The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 02/09/1987 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an REGULAR MEETING AGENDA agenda item needs to sign on the appropriate BUSINESS AGENDA sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, FEBRUARY 9, 1987, 6:30 P.M. ask to be recognized by the Chair at the start TIGARD CIVIC CENTER of that agenda item. Visitor's agenda items are 13125 SW HALL BLVD. asked to be to 2 minutes or less. Longer matters TIGARD, OREGON 97223 can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or City Administrator. 600 p.=. o STUDY SESSION 7;00 P.,. 1. REGULAR MEETING: 1.1 Call To Order and Roll Call 1.2 Pledge of Allegiance 1.3 Call To Staff and Council For Non-Agenda Items 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (2 Minutes or Less Per Issue, Please) 3. PUBLIC HEARING - M 16-86 - JANIS YOUTH PROGRAM - APPEAL OF DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION - NPO N1 6 2 For City Council review of a Planning Director's interpretation of the Community Oeveloment Code pertaining to the Site Oeveloment Review process (Chapter 18.120), group care residential (Section 18.42.020(a)(6), and street improvements (Section 18.164.030). o Public Hearing Opened o Pmclarations Or Challenges o Summatiolt By Community Development Director o Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross Examination o Recommendation By Community Development Director a Council Questions Or Comments a Public Hearing Closed o Consideration By Council 4. PUBLIC HEARING - SUBDIVISION, S 17-86 - BENJFRAN DEVELOPMENT - NPO 0 7 An appeal of the Hearings Officer approval to subdivide a 9.6 acre parcel into 37 lots on property zoned R-4.5 (Residential 4.5 units/acre). Located immediately south of Morning Hill numbers 2, 3. 4, and 5, and east of 135th. (WCTM 2S1 4AB lots 4500, 4600, and 4700; and 2S1 4A lot 501). ` o Public Hearing Opened o Declarations Or Challenges o Summation By Community Development Director o Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross Examination o Recommendation By Community Development Director -" o Council Questions Or Comments o Public Hearing Closed o Consideration By Council - Resolution No. 97-1(a t. COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 9, 1987 - PAGE 1 5. PUBLIC HEARING - SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, SDR 21-86 - DAROLD & SUE SNYDER - NPO # 2 �q An appeal of the conditions of approval for a Director's Decision on a Site Development Review to allow a mail order and general retail business on a 2.43 acre site which is zoned I-P (Industrial Park). Also, a variance to allow a gravel driveway with a 15 to 20 foot width where pavement and a 24 foot width is required. Located: 9740 SW Tigard St. (WCTM 2S1 2BA lot 501). o Public Hearing Opened o Declar _:tions Or Challenges o Summation By Community Development Director o Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross Examination o Recommendation By Community Development Director o Council Questions Or Comments o Public Hearing Closed o Consideration By Council 6. HALUBURNHAM LID ACCEPTANCE OF FINAL ENGINEER'S REPORT & RESOLUTION SETTING FOR FINAL ASSESSMENT HEARING - PHASE IV & V - RES. NO. 87--1% o City Engineer 7. COMMUNITY BLOCK GRANT NEEDS STATEMENT o Planning Staff 8. SOLAR ACCESS STUDY DISCUSSION o Planning Staff 9. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: r 9.1 Approve Council Minutes - November 17, 1986, January 27, 1987 9.2 Receive and File: a. Council Meeting Calendar Update b. Five Year Financial Plan c. Departmental Monthly Reports - Community Services 9.3 Approve Training Request - Oregon Municipal Finance Officers Association $776.00 9.4 Approve Board and Committee Appointments - o Transportation Advisory Committee - Resolution No. 87--Ql- 9.5 Approve Amendment To Resolution No. 87-15 Regarding Bond Award For Refinancing Bonds - Resolution No. 67-2Q- 9.6 7-2Z9.6 Approve Initiation of Review For Chelsea Hills (S7-84) Final Plat 9.7 Approve Continuation of City of Tigard Library's participation in Access '86 Program through June 30, 1987 10. NON-AGENDA ITEMS: From Council and Staff it. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, and current and pending litigation issues. L- 12. ADJOURNMENT lw/45O9A COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 9, 1987 - PAGE 2 i T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L REGULAR MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9, 1987 - 6:40 P.M. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor Tom Brian; Councilors: Carolyn Eadon, Jerry Edwards, Valerie Johnson, and John Schwartz; City Staff: Bob Jean, City Administrator; David Lehr, Chief of Police; Bill Monahan, Community Development Director; Randy Wooley, City Engineer; Keith Liden, Senior Planner; Duane Roberts, Administrative Planner; Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel; and Catherine Wheatley, Deputy Recorder. 2. STUDY SESSMM - Council President Edwards called the Study Session to Order. (Council President presided for majority of the meeting; Mayor and City Administrator were present during portions of meeting as noted in text below.) a. The Community Development Director apprised the Council of the background on the Janis Youth Program item which was set for public hearing on the evening's agenda. At issue is the definition/differentiation between a "Group Residential" (does not require Site Development Review) and a "Group Care Residential" (does require Site Development Review) . The staff determined that "group care residential" applied in this case because of the child care and the State licensing requirement. Councilors questioned Staff and Legal Counsel on this item and received clarification from Legal Counsel that requirements for Site Development Review are not precluded on the grounds that this usage is allowed in a single-family zoned area. b. Councilors briefly discussed Agenda item No. 4 concerning the Public Nearing for the Benjfran Development. REGULAR MEETING BEGAN AT 7:05 P.M. 3. [RILL TO STAFF AND COUNCIL FOR NON- GENIDA ITEMS a. City Administrator requested Right-of-Way Acquisition for North Dakota/115th Project item be considered (Agenda Item 10.1 - Ferrel property). b. Citi Administrator requested resolution be considered by Council as Agenda Item No. 10.2 concerning the support of the continuation of the Washington County Cooperative Library Services Operating Levy at $2.6 million. C. The Council consensus was for these two items to be added to the "Non-Agenda Items" portion of the proceedings. 4. PUBLIC HEARING - A 16-86 - JANIS 1i1N PROGRAM - APPEAL OF DIRECTOR'S IMTERPRETATION - NPO 01 6 4 For City Council review of a Planning Director's interpretation of the Community Development Code pertaining to the Site Development Review process (Chapter 18.120), group care residential (Section 18.42.020(a)(6), and street improvements (Section 18.164.030). page i - COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9, 1997 a. Public Hearing opened pEp i b. Community Development Director summarized the history of this agenda item. Janis Youth Programs, Inc. has established a youth shelter/care facility without receiving Site Development Review approval. After receiving a Notice of Infraction, Janis Youth requested an appeal of the Director's interpretation of the Code which requires Site Development Review. Also, the requirement of half street improvements is being questioned by the applicant. The issues to be discussed center upon the appropriate Code definition to apply to the use (Group Care Residential as opposed to Group Residential) and whether City land use approval is necessary prior to establishing the use. C. Public Testimony Proponents o Dennis Morrow (Executive Director) and Barbara Hutsell, 788 N.E. Davis, Portland, Oregon, representing the Janis Youth Program were present. Mr. Morrow testified, while Ms. Hutsell distributed material supporting the presentation. Included in Mr. Morrow's testimony were an overview of the purpose of the Janis Youth Program, their search for an appropriate home in the Tigard area and the sequence of events to date. Hand outs to the Council included: o a brochure entitled "Helping Youth Get Back on Track" e a letter from Deborah A. Stuart, Assistant Planner, City of Tigard dated March 17, 1986 o a list of Janis Youth Program Board of Directors o a copy of the section of Code dealing with Site Development Review o a copy of a letter dated February 4, 1987 to Brad Roast, City of Tigard from Dennis Morrow, Janis Youth Programs, Inc. o a Calendar of events outlined by Janis Youth Programs from August 1985 to November 8, 1986. Mr. Morrow reviewed this sequence of events with the Council. Site Development Review shall be applicable to all new developments and major remodeling of existing developments except (among other things) it shall not apply to any remodel that involves 507E or less of the total square footage of the existing structure or 50% or less of the exterior wall surface. Mr. Morrow reported that he does not consider the IC work done on this structure to be excess of 50%. Page 2 — COUNCIL MINUTES — FEBRUARY 9, 1987 �r Mr. Morrow reported that half-street improvement costs would be a tremendous burden to the Janis organization. MAYOR BRIAN AND CITY ADMINISTRATOR LEFT THE MEETING TEMPORARILY AT THIS TIME. Opponents o Gary Ott, Acting Chairperson for NPO Nos. 1 and 2 testified that the Janis Youth Program has not been explained well to residents in the neighborhood. Mr. Ott recommended denial of the appeal and supported City Staff's recommendation. The neighbors requested review of this project to mitigate impacts such as noise abatement, landscaping and fencing. There was no contention on the part of the NPO that this represents a permitted use for the area. a John Drennan, 11495 S.W. Greenburg Road, testified that he is opposed to this project at this time. Neighbors have not been notified as to the nature of the project; they would like to know "what is going on?" and to have some input as to whether or not the project should be located in the area. Mr. Drennan questioned whether building code requirements have been satisfied which would accommodate this type of use. Mr Drennan mentioned that a petition containing 40 signatures from neighbors in the area was submitted to City Staff. d. Council discussion followed. o Council President Edwards asked the Council to consider reaching consensus agreement to table this item for two ,, reasons: 1) Review applicability of Mr. Morrow's statements in Janis Youth's "Calendar of Events and 2) what affect have Code changes had, if any, which may have occurred in mid—course for this project. o Councilor Schwartz also wished to receive clarification as to whether or not building code requirements have been satisfied for this type of use. He also would like to have information concerning code restrictions applied to the Janis Youth facilities in other areas of the State. o Councilor Johnson requested two items from City Staff: 1. Copy of Cooper Consultants, Inc. letter (to Janis Youth Programs, Inc.) concerning advice on half—street improvements, and 2. Copy of petition containing 40 signatures of surrounding residents mentioned in Mr. Drennan's testimony. e. Public Hearing Closed. Page 3 — COUNCIL MINUTES — FEBRUARY 9, 1997 f. Motion by Councilor Eadon, seconded by Councilor Johnson, to table this Public Hearing to the regular City Council meeting of March 9, 1987 and direct staff to forward to Council the two items requested by Councilor Johnson and to allow for time for Council to meet with Staff for clarification on issues raised by Councilor Schwartz and Councilor Johnson. Approved by a unanimous vote of the Council present. 5. PUBLIC HEARING — SUBDIVISION, S 17-86 — BENJ'FRAN DEVELOPMENT — NPO 07 An appeal of the Hearings Officer approval to subdivide a 9.6 acre parcel into 37 lots on property zoned R--4.5 (Residential 4.5 units/acre). Located immediately south of Morning Hill Numbers 2, 3, 4, and 5, and east of 135th. (WCTM 2S1 4AS, Lots 4500, 4600, and 4700; and 2S1 4A, Lot 501). a. Public Hearing Opened b. Senior Planner Liden summarized this agenda item. On December 19, 1986, the Hearings Officer approved Morning Hill #6 (S 17-86) subject to 18 conditions of approval. This decision is being appealed by an adjoining property owner (Oregon Bank) on the grounds that adequate assurance has not been made for the future provision of access to the Bank property. C. Public Testimony Appellants (Supporting Appeal) o Jeffrey H. Keeney, a8OO Orbanco Building. 1001 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Portland, Oregon, testified as The Oregon Bank's Legal Counsel. Mr. Keeney advised that the central issue is one of access to Tax Lot 102. He was was advised of a possible dedication of Greenway on a portion of Tax Lot 102 (on the eastern and southeastern border). This was something the Bank was not aware of at the time they acquired the property. Mr. Keeney said he has been unable to ascertain if this Greenway does exist. If the Greenway does exist, then the only other access to the Bank's property would be through the Morning Hill Subdivision. Mr. Keeney testified that in Condition No. 15 of the Hearings Officer Decision, "The applicant shall contact the owner of Tax Lot 102 and after consultation shall submit a conceptual plan for providing an acceptable means of access to Tax Lot 102." Mr. Keeney advised that The Oregon Bank is concerned that this condition does not give them any real voice in determining what is acceptable access. Mr. Keeney suggested two alternatives: Page 4 — COUNCIL MINUTES — FEBRUARY 9, 1997 1) Modify Condition No. 15 providing that prior to filing of the Final Plat that Benjamin Franklin approach The Oregon Bank to determine if the final form of access as submitted is acceptable to The Oregon Bank. 2) Remand matter to the Planning Commission for future study and determine if there is a Greenway. Mr. Keeney noted that the Bank would agree to a modification agreement outlining a means of just compensation from Benjamin Franklin or the City if they must leave Tax Lot 102 undeveloped. o Michael J. Scott, attorney with Furrer and Scott, P. O. Box 23417, Tigard, Oregon 97223 was present representing the Bellwood Neighborhood Association. Also present with Mr. Scott were two of the neighbors from the Association: Stephen E. Hamilton, 12285 S.W. 128th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon and Doris Pavlukovich, 12345 S.W. 128th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon. Of major concern to the Neighborhood Association is the preservation of the Greenway which they had understood to be adjacent to their property. The Bellwood Subdivision residents also have an interest in the access determination. Mr. Scott referred to City Council minutes dated November 6, 1978 (Bellwood No. 3), wherein one of the conditions was that the Greenway be dedicated to the City and the item was referred to the Park Board for further recommendation. The Greenway area needs to be determined. Legal Counsel Ramis cautioned Mr. Scott to limit his comments to testimony and facts introduced in the previous record. After discussion, consensus of all parties was that the Greenway issue was introduced previously into the record. All agreed that there would be no objections to discussion of the Greenway issue. o Stephen E. Hamilton, 12285 S>W. 128th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon, testified that all of the landowners along; this section paid for the privilege of having the Greenway. It was their understanding that this Greenway area was to have been dedicated to the City in 1978 and numerous representations were made which indicated that this was to be a Greenway. o Kirk Sellman, 12465 S.W. 129th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon said that he agrees with the comments made by Michael Scott. o Mary Phillips, 12940 S.W. Katherine Street, Tigard, Oregon testified that she agrees with the comments made by Michael Scott. o Leonard Kapp, 12245 S.W. 128th, Tigard, Oregon, also agrees with the comments of Michael Scott. page 5 —COUNCIL MINUTES — FEBRUARY 9, 1997 Respondents (Against the Appeal) o Greg Hathaway, One S.W. Columbia Boulevard, Benjamin Franklin Plaza Building, (attorney for interests of Benjfran Development Company) testified. Mr. Hathaway gave background information which centered around agreements between Mr. Brayson and Wedgewood Homes. Benjfran was not party or on notice of any agreement for a Greenway dedication. Mr. Hathaway noted that Morning Hill p4 (a final, recoraed plat) has development occurring now and no objections were raised regarding access when this plat was going through the review process. Mr. Hathaway commented on the condition in the decision of the Hearings Officer. The two parties (Benjfran and The Oregon Bank) were to cooperatively discuss the issue of access and derive an acceptable means of access from Morning Hill No. 6 to The Oregon Bank's property. This conclusion must be reviewed by City Staff. Mr. Hathaway stated that it is really the City Staff which will make the final determination. Mr. Hathaway said he believes this process will solve the problem and would roll. like to see further remands which would delay the development again. (MAYOR BRIAN REENTERED THE PROCEEDINGS DURING THE TESTIMONY OF MR. HATHAWAY) d. In response to a procedural question asked by Councilor Johnson, Legal Counsel advised that even if the entire area is a Greenway, it will still be entitled to access. It is not absolutely necessary to conclude the greenway issue before determining that there should be a condition requiring some kind of reasonable access. However, the location of the access can only be determined after the greenway issue has been resolved. @. Mayor Brian asked for any objections to his participating in further Council discussion and the vote on this issue. There were no objections. f. Community Development Director stated that Staff recommends that Council uphold the conditions set by the Hearings Officer. g. Public Hearing Closed h. Questions/Comments by Council o Councilor Johnson commented that this issue appears to have a vital separate issue in terms of the questioned greenway. This issued should be clarified by Staff. She stated further that it is important that the design of the subject access should be in the hands of City Staff so that the concerns and appeals of either of the interested property owners can be addressed and aired fairly. It may be appropriate to add more to Condition No. 15. Page 6 — COUNCIL MINUTES — FEBRUARY 9, 1987 o Mayor Brian noted that Item No. 15 does not note if the access should be a public or private street. Senior Planner Liden responded that Staff's preference would be to not specify whether access is a public street or a private drive because it is not known how many lots are to be proposed. o Councilor Schwartz commented on the Hearing on Morning Hill No. 4. The original presentation appeared to have an access, but it is now bordered by housing lots with no access provided. Senior Planner Liden responded that there have been several changes in ideas for the property. In 1985, the new owners (Benjamin Franklin) proposed Morning Hill No. 4 which was totally different from what was envisioned in 1978. Mr. Brayson was still the owner of the property at that time and received notice of the subdivision review; however, no representative for Mr. Brayson consulted the City until six months after approval was given. By that time, the City had released the plat to the County for recording. o Councilor Edwards stated that The Oregon Bank appears to be adequately protected in the issue before the Council. There are adequate safeguards contained in the recommendations of the Hearings Officer and City Staff. The greenway issue is an entirely different, although important, issue which must be addressed separately. i RESOLUTION W. 87-16, A FINAL ORDER IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL REQUESTED BY BENJ FRAN DEVELOPMENT, INC. , FILE 41X). S 17-86, APPROVING THE APPLICATION, ENTERING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. J . Discussion on the issue by Council included the consensus that Benj Fran has the obligation to submit a proposal (for City Staff's review and approval) for access after consulting with The Oregon Bank and a neighborhood representative. k. Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Edwards, to adopt Resolution No. 87-16 which upholds the Hearings Officer decision and City Staff's recommendation; therefore, the appeal is denied. Motion approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. 1. Councilor Johnson recommended that Council direct City Staff to write a memorandum of clarification on the greenway issue. This memorandum should be prepared for Council with copies sent to those property owners who testified at this meeting. Mr. Scott advised he would provide the neighborhood a copy of the memorandum. ADJOURNED TO EXECUTIVE SESSION - 8:56 P.M. (AGENDA REARRANGED) COUNCIL RECONVENED - 9:25 P.M. Page 7 - COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9, 1997 6. SOUTH ME42SQ M"My1M - pEWMa AFI)mij= - COMML CONSIDERATION AS DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION a. Councilor Edwards declared a conflict of interest in the South Metzger Annexation issue and did not participate in the discussion or the vote. b. Legal Counsel noted that the Boundary Commission has before it, by resolution from the Tigard City Council, the consideration of the annexation of the South Metzger area to Tigard. During the course of the proceedings, representatives from Washington Square indicated that they had problems with the procedure and process, and threatened litigation. A Complaint was prepared and the Square's legal counsel was prepared to go to Federal Court on the issue. Negotiations between the legal counsels for the City and the Square were held. As a result of those discussions and discussions with other property owners in the area, a settlement agreement was developed. It was the recommendation of the Tigard City Legal Counsel that the City Council accept and adopt the settlement agreement in resolution format (suggested resolution had been prepared for Council Consideration). This settlement agreement removed the threat of litigation and called for annexation based upon a phase-in of services and a phase-in of taxes for the area. C. Mr. lorry Hauck, attorney for the Washington Square interests, commented that Mr. Ramis had covered the points adequately and had no further comments. d. RESOLUTION NO. 87-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL FORWARDING THE PROPERTY OWNERS' REQUEST FOR INCLUSION IN SOUTH METZGER ANNEXATION PROPOSAL NO. 2344 TO THE BOUNDARY COMMISSION. e. Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Eadon, to adopt Resolution No. 87-17, Approved by a 4-0-1 vote of the Council present; Councilor Edwards abstained from voting. MAYOR BRIAN LEFT THE MEETING FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE PROCEEDINGS — COUNCIL PRESIDENT EDWARDS PRESIDED (9:35 P.M.). CITY ADMINISTRATOR JEAN ALSO LEFT AT THIS TIME. 7. PUBLIC 113 �T- SITE DE11E1AllEVXEU, SDR 21-$6 - DAROLD i SUE SMYDER - NPO 02 An appeal of the conditions of approval for a Director's Decision on a Site Development Review to allow a mail order and general retail business on a 2.43 acre site which is zoned I-P (Industrial Park). Also, a variance to allow a gravel driveway with a 15 to 20 foot width where pavement and a 24 foot width is required. Located: 9740 S.W. Tigard Street (WCTM 2S1 2BA, Lot 501). a. Public Hearing Opened Page 8 - COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9, 1987 with b. Councilor Schwartz noted iisadecisionl will n tr�bed affected theaffected applicants, but said that F this. nts and C. Councilor Edwards also declared tha. e stated thate knows he hasanot had lives in the same general any in--depth discussions or interest with regard to this matter and shall be able to make an impartial decision on this issue. r d, Senior Planner Liden summarized the agenda item. The proposal is to convert an existing 1600 square foot accessory building for re the use of a mail order business. The structure Theis aapplacant eis and there is also a residence on the property. appealing the decision for three reasons: 1. There was a condition for approval of half street improvements along Tigard Street. for use of f 2. The proposed variance denied (pavement wasvrequired asel on the daiconditiveway on parking area was s of approval) . 3. A dedication of the 100-year floodway for Fanno Creek which borders the rear of the property was also required. Anther issue related to this is that there is an appeal fee of $225.00 for which the applicant is asking for a refund. F e, Public Testimony A�Pe___-lla^t o Sue Snyder, 9740 S.W. Tigard Avenue, Tigard, OR 97224, twthfied the that she and her husband had no qualms for about comopment ithis conditions at the time they applied premature for the conditions property. However, she said it is e 1-1/2 acres which have not been to be met as there ar the half street improvements are based developed. Objections to owners largely on the premise that ^lith hhalf-streetyimprovements currently being asked to comply Objections to the greenway dedication are made because a fly idea that the S i der must donate u would a bend to required theCity 1 define the for the engineer ng Mrs Snyder said she does not think boundaries of the floodway• they should have to bear this expense. Mrs. Snyder advised that if this appeal is denied, the Snyders will not be able to have this business. uphold the f, Senior Planner uncil Liden recummindelsed that�it is inappropriate Director's Decision. If to require iarif some direin t ctionof the mfor future reference he Decision, Staff requests Y ..' Page 9 — COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9, 1987 �x g. Council Comments and Discussion. o Councilor Eadon noted that Staff's recommendations are based on current policies. She questioned if it might be necessary to consider the intent of the law as opposed to the letter of the law. Councilor Eadon noted that she is not faulting Staff, but feels that the applicant got "caught in the process." Consideration of a non-remonstrance agreement might be more favorable so that several areas can be developed for half street improvements all at once instead of piecemeal. o Councilor Schwartz noted he is in favor of improved roads, but he does not favor piecemeal improvements which may represent a safety hazard. Councilor Schwartz advised that a non-remonstrance agreement would appear the better solution. o Councilor Johnson noted that several issues had been raised. The cost of the surveying for the floodway dedication typically is done by an outside surveyor hired and paid for by the property owner. This has been a condition for surrounding property owners in the past as well. o Council President Edwards commented that he would have problems with half-street improvements for just this project on Tigard Avenue. He, too, expressed concern about piecemeal improvements. Council President Edwards agreed that a non-remonstrance agreement may be the solution for this instance so that the improvements can be done on a larger scale process. He noted that it may be necessary for Council to make some changes in the overall process. o Councilor Johnson then addressed the Director's Decision. She stated that she supported Conditions Nos. 1 through 5; suggested that a letter of non-remonstrance be required on Condition No. 6; strike Conditions Nos. 7 and 8; supported Condition Nos. 10 through 12; and suggested Condition No. 13 be altered so that parking and driveway areas would be paved upon expansion of the present building or if additional industrial commercial space is added; and supported Condition Nos. 14 and 15. h. Public Hearing Closed i Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Eadon, to modify the Director's Decision as noted by Councilor Johnson; City Staff was directed to prepare a Resolution denoting said changes. Motion passed by a unanimous vote of Council present. 1C page 10 - COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9, 1987 7. 8. HALL AMM! LID 00"TM'E OF FML. EXIMMEEN'S REPORT C RESOLUTION SETTING FOR FINAL ASSESSMENT HEARING - PHASE XV b V - RESOLDTM NO. 87-18. a. City Engineer summarized the agenda item. LID 85-01 was formed in December 1985 for construction of street improvements on Hall Boulevard between Burnham and O'Mara. The improvements were completed October 1986. The final assessments were approximately 207E less than had been estimated at the time of LID formation. Per Ordinance No. 86-29, the City has contributed $40,000 from the Streets SDC Fund as payment for extra width. It is necessary to schedule a hearing on the final assessment roll. b. RESOLUTION NO. 87-18 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE FINAL ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR THE STREET IMPROVEMENTS IN THE S.W. HALL/BURNHAM IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, ACCEPTING THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT ROLL, DIRECTING NOTICE BE GIVEN AND DIRECTING A PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD. C. Motion by Councilor Eadon, seconded by Councilor Johnson, to approve Resolution No. 87-18. Approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. 9. COMMUNITY BLOCK GRANT NEEDS STATEMENT a. Administrative Planner Roberts summarized this agenda item per his memorandum dated February 2, 1987 to the City Council. b. After discussion between Council and City Staff, the Council acknowledged receipt of the needs inventories submitted by three nonprofit agencies for inclusion in the City's needs inventory. 10. 90LAR A=U DISCUSSION a. Senior Planner Liden summarized the history for this agenda item. The City agreed to participate in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area Solar Access Project. Staff will keep the Council informed of the status of the project. b. Councilor Eadon commented that previous Council direction to Staff was to not spend a large amount of time on this issue as it is not a high priority item. Receive and file information at this point is all that is expected. Page 11 - COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9, 1987 i w 11. CONSENT fAN3M: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 11.1 Approve Council Minutes - November 17, 1986, January 27, 1987 11.2 Receive and File: a. Council Meeting Calendar Update b. Five Year Financial Plan c. Departmental Monthly Reports - Community Services 11.3 Approve Training Request - Oregon Municipal Finance Officers Association $776.00 11.4 Approve Board and Committee Appointments - o Transportation Advisory Committee - Resolution No. 87-21 11,5 Approve Amendment to Resolution No. 87-15 Regarding Bond Award for Refinancing Bonds - Resolution No. 87-22 11.6 Approve Initiation of Review for Chelsea Hills (S7-84) Final Plat 11.7 Approve Continuation of City of Tigard Library's Participation in Access 186 Program through June 30, 1987 Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Eadon to adopt the Consent Agenda, minus Agenda Item No. 11.3 (OMFOA Training Request). Agenda Item 11.3 was pulled for clarification needed. Approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. 12. NON-ABEMA ITS 12.1 - Right--of-Way Acquisition for North Dakota/115th Avenue Project. aw City Engineer summarized this issue. Acquisition of approximately 1,983 square feet of the Ferrel property is required as additional right-of-way to accomplish the realignment of North Dakota Street at 115th Avenue. The realignment is proposed to improve safety and reduce driver confusion at the intersection. b. RESOLUTION NO. 87-19 A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE NECESSITY AND PURPOSE FOR ACQUISITION OF A CERTAIN RIGHT-0F-WAY FOR REALIGNMENT OF NORTH DAKOTA STREET AT 115TH AVENUE AND AUTHORIZING CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS TO ACQUIRE SAID RIGHT-0F-WAY. C. Motion by Councilor Eadon, seconded by Councilor Schwartz, to adopt Resolution No. 87-19. Approved by a unanimous vote of the Council present. Pago 12 —COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9, 1987 12.2 Proposed Levy Amount to Continue the Washington County Cooperative Library Services. a. Community Development Director summarized the proposed resolution concerning a levy amount to continue the Washington County Cooperative Library Services for another two— to three—year period. A continuing levy is needed at this time to continue services. b. RESOLUTION NO. 87-20 A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL SUPPORTING THE CONTINUATION OF THE WASHINGTON COUNTY LIBRARY SERVICES OPERATING LEVY AT $2.6 MILLION. C. Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Eadon to adopt Resolution No. 87-20. Approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. 13. ADJOURNMENT: 10:40 p.m. Deputy Recorder — City of Tigary ATTEST: Mayor - City of Tigard cw/4543 A 4. a Page 13 --COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9, 1997 } e ' d? F � 0f ,� , • � � Gocc Qo e s s t O Q E co a ® � Q LL a r uIs bc 40 co " o o ip t- O% 0 'O • rd n eo 0% c g u 3 ao N r1 wLL a2 rr V o+ y eq Q e. Ln o41 60 U ac H f=+ f k AGENDA ITEM # — VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE 2/9/87 i (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. Please contact the City Administrator prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you. 'f NAME 6 ADDRESS TOPIC STAFF CONTACTED rz µ DATE 2/9/87 I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print the information) ITEM DESCRIPTION• Agenda Item No. 3 Appeal of Director's Decison — Janis Youth F.#cogram RRRRRRytRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR7kRttRRRR�c7kRRRRicRR7tRRRftRRRRi[RRRRRRR�tRRfcRRRRRRRRRR1tRRR7kRRRR Appellants (Supporting Appeal) Respondents (Against Appeal) ftRltlCRRRRRRRRRRRRRRtkRRRltf�RRRRf�RRRi�RRR1kRRRRRRRRRRRRRRfc*RRRftRRRRRRRRltltRl�RRRRRRRRf[�c Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation r 3RCAW A/ho z Lr 7. 4. -_ A ri c..t DATE 2/9J87 I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print the information) ITEM DESCRIPTION: Agenda Item No. 4 Appeal of Hearings' Officer Approval - Subdivision S 17-86 -' Benjfran Develogment /appellants (Supporting Appeal) Respondents (Against Appeal) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation r � 1®� OrOaw�to MAJJ')$00# rw S',4Ao'brllond olz GrouI tr.a+�el� Z Fsao�rs�: -5.r cm-- n� zs�►�u _�- 1 r .fie W s /23V 9- W 125 l 1 ' FEBRUARY 1997 C9 u `•�/ (� MEETING SCHEDULE - SATURDAY fRYDAY 7 r ypNESOAY THURSDAY 6 TUESDAY ♦ 5 _SUN_ MONDAY 2 3 �• 1 D 7:30PM NPO 164 7PM CIVIL INFRA Town Hall 14 CityHall 11 �— 10 -Y" ALENnNE'S 9 q s 7PM L�BD DAYcp Library 6:30PM STUDY SES 7:30PM TRANS C _ 7Pt"`IL Cit Hall 20 21 ` 1l — —'_'.e._-lg 19 Town Hall BA CITY HALL 16 7:30AM EC DEV 1 CLOSED Pioneer Pies PRES. HOLIDAY QPM PARK BD. 7:3 City Hall 6:00 PM COUNCIL Town Hall/Conf. 3 7:30PM PLAN 7:30PM NPO 5 6 28 7.30 PM NPS City Hall 26 27 City Hall 24 Town Hall * 25 �, -22 23 rk 6:30_„ P,_.M.CCI City Hall 6:3QPM STUOY SES 7PM HRGS OFFICER 7 STUDY AGENDA 7:00 PM UT6FRAN Cit v Hall _ ----- `J Town Hall BA City Hall (''� I Y BA - City Council Business Agenda Hall) Council Study Agenda A Department Head Staff Meeting - 9:30 AM (City SA - City Every Tuesday - Municipal Court -12:7011s(T 9n�aAM)(Town Hall) Every 2nd Tuesday of Month Attorney Town Hall) Every and Thursday of Month Jury Trials - 9:00 AM BSOO15W/2W CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: February 2 1967 DATE SUBMITTED: January 30, 1967 ISSUEIAGENDA TITLE: Appeal of PREVIOUS ACTION: Planning Director's Director's interpretation by Janis interpretation Youth Pro ra sInc. M16-86 PREPARED BY: Keith S. Liden DEPT HEAD OK ITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: _ POLICY ISSUE k Half street improvement questions have been forwarded to City Council for review rather than Planning Commission. Policy has been to require such improvements when the future street design and alignment are known. Section 18.164.030(a) requires that half-street improvements be installed unless they are not "timely". Staff has generally determined that they are "timely" only if: (1) an LID is being formed to include the improvements, or (2) the street needs an alignment revision which cannot be done piecemeal, or (3) drainage or some similar problem prevents piecemeal construction. INFORMATION SUMMARY Janis Youth Programs, Inc. has established a youth shelter/care facility without receiving Site Development Review approval. After receiving a Notice - of Infraction, Janis Youth requested an appeal of the Director's interpretation of the Code which requires Site Development Review. Also, the requirement of half street improvements is being questioned by the applicant. Attached is a staff memo outlining the sequence of events, memo regarding half street requirements, relevant correspondence, and Janis Youth appeal letter. ~ ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Uphold the Director's interpretation and require Site Devolopment Review approval. 2. Reverse or modify the Director's interpretation. FISCAL IMPACT SUGGESTED ACTION Uphold the Director's interpretation KSL:bs0567W i MEMORANDUM E CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON A TO: City Council January 30, 1987 FROM: Keith S. Liden, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Janis Youth Programs, Inc. (M16-86) This memo will summarize the sequence of events and issues relating to the Janis Youth Programs facility located at 11490 SW Greenburg Road. April 21, 1986 - Pre-application meeting with Janis and staff. It was determined that the proposed youth shelter was a "group care residential" use as defined in the Code and that Site Development Review (SDR) approval was necessary. It was also noted that right-of-way dedication and possibly half street improvements would be required along the Greenburg Road frontage. May 5, 1987 - Janis submitted a SDR application. June 6, 1986 Janis withdrew its application (SDR 11-86). It had been determined by the City Engineer that half street r improvements would be required unless appealed to City 1 Council. June-August 1986 - The residence was inspected for occupancy and fire, life, safety requirements have been met. An occupant' permit was not issued because the necessary planning review had not be conducted. August 7, 1986 - Staff wrote a letter to Janis reaffirming the need to receive a Site Development Review approval or to request review of a Planning Director's interpretation by City council. September 3, 1986 - Staff met with Janis representatives and it was our understanding that a Site Development Review or review of the Director's interpretation would be forthcoming. November 5, 1986 - Follow-up letter to Janis. December 4, 1986 - Notice of Infraction delivered. December 9, 1986 - Formal request to appeal the Director's interpretation by Janis. The issues to be discussed center upon the appropriate Code definition to tom` apply to the use and whether City land use approval is necessary prior to establishing the use. Memo - Janis Youth Programs, Inc. (M16-86) Page 2 Janis is intended to provide temporary housing and care for The shelter run by roximate ages of 12 and 18. The number currently " youths between the aPP varies, but it appears to range between 5 and 12. residing in the building the State. This Op is licensed by and "group zone and "group The building is with the R-12 (Residential, 12 units/arae residential" is Development Code contains the care residential" is listed as a permitted use use. ThCommunit listed as acoreddefinitions initional Section 18e42.020(a)y fallowing (5) Group Residential groups of more Refers to the residential occupancy of living units by than five (5) Persons who are not related by blood, marriage, or houses. adoption, and where communanckitchretirementining fhoma�s,1eboardings are rooused, Typical uses include Occup y roup care facilities cooperatives, and 6 halfway houses, but excluding g as specified in ( ) (6) Grou Care Residential in facilities Refers to services provided authorized, certified, o+" licensed by the State to provide board, room, and provide care to six or more physically disabled, mentcslly disordered, mentally retarded, persons, dependents or neglected children; hildr n;uaus einclude�, _ handicapped those use classified under hospitalsTypical ' intermediate care facilities and institutions for the mentally ically handicapped. regarded and phya The staff determined that "group care residential" applied in this case because of the child care and the State licensing requirement. indicates what types of development are subject to Chapter 18.120 of the Code - Site Development Review. 18,120.020 A licabilit of Provision Review shall be applicable rets aXGent itdevelopments not major remodeling(a) Site Developmentof existing developme lMS_ and apply to: (1) Single family detached dwellings; (2) A duplex, which is not being reviewed as part of any other development; or that % Or less of the total (3) Any remodel he existing isti g 50 structure, or 50% or less square footage of the e { of the exterior wall surface. l .i Memo — Janis Youth Programs, Inc. (M16-86) Page 3 (4) Any proposed development which as a valid conditional use approved through the conditional use permit application process. (5) Mobile Home Parks and Subdivisions. (b) A site development review shall also apply to a change in use with respect to an existing development or structure. (c) All of the provisions and regulations of the underlying zone shall apply unless modified by other sections of this Code e.g. the Planned Development, Chapter 18.80. ; or a Variance granted under Chapter 18.134; etc. The staff determined that Site Development Review was required because the remodeling involved the entire building and the use was changed from a single family residence to a group care residential facility. KSL:bs0567W Janis &youth Programs, Inc. 738 N.E. Davis • Portland, Oregon 97232 • ,503) 233-6090 Dennis L.Morrow Executive Director board of Dk•et= December 9, 1966 [ ' _ Gordon Wilson President Cl i Y OF TIGARD Judge Robert Redding Keith Liden, Code Enforcement Officer PLANNING DEPT, vice President City of Tigard Nona Solte`° P. 0. Boot 23397 Secretary Tigard, Oregon 97223 George Morgan Treasurer Dear Mr. Liden: Emilie Fnsbee Post President I am writing in response to the attached Notice of Infraction of oliveScirton December 4, 1986, requesting that Janis Youth Program, Inc. submit an application for site development review for our Norman Ftengel property at 11490 SW Greenburg Road, Tigard. After reviewing Koren Lytle siano your request with our consulting engineers and studying the Merle Bradford applicable city codes, we continue to believe that the Greenburg Road property is not subject to the site development process. Thomas Higgins Further, we feel that applying the site development process to Door,Madden this property at this time would constitute unfair and Dr Tha,�Nokoto inequitable treatment under existing law and precedent. This opinion is based on the following grounds: Rev Rodney Page Robert RKJgfey 1) The Tigard city code 18.120.020 requires site development PatnaaAiley review in instances of 'major remodeling" with the exception of "any remodel that involves 50 percent or less William Robertson 1r of the total square footage of the existing structure or 5U percent or less of the exterior wall surface:' 'Tamodel" is defined on page III-19 as "an internal or external R united Way modification to an existing building or structure which of Oregon does not increase the site coverage:' Our understanding is Agency that this is intended primarily to address major development projects and should not apply to were cosmetic changes such as we have undergone at the Greenberg site. 2) City planning staff have indicated in conversations with Janis staff that they consider a change in usage equivalent to ''remodeling." This is also reflected in the revised city code which we received on November 6, 1986. (Please note that the city code applicable at the time of our initial discussions with planning staff did not include the "charges in usage" language, that the code we purchased from the city in June, 1986, did not include this language, and that we were only informed of the new language in a } mailing received by us November 6, 1986.) Although it is quite clear that the Greenberg Road facility can be • Adludkoted youth Program • Clinton School • Cordero Residential Treatment Center • Harry's Mother • 0 Lents Education Center 0 Mental Health Program • Regional Evaluation Center • classified as a "group home" under your city code, it is untrue that this ': constitutes a change in usage. Recent Supreme Court decisions in the area of zoning specifically state that group care facilities are no different than single family residences for zoning purposes. In the absence of similar court precedent in the area of planning, we would argue that the same rationale applies to the definition of "usage" in determining applicability of the site development process. That is, as a group home, the same basic standards should apply to us as to a similarly situated single family residence which, in this case, would not include site development review. 3) We would also suggest that, in point of fact, any changes made in usage of the Greenburg property actually represent a less intense usage than under prior ownership, when the property was clearly used as some sort of multiple unit chelling. Specifically, R-12 zone permits single family residential, group care residential, and residential care homes, but: (a) The property at 11490 SW Greenburg was publicly advertised as a "bed and breakfast" and represented as such by the owner and her real estate agent; (b) On visits to the property prior to our purchase, at least three unrelated adults were observed living in numbered apartments, two of which had full or partial kitchens; (c) An adjacent neighbor has stated that she was aware of several people renting rooms from the prior owner; (d) There were eight phone lines to the address and there are eight mailboxes in front of the house; (e) There was institutional cooking equipment and separate heating systems for different living areas. This information indicates that the prior use of the residence more closely resembled a boarding house or other income-producing activity than a single family residence. our use much more closely resembles a single family residence having one kitchen, one central heating system, one mail boat, and a group of children cared for by one or two adults. The history of the property indicates no previous site development requirement. It appears to be an unfair and inequitable administration of the Tigard Development Code to apply standards to some ownership and not to others. In mmwry, we are, for the above stated reasons, unwilIing to apply for a site development review. Such an application would indicate our acceptance of what we believe to be an improper interpretation of the code. We remain committed to providing a safe and secure environment for our residents and our neighbors. We have endeavored to cooperate with the city from the time of our first interest in the property. Since our initial communication with your office on March 12, 1986, we have met all other applicable fire, sanitary, and building codes, and we look forward to an early resolution of this current dispute. Pursuant to your notice, we are therefore requesting a code interpretation by the City Council at which point we hope to also address the issue of the half- street requirement as well. S rely, qrz�:L- Morrow _ '� ftecutive Director Date: D f-PmhPr 4 r 1 QR6 Certified # P 253 292 528 C'TY(NUFARD CITY OF TIGARD Washington County. Oregon NOTICR OF INFRACTION OREGON 25 Years of SeMce 1961-1986 To: Aarhara R-LAP11 Case : 712 Respondent WCTM 1S1-35CA, TL 2302 Janis Youth Programs, Inc. RE* _7.48 NF *+ayi g a.k.a.: 11490 SW Greenburg Rd. D,.rrl-.,d AR 97747 It has been determined that the following activity or condition is an infraction as defined by Tigard Municipal Code: Com; 7a Sc and 1x_170- reamm nity revel nj=nt rnde 1DR erati nn of a $rmli narP reg'Aand al f-ni l;ty w4xOpt - aite "ytbin=tant rayj~ annrnval You may contact me by phone at 639-4171 between 9:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, or by wail at the Tigard Civic Center, 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd., PO Box 23397, Tigard, OR 97223, to informally discuss the possibility of entering a Voluntary Compliance Agreement. under this agreement, you would agree to remedy the alleged infraction within a certain time period and the .; City would agree not to file a summons and complaint against you during this period. If a Voluntary Compliance Agreement is not executed, the following action to remedy the infraction must be completed by 4:00 .._.._ nonea! r IS, 1986 suhminnion of a complete nite (Time and date) �evelo - nt review anel{[at+on er An offid-ill xpqttpnr fnr a rade intrrprntation by City.-Council, If this remedial action is not taken and a Voluntary Compliance Agreement has not been entered by the time and date indicat1'5b.ua uniform summons and complaint will be issued, and a penalty of $ plus hearing fees, may be imposed upon you, pursuant to Tigard Municipal Code. CITY OF TI By: Code RnforconenC Officer Senior Planner Keith Liden (Print Name) cn166 -4171 13125 SW Hail Blvd.P.O.Box 23397,Tigard Oregon 97223 (503)639 r ti vo i November 5, 1986 C17VOFMFARD OREGON 25 Yeas of SeMce 19+61-!986 Ms. Barbara Hutsell Janis Youth Programs, Inc. 738 N.B. Davis Portland, OR 97232 Re: Shelter Care Facility and 11490 S.W. Greenburg Road Dear Ms. Hutsell: Bill Monahan and I met"with Dennis Norrow and yourself on September 3, 1986 to discuss the obligations of Janis Youth Programs related to City Code requirements. As Bill and I recall, the meeting concluded with the understanding that your organization would request City Council review of a Director's interpretation, as described in my letter of August 7, 1986, or submit a Site Development Review application. We also mentioned that our City 8ngineer, Randy Wooley, would be available to discuss the street improvement requirement with your consulting engineer. Please notify as soon as possible of your desired course of action. Sias rely, Reith S. Liden rol Senior Planner ES:cnh#2 _z 13125- HOP fid.P.O.Box 23397.TI�d.Orega� 97223 b39-4171 CITYOF TIOA RD OREGON 25 Years of SeMce August 7, 1986 1961-1986 Barbara Hutsell Program Manager Janis Youth Programs, Inc. 738 NB Davis Portland, OR 97232 RB: Shelter care facility at 11490 SW Greenburg Road g Dear Ms. Hutaell: It has come to the attention of the Planning Division that Janis Youth location for a programa, Inc. is preparing a residence at the above for sanitary se er shelter care facility. Per*its have been obtained connections and plumbing improvements based upon the use of the house as a / single family residential structure. The Building Inspector was assured that the house Would be occupied by no more than five unrelated individuals. As I indicated you during up c are residential"plieation musesng on according April to the Community proposed facility is a "grouppermitted use in the R-12 zone, a Development Code and that although it is a p Site Development Review approval had to be obtained.1986You'r organization submitted an application for this approval re Hay 9, basis and narrative stated that six youths would be cared for on a temporary one or two staff members ron woulune d be o the premises at all times. This application was withdrawn On August 5, 1986 I discussed the matter with Gary Shurtz of the Youth $ervices Division office in Hillsboro. He indicated that tothe eight individuals on e with Janis Youth Programs, Inc. was for the care of ee Road property. and an average y Of seven These individuals would cmy reside on aths temporaryb sis n typically not longer Th than 60 to 90 days. The Planning Director has determined that regardless of the number of to individuals, the "group care resident aregidefinition States licensing-n the e applies the your proposed shelter facility care ongoing remodeling will convert a single family residence to a "group residential" facility, a Site Development Review approval is required. Also, Unified Sewerage Agency have the Uniform Building Code and Washington County different standards and requirement for this type of building occupancy. 13125 SW Hall BivcL P.O.Box 23397,Tigard 0re90n 97223 (503)639-4171 �1. Please contact so at your earliest convenience so we nay resolve this issue. If you do not agree with the Director's interpretation of the Cosssunity Development Code, you may file an appeal for City Council review. Such an appeal oust consist of a written stateaent or letter describing the reasons for the appeal and $50.00. Sin erely, Keith Liden Senior Planner KSLsdi99 ccs Gary Shurtz Margaret Davis Helen Furber Building Insp. Division z MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: John Hagman May 15, 1986 FROM: Randy Clarno SUBJECT: Half-street improvements and Non-Remonstrance Agreements At the request of Keith Liden, Randy Wooley and myself evaluated the feasibility of half-street improvements along a portion of SW Greenburg Road. On May 13, 1986 we made a field inspection of Greenburg Road from Tiedeman to Pacific Highway. Randy Wooley recommended that we do not require half-street improvements on SW Greenburg Road from SW Tiedeman to SW 97th Avenue because of existing problems with storm drainage, horizontal and vertical alignments and other features affecting the ultimate design. He also feels that developments along the remainder of SW Greenburg Road should be evaluated on an individual basis. As a result of this overall evaluation, both Randy Wooley and I feel that we should begin to collect the following data: (1) Streets or sections of streets that half-street improvements would be required. Certain design criteria would also be identified. (2) Streets or sections of streets 4n which consideration of half-street improvement requirements would be evaluated on an individual basis. (3) Streets or sections of streets where half-street improvements would not be required due to timeliness and/or existing topographic conditions or restrictions. Non-remonstrance agreements would be required. I feel the best method for identifying these criteria, would be on an 800 scale city map (possibly transportation overlay included) showing all three conditions. For example on Greenburg: From Cascade to Tiedeman condition (1) above would apply and so noted on the map. From Tiedeman to SW 97th condition (3) would apply and be noted on the map. From 97th to Pacific Highway. Conditions (2) would apply. A file, possibly by street name, could be developed showing why these conditions were given and identify some special concerns. You could develop a list of roads to look at and you, Randy Wooley, and myself would go out and look at them and classify them into one of these categories. Randy W. suggested we develop this list over time so the demand on his time would not be great. I would recommend you begin to develop this map and list and eventually we will have the map become a part of our transportation system overlays (e.g. signals). Please get back with me when you have a street list and we will schedule field trips. RSC:bs77 cc Keith Liden 0 o ; Helping ID ;F ;z 0 c a W o to ' GET SACK ON TRACK S`g '" 3 ro f LN ro _7 } F �4 �a� 1 Janis y T Youth ,AOL 91"ams, _Inc. . . . )C Helping FRIENDS OF JANIS Youtht "Friends of Janis" is a voluntary member- GET BACK ON TRACK ship group that lends financial support via an annual dues structure. The proceeds of the annual membership drive are used to establish an emergency fund for special program needs not covered by the regular budget. Members receive the Annual Report,the quarterly Janis Update newsletter and informa- -- tion regarding issues affecting youth and youth programs throughout the state. M . res Youth ProgrotOS -Janis You , th ... w 009 BACK TO BASICS CStructure. Guidance. A caring,home environment. To a troubled youth, these are basics. They are basic to getting off to the right j start in school. They are basic to under- Janb youth Programs, I=. is associated with: standing the responsibility of community Ecumenical Ministries of Child -Carr living. Conference of Private Child-Caring Agenda of Oregon g National Network of Runaway and Youth Services Since 1972,Janis Youth Programs, Inc. has Oregon Association of Residential Youth care centers worked with troubled youths and their families Oregon Asvociaticn of Treatment Centers et them back on track—back to a Tri-County Youth Services Consortium to help g r united Way of ColumbiaWillatnette healthy wary of living. Through innovative pro- united Way of Oregon grams,professional services and residential treatment,Janis provides adolescents from throughout the state with cost-effective alterna- tives to expensive institutional care. The eign and typesetting donated by Pec;fic Power. runaway, mental health and adjudicated youth Booklet d programs provided by Janis are the only ones k of their kind available locally. JYP/An eqLW opportunity ernployirr. 