The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 04/13/1987 U P D A T E TIGARD CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an REGULAR MEETING AGENDA agenda item needs to sign on the appropriate BUSINESS AGENDA - CATV sign-up sheet(s) . If no sheet is available, APRIL 13, 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. o STUDY SESSION - 6:30 p.m. DOVE: LANDING 1. REGULAR MEETING:7:00 P.M. 1.1 Call To Order and Roll Call ALL COUNCIL PRESENT 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. KEYS TO THE CITY o Mayor Brian RESOLUTION 87-44 HONORING DORIS HARTIG JO/EA UA 4. TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT - TITLE 13 - LID RULES ORDINANCE NO. 87-13; JO/EA UA o Legal Counsel 5. PUBLIC HEARING - SUBDIVISION S 7-84 - CENTURY 21 PROPERTIES (CHELSEA HILLS PARK REVIEW) NPO H1 Request by the City of Tigard for review of the approved final plat of Chelsea Hills Subdivision to allow for access into Fanno Creek Park. The properties are zoned R-4.5 (PD) (Single Family Residential, 4.5 units per acre) with a Planned Development overlay. LOCATED: 9259 & 9267 SW Hill Street (WCTM 2S1 2DB, Lots 7600 and 7700). 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: EA/JO UA; TABLED TO 4/27/87 6. DOVER LANDING APPEAL OF STAFF DECISION ON BUILDING PERMIT REQUEST o City Engineer WED UA; STAFF DECISION UPHELD 7. PUBLIC HEARING - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/CPA 87-02 & ZONE CHANGE/ ZC 87-01 - ALBERTSON'S DENSITY TRANSFER 7.1 Site A - Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and a Zone Change from R-4.5 (Single Family Residential, 4.5 units per acre) to R-7 (Single Family Residential, 7 units per acre). LOCATED: East of SW Pacific Highway and west of SW 109th approximately 1/2 mile north of SW Durham Road (WCTM 2S1 1OAC, Lots 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900). ED/JO UA 4 0 1 EA ABSTAINED; ORDINANCE NO. 87-16 c a, 7.6 Site G - Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential to Medium High Density Residential and a Zone Change from R-12 (Multi-Family Residential, 12 units per acre) to R-25 (Multi-Family Residential, 25 units per acre). LOCATED: East of SW Pacific Highway, north of SW Naeve, and approximately 500 feet west of SW 109th (WCTM 2S1 IOD, Lots 700 and part of 600) . JO/ED UA 4-0-1 EA ABSTAINED; ORDINANCE NO. 67-14 7.7 Site H - Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Medium High Density Residential to High Density. LOCATED: East of SW Pacific Highway, north of the Tualatin River and approximately 100 feet south of SW Gravens Street (WCTM 2S1 15C, Lots 700 and 1300) . JO/ED UA 4-0-1 EA ABSTAINED; ORDINANCE NO. 87-15 8. 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: 8.1 Approve Council Minutes: February 23, March 16 & 23, 1987 8.2 Receive and File: . a Council Meeting Calendar Update b 3/31/87 Elections Results Memo 8.3 Approve Resolution of Support - SW Corridor Study - Res. 87-46 8.4 Recess Regular Council Meeting - Convene Local Contract Review Board (LCRB) to approve extra engineering services for 135th LID AS AMENDED: $10,000 Adjourn LCRB - Reconvene Regular Council Meeting 8.5 Approve Training Request - APWA Street Maintenance & Wastewater Collection Systems - Steve Rivett and John Roy - $421.78 8.6 Approve Training Request - Basic Crime Prevention School - Deb Watros - $1,507 EA/JO UA 9. NON-AGENDA ITEMS: From Council and Staff NONE 10. 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. il. ADJOURNMENT: 11:00 P.M. lw/4569A 1 . ,F . I r T I G A R D C I T Y C 0 U N C I L REGULAR MEETING MINUTES — APRIL 13, 1987 — 6:30 P.M. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor Tom Brian; Councilors: Carolyn Eadon, Jerry Edwards, Valerie Johnson (left meeting 8:07 PM, returned 8:33 PM), and John Schwartz; City Staff: Bob Jean, City Administrator; David Lehr, Chief of Police (arrived 9:45 PM); Keith Liden, Senior Planner (arrived 7:00 PM and left 9:54 PM); Bill Monahan, Community Development Dir. ; Jill Monley, Community Services Director/Asst. City Administrator (arrived at 9:45 PM); Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel; Loreen Wilson, City Recorder; and Randy Wooley, City Engineer. 2. STUDY SESSION a. City Council discussed both the Dover Landing appeal of staff decision regarding the issuance timing of building permits and questioned the intent for extra engineering services on 135th LID. b. Albertson's Density Transfer Discussion. City Council and staff discussed the hearing procedure for the Albertson's density transfer. Consensus of Council was to open the hearing and receive testimony for the overall transfer request and Sites A, G, and H specifically. Council determined that if Sites A, G, and H were not approved for the density transfer, the remainder of the sites would be remanded back to the Planning Commission for additional recommendation. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING: 7:05 P.M. 3. CALL TO STAFF AND COUNCIL FOR NON—AGENDA ITEMS — No items were added to the Agenda. 4. VISITOR'S AGENDA a. Dave Atkinson, 10460 S.W. Century Oak nrive, Tigard, Oregon, requested a status report on the Durham Road jurisdiction transfer request which is currently before the Washington County Commissioners for action. Community Development Director reported the County Commissioners would hear this at 10:00 AM on April 14th at the Washington County Courthouse. 5. KEYS TO THE CITY a. The following persons were recognized for their service on various City Boards & Committees: Nick Frezza Budget Committee Todd Mains Economic Development Committee Kathryn Budney Economic Development Committee Juanita Caday Economic Development Committee Richard Bendixsen Library Board Patt Biggs Parks Board Sandra Helfrich Parks Board Steven Schreiner Parks Board Marcia Gaiser Utilities & Franchises Committee LaValle Allen Utilities & Franchises Committee Page 1 — COUNCIL MINUTES — APRIL 13, 1987 Mayor Brian presented a Key to the City to Patt Biggs and Richard Bendixsen for their services to the City. He requested staff forward the remainder of the Keys to those unable to attend. b. Mayor Brian displayed a plaque which had been received from St. Anthony's School noting their appreciation and support of the City. He also reported St. Anthony's held a benefit auction with 10 percent of the proceeds pledged to the City Library. Mayor Brian extended his appreciation for St. Anthony support. C. Doris Hartig Retirement Recognition Mayor Brian requested the City Recorder read into the record a resolution honoring Doris Hartig for her service to the City. RESOLUTION NO. 87-44 A RESOLUTION HONORING AND COMMENDING DORIS B. HARTIG FOR HER 23 YEARS OF DEDICATED SERVICE TO THE CITIZENS OF TIGARD. Motion by Councilor Edwards, seconded by Councilor Johnson, to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. Mayor Brian and the City Council presented the resolution and toe Windmill Volunteer Plaque to Doris Hartig for her years service as a City Employee and also for promoting the Volunteer Program of the City of Tigard. Doris Hartig expressed her appreciation. 6. TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT — TITLE 13 — LID RULES a. Legal Counsel recommended adoption of an ordinance to clarify the current Tigard Municipal Code language regarding the definition of "two—thirds of the property owners" within LID districts. Legal Counsel stated the words "two—thirds" referrenced two— thirds of the property owners in land area within the district. b O3D04ARINNCE NDING TMC SECTION (1) (A) AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. 040(d) C. Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Eadon to adopt. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 7. PUBLICHEARING —REVIEW) NPO VISION S 7-84 CENTURY 21 PROPERTIES (CHELSEA HILL PARK Request by the City of Tigard for review of the approved final plat o Chelsea Hills Subdivision to allow for access into Fanno Creek Park. The properties are zoned R-4.5 (PD) (Single Family Residential, 4.5 units per acre) with a Planned Development overlay. LOCATED: 9259 & 9267 SW Hill Street (WCTM 2S1 20B, Lots 7600 and 7700). Ca. Public Hearing Opened. b. No declarations or challenges were filed by City Council. Page 2 — COUNCIL MINUTES — APRIL 13, 1987 c. Community Development Director advised Council the preliminary subdivision plat for Chelsea Hills II included a 25-foot drainage easement and pedestrian access between lots 53 and 54. Due to concerns expressed by NPO #1 in 1984, the developers reconsidered and decided not to include public access to Fanno Creek Park between the two lots. He noted a request had been made to the City Council to initiate a review of the final subdivision plat in order to include public access over the existing 15-foot easement between lots 54 and 55. Community Development Director also stated the developer had voluntarily placed another park access in the same subdivision. d. Public Testimony Proponents o Timothy Lewis, 13279 S.W. Chelsea Loop, requested Council support for both the existing pathway easement and the proposed addition between Lots 53 and 54. o Ken Watts, 13336 S.W. Chelsea Loop, stated he supported the request. o J. Miller, 13323, S.W. Chelsea Loop, supported the request for park access from the Chelsea Hills II Subdivision and noted action on this issue was going to be required shortly since Lots 53 and 54 were currently for sale. He noted if the Council wished to have park access in the area, this information should be known prior to the sale of the lots. o City Recorder read into the record a letter of support from Michael and Carrie Walkiewicz, 9199 S.W. Hill Street, Tigard. o Dan Gott, 13230 S.W. Hill Court, Tigard, appeared in support of the access noting it would allow better utilization of the park by citizens in the area. o The City Recorder read a letter of support from Michael and Patricia McGrath, 9079 S.W. Hill Street, Tigard. Opponents o Gloria Johnson, 9300 S.W. Hill Street, Tigard, submitted a letter signed by she and her husband, Paul, in opposition of the requested pathway. She outlined concerns regarding increased vandalism and traffic in the neighborhood. She also noted this had been denied in the past and questioned why it was being brought up for reconsideration at this time. o Larry Saub, 13230 S.W. Burnham Court, Tigard, objected to having any park access from Chelsea Hills II. He questioned timing of the request and noted traffic issues and concerns in the area. He also reported in 1984, the Police Department C had filed objections to the park access. He requested information on the Police Department' s position at this time. Mr. Saub objected to the process and questioned why it was being brought up now. Page 3 - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 13, 1987 1 o Gary Ott, 9055 S.W. Edgewood, Tigard, stated he was an NPO #1 member when the park access concept was originally studied. He stated in 1984 the maintenance costs, lighting costs, vehicular and pedestrian impacts, and Police Department patrol concerns were reasons for the original access being eliminated from the subdivision plat. He suggested the process review should be coordinated with the Police Chief and the Park Board so more complete information could be available for the Council prior to their decision. Mr. Ott noted NPO #1 was not in opposition at this time to the request. Mr. Ott objected to the process and questioned why it was being brought up now. e. The Mayor requested staff response to the comments regarding the fast—paced process on this request. f. Community Development Director stated a citizen had requested the issue be called up for review. Staff completed a new analysis of the request as it was a new request for review. Since the Fanno Creek Park was completed and the Civic Center, including the Library, was constructed and open since the original denial of the access, staff's recommendation was that it is now proper to modify the subdivision plat to include the second access. Community Development Director continued by noting the existing access may need additional work for maintenance; however, it was supplied on City land at no cost by the developer. g, Councilor Edwards requested comments from the Police Department and whether or not they had a chance to review the proposal. Community Development Director indicated the Police Department had not responded on this issue. h. Public Hearing Closed. i. Councilor Eadon noted she was on NPO #1 when preliminary discussion of the path occurred and noted that Fanno Creek Park and Civic Center/Library Buildings were undeveloped at that time. The conditions surrounding the access had changed with the development of these areas; however, she was concerned about additional costs for maintenance of the paths. She felt the Park Board and the Police Department should have a chance to review the request and make recommendation to the Council. Councilor Eadon expressed concern with the fast tracking of the request. j . Councilor Edwards agreed with Councilor Eadon's comments and also requested Park Board and Police Department input. k. City Administrator suggested the issue could be tabled until April 27, 1987, which would allow the Park Board to review this issue at their April 21st meeting. 