The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 06/09/1986 TIGARD CITY COUN61L PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an REGULAR MEETING AGENDA agenda item'noeds to;sign on the appropriate BUSINESS AGENDA sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, .TUNE 5, 1996, 6:30 P.M. ask to be recognized by the'Chair'at the start TIGARD CIVIC'CEN TER of that agenda item. Visitor's agenda items are If—^13125 SW HALL BLVD. asked to be 2 minutes or less. Longer matters ,IG6t€tD, OREGON 57223 can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or City Administrator. c STUDY SESSION` I REGULAR MEETING: 1.1 Call To Order and Roll Call 1.2 Pledge of Allegiance 1.3 call To Staff and Council For-Nen-Agenda Items: Motion to approve as amended. 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (2 Minutes or Less, Please) 3. PRESENTATION OF KEYS 70 THE CITY a President of Council and City Council 4. CANVASS ELECTION RESULTS - May 20, 1986 Primary 0 City Administrator S. MUNICIPAL COVET Ti C AMEkSDME;IT (Appeals) - Ordinance:No. 86 o =.'Legal Counsel 6. PUBLIC HEARING - TIGARD ELECTRIC TU 4-86 - NPO #1 A request by Tigard Electric Inc. for a Temporary Use Permit to use a mobile home:For a temporary office for up to one year. The propar^ty is zoned CBD (Central Business District). The property is located at 8720 SW Burnham Road (§.Cl 4 ?S! '2DA lot 200). o Public Hearing Opened o Declarations Or Challenges a Summation By Coinunity'Development Staff o Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross Examination o Racormendation By Community Development Staff p, a Council Questions Or Comments a Public hearing Closed o Consideration..By.Council -- Resolution No. 86 7. APPEAL PUBLIC HEARING - �JAVFIIRE - S 7•-86, PD 2-86, SL 4-86 NPO 06'- -— A request by Ken Waymire for City Council review of a Planning —� Commission denial of a request for approval of; a Planned Development Subdivision to divide 15.64 acres into 84 residential lots ranging between 4800 and 28000 sq, ft. in size with the following building setbacks: side ,yard -- 4=, rear yard - 15', front yard for lots 1-70 - 10' to front of house, 20' to front of garage. Also a request that lot line +adjustments up to 3' be permitted with staff approval and Sensitive Lands approval to construct a sewer line and street improvements within E a drainagaway and floodplain. The property is zoned Washington County R-5 and is located north of the Tualatin River on both sides of SW 108th Avenue (WCTM 2S1 15A, Lot 400, and 2S! 15AD, Lots 100, 200, 300, 400, and 600). f This will be an "argument-type" hearing only. The Council will consider " only the record before the Planning CorLmission, which is on file at City Hall. The Council .shall not consider any new testimony or evidence which is not in the record. o Public Herring Opened � v o Declarations.Or Challenges o Suation By Community Development Staff of Planning Commission erm proceedings . o Argument: Appellants, Respondents,- Appellants Rebuttal l c Recomvondatlon`of Planning Commission o Council Questions Or Comments o Public Hearing Closed a Consideration By Council - Final Order Adoption 6/23/86 1. APPEAL PUBLIC HEARING - CHRIST THE KING LUTHERAN CHURCH SDR 5-86 - NPO #3 A request by Smith Dull Partnership Architects for Council review, upon appeal, of conditions numb*r 3 and 6 attached to the Community p Doueiopment Director's approval of a request to expand an existing 4300 ' sq, ft. Church with a 4500 Sq. ft. addition on property zoned C-G +�„ :COUNCIL AGENDA JUNE 5,;1986'- PAGE 1 (General Commercial) ' and R-4.5 (Residential 4.5 units/acre). The property 4a located of 11305.SW BullMtn. Road (1C M 2S1 1OA8 lot 500 and 2S1 10AC lot 1700)`. This will be an "argument-typo" hearing only. The Council will consider only the record before the Planning Commission, which is on file at City Hail. The Council shall not consider any new testir..ony or evidence which is not in the record. o Public Hearing Opened a Declarations Or Challenges ' o Summation By Ccrununity Development Staff of Planning Commission proceedings o Argument. Appellants, Respondents, Appellants Rebuttal o Recommandationrof Planning Commission o Council Questions Or Comments o Public Haar:ng Closed o Consideration By Council - Final Order Adoption 6/23/86 9. CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD MEETING 9.1 'Call to Order & .Toll Call 9.2 'Call For"Bids 9.3 Adjournment 10. COCHRAN CCMP PLPA WlE�i' l�lEltmf DISCUSSION O Community Development Director 11. COIaSENT AGENDA: These items` are considered to be routine and nay be , enacted in one motion without sepsrate discussion. Anyone may request chat an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 11.1 Approve Council Minutes - May 12, 1986 11.2 Receive and File a. Community Devolopment Land Use Decisions b. Departmental Monthly'.Reports •- April, 1986 C. LUBA Final Order 86-004 in City's favor - S & J Builders .. " d. Sswer - USA 38% Interest Change Memorandum 11.3 Approve Computer Contract Finance Agreement 11.4 Approve Council fleeting Calendar 11.5 Approve Council Goals & Liaison Assignments 11.6 Approve Council Policy Calendar 11.7 Approve Police Recruitment Schedule 11.8 Approve Federal Aid For Traffic Signal Improvements & Authorize Signatures - Resolution No. 86 11.9 Approve Subdivision Compliance Agreement & Performance Bond & ' Authorize Signatures - Karan Park 11.10 Approve Subdivision Compliance Agreement & Authorize Signatures - Getty's Emerald Acres 11.11 Accept Kruager Norr-Remonstrance Agreement (street improvements) - SW 135th Avenue 11.12 Approve North Dakota Realignment Engineering Contract & Authorize Signatures - DeHnas & Associates - $15,975 11.13 Accept Levitz Furniture Co. Street Dedication - Cascade Avenue 11.14 Ratify Council Poll a. Approve OLCC Applications o Golden Casurm¢t - 242 Tigard Plaza, Tigard - PS:& R App. o NQwport Bay Seafood Broiler, 10935 Ski 69th, Tigard - DA App. o Short Stop Market, 15995 SW 72nd Ava., Tigard - PS App. b. Approve Additional $1,000 donation to TAG for Courtyard construction - (Tot-al now authorized is $4,000). c. Council ' requested review of Pacific Frontier blood Markets/Robert RAndall Co. Hearings Officer Final Order CU r 1/C6, SL 5/86, and M 1-86, Public Hearing to be scheduled 6/23/86. d. Approve Training Request City Recorder - $241.00 for City Clarks seminar (funds required by City after tuition scholarship granted by Oregon Association of Municipal Recorders). 11.15 Authorize Mayor and Recorder to Qxecute Partial Bond Release Penn Lawn Estates No. 2 - $43,871.04 - Resolution No. 867__ ?. NON,-AGENDA ITEMS: From? Council and Staff a 13. EXECUTIVE SESSIC-N: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session um:der� .the :provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d) &(h) to discuss labor relations and cure•ant/panding litigation issues. 14. ADJOURNMEq. r lw/3867A WJM'XL AGFNDA - JUNF 4) SRAA, - PAGE 2 r STUDY SESSION - aw- 9, 1 6130 P.M. 0 City Administrator updated agenda and distributed additional infdr tier a non-agenda ite mn. It*9 .11.5 waz pullod from th* Consent Ronda and p1mcad und&r ftn-AgwWia nesse for discussion. ite &1.6 was pu11 ed of f C4nadmt Agenda ;for future di cussien. Additional Nw-Agonda items insard l2.1 "Training# 12.2 - LID -- Right-of-Way Acquisit1cml and 12.3 - Status of Notzger Annexation. a ahe Park Surd Four will be June 17 at €d00 p.m. ljncflcarz Brian John%on, Eadon, and Edwards indicated thoy will att d. 0 C4a;ncilor Eadon quo-stiekes# how 11.2d - LrSA interest charge me; randum - affects the City Councilfs previouz decision. City Administrataor said it Eerie no effect an their acticit but may be an item the acil will want to discuss at a-'later date to adopt an ordinance for tho City to charge interest gems on tats:paymmts. 0 The CmAci1 diecus ed the Wayaire appeal r*quosting inforetatiti frcxv 1.*qmi teasel as to the +antandardz uacd for'donial of the regaaost. Tho Council was uncl*ar as to tho interpretation tho Planning Comission £aasi-W their d l,sicn. �M 1. ROLL C&La Pr*sonta Council President Too Brian# Ccwc1lors Carolyn Eagan, Valerie Johnz-znp and Jorry Edwards (left 'at 900 p.m.); City Staff+` Bob J+ as' Cit; Administrator; BiII Kwiahznp pity Dov*lopmont Director; Tim €nazis, Legal Anwelg and Berry Bmlocj ftcorder Proton. Abment as Mayor' John Cook 2. CALL TO STAFF AND CWWIL FOR M4-AMM1Ti m. City Administrator reviewed tho updated agenda as di used in tho Study 2*zslan, 3. °d'SIM06 ASMDAs f one appeared to speak. 4. PKSENTATION Or KEYS TO THE CITE a. Kays to that City wero presented to the Civic Center Advizery ,afittee, Civic Center Dwication Comitteep Transportation Coitteep and Economic Davcklopment Comittoo its appreciation for th it flee and ofturts. 5. CAWASS BX=IGNRLTS - May 20, IWS Primary a. €gat ion by Catfocilar ,Ions, s caandod:by Cw c i l ar Eads to_ Accopt and file Kay 20, ISM, Primary Election Results. Httion approved by unanimous vote of Council present. LM . ........ t Fagg; I'- CMMCIL MINUTES June 9, 1986 �® W-W-ICIPAL CMMT TM AM a' T (Appeals) a. Logral ,mesal e%plained that this ordinance will conform the City Vieto than now State..Statute% to.r aairappeals to be heard by District Arte instead of Civ.uit Courts. . . 13 q . ®` GF<DI , OFT `TIGM CITY' CC IL, � MOIDINS 1ECTIM 2.24.080 1F THE T16MO ICIPA.. CODE PERTAININ TO em fttlon by Councilor Johnsong soccmded by Councilor Edwards to adopt Ordinmce No. 96-30. � i t31,on app.o ed by unanimous voter of Council pr"ent. 7. PUBLIC WARING -" T I ECTRIC Tib 4-%, 01 A request bTL-2ard,Eloctric Inc. for a °oWorary Use Permit to use a ftabi hc=o for a teiqxwary office for up to one year. The property, is z es8 tC tra1 Business District). The property is lsacatod �t 87ON Burnham ft (LCT?1 281 ':SDA Lot 2W). a. Mit Hearing Opened. f b. Camawkity Dovolcpm4mt Director syncesized resort. Staff has applied tha taMorary use critoria to this r ae t and finds that a hardship of an ocaramic etat sus"exists. It La rocammondod that City Council approve a te#4wavy use permit for one y r. If after 'ano year the app'is t e*ks a rer.4watq he aust. provido proof- that a now site its being zwght or that Ma zo ;11 will be constructed on the site. The � awn* req it~nt of approval is that m seww cconection he made in Ilea a4 tho existing skvptic syston. w Ce Comcilar Eadon did not feel that the criteria h&a boon satisfiedin �. rdor to approve a temporary use. d. Commmity Davelapmnt Dirattor said the crlti2ria has not ban .set up for an (#caioalc hardship but the Council has In the past made their docision on this basis. All of th& criter'in dorm not n to bay et. , 0. Public Tezt!r sy - kk° a� appeared to speak. volopment Director r nd that a t ov ary use peralt be issued for one year retroactive to February 28. gA Councilor gadm zuggoated . that a section he irrncludmd in than << Do vel � a day ieai 1r mcia�l ha�rd%hip if this criteria is to be used. Council*r Edwards agread and Felt It Bald ' have bei bmofi,cial for the applicant to present his maser in psappport of the . pagm 2 is IL. MINUTES _ ,1dne 9, I h. e4uncilor johnzoa Indicated that a letter fr �iga�rd Ele tric wam Included with the refit :'oxplaaining that the O Or its unlbl§ to asap ad the building and Is laE*iNg lot., property to camtruct a now facility. %t-am C of tha criteria d.*s apply. The towporary use ;15 nese sary for the vi&bility of the basin s' and she will ^ort stgff,% recowg*ndatjon, Council President Briars a n d with, Caunciler Johnson. i® City Aditlistratar recomaendod that if the CoUncil is inclines ta, prow the r% a4est9 they; also-review the Tight of way and lar ape Phasing iacludad with th& rop®rt. if approvedt it old be approprj&to mOr tih* City CoAnc'il to require site cl"rance and rosolve. ®uh rri It of way is a for the �ff�lZ9 arn�Oa LID. CaurciIor Eaden folt the site cleaar c- should be ha dl as a sa argtea issue if required for traffic safety. The City Aftinl%trator said they are discuusing the-no AGGLIOS with thO C er. if th;&,towparary use igapprovadp theso izzues can be handled at the i of.is%Uanc a of parmits. if not approved, it will be handled as tion by Councilor Joss. seconded by Council President Brite to Fails by a 2-2 tie vote of Council Pr*zsnt,, Ccuncilcfs Eadon and Edwards voting easy. dnaAppM ..IC MARjusy VMI w 8 7-6S, PD 2-M, SL 4--SG A rtquost by Kon Waymire for City Ancil review of a Pl ningCOM-isGian dea lal of a request for approvml of aaa Planned ftvolopment Subdivision is divide 19.6..4 screw into 84 residential lots ranging betwem 48W and a. ft. in viz% with the following building a tback as sift yard V, ear yard l5sp artist yard fair dotz 1-70 - 10P to front of house, 201 to frost of garago. Also a request that lot line,adJuatffiOnts uP to 3" be permitter with %taff aPPrOval and Sonsitivo Lands approval to COnStruct a ier line -mid<gtr t jFpravaomts within as drain ay and fl hies. The property is zoned Wanhington County R-5 and is lkwated north of the Tualatin River on both sides of a loath Av*nue (UCTM 2SI 15A, dot 400v and.,2SI. i lD$. Lott 100, 200, 3DOp ' 9 and &M. This will be an "aar "Ont-type" hearing only.. The Council will ' consider only tho record before the Planning COMissicn, Which is CM file &t City Hill. ' yhe CQUsjcjj shall not consider any now tost1wony or evidence which is not itt the reebrd. 6. %I hlic rvoaring Opened. b. Senior Flamer Liden roviowed the Planning Damlasion heaaarings o folt the dvnial was based an a difformce in interprotatien of the Plamad Davelcpwnt Chapter of the Commity foveal t Code. The CcMiggion abj#cted to thelotsizes proposed and the lack of +per+ Pag 3 ® CMMIL X91 ^- June 9p; l y C. >clic a sti ,ya o Roger F. Anderson, 10120 SW Kablae Tigardp attor y, intvaduced Bill M=agl*. o iit @ iof 13650 Berea Drivep Tigard, describOd teas pr°ua al that was proro ted to t�+� ; i�1 n3aax� is�i . The propwaal W S first itt d as 71 lots. A variance w&5 thOn �. r t to the d g1ty transfer ordinance. The pl aits ? is si d aced the variwco Kr e€ftr. The �li��t �h wt�d larA erg tt%4 west side of IMhv rodesigmed the devolopment,, asad r,,&gjt mjtt&d the r at to he Plaming iso iSSi - The entiro pro"wty according to Tigard zooming :3d aa,c 'fes to 84 lots. .. pr l is for r with lots varying in gine fry to fFAD s fo fent. in the first pr al¢ thO &PPlic s3 asa 3sa� for varirn_.a� €past the second requvat r0quired spin variance. 'rho Planning omission dotoripinod that tho ?ands within the flwdplain and the f itflv ? o `�r�a did ods alt fy as; an ingredient to Mks a ti plarsho¢i The :,City, through i�� r ��s�iv�r Plan f p? *map has identified landz WMch ara MnU l@, M far a� buildable. Tho density tr ssfer prdxa�� through a pR ani �zas as .so sara tce rear this loss by allowing the � density � to be tr&nzferred to otherbuildable parts of the devolopffient. Withcut_utilizing, the planned diivalapmsot prone sr thore is no wmy they ccruld` utiliz* the d 151ty tr .sfor. i . Andareim roforrod to iztigms 01 tho DeVOLOPMnt CGdOg. St&ting that lot sizes do not &ppky can planned d0vOlOPments if yQu apply gh� density tranVer. They hgve c >iad with provisions for a donsity,tr sfer. according to the CGUMY Vm"a7dz6 they are bsi tial allowed baa ►*r of units. an th& eject of C994-06r the c -.Pace is 41CA2 the river. The City has rogU"t that thoy da-dicate tla's fl plain area to the City. Thoy haves complied with this r aMstm This area should bo calculatod &Z part of open VA % of the"development. The Planning iSuie Was not %le ,to tell him hit this proposal did not eoat the fie. 3r. er requezted tiav City CCUncil cOrMidW this M&tte7 and n ct r . -d it to the, Pl niraq CIS SIa9n- P p te`pon*ntzs o Hr. Salter Lissoya 16455 VH 108th, diacussed thlo PrObI00 of traffic: and the tack Of storm s,'^ s^. ThO aria drains into a WMIQ that l€aft to a neighbor's ponds d. wait, Dovol t Director statod that the Planning :SSI raccMiMOA dental. _ �� ,��.� f ..GV t,� required as a a w ,or p1 ser imides doscFlb� ha 9t-"t .� ,_.�M Paso 4 mCMCIL HIMTE Jun*;go £ f, Loga1 Cmnlsol reviowed the MY C=Icilos Opti ;E tO hOld tNe planning i disn's decisiclI mWify their dacision, ear rewaand the request t tee the Planning CaMASSion for further consideration. y . 04r. Achwagle indicatatd they have sik ugrawAgl with the Sadlerrrd who live at 1 h and Burh&% to ' raQdlo an th it Pr OTtY;' to rezovothe pilo of dirt to improve the site d1utance to the cl To than -sto tr;oe Itabs:a d branches will be trimopzd to ieprove the cl rm—c0- ift rovioved the stroot i racy -sts redaientod by utalf to which t€ &y agr . Regarding the drainage issue, the pond was built Withi" A sa;Atural drama ge areaand the property will drain into the swat* as: has boo done in the,past. . €i Ireca indict, that G 65 did not appear bef=ore the Planning CQam1zGicmz .4 Km&or of than Planning Camission Submitted a l t; r ' r thio record r ,ding donial without hearing the public telatlacny. The Planning C=miszlon did not relate to them mv theme plication did not.zwot than Vie. If the City Council rf'M&rdu tia issue to the Pl&nninq ,Camission it will c&Bas@ a delay t;ai+ch may pravont develapawnt to take P3 q�. i. l i c Mmz'r i"g Closed. ..- . C, icilors-Edwards and Edon axpr9rosed concerns for tae lack of basis for denial, by the Plarint ag , N1sz1On- They ko l like t, send it back to the planning Csmj%jjjcm with mpecific: diroctions thzt bah porde address the c=g4corns camcilor Johnson All concernod abut dtlayi.ag deesmlapwnt but 41t the- traffic problems st be dealt with. 0 cis Prodld*est Brian shared than saw et orn s with: rejard to tranapartatiOn issuou® drainsl and si�:ae sty.-_ permanml ly Veit the devel t is too dons but � ui�, t *s it is a legal plan. The drainage is a serious problem but any approval will be 90JOct to th@ MtY Oin*Or proving than storm and emnitary design. if improvements to tho � a.l old. Me felt r are r°�e�t tisffffict:�F�'4 devala� vee; a� $&e e�t�.-�.p� th* prope l iv in compliance with the Code and sect everything Of comern addressed® k. iealor Plzxktor L iden expliAlnod the density issuep indiCAti.reg that p %ihaly the pl ling izsi a misinterprote: tho Code .sem deleted @&ao apace to baso dedicated prior to detoraining the allowed e d dengity. No fuvthor explMned density ratios. 1. ljotion by Councilor Edwards, seclanded by Councilor Eador.-to send the app,icsti a bA, t th& plal Comission with some definite criteirla to die ruse traffic iWav*its, storms draing _ mad tho annexation issue with a decigdoa of approval ev danial to be based an Com* md land uso procedures. 14 tip*y cannat do that, it shall cogo back, to tie Council for a docivion. LE MEMt cwncilur Johnson roquosted more dotail oft the type of` direction they would give to th,* PlaTining COizasim— ncilov Edwards expanded his notion to inclhde that the Planning Cc4miesionrovi the traffic problems, traffic impact On 108th and DLq % �ia iate and luturo), Riyerwooid Lane design, as well as the storm drain issuedi ds zod and that they pray*� t�� rss� l Or x better 4xPlaira their Pusition IOr den"" V�ti approved by a 3--1 Majority,svGte Of Cecil Present, Council; President €viaan voting nay. w�. rsr. Anderson askod that th* Council reconsider because it will penalize the applicant for the Ined"uaciou Of the PlaMing C- issuers. The opplicdnt will lOse his Option4'0 Purchase the prer ty. �e. Discussion falls d on whether the Council should hear the item and th* tia de?Iay if it :is remanded to the Plautning COMISSLOA. �a. motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by C acilar Edwards that tint Cmtncil hour this proposal, de navo, at; the Juno 16 MQVtireG. council President orian amended tha motion to inclo-do that notification be s0nt tea t#seNPO md the adjoining; residehts which see originally"notffi.ed of the PIaMirsg C - isGi n h r ngs. P. Th* applicant r6quOst44 a waiver of tho 120-day licit period. q notion approved by a 3-1 mAJOrItY wee Of LQU=iA Present, councilor Eadal voting nay. councilor Edwards left th* 000ting at this ti a 9a - IC HM.Ii - IGT T KMG LUMPAN MVACH OR - WO 03 A requezt;by Smith Du11 partney5hip Architect% for Council r0viewt UPG" appoa1, *i idi,tj . 3 and 6 attached to the CcmmitY DevOlOMbent Directar*s rc'ral of a request to oxpRnd aro ewioting 43W sq. ft. Murch w1j;h a 4f4o sq. fit. addition gra property zoned C ( ss*ral C rciQl) and R-4,5 (Rei3id bail 4.5 its /acre). The prWarty is located apt 11 30 3 DAIl Mn. f»m ( 23i 10AM Lot 5W and 281 IW Lot 1700). RJis will be &p � r abhej%ring Wly. yh* CQa.:racil kpill consider only he record beforo the Plaming Q iswicny which is On €ii* at City 6 1l. The Catmcil shall not can—alder :may now tastimony or evidenc* which ig not in the racwd. Public Waring operand. b,. Senior Planner Liden reviewed tete H�� conditions i�p�ea�3 by � p&gk 6 - i I.Se HIM ES JtMO 9, 1 a 1 . .. 40 feet' from coator ins, ' � inti £ #sr�a :. an a ca plic Tenti aY& ArcMtectst Smith/Dull Partn&rgh"Pp right €�I ad The only iszua� Of e�l is ,tile i��t�+the i TOMs in f 11 � a. itt a letter discusti # key I £� rt of their appoal aj155 Toyr o- Chairuan Of Building , Lzr SGA I Vie, ac Mr a indicat that by �Pr*vlding , it +�� dfirib 6 � ti a agreceent they Will l twico f'*r the r 'tae interim ira is rs ot bo ;s ire %wch is Willing tis 'a gn �fi t c rch. Tho nt for, formation of M LaD in tfuture? , which1t t county s £res® Mr. er a. 3 inista�r, 1 114th said t1a� d��src�a will it a E fit fry t o i av t�® i� �r }t £�cr traffic- go Fire District sl 11 t �tr�wou� t�� thrmoh fcrr og y r SL It rz the rel befit toshe tine Comas i � di4� at en * Church rO .: it 1 be Provides b:W -• - gn re i apt W4ing an tho str t- rxs. icy ftto'od, 1.42 SW 114thp was cc=er t the .i f t r 01 t j� children wA�iAg Ont�r� Bi o �4 t�� road. A w t � , 1 i 114thp wZA ce�scO+Tra aaat increaz�d traffic- r 425 $tilt forrtsid tial U only. jqkv. t42F.3 114tht was to the tr t �$ .. thr ix b4cau of th* :iatrard carlditicAt tO �eSsi&sir e 1 £s� 1 the %-T-20t he purchiled his rex XMig Gtrasds 1#2-5 114th £t ic � 8� � very ll h ixa s €'t era%'a d* 'd ztr t- y h front nadirs which id be Oli�:�e t ff t street �r� ��£itm I� the st. i for the b 0fit of g4ter City, the City 1d PQY 3a�r its 114t1a S to ttr �t s rty i dem i v £ 5° jtt`f� Mit was �m Hill Ha"taft, 14465 aw is not dov*laped fW rte® daAW to "her+ i€t P1ACO to walk a1 £t ib . c�ilrem 1U Me 7 r eDw.na Wagner, 14070 SW 114tho cancurrOd with h0r neighbor t s coments. 0 Leiter frm WO M, darted June S, ISM, supporting thO APPOal, and M stip ih idemalk or< bicycle/pedestrimi path bo constructed on &all Mountain t dN planniFag utaff recomm"ded that the APPeal be denied and the Planning Dirt 9� dcscisi iae sQs�rld. �a City AdministrotOr reviewed they policy for half stroot A rov t9- s , a gltf �.Ative, the Camcil may umt to consider placing a f or-ary barricade cs th* str t after 1"terija ie.Vrov ants ars s% do instil other conditions have been t such as thO Ontia O lOngth of 114th being bra4*ht up to th4& Intforim ztandarda or until OnO other gtreot jast is available to be connactod ;from Bull ftwvt&iln Road to amrde. f. comcilor iadon could not determine ne any benefit to anydsae by placing the roed 3eprov;gtas. It BEd cmly pose 'problow for the r� i� st�aA g. City Administrator stag that If the Council fOolz thfit the road ahould not go throWlh, then it as jcgical to not require these i at riga i� raa+ nt a ver, 'this ig a piece oV Ontire syste rich cordis g to the r hensiv* plap id sck�duled to go thriwu a a& c t cif future is roves s�stz a the Conch side o ld be fundod through the Systan DevaloPwmt OMFOO Fund. Thos Murch Would not. be accessed o zac@nd tiff for the completed widening- h. ' In g1tswor to ea question from Co cher Eadvi an how, Condition 3 ,-19 boon r6F.Olved, Senior 'P1 Lidon expl&inod that Bull P ntain Road is Lwdar County jurisdiction. The minty 'st dard for half street Improv is ii a rly Bret so the City had compromised tO rcquir* orgy 25 Instoad of 40 feet. I. 3h* cons sus of the Councilors sad that the interim i rov nts would notservAe, moray b aofit other, then to 9*t' Maar i rOv tis On the ground. After 114th is& opened, it will_increase traffic but. the street tniul.d-thy bo Improved to noreAl st4mdards with sidgtmIks. ja - Mb is @"ring Closed Kotiesu by Councilor Manuosg. faaconded by Qxmcilor Eadanp that ,the planning Q1rectov0s decision bo wadiftal to correct the right-of-way required alb Bsll Mxmtein Road to 35 get instead of 40 feet® - In Its 6 QWjfy tho decision to read that ratherthan the Intorim Impro"famffits, the City recoivd fry, the Church a non-rommetramo agreewnt on form provided and approved by the City Attornoy and Mod with the City fur thO Ov aturAl K'%lf--1sdr t i rc6vOR ntG- ith thVP City. pago 9 CM=XL KDAM Juno 9, ISM f t s. provod by unwimaus vOtO Of CMAcil dare tm S 10310 P-0- i�. T REVIEW DUMB MMTIVa r*eting called to ardor at 10910 P.m. Present worn Sztrd mocbers Tom Drian, 'Carolyn Eadan, and Valerie .johns - b. fttian by 9mrd or Johnzcnp seta ded by Board somber Ea"I to authorize &dvertisesont for bids for SW Falrviow and SW Wth Avenue pavomfit Gv rtay prOJe tv. prox9odby 'ii Us .vote Of Board present. 'Ca feting adjourned at 10112 P.D. ao 10s12 p.m.' Lt. A 1 DISCUSSION aity DoveEapaont Director roviewed the requost. She a;til discus ed ethor all fees a old ��iv .> � City's error result of the ad indicated that s ' negligence. C nci.lar . i f-It bV r the City s of,f*red care 2sem rno Finer L. Partition will IO COW staff tie*. Ccunxilor Johnvion pointed out the notation a an the ClWs r4caipt ying "rocard minor land partition." This o ld be � tru to WZn th&t the? trangaction had taken Pl6cQ As a regult of the p y rs�. It app rg t&a t .sae- �:r , s fefl t they hard e t8.r h pyap e;�a& I% d c let€rd their film. Councilor o&t .tj%,on jolt both rete-should be waived. C. Motion by rcuncilar Johnson to miry sstaf f°s r& n '.atieon and ive both ftes. notion died for lack of a second. Motion by CWncJJ President Brian, seconded by Councilor Hca, th9t staff be diracted to initiato the CoWrohOnsive Plass Ameadmnt and Minor Land Partition and waive tae fee for Comprehensive pensive falx _. d6 met only.' q Approved by a 2-1 majoritY VOtO Of veil p"aent? Councilor Johnson voting shay i2$ sW hD.Aa those iteam are considered to be routine and may be onacted ias cmc* motlon without "parate discussion. Anyone My r*quest .. that al cr a t pm eco b- mti rar discussion and separate Actin- t0a page 9 - CM=IL MINUTES -- JunO 9, INS 12.1 Apprw. ay C=incll Minutes - May 121 ISM 12.2 ftcoivo and'Files b. Departomtdal ftnthly Reports - April, IWS c. LUBA Final Order i-ice 1» City°s favor - a & i ild�r� d. Sewer - LSBA 1 Interest Charger"a-n 12.3 App oval Ccaputav Contract Finance, Agr&caont 12.4 Approve Ccencil Meting CalfssdW 12.5 Approve Schedule 12.G ro;;c- Fa�dsxai Aid for Trasfiic Signal I ra��ra� a ts Authorize Signatures - Re lutlwo. a —61 1 . Approve, Subdivisim 1 Agroment Porlfarlmmanct Band Ti Authorize ignatur - K&--On ftyk 12.8 Approve Subdivision Compliance r w & AuthorlzO Sigaatur (aetty�srald k.-ras 1 .9 � �° is r; i afar * r* t tstrOet is rcv*-A sm - sth ave 12.10 40prova North Dakot Realignment EftgintOri Cmtf&ct & Authorize` 81 ..aa turas - DeHaaz & Associates s383, 12.,Y1 c i i";�rniture . Street Dedication - mcado Av ua 42.12 Ratify,Cmmcil Poll lgo- Approve,U='Applications Golden ra t - 24 Tigard Plaza, Tigard - � . "wportl a ilaer, JM5 SW Sftha Tigard - DA App. them &W ,.rstet, 1 9 ? ,°a Ave.6 Turd - . ., b. Appray.i Additkmal $i, atiOn to TAS for Ciwrtyard const? tiaan - (Total now authorized to ¢ti). c. Council requ seed roviow o4 Pacific FrontieT Wood ftrkotsiftbert '? arjngj3 afficor Final Order - CU S. M 1 . PublAc Roaring to be scheduled 6l23#86. d, Ap ' � �i�� r��r - � ® � � Klff"prav6 Training 3 ,er "' i r. 4?Ofd% required by City after tuition scholarship grant by Drag= Aswoclaticm of MmlciPaal R a rders). 12.13 authorize Hayar and Recorder to executo PartiAl Bead €01.0490 - P Lawn Estates No. 2 -M,1371.04 - Recoluti a No. -62 �. motion by Camcilar EadrAp, so-cby Councilor JcA11 tO &dopt Ap proved- trey t ria s� vote of S ncH pr t. 13. NM-AW-9MA ITEMs From Oamcil and Staff' 13m1 T74%ini Request Offic* a lotion by Councilcw Jalmson, jueconded by nci.l esidont i€ to Approved by Urta-niffioua vato of Cot... �raa�aa i. Acquicition Page to COMCIL MINUTE - Juno 9, 1 »+r,� �"'� 'R�+' s.*„s�+s�tLNr•�„�`�,aa-�� "`��-�".=��.��., �'�� c%^''��-s:� ix'';.�' [."�°t�.� ��s�v��zw�� °c"„¢� aasi 'kms ' '�,3 a, ".�� >A��Y�.`>}'..� -.-FYi� �a a,��. R+S�Rte. .i s... .7+k-°'` -i +�+.➢�. - ..�:v^r5�'t�'-�..�:�.". i � ,- �, ;-., ,.. ,�, k . . � :'- : -•., .,. >�,..:.. � a, �. ,. .._,. ':s,�r-,'. x �y..� kda'x �� dui r 5� u �n i r+Fa �f ti Jt. 3,x 9 u .r Ito.,.�. - ��`. `Oil'� " 7�'` -s z'' 3�'. `.- T� .Fire.€x '�i'S+'.. 5 ,• :w -^j,.:y .rc s •' ?. "st' m i'-a z 3 TIM IES PUBLISHING COMPANY Legal 7-67 +3 P.O;BOX 370 PHONE(503)624.0360 Notice BEAVERTON,ORGGON 97075 Le gai Notice Advertising C i t'y of Tigard 13 Tearsheet Notice1N P.O. Box' 23397 9 i,986 Tigard, OR 97223 `° Duplicate Affidavit �rOF TICAR D Ai=FOAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ) COUNTY OF WASHING T ON, )ss° i Stephanie Neubauer being first duly`zwor7, depose and say that i aan the Advertising Director,or his principal cleric,of the I zap Times 11 a newspaper of general circulation 'as defined in ORS 993.010 and 993.020;published at —__Tigard -_isa the aforesaid county and_state;,that the 'City C;cr inns j..eZn Lar.Mc-g-i a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the s entire issue of said newspaper,for ! successive end consecutive in the following issues: June 5 y ;3986 Subscribed-anao bofore me#tail June 1986 `j �- tadotary Public for Oregon My oiv MIsa isn EX ire . _ /20/88 AFFIDAWT s 3 i IDi• 1g AIX F2aK3"Am kt L .i kR1�§e4tS# �kk%w� %a�Yr1+P.i;SiIW .R*8'Y ($ a*S " Ckli ' % CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING t In the Matter- 'of he Proposed CITY OF TIGARD ORDINANCE NO. 86-30 STATE OF OREGON ) Countycf Washington � ss City of Tigard ) being first , duly sworn, on oath, depose and say: That I Posted in the following; public and conspicuous` places, a copy of Ordinance Number(s) 86-30 ' which were adopted at the Council Meeting dated June 9. 1986 copy(s) of said ordinan c. being`- hereto a ached and by reference made a wart hereof, on the day of 1 Tigard Civic Center, 13125 S.W Hall Blvd. , Tigard, Oregon. U.S. National Daral:, Corner of Main and Scoffins, Tigard, Oregon Safeway Stare, Tigard Plaza, S.W. Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of Tota Public for regon 4 ARCHA HUNT F9y' Commission Expires:OREGON my r CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 66--J�C� Aid 'ORDINANCE OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AMENDING SECTION' 2.24.080 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE. PERTAINING TO MUNICIPAL COURT APPEALS AND DECLARING Am EMERGENCY. WHEREAS, the Oregon Revised Statutes now require cases on appeal from the Municipal Court level to be heard at District Court instead of Circuit Court. THE CI'T'Y OF TIGARD ,ORDAINS AS FOLLO'AS Section I: Section 2.24.080, Subsection ;(4) is amended as follows neva language is underlined and deleted language ,is shorn in [brackets]: Section 2.24.080(4): "Unless otherwise ordered by the municipal court; the counsel appointed under this section shall continue to represent the defendant on appeal to the [circuit] district court. The court may substitute one appointed counsel for another at any stage of the proceedings when the interest of justice requires such substitution." Section 2: Section 2.24.080, Subsection (6)(D) is amended as follows - new rt language is underlined and deleted language is shown in [brackets]: Section 2.24.080(5)(D): "After an appeal and trial on the merits is had in the [circuit] district court. .. . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . , .$75.00'° Section '3. This ordinance is necessary for the preservation of the public welfare of the citizens of Tigard to clarify which court of record will hear cases on appeal from the Municipal Court and come into compliance with state law, and an, emergency is hereby declared to exist and this ordinance shall be in 'full force and affect upon its passage by the Council and posting by the Recorder. PASSED: By vote of all Council ,members prel_gnt after being read by number and title only, this day of 1986. Jeer Aeting-Fecirsfes^ APPROVED: This _ day of1981. ' (( John E. Cook, Mayor OROXNANCE NO. 86- 40 lw/3595A . :�92'.i'.+"�•U-.Lq'•:•��..�..,sa+--Y` � 3:.KE:sT-W :_;... ^�.0,.�°e�",`d':::'.'�' �A�a'"x:y?'�z'.�a. inr,'-�.;a '�"��.,,Lri:"�'e�,.x'�a.,psi=k;'`��;"u5�'-�'�,..Ta!^vt�.'��. 3'.'6�: ��'a.[x�a;�..,^-?•s'�'�:�i�-i;'a�ssat�.�'^hy' 'E° n. T �7 s °i OMY ,54 H3'Qy; Sxlb 7�' N , P Yi�q � i LrX �3 r a4` fl & fX 21 W i4 _'w .t"t '`i''�x# rMAI: e'�� r "ar ,y"�y .€" r � ��xn% �' �� 6 a ._ "�` i 83 A ' ,.,+�` mn-:a �r 4^�ftC+ „�31;;'-'.eyn�.:.�r'�'�,r'a•+�S's''y��i�Y.— �v�,�. �5-�z :1.h� 1,�t.. ,Y�a,'��k�.. _;�,'' ,-"+ -�•.H�� ''�#-.mx�c .�t ��`', ,�+ t z�fN '��!? z�a DATE wish to testify before the Tigard City Counoil - on the following item- (Please Print your name) ITEM DESCRIPTION:_— _— �� E pFPONEI7T (against) PFcOPOI�lE�1T (For) -- �- Name, Address and Affiliation dame,< Address and Affiliation onn i { - oxo rk r y t EErms"- Gj 1 k r �-. k� R. �� sz J: mss r S f� .' v.xrw ,�'',s?,.+-.: i h 5'�}' r.,�+ ,o.,.' -` ,*J` ..ef -rk ,e.b 'Y'7•',-3' � J" c;+`," �i+ `. "+�r.�" a .'. '3 - " t':'�r �s.,��f=',t ��y.. � "5°'#�'p ��:..'. a•..� ae�.:y'", •a:,. ��.�a"�'v3-,c =�`-.' �-w�•�"il"•,�`�� Z`:''1. ..r^` . ��4'° �" -.� ..3 Qa�s� .�,.�. ��sr' �- �: � •ea.+�' . �'. +l.,�sfi�= 'dT1'�� '++!�tE`S'.'r,�j �1�f'es;-''�A�'�9��3i�.;. r,�', -. '� �;,.,�*-.� '�¢ � ,.,�-Gti �, �` �'S '.';,• ,,�; s. .�- -�s _ -. ,' .. � _.-'��r•.'�'2��".�:+�.4 'P'-. F - �`. _ �m t �.. "" �'7 +"�i s tx�.'a.,,� �x ............ ............ ... .......... r IMUS W��,m yg� Bill fr CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITERS SUMMARY AGEAfiDA OF: J:xne 9, 19£ d _ AGENDA ITEM — DATE 'SUBMITTED: May 28, 1986 PP-EVIOUS ACTION: ISSUE/AGF-NDA TITLE: s '_ta the City- _ PREP&RED BY: Donna Corbet -- Le y - -� REQUESTEDBY: Pia or and Council DEPAR.T14ENT HRAD OK: �� _ CITYADHINISTRATOR: (iTi�=�93i{5��t33�„i��i^..1�{�.Y9L:S3�� POLICY ISSUE Presentation of `KEYS TO T�iE CITY" to Civic 'Center Advisory Comittee and the Civic Center Dedication Committee, ase?1 a to Wilbur Bishop for serving an the Tranportaticn Committee and to Patrick Kennedy for serving on the Economic Development Committee �ai�em�vss��amae�asaaa,samm�::axaa:Es�.�.�sx sc��smaa�:3s�s.��s::x_sacsa��:a.-cas�ma:��se�zaece�xm ea jNF=,4ATIOTv SUM-.ARf Advisory Committee: Civic Center Dedication Committee: Civic Center y Valexie 3ohnsQsa, Chairman Charies H. Samuels Chairman ' Robert Carn Mayor John Cook Walter Carolyn Radon Aiu:nnall Craig Hopkins Valerie Johnson Edward Duffield Wilbur Bishop Susan Mueller Nancy _Bergmann S SsDennis Derby Nancy Stimler Jerry Edwards TxnmE!iation Committee: Tara Brian. -----�—�__�. Nancy Campbell Wilbur Bishop Ron Royce Economic 5Sevelopment Cbm ittee: Russ Joki Pat Kennedy Tony 'Capone . Juanita Caday Amy' Powell Carolyn`Radon Gary how ALTERNANIVES CONSIDERED � N/ S6JGGESTED ACTION Receive and file. (13;93p) MEMORANDUM k CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: , Mayor and Cit- Council May 28, 1986 FROM: t_oreen Wilson SUBJECT*. Canvass of May Election Washington County Elections Department will be fomarding the abstract ref" votes for thie official return information within the next Pew days. This will be hand—carried and presented the evening of '6/9/86. lw/3636A k Cx PIE:s W: < c� KZ minGnm�n u?M� nm m'. a GKZ 0O m 0 ¢XCC , 2 C3 !3< O o o-G O O D O.O O Omo 3z �o gN- o :n7PNcvanom�t aa• , i u0 o u U U In OIn T A m••P.. In.n tl -1� Mon RC'InN 'ru m m W CJ rJ N.+.+r..^t N •+N m N N h g> 0 N In m N N S tY la 4 W D o >Z®J P- p LI. 1 i i 1 5 4 P U3t O z t G r) O O GOO U O z O z N O O. Qu .+ �. O N E rd C .:. J In rj k In rd cd j L 0 ul .. O: W .g ti in N r roo :LNIC JpJ£Y L E -L -5 D )h W x n W O C_r E 7 W rG tr1 0 tt O Q Ct:q O G - G h 0 r. W i- a U 2 7 W 3 4'-.S V S•+_% N O>. t-.O �U MWYtt alt (>;Q 4 >R p. ¢: nt GD WOW W S9 lL p V 41 1A1,-. m 2 W 0. K�W ¢¢ J W JJwow GH¢ h Gp1 o N 4123 C�lt4SE Q.t 3.y G'FO�Z¢1r ✓- W O Z3- WO1Z OdS 3 ,.'t W r.!�O<<it 0 >ZOO�.. YZO7 til NT_CP.rn LF.7w'@CSV ki . pIv '. p'. N O t`JM 4 NO •0OO KLJn mP In O Cr PnMM MM C dq'mA PO•PpO++. i ma` W 7 1 14 1 1 1 !- OODOOUOOOO •+NNCJ 3 N 4• .0.. fJ M O 0 rn`a n m o 0 0 0 O Ch 0 O O O.G O G G O O O O o N id O GOD Y: OU OG N O�N!'3.7 In o•+ oOo V m7.n p,A� Q Z y•• _Hv1 O v)MMP)t^C%et 7C'0'IPA PA POU++ {- `* W�' J OOUO rJ C- J"� r+ NNN O e �a s 000DDD � �oc000000000 o - ` 0. .- ,. f , f. S' t CITY OF TIGARD OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUlTAARY AGENDA tDT': —June 9 1985 AGENDA ITEM DATE SUBMITTED: _Mast 2a' 1!3fl PREVIOUS ACTION. ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE; s"lun�ci al CourtAppeal Amendment Ordinance PREPARED 3Y: Corder, Wilson _ REQUESTED BY: Lvreen W-i a son DEPARTMENT HEAD OK CITY ADMINISTRATOR: POLICY ISSUE Should the Tigard City Council ' bring the Tigard Municipal Code into conformance with State Statutes? INFORMATION SUWARY y: during the 1985 legislative session, the Oregon Revised Statutes were changed o require cases on appeal from Municipal Courts to be heard by; District Courts instead of Circuit Courts. Subsections 2.24.080(4) & (b)(D) both refer x, to, Circuit Court for the place ap�aeals shall be heard. To eliminate any confusion s the` part of the defendant or--riefend�nt's )egal counsel, staff requests an amendment to the TMC ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Approve ordinance attached. 2. modify ordinance attached. 3. 'Take no :action at this time. SUGGESTED ACTIONS^ c; Alternate 1: Motion to approve ordinance as presented. � «�` 1t�13585A N Oil -i: Naomi CITY OF TIGARD, OREC-Ok' COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: Julie AGENDA ITEM #: DATE SUBMITTED: May 2.3. 1986 PREVIOUS ACTION: tYona ISSUEIAGENDI TITLE: Tisaardlectrc_ PREPARED BY: D?boraFs A. Stuart - REQUESTED BY: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: DEPARTMENT 14EAD OK: POLICY ISSUE == =- INFORMATION SUHMARY Tigard Electric, Inc. placea mobile horse on its property for use as` temporary office apace without; either a valid Temporary Use Permit or an occupancy permit. The mobile home has been on the property for at least' three months. The applicant is requesting a Temporary Use Permit for a period of one year. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERS® 1. Approve as recommended by the Planning Director 2. Approve with modifications 3. Deny the application. -- SUGGESTED ACTION i Approve as recommended by the Planning Director. r 2564P dm' STAFF REPORT AGENDA 'ITEM TIGARD CITY COUNCIL June 9, 1986 7:00 PM TIGARD ,CIVIC CENTER TOWN HALL 13125 SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD, OR 97223 A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: Temporary Use 4-86 REQUEST:„ Request by Tigard Electric, Inc. for a Temporary Use permit to use 'a mobile home as an office temporarily up to one year on property zoned CBD (Central Business District). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Central Business District ZONING DESIGNATION: ' Central Business District APPLICANT: Tigard Electric, Inc. OWNER: Ronald and Dorothy Schmitz 8720 S.W. Burnham St. Route 3, Box 2725 Tigard, '0.4 97223 Sherwood, OR 97140 LOCATION: 8720 S.W. Burnham Street (WCTM 2S1 2DA, Lot 200), 2. Back2 oun In September-, 1977, a Site Development Review (SDR 24•-77) was approved with conditions for Morrison Electric Company (the applicant). The property owner of record has remained the same. The request was for, the review of a 9,800 square foot office-warehouse as a two-phase project. Phase I was to consist of 1,920 square feet of warehouse and 520 square feet of office space (currently on site). ` Phase II was to consist of 7,350 square feet of leasing space. One of the eight conditions required that Phase II be subject to architectural design review. 3. Vicinity Information Properties to the south, west and north are all zoned CBD (Central Business District). Properties to the east on the opposite side of Hall Blvd. are all zoned 1-L (Light-Industrial). 4. Site Information The subject parcel is .51 acres in size. Presently there is a 2,440 square foot building on the site of which approximately 50 percent of the floor area is devoted to warehousing and another 50 percent is devoted to office use. Also on the site is a 980 square foot mobile hone which is used entirely as office space. Approximately 30 parking spaces are provided'. The mobile home represents an expansion of 21.3 percent of the original floor space., STAFF REPORT - TU 4��-86 PAGE 1 The applicant states that the mobile home is currently needed due to the inability of the owner to expand the present leasee: building. Tigard Electric is looking for property to purchase so that a new facility can be const.-ucted. The applicant" states that the company would suffer greatly due to a lack of office space. ' b. Agency and 'SPO Comments The Building Division has the following comments: No 'occupancy permit was ever issued. The mobile home has been occupied for at least two or, three months. The `Engineering;Division has the following comments: The property must connect to the sanitary sewer system, if allowed to be used as per request of the 'applicant. The Tualatin Rural Fire Protection District has no objection° to the use of the mobile home on a temporary basis. B. FINDINGS AMD CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in .this case is Chapter 18.140 of the Community Development Code. The Planning Staff concludes that the relevant portions of the Community' Development Codi are satisfied based upon the findings 'mated below:' 1. Chapter 16.140 states that the following criteria must be satisfied in order to approve a temporary use for a mobile home in e a Commercial or Industrial zone: "(R) The need for use is the direct result of a casualty loss, such as fire, windstorm, flood or other~ severe damage by the elements to a preexisting structure or facility previously occupied by the applicant on the premises for which the permit is sought; or (8) The applicant has been evicted within sixty days of the date of the application from a preexisting occupancy of the premises for which the permit is sought as a result of condemnation proceedings by a public authority, or eviction by abatement of nuisance proceedings, or by determination of a public body, or court having jurisdiction that the continued occupancy of the facilities previously occupied constitutes a nuisance or is unsafe for continued use; or (C) There has been a loss of leasehold occupancy rights by the applicant due to unforseeable circumstancesor other hardship beyond the foresight and control of the applicant; and STAFF REPORT `9'U 4-86 PAGE 2 D) There exists adequate and safe' ingress and egress when ( as required by combined with the other uses of the property; 18.108 Access and 18.102 Clear elision; (E) ,here exists adequate park] for the customers of the temporary use as required by 18.106 Off-Street Parking, (F) The use will not result in congestion on adequate streets; (C) the use Will pose no hazard to pedestrians in the area of the ease; (H) ; The ue will not create adverse off-site impacts including :a noise, odors, vibrations, ;glare.or lights which will affect the adjoining uses in a manner which other uses allowed outright sn the zone would not affect the adjoining uses." ess te a. The �zrop:, d s sal meets the requirements for ro ximatela� 3Q nwheree 12 are and egress, adequate parking (approximately y required), cc;ngestian, pedestrian hazards and off-site impacts. b, Section 18.14Q•Q6Q(c)l1)(A) states that the need for the mobile home must be the direct result of a' casualty loss. A change in the financial 'picture for a business could well be construed as a is unable to construct casualty loss' because the business according to previous plans. 2. The staff recommends that the permit be made valid only until February e ' 28, 1987. The mobile home has been situated on the property without a 'temporary use permit for at least '3 valid occupancy permit and with no months. Although there are no clear records as to when the rate stto ructure was first placed on the property, the staff deems it appropriate to an retroactively set the beginning date of the temporary use p initial mobile home use on the property. approximation Of the Temporary use can be granted an extension up to one The Tary year. 1{owever, the emant mus-t provide some identifiable proof to indicate a new por site is being sought or a new Site Development Review approval will be sought within a stated period of time. C. RECOMMENDATIO1R, Based 'upon the above findings and conclusions, the Planning staff U 4-86 subject to the following conditions: recommends approval of T 1. This approval is valid until February 28, 1987. sy2. The applicant must make provisions r: thto connect to the C sanitarymust _. Ywrosah e Building Division. The applicant sewej4Gsl. J obtain a sewer connect, inspection and permit and abandon and fill the existing septic system. . �yC o"..'"'_`.. ��OVEMY- fM23b].ajoiSalleoan REPA. ED }1Y: `�eborah Fa. StuartDirector, Assistant Planner• ! Y. Community Development (DRS:br/2561P) STAFF REPORT TO 4-86 PACE 3 8720 S.W. Eur„tam Road77 d a NAILING AC,ORESS. P.O. 5u> ELECTRIC Te?c,phone: ( 0?) 639-9ii� April 21 , 1986 �5 City of Tigard 12755 S W`- Ash p.O. Box 13397 3 Tigard, OR 97= " Atte-ntion. Dc -ah Stuart Reference` E;,. Iency use of Mobil:a Home The Mobile Ho:: s in need currently, due to the inability of the owner _x.pand the building we now lease. �. ar property to purchase so a new facility ; We are loo} inc can e co'nstr:.:. `-d, to house our growing company. We wil�i require the u= of the Mobile Home only temporarily, one to require mthe a Without the Mobile Home temporarily, our tweltfer greatly due to lack of office space. company would I strongly ur: =, as a long time tax payer, and supporte .:ttnunity; to allow this Fmergency use ,cof a of the Ticar ' vent impaction impaction of our -companies business. Mobile Hc::e, F7 a --Sincerely , 6f f 4 f J Tia w 4 E 3115",5 \fq {{ .,iSWl FLT G��?l�'q� \ g..Pia• �/� ` Fri /�� \ ��. /1 t'-d a �`�.•�...•� � ✓/ •►v£ t ' , �70,} LJ J � dP. cam` ,{• � / tJN •; is �.; z '� i TIGARD o� 9 l Jy, ��\✓ ✓ �,\pig / �� /// ,,<,�'�� / GViO ST tt 4�.�y�P'. IMAIA . ( A _LE G C BOJ i_._L. ES 1 K�oounw._� -7—FT-1 1 � 1 i � i 1�i•.r Via»'ncRanfii. �-- � y1 rFWTI _ I(�sw T rEMR �1 t.-.;1:: -�1 � r } .I•. 4�R jRR _ �r_ )yr f 1i .a, fV .I�LI LIL n I ruau I �.! �) �� 4 j 1 �,�..1 ��/ � .�'< •t , -t- } - ,,._.w r rRaa,•. NIOR r s j r t !¢i JU t rr 1 -1' 1 OH00t_ f I � 1 r TEMPLETON jI ) «, }} i EI.E�tENTARY ,s II , A �ci itlt.ttssssa , s , r ► ssorrsr► sttjr7 ali�rtr Ilitstr5tt �..a.l�' ! e ) � t i ) i.1 ) �'T�mi�'! I l- .t t f�� !-i 1 �I L) i�3��`itli��(ItIItel�lltltla�ti7lJ1+)tP�6titE'it�tl'(sle(�Is�tltltit)sistaltltltlrn; - NOTE: IF THIS MICROFILMED I'_.. _ _..._..... .I. L 3 4 _ 5 - 6 7 -....__. 12 i., DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN , .._ AW THIS NOTICE. IT IS DUE•r0 THE QUALITY OF TIE ORIGINAL DRAWING. OE 6Z 82 LZ SZ SZ 4Z EZ Z2 tZ OZ 6t 81 LI 81 BI' bt EI ZI 11 .OI —6- 8 i, -4 -._.S io `c -Z �ns)utdnnSunitna�NNixMloudueJWt Z _ I III Now MARCH 7 .a aY"tS%ikw Ci z"';a"� \ PAZ�iE TI 1 : F7w3tstc, { F Pwi. - Rr t - 3'L k Cale � ii - 32',�lals ' 3 '• -P�f 1s.5.� �.: v _ ) z - -.L•" �:. - i - a3 '�'`'" _'s..^ � � - _ _: - i.:. sl..a. ,e-. •�, �j �'��. ..r.+-��' '�r,. _ -.5....�.:'�+.:a�` 't.-�` `..,.... :Y- R.ca:i �_-5:�.-,t:.�;,1;,, ;,ee zz Oil -a yakj�s !�..vvt�Y�t• :'V ..�!' �i>.r'.T_ -. _�:' _ ,.- ... ..5 �.� _ ., Y:- ...--.,z •' " is S. .'�i'�' S'`y-�'•a,c F'�, `fi•- $:- c '�-`>'.'�`.'.-'i2 zF'wX- �9i4. �C ��r"- tom-.. _�,. x, '"'�,.� �z� {_ � -r"s`i� -•Yyr.a"�'�',s--..'� _ �..- cC -�.: -� .:.s _ ri c;•T y � ��'�e. _ �:.'E ^-; �a.�:,r"�-.ti:.y•.r-ac. _ •�' / :\ t SC,�,�=s '.. za:.? ° -'S�'- -+.T_,:- .A. �_..-�-ecsa.,' axe. +c'wy�!•� '.a; - �r -'--�-,. _ - �- ._'�• 4T•:€ �� _ 5� �E�'4 �Wi+'yT•+Y' SS�'�'`L'Y_ '3y?efi .r..e'!:•'s.- -'S- ,�:�R-�5_•�.'. _ -_ - _ .may -^r " .. :�7 � "3e .!?�•y- c Yi's >^ � - .-_ _ - �_ : _ .._ .- 4��... - �:.n "'S-�:-,�a_._ �_.ate•' �;•.-•,�-.a_��a' -i 1� �z% '�,x�s ' - '�;,-: ^i`c. gi _ _ _ {yam}}L �}�] �. ,_<.,_- ¢-. a•.�` e M MI-11 IgA �3 `t mz- W-'k' {- ,�,� . '"_�- .' :� 'fit,.+.�-�= .P3} � � � _ - 24=0— �"�•��-'. . ` -� �� .: ter, ,� �X�,_��` •- �; I _ P1 s�:°'^��- -J G.-�- RD EEC�N 8720 S �uRNyA.M-RD _ I !1{7(►�tl1{°01�, °{°!��° °{°!t'°!°{°!° °!`{°!° °1° ° ' ' T)�1i°Pl'lip 11P° °Ti °J°{°!rt°l11ri;�°!��})°!°1°!{��°1°trjilll°Jill i1ljl°+°i°{°°��I° °!��°I°{°I°�°IIll Jill i°(°Ir��t°{°°° NOTE: IF THIS MICROFILMED — -._.........{ Z .� 4 __. _ 5 - 6_ - 7 B 9 !'� 1! DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN --- -12 THIS NOTICE, IT JS DUE TO low - THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL -. DRAWING. --'---.- - "' 0£ 62 ez " LZ 9z Sz - oz ez zz�z Qz a si LI --9i Sf- bi e!" "z° !I of —6 e L 9 s ♦ e -Z 13 �mrwdlulhwllul�HH{u°e�ln�iquhL°°I�(!! OIL u�11111W�1w1111[�lllJel°°' J i. 7 9mmar A vKa% k;ni ,r Y'�e CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 86 A FINAL ORDER IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY USE APPROVAL REQUESTED BY 'TIGARD ELECTRIC, FILE NUMBER TU 4-86, APPROVING THE APPLICATION, ENTERING FINDINGS AND'COjCLUSIONS. The Tigard City Council heard the above application June 9, 1986• . . . . . . . represented the applicant. . . . . .. . . . appeared in opposition. The Council finds the following FACTS in this matter: 1. The applicant, Tigard Electric, Inc. requested approval for a Temporary Use Permit to usL a mobile home as an office temporarily up to one year (Washington County ;Tax Map 2S1 2DA lot 200). Information 'relating to the request is found in Planning File number TU 4-86. 2. The applicant began use of the temporary facility prior to applying foo a 3. The proposal is being recommended for approval by the Planning Director. 4, The applicant`s justification for the approval is presented in the Council's information Packet. 5. The relevant approval criteria in this case 'is contained in Section 1A.140.060(c) of the Community Development Code'. Based upon the record in this case, the Council make the following FINDINGS: 1. Section 18.140.060 of the Community Development code contains the relevant criteria dealing with the temporary use of a mobile home in a commercial or industrial zone due to an unforeseen or emergency situation. The Code defines this type of use as one which is nestled because of an unforeseen event such as fire, windstorm or flood due to an eviction resulting from condemnation or other proceedings. 2. It is recognized that in this case the unforeseen financial hardships of the applicant pre-empted 'construction of Phase II of Site 'development Review' 24--77 and that the applicant is now seeking another site for relocation. The Council adopts the following CONCLUSION OF LAW: 1. Based upon findings 1 and 2 above, the Council has determined that ' confirmation of the Planning Director 's recommendation of 'approval of this temporary use is appropriate. RESOLUTION NO. 86- F Page l k P9f 3, THEREFORE, BE T RESOL,vED by the Tigard ci�y Council that; _ = ' Based capon ' the above findings and conclusions, the Planning iDirbe, ar d raseds€ endataon is upheld and the Council therefore Ot DERS that 's 4-86be, and hereby. is APPROVEDsubject.to thr following conditions: 11' This approval is valid until February .2G, 1967. 