce committee of staff members to coordinate the move in November, 1985. The Committee is comprised of 6 a members and represents each department in the organization. " One of the tasks set: before the Committee was to select a professional mover to assist with the Heave. Upon studying the purchasing rules and receiving correspondence from the PUC, it became evident that a normal bid process would not be possible. As you will note in the ;attached PUC letter• (Exhibit A), dated 1/24/86, professional rovers are not allowed to give binding estimates For- moving services and, their rates are set by the PUC. In other words, the move company gives an estimate of what they think the move will cost. When a�. the move is colleted the final bill could vary_ bry 50% or more from the 2.s-timated quote. Therefore, staff's major concern shifted more towards lowest resrransible bidder, meaning a company whose estimates are close to the final cost, demonstrated good planning to minimize costs during move, low claims history and fast clearance of claims, and reasonable consideration of our special features. The attacher.! criterion (Exhibit _B) was then developed which was used toassist in the decision making process to determine which move consultant's estimate should be accepted. You will notice that staff looked at the last 10 office moves completed by the move consultant and compared estimated to final cost. Also, the Library and -Police Department have some special concerns and needs _ which were also studied. Moving companies charge for services from the time their crews and trucks leave the plant in the morning until their return in the evening. ' Due to this fact, staff determined that any moving companies located in the general Tigard ` area should be asked to offer quotes. Each consultant was taken on an extensive -tour of the three buildings involved in the ,rove and asked to develop a quote 'which also addressed the move criterion concerns. Quote were received Freest the foZZowiny companies. i4late the location from crews ivied be sent and also the 'percentage each move consultant's Which thee last 8 - 10 moves. � fine.Z bill had gorse. over the estimate in the TOTAL gl10TE Pelices Est. G_ i Fi_ a1L_ st_ Li- b. Est- moving Ce MRar-1€. 6778.00 $10,653.50 a saakins Moving & Siorage 99J..9028 3.60 g> Beaverton Warehouse $ 5,533.20 2362.00 7.6% increase over est. 2390.OQ Chid Moving & Storage 781.20 Grec�raburg toad rrv�r est. ;975.60 $19.,862.72 13.3 increase 6367.20 Liles {jovinr, & Storage 1x14.42 72nd Avenue 5014.50 $10,424.00 t 5n, increase aver est. 15bi.30 3843.20 �. Westside Moving & St. Green"r�urg Road; .'7% increase over est. -+ receiving `the quotes, tho of Committee ia�terviewed Up 3n completionch 'OF'ofover. A t the After re 'Exhibit C)• r questions is attached for 'your review (- interviews ew5, process, staff checked references on all four movers. 8etcins and � s�lestside had the highest recommendation- apparent lour bidder was Chipman Moving & Storage. }dowever, this quote has reasons: (3} consultant had The app the Committee foo° the following T the 1/2 hour staff been rejected by no prior library or police department move experxenceient 3 insatfFic'int ig lade 10 moves insufficient;'. ( } { tra-ping provided is 4 e�titttatas are historically low coordination is offered; ( ) one recent move went 52°2% over were 13.3 over in `final' billing, however, re estimate,, and (5) time estimates tgptaccomplish ther move,ta a�pany quotes unrealistic for all es compared to � three City locations a� and Storage. The Committee purchase order to Westside for the following y The Hex's guali fied low bidder was Westside Moving 2 ercertaa�e of income would recommend issuing a p bid was the lowest COT[ rlocation ion eenburg� Road is cost . reasons: (1) �< over estimate is less than 1 ; 4 the origins/destination coordination services are the best effective; ( } anizes u$a of Mime during the move observed by the COmm,ittee (this orc3 prior moves this company the 5 the history ,of claims or damage by p and (6) process); ( ) prior move experience with libraries s accomplished was very lo and the c'iai.nis were cleared guic€cly; re ared the estimate has d police/crime lab typn relocations CC. who p p Library} prior (including the Beaverton City :..:(estimate should be more accurate than other movers with little or no � � experience in these areas}• r budgeted $9.0,000.00 for the move expenseaf�tPrtafinal ff lbilling ecommeis The City has d r over over .the $10,000) mating adjustment (under or received. . The funds ;�ault9 be fr-om General Government (4.1.0). _ -- At_TERNATIVES CONSIDER- Moving & Storage for purchase order to Iatestside 1. Autborize staff 10 issue a p i< r moving ser/ f$10,424.00 fou-ttiestudy/services. f 2. Request SUGGESTED ACTION Alternate `s. . lw/3782A i�qslo'B1.11�;R 08 m 0 PUBLIC UTILITY T►C:,ia9 vlcTctt'pnY�N LABOR INDUSTRIES BUILDING, SALEM OREGON 97310 � {h* u- 60V'tPtN.Ni January 24, 1986 � q Rx, ,bane Jelderks �F t City of Tigard C,tI 1.2755 SW Ash 1NG DF-F�� Tigard OR 97223 I aiwriting regarding a recent inquiry about whether a � conflict between a city ordinance or the Commissioner's statutes relating to certificated motor carrier tariff rates can be resolved in favorofa city ordinance. The aiswer is no., Certificated motor carriers; operating in ° Oregon cannot give a binding estimate for moving; services. As I understand, the City of Tigard is asking for bids for a contemplated move sof its office facilities. In' `.' addition, I understand that a 'current ordinance requires tdat the City of Tigard Faust accept the lowest bid submitted for services. This bid practice is not uncommon with purchases of unregulated goods and services but I would caution you that a certificated household ' goods motor carrier operating in. Oregon is regulated by the public Utility Commissioner and cannot be held to a firm bidfor services. ` lciousehold goods carriers providing intrastate moving services are required :ander ORIS 767.