1. Councilor Johnson cautioned the City Administrator. She noted it was not appropriate for him to take advantage of his thorough knowledge of the hearing process of the City to further personal agenda items. However, she also defended the Administrator's right, as a citizen of Tigard, to request issues be reviewed by Council and staff. Page 4 — COUNCIL MINUTES — APRIL 13, 1987 ;y M. Councilor Schwartz supported the Park Board and Police Department review of the request. He suggested the Park Board look not only at the access in question between Lots 53 and 54, but also suggested the Park Board may want to look at other access points on the south and west sides of Fanno Creek Park. He suggested Ash Street might be appropriate for an additional park access. n. City Administrator advised Council he brought this request to the attention of the Council since the developer had expressed concern. He stated that procedurally the process had been done correctly. He noted the recommended timing of the review was based on the need to make a decision prior to sale of the lots. o. Mayor Brian stated the issue before Council was a planning decision. Any dollars for maintenance or priority of the development of the pathway would need to be processed through the the CIP Plan prioritization. P. Councilor Eadon stated she felt it was appropriate for this issue to be tabled to a date certain since a number of people had appeared to testify; it was not a single—person issue any longer. q. Motion by Councilor Eadon, seconded by Councilor Johnson, to table to April 27, 1987 for additional staff input from the Police Department and an overall park access recommendation from the City Park Board. Approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. (Councilor Johnson left the meeting at 8:07 PM) 8. DOVER LANDING APPEAL OF STAFF DECISION ON BUILDING PERMIT REQUEST a. City Engineer stated the plat was approved for Dover Landing, however, plans for the storm sewer were not submitted by the developers' engineer until the end of March, 1987. Staff had refused to issue building permits in a portion of Dover Landina Subdivision, which did not yet have a storm drainage system in place. The drainage plans were adopted April 6th through a staff—approval process. The developer had assured the City the storm drain would be completed not later than April 16, 1987. He continued by stating the staff hesitates to issue building permits on four lots until the storm drainage is completed. b. J. Miller, Builder, outlined the process to date noting he had purchased Lots 41, 43, 48 and 49 of Dover Landing and had sold those under Earnest Money Agreements for completion of the homes no later than June 30, 1987. He requested Council approve issuance of building permits for those lots since the completion of the buildings would be long after the storm drainage system was installed and approved by the City. He noted the financial hardship which was being created for his business and also for those persons who signed the Earnest Money Agreements. Page 5 — COUNCIL MINUTES — APRIL 13, 1987 71 Mr. Miller continued by noting the construction of homes would not increase the natural drainage in the area and advised Council he would agree to not pipe water to the street area until i� authorized for the drainage water runoff. He also further agreed to not roof or gutter the homes under construction until authorized by the City. C. Lengthy discussion followed between staff, Council and Mr. Miller. Mayor Brian suggested that perhaps building permits could be issued with the understanding that a Stop Work Order would be issued in two weeks if the drain line was not installed. d. After further discussion, Councilor Edwards and Councilor Eadon, expressed concern regarding the intent of the developer to construct the line, and noted appreciation of the builder's difficult situation. They both supported, in this instance, staff's recommendation until the pipe was on site. e. Motion by Councilor Eadon, seconded by Councilor Edwards, to uphold staff position. Mayor Brian noted empathv for the builder and the financial hardship which was being ated. He stated he could have supported a two-week Stop Oruer condition on the issuance of building permits for the four lots in question; however, he noted would support staff recommendation at this time. Motion to deny appeal and uphold the staff position was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (Councilor Johnson returned to meeting: 8:33 PM) 9. PUBLIC IEARMG - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/CPA 87-02 & ZONE CHANGE/ ZC 87-01 - ALBERTSON'S DENSITY TRANSFER 9.1 Site A - Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and a Zone Change from R-4.5 (Single Family Residential, 4.5 units per acre) to R-7 (Single Family Residential, 7 units per acre). LOCATED: East of SW Pacific Highway and west of SW 109th approximately 1/2 mile north of SW Durham Road (WCTM 2S1 1OAC, Lots 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900). 9.2 Site B - Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and a Zone Change from R-3.5 (Single Family Residential, 3.5 units per acre) to R-7 (Single Family Residential, 7 units per acre). LOCATED: East of SW 109th, south of Canterbury Woods Apts. , north of Summerfield Subdivision and west of both SW Hood View Drive and SW Kable Street (WCTM 2S1 10D, Lots 100, 200, 201, 202, 300, 400, 401, 402, 403). 9.3 Site C - Zone Change from R-7 (Single Family Residential, 7 units per acre) to R-12 (Multi-Family Residential, 12 units per acre). LOCATED: East of SW Hall, south of SW Ross, west of SW 79th, and north of Bond Park Subdivision (WCTM 2S1 12CA, Lots 4000, 4100, and 2S1 12CB, Lots 500, 600, 800, 1000, 1200, 1300, 1400). Page 6 - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 13, 1987 9.4 Site D/E - Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and a Zone Change from R-4.5 (Single Family Residential, 4.5 units per acre) to R-7 (Single Family Residential, 7 units per acre) . LOCATED: West of 76th, south of Gentlewoods Subdivision, east of SW 79th and north of Bond Park Subdivision (WCTM 2S1 12CA, Lots 700, 3500, 3600, 3700, 3800) . 9.5 Site F - Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and a Zone Change from R-4.5 (Single Family Residential, 4.5 units per acre) to R-7 (Single Family Residential, 7 units per acre). LOCATED: South of SW Sattler, east of SW Alderbrook, north of SW Hamlet and approximately 600 feet west of SW Hall (WCTM 2S1 11DA, Lot 200 and part of 100) . 9.6 Site G - Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential to Medium High Density Residential and a Zone Change from R-12 (Multi-Family Residential, 12 units per acre) to R-25 (Multi-Family Residential, 25 units per acre). LOCATED: East of SW Pacific Highway, north of SW Naeve, and approximately 500 feet west of SW 109th (WCTM 2S1 10D, Lots 700 and part of 600) . 9.7 Site H - Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Medium High Density Residential to High Density. LOCATED: East of SW Pacific Highway, north of the Tualatin River and approximately 100 feet south of SW Gravens Street (WCTM 2S1 15C, Lots 700 and 1300). 9.8 Site K - Zone Change from R-2 (Single Family Residential, 2 units per acre) to R-4.5 (Single Family Residential, 4.5 units per acre). LOCATED: Southwest of SW Gaarde and north of Ames Orchard Subdivision (WCTM 2S1 JOBB, Lot 600). a. Public Hearing Opened. b. Councilor Eadon declared a Conflict of Interest with a member of her household; she noted she would abstain from any discussion or vote on the issue. C. Community Development Director highlighted the history of the request. He stated Planning Commission had met March 3, 1987, to consider seven separate sites in the City of Tigard and one site in the Tigard Planning Area for possible density transfer. The Community Development Director advised Council in addition to sites recommended for review by Council in December, the property owners of Area H had contacted City staff and initiated a review of that area. The Planning Commission decided to recommend approval of staff's recommendation for Sites G & H and to modify staff's recommendation for Site A in order to increase the zoning from R-4.5 to R-12. Planning Commission further recommended against any changes on Sites B, C, D, E, F and K. d. Mayor Brian advised citizens the Council had read the transcript from the Planning Commission hearing. He advised the audience Council would receive public testimony for the general discussion on density transfers and for specifically Sites A, G and H. He Page 7 - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 13, 1997 stated, should Sites A, G, & H not meet the approval requirements of Council, that further direction would be given at that time as to the process. e. Public Testimony Proponents o John W. Shonkwiler, Attorney for Albertson's, 207 Lincoln Savings Building, 16325 S.W. Boones Ferry Road, Lake Oswego, OR, 97034, noted Albertson's support of the Planning Commission recommendation. He distributed a suggested priority ranking of the parcels which were considered by Planning Commission and noted the Albertson' s top three priorities were Parcels H, A, and G, which would allow for a greater number of units to be transferred than was required. Opponents o Phil Pasteris, NPO #6 Chairperson, 8935 S.W. Pinebrook, Tigard, stated that NPOs 5 and 6 held a joint meeting on 2/18/87 to look at the request from City Council for density transfer. He stated the NPO's first choice would be for no Albertson's development be allowed based on an inadequate traffic study. The second choice of the NPO would be to use the Albertson's information to place the density transfer around the their site to act as a buffer between the commercial development and other residential properties with traffic going directly onto Durham Road. He noted, however, Council had ruled out that option at their December meeting. The NPO's third choice was to recommend a priority ranking for density transfers based on the specific request of City Council. Their choices were: Site H, change to R-40; Site G, change to R-25; Site F, change to R-7 with no PD allowed; Site B change to R-4.5. He suggested also that Council may want to look at the C-G zone just south of Naeve Road and consider rezoning that to R-12. He further noted the NPOs supported preservation of as many large trees on Little Bull Mountain as possible. o Ken Cheeley, 15390 S.W. Alderbrook Court, Tigard, noted he was a representative of the Liaison Committee of Summerfield and could not support the Albertson's development in the area. He noted Summerfield's concerns regarding traffic impacts which would be created in the Summerfield Subdivision should density transfers occur on the north side of Durham Road. He said A and G sites could be supported; however, this would only be with the elimination of access towards Summerfield on 109th Avenue from those sites. He also noted several Summerfield residents in the audience who were concerned with this issue. Page 8 - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 13, 1987 1 o Jan—Thomas Limpo, 15270 S.W. 79th Avenue, Tigard, advised Council he was opposed to the general plan for development of i the Albertson's area off of Durham Road. He stated he was sorry Albertson's was leaving the downtown area and cited concerns regarding the density transfers. o Councilor Edwards noted that Albertson's had decided to leave the downtown core area whether this site or another one was approved for their development. Councilor Edwards further explained the Tigard downtown area was being studied in a joint effort with Portland State University to revitalize that area and encourage business. o Jane P. Miller, 10920 S.W. Highland Drive, Tigard, stated she was an NPO #6 member. She noted her opposition to the move of Albertson's into the area and concern with Little Bull Mountain development. She requested Council protect property within Summerfield should the Little Bull Mountain sites be selected for density transfer. o Marge Davenport, 15100 S.W. 109th Avenue, Tigard, also a member of NPO # 6, expressed concerns with the Planning process noting if Site A were approved, she would recommend elimination of access onto 109th Avenue. o Bev Straub, 9425 S.W. Inez, Tigard, stated she opposed the rezonin;i; however, if rezoning was approved, she would support the Planning Commission' s recommendation. f. Testimony — Site A: o Jorn L. Peterson, 10120 S.W. Kent, Tigard, stated he owned property on Site A and supported the request for rezoning. o Aase B. Otto, 14200 S.W. 97th Avenue, Tigard, supported the rezoning noting it was difficult for her to sell any of the single family property she owns fronting on Pacific Highway. Mayor Brian noted that Mrs. Marge Davenport had opposed Site A earlier in the evening. o Phil Pasteris, NPO #6 Chairperson, stated the NPO had recommended no rezoning on Site A and questioned why the proponents for Site A had not appeared at the NPO. g. Mayor Brian noted there were no people signed up to testify for either Sites G or H. h. Community Development Director stated the staff and Planning Commission recommend approval of: Site A, rezoning from R-4.5 PD to R-12 PD; Site G, for the half fronting 99W, rezoning from R-12 PD to R-25 PD; and for Site H, a Comprehensive Plan Change from Medium High Density R-24 to High Density R-40. i. Discussion followed regarding the portion of land under Site H which had been used to figure the number of dwelling units available. Community Development Director stated the northerly Page 9 — COUNCIL MINUTES — APRIL 13, 1987 half of Site H was the only portion used to compute the number of dwelling units available at build-out, since the southerly half of the parcel was unbuildable. j . Dave Atkinson, 10460 S.W. Century Oak Drive, Tigard, noted concern with Site A being developed if 109th Avenue was opened to the site. His major concern was with traffic impact from that area through the Summerfield Subdivision. k. Councilor Johnson stated she was listening and responding to the citizens and NPO input which she had heard, but also, as a Councilor, she needed to watch the fiscal impacts of decisions on the balance of a healthy business climate and livability of the neighborhoods in the City of Tigard. She stated her decision in December to relocate Albertson's onto the Durham and Pacific Highway site was still, in her opinion, a viable solution to keeping the balance healthy between commercial and residential development. She offered her support for sites G and H for density transfer and said she could support site A, but also wanted to support the NPO #6 recommendation for rezoning of the Commercial-General property south of Naeve Road. 1. Councilor Edwards agreed with comments made, noting his support of sites A, G and H. He stated he was concerned with the traffic impact on Summerfield from 109th and wanted to address that issue as a condition in the ordinance. M. Councilor Schwartz stated he could support sites A, G and H with the condition that traffic would access onto Pacific Highway. He also addressed concern with 109th access from Site A. n. Mayor Brian agreed with all comments, including 109th access concerns. He stated Council does value the NPO participation, but noted Council must use its best judgment for each application which comes before them. o. Community Development Director stated Council could ensure any Council review of any development on Site A by attaching a condition to that effect to the ordinance. P. Public Hearing Closed. q. ORDINANCE NO. 87-14 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT [CPA 7-01 (G)3 AND A ZONE CHANGE [ZC 87-02(G)] PROPOSED BY THE CITY. r. Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Edwards to approve. Approved by a unanimous 4-0-1 vote of Council present; Councilor Eadon abstaining. (Chief of Police and Community Services Director arrived: 9:45 PM) S. ORDINANCE NO. 87-15 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A COMPRENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AMENDMENT [CPA 87-10(H)3 PROPOSED BY THE CITY. Page 10 - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 13, 1987 t. Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Edwards to approve. Approved by a unanimous 4-0-1 vote of Council present; Councilor Eadon abstaining. U. Council requested staff-proposed language to amend the ordinance for Site A which would require Council review of any Plan Development applications for the property. Community Developer and Legal Counsel suggested the following language: An amendment by adding a Whereas statement" at the end of that section of the ordinance to read as follows: "WHEREAS, the City Council has expressed concern regarding access from Site A along 109th Avenue, the Council reserves the right to review any Planned Development (PD) applications submitted for properties within Site A." A new Section 3 added to the ordinance to read as follows: i "Section 3: The City Council will review any Planning Commission decision on any Planned Development Application for properties within Site A." The existing Section 3 of the Ordinance is to be renumbered as Section 4. i V. ORDINANCE NO. 87-16 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND ! CONCLUSIONS TO AMEND AND APPROVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, [CPA 87-01(A)] AND ZONE CHANGE [ZC 87-01(A)] PROPOSED BY THE CITY. f W. Motion by Councilor Edwards, seconded by Councilor Johnson, to approve with amendments as recommended by staff. Approved by a unanimous 4-0-1 vote of Council present; Councilor f Eadon abstaining. I RECESS: 9:54 P.M. (Senior Planner Liden left meeting) ! RECONVENED 10:05 P.M. 10. CONSENT AGENDA: 10.1 Approve Council Minutes: February 23, March 16 & 23, 1987 10.2 Receive and File: a Council Meeting Calendar Update b 3/31/87 Elections Results Memo 10.3 Approve Resolution of Support - SW Corridor Study - Res. 87-46 10.4 Recess Regular Council Meeting - Convene Local Contract Review Board (LCRB) to approve extra engineering services for 135th LID (as amended: $10,000) - Adjourn LCRB - Reconvene Regular Meeting 10.5 Approve Training Request - APWA Street Maintenance & Wastewater Collection Systems - Steve Rivett and John Roy - $421.78 10.6 Approve Training Request - Basic Crime Prevention School - Deb Watros - $1,507 Page 11 - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 13, 1987 r After brief discussion, Councilor Eadon moved to approve the Consent Agenda with an amendment to Item .4 which would allow extra engineering services up to $10,000 for the 135th LID. The motion was seconded by < Councilor Johnson. Council consensus was to direct City Engineer to poll each of the Council members for their intent in order to minimize the additional engineering services needed. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 11. NON—AGENDA ITEMS: NONE RECESS: 10:12 P.M. RECONVENED 10:15 P.M. 12. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 10:15 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, and current and pending litigation issues. 11. ADJOURNMENT: 10:57 P.M. APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL ON THE 27TH DAY OF APRIL, 1987. � � t City Recorder — City of Tigard ATTEST: Mayor — City of Tigard LW/cw:4612A Page 12 — COUNCIL MINUTES — APRIL 13, 1987 TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY Legal P.O.BOX 370 PHONE(503)684-0360 Notice 7-6013 BEAVERTON.OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising s City of Tigard O ❑ Tearsheet Notice PO Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit l AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss. �r i, Anne Jean -- being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising C Director, or his principal clerk, of the T-i$a.e-d T im.e.s—, a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published a in the I aforesaid county and state;that t e i a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for successive and consecutive in the following issues: April 9, 1987 r subscribed orn afore me this _ N „�__ otary Public for Oregon My C;offi ftsioa Expires: 9-20-88 AFFIDAVIT CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING In the Matter of the Proposed ORDINANCE NOS. 87-13, 87-14, 87-15 & 87-16 STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss City of Tigard ) I, '51being first duly sworn, on oath, depose and say: That I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance Number(s) 87-13. 87-14, 87-15 & 87-16 which were adopted at the Council Meeting dated April 13, 1987 copy(s) of said ordinance(s) being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the 22nd day of April , 1987. 1. Tigard Civic Center, 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. , Tigard, Oregon. 2. U.S. National Bank, Corner of Main and Scoffins, Tigard, Oregon 3. Safeway Store, Tigard Plaza, S.W. Hall Blvd. , Tigard, Oregon Subscribed and sworn to before me this day ocna day of -An/ j' 19� A,RC !A K. H i; CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 87-__ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TMC SECTION 13.04.040(d) (1 ) (A) AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 : Section 13.04.040 of the Tigard Municipal Code shall be amended so that the following section of 13.04.040 shall read as follows, clarifying the meaning of the section, by adding the underlined language. "Section 13.04.040(d) (1) (A) . The Council shall not proceed with the formation of the district and the making of the improvement when the property owners owning two-thirds of the property area within the district to be specially assessed remonstrate against the improvement. This provision shall not apply in case of an emergency or to sidewalks as provided by the Charter. " Section 2: Inasmuch as it is necessary for the peace, health and safety of the people of the City of Tigard that this amendment be made with the least possible delay, an emergency is hereby declared to exist, and this ordinance shall become effective Immediately upon passage by the Council and approval by the Mayor. PASSED: By ver, q i/Y!G(,lSvote of all Council members present after beng read by number and title only, this /3tk day of 1987. i LX City Recorder - City of Tigard APPROVED: This ��day of 1987. Mayor - City of Tigard A PR VED AS TO FORM: i " C ty Attorney PAGE 1 - ORDINANCE NO. 87-J CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 87-_/y AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT [CPA 87-01(G)] AND A ZONE CHANGE [ZC 87-02(G)] PROPOSED BY THE CITY. WHEREAS, the City has requested a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential to Medium High Density Residential and a Zone Change from R-12 (PD) (Multi-Family Residential, 12 units per acre, Planned Development) to R-25 (PD) (Multi-Family Residential, 25 units per acre, Planned Development); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal at their regular meeting on March 3, 1987 and recommended approval; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the City Council on April 13, 1987 to consider the Commission recommendation. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The proposal is consistent with all relevant criteria as discussed in the March 3, 1987 Planning staff report to the Planning Commission (Exhibit "A") . Section 2: The City Council upholds the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map Amendment as set forth in Exhibit "B". Section 3: This ordinance shall be effective on or after the 31st day after its passage by the Council, and approval by the Mayor. PASSED: By '.vY,p«C vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this rh day of 1987. 6; Loreen R. Wilson, tity Recorder APPROVED: This day of Y 1987. Thomas M. Brian, Mayor (TD:cn/1127W) r� Y ORDINANCE NO. 87- Iq Page 1 . B -� � STAFF ch Ib; REPORT AGENDA ITEM 5.2 G MARCH 3, 1987 - 7:30 P.M. TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION TIGARD CITY HALL - TOWN HALL 13125 SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD, OREGON 97223 A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: CPA 87-01 (G), ZC 87-02 (G) REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential and a Zone Change from R-12 (PD) (Multi-Family Residential, 12 units per acre, Planned Development) to R-25 (PD) (Multi-Family Residential, 25 units per acre, Planned Development). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential ZONING DESIGNATION: R-12 (PD) APPLICANT: City of Tigard OWNER: William & Claire Sanders Chalmer Lee George, Jr. LOCATION: East of SW Pacific Highway, north of SW Naeve, and approximately 500 feet west of SW 109th (WCTM 2S1 10D lot 700 and part of 600). 2. Background Information The properties on this site were considered for a Comprehensive Plan Revision in 1981 (CPR : _�:; . Prior to this, these properties were annexed into the City with a Washington County zone designation of RU-4 (Residential, 4 units per acre) . CPR 1-81 proposed to change the Comprehensive Plan from low to medium density residential and a zone change to R-12. A Planned Development (PD) overlay was included in the final approval which would require all development on the site to be brought before the Planning Commission and the density to be reviewed as a part of the approval process. In December 1986 the Tigard City Council gave conditional approval to the Albertson's Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) for changing the Comprehensive Plan designation of several properties located at the southeast corner of Durham Road and Pacific Highway. This proposal requested rezoning these properties from high density residential to commercial. The result of this decision was the removal of about 400 potential housing units from Tigard's inventory of buildable land. The Metropolitan Housing Rule adopted by the Land Conservation and STAFF REPORT - CPA 87-01(G) & ZC 87-02 (G) - PAGE 1 090/f,fUMO Cc Development Commission states that Tigard must provide for 50 percent single family and at least 50 percent single family attached or multiple family units with a minimum of 10 units to the net acre. The Metro Housing Rule applies to only vacant buildable land within Tigard's Urban Planning Area, and does not affect established and developed residential areas. The Albertson's CPA was granted on the condition of a rezoning of sufficient residentially zoned land to make up for the shortfall created by this decision. The City Council has identified several sites throughout the City to be considered for increased residential density. These properties are some of those identified in the City's attempt to maintain compliance with the Metropolitan Housing Rule of 10 residential units to the net acre. 3. Vicinitv•Information The properties to the north are presently zoned R-4.5 (low density residential, 4.5 units per acre) but are now under consideration for a rezoning to R-7 (medium density residential, 7 units per acre). The city limits of King City are to the west (across Pacific Highway); C-G (General Commercial) and R-25 to the southd and R-12 to the east are the other zoning districts that surround the site. The general vicinity is mostly undeveloped with the exception of The Fountains at Summerfield extension which reaches north almost to S.W. - Naeve. Half-street improvements on S.W. Naeve are in process as part of that development approval. 4. Site Information and Proposal Description The proposed zone change affects all of tax lot 700 (the western most property) but only the western half of tax lot 600 (approximately 4 acres).-- This amounts to a total of 9.5 acres. The rezoning could potentially add 124 residential units to this, at-maximum allowable development. The PD overlay would remain with the zone change. Presently, the site has one single family residence set back about 200 feet from S.W. Naeve. Nearby is an old, unused greenhouse and vacant one-story building, both of which apparently were once used for a nursery business. 