2. The applicant 'eruct make provisions to connect to the City sanitary gager systeei► ,through the Building Division. the applicant must obtain sewer connection` inspection ;and permit ,and abandon anti fill the existing septic system, compliance with these requirements Must or this approval tale inti within thirty days of Council approval will be ;void and the applicant required to discontinue 'use. PASSED: This _ day of 1906. �iayn`—� r Cita of Tigard ATTEST: Depot Recorder - City of Tigard 2553P ' !f ff 4,x • Page i r CITY OF TIGARD OREGON ' COUNCIL AGENDA ITER SUMMARY AGENDA OF: June 9 1986 AGENDA ITEM #f: DATE SUBMITTED: May 23, 1986 PREVIOUS ACTION: Denial by Planning ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Appeal.of Commission S 7-86 PD 6 and SL 4-86 PREPARED BY: Keith Liden ld�►r WAYMIRE (DOV-,R LANDING)__ REQUESTED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: /1 CITY ADMINISTRATOR: POLICY ISSUE INFORMATION SUMMARY On April 8, 1486, the Commission denied the above applications and the applicant ,appealed this decision" on April 18, 1986. Attached are copies of the application, staff report, ; Commission's final order, transcript„ and -`" minutes of, the April "8th hearing, letters from residents submitted during the hearing process, applicant's appeal letter, and applicant's request for a correction to the Commission minutes. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Uphold the Commission's decision. , 2. Reverse the Commission's decision. 3. Remand the application to the Planning Commission for further consideration. SUGGESTED ACTION Review the attached information, consider the testimony presented and make a decision as appropriate. .. 2664P dmf f APPEA `, ra9ER6014 Di a TMAN D,��E g;�CEWED.- ATTORNEYS AT LAW TIGARD PROFESSIONAL CENTER _ 8865 S.W. CENTER:STREET P.O.BOX 23006,:TIGARD.:3REGON 97223 -' (503) 639-1121 5 ROGER F. ANDERSON- April 18, 1986 City Council City of Tigard Tigard, OR 97223 NOTICE OF APPEAT (I) This Appeal is from the denial by the Planning Commission of the application of Kenneth Waymire for a Planned Development (PD2-86) Subdivision (S7-86) and sensitive land permit SL(4-8);' (2) The applicant, Kenneth Waymire,; has standing as a party because he was present at the Planning Commission hearing and because his engineer and his attorney spoke on his behalf at the hearing; (3) The grounds for the appeal are: (a) The Planning Commission failed to follow the Municipal Code by denying the use of a density transfer from the flood''plain and park areas to the remainder of the development (b) The density meets the requirements of a Planned Development and the density transfer provisions of Tigard Municipal Code section 18.92, based upon the underlying zone of R4.5. (c) The only basis for denial in the Final Order refers to "the provision of open space" (Final Order, Page 6 paragraph C). This Planned Development includes over 3 acres of open space out of a total of 20.4 acres. The open space includes areas along the Tualatin River which will he dedicated to the City at its request. The Municipal Code does not require other, additional land to be converted into open space. (4) The Final Order of the Planning Commission is dated April 15, 1986; (5) This Appeal should be decided by theCityCouncil and not remanded to the Planning Commission which has attempted to impose arbitrary re- quirements which are not part of the Municipal Code. v Respectfully submitted, ANDERS ,1 & TTMAN t oge F. Anderson Of Attorneys for Kenneth Waymire rt RFA:J as cc; Kenneth Waymire Barris-McMonagle Associates ANDERSON OrrTMAU ATTORNEYS AT LAW TIGARD MOFESSIONAL CENTER _ 13055 S.W. CENTER-STREET 'P.O.:BOX23006..TIGARD.OREGON 97223 .4503➢ 1399-2422 VERRYCK D•2.-DITT2AAM ROGER F. ANDERSON April 18, 1986 City Planning Commission City of Tigard Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Correction of Final'Order "No. 86-14PC` On behalf of the applicant, Kenneth Waymire, I hereby request that the Final Order No. 86-14PC, with respect to application for a Planner: Development (PD2-$6), Subdivision (S7-86) ;and Sensitive Lands Permit (SL4--86) be corrected to accurately reflect the.motion made and passed (� which denied application. Paragraph C on page 6 of the Final Order does not accurately state the motion that was made and passed at the hearing. I request that the Final 'Order be amended to state accurately and verbatim the motion that was made and passed denying this application. ' I further request that the staff prepare a transcript of the minutes including the motion made at the hearing on this application and make it available before April. 25, 1986. Very truly yours, ANDERSON & DITTMAN Roger F. Anderson - RFA:j as c^: Kenneth Waymire Harris--McMonagle Associates c!!Y O! TI.GARD PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL:ORDL;R 86-Z:Pt_. A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONI ! US•IONS, !n!lilCH DENIES AN APPLICATION FOR A: PL_ANNFD DEVELOPMI:Ni (PD 2-86), SUBDIVISION (S`7--86), AND SENST'IIVF_ LANDS PERMIT (SL 4-•86); REQUESTED By FUNCLlESS, NE.:,VnLp, OGLE AND T!lOENNLS. The Tigard<' Planning Commission reviewed the above application at a public hearing on April 8, 1386, The Commission based its decision upon the facts, findings, and conclusions noted below: A. FACTS i. General Information CASE: Planned Development PD 2-86, ' Subdivision S 7-86, and Sensitive Lands Permit SL 4-86. planned development consisting of 82 detached REQUEST: Approval of a lots ranging from 4,800 to 28,000 single family residences on square feet in size. Also, a request that minor lot : line adjustments up to 3 feet be permitted with staff approval, permission to: construct 'a sewer line and street improvements : _ within a drainageway. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density 'Residential ZONING DE=SIGNATION: Washington County R-5/Tigard R-2 (Residential, 2 - :nits/acre) APPLICANT: Ken Waymire U41NER: Funchess, Wesvold, le, and Thoennes 10185 Ser!_ River•t,aood Lane.. � Tigard, OR, 37223 LOCATION. North of the Tualatin River and both sides of 108th Avenue (I�CTM 2S2 15A, T.L. 400 and WCTM 2S1 15AD, T.L. 100, 200, 300, and 400) 2 gi c round The Subject property, except fora 1.3 acre that is within the City, is in Washington shington County and an annexation application is also being presetreviewed. : A'finaI plat can not be recorded until the property has been officially annexed. The applicant is proposing to have the R-4.5 PD (Residential, A.5 units/acre Planned Development) zone applied to the property which is being annexed. The Zone Change Annexation (Z.CA 1-86) will be reviewed by City Council. The applicant recently applied for the approval of a 71 lot subdivision/planned development which rotas denied by the Planning Commissionon March 4, 1986, (File Mos. PD 1--86, S 4-86, SL 3-86, and al ^ 3. yiSjn 1y LnfU� rmatian The surrounding arca contains a combination of small and "medium sized acreage parcels. Except for two parcels on the west side of 108th Avenue, all adjacent properties are under Washington County jurisdiction. 3 FINAL ORDER 86- PC - PD 2-86, S 7-06, & SL 4--86 Page 1 P ?he'entire ,arca: betweenDu.^ham Road and the Tualatin River is within the Tigard Urb=an 'vrowL Boundary. The Tigard Cr}mprehere5i.vc Clan has designated the subject property, as well. as other parcels to th;c northa ` and wast., for !_ow Density Residential development.' The properties between Pick's L_a:,d ng and the subject property are designated Medium Density itesider;tial. 4, Site °Tnformati.on and Proposal Desariation The property contains three residences which will remain and several accessary buildings will be removed. The site is partially ,wooded with the majority of the trees concentrated near the,Tualatin River and the ea3t sided of the property., The development fea ur°rs 59 lots between: 4,800 and '8,000 square feet on the east of 1018th Avenue and an additional 13 lots between' 6,400 and 28,000 square feet on the west side of the street. These western lots shall obtain direct access' from 108th Avenue and a ASO foot long cul-de-sac. The floodplain area adjacent to the Tualatin River is to be dedicated to the public for;greenway purposes,' The `subdivision to be developed in two p?auases with lots i through 45 and 70 through' 82 in Phase I and lots gab through 69 in Phase lI. The ability to perform lot line adjustments of up to 3 feet is also desired. The adjustments will be submitted to the City staff for approval with an Engi.xneer`s evaluation regarding utilities and their relocation if necessary. . The development of the subdivision will require the installation of a portion of the cul-da•-zaac and "sanitary sever connection to the existing sewer line that lies within a drainageway on the west 5sd2 of 108th Avenue.. ' Also, thepreposed location of Kent Drive will cross a small drainage Swale near'its;intersection with 108th (avenue: #' S. A--+a�ncy and Commer;ts p The Engineering Division has the following comments: as, Street names should be'' reconsisiered before the final plat is submitted for approval. b. That earth worksouth of SW River €rive shall occur betWeen April 30th and f?a tat�lr '1st or at the discretion of the City Engineer: 9°aArthar, that arca on controls be a�rog�liad` through-out the course of construction and that a temporary (before and during construction); and permanent (after construction) erosion control plan be sub;rsitted to a.n approvedby the City Engineer pricer to commencing any improvement work anywhere on the site. 'y r FINAL aRDE 86- / PC - Pa 2_SS,. S 7-06, Si -A6 Page 2 I a c. Must develop sanitary ;and storm systems to assure future; extension of service to adjacent properties. Proper sizing and design of these lines and, associated ea,emrrnt:> i.s necessary and the .' applicant must demonstrate that the proposed storm drainage system iyill not negatively impact water flow on downstream properties. d. A letter of serviceability musL be obtained by the applicant for access/egress via SW 100th avenue; from Washington County. e. The use of 108th Avenue must be maintained during construction'. f. The applicant shall provide a plan to the City and 'Washington County, for reriew and approval, detailing how the applicant proposes to mitigate` the adverse sight distance problem at the intersection of DurhamRoam and lOflth Avenue. g The applicant shall provide a plan to the City and Washington County, for review andapproval, detailing any ;improvement which Ma be required by Washington County along Son! tooth Avenue from the intersection of.`Durham Road and 108th "Avenue to the proposed devv_lopment site. because of the anticipated traffic" volume on 108th Avenue, an in street improvement that includes a z2 foot wide paved surface with three foot gravel shoulders should be: provided between the development and Durham Rnad. a h. Rivea-sssood Lane is designated as a minor collector on the Cc mpreherisive 'Plan connecting 92nd Avenue with 108th Avenue. One of the through streets shown on the plat should be designed to meet minor collector :standards and alignment of the street to-the present end at Pick's Landing should be identifies#. Since 108th Avenuewill function as a collector street, it ,should be [sunt to a minor collector standard. It is recognized 'that ,it is currently designated as a local street and that the minor ` collector status of YRiverwood Lane was not previously identified. However, the ssnrehen ive Plan designation for Riverwood Lane Ust be addressed and 108th Avenue should be properly designated to accommodate anticipated traffic volumes that will be present after- this area is fully developed. i , Any onsite or ofP-site sanitary and storm sewer easements which may be necessary -for provision of service', shall be on City forms i and approved by the EngineeringSection; on-site easements should be;denoted on the subdivision plat. j. ' Th existing (access-egress) easement across the north end of Tax otsd(p- �30 shall be vacated; the cost thereof to be born by the applicant. +' a FINAL ORDER, 8o- PC - pD Z- 6e S 7-96, & SL 4-86 Page 3 11 , ERIC! ,n, k. Vacation of the south rend vP `:W 108th Avenue from the terminus oP C.R. "'til366 to thc� proposed River -bri.ve shall ' be initiated by the applicant. ti 1, The lands adjacent to the Tualatin River which are within the 100 year, floodplain be dedicated to the public for grreenway purposes. The floodplain boundary shall be surveyed and clearly marked and said markers shall be maintained 'throughout the course of development. M. The existing dwelling's which are to remain,. must be connected to sanitary sewerage facilities as soon as such becomes available, since their septic drain fields will most likely be impacted by creation of subdivision lots. n. No objection to the Sensitive Lands request provided the conditions noted are ;-required. o. Consideration should be given by the Park Board regarding the desirablil'ity of a pathway through tract "B" P. Each 'phase' of the development should be clearly delineated and any modifications should require City ,approval. The Building Inspection Division notes the provisions for storm and sanitary sewer must be addressed. { The Tualatin Rural Fire Protection District indicates that all streets must have outside/inside turning 'radii of 52130 feet. Hydrants can be no more than 500 feet from any structures, and any access roads over 150 feetinlength must have an approved turn around. The Tigard Police Department has no objection. The Washington County Planning Division of the Department of Land Use and Transportation states that full or half-street improvements required by the City will be acceptable provided it meets County standards. The street improvement should be continued across Tax Lots 1102, 401, and, if possible across 1103. The County right—of-way standard is 60 feet. The Tigard Water District indicates that adequate service capacity is available. The Paris Board recommends flood plain dedication, a paved path meeting City standards, and access from the development to the greenway. The Tigard School District has no objection, but it is noted that some adjustments may be necessary to attendance boundaries for Templeton Elementary School. t PGE has no objection to the proposal. MPO #6 objects to the proposal for the following reasons: FINAL ORDER 86-14 PC PO 2-86, 'S 7-86, & SL 4-86 Page 4 a. Traffic problems at the 108th Avenue/Durham Road intersection and additional traffic on Durham. b. The number of proposed dwellings is excc-sivc! c, Lot sizes are too small and riot; coinpat.ihle with Pick' s nding d. No access to floodplain area e. Objection of some of surrounding property owners. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, 3.1.1, 3.2.3, 3.5.3, '7.1.2,; 7.3.1, 7.4.4, 8.1.1, and 8.1.3 and Community ;DevelopmentCode. Chapters 18.50, 18.80, 18.84, 18. 32, 18.160, 18.162, and: 18,164. Since the Comprehensive Plan'; has been acknowledged, the Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines_.no longer need to be addressed. The Planning Commission concludes that the proposal with modifications is consistent with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Plan based upon the findings noted below: a. Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because the Neighborhood Planning Organization and surrounding property owners were ,given notice of the hearing and an ,opportunity to comment on the applicant's proposal. t , b. Policy 3.1.1 wil'i be satisfied provided that any portions of Lots 4 through 13 which exceed 25% slope are Piot graded or Billed without a Sensitive Lands Permit. - Such a permit has been requested .to allow construction in the drainageway in the ; northwest corner of the property and construction of a sanitary sewer line and a portion of a cul--de-sac in the ravine. A review of the preliminary plans indicates that the work proposed can be accomplished in a manner consistent with this policy except for the cul-de-sac. The proposed cul-de-sac is within the 108th Avenue/113th Avenue ravine which is delineated by the 140 foot elevation and is identified as a significant wetland and wildlife habitat. Though the proposed cul-de-sac can be sucessfully constructed within the area, it appears to be unnecessary. The cul-de-sac should be shortened so that it is above the existing 140 foot contour or designed so' only a small portion lies below this elevation. A field Visit with the applicant and staff would be the most appropriate way to determine the street location. C. Policies 3.2.3 and 3.5.3 call for dedication of flood plain areas to be incorporated into the City's open space system. The proposed dedication is consistent with this policy. A related item which must be resolved is the proposed pedestrian access to the greenway. The access easements shown travel straight down slopes that range between 25 and 35%. These easements must be r modified so that a pedestrian path is feasible. FINAL ORDER 86- PC - PD 2-86, S 7-86, & SL 4-86 Page 5 r dPol;cies 7.1.7_, 7.3. 1, and 7.4.4 can be satisfied because adequate water, sewer, and storm drainage facilities will. be required to serve the development prior to approval of the final plat. The applicant also indicates that. these facilities will be provided within the subdivision as requiraid by t.ho City standards. ; e. Policy 8.1 .1' is art issue ;.Plat must be resolved relating to the present condition of 108th Avenue and its intersection with Durham Road. Both ` of tsetse roads are under County jurisdiction and approval must be obtained. A County permit will address the access problems pertaining to the development and a resolution of those concerns. Also, this policy calls for the provision of a safe and efficient street_ system which accomodates present and future needs. The alignment of River-wood Lane> should be continued through this development as a minor collector- unless the Comprehensive Plan is modified in -this regard. 108th Avenue will function as a collector and should also ,be improved a a minor collector. The ' staff is willing to work with the applicant to develop a street system that is desirable for all parties involved. f. Policy 8.1:3 will be satisfied when the conditions of approval ' relating to street improvements are completed. ; The Planning Commission has determined that the proposal is not consistent with the relevant portions of the Community Development Code ' based upon the findings rooted below: a. Chapter 18.50 of`the Code is satisfied because the proposal does , meet the density .requirements of the R-4.5 zone. �. b. Chapter- 18.92 is satisfied because the proposed density is consistent with Code requirements. On page 3 of the applicant's narrative, the density calculations are presented. The calculations are correct except that they do not account for a 57„280 square foot area of the subject property which is presently within the City and zoned R-Z. By adjusting for this factor, the � allowable number of units is 84. The applicant is proposing 82 Lots. C. Chapter 18.80 is not satisfied because the proposal is not consistent with the purpose of the Planned Development Code requirements for the provision of open space within planned development. The majority of the lots within the development are significantly smaller than the 7,500 square foot minimum that would be required for a standard subdivision. Except for the flood plain area, for which minimal access is proposed, no common open space will be provided d. Chapter 18.160 of the Code is satisfied because the proposal doses meet the requirements set forth for the submission and approval of a preliminary plat. FINAL 0RDER 86-111 PC PO 2-86, S 7-86, & SL 4-86 Page 6 e." Since the Proposed street and sewer line are �ocaLed withire d ' diFfareret sc>_nsit.ive larleis categories, three stats (1F appr()val ( cr-iter :a co nt�ai.ned sin Chapter '18.84 atppi.y to ttii proposal. ],. AJ() y(aar flood platin „i a'. Land corm ' alterations shall preserve or enhance the `-i flood plain storage functionand maintenance of the zero-loot rise floodway shall not result in any narrowing of the floodway boundary. b. The land form alteration or development within the lot)-year floodplain shall be allowed only in an area designated as commercial or industrial on the > .,. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map; C. The land form alteration. or development is not' located within the f:loodway; The land form alteration or development will not d. r- e in the elevation of the i result, M any ln_ee�as zero-foot rise floodway; e, 'The land form alteration or development plan includes a pedestrian/bicycle pathway, in accordance with the adopted pedAstr±an/bicycle pathway plan; -f. The glans for the pedestrian/bicycle pathway indicate that no p 'chway will be below the elevation of an za average annual flood. t'M1 2. Drainageways a. The extent and nature of the, proposed land form alteration or development will not create site disturbances to the extent greater than that required for the uses; b, The proposed land forgo alteration or development will V; not result in erosion, stream sedimentation, ground stability or other adverse on-site and off-site effects or hazards to life or property; c, The water flow capacity of the drainageway is not decreased; and d. Where natural vegetation has been removed clue to land form alteration or the development , the ares not covered b3 structures or impervious' surfaces will be replanted to prevent erosion in accordance with Section 18.100 (LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING). r 3. 108th/113th Avenue Ravine 4.h a. All of the lana (within the ravine) being considered -=r= for development is less than 25% slope. ,e EI�lAL ORDER PC - PD 2-ilia, S 7-86, & 5L 4-06 Page 7 �sa..zream ta'wu £+� b. Year-e ' are no unstable soil conditions on Lhe land beirig 'considered Por- development. c. Fhe provisi,:�ns of Chapter 18, 150 TREE: REMOVAL shall be met:, Though not directly affected by the subdivision proposal:, lots A through 13 may ;require a ,Sensitive Lands Permit' in :order to develop on slopes that exceed 25%. The reduced front yard setbacks that where previously proposed may have allowed for the avoidance of the steep slopes in the rear yard. Based upon ;the contours shown on the preliminary plat, it appears that at a minimum sensitive lands approval will be required prior to the development of Lots a through 12. The applicant has submitted preliminary; information regarding the sewer line 'extension and street location (with the modified length discussed above) The Engineering Division has reviewed the proposal and provided the suggested conditions are applied, the proposal will, be consistent with the above criteria. e. Chapter 18.162 covers the City's -requirements regarding 'lot line adjustments. The proposed ability to adjust side lot limes after the plat is recorded can meet City requirements but the procedure for 'adjusting property` lines should follow the process described below: r The Community Development Code provides a two—step review of lot line adjustments. A preliminary ap, licatiori is first evaluated and a decision is > made. IF the, preliminary application is approved," a final application is submitted containing the final lot `line adjustment map and legal descriptions. Following City approval, the neap and legal descriptions are recorded with Washington County. Confl.icts may result in relation to the location of utility services and driveway locations. The final lot lane adjustment map and legal descriptions shall be required for each adjustment that occurs under provisions of the preliminary approval. The map and descriptions should include information regarding the precise location of existing utilities and driveways. A certification from an engineer should be provided which indicates that the adjustment will not ,adversely affect existing 'utilities or that the facilities will be relocated to the satisfaction of those utility company(s) 'involved. Any costs associated with change in utility location will be borne by the developer. The PD 'overlay zone does not have a minimum lot width requirement, but the 50+/-- foot wide lots are relatively narrow for single family detached residences. The 5 foot side yard requirement shall remain in effect as well as the 5 foot driveway setback requirement contained in T.M.C. Section 15.04.080(b), Variances or waivers of these requirements shall be viewed with disfavor. FINAL ORDER 86-14 PC - PD 2-86, S 7--86, & SL 4—e6 Pane 8 a' f. Chapter 1©.164 of the Cone could be satisfied during the approval process for ;the final plat. C. CCCISTON Based upon the findings and ,conclusions above, the Planning Commission DE=NIES PD 2-86, S 7-96, and SL 4-86 � t is further ordered that the applicant be notified of the 'entry of + this order. PASSED: This / day oil April, 1986, by the P in Commission of " the, City of Tigard. Oin Fyr� A n dice President ' Tigard Pla g Commission br481dmj i r —86 Page 9 FINAL ORDER 86--,d PC PO 2-86, S 7-86, & SL 4 ; 3 r �i TIGARC3 PLANNING COMMISSION , � i f8 R MtETTtM -. AP IL 8�1 19i�6 1. Acting Vice-President Pyre called the meeting to order at 7:40 PM. The at Fotjler Junior High School, LGI Room, 10865 SW Walnut- meeting was held Tigard, Oregon. 2, ROLL CALL; PRESENT Comissioners Fyre, butler, Peterson, ilanderwood, � and 'Leverett. ABSENT: Cow)issioners Moen, Owens, 'Bergmann, and Newman. STAFF: Senior Planner Keith Liden, Secretary {Mane M. Jelderks 3. APPROVAL OF' MINUTES Commissioner Butler noised a spelling error on the bottom of page 9. Coc a�+issioner Peterson moved and Commissionere tvotQconofd Commed issioners minutes a amended. Motion carried ;toymajority present. 4. PLANNING C TMISSION COM MUNT.CATION Stiff requested ,that a survc-y be completed which had been enclosed;in the packet regarding a training session with City Council, � . 5. PUBLIC HEARINIGS 5.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMEN-T CPA 2-86 AND ZONE CHANGE ZC 4-86 TONS FISHER/MIIACHEL WILliELM/1RI MA WHITE NPO # a 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-lU (Commercial Neighborhood). Located: 11730, 11780, 11782, S 11784 SW Greenburg Road (6CTM 1Si 35DC lot 7500 and 7€00) Senior Planner Liden reviewed the proposal and made staff's recommendation for denial, He reviewed and submitted to the Commissioners letters from Alex Ar•senien & Rengina markova; Eulalaia M. Riverman & lielen Riversnan Mason; and a petition with 42 signature opposing the Proposal- APPLICANT'S roposal.A€+PLICANT'S PRESENTATION 'Tom fisher, 13085 Sof View 'Terrace explained that he was a long time resident of the area and would not be leaving the area. He would have preferred to ask for a commercial ,Professional designation, however, staff had discouraged him and he had changed his request to Commercial Neigh"us�rhoad. He felt two modest dental facilities, residential in appearance would have less impact on the residential area than f€iur families which could occupy the area. He would construct a six foot fence and felt he would be a good neighbor. PLANNING COMISSION MINUTES April 6, 1986 page I PUBLIC.I EST I;MONY o Pat Taylor Cantrell, 11700 SW Creenburg Road adjoining Mrs. Whites property. When she had investigated purchasing her home, she had been very impressed with the_ Comprehensive Plan process the City had gone through and was confident when she purchased her property that she would not be faced with abutting commercial property, : She opposed the proposal and requested the Commission maintain its adopted Comprehensive Plain. 01 donna Sandbo, 11475 Sid 91st Ave., opposed the proposal. She had been a resident for 9 years and wanted to see the residential zoning remain residential. o John Sandbo, 11475 SW 91st', opposed the proposal.- He noted 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, 11285 SW 92nd Ave.., a resident of 32 years, had the highest respect for Dr. Fisher and his intent. however, he was opposed to the proposal not because` of the use being` proposed, but on the standpoint of the overall process.= He did riot support spot zoning. If this proposal was; approved it would be the beginning of many request for 'changes along Creenburg Road. REBUTTAL o- Dr. Fisher , stated that he would prefer a CP zone which would eliminate the possibility of a convenience store going in. He requested the Commission make a :recommendation for approval to "City Council with limitations. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED e o Senior- Planner Liden reviewed why staff had the applicant change his proposal from CP to CN. Discussion followed. o Consensus of Commission was to deny the proposal. Commissioner Peterson moved and Commissioner Butler seconded to forward a recommendation of denial to City Council for CPA 2-86 and ZC 4-36. Motion carried unanimously;by Commissioner present. 5 PLA �€ELOP4 E4 I Pig .B,S,; DDI SIO ` S, ..Z-EtS, ..AND aENSITIVE� LANDS p f•S# 4 d5': . ��E�d" 3R!Ca4SI El(FUNCHESS/NESVOL.D/0CGEJANDLTt10ENNEg) NPO # 6 Request for approval of a Planned Development consisting of 32 detached single family residences on dots ranging from 4,800 to 28,000 sq. ft. in size'. Also, a request that minor lot line adjustments up to 3 feet be permitted with staff approval. Also, permission to construct: a sewer ].ire and street improvement within a , •ainageway Senior Planner Liden reviewed th•Q "changes which hid bean made since the previous request. He stated there were concerns regarding the minor ( . .: collector designation of River-wood Lane and the legal street designation oflr?8th. It was noted that 108th should be designated as a minor collector through a revision of the Comprehensive Plan. PLANNING Co2f-VISSION MINUTES April 8_ 1986 - Page 2 7777 APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION �! o Bill McMonagle, 12555 Std Hall Blvd, Tigard, representing Iden Waymire. Explained that they would rename Kent Drive to Riverwood Lane. They hw4e also made arrangements to remove the wound of dirt at 108th and Durham. He felt that Washington County should '<deal with the issue of; loath since it 'presently has jurisdiction over the road. He wanted interim improvements, the overlay for loath, to be set for a time certain, preferably during construction of Phase II,' which should be sometime in June of 1988. Otherwise, the proposal meets all conditions of the Cada and requested the Commission give their approval. PUBLIC TESTT_MOfiY o Patricia Ogle, 16740 SES 198th, read and submitted into the record a statement of her- support of the proposed development. o Elizabeth Nesvold, 16590 sW !Oath, who's property is included in the proposal supported the development as being ;an improvement to the neighborhood. o Mrs. Elton Phillips, 16565 S ' 308th, submitted `a letter supporting the proposal with a traffic study being done for 108th. Commissioner Fyre read the letter:into the record. o waneta Chamberlin, 16720 S4i !Oath, resident for 35 years, supported the _ proposal as being exactly, what the area needs. She does not have any property _involvred in the proposal, but .would'be surrounded by the project. a Boger Anderson, 103.20 SW Kable, Tigard, representing Ken Waymire, stated they where only asking for 82 lots, where they could have 84. He felt the P€3 overlay was the only way to use the density transfer. They are providing direct access to the common areas. They have done everything necessary to comply with the City ordinance and asked that the Commission approve the proposal. o' Walter Lissy, 16455 SW 108th, opposed the development. He was concerned that the pond he uses for irrigation would become' contaminated if the development was allowed to drain into the gond. He was concerned with the traffic problems which would be increased and problems with children climbing the trees on his property. o Donna Ryan, 16459 SW 108th Ave. , opposed the development. She noted that there was no condition to support the requirement on gage 5 of the staff report to shorten the cul--de-lac so that it would be above the 'existing 140 fort contour. She submitted a petition from the Willowbrook Neighbors fc�r Sensible tTevelopamenL ssith 17 si�3natur•es opposing the development. o Dawe Weisel, 16459 SW 1o8tte, abuts the development and added comments to his written testimony. He did not feel it was appropriate for storm drainage to run through the pond. He objected to the size of the lots and requested that the PD overlay be denied. a Senior Planner Liden read a letter into the record from Conrmi.ssi.nnpr Ne+natan, as an individual citizen, opposing the proposal. PLANNING COMISSION P JJVUT'ES April 8, 1986 Page 3 REBUTTAL o Roger Anderson indicated' that the letter fromo Mr. Newman was inappropriate. He also stated that the project "imeets the criteria and requirements of the Code and should be approved. Also, 108th improvements should be determined by washington County. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED a Commissioner Peterson was not in favor without the lots; beim 7500 square Feet. He felt the common area should be usable land and that there was a problem with the storm drainage. o commissioner Butler believed the proposal should be allowed to development. o Commissioner Leverett and Vander wood concurred with Commissioner Peterson and did not feel the density was appropriate for the project. o commissioner Fyre opposed the development. He felt the Pao overlay was intended to allow for open. spwce and innovative :desie�n and did not feel the proposal met this requirement. Commissioner Vanderwood moven and commissioner Peterson seconded to decay PD 2-86, S 7-86, and SL 4-66 based on the finding that the density calculation is to high and proposal doesn`t ��aeet the criteria for a Planned Development. Also, request staff to prepare a final order end for rr Acting V .ce President Fyra to sign off on that final order. Motion l .. carried by majority vote of Commissioners present. Commissioner Butler voting no. RECESS 9:00 RECONVENE 9:15 5.3 ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT d_OA 2-96 TIGARD COWUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE Request to amend Sections 18.114.150 and 18.148.040 to require that the applicant submit names and addresses of all property owners of record within 250 feet of the site. Also, a request to amend Sections 18.120.090, 18.134.060, 18.140.080, 16.5.42.080, 18.144.080, 18.146.060, and IS.162.070 to change they notice requirement from those owning property within 100 feet to those owning property within 250 feet. Senior Planner Liden explained hoax this was a housekeeping item to bring the Code into conformance with Ordinance 86•-09 which changes the notice requirement to 250 feet The Commission was requested to forward a recommendation to City, Council. _ PUBLIC TESTIMONY 0 No one appeared to speak. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Commissioner Vander-wood moved and Commissioner Leverett seconded to forward `ZOA 2-86 to ci y Council with -a rc�aoar�m€+noati®n for approval. Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present, PLANNING C(X-,"ISSION MiNUl FS April 8, 1906 - Wage 4 W: NMI UR Mill INSN&WIM, NMI e •S STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 5.2. APRIL 8, 1986 — 7:30 RM TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL — LGI ROOM 10865'..SW Walnut TIGARD, OREGON 97223 A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: Planned Development PD 2-86, Subdivision S 7-86, and SensitiveLands Permit SL 4--86. REQUEST: Approval of a planned development consisting of 82; detached single family residences on lots ranging from 4,800 to 28,000 square feet in size. Also, a request that minor lot line € - adjustments up to 3 feet be permitted with staff approval, permission to construct >a sewer line and street improvements within a drainageway. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential � ZONING DESIGNATION: Washington County R-5/Tigard' R-2 (Residential, 2 units/acre)' APPLICANT: Ken Waymire OWNER: Funchess, Nesvold, 10185 SW Riverwood Lane Ogle, and Thoennes Tigard, OR 9722.3 LOCATION: North of the Tualatin River and both sides of !08th Avenue (WCTM 2S1 15A, T.L. 400 and WCTM 2S1 15AD,, T.L. 100, 200, 300, and 400)' 2. Background The subject property, except for a 1.3 acre that is within the City, is presently in Washington County and an annexation application is also being reviewed. A final plat can not be recorded until the property has been officially annexed. The applicant is proposing to have the R--4.5 PQ l (Residential, 4.5 units/acre Planned Development) zone applied to the property which is; being annexed. The Zone Change Annexation (ZCA 1-86) will be reviewed by;City Council. The applicant recently applied for the approval of a 71 lot subdivision/planned development which was denied by the Planning Commission on March 4, 1986, 3. Vicinit Information The surrounding area contains a combination of small ;and medium sized acreage parcels. Except for two parcels on the west side of 108th Avenue, all adjacent properties are under Washington County jurisdiction. STAFF REPORT PD 2-86, S 7--86, & SL 4-86 Page 1 The entire area between Durham Road and the Tualatin River is within the The Tigard Comprehensive Tigard Urban Growth BoComprehensive Plan rias �.,.' designated the subject property, as well as other parcels to the north and west, for Law Density Residential development. The properties betweenPick's Landing and the subject property are designated Medium Density Residential. Site ]Cnformation and Proposal Description 3, The property'' contains three residences which will remain and ' sevwit accessary buildings will be removed. The site is partially wooded with the -majority of the trees concentrated near the Tualatin River and the east side of the property. �. The development features 71 loots between 4,800 and 8,000 square feet .on : the east side of loath >Avenue and an additional 73 lots between 6,400 and 28',000 square et on the west side of the street. These western Tats shall obtain direct access from loath Avenue and a 350 foot long cul-de-sac. to The (load ::plain 'area .adjacent to the Tualatin giver is be be dedicated to tyre public for greenway purposes. The subdavision to be, developed in two ,phases with lots 1 through 45 and 70 through tit in phase T and lots 46 through 69 in Phase II. ' The ability to perforin lot line adjustments of up to 3' feet is also desired. The adjustments ,sill be submitted to the City staff for approval with an Engineer's evaivation regarding utilities and their "cation if necessary. ` rely s The development of the subdivision will require the installation of a portion of`, cul--de—sac th sac sub i sanitary sewer connection to the exiting sewer liize that lies- within a drainagaway on the west side of 7.G8th Avenue. Also, the Proposed location of Kent Drive wall crass a small drainage swale near its intersection with 1Oath Avenue. 5. Agency and P FO commenLa The Engineering Division has the following comments: a. Street names should be reconsidered before the final plat is submitted for approval ts. That earth work 'south of SW River Drive shall occur between April 30th and October~ Ist or at the discretion of the City Engineer; controls be applied through-out the course further, that erosion of caristruction and that a temporary (before and during ofpermanent (after construction) ,erosion control construction) and Arlan` be submitted to and approsied by the city Engineer caripr to commencing any improvement work anywhere on the site. 9 hl STAFF REPORT PD 2-86, S 7-86, & SL 4-86 Page 2 C. Must develop sanitary anci storm systems to assure future extension of service to adiar.;ent properties. Proper sizing ;and design of these - lines «rid' associated easements'' is ''necessary and the applicant must demonstrate that the proposed storm drainage system will not negatively imoact water flow on downstream properties. d. A letter of serviceability must be obtained by the applicant for access/egress via'pW 1.08th Avenue, from Washington County. e, The use of loath Avenue must be maintained during construction. provide lin to the City and Washington , f. The applicant shall p a p County, for review and approval, detailing how the applicant proposes to mitigate the adverse sight distance problem at :the intersection of Durham Road and 108th Avenue. e provide a plan to the City and washington g_ The. applicant shall approval, 'detailing any improvement which County, for review and may be required by Washington County along SW loath Avenue from the intersection of Durham -Road and loath Avenue to the proposed development site 8,,cause of the anticipated traffic volume on loath Avenue, an interim streetimprovement that includes a 22 foot wide 'paved surface with three foot `gravel shoulders ' should be provided between the development and Durham Road. h. Riverwood Lane is designated as a minor collector on the ( Comprehensive Plan connecting 92nd Avenue with beth Avenue. one of the through streets shown on the plat should be designed to meet :minor` collector standards and alignment of the street to the present end at Pick's Landing should be identified. ' Since looth Avenue will function as a collector street, it should be built to a minor collector standard. It is recognized that it is currently designated as a local street and that the minor collector status of Ri.ve:n.wod Lane was not previously identified. However, the Comprehensive Plan designation for Riverwood Lane must be addressed and loath Avenue should he properly designated to accommodate anticipated traffic volumes that will be present after this area is fully developed. i. Any on-site or off-site sanitary and storm sewer easements, which may be necessary for provision of servic,2, shall be on City forms and approved by the Engineering Section; on-site easements should be denoted on the subdivision plat. j . The existing (access-egress) easement across the north end of Tax Lots #100-#400 shall be vacated; the cost thereof to be bona by the applicant. STATE REPORT PD 2-86, S 7-86, & SL 4-86 Page 3 t k. Vacation of the south end of SW 108th Avenue from the terminus of C.R. { 3.366 to the proposed River Drive shall be. initiated by the V; r applicant. 1. The lands adjacent to the Tualatin Riverwhich are within the 100 year floodplain shall be dedicated to the public' for greenway purposes. The floodplain boundary shall be surveyed and clearly marked and said markers shall be maintained throughout the course of development, � M. The existing.. dwelling's which are to remain, must be connected to sanitary sewerage', facilities 'ras soon as such becomes available, since their' septic drain fields will most likely be impacted by creation of _subdivision lots. n. No objection to the Sensitive Lands request provided the conditions noted are required. o. Consideration should be given by the Park Board regarding the desi.rablility of a pathway through tract "B" t; P. Each phase of the development should be clearly delineated and any modifications should require City approval. s The Building Inspection Division notes the provisions for storm and #' sanitary, sewer must be addressed. ., The Tualatin Rural Fire Protectioi District indicates that all streets must .have outside/inside turning ,radii of 52/30 feet. Hydrants can be no more than 500 feet from any structures, and any access roads over 150 feet in length must have an approved turn around. The Tigard Police Department has no objection. ! The Washington County Planning Division of the Department of !_and Use and Transportation states that full or half street improvements required by the City will be acceptable provided it meets County standards The street improvement should be continued across Tax Lots 1102, 401, and, ? if possible across 1103. The County right--of-way standard is 60 feet. r District indicates that adequate service capacity ` The Tigard date Das q p y is available. :: The Sark Board recommends flood plain dedication, a paved path meeting City standards, and access from the development to the greenway. The Tigard School District has no objection, but it is noted that some adjustments may be necessary to attendance boundaries for Templeton Elementary School, PGE has no objection to the proposal. NPO 06 objects to the proposal for the following reasons: � , STAFF REPORT PD 2-86, S 7-£36,' & SL 4-86 ,Page 4 a, Traffic problems at the 108th Avenue/Durham Road intersection and additional traffic on Durham. f b. The number, of proposed dwellings is excessive C. Lot sizes arse too small and not compatible with Pick' s Landing d. No access to floodplain area e. Objection of some of surrounding property owners. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, '3.1.1; 3.2.3, 3.5.3, 7.1.2, 7.3.1, 7.4.4, 8.1.!, and 8.1.3 and Community Development Code Chapters 18.50, 18.80, 18.84, 18.32, 19.160, ;18.162, and 18.164. Since the Comprehensive Plan has been acknowledged, the Statewide Planning Goals and'Guidelines no longer need to be addressed, The Planning staff concludes that the proposal with modifications is consistent with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Plan based upon the findings noted below: a. Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because the Neighborhood Planning Orc_,anization and surrounding property owners were 'given notice of the hearing and an opportunity to comment on the applicant's f " proposal. b. Policy 3.1.1 will be satisfied provided that any portions of Lots 4 through 13 which exceed 25% slope are not graded or 'filled withaout a Sensitive" Lands Permit. Such apermit has been requested to allow construction in the drainageway in the northwest corner of the property and construction of a sanitary sewer line and a portion of a cul-de-sac in the ravine. A review of the preliminary plans indicates that the work proposed car, be accomplished in a manner consistent with this policy "except for the cul-de-sac. The proposed cul-de-sac is within- the 108th Avenue/113th Avenue ravine which is delineated by the 140 foot elevation and is identified as a significant wetland and wildlife habitat. Though the proposed cul-de-sac can be sucessfully constructed within the area, it appears to be unnecessary. The cul-de-sac should be shortened so that it is above the existing 140 foot contour or designed so only a small portion lies below this elevation. A field visit with the applicant and staff would be the most appropriate way to determine the street location. C. Policies 3.2.3 and 3.5.3 call for dedication of flood plain areas to be incorporated into the City's open 'space system. The Y proposed dedication is consistent with this policy. A related item which must be resolved is the proposed pedestrian access to the ,greenway. The :access easements shown travel straight down slopes that range between 25 and 35%. 'these easements must be t modified so that a pedestrian path is feasible, STAFF REPORT PO 2-86, S 7-86, & St. 4--86 Page 5 r , r- d, Policies 7 .1.?, 7.3.1, and 7 n can be satisPicyd because adequate and storm drainage face l.its.es to wi.;.l be required red The water, sewer, rior to approval of the final Plat. serve the development p applicant also indicates that these 'faci.lities will be provided r: within, the subdivision as rec{uired by the City 'standards. to the e, policy 8.1.1 is an issuwith e e that mast be resolved relating Dr�rham present can of loath Avenue and' its irtitersecturisdi tion and Raced. Both of these reads are under A County enmitCounty will address the approval must be abtained•yJ the development and a resolution of acpess problems pertaining t1iOse concerns. calls for the provision of a safe and efficient . , Also, this policy resent and future needs. The street system which accomadat+rs p caritinued through this alignment of Rivervood ;Carie should be comprehensive plan is development as a minor, callectlL�Sth1eAvenwe ss the will. function as a modified in this ';regard. The co and should also b} improved applicant�tor developta street staff is willing to work with the app system that is desirable for all parties involved. y . f, policy 8.1.3 will by satisfied when the canditians of approval re to street improvements are clatinompleted. ,' that the proposal with modifications iFie planning staff has detern�ineu Development is consistent with the relevmnt portions of the Cama�unity Code ;based upon the findings noised below: satisfied a. Chapter 10.5J of the Cod requirementsaf tFe R-4.5szo she Proposal does not meet the density 1 €:hapten 19.r32 is satisfied because the proposed density is a e 3 of the applicant's consistent with Code requirements. On page consistent the density calculations are presented. The calculations are correct except that they ,da not account far a of the subject property which is presently 57,280 square foot area gonad R-2. Dy adjusting for this factor, the Within the City and The applicant is proposing 82 allowable numbers of units as 84. Lots. the Code are satisfied because the C. Chapters 18.9(3 and 18-160 Of set forth for• the .submission s neat` the requirements proposal don and �provaI of a preliminary plat- al within c$. since the proposed street and sewer line ars sets ofedapproval �- n different sensitive lands categories, to this proposal. criteria contained in Chapter 18.84 apply 1. 100 year flood plain a, Landform alterations shall preserve or enhance the ey flood plain storagoadwayfunction shall notmaintenance result n- any zero—foot rise; f narrowing Of the floodway boundary. STAFF R POlT PD 2-863, S 7-86. � SL 4-8� Page Ca 1 b. The land form alteration or development within the 100-year floodplain shall be allowed only in an area designated as commercial or industrial on the .r1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map; � c. The land form alteration or development is riot located within the floodway; d. The land form alteration or development will not result in any increase in the elevation ' of the zero-foot rise f loodway; e. The land form alteration or development' plan includes � a pedestrian/bicycle pathway' in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan; ; f. The plans for the pedestrian/bicycle pathway ,indicate that no, pathway will be below the elevation of an average annual flood. 2. Drainageways a. The extent and nature of the proposed land farm aIteration or development will; not create site i disturbances to the extent greater than that required for the uses; The proposed land form alteration or development will not result in erosion, stream sedimentation, ground stability or other adverse on-site and - off-site effects or hazards to life or property; c. The water flow capacity of the draisnagieway is not decreased; and d. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land farm alteration or the development, the areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted to prevent erosion in accordance with Section 19.1.00 (LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING). 3. 