01966junisybutl1prognu Inc, l� VOLUNTEERS Janis Youth Programs,Inc. is supported and operated by a volunteer board of directors. Professional staff are assisted by a program-wide volunteer corps. In addition,a specialized group Of volunteer shelter parents open their homes far runaway youth in the Harry's Mother program. For more information concerning volunteer opportunities,contact the Volunteer Program BACK TO HEALTH Manager at Janis. A safe, nourishing, predictable environ- FUNDING meat. Concern,guidance, care. Janis Youth proJanis Youth Programs,Inc. is a private,non- grams offer the professional support needed profit organization, Primary funding is provided to make community-based treatment for youth and their families a productive, rewarding by the State of Oregon,Children's Services Divi- experience. sion;Multnomah County Juvenile Seexperience. Multi-disciplinary treatment teams rvices Commission;Department of Health and Human work in conjunction with the community and Services, National Youth Runaway Act;and its resources to create a total and balanced Department of Justice,Juvenile Justice Delin. program. quency Prevention Program. Additional support is received from[]Wiled BACK TO CpMNiumTY Way of Oregon,Multnomah County,local fo un. dations,churches and service organizations, DeYelopment of skills. Preparation for the f individual and memorial donations. responsibilities of independent living. Getting youths back into the community is the major t focus of Janis.By providing supportive educa- tional and vocational programs,Janis enables ' - yang people to develop the skills needed to p perform responsibly within the community. 6< youth pro9rQt"s •• o retb Procitams- + 1,0 i 4 LentS j Education Center Lents Education Center(LEC) is a private alternative school for male and female youth ages 12 to 16 at entry, who are no longer in Mental Health public school or who are experiencing difficulty Proram due to attendance,behavior or low skill level. g Small structured classes provide basic skills The Janis Mental Health Program(MHP) in reading,language arts. mathematics and other serves as a community-based residential treat- core subjects. LEC provides for individualized - ment alternative to psychiatric hospitalization far instruction,course content,level of difficulty s 13 to 1$year olds. Referred on a statewide basis and pacing. Most courses are those required for by Children's Services Division,each youngster high school graduation but are further tailored to h participates in a multi-faceted treatment planmeet the unique needs of each student. Grades This plan,which focuses on both personal and and credits are based on the material covered interpersonal issues, includes intensive residen- and retained as well as the quality of the stu- tial therapy, recreational therapy, individual and dent's work. group counseling, family treatment,vocational Attendance,behaviors and progress are . preparation,and an alternative school where closely monitored and counseling is provided to needed. students and parents to improve performance in MHP youths live in one of three neighbor- these areas.Counseling is also provided when hood co-ed houses,with the length of stay non-school issues affect school performance. determined by the individual- Treatment is in an Referrals are frequently made to other agencies open community environment. to deal with identified problems such as family j The Janis MHP is the only residential dysfunction or substance abuse. resource for adolescents in Northern Oregon Transition back into the public school system licensed under the Day and Residential Treat- is a major goal of LEC. Most students can be ment Services(DARTS)standards by the State prepared to transition within one year or less. Mental Health Division. JQn�s y® ',Coto �a Janis - uth p Fny Harry's Mother Harry's Mother is Portland's link in a national network of runaway and youth service ! agencies. Offering 24-hour crisis counseling and J1& 'udieated Youth ' emergency shelter for runaway youth, Harry's AdJ Mother works closely with the Multnomah IT program County Juvenile Court and a number of other local youth programs. The Adjudicated Youth Program(AYP) is Services provided include crisis interven- designed to provide closely supervised treatment tion,counseling,assessment and referral. in community-based residential settings for Temporary shelter is also available when indi- adolescent parolees referred from the MacLaren cated. Youths may be housed in either a and Hillcrest Training Schools. A variety of sup- professional shelter or in a network of volunteer portive services are offered including shelter homes. Professional counselors work to comprehensive assessment and treatment plan- create a support system for families after the ning, individual and group counseling, runaway crisis:!:os been resolved. In addition to educational and vocational training. This struc- referrals from thL juvenile court,services at tured environment is enhanced by planned Harry's Mother are available to any troubled or recreational and cultural experiences. homeless youth between the ages of 9 and 18. The ultimate goal is to prepare youth for a $ return to a family, foster home placement or independent living. The program is recognized as a leading resource in the area of juvenile Clinton School services and has been highly successful in motivating youth toward establishing a stable, Clinton School, an alternative academic pro productive lifestyle. gram located in Cleveland High School, serves as the primary educational resource for Janis residents in the Mental Health and Adjudicated Youth Programs. Classwork is based on a curric- ulum tailored to meet each student's specific . needs. Individualized remedial work,high school credit courses and GED preparation are provided in a postitive environment for students � who have previously experienced a history of failure. Clinton School enjoys a unique partner- 4js. ship with the public school system which allows O students to draw upon Cleveland resources to O supplement their core programs. tQ�sy � , p, i (CA -Janis q°*J1 _ Cordero Residential Regional Treatment Center AV,, Evaluation Center F The Cordero Residential Treatment Center The Regional Evaluation Center(REC)pro- is a community-based treatment program for vides pre-placement evaluation and shelter for boys aged 14 to 17 years who have been referred boys referred by the State of Oregon Children's * by the State of Oregon Children's Services Divi- Services Division(CSD)from Washington, sion(CSD). Priority is given to youth from Clackamas and Columbia Counties. ton Washin County,but candidates are consid- The program has a maximum capacity of g tY� erect from throughout the state. seven boys. The type of youngster referred gener- a Up to eleven youth may reside in the main ally falls into one or more of the following h center, a large two-story neighborhood residence categories: pre-delinquent; moderately emotion- in the Tigard area. Youth in the program typi- ally disturbed; and/or sexually,physically or r tally have a history of delinquent activities and emotionally abused. may be on suspended commitment to the state Youngsters, ranging in age from 13 to training school. 17 years, spend a maximum of 60 days in resi- .. Cordero provides a range of services dence. During this time, professional staff work designed to facilitate the successful return of closely with each child to develop an individual- each youth to his family or to an alternative ized assessment and formal recommendation for home setting. Individual and group counseling long term treatment. This recommendation could are supplemented by intensive family support range from placement in foster care or residen- which may extend up to six months atter a youth tial treatment to, in some cases,helping the has left the program. Educational services are young person achieve a successful independent built around the Cordero School,a unique living situation. Many children are able,as a resource locuted in the residential center,while result of their stay at REC, to diffuse the crisis vocational training,job placement,and social/ situation which resulted in their removal from recreational experiences round out the compre- home and to return home with the help of inten- hensive treatment approach, sive community support services. Cordero staff work closely with CSD Funds for the REC program are provided by workers,juvenile court counselors,and other the State of Oregon,and REC staff work in close community agencies to develop an individualized coordination with CSD workers as well as a treatment plan for each child. This fosters Posi- variety of other community agencies to ensure tive interaction with the total community and optimal assessment and treatment for each maximizes the chance for successful re-entry youth. into a normal community environment. OMS— �AQ .�pn �µ xr, CRYOFTWARD March 17, 1966 vk1SHj4aroN couNTY.OREGON no. Barbara Hutsell 738 WE Davis Portland, OR 97232 RE: Group Care residential business in an R-12 zona Daar' Barbara: In response to our telephone conversation on Thursday. I asp sending you an application for a Homa occupation Permit. Section 19.142 of the Tigard COMMunity Development Coda which explains such uses and business tax forms. please complete the forms and return them to as at the address given below &long with your check for $115.00 made payable to the City of Tigard. We cargwt .send yo ..busine8a tau-, Certificate until your Home occupation Permit has been ON a . If fat= strata that your business is a non-profit organization, please write me a letter indicating your federal IRS tax exempt numiaer and I shall make the appropriate financial arrangements. Should you have any questions, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, Deborah A. Stuart Assistant Planner OMS:bs195 enc!: r z. 12788 8*ASH :=-PA 803D(?9.lRT TOM M-OREOON 97?23 PFti171 JANIS YOUTH PROGRAMS INC. Board of Directors WORK HOME TERM 80. BOARD NAME ADDRESS CITY. STATE, ZIP PHONE PHONE EXPS POS OFFICE Norman Bengel 15880 SW Greens Way Tigard. OR 97224 249-2000 620-8598 1989 14 Administration Ext. 292 Portland Public Schools Karen Lytle Blaha 319 SW Washington Portland. OR 97204 279-4000 636-1329 1988 12 Account Executive Pihas. Schmidt. Westerdahl Co. Merle Bradford 531 SE 14th Ave. Portland, OR 97214 280-6254 1989 2 Director of Special Instruction and Student Services Portland Public Schools Allen Dobbins 2934 SW Montgomery Or. Portland. OR 97201 227-2143 223-4638 1989 3 Director Avalon Associates Emilie Frisbee. NSW 01324 SW Corbett Hill Portland, OR 97219 636-3029 1987 4 Past Pres. Tom Higgins 621 SW Morrison Portland, OR 97205 241-8383 281-3919 1987 5 Vice President Suite 1050 Northwest Strategies Dann Madden $536 SW 54th Ave. Portland, OR 97221 224-9190 246-7681 1989 13 Regional Manager r CH214 Hill ` George Morgan P.O. Box 4412 Portland, OR 97208 275-4299 629-8718 1988 7 Treas. Vice President U.S. National Bank of Oregon Or. Thomas Nakata 5550 SW Macadam Ave. Portland. OR 97201 227-0651 1986 18 C Psychiatrist Suite 205 1 _ � 4 K � Y WORK HOME TERM BD. BOARD NAME ADDRESS CITY, STATE. ZIP PHONE PHONE EXPS POS OFFICE Rev. Rodney Page 0245 SW Bancroft St. Portland. OR 97201 221-1054 287-5643 1988 .9 Executive Director Suite B y Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon Judge Robert Badding 1021 SW 4th Ave. Portland, OR 97204 248-3954 222-7124 1987 15 Vice Circuit Court Room 548 Pres State of Oregon Robert Ridgley 220 NW 2nd Ave. Portland. OR 97209 226-4211 297-2681 1987 11 President Northwest Natural Gas Company 3 Patricia Riley P.O. Box 2808 Portland. OR 97201 222-7632 223-8133 1988 8 Attorney-Trust Officer The Oregon Bank Bill Robertson 920 SW 6th Ave. Portland. OR 97204 243-4759 257-8070 1987 16 Vice President of Public Affairs Pacific Power Iona Soltero 900 SW 5th Ave. Portland. OR 97204 24B-7283 234-2288 1987 17 Sec. Attorney Georgia-Pacific Corporation Ex Officio Member: Allan ileisbard 738 NE Davis Portland, OR 97232 233-6090 281-9050 Clinical Director Mental Health Program Gordon Nilson 5624 SW Nebraska Portland, OR 97221 644-1146 244-5633 1989 1 Pres. vacant 1989 3 vaunt 1987 6 vacant 1989 10 1/15/87 u V 18.120. SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 18.120.010 Pun"$* (a) The purpose and intent of Site Development Review is to promote the general welfare by Airectinea at ttion to SitQ Plpnr)ing and giving regardtq�, i3g_jDatural qM rorjaent. and the elements of ' a"�Ivo desi n to ss' in._conaorvi �and� enhanci Wt+e appearance o t e C' (b) It is in the public interest and necessary for the promotion of the health. safety and welfare, convenience, comfort and prosperity of the citizens of the City of Tigard: (1) To implement the City of Tigard'* , Comprehensive Plan and other approval standards in this Code. (2) ToReserve nd enhance the natuu 1 beams u�tiQs of the land and of the man a environment. and enjoyment thereof; (3) To maintain and Ipp!rgve the-aualitia�,& lat_,,, iioo�nshs between individual structures, and the physical MWILOPMOINT c best contribute to the amenities and attractiveness of an area'br neighborhood; (4) To and asaurn the MOMglcyis private _MjAtg„Ag_.gtpb.,,,other and P—Thi-neighbor%ood or tread and s 5 To assure that each individual development provides for a quality environment for the citizens utilizing that development as well as the community as a whole. (c) In order to prevent the erosion of natural beauty, the lessening of environmental amenities, the dissipation of both usefulness and function, and to encourage additiogal landscaping, it is declared necessary: (1) To stimulate harmonious design for individual buildings, groups of buildings and structures, and otter physical r developments, (2) To encourage the innovative use of materials, methods and techniques and flexibility in building placement; and (3) To integrate the functions, appearances and locations of buildings and improvements so as to best achieve a balance between private prerogatives and preferences, and the public interest and welfare. 1x•120.020 Applicability of Provision W t (a) .. 00, Y III - 230 (1) Single family detached dwellings; (2) A duplex, which is not being reviewed as part of any other development; or (3) dei that involves SOY or, less .of, the total square f4ta '. the eaiuting structuro. or `S .or less of the axtertar`wall surface. (4) Any proposed development which has a valid conditional use approved through the conditional use permit aplication process. (5) Mobile Homo Parks and Subdivisions. (b) All of the provisions and regulations of the underlying zone shall apply unless modified by other sections of this Code e.g. the Planned Development, Chapter 19.80.:' or a Variance granted under Chapter 18.134; etc. 19.120.030 Administration and A roval Process (a) The applicant for a site development review proposal shall be the recorded owner of the property or an agent authorized in writing by the owner. A Pre-Application Conference with City staff is required. See (b) Section 18.32.040. Due to possible changes in State statutes, or regional or local (c) staff to the applicant during the policy, information given by Pre-Application Conference is valid for no more than 6 months, W-4 (1) Another Pre-Application Conference is required if any Site Development Application is submitted 6 months after the Pre--Application Conference. (2) failure of the Director to provide any of the information required by this Section shall not constitute a waiver of the standard, criteria or requirements applicable to the applications. (d) The Director shall approve. approve with conditions or deny any application for Site Development Review as provided by 18.32.090. The Director -a6a�1_ app_ the standards set forth in gegtion 18.120.180 Of this Code when ravi � an a cation for site dovTrocZent review. *S = The decision of the Director may be appealed in accordance with Section 19.32.310 (a), and f C 11 III - 231 i i (1) Single family detached dwellings; (2) A duplex. which is not being reviewed as part of any other development; or (3) Any remodel that involves Sn or less of' the total square footage of the existing structure, or SCM or less of the exterior wall surface. (4) Any proposed development which has a valid conditional use approved through the conditional use permit &plication process. 5) Mobile Home Parks and Subdivisions. rerriew shall also n apply .• is ;use e ct to :an: #sti 1 *hit or-.structure (c) All of the provisions and regulations of %the underlying zone shall apply unless modified by other sections of this Code e.g. the Planned Development. Chapter 19.50.; or a Variance granted under Chapter 19.134; etc. 14,120,030 Administration and Aooroval Process (a) The applicant for a site development review proposal shall be the recorded owner of the property or an agent authorized in writing by the owner. (b) A Pre-Application Conference with City staff is required. Seerequired. Section 19.32.040. (c) Due to possible charges in State statutes, or regional or local policy, information given by staff to the applicant during the Pre-Application Conference is valid for no more than 6 months, and (1) Another Pre-Application Conference is required if argr Site Development Application is submitted 6 months after the Pre-Application Conference. (2) Failure of the Director to provide any of the information required by this Section shall not constitute a waiver of the standard, criteria or requirements applicable to the applications: (d) The Director shall approve, approve with conditions or decay any application for Site Development Review &s provia *; 4 19.32.090. The Director shall apply the standards set fo►-th in Section 19.120.190 of this Code when reviewing an application for site ddvelopment review. (e) The decision of the Director may be appealed in accordance with Section 19.32.310 (a), and III — 231 Rev. 4/66 Janis Youth Programs, Inc. Purchase aro occupancy of 11490 S.W. Greenburg Road CALEm lAR OF EVEKS August, 1985 to Extended search by Janis Program staff and four different March, 1986 realtors for new facility in Washington County. Search involved investigation of over 30 locations with Greenburg Road identified as the only location suitable in size, type of facility, and zoning. March 13, 1986 Janis staff told by City of Tigard that only requirement for occupancy of Greenburg Road was to have How occupation Permit. March 17, 1986 Letter received from City of Tigard confirming requirement for Home Occupation Permit. March 22, 1986 Eased on letter of March 17 and discussions with City of Tigard staff, Janis signed purchase agreement for Greenburg property- March - April, Janis reinitiated contact with City and was told dome 1986 Occupation. Permit did not apply and that only a Business Permit was required. Janis staff visited City Hall to request a letter confirming this as only requirement and was later informed a Certificate of Occupancy/Site Development Review process would now be required. April 21, 1986 Pre-application conference at which time a copy of the relevant City code was supplied indicating Site Deve 1 opment Review is required onlV if more than 50 percent remodeling is to be done. Janus- d elects to voluntarily submit to process in order to cooperate fully with City staff. May 2, 1986 Janis receives letter from consulting engineer (Cooper Consultants, Inc.) advising a review of decision to proceed with Site Development Application and stating that the "half-street improvement on Greenburg Road would be the only property with curbs and sidewalks on that section of street. Construction of these oveaoents constrain the des of future improvements._(and) e ss that these improvements gjAht have to be removed at the time Greenburit Road is Uvroved:' Total cost for the project is estimated at over . May 5, 1986 Janis submits application for Site Review based on discussions on two separate occasions with City staff suggesting that half-street requirement would likely be waived. 1 L. May, 1986 In response to application, Janis was informed that half- street imprwment would be required. June 2, 1986 Janis purchased copy of entire City Code. Legal review frond that code still required Site Review only if greater than 50 percent of square footage was to be remodeled. June 6, 1986 Janis withdrew application based on legal interpretation of existing City code and cost of half-street improvements. July, 1986 Janis occupies facility. November 6, 1986 Janis receives a copy of City Code revisions which now specify Site Review requirement for change in usage. r , ' 2 Janis?,Iouth =- M A Programs, Inc. Dennis i.Mrxrow 738 N.E. Davis ' Portland. Oregon 97232 ' (503) 233-6090 Executive Director February 4, 1987 rors!n s•ord•r Directors�jGtdon Wilson FES �fe °^t Brad Roast rte® '"vice a entRe`'defg City o Tigard 13125 S.W. lull Blvd• �INQ ' Nano sauero Tigard, Oregon 97223 secreta" George Morgan DESr Mr. Roast: Treasurer haver ted Emilie frisbee In recent conversations with Janis staff, made a our Post Presoert clarification regarding the specific usage�ingBeade is o owe s'a``an facility located at 11490 S.W. Greer�rg summary of the information necessary to address your inquiries- N«,rr«,s•ng•I Koren lytic Bldg Pk>ooner of Youth in Care: We are currently contracted to provide Koren LWeBradBk*,* emergency shelter or up to 60 days for a population of seven Merleaneradolescents aged 12-17. As an emergency placement facility, Thomos Hens malethe actual number of contract beds often varies over time even Dom Madden C within a�:single fiscal yea=. This has apparently created some a.Thomas a01`100 confusion for city staff who have talked with Janis staff at various times and been provided a bed capacity which reflected Rev.Rodney Page the contract level at that specific time. For instance, dura Robert Ridgley FY-86 when we were purchasing and moving into the Greenberg Patricia Riley facility, our contract was at different times for five, six nd we ��►�«„Roberts« Jr.youths. In our initial contact with the City of Tigard indicated an intention to house more than five youths since we had been told that this was the break-off point forcoli ore in restrictive code requiresoents. The Greenbury tY R United waY exist shelter space of Oregon fact, purchased in order to expand existing available to Washington COUnty from five to seven beds- Our Age-V long-range projections suggest a potential need of eight to ten beds at same point in the future with possible short-term utilization over brief periods of a maxim= of 14 beds. We continue to plan on working with you and the City planning Off ice to ensure the facility meets all licensing and code requirements for this level of utilization. Type �of y2qLhE in care: The facility is under contract with State of Oregon Children's Services Division to provide shelter and evaluation for boys who have been removed from their families and who are awaiting either a return home or an alternative, long-term, out-of--hone placement. It is the only such facility Washington County and we work closely with the local branch in office of CSD in providing service to Washington County youths. rner • • Mudicoted Youth Program • Clinton School • C«dero Residential Treatment CeCenter Mother • • lents Education Center • Mental Health Program • Regional EvaluationCenter • 2, 2. The primary reason for placement in the shelter is a crisis in the home or other current living situation which precipitates the need for removal of the child by CSD. The children are under a high level of stress and may be labeled moderately emotional ly disturbed, predel inquent/del inquent, learning disabled, status offender, etc. Over half of our children came from family settings where they have been victims of physical or sexual abuse. The labels are often an inadequate picture of the real child who simply represents a need for the safety, security, and structure not available in an abusive home environment but which we can provide in a 24-hour supervised setting. We do not serve children with a history of arson, who are currently addicted to alcohol or drugs, or who have a record of serious person-to-person crimes. We also do not serve children with severe physical or mental disabilities which incapacitate them to the degree they cannot function successfully in an open camunity setting. ZO of Nmrvision: Our facility is an unlocked, voluntary-placement facility Stnwiz Bing provided by 24-hour awake staff coverage. While in residence the boys are involved in a structured bebavior-managemeM program and. participate in both individual and group counseling. Privileges are determined tb rough use of a status system based on their behavior with ve little ed rvistime available even for boys demonstrating the hirg�est level of selU�-management- Staff members are carefully screened and are professionally educated and/or trained for work with our youths. Zoning for Residential Facilities: Janis operates seven other residential care facilities ranging an size from 7-14 bed capacity. All of these facilities are zoned SR3 except for one in east Multnomah County which has an SR2 status. It is clear that the SR3 zone for the Greenburg facility is correct and is ... consistent with the treatment of similar facilities in other jurisdictions. I hope the above information answers any questions you may have. If you require any additional assistance, please feel free to contact me personally. We are looking forward to a continuing and cooperative relationship with the City of Tigard in providing this vital service for the children of Washington County. Sincerely, NA,X . Dennis L. Marrow Ewcutive Director BSP Enclosure ,--'c: Keith Liden i i CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ` COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: February 9 1987 DATE SUBMITTED: January 28, 1987 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Appeal of PREVIOUS ACTION: Hearings Officer Hearings Officer Decision S 17--86 aPRroval with conditions PREPARED BY: Keith Liden DEPT HEAD OK 1 TY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: T POLICY ISSUE _ INFORMATION SUMMARY On December 19, 1986 the Hearings Officer approved Morning Hill #6 (S 17-86) subject to 18 conditions of approval. This decision is being appealed by an adjoining property owner (Oregon Bank) on the grounds that adequate assurance has not been made for the future provision of access to the Bank property. Attached is a staff memo and map which explain the recent history related to this case, the preliminary plat, staff report, hearing transcript, Hearings Officer Decision, applicant's appeal letter, Section 18. 164.030 (F) of the Tigard Municipal Code, and proposed resolution. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Uphold the Hearing's Officer decision. 2. Modify the Hearing's Officer decision. FISCAL IMPACT 'a- SUGGESTED ACTION a= Uphold the Hearings Officer decision and pass the attached resolution. �e, KL:cn/2920P MEMORANDUM y CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON k, k�. TO: City Council January 28, 1987 FROM: Keith Liden, Senior Planner Ot/ SUBJECT: Background Related to Morning Hill No. 5 and No. 6 On the attached map, I have identified Morning Hill No. 5, which was platted in 1986; Morning Hill No. 6 which is the subject of this appeal; and the applicant's property. Morning Hill No. 5 was approved by the Planning Commission in November, 1985. During the course of this application review, no one was aware of a previous approval that was granted by City Council in 1978 that approved access for the Oregon Bank property via the Morning Hill development. The previous owner of the Bank property (Mr. Brayson) was involved in this decision and received appropriate legal notice of the Planning Commission hearing regarding Morning Hill No. 5. However, Mr. Brayson did not testify at the hearing and did not contact the City until the final plat had been approved and released to be recorded. Morning Hill No. 6 was approved by the Hearings Officer with Condition 15 which requires that an "acceptable" means of access be provided to the Bank property. Oregon Bank feels that it should "have a central role" in the location and design of the access. In executing condition 15. , the development potential of the Bank property, Fire District comments, and Engineering considerations will be reviewed by staff to determine an acceptable means of access. KL:cn/2920P APPEAL S 17-86 BENJFRAN DEV. � SEE MAP tS i 3300 � fee • •'••'"•-• as Hca awaaA�cd►a}� 71.4 14fi11�a� � e r•:b^. Ij 9800 `9700 9600 9300 9400 B300Y �' 7200 y 73007400 7500 7600 7700 C 7: TRACT..C• r_# 118 1= 117 116 OPEN LPEA1+r 115 114 L to!W' • 113 1 112 =i 111 L 110 109 _ 108 r. s • •./1^Z ro t. r *psT. S.W. KATHERINE ST. ° a �g S.W. KATHERINE Nf+ nM r0)r •rr P.. 'b h,. •) �! T) is 7s N t� "10000 10100 10200 +`10300 10400 : b 7100 7000 6900 6800 6700 6600 X, n9 "• 120 pl ^i TRACT"E'? 122 8 b % 90r-989 • 8¢, 87�} a t OPEN AREA s _� 123 _ • 92 s 91 !� 'Q `! $ J v ^sT �% aw�a rM!! /+ !! 71 10500 > 143W 6200 `6300 6400 `6500 124 162 IS "° .6100 �; 83 = 84 85 a Be Y•r O 10600 14200 a aa) 7f eo n 82 +• N •0 r 125 7: Is' �� WILLS a PLACE �t 14100 «6000 �. 10104 (n 1160 81 i' ••5600 a 3500 O 126 C j a N ., ; i 7s r 2 .,f•r + Yr b X77 '00 t • . 40800 14000 5900 • •te) ,s�br �5400 A� 127\ 159 58005700• y IEe X � 3 4• + 75 1' AP 1390 : 79 ` r rr725-84 b010900 •. s y, 300 ' 138 14WO 74 ti e 1500 4 139W 63180D i0 Y 11000 1 w 157 , .i ��1 23 8 N e T trt 1300 •• A 65 13TOQ%' + e O l t 100 626 n» 8 2300 F' 130' 156 C.t!3.713 Y `L 3 - •e+.ff n,.,, ra . + 724. ro lioo �z1700 a s 200^• r 13600 f �` 2200 1 131 L[l 153 61 = fe e• 71 f / Z rraos 100 r S 1800 r eaa� 1*- .4 •11300 13800 60 2 • 67 8 2100 N i ,a 11400 8 Z 154 •+rr)irse•r 7 + •,� 133 r `+ .4+,5 132 G 'o �" ' ♦ 11500 yy • )� r000 i 1900 -440 134 . » !,w a 13400 59 6 68 3 82000 a 22 M 600"";' s; E e 153 „e.a N�; = 69 ! 133 • r AV . • y00 I(< 1 s ' ' < fo 12600 ' 13300 S8 , C •tirr y• 3 450D 11700)f f • 12500 145 to O 152 ��4•` 800 �URT 8 21 i ej 136 ^•tt t 2 144 ' 132W 57 8 700 r >. a.y f o •• •0 600 12700 •• «!. d ISI 55 8 $ 4.00 116100 7 2 12400 . 146 4 • 56 ' res oe • 8 No J a 143 yt 12600150 �+.e 500 t��' 20 s 11900 147 i 34 `18 yam+ A 1 138 L 4 4. 12300 13000 • .`400 �;• ' i 4600 r 12900 s r»« 142 b 148 '� �J► 1498+ a S3 C r 9 8 3 12000 ^ °. ri „ y 1► 'x300 /.; 139 li' fas) \\\\�\\\ • �y • : ' r sI rrisr •9'-y L 122W rev»'+o. g200 }f 52 4' 12100 140 141 t �{ s,t 31 •' 4900 s \ 1 Pr•)i•f. >0 M•f r •r•• ass* +L 10 �a91\AL1. � o• .�._._,..,,� TRACT•$" .• u w r fr•re'f,'r 8 e a� - r •e 1 `p 5000 •• ' 5200 TOO •y 15 s 16 • IS ti my •enol•o'w IOO.00 1)L fe•N . eMY•er'[ &emir � � • e ee•ee•Y�e SEE MAP 2S 1 4AO 1 1 " • f I , — Ok 3AN3AV Hldat Ak8 � M VVi l sa'-. O Z M moi(. "'y •. i • 3nN3AV ISM M8 J Z " Os w J vo TLS. r N . : • M ° P: • `� tea' «+ . � :1 1 t- Orl rn LA LA go r . 1 - • I f4 'D4"4, 10 a,ao �g 3nN3AV H199L M8 all 8a _— TONKON,TORP, GALEN, MARMADUKE 61 BOOTH 97 LAW OFFICES WOE M.TONKON 1800 ORBANCO BUILDING JEFFREY H.KEENLY 11905-19841 IOGI S.W. FIFTH AVENUE ALBERT N.KENNEDY MARK F L.ROU% PORTLAND.OREGON 97204-1162 BARBEE B.LYON' TERRY W.BAKER• BRUCE G.SERNING 15031221-1440 DON N. S WILLIAM Fr.:MARTSONARONI JR• OWEN O.BLANK M!C NAfL M.MORGAN' MARC B.BOCCI BRIAN O.BOOTH. JANET C. JON W.NICKEL' sTUART M.BROWN INOOLF NOTO TIMOTHY J.CONWAY AMY JOSEPH PEDERSEN MARK L.CUS04 EDWIN C.PERRY JOHNMORRIS J. ALLEN' [R' January 2, 1987 MORRIS J•OALEN• JOHN H.ROSCN FE LD 44R[ENMAN' SCOTT O.SEIDMAN RONALD JEFFREY E•NK ARMES ENNN HA.SMITH [NNCTH D.STfPHEN4 CAROL DEV HIBsB FREDERICK H,TORP JOEL S.KAPLAN JOSEPH S.VOBORIL• MARJORY A.WALL •A PROFf.SIONAL CORPO.ATION HAND DELIVERED pjzA. Ms. Loreen Wilson, City Recorders-•� City of Tigard Tigard City Hall 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: In the Matter of the Application for a 37-Lot Subdivision= Benj . Fran. Development, Inc. , Applicant/Sub- division S17-86: Appeal of The Oregon Bank Dear Sir or Madam: This office represents The Oregon Bank. Enclosed, on behalf of the Bank, is an appeal to the Tigard City Council of the above-referenced decision of the hearings officer, which was rendered December 19, 1986. Also enclosed is this firm's check in the amount of $300 in payment of the f i 1 i ng fee. Please call me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, �•�� N '/ e�fiWH. Kee J �� JHK/sl e nc l. cc: Mr. Frank J. Haslach (w/encl.) Mr. David Tacheny (w/encl. ) Ms. Sandra Campbell (w/encl.) SUBDIVISION S 17-86 NOTICE OF APPEAL OF THE OREGON BANK i 1. A�plication Sought to be Appealed. Appellant The Oregon Bank ( "the Bank") seeks review of that decision of the City of Tigard Hearings Officer entitled "IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR A 37-LOT SUB- DIVISION; Benj . Fran. Development, Inc. , applicant - No. S 17-86." The decision involved the approval of the request of Benj . Fran. Development, Inc. to subdivide a 9.6 acre parcel into 37 lots ( "the Subdivision" ) . 2. How Appellant Qualifies as a Party. The Bank is the owner of Tax Lot 102, which is located directly to the east, and adjacent to, the Sub- division. All of the property to the south, east and north of Tax Lot 102 has been platted and subdivided. As a result, the only remaining means of access to Tax Lot 102 is by and through the Subdivision. The Preliminary Plat for the Sub- division does not provide for any means of access to Tax Lot 102. Accordingly, the Bank is adversely affected and aggrieved by the decision of the Hearings Officer. An official of the Bank appeared personally before the Hearings Officer during the public hearing held December 11, 1986. In addition, the Bank submitted written 1. NOTICE OF APPEAL OF THE OREGON BANK comments to the Hearings Officer prior to the public hearing through its attorney (a copy of the Bank's letter to the Hearings Officer is attached as Exhibit A) . 3. Specific Grounds for Appeal. The central issue to this appeal is access to Tax Lot 102. As noted in the Staff Report dated December 11, 1986, access to Tax I.ot 102 was originally to be provided through the Morninghill No. 4 subdivision. At the time of approval of Morninghill No. 4, a conceptual plan was submitted which featured a circular drive which provided access to Tax Lot 102. See, Staff Report at P 1. However, the final plat approved for Morninghill No. 4 did not provide for any access. As a result, the only remaining access to Tax Lot 102 is by and through the Subdivision. As noted above, the Preliminary Plat of the Subdivision does not provide for any access to Tax Lot 102. If allowed to develop in accordance with the Preliminary Plat, Tax Lot 102 would become "land- locked" , with no available means of access. Planning Staff attempted to address this problem with Condition 15 of Approval ("Condition 15" ) , which stated: "The applicant (and the owner of Tax Lot 102) shall submit a conceptual plan for providing an acceptable means of access to Tax Lot 102." Staff Report, P 6. 2. NOTICE OF APPEAL OF THE OREGON BANK As made clear to the Hearings Officer, both orally and in writing, this language is insufficient to protect the Bank, as it only gives the Bank the right to be "consulted" , and it does not mandate any specific forum of access. However, despite the Bank's stated concezns, the final order of the Hearings Officer adopted the above language almost verbatim: "The applicant shall contact the owner of Tax Lot 102 and after consultation shall submit a conceptual plan for providing an acceptable means of access to Tax Lot 102." Order P 5. This language does not protect the interests of the Bank and fails to satisfy the purpose and standards of Section 18 .160 of the Tigard City Code ( "the TCC") and the standards set x forth in ORS Chapter 92. As the City is aware, an issue has developed regarding the alleged existence of a Greenway on a portion of Tax Lot 102. Accordingly, if Tax Lot 102 is to be developed at all, it is critical that the Bank have a central role in approving the location of the access road. Condition 15 fails to give the Bank this right. Furthermore, because Condition 15 fails to guarantee adequate access, it runs afoul of the central purpose of TCC Section 18.160: "To provide adequate light and air and facilitate adequate provision for transportation." TCC Section 18.160(6) . tik In addition, Condition 15 does not satisfy the following pre- n liminary plat approval criteria: 3. NOTICE OF APPEAL OF THE OREGON BANK (a) (3) The streets and roads are laid out so as to conform to plats of subdivisions and maps of major partitions already approved for adjoining property " (b) The Commission may attach such conditions as are necessary to carry out the comprehensive plan and other applicable ordinances and regulations and may require: " ( 1) Reserve strips be granted to the city for the purpose of controlling access to adjoining undeveloped properties." TCC Section 18.160.010. While the Bank recognizes that the Planning Staff has attempted to deal with the issue of access to Tax Lot 102 with Condition 15, and that the City has authority to ensure that the final plat reflect all conditions, Condition 15 is insufficient for several reasons. First, it does not acknowl- edge the complexity of the situation. As noted above, there is an issue regarding an alleged greenway on Tax Got 15. Accordingly, the location of the access road is crucial to development of Tax Lot 102. Second, Condition 15 ignores the past history of the issue of access to Tax Lot 102. The City attempted a similar "laissez-faire" attitude towards access at the time of approval of Morninghill No. 4, and Morninghill No. 4 ultimately was platted and developed without allowing of access to Tax Lot 102. Finally, Condition 15 does not insure that the Bank will be given the necessary input. The Bank is j the only party with a significant vested interest to protect 4. NOTICE OF APPEAL OF THE OREGON BANK in this matter and accordingly, it must be given a central role. At the very least, the Bank would require a condition of approval that requires: "1. The access strip be in the form of a dedicated public street; and "2. The access strip be of a width, design and at a location that is approved in writing by the Bank prior to approval ofth!e f al plat." 4. Date of Filing of Final Decision. The Public Hearing was held on December 11 , 1986, and the decision of the Hearings Officer was rendered on December 19, 1986. 5. Conclusion. The decision of the Hearings Officer, and in par- ticular Condition 15, fails to guarantee adequate access to Tax Lot 102, and does not comply with the purposes and stan- dards of the Tigard Subdivision Ordinance. The Bank respect- fully requests that the decision be reversed, or in the alternative, that Condition 15 be modified by the Council so that the Bank's interests are adequately protected. Respectfully submitted, Jef r . W. Keen y oehalf of The Oregon Ban 5. NOTICE OF APPEAL OF THE OREGON BANK t CITY OF TIGARD Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER - BY HEARINGS OFFICER 1. Concerning Case Number(s): * S 17-86 2. Blame of Owner: BEND FRAN DEVELOPMENT INC. 3. Blame of Applicant. Same Address 9370 SW Greenburg Rd. City Portland state OR Zip 97223 4. Location of Property: Address Immediately south of Morning bill Nos. 2,_3. 4, and- 5. and east of 135th Legal Description 2S1 4AB lots 4500. 4600, 4700 & 2S1 4A lot--40-L- 5. Nature of Application: Request to subdivide a 9.6 acre parcel into 37 lots ranging between 7. 500 and 8,500 rox, sq t. 'Ln Thp Drnpprtly is zoned R-4.5 (Residential 4.5 units acre) a - /acre). 6. Action: Approval as requested XX Approval with conditions / Denial l 7. Notice: Notice was published in thg newspaper, posted at City Hall and mailed to: XX The applicant & owners _XX__ Owners of- record within the required distance X The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization x Affected governmental agencies S. Final Decision: THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON January 2. 1987 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 Hall Blvd. . P.O. Box 23397. Tigard, Oregon 97223. 9. Appeal: Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with 18.32.290(A) and Section 18.32.370 which provides that a written appeal may be filed within 10 days after notice is given and sent. The deadline for filing of an appeal is :30 P.M. January 2 1987. 10. 4uestions: If you have any questions. please call the City of Tigard ' Planning Department. 639-4171. jb• 0257P r BEFORE THE HEARINGS OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION) No. FOR A 37-LOI SUBDIVISION; ) Benj. Fran. Development, Inc. , ) S 17-86 applicant. The above-entitled matter came before the Hearings' Officer at the regularly scheduled meeting of December 11, 1986, at the Tigard Civic Center Town Hall Room, in Tigard, Oregon; and The applicant requests approval of a 37-lot subdivision on property zoned R-4.5 and R-25, more specifically described as Tax lots 4500, 4600, 4700, Map 2S1 4AB and Tax lot 501, Map 2S1 4A, City of Tigard, County of Washington, State of Oregon; and The Hearings Officer conducted a public hearing on December 11, 1986, at which time testimony, evidence and the Planning Department Staff Report were received; and The Hearings Officer adopts the findings of fact and conclusions contained in the Staff Report, a copy of which is attached hereto, marked "Exhibit A" and incorporated by reference herein. NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that S 17-86 be and hereby is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET PRIOR TO RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT. ( 17-86 Page 1 - S 2. Standard street improvement including concrete sidewalks, concrete curbs, streetlights, concrete driveway aprons, mailbox clusters, storm drainage, utilities and a traffic landing (at the intersection of 135th) shall be installed. Said improvements along SW Morning Hill Drive shall be built to minor collector street standards and conform to the alignment of existing adjacent improvements (being 60' R/W and 36' curb to curb) . 3. Standard street improvement including concrete sidewalks, concrete curbs, streetlights, concrete driveway aprons, mailbox clusters, storm drainage and utilities shall be installed along the balance of the proposed subdivision streets. Said improvements shall be built to local street standards (50' R/W and 34' curb to `I curb) . - 1 4. Seven (7) sets of plan-profile public improvement con struction plans and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate, stamped by a Registered Professional civil Engineer, detailing all proposed public improvements shall be submitted to the Engineering Section"for approval. 5. Sanitary sewer and storm sewer plan profile details shall : be provided as part of the public improvement plans. Facilities shall be extended to provide for future development of adjacent undeveloped parcels. 6. A detailed grading plan for lots 125 through 128 shall be submitted for Engineering and Building Division as part of the public improvement plans which includes the following: Page 2 - S 17-86 a. Grade profiles b. Engineer's report for Building areas that receive fill C. Plan which will preserve existing vegetation to the maximum extent possible 7. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the public along the SW 135th-Murray Road frontage to increase the right-of- way to 35 feet from centerline. The description for said dedication shall be tied to the existing 135th Avenue right-of-way centerline as establishedy Washington County. The dedication document shall be on City forms and approved by the Engineering Section. DEDICA- TION FORMS• AND .INSTRUCTIONS ARE AVAILABLE AT THE ENGINEERING OFFICE AT CITY HALL. ._ 8. Construction of proposed public improvements shall not { commence until after the gngineering Section has issued approved public improvement plans. The Section will require posting of a 100% Performance Bond, the payment of a permit fee and sign instal- lation/streetlight fee. 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 SPECIFIC INFORMATION REGARDING FEE SCHEDULES, BONDING, AND AGREEMENTS. 9. The applicant shall provide for roof rain drainage to the public stormwater system. L7here lots drain away from public roads, facilities shall be provided to eliminate runoff problems. 10. The applicant shall provide for connection to proposed buildings to the public sanitary sewerage system. A connection ( permit is required in conjunction with Building Permit issuance. Page 3 - S 17-86 t 11. Storm sewer details shall be provided as part of the Public Improvement plans.- Calculations and topographic service area - basin map shall be provided as a supplement to the Public Improvement plans, to demonstrate evidence of area - basin full development serviceability. The location and capacity of existing and proposed (or future) lines shall be addressed. 12. A permit shall be obtained by the applicant from the City (Authority: Tigard Municipal Code, Chapter 18.84) for land form alteration on slopes of twenty-five percent or greater and within drainageways) . 13. Street Centerline Monumentation a. In accordance with ORS 92.060 subsection (2) , the - centerlines of all street and roadway right-of-ways shall be monumented before the City shall accept a street improvement. b. All centerline monuments shall be placed in a monument box conforming to City standards, and the top of all monument boxes shall be'set at design finish grade of said street or roadway. C. The following centerline monuments shall be set: 1. All centerline-centerline intersections. Intersections created with "collector" or other existing streets, _ shall be set when the centerline alignment of said "collector" or other street has been established by or for the City; 2. Center of all cul-de-sacs; 3. Curve points. Point of intersection (P.I. ) when their position falls inside the limits of the pavement F.. otherwise beginning and ending points (B.C. and E.C.) v Page 4 - S 17-86 Yom,,. • l 4. All sanitary and storm locations shall be placed in positions that do not interfere with centerline monumentation. 14. The locations of all existing trees over 6 inches in diameter shall be illustrated and a site plan for Lot 125-128. Justification shall be provided fog- the removal of any of these trees. 15. The applicant shall contact the owner of Tax Lot 102 and after consultation shall submit a conceptual plan for providing an acceptable means of access to Tax Lot 102. 16. The applicant shall submit a non-remonstrance agreement for street improvements for 135th Avenue and Murray Blvd. If the local improvement district is formed prior to recording the ._ wr plat, the applicant shall develop a method acceptable to the City, for dividing the L.I.D. assessment between the individual lots. 17. After review and approval by the Director of Community Development and the City Engineer, the final plat shall be recorded with Washington County. 18. This approval is valid if exercised within one year of the final approval date noted below. DATED this 19th day of December, 1986. HEARINGS F`ICER i APPRO D• B H 1�IA5O Page 5 - S 17-86 F rX m x �E-' AGENDA ITEM 2.1 STAFF REPORT DECEMBER 11, 1986 — 7:00 P.M. HEARINGS OFFICER TIGARD CITY HALL — TOWN HALL 13125 SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD, OREGON 97223 A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: Subdivision S 17-86. REQUEST: To subdivide a 9.6 acre parcel into 37 lots ranging between 7,500 and 8,500 approximately square feet in size. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential, Medium High Density Residential. ZONING DESIGNATION; R--4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre), R-25 (Residential, 25 units/acre). APPLICANT: Benj . Fran. Development. Inc. OWNER: Same 9370 SW Greenburg Road Portland, OR 97223 and 5 and 4, LOCATION: Immediately south of Morning Hill Nos. 2, 3, 4640, east of SW 135th Avenue (WCTM 2S1 4AB, T.L. 4500, 4700 and WCTM 2S1 4A, T.L. 501) . 2. Background Information The Morning Hill development was approved by the City in 1977, and construction began in 1978 (ZC 5-77/SDR 52-78). Additional plats were approved in 1985 for Morning Hill Nos. 4 and 5 (S 12-85 and S 13-86) . In 1978, the City Council approved an amendment to Phase III of the Bellwood development subject to conditions. The parcel involved is immediately east of Morning HIll No. 4 and northeast of the subject property. A conceptual plan was presented which featured a circular drive with access provided through what is now Morning Hill No. 4. This was a departure from the original Bellwood residential Planned Development which proposed access to 128th Avenue. An unrecorded agreement was made between the previous owners of the Morning Hill and Bellwood developments to provide access to the eastern (Bellwood) parcel in this manner. This past Council approval and agreement was not known to the staff or he the present owners of the Morning Hill development. The owner of but eastern ct c was the 1 City offied theh madearuntil ing oafter n1the ng H plat ill Nohad been no contwith approved and released by the City. STAFF REPORT — S 17-86 — PAGE 1 3. Vicinity Information The single family residences zoned R-4.5(PD) lie to the north and are part of the Morning Hill development. Morning Hill Drive and 131st Avenue presently dead end along the northern boundary of the subdivision proposed in this application. New single family residences that are within Bellwood subdivision and zoned R-4.5 are immediately to ` the east. Undeveloped property also owned by the applicant lies to the south and 135th Avenue forms the western boundary of this development. 4. Site Information and Proposal Description The property is gently rolling except for the extreme eastern end of the project which contains a wooded drainageway that runs north to Summer lake. The applicant proposes to create 37 single family residential lots ranging between 7,500 and 8,500 square feet. Morning Hill Drive and 131st Avenue will be extended south to an east west street that will direct traffic west to 135th Avenue. The eastern portion of the subdivision (Lots 125-128) is close to the drainageway. This development and associated grading is not intended to interfere with the drainageway. 5. Agency and NPO Comments The Engineering Division has the following comments: a. Provisions must be made to extend the public sanitary and storm drainage system to the south to accommodate future development "upstream". b. No direct access should be permitted onto 135th Avenue. C. The entire right-of-way for Morning Hill Drive should be dedicated at this time. d. The proposed L.I.D. for 135th Avenue and Murray Blvd. will effect this development, particularly the right-of-way vacation of the "old" portion of 135th Avenue. e. The access for Lot 142 should be as far east as possible and Lots 141 and 150 should have access only to the cul-de-sac. f. A non-remonstrance agreement related to street improvements should be executed. If the L.I.D. is formed prior to recording the final plat, some method should be devised to transfer the assessment to the individual lots. The Building Inspection Division has the following comments: a. All lots should be required to slope toward the street for ' drainage purposes. If this is not possible, an appropriate storm drainage system will be necessary. STAFF. REPORT - .S 17-86 - PAGE 2 r b. Lots which have any fill, such as the eastern lots, will require an engineer's report. Washington County fire District No. 1 indicates that fire hydrants must be provided so that all residential structures are within 500 feet of a hydrant. School District #48 indicates that adequate capacity is available to accommodate the number of students anticipated by this development. The Tigard Water District has no objection to the request. No other comments have been received. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, 3.1.1, 6.1.1, 7.1.2, 7.3.1, 7.4.4, 8.1.1, and 8.1.3 and Community Development Code Chapters 18.50, 18.160, and 18.164. Since the Comprehensive Plan has been acknowledged, the Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines no longer need to be addressed. The Planning staff concludes that the proposal is consistent with the - relevant portions of the Comprehensive Pian 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. b. Policy 3.1.1 will be satisfied provided that Lots 125-128 are graded as shown in the utilities and site grading plan. A detailed grading plan including profiles and a method for preserving as much existing vegetation as possible should be developed. Encroachment into the drainageway will require a Sensitive Lands permit. C. Policy 7.1.2, 7.3.1, and 7.4.4 are satisfied because adequate water, sewer, and storm drainage facilities can be made available to the development and adjacent properties. The applicant also indicates that these facilities will be provided within the subdivision as required by City standards. d. Policy 8. 1.1 will be satisfied when all acceptable methods for access is provided for Tax Lot 102. This development should not be platted until this issue is resolved. e. Policy 8.1.3 will be satisfied when the conditions of approval relating to street improvements are completed. STAFF REPORT = S 17-86 — PAGE 3 The Planning staff has determined that the proposal, is consistent with the relevant portions of the Community Development Code based upon the findings noted below: a. Chapters 18.50 and 18.56 of the Code is satisfied because the proposal meets all of the requirements of the R-4.5 and R-25 zones. b. Chapter 18.150 will be satisfied as a condition of approval. When possible, all trees over 6 inches in diameter will be saved. C. Chapter 18.160 of the Code is satisfied because the proposal meets the requirements set forth for the submission and approval of a preliminary plat d. Chapter 18.164 of the Code will be satisfied during the approval process for the final plat. C. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the findings, and conclusions above, the Planning staff recommends approval of S 17-86 subject to the following conditions: 1. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET PRIOR TO RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT. 2. Standard street improvement including concrete sidewalks, concrete curbs, streetlights, concrete driveway aprons, mailbox clusters, storm drainage, utilities and a traffic landing (at the intersection of 135th) shall be installed. Said improvements along SW- Morning Hill Drive shall be built to minor collector street standards and conform to the alignment of existing adjacent improvements (being 60' R/W and 36' curb to curb). 3. Standard street improvement including concrete sidewalks, concrete curbs, streetlights, concrete driveway aprons, mailbox clusters, storm drainage and utilities shall be installed along the balance of the proposed subdivision streets. Said improvements shall be built to local street standards (50' R/W and 34' curb to curb). 4. Seven (7) sets of plan—profile public improvement construction plans and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate, stamped by a Registered Professional Civil Engineer, detailing all proposed public improvements shall be submitted to the Engineering Section for approval. 5. Sanitary sewer and storm sewer plan—profile details shall be provided as part of the public improvement plans. Facilities shall be extended to provide for future development of adjacent undeveloped parcels. STAFF REPORT — S 17-86 — PAGE 4 6. A detailed grading plan for lots 125 through 128 shall be submitted for Engineering and Building Division as part of the public improvement plans which includes the following: a. Grade profiles b. Engineer's report for Building areas that receive fill C. Plan which will preserve existing vegetation to the maximum extent possible. 7. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the public along the SW 135th-Murray Road frontage to increase the right-of-way to 35 feet from centerline. The description for said dedication shall be tied to the existing 135th Avenue 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 AVAILABLE AT THE ENGINEERING OFFICE AT CITY HALL. 8. Construction of proposed public improvements shall riot commence until after the Engineering Section has issued approved public improvement plans. The Section will require posting of a 100% Performance Bond, the payment of a permit free and sign installation/streetlight fee. 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 SPECIFIC INFORMATION REGARDING FEE SCHEDULES, BONDING AND AGREEMENTS. 9. The applicant shall provide for roof rain drainage to the public stormwater system. Where lots drain away from public roads, facilities shall be provided to eliminate runoff problems. 10. The applicant shall provide for connection to proposed buildings to the public sanitary sewerage system. A connection permit is required in conjunction with Building Permit issuance. 11. Storm sewer details shall be provided as part of the Public Improvement plans. Calculations and topographic service area - basin map shall be provided as a supplement to the Public Improvement plans, to demonstrate evidence of area - basin full development serviceability. The location and capacity of existing and proposed (or future) lines shall be addressed. 1" A permit shall be obtained by the applicant from the City (Authority: Tigard Municipal Code, Chapter 18.84) for land form alteration on slopes of twenty-five percent or greater and within drainageways). 13. Street Centerline Monumentation 1. In accordance with ORS 92.060 subsection (2), the centerlines of all street and roadway right-of-ways shall be monumented before the City shall accept a street improvement. STAFF REPORT - S 17-86 - PAGE 5 2. 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. 3. The following centerline monuments shall be set: a. All centerline-centerline intersections. Intersections created with "collector" or other existing streets, shall be set when the centerline alignment of said "collector" or other street has been established by or for the City; b. Center of all cul--de-sacs; C. Curve points. Point of intersection (P.I.) when their position falls inside the limits of the pavement otherwise beginning and ending points (B-C mLnd E.C.) d. All sanitary and storm locations shall be placed in positions that do not interfere with centerline monumentation. 14. The locations of all existing trees over 6 inches in diameter shall be illustrated and a site plan for Lot 125-128. Justification shall be provided for the removal of any of these trees. 15. The applicant (and the owner of Tax Lot 102) shall submit a conceptual plan for providing an acceptable means of access to Tax Lot 102. 16. The applicant shall submit a non-remonstrance agreement for street improvements for 135th Avenue and Murray Blvd. If the local improvement district is formed prior to recording the plat, the applicant shall develop a method acceptable to the City, for dividing the L.I.D. assessment between the individual lots. 17. After review and approval by the Director of Community Development and the City Engineer, the final plat shall be recorded with Washington County. 18. This approval is valid if exercised within one year of the final approval date noted below. PREPARED BY: Keith S. Liden A V D 8Y: William A. Monahan Senior Planner Director of Community Development (KSL:bs2768P) �r STAFF REPORT - S 17-86 - PAGE 6 TONKON,TORP, GALEN, MARMADUKE &BOOTH LAW OFFICES MOE M.TONKON 1800 ORBANCO BUILDING JEFFREY H.KEENEY IIfl05-19841 1001 5.W. FIFTH AVENUE ALBERT N.KENNEDY MARK F.LLROU% PORTLAND,OREGON 972 04-0 62 BARBEE S.LYON' TERRY W.BAKER' BRUCE L.SERNIN3 15030221-1440 DON H.MARMADUKE• WILLIAM F.MARTS ON,JR.' OWEN 0.BLANK MICHAEL M.MORGAN' MARC S.BOCCI JANET C.NEUMAN BRIAN G.BOOTH- JON WNICKEL' December 11, 1986 BRIAN M,BROWN . INGOLF NOTG TIMOTHY J.=NWAY AMY JOSEPH PEDERSEN MARK L.CUSHING EDWIN C.PERRY JOHN L.FROHNMAYER• JOHN H.ROSENFELO MORRIS J.GALEN' SCOTT G.SEIDMAN RONALD L.GREENMAN• SUSAN A.SMITH JEFFREY E.HARMES KENNETH D.STEPHENS CAROL DEY HIBB9 FREDERICK N.TORP JOEL S.KAPLAN JOSEPH S.VOBORI L' MARJORY A.WALL A PKOVESSIONAL COK►OKAtION VIA MESSENGER Hearings Officer Tigard City Hall Town Hall 13125 S. W. Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Subdivision S 17-86/Morninghill No. 6: Request of Benj, Fran. Development Inc. to Subdivide a 9.6 Acre Parcel into 37 Lots Dear Sir or Madam: This office represents The Oregon Bank (the Bank) . The Bank is the owner of Tax Lot 102, which is located directly to the east, and adjacent to, the above-referenced property. The purpose of this letter is to state the Bank's opposition to Subdivision S 17-86 (the Subdivision) . All of the property to the south, east and north of Tax Lot 102 has been platted and subdivided. As a result, the only remaining means of access to Tax Lot 102 is by and through the Subdivision. The Morninghill No. 6 Master Plan does not provide for any access to Tax Lot 102. if the Subdivision were approved in accordance with the Master Plan, Tax Lot 102 would become "landlocked", with no means of access to a dedicated public street. Accordingly, the Bank objects to approval of the Subdivision as submitted. We note the December 11, 1986 Staff Report conditions its recommendation of approval of the Subdivision on the following: �y' Hearings Officer December 11, 1986 Page Two "The applicant (and the owner of Tax Lot 102) shall submit a conceptual plan for providing an acceptable means of access to Tax Lot 102." The Bank will support the Subdivision only if this conceptual plan is reviewed and approved by the Bankrp for to any official approval of the Subdivision application. The conceptual plan showing access to Tax Lot 102 should be submitted to Mr. Frank Haslach, Vice President and General Manager, Tangible Asset Services, The Oregon Bank, 1001 S. W. Fifth Avenue, Portland, OR 97204. We hereby request that this letter be made a part of the record in the above-referenced matter and that the City provide the Bank and this office with notice of any further hearings with respect to the Subdivision. Very truly yours, Jeffrey H. Keeney JHK/mmu copy: Mr. Frank Haslach Ms. Sandy Campbell Mr. Dave Tacheny Mr. Keith Liden TONKON,TORP,OALZN,MARMAOYKC S 800TH MORNING HILL NO. b APPLICANTS STATEMENT This application is a request by HenjFran Development, Inc. to create a 37 lot subdivision from portions of four tax lots. The present land use zone is R-4.5, a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet and R-25, a minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet. The minimum proposed lot size will be 7,300 square feet. The proposed net density for this project will be 4.82 lots per acre. The applicant is aware that disturbance of the drainage swale requires a sensitive lands land use action request. This project will not disturb the sensitive lands area. They will not request variances or other land use actions to be considered as part of this application. The site slopes from south to north at a slope from 3 to 7%. Much of the site is fallow. The extreme east edge of the site is a drainage swale (sensitive lands) covered with a variety of trees and brush. The developer has been involved in two previous units of Morning Hill. Their pians for this unit will make the proposed development comparable to other developments (existing and proposed) in the area. This project will contribute greatly to the circulation pattern of the area. Not only will the final link of 8W Morning Hill Drive be completed to SW 135th Avenum, but the road link to SW 131st Avenue will also be completed giving that portion of Morning Hill an important southerly access. 1 Y The sensitive lands portion of the proposed project can be identified as portions of lots 127 & 128. It is our intent to keep construction out of the drainage way at the bottom of the swale. Construction on lot 128 will have minimal effect on this area due to lot configuration. Lot 127 will need to require restrictions on the size of the house built, its location on the lot and the amount of { earthwork permitted in the rear of the lot. Per Tigard Community X, Development Code, Section 18.84.040 approval standards, erosion k control will be required for both lots as a safeguard against soil # washing down from the rear yard embankments and into the flow line of the Swale. To give access to tax lot 102, adjacent to "Bellwood No. 3, " would mean crossing the sensitive lands (drainage swals) by installing a culvert and filling in excessively in order to construct an access road per City of Tigard standards. It would be less harmful to the sensitive lands area to access said tax lot onto SW Kathryn Street by crossing lot 121 "Bellwood No. 3. " This empty lot is under the same ownership as tax lot 102. Utilities (Sanitaryp Hater & Storm) will be the continuation of the existing facilities of said "Morning Hill. " All street and construction will be according to the City of Tigard standards. R _ 2 - , TRANSCRIPT TIGARD HEARING OFFICER THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1986 - 7:00 PM Hearings Officer Beth Mason, "Alright I'm going to call the meeting to PM, we're in the Tigard City order. This is December 11th, 1986, its 7:00 Hall Town Hall Room. This is the time and place set for the regular agenda of Hearings Officer. My name is Beth Mason, I'm the Hearings Officer for the the n9 Staff City, immediately to my left is Keith liden, who is our Planning representative. We have one item on the agenda tonight and thats the consideration of Subdivision S 17-86. The applicant is BenjFran veld nt Its a request to subdivide a 9.6 acre parcel into 37 lots on De P property zoned R-4.5. We will be following the hearing procedure contained on the blue sheet, which I think you want to supply in your folder." Keith liden, "Yes, and they are also out there." Beth Mason, "Okay. If your going to participate tonight I encourage You to read those. I will consider any challenges, at this time, to my right to hear this patter. I will state for the record that I've had no expar Q contact did just discuss some o f the with anyone involved in this case. Although, I Are there any issues with staff prior to the opening of this hearing• objections to me hearing this matter? Okay I see none. Could I have the staff report. TRANSCRIPT S 17-96 BENJFRAN Page 1 Keith Liden, "Okay, this is a proposal to divide a 9.6 acre parcel into 37 lots ranging in approximately from 7500 to 8500 square feet. It is located immediately south of Morning Hill phases number II, III, IV, and V east of 135th Avenue. This proposal really builds upon the previous phases by extending 2313t and Morning Hill Drive to the south and then having an east west street system then directing traffic out onto 135th Avenue. We have reviewed the proposal and have found that it is consistent with the standards in the Community Development Code and I think I would just like to bring attention to a couple of items. One, I guess relatively minor one is, uh, that the eastern portion of the subdivision, namely lots 125 through 128 are close to a drainageway which is identified as a sensitive lands area. Although, it appears from the preliminary grading plan, that it will not have any affect on the drainageway. Staff is recommending that some more details be provided and regarding this fill and grading and also to the maximum extent possible, existing vegetation in the area be left alone. The second issue is related to access and I'm sure that there are couple of people in this room that probably remember a little more of the history, uh, than city staff, on this matter, but essentially we are faced with a problem of access to tax lot 102, which is an undeveloped parcel immediately east and one of the thins that staff is recommending is that the access to this parcel be clarified, prior to platting this phase; and we are recommending approval subject to conditions listed in the staff report." Bath Mason, "Okay, are there any questions or clarification? This is the time for questions. Yes sir." (J TRANSCRIPT S 17-86 BENJFRAN Page 2 "My name is Jim Harris. I would like, I don't have a copy of the staff report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Keith, I wonder if you would repeat that particular item." Keith Liden, "Relating to access. Beth Mason, "Let the record show . . . Keith Liden, "Okay, condition number 15 we have recommended. Beth Mason, "tie was just reading it." Keith Liden, "Condition 15, okay. . . . . . . . silence on tape while condition is being read. . . . . . . Beth Mason, "Okay, any other questions of staff? Okay, I see none, I call for the public portion of the testimony. He the applicant or its representative here? "My name is Norman Harker, H A R K E R, with Alpha Engineering, representing BenjFran Development Corporation. We agree with the staff report and I've talked to the owner of BenjFran Development, Dale Johnson, regarding item 15, working with it, and his feeling is thats its the obligation of the neighboring properties to work together in the development community and has no problem at all doing what ever he can to resolve the problem as far as access to tax lot 102." TRANSCRIPT S 17-86 BENJFRAN Page 3 Beth Mason, "Has he contacted the Oregon Bank yet?" Norm Harker, "I don't believe he has. We just go the staff report yesterday and I just got a hold of Dale today. Actually, Mike Nelson handles the Morning Hill stuff and Mike's out of town so Dale was kind of blind sided on the whole thing, but it more than willing to do whatever we can." Beth Mason, "Okay, thank you. Let me point out, Mr. Harker, I have a letter in the record that I received from the Oregon Bank or their counsel and there objecting to the approval of the subdivision as submitted, and they understand the condition of approval, and they say that the bank will support the subdivision only if this conceptual plan is reviewed and approved by the bank prior to any official approval of the subdivision application. Conceptual plans showing access to tax lot 102 should be submitted to Mr. Frank Haslach, that sort of thing, so." Norm Harker, "Mind if I mark yours Keith or would you rather?" X Keith Liden, "No, go ahead." Norm Harker, "We've taken a look at it and it would be fairly simple to bring, uh access through somewhere in here. The problem is, this point right here, your into the bottom of the drainageway. . . . . . . . . Into the sensitive lands area, so I'm not sure how feasible it is to provide an access there, perhaps, we could, I talked to Keith about it, and perhaps we could reserve a tract in there, lot size and not have it a buildable lot until, until tax lot TRANSCRIPT S 17-86 BENIFRAN Page 4 102 is developed, and if they need it, it would be there, if it proves economical, use it, if not, then it would revert back to BenjFran and they could go ahead and develop it. I don't know if that makes sense or not. I would hate to leave a fifty foot right--uf-way in there, pave a street down into the bottom of the gully and then have tax lot 101, and 102, not develop because its really not feasible to run a street clear up the gully to serve those lots. There's alot of options. You followed what I'm talking about?" Keith Liden, "Yes." Beth Mason, "Oh I know exactly what your talking about, but, um, I quess my question is, if you don't provide access at that point where would you provide access?" Norm Harker, "Theres, it gets down to kind of an engineering question at that . .(papers shuffling). . . . . this is the parcel 102, . . . . . .(to far from mike) . . . Bullwood, Morning Hill IV was developed in this area, uh, the bank owns this lot and the City has this parcel . . . . . . two access, . . . , what I'm saying, as for as this being, possible not practical and then the creek comes through, through here on the most developable property and, in the old preliminary, sort of preliminary plat . . . . conceptual plans anticipated where the lots are. In other words, if theres access, if its feasible to access here it would make more sense than to come clear up and access . . . . . . . . . . . . "Beth Mason, "The engineering difficulties arises off, on actually on 102, not on your lot?" TRANSCRIPT S 17--86 BENJFRAN Page 5 Norm Harker, "Right, on 102. We're up on the hill and the back of our lots are, are affected by that greenway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Beth Mason, "And this lot is presently undeveloped (pause) and your sure that its owned by the Oregon Bank?" Norm Harker, "Yes, I check it yesterday, the title company showed . . . . . . I'm not sure how current their . . . . . . . . Beth Mason, "Could we put that into the record? Do you need it? I've marked the staff report as exhibit "1", the letter from BenjFran' s counsel as exhibit "2", that will be exhibit "3", I mean Oregon Bank." Kieth liden, "Exhibit "3"." Beth Mason, "Exhibit "3". Any thing else. Okay I'll open the public portion of the testimony. Is there anyone else wishing to speak in favor of the application? Any one wishing to speak in opposition?" "Again my name is Jim Harris, with Harris McMonagle, who was the engineer for Bellwood III. I don't know if I'm in opposition to the proposed Morning Hill number IV. However, I think that as far as this access is concerned. The object of the access, at the time that the thing was approved, Morning Hill number IV was original approved, or whatever phase it was at that time. Where it had the accesses into that parcel was on the useable ground that was high and the rest of it was going to be dedicated to the City for a Park. And I think that the people in that area, uh, expect it to be dedicated as park and TRANSCRIPT S 17-86 BENJFRAN Page 6 I think to do anything else with it, with roads cutting across it or anything, I, its going to be very difficult for whoever owns that parcel of ground. So I think that, uh" Beth Mason, "Do you agree with Mr. Harker's analysis that an access could be provided from the north and get a few lots there on the west boundary?" Jim Harris, "I, Chats where I would say is a problem with the people that live there. They didn't buy it with that thought, we they bought in Bellwood, that was not what they had mind was going to happen to that property, that the access would come from the west, is the way they were informed." Both Mason, "But when they bought, they had already been platted so there would not be access from the west." Jim Harris, "No, but the original, the, at the time it was platted it was obviously platted with the thought in mind that there would be access from the west, because that was the only place that was left." Beth Mason, "Chronologically thats was the last to be platted?" Jim Harris, "Bellwood III was. And, at the time of the preliminary plat for Bellwood III was being processed it was original approved to have apartments along there, way back." Beth Mason, "Wait a minute, let me make sure that I have the apartment complex right. Your calling it Bellwood III subdivision, Bellwood III is the one to the north and east." TRANSCRIPT S 17-86 BENJFRAN Page 7 Jim Harris, "Yes." Beth Mason, "Okay." Jim Harris, "And uh, when it was originally approved, the original concept for the whole Bellwood, for all of Bellwood, there was an apartment complex that was approved for that area. And, was really kind of left open as far as density." Bath Mason, "For that area, meaning 102?" Jim Harris, "Meaning, right in here." Bath Mason, "Oh, okay. Jim Harris, And, uh, at the time that the preliminary plat came up, Wedgwood was also preparing a preliminary plat and it was finally, this thing was hashed out between the owners, the then owners of Morning Hill, which was Wedgwood domes, and Brayson Builder as to this access and also at the same time that the density in that area would be cut doom to eight single family r lots. So that was the way it was left and the plat for Bellwood number III platted right around it because the access would be coming in off, from the west. I don't know if that helps you or confuses you, but that* more or less the way it was." TRAtI=IPT 9 17-85 SEWFRAw Page 9 x Beth Mason, "Well, yeah, Its, I, Its informative, you know, I appreciate the neighbors sentiments, that they thought they would have a park behind them. I'm not sure that they can count on that in an urban setting, but, unless its dedicated land . . .laughter . . . . . I beg your pardon." Unknown, "I would hate to be the one to tell." Beth Mason, "Well, unless its dedicated land as a park I don't think that anyone, you know, in an urban setting, has the right to expect that an open field next to them or an open gully next them is going to remain open. I mean, thats, thats just the facts of life. I deal with that issue quite regularly, you know, thats, everyone gets a proprietary interest in that open lot next door without paying for the privilege. so, any one else wishing to speak in opposition or (pause)?" "My name is Dave Tacheny, I represent the Oregon Bank." Beth Mason, "I'm sorry, once more Dave?" "Tacheny, T A C N E N Y" Beth Mason, "Are you from the Tonkin firm." Tacheny, "Tonkin Torpe is counsel for the Oregon Bank." Beth Mason, "And your are?" TRANSCRIPT S 17-66 BENJFRAN Page 9 Tacheny, "I work for real property marketing, Mr. Frank Haslach. If I may I would like to read the letter, that was submitted." Beth Mason, "You don't need to, I have it in front of me, it will, it is part of the official record." Tacheny, "Okay, I've been asked to read it if I could." Mason, "I'm, I'm declining that privilege, thank you. Why don't you address the substance." Tacheny, "Okay, the purpose of the letter and the Bank's position is to retain parcel 102 as potential . . . . . for development. This might be a little better to use . . .(walked away from mike). . . Mason, "I think you might post exhibit "3" up there too. That shows the Bank property as well. Tacheny, "As Jim mentioned, the proposed plat that we are discussing this evening extends, I believe, in this area here. When Wedgwood completed the improvements on existing street, they came into approximately this area and did not give access to what is now owned by that back as 102. The bank does own, three individual lots that are single family lots approved not accessed to the subdivision and, reserving Mason, "Wales the Bank in an ownership position when Morning Star III was approved. Tne one immediately to the west." TRANSCRIPT S 17-66 BENJFRAN Page 10 Tacheny, "At the Liden, "IV" Mason, "IV" Mason, "When Morning Star was the Bank was not in ownership. This was the plan that was submitted, alleged plan, 79, that proported the greenway and the access by Morning Hill and the owners were not just told there was access, the City, which there are some notes there, was involved at time in discussing a Greenway. Happens to be a natural drainage. what we're trying to preserve, is not another access to 102, we're not trying to preserve a particular configuration of 102 as platted. We're trying to preserve access to the property which looks like its going to be landlocked. We would be in opposition to any access over our existing lots which we are selling at this time as single family lots. They ware not approved for that and when our sign went up we received dozens of calls from the owners that told us, we understood that that was a Greenway behind the property. I can see now why in reading the minutes of a 79 meeting that the City of Tigard also thought it was a Greenway. We're not, the Bank alleges, our counsel alleges, it is a Greenway. They have never stated or submitted a formal plat. We've only owned the property for a short time." Beth Mason, "Let me understand your position. Your saying that your tax lot 102 is a Greenway." TRANSCRIPT S 17-86 BENJFRAN Page 11 Tacheny, "We have been, we've been told, this is the City of Tigard, its an alleged Greenway." Mason, "The entire plat?" Tacheny, "No, just the configuration here . . . . . . . . . . . . drainage. Therefore, if Morning Hill is completed as platted, without access, we will lose the ability to develop the property. At least to the extent with which the City intended." Mason, "What do you propose?" Tacheny, "As the letter indicated, and I would have liked to read it, it went specifically word for word, request what we're after." Mason, "You don't make a proposal in here about where you would like to see access, you just say that you would like Tacheny, "We would like the City to allow the problem to be resolved and that the plat be held until the Oregon Bank and BenFranklin, or the owners submitting the plat, submit a plan that is acceptable." Mason, "Why have you waited this long?" Tacheny, "Why have we waited this long for what? r-4r Mason, "To approach SenjFran. I mean this application been pending for some time. You were notified of it a full two weeks ago." TRANSCRIPT S 17-86 BENJFRAN Page 12 Tacheny, "We were notified to approach Benj Fran." Mason, "You were notified of a pending subdivision application, as all surrounding property owners are notified." Tacheny, "Thats why we are here." Mason, "Well, but you've had two weeks to approach BenjFran. Why are you suggesting now that I should not approve this subdivision so you can have additional time? (pause) What have you done with the last two weeks? Why haven't you, when you first got the notice, that this subdivision was pending, it doesn't take much effort to call the City and say that I would like to see the proposed plat, whats it look like." R` Tacheny, "That was done by legal counsel. The proposed Plat was given to legal counsel, legal counsel prepared the document, which v You see today, the letter. The burden of the subdivision being approved is, we feel, upon the applicant submitting a subdivision." Mason, "Well the applicant has made a suggestion for access. Uh. I would like to hear Tacheny, "Is his suggestion in his proposal this evening." Mason, "He's made it this evening. He's drawn it on the map s TRANSCRIPT S 17-86 BENJFRAN Page 13 'e Tacheny, "I can't see any of the drawings that where done." Mason, "If you look in the center map, you' ll see black lines drawn on the, about the three o'clock position on the cul-de-sac. He's suggesting an access to tax lot to 20, or 102 from that point. Now, if its not there, where else would you suggest that it be from this applicant's ownership?" Tacheny, "From the two pinned drawings super imposed on the plat, I cannot make a decision, we would need to know if the utilities are going to be brought to the end of that particular access, if that road is going to be improved to the property, and if the City would then, at a future date, allow that to be the access to that project; and we feel that its necessary that the plat be submitted with access." Mason, "Okay, is there anything else." Tacheny, "The only other thing that I would like to say, it appeared tonight, in listening to proponents that there was a problem finding information on whether there was a greenway or not, or whether greenways where allowed. The Tigard City Council meeting, November 6, 1979, 8:30 PM, which is a record we received a copy, has the minutes which discuss this. As well as access. Mason, "Let me, let me ask you this. The condition of approval that staff has suggested that you and the owner, that BenjFran, we're talking about condition 15.. Shall submit a conceptual plan for providing an acceptable means of access to tax lot 102. That condition of approval must be met prior to the recording of the final plat." TRANSCRIPT S 17-86 BENJFRAN Page 14 ' Tacheny, "Correct." Mason, "So BenjFran could not record a final plat without coming to some agreement with you." Tacheny, "Can record the plat, if they want to ignore the Oregon Bank." Mason, "I beg your pardon?" Tacheny. "They can record a plat." Mason, "Not without being in violation of the City's approval." Tacheny, "Well perhaps." Mason, "The City's approval says that you cannot record until you have reached this agreement." Tacheny, "I simply was making the statement, they could record the plat." Mason, "They would be in violation. They couldn't build. No building permits would be issued." Tacheny, "I know, but so would we if we tried to drive over one of our building sites for access to a Greenway. Which I heard suggested." TRANSCRIPT S 17-86 BENJFRAN Page 15 Mason, "I guess what I'm trying to understand, Mr Tacheny, is why can't I approve this subdivision conceptually now, with this condition required to be l met prior to recording the final plat. Doesn't that satisfy your need." Tacheny, "It doesn't satisfy the access problem as to where its located and what it entails. There are some cost involved with every access thats granted as to whether its going to be a easement over a piece of ground that is platted with curbs in place or a curb cut and improvements made to the site, which is accessed in another way. Thats certainly a difference. We simply would like something submitted to the bank that we can look at, to make sure that access is granted." Mason, "Which will happen. Because BenjFran cannot record their plat until they do that." Tacheny, "Submit to the bank or submit to the City." Mason, "Submit to you. It says, condition 15 says, once more Tacheny, "I read 15, it doesn't say to the bank, it says just Mason, "The applicant and the owner of tax lot 102 shall submit a conceptual' plan. That means that both of you together submit a conceptual plan for providing an acceptable means of access thats submitted to the City. The City's the one that ultimately approves the access." Tacheny, "Correct." TRANSCRIPT S 17-86 BENIFRAN Page 16 fix. 1 Mason, "And it says both of you shall do that. It doesn't say that Benj Fran i alone and it doesn't say you along, it says both of you." Tacheny, "We feel the burden is on them, their submitting the plat, we will not do site drawings at this time for access. They submit the plat to us, so that we know the location and if we can have an agreement, I'm sure that it can be worked out." Mason, "I understand your position. Is there anything else that you would like to add?" Tacheny, "Thats it, thank you." Mason, "Is there anything else that anyone would like to say. "My name is Jim Brayson Jr. , uh, My father and I owned the property prior to the Oregon Bank, uh, the Bellwood III and the parcel 102. The uh, when this was discovered and prior to recording of Morning Hill number IV, uh, we did put the City of Tigard on notice, through our legal counsel, uh, they informed, we did get a confirmation that they would instruct Washington County not to record that bank of lots that was along that, our property, until this was resolved. I understand that it has been recorded now." rtt Mason, "I'm sorry, but which one are you talking about? Are you talking about the lots along Katherine Street, on the north." _, TRANSCRIPT S 17-66 BENJFRAN Page 17 Brayson, "The bank of lots that would abut 102." Liden, "Morning Hill IV." Mason, "Oh, Morning Hill IV, I see." Brayson, "Morning Hill IV. So we, when this was discovered, then our legal counsel contacted the City and the City responded by saying, we will not allow that bank of lots to be recorded until this access thing is taken care of. So everybody was, Benj Fran was also made aware of it at that time, by written letter, uh, substantially prior to this last date. So, notice for this next r phase of Morning Hill." Mason, "I guess my question is, uh, was this a condition of approval of that development that, that the plat couldn't be filed without that access being address." 2 Brayson, "No. The approval had already been granted, the subdivision had boon developed but the plat hadn't been recorded, apparently. Uh, And we discovered it only by being out at the site and seeing that the subdivision was in. And then from that point we went ahead a notified the City and they said that they would not allow, that at least that bank of lots along lot 102 to be recorded until this issue was taken care of. But apparently it did get recorded." Mason, "Keith, according to your research theres no record of that phone call or letter, or anything." TRANSCRIPT S 17-86 BENJFRAN Page 18 x Liden, "Okay, I was not involved in this directly. But the way I recall things happening is the City had released the plat, we had done everything and they had met all their obligations as far as the City was concerned. We had released the plat to go over to Washington County to be recorded. Goes over to the County and it goes to the assessor and the surveyor and so forth; and then we contacted by Mr. Brayson's attorney and we did call the County and ask them to stop processing the plat, with the idea that would have to at least wait and talk to our legal counsel to find out what we should do next. Thats when I pretty much left the scene, but then I understand that we received word from our legal counsel that we should go ahead and let the plat be recorded, which is what we did, so it did get recorded. So we held up the plat to let our legal counsel look at the issues involved and so forth and then we were told by them that it could be recorded." Brayson, "So you didn't feel it was necessary to notify us to do that and Just do it?" Liden, "Well at that point I wasn't involved so I don't know who felt what or who notified whom." Brayson, "We were basically putting the City on notice that we were disputing it and we were notified that Mason, "But you were disputing it after the approvals had been made, you had not participated in the hearing or sought an appeal of the hearing, for instance to the City Council, or to LUBA. You only, you came in after the TRANSCRIPT S 17-86 BENJFRAN Page 19 process was complete and put them on notice that you didn't care for the way it had been platted and you wanted something done, but you didn't implement the necessary legal action to stop it." Brayson, "It wasn't platted according to the preliminary plat, that had been submitted that the City has on record. Uh, so, if the, the Morning Hill would have been platted according to what was submitted for the preliminary plat, to work for both properties, to work in conjunction, there would be no problem, it would have been just fine." Mason, "Um, Of course theres no obligation to, you can redesign a preliminary plat before final plat, thats part of the preliminary planning processes, you know, you come in with your first conceptual notion of what you want to do and sometime that gets changed." Brayson, "To the point where you landlock a piece of property?" Mason, "Well I guess my question, sir, is, is, you say you had an attorney, and you say that attorney contacted the City. I assuming that attorney knew the legal steps to take to stop the process by an appeal, but none of those where taken. An appeal wasn't filed, um, there was nothing filed at the council, there was nothing filed with LUBA. I'm mean, I'm assuming that's the case, your not telling me that there was an appeal filed." Brayson, "No there was not. What I'm saying is that, the City was notified, the City did tell our legal counsel that they would not allow those lots to be, first of all they acknowledge that there was some problem there, but TRANSCRIPT S 17-86 BENJFRAN Page 20 didn't know what it was. They wouldn't allow those bank of lots to be recorded until it was worked out. If they changed their mind, and said, well we're going to record it now, I believe that I legal counsel should have at least been notified that they were not going to hold up on this now." Mason, "What your asking for here is, whats in the legal jargon, is called astopal. Your asking that the City now be astopped from doing something because you want to rely on something they told you in the past. The law in Oregon is fairly clear that Cities cannot be astopped from administrating their rules and regulations, that the correct procedure is to file the proper appeal, or the property s:.ay in the courts, to stop the process. I'm sorry that the City didn't contact your counsel, or perhaps they tried and he wasn't available, who knows, hind sight is a wonderful thing. I don't see that that now precludes us from addressing this subdivision and its obligations to tax lot 102." Brayson, "Well its not to late. I'm sure something can be figured out." '` Mason, "Yeah, I think so to. Alright, thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this subdivision. (pause) Okay, I'm going to close the public hearing. I am prepared to make a decision tonight. I'm going to approve the subdivision, but, I'm going to emphasize condition 15 and I'm going to reword it so that that applicant shall contact the owner of tax lot 102. So, the _ applicant shall contact the owner of tax lot 102, which according to the record is the Oregon Bank. And after consultation with the owner of 102, <' TRANSCRIPT S 17-86 BE.NJFRAN Page 21 i� k shall submit a conceptual plan for providing an acceptable means of access to tax lot 102. These leave the burden on the applicant, where it property belongs, but it provides the applicants, in the event that they cannot agree with the Oregon Bank about what the access should be, theres a very narrow area there, where the access could be drawn, coming from the south, the, I will state that the Oregon Bank is free to submit their own conceptual plan about how access should be provided in that area. But, it will be the applicant initial obligation to contact the owner of 102 and at least attempt to coordinate with them in providing that access. Okay. My written decision will be filed within 10 days. dj/2881P TRiBh1SCRIPT S 17-86 BEN3FRAN Page 22 a� (A) Narrow or eliminate land pe strips; (8) Narrow or eliminat on street parking; (C) Narrow or a inate sidewalks and/or bike trails; (D) Eli ' ate left turn lanes; (E) Narrow travel lanes. f(f) Future Extensions of Streets and Reserve Strips_ Where necessary to give access or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land, streets shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be developed; and (1) A reserve strip across the end of a dedicated street shall be deeded to the City. (2) In addition, a barricade shall be constructed at the end of the street by the property owners which shall not be removed until authorized by the Public Works Director, the cost of which shall be included in the street construction cost. (g) Street Alignment. As far as practical, streets sh be dedicated and constructed in alignment with existing s ets by continuing the center lines thereof. In no case 11 the staggering of streets making "T" intersections at c ectors and arterials be designed such that jogs of less th 300 feet on such streets are created, as measured from th center line of such street. f' (h) Intersection Angles. Streets shall b laid out so as to intersect at an angle as near- to a r t angle as practicable, except where topography requires a 1 ser angle, but in no case shall the angle be less than s' y degrees unless there is special intersection design; and (1) Streets shall have at ast 25 feet of tangent adjacent to the right--of-way int section unless topography requires a lesser distance. (2) Intersections ich are not at right angles shall have a minimum cor r radius of 20 feet along the right-of-way lines of a acute angle. (3) Right -way lines at intersection with arterial streets a sha have a corner radius of not less than 20 feet. (i) Exisnq Rights-of--Way. Whenever existing rights-of-way adcent to or within a tract are of less than standard width, ditional right-of-way shall be provided at the time of subdivision or development. III = 324 STREP REPORT AGENDA ITEM 2.1 DECEMBER 11, 1986 - 7:00 P.M. HEARINGS OFFICER TIGARD CITY HALL - TOWN HALL 13125 SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD, OREGON 97223 A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: Subdivision S 17-86. REQUEST: To subdivide a 9.6 acre parcel into 37 lots ranging between 7,500 and 8,500 approximately square feet in size. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential, Medium High Density Residential. ZONING DESIGNATION: R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre), R-25 (Residential, 25 units/acre). APPLICANT: Benj. Fran. Development. Inc. OWNER: Same 9370 SW Greenburg Road Portland, OR 97223 LOCATION: Immediately south of Morning Hill Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5 and east of SW 135th Avenue (WCTM 2S1 4AG, T.L. 4500. 4600, .: 4700 and WCTM 2S1 4A, T.L. 501). 2. Background Information Y The Morning Hill development was approved by the City in 1977, and construction began in 1978 (ZC 5-77/SOR 52-78). Additional plats were 4. approved in 1985 for Morning Hill Nos. 4 and 5 (S 12-85 and S 13-86). In 1979, the City Council approved an amendment to Phase IZI of the Bellwood development subject to conditions. The parcel involved is immediately east of Morning HIll No. 4 and northeast of the subject property. A conceptual plan was presented which featured a circular drive with access provided through what is now Morning Hill No. 4. t This was a departure from the original Bellwood residential Planned Development which proposed access to 128th Avenue. An unrecorded agreement was made between the previous owners of the Morning Hill and Bellwood developments to provide access to the eastern (Bellwood) parcel in this manner. This past Council approval and agreement was not known to the staff or the present owners of the Morning Hill development. The owner of the eastern tract was notified of the hearing for Morning Hill No. 4, but no contact with the City was made until after the plat had been approved and released by the City. STAFF REPORT -S 17-06 - PAGE 1 / 3. Vicinitv Information The single family residences zoned R-4.5(PD) lie to the north and are part of the Morning Hill development. Morning Hill Drive and 131st Avenue presently dead end along the northern boundary of the subdivision proposed in this application. New single family residences that are within Bellwood subdivision and zoned R-4.5 are immediately to the east. Undeveloped property also owned by the applicant lies to the south and 135th Avenue forms the western boundary of this development. 4. Site Information and Proposal Description The property is gently rolling except for the extreme eastern end of the project which contains a wooded c. )ageway that runs north to Summer Lake. The applicant proposes w create 37 single family residential lots ranging between 7,500 and 8,500 square feet. Morning Hill Drive and 131st Avenue will be extended south to an east west street that will direct traffic west to 135th Avenue. The eastern portion of the subdivision (Lots 125-128) is close to the drainageway. This development and associated grading is not intended to interfere with the drainageway. 5. Agency and NPO Comments The Engineering Division has the following comments: a. Provisions must be made to extend the public sanitary and storm drainage system to the south to accommodate future ' development "upstream". b. No direct access should be permitted onto 135th Avenue. C. The entire right-of-way for Morning Hill Drive should be dedicated at this time. d. The proposed L.I.D. for 135th Avenue and Murray Blvd. will effect this development, particularly the right-of-way vacation of the "old" portion of 135th Avenue. e. The access for Lot 142 should be as far east as possible and Lots 141 and 150 should have access only to the cul-de-sac. f. A non-remonstrance agreement related to street improvements should be executed. If the L.I.D. is formed prior to recording the final plat, some method should be devised to transfer the assessment to the individual lots. The Building Inspection Division has the following comments: t a. All lots should be required to slope toward the street for drainage purposes. If this is not possible, an appropriate storm drainage system will be necessary. f' PAGE 2 STAFF REPORT - S 17-86 - r . s4 :' b. Lots which have any fill, such as the eastern lots, will require an engineer's report. Washington County Fire District No. 1 indicates that fire hydrants must be provided so that all residential structures are within 500 feet of a hydrant. School District #48 indicates that adequate capacity is available to accommodate the number of students anticipated by this development. • The Tigard Water District has no objection to the request. No other comments have been received. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 2. 1. 1, 3.1. 1, 6.1.1, 7. 1.2, 7.3.1, 7.4.4, 8 .1 . 1, and 8. 1 .3 and Community Development Code Chapters 18.50, 18. 160, and 18. 164. Since the Comprehensive Plan has been acknowledged, the Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines no longer need to be addressed. The Planning staff 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 Organization and surrounding property owners were given notice of the hearing and an opportunity to comment on the applicant's proposal. b. Policy 3.1.1 will be satisfied provided that Lots 125-128 are graded as shown in the utilities and site grading plan. A detailed grading plan including profiles and a method for preserving as , much existing vegetation as possible should be developed. Encroachment into the drainageway will require a Sensitive Lands permit. C. Policy 7.1.2, 7.3.1, and 7.4.4 are satisfied because adequate water, sewer, and storm drainage facilities can be made available to the development and adjacent properties. The applicant also indicates that these facilities will be provided within the subdivision as required by City standards. d. Policy 8.1.1 will be satisfied when all acceptable methods for access is provided for Tax Lot 102. This development should not be platted until this issue is resolved. e. Policy 8.1.3 will be satisfied when the conditions of approval relating to street improvements are completed. STAFF REPORT S 17-86 PAGE 3 fit. . The Planning staff has determined that the proposal, is consistent with the relevant portions of the Community Development Code based upon the findings noted below: a. Chapters 18.50 and 18.56 of the Code is satisfied because the proposal meets all of the requirements of the R-4.5 and R-25 zones. b. Chapter 18.150 will be satisfied as a condition of approval . When possible, all trees over 6 inches in diameter will be saved. C. Chapter 18.160 of the Code is satisfied because the proposal meets the requirements set forth for the submission and approval of a preliminary plat. d. Chapter 18. 164 of the Code will. be satisfied during the approval process for the final plat. C. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the findings, and conclusions above, the Planning staff recommends approval of S 17-86 subject to the following conditions: 1. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL CONDITIONS SHALL. BE MET PRIOR TO RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT. �2. Standard street improvement including concrete sidewalks, concrete curbs, streetlights, concrete driveway aprons, mailbox clusters, storm drainage, utilities and a traffic. landing (at the intersection of 135th) shall be installed. Said improvements along SW Morning Hili Drive shall be built to minor collector street standards and conform to the alignment of existing adjacent improvements (being 60' R/W and 36' curb to curb). 3. Standard street improvement including concrete sidewalks, concrete curbs, streetlights, concrete driveway aprons, mailbox clusters, storm drainage and utilities shall be installed along the balance of the proposed subdivision streets. Said improvements shall be built to local street standards (50' R/W and 34' curb to curb). A. Seven (7) sets of plan-profile public improvement construction plans and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate, stamped by a Registered Professional Civil Engineer, detailing all proposed public improvements shall be submitted to the Engineering Section for approval. 5. Sanitary sewer and storm sewer plan-profile details shall be provided as part of the public improvement plans. Facilities shall be extended to provide for future development of adjacent undeveloped parcels. STAFF REPORT - S 17-86 - PAGE 4 6. A detailed grading plan for lots 125 through 128 shall be submitted for Engineering and Building Division as part of the public improvement plans which includes the following: a. Grade profiles b. Engineer's report for Building areas that receive fill C. Plan which will preserve existing vegetation to the maximum • extent possible. 7. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the public along the SW 135th-Murray Road frontage to increase the right-of-way to 35 feet from centerline. The description for said dedication shall be tied to the existing 135th Avenue 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 AVAILABLE AT THC ENGINEERING OFFICE AT' CITY HALL. 8. 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 100% Performance Bond, the payment of a permit fee and sign installation/streetlight fee. 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 SPECIFIC INFORMATION REGARDING FEE SCHEDULES, BONDING, AND AGREEMENTS. 9. The applicant shall provide for roof rain drainage to the public stormwater system. Where lots drain away from public roads, facilities shall be provided to eliminate runoff problems. 10. The applicant shall provide for connection to proposed buildings to the public sanitary sewerage system. A connection permit is required in conjunction with Building Permit issuance. 11. Storm sewer details shall be provided as part of the Public Improvement plans. Calculations and topographic service area - basin map shall be provided as a supplement to the Public Improvement plans, to demonstrate evidence of area - basin full development serviceability. The location and capacity of existing and proposed (or future) lines shall be addressed. 12. A permit shall be obtained by the applicant from the City (Authority: Tigard Municipal Code, Chapter 18.84) for land form alteration on slopes of twenty-five percent or greater and within drainageways). 13. Street Centerline Monumentation ., 1. In accordance with ORS 92.060 subsection (2), the centerlines of all street and roadway right-of-ways shall be monumented before the City shall accept a street d improvement. STAFF REPORT - S 17-86 - PAGE 5 2. 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. i 3. The following centerline monuments shall be set: a. All centerline—centerline intersections . Intersections created with "collector" or other- existing streets, shall be set when the centerline alignment of said "collector" or other street has been established by or for the City; b. Center of all cul—de—sacs; C. Curve points. Point of intersection (P.I. ) when their position falls inside the limits of the pavement otherwise beginning and ending points (R—C and E.C.) . d. All sanitary and storm locations sh,.11 be placed in positions that do not interfere with centerline monumentation. 14. The locations of all existing trees over 6 inches in diameter shall be illustrated and a site plan for Lot 125--128. Justification shall be provided for the removal of any of these trees. , �— � � 15. The applicants" of Tax Lot 102) shall s�umit. a conceptual plan for providing an acceptable means of access to Tax Lot 102. 16. The applicant shall submit a non—remonstrance agreement for street improvements for 135th Avenue and Murray Blvd. If the local improvement district is formed prior to recording the plat, the applicant shall develop a method acceptable to the City, for dividing the L.I.D. assessment between the individual lots. 17. After review and approval by the Director of Community Development and the City Engineer, the final plat shall be recorded with Washington County. 18. This approval is valid if exercised within one year of the final approval date noted below. PREPARED BY: Keith S. Liden A O�IBY: li m A. Monahan Senior Planner Director of Community Development (KSL:b32768P) TM: tt STAFF REPORT — S 17-86 — PAGE 6 5 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: February 9, 1987 DATE SUBMITTED: January 28, 1987 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Appeal of PREVIOUS ACTION: Director approval with Director's Decision SDR 21-86/V 31-86 conditions SNYDER PREPARED BY: Keith Liden DEPT HEAD OK 'CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: POLICY ISSUE Half street improvement questions have been forwarded to City Council for review rather than Planning Commission. Policy has been to require such improvements when the future street design and alignment are known. Section 18.164.030(a) requires that half-street improvements be installed unless they are not "timely". Staff has generally determined that they are "timely" only if: (1) an LID is being formed to include the improvements, or (2) the street needs an alignment revision which cannot be done piecemeal, or (3) drainage or some similar problem prevents piecemeal construction. INFORMATION SUMMARY On 12/26/86, the Planning Director granted Site Development Review and Variance (SDR 21-86/V 31-86) approval subject to conditions. The applicant is appealing the decision because of requirements to construct 1/2 street improvements (Condition 6.), pave the parking area (Condition 13.), and dedicate the 100 year floodway (Condition 9.). The applicant has also requested that the appeal fee be waived. Enclosed is a copy of the applicant's statement, Map showing property location, Director's Decision, appeal letter, relevant Code and Plan sections, and proposed resolution. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Uphold the Director's Decision. 2. Modify the Director's Decision as appropriate and give staff direction regarding 1/2 street improvement policy. 1. Deny the request for waiving the $225.00 appeal fee. 2. Authorize staff to refund all or part of the appeal fee. �- FISCAL IMPACT SUGGESTED ACTION 1. Uphold the Director's Decision and pass the attached resolution. 2. Decide if a full or partial appeal fee is appropriate and direct staff accordingly. KL:cn/292OP CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 87—_JM__ �l A FINAL ORDER IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND VARIANCE APPROVAL REQUESTED BY DAROLD AND SUSAN SNYDER, FILE NUMBER SDR 21-86/V 31-86, APPROVING THE APPLICATION, ENTERING FINDINGS, AND CONCLUSIONS. The Tigard City Council heard the above application on February 9, 1987. U ' fSn Au crepresented the applicant. No one appeared in opposition The Council finds the following FACTS in this matter: 1. The applicant requested approval to establish a mail order business on property zoned I—P (Industrial Park) and located at 9740 SW Tigard Street (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 2BA, Tax Lot 501) . Information relating to the request is found in Planning File No. SDR 21-86/V 31-86. 2. The proposal was approved by the Planning Director on December 26, 1986 subject to conditions. The applicant appealed the decision on the basis that public street improvements (Condition 6), parking lot paving (Condition 13) and floodway dedication (Condition 9), of the decision were unnecessary at the present time. 3. The applicant's justification for the appeal was presented in the Council's information packet. 4. The relevant approval criteria in this case are contained in Sections 18.164.030 and 18. 106.050(i) of the Community Development Code and Policies 3.2.3 and 3.5.3 of the Comprehensive Plan. Based upon the record in this case, the Council makes the following FINDINGS: 1. Section 18.164.030 of the Community Development Code contains the relevant crit. - ia dealing with the issue of half—street improvements along the Tigard Street frontage. The Code requires the installation of street improvements unless the City Engineer finds that the street improvement would not be "timely" or lack of support by other property owners would prevent the eventual improvement of the street. It is recognized that full street improvements exist in only part of the _ immediate area but the installation of half—street improvements as a condition of approval is appropriate in this case. The immediate area is generally underdeveloped and it is anticipated that other development requests will occur and the desired street improvements shall be installed. 2. Section 18.106.050(i) requires paved parking which is appropriate in this case. RESOLUTION NO. 87— PAGE 1 3. Policies 3.2.3 and 3.5.3 require 100 flood plain dedication for open spaces purposes. The Director's condition for floodway dedication is appropriate and it leaves the option for the applicant to utilize the r` flood fringe area if approved through a Sensitive Lands review. The Council adopts the following CONCLUSION OF LAW: Based upon Findings 1, 2 and 3 above, the Council has determined that the Planning Director's decision and conditions of approval are appropriate. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: Based upon the above findings and conclusions, the Planning Director's decision is upheld and the Council orders that SDR 21-851V 31-85 is approved subject to the facts, findings, conclusions, and conditions found in the Director's Decision (Exhibit A). PASSED: This day of 1987. Mayor — City of Tigard ATTEST. t, City Recorder - City of Tigard KL,cn/2920P RESOLUTION NO. 87-- Page 2 CITY OF TIGARD NOTICE OF DECISION SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 21-86 VARIANCE V 31--86 APPLICATION: Request by Darold and Sue Snyder for a Site Development Review to allow a mail order and general retail business on 2.43 acre site which is zoned I-P (Industrial Park) . Also a variance is requested to allow a gravel driveway with a 15 to 20 foot width where pavement and a 24 foot width is required. Location: 9740 SW Tigard Street (WCTM 2S1 2BA TL 501) DECISION: Notice is hereby given that the Planning Director for the City of Tigard has APPROVED the above described applications 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 A Temporary Use approval (TU 11-86) was granted earlier this month to allow a temporary Christmas bazaar on the property. 2. Vicinity Information Properties to the east and west are zoned I-P (Industrial Park) . Tigard Street and railroad tracks lie to the north and parcels to the north and southwest are zoned R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units per acre). 3. Site Information and Proposal Description The 2.43 acre site presently contains a residence, which is a nonconforming use in the I-P (Industrial Park) zone. A 1,600 square foot building is located to the rear of the house and access is provided by a gravel driveway and parking area. Several nonoperating vehicles and other materials are being stored in the rear of the property. The applicant proposes to establish a mail order business, showroom, and some incidental retail sales. A variance is also proposed to allow the use of the existing gravel driveway and parking lot where City standards require pavement and a 24 foot width for two-way driveways. The delay of half-street improvements along the Tigard Street frontage is also requested to be done as part of a local improvement district or in conjunction with future development of the property. NOTICE OF DECISION - SOR 21-86 and V 31-86 - PAGE 1 4. Agency and NPO Comments The Engineering Division has the following comments: a. During future development of the site, care must be taken not to encroach upon the existing sanitary sewer easement. b. Since a portion of the property is within the 100 year flood plain, no grading, filling, or landform alteration should occur without City or necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers approval. C. The existing gate and landscaping material at the driveway entrance conforms with visual clearance requirements but care should be taken to maintain adequate site distance at the driveway intersection. d. Tigard Street is designated as a minor collector street and the right-of-way requirement is 30 feet from the street centerline. e. Half-street improvements to minor collector standards should be constructed along the Tigard Street frontage. The improvements will match those immediately to the southeast. The Building Inspection Division has no objection to the proposal. The Tualatin Rural Fire Protection District notes that a fire fighting water supply must be provided as required by the Uniform Fire Code. No other comments have been received. 8. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION The proposal is basically consistent with the requirements of the Community Development Code. However, several items are worthy of further discussion. 1. Permitted Uses The residential use is appropriate since a residential unit is permissible for a watchman or supervisor. The wholesale and mail order sales is also permitted in the I-P zone but the applicant should bear in mind that retail sales on site must be an incidental aspect of the business not to exceed 20 percent of the square footage of the rear building. NOTICE OF DECISION - SDR 21-86 and V 31-86 - PAGE 2 2. Flood Plain The rear portion of the property is within the 100 Year flood plain of Fanno Creek which is designated for open space in the Comprehensive Pian. Typically, the dedication of this flood plain area is required as a condition of development. However, since the property can obviously be developed more intensively in the future, including portions of the flood plain, only a partial dedication is necessary at this time. The floodway is a narrower section within the flood plain which is closest to the channel. No development or landform alteration is permitted in this area and therefore dedication of the floodway will not preclude future development options for the property. Additional flood plain dedication may be required later in c,-.ijunction with future development. 3. Storage of Material Several nonoperating vehicles as well as building and other materials are presently being stored in the rear of the property. Such storage is not permitted in the I-P zone and the vehicles and material should be removed. 4. Landscaping The existing landscaping meets Code requirements with the exception of screening from residential uses that lie immediately northeast and on the opposite side of Fanno Creek. An amended Landscaping plan should be provided which establishes some visual buffering in these two directions. 5. Parking Between the residence and proposed business, four parking spaces are required. Room for four vehicles is provided between Tigard Street and the rear building. 6. Variance for Driveway Width and Pavement The Code requires that two-way 'driveways have width of 24 feet. The existing Tigard Street entrance is approximately 20 to 22 feet in width and the driveway to the rear of the building is about 15 feet wide. Because of the extremely low amount of anticipated traffic, the existing driveway width will be sufficient. Also, the required parking area is provided in front with supplemental parking spaces being served by the 15 foot rear mac' driveway. Commercial and industrial development, regardless of scale, are required to provide pavement for all parking, loading, and driveway areas. The applicant has not shown how this situation NOTICE OF DECISION - SDR 21-86 and V 31-86 - PAGE 3 is unique from other small business facilities which have paved parking. Pavement is required for improved control of water runoff and dust, as well as customer and emergency access. 7. Street Improvements Street improvements are required as a condition of Site Development Review approval unless it is not feasible from an engineering standpoint. Half-street improvements have been installed along the street frontage immediately to the southeast and continuation of these improvements is justified. C. DECISION The Planning Director approves SDR 21-86 and V 31-86 subject to the following conditions: 1. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET PRIOR TO ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NEW BUSINESS. 2. Approval shall be obtained for the change of occupancy from the Building Inspection Division and the Tualatin Rural Fire Protection District. 3. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the public along the SW Tigard 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 AVAILABLE FROM THE ENGINEERING SECTION. 4. The applicant shall provide for roof rain drainage to the public stormwater system. 5. The applicant shall provide for connection to proposed buildings to the public sanitary sewer system. A connection permit is required. 6. Standard half-street improvements including concrete sidewalk, driveway apron and curb, crushed rock road base and asphalt Pavement, and utilities including relocations as may by necessary shall be installed along the SW Tigard Street frontage. Said f, improvements shall be designed and constructed to minor collector street standards and shall conform to the alignment of existing adjacent improvements (conform to an alignment whereby the curb is located 22 feet from centerline). NOTICE OF DECISION - SDR 21-86 and V 31-86 - PAGE 4 R: 7. Five (5) 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. 8. 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 100 percent Performance Bond and the payment of a permit fee. Also, the execution of a street opening permit shall occur prior to, or concurrently with the issuance of approved public improvement plans. SEE THE ENCLOSED HANDOUT GIVING MORE SPECIFIC INFORMATION REGARDING FEE SCHEDULES BONDING AND AGREEMENTS. 9. The area within the 100 year floodway shall be dedicated as greenway — open space to the City. A monumented boundary survey showing all new title lines, prepared by a registered professional land surveyor, shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to recording (on City forms). 10. No grading, filling, or landform alteration shall occur on the A property without prior approval by the City of grading plans, and without obtaining property City and U.S. Army Corp of Engineers approval(s) and permit(s). il. Visibility at the site ingress—egress drive be maintained in accordance with City Code and vehicle sight distance criteria per I.T.E. (Institute of Traffic Engineers) manual. 12. A revised landscaping plan shall be submitted for Planning Director approval which provides visual screening to the north and west. Following approval, the specified materials shall be installed. (Contact Keith Liden at 639-4171 regarding specifications.) 13. The driveway entrance shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide and the driveway serving the rear of the building shall be a minimum of 16 feet in width. All parking and driveway areas shall be paved. 14. The nonoperating vehicles and miscellaneous matarials shall be removed from the site. 15. This approval is valid if exercised within one year of the final approval date. NOTICE OF DECISION - M 21-86 and V 31-86 - PAGE 5 D. PROCEDURE . 1. Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City /Hall and mailed to: 1/ The applicant & owners Owners of record within the required distance The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization Affected governmental agencies 2. Final Decision: THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON � UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. 3. Appeal: Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.32.290(A) and Section 18.32.370 of the Community Development Code which provides that a written 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 3:30 P.M. 4. Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd. , PO Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223, 639-4171. PREPARED BY: Keith S. Liden, Senior Planner DATE ezzzw ahx Wi n, i c or of Co unity Development DATE APPROVED (KSL:sb/2829P) PON, SKI 34 3S « • „A room , 3 • Oft �INIIf ` f W" AL �4� 4< g NOTICE OF DECISION — SDR 21-86 and V 31-86 — PAGE 6 i i j / f �I r i L j r f j r WE � -� � • - 2 T Z 5 K 1 YV vv.l,v&. IC NE 1/4 NVNI/4 SECTION 4989 ) O O —� 200 J ;1 390 2 oa Ac �i g \ 61 W! N 303 s�%9,it, o 's,2 c 'Y NO Q 400 0400 `i '►Hc Nry o 30Ac c a 501 sJ asO220.0 2.434c e or8j� e N N 9 o 600 700 /1°jcN C 800 O r0 i ks4�4g• to J I l.n'A� I� ; s ,.e° 60l�tlN� opo - ! '°500 �E * a ,r *a 5c'%4 43 AC 03 o -v ! 9 �� 900 m ill N , 00 2 i Ngr �. o ; � lye. ryry« ` V , c '6•so• 9p' } �' « 1100 t t. _ _1�a s �• 64 Ac �• V « b r Q ,� /,moi `�� `'e• +. •ifr.•'�s 1190 / J 2000 " f o� '�� a •i j.96 Ac / 1501 h1 Ac. ^ r 5 2 t0 3 IT. sJ,°,eE7�;,�, 'Jig* r '• ` � CDa 3Z9 74 Ac _ _ • � 150%� ~� •o' �s�• I{Of1 At 40 .10 I�+., �•,�._,� rid:`T- 1 ` CITY OF TlG.~tt-%-J DC7 pc� a ate 446 r JXull elek f 40 c.~ 7 �► � ` �� 'J , MA � r � l � j 110 r � 1 r4 1. � � , . ,� •�,�, / hz_ 18.164 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS 1'48.164.010 Purpose The purpose of this Chapter is to provide c struction standards for the implementation of public and rivate facilities and utilities such as streets, sewers and ainage. 18.164.020 General Provisions (a) Unless otherwise provided the standard specifications for construction, reconstruc on or repair of streets, sidewalks, curbs and other public mprovements within the City shall occur in accordance with t standards of this Code. (b) The City Engin may recommend changes or supplements to the standard spa fications. consistent with the application of engineerin rinciples. (c) No veh' les on a building construction site shall be allowed on rim oved surfaces. (d) a provision of Section 7.40 of the Tigard Municipal Code shall apply to this Chapter. 18.164.030 Streets r (a) No development shall occur unless the development has frontage �;. or approved access to a public street. y (1) Streets within a development and streets adjacent to, shall t 'be improved -in accordance with this Code. (2) In addition, any new street or additional street width planned as a portion of an approved street plan shall be dedicated and improved in accordance with this Code. (3) Where the City Engineer determines that a required street improvement would not be timely, or where lack of support by the other property owners would prevent a complete street improvement, the City Engineer may accept a future improvement guarantee in a form approved by the Public Works Director. (b) Creation of Rights-Of-way for Streets wvd Related Purposes. Rights-of•-way shall be created throng a approval of a final subdivision plat or major partitio however, the Council may approve the creation of a st t by acceptance of a deed provided that such street is emed essential by the Council for the purpose of general tr is circulation. (1) The Council approve the creation of a street by deed of dedicati without full compliance with the regulations (` appli le to subdivisions or major partitions if any one or more of the following conditions are found by the until to be present: III - 321 (g) Parkins Space Confiquration. Parking space co - uration, stall and access aisle size shall be in acco a with the minimum standard. (h) Parkins Space Markings. opt for single and two-family residences, any area in ed to be used to meet the off-street parking requirements contained in this Chapter shall. have all parking spaces c rly marked using a permanent paint. (1) Al nterior drives and access aisles shall be clearly aoA'o,^ rked and signed to show direction of flow and maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety. (i) Parkins Space Surface Requirements. Except for single and two--family residences, and for Temporary Uses as authorized in subsection (2) below, all areas used for the parking, or storage or maneuvering of any vehicle, boat or trailer shall be improved with asphalt or concrete surfaces according to the same standards required for the construction and acceptance of city streets; and (1) off-street parking spaces for single and two-family residences shall be improved with an asphalt or concrete surface to specifications as approved by the Pubic Works Director. (2) Parking areas to be used in conjunction with a Temporary Use may be gravel when authorized by the approval authority at the time the permit is approved. The approval authority shall consider the following in determining whether or not the gravel parking is warranted. (A) The request for consideration to allow a parking area in conjunction with the Temporary Use shall be made in writing concurrently with the Temporary Use application. (g) The applicant shall provide documentation that the type of Temporary Use requested Will not be financially viable if the parking space surface area requirement is imposed. (C) Approval of the gravel parking area will not create adverse conditions affecting safe and ingress and egress-when combined with other uses of the property. (j) gccass Drives. '-Access drives from the street to off-street parking or loading areas shall be designed and constructed to facilitate the flow of traffic and provide maximum safety for pedestrian and vehicular traffic on the site; and 111 - 192 Rev. 4/86 j:, 2. LAND FORM ALTERATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE ALLOWED WHERE BOTH SIDES OF THE FLOODPLAINK ARE DESIGNATED AS FITIIF'R TNDUSTRIAICl . OR COMMERCIAL MERCIAL ON THE COMPREiIENSIVE PLAN MAP, AND TIiL FACTORS SLI FORTH IN POLICY 3.2.3 CAN BE SATISFIED. 3. LAND FORM ALTERATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE ALLOWED WHERE ONE SIDE OF THE FLOODPLAIN* IS PLANNED FOR COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING LIMITATIONS: (a) ON THEDC OMPREHEN COMPREHENSIVE ALTERATIONOR MAP DEVELOPMENT FOR COMMERCIAL OR INDULAND STRIAL USE; NTO (b) THE APPLICNT THE FLOODPLAIN ANIS H REASONABLE THAT T AND INECE NECES OR SSARY TOO PMENT I BETTERTHE ECONOMIC USE OF THE SITE; (c) THE FACTORS SET FORTH IN POLICY 3.2.3 CAN BE SATISFIED. 3.2.3 WHERE NALTERATIONS RS DEVELOPMENT ARE ALLOWED WI THIN THE �YEARFLOODPLAIN* OUTDE TE ZERO-FOOT RISE FLOODWAY* THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE: - ' a. THE STREAMFLOW CAPACITY OF THE ZERO-FOOT RISE FLOODWAY* BE MAINTAINED; b. NO DETRIMENTAL UPS REAM OR DOWNSTREAM CHANGES AND DOCUMENTATION SHOWING INTTHERE ENGINEERED HE FLOODPLAIN* AREA, AND THAT THE CRITERIA SET FORTH IN THE SENSITIVE LANDS SECTION OF THE CODE HAVE BEEN MET (See FIS September 1971); c. THE PLANTING OF AN EVERGREEN ~BUFFER ON THE COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL LAND ABUTTING RESIDENTIAL LAND WHICH SCREENS THE DEVELOPMENT FROM VIEW BY THE ADJOINING RESIDENTIAL LAND, AND WHICH IS OF SUFFICIENT WIDTH TO BE NOISE ATTENUATING: AND 1/ d. THE DEDICATION OF SUFFICIENT OPEN LAND AREA FOR GREENWAY ADJOINING THE FLOODPLAIN* INCLUDING PORTIONS AT A SUITABLE ELEVATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE PATHWAY WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN* IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ADOPTED PEDESTRIAN BICYCLE PATHWAY PLAN. * The Floodplain and Floodway, as defined by the Flood Insurance Study for the City of Tigard dated September 1, 1981. 3.3 NATURAL RESOURCES FINDING o Currently, there are extensive rock and gravel extraction areas located to the north and West of Tigard's planning area within Beaverton and Washington County. II - 15 o Small parcels of unbuildable land resulting from urbanization can provide mini—parks or landscaped areas. o A properly planned and managed system of open space and recreation lands can reduce the impact of urbanization and serve the leisure and aesthetic needs of all residents. The system needs to recognize the relationship between urban uses and the natural character of the land and drainageways. ll o The community has indicated a desire for open spa round aka shopping as which reas �,� scenic routes and connect parks, schools, playg other public sites, and residential areas. o The City needs to develop an adequate system of open space, recreation lands, and facilities to retain and improve livability of the community. s o In the process of planning for a park and recreation system, it is necessary to classify the individual components such as neighborhood parks and the greenway which will or could comprise the park system. In addition, the establishment of a reasonable acquisition and development program requires a listing of priorities and minimum levels of service to be provided. The actual development of such a system requires relating the provision of facilities and services to the particular needs and yzc, recreation desires of the residents to be served. q POLICIES ` 3.5.1 THE CITY SHALL ENCOURAGE PRIVATE ENTERPRISE AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS WHICH WILL PROVIDE FOR OPEN SPACE, RECREATION LANDS, FACILITIES, AND PRESERVE NATURAL. SCENIC, AND HISTORIC AREAS IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES. 3.5.2 THE CITY SHALL COORDINATE WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO DEVELOP RECREATIONAL FACILITIES. ANNO CREEK,F F 3.5.3 THE CITY SHALL DESIGNATE THE TUALATI RIG I TRIBUTARIES, AND THE VERR ASLOODPLAIN GREENWAY O WHICH WILL BE rTHE BACKBONE OF THE OPEN—SPACE SYSTEM. - 3:5.4 THE CITY SHALL PROVIDE AN INTERCONNECTED PEDESTRIANOBIKEPATH uy THROUGHOUT THE CITY. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 1. The Tigard Comity Development Code shall require land aivvissifee ins and major developments to set aside, dedicate land, or pay ieu of land aside based on standards, and the standards shall provide for: a. An area composed of developable lands which may provide active recreation space; and b. Adequate passive open space to protect natural resources at the site and protect development form hazard areas. s • II — 18 t� CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: February 9, 1986 DATE SUBMITTED: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Hall/Burnham _ PREVIOUS ACTION: LID No. 86-01, Final Engineering Report (Phase 4) 6 Assessment PREPARED BY: Randall R. Woole Resolution Phase 5 DEPT HEAD OK,A CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: POLICY ISSUE Receiving the Final Engineering Report and setting the date for a public hearing on the final assessment roll. �YI(dFORMATION SUMMARY LID 85-01 was formed in December, 1985, for construction of street improvements on Hall Blvd. between Burnham and O'Mara. The improvements were completed in October, 1986. Attached is the Final Engineering Report showing the final costs and final assessments. The final assessments are approximately 20% less than had been estimated at the time of LID formation Per Ordinance 86-29, the City has contributed $40,000 from Streets SDC Fund as payment for extra width. It is necessary to schedule a hearing on the final assessment roll. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Accept the Final Engineering Report and set a date for public hearing. 2. Revise the final assessment roll and set a date for public hearing. FISCAL IMPACT Because the City is a property owner in the LID, the City must pay a net assessment of $66,693.05 ($17,519.98 from the Civic Center CIP account and $49,173.07 from the Parks CIP Account for Fanno Creek Park) . These assessments were anticipated and were included in the 1986-87 CIP budget. SUGGESTED ACTION Passage of the attached resolution accepting the Final Engineering Report and setting February 23rd as the date for the final hearing. February 23rd is the earliest date that allows sufficient time for mailing of hearing notices. ''^ RRW:cn/2919P kpff consulting engineers January 6, 1986 CITY OF TIGARD Post Office Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 ATTN: Mr. Randy Wooley, City Engineer RE: Southwest Hall Boulevard Local Improvement District No. 85-01 KPFF Project No. 85104 Gentlemen: We are hereby submitting our final engineering report summarizing the final costs and assessments for the Southwest Hall Boulevard Local Improvement District No. 85-01. Presented in the attached report is a description of the final improvements, the final project costs, and the final assessment for the project. KPFF appreciates the opportunity to have provided these engineering services for the City of Tigard. We look forward to providing continued engineering services in the future. We also appreciate the assistance given to us by City staff, particularly Randy Wooley, Randy Clarno, and Duane Roberts. If you have any questions regarding the project or the engineering report, please call me. Very truly yours, Stuart L. Cato, P. E. Manager, Civil Engineering SLC/jkt 421 sw 6th avenue,suite 911,portland,or 97204-1690(503)227-3251 los angeles portland san francisco seattle SOUTHWEST HALL BOULEVARD LOCAL STREET IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 85-01 FINAL ENGINEERING REPORT SCOPE OF PROJECT In October 1985, KPFF consulting engineers completed a feasibility study for a proposed street L.I.D. on Southwest Hall Boulevard and Southwest Burnham Street near the Tigard Civic Center. After a series of public meetings, the Local Improvement District was reduced in scope to comprise only the west half of Southwest Hall Boulevard, from approximately 150 feet south of Southwest Burnham Street to Southwest O'Mara Street. IMPROVEMENTS The improvements along Hall Boulevard consisted of new pavement, curbs, sidewalks and storm sewers for the west half of the street. This improvement presently provides two traffic lanes and a turn lane to the Civic Center. When the east half of the street is completed, full improvement will allow for a six foot bike lane and a 12 foot traffic lane in either direction, and a 14 foot common turn lane within a 50 foot improvement. Modifications and widening of the existing bridge over Fanno Creek was not included as part of this project. The bridge will either be improved as a separate project or as part of improvements to the east side of Hall Boulevard at a future date. i RIGHT-OF-WAY The final improvement, included acquiring right-of-way, to provide for a -16 minimum 35 foot right-of-way from centerline on the west side of Southwest Hall Boulevard. The right-of-way was widened to 45 feet at the Civic Center site to allow for construction of a bus stop. When the east half of the street is improved, the total minimum right-of-way width will be 70 feet. During the public hearing process, City Council determined that the additional right-of-way would be purchased for the improvements. Right-of-way appraisals y< were obtained from a professional appraiser to establish the value of the land taken. Al 3 : -1- FINAL PROJECT COSTS Final project cost was $186,114.94. Final project cost included construction cost, engineering, and right-of-way purchase. The City of Tigard did not charge direct administration costs to the project. The right-of-way purchase cost included purchasing the right-of-way and legal fees associated with the purchases. The final construction costs are as follows: FINAL PROJECT COSTS Item Improvements Street improvements to curbs $ 64,772.36 Sidewalks 10,233.00 Storm drainage 29,612.00 Subtotal Construction Costs $104,617.36 Legal and Engineering Services $ 53,550.58 Right-of-way acquisition 27,947.00 $186,114.94 N Credit (City System Development Change Fund) (40,000.00) TOTAL PROJECT COST $146,114.94 The final L.I.D. boundary and assessment boundaries are shown in Figure A-1A. 17 -2- 13361S /.Ub tl7 V/ JVN,O 'M'S 0 a a oo z W N - +�.■ oo _ C3 C_M W � s■ •Oo g¢ =fZ f y■ Ln 4= o14 tv ■ � �ae9F �� t +«. Q IOL t•. � a �■ +t �vng/ i : �r+L►�s��, e6t�� i dNW 33s t n ■ : � j ■ � o ■ I •�fI•r ■ ..�ya •r vrr 8 S_ '6w� ■ 1 ate- r ■ ■ I ■ I •co � o'rc ■ o LAS tn I I �L♦t �p ■ M i J yr 16•F I h ■ _ Z o °Os 105 ' Ail coroo+:c ■ g y h c� I ��pm== •ii�trrrsii�isiirrr r- b i•N I ` `Lyv. p , � r ty CD 04W It ' tcctt,c F y�, ~ OOZ , Jr09' o ■ 00£ is-WHNan"s i °♦ OX ■ � -° • '•"�jr. 0 XV ■ � Jr- Cast41.1 � . ■ wInI= „■ 3 ivn�r �q� v■ +, ■ ZOL d■ r�«� ■ t SZ dVW 33S 1 a LL : 1 0 �tz ■ 40 CD ; ■ `� r�P!' sYFOIi :` ..• � 'rpt ■ i . 009 ■ 1 EI ■ ■ >31 �, ■ sr 1 \ca J O 66 � tb iirr�i.i.►iiiii: Ill JOu'� t ■ a' 1 ' fe+89 r t~'D ■ J f 105 ' sY 60'00+66 s, M N ;.� �. n Onz 00£ ti � o•oof d• 1S s . wz,i dVW 33S 001 ;i' FINAL ASSESSMENTS The final assessments were based upon the total project cost and were assessed against the property based on square footage and front footage. Total project cost was divided equally against the area and the front footage. The total project cost assessed against the properties was reduced by $40,000. The $40,000 credit came from the City of Tigard system development charge. These monies were allocated to this project by City of Tigard ordinance number 86- 29. Two of the property owners, the City of Tigard (Tax Lot 401) and Tigard Christian Church (Tax Lot 701) elected to have their payment for right-of-way acquisition credited against their final assessment. The final assessment are shown in Table 2a. The assessments are shown both as gross assessments and net assessments, which have the right-of-way purchase credited against the assessment. TABLE 2a. OWNERSHIP AND FINAL ASSESSMENTS Assessed Area in Front Final Tax Lot Owner Value LID ac Footage Assessment 400 Richard N. Sturgis $286,000 0.7 162 $ 19,079.63 401 City of Tigard 555,200* 2.8 674 77,832.05 702 Richard N. and Francis C. Sturgis 76,600 0.9 140 20,555.81 (� 701 Tigard Christian Church 700,000** 0.9 279 28,647.45 TOTAL 5.3 1,255 $146,114.94 *Tax Lots 700 and 401 were combined in 1985: Estimated value of Tax Lot 700 is $15,200; 1984 purchase price for Tax Lot 401 was $540,000 (appraised at $478,000 in 1984). **Appraised value from church's financial officer. The final assessments shown in Table 2b, adjusted for credits for right-of-way purchase, would be reduced to the following amounts: TABLE 2b NET FINAL ASSESSMENTS Net Tax Lot Owner Assessment Credit Assessment. 400 Richard N. Sturgis $ 19,079.63 none $ 19,079.63 401 City of Tigard 77,832.05 $11,139.00 66,693.05 702 Richard N. and Francis C. Sturgis 20,555.81 none 20,555.81 701 Tigard Christian Church 28,647.45 8,208.00 20,439.45 TOTAL FOR HALF-STREET $146,114.94 $19,347.00 $126,767.94 -4- TABLE 3 NET CITY ASSESSMENTS CIVIC CENTER-PARK Net j Tax Lot Owner Assessment Credit Assessment 58.98 $11,139.00 $17,519.98 7/L 401 (old) City $28,6 T/L 700 (old) City Parks $49,173.07 none $49,173.07 �z AL- tF n :A -5- t CITY OF TIGARD OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Februar 2 1987 DATE SUBMITTED: AGENDA OF: Februar CDB1987 dam_ PREVIOUS ACTION: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Assessment _ PREPAREQ BY: Duane Roberts Admin Planner ITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: DEPT HEAD OK —•- -- POLIC�UE To submit Community Development Block Grant Needs Inventory. --- "-� INFORMATION SUMMARY Jurisdiction's needs inventories for the 1988-90 funding cycle are required February 15, 1987. Local Community Development Office se fall 1987. to be submitted to the Countyprojects will be processed during Applications for funds for specificnonprofit service Potentially eligible facility needs were identified by three organizations located in the city. ~�^ ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ---- FISCAL IMPACT rth of facility improvements are Grant funds for approximately $600,000 wo requested: $98,500 for the Senior Center, $150,000 for Tigard Youth Services, and $350.000 for Tualatin Valley Mental Health. No City contributions would be required. SUGGESTED ACTION the needs inventories submitted by the three nonprofit x Acknowledge receiving 's needs inventory. agencies and include these in the City ` sb/0575W =j ;. MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: City Council February 2, 1987 FROM: Duane Roberts, Administrative Planner SUBJECT: City Community Development Plan, 1988-1990 Introduction This report describes the City's proposed Community Development Pian for the 1988-90 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding cycle. Described also is the process used in its development. In accordance with federal law, the CDBG program focuses on the housing and community development needs of low and moderate income households. In Washington County the moderate income level is defined as $21,600 for a family of four and $17,300 for a family of two. At the beginning of each three year funding cycle, participating jurisdictions are required to prepare an inventory identifying their eligible community development needs. During the present funding cycle, the schedule calls for the local jurisdiction's inventories to be submitted to the county office by February 15, 1987. Application for funds for specific projects will be processed during Fall 1987. To be eligible for funds, application proposals will have to address a need specifically identified in the needs inventory. The amount of funds awarded to the county during the 1985-1987 cycle was 5.3 million. Based on what is happening at the federal level, the county CD office is assuming that considerably less money is likely to be available during the next funding period. For this reason, the county program has a narrower focus than previously. Three of the seven project categories eligible for funding during previous cycles, namely, historic preservation, planning, and economic development, have been eliminated altogether. Moreover, among the project categories still available, namely, neighborhood revitalization, housing, community facilities, and public service, the county is encouraging smaller projects. For example, if a facility is proposed, rehabilitation of an existing structure will have a better chance of receiving funds than construction of a new facility. (The attached memo provides more detailed information regarding programs and funding priorities under the county program). Needs Identification Process Potentially eligible needs were identified through a public meeting and needs questionnaire, memo to section managers, and discussions with non-profit service agencies with offices in Tigard. To determine general public views, a community meeting was held on January 6th. A large paid ad announcing the meeting was published in the Tigard Times under the title "ROADS, SEWERS, PUBLIC SERVICES, SIDEWALKS, HOUSING . WHAT ARE THE NEEDS IN YOUR AREA". The meeting included an informational presentation about the block grant program by Jean Harrison of the county Economic Development Office. Following the presentation a questionnaire was handed out to citizens who wished to identify eligible needs in their neighborhoods that could be addressed by the block grant program. Further helping to get the word out to citizens was the video taping and subsequent broadcast of Ms. Harrison's presentation by Willamette Cable. As indicated, to solicit staff views, a memo regarding the plan update was sent to division managers in planning, engineering, building, wastewater, streets, and parks, with the request that they provide help in identifying potentially eligible needs relevant to their area of responsibility. Identified Needs Among the two public and two staff projects identified were: a foot and bicycle bridge crossing the Tualatin River from Cook Park; sidewalks, and bike paths within a certain radius of all schools; various park improvements; and downtown capital improvement projects. Investigation showed that, while each of these may be an important community need, it appears that none is eligible for community development funds under current regulations. The reason is basically the same in all four cases. This is that in order to be eligible for funds, the project mist be located in in an area, defined by ordinance or in an adopted pian, where 51% of the population is low or moderate income. No existing or proposed park is eligible because none is located in such an area. The same is true of all the schools located within the City. Unlike Sherwood and some other cities in Washington County, Tigard has few neighborhoods that qualify as low and moderate income. With regard to this subject, it is relevant to note that the Fanno Creek Project received block grant funds although it is not located in a qualified neighborhood. The reason that this project was funded was that it addressed the need for recreational opportunities for senior citizens visiting the f senior center which borders the park on one side. Although the downtown area was identified under a previous community F development plan, it is not a prequalified area in terms of census or other HUD certified data. Additionally, according to the City Building Official, the downtown does not come close to qualifying in terms of the blight and slums category, according to which 30% of the structures in a designated area must be in violation of building, fire, health, or safety codes. F f c r _ fir, Needs Identified by Non-Profit Nonprofit agencies providing services to low and moderate income people are s required to coordinate with the cities. If a nonprofit identifies a need that is geographically located within a city, the inventoried need should be included as part of the jurisdiction's needs inventory. Inclusion within a city's needs statement does not imply endorsement, however. By including the need in its inventory the city merely acknowledges that the need has been identifed within its area. At the later stage of proposed development, the opportunity to review and comment is required. Three nonprofit agencies identified needs to the city, all for public facilities. These agencies included the senior center, Tigard Youth Services, and Tualatin Valley Mental Health. Copies of these need statements are 5= included as attachments to this report. Improvements to the senior center submitted to the City include an elevator, a storeroom for the Meals-on Wheels Program, a canopy over the boarding area to protect handicapped people during inclement weather, separation of the upper and lower floors of the building, and another small room. Both the Tigard Youth Center and Tualatin Valley Mental Health have identified needs for rehabilitation of existing facilities or the construction of a new facility. It is significant that both agency directors have indicated a strong desire to work closely with the City in locating a suitable site, especially in the core area, with its superior public transit access. To a greater or lesser extent, if built in the core area, the various facility f improvements described would help to strengthen the role of the downtown as the public service center of the community. Conclusion it is recommended that the City acknowledge receiving the needs inventory submitted by the three nonprofits and include them in the City needs inventory. At the project development stage, it is recommended that the City review and support these projects. This is important because a key allocation objective is to provide funds to projects where strong support from citizens and local governments is evident. 0570W 8 Y Eh - "' a 4 MEMORANDUM �7 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Community Development & Operations Managers December 19, 1986 FROM: Duane Roberts, Administrative Planner SUBJECT: Request for information on needs that can be addressed by Community Development Program Washington County Office of Community Development is updating the Community Development Plan. The plan provides criteria for selecting projects and activities eligible for Community Development Block Grant funds from the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. These funds are expected to be made available between 1988 and 1991 . The schedule calls for the updated Community Development Plan to be completed by June 1987. Applications for funds must address a need specifically identified in the plan. Program Eligibility By law, all program activities must meet one of three objectives: ` -- benefit low and moderate income persons, aid in the preservation or elimination of slums and blight, -- Meet other community development needs posing a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community. For an activity to meet the first objective, tba project must either serve an area where a majority of the residents are persons of low and moderate income, or be a 'facility which is used principally by low and moderate income persons. The attached map shows the areas in Tigard that qualify as low income. For an activity to meet the second objective, it must be developed to address conditions causing the slums and blight. The definition of a slum and blighted area is as follows: At least 30 percent of the structures are unsafe and public infrastructure is insufficient to meet current or projected needs. Unsafe structures are in violation of the standards of building, fire, health, or safety codes, or a threat to life, health or safety. For an activity to meet the third objective of urgent community need, it must be demonstrated that the project will address a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community, which is of recent origin or recently became urgent (within the past 18 months); and, that the recipient is unable to finance on his own and that other sources of funding are not available. ,va Program Categories The needs that are eligible for funding from the CDBG program are defined by the following categories: Neighborhood revitalization. Any physical condition which creates an undesirable quality of life. Examples include substandard streets, public facilities or utilities, or a lack of such facilities, in an identifiable neighborhood area. In order to be included in the CD Plan, 51% or more of the population in the area to be served must be low or moderate income (sea map). Housing. Lack of decent, safe and sanitary housing for low or moderate income persons. Special residential facilities which serve a population group with special needs is included within this category (e.g. `u physically or mentally handicapped). Community facilities. An identifiable lack of a facility or facilities to provide programs or services needed by a target population that is principally low and moderate income. An example is a facility to serve a specific low income neighborhood. Only capital improvement needs are included in this category. Public services. Essential services to low and moderate income persons that are not currently being provided from other resources. Examples may include services related to crime prevention, recreation, and energy conservation. Request for Information Your help is requested in identifying needs that could be addressed by community development programs in Tigard. Previous block grant funds have provided the money for construction of the Senior Center and for acquisition of a portion of Fanno Creek Greenway. If your gra aware of any possible community development needs relevant to your area of responsibility or concern, please jot down relevant particulars; namely, need, location, project to address need; and forward to Duane in Planning Projects by mid—January. 09:cn/Ob63W ra Y Y 'T • ,� tonal a Rjole:' h t......_............ ant on Hill ...... 4� ?S ;208f~�'7 _ r BEAVE 'I UN f/:f . 33 - ` , 4` Baney jj I •e//!,; r $ w Hart I N �`i? �' '' ozeldole -t, c 2SctvP�' aextc5h firrxic z3aj ice r o mr' v /�� ' ! iYIZtr:rin fY Q tY ra / • ��: Weir ,V�4 _.__...._..-..tW :tow it - ',�"' 4 s orf G A RJ ra t •f m 2 1 r r ¢ Bull _.~si}rpri t. ..... �.,. ............. ' 000 . • 4 .......- rM�=�'.._...-..� '�x� I Ortht# �' ��` K! G �iT } 4' 1,r .1 'r ch its �a'� > -•" pi �j P9E�A59re�� Qd s :fiat }tdrri',r•, t s, P 16000 R rz Its 1 le �_; 1! 16 DURHiA41 M% Sherwood R 18000 r � ,,,m�,TUALA�` !_e aaud �r 20 is i�eY k. -t'/ berg d - �,._ ,; rL 0000 Aie toin r,� Corner fir# a < r /�� y " E�d 2 "7 Rd O'l G..'.' 7 r.s / pck Cr �7 ` - u `�`�► Chip k �J? a w 2000 SHE OOD '. � v Q 3er Rd w `x 33 rrobase'F i J 4000 Fd I • ••votow �- �' ,}� ' -. G........ ' ._.,^._.... f iiure 5 f Ymt181 i f i eA Area2- ` C $Ioc;K C1rou�Tia hehoie t2 �� Mtn 1980 --" »` yeti W041ioon County Community Vevelopmenl ?Ion- `'q' Qac C,og2n A66xia4m, IRS'I' x.^ ° wcoffoFA?E9 AREA5 1 b� , OCD - 12/1/86 INDIVIDUAL NEEDS QUESTIONNAIRE (NOTE: USE A SEPARATE FORM FOR EACH IDENTIFIED NEED) . 1. Identification of Respondent Name: Marren Jenkins Address: 16465 SW 93rd Ave Tigard, Or 97223 Phone: 620-3115 2. Describe the community development need. Please be specific. Sidewalks and bike paths within a six to eight block (3/4 to 1 milrJ-xadjua. of schools Thus children can walk to school safely. In this way we could decrease busing, and increaze health through exercise. 3. Is the used you have identified located within a definable area of your city or unincorporated area of the county? If so, please indicate and describe the location and identify the location of any specific needs (such as deteriorated streets) . Anywhere there are not sidewalks to go to schools we could use this improvement. 4. Why is this need important to the affected people? Children could use a safe way to walk to school. They could use the exercise The money used to fund busing could apply to buildings they'll need in the future it's a good use of our tax dollar. 5. What type of project do you envision to address identified need? This will ultimately affect community development and planning. This could curb a need to float a bond to build schools because the money for some of that could be used by money saved from busing. - ` OCD - 12/1/86 INDIVIDUAL NEEDS QUESTIONNAIRE (NOTE: USE A SEPARATE FORM FOR EACH IDENTIFIED NEED) . 1. Identification of Respondent Name: Marcia Gaiser Address: 10595 SW Century Oak Dr. Tigard, Or 97223 Phone: 620-2943 2. Describe the community development need. Please be specific. aicycle oath ana walkingfrom onrrange to Cook Park begiping at u22=-2d91- -f pperedgesof hall field going west oast edge of Pick's r&^ding and then over Tualatin River connecting with SW 103rd and then Hazelbrook 3. Is the need you have identified located within a definable area of your city or unincorporated area of the county? If so, please indicate and describe the location and identify the location of any specific needs (such as deteriorated streets) . Above 4. Why is this need important to the affected people? Worth while for Tigard Students, picknickers in park, bicyclists wanting a circle route around to 99W Neighorhood Revitalization. 5. What type of project do you envision to address identified need? Black top bicycle path and cinder or similar agia^a^r walking na _F3. ( OCD - 11/25186 IV. NEEDS ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE (NOTE: USE A SEPARATE FORM FOR EACH IDENTIFIED NEED) . 1. Identification of Respondent Name: Al Bates Agency: Tigard Senior Center Address: 8815 % omara Tigard, or 97223 Phone: 639--2389. 639-4613 2. According to the definitions on the enclosed sheet, which general CDBG program category includes this need? Neighborhood Revitalization ® Community Facilities Housing Public Services 3. Indicate whether this need is located in' the following jurisdiction: City Unincorporated Washington County C� Unspecified 4. Has this need statement been included in the needs inventory of the local jurisdiction? t.b..J Yes �—� No . Please specify 5. Has this need statement been coordinated with a coordinating organization? ® Yes U No If no, please explain: 6. Date approved by your Board or Council 2/11/86 (expected) �r 1 7. Describe the community development need. please be specific. A drive thru cover for unloading the van in Raining weather. 8. Does the need you have identified occur within a definable area of a city or unincorporated are of the county? If so, please indicate and describe the location. For neighborhood revitalization needs, please enclose a map of the area and identify the location of any specific needs such as deteriorated streets. 9. For the specific need you have identified, what is the estimated number of people in need of CDBG funded activities? please identify your data source specifically. Number Data Source - Estimated total number In need? - Low or moderate income? - Elderly (over age 62)? 100 per day - physically or mentally handicapped? 15 wheelchair - Member of a minority group? - Other quantitative measure if applicable? (e.g. , # of structures in need of rehabilitation) 2. 10. Why is this need important to the affected people? _ U Now the van stops in the open and when it is raining elderly and hadi c'czned people, who don't move veoy fast have Probl2M with the weather- 11. ea her_11. What type of project do you envision to address identified need? A covered drive !-hru c*rnrture MY20 12. What is the estimated cost to address the need Which you have identified? S15 per a„ft_S6 000 13. Are you aware of any other public or private funds or programs that are available to meet this identified need? If so, which? 14. Any other comments. Please return by February 15, 1987 to: Office of Community Development 1049 S.W. Baseline Rd. , Bldg. C Hillsboro, OR 97123 3. OCD - 11/25/86 IV. NEEDS ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE (NOTE: USE A SEPARATE FORM FOR EACH IDENTIFIED NEED). 1. Identification of Respondent Names Lee H. Doaoelt, Ph.D. Age n cys Tualatin Valley Mental Health Center Add resss 14600 N.W. Cornell Road, Portland, OR 97229 Phones (503) 645-35§1 2. According to the definitions on the enclosed sheet, which general CDBQ program category includes this need? Neighborhood Revitalization ® Community Facilities �] Housing Q Public Services 3. Indicate whether this need is located in the following F jurisdictions City C unincorporated Washington County CM Unspecified South County, Incorporated and Unincorporated �. Has this need statement been included in the needs inventory ' of the local jurisdiction? ©?es 0 No Please specify 5. Has this need statement been coordinated with a coordinating organization? [Myes Q No Please explains Washington County Mental Health Deo 6.• Date approved by your Board or Council On Board agenda for 2/26/87 i 7. Describe the community development need. Please be specific. A. Community Facility for the provision of Mental Health services to 1nw } income and moderate income residents with a priority on servicec fnr the elderly in South County. 8. Does the need you have identified occur within 'a definable area of a city or unincorporated are of the county? If so, Please indicate and describe the location. For neighborhood revitalisation needs, please enclose a map of the area and identify the location of any specific needs such as deteriorated streets. This Community Facility would be located in South County. It world he most accessible to South County residents but av„gilable to all Washington County residents r 9. For the s ecif is need you have identified, what is the estinatea number of people in need of CDBG funded activities? Please identify your data source specifically. Number Data Source Estimated total number In need? 27,300 Wash. Co. Mental Health Census — Low or moderate income? 21 ,840 Elderly (over ase 62)t 3,100 Physically or mentally handicapped t 100% of eligible clients Member of a minority 6% group? - Other quantitative measure If applicable? (e.g. , N of structures in need of rehabilitation) 2. a r - 10. Why is this need important to- the affected people? The South County area which includes the fastest growing city in nrPgaa,, Tigard (CDBG Flyer 1987) is underserved and lacks resources in terms of Mental Health Facilities. This area also has the hi h r y In a ounty an a ewest accessible services. This facility would bring the much needed Mental Health Services to their doors n 11. What type of project do you envision to address identified need? Either the renovation of an existing building or the construction of a new tatilify-T—or the provision of Mental Health Services, especially services to the elderly in South County. 12. What is the estimated cost to address the need which you have Identified? $350,000.00 13. Are you aware of any other public or private funds or programs that are available to meet this identified need? If so, which? No, but matching fonds would be sn"oht thrmigh nthar cosircce including foundations. 14. Any other comments. The Washington CCuntX Mental Naalth nanartnnont recently prioritized services for South County and allocated dollars for the 2rovision of these services. A community facility is now needed to hak&these important services. w Please return by February 15, 1987 tot *' Office of Community Development 1049 S.B. Baseline Rd. , Bldg. C Rilisboro, 0R 97123 3. } OCD - 11/25/86 IV. NEEDS ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE (NOTE: USE A SEPARATE FORM FOR EACH IDENTIFIED NEED) . 1. Identification of Respondent Name: William A. Knudsen Agency: Tigard Community Youth Services Address: 9020 SW Burnham Street, Tigard, Oregon 97223 Phone: 620-2621 2. According to the definitions on the enclosed sheet, Which general CDBG program category includes this need? Neighborhood Revitalization ® Community Facilities Housing �_._..J Public services . 3. Indicate whether this need is located in the following jurisdiction: City Unincorporated Washington County Unspecified 4. Has this need statement been included in the needs inventory of the local jurisdiction? ®Yes Q No Please specify City of Tigard 5. Has this need statement been coordinated with a coordinating organization? Yes Q No If no, please explain: 6. Date approved by your Board or Council Fphruarr 7s 1997 3 '. i 7. Describe the community development need. Please be specific. Th-P npsrl is for a fa j,lity from which to serve low-modes to income, racial minority, and mentally handicapped youth and families with delinquency prevention services iu ilY,liu,ld-11a] and family nonnaP].ina- nrP_mp10 Pnt training- job rminaelinv and placement, parenting skills classes, alcohol/drug evaluation and referral for trAaanf-_ .,inA xraj t ntaar car ri rac TCVQ nrpgentt,Ig "Cn„rc its fayl l i ty from the City of Tigard which plans to raze the structure within two years to allow Cnnctraarrinn of Aaxh Qt-rapt hatwaan gil Cnmmarrial anrd Rid Rurnham 8. Does the need you have identified occur within a definable area of a city or unincorporated are of the county? If so, please indicate and describe the location. For neighborhood revitalisation needs, please enclose a map of the area and identify the location of any specific needs such as deteriorated streets. The naatj eCtirn within rhP City of Tigard- ThP fart l i ty mm+l d sxarva rani rd�anta n f the cities of Tigard, Tualatin, Durham, and Sherwood as well as unincorporated aanc nrsrrnaanrdi n4a�nrd hatLaan nava 4t-4-- 9. For the specific used you have identified, What is the estimated number of people in need of CDBG funded activities? Please identify your data source specifically. Number Data Source - Estimated total number 534 1985-86 TCYS Client Services Reports in need? - Loa or moderate income? ?An ices Reports - Elderly (over age 62)? _n_ - Physically or mentally 25 1985-86 TCYS Client Services Reports handicapped? - Member of a minority 23 1985-86 TCYS Client Services Reports group? - Other quantitative measure if applicable? (e.g. , # of structures in need of rehabilitation) 2. 10. Why is this need important to the affected people? Manv of the factors which define CDBG eligibility (low-moderate income, racial minority, and physical or mental handicap) create other factors which define a youth as being at risk of entering or moving further into the juvenile justice system (family dysfunction, lack of education, lack of employability, law violation, alcohol/drug problem) The need is important because the affected people need the services the facility would house in order to overcome barriers to full educational, vocational economic and personal achievement. 11. What type of project do you envision to address identified need? Three gptions are envisioned at this HMP- in dpgrAnding ardpr of prPfPrPnrP- 1.) Rehabilitate an existing structure. (slum or blight) 2.) Move an existing structUXe to a new site- 3.) Construct a new facility. 12. What is the estimated cost to address the used which you have Identified? We have no 2rofgasjonally done, estimari fnr any of rho rbrPP nUrians in i11. Our best estimate for the most expensive option (building a new facility) would be urUJJX 5150 000 13. Are you aware of any other public or private funds or programs that are available to meet this identified need? If so, which? No 14. Any other comments. Please return by February 15, 1987 to: Office of Community Development r 1049 S.W. Baseline Rd. , Bldg. C Hillsboro, OR 97123 3. R t OCD - 11/25/86 'IV. NEEDS ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE (NOTE: USE A SEPARATE FORM FOR EACH IDENTIFIED NEED) . 1. Identification of Respondent Name: Al Bates Agency: Tigard Senior Center Address: _8815 SW Cmra Ti$arca, Or 97223 Phone: 639-2389, 639-4613 2. According to the definitions on the enclosed sheet, which general CDBG program category includes this need? r� Neighborhood Revitalization Community Facilities HousingPublic Services 3. Indicate whether this need is located in' the following Jurisdiction: City (�] Unincorporated Washington County ® Unspecified 4. Has this need statement been included in the needs inventory of the local jurisdiction? ®Yes Q No Please specify S. Has this need statement been coordinated with a coordinating organization? ®Yes No If no, please explain: 6. Date approved by your Board or Council 2/11/86 (expected) 7. Describe the community development need. Please be specific. An elevator for the Pinard Senior reatev 8. Does the need you have identified occur within a definable area of a city or unincorporated are of the county? If so, please indicate and describe the location. For neighborhood revitalization needs, please enclose a map of the area and Identify the location of any specific needs such as deteriorated streets. 9. For the specific need you have identified, What is the estimated number of people in need of CDBG funded activities? Please identify your data source specifically. Number Data Source - Estimated total number in need? - Lox or moderate income? - Elderly (over age 62)? 