(3)(a) to charge the legally prescribed tariff rate on file with the Commissioner. Final charges for services must be based $ upon the actual services provided and actual charges may differ .from estimate provided prior to the actual cove. If I can be of further assistance in this matter, please call me at 378-6670. f, Bobbie cranes Administrator Motor-Rates Division `, Cli-Y OF l-IGARD, OREGON MOVE ESTIMATE DECISION CRITERION The City of Tigard, Oregon is soliciting estimates for, the relocation of the -e ,J following offices to the newly constructed Civic Center (I level building) located at 13125 SW Hall Blvd_ Tigard, Oregon.' LOCATION CURRENT ADDRESS ESTIMATED MOVE DATES City Hall offices (2 floors) 12755 SRS Ash Avenue, Tigard 3/22,& 3/24 'police Department 9020 SW Burnham Street, Tigard 4/9 City Library : 12568 SW Main Street, Tigard 4/7 — ;4/14 The following criterion will be used to decide ' which move consultant's estimate to accept for ,the relocation efforts. Besides the usual information noted in your quoties (i.e. number of hours, men, trucks, etc.) please address the following issues. 1 Submit a list of moving consultant's last 10 office move estimates and final actual cost on ;obs completed. Submit .contact person's name and phone number for, reference check by City. Also explain what claims, if any, were filed against your company as a result of any of the 10 moves. 2. Police &` Library Move Information: L41 list all experience the moving consultant and moving crews have had with previous- library and police department, or emergency; service organization, moves; Ltj explain in detail tow you would ".handle' the :Hove for the library and police departments; and LS1 what;:special concerns need to be addressed with these departments? 3. What computer and copier companies authorize you to move their equipment? h. Detail the type of origin and destination services you perform. 5. What is the cost for the following materials; moving boxes tape labels, etc. 6. What staff training will be supplied by consultant? (Specify amount of time needed, ;number of sessions planned, & who should attend.) 7. How 'much insurance is carried by the moving company for property and personal liability? Submit copy of insurance documentation. (This is not to be confused with coverage of City's materials being moved, but is the { insurance you carry for damage done to buildings, etc.) S. The City has ammunition, highway flares, fire extinguishers, etc. which are considered explosi.vefcombustable.' Is there a way to have one truck. load of this type of material transported by your crews? If so, what additional insurance coverage can be obtained and at what cost, WouldtheT City of Tigard's or the moving company's insurance 'company cover this situation? �.. S. Submit any additional information you feel. would assist the City in making `tt _a decision. lw/3t 414 MOVE CONT'RACT'OR INTERVIEW QUESTIONS — 3113!86 Page I of 2 .c n Mover's Name City Staff Initials 1. From what location will charges be imposed for your office moving crew? R , 2. please exp1min the charges for the f0110Wing itWyls: Packing sja were any costs included in the bid amount (i.e. library books, desk breakdowns,', etc.)? g k Delivery of supplies — were costs included in the bid amount? Staff training — were costs included in the bid amount? 3. Tease emplailm .7 ®-` caqPwg usQs 'v tmin Or instruct tka City staff before the move begins, (amount os time spent?); de F r- 4. Hca bang to YOU estinmta it will take your crew to move the exaalosivQs? (will you use 2 men and I truck?) Did amici i il- Q �e „- tb� �� If , so, will your -time estimate change since the City has no elevator available? ., 6. Tha City quirra Ow smfo lotmkwd in tt a computer rem to ba awwad dowry the bmck stairwell. Does this pose a problem to you? 7. What type of protection will be provided for the new buildin s/floorirq during the move by your company? in :ghat locations? k MOVE CONTRACTOR INTERVIEW QUESTIONS - 3/13/86 Page 2 of 2 theS. Explain t a 'last gaaar. What was � he Occurasm'Q the claim for, were all claims settler, howlong does it take to clear the average claim. b �g` L. 9. ",?AVG you jam moves in the last three year�ffi'? ($15,000 �) what �. was the actual cost .compared to 'the estimate given? 1O. P1oasQ answer the f-01Lmsima Library a questions spQcific&llyf Ms � possiblR. retail your origin and destination services performed for the Library moue. 4k S How do you plan to time the move. (What are your, men doing during the 8 hour period when hooks are riF.i=.y How do you propose utilizing your equipment during the move? (totes or gondolas do you have enough of them for efficient packing?) How tong would it take one of your staff to pack 1 gondola? Now long would is take your staff to load all gondolas? Does your estimate include 'library hook packing by your staff? Now much longer would you est,.,. to it would take non-professional movers to pack the library books? 