108th/113th Avenue Ravine a. All of the land (within the ravine) being 'considered for development is less than 25% slope. b. There are no unstable soil conditions; on the land kaeing' cans%osred for development. C. The provisions of Chapter 18.150 TREE REMOVAL shall be met. Though not directly affected, by the subdivision proposal, lots 4 through 13 may require a Sensitive Lands Permit in order, to � develop on slopes that ex eed 25'x, The reduced front yard 6UTAEE-REPOiRT RD 2-06, S_7-SG. & 3L'4-96 'Page 7 setbacks that where previously proposed may have allowed for the avoidance of the steep slopes in the rear yard. Based upon the contours shown on the rar�.).imi.nary plat, it appears that at a minimum sensitive lands approval will :be required prior to the development of Lots g through 12. The applicant has submitted preliminary information regarding the sewerline extension and street location; (with the modified length discussed above). The Engineering Division has reviewed the proposal and provided the suggested conditions are applied, the Proposal will be consistent with the above criteria. ' e. Chapter 18.162 covers the City's requirements regarding lot line adjustments. The proposed ability to adjust side lot lines after the plat is recorded can meet City requirements but the procedure for adjusting property lines should follow the process described below: The Community Development Cade provides a two-step review of -lot eine adjustments. A preliminary application' is first evaluated and a decision is made, If the preliminary application is approved, a final application is submitted containing the final lot line adjustment map and legal descriptions, Fallowing City approval, the map and legal descriptions are recorded with Washington'County. Conflicts may result in relation to the location of utility services and driveway locations. The final lot line adjustment map and legal descriptions. shall he required for each adjustment that 'occurs under^ provisions of the preliminary approval. The map and descriptions s�rould include information regarding the precise location of existing, utilities and driveways. A certification from an engineer should be provided which indicates that the adjustment will not adversely ,affect existing utilities or that the facilities will be relocated to the satisfaction of those utility 'company(s) involvedAny costs associated with change in utility location will be borne by the developer. The PD overlay zone does riot have a minimum lot r;idth requirement, but the 50+/— foot- wide lots are relatively narrow for single family detached residences. The 5 foot side yard requirement shall remain in effect as well as the 5 foot driveway setback requirement contained in T.M.C. Section 15.04.080(b), Variances 71 or waivers of these requirements shall be viewed with disfavor. F, Chapter 18.164 of the Code will be satisfied during the approval process for the final plat. STAFF REPORT PD 2-85, S 7-86, & SI.. 4-06 Page :8 fA gggg �L C. DECISION r ni Fused upon the findings, and conclusions= a adbor SuL. 4� 86 subject ng staff to the recommends approval of PD 2-85, S following conditions, m 1. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL CONDITIONS SHALL 0E MET PRIOR TO � RECORDING THE FINAL. PLAT 2. Standard full and: half-street improvements including sidewalks, � E curbs, ,streetlights, driveway aprons, storm drainage and utilities shall be installed along the Sw '108th Avenue (Co.Rd) frontage. . ; Said improvements along .SW 108th Avenue shall be built to not Less Shan City minor collector - street standards and conform to alignment of the existing centerline. EES shall be modified to accommodate the extension of 3. The subdivision River-wood Lane. This street shall meet miner collector standards unless the Comprehensive Plan is modified to allowfor a local street section. ' Seven (7) sets of plan—profile p4. ublic improvement construction plans and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate, stamped by a Reg,istered Professional Civil Ersgineer, detailing al.l proposed public improvements shall be submitted to the Engineering Section for approval. ' 5. Sanitary and storm sewer plan—profile details shall, be provided as k. part of the public improvement plans. � 6. Construction of proposed public improvements shall not commence until after the Engineering Section has issued approved public, . The Section will require posting of a 100% improvement plans. Performance Bond, the payment of a permit fee and a sign installation/streetlight fee: Also, the execution of a street opening permit or construction compliance agreement shall occur: prior to, or concurrently with the issuance of approved public improvement plans 7. A one (1') foot reserve strip granted to the "City of Tigard" provided at the terminus of SW Kent Drive and, also at shall be Lane. S' SW River Special permission need be granted theterminus to T.L. #700 and {800 by the City to allow "crossing" of the reserve strip. 8. Additional right-of-way shall. be dedicated to the Public along the sw 108th Avenue (Co Rd.) frontage to increase the right—of—way to 30 'feet from centerline. The description ,for said dedication 9, shall be tied to the existing right-of--way centerline as established 'by Washington County. The dedication document shall be on City forms, and approved by the Engineering Section, or shall be detailed on the Plat. STAFF REPORT PD 2-86, S 7-06, & SL 4-86 Page 9 9. Access shall. be ;provided at all .times for all property owners on 108th Avenue during construction. 10. Street Centerline P'tonumentation a. In accordance with ORS 92.060 subsection (2), the centerlines of all streets roadway right—of-ways shall be monumented before the City shall accept ;a street improvement. b. All centerline monuments shall be placed in a monument box conforming, to City standards, and the top of all monument boxes shall be set at design finish grade of said street or roadway. C. The following centerline monuments shall be set: 1. All centerline--centerline intersections. Inter— sections created with "collector" or other existing streets, shall be set when the centerline alignment of said "col"lector" or other street has been established by or for the City; 2. Center of all cul—de—sacs; 3. Curve points. Point of intersection (P.I.) when their ._, position falls inside the limits of the pavement otherwise beginning and ending points (®.C. and E.C.). 4. All sanitary and storm locations shall be placed in positions that do not interfere with centerline monumentati.on 11. Any earth work south of SW River Drive and below the 140 foot elevation contour shall occur between April 30th and October 1st or at the discretion of the City Engineer; further, that erosion controls be applied throughout the course of construction and that ai temporary (before and daring construction) and permanent (after construction) erosion control plan be submitted to and approved by the City Engineerrp for to commencing any improvement work anywhere on the site. 12. A Sensitive lands Permit will be required for any landform alteration, including the development of single family homes, on slopes greater than 25%, located immediately north of the flood plain. 13 That construction of the 'proposed sanitary sewerage improvement shall not commence until posting of a 100% performance bond payment of public improvement Aslan check and inspection fees and execution of (and City acceptance of) a construction complaince agreement occurs. 14. That construction of the proposed sanitary sewerage improvement shall occur- between April 30th and October .1st, 1985, at the discretion of the City Engineer, STAFF REPORT PD 2-86,`_S 7-86, & S!_ 4-86 Page 10 15. That erosion controls be applied throughout the course of construction and, further, that a temporary (before and during a construction) and permanent (after construction) erosion control plan be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer; prior to commencing improvement work. 16. vacation of the south 'end of SW 108th Avenue fro+a the terminus of C.R. 01366 to the Tualatin River shall be initiated by the applicant. ' 17. A letter of serviceability shall be obtained by the applicant for access/egress via SW 108th Avenue, from Washington County. 18. The applicant shall provide a plan to the. City ; and Washington County, for review and approval, detailing how the ' applicant proposes to mitigate the (existing) adverse sight distance problem at the intersection of Durham Road and 108th Avenue. 17. The applicant shall provide a plan to the City> and Washington County, for review and approval, detailing an interim improvement for SW 1038th Avenue (fromthe intersection of Durham' Road and ' 108th Avenue to the proposed development site). Said improvement shall include a 22 foot ;pavement width and three foot gravel shoulders: 20. Any on—site or off—site sanitary and storm sewer easement, which may be necessary for provision of service, "shall be on 'City ,forms and approved by the Engineering Section; on--site easements should be denoted on the subdivision plat. Storm sewer discharge to downstream properties shall not exeed present' volurl.es. 21. The existing (access—egress) easement across the north end of Tax Lots #100-9400 shall be vacated; the cost thereof to be born by the applicant. 22. The lands which are within the 100 year floodplain shall be dedicated to the public for greenway purposes. The floodplain boundary shall be surveyed and clearly marked (said markers shall be maintained throughout the course of development). 23. The existing dwelling's which are to "remain", must be connected to sanitary sewerage facilities as soon as such becomes available (since their septic drain fields will most likely;be impacted by creation of subdivision lots). 24. Pedestrian access shall be provided between the development to the path in the greenway area. The easements and trail design shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. 25 After review and approval by the Planning Director and City Engineer, the Final Plat shall be recorded with Washington County. 4e STAFF REPORT PD 2-86, S 7--86, & SL 4-86 Page 11 . . t 26. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL CONDITIONS BELOW SHALL, UE MET PRIOR TO RECORDING ANY LOT EINE ADJUSTMENTS WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY a, The :final. riot line adjustment application(s) shallhe reviewed and approved by the Planning Director PRIOR TO RECORDING. The Lot Line Adjustment documents shall be recorded by the City and a, copy shall. be forwarded to the applicant. In addition to the requirements of Section 18.152.080 of the Code (copy enclosed), the applicant shall provide information illustrating ;the location of all utility facilities in the vicinity of the property line(s) to be Adjusted. b. P. registered, eny'ineer shall certify that each final lot line adju3tment` will not have an adverse impact upon the utility services within the subdivision and the service available to individual lots.' c. Any relocation of utilities shall be approved by the appropriate utility company. All cost incurred shall be borne by the developer or lot owner. d. Variance or waiver requests to the 4 foot side yard setback requirement or the ; driveway setback standard in TrIC 18.04.080(b) shall be'viewed with disfavor. e. One or more final Jot line adjustment applications may be filed for all lots in the development as >provided by the above conditions. This approval shall expire within one year• of the Final decision date noted below. 27. This approval is valid if exercised within one year of the final decision'date noted below. PREPARED BY: -Keith Liden AFOP+rf*3to BY. William A. Monahan Senior 'Planner Director of Planning & Development KSL:'br4i STAFF REPORT FD 2-86, S 7-86, & SL 4--86 Pada_ i7 -ipt4F T t d � � t MR 4 S g � ' 31 y c tlq..ty �� --- iq Pill�''��`�?.3#-`.:�x"��;�;n¢:wt�.�t"L�'. 5,':�i�"€' .-�''�•. 's`* a,.s,.�.�,xej, l x "a`y-" , 2,�.. _,.s � .-lms_' €•.'i .; usig !AM, ZE A NOI ............ ................... 71, ............. g7W EMN-MIM. R D ®R ammg- not within the City limits.'' Commissioner Butler: "Could you tell us real quick Why this is corning here first before being annexedF i li nt is, is Werested in getting going on SSeniorPl er Liden, ,rhe applicant summer and it was their desire to get the project if possible, this this 1 preliminary approvals which if $rued by Commission, this would be, then soon to be followed by the e...., the 1,nalization of the annexation, then d with filing&fines plat. But :1 thinkits tiding they could then 90 right ansa � thing. We didn't see any reason procedurely why we COuldn t do that. Naturally we can't have these final flat recorded until snnexated to the City. ,f Uh, Lei st-e, our commen s, by in large are the same as they were lest month. 'the uh, proposal is a sistent with the densitycalculations that deed t they are I ��BF+L e'9iy . to be applied. Uh, in fad, I think its in the staff report, l�ation of 84 units. They are prop�.3sing 82. We do titled to put in lcui'. have one wrinkle that has come to light since last month. And I -think that this might be partially due to the fact that we do have a CityEngineer now . And that is that, Uh, 1',ive gas d Lane,which is partite dear oped in Copper Creek and in icllc's l,i ding, its designated in Comprehensive Plan to be a minor collector sing 92nd Avenue with 108th. Flay ere, we have pa-Oposhl for Kneeland 'Estates Number 111, the end of Mverwood, and this is, 4. some kid oa controversyand we are going s part of this is involved in , to have a herring regarding that development with Riuerwood Lane Whether t it should be —tended or not being one Of the issues and that will be covered on �honday, this sO ing Monday night. Uh, the rather problem has QDme to r t. It is designated as a, light is that 1081,h is not designated as a collectorstree as a loyal Street. However, in looping at how that areas going to develop, it 1? PAGE 2 Gc� ' �.r.z� �""^"�ax�wr �,-` �..��°� 'rz�� w�.�s�n�..>�.,a:..�, ...,r �..�' �� •�' �k'�~�.t.,'��,..r s� �t �a��-t r xs �''��' ,:t.:r*�.. r r fw ,.. . '.' f " •r z it r ;s i ..� ..; 4 ft:' , �f:.;:r. z� �r t. �� x. r .: i L` �.,• ��.,-►.F r'is ` .., ( -.• ;i t 2 I.`L' - �"�� f7c wr '.r' -� ix a �..'�F ..-`ir r• :t. -r i" � '�� i z� ��} "---1 `� q� ' x t ar F i« ,'i' 1 ' r', � ♦' .r,r y. is ••� �4 �',,a 5 .< 2 WI ` x yy'• ....k a a.:',M. '.:•, �, ,.,.: zu sz, * s...s.r rv, I a",'' Yts .syal�sr..'F- ,,:,cam,_1 kar i�'x�i:.�:P"- 5 •�i.�'�.-�v..,w3?_G P1. ^tE':wS H'�'k'h mks •n{.-"�^�u'�-x. - `g�,i41..mM4ic�, s. _..a��*`a ":. r?,gt''��-�,c�`_a, .::,�.,�. n•.,+ ;:-^��".{�._,.'. - �r• 3? .�'�r�' � :ac� AR ��'�3'g`^�e�S�`;�'�r Y•w:. .'� � `x� �-E"�'' _ .�-,{'.0 ��s�oy. s5�? L`H$ c - ��....n x { ,i`�.• a,.'��z`�3w..ts �}`,F3 v" •si•'M Co issieiner Butter, `'yes,wh$ts the county netting for this property right now?" Senior Planner Liden, ..R 5 Butler, .. 59 so that five units per acre,and whets our zoning for i€?" Senior Planner Leiden, ..R-4.�... Commissioner Peterson, 'The're comprable zones?" Liden, "Yes,h acre,you know, Viecretically anyway you have a 1/2 unit per acre difference." i` Commissioner Fyre, Any other questions*? Thanks staff. The applicant's presentation now.,, "My name is Bill Mcmonaglef 12555 SW Hall Blvd. ,Tigard, z represent Ken Waymire and the mer Landing Project_ Bi �with � s€ We have no problems with 2-, 4 through 18, or 21 through 26. Four ,excuseffie 2., 4. tbru 18, or 21 through 26. We can take it in decending order, item number 3., relative to ghat Keith was just talking about, as far as Riverwood Lane is concerned. We were in`attendance, and made the lastest presentation to NPO 0 "& and wee we where'there, the Kneeland Estaw Addition was ; presented to NPO V 6, and they had some comments relative to Riverwood Line. Uh, as you $o through the staf report the City cruld like to remove the right, tit any rate,to rename some of the street. So i guess thAt we would to in that the roadway that we have noted on our plan an Kent Drive, we would like to rename that `Piverrwood Lane", That,would be the northerly .r , TRAR=R" PD 2- g,7- & ?&� 4 ��t``��-.,F.,�+...�.-s+.} +c�'e:`.�"-�.: ,-=.t'°�rt...,.zc.F_ '-„ '�;�stikers CLUE`-:€ '��'f`.+:'':X`,"�Y..�*r;� ,z� `��e�t"�£`�`��5. w `�zf�i�'�:N:.y'.�`�'��F`-�n�� h�..e•' 4"�4 .�.��ab.rr�� h� M i +t t.�. :• '�'. ,�,_,. t ... '.t��,:: .fi .e t '. ai '�t'.cE.'" F .�1 -�'- '� �,`�'-Y ,, �1� �i,c., ,di .-'Cf i:' 11 t 't. "• tt M -. � rY = � �� is 3 � ..�"Y"Y � '� T 1. .Y. ' •*,� ,'} f WA:``^' �., .�. _`:Yy. f.. t`Y++. "v.��^,�'� f' f �X r i t.Y t kY ..y,a f, i•; 4 � x � _ vx•'fr 14 s F ., `t C 4 x�r." 1. t r'° 't i�i .. �� ♦ ,>�a+; �r�t� `k c 3 C,Mei, ;:6 A .• 1�. d: Y. h x s,a•a ,.E _'? aMl- M, ; n �nnYs z: � •cam ? ,t�+F 393,, "5 y4 , �� 91 i'• f�• is !, - - a '� .;A, "r.. y,�.-. ;.� a: t - '4 f:E'. ;Y - �kx. , ��+ - + ;a f �:$. . .rir�,. max:� -: - �.�x:,r a . . ,t �� e• y : � . aA'a; ',��:� :f. :.:li, .,r,., ;4', ""r``.. a a �. � �'.4 •rf. ►, +'�'Y'. ra ��' ,. Yv ��r 4 �'i... .'.�. - �r. -.F.� ..F r,':- � V7 F. N: �r'". A•Y: 7.1 T` �' F a 11 r • e T; €1�i afi Vis, x cf''` a •x .:i: ::` '.�Vit.-.: ...--.. ..�'- 1yf'}4 Ott, Y� PNI �INS, a� '.. �� f .�r:' � t `• �h�vi�«��4��r'.✓ - Y ._ ` z'� �� ....'r 4' * a�riisko er"flutler, 'y'e ghe Fsize.df ese:lots, are not,F e �4�, re:Wl'51 , ,. d53,'Afiist baa; �R ti dMona le, .,,fts1her e" D IS.r the, r� eS ' E " �� : ase =..x� an, ourtr �e. :�B.utfer, "Iyou cit-, �ehjpp'the Arcs rty ri t tl� t`a �este�i, s i s:il�e 1 ss :five me- cf.asres:�' 1 d Ahat-t'w ft e ie t :d -to ithe..text; f �k_ted�Q �$p �fUh, that'l d'l OUr,own S' a Vin: r` : ordinances,affi,sis Ibe ;given :a credit dl' 25 Aensi�.Y:Ar fifer, 8f:e`may u Fetiee Wtffitil etmVvwstc r, K �€Alam nye , 'is w�,y�;stili" _ t`25essit wtr _ ff.y�� z .eYtErsx ¥us,'Eyre`��r��'tla�t4�e=��se..€�= eet'� fffD �q.,1t.;fot �aet Bose, TactI enAhm"'land-awgy-1rc?mlu -'Without �r y.� ompensation- Ole-twking(Oaugher)—_ y Com issianer Leveret€, 'Wbats your iinterpretfifion lLof -ested, .jested 'MdMo nfe, il`ll_.......fir a lifs est �: ., 'Ttt ewer it .COs€. oa� ba }land,you.ill Aand,-Whatev r ,you own. ave Aftle,sthe,title Ao en-,,-pu deyidfop Ahat dand,you fdevd1op -Under-a wh6le'dwerent iwVdf tl ��axe��?,�� - �� _..'��c �� h`.:�,�''*�.,�,�5�•�?�a:iY4 �"t sa��4'"��" �; ,'�'`,�°`,�r.,� -� �c ,��' "� ��'�� i .ate ,a p r w+' 5 :p X.:`-� Y' �. Yy ♦i4.` -y. 7ti,, A. 5: '4'' Y' i'!a '� ' � h �a �> Y:i 'k 'i6, f: y. "1:►' c.' :! �:., r' .�. - - l` air --r &�"#g J �n rY., fi Ff. RtY :i'` v '.,r .�.. sL,.a "s;{•" y'' t rs,,�-! k�:�t�'� I..a�t • 3 Y' ;1 • •:Yt:": �.31 �Y�-.: :.t •F" :r Y:. ��y T ��x l �� •.rL r t x: 1�a iF r r fR. f f:•� 'r : ,a.t° i ,�5 ,�,�"�:� •r'f !: t r�♦ ice.a �, �� .� t., � � r x MEN twa Fil - ., ar 9 MINOR =y G .`Ei, �L tit z:d°.Pykf> �"-005", ..i�.. '�,•; '� '#•d :'Y�sr�. .� p Nisar ,=rte.. ra:. <. X ar � w S r ek OEM-. �! r a tir��"''S...,., 'a::'..a?u -,` .� �� .�''�_�s�-c� -��" �� .�,a s e �. d ......... �*t4a�fir. `Robert'Santee- f.tla Tigard'Water,., slit. Aly .•-+Dd�� 8a�.%i681d. 1' FBi.Y�3 iC�� 41SS1 °ob� oL' r0yGd:.R0 dollars andA3➢ � p., t� ranter was i stdll�d.tc�Ahe:end l�fltli t�tet: 'l i also fts.the first'fa �! ei6ddd for,annexdtl0nintO tie City caf Vj d. Whiff is wl;at I was totd, ile de � ter.��d ee. I tine a ly 1980 I sllored,my lan&t€r be used ll- 1� l� cr .l�� md �� th�r giant a ttep trait'a'd.anneidtie� ;developmeAt, sid.........' r Ali ti€a z�f of Tigard long ra a e Arlan:: L,Ihav6.lived I 081Strebt for 16 years,and have no plass t ll`: r,h�s �..:If l tl�cs��b that bis`develop€�tent vas g0 td i g moray 1-.harm my,;Aliv $°conditions,or Al'ose .. � s s�iq. r l bbd°s, l assure you;=sad I ei ` tliis9' I �v� ld`fi st against st:this, even=tl�ougll My 46d 'was i el~ed, l,,,M , l d„had been f °.,s I fey me`.tir e; but bemuse':Of the tr itis . fl tr l Ir lti �t . say at t�1hea ',City bf ligard, ee i g - i,d.g'i rd's `l range . slat :plm only,a;`developer tvhO Many new developments t..i;8��'. . .�t��lt, �b8� ��:.ROad, e3 �eifis ld,:'Cvppe Creek SJ�.®�d Y+r. i s Iod din •the::site of .Word .le homes; nd the developmemmt'directly d r s'fra�m, ��tr a ,to Plck'sLanding. It,is tithwest Serena,Court, pis! €tlaer'de l pr gat dat'135 S t,� °the High School. -Note have used.:tee; y tr�sable easy.Private sir ffe style. 111Cthas also been ad z�t��iteaptld ble.wi' Pick's Landings: 'That.vras in hi±;letter that,came Out;f bLieve, the you people had copy the ...:.Mfxy :does this,.plan; ve;,to.be:entirely"like',pick's banding when the developer wh a-d elopes,l?ffthe Cdde,,on this development;as set by the; t The"River frca�aie 8kt t.muse be dedicated to the ��ty bi ycle:td:pedstri -pathsshould tae t$ ' d:bye;dI ►pe�trit� the &6dpPe n space d it e; until sts Vme` At thO ty .jjfford tc�; prod, itb-his. plan. To do other lslb so ld:be.=t�. defty..tbis river fronts frs� bei : rlal it"sld be..'A_ natuz al-Islamli • re recreation , m ss• a lir ties homes-and ,heir=ugao�,s. ",Tod ritla€ 'trot tremendously iE ea laws, � �ssablefor,residents of this gr€ytsa resed gr £G 0 raw land €d �• aesge,;simply €o Provide, is ffer Widuals who, �gg��rtly �r��o€ �€�e3d�€� the € € r+m tb d.d log��rs€of the,OveO 11 lam anagreiae�asi�Ye �1�,the € € a pl for `fig d. and 1,Tigard'sPian." Par€kola i this area. b l � ............. be °inn sucks a gersonzi f cii burden rear"he F b� �fi€cf ry,l -is totally UnIust and nre Wfl8ble. And fin y l ask-YOU as=spy P � s r gross tati re in this community to take bard d long look"at the go„i€iOIIII of tl osl&few h6obj € this say �ident thfit �ur' °ysisitlltad� � �€ their 6ti•�s€iog to Stir je6tice is.��s�d €sg�a� very s��: t�r�.residency,, nes t° `c- nSineerin$ acib ground .sed a� ly SeIf.SerVi_.Ig" : motives without ffiunity:need. ,As a W€ ipt to€h ° ,Oi , T wish'to add that �rr�i oR .thy �tbo i to u%ie develdg�cffit d in before b�s� d tla 1# 6,Whit they,themselves fires tib Stan Y violation€is�n 1gs iished cd a s 0_ factors' €rtx�l land s car eza�rslsl� €�� :tb� lid holder- � � la��.gl��d �d are maintaining s t in erect Violation of an ��ns€a� �i€� tempos residencetheir prof Y', �abc�,bas egr sd of Tigard o ci an , a trader:" M nd�; a.Wait Lissy, this�� sort .ol st b ;ag rehenslon "that future °residents, � -so developMe it, Acro 'Vic'Ch&irman pyre, °,Excuse me, excuse,me,this lineof €es€imonY relyf,isn't appropriate." C-gle710h and rebut, say.'so i wtf '€ b {jo� don't i s to. a lss€ they h€v said d rebut it befCCits dune, :-Me wChante to :.. PAGE .lei " '� - - Z. ~ I trailer on their Actin 'ice-President re, "Whether nOt they have a property ish°t germaine to this issue: Mrs. Ogle, "Okay, well then I'll tilt sa.,-th&t, in closing that I feel that it def itely is a proieed that I would like to see. I woulidn't feel, even My 1 minor star who wanted to be here tonight emd is at a scout Meeting receiving ~ his gain, next to the highest award, eagle =apt, was very pleased that this might happen because he will have children to play with in the neighborhood, after living there: 13 years with no one and I thank you very much for ~ li ing.., Aging 'ice President'Fyre, `"Thy you. E ' beta Nes old." ' F i "I'm Mizabeth esvold, I five at 16590 Ste' 108th, and weve been living ~ t there for 28 years a this street and out home is the one cm. the river the east per piece that is not goft to be a p wt of the development, , we've ~ - y only mid a 100 x 1,30 .....some one cougbi And we plan on staying ~ there for a long time and we, when they Mme to us with this p; . We had to d de what we wanted to do and we studied it and lamed at it, and d ried that we would sell him, with the ideas of going into the City, -de would sell We hadn't even thought about wiling that part, just the ~ him our property. three acres nett door. And, But as ere, uh, studied and looked at it, and now, E ;e sceb's added the other part, ►08th, this is going to improve the Durham Road ~ i whole neighborhood. lEit has w been badterseetisn, his atway been, full of dips; and I think. new we, this kind of development a f _going in, i-a-going to forcethe County to improve the whole thing end I think its going to be better for the whole community and we're SoiUS to being live ~ next to -this and I feel that, with getting neighbors and coughing...... people. - p,yg TR '6 tZe V 36 tfabd I s E. r. rst- ~.m c€M e 3 L: L � . d av K Nc s� k i i e 54� d "',��.". - ...,,..- ._. M 1`.Y'i F.#`. -.,}.::.: a. Y i'.::j,"K . A -t f• �#'. :r" -kT. "�c rr; E£s�s a u�� k t Y k a ,K . :.- ..:..,� "s-.:�-. ,.h �" 5 ?+'w.'t" ;we. 1�t?ii€?'.*y't. y- ,.sr- �S'„a`TM""F'Er ,k'I`.'^,zf d.y,;tg .m''i'- - f• ?_irS '�s�'a` �Y3^'' '•»'`' a..a- ;, zf, -'+, d 1{' "3�.".I," Xs SOr.�* .^ `t 'r�z. ;,• as, t'.£ `. '�- '.' ,:.•f ci .,,,a`y-""t.t, ^�.r - AIR .a �g-} .4 f� t•" `� _ya'3Lr✓" '�.v' iti `S",1`i� }+?r —." Y -M1�t1 er�.�'M t•�t k n NL''"�'' �i � 4 ,_..�"a �;�....4:::�u..�raf7..s<-;cs-,�>��'� ,+.:, v�.aaie,z=.s�.9k ..r°'S3nz�aa.d.a.-a""w~�. „�.d'"fir.^.'es -r,�T.i'Xaa;.sw=,` ,i�;s.t..r,»,v Y•.w ..v�,�:.v';"r.'�.'k,`�e-"4�.'�.:.sa...£:�*�..a��'�.w5.�,-,-.TMx'xc°'�•�'�� •i.4s,. n.a 3, gra.: s w,vt � a a r t f o s AA ---------------------- 3 s '. �'�a .'7t:". Y.f,; J= r� 1 ''k. S• ;x :.,�,Ch`f ft. ' .1•k ! �� jZE � l t. pp k. �` 4.py -s.,�. rl` .h v�.p#t - ,- fir,i uY' # -''xr.,v ,L ;ar.a' e"2 r e � , " Y'� �s z zx t`: . ,off ,iq:•z,.rok - za a ,;_*R ?'s §,'cs•+' ' - w#nw, ry� ..±•a, t �w'k�^•3ir '�.t-�.�&• 'Y,;,�. s.E.,.c`4 Win:�' e ��v,'fi€x:.,cKi�fy..ap.:. fin• 7 .b`�' ,rn•,r a3' .,•tz,•.v r._ "'*c•r 4 � �.0 `4 .;:f.�'�` +F�::�`A.. ?:dry. s" ��:�_ -,-±tl�'��r,., ��"�i"' �H �,;�.,$x�, '�" �y�'w�' �.�';'n-�x� �i` e'3.` �i"•t�at .r � �..Y�".�.fy�` �'- :��,.'� `�} '^.`' �?.'�"" ��.: 1, �;�'��`�, }x•�`�Z��i'?'.,.�&'`y�'�,�r' ,�•:..��'�b'F �,.�c8-.-�=:T.r �-�,�'x. T'�•��..k. `4` ,:,s{` 5t m -�"}x` �J'�— '�,",P a� x f+">ii`Sr ){�.> "�•s• _ �..�s,x `.`fir,' •?`�.'a difficulty in applying the density transfer to the prior project, and aolmrding to the staff's report on the primo project, that indicated that Chapter 18.92 was not satisfied. The density transfer is satisfied, in facet ire are below the number of leas that the proposal would actually be allowed to have. The fact that your own sheet the cases tonight, matters your hearing tonight, has an error on it, it says 84 lots, Voll tuts how much we could have, we're actually sem° as,�g for 82 lots. We had to pinch it. Density transfer, appears to be 'a way to allow, in effect, the C:ty t� enit�ce a, or urge o . dedication of land and still allow the people to get some benefit outor the fact that they are, that they have this land, and then cAm develop the remainder of land to a higher density by allowing for transfer of density. 'Vats limited transfer,`its�nlzr this masse we're not taIii�, advantage tea' all o it. Ira' this subdivision also,we have some lists that aim Much large than 7500 sq.ft., at least one lot is smite later, ash,compared to the MiniMUM required. The Planned Unit Development as I ianderstind the widinance and so ais pretty much the only way that you = use a denzity transfer. YOU 90 fOr a straight subdivision,the gray I understand the ordinances,you c3nnOt us--the density V: sf'ar. So, you can either provide for density transfer under this Planned Unit velapment,or you cn deny the right of the owner-to use the ordinances at ail. in fact you say that the crdinances is not available to use. It you slimy this kind of an app ication� Uh, we, in reviewing this could not find &ny way that this violates any ordina nm,it meets the requirements of all the dinances in this regard. Uh, the; there are fewerlists on the east side than before. Amoss has been provided directly to the common: areas,the common areas are in the'most favorable place to have common areas, thats along tlae river where people would want to have access to and have recreational uses for the, tela, property, for the property that thwi are living on. I suppose you could plan a development that had lasts that ran right down to the river and dedicated nothing to the City. If you .had such lots, theta of -86 'PAGE 14 t F: r{� Z M t ., t:., .,,+ ,. � •rf't H 'tt a t "tie E. R :;-� R a:: �. rt.• . t t;r�- ex �4'If -:, :.T t.,. R.. :y ;•� .T�„ ;i :...� t� I,r,' si7'-;,+-` .t,°3 Y,: 4 s _ .R: t ;c• ,.ter a. 3 yj Y4 g�. #�"t+ s� 3 5� a- S,� � ,„t., .,..;t: Rai `.."{`fY'_'`-' •�.. [� jY s';X X Y ,r.;,. .a.-'t•3 5 � i � x "�UNDO WOR :. <3.`� sd,�. '•'��.e:. F` �-:, 24`5•.4;•;�¢ - :'�, „.: .r .sx '"- _z- '�++„r " ?3 f :`i'"" ��' :.: ?s T, 'g"�':- �'€ r:" r' 'r}5° _ i - � S~ >�3-n� " .1.,'��1`z.a".'."..,,s.,,I. �''Z. s+y �s�,.r.�e3 2y��J:S: ,�. � '�- X="T�"'.+„rs' �.��y Y{`v�' G� `�•�ra'."�r�`�f3r�T t�".. v.�_ �s�" �;•.,t'� i��.��E.:r. � yr''T'j r'-�--�.:��?^ °•'�...•'�U.�,.,;, ,.:?:.:Iry r��i+�,��',��.�, +''�+�;�� '��;4'��r�' �i��4��'�*'�z� �' %h:�„.�'F "�t r 3 [+#c= '}-+' aY-.. y^� 1'!' �.i 1 1 �" � 1;�: :�'i) 1 r..f" r'e"tt�. ,:-= x:#: :�• - t 1 fi � � :t i!.7 •r ;� �•�, t r: i, t R a !�. •`X. X`#�f` ..-- '>:F. ..:,r �{ _ `.'k',�, .�:# t( ki, .L ai't,X... �I� 4 r: . t;'- "`'. "3 3 w• 1;�'w # :r +' :-..`,.. :. 's_ rw '#� r p-A- �r• w. t' "7i° � � a w tri a w,+ i,. .G" - - .F._" 1`y;,. ..,.x •�m'r � 7 x�` h .tTIM!' =F ,f, 6 .t• <Y, •h - -•t T 3' 4� •,,�� ,t!".:.' ;.Y �is`'.l '#: � l c �t <#' ) #. y ! ,�` ; '� a,1*:` is t 1 ♦{ ��t. 1'x f. J, ,! �� Ka r t. X i�.T..i� s *�•f r n' x ,y �� .� ;; �sa�""'��'�" �t�tz� 3w�'.. .rn 'r 9;i,{° � ,�..r � �•„k s -.;aes�.x �fcs�,�. � � .�i �." r„� r' ,,, a��''y�„'�� ,e , r�,?�a. ��,,,� ., .._ .t,�.i� ,..�a' '1 ,z.?`�t � �'�:��`,''� �'�:ye �', ;�»x_,.,_.-�� +i?.x"--,��,.. .��; °�_,�.�,, � ��r�y:.;: �,. ��` fir•,•=, �''..e .�*�'��"�t'�s� fi .�' -sX'� •moi r.s a ;, z ��z �+ ,�1"��a`°` �a -°'k'k'� e:` 5��'5�e` �'-�' ti G� •��i•it�Ss- y �z �„: if S••: i, -y ; d..., ri. �x �+t`...♦ '1: !t 11 #!-.t: J 't j•w ..Y. .;rat _ g Sys' ��..• ..e: ._y w� WIT, ey w .'d.L ' �i 1.'Y:z. i.1:.f i; .e.. �i !• ��' RON, ,.. �t - Y�;-^ ♦t� C, ♦ 1. - -.,l. .a.Y:' t t ,t;. Yr i :a:,..� x`" ��, n r s t� a i uc .u,-:- rr, h..r-,.z 'Y"z .s' �._Y fxf .,�5' ;`+, •es.. 4,. 9 c a+s -,`..<' r� ,?` x,:,;•csl �;•,.,. ��.s,.`�s`-.;•= 'fief":,-.,'t n..: '.•2 .z��w .»; l`a€..�-�"- � °�t-#.� :`-��..;�,�� L*��_ .t �sj'' �'�r• � R��.�' ,:+w"zY,.7"t,+-_. �� ..'•t, �4 v. r tz •{�,¢�:"�art�.,s ;"*� •. ��"'�� .yam�z'� <�,�_'�_ �' +��..,��`f , ;. N� �, _:+�� z ,. ` �.�s�t� "�' � �>az� ��5'S" .6;.?ey{'rr`'t�",:"QP� -n tw•z,�..w "'�=."v~i' �.:zt"�cy�+w� i,1.¢�'"r`,.;a r•z`"_ ... '-�'','� :. �. �. R�•i ..M;,}��,,��,�� '��""�, c.�.- v fi_�-.�..��.•- �a^� :Uz�c::�'t"�&..�.-.�3..� 3 '}' '��?�e'�zt�-�,�..eY.�.s.;�,�t,.��.�"_ese.-i'�'r''r.,s1Y':�'.»xc!x'�,�:��-��.�',...•�'�s��c .tt5r�•�...�`�3�`��.Y��4 � �-. �,?�'4��.�.«�-•.. F a Vi rF t fxIF Al A Ski�E, '.:�'!:f'y.:"' �!', _::M',.j y.-"•,... �afik T ry �� a i t i �...�"��- •.c�v� �T� .mss- ��'>�S�s�. ,..,. �_ _ � a :� �� :. �.�*s�.�sz- �_�:�..�^.�??+a .-.�.�..,.s'. should be and what should be a minor collector. The property abutting this proposal, directly to the east is planned and zoned medium density, extending all the way up; to Durham Road, and I it seems to be more appropriate to have higher states road going thru the medium density property rather the order they appear in. And uh, our property has, the parcel with the pond on it. I do not think it would be appropriate for the storm drains for this development and other developments, which could follow, hook up to that system, to be, to run through that pond. I thank that there are other areas that a storm drainage an snake its way dowry to the Tualitin River and stay an public property, which will eventually be a public storm drainage system, it wouldn't make sense to run it through private property and have the problems � in the pd, problems of amass by the City to come up in a car with a crew. And also I just object to the preponderance that the lots beim ..........sound of clock drowned out speakvs''voice.......... Pian-ned Development OWESay. Acting 'dice-President Fyre, *Thank you for your testiffiony. ititime now for the proponents rebuttal.,. Senior Plwmer Uden, ..Excuse sae, there were a couple of items that l just wanted to bring up. Uh, Mainly, Commissioner Newman was not able to make the hearing tonight and he wrote and letter that he wanted me to enter into the record. And just says, he uh, he can't attend tonights meeting, he's concerned about this proposal. Uh, and he feels it should be denied for the following reasons. Uh, "While the area under consideration is not a residential established area its designation will have a profound influence an future development, of the areas to the west between Durham Road and the River. The imp ct on the entire area is exasperated by the Fact that moth problems, if Riverwdod Dane is extended to 1081h. It will substantially change the traffic flow patterns all the way to Cook park, and of course,in the determining fact of collector street,which it is not built to be and to which is can not be readably changed. Okay, uh, policy 12.1.1 discusses low,low to medium density residential, and says in part; Areas which have been hisotricl.ly developed with large bats, and which are determinedto be committed land on the buildable lands inventory mall remain ..... consistent with existing developing `patterns. It is my opinion that the area under sideration, in the long term, must be considered as an inseparatable part of the neighborhood bound by Durham on the south,chops excuse me, Durham on the north, River on the south, Highway 99 on the west, and Hall Blvd. on the east. Long term use of the property fronting on Highway 99 and Durham may well best serve e neighborhood nd the City as commercial property, properties without direct access to these central collectors and arterials should be restricted to the use .... ......... and add character to the adjacent and established areas. Again policy 12.1.1 mentioned areas that can be buffered from low density residential areas in order to maximize the privacey of the established low density residential areas. With the substantial change in traffic flaw at the projected erected to Riverwood Lane, and the sh&rp contrast between the lot sizes and the general design of the proposed development, and the lot sizes and the general design of the existing adjacent development, it will not be possible to provide &a effective buffer between the two areas. My last poLnt, density established for this development will set a precedent for the development of surrounding properties, setting d minimum density and chatter which may well give rim to request for even higher density on land dd;acent to this parcel. ` . From audience S l s ale° ) "Mr. Chairman, uh, could I just rile a t question? Was that from one of the Commissioners." TRAN E Liden, 'Yes." Vice President Pyre, 'Yes, McMl onagle, How could he possibly Vice President I±yre, "I'll was going to clarify that in just a second. Is that. Responce: 'Yea." re, "Staff, new should that be considered as a Com .issicyher's input or public at large input?„ Senicw Plarmer Liden: 'Thats a good questior<s. I don't believe thel, theres any problem ff a Commissioner wants to write some statements regarding a development that he's haat a chant to take a€ook at. Uh, I don't know if we should, uh, thats a legal question. It would be dice if we had an attorney here. Fayre, "Of course thats not d vote:' Liden,Yeah,its not a vote. .... several people talking .... Fyrea "It sounds a little improper to €rae but I don't, let me check that out. Diane ,jelderks, „It's been done in the past, Tepedino Inas dome it in the past,when he was chairman TRANDOWTFD 2-e6 S 7-86&S.+06PAGE 21 f,. Mrs. Ball, ..mss he live in the area,that ghats .......... Diane jelderks, Secret, "Thats the second thing. He Submitted this in two ways, he submitted it as an individual citizen and as a Planning Commissioner. He's got two letter so which one would be more appropriate, that we could accept.", Acting Vice President Fyre, ...... Thank you, glad that he's showing an interest anyhow. I don't know if it came intra the procedure at the proper time, it probably should have came wader communications. s. Now that it .here 43A'rM�� L�a95i�43,}'98 ;it Now:ts time for C_he..:S�3i�8.ibe=3A 9�'s rebuttal. x men de ov ava rs• Frets Anderson, "Its uh, I gent to comment an the letter from the Commissioner. its a'bit amuse.! to have s��ebtady to Orsi their vete without having heard any of the testimony!sere tl%is evening." Unknown, 'That wasn't a vote was it?.. Acting 'lice President Pyre, "No." Ander=son, "Attempt to influence the vote, ......... asking to deny. I think thats an inappropriate statement. To get back to the project here. The project, this proposal meets the criteria off the crdia=ce. The NPO, uh, didn't choose to appear to oppose it. Their only comments dealt with, in the staff report, dealt with the traffic at 108th;which we`ve resolved that problem for site distance. Uh, they apparently,from their comments in the staff report,at least, 'deals with the number o' lots and !sats sire. These two things are one in the same thing. Should you have more lets, in the wane feu Yuan .here j fearer, you have more of a seller size, if you have more bats,you have, uh, } - mn � smaller size. So, question of lot size is a matter of ordinance. The ordinance says you have so many lots in this type of a zone. Your going to come into Tigard R 4.5. Which would allow to receive 4.5 per . ........... Commissioner Butler, "Per gross acre?" Anderson, '"I believe its, ash, it wax ks out to 7500 sq.!t. lots. I'm not sire ;you can match the,the ordinance is a Tittle bit vague on how you get from one to the other, ash, but, when you apply for, I think its Over three acres, thats being ded f=ated to the City,or in the Greenway, or wetlands area. That will not be build on and taking 25% of that will at-low a total of 84 lefts. This project is request for 82 lots. So it meets the requirement of lot size, uh, lot area, and number of lots by that method. They, and, there iv arses to the area. That was one of their comments. it says provide hump access and direct access from the cul-de-sac and the other area on the west. Uh, they situation vrith the roadway going out to 108th, I think that thats been pretty well covered, with the develo r here we want to improve that, ander whatever the County believes is appropriate. Uh, because thats a COMM Read and uh, as far as the roadways with the subdivision itself.-those can either be 50 or 60 ft. wide, depending on what the staff determines to be appropriate for a connecter road. Now, its been pointed out that the dehsit9,t to the west is actually more dense than this. Its a, so this would be, you might consider this somewhat like a transition between lower density,which would be between !sere and 99W and the density further over toward the Hid h School. Uh,.and they were all denser areas considering the gross acres, only about .four houses per 'acre. So, I would be happy to answer any ` L questions that you have, about the project. And uh,'if there some WAY that, yah, this doesn't meet the ordinance requirements, which would indicate approval is appropriate,then we would like to know what it is. Thank you." TqMgcWT 2- -7 & " P Vice !resident Fyre, "Any questions? Thank you for Your testimony. Public Hearing portion is closed. Its time for discussion. Commissioner Peterson. c ohagle, "Mr. Chairman?" Pyre, '..yes?.; Mc onsgle ..I'm starry I 7ras out coughing when you closed the hearing, may I have a chane to rebut?" Pyre, *That was the appli it's rebuttal." Mc cnagle,' "There omly one rebut. Eyre, "There only one rebuttd. McMonggle, "Only one rebutt&L., Pyre, "Right." cN„i agel, "Okay,were ill butted out. Okay... .......laughter...... Fyre, "Commissioner Petery. Peters . "Well I make it brief. I stated last time that I was not in favor of this without 7500 square foot lots, I'm still not in favi of this without 7500 Square feat lots. There's a couple of ether things, gs fpr as a Planned Unit r VJ SCWT FD M 3 7- 4-96 PAO 24 �+��Yx»;.n.., vq, .? s..c`"' +s�.-ate"-am"e�• '�'x�.-�. .�r'�."�"_ 'ed''" y;:'F ...�� .�:,...-'.�v �'�,2-t�.�'. '*e'.i. ';�.:;sr��...cz£� � 4�¢'�t�t�:'�•r��.. "�•.�`ur�ag�,+' '"�.,,-' 5•��^ �'4 ,.'� x. , `.{.* k M., ,,; ; t;. a.�- ;�.,t,.,{, k •.e ps Y9 r':;', s± '& ��; .� +� :--?i: - 1,k �s ,ti c� k ..v. r ri: � , f.) '-' tt ts: ''.1 'r ° • x� E � - �r � ,. , ;. ..: r,.:..," pt.. .��.�..•,. :�: r is i' i' `i, s r...�. r .•:: t�' `• a.f a. f" 'i• f x'-ra" • r.:f� '.r' 3't t � �r ,i at a. : ..� r t• Y:• t. H.:-. :•, r`�� ?r ►- ;.` t r a �: is� v' t� 4 �{� i__�,._ �:(�_ f,, .,#',. ,i` ! e:k fj� -iia. ',�•C{:. r��sE �z_.: r• 'i[.r: .a; •'a ' 1. : t:,., ..i(;,. '� •s�. •• n�i; r •y. .Y. f�,.fiJ*�'yx^3 f..i.. .• ,;"i,`- F �•1.', ,x .K;., - t•t r.:�'}} R ;;: 6 --. � �.s '.f. F �" ,T �`�'��+. k kiy�yy:2 Z Y N r �s � 7 , :3; � x x,,, � a' ��-^� � �� ~�:, � est ��`4.x `� ��r"� c°� �' �'� :��'. �t.�� a �*'• ,��* ns�g ,::.;� ��'��'�-��,s -_��r. -. �"�i, �� dY �v �,�t��. 'r �A p:�"t Y„:..•`� r��,..¢'° #�„$,s ^a�g �.A:; ..a�,n�,'�r�''� 5 . � r�"'"`t- �' `��` � zs,•aE�.�"��?'x �� 7�%`��`_.�a�”�.�1��ra- x_�� _ � -x- `��`J,�.,��.s��r'� *z�� ,+ �:,�-. ..� ::k'�_�..arras ,e .-u_.�s v� _,_ ..._.b,.�,._+,.ss r .,-.a.:,. ..._.,,.=..;.'.,x�w��.--�+�*'�:..°`"-r�e1��:.:��,.. �-- +:'�z:.�: -..:✓,..x.`.,. �.�R' a' �'',�°""��`;r�ras'sr'"'M�+"*' �, �# c• 4i L P Y za '., Y:`�r a'; '.'; r'4 i,"ri ..{ ', ;k'� .•.f..'' ;..:r;x !_ �.-, it+ �. :et , M � - �, � i::. s r%•� _t 4 ,.t {.. i {. it £' is" i is k b � X n r�.G � � � rte• T, afi .'f ;v �k. i.' �1. !-.i 1� �.:k �.4 .4.•!1 !3�: I't. '{.�'. {� y 2 4 tit r v; t'c � MMUMA b Yn- �,,° a .�,•^ * i +- .. ".„' }Y4 Enw.r £ E -xt i J"--',. .{,, a N _ "s", _... � •m ' ^ba - .' .'. � :'•irs.. .'+.•, .sr. v..`ta :. '' "' r�t x - F-:t>-s.�: `�+n.r.. .'`�f''tA"! MEN . x'tvw' =�'3:t! ,r' G-.;�°'' "3`(«e�yY� k 7+' td• s �,. -.;g;. ia - .- .:r,. .,__�,, �.. " YOU don't allOw the planned NveaOPMent ti'Oft, 1 think that the subdivision 4 would have to be changed pretty drasti .........T'APE I li ......... SEWND TAPE HAS ST'AT'IC NOT VERY TRANSCRIBABLE Discussion between Laden and Butler about proce ss� gyre, "Enter t 7. V derwood. I cave f� denial C'Pawed Development PD''I"ll make one. 2-86, S bdava a S -BSS, Sensitive Lands rmiu SI. -I$ based the fin ' Bs that the deftsit c�alata�as to high d the PrOPOsa does nOt meet �. criterae for a planned develO ent.`" r; ire, ..D I hear a seed?.. i 0�r YI� eTilXMy �." kyre, "All those an fUVOr signify by spyft Aye, Vanderwood,Le%rerett,FYre,Peter cd, ."iDsed?,. Butler, " o." PQ S 7� fM - � a Associates, Ince 12555 S.W.HAIL BLVD. OREGON 97223 fe@sgk®say 8593)6 �-3453 3/24x/86 PLANNEQ !LN T DEVELOPMEN T A. EXISTING CONDITIONS � . The site is comprised of Tax' Lot 400 and a portion. of Tax Lot .1102, map 2S1 15 A, a portion of Tax Lot 600 map 2SI 15 AD, Tax Lots 200, 300, 400 and a portion of Tax Lot 100, 251 15 A.D. The gross site acreage is approximately 20.42 acres: 2. The site is not presently within the City limits, how- ever petitions for annexation have been submitted and . are being processed. . The site' is shown on the Tigard Comprehensive Pian map as low density, 1 to 5 units per acre. 4. The southerly and westerly Portions of the site is below ( the 100 year flood plain elevation of 127.5 feet. )se - abutting lots will terminate at or above the flood plain � limits. .' B. PLANNED UNIT DEVEL0FMENT PROPOSAL 1. The proposal is to create 82 single family detached home sites ranging in size from 4,800 to 28,000 square feet. 2. No special set-backs are requested. 3. Minor lot line adjustments of tip to 3 feet are requested to accommodate future home buyersspecific needs as to housing style and size. The lot line adjustments that may be proposed will be submitted to Staff for approval along with an engineer's evaluation of the effect upon existing utilities. '. 4. Tracts ",A" & "S" , the Open space, which comprise 3.06 acres will be dedicated to the City forpark/greenway purposes. 5 Access to Tract "A" will be between lots 5 & 6 and 10 & 11 . Acces- to Tract ."B" will be off the end of tp:e s; proposed Dover Court. Fi_ cASSQC., INC. ., DOVERLANDING, (3/24/86) Page 2 6. Sanitarysewer will be extended from the Summerfield trunk which is approximately 650+ feet gest of S. W. loath Avenue in Tax.Lot 600.. 7., Water ill ZZ be supplied from the Tigard Water District � a - inch main in s. W 108th Avenue 'which is adequate to serve the proposed development, a. Storm drainage wtil.l be collected and discharged into 'the existing natural drainage "wsays. �. All streets within the development will be public and constructed to City standards S.W. loath Avenue will be improved as required by the Lily/County, l0: Electrical, telephony:; natural gas and cable television are .available to the site. l l`. Tigard School 'District has been advised of the develop ment. <a,nd they foresee no problems in serving the site. ~` C. DENSITY l.` the density designation of 4.5 units per acre is used a I to 5 a comparison basis within the zoning classiLition of the low density residential areas classed as Y' units per acre The prog�osaZf s2 lots will yield a density of 4.02 units per acre. 2. The properties East and adjacent to the Dover Landing A site is designated by the Ci Comprehensive Plan as medium density, ,13 to 20 units per acre The development of ;over Landing will provide an � orderly expansion of utilities and public streets to to 'heap properties which presentby do not eacist. 3, Washington County zoning of the site is R-5 which would allow 102 units in the development. City Code density calculations are shown on 'page 3. r '} r M f ti _ SSOC.e i s. .- DOVER LANDING, P.U.D. '(3/24/86) Page 3 I$. DENSITY COMPUTATIONS DEFERENCE: CITY CODE IS 92.020 - .030 AC IEAIsES Area 'Eas t of S W. 108th ,Avenue -- - --- _- -_- 14.79 acres Area test ,cif S.w. 108th Avenue ---- - -- -- 5.63 i --------------------- 2(3.42 acres TOTAL GROSS ACREAGE R AREAS TO _BE SUBTRACT .D FROM THE GROSS ACREAGE: Flood plain and park areas ------------------------- (3.06) acres Public rights of - way --------- ------------ 3. 37 acres NET ACREAGE ----------------------------- �4':29 acres t3E3`?SiTY: 24.29 ac. 43,560 sq.ft./ac. 622,472.440 sq<ft: Three existing dwellings (22.500-00 i .. NET SQUARE FOOTAGE ------------ 599,972.40 sq.f t. 599,972.40 sq.ft./ 7.500 sq.f t.!lot 80..00 ------------- 80 lots Density transfer from flood plain and dark cress :3.06 ac. 'x 43,560 / 7,500 17.77 lots 37.77 x 0.25 4.44use =--------------------------- 4 lots t Three existing dwellings ----------------- ------------ 3 lots— i TOTEM. NUMBER OF LOTS ALLOWED --- - - - 87LOTS TOTIa L NUMBER •OF LOTS PROPOSED - - - 82 LOTS i tV3, 1'1 53 W W : 4�Ns q r, W f g gI z wm . Ito 1 ,. uN �M ( � �� c •E54P"';.c; S --z e.VjF^ihr,X#,S' �� € �.,2. Imo, s �`..s�,.,,��, t�, �,�S�' a a 1 ` � Y s r <r. s s� uuu�� 4 M _ l r. tevv 5 .:r ., �,"*"rF�b. �� '�w+��,.'�" •x3'�i4i:)j'�.1.� � s r ��.��, L ��"uT�'°'.rr,3 � ��h��`'",z * �.,,� '�'nz. �!� G��t aS.,'�3 'rs'�'�:.'S.9.-:_T�-�.*c`,�.�Yi. ,Fi"�*^""_4:�.�i c�r:.�"':?"e,�,rs*;.?hF.tr�? - -.w'>..�'.`.�,::�w�+;�"f"�-..•mss_'- .' -r'fi+��t''..-+�.�k.�.`.. ._:;�'�.3s.�4.:�' r`�a'`�a�*� ��i *t�M.a.�.`k�s� s �'; `-k`'a'„. `;��.n'£a:�::��: 'S �� S a s Fes. i v TT' L � { R k r Fv r , � t t > >s•. tt' ryN ry ,;C='ter*;�x, 4r :m•`-- S 'Y 3 a4 4 .. z5..R y13{ # .cty} %trzJ3 +�e� :. fyta r*�..,'., ..., i- ..- i i E r f�.a• �a Y z� s F : t � A � r�^v x r � Lis >a to h�i bra:, x` � ,*" � -.•.t4''t�''xs ��a• fes. MOO �v�. }[.s��'rt��,.�„"�._ ��" a � -� �.��.�tb'n`• �-?��` `�'� ��.. '�,,�� at� �g�, .� e4 #. t h m7v4 rj a ';�F`h i.� ..a_7 a• �. �. 'a° -� ,,,... }..-•r +; "''��t,�1 t�s�.�.,+_.,�.laY.t:�.'�+`F�e,. 'r_:.�`�F � �� .'Ss �,'�., :�<:n'.+� a �O 4i y S'� l a 1. b 1 m r a CM ,. rt April 8, 1986 E'larnir g aYzd 'Zoning Committee Re. Waverly Construction, Inc.. proposed development on 106th Ave. My is 'Mrs. Elton Phillips I 1iL+e asci Own My err op€srty 4}est o f the proposed devel apfnern t I have l i used here for 17 ears grad enjoy the area and surroundings o this community. I Sinew when we boEci�ht leis land acrd r- built .a !done on it that it would be jI.L st a matterof ' .e.. time before we Would have close neighbors and I have accepted haat.. approve of this development that'Wa`serly Construction, Inc. is presenting here tonight as I think it would stili enhance our neighborhood. Although, I have one major concern; -that is, that the -entrance onto Durham Road could become very congested and Pwen daYagerorss due to the dip in the road at the point ref entrance. I ichere4or'e recommend that a thorough study be made to Y determine whether this road can bear the traffic and make the certain necessary Precautions to insure a safe y and "fres-flaaNirag access to Durham; Road. Mrs. Elton Phillips'' <v INJAa Tigard Planning Comissicrl Tigard City Hall Tigard, Oregon ` 4/8/06 re: Planning Comission meeting 41C Fellow comission members, I cannot attend tonight's meeting, but I would like to submit the following testimony, for the record, as a private citizen, not as a member of the Comissipn: I am concerned with agenda item 5.2 As discussed at a prior meeting, I feel the applications, noir numbered PJ 2-86, S ?~ and SL -8 should be denied for the folIowing reasons - While the area under consideration is not a residential "Established Area" (see Comprehensive Flan policy 6.3.3, page '11-37), it's designation will have a profound influence on the future development of the areas to the mest (which contains n residential "Established area developed as R-7) and east (which is "undeveloped") between Durham Road and the river. The impact on the entire area is exacerbated by the traffic flow problems (as mentioned in the staff comments) -- it Riverwood Lone is extended Lo 106th (as Staff has indicated would be the natural evolution) it will substantially change the traffic flow patterns rail the way to Conk Park; and will force it to become a;de-facto coilector street, which it is not Built to be, and to which it can not reasonabiy be changed: Therefore, itwould seem this policy (6.3.3 "A PRIMARY CONSIDERATION OF THE CITY SHALL,6y TQ PRESERVE AND ENHANCE THE CHARACTER OF THE ADJACENT ESTABLISHED' AREAS.") should influence your decision: This change -leant will degrade the character of the adjacent established areas. Policy I,.1.1 discusses lona and medium density residential zoning: and Shp, in part, "Areas which have been historicr, . developed with large lots and which arra determined to be committed hind 'on the buildable lands inventory' w,dill remain zoned consistant with the existing development pattern." It is.my opinion that he area under consideration, in the long terra, must be considered as a an inseparable part of t, DeskwpSolutionsO w 10065 S.W.Riverwood Lane = Tigard,Oregon'972? (503)68.4-0348 neighborhood bounded bg Durham an the north, the dyer on the south, Hiway 99 on the west, and Holl boulevard on the east. While the long term use of the property fronting on Hiway 99 and Durham may wtell hest serve the neighbortood and the city (as well as the land owners) as commercial property (convenience stores, etc:), the properties without direct access to these central collectors and arterials should be restricted to uses which 'preserve and enhance the character of the adjacent established areas." Again, Policy 12.1.1 mention ",areas which can be buffered from low .density residential areas in order to maximize the privacy of establishedlow density residential areas." With the substantial change in trig traffic flow after the eventual connection to Riverwood Lane, and the sharp contrast between the lot sizes and general design of the proposed development and the lot sizes and general design of the existing adjacent developments it will not be possible to provide ars' effective buffer between the two areas. Mid last point: The density established for this development will set a precedent for the development of the surrounding prope;-ties, setting a minimum density land character) which may well give rise to requests for even higher densities on lands adjacent to this parcel. Thank;you for your consideration of these points. 