50 SW day -- - Physically or mentally handicapped? 15 in .Wheejchairn - Member of a minority group? - Other quantitative measure if applicable? (e.g. , # of r I-tstructures in need of rehabilitation) 2. a s 10. Why is this need important to the affected people? There is a EO foot r u one side- Wheelchair le have to be_pushed UP this ramp• It is also a longtri for elderl le with a walker or one with a problem walkin . 11. What type of project do you envision to address identified need? An elevator 12. What is the estimated cost to address the need Which you have identified? 13. Are you awafunds or re of any other public or private ntified need? If programs that are available to meet this ide so. Which? DSM- 14. Any other consents. please return by February 15, 1987 to: Office of Community Development Y 1049 S.W. Baseline Rd. , Bldg. C Hillsboro, OR 97123 3. OCD - 11/25/86 A IV. NEEDS ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE (NOTE: USE A SEPARATE FORM FOR EACH IDENTIFIED NEED) . k 1. Identification of Respondent Name: Al Bates Agency: Tigard Senior Center Address: 8815 SW anara Tigard Or 97223 Phone: 639-2389, 639-4613 2. According to the definitions on the enclosed sheet, which general CDBG program category includes this need? Neighborhood Revitalization X7 Community Facilities Housing Public Services 3. Indicate whether this need is located in' the following jurisdiction: City �- Unincorporated Washington County Unspecified 4. Has this need statement been included in the needs inventory of the local jurisdiction? ®Yes 0 No Please specify S. Has this need statement been coordinated with a coordinating organization? ®Yes No If no, please explain: -- f' 6. Date approved by your Board or Council 2/11/86 (expected) d, 7. Describe the community development need. Please be specific. Additional room added to the Ti and Senior Ce r• g. Does the need you have identified a=occur withine of the a definable area of a city or unincorporated please indicate and describe the l0cation. of°these=na°andod revitalization needs, please enclose a map identify the location of any specific needs such as deteriorated streets. the 9. For the s ecific oedlehave neadidentified, CDBG fundedsactivities? estimated nuaber p eopp please identify your data source specifically. Number Data Source Estimated total number in need? - Low or moderate income? y Elderly Cover age 62)? 100 a day 4 physically or mentally 15 in wheelchair handicapped? - Nember of a minority group? other quantitative measure of if applicable? (e.g. . structures in need of rehabilitation) 2. _ 10. Why is this need important to the affected people? The one small room that we have Just isn't urge— pnn► gh we need a room for privacy and maybe a display arca far sale of craft work =t- 11. What type of project do you envision to address identified need? 12. What is the estimated cost to address the need which you have identified? Est $50.00 per sa ft or 13. Are you aware of any other public or private funds or programs that are available to meet this identified need? If so, which? no 14. Any other comments. Please return by February 15, 1987 to: Office of Community Development =' 1049 S.W. Baseline Rd. , Bldg. C Hillsboro, OR 97123 3. OCD - 11/25/86 IV. NEEDS ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE (NOTE: USE A SEPARATE FORM FOR EACH IDENTIFIED NEED) . 1. Identification of Respondent Name: Al Bates Agency: Tigard Senior Center Address: _8815 SW amara ,Tigard, Or 972M Phone: 639-2389, 639-4613 2. According to the definitions on the enclosed sheet, which general CDBG program category includes this need? Neighborhood RevitalizationX[1 Community Facilities Housing Public Services 3. Indicate whether this need is located in' the following jurisdiction: X I city (� Unincorporated Washington County Unspecified 4. Has this need statement been included in the needs inventory . of the local jurisdiction? Yes Q No Please specify 5. Has this need statement been coordinated with a coordinating organization? ®Yes u No If no, please explain: (` 6. Date approved by your Board or Council 2/11/86 (expected) 7. Describe the community development need. Please be specific. Divider to separate upstairs frnm dro nstairg 8. Does the need you have identified occur within a definable area of a city or unincorporated are of the county? If so, please indicate and describe the location. For neighborhood revitalisation needs, please enclose a map of the area and Identify the location of any specific needs such as deteriorated streets. 9. For the specific need you have identified, what is the estimated number of people ineed of CDBO funded activities? Ili Please identify your data source specifically. Number Data Source - Estimated total number in need? - Low or moderate income? - Elderly (over age 62)? 100 M day - Physically or mentally handicapped? 15 Wheelchair - Member of a minority group? - Other quantitative measure if applicable? (e.g. , 0 of structures in need of rehabilitation) 2. r' 10. Why is this need important to the affected people? _ The nature of the structure includes an open space between upper and lower floor. When you get an active group downstairs there is much interferance in a meeting upstairs 11. What type of project do you envision to address identified need? A retaining Wall betwaen thg tanks with sQM glass hri nk as wi nr3nvq wni,l d take Care of this, - 12. What is the estimated cost to address the need Which you have identified? Est- 13. st 13. Are you aware of any other public or private funds or programs that are available to meet this identified need? If so , which? 14. Any other comments. 4 Please return by February 15, 1987 to: Office of Community Development 1049 S.W. Baseline Rd. , Bldg. C Hillsboro, OR 97123 3. OCD - 11/25/86 IV. NEEDS ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE (NOTE: USE A SEPARATE FORM FOR EACH IDENTIFIED NEED) , 1. Identification of Respondent Name: Al Bates Agency: Tigard Senior Center Address: 8815 SW amara Ti$ rid, Or 97223 Phone: 639-2389, 639-4613 2. According to the definitions on the enclosed sheet, which general CDBG program category includes this need? Neighborhood Revitalization Q Community Facilities Housing Public Services 3. Indicate whether this need is located in' the followia g jurisdiction: city �- Unincorporated Washington County ® Unspecified 4. Has this need statement been included in the needs inventory of the local jurisdiction? ®Yes Q No Please specify 5. Has this need statement been coordinated with a coordinating organization? ®Yes No If no, please explain: 6. Date approved by your Board or Council 2/11/86 (expected) 7. Describe the community development need. Please be specific. An addition to the storage roan in rear of Tigard Senior Center S. Does the need you have identified occur within a definable area of a city or unincorporated are of the county? If so, please indicate and describe the location. For neighborhood revitalization needs, please enclose a map of the area and identify the location of any specific needs such as deteriorated streets. 9. For the specific need you have identified, what is the estimated number of people in need of CDBG funded activities? Please identify your data source specifically. Number Data Source - Estimated total number In need? - Low or moderate income? - Elderly (over age 62)? 100 per day - Physically or mentally handicapped? 15 wheelchairs - Member of a minority group? - Other quantitative measure if applicable? (e.g. , of structures in need of rehabilitation) 30 home deliverer] meals per day 2. 10. Why is this need important to the affected people? _ The present storeroom is completely full We need more ren for nlpa Q_nn wheels equipment. C 11. What type of project do you envision to address identified need? An additional room 10x20 taking in the Inading dock. 12. What is the estimated cost to address the need which you have identified? new room S40 22r sg ft S8,000 t new loading dock S3,500 13. Are you aware of any other public or private funds or programs that are available to meet this identified need? If so, which? 14. Any other comments. E Please return by February 15, 1987 to: Office of Community Development �. 1049 S.W. Baseline Rd. , Bldg. C Hillsboro, OR 97123 3. NNVASHINGTON OMMUNCOUNTYrrY CTION ORGANIZATION 245 SE Second Hillsboro, OR 97123 January 30, 1987 Duane Roberts Central Office City of Tigard 245 S.E. 2nd 13125 S.W. Hall Hillsboro, OR 97123 Ted, OR 97223 •Administration •Head Start e Youth Employment Program Dear Mr, Roberts; 648.6646 •IIEAP Energy Assistance As part of the Community Development Needs Assessment. S4° ' Frocess, tt-p tii.tising Services Consortium has been asked by the Wsatherization Office of Community Development to identify housing service needs 2575 her Kathryn for Washington County. Attached are needs assessment statements N E,010& #11 submitted to the Consortium by its members. Hillsboro. OR 97124 •Self Help Weatherization The low income, elderly and handicapped residents of •Energy Coalition Washington County have an ongoing need for the types of programs 640MIl described in these needs assessments. Through these low cost programs thousands of individuals will receive the assistance µ Emergency they need to locate, secure and retain adequate, affordable Shelter Home housing. 210 S.E. 121h Hillsboro.OR 97123 Therefore, since these programs serve individuals in your *Hougrng a jurisdiction, the Consortium is forwarding to you the above Emergency Services mentioned Needs Assessments for your information and review. M_ 6480620 8 648.0629 •Welfare Hotline Copies of the need assessment are being simultaneously submitted - 64M14 to the Office of Community Development. k Washington County Thank you in advance for your consideration. If you have VblunteerCenter any question concerning the needs identified or the Housing 10515 SW. Btanton Services Consortium please contact me at 648-0829. Aloha.OR 97007 •Retired Senior Sincerely, - %blunteer Program •Wood Co cis •Tualatin Vagey Food center •VISTA Project • Christmas Gearing Bureau Cheryl Hilbert 642-32M Housing & Emergency Services Director A united WayAgency People Helping People s�,.'�r' ai 'r�• x EAB`RIT�fl.L �1 � ' c . r� ai+mss 4 T bra � h. f ti N Ilrchitectand Planner fi � fi *s . r F _$c'sa n.x,n�,aA$'.k f �`' �# t a raj.., `"kF-�+ r..!3,�Mp�j• p v � z : s ":�t•a• +§t.. e.., � k+«F ` ,,.-:vA" s1,'r+ y!'SyRTL'P spy{7-Q43. a�� .cf�C.�V'P.s1Uea .r,.t ty icor M .i 's f +ssti # r.. § ,. c"r 3r�,t r�A� :�rY `� '�ForestQroye Q�8on9�l'16"��^� #a � F ,. `g*a a � x+• � � �•� E� z ��f-" a� a, o� " s.� `':` r t •s .rwr ' - Cn �35 � � K r K,<T z�,r�"��h6 r _ fi+ Y Cheryl'Hilbert , Wal. on';County Community Action 7. 2,10, 2th H1 sra, 9r 97123•` 3. { # 1 .• M k Dear`Ms.> Hulbert: AS,�, president-of Christian `Life Ministries, ,the Owner. of Chi Rho t« Houses the women s ,shelter ca,re�hoie kinY Forest Grove, I, am writing x to Rliuform fouof our for . Community x'Development y& N7 Hloe x�,ararid Funds - We _are apply3. underithercategory :of "Public 7"'F , cr services", and feel it essential to secure public funds to continue to ,serve:in an'"important 'area'.of service; n the'city:`of Forest Grove. Your support is greatly desired, and imperative, as we seek these funds. I have enclosed a copy, of the "Individual ` Needs Questionnaire" that has been submitted to the City of Forest Grove. I - would be interested in talking with you concerning the - house, and our request. Call me at my 'offiee between 8:00 and 5:00, at 357-7029, or at home at 357-4397. Thank you for your support. cerely, km Dwayne rittell ^ DMB/ Y - r t ti5Z5+ ' OCD 22/1/86 �{ INDIVIDUAL NEEDS QUESTIONNAIRE (NOTE: USE A SEPARATE FORM FOR EACH IDENTIFIED NEED) . 1. Identification of Respondent Name: Christian Life Ministries Inc. Address : 1806 Elm Street, Forest Grove, Or . I ..Phone: 357-7029 i 2. Describe the community development need• Please be specific. There is a continuing need for a place to house homeless women and their children. While providing needed shelter, the staff of Chi Rho douse offers practical and spritual counselling to help residents attain self-sufficiency. i 3 . Is the need you have Identified located within a definable area of your city or unincorporated area of the county? If so , please indicate and describe the location and identify the location of any specific needs (such as deteriorated streets) . t, We receive requests forsheiter• from agencies in Washington County and some from the city of Portland. 4. Why is this need important to the affected people? Many worsen have little financial means; some have none. lie have also sheltered women who have been pregnant without benefit of husband. 3. What type of project do you envision to address identified.' .. need? The costs of purchase contract payments and insurance require I rent to be charged to residents. lie would like to be released from this burden-so that shelter could be offered to those without means to pay. i • OCP -- .11/25/86 IV. NEEDS ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE (NOTE: USE A SEPARATE FORM FOR EACH IDENTIFIED NEED) . 1. Identification of Respondent Name: PETER Fu..NARA Agency: SHARED HOUSING Address : 335 NW 19 Avenue, Portland, OR 97209 Phone: 222-5563 2. According to the definitions on the enclosed sheet, which general CDBG program category includes this need? Neighborhood Revitalization Q Community Facilities (� Housing F'x-x-1 Public Services 3. Indicate whether this need is located in the following jurisdiction: �jnc j city : J Unincorporated Washington County t__._.! Unspecified 4 . Has this need statement been included in the needs inventory of the local jurisdiction? �� Yes No Please specify Sent to all Georgraphic Coordinators 5. Has this need statement been coordinated with a coordinating organization? = Yes No If no, please explain: 6. Date approved by your Board or Council Tannar 6, 1987 7 . Describe the community development need. Please be specific. One of Washington County's general strategies in administering CDBG monies is to: "Support alternative methods of creating new affordable housing for low and moderate income families the elderly and the handicapped. The Washington County CD Plan includes relevant statements regarding the HOUSING NEEDS FOR SENIORS and household .qPrv�- g g. "Alternative and innovative housing programs and services are needea for this group." 8. Does the need you have identified occur within a definable area of a city or unincorporated are of the county? If so, please indicate and describe the location. For neighborhood revitalization needs, please enclose a map of the area and identify the location of any specific needs such as deteriorated streets. The need for homesharing services occurs throughout Washington County. To date, Shared Housing has served over 500 residents of the county from the following areas: Beaverton, Cornelius, Hillsboro, Forest Grove, Tualatin, ' Tigard, Aloha, Gaston, North Plains, Sherwood, King City, and various unincorporated areas. 9. For the specific need you have identified, what is the estimated number of people in need of CDBG funded activities? Please identify your data source specifically. Number * Data Source - Estimated total number in need? * All figures taken from - Low or moderate income? * 71,166 1980 Census & NW Attitudes, Inc. - Elderly (over age 62)? * 44,172 1980 Needs Assessment Study - Physically or mentally handicapped? * 19,632 - Member of a minority group? * 18,650 * 36,810 (female head of household) - Other quantitative measure if applicable? (e.g. , # of structures in need of * 19,378 (people living alone) rehabilitation) 19R epna"a 2. * Shared Housing is not suitable or desirable for all people. The figures given above only indicate the number of people who may potentially benefit from homesharing, 10. Why is this need important to the affected people? Through homesharing, homeowners can receive rent to help pay rising household costs (utilities, taxes, etc.) or receive services that aow them to stay in e- r own homes; tenants can receive decent affordable housing. For the elderly homeowner and tenant with limited resources, homesharing otters a vlable ous ng option that utilizes existing housing stock to serve both the housing needs of many Washington County residents while at the same time meeting the service needs of many el derly. 11. What type of project do you envision to address identified need? Shared Housing offers individuals who contact the agency housing information and counseling (including the specifics of homesharing) and makes referrals to other programs when appropriate. For those interested in homesharing, are ousing acts as a mechanism to seek out and match compatible individuals. Once two indi- viduals are interested in Fiomesharing with each other, Sharea Housingavailable to serve as the third party during the negotiations of the homesharing rental agreements and during subsequent disagreements. 12. What is the estimated cost to address the need which you have identified? $7,000per annum 13. Are you aware of any other public or private funds or programs that are available to meet this identified need? If so, which? There are no other public or private funds now available in Washington County to provide homesharing services. 14 . Any other comments . In the past year, the Shared Housing program has received referrals from Washington C„unty agencies including the following: Housing Authority, WCCAO, Emergency Shelter, metro CrisTs IntervenrMn, Division, Aloha, North Plains and Petra Perez (Cornelius) Senior Centers, Centro u tural (CornelTusy, Oregon Human lievetopmeurrLuvtdars fttd and butue tic Violence Resource Center. Over 500 Washington County residents have received Some orma nn, referral 50% of these individuals have completed the application process and received omes are matching s Please return by February 15, 1987 to : (over) Office of Community Development 1049 S.W. Baseline Rd. , Bldg. C Hillsboro, OR 97123 3. v � ,es. ' OCD - 11/25/86 IV. NEEDS ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE (NOTE: USE A SEPARATE FORM FOR EACH IDENTIFIED NEED) . 1. Identification of Respondent Name: 1bm Woodruff Agency: Washington County Mental Health Address: 1679 S.E. Enterprise Circle, Hillsboro, OR 97123 Phone: 681-7020 2. According to the definitions on the enclosed sheet, which general CDBG program category includes this need? Neighborhood Revitalization F-7 Community Facilities r- Housing � Public Services Housing Services 3. Indicate whether this need is located in the following jurisdiction: j City {J Unincorporated Washington County Unspecified 4. Has this need statement been included in the needs inventory of the local jurisdiction? ®Yes No Please specify Sent to all geographic coordinators 5. Has this need statement been coordinated with a coordinating organization? Q Yes No If no, please explain: 6. Date approved by your Board or Council - '_January 1986 k SIMON 10. Why is this need important to the affected people? '. Without help, rpny of these individuals end up in institutions, on the streets, or in jail. They can become easily victimized by the open, Taupe-- titive limited housing market. 11. What type of project do you envision to address identified need? sWf peen who can focus exclusively on finding bousi=. overcoming r MUMi_ty barriers oonnseling clients and helping to resolve landlord/ tenant problms 12. What is the estimated cost to address the need which you have identified? $12.00 per year 13. Are you aware of any other public or private funds or programs that are available to meet this identified need? If so, which? No 14. Any other comments. Please return by February 15, 1987 to: r" Office of Community Development 1049 S.W. Baseline Rd. , Bldg. C ` Hillsboro, OR 97123 3• r Y } T v � 7. Describe the community development need. Please be specific. Mentally handicapped and deveop entally delayed individuals do not have equal access to Mousing due to 1) lack of income - most are on public assistance, 7.) community stigma regarding their disability, 3) their confusion and lack of skills 8. Does the need you have identified occur within a definable area of a city or unincorporated are of the county? If so, please indicate and describe the location. For neighborhood revitalization needs , please enclose a map of the area and identify the location of any specific needs such as deteriorated streets . County-wide 9. For the specific need you have identified, what is the estimated number of people in need of CDBG funded activities? Please identify your data source specifically. Number Data Source - Estimated total number President's Commission in need? 2,500 on Mental Health, 1978 - Low or moderate income? and Washington County - Elderly (over age 62)? Mental Health Records - Physically or mentally handicapped? (Chronically 2,500 � �� mentall ill & developmentally disabled) - Member of a minority group? - Other quantitative measure if applicable? (e .g. , # of structures in need of rehabilitation) 2. t- OCD - 11/2S/Si IT, NEEDS ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE. (NOTES OSE A SEPARATE PORN POR EACH IDENTIFIED NEED). I. Identification of Respondent Name S Bath).A&n Marvin Ageneys ggjajFR/ namestie Violence Resource Center, Inc. Address! E..Q WX &g4 Hillsboro, Oregon 97123 Phones 640-1171 Z. According to the definitions on the enclosed sheet, which S*aQral CDSA program category includes this need? �] Neighborhood Revitalisation Community Facilities Housing CM Public Services S. Indicate whether this need is located in the following jurisdictions City [� Unincorporated Mashington County Unspecified d. Has this need statement been included in the needs inventory of the local jurisdictiont ®Tea 0 No Please specify t,a otnfw- .IIt 11AH been sent to all geographical Coordinators. S. Has this need statement been coordinated with a coordinating organisation? Ye• U No If no, please explains i. • Date approved by your Board or Council 1/27/87 �. 7, '_ Describe the community development need. Please be specific. Domestic violence effects one out of every four marriages according to research results and expert estimates. The FBI estimate that a woman is battered once every twelve seconds in the United States In Washington County there were more than 500 arrests during a recent twelve month period, representing only the small % of domestic violence incidents which reach the attention of our justic system. 65% of all homicides co tte u Wae niton auntyur ng recent years have been associated with domestic violence according to the District Attorney's Office. g. Does the Used you have identified occur within -a definable area of a city or unincorporated are of the county? If so, please indicate and describe the location. For neighborhood revitalisation needs, please enclose a map of the area and Identify the location of any specific needs such as deteriorated streets. The County occurrs throughout all of Washington County. 9. For the s ecific usedou have identified, what is the estimated number of people In need of CD-50 funded activities? Please identify your. data source specifically. Number Data Source - Estimated total number In need t 61_452_ Current research estimates - Lour or moderate inconet 71,166 1980 Census b CDBG 1985-88 Elderly (over nae 62)? 44,172 Physically or mentally handicapped? 19,652 Member of a minority group? 18,652 Other quantitative measure If applicable? (e.g. , ! of structures in used of ' rehabilitation) ` 2. r• 10. Why is this need important to the affected people? fln �r± y nl nr to g d vaAtA ino nrehleffi at dem rnva m� A�rin�� poo lea'A self- esteem, is the leading cause of injury to women, has disastrous effects on the rhildr n :nnaed end victim{reds trassenAnim rnata ra anriaric +- ++++r:hr.cked+ r can lead to the loss of life. People in domestic violence situations have emergency n rade r}+nr ar a,mar+ar of 11fru nr death 11. What type of project do you envision to address identified need? Addressing the community problem of domestic violence requires providing a broad range of emergency, support, crisis intervention, counseling and oneoine services. including 24 hour emerQenev shelter noa_ 12. What is the estimated cost to address the need which you have Identified? S 250-QQO manualIX 13. Are you aware of any other public or private funds or programs that are available to meet this identified needt If no, which? ''}+ere are no other nroQrama it Telashington Coi±nty_a�s�,��d to eddr -aa rhp n�rehlem of domestic violence. Fuads available far the sunnerr of rheAs+ ffnr A In far from sufficient. 14. Any other comments. the orehlem of domaatic viola ce to �o +naddresaed hears an tnrredthl_y high Costto the community in terms of beth nrann„ awl +� ih- lnna of 7{voa and CWnc{al and community resources Please return by February 15, 1987 to: Office of Community Development 1049 S.W. Baseline Rd. , Bldg, C Hillsboro, OR 97123 3. • OCD - 11/25/86 IV. NEEDS ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE (NOTE: USE A SEPARATE FORM FOR EACH IDENTIFIED NEED) . 1. Identification of Respondent Nape: Housing Service Paralegal Agency: Oregon Legal Services Address: 230 N.E. Second Hillsboro, Oregon 97124 Phone: 648-7163 2. According to the definitions on the enclosed sheet, which general CDBC program category includes this need? Neighborhood Revitalization Q community Facilities Housing Public Services 3. Indicate whether this need is located in the following jurisdiction: City Unincorporated Washington County u Unspecified ' 4. Has this need statement been included in the needs inventory of the local jurisdiction? rx-x—1 Yea + 1 No Please specify Sent as part of Housing Sery cos Coalition. and to all. Geographic Qoordina'tors 5. Has this need statement been coordinated with a coordinating organization? Q Yes Q No If no, please explain: -1?-86 6. Date approved by your Board or Council 12 _ f 7. Describe the commuaity development need. Please be specific. The low to moderate income Population of Washington Coun PgAl information assistance advice and advocacyin regard to housingproblems such as: evictions landlor tenant dis utas re air and maintenance representation in subsidized housing rievance hearings romotion of housin code enforcement and wort a e default counseling, S. Does the need you have oreordcur of thehcounty?fiIfbso, area of a city or unincorporated are please indicate and describe the location. Forthteighborrhood revitalization needs, please enclose a map o area and identify the location of any specific needs such as deteriorated streets. Der r c 1-1-v 'rural the 9. For the s ecific need ohave needidentified, CDBG fundedsactivities? estimated number of people Please identify your data source specifically. Number Data Source — Estimated total number 74� Plantee Report April 19$5 in need? n n — Low or moderate income? 71,-AJfi_ — Elderly (over age 62)? 25.483 — Physically or mentally n handicapped? 8— — n n — Member of a minority 19,56 group? — other quantitative measure if applicable? (e.g. , # of structures in need of .. • rehabilitation) 2. 10. Why is this need important to the affected people? Many low to moderate income renters are financially unable to secure legal assistance through private attorneys, thus risk losing their privately owned or subsidized housing unfairly or illegally. Home buyers have legal remedies to prevent foreclosure during times of financial crisis. We are able to provide advice and representation in securing those remedies. 11. What type of project do you envision to address identified need? Housing Hotline will provide legal information and advice to renters, buyers, mobile home residents and will negotiate with landlords and lenders. Back-up attornagg Urnvide representation in court and administrative hearings. Gommunity 2ducation worksholssl trainings and home visits to elderly and han ca p d will also be provided. 12. a� to the estimaed cost to address the need which you have identified? $47,040 for salary, fringe benefits, overhead and supervision for two year period. ' 13. Are you aware of any other public or private funds or programs that are available to meet this identified need? If no, which? None, 14. Any other comments. Please return by February 15, 1987 to: Office of Community Development -> 1049 S.W. Baseline Rd. , Bldg. C Hillsboro, OR 97123 3. OCD - 11/25/86 IV. NEEDS ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE (NOTE: USE A SEPARATE FORM FOR EACH IDENTIFIED NEED) . I. Identification of Respondent Name : Verla Fuller Agency: Housing Services of Oregon Address : 567 N. 19th_ C!ornejjtja, oreaon 97113 Phone: 640-2215 or 357-7543 2. According to the definitions on the enclosed sheet, which general CDBG program category includes this need? Neighborhood Revitalization Community Facilities Housing Q Public Services 3. Indicate whether this need is located in the following Jurisdiction : City Unincorporated Washington County Unspecified 4. Has this need statement been included in the needs inventory of the local jurisdiction? XX Yes Q No Please .sDp^if y. ent to all GepprVhic Coordirmtors 5. Has this need statement been coordinated with a coordinating organization? �X— Yes Q No If no , please explain: 5 Date approved by your Board or Council N[nmm},cr 7n IURf { 7. Describe the community development need. Please be specific . C mr h ci ve h=i na c ounseli na p=ram to clover reaa such aG rental- d - i nq ency and =rtg ae default 'ntery noon s rviceG in addition n -p]irchacP m,uy5e];nng for ICU & moderatt-- buyers- This would include money management F. fi nand ai ri cep counsel to pro=t-t lora of home. aDd not-ential homeleSEneas. Orecron's VA home.-, r irned - 1,316 , FNMA - 18% of their homes in delina_uenay up from 12% due to lack of counselor or staff time f-n give individual bgaemmr attention. 8. Does the need you have identified occur within a definable area of a city or unincorporated are of the county? If so , please indicate and describe the location. For neighborhood revitalization needs , please enclose a map of the area and identify the location of any specific needs such as deteriorated streets . all hone owners or potentional buyers in county 9. For the specific need you have identified, what is the estimated number of people in need of CDBG funded activities? Please identify your data source specifically . Number Data Source - Estimated total number in need? 11,679 VA, HUD, Fr*M, Conventional loans - Low or moderate income? 8,317 1982-88 CDBG plan usually all people loosing their hones are low to very low - Elderly (over age 62) ? 18% same - Physically or mentally handicapped? 2,776 1980 Oregon Attitudes Survey - Member of a minority group? 1 ,435 1982-88 CDBG plan - Other quantitative measure if applicable? (e .g. , # of structures in need of rehabilitation) 2. 10. Why is this need important to the affected people? In the six YQ,Us that this com r hP Pn-i-ye program was offered in the cctint-y less than i rpt i nn_ Thi not only nJlistl4 hilt 1 aaannF+rl tha trama to tha fami 1 i as i nunived. You i haire n1311t to lmk�af tn rat-#--hhigh raof fnr-enlnciirPc the he VpPc t- rnprnaram to compare with the success rate of counseling to realize the importance of this kind of program, 11. What type of project do you envision to address identified . need? A ccYc®,y t-nsive housing counsel in prQgr-+m that ad rPsspa the n�rls of Llalixiquent I. honia *=^ers and rentpra tp prevent loss of hcues through foreclosure or eviction. i Low inccgrn residents will have a greater ogrtunity to ourChase law cost. affordably housing 0 Lbis prggramm i ncl Ltdes a comre_hensi vim, a pre-purchase oroaram, with a . trained, licensed real estate broker & a HUD certified program & licensed ho in r 12. What is the estimated cost to address the need which you have�ungselo identified? 1i F 28,587 gnjy pAgt of these funds are being applied for through the Block Grant E}}. Y 13. Are you aware of any other public or private funds or programs that are available to meet this identified need? If so , which? 47e are looking into foundation funding for possible future funding. There is no program in Washington County that offers the canprehensive houseling program that we offer. we. are currently applying for federal funds that may be available on at limited basis E 14. Any other comments. t The comprehensive counseling program addresses extensive pre_2Urchase counseling in f areas of money management & financial crises intervention whiff has already-has a positive track record. Recently a handicaped VA haneowner, was forclosed, her 68,500 dollar hone was sold at an auction for 38,000, this month she hasn evicted, she will be hemeless. Icer situation could have been prevented, there were alternatives When this program was in existence for six years over 40 renters were saved_fran eviction a month with early prevention. That agency chose to discontinue the program Please return by February 15, 1987 to: since then evictions and forecloures in this county have greatly increased. Office of Community Development 1049 S.W. Baseline Rd. , Bldg. C Hillsboro, OR 97123 3. OCD - 11/25/86 IV. NEEDS ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE (NOTE: USE A SEPARATE FORM FOR EACH IDENTIFIED NEED) . 1 . Identification of Respondent Name : gr4 1 Hilbert Agency: Washington County Cunity Action Organization A d d r e a s : 245 S.E. 2nd, Hillsboro, CR 97123 Phone: 648-C 3' 1 2. According to the definitions on the enclosed sheet , which general CDBG program category includes this need? Neighborhood Revitalization Community Facilities Housing 1 -X-X-1 Public Services 3. Indicate whether this need is located in the following Jurisdiction: �J City 1J Unincorporated Washington County { Unspecified 4 , Has this need statement been included in the needs inventory of the local jurisdiction? ® Yes Q No P 1 e a a e a p e c i f y Sent to all G009MPhic Cbordi tors 5. Has this need statement been coordinated with a coordinating organization? Yes Q No If no, please explain: 6. Date a roved b June 1985 pp y your Board or Council r F* C c, 7. Describe the community development need. Please be specific . Ckuprehensive counseling program that helps haneless families stabilize their lives and find permanent housing and enployment, helps low income renters and hcmeawners avoid evictions and displacements, helps low intone residents with general housing information and assistance to find, secure, and/or keep adequate, affordable housing. 8. Does the need you have identified occur within a definable area of a city or unincorporated are of the county? If so, please indicate and describe the location. For neighborhood revitalization needs, please enclose a map of the area and identify the location of any specific needs such as deteriorated streets . County Wide •R: 9. For the specific need you have identified, what is the estimated number of people in need of CABG funded activities? Please identify your data source specifically . Number Data Source Estimated total number in need? potentially IR-971 All hili„s tAkeu4= 1980 Census, Washington Low or moderate income? 49,971 f3minty (]unity Dgvelap-. meat Plan, 1985-1988 Elderly (over age 62)? 44,172 Physically or mentally 19,632 handicapped? - Member of a minority group? 18,605 - Other quantitative measure 1f applicable? (e.g. , # of structures in need of rehabilitation) N/A 2. w: F 10. Why is this need important to the affected people? In the hierarchy of human service needs shelter and housing is one of the top priorities.. Without programs to help the hcmeless and those at risk of beccming homeless our county would be facing a major crisis, as the number of hraneless in our country continues to rise. 11. What type of project do you envision to address identified need? A housing services program that includes the following elements: 1) Counseling and assistance to homeless families, 2) counseling, advocacy and direct assistance to renters facing evictions, 3) information and referral, 4) locator services to low inane families seeking adequate & l a�t s t retest mated costs to address the need which you have identified? $18,000 per year 13. Are you aware of any other public or private funds or n programs that are available to meet this identified need? If so , which? No 14 , Any other comments . Please return by February 15, 1987 to: Office of Community Development 1049 S.W. Baseline Rd. , Bldg. C Hillsboro, OR 97123 3. OCD - 11/25/86 IV. NEEDS ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE (NOTE: USE A SEPARATE FORM FOR EACH IDENTIFIED NEED) . 1. Identification of Respondent Name: C MYL 1HI13EW Agency: WAS[ING11I T OOUNiY COMMUNITY ACTION ORGIMIZATTON Address. 245 S.E. 2nd, HILLSBORO, OR 97123 Phone: 648-0829 2. According to the definitions on the enclosed sheet, which general CDBG program category Includes this need? Neighborhood Revitalization (= Community Facilities Housing L—Z] Public Services 3. Indicate whether this need is located in the following jurisdiction: City f— Unincorporated Washington County Unspecified 4. Has this need statement been included in the needs inventory . of the local ,jurisdiction? ©yes � No Please specify Sent to all geographic coordinators 5. Has this need statement been coordinated with a coordinating organization? ® Yes U No If no, please explain: h, 1956 6. Date approved by your Board or Council 7. Describe the community development need. Please be specific. A program to provide fair housinrrservices to coiLUly low inrrm- rPciAants in order to ensure equal QppQ unity and non-di crrimi pati nn in bQjjri as well as provide public education on fair housing issues and encourage fair bausing practices throughout the county. S. Does the need you have identified occur within a definable area of a city or unincorporated are of the county? If so, please indicate and describe the location. For neighborhood revitalization needs, please enclose a map of the area and identify the location of any specific needs such as deteriorated streets. County-ode 1941 - - 9. For the specific need you have identified, what is the estimated number of people in need of CDBG funded activities? -; Please identify your data source specifically. Number Data Source - Estimated total number All figura taken from in need? Potentially 245,808 1980 Census, Washington County Cmsj,ity Develop- Low or _^a ;� income? mmt vlaTiaa=lc8g_ - Elderly (over age 62)? _44,172 - Physically or mentally i9,632 handicapped? - Member of a minority group? w - Other quantitative measure ` if applicable? (e.g. , of structures in need of K/A rehabilitation) 2. 10. Why is this need important to the affected people? Zb increase housing choices for minorities and other protected classes counsel victims of discrimination and provide a service in the county to bandie discrimination complaints 11. What type of project do you envision to address identified need? Fair housing counseling activities to include: individual counseling, education of landlords and lenders and 2gMMity residents on fair hoikQ�nm -practices and i_ m= promotion of fair housing through c ommini iv ayarark-Es pro iects tie fair hnWI= Rggter ..,,ntmst b=UM fairs s g1c.) 12. What is the estimated cost to address the need which you have identified? _—X15.000 year 13. Are you aware of any other public or private funds or programs that are available to meet this identified need? If so, which? NO 14. Any other comments. n� Please return by February 15, 1987 to: Office of Community Development 1049 S.W. Baseline Rd. , Bldg. C Hillsboro, OR 97123 3 OCD - 11/25/86 a�• IV. NEEDS ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE (NOTE: USE A SEPARATE FORM FOR EACH IDENTIFIED NEED) . 1. Identification of Respondent Name: Vikki Freeman/Linda Jones Agency: ACCESS OREGON - Formerly Tri County_i._ndenwndPnt i ; .;,,g r rQ Address : 8213 SE 17th - Portland Oregon 97202 Phone: 230-1225 2. According to the definitions on the enclosed sheet, which general CDBG program category includes this need? Neighborhood Revitalization Q Community Facilities xx Housing L._-..J Public Services 3. Indicate whether this need is located in the following _f jurisdiction: .� City ; xx Unincorporated Washington County C� Unspecified 4. Has this need statement been included in the needs inventory of the local jurisdiction? Xx Yes No Please specify Sent to all Geographic Coordinators 5. Has this need statement been coordinated with a coordinating organization? XX Yes Q No If no, please explain: 6. Date approved by your Board or Council 1/13/87 >J. 2r 7. Describe the community development need. Please be specific. 1) Provision of housing information and referral services in location of wheelchair accessible and or low cost housing in Washington County. 2) Provision of information and referral services to assist disabled persons in the county link up __ eei ffi,yin Arrl an �n„�n rn�.�r�i at�� efqspry7co Ta j � y generic I E R providers. 3) Housing identification and surveys for accessibility. 4) TDD communication access to human services; providers in the community as well as training in the use of a TOO. 5) Advocacy/Educaticn in legal rights - especially Section 504 Rights from the Rehabilitation Act. a�- 8. Does the need you have identified occur within a definable area of a city or unincorporated are of the county? If so, please indicate and describe the location. For neighborhood revitalisation needs, please enclose a map of the area and identify the location of any specific needs such as deteriorated streets. Need occurs county wide.-including in unincorporated areas, T 9. For the specific need you have identified, what is the estimated number of people in need of CDBG funded activities? Please identify your data source specifically. Number Data Source - Estimated total number In need? - Low or moderate income? - Elderly (over age 62)? - Physically or mentally handicapped? 21,390 Counties Needs Assessment from State of Ore, - Member of a minority Dept of Vocational Rehab report - 1980 group? -deaf 2418 Oreeon Rlue Book - Other quantitative measure If applicable? (e.g. , of structures in need of rehabilitation) 8% of households in Mash. County have at least one disabled member. Oregon Attitudes Survey 2. Other quantitative measure.... Please see summaries of 1986 Statewide Independent Living Needs Survey (ATTACHED) which was conducted by Access Oregon in 1986. Very pertinent facts 3� about_IAforration 6.Referral and #*using. needs as 10. Why is this need important to the affected people? 1) There is a definite need for continued identification and referral of housing usable and affordable by Persons with disabilities so that they may live in the community setting of their choice E' 2) There is a need to provide specialized information and referral services to persons-in the disabled community which a eneric I 6 R commonly does not provide. " 3) There is a continuing need for proper communication access to services as provide or in the R habilitation Act. This communication access all too often is not provided for. ',- 4) There is need for assistance in advocating for the rights of disabled persons and d' in teat ing bled consumers self adv skills to et the services they require and are entitled to. 11. What type of project do you envision to address identified need? 1) Funding a portion of an information and referral service specific to disability resources, information, f arid right '� will as a ho siva referral and placement service offering surveying and referral to low cost and/or wheelchair accessible housing. _21 Pur^hase and placement of TDD's in offices of all Washington County Housing Consortium memh.rs. Training and technical assistance to be provided in use of TQD's. —3) Workshops to Washington County residents and service providers on disability rights, and workshops on fair housing rights which classify persons with disabilities as a protected class t r•n1n for housin ractices in the State of Oregon. 12. What is the estimated cost to address the need which you have Identified? $16«000. a year 25 FTE Information and Referral Staff person at $T 25/hour, 25 FTE housing surveyor and counselor at $7.25/hour, 25 FTE Advocate Staff person at $7.00/hr, purchase of TDQ's ar an approximate cost gf 389 each to be Placed in the offices of all WAshin ton County Housing Consortium members. 13. Are you aware of any other public or private funds or programa that are available to meet this identified need? If so, which? Only cceaunitl block grant funding at this time. 14. Any other comments. ?lease return by February 15, 1987 to: Office of Community Development 1049 S.W. Baseline Rd. , Bldg, C _ Hillsboro, OR 97123 3. If M R 0(7)V + r :'%t3 INDEPE14MENT L]CVINtsCENTER STA':EWIDE INDEPENDENT LIVING NEEDS ASSESSMENT SURVEY Review Of Vocational Rehabilitation And Independent Living Service Responses Prepared By Vikki Freeman January 10, 1987 INDEPENDENT LIVING TYPE SERVICES The following is review of key responses in the areas of information and referral, peer counseling/advocacy, skills training, and individual/systems advocacy. Information and Referral 1. General. The most frequently listed responses were: how to find and access community resources, how to locate and pay for adaptive equipment and how to access to information on federal and state programs such as the Vocational Rehabilitation Division and Self Support Plans. Currently in the State of Oregon, in depth information and referral is not required priority service for Independent Living Programs to provide. Additionally, the few existing community information and referral systems are general in nature and do not provide for specific disability Information. National groups such as the National Council on Independent Living list I & R services as a core service necessary to meet the needs of persons with disabilities. The need for a network of information and referral services specific to disability at geographically disbursed community offices was listed as a priority by Oregon residents with disabilities or serving disabled attending the Legislative Educational Forum meeting held in Salem, September 1986. Additionally, at the Disabled Oregonians for Effective Services (DOES) conference in Eugene on January 10, 1987, the f need for information and referral services was selected as ` one of the four priorities to be addressed. n_1a':r 1'th ,%VFNI E 0 1'0R1*1.%Nn.0Rh.(;0,% 02 • (.:03)230-122:; 0 t01CF./TTY STATEWIDE IL NEEDS ASSESSMENT SURVEY Page 2 2. Housing. Respondents were most interested in assistance sn locating low cost housing that meets their Individual disability related needs. Information and referral on local housing availability would need to include surveying of local housing units as to this existing level of structural accessibility if this identified need is to be met• Au,,Jitionally, information on cost and design for accessibility could be provided to property owners along with Information on how to be a section 8 (subsidy) landlord. This would help provide for needs requested regarding accessible housing and more low cost housing. 3. Attendants. Location of an attendant and a back-up person was most often listed need as attendant services needed. Currently, persons with disabilities rely heavily on newpaper advertisement and local service providers to locate attendants. Current systems for location are frequently time consuming and do not provide for prior screenings on applications. Peer Counselin /Su ort S stems Individuals listed peer counseling on financial concerns (431) , social/leisure (43%) , medical concerns (42%) , and adjustment to disabilities (42%) , as the type of peer counseling they would like to see available. Preference was to have the peer counselor to be a person with the same or similar disability and if assistance was y from a group to have that group be composed of persons with same or similar disability. Many individuals did not understand the term peer counseling and support groups. This was evidenced in the number of persons who stated they did not need these services, but list under comments they needed assistance from other knowledgable disabled persons in areas of disability adjustment and emotional support. Skills Trainin Independent living skills training, such as cooking and other daily living activities, was requested by very few Individuals. Items ranking high were disability information/rights (811) , how to locate agencies in the community to help me with specific needs (698) , problem solving skills (511) , legal concerns (490) , how to use or find interpreters/ readers/note takers (433) , and assertiveness (417) . Most responses were for skills in how to access information and for technical skills such as how to advocate for oneself. STATEWIDE IL NEEDS ASSESSMENT SURVEY Page 3 Independent Living Services - Comments Frequently, respondents residing in the rural areas of Oregon stated dissatisfaction and concern over the sparse t resources provided for rural services to promote independent living. E Overall, respondents felt the need for persons with disabilities to have direct input regarding programs and services related to persons with disabilities. Often comments included statements to the effect that only another disabled person can truely identify with and understand problems faced by persons with disabilities. The need for rural services and outreach have been Identified by both federal and state independent living service providers and funding agencies as a priority area. The survey comments appear to validate the need for strong involvement by individuals with disabilities in the provision of services related to disability. VOCATIONAL, REHABILITATION SERVICES 6 Employment Status of. Respondents F Of the 2,468 responding to question as to employment status: 490 of the 646 individuals who are employed are currently or were previously clients of VRD. unemployed was listed by 1,408 individuals, 883 of which are currently or were previously clients of VRD. Individuals with current or previous involvement as a VRD client were more often employed (32%) than respondents who have not been involved with VRD services (16%) . The rate of unemployment was listed by 68% of person currently or previously involved with VRD and 84% by non-VRD involved persons. However, individuals not involved with VRD, currently nor in the past, who are unemployed, tend to be involved more in volunteer positions at 25% for this group and only 7% for VRD involved respondents. i Y Student was listed by 120 current VRD clients and by 38 previous VRD clients. A total of 65 individuals not previously involved with VRD lissted that they are currently { students. STATEWIDE IL NEEDS ASSESSMENT SURVEY Page 4 Student was surprising, only listed by an overall 'total of 101 of the VRD involved group (17% of current VRD clients and 51 of past VRD clients) . Individuals never involved with VRD listed 6.51 as currently a student. Educational Level Completed by Respondents Individuals who are currently or previously involved with VRD have an overall higher completion of high school level education; with 621 of VRD respondents having had completed their 12th grade or GED. Grade 12 or above (12- 17+) had been completed by 891 of the group. For individuals who stated they have never been a client of VRD/don' t know about VRD only 411 list completion of 12th grade/GED or above. However, individuals not involved with VRD had a higher percentage completing in graduate college level coursework. College level coursework (13-16) by non-VRD respondents was 251 and VRD respondents at 231. Graduate level (17+) was 111 for non-VRD involved respondents and 51 for VRD involved respondents. Employment Status and Level of Education Level of Education does not appear to significantly impact employment status for Oregonians with disabilities. Education below 11th grade level was listed equally by 201 of the employed and the unemployed persons. Unemployed figures included individuals who may currently be students or volunteers. Completion of 12th grade or GED was listed by 401 of the employed persons and 421 of the unemployed. Completion of between 12th/CED through 16th grade was listed by 701 of employed and 721 of unemployed. Graduate level work was listed by 71 of employed and 81 of unemployed. Employment at a sheltered workshop was most often listed by persons with a 12th grade level education or below. Sheltered workshop employment is counted in the employed percentages above. 4 { Reasons to for Unemployment i The response, currently a student and do not have time to work, was the only educational related response listed for not being currently employed. The next most often listed response was, I can not find STATEWIDE IL NEEDS ASSESSMENT SURVEY Page 5 work. Third listed reason for unemployment was fear of losing government assistance and/or medical benefits if the person went to work. 