The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 04/28/1986 IIGARO CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an REf,ULFlRME6TING-'AGENDA agenda item needs.-to sign un the appropriate u BUSINESS AGENDA sign—up sheet(s). : If no :sheet isavailable, is APRIL 28, 1986, 7:00 P.M. ask to be recognized by the Chair at the:.start FCMI,FR JUNIOR HIGH of. that agenda item. Visitor's agenda item; are. I 10865 SW WALNUT asked to be to 2 .minutos or less.. Longer matters iIGARO, OREGON 97223 can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either Lhe Mayor or r:ity.Administrator. 1. REGULAR MEEIING: _ 1.1 Call=To Order and Roll Call . 1.2. Pledge of Allegiance 13 Call To Staff and Council For Non-Agenda Items: Motion to approve �s .amended. 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (2 Minutes or Less, Please) 3. SION LODE EXCEPTION SCE 2-86 LANDMARK FORD NPO N 4 request by LANDMARK FOR for Council .review of a Planning Commission 4: 1 dr_mial of=a requost for:a sign code exception. Ree sign r-ode`.exceptian request was to-allow a fifth free-standing sign that is approximately r25, 111, tall and 151 square feet where one sign 70 square foot in area : and, 20' it, height is permiLLed. The property; is located at 12000 SW 66th Avenue (WCTM ZSI IAA lots 400 G 100: ..red W_'IM ISI 360D lots 4800, 4900, 5000, and 5100). U Public Hearing Opened ,- o Declarations Or Challenges u Sunvnation By Coemnonity Development SLaff o Public 'testimony.: Proponents, Opponen Ls, Cross ElIamenaLion 0Recommendation By-Cotsf ly Devaloptil Staff ` o' Council Questions Or Couxnent.s U Public Hearing Closed 0 : Consideration By Council k,. .. 4. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 2-86 ZONE, CHANGE 4-86 WHITE/WILHE_LM NPO N 2 A;recoesmondation by the Planning'Commission not to grant a request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Tow and Medium Density Residential to "t Neighborhood Commercial and a Zone Change from R-4.5 (Residential 4.5 units/acre) and R-12 (Residential, 12 'unats/acre) to C-N (Commercial - ' Neighborhood).on. property at .11730. 11780,11782, and 11784 SW Greenburg Road- (6,l ISI 350C lots 7500 6 7600), i t: . U Public Hearing openedr o 'Declarations Or Challenges 0 Summation'.By Community Development Staff o. Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents,. Cross Examination o Recommendation By Community Development Staff. 0 Council.Questions Or Comments - o Public Hearing Closed o Consideration By Council '.5. COMPREHENSl:VE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 3-86 ZONE CHANGE:ZC:5-86 NPO N'6 A recominendation by the Planning Commission Lo correct. the adopLed - Comprehensive. Plan and Zoning. Maps to change the Comprehensive Plan designation from Medium Density Residential Lo Commercial-General and thezoning;designation from R-•12.. (14ssdu lial 12 uniLs/acre.) to C--G (Commercial General) 'on Property located at 10900 SW McDonald Stro"t a; (WCTM 2SI IOAA lot.500); 'r> Public Hearing Opened U oeclarationsOr- Challenges o Summation By Community Development. Staff Q Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross Examination U Recommendation By Coemeeunity Developmn.nt Staff - ,0 Council.Questions Or Comn;cnis o Public Hearing Closed o Consideration By Council. 6. LOCAL-IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT - To Con3truct Sanitary Sewer Improvements in .the area of 74th Avenue and CherryDrive. - a Public.Hearing Opened. . o DeclarationsOrChallenges 0 _ Summation'ByProject Engineer o Public Testimony:-Proponents; Opponents, Cross Examination a. Recommendation ByProject,...Cngineer o Council Questions Or Commerlhs_r _ - o SPublic llearing,Closed `- o Consideration By;Council 01UN liL AGENDA -- APRIL 22, 1986 PAIS, 1 '^f 7. Locrit, 7Mi>R0VfHENf DIS iRICf - to Construct Sanitary Sewer Improvemants in the area of tooth Avenue and lr ez.Str,ent. o Public Hearing'Opened o Declarations Or Chaitertgtes u SununaLion By Project Engineer Q ' Public Testimony; Proponents, Opponi.nts.. Cross'Ex,smiria tion o Reco:unerdation By Project Engineer. 4,,, o ;Council Question% Or.Comments o Public Hearing Closed u Consideration By Counci.L 8. SIFE DESIGN REVICW SDR 6-06 . VARIANCE V 5-86 FI.RST INTERSTATE TRUST 3vPO q..;2 A request by the City Council to review'. the Community Development Director's decision to approve with: conditions a request ,to develop a - 6600 square foot retail/auto ser•vice'buildiny arid an automotive car wash and a::Variance to delete a.' Por-Lion of publir. sidewalk :along 'Center StreeL.and to:.allow a landscaped area of 13.5% where 15X 'is required. - the property �z Zoned C-G "(Co,mnerrc:ial General) and is...locaLed :at Lhe t : northwest corner of Pacific Highway and Creenburg Road .(WCTM 251 2AA lots 1000. 1001, and 1100). u Public; He-ring : o Declarations Or'.Challer,,jes n Summation By Community OevelopmenL .taft 'o >Public TestAmonyt ProponenLs, OpponenLs:, Cross Examination o Recommendation..By Ccsamurti Ly 0c,velopm,•nL.Staff u Council;.Questions Or 0imsiumts -a 'Public.Hearing Closed `o :Consideration BylCnunci-i 9 "URBAN AREA PLANNING AGREEME61l Community Development Director 1O. 'CONSENT AGk.NUA: These items :are considered: to be`routine. and may be enmcLed in One motion` without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion fur discussion and separate action. s'Mut ion to: 10.1 Approve Council Minutes April 14, 1966 10.2 Receive and Fila: Qk Cormunity Development Land Use Decisions b Monthly Departmental Reports - N&rch, 1586 y ) 10.3 Award;A - 1 ;:7J,vd/>rnhJ SID 11/05-..01 - $:!'' . 10.4 Approve-Revenunu r�6:Fees E.Charilos.Resolution No..- tib 10.5 Approve Co-nputer Purchases &.Authorize Contract Signatures 10.6 Approve OLCL License Application -- NowOuL1el. - Summit...Restaurant. 12180 SW Scholls Ferry-goad.; Tigard,-R Applicatiotr. 10.7 Approve Conditional Acceptance Beaver ,Bolt Street 6 Sewer Improveamnts - Resolution.No. 36-51 -. .11 NON-AGENUA ITEMS: From Council and Staff 12. #XECUIIVE SESSI%J: 'The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under* the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (h) to:discuss current/ *.pending litigatiun:issues. 13. AUJOURWENT I./3913A COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL 29_1986 - PPoGE 2 a -i. l TI"�a R1-1 CIT� REGULAR S EE'€I? 13 M I PSL!T ES APRIL 2€3, 1986 - 7.05 r P.M. 1. ROLL CALL: Presents Council President Tom Brian; Councilors: Carolyn Eadon (arrived at 7a10 p.m.), Jerry Edwards, and Valerie Johnson; City Staffs Bob .Jean, City Administrator; Bill Monahan, Community: Development Director; Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel; and 'e*rr•y 9owlos Recorder ProtemE Absent. Mayor John Cook 2. 'ALL TO STAFF ARID _COUNCIL FOR NON-AGENDA ITEMS a. Appointment of Gerry Bowles as Recorder P'rotem for two months. €s. Motion by Councilor Edwards, seconded by Councilor Johnson to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. C. City Administrator noted additions and amendments to the Consent Agenda and additional Non Agenda items. d. The Community Development Director is reviewing ;the citizen concern regarding reservations for Cooks Park. ?. VISITOR'S AGENDA a. No one appeared to speak . ' SIGN CODE EXCEPTION SCE 2-56 LANDMARK FORD - NPO #4 Arequost by LANDMARK FORD for Council r*view of a Planning Commission denial of a request for a sign code e-xception. The sign ' code exception request was't a allow a fifth fo e-standing sign that is approximately 259 III' tall and 151 squaro feet w ere one sign 70 squar* feet in area and 201 in height is permitted. The property is located at 12000 SW 66th Avenue (WCt 4 2SI 1AA lots 400 $c ,100; and WCTM ISI 36DD lots 4800, 4900, 5000, and 5130). A. Public Hearing Opened b. Community Development Director synopsized report noting the Planning Commission denied the application. C. Public Testimony. Propon*nt o Allan Conant, Heath Northwest, expressed theneedfor a sign of ~ aiddit oral h-aight and size to allow for exposure from Interstate a. = Ho felt the sign code should be readdressed with regard to properties abutting Interstate"r and Highway 217. a Jim Corliss, 9750 SW Inez, Prozidont, Lmndmark Ford, prtsentad ars original rendering of the proposed sign, stating there ars actually only two bLziness signz on the :sitel the other two being directional a Page I COUNCIL MINUTES AP''RIL 28, ISIVIS { sign ,' h is ill.ing to remove the Used Car sign if necoms�ary. � apponents o Geraldine fall, 3S l5 W gist Avenue, Tigard, representing DJ89 Inc., objected to: the cOntOnt of the published documents no b�case of f:ax lot nlsnaler inconsistencies= Tax lot 4�� is not leased by Landmark Ford and should not be included in the property description. DjB, Inc. has no objectbon to the sign. d. Public Hearing Closed. at a Discussion followed regarding the sine and number oi0. othegrn��llowed location next to a freeway and the precedent set by fi signsppr�aved in the area, along with clarification of the Planning CommissionsCommissionvs decision.: f, Communi�dy Development Director addressed code definition of billboard signs. CityAdministrator reviewers criteria ,justifying an exception to the g• sign code. There is an opportunity for Council audgement with regard to Criteria b and c. h, Community DeveloprnOnt Director stated the Manning Cotsasiti5sivn olding staff's reco�`mendation. recs�rAm nded d tai' 1 up.l it Public Hearing Closed. jm Motion by Councilor Johnson' seconded day Councilor Edwards - to delete ax lot 4800 from description of property and asign exception of sign .t r,&gtosted with the agreement that the existing sines will be drought into conformance either- by permit or ,size. Clarification of motion oKpl,ained that the used car sign would be removed aiSJng with the two off-site signs. The remainder of non-conforming signs will have to come into conformance by March 20, Motion by Councilor nhns�rsF seconded by Councilor Edwards to amend as clarifieds i4ation to ,amend was approved by unanimous vsate of Council present. Motion as amended approvod by unanimous vote of Council present. k. The Consensus of the Council was to have staff review the sign cad* with regard to freeway properties. 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDFFENT CPQ: 2-86 ZONE CHANOE 4-86 W#i'sTElWIL€IEi<iW NPO 02 swat for a A 'recoraaendation by ttie planning Commission not to grant a rtes; Wage 2 - COUNCIL MINUTES Apel ��s 1986 Compreh*nsive Plan Amendment from Low and Medium Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial and a Zone Change from R-4.5 (Residential 4.5 units/acre) and R-12) Residential, 12 units acre) to C-N (Commercial Neighborhood) can property at 11730, 11780, 11782, and 1178 SW t3rEenburg Road (WCTM 181 35DC lots 7500 a 7600). a. Public Hearing Opened. b. Staff synopsized report indicating that Planning commission recommended denial. e. Public Testimony- Proponents estimony-Proponents o Michael Wilhelm, 13085 SW 124th, Tigard, owner, reviewed the proposal describing the dental facility as a low-activity business. Opponents o Gary Ott, indicated that NPO 01 'An in opposition to the Plan Amendment because there is no guarantee for the future use of the property. Requested the Council uphold the Planning CommissionPs decision., o Donna 'Sandbo, 11475 8W 919t, Tigard, spoke in opposition to the `LI plan amendment. C. Community Development Director reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial. d. Public Hearing Closed. e. Motion by Councilor Edwards, seconded by Councilor Johnson to uphold the Planning `Commission's 'decision, to deny the request based on findings, Planning Commission's minutes, end staff retort Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 3-86 ZONE CHANGE ZC 5-86 - NPO #6 A recommendation by the p=lanning Commission to <correct the adoptsd Comprehensive Pian and zoning Maps to change the Comprehensive Plan designation from Medium Density Residential to Commercial General and the zoning designation from P,-'12 (Redidential 12 units/acre) to C-S (Commarcial General) on property locates! at 10580 'SW McDonald Street ( CTM 281 10AA lot 500). a. Public Hearing,Opened b. Senior Planner synopsized r*part stating that the Commission recommended approval. Page 3 -'COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL>28, 1986 PublicT45t i t=y l No one appeared to ,peak. � d. Community Development Director recommended approval, e. Public Hearing Closed. f. Plotion by Councilor ,Iohnzon, seconded by Councilor radon to approve. � Approved by una.nimOus vote eat Council present.' LOCAL IMPROYEMENT ?DISTRICT .- To Construct Sanitary Sewer g;raprovemein the arca of 74th Avenue and Cherry Drive, a, Public Hearing Opened. b Declarations or Challenges Council President D•rian stated he: lives in the neighborhood but is not included in the LID. C. Public Hearing Opened. ight of R.A. Wright Engineering, reviewed the d, project Engineer,ir�cer, Bob v�r boundariez of tete proposed 50w*r ling. Public Testimony: Proponent o Ed Gordon, 7475 SW Cherry Street, Tigard, tax lot 3200, stated support for the formation of an LID. He submitted a letter from Dennis.and Janice WOr2ni apq tax lot 31EIi, in support of the LID. o Ray Ems, 13400 SH 76th, Tigard, 'tax lots 3300 and 3601, spoke in favor of the LID. opponents Tony Makayr:, 13565 SW ,72nd, tax lot 400, questioned�s�tht procedure used to determine invalved ties. He yiieae��.s� petition containing signatures; of nine citizens apposed to the LID. s o David Metzger, tax lots goo and 801, would support then prOPOSal if the sewer were large ane€agh and deep enough to serve both Parcels- f. Project Engineer explained that the serer would not service both parrcelo and ;indicated he was not assessed for the property it would not benefit. Page 4 COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL. 28, 1936 g. Following clarification, ,Metz,er objected to formation of the LID based on the fact. it ,would not serve troth his parcels. h. City Administrator summariatd the figures of 73.4% remonstrances and 22 .1 proponents. ed on these fissures, the LID cannot be formed. i. Public Hearing Closed. J. Motion by Councilor Edwards, seconded by Councilor Johnson to table the proposal instil the project engineer can outline a proposal for;, the formation of an LIC =smaller in scale to accomxsodate the proponents' concerns'. Motion approved by unanimous vote of Council present. k. City Administrator said they will conduct a meeting with the neighborhood and if thrrt is interest in a scaled down proposal, the City will renotice and open that hearing with a continuation of the aariginal' hearing. S. LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT a To Construct Sanitary Sewer Improvements in the area of `,100th 'Avenue and 'Inez Street a Public Hearing Opened b. Project Engineer Bob Wright reviewed the boundariaz of the proposed ewer line. c„ Public_Testimony Proponents No one appeared to speak Opponents c, Peter Higgins, 14345 SW 100th, Tax lot 100, apposed the LID b cause' of the cast. iIo felt it would be more economical it the LID encompassed a larger area. o,, Council President antered into the record a letter from trustee of Mildred Spatz, tax Lest 200, stating ogapositi0n. 0 Wilma Lynes, 1+550 SW 100th, tax lot 2400, indicated they do not meed the sewer, and the expense is beyond their means. She presented a petition from Alfred Mather, tax lot 300, containing fire signatures stating opposillAon. ra' JamesS&ker, 10070. S14 -lnezr tar lot 2000, :said he is adequately serviced by septic tank and has no nett for tho sewer system. �e 5 COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 28 1986 � kf- t a r p'ranci Sargant, 10225 Sad View Terrace, tax lot 1600, currently` Sas Coo;prcablems with septic tank and is opposed to the LID. �. c Al Ka,pstlot 1100, was opposed' ein, 10220 SW View Terrace, tax to the sewer system. Drat Guinn, 14530 SW 100th Avenue, tax lot 301, has no problems �. with his septic tank and is opposed. r, Bob Burke, Calvin Presbyterian Church, tax lot, 2394, requested exemp tion. No' sewer services are needed at the portion of th an 4?' pr tty to b cry d by the sewer line. If exemption is no" possible, he is opposed. ca ®an Miller, 1914 9 ViewTerr ace, tax lot 1�Ltfd, has no sept •c tank. The assessment would be a problems with current financial burden. o Tanya MalcOms0n, tax lots 1800 and 1900, was opposed. o Brigitte Partington, tax lot 699, was opposed. Ek,., 0 Shirley Mutton, tax lot 2100r was opposed. o Henry F4odler, tax lot 2599, was opposed. Rz c, Tose tJntalan, tax lot ti9 s spoke in favor of the proposal, a indicating that the improv-aments will eventually need to be f . accomplished. s o Chuck Coll-ing, tax lot 1500, requested that a comprehensive- study omprehensivestudy of the entire area be conducted rather than isolating a single portion. ren. N d. City Administrator evaluatOd the rerp.onstrall to be 54%. This amount W allows for legal formation of the LID w cr. project Engineer indic-aced that the LID possibly bast support after cost figures were presented. f. Public. Hearing Closed. g„ Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Edwards to �. ter !irtate the prsacseditigs for formation of an LID. Motion approved by unani mus vote of Council present. RECE99s 9:30 p.m. (4 46f'�tl a. 9050 P.m. : SITE DESIGN REVIEW SDR 6-86 VARIANCE V15-86 r IRST !NTERS T ATE TRUST - Nr 2 A request by the City Council to review the Community Development Director' decision to approve with conditions a request to develop;4 62:00 square foot retail/auto seruico building and an automotive czar gash and a' Variance to delete 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 ;l-G (Commercial Gonoral) and is located at the northwest 'corner of pacific Highway and Greenbursg Road :(WCTM 201 cAA lots 1000, 1001, and '1100) a. Public Hearing Opened. b. Senior Planner Keith Lichen synopsized, staff report noting modifications to moet staff's conditions. The original Planning Director's decision restricted access onto Greenburgp however, the engineering staff has revised the plan to include a right turn only onto Greenburg ;Road. C. Ed Sullivan, 53 GW Yamhillp Portland, questioned the validity of the Council's''ability to 'hav* the item pulled from the conoont agenda. d. Legal Counsel reviewed the ,procedural fissures regarding the Council's interpretation of resolution, motion, and filing. e. It was consensus of the Council that the hearing proceeds r f. Public Testimony: Proponents o Ed Sullivan, 53 SW Yamhill, Portland, representing the applicant, reviewi-d the site plan. He oiscuszed the traffic circulation on Greenburg Road, Pacific Highway, and within the development. o Gary Katsion, traffic engineer, Wilsey and Ham, 521 GW 11th, Portland, discussed in datail the two, majorconcerns: trip generation and operation at the intersections and driveways. The site plan has been developed`closely with staff and ODOT. 0 Tom Wrightson, Wrightson Properties, 520 SW Yamhill, Portland, spoke in favor of the proposal. o Thomas Sullivan, attornoy, E2105 SW 72, Tigard, had a prior concern about traffic but is now satisfied that his concerns have beer, met. o Tom Barghauserr, civil engineer, Barghrauser Consulting Engineers? Inc., answered questions regarding the guardrail. Page 7 COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL. 28, 1986 ri .. City Administratorquested clarification of t110 Director9r, ciacigian .. regarding specific items whic�j hove been revised since the Director's approval. h. Discussion followed an various traffic situations and options for handling such problems. im3 Sullivan withdrewhis objection of the Council's jurisdiction to reopen the public hearing. j, Public Hearing Closed. to k, i�gtic*n 4y Council Edwards, seconded key Councia president Br2 nd aPprccv proposal striking Planning Director°s Condition 22 and allowing the ingress as shown on the drawing; adding Condition 22 requiring a son-remonstrance agreement for the sidewalk on Center Street ''-tend filed with the re4cord fs�r approval byCityAttorney. Motion aPProvod by UnanimauS vote Of Council present. lD. URBAN AREA PLANNINe A3RE��C�T Community Development Director distributed a portion of the agreement. a. Y The entire agreer dnt will be reva w d by the Council at ,ae May 5v ISSS meet i ng. sE:` il» CONSENT AGENDA. these items are raneidered to be routine and may be enacted < in one motion with separate discussion. Anyone may request that an ite'rs+ , in removed by a�ation for discussion and separate action. Motion tai; 11.1 Approve Council Minutes - April 14, 1986 �t 11.2 Rec,-ive and File. � a Community Douelopment Land Use Decisions �. b Monthly Departmental Reports _ March, 1986 11.3 Award Hid - Hall Blvd/Burnham LID #3 -�i1 103,713.00 BW maga? Const. Fiavenue ManuaA 11.4 Approve �C fi�� Cha�rga•� Resolution Na. 86-52 � ii. Approve CahPuter purchases & Author Contract Signatures11.F�`' Approve Cl-CC Li c ansae Appi i cation - New nutlet Summit Restaurant, 121121130S choll� Ferry r. e y. Road Tigard., rR:.Application � 11.7' Approve Conditional Acceptanca; Bea Dolt Street & ga��r Improvements Resolution NO- 86-5. a. City Administrator presented re%,,izions to 10.4. � b. Citi, Administrator reque%ted lo.3 be amended to includes an award of the bid and to appropriate authorization for the $40,000 FCC �. contribution. C. City Administrator added than following itttksas-e 10.8 TAG/COurt 'card paving 10,9 Madida.l CoverageChief Lehr APRIL 2�, 19,86paq*' 9 �° COUNCIL MINUTES w z, �: ` d. motion by Councilor Edwards, seconded by Councilor Johnson to adopt Consent Agenda with _11.4 tabled to May 3 for: further review ; 10.3 amended as discussed, and the addition of 10.6 and, 11e9. Motilin approved by unanimous vote of Councilpresent. 12. NON-AGENDA ITEMS: From Council and Staff a.. City admin strestor presented status report of the Civic `Center move. b. City Administrator stated that the State will be overlaying Highway 99W from the County line at 65th Avenue to Highway 212. They have opened bids and the wort, will occur somotime this Sins Aer. 12. EXECUTIVE SESSION - deferred until May 5, 1956. 14. ADJOURNMENT. 1"i.a5 p.m. Arocoder rotem C_City of Tigard ATTEST. ,. City o LL`Tigard �n Pape 9 COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL,. 25t 1986 } f, 2 T ESS PUBLISHING COMPANY Legal 7_6662 P.o.BOX 370 PHONE(503)684-0560 Notice ' BEAVERTON,OREGON 37075 y r Advertising Legal Notice City of Tigard [3 TearsheotNotiice P.O. Box 23397 0 0 Duplicate Affidevit ' Tigard, OR 97223 a. uP �. AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLia A iiON STA-E OF OREGON, } ss COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, y !`Stephanie Neubauer being first dally sworn, depose and say that lam the Advertising � Director,or him- principalclerk,of the--T-t9—a:---d-^d, mimes a newspaper of general circaalaatinn as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193;020;ppblishad a* Tj a"(� in the aforesaid county and state;that the _ city Cgnri �+�Pta a ar Meeting Notice ` a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for— - successive and consecutive in the following issues: A1pri .24 , 2986 r112C G% `t._ �Sulazeribeddsswor-q-4o- 's-fore me�thss-Lpxi.i , afy pv cap,for Oregon y crrra7aiors`rxpysefg: 9/20/88 . {r,6 ° ft- r J 'a .7"AWRMWIR am." ?ry?Mifl,Weu3%,oti3pyAt:4 t 14T �/��r�� ns+r.E>�5.at �i��e*',�tv.�.s}yt}}yy�(�,.��.♦�. f�.&�3aW4 .St��+4ry'9 yyyy .yqq�'�� 'f� u`fa ` e 9. .iM _ $MfwC` u' lod s#�aS'.7Y� 3�43YA' A3 hPa � A�St . k P � 5 5 ,y...� LY' ✓ kV��tfS �� T I'M$- RM �A3'�-':L',f' r� DATE s I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the fol7ow3ng item: (Please Paint your name) ITEM DESCRIPTION:-71 -- Y PROPONENT ( 'or) OPPONENT (against) s Name, Address and Affiliation � Name, ;Address and Affiliation amp- tt= s r a c DATE c I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following i pYn: (Please Print your name) on the following 1�n ITEM L3ESCRIPTION:4 3 PROPONENT (For) OPPONENT (against) and Affiliation Mame, Address and Affiliation Name, Address DATE I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council l item: (please Print ,your name) on the following ITEM DESCRIPTION' C)PPG�Y3ENT (against) PROPONENT (Fax) ^. Name, Address and A filiatic�r� :.ame, Address_ Affiliation ,y �} r IL 0tflllf s'� 3L fy s 3� y , i sd .* DATA Z Irish to testify before the Tigard C=ite Council on the following items (please Print your name) �iY^•�. TTEp4 DESCRIPTION: PROPONENT (For) OFPOTTTENT (against) Name, Address and A£t lialA� ion tl game, Address and Affiliation } A� t a F=: s+ F. k 11 Al "'NO MEAN MINNOWMI!W- DATE__q-, wish to testify before the Tigard City Councii on the following item: ('lease Print yoar name) ITEM. DESCRIPTION: PROFONNT (For) OPPONENT (against) -- ame, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation d t$..i�„r` '°�;�e'� �-'�g pN i , � � .moi�� ✓ CJ q SLU V 4 CCU 7-4 61, J t ',T rt . I wish is testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please PPr--i-nt your name) ITEM DESCRIPTION: OPPONENT (against) PROPONENT (For) _ Name, Address and Affiliation Name,, Address and Affiliation — /J � 4 k W TL k ."r t ar, 15 Q i 4 CITY OF 1'iGARD OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUf"4ARY AGENDA OF'. April 28, 1.986 AGENDA ITEM 9: _ DATE SUBir=1T;ED: aril 23. 198th PREVIOUS ACTION:` Planning Commission ISSUE/AGE`NDA TITLE: Sign Code Denial Exception SCE 2--86 -'Landmark Ford PREPARED BY: Keith Liden _ REQUESTED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAL! OK: °°f�� CITY ADMINISTRATOR: — — POLICY ISSUE INFORMATION SUMMARY At its'."larch , 1986 hearing, the Commission denied the application for a fifth free–standing sign < -or Landmark l=ord'. The applicant has appealed this decision. Attached are copies of the application, staff report. minutes and transcript of the March 4th hearing, Commission order, and the written appeal. M ALTERNATIVES CO"dSIDERED 1. Conduct a public hearing and uphold the Commission decision. 2. Reverse the Commission decision, J.' Approve a modified plan for signage. SUGGESTED ACTION Conduct a public hearing and uphold the Coaamission decision for denial. 12504P j CITY OF TIGARD Washington County, Oregon f, No*riCE OF FINAL ORDER -- BY PLANNING COMMISSION 1. Concerning Case Number(s): SCE 2-86 2. Name of O=er• Ford Motor Co. _ 3. Name of'Appl cant: Heath Northwest ` a Address 175 NE Columbia Blvd. City Portland State OR Zip 9721 4. Location of Property: Address 12000 SW 66th Ave. Tax Map and Lot No(s). 2S1 IAA lot 400 Nature of Aplaiic�ation: Eequest to allow a fifth free--standing .sign that is approx. 5. 25� 11" tall orad 15 ;sq. ft. where one sign, 7 sq. ft. an area a �� in eyg t is permitted. b. Action: Approval as requested Approval with conditions Denial 7. Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted a¢ Cit, Hall and mailed to: XX The applicant 6 o-woers XX twners of record within the required distance XX The affected'Neighborhood Planning Organization XX Affected governmental'agencies 8. Final Decision: TETE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON aril 4, 1986 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. The adopted findings of fact, decision, and statement of condition can be obtained from the Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 12755 SW Ash, P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223- 9. al: 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 2:30 PM April 4, 1986 10. nations: of you have anyquestions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Department, 639-4171. (0257F) CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING CtYMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 86-_09 PC rr 3$ FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS, WHICH DENIES AN APPLICATION FOR A SICK CODE EXCEPTION (sCE. 2--86) REQUESTED BY FORD MOTOR CO, The Tigard Planning Commission reviewed the above application at � gsublic hearing on March �, 1986. The Cor.=ission based its decision upon the facts, findings, and conclusions noted below: A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: Sign Code Exception SCE 2-86 REQUEST: Ti allow a fifth free-standing sign that is approximately 25` 111, tall and 151 square feet cohere one sign, 70 square � feat in area and ?O` in height is' permitt`d. =iPREMENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATIMI, Commercial General ZONING DESIGNATION: C--G (Commercial General) APPLICANT: Beath Northwest ' OWNER: Foes Motor Co. w 175 WE Columbia Slvc. ' 300 Renaissance Ctr. -r Portland, OR 9721.1 Detroit, IMI 46243 LOCATION: 125100 SW 66th avenue (td'-TM 2S1 IAA, T.L. 400) :r Z. !Ikc{rounci No previous land use applications have been reviewed by the City. 3, Vi�initlr Information The property to the south and vest is also zoned C-G. The area to the north is zoned C-P (Commercial Professional) and I-5 lies to the east and the Dartmouth/68th exit is immediately north. 4, site Information The property is occupied by Landmark Ford. The following signs arc presently located on the property: - 2 free-standing signs similar in size to the one proposed - 2 small free.--standing signs approximately 8 feet high and B to 12 square feet in size I wall sign for the body shop -, 1 roof sign in they front - IA" -Frame sign ` In addition, there are two signs located within .the St r`VOt r istht � s' w,-'y at &8th and Franklin and 66th and Fr 06- n. _' FINAL gd3L>F4d NO. 09 lit: (aJ 2 86) PACf': I 4 F7,7- 1 The applicant proposes to install a fifth free—standing sign that is 25' 11" area.of 302 square feet• tall with a total sign , 5, A enc and 6jpO Comments The Engin2ering Division has no objection. The DuildisInspection Division is strongly oppased because of tite . precedent this request would set. t= NpO #4 is opposed to the request. No other comments have been received B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant appy®val criteria in this case is contained in Section 1 .114;245 of the Community Developm nt Code. The planning commission concludes that the relevant Co-,Imunity �. Qevelopment Code requirements have not been met based upon the f in`ings below r In order to justify an exception to the sign code, one of the olloasaraa three criteria (CDC 18.114.145) :must be satisfied: u Id a. The propose build sign cods exception is necessary because a conformie uileiing or sign 'on am adjacent nonerty wo conformance limit the ,view of a sign erected on the site 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 a service from a street other than the street on which` the business is located. _ n Of 2. There are no buildings or signs (witwhich the alackpossible visibilityCfromoE66th those on the subject property) Avenue or I-5. The Landmark Ford property is sl.igiltly lower than r the freeway but a sign which conforms with Code requirements would be clearly visible from 1-5.' 3. Criteria c. does not apply in this case: s The two existing off-site signs within the street ra.�P,t on th€� site aafay it e illegal and must be removed immediately. The "A" frame sign un can be allowed as a temporary sign. However, 'a permit must, be issued by the City and the oxaxi'Mum time period for such a per°a��it is tie days. Until` a permit is obtained, this sign must be removed also, a E oROER- NO 86 C.Xf,,; i=t: C The four freestanding signs and the roof sign do not conform with City requirements. The Code only allows one free—standing sign per € development and roof signs are not allowed within the City. Section 18.114.110 of the Code 'states `that regardless of the date installed, all non—conforming signs may only be continued until March 20, 1988. C. DECISICNx Based rupon the findings and conclusions noted above, the Planning Commission denims SCE 234. It is further ordered that the applicant be notified of the 'entry of this order, PASSED This J day of March, 1996, by the Planning Commission ,of the City of Tigard. A. Donald Moen, President Tigard Planning Commission (KSL:prsl2392P) 'z Ic a 'a TRANSCRIPT HEATH NORTHWEST/FORD MOTOR CO. SIGN CODE EXCEPTION SCE 2-86 PLANNING c"ISSLON PUBLIC HEARING 3/4!'86 CotlMISSI{DNEgs PRESENT: Don Moon, Bonnie Owens, John Butler, Milt Fyre, Deane Leverett, Have Peterson, Chris Varsderwood, and Will;New, STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Keith Liden, Secretary Diane M. Jeiderks REQUEST: To allow a fifth free-standing sign that is approximately 25' 11" tall and 151 square feet where one sign, 70 square feet in area and 20' in height is permitted. LOCATION- 12000 SW 66th Ave LANDMARK FORD (WCTM 2S1 1AA lot 4€30) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED � Don Moen, "Item 5.2 staff-I" Senior Planner- Keith Liden, " 'his proposal is for Sign Code Exception to allow a .fifth free, standing sign thats approximately 25' `- 11" tall and 151 square feet in area per side, where one sign of 70 square feet per side and maximum height 20 feet is permitted. This is for Landmark Ford, uh. 66th Avenue, and also has is certainly visible from 'I-5. I've ;,including in site information a number of types of signs that are one the property right now, ncluded that the proposal does not uh, and in our review of this, we, staff co meet the applicable criteria, uh, for granting a sign code exception and use are recommending denial. Moen, "Okay,91 Linen, "Are there any questions?" Commissioner (?), "one . . . . . . . questions, what is the uh, what are the standards, what would be the allowable, to have normally this use. z Liden, "Well, what they would be allowed, Lets just assume that they are putting in the dealership now. What they would be ;allowed to have would be one free standing sign of 70 square feet stir side and 20 feet in height that could be enlarged to 22' and 90 square feet per side if they have a 20 foot setback for the sign. Also during Site ^evelopment Review you can get, for this type of this you could get are increase in sign area up to 50%. but the sign are cannot be used for lettering and logos. Its si.milar' to the problem we had last month with Kaiser, with the lettering and so forth is small but the limit of the sign exceeded the square footage. So that could be an allowable. several people -talking Moen, "I though that there was a, special sign criteria for those that are facing the freeway. . . . ..50 feet high and extra big and all that TRANSCRIPT' !7CE: 2-86 LANDMARK FORD P<agL^ 1 Liden, "Well, uh, in the case of Texaco there wasn't really, what we did in that case wa's 'we do: have an allowance for what we call outdoor advertising signs, which are literally intended to be the billboard type sign, you know, -,. two weeks, in Vegas, for you know, whatever,' you know whatever the message is, but its the things that Accurately has, an owned' company. We, use that and the Texaco coughing well, we didn't see any particular harm than advertising towards the freeway, sort of in the 'manner of an outdoor advertising sign and in that case their square footage was far below ghat the limit was,- I think 675 square feet or something like that at their's was 150 Moen, "Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe we also, there was an allowance, at least to the code at that time that gave us the . . . ... . . . . . : several people talking Moen, "Lets go on with the applicant's presentation. Could we have the applicant." My name is Allan Conant, I with Heath Northwest, we are the sign manufacturer, for the sign. Uh, We're here to appeal, I guess in two areas, the area of signs that they have is directed to the type, of business that they have.; Their not talking about moving people around their talking about moving cars around and so they 'need the various other signs that they have, the service sign, the body and paint sign, the used car area . .several, those are directional sign that they have and I think its somewhat slanted that the direction that we may be going is oversignage and ;that uh, you have to understand thatwe are trying to get these people off the street in an orderly manner and get em to the direction that they wanted. Their lots are obviously ? full of merchandise to sell and so its quite a bit of congestion and they reed that ability to do that. The 'second thing is that it is; uniqua* that this borders I-5 and thats where their market is. Thats where, why landmark Ford located at that location, and so they need to be able to advertise to those people and prior to this its been in terms of banners and newspaper and etc. but uh, if they could have the ability to market directly to that public, then ' its obviously, going to make them a much better, successful' dealership and this is what their trying to do. I have numbers and figures that would be of any interest on the type of market that there is in terms of households and buying power, its and ,outstanding opportunity for Landmark Ford to market their product.„ Moen, "Okay, Thank you sir. Is there anyone here from the NPO or CCI on this issue. Okay. Moving on to those in favor of the proposal,' Gene Paulscan. "'Ees, I'm Gene Paulsen, with Heath Northwest, 175 NE Columbia Blvd. . 1. have recently surveyed that location, and I have some photos, that was taken, I want to point out, there is . and there a lot of trees here, you can just barely see the one sign there. . . . . . This is just past the on ramp o.: the off ramp of 1-5. . . . . . . . . several talking. these are more or less directional signs. This arrows been in there oh, this is a non illuminated r sign, over the body and paint shop, necessary;. And he's facing this on a frontage road. there off of . Very; hard to get on and got off hare. several talking while 'Looking at pictures unable to transcribe. . . . . TRANSCRIPT SGE 2--86 LANDMARK FORD Page 2 i �, "I'm Jim Corliss, the owner of Landmark Ford, I live at 9750 SW Inez in Tigard an:.'' this proposal we look to uh, we don't mind that theres, the staff's is talking about the adverrtisi.ng signs, uh, and with the current freeway construction, or, ''uh thats been completely cut off our frontage road, uh things, began a problem, traffics been a problem . . this to be a alternate form of advertising to get traffic into our dealership, uh, because it has finished and plus uh, with good signage we can be : , inaudible very gond looking ,sign, the signs that we have therenow are ones that renally identifies, as far as I'm concerned, the dealership thats the large blue sign, and other than that the direction signs;' with perhaps the exception of the used car sign, which at some point we will be taking down', uh, at hopefully expand the dealership and move it to the Qwest side of the property. institutional and advertising sign I,just Moen, "Okay, thank; you." Newman, . "I guess I have two questions, one is, uh, when you put up the original sign, the existing sign, did you, how did you do that`" Corliss; "The original signs where put up, uh, 1970 when Del Ball owned the dealership and it was neither in the City, uh, I don't know what the County zoning was. It was not zoned commercial until about three years ago when, that when Council, when we had the zoning changed to commercial.' Beforethat it was office building, it uh, it was special zoned in through the City,uh, Newman, "tend all of these signs were . . . . . . , silence on tape . . . Y Moen, "Okay, Close the public hearing, uh Commissioner Newman, any problems. Newman, Well, first, again I have a questions of staff. Reading your report you indicate that uh, that virtually all of these signs have to come out. My question is if they were there before they became a part of the City, (pause), could you sort of clarify that. it seems a ,little un---" Unidentified. "Picky." Newnan, "Picky, well i don't know, I don't know exactly, it seems to me if I had a business and then moved in, and got annexed to the City, and they didn't at that time say, why do you have to take all your signs out. I would be a little, now having come to get a permit for an exception and as a result been "told that I have to take all but one of our signs down. i Liden,, "Weil when we 'bring, when the new sign ordinance was passed in, g believe it was in 78, and in our Code now talked about 'non--conforming signs that are not conforming to the Code would be removed by, it said KAr•ch 20, 1485, 1 would assume that this provision in the adopted March 20, 1978. And the idea being that if your really going to try and force the sign code uh, that, if you allow the non--conforming' signs to say indefinitely you are essentially penalizing all the new development which comes in afterwards and has to play the game by new reales, uh, and the idea with, uh, ten year period, is which we-'sor-t of amortize the investment of -the sign, . . . . . . . . . . well you have to have all your non--conforming signs down in six months. Newman "So has his application then triggered." n TRANSCRIPT St:F 2-86 LANDMARK FORD Page 3 Rio- - Liden, "No, and this is not saying that he has to take down all his ing_,signs down now, whwhat .the ordinance I said in the report is just to bring this ve non-conform to light, in - dinance says where expecting all least as far as ' non-conforming `signs to be taken down by March 2p ut in without tlh, there were, y were there are a couple nd signs that wero three e not, he Two dirpectiona.lsignsatha- apermits in re those where, I`think I referred t ' the right—of—way on the corner of 66th and Franklin, 68th and Franklin, will need some sort of permit or possibly a sign code excewption to bech was located in whent re they are, .,and ;then ;there was an A from_ sign. the property, uh, which is„ permitted on a temporary basis, but we didn't have any record of a permit for that as well. Sc� those are the three signs that b t have indicated,' something had to be dealt with right away, and then the others fall under the non--conforming signs,°+ Newsman, "Do you know whether those three signs where there when the area was annexed to the City?" e looked pretty anew." , ' Liden, I presume not. they several people talking Moen, "Sign code, enforcement code, falls under that.°' Liden, "That wasn't really the main part of this order," ' Newman, "I understand that. I was trying to figure out what the process was. And exactly how these things clot triggered MIoen, „Okay, anymore questions? Commissioner Owens, comments," Owens, ,Well I think this and a couple of the other sign code exceptions that we're .looking at tonight, highlight, or pin point the need or, huh, our sign this before, huh, I'll have to say at again, takingagain code rah, reguIRtions. I think that we have a number of situations in the City that itheres same . . . . . , .: . . consideration. And where running up against some problems that our sign code laws currently really cannot address• you know. in a realistic way, however, five,oasking I h'or a fifth understand the nneedh forhis one, wanting this one presents, a real delemia for m_. on to make, you know, the presence of the business known to the traffic going Um, but, we do have a- sign code, and I think that probably they are g g have-to,do something else." ' Moen, "Okay, Commissioner Newman, any comments. Newman, "No. Nothing useful Moen, "commissioner Butler." butler, -No. No comment at this time. Moen, ,'[ would like to take this opportunity to make a brief comment. � think there are a number of signs an the property and L don't hold it against I would have a very Landmark Ford for having . . . . . . . . . . . . . .t- —want this sign, difficult time, I can understand why hey swarrspeaking issues .will Rave to be taken up wi.t.ki the. Council. on appeal. . . . . . . . to softly can°t hear , . . TRANSCRIPT SCE 2.-86 LANDMARK FORD Page h em _r Commissioners to far from tape cannot transcribe Moen, "Con'tmissioner Fyre you want to €€€ake a motion. �Y. Fyra "move to deny Signa Code Exception SCE 2-96 and to authorize staff to prepare the final order and for president Moen to sign that final order. Peterso:a "Second." Moen, "Motion has been made a. seconded for denial, any further. discussion? All those in favor of the aasertion that has been made and seconded please signify by saying aye. Moen, Dawns, Butler, Fyre Leverett, Peterson, Vanderwood, and Newman, "AYE." Moen, All those opposed? (Mo one) s TRAWISCRIPl SCE 2-86 LANDMARK FORD Page 5 s TI:GARD PLANNING CorMISSION REGULAR MEETING - MARCH 4, 1986 ` 1.. President Moen called the meeting to order at 7:33 PM. The meeting was held at Fowler Junior High School 10865 SW Walnut, t GI Room. 2.. ROLL 'CALL: - PRESENI`: President Moen: Commissioners Owens, Butler-, Fyre, Leverett; Peterson, ;Vanderwood, and Newman. ABSENT; Commissioner Bergmann. STAFF: Senior Planner Keith Liden, Secretary Diane M. Jel:derks 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES President Moen requested that on :the end of paragraph 8, page 2, add "and dad not feel it was a 'confl'ict of interest." paragraph 5, page 3, change "neighborhood" to "Planning Commission,"; last paragraph page 6 add "arid did not represent a conflict."; and paragraph 7, 'Page 8, change "21 1/2" to 1122 1/211. CommissionerButler requested that on paragraph 1, page 4, add, "but could still be objective.". Commissioner Newman moved and commissioner 'Peterson seconded to approve the minutes as amended. Motion carried by majority vote, Commissioners Vanderwood`, Fyre; and Owens abstained. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATION Staff noted that item 5.6 which had been hand delivered to the Commissioner is actually item 5.8. Senior Planner Liden distributed a memo regarding a workshop with City Council. President Moen stated he could get invitations to the Manufactured Homes show if any of the Commissioners were interested. Also, President Moen had attended the OUOT meeting on the 6 year plana PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 SUBDIVISION S 2-86 ELIZABETH BUTLER/SAM GOT'TER NPO if 6 Request to divide a 1.37 acre parcel into 7 rots with a minimum lot si- of 7,500 sq. ft.' and to allow a cul--de–sac of 600 feet in length where a maximum length of 400 feet is required. This item had been tabled from the February 4th hearing to allow the applicant to meet with surrounding property owners/NPO and to submit a plan which meets Code requirements. Senior Planner Liden reviewed the proposal noting that the February staff report was attached and that the findings, conclusions, and conditions may be modified to reflect the Commission's derision, APPL-ICAN"C'S PRESENTATION: John L1eJong, 8835 SW Canyon Lane # 405, Portland, 97225, representing the owner had no problems with the staff rrepor•t and was available for questions. PLANNTNG C')MMT!;SI ON MI.NUT s, MARCH 4, 1906 - PAGF t 5.'2. VARIANCE V 3-86 WASHINGTON CO,. SCElt�3L DIST. # 48/L.A. DLV. -t.p. NPO 7 Request to allow thc• construction of a cul.-de-sac that is 470 feat in length where 400 feet is the maximum length permitted in Penn Lawn Estates ', I1: (S 3-86) <Located: SW Carrier of Springwood Drive and 7 1.5th Ave. (WCTM IS 1 34BD, lot 7000). Senior Planner Liden reviewed the proposal and made staff's recommendation for approval.' APPLICANT"'S PRESENTATION o Ken Nelson, Otak, ,17355 SW Buones Ferry Rd. , L0. 97034, supported the staff report PUBLIC 1"ESTIMONY o No one appeared to speak PUBLIC BEARING CLOSED o Commissioner Peterson moved and Commissioner Tyre seconded to approve V 3=86 based on staff' s findings and :conclusions. Also to request staff to prepare the final order and for President Moen to sign that final order. Motion carried by majority vote. Commissioner Butler voting no. *0105.3 SIGN CODE EXCEPTIONg F 2 8 HEpT'N NORl`tiWESI/FORD MOTOR CO. NPO # 4 e` uest o w a fifth free standing sign that is approximately 25': 11" tall and 151 sq. ft. where one sign, 70 sq. ft. in area and 20' in height is.permitted. Senior Planner Liden reviewed the staff report and made staff's recommendationfor denial. Discussion followed about what would be , allowed if the site was newly built'. APPLICANT'S PRESENTAION T o Allan Conant, Heath Nortl-,west, 175 NE Columbia Blvd. Portland, 97211, stated the signage was necessary because of the type of business. Also, the area is very congested and it borders I-5 and they need to be able to market to 1-5. o Jim Corliss, 9750 SW Inez, explained that since the Haines Road Construction it has caused problems and the signage: is necessary to assist in directing people. He :submitted pictures of theexisting signs. ' o Discussion followed regarding when the other signs had been installed, what signs where grandfathered in and what signs would need to be removed to come into conformance with the code and when. PUBi...TC HEARING CLOSED o Commissioner O'.aens stated she felt the sign code needs to be reviewed. Commissioner' Fyre moved and Crnnmi.ssiuner Pete tions secr,ndcd to deny (T 2--86 per staff' s findings and recommendations, Also to direct staff to - prepare the final order and for PresidQnt Mo(ari to sign riff an that. final order . Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners pre +c nt. PLANNING C`,/jNd-tl:-;ION MIND FS MARi.�tl 4, 11986 PAGF 4 4, j "SrflL—t?/4MON IS OUR MAIN CUNCI.?RN 12000 S.w.66th AVE. 1 pHONr- (503)639-1131 / P.O.BOX 23970 • :GaDinEGLa97223-6133 � April 3; 1986 oriIN IH i8 City of Tigard t Tigard, Qregon 97223 �s 1 :f t Reference: Planning Commission Case #SCE 2 Gentlemen: denial our pal of the planning commission billboardfsign � Enclosed is our aPs electronic advertising request for a free standing t for our business. 1 i the I believe it is time for.ache ast�theyu perreaddress dtain tocommercial . current sign codes, especY 217. The codes are property fronting' Interstate 5 and IIighwa y l universally to all businesses in all ton restrictive to apply 1" locations. .;_here are logical exceptions the code should address, � but in the interim 'I request` an exception to the code and approval of our application. Currently the code allows for 1 free standing sign on our ` location regardless of frontage. We have two free standing signs that are not directional: 1 . Ford brand ID sign 2. Ford A-1 Used Car brand sign of the sign code is to allow effective signs but. The key-purposes. to prevent sign clutter. Considering that our 'budonetSb pievcci . on approximately 600 feet of freeway frontage, n in tsc�li' t third sign would be considered clutter and the new sig will be attractive. If there were six businesses in o si nsrould � b�� on 100 foot frontages , thee should have ix free standing bearillg; permitted by code. Fro ' sign code_'. If you believe that three 'signs are clutter, I w.nild be willing to remove the Ford A-1 Used Car be sign, but I don' t think that removal should be required. and size of. sign we want to construct , it As far as the tYP� ' covered under special conside atioll appears to be adequately signs section' ]_g.]:7.� 0�� of te sign code as a'n n llhit be an outdoor advertisi.nts-i ;n advertising sign. Our sign in every sense. It will be an electronic advertising mcGSz�:t' thatwilldisplay -various advertising messages during the cc»tst of each day. In addition we ,intend to use the sign t(--) 11170,1(1011,"' City of Tigard April 3, 1986 Page two as many public service and civic oriented announcements as passible, 'in addition to our advertising messages. The code permits a 300 square 'foot sign for such application. appreciate your consideration and approval. of our request based on prudent judgement of our needs, and to future economic developement and growth of similar locations in Tigard. Very truly yours, �DMAR FORD INC. l m Corliss ealer> jC/bjc Cs { , r PPEAL, t PORI LAND,YAKIMA,SEATTLE.SPOKAN!. Kt NN{WICK W1 NA'tCti!1 April ici f t City of Tigard Ee o' Rre of Agip-'al for Case �a��-86 Ford &4otoro 12000 66th Avenue Thi & S�cst 4 2S1 l� Lot 400 Application requestel 2 i 210 alow a, €"a Calladvertising and 1151 square feet sign that is approximately wla re one sign 70 square feet it area and 263a in height is perici teed. ` 4e would lake to appeal the decision based on the following comments= Sins that e.cist were: all installed prior to being annexed, L� € 4 into thecity. Two of the mentioned freestanding signs are actually directional signs reading "Ser-vice' & "Body & Paint'" . These sihey vns shopsl not be classifier freestanding an are Land are diroctior_al Only. Each sig designates the entrance. Landmark Ford has agreed to remove the large "Used Car" the existing pylon count down to one. sigh pylon bringing size fto duce Landmark Ford has alaso i agreed it but i he seems r atti�er two directional sagatosigns impractical and expensive to �°anufao urcxinaatelytre twow reduce the total square square feetage by app feet. 50 It should be pointed out that of the approximately he letter., sent out to the adjacent landowners regarding the letter ,nal siiznage that there was not a rae�at_ t ave rospon,addit-ie there was a positive repaae4 . 175h+t Cf7ttta1lt•1 it.\Is page 2 Ap-ril 2, 1986 City of 'Tigard Also and most important is that the City of Tigard does not adequately address; the signage problems that merchants have adjacent to 1-5. Under the Code, the sign cannot be gh -to adequately address 55 MPH large enough or high enou traffic. The following cities and counties address the Freeway directional business much differently than Tigard: Al banv, 0? Allows freestanding signs - maximum 50' high and a maximum of 2501 square feet per sign fare. Also allow building signs based on frontage. Salem. OR, Allows freestanding signs 50 ' high and a maximum of 250 square feet per sign face. Also allow building signs as per building square footage. Woodburn, OR Allows freestanding signs 45 ' high and a maximum of 200 square feet no matter how much business frontage. Building sign allowed Tualatin, OF Allows freestanding signs 451 high and 250' square foot per face plus building signs. Clark Co `_ WA State Allows freestanding signs up to 60' high and 350 square feet. Building sign also allowed. i Page 3 April 2, 1986 ,.' City of Tigard In conclusion, Landmark Ford' s market is the 1-5 traffic and he must be allowed to adequately address this market. They aremakinga `dramatic concession in the removal'; or reduction of signs and should be allowed to have the additional advertising billboard pylon. Exceptions have been granted under the outdoor advertising classification as in Texaco, Shito Inn, etc. and that the city of Tigard needs to address this problem as i t will ' continue to hinder businesses that face 1-5, Regards, HEATH N0RTHWE aT, I IVIG a l Allan Conant Fire President AC.5- hp AGENDA ITEM 5.3 ; . STAFF REPORT ' MAR(-., G, ' 1966 - 7:30 P.M. TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION r=.0'a99_ER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL LGI 10645 S.tJ. WALNUT ' TIGARD, OREGON 97223 A. FACTS rt 1. General Information yry, CASE: Sign Code Exception SCC 2-86 REQUEST To allow a fifth free s4andirg sign that is approximately 25' 11" tall and 151 square feet wYi2re one sign. 70' square feet in area and 20' in height is Ps�rmi.tted. : COMPREi6ENSIVE` PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial General ZONING DESIGNATION: C--G (Commercial General) OWNER: Ford Motor Ca. APPLICANT: 4teath northwest 300 Renaissance Ctr. +. 175 NE Calumk�;a Blvd. Detroit, MI= 48243 s: Portland, OR 97211 LOCATION: 12000 Si4 66th Avenue (WCTM 2S1 1AA, T.L. 400) " r z. Background � ons have been reviewed by the City. No previous land use applicati �. 3. Vicinity Information The property to the and west is also zoned C-G. The arca to the north is zoned C-P (Commercial Profess ionnl) end I-S lies to the east � and the Dartmouth/58th exit is imn,edi.atel.y north. 4. Site Information The property is occupied by Landwar•k Ford. The followi.rrg signs .arcs (, presently located on the property - 2 free-standing signs similar in size to the one Proposed 2 small free-standing signs approximately 8 feet high and 8 to square feet in size - 1 wail 'sign for the body shop - t roof sign it the front r.. - 1 "A„ frame sign In addition, the>rc. ares two sign, located' within tic street, rlght.-c?f wav i; at 68th and I7rrank l i n and 66th and t-r.x.nk t i n frof-! !itYt'i2I 54 I 7 8(', k E The applicant rc ries to install a fifth free-standing sign that. is 25' T e pP P P 11" tall with a total sign area of 302 square 'Feet. 5, Agpncv ane! NPO Comments The Engineering Division has no objection. � The Building Inspection Division is strongly opposed because of the precedent this request would set. NpO ;est is opposed to the request. i No other coinmQnts have been received, 8. FINDING`; AND COUC!