9 i i1 J s �a Mskapp Solutiors.3 10065 S.W.Rivemood Fane Ti =4 Orqaon 91 (503)694-0348 F;w t+ . Willowbrook Neighbors; for Sensible Development Statement of position 1 . We do not oppose development, provided that said development is consistent with the environment, of the area. 2. We do feel that development of the Willowbrook area needs to be consistent 'with '.the streets and roads available to handle the Projected traffic loads. 3e' We ;believe that all high density development of the area must be limited to property which has direct access; to Durham Road. Planning Commission meeting, April 8, 1986 File number PD 2-86, S7 - 86 and SL4a -86 Regarding the application for zone change and the Planned Unit Development requested fortheeast side of SW 108th v south of Durham Rd; _ansdnew. lots added to the west of 108th: *Zoning of R--4.5 is acceptable (7500 `Sq Ft per lot) *The PUD of 82 single family detached homes is not . acceptable for the following' reasons: a. Aprox 50% of the lots are 5200 sq ft or less,. about 69% are 5900 sq ft or less. Only 10 lots on the east side of 108th are over 7000 sq ft . The lots to the west side of 108th have been added to make the entire project look less dense than it truly is. b . This very high density will pose a real problem for traffic :clow on SW 108th and the intersection with SW Durham Road, which is already overloaded at rush hour . This very high density would also mean that children, both walking and on bicycles, will use SW 108th, along with other pedestrians, thus creating a very dangerous safety hazard. To summarize, we do not oppose development. We just think sensible development, consistent with the area and the projected 'traffic patterns will help build a better and safer / Willowbrook area. s IIMI�j MI 4.. d Yr-11 JL C C:D spa agm :1 5- File - Fi1e number a PD2 _ '86P 97 _ 86, and-Stas - 86 We, the concerned neighbors of the Willowbrook areas oppose the above mentioned proposal , planned for presentation to the Tigard Planning Commission on April e, 1986. NAME ADDRESS PHONE 22 -- -- SLC J---1 -- ------------- 3 - - ----- 3 .a'.7 ----------------------------------------- �l� � Ile ------------- ;23r7,7Yre.z56ail'o C9, 6z/ �z(59 E <- _ --AA �� ---� - -�, - -------------------- Z --- - --- 2- ------------ 712 -- �.. -- . � cy �y jk ( - - - - - - -- - - --- -------- - -- ------ April 8, 1986 y � 1 David L. Weisel & ;'„'< Danny L. Ryan ' .s 16459 S.W. 108th Ave. AIGN ) Tigard, Or. 97224 �� 'VN4C1G TIGARD F�fXii ING COMMISSION RE: FILE NO FD 2=86, 5 7"86 and SL 4-86 DOVER LANDING DEVELOPMENT We wish to have this letter made a part of the file and entered at the 'Planning Commission gearing' of April 8, 1986. Our property is a flag lot on the west side of 108th Ave., with our driveway intersecting 108th directly across from the proposed KENT DR. in DOVER LANDING. We feel that the proposal in its current form has several negative impacts on the area: 1. TRANSPORTATION a. There is currently a sight distance problem on 108th Ave. where it intersects Durham Rd. The higher the density is allowed to be in this area, the more this;problem is aggravated. b. The pavement width of 108th Ave. is only 16' , This is inadequate for the.increase in traffic generation and EXTREMELY hazardous to the increased bicycle and pedestrian activity which can be expected. c 108th Ave'. at its intersection with Durham should be wide enough for two lanes of outgoing vehicles, one lane for left turns and one lane for right, 'to keep vehicles from stacking up behind a car waiting to turn left. d. Eighty-two houses generate approximately 820 trips per day. 2. STORM DRAINAGE The storm drainage system is proposed to be discharged into the drainage channel under 108th Ave. which runs through our property and empties into our pond on our property. We have a "Certificate of Water Rights" (permit No.21194)' and' Reservoir Permit" (No.R-1343) for this pond. There are several problems associated with this : a. This is only the beginning of what could become the storm drainage system for this entire area. It will expand to serve adjacent prop- erties as the area develops . The developer is responsible for storm drainage from his site down to the Tualatin River.' After the system is built, the city then becomes responsible for that storm drainage ' system, which would include our pond. ° b. In the "Tigard Comprehensive Plan", one of the findings regarding Mater quality, section 4.2 states : "Reduction of open space,' removal of vegetative coves and development which increases the amount of impervious surface, all contribute significantly to increases in the peak flows of urban storm 'runoff entering storm sewers, creeks and drainageways" .. ..and under storm drainage and wastewater, management, policy 7.2.1c states that: "The city shall require as a pre--condition to development that: All drainage can be handled on site or there is an alternative solution which will not increase the off--site impact." The current proposal would obviously increase the off-site impact as the city findings 'state" C. The channel is currently starting to undercut part of our access road and this,kind,of increased flow would more severely erode the channel next to our road. d. There now exists a condition of much sediment having been deposited in the pond, particularly where the drainage channel enters it. The increase in siltation due to the increased water flow would require a great deal of expense and hard work to constantly clean up and maintain the natural depth of the pond. i e. The pond is spring fed and so water is flowing over the spillway year- round, ,even in the driest of years. In times of heavy rain, the level of ;the pond rises several inches. With the added water collected from the proposed development, there is a danger of the level increasing to the point of flowing over the entire dam and causign extensive damage 3. DENSITY a. The area east of 108th that was denied by the Planning Commission is essentially unchanged. There are only two fewer parcels. b. Lot 70 and 75 were annexed to the city and zoned R-2 approximately one year ago and should stay R-2. c. What the applicant is doing in this proposal is essentially,asking to transfer density from the area west of 108th Ave. (including the R-2 parcels) to the other side of a county road, 108th Ave. This is totally inappropriate. d. The overwhelming majority of the proposed parcels are near 5,000 to 5,500 square feet, which is the minimum lot size for the medium density R-7 zone. Tigard is fast becoming known for this type of development, i .e. "Bond Park", Street of Affordable Homes", etc. This beautiful waterfront area could easily attract buyers who want to have at least a"`75' x 100' lot size, or larger. R Y SUMMARY Our position is that: 2. This development will set a precedent for` the qday this neighborhood develops. 2. The minimum :lot size of 7500 square feet should be met to minimize increased trafficreulting from this and the future development which will; follow. 3. There needs to be a solution to the hazardous bicycle/pedestrian situation on 108th Ave. 4. Storm drainage needs to be discharged elsewhere for this and future developments. We oppose this proposal . Sincerely, David L. Weisel Donna L. Ryan -3- ANDERSON & DITfMAN <ATTORNE'YS AT LAW -.t TIGARD PROFESSIONAL.CENTP..P3.. 56G3 S.W..CENTER.STREET P.O.BOX 28008.TIGARD.OREGON 97223 (803):689-9121 DERRYCK H.'DITTMAN ROGER F. ANDERSON June 6, 1986 John Cock, Mayor Tom Brian Jerry Edwards Valerie Johnson Carolyn Eadon City Council Members of City of Tigard Tigard,; Oregon Re: Appeal From the Planning Cominission Decision Regarding Dourer Landing; Applicants Ken Waymire Case No. PD2-86 S7-86 SL4--86 Date of City Council Hearing. 5-3086; The purpose of this letter is to provide you information and the applicant's position with respect to the appeal of the Planning Commission final order 86- 14FC, a copy of which is enclosed. Also enclosed is a copy of the applicant's notice of Appeal. As noted in the .Notice of Appeal, the only.basis for denial of this application is set forth in paragraph c on page 6 of the Final Order. The issue for determination on this Appeal is whether or not the proposal of our client, Kenneth Waymire, meets the requirements of the Community Development ; Code with respect to open space and lot size. With respect to open space, the proposal provides for over 3 acres of open space out of a total ,of 20.4 acres. As requested or recommended by the City Park Board as stated in page 4 of the Final Order the flood plain, which is open space, will be dedicated to the City. The dedication of common open space to the City is also indicated by Code Section 18.80.200 which provides for dedication to the City as publicly owned and maintained open space. Areas within the flood plain and along the Tualatin River are natural. recreational areas and are designated on the comprehensive Flan as Park or Greenway;areas. Under the Funned Development provisions of the Code there is provision for den3ity transfer from such park and flood plain areas to other parts of the .`; development. This provision for a density transfer is probably in the code to over--come possible claims that denial of some significant beneficial use of the Ci k ". June 6, 1986 City Council Members of City of Tigard Page T°io flood plain area, could be challenged as being unreasonable and confiscatory ;in violation of the 14th Amendment and similar State constitutional. provisions. Courts have held that the floor: plain :zoning regulations are an unconstitutional taking of private land for public purposesrather than a valid regulation of its use where no other significant use of the property is allowed. It appears that the City of Tigard has adopted Section 1£3.92 concerning residential density transfer,in partto avoid potential constitutional problems. As indicated in the density transfer' section 19.92;030 the only gray that a density transfer can be'applied to residential development is by using a planned development. As indicated in the findings of the Planning Commission on page 6, paragraph b, this proposal does meet the density transfer requirements of chapter 18.92 and, in fact, this proposal has fewer lots than would be actually be allowable under this section of the Code. This applicant is faced with an arbitrary denial of an application that meets the requirements of the Code both with respect to open space and with respect to .. density. As you are undoubtedly well aware, one of the purposes of a development code is to spell out the requirements in sufficient detail to enable those to whom the 'law is to be applied to reasonably determine their rights under the Code and to prevent arbitrary discretion on the part of the body administering the Code. What has happened in this case is that certain members of the Planning Commission don't like the density of this project even though the density meets `�e requirements of the Code. what this applicant is faced with is an undefined goalpost which the Planning Commission seeks to impose on the applicant but which is not set forth in the Development Code. In order to treat this applicant fairly under the City Code and to avoid further and unnecessary delay, it is imperative that this Appeal be decided by the City Council and not remanded to the Planning Commission. Thank you for consideration of this matter. Very truly yours, ANDERSON & DITTMAN Al Roger F. Anderson RFA: as 6 cc: Kenneth Waymire 4- a. C[t'Y 01' T'IGARD 'fit ANNING C01`11`1I SSION FINAL 0RDI:R 136-_IPC A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING t'TNUINGS AND CONCLU It)9�5, Willi-it �1k At�l' APPLICATION VOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENt (PD 2-86), `,1JHDIVTS1!)N (S 7 96), ANI) 'EE.NSJJIVE LANDS PERMIT (St_ 4 86), REQUESTED By FUNCHES`), NVSVOLD, Ot:,E.F A�Nf) I'll OLNN[S. The Tigard Planning Commissionreviewed the above application at a public hearing on April 8, 1986, The Cormission based its decision upon the facts, findings, and conclusions noted below: A. FACTS 1. general Inff'or+mation CASE: Planned Development PO 2-86, Subdivision S 7-86, and Sensitive Lands Permit SL 4-86. REQUEST: approval of a planned- development cart sisting of 82 detached single family residences on lots ranging from. 4,800 to 28,00 square feet .in size. Also, a request that minor lest line adjustments up to 3 feet be permitted with staff approval, oermissior: o construct a sewer line and street improvements within a drainageway. 7 COMPR PLAN DESIGNATION: Lona Density Residential ZONING DESIGNATIONt FWashington County R-5/Tigard R-2 (Residential, 2 :nits/acre) APPLICANT- Ken # ayrire OWNER: Funchess, Hosvold, 10185 SW Riverwood Lane Ogle, andTPaosnra�3 Tigard, OR 97223 LOCATION North of the .Tualatin River and both sines of 108th Avant-IQ ( TM 2S1 15A, T.L. 400 and WTH 2S1 ISAD, T.L. 100, 200, 300, and_400) 2. aac6grround The subject property, except for a 1:3 acre that is within the City, is presently in Washington County and an anFabxatiara`application is also ba�i reviewed. A ff°inal plat can not be recorded until the property Sas been officially annexed. The applicant is proposing to have the R--4.5 PC (Residential, 4.5 units/acre planned Development) zone applied to the property which is being annexed. The cone Change Annexation (ZCA 1-•86) will be'.revs wed by City Council. ..The applicant recently applied for the approval of a 71 lot � ivisis�nlplanrted d�raelop etiff which was denied by the Planning Cc sis�znn on Parch k, 1�2I6, (File Nos. PO 1--86, S 4--96, SL 3--86S, � `.. - 3. ViGirafty Irti'ot^ `tion Tam surrounding area contains a coisbination of s:sm:�.31 n3 ttztiiu sized c e p als. Except for~ two parcels an the Nest side of 108th Avenue. all adjacent properties are under t4kishington County Jurisdiction. ;. S f pC -- PC 2-06, S 7-96, r. 'St. 4-06 pie 1 i --he entire area between Durham Road and tile Tualatin River is within Ute Tigard 1)r ks sn Growth Boundary, Tgte' Tigard Comprehensive * Plan; has designa.tc�d ' the subject property, ;as WC41. as other 'parcels to the north ' nt9 vacsxt. . fest Lowe Density Resid+enti:al devs-lopment. the prr3#�err�e�s . between Pick's Landing and the subject propgrty art, do si.gnated Mcdj,, Density Residential. 4, bite Snfor cation and prr�posal'Description The property contains three residences will remain and several accessory 'buildings will be removed. The site is partially Waoded with the majority of the trees concentrated near the Tualatin River and than exist side of the 'property. The development features 69 lets between 4,600 and ,t3aQ square feet on the 'oast side of loath Avenue and an a�ddi::ional 13 lots bestween S,�e3Q end ,QQE square s`eet on the ;fest side of the street. These western fats sha11 obtain direct access from 1C)�#h S?ver�ua and a 3b foot long cul-de-sac. The flo 3 plain area adjacent 'to the Tualatin River is to e dedicated to the public for greenway purposes, The subdivision to be developed in tw phases riLh lots i s throb gh 45 tired 70 through �2 in Phan Y and lots -through 69 in phase IF. The bi.lity to perform lot line adjustments of ups to 3 feet is; also desired. fhe . adjusItments will bei submitted tai the City: staff for pprtav 'I with an Engineer's evaluation+ rea�ardirsg utilities and their relocation, if L necessary. installation crf a' The development Of the subdivision pain require tine rt3ssn raf the crosi=de-_sac and. sanitary sewer connection to the exis4ir� { s€aas�i~ li€ae that lies within a drainageway on the :est side of 108th sac��er L also, the proposed location of -Kent .Drive will cross a s[Mll drainage swala near its intersection with 108th Avenue. a enc`.L. aInd NP CC0=_nts The Engineering Division has the following cc encs; a. 'Street names should be reconsidered before the final plat is subgnitted for approval. b, That earth word South of SW River Drive st��all occur between April 30th and October 1st or :at 'the discretion of'the City Engineer; further,;`that erosion controls be applied through-cut the course of construction and that a temporary (before -and during construction) Vnd PQr nenw (after construction) erosion control ptara be "submitted to and approved icy the City Engineer friar to cssrAmncing any improvement work anywhere on the site. F I �fi-»B aPQ pD 2-86d 6 7-06, Si. 4-36 P0, 2 X ' T�, �3,ra�,:.{�L�+'5��y1� .r.•� '.,..tea"` E ted.. _ _ .. P sizing and' dasign of C �+iusl develop sanitary ar�d storssr systems to assure future erct-ens<�sn of service to adjacent prope-r,ties, I�ro er and tt+ these lines and associated easenrc�}susr_d stormadr•ainage; -sYst4m applicant must demonstr«te t4eat the P, , �,wristream properties will not negatively impact wat.cr, flow an d- s aPP licant fcar d. letter of serviceability must "be "bt wined by the acc_ssAe� ress via SW loath Avenue, from wash-ngtun County. � . constr`i.4ction. . e, The use. of. loath Avenue must be maintained during plan to the City arf� Washington k f. the applicant shall provide oval, detailing how tie applicant review aced apP roblerr+ at the County. for ht distance stance P proposes to mitigate the adverse sig ` intersection of Durham Road and loath Avenue. i provide a plan to the City and Washington 4 g ; ap�slicant shat_ P rov 1, detailing any irRProvenent Which County, 'for review and aPp County along SW loath avenue from �. may be required by: Washington ay intersection of Durham Road and loath Buenos to tlse fume .o ted 'traffic >solume on thedeveiofasnent site. Because of the �retici�a includes a bath Buenos, an interim street improvementravel shoulders should be foot aide paved surface with three foot 9 r�ovided between the development and fsa1rha�f Road. Anor collector on the .. fir, Riverwood Lane is designated s gzndAvenLke with Avenue. One Comprehensive Plan connecting through streets shown on the plat should be designed to � meet mi coilecto� standards and h uldabegidentified�� street to-the of the thront of present eyed at PiCtC s Landing ' Since loath Avenue will functions as a crald gl$C��rrecs�gnizedtthat uit x; be built to a minor collector standard. Y previously identified. a$ currently status designated �iv�rwracid Lane was �t treat and that the rra•irfor collector stagy desigrsatedEr d Lars never, the Comprehensive Plan designation for River�oa ::; must be addressed and . Cat traffic: shouldv lurraes Avenue that will be present to aceordate z�nticip after tt°si.3 area 2.9 fully developed. :. and storms sewer e: sc-tenants• which i. Any On—site or off--site sanitary forms may necessary` for provision of service a shall be ore City Section, orf-site easecrsepts should and approved by the EngineeringPlat. �. be der<oted on the subdivision p The (a (access�gress) easement across the north end o� tax . 3' rye shall be vacated, the`cost thereof to be born by Rots #100-'0 the a.pin+crant. t PG — PI) 2p9 5. & SL -af+ +age 3 t �f !4 t t ii 1 �:swd^ :.d.. '" .Y�'4r.z:✓t w *�....... 169,:k � i 1£ k. Vacation of Lace south rend of '.W 108Lh Avenue From the terminus of C.R. 111366 to the proposed €divc-r [Drive shall be initiated- by _Lhe applicant. 1.' The lands adjacent ' to tt7e lua).atiri River which are within ' tic 100 year floodplain shall. be dedicated to =Lha public For ,greenway rsurposesehe floodplain boundary shall be surveyed acid clearly marked and" said markers shall 'be maintained throughout the course of development. M. The existing dwelling's which are to remain. must be connected to sanitary sewerage facilities as soon as such becomes available, since their :septic drain fields will most likely be impacted ;by, creation of subdivision lots. n.' No objection to the Sensitive lands request provided the conditions noted are required. ' 0. Consideration should be given by the Park Board regarding the desirablility' of a pathway through tract "V p.. Each phase of the develo;5ment should be clearly delineated and any modifications' should require City approval. The Building Inspection Division notes the provisions for storm .and sanitary sewer must be addressed. The Tualatin 'Rural dire `Protection District indicates that all streets mAst have outside/int;ide turning radii of 52/30` feet. Hydrants can be no more than 500 feet froe,a any structures, and any access roads over 150 feet in length masse 4asve an approved turn around. The Tigard Police Department has no objection. The Washington County Planning' Givision of the Department of Land Use and Transportation states that full or half--street improvements required by the City will be acceptable provided it meets County+ standards. The street improvement should be continues! across Tax Lots 1102, 401, and, if possible across 1103. The County might-of-way standard is 60 feet. The Tigard Water District indicates that adequate :service capacity is available. The Park Board recopmends fluod plain dedication, a paved path neetinm City standards, and access from the development to the greenway. Tho Tig4rd School District has no objection, but it is noted that soma ` a°ijca�t rstg may be necessary to attendance bGunda:ries for Templeton Ele ntar°y School. _VM has no objection tee-the prdposal. 3 36 objaacts to the proposal for the following reasons: F €ig L,t R€ R -.�1 PC PO 2-96, S 7-86, SL 4--06 €gage 4 �.. B rx. traffic problems aL the 100th Averiuv/Durtwlm 'Road inLer'soction and u Additional. traffic on Durham. b. The number of proposed dwellings is excessive C. Lot sires are too small and riot compatible with Pick's Landing. � d. No access to floodplain area Q. objection of some of surrounding property owners. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS +, The relevant criteria in this case are Tigard Comprehensive Place policies 2.1.1, 3.1.1, 3.2.3, 3.5.3, 7.1.2, 7.3.1, 7.4.4, 8.1.1, and �{ 8.1.3 and Community Development Code Chapters 18.50, 18.80, 18.84, 18.92, 18.160, 18.152. and 18.264. since the Comprehensive plan has been acknowledged, the Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines no !Drager need to be addressed. The Planning Commission concludes that the proposal with modifications is consistent with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Man based ' , upon the findings noted below: a. policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because the 'Neighborhood Planning Organization and surrounding property owners were riven notice of the hearing and an opportunity to comment on the applicant's proposal. b, policy 3.1..1 wiln be satisfied provided that any portions of Lots 4 through 13 which exceed 25% slope are not graded or filled . without a Senixitive Lands Permit. Such a permit has been requested to allow construction in the drainageway in than northwest corner of the property and construction of a. sanitary sewer 'line and a portion of a coal-de--sac in the ravine. A review of the preliminary glans indicates that the work proposed can be' � accomplished in a manner consistent with this policy except for the cul-de-sac. The proposed cul-de-sac is within the 108th Avenue/113th Avenue ravine which is delineated by the 140 foot elevaition and is identified as a significant wetland and wildlife habitat. Though the proposed cul-de-sac can be sucessfully constructed within the area, ,it appears to be unnecessary. The cul-de-sac should be shortened so that it is above the existing 140 foot contour or designed so only a_ small portion lies below 'c5lis eleu-a:tion. A field visit with the applicant and staff would be the post appropriate way to determine the street location. ` c. Policies 3.2.3 and 3.5.3 call for dedication of flood plain areas be incomorated into. the City's open space system. The; )roposed dedication is consistent with this policY. A related Stem which must be 'resolved is the proposed pedestrian aaccess to the grse t y. The acc€ss easements shown travel straight sis xa b slopes that range between 25 and 35%. These .easements Must be dirisad sq thatas pedestrian pith is feasible. i FINAL ORDER 6- PC - PD 2-06, S 7-86, & Si. 4_36p e 5 c �, d. Poiiries 7.1.2, 7.3.1, .,and 7.4.4r;xn be satisfirad because adequate. water, sewer, and storm dr�Airiage facilities will be .required to serve th€- development prier to approval or the final; plat. The applicant also indicates that. Lhuse ' faciliti.es will be provided within the subdivision as required by t:he City standards. e. policy 8. 7..1 is an ` issue that must be resolved relating to the present condition of 108th Avenue and its intersection with Ourham Road. Both of these roads are under County jurisdiction and approval must be obtained. A County permit will address the access problem,% pertaining to the development and a resolution of those concerns.. Also, this policy calls -for the, provision of a safe and efficient, street system 'which accomodates present and future needs. The alignment of River-wood !._acne should be continued through this development as a minor collector unless the Comprehensive plan is modified in this regard;. 108th Avenue will function as a collector and should also be improved a a minor collector. The staff is willing to work with the applicant to develop a street system that is desirable for all parties involved. f. Policy 8.1.3 will be satisfied when the conditions of approval relating ;to street improvements are completed. The planning Commission has determined that the proposal is not consistent with the relevant portions of the Community Development Code ' based upon the findings noted below: a. Chapter 28.50 of'-the Code is satisfied because the proposal does ! meet the density requirements of the R-4.5 zone. t b. Chapter 18.92 is satisfied because the proposed density is � consistent with Code requirements. On page 3 of the applicarit's narrative. the density calculations are presented. The calculations are correct except that they do riot account for a 57,280 square foot area of the subject property which is presently within the City and zoned R-2. By adjusting for this factor, the allowable nunber of units is 64. The applicant is proposing 42 Lots. I. C. Chapter 18.80 is not satisfied because the proposal is not consistent with the purpose of the Planned Development Code requirements for the provision of open space within planned development. The majority of the lots within the development are significantly smaller than the 7,500 squrAre foot minimum that r would be ,required for 'a standard subdivision. Except for the flood plain area., for which minimal access is_proposed, no common open space will be provided, (�haptar 18.160 of the Cade is satisfied because the proposal does meet the requirements 'set forth for the submission and approval of a preliminary plat. FINAL 6RDER 06 SSE.". — i='a`t, 2-06, a` 7-46, SL 4-86 page 6 a e. ai.etee ttie ;prupusc:d stray?L grid sewer' 1an4 �+rr lrac<atr+d use �J 1 ! differ•erit sensitivice lora±s cater3rararzs, th,ro-O t.Fiis}prupr)�ti+l .�� k criteria contained in Chapter 18.84 appIV t 1. it3o year flaud plain {{ 1 : ;�. Land forau alterations' shall preserve or znt�arsce the flood plain storage function and rraaintenaraca of the € shall not result in any zero:-foot rise flood narrowing 0f the floodway boundary. �, The land form alteration or de only within' the loo-year .floodplain shall be allowed un3y in an area msaercial or designated as coindustrial on the comprehensive plan Land Use`f'Ap% C. The land farm a3teraation or dei}el+�p°nent is not located within the f loodwaay; � ll not d. The land foa�' araca�esen in thnvr��2atianwlof the result in y ' zero—foot rise floodway; e. The land fonr. alteration or developaaaant plan includes pedestriait/bicycle; pathway in accordance with the adopted Pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan; pathway indic:�te � f. The pians for the pedestrian/bicycle pa ' x; that no pathway' 'will be below the elevation of ori 4 average annual flood. ` r 2. Drainaageways > The extent arae nature of the proposed Sand form lter anon or development will not create site altera4.; a hances to the extent greater than that required € for the oases: o, the pro�sowill sed land fore alteration or deva3apaaent sitaentatic�n, r3"roaar�a not result in erosion, stream - € stability or� other adverse on—site and off—site effectsorhazards to life or property; C. Via water flow c-%Pmcity of the cirairaageway is not decreased; and d. Where natural vegetation has been removed due aaa^eo rand oot form alteration or t112 development, covered by or impervious surfaces will be � replanted to prevent erosion in accordance with �. Section 18.100 (LANDSCAPING AND 5+��l��P�I�;�). 3 1o8th/IlStih .Avenues Ravine a. X11 of the laser± (within the ravines oeira� considered for deve3opa eit, is less t slope, a 9 t, Flat, f3 S PC &r 2-06, S 7-06, & SL �j—aG Pago b. : Thfsre aro no unstable soil condi Lions on the lalNd being considered for developnivnt.. c. The provisions of Chapter 18 150 iRVE REMOVAL shall be met. Though not directly;, affected by the subdivision proposal., lots 4 through = 13 may require a• Sensitive Lands Permit in order to develop on slopes ' that exceed 25%. The reduced front yard setbacks that where previously proposed meg+ have allowed for the avoidance of the steep slopes in the rear yard. Based upon the contours: shown on the preliminary plat, it appears that ata minimum sensitive lands 'approval will be required prior to the development of Lots :9 through 12. The applicant has submitted preliminary information regarding, the sewer line extension and street location (with the modified length discussed above). The Engineering'• Division has reviewed the proposal and provided the suggested conditions are applied, the proposal will be consistent with the above criteria. City's requirements regarding lot lime e. Chapter 38.162 covers ,the adjustments. The proposed ability to adjust nide log lines after the plat is recorded can meet City requirements but the procedure for adjostirgg' property lines should follow the process described below: The Community DeveldpMent Code provides a two-step review of lot lane adjustments, A preliminary application is first evaluated and 'a ciecision is ` made. of the preliminary application is approved, fist ) ap�alication .is submitted containing the i sal' lot line adjustment snap and legal descriptions. Following City approval, the Map and legal descriptions are recorded with Washington County. Conflicts May result in relation to the location of utility services and driveway locations, The final lot line adjustrs,Orot map and legal descriptions shall be required for each adjustment that occurs under :provisions of the preliminary approval. The p and descriptions should include information regarding the precise location of existing utilities and driv+eways, a4 certification from an engineer should be provided which. indicates that the adjustment will not adversely affect existing utilities or that thefacilities will be relocratQd to the - satisfaction of those utility company(s)' involved, Any costs associated with change in utility location will be borne by the developer. ;The PCS 'ovsrlay zonae dons not have a minimum lot xvidth requirement, ' hitt `the '6t+l- foot _avid lots are relatively narrow fpr• single family detached residenbes. The 5 foot side yard requirement small re in in-effect as well as the 5 font driveway setback r �tirp a�snt contained in a. 4:C. Section 15.04.000(b). Variances or waivers of thew require ents shill be viewed with disfavor, FINAL,ORDER 9 AQP -- po 2-96, it 7-96, & SL 4-06 page A a ;, f f, Chapter 10,164 of the, Code could be shli.sfiEd during the approval process for the final _plat. Based upon the findings and conclusions above, tttc S>lar,rairig tot�missi�sn S3i=NLF Pi? 2-86, S 7-96, and SL 4-96 It is Further ordered that the �,pplic&sat be notified of the entry of this 'order. 'PASSED- his / .slay ofApril, 106, key the � ing Commission a4 the city of "Tigard. !� nFyr A 11 Vice President Tigard 'Pla . g Mmission brWdmj I< t _ i Y t-I:l i f. i ' • � L, 4 ^;� -- � °Ls 't a ��6,, SL 4--86 Page, 9 • . . i �s ANDERSON 01TTMAN ".. ATTORNEYS AT LAW T➢GAR®PROFESSIONAL CENTER 8868 S.W. CENTER STREET P.O.809 23004.TIGARD.Of EGON 97223 (303) 838-1121 DERRYCK H. 00TTMAN ROGER F. ANCE-3SON: April 18, 1956 City Council ' City of Tigard Tigard, OR 97223 NOTICE OF APPEAL (1) This Appeal is from the denial by the Planning Commission of the = application of Kenneth Waymire for a'Planned Development (PDZ-86) Subdivision (S7-86) and sensitive land permit Si (4-c3) (2) The applicant, Kenneth Waymire, has -standing as a party because he was present'at the Planning Commission he and because his engineer and his attorney spoke on his behalf at the heating; (3) The grounds for the appeal are:. (a) The. Planning Commission failed to follow the Municipal Code by denying the use of a density transfer from th:? flood plain and park areas to the remainder of the development; (b) The density meets the requirements of a Planned Development and the density transfer provisions of 'Tigard Municipal Code section 18.92, based upon the underlying zone of R4.5. (c) The only basis for denial in the Final Order refers to "the provision of ,open space" (Final Order, Page 6 paragraph C). This Planned Development includes over 3 acres of open space out of a total of '20.4 acres. The open space includes areas along the Tualatin River which will be dedicated to the City at its request. The Municipal> Code'does not require other additional land to be converted into open apace: (4) The Final Order of the Planning Commission is dated April 15, 1986; (5) This Appeal should be decided by the City Council and not 'remanded to the Planning' Commission ,which:has attempted to impose arbitrary re- quirements which are not part of the &luniicipal Code. Respectfully submitted, P•77ERS iY TT2�A a E' F. Anderson Of Attorneys for Kenneth Waymire RFA.4 j as cc: Kenneth Waymire #' '11arris-McMonagle .Associates . CITY OF TIGARD OREGON Ct7UNCTL AGENDA ITE __f�7 SUP"�MIF1RY AGENDA OF: June 9 1986 - _ �1GEfUdA ITEM DATE <SUBMITi'ED: 5/23/86 ---- __� PREVIOUS ACTION: s�;a�roval bin ISSUE/AGENDA: TITLE: - Appeal ____Director with nd�itiio_ns SDR 9-- 6 Christ the Kin Church r ----___:__ PREPARED BY: Keit— h LidensSenior Planner RE(tUESTED BY: — DEPARTMENT HEAD OK; CITY ADMINISTRATOR Eq1jCY When should street: improvements be a il is condition of development? The Coune scheduled to discuss this issue with staff later this.:.rsonth. INFORMATION SUMMARY ! On April 19, 193b, the Planning sob,ject' to conditions including ri ht-�ftor approved the above application Road, QCs feet J -v��zy cf2dic- from centerline and ori interirs improveation f hong Bull Mountain aplicaryt appealed these two conditions on Ma ;;, 11 h Avenue. The of the applicatior: and attachments, the Director's May 1986. Attached are copies appeal letter. decision and applicant's _VE-�SID�D 1: Uphold the Director.,s decision. 2, . Modify or delete conditions 3 and 6. :;UCGEc3�_ ACTION Consider the attached inform4tion and testimony and uphold or decision as appropriate. ara_nd the 2D64P dmj. Y ox MOINES=, CITY OF TIGARD NOTICE OF DECISION SITE DEVELOPMENT;REVIEW SDR 9-06 APPLICATION: RequesL by Smith/Dull Ptartner•ship (owner: Christ the King Lutheran Church) to expand an existino 4320 square foot church with an addition oF. 4.500 square feet un property "coned C-G (General Commercial) and R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units per acre). Location': 11305 SW dull. Mountain Road. (WCTM 2S1 10AB Lot 500 and 2S1 IOAC Lot '1700). DECISION Notice is hereby given that the Planning Director for the City of Tigardhas 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. FIND-ING OF FACT 1. Background - Poo pr land use applications have been reviewed by 'the City regardincl, this property.. 2. Vicinity information The land to the north is zoned It-4.5 and R-12 (Residential, 1e v units/acre) and is developed with single family residences. The R-2 (Residential,' 2 units/acre) zone and single family residences lie an 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 Ro«d. ; 3. Site Information and Proposal Description a s` TV- 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-of--way is presently unimproved. The applicant proposes to construct a 4,500 square foot addition { which ,will represent an expansion to the southwest towaerds Bull k MounLain Road. Both parking lots are ira:ernded to be improved with pavement amid the existing access prints will be modified slightly. Nr)i.C.t",-' Of' 0L'G;f 8A'0N SDP 9, 86 PAGE I z 4. Agency and 0 Comments The Engineering Division hasthefollowing comments: a. Considering the existing length of 114tt•i Avenue, the right-of way which is adjacent to the subject prvperty should not be vacated and ttae street should se' extendpci. b, Bull Mountain Road and 114th Avenue are under Washington County jurisdiction and a "letter of serviceability" must be obtained from the County. C. A nan—remonstrance agreement for future improvement of gull Mountain =Road should be executed. Street impravement.s are not ?esirabJ.e at this time because the ultimate design far the Pacific Highway -- dull. mountain Road intersection bas not been determnc>_d. d. Connection to public sanitary sewer system shall be: required. e, Znteriarr 'improvement of S.W. 114th Avenue of a 22 fact wide paved ra«dway should be provided along the length of the subject property. f. Storm water runoff should be handled so that flooding will not occur in downstream areas. The Building Inspection Division indicates that City records indicate X,..• that the church is not connected to public sewer facilities. The Rural Firs' Protection District indir�ates that the - District comp of ' the remaainder of 114th' ;Avenue is ; important to provide improved emergency access for the residents on this street as well as the immediate. area. Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation Lias the following r_ammentsi a, Additional .fight--of--way should be dedicated Lo it c reasz the width from centerline to 35 feat. b. P, 5 foot wide sidewalk located in « manner, Lhat, wili accommodate s future street improvements shallbe carrostr uct.cad along the null Mounta i.n'frontage. c. A �a«i ver of remonstrance shall be executed reelardiny future street improvements on 114th Avenue and Bull Mountain Road. d. Prov We adequate storm drai.naac' alone it�c F3uIJ Mct.tr train Rr�taci frontiage. s . ICPAGE l NO I.CEt>F DECI s - r f �J. Z. r4po #3 support the proposal and the a3r'oup` lso suggests that a non—remonstrance, agreement be signed regarding future improvement of 114th Avenue. Tt�e- southern end of the road :should not be completed until -after the entire Length is Within City jurisdiction rathE:r than �.trider County control, tla'if street improuements along the Bull mountain Road frontage are also recommended. A petition with 2d si�3natures has been r•ece'iued from residents on 11.4th �• Avenue in objection to the extension of the street. 8. ANALY SIS AND CONCLUSION ` The r-oposed expansion is basically consistent with Community <, Development Code requirements. Aspects rlt' the application muse be revised as noted below to achieve full compliance With the Code, 1. Parking The Code requires 3A parking spaces and the applicant is propo ing to have 3s spaces in the eastern Isat 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 LS satisfactory. Finally, the site ;clan should be amended to include a minimum of two bicycle parking spaces' 2. Access The main ince of the existing driveway locations is aeppropri.ate, howeuer, the widt:ti of both should be a :rt2nimum of 4 feet-'in width. In addition, all driveway widths within the parking areas must be at ? the City jineering Division, ,Washington ,ounty, and Tualatin Rural Fire ?rotection District that from a transportation and emergency access standpoint, 11.4th Avenue needs to become a through street as oriyinai'iy irrtendc>o. The 'concern raised by some of the residents on 114th Avenue is appreciated but the pr)ri.cies and development standards of the City clearly require the completion of 114th Avenue. it should be noted that it is not the intention of the City that 114th Avenue become anything; other than a local `street. The frontage road along Pacific Highway and 112th Avenue presently provide connections betwell Gaarde ;Street and Bull Mountain Road and other connections to the west are also foreseen in the future. More attractivealternatives for north--south vehicular- traffic presently exist and therefore, no significant change in traffic volunse isanticipated 'on 1l Avenue. C. DECISION The Planning Director' approves SDR 9-86 subject tc; the following conditions, 1. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL CONDIT IC?NS SHALT_ 0E MET PRIt?F2 TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMLTS. 2. Final ori-site storm drainage, design drawings' shall be. submitted to the 'Ervgirreer irig Division for review and approval. Applicant shall demonstrate that additional run-off created by this development will not: create downstream Flooding'r 3. Additional right-of--way shall be dedicated to the Public along the s w,. bull Mountain Road frontage toincreasethe right-of-way to 40 feet 'from centerline, The description -for said dedication shall be ttied 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. DEDICATION FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS ARE ENCLOSED. §. A 1ett:cr'uf serviceability shall be obtained by the applicant from washincq-ton County which ' indicates that all County "requirements relating to 114th Avenue and Bull Mt. Road have been satisfied. A copy ti-iil shall be provided to the City. 5. A nc.n-renionsi:r�;oce agreeinent for- future improvement of S.W. Bull Mountain Road _shiAll be executed by the applicant and recorded. ? ' Said agreement shall be on City of Tigard standard forms and recorded prior to i-ssuance of building permits. 6. Interim iinprov(alll f os�.W. 114th Avenue shill occur prior tri al7:r�wi.rxy occupiarrcy of Lhe remodeled facility. A twenty-two foot. aii:de pai�cad ruadwity, ir7cluding 3 foot rock shoulders, shall be constil (nil sidewalt( or curb) to Cit'y local' street standards, k Said ruadw��y shall cotnplefi.e Etre connection of S.W, 114th to bull Mt Rd. NOTICE -OF 00",IS ION ::DR 9 -tib - PAGE +a s `. , OZONE 7. Connection'. the public sanitary sewer sys-L shall be required. 8. A revised :landscaping' piashall ba submitted for 'Planning Director- approval which' n'includes 0w perimeter of the western parking lot 9.. A revised site plan shall be submitLed for- planning Director approval that includes: a. At least one handicapped parking space, b. A minimum of two bicycle spaces (design sheall 'also be submitted for, approval), and C. All two--way driveways shall be a minimum Of 24 feet in width. try. This approval. is 'vaiid if exercised within one year of the final decision date rioted below. D. PROCEDURE 1. Notice: Notice was 'published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall and mailed to: s XX: The applicant` & owners XX Owners of record within the required distance -. XX_ The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization t XX Affected governmental agencies 2. Final Decision: THE DECISION SHALL, BE FINAL ON `April 29, 1.986 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED, 3 . Appeal: Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance wi.tl-i Section 18.32.290(A) and Section 18.32:370 Of th(. Commu"city , Development Code which provides that: A wri.t;Len appeal; must be filed with the CITY RECORDER within 10 days after notice is given and sent. The deadline for filing of an appeal. is 7-:30 P.M. .......April 29, 1986 4. questions: if you have bAny questions, please call. the City of Tigard Planning Department, 1i9ard City Halal, 12755 SW r Ash, PO Sox 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223, 639--4171. ` PRRED Y:' Keith xden, Senior.Pl. EPAor URIE M4/18/8b 4iilliam na an, { it cto of Planning DAl-E APPROVED (KSL.:(in/24700) N011:CE OV DECV310N - 13DR 9--86 PAGE 5 14425 Sl: 114t1i ri.-,ard, OR 07224 _' l.hrisL Ul� t.ius; Cpuirch '� ��J 11305 SW BU1d IMLn. Rd 1'n Box 366 Tigard, OR 97223 Culver, OR 97734 Smith/bull Partnership Arch. pdUCUS 20915 SW 105th Ave. 14355 SW p145h Ave. Tualatin, OR 97062 Tigard, OR 97224 i CRANE `R 11455 Sid ;31,11 Mrn. Rd Tigard, OR 97224 WYATT i PO Box 3521 Simi valley, CA i 93053 r T iiD_. E VAti1t C. CHURCH, :THE 0: T3ORTH AMERICA 13620 SW Pacific Hwy. ; .Tigard, OR 97223 ;r ANNAND 14600 SW Pacific Hwy. Tigard, .OR .97223 HOLLISTER 14380 SW 2114th Tigard, OR 97224 MI STEREdt . 14420 SW 114th Tigard, OR 97:224 COLE/% MISTEREdC 1446.0 SW 114th Ave. 'Ti d: OR 97224 Y. 1aARPTON A 14465 'SW 114th Ave. T i;;ard, Opp 07224 �.. x i Sgt � " •`. ' x� a ray\ `tg 4Ff i t a ry..: O�f.Bt COOi�Jf1,i � J jh 't� �_ � � Wpl� �Sny I R�IA�4V��5. 9M. AAN4V! ' Sf� `, q / \�f �l \ 4Ad: ,✓ L Lu IT l 1 LO , ,Z/l ..I_I ! I joz,` i4KNE AUS I ~�� l I 1;(�•f T r �1-j--�` •�`\<�':��.._..i`i IN � � "�s a .4ACER.>✓� _=1�T�t __i.._ FL.I. �lL ., ,.-r' 6Ll�l I _ 1_.L_ ka'ame4�n - aFe T IU I�'T -- _7 oil �.;. 11.0�.3._r l�Ry L z= @� is �TCe=. p srIII '+f?NtERBURY �j. r��-�jtVTlERa _ r Tj 1 _ r 4- L r l ' a '✓" �,.'a .. -- _T t_._- - -_.. 7.J r irmc�e.�- f I, .� r s . too: �{ Ilk. f 1 T 1 t� , s1-1.��1:_ �_ IJ jF a w, MINOR 1 u REQUESTS FOR COMENTS DATE: March 26, ;986 TO: FROM: igard Planning Department RE: SDR 9--86_ Req ses� by Smir_iiiDull Partnership (Owner: Christ the King Lutheran 11 Church) to expand an existing 4300 sq. ft. Ghureh with an addition of 4500 sq. 1 -- ft'. on property zoned C—G (General CommCommercial) 5 R 4.5 (Residential 4.5 units Irf t per acre? Located: !1305 SW Bull MountainR oad (WCT_M 2Si 10AD lot 500 and ot Pottached is the Site Plage and applibant's statement for your review. Fresan _L ` information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff,; report and recommendation will be: prepared and a decision will be rendered on the 'proposal in tete near future. carrammc�rats by if you wish to ;comme'nt on this application, ave need your April 7 19_26 Youy ossa the space pe°ovided bray or attach a o w separate letter- t® s-eturn your conturents. Ifou are unable te�s fond by than above p�hOna the stEff contact taaatead '�le� with your comments c aboand ccesfir a your coaa�aa� ats in writing ,as snare as possible.. �� you have any i questions reg ding ;this Matter, -contact the Tigard Planning Department, P.O. '. 'Tigard, OR 97223. Phone, 639--4171. Box 23397, Burnham and AshAve., STAFF CONTACT: Keith Lider./Dehorah Stuart g � �. -'' PLEASE CHECK 'Tf4E FOLLOWING ITE THAT APPLY: : s e have reviewed ise�ed th;a proposal and have no ob actions' to it Please contactof our offi ` Please refer to the enclosed letter. MAR 27 lg86 Written comments: ^' Lcl� c &-A of Person Clom, nting: �[ c Phones No. (KSL:pm/0356P) Y t F777TO THE CITY CSE TIGARD We the undersigned resident property owners on 1i4th street feel that any extension of I14th street to Bull Mt. Road would adversly effect the livability of our neighborhood by adding an undesirable traffic, load on oil street. -16 �' P11,i Iq YL Ae , AJ r 4� , 771 f ` TO: THE CITY OF TIGARD we the undersigned resident property owners on 114th street, feel that any extension of 114th street to Bull Mt. Road would adversly effect the livability of' our neighborhood by adding an undesirable traffic load on our street. pip mg OWN w i . i t yz r r iMAY 1 1986 Qdlln(�mhlo ? Sh�hf��l1 RD d[CWCC is L I TlDEFT May 6,1986 Keith Liden, Senior Planner City of Tigard P.O.'Sox 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: D12 86-f ing Lutheran Church Dear Keith: Please consider this letter our request for an appeal of your decision for the aha+re referenced site review. The items of specific concern are conditions nusr3her 3 and number 6. Please reference my letter of April 23, 1986 to Villiam A., Monahan for a discussion of the pertinent issues. y' Enclosed please find check in the amount of $240.00 for the appeal fee. Please advise us as to tlae planning commission meeting schedule. Sincerely, 5t th/lull Partnership, Architects Steven C. Olson, AIA Partner F7 71 SCO/mh Enc. c(7J1 S.P,1 E�54h AVENUE,T'UA ATIN,OREGbN 97062 69��UU5 t - t1V .41 ' dehted) April 23, 1986 Wi11iam A. Monahan Director of Planning and Development City of Tigard p. O Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 the Kin Lutheran Church Re: .'Christ ,. 9 . SDR 9-86 Dear Mr. Monahan: In response to the above referenced Site Development Review, the owner Some wishes to'request an amended decision. :. of the street improvement requirements seem excessive and not necessary. Referencing SDR 9-86, Notice of Decision, dated 4/18/86, ;the following nsideration: responses to item C. Decision are submitted for your co A 2. Storm Drainage Design: We are working with the City of Tigard Engineering Division now to finalize the design of the storm drainage system. 3. Dedication of additionaloragehd' � 'ng ditionaI right ofaway, the owner is agreeable however we question the need for a total of 4O feet from center line of the road. As you recall, WashrequirgtonoCounly nty totalhas Jof�35,ft tion over this road, an y (see enclosed Washington County Traffic Impact Statement, dated: 3/7/86) The additional five foot right-of-way dedication require- ment seems excessive. 4. Letter of Serviceability: See attached traffic impact statement. 5. Non-Remonstrance for Future Improvement to Bull Mountain Rd. : the owner is proceeding with satisfying th7 q ement. 6. Interim i2p)vement of S. w. 114th Avenue: the owner objects To this requirement. ale find it excessive for the following reasons: aj S.W. 114th Street is within Washington County ofurisdiction. ance Washington County is requiring only a letter �4 for future irrtprovetnents to this street. 20915 Slr4','05thAVE�ILIE.TUALATIN.OREGON 9706^ 503/6`?,6065 ( f. William A. Monahan Director of Planning and Development April 23, 1986 Wage Two b) The local NP® does not support this interim improvement to S.W. 114th. The city's staff report states "The southern end of the road should not be completed until after the entire length is within city jurisdiction rather and under county control ." c) Many of the residents of S.W. 114th Avenue who live to the north of thechurchproperty have signed a petition stating their. objection to the extension of S.W. 114th Avenue. d) The proposed interim improvements to 114th Avenue do not benefit the >church. The focus of their existing and proposed new development is at the west and south portions of the site. Access from 114th Avenue is not needed nor desired at this time. e) The staff analysis states the following: "It should be noted that it is not the intention of the city that 114th Avenue become anything other than 'a local street. The frontage road along Pacific Highway and 112th Avenue'presently provide con- nections-between Caarde Street and Buil Mi.