11.. After the Move Is Completed, hoo long .11, it take to Fmaent a bi.111 to �. . thea pity for Y= tlhat 'type of payment terms do you require? lwl9505 9 f 1 is U. S. NATIONAL BANK OF OREGON , Lod 36 and'Southeasterly 5' of Lot 29 Summer Bills Park Tigard, Oregon, 97223 � February 19, 1935 i i 9 f f. 3 4^ g. YOUNGER & ASSOCIATES Richard I' Bauer x Joe Cosi; Real Estate AtTrais_rs(a1('i e.onsrittrarrts Nancy J.)ones Carolyn M.Nichols � February 19, 1985 Ralph W.Younger i File No. 85012E i- U.S. NATIONAL BANK OF OREGON Real Estate Loan Services I°-8 €( Portland, Oregon 97204 },. ATTENTION. Ms. Jill Worrell REFERENCE: Subject Property Described As: Lot 36 and Southeasterly 5' of _Toot 29 Summer Hips Park, City of Tigard, OR 97223 Census Tract Map Reference: 0319.02 Washington County Map Account No: 1S-1--34CB-38010,3801 Taxes: Assessed at $12,400 •- Current S266.50 (Interest Unpaid) Zoned: R-4.5 - SFR, 4� Units/Acre (7,500 sq.ft. 'ea.) - Dimensions are best revealed by the attached plat map. Approximately 4.03 "Acres .Total. ,-. Dear his. ><9orrell: s The subject property is located in a suburban setting of the City of Tigard. Topography is territorially rolling with open areas and sorne wooded pickets. The open, low density areas of Scholls/Sherwood-Cooper Mtn/Bull Mtn. lie westerly of the subject, while the higher density residential neighborhoods Of Tigard lie east, north and south. The majority of these neighborhoods , were developed 15 to 25 years ago, There are some newer l=ocket.. subdivisions in the subject's market demand vicinity. These "pockets" consist of medium quality demand dwellings, One of these subs is Glacier Lake- lying directly NW of the subject; another is Merestone, lying irmiediately southeast of the subject. These two subjects front along a named, recognized, active creek known as Summer Creek. The subject, property occupies this creek and gu.11ey/ washe of the creek bed. This creek and washe is a boggy marsh-wetlands approximatly 450' in width runninq northwest to southeast through the area., 'and is dpressed sc?Me 6, to i 10' below surrounding street grades and homesites along its banks. As has bonen stated, the subject occupies this creek and creek bed. In fact, the subject is 100% in these wetlands (excpet_ing the 25+5 ft. access strip) (see attached special identified Flood Hazard Area Napo) The subject's Skyline Building 2041 S.W. 58th Suite 20013 Portland, Oregon 97221 (503)297-1363 � U.S. NATIONAL BANK OF OREGON Ms. Jill Worrell Page Two File No. 850126 t location within the flood hazard boundary negates any future potential to be realized from the residential zoning regulationscurrently applied to the subject_ It is not feasible, now or in the future, to dike, tile, attempt to divert the creek and fill the subject in order to;produce re- sidential homesites.' The;resultant cost spread over the developed lots would be prohibitive, not recoverable at sale. Further, acording;to the i Tigard City Engineer's Office, the 25+5 ft, access strip belonging to the 1 . subject is inadequate for public access to developed'homesites (50 ft. required minimum) and is currently under a posted zoning violation because r' no lot-Eine adjustment was filed with the city at the transfer of:this 5 ft. strip form Lot 29. It should be'noted'that this violation is minimal in°nature and should be easily corrected through the City of Tigard develop- f__ ment of land/planning. ' The physical nature of the subject property is baggy-marsh-wetlands. Standing water and swampy soil characteristics make the subject unwalk able unless waterproof footwear is used. Due to these conditions,' the .. subject's utility and desirability and thus, it's demand, are extremely limited. Some sales of "non-buildable" parcels of land were located in Tigard, Port- land and Hillsboro. These were cash sales ranging in price from $2,000 to $7;000. However, these parcels were designated as non-buildable due to zoning regulations, lack of utilities, or lack of septic approvals. No sales or offerings could be found reflecting similar circumstances to the subject_ valuation for a potential sale under conditions as have been outlined is felt to be arbitrary,and will greatly depend on the needs and internal { policy decisions of your firm. Thus, we respectfully submit that there are four (4) distinct possible courses of action to follow: 1) Provide for a contractor to dike, tile, divert the creek and fill the Faulk of the subject to allow development under current zoning. However, due to the engineering, jurisdictional involvement and costs, this appears to be the least likely procedure to follow. e 2) Engage a representative to approach the subject's neighbors along its northeasterly bank (bots 29 through 35) in an attempt to illicit a sum of money ($500 to $1,000) from each owner to provide a common recreational area enjoyed and share-owned by all. Again, due to the physical conditions that now exist on the subject, it appears unlikely that this method could be accomplished. The subject is not suitable for basic human recreational activities (ball-play, picnicing, child- rens play, etc.) . Further, any use enjoyed by the neighbors of the subject (dog run area, bird refuge, etc.) is already there now with- out payment. 