5. Agency and NPO Comments The Tigard School District has reviewed the proposal and makes the following comments: The school district knows the City is aware of the problem we are facing regarding overcrowding in our schools. The Board of Directors has asked us to convey to the City the district's concerns about i' proposed changes in the comprehensive plan which would increase the- density in areas where we are already experiencing considerable STAFF REPORT - CPA 87-01(G) & ZC 87-02 (G) - PAGE 2 enrollment pressures — Templeton Elementary, for example. Making such changes in the Comprehensive Plan can send the signal to the public that needed services are in place when, in fact, school classrooms throughout the district are reaching capacity. School district patrons will have an opportunity to approve additional construction funds in 1988. Until that time and a successful bond election, the district cannot guarantee a quality educational program for increased enrollments without additional classroom space being available. The Engineering Division has reviewed the proposal and makes the following comments: It is not known if rezoning will change the density of actual future development of the properties. However, to evaluate potential "worst case impacts, we assumed that each area will develop to its maximum density. According to the Community Development Director's memo of December 17, 1986, the rezoning could result in up to 560 additional residential units in the south part of Tigard. Additional residential units can be expected to generate more traffic on nearby streets. We can reasonably estimate that for each additional single family residence, there will be one additional vehicle trip during the evening peak hour. Because the eight proposed rezonings are spread over a wide area, it does not appear that the rezoning would have a major impact on any one street. The additional traffic could be accommodated by the street system currently proposed in the City's long-range planning. Some additional street improvements, such as additional turn lanes at selected locations, might be needed as a result of the additional traffic. It appears that the systems development changes from the additional residential units would be adequate to fund the additional street improvements that might be needed. Additional residential units would create some additional flows in the sewerage system, but it does not appear that any increases in pipe sizes would be necessary. In general, in residential areas, the size of sewer piping is determined by minimum sizing to accommodate maintenance equipment rather than by flow requirements. Higher residential densities would probably result in slightly higher storm runoff volumes. In some areas this may require increases in the size of storm drainage piping. The systems development charges generated by the additional units should be adequate to cover any resulting additional costs to the storm drainage system. Impacts on the major drainageways would be negligible. NPO N6 has reviewed the proposal and provides the following comments: We disapprove of this proposal for the following reasons: inadequacy of street networking and development to handle increased traffic; inconsistent application, by Council, of criterion for zone change (re: Carmen Center); and contradiction of previous decision by Planning - Commission regarding zone change request by Mo Indriss (re: P.-7 to R-12 on parcels at approximately SW Hall and SW Ross). r STAFF REPORT - CPA 87-01(G) & ZC 87-02 (G) - PAGE 3 B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, and 10, and Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 7.1.2, 7.8.1, 8.1.3, 8.2.2, and Chapter 12, Locational Criteria. The Planning staff concludes that the proposal is consistent with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines based upon the following findings: 1. Goal #1 is met because the City has adopted a Citizens Involvement program including review of all development applications by the Neighborhood Planning Organization (NPO). In addition, all public notice requirements are met. j 2. Goal #2 is met because the City applied all applicable Statewide Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan Policies and Development Code requirements to the application. 3. Goal #10 is satisfied because the proposal will provide for housing as contemplated by the City Comprehensive Plan and the Metropolitan Housing Rule. The Planning staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Plan based upon the findings noted below: 1. Plan Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because the Neighborhood Planning Organization and surrounding property owners were given notice of the hearing and an opportunity to comment on the applicant's proposal. 2. Plan Policy 6.1.1 is satisfied because the zone change will allow for multi—family development. The City of Tigard is obligated through the Metropolitan Housing Rule to provide for an equal mix of single family and attached units with an overall development density of 10 units per acre. The City must ensure that sufficient higher density areas are available so the intent of the housing rule can be met. 3. Plan Policy 7.1.2 is satisfied because adequate service capacities are available in the immediate area. Utility extensions (e.g. sewer) will be necessary to serve the property. This can be accomplished as a condition of developing the site. 4. Plan Policy 7.8.1 is satisfied because the Tigard School District was informed of this proposal and made comments about overcrowding in public schools and the potential problems increased enrollments could have for the quality of education in _ the local school system. C STAFF REPORT — CPA 87-01(G) & ZC 87-02 (G) — PAGE 4 5. Plan Policy 8.1.3 will be satisfied as a condition for development of the property. The necessary right-of-way and street improvements would be required at that time. 6. Plan Policy 8.2.2 can be satisfied at this time because Tri-Met offers bus service on Pacific Highway. 7. The Locational Criteria in Chapter 12 of the Plan are satisfied for the following reasons: a. The property is within a "Developing Area" which is not committed to low density development. b. The parcels have direct access to a Pacific Highway, an arterial and Naeve St. , a minor collector. C. Development limitations are not evident and public facilities can be provided to serve the property if they are extended. d. Public transit is available for the two parcels. e. Convenience retail service is available along Pacific Highway general commercial and business centers are 1 to 1.5 miles away. C. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above findings and conclusions, the Planning staff recommends approval of CPA 87-M(G) and ZC 87-02(G). -,A�6a - "All PREPA BY: To on APP E 48Yie1li%EAAonahan Assistant Planner Director of Community Development (TD:cn/2976P/0013P) STAFF REPORT - CPA 87-01(G) & ZC 87-02 (G) - PAGE 5 C. i ANI ■ IVA AP All ■,■ ■'SEN■ Bill I son AAWPP I ♦ 1 s AM oil �� NX r y Or r �9y I� 9 January 1987 City of Tigard, Community Development Dept. Ti&ard, Or. 97223 Attn: Keith S. Liden Dear Sir, nges We understand wouldthere stilll likesome getdensity R-20 back for in "our area our property att 11165 /SW Naeve ST 2SI -10D-00600 Key ##497377 + Since'r y• .W. B. Sanders 23256 Bents Rd.NB .Aurora,--.Or. 97002 678-2327 0 SEE MAP ~ ? 2S 1 IOAC -61 560.16 5.67Ac 0.27 Ac. /O.2TAc. o p20 1 l T3• '= p/.68 Ac. IRR Q \\ - W N 02 7 / /2.6/ Ac. - 42 a\ 350.18' J ' '� 300 r) r T � -800 e s W ted` 2.j Ai. . 01` � 2 S W •g OO 269445' a � S a /.40Ac. S?a BOO 294.73' 294.73' S 0 A O p p -' 321' I O- N .� 1100 401 — - - 4( -1000 321' S.B/AC. `STiQF 3 /.63 Ac. n$ c A Cl) /.ISAe e7 Y` 349.67' O O �!1 ~ N ~0 I' a e72 3 �� =?e. C R o Y n It A 690 52'W 392.28' 4189 51'30 w2oo' \ 1200 0 z /./1 Ac. 589048'w 62y' W :)o m •F f? Ac. 11 e3e yjM 13 CS.9549 0 9-74 :m !� o n O•� N e0 N 20300 Z 702.9' 731.4 r L C .: CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 87—_Z"5:1 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA 87-01(H)) PROPOSED BY THE CITY. WHEREAS, the City has requested a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Medium High to High Density Residential; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal at their regular meeting on March 3, 1987 and recommended approval; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the City Council on April 13, 1987 to consider the Commission recommendation. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section l: The proposal is consistent with all relevant criteria as discussed in the March 8 Planning staff report to the Planning Commission (Exhibit "A") . Section 2: The City Council upholds the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval of the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment as set forth in Exhibit "B". Section 3: This ordinance shall be effective on and after the 31st day after its passage by Council, and approval by the Mayor. PASSED: By aLnn�y ,�YY�nc�� vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this 37-h day of ,Qnr, J 19A7. W Loreen R. Wilson, City Recorder APPROVED: This �3 day of 1987• -YtZ Thomas M. Brian, Mayor sb/1129W ORDINANCE NO. 87—IS- Page 7—LSPage 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 5.2.H MARCH 3, 1987 - 7:30 P.M. Cl TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION TIGARD CITY HALL - TOWN HALL 13125 SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD, OREGON 97223 A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: CPA 87-01 (H) REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Medium High Density Residential to High Density Residential. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium High Density ZONING DESIGNATION: R-24 (Washington Co.) APPLICANT: City of Tigard OWNER: Roy & Gertrude Gray John & Darcy Frederick LOCATION: East of SW Pacific Hwy., north of the Tualatin River and approximately 100 ft. south of SW Gravens St. (WCTM 2S1 15C lots 100 and 1300). 2. Background Information These properties are presently located in unincorporated Washington County but are within the Tigard Planning Area. The present property owners requested a Comprehensive Plan Amendment as part of the rezoning of residential properties associated with the Albertson's proposal. In December 1986 the Tigard City Council gave conditional approval to the Albertson's Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) for changing the Comprehensive Plan designation of several properties located at the southeast corner of Durham Road and Pacific Highway. This proposal requested rezoning these properties from high density residential to commercial. The result of this decision was the removal of about 400 potential housing units from Tigard's inventory of buildable land. The Metropolitan Housing Rule adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission states that Tigard must provide for 50 percent single family and at least 50 percent single family attached or multiple family units with a minimum of 10 units to the net acre. The Metro Housing Rule applies to only vacant buildable land within Tigard's Urban Planning Area, and does not affect established and developed residential areas. STAFF REPORT - CPA 87-01(H) & ZC 87-02(H) - PAGE 1 ORS - I I The Albertson's CPA was granted on the condition of a rezoning of sufficient residentially zoned land to make up for the shortfall created by this decision. The City Council has identified several sites thret-ghoorr • ; to be considered for increased residential density. Althouy'iFthese two parcels were not selected by the City Council for consideration, it was suggested to the Planning Division by both property owners and by their representative. For this reason these properties are identified in the City's attempt to maintain compliance with the Metropolitan Housing Rule of 10 residential units to the net acre. 3. Vicinity Information These properties are bordered by the Tualatin River to the scquth and Pacific Highway to the west. Unincorporated Washington County zoning districts include R-9 (Residential, 9 units per acre) to the north. The subject parcels bound the urban growth boundary to the south and west. 4. Site Information and Proposal Description The southerly property of these two parcels borders on the Tualatin River to the south. the northern part of the property is on high ground with a partly boarded—up house located next to Pacific Highway and a couple of sheds situated about 50 feet from the main structure and from each other. A large structure, apparently a barn, sits in the southern half of the lot. This portion of the property is significantly lower than the northern half and is within the 100 year flood plain. Several small flood ponds were observed and drainage on the lower portion of the property is poor. Besides the built portion of this lot, the land is partially wooded with several strands of fir, cedar, and evergreen trees scattered about. The cleared portions of land are used as a cow pasture. The second property (the most northerly) contains a single—family dwelling setback about 300 ft. from Pacific Highway. The residence is surrounded by various species of both conifers and deciduous trees. The front half of the property has been cleared and tree trimmings and stumps are piled up in several places. 