-juntain nu. and 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 111th Avenue. It needs to be ,pointed out that the frontage road is one- way south at its enfry off of Pacific Highway, which severely limits its use. There are presently circulation problems in this area, and the proposed street extension will become a significantlinkbetween' Caarde Street and Buil Mountain Road. We disagree;with the staff analysis that "no significant change in traffic volume is anticipated on 114th Avenue. The current condition of 114th as a marginally improved county road, serving a quiet residential area., cannot handle the additional traffic load. f) The staff analysis points out the concern over lack of a cul-de-sac or turnaround at the current south end of S.W. 14th. We appreciate this concern, however it seems hardly fair to force Christ the King Lutheran Church ;to finance street improve - ments 'to solve the City of Tigard's problem. In closing, this proposed interim improvement seems a'waste of the l Church's very limited financial resources. The local'residents, OMAN= l .`` William A: Monahan ti Director of Planning and Development April '23, 1986 Page Three the NPO and the Church all oppose this project now. Washington County (who has jurisdietion 'c�ver this streetis not requiring this improvement, Also, does it make sense to spend the money to construct the .street to county road standards now, only .to reconstruct it in the future to city street standards? We think not. The church will be willing to go along with a `non-remonstrance now, allowing a more comprehensive improvement in the form of an LID in the future. 7. Connection to sanitary sewer. Pians submitted for building permits wi11 include connection to the sanitary sewer. 8. Landscape Plan: A revised landscape plan will` be submitted addres- 'sing 'the planning director's concerns. 9. Site Plan: The site plan subimitted for building permit review will address the, ,planning director's concerns. Please consider, this letter Christ the piny"'s request for an mended decision on :item number 6 above, If you have additional questions, please contact me. Sincerely Smit ./Dull Partnership, Architects. Steven C. Olson, ;AIA Partner 5. SCC:mh Enc. cc: Dan Larsen Susan Granata File i =i 1 {. R� °i _6 Bull Montain Road WAS�aua::7G�S'COUFeTY ROAA(SD Std 114'. ,Toad ji OEPART11AFR`Y'OF LAND USE AND TRANS?(?32TATFL?N SW 112th Avenue 3/7 66 LAPlfi.DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ODVlSiPd41 APPLICATION DATE 160 NORTH FIRST AVENUE � HILLSBORO.OREGON 97124 848-0761 APPLICANT Smith/Dull Partnership, Architects —2T19"s��irJ venueTRAFFIC IM � PHONE NO. ST I'EMENT. OWNER { REQUEST 6- AND CERTIFICATION Christ the King Lutheran Church ti - u Iaun a1n Road � ®sawn,:�^rsasncr a[ aro+mn --—"f l g _ PH NE, NO. ---FEE FOS SrrE INSPECTION PROPERTY DESCRI171 ra � 45.0I� Tcex �a�P MIN l 0AC 1700 & ALUA�'IONk 400 DOES NOT APPLY IN RURAL AREAS LOT(S) , TUU—, aiTE: SIZE r. --A -� ADDRESS '-11305` SW BUll UOUntain Road �. RECEI VEA BY — — PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ACTION LOCATION (Variance, hnor'Partition, etc.)--- EXISTING tc.).EXISTING USE — t k PROPOSED USE._._ChurcPi F RESI DENTI AL: NO. DWELLING UNI7 � SINGLE MLLTI- DIRECT ACCESS TO SITE FAMILY --FAMILY r R.- ROAD NAME IF INDUSTRIALf COMMERCIAL: No.sG.rT.GFA 1 . Highway 99W — } NO. EMPLOYEES 2. Bull Mountain Road , F 3. SW 114th Avenue E. IF INSTITUTIONAL: NO.sG.FT. .�gOOO 54 t NO. STUDENTS/ EMPLOYEES/MEWE Its 'Seating for_200 in 4. SW 112th Avenue sanctuary TO BE COMPLETED BY STAFF ONLY A TRAFFIC STUDY IS REQUIRED FOR THIS DEVELOPME141 PRIOR TO APPLYING FOR DEVELOPMENT ACTION._ THE STUDY SHOULD CONTAIN INFORMATION AS DESCRIBED ON THE E ATTACHED FORM. WHEN THE TRAFFIC STUDY IS TURNED IN, REVIEWED BY STAFF, � AND ACCEPTED, AN APPLICATION MAY BE SUBMITTED FOR A LAND USE ACTION. a SIGNATURE DATE ----------------- ------ ----- ---- --- -- ------ -- - ----- - ------ --------------- A ----- ----- A TRAFFIC STUDY '1S NOT REQUIRED FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT. — �• AS OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION, , I HEREBY 'CERTIFY THAT SUFFICIENT AND ADEQUATE DATA IS AVAILABLE TO MAKE FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING ROAD IMPACTS FOR THE DESCRIBED DEVELOPMENT. DATE SIGNATURE Mill Eli a ' TRAFF£C IMPACT STATt -=NT AFIR 4 1986 f-•. THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL FEE FOR A +STAFF REPORT WILL BLS R�BIVAMIE OF ..,m= SUBM 1TTING APPLICATION: $85.00 THE FOLLOWING ARE DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS REQUIRED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION. THESE REQUIREMENTS SUPPORTED BY FINDINGS OF FACT, WILL BE THE BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE REVIEW AUTHORITY OR HEARINGS OFFICER REGARDING YOUR LAND USE APPLICATION. 1. The property owner sign and record a waiver not to remonstrate against the formation of a Local Improvement District (LID) or other mechanism, to improve SW Bull Mountain Road between Pacific Hi hway and SW 156th Avenue to county standards.* Waiver form will be issued by County Surveyor. * -4th Avenue between SW Bull Mountain Road and Gaarde Street 2. The property owner dedi cate additional right=of-way to provide 35 feet from centerline of SW Bull Mountain Road adjacent to the site. The property owner will submit 'legal 'description of right-of-way dedication certified by a licensed surveyor and recording fee to County Surveyor. f 3. Obtain an access permit from Department of Land Use and Transportation for new driveway. 5 foot 4. Construct a concrete sidewalk aaong the frontage of d to County standard. El 5. Assure that has a minimum 5-year wearing surface and structural life to a 22-foot width between -- — Q 6. Sight distance at proposed access is adeo ,a�p _ E i 7. Roadway drainage is 8. -Additional Additional requirements may apply to specific development at the Development t Review stage and/or upon completion of Traffic Study. X 9, Provide adequate roadway drainage along Bull Mountain Road frontage. 3/86 s WASHINGTON COUNTY. OREGON April 18, 1986 'Tv Keith Liden, Planner City of Tigard 13125 SW Nall Blvd, Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: 'CHRIST THE KING LUTHERAN CHURCH "ULL MOUNTAIN ROAD We have reviewed the proposed plans for the Christ the King Church site and submit the following findings ;and recommendations: Bull Mountain Road is a County urban major collector. ` Dedication of additional right-of-way to provide 40 feet from centerline is required. SW 114th Avenue is a public local street with an existing right-of-way width of 50 feet. Construction of a 5' concerete sidewalk to ultimate grade and location is required on Bull Mountain Road frontage. Provide adequate roadway drainage by cleaning and/or grading roadside ditches on Bull Mountain Road frontage. - Sign a viaiver not to 'remonstrate against the formation of a local improvement district for Buil Mountain Road between Pacific Highway and SW 150th Avenue to an ST-4 standard and for SW 114thAvenue'between Bull Mountain Road and Gaarde Street to an ST-1 standard, - The improvement of Sly 114th Avenue along frontage to an interim 22 _foot standard, as required by theCityof Tigard. Work within the County right-of-way should be to County standard. If you have any questions on any of the above items, you can call me at 648-8761, extension 2406. r r Paula Calvin Associate Planner ja PROW q CHRIST THE KINGLUTHER—ANCHURCH s, F.� MOS S.W. BuU-MouAtain Read " Tipvd, Omlo t 97224 March 19, 1986 �5�3g 639-2789 City of Tigard 12755 S.W. Ash P. 0. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 Attached is our Site Developn-.ant'Revie T Application w tea supporting docurants as follows: 1. Application. Forn, 21. Assessors Map ,. 3. Plot Flan List of property m.mets within 250 feet s>. 5. A petition from property oa rs On 5.�3. 114th- St. IA tG M41LtOf 6. A check in the mmunt; of $300-00 for our fil *g fee We �e:p �si�^��.max addition to the present c ch faces li ty ucia` j in odes a sanctuary with seating for`'200 Ml ogle. �r� eddi- t1on is appso�aaately 4500 scree feet with additional paw �g . that exceeds city requirements. 'ode love made provisions for proper landscap:Lng, storms, drainage, entrance and egress. We would like to call particular attention to a couple of issues. s. ---We feel that any ijTprovement to Bea?1 Mountain o�d would bae inappropriate until suc1: tzar as the county proceeds with future planning and improvea -its. 44e fe---1 that the improvernent of S.W. 114th Street from the Northwest st ca5 aer of oc�' property to Bull Muntsina`Road d not serge tay purpose either to us or to the residents on S.W. 114th, from property line to S.W. Garde. i " lie loos fore to your favorable response. If you have arty ' questions,please contact our 'architect, Mr. Steve Olson, Smith Viz" Dull & Assoc. telephone: 692--6065. . Sincerely, Vi. Cotter < Council. President cc: Steve Olson .Dan Larsen Pastor Susan Granata J �n v w , fF R •., ,v Y +'Yr"� �, r - R.r •vk E-. ;,yv.,.;Y .. �. .:x y;,+ .ems_ �+f �,#>.1 r�; � � 1' •'-- ;_ : i�-,.dL/.. - � ..,J �.__...� �s..al6.sf re �"��'•. Y, `? k l J{. t; z i a w a t N� �F F' n ter, � Y r 4 �- ��'�"" iy 1�. � :- � e. �. -4.I•�f'_'#''".� ��..yy,,� k �3�P+a�3� �a s el,� y�r' � �'�vn�(}�;�.p7+ j -SS .x � sK'�' '4:YN it �.,. �-.+ � :� � r} > ifT p i. �-t'i�"�r 3• 4'f y9.'� �" i{'�'` i. �'.J� �Tlth/dui , �tf�hlt ��5 June 9, 1986 Tigard City Council P.O. Box 23397- OR. 91223 RE. Christ The,King Lutheran Church STIR•9-86 Lear Council Members Christ The King Lutheran Church appreciates this opportunity to present the nformation to you concerning the appeal of condition number 6 falowing i (Interim improvement of 114th Ave,) of the above referenced site development rev ,ew. ,We feel that several unusual conditions exist which warrant a review of tele rea?ulrements imposed' by staff on this application. ,,. Following is a discussion of several of the key issues: 1) The Notice of Decision states that It is 'tie opinion of Tualatin Rural Fire Protection District that from a emergency access standpoint, 114th Ave. needs to become a through street. It needs to be pointed out that the Fire District has no authority to require this street `improvement, nor are they necessarily recommending that it be a requirement of this development. Their review of the church's development plans indicated that all of the Fire Districts requirements for access to the church site are being met. The Notice of Decision appears to indicate that Fire District requirements are one of the driving forces behind the decision of the staff to impose the requirement for the street :improvement. The "council needs to be aware that this is not the case. 2) SW 114th Ave. is :currently under Washington County 'jurisdiement The Decision indicates that 'the county supports the improv ment requirement; This is not exactly the case. Washington County anstrAnce for future is actually only requiring a letter of non-rem LID improvements to the street. The street improvement requirements do not seem to be supported by any of the other~ jurisdiction involved but rather a sole requirement `of the City of Tigard. 20935 S.W.305th'A ENUE,TUALF�TIlV,OFirt�aOiV 97052 503/692-6065 ff 2 3) Traffic. We feel the Decision severely underestimates the impact fat this street improvement will 'have on neighborhood traffic'. ° The Decision states "More attractive alternatives for north- south vehicular traffic presentlyexist and therfore, no significant change in' traffic volume is anticipated on 114th Ave.". It needs to be pointed out that the frontage road is one way South at its entry off cif pacific' Highway at Gaarde Street, severely limiting its use for North bound traffic. 112th Ave. is currently the only `through connection between Bull Mountain Road and Gaarde Street, and: it is a winding residential street, and not.a direct convenient: route. There are presently circulation problems in the area and with the proposed -street extension, 114th Ave. will become a significant link between Gaarde Street and Bull Mountain Road. We disagree with the staff" analysis that "no significant change in traffic '"volume is anticipated on 114th Ave." The current condition of 114th is a narrow county road with no curbs or sidewalks serving a quiet residential area. it is straight for its entire length, which' will encourage traffic speeds which will be excessive on a narrow residential street with no sidewalks. The current condition of the street will not support the additional , traffic load. We encourage the city council to evaluate the traffic situation in the entire neighborhood. We realize that someday 114th Ave,: will 'need to be extended to Bull Mountain Road, to become a through street. For the safety of the residents of 114th Ave. we recommend that the street extension not be completed Cantil a thorough traffic study is completed and the entire length of the street can be upgraded all at once. 4) Since the city and/or county ultimately wish to have 114th Ave. .upgraded to current street standards with additional width, curbs and sidewalks, the church is in the position of eventually paying for street,improvements twice. In addition to the improve meats being required now, Washington County is 'requiring a waiver of remonstrance from the church. This will in effect require: the church to participate in an improvement district in the future.` it seems hardly fair to require -the church ta'huild this street now, and then pay for more improvements later. a 4 zg n the to losing, we appreciate that the City of Tigard is forced th2ainfastructure In" 9 position of requiring individual property owners to develop of the city street network.: Man uctio�aas�les reets�andnaiher, thecity pubi�cist npDovemen�saLard approach in the past of c �iat� ve w feel' that some larger issues are involved in this lase concerning traffic and jurisdictonnavde aspoctlocal �suosthisblic ppartcuiar prajecrovement s. We t encourage council to look a., the u q Olif impacts upon the surrounding neighborhood and not impose a blanket city p y which is not appropriate: 5i nterel y, Sm'th/Dull Partnership, Architects Steven C, Olson AIA partner ; � a Ing-mom" IN r t.E El! u� i 1+ rlkti 0 - . C.1" �Stprti. _ / 1 f K�6f,.' .; �t . .._c� iLP10LC . ... '�... �hul G Cc C .SS S, Gt myrous t roirt� r LL � 1� nZ�.in..`.. r7e }^d�1lSG a . ._ aC1 ! LLGJa�.. Sf7 G.� im rc � rr� ._. .. Cir�irr�n t? eile— ,�t� s I crr _;. d. ^c _ � .. ;7r ��r ._..C'a��O (as , Of Jh ,51 o/7 , uf .....0n _._ r^ cif , t ers . : ujas n u rQ i Ile- /roan zus :_ "ez u __From". C'r^�[tY'.�•. �..C'�Zn ;... otJg 0}?� 12 :_.!?t ........... .... arant 110 conG 77 4 i MCI -MIMEf 4 CITY,OF TIGARD OREGON COUNCIL AG ArFNDA DP June 9, 1986 AGENDA I` EM P. DATE SU4HITTED May-20, 11986 NIDUS ACTION, ISSUE/AGENDA TILE. Authorize Bidding For Pavement Overlay Projects PREPMD BY: R R.Wool.ey, City Enai.nee ,�ne REQUESTED BY: DEPARTMENT SAI! Ox. CITY INIST TOR: RF C!SARaa�ffiffi�iLLY�iB.%,43 9Yd�11R�,Ft8�iH1�ffi'Sdffiffi��f�®2SZ:1IItY$SL�ORb^�fffi�ffiffi11iffiQfIlYiHallB181Qt0S3T8mS/i@FLiH39lBLImlY9 ilM@'i4ER®®ESiffiffiiR®0S POLICY ISSUE Shall the Local Contract Review Board authorize advertisement for bids for `'S.W. Fairview.and S.W. 68th Avenue Pavement: Overlay Projects"? aeea� -aaux-----a:;srn,xim.axxaar�ca�sra��mmm�sx mix.,sxnm ffisasea�r�mm,.xarsr�e-eie�w,suis.-as-mnsa,®r..s.umom-e�a.a®Rano ws.ar INFORMATION SL9Ai�.i The Capital Improvement Program includes resurfacing on S.W. Fairview Lane, Fairview Court, S.N.: 116th Place, and S.W.' 68th Parkway. The specifications have been prepared for these projects. The estimated cost of the construction is $36,000. Attached is a map showing the construction limits. In accordance with the Purchasing Manual, approval of the Contract Review Board is required prior to advertising for bids. ----------------- ------- --------------- ------assn-----as-cxag----------.wwa.m.a ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Authorize advertisement for bids. 2. Direct that the specifications or the scope of work be modified. 3. Cancel the projects. � '� aesm..azaa ae axaa s:�em��rasox:faxAa;a® ..----------i---sea----------------------------------.«,.®,..,r ' SUGGESTED ACTION Authorize advertisement for bids for "S.W. Fairview and S.W. 68th Avenue Pavement Overlay Projects". t Ilal P7awe. 5�..+• Alma fk 41 5 v+ w � IiTiAl "ol�w4 �_ VV 1 - ny' awl sel,+ a,an e p '�y�O� yn1. ~ �3'q '•*'¢ � .. el,a4 � Ina aAf. ,e9R Al a1 '`'�. +A• � �u � j g+- _ 'i �e ��, ,�• 4i � g p� a � � in a9 01 c: aald'N9 a �(/ ri N g via /lp�• a 9 •.•„tea`°na10, -.dnf '' *o.� � ' ® �� 1�_w5 nY) �� n4 � 1 N•9 2 ,fie � » � a •8 s " cvb � �� i s R c +� a¢al SITNo 4-0 » •� $ [1im � '�•� y >a� .ane.r,��e n'D .t4d a' �. AA )AP - if ii911 ley : '0 8 UV �r.. �" A fb ii,•• MJ91��U � a&fl'7Jld+N p ^ u n4f xfl .1111 il n . .. x CITY OF TIGARD OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA-ITEM SUMMARY I" AGENDA Os-: ;June 9, 1986 AGENDA ITEM ft: DATE SUBMITTED: May 22, 1986 PREVIOUS ACTION: - ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Mr. & Mrs. Cochran's request for Council PREPARED BY: Elizabeth Newton initiation of a Comp. Plan Amend. REQUESTED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD OR: �,4 � � CITY ADMINISTRATOR: POLICY ISSUE Should the City Council initiate aComprehensive Plan Amendment and Minor Land' Partition application and waive the fees for both applications' For Mr. & Mrs. William Cochran? (SSI 34DA lot '1600). m INFORMATION SUMMARY On September 24, 1979, the Tigard City Council approved Ordinance 79-88 (attached) which changed the zone district on property owned by the'Cochran's ;at 10695 Sly!' North Dakota from R-7 to R-5 (5,000 sq. ft,. lots). In 1980, based on that zoning, the Cochran's applied for, and received approval with 'conditions from the Planning Director for a Minor Land Partition. A copy of the approval is attached. In 1981, the Cochran's recorded the staff report with Washington County but did not record the partition map as instructed in the staff report approving the Minor l-and Partition. Since the map was not recorded, the Slash. Co. Dept. of Assess. and Taxation dad not partition the property an the tax maps or in their assessment records so, the property remained in one piece. During the Comprehensive' Planning process, since the partition did not appear to have been recorded, the zoning assigned to the property was R-3.5, which was in conformance with the surrounding area. Recently Mrs. Cache-an came in to discuss the Minor Land Partition with staff and was told that the approval had expired. Mrs. Cochran feels that the expiration occurred without her knowledge. She was instructed to write a letter to the Council requesting consideration by the Council ' that the Council initiate a Comprehensive Plan Amendment on her behalf. A copy of Mrs. Cochran's letter is attached. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Initiate the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Minor Land Partition and waive all fees as requested by Mrs. & Mrs. Cochran. 2. Initiate` the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Minor Land Partition and waive the fee for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Minor Land Partition in'August (in cycle). SUGGESTED ACTION 1, Initiate the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Minor Land Partition and waive the fee for the Comprehensive Plan.Amendment only. 2548P/dmi NE 1/4 SE IM SE TY OREGON SCALE 1'1= 100' SEE MAS' IS i 54AD 1/4 SF,cT1ON 01111CR f70'.:: 16590:: . w^wv ... 103.9 c -- : 52.48 ` {34.31 60 134.29 ,., 1^EIT LCL �'T, s 69'50'51'W ` M89 45'w' 10300 ,� `.^ ,,,, 900 INITIAL PT'� 3500 ,. 1 800 1700 1 ice : LL� 97 i 00 g .96AC. .96-AC. TRACT ;B 134.3 134.25 FOR STORM �JhA�V 1 Ise w R� 600 v PURPOSES 2 tt� 8 �O Lo � 3 _L 700 1— 9 : -� t 600 - CL 16599 84 Jc� ® 10 W 35 3 f w 4v , t16, 1430 _ j m :D) !" " 03 ° 4 5 500 ti 6" AI 0 1 1 p iz .z M 1500 an: �'� z4 o 6 4-z !.:1 72.99 `m _73 I. 400 - — 1903N 12 3600 Ja1 4200 ./9Ac. 1,600 : F 21-Li�F„ 7. ;3TAc. 134.28 1 a: ' r-� �W - - 300--_ ±,3500 �Q '4�OC i - 302 13 "'/ 4 2 164.9 134. 60 - 115.20 72.99_-' g5.1 62.45 t •tc: _ ._—_-_-- -T T c.R. NO. 452 34 57 s7 ao.66 �' 2.s5c1+ 50 i 3z5cH NORTH 1V.E ---- 0 24010 2500 2600 2700 2600 2900 3000 ; 3100 3300 , C.` ?t9C. 3?AC_ /./RAC, E6AC. /.26AC. .96AC. .96AC. N � *N N N N t. N z 23-74, W,r 67. 67 ri f s. 124.7 - . CITY,OI? TIGAROP O04GON _ ORDINANCE No. "79- SAN r 0RDI+3ANC£ ADOPTING FINDINGS WITH Y_Es:.3.' To AN APPLICATION BY MADELINE T. COMM B`OR N ArE.ND_MENT To Tim 1970 ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF TIGARD, CHANGING THE ,2 "'s"..ISTRICeT FORA TRACT,OF LAND AT 10695,S-W-1 N. DAKOTA., A+'IB'DEPICTED . b ON WASHINGTON COUNTY TAX MAP 1Si 34DA, T.U.LOT 1600, FROM CITY OF 'L°I�RD, ��'i-7" `1E'�`f.'ITv- OF TIGARD "R-516 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (5,0'00 SQUARE FOOT F.FSID€NTIP.L) AND ADOPTING EXHIBITS #'All$ "B", "C" GRANTING TLiE APPLICATION ,. ASID FIXING AN°EFFECTIVE'DATE- THE ATE-!HE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: 'SECTION 1.: Finding that the lands hereinafter described have been heretofore and are now classified as City of Tigard "R-711 and further ` findings that pursuant to'prescribed procedures, the above-stated application for a zoning map autendment was heard in a public"heari ag heli Loy the Tigard plenning Commission on August 7 1979, and all interested persons were there and then afforded an opport/ani@y to be heard, and themafter`the Planning commission filed its report and recommended apspxoval �?ith the City Ltecorder, ,a copy therefore hereto attached and by reforence made a' part hereof, the Council. adopts the :following substantive fi,ndli.ngs z A. That the applicant is in conformance with the UrbanLowi�nsity Residential: designation of NPO 07 ,plan, and B. That the proposed zoning is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. SECTION 2: THEREFORE, pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 18.88 of Tigard Municipal Code, the applicant's request for an amendment of the Ti garc2 'Zcanirg Map of 1970 to zone those lands described in the attached Exhibit "A" for Single Family Residential (5,000 square forst residential) - (R.--S) €se is hereby appxoved subject to;the provisions of Chapter 18.20 (Single-Family F_-si.dential Innes) of the Tigard Municipal Code as embodied in or exhibited by the documents submitted and identified as follows: Exhibit "A": Legal Description Exhibit "B": Staff Report Exhibit "C": Site Plan And further subject to the following conditions: 1. That the applicant dedicate ten feet of right-of-way along S.W. North Dakota Street with half-street improvements to collector street standards prior to issuance of building Permits or after performw-ice bond for improvements have been approved. 2. ,That construction and dr�nfrst��e pl,xWv, .app-o cf. y the Engineering s and Build ngbipart nts prior to;iiisaa ansa e »ttiS. 3. No Occupancy p,,,!_rmits sball he issued until a:i) conditions have been satisfied- and aliprob..aa by the Planning, Director and .final in Spec tions' )ta ? been jade, by the BuiIdin ficiaj. ` r OEM- ,f . G 00 of Tigard n_4ance to Elxi�x No ,iinor sd 'f�o lads licat on is made toartitions the f�.tj� project unl s and the :•tirs�rr partitionsap ,Irl. Dqpartwent a�a�rer plans or sp cifications S. r chasxges Will be x�aade to approved to the apprOPriatc; ��,axt nt � alessol aPYe:rxt§cax� s xn 1ica� a��x for. �. and changes aora d by �tartxnt. pic�l writing and shall �rac��x aPk� changes will be made in .: I acing::, e-Aginee-ring spee:ific�ticnh armed other lace in these tt+3 dr the c�epax $ xxt. too construction `shall.'takep�'oved. �� Instances a it after the chzu�gas have �x1 x�o pct ax 'wry grtic�x t� deviaa �reaae this condition will res*alt;in ice 1 �.ate sssstiaxg of a stop saoxY> razs7er @rx the P� 3 the Project - the aarrixsascce shall- be effective on and after 31st or- S1EL"T%CJ?4 3= ^. the council and ppaca�ral of the ,ayor. after its passage b3f Y�sent cats of all Council axemb p § ?ASSED: By after being read two �. day, of �o 42k W thzs 1978, tis by n=fir a,Id' title only. orciet' - City of ;Tig 1979. .APPRTa ED: � the Mayor th&stray o� �sayor --City cf T igard , l (f page.'2 5 �t?adt ?fi .' 79XT .Zc579 Atter- cht rats u r q. SNESF 5.4 ` IGARt's i2LRLgg��e(/8ING �{�1.�.°tT��TQiv A 87I -.30 P-14e �csvuat ectcnre Room '." a Po�aler j,inioy High Tigard, Oregon . . Zone Change ZC.2�^73 ,. DOCKET : S. OWNER: sane rPLbG'��tT: Mr- 9650.and ttzs. €il.liam, Coc kran S.w. 47th Ave " men 97219 dsssktlarnei, Qreg" 4' ° P-1CATI0H DATE: July 2s 2979 : 1p695 5.4�. North Da5c0ta. (�3ash. Co. Tax f6Iap 1S1 34DA, Tax LotC LOCATION 1�aCEI} i senc3xa=rnt fro foot resi m City of Tigard,R-7 *,Sin gamily �siden- ^�rUST: For a zone map �5 $S,CAQ s��xas dential.? on a .40 . tial" City of Tigard . acre'Parcel. 7,NrjNGS op FACT: g The site is rlesigenate S '�tlrT�~an Ww Dansity" can to t�P® 3 Plays rmittinq 1. acre. , s3 "sirngle fanigyaellia�g units per gross 2as �l i o sle PCt 7 Plan Pal ici0s,"fo--resi ntial devOlOP n 4- sll.cwe;: licie 2= and 3 [pa = 3} 'publici tiro :n hzoning of the -40 acre i"� in �. 3. cn applicants ai� r8ques is:g e coorc3znce with Section 3.�.2� t33Ca of �e �"sc�ard Municipalntation p- accordance � in ordancex'W wrattn the City of Tigard Tjousi.ng imp � adopted on riay 21, 1979. rtion of tha site f nt- " 4. Thereis a single family unit on the en 30 ng �Ite ly flat .with:az slight �. l. g S.W. North Da st et. �,-� a3oolitiing grade to tg 3cortta_ � single family units. The properties t. The entireurx und.ing land uses are 9 �. to the south, east sand west are in the county_ The subdivision adjacent to the north is in the. City. a Knd S.W- North . a, Lhe site at the cornerttvfroad, I0S6etgh 106t tfrozntting}to eastexn'Pcrtion Dal, which is a a ° of the site is fully improved to City standards. S:5-i.. North t3aSsot� is designated as a collector street on the YsP� 7 Plan- 1t presently is V, an substandard condition having inadequate paving and rig1�4 of-::a,1 de-walks widtin Witfn no curbs or si _ war sxeies is availabley ,the sate from the line off S.S4. 106th.ET. . mater 13ervice is, also avail.able. � MIT 4 q. Z ss a .e, .... STAFF PAX 2C 2a-d9 Page x 11. CONChUSIONARY FINDINGS: 1. The 'request is ,in conformance to the Housing Implenentation Policy-. 2. Sewer and Water are availdIb?e to the site. 3. Street improveme-t aloe S.W. Worth Dakota are required. XXX. STAFF MfiMMENDATIOMS.- Staff xecammeends7 approval of the E°5 zone change subject to the fol.losaing conditions 1.. That the applicant dedicate ten feet of e'-di.cat:ion along S.W- Forth Dakota Street with half-street improvements to collector street standards prior to ;issuance of �ba ildi.ng permsis or after performance bOnd for iWrOve- nts have been approved. 2. That const_iuctLm ,and drainage plan: be approved by the Enginwring d Building impart �t s pxior to issuance of permits 3. No Occupancy pmtshall be' issued untilall conditions have beepn s�xtAsp fled and approved by the-Planning Director and final inspections have been made by the Building official. 4. No. minor Land Partitions shall be made in reference to this .project, unless formal appli.cairimn is made to the City of Tigard Planning Departmut. and th-_ minor "nd PartAtion is approved. S. Vo changes will be made to approved plans or specifications unless goxmal application is made to the appropriate department-and changes am- approved by that department. Application cor changes will b� made in Writing and shall include applicable drawi_ngsa engineering specifications and ether details requested by the departrmmt. NO construction shall take place in these instances until after the chances have been approved. 2%.ny deviation from this condition will result in the immediate posting of a stop work order on the project or any portion of the project. P.sport prepared by: Ken a Report reviewed by: ellc i ti:c€�urr] Assoc �e City Pl.,anner P'w<t� .i .g DixeCtor �"E �a4{ r ".,' e ,vew. d �'� &'�A '4y n 4 t ;i i STAFF MPC3ET FINAL ACTION' TIGARD PIJaINNING DEPART=3a DECUMBER 26, 1980 WAsPtDAGTOM :CREC-O b DOCKET: MINOR D PAERTITICH, MLP 22-$0;dC�iitt�ih) APPLICANTs Ni. and Mrs. Wm. A. 'Cochran C)3� .R.- SAME 9650 Sw 47th ,Avenue Portland, Oregm 97219 APPLICATION DATE December 8, 1980 REQUEST: To partition a 16,116 square foot lot into three (3) lots of approxitmately.5,300:square feet each. SITE LOCATION: 10695 SQW:Uorth' Dakota (Wash. Co. Tape Map 1Sl 34DA, Tax T�ot '16€)0) SITE DESIGNIATION: Zoning R-5, Comprehensive Plan R-5 PEOVIOUS ACTION: Tiger CLty Coach Passed Ordinance No'. 79-88 on September 24, 3.979 which � f a ,,of. Ti,and R-7 to City-trf Tigard R 5 i .e Y 3. 311 FACT -1. Applicant proposlea to partition three (3) lots with the intent of cmastauct€ng one (1), single- family home an each lot. The existing house will have to be moved or moved bafore any building takes blare on the middle or west lot. 2. Worth Dakvis 'a' collector street requiring sixty' (601) feet<right-of-way. Currently, North iota is not improved in front of the site 3. 106th Avenue is -a uncal, atz t, gsaizing; fifty (501) feet right-of-way. raa�.l half street row.mts have bean kala' in front of the site. 4. The applicant was reguesited to dedicate ten (10') feet along SW North Dakota as,a condition of Zone Change., ZC 28-79. This had not been done as of December 12, "1980. 5. On September 24 1979, the Tigard City Council approved Zone Change, ZC 28^-79 with conditions. (see attached Staff Report) 6. Water and sewer service are available to the site. 7. City Council policy requix€;s that half stt-eet .improvements , dl for minor band pmztitapna at the tim, of the partition. i, t 12426 S.W. MAIN' P.O. BOX 233W TIGARD, OREGON 97223 PH:639-4171 �--- - P STA7F REPORT/FMALACTIM 22.80 TMOO mmanm DEPARmxm 2 11. MICWSIONARY F111"MINGS. 1. Via proposed Partition fad Tse in confo ace with the CCOP hensive Plan. The Zane Mange to R-5 has been approved I'VC 28-79). . 2. The necessary right-of-way dedication on sw North iota has not been rade. IIT. STAFF DECISION: staff aEkMves this Partition subject to the following conditions: l..- The existing house must be moved or'removed before Building Permits axe issued an the middle and westerly lots. 2 The necessary ten. '(loll) foot street'dedication on North Dakota shall be ode to the public before any permits are issued. 3. No Occupency Permits shall be issued until all conditions placed upon this davelol by the City of Tigard have been satisfied and inspections this have been carried out by the aIpprWr,Latede � t- 4. d chances will be w=ade to appioved'plans of speci.fi.catio ns tameless formal c plicatien is made to the appropriate City department, and changlas a. approved by that department. Application for changes will. be made in writing and shall include applicable drawings. S. Grading and construction plans for all work in public rights-of-way shall be prepared by a registered professional engineer in accgrdsance with City standards, and shall be submitted to the Public Works DOPaitment for review. All public improvements will require a Compliance Agreement and must be (design) approved by;the Public Works Dapartmnto and must be either (1) fully and satisfactorily,constxncted prior to the xecording of any minor land partition;or issuanceof Building Permits; or t2? bonded to , the city for 100% of the estimated cost thereof prior to the recording of any minor land parii ion or issuance of Building Permits 6. All existing proposed utilities shall be placed undergroLmd. street lighting installations shall be approved by t:ae Public Works i�pa ent. a 7. A fates and bounds legal description and map shall accompany a dedication of public rights-of-way, and shall be prepared by a registered engineer or land surveyor. 7 a 11, tea ;fad.p Ing'Baa shall be -0cssncr��,o or aa�pha3tb All sic aval�s`shall be concrete. w � OV �, + 4� v,�zca:.ti^>A.�". _. :t"�'�'��n.Ve�d�. .�d`�.�r'�;«.vs.�*,:T� ,.'-:'�2 .'s•�, .._Fd .:r'r. nia:�,y;• c ...tea-- >.'a.�,..�+.,� �z«;�a.,(�;�...i�..tv>.::�.aa 1'cr,�kw'.S��x'�Y+�*� .'-.->.f f.... ..e:_fin,,;' `x -,x8 r 4 �yJm 3 f :'fir h'tllE C• dA� �^Lr4"3c *. i w,a •l.i _ _lila Y. ".n _ !.' 'i 6+.'� � �a ie yam. _ i. •. ;, � ?" 4 d u� Jr � Sy �xA•�1,t�'.1., t.. � F SF, K Y L :. '�..,* ..,,�. ,� >„ -.'et t� ,ri,q,,z�y tt rx1' %�r¥�i�i��}�.° ��'"�'r' .�t � a,i.r+i�"�I �� `•,c'�'�iX�A�r Yom` ��.,�� '` { `♦. � �:-r�":e �, � -'�yr'�a-�k"'t 'a�E�`a'' .tn+*7�,,- ^��*ank`�vy'^,,.a�-N.s ;�� lb-fir$•✓" �i��`+`i y 1`,�" h��:+� ��'x,. ,,y": � '� f� ,�s�,��i � ® ■ _;SII ; �� _.,fes r 1i •� � �: � 2 m t 7 .. r► ` +r._ 7 ■ ,�,,.,.�� 'moi ra �,��j �� ' �'�� "rs � .. � M•� � �' �1. ,,,s. rF:. r 9 Via"`" , '," -� �' � ,� nTy�R: f4i .�"� i �� ""' �v. qa � ��$$`✓ '�+�. -it d+tt.,,,� +STr� a ��' � r4hF {z :�<• - €"' �.'"tu `9 '� m w �' "`"s y -is i>_ -srt;� �.2��,t? ., y' �,X ,as. _ _ f __--� 'I.I..?G_�---�-- '-��at-e. -�; -" GZr.-t�.�sc.s,�.�.��" - •a��C= ��y - 14 - _/__—`_c .�_r��:.s�:`,.�''M.>t_✓�_?sG_�-c'�y�,,�^.,��°._.r1w'z- fr"`W, �?_dt� _ _-�U '�"L��_-i Isla- t � k i a 3 3 K p�r T; �k y f R 2z INS NO Egg'. I r y � t t:',. rr ` ro F7� n' �:+'MR ° k.a '�� .' � � �R1 s: t�` .�g- :, "LL ' c�a-' Cv�s„'�s'rm ,gg x .� �" �f"'� �afi r✓r' °^� "". __ �� / r,. '� �^" 'i y �Z"''°�� 3Si 3 � �„ � EWE" ^sia '�` Z's.�S� �as rax.. :t uA E., erg �r �, ? � E.* a s YY 4 �a �. � cry ;t• �sw !#' '.C', f�A s � t , v 'R.#`�" �,'�' �,-�m- �.��"'�-' x i,;�,�,.,a.� '��x �" ,� s y�33z ♦��ri'p'" '+`"'`+: !'. �5,,'��3�::� F"`.:t e� . � 1 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON -, COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMIARY AGENDA OF: June 9 1936 AGENDA ITEM N: *� DATE SUBMITTED: M 30, 1986 PREVIOUS ACTION: PlannCommission ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Final Orders Final Orders;of Day 20, 1966 by Planning Commisston - S 9. 86 & _ PREPARED BY: _ CommunitvDevelopment V 11-86 Robert Claris S 8-86 & V 9-86 Samuel Gott;er III, SCE 5-86 Hudson REQUESTED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: Vit'! CITY ADMINISTRATOR: POLICY ISSUE INFORMATION SUMMARY Attached are the Final Orders for: 1. S 9-86 and V 11=86 -`Approval with conditions of a request to divide a 1,66 acre parcel into 13 lots ranging between 5,000 and 7,900;sq. ft. in size and to allow a five '(5) foot side yard setback on'a flag lot where 10 ft. is required, and for creating one lot with 20 feet of frontage where 25 ft. is required. 2. S 8-86 and V 9-96 Approval with conditions of a request to divide a 1.37 acre parcel into 6 lots with a minimum size of 7,500 sq. ft. and to allow a cul de sac of 600 ft. in length where a maximum of 400 ft. is required. 3. SCE 5-86 - Denial of a request to allow for an B sq, ft. expansion of a non-conforming sign which is approximately 88 sq. ft. in 'size. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Approve as written. 2. Call up for review at a date set by Council. SUGGESTEDACTION Approve as written. 2579P r C M'OF TIGARD p%W4001UG COMISS1E`i Concerning,Case 2daasaF:oris)w' S = �a=aid V, In-86 2. Meme Of nar' 3. ofppinct �t Raalswz�=.C'lacas 3" Box, 1fs9 City ahercaooal�State OR 2i .97 i40 k. Location of PsapartY: 4.ddeess 1e. 'fax flap and L<ot,go(s) 1 S 1 35CA- 2000 5. • Mature of agslic sti�a3a tccBe c`.to d;Xide a 1.55 acre varcel into 13 logs r ngin ire a 5X100 axsd r t� in size ani to allow a fame (5r 111fl , xs' reaaaa red aatd forxeatfxa arae lot with 20 feet of fi tags' &ire 25 ft ,is r4rlasiresi, Naa� F` nag e: of lid, t� a 3 A eaai`ld.its: X The. ap P 3.2,;'C t '4o a r's. O s is,: of"recat�d�Vi`thin the.s ecru read.riistmnee X3C .�iffac �is,tabax aoas?� Planning,Organization XXf f acted ., raat c, .;iantal asencies 8. Final Decision_: THE DPC7C"s�O SHALL DE F1LdGAi. 09 3une 10, 1986 MESS As PPF L. Is'FILED. The adopted findings of "fact, decision, and stat nt of condition Lan'iae obtained f race' the Planning 33opac t>:int, Ti s3rc4 City :fall, .13125 Sm tin I t. P.O. Pox 23397, 'ligand, areron 97223. 9. ARpeal: y Anypard to .t1aa flecissoas ap zeal.. this decision'. in acc6 d nye. +pith ?�;32.29Q(s 2 and Secti®aa. 113.32-.'' X74 `Wr'h h ;provid11 es that a t�ritL�ve aPpc�l mai tae filed.urithi�m ,10 i"ys iifte :ncstice is liven and rent. The deadline for,filing, of aaa apj�ua1 Is 3230 June 10, 1986 ry CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING C+,MISSICN FINAL ORDERNO. RFS_ ZJ/0'_ PC A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS MHICH APPROVES ,APPLICATIONS FOR A SUBDIVISION IS 9-96)` AND VARIANCE (V 11-86) REQUESTED BY WESLEY BRCrOKMAN. The ,Tigard Planning Commission' reviewed the above application at a public hearing on May 20, .1986. The Commission based its decision an the facts, findings and conclusions noted below. A. FACT"S 1. general. 1nfn_ s ,._._tion CASE: Subdivision S 9-86, Variance V 11-86 .REQUEST: To divide a 1.66 acre parcel into 13 lots ranging between S,GOD and 7,900 square feet in size and to allow a five (5) foot >ide yardsetbacL on a flag lot where 10 feet is required and for creating one lot with 20 feet of frontage .where 25 fent is required. € IPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential ZONING DESIGNATION: R-12 (Residential, 12 units/acre) E..., APPLICANT:` Robert Claus OWNER: �eslpy Brookman Rt. '3 Box 169 3126 SE Gladstone St. Sherwood, OR 97140 Portland, OR 97202 LOCATION: 11345 SW 95th Ave. (WCTN 1S1 35CA lot 2000). 2. BackMround On Septa-tuber 17, 1954, the Planning commission :approved a proposal IS 8-04) for a 13 lot subdivision on the subject' property which is essentially the dame as the preliminary plat proposed in this application. A variance was also granted to allow a five (5) foot side yard( setback on one side of a flag lot (V 11-84) . Following approval, the applicant did not complete the final plat and the approval has expired. 3. VicinitInformation The properties to the west and southwest are zoned R-12 and are occupied by a mixture of single and multi-family residences. The area on the north i side of North [Dakota Street are presently within Washington County and are designated for low density residential development in the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. Single family residences in the R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre) zone are located to the east and southeast, FINAL ORDER 06-- �� PC (S 9-•86 & V 11-86) Page 1 d 4. Sit+e_.I?��ornoaticsr� and Pro Deal Descri tion `= le family residence in the southeast corner the property contains One, ed, > The applicant intQnds to and, the 'remainder of the parcel` is arsdevelap lots. Eight of :the nomesites Will have into 13 the remaining five will divide the property h Avenue. rivate drivekxMY for access to 95th frontage on i4or^th Lax®ta Street or 95th P�venue and be`dependent upon a common p The existing house shall remain and will be situated within Sot 12. . i 5. f�aencv grad WpO Comments on has the following comments The Engineering Div si : sewer The existing dwelling unit shall be connected to the sanitaryboundary ` a proposed property syvatem. All structures Which straddle p' r " lin shall be removed. e sanitary sewer main within sW 95th Avenue sha11 be extended to .b• Th the south boundaryof the.prop®sed subdivision. _ &, x#22®D shall be roadway fronting T.�. 210t) mitigate �'' The existing ement width of 24 feet, to reconstructed to provide for use of the imdact of intensified use tat Sdistance Aveanue. usaid Theexisting Ais pavement width and vertical g hazardous. dhlic footing drains (etc.) sha11 be tied to p d, All roof as is f rain-drains, -- or, shall be connected to curb weep ho I, storm water system V appropriate. to the public sanitary sewer Q Each lot shall be connected separately, € system, The curb cuts no for lot 06 & #13 shal'35th t Abvenat low Curbs cuts at the 1: f. Th feet Tract ,,�� common drive cut ontoa minimum ta shall be intersection of 95th raght of-"th �ayolines of said roadways of 3� from the intersecting With The Comprehensive plan identifies entsbtac ossnuehees street o comply otos, g. the existing improvement The City Engineer has evaluated the existingthat local street standards. on gr-,th Section and anticipated traffic vbeientiapplied n�vaccordan e recommends �ha� local street standards b 18.164.oZO(b) of the rode. that adequate width should be Building Inspection Division notes The provided for the private drive. <ard to the request. It is noted that fr�Ont y' n.G,E, has no objection provided along all easements with a minimum width Of six feet should be front yards for utility use. Plans should be submitted to Sill Noat�� at p.CE. PC (S 9-86 € V It-86) Wage FT.611L_ ORDER 86- k Xti; o the proposal. and the Tigard school district have no objections t vest b.�t it is noteed a T�S� letzger' iater i?istri,t has mss objection. to the req that short main extrusion will be necessary to serve lots 7 , 8, Z�d+'i3Zt19iaSANDCONC�..l��alOWS and 9.1.3, and Chapters 14.54. The relevant criteria i°i this ,ate are Tigard Cosrprehensive Plan policies 6.3.3. 7.5..2, 7.3.1. 7.4.4, development Code, and 19.165 of the Community . Y4.13 18; �. There are special circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the lot size or shape. topography or other circumstances over which the applicant has no control, and which are not applicable to other properties in the same zoning district; c. The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this Coda and City standards will be maintained to the greatest QxtQnt that is reasonably possible, whale permitting some economic use of the land; d. Existing physical and natural system, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage, dramatic land forms or parks will not be adversely affected any more than would occur if the development were located as specified in the Code; and e. The hardship is not self—imposed and the variance requested 'is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. The purpose of the setback provision is to reduce the potential conflict between established residences and new development on flag lots. The 10--foot side yard setback is intended to provide some additional space between new residences and adjoining properties. The setback reduction along the southern boundary of lot 11 could adversely; affect the development potential of the property to the isouth by, T establishing a residence that is 5 feet away. A; similar redaction on .thQ north side will be internal and the developer would be able to adjust the location of other buildings to mitigate any problems created by the 5—toot setback, Lot 11 is 55 feet wide and appears' to be of sufficient width to accommodate a single family home without setback variances on both sides.° The hardship is somewhat self-imposed because the applicant could redesign the lot or the house. However, the Planning Commission, does acknowledge that small parcels such as this are 'difficult to develop while meeting all Cite standards.; The requested variance to allow 5—foot side yards only appears to be appropriate on the north side of Lot 11 The second variance relates to the minimum street Frontage requirement of 25 feet for subdivision lots (Section 18.164.060 B.). The following approval criteria from Section 16.160. 12o apply: 1. There are special circumstances affecting the property which ark - unusual and peculiar to the land as compared to other lands similarly situated; 2. The variance is necessary for the property design or function' of the subdivision; 3. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to tho �e:.alslic health] safety, or welfare or injurious to the rights of other' ownQrs of property; and FERAL ORDER 86— _p —PC (S 9-06 & V 11.-86) Page 4 r 4. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a 0...'. substantial property night because of an extraordinary hardship which would ,gaup from strict compliance with the regulations of this ordinance The property is relatively small for a subdivision and because of its configuration, the creation of a public street or ;,cul--de-sac as not desirable or particularly feasible. The private street has created the need for reduced frontage on Lots;8, 9, and 11. The variance will not have a detrimental effect. The frontage reduction is minimal and property access to the lots as defined in Chapter 16.108 of the Code will be maintained. Strict compliance with the Code could be achieved., but it would result in awkward property boundaries and would also cause an unnecessary waste of space in the case of Lot 11. The proposed 20-foot wide access strip to Lot ,11 is more than adequate to accommodate the requires 10-foot wide driveway. 3. Chapter 18.160 and 18.164 are satisfied because the subdivision will be developed in a manner that is consistent with City standards for dividing land and providing the necessary public facilities. 4. Section 18.160.120 approval criteria are mot because the proparty is relatively small for a subdivision and because of its configuration, the creation of; a public street or cul--de-sac is not 'desirable or ,articularly feasible. In addition, the variances will not have ;a detrimental effect. The frontage reduction is minima and aced property access to the lots will be maintained. C. DECISION' Rased upon the above findings and conclusions, the Planning . Commission approves S 9-86 and V 11-86 subject to the following conditions- 1. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET PRIOR TO RECORDING THE FIINAL. PLAT. 4 2. Standard halm-street improvements including sidewalks, curbs, streetlights, driveway aprons, storm drainage and utilities shall be installed ,along the SW North Dakota Street and 95th Avenue frontage. Said improvements along said roadways shall be built to City local street standards and conform to the alignment of existing ,adjacent: improvements 3. Seven (7) sets of plan--profile public'. improvement construction plans and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate, stamped by a Registered Professional Civil Engineer, detailing all proposed public improvements shall be submitted to the Engineering Section for approval. FINAL. ORDER 86- PC (S 9-E6 ,S V `11--86) Page 5 e i a 4, Sanitary and storm sewer plan-profile details shaYl . be pravWsad as 1 part of the public, improvement plans Construction of proposed' public improvements shall not commence until ering Section: has issued' approved public i�9provement after the Engi.nc9rmance Bond, plans. The Sectio Will fee and installation/streetlightarequire osigngfee. the payment of a p ermit : or construction Also, the execution of a streetto o� concurrently with the compliance agreement shall occur prior issuance of approved public improvement plans. SES THE ENCLOSED NRE i3f3U GG�b° NG 'MOPE SPECIFIC INFORMATION REGARDING SCHEDULES. ETON?INN AND AGWhEMtm 1 z- t-Of-way shall be dedicated to the Public al t. Additional rir�hong the S� to increase right-Of-way to 25, feet' from Horth Dakota ze t-Of age center by-line. The description for said dedication shall be tied existing right-of--Vcenterline as established rms arari approved County. The dedication document shall be on City fo EngineeringSectionDEDICATION FORMS AND INSTRUCT IO�iS AREby the . i ENCLOSED. ng SW 7. Additional right of way shall be dedicated to the Public 25lofeethfr-om 35th Avenue frontage to increase the right-of- say to centerline. The Cage. iption ;for, said dedication shall be tied 1e�to the on existing right- of-way`' centerline as established by County. The dedication document Shall be on City UCTIO S ARE dorms and approved by the Engineering Section. DEDIC�tTIr3 FORMS RSD I STR ... ENCLOSED. 11 g. and v-ecord� joint uwe and maintenance agreements shall be execute Said agreements by City standard forms for all common driveways•applicable Par-eel shall be referenced on and become part of all �Engineering Section. Deeds. Said agreement shall be approved by the Enc€ 3OINT USE AND MAINTENANCE AGREE eEV FORMS ARE ENCLOSED. 9. The existing dwelling shall be connected to sanitary sewer. 10. All structures on the subject property shall meet City setback requirements or they be removed. 11. The sanitary sewer main within SW 95th Avenue shall be extended to the south boundary of the subdivision. 12. The existing roadway fronting T.L. 02100 & 02200 shall be reconstructed to provide for a pavement width of 24 feet, to mitigate the impact of intensified use of SW 95th Avenue, The design shall be approved by the City Engineer. 13.: All roof rain-drains, footing drains, shall be tied to a public storm be connected to curb weep holes as appropriate. ulster system or shall 14. Each lot shall be connected separ-ately to the public sanitary sewer system. The curb,acutR, owed 'rsC osroon drive cut �ontoa 95thll �Rvenyet be IYC adjacent :to the Tr �,. cuts at the intersection of 95th & North Dakota shall-tae a rninierura o 30 feet from the intersection right--of-way lines of said roadways• FINAL 0ROER 66- � PC (S 9-96 & y 11-66) Page 6 lh. After review and approval by the planning Director and Public Works shall be recorded with 'tiashington County. Director, the Final Plat' 16. A it's dot side carr setback $hall be required along the southern boundary o¢; Lot 11. A minimum side yard setback of 5 feet shall be required on ;the north side of the lot. 17. A sidewalk shall be provided along the entire length of the north side of the common driveway. 18, This agzPro�+al is validif exercised within one year of the final approval date below. It is further ordered that the applicant be notified of the entry of this order. ' PASSED. -chis day of May, 1986, by the Planning Commission of the City of Tigard.. A DonaldMoen,President Tigard"Planning Commission (2562P) # m _ T 6iL fiRDFR 8G- A.:..,____PC (S 9-86 & V 7.1-85} Page 7 CITY OF TIGARD NOTICE OF DECISION HOP 11-86 APPLICATION- Request by rayed Shafie Ayar for a home occupation 'permit for 'a wholesale flamer distribution b siness (d.b.a "`Afghan Rose € Novelties") on property ,zoned CBD; (Central Business District). Location: 12345 SW Hall Blvd. (WCTM 2SJ. 2AA Lot 3301). DECISION: , Notice is hereby given that the Planning Director for- the City of Tigard has APPROVED the above application subject to certain conditions. The findings, and conclusions on which the Director based his decision are as noted below. A. FINDING OF FACT r 1: Background No previous applications have been reviewed by the Planning Department for this property. 2. Vicinity Information Properties to the south, west, and north are all Toned CBD gym_, (Central Business District). Properties to the east are all zoned R-4.5 ,(SingleFamily Residential, 4.5 units per acre). :3. Site Inforration and Proposal Description' The Tigard Terrace apartment complex presently occupies the site. It had 24 units. fhe applicant's unit is approximately 300 square feet and he, proposes to use nine square feet for the business. The applicant will occupy the remainder of t:he apartment. The business as proposed will not occupy' more than 25% of the apartment. 