_USIONS The relevant approval criteria in this cake is contained in Section " 13.11 .145 of t:he C>mmianity Development Code. The Planning stiff concludes that the relevant Community Development Code 'requirements ilius not been set based upon, the findings below: 1. In order to justify an exception to the sign code, erne of the �l following three criteria (CDC 18.114.145) must be satisfied: N, The proposed sign code exception is necessary because a conforming building or sign on an adjacentproperty would C. limit the 'viers of a sign +erectedon the site in conformance . .' with the sign code standards. fir" b, The proposed exception to tate height limits in the sign code is necessary to slake the sign , visible from the street V because of the topography of the site. ,r business or + There is an access drive which servires the e service from a street other than ,the street on which tho business is located. 2. There are no buildings or signs (with the possible exco_ptzoi, of those on the subject property) which block visibility fr0111 both Avenue or I:-5. The Landmark Ford property is slightly lower O'lan the freeway but a sign which conforms with Code requirements would ; be clearly visible from 1-5. 3. Criteria c. does not apply in this rase. The two Existing off-site signs within tate street right-of..w.Ay Aft'' illegal and must be removed immediately. The "A" frame sign ort face site cyan be allowed its M temporary sign. However, a permit must bo issutii kty the ; City and thr? maximum time periost for such ' a permit is 00 t3rst i 1. a per-mit is obtained,` this sign must be removed als(, . .z i!alt " C2f.l'(?N l it.i 8U PA(13 2,, w 1 The four free--standing signs and the roof sign do riot conform with City requirements. The Lode only allows one free—standing sign per development and roof signs are not allowed within the City. Section 10-114-110 of the -Code states that regardless of the date installed all non-conforming signs may only be continued until March 20, 1988. C. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the findings and conclusions noted above, the Planning staff recommends denial of SCE 2-86. s APPROVED BY: {William A. Monahan Liden PR PAR D BY: Keith Senior Planner Director of Community Development �4 i 11720 SIV 681h Av Ie®t Tigard, Ore. 97223 hone- Area (503) 639-1497 tt✓tts.lerP;+� Reaj Estate Breaker and investments com hent toy the Niini tion �� Y g�-ment and Appraisals �� T3�S�J $ PROFESSIONAL Prop�rS �dfii� !.ed Tape in OoNSULYr'NTS e E 3` �� ; C} ' `�I S1RD , TIGARD I'I e INN C01*11SSION FID IBERr ' SCE 2 68 ... • s A-PPLI O T s HEATHNORTHWEST 0 WINER a FORD 300 RENIISSANCE CENTER PORTLAND, oRE. 97219 DETROIT, MICH. 48243 please: consider thiB Iatt&r as my urging your approval. o � subject`SIGN CODE CUTION allowinga fifth free st l g sign th&t' 3.a praaposad to be ap�rrcximatcI 25 $ sI 151 mqo ft, at 12Ct? � 5ias� ua I favor your approval -thin Gicadg exception b.scaus c at lea"t 5 t U ,30 ft BUR with at least 1.50 sq. ft. im ar@Q 0 I € d/or Block' 13 between Sw 67th AvaBuz aad SW 68th parkw&y whiah hopefully will be ase . from "IMtQr9t tQ HWT- 50 Our "Larson FvmilY JQ lzt V83turs" 10,000 sq. ft. 1100' X 1a0 9 l d .facing BW 56th Avo. between SW "Ciiaton St and SW Dart +�aaloka St was makes by Oragom Departne xt of TransportatiOs for I-5 Exit No- 293 off-ramp to SW Dartmouth St. :gym 1980. This gi u tiom forced us to move the location of aAy p��aad gi' or aigns 2603 ft to the �OOt on l d which we Own $ s oaabII Iia elev Balt therm our laud which faced SW 66th Avesua. t st CITY OF TIGARD �i - a Cexti t l emen t Ede at Landmark Ford at 1200 S.W. 66th request permission to erect the proposed sign because additional exposure is required! the street the .business is On '(S.€�i. 66th) is only c frontage road and the market` that `Lan ark;Ford' is trying to reach is the motorist on I--5;. Also the adjacent property is heavily r rooded., wh, ch 11.mits the business exposure. ks praposed es�c ptioax to base height limits in -the Sign Code is necessary to 'make the sign visible from ,;1--5 because of the .topography sof the site. The site is 'locate below 'I-5. 1A }. of 1: �S�eINNr �'x� ��:�'`�',,r�,{�M.:t., ...�€ h. 9 x k wY •w zfi v OWL .,a��€"'�'i_s.. iia {ryfis-c,c,•,,�yr ,� ,t �s•�'s�� ':7'. 5 � �.�e�1+"'ky�f{br aN i1 t�n-u��' '•�'7.--.s ��f� �'"� s €_ M " a ATnda 3 (rlritol it I,igiii 0'I°itigw 1ppI1 +Isjrl+ ►i+j IT]7th ITPI►ij rh it r i 1 r t r r r .1 — - 9l I � 111111. I I 1 I 1 I � I _� � � .I I 1 1 I 1 >ir' 6{t I r !,r 1 r 1'r 111111�ir11e111111i1 'll rjr ril lil ril Ilv rig 11111 � _�::�: NOTE: IF THIS MICROFILMEDddm DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE. IT IS DUE TO - - TFfr QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DRAWING. --� _ _ _ - - - 0}E SZ 82 LZ 8Z SZ AZ _EZ ZZ 1Z OZ 6! t11 LI 91 Sf bl f! 2r --if---0-1-6 2 'Alllfullnn'u1d1u1luulnx�fillwi�nrelro�+iilk, Ilteuwlasxi.uslw.L.,,I.u.i..yy...L yl; ...1., 1 .1..1...1 �-----'°"^s^s -- t1lT -'.� i111+�if�••••+� ... d�.a:a.Fuw 0 nvt��au.r....ts 1 9! i! s. •3ti61 � 6I 1 I Mo-ARCH �- 11 -- — I)�Ij�-1611111111 Iilj!!t_.lL1lIr�1111�illIjE1H . i 7 1 1� A - _ '�� #��3a°e' `-&`.; to+.•�`': ad s* = .#r fd - a , i TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- April 28, 1986 Item; 3 -- Sign Code Exception SCI 2®86 (Landmark Ford) (Ford Leasing and Devel.oDment Sca Pard motor Co. Mr. Mayor and members of the Courscil% my name is Geraldine Ball, 11515 S. W- 91st Avenue,, Tigard and I am appearing before on behalf of DJB, Inc, Our objection is not in regard to the eigL^_ but in regard to the published documents. On April 18, 1966 a Notice of Public Hearing was mailed >to DJD, Ince asking the Council to consider a sign code os cepl ion on Tax Lit 400 Map 2 S 1 1 AA with a map of Tax Lot 400 on the baok. Attached Is a>copy of the document received.by DJB, Inc. as well as 'a cony of the 4 envelope in which it was mailed m as confirmation that it was mailed on April 18, ;1986. However, on April 17, 1956 a notice was published in the TIGARD T I listing not only Tam Lot 400, yjap, 2 S 1 1 AA but tax Lot 500, as well, wd; also Tax Lots 4800, 4900, 3000 and 51003 flap 9 S 1 36 DD. It so asappena that Landmark Ford 'leases Tait Lots 4900, 5000, and WO from WB Inc.. but they de not lease Tax Lot 48009 however, they do lease portions of T. L. 1700 and T. L 58009 Map 1 S 1 36 DD but no mention was made of these. $ Also at City Call in the SCFE 2-86 file were County maps with a yellow lime including ouM T. L..4800 but not including the portion of Tax Lots Mdxb4 1700 and 5800 leased;by Landmark ford. As a matter Of ,fact, the line on the West was drawn.so ae to include half of Vacated S. Ufa 67th. So there will be no question as to what property Landmark. Ford, Inc. leases from DJB, Inc. we are<submitting a 009Y for the record of the Landmark Ford SUMvey of the Lease area as recorded with the Washington b Go-maty Surveyor's office on July 26, 1984. For easier identification of the leased'area we have maxked a July 14, 1981 map obtained from' the Oregon Dept. of Transportation. Incompparinng� this map with the one in your packet tonight you will mate the Band-E-Xrn copy is in errox. We do not object to the sign" however, if at anQMaxk ford, Inc., Ford Leasing & Development (aka Ford motor Co.) or any agent for them, including Reath Northwest, desires to put a align on DJD, Inc. property, it is their .reaponsil lit" t advise DJD, Inc. in writing at the corporate office, 11515 S. W- 91ot Avenue,, Tigard, Oregon 972239 as to this time and place of such installation so that a. member of the corporation may ,be present to make certain this is not a means of directing water from the Metzger Water'drainage to the Last of D 8 Ino. into another area of DJB, Inc. property. Please make this and the Tigard Times notice, the Landmark Ford survey of leazed area, the July 14, 1981 ODOT map, and the Public Notice and copy of en. lapp_part of this Public Hearing and the City of Tigard record onto v. t April 28Q 1986 Sd ' We armee with J:Lm Corliss that the Cit;counal.1 should readdress -the Current a gn f® At the last meeting of the Oregon Transportation Commission the di resentative from the Lebanon area appeared in defense of businesses in hz= mea who had been ,told by the state to make they sib oaf 3 gra She told of cava i.nstr ce where the burin a had a sign which w within the law but not wit-bin the ry e and so/E asked to Put sxp a. smaller si6m as designated in the m1e. She also brought ,out that to do so would be interfering with business acti-vitt and that businesses needed the signs for the econoayoWhereupon the cor scission asked that a, review of signs on Feder an �t€�$e higIrla •s be mala. E the following w;il be considered by the Tigard City Council on April 28,1.986 at 7:00 PM at Fowler Junior High School Lecture Room,10865 - S.W. Walnut Street, Tigard, Oregon. Further information may be ob- tained from the City Recorder at 12755 S.W.Ash Avenue,Tigard,Oregon 57223,or by calling 639-4171. SIGN CODE EXCEPTION SCE 2-86 LANDMARK FORD NPO#f 4 A request by LANDMARK FORD for Council review of a Planning n,+�7 6:'u UL (Z� Commission denial of a request for a sign code exception.The sign J r code exception request was to allow a fifth free-standing sign that is ^ approximately 2511°' tall and 151 square feet where one sign 70l ��' '+ �"�' square feet In areaand 20' in height is permitted.The property is located at 12000 S.W. 66th.Avenue NIWCfM 2S1 1AA lots 400 g 100; T>3 and WC71'M ISI 36DD lots 4800,'4300,5000,and 5100.) -COMPREHENSIVE PI AN AMENDMENT CPA 3-36 ZONE CHANCE ^r ZC 5.86 NPO i#SL r'� v:!►, e- CL 1A'recommend&tion by the Planning Commission to correct the adopt- r ed Comprehensive Pian and Zoning Maps to change the Comprehen- C5 !• 00 sive Plan designation from Medium Density Residential to Commer- cial General and the zoning designation from R-12 (Residential 12 . unit.,/acre) to'C-G (Commercial General) on property located at f 10580 S.W.McDonald Street(WCTM 2S1 IOAA LOT 500). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN'AMENDIMENT CPA 2-86 ZONE CHANGE 4.86 WHITE/WEI'LRELM NPO 3#:2� � - A recommendaBan by the Planning Commission not to grant a re- quest for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low and Medium Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial and a Zone Change �<' A, from R-4.5 (Residential 4.5 units/acre) and R-12 (Residentiad, 12 units/acre)to C-N(Commercial Neighborhood)on property at 11730, 11780, 11782,and 11784 SW Greenbusg Road (WCTM ISl 35DC lots 7500&7600). –176680—Publish April 17,1986 t7i imi: Ig FM j. 3 <t. J� t� j j t Sw l 9,SYf � j I I 111 1 W/Vnei' tr,eeLr I {...i.1� 1 � r_ �Otfp �L� Sw 25+36 N 3 �`o x _far i qd _ Y �aUTN �iltVBOK � OA� 3 f - -. /1 .t -- toadiilw Y2 3 i E.yPSEi#Tk&T rKTk R.O.BOX 23397 #: !GARD,OREGON 97223 :... 'j D.J.B. INC, 11515 SW 91st Ave. Ti$ardx OR 97223 s b: •�r F 4c E' IV Q_P WASHINGTON COUNT TY,OREGON N O T I C E O F P B L` I C H E A R I N G NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT TETE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AT ITS MEETING ON MOHDA.Y, April 23, 1936 AT 7:00 , IN TETE LECTURE 80019 OF FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCI:OOL, 10863 SW WALNi;T TIGARDg OR., WILL C NSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: FILE NO.: -SCE 2-36 APPLICANT: Heath :Northwest OWNER: Ford Motor Co. 175 NE Columbia: Blvd.- (Landmark Ford) Portland, OR. 97211 300 rRenaissance Ctr. Detroit, 141 43243 R.E.QUES : By `,',andmarkFord for Council review of a Planning Commission denial of a request for a sign code exception to allow a fifth free-standing sign that is approximately 25' ll" tall and 151 sq. ft. where one sign 70 sq. ft. in area and 20' in height is permitted. The property is zoned C--C. LOC.f.TION 12000 Std 66th Ave. (IdCT14'2SI IAA Nor_ 400) (See map on reverse aide) THE PUBLIC,. HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH TETE RULES OF PROCEDURES OF THE CITY COUNCIL. TESTIHONY MAY BE>SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY RECORDER OR PLANNING DIRECTOR ° AT: :639--4171 CITY OF TIGARD 12755 S.W. Ash Av a. Tigard, Oregon 97323 (corrivr of Ash 6 Burnham) L (0272P) 12765 S.W.ASH P.O.BOX 23397 TIGARD,OREGON 97223 PO!:639-4171 .';ymr� •tis v y°c��.�4/Z v - *�}.�1� Yyf \ � �, t .:� s• 11 f 1 4�1. � � ��li w ��. 1 A is amp if It zA 17 LIN t,71 11 Z a .Iv pGP fr It L7 �� 11Z 4.1 ,. •r ••�w�^ J^ 77U.198, �_. •�y. 1:1.-•� frA 1 QF`91 It tit SrfAGG-fT01 /E �z ... /✓ 1 } 1 l 2 �.Sh9j9 0159' �,�•� 1 t { i ''� C•'a" Ji 29 a!L'•JA '� ,d E7 '',' 1 1 1 � �,�• X18 1,7 � •' 1, Il 1 f 1 s ,i i� 1 �,NT,}tai ttl j •.. '' 23 - A rnda 3 III IlII 1�1�lI� �)�1[I ill ifi !(Irl�l {jl�ijl T m Iii i�Y l,i �. III !j i�i.ilk i( �1 ili. + [ (1 9�i�tll 1 I�i7-,J71�111 �I1�� i 1 I ! Irll�i I�Iil�ili�lli�) i�Fi4, _ I � �_ � I 1 Im�r � r r r � NOTE: IF THIS MICROFILMED —.---__.12 DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN ' ' THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF TIE ORIGINAL DRAWING. _ I` OE 62 82 12 SZ 4Z E2 ZZ —SZ 12 OZ 61 BI CI SI Sf bi El-- ZI II 01 __6 ® C S S i' E Z ! F mnitoianinnitoriu�u�n uutitfll%ttpl - MAARGEI990 __� ��--- -AAA v„yr.n I so unlyinal AS h leo In The Nkishington County Surveyor's Office 2buun g a 0 G;; -.,rr — n,u unytnal AS hued in TAe Mishington r4unty Surveyor's Offico ata -6 0-a t-zsi-tae °u�y SiovAwe - — — � ___ _ _• I . — p 36-151-277 N.Sg057'E. Z84.QL0 F4 PS 1G141L° ZSS-P) 20,789 _- 4ln•F 80.02-F iq,ga•F 4a q9 F `,' 15�•F NORTH LIME 0L TOT Z5 735-00.P* 230,00-D Lti I S '� I I N e O(ALK`13 LL s Z5 a 24 v I Z!v - 19 ZO ZI ZZ Z3 Z4 6 OC_IL 9 13 R I 13l_ OC_K Irl I /O� �1 W 1 8 a � \/ Q t L PART OFT.L.590D 2 T••L• 4qCO 8 T.L, T.L.SIQO 20 00 F,Dfl PS IaLIILa LC IDMS 5G.PT. DI S.S�IO 57'W, lP (l�09 Xl.FT� (7.79Z%.Fr.) to �( ri [10,4105@.FT� q�0,00•F 50.00-F $a.94•F 5•IS°7io'3411E r 0 5.$<t°5T W, ••— 5,89°5l'W. 219.94 F -- - 6,b.zz FiPS 1941!0 D� 50,05-F C 76 30fv' 50.FT. - TRUE AREA p PART OF T.L.l7CO [ 75. ZSo SLS-FT - LEASE AGREEMENT) t"I i� o - (29787 59.Fr� z 30 30 Co 7 2, ^ I Z 3 .4 5 (y -T 8 FIE?5I:141 O. F4PS,19LtICo 131_L I !_It I$ g 8 I 131_C]C_K� 17 (IOU.00•P;) �_F (25•P) (25.P) C-A P)](ZG-P) (2S-P) 2S-p (2S-P) (2S-P) (ZS•P) (ZS•P) t3A51°J OF BErARING�-Pr. Ig4ILo ' WES(OF 5,W.COR• I ' 7 BLOCK. IS I 'i � niARRATIV E 1 -THE PURPOSE OFTHESURVEY'• ESTABLISH THE PERIMETER- CORNER.MONUMENTS OF THAT CERTAIN 7rZf-LT OF LAN1D LEASED FROM D.S.6,INC•70 LANDMRRtA FORD -THE BA61I-OF THE SURVEY: MONUME\M FOUNO AND HELD AS NOTED SEIOW. Atft ® FOUND 5/0"=,R00•HELD FOR THE S.E. CORNER-OF IDT 8, tBuy-lG I-7 (pt,, 1941Co� ©•FOUND 5/S•r.Re- Ar w ! HELD FOR THE 5.E.CORNER OF IAT 4,5LOCK IS(T,6.IgHtto) ©-FOUND S/0" ZROO-HELD FOR THE S,E. rO' OF'LUT Iib,IBLaK 13(?5.19L4110) ® FOUND 5/8'Z.TZ00-HELD FORTHE M.E-CORNER.OF LOT Z3 BluXIA. 14[,,., Q FOUND 5/'V =,ROD-HELD FOR A POINT ZO' WESTETZL`T OF THE S.E.CORNSER.OF LOT Zlo MICIG. t4 ASS! RS, IgLiW OPS, I�ILilt-) QF - FOUND 5/S"S.ROD•HELD FOR THE N,E.CORNER OF LOT S GLOLu. I?CP g•tgylCo\ THE CONTROLLING ELEMENTS OFIZECORD: I. TRE PLRTOt' W5r EPORTLAND HEIGHTS" Z. r1S, Ig41(o J.} L EGENT-) F FIELD MEASUREMENT D` DEED RECORD P PLMT REC:ORO •.a FOUND MONUMENTAS NOTED IN'7NE NARRATIVE. o 5ET 5/0^X 30" =•rzm,TOPPED WRH A YELLOW PL%TIL CAP MF1RItED z_�ARIS eLKf . iRLS 7$q OF LEASE AREA FROM D.S.B.INL. PRzl" ESSIOi','1L TD LANDMARK TURD. L_,�1,,� S•�ntV::Y ::;�-., i� Otl vG ;t mnr a, 0v ANDREW J.1'Ai2iS JR. 28t ON A TR ALT OF LAUD 51TUAT•ED .IN THE S.E.I/H OF SELTION 3Co T, IS. R.I1N.4U.M. AND IN THE N.F. Vq OF SELTION I T.ZS, R,I %Q-VJ.M. WA5UIyC,TOlQ COUNTY, ORS7'( , DEING A PART 07 ZLOCK5 1-6,14,17 AND tS "VJEST PORTLAMZ HEl(nHTS" SURVEYED IBI: ANDY PARIS AND A'�SOCIATE`� �mmina rM„M C,n qr I(oS5'7 SAM. CANYMI DRIVE RFC P,I;Y P n ' Ilhjr 111 111 I l r t l l l r 1 1 1 1.I l III fill I I I .,�_.. . _., DRAWING Is I ! i �rTTj7T (R1 IIIrII1 IIT R ill II1�111 jai tl fjl�Ili�l�rrllllfl�II111110117111►IrItIllr�ll11r1'It11�111I111(tlllll y tlr`IfWit NOTE: IF THIS MICROFILMED j .._—... . 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 II LESS CLEAR THAN 12 THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO - THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL - DRAWING. •'- _.. Roar .. OE Bz 9z 12 8z SZ oz EZ zz Iz OZ -81—81 [j - 91 S'1"bl Bi' zl II 01 6 8 L 9 S 1s 6 2 1 �Nltualnu�uuluu�wdlNtlmdm will il4N luilNl�lts>Jlu....................... lwl.NNlnN..l� wtNn118t MARCHi� 7 i' 1990 , -w, V, 1 ue unymaI As I-ueU In The M1lshfngton(',aunty Surveyor'o Office Q 1 r D. _ 1-251-142 ! 36-1S1-277 N.SG'57E. Zi34.CtLo FE PS Ict41L9 (ZSS-P� 20,759 'i(D•F 80._02•F � I I NORTH LIME OCU3Z3 D•F 200.0 LL 11 OLOLK'13 I I q k II .Ss w 0 Iq ZOzz. F IL LnIt-I o NE1" 40' 4 �- LPART OFT.L.59p0 2 T.L. 49Ce3 o T.L.5,OL10 Z T.L.SM ZO 00 F,D6 P'S IggI(a tL (10396 5G.FT.) tP (1d�045D.FT (7.792 SO.Ff.) m1 S.St0 57'W. ri �10,41050.FT� _ gp,DO•F 50,00-F Sq.Gy.F S.ISaua`3'i"E r S.Efl°5T W. •• 5.89°5l'W. 219.94 F - ~— (03.22 FiPS 1g41(o D� 50,05-F C 75,30(. 50,FT. - TRUE AREA p PART OF T.L.1700 ( 7S.ZSO LEASE AGREEMENT� m1 415 50.FT.� T T.LI IJII a I �_ � � o I I 211,787 W,FT I Ca I' 7 S' cin - ^ 1 '3 4 5 I C0 I •7 SOL�TN: IC037 0. II S F4PS,1941Co ,3I_c I !_I�. I� 8 8 131_c+�c_ic.l I� I (roo.ao•P� t.et0•F ' (25•P) (25.P) C 25 P) (25•P) (25•P)' 2S Q)C 7n P) (2S-p) (25•P) (p5•P) �.. _. � .� .,... -�v-�.uW - r.a. ,-r n�° ar � D(cCI,LV•I�� `y _ i LiA51 7 OF SE(AKINGc�-PS Iot4lLo WE5(CW 5.V.I.COR• 1 7 BLOCK. IS I �� Z 3Wg 1 NARRATIVE -THE PURPOSE OF THE SURVEY. £STAFSLISH THE PERIMETER_ CORNET-L MONUMENTS OF THAT CERTAIN 7RALT OF LAND LEASED FROM D.S.13,INC.-70 LANDMARK FORD -THE FSA(iIS OF THE SURVEY: MONUMENT4,FOUND AND HELD AAS NOTES BELOW. ®- FOUND 9/a"7M.R00•I1EL-0 FOR THE S.E. CORNER OF LOT 5 . BLOCK 1-7 (PS I-NICD) ©-FO0NI7 5/S'Z.ROD HELD FOR THE S.E.CORNER OF LAT 4,5LOCIC.15(PS•Iglitto) ©-FOUND S/lb" =.RO!7-HELD FOR THE S,E. •^_ORNEf2 OF LOT Ind,BUX,K IS(i?5•IgHl1o) Q- ROUND 5/Q'Z.ROD-HELD FORTNE. N-E.CORNER OF LOT Z3 51.001-14�PS.1941(0) Q FOUND 5/2,' =-ROO-HELL) FOR A POINT 20' WESTERLY OF THE 5,E.CORNER_ OF LOT Z(o SLOLIC 14 AS PER_ PS• I9'il(D �F'S. IgLiic.) 0- FOUND S/0" r•ROD-HELD FOR THE N,E.CORUEROF LOT 813LOLv, 17 (I- IgylCO) -THE CONTPOLLIMG ELEMENTS OFRECOKO: I. 1'P£FLRT07 WEST PORTLAND HEIGHTCa' Z, Pell 10141(0 L EGENT7 �®oma F FIELD MEASUREMENT D DEED RECORD P = PLRT RECORD a _ FOUND MONUMENT AS NOTED 1N THE NAP.RATI VE. ` 0 5ET 5/0'X30" =.RDD,TOPPED WIT1a A YELLOW PL%TtL CAP MARKED; �z—PAR1�' E Ly'pC RLS •�caq EGO'�D �F �U V EY TO LAAIDM RKIII LEA6E AFORD.FROM 0.5.6.ML. Ai,! O FOR 0K'EGC' a MAY 9. 1�sZ ANDREW J.r'1RiS Jit. zap ON A TRALT OF LAND 5ITLOAT'EV .1N THE S.E.I/4 OF SELTION 3(o T. 15,RAW.W.M. AND IN THE N.E.I/'H OF 5EG.T10N I T.ZS, R.I W.W.M. WMtAIM(;sTOM _COUNTY. 15EING A PART OF!3LOCKh 13,14,17 AND 18 "WEST POWMAMD HEIGAlc)" SURVEYED ZV ANDY PARIS AND Air-tWMS rnvty c,"^v I(o877 SAM. CANYOAI DRIVE R F C R 1 V P.1T .LlAKE C>5 W EC?Q•,.Q.RE.C�S�►�-,•�-'�.�.._ I11N2 I Mm '!1}IpI1111111!111}l1111 R iT�r1j1l)nl I tl 1TrR�11!iI..i-I 111 ►I1.1 11If} 1l!1!iI►f( I'I' Jlll} l�l}l}�!I�11111IIiIIIIII�IIli11ll11fi1U�1111111Illiir►! '• NOTE: IF THIS MICROFILMED _ 12 3 4 _ _ 5 6. 7 8 9 O 11 IQ g DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN H THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO TIE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DRAWING. OE 6Z BZ LZ 92 SZ tZ Ca ZZ IZ Zi II 01 - 69 1NIIIIIIIUIIIUIIIuuluulliNlNul►fitltlnilUl .NdN1Al1}iYl }!1n{Ilfr}t3'J�NIt}HU�I!u�1MJ{!Jl 1 }11( jp}t,j 1990 My�I)A11�y(SIIII - - --- r- _ A�C�-I 7 ' � _ f 'TIGARD CITY COUNCIL. April 28, 1986 Item 3 - Sign Code Exception SCE 2-86 (Landmark Ford) (Ford Leasing and Development aka Ford Mr. Mayor and members of the Council: Motor Co. My name is Geraldine Ball, 11515 S. W. 91st Avenue, Tigard and I am appearing before,on behalf of DJB, Inc„ Our objection is not in regaxd to the sign but in regard to the published documents. 0n April 18, 1986 a Notice of Public Nearing was mailed to DJB, Inc. asking the Council to consider a sign code exception on Tax Lot 400 Map 2 S 1 1 AA with a map of Tax Lot 400 on the back. Attached Aki a copy of the document received by DJB, Inc. as well as a 'copy of the envelope in which it was mailed - as confirmation that it was mailed on April 18,; 1986. r� However, on April 179 1986 a notice was published in the TIGARD TIMES listing not only 'Tax Lot 400,;Map 2 S 1 9 AA but tax Lot 100, as well, and also Tax Lots 4800,' 4900, 5000 ;and 5100, reap 1 S, 1 36 DD. It so happens that Landmark Ford leases 'lax Lots 4900, 5000, and 5100 from DJB, Inc. but they do not lease Tax Lot 4800; ;however, they do lease portions of T. L. `1700 and T. L. 5800, Map 1 S 1 36 DD but no mention was made of these. Also at City Hall in the SCE 2-86 file were County maps with a yellow Line including aux T. L. 4800 but not Including the portion of Tax Lots 1 dx 1700 and 5800 leased;by Landmark Ford. As a matter t °w of fact, the line on the West was drawn so as to include half of; Vacated S. W. 67th. So there will be no question as to what property Landmark Ford, Inc. leases from DJB, Inc. we are submittkng a 'copy for the record of the Landmark Ford Survey of the Lease area as recorded with the Washington s County Surveyor's office on July 26, 1984. For easier identification c of the leased area we have marked a July 14, 1981 map obtained from the Oregon Dept. of Transportation. In comharin& this map with the one in your packet tonight you will note the and-wclxawn copy is in error. We do not ob'ect to the sign; t me f J gns ho�rever, if at 'ani�andmark Ford, Inc., . Ford Leasing & Development (aka Ford Motor Go.) or any agent for them, including Heath Northwest, desires to put a sign on UJB, Inc. property, it is their responsibility to advise .DJB, Ince in writing at the corporate office, 11515 S. W. 91st Avenue,Tigard, Oregon 97223, as to the time and place of such installation so that a member of the corporation may be present to make certain this.is not a means of directing water from the Metzger Water drainage to the,East of DJB,Inc. into another area of DJB, Ince property. Please make this and the Tigard Times notice, the Landmark Ford survey of leased area, the July 14, 1981 ODOT map, and the Public Notice and copy of envelope;part of this Public Hearing and the City of Tigard record r TICARD CITY COUNCIL 2 April 28$ 1986 Item 3, We agree with Jim Corliss that the City Council should readdress the current sign p n. At the last meeting of the Oregon Transportation Comms esion' the epresentative from the Lebanon area'appeared in defense of businesses .in her area who had been foldby the`'state to make their signs smaller. She told of one instance whIere the ,business had a sign which was within the law but not witMn_the ruler and sof HER asked to put tap a smaller sign as designated in the rule. She also brought out that to do so would be interfering with business activity and that businesses needed the signs for the economy. Whereupon the Cormuission asked that a review of suns on Federal and State highways be made. !3` 1. 4 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA' ITEM SUMMARY l AGENDA OF: �pri1.28 1486 AGENDA ITEM ##i # s DATE SUGMI:nED: April 23, 1986 PREVIOUS Ac�TION: Plannin Commission R ISSUEIAGENDA TITLE: Comb. Plan Recommendation Tor Denial; �r _ Amendment CPA 2-'-86/Zone Chap PREPARED BY: Keith Liden` ZC 2-96, Fisher, Wilhelm, White REQUESTED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: i ce- CITY ADMINISTRATOR: -- _ POLICY_ ISSUE ' INFORMATION SUM ARY The Commission reviewed the above application at its April 8, 1986 hearing and € recommended denial for a °Comprehensive Plan change from low and medium �= residential 'to neighborhood commercial and a zone change from R4.5 and R-12 to t q Cts, located at 11790, ;11700,: 11782, 11784 S.W. Greenburg Road. Attached are copies of the application, staff report, and minutes of the Apil' 8th bearing. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Approve the request Comprehensive Plan change from low and medium residential to neighborhood commercial and a zone change from R4.5 and R-12 to CM, after conducting a pubic hearing. 2. Deny the request. SUGGESTED ACTION Conduct a public hearing. L" Deny the application based upon the findings noted in the staff report, and adopted by the Planning Commission; (2504P) r TIGARD PLANNING CC MISSION REGULAR MEETING — APRIL 8. 1985 F 1. Acting Vice—President' Fyre called the meeting to order at 7:40 PM. The meeting was held at Fowler Junior High School, LGI Room', 10855 SW Walnut, Tigard, Oregon. 2. ROLL= CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners Fyre, Butler, Peterson,' Vanderwood, and Leverett. ABSENT: Commissioners Moen, Owens, Bergmann, and Newsman, STAFF: Senior Planner Keith Liaen, Secretary DiaaneM. 3elderks. 3. APPROVAL OF- MINUTES Commissioner Butler noted 'a spelling error on the bottom of wage 9. Commissioner Peterson vioved and 'Commissioner Leverett seconded to approve the minutes a amended. Motion carried by majority vote of Commissioners present. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION C01%1 IUNICATION Staff requested that a survey be completed which :had been enclosed in the packet regarding a training session with City Council. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 2-85 AND ZONE CHANGE ZC 4-06 TOM F'ISHF_R/MjAC`iEL WILiELM!IRMA WHITE NPI # 2 A request for• a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low and Medium density Residential. to Neighborhood Commercial and a Zone Change from R-4.5 (Residential 4.5 units/acre) and R-12 (Residential, 12 units/acre) to C-N (Cormnerciaal Neighborhood). Located: 11730, 11780, 11782, & 11784 SW Greenbury Road (WCTM 1S1 35DC lot 7500 and 7600) Senior Planner Liden reviewed the proposal and. made staff's recommendation for denial. He reviewed and submitted to the Goeimissioners letters from Alex Arsenien & Rengina Mar'kova; E.ulalaia M. River•man & lielen Riverman Mason; and a petition with 42 signature opposing the proposal AP P LICANI-S;PRESENTATION 'rom Fisher, 13085 SW View 'Terrace explained that he was a long time resident of the area and would not be leaving the area. Fie would have preferred to ask for a Commercial Professional designation, however, staff had discouraged him and he had changed his request to Commercial Neighborhood. lie felt two modest dental facilities, residential in appearance could have less impact on the residential area than four families which could occupy the area. lie would construct a six foot fence and felt he would be a;good neighbor. PLANNING c(yjM1ISSI.t1N ;o71UUTES ';April 8, 1986 Paga! 7. i PUBLIC l E S'k IMi:NY { o Pat , Taylor Cantrell, 11700 SW Greenburg toad, adjoining Mrs. Whites < property. When she had investigated purchasing hter home, she had been very impressed with the Comprehensive Plan process the City had gone through and was confident 'w-hen she purchase her pruperty that she would not be faced with abutting comtrrercial property. She opposed, the proposal and 'requested the Commission maintain its adopted Comprehensive Plan, o Donna Sandbo, 11475 SW 91st Ave,', opposed the proposal. Shz had been at resident for 9years and wanted to see the residential zoning remairt residential, o John Sandpo, 11 475 SW 91st; opposed the proposal. He rioted that there are many; other locations, which are vacant, where a dentist office could locate rather than encroaching into a residential neighborhood_ o Bill' Webber, 112135 SW 92nd Ave. , a resident of 32 years, had: the highesL respect for Dr.` Fisher- and his intent. However-, he was apposed to the proposal riot because of the use being proposed, but on the standpoint. of the overall. process. He did not support spot` zoning. I:f this proposal was :approved it would be the beginning of many, reuuest for changes alonc3 Greenburg 'Road. REBUTTAL o Dr. Fisher,, stated that he would prefer a CP zone which would eliminate the possibility of a convenience stare going in. He requestcad the Commission make a recotlmendation for approval to City Council with tations. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED o Senior Planner Lidera reviewed why staff had t:hi.• applicant chtan e his proposal from CP to Cttil. Discussion Followed. o Consensus of Commission was to deny the proposal x Commissioner Peterson moved and Commissionur Butlr<r• secunded to forward •+ recommendation of to City Council for- GPA 2-86 and 7C 4 So. mot,iort carried by unan4mously by Commissioner present. 5.2. PLANNED DE:Vk I._OPMENI- PD 2--86, SUBDIVISION S 786, AND ,EN"I 1'iVE t.AND ; PERMIT SL 486 KEN 'v1AYMIREI(f l)NCHE=SSIkJE`�Vt�k_,DIOGI_ElANI) C Htjl:NNk11IPc> Sl t; Request for, approval of a Planned Development: consisting of Lti: dot t0io.i single family residences on lots ranging from 4,800- l.o 28,00o sex. ft. in sizri. Also, a request. that minor lot: line adjust,nwrtts up to t ' t of bo perreit.tcaci with staff, approval . Also, permission tri (;or strur:l. •a :t+nwer- I ino and st.rcel. imfir;i>vemeni withina drainagawa_y: :I<>nior Plattner _i_idt,rt r-evj.(>wed thttz r_hanget-, which h,,kd boo..ri made limo 01v prvviou:; request . 11v st-ated tatery were concvrrt�; rii�ardinr7 the+ n:iu +! C+.i11Ur,tur dr siyriatioti of Rivsava0r!d ( grit «u'tiJ Lhrt ltg.tl trrtttl kr•.[ n,al t:•t of100t.h. it was-noted Lhot. l4)tlth -sho�tJd he d�•si9ri'At'od ••t', ,t rnirun ! I.•ttr=t through <.r t ovi'31ort of t.lt+! f;t!rttprohf rriiv4: Plart. E'k.wftNhJlNtY t.;t,)P1tv('[ ;.;lttib' MIR1111:1 := nor i t kJ;. 198t•', P,Aq(, 2 ;x 1�r F' "T 1 T 3 0" We, the undersigned, oppose the �Ei lhel !A �e€�t for a Comprehensive Plan amendment that would change Tax Lots 7600 and 7500 �. along reenburg Road from ares currently zoned as "Medium Density Residential" and -"Low Density Residential?' to "Neighborhood Commercial". T14 l S REQUEST FOR COMMERCIAL ZONING ENCROACHES UPON LONG ESTABLISHED, SURROUNDING LORI DENSITY NEIGHBORHOODS. These neighborhoods should be preserved and maintained as low density areas as specified in T'i'gard''s existing Comprehensive Pian. (see attached map) We feel that the Wilhelm/White request for an Amendment is unnecessary, unwise, ; and undermines the integrity, character, and " livability of our° residential neighborhoods. We strongly urge the Planning Commission to maintain the existing Comprehensive Plan and deny the Wilhelm/White proposal . € I Respectfully submitted: 1��5E ADDRESS 'T 1 / F K e . S 1 0" *V1 Y OF (l AKt3 We, the undersigned, oppose the ° llhelis�h�t9 Yor a Comprehensive Plan Amendment that would change Tax Lots 7600 and 7500 along Greenburg Road from areas currently zoned as "Medium Density Residential"- and "Low Density Residential" to "Neighborhood Commercial". THIS REQUEST FOR COMMERCIAL ZONING ENCROACHES UPON LONG ESTABLISHED, SURROUNDING LOW DENSITY NEIGHBORHOODS. These neighborhoods should be preserved and maintained as 'low density areas as specified in Tigard's existing Comprehensive, Tiara, (see attached map) We feel that the Wilhelm/White request for an Amendment is unnecessary, unwise, and undermines the integrity, character, and livability of our residential: neighborhoods. We strongly urge the Planning Commission to maintain the existing Comprehensive Plan and deny the Wilhelm/White proposal . Respectfully ;zabmitted i4A6uiE/ G ADDRESS C� o 7-4 112 u. cis _ c c_ '7r��sr f (Aly OF CIGARD. { We, the undersigned, oppose, the W i l ha l mlWhi te request for ' a Comprehensive Plan Amendment that would change Tax Lots 7600 and 7500 along Crecnbua g Rodd xa9xs are currently zoned as "Medium Density Residential" and "Lowe nsity Residential" to, '"Neighborhood Comwerciai". THIS REQUEST FOR COMMERCIAL ZONING ENCROACHESUPON LONG ESTABLISHED, SURROUNDING LOW DENSITY NEIGHBORHOODS. 'These neighborhoods should' be ;preserved and maintained as low density areas as' specified in Tigard' s existing Comprehensive Plan. (see attached map) We feel that the Wilhelm/White request for an Amendment is • unnecessary, unwise and undermines the integrity, character, and livability of our residential neighborhoods. We strongly urge the Planning Commission tomaintain the existing Comprehensive Plan and deny the Wilhelm/White pr oPeasa l Respectfully submitted: NAME ADDRESS �? SC2 9 U Tf V"ate qj � 11..E -� •�}. f..�� ® o- r s t+ [u'�str `"--+, �t..*t!v'a-- _ r��`-a J r� 7 Cv' Y �-.r'' .�+••5.---+, 7 �Y t, f F OP WP ME D • �-i T E ylY[ Sti:rLt \�� J FO '^t" 1\ P-. o `,`a rr''j,/f `yr r s4, .J`e `' ` �',.� i ➢ r f HIGH S -HOGL moa ! am j Tl— ITT 'A � A �gaagyy.. CB 1 y��j{ c spy% r \ ( e \ / g� HIGH , �-. �` 69ARLE , `� { nuc 1 FIGA /. t i( �y El E „ i AA ED OWs 4. go an ( ,r{� —2LL- 11 R W _ t,il�� C1 11 GA"C PLANNING DEPT. V Tigard, ore on :April1, 1996 Mr. Gary Cltt, Chairperson .. Tigard Planning Commission. Tigard City Halls 12755 Ss W. Ash St Tigard , Or. 97223 Dear fir. Ott. £' Ret File #Cr A 2-86 & ZC 2-86 =" We received the notice of a Public Hearing on Zone change for the Erma White—Tom Fisher and Michael WiIhelm properties. The properties .:.' in question are on two sides of our home. y We object to the Zone change from Residential to Commercial We do not feel that it is a good idea to put a commercial property strip along; Creenburg Road. The traffic already is very bad on that street and these Zone changes just add ` to that difficulty. We feel that Commercial developments belong in i" Shopping Centers and not in residential TNTeighbor- r: hoods, Please enter our objection to this Zone Change. x Yours vera truly, � TT Eulalia M. Riverman ck Helen Riverman Mason 1.1695 s. W. 90th Tigard, Oregon 97223 i a t 'd,a , T ! cl zc . CPA . aAAII /1 Ck � - j LV • ck " g O - y - -� - fw n .`- U3LT c. vim. 1 ' qCO t, Ca=m -700 WIN MIN,a STAFF REPORT AGFNI.)A IVEM 5. 1 TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 1986 _ 7:30 PM f� TIGARD PLANNING'COMMISSIOU FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL - LGI 10865 S.W. WALNUT TIGARD, OREGON 97223 A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE. Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 2-86 and Zone Change ZC 4-86 REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low and; Medium Density Residential to "Neighborhood Commercial and a Zone change from R-4.5 (Residential 4.5 units/acre) and R-12 y (Residential, 12 units/acre) to C-N (Commercial Neighborhood) APPLICANT: Tom Fisher/Michael Wilhelm OWNER: Irma white 13085 SW View Terrace. Michael. Wilhelm Tigard, Oregon 11730 SW Greenburg Rd. Tigard`, Oregon 97223 LOCATION: 11730, 11780, 11782, 11784 SW Greenburg Road (WCl"M 1S1 350C, Tax Lot '7500, 7600). 2. Sacka)round " No previous land use applications have been reviewed by the City relating to this property. 3. vicinity Information The area northeast and southeast of the two parcels is zoned R--4.5 and is occupied by single family residences. The properties on the east sideof 90th Avenue contain apartment buildings which are zoned R--12. Greenburg Road borders the subject properties on the south and single family homes, that are zoned C-P (Commercial Professional are situated on the south side of the street. 4. Site Information and Property DesSri tion This proposal involves two separate parcels which have two different Comprehensive Plan and Zone designations. One lot is located on the northeast cornea of Greenberg Road and 90th Avenue. It contains a triolex and is zoned R--12. The second lies immediately northwest along Greenburg Road and it is occupied by a house and is zoned R•-4.5. STAFF REPORT - CPA 2-86/ZC 4-86 - PAGE 1 The applicants' intend to use the properties for dental offices. The P P proposed C-N zone allows dental and medica] offices as well as a variety of other commercial activities but the maximum size of any individual business is 4,000 square feet of floor area. The northerly 80 feet of the western ,parcel is intended to retain the present R--4.5 zone designation. 5. Agency and NPO Comments The Engineering Division has no objection;to the request. It is noted, a: however, that a Site Development Review application will be necessary and that public facilities such as half street improvements will be required prior to establishing a commercial use. , The Building Inspection Division has no objection to -the proposal. NPO P 1' is opposed to the application as it is not compatible with the concepts contained in ,the Comprehensive Plan. There is a limited ". opportunity, to provide an adequate buffer between commercial development and adjoining residential uses. Some of the uses permitted in the C-RI zone, such as convenience sales, are inappropriate for this area. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, 5.1.4, 6.3.3, 6.6.1, 8.1.1, and Locational Criteria in Chapter 1.2. Since the Comprehensive Plan has been acknowledged, the W. Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines no longer need to be addressed. <' 4 The Planning staff concludes that the proposal is not 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 Neighborhood Planning Organization and surrounding property owners were given notice of the hearing an an opportunity to comment on the applicant's proposal. b. Policies 5.1.4 and 6.3.3 are not satisfied because the proposed change will 'introduce a commercial activity on the border of an established residential neighborhood. The parcels involved are across the street from single family residences that are zoned C-P but all other abutting properties are zoned for residential i purposes. The plan to retain the northern 80 feet of the western (White) parcel as R--4.5 partially addresses the encroachment issue, but is , not sufficient to overcome potential problems, When dealing with ;. this issue it is also necessary to consider whether a precedent may be established to allow similar proposals in the future. It is common for requests such as this to create relatively small incremental changes but significant cumulative impacts over a period of time. STAFF REPORT CPA 2--86/ZC 4-86 — PAGE 2 ' c. Policy 6.6.1 calls for adequate screening and buffering between different land usessuch as residential and commercial ' development. It appears that for the proposed dental offices, the existing vegetation in combination with new plantings, fencing, etc, could achieve an adequate buffer as required by the Community Development Code, However, it is questionable whether other uses that are permitted in the C--N zone would also be capable of meeting ;Code requirements, i d. Policy 8.1.1 obligates the City to plan for a safe and efficient street system which meets current and future needs. ' One component of such a ;system relates to the uses allowed and the access that is permitted along public streets.' Although the traffic impact of two small dental offices will be minimal, additional commercial development situated with direct access to Greenburg Road will tend to impede traffic flow by attracting vehicles and causing an increase in the number of turning movements on and off of the street. . e. The Locational Criteria in Chapter 12 of the Plan are partially satisfied. The proposal is consistent with the criteria because the site is less than two acres, the service area for the proposed � dental offices is greater than one half mile, the C—N zone would be located on one quadrant of the intersection, the site has direct access to Greenburg ;Road which is a malior collector, and the site can probably accommodate the proposed dental offices. The request does not appear to 'comply with the 'other criteria because it has not been demonstrated that the uses allowed in the . C—N zone will not create adverse' impacts for adjacent residential E properties and that the privacy of these uses will be maintained. In summary, the: staff is concerned about this request because it represents the introduction of commercial uses in an established residential neighborhood. Although the proposal is modest, it will tend ., to set a precedent for similar rezoning applications which in turn lead to a "strip" commercial situation with the related traffic impacts and disruption of the established residential areas that straddle Greenburg Road from 90th Avenue to Tiedeman Avenue. C. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above findings ' and conclusions, the Planning staff � recommends denial of CPA 2-86/ZC 4-86., . PREPARED €3Y: Keith Lzden AP V D Bv: William A. Monahan Senior Planner Director of Community Development (243 7P/day j STAFF REPORT CPA 2-86/ZC 4-86 — PAGE 3 121, x- 1NO A PROPOSAL FOR ZONE CHANGE City of Tigard, Oregon April 8, 1986 i Applicants: Tom Fisher, D.M.D. 10470 SW View Terrace Tigard, OR 97224 Res. 539--3589 Bus. 639--3441 Michael' Wilhelm, 'D.M.D 13085 SW 124th Tigard, OR 97224 Res. 639s-4495 Bus. 620--5313 Subject Properties: Tax Lot 7500 117.30 SW Greenburg Road Approximately .5 acre Tigard, OR 97223 Washington County Assessor's Map 1S135DC (White-Fisher) Tax Lot 7600 11780, 11782, 11784 Approximately .375 acre SW Greenburg Road (Wilhelm) Tigard, OR 97223 Current Status: Tax Lot 7500 R4.5 Tax Lot 7600 R-12 Desired Future Designation: Cit Purpose. Development of two dental buildinras and necessary support facilities for the practice of General �.3 The above named applicants believe that the following proposal for 'zone change will not detract from the broad'. intent of statewide planning goals and guidelines. it is our firm conviction that any impact of the suggested changes ry can only be positive in nature. These changes are asked; for in an established`residential area of our 'community which is bisected by a busy feeder street', Greenburg Road. The intended result would find new construction or remodeled buildings in place of existing structures` ample asphalt parking spaces, and an orderly open, pleasing backdrop in landscaping. Although small in scope, the proposed development is set against properties which are residential in character. We submit the following: (1) The immense mature laurel hedge found on the northern and eastern boundaries of tax lot 11600 will in- sulate neighbors from almost any anticipated activity associated with a dental facility. (2) We have been urged by planning staff, and the appli- cant's concur, to leave the northerly 80 feet of tax lot 7500 from tH s petition. This will provide a large, landscaped open space for an adequate buffer. Fencing, hedges and prudent location of new trees are expected to achieve a desirablebalance. (3) Anticipated outward appearance of structures involved will be residential in character. (4) No intense outdoor lighting schemes are envisioned. (5) Both parties work forty hour weeks. _ Only infrequent evening appointments for emergency cake (6) Signing will be discreet and conservative in appearance. r The current daily traffic count on Greenburg Road is a feature that makes the subject properties desirable because of 'commercial exposure. our practices are now located 275 feet east of subject properties and we, with our patients, use Greenburg Road almost daily. Applicants are acutely aware of traffic problems which have developed with the opening of Washington Square. Traffic ger_exaved in a dental S practice is regulated by the inherant constraints of an appointment book. it would be unexpected to find more traffic to and from our offices at any one hour during the course of a normal work day, we suggest that favorable consideration of this appli, cation will in effect allow for desirable, orderly ;develop - ment inwhat'most must refer to as a sensitive area of our city. Pressure for further commercial expansion along this busy collector will increase with time. In the City of Tigard today, there are few small, correctly zoned pieces of land available at prices that are not considerably inflated. Very few meet the applicants' requirements in that they are overbuilt, overpriced, not feasible economically for the small businessman, and encum- bored with onerous city requirements for street improvements. A zone change for these two properties will bring minimal alteration to the city zoning district map and character of the surrounding area. CP zoning is now enjoyed -2- c t 60 feet south across Greenburg Road. East of the subject roperties 270 feet CP zoning is also in effect. We suggest p - that these properties properly belong to the core area, and approval of this zone change will not materially effect stated policy goals to enhance the existing central business district. : t Respectfully 'submitted � TOM L. I FUER, D.M.D. � Applicant f ' 6° FilCHAEL SIILHELM, D.M.D. Applicant P, -3- 5. �.. "N rage 30' Z 3608 � .22Ac � F 7I0 %0.sa 8000to ® � a _ i f+' 7200 3600 ,,, $ .35Ac. 3609 5 - s o r. �$ in o i ' 700 ® 3aSt,03 30N89°S:•E ITS P11 50 �300 7900 425.9 t 37.04 3700 3703 36 Ac .24Ac. /45 Ac_ Aro 0 ' o 90 4, 4,?•+v - •,� m lig �$�. ea..m 123 3 _ 0m 7800 $ w 7400 V- , 7.5 �O per°`"n.a��q i$s 100 —n _ 120 I ap ffi 770D p 3701 m o $ 'S9°SY-'S50 1 _i N 9°31' 416.3 247.73 158. 2sza 3 14Q � Ssa _ s �' 130U s" �� 17GOO mr 31Ac. .� 4400 238.68 ai \ 39003� mz921400 , 06 .24AC. 44 229.63 p .0940 N 89 4t'€ L L e 11 t00 $ y, \ 120 50931 tI N a ! 600 4000 _ 4000 0 / o ^' f OCN �n. t<19s°�0 1 153.3t'E. 220.58 {?dp 100 83.55 a 6QQ / / �\ = W 2 67.25 ® 92 X1.55 N 14oc/ S w 4100 'aa 1701 66/ �3 apo 2£pc. a° r`' C.S. 5327 13.AC.. ,^, ! rti- '.4'00 a' 5Qt7.. "l.F 90 ,Q m h 4200 .27Ac. "♦d°i a 92 244C� ( \ l � . t jx440 C? 35 Ac. 1702 =RN o N 0 C.S. 6063� 4QQ . 17Ac. 40 9!2QQ � .244c sa p y4401 C.S, 7663 p o .17Ac. t /e � ? 4300 0 5 92 w m 23Ac. JOAC. 7 9 6i o . ,o § 3 o 200 1700 � 10 � ao tiny (CS5o Nsa,.11721) 91.7z :T 21Ac64-1 N wsz ae° 4D 1100 N cn C.S. 7764 /TAC: m n 700 � � 24 Ac. s / ro N`4 `1XJ v rn II Jud �g� •� ^ c y 'N 890 as'E d+ ,�l R• p°S . Cj 4V m L S' 12 42 91.80 o. N 89°3S E .4® C` !� ,„ 0. 1. ^„s` LU 1601 ,® .e01800 �•s�-- 3s9 f1 -` r 16s)c. I Boo / aS i � ti Baa cps �' 8 .e7Ac. C.S. 6064 i$ 404c. - ego �* 100 �.7. ,OTS � o o� tir a N 690 36'E 103.85 _ � yb 1.00.4c.92.aO 41.88 . , X42:08 ') 1910 1000 N g 9°35€ �, C.S. 6069JeAc \ p Soo e 9 C.S. 6657 a4 fl_ xc. 9z:aa �I,A& ' za za Atoa N 89 23 a Ono v t Lx t C)unL I 1 in { AR .................. { 3 k'. Noll , Moll ± t aOLE < SW CflYSTFL b`i. S� sw __.i! c7P i3C'-'g�CT+i[rsr--99,� A E MAYO A� ST. �_ ."oYO ySTFL ST g„ Ld YAro s'E cT -! SA GtfiSTO O CHESTWOOQ Ct- 1 WAHEHAN SIX IEFE£� i ST o. G ..DR - i ® a QflE,nu sr. ssnJ . Jf S,� _H£kSWTiQM aiEi1C:9'000LFa -i LESLIE LM. LESLIE ST.! P C• HQA S 4 L to +t M!•7c. 0 1 r t.Y 2 : m AD N ' H 9000 PPP w °tA°o�M �---' t .W�,J Tyt^•Y5tg �,Y � S1E 00YkH3' E]-E-j Eev+A 16T- IT. a la T-E-Ju M;(�r#i!!K - - 4A i. SSM E' r--s DAnra A sx H 1 A d 119 NS ST\.:.. �• �. 1I -- LAA'_ `Y p ''V' sl bT 93� \'$#TL VfiMTU7'� ' F FF j SIX, Lk�N__ ST 0% �F5!_ /U OO'P Jw �. �_sT .�a` {xc svx_ - - •Ls.,Q1i� J \ 21 1 e gqiLyi.J.�J' _ r' JII 93 RYt �^, LOCUST S£ �!< 9.H'.•,,• LOCUST ��YS'L-� �� ---._-.��I10 "+.' � 'w�LJ� �" L.- S.W. �iP'APLELEf<F� SY;�S .�Ti i. k2^• . ST G YApLFtEAF 3 5L �ra (•-10Al J ST, OLO a O M OAR ST a l 9 L. J p OU IQi a{ SY. r 6�J/1 E �r s ag 9#AOY 6H Q1 ��• Jk bLV4 /S NqF � THORN-' �g�� T •e �� Cyt + /1000 < LLLiti • N !a TFT LC#O'+ SN MOOT PIT til F-' b lit. lS.tY PFFFFLE ST, Sb. Mwi S ' E. LAM "'loo OTc > 3 0 S s.w. sw.L� S.W. i CIiMT yra 333 g� OOYALL SX ! YEAOQST... 'Kiln .._.✓ -\.�/�.. J J'S.�j MeY. CT. p/Oq f0 3y. t3t r`- w''..mmcc1TT '�� •.qy/ WHR da T°• fiLM" . w i a F. ILI Sp /..\ w -\ 10 S.Lr. I 1 I I.30'V. Qe Y. \QV+j ST ' �... yi /i lT �• t% ®P "fn..$yX_ 9 1 Y,` \\ AMPTOYji T i 5WATHW5 _i _pL S //{�/ q•..' .�(//.- C� �'F i JwTJT�. �9 a ; F ^VA4Ats ST. R Put a u:10 � ; C � CHENAY S W (( A ST. (1 nLLaleW cT. ?'� F N FL. S H1 i °i 3 < �8 Y 60NAL0 /.:ST TT. A �.�JiCl ,AL1 tr _ QM CHE£tt CT P __ $ fLRCfSC � CT a < y LANE VIEW n 3• , � .._ !.:-, 6 CITY OF'TIGARD,OREGON COUNCIL 't GENgA ITEM SUH'ARY AGENDA OF. AGENDA i 128,_1986 AGENDA ITEM s; DATE SUBMITTED: gWri.1 22_,, 986 PREVIOUS ACTION, PlanninS_Lgmmi.ssion _ � ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Comp. Pian _ Recommendation for A2prrOLAl Amendment CPA 3-86/Zone:Change PREPARED By. Keith Liden 7� 5 86 Cit of Tigard REQUESTED BY" DEPAR"(IMENF HEAD OEC: � CITY ADMINISTRATOR- POLICY ISSUE OR-POLICY' ISSUE Should property at 10580 S.W. McDonald be changed from medium density residential to commercial general to correct :in error made during Comprehensive Plan adoption in 1983. - - INFORMATION! SUW4ARY The purpose of this application is to correct an error made on the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps that were adopted in ,1983. T'heommission reviewed the proposal at its April 14th hearing and recommended approval. Attached are copies of the staff report, assessor's map showing the property location, and the zoning Map showing present zoning district boundaries. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED k 1. Conduct a public hearing and approve as noted in the staff report. 2. Conduct a public !-gearing and deny request. SUGGESTED ACTION Council should conduct a` public hearing and approve the change from medium density residential to cammercia.l general and adopt the findings contained in the staff `report, (2504P) js 4 ONE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - APRIL 8, 1486 1. Acting Vice--President Fyre called the meeting to order at 7:40 Pik. The meeting was held at Fowler Junior High School, LGI Roam, 30805 SW Walnut Tigard, Oregon. 2. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners Fyre, Butler, Petarson,< Vanderwood, and Leverett. ABSENT: Commissioners Moen, Owens, Bergmann, and Nein. STAFF: Senior Planner Keith Liden, Secretary Diane M. APPROVAL OF MINUTES missioner Butle'r noted a spelling error; on the bottom of pa R. Cam issioner Peterson moved and CommissionerLeverett seconded to pprove the m*nutes a amended. Motion carried by majority note of 'Cam 'ssianers present 4. ,; PLANNING COa ISSI:ON COnMUNICA s ION Staff requeste that a survey be completed which had �eer, enclosed in the _ packet regarding;' training session with City Counci . 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS, 5.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMEND E�3T CPA 2-A6 AN ZONE CHANGE ZC 4-86 TOM FISHER/MIACHEL WILHEL€ /IRMAHITE. NPO # 2 A, request for a Comprehensiv Plan Ame meat from Low and Medium Dens, Residential to Neighborhood mme.r rl�al and a Zone Change from R-4.5 (Residential 4.5 units/acre) and 2 (Residential, 12 Units/acre) to C-N (Commercial Neighborhood). Loc 11730, 11780, 11782, & 11784 SW Greenburg Road (WCTM 1S3 35DC of 75 and 7600) Senior Planner Liden revi ed the propos and made staff's recommendation for denial. He reviewe and submitted to he Commissioners letters from Alex Ar�senien & Rend' a Markova; Eulalaia . Riverman & Helen Riverman Mason; and a petitio with 42 signature opposin the proposal. APPLICANT'S PRES'cPdT loN Tom Fisher,/ 13065 SW View Terrace explained that he was a long time resident f the area and would not be leaving the area. Fie would have prefer r ci to ask for a Commercial Professional designation, staff had iscouraged him and he had changed his request t Commercial Re'�iborhood. He felt two modest dental facilities, rest er:t3a1 in pearance' would have less impact on the residential area an four families which could occupy the area. He would construct a six foo fence and felt he would be a good neighbor. PLANNING ('C"It1S1I.ON:MINUTE April. 8, 1906 _. Paye 1 e 5.4 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 3-85 AND ZONE CHANGE. ZC 5786 CITY O T'IGARD NPO 9 6. Request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential to Comercial General and a Zone Change from R-12 (Residential, 12 units/acre) to C-G (Commercial General). LOCATED: 10580 Sid McDonald St. NICTM 261 IGAA, 'lot 500). Senior Planner Aiden explained hoer this piece of property had gotten a Conditional Use approval to;develop an office building in 1978. when the City .revised its Comprehensive Plan -in 1983, it inadvertently zoned the property R-12, This charge would; give the appropriate designation for the use of,the site. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o !L'o one appeared to spea�C. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED o Commissioner Butler moved and Commissioner Peterson seconded to forward CPA 3•-€5 �:nd ZC' 5-8£ to City Council with: a recos:imendatior+ far approval. Motion carried unanimoaasly by Commissioners present. 5. OT14ER BUSINESS o Review of Street Vacation for 99W in front of the Tigard East project. G o Mrs. Full questioned if these was the piece rf proper;.y that the State had for- sale. Staff was not aware of sale. Commissioner Peterson moved and Commissicner Vandc.,rwood seconded to forward a recommendation of approval to City Council for the vacation of the access road. Motion carried unanimously by Comm=issioners present. 3. - Meeting Adjourned 9:45 PM Diane M. 3elderks, Secretary AT-VEST Hilton tyre, Acting Vice-President dj/,5P e d PL.a3ltP141W � 0�!"t:E!3 l0W MINUTL Apri 1. f3, 1.i3 Lt�r Page '1 i f STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 5.4 TUESDAY, APRIL- 8 1986' - 7:30 PM f; TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION FOWLER JUNIOR NIGH SCHOOL -- L I 10865S.w. 'wrLNU'T 'TIGARD, OREGON 97223 A. FACTS: 1, General Information CASE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA '3--86 Zone Change ZC 5-85. REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential to Commercial - General and a; Zone' Change from R-12 (Residential, 12 units/acre) to C-G (Commercial General). APPLICANT: ; City of Tigard OWNER: .Sun Fund 'Investment PO Box 23186 Tigard, OR 97223 LOCATION: 1.0580 SW McDonald Street (WCTM 2S1 IOAA, Tax 'mot 500) 2. Background The City approved construction of the existing office building in 1978 (files nos. CU 17-78/SDR 44•-78). At the time of construction, the property was zoned C-4 (Commercial Neighborhood). During the revision of the Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code, the property was inadvertently zoned R--12. 3. Vicinity Information- The properties on the north side of McDonald Street and those immediate west are zoned C--G and the properties to the south and east of 105th Avenue are zoned R-12. The residentially zoned parcels are devoted to single and multi-family residences and a nursing home. 4 Site Information and Property Description The half acre parcel is fully developed with an office building, parking area, and landscaping. The staff proposes to include this parcel with the C-G zone which applies to the properties that are immediately wrest and north of McDonald Street. 5. Agency and NPO Comments The Engineering, and Building Inspection Divisions as well as NPO 9 6 , have no objection to the request, STAFF REPORT - CPA 3-86/ZC 5-86 PAGE 1 S. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ` The relevant approval criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 5.1.4, and the Locational Criteria in Chapter, 12. The Planning staff concludes that the above criteria are satisfied based upon the fallowing findings: 1 Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because the ilPO has been informed and Given an opportunity to comment and notice of the public heaving has been sent to nearby; property owners. 2.. Policy 5.1.4 is met because the proposed rezoning ;will not cause any encroachment upon nearby residential uses because adequate buffering was providedduring the development of the property `and the established commercial use will not be affected. 3. The Locational Criteria are satisfied because the property has the R-12 zone only to the south and east:, the prevent use of the property will be unchanged, the site has direct ar_ress to slcDonals Street which is a major ' collector, public transportation is available an. Pacific Highway, and the site has been property developed according to City requirements'. C. RECOMENDATION ` ' . Based upon the above finds and conclusions, the Planning staff '` recos mends approval of CPA 3-36/ZC 5--86. PREPAR BY: Keith a_i.den AP OVER DY; William A. Monahan Senior Planner Director of: Planning & Development ' �2433P/dm3� STAFF REPORT - CPA 3-06/ZC 5-86 - PAGE 2 3 14. 35-- �-} _ -j 7• .r��•., �.. �\ Hwy `<p ' y� �� -� teat � •—.., . -_. tl k �✓. �g m � s d � - 1 t 9 0a. a e4aA a�noA a _Q e J 1 3 2 — d ; 'j'''am ! - ( -_ - .QQb1 .