5. Agency and NPO Comments The Tigard School District has reviewed the proposal and makes the following comments: The school district knows the City is aware of the problem we ai'e facing regarding overcrowding in our schools. The Board of Directors has asked us to convey to the City the district's concerns about proposed changes in the comprehensive plan which would increase the density in areas where we are already experiencing considerable enrollment pressures — Templeton Elementary, for example. Making such changes in the Comprehensive Plan can send the signal to the public that needed services are in place when, in fact, school classrooms throughout the district are reaching capacity. School district patrons will have an opportunity to approve additional construction funds in STAFF REPORT — CPA 87-01(H) & ZC 87-02(H) — PAGE 2 1988. Until that time and a successful bond election, the district cannot guarantee a quality educational program for increased enrollments without additional classroom space being available. The Engineering Division has reviewed the proposal and makes the following comments: It is not known if rezoning will change the density of actual future development of the properties. However, to evaluate potential "worst case" impacts, we assumed that each area will develop to its maximum density. According to the Community Development Director's memo of December 17, 1986, the rezoning could result in up to 560 additional residential units in the south part of Tigard. Additional residential units can be expected to generate moreltraffic on nearby streets. We can reasonably estimate that for each additional single family residence, there will be one additional vehicle trip during the evening peak hour. Because the eight proposed rezonings are spread over a wide area, it does not appear that the rezoning would have a major impact on any one street. The additional traffic could be accommodated by the street system currently proposed in the City's long—range planning. Some additional street improvements, such as additional turn lanes at selected, locations, might be needed as a result of the additional traffic. It appears that the systems development changes from the additional residential units would be adequate to fund the additional street improvements that might be _ needed. Additional residential units would create some additional flows in the sewerage system, but it does not appear that any increases in pipe sizes would be necessary. In general, in residential areas, the size of sewer piping is determined by minimum sizing to accommodate maintenance equipment rather than by flow requirements. Higher residential densities would probably result in slightly higher storm runoff volumes. In some areas this may require increases in the size of storm drainage piping. The systems development charges generated by the additional units should be adequate to cover any resulting additional costs to the storm drainage system. Impacts on the major drainageways would be negligible. NPO 05 and N6, a joint meeting on February 18, 1987, indicated they would support the rezoning of these two parcels. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, and 10, and Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 7.1.2, 7.8.1, 8.1.3, 8.2.2, and Chapter 12, Locational Criteria. The Planning staff concludes that the proposal is consistent with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines based upon the following findings: C. 1. Goal #1 is met because the City has adopted a Citizens Involvement program including review of all development applications by the Neighborhood Planning Organization (NPO). In addition, all public notice requirements are met. STAFF REPORT — CPA 87-01(H) 6 ZC 87-02(H) — PAGE 3 2. Goal 02 is met because the City applied all applicable Statewide Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan Policies and Development Code requirements to the application. 3. Goal #10 is satisfied because the proposal will provide for housing as contemplated by the City Comprehensive Plan. The Planning staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Plan based upon the findings noted below: 1. Plan Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because surrounding property owners were given notice of the hearing and an opportunity to comment on the applicant's proposal. 2. Plan Policy 6.1.1 is satisfied because the zone change will still permit multi-family development. The properties are already zoned for medium high density residential development so the change will permit greater diversity in high density development. 3. Plan Policy 7.1.2 is not satisfied because adequate service capacities are not available in the immediate area. As a condition of development, services (i.e., sewer) extensions will be necessary. 4. Plan Policy 7.8.1 is satisfied because the Tigard School District was informed of this proposal made comments about over crowding in public schools and the potential problems increased enrollments could have for the quality of education in the local school system. 5. Plan Policy 8.1.3 will be satisfied as a condition for development of the property. If an apartment complex does materialize, it would first require City approval through the Site Development Review process. The necessary right-of-way and street-improvements would be required at that time. 6. Plan Policy 8.2.2 can be satisfied at this time because Tri-Met offers bus service on Pacific Highway. 7. The Locational Criteria in Chapter 12 of the Plan are satisfied for the following reasons: a. The property is not within a "Developing Area" but is within the Tigard Planning Area and likely to be annexed sometime in the future. b. Development limitations are evident due to portions of both properties being in the 100 year flood plain. Innovative site design could permit a transfer of density to the buildable portions of both properties. C. Public sewer is not currently available and will need to be extended to service these properties. STAFF REPORT - CPA 87-01(H) & ZC 87-02(H) - PAGE 4 d. Convenience retail service is available along Pacific ' Highway and general commercial and business centers are about 2-3 miles away. e. Public open space is available along portions of the Tualatin River. C. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above findings and conclusions, the Planning staff recommends approval of CPA 87-01(H) and ZC 87-02(H). PREPAR D BY: DixonROVED BY William A. Monahan Assistant Planner Director of Community Development (TD:bs2983P/0021P) STAFF REPORT — CPA 87-01(H) & ZC 87-02(H) — PAGE 5 oil 0 Mi NTO INS i y.. • y :;�,:r•, .: rt �.��I-'��:��.�'�-t ,;'��i`%;S; i'.Y'7.r lY Z)ri�'l' �;��1-f� 14r, M� �� .�; �. �' � �S -)kms' •r'S�.� Z:•w}�.' r i,.•i ..J '..�• 1. � Sw'` .t: L E0WWffiffl%;M OHM. core JAN 27 1987 • CITY OF TIGARD 17FF PLANNING DEP • January 26, 1987 Mr. Keith S. Liden Senior Planner City of Tigard PO Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Keith: In our recent conversation you stated the City would consider increasing the density of some multi-family sites to replace that lost in the Albertson development. I would like you to consider increasing the density of Tax -- Lots 100 and 1300, Section 15 T2S, R1W, Map C to 40 units per acre. The two parcels are within your urban growth boundary. Due to their location on Pacific Highway, an increase in traffic caused by the increase in density would not impact the City's streets. I am enclosing letters from each of the owners requesting the same. ` Your cooperation is appreciated. Yours truly, MACADAM FORBES, INC. W. Vern Galaway Associate Broker WVG:hlm enclosure cc: R.E. Gray John H. Frederick 3 i i A >�pt.Z+psts . 1900 S.W.FIRST AVENUE PORTtANO.OREow 97201 (503)227-2500 JOHN H. FREDERICK & ASSOCIATES L7AldZING IN MOHAWK BUBMING Joky H.Flt 3muctc , r p 708 S.W.3rd,Suite 400 t+uacAacr 7Atit aIe U(a Inmmuce P.O.Box 570 DbWMY Protection Portland,Oregon 97207 Heekr and Accident Telephone 299-4349.299-4348 Sdwd&Student Programs ftwioo&Prt m& int Dental Coseraae ^� BtJS,NPSs Sm,Ai70NS Relremest Prava u �J Indannhy "� JAN 27 1987 Sta&Re&mpdon MAU ANALYSIS Ct 1 Y ur AGARD PLANNING DEFTa , January 8, 1987 Tigard City Council City of Tigard 12755 SW Ash Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Tax Lot 1300 Section 15 2s1 Hap C Dear Council Members: It has been brought to our attention that the city is looking to increase the housing density caused by a zone change in the Tigard area. We would like you to consider increasing the density to forty (40) per acre on the above described property. Thank you for giving this matter your attention. incere y John H. rederick Darcy F. Frederick I A Dlylsion of Campbell, Galt, A Newlands, Inc. 7 5 1 AFFILIATED WSURANM SBRVICES IN MAJOR CITIES UNITED STATESICANADA 7a-If X987 JAN 27 '� r1 GARo c "G OEC'• ! -'� NE COR , 426.05' MANNERS p � 478/413 ' R D. 6314 /^ ' 142.45 .e .,el; 4001' �/ l� -L— 500• J m2 � _ .Nc10954) a I.25AC. 0300 0� S e.'e.43At c lege 56 E SE COR O n 400 292/418 ,A c all I.04Ac. N� S 890 4S'E 0 3E COR a o .100 CENTER SEC e eOw1AAN e o 4.62 AC. 0 254/489 -NSE COR Se90 581E '.HOSE ; 14 2.9 31 000 302/448 1100 - 1.66 ACL .6 rAc. o 918 2' a $ege 54'E900.4 N890 45'W o sw OR 1190.4 13 00 14.s' �n FREDERICK 304/411 06 a /2.68 Ac. (C.S. No. 13284) `• ; sw COR 1101w ' .0)Ap, 1C'OllJPENNY 247/811 A N890 e4w a 01200 m (C.S.No.107rf) 57'E r0+ � 3 RAW Ne90S7 E /V Aw lMSlre ' -J +F" 792.2 "890 54'w o - N 1500 I I.IJwc 1 ' 1501 wi I./2AC. N 1401 77Ar 0 0 ^'N SEE M A q 0 = ., �~ 352S 1 15 / WI 1400 1.et Aa it EGIN 977 f )' 600 N87e0'w 231.8' / SWOHAZELBROOK 0 1-CR977 e R' (j �.--sEGlb Is7- STABS}W N / O/ 'i 11.0 V 392.70' WELL 11HOUSE 50053' � /46 e`b 1700 1600 330.44' 40' /0.60Ae. t e.0' / 3.27 AC. 4 K w w W <1 - a 0, 36 � 37 •00 20 • .n _ n r / r • _ / , f0 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 87--L&— AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO AMEND AND APPROVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA 87-01(A)) AND A ZONE CHANGE (ZC 87-02(A)) PROPOSED BY THE CITY. WHEREAS, the City has requested a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and a Zone Change from R-4.5 (PD) (Single Family Residential, 4.5 units per acre, Planned Development) to R-7 (Single Family Residential, 7 units per acre, Planned Development); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal at its regular meeting on March 3, 1987 and recommended amending the Zone Change to R-12 (PD) (Multi-Family Residential, 12 units per acre, Planned Development); and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the City Council on April 13, 1987 to consider the Commission recommendation; and WHEREAS, the City Council has expressed concern regarding access from Site A along 109th Avenue, the Council reserves the right to review any Planned Development (PD) applications submitted for properties within Site A. WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Plan based upon the findings noted below: 1. Plan Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because the Neighborhood Planning Organization and surrounding property owners were given notice of the hearing and an opportunity to comment on the applicant's proposal. 2. Plan Policy 6.1.1 is satisfied because the zone change will allow for multi-family development. 3. Plan Policy 7.1.2 can be satisfied because adequate service capacities are available in the immediate area. Utility extensions (e.g. , sewer) will be necessary to serve the property and this can be accomplished as a condition of developing the properties. 4. Plan Policy 7.8.1 is satisfied because the Tigard School District was informed of this proposal and commented that they understood that these CPA's and ZC's were only transferring density within the city and not creating new densities which could potentially adversely affect the quality of education in the local school system by causing overcrowding. 5. Plan Policy 8.1.3 will be satisfied as a condition for development of the property. When development occurs it would first require City approval through the Site Development Review process. The necessary right-of-way and street improvements would be required at that time. C6. Plan Policy 8.2.2 can be satisfied because Tri-Met offers regular bus service on Pacific Highway. ORDINANCE NO. 87-_11,17 Page 1 ' w 7. The Locational Criteria in Chapter 12 of the Plan are satisfied for the following reasons: a. The properties are within a "Development Area" which is not committed to low density development and the north, east, and south boundaries of this site are presently zoned R-12. b. The parcels potentially have access onto Pacific Highway which is an arterial and Canterbury Lane to the north which is a minor collector. c. Public services are available to these properties and service connection will be required as a condition of development. d. Convenience retail services is available along Pacific Highway and general commercial and business centers are less than a mile away. TI4E CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The proposal is consistent with all relevant criteria as discussed in the March 3, 1987, Planning staff report to the Planning Commission (Exhibit "A"). Section 2: The City Council upholds the Planning Commission's recommendation for amendment and approval of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map Amendment as set forth in Exhibit "B". Section 3: The City Council will review any Planning Commission decision on any Planned Development Application for properties within Site A. Section 4: This ordinance shall be effective on or after the 31st day after its passage by the Council, and approval by the Mayor. PASSED: By unanimous vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this 13th day of April 1987. I /;I 1 Loreen R. Wilson, City Recorder APPROVED: This 20th day of April 1987. Thomas M. Brian, Mayor C . sb/1132W ORDINANCE NO. 87—jL0 Page 2 CSTAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 5.2.A MARCH 3, 1987 - 7:30 P.M. TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION TIGARD CITY HALL - TOWN HALL 13125 SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD, OREGON 97223 A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: CPA 87-01 (A), ZC 87-02 (A) ' REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and a Zone Change from R-4.5 (Single Family Residential, 4.5 units per acre) to R-7 (Single Family Residential, 7 units per acre). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low density residential ZONING DESIGNATION: R-4.5 APPLICANT: City of Tigard OWNER: Tigard Evangelical Church John & Catherine Annand Florian & Anna Schuetz Carole Stokke Sharon Peterson Wilcox Erickson West. Corp. Elizabeth Anderson LOCATION: East of SW Pacific Highway and west of SW 109th approximately 1/2 mile north of SW Durham Rd. (WCTM 2S1 10AC lots 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900). 