4. Agency and Neo Comments NPO #1 will be notified of the Director's decision and wi1.1 be given the right to appeal. E3. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION The proposal meets the provisions set forth in Chapter 10.142 of; the Tigard Municipal Code. C. DECISION Home Occupation Permit HOP 11-06 is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. There shall be no paid employees working in the apartment in q conjunction with the business who are not residents of the home, NOTICE.' OF DECISION HOp 1J.--86 - PAGE I 3 { �y 2. There shall be no signs or advertising visible from the exterior of the premises`. V. 3. There shall be N£1 customers or clients coming to the residence in r conjunction with the 'business. 4. The Home Occupation Permit 'shall be renewed annually. . A Business Tax shall be paid annually for the business. 6. There she.11 be no noise emitted from the residence connected with the business which is audible to abutting residences. There shall see no outdoor stor•agge of materials, vehicles or 7. Ts on the premises, storage of material or products product sail not exceed the limitations imposed by the provisions of the Building, Fire, viealth, and Housing Codes. tT. This approval is valid if exercised within one year of the final decision>date`noted below.' PROCEDURE 1, ii tice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall and mailed to: ' XXX The applicant & owners *.- LXX Owners of record within the required distance Xie The affected Weig hbor•hood Planning Organization xXX Affected governmental agencies 2, final Decision: THE DECISION SHALL DE FINAL ON May 29, 2986 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS F IL.ED. 3 AP_t_eal Any Party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with 'Section- 18.32.290(A) and Section 18.32.370 of t:he Community Development Code which provides that a written appeal must bo 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 29 1986 4, Questions: 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. r ate,/3 PREtaFurn 1 De orah tuart, A;sssiistant Planner DATE i m A. Monahan, Director of Planning & DeveloPMOnt DAl"E APPROVED (DAS:bs33) N01,ICE 'O t)E t IS t.UiV: - HU€> 11.--€6 PAt;}_ I.. : A CI'lD OF TIGlRD NOTICE OF -MENDED DECISION MINOR LAND PARTITIONS ?-%P -2-86 APPLICATION: A request by Wes Larson (Owner: Sven Kvarnstrom) to divide a 3..44 acre parcel into 3 parcels of 1.44, 1.00, and 1.00acres`each on property zoned R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units per acre). Located: 11405 Sid Walnut Street (WCTM 2S1 3AB lot 500). DECISION: Notice is hereby given that the Planning Director for the City of Tigard has APPROVED the above 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 MLP 2--86 was approved with conditions on May 8, 1986. Due to abutting residents' concerns about the loss of trees and after a field visit and discussion with the applicant, it seems' appropriate to address these concerns and their conformance to the Tigard Tree Removal ordinance. A X 2. Vicinity Information Properties immediately to the east, south, and west are in Washington rr County. Properties to the north and northwest are ,in Tigard and are zoned R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units acre). One property to the east with frontage on Walnut is in Tigard and is also zoned R-4.5. 3. Site Information and Proposal Description A 1720 square foot residence is located on the southeast corner of the property. A 275 square foot temporary barn is located on the western edgeof the property. The parcel has 38 feet of frontage on Walnut Street. The applicant proposes to establish three lots of 1.44, 1.00, and 1.00 acres in size, with the largest of the three farthest from the street. An avoroximately 854 foot accessway will wind from Walnut Street along the entrance driveway and around the first lot and then 25 feet servicing the two rear lots. The access drive will be shared by all three lots. The actual pavement width required is 24 feet within the 38footwide access strip, 20 feet wide, up to lot 2, and 10 feet up to lot 3. (See condition 7. , page 3. k 4. Agency and NPO Comments The Tualatin. Rural Fire District has the following comments: A turnaround area will be required at the end of the driveway. A "hammerhead" arrangement with each end being approximately 45 feet long and20feet wide, at each end is acceptable. NOTICE Or DECISION MLP 2-86 Page_ 1 ro r. The Engineering Division has- 'the following comments: a. A public sanitary sewer line and easement are present along the northern 420 feet of the western property line. A public easement ,,; outhern manhole in order to provide should be provided south of the s access to<the sewer system for the southern lot (Lot h, It should be confirmed that the drainfield serving the property to the south (Tax Lot 5001) does not encroach upon the subject property. c. Walnut Street is designated as a major collector route that requires' . a 30 foot; right-of-way width from centerline. ` C. A non-remonstrance agreement should be signed regarding any future local improvement district for street and storm sewer work that may be needed along Walnut Street, ' Pio other comments have been received. B. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION le,i . The proposed partitioning is consistent with the minimum lot size of the R-4.5 - zone (7x500 sa ft,) as well as most other requirements of the Community Development Cade. The division will be consistent with the ch azacter o€ the surrounding area, The northern two lots and, to a lesser extent,' the third lot, are all covered with a good deal of invasive vegetation,' secondary trees, firs, and i evergreens, The City's tree removal ordinance has as its purpose the prohibition o€ the unnecessary removal of trees on undeveloped lots. Mosi. of the largest . trees are situated along the western edge of the three lots where the proposed .a. access and driveway will be. Therefore, Tree Removal Permits shall be obtained as per Section 18.150,020 of the Code which states that no person shall cut a tree(s) upon private or public . : property without first obtaining a permit from the City." Tree Removal Permits are required for all `trees having a 'trunk 6 inches or more in diameter, �+ feet above ground leve?.. Through the tree_removal permit process, the applicant will hopefully achieve a winding driveway which spares as many trees as possible and p properties to leaves intact a small tree buffer for the western neighboring P P enjoy, G. DECISION 'n Director approves MLP 2-86 subject to the following conditions: The Plann� g 1, UNLESS JTHEETJISE NOTED, ALL CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET PRIOR TO RECORDING • THE PARTITION WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY. 2, The partition survey and legal descriptions shall be submitted to the r Planning Director for review and approval. The City shall. record the necessary documents after approval unless other arrangements are made ' with the Director, <; 2-86 Page 2 NOTICE OF DECISION 14LP - i r 3. Sanitary sewer connection plan-profile details for each lot shall be provided as part of the building improvement plans. The existing building shall be 'connected to the publicsanitary sewerage system. 4. Construction of proposed public improvements shall not commence until after the Engineering Section has issued approved public improvement plans. The 'Section will require posting of a 1007 Performance Bond, the payment of a permit fee and a sign installation/streetlight fee. Also', the execution of a street opening permit or construction compliance of approved ',public improvement plans. ,'SEE TIIE ENCLOSED HANDOUT'GIVING MORE -- ' 'SPECIFIC INFORMATION REGARDING FEE SCHEDULES, BONDING AND AGREEMENTS. S. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Public along the Sod 'Walnut Street frontage to increase the right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline. - The description for said dedication shall be tied to the existing right-of--way centerline as established by Washington County. The'dedication document shall be on City 'forms and approved by the, Engineering Section. DEDICATION FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS ARE ENCLOSED. 6. All. lots shall utilize a comm=on driveway access to Walnut Street. A joint else and maintenance agreement for the common driveway shall be recorded withthepartitioning map and a copy of the recorded document(s) shall be submitted to the Planning Director. 7. Prior to occupant' of any residences on lots 2 and 3, the driveway shall `4 be paved. ' The required pavement width is 24 feet within the 38 foot wide access strip. 20 feet up to lot 2 and 10 feet up to 'the residence in lot 3. 8. A non--remonstrance agreement shall be signed regarding any future local improvement district for street and storm sewer work that affects the proposed lots (EOR�IS ENCLOSED). 5. Valid tree removal permits must be obtained as per Chpater 18. 150 of the Cou munity Development Code prior to the development pertaining to all three lots. 10. This approval is'valid is executed within one yar of the final approval -date noted below. D. , PROCEDURE 1. Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Nall and mailed to: P.% The applicant & owners owners of record within the required distance )M The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization s Affected governmental agencies 44r: 2. Final 'Decision THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON May 27 �1986 UNLESS AN APPEAL t . IS FILED. ClI10E w''.DECI51t7N MAY 2--36 i'tas c :3 f Any party to the decision may a�pl;eaT this decision in acseogdazzc� with section 18.32.290(A) and Section 18.322.370 of the Ca=vnity Development Cade,61hic1 provided that a written appeal must be filed with the CIS RECORDFR within 10 days a'ft6r notice is:giaemm and sent. Pa 27. 1986 The des Thine fax filing of an aPPe is 2t3® �?2 � " 4. L�ti��z:s$; If you here any questia�zs3, please call the City of r Tigard F]asszsin& Department, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SSS ;1a1T Boulevard,' FO Boa 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223, 639-x4171 F Al i3 By: I1elxaraya A. Stuart,A 11;j Asst. Planner DATE to Ent Director F1AZf EtP ;, Ts A. Aiazaa ;zz, zyrs�aza � Ibeve 1 35' m I ' Hie," b I . g 9 . c a ,y $ NOTICE 'OF #}-XISION a, 1105 g ii E11 Iffli: t ' CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 86—_Z:/,€'C A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND C0��3CLUSIO�IS WHICH DENIES AN APPLICATION FOR A SIGN COLE EXCEPTION (SCE 5-86) REQUESTED BY MARILYN HUDSON, The Tigard planning Commission reviewed the above application at a public hearing on May 20, 1986. The Commission based its decision on the facts, findings and conclusions noted below. A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: Sign Code Exception SCE 5-86 REQUEST: To allow for an 8 square foot expansion of a non—conforming sign which is approximately 88 square feet in size. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial General ZONE: DESIGNATION: C—G (Commercial General) APPLICANT: Toes Brian Owner: Marilyn Hudson b 12950 Std Pacific Highway 13267 SW Bull Mtn. Road Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97224 LOCATION: 12900 SW Pacific Highway (WCTM ZS1 28D, T.L. 1900) 2. Background Several Site Development Review approvals have been granted by tho City for office/commercial use on the subject property as wall as the par-001 immediately west: (SDR 11-'75, SDR 36-78, SDR 27-84). 3. Vicinity Information The property adjoins commercial development to the southwest. �sncl otho similar uses are located on the opposite sides of Walnut Place and P.acific Highway. Apartments which are zoned R-12 (Residential, 12 unitx/acrd abut the property to the rear. 4. Site Information and Proposal Description The property is occupied by a small office center. As nested abov . thv existing sign is88square feet in size. the ,Code, allows for frov standing signs that are a. maximum of 70 square feat per sidc with ;gin additional square foot of sign area allowed for every one foot of svtbkckk from the property line up to a maximum of 90 square foot, FINAL ORDER NO. 06----/-'7—pc SCE 5_.86 Page 1. The applicant is Proposing to increase the sign area by eight square feat. This will be accomplished with a one foot by eight foot addition .> along the, I bottom of , the sign. it is indicated that the exception is r quested to allose the retention of the time and temperature features on the sign. The frgineering Division and the:State' Highway Division have no, objection �. to the request. i The Building inspection division indicates that the proposal will increase tho non--conformity of the existing sign. Since this portion of Pacific kighway has a high percentage of conforming ,signs, it is recosrunQnated that this request request be denied. NpO #1 is opposed to the proposal because of the precedent that could be set for establishing ;new or modified signs 'which exceed established City, standards. B. FINDINGS AND WNCLUSION The approval criteria for reviewing Sign Code Exception are contained in Section 8.114.345 of ;the Community development Code. The .Planning Co ission concludes that the relervaant Community tl�veio nt Code require nts have not been met based upon the findings boles: 1. In Girder to justify an exception to the 3icre code,` one of the f olldt,jinc� three criteria ��a�C ig.22� i�5a a=zust ae S&tisfied: a. The proposed Sign code exception is necessary because a conforming .building or sign on an adjacent property would limit the view of a 'sign erected on the site in conformance with the 3igr. code standards. b. The proposed exception to the hight limits in the sign code is necessary to mdse the sign visible from the street because of the topography of the site. C. There is an access drive which services the business or service from a street; other than the street on which the business is located. 2. The proposed exception does not relate to the above criteria because conforming structures do not inhibit visibility of the sign and height limitations and additional driveway access points are not an issue. The sign .is non—conforming because it does not meet present a Cocke standards.' Such signs are to be brought into conformance by ilarch 20, 1958. This proposal will only worsen the non--conforming character of the sign, and 'possibly set a precedent for eaepase3iost;af either nofa®confoiming signs along;Pacific Highway and elsewhare. ' FINAL ORDER MO. 06_L: PC SCE 5-66 Page 2 C C, DECISION Based upon the findings and conclusions noted above, the Planning Tsihission denies SCE 5--86. It is further ordered that the applicant be notified of the entry of this order'. PASSED: This day of May, 1986 icy; the Planning Commission of the City of Tigard. A. Donald Moen, President Tigard Planning Commission (2556P) I i='�:i�A ORDER NO. 86— / PC SCE 5_8� Page 3 i WRAA CITY OF TIGARD Washington County, Oregon ' NOTICE OF IltdAL ORDER ,— 81 PLa1 IXG COM8SI{)V . Concerning Case Number(s): S 8-86 and V 9M-86 2: Name r,f owner: Samuel A. Gotter III . Name of Applicant: Same Address 7710 SW Gentlevoods Dr. City_Tigardv�State OR Zip 97224 Vocation of Property: Address Between the western end of Inez Street and SW 97th s Tax Map and Lot 31o(s). 251 " 1 ISA lot 14+00 e5. Hature of Application: Request to divide a 1.37 acre-parcel into 6 lots with a minimum size of ;78500 ss1< ft. and to allow a cul-de-sac, of 6 :fit. ka isnilth ere.a maximum of is required. . ion:. . pcoval.` as requested pt-oVa3., with condatamns ;Denial ` 7. U,c - ins{. au kistae inthi nom c it nail and waive d o:` . ll.'s The applicant A owners MA odniers of record within. the:required distgnee 4 3lX The affected Meig,'fiborhooad`Flarating OrSanizatiora Affected governmental agencies S. .Final Decision: THE DECISION SHALL RE FINAL ON Tune 10, 1986 usL9SS AN APPRAL 13 FILED. The adopted findings of fact, decision, and statezi6nt of coeidi.tilon tan be obtained from the Planning Department, Tigard City; Hall, 13125 SW Hall, P.O. Pox 23397,,Tigard, Oregon 97223. , 9. A eal: Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance. with 1H.32.29fltA) and Section 18.32.370 which provides that a wri.ttgn appeal May-be filet: �ithin 10 clays rafter notice is given and sent ' Ttt� deadline for filing of an appeal3.30 PM June 10tis a 1986 . Z£i 7 If ya¢u laove az{rir; ciue"stidnsg please c€tl.l the City of `ligat=a tent. 63,9'-'lf.l l.v X0257`"1?`) CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 86- _-Z.5 PC A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS,W4lICN APPROVES AN APPLICATION FOR A SUBDIVISION (S 8-86) AND VARIANCE (V 9-86) REQUESTED BY SAMUEL GONER. The Tigard Planning Commission reviewed the above application at a public hearing .on May 20, 1986. The Commission' based its decision on the facts, findings, and conclusions noted below`: A. FACTS 1, General Information CASE: Subdivision S 8-86 u Variance V 9-86 ,REQUEST: To divide a 1.37 acre parcel into 6 lots with a minimum size of 7,500` square feet and to allow a cul-de-sac of 600 feet in length where a maximum length of 400 feet is required. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential ZONING DESIGNATION: R-4.5 (Residential 4.5 units/acre) APPLICANT: Samuel A. Gotter III' OWNER: Same 7710 SW Gentlewoods Dr. Tigard, OR 97224 LOCATION: Between the western end of Inez Street and 97th Avenue (6ncTM 2S1 11BA, T.L. 1400) 2. Back sound A similar proposal to create a seven lot subdivision on the subject property was denied by Planning Commission on March 4, 1966 (S 2-86/V 1-86)• 3. Vicinity Information The area on the east side of 97th Avenue is zoned R.4-5 and includes similar small acreage parcels to the north, single family residences on 8,000 to 12,000 square foot lots to the east and Twality Junior High School to the South. The land on the west side of 97th Avenue is zoned R-3.5 (Residential, 3.5 units/acre) and it consists of a combination of small acreage tracts and single family residences. 4. Site Information and Proposal Description The property is undeveloped and except fur a number of large t:r•ces near the, and a, garden area. The eastern property line, it is covered with grass terrain slopes down gradually from west to east. A ten foot wide strip provides the only frontage on 97th Avenue and the southeastern corner of the parcel abuts the terminus of Inez Street- FINAL ORDER NO. 06- �� PC S 9-86 & V 9-86 PAGE 1 Theapplicant proposes to: extend Inez Street, ' form a 600 foot lose cul•-fie-sac, ar:d create six lots for single family residences. A Portion ' of the street extension will utilize an assisting 40 foot wide street right--of-easy which lids between the subject, property and the; junior high School. The remaining g right of WMY will be Vacated. 5. r4Sency and WPO C-owents The Engineering Division has the following comments': a. The eight :otst waaie pedestrian,-bike path should he installed front the proposed cul-cae-sac to 97th Avenue. A twenty foot wide public right-of- a should be reserved for the path or a public easement should be created. b. The applicant should be responsible for initiating procedures for vacating arae 'remaining -portions of the Inez Street right--of--way. ,c. Due to the amount of school age children needing safe access, the absence of a sidewalk on the south side of Inez is not recommended unless an appropriate alternative can be developed with the school district. The Buildintginspection Division indicates that the method for providing sanx' ary orad.stars m sewer-facilities should be clarified. MM,96,has no objections to the proposal. The aaaalaatin Rural Fire Protection District has no objectissn to the request. No, other co=ents have been received. S FT 3L33did S AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 2.:1.1, 6.3.3, 7.1.2, 7.3.1, 3.4.4, 5.1.1, 5.1.3, and 8. 3.1 and Chapters 10.50, 1e`.92, le.150, 18.160, and 10.164 of the Community Development Code. The Planning Cor.€ac+ission concludes that the proposal is consistent with the relevant ';portions of the Comprehensive Plan based upon the findings noted below: a. Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because the Neighborhood Planning 0 -inizaation and surrounding property owners were;given notice of the hearing and an opportunity to coument on the applicant's proposal. b. Policy 6.3.3 is met because the single family residential devQlop:sant is compatiblewith the character of this "established ares:". C. Policy 7.1.2, 7.3.1, and 7..4.4°are satisfied because adequatQ tester, sewer, . stor-6 drainage facilities are available to the devela ' nt. Tl�d s.pplicant alaso indicates that these facilities wi11 be � vieia�d wi-thin the subdivision as required by the City standards., { FINAL_ ORDER NO. 06 A PC S 8-96 �, V 9--€6 PAGE 2 s �. d, Paling 8.1.1 is satisfied; because the proposed cul--de—sac will provide for a safe and efficient transportation system by providing a terminus of this portion of Inez Street which meet City and Fire District standards, except for cul-de—sac length which is discussed below, In orderto provide adequate access to the residential area north of the school, the City has followed a policy of having Inez, View Terrace or Mountain View extended west to 97th Avenue when development occurs. From a traffic circulation standpoint, at least one of these streets should connect with 97th Avenue. The applicant has provided justification for a cul—de-sac on Inez Street which is based primarily upon two factors. First, there is a shorn, but relatively;, steep slope immediately east of 97th Avenue which would require a significant amount of cut and fill. The extension of view Terrace ' or mountain View would not face this difficulty. Also, a` preliminary plat approval,, which has sauce expired, included an extension of (fountain View to 97th. Second, an intersection of Inez and 97th would occur in close proximity to a main driveway for the junior high school which would result in a traffic safety hazard. satisfied when the 'conditions of approval e. Policy 8.1.3 will be relatingto street improvements are completed; f. Policy 8.4,1 calls for the 'provision of safe and convenient bicycle portion of the cit A and pedestrian' access to all po, y bieycler'pedestraan lann is in place on the west side of 97th Avenue r and eventually such a facility will be in place can the;east vide, as well. The bicycle/pedestrian path shows on the 'plat is consistent with this 'policy ,and is appropriate given the significant amount of bicycle and pedestrian traffic generated by Twality Junior 'Hag&e School and Templeton elementary School. The Planning Commission concludes that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of the Community Development Cede based upon the findings noted below: 1. Chapters 18.50 (R-4.5 zone) and 18.92 (Density computations) are satisfied because each lot complies with the minimum lot size standard of 7,500 square feet 2. Chapter 18.150 (Tree Removal) requires that City approval , must ,be granted -before any trees with a trunk diameter of 6 inches or greater, some of the trees at the eastern end of the property will need to be removed but is expected chat the maximum number of trees will be retained for buffering purposes. 3. Chapter 10.160 (Land Division--subdivision) is satisfied including section 18,160.120 which contains the following criteria for granting a 'variance to the maximum 'length'of the cul-de—sac (400 feet). a. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the " property which are unusual and peculiar to the land as compared d to other lards similarly situated: FINAL ORDER NIO. 86-- S 8--86 & 'V 9--96 PAGE 3 , b. The variance is "necessary for the proper design or function of the subdivision. t c. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare ,or, injurious to the rights of other owners of property; and d, The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a, substantial property right because of an extraordinary hardship which would result from strict compliance with the regulation of this ordinance. When Penrose Terrace subdivision was developed, it was apparently intended that Inez Street would be extended into the subject property, possibly to 97th Avenue. Tose length of Inez Street from its intersection with 93rdAvenue and the subject property' is 330 feet.' The proposed 600 foot long cul-de--sac is necessary to ,;provide prosier access to the subdivision. A street connection to 97th Avenue is a second alternative which is not as 'desirable because of the relatively steep grade adjacent to 97th Avenue and the close proximity to a driveway to the south' which serves the jun€or, high school. The subdivision would probably function properly s,,aath either "a cul-de-sac or through street, but for the reasons noted move, a. culAe-sac is preferable.' Also, appropriate emergency .access' can be, provided. The variance will not be detrimental in any way and the +.Y additional length over required , 40E7 foot' standard contained in Section 18,164.030(k) is justified. 4. Chapter 18.164 (Street and Utility Improvement Standards) is satisfied except for Section. 18.164.030(k) which is the subject of the variance proposal noted above and the 600 Foot length is appropriate. In summary, •the proposal subdivision will be consistent with City policies and standards if modified as discussed above. It is essential that the developer' work closely with the Tigan school OisatriCt to provide 'appropriate bicycle and pedestrian connections between the school and adjoining neighborhood. C. DECISION Based upon the findings, and conclusion above,, the ;Planning Commission approves G 8-86 and V 9-86 subject to the following conditions: 1. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET PRIOR TO RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT. 2. Standard street improvements including base, pavement, sidewalks, curbs, ramps, streetlights, driveway aprons, storm drainage and utilities <shall be installed along the proposed cul--de-sac rasfAdwgy, a Said improvements shall be built to city local street -standards and conform to the alignment of existing adjacent improvements. FINAL ORDER NO. 06 _PC S 8--86 & V 9-86 PACE 4 3. Seven (7) sets of pian—profile public improvement construction plans and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate, stampod by j aRegistered Professional Civil Engineer, detailing all proposed publicimprovements shall be submitted to the Engineering Section' for approval'. 4. Sanitary sewer domestic water and storm sewer system plan--profile details<shall' be provided an pert of .the public improvement pians.' , b. Construction of proposed public improvements shall not cogoaence until � - after the Engineering Section has issued approved public improvement plans. The Sections will require posting of a 100% performance, bond, the payment of a permit fee and a sign installation/streetlight foe. Also, the execution of ' a construction compliance agreement shall occur prior to, or concurrently with the issuance of ;approved public improvement plans. ' . SEE THE ENCLOSED HANDOUT GIVING MORE bPEC:IF_IC INFORMATION REGAd30Id C FEE St`P.EOULES 80014DING AND AGREEMENTS. 6. Street Centerline Monumentation - a: In `accordance with 0RS 92.060 subsection (2), the centerlines of 5. all street and roadway rights--of--essay shall be monumented before ,. the City shall accept a street improvement. b. All centerline sronuments shall be :places in a monument box conforming to City standards, and -the top of all monument boxes � r. shall be: set at design finish grade of said street or roadway. C. The following centerline monuments shill be set: d r 1) All centerline--centerline intersection. Intersections created with "collector" or 'other existing streets, shall be set schen the centerline alignment of said "collector" or g other street has been established by or for the City; 2) Center of all cul—de-sacs; 3) Curve points, points of intersection (P.I.) when their position falls inside the limits of the pavement otherwise beginning and ending points (B.C. and E.C.). 4) All sanitary and storm locations shall be placed in positions that do not interfere with cantcarline °. monumentations. Q. An 8 fast wide bic,cle/pedestrian path, and accompanying ,20 foot wide ._ public right-of--way or easement, shall be installed between the and of the cul--de-sac and 97th Avenue which meets City standards as determined by the Engineering Division. 9. A sidewalk shall be installed along the south side of Ines Street which:meets City standards. . In lieu of this condition, an alternate method of.terminating the existing southern sidewalk, which as acceptable to the Tigard School District, may be approved by tho Planning Director.' FINAL ORDER NO. g6— s'• PC S 8-06 1f 3-86 RACE b iD. The sinus pardon o the existing Inez Street right—of-Way shall be vacated and said vacation shall be initiated by the applicant. See Lareea's W4Ison at City; Hallfor further information. 11. A true cutting pare-nit shall be olstais�ed prior to the removal of any trees with a tnk diameter of 6 inches or greater. 12 Anter review and a €pz^ovaI by the Planning Director and City EnginaQr, the Final Plat shall be recorded with Washington County. 1?. This approval zs valid one-if exercised within onyear of the final decision date Mated below. It is further ordered that the applicant be notified of the entry of this order. ; PASSED: This day of May, 1996 by the Punning Commission of the City of Tigard. A. Donald Moen,";President r Tigard Planning Commission e a e x 7 g €iF"AL ORDER IC9. Sys— / PC S 9-06 & c1 9-06 PAGE 6 .k .... e CITY OF TIG&RD Washington County, Oregon 1 UOTICE Op FjaAL ORD29 - BY,PLAN1+UG COMISSION 1. Conceming Case Number(s): SCE 5-86 2. Name of Owner: Marilyn; Hudson 17- 3. game of Applicant: Tam Brian f Fiddress ,12950 SW Pacific Hwy. City Tigard State OR zip 93223 k. Location of 'Property: Address 12900 SW Pacific Hwy. Tax Map and Lot No(s). 2S1 2BD lot 1900 `V 5. filature of Application: Request to allow for an 8 sq. ft expansion of a non- conforming ,sign :which s.s� a' ppro Mate y 38 sq. ft. in size. fs. Action: Approval as requested Approval with conditions ; Denial 7. Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper. posted at Cit; '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 S. Final Decision: 'THE DECISION SHALL.'BE FINAL ON June '10,._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, 13125 SW Hal.1, P.O. Box 2:397, Tigard, Oregon 97223. 9. Appeal:, Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with ' 18.32.290(A) and Section 18.32.370 which provides that a written appu 'L may be filed within 10 days after notice is given and sent. The deadline for filing of an appeal is_ 3:30 PM_W!June 10, 1986 10. uesti.ons: If you have any questions. plause call thn- Citi -;o€ Ti gArd Planning Uepartrtent, :639-4171, (0257x) '. t °s t S � 1.• g�- CITY,k)F•TIGARD ' NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION MINOR LAND_PARTITION !-%P 2--86 APPLICATION: A request by Wes Larson (Owner: Sven ;Kvarnstrom) to divine a3.44 acre parcel into 3 parcels of 1.44, 1.00, and 1.00 acres each on property zoned R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units per acre). Located: 11405 Std Walnut Street' (WCTM 2S1 ;3AB lot.500). DECISION: Notice is hereby, given that the Planning Director for the'City of r Tigard has APPROVED the above application subject to certain conditions. The findings and conclusions on which the Director based his decision are as noted below: A. FINDING OF FACT Background. MLP 2-86 was approved with conditions on May 8, 1936. Due to abutting residents' concerns about the loss of trees and after a field visit and discussion with the applicant, it seems appropriate to address these concerns and their conformance to the Tigard Tree Removal ordinance. 1 2. Vicinity information Properties immediately ;to the east, south, and west are in Washington County. Properties to the north and northwest are in Tigard and are r .� eazoned R-45 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre). One property the east with s frontage on Walnut is in Tigard and is also zoned R-4.5. 3. Site Information and Proposal Description A 1720 square foot residence is located on the southeast corner of the property. A 275 square foot temporary barn is located on the. wesrern edge of the property. The parcel has 38 feet of frontage on Walnut Street The applicant proposes to establish three lots of. 11.44, 1,00, and 1.00 acres in size, with the largest of the three farthest from the street. ` An aonroximately 854 foot accesswav :Jill wird from Walnut: Street along the entrance driveway and around the first lot and then. 25 feet servicing the two rear lots. 'rhe access drive will bt shared by al.l three lots. The actual pavement width required is'24 f(-2! 'i.thi;; nck _3S fool wide access strip, 20 feet wide uh to lot a . lti [r'+'i at_} t ,' tet 3. (See condition:7. , pagc 3 c; 4. Agency and NPO C;onm,e�i is Thc Tualatl :i it:i' A torn.,:rLJUTId rc;1 wi 1 l "e'atUi 1 cil it >. .t"3. A .;' "futauuenc�a�l" arr•:nye"v,ii; .•.•Ll!. c �'li ^rtd btr, ipi,. ";t�arr1�• 45 .T long and 20 leet wick ;)t �:;icli tnd is acrep! )hli•. x k ' � r „. The Engineering Division hasj W the followingcomments: x a. A public sanitary sewer line and easement are present along the northern 420 feet of the western property line. A public easement should be provided south of the southern manhole in order to provide access to the sewer'system for the southern lot (Lot 1). h. It should be confirmed that the drainfield serving the property to the south (Tax Lot 500) does not encroach upon the subject property. C. Walnut Street is designated as a major collector route that requires a` 30 foot right-of--way *idth from centerline. c. A non-remonstrance agreement should be sigrird retarriing any future local improvement district for ,street and storm sewer work that may be needed- along Walnut Street. LIT other comments have been received. B. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION The proposed partitioning is consistent with the minimum lot size of the R-4.5 zone (7,500 sq. ft.) as well .as most other requirements of the Community Development Code. The division will be consistent with th(; character of the surrounding area. ' The"northern two lots `and, `to a lesser extent, the third': lot are all covered with a good deal of invasive vegetation, secondary trees; firs, and evergreens. The City's tree removal ordinance has a r . purpose the prohibition of the unnecessary removal, of trees on undeveloped ia..5. Most of the• largest trees' are situated along the western edge of the three )c-ts where the proposed access and driveway will, be. Therefore, Tree Removal Permits shall be obtained as per Section 18. 150.020 of the Code which- states that no person shall cut. a trees) _upon private or public property :.without first obtaining a permit_ from th( G LV- Tree Removal. Permits are, required for all trees having a trunk b inches or ;not in .name er., 4 Feet above. ground level. Through the tree removal. permit ff Cti applicant will hopefully achieve a winding driveway which spare is uany trees as possible and leaves intact a -small tree buffer for the western -ie properties. '� propeties to enjoy. C. DECISION "The Planning Director, apf.r v S MLP 2-8f soli,jec i.i,; itt i , :. T itions: J. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL CC;'vDTTM. Sll;v.� a!; a':'i 1'i.,l).: `;'C tZf3C:ORf)LilG TFiE PARTITION WTTTfJ WAS J1'LK Tn`: COU. T1'. 2. The part;tioo survey ai,d 1cr,t,tic. :aYi tc, the Planttln�"IJareCCOr 1. ! "eVL�,b: lMd 'tppr )`7..i.. !+ ' ' 'J }.•. Y,1 the ncccssary documents -fttet .-i proval unto r .ir(, urdde wit17 the Director'. s NOTICE OF DECISION INIA! ,t 3. Sanitary sewer connection plan--profile details for each lot shall, be provided as part of the building improvement plans'. The existing ta building shall tae connected to the pubiic'sanitary sewerage system. 4. Constratction of proposed public improvements shall not commence until after. 'the Engineering Section has issued approved public improvement plans. The Section will require posting of a 100% Performance Ronda the payment .of a pe rms.t fee and a sign installation/streetlight fee. Also, the execution of a street opening permit or construction compliance of approved public improvement plans. SEE THE ENCLOSED HANDOUT GIVING MORE SPECIFIC INFORMATION REGARDING FEE SCHEDULES, BONDING AND AGREEMENTS. ~r 5. Additional right--of—way shall be dedicated to the Public along the SW Walnut Street frontage to increase the right—of-way to 30 feet from centerline. The description for said dedication shall be tied to the existing right--of—way centerline as established by Washington County. The dedication document` shall be on City forms and approved by the Engineering Section. DEDICATION FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS ARE ENCLOSED, 6. All lots shall utilize a common driveway access to Walnut Street. A joint use and maintenance agreement for the common driveway shall be recorded with the partitioning map.and a copy of the recorded document(s) shall be submitted to the Planning Director. 7. Prior to occupany of any residences on lots 2 and 3, the driveway shall be paved. The required;, pavement width is 24 feet within the 33 foot wide access strip., 20 feet up to lot 2 and E0 feet up to ;the residence in lot 3. S. A non-remonstrance agreement ,shall be signed regarding any future local improvement district for street and storm sewer work that affects the proposed lots (FOKIS ENCLOSED). 9. Valid tree removal permits must be obtained as per Cheater 13. E50 of the Community Development Code prior to the development aertaning to all three lots'. 10. This approval is valid is executed within one,yar of the final approval date noted below. D. PROCEDURE I . Notice: Notice was published in-the n wspap i", posCc at: City Hall a and inail:ed fo: XX The applicant & owners XX Owners of record within the required distance XX The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization XX Affected governmental agencies L. Final Decision THE DECISION SHAI,L BE t,INAI, ON M,3Y 2i � � - -- UNI.f SS AN APPEAL IS FILED. I Rny party to the decision may gppeai this decision in aecxia�isnac� with M� sio Section 13.32.370 Of the Com=nity Devolopment Section 18.32'.290(A) eel r must he filed with the Cl�d Code.which provides thaat a written app .„ yORLglt within 10 days a(ft6 notice is "given Q, sent. .• ai is 2230 MHay27® 'l986 The deadline for fibro$ Of an appy s - 4. �ueaticene� if you have any que��ion�, please ca&1 the City of Tigard Panning Delszngtsnt, Tigard City i�sl !3125 Sid Hall,Boulevarda0 Box 23397, Tig$rd, Aragon 97223, Ile r+ DATE A TD !3y° Deborah A. SwS.�arC, �.ssC. Planner P D 6 �r axi A. Mona an, Cor nunIt Develo rt Director Dt� t TT ^ p ei wFe>Qa4 .T. '.eDa t 'T 3.n35 FOWL It = SCKOOL p.a' tti e.e pew d _ 4 � ` ,� it t t� .. z r I CITY OF TIGARDa OREGON f°_ COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM—SUMMARY f AGENDA OF: June 9. 1986 AGENDA ITEM N: DATE 'SUBMITTED: PREVIOUS ACTION: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: C:I.P. Status : r Report — a31f 1986 PREPARED 8Y: Randa11 R. Woo.ley REQUESTED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: _ POLICY ISSUE A report on the status of the various projects in the CIF and LID programs. � INFORMATION SUMMARY Attached is the monthly report on-CIP projects as of May 31, 1986. T—J' ALTERWATWES CONSIDERED 1, Receive information report; no formal action required SUGGESTED ACTION Receive reports; no action required. (RRW:br/2503P) F CP PITAL :TMRRROVEMENT=PROGRAM STATUS REPORT . May 31, 1986 ST-1 Resurfacirq of ;Fairview Latae, Fairview Court : 116th ;Place Bid opening is scheduled for June 26,, 1986.- Resaarfacins� f ?�t�! Htt� Far.9ci Bid ,opening is scheduled or June 16, 1936. yT- P°aorth Dakota Street Resurfacing and Reconstruction (90th to 95th Bid opening tentatively scheduled for July., 1,986. QT-4 nw 104th vanue Reconstruction Bid opening tentatively scheduled For July, 1986.. ST-5 - Com ercial Street Connection This: project has been delayed because the necessary right-ref-way is not avai labl.e. ST-6 - Tiedeman Avenue Realignment Property owners have tentatively agreed to ,provide the required right---of--way. Consultant proposal has ;been requested for final ,design.. ST-7h h Dakota Street Realir�nment at 115ih Avenue Contract ,for final design engineering; services is to be considered 'by the Council on Jane 9 3.986. - ea?i ��snent of 79th Avenue R at Bonita ;Road This project is t' J constructed in conjunction with devre.louient of Jura Woods Subdivision. The subdivision plans are being .reviewed.. ST--9 - 'Rain Street Ianp"aves,ent stud Engineering work has begun. ST--10 - Hunziker Str•e2t Rea11!3nment Study Erygineer's report is Complete. Tentatively sciViedu7ed to be ;reviewed with NPO .#1 and #fib in June. ST-11 -_Ta^affac igm� Signalat Greenbung Road and Tiedean .Ati onue To be designed by the state as a Federal slid Pro,lect.. The `Federal Aid Project Request will be submitted for Council approval on :June 9th. ST-12 - Traffic Sx!3naY at Soh©lls Ferret Rgad and Worth Dakota Street Construction has begun and is scheduled for completion by June 15.. ST-13 - iaaffac Sinal at Burnham Street and Riall :Blvd,.: For a joint State/City ',project for An agreement is being prepared rt widening and signalization at the intersection.. When the agreement is prepared. it will be submitted for Council review:. Y' rf--14 - 6raFfic Sinal at hall Blvd.. -and McDonald Street ODOT agreement was approwed by rounci7 an April 14, Si%hale should be working by late fall of this year, Page_1 k' k- 3'R F ST-1-5 +L. q 4Mo,. 'W.Ivd.. tr1et rovertiet�ts Con trucLz.c a� gas ori flayed `by 3�.'e�al prok�le�s yin .the r'<i�Fit-�f�aay acs a .siitaon to rocess.. Thi le:c&ai g7rdblem3 are fnearly :resolved. iConstruetlOn ,shoulld �begln :ire :aurae. ST-16 ;L: !1 cs.. 5. S j cfi4th :paek x Constru ktion masrelayed I)yi4t meie .ther an early May., Taut tour -consultant Is "confident .the vprojec�t=udlll .st'il'l !bE .com�ilo:��?r3 ,aa .sr#��datle.. G47 - IL.T.�D 36�o.. ID Mar_'�moUft ,Stredt .Eitens fan 'i rgolneer'ly g (design+work is :zipprox`lmatdy `25% F S't'-AT -- Macxiac 1Pi�hua!j �and (Canterbur`y sLafle liters ct=iars'I e t�^olte �ertt Frxoj,ect ,scope 3iz ccurrently_lbeing ;reviewed ;by =.C1€OT. *.thar n 03acts 1.. the -Ta;rgard TTrianctle traff=ic �&j.rc4r`latian <stuigy :pis to .be in 2.. Statefprs�jecL :for .overlay :of it ay 99W is ,to �bein on ung I. The-.Woes i i:ll ,extend Trom , -'B .to :H: Way .217. Constructdon !gill Abe ;done ,at ,ni_cc'ht ,to :uvo°id traffic -problems. s r , i (RRW:br%250R,P) r i 4 Tage :2 r x5; S= '3soupar,M.gz�t�r_Fsan etas are nea�^ly tccampxete• Tfiiasrs "the first step .in x y 3racr�rc�tmap'vpd `the=a"Rast*?�•�{'.i'anrsir.� ;prose s's. , 2 F'ir.6brobk:SewQr rc�nkline,"Re kicxrk :to one;iso""3uly-.or,'#��cast. SSS 3 4- ::59th= venxae 'sewer,!Extens ion prO ac completed. —�� X.`A. `.€runk i"Acc_RAs�fi�aths v ih sur k °has >. eeen cael ,yed "to'better coordinate Wath :Prate "develcsgsment w iieh`her`ecjun .in a atk ns srlrto' ean ;in,7une• 45 10E2th°' ven�a=:an '�nez nt�pr 1 28e I985.� he LID was �3efeat �3. tpf t rthe::public`hear.i VSs-�7-- 4thfi'Ft enue:and:Cherr sewxer, L I:`� 1386. :the consultaht,-was"as3r 1 : olEloRs ngtthe;.public hearing on ril , fly !tc°r es i w,:an,:cel to r hai e L:ID'boundary. . �. ;-lubhur�s E:c e_res m on ista�?f,saoi'ft.ia to acci�aire necessary=.easemerits. 3 i a � `.sD"i --'Gaarde'Street_and;` 'Area Dr air,aae:Imnrovements , 'rr•eliminary engineer`s" report is cnrr7slete. Staff is working' to resolve some:quo stions of legal. responsibility -pefore,'proceeding. sC+=2 Gentle . :bor3s`Channel Im Eovements 4riork; walls°be.dare- by`'City crews-when st.=eam flaw levels permit. Pk 1 ..Gook: Park .=Drainago ,immprovements-on,92nd .Avenue��are,-completed. Street wo�^k in: the T :.pari=. is-al3prokimately 40%-,complete. The Pedestrian-bridge to the float isx being;instal led. —,,.-Woodard Park T Galas.>and °grills t.as:_=been ordered. '> mercrebk t'Trails hark tv st�.rt�in. ;fuse'. -NOTE: ingrMay, 'City crews spent.-&�,.great deal�:oftime helping to complete tl a w ;.Cavic s�Center. �'As .a result, some sewer and park ,work °,had `.to ` be ^esoheduled. (RRW br,/2503P) P�ge:4 Ig 10 20, i IN OR r. F77 p 6 CIP/LID'PROJECT STATUS' r As,of, May 31, 1986 PROJECT STATUS ESTIMATED PROJECT CO34PLETION DATE c L c O 0 H0) "- -41 ""o u 0 ryry v . 7/31/86 ST-1 Fairview"Resurface 7/31/86 'ST--2 - Swd 68th Parkway,Resurfa 8/31/86 ST-3-='No.; Dakota Resurface 8/31/86 104th Ave•,, Reconstruct s:•:.: --" Schedule' will be revised in June ---- -`T-5' _'Commercial St. Connect _ 6/30/87 ST-6- - Tiedeman 'Ave. Realign ---- 9%30/86 w` _. - No. Dko�a 'Realign. � strST-7 uctiorby 7/31J66 private developer ST-8 - 79th/BonitaRealign. - 6/30/86 Prelim,' Engrg. Only; ST-o - Majn St.` improve. Study - i Complete Prelims. Engrg. Only ST-10- Hunziker Realign. `Study 2/28/87 ST-11 Greenburg/Tiedeman Sign .:.':.•' ST-12- sign ,�,... 6/15/86 SchoilsFry/NnDak "- — --- 6/30/87 -- — — ST-13-"Burnham/Hall Signal - i 1}/30/86' --- ST-14- Hall/McDonald Signal 4 8/15/86 -- -- - ST-15-.Hall LID #85-1 ti 7/30/86 i ST:-16- SP7 68th Parkway LID 435 -- r 8/31/87 5T:-17 Dartmouth IIID #40 b R. 6/30/87 . . ST-18- q%j/Canterbury Improve. — - f Sgfii' is , Cgp/LID' PROJECT S'T'ATUS Asof May 31 1986 :ESTIMATED C014M€ENTS PT o,TECT STATUS COMPLETION, `PPO.TECT DA' P 0 ,41 6 30 87 Sewer :MasterPlar. W _ w 8 '31/86 w SS-2. Pinebrook `Trunk .Re a' s •.•. w, Complete SS-3 Sai 69th Sewer Extension ....: r 7/15/86 Trunk'-AcceSs"Paths ---- . `' •. 7/15/x'6 ,S-5 watkinr, A LID defeated SS-6 jooth/In` 7, ae`ger a,It7 :s € _ >, LID TpYY(idt iOri tlriCerta, SS-7 - `74th/Cherry .Sewer 'i ID :h 10/31/86 - SS_8 - 'Elmhurst :Sewmr Extens or w ti ------------- -- {_{'�- ..�,°�.='�^-E„ �`�"„• afd.?«..�'` ,....�raL -'�'� :;r�?-.. �R3v=,:.:.,s.,:k,.,.t�. t_ .�'a�, .'�., ..Ft. �.-,.��. �-.ir�h`e�...�w,a..a,>:.r�^-�..,,F,s%S=a n,� �.�a _ �Y3 �a e n:1 • s Y I SD-2 Genitle'Woods Chahrieljm6 2 � .•fn aS„ i.e' 4.. N'i. ...t,.yb i ��4�'�.��4��"�'�,:�-� r��,�.�'.r"�'�.�-'��„�+-.c�.�..a MEMORANDUM ` a V. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO:, mayor and City Council May 29,, 1966 FROAM. Jerri L. Widner, Finance Director i,"' SUBJECT: DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY — April and 'Part of May As you sknow several of the Finance Department Department staff had a major rale in ~"_nesting the move from the: Crow building to the new Civic Center. This erfort took more time than anticipated and items with a lesser priority have '. been put:aside'. Since the move, the department has been trying to sort through what was moved. Two printers and the burster` have had to be 'repaired and not all of the Finance area has been completed. During the month of June we hope to be moving the Court Clerks into their area, completing the unpacking of files and we will be receiving the new computer equipment. During the month of April we completed work on the budget for the recommended column and the following transactions occurred: Accounts Payable Checks written: 276 Payroil.Checks- written: 252 Sewer Bills sent: 1761 Sewer Payments received: 1742 Purchase Orders written: 92 New Hires: 4 Recruitments 2 Claims °filed 1 The claim status report is attached y , e ..-1r _ E CITY OF TIGARD ` CLAIM STATUS REPORT DESCRIPTION' STATUS DATE OF LOSS' CLAIMANT DE S pending Mervin Poen False arrest �. 8/21/84 George Kusiowski Ins. impounded clt's car no activity (Officers Johnson, Ober, Newman) 2/4/85 Fredric Nickel Criminal counter cplt. open (Officer Hal Merrill) . 3/20/83 Fred Ozan False arrest Appeal Filed (Officer Killion) 1/11185 Harry Field Alleges False Arrest pending (Office Merrill) O +known George Hl_udaik Alleges his constitutional closed no payment rights violated tlricnowsa Neil Gerrard Alleges his constitutional closed no payment rights were violated /20/85 Steven Bacon False Arrest (Officer Harburg) claim .reopened 7' 3/16/85 Julie B. Winkelman Wrongful Death pending 9/6/85 Farmers Ins. etal Alleges officers caused Closed without panic stop (Officer Jim Newman) payment /0//6/85 Opal Kaske Failed to yield right-of-way pending subro. $278.20 Collision paid 9/24/35 Henninia Arias Tripped fell on sidewalk Closed without payment (OH:omL0886F) E i 4 � t �;. . � _ e.a ... _ •_ _ a .. _ _ ve .. $S 77 , 1. ::2 Q- P GARD8�: E VD USB BOARD OF APPE LS ��'� PEALS .., of THE STATE.OF OREGON 2 S & d BUILDERS, LTD. , 3 , LUBA 140. 86-004 petitioner? � FINAL 'OPINION VS. AND ORDER �5 CITy OF TIGARD a Respondent. 7 � €3 appeal €rca City of Tigard. � J L. orchard, Portland; filed the petition for review and argued can behalf of petitioner xi With hire on the �rfef' were ea Ball, Janik & NOvack. �9 �'i oth Ramis, Portland, filed a response brief and argued 12e? sin ,bUhalf of Respondent City of Tigard. ed 'an D. William ;�Terable: �ale�eeatton, fil�Ti3liams. awith�him onef 13 argued on behalf onse �tYae br�behalf oaf Respondent 14 BmGG, Referees KRESSEL, Chief Referee; D�FBP,Xt Referee:; 13 participated in the decision. 16 AFFIRMED 05/19/85 1� You are entitled to judicial reviews of this Order1=37.8511. Judicial review is governed by the provisions of ORS 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 Page 0044B x t � opinion by Bagg F�' C�I,� OF TRE DCTSION �eala� the denial of it8 .request for a petitioner appeals comprehensive Jan and zone, change from C�smxaercial prnfessaonal +� p n the ,City (C-p) to Commercial General (C-G) for its property in 6 of Tigard.' 7 FACTS 8 The S®'� acre site is presently zoned C--P. a designation offices,' but does not permit the g iahich allows professional =aide-eaariety of businesses, including retail sales, permitted dB in the C-G zone. 1 he property is at t i2 he intersection of 'Southwest Scholls 93 Ferryload and southwest. North Dakota Street. The City of .:. .. cross Scholls Ferry 14 Be�sverton city limits are immediately one-half i5 Road. The site is north of and adjacent to a 15 and ' 96 acre parcel also owned by petitioner which houses a 305 unit apartment camplex. The site is also adjacent to a retail 37 er. If the 98 shopping center known as the Greenway Town Cent arty -would. requested changes were approved, the subject prop tg art of a second 20 house additional commercial retail space as p 21 phase of the Greenway Town Center. 22 A similar application as before the city in February, 23 1935. After approval by the planning commission, the city 24 council heard the application on an appeal and reversed the = 2S planning com;nission in April, 1985. Petitioner filed an appeal 26 with this board, and pursuant to t@gUe t by the city, the Fregc L 0 0'4 4 B matter was remanded to the city on August 30, 1985- S & I2Builders fir. Ci of Tigard, (LUBA No. 85-035, August 17, 1985) . 3 The city council took up the remand on September 9, 1985. 4 At that hearing, petitioner statedd that only traffic impacts 5 from the proposal required further inquiry. The petitioner $ took this position because the city had stated, in the findings 7 adopted May 6, 1985, that all other approval criteria had been 8 satisfied'. 