1 a X3.5. NATIONAL BANK OF OREGON Ms. Jill Worrell Page Three File No. 850125 3) Allow the property to revert to the state for unpaid tames and simply write off the loss incurred. T7 4) As -the older tax lots along this creek washe are owned by entities :. of the state, ;county, city and school district (chose that are privately held have been designated as registered recreational land greenway common areas serving ..pocket" subdivisions) , establishing , � r a value, possibly the assessment of $12,400, and dedicate by deed to the City of 'Tigard (or other interested entity) the subject as - recreational/wetlands/parklands', thus: allowing the contributory write off. This course of action would appear to result in a speedy solu- tion and act to minimize 'further expenditures by your firm. If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to cal].. Sincerely, StQUN ER & IATES JOE AOS A / 'xrais r 7 AILPH W. YOUNGER Review Appraiser Enclosures � z r , r E �y lk' 4-Aol -7 s u n c 't in I C . C' t� rl:nr,n s �.:..i ! my y,+, : ,�� w.•d, �a s. ��' w { •�-}__,._.so-tttr "' �� , �' r' 3'` t..... e 140 Sft-i(}its Ag 11, 1M GTON d!co C SKS ! 'r I § , of •u .4V `c �_s._ ��+ !s �� r. �' 'G u i'�`atL` 7 brd I• cn ! i +� � �a��G J.. `'.} sn y �y -L MTN {'-'_•_y, Gi �..._ • .—....L '» � I 4 CNt in�• S:n Gl.D .'! � � GM'vryya�Y j I _Z7 ^!S d}- .4 •an�F��- ♦,,iI. zx 71 '41r h 3Y vS p,yq�S9� .Sx LIN �e CER&/:$SOC'6o. !�-.•-�+,.,.•-•..�.......,,,,,_�,... p ':� ,= ,-.x�,a �,"�,^�r' x—,x s;ti:=. �-.ia,3� fi•..�...^ww. . : �s�`'v.s` utiu.- s>r�isa�M.�.., 4�.,�:s5�`ve, rt -. 4 �e u s ' s� i x u�i s is krz` ji�y S ,bra`• � Z f _ `�`�"p'ti�r zr;a„" x',r �' '„'.. r� ��3v -'*Y,{•*�x�� ,. ..a;`"it�.r', �y X ..a�� ,��}rk+�� i Ya � �, 'Frsa"�� piC'�4' TM�� t°.-d��:��.-. a,p�.5x� ;�,yam;r� ;, fin' '5>z � -��`'h'• ,c�Z+ -t ,- -.�"r�'�:+' F��.��:s4=�` '1.'< s �-x ,i�`�ta�y� �::r "�. -<3 acus„K'^�Lt-�'� �3�.��s sr. ..s-.._ Y . a?A�„�4`,ib's _ �4.f^Ir:*r'x .: �t:_ '7""`^,.r�� .a.�..�e t:�''��'hz,.,�E x+.. .4,s..:v �•i�7'3.�.�� _"��r �,�",3t`� �„r '`�-,s�'M�` k �.'.,�yA�rJa�. +. � ,..��i '.;g,.`'� �.:;f"--'E'.R`i'' :..:-. - s,� �;� `�-„ y .t'"'� yd�_. ��-s. .r .� �:' r* �4'•s-r •.,�'A1'.�-�z. .r�,:��>ti'�C'+,r�,�r� `^`;'�'z.>,"'�yp��.".�,a�' R�',at } if��f--�'!�`,'P �'�`�4ys��, A� '^sr.�.,�44-,;.,�3`�-_� t '.S ,� u.�, .�..:,.. •.n#,�,.�,..z.�7a'� e+� . 'x�':'.+ode..�e. 9�ae�•,°..�...��,;�t.z"ry:.sxa,.�iy.�•�..�'��r:.m�.;a' i 49 Q cy la Ta a°^•w.•..mg�__ � �.,.0�•,0....4o®w�qp 4��vt1t''�`��+•L m rwu � (�� lug kv i l, b aaa aaa aaa �. �s '. g'N C ia09 a 1$69® 2 e S90 l ,! •l y '!" rp�1 is 44 tb '1' 4 � '�,7? ,�bpi'ffi� (. '�,rv�. isD 3° s�fla� b• •s °® F: r e�;4 r4 `ty�_..J. � r may']'•°i ry '.a. ��,�,•,�.� � tlS��`° '� � Y r r $ X ir� 4i�L3� •Y A ,� 4p a 1 •tea..�� p�BiD 46 a �lo� taSSy i µ �`*......m.._ YO'sJ&tiiG£Ft&faaSeA3'M5--.—....:— . . `. NO F77 F' 1�AI IFZCA PE .....' RALPH W. YOUNGER 4 Ralph Younger was born in Medford, Oregon in 194 . After graduating 1 from Medford Sr. High School in 1962, Ralph attended the University �. I o£ Oregon, receiving a bachelor of Science degree with majors in business finance and real estate appraisal, as well as securities and inErestment analysis. Since graduating in 1957, he has,resided ly involved in the £ee appra in Portland and has been continuousisal . , business. £' EDUCATION Graduate: University of Oregon, Bachelor of Science Degree in Business Administration, 1967. Seminars B The Society of Real Estate Appraise_rs jA Real'E.state Courses & Semi Y Course 101 Society of Real Estate Appraisers 1968 Course 201 Society of Real Estate Appraisers 1971 Feasibility Analysis-Society of Real Estate Appraisers x.972 Narrative Report Writing-Society of Real 1972 w Estate Appraisers Management of an Appraisal office-Society raisr�rsf 1973 Real Estate App Mortgage Equity Analysis-Society of Real 1975 t Estate Appraisers other courses taken include land use, agriculture and ._ soil classification, energy efficiency, commercial- �:' industraiil site location and numerous others. i € Real Estate Experience Si Staff Appraiser - Carl Trowbridge & Assoc.. Fee Appraisers 2957-59 Portland, Oregon Vice president pacific Research Assoc. Feasibility & Appraisal . . Port'i-and, Oregon 1969-1970 Partner Younger & Neu Real Esate Appraisers 1970-1982 Portland, Oregon Owner & Associates Real Estate Appraisers Portland, Oregon 11/82 - YC�Ut�IGFR dt ASSl��:IATEfi _•_._ .-- w----�- h t t Ralph W. Younger' M License Certification Real Estate Broker State of Oregon Professional Or -ani�zation _ Society of Real estate Appraisers ~ Candidate for SRPA Designation Teach�,n�3 Q` alifications t q Instructor: Meal Estate Principles, Portland Community College 1371 Instructor: Real Estate Appraisal I, II, Clackamas Corr�tnuni College x973-1977 M Instructor: Residential; Appraising 1 Day Seminar Executive Seminars/northwest Center Portland, Oregon >.: Various locations in northwest for a,. professional education, 1978-1980 ., Seattle A In additions Nlr. Younger has conducted seminars for „ anizatians including the following: ' n.