2. Background Information '~ In 1981 the Planning Commission approved a Comprehensive Plan Revision (CPR 1-81) to allow a zoning designation of A-20 (High Density, 20 units per acre) with a recommendation that all development on these lots be brought before the Planning Commission as Planned Unit Developments (PUD) and that the density in each case reviewed as a portion of the review process. The City Council reviewed CPR 1-81 and remanded the issue back to the Planning Commission for density review after giving the opinion that twenty (20) units per acre was excessive in relation to properties included in the request. Upon review, an A-12 (Urban Medium Density, 12 units per acre) was designated for the area. A Planned Development (PD) overlay was attached to the zone designation. C STAFF REPORT - CPA 87-01(A) - PAGE 1 J2 - 1 CP When the Tigard Comprehensive Plan was acknowledged by LCOC in 1983 Little Bull Mountain, as the site is known, was identified as an area of low density residential and was given a corresponding zoning designation of R-4.5. In addition, the PD was left intact which will require any development proposal to go though a review process with the Planning Commission. In December, 1986 the Tigard City Council gave conditional approval to the Albertson's Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) for changing the Comprehensive Plan designation of several properties located at the southeast corner of Durham Road and Pacific Highway. This proposal requested rezoning these properties from high density residential to commercial. The result of this decision was the removal of about 400 potential housing units from Tigard's inventory of vacant buildable land. The Metropolitan Housing Rule adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission states that Tigard must provide for 50 percent single family and at least 50 percent single family attached or multiple family .units with a minimum of 10 units to the net acre. The Metro Housing Rule applies to only vacant buildable land within Tigard's Urban Planning Area, and does not affect established and developed residential areas. The Albertson's CPA was granted on the condition_ of rezoning of sufficient residentially zoned land to make up for the shortfall created by this decision. The City Council has identified several sites throughout the City to be considered for increased residential density. These properties are some of those identified in the City's attempt to maintain compliance with the Metropolitan Housing Rule of.10 residential units to the net acre. 3. Vicinity Information This area is surrounded by. properties zoned R-12 (Multiple family residential, 12 units per acre) on all sides except to the west across Pacific Highway. On the west side of the highway abutting zones, from north to south, are C—G (General Commercial), C—P _ (Professional/Administrative Office Commercial District) and R-40 (Multiple family residential, 40 units per acre). The city limits of King City are adjacent to the southwest corner of these properties. The development pattern around these properties generally consists of apartment/multi-family residences to the north, east, and southwest. Commercial development occurs across Pacific Highway (to the west). South of these properties are mostly undeveloped parcels covered with trees and underbrush with one single family residence. 4. Site Information and Proposal Description These properties are composed of a couple of large parcels (over 2.5 C acres) and several smaller parcels (under 2.5 acres), a few of which have homes on them. However, development is generally sparse and limited. STAFF REPORT - CPA 87-01(A) - PAGE 2 The terrain is sloped, descending in a southerly and westerly direction. Heavy underbrush permeates much of the area with large trees located at the top of higher areas. Given present conditions, access to these properties is limited despite the fact that all but two have frontage along Pacific Highway. 5. Agency and NPO Comments The Tigard School District has reviewed the proposal and makes the following comments: The school district knows the City is aware of the problem we are facing regarding overcrowding in our schools. The Board of Directors has asked us to convey to the City the district's concerns about proposed changes in the comprehensive plan which would increase the density in areas where we are already experiencing considerable enrollment pressures — Templeton Elementary, for example. Making such changes in the Comprehensive Plan can send the signal to the public that needed services are in place when, in fact, school classrooms throughout the district are reaching capacity. School district patrons will have an opportunity to approve additional construction funds in 1988. Until that time and a successful bond election, the district cannot guarantee a quality educational program for increased enrollments without additional classroom space being available. The Engineering Division has reviewed the proposal and makes the following comments: It is not known if -czoning will change the density of actual future development of the properties. However, to evaluate potential "worst case" impacts, we assumed that each area will develop to its maximum density. According to the Community Development Director's memo of December 17, 1986, the rezoning could result in up to 560 additional residential units in the south part of Tigard. Additional residential units can be expected to generate more traffic on nearby streets. We can reasonably estimate that for each additional single family residence, there will be one additional vehicle trip during the evening peak hour. Because the eight proposed rezonings are spread over a wide area, it does not appear that the rezoning would have a major impact on any one street. The additional traffic could be accommodated by the street system currently proposed in the City's long–range planning. Some additional street improvements, such as additional turn lanes at selected locations, might be needed as a result of the additional traffic. It appears that the systems development changes from the additional residential units would be adequate to fund the additional street improvements that might be needed. Additional residential units would create some additional flows in the C sewerage system, but it does not appear that any increases in pipe sizes would be necessary. In general, in residential areas, the size of sewer piping is determined by minimum sizing to accommodate maintenance equipment rasher than by flow requirements. STAFF REPORT – CPA 87-01(A) – PAGE 3 r Higher residential densities would probably result in slightly higher storm runoff volumes. In some areas this may require increases in the I size of storm drainage piping. The systems development charges generated by the additional units should be adequate to cover any resulting additional costs to the storm drainage system. Impacts on the major drainageways would be negligible. NPO #6 has reviewed the proposal and provides the following comments: We disapprove of this proposal for the following reasons: inadequacy of street networking and development to handle increased traffic; inconsistent application, by Council, of criterion for zone change (re: Carmen Center); and contradiction of previous decision by Planning Commission regarding zone change request by Mo Indriss (re: R-7 to R-12 on parcels at approximately SW Hall and SW Ross). B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Thi relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, atY1d 10, and Tigaiv Cor�� hcn=ive °la.n policies 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 7.1.2, 7.8.1, 8.1.3; 8.2.2, and Chapter 12, Locational Criteria. The Planning staff concludes that the proposal is consistent with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines based upon the following findings: 1. Goal #1 is met because the City has adopted a Citizens Involvement program including review of all development applications by the Neighborhood Planning Organization (NPO). In addition, all public notice requirements are met. 2. Goal #2 is met because the City applied all applicable Statewide Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan Policies and Development Code requirements to the application. 3. Goal 1#10 is satisfied because the proposal will provide for housing as contemplated by the City Comprehensive Plan and the- Metropolitan Housing Rule. The Planning staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Plan based upon the findings noted below: 1. Plan Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied bccause the Neighborhood Planning Organization and surrounding property owners were given notice of the hearing and an opportunilt,v to comment on the applicant's proposal. 2. Plan Policy 6.1.1 is satisfied because the zone change will allow for multi—family development. STAFF REPORT — CPA 87-01(A) — PAGE 4 i w _ r The City of Tigard is obligated through the Metropolitan Housing Rule to provide for an equal mix of single family and attached units with an overall development density of 10 units per acre. The City must ensure that sufficient higher density areas are available so the intent of the housing rule can be met. 3. Plan Policy 7.1.2 can be satisfied because adequate service capacities are available in the immediate area. Utility extensions (eg. sewer) will be necessary to serve the property and this can be accomplished as a condition of developing the properties. It is recognized that traffic volumes have increased on Pacific Highway. However, additional development can be adequately served with the existing facilities. It is anticipated that traffic would increase by about 620 auto trips per• day. 4. Plan Policy 7.8.1 is satisfied because the Tigard School District was informed of this proposal and made comments about over- crowding in public schools and the potential problems increased enrollments could have for the quality of education in the local school system. 5. Plan Policy 8.1.3 will be satisfied as a condition for development of the property. When development occurs it would first require City approval through the Site Development Review process. The necessary right-of-way and street improvements would be required at that time. 6. Plan .Policy 8.2.2 can be satisfied because Tri-Met offers regular bus service on Pacific Highway. 7. The Locational Criteria in Chapter 12 of the Plan are satisfied _ for the following reasons: a. The properties are within a "Development Area" which is not committed to lois density development and the north, east, and south boundaries of this site are presently zoned R-12. b. The parcels potentially have access onto Pacific Highway which is an arterial and Canterbury Lane to the north which is a minor collector. C. The properties do have some development limitations due to slope and terrain. However, single-family residential development can be achieved given such limitations. d. Public services are available to these properties and service connection will be required as a condition of development. e. Convenience retail service is available along Pacific Highway and general commercial and business centers are less than a mile away. f STAFF REPORT - CPA 87-01(A) - PAGE 5 r c f. The trees on Little Bull Mountain provide a natural feature of scenic value to the citizens of Tigard. Any development on these properties should be encouraged to maintain as many trees as possible. Therefore, the Planned Development (PD) overlay should be maintained to allow greater flexibility for preserving open space and trees. Public open space is lacking in the immediate area but potential dedication could be gained from future development. C. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above findings and conclusions, the Planning staff recommends approval of CPA 87-01(A) and ZC 87-02(A). , PREPA BY: To 0' on APPROVED BY William A. Monahan Assistant Planner Director of Community Development (TD:bs0657W) STAFF REPORT — CPA 87-01(A) — PAGE 6 APP sb i►. ►� - AW xWWW \\1 • Baa a�aa 10.�Svqu ■ ♦ - ALL r _ _ t ZS I IOAB / zS I IOAA JAN 151387 W E I\' I / fOS ASSESSMiNT OURPO �. LJ • Q EO•DEDICATEO ALLET Wdl "y - DO NOT RELY I00 V .69AC \y T/CARD EVANGEL/ r / CHURCH IAS Of -571 r ., ROAD zoo _ �Q 2. AC Np) 11T�y�E i \V/ gyp. ti 1100 v sr�r Jb. y L54 AC � 'UY t 4J 1 • ^' S/s• 0 / 300 . .85 AC 400 4.e0 AC. � ]� (CS 1225 f / _ 234 7 ,Di IS' 500 f � 7,30 AC IOSS..O' S 70 r 600 5.87 AC FO SSESSME )u; RPOSES ONL E�p NOT RELY 700 f 6VFAN•Y-O_TH E z - 'it► S--.t.� C. w .t6 AC. SEE MAP 2S 11008 TIGA 'AGENDA ITEM # — VISITOR'S AGENDA + (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. NAME 6 ADDRESS TOPIC STAFF CONTACTED Law 71 DATE I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print the information) S. _ Item Description: 5��. Proponent (For Issue) Opponent (Against Issue) ame, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation J w LOO LL? C14 rA Lu x, .3 DATE L/-1-3 �p I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print the information) X41Item Description: -'a- g — r roponent (For Issue) Opponent (Against Issue) Name, Address and Affiliation Sail Name, Address and Affiliation '5790w !S3 t o s ccs Ar Pa.s�.Q,c,cv- 'l.Elit NPO DATE 3 — I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print the information) '7 ! 