__ Mme. `. .._ - •ems £ Rw_7 IIF, tit 11 -•fie. ,+gas 1°3 `SCHOOL `{ { �- 1 ', CITY OF TIGARD. OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUVdiARY AGENDA OF: _ Ap-i l 20, 1.386 AGENDA ITEM 0: _ DATE SUBMITTED: April 21 1926 PREVIOUS ACTION: Council Adoption ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Ordinance Creating of Intent to Form Resolution 4/14/6 S.W. 74th & Cherry Sanitary Sewer LID PREPARE 6Y: Duane Roberts��' REQUESTED BY: CoMmunit Qeveloopment DEPARTMENT BEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR:: _1 POLICY ISSUE Should the City form the Local Improvement District to provide sanitary sewer. service. INFORMATION SUMARY This sanitary sewer 'local improvement district has proceeded to the public hearing ,stage. The purpose of; the hearing is to provide affected property' owners the opportunity to ask questions and to 'make 'known their' support or s opposition to formation of the district. According to ordinance, the district cannot be formed if the owners of two--thirds of the land area within the district "appose Formation. The ordinance gives 'Council the"`discreti, on not to form the district "wizen the petition has been signed by less than one-half of the benefited property owners, the district is deet;ied to be untimely or not in the best interests of the City" _ ALTERRATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Adopt the ordinance creating -the district. 2. Decide not to form the district. 3. Modify the scope of the improvement or the district boundary. 4. Decide to continue the public hearing or Council deliberations. SUGGESTED ACTION _ Staff recommends that Council consider the public and written testimony in making its decision on whether or not to establish the improvement district And to extend sanitary sewer service to this area. (2448P) i.fF-�l6s'r rid//� �� ,�`'`��/'✓ �c� ��G� CITY OF 'TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 86— AN ORDINANCE CREATING THE Ski 74tH AND CHERRY LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT; ORDERING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH CERTAIN PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS; REQUESTING,BID PROPOSALS; S4TT'ING FORTH THE METHOD OF ASSESSMENT AND METHOD OF FINANdsIMG; AND IIELCARIPJG AN EMERGENCY. The City Council finds: � . A petition stating interest in the formation of a local improvement district to provide Sanitary Sewer- Service, was submitted by 8 property owners. There are 15 benefitted properties within the local improvement district. 2, The Community Development Director submitted a report to the Council recommending the district be formed. The recommendation utas based on a Preliminary Evaluation Report and the Council's adopted policy regarding priorities. 3. The Council stated its intention to form the:district, to make the improvements and to hold a public hearing to receive remonstrances by Resolution No. 86-45. q, Individual notice was mailed by first "class mail to all property , owners within the local improvement district and notice was published in The Tigard Times (April 17, 1986) at least ten days prior to the hearing. 5. The hearing was held an April 28, 1986. The City Recorder- received _ written 'remonstrances and the Council received oral remonstrance3 at the hearing: 6. There are 1.5 benefitted properties, and there were a total of remonstrances. The Charter- provides that a local improvement district cannot be formed if the property owners of 66--2/3% of the land area within the district remonstrate. The remonstre.nces did not approach this number. 7. The Council adopted the Prelims.nar•y En inset's Report on the 74th and Cheri Sewar Local Improvement oisttric-t. 8. The City has proceeded in accordance with state statutes, its charter and ordinances. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS Section 1: The Sid 74th & Cherry Local Improvement District' is created. The legal description is set forth in attached Exhibit A. ORDINANCE NO. 06— Page 1 3 nd e in rdance ith ans 'Section 2:. The improve me Kiri the hrelin�nar y eng�neering�r eporteasl emended specifications contained wet p through the hearings process and which are set Barth ire a repo lra��srovereent Pr elirreinar a t�nri irseer 's Re ort an the 74th and Cheer Sewer 3�oc�a1 District. The 'Finial plans and specifications shall be set fart9� in a final � engineer-Ing report. g � section 3: The benefitted proper ties are tFze properties set forth in a attached Exhibit B Scicsn- The City Administrator is directed to invite bid proposals for the construction of the improvements in the manner prescribed by the Purchasing Rules. cost is $88,640. The benefitted properties will Section .5: i he 'estimated. be assessed for the full casts on an area basis. ; section 6:_ The , improvements are na a character described fir► ORS 2�to ar�r! ;the irriprov�amnts qualify for f'inancin by Bancroft Banding, pursuant ORS 287.502 - 287.510. Nectier 7 'improvement tilarra�rei:s are authorized to be issued in the *` ec�ate amount of $88,640. The interest rate shall be yet 9%.agg reg ate on 8: The Mayon and FinanceDirectar are authorizedto execute the Improval�pn�t Warrants ore behalf of the City. � f % Seri©n g; An emergency is hereby declared to exist inasnuch as it is hece.___�s r for the health and safety of thepeople of Lhr�, City thai'c the u improvements be constructed with the least possible delay ,in aider to; complete A_ intprrauements during the construction season, tlaPreFore. this ordinance shall became effective upon its passage by the Council and signing by the . .' Mayor. PASSED: Dy ~rote of all members present after, bei.rsg read by number and title only, this _ day GF 1986, Careen R. Milson, De u y Recorder day of 1986. APPROVED- This Tahn 4 Coo�.: ("'payor ORDINANCE-NO: 86--,,,_...,...�. Page.2 a r'csaar.� q t ,' �aiaNr £� '�' r '�•A„x � ,. 19+r 4•�- S :. 'cos ,� mq i�y�offi •i.tc t "R•"g .' n gtry d k s�v d� �� i� y} �sa.1' i' h 91e5 a 7-7 7 tm JJ ,�p� C,p �• a tco cr. ,... •� a s 1 .T ev'qa: :'Yar. o5uaa — am. E�i- DQ. .,� �' Jl :� �p _.� � r q't" axl &DYa".a'OW YY. ffi /• YY' i as e eft[ ci oi �# cr ac .Il a'o Sl IIIc • GV� F1441E'i �L4NE Y $ (s Eli- i ,asr. 4aYa ct a.a. PT 5'd. ��►E:6 .layer � ; / �,. �a. a A. } 3 S £#E'�AYFL AaasY YL 6 � _ q "ii jo,Ah � 1 fi.'L� fJFiafE :�ER SRN K.• t _ 1 /'tom.��.�•��M_��V' �� °' aHeu ��.��111 RD.. 1 I{ / * / sST 1a s-rLYa ° it / cr. owo ---- �. -� h ct�a• j/ 4' t4 fltQ d'* 8040 Ia { ... +'� �� na a 'Xa� �J�o'N2� s A j�• ��¢ 111: " .—•, til O ✓`r..r :� qe �,+� al SP. ELL"" 5S °`4 f 1 4 i'l t 1 4 .1 �1 - IST cc 2S1 i DD •' y r , Pc 8013601 F R ' —Ak 10 0.1 cc PROPQ r ' R• c . ,". uj .fie �, tFU ' t� 32 •� X00 � . a� s- 10 r7 � 9 a V 200° CITY OF TIC ARD 74THCHERRY SEWER LID PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S RERORI EXH IB ` M8 right y , " �> ,. PROJECT PLAN ans o8 , , A' EXHIBIT A l BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION FOR 74TH AND CHERRY SEWER LOCALIMPROVEMENT DISTRICT A portion of land situated in the Southeast quarter of Section 1, T.°2S. , ` R.1W , W.M. , Washington County, Oregon , and more particularly described as 'follows: Beginning at the southeast corner of 'Lot 43 Rolling Hills No.' 2 subdivision; thence N01106°E, 180 feet, to the 'northeast` corner of said Lot 43; thence N89*241W along the south right--of-way line of S.W. Cherry Drive, 497.74 feet; thence N01036`E, 50.00 feet to the southwest corner of Lot 45 Rolling, gills No. 2 subdivision; thence N01040"E, 146.37 feet; thence N88048`1W, 104 feetv thence N01'40'E, 13.63 feet to the northwest corner of Lot 44 Rolling (dills No. 2 'subdivision; thence 588048"E, ; 105.88 feet toi' the northeast corner of said Lot 44; thence N010251E, 211.06 feet; thence westerly 210.8 feet to the ''southeast corner of Lot 49 Ro111ing Dills No. 2; thence' N01140"E, 150 feet; thence N890561E along the 'south right-of-way line of S.W. Fir Street, 50 'Feet; thence N010221E along the east right-of-uay , line of S.W. 76th Avenue 25, feet to the southwest corner of Lot 25 Rolling Dills subdivision; thence N890561E, 145.86 feet to the southeast ,corner ;of said Lot 25; thence N0141'E, , 182.61 feet; thence S89024'E, 666.29 feetto a point on the west right-of-Tray line of S.W. 72nd Avenue; thence southerly along said west right-of-way line 870.1 feet to a point 132 feet north of ;the north line .of Lech Center Business Park; thence N8811481W, 285 feet to the east right-of-way lineof S.W. 74th Avenue; thence ' S01'06'W, 132 feet to the north line of Tech Center Business Park; thence N88030124"w, 40 feet; thence N010061E, 44.55 feet; thence N88030°24"W, 10 feet, to the POINT OF BEGINNING. r 960-10/41 1-8 I 11 1 11 I 11 It II Ci, U-1 1171 r 's, r- CZ,<SJ fv r u r o O (D'';D tYJ <l'?-) -!• "o f`1 U-1 fl-) 0 rJ .--i 'o R4 it O H;'s 1u IN" 0_�• f (9 k.()U) [.fl'.:d' •T -J Zl d'LI-1 �D`.'S� i u LZ:W I O O rn In'S)f V rd ra r-. CO ID W O N (`'J it t:'• I '.o IS)V D ('J .f.U—i r-- CD ID 1-0 r4 -4 --1 LT1 Is —J[ [n {'t U-1 I rn 0)r] Cl 1,0 Cr -4 U)rj(`J rn Lri -3' 0', r-- 11 rt! W U'j1 tr'is r L 1 u� rn!Tl U� --.t lrr U-1 Irl trd lr 1 133 11 GJ ,.y 1 tl)w i r—i it 1X1 tJ� I 11 1 11 1 11 i I I 1-4' t7 O !_J v<il <D 'J U •J 01 v N it •�• r j-co (L' OJ ::> GJ:f`1 r 1 Il- -J' C, U-! [r) Ul li rn s rl' *as'•B .w iL� [7" f p ca J! �T! -I U Ul-•'-1 U _-1 iD.-4 D (',I rI !I [l- .-1 1-4 C-7 r-1.-"i r 7 r a C4"r a r- It f`i uj tR t u M W II I 11 t 1 Cl) f 11 WI O <DQOc7OOC> <D•DIDt74OO 1t 'D MOO O OO O OO �.� f (J] I : . O I-) ID O 0...0 O It O ]'o-,7 M I (77''-0 r-A -J- 0) 03 N;v ['- V:0.1 •--> ti'.'.00 O It 1!1 W W {f};;:i 1 CO-1-0 .--t d•--4-d• I--C.fi t--r- a),M OT M.O 11 O _ ry'•_ 1 U'1 t61 iy !P c�� (�� r; i.G [�Ol lA N lQ 1t lrl i It IIf 1 •� [r] itit W [ u� 11 co w I Ll W [ + H H *JT a' I m 1-171 U 1,- rn H Ta] w rJ] [ EtEe r z t3ti7H r-I t� o ra 1 C� Z c?x 0�r-q P W E-1 cf. - I <� ;4W Q ,txZW�:DaMc7 rn F-d a: I c7 H ; 0,6 PY o H Ix W. .N in a [ + w I ocxu� ty o�zsnwWH14 H r� 1 CO a > aj ca t p Fs W r� Lzsl + 1 'r�4u Wtx f 0Z.H [�Qtl:f� �F� Uz � 1A H 14 ca ('D 1 a0Uf, a C4 A-ao Wrn [ �� xWCctaLHu1 7� wi, ssul o .. rs c l•+ I to <E-4 071 X d"7.,'c I O C) O '�Q.""i t7 O N.�C?-4N r[ r-g a FX E-=PV C_7 1 'D,->'D OO'--) OO•JOO (DC� O 1-G, 1 -4 ra�n Jr)'Ul r"1" m Id,I n u-, m C.) 'F� [--4 t7 1 m rn M r-ri 0-1 rn rn rt L4�(iiJJ -113 • i,� Ci 1�-4 H j U�r r` I-)fjw I ( Pt 41 tl G � )1 71?6 '. T elk at Tc . j IDC alL nil �lle� S F s 7 f t w b APRIL21, I986 13425 S-W- 72 TIGARD, OUGON "o SPR 3 1 CITY OF TIGARD C41Y OF FbJSA.ASJIM AYOh ':AN CQ IMNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRMTOR DM SIR: AS CJ6JjFRcS OF 1,M ' LOT 2SI IDC; 100 WE DMIMs'I L ARE AGAINST TIS PP.OPOSRt3 ZCCAL IMPROVEKENT DISTRICT AS TT IS DESCRIBED. SINCFiELY' April 28, 19$6 To: Tigard City Council From- P—es dents of Cherry Street Re: Carry Street LID Due to previous committMents, We ars unable to attand tonigknt's city,council meeting. However, we would liars to go on record &r sai*y 2KLja R the Cherry Street LID sewer, project. S � [ DC 3f � DC 3101 a PETITION APRIL-'26-1986 WE`yTHE UNDERSIGNED PROPERTY OWNERS,DC NOT WANT THE PROPOSED LOCAL, IMPROVEN?ENT DISTRIC'_T SEWER PROJECT. 2- 6�:asr ell ,tea v /j,V- �' s. • .� aa eel r" , CITY Or TIGARD. OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM t- SUMMARY �.p r AGENDA ITEM #: �------ AGENDA OF: A ril 28 1985 � GATE SUBMITTED! April 21, 19866 PREVIOUS AC'T'ION'. Council A_�opti arz _- � ; of Intent to Farm Resolution_4914I5 Creating ISSUEJAGENDA TITLE: ordinance p ; S. i. 20(Dth &_Izaez ;Sanitar $easer LTD PREPARE 6w:ul3�+ara____e Roberts REQUESTED 8Y; Gommunit'z� De_Selo onnt f CITY ADMINISTRATOR: y, . DEPARTMENT "EAD OR; !?01._I6s.�Y JSSUE� sewer �. Should the City form the Local Improvement District to providee .sarzitary � .' service. NFO ATIOW SUMARY i t' lic , This sanitary sewer loca l tllerrhearing�is tosProvi.dedaffeed pted- propthe erty wearing stage• The pu Fz ., owners the opportunity ;to ask questions and 'to nae known their, support ohe r the opposition to formatio Of owners two-thirds t. According the lar d ordinance, within the cannot;' -be formed if Council 'the discretion not to district oppose formation. The ordinance gives farm the district "when the petition has been signed by less than one-half of the benefited property owners the district is deemed to be untinel�+ or not in the best interests of the City" ALTER4ATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Adopt the ordinance creating the district. 2. Decide not to fora the district. Modify the scope of the improvement or the district boundary. 3.4. Decide to continue the pudic hearing or Council deliberations. SEiGGESTF D ACTION in Staff recommends that Council consider the Public athe im ro es�entnd writtent district asking its decision orz whether or not to establishp and to extend sanitary sewer service :to this area. (2498P) ri _ r C �. m CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE. NO. 86— Aha ORDINANCE CREATING THE SW 100th AND INET LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ORDERING THE -CONSTRUCTION OF -SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS I'M ACCORDANCE WITH CERTAIN PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS; REQUESTING BID PROPOSALS; SETTING FORTH THE METHOD OF ASSESSMENT AND METHOD,OF FINANCING; AND DELCARING AN EMERGENCY 3 The City Council finals: 1. A petition stating interest in the formation of a local impr-ovement district` to provide Sanitary Sewer- Service, was submitted by 8 property owners. There aro 30 benefitted properties within` the local improvement district. 2. 'The Community Development Director submitted 'a report to the Council recommending the district be formed. The recommendation' was based on `a Preliminary Evaluation Report and the Council's adopted policy regarding priorities. 3. The Council stated its intention' to form the district, to make the improvements and to hold a public hearing to receive remonstrances by Resolution No. 86-44. 4. Individual notice was mailed by first class mail to all property owners within the local improvement district and notice was published in The Tigard Times '(April 17, 1986) at least ten days prior to the hearing. S. The hearing was held on April 28, 1986. The City Recorder received written remonstrances and the Council received oral remonstrances atthehearing. 6. There are 30 benefitted properties, and there were a total of remonstrances. The Charter provides that a local improvement district cannot be formed if the property owners of 66-2f3% of the land area within the district remonstrate. The remonstrances did not approach this number, , 7. The Council adopted the Preliminary Engineer's Report on the 100th and Inez Sewer Local Improvement District. 8 The City has proceeded in accordance with state statutes, its charter and ordinances. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: 4 Section 1: The Ski 100th & Inez Local Improvement District is created. The legal description is set forth in attached Exhibit A. ORDINANCE NO. 86— Page 1 Section 2: The improvements shall be made in accordance with 'the ,lans and € secifications contained within the preliminary engineering report as amended r which are set forth in a report entitled the hearings process and i��c l irnina 'neer's Re€iort_on 'the 100th and Inez Sewer i ocanl TrnSarovernent District. The 'final plains and specifications shall be set forth in a Final engineering report. Section 3: The benefitted properties are the properties set forth in attached Exhibit B. Section 4. The City Administrator is directed to invite bid proposals for the construction of the ` improvements in the manner prescribedby the Purchasing Rules. 5eetinn 5 The estimated cost is $100,760. The benefitted properties will be assessed for the full costs an an area basis. Section 6 The improvements are of a character described in ORS 223.205 and the improvements; qualify For financing;by Bancroft Bonding, pursuant to ORS 267.502 — 287.510. SsPction 7 Improvement Warrants are authorized to be; issued in the aggregate amount of $180,760. The interest rate shall be at 9% getion :_ The Mayor and Firnarice Director are authorized to execute the improvement warrants on behalf of the 'City, Section 9: An emergency is hereby declared to exist inasmuch as it is necessary for the health and safety of the people of the City that the improvements be constructed with the least possible delay in'order'to complete the improvements during the construction 'season, therefore, this ordinance shall 3aecorsne effective upon its passage by the Council and signing by the Mayor. PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this day of, 1966. Loreen R. Wilson, Deputy Recorder APPROVED: This day of 1986. johrn E. Cook, Mayor (2496P) ORDINANCE NO 86— Pal 2 r w % r ars i I j rp; lull _. noZ W. J n Yx.Et 14i. lop— TO - 1 �. w r'• Yt `w w yy3 q �• �. 69 AMill 1.iF. �' do-'vsr I sr.c� a GiWA _ � r 5.61 4 / J t � 4t SYD 868LC:fJ6 ST: i 0.w aT a�. LA. ~^�• �.g CT. _00t61 ST f 571. .il i Y wuoolfslA CL 8 C 66 5� HLpCSE s \ J .i!o am. asr�Tr Tawe �� i ~O � 0 L�✓', t- . �sx+a xca : O.W. IxexIS oc r 70 CY An ' v..- i8ffi1 7 1 !! � � 2aTTL.lRLC� T'6 aria SLRo ; tj — RAC" ST. ar .ls�.•o 8 - 1 !IYSIa Lfi �'' rr7 o L t¢x:cav'n° S�Lrr cbzanw Pi t W so - �� "d - � Y•" +,- �' � i� X66/aJ j;�� e /g. s rsla��,..�•d•T o Vis. s C6 1 i /-.' 1 •:! zT. nuawau wo. / 1 tt i ircftLY,'. .x • a ua STT, F t I w versaoco 4 r' h.��N •^�fJ-'s�.0 n'� i• �F�KY ca dOap� u d ztij�t .n, 1 ...LpROON 1 S.W. ELIAIIN LIImr arl �7 i I I 'r 3V.Ea"CF x5�lx r� 7 • Q , « y � _ I w i t r x r. -v..:� s^� Sr-<4' Lu Lu 0 LU LLI CL IMF s y� :ate1 .a- r'�.'� •"" �7 t�+ `'� ��i.-;sa _ `+� �"'� �, a.$� �;' �' .�c `f�4 §' s�t� ��..,s.. �� M'*�:�r i.,i. .xs..µfink��s�=�#-' x-f��r,��f�a'�r�.>, �"X,.:.�.� �,.�+"s- ,��t ",g. .��:z.y�,.z. �.� e� �.-��p �kg.,,�.. ,�•r xu"7s'� ��.�v ,-a�`cj �•s... �•,�a: �4'�-�.-_. '�:. �f �r. *� s'c� �' �e';x,�,._ EXHIBIT A`` BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION FOR 100TH AND INEZ SEWER LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT A portion of land situated in the northwest quarter of Section il, T.2S. , R.lW. c W.M. , Washington County, Oregon and more particularlydescribed as follows: Beginning at the southeast corner of Lot 1 Douglas Heights subdivision;' thence S88°41 'E, 50.00 feet to the east right--of-way line of S.W. 103rd Avenue; thence N01019'E, along the east right-of-way line of S.W. 103rd Avenue, . 185.88 feet to .the point of intersection of said right-of-way line with the north right-of--way line of S.W. 'View Terrace; thence N890491S'® 111.60 feet to the southwest corner of Lot 2 Greenbrier subdivision; thence n0®19'E, 3.35.49 feet to the north line of Greenbrier subdivision; ' thence 'N89049 'E, 630.89, feet ' to the west 'right-of-way line of S.W. 100th' Avenue; thence S0111191W along said west right-of-gray lime 164.40 feet to a. point of intersection with the southi right-or-way Zine of S.W. View I Terrace in the Ingebrand. Heights subdivision; thence S89056130"Em 180 feet to the northwest ,corner 'ofLot 9 Ingebrand sleights subdivis-ion; thence S010481VI along the west 'line of said Lot 9 and Leat 10` ingebrand Heights subdivision, 328.5 feet to the south right-of-way line of S.W. Inez Street; thence westerly along said south night:-of-way ,line 10.89 feet to the northeast corner or Lot I Pembrook Heights subdivision;. thence southerly alone the east line of said Lot 1, 143.58 feet, to the southeast corner of said Leat 1; thence westerly along the south line of _ said Lot 1, 109.11 feet to the east right-of--way lime of S.W. 100th Avenue; thence southerly along said east right-of-way line, 142.46 feet to the point of intersection with the north line of S.W. Pembrook Street; thence easterly along said north line 60 feet; thence southerly perpendicular to said north line 50.00 feet to the south line of S.W. Pembrook' Street; thence westerly along said south line 60 feet to the, point of intersection with the east line of S.W. 100th Avenue; thence southerly along said east line 4€ .28 feet to the point of intersection with the projection of the south line of Lot 21, Tigardville Heights subdivision; thence S890351rTalong and beyond said south line of Lot 21, _977.27 feet to a point 150,000 feet west of the west right--of-way Line of S.W. 103rd Avenue; thence N01019'E along a line parallel to. and 150.00 feet west of the west right-cif-way line of S.W. 103rd_ Avenue, 03.36 feet; thence N890331E, 9 feet; thence N010191S, 148.30 feet to the south dine of the William Graham D.L.C. 39; thence westerly` along said south line 9 .feet to a paint that is 150 feet crest of the west right--of-way line , of S.W. 103rd Avenue; thence 949.18/411.7 q. N01°l alone a line parallel to and 150 feet West of the t.,. t4est right-of-way, lime of :.bye 103rd Avenue, 323.73 feet to the south line ;of Douglas Heights subdivision; thence N89026145°'8 along said south line 145.00 feet to the point of beginning E f u 4�W ! a, m ry.m r a d .-1 m r- rl ,o co In In iD in(n .fl o rr:o -t ai t� Ln o �o it rn C3.'D ide It ri -1 N ri i N N rim t�r I li t It 1 It It w h7 1 CO r,o i37 lD r- .-1 Ch m q%QR IT7 r-i'm N N N (D Ch Ch M M m O In lD r r-d M m O if O I m d1 lD d1 t-- f-0 N In m O to In U)U)In z?m 1!l In M CO r-1.0 m m M r-1 d. r-- It O ..Eito 1 eaL C'� S mCryd mNNNNNNLf) NNNNNNNNNNMm(Dd'-4! Le) r- N it O �'! ! 11 O 1 It e-t ! f! 1 B ! J 11 t It 1 (D Lf)-4 N m r-4 MCl LQ to .-I O I1)CO CA 07 t.(!Ln Lr)r k.0N C- Mto r•i tl0.q 00 to If O r^3Sd: a Ch r t� -r- W N t7J d'">n to 1n(]0 GO to O (p O N.O�(O to.lD U'1 -4 N �d-N O 60.tp W tD_ts) +-t 0- tD t f)In V) d-1p W In N:O l W Lf')C-LO(N N chCIO 11 r Lcl Zf2 t lD lD Cq tD U) .01 d1 d' d1 d° cr) d• d. d1 dt sit d1 d1 d•d• d' to In IV CAM U)Ch m - 11 O rnI 11 r•4 m si I IS ! It ! 10 t II I 1! ! 3 0000000 O 00 O 00000 0000 0 0 0 0..000:00 O. 100 O Y32 W ^ i O W O r- lD O O O r-1--i r In.d1 O M M O d'dA i.D 0 In O O 0 M CO Io O U i !0 inSI: d° 0 IDOO:0Oh.0000 d. .--iO (DlO.wm6cDwm MONN°d'mr- N.U? 01 N m 0 O lD in U)U) In N m to In d'd"d* d'Lo In d, M N w C> cc)r)w a) M In 11 0 .� Ea w I .-4 N N.N ri-4 r-i .-i r-1.-1 N rir4 r-I.-i"ri r4 -1-4 r•4 r-4 N r-i d1 N rl r-4....N d' r-4 11 CQ W LLI IF) 01 ! t! ! II } I QOdOQC?Od 000 gOddO'dOC> C? C> a0O:00C70 d O 10 O 10 a00000Caf00 Co 00000000O0 a000O0 O 11 0 LP) m 1 O M m 071 n 10 r- d. 1-1 r-4 O O M-.11'd'1 p d-lfl.'w a w m 1D.w 317 O to 1-4 11 N I-C3 kO-4 Ch rd c*h 'EW Q1 IM M d'O 00 CO r7 In C>vi-03: 4 0 N"CNI W'M N 11 Ch Cf2 �i 1 [- t L91>3 0 C I647w r- r- dQmmww0I"-r1lDC-Io¢9.mtDm co 11 O t 11id}. ! Iii it y,> f t-n IIt t W i W II a, z F4 LDtz 11 - 1 n'"'".r 1-1 `mow y 6� ifs iE'a H 11 1 +4e Ste. i-a H �.�H. z E-4 00 0 O o m = x."+c'. CDC tQ M 1 1 ► Z E-4W.�4W E-i 1.-700toc x O0 Q Iw , 1 C9 U 1 z3a r w o V z C> C b 6 `Tb z •0.4 t7.4 :a C.1<0 O O 03 t!t 4b1 t 'fie " .Et2, XZ cam' MUL)w x W E-E-j! lx. �4 E5 -i W, 0 0 0 0 I—D t 7 EA � �a•"• i 6� �'1�'a�'w" ea: f3a s� �" C> �e'�i� +Z13 075-3 C3 N 1 C a Z p C3&11 0 04 y 'e�y 4--1 paa; '.x+ . �I'7 a Ca'aL° �+ Cs 1 H En Lo 1 P-4 vQ,'O[l2 eeti?-d2 m 0 � ,,{ °t'7 C23 I sew H i'7 ..4 t-3 ' .4L� L2f • e _ �. o 's� C7 I c s ti 104(a CZ Men UL44mw H t CE3�f t_a H W1-$HE� WE 4 0001-4 E+ 14 0; EXl t--1 R�O13 t-4 u p t:. w z CJ �i7 C3ot� t7ra: Lx7 oc��m"git�ty a4zC) H OC3OOOQO (D0 0 0en.00000C30C) 0OOe4Nm0 co r-4 (s� 4 - •/-•1 1 O.t3 C7 0 0 0 0 0.p 0 a 0 0 0 C>0 C)0 C?0 C> C_:.0 C>C>0 0 Q O t� E4 E4 ! deu).-tNm-IV IpwrmmOC-1Nmd+U)(Dw(AC7riNmMIrtmWMm Ca . sg C> 0 1 N N r-s r-i r-1 r-i r--d r 4 r•4 e-4 r 4 N N N N N.N N N . G 1-11c, r-1 1 PQtx2 L i tL to i I r--d r 4 0 to OC4 G7 todHH t -4 p en 0 to 41:�+i r i U Gte t N N N E-1 -..0 UY. i e. .. � r y j 'P/7 w'L 0 UAAP it � 0 71 i�L r 3 a s� a" la -,Pw Xon a vrif s o,c c,.* oaf -e. a. vP,, , PMa 1 a v . A "�s 'a apt ' r . ZVIIN r �4 a J ��x 7 �`z IAP 0 6 w ! ct IV 93 Ll wLe /'a- we -t .VA ir valves t �pS /c`leqo •e [ av sae• ` D 1 A ��"1 � y, 0,-�i 71-W COV" 7, �vIvA4& ki �. • ' ,�° ` , ° C4 4116, • f , CA 0 OL 4,v- to � - cr - �. a • dog ' I ala le, S101 l�� ee 0 e {,cid*/* v � /At' ✓' � .s -l- a> CQ els` v e a AAA-) t b - ! R TIGARD WATER DISTRICT_' 8841 S. w. COMMERCIAL ST. TIGARD,OREGON 97223-6290 p PHONE (503) 639-1554 s March 4, 1985 Duane Roberts Administrative Planner City of Tigard P. O. Box 2.3357 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Rea LID for sewer service, S. W. 103rd Avenue Dear Duane: Thank you for providing a map showing that portion of the water district's property that would be 'included in the subject LID for sewer service. It is realized that this project is ''just ` in the planning stages- and not firmly established. First, let me say that I am a believer in sanitary sewers (fr versus septic tanks and would support any reasonable effort to install sewer lines. However, we have a- peculiar situation at the corner of S. W. 103rd and Canterbury; Lane`. Enclosed is a map dated November 28, 1978 showing the loca- tion of the John Tigard house and the proposed future reservoir, the exact size of which has not been determined. Obviously, the district will not require Sewer service for the new reservoir, when constructed. it is doubtful, that the John Tigard house will ever require sewer service. However, by copy hereof, the Tigard r Area Historical and Preservation Association is made aware of . this :proposal and can respond to its needs. The Historical Association leases the property from Tigard Water District for a 'nominal $1.00 per year. For all practical purposes, this is a perpetual lease since the water district will probably never have a use for this land. Upon essentially donating this land for 'a site for the John Tigard house by contract dated F April 10, 1579 the water district was making its contribution for the public good. In view of the above, it would appear that the water dis- trict's property as proposed in the LID should be excluded from r the boundaries of the sewer improvements. SAnelyyourE. ntee Administrator CC,. Tigard Area Historical and Preservation Assn. 1.1510 S. W. Crown Drive .f.3.i>. --.+-Y,i.�l,,a,�.•,3� � '�"3c:Mk'^r'�.?.� s.�:ti-?i":�:�?<;2« E ..V:.rr.M`S3;,.'..''k'h�'�°�`L�2"'''vnY'^._'.3�..'�.�.. k:�«•k#..,.:..t�':.aa8+"d'�"�iy,"A�.,.� h4k-..'=4.'R�„^.vv`��,#3�i �v..,,'.'K y�.',.mA"4:«�°�+ ;.v�"^'-a4 "�s�"+h."•,P�'ZS?.3..,.n. ."'_a'.e€ �R:S a£x 3-�Jyy�l 'rSx t" t fi p� w° WN t 9-7M x h R fir+ f S� S tSY r. a 'x 4 � `' �i,vxyw "`? P`-�„-,+ .� ��t',_ .`> ,;�� , 4�,x #� e. �1k� �• A -'y$- �" �,�`'� `� +�r'"tsn,,� �` }' �.iw��: 5 » 3 2 N l ' �� a ? 2 Sago 2b�a5...tY c Nis'37'E 85 65 e0 (ira 8E 91.07 L; 9503 229.0� \ 2800 900 & r 384 ..tc. w /..,1 d 709.02 I Q' 1 IL—51 e L M (`� o 23 '9 CD 2300—74 t �y� r 1 G r� D v I J � a ,SOUTH LINE Wm. G-WiAh1 Q.;.C. 59 7o P.oUs ap 756�S<8 10930562 S@.°33°W 1 s 50 136.66 7 113.B e �-- 2600 ii o � i F ta 2303 5 09 A—P. IQ io ry •7a: P 254 _ a��'sa�.w�•.�aE � '.�"' ; z1� AD ti4 ; ,las 0 47 2400 00.4I j'. CIN u 2500 ' a .7SAC. Q QR V y �0 Q.Slth 21,766 .299 J.'�!.'J/l.!//ff!/n%/!/✓//f//////f/J////J/l/f////!///J//lff..%/✓l % ///%%///fJl/!!/////f///P///f/!/!/!///////F✓P///////N/J///!✓//f!///P/fl!!!J////. Pf/f JAJJg." � i${ $�'�(}Q��a��q/,e�i 2S 1 3i;. Acct #353200 first interstate Bank �^ of Oregon N.A. Financial Services C P.O.Boz 2971 j� fd Portland,OR 97208 . ,,'SLOW 503 225-2376 / f `Y ' " Bark April 23, 1986 William A. Monahan Com+namity Development Director City Of Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: Mildred D. Spatz 14445 S. W. 100th Tigard, Oregon 97223 Tax Lot 200, 25, 1.-11: BC Mildred D. Spatz is deceased and First Interstate Bank of Oregon, N. A., Trustee holds title to the property under a'Personal Representative's Deed, dated April 8, 1986. The conveyance was made* per order authorizing third partial distribution (Probate No. 8409-91856) dated October 14, 1985. . .': This letter is to notify the City of Tigard that the above property owner is giving written Remonstrate to the proposed LI I.D. known. as the 100th And Inez sewer Local Improvement District," n Sine-rely, Marvin D. Hansen Investment Officer First Interstate Bank of Oregon, N.A., Trusted MDH:kb CC: file Y N. r W%SHINIGTON CoUNrr.OUGCN April'16, 1986 Mildred D. Soatz 14445 SW 100th Tigard,- OR 97223 Dear Property Owner. The puroose of this letter is to give notice that the Tigard City Council will hold a public hearing on Monday April 28, 1986, at Fouler Junior High School, 10865 SAY Walnut, Tigard Oregon,; at 7:00 PM to consider remonstrances or objections to the formation of a local improvement district and the construction of Sanitary Sewer Facilities. The proposed local improvement district is generally descrined as including the following tax lots located in the vicinity of SW Inez Street, Sw 100th Avenue, SW 103rd Avenue, and SW View Terrace: WCTM 2S1 11M., Tax Lots 2400, 2500, WCTM 2S1 119C, Tax Lots 10000 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 600, 900, , 2 1000, 1100,, 1200, 1300, 1400, 1500, f , 1800, 1900, 2000, 2100, 2200, 2300: 2: 01,; 2302, 2303, 2600, 2300; and WCTM 2S1 116D Tax Lot 301. Upon hearing the testimony and reviewing comments, the council may decide not w to oroceed. in determining whether toproceed, the Council is bound by the Charter. It provides that if the owners of 65 2/3% or more of property area within the proposed local improvement remonstrate or object, the project must be terminated. All written and verbal remonstrances must' be received by the close of the public hearing for which this notice is given. A1wien the Citi t3ecord . The total estimated cost of the improvements is $180,760.00, The full cost will be assessed against Droperties within the proposed local improvement district on an area basis. Tax lot 2Sl 113x' '200 owned by ,you is located' within the proposed local imp pvement district. if "ne project is implemented, the estimated assessment to be levied against this property is $6,252, it is imoortant to emD'-iasize that this figure is an estimate. The actual assessment will be based on the actual cost of building the imorpvement, including engineering, administrative, and legal costs. The plans, specifications and estimates of cost are embodied in the Preliminary Engineer's Report entitled: Preliminary Enaineer's ReDort on the 100th and Inez Sever Local Improvement District which is on file pith the City i�ecorder;.for public inspection. Please call Duane Roberts at 639-4171 if you have questions. Sincerely, CC ommunity Development Director -442± 1 92.755 Zl1d.ASH �`�O.BOX 23397 TIGARD,OREGON 97223 PIC 639-417 ry vl Meiting til er CALVIN a chsllengO. . 'PRESBYTERIAN the 10445 SMI CANTERBURY LAN church an TIGARD,OREGON 97224 t Fief TELEPHONE 639-3273 April 27, '1986 William e1 zZonahan Community Development Director Citi of Tigard 2755 S.W. Ash Tigard, Oregon 97223 Bear Mr. Monahan, We received your letter, regarding the ;formation of the local improvement district for the construction of the ,Sanitary Sewer f'ac`ility in the S.W. 'ane , S.W. 100th, S.W. 103rd and S.W. view Texrace_area. A small section of the church's propexty (Tax for 281 11BC 2800) is included in the proposed L.I.D. This lot is unimproved except for some paving' (the loner end of aux parking lot) and right field of our baseball parr. The church sanctuary and fellowship hall are up the hill about 100 yards from Tax lot 2S1 11BC 2800. These church buildings are presently served by a. sewer line on S.W. Canterbury Lane -which we paid for through a Bancroft Bonding program approximately 15 years ago. There axe no plans by the church to change the use of the property (parking and ball field) and the buildings axe already hooked up to an existing sewage system. The ch-arch's lot should not be included with the Benefited Properties and therefore we are asking to be exempt from this project. 4 Yo ulys - Robert Burk nds Elder, Buildings and Grou 3 t �i V "e Q j s P ?' ILL,71 �' �Y,4 V otic It t { l� w cj fl'� y xi CITY OF TIGARD, OREGM COUNCIL W1 ENDA ITEM_SumARY 6141DA O1": 4/28/,86 B3GEN,tA ITEM #f: DATE SUDMXT1-ED: 4/24/86 pREV;OUS ACTION: Planning Director ISSUE/ P-ADA TITLE: SDR 6-86/ Approval 3/14/86' . V 5-86 First interstate Trust PREPARED By: Reith Liden s REQUESTED 8Y: DEPARTMEUT STEAD OK: (rifCIT1s ADMINISTRATOR: r POLICY : ISSUE Should the Director's decision for a highway oriented use at the corner of Greenburg Road and Pacific Highway be affirmed by the City Council. INFORMATYON S4NIMAlZY On March 14, 1986, the Planning Director approved an:application for a Commercial Center on the corner of Greenburg Road and Pacific Highway subject to conditions. On March 24 1986, the Council called this item up for review and re-affirmed its ' position on April. 14, 1986. A hearing is scheduled for April 28, 1986. Attached are copies of the Director's Decision, the applicant's original narrati—Ve� a traffic study by Wilsey and Ham, a revised set of plans which are intended to address the conditions of approval noted in the Director's`DeCision, and a memo regarding a prior . approval for the property, CU 4--82 for Jim Settlemire. t ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Uphold the Director's Decision incorporating the conditions imposed by the staff, - t 2. Approve the request with modifications to the conditions. 3. Deny the request by 'overturning the Director' Decision. 9 r , S Preview the .pertitent information and uphold the Director's Decision or modify the approval. MCMORANCIUM CITY OF I-TGARD, ORE ON �> TO: City Council April 9, 1986 FROM: Keith Liden, Senior Planner SUBJECT: CU 14-92 Jim Settlemire As noted on the staff report, ConditionalUse approval was granted to allow a flower shop on, the subject ` property. The conditions of approval where finalized, in Resolutic,n leo. o2-28 which imposed the fallowing conditions: 1. All curb cuts onto Pacific Highway shall conform to City of Tigard street improvement standards. 2, Astandard curb shall be constructed to align with the a;xcisting curb along Pacific Highway. 3. Construction plans for the curb improvements shall be submitted to and -approved by the City of Tigard Engineering Division, site drainage plans shall be submitted with the curb impravemenrs plans to insure adequate 'on—site drainage.' %. The parking spaces in front of the existing building shall be rest.riped' to indicate head—in parking rather than angle parking. 5. Potholes in the existing parking area shall be patched with asphalt. 2450P/dinj r l 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 6800 sq. ft. retail/aul:Q ;service building and an 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% its required. The property is zoned C-wb (Commercial 'General) and is located at the Northwest corner of Pacific Highway and Greenburg Road (WC'IM 2S1 2AA lots 1000, 1001, and 1100). DECISION: Notice is hereby given that the Planning Director for the City of Tigard has APPROVED the above described applications subject to ';certain conditionz. The findings and conclusions on 'which the Director based his decision are as noted below. A FINDING OF FACT 1. Background The City has reviewed several land use applications for the property, the most recent being'a Conditional Use (CU 4-82) to approve a flower shop`. 2. Vicinity Information The property is surrounded by Pacific Hi9tr4ay, Greenbura, Road, and Center Street. The zoning on 'the south side of Pacific Highway is CBD (Central Business District). The properties east of Greenburg Road are zoned C--G (Commercial General) and the parcels north of Center Street are zoned C-P (Commercial Professional). -3. Site Information and Proposal Description The subject property consists of three tax lots which contain to commercial building 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 portion of the property and a retail/automotive 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 more closely resemble the grade of Pacific Highway. This will require a retaining wall which is as high as 10 feet near the western end of the parcel. A 20 foot. high 100 square foot sign has also been presented for approval. Variances are also requested to reduce the required amount of landscaped area from 15% to approximately 13.5 and to allow the deletion of :a sidewalk along most of the Center Street frontage. DIRECTOR DECISION SDR 6-86 / V 5-86 Page 1 4. Agency 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 aoay will require a. 'permit from the state Highway Division. c, visual clearance must be maintained at intersections and driveways. a 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 proposed driveway on Greenburg Road should not be installed because of the existing congestion at the Pacific Highwapt intersection, the difficulty in prohibiting left ,turn attempts onto the property, and the City policy; which calls for minimizing the number of access points on arterial and collector streets. g. The stow. drain catch basin and line proposed to be installed at the intersection of Gr°eenburg Road and Center street ne¢ds to be rerouted to avoid cro3sirvgprivate property. It. is suggested that the catchbazin 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 dater District have no objection to the request. The State HighwayDivision states that a traffic impact report is necessary to evaluate the impact of access alternatives. A Road Approach Permit is requiredand the necessary street improvements shall be determined after the report is completed. PGE notes that several utility poles will need to be moved. No'other- comments have been received. �71RE:C;1 C)CCTSI'ON :SOR 6-06 / V 5-86 Page 7 ®. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIOM1I The proposed commercial development is basically 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 Creenburg Road driveway is not appropriatefor 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 'Red 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 � 3 with the exception' of visual ' clearance discussed above); lot coverage (noted belo4A 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 rataining 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 the 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 Street driveway to the ;western corner of the property. Section 18.139.050 of the Code contains the following approval criteria for granting a, .. . variance DIRECTOR DFUSION Sf?R h 86 / v ',_8t, fuel('3 8 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 11 are special circumstancesthat exist which are peculiar to the kilt size or shape, topography, or other eireumllatances over which the applicant has no control, and which are not applicable to other properties in the same zoning district'; C. The 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 larcF; d. Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage, dramatic land forms or }darks will not be adversely affected any more than would occur if the development were located as specified in the Code; and e.' 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 an difference between the required minimum (6.317 square' feet) and what is proposed (5,6E0 square feet). :The property is long and irregular in shape with street frontage on virtually the entire perimeter which has presented unique problems related to ^• right-of-4way dedication, street imp, and internal circulation. The proposed uses are 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 a slight increase in the amount 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 west of the property along Center Street and the potential for any extension of the sidewalk is 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 middle of the black. DIRECTOR DECISION '.:t)K f> 06 / V 6 96 nage 4 )4. The applicant is providing a21 other half street improvements as required by City Code and :the development- will be able to adequately accommodate pedestrian and vehicular- traffic on the perimeter of the . site. ' �R 5. Signage .` The applicant is proposing to install one 20 'foot tall, 100 square foot sign and the standardCode requirement's allow for signs 20 feet , in height and 70 square feet in area. However, during the Site Development Review process Section 18.118.130 (g); (3) allows up to an additional 50 increase in sign copy area for developments which have multiple tenants. The project will have four businesses and the . proposed sign appears to be appropriate and it is consistent with City standards. ` t. 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 the subject property to Center 'Street and : then on to Commercial Street. The azgineeri;ng Division recommends that the 'development of this site ual construction of this exit. does not preclude the event C. DECISION � The Planning Director approves SDR 6-851V 5-06 subject to the following � conditions: 1. UNLESS OTHERWISE RIOTED, ALL, COSIDITIONS SHALL 6E MET PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS• k 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. Str! 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, pavement markings, wheelchair ramps, storm drainage and utility relocation shall be installed along the SW 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. ` A. Standard half—street improvements including (partial frontage) ' sidewalk, curb, retaining wall driveway apron, storm drainage and utility relocation shall be installed ; along' the SW Center Street frontage. Said improvements SW Center Street shall be built to Local Street ;standards and conform to the alignment of existing adjacent [ improvements and conditions of the City, s Street Opening Permit°. OTRf=CI"CSR DF.CTSTO�i SDR b flti / y 5 86 P649 • 5 5. Five (5) sets of plan-profile public improvement construction plans and {i} 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. f. Sanitary sewev connection details shall be prwvided as part of the public improvement pians. 7. Construction of proposed public improvements shall not commence until afterthe 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 a street opening permit shall occur prior to, or concurrentlywith the issuance of approved public improvement plane. SEE >T3 E 'EPVC'L0SEE3__HANDOU GIVING ARE SPECIEgC INFORMATION REGAROING FEE SCHEDULES, >BONDING, AND 'AGREEMENTS. S. Additional right-of--way shall be dedicated to the Public at the Pacific: Highway ,Greenburg Road intersection to provide for a .turning lane ©nto -Pacific ijig6 y from Greenburg Road. The description for said Dedication shall be tired 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, DE€31CATIC S k FORMS AND INSTRUCTIO?JS,ARE EMCl�OSE-0. 9. 'A permit shall be obI twined by the applicant, for wont proposed to he done within SW Pacific Highway from the State Highway :Division. A copy of said permit shall be' provided to the City. Y 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 Section for approval and to the State highway Division for app=roval. 12. Direct vehicular ingress-egress at Greenburg Road shall not be pert-nitted. ' 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. 14. Relocation of any existing utilities, poles, pipes, wires, signals, signal loops, or any such 'equipment shall be at the expense of the applicant.- t DIRECTOR OECIIIMN SOR 6---86 0 V 5-96 Page "6 a. t Development Vi 15. A revised site Plan shall be submitted for Comsr:unityan Greenbur-g �' posed driveway - Director approvaA which deletes the pro Road and illustrates the location of the proposed free standing sign. 1g, �} revised landscaping plan shall be submitted far Community 18 102 approval which is consistent with Chapter Development DirectorPp %ple trees adjacent to the two Red rs Visual Clearance. SpecificalAy', Vw the Center Street and iiighway driveways $hall be deleted and verification sheight of other hall be Provided that the mature i materials will be less than three feet. Also, the g landscaped area shall not be reduced to less than 13.57b of the total andscap lot area. plan, prepared by a architect, shall be- landscape . 17, A landscaping approval which deals 1 submitted for Community ,Development Director with the retaining wall including the following: r : 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 wail and the curb. d. ght as as practical. Reduction of wail hei .' gg, Maintenance of the landscaping within hraa,snereet sght-o y ' shall be the rter esponsibility of the applicant/property q feet per side or 1.g, The one free 'standing sign hall not exceed 100 sed. a total of 200 square feet. i 20. Tax lots 2000, 10Gi, 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 a 1. Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall and mailed to: 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: March 25 1QRfi UNLESS AN APPEAL IS TETE .DECISION SHALL BE FINAL OS+t FILED. SOR 6--06 / r g DIRECTOR DEGI,SION V }-8b page 7 s 3. Feral: nAny party to the decision may app,-,al this decision in accordance with Section 19.31.2go( 1) and Section 18,32.370 of the C—ommmnity eeaela rat Code whichprovides that a w.itten appeal mast be Filed a�ita` abe 'C13°€ i €te3Ee within x9ays after notice i given araz: raL. The deadline for filing of an appeal is 2:30 P J. m'rch 25, 1198fi 14. 222 t-Toms if you heave any questions, pleaze< call the City Of Tigard Plannin Pep=r t,e.nt, Tigard City fall, 171,. S!� Ash, po Bas 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223, _i39—+�?�1. pR P6l Bith idem, Senior Planner l3tl 1g1l$aa e: rsaFaarao far ctor of Community Development DATE APPROVED f XSL:2Q1.8P3 dmj) e � 503S _ }t ` S s. TON -06DIRECTOR IC757 � � page � i E a �R - NSU,L-l-,I:ING '�t=',NGI ;E,,ERS, IN .. '2and,P-lanning,:Surva.y a"ndD&sign`Specialists" S' } Januar, uarny j i :Mr. Xel th S.. L"i den :Sen or :i=':f anner ' Vlmy of Tigard Corfinunl -Devel-opsnt Department »�i: Box P. lard, °Dreon 97223 f � . ,e: Site Deve f cpment lRevTaw Appi ii cati(•on for :50-(:=mute'Tu nelReta'I'I Deve I opmentf for 'Gramore, Inc., at ;the 'Northwest {corner :of iflTahway '99W and ;Sw4v., ;Greenberg ;i,Coad Our .Job ;Vo: 18.98 m Dear Ar. LI-dem-- Pursuant I-den-Pursuant -to our pre-app I i cat+i ren conference !WA ,on Thur--sday„ y January 30, 3986, 1 want -to take thl-s .opportunity to zupply ;your Qfll.ce � with he to .i.o�ri.nri docurentat7cn`nnd ,reues1 a formal ;review `In accordance , ,W €.11 the city of Tigard -sate (development .reu'i.ew �p.rocess =for rhiis ;p€ojecfe I �. This i.nf_c rmatii.on ,hes :beef comp ai9:ed based upon the z�pp` lcati,.on 'TmformatTon brothure provided by your rof,fa;ce„ together +with -the :St.andard .5:(ie Oevel"op- iTent Revlew :appl is tivon. I t T. Dne IT)D or'I gi na l "yellow copy !of the Sate ;"Devel opme"nt [Revi1_ew appi l cation vIth the €isnforma t I.on ;gp.propr l at&F,..y Prov U'ded :and -the signature of the 4owner •:ant/_or .agent indicated.. '+You should be advised that ;t•h I s •of l:ce is ;act i ng -as the r$pr:.e- zentat i ve for the app I i cant, ;and -,we sho-u Ed meceli ve ecop,i es 'of ail:l .documentatlon mand .any notices T sued by ,your of:fitce. { This Information :show l_d be subm'i tted to .our Seatt-1 e ;office at the fol:(owlmq address,_ K 3arghaysen Consu i t:Fng Engl neons„ Inc.. CEi25 :South 190th;, 'Suite '1.02 Kent,''W ashTngton 9803 s 6t.?5 South i 901-h, #. 0 Kent•'Wa�hinclEon,98032 (206)$7,2 5:x72 ,Mr.. 'Ke i th 'S. l'i den :Senior Fl%anner ZommunityiDevelopment:Dep artrr..ent -2- January 3 '196 42. Tne T'l:) :check made;payab l e t-to=the C i.ty,'of 'Tigard €n the amount=of ;$390 :nor .the process Ing,of i the s Ute .devei opment rrevlew=package. 3. Ti.ve (5) =cures<of athe sslle'F.devel-opment;p€.an 'for :the 1project A t the scale fcif 1111- 201 rovldIng 11 i ;of fthe cap pr_opr'iate s'i.ta .deve3apment=cietaill.s ffor the proposed rpro;;ect. ,. -TI `(5) :cvp'ins col,arch'i,tec t ura I :e€.cave i an p i;ans cpcov€`d i n9 In 'for=asis :irfcrmation .-concerning<the�1arch .bu`€hd'Ings`:on -=the si=te; <<I3ne `Cl,) :capy of :the��ash`i r1g';on;.county `fas'sessor 44s .=rap 'for ,the ,property•,with -ithe parcel .oa t ll ned An -red. '6. `€lne MO °last cif`the=ma=nes =and-address cof :a€-I 1,persons-.owning iproperty : r l th`i n 9330?feet of the ssub;ject rs l:te. 7T. 'One ;(19 :copy .of .7a "tEtle trans#er 'lmstru€r nt/deetl oto he~'s iae %ve,.lfy,in_g the Tegal fdescrip` I.on :and ,the:,,,current<owRerstiip. F Ime "(5) rcep.l es cof :a:.s -.to;grad I ng/dre i nage:and ut l l 1.t y,plan :fc:rthe;,pr o;jeot, pmov;Udrlng A 6form6tion -regard`Ing_storm n dratnago ;Imps-ovements, -sLite:grrades, .-and sanitary .-sewer _sere l:ce 'for the,project, �N '.9_ Tilve ,(:51) .cop'les of .a tslle_survey�,,worksheet:.completed for 'the { prap.er;fy,EproVIAin existing atop rraphlc iinformation and 9` T. iLocation -cof 6 F 1 �-w istI-ng -pu61 is -.and .primate II-mDr..ovements. T Tlve .(.5) .-c€�ples _of :ai.preliledlnar:y `landscaping ;:¢I_an ;pcovid€ng f tics =sago;i r-etl i i ntor•matt Frsn incorporated :r i:tti Yn the-app f i cat ion rrequ irements. �i ?111.. :F:I.ve (5) coop Les cc?f �a proposed _s€.gn..app 1=i cat i_on, =together•,w'Cth the „)us:tlflcat Ion for "the,pole.sIgn!pr-ovlding advertising for "the proposed ,pr9ject '(he s!i an 'be€ng requested Vs I€anger than ;that � iiich 1ssi;iowed sunder he standard -provisions:of the (code, abut h€n the 50;Percent increase 4€'Itri its -afiaw- :,66i:e _under :adniIn istreftVve Tr.eviear :-by;your Toff€ice. at.2,, °�Jne =:Gir} .ces of the .vary i.ance a _ !l i cat i an rsu,: ort i n the Py` Pp PF' 9 ` requested reductl€sn l n -7 he 'A andscap i ng.-area an Ithe s ite:as �? set 'forth 'I n '-the s'to<p€an, `1 •N MOORE= 12121 151 WE am tl 3 3 r` c • y� Fa . Nr..�=Kefth,:S. L lid en Senlor Fanner -Ccmrraun ity.3 Qevelopment"0epartmenJanuar 't -=3- y '3i1986 c • `Vou ld',you•'p l ease'`be j i n"the pcocess,i ng,-of-'th I s-S i te"Deve l opment Review appllcaYion and°forward 'to this'office;your.written reSponse and -.approvei :as,ssoon .ascpos§I.ble. The :application�,documents, incorporate'the ; -•P4r ,Keith�S, !ideas Int Senior Planner Community Deveiopment Department •-=i- January ii , 1986 ,t 4�*k -1s propos ing ,to complete these improvements and dedicate ¢'he ` add itional`>e-1ght-of-way necessary I to..accommodate the- street � ;improvements 'ln:accordance w€•th the requirements of the City of: Tigard' and the Oregon Department of Transportation.. �$ `.�I; �lIl� tF��„�" th_ES �lac_�a hard�hi�r orr thn'�,9 irant to � im�r,�Y� +ham.aYto�.t of stn , .t' f ron�-aae +�h i�h s nenera l !v � cons�r�r�r�=excess 1 •e .fes. -hh i s i�t�e of deve!csnetWn-'r. end_we_ ; �h��' this I gforma ion �I.l�...h� taken �ea•tocor,�.(. .I�'.� �� _ i q ¢}� rev i es�rocess, 'T'he prope6-ty boundai 9 es are quite' irregular,`and present: unique problems for developing` a : usable layout for the site. - Due to the,unusua! configura- ti on, access 1 b I I Ity to bu I.€d 1 ngs and,p I aceiment I of:, structures in. parkIngareas becomes more difficult with respect to ,,enlsting,city codes. We have been able to meetall of the requlrements.=of the C€ty..of Tigard Zoning Code i in this regard, with:the exception of the I andsoapIng requirement. The reaui -ed.amount of landscaping for 'this project is' 15 percesit. The gross site..area encompasses 42,115 square feet, . : .and the required 1andscaping area would",theirefore be 6,317 square feet. We are,!proposing to provide 50680 square feet, � wh l rh represents: 13.5 percent of :the, gross site area. IVe=are therefore requesting an administrat€ve'variance of this iandscaping requirenert €n accordance with 'the attached varianceapplication. We are, providing more :intensive Iandscaping w1 th€n the areas on !the site than, Is required by code, and we w I 1 1 also be IandscapIng some property within � tha: eic i sting right-of-way,i which Increases the gross area 3; being landscaped as a part of this project. We assume that rtheese.points wi11. be .taken into:consideration in the review r of the var,I ance,;app i;i cat I on. discu�sedetheerequirementtto inStallosidewa®ksnaelonw- g P p pp g the property frontage for'.the length of Center Street. The site pian that we have submitted proposes that sidewalks be extended along highway 99W from the proposed:curb access to this state highway, and then extending-east and north around through the intersect€on with S.W. Greenberg Road. The,side- walkswould .extend continuously along S.W. Greenberg Road, around the intersaction with Center Street, and up to the curb cut €nto the. project on Center Street •itself. '; Beyond tha,curb::cut, we would propose'to simply:w i den 3 ha,street to a distance' .i7 feet ifrom -the center€ ine, and then =Instal i curb and gutter. This would leave a strip of Land'7 i�2 f �€�t in width within the right-of-way, from the back of the curb to the, property Line, to aIIOw for the future construction of G Raw i }. QW @yk F £p: i tx P?r. i;e1th S. !iden x �SonIor Planner �Communl.ty Development Department January 31, 1986 ;k s'idewaiks in this area. Dur°reasoning not'to install the s -dewaIks at;this flme Includes the following points. a. As Indicated earT ter In this letter, -tile developer is already beingl `reguired to Participate in an excessive amount :of publ-ic mprovements due to the configuration 1 of the 'slte'and the extensive frontage. if It is not � b absolutely necessary-for the-public ti�aith,' safety and we If are i10 I nsta l l s i deoa I k al ong Center Street,, then we Wr)uld,propose to'delay,this construction. This would provide some relief for the developer in re- cognition of'the un;lque configuration 'of'the property and the,hardshlp that It 'presents, �rihich Is Dat ppl isFJ abie .to 'other parcels in the 'area. b. ate are proposing a retaining wall along Center Street " for rftoSt of the property, -as shown on the site`plan. .. There w II" therefore-be no access from the site onto Certer Street for'vehicu1ar or pedestrian traffic until near theintersec4riqr. with'-S.W. Greenberg Road. There- � 'fore, �pedestr1am-movement w i i I -.notbel encouraged on � th1s side of the `s+.re<:)t. This-would reduce the need :for a s`i dura l k ,at this location. c. Side�alks do not exist west of-the subject site on Center -Street-on• elther side, and,there are no side- r ova i ks`on the north side ofCenter Street ad j scent to the property. All of the businesses and houses which exist along Center'Street Iia to the north of Center Street-across from the subject property, and the appropriate- place to Install sidewalks in the future 'would<be -aIong`the:north side of the street. If side- walks 'were Installed onl on the south side of the street adjacent ta'the subject sl ` f te this would encour- age:padesirions to.potentially cross in the middleo ' the block on Center Street to reach"the sidewalk, which mould not I;e; in the best' interests of the''C i t-of T;•dgard. d. Traffic on Center Street is not .considered significant, since it is a relatively minor access street compared` with S.W. :Gre9nberq,Road7 and Highway 99W. Therefore, the need Eon' s -sddesalk along . �tJ. Center Street would -:; be .i dmi_teci toprov.ide for ,adegvate .pedestrian safety. r` a= r e r i '` Mr. Keith S. LIden Senior Planner` Coariiunity Development Department -6- January 3i, 1986 a s Please review this reasoning;and the information provided, and determine whether or not;the requirement for sidewalks along Center Street can be waived for this project westerly of the curb; cut Near the northeast corner of the site. 5, Another issue of concern during the pre-development review conference.related to the proposed "right In/right lute curb access to S.Vld Greenberg Road near:the southeast corner of }` the property. This curb access location: is considered quite critical- to the successful operation on the site and to, limit traffic congestion, once again, within the site Itself and at the Cather two access locations. We understand your, euncerns regarding potential left hand turning' movement for traffic trying to turn 'left into tine site northbound on S.W. Greenberg Road, We:would therefore propose to install a limited length ofoe"ir curbing delineating the northbound "and southbound lanes on S.W. Greenberg ?oad -for a limited distance north from the Intersection. The curbing would iIot prohibit access into and out of the bank;parking lot east of the property, but;wouldprevent 1 of tmhand ,turning movement into and oast of the subject-project. At the same time, it wouldIlaav for the movement of southbound -traffic on S.W. Greenberg Road Into the property,to avoid additional vehicu- lar movement through the Intersection with Highway '99W. it would 'also" allow cars entering the:subject site off of Highway 99W to park iin' front`of the retail spaces and then ea<i- the property at one of the two locations, thus giving an option to the;customer, rather than requiring all of the traffic to enter and exit the site at the same location, , Once again, the configuration of the property severely limits the layouts that are possible for development of the sites, and curb access canto the adjoining streets is critical for the successful develop;�ent of .the project. 