9 At the close of the September 9 hearing, council voted to Eta deny the petitioner's application, but the denial was based on it additional criteria which city council members believed were '32 unsatisfied. Petitioner stated again that it understood the 13 only; issue properly before the council was transportation. The 44 council then voted to continue the matter to prepare findings 35 On September 16, 1985 the council reopened deliberations. 15 The council concluded not only that additional criteria should 37 be applied, but additional public hearings should be held. On 18 September 27, 1985, petitioner was notified in writing of the 69 added approval criteria.? 20 Petitioner submitted new application materials (under 21 protest) , and after a city council hearing on November 25, 22 1985, the city council voted to deny the requested; plan and 23 zone change. Findings were prepared, but the council referred 24 them to ,the city attorney for revision. New findings were " 25 approved by the council on January 6, 1986. The city's order _y 26 of denial became effective ,January 16, 1986 Pagr 3' 04448 i i L, e f I FIRST 3 T OF ERROR 2 OThe city is :required to consider Petitioner's application based upon the standards spec i=i.cally 3 adopted by they city in`the original proceedings on the application. n petitioner claims the city announced the appropriate prior to the ,order of remand by this board. approval criteria Whose criteria did not include the issues later relied upon to Y ` deny the application. Petitioner asserts the original announced kriteria form the only Plegal" basis to valuate the application Petition Review at 17-18. Addition of other 10citeria, later used to deny petitioner's application, amounted t t invalidated in to an act hesC process of the kind specifically F ' t2 Sean Ray Dairy v. OLCC 16 or App 63, 517 'P2d 289 (1973) , �. 13 --�- ., according to Peti.tioner. td Further, petitioner argues the city's action violates ORS a5 227.178 (3) . Petitioner claims this statute prohibits chan�gyiza9 @6 land use approval criteria "in mid-stream during the processing !? of ars application." Petition for Review at 19. ORS 227.1�� 3) t� provides: 19 °' (3) if the application was complete when first 20 submitted—and the city has a comprehensive plan and laud use regulations acknowledged under ORS 197.251 , 21 approval or denial of the application, shall be 'based upon the standards and criteria that were applicable 22 at the time the application was first submitted." E--aphisas added) Petition for Review at 19. 23 We find no error as alleged. The remand order to the city 24 did not address the merits of the case. The remand did not 25 direct any particular action by the city. Under such an order, 26` Page 4 0044B C we believe the city was free to undertake a` complete review of 2 the case. See OAR 661-10-080(D) - 3 €i1-10-080(D) ,3 in addition, all of the criteria existed in the city's 4 comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance prior to and 'after the 5 first application by S & J Builders. No ordinance criteria 6 were changed, but the city dial change it's mind as to which of 7 the existing ordinance criteria would be applicable to the 8 applicant's proposal. The applicant was inf med by letter of � 9 the changes 28 days prior to the scheduled hearing. Petitioner 10 requested that a later hearing be held, and the matter was H rescheduled diving the petitioner' another 28 days to prepare /2 for the hearing. petitioner had ample time to address all �FYy 13 criteria noted in the cit y's<letter. 14 Under these circumstances, we find the city was free to 15 choose the approval criteria. The choice involved no 16 deprivation of petitioner's due process rights, and no 17 violation of ORS 227.178(3) .3 i41 The first assignment of error is denied. Iu SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF-ERROR 20 "Assuming that the city Council had a right to adopt additional approval criteria following remand of the 21 case, the new and additional approval criteria were adopted on an ad hoc basis and were inconsistent with 22 approval: criteria utilized for other land use actions of the type similar to petitioner's request. " 23 In this assignment of error, petitioner complains that the 24 city's additional approval standards were imposed ad. hoc 25 exclusively for use in evaluating S & J Builders' proposal. .. 26 € Page 5 0044B ;r 1 These changes "raise significant da�ts procesc isssaes." petition 2 for Review at 22. Petitionercites prior city council. carders 3 concerning glass and zone changes which petitioner says shoes the 4 city ,applied different approval standards to S & i Builder's than to other applicants with similar proposals. See Petition' 6 for Review at asp. 24-25. ' 7 we are not °persuaded that petitioner's substantial rights 3 have ,.been violated. Even if we were to agree that the five 9 oases cited by petitioner show a course of conduct far 10 different from that applied to petitioner's 'application, 11 petitioner is not relieved from the burden of showing 12 compliance with all applicable criteria. This petitioner ,may ~ 13 not use past city errors to prevent the city from finding an 14 applicable- criterion unsatiefied.5 See Archdiocese of 15 Portland v. Washington Co. , 254 Or 77, ' 458 P2d 682 (1989)' ? City 16 of Eugene v. Crooks' Co. , 55 Or APP 351, 637 'P2d 1350 (1981) ; 43 17 tip. Att'y Gen. (1984) . 18 The second assignment of error is denied. 19 THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 20 "The City Council lacks an adequate basis for denial of Petitioner's application as evidenced by the 21 reasons givenfor the decision and the findings documenting the denial decision. " 22 Petitioner claims that the written order does not reflect 23 reasons for denial given orally at the November 25 hearing. Notwithstanding petitioner's complaint, we believe the matter 2e for our review is the city's written order. The reviewable 26 P. : 6 00448 i decision is not what individual council members may have stated 2 from time to time ,during the course of hearings, but is the 3 final written order. See Citadel Corporation v. Tillamook, 9 # Or LUBA 61., aff'd 66 Or App 965, 675 Ptd 1.114 (1984) ; Bennett; K. v. Linn 222ntOr LURA (LURA ince. 85_073, January 16, YV x 6 1986) . .. 7 petitioner newt attacks each of the reasons given for 8 denial of the permit. Petitioner's complaint` is that each of 9 the city's findings isnot supported by substantial evidence in 10 the record. 11 A. NEED EE T 12 according to petitioner, the city required petitioner to 13 demonstrate a long-term neem for additional C mooned 14 property. Petitioner claims there is no basis in the ci'ty's ' . 13 comprehensive plan or development code for such a requirement. 16 In addition, petitioner argues the city erred in finding that 1; there were existing empty retail spaces along 5cholls Ferry �. 18 Road because petitioner's application was neither for a 19 particular type of commercial use, nor for an immediate 20 development. r' 21, Although. petitioner believes .the city relied on a need not discuss any meed criterion. 22 test, the city's order does " 1: 23 We do not understand the city's order to say that the proposal 24 should be denied because it is not needed. We conclude that 25 petitioner's attack is misplaced in that it does neat explain fir, how the city ,has violated its plan and ordinance or any other Page 7 0044B , W . ! applicable kriteria.. See our discus under �,ssignnterat of 2 Error € . 3(C) , infra � 3 B. TRANSPORTATION ISSUES, 4 The city found the zone change will negFit3vely impact . 3 Scholls Fdrry Road and exacerbate existing traffic � 6 difficulties. Petitioner argues this finding is erroneous and a is not'..supported by a traffic study prepared as part of the i'. s 9 original application process and updated for `the hearing after � 9 iemand. The study concludes the traffic impacts wouldresult 20 in a level of service no different from ,the existing level of ' 83 service on Scho3?.'s ferry Road. See Record at 29, 206- 21A. In 12 other words, providing the property is developed as proposed, 13 there would be no adverse traffic impacts and therefore no °aiolation of any applicable criterion according to 15 petitioner. 16 Petitioner goes on to argue that not even the city's ries show Scholls Ferry Road as a 17 comprehensive plana invento highs�ay of mayor congestion {in contrast to Highway 217, i � 18tate 5, and Highway 99W) . Petitioner explains that the 19 Inters 20 city's fear of congestion on Scholls Ferry Road is based on the 21 mistaken assumption that under the present C-P zoning, the 22 property would be developed for office use, and under C-G fi would be developed for intensive retail 23 zoning, the property ;Y 24 use. Petitioner states it is impossible to pinpoint the mix of 25 uses or impacts which may actually occur. Uses in the C-C zone those which do not generate as much traffic as certain 26 include Paa�e S 00445 other uses in the ®•P zone, notes petitioner. The city's order relies on locational criterion 3 12,2.1'(2) (B) (2) (a) of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. This 4 provision requires that the General Commercial area or an 3 expanding existing General Commercial area must neat create congestion or traffic safety problems. 7 The city found petitioner's traffic study unreliable. The astudy was based on the premise that offices vT.ould be built and 9 a small convenience store sited in the property. The city Sib notes, however, that there is no analysis showing traffic ,,; impacts if the store is not built. The city uses this ;fact 'to posit that vpri thous the store, the traffic impacts under the C--P i . .' 13 zone might be considerably less than those anticipated with M development at C-G levels 13 The city also faults the study because (1) it did not 16 include a count of actual traffic volumes in, the area, and (2) 87 it failed to consider the effect of improvements to Sorento 18 Road, an improvement that the city thought might contribute to 19 traffic problems on Scholls Ferry Road. 20 The city concludes that it 21 "cannot determine from the evidence submitted whether the conclusion that this change in zone would produce 22 no additional traffic safety problems is reliable. " Record at 10. R 2s The only evidence cited in the findings showing that a 2 traffic hazard does indeed exist is found in opponent' s 25this evidence testimony and photogr�rphs, According to the city, 26 9 0044E MIMIr, I. shows that "traffic conditions in the area are very congested' 2 and hazardous'." Record at 9. 3 It is not our function to seg=eigh the evidence to determine ® 4 whether we would reach the same result reached by the city. 5 Our Job is only to determine whether the city's findings are 6 s6pported by substantial evidence.. ORS 157,.835 (8) (a) (C):. 7 Here, the city voted the evidence showing the traffic hazards a and explained why it found petitioner's evidence about traffic 9 'impacts was not reliable. It need do no more. Goracke v. 3o Benton Co. , 74 or App 453, � P2d (1p85) F�orse v. Clatsop 11 Co.;, 12 :Or .1[BA 70 11984) . 12 We conclude that the city's finding is supported by 13 subtantial evidence and we find no error as alleged. We note ... 14 that in a typical denial case, the proponent must iarove the 83 denial was erroneous as a matter of law. 3urgensor. v. Unian 16 County Court, 42 Or App 505, 600 P2d 1241 (1979) . See also 17 Maracci v. City of Scappoose, 26 Or ApP 131, 552 P2d 552 (1976) 8£3 C. CHANGE IN NEIGHBORHOOD 19 Petitioner next attacks the city's finding that petitioner in circumstances warranted a change 20 failed to show how change 21 in zoning designation. Section 18.22.040 of the Tigard 22 Municipal Code states, in part, that: "A recommendation or a decision to approve, approve 23 with conditions or to deny an application for a 24 quasi-judicial amendment shall be based on all of the fallowing'.standards: 25 ` ) * 26 { Page10 00443 F , f � (2) 2 N (3) 3 % (4) Evidence of change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in 4 the comprehensive plan or zoning map as it relates to the property which is the subject S of the development application." Petitioner insists changes have indeed occurred in the 7 neighborhood. petitioner states that two otherparcels in the immediate vicinity have been redesignated as,, suburban office , Q use and, as a result, any need for additional professional 14 office space can be met at those parcels. Petitioner 11 introduced evidence showing the property is not economically 62 suited for office and space development. Petitioner adds that # i3 it is unlikely that the parol will be used for office space. Petitioner points to a '.22 acre parcel within a half -a mile of 14 DS petitioner's property which is to be sold as residential land. 16 Additional residential use in the area Will, according to 17 petitioner, "focus the need for sub-regional commercial iH opportunities in the area.. . ." Petition for Review at 44 , 19 According to petitioner, the city ignores the enlargement s 20 of the Scholls Ferry Road and Southwest North Dakota Street 21" intersection, and signalization of that intersection. These 22 improvements change traffic patterns in the area, according to 23 petitioner, and provide a link between the City of Beaverton - 24 and Tigard not existing at the time the comprehensive plan was a 25 adopted. The net result of this changed traffic patterer will, 26 according to petitioner, ll €'ce OQ44B a 9 "be to increase the necessity of utilizing the subject property for a broad range of Commerical uses because of the 'draw, of the signalized intersection and its cross-city linkage." Petition for Rei*ices at 45. Lastly, petitioner notes that it introduced evidence showing that the area is deficient in 'commercial S opportunities." Also, the nearby 305 unit apartment complex A R ® includes nes residents who need "farther commercial opportunities." � The he cit nested petitioner's evidence of chance but .. concluded the changes dial not justify approval of the application. The city adds Haat the submitted information and Q3 analysis confirms the need to retain the C-P designation, � i2 rather than change it to the C-G designation. The city also : 3 said petitioner presented no analysis of sales volume and k 4 drawing power for adjacent retail 'uses and that the record 15 shows empty stores in the community. The city concludes that !Sthee commercial analysis nal sis P resented by the developer shows a need ' 17 for the shopping center such as the rine in existence, but does �. RK not prove that changes in the area establish a need for 39 rezoning the site to C-2? zone. 20 As noted earlier, the proponent of the land use change has �. 21 a heavy burden. Jurgenson v. Union County Court, 'su ra. The 22 city's analysis adequately explains why the changes noted by �± 23 petitioner do not justify eche proposed rezoning. r 24 D. PROCESS FOR ,ADOPTING FINDINGS 2-15 Petitioner makes the following argument: 26 _ 12 P"Wc ,004413 "As extensively noted throughout this brief, the �,. . l in process utilized by take City C®4.3r3ci adopting the January, 1956 findings was designed to accomplish one purposes to find reasons to support a denial of 3 petitioreerea application. Based capon the record, there is no doubt that. the City Council starting with its April,1, X985 hearings end continuing through the �s September and November, 1985 hearings reached its w: 5 decision first and decided its reasons later., This violates the requirement that the decision must flow from the findings and not vase versa.. Heilman v. Roseburg, 39 Or ;App 71, 591 p2d 390 (1979) . 7 petitioner's reliance on Heilman is misplaced. in Heilman, (m S_ the city council voted to deny the application and asked the city attorney to prepare findings. No formal carder of denial UZ Eta was made after the vote. The court noted that . : "there is no order wade contemporaneously with or 12 after the fact-finding and [sic] the findings themselves do not in any express or implied way 13 suggest a s eliberate r°atif ication sof afia earlier �v tentative decision." Heilman, 39 Or App at 75. 14 City council minutes 'of September 9, 195 show the city !S L council had grave doubts about the merits of the application. The minutes of the November 25, 1985 hearing show the city 17 council asked that the findings be redrafted. A new set of 18 findings was drafted and submitted for council review at a > 19 hearing on January 6, 1986. The minutes show the council 20 considered this last draft of findings, including an order of ; 21 denial, and approved the combined document at the January 6 22 meeting. 23 We believe these circumstances show that the city' s 24 ' decision was made on January 6, 1986. ; 'Unlike in Heilman, the 25 city did not commit itself toany particular course of action 26 ` Page 13 0044H I ata sai� asp i , as it reviewed findings st ea ch of 2 the various hearings in which the matter- was considered'. 3 We fins nes error as alleged. 4 The third assignment of error is denied. 5 'The'decisioaa of the City of Tigard is affirmed. 7 9 i� ii i2 ;4 15 16 i7 ii$ 19 20 23 22 23 24 2+ 14 PUSC ' 0044]B FOOTNOTES 3 - The uses allowed in the - zone include such civic uses as 4 postal services and libraries, and such commercial uses as restaurants, business equipment sales, professional offices, S and 'convenient sales and personal services (net to exceed 10 percent of the total square footage within the office 6 coraplex) »w in contrast. the C-O district permits all Of the uses allowed in the C-P"district, plus automobile repair,' 7 general retail sales, sports and entertainment facilities and transient lodging. Further, conditional uses permitted within t$ the 'C-a:, sone include a variety of additional',.'commercial and service uses. See Tigard Community Development`Code, Sec. g 18.62 and 18.64. o 2 tt the letter, including citation to approval critiera, preceeded the scheduled hearing by 2€3 days. Petitioner then t2 submitted a new application and asked for a continuance on October 25, 1985. A continuance was granted and a new :;airing 13 scheduled for October 25. See Respondent's brief at 5 6. x steel in the ordinance eat the time All ,the approval criteria e 14 the application for the plan and 'zone change was filed. to 16 Petitioner argues that the city's first order setting forth shat the city believed to be applicable approval criteria 17 constitutes "the law of the case" in that the city made a conc€ssion -that- petitioner's first application met; most 18 approval criteria. See The Matter of Beater's Estate, 24 Or App 777, 547 Ptd 636, 1976. We do not ,belave> t a aw of the 19 issued doctrine applies. As noted-, the city°s, first order, issued May 6, 1985, was appealed to .this board and remanded. 20 Our ardor of remand was not specific as to the issues the city was; to consider. Our order simply "reinvested" the city with 21 jurisdiction over the matter of the plan and zone charge. See OAR 662-10-070 (b), (4) . There was, then, no "Taw" existing in 22 the case which the city was obliged to follow on remand. Com,oare this case with Portland Audubon Society v. Clackamas 23 Co. , Or App (LUBE, ?Jo," 85-032, April 28, 19863 24 4 — h lie understand petitioner to 'claim it has been denied equal protection of the law under the city's approval Page' 15 00449 8 policies. 2 We note that none of the plan and zoning changes requests cit by. aetxt'ioYner as evide ce of discriminatory practice by the city involves charges from the C zone to the C-G Zone. e (relieve it would be raec�ssary for petitio ner 'to compare 5: criteria utilized in C-P to C--G zone changes in;order to prove that anther similar ;applications were treated differently than petitioner®s application. Tr ibbet v. entAtn €�a ® r L�EAA 161 � 7 6 There is, however, a discussion of a stun y attemptinq to ` g justify more shopping centerspace. The discussion,; however, See Rec does not reference -arny "need" aYroval criteraon. ®rd �� at the cii scussion is relevant, however, to the city:s requirement .that a proponent,' of a change show a change in €t circumstances since plan adoption. 12 f g3 ` he traffic shady assumed (as does the applicant), that the following actions would be taken along with development of tie 14 prope.rtyo ( 1) extension of 'southwest North,Dakota to the City of igara3; ( expansion of Scholls Ferry Road and the 15 Southwest North Dakota Street intersection; (3) signalixation of that intersection; and E)' the addition of a right-turn phase 36 on the signal': 17 During the course of the hearing, the city council seas informed that the intersection improvements had been installed and that the signal at` Scholls Ferry Road and Southwest forth Dao ota mould the operational sometime in 1986. 3� i 2(! $ The city did :not provide the notice of decision required by 21 ORS 227.173 until after it had issued its ;findings on Januaa 22 23 24 25 Parc 16 00 4 B CERT I inion he �:�y �r i y that � served the foregoing Final i�as�i��3 tO and 'order fear .LURA<110e 8 s-®rn v a� rue Way c p �9her, f ,4 � true copy' t�ere�� contained �.rn saidpartier, ar their a��e�� addressee to said a sealed 'ell � pe �r� h part ieshx their attorney as £��.10wr'. Jack Ls orcl. 5 101 c-W Main, Suit' 1100 ff; 720 E rtland, O . a� g TiMIDthy V. liOOgDonne tt Cress '� °7 Z�Oy'� re 10 Portland, OR 97204 Venable Boar io He i tsn d e Sjjite 201 - OR 97005 24 19��a day::.., of May, 1986- .- gBB Dated this 16; Aat cia J. ,ada�a. A€ministratisre As i�fia�nt 17 4 19 20 �C 22 23 r, 24 23 ' 17 4. x3044&3. L r$ 6 a MEMORAWDUM' , t CITY OF TIGARD, _OREGON TO. Mayor and :City Council May 19, 1986 FROM: J€rri L. Widner, Finance Director[ ` SUBJECT: Sewer — USA 18% Interest Charge Attached you will find a letter from Roger Swenson of the Unified Sewerage Rgency which clarifies the intent of the 18%' interest charge referenced in our Ordinance adopting the rules and regulations of USA. Apparently, they were trying to 'get their billing agents to pay on time and the 16% was intended as a'penalty. Unfortunately, the wording of the order was not clear as, to Who was to he charged. The'City doesn't have to charge 'its customers interest 'nor does the City' have to pay USA interest. However, City Council' may want to d'is'cuss whether the City should impose an interest ehara3e on delinquent accounts and if so, at what rate'. (JLW:cnl1312F) e m nifie �° it County 250 N. First Avenue � Hillsboro, Oregon 97124 � 503 648-8621 f�f��Y� r" C41 OF may 22, 1986 City of Tigard Pis. Jerri- L. Widner Finance Director 1312`5 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 DearPIs. Widnex: This letter, is in response to the concern you recently rained with regard to interest charges the Agency might impose on lata payment of 'lees. Our R & ® 85--40 dated June 18, 1985 does provide for the assessment of interest on late payments in the amount of 15 percent. However, the contract between the City of Tigard and the agency is tine "controlling" document and it :does not provide for interest payments. In Section 4.3 of that contract dated September 8, 1970, the City is charged with remitting a percentage of fees collected on a monthly basis and that the City will "diligently maintain regular billings and collection of 'fees'. " In other cords, if we did not receive payments from the City on a regular basis we would not be able to assess the interest penalty incorporated in our R & 0. However, in a very brief conversation with our legal counsel, she mentioned that State law allows us to assess an interest penalty of 9 percent if your remittances are not, timely. The language in our R & ® does apply to industries which we bill directly. I hope this resolves the confusion over interest charges and payment of fees to the Agency. if I can be of any further assistance please let me know. Sincerely, Boger S. Swenson Administrative Services Manager Cl TY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY `AGENDA OF: June 9 1986 AGENDA ITEM11.3 ' DATE SUBMITTED. Juane 5z 1986 PREVIOUS ACTION: City Council a�iaroval ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: APPROVE: of computer purchase April 28 1986 Cf 7PUTER CONTRACT FINANCE AMEEMENT PREPARED BY; 3. Wfclner REQUESTED BY 8. 'Jean DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINIS"ORATOR POLICY ISSUE 3 Implementation of the computer master plan %sia purchase and 5 year financing lease. A", - INFORMATI 0_WS U11MARY The City C€suncij authorized the purchase of computer hardware and software at its meeting of April 28, 1986. : A copy of what was approved is attached. Based an this approval purchase agreements have been entered into with various vendors involved in the computer waster plan. The City Council also directed staff to proceed with a 5 year lease agreement for computers. Burroughs Corporation has a separate corporation that finances equipment -and software purchaseg. Prior to entering into a lease agreement with Burroughs Finance Corporation, I contacted U.S. National Sank of Oregon to 'find out if they would be interested in financing our purchases`. Since we have included software purchases in our package, the bank was unable to find placement with its investors for us. The next step taken was contacting the City Attorney for review of the financing package offered by Burroughs Finance Corporation. Tim Ramis and the attorney for Burroughs Finance Corporation worked together on the language of the agreement. 'Tim's comments have been incorporated in the attached document. The total amount to be financed is $293,293.80 to be repaid in 'five annual installments of $69,178.00. The total interest cost to the City is $52,596.20. The financing document lists everything that is to be financed, but in summary; the following is included: IPM Facilities Managment $ 42,720.00 1/2 IPM Software 26,100.00 1/2 GeoGroup Software 7.1,057.00 Burroughs equipment-/shipping 2031416.80 Total $293,293.80 42. .,ry rr - ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Do nothing — Burroughs equipment payment in full is due 15 days after delivery. 2. Ray cash from 1386-87 contingency. 3 Sign lease with Burroughs Finance Corporation. SUGGESTED 'ACTION Ir recommend authorizing the City Administrator to enter into this lease agreement with Burroughs Finance Corporation. (1340F) m �5 p � . r C. t;1.1-Y or _ ARD, oltttii}N g t;UIJN .I _AG-NUA I fFM' ,iJMI�ARY IGI NDA OF At7r i 1 28. J986 AGt NUA 'J I t M df UAlF_ SUBMi111- ): A�7r�i1 '?.A 19836 _ PREVIOUS At.:iit)N: Marc 10,1966 ISSUElAGE.M i J i t.i card Bids and presenting Flan a estimated costs AutFuir ize Siunatur s Lid Purc h ise PREPARED BY: �rf �`�Martira _- Co.Touter S St e. --- RE (JEST t U-h#Y:: OF I�AR``1°11:.NT i•i}:Ai) OK: -- - — - CITY AUNILNIS I RAfoR: k POLICY IS:'3UL 0r10 of Co:anc71's high priority goals for• this year is to upgrade the Ili t; of the City's total daLa processing system. lNFORMAT ION SiJP''�r°'iARY On March 10, 191361 a computer master plan was presenLed t.r3 Council bused upon bids plan fe7r` a city—wide data processing syst.tin.' Pending the final tr lculai.ior7s of costs, CouM--il approved the overall plan which consisted' of Lhe followi.rig: i. Purchase Lhe Burroughs 195`:7 system for accounting and fleet. management, using I.P.M. software, and 'police CLASS. system applications using t;;lackamts County' s 2. Purchase tl-te, Burroughs 825 system whicPj interfaces with 'thc� 195b plus' 11P peripherals from "GEOGRc)UP and HOLGUIN, fur management :end Con7muni.ty Developmc2nt using software: by Burroughs, GEOGROUP, 141MU-I-1 PACKARD and HOLGU LN. 3. Upgrade the WANG word processing system. The plan addresses city--wide first priority net.eds, Lhe continuation of 'our ' centralized word processing `center which has been;very -_effec:tive, localized support for• ma jur• software r_omponents, and fuLurt, cjrowt.h ci�apahi l i L i ns . Action> by Cour7ci 1 ore March 10, 1995, was to authorir.e thv negotiation of contracts fest thtn above sy'stnm. We are (.completing 'Lhoso n+youLi,At_iuns nd reyua::t LFu, approv<A1 Lo ertt:er into ronLrac ts` for Lhit. anu,urrt aLLar.1t(!d potjf=. Nut frit.1udGcd 5 Chtt Gists u1 ;pr i,. aF7t : Lt7 <jr. I ri�n; Lht Civic t'c lLor ' Lt, Opol ,itiions tarn.: 6 spoci,al: pr`t,c.c `ts7ttq .-Ait '. cui(ii l r,:�rr�r r1i-odd- { 'cc)! unLrutltr,y ,•nvrt,)rttm.trt�:�l duaIiLy 11 Is `3t.im.•rl —i 1nt t tri:�, 7Tl:iia3l l .ti tuft. Lt, Lit,_ 118 ono ALTERNATIVES t_t3PlSEDE_R_t.U_ _ U 1. Award -bids acid authorize the City Adminsstrator' to :.syn contracts arid to niaa3ol,aa3Ue a financing plan to -bre pre5ceratetl to t,ourlr, s C prior to obligating Lho CiLy. 2. Reject all bids. SUGGESTED ACTION A motion to authorize the City Administrator to sign contracts for the 8ur•rciuyhs 1955 acid 1325sy s tei:is, tale I.P.M. software the CLASS sof to sare, the HP purip;serals and the software by Gl_f)G€dOL€', Hew lett Packard and fiolguin, and ths_ upgrade of the Wang t)IS-system For a total purch,asce cost of $328,993.45 plus "st:i.€a€aing costs and supplies, and plus $41,720 to . I.P.M. for ' one year System operation orad management. It is to be understood that prior to appropriating ;money, a finance 'plan will be presented to Council for aapre�vaI using a ' Hare-yc!aar lease-purchase option for part of the purchase. ;U 5, 666 s S` r a pS } j { - L:Ot11PUi'LR SYSi-Em COST -- fjpRIt_ 22; 19,36 r BLIRR� i;ilGHS PURCIIAS_EPR IC£ rslt37dtbAL CHG EST.SHP. + Hardware 7 t 1.29?_9.45 21148.80-- 3652.00 Zeros tal lie 1,i.ran �3 tit}.UO � Software 630.0 24630.2}U 27G2166.00600.00 Installation.-Sof twwr e 4 Tra i n i rig 248 0.00 WANG Hardware 34100.00 3300.00 1.P.m. ' Software 41100.00 4932.00 Operation Paid, Management 42720.230 GEOI+E OUP Hardware 13020.00 d 450.00 inst�atllIa 25645.00 2649.00 In,tallaticr: 700.00 Training and 1'r-a.ve1r 230a?.. HEWLETT PACKARD � 'q N Hardware 12414.00 Software 860.00 HOLGUIfi! Ha�a�o-aarA 6289.00 300.00 — l/ '• Software 5775.00 1200.00 .a- Installation i� rty TU1i3L 327362.45 y, $$jj ;tTr h S.T. t, Unaughs Date To June 2,: 1986 BrianRidderbush `- Location Portland _ Oregon GF.M -- Toiephnnel8enfell rrom 415-875-4448___ jan <Wangberg Location ' Degattment San Francisco BFC City of Tigard cc: ' Subject: , < to Enclosed for cus Comer 's review and execution are the following lease contractus Master Lease Agreement {3 originals) Amendment;: 04 AT&C's {3 originals) Lease Schedule (3 originals) Schedule �A (3 originals) Certificate of Acceptance (2 originals) Essential use .Letter (2 originals') tlfg. Warranty & Agreement (2 originals) Irs'surance Information (to be provided 'by Lessee) Insurance Letter (forwarded to agency) r UCC-1 Financing Statement, Oregon (Z original) to Please hold on to the COA untsign il the customer is readyuestions off for the equipment. Let me know if you have any q ` Brian. Don Will be out most of the week, but I will be available in the mornings and early afternoons ` Jan ngberg Contract'Administrator Western' legion JW/.Encls' ., ti URRO1 GHS FINANCE.CORPORATION EU0PMEEUT LEASE AGREEMENT (State and Local Form A) °1. :SE AGREEMENT No. 30082 SATE:, June 2, 1986 LESSEE: CitY of Tigard LESSEE'S PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS: 13125 S.W. Hall BQule card Tigard, 'Oregon 97223 Lease Agreement, made as of the above date,between BURROUGHS FINANCE CORPORATION, a Michigan corporation("Lessor"),having as a mailing address P.O.Box 3058,Birmingham,Michigan 48012,and the Lessee named above("Leasee"),having its principal place of business located at the address set I orth above. 1. LEASE AGREEMENT: Lessor hereby leases to Lessee and Lessee hereby rents from Lessor all the machinery,equipment and other personal property ("Equipment")described in Equipment lease Schedule(s)slated hereto which are or may from time to time be executed by Lessor and Lessee("Schedules"), upon the terms and conditions set forth herein as supplemented by the terms and conditions set forth in the appropriate Schedule identifying such items of Equipment. Equipment is to be used for business and commercial purposes and not for personal,family or household use. Whenever reference is made herein to this"Lease"it shall be deemed to include each of the;various Schedules identifying all items of Equipment, all of which together with this lease agreement constitute one undivided lease of the Equipment, and the terms and conditions of which are incorporatedherein by reference. 2. TERM: The obligations under this Lease shall commence as of Vie date hereof provided this Leese is accepted in writing by Lessor and shalt end upon full performance and observance of each and every term,condition and covenant set forth in this Lease and any extensions thereof(the"Lease Term"). The rental term of the Equipment listed in a Schedule shall commerce upon the date of acceptance of the Equipment by Lessee(the"Acceptance Date")and continue for the number of months set forth;in such Schedule, beginning with the first month commencing after the Acceptance Date, unless such term'has been extended or otherwise modified in writing and signed by Lessor and Lessee(the"Rental Term"). This Lease cannot be cancelled or terminated by Lessee except as expressly provided herein. 3. RENTAL PAYMENTS- Lessee shall pay rent to Lessor for the Equipment in the monthly amounts specified in the applicable Schedule. Rent shall be payable an the first day of each month during the Rental Term. Rent shall be payable at the mailing address of Lessor set forth above. Rental payments made by check will be accepted subject to collection. Lessor and Lessee understand and intend that the obligation of Lessee to pay rent hereunder shall constitute an expense of Lessee and shall not in any way be construed to be a debt of Lessee in contravention of any applicable constitutional or statutory limitations or requirements concerning the creation of indebtedness by Lessee, nor shall anything contained herein constitute,a pledge of the general tax revenues, funds or monies of Lessee. ({�" DELIVERY AND INSTALLATION: Lessee will select the type,quantity and supplier of each item of Equipment designated in the appropriate Schedule, of reliance thereon such Equipment will then be ordered by Lessor from such supplier, or Lessor will accept an assignment of an"existing purchase order therefor.'Lessor shall have no liability for any delay in delivery or failure by the supplier to deliver any Equipment or to fill any purchase order or meet the conditions I hereof. Lessee,at its expense,will pay all transportation,packing,taxes,duties,insurance,installation,testing and other charges in connection with the delivery, insta".lation and use of the Equipment. As soon as practicable after receipt of the Equipment,Lessee shall furnish Lessor with a written statement acknowledging receipt of the Equipment in good operating condition and repair,and accepting it as satisfactory in ali respects for the purposes of this Lease. Complatien and signature of such statement by any employee,official or agent of Lessee having authority in the promises or having managerial,supervisory or procurement duties wlth respect to equipment of the same general type as the Equipment leased hereunder shall constitute acceptance of such Equipment on behalf of Lessee. Lessee understands and agrees that neither manufacturer,seller or supplier,nor any salesman or other agent of manufacturer,seller or supplier,is an agent of Lessor. No salesman or agent of manufacturer,seller or supplier is authorized to waive or after any term or condition of this Lease,and no representation as to Equipment or any other matter by manufacturer,seller or supplier shall in any way affect Lessee's duty to pay the rental payments and perform its other obligations as set forth in this Lease. 5. WARRANTIES: LESSOR,NOT BEING THE MANUFACTURER,SELLER OR SUPPLIER OF THE EQUIPMENT,OR THE AGENT OF THE MANUFACTURER, SELLER OR SUPPLIER,MAKES NO WARRANTY,REPRESENTATION OR COVENANT,EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,AS TO ANY MATTER WHATEVER,INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMi'7ED TO: THE MERCHANTABILITY OF THE EQUIPMENT OR ITS FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE, THE DESIGN OR CONDITION OF THE EQUIPMENT, THE QUALITY OR CAPACITY OF THE EQUIPMENT, THE WORKMANSHIP IN THE EQUIPMENT, COMPLIANCE OF THE EQUIPMENT WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF ANY LAW, RULE, SPECIFICATION OR CONTRACT PERTAINING THERETO, PATENT INFRINGEMENT, OR LATENT DEFECTS. Lessee , accordingly agrees not to assert any claim whatsoever against Lessor based thereon. Lessee further agrees, regardless of cause, not to assert any claim whatsoever against Lessor for any direct,indirect,consequential,incidental or special damages or loss,of any classification,including,without limitation,any lost profits. Lessor shall have no obligation to install,erect,test,adjust,service,or maintain the Equipment. Lessee shall look solely to the manufacturer,seller and/or supplier for any and all claims related to the Equipment. LESSEE LEASES THE EQUIPMENT "AS IS NOTWITHSTANDING THE FOREGOING, LESSEE'S OBLIGATIONS TO PAY THE RENTALS OR OTHERWISE UNDER THIS LEASE SHALL BE AND ARE ABSOLUTE AND UNCONDITIONAL. Lessor hereby acknowledges that the warranties of the manufacturer,seller and/or supplier of the Equipment,if any,are for the benefit of both Lessor and [ 7 Lessee. S. TITLE TO AND LOCATION OF EQUIPMENT: During the term of this Lease,title to the Equipment and any and all additions,attachments, repairs, a replacements and modifications thereto or therefor shall be vested in Lessee,subject to the rights of Lessor under this Lease. Lessee,at its expense,will protect and defend Lessee's title to the Equipment and Lessor's rights therein and will keep the Equipment free and clear from any and all claims,liens,encumbrances and legal processes of Lessee's creditors and other persons. All items of Equipment shall at all times be and remain personal property notwithstanding that any such Equipment may now or hereafter be affixed to realty. In the event of a default hereunder,at the option of Lessor,title to the Equipment shall revert to Lessor,and Lessee will,upon Lessor's request,promptly surrender possession of the Equipment to Lessor. Lessee hereby irrevocably designates,mares,constitutes and appoints Lessor(and all persons designated by Lessor)as Lessee's true and lawful attorney in fact with power,at such time of default or such times thereafter as Lessor,in its sole and absolute discretion,may delR mine,in Lessee's or Lessors name,to endorse the name of Lessee upon any Bill of Sale,document,instrument,invoice,freight bill,bill of lading or similar' de( I2nt relating to the Equipment in order to vest title in Lessor and transfer possession to Lessor. The Equipment shall be delivered to the location specified in the Schedule with respect thereto and shall not thereafter be removed from such location without ;' the written consent of Lessor. Without limitation of the foregoing,Lessee shall not permit the Equipment or any part thereof to be removed outside the United (( States. '. 7. TAX EXEMPTION: Lessee hereby covenants and agrees that the portion of the rental payments under this Lease identified in the appropriate Schedule a as deferred interest(the"Interest Component"),upon receipt;will riot be includable as Federal gross income of the Lessor and will be exempt from Federal income t taxes. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary,if during the Lease Term or thereafter,it is determined that all or any part of the Interest Component is No.3029574 S provision for Federal income taxon such subject to Federal income taxes,Lessen shaft pay to Lessor promptly after such determination g. amount such that after p' 4 amount,calculated an the basis of the highest marginal corporate Income tax rata then prevailing,the balance retained by Lessor wouldincome equal(i)he amount of tax f penalties x additions the igto s incurred by Lessor or any member a consolidated ¢ to Which the interact Component f the relevant part hereof would be subject it it were taxed at the highest marginal corporate income tax rate far each taxable or period covered by such determination,plus(!i)any after-tett part of exliltpense.P an fee assumptions that the interest Component or the relevant group, of which Lessor is also a member as a result Of determination nes lore shall bead adjusted(based up subject to Federal!haeme taxes. In any such Quant,ail rents{ payments becoming due hereunder subsequent r sucht Component of ilia rental payments shall be equal to the yield which the Lessor would receive if ilia thereat thereof shall continue to be sub' to Federal income taxes and that such texas are payable by the Lessor at She highest marginal corporate income tax rets ` :prevailing)so that the after-tax yield on she Interest Compo Component or the relevant part the was not subject to Federal income taxes.' L®ease shall be entitled to quiet enjoyment of the Equipment and may 8. int o th it elevant par INSPECTION AND REPOF.TS: During he Rental Term. � insurance policies,and any installation requirements(including n es if any, specifications)or fo he e possess and use the Equipment in accordance ND R is Lease, a s provided that Lessee is in compliance in all respects with the terms of this Lease and that such possession and use are In conformity with all app r warranties of the manutscfurer,,seller, ad/or supplier with respect to the Equipment. Lessee shall provide all permits end licenses. Y may be Iovatod.,Lessee shall promptly notitY Lessor of all detail or arising aim relating thereto.' installation and operation o!the Equipment. Lessor shall have the right,upon reasonable prior notice to Lessee and during regular business hours,a inchange in spect the Equi�smant at file premises of Lessee or wherever the Equipment Y removal b !4s data and information a contained in or accompanying any Equipment being returned or repoasessad and Lessor' Fquiprn of he Equipment,any ailogsd encumbrances thereon or ant accident allegedly suiting from ilia use or operation thereof Y Lessee shall be responsible for the re am in any returned or repossessed Equipment. shalt have no responsibility for any data or information remaining in or accomP' l g G, ;SECURITY AGREEMENT FIIRTSHIER ASSURANCES; To secure the performance of all of Lessee's obligations andm hereunder, Lessee ereby therents tr, t therefrom. Lassa®agrees to execute or deliver such additional documents,including,without Lassor a security thereat constituting a leaf lien onthe Equipment and on all additions,attachments.repairs,replacements,and modifications thereto or therefor, including all after acquired Equip merit of Lessor,and on any proceeds , or the confirmation or perfection of this Lase and Lessor's rights hereunder. Lessor is in! limiS.+flan,financing statements,opinions of counsel,no and clatter instruments,in farm satisfactory to Lessor,which Lessor deem n cassary or appropriate 22 to establish and maintain its socuriYy interest in the Equipment or f theft or authorized to file financing statements signed only by Lessor in accordance with the Uniform commercial Code a signed by Less t it she obligations of Leasee under this Lease all of which she the same with like new Equipment { to. RiS+K OF LOSS: All risk of los damage,theft ordestruction to each item of Equipment shall be borne by the Lessee. nu such loss,damage, destructiari of the Equipment,in whole or 3n part,shall imp h 9 hereof Lessee,at Lessor's option,shall(a)place the affected Equipment in goad repair,itecondition and working order,(b)dying { mount egaaf 4o ail unpaid rent due and to become due under this Leas I.Lessee shall be entitledtohe good repair,canditionand working order and with clear title thereto in Lessee and with a security interest herein satisfying the requirements of Paragraph having been duly granted to Lessor,or(c)pay file Lessor an a Equipment. Provided that Lessor has received the amount referred to in'clauae(c)of this Paragraph t0 for ant item of Equipm s Lease), proceeds of any recovery in respect of said item tram insurance or otherwise. t Y. INSURANCE: Unless prohibited by apPifcable lava(Lose ch item ioten written EquipmenY against sice to eg ski a d in an amauint aYrleaior st equalto ito the ng Uamount of all Lessee,at its own expense,shall throughout the Rental Term insurez unpaid rent duo and to become due under this Lease with respect to such item of payable ndorsement in favor OfnLessor aand its successorsand assigns,and Lessee shall with carriers acceptable to Lessor, under a policy or policies containing s lass pat ors nabilitY and property damage insurance in term and x affosdling to Lessor and its successors and assigns'such additional projection as,Lessor and its successors and assigns shat!reasonably sty a mag rinsura- a in es shall t' !u i ar at its expense, in effect throughout the Rental Term a policy or Pnameolicies of comprehensive p t, signs as onal eds. The and its successors an e [and with carriers sa4isfsctory to Lessor All such Inst(east shall 30 days prfaLessor wr tten not co 4o Lessor ordits successors or'assignsurLessae small deliver to r P Ida that they may not be cancelled or altered without Lessor copies or other evidence se4isfsctoY to Lw of each insurance Policy and each renewal thereof. Failure by Lessor to request evidence al save L insurance policies or ranewala,or otherwise to verify tea exs?snce of such insurance,shall not constitute a waiver of fee requirements drafts hereof. Lesser shall have the rant on behalf of ane and Lessee, to make claim for,receive payment of,and execute and endorse all documents,checks or drafts received in payment for f ight essories with loss or damage under said'insurance policies. t 12. FAAI"TENANCE AND REPAIRS Lessee ns oar11,deratits expense,maintain buY shell not be responsible ibl hforenorma wear and tear or depreciation resulting from the authorized use § respect thereto,in good repair,condition and 9 ) thereof. Lessee shall at its own expense,enter into and keep in force during the Renta!Term s maintenance agreement to maintain, service and repair the FF Equ pment. Lessor hal!furnish Leaser with an executed copy of such maintenance agreement. Lessee,without the prior written Equipment Unless otherwise agreed!n writing by Lessor. ger,such furnish Lessor wi ance agreement will be with he maim manufacturerofthsuggested the manufacturer.hLessee shall to approve such maintenance agreeman4,and Losse consent of Lessor,shelf make nes modifications or alterations to any item of Equipment excenterferespt engineering changes make no repair,addition or attach sent with r respect to any item f Equiarreasonabieent which iperiod of time.with replacehe eall parts4offEquipment t at may become worn Out, ost, creates a safety hszerd. Leases new replacement parts. Lessee shall not take any action ions might chm in the f destroyed or otherwise rendered permanently unfit for use,with appropriaterovided,however,that ' . creation of a mechanic's or maueeonl the Equipment shalt become part of the Equipment Ia d subject to Lessor's security into est therein;additions end attachments,at ! any time made or placed in o p Lessee shall have the opflon at removing any addition al attachment which has been paid for or otherwise provided by Lessee,so song as the Equipment shall been restored to its original condition, normal hoar and tear excepted. ad valorem,stamp,documentary and other taxes)and all 13. TAXES: Unless prohibited by applicable law(Lessee having given written notice 4o Lessor of such prohibition prior to entering into this Lease).Leases shall timely pay all assessments.license fees,taxes(including sales,use,excise,personal property, other governmental charges,fees,fines or penalties o operation etof,fandyonlor relating toe by Lessor tes Leaser Lessee,;provided,however,r,that the foregoing shall not include rental,shipment,transportation.delivery, any federal,state ar local income or franchise taxes of Lessorperform any of its obligations under this Lease with perform any act or make any payment which Lessor deems necessary for the maintenance and preservation of 1 14. LESSOR'S PERFORMANCE OF LESSEE'S OBLIGATION: If Lessee shall fail to duly and promptly p. respect to the Equipment,Lessor may,at its option,p i the Equipment and Lessor's interests txpenses he rei and ludi such payments not limited made payments Lefor sathet with h late charges as provided vin Paragraph15below, and any incurred by Lessor in per s reasonable legal fees incurred by Lessor insconnections alo heraid shahl not shall deemed agwaiver orQ release ofis sany nobP9ai one orydefault onLessee othe part of Lessor on demand. The Ili performance Of any act or payment by Les other rum to be 45: LATE CHARGES: Should Lessee fail a dullyexePse nytsremrt ed es under Paragraof any rental tpinr25 hereof)withinten day sof the date ohn w ich such is Lease(including,amount its due limited to,any amounts due as a result of Les herd"a r,then Lessee shall pay late charges on such delinquent payment from the tenth day after the due date thereof until paid(both dates inclusive),at the rate e per annum or the highest rate permitted by law.whichever is less. indemnify,protect and keep harmless Lessor and its successors an assigns o, 1L. P !!!� 1$: INDEMNIFICATION: Lessee assumes liability for,and hereby agrees s indq Y P and their respective agents,employees,officers,directors, parents, subsidiaries and stockholders from and against any and all liabilities,obligations,losses, and heir injuries,ti e aims,demands,penalties,actions,costs and expenses(including reasonable attorney's fees),of whatsoever kind and nature,arising nut al the use,condit!on(including,but not limited to,latent and other defects and whether or not discoverable by Lessee or Lessor),operation,ownership,selection, dab"saery,leasing or return of any:item of Equipment.regardless of where,how and by whom operated,or any failure on the part of Lessee to accept the Equipment or otherwise to perform or comply with any conditions of this Lease. The indemnities and assumpns of liabilities and obligations herein provide tiod for shall continue in full force and effect notwithstanding the expiration or termination of any Rental Term or the Lease Term. Lessee is an independent contractor and 11"Nng contained In this Lease shall authorize Losses or any other person to operate any item of Equipment so as to incur or impose any liability or obligation for or j< ihalf aI Lessor. 