'l�o�► 'S Item Description: � �►^ S i rave Proponent (For Issue) Opponent (Against Issue) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation 04. L a/.Lji4 L�- 5 e' i DATE q-1-3-2 3-2 ~I I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print the information) Item Description: �]. �(�e� S0Y1 e I n�e- Proponent (For Issue) Opponent (Against Issue) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation c DATE T I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print the information) t A�� Item Description: v � 2 Y�Sa h S Proponent (For Issue) Opponent (Against Issue) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation -xi-�- LIyrtQa )S77_-j p Svo ci- Arc TO- ", Loge o ('o 5"1 DATE I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print the information) Item Description: Sr � Proponent (For Issue) Opponent (Against Issue) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation DATE I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: ((Please print the information) Item Description: /.Jf �r ) :;2 ►'�S 4 747474**********Ik747454****74*7474*747474*747474*7k*74 74*7474747474747474*747474*74747474747474*747k***7471***1474*1474744174 Proponent (For Issue) Opponent (Against Issue) 7414****7k747k>ir74747474747474747474747474***74747474**7474747474 747474147474747474747474747474*74747474747474*7414747t><4c*72744n474*7k*** Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation rs3 qD S 1 S,(l1JeS .1 DATE__q—�3 I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print the information) / l I Item Description: 17.6n �0 UGC V—inc, ' S Y 1 Proponent (For Issue) Opponent (Against Issue) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation C . DATE I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on r_ the following item: (Please print the information) (� Item Description: *- 7j Alt 12 P a Proponent (For Issue) Opponent (Against Issue) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation C i DATE '7 )3 —O I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print I. information) Item Description:, p -lI. 5Q1n S 1 / Proponent (For Issue) Opponent (Against Issue) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation y cu.c� r� IoNLAO sc� 'ar- 4 01DONNELL, RAMIS, ELLIOTT Sc CREW Ll MARK P.O•DONNELL ATTORNEYS AT LAW CANDY OFFICZ /�Yl TIMOTHY V. RAMIS81 N.GRANT, N 9 013 KENNETH M. ELLIOTT BALLOW & WRIGHTWRIG HT BUILDING CANBY.OREGON 97013 STEPHEN F. CREW 1727 N.W.HOYT STREET (503) 266.1149 CHARLES E. CORRIGAN• PORTLAND.OREGON 97209 JOSEPH M.SULLIVAN (503) 222-4402 ADMINISTRATIVC ASSISTANT KENNETH H. FOX MARGARET C. HAND SUSAN L BOYD PLEASE REPLY TO PORTLAND OFFICE SHARON L.WILLIAMS JEFF BACHRACH STEFANY WATSON MARK D.WHITLOW MICHAEL REDDEN OF COUNSEL ALSO ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN STATE OF WASHINGTON March 26, 1987 Mr. Randy Wooley City of Tigard P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: City of Tigard - 135th Ave. LID Dear Randy: I have enclosed an original and copy of a proposed Ordinance clarifying the number of property owners required to remonstrate to stop formation of an LID. You will recall at our planning meeting concerning Mr. Krueger and the 135th Avenue LID that we concluded the Code needs clarification and it is appropriate to define the two-thirds of property owners in terms of land area within the district. I have included an emergency clause in the Ordinance. Please have this placed on the earliest available City Council agenda for its consideration. Please give me a. call if you have any questions. Sincerely yours, Kenneth M. Elliott KME:se Enclosures cc: w/encl. Mr. Bob Jean C I CITYOF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: April 13, 1987 __ DATE SUBMITTED: April 2, 1987 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: S 7-84 PREVIOUS ACTION: Final plat a roval /84 PREPARED BY: Tom Dixon / DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: City Council w POLICY ISSUE Should the City Council modify the final plat of Chelsea Hills II subdivision to provide bicycle/pedestrian access to Fanno Creek Park. INFORMATION SUMMARY The preliminary subdivision plat for Chelsea Hill II (then proposed as Shadow Park) included a 25 foot drainage easement and pedestrian access between lots 53 and 54. Due to concerns expressed by NPO #1 at a meeting on April 11, 1984, the developers reconsidered and decided not to include public access to Fanno Creek Park between the two lots. Instead, a 15 foot drainage easement was included in the final subdivision plat. A request has been made to the City Council to initiate a review of the final subdivision plat for Chelsea Hills II in order to include public access over the existing 15 foot easement between lots 54 and 55. The said easement is to connect with a proposed trail which will tie in with the existing trail along this portion of Fanno Creek. Enclosed is a letter from Bob Jean, City Administrator, addressing the park access situation and his reclu-st for re—consideration of the public access easement. Portions of the final plats of Chelsea W113 I and II are also included to illustrate the access tie—in to Fanno Creek Park. A copy of the proposed Fanno Creek Park, showing the pedestrian/bicycle trail alignment, is also provided. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Modify final plat of Chelsea Hills II subdivision as proposed. 2. Deny any modification to the approved plat. FISCAL IMPACT 1 SUGGESTED ACTION Modify final plat of Chelsea Hills II to provide public access over the storm drainage easement between lots 54 and 55. Motion to approve attached resolution. i TD:bs3109P I 1 k 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 T/ 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 sidewalk 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 Parks 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 Fanno 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 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 ac- '-n so simultaneous efforts can be coordinated to tentatively hold the easemt. 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 z _ C X� F 3a )N COUNTY, OREGON. ,iso, `f: IGAR GR M D.L.C.#39 PARK AREA \ \ 54 2S.- AV F. t ` 'Zo 500. a/I\\ho \yy�Q.- hy 'p � / •�as0 Op'P' 53 Q 'L�.' p INITIAL PT. c'� 2'I.P.F.6'BELOW a 6 0' SURFACE W/3ti-I.R ,rt? Ste' y3v d0 \01 INSIDE W/CAP ` s mss pA' 52 . 0• 55 E' 26 00, 1 0 15.N'6S•�\153�''\�A� Q` w ' �'��5 yW SEE DETAIL THIS SHT. \.P� tia1' •' r�15 51 FOR INITIAL PT. F g R- �, E,R REFERENCE 155 601�6 a, O N.15'18'58•- 0 0 ati/ . W 9r ro w x- 56 50 W o 29 K- W l� ��oi = ~ • iv M 16.p2.12.W-R r o, N-85'06'01'-E-R a= a: Z i cloi 128.24' 0 r , I+ 57 0 � m �' = yam. I = 0 0 `" 49 0 0� + '^ 147.19' N w W y 3 •rS• �!Y y� Z ti N-86'OI-43--W-RiD J S-84'37'46'-E-R 13' .� m i I in 58 I i 139.41' 26.97 51 k 4 10 a a� O� Z Y X99 w R 1r3' N S.742im13, V p. .30, 'lob 9• 59 166 7j0p''s ` :v . 4 60 ti ; c - .—.. — 0 a moo• i ';>o ; ° 46 v :i: 61 X600 19 �, s.9J9 1 L.3 .00. 6.,E.R -7.00' •_7 5 QZ a590 SS 0. `r>. N� X2019' x•16 1 3�,•'F, in o ^ �'� _- 9 8.50.00' tv 4 5 N L.62.78' , i M o — — ��, 50.00' 25.00' T 9' © 8.267 I¢ '70.31. •25.00 .76:527 Z I Off' l,• N I 81.62 � L.56.02' W ti '' s 44 W p � p O 3 �Y. a o 41 i 42 ;_ 43 O In 1 i. 39 o Q 40 0 PUBLIC , a ;i c Z 15'STORM- , o p. 3 SWR.ESMT.11 NON( ,CE SS STRIP 7.5'x`' 1 7.5' y 4 10'DEDICATION to 74.00'-- -_ 78.77__ ' -70.00' - __ 18.00' 32.05' ; q--- $T---- -- -- - -- - - --- -- -- -- - --- -- -s=00'3r30--w 587.82' �1 p 2.26' SIDE I OF ENGINEERS-SURVEYORS I .' v t" 1.WILLIAM L.McMONAGLE.FIRST BEIM 12355 S.W.HAIL BOULEVARD o p g ''� HAVE CORRECTLY SURVEYED AND MA bd, v t gid' •;- - , ' 1 � � N W'dHN f18`'-' 'S lo _ -I IH cli t M, z � i CL Y � N 11 J W ' w 1 � WNW co ` O 1.1. 0 I1 CL t 1s Z N►�w � m �m S M•s Q � �� 'Jl►JAH �Idl�dd _...-. mh z a 01 _....... "... ..�.. '2555 S.W.HALL BOULEVARD O o�'n HAVE CORRECTLY SURVEYED AND MA / TIGARD.OREGON 97223 h'r �ti CORNERS AND BOUNDARY LINE CHANG N n Y 3r IN THE ANNEXED MAP OF"CHELSEA H Ci S-47'01'52"-E V,C 2'x36"GALVANIZED IRON PIPE 6'BEL 35 235.24' y u= BEGINNING AT THE INITIAL POINT LOG NORTH `� INITIAL POINT `'�J¢3 Q IN CONCRETE MARKING THE N.W.CORI SET 2"x36'G.I.P.WITH 6/#'x30'I.R. ? THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF St INSIDE WITH CAP STAMPED W.L.M..L.S.808 THENCE:AT RIGHT ANGLES TO SAID 0 6'BELOW GROUND LEVEL ��a N INITIAL POINT OF BEGINNING.THENCE: 65.90 v� 'y$j�'�. S-62'27'01'-E 149.70 FEET TO A POIN W 295.23 p0, yTHE ARC OFA 140.00 FOOT RADIUS C p8.0316" 68. !4 o, 'o I %I �F (THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS S-78'3' N 51.05, 0% I 179.00 FEET BEING TO THE LEFT OF ' 59.10' o I '� 89.36 FEET:THENCE:S-65'54'27--E 57.18' Z. 00 0 i , ' IN FEE N0.79-047825 TO THE CITY Of FEET ALONG THE LAST SAID WEST Lit 3 3 30 0 29 '" 28 ;^ z I THEREOF TO THE CENTER LINE OF S.le ' 'n 3 ALONG CENTER LINE N-89'28'30'-W 4 ' 0 32 !`� ;° 31 , N v •'� FEET:THENCE:N-03'36'30'-E 273.47 0 N O p N CR a N V. h O 27 1 FEET TO THE INITIAL POINT OF BEGINI• m = N co = A. •� I I CONTAINING 6.22 ACRES. z z 56.00' 52.00' 26.49' k. C.3800 I I SUBSCRIBED 5 SWORI •ti ^O 1 N 1 �32,�e dry ao,' I I N THIS IIZW DAY OF .4 N � 15'PUBLIC STORM SWR. a j S, i i ^' !• .4 - ESMT. N .0 1 I NOTARY PUBLIC IN ANI O. 60.00' 68.10' S MY COMMISSION EXPIRI I iy ,� 1 C �3�, O p �� AS PER O.R.S.92.070(PAR.2).I.WILLIAM, N C 24 N o 25 N p 2G O M t " PROPER MONUMENTS OF STREET CENTI O . T,1 N a w 0 C., o 0, 2j,I I�I ern THIS SUBDIVISION WILL BE MARKED WIT . I C? co t. q I r PAVING OF IMPROVEMENTS OR ONE YEA z �,75' z z r RECORDATION.WHICHEVER OCCURS FIF 160.00' 68.10' 90.00' o f ACCORDANCE WITH O.R.S.92.060 I1 N-0 '36'30' -E ( 1 ! 3 3 3 IFREF..- 1 I I IRACIN, IS AN cXA- oTHE FLAT 0 13 "' 0 12 I" o I I I o TYPICAL N 4n p 0N m p�� / t I.O SMTCD I . SAN.SWR. to Z ' 60.00' z 68.10' z 7.5- SMT SMT E _ MH CENTER LINE N ' N"4B 4.68' 4 CID E DELTA RADIUS 4.68' 6'l • --'=��-- Ag. �\ 03 05'00" 500.00' N I V 4 Oy 180100'00' 115.00' y552 Z 49'00 36., `�` , 03 05'00' 500.00' 50.00' 56.00' 22.10' L- 54. V� mit d 24' t v>iy LOT CUR 3 3 33 �� sa 10 E`.p 1 90'00'00' 20.00' .on p r) p 7 p 8 r` g 011, 'o; iV In r I 03b5'00' 475.00' '� 0 6 on o M o - t^ a I. 8 14'00'41* 140.00' N N y , O; ani .0 al a+ ;`� m 9 ^ �y�' v 9 13'43'00' 140.00' co co z i co lo o rh 10 17'5219' 140.00' 17.00' � II 90100'00' 90.00' 50.00' 56.00' 56.00' z 87.00' C4 19 03'05'00' 525.00' a � 'fi�l•Ft.F. ESMT. r 18 90'00'00' 20.00' rY" . N-03'36'30'-E '42'5r-W 19 90'00'00' 20.00' 0.01 w-0-10 o.r0' .05' 19 03'05'00' 475.00' 7.9,P FEE NO.79-047825 2L6a' 26 9000'00' 90.00' 27 22 30'33' 140.00' LEGEND 28 13'24'53' 140.00• DENOTES POINT FOUND AS NOTED. 29 15'33'06' 140.00' O, DENOTES POINT SET%'x30'IRON ROD WITH CAP 30 09'39'58' 140.00' STAMPED W.L.M..L.S.808 37 03'05'00' 525.00' 0 DENOTES CENTER LINE POINT PER ORS 92.070 TO BE 37 90'00'00' 20.00' _ SET%*x30'WON ROD WITH CAP STAMPED W.L.Mc. L.S.a08,�/ivOS/VTEtiO.t LoTCAevCRS SET BOUNDARY( OA 73'15'31' 140.00• ��E copy; �j 9 0O 0 i O N O O O 0 O0NO yS / / . L O6 ! r / O d N p In O d O NO N O N ON 0 O la- 0 0 �P. O N O NIn d M M d /N �a. d d d d d d N 6Z'bl •02•b ,� / _ 01'99 ,09 OS OS OS OS SZ P / / v %. °=�•rr �• doo-1 d3S13HO MS n / O a \` a cN �9r 64'92 ,2S ,54 ,Sy ,oS ,Os ,Os 9zw . '�iu 23£2 6z'41 P��1• < N ,y O y so 0 0+ O M d O U') p tD - t- .. p0 b y N Q 0 N pM c 00 M �+ M S M IGo n M InM $' O M o N .. i \ 110 a N a N a O " - IC1 3 O£,9£o£ N 1' t J O M to .7 i6 9s Or. O OS L '[ •O O F N B,, 1 W j.111 5 6> O •401 14'LII 3 \ 4 N / z 60 6 O n p 1go 71 16 O CD r O 3 0 1 T 2 O cD �! e°� f Ye P�57 O • O a 10a d p \P9 / `O10 b� 32.76 2� M OE 0 C> N ^ dtolr O p nO 3a N00 d / O r to N />o to O S 52.48 66'25 tr d "� £6'Z11 0 * ,b o a,•I° •O �' 00 M �'' \ eo 13 1' �'d ee n oe d o tI LC) Cc Ce- Ir,9 p ♦` ♦ Pp 7fi ,9[ 262'b P O.N (D 177.10 rl- tU-) p 0 \ ''O / c, O �+ . \ or0 CO d t- r` 00 o s 0 - 4N\ 4D 0 pj♦ ti` 0� O s°j O 0 y► p O O tD g9 ^, O � a ti / f 1: � 49'Sf b£'0£ £L'lG 41 CD 0 \P9 -mi- f / ZL'16 °c�41 nQ+ ,`` 1.0 2 / FSB CDO 99. o b is o► % ? ab y FCD 40 O o / r -ors 1 �e' N / • `r /00 (D \, s0'911 o ,001 � °er o e 26 N �J N "0 / Oe — < �i(i 6• 6F p�ZL,1� ..sl `e fqr) fn \ b o O CD -o / `R �7-,/�'/' /� •o O_ eae y7P °��t > `wee 0 1 / N601 i O •, ° d Go p N p a MAA.S�s co titi O 0 ID / zrot d Q `� 0 a coN 1LN'Q91 lD / � N / o Commissioner Butler agreed to add to his motion. Commissioner Peterson seconded. Motion carried unanimously. 5.3 SUBDIVISION S 7-84 VARIANCE V 7-84 Century 21 Properties/SHADOW PARK-NPO #1 A request for preliminary subdivision plat approval of a 67 lot development and a variance to the yard requirements of the R-12 (Residential, 12 units/acre) zone to allow a 5 foot side yard and a 15 foot rear yard where 10 and 20 feet respectively are required. The property is located at 9125 SW O'Mara Street, Tigard (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 2DB Tax Lots 400 and 500). Associate Planner Liden reviewed the applicant's proposal and letters submitted by Paul Johnson, Phil Edin and Willene Ettestad. He explained that a sensitive land permit would be required as a condition of approval. NPO COMMENTS - J B Bishop speaking as an individual member of NPO #1 supported staff's recommendation. He stated they wanted access to the park APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION - Mike Fain, Century 21 Properties, Inc. , responded to the Sensitive Land issues. He was concerned about J B Bishop's comment regarding access to the park. His understanding from the recent NPO #1 meeting was that they wanted the access closed. He reviewed the traffic circulation, and addressed concerns which had been raised at the previous hearing. He agreed to the conditions placed by staff as long as condition one didn't include both the bikepath and sidewalks. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o Larry Saub, Burnham Ct. and Hill 9t. - stated he 11a¢ attended NPO #1's meeting. It was the consensus of the NPO and individuals present to eliminate the park access. o Willene Ettestad, 9130 SW O'Hara, would like bikepath on south side of the street. o Gloria Johnson, 9700 SW Hill, was concerned about the park access •which would increase traffic problems in the residential area. CROSS EXAM AND REBUTTAL o Discussion regarding moving bikepath and the affect it would have. o Staff's commented that the Public Works Director preferred having bikepath on the north side. Discussion followed. o Butler questioned City's policy regarding dedicating open space areas. Discussion followed. o Lengthy discussion regarding alignment of the streets. PACE 4 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 17, 1984 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION: o Commissioner Fyre concerned with access to park. Supported bikepath on south side of street. o Consensus was for bikepath to be constructed on the south side of the street. o Commissioner Moen wanted to see Lake Street finished off. He felt Hill Street needed access to the park and that it should be well lighted and paved. This access also should be dedicated to the City. Lengthy discussion followed. o Commissioner Butler moved to approve S 7-83 and V 7-84 modifying condition number One by deleting bike lane and adding bikepath to be constructed on the south side of the street. Modifying condition. number 5 to include pedestrian access between lots 54 and 55, and dedicating designated floodplain to the City as park. Also adding the following conditions: 11. Parking spaces shall be provided on the horseshoe. 