1f the center curbing proposed on S.W. Greenberg Road ;would elimin- ate the majority of the concern of -your Transportation Department for traffic movement on S.W. Greenberg Road, then we would hope that the'curb access would be approved as shown. 6. Finally, the;application Includes a request for a larger sign than Is' normally allowed under' the zoning code, ;encom•- passing 1D5,square feet. The reason for the request is two-fo l d> F I rst of a l l heavy traf f l c uo l umes at the i nter- sectlon and,the relatively high speed allowed on Highway 9311 tends to' Iimit -the perception time for motorists .near -the y NMI 1 Mr. Keith S. LIden , } Senior Planner Community Development Department -7- January 31, 1986 site to become aware of the project, and due to the 'channel l- � zation and 'intersection control at'S.W. Greenberg Road, the potential customers of the. property's businesses may not realize that the 'business exists until they are past the property. It is therefore necessary to obtain as much advertising as possible to allow people ample time to corgi- plete their lane changes and "enter the property. Secondly, i there are a number of businesses built close to the street on Highway 99W, and there area myriad,of poles and other obstructions which limit visibility along this street. Once again, in order to obtain reasonable exposure, It will be necessary to achieve,a larger sign;area to the extent allowable within :the acmintstrative guides ines of the City o•'r Tigard. 1, hope this provides you with a complete package of Information necessary to review th°ss project. If you have any questions or wish to discuss it In "further detail, please do not hesitate to contact me at (206) 872-5522 at your convenience. I certainly appreciate the assistance that your staff has provided to ass In the pre-design effort on this project, and I look forward to a successful development approval within the`next'30 days. Thank you. Respectf y!�y, Thomas A. Barghausen, P.E. President TAaB./sm 0152.06 enc: As Noted cc: Mr. Barry aaln, Gramore, Inc. (w/snc. ) ' Mr. Bob Beauprel, Gramore, Inc. (N/enc.) Pyr. Dennis J. Donovan, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. *k. �.: ATTACHMENT TO GRAMORE, INC., LANDSCAPING VARIANCE SUMMARY OF RESPONSE 10 VARIANCE APPROVAL CRITERIA This attachment provides the summary arguments for 'rhe request for ar bove-referenced project to reduce the required landscape variance for the a landscaping area by 1.5 percent. The required landscaping for this particular project within the zone classification is 15 percent, or approxi- mateiy 5,397 square fiat. The requested reduction amounts topproxlmately 10.1 he gross required landscaping area, which is the tilt of percent of t lance. The specific approval criteria for a variance, the requested var Identified as Section 14Alltt edg� 9f °sequal rto, s5,680� below. squarrefeet,�which� l is amount of on-site a provi square feet less than` required. The proposed redaction will not be materially detrimental to the A. T phe pros se the eeda or in conf! lct- with any comprehensive; plan pollcy. The landscaping that; has been provided is reasonably close to the requ'red landscaping, and %,lith the supplemental landscaping propos within the excess right-of way along 5-iighway 9114, Which amounts to an additional' 4,300 square feet of area, we would exceed theaquired landscaping per on the site Itself. ' There ,are no surrounding uses of a residential nature which would necessitate more significant' Iandscaping standards or is compistly� buffer areas, and for this particular project which streets, the primary purpose of the landscaping bounded by public iso develop a- ire aesthetically pleasing project in accordance with general development principals. the specific percentages are not necessary to buffer the project from surrounding properties. B. This parficuiar'parcel is unique to al other properties in the area since it 1s bounded on all sides by public right-of-stay. The parcel Itself is approximately one acre in size and not only has aver 1300 feet of streetfrontage, but it also has a long narrqw'configdration which requires an excessive amount of perimeter landscaping, coupled with an excessive extent of off- site improvements. The applicant has no control over ih property boundaries, which also makes it extremely difficult to place buildings and Improvements ion the subject site w toward to the code regulations. As the property becomes more narrow tow south, it is necessary to .increase the asphalt area In order to ed structures. it is clear •that other gain access to propos properties in the immediatevicinityare not affected in the same warner as' this parcel , and this parcel must ,be considered unique. ® , F P^. rR C. the uses proposed are identical to the uses allowed within the' coda, and no variances are being requested. Extensive public improvements are being provided by the applicant for the surround- Ing street system, and this presents a .significant economic burden to this particular applicant based on the property con figuration. To the greatest extent reasonably possible, City standards have been met, while permitting the economic use of the ianel» The requested variance in the landscaping area is therefore being justified to offset the extensive public Improvements being required. ' D. Existing physical and natural systems will not be Impacted one other b the landscaping on ;the project and, therefore, I g o�av:or,tne t y the subject variance will have no Impact on these systems. E. The hardship that would be created by requiring the applicant to reed the code requirement is not self imposed and is due specifi- caliy to the fact that the "unique configuration of the property necessitates careful review of development alternatives in order to deet other applicable City standards. These other standards include access driveways, parking requirements, and other restric- tions. The variance being requested, which amounts to 10 percent of the grass amount of the required landscaping area on the site, is the minImum variance that would alleviate the hardship and noted by any surrounding property owner or would,probably not be person In the area. In addition, the extra landscaping which will 'Y within the right-of-way will help to be provided by the applicant i cant g y compensate for this loss of area. g§d , C� __ - ID6.iRSSS - j ff BARRY A.CAIN 'GRAMORE- INC' One Lincoln Center.4476 10300 5.W Greenburg Rd 55031 245.1976 Portland. OR 97223 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FOR 60 1WNUTE 'DUNE DF-VELOP -N'r S.W.P?a FIC HIGHWAY(99W)d�i�TL? GI�I~FPs�3i�G ROAD I IG��I�L?, OREGON I:= Prepared for Grarnore,Inc. March, 19864 198b PIR - x i®, 0 prof A? D. r `�'e•��,`��';3`eta: 8�,i.;\� tl 1 INTRODUCCTION Scope of Study e the This study was undertaken to Tyretail projectrafft loca impacts associated d at the northwest corneraofpS.W development of the 60 Minu. une Pacific Highway (99W) and S.W. Greenburg Road in Tigard, Oregon. Figure ! shows the general location of the project site. Specific issues discussed in this report include: o Trip characteristics expected from the site for the proposed development. o Site'access'location and operations. o 'Traffic impacts to adjacent streets. o Internal site circulation.' This study was prepared following for Trafficthe es set forth in e Oregon ed State lntghand Division "Minimum Requiremen discussions with city of Tigard planning department. 'f Project Description This proposed project 'consists of 'rtcinepsraseparate structures provided� on the g 9,100 sgsite. feet Three retail space. Twenty-five (25) parking spaces will (- access/driveway(s) have been originally proposed for the site and will be discussed later in Figure 2 shows the proposed site plan for the property. this report. r figu ce The developer is in the procestenants include other s of securing leases for h automotivee floor arelatedigret ail Retail/Service 'A' and V. Possible operators to compliment the 60 Minute Tune and of thish facilites. The commercial Gond zoning does allow other retail uses, so for the purposes o€ this report a "worst case" condition in terms of site generated traffic, will be analyzed. The "worst case" condition included 4,350 square .feet of convenience store/specialty retail use, 2,450 square feet of the 60 Minute Tune retail space and 2,300 square feet of the carwash facility. EXISTING C0NgI!.` 1()NS Adjacent Land Uses The project site presently contains a 'copy.shop, a radio and television repair shop, a, small furniture shop and a vacant retail space. A single-family home is located at .the northeast portion of the site. Northerly across Center Street is a dress shop in a two story residence. Easterly across S.W. Greenburg Road is a branch of the Oregon Bank with two drive-thru exits. Southerly across Highway 99W is a small piece of landscaped land. Adjacent Street Network S.W. Greenburg Road is a two way north-south local collector linking portions of Tigard, southwest Portland,,Metzger and Progress to Main Street in Tigard. Intersecting Highway 99W at the site under consideration, Greenburg Road is a two-way street consisting_of an exclusive right turn lane and a through .traffic/left turn lane in both directions. Highway %V I I"-;I;3° {` 99W is a two-way east-west state highway consisting of five designated lanes west of the l intersection ,with Lreenburg Road and six lanes on the east of the Greenburg intersection. Highway 99W has four lanes approaching the intersection from the.east with exclusive right turn and left turn lanes and two through lanes. This side of the street is separated by a one foot wide concrete median. The Highway 99W approach from west has an exclusive left turn lane with two lanes for straight through and right turn movements. This street has a posted 40 mile per hour speed limit and parking is not permitted adjacent to the site. The described intersection is currently controlled by actuated signals. The five-phase signal operation has an approximate 120 second cycle. Fire pre-emption controlled signal heads are located on the Highway ',99�V approaches. The traffic and pedestrian` signal heads are mounted on roast arm supports. Traffic Volumes and Peak Hour Operations To obtain existing traffic count data on the adjacent streets, Wilsey & Ham conducted peak hour 'turn movement counts at the Highway 99/Greenburg Road intersection on Thursday, March 6, 1985. Driveway usage ;count data at the present site during the rush hour was collected on Monday, (March 10, 1985 during the p.m. peak hour. Figure 3 shows the existing p.m. peak hour traffic movements at the Highway 99W/Greenburg Road and Greenburg Road/Center'Street'intersections." From the traffic court data it was determined that the p.m. peak hour (4.25 to 5.25) would be typically;the period of highest,volumes on the streets adjacent to the project. site. The intersection capacity analyses to be performed in the study' will examine traffic operations only during the p.m. peak hour. r` E The current level of service of p.m. peak hour traffic operations was calculated at the two key intersections adjacent to the site. The signalized 'Highway 99W/Greenburg Road intersection was analyzed utilizing the operations and design critical movement technique described in the Transportation Research Circular No. 212, Interim Materials on Highway '4apac The stop sign controlled Greenburg Road/Center Street intersection operations were: analyzed using the CAP CALC microcomputer software developed by Roger Creighton Associates, Inc. The existing p.m. peak hour level of service at the Highway 99W/Greenburg Road intersection is 'D', with a corresponding volume to capacity ratio of 0.81. The north and south approaches of Greenburg Road currently operates at level of service 'A', while the Center Street approaches operate at level of service 'D' during the p.m. peak hour. (Capacity analysis worksheets are included at the back of this report.) Level of services for a particular roadway or intersection is a qualitative measure of various factors which influence traffic operations. The factor which influence the traffic operations include speed, travel time, traffic interuptions, freedom to maneuver, driver comfort, safety and vehicle operating costs. Six levels of service have been established and are designated to the letters A through F, providing the best to worst service in terms of driver satisfaction. For signalized intersections, the level of service is generally evaluated in terms of an equivalent range of-a quantitative measure, the volume/capacity (v/c) ratio. The levet of service D, with a corresponding v/c ratio range of 0.8 - 0.9, is the desired level- of service for design by ODOT and the City of Tigard. For unsignalized intersections, the level of service is evaluated in terms of reserved capacity at each approach to the intersection. The level of service E, with a corresponding reserve capacity 0 to 10 vehicles [/// is acceptable for the minor street approaches, if signal warrant conditions are not rnet. Transit Tri-.Met bus!ine numbers 5 and 77 serve the site every 11-30 minutes during weekdays. These lines provide transportation to downtown Portland and Lake Oswego. FUTURE:TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Due to the existing intensity of development in the vicinity ,of the; project site, no major changes in the traffic characteristics along Highway 99W and rreenburg Road is anticipated. Historically, traffic volumes an Highway 99W has grown annually at a rate of to be completed by early summer about 2 percent. The proposed project is scheduled r of this year and the existing businesses will be ,closed as soon as construction begins. For the purposes of this report, the existing peak hour volumes will be used as the base case volumes. Site-Generated.'Traffic Forecasts The Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Report, Third Edition code numbers 814 (Specialty Retail Center), 846 (Car Wash) and $�1 (Convenience Market) were used to estimate the average weekday peak hoar trip-ends to be generated by the proposed development. The trip generation characteristics for the 60 Minute Tune facility were not available from the ITE report, so the generation rates used in this report are based on count data from an existing;60 Minute Tte facility in Vancouver, Washington. Table i shows the gross number of p.m. peak hour trips,that are expected to be generated by Tab e I shows development mixes of possible tenants. As previously discussed, this study will examine twonerated traffic volumes. a "worst case" condition in terms of the site-geThe development mix'A' will be utilized during the remainder of this study since the convenience market use is expected to generate about ten (10) times as many trips as a specialty retail or automotive retail'store. "Cable I also shows the significant amount of the site generated traffic that would be attracted from the existing traffic flows passing the site.- according to the ITE Report 45% of the`convenience market trips' and 58% of the car wash trips would be comprised of motorists already on Highway 99W and Greenburg Road. .N TABLE I 60 MINUTE TURN DEVELOPMENT -TIGARD TRIP GENERATION' � Phi PEAK HOUR TRIPS LAND USE SIZE(GSE) GROSS DIVERTED Ni=T p ., IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT DEVELOPMENT MIX A R 3 1. 60 Minute Tune 1,210 3 3 2. Car Dash 2,100 55 55 32 32 23 23 ' 3. Convenience Market 2,250 52 52 23 23 29 29 � 4. Spec laity Retail 2,100 �5 5 = 5 Total 7,660 115 115 55 55 60 60 .: DEVELOPMENT IMIX B 1. 60 ivlinute "Cone 1,210 3 3 - 3 3 A 2. Car dash 2,100 55 55 32 32 2g 2� 3. Specialty Retail 4,350 12 12 3 `3 9 Total 7,660 70 70 35 35 35 35 Notes: 1. GSE' = Gross square feet of building ` 2. Source: ITE Trp Generation Report,Third Edition k The site generated trips were distributed to the surrounding area using the following general I. directional distribution: North 3096 South -- 20% East - 34% West 16% ., This directional distribution is based on population estimates developed by,tMETRO and the $. percentage of passing traffic volumes on the adjacent street system. Alternative Sil:e Access Plans Two alternative site access plans have been examined to identify traffic impacts of the proposed development. Access Plan l consists of the driveway locations and turn movements ' allowed as shown in Figure 2. Observations of the turn movements into and out of the i. existing site development, which closely match the movernents allowed in Access Plan 1, indicate the following: No left turns were made out of the Highway 99W or Greenburg Road driveways � during 'the p.m. peak period due to the high volume of opposing traffic and limited gaps: 1 ; fr About ten (10) vehicles used the site as a by-pass to the icYt turn movement at the Highway 99W/Greenburg intersection. Only one vehicle exited the site froin the Greenburg Road access driveway. No vehicles turned left into the site from Greenburg Road. Due to these existing motorist tendencies, Access Plan:2 was developed to improve potential conflict areas. Access Man 2 has the same driveway locations and configurations on the Center Street and highway 99W sides as Access Plan 1. However, the Greenburg Road driveway has been modified to be a right'turn in only driveway. A right torn in driveway,on Greenburg Road allows customers to enter at the front of the buildings without having to go through the Highway 99W/Greenburg intersection. The site generated trips were assigned to the site driveways (Access "Pian 2) and the adjacent intersections as shown in Figure 4. Figure 5 illustrates the total traffic volumes at the adjacent intersections with the proposed development. Traffic Operations Analysis The p.m. peak hour operations, with the total traffic volumes, at the Highway 99W/Greenburg Road and Greenburg Road/Center Street intersections were analysed using the intersection capacity techniques previously discussed. The Highway 99W/Greenburg Road intersection would continue to operate at a level of service 'D' with a corresponding v/c of 0.88. The Greenburg Road/Center Street intersection is expected to operate at level of service 'A' for the,north and south approaches, 'D' for the 'west;approach and `E' for the east approach. The weighted average level of service for the intersection would remain at 'A'. A tra€fic,signal warrant analysis was conducted for this intersection, but current plus site-generated traffic volumes do not meet the minimum volume requirements to warrant signalization. Review of Site Plan and Ori-Site Circulation Access Plan 1, the original,site plan, was examined to identify potential traffic impacts. The visual barrier of the retail space/60 Minute Tune building will minimize the number of by-pass trips currently using the existing site. Motorists coming from the east and south will continue to Use, almost exclusively, the Highway 99W driveway. The two existing driveways will be consolidated into a single driveway about 200 feet wrest of Greenburg Road. This driveway will be used by motorists coming from the west. The existing left turn storage bay striping will provide'storage for the vehicles entering the site from the.west. (About one vehicle every two minutes.) ` The Center Street driveway will be reloc_ted easterly to about 40 feet west of Greenburg y Road. The light amount of traffic on Center Street should not impact the left turn movernents into the site. The relocation also minimizes the impacts to the site grading a limitations to the site. , The proposed curbing shown in Greenburg Road to prohibit left turn movements into and out of the site is not a desirable solution. This type of median barrier curb would probably become more of a traffic hazard than safety feature for the following reasons: =. The narrowness of this curb is not a typical median installation. Motorists do ..' not expect a small curb to be in the middle of the street. Also, visibility of , such a small obstacle at night;may be a hazard. ��.�`�� N%III�efX"S i ; The curb restricts bus and large truck turning movements onto Greenburg Road. To`eliminate the potential hazard created by the median curb in Greenburg Road and to minimize turn movement conflicts at the Greenburg Road access driveway, Access Plan 2 was developed. Access Plan 2 differs frorn the original':site plan in its modification to the Greenburg.Road access driveway. This 'driveway would be designed as a right turn in driveway. Figure 6 illustrates the geometric design of the proposed Greenburg Road access driveway,;to accommodate only right turn in movements. :also, modifications to the proposed concrete island surrounding the eyistingtraffic signal span wire pole are shown on Figure 6. CONCLUSIONS The traffic generated by the proposed 60 Minute Tune development will not adversely impact the traffic operations`of the adiacent street system. `By consolidating the existing luno Highway 99W driveways into a single<driveway, eliminating the turn movements out of the site along Greenburg Road and minimizing the convenience of using the site as an illegal l "left turn" by-pass route, the redevelopment of the site will reduce vehicle conflicts in the area. The p.m. peak hour operations at full development"worst case" conditions is expected to be within the acceptable level of service limits at both the Pacific Highway 09W)/Greenburg Road and Greenburg/Center Street intersections. �s �s JI E, r t,til X 41 f 1.V.1 I L£. IN W E M1 STIR ` # : bf "F 6r i i� a�y9 i9Ed �' it •G � � u(g,..� .. M �5ar,r, a ag }g ,..ctt Sg f_•', Y. `� -aR :.A S696ID 41 i �..9 -yyT�- tYSi{T RD i q g a. ie t b eEl RES[RA LS LT � GY.89'rt4YJa �i�y tixY6 61 1 IRdr� g •� f GAtib lG6tcR Owd , aw wYe S�� ! �'-{fd y I _ c 6"i a..c..>. L ar€E i+•ati ': � �; , atAe A "—' +Pia v w d 8 noaEsr<a v � � m Sa VAYA t° /s asa�ana 'F' Y 3E KW T �e1 3 i vA TAY.. EGA tr 3 � �+� '` iR�:. o Q Ltu RitKh cT® P. u .k1 RSL .fSSo� E7 Q , LtlCUF4 at co top! T rfzKA4u km � tN9A1 To�nRui[� FRAY vYATa � E' e.` {}A?( ST sey l0r m a KAC"t TO 8 nzx:p e 7 r�i &��— (OTA' tay C, C GAF g atm1NER /f A = e c`: A UST Alumim At a U, T.W4 ST 4 TlC�1/ Q"1 ?aA'T LL'YnT � A � PW f:i txPROJECT saa ^- >� rnw ntky � � 6 SITE Ei<xjj �s; y �t L Jti � x ?"WUA ttA vgtr tf'T A4+ .ALUUT ai 1 % U a S T. , ..��P 4 igar pf,Y#E(TR siweua to ,4 }q�TW ,F,y�v �� tAfs - 'ogl NT OEtL T!1 t AR ,Kk��c;\��F t4�' 3I,y� d YAWS: r a JRiiEa im ;� a _r,Sn K.s.� -" u ,.i „ '. YRS SrY caR psl Bull Mtn�r CA(" i Bull tn — _� 4 AReU Eua G i� cd woo 4T ' tR Vk`M 6T aRt3E - s3 r OfJALDST GI J w mayyluRpuT. --� > s Rtl eE _ ct m 80Nf7A 7 `g. RD }f.,1 K 6 P7'� o m �C 1l ncnmav- r r c cls~� r T ,J t! Ar.k m A > RD a'1 TlNHA > RD • I aY+cf sesT t) E 4 �cl e�uv esRr F ` NVII.LS��,�& 11,V\I lii�atlVili tEiZl;sii W �j . � of �-'� �•v` �, s 3 l`Ii�{{� ! 1 itll!'Aiii i / \6 '`d � � �� 94i lai 11 — it e I {;IIRs y fitit g` fi g ! M'p tip -- 5ie ae N It k , I � �i it \y��.` - e ••`. `1 �� $� � '! -ova F �. GRAMOW—r;(;, Ma.�a @aiE lS�V€l.aa<S�L'AtT PIAN !# Bars'4causeYg ._.r —^^ azevus+c.ma mero 1t0entT. a ?r a.a�,cugc7 -F FIGURE 2.� SITE PLAN wl 1 ani 11.V\I �a rt j�.. v • } x: z�r q4`'i y:t ..: I g.i"�•^'t" 'nyh "#°.s, n'a'.' s� :• - s -s %-, K`` :€+5� ROOM r�„`S', ,r' ` r.i �'', .-tom. r.`s r`' _ #'.'`:''�`� •,. {-> ��"? '... ,,� .a _OM SM" '�.''T' yi£vs ��^��.t�� _.�� ' -'�'r v OEM- .��.�.K�.�a� �" rr;..i� L*:3.i-= �.rnu�i- '�z�'�?+.s ,�'�,�ic";��. 'rf�,'2`4��: e'�P,� ..�w'��'.• _.�»,..,.� ..to'+ r.'_.�.asf.�t#�re�""- rim W N_ Ut �t CENTER ST. Q) �S o n rn " ��4 t N cn HWY. 99 W. n 30 a �E4'�:tc'SEa..1'r T6�tc o3�1' �'RP.F'e»tG f FIGURE 4. SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES N. -7O _ CENTER S i. 20 ON rn LF! 0 Q0 rn Zia uy 1226 HWY. 99 W. Y FIG(JRE 5 TRAFFIC VOLUMES W/DEVELOPMENT (CONVENIENT MARKET) r (( A.C. PAVT Gv _RO\rIDi-� C CURB %NT-'/SIC ` � s 15 " on 4 6 ` TqIP 62- 37' 'RAE ' ©. °+ . SZ -- . `FIGURE 5. RE MMENC3'E SITE PLA MODIFICATIOf4S I IAN @u'. ,. �. I •..,v. ..i e' e...e e, s e t�e v V :!1 t d U U e.�..+`a l.,e a V Calculation Form 2 rt e €� sMGP-b t, Design Hour 'P.M-PEA�Y- Pr �abl nStaters a nt f-m 0®.3G a.S�st tc�)aS t9s�� Step 1� Identify Curet Geometry Step S. Develop Passenger Car Stew 8. Ste 9a. W Approach 3 Volumes(PCV) in pch Calculate s Approach 3 Lane RT s 210 Adjusted Volumes Volumes '?AZt (q'(W TH= 02Cta TW Adjusted. A.. PC`a a -z Move- PCV PCV of per �. 7: '1,_ LT s_2as meat (Step 7) U w (U.w—PCV) Lanes Lame m s s r _J 31S 1 31,5 CL 'r a z �C, P,2 4`�D �I 1 NO 463 CL CL s ! ¢ 1¢ A` 1335 2 66� W. 2q5 15 Afiproach i LT= lZt7 II ti1S3 c� ISO I 1$0 Step 2. `Identify Hourly VolumesRT= IJ ® u AS&yAES st..Tc4 t 07 AT #{ INV) in vplY --�}�- ; r� MA It 0 Pv ! � Approach RT= Approach 4 P _ T= TH- 11 SO S'tetr 6. Calculate Pedod Volumes Step 9b. Volume Adjustment for r LT s280 (PV) in tach Al phase Signal Overkps I— , Approach 3 PHp=�•�d Possible Volume Adjusted y O t � C3 _ Probable Critical Carryover Critical `-E& , m tg- �. 1�! chase Volume to next Volume 2 m f RT- 'emsin pch _ phase in pch L(rr T= 9.8°� o a z 'n z T54 Lem® ¢ J LT 110(ML) els-1�1o(at1 tea FEZ E t_ l'sr�(at) 00 1ZG&.70 !Z5 ZT z �.t AZ SCJ��Fi, .. o a _RT .. QKL +43r Z`�S $$033 ISO - 193;z Sdep 3> Menlify_Phasing S 0 pH1=� o �(i32 -® Al AZ Al_A3 LT= 19t7 0 A2 -$d Tea=3?S a z J a .step IO.'Surr. of Critical A+l�a &.3934 RT 7ppr,_,7h5r n ®1fdr82eS ' �- q�g el g S'te X9 7. Turn Adjustments Sts �,e§5 5ISO AT Bi e2 84 . pch 1335 Step 4. Left Turazavaa�rt Ck Approach Step M. d®atercectf®ex Leval of I 2 3 d Movement A.Number of Turn {AO�E Service clsauaa intervais Turn volume (compare Step 10 with Table b) rr hu r {�itacJ-pQ b:left earn cmpxcity S�OPtR oR. (PV from Step 6) P�X S v - O �` oa chaope internal. - Opposing vol.m - io vph MOM OOP OSSv� vpb from Stcp 2 c•fa/C Ped.vol/hour Step I2. Recalculate Ratio CET YURIJ5 PCE LTfrom P ed9'rLA A 4.9pposing volume Table 3 Geometric Change rm - — lcrt ts:rn � - -� LT vol.in pch Fo>J,'ta AT Signal Change path zn PCE RT from s:xn,to vpb {311r13<S Table 4 Volume Change g tum TtAke, 6�t St;c7Ct w i y in vph RT vol.in pch t831 SSC`-1 1O►.t TH vol.in pch Olf1dF7E'Rts lrft turn vialua3e from Step b im vph h.(s volam scsc• Total PCV in pch a WILSEY HA -- PORTLAND. OR EXISTING CONDITIONS GRNCNTFM86 GREENbURG ROAD GREENRURG ROAD /11/66 CENTER STREET CENTER STREET AVERAGE WEEKDAY FM PEAK' 1466 VOLUME ALLOCATION To LANES TRAFFIC LANE i' LANE - LANE = LANE 4 FROM L' S R L S R L S R L S R ---- ----- - y NORTH --- -------------- 70 530 - U 0 0' C EAST 40 10 70 0 C) C, i, 0 0 0 0 0 SOUTH': 10 460 < 60 0 i) 0 i i i 0 0 0 0 'WEST 0 5 10 t, Cj 0 i. 0 0 0 O to f UNSIGNALIZED TRAFFIC FROM LANE 1 LANE 2 LANE,, LANE 4 ---- - --- - - - 'F NORTHRESERVE CAPACITY 625 LEVEL OF SERVICE A �e.1E1CyTED AvER�GE. i.oS �:,, EAST RESERVE CAPACITY 104 \ LEVEL OF SERVICE D Goy 1�3(t2c�\a 4'13/12 /�VIA( �;�ize l � G25 iZso�t- SOUTH RESERVE CAPACITY 67 Zq5 + t0+ 2l`1+ LEVEL OF SERVICE A WEST RESERVE CAPACITY 134 -LEVEL 'OF SERVICE D MAJOR STREET NORTH/SOUTH ..� �,/I 11.4+✓�l Ilr lt.l Y 'vlfiVill Jll lt..tl�lJiJ. �! l..l tJ111LJ{ `4 L.J ! \i yt.J lJ y Calculation Form 2 7 s.ua. �cttic. � �sAY agw �v � �� ,�a . Lu)'ct�, ' '�!�'3leM Staterne�d ate t . p 9a. �-�'o �ngpfrane earn8ry "Ste s Devef�p Passenger Cal' calculate 6tvproach3 volumes (P�G'�`� in pefa Lane 1.1 - Approach.sT''odurnes t3 . Adjusted Volumes RT= 210 Total Adjutted N Per F c�� Tai= 12:ZS PCV of >x } 94 Hove- PCV yW„PC4 Lanes Lane Qt�sa sG T galvt { w a a L.T:� msn�(Sc p?) 11 V1�" U y CL 132 a t � . e"' °" Ali 9ZS , 77--1350LT= � �Ito R,ppr.arn a 3{� 4`YS Q I�iS Ste, 2. identify Hourty Vodfanaes RT: io � s CC ale s AT LEAST 14S Raocz � T0-IV) in vph Approach ma r_—"ach a RT= 'ms's .Ste 9fs. Volume Acdjustment fo j T-12'- Tr+= zus Step 6.° C"lxdculate Period 8'eaduanes J.uj��e Si Overlap a m o (�V�-inpcda .Possible Volum= Adjusted LT= PSiE= 0.'10 Probable Critical CarRovsr Critical Approach 3 Volume to ntxt Volume Phase T. s aq� FST 23 e in xtn Ph-u` f„ �� 43 0 r 3e5-9to(50 y a TH Q. r 0 4 a LT tl Le- s !�_ a tt 'F 3l a iitZ 41 Q�a{ t� (ga-tl5(�� IZca F.. LT a Q'FCs T=5.1a•�. 6 $4ia3 AiL 5S5(�z7 a A3 B4 3S® 6)T a l� 1 n 4 tsproacn4 ` $3 Step 3. 1deratifv Pd¢aasing s Pair-=®.90 0 o Eo of (10 � 4 .a REQ A,.Z At-A LT� = m Step 10.'Saattx of Crftica d3 E?2 pp TH s 925 z J r ¢ ��dt(P�d2S p2.w-AST R7_ QO Approecn a ors�a2 �r a 43$3 3lra .�� 38n t95 ® 81 f-03`1Step 7. Tw—n Adjustments '2P51 g A4 3 02 ®4(' i� vch Step . Left arra Cdaec& Approach Step .d1. lratersectiora Level of Approach Mo.ement Service 1 2 3 4 Turn p� ; (compare Step to with Table 6) u.N=bss Turn volume chs intervals (PV from Step 6) t3olJ^L>i�P05ELl p. t—= b.Lefl carat opacity �EP°+9A�� OR- Opposing vol.in rncraage interval, vpb from Step 2 TQPA"ca "�PE'p.�.2. .�t'CafCdSd621� in Vph Poo.:0?W_!~t+ Pct.vol!hour t. Dario PCE LT from P t��y y (� fxometric Change - d..Op ngeolume LFFT 'j�p,AJS Table] Signal Change ' Vph LT vol.in Pctr CDU/s PvT Ctoss ?1� SjD3Tk_1i PCE RT from Volume Changeetty on Table 4 ti.in vph �UVUR Nl't15 tctraa RT voi.in i h Comments ap&city in vph Ty vat.in Pch k' b`c) )3 t C�EC:W_S.� from Step 6 g Left turn volume I '- Tata!PCV in och is vph Ls.lt yolums icafscc- ity( ?fp7 8 p April 22, '1986 To: Tigard City Council Members Re: Site Development Review '(SDR. 6-86) ; Variance V 5--86 Dear Sir/Madams I am a property ;owner of the above mentioned site and wish 3 the sale to go through according to our agreement'with' Gramore. Py husband served on the Lake Oswego City Council for 8 years ;and I appreciate your position in trying to do what is right for Tigard. As you may know; we have owned the site in question for approximately 30 years. In. your deliberations, please consider the following: 1) Gramore has already accepted the require- ,+ ments you have directed. 2) The use of the site is within C-G zoning', 3) We have lost tenants during the proceedings at a severe economic loss to our small partnership. The tenants left after your v apparent approval upon Gramore's acceptance of your terms. 4) We are unable to sell the property under any normal circumstances if you don't allow this transaction to be completed under terms set by Tigard that were accepted by Gramore. 5) If you determine that it is still necessary. to turn the transaction down, then we believe we have suffered a de-facto condemnation under eminent domain and Tigard should purchase the property. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Yours truly, C' �� G Laurie Goodell Ferguson 1061 Chandler Road Lake Oswego, OR 97039 lgf! Sz, F77 MO s}Us TO: TIGARD CITY COUNCIL 'FROM. GRAMORE, INC o SUBJECT: SDR 6-86 AND V 5-86 The above matters were called up for Council Review by motion at � the Council's March 24, 1986 meeting. The Council has the s. Director's action and there were indications of individual t.. Council members as to concerns that had. It is the purpose of tnis memorandum to set forth the concerns we have heard exprassed and our response to those matters. We concur with the staff's conclusion that the proposed development is "basically consistent � with the relevant standards and criteria contained in the Community Development Code." We believe the City staff did an . excellent jos working with the applicant and rather public agencies and request that the approval be affirmed by ,Council The Use issue One o the matters which is not at issue concerns the uses , permitted an the site. Such uses are permitted by the zoning � ordinance and may be made of the property until the zoning ordinance is changed. At one point in the approval stage, a convenience store was discussed with staff. The applicant has no intention of placing such a store on thissite. if such a store were ever considered TIGARD CITY COUNCIL - 1 s jj all in the .future, it would probably require remodeling and, therefore, a neer site development review approval. Traffic safety The applicant has been working with the City planning and transportation staffs and the staff of the Oregon Department of Transportation (OL)OT) for the last several months to provide the safest and most efficient access "Co this irregularly shaped site, in view of the fact that the proposed uses were not generating new traffic trips, but were trips "dropping in" from the existing traffic streamsnearthe s_te. .&t the request of OOOT, the applicant prepared a Traffic Impact Study, which formed the basis of several additional requirements, inclue?ang therightturn lane at Greenburg and Pacific Highway and the single curb coat along Pacific Ilighway. The planning staff originally had some concerns over the Greenburg Road curb cut from site design (i.e there would be no limitation can turning movements from and to the site) and traffic (absence of a traffic impact study) perspectives. The applicant secured a traffic study and agreed to limit traffic movements at the Greenburg Rd. curb cut and provide the right turn island at pacific Highway and the staff then agreed to the curb cut on Greenburg. The applicant has limited site access to a driveway alone Center TIGARD CITY COUNCIL 2 i . St. , one curl's cut on Pacific Highway and one curb cut along reenburg fid. Tlx configuration of the access, patterns was dictated by the °°stacking7° limitat�ons of the surrounding intersections and traffic safety considerations. For example, the intersection of Center and Greenburg does ,not allow for many cars to be waiting for access into the site. Further, the traffic can Gree burg does not allow for an exit from the site. Finally, ODOT recommended that there he a °,right turn onlyi° exit on pacific Highway so that all traffic exiting goes south. The applicant and public agency staff worked together to plan the onsite in view 0fthe limited access paints so as to provide for adequate parking and on site "stacking" in excess of City requirements. Se.e Tigard. Comm. Dev. Cade sec, 18-106.060. The traffic professionals from the city and ODOT agree that the safety and access of the site is safe and convenient for the permitted uses. Further, the applicant and staff agreed to rearrange the structures and uses on the site so as not to preclude the commercial St. exit proposed for pacific Highway. proncased Structures The applicant has submitted its plans for structures proposed for the site and received approval. The proposed structures are a vast impovement over the present uses and of such quality that TIC-ARD CITY COMICIL 3 Tigard residents will be pleased with the siL. The: Variances The Director granted two variances in granting approval-® the deletion of the 'sidewalk on Center 5t. and the lowering of the landscaping requirement of 15% The Director's decision was supported by findings which are, in turn, consistent with the applicant's justification at pp. 3®4 of the letter accompanying the application. The sidewalk variance was ;granted because the property ,to the 9 west is unlikely to be developed for pedestrian use, currently being part of `.,die Pacific Highway embankment, in the area of the proposed retaining wall, and in the area proposed to be used for an exit ramp to Commercial St. A sidewalk at that" point is expensive and of little use to pedestrians. Further, its b presence would encourage mid-block crossings of Center St. There are no sidewalks on Center St, at present and future sidewalks would be better placed on the North side of Center, where there are existing residences and businesses The landscaping variance is now considerably less than, the 1.5% (637 ,sq. ft.) deviation requested originally as the applicant and staff agreed that additional landscaping was advisable aroundtYxe retaining wall, so as to ,lessen the passibility of unsightly �3 graffiti. In- addition, the applicant has agreed to maintain landscaping in the public ra.ght--of-way of Pacif ic Hyghvlay in an al aunt of 4300 sq. ft. , which is not veco tted°° in the landscaping � xecc ai en s. The, reon dor. the variance revolves around the amount f landi�caping provided the rest of the site, due to its � id egtxia shape, engtkx rontage, and the extensive dedication Lid i s ove ert'� x quiremea�ts .e. right turn ism island ,at Greenberg and Pacific Highuray, the dedication and improvement rega�ire�,ersts onGreenburg and elsewhere ;and the limiting of site access-) onc' usion The aplicantecdest: that Goch the decision of the Planning Direo4*or in this matter- Planning s +• TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ^^ � y SOUTHWEST OFFICE ,-,:. SUPPLY s, 12245 S.W.Main Street Portland,Oregon 97223 Ph.639-3179 April 23, 1986 ' Mr. Tam Briar: Tovin Co. 8858 S.ti. Center Ct. Tigard, OR 97223 dear Som, It has come to our attention that there are ®me concerns on the part of the city Council regarding the proposed automotive canecenter that is to be built at the' corner of g" Greenburg and Pacific Highway. itis my understanding that staff has approved recommended approval of the, project and that the area is Toned for such a business. Raving seen the site plan and noting the considerable impxovemends that would occur (particularly to Greenberg Rd. ) V the ,members of the Tigard Economic Development Committee feel , that a .positive vote on this 'project would be in 'order' for the iz�provemenit of that section of Tigard. i It :should be mated .hat Dennis Thompson''s facility on Main FStreet is al; ay keit neat and clean and l am sure this facility would-be maintained in the same manner. A real improvement over what is .c:urrentl.y occupying the site. 2. Further, there would be a number of jobs created that will generate added revenues for surrounding merchants. The city may even be .able to collect the lousiness tai: fromsucha stable " business. As fir as l can see this is a win-win situation for all of ' the Tigard community. it is our belief that this is ,just the type of development ' we need and that the council should be looking for ways to encourage rather than discourage this type of investment in E Tigard's future. S lh cerely, ��ohn c' Savory Chairman f � Tigard Economi,~� { Development CouLmi.ttee cc. Mayor John Cook � Councilman Jerry Fdwards coin cilwoman Valerie Johnson � Councilwoman Carolyn Eadon Mr. Dennis Thompson Mr. :`tom Sullivan ' 'WE SPECIALIZE IN SERVICE"— t ad�?.8�8Io r rusL L�' - 0 V , -2(,) 100, �IAr rd Auto stb Pa PL�n _ _ ..... Til ►Ti11I1ItoI11ttI (1tt1I 7 ( r r r } f - - i J.).' J i J. B f�_(.4 I I It I It I It 1..} !_+'J'�. �TJtlml�hf_iall�(f]fJ�il{ili�il�riU�t3Tfl�tlT9 ilr��ilip 111tJill�ihJJl7I717Ililfi111 f!i i�Ttltl�ili611 i�11iltli�l'e,Fii •-- NOTE: IF THIS MICROFILMED 1.__�_.__....._J.. __..2.__ _. _ .3 4 1JI ff ,I 7 }8 � tl 12, r. DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN 'i --� 1, THIS NOTICE. IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DRAWING. OE 6Z BZ L2 8Z SZ tZ EZ ZZ IZ OZ St 81 LI 91 51' tt EI ZI it of 6 8 L 9 S MARUM 9 Nr. I. WF DRAWINGS _ _ s'I:eiflnt q'r mI I<i°>`:m:ir['tf00i.n o-o nn .zi A. II Y ' SI}w p n• 1 p thew}w 1 All rl I PYIf p•ring•r•Ism Iw or N [YN fN ,n i Y b on e of 1 All 61•x•lan ecrw .I. KInFj; * /I of 6 Plot Plan __...'- rely in«rU-lf.I c"�r.'•<Yre llq.mwrx•Im lv6lp . /2 of 6 Gracing and Drainage Plan I!of- --eat Prof I les 1 I/of d Atte Details Loon-lnq.tnlh.l none-.n61oe•fion..n•u Y.eru l.1 vr1x,� t necfloe. TM Int .l Nu•I.n•.a on Y•t•r•IIYn I" _ - •"y\� /3 of 6 Landscape Plan - pmu<r.Ixae. Acfie1 Im•+Im ry jF6 of 6 Traffic Control/Pavement Marking Plan P. cemr.ctx 1'.rwYtr.6 ro cool.•11 n.ce>.ery P-1+•for tn•' p A - xpi0lnp fn.HYl�atlq It}00for -I�'cr 'O,Ior to .n•�[cl•IN y -� ��` dt•rh ft turwl wnA t}rwrf,rnl t"w}a - •Ito conatrx+lon. O a '�; d ,- s. ConH.ctx mall Y rl,il-lnl.for coxal flop Muklecti Ifl TIM paW, 6 e� Y`r} TI D l /1 of 8 Ftret Floor Plans, Schedules,and Notes •u Ynnty e[•peela ena oir<r sYe.m .nx.YY:p1•I 1 b Yon L 4+ , 12 of B Elevations fn•x.J.,to•no.f lain--I..m csY[Yeflon ecaarl s.' 0 13 of 8 8.11 df19 Sect Ions, Structural Details and Schedules I RIX- 194.05 1 /4 of B Foundation and Roof Framing Plan and Structural Notes �, Ory i.E.= 185.22 (6"SW) 6. All ow•�A•nPxe.•nt oa-st1R>neu n•z•a1n.1 cap.ctw a.Pm /5 of a Foundation and Roof Fraeling Plan, Structural Notes and Dotal ds! .' / I.E.=185.06 (8"NE) gYe.•o•t•rn.rr r.r. a.r 4•InlA,1.[o.e.er.a em+n xusnlb IL 45, �• r 4�; 1.• 11 of B 60-Nl nut Tune.Pit Detalls II m I.E.=184.85 (8"NW) rxA Ws bl .,,a,•[ov>I'++•o+o vsta w+l•r lT-IN of a ,60-Ninute Tuna FoulWatJon Detal Is and Structural Dote l is m,A T. All al eflop torn P«•,�•n4 x6 otn.r 3W--I.er•to e• Q' �• '"�`� /B of B Reflected Ceiling and•Ele:tI-cel Plan and SchedLie I .rC�' v' g r wvrlx+o ep Inning nw cos _om �•� D ' z� A Y "r� / \9 p a..Fx a q•ot•Nnle:1 Im•a+lyatlen.1.rKOI -len•I.Wdlnq twn6b! y , Xw DID W".h Shewh I 5jI 9 L� �� ,L a17•s"iopy o't1 earrpxt+M con�Mx an>II o6+eln>n6 n•v on 2M' ; .. 110, [ I` of Sl ea Plan end Section .. .n ST¢=O (BOTH SIR ST J cr.vnr ev. . :'r 1 j L.P.AgYl.r A.-..,•a Inc. < _ a6"A-1 `L, /2 of 2 Sections yNY• & RG RD.) � r !1 1� ` ♦ .e_[a..ji•�L G`N' [1x 0ek RlaPRo•6 MSN ' / Lek O.Y•po.O,.gon 91031 ICINiTY MAP 2 ,: r. M1�3)WS[<I9 NEW 5' CONC.SID / 1/ 8°55 Iw o m aN AT PROPERTY L .E ( / F'I./T• 55 1 h All r>M Ies I In.--hip•na-tructlon sYll eonlw to D / � +M�Iyly,Re}as eM Repula+lan Ix eetx$xvlu•al the Tlgx6 ,tl � Yetx plsH l<f. _ •• / a MI••ter nrvic.I Ine>No N.nix to•ne Iml•a lrg the min ro e•Inae.I llM nr in.<9nrrxrx. m N*CGNC FTffi AT li RAMP S, Alt rain. rilc. I .YII ne pclYHn.yl.n P•Hlc.R 1160 p.•.L' I" Lap, IID o AS.-3.. W N Com- c»•`+- U \ PO TO BE RELOCATED •M TED [. u1 roar I J wast pe Iola le I-1-dI---h - 9 COxY\ 7 BY P.G. E. estop ena vn+.vele.Ix ar.IMg.. !e 7 4,Lll>YlY d 9� D V'• 5 !I ne Ieslelisl r oe r,.r.tre lnffur°�" <:O�r•I 3 eS.fi Ye1+n 2 , 4)MEW O7NCRETE IN o / �9 Y /�WALL AIDNG PE INE WITk( (�R �� prat•H•6 Lection Is I"alP•tY bYf laic.. ' P HANDRAIL VARTnar.c e SEE G G PIAN N Yh v 55yy'CIXtC.SIDEWALK 6„ 55 C.O. 9E , ( at PROPERTY LINE I AI ItiY nor Dip.ane 1 or wlrvinl cn alae,we ISOR ssl, ! h TO REMAIN ,_,ra $5 T UNC. Iwirg to tY reculrsenta of ASTM o3am,"In rover q•sY t L311RB TYPE 'C A'.Inl.uw greae 6.3--1 m>r e.Al-.1-on in.s d `N swH. 0 N TYP/I } *p`y J , �[ Y TS Of 3. Innen sle.ve.x rim z.-Ian win Isar corer. 6'0 qo "R/W DEDIGa :TO Bo O ROVIDED TO CITY OF TIC,*u LZCAI. m 11 / / / � •L�j �� -� 1��{ ^'�J r .v»i ) �f e'w. ' ��' � / 96 3 IVT � ��;a�c}�,. ,10 _ F 7n, NEW CONCRETE RETAIZING WPI.I. _W #v ",4?1 '�;".�" -NN -;Ki% 5 z NEW G PROPERTY L}.[I�,�-WTIH S� P s �i Y ,Az rE,..Ib ?pi AREA _. 1 uh _ HANDRAIL(HEI VARIES- / '1 •.t • 'as y „r7Y 4�+rt.. \A 'Y/ '` s 0.PERm_ '1 TAPS AND/OR SERVICE LINES TOLa O h1ELER BY TIGARD WATER DISTRICT y RIM TQGRADE' E.--'" 0 �,0> W / b • .E'V/ A� \ Bj la 1 \ [Sr. 1"WATER I=AND METER BOX TO (!� RELOCATED7 SW BY TIGARD WATER . m ' ... IST'Rlcr MSN a IvsrAtiEc� �Fq O�> .. - .K' cg' ?3 BY TX('r1RD WATER DISTRiCl' C ..�,. NEW FIRE HYD. \ 0 OPPOSITE WEST PROP CORNER (BY TIGARD NATER ' - ,`„ 'S 11 A,�VV••aAI r y� RAMP DISTRICT) �I /� J / - yk_ -:,.. ., r S ¢ -.k• "''m• .yd` SIDES NEW 6 LY. (APRON Iv/6' FLUS. CURB ON DE O 1 A SH^WNA2R()N TO Bp FLUSH WITH GRADE 0.N S:A. s. POWER POLe /��/^\ /,tn$y - •` -_ -;r_ 3"',^ �, k 1Xa I 4P "' a&j�:..�„ iT�� GREE. I3�nD. - - TORE'3AIN / 1 1� -- - - " :_.,r �1 I A. ��, ' Y"y "'*�Y .�F• T _�.``"..p.'"'`., •, WILE 'paR INSTALL GUARDRAIL / / d'% = / OFE{[CF r. --- __ - SNAA�e +�P•�y`s7a.^'I}��.:. ,, •7t 1^"'3 i` ",}4 ,w. ,•�t ,�--��,,yha,, LANDSCAPE AREA TOP OF SLOPE ALONG to 'r' / I `♦.�n Iyx .eb CP i = ,per 1. NEW w PROP.LLUE TO SOUTH- -w• - m _. as{W5 �, ?i`i-i., .y_ ¢..' ` ry . i EAST PROP.CORNER r +F I vGr :' y +,�.; s n ..{+,•''.. S• \ P' o AS sH(HTI. �./ ap C;•. @ /CAR WT'H ,, `'. -yam .{. +` 'os ,i<_,__ RA 9, r, .'W NE[4 RIGHT HAM RIW TORI DEDICATION PER o.D.O.T. - BZ� tm / --- - rt++ 11r �' - -_m PREW OP. '=G lA• ' R.,1,� sTlbS. WITH R/W DIDICATION AB SHC{'S7 ---- --_- /j- _ o o.l l l m \ `'iM 'G \+~ r'LFSiDSCAPE AREALT-U" f POWER\ LE'1C1 ,x SEE sPE zA1 Nom u a / m CONI.CURB _ FIRE HYDRANT S 62e 3Y c�sSftALa o` 5- --- - - pp POWER POLE 190 ____- --tau-tAtQ 4•rmF^ _- - RLMAIN CORA .. NEW A.C. .PATT: Y` 'C 3 RAMPS __ -___=-_ INSTALL - I GUARD RAIL TO RFMAZiQ- / _ END COW.WALK AT / T-AT ISLAND PER o.D.o.T. "p ,.� CEKTERLINE uGF--1SECT oA y ay ._-h:%+- 6"AAISID SOLID �. m L IN AS SHOWN N X\ --A-20 A I mo'�- . CONCRETE ISLAND DRIVEWAY -�S^-A.20+OD (HWY.99W) ENTEND Cm EXISTING EO�c OF PAVE 7171nONSMCUING I�,I -NEW TRAFFIC SL-4`D PER -� u7 p AS SHOWN z O.D.O.T. (RETAIN •d+ , ffYY-F 196 STALL NEW FLARED F2,4Y SECTI(R7 REMOVE APPROX. 145'OF \ NEW FREFSTAUeII�SITE I.D.`- \\ ,. . AT GUARDRAIL TERMINAL HIST- GUARDRAIL,NO LONGER REWIREDit-20' HIC7f, 100 S.F. \ i (SEE SPECIN,r•Xrif.'71 ` (MAX.(N /FACE) W \\ . FCS LINE CCfr.CURB `\ \ \ \ �. C OPEDFSTR7AN mom[n Y __ r /�/��C r�/�pppJ�.�a�/�.�a� PECIAL - SIGNAL ® a CODE INFORMATION 1. R SHALL PROMCT METING SIGNAL MAST AND POWER POLE DURING CONSTmCTION TO PREVENT S \', STD � C ANY DNXAGE FROM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND VEHICULAR TRAFFIC. GAS \ C a P 20R1tde. y CG GENERAL PC] `1 LOT AREA: 42:1 T5.5 S.F. C "' [' .__ $,}:$ERYJCE-STATINN• LANDSCAPING REQl11A�:i ,15{ 2. NEW"Ft.ARED-ECID"CIIARDAAII,SECTION LOBE I47 ACOJRDAI�OF STD.DETAIL PROVIDED BY O.D.O.T. A SIDES+IALK^" SHALL AE GRPNTID BY TBE SIG[31L O 0 A.2 RETAIVCM YASy kA1JD5CAP3NG PROP)DID: it:4�... ACID ATTACRED TO THE O.D.O.T.PERMIT. FIELD COta'NECTI�'1C)THE EXISTING L7IARDRAI7.TO BE : DEVE7APER TO THE CITY FOR THAN FORl'ION Sep \ S F -3 :i (Ix17+DII1ATID WiO.D.O.T.FIELD INSPECTOR AS 1O EXACT DETAIL OF THE INSTALLATION AM TRANSITION OF THE WN.I<AILING S.W.GPEEU$1RG ImAO \g8/ \ \ � 0 a d 'CDPIS1R1CTION TYPE. YN 'LOT ODYERtL£i- 21.0$. - LYING 4RTFIIN THE SUB=SITE F . :PROPOSED A111W116 AREAS:.' ,( :PPpC1tG REQu1'RED: - TO THE EXISTING(71,.RD SECTION. - q� I� • GUARDRAIL st�tT \ / 1 � .e ,bO-MlNUSE•TUPE- - 2,451 5 F. ,60-Mlt/JTE TINE - '.' low MAIL SERVILE"A" 2.1)0 9 F. RETAILAMICE 11 1l4<1l400.S:I)i . AIt✓gERY 1Lt!6R 2.250 5 r'. - ._' Ci.i sASn d e`r;-E 5 57id,i5('IS F.i w' 'GR AASH 8(iFF.ICE 2:D16 5 F. 2l STALLS ::.:1 '•`itECaAI.DEStiA9h'fIOiV '� - \ T. TOTAL .,814 SEF. j �ya.. .. • .. .ice_ �� - " '.-MOTS 1 2.3;-.4 5 Q,`7,:26 29,:30.:32 Atm 32,,AJB.111,27Cdt,1 AIIRSODpi,.R(i3E CIADNT1r 4F \ RCIOt. nlvyeM .tom 4 PARKIHA PROYIDEDP pp ,SAID PRFMLLS�S:1 '1D-Tf�). \ .-�_. ., !. .. 11NDiDAPPEO:^(i1.CPP �'S"LLS �:�. 1...50181211±1KJN`AbD'3TATE�Oo?'46(iClt,'-.. S4�f1HeT.'POjOSOR:CF .. � ..,;STAM)AR0 17'-..KLs �.STAI£'OF..t1flDf�t l)Y;ANm;'d; fCai- Y jW7 1> JL 4tT 9g 6 60NPACT(L•C.'i 2,STALLS BOOA--182.fla£341 7WrotD:Al.R6»,,bBtrlTi�'a};TI 1919.HCCIj 1113 1)AGb:461 ..ISS - :'i A / '^{ m r. �...._. 2 3 Q 5 -6 7 B 0 1,II�III�,l�111111t1 - i fllgll•If P1111�11ggllllql{r Ippl:g1jlP IpIIP TILT mim 4W IP qir� ill lP 1 III 11� I 1 I 1 I I I 1 - ItlTE: IF TMS XICROFIIIE. 1. I I I 1 .e 1 1 1 I TI1IIT 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1119111 41 111 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1'Z' - I DWIW IS USS DX R TIMI 1HI5 NOTI[E•IT Is DOE m TIE plIAL1TY OF TIE ORIGINAL .HYING. ____-_ 'P of---aZ a2 dz oZ-S2 rz EP. 22 la Oz al-al LI 91 sr rl CI 21 I( IN 8 of 1 e S24A Y C a 1^'e• nllunlnuLlaluu6lNhxibuWlnu6RFygl IDjbuilnn MARCH1 ' 711990 � - •" _ - __ 6-__�-_. _. , ,. MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 1 'TO: City Council April 2.4, 1986 FROM, William A. Monahan, Director, �✓�{dy l community Development sli9JECT: Item #9 — UPAA iAgreemert The UPAA Agreement has bears. set oyer -to the l ay 1986 Council meeting. (2515p) {r� Ai 3M_M_ X i C ii C ME CITY OF TIG RD (D C N CUUNCsL AGENDA ITE 'SUGARY AGENDA OF: _aril 28, 1986 AGENDA ITEM It s0 4V_ 0 FATE sU13MITTED: April 22, 1986 PREVIOUS ACTION: ISSUEIAGENDA TITLE: PREPARED BY: Community Development REQUESTED BY DEPAATMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: rss�aaaaAcsa�m€.�gsmae�m�sYz+ ra�xzaeae saWaammuma¢sae�ssa��sac�------=-am--maammssauaemsesmammm8�ma��aa��.su POLICY ISSUE t 1 9&�PAt�ffi}e'RaS^1GS9ty,t"$��ffiyT.:rGYM3 R.''8ffi J.�CY:S 64 %84*X83®rx.112a��G0ffiSS� dS�SaIIdIISlm'8"i iS49ffi��ffiffi�"..A�S®3ffi?d�8------------ INFORU4ATION SUMMARY RY Attached are the Notice of Decisions for the following: 1. TU 1-$6, approval for a Temporary Use Permit requested by Jeffrey Paul'Fish for the Street of Affordable Homes from May 9 - 26, 1986, on properties zoned R-7, located at 87th Avenue and Hamlet Street 2 TU 2-86, approval for a Temporary Use Permit requested by Art Lutz for the Good Cents Show of Homes from April 19 to May 4, 1986 on 15 properties zoned R--7,(nD) , located at Amart Sumner Lake #3, 127th Court. 3. TU 3-86, approval for a Temporary Use P.srmit requested by Dave Schulz for the Northwest Natural Gas "Natural .Choice" Show of hom?s from April 19 - May 4, 1986 on 9 properties zoned R-7(PD) , located at SW ;125th Place, Anton Park Subdivision. AL^aERNATIVES CONSIDEREE 1. Approve as written. 2. Cali up for review at a date set by Council. , a.a�asxazrassrsaax sa m+me¢su®ram..ua...... sari.srx:sasz........emxiran----smsrt--------as-zswairi m.....e zoos.. SUGGESTED ACTION Approve as written. 4 4 CI-rY or TIGARD NOTICE OF DECISION TU 1-66 flP�t Request by Jeffrey Paul Fish for a Tem�,orary Use pes^ra3it fret the zoned Street "I faffordaiaie Homes fraaraa May 9th 26Th. 1986. on properties �onea� and Hamlet Street (WCTM ZS1 11D0 lots i_ocationt SW 14000 Ave14100, 14200, 14300, 14400, 114500,1 600 14700. 13700, 13400: 13900, 14Ut30, 14800, 14900, '15000, 15100, 15200, 15300, and 15400). €3EC_ CISION: Notice is hereby given that the tPlannisag Director for, the City Of ns. The Tigard hsa�s APPROVED the aboeae althetQQrector based hisrdecisionn subject to cetain �are oas noted findings; and conclusions on which below. A. FINDING OF FACT 1 Background In June, 1983, a Site Developaent Permit was granted by the ons Planning Director, 'subject to ; cit ondi8iect wasto e�never�hb�un2-unAn condominium development', The project. a 5-84 approval with conditions for � 419 lcs� subdivision �.� ) application was mivan in march, 1984, and was 'made final on March ZZ, 1984. A zone change from -12 o '-7 "uses also granted -as part 1 apprsavax as f of that application. An extosasion for the final p ._ granted in February, 1985 and expired in September, 1945. Vicinity Information RmilY Rroper•a ies to the north and east Pr r Properties toned R-12 the westarezoned Residential, 12 units per acre). p property p-4.5 (Single Family Residential, 4.5 units per acre). to the south is also zoned R--4.5 and is part of Ti.�3�rrd High Schcsol. A Plaid Pantry retail store is situated adjacent to the -choolt property on the northwest corner of Mall Blvd. and Durham subjRoad and is zoned C- 3 (Neighborhood Commercial). 3 Site information and Proposal Description The applicant wishes to sponsor a show of Homes from May 9 to MiAy 26, 1945 on a 1.37 acre site. The applicant bias concurrently applied for- sigri permits for 4 advertising and 4 parking sic3ts. Thee applicant has arranged "or and secured permission frarn the Durham School and the Tigard School District for rking at 92nd Avenue.those two sites. Additional parking is proposed along S�! The applicant arzti.cipates a lazily average of 393 automobile un weekdays 1,290 autoActual parking s on weekends and holidays available amounts to 375 pearking, spaces during the day Arid 830 spaces a.ailaable afters 4:00 PM. Parking for emplayees of the shoe.) will. be ors SW Han;let.between SW 87th anti Nall Blvd. dt'JrTc r__ tie tJGa;J`.;li)P1 - ita 1-46 { t Parking space availability breaks clown as follows: Assailable Available Available School After Weekend � Pxrk' lot locations Pours School Holidaa3s Tigard High School -i- 240 240 Tigard Swim Center -0- 121(A) 121(A) SW 92nd Avenue (B) 107 Approx 134 . " 134 (South of Durham Rd) SW 87th (8) 58 58 58 (South of Durham Rd) Durham Road (6) 6$ Approx 68 Approx 66 Approx (Curbed Shoulder) , Unified Sewerage Agency 35 45 45 Durham School --0- 65 Approx 65 ;Approx Cook Park 107 207 107 375 838 838 (A) goes not ;include spats reserved for swiss parking (8) Current legal parking zones curbed or with gavel shoulders Hours of operation , will be 11:00 FSM -until 9:00 PM daily. The only vendor at the site will be the Yummy. Factory. Sundown Security Co. will be present, 24hours per 'day. Security personnel requirements will be determined as .the need arises. 4. Agency and NPO Coriments The Tigard Police Department, The Tualatin Rural Fire district and NPO #6 reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. The State Highway Division has the following comment: No parking or advertising signs can be erected an a state-right-of-way.` Residents of Chessman Downs subdivision submitted 'a petition to the City requesting that temporary barriers be placod across r Stratford Court at the intersection of 87th Avenue and across Aver, Street at the intersection of 87th Avenue. Thirty-two sit3n-ture3 were provided. The residents are concerned about privacy, assured parking for homeowners and their guests, and crowd prevention. !3. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION The proposed activity is consistent with the approval criteria sot forth in Section 18.140.050(c) of the Code. rhe use will be temporary; no hazards to ;pedestrians .are apparent; and no adverse off-site imp+.cti are anticipaatQd, NOTICE OF DECISION TU l:.ge3 NAGE 2. � d Parking needs may -fal1, short of the weekday requirements`, should the total autoraa ile count prove higher than anticipated. Zn addition, Staff aasdvisds;aa ainst allowing parking for this event atCook Park. The at ended tota.l's for parking space availability are as follows' Totals ' Available School Hours .265 Available after School 731 s�vaimla ble weekends halidays 731, 1 is evident that arttisag weed . on bath weekdays and weekends will fall short of the estA.Mated average of 11290 spaces 'required on weekends and holidays. Because' signs` are not permitted in the state right-of-ways, signs cannot be -placed d5,rectly,'on Hall, Blvd. or on our tiara Road west of Hall Blvd, i . The .applicant should secure written permission form applicable property owners an whose properties the signs will be placed. G, 'DECISION Temporary Use Pea^a9ait TU 1-56 is approved subject to',, the following Conditions 1 This permiG is valid aarttil May7, 1986. ' 2 All signs crust be ,kept 'out of the right"o=--way of Half. Blvd. and out of :the right--of--way of Durham 'Road east of Hall Blvd` as per OPS 377.20. 3. Barricades shall be placed. across Stratford ,Court at the intersection of 37th Avenue and across 'Avon Avenue at the intersection of 67th avenue. it shall' be the responsibility; of the & plicaant to arrange for the use of temporary barriers from the Public Works Department to ensure that the barriers remain up during the show's hours of operation and that the 'barriers be removed on the 26th of May. 4 Cook mark shall not be used as a location for overflow parking needs in excess ofestimated vehicles per day. 5. The .applicant shall be responsible for general clean up acid litter removal at the enol of the show. 5. Written permission should be obtained from the Unifiesf Sewerage Agency regarding use of their property for 'evening and weekend paarfc i ng. 7. Business 1'aax a�pplica�tions must tae suba:aitled and approved prior to May 9, 1986` by the Yummy Factory, Sundown Security, and the sponsor of the event. N7TI.0 E OF D 4.7. J:CIi' TU 7.•-536 YAGF 3 4 S 8. Thies appr v 1 is; valid 3f exercised within one year of the ficial decision data n6ted below. t` D. PROCEDURE I 1. go c6: No ice. gas ,published in the ne spaper, posted at Citgo { Hall andrtyiailed to: s The4rplicrat &7owners Owners of record within the requirgd distance The `affected WeigFiborh,�od P1 a�a�irgs gs arti at on w Affect6d- overnm�+nta1 age:ecaes i 2. f=inal Decision: THE t3ECiS1OW SHALL SE F ifiJAL Cti� � 2 g9S6' -- UNLESS APPEAL iS-FILED. a _ 3. ai: Ani' . rt to them decision may appeal Y,hiw decision in accordance with Section 13.32.29t�(A - and Section 18.32.370 of the Comwnity E Dc�eselopment Code which provides that a ewritten a�apeal AMA bex filed with the CITY RECORDER within 10 days after notice. is give" k deadline frxr fiTzr� of an appeal is P. May 1986 a: . i tx�rs3: If YOU have- any questions, Please Gaal the City of Tigard Planning Depar•t'nent, Tigard City mall, 12755 Sia Ash, P4 Sox 23337, Tigard, Oregon 97223, 639--4171. } FIE Ali 1) BY. Deborah 'A. Stuart, Assistant Planner DATE /22 wil � han, Di - rector of Planning & Development DATE APPROVED E y (DDS:bs241) It9{}TIC OF D E cJ:,`.