=rerous erg -1980-19BI American institute of Banking Portland Board of Realtors 1960 ` Morthly meeting Memorial Colisium I � Cronin & Caplan - Realtors 198', Art Lutz & Co, - Realtors 1961 i Oregon'State Bar Family & Juvenile Las Section, Spring Conference 1362 t. Sunri%,er Conference s t Eaiaerf I�1.i,tness Testimony Mr. Younger has testified on numerous ocoauto_ s�.nce 1970 for a variety of governmental agencies and private client, in both Oregon and Washington= i yOUNGER&ASSOCIATES- t T. fr NANCY J. JONES grin Received her bachelor of a 'ts degree from Washington State University, mal g in Pine arts. She spent ninet Federal Bank, three years at Farwess which were t° sales for Fazkat's subsidiary, Jones' experience has been the appraisal spent in the Loan Division, one s alternate energy roved and is lic r and;five years as .a staff appraiser. Ms, of residential and tato-four family dwellings', She is L'1+IMA app raise by the State of Oregon Real Estate Division. Ms. Jones is also ensed to app of Real Estate Appraisers, presently working a candidate memlaer of the Society z SRA designation. to corplete her a -0-9-COSTA f Since 1971, Joe has been the senior staff appraiser at American Savings and K )inc Association in 'Portland, and assistant chief appraiser at litsthe downtown r sisal background in office of the Oregon State Department of Veteran's Affairs until its closure due to the state budget crisis. Joe zosertyan eand�has talso had his own inde•- x residences, farms, and small income Property pendent contracting business for over years. MICHAEL P. MC NAS Graduated from Oregon State University with ca bentrat oachelor f science 3 years of i wit:l an accounting Inc.' business and technology ears for Stan Wiley, Inc. as public accauaiting work, Mr. McNaughton became affiliated with Stan Wiley as a real estate sales assaciaGfficeemanagedr. Mr. McNaughton is a licensed both a sales associate and an g appraisal experience has been real estate broker in the State of Oregon. His primarily single family residential. { FALpH W. YOUNGER h a d from the University of Argon with bachr worked for 2or of �years eas3atstaff Graduated finance. 4ir. Younger spas specialty in real estate and ,,oi,;,ge;-& Neu, Real appraiser at Carl Trowbridge and Associates before forming r 0 1970. Mr. Younger appraised all types e prop- Estate Appraisers in, ,eptemir & the residential department erty as a partner in Younger & Neu and built end ran in November, 1982. Younger & Associate of thes firm prior to forming ' . is an associate mem- ;ar. Younger is a real estate.broker iaand is�Ft�MA app roved by nearly ber of the Society o£ Real Estate Appraisers,er has extensive app aisa?_ teaching ; every lender in the Portland area. Mr. Young family r' experience including'Portland and Clackamas Community Colleges, the American institute of Banking, thA Portland Board of Realtors, The Oregon State Bar, le law section grad others, in addition, Mr. 'Younger is qualified as an and juveni n and does a considerable amount of work ex witness in Oregon and Wasningto requiring court testimony fox various 't�ortland area attorneys, f a l- YOUNGER s� ASSOCIX ES Richard V 8auzr, Poe Geta Rnil F_atide A r aru;_.ens=uid CmisLdtaart; r Nancy 1.Jont5 OL'ALIFICATIONS Carolyn NJ Nichols Ralph W.Younger Younger & Associates is a full service fee appraisal and consulting firm, experienced in virtually all types of real estate appraisals. The team at Younger & Associates has a proven track record of service to a variety of clients including :first and second iwrtgage lenders, employee re- location companies, realtors, attorneys, governmental agencies, builders, de- velopers, insurance companies and many others. Younger & Associates is small enough to provide a very personalised service ' and large enough to handle a heavy volume of appraisals. Younger & Associates is dedicated to one comm goal -_- providing you with the reset complete and the fastest appraisals possible. The appraisal staff at Younger & Associates is summarized as follows. RICHARD P. BUAER Received his degree in Business Administration from Portland State University, naj sting in Real Estate Finance. ter. Bauer spent several years as a staff real estate appraiser for U. S. National Bank of Oregon and nearly five years prinva,rily as a commercial and industrial appraiser for Younger G Neu heal Estate Appraisers,. Mr. Bauer.'s appraisals are accepted by various FNMA and second mrtgage le-nd- C:lta., c.xan:p,z:iiI2u' privat-v '311ee 'rjovuraa wilt.41 clivaata. War.. B auur 11w VH.MA approved and is licensed to appraise by the State of Oregon Real Estate Division t. and is an associate member of the society of Real Estate'Appraisers. ; LAROLYN NINICHOIS Received her bachelor of arts degree and attended graduate school at the University of Oregon. She worked five years as a paralegal for Tooze, Kerr, et a!, Attorneys-At-Lam, and four years as a staff appraiser for Younger & Neu, Peal Estate Appraisers. Ms. Nichols appraised all types of properties with an area of specialty in small plexes and income property consultation. -: During the 'past two years, she has specialized in mortgage appr«isinx; and employee relocation appraisals She has also qualified to be an FHA appraiser. Ns. Nichols is licensed to appraise by the State of Oregon Real Estate Division. :x �p Skyline liuildin; 2041 S.W. 58th Suite 200B, Portland, Oregon 972.21 (503)297-1363 R d nuarp 30 1916 EFARD b�fz�SF34 sC r�a�COUMM OREGFON George Mclan '1°?250 SW rummer Street Ti-Sard, OR 97223 I3 d CTz Dedication of i�nd at d�aminercreat janiumy, 15, 1986 "meeting the .City of Tigard Parks .and gec+^t>�tioss Boar voted. to consi der acceptance of dedication of approximately 4.5 acres to the ,City to 3iggrd for u$a, as Open Space.. e Park Board requested that the �,' ' ,and t neighborhood residents be -,t an oppol:ta�ni t a evi.ee and colralelkt oML the ded.icati.ou. a Operations Supexi.nte dent has review aye --�prcaaa� a a ma a- e�nce Ftandpoint and determ_ued that the hest use of the�� I&Ad would he to leave it in -ts, natural state which requires its tl.e if any r maintenance,:---- -- E location mai �rhith outitnes the property, The next Park. and �R&cr: on �Qaa� meet�mg is ached led for Febru ry 20 1.986. The Board wou..