'hese results are validated by the high number of individuals who want 1) assistance with interview skills, resume writing and job search skills, 2) peer counseling on financial and medical concerns, and 3) skills training/information on incentives/programs for employment of persons with a disability such as Social Security Income Self Support Plans and deductions for disability related work expenses. It may be feasible to impact the employment rate of person with disabilities by providing increased job search skills training and education on programs such as Self- Support plans, and deductable disability related work expenses. This would, of course, require trained VRD counselors or community services counselors to provide for educational outreach and assistance. On a national level there is recognition of the work discentive problems and the current inequity in disability benefit/entitlement programs. Under current regulations, non-blind disabled live in fear of making over $300 .00 a month and being considered substantially gainfully employed (for blind it is $610 .00) and losing eligibility to social security benefits, and State programs such as attendant care payment. Federal legislation that has been enacted during the last few years to counter-act these discentives by broadening the work related expenses that can be deducted are relatively unknown by the disabled community, and are confuRing even to the seasoned professional. For a severely disabled person, the perceived choice often becomes employment or physical well-being. The cost for basic essentials, such as food, shelter, clothing, added to medical expenses and attendant wages may result in a need for a beginning monthly take home salary of $1,500.00 to be able to consider employment. Without waiting for changes in federal regulations regarding Social Security programs and debating why the poverty level for the general population is approximately $581.00 a month for one person, yet substantially gainful employment for non-blind disabled is set at $190.00-$300.00 a STATEWIDE IL NEEDS ASSESSMENT SURVEY Page 6 month, there still are options open to us to impact this situation. Such options include information on incentive programs already mentioned in this report, such as Social Security Self Support Plans. Other options include working with other Human Resources Divisions, such as Adult and Family Services to change the level of income disabled can earn before they deny/substantially reduce attendant payment assistance and work with Housing Authorities to recognize set aside income under Self Support Plans. The next highest reason for unemployment was: I can only work part-time or less due to physical limitations of my disability (14% of respondents) . This response would appear to suggest need for vocational rehabilitation counselors to address individual needs for part-time employment situations such as job share positions. It should be noted that many of the individuals who responded to the need for part-time work due to physical limitations will be individuals that will be at risk of losing benefits and not having sufficient income from part-time work to cover household, medical, and attendant expenses. Employment and Prevocational Needs individuals most frequently stating assistance needed for on the job training or job search/interview skills were individuals who are currently or were previous clients of VRD. 31% of respondents stating that they don' t know how to get these needs met are current (15%) or closed (16%) clients of VRD. The highest response received from total respondents was for on the job training. This was equally requested by VRD and non-VRD respondents. Pre-vocational skills such as identifying and exploring career/educational options (1,255 total responses) , finding job referral (599) and job readiness, such as resume writing/interview skills (749 total responses) , and job search skills (517) . SURVEY RESPONSE RATE Response rate of five percent is considered a very good return for companies such as insurance and fundraisers. Our concern with the approximate five percent return rate, received by this survey is that the group mailed to had a fi vested interest, in responding, and yet a vast number chose not to- do so. Feedback from members of the disabled STATEWIDE IL NEEDS ASSESSMENT SURVEY " Page 7 ` community as to why the percentage is low included: concerns that information would somehow be obtained and provided to state or federal agencies that might negatively impact ability to receive benefits; apathy; persons not having a person at home to help complete the survey; feeling that the information gathered would not be used to make any changes, Information would just end up in someone's file cabinet; and putting off completing the survey until it was past deadline date for responses to be mailed. Nigh duplication of names mailed to was unavoidable due to several mailing lists that could not be cross-compared by request of the agency providing the list that we protect confidentiality by having the cooperating agency do the mailing. Percentage of response, if based on actual number of persons receiving the survey rather than number of surveys mailed, may be quite higher. it is known that some t individuals received 4-7 surveys as they were on many mailing lists used. The response rate of S% appears at par with other surveys mailed to Oregonians with disabilities. The Disabled Oregonians for Effective Services survey conducted in late 1986 received a 6% response rate from a mailing to 1,000 names known not to contain duplicates. Individuals who are currently or were previously clients of VRD had a much higher survey response rate. A total of 1,415 (57%) respondents of the 2,468 useable surveys received were individuals who are currently or wete previously clients of VRD. LAVINDEPENDENT G N' CENTER SUMMARY OF I.L. NEEDS ASSESSMENT SURVEY Thank you for participating in our survey. Your participation was appreciated! The IL Needs Assessment Survey was developed to determine the independent living (IL) services needs of Oregon residents who have a disability. Emphasis was placed on identifying needs in the following areas: living situation/housing, transportation, attendant/housekeeper needs, skills training desires, advocacy assistance desired, and information and referral desired. These areas were based on the proposed national IL standards, and by the results of a survey conducted at the 1984 Rural Services Conference. The survey was sent to 50,000 individuals who have a disability which included any physical disability, deafness/hearing impairments, mental retardation, blindness/visual impairment, learning disabilities, mental illness, diseases, and alcohol/drug dependency. Another objective of the survey was to obtain information on the community resources available to and used by disabled consumers statewide. This survey was based on the concept of independent living, which can be described as "the right to assume responsibility for directing one's own life, and for actively participating in the daily life of the community. It is living where one chooses and can afford, and includes managing one's own affairs, fulfilling many social roles and making decisions that lead to less physical and psychological dependence upon others. It is living for possibilities, not limitations. " Results from the survey are being sent to Vocational Rehabilitation Division (V.R.D. ) Admninistration, with whom TCILC contracted to do the survey as part of a one-year federal grant. V.R.D. Administration will share the results with their branch offices and will use this information in planning for appropriate use of future federal independent living (Title VII) funds. The results are in the form of numbers, not names, and in no way have survey respondents been identified in any report. Names of individuals who requested to be on a statewide mailing list will be kept on file (at TCILC) . Survey results are also being shared with agencies which assisted TCILC in sending out the surveys to their consumers. It is hoped that these agencies will use the results to focus their services on the needs which have been identified or confirmed by this survey. The needs of 'the survey respondents vary widely, partially because all disability groups were surveyed, instead of focusing on a few. Questions had to be general enough not to exclude a =13&L 17th AVENUE a PORTLAND.OREGON 97202 0 (303)230-1225 a VOICE/TTY Only 15% currently have subsidized housing. However, this does not mean that subsidized housing is not wanted or needed. The large number of people responding to previous questions regarding affordable rent supports this statement. Eligibility guidelines for subsidy are limiting; so many whose income is just above the income maximum to qualify for subsidy also need the lower rent and/or subsidy but do not qualify. ATTENDANT CARE: Only 23% of the respondents need attendant care. This does not include those who receive this type of care in a nursing home, group home or intensive care facility (about 3%) . This section focuses on who provides the care, types of hours, attendant management, difficulties with attendants, and source of payment for attendant care. Most individuals (26%) receive attendant care from friends, relatives or volunteers who are not paid. Spouse/fiance is the next largest category (259;) , and also are not paid. Only 21% stated that they have a paid attendant, of whom almost half are friends or relatives. Live-in attendants are more prevalant (53%) than come-in attendants. This is probably because most of the respondents ' attendants are relatives. A small portion of respondents have both live-in attendants and come-in attendants. Attendant management refers to how involved the disabled consumer is in seeing that his/her own personal care needs are being met. Over half of the respondents (57%) do not hire, train or assign duties to the attendant. This number reflects the high percentage of relatives and friends who provide personal care asssistance. These situations are much less formal than when someone is hired and paid. Nine percent hire, train and assign duties, but do not have an emergency back-up system for when the attendant is ill, on vacation or leaves suddenly. Only a few people have assistance in the hiring, training and assigning duties. Difficulties with attendant care are: finding an attendant (199 ) ; finding an emergency back-up system; paying for an attendant; turnover rate of attendants; attendant unreliability; interpersonal conflicts with attendants; inadequate training of attendants; supervising attendants and maintaining role of employer; and financial assistance to pay for attendant care has been decreased because of marriage. Only 27% said they had no difficulties with the attendant care situation. Most attendants are not paid (48%) . The source of payment most commonly used is Welfare (A.F.S./S.S.D. ) ; own earnings (including employment and monthly Social Security checks; family support and Veterans ' benefits. The "other" category included providing room and board instead of cash; insurance monies and assistance from agencies. EMPLOYMENT AND PRE-VOCATIONAL NEEDS Pre-vocational assistance was requested by 89% of the survey respondents. The needs include: on-the-job training (35b) , finding financial assistance for education or on-the-job training; finding job referrals/placement; - identifying and exploring educational options; learning job readiness skills; resume preparation/interview skills; adaptation(s) on the job site; and identifying and exploring career options. Currently, 59% responded that they are not working. Of those who are employed (259 ) , 14% are self-employed, and 44% are at a sheltered 3 PEER COUNSELING: Topics respondents would discuss with a peer counselor include: social/ leisure time interests (36%) ; financial concerns (369►) ; how to adjust to own disability (36%) , and medical concerns (361) . Twenty four percent said they'd most prefer a group of people who had the same or a similar disability (279x) , and the second most desired is one person who has the same or similar disability (24%) . DEMOGRAPHICS: Disabilities: 2% Alcohol/drug dependency 8% Emotional disorder 11 Amputation or absence of limb 6% Epilepsy it Arthritis/rheumatism 5% Heart ailment/disease .011 Blind 10% Learning disability 2% Visual impairment 15% Mental retardation/developmental 2% Brain injury disability .081 Burn survivor 9% Mental illness .021 Cancer 111 Multiple sclerosis .031 Cerebral palsy 1% Muscular dystrophy 3% Deaf 2% Post polio 1% Oral deaf 3% Respiratory disorder .011 Deaf/blind 1% Spina bifida 71 Hard of hearing 8% Spinal cord injury/disease 4% Diabetes 2% Stroke .07% Other 2% NR Sex: Age: Marital Status : 1,203 Male 49% 16-18 3% Single: 46% C 1,237 Female 50% 19-22 8% Married: 28% 26 NR 1% 23-25 7% Separated: 3% 26-30 12% Divorced: 17% 31-35 131 Widowed: 17% 36-40 13% Living as Married: 1% 41-45 104 Other: 1% 46-50 10% NR: 1% 51-55 61 56-60 71 61-65 6% NR .021 Yearly Gross Income: Sources of Income: 291 Under $4 000 181 Employment 251 $4,001-$9, 000 23% Family support 161 $6,001-$11, 000 241 Supplemental Security 4% $11,001-$13,000 Income (S.S.I. ) 41 $13,001-$16,000 (gold check) 61 $16,001-$25,000 311 Social Security Disability 31 $25,001-$35,000 Benefits (S.S.D.I. ) 31 Above $35,000 (multicolored check) 31 No income 31 workers' Compensation 61 NR 21 Trust fund/insurance 161 welfare 31 Unemployment 51 V.A. Benefits 151 Other 7% No income 21 No response 5 DEAR CONSUMERS AND ASSOCIATES: WE ARE PLEASED TO ANNOUNCE THAT AS OF JANUARY 1, 1987. WE HAVE A NEW NAME ---- ACCESS OREGON. OUR STAFF CONTINUES TO OFFER THE SAME PROGRAMS AND SERVICES TO THE COMMUNITY. OUR ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBERS REMAIN THE SAME. S WE ARE PROUD TO CONTINUE OUR MISSION IN THE PROMOTION OF t AND ADVOCACY FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING. ACCESS OREGON ASSISTS INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES IN BECOMING MORE INDEPENDENT IN DIRECTING THEIR LIVES. THE RESULT WE HOPE FOR IS AN INCREASED SELF- SUFFICIENCY AND SELF-ESTEEM WITH A BETTER ABILITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DAILY LIFE OF THE COMMUNITY. SINCERELY. THE STAFF OF ACCESS OREGON 8213 S.E.17th AVENUE • PORTLAND,OREGON 97202 • (503)230-1225 • VO10EITTY 4 CITY OF TIGARD. OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: February 9, 1987 DATE SUBMITTED: January 28, 1987 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Solar Access PREVIOUS ACTION: Council approval to Proiect Update participate in the pro'ect _ PREPARED BY: Keith Liden 1�- DEPT HEAD OK ITY ADMIN OK_ REQUESTED BY: POLICY ISSUE INFORMATION SUMMARY The City agreed to participate in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area Solar Access Project. Staff will be available to give a short presentation and answer questions regarding status of the project. Attached is an overview of the study and transcript of the consultant's presentation to Planning Commission on January 20, 1987. The staff will regularly keep you informed of the status of the project. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Allow staff to present a status report on the solar access study. g FISCAL IMPACT 1. hone. Modification to the Community Development Code may be required after the project is completed and reviewed by City Council. s SUGGESTED ACTION No action required. KL:cn/2920P .0 PORTLAND-VANCOUVER METROPOLITAN AREA SOLAR ACCESS PROJECT SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROJECT ACTIVITIES The Metro Area Solar Access Project is a cooperative effort of twenty-one local governments in five counties and two states. The purpose of the project is to develop a consistent solar access protection program for residences to implement in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan area. The project is funded by the Bonneville Power Administration under the provisions of the Northwest Power Act and administered by the Oregon Department of Energy. The Washington State Energy Office provides technical assistance. Conservation Management Services, Inc. is the consulting firm managing the project. Other members of the consulting team are Benkendorf& Associates, Ames Associates, Larry Epstein, PC and Gregory Acker, AIA. The 21 local governments participating in the project include: Washington County, Beaverton, Cometius, Forest Grove and Tigard; Clackamas County, Canby, Happy Valley, Lake Oswego, Milwaukie, Oregon City , West Unn, and Wilsonville; Multnomah County, Gresham, Fairview, and Troutdale;Clark County and Vancouver;and St. Helens and Scappoose in Columbia County. The Metro Area Solar Access Project began in the fall of 1986. Project activities will occur over a two-year time period. Project activities are grouped in five major areas: 1) research; 2) public involvement; 3) public hearings; 4) training and technical assistance; and 5) Implementation and evaluation. Work tasks within each of these five areas are summarized below. RESEARCH A TIV TI G Several research activities will be conducted to identify the economic costs and benefits of Implementing a solar access protection program in the metro area. SUNCHART SURVEL A random sunchart photograph survey will be taken of 400 single family houses in the metro area. This will make it possible to correlate levels of solar access with such variables as street orientation, lot size, setback, slope, house size and height, location and type of vegetation, and age of the neighborhood. The purpose is to identify those variables which most affect solar access so that appropriate strategies to protect solar access are developed. ENERGY SAVINGS Monpi INGe The findings from the sunchart survey will be used as the basis of computer modeling conducted by the Oregon Department of Energy to estimate the energy and economic savings attributable to solar access. These estimates will be made for Individual houses as well as the entire metro area. Estimates will be broken out by existing and new housing stock. The economic estimates will examine the total value of incidental solar gains to conventional housing as well as to housing which explicitly incorporates solar features Into its design (e.g. increased levels of south facing glass, east-west ridgeline orientation). The computer modeling will examine the Impacts on summer cooling bads as well as winter heating bads. The potential value of future solar uses such as hot water heating and photovoltaic generation of electricity will also be studied. The energy savings modeling will focus on single family uses; however, studies of several multi-family developments in th be conducted. a metro area will also h' DEVELOPMENT DESIGN WORK: Several existing subdivisions and Planned Unit Developments in the metro area will be studied to determine it alternative designs would have been feasible which would have provided greater levels of solar access to houses. An analysis will be made of the costs and benefits of incorporating solar access design principles into the developments. The plats for the developments will be redesigned, as appropriate, to demonstrate solar access design principles. R VI OF E STING DEVELOPMNT CODES_ All of the development codes for the 21 local governments, including zoning, subdivision and Planned Unit Development ordinances, 5 will be studied to determine the extent to which existing development codes in the metro encourage or discourage the protection of solar access. COMPARATIVE ORDINANCE STUDY: A study will be conducted to compare the effects of the City of Portland's solar access ordinance and a model solar access ordinance prepared by the Bureau of Governmental Research and Service on housing in the metro area. The study will examine the impacts of the two ordinances on level of sunshine protected to northern neighbors; house design, height and siting; and administration. The purpose of the study is to identify the best methods available for efficiently protecting solar access to houses. EXPERIENCES OF OTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENTS: Over 20 local governments in the Pacific Northwest have adopted and Implemented solar access protection ordinances. The w experiences of these local governments will be studied to Identify the provisions in their ordinances which might have the greatest benefit for the metro area. Among the existing solar access programs which will be studied are those being implemented in Grants Pass, Deschutes County, Springfield, Ashland, Corvallis, Creswell, Portland and Salem, Oregon and Pasco, Kent and Spokane County,WashingM. PUBLIC ATTITU©E SURVEY: A public attitude survey will be conducted to determine the attitudes of the metro area population regarding the current and future use of solar energy and providing solar acoess rights to properties. PRE-TEST OF RECOMMENDATIONS: The recommendations of the Project's Steering Committee will be field-tested before they are presented to Planning Commissions and elected bodies for public hearings. This will make it possible to identify any modifications to the recommendations which should be made before they are implemented. t: _ PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES Public involvement activities form the foundation for the project. Numerous public involvement activities will be conducted throughout the project. LOCAL GOVERNMFN BRIEFING Regular quarterly briefings at public meetings of Planning Commissions and elected bodies will be held to keep the decision-makers for each local government apprised of project progress and give them a direct opportunity to provide feedback to the project. ACTIVITIES WITH REGIONAL INTERESTGROUPS A series of public involvement activities will be held with regional development sector trade associations, citizens groups, and individual interested parties. These will include home builders, land developers, architects, designers and remodelers. These activities will ensure that those people who would be affected by a regional solar access program will have the opportunity to directly contribute to the development of that program. ACTIVITIE WITH LOCAL INTEREST GROUP Another series of public Involvement activities will be held with Interested parties at the local level. PROJECT COMMITTE TR T j�E-, Each of the 21 local governments has appointed Project liaisons from their staff, Planning Commission, and elected body to serve as the primary communication links to the project. These people will be responsible for forming a consensus regarding the type of solar access program which should be implemented. A Steering Committee will be appointed from the Project Uaisions. The Steering Committee will appoint technical committees to oversee project research and the development of ordinances. The technical committees will be comprised of project liaisons and private citizens, including members of the development community. PROJECT NEWSLETTERe A quarterly project newsletter reporting on project events x and soliciting feedback from interested parties will be published. PUBLIC HEARINGS Workshops and public hearings will be held with Planning Commissions and elected bodies in each of the 21 local governments after the project liaisons and various committees have formulated a consensus approach to implementing solar access in the metro area. TRAINING AND TECHNI eI ASSISTANCE A thorough training and technical assistance program for both local government staff and the private sector development community will be provided before the solar access program is Implemented. This will help to ensure the efficient implementation of the program. IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALU TION CThe solar access program will be carefully evaluated during its first year of Implementation identify any areas of the program which need to be fine-tuned. to PROJECT ACTIVITIES AND TIMELINE ® ® 1088 4TH OTR IST OTR 2ND CTR 3RD OTR 4TH 071111 ( IST GTR 2ND OTR 3RD CTR 4TH DTR RESEARCH RESEARCH - Sunchart Survey - Pre-Test -Energy Savings Modeling Development Redesign Existing Development Codes - BGRS/Portland Ordinance Study Experience of Other Governments Public Attitude Survey PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PUBLIC HEARINGS - Briefings with Planning Commissions & Elected Bodies - Planning Commissions - Activities with Regional Interest Groups - Elected Bodies Activities with Local Interest Groups - Regular Public Project Committee Meetings Project Newsletter TRAINING & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE IMPLEMENTATION & EVALUATION CONSULTING TEAM PROJECT MANAGER MIKE MCKEEVER LOCAL REPRESENTATIVES CAROLE CONNELL MARIEL AMESS LARRY EPSTEIN •WASHINGTON CTY 'CLACKAMAS CTY 'LEGAL ANALYSIS FOR •BEAVER-RM •CANBY ALL 21 GOVERNMENTS CORNELIUS •HAPPY VALLEY •FORESTGROVE •LAKE OSWEGO 'LOCAL REP.FOR •BARD •MILWAUKIE •GRESHAM 'OREGON CITY 'CLARK COUNTY •FAIRVIEW •WEST LINN 'MULTNOMAH CTY •TROU DA E •WILSONVILLE •VANCOUVER •ST.HELENS •SCAPPOOSE c SPECIALISTS AL BENKENDORF DR.DAN LEVI •NEW DEVELOPMENT REDESIGN •PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN •LAND DEVELOPER PUBLIC INV. 'PUBLIC ATTITUDES SURVEY BRYAN BOE GREGORY ACKER •SOLAR SETBACK STUDY •ARCHITECTURE WORK •HOME BUILDER PUBLIC INV. JEFF CHRISTENSEN JEANNE MCCORMICK •SUNCHART PHOTOGRAPHY 'STEERING COMMITTEE C. LES TUMIDAJ BACK-UP SOLAR ACCESS PRESENTATION Don Moen - It's time for our solar lesson, yes? Yes, laughter. Keith Liden - It's time for our solar lesson and we have Carol Connell here with us, she's a Beckendorf Associate and she's one of the consultants working on a metropolitation wide solar access study that involves 22,23, (21) jurisdictations and the idea of the study is to come up a common base and for eventually adopting ordinances at the local level for some sort of protection for solar access, now I' ll let her get into her presentation. I'm afraid that I've held you over tonight, we had a problem with our slide projector. I knew we had one and asked if we still had one and the answer was yes, so I didn't worry about it till this afternoon and it is gone and tried to get a replacement and that one blew up. So, President Moen - Should have told me I could have brought one. Comm Butler - Where's your maintenance force? Your maintenance team. Carol Connell - The slides are basically background of the project, where it came from. Probably &lot of it you either know or at this hour maybe you are not that interested in. But I could just give you a few brief high points of that and then we'll just get straight to really the land use issues are. When you get down to developing solar codes, if in fact you end up deciding to do that. It is a 21 government project, that is in itself is going to be a major ' feat to try and come up with some consistent set of codes, and I don't think SOLAR ACCESS - PAGE 1 k i k that has been done before. obviously, you are not obligated towards the model that will come out of this study, it's a two year study and we're are about four months into it. But anyway, we will be presenting to you a different stages of these two years, the research results, the preliminary ordinances ideas and suggestions, and evidently working towards some common denominator standards that. . . . President Moen - Which jurisdicitions are they, I mean just roughly. 4 f Carol - That was one of the slides, 21 of them, 9 are in Washington County r including-no that's not right--okay let me back up. a President Moen - You don't have to give the exact, just roughly. . . Carol -- Well, okay there's about 6 Washington County cities in Washington County. Hillsboro is not in it, Forest Grove, Cornelious, Tigard, Beaverton, Washington County, and then Vancouver, and Clark County, Gresham, Troutdale, Fairview, and Clackamas County, Canby, Happy Valley, Miiwaukie, Lake Oswego, Oregon City. . . . . President Moen - Mostly suburban. . . Carol - oh yeh. . President Moen - Not the city of Portland? Carol - City of Portland has an ordinance already, it's been effect for about a year and so it's definitely the outlaying metro area communities. V SOLAR ACCESS - PAGE 2 f s i E Comm — Multnomah County? Carol — Multnomah County, the four counties, the Clackamas, Multnomah. . . . c t Carol — I'm sure I've missed a couple there. Comm — That , fine. Carol — That's really the, nearly 21. And the roots of the whole project are really coming from three different levels of government. Federel levels, the NW Power Planning Act, I don't know if you have heard of that much lately, although Norma Paulus was just appointed to that council by Goldschmidt, which was an interesting appointment. Anyway, it's a NW Power Planning Act is heavily involved in conversation solar access being one means for achieving our energy and electrical needs in the future, definitly conservation being the least expensive means, that is the thurst of the NW Power Act. State enabling legislations specifically refers to energy conservation even talks about solar access authorizes the city to go about developing codes to protect solar accesses, legally authorize. And, of course, your own comprehensive plan would be the local level, and I think you have your own policies that refer to it. The State Energy Offices are the ones that put this project together, they applied through the BPA. BPA received the funding through the provisions of the Power Act so it's all kinda woven into the energy planning field. Consultant team was hired that's made up of planners, energy planners, - and specialists in the building and architecture and solar field solar sun chart photography and so on. So it's a big team, we will be doing a public , attitude survey, we will be reviewing other ordinances both in the state and x in the country to learn some state of the art ease in getting through solar x SOLAR ACCESS — PAGE 3 access review. And what else are we doing? Energy model, determining how much solar access is out there through the use of sun chart photography and then actually turning that into a dollar figure, what is the worth, what will it be worth in the future as you build new communities and make it an economic issue as much as we can. Bottom line is is it's an energy conservation issue when taken on a large scale like this it can have a big impact, that's the purpose of the project. When you start looking at the specifics you can see they get really legal, political, and complicated and if you keep in mind the big picture is energy consevation. Comm Newman - This is practical manner you have to exuse me if I leave in a few minutes but why, what are the kind of situations where this would be revelant that really aren't already covered by our residential code. For example, you've got this residential area that's single family homes and maybe there's four of them to an acre. Well, nobody can build a 5 story house to start with so why, how is there going to be any impedance of any solar access. How's that going happen? The only thing I can see here when you got a maybe an industrial zone next to a residential zone or close to it they get the residential people get to have some effect upon how high a building can be close to them, other than that, what else would it be? Carol - The provisions we are looking at are for residential areas only. And what are the minimum lot sizes here? I'm sure they go down to 7000. Comm (Several) - 3250, some are 3500 Carol - 5 OK, that's what we are talking about, shading problems. SOLAR ACCESS - PAGE 4 Comm Newman - I have a house kitty-corner from mine, there's a house on the corner, I'm a lot here, this lot here? The corner of the house nearest to me is four and half stories above the ground. I Comm Newton - Four and a half stories? ' t topographyhere is President Moen We're talking abou Part of it. 4 Comm Newton - It happens that I'm a south facing slope, so in fact I have to , turn my heater on today. But, but if I happen to not be on a south facing slope I mean there, their main floor is above my roof. Comm Newman - Well then, OK then that's the only possibility, are we going to w tell people that that's basically. . . . . . . . Comm Newton That's the point of all this. President Moen - That's what she going to tell us about. Comm Newman - In our residential district it is very simple, very easy to build two houses within our current code, one of which will totally shield the other one. Comm Newton - And you would agree to the idea that some code might prevent that house from being built. Comm Newman - I don't know. SOLAR ACCESS - PAGE 5 President Moen — That's what here about. Carol — Let me. . . . President Moen — Go for it. Carol - Let me before you have to run out (conversation fades). I think we can basically get to the problems are through the model. Now, hopefully, alleviate some of those concerns . . . . . . . . every instance can't build a house on a lot (conversation fades) that's going to far. Now, one issue in all this land use issues we have to deal with needs to be (some one close to mic coughed can't hear what was said) the other issues, but there are things you can do at the front end. Basically you don't know a think about and quite a bit of it's an educational deal. OK. This is a kind of a standard grid subdivision layout the lots are 50 by 100, 5000 square foot lot and fairly typical in the metro area, but probably at the small end. There are two situations here, you've got an east west running street in this case, a north south street running street and so these three different areas have different kinds of solar access availability. The sun in this diagram is in that direction and this is the angle of the sun December 21st at 9:30 OK. Lowest point in the sky and of course, you know who it works. January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December; that is how it works. And this is what 23 and half degrees above the horizon that's how low it gets. So, the houses here are meant to show typical 16 foot single story home, 24 foot two story, 35 foot three stories typically in residential zones maximum height allowed. If 2 story (fades) problem. Looking at this block first and what I'm doing here is showing you the plain, .. ' and when thing protrudes through that plain then and you've got a problem, SOLAR ACCESS — PAGE 6 that's what we're demonstrating (fades). But in this case, on this side of the block all these houses are facing to the south, they have very good solar access all the way across here. For one very good reason, and that is the street happens to be in an ideal level. There's not going to be any intrusions. Even (jumbled) 3 story house across the street it doesn't even really come close to blocking it. This is the right way to face a house if your interested in getting solar access and solar energy. You have the street next to your house, obviously, there is no tree at this point (jumbled) . OX, the lots in this case too are north south length in the right direction so you have the ability to sift back and forth easily in the right direction. So crossing the street you have the same kind of north south lots but they are back to back in this case and not quite as nice down the street there and the access to this house, let's say we have existing subdivision with a few vacant lots. Somebody comes in for a building permit, you decide that solar access is important to you. The city, you have some provisions that, that house be reviewed when it comes in so doesn't take the staff long to get the house approved in the back yard. Well there are some things you can do. Two story house will have no problem here. Especially in the design of the roof, this is a hip roof verus a gable roof and there are things you can do such as that to avoid any shade to that house. One story, no matter where it is on the block, what kind of roof shape or which way the house is pointing is not going to make any difference. Plenty of room there. A 3 story house on the other hand, this is not going to be easy. Running into problems. If you moved it, set back issue, but still clear up to the front, still can't quite do it. If you turn the roof line in that direction which also helps solar access to this house, this provides more roof space the south and it makes a difference you're not going to destroy the ability for somebody to have system now or in the future and the future residents maybe interested in it as well. I don't SOLAR ACCESS — PAGE 7 know if you are familiar with the protocal tapeogoly but there is a ???? that not cost effective today but eventually may be able to create. . . Comm — Give the government subsidize it the way the nuclear. . . Carol — We may be able to turn our lights on ??? solar generation in the future. That's (foreground noise) so (jumbled) looking at future options as well as designing houses in consideration of what the effect it will have on the neighbor. OK. This is a pretty recent situation here again this is a matter of set backs, roof orientations, and heights. Those are the issues you and up looking at at the building permit level. This block is a problem, the house is facing east and west and are narrow in the north south direction. So there is very little you can do to start with. You' ll be looking at provisions both for an internal type -situati�,rj as well as new designs in planning of new layout in subdivision to avioid alot of these problems at very early design stages. But you can see, well obviously a 3 story house (jumbled) 2 story house is also a problem, and when we turn it (jumbled). Even a one story house doesn't fully open south wall access to that house. Now some of the jurisdictions will say, well this angle is to restrictive, there are things you can do to just maybe raise the angle January 21 (jumbled) that becomes the days standard and allows more flexibility in what goes on in these lots and probably does not lose a whole lot of energy in (jumbled) most of the year (fades). City of Ashland does the same thing, end of January standard, and another way of looking at it is maybe we can not always protect the south wall of the building maybe but if we can (jumbled) protect the south roof which raises that angle up again to another level. So the standards have to be flexible if you are going to get involved in this. Because, of course, we talking about it (jumbled) north slope, things get much worse and imagine SOLAR ACCESS — PAGE 8 the whole thing tilted in that direction shadows much longer. There has to be variations in the way (jumbled) provisions to provide for those differences. (jumbled) here. (jumbled) . North slopes over 20-25% which is the example, ¢ etated, you're not going to get any solar access Areas that are heavily veg unless you just cut dawn all the trees, and sometimes that not the primary goals. The standards that you have seen may appear at first kinda complex but ve flexibility in a varitey o it's meant be, it is that way so that you can ha situations that may exist. And to decide which is a guarantee for building, (jumbled). City of Portland, for instance, says no matter what solar access or anything you can put a 24 foot high building in the middle of the lot, so that their bottom line. So in dealing with building per se and light layout of the site plans and subdivisions, after doing the same same thing (jumbled) issues are the lay out of the came here so 1 may be rummy at t►lis point. The lots in orientation, (design issue), height of buildings, design of the roof, and set backs. Now another complication comes into this is trees, and trees �. conservation in some are actually regulated for purposes of energy communities. It's kind of a Political issue too. We're sensitive about trees, since they are a natural part of our environment. There are things that can be done to minimize the problem (jumbled) to make it easier for everybody. The first thing to plan there is solar, (jumbled) and trees are not exclusive in providing some ammenties for shading in the summer. But if (jumbled) situation this house, they thing they are going to get solar energy and put up some collectors and that tree is there, they've made a big mistake obviously. Some of the questions that will come to me are - should this tree be grandfathered or is the conservation so important this tree should be trimmed or removed? Sante Fe, New Mexico has such a code, this tree is old, tall, evergreen that have to taken out (jumbled) conservation opportunity. That's one issue, should an existing tree be grandfather. Second issue is how SOLAR ACCESS - PAGE 9 about a tree that is there but does not protude to that plain, but it eventually does. Does this person have some rights to their solar (jumbled) access and if so how do you regulate it? Treat with fairness, who pays for trimming (jumbled). (jumbled). Well ordinances are in existence today that provide for that. Gave some kind of legal protection by the city (jumbled) within that plain, whenever that plain ends up being. The tree that protudes will have to be trimmed. The costs will be shared (jumbled). The other issue, of course, is the trees, any tree not planted yet and that too would be protected through this plain of solar access south to north. So that's really is the basic, the concept and my role to you is to be your own representative (jumbled ) project (jumbled) concerns to meetings like this but also through liaisons (jumbled) and . . . On a more regular basis and (jumbled), and in stages (jumbled) to get ( input from you and start presenting some ideas. Comm Newton — Couple of thing a, you said, just in passing you said that somebody has an ordinance of 24 foot, you can put a 24 foot house, high house anywhere? Is that the highest point of the house? Carol — Highest point of house in the middle of the lot. Comm Newton — The other thing. . . . "R Carol —(Jumbled) r Comm Newton — The theory is that you are going to come up with something like -' a uniform solar code like the IUPBC sort of? Available for adoption? SOLAR ACCESS - PAGE 10 Carol - If, when you make something simple enough and uniform enough (jumbled) Obviously there will be variations (jumbled). President Moen - One of the things you (jumbled) evaluate the impact is as far as how much improvement you can actually get from enacting such a code? You've got certain limitations with the housing right now, lot size so on, lot orientation, I guess given the fact that we have one issue is trees I don't, in the NW I question whether you are going to be able to legislate the removal of trees. In given just even that fact, how much benefit are we going to be able to get by enacting such a . . . . Carol - We' ll be able to . . . . . President Moen - That's one of the things you are going to evaluate. Carol - We are doing 400 randomly across the metro area center (jumbled) go to the houses gather detailed information where the houses are oriented, are the windows on the side, what kind of insulation do you have, how many hours of sun are they getting (jumbled). President Moen - So, one of the things I imagine you would be encouraging is lots that are oriented north south oposed to east west. Things like that. Carol - One thing we are doing is taking some old plats, not old plats, but existing plats, in my office for instance, we have designed the capability for (jumbled) couple of (jumbled) plats and see how they might have been redesigned for increasement of solar lots. We have done one already and if you look side by side (jumbled) chance to see these, really (jumbled) see any sr" SOLAR ACCESS PAGE 11 difference. Increase in the amount of solar lots was like 30% to 75%, significant by just doing some modifications in the layout. (jumbled) resident of (jumbled). Comm Newton — A lot of this impact too is coming to come from heighten level of awareness from builders and home buyers. In Cooper Creek and whatever they call (jumbled) down by there, the whole thing next to the high school. It is pheonomenal, first of all that whole thing almost is a south slop- And it is just beautiful for south exposure. And because some of the major streets run north south because of the lay of the land there are pheonomenal number of lots that are east west lots that have perfect southern exposure. And there are very few houses that any windows on the south side. Which would not have cost any more money, would not have changed any of the lot plans or anything. They just got build with windows to the street, which is east and west. Our house is one of the few houses with southern glass. And once we put appropriate shades on the windows so we could regulated the light coming in and the heat coming out; our heat bill literally dropped from, we moved in just before winter, we are using a third of the energy that we used last winter, just by regulating the shades. Carol — I want to emphasize too that (jumbled) . . . . Comm Newton — This is not a solar house we live in. Carol — (jumbled) approach to this (jumbled) awareness (jumbled) educational more than anything. As you build something like this into your codes it might come off as a little heavy handed, on the one hand as the community gets used f �.. to it (jumbled) educational period (jumbled) . x SOLAR ACCESS — PAGE 12 Comm Owens- Do you find in communities where they already have a code that f' developers are becoming used to it? Carol - Yes. Ashland has had theirs the (jumbled) longest in effect, six years, I think. And we did a survey on (jumbled) builders only. 90% of the builders said we like it (jumbled) and the other thing was the number of energy conservation, energy efficient homes being built really increased (jumbled). People knew they had the opportunity for one and knew they were protected and realized the benefits (jumbled). The City of Portland, just a couple of figures here, of the first year 455 building permits, they had (jumbled) request on the solar issue, which (lots of jumbled talk), President Moen - OK, good Carol - Any other questions? (jumbled) President Moen - I think the only comment I have is I just have, some many things that go into building a subdivision and how you have to lay out a house (jumbled) concern, I guess, my concern is not over burden the developer and the property owner with whole string of undue regulation. I would be inclined to lean towards keep it simple approach if at all possible. Comm Newton - It may be that what really will end up or should be the case is that plannin staff on the City just have to have a person who is very well versed on this, who can consult with developer. Carol - (jumbled) They call (jumbled). r SOLAR ACCESS - PAGE 13 Comm Newman - Orientating lots north south versus east west in most developments is really a matter of preference anyway. It is not a matter of topography, usually. It not an owner burden. Having been a contractor, I know it is alot times just a matter of preference, it really, same amount of lots. Carol - (jumbled). Comm Owens - So what is the next step? Carol - We are into research (jumbled). (inaudible talking) President Moen - Maybe our slide projector well work. Thank you. 0530W --o-r SOLAR ACCESS - PAGE 14 �. aC4. MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council January 30, 1987 FROM: Loreen Wilson, Recorder SUBJECT: Council/Budget Committee Meeting Calendar The following meeting dates and times are for currently scheduled through July. Please note that the Mayor, with the common consent of Council has cancelled the February 16, 1987 City Council Meeting; this meeting is rescheduled to TUESDAY, February 17, 1987 so that a workshop may be held with the Planning Commission. DATE MEETING LOCATION 2/9 Monday 6:30 Study Session;7:00 Business Agenda THCR & TH 2/16 Monday MEETING CANCELLED 2/17 Tuesday 6:30 Business Agenda/8:30 Workshop — THCR Planning Commission 2/23 Monday 6:30 Study Session/7:30 Business Agenda THCR & TH 3/2 Monday 7:00 Executive Session 3/9 Monday 6:30 Study Session/7:00 Business Agenda THCR & TH 3/16 Monday 6:30 Study Session/8:00 Business Agenda THCR & TH 3/23 Monday 6:30 Study Session/7:00 Business Agenda THCR & TH 4/11 Saturday 9:00 AM Council Workshop THCR 4/13 Monday 6:30 Study Session/7:00 Business Agenda THCR & TH 4/20 Monday 6:30 Study Session/8:00 Business Agenda THCR & TH 4/21 Tuesday 7:00 Budget Committee THCR 4/27 Monday 6:30 Study Session/7:00 Business Agenda THCR & TH 4/28 Tuesday 7:00 Budget Committee THCR 5/4 Monday 6:30 Study Session/7:00 Business Agenda THCR & TH 5/5 Tuesday 7:00 Budget Committee THCR 5/11 Monday 6:30 Study Session/8:00 Business Agenda THCR & TH 5/12 Tuesday 7:00 Budget Committee THCR 5/18 Monday 6:30 Study Session/7:00 Business Agenda THCR & TH 5/25 Monday MEMORIAL DAY HOLIDAY 6/8 Monday 6:30 Study Session/7:00 Business Agenda THCR & TH 6/15 Monday 6:30 Study Session/8:00 Business Agenda THCR & TH 6/22 Monday 6:30 Study Session/7:00 Business Agenda THCR & TH 6/26 Friday Council Training Workshop 6/27 Saturday Council Training Workshop 6/28 Sunday Council Training Workshop x- 7/13 Monday 6:30 Study Ses3ion/7:00 Business Agenda THCR & TH 7/20 Monday 6:30 Study Session/8:00 Business Agenda THCR & TH 7/27 Monday 6:30 Study Session/7:00 Business Agenda THCR & TH r.= F„ cw/4474A rCt.' ;- MEMORANDUM ��VV CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council February 2, 1987 FROM: Loreen Wilson, City Recorder SUBJECT: Five Year Financial Plan This document was submitted for your review at the January 27, 1987 Budget Committee meeting and is being placed on the Consent Agenda as a receive and file item only. cw/A258A 'a R e g E y 7 �s 100) CITY of T CARD (� I� OREGON c7 cr�c>�t� .. TABLE 1.2 STAFFING i SERV.. LEVEL SUMMARY 100) DEPARTMENT c BUDGETED ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ADOPTED REVISED P1907-08 P1"14'ED PROJECTED 1P19904E0 p BION 9� 01-42 198243 its" 9t 5 19IS-46 91 66-87 9th 7=it 1901-89 }�� ---� POLICEe• btisorn (1:Poo) 22(1:723) 22(1:823) 2(1:466) 2(1:904) 24(1:691) 27.5(1:800) 27 5 1:789) 100(1:750) 3100(1:783) 10(1:400) 11(1:727) o Y1OMn 7 7 31(I) 34 5(II) 37(II) 40(II) 40(II) 40(EI) 55(II) PD TOTAL 29(III) 29(II) 29(II) 29(1) COMMUNITY SERVICES: - 3 3 3 3 3.5 4 Administration - 6 7 7 6 7.25 10 11 10.5 11 Support Services 3.75 6 6 6 6 7 10 �nanee L Acct. 3 4 4 4'S S 14(II) iS.25(II) 19(II) 20(1Y) 21(II) 25(II) CS TOTAL 6.75(I) 10(II) 10(II) 11.5(II) 12(II) MUNICIPAL COURT: 1.25(II) .5(I) 1(II) 1(I) 2(1I) 2(11) 2.25(II) 3(II) 3(II) 3(II) 4(II) LIBRARY: 7(12) 5.75(1) 6(I) 6(I) 7.75(I) 9(II) 10(11) 11(II) 12(11) 13(EI) 15(11) COMMINITY SERV. 44 45.25 46 47.5 52.75 59.5 64.5 73 75 77 99 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 4 3 4 5 5 5 5.5 Administration 2.75 4 4 4 - .5 1 1 1 1 Devit. Services - - -" - 5 S.S 5 5 5 6 Building 4.25 3 2.75 3.75 4 S 6.75 0 8 0 8 Planning 3.5 2 2 2.5 4 8 g 8.5 - 4 3.5 6 7 7 8 Engineering 0.5 6 7 _ 2 2 2 2 2 2 Public Works Opns. - -- -- * 3 3 3 Support Serv. 2.5 -2.75 3.25 3.25 4.25 3* 5 5 5.5 6• 7 Wastewater 6.25 3.25 5.25 5.75 S 5 5 6 6,5 7 8 2.75 4.25 4.75 6 4.5* 5.5 6 6 Streets 2 2,25 1.25 1.75 2 * 6 6 Parks & Bldg. 29.75(1) 29.25(I) 35.25 ZI 40.5 II 44.25 IIT 49 III 50 III 51 III 55 II O0N1M)NITY DEV._ .•33.75(IV) 26(1) CITY ADMIN 2 5(II# 4(III) 3 S(III) 3(III) 3 5(III) 3(II) 3(II) 3(II) 3(II) 3(II) 4(II) TOTAL STAFF FTE 00.25 75.25 79.25 79.75 91__5 103 111.75 125 128 131 15B 23500 24000 32000 21500 22500 POPULATION (7/1) 15200 17300 19200 19000 20500 22000 STAFF:POP.RATIO 1:190 1:230 1:230 1:238 1: 11 225 1:213 1:192 1:180 1:164 1:113 1:2 SERVICE LEVEL III I I I I II II-III II-III II-III II-III II IV = City (W.C.) Average I = Essential Core Level V = Full Service II = Limited Service III = Basic Service 0343W TABLE 8 1 RE1iEplx' SUMMARY ADOPT ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL 1981-82 ' 1982-03 1983-84 1984-85 198"6 ADOPTED PROJECPROJECTED pROJEp pRpCIED 1906-87 1997-8@1999-89 1989-90 - 1990-91 1,040,015 612,728 090,464 757,797 926,116 GENERAL FUND 396,632 438,903 403,963 515,417 565,6!9 Taxes 1,607,500 1,761,200 1,068,900 1,989,600 2,621,900 240,040 204,635 392,529 555,477 582,051 FfO1p Other Agencies 494.000 691,000 691,500 59,400 55,651 70 684 Fees C Charges 540,000 702,000 @55,000 378,750 449,779 468,020 591,2046 941,264 Fines t Forfeitures 655,OW 605,000 555,000 555,000 Franchise Revenue 146,000 151,000 161,000 171,000 201,000 49.000 42,927 47,112 203,773 174,568 790,000 839,000 077,000 916„000 1,295,000 181,129 29,259 49,917 36,491 Use of Money t Property 54,000 154,000 164,000 Other Revenues 45,000 108,000 154,000 104,000 7,662 111,000 113,000 116,000 96,895 State Subventions 881000 County Subventions 40,900 Charges for Current Services 116,249 Non-Revenue Receipts Recovered Expenditures 2,513,543 2,065,751 2,302,030 2,707,667 3,293,790 SUBTOTAL: GENERAL FUND 3,676,500 4,349,200 4,478,400 4,599,600 5,748,900 216,065 293,392 409,655 964,528 TOTAL:2,282,616 2,595,422 3,117,322 4,259,319 FUND 00 BALANCE 6 ,000 1,100,000 1,064,964 900,000 500,500,000�: 14090 4,276,500 5,449,200 5,543,364 5,499,600 6,248,900 6, 106,545 110,921 109,731 105,916 FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING 18 69 Frac Other Agencies 40,000 Use of Money t Property 146,890 106,545 110,990 109,731 105,916SUBTOTAL FEDERAL REV. SNARING y i 4.859 22,946 8,122 FUND BALANCE 40,000 106,563 115,848 132,677 114,038 TOTAL: 40,000 597,354 SEWER FUND 339,537 442,508 531,973 503,437 10,3@1 17,540 16,855 16,734 Charges for Services 595,000 618,000 620,000 623,000 763,000 597,354 349,381 460,04@ 516,82@ 616,171 Use of Money t Property 20,000 20,000 20,000 111,767 16,090 107,270 263,722 SUBTOTAL: SEWER FUND 615,000 20. 7 20,000 FUND BALANCE 100,000 640,000 643,000 703,000 461,685 476,138 656,098 863,093 TOTAL: 275.000 !00,000 990,000 738,000 640,000 643,000 783,000 1407F/0003F :H�i. 3116!i1nM7'C'i. k4 TABLE 2.1 MENU--E SUMMARY r' ADOPTED. ACTUAL ACTUAL. ACTUAL ACTUAL ADOPTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED 991-62 1982-03 1983-94 1964-45 1985-66 DESCRIPTION 198647 1987-98 1908-09 1989--90 199041 STORM DRAINAGE FUND 128,195 138,495 230,405 275,669 Charges for services 280,000 470,000 480,000 495,000 600,000 1,566 1,356 2,718 3,306 Use of Morey i Property 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 129,761 139,151 241,203 270,495 SUBTOTAL: SETTER DRAINAGE FUND 290,000 480,000 490,000 505,000 610,000 92,183 60,243 41,139 FUND BALANCE 70,000 20,000 129,781 232,034 301,446 320,134 TOTAL: 360,000 500,000 490,000 505,000 610,000 p 223,229 STATE TAX STREET FUND 260,091 200,586 326,009 373,610 From Other Agencies 350,000 528,000 5S2,000 576,000 768,000 2,558 22,029 8,672 Charges for Services 1,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 5,000 4,730 1,577 20,421 22,989 Use of Money 6 Property 20,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 223,229 264,821 291,721 368,459 405,479 SUBTOTAL STATE TAX STREET FUND 378,000 545,000 568,000 591,000 763,000 22,794 72,575 113,979 168,308 FUND BALANCE 62,000 55,000 287,615 364,296 482,438 573,707 TOTAL 440,000 600,000 568,000 591,000 783,000 93,262 COUNTY GAS TAX FUND _ 72,843 76,904 81,363 305,553 From Other Agencies 330,000 88,000 92,000 96,000 128,000 1,704 4,110 5,004 3,111 Use of Money 4 Property 2,000 2,000 21000 2,000 93,262 74,547 81,014 86,367 308,664 SUBTOTAL: COUNTY GAS FUND 330,000 90,000 94,000 90,000 130,000 4,170 47,932 44,103 10,397 FUND BALANCE 70,000 10,000 78,717 128,946 130,470 319,061 TOTAL 400,000 100,000 94,000 98,000 1301*b00 521,615 COUNTY ROAD LEVY FUND 577,943 48,966 26,080 21,068 From Other Agencies 2,500 21500 36,159 42,170 16,617 51185 Use of Money 6 Property 500 500 521,615 614,102 91,136 42,697 26,253 SUBTOTAL: COUNTY ROAD LEVY FUND 3,000 3,000 192,359 589,417 224,459 114,348 FUND BALANCE 67,000 17,000 806,461 680,553 267,156 140,601 TOTAL 70,(00 20,000 1407F/0003F • j , t a'. r 'f r TABLE 2 1 REVEMUE SIxM1ARY ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ADOPTED PROJECTED PROJECtEO PROJECTED PROJECTED ADOPTED ACTUAL 1916-t7 1907-t8 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1981-01 1982-03 1983-44 1984-t5 1905-06 DESCRIPTION 941,534 STREETS SOC FUND 80,043 114,003 285,097 267,660 Charges for Services 200,000 266,000 332,000 400,000 500,000 45,002 19,433 13,057 15,613 U �fRew°noes Property 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 449 210,000 276,000 342,000 410,000 S10,000 941,534 133,945 132,436 299,403 283,273 SUBTOTAL: STREETS SOC FUND 250,000 100,000 630,963 90,623 198,863 282,591 FUND BALANCE t60,000 376,000 342,000 410,000 510,000 764,808 223,059 498,266 565,164 TOTAL 74,969 PARKS SOC FUND 75,000 100,000 10,580 22,630 73,760 66,690 Charges for Services �, '0• �'� s 7,926 9,271 14,061 5,301 Use of Money t Property 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 55,000 55.000 65,000 80,000 105,000 74,969 26,506 31,901 07,041 71,991 SUBTOTAL: PARKS SOC FUND55,000 20,000 71,500 09,238 94,594 145,651 FUS BALANCE 110,000 75,000 65,000 80,000 IU5,000 _j 90,006 121,139 162,435 217,642 TOTAL _ 10,213BOND DEBT. 138,931 394,178 Taxes 295,000 264,105 266,945 263,845 260,790 164 Use of Money C Property 1,000 138,831 394,342 SUBTOTAL: BONG DEBT 296,000 264,105 266,945 263,645 260,790 10,213 36,E 1,215 FUS ®GLANCE 296,000 300,000 266,945 263,845 260,790 10,213 130,931 395,557 TOTAL SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FUND 162,653 Special Assessments 523,932 400,000 375,000 325,000 -. 248,699 300,230 301,946 213,995 Use of Money 6 Property 4,521,000 2,076,068 2,000,000 1.000,000 1.000,000 775,749 469,964 467,195 361,269 Other Revenue 1,025,648 770,202 769,141 575,263 SUBTOTAL: SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FUND 4,521,000 162,653 222,854 1,036,220 1,356,877 1,490,015 FUND BALANCE 4,521,000 2,600,000 2,400000 1,375,000 1,325,000 1,248,502 1,806,422 2,126,018 2,065,270 TOTAL 1407F/0003F y TABLE 2.1 REaE1rUE SUMMARY ADOPTED ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL. ACTUAL ADOPTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED 1981-t2 1902-43 1983-84 1984-85 198"6 DESCRIPTION 1916-87 1987-48 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 BUILDING FUND 2,219,831 204,658 63,888 Use of honey & Property 2,219,831 204,659 63,848 SUBTOTAL: BUILDING FUND 2,219,431 1,611.289 FUND BALANCE 22.000 2,919,631 2,424,449 1,675,177 TOTAL 22,000 5.187,901 9,663,648 10,457,646 11,509,350 TOTAL ALL FUNDS 11,485.500 101758,200 10,409.309 9,465,445 10,755,690 1407F/0003F • • :s . i TABLE 2.2 REVENUE - HISTORY AND PROJECTIONS AlfOPTE6 ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ADOPTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED 1981-62 1982-63 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 DESCRIPTION 1986-87 1987-88 191949 1989-90 1990-91 GENERAL FUND Taxes 528,078 577,314 820,518 671,594 735,552 400 Current Taxes 1,532,000 11621,800 11719,100 1,822,300 2,431,100 20,000 32,311 67,933 85,794 90,564 401 Prior Year Taxes 75,000 139,400 149,800 166,300 190,800 169,783 113,135 2,013 409 402 Other Tax Revenues 500 t From Other Aoencies 87,707 1,106 32,340 404 Federal Grants * * * * * 9-1-1 State Tax * 65,000 66,000 67,000 80,000 38,150 37,903 38,017 37,522 47,541 410 Cigarette Tax 45,000 88,000 90,000 92,000 120,000 136,650 136,022 131,793 121,464 134,506 411 Liquor Tax 1351000 154,000 157,500 161,000 210,000 103,979 120,244 109,392 102,070 99,460 412 State Revenue Sharing 105,000 120,000 125,000 130,000 160,000 7,662 7,876 1,363 9,116 9,475 414 State Grants 1,000 1,000 11000 1,000 1,000 30,146 34,786 24,398 23,251 28,994 420 Hotel/Motel Tax 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 70,000 22,835 21,664 20,942 39,717 16,775 421 County - USA 19,000 18,000 17,000 16,000 15,000 74,510 79,302 78,058 182,277 194,599 422 County -WOCLS 154,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000._. * Unbudgeted direct transfer to Fire District in prior years... 