`iI0N 'FU 1-06 - PAGE 4 i CITY OF TIGARD NOTICE OF DECISION TU 2-86 APPLICATION: Request by Art 'Lutz for as Temporary Use Permit for the Good Cents Show of Homes, from April 19 May 4, 1986, on 15 properties zoned R-7 (PD): Location: Amart Suammer: Lake 03, 127th Court (WCTM 1S1 33AD Lots 9700 - 11800). z ¢�'EC2TSI0d: Notice is hereby given that the Planning Director for the City of ' 6aject to certain conditions, Tigard has APPROVED the above application su The ich the director based his decision are as noted findings and conclusions an wh below: A. FINDING OF FACT 1, Background Summer Lake No. 2 (Phase 4) subdivision (S 11-85) was approved and made final subject to 16 Gond boons in July, 1956. 2. Vicinity Information The first phase 'of Summer Lake abuts the subject property on the south and west. Scholls Ferry Roars and Beaverton lie to the { north. A parcel zoned' C-P (Commercial-Professional) lied to the ry "~ northeast and east. Medium-high density residential properties zoned R-25 are directly east of the subject area. ;. 3. Site Information and Proposal Description The subject area comprises 2.76 acres and consists of 11 Lots s ranging from 6,644 square feet to 11,083 square feet in size. The lots are all developed with single family residences. The applicant proposes a show of homes from April19 to`P4ay 4, 2986 an S.W. 127th Court. Hours of operation will be from 12 noon to 8:30 P.M. Primary access for automobile traffic and parking will be from North. Dakota. Two secondary accessways will also be; provided on North Dakota.' Total parking amounts to 498 spaces. Estimated cars per day totals 700 on each weekday and 2,000 per dad an weekends. Access and egressways will be two-directional and 24 feet ,in width. They are covered with.gravel. The parking area will be covered with bark chips'. One vendor, Jimbo's Jumbo Hot Dogs, will be on the 'site. Night security will be provided and three staff people will be stationed to direct traffic as follows: one at the in+ersecto*i of Scholls Ferry Road and Summer Lake Drive, two staff persons at parking entrances and one per sun on call should c,-uwd cc,ntrol warrant extra help. on the weekends, four full--time and one on-call staffperson` will be present or, ;s available for . traffic control. R NOTz(;F 4)F Ilk 4,iT;;Ie3ttl - TU2 '86 - PftG£: 1 4. Agency and NPO Comments The Engineering Division the police Department have reviewed the proposal and have no objection to it. No other comments have been received. S. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION The proposed activity is consistent with the; approval criteria in Chapter 13.140.050{C) of the Code. The use will be temporary; no hazards to pedestrians are apparent, and no adverse off—site impacts are otn icipated. Estimates of anticipated cans per clay on weekdays (700)' and weekends ,62,000) are `much higher than ttse 458 parking spaces the shop: will provide. In addition, the concurrent run ;of t9tiNorthwest �fatural Gas show of new homes may result in a slower turnover of ears as ll likely, visit both shows. However, excess traffic and many people wi parking congestion on the weekend could, be alleviated by allowing Overflow parking on Summer Lake Drive at those times only. It should be noted that because of the late submittal date of this application (4/9f86) the show will have started before the applicants are in receipt of this notice. C. DECISION Temporary Use Permit TU2—S.`s is approved subject to th4 `ollowin conditions: 1. This permit is valid until May 51 1586. r 2. All signs must be kept out of the state and public right-of-okays. 3 . The vendor- must obtain a City business tax certificate prior to opening of the show. 4. The applicant; is responsible for clean up and removal of the bark chipdebris and litter on surrounding streets. 5. Parking uses shall not be combined or- shared in any way with tho Northwest Natural Gas new hone show. 6. AddiLi.onal staff should be provided at the intersection of scholls Ferry Road and Summer Lake Drive to direct automobiles on weekends to over fl.ow parking on Summer fake Drive. .!these staff' persons should_insure ttwAt driveways on Summer Lake Drive are not blockwi. 7. This approval is valid if exercised within one year of t:he final decision date' noted below. NOTICE < r of t:.i s.ra>ry rte 2,,.06 PAGE z MI2m, g 6 D. PROCEDURE { 1, �3otice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City hall and mailed to: XX The applicant & owners Owners of record within the required distance }CX' The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization 'Affected governmental agencies 2 Final Decision: THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON May 2, 1986 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. 3, Any Party ;�Lo the decision may appeal this decision in accordance ction19.32 with Section 1'9.32.290(R) and Se ; itt of peappeal must Community Development Cade which provides that a written apS� ' filed with the 'CITY RECORDER within 10 days after notice is given and 'sent. The deadline for filing of an appeal is 2:30 P.M. May 2L 1956 �. a�est'iorss: If you have any questions, please call the City of F._ Tigard Planning Department, Tigard City Nabi., 12755 SW Ash; Pts Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223, 639-4171. -- P f ED BY. D� , A' tuart, Assistant Pflanner DATE r %✓sem, 1�r DATE APPROVED LL t�9i11� srm Monahan, Di^ectr:r of Punning & Development (KSL:cn/2469P).< r )F DECISION DECISION - TU?--06 — PAGE. 3 CITY OF TIGARD NOTICE OF DECISION TU 3--36 _APPLICATION. Request by pave Schulz for a Temporary Use Permit to allow a Northwest Natural Gas %atural Choice" Show of Homes, from. April 19 ;-- May 4, 1956, on 9 ;properties zoned R-7(PD)`. Location- Siad 125th Place, Anton Park Subdivision -(WCTM 1S1 3403 Lows 7200-9000). x 1DECISI�d: otict? is hereby given that the Planning Director for the Lity of Tigard has €PPf:0V1} than above application subject to certain conditions, The findings and conc lusions on which the Director based his decision are as noted below. A, FINDING OF FACT 1 Background 1990 Anton Schulz requested and received approval fore a Zoning 3n , �. Map Amendment from Washington County RU-4 to City of Tigard R-5 � "Single Family Residential for this area. A condition of approval stipulated that all facture development be constructed as a, planned development. During the Amendment of the City's fio¢rprehensiv¢ , Plan, and zoning ordinance, the property was zoned R-7(P9) i(Residential, 7 units per acre). In November, 1984, Anton Schulz receaued are approval with conditions for planned ;development '(Po w 5-54) and subdivision applications (S 10-E4) for a 113 lot residential devel.npavent. 2. Vicinity Infor,nation The SummerLake Subdivision, which is, zoned R-7(P11) lies immediately to the west. East of SW 121st Avenue are single family residences, 13.1 zoned and developed R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units per acre). Property due south is zoned R-4.5 and received an approval for a minor land partition (MLP 11-85) pending fulfillment of conditions. As of this writing, the conditions z , have not been met. ' 3. Site Information and Proposal Description f Two homes (lots 46 and 55) are completed and occupied. Seven homes (lot 3, 4, 5,: 49, 51, 56 and 60) are presently under construction. dine lots (34-42) 'are earmarked for this temporary use. The applicant proposes a Northwest Natural Gas "Natural Choice" show of homers from April 19 -- May 4, 1986, Hours of operation will be from 12 noon until= dusk. A concession stand, ripe - rated by the Yummy Factory, wi.l1 be situated across the street on lot 9. Rest rooms will be provided on lot 10, {.;. �r NOTIC:f OF' DECISION - 1"U 3-06 PAGE 1 All parking will be on North Dakota Street and in the cube-sacs. Excluding the cul—de--sac areas, available parking ;., amounts to 1101 spaces. Additional parking in cul--de-sacs will accommodate approximately,ars additional 60 spaces for a total of 170 spaces. The applicants' stated goal is 8,000 people in 3 weekends 'and two weeks, which translates to an average of 500, people per day. No security forces' will be on the site nor. will anyone be available to direct visitors to par-king areas. Surrounding properties are predominantly owned by the applicant, so there s1could be no conflicts from inunediatel.y adjacent property owners. 4. Agency and NPO Comments The Engineering and Buildin7 Divisions as well as the police Department have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Wo other comments have been received. S. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION The proposed activity is consistent with that approval criteria set forth in Section 19.140.050(c) of the Code. The use will be temporary; nes hazards to pedestrians are apparent except the crosswalk area from S North Dakota Street to the parking lot of the Good Cents Show of Homes on 'Springwood Drive; and no adverse 'off-site impacts are anticipated .. except those that, at-a pedestrian related. Available parking (170 spaces) and an estimated average of 500 visitors per clay or roughly; 250 automobiles should not create terrific problems, particularly if visitors from the Good Cents Show of Homes ;walk over to NW Dakota Street. People who visit this sh w first and then walk over to the Good 'Cents Show a ould occupy scarce parking for longer than the estimated 40 minute visitation period at the Natural Gas Show. The 170 available spaces, generating an estimated average of 250 vehicles per day, would not exceed traffic generation counts for a commercial retail center- with a comparable nu,:mbt_r of available -spaces. It is recommended that a show staff person be present at North Dakota to aid pedestrian and automobile traffic. It should be noted that because of the late submittal date of this application, the 'show will have started before the appi-irant is in receipt of this notice. _e C. DECISION 7"er porary Use permit 3-86 i.s approved subject to the ful.lowin? conditions: 1. I'his permit in valid until. May 5, 1986, 2. All signs must be kUpt out of the public right.--of--way and can bca no larger than six square fent :in sire. IttoncE: of DECISION FU .-86 ._ PA ,V: 2 _r 3. The parking lot of the Coon Cents Show of Homes shall not 6e used as a location` for overflow parking vehicles in excess of estimated vehicles per day. 4'. The applicant phall be responsible for general clean up and litter removal at the end of the show. S. This approvaz is valid if exercised within one year of the final decision date noted below. D. PROCEDURE 1. Notice; Notice was published in the newspaper,11 posted at City €§all and mailed to: XX The applicant & owners XX Owners of record within the required distance }CX The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization XX Effected governmental agencies 2. ris4a® 1 eciiir.�n: THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL OWd' iSag�29 1985 U�4LES5 AN APPEAL IS FILED. 3. appeal eal: " 'Any party to the decision may aPPeal this decision in accordance with section 18.32.290(A) and Section 18.32.370 of the laoraatraVnity Deweloprrent Code which provides that a written appeal must be filed with the:CITY RECORDER within 10 dams after notice is given and sent. 2:30 May 2 19136 The deadline for filing cif an appeal is P.M. 4. estions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, '12755 SW Ash, PO Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 639-4171 ;Deborah A. Stuar t7 Assistant Planner HATE AA�REDSY./ €? �^ EA€i arrr A. �t+�nah rr, Director of Planning Development DAM APPROVED (DAA:bs242) i`�It}l''rCf JF ,Drc":`L�aIC3N 1"U 386 - ,PACE 3 . MME, .,rWE MIM: CITY OF TIGARD, OPEGON COUNCIL.'AGENDA'ITEM Sl �RY f AGEMOA OF: April 28, 1906 AGENDA ITEM .. Jo, DATE SUSMITTED: Anil 21 1986 PREVIOUS ACTION: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: LaudUse Decisions :SDR 9-86 - Smith/Dull_for Christ he Kin PREPARE. 8Y: Community Development Lutheran Church REQUESTED BY: _ DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: � `�' CITY ADMINISTRATOR: POLICY ISSUE INFORMATION SUMARY Attached is the Notice of Decision for Site Development Review SOR 9-86, approval on a request by Smith/Dull Partnership for Christ the :King, Lutheran Church to expand an existing 4320 square foot church with an addition of 4,600 square feet on propgrty 'zoned C--G and R-4:5, located at 11305 SW Bull Mountain Road. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1 Approve as written. 2: Call uta for review at a date set by Council. SUGGESTED ACTIO Approve as written. (2498P f �l l .. b� C.L 1 Y 0i 1 IGARI) N01 Yt.E Of. D1,C'1 ;[0% ;i:'t DEVI I_(PMt'N 1 kL..VI:k::W SDI? `3. 8ti " APPLICATION: R e q u e 5 L by SmiI. t/!)tall P kr-Lnershtip (owner-: Christ tIw- 'King Lutheran Church) to expand an existing 4320 square 'fooL chur•chp with art addition of c0500 squire fee t on props rLy- /rarrsed C_G (Gerrer•al Ct)msnerrial) and R--4.'5 (Residential, 4.5 units per acre). LocaLi.on: 11.305 SW Bull Mourttai.rr, Fdoad (WCTM 2S1 1OAS Lot 5UO and':2S 1 IOAC L_ot 17O(3). DECISION, Notice is herebygiven that the Planning director for the City of Tigard has APPROVED the above described application subject to certain conditions,; The findings and conclusions on which the Director based his decision are as noted below. A. FINDING OF FACT 1. Background No previous land use applications have been' reviewed by the ' City regarding this property. 2. Vicinity Information The land ;to the north is zoned f2-4.5 and 'R-12 (Residential, 12 units/acre) and is developed with single family residences. The R-2 (Residential, 2 units/acre) zone and single family residences lie on _the opposite site of the S.W. 114th Avenue right-of-way which abuts the western _boundary of the subject parcel. Commercially zoned property '(C-P, Commercial Professional and C-G, Commercial General) is situated on the south side of Bull Mountain Road 3. Site Information and Proposal Description The property contains a church and two separate gravel parking lots on either side of the building with one driveway each onto Bull Mountain Road. The northern section of the>property is zoned R-4.5 and except for the ,extreme northern end of the building that > is within this zone. .The 114th Avenue right-sof--way is presently unimproved. The applicant proposes to construct a 4,500 square foot addition which will represent an :expansion to the ,southwest towards Bull Mountain Road. Both parking lots are intended to' sae _improved with pavement and the existing access°points will be modified slightly. NOTICE OF ,DECISION - SOR 9-96 PAGE 1 4: f?gency and NPO Comments p.hE EriL�i �cccriritt Division }las thio following commerrLs' a. Coi.lsi doring t.hr: ()xisting IfangLh of 1'14L1-i Avenue , Ltis> right. t.)F-w&Ay whicV, is -adjacent to thc- subjecL property 'should not be vacated and the street should be ex 1.cgnci(2d. b: Hull Mountain Road and 114th Avenue are under Washington � County ,jurisdiction and a "letter of serviceability" must be obtained from the County. c. A non-remonstranceagreement For future improvement of Bull Mountain Road should be executed, Street improvements are not desirably at this LIme because the ultimate design for the Pacific -Highway - gull Mountain Road intersection has -rrut been determined. d. Connection to public sanitary "sewer `system shall be required. e Interim -improvement of S.W. 114th Avenue' of a 22 foot abide � paved roadwey should be provided along the length of the subject property. f. Storm vaster runoff should be 'handled so that flooding will p ' not-occur in .downstream'areas. The Building Inspection Division indicates that City records indicate �? that the church is snot connected to public sewer facilities u; tes that The Tualatin Rural `Fire Protection District indicathe completion of .the remainder of 114th Avenue is important to provide :. improved emergencyaccess for the residents ors this street as well as the immediate area. F� Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation has the following comments_ ar 'Additional right-of-way should be dedicated to increase the width from centerline to 35 -meet. c a. manner that will accommodate b. Ps 5-foot wide sidewalk located in future street improvements shall be constructed along the Bull Kountaxin `fro;riage. i,. a A waiver of ''remonstrance shall be executed regarding future street improvements: on 114th Avenue and Bull. Mountain Road. <` p d. provide adtaquate _ storm drainage along the Bull Mountain Road = frontage. NOTICEOF DECISION - GOR 9-06 PAGE 2 V. `; M10 03 suppc•rt:s Ott! pr'upri-al otd Lhe group A su suclycsLs Lhcal. a � nor- remonsLrance agreomonL k) 1-tod rrci,ardirig fu Lure imErrovenlent h 1 l.4Lli twErtue. Thca sr>uLt c.r er cud {' lh c, r ,{d should not. be : cumplc!Lc!d urlti:l after therenLir`e lerigLh i'> wit.hin CIty jurisdic_Lion rather hien uctdcr- CuunLy control kLjny Lho f3call MourtL:ain Road fr•onLage are also recumrner,dod. c � A petition Witt) 10 siynalure iwcs be c>rc ruc elv(_d from residertLs on 11ALh Avenue in objection to Lhe extcn,ion of the street. B. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION iCommunit ' The proposed expansion is basically consistent with y � Development Code requirements. Aspects of the application must be � revised as` noted below to achieve full compliance- with the Code. T , t, Park'ing The Code requires 34 parking spaces and the applicant is proposing . to have 3Q spaces in the eastern lot and 41 spaces in the western lot. The parking areas will need to be paved to meet City requirements. Also, one handicapped 'parking space is necessary , and the location of the space that is presently marked on the site is satisfactory. Finally, the site plan should be amended to include a minimum of two bicycle parking spaces. r 2. Ac=cess The maintenance' of the existing driveway locations is appropriate, however, the width of both should be a .aninimum of `24 feet in width, In addition, all driveway widths within the parking areas` muss; be at least 24 feet wide. 3. Landscaping The proposed landscaping plan east of the western parking lot complies .with Code standards for buffering, landscaped area, and street trees. (luring the installation of landscaping material, special care should , be taken to ensure that the adjoining apartment buildings are thoroughly screened from the parking area. since the parking lot on the -west side of the building is to :be incorporated as a part of this proposal, the landscaping plan must be amended to;include its perimeter and the area to the north. 4. 114th Avenue maximum length for dead-end or The City standard for the m�.x 9 cul-de-sac streets is 400 feet and fire district :standard call for ;at least a turn around area for- allccessways that exceed 150 , "feet in 'length. 9114th Avenue is approximately one quarter mile long with no provision for a turn-around. It is the opinion of NOTICE OF DECISION - SDR 9--40 - PAGE 3' p, r. t . I s the CjLy` Lnyjnseri.rcy Dj.%jision, Wash i.rtyLori Coun,Ly, trid Iu. laLirc Rur`icl 1 iro Prf)Lot-L i"on 1)isLr-ic L Lhxt' from .i trarie ;port.ciLiurt .And emer,yency a. cc�,s sLand pojnL, I14th ` Avenue ries,ds lc, h. { rima ca, Lhrcc.,cjh �iLrs!eL <as original'ly ints_ndod. The conue:rn raised by -joule of ' the residenLs ori` 1l4Lh 0verruac2 is ' apprs_cixt:,ci Fant` thin;policies arid' development st.undzrrds of the City clearly cecTuirc the completion of 1.74th Avenue', Lt should be= rurL'od that it is not the intention of Lhe 'City that 114th 'Avenue become anything other- than a local street. The frontage' road along Pacific` Highway and 112th Avenue presently provide_ connections between Gaarde 'Street and Bull Mountain Road arid other connections to the west are also Foreseen in the future. More attractive alternatives for north-south vehicular traffic presently; exist and therefore, no significant change in traffic volume is anticipated on 114th Avenue. C. DECISION The Planning Director approves SDR 9-86 subject to the following condition-, 1. UNLESS 0TF1ER1nSISE NOTED, ALL COt�IDITIONS SHALL BE MET' PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS. 2. Final on-site storm drainage design drawings shall be submitted to the Engineering Division for review and approval.` Applicant`shall. demonstrate that additional run-off created by this rdevelopment } will not create downstream flooding problems'. 3_ P 3 . Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Public along the S.W. Bull Mountain Road frontage to increase the right-of-way to 40 feet from centerline The description for said dedication shall be tied to the existing right-of-way centerline as established by Washington County. The dedication document shall be an City forms and approved by the Engineering Section. DEDICATI0N FORMS AND INSTRUCTI0NS ARE ENCLOSED. 4. A letter of serviceability shall be obtained by the applicant from ' Washington County which indicates that all County requirements relating to 114th Avenue and Bull Mt. Road have been satisfied. A copy thereof shall be provided to the City. 5. A non=-remonstrance agreement for Future improvement of S.W. Bull Mountain Road shall be executed by the applicant and recorded. Said agreement: shall be on City of Tigard standard forms and r recorded prior to issuance of building permits. 6. Interim improvement of S.W. 114th Avenue shall occur prior to allowing occupancy of the remodeled facility. A twenty-two foot wide paved roadway, 'including 3 foot rock shoulders, shall be constructed (no sidewalk or curb) to City local street standards. Said roadway shall 'complete the connection of 5.W. 1.14th to Bull Mt. Rd. NOTICE OF OECISIE3N SDR 9-€96 -<PAGE 4 7. CcinnecLi.or, to -this public staniA,-iry suwbr system shall. be required. ti. Fa rev i.se, lar�dscar�iny p1.,n yhi 1f ha submitted for Planninc3 Director• approval whir_I� , includes Lice perimeter oi` Lhe Wes tern PcAr'kirt(3 '10L, 9, w revised site pirart shall., be submiLLed for Planning Director Appr+)val that includes: a. At least one handicapped parking spdce, b. A ; minimum Of two bicycle spaces (design shall also be submitted for;approval), and C. All taaro-,Qay driveways shall be a minimum of 24 feet in width. 10. This approval is valid if exercised within one year of the final derision date noted below. 0. PROCEDURE Notice: Notice was published in .the newspaper, posted at City Hall and mailed to: XX The applicant & owners XXOwners of record within the required distance XX _ The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization XX Affected governmental agencies 2. Final Decision: THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON April 29, 1986 UNLESS All APPEAL IS FILED. Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.32.290(A) and Section 10.32.370 of the Community Development Code which provides that a written appeal gust be filed with the CITY RECORDER within 10 days after notice is given I and ;sent. The deadline for filing of an appeal is 2:30 P.m. April 29, 1986 4. fug2&iens: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 5.2755 SW Ash, PO Sore 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223, 639-4171, 4/A Be PREPARED Y Keith Iden, Senior P1 er 4/18/86 alliac a n, it cta of Planning & Development DATE APPROVED f (KSL:cn/2478P)) NOTICE OF DECISION _ SDR 9-96 - PAGE 5 t- MEMORANDUM ;_. CITY 4F TIGARD, OREGON T0: Mayor and City Council April 9, 1986; FROM- J"erri L. Widner, Finance Director SUBJECT- Department Report - March I.n addition to Budget Cortmittee ' meeting preparations, - during the month of "March the following occurred Purchase Orders processed 90 Recruitments 1 Hires 2 Termination 1 Unemployment Claims €D Claims filed SAIF 2 Liability reopened (see attached report) 1 Checks 'written 497 Sever Wayments received 1,462 Sewer bills sent 1,556 'Name/address schanges Gash receipts 923 Word Prcces6ing Work Orders Receives 194 Emergency Requests 48 Pages processed 18,515 Average Turn--.around 8.4 hours Telephone Calls 6,602 , Walk-Ins 1,994 a �y 3LW.yn 109 Attach. y, - CITY OF TIGARD 3/31/85 CLAIM STATUS REPORT DATE OF LOSS CLAIMANT DESC_�R I PTION 2f13f85 STATUS. Mervin 8oen False arrest 8/21/84Rending George Kusiowski Ins. impounded clt,s car no activity (Officers Johnson, Ober,' & Newman) 2/4/85 Fredric Mickel Criminal counter cplt. open (Officer Hal Merrill) 3/20/83 Fred Ozan False arrest Appeal 'Filed (Officer Killion) 1111/85 Harry Field Alleges False Arrest pending (Office Merrill) ' Unknown George Hludaik g Alleges his constitutional closed no payment rights violated Unknown Neil Gerrard Alleges his constitutional closed no payment rights were violated '1/20/85, Steven Bacon False Arrest (Officer Harburg) claim recp4ed 3/I /85 Julie a. 4inkelman , songful Deana 9/6/85 Farmers Ins. etal Alleges officers caused Closed losependdg . without panic stop (Officer Jim Newman) aayment l0/1�f85 Opal Kaske Failed toy_ie ld right-of-way- pending 'sucbro. $278.20 Collision paid 9/24/85 Henninia Arias Tripped & fall on sidewalk Closed without payment (DH:om/0886F) r ti e r GARD Ry PUBLION 9511 -PORT February 1986 12588 SW Ora^Ti�ed=Or.97223 MONTHLY RC TO. Library Board City Council _ FROM' City Librarian WCCLS: FolloTaing the special Library Board meeting on March 1 see Board forwarded i a memorandum to the City Coasncil recommending--that the Council seek a way to step the "rush to judgment on the matter of forming a library distract.`° They reeom mended that'tiae status quo be preserved until all options;were through examined, e rez include the Cooperative Madel which requires special legislation, Paul Phillips, et .9 met with the Board encouraging their pursuit of this Ftepreentative for District City Administrator, sent a sim- F' , legislation and pledging his assistance. Bob Jean, ilar ,letter to,the County Administrator Ban Stilwell in response to the letter's er an February 1Q and request for opinion. 'The City Council discussed the matt sent a latter to the County Board of commissionersrdtoutlining c ttaacitizens Advisory ThF County Board, at its February 11 meeting (CAB) recomm endation to farm the district but: declined to act and early r asked the ,Ct�.B to seek a solution to the governance question which more nearly reflects d. �t the Professional Board meeting consensus among all those cgncexneon February 13 reciprocal borrowing, Access `£i6, was discussed. Multnomah County has 2, 00 new _ borrowers fromout-ofa -Bounty. Half are from Washington County. No figures have been Washington and Clackamas County. Tigard has 10 new users. The compiled for reference librarian.ra-ri,an_ to be stationed at the Central Library of Multr_omah WCCLSa ___b County, will have a WCCLS circulation terminal, a. separate telephone, and an office �4 c area. This person w out of the publiill also process interlibrary loan requests (rain �7aslxington County libraries. Bids for the automation communication system rs were. due February 14. After evaluation, WCCLS staff will make a presentation to s the Ad,Roc Governing Board on March 13. Dedicat'ion' Com:nittee: The Civic Center Dedication Committee is planning a series .; of commemorative activities to begin on Tuesday, May 13 and end on Saturday, May 171 with the formal;dedication ceremony. Library Furnishings A taw quotation of $10,499 was received from Interior Office Systems dor the `remaining library furniture. This is $853 lower than estimated. The total of underestimated costs for all furnishings is $15,527, Personnel:' Twenty-nine volunteers gave a total of 209°75 hours; daily average 9 total 116 hours; hours; staff time 7 hours. Two community service :asBoarde5a ev14e .ahours oRecruitment daily average .77 ho*.sxs; staff time 1 kiaur. Library g for 3 temporary part--time-aides resulted in the hiring of 2. ' it is anticipated that ent applicants. the 3rd will be hired from the curr TIGARD PUBLIC LIBRARY - 'MONTHLY REPORT - February 1986 - page 2 ` Youth Services: The youth services librarian conducted two classes in story- telling techniques for 43 Tigard High School student's enrolled in an 'Early Childhood Education class. Two volunteers are compiling reading lists to be used in the summer-reading grogram and for reading by grade level.. The plans for the summer reading program, "Summer Reading Safari," will include the N traditional challenge to read, Saturday morning films, Tarzan Club (a nature study program) and,Wednesday night storytimes. Two or three programs will be funded through WCCLS. These programs haven't been determined. Juvenile circu- lation is u 19% over February 1985. Work Indicators: February 19£36 February 1985 Adult Materials 6508 6092 Juvenile Materials 3147 2641 TOTAL 9655^ 8733 Days of Service 20t 20 Average Daily Circulation 483 437 Increase/Decrease Circulation X11 -,.7% Reference/Readers' Advisory 460 365 � Books in use in library 1197 462 Story Time Attendance (sessions) 130 (9) 47 (4) Special Children's .Programs 124 (6) 127 (7) ' (sessions). . M--aerials Added/Withdralun 640/0 644/0 * Borrowers:' New/Renewal. 233/154387 190/130=320 Because not everyone who uses the library checks out material nor checks out everything that is used, we've been-counting materials removed from their shelf locations by either staff or users for use within the library. This :is recognized as a bona fide measure of service. , (output Measures : for Public Libraries; A Manual of Standardized Procedures. Zweizig, Douglas. ALA, 1985) This information will become part of work;.indicators. ** ,In response to the application card in the February issue of the City's newsletter, 46 requests for cards have ;been received and processed. E CITY OF TIGARD OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM! aUMARY AGENDA 4F: April 2-8 e 199 AGENDA ITEMS #: = f, MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Members of the City Council April 23, 1986 FROM: William A. Monahan, Director, Community Development SUBJECT: Monthly Report - March, 7.986 a Attached please find the Monthly Report for March, 1986; prepared by the Departm€ant of Community Development. 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 Burd Minutes 7. Planning Division Report S. 'Transportation Committee Minutes Following is a comparison of building activity for March of 1985 and 19136: March, 1985 March, 1986 Single Family Permits 35 43 Multi—Family Permits Total Units 0 0 Commercial Permits 2 1 Building Permit Fees $ 15,884.00 $ 15,641.92 Plan Check Fees 7,508.07 7,862.47 Plumbing Permits 11,690.08 6,702.90 Mechanical Permits 1,050.50 923.00 Valuation 3,521,342.00 3,300.620.00 a Jan. - Mar. 1985 Jars. - Mar, 1986 SingleFamilyPermits 64 126 Multi—Family Permits (Total Units) 330 6 Commercial Permits 3 4 Building Permit Fees $ 56,386.00 $ 46,685.42 Plan Check Fees 16,295.45 24,863.05 Plumbing Permits 23,007.98 18,972..90 Mechnical Permits 2,430.50 2,280.50 Valuation 15,456,150.00 9,711,535.00 ty gi3 ILDING SEC I0�3 perm t issuance in March far single-family buy.ldingstY�easecti.oneisdnawrat _ fog a 'total of 12G through March. The staffing rm, acct with the return of Brad Roast as an '°�°` Level Inspector. ectors Ball -capacity The Section now i as Ed �laldqda3�algiel0ue11 Of tele OR T.. With 1 the current Tom plescher• and Brad Roast, With work load, there has been little a�apartunity for' cafes limited staff the ac�aptirsra;' Of the new Civil Infractions ordinance the, time av ilable should be:utilised more effectively. :-CONOMIC DEVELOpMENT re ,ration for an 1-5 Corridor The Committee met and discussed prto e ' seminar wsha chtarsll to allow carkP he Bard andCityprt3�en�ar este The irSfarmtion to help real tors will prepare a package of information far the Sept'-mbar- seminar. Comm (4AAM brj0950P) x r .a MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO, city 'Council April 16, 1966 FRIOM, Fli.zabpt7 A. Newton, Senior Planner SUBJUCT, Annexation Report for March, 1986 No applications for an to the City were received by the Planning staff during the month of March. No annexation requests were called up ;for revie,,a by the Planning Commissionat their March 4, 1986 meeting. There were no annexation requests heard before ,the City Council during march operty located south of Durham Road adjacent The request for annexation for pr , to S.W, 168th has been postponed indefinitely pending the outcome of the appeal of a subdivision application. The 'annexation request submitted by Mr. and tars. Taylor for 3 .90 acres y. located south of S.W. Walnut on the west side of S.W. 132nd a:sas approved by the 'Portland Metropolitan Area focal'Gover ment Boundary Commission on March 6, 1.906. (pAN.brd2467P) MEMORANDUM i TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: April 1, 1986 SUBJECT: BUILDING ACTIVITY REPORT FOR MONTH OF March 19$6 NUMBER OF PERMITS/TYPE VALUE OF WORK PERMIT FEE PLAN CIIECK 47 $2,600,120.00 $12,859.00 $6098.40 $539.68 43 new single family res. 4 res. alterations 24,700.00 218.50 142104 8.74 l new commercial 360,000.00 1,083.00 703.95 43.32 10 coral. alterations 107,300.00 658.92 383.85 26.36 2 mise. struetures(I 6 plea. & 202,000.00 688.00 447.20 27.52 i 6 car garage 19,00Q,00 134.50 87.43 5.38 other TOTAL VALUE 3,300,620.00 15,641.92 7,862.47 651,00 2 King City (res.alterations) 12,500.00 119.00 77.36. 4.76 923.00 36.92 50 Mechanical permits _Plumbing Permits 6,702.90 283.30 _Sewer Connections (20%) 9,750.00 Sewer Inspections (1007) 1,600.00 ln__Amart/Wedgwood 3,600.00 t� Leron Hts. 1;950.00 507 Number of inspection requests 57Niimber of. Plan Checks y ;7 V H Q LL? J .Nn M fMn M M M M M •4 Q Q' Q i a J E V VI O O O O d d O O 0.... 1 m M O n O n 1• b ¢`odW m ' T 6m. LnI N O W m R m m m m T N N a a H Y mT O+ tlt �6 O W � L O'. O O udi 'xoc �. udi v .~•+: � k � i.n � c T .. 0 0 o a o d o o d o o o a o+ a c v:. a+ a r qtr UI n m n 4 C N h h � T T U1 'O..' t^. HI M m C T U Li T :.R a i Id Q U W 31 r�.y w 'L f... b �. G 'V �, V C .Ci i T of u N ro e d fB .J L 0 q O Q' O O O O O O R I N £t m �t O O O O O O O i ✓d O O fn O O O,: O rr O c.•f O :O C m a 0 O n O U O •�� N O a a : N m O 4: a N rA cV a h is q N m a m p Cf N m f!?. s0 �!'! sp m •A w rd •a VJ 47 ff} W C O 4� h n M �O �D m fG :.t d '? Q is '17 a �? �f1 LLT n 9D V• C h p� P a 4! a. G� a O C C J w O O R7 fb C C n n S O O fn O n. •A N m N B i 0. L tb .0 J a L ! f8 7 rs c a y .� E E G �I 7 i U .+ ry .moi 7 Y O G C m C .O L L T C Q1. �. Y a tJ ® C .n L E sa ¢ F r7 is ¢ in v o m h 0 � CI : Ply l, v 1 TIGARD`ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES Tuesday, March 18, 1986 7:80 AM — Pioneer Pies Members Present, John Savory, David Clements, Susan Clark, A,siao DeSernardis, Jim Corliss, Juanita Caday' Others Present: Jeanne Caswell, Deborah Stuart, Brian Hartung, Geraldine Full,`Bill Monahan The meeting 'began at 7:30 AM, The minutes of February le, 19RD meeting were reviewed by Bill. Jeanne Caswell introduced a letter from Don Manson, Downtown Council Chairperson,' inviting 319 downtown businesses to join' the Council. Over $2,000 has been collected to date. Jeanne also noted that she worked with Liz Newton of the City and Susan Clark to prepare a $10,000 grant application to Washington--Multnomah County PIC for further assistance. The application is not for staffing, but in support of Council efforts. Also, the Tigard Budget Committee will take testimony in support of the $10,000 maximum City ,funding which also 'would go to supporting the ;Downtown efforts. The possible City grant to the Council would come from enhanced collection of business tax receipts. The Committee discussed the City; business tax, the collection efforts underway, and payments presently not received. Plans for upgrading collection efforts were presented by Bila.. Jeanne discussed membership recruitment efforts for the Downtown Council. John noted that some resistance has been heard about the boundaries set by the Council. Some feel that the' efforts of the 'Council will not: benefit them. t John stated that we must be careful to include those outside of Main Street in ° the activities and programs of the Council. Amo asked what the next step will be. John mentioned that the Council will first be attempting to recruit a manager, once funds permit. Programs and activities then will be developed by the Council members. Jeanne introduced the idea of an I--5 Corridor Association Economic Development Symposium, which was developed by the land committee of the Association. The Committee may wish to help the Chamber and City to develop the information needed 'for the symposium. We have five months to get organized and develop the data., so that all the information needed is prepared to help potential developers and property owners understand how to do business in each of the six cities. Developers, bankers, at renal estate. coutpani.es are expected to attend. The City will have one hour to present. John stated that he feels that the Committee should help to put together a good program to promote the City'. Amo suggested that there is a. perception that the time required to develop in the community is quite long. We need to identify processing time and clearly show that Tigard processes applications properly and quickly. Discussion was held concerning the preparation of a slide show or video. Tigard does not have funds budgeted for the project so any product must be done with existing staff and volunteers. Susan suggested that our presentation will not be as glossy as other communities due to our s limitations', therefore, we should focus on our strong points. Jeanne noted that we should prepare a portfolio of information which' we should have on Page 1 hand. , The 'effort will, be beneficial to the City as well as the potential developers. She noes not anticipate that all cities will be preparing slide shows or videos. t Jeanne suggested that the city away ;benefit more by presenting its information separate rather than in competition with the other, since our presentation could ,look less "slick" given our finances. Jeanne noted that the; purpose isn't to be competition, but to provide the information in a format which is complete and :understandable. Susan ,pointed out that the City's computer display capabilities could be a good addition to our presentation. Bill noted' that the Geographical Information System and graphic capabilities .should be available in time for presentation. John asked that members' give sone thought to how we can best present Tigard, given our low budget. Members were encouraged to take the lead and volunteer time to assist the staff effort. The City will update the development costs for the next meeting. it will prepare a' comparison of tax rates as well as development charges and fees, so that the Committee can be aware of how Tigard compares to surrounding comvsunities: Brian Hartung discussed the property tax ratios :identified in the Urban Services Study, which show, 'Tigard as: competitive. Further comparison of systems development charges is needed. Bill discussed the present surge of building activity both in the residential and commercial. areas. Staff expects the trend through 1986 to be strong, building up on the 92 single family permits issued in J,-Anuary ' and February. Several commercial developments are underway and planned for the coming months. Brian Hartung, Community Assistant, discussed the City goal of reorganizing the NPO's to have them work on naps^e neighborhood issues than plaa,ning, With limited City resources, volunteer efforts are relied on heavily. The City is reviewing neighborhood organization structures of surrounding cities. Brian's other role is to work with Board Chairpeople to see that Committees are working toward completion of their goals and are having success working with their staff liaisons Passage of the tax base is needed for the City to accomplish its goals while still growing in population and responsibility. Brian discussed the Neighborhood Watch program and the emphasis which David Lahr, new police chief, is expected: to promote,. Brian is available to answer any ,questions on the Committee structure. Susan asked how businesses would be part of the NPO's Brian responded that the new format would have _Board of Directors including business representatives. A discussion on the past experiences of NPO's was held as Bill explained, but the NPO's were set up for planning purpose's, worked well on issues, 'then dropped off in membership. presently, membership is down. - A new focus is proposed ;with a goal of creating self—sustaining NPO's. John suggested that the City attempt to enlist representatives from the School District and active business organization so that the NPO's are represented. Presently the rebirth of the NPOs is in the early stages. Brian will be Page T. devoting greater efforts to the project and will present the City Council with a new draft of reorganization, john 'asked e;s �t copies of the new set—up be distributed to Committee members. Mrx. Hall asked if the Neighborhood Committees will be a forumfor review of zoning changes and development issues'. " Brian pointed out that the ncsw format will continue .to do this plus take on expanded roles. The City will define neighbort odds initially, then the neighborhoods will have the opportunity to revise the boundaries after they fors. Thei meeting adjourned at 9.00 AM. The next meeting will be held on Tuesday, April 15, 1986 at 7:30 Ail.' oe Siam A. Manahan Page 3 MEMORANDUM �- CITY OF TIGARD TO: William A. Monahan, April 15, 1986 Director of Community 'Development' FROM: Randy Clarno, Engineering Services ManagerV� SUBJECT. Engineering Monthly Report for MARCH, 1986 Personnel Tinte Spent in Functions I. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW/PERMITS Percent 'Hours A. Land-Use Application Review 4% (45) B. Public Improvement Permits 16% (157) C. Prcperty Vacations (ice. Plats, easements, street). .... .... 1% (10) II. SURVEY AND MAPPING A. Survey 1. City gide Control 13% (228) 2. Public Works Operations "Maintenance1° Projects . 1% (12) 3, Capital Projects 4% (40) B. Mapping/Drafting 1. City gide Information mapping . 16% (164) 2. Department mapping ......... ................. .......... 0% (0) 3.' Construction/Misc. Drawings ........................... h (8) III. TRAFFIC/LIGHTING A. Streetlights ............ ..................................... `0% (0) B. Signals ...................... .......................... . 0% (0) IV. CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT A. Public Facility Master Plans/Policy Review Assistance (i.e. Streets, server, storm drainage, etc...,) ..... ....... 0% ` (2) B. Capital Improvement Program Assistance/Support (i.e., Project Coordination, Plan Review, Inspection) ..... 4% (39) V. PUBLIC/AGENCY ASSISTANCE ........ ............................... 12% (127) VI. GENERAL ADMINISTRATION AND MISC. ............................... 11% (65) VII. NON--PRODUCTIVE TIME_(Holidays, vacations, sick leave,; etc.)..... 7% (69) VI.Revenue Activity FY 84-85 FY 85-86 A. Engineering Service Fees & Charges MARCH MARCH I. Improvement Permits (I`.B) 79167.60 1©9664.54 Thru MARCH Thru MARCH 39 9 54157 76 9.172.64 B. Public Works Operations Fees & Charges FY 84-85 FY 85-86 Parch March 1., Streetlights 827.52 19809.98 2, Traffic control Signing . 482x60 2.297.98 NEW PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS MARCH 1. RENJFRAN DEyELOPMI ENT, INC. r Subdivision Morning ,Hill No. 4 2, ASHINGTON FEDERAL SAVING BANK - Street nights Bond Park III 3. R A GRAY Street Opening Permit - Tigard Auto Cody - Greenburg 'Road 4. E. LEE ROBINSON Street Lights - Hilltop Business CenterlHunziker & 72nd 5, DAVIDSON CAR MASH Street Opening Permit Pacific Hwy. & 'Walnut 6. ROBERT LARSOr'� Street Opening Permit s ? c," bandy Wooley a City Engineer (RSCebr/0E40P) rj _ I ..CD N r. M 's , —t ' - 1 I j j I I I I •� .'�. f I I I N I I I I I r + _ C WI CD W WOic W; P� I l O.� OI hl M� DI �O ' O As I )+I I � O� O •'3' O V I �� M((( V 1 N I N' O� 1 V 1 f P I O�I �. N I I N O •O a, Ti SOr11 N q. +I Ml CJ MlO`f MI 0; �4 :�:I O OI MI 'OI � p Q 1 � O+I ml O. VYl M i/1! V CI V r OI V I O i PI n ; r 1 I I 1 I r r i I I I 1 I 1 II y I =j Ai r� ga1 1 n vOi I v'i j o .c oaW aN o v N� w, o.. LI. V1 O+ ! Vi. N10 IOD 1 I 1r��ty yr O! NI q� P O� W I ♦O r O�` N h V M N O� I V D• , I Vn I M I. W I —_ _—_...-, a.,_-ml �1_a:r__t�1f ar._lama, J--�.�4 sn�_3 v� .._.r�.�41...e��s2t__`•L.�._____ I �I. o f 'v � ! .� `vl �� I t3 n� mI a o; a� �� ai al � 'N•tl �� n, u � w) "'' i N, v i �• �i >t :� a� n. a. a.I u. c.l a w o f N� �; u aili F. > _ r 0 0 ! � � �� car n w ,w Ui v v c�� c wI :wl ca; U c •. iI 7 q r Oi V T ry M W. O� W W q P O 1 "'�� N I O O .yi I � hl h P W M Ri .OI W h Pf n ��iR; R : WI U`- n F rQ nJj h7 :. Itr W r•t N OD Vt I M � � � I i F a C � � { � I 4 � I �I i r ► � ! I I � O� M sT. n Z9 N. ^•� m N N a I I 7 F N X. he 7 co M In I m rn l9 .7 t•'1 m to .•1m ® •mss N GO v-f h D• O O H 4D 43'U wt co m Q to O lu 0. ca Q r. rn o h Q U S rI R C AI •.� Fa O U _ 4 .°+ m N (:4 rJ tYJ 4\I C�3 Bl1 fs m tq i� s r r, 0 7 � n t _ •1 I , I N :J I 1 j I r'; r i W O I W 1 v i W ---�--- !' I i o n ! rn N i rn r� ,r•- i,o I - . m ` ,L�.a .� a wR r.�cn'a.�,�.m.�i.W �•-•.�.j +c��,M�"� '•:-.`.ar� ''�`.I`.._,....I..`,„I ..a.{� ,.� ,I 7 1`VF..n ~ I M�. -^�� N.{ � I 1 �{ �•,p-t� � gip-F 1 I ! � co M 1i!. LT .p 1 NI R Vt I O.tO M i O n I IN. W I n co S C+ 1 r an0 I J .N-i j. "'o.i O� I. O� �..0 ( W N d N N w .0 In 0 LA O N W CO a, cow rn n vs .o . 00 75,t No W I gyp.I I N 1 of I y o. a t r j 7 f J( H'. 4i 4i�.. Ni N CI .0 Lr y.I .N) '.NI f.•' NI H, HI I U ! 21 a a ! u w I I ,{ aj a a al ti 'o, ro IV �I J. al o) of tj.. r! rol N. uI_ s ^f '-in Lal V SJ! U L•I Qi �'{ JI :Jj :Li x UI V U', VI F NI O� Nt H� W I Wt WI W I .,I ^I �, _ C"J1,:✓I v! sil v N ` r� t'.f { , MONTHLY REPORT WASHINGTON CC3t1NTY.OREGON March 1986 DATE: OPERATIONS OFFICE BASTE WATER: 2. 1 .2 9.0 hrs T.'Ve Inspection 46-0 hrs Storm € rain Repairs 134 hrs Eini.tary Sewer Clean 8.0 hrs Storm Drain Clean 68.0 hrs Swi tart' Repairs 17.0 hrs Catch Basin Maintenance 87.0 hrs thole Repairs 127.0,hrs Ditching STREETS : 2. 1.3 58.5 hrs Street Cleaning + F 116.0 hrs Patching, 6.0 hrs Painting L Street Marking 211.0 hrs Sign Haintenance bin 8.0 bars Grading & Rocking 9.0 hrs Sanding PARKS: < 2. 1. 4 GREEN TFfIFB HOURS 142.0 hrs Mowing 24.5 hrs Mowing 6.5 hrs Restroom. Maint 4.0 hrs Restroom Paint. 4.0 hrs Bellfield Haim. 69.0 hrs Landscaping 32.75 hrs Landscaping 4.5 hrs Construction 15.5 hrs Litter Patrol 13.75 hrs Litter patrol 11,.0 cars Comity Service SUPPORT 'SERVICES 2 . 1.5 23.75 hrs P-14. on Lquipmnt 162.75 hrs S Ire-d aled Repair 17.0 hrs Unsche&vl.ed Repair -� 45.5 bra Fabrication 5.5 hrs General Support 12765 S.t¢d ASH RO.,SOX 23397 'TIGARD,OREGON 97223 PH:639.4171 —�-- 4/7/86; �_.. PARK VAINTENA REPORT: For nIonth of: March 1986 There was a 'total of 185.25 hours maintenance hours at BOOK PARK, with 94.0 hours mowing, 7.5 hours rests maintenance, 4.0 hours ballfiekd maintenance, 55.25 hours land- seapinzg.and ;24.5 hours latter, patrol. CITY EMP. NRS GREEN T4UMB HRS vinq 71..0 -^ 23.0 Restrom. maintenance 3.5 4.0 Bal.lf old maintenance 4'.0 Landscaping 24.0 31.25 Litter patrol 9.5 15.0 WI MILL 3.5 GENESIS WOUDAW 15.25 2.0 8.25 ENrzLEWM 23.25 2.5 . e , 3_RKE 14. > 1.s FANN31 CREEK 2.5 99€ 3.5 .5 BUS STOPS 1.5 1.25 LIBERTY - 1.5 ':.25 MAIC" 1.0 1.0 PC4_10E DEPT. 4.5 CITY HALL 9.0 UPERPTIONS YARD 20.5 'An additional elevens hours was performed by Community Service labor. 4 6:IMM PLANNNING AND DEVELOPMENT REVENUE REPORT - MARCH 2366 CITY PLANNING HEARINGS EDIRECTOR"S DOCUMENT MM? L' REVFLN E'S COUNCIL COMMISSIOFFICER DECISION SALES Totals 3tt e{ 198Fs $450.00 350.00 $1,060.00 $1,415.00 $187.35 GT ($3;402.35) Totals Aug 1985 350.00 3,200.00 --0- 2,715.00 94.65 G'T "($6,159.65) Totals_b�2t -19-85 -0- -O- -0- 67 .00 229.30 CYTO 904.30) Totals Oct. 1985 -0- 930.00 500.00 675.00 173.80 GT ($2,276.80) Totals-N,v. 13£35 -40- -0- 800.00 1,315.00 150.40 GT ($2,2;15,40)40) Totals Dec. 1995 2300.00 200.00 -0- 1,490.00 213.00 GT ($4,203,00) Totals Jan. 1906 1,275.00 1,720.00 500.00 1,625.00 144.00 CST ($5,264-00) Totals Feb. 1956 $5,175.00 $7,000.00 $2,800.00 $11.,°110.00 $1,577.15 GT ($3";3$5.1'5) A.MRCH OR, Sign Corp. 11305 10.00 Sign Tigard East 11314 1000,00 (SDR) Michael Dav;s 11354 200.00 (i/) Rey Hoclgzas 11577 35.00 Sign Clifford. Leonard 11506 75.00 (HOP) 'Waverly Const. 11559 1,270.00 (PtD/S/SL) ¢ileo Signs 11762. 10.00 Sign K"TO Soldering 5.1777 20.00 (HOP/R) OCH Partners 11809 10.00 Sign McKenzie/Sharp 11921 300.00 (SbR) 0t, Afford Homes 11955 75.00 (Til) St Afford Homes 11363 120.00 Sign Tam Brian 11964 200.00 (SCE) ' Christ King Chur 11988 300.00 (SDR) Linda Pratt 12035 75;00 (HOP) Sign Craft 12057 25,00 Sign Frei Drysdale 12220 25.00 Sign Document Sales CD 151.65 MARCH TOTALS 1,470.00 2,045.00 396.85 GT ($3,901.85) TOTALS TO DATE $5,175.00 $9,270.00 $2,800.00 $13,155.00 $1,964.00 ($32,364.00) REVENUE: REPORT - Planning 1Division � Page 1 FYTID - March 1996 q' PLANNING COMMISSION DECISIONS DIRECTOR"S DECISIONS 11 CPA Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Also CC) i2 MLP Minor Land Partition 6 ZC Zone Charge 21 'SDR Site Development Review a ZCfi<Zone Change Annexation (°:C) 15 V Variance' 9 ZOA Zone Ordinance Amendment (Also CCO 6 TU Temporary Use a PD`Planned Development 28 Hop Home occupation/& Renewal t3 S Subdivision 10 M hiiac. (Lot Line Adj.' ' '7 SGE-Sign_Code Exceptionflexible setbacks) HEARINGS OFFICER DECISIONS 8 SL Sensitive Lands Permit 3 CU Conditional Use I WM-dj54 u F, REVENUE REPORT - Planning Division - Page 2 Transportation Advisory;Committee. meeting Minutes march ,6, 1986 Meeting was opened at 7:1.0p.m. The minutes of the previous meeting were not read or adopted Randy Clarno game a presentation on the status of the current Capital improvement Program, what projectv:were'on it, what their r , order, of .priority was, and how they were picked. Coat tittee meythe expressed dissatisfaction with the process used: and especially the fact that the Plan was taken to council without the committee's input as 'was supposed to take place. Discussion ensued on the need to improve communications between staff and the committee. Mark Padgett gave a report on the ODOT six year plan meeting that was held recently The .meeting as adjourned at 9 :15. s CITY :OF TIGARD OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF': April 28. 1986 AGENDA ITEM DATE SUBMITTED,. April 22, 1986 PREVIOUS ACTION: Bid Call Authorized ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Hall/Burnham by Go 11/2.5/85 Street LID ,4#85-1) Construction PREPARED BY: Duane Roberts Contract REQUESTED BY: DEPARTMEN"THEAD OK ° CITY ADMI:NISTRATOEt POLICY ISSUE To award the contract for the construction of the Hall/Burnham Street ' improvement. INFORMATION SUMMARY On Thursday, April 17, 1986, bids were openedand read on the Hall/Burnham _ Street L.I.D. There were 16 plana holders and 7 bidders. A bid tabulation is attacher. The 'low bidder was Bill. Page 'Construction of Newburg, Oregon, in the amount of $103,713.00. The Engineer's bid estimate was $€6,560.70, or• 16.4% less than the low bid. Staff currently is evaluating the impact of this discrepancy on the total cost of -the LID. Copies of the evaluation will be submitted to Council at Monday night's meeting. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1, Award the contract to the low bidder. 2. Reject all bids. ` SUGGESTED ACTIO Staff recommends Council' award the bid to the low bidder, Bill Pae ` Construction, in the amount of $103,713.00.wag ,. (ipo-g ._ � � 1 �.�"JTf6Im! � _al. r J��.1 i_�-j 9 E L� I�i�liltlil![�I I�111�►iti+1+I11�`:rNilllil l+,f1y111'1Ir911f I1t191111111i111�1ayF11 •. NOTE: IF THIS MICROFILMED .IZ DRAWING IS KESS CLEAR THAN _ ..._ . AW 'MIP THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO _. TFE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL Now DRAWING. OE 6Z B2 LZ 92 SZ f>Z £Z ZZ IZ OZ 61 81 LI - 91 -S'1' !+l EI ZI 11 01 6 9 l -9 - ._-... -6 -Z Ima E 1990 MA" ------------ [NIIIIII111111f11111111�INIIRifINNlJlliifllllj�,(�s'".1"'.e "I 111 -��-i----' 1 r; ^; __ � 11111111GIIIi v:. .,. a "� 0 3 e e 5 ° G r M =7 / N 02Q rSW HALL BLVD L +T PROPOSED STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY — ""0'9 M.sz°,os i o om=®�i�l�l��[Eidllie�i�oQ®!$®IIS!®I� 7STU TAX TTAX LOT 701 CITYLOF TIGARD TIGARD CHRISTIANoTAX LOT 400 NCHURCH ® Lt1 STURGIS ; i9 ® W i PROPOSED ® TAXLOT290 ; 03; ®�� ®®® � RIGHT-OF WAY � ! °1 e ®® ® � 0 r1 f ao ®o a y.es�®®®�®a� Q< N N F_ W to ¢ {� L3•-m�1s �_ LL ic Cn N �{ Z Zip� c 1 IN 0 G ,:E Q l - o e SOoae 3,OC°SON I� ^1 //� { SCALE: r = 100: LEGEND F. PROPOSED LID BOUNDARY , d m FIGURE A-1 Q a S.W. HALL BLVD LOCAL STREET IMPROVEMENT STUDY AREA w N DISTRICT - PROPOSED BOUNDARY AND ``I w PROPEll OWNERSHIP N �ssss-os®ssssiro• EXISTING OWNERSHIP BOUNDARY U N k p f f CONSULTING ENGINEERS 421 S.W.8TH,SUITE 911 PORTLAND OREGON 97204 !(rl�►Yy►(rlt�ll! LI��III zt�rrr a�r�lll IfI�H, li!j�fl 71�Tr rfr m Ifl 1�Y I r i I ! r i ri ! — _�� - .z E � � � ' � � � � _�. r l�jR� l j f�.i � L� IIjl7TiTl�ellr(IfI�III�IIlE919�1�'�.IfllllliIla{lil�li`.�r(r(llr0lllflll�llllrOr�lfol►�! �'--gym..,,..,_,._.— � y NOTE: IF THIS NICRDFIIMED � E — - — 2 3 4 _ _ 5 6 7 a3 9 0 DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN a -THIS NOTICE,NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO AV r.,. • THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINALDRAWING. I r-6 of L 9 s 4 E 6Z BZ Lz 9Z Sz fZ EZ ZZ 0? OZ 61 8i Z1 9{ Sf' Ui g ® -y' .i - S MLTARCR 1 � 7_11 ' J990 ''rMlllurl!!1l�lulflyl�111111wLualwef�o..L� � E cr1�Imeer 14 $iff a Norfh s(- f�Vei'a ES rmaf� Corrstrudion Earfllrmvem GG. Cara4vf� 6)r5 an&roc¢ n LoYveS��i��. ITEM . DESCRIPTION UNIT Na UNITS PRICE TOTAL._ PR CE TOTAL PRICE TOTAL - 'PRUNIT UNIT UNIT fCE -TOTAL- PRIIGE -TOTAL -U.[�l_T_ T'OTaL STRFET PRICE. Temoorary Tr affi Clearin and GrubbingDAO, r ' Earthwork Common Excavation Y 25 OD Embankment CY 450 A are ate Base 4, . ' ,2�- Aggregate Base for Shoulder and Maint. Gravel CY 4RO,ZS 00 OD to OD OO 2 I , Asphalt Concrete Pavement �n,�. ! 0.0 DO <1 1 L 9. DDS Portland Cement Concrete' 1 + Pavement SY f J1 0 5 Z 21.E orbs t I 16" Standard CoAcrete LF 1036 ,OD J4,tD I A Ap I Extruded ConcreteL F 1260.00lJ657M2 5,00 �✓ Driveways Y 120 )6. Sidewalks 8' Wide Concrete LF J1,00 7/ ',qD I Z a OD eb 5' Wide Concrete o.00 ,7 4 Z CD 2 i Adjustment of Incidental Structure to Grade Sanitary MH EAI 0 Storm Inlet EA I I aD D 0 A 0.� OD Signingbigning and Pavement Markings S I Z --safety Structures i Guardrail LF . - 1 OD '2 00 1 CO >C 0 1 ✓. Sidewalk Barricade LF 1 - .Lb 7 7 20. 0 O i - - NOTE; Pay items per Oregon 1980 AMASpecifications CrTY'OF TIGARD DES ( S-EE • OR SW HALL BLVD. 1 STREET LID NO. 85-1 oV CKDATE $^6LE BID TABULATION I 4/22/8E - •m_ Y - JC2 NO F CONSULTING ENGINEERS MmeG - _ _-.- SS1 O4 PORTLAND.OREGON 47204-; IOP• •.• ir111�(►lit+1+1+1+1+1+1+ +Iyl+l+li1wili,I.,ill iillir( TjiJT]T inirn iiipii pialri it+ ill Ill 1 1 1 ' ' i ! I -� ! 16 filil+ ilSlilr�llili�+lililili�+lTl?Ii=+1+1+I+i+i+1r11lr-111Ti111�111................. 1.111111111i11P1) J �+ 11 el go DRAWING R WINOTIS LE IT CLEAR THAN S DUE TO NOTE: IF THIS MICROFILMED __._ ..--�.-..1 � � 3 4 _.. _ 5 6 7 � 8 0 11 iG� THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DRAWING. •.. -_,-- __ OttE 6Z 8Z zZ 8Z 9Z >Z ' Ca ZZ''"�" 11Z OZ 61 8�1—� Ll 9j -SC ' tl el ZI— it 0l — S 8 � --9 — S ti E Z i 'quaw {e YHII111111+1111IIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIe'iQi�lliftl{� yiyNiyN�+�let�tNt�tIs11Sf �!