�d 'apureciate neighbofhood comments on the dedication in writing prior to tha P Pzee tin, a c{rfe if yuan have any',questioas please feel free to call rye at 639-4171. 5i f 1 s Elizabeth A. Newton Senior Planner Z�£ t CT -ba/2333r) .4171 D"ORMON 97223 , PH:e33 s x 4 M CITY'OF' T'IGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA 0F: March 24, 1986 AGENDA ITEM 0. d DATE`SUBMI'T ED: March 19, 1986 PREVIOUS ACTION: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Trai.rinci 7 Request fear Bob Jean and Joh t'Tart,_!_n PREPARED BY: JoMartin T 1986 N.W. 'ReSs orial C,_t, Icr. i onf REQUESTED BY: DEPARTMENT-HEAD? -OE.: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: POLICY ISSUE Council requests to see training requests greater than $100 to decide whether to authorize attandance at the training opportunity. INFORMATION SU MARY The annual Northwest Regional City Management Conference is scheduled for April 1, through April 4, in Ashland, Oregon. The conference is developed for city' administrators and their assistants. Both Bob Jean and myself request authorization to attend the conference since often more than one topic is presented simultaneously. We have found in the past .that by the two of us splitting and covering two different sessions and afterwards sharing with each other' the information as it applies to Tigard, that both of us gain reore and the City's gains are greater. In addition, we will each share with other managers things we have learned in our different experiences. In the past the regional conferences have been very beneficial in gaining ideas from other jurisdictions which we have used in Tigard. It is a chance to learn from of-her's mistakes. It is also a time to work on current state issues and the potential impacts on the cities. Our department's 1985--86 budget appropriation for training includes costs for this conference. The current balance regaining for 'training and travel is i $1078. The training costs which include registration �`or both of us is $190. Travel and subsistence is estimated to be $497. The total of $687 leaves us underexpanded for the year. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Approve the request for Bob Jean and Joy Martin to attend the 1786 Northwest Regional City Management Conference. 2. Approve one person to attend. 3. Deny the training request. SUGGESTED ACTION 1. Motion to approve the training request for Bob Jean and Toy Martin to attend the 1986 Northwest Regional City Management Conference, 1160p CITY OF i'1CARD,` OREGON COUNCIL AGE:WA ITgi SUP�t�iRY ACENDA 4`F March 24_ 1986 AGEMD ITEM #: DATE SUBMITTED March 17. 1986 PREVIOUS ACTIO%: NONE ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Main Street' Paras Maintenance Pr�osal PREPARED BY: El izabaeth A.Wewtun _ REQUESTED BY: Recamm.' of Perk �3oard DEPARTMENT READ OX. � L� CITY ADMINISTRATOR: POLICY ISSUE should the City Col In accept a one year donation of maintenance for the Parks on Bain Street? t B INErRi�ATIOW SUMARY At the February 20, 1986 Park and Recreation Board meeting Les Mathers from Grounds Maintenance of Oregon presented a proposal to donate maintenance an both 'Liberty Park and the small park at the Southwest end` of Main Street for one year. At their February 20, 1386 meeting the Park and Recreation Board voted to support the project. A copy of the specific proposal and,schedule from Far. Fathers is attached. Also is a memo from staff which addresses Cdr, Mathers' proposal. and a memo from Jerry,McMurlin 'which addresses Mr. Mathers' requests. The 'City :Council should review Mr. Mathers' proposal, take specific action on the sign requested and direct Jerry MCWurlin to enter into an ;agreenient with Mr. Mathers to provide the services under Citi supervision as directed, by Council. b ALTERNATIVESCONSIDERED 1. Approve the proposal as submitted by ter. Mathers 2. Approve Mr. Mather's proposal with modifications. 3. Deny the,proposal. I SUGGESTED ACTION Approve Mr. Mothers request, take specific action on the sign request and direct t 3erYry McMurlin to enter into an agreement with Mr, Maiher3. EAN:bs196 ;4 u; i 4 .yr k MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: City Council March 17, 1986 FROM: Planning Staff o maintain the parks on SW Main Street SUBJECT: Les Mather ' proposal t On February 20, 1986, Mr. Les Mathers from Grounds Maintenance of Oregon, a ;etzger resident, presented a proposal to donate maintenance on Liberty Park 3Lnd the small park at the southwest end of iEaira Street.'' Mr. Maaddditition, they proposed that his company meed and clean the beds and mow the lawns. Tai a + will spread barkdust .if the City will provide it. He will> also check the sprinkler systems and is qualified to make repairs ,but asks that the City pay be required. He inquired about putting up a. small sign for any parts that may with his company Warne on it and whether or not he would be able to park vehicles on the sidewalk while his crews are working in the parks. The Park Board voted to approve the project and directed staff to work with Mr. Mathers on the details. Curtis Spaan, Parks Crew Chief, met with n 1 Mathers, the week of March 3, 1.986 to discuss the details' of . sschedulingand and maintenance duties. Mr. Mathers presented the attached schedule to Curtis at that tinge. The schedule met with Curtis' approval but Curtis requested that Mr . Mathers submit an agreement outlining Mr. Mathers responsibilities and the City's responsibilities. Mr. Mathers submitted the attached letter to Curtis outlining his proposal dated March 