17. NO OFFSET: This Lease is,a not lease. ALL RENTAL PAYMEPfTS SHALL BE PROMPTLY PAID BY LESSEE IRRESPECTIVE OF ANY. SET-OFF, t COUNTERCLAIM, RECOUPMENT, DEFENSE OR OTHER RIGHT WHICH LESSEE MAY HAVE AGAINST LESSOR, OR THE MANUFACTURER, SELLER AND/OR SUPPLIER OF THE EQUIPMENT OR ANY OTHER PARTY, 16. TEFM9NATION OF LESSOR'S INTEREST If Lessee shall have performed all of its obligations and no default shall have occurred and be continuing under this Lease,and this Lease shall not have been earlier terminated with respect to the Equipment,then,at the and of the Rental Term with respect to any item of Equipment. Lessor's interest in such Equipment shall terminate. Lessee shall be responsible for any applicable safes, use,excise, personal property, ad valorem,stamp,documentary and other applicable taxes arising due to such termination: 19, ADVANCE RENTALS;SECURITY DEPOSIT: Any advance rentals paid by Lessee to Lessor shall be applied to initial renins payments coming due under d in such Schedule. The security this Lease. A security deposit shalt be due upon acceptance by Lessor of each Schedule providing therefor in the amount specifie ecurity for the full payment and performance of all terms,conditions and obligations of the Lessee under this deposit shatl be noninterest bearing and shall be s Leese. Such deposit shall not excuse the performance at the time and in the manner prescribed of any obligation of Lessee or prevent or curs default thereof. h security deposit toward discharge of any overdue obligation of Lessee. The portion of the security deposit Lessor rri&y.but shall not be sequined to,apply sur # received,by Lessor in connection with acceptance of a particular Schedule shall be refunded to lessee, provided that Lessee has fully complied with and discharged all its obligations under such Schedule and is not and has not been in default under this Lease. 20. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES OF LESSEE: Lessee hereby represents and warrants to and agrees with Lessor that: (a) Lessee is a State.a Territory or a possession of the United States,the District of Columbia,or a political subdivision of any of the foregoing within the meaning of Section 103(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, and Treasury Regulations and Rulings related thereto. If Lessee is incorporated,it is duly organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of its,jurisdiction of incorporation and will do or cause to be done all things R necessary to preserve and keep such organization and existence in full force and effect. x (b) Losses has been duly authorized by the Constitution and laws of the applicable jurisdiction and by a resolution of its governing body(which resolution, it requested by Lessor; is attached hereto)to execute and deliver this Lease and to carry out its obligations hereunder• (c) Ali requirements have been mat,and procedures have occurred in order to insure the enforceability of this Lease,and Lessee has complied with such public bidding requirements, if any. as may applicable to the transactions contemplated by this Lease. (d) The Equipment will be used by Lessee only for the purpose of performing one or more governmental or proprietary functions of Lessee consistent with the permissible`scope of Lessee's`authority and will not be used in a trade or business of any person or entity.other than Lessee. (a) LeRsos has funds available to pay trent until the end of its current appropriation period, and it will request funds to make paYmanis in each appropriation period,from now until the end of the term of this Lease. 21. NON-APPROPRIATION: If Lessee periodically requests from its legislative body or funding authority funds to be paid to Lessor under this Lease and, thstanding the making in good faith of such request in accordance with appropriate procedures and with the exercise of reasonable care and diligence,such live body or funding authority does not approve funds to be paid to Lessor for the Equipment,Lessee may,upon prior written notice to Lessor effective 60 _..i appropriation days after the giving of such Notice or upon the exhaustion of the;funding authorized for the then current`app p tiara period,whichever is later, return the Equipment Is Lessor at Lessee's expense and thereupon be released of its obligation to make all rental payments to Lessor due thereafter,provided:(!)the Equipment is returned to Lessor in the some condition as when first delivered to Lessee,reasonable wear and tear resulting solely from authorized use thereof excepted,(!!)the foregoing notice states the failure of the legislative body or funding authority to appropriate the necessary funds as reason for cancellation,and (!ii)the notice is accompanied by payment of a!%amounts then due to Lesser unIn the event Lessee returns the Equipment pursuant to the terms of der this Lease. this Paragraph 21,Lessor shall retain all sums paid hereunder by Lessee,including any security deposit paid hereunder,and in addition.Lessee shall pay to Lessor the termination charge,if any.specified in the applicatssa Schedule hereto. If the provisions of this Paragraph 21 are utilized by Lessee,Lessee agrees not to performed through the use of the Equipment,or to obtain from any source the services or purchase,loose or rant equipment performing functions similar to these balance of the appropriation period following Lessee's exercise of its termination right information which the Equipment was to perform or provide, for the hereunder. . 22. ASSIGNMENT SY LESSEE: Without Lessor's prior writion consent,Lessee may not, by operation of law or otherwise, (a) assign,transfer,pledge, hypothecate or otherwise dispose of this Lease or any interest therein or(b)sublet or tend the Equipment or permit the Equipment to be used by anyone other th San Lessee or Lessee's employees. 23. ASSIGNMENT 3Y LESSOR: Lessor may assign,soli or encumber all or any part of this Lease,the rental payments and any other rights or interests of Lessor hereunder,including the rights under this Lease and rental payments relating to any individual Schedule hereto. in the event of any such assignment of rental payments hereunder and written direction by Lessor to Lessee,Lessee shall unconditionally pay directly to any such assignee all rentals and other sums due or to become due under this Lease. THE RIGHTS OF ANY SUCH ASSIGNEE SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO ANY DEFENSE,COUNTERCLAIM OR SET-OFF WHICH LESSEE MAY HAVE AGAINST LESSOR. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any such assignment (a) shall be subject to Lessee's right to possess and use the der this Lease and(b)shall not release any of Lessor's obligations hereunder or any claim which Lessee has Equipment so long as Lessee is not in default un against Lessor. 24. EVENTS OF DEFAULT: Lessee shall be in default under this Lease upon the happening of any of tine following events or conditions ("Events of Default"),unless such Event of Default shall have been specifically waived by Lessor in writing: (a) Default by Lessee inpsyment of any installment of rent or any other indebtedness or obligation now or hereafter owed by Lessee to Lessor under this Lease or otherwise or in the performance of any obligation,covenant or liability contained in this Lease or any other agreement or document with Lessor,and the continuance of such default for to consecutive days after written notice thereof by Lessor to Lessee;or(b)any warranty,representation or statement made or furnished to Lessor by or on behalf of Lessee proves to have been false in any material respect when made or furnished,or(c)actual or attempted sale,lease or encumbrance of any of the Equipment,or the making of any levy, seizure or attachment thereof or thereon, or(d)dissolution,termination of existence,discontinuance of Lessee's business,insolvency,business failure,failure to pay debts as they mature,or appointment of a receiver of any part of the property of, or assignment for the benefit of creditors by Lessee, or the commencement of any proceedings under any bankruptcy, reorganization or arrangement laws by or against Lessee. f• ?5. REMEDIES OF LESSOR: Upon the occurrence of any Event of Default and at any time thereafter;Lessor may,without any further notice,exorcise one rj ,of the following remedies as Lessor in its sole discretion shall elect:(a)terminate the Rental Term and all of Lessee's rights hereunder as to any or all items orEquipment;(b)personally,or by its agents,take immediate possession from Lessee of any or all items of Equipment wherever found and for this purpose enter upon lessee's premises where any item of Equipment is located and remove such item of Equipment without notice or process of law and free from all claims of any nature whatsoever by Lessee;(c)proceed by appropriate court action or actions to enforce performance by Lessee of its obligations of all d tune re recover damages for the breach hereof(which damages shall,without limitation,consist of(I)all accrued and unpaid rentals;(ii)the present value of all future rentals due hereunder,(iii)all late charges,(iv)all of Lessor's costs and expenses incurred in connection with the enforcement of this Lease,(v)the amount of any tax benefits -3- y fast by Lessor by reason of Lessee's default hereunder,and(vi)any other damages caused by Lessee's default hereunder)or pursue any other ramody available to Lessor at law or in equity or otherwise;(d)declare all unpaid rental payments and other sums payable hereunder during the term 1161`600 to be immediately due and payable without any presentment.demand or protest(all of which are hereby expressly waived by Lessee):(e)cause Lessee.at its sole cost and expense,to promptly return or make available to Lessor any or all items o!Equipment in the same condition as when first delivered to Leanne,reasonable wear and tear ^' ^'`ting solely from authorized use thereof excepted;and(f)take any and all actions to which Lessor shat!,be entitled under applicable haw. re € a termination of any Rental Term on account of any Event of'Default hereunder shall occur only upon written notice by Lessor to Lessee and only with respect to i, each item or items of Equipment as Lessor specifically elects to terminate in such notice:. Except as to such item or clams with.reagent to which there is a' termination of the Mental Term,this Lease shall continue in full force and effect and Lessee shall be ob!iga^.ed to perform all acts and to pay all rental payments and Other amounts required under this Lease.` R No right or remedy herein conferred upon or reserved to Lessor is exclusive of any riptri or remedy herein or at law or in®gaily or otherwise provided or, n hereunder or now or hereafter existing at lour or in equity or by statute or otherwise,and permitted,but each shall becumulative of®vary Ether,right or remedy give may be unforced concurrently therewith or from time to time. 26. ttlaP(9utTILtf1 OF EQUIPMENT: In the cunni Lessor repassassea the Equipment,Lessor may,without any obligation whatsoever on the part of Lessor Baser do so.Ca)'tease the Equipment,or any portion thereof,in such manner,for such time and upon such terms as L@sear may delerm!ae or(b)soli She Equipment,a1` any lso,porti(a thereof,set, at one or more public or private seise,in such manner,and at such times and upon such terms as Lessor may determine. In the event that Lessor teases any such Equipment,any rentals received by Lessor for the Remaining Lease Term(s)(th®period ending on the date when the, Rental Tarin of this Lease for the Egolpment would have expired it an Event of Default had not occurred)for such Equipment shall be applied to the payment(in the following order)of(i)all coats and expenses(including reasonable attorney's fees)incurred by Lessor in retaking possession of,and removing,storing,repairing, refurbishing and leasing such Equipment,and(ii)the rentals for the remainder of the Rental Term and all other sums than remaining unpaid under this Lease: including.without limitation,late charges payable under Paragraph 15 hereof. The balance of such rentals,if any,shall be applied first to reimburse Lessee for any suets previously paid by Lessee to Lessor as damages described in subparagraphs(c)(ii),(!v)and(v)of Paragraph 25 hereat,and any remaining amounts shall be retained by Lessor. All rentals received by Lessor for the period commencing after the expiration of the Remaining Lease Term(s)shall be retained by Lessor. Without limiting any othtzr rights or remedies of Lessor herounder,Le9386 shall pay to Lessor upon demand any amount by which the slim of the amounts referred to in clauses(I)and(ii)above shall exceed the aggregate rentals received by Lessor under such leases for the respective Remaining Lease Term(s)applicable to the Equipment covered by such teases. In the.event that Lessor shall sell or otherwise dispose of(ocher than pursuant to a lease)any such Equipment,the proceeds thereof shall be applied to the paymant(in the following order)of(I)all costs and expenses(including,reasonable attorney's fees)incurred by Lessor in retaking possession of,and removing, storing,repairing,refurbishing and selling or othorwise disposing of such Equipment,and(i!)the rentals for the remainder of the Rental Term and all other sums then remaining unpaid under this Lease,including,without limitation,tate charges payable under Paragraph 15 hereof. The balance of'such proceeds,if any,shall be applied rirat to reimburse Lessee for any sums previously paid by Lessee to Lessor as damages described in subparagraphs(c)(!!),(Iv)and(v)of Paragraph 25 haroof,and any remaining amounts shall be retained by Lessor. Without limiting any other rights or remedies of Lessor hereunder,Lessee shall pay to Lasser upon demand any amount by which the rum of the amounts referred to in clauses (I)and (i!) above shall exceed the aggregate proceeds received by Lessor in connection with the sale or disposition of the Equipment. 27. COSTS: Leasee shall pay Lessor all costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred by Lessor in enforcing any of the terms. conditions or,provisions of this Lease. .-25. SEVERABILITY: Any provision of this Lease which is prohibited or unenforceable in any jurisdiction shall,as to such jurisdiction,be ineffective to the of such prohibition or unenforceability,without invalidating the remaining provisions hereof. To the extent permitted by applicable'lava,Lessee hereby ,es any provision of law which prohibits or renders unenforceable any provision hereof in any respect. 24. NOTICES: A!1 notices,reports,and other documents provided for herein shall be deemed to have been given or made when received or when mailed, postage prApaid,or delivered to a telegraph or cable company,addressed to Lessor or Lessen at their respective addressee set forth above or such ocher addresses as either of the parties hereto may designate is writing to the other from time to time for such purpose: 3a AMENDMENTS AND WAIVERS: Thio instrument and the Schedules executed by Lessor and Lessee constitute the entire agreement between Lessor V and Lessee with respect to the Equipment and the subject matter of this Lease. No term or provision of this Lease may be changed,waived, amended or dorminatod except by a written agreement signed by both Lessor and Lessee,except that Lessor may insert the serial number of soy item of Equipment after d�livasy thereof. Ate waiver of or delay or emission in the exercise of any right or remedy herein provided or otherwise available to Lessor shall impair,aftect a1`be construed as a waiver of its sights thereafter to exercise the same. Any single or partial exorcise by Lesser of any right hereunder shatl not preclude any other or furthar exercise of any right hereunder. , 31. CONSTRUCTION: This Lease shall in all respects be governed by and construed in Accordance with the taws of the state or other jurisdiction in which the Equipment shall be located in accordance with Paragraph 3 hereof. The titles of the sections of this Lease are for convenience only and shelf not d@baa or limit any of the terms or provisions hereof. Time is of the essence of this Lease in each of its provisions. 32. PARTIES, The provisions of this Lease shall be binding upon,and(subject to the limitations of Paragraph 22 hereat)shalt!euro to the benefit of.the assigns,representatives and successors of Lessor and Lessee.If there is more than one Lessee named in this Lease,the liability of each shall be joint and sevorai, LESSEE HEREBYACKNOWLEDGES RECEIPT OF A TRUE COPY OF THIS LEASE. r IN WITNESS WHEREOF,Lessor and Lessee have each caused this Lease to be duly executed as of the date float above written. A LESSEE City Of Tigard By (Signature and Title) By, (Signature and Title) (Must be signed by official duly authorized to enter into Lease on behalf of _ Lessee) Accepted as of the date first above written at Lesaor's principal place of business in the State of Michigan set forth below: t BURROUGHS FINANCE CORPORATION 4 (Signature and Title) _ L (Address) t, -4- '21 RWL 3 BURROU CSS FINANCE CORPORATION ANENDMENT da of , 1986 This Agreement made on this — y is for the ,purpose of: amending and addending that lease; agreement number 30082 dated June 2, 1986 ("the Agreement" )', between Burroughs Finance Corporation, a corporation duly organized and existing under the laves of the State of Michigan, with a principal place of business at 3011 W. Grand Blvd. , Suite 1:212, ;Detroit, MI 48202, and City of Tigard, a city duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Oregon. The agreement is modified and addended to in the following respect: 1. Paragraph #6`, TITLE TO AND LOCATION OF EQUIPMENT: Delete the second sentence of the second paragraph beginning with the words "Lessee hereby irrevocably designates and ending with "transfer possession to lessor. 2 Paragraph #9', SECURITY AGREEMENT, INSPECTION AND REPORTS: In the last sentence of this paragraph delete the words "or :signed by Lessor as Le ssee"s attorney in fact." 3. Paragraph #11, INSURANCE: In the second sentence afterthe words "comprehensive -;public .liability" insert "or acceptable equivalent. In the fifth sentence after the words "right on behalf of 'itself" delete "and Lessee. 4. Paragraph #16, INDEMNIFICATIONc In the first sentence after the words "employees, officers, directors" delete "parents, subsidiaries, and stockholders" h and after the words "arising out of the use, " delete "condition (including, but not limited to, latent and other defects and whether or not discoverable by Lessee or Lessor) . 5. Paragraph #21, NON--APPROPRIATION: In the second sentence delete the words "and in addition, Lessee shall pay to Lessor the termination charge, if any specified in the applicable 4 Schedule hereto. " OF EQUIPMENT: At the end of the 6, Paragraph #26, DISPOSITION first sentence after the words "Lessor may determine" insert or (c) dispose of equipment in a commercially reasonable manner." 7. Paragraph #28, SEVERABIIi'Y: Delete the entire second sentence rf "To the extent permitted. . ." and beginning with the words , . ending with "provision hereof in any respect. " In no event shall a rental adjustment which relates to the 8. 'in section seven of the Equipment Lease provisions contained Agreement result in ,a payment eaccveciing $72,645 for Lease Schedule Number One. X €f X 555 LESSEE: BURROUGHS FINANCE CORPORATION City of Tigard By: By: Title: Title: a Date. Date: r � ii d +71 r �e} �� n e-Z g j vmt'� f�. �tii qb w, w I� G74 e�4 r xaZE2.chi p.st s `$ :. ,�� '�..', u c x# e ' ZIRSN 'm MEN �� s,.,,1 '��';: RENTAL TERM: 49 months. ` 1C3PdTISLY RENTAL PAYMENT: Monthsle 13, 25, 3?, ar�c� 49 � ,x•69,173.00 5. AMOUNT OF ADVANCE RENTAL PAYMENTS: S t�I� ' _ 6, DEFERgED INTEREST INCLUDED IN TOTAL RENTAL PAYMENY'S-. S 52 2,595 20 SECURITY DEPOSIT: N/A TERMINATION CHARGE. N/A 'I`HiS SCHEDULE AND ITS TERMS AND CONDITIONS ARE HEREBY INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE IN THE ABOVE EQUIPMENT vtEijtT LEASE AGREEMENT. LESSEE PERMITS LESSOR TO INSERT SERIAL NUMBERS OF EQUIPMENT WHEN C3ETERfllii4lEl� B e'LESSOR. THE EQUIPMENT LISTED IN ITEM t DOES NOT iMJCLi31�E SYSTEM SOFTWARE OR OTHER t DETE,I PROGRAM PRODUCTS.BESANY SUCH SOFTWARE OR PROGRAM PRODUCTS SHALL. BE SUBJECT TO A SEPARATE LICENSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN LESSEE AND BURROUGHS CORPORATION. •, . LESSEE City of Tigard By, (Signature and Title) @ By (Signature and Title) (Must be signed by official duly authorized to enter into Lease on behalf of Lessee) x LESSOR Accepted as of the date of this Schedule at Lessor'sprincipal place of business in the State of Michigan set forth below: BURROUGH S FINANCE CORPORATION 3y (Signature and Title) (:Address) f ._ _ 4 Page 1 or, 3 SCELEDULE A R Uipment Description Items � Description of Units 1 1 B1955--SYS System, includes: - 6 MHz Processor - 1 MB Memory< - Operator Display and Control - 59484-51 130 MB Disk Pack Control -- B92.46-6 650 IPM Printer'` & Control - B1352 8-Line Multiline Control B1650-7 Async TDI -Adapter 2 1 B1155--1MB 1' MB Memory , 3 2 B1650--7 Additional-TDI Adapter 4 1 B1651-2 Synchronous Data Set Connect Adapter 5 1 B9494--41 400 MB Disk Drive 6 1 B1493 B9498 Take Control 7 1 B9498 Magnetic Tape Streamer 8 1 B1498--55 B9498 to B1955 Cable 9 1 CB194 Disk I/O Cable 10 1 CB196 25 ° Printer I/O Cable 11 8 ET1100' 14 Ergonomic Terminal 12 1 AP1310 160 CPS Poll/Select Painter 13 1 B9967-21 AP1310 USA Power Kit 14 2 B28-CPU' 80286 Master Workstation 15 2 B25-D3 15" Color Display 16 2 B25-K2 OFIS Keyboard 17 3 B28-1MB 1 MB Memory Expansion 18 2 B25-M4 20MB/630KB Disk Drive 19 1 B25-MU5 40 MB Hard Disk Upgrade 20 1 B25-TS Tape Streamer 21 4 B25-GRA Graphics Module 22 1 B25-PS Power Supply Modules 23 7 B25-LC Line Cord' 24 4 B26-WS1 B25' Basic System �., 25 5 B26-256 256KB Memory �. 26 1 AP1351 200 CPS Multifunction Color Printer F7"" 11-1, I Page 2 of 3 ' { Item Qty. §jyle :3escri�tion of Units y 27 1 B9967--1 AP1351 Power Kit 28 1 XC687-4 10' parallel Cable 29 1 AP1354 136 Column Multifunction Printer 30 1 XC689-6 i0' Parallel Cable ; 31 1 AP1314 Multifunction Printer 32 1 PT'101 Terminator Kit 33 2 B25-PS1 High Power Supply 34 1 XC697-1 10' Serial. Cable 35 Burroughs Hardware Installation @ $850.00 36 Burroughs Hardware Shipping @ 2,787 .00 ' 37 Burroughs Software described as: (1) B1900 TC4 (1) 828 ST7 (1) r B26 ST7 {1) 528 MS7 (1 ) MB20 IS6 4 (1) MB20 EM2 MB20 PS6 (1) MB20 BT1 r, (1) B28 Spa. 38 Burroughs Software Installation @ $1,520 .00 39 (1) MP21OF 20 KVA Modular Power System (l) R.E.P.O. Station . (Z) Processor Cable 14' (l) B9246 6 Cable 20' (l) B9498 Cable 10° (1) Wang Cable 34` ` 40 Shipping of Modular Power System @ $367 .50 41 One (1) Year IPM Facilities Management @ $42,720 .00 42 One each of the following modules of IPM Application Software: $26,100.00 General Ledger Budgetary Accounting Accounts Payable - Purchasing Payroll - Utility Billing Assessments - Fixed Assets - Municipal Court -- Business License - Fleet Management r; v- L' k Item Qtyo S De,cription of Units 43 One each of the following modules of $21,057 .00 GEOGROUP Application software: .� Automated Mapp i ng System permit Tracking System Software',Customizing parcel Master File LESSEE: BURROUGHS FINANCE CORPORATION City of Tigard BY: 3Y; TILE; TITLE; t �. — ., DATE: DATE: BURROUGHS CORPORATION MANUFACTURER'S WARRANTY AND AGREEMENT CUSTOMER City" of Tigard (Ficin Name) 13125 5,W. Hall StrPet (Number) (Street) Tigard, Oregon 97223 (City) (State) (Zip) Lease or Contract No.- 30082 Schedule No(s). 02 Burroughs Corporation ("Burroughs") has sold certain Burroughs equipment and products to Burroughs Finance Corporation ("BFC"). Customer has made arrangements to obtain from BFC the equipment listed on the Schedule(s) referenced above, or in the case of a Leaseon Form No. 3029566, in such Lease (the "Equipment"). Customer desires that Burroughs sell the Equipment to BFC which in turn is to provide the Equipment to Customer on such terms and conditions as agreed to between Customer and BFC.' In consideration of the above,the parties agree to the terms and conditions contained in this 2 Agreement and the Addenda selected by Customer below (collectively referred to as the „Agreement"). ADDENDA ®urroutths Customer's Effective Title Form Numb Initials Date TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1. MANUFACTURER'S WARRANTY Burroughs warrants that the Equipment shall be free from defects in material and workmanship under normal use and service maintenance for a period of ninety (90) days from shipment to Customer on B20 series and SR100 products and one (1) year from date of shipment to Customer on all other products provided the Equipment has received the normal required maintenance service. No free maintenance is included in this warranty. Written notice and an explanation of the circumstances of any claim that the Equipment has proved defective in material or workmanship shall be given promptly by Customer to Burroughs. Customer's sole and exclusive remedy inure event of defectis expressly limited to the correction of the defect by adjustment, repair, or replacement at Burroughs election and sole expense, except that there shall be no obligation to replace or repair items which by their nature are expendable. No representation or other affirmation of fact,including but not limited to,statements regarding capacity, suitability for use, or performance of the Equipment, shall be or be deemed to be a warranty or representation by Burroughs for any purpose, or give rise to any liability or obligation of Burroughs whatsoever. EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED IN THIS AGREEMENT, THERE ARE NO OTHER WAR- RANTIES EXPRESS OR IMPLIED INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. If Customer employs any non-Burroughs attachment, feature, or device on the Equipment or any part thereof furnished by Burroughs, which has not been approved in writing by Burroughs, Burroughs shall not be liable under this warranty. The approval of the use of any non-Burroughs attachment, feature,or device shall not be deemed to be a representation,warranty or undertaking by Burroughs regarding such non-Burroughs equipment, including its performance in conjunction with the Equipment. 2. MAINTENANCE Burroughs will provide its normal maintenance coverage applicable to the Equipment subject to the terms of Burroughs standard Maintenance Agreement and then-current charges. 3. DELIVERY AND INSTALLATION Burroughs shall deliver and install the Equipment as promptly as is reasonably possible, but in no event shall Burroughs be held responsible to the Customer for delay in delivery or installation or for delays in manufacturing. No. 9029665 PATENT INDEMNITY (a) Burroughs shall defend or settle any suit or proceeding brought against Customer based I on a 'claire that any Equipment made to Burroughs design constitutessn infringement of any , existing United States patent. on required Burroughs thae sdefenseifiand Burroughs shall in +pay all damand is ages complete authority end nfors iatiat required far and costs awarded therein,against customer,but shall not be resronswritten any cost,expense or compromise incurred or made by Customer without Burroughs prior to or does become the subject of a claim (b) If airy Equiipment is, in Burroughs opinioia and expense procure¢tar Customer the right to for}patent infringement,Burroughs n?sy at its apt p s, for ate using the Equipment,nt, oP modify it to become-non-infringing, but if Burrouclhs is not reasonably able to modify':or otherwise procure for Customer the right 8o continue using it, will remove the.Equipment and refund to Customer the amount paid in excess of a Burroughs reasonable rental for past use. (o) Burroughs shall not;be liable for any infringement or claim thereof based upon use of the Eetulpria€int in combination with other equipment or with software not supplied by Burroughs, or with m6dification made by Customer. (d) The 'foregoing states the entire liability of Burroughs to Customer arising from patent bifringement. LIMIT'A'TION OF LIABILITY 3HS BE LIABLE FOR LOSS OF (a) IN_NO EVENT SHALL BURRO ES ARISING OF ANY BREACH OFTHE AGREEMENT �? SPECIAL,OR CONSEQUENTIAL OR OBLIGATI003S UNDER THE AGREEMENT. (b) BURROUGHS SFfALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES CAUSED BY DELAY IN DELIVERY, INSTALLATION OR FURNISHING OF THE EQUIPMENT OR SERVICES UNDER THE AGREEMENT. (c) Customer shall assume full responsibility for the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the operating environment in which the Equipment and software are to function. (d) o:action arising out of any claimed breach of the Agreement or transactions under the 4 Agreement may be brought by either party more than two (2)years after the cause of action has accrued. 6. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATIONany confidential or proprietary information ' Customer shall protect and shall not disclose r: ed to Customer by or on behalf of Burroughs and shall return all copies, tapes and other supplsuppli i inn o of such information upon completion of Customer's use of the Equipment or Bur- �. roughs earlier demand therefor. 7. EFFECTIVE DATE ve upon the sale of the Equipment by Burroughs to BFC. This Agreement shalt become effecti S, GOVERNING LAW a with the laws of the State This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in ascendens of Michigan. 9. ARBITRATION Any dispute arising out of this Agreement or transactions relating to it shall be submitted to OSinding aPbitration,to a single arbitrator(the"Arbitrator' )under the auspicles of the American Arbi- tration Association(``AAA")pursuant to AAA's Commercial Arbitration Rules. The Arbitrator shall be a duly licensed attorney experienced in computer matters. Under no circumstances shall Burroughs or the Customer request,or the Arbitrator award,any attorneys'fees,except that the Arbitrator may assess the feesand expenses of the AAA and the Arbitrator against the losing party. Customer agrees not to disclose to any person any information, including, but not limited to, any arbitration award, regarding any arbitration proceeding authorized hereunder, except to the extent required by law. CUSTOMER BY ITS SIGNATURE ACKNOWLEDGES THAT IT HAS READ'THIS AGREEMENT, ESIT AND THAT IT CONSTITUTES THE ENTIRE AGREEMENT UNDERSTANDING AND RPRESI+IENTATIONS EXPRESS O�i;IMPLIED,BETWEEN THE CUSTOMER,AMID BURROUGHS WITH EPRE AGREE- RESPECT TO THE PRODUCTS AND SERVICES FURNISHED HEREUNDER ANDTHAT THIS AGREE- MEPBT'Stfs�ERSEDES ALL PRIOR COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN THE PARTIES. THIS AGREEMENT MAY BE MODIFIED .OR_AMENDED ONLY BY A WRITTEN INSTRUMENT SIGNED BY DULY ' AUTHORIZED'REPRESENTATIVES OR CUSTOMER AND BURROUGHS. ACCEPTED: City cf Ti�rd BURROUGHS CORPORATION CUSIObtER By horized Signature Authorized Signature _. Aut g Title Title Date Date a x. HS FINANCE CORPORATION BURROUG fl�1 West Granas Boulevard Sults 1212 Detroit, MI48202 F s tb , CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE E: city of Tigard i LESSEE OR BUFF � EQUIPMENT LEASE OR CO DlTaO,NAL SALES CONTRACT, 30082 01 .DLE NUMBER . THE UNDERSIGNED ACKNOWLEDGES THAT: 1.The :Equipment and products described in the above-referenced Schedule are delivered. installed, available for use end are placed in service as of the Acceptance ®ate indicated below. onaot9on and repair and are accepted as 2Such Eguiprnent and products are in good operating c . y satisfactory in all respects for the purpose of the Agreement. t, . The undersigned will com +ence payment in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement. beginning on the Acceptance Date noted below. Acceptance Date: x__.�------ st Authorized Sir-nature: Mabee Typed or Printed: x� { Title: x — Form No JG24`:' •6f. OEM s. s g BURROUGHS FINANCE CORPORATION , mi west Grand"Boulevard Suite 1212 Detroit, MI 48232 CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE >r LESSEE OR'BUYER City ©f Tigard �w.o 1 SAS OR CONDI`aIONAL SALES CONTRACT 30082 OI -'-Z CHEDUL USER . THE UNDERSIGNED ACKNOWLEDGES THAT: 1.The Equipment and products described in the aboveAreferenced nce Dateeindicated are ybelow. installed, available for use and are placed in service as of she Accepta are in good operating condition and repair and are accepted 2.Such Equipment and products as satisfactory in all respects for the purpose of the Agreement. with the provisions of the Agreement. 3.The undersigned will commence payment in accordance beginning;on the Acceptance fete noted below. Acceptance Date: x Authorized Signature: x Name Typed or Printed: x _ "title: x .Form No K294 Z' - 4 855,1013911MM IN ; .j ' pt :cwcc s'r. it1"'•'Titi3CTiOfdS: (0N1*0vA COMMERCIAL CODE—MMANCING STATF.sYENT--FOL-M UCC-1 oxq"Miisxraa -1.PLEASE TYPE THIS FORM. taut aa,t:u I 2.Enclose fee of 53.75 por name gated.plus$2.00 per trade name t i ,•`c,'-- 3;.Thal tarot is to be fW eatfY with the.f`cratary Of State. : ::�i�^.� n making ` ::Send ttta Alpfrattat�al,f urnencat aod'Acknow!od9mant oofnes"it"inferfeavaai cartran paper mzact fa the idrtxs olfiax.The Ot>:ttor(s)and Secu.ed Party(ias)copwas are re:ain?d fay Pa Y ` the I*pv. S.If the space pra idod for any terrn(s)on the form a madequaw.the nems)should be continued on adarrnad sferots.size S'x 8 Only one copy of s¢xit txktiitatal stteees nand vv presented RTI to the filing officer.Long schedule;of cullaaarof.:ndenuures.etc.rosy be on any size paper that corwanrent for etre secured party..60 HOT STAPLE OST TAPE ANYTHI r TO LOWER POiiitOf< OF THIS FOft99. - euros ackow meet of W schenutes of collateral. :.x S.At the time of original filing.hlln cificer wm return acknowiedgment copy to the assignee it exited on firm or sacured party.It saran-party req l 0 r5 -t9—copies on,,ld he presented and ono wdt be returnedfee- 7 . -7..4+y:f2st a.copy.at the aaCuri[Y agia+arttent u wad w a fm,nung statement,it is requested that o Ile actor rpanied I:j a comple but unsigned se:at these toimt without extra tee f3:.ltili�ri filing n to be terminated the ackawWdgmcnt copy may be sent to the frl:ng officer:signed by the,segued party or assignee ar he may use Fenn tJCG3 as a Tarminax�n Statement. �• 11;ia FIMANCING STATEMENT lit pmanniod to filing officer purawart m tha Uniform Comnxarcfnl Cada. a .. Officer at.only IA.'Debt.-(.): 2A.r 5acvrca8 Porty(fso)c Ff!)og Csty o Tigard Burroughs Finance Corp. 1S. 9Aafl3xg Ad3sast(aa): 213. Address of 5srxred Party frost whlzis sac'rrity infoarras'wan obulitkb4a: 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard 3011 West Grand Blvd. xigardr Oregon 97223 Ste. 1212 Detroit LSI X8202 3. This financing statement covers:the foilowfrtg rypea'(or items)of coliareral`:FORS 79.�f)20): Equipment as described in Schedule Aattacher'; hereto and made a part hereof, all `accessories, additions here after and attachments now and h attached thereto. RA. Aasffaw of Sscurod farWSie) any: Equipment located at: 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard 43. Addof Amilf�feral vrftich Tigard, Oregon 97223 " ®xccrify lafarmaf ®(afaiaabla: Lease #30082/Schedule 01 Check tfex if prowcfs of wItaterol pare olw covered [_71 No.of additional cheats attached L City of Tigard °3f mafosoda)of blibm'(9) aoea°isad in —of cassa. -.-._- _.-..-�_. Signatvro(s) of Debtor(o) • v,3twe(s)of Saetred Party(ies) in-cosec coverr-d by:ORS 79.4020. Signature(:)aA Secured Parfy(ies)or Assignea(s) This farm of:Financing Statement cpproved by.the Secretary of Start. - br.. nRWA UNIFORTA.COMMERCIAL CODE--FORM UCC-i Revised - FILING OFFICER-ALPHABETICAL SCEE,DULE A rat Descxi taRini Descrti Q of Units I A ' 1 B1955-SYS system, includes . - 6 VFz Processo, - 1 1+fB Memory - Operator Display and Control B9484-51 130 MB Disk Pack &: Control - B9246-_•6 650 LPM Printer & Control B1352 8-Line Multiline Control B1650-7 Asyrc. TDI Adapter 2 1 B'1155-1MB 1 MB Memory 3 2 B1650- 7 Additional TDI Adapter e l B1651-2 Synchronous Data Set Connect Adapter 5 l B9494-41 400 MB Disk Drive 6 l B1493 B9498 Tape Control µ 7 1. B9498 Magnetic Tape Streamer 8 1 B1498-�55 89498 to B1955 Cable g l CB194 Disk %/O Cable ' 10 1 CB196 25' Printer I/O Cable ` ll 8 ET1100 14" Ergonomic' Terminal 12 L AP1310 160 CPS Poll/Select Printer 13 1 B9967-21 API 310 USA Power Kit 14 2 B28-CPU 80286 Master Workstation 15 2 $25-D3 15" Color Display 16 2 B25-K2 OFIS Keyboard ..: 17 3 S28-LMB 1 MB Memory Expansion 18 2 B25-M4 20MB/630KB Disk Drive 19 , 1 B25-MU5 40 MB Hard Disk Upgrade 20 1 B25--TS Tape Streamer 21 4 B25-GRA Graphics Module 22 1 B25-PS Power Supply Modules 23 7 B25-LC Dine Cord 24 4 B26-WS1 B25 Basic System 25 5 B26--.256 256KB Memory ., 6' )_ AP1351 200 CPS Multi Function Colon' Printer ,Fa i Item t y. S_ e pesoraption of units 27 1 B9967-1 AP1351 Power Kit 28 l XC687-4 tp° Parallel Cabley 29 1 AP1354 136 Column Multifunction Printer , 30 l XC68g-6 10' Parallel Cable 31 l AP1314 Multifunction Printer 32 1 PT101 Terminator Kit ` 33 2 B25-PS1 high Power Supply ` 34 1 XC697-1" l0' Serial Cable $850.00 35 Burroughs Hardware Installation @ 2,787 .00 36 Burroughs Hardware Shipping @ 37 gaarroughs software described as: l) B1900 'fC4 (l) B28 ST7 B26 5T7 (1) B28 FSS7 (l j MB20 IS6- (1 j MB20 El' 2 (l) MB PS6 (l) MB20 BT1 f l3` 828 sPl , x 38 Burroughs Software Installation @ $1,520 .00 39 �l) MP2111F° 20 CS7A Modular power _System R.Fa.P.0 Station �l) Processor Cable 14' : t j B9246 6 Cable 20' a9498 Cable 10' (1) Wang 341 @ 40 Shipping of Modular Power System , $367 . 4l One fl) Year IPE: Facilities Management @ $42 ,720 .00 72 50 w 42 one each of the following modules of $26 , 100-00 IPti ',pplication Software: ' `µ - General Ledger Budgetary Accounting Accounts Payable {' - Purchasing r - Payroll Utility Billing Assessments Fixed 'Assets s Municipal Court Business License - Fleet Management Iten Q 5 yle Descri2tion of Units 43 One each of the following modules of GEOGROUP, Application Softwares $21,057 .00 Automated Mapping System Permit Tracking System Software Customizing Parcel` Master File a S'= F URCE OF FUNDS I-ETTER ESSENTIAL,USE/SO Burroughs Finance Corporation ' P.O. Box 3056 Birmingham, Michigan 48012 ate:,Equipment Lease Agreement No. 30082 Gentlemen: This confirms,and affirms that the Equipmentdescribed in the Equipment tease Agreement referred to above (the "Agreement") is essential to the function of the undersigned or to the 3 service we provide,to our citizens: ' Further, we have an immediate need for, and expect to make immediate use of, substantially f all such Equipment,which need is not temporary or expected to diminish in the foreseeable future. Such Equipment will be used by;us only for the purpose of performing one or more of our governmental or proprietary functions consistent with the permissible scope of our authority. Specifically, such Equipment was selected by usto be used as follows: The estimated useful life of such Equipment based upon manufacturer's representations and . our projected needs is Our source of funds for payments of the rent due under the Agreement for the current fiscal . c ` year is We expect and anticipate adequate funds to be available for all future payments of rent due after the current fiscal year for the following reasons: Very truly yours, City of Tigard Lessee By. " (Signature and Title) ? K.: No. 3029808 Egg IN Mg . rM- MIA, r INSURANCE INFORMATION. City of Tigard Lessee Name 3008?_' Lessee 'Number Name of Insurance Company -- Name of 'Insurance Agency Address of Insurance Agency Name of Agent Phone it <of Agent Policy # Expiration Fate Policy Amount - Fire Extended Coverage $, Deductible other (Specify) — Liability-Bodily Injury $ Liability-Property Damage $ Insurance Certificate to follow YES NO Follow-up date Informationtakenby f r tw } To be typed on Lessee' s letterhead and forwarded to Lessee' s insurance agency. �rRm Gentlemen: wtame entered into a leaae transaction with Burroughs F3.=nce Corporation at 3021 Wm Craned Blvd, Same 1222, Detroit, Hichigan 48202. he subject and total Lessor cant is as fallows: TOTAL COST: 293:293,80 Burroughs Finance Corporation will require a CertificAre of Insurance visa$ -Burroughs Finance .COrpssratiOn and/or its asasigus I ar. additional insured under our liability policy. The minimum acceptable coverage is $100,000 $300,000 Eadily , injuxy and $100,000 Property Damage. The wordisS ®Addit3o l insured' €ud 'Less Payee' must appear on hese certificates lcasag with the dollar amount of the coverage. We resolve that the actual certificates m&y take several, weeks to reach Burroughs Finance Corporation. In order for Burroughs Plage Corporation to permit us to use the equipment esat inthe interim, vouAct you kindly Saud a Settee of acknowledgment to them as soonan possible. F Thank you. . Sincerely yours, By: S u MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: V;ayor and City Council June 5, '1986 FROM. Jer ri Widner, Finance Director' Sfi�37ECT. SUMMARY OF c0fjPUTER MASTERPi AN PURCHASE _ _ _w-- •- — _ W , You have seen two separectafnitems tne computer decisionmasterpZarrdwhichyou T9sa Tirsi' item ;was a synopsis on June 9, 1906 to made on A'�ril 28, 1986, The for tkes� purcf�ase of mosttofnthe 4��ardware and some enter into a lyse agreement of the software, beat you have riot yet seen is a tabulation or 1985—E6 1986--87 expenditures and,a summar expenditures and r 1985—€36 cost 1985-87 lease/Maintenance Vendorpescri tion — Burro Hardware operating budgets $203,416.80--$24,320 � 20,551.Ob Wang Hardware •i 3�22O,�5d -0— 1,296 4iew2et'iJ� Hardwarelsoft. -0— 1,500 1401guHardware 12,a14.0O in 42,720.00 ' pIM Facilities mgmt 1,780.�lQ 26,100.00' 4,932 v IPM Software 15,000,00 21.057.00 2.640 GeoGrouga Hardware/ ft 21 057.40 $293,293.80--$35,837 Subtotal $04,022.00 Air• conditioner 5,Q�2.Od Total $89,074.04 r :.. Tal enance 367.8 . luding Mai Total computer ;Raster Plan cost enc aintenancer�$418 204 80. JTotal 198687 computer- !"faster Plan cost including m exp lease $&9,178.00 plus Maintenance $35,837.00 = $105,015.00. J1W:jw (1342F) S 6 44. MEMORANDUM � CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO; Mayor and 'City Council June A, 1986 FROM. Sods Jean, City Administrator SUBJECT: Council Meetings Calendar Mon. 6/9 Council Study Session at 630. Council Business Meeting at 7:00. Mon. 6/16: Study Session at 6:30, Council at 7:00; a "tue6/17 Park Board Tour. Fleet at Civic Center, at 5:45. Sat. 6/21 Council and Planning Commission Workshop, 9 AM — 3 PM at Civic �a Center. Mon. 6!30 NO MEETING. Fri 7/4HOL]HOLIDAY, CIVIC CENTER CLOSED. ` Mon. 7/7' NO MEETING.- Thu. 7/10 Tom Brian and Bob Jean meet with Transportation Committee re. : , '86-87 Work Plan. ° Mon. 7/14 Study Session at 6:30, Council at 7:00. �. �r Mon. 7/21 Study Session at 6:30, Council at 7;00. Mon. 7/28 Study Session at 6:30, Council at 7:00. Mon. 8/4 NO MEETING. Deadline for filing Mayoral position petitions. Mon. 8/11 Study Session at 6:30, Council at 7:00. Mon. 8/18 Study Session at 6:30, Council at 7:00. ' Mope. 8/25 Study Session at 6:30, Council at 7:00. Council position petition w: filing deadline. Mon. 9/1 NO MEETING. HOLIDAY, CIVIC CENTER CLOSED. 1108-11/11 League of Oregon Cities Conference, Eugene. ;. (BJ'Cn/40) CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON MEMORANDUM Mayor and Gity Council June 3, 1986 TO: FROM Brian Hartung, Community Assistant SUBJECT. Council and Staff Board Liaison Assignments 4 - ' ' f_f Liaison Liaison Chair committee or - n Eadon Liz Newton Dan Graham Carols Parks and Recreation, Tom Brian Keith Liden Don Moen Bob Jean/-TCARY- planning Commission Sohn Cook Nick Frezza Irene Ertell Budget Committee LIibrary ,Board Walt Munhall Carolyn Eadon gill M.l Pandy W. 1 Transportation Tom Sullivan Tom Brian gill Monahan John Savory Valerie Johnson Economic Development Valerie Johnson By Hartung Utilities & Franchises Val Allen David Lehr Jerry Edwards Neighborhood match John Seday Jerry Edwards Liz Newton ;CDBG/CAS -_ Bob Jean My MACC t x t d j i F CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON MEMORANDUM T0: Honorable Mayor and City Council June 9, 1986 ; FROM: Bob Jean, City Administrator g; c, SUBJECT: FY 1985-87 Council Goals and Li i ons The following list is in general priority order showing the Council GOAL, the )` related work elements and the Council member assigned as the .Council liaison (initial) to work with staff: 1. OBTAIN NEW TAX BASE/ADEQUATE FUNDING...(JC/CC) o New Tax Base and 5-year Financial Plan b Financial Reporting` and Auditing p o Service Level Priorities '& Reports 2. IMPLEMENT TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM...(TB) o Transportation Public Facilities Plan o Streets CIP and Finance o Bikeways, Transit & Regional Issues o Dartmouth LID o 135th LID o Scholls Ferry Road Area Plan o Downtown/CBD Area Plan 3. COORDINATE EFFECTIVE COUNCIL-BOARD AND COMMITTEE RELATIONS. . .(VJ) o Council Committee Liaisons and Annual Council-Committee Workshops o Guidelines, Training and Boardsmanship Workshops o Work Plans and Progress Reports I o Mayor and T.A.C.C. Coordination Meetings o Volunteerism Awards and Recognition o Periodic Council Workshops and Long-Range Consensus 4. - SUPPORT METZGER/WASHINGTON-SQUARE ANNEXATION.. . (JC/CC) o Public Information via CPO and Newsletter (Win-Win) o Municipal Services and Costs o Beaverton-Tigard APAA, County-Tigard UPAA o City Resolution re."Offer" -o Alternate Scenarios (Square, Trammel-Crow, etc.) 5. EXPAND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND INCREASE PUBLIC INFORMATION...(CE) o Neighborhood Town Halls and Annual Town Hall Meeting o Broaden and Redefine NPO Role, Res. o Newsletter, CATV, Press, Questionnaire, etc. 5. DEVELOP DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENT PLANS & CIP.. .(VJ) Q Downtown/CBD Area Plan, Boundary, Map o Beautification Plan o Assist Chamber/Downtown Council o Parking Plan, Traffic` & Circulation Plan o Support Downtown Economic Development 0 CIP and Funding Match .: aIN Council Goals and Liaisons Page 2 6/9/86 7. ADOPT ANNEXATION & MUNICIPAL SERVICES POLICY.. .(JC/CC) o. Letter(s) to County re. Municipal Services ' o Municipal Services Study o 20-Year Financial Projection o Review Comp. Plan Annexation Policy & UPAA/APAA 8. EXPAND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ,RELATIONS..'.(JC/CC) o Council Meetings with Beaverton, Tualatin, School Districts, County and Special Districts o Legislative Involvement through League of Oregon ,Cities and Sub-Committees, Metro Area_and Washington County Legislative Caucus 9,. ADOPT PARKS PLAN AND CIP...(CE) o' Map and Inventory Parks o Adopt Parks Plan o Develop and Adopt ParksCIP o. Approve Parks Funding/Implementation Plan - ip.. DETERMINE CITY RECREATION ROLE...(CE) o Community Survey and Interests/Needs Assessment c Recreation Program Range of Alternatives o Inventory of Existing Recreation Programs, Directory o Role of School Districts o Task Force? ' a Funding Options € y iS { CITE' or TICa RD, ORBGCN MIN... UUM TC: City Administrator ' li° May 22 1986 03: Chief of Police SUBTrG`�'o Selection procedure/Delayed Hiring The Police De�.nt, with the assistance of Helen Terry, has been exploring a new recruit selection procedure. This new procedure is expected to give the Police Department an eligibility list for hire composed of the highestqualified individuals possible. Several components of the procedure are innovative in nature, as they relate to the police recruitment process. The process will include a validated`written test, and a physical fitness comment. While physical tests are 'routinely given for entrance screeni.g, they are usually comprised of physical agility tests that often are subject' to court challenge as diserimi.natory to vin. We are proposing to implement a physical fitrs_ test that is validated by ages and sex, and would y+ be backed by Dr. Kenneth Cooper's Aerobic Institute in Dallas, TX. Ude have " ..} two trained officers capable of administering the test. This gest would be useful 'in screening out those persons more susceptible `to cardio-vascular and/or, orthopedic injury. The third component of the procedure could be a structured "assessment interview. Four or five candidates at a time would be asked a series of questions,, job validated, by a moderator, the answers to be judged' by an assessment panel.. The fourth component would be an Assessment Center process similar to the ones used by the City in hirings and prcimotions. This procedure is workable but would require scan tiara to implement. Vb are therefore requesting the indulgence of the Council in delaying the hiring of the two scheduled officers from July 1 to September'1, 1986. A secondary result of the delay would be the freeing up of funds now dedicated to salaries that could be allocated to training, a serious need in the department: TIGARD POLICE DEPARTMM-f S C-LION PROCESS A. 'Lhe follm-fi.ng c0r'POnents establish an eligibility list: 1. RecrLiitm�s-t 2 Crimi na H;Gt or y and Drivers License heck 3. Written. Test 4. Physical Fitness Fest 5. Structured Assessnr.nt Interview 6. Assessnent Center B. The following components aro for final selection. r. Background Investigation 8. Psychological Examination a, 9. medical Examination CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON v. COUNCIL AGENDA. ITEM SUMMARY Y AGENDA OF: 3une 9, 1986 AGENDA ITEM DATE. SUBMITTED: May, 19, 1986 e PREVIOUS ACTION: ISSUE/.AGFA TITLE: Application for s' Federal Aid for Traffic Signal PREP1sRED BY: R fit. Wooley, Cit Enter. proiects REQUESTED BY. DEPARTMEtff HEAD OR;: c, .7,¢ ��i CITY ADMINISTRATOR: POLICY ISSUE ISSUE Shall the Mayor. and City Recorder be authorized to sign applications for w Federal did far traffic signals at Hall/Burnham and at Greerburg/Tiedemau. 1 ^Y�. INFORP%Tl'ON SUMMARY Included in the current Capital Improvement_ Program are projects for Installation of traffic signals at the Hall/Burnham and Greenburg/Tiedeman . intersectiones. Federal funding is availably in the amount of X71 'l3 and has been- tentatively allocated to the two signal projects. The Federal funding represents approximately `50% of the project costa. In order to have the Federal funds obligated to the Tigard projects, a formal Federal Aid Project Request must be submitted. (See attachments) Approval of the attached a resolution will authorize the Federal Aid Project Requests. asx�axasvtmam�a.=c�azxs.�saa�ax-assaa�assasaaa:sa�aasax...e�ardaaas.gas-navaaaa�caaxa�ss�,aa�aenzs ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED a 1. Approve the resolution authorizing signing of the Federal Aid Project Request forms as submitted. 2. ' Direct the staff to revise the Request forms, 8. Fund the projects without Federal aid. 4. Cancel the projects. F } SUGGESTED ACTION Approve the resolution authorizing signing of the Federal Aid Project .Request farms as submitted. 3 fly y,��7 g��p �j(1q� : i 0RRJ.br/2532P9 r FEDERAL AID PRO.7ECP REQUEST Date May 26, 1986 Applicant Agency City of Tigard Request for: Off-System FAS-C TAUS xx Project Federal Aid Route No. FAU 9091 Route 'Name Hall Blvd. Project Name Hall Blvd./Burnha•a Street Signal Project LengthProject Locatioxa (Attacca' sketch ;clap) Project Description Installation of a traffic signal' on Hall Blvd. at the intersection of Burnham Street. Average Daily;Traffic 10,900 Design Speed 35 MPH Complete ApplicableSections: I. ROADWAY DATA 1. Existin%_E adwaVm (Attach sketch) Width 36' Travel Lanes 2 shoulders Varies Medians None Parking None Sidewalks None - Remarks 2. Desired Roadway CroS$ Section: (Attach sketch) 4 Width Travel Lanes Shoulders Medians Parking Curbed _ _ Length Curb Radii Sidewalk/Bikewa Remarks Roadway wideninc-and "left-turn channelization will be provided bV the State as a separate project coordinated with the signal project. 3I RICHT-OF-WAY DATA 1. Existing R3.ght-of-Way: General Width 60' Minimum 60` Maximum 60, 2. Has right-of-way been acquired forthisproject subsequent to January 2, 1971? Yes XXNo Donated by Tigard Water District. 3 Will additional right-o€-way be needed? Yes No XX If answer is "yes," will cost of right-of-way be subject to Federal reimbursement? Yes No Remarks !!I. TRAFFIC CONTROL DATA ' 1. Existing Sianalization and Location.