1407F/0003F is rf . K• 1 ii } I 1 q . TABLE 2 2 REVENUE - HISTORY ass PROJECTIONS ADOPTED ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ADOPTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-8S 1985-86 DESCRIPTION 1986-+97 1987-88 1958-89 198 1990-91 Fees t Charges 66,000 63,744 67,727 57,090 60,145 4tO Business T&K 90,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 150,000 30,865 42,434 86,392 12.358 431 Mechanical Permits 100,000 100,000 90,000 80,000 70,000 143,000 93,192 104,101 176,044 18S,385 412 Building Permits 180,000 200,000 180,000 160,000 140,000 44,797 59,589 90,040 106,833 411 Plans Check Fee 70,000 100,000 90,000 80,000 70,000 4,688 6,679 5,815 3,210 434 Alarm Permits 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 3,889 5,797 5,481 8,603 43S Other Permit Fees 7,000 8.000 8.000 6,000 8,000 81,167 97,104 436 Street Com. Permits 30,000 100,000 90,000 80,000 70,000 54,804 431 Plumbing Permits 20,500 14,084 64,454 12,675 8,947 437 Subdivision Fees 1 ,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 2 17,000 15.488 24,953 16,350 2,428 438 Zoning Fees 2,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10.000 40,000 1,334 3,045 1,200 439 Sorer Inspection Fees 2.000 25.529 440 Other Planning Fees 12,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 4,978 442 Street Lighting Fees 300 441 Zone Change Fees 41,540 7,576 13,758 23,223 16,405 451 Misc. Fees t Charges 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Fines i Forfeitures 59,400 47,941 58,177 114,689 148,305 455 Fines i Forfeitures 130,000 135,000 140,000 150,000 175,006 7,710 12,248 18,803 18,780 456 Indigent Defense 15,000 15,000 20,000 20,000 25,000 259 548 S26 457 Library Fines 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1407F/0003F 1 i TAM 2 2 ft-wm -MIRY M PRONCTION ADOPTED ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ADOPTED PRO.*ECiEO PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED 1981-82, 198243 1983-14 99t4-t5 1985-86 DESCRIPTION 1966-87 1987-88 199849 1989-90 1990-91 Franchise_Revenue 525000 550000 825,000 475,000 500.000 525,000 , 200,000 234,987 247,697 3261252 645.815 460 Electric 130,000 145,000 150,000 1551000 200,000 63,750 78,004 78,762 104,733 131,534 461 Cas 120,000 125,000 130,000 135,000 175,000 84,000 102,SS8 111,754 106,468 114,303 462 Telephone 45,000 45,000 47,000 50,000 65,000 29,000 33,929 29,105 40,949 34,644 463 4 Taxi 46 300 712 20,000 24,000 25,000 26,000 30,000 10,944 14,968 465 Cable (CAB OC , 2,000 Use of "0.01 t Prope 150,000 100,000 50,000 150,000 160,000 4,000 4,000 49,000 34,301 38,012 95,373 167.918 470 Interest 4,000 4,000 4,000 8,626 9,100 8,400 6,650 472 Rental �- Old City Nall other_Revenue 5,000 5,000 3,000 5,000 51000 4,000 830 2,531 2,150 11,539 477 Donations/Gifts 27,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 36,900 4,618 5,180 27,039 16,642 476 Other Revenues 68,000 71,000 73,000 76,000 4788 other Contracts 15,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 116,249 65,649 21,548 20,728 8,310 479 Recovered Expenditures 1407F/0003F TOME 2 i REVENUE- Nt T ANO PROiF p*WEp P80� PROMCTEO PROJECTED MlOPTE�' • ACTUAL ACTUAL ACIUALADDPACTUAL � }9�1-12 l9tl-/2 98� 84 5 1185-Ri OESGRIPTxOM 1916-i7 1 t -it 1988-89 91 8990 1996-91 2,J07,667 3,293,750 SUBTOTAL: GENERAL Ftl110 3,676,500 4,349,200 4,478,400 4,599,600 5,748,900 2,191,389 2,065,751 2,302,030 FUS BALAI�E 600,000 1,100,000 1,064,964 900,000 500,000 322,154 216,865 293,392 409.6S5 964,828 2,513,543 2,282,616 2,595,422 3,117.322 4,251.278 SUBTOTAL: CENE8A1 FU3f0 4,276,500 5,449,200 5,543,364 5,499,600 6,248,900- (169,683) LESS: TOYS, LiF. AND B/W LEVIES , TOTAL: CITY ONLY 4,276,500 5,449,200 5,543;364 5,499,660 6,248,900 2,343 860 2,282,616 2,595,422 3,117.322 4,258,278 1407F/0003F t.° }, is 4 4 P' i f iiiC 4 2 ecacwerr IhIS'TORY AM PROJECTIONS ADOPTED PROJECTED P903ECTED PROTECTED PROJECTED ADOPTED ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL � 6 �� 94 7 1987-6t 1988-t9 1969-90 1990-91 1981-t2 • 82 } 1 -� Aswan! Code: YO Federal Rev. Sharing Fwd - 20 From OtMr Aeenn:its 000 106.945 110,921 109,731 105,916 405 Federal Revenue Sharing 40• Federal Subvention, 120.060 Use of Monev/Promrty 300 It 69 470 Interest 120,360 106,563 110,990 109,731 105,916 SUBTOTAL: FEDERAL REV. SHARING FUND 40,000 16,530 -0- 4,854 22,946 8,122 FUND BALANCE 146,090 106,563 115,848 132,677 114.038 TOTAL: FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING FUND 40,000 - 1407F/0003F i 1 f TOLE 2 2 REVENUE - HISTORY AND PROJECTIONS ppG)p�TED ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ADOPTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED 1981-82� 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1915-86 DESCRIPTION 1986-87 1987-49_ 1408-8 1989-90 1990-91 Account Code: 21 State Tax Street Fuel - 21 From Other Agencies 203,550 260,091 280,586 326,009 373,618 413 State Gas Tax Shue 350,000 528,000 552,000 576,000 768,000 Charges for Services 5',000 5,000 2,558 22,029 8,872 442 Street Lighting Fees 8,000 7,000 6,000 Use of Monev/Promrty 20,000 10.000 10.000 10,000 10,000 6,000 4,730 8,577 20,421 22,989 470 Interest Recovered Expenditure 10 Other 209,560 264,821 291,721 368,459 405,479 SUBTOTAL: STREET STREET FUND T 378,000 545,000 568,000 591,000 783,000 13,669 22,794 72,575 113,979 168,308 FUND BALANCE 62,000 55,000 223,229 287,615 364,296 482,438 573,787 TOTAL: STREEETT T� 440,000 600,000 560,000 y 591,000 703,000 1407F/0003F V BASLE 2 2 REVENUE - HISTORY 00 PROJECTIONS ADOPTED pBOJECTETE D PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED ADOPTED. ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL 19 6-97 1917-18 199849 1989--90 199041 IMANAccount 1911-1� 1912-43 1993-44 1984-85 198"G 22 - County Gas Tax Fuel - 22 From Otlear Aoancias 330,M0 19.000 92.000 96,000 128,000 7S,ftO 72,943 76,904 11,363 305,SS3 423 County Gas UK Use of " ay/ProwrtY 2.000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 1,900 1,704 4,110 5,004 3,111 470 Interest 77,500 74,547 91,014 86,367 308,664 SUBTOTAL: COUNTY GAS TAX FUND 330,000 90,000 94,000 98,000 130,000 15,762 4,170 47,932 44,103 10,397 FUND BALANCE 70•000 10•000 _ 93,262 78,717 128,946 130,470 319,061 TOTAL: COUNTY GAS TAX FUND 400,000 1001000 94,000 98,000 130,000 1407F/0003F O TABLE 2 2 REVENUE- HISTORY AND PRO7ECTIOI� ADOPTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED ppOpTEp � ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTuAD ACTUAL DESCRIPTION 1986-87 1987-8891 t8-89 1989-90 1990-91 1 8p 1-t2 1982-83 1903-94 19044S 191"-A pont Coda: 23 County Road Levy Fund - 23 From Other Aoaxles 2,500 495,365 577,943 48,966 26,060 21,068 424 =ty Maintenance i Repair Tax 2,500 use of f-10-m-ILP-ro-Mr-ti 500 500 , 26,250 36,159 421170 16,617 5.185 470 Interest 521,615 614,102 91,136 42,697 26,253 SUBTOTAL: OOUNTY ROAD LEVY FUND ;,OpO 3,000 192,359 589,417 224,459 114,348 FUND BALANCE 67,000 17,000 _ 5211615 806,461 6804553 267,156 140,601 TOTAL: COUNTY ROAD LEVY FUND 70.000 20.000 1407F/0003F TABLE 1 a kf8t0RY ARm PROJEcTj aDjECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED ADOPTED PRS P 19f7-88 ACTUALgj8.89 1989-90 192Q=9-1 PT ON �----- ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL 198 1982-03 1983-14 98 5 1 8 6 Account Cade: 30 Sewer Fund - 30 Chamt90,000 80,000 70,000 s for Services tetet) 90.000 100.000 10,000 10,1000 443 Bawer Con+ection Fees 10.000 10,000 10,000 3,000 3,000 46.335 56,045 136,826 113.074 tion Fees 3,000 3,000 95.300 11.135 14,635 444 P.N. inspection 3,000 517,000 530,000 680,000 10,450 4.834 8,430 445 Charge In Lieu Of Assessment 492,000 rS',� 7.971 446 Sower Service Charges 300.190 288,368 378.033 376.041 455.728 20,000 Use of rt 20,000 20.000 20,000 20.000 16,855 16,734 470 Interest 20,016 10,381 17.540 Recovered Eaoendi_ture Other 10 638,000 640.000 643,000 783,000 ' 425,966 349,918 460.048 548,!28 600,171 SUBTOTAL: SSR FUND 615,000 FUND BALANCE275,000 100.000 ' 171,388 111,767 16.090 107,270 263,722 (PRORATM) 783,000 -- SEWER FUND 890,000 738,000 640.000 643.000 597,354 461,685 476,138 656,098 863,893 TOTAL: 1407F/0003F j Si } .4 ' j jj _I TABU 2 wl JAM ►RW64t_� ADOPTED pRon= PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED ADOPTED ACTUAL ACMAL ACTUAL ACTUAL DESCR19/5-17 1917-tt 1988-19 9i 09-90 19"41 1981-82 1202-43 1911-84 9iHg }�f15-i6 Account QOM 31 Stora Drainage Fund - 31 s o"'afes-- or��W370,000 380,000 395,000 500,000 128,195 128,74S 145,915 155,431 447 Storm Drain Service Charges 10000/0 000 1001000 100.000 100,000 100,000 9.750 92.500 449 Storm Drain SOC 120,25# 450 S.O.C. Storm Drain Use of Money/Property 470 Interest 10,000 10,000 10.000 10.000 10,000 1,S86 1,356 2,711 3'306 471 Interest From Other Sources 474 Other Rsvelwe 290,000 480,000 490,000 505,000 610,000 129,711 139,651 241,203 278,995 SUBTOTAL: STORM DRAINAGE FUND - 92,183 60,243 41,139 FUMD BALANCE 70,000 20,000 129,781 232,034 301,446 320.134 TOT505,000 610,000 AL: STORM DRAINAGE FUND 360,000 500,000 490,000 1407F/0003F SAB} 2 2 REVENUE- MMORY ABO PROJECTIONS ~ ADOPTED ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ADOPTED P903W gD PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED 14 1-82 1902-8 1903-14 191445 1915-06 DESCRIPTION 191647 1 R�7-4B 1989-89 1989-90 1990-91 Account Code: 40 Special Assessment Fund - 40 Use of Money/Property 451 Other Charges for Service 17.000 06,302 65,017 64,451 34,476 470 Interest 19,135 163,517 235,221 233.495 472 Interest from Other Sources 179,519 471 Interest - Assessments Other Revenues 474 Bond Proceeds 4,000,049 21000.000 2.000,000 11000,000 11000,000 ;• 775,749 469.964 467,195 361,268 475 Bancroft Collections 520,951 425,000 400,000 375,000 325,000 • 62,000 476 Assessment Collections 471 Assumption Fee 016 479 Recovered Expenditures 98,135 1,025,648 770,202 769.141 575,263 SUBTOTAL: SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FUND 4,521,000 2.425,000 2,400,000 1,375,000 1,325,000• 64,518 222,054 1,036,220 1,356,877 1,490,015 FUND BALANCE 162,653 1,246,502 1,006,422 2,126.018 2,065,278 TOTAL: SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FUND 4,521,000 2,425,000 2,400,000 1,375,000 1,325,000 5 1407F/0003F f 1 TABLE-2.2 REVENUE - HISTORY AND P003ECT- MS ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ADOPTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED ADOPTI19 Y 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1ACTUAL DESCRIPTION 996-87 1987-98 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 Account Code: 50 Building Fund - 50 use of Money/Property 19,831 204,658 63,888 470 Interest 2.200.000 474 Bond Proceeds 471 Other Interest - Civic Center , Bonds/Coupons Transfers In 2,219,831 204,658 63,888 SUBTOTAL: BUILDING FUND 2,219,831 1,611,289 FUND BALANCE 22,000 1,800.000 2,219,831 2,424,489 1,675,177 TOTAL: BUILDING FUND 22.E 1407F/0003F t look TOE 2 2 REIIENUE - HISTORT MR1 PROJECTIONS ADDp p ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ADOPTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PR03ECTED PROJECTED 19t1-f2 19Y2--t3 1983-t; 19"s X85-/6 DESCRIPTION 1966-R7 1987-it 19 9-89 1989-90 1990-91 Account Code: 51 Street SOC Fund - 51 Charges for Services 140,140 99,043 114,003 285,997 267,660 448 S.D.C. - streets 200,000 266,000 332,000 400.000 500.000 use of Money/Property 52,000 45,802 18,433 13,057 15,613 470 Interest 10,000 10,000 10,000 10;000 10,000 Other Revenues 449 478 Other Revenue 192,140 133,845 132,436 299,403 283,272 SWTOTAL: STREET SOC CHARGE 210,000 276,000 342,000 410,000 510,000 749,394 630,963 90,623 198,863 282,591 FUND BALANCE - 250,000 100,000 5' 941,534 764,808 223,059 498,266 565,863 TOTAL, STREET SDC CHARGE 460,000 376,000 342,000 410,000 510,000 1407F/0003F ?. 7,? TABLE 2.2 Mom - HISTORY A1R1 PR03ECROR4 ADOPTED•' ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ADOPTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED 1941-S2 1962-42 1943-04 1!4-45 1995-86 DESCRIPTION 1"647 1907-00 1988-A9 1989-90 1990-91 Account Coda: 52 Parks SCD Fund - 52 Charge for Services 1,400 37,200 B.O.C. - Par# N1 12,450 29,490 S.O.C. - Park N2 18,580 226,300 73,780 449 S.O.C. - Parks 50,000 50,000 60,000 75,000 100,000 Us* of Money/Property 2,000 Interest - Park S1 500 Interest - Park 02 7,926 9,271 14,061 S1301 470 Interest 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 24,150 261506 31,901 27,841 711991 SUBTOTAL: PARKS SDC FUND 55,000 55,000 65,000 80,000 105,000 ._ 50,419 71,500 89,238 94,594 145,651 FUND BALANCE 55,000 20,000 74,969 98,006 121,139 182,435 217,642 TOTAL: PARKS SOC FUND 110,000 75,000 65,000 80,000-- 105,000 1407F/0003F y �f. th^^ m y :...e s + eeuertlC NI61T1Rr ANQ VR07QC2�0� PROJECTED AM= ACTUAL ACTUACTUAL ACTUAL. � AL 19B7-St 9S P1 -�- 1j52• toorZ Accounts Code- 60 Bond Debt - 60 axe 261.000 264.105 266,945 263,545 260,790 "- 136.131 394,175 4401 cu. iorr��Taxes 34.000 use of rm"VIPro»erty i 000 164 470 Interest 1' Collections on Bondi interest 10,213 13S,S31 394,342 SUBTOTAL: BONA DEBT 296,000 264,105 266,945 263,845 260,790 10,213 ,, 1,215_ Ftm BALANCE 35,895 13S,S31 395,557 TOTAL BOND DEBT 296,000 300;000 266,945 27+3,845 260,790 10,213 ' 1407F/0003F -- u K4. i J i k TOLE 1.s DEPARTMENT E. ,IDITURE SU!W1RY ADOPTED ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ADOPTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED "lost-621982-031983-841284-45 1985-16 DESCRIPTION 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-r90 1990-�91 (46.25). (45.25) (45.75) (47.5) (52.75) Community Services (FTE) (64.5) (73.0) (75.0) (77.0) (99.0) 1,035,360 1,024.880 1,130,715 1.178,701 1.382,169 Police 1,718,500 1,809,514 1,907,220 2,030,710 2,965,241 155,176 308,879 370,839 303,105 339.816 Community Services 489,300 593,468 627,831 714,345 897,736 37,461 25,156 38,066 64,132 56,994 Municipal Court 92.000 121,607 125,813 131,309 182,460 133,409 149,435 173,490 179,895 365,863 Library 303,630 331,962 369.755 412,407 487,339 76,383 17,015 17,845 35,000 social Services 40,000 39,200 39,200 39,200 39,200 1,437,797 1,525,365 1.730,955 1,725,840 2.180,542 TOTAL: COMMUNITY SERVICES 2,643,430 2,895,821 3,069,819 3,347,971 4,571,996 (21.75) (26.0) (29.75) (29.25) (35.25) Community Development (FTE) (44.25) (49.0) (50.0) (51.0) (55.0) 74,055 118,105 140,232 151,705 127,928 Administration i Projects 157,000 197,689 204,690 213,775 247,971 127,998 104,360 84,138 99,017 125,479 Building i Codes Enforcement 191,430 171,797 186,331 185,084 252,543 94,896 64.097 65,507 65,724 110,537 Planning 240.710 282,321 293,298 307,177 339,065 352,010 347,798 381,766 287,949 178,542 Engineering 314.805 346,327 358,323 373,903 425,514 64,907 66,395 11.744 81.519 121,164 Support Services 162.000 203,828 210,651 219,567 235,648 296,007 121,571 124,829 147,689 119,665 Melte Mater 215,000 233,314 257,423 284,630 354,219 445,000 485,528 527,007 573,222 742,858 801,911 128,502 149,110 178.032 374,040 Streets 137,839 67,927 53,030 82,435 79,143 Parks i Buildings 170.000 180,559 188,022 197, 221,837 1.957,353 1,019.455 1,130,356 1,101,270 1,306,498 TOTAL: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1,902,945 2,101,362 2,225,745 2,354,6622 1 2,819,655 (2.5) (4.0) (3.5) (3.0) (3.5) (3.0) (3.0) (3.0) (3.0) (4.0) 100,074 154,184 155.271 163,609 165,877 Policy Administration 187,000 190,102 197,262 206,410 279,882 262,266 435,507 306,721 367,770 767,266 City-Mid* Support 550.000 613,900 601,312 615,776 679,032 (77.50) (75.25) (79.0) (79.75) (91.5) SUBTOTAL (FTE) (111.75) (125.0) (128.0) (131.0) (158.0) 3,757,510 3 134 511 3,323,303 3 358 489 4,420,183 SUBTOTAL OPERATING BUDGET _ 5,203,375 5 801 185 6.094,138 6,524.778 8,350,565 172,866 212,282 449,545 710,366 797,154 Debt Services 8161951 788,040 --762,900 783,774 771,047 Capital Proje_c_t_s_ 916,612 664,627 518,105 967,651 1,908,580 CIP 973,500 833,0 $85,970 648,010 634,078 2,642,758 961,598 162,140 342,158 LID •.000.049 2,076,0000 7-000,000 1,,_648,000 11000,000 916.612 3,307,385 1,479,703 1.129,791 2,260,7-98 TOTAL: CAPITAL PROJECTS 5,790,500 2,909,011 2,585,970 1,648,013 1,634,078 Contingeney 438,274 Operations 811,625 195,000 46,301 58,883 Reserve 1,064,964 900,000 450,000 438.274 TOTAL CONTINGENCY 811,625 1,259,964 946,301 508,883 5.20 262 6,654,17S 5 252 551 5,198,646 7 468 075 TOTAL BUDGET 11,885,500 10,758,200 10-409-309 9,465,445 10 755,690 1407F/0003F L LC_ s_s 00%R M1E1f1' 1 17TlRE OETAIL ADOPTED ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ADOPTED PRO3EICTEO PR07ECTEO PROJECTED PR03ECTED 198142 1982-13 191"4 1904-0 1985-86 00-mPTION 1""-7 1987-se 1488-49 196 1990-91 COMMNIM SERVICE8 111-112-113-114 (29.0) (29.0) (29.0) (29.0) (31.0) Police Wwrt-wt (FTE) (37.0) (40.0) (40.0) (40.0) (55.0) 482,656 901,165 1,056,917 1,066,202 1,185,853 Personal Services 1,497,996 1,609,253 1,673,615 1,802,337 2,602,076 105,187 83,101 73,403 82,370 104,174 Materials i Suppliers 161,500 170,931 184,605 199,373 265,165 47,525 40,634 395 30,136 92,842 Capital Outlay 59,004 29,400 49,000 49,000 98,000 1,035,366 1,024,680 1,130,715 1,178,708 1,382,669 TOTAL 117181500 1,809,584 1,907,220 2,050,710 2,965,241 120-121-122-123-124 (10.75) (10.0) (10.0) (11.S) (12.0) Community Services (FTE) (15.25) (19.0) (20.0) (21.0) (25.0) 144,266 256,296 281,979 249,822 286,402 Personal Services 412,141 491,009 533,835 613,613 766,997 10,360 33,517 67,407 51,414 53,414 Materials t Supplies 73,659 77,959 84,196 90,932 120,939 550 19,066 21,453 1,869 Capital Outlay 3,500 24,500 9,800 9,800 9,800 155,176 308,679 370,839 303,105 339,816 TOTAL 489,300 593,468 627,831 714,345 897,736 130 (1.0) (.5) (1.0) (1.0) (2.0) Munich al Court (FTE) (2.25) (3.0) (3.0) (3.0) (4.0) 33,121 19,969 32,339 52,482 48,732 Personal Services 80,908 108,888 112,155 116,638 163,291 3,965 3,435 5,727 11,650 6,262 Materials 9 Supplies 11,092 11,739 12,678 13,691 18,209 375 1,752 Capital Outlay 980 980 980 980 37,461 25,156 38,066 64,132 56,994 TOTAL 92,000 121,607 125,813 131,309 182,480 140 (5.5) (5.75) (5.75) (6.0) (7.75) Library Departeent (FTE) (10.0) (11.0) (12.0) 0;10) (15.0) 98,199 114,323 136,860 131,287 171,158 Personal Services 228,061 253,222 284,521 320,551 388,359 7,530 7,987 8,782 9,426 34,747 Materials t Supplies 18,840 19,940 21,534 23,256 25,480 27,680 27,125 27,846 39,182 159,916 Capital Outlay 56,729 58,600 63,700 69,600 73,500 133,409 149,435 173,490 1791895 365,863 TOTAL 303,630 331,962 369,755 412,407 487,339 ISO Social Services 10,000 12,015 12,845 15,000 Materials t Supplies (Senior Center) 15,000 14,700 14,700 14,700 14,700 66,363 20,000 Materials•& Supplies (T.C.Y.S.) 20,000 19,600 19,600 19,600 19,600 5,000 5,000 Materials t Supplies (Miscellaneous) 5,000 4,900 41900 4,900 41900 76,363 17,015 17,645 35,000 TOTAL 40,000 39,200 39,200 39,200 39,200 (46.25) (45.25) (45.75) (47.5) (52.75) COMMUNITY SERVICES (FTE) (64.5) (73.0) (75.0) (77.0) (99.0) 1,437,797 1,525,365 1,730,955 1,725,840 2,160,542 PROGRAM TOTAL 2,643,430 2,895,821 3,069,819 3,347,971 4,571,996 sw , { _ .. 7 , TABLE 3.2 OEPARTM W EXPENDITURE DETAIL ADOPTED ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ADOPTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED 1981-�2 1982-43 198"41994-IS 19IS-ff COMPTION 1986-87 1987-68 198M19 1989-90 1990-91 Cy0fy9111iTY OEIIELOPMIEMT 201 (3.0) (4.0) (4.0) (4.0) (4.0) C.C. Administration t Prolects (FTE) (4.0) (5.0) (5.0) (5.0) (5.5) 71,430 112,245 131,814 147,049 113,695 Personal Services 128,636 173,118 178,311 185,443 210,936 21625 61152 8,218 4,656 14,233 Materials 6 Supplies 21,364 22,611 24,419 26,372 35,075 400 200 capital Outlay 7,000 1,960 1,960 1,9¢0 1,960 74,055 118,805 140,232 1S1,70S 127,928 TOTAL 157,000 197,689 204,690 213,775 247,971 Develonaent Services (FTE) (.5) (1.0) (1.0) (1.0) (1.0) 222 C.D. - Services (3.0) (2.7S) (3.75) (4.0) Building f, Codes Enforcement (FTE) (5.5) (5.0) (5.0) (5.0) (6.0) 114,298 1004729 79,230 92,606 117,948 Personal Services 173,190 158,921 163,684 170,230 214,490 7,050 3,631 4,908 5,269 7,530 Materials L Supplies 11,240 11,896 12,847 13,874 16,453 6,650 1,142 capital Outlay 14,000 980 9,800 980 19,600 127,998 104,360 84,138 99,017 125,479 TOTAL 198,430 171,797 186,331 185,084 252,S43._ 223 (6.75) (2.0) (2.0) (2.0) (4.0) Plarming (FTE) (6.75) (8.0) (8.0) (8.0) (8.0) 85,846 49,532 55,039 58,488 104,929 Personal Services 192,743 230,574 237,489 246,983 259,331 9,050 14,540 10,468 7,236 5,608 Materials 6 Supplies 47,967 50,767 54,629 59,2L4• 78,754 -O- 25 Capital Outlay 980 980 980 900 94,896 64,097 65,507 65,724 110,537 TOTAL 240,710 282,321 293,298 307,177 339,065 ' 224 (7.0) (6.0) (7.0) (4.0) (6.0) Engineering (FTE) (7.0) (8.0) (8.0) (8.0) (0.5) 192,875 162,827 193,985 124,092 146,345 Personal Services - 256,860 298,484 307,437 319, 356,698 129,760 170,278 184,639 158,793 13,801 Materials C Supplies 35,945 38,043 41,066 44,337373 59,016 29,375 14,693 3,142 4,264 18,395 Capital Outlay 22,000 9,800 91800 9,800 9,600 352,010 347,798 381,766 207,949 178,542 TOTAL 314,805 346,327 358,323 373,903 425,514 (16.75) (15.0) (15.75) (13.75) (18.0) SUBTOTAL: C.D. (FTE) (23.75) (27.0) (27.0) (27.0) (29.0) 648,959 635,060 671,643 604,395 542,486 SUBTOTAL: C.D. 910,945 998,134 1,042,642 1,079,939 1,265,093 SABLE 3 2 DEPAQTMEUr! Exp-e-M ItE DETAIL ' AOOFVED ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL. ADOPTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTEO 98142• 1902-111901-44 98 5 9#5-66DESCRIPTION 9�7 1987-88 , 198849 1989-90 199091 211 (2.25) (2.75) (3.2S) (3.25) (4.25) Support Services (FTE) (4.0) (5.0) (5.0) (5.0) (5.0) S7,447 64,811 76,605 81,009 116,752 Personal Services 147,150 165,661 191,227 198,876 208,818 2,460 1,449 3,734 4,496 4,412 Materials t Supplies 14,850 15,717 15,97A 18,331 24,380 4,600 135 1,325 3,014 Capital Outlay 21450 2,450 21450 2,450 64,907 66,395 81,744 08,519 121,164 TOTAL 162,000 203,828 210,651 219,657 235,648 212 (4.25) (3.25) (5.25) (5.75) (5.0) Wastewater (FTE) (5,0) (5.0) (5.5) (6.0) (7.0) 141,022 76,445 96,699 122,307 101,187 Personal Services 131,137 132,363 149,965 170,143 208,420 36,138 20,966 19,130 21,907 34,203 Materials & Supplies 76,863 81,351 07,058 94,887 126,199 119,570 24,160 9.000 3,675 S4.273 Capital Outlay 7,000 19.600 19,600 19,600 19,600 296.730 121,571 124,429 147,889 109.665 TOTAL 215,000 233,314 257,423 284,630 354,219 213 (1.75) (2.7S) (4.2S) (4.75) (6.0) Streets (FTE) (6.0) (6.0) (6,5) (7.0) (e.0) 46,966 71,599 107,499 140,656 I58,046 Personal Services 159,710 161,206 179,876 201,457 241,746 247,948 30,110 29,798 32,972 214,111 Materials i Supplies 269,390 205,122 307,931 332,565 442,312 514,004 26,785 61,013 4,404 1,883 Capital Outlay 15,900 39,200 39,200 39,200 58,800 8081918 128,502 199,110 178,032 374,040 TOTAL 445,000 485,528 527,007 573,222 742,858 214 (3.75) (2.25) (1.25) (1.75) (2.0) Parks t Buildings (FTE) (5.5) (6.0) (6.0) (6.0) (6.0) 80,779 43,768 34,817 36,665 53,245 Personal Services 112,535 123,909 127,625 132,729 139,361 20,210 18,729 18,213 17,270 23,230 Materials C Services 44,265 46,849 50,597 54,644 72,676 36,850 51430 _ 28.500 2,658 Capital Outlay 13,200 9,800 9,800 91600 9,800 137,839 67,927 53,010 82,435 79,143 TOTAL w.. 170,000 180,558 188,022 197,173 221,837 (12.0) (11.0) (14.0) (15.5) (17.25) SUBTOTAL: P.W. OPERATIONS (FTE) (20.5) (22.0) (23.0) (24.0) (26.0) 1.300.394 384,396 458,713 496,675 764,012 SUBTOTAL: P.W. OPERATIONS 992,000 1,103,228 11183,103 1,274,682 1,554,562 (28.75) (26.0) (29.75) (29.25) (35.25) Co m UNM DEVELOPMENT (FTE) (44.25) (49.0) (50.0) (51.0) (55.0) 1,957,353 1,019,456 1,130,356 1,101.270 1,306,496 PROGRAM TOTAL 1,902,945 2,101,362 2,225,745 2,354,621 2,619,655 .r "�4Y ✓ixtiexuii6s..,:.axe .:: r :-.,>a.::::.ix lt:N.i.. :r.,..t::' .- ':'iisc'r". i , ;� ,,.r. :,� .,e' ..... - _. TOOLE s e NCP T EXPER-01 IR$ DETAIL ADOPTED ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ADOPTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED 1981-42 1982-83 198344 X4;85 1"5-46 DESCRIPTYON 1986-87 1967-bB 1988-0 1989-90 1 POLICY L ADMINISTRAU N 310 City Council (FTE) 17,720 17,885 18,422 19,158 20,115 10,332 11,583 12,908 9,607 5,996 Personal Services 12,280 12,996 14,035 15,157 20,159 6,570 10,313 7,522 9,005 7,916 Materials i Supplies 885 282 Capital Outlay 16,902 22,781 21,312 12,612 13,912 TOTAL 30,000 30,881 32,457 34,315 40,274 (2.5) (4.0) (3.5) (3.0) (3.5) City Administration (FTE) 1413700 1433022 1473317 1533209 214,490 78,777 112,133 113,102 113,332 137,172 Personal Services 15,300 16,193 17,488 18,886 25,118 4,195 12,100 13,856 31,659 14,793 Materials a supplies 200 1,170 6,995 Capital Outlay 83,172 131,403 133,953 144,997 151,965 TOTAL 157,000 159,221 164,805 172,095 239,608 (2.5) (4.0) (3.5) (3.0) (3.5) POLICY t ADMINISTRATION (FTE) 1873000 1903102 1973262 2063410 279,882 100,074 154,184 155,271 163,609 165,277 PROGRAM TOTAL _ 410 CITY 4aDE SUPPORT General Governaant 12,752 21,189 7,196 Personal Services 242,834 327,717 217,661 303,065 427,804 Materials i Supplies 470,000 502,500 508,000 515,000 520,000 25.000 25,000 6,700 4,259 106 247,150 capital Outlay 262,286 353,765 224,963 303,065 674,954 TOTAL 470,000 527,500 508,000 515,000 545,000 ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Personal Services 81,742 811758 64,705 92,312 Materials i Supplies 801000 86,400 93,312 100,776 134,032 Capital Outlay 81,742 81,758 64,705 92,312 TOTAL 80,000 86,400 93,312 100,776 134,032 CITY-MIRE SUPPORT (FTE) 262,286 435,507 306,721 367,770 767,266 PROGRAM TOTAL 550,000 613,900 601,312 615,776 679,032 r Tarn c s s DEPIII MEW EXPENDITURE DETAIL ACTUAL ADOPTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED AQOPTkD ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL 0 7 1967-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 19 1982-83 1903-84 1984-85 1985-!6 OESCRIPTWON (77.50) (75.25) (79.0) (79.75) (91.5) (FTE) (111.75) (123.0) (126.0) (131.0) (158.0) 3757,510 3 134 5. 3,322,303 t 419 4 4 RA 0818 75 185 6,094,138 -6524,778 1350,56 5 DEBT SERVICES 212,102 449,545 236,503 276,503 Bad Debt 296,000 264,108 2b6,945 263,845 260,790 473,663 520,651 Special Assesssnnts 5201951 523,932 515,955 519,929 510,257 172,866 Other Expenditures ' 172,866 212,212 449,545 710,366 797,154 DEBT SERVICES PROGRAM TOTAL 016,951 789,040 762,900 753,774 771,047 ALL OTm; Cooitro "its 81,120 695,914 1,711,076 Civic Center/General 75,000 10,256 21,973 23,991 Sanitary Sewers 263,000 28,299 35,194 Stora Drainage 70,000 741,710 648,238 450,283 264,551 77,704 Streets 402'500 65,483 6,131 10,655 7,186 95,009 Parks 83,000 916,612 664,627 518,105 967,651 1,908,580 SUBTOTAL CAPITAL uVROVEPOIT PROGRAM. 973,500 833.011 585,970 648,010 634,079' .. 4,000,049 2,076,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 11000,000 2,642.758 961,590 162,140 342.158 LID PRbT CIS Contine�ency Federal Revenue Sharing 438,274 General Fund (OPUS) 195, 46,301 58,803 General Fund (Ras.) 563,000 1,064,996464 900,000 450,000 Sewer 87,938 Stora Drainage 11,387- State Gas Tax 58,600 County Gas Tax 80,000 Streets SDC 10,000 Parks SOC Road Levy 438,274 TOTAL 011,625 1,259,964 946,301 508,083 ALL OTHER 5,785,174 4,168,975 3,532,271 2,156,893 1,634,078 1,354,886 3,307,385 1,479,703 1,129,791 2,250,730 PROGRAM TOTAL 5,295,262 6 654 170 5,252,551 S 198 646 7,466,075 TOTAL BUDGET 11 895 500 10,758,200 10-409,309 9 465 A45 10 755 690 I r i CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council January 28, 1987 FROM: Doris Hartig, Assistant Community Services DirectoWk SUBJECT: Community Services December, 1986, Monthly Report Items that impacted the Support Services Division are as follows: South Metzger Annexation, increase in records requested in Records section, Municipal Court is in process of recruiting additional pro-tem judges, and increase in word processing work orders with decrease in average turn-around from 5.0 hours in November to 3.5 hours in December. The claims status report remains unchanged as no new claims were reported and no settlements were made in December. The number of purchase orders processed in December, 1986 increased over December, 1985 by 94%. Our recruitment notices receive a good response with an average of 63 applications per position. The low being 33 for a temporary position and high of 97 for the Crime Prevention Specialist. The Accounting Section converted the sewer master file to a tape so that I.P.M. could load directly into the utility system. This conversion was much more difficult than anticipated. The Acting Finance Director spent considerable time on the 5-year Financial Plan and the stalled Dartmouth LID. In summary, the request and need for support services activities has increased in all areas. i WORK LOAD INDICATOR'; s Oec. '85 Dec. '86 Expenditure Reimbursement Requests Processed * a 101 ° Purchase Orders Processed 50 97 Recruitments 3 5 Hires 9 4 Terminations 4 9 Unemployment Claims 0 1 Claims Filed: Workers Compensation - Liability (see attached report) 0 3 Checks Written: Accounts Payable 202 369 Payroll 275 367 Sewer Payment Received 1,488 6,682 Sewer Bills Sent 1,466 5,371 Name, Address, Changes 235 733 Cash Receipts 654 684 Word Processing Work Orders Received 165 454 Emergency Requests 36 215 Pages Processed 9,042 20,665 Average Turn Around 6.0 3.5 Telephone Calls 7,175 10,116 Walk-Ins 2,200 N/A Volunteer Hours 0 0 a Information not available sb:1253p10007p 01/09/87 CITY OF TIGARD CLAIM STATUS REPORT DESCRIPTION STATUS DATE OF LOSS CLAIMANT DESCRIPTION-- 10!01!84 Mary Strickland Alleges age discrimination open 08/21/84 George Kusiowski Ins. impounded clt's car closed (Officers Johnson, Ober, & Newman) 02/04/85 Fredric Nickel Criminal counter cpit. open (Officer Hal Merrill) 01/11/85 Harry Field Alleges False Arrest pending (Office Merrill) 07/20!85 Steven Bacon False Arrest (Officer Harburg) claim reopened 03!16!85 Julie B. Winkelman Wrongful Death perming 12/15/85 Ron & Peggy Cole Loss of jewelry - stolen Reopened after insured had possession 04/05/66 John Hutchinson Trees cut on private Pending property 07/25/06 R.A. Cutshall Bike hit cable in park path Pending y s. 01/31/86 David Fair Police negligence Open 04/06/86 Scott Fairbanks Code Enforcement negligence Open 09/19/86 Renata Collins Water damage-drain overflow Open problem E 07/10/86 Thomas Arnholtz Hit manhole cover open 08/22/06 Jerri Widner Alleges grievance re O.T.hrs. open 11!34/86 Michael Ryan) Damage to homes & contents open Ransom Boyce) due to flooding 1. (0886F/0019F) ��x CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: February 9, 1987 DATE SUBMITTED: January 29 1987 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: PREVIOUS ACTION: O M F O A Training Request Budget Adoption 1986/87 _— PREPARED BY: Donna Corbet DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OKE REQUESTED BY: Jill Manley/Wayne Lowry POLICY ISSUE Council has directed training requests over $100 be presented to them for approval on an individual basis. INFORMATION SUMMARY Included in the 1986-87 adopted budget, were funds to permit attendance at the Oregon Municipal Finance Officers Association Annual Conference in March, 1987. The total cost for the conference for both Jill Monley, Community Services Director/Assistant City Administrator and Wayne Lowey, Acting Finance Director to attend is $776. Also included for your information is the official training request and a copy of the conference agenda. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. To allow one person to attend. ` 2. To allow both people to attend. a. The intent to allow both people to attend this conference is that we need to improve Jill's allover awareness of financial issues and to help develop more skills in Wayne so he can fill the position to which he has been assigned. FISCAL IMPACT A budgeted item with funds to cover expenses. SUGGESTED ACTION Approve training request for both people to attend the Oregon Municipal Finance Officers Annual Conference. 1273p CITY OF TIOA RD EDUCATION/TRAINING REQUEST This form is to be used for conferences, seminars, college classes and other forms of either training or education. Documentation is required, a copy is to be attached to this form. Attachments for mailing may also be attached. A follow up report is required. A copy will be placed in your personnel file. DATE OF REQUEST: 1/21/87 Requested by: Wayne Lowry Vendor No. : (1) PAYABLE TO: [ ] Employee request attend Inn of the Te-v—e-n-tfi Mountain [ ] Employer required attend For check run of [ j Mail check [ ] Notify dept. when ready Vendor No. : (2) Vendor No. : (3) PAYABLE TO: PAYABLE TO:Wayne—Lowry Oregon Muni c a finance off kers ssoc. ox a em, OR 97308 sass:asasasasscssssssseas$asses:ssa:sa�maamaasaz:sazzsszasaass:sxssxa:ssssaaassms Title of Program: O.M.F.O.A. Annual Conference Institution or organisation Uregon Municipal Finance Utticers Association Registration Deadline 2/15787 Training Dates From: To: Describe the purpose: To improve skills and knowledge in the area of Local Government Finance and Accounting and to make contacts with other professionals in the field. Is this related to [ X ] current position [ J reasonable promotion or transfer? Explain: TRAINING COSTS: [ ] to be advanced [ j to be reimbursed after attendance Account No. Amount Registration or tuition...................... .. . 10-1210-6 500 8151.00 Books...........• .. ......... .... Travel (mileage, bus, train, airplane, etc.)... . 1Q-1 10-62400 85.00 Lodging...................... ............... .. .. 10-1220-62400_ 172.00 Per Diem........................................ Other: Total $ 408.00 ssssasassssssaasssmssassassssssssssssaszaaaasaasaazaaaaszssssaasaaasaasssaa:ass Authorizations: I(employee), understand and agree that if all conditions of education/training policies are not met, I may be required to reimburse the City for any expenditur s made n my behalf. Employee Signature: Ll e /.�_ Date 1/21/87 101/ 66 Appropriation balance:1210 $994 Manager: [ ] approved [ ] disapproved Dept. Head: ( j approved [ j disapproved (explain) : Finance Director: CITYOF T11FARD EDUCATION/TRAINING REQUEST CThis form is to be used for conferences, seminars, college classes and other forms of either training or education. Documentation is required, a copy is to be attached to this form. Attachments for mailing may also be attached. A follow up report is required. A copy will be placed in your personnel file. DATE OF REQUEST:1/26/87 Requested by: Jill Monlery Vendor No. (1) PAYABLE TO: Inn of the Seventh Mountain [ j Employee request attend ( j Employer required attend For check run of [ J Mail check ( J Notify dept. when ready Vendor No. : (2) Vendor No. : (3) PAYABLE TO: PAYABLE TO: Jill MonleV Oregon Municipal Finance Offers Assoc. P.O. Box 928 Salem, OR 97308 aasasssassssssaassasassssassssssssa a:saaasasaasssassasassassss c.:ss:ssssasssssssa Title of Program: O.M.F.O.A. Annual Conference Institution or organization Oregon Municipal Finance Officers Association Registration Deadline 2/15%87 Training Dates From:3/16/87 To: 3/18/87 Describe the purpose: Is this related to (XXJ current position [ J reasonable promotion or transfer? Explain: TRAINING COSTS: [ ] to be advanced [ J to be reimbursed after attendance Account No. Amount Registration or tuition........ . ............... . 10-1210-62500 _ (2) Books.......................... ................. Travel (mileagge, bus, train, airplane, etc.)... . 10-1200-62400 $ 85.00 (3) Lodging...3.0191 5.@.$0g..=.$IN.00........... .. 172.00 (1) Per Diem....................... ............... . . Other: Total $ 368.00 sasssssssasassassaasassssassasassssamsaassasassssa::sass=xsssssssmsasacsssaassa Authorizations: I(employee), understand and agree that if all conditions of education/training policies are not met, I may be required to reimburse the City for any expenditures made on my behalf. Employee Signature:4�2�Q- 5p Date 112 2.18 7 Appropriation balance:1900 17$32%anager: [ ) approved [ j disapproved Dept. Head: ( j approved [ j disapproved (explain): Finance Director: S PEAK=N G OF OP P ORTUN=TY March 16-18, 1987 Inn of the Seventh Mountain, Bend PrE1 imiraar Pro ram Sunday March 15 5:00 P.M. - Early Arrival Registration (Lobby) 6:00 p.m. Dinner on Your Own MQj&� ay March 16 8:00 a.m. - Registration for Conference (Lobby) 12:00 Noon 9:00 a.m. - Preconference Training Seminar: "Making Effective Presentations" 12:00 Noon Cost is $40 for this specialized class. Preregistration required. Lunch on Your own 12:30 p.m. - opening General Session 1:30 P.M. Presider: Kathy Field, oMFOA President; Administrative Analyst, Eugene Speaker: Thomas Briggs, Revenue Manager, City of Denver Topic: "Looking Ahead," a perspective on the future role and challenge for finance officers. 1:30 p.m. - BREAK 1345 P.M. Cot4CURPJ= SESSIo4S 1:45 p.m. - Getting Money in the Till 3:15 p.m. Speakers: RobertzMoore,gMoore andrBreithaptd James Breithaupt, Moore and Breithaupt As federal funds continue to diminish and state revenues become less cer- tain, revenues derived at the local level are critical to cities. Apart of this session will describe how Bend has successfully reviewed and updated fees for services. Trend information on revenue sources compiled from Its Itssurveys will provide another segment of program. other resources BGRS Including licenses and fees will be discussed to provide the audience with timely information on cities who are raising needed revenues locally. 1:45 p.m. - Getting to "Yes" 3:15 p.m. Speakers: Susan and Peter Glaser �. This workshop will help develop your skills in negotiating and consensus- building. Negotiation is a fact of life. Explore the techniques and atti- tudes used in win-win negotiation strategies by learning to get what you want and assisting others to get what they want. The speakers will address the elements of negotiation: preparation, goal-setting, exploring the interests of others, strategy development, drawing agreement out of con- flict, and negotiation evaluation. 1:45 P.M. - Bonding, from A-Z 5:00 p.m. Speakers: Charles Carter, U.S. Bank Harvey Rogers, Lindsay, Hart, Neil S weigler Jim Joseph, E.F. Hutton John Osburn, Miller, Nash, Wiener, Hager 5 Carlsen Everything--and more--than you've ever wanted to know about municipal bonding will be offered in this session: What are bonds? How are they defined? What covenants do they carry? What are registration requirements? n issue? Who are the What are the mechanics of floating and structuring a players? How are bond calculations done? How are ratings obtained? What are rebate and yield restrictions? 3:30 p.m. - Cost Benefit Analysis 5:00 P.M. Speaker: Wr.sren Wong The technip:%ea, assumptions and uses of cost benefit analysis will be explained. 3:30 p.m. - Communicating Financial Information to the Non-Finance Person 5:00 P.M. Speaker: Chuck swank, Touche Ross As finance officers, your achievements rely on the power to communicate and explain technical information to many who don't know a debit from a credit. Learn how to translate your information into understandable financial state- ments, how to use graphics, and how to present comparative information effectively. You'll even improve that next audit presentation. 6:15 P.M. - Get-Acquainted Reception 7:15 p.m-. 7:15 P.M. - "Saloon Night" Dinner and Dance 11:30 p.m. meets rribs, nd gold 000dWestern Relax Musicc. anCowboyenjoy orhearty cowgirlxhats and westernchicken boots welcome. Let's kick up some dusts , '£uesdaY arch 17 7x15 a.m. - Registration (Lobby) 9:30 a.m. 7:30 a.m. - oMFOA Breakfast and Business Meeting 9:15 a.m. Presider: Kathy Field, Administrative Analyst, Eugene The President will deliver her annual message and recognize distinguished members. Committee members will present their reports. The general membership will elect officers for 1987-88. CONCUMas,NT SESSIONS 9:30 a.m. - Economics for Finance officers 10:45 a.m. Speakers: Rebecca Marshall, Government Finance Associates John Mitchell, U.S. National Bank This session will provide the finance officer with a practical understanding how of assumptionsoincinterpretingaec nomictinformation available toeyouoblems and 9:30 a.m. - Productivity 10:45 a.m. Speakers: Parry Ankerson, Price-Waterhouse Richard Hill, Price-Waterhouse Productivity analysis gives finance officers a key to reviewing how effi- ciently and effectively government is managed. With eroding tax bases, inflation, demands for additional service, taxpayer resistance to increased taxes and (real or perceived) inefficiencies of government, productivity improvement is an important goal. What is a productivity improvement program? How can productivity be measured? What barriers are there to productivity improvement? Learn about the techniques. 9:30 a.m. - Conflict Management 10:45 a.m. 10:45 a.m. - BREAK 11:00 a.m. 11:00 a.m. - General Session 11:30 a.m. Speaker: Dave Fzohnmayer, Oregon Attorney General Topic: "Leadership and Communications" 12:00 Noon - General Luncheon 1:30 p.m. Speaker: Richard Townsend. Executive Director, League of Oregon Cities Topic: "A Commentary on the 1987 Legislative Session" CONCVRR1= SESSIONS v° 2:00 P.M. - Municipal Investments 3:30 p.m. z what are your alternatives for short, intermediate and long-term invest- ments? Where are interest rates going and how will they affect your decisions? How do the actions of the Federal Reserve Board create the investment environment? 2:00 p.m. - GASB Update . 3:30 p.m. Speakers: Coopers t Lybrand Jim Staley, Portland This session will focus on the review and discussion of accounting issues contained in several recent exposure drafts from GASB. in addition, the panelists will explain how to take advantage of the opportunity to comment on exposure drafts--and do it effectively. 2:00 P.M. - Issues in Bancrofting 3:30 p.m. Speaker: Daniel Anderson, Oregon Bank Most finance officers are familiar with the credit risk that a municipal corporation bears when it extends credit to LIDS through Bancroft bonding. But this traditional financing strategy often carries a different kind of risk that can force a bond issuer to levy taxes even if every assessed property owner meets every obligation in a timely fashion. Learn why this risk exists, how to measure it, how to avoid it in the future, and how to reduce existing risk exposure. 3:30 p.m. - Unscheduled. Exhibitors' displays will be open. 5:30 p.m. 5:30 p.m. - Cocktail Reception 7:00 P.M. ,y 7:00 p.m. OMFOA Annual Banquet and Dance �. Following a sumptuous dinner by candlelight, finance officers and their quests will dance the night away. Wednesday. March 19 r 7:45 a.m. - Breakfast and Roundtable Discussion 8:45 a.m. The focus will be on finance issues during roundtable conversations with the OMFOA Board and Committee members. CO"CURRzff SESSIONS 3 9:00 a.m. - Federal Tax Reform Aftermath 10:45 a.m. Big changes are in the works! Become familiar with new definitions for � municipal bonds and the constraints and obligations imposed an the various types of bonds as well as the impacts of the Act on the capital markets. The new rules will affect short-term debt issuance as well as choice of long-term debt instruments and your ability to refinance existing debt. The speakers will focus on how these changes affect your evaluation of financial decisions confronting you and aid in developing new strategies and responses. 9:00 a.m. - Tale of Two Cities 10:45 a.m. Speaker: Gone vaillancourt, SAIF This session will provide a comparative history of two cities with different approaches to worker safety, analyzing the management decisions and procedures that each city employed toward their objective. 9:00 a.m. - The Finance officer in Labor Negotiation 10:45 a.m. Speakers: Kathy Tri, Springfield Anne Pflug, Springfield Mike Snyder, LdPi Become familiar Lith labor negotiation techniques and methods, labor nego- tiation generally, and the opportunities and risks in the process. what is the finance officer's role? How do you develop and present useful informa- tion on a municipality's ability to pay and on comparability arguments? Case examples will be used. 11:00 a.m. - General Closing Session 11:30 a.m. Adjourn : The OMFOA Certification Committee will establish points for attendance and participation xrconference sessions for the Professional Financial Officers Certification Program. CITY OF TIGARD. OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: February 9, 1987 DATE SUBMITTED: January 28 1987 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: PREVIOUS ACTION: Transpertation Advisory Committeg.— Appointments fTA PREPARED BY: Donna Corbet _� DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN 0 REQUESTED BY: POLICY ISSUE Board and Committee Appointments INFORMATION SUMMARY Per Council Direction, the following individuals terms expired on December 31, 1986, and are to be re-appointed for a one year term: Thomas Sullivan, Bonnie Owens and Joe Schweitz. David Funk's term remains in effect through December 31, 1988. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED FISCAL IMPACT SUGGESTED ACTION Approve re-appointments 1274p RESOLUTION NO. 87- Page 1' CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: February 9_,1987 DATE SUBMITTED: February 2, 1987 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Amend Resolu— PREVIOUS ACTION: Resolution No 87-15 tion No 87-15 authorizing sale of dated 1/27/87 Refunding Bonds PREPARED BY: Wayne Lowry DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: POLICY ISSUE — ��INFORMATION SUMMARY See attached cover memo. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Amend Resolution No. 87-15 to reflect revised Exhibit "B" FISCAL IMPACT Amending Resolution No. 87-15 will allow sale to proceed as planned. SUGGESTED ACTION C_ 1. Staff recommends amending resolution No. 87-15. MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council February 2, 1987 FROM: Wayne Lowry, Acting Finance Director SUBJECT: Sale of General Obligation Refunding B ' Series 1987 At the Special Council Meeting of January 27, 1987, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 87-15 which authorized the sale of Advance Refunding Bonds to U.S. National Bank as the low bidder and set forth the bond maturity schedule on Exhibit "B." Later that day, our financial advisors noted an error in the maturity schedule that was not detected by their CPA's. As a result, Exhibit "B" of Resolution No. 87-15 must be amended to reflect the proper bond maturity schedule which will increase the bonds to be sold to $2,215,000 from the $2,190,000 previously approved by Council. The true interest cost and the selected low bidder will not change. In order to proceed with the sale and delivery of the Advance Refunding Bonds, Resolution No. 87-15 must be amended to reflect the revised maturity schedule. z. SOL ,s CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council January 26, 1987 ( FROM: Bob Jean, City Administrator ` y SUBJECT: DOWNTOWN FANNO CREEK PARK ACCESS VV Just as Council from time-to-time tests policy against real world personal experiences, I have a concern which I feel needs review, admitting up front my own personal interest in the matter. So, please consider the rest of this as a request from an area resident to review the City's plan for access to Downtown Fanno Creek Park! As you can see from the attached Fanno Creek Park Map, there is no approved access to the Park or Park Trails from the residential properties on the South. Clearly the parking spots off Chelsea Loop were intended for Park access, but no access was actually planned. The developer on his own put in a concrete = .dewalk connecting to the Park, but this was technically not allowed. A similar situation exists off Hill Street in the Chelsea II Subdivision (and hence my interest having just purchased a home there, assuming that I'd have access to the Park). The developer has said he'd grant a Park Trail Access over the existing Storm Drainage access easement between Lots 53 and 54 and pave the trail to the Park, if the City could assure him that they'd finish the trail across to the existing trail system. So far simple enough? However, the Planning Commission decided (contrary to staff's recom- mendation) against a Park access from Chelsea II. Meanwhile the Park Board Chairman has asked staff to look into the access issue, cost of a connecting trail, impact on the flood plain and possible inclusion in the next Parka CIP list. This however can't be done unless the conditions of the Plat are changed. I request that Council initiate a Plan Review as a City-wide concern since: o Fatiao Creek Park is intended as a City-wide Park, and as currently planned the Park can only be legally accessed off Hall (with no parking or turnouts) and from the Civic Center (with already inadequate parking) so South side access is needed; o The residents in Chelsea I and Chelsea II weren't living there yet and couldn't testify in favor of access; o The Park Board Chairman has asked that access be included in the Park Plan and FY 87-88 CIP; o An overall Plan for Fanno Creek Park was not available to the Planning Commission and now at least a Preliminary Plan is available; Page two Memorandum, Honorable Mayor and City Council January 26, 1987 o No other public South side access is available in Phase I of the Park, and the Phase II Park extension with the Ash Street access is Sr years away. RECOMMENDATION: It is requested that the Council initiate a review of the approved final plat for Chelsea Hills (S7-84) subdivision. The Council action will waive all fees and direct the Planning staff to notify all surrounding property owners in accordance with City notice procedures. Further, the Council formally calls up for review this resubmittal so that the Council, rather than the Planning Commission, may evaluate the proposed subdivision revision. It is further requested that the Developer be contacted immediately of Council's action so simultaneous efforts can be coordinated to tentatively hold the easement for Park Trail Access purposes before the Developer sells or builds on Lots 53 and 54, perhaps then forcing the City to condemn and pay for the Access easement presently available at no cost. BJ:mh Attachment E)vc rZedaMmen AIV& q j (�011�i►��{1loi� 11+lale �I�J�I� ,i1llil,l, ,{t ,!, Ijl t T(T m lit 1 i, ! __.__ ,11 , ►, � , , , , � 1 ,:,t , G,1 ' J =.�—��..�:.--._ti�.�__.�_,� l IIl 11l � I11 � 1l1i1 ! ' { ! NOTE: IF THIS MICRDFILMED ,�' _._ _.-._.....i 2 3 4• __. _ 5 7 8 fi ©o DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN , THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO - -- S • THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL z- - 0FE 6Z BZ LZ 92 SZ 42 E2 ZZ IZ 02 6f 81 LI 91 Sibl QI ZI 11 01 6 8 L 9 S16 e a j ,"190 ---MAAff"6 Gtrf( I� s� S.W. BURNHAM AVE LL g ®� CENTER U - d FANNO 0 pr% s � L y 116,5 V- PROPOSED FANN® CREEK PARK II p� „ OCTOBER, 1986 S.W. HILL ST. PARK BOUNDARY- PROPOSED -N- PARK BOUNDARY- ®®® JU = Z .0 11=200' 3 m I PREPARED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - Ir It► lEl Itriltt r ,�, .�I r�e Ilt t't 111 111 I'1 IPtITTtTijm[mlltIfttI(1lTjR91tIIy!�tlllttllitl"II"r��FtllltC�l(tllttlttlllfl�tt�l! tl�tlllt�f'tll�i�Iltllfl�Iillrlllitll►Ir�,frJttl NOTE: IF THIS NICROFILMEO DRAWING. IS LESS CLEAR THAN y. THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL -. DRAWING. 0£ 62 BZ LZ SZ SZ 9Z £Z ZZ IZ OZ >at 81 L{ 91 Sl 41 £I Z{MAIRCH 1990 � uNtl,u6mhudlul�lu,lwal,nl4{ir_�ntttt�,� ts�;�]rlltl�,tll=et�ll�+ ,rti�lpr ttu A HARRIS-McMONAGLE ASSOCIATES INC. 3 SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICA ENGINEERS-SURVEYORS ' Ci 2 I, WILLIAM L. McMONAGLE,FIRST BEING 12555 S.W, HALL BOULEVARD 0 m O Zi *. HAVE CORRECTLY SURVEYED AND MAF TIGARD.OREGON 97223 ;0 v Q c; CORNERS AND BOUNDARY LINE CHANGE °o� 3 -! IN THE ANNEXED MAP OF "CHELSEA HII S-47°01'52"-E 2^x36"GALVANIZED IRON PIPE 6"BEL( 1035 235.24' rn c�i a BEGINNING AT THE INITIAL POINT LOCA NORTH ® INITIAL POINT � a 3 Q IN CONCRETE MARKING THE N.W. CORN SET 2"x36"G.I.P. WITH 1/9"x30" I.R. ? of THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SA INSIDE WITH CAP STAMPED W.L.Mc. L.S.808 THENCE:AT RIGHT ANGLES TO SAID D.I 6" BELOW GROUND LEVEL � ��N F/° INITIAL POINT OF BEGINNING. THENCE: � 3' 65.90 w �3� 2 S-62 27'01"-E 149.70 FEET TO A POINT 09'16"-W 295.2 68.00 ? 0 O - 26� THE ARC OF A 140.00 FOOT RADIUS Cl; N-p8 51 p5' �° .0 I I ,F (THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS S-78°37 5310 O I I 179.00 FEET BEING TO THE LEFT OF T Q I I 89.36 FEET;THENCE: S-65°54'27"-E i 5718 3 0 `n I IN FEE Nb.79-047825 TO THE CITY OF 3 i .0 'I + FEET ALONG THE LAST SAID WEST LIN O p o 30 0 0 29 rn 28 3 I - THEREOF TO THE CENTER LINE OF S.W In m i� r" co +n i. • I ALONG CENTER LINE N-89°28'30"-W 4! N ci 32 N 31 N a N N a y40 K r ti iyI i FEET; THENCE: N-03°36'30"-E 273:47 g a M m - ^ '� °ryp �� 27 I FEET TO THE INITIAL POINT OF BEGINNI `o m a z 2 0 ;� I I CONTAINING 6.22 ACRES. p I I I 56.00' 52.00' 26.49' 0.38.00, ry I + SUBSCRIBED 9 SWORN .3 N � I ' _N I ��g, �? I I THIS//MrDAY OF P- N IP 15'PUBLIC STORM SWR. N I !`ss ESMT. i I NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND O0, - +0'0, i 60.00' 68.10' MY COMMISSION EXPIRE 0 O < 25 AAS PER O.R.S.92.070 (PAR.2), I, WILLIAMo 24 o O . ci •0 PROPER MONUMENTS OF STREET CENTEo o cv m °1co 00 m m 0 0. 2j.1 I o THIS SUBDIVISION WILL BE MARKED WITF z7.5' g I Y PAVING OF IMPROVEMENTS OR ONE YEAF iz zco 0' 160.00' 68.10' 90.00, w z RECORDATION,WHICHEVER OCCURS FIR: 5, I 1 b I , ACCORDANCE WITH O.R.S.92.060 N -0 36' 30" - E iv Q I + 3 ' 3 3 C I I I AFREis,.� ...,.. 0 + - 0 1 + 7RACiNG IS AN EXAC "' o o r 0 1 0 C\j0 13 N O 12 e o I I i cd 1 HE TYPICAL PLAT Lo ?� m \�� / Ito 15'PUBLiC SAN.SWR. co �a -'� L-ESMT h,-��AM L.NlchWK co 60.00' z 68.10' z 7.5 in , ESMT MH a I N-48 00'32"-E g_ _'�� CENTER LINE Cl 4.68' 61 C DE DELTA RADIUS )P 1 03°05'00" 500.00' N ' N �F�°ey 2 180°00'00" 115.00' 3,�52 0O 3 03°05'00" 500.00' 0'3 50.00'3 56.00' 22.10'3 ,2 61 s 4 3 4 ° 3�, ) ' 3 ;y s� 10 F I to �' LOT CURS o - m r 1 90°00'00" 20.00' O 6 in o 7 '`� - 8 ,0n �` J Q i9 nM �N I 03'05'00 175.00' z8 14°00'41" 140.00' 61 °� °' P Q) ^� °h' 9 13°43'00" 140.00' z z °p 17.00' coy 10 17°52'18" 140.00' 0' 50.00' 56.00' z 56.00' z 87.00' 4 11 90°00'00" 90.00' _ 18 03°05'00" 525.00' 2' Y9!•R.F7", r - ( IS 90°00'00" 20.00' 1y.0.o �8 I.R,F. t ESMT. ° 150.01 W.O.to' N-03°36'30"-E °42'51"-W 19 90 00'00" 20.00' 89 FEE NO.79-047825 21.68 05 19 03°05'00" 475.00' 26 90°00.00" 90.00' LEGEND 27 22°30'33" 140.00' 0 DENOTES POINT FOUND AS NOTED. 28 13°24'53" 140.00' 0 DENOTES POINT SET 5k"x30"IRON ROD WITH CAP 29 15°33'06" 140.00' STAMPED W.L.Mc. L.S.808 30 09°39'58" 140.00' 0 DENOTES CENTER LINE POINT PER ORS 92.070 TO BE 37 03°05'00" 525.00' SET 349"x30" IRON ROD WITH CAP STAMPED W.L.Mc. 37 90°00'00" 20.00' L.S.808,ANOS/VTE-toe COTCORNE,es. SET BOUNDARY CL Q 73°15'31" 140.00' I C0pY A it ( ( I i --1 I l 1 . 1��nfml I i �t R I 1.� 1 I I 111111 Ili�lelll111 11�1�l�11lalllll+I+nlililil�fiirillll�l�il�ll+I+I�I�I�I�IFn y NOTE: IF THIS MICROFILMED - 2 3 4 _ 5 6 7 $ 9 IPO 1112 r DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO - - T}E QUALITY OF TFE ORIGINAL DRAWING. oe sz ez �z-ai si._ az ei ziii-oz sr 61--ci _91 _Sr .i:i el Z1. 11__ of -6 e i --9 s b e z I°"'0" v gallmdunlunlwlllwl�u�I�oidgFl�n�ihl�IbtIfI1Nltulutlleu._ d�ntlu�danl �I�u�l�Iull�« IJ�n- IWI1WlIII MAR-CH 17 _ TON COUNTY, OREGON. �3 s AM GRAHAM D.L.C.#39 IGAR °o d PARK AREA 54 i �� 19 s s ; ss°�0�, INITIAL PT. °o. !y ! Ar` 00, 2"I.P.F. 6" BELOW SURFACE W/°� INSIDE CA -� IP 52 � 2 5$ o s°o, ° °o; t y�N y P OD SEE DETAIL THIS SHT. °F �h f�15 51 FOR INITIAL PT. �Q O ILS 55 o E-R REFERENCE N-75\858 � 130 43' \ a' a W 9f m 56 50 w o ` o vh 1n 2' ° =� o +., co 144.5 b I � - 1rN'o� a r ro 76'02'12"'W-R r Q N-85°06'01"-E-R 2= p v - y 128.24' In F;;�_ - F�o 5 7 0 i Oi• , ~ '� 147.19' `* C F9s Ste" Flo 0 to49 6' I � 9 N-86'01'43"-W-R m J S-84`37'46"_ 26.13' 5 8 0 1 GO E-R Na 1 Zoh /V_ �4p 00, _j '2 T 139.41' 26 .97�� N 6g e Ri ul c e.w R �� 48 D — tiSOo F999 59 r 0 � 8y 304 2132••_£-R Is O� p 6.30• iQ 33' �o o1^i ?7,00• _ 324 7 60 " �titi o0 ap °, o OI °o 4 6 16' 1� °vs x'39.00• <-7.00' •.., 9 is q O ,6 0 0 0 S L.62.78' Zh�\0 1 -- �R=50.00' N 45 o N — rn 1 25.00' 6C 1 0 S_> 0 50.00' E 2 - R`267 79 � I I N 25.00'0 `.7832 z I °8 52' L•56.02' w V. c� CID s44ro w p N 0 cr o U! 3 N, 0 0 41 1 42 43iii uj �0 _ o m �> v 39 0 0 40 o Pus LIG o a z Z 15' STORM 1 1 E5 p SWR. ESMT. I' NON ACCESS STRIP 7,5'^ X7.5' n 80.00__- 74.00' 78 77• I 1 10' DEDICATION C0 --------- - _ 70.00- - -- -- 118.00' ARA- -- ST-- -- - - - - - -- - - --- - -- - - _ ----------. --- -- i67 587.82' F -- - -- -S:00°31'30"-W o 892.26' _ SIDE I OF Jill 11611111111111111111 111I1�r 1(1111 11111 111111f1 T TIY rp II'['I) l .• �• _ it _._.-. I - 2 � 3 I �4 � I 5��-I�I{1��.