14, 1986. The letter includes a schedule which lists the type of services proposed. The letter also requests certain items from the City. The attached memo from Jerry iMcf1urlin indicates that the 4 units of barkdust is already budgate.d for in the parks budget. In addition, the parks budget allocated money for most of the anticipated irrigation repairs. The City's' park crew will be able to continue weekly litter pick up at both parks as part of their work program. Mr. Mathers also requested that he be allowed :to install a sign at Liberty 'Park that indicates that Grounds Maintenance of Oregon is donating maintenance services. The size of the sign proposed is 3 ft. X d ft on 24" x4" posts. Chapter 18.114 of the Community Development Codo sets fee the requirements forth ts for signs. Signs of this type r 18.114 howeve the following type of signs specifically addressed in Chapte rio not require a sign permit but must conform to all other requirements contained in Chapter 18.114. signs advertising exclusively the sale, rental or ieaue 01 Wry...-srs on which the signs are located; ( a Memorial signs or tablets, names of buildings and dates of erection, if either cut into any masonry surface or constructed of bronze or other incombustible material; similar(3) Signs denoting the architect, engineer, contractor, and infos^i3latian concerning a subdivision or development and placed on the construction -ite ( Sirens denoting one time clearance sales of hoeiseholcl goods (e.�• a garage sale); (b) Sims, promoting or opposing a candidate or measure` in a specific election; (6) Ideological signs; (7) Signs of tempararyrsature advertising events or products for sale for nonprofit organizations. (8� his title shall prevent the erection, location or Nothing in t " Construction of signs on private property where such; erection, construction or location is requirQd by any law or ordinance nor shall any public agency 4r utility be prohibited from erecting signs on private property when otherwise permitted. x (g Pothing in this 't�i.tle shall present the erection, location or cprivnstruction of directional or instructional signs �n guide aov properly when such signs are solely designed to direct or g to instruct pedestrians. or vehicular traffic awhile an the parcel of real property an which the signs are located, mo sign permit or fee shall be required for such signs. The Council should determine whet!-ter or not the sign as proposed by @°r•, gta%hers should be allowed and should be except from the sign permit requirement as Sign of a teminor ary' nature advertising services donated to a nor9-profit or-ganization. Mr. Mathers has also included a copy of proof of liability insurance. IA 7 e n ti _ x i• i' w i# ikt Ih�t .::i. •• Y. �� Y s" • atm ~• ♦ ► i •- ■ t �, L ' • � kir''£ i + Trnj • '" fat, r`r5• tie '..w. ♦• .• r+. 2i'. i moi. yF f 9§u+^ v ' � ... c "�. _:.,, ..A � •��,.-� �';, ��_�a,x�}} "�'"Fs'�7%xr•�' _n.r�;��,+�{rra•,�"'' ,.;f�£� g,bx�=r�� i ;1�, �h;�:�"„��. ,.�' ��f�'�y��”,'�'�� t� � iw icy-fi=5.:e'c e�`� F=. E ,''�. ,.a .a,` �.. � a� ,a •,�•.., .r _- r� .;Y°,n��-.��t`�fi.�-��3:�a w+."... -;,,.s+�t�c3a=;°- ti's g"��ia it'll:�av �.v •r.'^. } twa N=r.� �, �.: ��.. 9��_T 4n 's a_ar � ,n e ,�,-k�_�1. 4. � ;F�Y;r`Z�'Stw�a$ �•*�,,,�ur ..,,r_-;� ,�� "��r7>�.y.�' y5�# ,brt� ie'�+.��;...� ��,. f f.5r 'S��x +�-.�r 1"�.:`, c-^K°,7xgs. •� ,.�s;�rr'�r. ,N7rg;.�'>$p° �ss1�..��`'r._s:i+h�'x.t.: irk*. w��Siu{' ..+a,+`�`c,�ar+°i r` - .�° ��xk -ra�`3.'in;� ,.�r,�� ,. _ � w.`vN �a'A ��, - '� ..._ '� s�� a-,Tcz..,d+,T �.-fi."-��. A�•%t �.'�"�." ��gip• d 1 s,. r �l.•i. ��` 3' Imo''.:3=''�s _.. 1- ��' ;s�'a �.•. .., �:. �, t�s��-s s� �,£� :r�r-�. s "-`f„��-v';�.?k�,k�� ay,�,srFs'`��,'.��-� x;K._F�'T -�' k>•�: *kx {{p^J X�C 1 q Uz t K a4�'k w? Y t 4� Tr Tf' Y ry� C y-«.h rYfy."z; Y:gt..i ,maw mow.,,;'� 9l '.:"*. `, F ,y �'•F. s ., +y2sX , , „*fir'' ._ re ;-: �Nv .3 1;...-. ro r .,r. .� ,-5'� r ' P �'g&=-s 3 t+ . +ots ..d,_:,,�,� ��'4> �_ . �"d55 34t•^aP�,.= S. xr� m tt ,. yd.. �, S� s . ,,,./u ' x . Ir-, r,,t*.a t„ .:�;: i .-r ri ' 'i.� h,.i`.�- - az 7r �t� �. T-W. s IRM N E M 0 R A N D ti M O. Liz Newton CIIYOFTIFARD E " FROM: Jerry McNurlin � iR�AS�iS�{ N COUNT d.OREf.7 SUBJECT: Main Street Parks R L". DATE:o 3/18/86 x. on the letter from Grounds Maintenance of Oregon, they have asked the City of Tigard to provide them with up to four units of bark mulch, and if there is any repair charges of over fifty dollars in materials on the Irrigation System, the City would provide the supplies and materials. This will not cause any problem with'Park Maintenance budget CC: Bill Monahan Curtis Spa.n File i 42756 S.W.1aSFE P.O.BOX 2:3537 TPC,AF'€?,Gt'IECaC1N 57223 €"H:639-4171 f;t` Grounds maintenance of Oregon 7520 S.W.CHESTNUT ST. TIGARD,012 97225 Mr. Cu'r .°_ : ;awn/Supero;sor March 14, 1486 Parks llc,,,.Lrtment City of Tigard r Dear Mr. Spawn, This letter is to formalize our previous discussions regarding Liberty and Main St. Parks. I am offering the services of my firm; Grounds Maintenance of Oregon, for ;the perfQxmance of Annual Landscape Maintenance at these two parks, ' atno charge to the City of 'Tigard. I have enclosedan Annual Task Schedule which lists the type and quani.ty of services proposed. In add tion. to routine maintenance items, I also offer ;Labor and Chemicals` required for 'clear—. up and BarkMulch application to the planter beds at Liberty Park.'. My only requirements of the City: are as follows; 1) Provide approx. 