{�ilir !Jj931Will�itii` #1# Iltl 1 _ ui Irl�'S bill Pale_ rlorA We57- — mate. Cornin +} n E4zrftl'aVer-- GG. &tb! vi 5DMe4 Coh6*vcfron • LoW�fi >gidder� ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT No.UNITS UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL UNIT -TOTAL. UNI TOTAL UNI T PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE. TOPRICE sTnRM DRAINS PRICE TOTAL T--h Excavation- Re - -- 1 — —'— under & DD PiPP 21" and rLF 1O' Q 4 Q. M&o0 ; .l ✓ Class A - 21° and Over 6 280 Trench nd lion t r'a .pp D. W.p7 `J 00 D [El pin 1 i 1 " and Under LF 1 1 ^�aOD9 D G>7 Over 58 — Pipp anti Fillings ClassoO DO -72— 18" CCP Class.21 & ti I o N;�l. D.O OD l�, 1 I !. Iz U. {7 / � i " RCP Class 8 5! <p OC 1 a / DO 2 L6, •1 " CP Bends EA 1 9� Z� 172 Z 7 �Zo 20 ✓ oo Manholes MH 0-81 Dee EA 2 CO LYJ. D! Z" DO atch Basins and Inlets Type G-2 T e G EA 2 9CODo IT,450 DD. Work on Existing Sewers Connection to Existing 12" Storm Drain LS .on I TOTAL 70 750-2-7-4-q 2 i - i CITY OF TIGARD NOTE: Pay items per Oregon 1980 APDIA Specifications DES SHE_T De SW.HALL BLVD. OF L OK STREET LID NO. 85-1 ScnLE D TE 4/22/86 BID 'FABULATION N. _..... 4_=.__.. .`_a.�+--.!s"•--,-� —� _—__..._. - 4Zisc W.6TH ENGINEERS tIawWG - ;._ �..__.....:•.:'� ..._...:'rr�___ �;..._......._..�_'u..___—_�._.:,.:'._;..:_�.�<e,._, _. -. _ _.._- -.,. .--_ POR7LANC.OREGON..57204.. -. JOB NO k f fOR NO 85104 � � 7 ltlte►Ilitltll tltHtit !le t!r rl! T1! !1! Ilr I 11I to 1 t [III t Pt . 1 11�P�1r�'t n I ,_1 I €TiRI]�IlI�).�jl.ltllllfll>�TlI�IIIIIIr�IlIlfI�ItIIlIIIliTI.lIlItiIllitltlllti`�IIt�11tltltlUtltitltirllialtit ' y NOTE: IF THIS MICROFIU6E0 i -. _—_-_—. .. .) 2. � 4 .._. _ 5 $ _ ] $ 9 DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE• IT IS DUE TO TFf QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL ' DRAWING. es 6z- ez cz 9z -sz oz .cz zzea`oa-sr—ei—[i __91___sr__�i E1. zI �� os s e i s- s t, e z IMARCn c �wlrmtluulnNlwdau4HRLHdwrlltuli�t�i�!llusll►Tti�lll�llll�aluttlulllu 6Ts�k•I•*I '�s�ij� ��l t� lll,.d ..I•}�Ila..l�.i •a�•,l! IH_ul�aud'u Iucg;lml0i]Eli�f�l11611@lI11111411tlmlltutlNnl ��s ; <: i 19 90% ------------- --. .z, --�- - -— 80A�fr mac,`~ Don Ha-i Crlahirw, co. Consf?ve---I'DnUNIT CoriSfYUGilorl ITEM DESCRIPTION ' UNIT Na UNITS PRICE -TOTAL'- PRICE TOTAL UNIT- UNIT TOTAL PRICE' -TOTAL- PfNICE _TOTAL PRICE. T OTA L STREETS Temporary Traffic Control 12 I 3 1 L, D:DO Clearing and Grubbing DOL. D O .D Dp ' Earthwork Common Excavation cy 12165.7 (0 2.00 Embankment cy D Aa re ate Base D .14 J � J -Aggregate Base for Shoulder i and Maint. Gravel Cy 4R ) -7 20, Dp 7 i Asphalt Concrete Pavement To N 64JI,00 25,7o,7,66- �; Portland Cement Concret I J i PavementSy 107 Z1.5 Curbs ------------- 1 1 16" Standard Concrete LF 103 Extruded Concrete F r Driveways y ? i Sidewalks 8Wide Concrete LF 5' Wide Concrete LF 300 7 Adjustment of Incidental Structure to Grade Sanitary MH EAQ� OD Storm Inlet EA p Signing and Pavement MarkingsLS1�.OG 00 m Safety Structures t Guardrail LF 1115,00 5-55,00 .00 D Sidewalk Barricade LF 1 .3 - I CITY OF TIGAgp _ NOTEc Pay items per Oregon 19.80 APWA Specifications IDES SEE, DR SW HALL BLVD. STREET LID N0. 85-1 �F 4 CN 1 DATE BID TABULATION 4/22';dq k p f f CONSVLTING ENGINEERS ID 85104 azl aSUIT nn PORTLAND. REGON,972"... Pql11111111 Bill l!ll ri.[_m. (IPi_jil iT[f( fll!lil l_it 1 Iii Iii iit'lit qi1 {a {il IJi Ilt li;.11il!lh {III{gt ri {qr lgl�lgt Ilt lil tll'tll Cpl NOTEIF THIS MICROFILMED 2 3 6 7 8 DRAMISESS CLEAR S NOTICE. IS DUE TO THIS 1 .._....-.f 2 THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DRAWING. _ OE s2 t3z tz sz Sz trz ez zz iz 0i W f3i—L! 91 51 t't S!_ ZI_.__.il of_ s e It 9-- g ti E Z t t �fll[tIHII111�11niIIIII1fN1{Na�t7t1I111flI�,it�pl _ r 19 Ilt ; 16 x MARULZ T ;` 1-9 t ............... .h I' maker iZDck Don I',ai5ch �'rwa UNIT vna Gp. t'- J GDVL'�1"n•ic�lpn !,'oh,-.,i ntc�lasl ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT Na UNITS UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL UNI TOTAL 77 T PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE " PRICE PRICE TOTAL sinRM DRAINS Xcavation, Redding and fill Q, Deep Class B Pipp 18" and Under IF 908 25 I.CO Pipe 21" and Over IF 38. 27, Y Class A — 21" and.Over LF 28 1L1. D Trench ndati n Material l 712.,00 77D,00 00 20 rl ,00 Pine d in la PiDe 1 " and Under LF 916 bl5 Pinp 21" and OverLF 58 00 /- Eipp and Fittings 12" CCP 1 F 9;Z �1 ,4p ZD 71 G� 00 416 715,46 37L(P (dJ DJ 9 1.00 oD 114, P Class III LF 38 100, � , 24" CMP 11Gauge LF 20 _3e_ 75,00 1 1511 CP Bends EA 1 Manholes MH 0-8' Dee EA 2 1'4 ,co 1 25coloo _.Ifw-col D 0D 12CO,00 tch Basins and Inlets Type G-2 EA 4CO14 UJ : ) ^4 T e G EA' 2 7 Z5,1 / ,5a Work on Existingewers Connection to Existing 12" Storm Drain LS p� TOTAL I s NOTE: Pay items per Oregon. 1980 APWA Specifications CITY OF TIGARD _ DES r SHEET SW HALL BLVD. F L H72218 STREET LID N0. 85-1S_ALEBID TABULA' .w- .� -•aG.�--r, _. _ _ .... -.. .. - ... _ y 85104 E CONSULTING BTH.SUITE 911 zw NG ' .:, �.� ...CORTLAN D..A R.EGON 972C'i _: oa so +l+i+ }�+N'�t+�+l+j+1+0+9+�?1+ oiapl° Ittltle1°i+ItT! 11�T m r� ila ilitl J t i +Tt l r r i l�Eit�tlt�tlT�ltltlt�tltl+l°'+hIJ1�,lhllll6+lei+1''11rOtl+1+lidiil1tillet+�+ialali NOTE: IF THIS MICROFILMED _., ... .O. Z 3 4 _-- _ 5J $_ 7 t3 9 0 11 DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN - - -- THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF TIE ORIGINAL 16 _. - DRANING. .,— ._ OE 6Z 9Z 42 9? SZ - bZ i)un6m�unl+N+lwilxnlnasiuwinJlttl -_ t JIlI�II#Jglet M r A R LCIL.1 1 i s CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON t- RESOLUTION NO. 85-_____.._. _ A RESOLUTION AWARDING THE CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE ' SW HALE/BURNHAM (STREET) LOCAL IMPROVEMENT' DISTRICT ##85-1. 0 WHEREAS, the Council , created the Sia Hall/Burnham, (Street) Local In.nproe ement District: ##85-1 by Ordinance 85--47, and ordered the construction of street improvements; WHEREAS, The Council adopted the plans and specifications contained wi.thiSi t e preliminary engineer's report and entitled .SW Hall Blvd.' Local Street Ira rovement District Feasibility 'Study by Resolution No. 85-87; WHEREAS, the City Council directed that construction bids be solicited in accordance with the plans and specifications contained within the preliminary engineer's report by Ordinance No. 85-47. WHEREAS, requests for bids were published within the Ti9ard Times on November 7, 1985, in accordance with the 'City's Purchasing Rules, and also in Portland Business Today on April 2 and 7, 1906. WHEREAS, The City receives! 7 bids; and the City has determined that Bill Page Construction is the lowest responsible bidder; WHEREAS, the imniedi.ate operation of the provisions of this resolution is necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health, and safety, an emergency is hereby declared to exist, and this ordinance shall be effective upon its 'passage by the Council, and approval by the Mayor, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: 1, The construction contract in the amount of $1.03,713.00 for the construction of improvements within the Hall/Burnham Local Improvement District shall be awarded to Bill Pace Construction. PASSED,. This day of _ '1986. Mayor - City of Tigard . _r ; F ATTEST Deputy City Recorder City of Tigard (,2490P) i RESOLUTION NO. 96-- Page &-Page 1 CITY Of TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY all- AGENDA OF. April 20, 9.985 AGENDA ITEM DATE SUBMI TTED: April 23, 1985 PREVIOUS ACTION: April 3, 1985 review ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Revenue Budget Committee Manual and Fees and Charr es_ PREPARED BY: Joy 'Martin Resolution REQUESTED BY: DEPARTMENT'HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: POLICY ISSUE In 1904, City Council adopted the', policy of setting rates for frees and charges at 80% of the 'average cost. Council reviews all rates annually for the purpose of budgeting and for adopting the majority of changes. INFORMATION SUMMARY Attached isa resoluto;a propos the changes for- the planning related fees. This is ;allowed by "a list of the ''proposed changes' showing current' and proposed rates. A summary of all fees and charges shoaring average costs preceeds the Revenues Manual. All of these documents are based upon the cost estimates fora "normal" process as calculated on the worksheets which are in the back of the Revenue Manual, The attached resolution includes most of the changes. The Business Tax and Streets SDC bath require 'ordinances and are scheduled on the next agenda. The sewsr user service -fee was discussed by the Budget Committee and will be presented by the Finance'Officer according to their direction. ALTERMATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Council adopt the attached resolution revising planning related fees to be at 80% of current average costs. 2. Council revise their policy of charging 80% a#' current average costs, to 100 of current average costs. SUGGESTED ACi'ION A motion to adopt the attached resolution, revising planning related fees, to be effectivQ Jude 1, 1986. MOMN� k CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 86-- A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL_ PRESCRIBING NEW PLANNING FEES AND " CHFBRGES, REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 84-19A AND RESOLUTION NO. 84-71 SAND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of °Tigard has adopted planning ordinances pursuant to Chapters 227 and 92 of the Oregon Revised Statutes; and WHEREAS, the adopted planning ordinances require that for the purpose of defri�!y .ng tie expenses arising from or incident to investigation, evaluation and processing applications fees and charges be prescribed; and WHEREAS, Section 3.32 of the Tigard Municipal Code grants the City Council the authority to set rates for fees and charges by resolution; and �. WHEREAS, the Tiga^d City Council on September 24, 1984 moved to set rates for fees at 80% of average cost; and &WHEREAS, the effective date for neer fees and charges rates is to be June 1, 1986. NOW, jHEREFORE, VE' I1' RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: ". SECTION! 1: Resolutions No. 84-19A and No, 84-71 be repealed in their entirety and that fees and charges for planning applications be :. levied according to the following new schedule attached as Exhibit "A." SEarioN 2: This resolution shall be effective on and after the 1st day of June, 1986. "^ PASSED: This day of 1986. Mayor City of Tigard ATTEST: Deputy City Recorder — City of Tigard ` RLSOLUT'ION NO. 86 G 1 — n w , EXHIBIT A JOINT APPLICATION PLANNING FEE 100% of highest planning fee 'plus 10% of all additional planning fees on proposal COMPREHENSIVE PLANT PROCESSING Text Only $650.00 Map Only $650.00 Bath Text and Map $650.00 ZONE CHANGE PROCESSING Less than tern acres $500.00 Ten or more acres $600.00 ZONE ChANOt til. .- ,ATIONS Less than ten acres $500.00 Ten or more acres $600.00 ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT $300.00 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PROCESSING Conceptual and detailed plan review $700.00 CONDITIONAL USE PROCESSING _. Conditional use reviews $350.00 TEMPORARY USE PROCESSING 1 to 3 months by Director $75./mo. 3 months to 1 year by Planning Commission/City ,Council $150.00 Special exemption/Non-profit $ --0- VARIANCE - ADMINISTRATIVE $200.00 SENSITIVE LANDS - FLOODPLAIN $500.00 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Under $10,000 $ 75.00 $10,000 - $99,999 $150.00 $100,000 $499,000 $300.00 $540,000 - $999,000 $400.00 $1,000,000 or more $500.00 + $1 per $10,000 over $1 million-not to exceed $2000 LAND PARTITION RESIDENTIAL $225.00 LAND PARTITION - NON-RESIDENTIAL $:725.00 SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT $400.00 + $5/lot Subdivision variance if needed $100.00 APPEAL OF DIRECTORS DECISION TO PLANNING COa111ISSION $225.00 RESOLUTION! PCO. 86 Page 2 2 - t S APPEAL OF PLW ING COiriISSIOf� OR HEARINGS OFFICES RECISION TO $3UU.00 & Transcript Crss4s ,1. CITY COUNCIL VACATIONS/STREETS ANDPUBLIC ACCESS Actual costs FLEXIBLE SETBACK-STANDARDS $100.00 DEVELOPED LOTS HISTORIC OVERLAYDISTRICT X75,00 TREE REMOVAL PERMIT ACCESSORY USES/ACCESSORY STRUCTURES X75:00 INTERPRETATION OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CiDE DY OOrn=aUMIT Y DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMLNT $50.00 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT $200.00 HOME OCCUpATIOW PERMIT X75.00 Renewal $,20.00/year SIGH CODE EXCEPTIONS X220.00 s RESOLUTION NO', 86 Page 3 -- 3 z f Z , SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES ' Adoated Proposed Business Tax (TPC 5.04.040) :. No. of employees per firm: Small.: 0-10 $40/year $50/year gledium: 11-50 $75/year $100/year Large: 51-over $150/year $200/year Sign Permit (TNTC '16.12.030) Sign Area: 0- 25 sq ft $10 26-100 sq ft $25 each added 100 sq ft or portion thereof $25+ maximum permit $100 Re-inspection $10 Temporary Sign $l5 Planning Comm. Review Fee $25 $15 First Sign _ $ 7.50 Cost per sign more than one Sign Code Exception (Res. #84-71) $2t?O $220 Fee Joint Application planning Fee Policy (new) 100% % highest planning fee . Plus % of all additional planning fees on proposal Comprehensive Plan Processing (Res ##84-19A) $650 Text only $450 ' $650 $650 Map only 650 Both Text and Map $1000 $' Zone Change Processing (Res #84-19A) Two acres or 'less $35® µ ' Two - Ten acres $750 Each acre over 2, add $50/acre-$1000 $500 Less than ten acres --._ - $1250 $75/acre $600 Ten or more acres Zone Change Annexation (Res #84--71) $675 Fee Less than ten acres --- $500 $600 "Ten or more acres Zone Ordinance Amendment (Res #84--71) $320 $300 Fee Planned Development Processing (Res. #84-19A$600 -- Conceptual Plan Review $400 Detailed Plan Review $700 Conceptual and Detailed Plan Review _ a Ad02ted Proposed r Conditional Use Pr-ocessira t" g (Res .M84-71) Conditional Use Review $300 $350 Variance — Subdivision (CDC 18.134) Fee $300 NOTE. Included in Subdivision Preliminary Plat Process — Sensitive Lands — Administrative Fee, $150 $300 Minor Land Partition Residential (Res ##84-19A) Fee $150 see below Minor Land Partition — Prion-Residential (Res #84-19A) Fee $300 see below Major Land Partition (Res ##84-19A) Preliminary, Plat $250+$5/Lot see below Final Plat $100+-$1,Lotseas below Land Partition - Residential (new tit 3 ) Fee — - $225 Land Partition Non—Residential (new title) Fee $225 Subdivision Preliminary Plat (Res #84-19A) Prelimi.narPlat $250+$5/Lot Fee $400+$5/Lot Subdivision Variance if needed $300 $1530 Subdivision Partition — Final Plat (Res ##94-19A) Final Plat $100+$1/Lot NOTE: Included in Subdivision Public Improvement Permit Appeal of Director's Decision to Planning Commission (Res ##84-19A) Fee $24L3 $225 Street/Land Dedication (Res #84-19A) Fee (does not include filing fee) $100 repeal Flexible Setback Standards — Developed Lots (Res #84-71) Fee $200 $100 Tree Removal Permit (Res ##84-71); Fee $40 $-0_ Accessory Uses/Accessory Structures (Res ##84-71) Fee $112 $75 Zero 'Lot Line Setback Standards (Res #84-71) I Fee $220 Lot Line Adjustment (Res #84--71) Fee $220 $200 s Adopted Proposed t System= Oevelopment Charge Streets (IMC 3.20.030) Single Family Residences $500 $600 multi—Family Residence/per unit $300 $360 Mobile Home Courtlspaice $187.50 $240 "Commercia:l,Industriallparkin space $67.50 $gm Sewer Users Service Charge Resi.r3entialR�at2s/quarter $34.50 $36.75 City Sewer Maintenance $ x.25, $ U.S.A. Share 70% remaining $22.58' $22.58 City ShBa e, 30 remaining $ x.67 $ 9.67 Won-Residential rate: eased on number of plumbing fixtures (Jif:bsll69p) x �4 1 3 FEES AND CHARGES PROPOSAL SUMMARY (April 1, 1986) Average Ayera+ge Proposed Revenue Current `Rate Coit TARE Property Tax $790,725' Business Tax $40—$150/yr $50--200/yr J&rVERG0VER gq AL SHARED REVENUES These revenues are based on formulas set by other agencies. Please refer z to the Revenue :Manual and the current Budget for rate schedules and anticipated revenues, L ICS iSES AND PERMITS Building Permit ,(BP) $10—$26433+ Adopted U.B.C. Bldg. PIan Check Fee 65% of BP Adopted U.B.C. Eire District Surcharge45% of SP — City receives 5% State Surcharge 4% of BP — Adopted U.B.C. � t?ther ;�sp. Fries $20—$40/hr. - Adopted U.B.C. MasterPlan Review Fee $40/hr. Adopted U.B.C. Mechanical'Permit (MP) $4 1v 50— ii.00.1Un t _ Adopted U.B.C. s Mesh. Plan Check Fee 25% of MP Adopted U.B.C. State Surcharge 4% of MP Adopted U.B.C. Plumbing Permit (PP $7.50-$30/unit Adopted State State Surcharge 4% of PP Adopted State Fill (Grading)' Pernit (FP) $10--$375+ Adopted U.B.C. Plan Check Fee ' 0-$170+ — Adopted U.B.C. Other Bldg.Inspection & Fees $15/hr. Sewer Permit (SP) SP Connection Fee (SDC) $ ,— $975 SP Inspection Fee $35—$75 SP —;in ,lieu of assess $3000+ Being examined Street Oa i..,, Permit $4-4% $107 $4-4% Public Improvement Permits (PIP) SubdivisionPIP4% of const. 3-6% 4% of const. r Storm Drian'€� St.Sewer PIP 4% of const 3-6 4% of caner. PI Street Lighting Fee Varies (no change) PI 'traffic Signing Marking (no change) See Manual for Formula Actual costs using worksheet _ 1 -- a ..-.,.,... .,._W._�.a. .,.,,._ �.,.... m....�.m..,......�. w...a,»........_..«..M ...�.............a,.,,..2 ...._.......-..-a,. _.._.gym -„-:.a,�.� ,¢,.....�..,,.- ......_.z-.....�,..�.... Average Average Proposed Revenue Curr jnt R&ta ` Cost �H LICENSES Liquor License $25/yr $25/yr Bicycle License $-O- Sign Permit $10-$100 $19 $15+7.50@ Sign Code exception $200 $277 $220 Park Reservation $0-$70 - $0-$70 Alarm 'Permit $15-$25 $29 $15-25 Blasting Permit Fee $120 $115 CHARGE'S_ FOR'S£R?l10E a Joint Appl.Planning Fee Policy - - 100%+10�d Comprehensive Plan Processing $45041000 $792--$841 $650 Zone Change Processing $1350-$2000 $-599+ $500-600 4 j Zone Change Annexaion $675 $871 $500-600 ! Zone Ordinance Amendment $320 $380 $300 , Planned D®v. Processing $400-$600 $290-$990 $706 x Conditional Use Processing $300 $442 $350 Temporary-=Use Processing $75-$150 $126-200 $75-$150 variance-Administrative $200 $224 $200 Variance-Subdivision $300 $418 $.-0--* Sensitive Lands-Floodplain $500 $646 $500 ,. Sensitive Lands-Admin. $150 $359 $300 Site :Dev. Review Processing $75-$500+ $481 avg. $75-$500+ Minor Land Part.-Residential $150 $334 -0- Minor Land 'Part.-Non Res. $300 $334 '$300 Major Land Partition $350+ $334 -0- €_and Partition-Residential - $225 Land Partition- Non-Residential - $225 Subdivision Preliminary Plat $250+ $567 $400+ Subdivision Part.-Final Plat $100+ $168 Appeal Dir. Dec. to Plan.Comm $240 $282 $225 [. Appeal of Plan.Comm/HO to CC , $300+ $245 $300+ ' Vacations/St.-St Public Access Actual varies actual Street/Land Dedication $100+ minimal repeal Flexible Setback Std -Dev.Lots $200 $129 $100 r Historic Overlay District $75 $307 $75 ' Tree Removal permit _$40 $18 $--0- ` Accessory Uses/Structures $112 $98 $75 Interpr.of'CDC by Comm`Dev. $50 $62 $50 2Iiro Lot Line Setback Std. $220 $286 $-O Lot line Adjustment $220 $207 $200 YllilllC tJLt'up:ldtiCJnPermit. $75 $83 $75 t Home Occupation Permit Renewal $20 $18 $20 � ! See Subdivision Partition Fee � 2 __ IN 113,51p Average` Average Proposed Ggrrent-Rate 92st JL 80% :R : Sy )EVE OP4°ENT CHH GES Streets SDC $67,50--500.1- - $90-x-•$600+ ,. Parks SDC $75-t—$150+ - $751--$150+ 250lF€2U - $250!€RU StIorm Drainage SDC $ 36.75P�7to" Sawar Users Service Charges $34.50/qtr. S.75/ESU Storm Drainage;Users Fee $.75/ESUlma. IV- 3.5% revenues - 3.5% Electricity 3% dfla4ural s 3% revenues - Telephorae (General Telephone) 3% revenues - 3% 3% revenues - 3% T,-Ie (Pacific NW Bell) 3% solid Waste Disposal 3N revenues - L:able TV 3% revenues - 3% FINES AND FORFEITURES Overdue Fines $.50--$5.00 $9.38$14.93 9.38 . x,14,93 Lost Materials Charge � i_c?stlNiutilatea Library Card 54 ;25 i)sat-6f-Coun-ty User mrd i10.C�t3 'b Microfiche Copier $.15 $1.99 - �. Photocopier-Library $.10 $.56 (Aiscellaneous Replace'Char-ge Mun cipal Court sndigent Defense H!SCELt.f,.1qE0U3 RF-VE Ug - $3-$25 sale of Comp.: Plan Documents $3-$25 Polio >itepar-t Copies ;5.1353+ X7.67 $5.00+ $2.00 $12,32 $2.04 9 Police Pbota raphs Copies Fingerprints $5.00 $9.27 $5.00 � Plan Deposit $140.04 - $104.00 Public Fac. & Info Mapping $,50-$2.00 varies 5- $5-$150.4- r Planimetric Maps $ 1501 $ _ Sale of photocopied Doc $.25 $1.41 �;. Gale of TMC $75 - $75 Gale of actual costs $28.09aug actual costs r ts Tran Returned Check Fee $10.00 $16 Recording of Dacuments - $55.41+ - Recover-ed Expenditures LID Administrative Casts 2% - LID Engineering Cost Actual. Costs witness Fees $5+ { # line Appendix JM:bs201 FEES AND CHARGES WORKSHEET '(1/86) GOODS AND SERVICE FEE - REIMBURSEMENT W AM E Randy Clarno FEE TITLE: Street Oaning Permit (Limited Time) DATE: 2/86 SERVICE (What is the service, and4+1� do we do it?) This fee is for, plan review and filed inspection of construction' that interferes with :existing roads. We do this to insure that the road is repaired to city standards. SERVICE COSTS: DIRECT LABOR Position Title Activity Description Avg. Hrs. Net Mage Cost Tech III Review & Insp. 3 20.11 60.33 TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS: 60.33 a DIRECT MATERIALS AND SERVICES: Flat Rate for basic supplies (20% of a) 12.07 Other &S common to all such services & S Description Cost Total Cost Transportation 10.00 TOTAL M & S COST: 22.07 b M1 SUBTOTAL (a,& b) 82.40 c 1NDIRECT;OVER14EAD COSTS DeW%artmenital (10% x c) 8.24 City (20% x C) �w16.48 TOTAL OVERHEAD COST: 24.72 d MINIMUM FEE (c + d) $$107.12 NOTES AND SPECIAL COSTS: '!"'i 1M:bs109 FEES AND CHARGES WORKSHEET (1186) GOODS AND SERVICE FEE - REIMBURSEMENT � T . NAME Rand Clarnc FEE TITLE: Subdivision Pub Improv. Permit' (Ccmpliance Agreement Fee) DA°fE: 2186 EX. 30 Lot Subdivision SERVICE (ghat is the service, and WhV do we do it?) This "fee is for the review of construction drawings, inspection of eonstruction, Admin. of Documentation. and Mapping and Records Alaint. (System updating). This service is performed to insure compliance with City Engineering standards. SERVICE COS3'S: DIRECT LABOR position Title Activity Description Avg. Hrs. Net Wage Cast Tech III Review ,;Approval 10 20.11 201.10 Tech Il Field Inspection 100 17.30 1730.00 Tech II Mapping S Records Maint 8 17.30 138.40 TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS: 2069.50 a DIRECT MATERIALS AND SERVICES: 413._90 Flat Rate for basic supplies' sery ce a) Other M&S common to all such services Total Cost i M & S Description 80.00 Transportation TOTAL M & S COST: _ 493.90 b SUBTOTAL (a & b) 2563.40 e INDIRECT OVERHEAD COSTS 256.34 Departmental (10% x c) 512.68 City (20% x c) TOTAL OVERHEAD COST: 769.02 d MINIMUM FEE (c + d) $3332.42 NOTES AND SPECIAL COSTS We would collect approx.` $4000 at our current ratefora project this size. Direct Labor assumes faster processing with computerized mapping. Without t1•,at, Mapping axed Records Maintenance are increased to 24-32 "hours from 8 hours. JM.bs109 2 - FEES AND CHARGES WORKSHEET (1/86) GOODS AND SERVICE FEE — RE=IMBURSEMENT . NAME'. Randy Clar•no SEF TITLE: Sub. Public Improvement Permit EX. 30 'Lot Subdivision DATE 2/86 SERVICE (b+lhat is the service, and WKV do we do it?), This fee is for the review of construction drawings, inspection of construction, Admin, of Documentation :and Mapping and,, Records Maint. (System updating). This service is performed to insure compliance with City Engineering standards. SERVICE COSTS: DIRECT LABOR Position Title Activity Description Avg. Hrs, Net Wage Cost Tech III Review & Approval 6 20.11 120.66 Tech II Field Inspection 30 17.30 159.00 Tech II "upping & Records Maint 417.30 69.20 TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS: 708.56 a DIRECT MATERIALS AND SERVICES: Flat Rate for basic supplies (20% of a) _ 141.77 Other 'M&S common to all such services M & S Description Cost Total Cost Transportation 30.00 TOTAL M & S COST: 171.77 b SUBTOTAL (a & b) 880.63 c INDIRECT OVERHEAD COSTS Departmental (10% x c) 88:06 s City (205+ x c) 176.12 — TOTAL OVERHEAD COST: 264.18 d MINIMUM FEE (c + d) X1144.81* NOTES AND SPECIAL COSTS: We would collect approx. $300 at our current rate for a project this size. 30 Lots IM:Eos 109 —;3 q r FEES AND C1 ARGES WORKSHEET (1186) GOODS AND SERVICE .FEE — REIMBURSEMENT _..` NAME: Randal Clarno FEE TITLE: Storm Drain & Street Sewer Pub. Improv. Permit (Compliance Agrmt. Project fee) DATE: 2/86 E.G. 1000 feet of line SERVICE (What is the service, and do we do it?) SERVICE COSTS- DIRECT OSTS-DIRECT LABOR Position Title Activity Description Aug. Hrs. Net Wage Cost' Tech III Review & Approval 4 20.11 80.44 Tech II - Field Inspection 8 17.30 136.40 Tech II ` Mapping & Records Maine 3 17.30 51.90 TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS: 270.74 a DIRECT, MATERIALS AND SERVICES: Flat Rate for 'basic supplies (20% of a) 54.15°15 Other M&S common to all such services SCJ & S Description Cost Total Cast Transportation 20.00 ...: TOTAL M & S COST: 74.15 b SUBTOTAL (a & b) 344.89 c INDIRECT OVERHEAD COSTS Departmental (10% x c) 34.49 City (20% x c) 68.98 TOTAL OVERHEAD COST: 103.47 d MINIMUM FEE `(c + d) X 448.36 y NOTES AND SPECIAL COSTS: We would collect approxi $600 at our current rate for a project this size. JM:bs109 4 . FEES AND CHARGES WORKSHEET (1/86) GOODS AND SERVICE 'FEE — 'REImBURSEMENT NAME: Ram Clarno _ FEE TITLE: Stoaryn araiss & Sega.Pub.Imrou. Permit (Compliance Agrmt. Project fee) DATE: 2s'86 E.G. 400 -feet of line SERVICE '(What is the service, and Why do we do it?) SERVICE COSTS_ DIRECT LACOR Position Title Activity Description Avg. Hrs. Net Wage Cost Tech III Review & Approval 5 20.11 100.55 Tech Ig Field Inspection 8 17.30 138.40 Tech II - Mapping & Records Maim 2 17.30 34.60 TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS: 273.55 a DIRECT MATERIALS AND SERVICES: Flat Rate for basic supplies (20% of a} 54.71 Other M&S common to all such services M &;S Description Cost Total Cast Transportation 20.00 TOTAL M & S COST: 74.71 b SUBTOTAL (a & b) 348.26 c INDIRECT OVERHEAD COSTS Departmental (10% x _,) 34.83 city (20% x c, 69.66 TOTAL OVERHEAD COST: 104.44 d MINIMUM FEE (c + d) 452.75 MOTES AND SPECIAL COSTS: We would collect'approx. $1.0o at our current rate for a project this size. J31:its 109 _: 5 t FEES AND CHARGES WORKSHEET (1686) SDS AND SERVICE FEE: — REIMBURSEMENT .. NAME: Random Clarno FEE TITLE- Public Improv. Streetli hc�tinq: 'pepost Fee':: DATE: 2686 SERVICE (khat is the service, and Vby do we do it?) Er:is 'ing fees are based on agreements which P.G.E. Engineering only checks to see if streetlights are in place, which is usually part of 'another inspection. SERVICE COSTS: DIRECT LABOR Position Title Activity Description Avg. Hrs. Net Mage Cost TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS: a DIRECT MATERIALS AND SERVICES: Flat Rate for basic gaapplies (20% of a) Other M&S common to all such services M S DescriptionCost Total Cost TOTAL M & S COST: b SUBTOTAL (a & b) c; INDIRECT OVER14EAD COSTS Departmental (10% x c) City (20% X S) - TOTAL OVERHEAD COST: d MINIMUM FEE (c + d) NOTES AND ;SPECIAL COSTS: - 6 �r FEES AND CHARGES WORKSHEET (1/86) GOODS AND SERVICE FEE - REIMBURSEMENT �..,.. NAME: Randy Clarno _ FEE TITLE: Public Ienproea. Traffic. Si�anin and Marking Fee - DATE2/86 (Example: 30 Lot Subdivision) SERVICE (What is the service, and 43y do we do it?) This fee is for the review of sign positioning, sign materials, and ovide this service insure compliance with inspection of placement. We pr city engineering standards. SERVICE COSTS: 01TREC? LABOR Position Title Activity Description, Avg. Hrs. Net Wage Cost Tech 3II Review & Approval 20.11 20.11 1 17.30 57.30 Tech SI Inspection S System Mapping Update 1 17.30 17.30 TachTachII S 1 ppn� F TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS: 5 .71 a DIRECTMATERIALS AND SERVICES: 10.94= Flat Rate for basic supplies (20% of a) Other M&S common to all such services M & S Description Cost Total Cost TOTAL M & S COST: 10.94 b SUBTOTAL (a. & b) 65.65 c INDIRECT OVERREAD COSTS 6.56 Departmental (10% x 13.12 City (20% x c) TOTAL OVERHEAD COST: 19.69 d mINIMUM FEE (L t d) �fi85.33 NofES AND SPECIAL COSTS: we would collect approx. $,100 at our current rate for a project this size. JM:bs109 7 FEES AaDC14ARGES WORKSHECT (1/86) GOODS AND SERVICE FEF REIMBURSEMENT .` :... NAME: Elizabeth NewFEE TITLE: Sixan C+ae Exceptions _ DATE. 3/86 :. SERVICE (What is the service, and Why do we do Review of requests for exceptions to the sign code. Review and public "before the Planning Commission required under Chapter 18.25.4 of hearing the Community Development Code. SERVICE COSTS: xt DIRECT LABOR Position Title Activity Description Avg. Wrs. Net Wage Cost �# cram. Dev.Director Rev.& Approv.Staff Rep. .5 31.34 15.65 Senior Planner Review,write report, 3 22,30 66.94 ,. meeting, Cleric Typist II Set up file, snag, min. 5.5 12.44 66.22 Office aide Deliver ad to 'newspaper .25 8.89 2.22 Building Insp.III Review 5 24.11 10.06 TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTSt 161.05 a DIRECT MATERIALS AND SERVICES: -> Flat Rate for basic supplies (24% of a) 32.21 vther M&S .cormwon to all such services M & S Description Cost Total Cost 1 ad in Tigard Times 24.00 TOTAL M d S COST: 52.21 b SUBTOTAL (a & fir) 213.26 c INDIRECT OVERHEAD COSTS Departmental (105 x c) 21.33 City` (20% x c) _,42.66 ER EAD COST: 63.99 "TOTAL Off! d Fi MINIMUM FEE (S t- d) $277.25 MUTES AND SPECIAL C09TS: JM:bs 1O9 g r ' FEES AND CHARGES WORKSHEET '(1/86) GOODS AND SERVICE FEE —_REIMBURSEMENT .. ' NAME' Kellev Jennings FEE TITLE: Alarm Permit DATE: 8-29-84 713 SERVICE (6dhat is the service, and do a da it'?) Administering, processing, and enforecemnt of T.M.C. Ordinance 11.08" Burglary and Robbery Alarm System". SERVICE COSTS: DIRECT LABOR Position Title Activity Description Avg. Hrs. Net Wage Cast Captain Admi.nistering, ;proces— 33 27.33 9.02 sing & enforcement Word Processing Processing incoming .33 22.30 7.36 Manager. permit applications, ' and follow—uta corres— pondence. TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS: �Y16.38a DIRECT MATERIALS AND SERVICES. �' -- Flat Rate for badic supPl_ies (20% of a) 3.28 Other M&S common to all such services M & S Description Cast Total Cost Envelopes,; paper. 3 copy 2.53 permit forms, postage z TOTAL M & S COST 5.81 b SUBTOTAL (� & b); 22.19 c INDIRECT OVERHEAD COSTS Departmental (10% x C), 2.22 City (20% x-c) 4.44 TOTAL OVERHEAD COST: 6.66 d. MINIMUM FEE (r + d) $28.95 NOTES AERO SPECIAL COSTS: u JMi :bs1O9 9 FEES AND CHARGES WORKSHEET GOODS AND SERVICE FEE REDIBURSEME NT NAME: Frank Currie FEE TITLE: Blast Perm Fees DATE: 5-22-04 SERVICE (l Fiat is the service, and'° do we do it?% An evaluation of circumstances involved in the use City to ensure public safof explosives with the ety ,and welfare by limiting such use within;safe Sarae�eers as determined by the City Engineer and as set forth in Ord. No. SERVICE COSTS: DIRECT LABOR Position Title Activity Descrition P Avg. cars. fMet Wage Cost C,D. Deputy Dir. Review of Application C.D. Deputy Dir Site Inspection '5 2`?•bL 14.56 0A III TyTyping & Filing 5 12 14;56 .25 12:,3 3.23 DIRECT MATERIALS,AND � TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COST'S: 3?,_35 a SERVICES: Flat Rate far basic "supplies (20% of �) 6.47' r 011ier iwS cornttansa to all such services _ __ r S Description Cost Total 'Cost City Attorney,' 1 hr to review Insurance protections 50.00 TOTAL S COST: 7 b SUBTOTAL (a & b) egg 82 c INDIRECT OVERHEAT? COSTS Departmental (jo% x c) Cit` - �$.8F3 � (20% x c) 17.7 6 TOTAL OVERHEAD COST; - _26.6 4 a MINIMUM FEE (c d) 115.40 t NOTES AND SPECIAL COSTS: JIM bs 109 1 x 10 n :: FEES AND CHARGES WORKSHEET (1186) GOODS AND SE=RVICE EEE REIMBURSEMENT tiNAME- Elizabeth Newton FEE TITLE:: Com rehensive Plan Processing Text Only DATE: 3/86 SERVICE (S4s�at is the service, and ' do we do it?) Review, of amendments to the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan policies. Review and public hearing before Planning Commission and City Council are required by Community Development Code Section 18.32. SERVICE COSTS:_ DIRECT LABOR Position Title Activity Description Avg. Hrs. Net Wage Cost Comm. Dev.[�irector Rev. Staff Rep. , Mtg 1 31.30 31.30 Senior Planner Meetings, Staff Rept, 14 22.30 312.20 Clerk Typist 11 Set up file, mtg, min. 7 12.04 84.28 Office Managerm Mtg, Min. letter 2 7.2.30 A4.60 Office aide Deliver ad to newspaper .25 8.89 2.22 Either direct: responsibility or responsibilitiy of Department TOTAL DIRECT LABOR "C:aSTS 474.60 a a' — DIRECT MATERIALS AND SERVICES: Flat, Rate for basic supplies (20% of a) 94.92 _. Other M&S common to all such services M & S,Description Cast Total Cast 2 ads in Tigard Times @20.00 40.00 TOTAL M & S COST: 134.92 b SUBTOTAL (a & b) 609.52 c; P INDIRECT OVERHEAD COSTS � Departmental (10% x c) 60.95 City (20% x c) 121.90 l TOTAL OVERHEAD COST: 182.85 d MINIMUM FEE (c + d) $792.37 NOTES AND SPECIAL COSTS JM bs109 �� 11 t3:-� FEES AND CHARGES WORKSHEET (1/86) GOODS AND SERVICE .FEE —'REIMBURSEMENT .h~ NAME. Elizabeth Newton FEE TITLE: Comprehensive Plan Processing Map Only &Zone Change DATE: 3/86 SERVICE Qhat is the service', and Why do we do it?) Review of amendments to the City's ;adopted Comprehensive flan Map. Review and public hearings before Planning Commission and City Council are required by ,Community Development Code Section 18.32. SERVICE COSTS: DIRECT LABOR Position Title Activity Description Avg. Hrs. Net Mage Cost Comm. Dev.Director' Rev. Staff Regi. , Mtg 1.5 S1.30 46.95 Senior Planner Meetings, Staff Rept. 14 22.30 332.20 Clerk Typist' II Set tip file, mtg, min`. 7` 12.04 84.28 Notice Office Manager* MtS, Min. ;letter 2 22.30 44.60 Office aide Deliver ad to newspaper .25 8.89 2.22 Either direct responsibility or r-esponsibilitiy of Department TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS: 490.25 a DIRECT MATERIALS AND SERVICES: rlet Ratefor basic supplies (20% of a) 98.05 Other M&S common to all such services ' = M & S Description Cost Total Cost 2 ads in Tigard Times 20.00 40.00 TOTAL M & S COST: 138.05 b SUBTOTAL (a & b) 628.30 c INDIRECT OVERHEAD COSTS Departmental (10% x c) 62.83 City _ (20%_x c) 125.66 TOTAL OVERHEAD COST: 188.49 d MINIMUM FEE (c + d) $816.79 ROTES AND SPECIAL COSTS: _ i:bs1O9 12 -- s - SEES AND CHARGES WORKSHEET (1386) GOODS AND SERVICE FSE — REIMBURSEMENT ;.° ii EE TITLE: COM rehensive Plan Processing Both Text3 ;y & Maya OAT E: SERVICE (yr+had is the service, and do we do it?) g Review of amendments to dtee Text of the City`s Comprehensive Plan Map. .lir he before Planning Commission ti Review and pubnct City council are required by Community Developfssent Carie Section 18.3?_. SERVICE COSTS: DIRECT LABO#3-- Position Title Activity Description Aug. firs. Net Wage Cost § 2 31.30 62.60 Corm. Deu.Director Rev. Staff Rex ., Mtg 22.30 312.20 senior Planner Meetings, Staff Rept. 14 12.04 84.28 Clerk Typist ZI Set file, mfg, min. 7 22.30 44.60 Office Manager Mtg, Min. letter, ad 2 8 99 2.22 Office aide Deliver ad to newspaper .25 Eimer direct responsibility or responsibi.litiy of Department TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS: 505.90 a DIRECT 141ATERIALS AND SERVICE—Stup101.18 Flat Rate for basic supplies (20 of a) Mu; Other M&S common to all surto servicesTotalTotal Cast M & s Description 2 ads in Tigard Times 20.00 40.00 TOTAL M & S COST: 141.18 b SUBTOTAL ( F b) 647.08 c INDIRECT OVERHEAD COSTS 64`.71 Departmental (10% x c) 129._42 City (20% x c) 194.13 d TOTAL OVERHEAD COST: MINIMUM FEE (� + d) — 841'21 < NOTES AND SPECIAL COSTS 3E°i:bs 109 a5 d us . 33- F a ='a FEES AND CHARGES WORKSHEET (1/86) GOODS AND SERVICE FEE — 'REIMBURSEMENT : lA3`gE: Elizabeth Newton FEE TITLE: Zane Change Processing - DATE: 3/96 SERVICE (What is the service, and Yhj do we do it?) Review of changes to the City's adopted zoning map. Review by Planning staff and public hearing before Planning Commission required in Section 18.32 Community Development Code. SERVICE COSTS: 01PECT LABOR Position Title Activity Description Aug. Hrs. Net Wage Cost` Comim. Dev.Director Rev.& sign Staff Rep. 1 31.30 31.30 Senior Planner Meetings, Staff Rept. 12 22.30 267.60 Clerk Typist II Set up file, mtg,,min. 5.5 12.04 66.22 Office aide Deliver ad, to newspaper- .25 8.89 2.22 Either direct responsibility or rresponsibilitiy of Department'' TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS: 367.64 a DIRECT MATERIALS AND SERVICES: Flat Rate for basic supplies (20% of a) 73.53 Other M&S common to all such services M &` S Description Cost Total Cost 1 ad in Tigard Times 20.00 TOTAL M & S COST: 93.53 b SUBTOTAL (a & b) 461.17 c INDIRE& OVERHEAD COSTS Departmental (10% x c) 46.12 City (20% x c) 92.23 TOTAL OVERHEAD COST: 135.35 d MINIMUM FEE (c + d) $599.35 NOCES AND SPECIAL COSTS: 3M.,bsaO9 14 - FEES AND CHARGES WORKSHEET (1/86) GOODS AND SERVICE - REIMBURSEMENT E�lAME: £lizk�eth Newton FEE TITLE: Zone Chances Annexations DATE: 3/86 SERVICE ,(` hat is the service, and � do we do it?) 6t of zoning designations to Review Of Review of annexations and assignmef ear n before Planning ed. ' Review and public property to be annex `� ore and City Counci sii'e5li:bsia.'`A -1 -rewired under Cha 18.136 of .the Community =.. nev2 iopment Code. SERVICE COSTS: DIRECT LABO Position Title Activity Description Avg. 'Hrs. Net Wage Cost 22.30 133.80 Sesta, Planner Sign Staff Rep. Meetings 6 12.04 £6.22 Meetings, Minutes, file 5a�; 22. 0 11.15 Cl r Ty ?ist II Office Manager Meeting, Minutes Letters to Agencies 16 12.9,3 206.88 OA III 12 8.89 106.68 Office aide Census r524.73 2 TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS: DIRECT MATERIALS AND SERVICES 104.95 Flit Rate for basic su�splies (20% of a.) Other M&S common o all such services to (� & S,DeseriF+tissi� Cost Total Cosi 2 ads in Tigard Times 20.00 40.00 TOTAL M & S COST: 144 °o SUBTOTAL (a & b) — 669_.68 c 1fjDjk ECT OVERHEAD COST'S ^9 97 Departmental (10% x c) 133.94 a City (20% x c) TOTAL OVERHEAD COST: 200.91• c 870.5'4. MINIMUM FEE (c a- NOTES; AND SPECIAL COSTS: jm.bs109 F2" FEES, AND CHARGES WORKSHEET (1/86) GOODS AND SERVICE FEF — REIMBURSEMENT EE TITLE: Zane Orc�irtance Amendment NAME: Elizabeth Newton F � DAVE: SERVICE (What is the service, anddo we do it?) . . Review amendments to the 'Community Development 'Code. Re` ew and public. hearings before Planning Commission and City Council required in Ciaapter 18:32 of the Commun ty Development Code. aEi2i ICE COSTS* DIRECT?LABOR PositionTitle Activity Description Avg fors. Net Wage Cast I 31.30 31.30' Comm. Deu.Director Review Recos m. Mtg 22.30 7E3.05 5nior Planner prepare Recomm. tugs 3.5 Clark Typist II Set up file, type' Rapt.' S 12. 4 6C➢.2p' office Manager* Meeting, Minutes 1.75 22.30 39.03 Office aide Census .25 8.89 2.22 Either direct responsibility or resporssif,iliiy of 'Department 210.$0 TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS: a DIRECT MATERIALS AND SERVICES: 42.?� Flat Rate for basic Supplies (20% of a) Ocher t' S common��. to all such services M d�'S Description Cost Total Cost 2 ads in Tigard Times 20.00 40.00 TOTAL M & S COST: 82.10 b SUBTOTAL. (a & b) 292.96 c INDIRECT OVERHEAD COSTS 29.30 Departmental (10% x c) 58 59 F City (20% x c) ------- TOTAL OVERHEAD COST: 87.89 d MINIMUM FEE (c a d) 3fl0:85 MOTES AND SPECIAL COSTS: z JM:bsI09 f 16 FEES AND CHARGES V40RKSHEET (1'/86) GOODS AND SERVICE FEE — :REISBURSEMENT NAME: Elizabeth Newton S=EE TITLE: Planned Development Processing (Conceptual} 3�ATE: 3 '86 SERVICE (What is the service, and Why do we do it?) Rr%v*ew of Planned Development proposals. Review and public hearings on :Planned Development proposal 'required by Section 18.32 and 18.80 of the Community Development Code. SERVICE COSTS: DIRECT LABOR Position Title Activity Description Avg`: firs. Net :Sage Cosh Comm. Dev Director Rev.& Approv.Staff Rep. 5 31.30 15.65 Senior Planner Meetings, Staff Rep. 11 22.30 245.30 ,Clerk Typist TI Set up file, Mtg Min. 7 12.04 84.28 Office aide Deliver ad to newspaper 25 8.69 2.22 Eng Mgr.. Review 3 22.30 66.90 Building Insp. III Review .50 20.11 10.06 TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS: 424_41 a DIRECT MATERIALS AND SERVICES: Flat Rate For basic supplies (20% of a) 84.88 Other PSS common to all such services— S� S Description Cost Total Cost 1 ;d in Tigard Times 20.00 TOTAL M 6 S COST: 104.88 b SUBTOTAL (a & b) 529.29 c INDIREC=T OVERHEAD COSTS; Departmental (10% x c) 52.93 City (20% x c), 105.86 TOTAL OVERHEAD COST: 158:79 d MINIMUM EEE (c + d) $688.08 SHOTES .AND SPECIAL COSTS: - :bs 1C�9 17 PON m FEES AND CHARGES WORKSHEET (1/96) GOODS AND SERVICE FEE - REIMBURSEMENT ...�;` NAME- Elizabeth newton FEE TITLE: Planned_Devel-o Development Processi.n S (Detailed) DATE* 3/86 SERVICE (ghat is the service, and do we do it?) Planning Director review of Detailed Plans for Planned Developments. Review by Planning Director required in Chapter 18.80 of the Community Development Code. SERVICE COSTS: DIRECT LABOR � Position Title Activity Description Avg. Firs. Net Wage Cost � comm. Dev.Director Review & Approve Plans 50 31.343 15.6comm. Senior'Planner Review of Mat 1 22.30 22.30 Clerk Typist II Set up file, Send out 4 12.04 48.16 Decision Office aide Deriver ad to newspaper .25 8.89 2.22` Eng kklr. Review 3 22.30 66.90 Building Insp.; III 'Review .75 7.0.11 15.00 `. TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS: 17_0.31 a DIRECT MATERIALS AND SERVICES: :. Flat ;late for basic supplies (20% of a) 34.06 Other M&S common to all such servicesy S1 & :S Description cost Total Cost 1 ad in Tigard Times 20.00 TOTAL M & S COST: 54.06 b SUBTOTAL b) 224.37 c INDIRECT OVERHEAD COSTS Departmental (10% x c) 22.44 city (20% x c) 44.87 TOTAL OVERHEAD COST: 67.31 d s MINIMUM FEE (E + d) 291.68 NOTES AND SPECIAL COSTI t JM:bsl.09 " Bpi 1 � FEES AND CHARGES WORKSHEET (1/86) GOODS. AND SERVICE FEE - REIMBURSEMENT j- .. NAME: Elizabeth �Jewtore FEE TITLE: Conditional Use Processih� DDAT'E: 3/86 SERVICE (f hat is the service, and Why do we do it?) Review of Conditional Use Permit requests. Review and hearing before Hearing Officer required under Chapter 18.13U of the Community-Development Code. SERVICE COSTS, DIRECT LABOR Position Title Activity.Description Aug. Hrs. Net Wage Cost Comm. Dev.Directcr Rev.& Approu,Staff Rep. .25 31.30 7.83 Senior Planner Meetings`, Staff Rep.` 5 22,30 111.50 Clerk Typist II Set upfile, Staff Rep. 3 12.0! x.12 Office Bide Deliver ad to newspaper .25 8.89 2.22 Building Insp, 'III Review ,25 20.11 5.03 TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS: 362.70 a DIRECT MATERIALS AND SERVICES: Flat Rate for basic supplies (20% of a) 32.54 Other MtS common to all such services M & ;S Description Cost Total Cost 1 aid in Tigard Times 20.00 Hearings Officer 2.5 hours 50.00 125.04 TOTAL M & S COST: 177.54 b SUBTOTAL & b) 340.24 c INDIRECT OVERHEAD COSTS Departmental (10% x c) 34.02 City (20% x ,c) 68,05 r, TOTAL OVERHEAD COST: 102.07 d MINIMUM FEE (C + d) $442.31 le NOTES AND SPECIAL COSTS: j i JM*bs1O9 19 _. +i 3 FEES AND CHARGES WORKSHEET (1/86) GOODS AND SERVICE EEE — REIMBURSEMENT NAME: Elizabeth Newton FEE TITLE: Temporarj 4! DATE SERVICE (What is the service, and lih do we do it?) x q i Review of Temporary Use requests for more than 3 months or less by the Planning Director. SERVICE COSTS: DIRECT LABOR Pas ion Title Activity Description Avco. Hrs. Met adage- Cost Comm. Dev.Director Rev.& Approv.Staff Rep. 25 31.30 7.83 Asst. 'Planner Review & Write Rep. 1.5 16.54 24.81 Clerk Typist II Set up file, Staff Rep. 4 12.434 49.16 TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS: DIRECT MATERIALS AND SERVICES: Flat Rate for basic supplies (20% of a) 16.16 ;L Other M&S common to all such services Y� M & S Description Cost Total Cost TOTAL M S COST: 16.16 b SUBTOTAL (a & b) 96.36 c INDIRECT OVERHEAD COSTS Departmental (10% x c) 9.70 City, (20% x c)' _ 13.33 } TOTAL OVERHEAD COST: 29.03 � MINIMUM FEE (c + d) $126.05 NOTES AND SPECIAL COSTS Cost assumes:no newspaper ad. ` JM:ass109 20 - FEES AND CHARGES WORKS14EET (1/86) GOODS AND SERVICE FEE — REIMBURSEMENT .: NAME Elizabeth lmewton FEE TITLE: TemcsMr Use Processing DATE: 3185 SEF:VICE (;rl is the service, and Lhj des we do it?) Review of Temporary Use requests for more than 3 months by the City Council. SER�JiCE COSTS: DIRECT LABOR Position Title Activity Description Avg. Hrs. Net Plage Cosi Comm. De+r.Directoe Rev:& Apps•ov.Staff Rep. `.25 31.30 7.A3 Asst. Planner Review & Write Rep. 1.5 16.54 24.81 Clerk typist II Setup file, Staff Rep. 5 X2.04 60.2Q Office Manager Meeting, Mins letter .5 22.3Q 11,15 Office aide Deliver ad to newspaper .25 8.69 2.22 y Building Insp. III Review 25 20.11 5.00 � TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS. 2a 11.2 a DIRECT MATERIALS AND '.SERVICES: 22,2 , 'Flat Rate for basic Supplies (2O� of a) Other m&,S common to all such services Cost Total Cost �M & S Description 1 ad in Tigard Times 20.00 TOTAL M & S COST: 42.23 b SUBTOTAL (a & b) 153.52 c INDIRECT OVERHEAD COSTS 15 3 Departmental (10% x c} 30.70 City (20% x c) ---- TOTAL OVERHEAD COST: 46.05 d MINIMUM FEE (c +.. d) —1199.57 MOTES AND SPECIAL COSTS: D'M-.bsl09 �, 21 FEES AND CHARGES v.ORKSHEET '(1/86)' �. GOODS ;AND SERVICE FEE - REI.MBURSEMEN f NAME- Elizabeth IFewtora FEE TITLE: Variance—Administrative DEtTE 3186 SERVICE QLh t is the service, and do we can it?) Code: requirements On Of 'requests for variances to Development. existing lots of record. Review by Planning Director requied in r Review, Community Development. Chapter, 19.134. a SERVICE CGSD-1L DIRECT LABOR y Description Avg. Hrs. Net Wage Cost position Title Activit rnv.Staff Rep. .25 31.30 7.€F3 Con,M, 13ev.Director Rev.& App 4 22.30 89.20 Senior Planner Review &' Write Rep. 12.04 24.09 Clerk Typist Ii Set up file, Staff Rep. 2 22.30 22.30 Ener. Ver. Review 1 ? TOTAL_ DIRECT LABOR COSTS; 143.41 d DIRECT MATERIALS AND SERVICES: 28.58 Flat Rate for basic supplies (20% of a); Other M&S 'commo a to all such services Total Cost M & S Description 5 : r 28.68 b TOTAL F i S COST: -- 172.09 c SUBTOTAL (a & b) -- INDIRECT OVERHEAD COSTS 1T.2i DepaIrtmental (10% x c) 34 42_ City (20% x C) _� , TOTAL OVERHEAD'.COST: 51 63 d. .� MINIMUM FEE (c + d) X223.72 k= NOTES AND SPECIAL COSTS. , Costs' assume no newspaper ad, F== 'rpt JM-.bslog r, 22 FEES AND CHARGES U3 RKSHEET (1/86) GOODS AND SERVICE FEE - REIMBURSEMENT : NAME: Elizabeth NewtonFEE TITLE: Sensitive Lands-Floodplain# HATE: 3/96 SERVICE (What is the service, and � do we do it?-) Review of requests to alterthe topography within the 100 year floodplain. Review of requests and engineering calculations and determination of impacts by Planning Director and Public Works Director required under Chapter 18.84 of the Community Development Code. SERVICE:COSTS: DIRECT LABOR Position Title Activity Description Avg. Firs. Net Wage Cost Comm. Dev:Director Rev.Submittal St !den. .25 31.30 7.83 Senior Planner Review;' Staff Reis. 3 19.12 57.36 k' Clerk Typist II Set up file, Staff Reis. 5 12.04 60.20 �•" City Engr'; Review 6 29.13 174.72 .50 20.11 10.06 Building Insp. III Review 'j TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS: 310.17 a , DIRECT MATERIALS AND SERVICES: T Flat Rate for basic supplies (20% of a) 62.03 Other to all.,such services F„er M&S. co,cion M & S Description Cost Total Cost 1 ad in Times 20.00 Hearings Officer 2.5 hrs $50/hr 125.00 TOTAL M & S COST: 197.03 a SUBTOTAL (a & b) 497.20 c INDIRECT OVERHEAD CASTS Departmental (10% x c) 49.72_ City (20% x c) 99.44 TOTAL OVERHEAD COST: 149.16 d MINIMUM FEE (c' + d) _�;ainb�3b t NOTES AND SPECIAL COSTS: � =�tF Costs assume no newspaper ad or Hearings Officer Review ,tM:fps 109 - 23 - FEES AND CHARGES WORKSHEET (1/86) GOODS AND SE=RVICE FEE — REIMBURSEMENT NAME. Elizabeth Newton TITLE: Sensitive Lands—Adasinist.# DENTE: 3386 SERVICE (L4hl at' is the service, and L4h do we do it?) Review of requests to alter the topography in wetlands or steep slope area. Review of requests and determination of impact by Public Works � Directopr and Planning Director required under Cheaper 18.84 of the Community Development Code.SERVICE COSTS: + Y - DIRECT LABOR Position Title activity €3escri ion Avg. Hrs. Net Wage Cost Comm. Dev'.Director Rev.Submittal & St. Rep. .50 31.30 15.65 Scf oe—o . 3 � • Clerk Typist II Set up file, Staid Rep. 4 12.04 48.16 City Engr. Review 4 29.12 116.48 Suilling, Insp. III Review; .25 20.11 5.03 TOTAL 'DIRECT LABOR COSTS: 229_:32 a M DIRECT MATERIALS AND SERVICES .x` Flat Fate` for basic supplies (20% of a) 45,98 Other M&S common to all such services M &,S Description Cost Total Cost TOTAL M & S COST: _45.98 kr SUBTOTAL (a & b) 275.90 c INDIRECT OVERHEAD COSTS , Departmental (10% x .c) 27.59 City (20% x c) 55.18 TOTAL OVERHEAD COST: 82.77 d MINIMUM FEE (c + d) X358.67 ryi, 1777 NOTES AND SPECIAL COSTS: _ . .. '' Costo' assume no newspaper au " 24 5, a FEES AND CHARGES WORKSHEET (1196) GOODSAND SERVICE=FEE - REIMBURSEMENT NAME. Elizabeth Newton FEE TITLE: Site Bev. Review Processing DATE 3/06 SERVICE (What is the' service, and Mthy do we do it?) Review of site plans for all new development ex cep( single family homes and a duplex which is not part of any other development review by Planning Director is required in Cheater 19.120 of the Code. SERVICE COSTS: DIRECT LABOR Position Title Activity Description Aug. airs. Net Wage' Cost Comm. Dow Director Rev:.& Approv. Staff Rep. .33 31.30 10.33 Senior Planner Review, Staff Rep. 3 22.30 155.10 Clerk Typist II Set up f il£, Staff Rep, 4 12.04 48.16 Engr. Mrg. Review 3 22.30 66.90 Building Insp III Review .50 20. 11 TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS: 291.55 a DIRECT MATERIALS AND SERVICES: Flat Mate for basic supplies (20% Of a) 59.31 Other 1',&S Common to all such services M & S Description Cost Total Cost i' ad in Tigard Times 20.00 TOTAL M & S COST: 78.31. a SUBTOTAL (a & b) 369:96 c INDIRECT OVERHEAD COSTS Departmental (10% K) 36.99 City (20% x 'c) 73.97 a TOTAL OVERHEAD COST: 110.96 d MINIMUM FEE (c + d) _��8Q.82 NOTES AND SPECIAL COSTS JM•tis109 i 25 FEES AND CHARGES WORKSHEET (1/96) GOODS AND SERVICE FEE - REIMBURSEMENT � itF�E: Elizabeth Newton TITLE: Minor Land Spar :-l9orz-t2esid DATE: 3.796 SERVICE (Whet is the service, and Whydo we do it?) Review of partitioning of non-residentially zoned land into 3 or fewer ;parcels without the creation of a pudic right-ref-way: Review by Planning Dircctor is required in Chapter 18.162 of the Community Development Code. SERVICE COSTS: DIRECT' LABOR Position Title Activity Description Avg: Sirs. Net Huge Cost Comm Dev.0irector Rei .& Approv. Staff Rep. .33 31.30 10.33 Senior Manner Review, Staff Rep. 4 22.30 89.20 Clem Typist II Set ups file, Staff Rep. 4 12:04 4iD,1S Emgr. r. Review � 22.30 44.60 Buildin Insp. III Review 25 20.11 5.03 L TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS: 117.32 a � DIRECT MATERIALS AND SERVICES: L: -, Flat Rate for basic supplies (20% of a) 31. 46 Other M&S common 40 all such services .ate! & S Description Cost Total Cast € I ad in Tigard Times 26.00; TOTAL M & S COST: 59.46 b SUBTOTAL (a & b) 256.78 c 'r INDIRECT OVER14EAD COSTS Departmental (10% x r_) 25.68 is City (20`,G x c) 51.367 TOTAL OVERHEAD COST: � 77.04 d MINIMUM FEE (c d) $333.82 NOTES AND SPECIAL. COSTS JM:bs IO9 t�Y i _. 26 "FEES AND CHARGES WORKSHEET (1/96) GOODS AND SERVICE FEE - REIMBURSEMENT NAME: Elizabeth Newton FEE TITLE: 1inor Land Partition-Residue DATE: 3/96 SERVICZ (what is the service, and !Lhj do we do it?) Review of partitioning of residentially zoned land into 3 or- fewer parcels without the creation of a 'public right-of--way. Review by Planning fr Director is required in Chpater 18.162 of the Community Development Code. SERVICL. COSTS: DIRECT LABOR � Position Title Activity Description Avg. Firs. Net'Wage Cost C.)mm. Dev.Director' Rev.& Approv. Staff Rep. 33 31:30 10.33 SeniorPlanrfer Review, Staff Rep. 4 22.30 £39.20 Clerk Typist II Set up file, Staff Rep. 4 12:04 48.16 Engr, Mrg. Review 2 22`.30 44.60 euIilding Insp. IIIReview .25 20:71 5. 33 TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS: 197.32.'a DIRECT MATERIALS AND SERVICES: Flat"Ratan for basic supplies (20% of a) 39.46 Y Otner'M&S common to all such services pi & S Description Cast' Total Cost 1 ,ad in Tigard Times 20.00 TOTAL M & S COST: 59.46 b SUBTOTAL (a & b) 256.78 c INDIRECT OVERHEAD COSTS Departmental (10% x c) 25.68 City (20% w c) ^51.36 TOTAL OVERHEAD COST: 77.04 d ("1'I :I{RilM FEE (c + ) V ,331 82 DOTES AND SPECIAL COSTS: TM:b s 109 27 "- FEES AND CHARGES WORKSHEET (1/86) GOODS AND SERVICE FEE — REIMBURSEMENT NAME: Elizabeth Newton FEE TITLE: ,mor Land Partition DATE* 3/86 SERVICE Q4h;3at is the service, and Why do we do it?) Review of partitioning of land into 3 or fewer parcels and with the creation of a public right—of-u:ay. Review by Planning Director is required.in Chpater 18.162 of the Community Develo�snent.Code. " SERVICE COSTS, DIRECT LABOR �e Position Title Activity Description Aug. Hrs. Net !Plage Cast Comm. Dev:Director Rev.a ApprovStaff Rep. 33 31.30 10.33. ` Senior Planner Review,` Staff Rep., 4 22.30 89.20 " Clark Typist II` Get up file, Staff Rep. 4 12.04 48.16 Engr. Mgr;'. Review2 22.30 44.60 Building Insp. III Review 25 20.11 5.03 ` TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS: 197.32 a t DIRECT MATERIALS AMUSERVICES: ;.v Flat Rate for basic supplies (20% of a) 39.46 Other M&S common to all such services M S' Description Cost Total Cost 1 ad in Tigard Thies 20.00 � . TOTAL M & S COST: 59.46 b SUBTOTAL (a & b) 256.78 c " INDIRECT" OVERHEAD COSTS � Departmental (10% x ) 25.68 Cit; (20% x V) 51.36 TOTAL OVERHEAD COST: 77.04 d MINIMUM FEE'(c f d) $333.82 NOTES AND SPECIAL COSTS F 28 ; G s S"EES AND CHARGES WORKSHEET (1/86) GOODS AND SERVICE FEE — REIMBURSEMENT Pdt�tE: Elixaitra3etaton — FEE TITLE: Subdivision—Preliminary Plat DATE 86 :SERVICE (l3hat is the service, and Why do we do it'?) Resxiew of creation of ;our or, More bats itpublic r°nea hoot t before creationhe Planning public right-oma way, Review and Cs��+�miss§.on required .under Chapter 18,163 of 'the Community Development Code. SEPVICE COSTS: DIRECT LABOR r Activity Description p Avg Hrs. stet Wage Cost position Title _ 'it .33 31,30 10.33 Coniay. Dev.63irector Rev.&' Approv. Staff Rep. 22.30 200.70 Senior Planner Set Staff Rep. ,Mtg. 9 12.04 54.18 Ci-ris Typist II Set up file, Staff Rep; 3.25 8.'89 2.22 Office 'Bide Deliver ad to newspaper 3 22.30 66.90 Error. ter. Review ,25 20:13 5.03 Buildarsg Insp. IFI Review TOTAL_ DIRECT LABOR COSTS: ___33__9_0_36 a pxRECT MATERIALS AND SERVICES: 67.87 Flit Rate for basic supplies (20% of a) Other M&S common tri all such services Cost' Total Cost M & S Description 1 ad in Tigard Times 20,00 TOTAL M & S COST: ?•87 b SUBTOTAL (a & b) 427.23 c INDIRECT OVERHEAD COSTS q` 2 72 Departmental _(10% x _) 85_.45 City (20%>x c) TOTAL OVERHEAD COST: 128.1717 d MINIMUM FEE (c + d) ��555.40 i 4 NOTES AND SPECIAL COSTS! x R1:bs109 y G FEES. ASCD CHARGES WORVSHEET (1186) GOODS AND SERVICE FEE — REIMBURSEMENT NAME: Elizabeth Newton FFE TITLE: Sub.Partition—Fina _Plat Plat HATE: 3166 SERVICE (What is the service, and why do we do it?) Review of Final Subdivision plat for conformance with approved preliminary Director is required under Chapter 18.160 of the plat. Review by Planning Community Development Code. SERVICE COSTS: DIRECT LABOR Position Title Activity Description Avg. Hrs. Net Ware Cash Senior Planner Review 1 22.30 22.30 Engr. Mgr. Review 3 22.30 56.90 City Ener. Review & Sign .25 29.12 7.28 Comm. Dev.Director ; Review & Sign .25 31:30 7.83 Bldg. Insp. III Review 25 20:11 5.03 TOTAL DIRECT' LABOR COSTS: 109.34 a DIRECT MATERIALS AND SERVICES: Flat Rate for basic supplies (20% of a) 20.23 Other M&S common to all such services m & S Description Cost Total Cost TOTAL M & S COST: 20.23 b SUBTOTAL (a & b) 129.57 c INDIRECT OVERHEAD COSTS Departmental (10% x c) 12.96 City (20% x c) 25.91 TOTAL OVERHEAD COST: 38.87 d MINIMUM FEE (c + d) $168.44 NOTES AND SPECIAL COSTS } JM.bs109 30 FEES AND CHARGES WORKSHEET (1/96) GOODSAND SERVICE FEE REIMBURSEi UM I NAME: E1i�zabeth Newton FEE TITLE: Agpeal of Director's Decision �~ to Planning. Commission DATE: 3/86 SERVICE (What is the service, and H1hv do we do it?) Review and processing of are appeal of a Planning Director's decision to the Planning Commission. Review and processing of appeals is required in Chanter 38.32 of the Community Development Code. SERVICE COSTS: DIRECT LABOR Position Title Activit} Description Aug. Hrs. Net Wage Cost bocsm. Dev.iDirec:tor Meet w/aappl, Recomm 1.5 31.30 46.95 Serdo- Planner Review, Meetinq 3 22.30 66.30 Clerk Typist II Surrounding Prop. owner 4 32.04 48.16 Office Aide Deliver ad to newspaper .25 8.84 2.22 TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS: 164.23 a DIRECT MATERIALS AND SERVICES: Flat Rate for basic supplies (20% of a) 32.85 Other' M&S common to all such services M 6 S Description Cost Total Cost 1 ad are Tigard Times 20.00 TOTAL M & S COST: 52.85 b i ' SUBTOTAL (a & b) 217.08 c a . INDIRECT OVERHEAD COSTS Departmental (10% x c) 21.31 Citi (20e x,c) 43.42 TOTAL OVERREAD COST: 65.13 d MINIMUM FEE (c + d) $132.21 NOTES ANDSPECIAL COSTS:, JM:b5309 s' e :3 r w FEES AND CHARGES WORKSHEET (1l86) GOODS AND SERVICE FEE - REIMBURSEMENT 9iAeRE: Elizabeth iewton t:EE TITLE: Appeal of Cor 40 Decision to City Council DATE. :1f85 _-_ .; SERVICE (What is the service. and �tX do we do it?) Review, and processing of an appeal of a Planning Director's decision to the Planning Commission. Review and processing of appeals is required in : Chapter 18.32 of the Community Development Code. Sc..RVI:GE COST,: DIRECT LABOR Position Title Activity Description Avg. Hrs. Net Wage Cost comm., O=�ts.l�irector Recomm. , Meeting 1.a 31.30 4b.95 Senior, Planner Prepare Reeomm. 