�fi111111i 11 I'1�1�111111rr�1�1118111�111111��.1111111+1111111�11�1I1(IIIIII1�1111111�111t111�11I NOTE: IF THIS MICROFILMED - 8 0 I1 12 DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN ' THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO - THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DRAWING. i- OFFE 62 8Z LZ 9Z SZ 42 EZ ZZ 12 OZ 81 ��8��1��,& 9�1I1 _5�` 10E1 ZI if 01--OF 8 -g g y g Z I j FMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIili�1111r�!l11111p�1p1 1♦lnmluugj�1111�1U1YfN11'l11 l 1990 MAR-CH - 71 • 1 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: City Council January 27, 1987 FROM: Library Director SUBJECT: Access '86 The access '86 project proposed that all residents of Washington, Clackamas, and Multnomah County Systems and the Fort Vancouver Regional Library in Washington State have free and equal access to all public libraries in these counties for a period of one year, i.e. , January 1, 1986 to December 31, 1986. The program was to be evaluated in May and November with a final evaluation in January 1987. All governing boards unanimously approved the project and some generally committed to continue the program even if some costs were involved in the future. Each county agreed to cover their own costs for serving patrons outside their area as well as their publicity costs. The project was moderately advertised. The program was overwhelmingly successful. Statistics show that almost all libraries in the region were utilized, with Multnomah County being a net lender. The impact on the Tigard library was minimal owing to the facility we occupied through April and our lack of an adequate collection to attract new users from Multnomah County. We've always maintained a small usership (25--30) from Multnomah county — mostly people who work and/or own property in Tigard's service area. We've had a reciprocal borrowing program with Clackamas County for several years based on equal usage. Tigard residents readily availed themselves of the access to Multnomah Central Library. Initially the Oregon State Library had included a statewide program of resource sharing to include a statewide borrower's card and reimbursement of net lenders in the state library's budget. This has been eliminated in the governor's recommended budget. It is anticipated that the Oregon Library Association will submit a separate bill to support such a statewide program. It is proposed that we extend the program to June 30, 1987 with the intent that the legislation will pass. It is planned that within each county some mechanism will be developed to compensate libraries that are bearing the brunt of reciprocal borrowing but will not be reimbursed. If the legislation does not pass, participating library systems (WCCLS in our case) should agree to budget for and reimburse Multnomah County as a net lender. It is recommended that Tigard Public Library continue Access '86 until June 30, 1987 giving the Oregon Library Association opportunity to extend this program into a statewide program. The new WCCLS levy will include funds to continue the program in the event that the legislation may not pass. _: EI:bsO499W C1 YOF 14FARD OREGON 25 Years of Sef woe 1961-1 February 10, 1987 Washington County Board of Commissioners 150 North First Street Hillsboro, 0R 97123 Dear Commissioners: Enclosed please find a copy of the City of Tigard'a Resolution No. 87-20 which was passed by a unanimous vote at the City Council meeting of February 9, 1987. This is a resolution "of the Tigard City Council supporting the continuation of the Washington County Cooperative Library Services operating levy at $2.6 million." Sincerely, toL%2) Loreen R. Wilson City Recorder or Enclosure co: Irene Ertell, Head Librarian WCCLS VO 13125 SW HON sk P.O Bon 23397,Toard OWM 97223 (503)639-4171 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 87--a A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITYCOUNCIL SUPPORTING THE OPERATING CONTINUATION LLIONHE WASHINGTON COUNTY COOPERATIVE LIBRARY WHEREAS, the current two—year Washington County Cooperative Library Services Operating Levy expires this June 30, 1987; prorss but WHEREAS. both City and County officials have made consaidera�blLibrary @system need enabling legislative authority before creating structure, governance and funding program; WHEREAS the formula of the current levy efficiently, effectively and equitably benefits citizens County-wide; WHEREAS, authorization of a now urrey at nt le y b million is estimated to result in about the same tax rate as the WHEREAS, a new Library system alternative is still realistically Lasa to three years ahead; and, ent levels WHEREAS, the City desires to maintain ting with Library otherimportant ams at rCounty-wide witho�.t increasing tax rates or c�pe ng program-4 . NpW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: The City supports submittal of a continuation levy on the March 31, 1987 ballot for Washington County Cooperative Library Services at $2.6 mil11e�tl per year for three years. Mayor — City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder — City of Tigard RESOLUTION N0. 87-„ZQ_ Page 1 r sh , to . CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 87— A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL SUPPORTING THE CONTINUATION OF THE WASHINGTON COUNTY COOPERATIVE LIBRARY SERVICES OPERATING LEVY AT $2.6 MILLION. WHEREAS, the current two—year Washington County Cooperative Library Services Operating Levy expires this June 30, 1987; WHEREAS, both City and County officials have made considerable progress but need enabling legislative authority before creating a new Library system structure, governance and funding program; WHEREAS the formula of the current levy efficiently, effectively and equitably benefits citizens County—wide; WHEREAS, authorization of a new levy at $2.6 million is estimated to result in about the same tax rate as the current levy; WHEREAS, a new Library system alternative is still realistically two to three years ahead; and, WHEREAS, the City desires to maintain Library programs at current levels without increasing tax rates or competing with other important County-•wide programs. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: The City supports submittal of a continuation levy on the March 31, 1987 ballot for Washington County Cooperative Library Services at $2.66 million per year for these years. Mayor — City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder — City of Tigard #' RESOLUTION NO. 87— Papg+e 1 It#11 Washington County Cooperative Library Services GOVERNING BODIES GROUP MEETING Monday 9:00ar.1 WCCLS MINUTES January 26 ,1987 Present: Mike Smith. WCCLS; Mayor Larry Cole. Beaverton; Nik Parrish. Citizen' s Advisory Board; Bob Culver, Citizen's Advisory Board; Debbie Brodie, Hillsboro; Tim Erwert. Hillsboro, Irene Ertell , Tigard; Ellen Uhreen, West Slope; Nancy Spaulding, Cornelius; Dorothy Swanson, Town Center; John Switzer, Cedar Mill; Colleen Winters. Forest Grove; Gail Schultz, Town Center; Carol Wakefield. Hillsboro; Dorothy Shaver, Beaverton; Bob Davis, Assistant County Administrator; Donna Selle. WCCLS. Jim Rapp. Sherwood; Audrey S. Booth, WCCLS The meeting was called to order at 9:05am. Bob Davis questioned the decision supporting a three-year levy. He suggested that perhaps we should be looking at an interim levy to get us through until the Structure and Governance decisions have been made. This is what the of the Board of Commissioners was expecting. He stated that the Board of Commissioners would not like to see a levy amount over $2.6 and Cthat their expectation was actually that the levy amount would be decreased now that automation was implemented. The county, as a whole. is looking at maintaining a minimum level of expenditures and the library should adhere to this philosophy in order to be consistent with what is being asked of other departments. He stated that the BOC would not approve a levy amount higher that $2.6 million. Tim Erwert expressed his concerns about the dollar amounts of these levies at a time of zero inflation and following the big jump we made to implement the automation project. He stated that he was unsure of 1986-87 budget projections for year end and this would influence his decision about the levy amount. Nik Parrish directed the group to address the big budget items. ACCESS '86: Colleen Winters, speaking on behalf of her city manager, stated concern for the importance of our involvement in ACCESS '86. Instead it was recommended that these funds be put into a computer replacement fund. Nik stated however, that the ACCESS program has a value because it represents to patrons a visible level of service provided by their libraries. WILI REPLACEMENT FUND - Nik explained why CAB considered this item a priority. Tim Erwert concurred stating that originally this item was cut from the budget with the understanding that it would be included in future levy amounts. Bob Davis stated that the county's view is that a replacement fund is nice to have but not necessarily possible in tight times. Irene Ertell. reporting for her city manager, recommended that the rate per thousand remain at $.26/thousand as property values will be increasing thus resulting in more dollars for libraries. t aft Address:PO.Box 5129 Aloha.Oregon 97006 Location:17880&W.Blanton Street Aloha.Oregon Telephone:(503)6421544 -2- Donna Selle will check on the rate of delinquent tax collections. COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT- Donna Selle summarized the support for inclusion of the collection development funds in budget document V. Library professionals and CAB members recommend that the county's collection be capita and it should be at least one preferably two titles per capita. Our circulation per capita is one of the lower in the state partially because of our lack of collections. The major concern with significantly increasing funds for collection development is that cities may reduce their budgeted dollars to libraries proportionately. Donna suggested that an alternative would be to include funds for collection development in a one time only bond issue for capital development. Tim Erwert stated his support for keeping the parameters of this levy within the focus of the Board of Commissioner's overall budget for the county. It is not realistic to ask the Board of Commissioners to approve a rate that exceeds these parameters. ( `donna called for a vote: Forest Grove - $2.6 million Tim Erwert - favors $2.6 million Gail Schultz - favors $2.6 or 3 million Jim Rapp - three year levy for $2.6 million John Switzer - $2.6 million Mayor Cole - the unofficial concensus: a minimum of $3. million and not less than a two-year levy. Will support a three-year levy. Cornelius - $2.6 million Nancy Spaulding - $2.6 million Nik Parrish - Supports $3. million in order to see the program and services to the county grow. Tigard supports a 2 or 3 year levy @ $2.6 million as reported by Irene Ertel l Additionally. Mayor Cole recommended that operation and maintenance of WILI be taken "off the top" rather than being included in operating funds. Tim Erwert stated that he felt a one-year levy would not be adequate to cover the implementation of the Structure and Governance recommendations. E even if they were to be accepted today. ' "elle stated the CAB would be reviewing the proposed levy this evening. i The next meeting of the Governing Bodies Groups will be Monday. February 23 at 9:00am at WCCLS. The agenda item will be review of the non-fee access fee agreement. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON -- COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: February 9, 1987 DATE SUBMITTED. ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Right-of-way PREVIOUS ACTION: acquisition for North Dakota/115th prosect PREPARED BY: Randall R. Woole }la DEPT HEAD OK �CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: POLICY ISSUE f Authorize condemnation for right-of-way acquisition for North Dakota Street project. s INFORMATION SUMMARY Acquisition of approximately 1983 square feet of the Ferrel property is required as additional right--of-way to accomplish the realignment of North Dakota Street at 115th Avenue. The realignment is proposed to improve safety and reduce driver confusion at the intersection. In executive session on January 12, 1987, we discussed with Council our x unsuccessful attempts to negotiate with Mrs. Ferrel for the acquisition. Council them authorized condemnation proceedings. In preparing for the condemnation, the City Attorney's office advises that a formal resolution is needed to authorize the action. J ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Approve the attached resolution authorizing condemnation proceedings. 2. Delay or re-design the project. FISCAL IMPACT Under condemnation, the Court will determine the acquisition cost. Funds for the acquisition are budgeted in the Streets CIP account. ~� SUGGESTED ACTION Approval of the attached resolution satisfying previous Council direction. RRW:cn/0609Ut E CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 87-_----- G t 4 b' f . A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE NECESSITY AND PURPOSE FOR ACQUISITION OF A CERTAIN STREET AT RIGHT-0F--WAY FOR REALIGNMENT OF NORTH AC UIREA$AID RIGHT-0F-WAY Ii AVENUE AND AUTHORIZING CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS T Q Of 6 WHEREAS, the above-entitled matter came before of Januaryll2f 1987;the Tigard in executive sessioCity , n at its regular meeting for the project to improve WHEREAS, Council has previously approved funding safety and reduce driver confusion at the intersetion; and under to the Council that the City Council has authority urchase. YHEREAS, it appearing from property owners by P ORS Chapter 35 to acquire rights--of--way condemnation proceedings or any other means; anis d powers andWHEREAS, it appearing to the Council that it for consistent thecontinued growt , safety purposes of city government, and necessary and welfare of the community that said streets be improved and that the right-of-way hereinafter described be acquired; and WHEREAS, it appearing to the Council that the proposed improvements are most compatible with the greatest public good and causes the least private injury; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council as follows: Tigard that the city, in connection with the 1, That it is necessary for t Tig reservation of the public health, Safety and , exercise its welfare of the City of realignment of sift re0quired,akotaSbyea acquiring et at 115th the below- described ibed right-of-way eminent domain, for said improvements. of the City of Tigard does hereby find and y 2. That the governing purchase or by condemnation, determine that the immediate dquisiti nrbght f__way will prrivide for the if necessary, of the following improvemenuld t of North Dakotathe Street greatest 1 p bl Avenue good in a then least which priivvate i most compatible with being described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto injury, said right-of-way and incorporated herein. RESOLUTION 140- Page 1 r ._.. tA 3. That the City Attorney for the City of Tigard shall be, and hereby is, authorized and directed to institute all necessary proceedings for the immediate condemnation of the above-described right-of-way and necessary easements, and may take the necessary steps for immediate possession of the said right-of-way. PASSED: This day of 1987. Mayor - City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder - City of Tigard RRW:cn/0609W RESOLUTION NO. 87- Page 2 Ri t of Way Acquisition Description Exhibit "A" to Public Page 1 of 2 YXIT *As A tract of land lying in the Northwest one-quarter (1/4) of the Southeast one-quarter (1/4) of Section 34. Township 1 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Merdian. City of Tigard. Washington County, Oregon and being that portion of the tract of land conveyed to Edward F. Ferrel and Doris M. Ferrel (Recorded Dec. 20. 1949) in Book 302 of the Washington County Deed Records, that lies northerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point that is S 0010• E 132.49 feet and S 00030 W 79.11 feet and N W361280 E 30.053 feet from the northwest corner of the J.L. Hickin DLC No. 54 TIS, R1W. W.M.; said Beginning Point is also on the southerly line of that tract of land conveyed to Lawrence P. Kalsch and described in Book 1197, Pages 663 and 664 (Recorded Sept. 6, 1971) of the Washington County Deed Records; thence N 0003.00" E 67.41 feet to a point of curvature; thence northeasterly along thg are of a 20 foot radius curve to the right. through a central angle of 64 45129" (chord bears N 32025144" E 21.421 feet) 22.605 feet to a point of reverse curve; thence northeasterly along the arc of a 380.00 foot radiug curve to the left. through a central angle of 1P19123" (chord bears N 59 38147" E 68.373 feet) 68.465 feet to a point of reverse curve; thence northeasterly along thS are of a 320.00 foot radius curve to the right, through a central angle of 35 57.54" (chord bears N 7208'03' E 197.586 feet) 200.867 feet to a point of tangency; thence S 89 33100" E 0.23 feat more or less to a point on the east line of that tract of land. conveyed to Edward F. Ferrel and Doris M. Ferrel (Recorded Dec. 20. 1949) in Book 302 of the Washington County Deed Records, said point also lies 30 feet southerly at right angles to the center line of S.W. North Dakota Street, County Road No. 452. Basis of Bearing: Washington County, Plat of County Road No. 1992 Dated November 1964. 8/20/86 86.551.118 17, sti • N.W. Corner Exhibit A _TL.HiC/C/;n O.L.C. "S� Page 2 of 2 ../S., R./W., W.A4. 20' z -f O9�3Z�00'E ZOO.S/I' _r--- — ------'- � --fir- O � Rer;sed F o S1 N �pT 589`33 DO" h RAN 0.Z3 MA 44 Tax Lot No. 2300 O Tax Map No. IS-1-34DB OaMrs Deris lt. Ferrel Deed Ref: Book 302 ` (recorded Dec. L0. 1949) Additional Right-of-Clay contains e, 1983 Square Feet more or less O o � d � N 86'�O 1'e't SCO%+i"•SD turve central Ch0ry y0. Ame1. 3"Ime Arc CBord ieariet I 640439W 20.00 22.603 21.421 V32023'440% a 10019923" 340.00 68.465 68.373 M59034'4M 3 33037'34" 320.00 200.K7 197.344 N72026,03"2 Apoz rZONAL r'40.F-WAY 8/20/86 crc O�IIAi�a AIifOCl�Ttsf�INC. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION HAP NORTH DAKOTA STREET & 115TH AVENUE AM CW1V, ate..smn-"" CITY OF TIGARD. OREGON elrrw.o.r wMa • Bb.SSI•//B CjTY0%rTIIVARD February 10, 1987 OREGON 25 Yeas of SeIV(W 9961-1486 Mr. Kenneth S. Martin, Executive Director Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government BoundaryCommission 320 S.W. Stark Street, Suite 530 Portland, OR 97204 SUBJECT: proposal. No. 2344, Washington Square Area Addition Dear Mr. Martin: Proposal No. 2344, the South Metzger Annexation, was initiated by a resolution passed by the Tigard City Council on December 29, 1986. Based on testimony at the December meeting, a second hearing was held and a suggested modifilution catiOn deleting the western portion of Spruce Street was passed by Councilon January 14, 1987. The resolutions meet the requirement for initiation set forth in ORS 199.490 (1)(a). { A second modification has been proposed by property owners in the Washington Square area immediately north of Proposal No. 2344 The owners of the new Embassy Suites Hotel and the owners of the future Target Department Store have asked to be included in the proposed annexation with Washington Square per the terms of the attached Preannexation condmentitions toe their Washington Squnt are annex Shopping Center owners have indicated two pr Tigard for Proposal No. 2344: 1. That the Washington quare, including Tigard and Beaverton;Suites and d Target, not be split between the cities 2. That a phase-in of property tax rates with a phase-in of City services be authorized by ORS 222.111 (3). Addition of these properties to Proposal No. 2344 would be consistent with the Boundary Commission's action on Proposal No.98760. Theddition of Tigard tthe ouocil has indicated by resolution on February 9, properties under the terms of the Preion nneweratoon Ag prove t would be acceptable to the City if the Boundary Coma DESCitIPTION: The territory to be added to the Proposal is located immediately on the North side of the Washington Square Shopping Center, bounded generally by Oregon Highway 217 and Hall Boulevard (leaving out the properties at the intersection of Hall and Scholls per the earlier Boundary Commission action leaving the entire intersection to future Beaverton annexation). The al include the Washington Square access roads, properties added to the propos Baba.say Suites Hotel, Golden Rey Apartments and Target. -4171 13125 SW HCM BMJ.P.O.Soot 23397.Tigard.Oregon 97223 (503)639 Mr. Kenneth S. Martin February 10, 1987 2 Proposal No. 2344, after deleting the Spruce Street portion and adding all the Washington Square area, as requested by the property owners, includes: 409.4 acres; 368 single family residences; 223 multi-family residences; 53 commercial units including the Washington Square Regional Shopping Center, the Crescent Grove Cemetery, the Metzger Elementary School, the Embassy Suites Hotel and the future Target Department Store; an estimated population of 1,345 and an assessed value of *154,764,700. NOTE: The City of Tigard has provided additional statistical tables on the financial impact of the proposal shaving both the regular and phase-in .parts of the current, suggested annexation proposal. All other previous materials in the Commission's staff report and in the file remain relevant and a part of the record of these proceedings. Excerpts from our City-provided information is noted as such and appears in quotes. If the Commission approves the Proposal, with the boundary change and conditions as suggested, the change will become effective 45 days from the date of approval subject to the provisions in ORS 199.505 and 199.519. The City has again pledged itself to work with the neighborhood to obtain a vote on the annexation at the March 31, 1987 election. Approval at the March election will allow the fullest possible revenue stream in FY 1987-88 to the City with which to provide services. Any reduced revenues will mean reduced services. Approval of this measure by the Commission at the February 12, 1987 Hearing is essential to an orderly transition of revenues and services. REASON FOR ANNEXATION. The staff report on the original Proposal No. 2344 remains the same. The addition of the North properties was initiated by Washington Square, Embassy Suites and Target property owners. These property owners have determined that their current development and long-term urban service costs will be less in Tigard than in Beaverton or under the County 2000 Plan Service Districts. BOUNDARY COMMISSION POLICIES. The suggested addition to Proposal No. 2344 is in conformance with the Boundary Commission policies as summarized in the prior Staff Report. The addition of the North properties, per the property owners' request, conflicts with a proposed Beaverton Annexa1�thion for the e Annexation Denney Whitford area which also includes these same areas. Planning Area Agreement (APAA) between Beaverton and Tigard states "both cities respect the rights and preferences of property owners and residents to decide when to annex to a city according to State law. . ." and that ". . .the cities mutually agree that they will not approve annexations contrary to the APAA. . ." The City of Tigard believes that the Commission may modify the boundary to include the North Washington Square area properties, as it did on the earlier Proposal No. 2260. The APAA is a guideline between the two cities but not a part of their LCDC-approved Comprehensive Plans, so the City believes the Commission may add the properties under the terms of APAA since: ( Mr. Kenneth S. Martin February 10, 1987 3 1. the property owners initiated the proposal, not the City, and 2. the APAA expires March 25, 1987, and the election is March 31, 1987. The City further believes the Commission has the authority to approve the Preannexation Agreement under ORS 222.111 (3) as a boundary amendment and condition to that amendment. BACKGROUND. The record from Proposal No. 2260 should be considered a part of this record. The change is the consent of the Washington Square area property owners for the Preannexation Agreement. The phase-in of property taxes and services to the real properties described in the Preannexation Agreement is possible due to the security services provided by those properties. All non-property tax revenues would be at full rates and full services as shown on the attached statistical tables and service summary chart. All other areas of the Proposal are shown at full revenues and full services. (See Tables 1-4, Map, Service Summary, and Preannexation Agreement.) LAND USE AND PLANNING. This Proposal No. 2344 is consistent with all .^ applicable land use planning requirements as per the Commission's earlier findings on Proposal No. 2260. Plebiscite, Gerrymander and Piecemeal. The City agrees with the attached_ letter from the Washington County Director of Land Use and Transportation that the opportunity for a communitywide vote has occurred as per the City of Tigard Urban Planning Area Agreement and that smaller annexation proposals may now be considered. Such neighborhood annexations are not illogical or piecemeal so long as they move towards logical long-term lines. The majority of the voters of this proposed annexation voted "Yes" for annexation to Tigard in November, but as part of the-larger proposal which failed were denied City services. The City of Tigard has reaffirmed its commitment to serve the entire Metzger area as individual neighborhoods choose annexation. Annexation Planning Area Agreement. The Beaverton-Tigard APAA is a guideline between the two cities and is not a part of either city's Comprehensive Plan. While the City of Tigard feels bound not to initiate the property owners' modification which adds the properties North of Washington Square to Proposal No. 2344, the City would accept the terms of the Preannexation Agreement if approved by the Boundary Commission. As per its earlier decision on Proposal No. 2260, the Commission is not bound by the APAA and must determine what it believes to be a logical boundary line and service delivery system. Plan Compatibility and Protection. The Urban Planning Area Agreement (UPM) between the City and the County guarantees City Plan and Zone designations consistent with those of the County CPO Plan and Zones. Existing home occupations legal in the County .would remain legal if in the City. Annexation to the City would, in fact, be more restrictive in favor of maintaining the County CPO Plan, since Plan designations would be frozen for one year after annexation, but remain subject to change by the County a': say time prior to annexation. t Mr. Kenneth S. Martin February 10, 1987 4 Planning Coordination. The County Director of Land Use and Transportation and the City Director of Community Development have mutually agreed to a coordination of planning, engineering and building regulations so as not to delay or require restarting of any applications in process during the course of annexation proceedings. COUNTY 2000 POLICY. The County has proposed County Service Districts for sheriff patrol and local street maintenance. The estimated cost foir these services is J2.30 per thousand tax rate. Higher levels of City services car rate estimated about X2.05 per be delivered with annexation at a City tax thousand or lower over the next few years. SERVICES AND UTILITIES. The service findings per the Commission. Staff Report on Proposal No. 2344 remain unchanged. The added modification would provide full services per the Staff Report to the North area, but with a phase-in of police services to the real properties described in the Preannexation Agreement. Municipal Court services would be significantly affected by Proposal No. 2344 as modified (see Statistical Tables 1-4). The City -_ Administrator will be at the Hearing to answer any other revenue or service-cost questions of the Commission. { RECOMMENDATION. It is recommended by the City that the Commission make its decision on Proposal No. 2344 at the February 12, 1987 Hearing. Yours truly, Robet W. Jean City dministrator RWJ:cw/4535A Attachments: Preannexation Agreement and Resolution No. 87- Spears Letter of 2/5/87 Statistical Tables 1-4 Map Daniels Letter of 1/16/87 Martin Letter of 1/28/87 Service Transition Timeline CITY OF TIGARD. OREGON t: RESOLUTION NO. 87-1 l A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL FORWARDING THE PROPERTY OWNERS' REQUEST FOR INCLUSION IN SOUTH METZGER ANNEXATION PROPOSAL #2344 TO THE BOUNDARY L4MMISSION. WHEREAS, property owners have approached the City of Tigard and indicated their desire for inclusion in the South Metzger Annexation Proposal (#2344); and , WHEREAS, the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission has scheduled this proposal for a public hearing on February 12, 1987; 'and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council has accepted the Preannexation Agreement as an alternative to litigation and defers the request of the property owners to the Boundary Commission for consideration, and have reached agreement stating that fact. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: Section 1: The Tigard City Council accepts the request of property owners •- to have the Boundary Commission amend the boundary of the South Metzger Annexation Proposal consistent with the terms of the { attached agreement (Exhibit "A"). Section 2: The Tigard City Council hereby authorizes the Mayor to carryout any actions to support the intent of the resolution. Section 3: The Tigard City Council further directs the City Recorder to file a certified copy of this resolution with the Boundary Commission immediately. PASSED: This "1 thday of �-Ebrutt..r"�t 1987. Mayor - City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder - City of Tigard r RESOLUTION NO. 87-17 lw/4511A ' 4 MENCEr EXHIBIT "A" PREANNEXATION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the City of Tigard, Oregon, a political subdivision of the State of Oregon (herein the "City of Tigard") , the May Department Stores Company, a corporation (herein the "May' Company") , Sears, Roebuck & Co. , a corporation (herein "Sears") , the Dayton Hudson Corporation, a corporation, and Washington Square Plaza and Ohio, a general partnership (herein collectively "Target") , Lilly Palmblad (herein "Palmblad"), Nesbitt Partners Portland Venture, a limited _e partnership (herein "Nesbitt Partners" ) , Square Land Co. , Ltd. , an Oregon limited partnership (herein "Square Land") , Fringe Land Ore. Ltd. , an Oregon limited partnership (herein "Fringe Land") , Washington Square, Inc. , a Washington corporation (herein "Washington Square") and Winmar Pacific, Inc. , an Oregon corporation (herein "Winmar") . May Company, Sears, Target, Palmblad, Nesbitt Partners, Square Land, Fringe Land, Washington Square and Winmar are herein sometimes collectively referred to as "Owners". R E C I T A L S: A. Owners, either directly or indirectly, own an interest in certain real property located in Washington County, Oregon, which real property is outlined in red on the map attached hereto as Exhibit "A" (herein the "Real Property") . As soon 'a { as possible hereafter, the legal description of the Real Property shall be attached hereto and made a part hereof. The Real Property0is within the area commonly referred to as the "Washington Square Area," a map of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B." B. The City of Tigard desires to annex the Real Property. Owners are willing to cooperate with the City of Tigard with respect to the annexation of the Real Property to the City of Tigard, upon certain terms and conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: -� 1. Agreement to Participate in -Annexation Proceedings. ( Owners hereby agree, subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, to cooperate with the City of Tigard to cause the Real Property to be annexed to the City of Tigard. The City of Tigard and Owners hereby agree to take whatever steps and actions are necessary to cause the Real Property to be annexed to the City of Tigard: The City of Tigard and Owners acknowledge and agree that despite their respective desires to cause the Real Property to become annexed to the City of Tigard that the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission therein "Boundary Commission") must approve the annexation. In the event that the Boundary Commission fails to approve the annexation of the Real Property to the City of Tigard, before July 31, 1987, on the terms 2 - PREANNEXATION AGREEMENT and conditions set forth herein, this Agreement shall be null and void and of no further force and effect and none of the parties shall have any further obligation with respect to this Agreement. 2. Cooperation. Owners and the City of Tigard agree to cooperate f with each other with respect to the annexation of the Real Property to the City of Tigard. Each party shall appear before, and present evidence to, the Boundary Commission supporting this proposed annexation, including, without limitation, presenting financial information and other facts which justify the phase-in of the property taxes set forth in paragraph 3 below. The proposed annexation of the Real Ic Property shall be continued pursuant to the present annexation proceedings, unless otherwise directed by the Boundary Commission. In the event that the Boundary Commission or its staff specifies another procedure relating to the annexation of the Real Property, the City of Tigard and Owners agree to follow such procedure with respect to the annexation of the Real Property. 3. Phase-In of Property Taxes. 3.1 ORS 222.111(3) provides, inter alia, for the phase-in of property taxes over a period of ten (10) years for property which is the subject of annexation into a city. For purposes of this Agreement, the term "Specified Ratio" shall mean the percentage referenced below of the highest applicable rate of taxation in the City of Tigard applicable to other property within the City of Tigard for each of the 3 - pREANNEXATION AGREEMENT fiscal years set forth below. The Washington Square Area, which includes the Real Property, shall be taxed at the Specified Ratio set forth opposite the applicable fiscal year set as set forth below: Tax Year Ratio 3.1.1 1987-1988 158 3.1.2 1988-1989 25% 3.1.3 1989-1990 50% 3.1.4 1990-1991 608 3.1.5 1991-1992 70% 3.1.6 1992-1993 808 3.1.7 1993-1994 908 3.1.8 1994-1995 100% 3.2 In the event that the Real Property is not included by the County- Assessor of Washington County on the tax rolls as being in the City of Tigard for tax year 1987-88, the Specified Ratio for tax year 1988-89 shall be forty percent (40%) rather than twenty-five percent (258) as provided for in Section 3.1.1 above. 3.3 The City of Tigard agrees to the Specified Ratios set forth in Section 3.1 for the phase in of property taxes for the reasons, among others, set forth below: 3.3.1 Certain Owners of the Real Property now, and in the immediately foreseeable future, provide full time security services at their own cost and expense. Such services substantially reduce the extent and cost of police services the City of Tigard would otherwise be required to provide to the Real Property. 4 - PREANNEXATION AGREEMENT 3.3.2 Certain Owners of the Real Property are { in a local improvement district to voluntarily participating , accomplish certain major offsite road and traffic improvement facilities, including full signalization of Hall Boulevard and Scholls Ferry Road, which will reduce the impact the Real Property may have on the City of Tigard. 3.3.3 Certain Owners of the Real Property own and maintain, at their sole cost and expense, a private storm sewer system for surface waters org'mating from the Real Property. This system further reduces potential impact in the City of Tigard. 3.3.4 The Owners of the Real Property are - provided other municipal type services from various service districts other than the City of Tigard, including, among ( } thers, fire protection and sanitary sewer services. 0 3.3.5 The City of Tigard will receive additional revenue, other than from property taxes, on account of the Real Property being annexed to the City of Tigard. 3.3.6 Certain Owners of the Real Property maintain, at their cost and expense, the internal roads and k streets located in the Washington Square Area, which roads are utiligpd by members of the general public. 3.3.7 The Owners of the Real Property now M continue to participate in the Metzger participate and will Park Local Improvement District. �A 5 - PREANNEXATION AGREFYENT 4. Specific Performance. In consideration •of the mutual promises set forth herein each party shall use its best efforts to effectuate all provisions of this Agreement and agree that the remedy of specific performance is available to enforce any provision. S. Contest of Agreement. , In the event that this Agreement, in whole or in part, is the subject of legal proceedings, the parties hereto shall cooperate with each other with respect to the defense of such challenge. All attorney fees incurred by the parties hereto with respect to any such legal proceedings shall be shared 50% by the City of Tigard and 50% by Owners. 6. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, all of which shall be considered one and the same agreement, and shall be effective when one or more counterparts-have been duly executed and delivered by each of the parties hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties have executed this Agreement on the date below their signature. THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON, a political subdivision of the State of Oregon i By: i(t LtiL Thomas M. Brian, Mayor Dated:�a.b, 1�w 9, I9R'7 WINMAR PACIFIC, INC. , an Oregon corporation By: .4 Its: Dated: yfi: 6 - PREANNEXATION AGREEMENT r ( 4. Specific Performance. In consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein each party shall use its best efforts to effectuate all provisions of this Agreement and agree that the remedy of specific performance is available to enforce any provision. S. Contest -of Agreement. In the event that this Agreement, in whole or in part, is the subject of legal proceedings, the parties hereto shall cooperate with each other with respect to the defense of such challenge. All attorney fees incurred by the parties hereto with respect to any such legal proceedings shall be shared 506 by the City of Tigard and 506 by Owners. '- 6. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, all of which shall be considered one and the same agreement, and shall be effective when one or more counterparts have been duly executed and delivered by each of the parties hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties have executed this Agreement on the date below their signature. THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON, a political subdivision of _ the State of Oregon Sy: Thomas Tian, Mayor Dated: WINMAR PACIFIC, INC., an Oregon corporation Dated: •, .c.k. <,. t - t:� -- v. 6 . PREANN£RATION- AGREEMENT. FRINGE LAND ORE., LTD., an { = Oregon limited partnership By: Winmar Psacific# Inc., an'Oregon corporation BY f _-y' Its: GeneralPartner Dated: I yrr SQUARE LAND CO., LTD., an Oregon limited partnership By: Winmar Pacific, Inc. , an Oregon corporation By ti Its: -General Partner Dated: MF r, ,41: WASHINGTON SQUAREj, INC., a Washington corporation Bys Its: Dated: .X y Pa 8 Dated: THE MAY DEPARTMENT STORES COMPANY, a corporation By: Ite's Date t THE DAYTON HUDSON CORPORATION, a corporation By: Itss s: Dateri- z z 1. - PREANNEXATION AGREEVXhT �,.�'GF , FRINGE LAND ORE., LTD. , an Oregon limited partnership By: winmar Pacific, Inc. , an Oregon corporation By: Its: General Partner Dated: SQUARE LAND CO. , LTD. , an Oregon limited partnership r By: [dinner Pacific, Inc. , an Oregon corporation By: Its: General Partner Dated: s�. WASHINGTON SQUARE, INC. , a Washington corporation By: =` Its: Date f Lilly Pal . ad Dated: THE MAY DEPARTMENT STORES COMPANY, a corporation By: Its: Dated: THE DAYTON HUDSON CORPORATION, a corporation By: Its: Dated: 4 . / 7 - PREAKW..XATION AGREE_-'-ENT \ƒ WASHINGTON SQUARE PLAZ a general part==p { (\ }fs; 7T&I . Dated: NESBITT PARTNERS PORTLAND VENTURE, a li&itea partnership By: Patrick Nesbitt ( Its; General Partner { » Dated: ( �� [ \PRgA#NEXATION AGREEMENT WASHINGTON SQUARE PLAZA AND OHIO, a general partnership By: Its: Date NESBITT PARTNERS PORTLAND rship VENTURE pa Y: Patr ck N s itt Its: Genera Pa ner Dated: a l� �a 4 K S PREANNEXATION AGREEMENT ' ■ unto +■rr;Y ■■■► '��. NEW ■■■ �■ is �■ PIP 610111 a IF.IN,I Ism, mom III trnr � •, 1 i �I� loss■■ prs• ■'1 ■■■� �■ �� _C rlttl 3■_ :,.1111 .. In: ��' t7r■tui► � ti>.■1�1R!'! Ella, r■� ■ �i■■ "'" �I C ■ ■� �.■■ gr rp. an��q / �■�� 1�1■ 11�' '1■ 111E EIS rii • ■ as ago MOM% '6811 �� ren .. . „ ��l FW F'■-� � ', —� .-ice Ian 30 i'7■ b 3 , 4m�'� �1t1 rr1r�11�■ „ �■ . _■�', 7_ c r■`11111-L!.s+ � � +��■f1/ •��fir■ _ t� ■ . �, �� J■ 111: -arm �1i: �■III �t711 I/ate/1NOFirs :20 - � ■ • /1. .N ■■ ■ ,1 `111. .11 NOUN 1 IRE" ur■+�/�■ ■remom C _ C — ■ _ 1010111 o■■ ■1 B■■■N" ■'■ ■■■■1■ {■. �I>• �>, ■ fin., _ 1/■■■■■11141 IN C ■ - .►�� `■ 1010■ _� 1010■■ s■■■ 1 ■ ■ 3 ■ 1010 a ■■a■ � �■■i. . � ' L- � "�Ili� s._ 1010 1"■ ♦ �_ Ch, Islas !a ' R. �II: 1010 if i i : C :111 !1■ ■ 1010 1�■■ ■ ■ t was P-11111111 Z ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■� ■ _ , 1010 ■ ■ 1010 ■■� • _+.f��rL11� � ■■■rn■■un■►�ri■� t _ ■ ■�■ �' s■� Ir�� 1■ —u . LII. ��, ��" ■■��.�; �,1.■ ..■ ..a■ ■ �■ ■ 111 �� F ` �1: , C -- � � �� : ■■� ■■■■111 � �� :i a. ■ �� C ■>•L :tea■ �' �� - r- i_ � i� � � � ■, 1010 ■ � IIItI1■ F ■ � ■ - � ■IL rim ■r. -�i All ■ ■ �!. r� 1010 if1 p ,■ ''� - 1010 �■ t SII/i i :i� Ii�l t■ a■: L■( �, {�C ■� 1010■ t�1 — IS mom WIRIM ��■■ ■ ■■■11 0 �■� �:a ■im c zip- 11111= mom 01= 7e 1111. -�■� -■� 'D r■r e{� _��■ 1010 � i� �� ■i■7■_ �■W J - r '►1 z� nowlogo Ion 31 Swims .00 . ,■, ,.• ■.r. -naw ■■ am t^L1 -��• ■ �'.�■11111■ � � [am101 mm ■r. ■1■a nuI x''11 �y� a■■a•a Noll mom 1��j%►r ��t ■! 311/N�■M ■ �.r� �� 1*�- Ilf: a� 1111 t■■ fi�rr`` !„�� ./��'��,■It.1 a �1: al{ ■■ �� 1♦ � a —7: �'� f '.�,� i ■�","'-a— ��■■ ■■w r.r-� .111 � •� 111111//■ ■runt r2 —ri m ONE ■:_poll ' .�---• iii■ ■1: �1/■ II■1� ■'11111• :11 � �1 ■ ■■ vjklj !!!-ar■ �■■71/: : +: :le' % !�� ■11logo Egg NNE go H L �■� •uuMiminunrlrnrfi� � W.. .1=11,1001 1■11 .1,..11 .�■ LN. - .� . •' nt11� =• +lui ■ ■■. .1■ M 111 � � ■ 1: � ..— ■r �N . ■■■1 —■ �' ■:.111 _ ■ :: ° .■ — . _ _ MLO �� alt�llllll. ■ __ •ateMagog _ 1 • • ' �. ■IL' 0 so so Com !• _. w � � ■ .1 rA r .. — � �. r■. _ �■ �s !T! -4'-� : 1111111 _ .�`� ■■■■� - �j uu■ vim■■ uC r Now Ism L. I■III. •j1■.■ • e �,, a w.. 1� �� SRL -- •SPEARS, LUBERSKY, CAMPBELL, BLEDSOE. ANDERSON & YOUNG ATTORNEYS AT L.AW IIwM w flwpwCu GN[R+L■ rAwwls IgAX.N lKAwi wlcrwwa rllllwri f20 S W YAMNILL STREET.SUITE GPO MwITY-ANXL f wAYf VwX [LAA.T.wHI+rORi w.Ll1AM lusX.O.T• LXARXOCN XCL[X q�VCi•hCXOw1C.i` MAR.LLL I Dr1X A PORTLAND.OREGON 0720.-1313 KTIINARI OLOwOL S.CAMgKI RICHARD f IMP— MwwIANNC SC—CIrt X10 TXOrAi w SONDA6 JOXN I.1Ltosot CMARLCS J Ppu1TT• TELEPHONE'16031 226-0IS1 TwIiN r SwOwX• CINDA w COXwO+D• co rCff[RT r ANDLRSOh NELSON O AT.IN II --[ IIKw DAVID C iTRC 010 TELEGOPIER 1503122.-03Si VI.,s—I ..IT*.E" DAVI w I—CIC-P OOLLIS'r YOI:XO JAMLs C.O.WTCLf TELEX;260020-SPRS-UR WILLIAM w COP. WAYNE M#LIIARD MIC..A[I J LILLY [XwRLL!f NUDtOX' JAr[i M CLAR.0 JLFFRL+M.6A1CHCLOw L-DSCI rwRwli ruGNCf• �[XNIi M DArOR[ L[wlf w.SCOTT JPMN C.1TCVASON 0-0 N HIG.i.Jw AOC R wCtNDh RICHARD S fORfi DONALD N PULE DAVID O 2st..VD v1C.1 l S.- 6COwOE L.SIwONCR JCIFR[Y C w0LISTONC MwwViN D fJOwOOCC. OR[G. MITCNCOC. 1TAN691 R.IDLE' JAMES l MIILCR DAXNY L -ITT.Jw DAVID Y WRA+ MKXw[l s rolrci cw.1 O O fwIle. VANCOUVER OFFICE lwADLLY i.TLLLAM• MAR.r LOOMIi• 6LOROL L .IR.LIX M1LO PC,...OVIC. JA.[*D WII.CRSOX ♦1IMwN.1IISGNC• FIRST iC DERAL PLAZA I".. MMS +•.[ODOR[C F►l. moseffT r wOICY LL16X O.1TCIX[NSPN M JOHN N,ppfMN TIMO+XY R .."Mo. 1210 MAIN STREET.SUITE 3Sf M�CX ACI J SROWX JCAN Y DLIOXL O.r[wLo"..1160% Jw• Douce C NwrIIX VANCOUVER.WASHINGTON 00660 V1w0�N�w McIL[R OLDOM J w "MI.[' MC.I[w LAYR[MCC I JAMfi[X w1CNAgp N VAN CLCAVL R.CI 40 G SAMu[li fTEVLN.� NCrIROw 00490T L rwlo.CY JR• SCOTT I rOXf ILS IN WASHINGTON(2061 603-AI00 "ICNARD C NUN•• IwuL►.a w[I!i• 1N OREGON(!O]I 226.6111 Jo..w OOYID• C A.1N 1VT3 W couwsL_ JOHNS Cfto.Low.$&. J. 9166-12 •MEM.Ew Pw[GPX AN�w.i IXaTDX i•• .•w. OUR FILE NO. PLCASC REPLY TO PORTLAND OFFICE RCCEIVE0 February 5, 1987 FEB G 1587 p•�pNNELL.1V V IS frI^v Timothy V. Ramis Tigard City Attorney 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street Portland, Oregon 97209 Re: Dayton Hudson Corporation `=` Washington Square Plaza Xr City of Tigard Annexation y�= Dear Tim: j# This is to advise you in your capacity as City Attorney for the City of Tigard, Oregon, that our clients Dayton Hudson Corporporation, a Minnesota corporation, and Washington Square Plaza, an Ohio general partnership, the present fee simple owners of the land previously owned by the Schechla interests located on S.W. Hall Boulevard in Washington County north of Washington Square, prefer to have their property annexed to the City of Tigard and have author- ized me to appear at the hearing before the Portland Metro- ak politan Area Local Governments Boundary Commission on Thursday, February 12, 1987, and request that their property be included within the boundaries of the area to be annexed to Tigard, Oregon. Very truly yours, EMBASSY .�w SUITES z HOTEL °yw Washington Square 217 •; Tigard,Oregon M • Y11Yif filY _ li �ma s. Embassy SuiteO Hotel j ' Portland—Washington Square ' 9000 S.W.Washington Square Road I ?i Tigard,Oregon 97223 s; 1-800-Embassy or 503-6444000 , a; t r Sr t EXAMINE With all you get at Embassy Suites®Hotel; it THE DIFFERENCE comes down to this. Two rooms for the price of one. . . Excellent value. Call us for reservations at Every two room suite features. . . our convenient toll free number 1-800-EMBASSY living room,bedroom and wet bar. or directly at Every breakfast is complimentary . . . 503-6444000 cooked to order in our beautiful atrium. = Every manager's reception is complimentary r .y and Hor d'oeuvres are on the house. o k=`� , Every stay is a shopping and entertainment delight being adjacent to Washington Square �\ Shopping Center. -= Every effort has been taken to provide the best regional american cuisine in . . . Crossroads Restaurant and Ban's O = Every safety system at Embassy Suited Hotel is designed for your protection,assuring a safe and comfortable stay. ° Every checkout at Embassy Suites Hotel is the best experience of all because you get two rooms. . . a suite . . . for the price of one. r _ O • p� Bb�D�P ti �Nn f a, f n ' f O ~� {'S 1Mi� 1Tq nG�Onp�[11 fI{.� inNN00 � 00 N r � P C m P N .+ K1 P 'D M P f M N in t P f OO T�0 P �0 1,4"M�nl — r+�"�m 8 n P M < P IDh N f Mm91'Of .ahOf P .r 40 C4 4"ch0 �N�O��OGP n 0.0f � N N.yTMh ti .... .w P 1 a. M P T f n N O 'n.�%D N f f O M 8I r1 N U',m M�%Ot ~ M~ I I N „y �p �0 N N 1♦1 M m O O M f f on p� P P m�OTf h mf N M 1 N P N PP N m P� m m f N H 1 n N f C4 ^� tfil d n A m f1 �[f P�fl 1ff O ~ f N 1n T A M Q1 P P P m M N N 1L1 10 r1 10 .y H P f $ InM O T f O 1f1�► P n -rite" .Nr the EO N b Of f PP 10 .mi Io w P�P N �I MM MC4 44 CI N Y1 o M m mM N L0 P .�M N-D m M N off n N P 'O N m f m f p .+N M yO1�t W a ppQ 1 Y V�11 h P sMi ! N %00'a 1N�1 v1 A)f b��I N T.br nI f 1"' m m m n 1f1 T P m m 0% O M ►moi m m P 91 OO N P g QIO n \ f O � b P N N�al.I al w f0 f mPmW�Df OW1�Dfh h �NPN� O q OC 6 m an .+a mQ m �n Q�11Nn N .+QQo I•+ �D m S \ N N COD CmD �ifl O M x f z f mill Off M f .L-� ! M N NNf NNPIlf .� .r 11 m p m f f G 8 $ ~x 02 ~S oiZa%Dat 'f LLY NIC6O mW f f+ � f N m mOm NNPLL7 .� N CA -4-1 N N C t� C b M m ~S a 16 0 a a 6 (01 d gig p 417 O a W D L. C L. y W O 6 G RC1 N x �. �p:+"" E cc p 06 co gilt o p O L L O•r-0 W O pQQ O, C.0 N d ¢ W d ¢6 1- d N d,G7 d.W d ;... N.N¢ ..¢ W n .+ mr QN p�T tiOM �[1 a CeN Eco MNOOO mN �bO O r W b T MO M MONnN �'+ T f A pf b .+ - f f.+ m bn MOM fO�T a%b M O N n N M M N ft apo .b+b0 O � N N W �m ON T bM V-e.0 m m m f f K f m 4D c4 11 ANS "O.o8 T T �N T N b to m K'1�D O �O Ol O� P• O� n .r O N ~ ar, k I.- a!n bNm h0bfn �tf fb ! �O m- m NN O,m em-4m N1A N 6+N (�'+N T b K) n n M O� m O% A .� Ol O� O� 4 Ll ti��bT �OOOf~f .Min my N N M fNwN 1 IMN� fNfmv 010 SMO ... J m m M h r+ M m 6 tr •y pl 1"; bN W N 4 ��N bar nO�b TNQ�bO b m O� Ar mT� T�1Y nbN T m N N f H b O N f b T m h Y � m O\m �O�ts��NmO O� NN�f1 �O SNA mti I�'y� bN Ol.+n ul K LL �. b i n f f tltl r m mo � I~ Ii .b-� O lo 9 rl m 'y ai y ...:mT.. ..i .. d np amp ebnab0� o 0 C Mcq w n O 9 M a o L n M 041 W M ,.a pC yy d 11 Y vs 6a 2 N > \ 7 L d L L Q y C to.d O• M N N �+a al l m O ¢p to b w 0 ca co 4j n= x t\-�+y a 6N 6 N b3 0NG7� 3 WF-� Fp- C4 p T O In p^ f O �! M mf%9 f • f pa M O 8 �+ O b N a 10 T r O �O m O LL"1 n N A A f A • T r T O n r, r, fT bTbbfn - �+ ' ..• .•� N .�fn A Q fnrwPf bb{m T NN h Or O T f N w O T v T N f N h A 6 f A O N A w N b In b•r .p �t 14 Ob win�o M f M b O•O n M f m N .••IQ N N�i 1 W A w b n M ftt T A r f m fn O r O T �b fn'0 0 •+N f N b T M h o A I O f N b O A M A n O b f f N w O T{M T N {N A 1 T A N ffl OOf P fn fl'1 T� f f.+h ti M rA T N NMhb W to.+ f f M b fn m f r f T Wlf P n N Mp A hlo W .Ta b N W O N .fi%Do W b W NOTA C4mr m 'J m f .r r A T f M N T N M A ti rf N T A ! N A O w8 na to mam �e G~ff�f N wfnafb mTA.• m N OA h .+ A N Ar P W OAf A r m M h b rm A fl'1 { Ir .+�m O fbbbf b O •+ T r b LA f PbmwN N•••mTT bT n A T T T N M N N N N M A •r A TfG oobf "No m 4!A T f p O ON O v OOfbf ANT r T �1y { b f b 'D b ..f A h�♦ r A h A fn how a b o r btirb W NTTN T f W .w A f A A T T .y N Q a�3Qj mn •o W G76 In c4 b N O bcoW hm NwK1A -v ch OOf M f N Nflf�+.-f NnQQf NAnO 'o� Z h fD f[1 0 .a h m W O {I.ti fff f O f f[1 OI N ffl O m N m JOf T N A f" fflh hf0 Tm4AO M T f A m A r N T .•f b m cZ N T T N C?Q O A i7 N w T b wO f d: W 1n N..f M �!b N fA O O h �m N N f T W Qp A N f .• f fn N r ^• N fn fn fo w fn N a r A O m A !rf { y"} N m O b fo•"f OI m J1 ti M A io 1-O fo y N f f f A b r N A r M w T .r f .+ G m w M A M b nNTN """ N f U co W m m N w b N •A to fn.+ f i�A m N fn b h fnlT f o o fn m QIn N� ?\ f O A fnb N N A wbN r b f PA a' w W M N M M f f h N f N{110, A r b A f n"I f f 1 r .+ f m O A W N f11 b b A fn 0 T b f i w Lo In n N N N N T N -0 as a 3 d oc f Qi Ln r V A fo z to Z b A r W Ol flf N b N� O It M fnf w {T M f b{in w w NN Nf-f co f d\ f2^f f w 8 .aN 6 N N b pm fbO O f N o A Z A A h�OpQ l Ln Nto 0n �IT r N b m {M b T f b f N N A m fn v S N .bf N N L N C M ro d C m d O O CO) m d L L 7 01 d d 014 LL Q d N C C > 10. L d m W f» " " "" �H pap ►-1�!i� x pb�pp o -gc o c°C w .arc t oWe Cx.p co .d+ wY aL b 'A IL W d d p1Qi i ts7y a 0 c a° a X ~ fnf m~ c 9L L i»odes �d a 3 o AJ-4 a- L LLLLLLNN2Q • �cl� � QQpQ qp • N f b w f .N+'- W�I< OD Oft t b to to tin P b til w f [Yl M M to d P an O�of ttf pQ N f b w f .N+1 �Dl_ cc 'n m oo 11 co d M b P N P to b n cl.bt N M d ^+ N N M P Y W to OLn I M b tlO O '%Q^ Ot .d.N m d .Nn to N yP LL tCl OI b tis N f b •"'t f .Ni' q N N O N M Nlb M w tf! w P Y LL i 4 tlf OI to t[f jQ QQ QQ In O b W "• 1 P O lo ,O f a N NIB bN _•l�M b I M w M M c.4 :F to fl�b b a N M til ^'• f r+, M NI W1fl to n O IIR ODI Q OD P bw 0 f b f f M P A o� N M O N N o > W N 4 f +f N•+I f w d ch tD Ito N 1 j M OL W pp Q PI PI U' ol rt til b O P tH >W Op f N b M b -F W N L,IP M O N } T W (tCajh to N N mN O IMto to N M tf'1 Q O cr OD Iko A b N 01 N M In M m 2.w^ w w M ul Y M to oltn to Q tpA QQ QQ 8 p � Ndb w d ' mb Ln 8 C� O1l7 df Mf DD G7 Op b f w P .f-t ODIm N o� N M til R iA OAC.\+W hO U dl OI t[f an u QQ 8 8 j N f tO ^t a ,N..tI : I bltwil M w oh PN� timN Obi NMtffl A 6 1� •y MN f M \m d L L Go m Al N uj N Cal Q L 6 EC C M M h .i+ qjp y L 1W- Cl 7k 1k a W 31 p E L n ti 4j M O pi ... ..t WL. T \L3 yld co per, n O M W L :2j? 3 Y W L«Oi W IJ Cl Aj Aj uc a�aaa° a o 000 � � c H WWW m F- aaa a a .4 ll a gga all°s°t��•� ■ �� ' s ��a�/ �$■�/ eepaa � ��.est�_�� Ri +� '� Wm— MINA— HIM- lid db so rill fyaa ami art ss� ,�� WAS W,0 In • - '� i88 iaaay • °°� �� It !Nre I ON •'til p so MeMingo �; �; �:. ■111111 '■' I _ ase• s;iss�sr X1111 '"'°►® so it QP 9Q li7d �'�:' 7�. SGV iC � A, CANHIM ■ 50 ■ °� 81 so 'Am p IR slimto all all INS am •° �« &� a Al aoaatISO ries All a VIP $� laas�ase $ ° {�ie.�ft ■ iii °e$ 11"I� ease ■� i�I=[ ' LE ; 14 ,.., ee eie� law as#sell t; ;61- nIBMam- • ergslid ° iii ■ • .'dV49on WIN Sam saeaa.� ®■sees `,, ■os•• � gill Ofae� �� ■■� ' �` ■ � ?��3ar-"}:�, w. � owe • em �, eN �:.�$ � �■� ■ > onto '�if �� lae� � '� 1 fl � ■!�I■eBf�� .�,�ova`'�°�° ins3 eEaa a°° ■ OWN OWN ' t 40 ♦rte ! , �� _ � � . .\ a y V. WASHINGTON COUNTY, 1: OREGON , January 16, 1987 William A. Monahan, Director Community Development Cityof Tigard P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 RE: SOUTH METZGER ANNEXATION This letter is in response to your request for a written statement of ottr interpretation of the County Comprehensive Plan as it relates to the Pro- posed South Metzger annexation. It is the position of the Department. r`.• Land Use and Transportation that this annexation is not a violation of the Washington County Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the provisions of the Washington County-Tigard Urban Planning Area Agreement. The Washington County Comprehensive Framework Plan addresses annexation under Policy 15 "Roles and Responsibilities for Servicing Growth". Implementing Strategies (e) and (f) state: The County will: e. Not oppose proposed annexations which are in accord with an Urban Planning Area Agreement (UPAA); f. Work with Community Planning Organizations to identify and describe specific concerns related to possible future annexations of land to cities which abut Community Planning Areas. These concerns shall he considered by the County during renegotiation of Urban Planning Arca Agreements... Annexation was identified as a concern by residents of the Metzger-Progress Community Planning Area. As a result, General Design Element 22 was included in the Metzger-Progress Community Plan adopted in 1983: 22 Piecemeal annexation of land in this Planning Area shall be di.- couraged because it damages the character of the Metzger community. If annexation is to occur, then annexation as a community unit i. preferred. Review of development proposals for land proxinuite to the cities of Portland, Tigard and Beaverton limits shall be coor- dinated as required in the Washington County - City of Portland. Washington County - City of Tigard, and Washington County - Gita' of Beaverton Urban Planning Area Agreements. Department of Land Use And Transportat+.a+ t'Lu+n+nu D,�+�+"' 150 North F">t Aweelut, Hillsboro.Oreyon 9: , William A. Monahan January 16, 1987 Page 2 The Metzger-Progress Community Plan's position on annexation is addressed in the Washington County-Tigard Urban Planning Area Agreement (as required by Policy 3, Implementing Strategy (b) of the Comprehensive Framework Plan). Section III B 4(c) of the UPAA states: c. The CITY agrees in principle to a plebiscite or other representative means for annexation in the Metzger/Progress Community Planning Area. which includes Washington Square, within the CITY Area of Interest. Not contrary to the foregoing, the CITY reserves all of its rights to annex and acknowledges the rights of individual property owners to annex to the CITY pursuant to Oregon Revised Statutes. The Comprehensive Framework Plan, the Metzger-Progress Community Plan and the UPAA do not prohibit the annexation of portions of the Metzger-Progress area to the City of Tigard. The policies and strategies of these three documents indicate that the preferred option is to annex the entire area at one time and that the issue be decided by a vote of the affected residents. Since Oregon Revised Statutes provide a number of alternatsve methods for annexation, both large-and small-scale, it was not appropriate for the County to adopt annexation policies that would preclude use of these other options by individual residents. or the City of Tigard. The City of Tigard honored the intent of the UPAA by holding an annexation election in November 1986. In addition, since the current pending annexation is proposed through use of the Fesolution process, it is subject to referendum by voters living in the affected area should they choose to exercise that option. Based on the preceeding discussion, it is our position that the City of Tigard has abided by the annexation provisions of the Urban Planning Agreement as they relate to the South Metzger annexation proposal . If you have additional questions or concerns regarding this matter, please -l.et me know. Richard A. Danie s Director RAD:KM:mb c: Board of County Commissioners ` Charles Cameron, County Administrator Kevin Lapp, CPO 4 Ex. 5-2 WASHINGTON ✓� COUNTY, 2 OREGON g, January 28, 1987 Kenneth S. Martin, Executive Director Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission 320 SW Stark Street, Suite 530 Portland, Oregon 97204 RE: PROPOSAL NOS. 2342, .2343, 2344, 2345 The Washington County Departmentof2 aridand 2345 Transportationand has no haions, reviewed Proposal NOS. 2342, 234 , Please enter this letter into the hearing record. if you have any questions regarding this matter, please_ give me-a call. Kevin J. Martin Senior Planner KJM:mb — - - c: Wink Brooks, City of Hillsboro William Monahan, City of Tigard i All x ¢ ti DeWmeM of Land Use Md TMnSPOdaMM Pian dM Div 81M �k HMSbore►ogajp 97124 Phone 60316'87 1 rl�O NoAh:. � Lzm G L CL m J � a a -•+ g' a y a a J LL. u m 3 gJ3 oe o ° ? z a o +a► v m W o a' a. Aj CK N 1114! 9 }L. .N ie S N a'1 C L6 {L1. low N CL 3 3 s m a as (A ° M 41 .0 °a -.r C +� ° L _ A OW r.- A N Yl- N @� 1�p .-� C log C plc •- at D zpk b 4 4 C cli O U S U ca ° 3 4- C 3 J :0%.4 a M C L O U. V' oc a c cb w at w ti v I w w Q w Q W 48 44 m J r O 2 2 Y w .a a N {.. Q N N OC U N U 41 t- r- C 2 ¢ 2 N U J 2 O: Q Y N ~ °D d a ca zv ami ca ca