4 Units (30 Cu. Yds. ) of BarkMulch for Liberty Park. 2) Continue weekly Litter Pick-Up at both parks. 3) Kepair by the City or Reimburse my firm for any required Irr- igation Repairs over $50.00 at either park. 4} Allow my firm to install a sign at Liberty Park that indicates that we are 'donating 'our services. The size of this sign shall be 3 rt, X 4 Ft., , set on 2 4" X 4" posts. The sign shall read 9PLandscape Services Donated by Grounds Maintenance of Oregon". For my firm's record keeping and Tax purposes, I ask that the City acknowledge thatthe value of these services, from March 17,- 1986thru March 1987 is a total of $2955.00. Finally, I want the City to know that my firm is fully and properly insured.: SAIF is our Workmens Compensation carrier, State Farm handles our Vehicular insurance and I have enclosed a Certificate ofInsurance for Liability and Property' ,Damage. I look forward to providing our services which shall greatly improve the appearance of these two parks. I feel the people of Tigard deserve attractive and safe parks. Si . erely, Letiers/ er Greounds Maintenance of Oregon Encl. 2 LDM/cam L Y �c Y s• p • • , a �• � '{ t • R y �i�j� Fs 73 •' 1 1 � � •- 'Y{xi'C : t� �x F�S. ,,-, a to _. - �z �„ .,,_-y .mi�. ��.�.r...u,^�.a�'..i. 4�.snti'.x�a*,�3kxj �i ,^�n«# ;�w�.t` 's�$•�`°-'-�';4:`�4. �` o''l�+t, ,� � ��'�+'�..:$ ,,.r-Y.. .# -,S�#',,-�,,r �;. '�` 'tr ,S'F�� -2^XS:'� '..3 4r �`�' ,,:t7 x<"^.:�'ro�i•�•� � _ ��*...S'�,;wi•� ,Y'�s�rr `F.�T;:. ':f fi" t -s'" ,iYR,,try -��";Ir}��:'. w.�xkG r,'"�. "�,:'Yks' .'.:.z °l}.'.. :.r�+•A'=A'�.s�a L ',�r�,a'.",r+ s�L�isn.<��A Yrt•�;;,; ..� ,�s„`z,"3,� �'i�'k'.:;' :i�'°�.-sr ..,old r��`_ p' '�' s..�„v:�rxs -•-3�.nS� ,.i-; �b��•g .•��'g ��.�.�2x'� ea�.t��, ;;�=.'...�� :F�.,��_a ��:.s�ss� �3,:L '�-�"�c�..,��+ �'�� a�a:;,,z��`�' SlipISSUE DATE(MMIDDIYY) n ' 3/7/86 PRODUCES] THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER:THIS CERTIMCATE DOES NOT AMEND, Association Insurance Management:.Inc. EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE.AFFORDED BY THE.POLICIES BELOW. F.J. Box 1047 Hillsboro, Or. 97123 CAPA5,3 IES AFFOR l i � G C`i� COMPANY A LETTER Travelers COMPANY � - LETTER INSURED _ COMPANY Grounds Maintenance LETTER � 7520 STA' Chestnut St. COMPANY D -- Tigard, Or. 97223 LETTER COMPANY LETTER:: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT POLICIES OFiNSURANC£LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUEOTO THE.INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT,TERM OR CONDITION Or ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT CT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE 161AY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTA.N,THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS,EXCLUSIONS,AND CO=dDI- TIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. 'JLICY EFFECTIVE POLICY EXPIFV.TION LIABILITY LIMITS IN THOUSANDS ± it PE'OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER DATE(w..1.1,10 O LATE(•.1 RODIYO t�CN AGGREGATE IBM Cf:CURRENCE GENERAL LIABILITY —� BODILY CGMPREHENSIVE FORM J � INJURY $ PP VASES OPERkTIONS PROP£Rn UNDERGROUND" � DAMAGE � EXPLOS!ON&COLLAPSE HAZARD €-----+-- PROOUCTS!C&APLETED OPEtATIO"IS CONTRACTUAL 650706I471AC0F$5 8/1/85' 8/1/86 Cal araPo I,000 2000 NDEPEi GENT CONTRACTORS BRCM0 FOPIM PROPERTY DAMAGE PERSONAL i.RI:URY ! PERSONAL 9N URY �$5,000 AUTOMOEi1LE LIABILITY ( EtxLY INJuh'Y ANY AUTO ) (P'9-K%) PASS PALL OYMED AUTOS(RIV. .) KYatY d ALL O�VN 0 AUTOS lOThEF1 THAN) FF iPRIV.PASS. HIRED AUTOS PROPERTY s DAMAGE %19%'-(ANNEO AUTOS — G,'SnG.GE LIABILITY commNED w EXCESS L ASILiTY E#9 PC UMBRELLA FOR:9 COMBINED $ $ OTHER THAN U'ri9REI-A FORM STATUT.7RY YORKERS'COMPENSATION (EACH ACCiOE%) AND i (01SEASE-POLICY LIMIT) EMPLOYERS'LIABILITYt � - (DISEASE-EACH E WPLOYEE) OTHER DESCRIPTION OF OPERATION (LOC.RTIONSrVEHS('LESlSPECIAL ITEMS SHOULD ANY OF THE AnOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES OE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EX City Of Tigard d PIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL ENDEAVOR TO g MAIL.-J-0--DAYS S Ri-rTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE 4OLD09 NA -rl)TO THE Parks Dept. LEFT,BLIT FAR URE TO MAIL SUCH NOTICE SMALL EOWPOaE NO CZ1U1GATKWJ OR LIABILITY Or'ANY KIND UPON THE COMPANY,ITS AGENTS OR REPRESVNTATiVES. AUTHORIZs REPRESENTATIVE F'b - 3 MEMORANDUM �. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Mayor and City Council March 24, 1996 y 1 FROM: i._oreen Wilson �p ) SUBJECT: Council Attendance 'payment Attached is a copy of the attendance report for the 2986 first quarter payment. Plea. 'review this list and advise me of 'any errors, If I have not heatryl from you, a check will be ' cut this Friday reflecting the attendance shown laa1�5Q xA _.' i p ♦ h TIGARD CIT 4 COUNCIL MEETING ATTENDANCE..– ..1986 LENGTH OE MAYOR Pos. 1 Pos.##2 Psis.:#3 Pos. 4 MEETING TYPE MONT14 mom EDWARDS SCOTT BRIAN HOURSMIN JANUARY R M. 6 P P A P 2 HRS/45 MIN S.M. 10 P P A P' 3 HRS/- MIN S f 11 P P A P 3 HRS/30 MIN R.€'1. 13 P P A P 2 HRS/08 MIN R.M. 20 P P it34 €-' 3 HRS/05 MIN RIM.'* 28 P P P 2 HR WOO MIN, FEBRUARY R.fil. 10 P R P 2 :HRS/08 MINI 13 P P p2 HRS/35 MIS R.M. 1 e P P P 4 HRS/20 MIM R M. 24 P P P 2 ;iiRS/QO MIN MARCH R.M. 3 P P P 2'HRS/15 MIN R.M. 10 P P P 2 HRS/45 MTN S.(J.* ' 20 P P P HRS/ MIN R.M. 2 ' fI 40 ;2 HRS ca w ar i ar ` F TOTAL joint Meetings With Beaverton Council TMC 2.44 Requires Payment of $,5/meeting with a maxinjum of $180/quarter. ikTYi joust Meeting With Tigard school. District N-K- Scott Terminated Position ,on 1/15/86 } IN