1 22.30 22.30 Clem Typist LI Surrounding Prop. owner 2 12.04 24.08 Office Manager`� Meeting, min. , Ord. 2 22.30 44.60 Office nide Deliver ad to newspaper .25 8.89 Either direct responsibility or responsibility of department TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS: 140.15 a DIRECT MATERIALS AND SERVICES. _ Flat Rate for- basic supplies (20% of a) 28.03 Other M&S common to all such services M m' S DescriptioCost Total Cost 1 ad in Tigard 'Times 20.00 TOTAL M & S COST: 48.03 b SUBTOTAL ( & b) 188.18 c INDIRECT OVERHEAD COSTS Departmental (10% x C) City (20% x Cj 37.64 k TOTAL OVERHEAD COST: 54.46 d MINIMMM FEE (c + d) $244,64 NOTES AND SPECIAL COSTS: 3M:ins 109 32 FEES AND CHARGES WORKSHEET (1/86) GOODS AND SERVICE 'EEE -'REIMBURSEMENT a NAME: Loreen Wilson FEE TITLE: VaLcat ions/Streets and Public Areas ' DATE: 3-10-86 SERVICE (What is the service, and k h� de we do it?) Wheneuer owners of property request the Vacating of public property for private use, a formal process must be rgone through. (Ord. 95-01, TMC 15:08) Applicant" is responsible for all costs '(hard and soft) incurred in process and is billed by City ,Recorder. SERVICE C'-' STS DIRECiT LABOR Position Title Activity Description Avg. Hrs. Net Wage Cost Support Svc. Nor Initial Meeting 1 22.30 22.30 Support Svc.,Mgr. Check petitions 1 22.30 22.30 Support S+ac. Mgr. letter to owners 5 22.30 11.15 Support Svc. 'M9r. Public notice (work) .5 22.30 11.15 Support Svc. '`(9r. 2.Council mtg--peep/pies 1` 22.36? 22.3'3 Support Svc. Bir. follow up w/people 1 22`.30 22.30 Support Svc. Mgr. , prep. record for record 1 22.30 22.30 OA 1 F/T Ads to paper 25 10.48 2.62 Either direct responsibility or responsibility of department TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS: 136.42 a DIRECT €ATERIALS''AND SERVICES: Flat Rate for basic supplies (20% of a) 27.28 Other M&S common to all such services M 8 Description Cost Total Cost Advertising cast ad for 5 weeks this is charged on a direct cost basis in addition to labor TOTAL M & S COST: 27.28 b SUBTOTAL ( & b) 163.70 c INDIRECT OVERHEAD COSTS Departmental (10% x c) 16.37 City (20% x c) 32.74 e TOTAL OVERHEAD COST: 49.11 d MINIMUM FEE (c + d) X212.81* NOTES AND SPECIAL COSTS: Dees not include Ad cost, recording and other departments' involvement. (City ' Engineer, Community Development Director,' Engineering Services, and Planning Commission) JM:bs IO9 -' 33 - FEES AND CHARGES WORKSHEET (1/86) GOODS AND SERVICE FEE — REIMBURSEMENT NAME. Sand Cl rno FEE TITLE, Street/Lars: Dedication �•. (Compliance Agrsnt. Prbj. Fee) t1ATE: 2d86 E.G. 1000` of street SERVICE (What. is the service, andWhy do we do it?) Whenever ott!nars of ,preperty request the Vacating of public property for private use, a fool process must be gorse through. t SERVICE COSTS:: DIRECT LABOR, Cost Posi�tis3r:: TitleActivityDescription Avg. Hrs. Net gage .; Tech 111 Review & Approval 10 2O.i1 201.1© Tech II Inspection 50 17.30 865.00 Tech II System Mapping update 5 17.30 103.80 'r Either ,direct responsibility or responsibility of department TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS: 1169.90 a ;; DISSECT MATERIALS AND SERVICES. � Flat "Rate for basic supplies (20% of a) 233.98 � Othes SSS connon to all such services �. €'t & .8 Description Cost Total Cost Transportation 60.00 TOTAL M & S COST: 293.98 b SUBTOTAL (a & S_i) 1463.88 c INDIRECT OVERHEAD COSTS Departmental (10% x c) 146.39 City (205 x c) 292.7E TOTAL OVERHEAD COST: 439.17 d MINIMUM FEE (c + d) _$1903.05 NOTES AND SPECIAL COSTS: we would collect' approx. $2400 at our'current rate for a project this size. Tom.:bs 109 `f 34 — i FEES AND CHARGES WORKSHEET (1.186) Fy COORS AND SERVICE 'F E — REIMBURSEMENT �' f SAME: Elizabeth fjewton FEE TITLE: Flea. Setbac-k Stds.- .Dev-LotS* � W . DATE: 3/86 SERVICE (What- is the service, and Why do we do it?) Reuiew of request for fle'xib e set back standards on developed lots.. � Review and decision by Manning' Director requir d in Chapter'18-:146 of the ' Community Development Code. ;. SERVICE (::ABI's' DIRECT LABOR Position Title Activity Description A,ig. Hrs'. "Tuet gage mcost � Comm. fDev.. .Director Review & App.. Staff Rep _.25 31 30 7,.,83 Senior Planner Review, write Report 1 22.30 :22..30 �. Clem Typist 11 Set up file, type :Rep• 3 12_04 36..12 E.r r.Mrd. Review 50 .22..3.0 11.15 Building Insp. .III Review' .25 20.11 �s. TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS,, 22,A3 a � DIRECT _PIATERTALa AVD SFRV'MES. Flat Rate for basic supplies (20% of ) 16..49 Other MG cocoon to all such services M & S Description Cort Total Cost u _ ;v TOTAL M & S MST- '16. 19 b SUBTOTAL {a & 96..92 c INDIRECT OVERHEAD COSTS g Departmental (10% x c M.9 City (20% x c) 39.7(3 TOTAL OVERHEAD COST: 29..67 d MINIMUM FEE (•c + d) $128.59 W% TES AND SPECIAL COSTS. — Costs assui to no newspaper ads. n l:BS 130 F y F7 4 iF'.EES =AND ',CHARGES WORKSHEET ITIYY Os;� "GOODS SAND .SERVICE =REE-- i2E]i�tLiE3L25"E�tEi�lT ' A "Rvetla� AME.: E:La�zibeth ��$uiI ort 46]istr:3Ct -3146 BATTE EVTCE {t�a4#amt Ash� s�rusz�*.. -anis a tip+iew =cry tert" ns• �c3datisares ,denail�tions to istrcactures tion s:i�t�s or s bh # Hsr,ac D�° actt +axrry.. Reetaeu� ,end Reablac rHecss �t° afoa e I t ski s: �r !�-equared'<.Un zr kChapter of --the tCa� sarrita� tF3�v�lcaga ent icade. �ERSf�C'iE ta;€�1SiE5:: :f} RECT t AG€ Mrs. I11et'Wuase "Cost ;r�rrs� a:r�r -T-I le Ac.tiu.aty E7. .scri�rtion .Avg. Re�r.,1�Ulrate':StfiF ? �.:Mtg 22..4D 1,33-SB© ;�sri�.ar .E'�nr�er n: Ymet ' ai7a fKA:C3ahk S1 °lg :C?Ffa e € aiie rDela:a;er rzxd`i;o irrewspuper 25 'ZO-1131 '5:03 'TOTAL fD�€2ECT ;LABOR �CCSTS.: 5..<23_�a 4Du:I�ECT hATEfrT�A"' A S-c- V �`ES r„% ,T ;3�`.-n-5 c rvm..✓� �.-...------- r; Fl t a Tor i�Eks-Ic s�4i�3�"sad N a �� Citi; 5 cowman �o �7 i tzuc!h ,.. -:� S,esuraotion Cyst Tata1 ;C�st In 1,�;cg.atm itiac�es �2t7?i7U Tf'(2TAL.'@'i 4,:5 (COSIF.' 54•f35—Ib :JTM SIRECT OVEITME D gZOSTS 25..•A3 l�Arsen ,�RF3 aX ,c) 50. f .�#6 TC3TAL. :.OVERHE V (COST: -53...28 i3 sf f,.,ql [T1!um sFEE (c + (A) 307..`57 OTS EAItgr1 :3pECT-AL tCOSTS-' L. k- �r a. r yy Y- �V , 1. 'FEES' ND CCHARG:S:1 RKSHEET-1', -Z6) -SERVICE�F'EF.—FREIrIBURSEMENT E1<.izaE l6th N ot4ton 4'FF_E'ITITLE-"Tree:Ra yr tl Per,=l.t ' F DATE .SERVICE 1,(!gtAt pis ,tF� Lser..vice �aa� �,e3of=s,�r�ca with) k Meia rd ;pr c ss tr er.erov&l -permitu ,rer�c��s�s. Reeii�s� '.�y -Director ; ;�egc�ar�a3:.�ar�cl�r cC��ter is8:25""€� -�f it�a��Couriity 4f�ev�lcr�xtasx��t :_ac�Q. t ., S `8LM1J.TCE,,L OUTS � 1 § IRECT :LAR R e r s""€?e� itis�r rat le .,-Adtiiiity"Boscr.'-jotion 4Avg,1Hrs'. et W&qe Cast H t ersaar',§ las r "Review, :prep—are (? ( C t S 1 }3 k t a i OTAL)'.DIRECT'.LABOR CCOSH S: €1 i:.5 D'TREG T r3 1 E^.T9 5Saf)` E '3�CE5: 1 k L t; ate ifvrthmsicsupiilies 1Q3% ciif;a) f.2_ 23 f 'Other MMS i common -"such.-sere. ces P i : :. scr g� azari °:C®dt 76t. Cost rt i } :TOTAL';-M &:-S(COST: t: ?1a4NUIRECT(OVERHEAD` T4a 0TAL,-OVERi EAD COST: 14;;91 Jd i �flff�iE 4-c ;d) 1� 2�3 P i 4 ft G ;- d:. 37 � t IS 1 AM Y .=EEES,'.AND'.CHARGES k4ORKSF FET•° (1186) CGOODS=`.AW SERVICE; FEE -,:REIh',BURSEN1EtUT NAME- 'Eli abet a=' lawtfln FEE=TITLE '.Accessorv:'UsesiAcces'or� '� '-Structures I.E. 13/86 SERVICE;( h&&t,is .the�se rvice, ,ard::.W�-do,,;we,'.do ate) =:3�ia2eu .sir e-raquests -'for ,,accessory uses . and structures. Reir:iew required urider.:Chmt)terl:A8:144,, f "Cotna�unity'-Development -Cmde SSERVICE.C1WSTS. ')DIRECT,-LABOR =' Pas ition TitleActivityDtDescription Avg.s:Hrs, ,':l etkJage Cost �-Asst 'Planner ,'Sta0f,,reportA A5-,54 '6:54 'Clerk=T � p•, etA upi:file,.'Staff:lRe �13 12;`04 36..A2 �Buildis3al' �nsp. =III - Re'ieas 25 20 11 'ADJ i6 'TOTAL'"DIRECT.LABOR:COSTS: 62,,72 a =,E)gRF-CTI,-MATERI;iLS-1', RD SERVICES: :"El:�.tlR�zt�.�'+sr..�asicssappli�s;(2�J�.'c+f:,a) A2:54 Ot r�aM6,S cu cin to-.all such:ser4ices M._&':'S .ape script ion Cost Total .Cost ' x TaTAL"M:, ' S:COST: 12":54 b ,-SUBTOTAL..(a,&;b) 75.26 c TIPJDIRECT, QVERiEGkD"COSTS �Dcpartmenta1 x,(10 x„c cit o ;TOT�L.;OVERHEAG::01751": _ . 22'.58 d -MINIMUM FEE, (c + d1 _ X7`.84 =NOTE5;'lAND'>SPECIALCCOSTS: +:Cutts=Aassumerzno,newspaper ,ad. xT: f ,J'M ;BS130 ' yz 3 38 y, i z i FEES`€�Pv© 'Ck{ARGES`'WORKStiEE.T. (Il i} _ E I"3URSEsEM1T .K VICE €EEsOODS A�D SEPi-t E TITi_E:. .InterAretation of ':fJRME;r;EIi� z__ �i ieti�'lyei+€tQn D PT `SERVICE°.:(irlhat is": the"seruic� acrdi�:��. �o.we �o 'i't:?} Review r guests -f or the Commu�iity " Development Code. t2espn�s ibi.lity`. of .Cade interpretat-ion is` 'the Direetrsrs ` as set forth _in ec ion` .52.of""tth4>CoMmunit9"'Deajel"opment Code. S_RVI.CE:COSTS 01REGT t"AB R Avg- tars. �det 6dage Cost <`position Title Ac-tiiiity`Des&ription 1 31:.3Q 31:36 Comm.,Dev." Director Review & Respond5$25 22 3G 5. Serainr'!'aanner Rev-iew.+'with Director 2�' 7'Z.O4 3.01 :Clerk°:Typist` II Type Ref. mej1dation a –TOTAL l3T:REGT LAbOFI`GOSTS: DIRECT`,jXKffRIALSMq3 SERVICES: Flat-,Rate`for ,basic -supplies `(20 Other`M&S-common" to al i s�tciti 'ser�r.icesGc st Tot'al Cost M.&.S'Desc'r, ption TOTAL M &' S COST: 7.9�— b 47.87 C ;DIRECT:d+'JERHEFfit3,GtJSTS 4.7� Departmental (1O% x c) d9 57 ;City (2O% X:c) TOTAL OVERHE#�D COST: 14.'3C d MINIMUM .FEE .(C a'. �) 16Z'.23 ,NOTES`AND uPECIAL'COSTS 851'30 f _. 39 FEES AND CHARGES WORKSHEET (1/84) GOODS AND SERVICE FEE - REIMBURSEMENT NAME ;,'EIizabet:hNewton Ft-.E'TI1'1_E-. Zero List Line Setback Standards €ATE 8=27=84 -SERVICE ,(What is the 'servi_ce, and Why do we do it?) Review, of request for zQrol lot line setbacks. Review and decision by approval author required in I Chapter 18.148 of .the Development Code. This ,iN :alwayr. part of,another application. SERVICE .COSTS: DIRECT:LASOR Pc�si icn:Title ..Activity Description Avg. Hrs. Net Wage Cost Comtm °DedP, Director .Revie Asap:<Staff Rep .25 31.30 7.83 Planner:II Review write report 2 19.12 38.24 'Clerk-:Typist 11 Set .up 'dile, type rep. 5 12.04 60,20 Engr ,<Mncg. Review 3 22.30 66.90 ®uilciin4.lnsp; III Review .50 20.11 10.55 �4 TOTAL:DIRECT<LABOR' COSTS: 183:22 a `0 a RE4:T f iAi ERiALS`AflRD SERVICES Flat':Rate 'for, basic supplies (20%:of 36.64 Other`M&S .common to 'all such services M & a Description Cast Total Cost TOTAL_ M & S COST: 36.64 b SUBTOTAL .(a & b) 219.86 _ c INDIRECIT 0VERIdEAD COSTS Depakrtmental (10% X ,C) 21.99 City (20% x r.) 43.98 TOTAL OVERHEAD COST: 65.97 d °MINIMUM FEE (C + d) p285.83 .` NOTES .F1.0JD SPECIA9._ COSTS: z r 40 j ti 11 OWNER=_ NOW FEES AMD CHARGES WORKsuEET (1986) GOODS AND ;SERVICE FEE _ REIINBURSEMENT fs':#s E;'_ izabetn Newton FEE TITLE: Lot Line Ad ustecaentt _ Y DATE: SERVICE (�+e�at-is `the service, and 1�a do we do it?) w and decision by Review`and ps^ocessing of ! tat line adjustment. Revie Planning Director required in chapter' 18.162 of the Community Development Codes. NEI i` SERVICE COSTS- - DIRECT LABOR Firs. Net Wage Cost ` Pas"i n Title Activi Y Description Avg. 25 31.30 7.83 Staff Rep` 22.30 Cose+sa: Devi" Director Review & Ap{a. 1 22.30 ' Seo7iar,Planner Review write report 12.04 48.16 C1erFc T ist II et up file. type rep. 2 , �+� 2 22.30 44.60 E �e�q. Reviews ' F3ui 1di.reg_'?np: III 'Review 25 20.11 10,0 ngr. 6 TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS: 13� 2 4 ; DIRECT MATERIALS AlD SERVICES: 5�� Fiat;Rate far basic s �p'sias (70� of,a) a.E Other 140'S common to all such services Ca,t Total Gast M & cS Description e TOTAL M & S COST: 2fi_ _r.5g 4? SUBTOTAL (a & b) 159.53 c INDIRECT OVERHEADCOSTS1'4_ 5 g5 Departmental. (10% x c) 31.91 City '(7.0% x c) — TOTAL'OVERFIEAD COST: 47� .86 -d MINItiUM FEE'(_ + d) $207.,39, MOTES AND SPECIAL. COSTS: F Ca.stS r`k55un* no newspaper ad, 3M;OS 130 41 - FEES AND CHARGES WORKSHEET (11$6) GOODS AND 'SERVICE FEE — REIMBURSEMENT F NAME: Elizabeth Newton FEE TITLE. Home Occupation Permit DATE: 3/86 SERVICE (what is the service, and 4Jhy do we do it?) Review of r4quests for Home Occupation Permits. Review and decision by Director required under Chapter 18.142 of the Community Development<Code. SERVICE COSTS DIRECT LABOR s Position Title Activity Description Avg. Nrs, Net Wage Cost Comm. Dev'. Director Review App, Staff step .25 31.307.83 Asst. Planner Review write report .75 16.54 12.41' Clerk Typist II Set uta :file, type rep. 2.75 12.04 33.11 . c TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS: 53.35 a DIRECT MATERIALS AND SERVICES: Fust Rete for basis. supplies (20% of a) 40.67 Other %S` common to all such services m S Description Cost Total Cost TOTAL M &, S COST: 10.67 b SUBTOTAL ( -&. b) 64.02-- c INDIRECT OVERHEAD_COSTS Departmental (10% x 'c) 6.40 City (20% x c) 12.80 TOTAL OVERHEAD' COST: 19.20 d MINIMUM FEE (L i d) $83.22 NOTES AND S€ECIAL:C.OSTS f Costs assume no newspaper ad. z 42 r� FEES AND CHARGES WORKSHEET (1186) GOODS AND SERVICE FEE -- REIMBURSEMENT Y. NAME: Elizabeth Newton FEE. TITLE: Home OccupPermit Renewal _ DATE: 3/06 SERVILE (West is the service, and Why do we do it?) Review of requests for annual renewal of Hone OccPermits. SERVICE COfjS: DIRECT LABr.;�, position Title Activity Description Avg. Hrs. Eget Wage Cost Asst, Planner Review, approval .50 16.54 8.27 Clerk Typist 11 Receive app, file .25 12.04 3.01 TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS: 11.37 a DIRECT MATERIALS AND SERVICES: Flat R ate f€�r basi supplies (20% of a) 2.27 Other M&S common to all such services M & S Description Cast` Total Cost TOTAL M & S COST 2.27 b SUBTOTAL (a & b) 13.64 c INDIRECT OVERHEAD COSTS Departmental (10% x c) 1.36 City (20% x c) 2.73 TOTAL OVERHEAD COSH: 4.09- d MINIMUM 6-EE (c + d) NOTES AND SPECIAL COSTS :BS130 43 e FEES AND C14ARGES WORKSHEET (If S6) GOODS AND SERVICE FEE - REIMBURSEMENT P;ASE: Ertl! FEE TITLE: Ove__�iue fines DATE: -27-Sys SE�?VCCE (!what is the eservice, and ?s+� da we do it?} �+atriais not returned after lst notice. we da this to Charge forossible. Fine charged after 2nd notice and retrieve as 'nany items as P borrowing privilege suspended. SERVCE COSTS DIRECT LABO�T Avg. Hrs. flet Wage Cast Activit Description ' position Title � Library Cleric II Overdue Notices 5 12.04 6.02 TOTAL (DIRECT LABOR COSTS: � a S?IRECT MATERIALS ASD SERl9TCES: i' 0 � Flat'. Rate'far basic supplies (20% of a) � ,.. , Other M&S common to all such service Total Colt & S Description � �a 20 TOTAL M & S COST: — SUBTOTAL (a &'b) 7- .2L INDIRECT O�tE€tHEAD COSTS Departmental (lO� x c} 1.44 C � it (20% x c) ; i� TOTAL OVERHEAD COST: 2.16 MINIMUM (c + d) _ '9•'3f3 -' 1OTES `AND SPECIAL COSTS: 7.. :BS130 L: _. 44 [d; FEES AND CHARGES WORKSHEET (1f86) GOODS AND SERVICE FEE � REIMDURSEMENT NAME: Ertell FEE TITLE, Lost" Library Materials DATE: 9-27-84 SERVICE (i�itat is the service, and do we do it?) Charge for items (books, cassettes, records)) which are lost or too damaged to 'be used. We do this to preserve collection and recoup dollar loss an materials. SERVICE COSTS: DIRECT<LABOR Position'Title Activity Description Avg. Hrs. Net triage Cost Library; Clerk II Lost books .25 12.04 3.01 Asst. Librarian Lost books .25 19.12 4.70 Library Aide I Lost books .17 10.48 1.78 TOTAL DIRECT' LABOR COSTS: 9.57 a DIRECT MATERIALS AND SERVICES: LL Flat Rate for basic supplies (20% of a) 1.91 Other MSS common to all such services — M & S Description Cost Total Cost TOTAL'M & S COST: 1.91 b SUBTOTAL (a & b) 11.48 c INDIRECTOVERHEAD COSTS Departmental (10% x c) 1.15 City (20% x c} 2.30 TOTAL OVERHEAD COST: 3.45 d MINIMUM FEE (z f d) X14.93 MOTES AND SPECIAL COSTS: — Book is found & returned for refund, :added costs are $7.28, added fee is $2;'00 non—refundable service charge. Aug. Replace cost by type, assume each item in collection of equal importance to collection. JM:DS13© 45 g! f FEES AND CHARGES WORKSHEET (1/86) GOODS AND SERVICE FEE — REIMBURSEMENT NAME: Ertell FEE TITLE: Out of County User Fee DATE: 8-27-84 a SERVICE Qshat is the service, and Gly do we do it?) Persons who do not reside, own property or work in Washington County are � charged a- user fee. We 'charge in order to limit service to those who ' support the .library through' a tax or equivalent. SERVICE COSTS: DIRECT LABOR Position Title Activity Description Avg. Hrs. Net Silage Cost Library Clerk II Patron Registration .25 or 12.04 3.01 or `. Aide P/T Patron Registration .25 or 8.89 2.22 or ` Library Clerk III Patron Registration .25 or 12.93 3.23 2-r Library Asst Patron Registration .25 or 19.12. 4.78 or � Librarian= Patron Registration .25 27.33; 6.83 or TOTAL DIRECT" LABOR;COSTS: 4.01 avg. a DIRECT" MATERIALS AND SERVICES: V Flat ;trate for basic supplies (20% of a) 80 Other M&S common to all such services , M & S 'Description Cost Total Cost ,. 5= , TOTAL M & S COST: 80 la ," SUBTOTAL '(a & b) 4.81 c INDIRECT OVERHEAD COSTS Departmental (10% x c) .48 , City (20% x c) .96 �. TOTAL OVERHEAD COST: 1.44 d . MINIMUM FEE (c + d) $6.'25 Vij NOTES AND SPECIAL COSTS Costs for using the collection are $63.66 (Formula: 12 visits per year-k 4 books each Visit 48 'books h $1.32 per. circulation Cost n ;$63.56 cost per year. Includes references, etc.) TM:BS13O 46 F FEES CHARGES WORKSHEET (1f86) �t GOODS AND SERVICE FEE —,REIMBURSEMENT NRF1E: Ertell FEE TITLE: Mica^ofiche Copier DATE- q-2 84 SERVICE 'What is the service, and ink do we do it?) patron is able to copy magazine as^ticles. We provide the service because ., we lack space to retain back copies and copies become lost through circulation`. SERVICE COSTS: DIRECT LABOR Avg. Hrs. Net Wage Cast � Position Title Activity 'Des 96 Library Clerk IT public Serv. for filing •08 or 12.04 73 Aide pdT public Serv. for filing .08 or 8.89 1.03 f g 12.93 ` Library Clerk III public Serv. or film Ofl or 1.53 Library Asst Public Serv. for filing .08 or 19.32 2.19 Librarian Public Serv. for filing .08 or27 33 TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS: 1 28 av9- Ll DIRECT MATERIALS AND SERVICES: �6�6 . Flat Rate for basic supplies (20% ces �) Other M&S cirmmon to all such serviCost Total Cost M_&"S Description TOTAL M & S COST 26 b SUBTOTAL (a & b) 1.54 c INDIRECT OVERHEAD COSTS .15 Departmental (10% r, c) 30 � City (20% n c) TOTAL OVERHEAD COST: 45 d �'• MINIMUM FEE (c + d) $1.99 ES AND SPECIAL COSTS: NO.T Cleaning & Maintaining machine (per time) added cost of $.66 Rec. sar=.e charge since want to encourage staff assistance for search refile-normal service J'M:BS130 FEES AND CHARGES WORKSHEET (1186) GOODS AND SERVICE FEE — REIMBURSEMENT NAME: Ertell FEE TITLE: Photo Copier. DATE: 8-27-84 SERVICE Ghat is the service, and Why do we do it?) x To provide public with facility to copy personal items and non—circulating library material. ' We do this as a public service and to ;discourage removal of non—circulating materials. SERVICE COSTS: DIRECT LABOR Position Title Activity Description Avg. Hrs. Net Wage Cost: Library Clerk II Public Service 04 or 12.04 .48 or Aide P/T Public Service .04 or 8.89 .36 or Asst. Librarian Public Service .04 or 12.93 .52 or Library Asst Public Service .04 or 19.12 .76 or- Librarian Public Service .04 27.33 1.09 TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS: .64 avg. `a DIRECT MATERIALS AND SERVICES: _ (71 Flat Rate for basic supplies (20% of a) .13 Other'M&S common to all such services M & S Description Cost Total Cost TOTAL. M & S COST: .13 b SUBTOTAL (a & b) .77 c a INDIRECT OVERHEAD COSTS Departmental (10%-x c) .08 City (20% x c) .16 TOTAL OVERHEAD COST: .24 d MINIMUM FEE (c + d) $ 1.01 per rgst. NOTES AND SPECIAL COSTS Cleaning & Maintaining machine (part—time), added costs of $.53 Recommend spreading P.S. crest to per copy cost to protect collection (keep in { Library) �.. JM:BS130 48 -- FEES AND CHARGES WORKSHEET (1/86) GOODS AND SERVICE FEE — REIMBURSEMENT NAME R.B. 'Adams FP_E TITLE: Copies of Police Reports DATE:` 8-24-94 e � SERVICE (ai;raP is the service', and Why do we do it?)' Provide citizens and insurance companieswith copies of police reports; state statute says reports are public records. SERVICE COSTS: DIRECT .LABOR Position Title Activity Description Avg. Firs. Net Wage Cost Clerk Dispatcher File Search & return 4 12.30 4.92 Make copies, Write receipt, Address envelope, Fill out form letter, Deliver letter to City, Nail for mailing TOTAL DIRECT" LABOR COSTS: 4.92 a DIRECT MATERIALS AND SERVICES: Flat Rate for basic supplies (20% of a) __90 Other M&S common to all such services M &'`S Description Cost Total Cost TOTAL M & S COST: .98 b SUBTOTAL (a & b) 5.90 INDIRECT .OVERHEAD COSTS Departmental '(10`& x c) ,59 City (20% x c) 1.18 , TOTAL OVERHEAD CO ST": 1.77 d MINIMUM FEE (r„ d) $7.67 NOTES AND SPECIAL COSTS al:BS13q - 49 - r FEES AND CHARGES WORKSHEET (1186) GOODS AND 'SERVICE FEE — REIMBURSEMENT ' NAME: R.O. Adams FEE 'TITLE. Police €�hotograeb DATE. 8--2,3-54 SERVICE (that is the service, and !ihA do w2 do it?) Provide copies of police 'phctographs for 'attornies in criminal civil trials. SERVICE COSTS:' DIRECT LABOR Position Tide Activity Description Avg. Hrs. Net wage Cost Services Manager; File Search & return 2 22.30 4,46 Invest. Div, Mjr'. Transport & return f/ processor. Review; Photos w/requestor' .9 25.36 22.82 Cleric Di3patcher' notify requestor and .2 12.30, 2.46 receipt money j - Hall for mailing TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS: 29.74 DIRECT MATERIALS AND SERVICES: Flat Rate for basic Supplies (20% of a) 5.55 Other M&S cornmtan to all such services M & S Description Cost Total Cost TOTAL M & S COST: 5.95 b SUBTOTAL (a & b) 35.69 c INDIRECT OVERHEAD COSTS Departmental (jo% x c) 3.57 'City (20% x c) 7.14 TOTAL OVERHEAD COST: 10.71 d MINIMUM FEE (c + d) _A4_6.40-M NOTES .AMD SPECIAL rc�sTS * Total divided,by 10 $2.32 per photo JM:13S130 _ 50 FEES AND CHARGES WORKSHEET (1186) � GOODS AND SERVICE FEE — REIMBURSEMENT YFEE E TITLE: Aoalicant Eir►zgerprintirs fJAME: X2:6, s4daaars DATE- 8-24-94. � SERVICE (Thatis the service, and E� do we do it?.f Provide citizens with set of fingerprints. Some employers request this be dons; others require ;it for licensing purposes;' i.Q. insurance. �. SERVICE COST$: � DIRECT LABOR " Position title Activity Description Arg. Hrs. Net Wage Gast , Police Officer Comes in off street .3 16.53 5.09 ' in order to take fingerprints TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS: _ 5.08 ' DIRECT MATERIALS AND SERVICES Etat Rate for basic supplies (20% of a) 2 Q2 Other M&S coMMOY, to all such services m & S Description Gast Total Cost ; towels, ink, �'iat�dcic�ai�t!'r, �.; hot Water TOTAL E & S COST: 2-•06 b z SUBTOTAL (a & b) 7,14 c INDIRECT OVERHEAD COSTS .71 Departmental (1.0% x c} City (2O x c) 2.42 TOTAL OVERHEAD COST: 2.13 M d MINIMUM 'FEE (c d) __L9. 7 NOTES AND SPECIAL COSTS JIM:B'S 1.30 t, 1 — 51 L INE t FEES AND CHARGES WORKSHEET (1/86) GOODS AND SERVICE FEE = REIMBURSEMENT P3(ME; Jer_ri Widner k"EE TITLE: Transcripts prepared by Word Processing DATE: E SERVICE (What is the service, and Why do we do it?) In some casew, the City is asked to prepare a transcript or other document prepared by W.P. . _SERVICE COSTS; ` DIRECT LABOR Position Title Activity Description Avg. kiss. Net Wage Cost Word Proc Mgr, Processes Document .50 17.82 8.91 �.. Support Serv. Mgr. Processes Document .25 22.30 5.58 Word Proc. Process document 1 12.93 1.29 Support Serv. Mgr. Reviews document .1 22.30 2.23 TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS: 18.01 a DIRECT MATERIALS AND SERVICES: Flat Rate for basic supplies `(20% of :a) 3.60 Other M&S common to all such services M & S Description Cost Total Cost y. Tem.i.nal, �:rinter• & CPU time .05/hr f Parer Costs; 3 1/2 X 11 regular white paper .03/page r 8 1/2 X 14 regular white paper .05/page 20# continuous corm paper .02/page Ribbon Costs: .09/page x TOTAL M & S COST: 3.60 b SUBTOTAL (a & b) 21,61 C INDIRECT OVERHEAD COSTS Departmental ('10% x` c) 2.15 City (20% x c) 4.32 TOTAL OVERHEAD COST: 6.48 d MINIMUM FEE (c + d) NOTES AND SPECIAL'COSTS: Plus special materials and supplies JM:S5130 52 — FEES AND CHARGES WORKSHEET (1/86) GOODS AND SERVICE FEE — REIMBURSEMENT NAME: Jerri Widner FEE. TITLE: Returned 'Check Fee � DATE: €/31/84 SERVICE (What is the service', and Why do we do it?) We are charged by the bank for any returned checks. We also have to notify the person and request their; payment in cash. We are passing this cost onto the culprit. SERVICE COSTS: DIRECT LABOR Position Title Activity Description Aug. Mrs. Net Mage Cosh Or, II Opens Mail 02 12.04 24 Billing Clerk Contact person/copies .50 12.93 6.47 Acctg 5upv. Rev ielAs 05 22.30 1 12 Fin. Dir, Reviews .04 27.33 1.09 TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS: 8.92 a DIRECT MATERIALS AND SERVICES: Flat gate for basic supplies (20% of a) 1.78_ Other M&S common to all such services M & S Description Cosh Total Cost Charge by bank 1.50 TOTAL M & S COST: 2.28 b SUBTOTAL (a & b) 12.20__ c INDIRECT OVERHEAD COSTS Departmental (10% x c) 1.22 city (20 x c) 2.4 _ TOTAL OVERHEAT} COST: 3.66 d }. MINIMUM FEE (r + d) $15.86 NOTES AMD SPECIAL. COSTS .DI'i:�513b 53 d x FEES AND CHARGES WORKSHEET '(1136); GOODS AND SERVICE FEE -:REIMBURSEMEN1 NAME': Jerri Widner r E TITLE: Recording of Documents DATE: B-31-84 SERVICE (What is the service, and' Wh_ v do we do it?) Many types of ducments are recorded with the county, especially land 'title transfer documentation. Recording' fees are set by Washington County. No charge normally if a condition of development. SERVICE COSTS: DIRECT LABOR Position Title Activity Description ` Avg. Hrs. Met Wage Cost Support Serv. Mgr: Document Preparation 1 22.30 22.30 OA II Document .Preparation .50 12.04 6.02 OA IV Prepare check 50 13.91 5.95 _ TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS: 35.27 a 'DIRECT MATERIALS �i11'D `SERVICES: Flat Rate for basic supplies (20% of a) 7.05 Other M&S common to all such services M & S Description Cost Total Cost County; recording fees to be added on based on # of pages. 4.00-$5.00lpage TOTAL M & S COST: 7.45* b SUBTOTAL (a'G b) _ 42.32* c IP40IRECT OVERHEAD COSTS Departmental (10% x c) 4.23 City (20% x c) 0.46 TOTAL OVERHEAD COST: 12.69 d MINIMUM FEE (c + d) $55_.01* _ NOTES AND SPECIAL COSTS: r *Plus County Recording Fee JM!8S 13O 54 CITY OF TIGARD REVENUE MANUAL CITY COUNCIL' John E. Cook, Mayor Tom Brian Carolyn Eadon Valerie -Johnsen Jerry;;Edwards CITY ADMINISTRATOR Robert W. Jean FINANCE OFFICER Jerri L. Widner, Prepared by_ Joy M. Martin LastRevision: April '15, 11986 D943P t aiNTRO DUCTION .. - This Revenue Manual, is intended to catalogue and briefly; describe each source of recurrinq revenue that flows into the City of Tigard with which to finance gouernment 'operations. as such, it excludes most state and federal grants, which are, non-recurring and uncertain in their timing and amount. Likewise, this manual does not identify inter-city revenue transfers between departments or funds. For each identified revenue source, a standardized format is utilized" to provide a concise description of its nature ,and operation. Included in this format is the account the revenue enters; a descriptionof the purpose of a given' revenue source; the legal authority for city utilization (management) of this 'financing mechanism; the fee structure; and the adopted, cost and proposed fee, charge, or funding formula. In each case the information provided is riot totally inclusive. For further information,' the applicable department and/or , Finance officer 'should be contacted. selosw- is a display of the format used and the location of each element. EFFFE TITLE (Acct. :..N (fee description) ,:- (authority)- Adopted. authority)Adopted Cost Proposed (fee schedule) s The "cost is calculated on estimated actual costs for a "normal processing and 'service. The worksheet used for the calculations is in the appendix. . All identified revenue sources are listed in the Table of Contents under one of six bread categories: Taxes; Intergovernmental Revenue-haring; Fees and Charges; Franchise Revenue; Fines and Forfeitures; and Miscellaneous Revenues. ' This index of ' revenues represents a functional classification as determined by the economic and 'legal definition of how the revenue sources operate and coincides closely with the classifications in the City's budget.' Related revenue sources are subgrouped to facilitate ease of access. TABLE OF CONTENTS SUBJECT PAGE Introduction •1 Table of Contents .2 TAXES: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Property Tax. .. .b Business 'Tax. .6 INTERGOVERNMENTALREVENUE SHARING; Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 Revenue from County Agencies: County ,- Unified Sewerage Agency . . . . . . . . .`. . . . . . .7 County Library WCCLS' .7 County 'Gas Tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 County 43otel-Motel Tax .8 . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Revenue from State Agencies: Cigarette Tax .8 Liquor Tax 8 State Revenue Sharing . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . .8 . State BOR Grants ' .9 State Library Grant Aad .9 State Street (Gas) Tax .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 Revenue from Federal Agencies: Fsderal Revenue Sharing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 FEES CHARGES: Introduction . . .. . . . _. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .1Q Building-Related Permits: Building Permit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 � Building Plan Check Fee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .11 Fire District`Surcharge- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 State Surcharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Other Inspection Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .1?_ Master Plan Review Fee . . . . . . . . . .12 Mechanical Permit '. . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . I . . . . . . . . . . . . .. zz Mechanical Plan Check Fee . . . . . . . . . . . .13 State Surcharge . . . . . . . . .13 Plumbing Permit . . . . . . . . . .13 State S'urcharue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .is Fill (Grading);Permit . . . . . . . . . . . . .1A Fill (Grading) Plan Check Fee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 Other Insp€ctions and Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.4 Sewer Permit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Connection Fee (Sewer System Development Charge). .15 Inspection Fee • . 15 Sewer In Lieu of Assessment Fee (Sewer Surcharge).15 - 2 - F. 6 SUBJECT PACE Engineering-Related Permits .16 Street Opening Permit 16 Public Improvement Permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Subdivision Public Improvement Permi.t. . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Sewer Public Improvement Permit. . . . . . . . 16 Public Improvement Street Lighting Fee; . . 16 Public Improvement Traffic Signing & Ma.rking'Fee, 17 Licenses: Liquor License 17 Bicycle License . . . . . . . . . .'. . . . . . . . . . . .`. . . 17 Sign Permit . . . . . . . . 17 Sign Code Exceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Park Reservation (Cook.Park) . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i$ Alarm Permit 1$ Blasting Permit 1$ Planning-Related Charges: Joint Application Planning Fee Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Comprehensive Plan Processing . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 19 Zone Change Processing 19 Lone Change Annexations ' 19 Zone Ordinance Amendment20 Planned Development Processing. 20 Conditional Use Processing 20 Temporary Use Processing 20 Variance-Administrative 20 Variance-Subdivision . . . . . 21 Sensitive Lands-Floodplain 21 Sensitive Lands-Administrative . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Site Development Review Processing . . . . . . . . 21 Minor Land Partition-Residential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Minor Land Partition-ikon-Residential . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Major Land Partition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Subdivision-Preliminary Plat . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Subdivision Partition-Final Plat_. . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Appeal of Director's Decision to Planning Commission 22 � Appeal of Planning Commission or Hearings Officer Decision to City Council 23 Vacations/Street-Plat-Easement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Street/Land Dedication . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Flexible Setback Standards-developed Lots . . . . . . . 23 Historic Overlay District 23 Tree Removal Permit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Accessory Uses/Accessory Structures . . . . . . . 24 Interpretation, of Community Development Code by Planning Department . . . . . . . . . . 24 Zero Lot Line Setback Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Lot Line Adjustment . . . .. . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Home Occupation Permit Processing . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 24 Systems Development Charges: SOC —Streets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 % SDC - Parks . . . . . . .; . . . 25 Lortn Drainage 25 SDC S SUBJECT PAGE S'ewe'r Users Service Charge 26 Storm Drainage Users :Fee (Impervious Surfaces Fee) 26 Returned Check Fee 26 Recording of Documents 26 FRANCHISE REVENUE: Electricity 26 Natural Gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 F Telephone—General Telephone 27 Telephone—Pacific` N.W. Sell 27 Solid Waste Disposal 27 p Cable"T.V, 27 FINES & FORFEITURES: Introduction . . 28 Library—Related Fines & Charges . . 28 overdue Fines 78 Lost Materials Charge 28 Lost/Mutilated Library Card Charge 28 out—af--County User Cards 28 Miscellaneous Replacement Charge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Municipal Court Fines & Forfeitures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Indigent Defense 29 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES: Introduction .. . . . . . . . . 30 Sale of Documents Comprehensive Plan Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Police Report Copies . . . , . . . . . . . 30 Police Photographs Copies . . . . . . . 30 Fingerprints . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . Planimetric Maps . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Plan Deposit . . . . . 31 Public Facility & Information Mapping 31 Photocopied Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Tigard Municipal Code . . . . . . . 31 Other`Revenue Receipts- Donations/Gifts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Sale` o(- Land 32 Restitution Funds' 32 Insufficient Funds Check Fee . . . . . . . . 32 Recovered Expenditures: L.I.D. Administrative Costs .. . . . . . . . . 32 L.I.D. Engineering Costs 32 State Accident Insurance 32 Witness Fees 33 Engineering Overtime . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Special Assessments (Collections) . 33 Use of Money and Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 4 " AP PENUI c {� Fees and Charges Worksheet and pirections . Sewer Rates & Charges Municipal CourtFines & Forfeitures �- -" Library Charges Fees and Charges Worksheet Calculations �i a � LAXES Panes t�hich are imposed by city government upon persons, organizations, 3 activities, and property are for purposes ,of financing public expenditures. mary while taxes are not the major revenue source roximatin el• 25% of Generalthey are a �Fund general government revenue source, providing app Y monies., The City of Tigar�d's policy is 'to identify and quantify; government services that can be 'separated and charged to those specifically utilizing the all services can be so separated as to user groups, services. However, not and taxes are 'a funding mechanism for financing' a wide range of; government operations, shared in''general by members of the community. PR{4F�R T Y TATo „generate sufficient revenues to cover costs of providing general municipal services ' fees and charges. (ORS ;294.381 city of not provided by direct ecommends taxbaseto City Council for vote of people) Tigard Budget Committee r ' f�s3as.�.pted $790,725 Current Levy (Tax Base) FY 85/862 Taxes;, prier years, percent of delinquency rate late or 8-12%, varies delinquent taxes in 'prior years Qonded debt levy-20 year general obligation bond varies repayment §USI ESS TAX (Acct. 10-430) .. To ,recover costs and staff time and to provide revenues far special business references :and 'planning economic development), related services (e.g. library and Police services. (TMC 5.04.040) dsa ted Recos marded ho. of employees per firm: $50/year small: 0 - 10 $40/Year $75/year $100/Year Medium: 11 — 50 $200/year Large: 51 — $150/year ti g _ ro INTERGOVERNMENTAL SHARED REVENUES intergovernmental Shared Revenues ' include all recurring revenues received by the City from Federal, State, and Local governmental agencies. These revenues derive largely from taxes levied and collected by these agencies and shared with ;the City according to established formulas. Not included for purposes of this 'manual are grantmonies, insofar as they are not recurring revenues I but initiated and terminated as projects are approved or completed. The formulas for distribution of the shared taxes among cities are determined by Federal, State or County ;statutes, and primarily based on the relative populations of , the region's incorporated municipalities. There may or may not be conditions placed by ;the agency ,on the City's use of the revenue. The City May place additional conditions on the intended use. REVENUE FROM COUNTY> AGENCIES COUNTY — U DIED SEWERAGE AGENCY (Acct. #10-421) Payments received from U.S.A. for purchase of old Tigard Sewage Treatment plant (USA — City of Tigard Contract) �do�ted Currently approximately $20,000 per year, with steadily declining payments a of about 3 1/2% per year. Final payment to be received in FY 1991-1992. COU74TY -- LIBRARY �`d"��.5 (f�cct. #10-422) A two year County--wide tax levy adopted in 1985 to provide funding support for municipal libraries, with formula provisions for each jurisdiction's service ' to residents of unincorporated region. , (WCCLS Agreement) Rdopted Expires June 30, 1387 COUNTY GAS TAX ( Acct. #22-423) Tax imposed by Washington County under ordinance known as "Motor Vehicles Fuel License 'Tax" and is computed on the basis of vehicle fuel sold. Revenues shall be used only for- the construction, reconstruction, improvement, repair, maintenance, operation and use of public highways, roads and streets. Amsted A County imposed and collected tax of 4¢/gallon of gasoline, with revenues allocated to cities on basis of population share of total County population C7`1 - 7 - rice COUNTY MOTEL-M'TEL. TAX (Acct. #10-320) such establishments is A transient room tax on the lodgingraren/spersedito municipalities within 3 di imposed and collected by the County, imp County, according to formula. on a. monthly basis. (Washington County ()rdinancesr`1i0, 114, 151) �dapted 5% tax on room rent/prise + 100% of tax; operator keeps 5% for collection f 5%; County keeps 25% for promotion of tourism in County = -25% City receives 50% of remainder (70%). E E?� E` FPto l 'STATE AGENCIES CIGARETTE TA (Acct. #10-4110) o ulati.on. State tax on sale of ci. arettes; shared with cities; based on p p (ORS 323.455 & Resolution #92-104) eA2pted $2.03 per capita population per year; received monthly. LMLPv�43 TAX, (Acct. 3}10-.x,11) p op ulation. (ORS tj State tax: on sale of liquor; shared with citiesbased on 471.€310 Resolution # $2-104) 4 - Ado ted x$.13 per capita p��pulation per year; received monthly. STATE REVENUE SHARING (Acct. #10-412) apportioned to cities 14% of net revenues from stake liquor tax, not already under ORS 471-.810, are apportioned to cities according to prescribed formula; on a quarterly basis. (ORS 221.770) City population Local consolidated property taxes per caiptoforr_i_t Average. cansr,li.dated property taxes per capita for all cities State income per capita City :income per capita q STATE BOR GRANTS (Acct. #10-414) State Bureau of Recreation grant monies available for application, depending ..a on varied criteria. Adopted Var ies STATE LIBRAR's CRAF.'T`Am (Acct. 410-4].4) Chant eligibility based on maintained local support of Library. ' City support cannot be less than one out of two previous budget years. (ORS 357.780 Oregon Admin. Rules Ch. 543. Div. 40) Adopted `$. per capita population in FY 85-86 (will receive notice this Fall) STATE STREET CAS TAX (Acct. #21-4113) Tax imposed 'by . State of Oregon based on sale, use, etc. ,of motor vehicle fuel. Revenue shall be used exclusively For c-onstructir,n, reconstruction, improvement, repair; maintenance, Loperation, and use of public highways, roads, streets and roadside rest areas. Taxes and fees are shared on a per capita basis with the cities in the state. It is required that reasonable i amounts of all such funds received by cities be spent on bicycle paths, sidewalks and footpaths. Street lighting and cleaning; storm drainage, traffic control devices, and , cost of administration are , permissible expenditures of gas tax monies. Park and ride stations, but not parking facilities, are also expenditures. (ORS 366.785 - 366.820) $12.-56 per capita population REVENUE FROM 'FEDERAL AGENCIES FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING (Acct. #20-405) General. revenue sharing payments are distributed quarterly under a complex formula ;that considers population, personal income and tax effort, among other factors. Two-thirds of the money allocated to each state area must be paid to general purpose local governments (in Oregon, cities and counties) . In Oregon, the -one—third 'retained by the state is allocated to basic school support so that in this state the entire amount of general revenue sharing goes directly or indirectly to local government. No application is necessary, and there are few "strings attached to this program. (Public Laws 92-512 Sec. 103 (a), ;and PL 96--604; "t C 3.].2.010) Ad_ Mted To be ,phased out by October 1986. f 3' yx 9 - - _ FEES & CHARGES fees and charges include licenses and permits required by the City or state for selected activities for regulatory purposes. These activities are selected because of the health, safety, or moral concerns which may 'arise if the City did not take an active part in their control. In most cases, r, 'appli:ation for a license such as a liquor license is accompanied by an inspection of the business by the pertinent department. c 3 In addition to licenses, there are; a number of permits of a regulatory nature which are required for certain activities especially for building construction. Building permits allow the City to regulate all new construction, assuring conformance with minimum safety requirements set by the state. Mechanical, plumbing, and sewer permits for new construction and/or alterations, assure City control over health and safety aspects of these activities. Building permits and the like represent public control over private activity. l Another set of permits regulate private' use of public_ property — primarily . streets, and public rights—of—way. The Engineering Division of Community Development has ' p primary responsibility fore- street openings.., subdivision projects, and sewer main installations. By issuing permits, the City protects rc public property by guarding against dangerous or unauthorized use, The City provides a variety of services to the community,' services which are ,. not shared by all citizens in general to the same degree of benhfit. While �.: the services do serve community—wide interests, the City of Tigard has been able to identify the prini«ry users of certain services, and measure the costs of those services', in developing equitable charges. Charges for services provided by the City are derived by a` number of methods. One methad is through an examination and measurement of the amount of staff time, expertise, and materials required to provide a given service. Charges stated for the .. processing of land-use planning applications are an example of this method of costing services. Another method used for developing charges for services is through analysis of the costs required to construct and/or maintain public facilities, in relation to the number of users, and the amount of use by each user. The Sewer Users Service Charge is an exaampl.e of this method, whereby System construction and maintenance costs are allocated to users according to � the number of users on the system, and the number of plumbing fixtures per DUE (dwelling unit equivalent). A related method for determining charges for services is utilized in assessing systems development charges. These charges are derived from an evaluation of the added cost impacts of new development in a community,- wherein greater burdens are placed on existing public facilities ` already constructed and maintained by past and present residents, The extent to which extra—capacity public improvearents are required to accommodate these increased usages constitutes the service, charges_ �. r. - Aside from the income directly generated by service charges, other indirect ' benefits accrue to the City. Use of charges for services provide a more equitable distribution of benefits and costs. particularly for those services to persons or businesses that utilize Lhe service but reside outside the taxing boundaries of the City. Also, the revenues generated through service charges provide an ongoing source of detailed data regarding the service in question, and the level. of consumer demand. 1 10 - 1 BUILD!G RELATED PERMITS ^ BUILDING PERMIT (Acct. #10-432) To recover costs of staff time in processing applications and conducting inspections. All nes;` building construction or building alterations must are done under permit. Fee structure and rates are set by the state based on estimated construction value. (Uniform Building, Code as adopted in TMC 14.04,050) Adopted Cost Proposed TOTAL VALUATION $ 1.-00 to $ 500.00 $10,00 $ 501.00 to $ 2,000.00 $10.00 for the first $500°00 plus $1.50 for each additional $,!00.00 or fraction thereof, to and including ! 2,000.00. $ 2,001..00 to $ 25,000.00 $32.50 for the first $2,000.00 plus $6.00 for each additional $1,000;00 or fraction thereof, to: and including '$25,000.00. 25,001.00 to $ 50,000.00 $170.-50 for the first $25,000.00 plus $4.50 for each additional $3.,000.00 or- fraction thereof, to and including $50,000.00. $ x0,003..00 to;$ 100,000.00 $233.`00 for• the first $50,000.00 'plus $,3.00 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $1130,000.00, $ 100,001.00 to $1,000,000.00 $433.00 for the first $100,000.00 plus $2.50 for each additional $3.,000:00 or fraction .. thereof, to and including $1.000,000.00. $1,000,000.`00 and up '$2,683 .00 for the first $1,000,000.00 -talus $1.50 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof:` BUILi3ING PERMIT — 8UjA.D:LW PLAPLAW CHECK FEE (Acct. #10-433) To recover costs of staff time for 'building plans examination and processing, Fee structure and rate are set by the State Dept.. of Commerce based on estimated construction value. (Uniform Building Code as adopted in TMC 14.04.050) Adapted Cost Proposed a Percentage, of Building Permit Fee cis% our., DING T DISTRICT C�� (if TRFPO, 95% in Acct #10-230--505 and 5% in Acct. #10-435; if WCFPD #1, 95% in Acct. #10-230-505 and 5% in Acct. #10-435) To provide funding for fire code enforcement services, and to recover administrative costs to City for processing, collection, and dispersal (Uniform Building Code as adopted in TMC 11.04.020, TMC 14.16.270) Ad�2Pted Cost Proposed Percentage' of Building Per-mit Fee (of which City receives 5%). 40% BUILDING PERMIT - STATE SURCHARGE (Acct. #10-230-501) To 'cover; governmental education, and Dept. of Commerce costs related to building codes enforcement (Uniform Building Code adopted in TMC 14.04.050) adopted Cost Profposed' Percentage of Building Permit Fee, which is fully ,paid to the. state. 4% BUILDING PERMIT - OrdER INSPECTION FEES (Acct. #10-435) To recover costs of staff time. Fee structure and ratesare set by the � State. (Uniform Building Code as adopted in TMC 14.04.020) Adopted Cost Proposed Inspections outside normal $40.00/hr. business hours (minimum charge:;two hours) Reinspection fee assessed under $20.00 provisions of Sec. 305(8) Inspections for which no ;fee $40'00/hr. is specifically indicated Additional plan review required $40.00/hr. by changes, additions or : revisions to approved plans �. (minimum charge: one-half hour) BUILDING PERMIT -- MASTER PLAN REVIEW FEE (Acct. #10-433) Building plans submitted for approval in one or more municipalities' as a "Master Plan" for single family residential. only. (TMC 14.04.050(d)). Adopted Cost Proposed Shall be reviewed at a minimum $40.00/hr. hourly rate or fractional hour thereof MECHANICAL PERMIT (Acct. #1.0--431-501) To recover costs of staff time for- processing applications and conducting inspections. Fee structure and rates are set by the State. (Uniform Building Cade as adopted in TMC 14.08 -- State Dept. of Commerce schedule based on valua) adopted Cost Proposed New, up to & include 100,000 BTU $ 6.00 New 100,000 BTU's and over 7.50 Woodburning Stove 4 .,30 Wall-Floor-Suspended 6.00 Vent System with'Fan 4.50 Repair - He<at Cooling 6.00 Each Air Handling Unit or Duct System 7.50 Commercial Hood System 7.50 Other- Equipment - Each 4.50 ' 1 Trip Inspection 4 .50 Air Condition Compressor up to and including 3 H.P. 6.00 3.1 to 7:5 H.P. inclusive 11 .00 1.2 tECHArdICAL PERMIT — MECHANICAL PLAN CHECK FEE (Acct. #10-433) To 'recover costs of staff time for ;plans examination and processing. Fee structure and rates are scat by the Stage. (Uniform Building Code as adopted ir, TMC 14.06 — State Dept, of Comme;•ce schedule based on Value:) Adoptee! Cast Proposed Portion of i-lechanieal Permit Fee 25% MECHANICAL PERMIT STATE SURCHARGE (Acct. #10--230-501) To cover ;:governmental education and ' Dept. of Commerce costs related to building codes enforcement. Fee structure and rages are set by the State.(Uniform Building Code as adopted in TCC 14.08 — State Dept. of Commerce schedule based on value. ) Adopted Cost Proposed Portion of'Mechanical Permit Fee 4% , PLUM' 8K G PESIP9 T (Acct. #10-431--600) To recover costs of staff gime for, processing applications and conducting inspections. Fee structureand rates are set by the sState. (Oregon State Plumbing Specialty Code and Admin. Regulations as adopted by TMC 14.12.080) Ado�ated Cost Proposed Fixtures Traps $ 7.50 Dishwasher 7.50 Garbage Disposal 7.50 Water Heater 7.50 Solar Water Heater 15.00x? Backflow Preventer 7.50 Sewer: First 100 ft.' , 30.00 tach Additional 100 ft. 1.5.00 Ejector 'Pump 7.50 Water: First 100 ft. 20.00 Each 'Additional '200 ft. 15.00 Storm Lair, Drain: First 100 ft. 30.00 Each:Additionztl 2.00 ft. 15.00 Rain'.Drain c Single Family Dwelling 15.00 Mobile Home Spada 25.00 PLUMBING PERMIT STATE SURCHARGE (Acct. #1.0-230-507.) To cover governmental education and Dept. of Commerce costs related to codes enforcement. Fee structure and rates are set by the State. (Oregon State Plumbing 'Specialty Cede and Admin. Regulations as adapted by TMC 14.12.080.) f}dopteri Cost Prosed Portion of'Plumbing Permit me 4%' 13 S FIILL (GRADIR%!G) PE fS T (Acct. 010-435) To recover costs of staff time in regulating the nature, extent, and location of grading and filling activities. Fee structure and rates are recommended by the State. (Uniform Building Code as adopted in TMC 14.04.050.) j.2pted Cost Proposed 50 cubic yards or less $10.00 51 to 100 cubic yards $15.00 101 to 1,000 cubic yards — $15.00 for the first 100 cubic yards plus $7.00 for each acddi.ti.onal 1,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. 1,001' to 10,000 cubic yards $78.00 for the first 1,000 cubic yards, plus $6.00 for each additional 1,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. 10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards — $132.00 for the first 10,000 cubic yards, plus $27.00 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or Fraction thereof. 100,001 cubic yards or more $375.00 for the first 100,000 cubic yards, plus $15.00 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. FILL {GRADING PERMIT - FILL GRADING P'S..AM CHECK FEE (Acct. t#10-433) To recover costs of 'staff; time in plans examination and processing. Fee structure and rates are recommended by the State. (Uniform Building Code as adopted in TMC 14.04.C150.) Adapted Cost PrUposed 50 cubic yards or less No Fee 51 to 100 cubic yards $1.0.00 101 to 1,000 cubic yards $15.00 1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards $20.00 10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards — $20.00 for the First 10,000 cubic yards, plus $10.00 for each additional 1.0,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. 100,001 to 200,000 cubic yards — $11.0.00 for the first 100,000 cubic yards, plus $6.00 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or- fraction thereof. 201,000 cubic yards or more $170.00 for the First 200,000 cubic yards, plus $3.00 for each additional 1.0,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. OT EP d� iD FEES (If the Planning stage, Acct. ##10-440; if Building stage, Acct. ##10-435) Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to approved plans AdUq^ted Cast fora .osed Per Request $15.001hr. (minimum charge — one--half hour) �a. I SEWER PERMIT To recover costs of system development, and staff time in processing applications and conducting inspections. The Sewer Permit includesa combination of a: Connection Fee and Inspection Fee. . All new 'building construction is required to be connected to sanitary sewage collection E system. (Unified Sewerage Agency Contract) If SEWER q _ FEE Q SYSTE 9 Ci�ARGE) (20:. in Acct. 030-443, and 80% in Acct. ##30-•202) To recover expansion costs of construction of 'City sanitary sewage collection system'. (Unified 'Sewerage Agency Contract - Resolution & Order #82-35`.) Adopted Cost Proposed -- t Basic Residential: $975.00 City' share 20% USA share 80% $780.00 Basic 'Non-Residential: Based on number of plumbing fixtures (DUE). See attached schedule - Appendix. t Exemptions for pre-existing structures prior- to 7/1/70: See attached. schedule'- Appendix SEWER PERMIT -'INSPECTION FEE., (Acct. ##30--444) To recover costs of staff time for inspection. (Unified Sewerage Agency Contract-Res. and Order #32-35) Adopted Cost Proposed ~ Residential $35;00 Commercial '$45.00 Industrial - $75.00 � s SEWER MMi IN L103 OF ASSESSMENT FEE (SEWER SURCHARGE CONNECTION EEE (Acct. ##30-445) To recover 'system costs of construction of sewer line adjacent to proper ty to which- applicant requesting connection; and of which applicant had not contributed, directly or indirectly, to system construction costs. (Ord. moi. 0,84-58; Unified Sewerage Agency Contract) Adopted Cost Proposed Fee $3,000.00 (currently being re-examined) (plus standard:connection and inspection charges) _. u i WIN- 15 - ENGINEERING RELATE® PERMITS STREET OPENING PERMIT (Acct. ##10-436) app 5 iicati.ons and conducting To cover casts for staff time processin inspections. A Limited Time Permit is; for ,a specific cut or break and an Annual` Permit is to regulate and track work on public streets by utility companies (TMC 15.04.030(a) and (b); Res. No. -84-64) Adopted Cast Proposed 4�. Limited Time: based on 4%, 4.00 minimum estimated' construction cost $4.00 minimum, $107.17 $ Annual Permit: for utility co. $ 100.00/yr. 2.100.00fyr. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PERMITS SUBpjVISIOfai PUBLIC IhePROVEMENT PERMIT (Including Final Plat Approval) (Acct. #10-437) The permit fee is required to defray in whole or in part the cost andxpense incurred by City staff in processing permits (TMC; 18.164.150,). regulate development: in City, and cover costs - incurred for public improvement plan review, conducting inspections, legal document processing, and records update. Adopted 4% 3-6% 4% Fee based on estimated construction cost (less cost of sewers) STORM DRAIN AND STREET SEWER PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PERMIT (Acct. #10-439) The permit fee is rewired to defray in whole ar in part the cost and expenses incurred by City staff in processing permits (TMC 18.164.150) . To cover costs ssubdivision of review and approval of plans by Engineering Division of street mains, and inspection of sewer construction (air tests, TV inspection). ##$4-58) Cust Proposed Adopted Fee based on estimated 4% 3-6% 4% construction cost PUBLIC I!RPR®VEEytENT STREET LIGfiTIr G FEE (Acct ##21-442) The permit fee is require=d to defray in whale or in part the cost and expenses incurred by City staff in processing permits (l'MC 18.164.150). To regulate provision of adequate subdivisionilluminati.an, and pr capay costs to City of energizing ' and maintenance until. new buil.di.ngs are constructed and contributing to tax burden. Cost Proposed Adapted Fee 2 years energy Varies 2 years energy costs +`10% energy & maintenance costs costs a J.0% inflation per applicable PGE Company inflation Schedule and inflation guard of 10%. see Engineering for most recent schedule. 1.6 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT TRAFFIC SIGNING AND MARRING FEE (Acct. 910-451) _ The permit fee is required to defray in-whole -or• in part. the cost and expenses incurr;id by; City staff, in processing permits (TMC 18.164.150). To regulate provision of adequate uniform traffic control street signs, and cover costs of purchase anis installation. Adopted Cost Proposed Based on actual cost of (see Goods and Service Fee — Reimbursement staff time and materials -worksheet in the Appendix) LICENSES LIQUOR LICENSE (Acct. -ffIO-435) To recover costs of staff time in processing application, and to regulate placement and operation of establishments selling liquor. applications are reviewed by Police Chief for recommendation to City Council for approval, renewal, or denial. (Ord, 84-12) Fadolated Cost Proposed Establishments selling by $25.00/yr, $ 25.00/yr.' the package Establishments selling by $25.00/yr. $ 25.00/yr. thle glass' BICYCLE LICENSE (Acct. x€10-435) Issued by Police Department as a public service to community and safety education 'to'youth. (TMC 10.36.040)- Adopted Cost Proposed_ Fee $ -0- $ -0— SIGN PERMIT (Acct. x`10-435) To recover costs of staff time in sign code regulation of new signs. This is in addition to any building permits required for structural review. (Tmrr 16.12.030)' Adopted Cost Proposed Sign Area: 0 - 2.5 sq. ft. $ 10.00 $18.63 avg. $15.00 for 26 - 100 sq. ft, 25.00 first sign; > 100 sq. ft. 25.00+ $7.50 for each for each additional addition 100 sq. ft. or % thereof 10.00 Maximum permit 1.00.00 Re-inspection ' 10.00 Temporary Sign 10.00 Planning Commission Review Fee 25.00 r7777 7 SIGN CODE EXCEPTIONS (Acct. i#10-440) Review of requests for exceptions to the sign Cade. Review and public hearing t before the Planning Commission required under Chapter 18.114 of the Community Development Code (Res. No. 84-71) Adapted_ Cost Proposed - Fats $200. $277.25 $220.00 PARK RESERVATION (Cook Park) (Acct. 910-451.) To offset ;cost of maintenance of park, and staff time in processing reservations. The reservation requirements for large-group use of Cook Park facilities are scheduled for the : high use period of March through October. The park is open year-round for walk--through general use by public ({ties. #86-22) . Fees for- the use of large urban parks as defined by Resolution 86-22 are set as follows Group I Groups II & III 4-Hour increments at: Covered Area Soccer and - -- Ballfields Groups up to 50 No Charge $20.00 $10.00 :51--100 No Charge $30.00 $3.0.00 101-150 No Charge $40.00 $10.00 151-250 No Charge $,50.00 $10.00 251-500 No Charge $60.00 $10.00 For groups such as soccer associations, softball and baseball leagues exluding Tigard Little League, Tigard Soccer Association, and Tigard School District, reserving ball.fields more than once during a week (Sunday to Saturday) a $10.00 reservation fee for each field used for each week shall be paid. ALARM PPERMIT (Acct. i'#10-434) To protect emergency services of City from misuse, and better monitor location and type of structures so equipped. (TML' 11.08.030) Adopted Cost Proposed Burglary Alarm $ 15.00 $28.85 $15.00 Comi.nati.on Burglary & Robbery Alarm $ 25.00 $28.85 $2:5.00 False Alarm penalties Senior Citizen, ' physically handicapped exemptions BLASTING PERMIT FEE (Acct. 410--435) Investigating, evaluating and processing the circumstances involved in the use of explosives within the City to ensure public safety and welfare by limiting such use within safe parameters as determined by the City Engineer (Ord. 84-41 Res 84•-72) Adapted Cost Pry MOI ed Blasting Permit Fee $120. $11.5.46 -- 18 JOINT APPLICATION 01 A3ldIArs FEF POLICY : rc is a shared savings, on many of the planning fees if the applications are filed together as one proposal. savings are from sharing in 'file set-up, application distribution, legal. notice, and hearing staff review activities. To pass this benefit on to the developer the following structure is recommended. 8doVo ted Cost E pos, of hest planning fee; 1c10 Flus % of all additional, planning fees on proposal a 10� (y iMpOr�F(�AWE PLAN PROCESS11MG (Acct #10-440) a �o cavi the costs of staff time ane! notifications for processing of applications, 2 public notices, and 2 planning commission meetings: (TMC is 17.11.03:0 Resolution No. 84-19A) Rdooted Cont Fro op sed Text $ 450.00 TextOnly $ 792.37 $ G50.U0 ,. Onl.y $ 650.00 $ 816.79 $ 650.00Map }, Doth Text ,& Rap $1000.00 $ 841.21 $ 654.00 ZOW Ch'ANGE PROCESSING (Acct.-'AVIO--438) To cover the costs of `staff ti nip filing for processing and meetings. Review of Chang and to the City's adopted zoning map. Review by Planning Staff {{ and Public hearing before the Planning Commission required in Section 18.32 of ' L the Community Development Code:: (Tl`3C 17.11.010; Res. No. 84-19A; CDC 18.32) Adopted Cost Fran Deed Cess $'350.00 $ 599.35 __0- Two Acres or ` $ 750.00 $ i99.35 0- , Two __ Ten Acres _.0- For each acre over 2, add $50/acre rap to -: $1000.00 $ 599.35 $500.00 Less than ten acres Ten or More Acres $1250 f $75 $ 599.35 $600-00 k per acre, not to exceed $2000 ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (Acct. #�lo-a38) Review of annexations and assignment of zoning designations to property to be annexed. Review and public hearing before Planning commission and CityY; Council. required under Chapter 18.136 of the Community t!evel.oprnerit Code. (Res. No. 84--71) Adopted Cost Fropersed Fee $675 $970.59 -0 Less ,than ten acres $500.00 Teri or more,acres - $600-00 9 6� ,r 1.9 - ZONE DINAMCE �L3a'S 17 (Acct. 110-438) p public . Review amendments to the Community Development Code. Review and p hearings before Planning Commission and Cityouncil required in chapter 18.32 of the Community Develop meat Code. (Res. No. 8a-71) Pr000sed � Adopted Cost -- $320 $3II0.85 $300 Fee Pa AN�3 L1 pE�E10PMENT PROCESSING (Acct. ##10-440) To cover the ' costs of staff time and filing for processing and meetings. ` 3 plans and public hearings. '� s including the 'review of the proposal and detailed (lPftC 17,11.010; Res. #84-19A; CDC 18.32; COC i8.80) Pro2osed f�dopted Cost �-o---- $688:Q8 -0- $600 conceptual -0- Plan Review $400 $291.68 Detailed Plan Review $979.76 $700 Conceptual Detailed Plan Review -Q- COWITIONAL USE PROCESSING (Acct. ##lefare) herring before' F6earings Officer as required under S�eview of permit request, , community Development Code sections 17:11.Q10 and 18.142 (Res. bio. 84-19A; Res. No 8r-71) Cost Pro�O-le Y i Adnptrd i:. $ 300.00 $442.31 $350.00 conditional Use Review ` . v TEMPORARY USE PROCEaSXNC (Acct. ##10--435) for To cower ;%he costs of staff time and filingrector,r planning Cemiss%n,nor' '. Review of permit requests i;y the Planning City Council depending on the length of the permit. Required under Chapter 18.140 of the Community Development Code (Res. No. 84-19A) Ado ted cost Pro pia r 75.00/mo. 75:00/mo. $126.05 $ 150.00 1 to 3 months by Director 150.00 $1.99.57 $ A 3 months to 1 year by Planning Commission/City Cou�ncil $ -0_ Special Exemption/Non-Profit $ -0- ' td:�i I#aNCE�-flYa?71MISTRATIVE (Ace's.. #10-430) irements : Review of requests- for vary•r rsin nces o C' reitu' Y-Qqui.red in Community rDevelopsnent e lots cif record. Revi�uf dry P..�. 9 Code Chapter 18_13=7 Ado ted Cost Prate ed 7 3.7Z It 200.00 ' $200.00 = Fee w t x - r VARIANCE—SUBDIVISION (Acct. 6610-438) r Review of requests for variances to the Development Code in conjunction with subdivision reviews. Review and public hearing before the Planning Commission required in the Community Development Code Chapter 18.134. Adopted Cost Prosed Fee $300'.00 $418.Of# $ --0– See Subdivision Partition 'Fee x Cast minimal if done in conjunction with Subdivision Preliminary Plat Fee. a SENSITIVE :LANDS'– FLOODPLAIN (Acct. 66]:0--435) Review of requests to alter the topography within the 100 year floodplain. , Review of requests and engineering calculations and determination of impacts by Planning Director and City Engineer required (currently requires review by Hearings Officer). (CDC 18.84) Adopted Cost Proposed Fee $5017.00 $646.36 $500.00 SENSITIVE_LANDS '- ADMINISTRATIVE (Acct`. #10-435) Review of requests to alter- the topography in wetlands or steep slope area. Review of requests and determination of impact :by City Engineer- and Planning Director required. (CDC 18.84) Adapted Cost �ro�tosed Fee $150.00 $358,67 $300.O0 SITE DEVELOPMENT_ REVIEW PROCESSING (Acct. #'10-440) To cover costs of staff time aria filing for processing, public notices, field visit, and meetings. Review of site plans for all new development except single family homes and duplexes which is not part of any other development. Review by Planning Director is required. (CDC 18.120; Res. 84-19A) Adopted Cost P Mosed Under $10,000 $ 75 $ 75 $ 10,000 -`,$ 99;999 $ 150 $ 150 $100,000 $499,999 $ 300 Avg. of $ 300 $500,000'- $999,999 $ 400 $480.82 $ 400 $1,000,000 or- more $ 500 + $1 per $ 500 ¢ $1 per $10,000 over $10,000 over $1. million not $1 million riot to exceed $2001). to exceed $2000 MINOR LPis D PARTITIO!8 -_ RESIDENTIALx (Acct. #10-4:37) � Review partitioning of r•esidenti.ally zoned land into three or fewer parcels withouth( vacation of a pubt.i.c right–of---way, Review by Planning Director is required (Res. No. 84-19A) Adopted Cost Proposed Resident.i:al $313.82 R' $151).c)U $?_2�a.00 x Recommend changing title to Land Partition Rusi.denti.aI (Major or, Minor) - r , M[NOR LAND PARTITION - �10�n1-F£SIO£NTIAL (acct. ##10-437) " of non-residentially coned land irate three or fewer Review ' Partitioning ublic right-of- '"y Review by Planning parcels without tragi creation of a, p fl4-19A)No. Director is required (Res . proposed ". Agopted Cost _- -- ?25.00 $300.00 $333.82 $- Non-Residential R eco9aamcnd changing title to Land artition - Nen-Residential (Major or Minor)) .nor WOR LAND PARTITION (Acct. !#10-437) parcels grad with the creation Planning Director is required. (Res No. fr . Review Partitioning .of.:land :into three or fewer p of a public; right-of -way• Review by _ 04-19A) Prop-tis_ed Adopted Cost g $250 +$5/lot -0- Prelim. Plat $100 +W lot Final Plat $333.82 Major Land Partition Fee this as separate Recommend combining with above Land Partitions and deleting fee. SUBD- 10y PR£L �4I�L R__ Y Pi PT (Acct. #10-437} public hearing before Planning Commission Review of ` creation -o�F four or more lots with or without the creation of a public right--of-�,aay. t?evi.ea,a and p required (Res. No. 8A-19A) Proposed $250 +$5/lot $555.40 -0 $55555.40 Prelim. Plat $400,00+$5/lot Fee $100.00 subdivision.Variance if needed $300.00 a Acct. !#10-437) roved preliminary SUBDIVISICltB PARTITION - FINAL P IA for conformance with app Review of final subdivision P aired (Res. No. 84-19A) plat. Review by Planning Director req Adopted CP row d Final Plat $100.00 -�- $1 $160.44 Avg. $ -0-* per lot X Recommend including in Subdivision Public Improvement Permit and deleting this as separate fee- MISSION #10-440) APPEAL OF DIRECTORS D£CISx�?'� TO PLANNING C ISSION (a applicant to discuss and Review and pracessi�Inc,�f appeal is required in 'forte pp 8.32 of the Community Development Code. It is the firstopportunity clarify application. {Res. No. 84-71) Amsted Cost ProFatisecS 2'L5.00 $240.00 :f.282.21 $' ..Fen 3 fyy �s #&PPERL OF 3�LRh��llNG COfi'�'9ISSION OR HEARINGS OFFICER DECISION TO CITY COUNCIL '. (€acct. ##10-440) processing 'required in Chapter 18.32 of the Community Development Review and � Code (Res. No. 84-19A) Adorated Cost Proposed '. $3E7G.U0 $244.64 $300.00 + Review Fee Transcript Transcript Costs Costs 9RC€�TItSNS/STREETS AND PUBLIC ACCESS (Acct. 010-4511 vacatan public property for private use. (Ordinance Review r•ewests to g 85--01) Applicant responsible for all costs and is billed by the City Recorder. fivdopted Co_.st Propased Fee based on actual costs actual costs $212.81,varies actual costs STREET/LAND DEDICATION (Acct. fa`10-436) Review street/land dedication papers (Res. No. 84-19A) p F§dopted Cost Proposed repeal " Fee (does not include filing fee) $100.00 minimal . FLEXIBLE SETBACK STANDARDS— DEVELOPED LOTS (Acct. 1810-+ave Review of requests for flexib'ie set back standards on developed lots. ��v;ew and decision by Planning Director required in Chapter 18.146 of the Community " Development Code. (Res. NO. 84--71) rado`teted Cost Proposed_ .®..a ...-. - — Fee $200.00 $128.59 $100.00 . F!TSTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT (Acct. ##10-440) Review of alteratiarts, additions or demolitions to structures on sites with the }iistor•ic District overlay. Review and public hearing before the bearings �. Officer required under Chapter 38.82 of the Community Development Code (Res. 'No,: 86-18) Adopted Cost Proposed Fee $75.00 `307.57 $75.00 TREE REMOVAL PER-MIT (Acct. x#10-435) and . val permit requests. Review by Director required Review process tree remo under Chapter 18.150 of the Community Development Code (Res. No. 84-71) Adopted Cost Proposed $ 40. $18.29 tee $ O 2:3 s 5 c #cCCESSflRY tlSES/ACCESSORY STRUCTURES (Acct. ##10-440) :and structures Review of requests for accessory uses . Review required under ( Chapter 18.144 of the Community Development Code (Res. No, 84-71) Adopted Cost Pra�vpo_ seu $75. Fee TRITFRPRETATION COME UNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE 8Y CflS�i'+UF�ZTY DE�dFLOP�9Efif�l €DESA:W RiEL'T (Acct. $10-440) Review requests for interpretations on the Community Development Code. Review req nF Code ir2f:erpretation is the Director's as set forth an Section 10.12 or the Community Development Code (Res. No. 84-71) Adapted Cost Pro $ 50. $62.23 $ 50. Fee _ EFtO L07 LZ�E 5El"Uf?C�b STANDARDS (Acct. #10-440) just a Review of requests for zero lot line setbackprocedures. N' Sep opal a tho ty Ireauired separate code requirement. Review and decision b� app in Chapter 18.148 of the Community Development Cade (Res. No. 84-71) Adopted Cast Pro osed q $285.83 Fee $220. $ -0- Recommend deleting fee since it is always part of another partition. LOT LINE ADJUSiP9EP�Y (Acct. ##10-440) Review and processing of lot line adjustments. Review and decision by Planning Director required in Chapter 18.162 of the Community Development Code (Res. No 84-71) Adapted Cost Pro osed $220. Fee $207.34 $200.00 ME OCCUPATION PERMIT (Acct. ##10-435) Reveiw of requests fora home occupation permit. Review and decision by the Director is required by the Community Development Code (CDC Ch. 18,].42). Adapted Cost Proposed $ 75.00 $ 83.22_ $ 75.00 i4onle 0ccupation Permit 20.00 $ 17.73 $ 20,00 Rome Occupation Permit Renewal z 24 SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT" CHARGES rt SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT MARGE STREETS (Acct. $#51-445) tri offset costs of installation, constriction, or expansion of extra cat�acit i street facilities and trafficcontrol devices, necessitated by impacts of � '• Increased usage by nes development. Fees are charged when, a building permit a is issued for easy ;neva construction and/or additions which increases the number of required parking spaces. (Tl°aC 3.20.030 Ord. 64-13) Atli Cost €proposed f_ r $6100.00 Single Family Residence $500.0050 00 Multi_Fami_ly Residence/per unit $300.00 Mobile Home Court/space $187.50 $240.00 Cosnmeresal, Industrial $ 67.50 $ 90.00 Institutions/park irig space as required in CDC 18.50.120 �. Exemptions as noted in `fiMC 3.20.050 S�'STE£'iS LSEELO`i�'iE�9'e CSAor - PARKS (Parks I an Acct. #52-449-510 and Parks II in Acct. #52-449-520) To offset costs of s3ccuisition, development, and expansion of additional � recreation spaces and 'saciliti'es. Fees are charged when a b�ai l�§in permit is : issued for any new construction and/or additions which creates a dwelling unit. Revenues collected in district (#1 or #2) to be spent in that district. (Ord. 04-14) k.; Adopted Cost Pr�osed �. 8 Single Fwnily Residence $150.00 $150.00 Multi-Family Residence/unit $ 90.00 $ 90.00 ; Mobile Home Court/space $ 75.00 $ 75.00 � C: P. SySTEmS DEVELOPMENT CHARGE — STORM nF8 (Acct. ,#31-450) To offset capital and major maintenance costs in provision of storm drainage e; improvements, necessitated by impacts of increased storm water runoff from new development. Fees are charged when a building permit is issued for any new construction. (Ord. 84-15) - A jMted Cost Pro Deed Residential: Single Fam. Dwelling Unit=1 ERU $250.00 $250,00 Multi—Dwelling 'Unit/ERU $250.00 $250.00 $250.00 � y Non—Residential Unit1ERU $250.00 (£RU-10,000 sq.ft.) i t r 25 A AQ SEWER USERS SERVICE CHARGES {Acct`. #3C}-2C32 and x°39 A46) To recover costs of staff time and defray casts of major upgrading of storm llection system, and sewage treatment. (7{ and sewer lines, maintenance of co a 12.05.020) Adm Cost ased $ 34.50 $i3 6.75 Residential Rates/quarter $ 22.68 $22.58 USA Share 70% of $32.25 9.67 $ 9.67 City Share 30% of $32.25 � City Sewer Maintenance � 2.25 $ -!?- Mon-Residential rates: eased on number of plumbing fixtures (DUE). (See attached schedule - Appendix) MWA DRAINAGE USERS FEE (Ttipe;ervicue Surfaces Fee) (Acct. 031-447) To accurmuto operating revenues for Storm Drainage 'Fund (SDF), for storm f Storm Drainage Master Plan. Based on total drainage control and management o urface of each property. as indicator of square footage of impervious , $ property's contribution to :storm water run-off problem. ( 3.36.074}) Adopted Cos Prnr3cased Residential: .75 $.75 Single Family/month $ $.75 Multi-Family/ESU/month $ .75 x,75 4....' Non-�Residentiai/ESU/month $ 75 (ESU=2504 sq.ft. of impervious surface) FRA CHTSE REVi NUE_ Franchises are special rights granted by government to a private corporation to act 'monopolistically in a given area, often in public rights-of-way. the usually charged a percentage of the _gross revenue operator of a franchise is collected within the City limits. Ei.EC Y (QGE) (Acct. x#10-460) To reimburse the community for the use of public rights-of-way, and the necessary regulation by the City franchise; (Ordinance No. 72-55) Adopted Cost Proposed 3.5% % of gross revenues collected 3.5% within city limits NATURAL� GAS (M.4q. :t4atural Gas Co.) (Acct. #4143-461) To reimburse the community for the use of public rights-of- franchise. and the necessary regulation by the City franchise (Ordinance No. 72-17) A,dopated Cost Proposed EE 3% % of gross revenues collected 3% within city limits 26 TELEPHONE (General Telephone) (Acct. ##10-462) and the Ta reimburse the community For the use ofpublicrights-of-way, Necessary regulation by 'the City franchise. (ordinance No. 72-18) A ted 'Cost Prapaosed 3% of gross revenues collected 3% within city limits � L (Pacific W-W Bell) (Acct. 10-4 2) o reimburse the community: for the use Of ►ublc rights-a -way• and the necessary regulation by the City franchise. (Ordinance �ds�. 73-20) F6�i d Cost Pro-�pa� seed 3� % of gross revenues collected 3 within city litnits (Frank's, Siiller`s, Schcnis t" � (Acct. #�10-4 3) LID WASTE DISPOSAL ( public rights-of--u�ay. and the To t^ea.sn$aurse tfi e casnmunity for the use of s, 1.04.020, Ordinance No. necessary 'regulation ;by the City franchise. ( � JO-45, Resolution No, 83-35) Cast Proposed, n+. 3% % of gross revenues ;;ollected 3 within city limits CABLEmid (MACC/Storar Cable) (Acct. #10-465) t f its 13 The Metropolitan Area C©msnussications Commission (MACC) is umbrella Organization which cot -ordinate sintere cable strative and es collection for admiests nimembCom�+ur+ity receives ?..% of a 5% gross reveu for franchise access programming purposes. Each Inember jurisdiction receives 3% of gross on revenues of Storer Cable TV collected in each jurisdicti Intergovernmentaladministration. (TMC 5.12.030, and MACC Agreement agreement per ORS 190.005.) Aa?oPtQd C Proposed 3% % of gross revenues collected 3 within city limits J r - 2? - a 6 F FS coRFEZTURES , s far violating existing imposed as a penalty riontest L Fin€�s are earns of money ' art does , o ra i nano P s e and forfeitures occ�;rinwhen intent is enforcementofthe Laws, or rules, thQ action. Thais, their primary cost on soon-compliance. Traffic violatioros by iaposi a sufficiently high of revenue. :. and library xines constitute the rnajcsr sources o€ this types . olive training), with the remainder portions of Bach 9un'icigal Court fine are earrisar�ted for Court and "olive a digest defense. BPS3 p functions ( fines are �aesigrsated for replace�roent allocatc3 to the General Fund.` Libt^ary or repair of lost or damaged materials. !DU ( . cct. X10--457) t (Departmentain� l rez:�rataere material and time costs and retrieval of materia_. roved by the Library Board �. TMC 2.36.060:) gsolicy as app Proposed Adopted Cost .�.-® - Fee per; item per notice knot to .50 exceed $5.010 on one notice)' s stem. 3i Fees will change the automated circulation v Acct #10-457) replacement material. K it�S`F' MATERIAL a CHARGE ( purchase o€ P tine staff time costs and allow p Board ,& TMC 2.36.060.) F To recap as approved by the Library Departmental policy Ado ted Cost Proposed $14.93, varies (See attached schedule Appendix) Fee will change with the automa.ted circulation system' B4S; LATF_D LIBRARY CARD CHARGE (Acct. #10-457) artmental Policy as To 'recapture staff time costs and pay for new card. (Dep approved by the Library Board &, TM- 2.36.060.) Cost Pra Deed Ad�,o ted �--o- Fee per lost card � .50 � CARgS (Acct. x010-470) as approved In-lieu o� tars paid by in-city citizens. (Departmental policy by the Library Board 6 TmC 2.36.060.) Advo t_ed Cost Pro' posed $6.25 Fee per card t * 'Temporarily esaspendeCouncil. resr�l.utian. d Jan. 1, 1986-Dec. 31, 1966 by City f - 20 MIMI a c M31CROF:14CHE3 COPIER (Acct. $#10-451) Patron :is -table to copy ;magazine articles on microfiche. 'giant to encourage, (' staff assistance for search arid, refile-normal service. s Ad�ted Cost Proposed Fee per- card #`x�#� - ppTER (Acct. The pattern is aideto copy library materials and personal' iters with minimum : _ counter and col3ects `charg aff involvement. Staff issues copy e: st Adopted Cost Pr O�osed Fee per itern .10 :56 REPL F lERi"f r�S ARGE (Acct. #10-457) To recapture,'staff'srosts and E-aaterial costs. (Departmental policy as approved by the Library Board & TMC 2.36,060.<) Cruet Cost Proposed Fee per item* � 50 E ,#��»C: PAL ib>'f' f�NES & FORFE'S:TURES (Acct. 05 10-�55. -650. -660. -570) ®eterfined by M nicipal Court:Judger in lime with State fives: (ORS 493.310 & "F►"iC Chapters 7 6 10 - Ccxeart ruling �1I15I83 - TMC 2.24.040,) Adopted Cost Pro, ros.d ' (See attached schedule - Appendix) Xf`jjD�GE" £iffEMSE >(Acct . #10-456) ri ..sa S E 29 'C L!�a sEOUS REVENUES IS ME ( A- number or individual revenue sources are ,included under this catchall Interest earnings on fund balances constitute the largest revenue heading: Interzst on all fund balances are accrued and producer in this category. y redeposited to the applicable 'funds. Certain Recovered Expenditures, such as E ,7C,D. ,Adsninastrative and Engineering casts are included, in this grouping, , although they they also be interpreted as recovered chanes ; for services pr in an earlier period. The sale of various City documents, studies, and maps may; also be viewed as representing recovered service charges for work completed ire' ars earlier period. although most are priced to primarily recover � printing costs. SA€.,E pREhENSIVE PAN 0M[NTS Policy) ntal(Acct. x#10-451), � To recover `inti; 'o s. (Separtme ` Cost Pro aced �; Adopted C comprehensive,Plan $ 10.00 $10.00 Findings, Policies,, Imple— 3 00 $ 3.00 mentation Strategies 0om'Munity Development 12.00 $12.00 ' Code< $.25,00 $25.00 Cost for a complete set $. r . PO ICF, REPORT COPIES (Acct. ##10-451) To cover costs of printing and staff time. (Pas. X84-17A) Adooted_ CoProrosed es Cost .. 7.67 avg. $ 5.00 First 10 pages or less. Plus : 5.25 $ $ .25 Fee,per Waage over ten 3 3IC€ P 60'it RAPt S AYES (Acct, g#10-451) To cover costs of printing and staff time. (Res. #04-17A) Adopted Cost Proposed Fee/Print $ 2.00 $2.32 $ 2•.00 FjrtGERpRjhj's, (Acct. {#10-451) providing this Issued day Police Department as a Public service. No longer p �J service since 2/18/86, due to the new;facility security-logistics. (Res. ##R4-17A) Adopted Cost Proms osed Fee/set (both hands) $ 5.00 $3.27 $ 5.00 — 30 — PLAN DEPOSIT (Acct, #110-220) To ;protect City against loss of plans which are tauten out of City Hall for copying. Required by Building Department. Adopted CostProposed Fee: $100.00 $100.00 PUBLIC FACT-LIN AND INFORMATION APPI€G (Acct. #10-451) To <recover costs of printing and staff preparation time. Prepared and issued by the Engineering Division. See appendix for- current rates. (Departmental 'Policy) Adopted Cost Prognosed 1" 200' Series and Overlays $2.00 Varies Prices to be 1" - 400' Series and Overlays $2.00 Varies seat by the 1°" - 800' Series and Overlays $1.00 Varies Director of 1" 1600° Series and Overlays $ .50 Varies Community Dev. P�.ANINE RIC MAPS (Topo & Ortho) (Acct. #t10-451): To recover casts of; printing ,and staff preparation time. Issued by Public Works Department (Engineering). (Resolution No. 86-30) AndMted Cosh Proposed Dlueline Print 1/4 sec./each $ x .00 $ 5.00 �yl.ar 1/4 section/each{ $150.00+ $150.00+ cost to create cost to create mylar Mylar *only available to other governmental agencies SALE OF PHOTOCOPIED DOCUMENTS (Acct. ##10-451) To 'recover costs of staff time and printing charges. (Departmental Policy — ORS 192.440) .- Adopted Cost Proposed Fee/page $ 25 $1,01/request $ .25 SALE OF TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE (Acct, #10-451) To recover cost to City for printing. (Departmental Policy) Adopted Cost Proposed Fee/book $ 75.00 $75.00 31 TRANSCRIPTS—PREPARED €iY MORD PROCESSING { ) AJ02ted Cost Proposed actual costs $28.09 avg actual costs SALE OF LA140 (ORS 221.745) (Acct. ##10-478) Adopted Cost Proposed Yearly auction of City,-owned properties RESTITWION FUNDS (Departmental Policy) (Acct. ##10-479) Adopted Cost Proposed RMMEO CHECL FEE (Acct. #10-478) Resolution #83-95. A apted Cost Proposed Fee 1 $ 10.00 $$15.86 $ RECt4Ft OF DOCUMENTS LBS' DOCUMENTS' (Acct, t#10-451) All types of documents are recorded with the County• (Res. No. ) q Adopted Cost F Fee $55.01r L.T.O. Administrative Costs (Acct, #10-479) To recover costs incurred by City staff for processing of LID assessments, printing, legal costs, preliminary engineering analysis, meeting time, etc. ('TQC 13.04.000) Adopted Cost Proposed Percentage of project costs 2% L.I.D. Engineering Costs (Acct, #10-479) To recover engineering cost once the district is formed to the Finance and Closure Stage. Adopted Cost Proposed Based on actual cost of staff (see Goods and Service Fee—Reimbursement time Worksheet in the Appendix) State Accident Insurance (Acct. ##10-479) Adopted Cost Prosed Varies — 32 _ ° Witness Fees (ls�C 2.26.070) (Acc-t. #10-479) raperssti.ors staff time for attendance at court trials for police officers and ( Acics�ted Cost Praooseci 'irlat rate + Bj:/ rile outside 5.00 Cit? limits E ine e'irsq reements) (Ac6t. #10 Overtime (Developer erson el compliance forg avertime engirseerang services of Costs incurred by Engine Bring P p yr and overhead development projects. paid by developer. pays salary forbenefits and general administration. opted Cost propased Ad Actual costs by the Agreement S�rs�cial Assessment) eveszues collected from LIDparticipants on their assessed obligations, to retire Outsta nding bonds. (TMC 13.04.030 & 13.04.085) Adapted Cost proposed I Varies 4lse 6?f F'lanew find Prapert (Interest from investments, Acct. P#10--470; Interest dross ol�eroures?s, Accousst #10-471; rentals, Acct. #10-472) 4}esss5tsothues derived fro+ss interest on investments (interest earnings); and rent o� old City 44,11 tsuilsding (12420 S.W. Main). (Departmental policy, Adopted Cost Pra�oo std $8400.00 Fee per unitlyear t � APPENDIX Schedule of Fees, Charges, Funding Formulas SQwer Rags S Charges Municipal Court Fines & Forfeitures t ibrarV Charges t 34 �. a FEES AND CHARGES WORKSHEET (2/85 } („ GOODS AND SERVICE FEE - REIMBURSEMENT FEE TITLE: -- NkME: DATE: SERVICE (What is the service, and 14by_ do we do it?) SERVICE COSTS: DIRECT LABORCost position Title Activity Description Avg:Ftrs. Net Mage TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS: — uIRECT"MATeRIALS AND SERVICES: Flat Rate for basic supplies (2OX of a) Other K&S common to all such services Cost Tota Cost H & S Description b TOTAL M & S COST: b SUBTOTAL (a & b) - INDIRECT OVERHEAD COSTS Departmental (10% x c) City (20% x c) d TOTAL OVERHEAD COST: MINIMUM FEE (c + d) — SpECIAL `COSTS NOT INCLUDED ABOVE: Added Costs Added Fee Description (U537r} x I X11 1j ; , a �� IIIIIIII � o - d _ .w...� N O 10.t y •. �oS2t 5; �g S � e ✓ M r M �r •� C.r El v :O A C C Q� '�w M Y H N .•1 � 4.e� G C.w �O y a O O CLJ 6 a17 �. Uy� .yi O.® N� ®. .O G O 6 C d uw.d 4 ] w S� d d ✓ Y ] a1. u0 ati O SSG X. q x.. C y C t3 U G • aU W.. NDN w O ~ d b y G N d Q.v „�� O 0 X J� y N � V O N Y C �H u� ^ �..� ✓.J A w b 4: b �a•O.S A a b Tj ✓_N ✓ J d C rt y C u d M >O w w U p m L VC � R bu gV x ,apL d N .> ~ V C.m.] .. wU ✓ O '� OY. {V W (.J pN � as e. � � > y Ll.: O. a)G.u . > ti O N .. j � p •+ A O .! A r C y a v v m -mt q m p a � m u. ✓ o Y w 4 N O a'�••.. O y N N b A A 5-5 A.. N � �,.v ✓ O V w � _ G.. V » SAq u0 t/l b�� Y 4)F':9 C l b : i � � «. a 3 �.✓. u.c�r � oo o:,m �CaGt .�..v �� w R � �v .� y v C Y b r w N Y.G ] F +Ci • Y'C ] u 6t > : W..y > J C.Si O:,.., > V n LQ w C ..•:3 C p >.� p O to�.. .o V L ad F C ?..u.� O ry m V C b.t .bi a pN Y W Q ..7 � V vY � � w ✓�.. � 5 " G.a '.f' ..ri J �,. � q��•'' Wv..°.' F, A.di .Ui 9 '�N rUi O. U ® ]m A d V •a+d p U C 9 ` r✓ _. 3 ✓ K a C a Y t6.B !O;ate A ! a J O 6w. N •� W 4 •' � � .•-� N 4.J N US R � '�w U.' �� !` ✓ Y � V . V v � . .y;Y a _ k K 1,IRECTIONS-FEES AND CHARGES WORKSHEET (2/86) GOODS AND SERVICE FEE-REIMBURSI-MENT DIRECT LABOR Postion Net Wage A. Office Aide, Library Hide, Helper $ 8.89 B. TPOA Secretary, Clerk 1 10.07 C. OA-1, Library; Aide 'i (LI) 10.48 D. fOA-Il, LA-I1, Acctg Clk 1, plaint. Wkr 12.04 E. Clerk Dispatcher 12.`30 F. OA-III, LA-Ill, Engr. Aide, Acctg. Clk. 11 12.93 G. OA-IV, ;Sr. Acctg. Clk. III, Ut'. Wkr. 1, Ener. Ass t/ Draftsperson 13.91 H. Ut. Wkr. I1, 'Equip. Serv., Engr. Tech I 14.99 1. Exec. Secr., Data Spec. 15.43 3, Ut. Wkr. 111, Equip. Mech. , insp. I (•'C••) ' 16.05 K. Assistant Planner 16.54 L. Police;Officer 16.93 M. Engineering Technician 11 17.30 N. Corporal 17.64 0. Assoc. Librarian, Office/W.P. Manager 17.82 P. Building Inspector II ("B") 18.55 Q. Associate Planner II, Assist. Librarian 19.12 r R. Sergeant. 19.23 S. Building Inspector IZZ ("A"), Engr. Tech. III 10.11 T. Crew Chief 20.72 U. Sr. Planner, Asst to C.A., Engr. Svc. ,pigs., Sup. Serv. Mgr.., Accountant, City Rec. , Acctg. Supv. 22.30 V. Ass't. `Fin. 'Dir. , :Building Official 24.22 W. Lieutenant, P.W. Supv. 25.36 X. Captain, Librarian, Fin. Dir. 27.33 a Y. City Engr.`/Dep. Dir. C.D. 29.12 Z. Police Chief, C.D. Dir. 31.30 .. M DIRECT MATERIALS AND SERVICES HOURLY EQUIP. COST = HOURLY DEPRECIATION + HOURLY MAINTENANCE HOURLYDEPRECIATION -+- Purchase Cost of Equipment Years of Usable Life x Hours Used Per Year Hours Maint. per year x wage Annu,+l "cost for Parts + Annual fuel & lubricant costs + Total Maintenance Costs ,f HOURLY MAINTENANCE Total Maintenance Costs ; Hours Used -i'er Year (3pt:hs11411)) � J IG THE 4MICIPAL COURT OF THE CITY OF TIGARD COUNTY:or WASHIYGTOU -'STATS or 0RECOU In The Hatter Of Establishing r ORDER 85-04 l A tall schedule Tor Parking` r PARSING BAIL SCH&DULM IT Is REMY ORDERED: I a That the following bail schedule will be used for Parking violations. Over Tine Limit 3.00 Over Space Lime 3.00 Oa*'70*t From Curb 3.00 Angle Parking 5.00 Bridge Approach 5.00 Bridge Viaduct 5.00 Sea rat zone 5.00 43x^r''r:o:^alw .CO Over Sidewalk 5.00 pa%lking Strip 5.00 ' 'San Toot Fire Hydrant 5.00 Wrong Side of Street 5.00 iul other Y€alailons 10.00 Blacking Driveway 10.00 WS Zone 10.00 Construction Tone 10.00 Isp. Secured Vahicla 10.00 Leavinz Keys In Car 10.00 LOaviUg Notor Running 10.00 Leading Zona: 10.00 Hail;?.rite 10.00 No Driver At Wheal 10.00 r Sell Bono 10.00 Taxi Una 10.00 7Crfary Ho Parking 10.00 Double Perkin$ 15.00 During Pro'hlbited Time 15.00 Ve marking Any Time 15.00 0bste-4cting Streato 15.00 On PAiirood Tracks 15.09 Tow Away Zone 15:00 Tr.Jr, Prohibited Aroa 15.00 Parking In Handicapped zone 31.00 11 TMRr'S OP THIS ORDER Tors of this order apply to all parking offenses cosmitted is that portion of Q Wawhingtan County lying within the corporate limits of the City of Tigard Which may be heard before this Court. Y11 PRIOR ORDER All Prior Ordeve of this Court concerning the rm.ttasra covered herein, are ®up'arsidaai�anme,,tad y-th �tic0®c.. a=R ARD MUTERSD this _ day of 1985, EFFErTIVV .7 r FEB 7 Peiey, Jr. r Tigard municipal C in Judge Pmgo l Of l - Order to. 65-04 iz 2316A 5 in p&L COURT Opp T@fE CITY 4F TIGARD COUc Gjr wiLsItINGTQ'N - ST.RIE �� OREGON 1n t$nij matter of Establishing Court Fefls � p�E$ 85-03 Ci�ffit� „? COURT pEEs a COSTS e 1� C' g D that the following fees and costs s ll apply to Tisard :*a¢njcjPa1'court: certified Copy Fee; � 1.00 deer page, Civil compromise Filing, vee 25.00 License Reinstat ent'Fee 2[3.X80 Photocopy Few � _25 per page Lal Diversion Mir-% Fey: 25.00 show Cause Hgrins court Costs 5;D.®Q warrant Fee $,25.00 3 t /9�5 3 t�aixs . ems €� ria 985,`EE'CT1'�E �" VADE AND Ey — > / T$zaca icipaal Courit Judge Page I Ofl - order No. 535-03 4 lw/23'l6 A :r s IN-` HE MUNICIPAL Com 07 Tits ClT f of TTIGXRD C0Y.7M OF 68f'eSmOGTOV - STATS OF OREGON in than Matter of Establishing Traffic Court � Violations Bureau ,Under ) ORDER 85--02 4.u S. 153.600 Flog SCHEDULE io mpon the determination tion thaat the efficient diSPOOitior, of this Court's business and the c0mveniencaa Of Persons chcr'se#i with. traffic offenses 00 requires; IT ISS HEREBY OrRDgIaEU that there is established Fa Traffic Court Violations` BurewuD 'hereinafter called' "°Bureau, subject to the control and supervision of this Court, and which shall operate In accordance: with the following: 1. The Municipal Court Clerk and Deputy Municipal Court Clerks are: violations'clerk and deputy violations clerks, respectively. 2. A11 traffic offenses, upon signing the -Appearance, plana of Guilty, and Waiver" on.:the back of the summons (or the Cty.Court forwhich May be used in its place which is also entitled the same, and said sumonac, or Court' form, shall then be retained and permanently filed with the coupLiant) and parking violations. may be disposed of by the Bureau exyept for the following: a. ALI major ,traffic, offenses b. All offenses involving "hits" C. Speed Race d. ' Violators recognized and tzxaarcaea to have had three or more similar violations in the preceding, 12 months (as indicated on the driver's record. and Tigard Itunicipal' Court records). 3. The Bureau may impose' tcae specified fine, instead of the bail amount. as set ; forth is the attaceaed "Fine Schedule" upon defendant's compliance with section 1-2 above 4. The Bureau shall endeavor to obtain Ammodiaate payment of fine but may: a.. Extend time for PaYment to Ulm deferda.-at suggests but not in excess of 30 days upon defendant signing a -Notice of Payment" form. The defendant shall be advised, by the form signed, that the driver's licensee may be suGpended for failure to pay the fin® ashen due. After the 30 day extension, the defendant must acppeQr before this Judge. This will be scheduled ivnediately upon conclusion of the 30 day period. b. Arrange a work program with the City or another taxing entity Where defendant's financial circumstances dictate, at the rate'of $3.50 per hour to apply on the fine only. Court costs must still. be paid, based on the minimum fine as set forth in 0RS 153.523. . Pa".GL 1 of 3 - ORDER UO. 85-02 5. Bureau shall it o the specified s`iess�� n the ,attached "Fine • se—k ule" glu$ court costs. costs abau include but not be lilted �s€saess nt% as set fortis gaxec9er O ��I.OYS. €a. reau 8g 11 disrage Of all fees collected as prpya e6 in O RS x.630._ . �l m TUMS OF THIS ORDER boundaries Of the O 'TerasOf ttal€a �rclar apply to all. traffic Offent�c�s ces itt�& in t�►s�t; gs®r'lcaa Of �,�x�thli tOt� O€ro acat� llflza�, within the corporatei.ty' of °Ti GaV PRIOR ORDERS AML a�iasr o er sf. this espArt concerning the ss��ter� covered herein are sssspersedd d and Vaca b vesi circler. 3 Ile -1985, day of Tiger axsi�cigAnthony elay� al Court �� 5 F SAES G 9� lw/nG Ig -.of .3 '� 496'CDER 90- - '�V di t.- t k{ 1 1� 3 ICIB'A COURT OF THp, CYTS CP IGAM EllT -SCHEDULE (G1D3R. 85-02) The £ Municipal court violations Bureau will masses 'iEiates +a�aicta; �r� � � B83a minim= fines under O '153.623 &sad will add tea this amauant tie ."B"a nt which is rated by 022 137.4 15. Tref f It C§,tati ons 00 AIL Offenses otbar Than1hose Listed Below 25.S.04S0 Bicycle Infractions 100.00 Careless Deivins 300.00 Dealer Cr Wrecker License Violations 20.00 Equipment violations (Mit' Proof Of compliance) 40.00* Equipment `dilations (gitiaoux Peoof Cf CovQli ace) 00.00 Failure To Stop Far School Baas l,ic�seam plate Violations (g6t Teg ,violations Unless switched) 150.00 . 00 Kimilse of A rIver's License No Driver®8 License cit va�i.laaro To 33isgaiay) 1 1t300.00 i5 openContainer 50.00 0 - 1 moving violstionas in preceding 1.2 months 1001 0* or Mrs moving viol tions in preceding 1.2 months 15.00 ., peddstr i. Vjol tions Truck/Prorate Violation (Iraciasd�as go 1'Z3C Permit) 50.00 iB `And Exceeding KaxIMIM Speed 20.00 0 - -Io b 50.00 1.1 - 20 WPU" 100.00 21 Mph &,Gvev � PaK in& Citations: All paarkinZ Violations - Sam As Ball VOTE; only exception$ to mini €a fine mounts. P G'S 3 of 3 - CR33P 110- 85-02 e. TRE7 I�.IPAL COURT OF ' CITY OF TIGARD CODUTY OF W&SHINGTON STATE OF ORUGOV In The Zatter of Establishing � i lch�dul ,Rebase Procedures And Related Smatters ) _ .-juvolviM Traffic offenses And %stablishas Security 'Ammou nts Ford �' SE-01: idiol�tiorn of State and CityIC/CR KINAL BAIL SC'tt�4Dfl7i� Statutes RSL R PWCEDURES IT IS HRRWY ORDERED: I TRAFFIC BAIL SCHEDULE t,t as Otherwise ordered by the `Court, the ` following buil selxedule shall apply to all traffic offenses: (Bawd on S£iral Fi��e� under OW 15:3.623 and including Handatory State AssesOwnts under ORS I37.015). Traf fie gji.tatlgfls: All offenses other Than ase Listed. lel WITHO'' HIT) +�89,fZO ALL offe ns6s Other:Than Those Listed Below (WIC HIT) 70.00 sicy-ele Infractions10. 0 camleas Driving 135.0 3 Dialer or Wradker License Fiol&tiOn 375.'00 Equipment Violations 55.00 Failuro To Stole For School Bug 1:35.00 Juvenile citations (16 -• 17 Yeav olds) HfA License Plate Violations (Rot Tag violations unless switched) 195.00 ' Misuse Of A Driver's License 195.09 We Drier's License (Hat Failure To Display) 135.03 Open Container 135.00 r Pedestrian Violations 25.00 Seed Race 375.00 Tru6ki 'rorate Violations (includes No FUC Permit) 70.00 ' VER And Exceeding maxima Speed 0 10 mph 31.00 11 20 mph 70.04 21 'mph & teener page 1 of 4 - Order No. 85-01 1� p G p' ,2 t' over Time Limit 5.00 Over Space. Line 5.00 One Foot From Curb 5.00 -- Angle Parking'- _ 8.00 Bri.dgo proacb 8.00 Bridge viaduct 8.00 Bank zone 8.00 Over Crosswalk 8.00 OuGr Sidewalk 8.00 Farrking'Strip 8.00 Ten Foot Fire Hydrant 3.00 Wrong Side of Street 8.00 Ail Other Violations 13.00 Blocking Driveway 1.3.00 Bus Zonis 1.3.00 Construction Zone 1.3.00 Imp. Secuied Vehicle 13.00 Leaving 'Keys In Car 13.00 Leaving'&castor FXnni%. 1.3.00 Loading Zone 1.3.00 Mail Zone' , 13.00 No Driver At Wheels 13.60 School. Zone 13.00 Tani. Zone 13.00 ...: TeMorary go Parking 13.00 Double ParIkIng. 21.00 During Prohibited Time 21.00 o Peeking Any Time 21.00 Obstructing -Streets 21.005 On Railroad Tracks 21.00 'how Away %one 21.00 Tr./Thr. Prohibited Area 21.013 Park n& In Handicapped Zone 31..00 II CRIKIM 1.IL SCHEME Except as otherwise ordered by the Court, the following bail sebe4ule shall apply to all criminal 'offenses until first appearance In Court and includes P.andatory State Assessments under 0R° 137.015. Claes A Misdemeanor $2,500.00 Class B Misdemeanor $1,000.00 Class C Misdemeanor $ 500.00 Unclassified Misdemeanor 250.+00 Violation $ 250.€0 Whenever a different bail is set,by warrant' or by the Judge, that asaount shall apply in lieu of the above bail schedules. Page 2 of 4 - order Pio. 55-01 f f i. traffic citation or m Sar po rn issuing ai.eII Every ng ano C Citation for Eilin�, v r io court sh s tid cua�slii with t' bail requir s:at�s of thin S�raYer. _....2. nmh Oar ants: grit frill a aa�at of bail �� raaaace date aandr seant t in in c n, for releasc Md = epp" acc ce W-1th currm t cone, d2t act,a alulaa. Ixa c €s of an 'ar of on ars ltipae tench Waav;:.asatae, the total oaaast of bail, for,all Warrr is ST S 2 prior to';ialeaea. frrest warrants: 10% of t' e bail amotin s�rs�n dateLl be red endes time set all arrest In Warran ixa casks, for releaase .d �� $pp aacca�r ttCa with r-urreot court dates sche aal�. In the cava of arrest Oil tiple bench Wasrraants, the total amount of ba$i3 far all Wmxrants MST BE pCSTIZID prior to release. 3. zvery person arre,t,,d and ';taken into continuing ,.aaasto��, cs��iee than ors bench warrants, shall sel.eaaaaad, after t4aeapropristeoc9ai procedures arecompleted (including fiMerprinta> and photographs) asponc pcs€sti€a cash. in accordance with the sebedules haemin Dari tan ostler o£ t €a �c, �r by signing a Proper recognizance form; • ` &XT ' �4- C aT x'$s yo;., 6hould MOT r6lcasG On Geogn"-aance any ga erson Oho fits into one or Ursa Of the categories listed. belowr ` .ese pa��sons soli only be B ibl a €®r r �o�ni s nce release by the 7ud%e. such persons st post bail in thea mounts set by this Order: 3 j. Any person bAjo is TAOT a resident of than State Of OrOSOn. 2. Any Person xo hos two, car more PTA's on his/ or rocord �. -may person acs is. out on r�ccagnizance ' from this or any other Court. 4. The Chief of Palice, Captain, L,ieutenasat, eat Shift Co der,+�f ttas CourTirt' police Apart nt,'< are her appointed to act as Ci.Or.'ts of this Court, When Crust In not in session, for these purposes as defined in Section TTI-S above. 5, Th°D ori Baal recoenjx&nce agrmement. and/or " bail shall be transmitted fbe orthwith to the Court alonS with the case information. This shall dates no later than tte next day which the Coasrt offices are open. age of w order No. l y 1TV ARRAIGMMETS lY. ArraLgrMents for traffic and criminal matters shrill be scheduled '-Forthe next appropriate court date as Bet -forth ,an the.11anthly Court Calendar. EXCEPT AS FOLLOWS. brougAny.dafeudaat o is not role in criminaal matters s"saall be In-cult to f owet on the need special in-custody arraign. aat time. special In-cat�tody arraig=6-its shall be ':geld at a sate and tiM established by the Court upon notification of custody. Notification of custod. Haat w gid® 41 t t h the , anieip l Court Supervisor or judge. 'k'3aia notices will b� filmed with the Court within 24 'hours Of the arrest. ADDITIONAL�COUDITIOUS E to se ned in shall be o a€dzlit l conditions of cr raor agency withoutos�pecificiaauth authorization by the Imposed by any Policeofficer or agency p , nicipal Judge. V1 " a s� asr bail or srth r security Is accepted for a traffic Offense and another traffic citation or, aaccusatory 'injtra=nt is filed in lieu of the original i traffic ani t baa or accusatoryins nts the 'fail or security shall be r transferredn-aai is to the new citation `or Instrument. �£ the new �.. citation r' $ t eat is transferred or filed has another court saiYa� jurisdiction over the Off �m the Cler1c of t3ae court stall for th�ith transmit rt upon the dismissal the the bail or. .2 aritY to the cle>k of the appropriate caas of the ori-Inal citation or Instviment. vll TgWtW)'OF Talc ORD Vera Of this order apply to all 'traffic OffQnsGG and criminal offaaases c itt hat that iss�stiosa of &Yash ,tSton County lying within. the corporate limits of this City of Tigard %da1ch may be heard before this court. . andAuthorized CMnty per€tavZol designated by the District Court of each County. Order, are hareby ;authorizOd to act for the City of TiG ard in accepting bail A or rejea3i S an recoanizancO as past forth within this Omer. Vill PRIOR ORD= &11 prior orders of this Court concerning the matters covered herein, are superseded and vacated by this Omer. iia day of z ea Q 1905, 1AA DH =D tta Aiatraony polsa Jr. TigaraS 1h, i�sasl Court judge .° page 4 of 4 order ' �,-y��+nnas. ,tea€��tr w,g,.• , i.prics ineluae service charge for replaceaent} 1. Non-Fiction (Adult b Juvenile): t a. Hardback $17.00 ~ A b. 'Trade paperback $ 8.00 . 2. Fiction (Adult): 'a. Hardback $14.40 3. Fiction (juvenile/youn&--Adult): - -- a; hardback $ 9.00 f. 4• Easy Books: a• Hardback $ 9.00 5. Records/Cassettes: Adult c€ Juvenile z$ 9.00 per disc/cassette j a• 6. Signa ture/Art Books- BIP a. current BZp for volume over $24.64 Charge price in 7. Encyclopedias: a. Britannica $20.00 b• Work Book $12.00 r.. Others $12.40 8, Oregon Collection: a• out-of-print plus shelflist price (to cover replacement of material on same subj NOTE:; In this category it may be necessary to check with local book dealers to determine prices,' 9. sets: a• ' Cost 'o£ individual volume (divide number of into total. cost) f 10 Records: a.' 1 record $ 9.00 b, 2 records $15.00 c. 3 and over add $4,00 per record over two -record set pxice 11: Puppets: $ 9.00 Current replacement cost 12, Tape Recorders: aterial $ 2.00 13. Vertical' File'M r CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY a AGENDA OF: April 28 -1986 AGENDA ITEM �: a DATE SUBMI'T'TED: April 24 19116 PREVIOUS AGY1ON March 10 1986 ISSUE/AGE NDA TITLE: P_.waard Bids and presenting plan and estimat costs Put•hori.ze Signatures to Purchase PREPARED BY: Joy Martin Computer S stem REQUESTED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: _ CITY ADMINIS 9'RATOk POLICY ISSUE One of Council's high` priority goals for this year is to upgrade the capabilities of the City's total data processing; system. — -- 4INFORMATION SUKMARY Ort March 10, '1986, a computer, master plan was presented to Council based upon bids submitted fora city-wide data processing system. Pending -the final calculations of costs, Council approved the owerail', p1an which consisted of the Following: P 1. Purchase the Burroughs 1955 system for accountiand fleet managemer°i, ng using I.P.M. software, and police applir_ations using, Clackamas `County's CLASS system. 2, Purchase the Burroughs 925 system which interfaces with the 1955 plus HP peripherals From GEOGROUP and HOLGUIN, for management and Community Development using software by Burroughs, ,GEOGROUP, HEWLETT PACKARD and HOLGUIN 3. Upgrade the WAING word processing systeal. ° The plan addresses city-.4oide first priority needs, the continuation of our centralized word processing center which has been very effective, localized re components, and future growth capabilities. support For major softwa Action by Council on March 10, 1986, was to authorize the negotiation of contrcts_ 'For the above system. 4!e are completing 'these negotiations and request the approval. to eater- into contracts for the amounts given on the attached page, riot included i.s the costs of special cable to go from the Civic'Center to'Operations and a special processing air- conditioner needed for controlling onvriornn ntal quality. It is estimated the cost of this unit plus installation to be $8,000410,000. 9" , ALTERNATIVES �OP#SIDERED I. Award bids and authorize the City Administrator to sign contracts and to negotiate a financing plan: to be presented to Council ,prior to obligating the City. 2.' Reject all. bids. SUGGESTED ACTION — - - A motion to authorize the City Administrator to sign contracts for the Burroughs 11355 and 825 sy s teuzs, the I,P.M. software, the CLASS software, the Hp peripherals and `the software by GEOGROUP, Hewlett Packard and Holguin, and the upgrade of the Wang C?IS system for a total purchase cost of $328,993.`45 plus shipping costs and supplies, and iglus $42,720 to I.P.M. ;for one year system operation and management. It is to be understood that prior, to appropriating money, a finance plan will be presented to Council for approval using a five–year lease-purchase option for part of the purchase. �w COMPUTER SYSTEM COSI - APRIL 24, 1986 BURROUGHS PURCHASE PRICE ANMUAL CHG ES _StiP. Hardware 172929.45 21148.30 3652.00 Installation 850.00 Sof tw re 24630.00 2766.00 600.00 In s to l lat ion-Sof tware 1520.00 Training 2480.00 WANG Hardware 34100.00 3300.00 I.P.M. Software 41100.00 4932.00 Operation and IManagement 42720.00 CEOGROUP Hardware 13020.00 720.00 450.00 Software 25645.00 2640 00 Installation 700.00 Training and Travel '2300.00 HEWLE"r,'T PAr9{ARD Hardware 12414.00 336.00 _ "oftware 860.00 240.00 HOLGUIN Hardware 6289.00 300.00 Software+ 5775.00 1200.00 Installation 250.00 TOTAL 327,362.45 p CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA AGENDA OF: AGENDA ITEM aril 28,- 1966 #�: �_ • °� DATE SUSM1;TTED April 23, 1986 PREVIOUS ACTION: yNlA ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: AE?;arova1 of OLCC Alicaticsl PREPARED BY: _Loreen Wilsn' REQUESTED COY: Various 8 sinesses a DEPARTi ENT HEAD OK: CIT': ADMINISTRATOR: _ �POL"sCY ISSUE IP3FOR-1ATION S43WARY ., The following lousiness has submitted' aYnew outlet application for Council �. approval.: o Summit Restaurant, 12180 Sal Scholls Ferry Rd., Tigard, R Application The Police DeparlmerIit has conducted records and background checks and the ` Captain recommends approval. of the application. ; ALl"ERNATItrES CONSIDERED 1. Approve and forward to OL.CC. 2. Deny application. SUGGESTED ACTION Alternate MI. - lwl3585A f a �. � 6?rF_4;c3n! CITY OF TIGARD, April d.$, 1996 granst Lonnie ter , Lorpen 9�1 .lsors „ FRCfi►: licaation UtAC (dew Business RPp aErd make ; SUa�ECA business the follcsuzin be returned N.. checks on Your report" should . cess th, baackgroufl PIG ase pro Couneil action on recornr�endatR L 23r ,19136. o rye by NP• ..> _Ml OUTLET Gates �. Li nebby K. Gates rs Ghar7.eS n SL3mmit Rest cxrant er ry oaad 21$0 ;SCJ gcholls s lard, OR 97223 RagpPI cation 1ua13ra8�a .- } Y. S- -43 F g O W 9lGI i'5 SM Aa ar POP 9 ttalAM Ft 977 t t V, Addr td'kfI'�P' S�aP3d€nisi_ snl d re v Cast y,- Check , Permit ----�--- - Other CSther �ac�y z _. sCriptir�n �4rnount rivet W- " Tin, - Sui3dirs Perait.Pees t'surnb*rte —Fees eCha+icaj-p&n,it Pees �S#ate�1� .T W it3-ib33 �PBL�a�s�rt�uk�� i �liiSF,lnt ection r �, scree?Sysi.oev.,Ghirge --- Ch Parks t9 sysi. Dev.CYtarge -= ;ti-G:E€Y issrsn Drainage Sync.pev.Cha business Tax ' ( -434" �#tlarrr�Pee:nit 22T 15all fi}d5 dines TraffiiclisdlPr�rkinq 1£32 {t OP-T- TraffdcfTAisdtVic.k�ssi. N 1445 indigent a er o _�---- i i tPi o_ -,ides lz nv fUSA aU Eta��J or sen'! liGity 3G.Ro 3G-123s� 1es s �tcef i4y t,Aairot. 3 1�5 t iart6lttC.ftE?tl 31.124 ator;n Dra nage 2?gra Bancrcfi P'Tnn t'ymt., dg 471 Bancrr�ff Int-'p rnt. TOTA _ ... .. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCILAGENDA_ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: `��` - :tom, AGENDA ITEM ##: DATE SUBMITTED: April 17th 1986 PREVIOUS AC TION: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Resolution conditionally accepting Beaver Bolt_ PREPARED BY: John Hagman j Street &Sewer Improv. & authorizing REQUESTED BY: Communit Dev. Dept. sartial release of the bond DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: I,i`tf��'- CITY ADMINISTRATOR _ POLICY ISSUE INFORMATION SUtIMAP,Y 1. The project is located on the west side of S.W. 72nd Ave. south of Bonita Road and north of the railroad 'crossing. It consisted of installing a segment of sanitary sewer line and installing a half 'street improvement (namely - sidewalk & apron). 2. Construction has progressed satisfactorily and, subsequently, the developer•, ' B,B.I. Investments, has requested release of a portion of the project guarantee monies; the original performance guarantee amount being $12,000.00 and the required maintenance guarantee obligation being $2,400.00. 3. Subsequently, staff hereby certifies that the project sewer work is ready to be accepted by council, subject to the normal one year guarantet, period, and that release of $9,600.00 is appropriate. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED SUGGESTED ACTION V PASS THE RESOLUTION TITLED: "Resolution of the Tigard City Council conditionally accepting the public street and sewer improvements known as the Beaver Bolt Street and Sewer Improvement, subject to a one year guarantee period. JH:cn/2499P RESOLUTION NO. 86- Page 1 CITYOF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: April 28, 1986 AGENDA ITEM #: CONSENT ADD ON DATE SUBMITTED: April 24, 1986 PREVIOUS ACTION: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: TAG/Court Yard Pavine� PREPARED BY: Loreen Wilson.° REQUESTED BY: Bob Jean DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: POLICY ISSUE Should -the City of Tigard pave the Civic Center Court Yard for $4,000 or donate $3,000 to. Tigard Arts & Gifts (TAG) to match their- funds to accomplish the work. ^^YINFORMATION SUKMARY The 'City of Tigard budgeted $4,000 in 'the Civic Center'Project for the ;paving of the court yard between the Town Hall and Library. TAG has offered to pave the court yard along with the brick project which would finish this area before Dedication Week, if the City donatKs $3,000 to TAG. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Donate $3,000 to TAG for court yard completion. 2. .Spend $4,000 later to complete court yard. SUGGESTED ACTION Alternative #1. lw/3a`85A Haix F. 77777 # CITY CSF TITIGARD GREGD% CDUf4CXL AGENDA ITEM StRVARY AGENDAApril 28 1986 AGENDA rrW DATE SUBMITTED: April 24', 1986 PRFVXCVjS rloX: ISSUE/AGER-0A Tom'-: Medical Coverage Chief Lehr PREPARED BY: Doris Hartig REQUESTED BY: .-Bob Jean TDEPARTFI IT HEAD DK: � CM ADMIRIS•TRA OR: POLICY ISSUE Agreement with the League of Oregon Cities - Request waiver, of provision of a 60 day waiting period for health benefits.` The League of Oregon Cities will cover Chief Lehr if the City requests a waiver of the 60 day .waiting provision. However, the League has requested a cover letter giving some indication the Ccuncl concurs with the request. Chief Lehr will premiums.' Pay the Approve waiver request 2 . Disapprove waiver request GUWE .,` Motion to approve waiver of 60 day waiting period benefits for health MEMORANDUM 3 T0: Bob Sean DATE: April 22, 1986 FROM: Doris Hartig ItW RE: Medical Benefits cDavid Lehr 1 have been assisting the new Police Chief in obtaining health coverage for the interim waiting period until the City health plan goes into effect. The League of Oregon Cities will cover the Chief if the City requests a waiverofthe 60 day waiting provision. However., the L.O.C. has requested that our cover letter give some indication the Council concurs with the request. of course Chief Lehr will pay the premiums Please discuss this matter with the City Council and let me know how to proceed. The Chief needs the coverage to begin May 1, 1986< DH/j1 J -r° c �0