12. No structures shall be built in the designated floodplain. 13. Open Space adjacent to 56-65 (Western Revine) shall be incorporated into these lots with deed restrictions to leave as open space in natural state for buffering. 14. Finish off end of Lake Street. 15. Access area to be well lighted. 16. Site barrier should be installed to Planning Director's approval at southern end of the property. o Commissioner Moen seconded. Motion failed, Commissioners Owens, Fyre and Peterson voting no. y \' � o Commissioner Butler moved for approval of S 7-83 and V 7-84 with the following conditions: 1. Standard minor collector half-street improvements including sidewalks, curbs, and street lights shall be provided along the O'Mara Street frontage. A pedestrian bikepath will be constructed on south side of O'Mara. 2. Seven (7) sets of plan-profile public improvement construction plans and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate, stamped by a registered civil engineer, detailing all proposed public improvements shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Division for review. 3. Construction of proposed public improvements shall not commence until after the Engineering Division has issued approved public improvement plans (the Division will require posting of a 100% performance bond), the payment of a permit fee and a sign installaEion/streetlight deposit. Also, the execution of a street opening permit or construction compliance agreement shall occur prior to, or concurrently with the issuance of approved public improvement plans. PAGE 5 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 17, 1984 4. An additional 10 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated along the O'Mara Street frontage to increase the right-of-way width from centerline to 30 feet. 5. The undeveloped portion of the property that is within the 100-year floodplain, shall be designated as floodplain and dedicated to the City as park. 6. A Sensitive Lands Permit shall be obtained prior to submission of the final plat. 7. The setback restrictions of the R-7 zone shall apply to the portion of the development which is zoned R-12 (PD). 8. The subdivision shall contain a maximum of 67 lots. 9. Necessary survey work shall comply with the following: a. Vertical Datum shall be City of Tigard (N:G.S. 1929). All existing and established (temporary) bench marks in the vicinity of the project shall be shown on the construction drawing. b. Compliance of 18.160.160 (all) with the following exceptions: 18.160.160 A.2 Capped 5/8" X 30" Iron Rods on surface of final lift will be acceptable. NOTE 18.160.160 B.1 ' City of Tigard Primary Control Surveys (CS. # 19,947 S 20,223) Local-Ground coordinates exist for all stations. State plane coordinates not required. City can make transformation given local coordinates. C. Compliance of 18.160.190 (B) d. All storm and sanitary lines shall be placed in positions that DO NOT interfere with centerline monumentation. f 10. This approval is valid for the period of one year from the final decision date. i 11. Ten parking spaces shall be provided on the horseshoe. f 12. No structures shall be constructed in designated floodplain. ( 13. Open Space adjacent to 56-65 (Western Revine) shall be incorporated into these lots with deed restriction to leave open space in natural state for buffering. PAGE 6 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 17, 1984 AVE. C/V/C CENTER `... FRAWOj' • . C A EEk 7 /CY1AC PARk e. PA ss • cr�r r ;► ..,��j►•• ...ter, �•,r .. err f Icy an o _ • ST. z m m ry '« ll��fM1J 'Ff s 1 � 1• 1 t 'I u O 1 a :3 - N 'f113 S uj J -1 IH ^ R • vi M d '1S z e m e fi ♦ Y g � CL j ` N Wc2 T ~ �y v aVF 1S O o Nlb�y m om 'SNI OIdl3dd WS , MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: William Monahan April 13, 1987 Director of Community Development FROM: Randy Clarno Development Services Manager SUBJECT: Fanno Creek Park Access from Chelsea Hill II Subdivision I have prepared this memo to provide additional information concerning the potential construction of the above pathway. Specifically, I've addressed the estimated construction cost and construction permit requirements given the pathway's proximity to floodplain and wetlands. The alignment of the proposed path as illustrated in the submitted April 13, 1987 Council Agenda packet appears to be the most feasible and possibly the least expensive. However, this alignment includes the crossing of wetlands as defined by the Division of State Lands and Crops of Engineers. Any alignment seeking direct connection to Chelsea Hills No. 2 will require crossing these wetlands and a special permit from the Division of State Lands and the Corps of Engineers. Below I have prepared a cost estimate assuming approximately 450 feet of 8 foot wide asphalt path including necessary drainage work. It also assumes about an 88 to 100 foot crossing of the wetlands which will require special construction. It does not include any construction within the plat of Chelsea Hills No. 2. Cost Estimate 450 LF of 8 foot wide asphalt path 80-100 LF (included in 450 feet) of wetland crossing Item Quantity Unit Price Total 1. Move in/Clearing & Grubbing -- -- $ 750 2. Excavation 150 cy $ 5.00 750 3. 1" — 0" Crushed Rock 150 cy 20.00 3,000 4. Class B Modified Asphalt 450 sy 12.00 5,400 5. Drainage Pipe -- 500 6. Seeding and Planting — 500 SUBTOTAL $10,900 C Contingency at 20% 2,180 TOTAL $13,080 r Contingency items may include: o Additional structural support as the result of soils study. o Contractor availability — size of project and time of year may limit the number of contractors available. o Additional drainage construction as result of Corp of Engineers permit. This estimate above also assumes that all engineering and administrative work will be *performed by staff. RC:sb/1188W s April 5, 1987 ZD Mayor Brian and Tigard City Council City of Tigard 13125 S. W.Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon, 97223• Dear Mayor Brian and Council Members : This letter is for the City Council Meeting on April 13, 1987, at 7:00 P.M. in the Town Hall Meeting Room at Tigard Civic Center. It concerns File No. S 7-84, N. P. O.##1. This is in reference to Chelsea Subdivision located at 9259 and 9267 S. W. Hill Street. (WCTM 2S1 2DB lots 7600 and 7700) . This property is no longer owned by Century 21 Properties as stated in the Public Hearing Notice in the Tigard Times , dated 2-8, 1987 and in the Notice of Public Hearing Letter which we received on April 4, 1987. The Planning Commission Minutes on April 17, 1984, Page 7, Item 16, stated 'Eliminate 25, easement between 54 and 55 and install drainage underground" . When this Planned Development was approved, Century 21 Properties, the residents in the area dhd the Planning Commission did not want this entrance in this single family residential area. At prior discussions concerning this entrance , it was concluded that the entrances should be at the ends of the Park only. The Police Department said that they could control the area much better as an entrance from a single family residential neighborhood would increase the crime rate and control would be difficult. This proposed path would be between two homes at 9259 and 9267 S. W. Hill Street and would create a very serious problem with traffic , parking, bikes motorcycles, noise and pollution, drugs and vandalism with property values going down in this quiet single family residential neighborhood. Please put yourselves in our position as residents in this area with cars parked all over and noise from people going by your homes day and night plus vandalism and decreasing property values. As things have not changed since the final approval by the Planning Commission on April 17, 1984, we feel that this proposed path would take away our privacy and make this short residential street a busy thoroughfare in an established single family residential neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration and understanding. Paul and Gloria Johnson 9300 S. W. Hill Street Tigard, Oregon, 97223. r N O T I C E O F P U B L I C H E A R I N G CITYOF TIGA M OREGON 25 Years of Service 1961-1986 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AT ITS MEETING ON MONDAY, April 13, 198 AT 7:00 P.M. , IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER TOWN HALL — 13125 SW HALL BLVD. , TIGARD, OR, WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: FILE NO. : S 7-84 NPO N 1 APPLICANT: City of Tigard OWNER: Century 21 Properties P.O. Box 1408 Tualatin, OR 97062 REQUEST: By the City of Tigard for review of the approved final plat of Chelsea Hills subdivision to allow for access into Fanno Creek Park. The properties are zoned R-4.5 (PD) (Single Family Residential, 4.5 units per acre with a Planned Development overlay). LOCATION: 9259 & 9267 SW Hill Street (WCTM 2S1 2DB lots 7600 & 7700). (See Map On Reverse Side) THE PUBLIC HEARING IN THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF PROCEDURES OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL.. TESTIMONY MAY BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY RECORDER OR PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT: 639-4171, CITY OF TIGARD — 13125 SW HALL BLVD. , TIGARD, OREGON 97223. y�3- 97 3099P 9079 s�v .XJ,, 49-a'4 90W S W ///// S 13125 SW Hall Blvd.P.O.Box 23397,Tigard Oregon 97223 (503)639-4171 T�HRd Q 97 a a 3 c CENTER ` FANNO - �� CREEK •• 14P,► PARK • ' •� I ® 0.10 cj OR STREET OIdARA sw• E GEWOOO &Vt e� fir_ z To ` Kp Horcrable_. Mayor and Gi tl t Coun cLk� of i igc�rd� U voc.CQ-& a' -& `to vri)a U- kn-'o win „at,�Pmt p 1. `t tn� �v�oPG�f d• CA-t_e-�jCk_ HU_L.0 va�.i IQcI t u i S to-n accA,ao tirtuU 1��e oau � Ot Pan k,, t,v� �c �1na `t�u-o accn�oo w iml�cntam* to al low- o�atk-N c,uaL amd uc.-) Pa„k qcf-) Vw,a.,-f-\-c3 l,l a.Q.OoUVIJ `tea-# cn rrn�Q, C�ccsr�a0 tb `4'i�ts� CLLt +rvAo Ull Mick,aa.1 R. Watktie,wiG� Came. M . Walkie.w(c, c lci9 SW H11l StTOO-+ Ti 9ard , OR TtZ23 R�vu�- 8 , 1�t8 - CITY OF TIGARD OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY (` AGENDA OF: April 13, 1987 DATE SUBMITTED: April 3, 1987 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Appeal of PREVIOUS ACTION: Building Permit Restrictions in Dover Landing PREPARED BY: Randall R. Woole DEPT HEAD OK! CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: R. W. Jean POLICY ISSUE Appeal of staff's denial of building permits in parts of Dover Landing Subdivision. INFORMATION SUMMARY Staff has refused issuance of building permits in portions of Dover Landing Subdivision which do not yet have a storm drainage system. Jay Miller has appealed this staff decision. Plans for the storm drain were submitted by the developer's engineer on March 27 and revised on April 1, 1987. The revised plans were approved on April 2, 1987. The developer has assured us that the storm drain will be completed not later than April 16, 1987. As soon as the storm drain is functional, all building permit restrictions will be removed. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Uphold staff decision. 2. Amend staff decision. 3. Overturn staff decision. FISCAL IMPACT No fiscal impact on City. SUGGESTED ACTION C Uphold staff decision. 3112P i f J CiTf OF T11FA R® OREGON 25 Years of Service 9969-9986 April 1, 1987 Mr. Jay Miller JAY MILLER BUILDER INC. P. 0. Box 23291 Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Jay: Your appeal of my decision to uphold staff's denial of permits in portions of the Dover Landing project is set for review by Council on April 13, 1987. Please let me know if I may be of any further assistance. Yours truly, CITY OF TIGARD Ro ert W. Jean City Administrator RWJ:mkh cc: Bill Monahan Tim Ramis C 13125 SW tail Blvd.,P.O.Box 23397,Tigard Oregon 97223 (503)639-4171 JAY MILLER C\Oply BUIL®ER9 INC. (503)684-7543 P.O.BOX 23291,TIGARD,OR 97223 March 30, 1987 City of Tigard Robert Jean City Administrator 13125 SW Hall Blvd. P.O. Box 23291 Tigard, Or. 97223 Subject: Building Permits at Dover Landing Dear Robert: I again advise the city, as I did in our 3-24-87 meeting and phone conversation of the financial loses and liabil- ity caused by the denial of Building Permits on Lots 41 , 43, 48, and 49 of Dover Landing. These homes are pre-sold and denial of these permits will undoubtedly cause those= purchasers loses and hardships. I presently stand in ser- ious jeopardy of being unable to fullfill contract obliga- tions and being in default of my legal obligations to pur- chasers. I must also point out that constructing homes in this por- tion of Dover Landing as it presently is would not in any way "increase runoff into the natural drainages. " Since the streets are presently not paved, no "diverting" of water would occur. Although I do not feel it would help I did a- gree if the city felt it necessary, not to pipe rain gutter water into the street area until drainage approval was grant- ed. I view the denial of these permits as unreasonable and unnec- essary. I here-in request that these permits be made avail- able imediatly to eliminate any further loses and liabilities. Yo s Truly, Jay i r, Miller Builder Inc. JM:tb cc:Honorable Mayor and City Council Randy Wooley, City Engineer Bill Monahan, Director of Community Development Randy Clarno, Acting Development Services Manager Greg Hawkes, Attorney for Jay Miller Builder Inc. I JAY MILLER � C BUILDER, INC. P.O.BOX 23291,TIGARD,OR 97223 (503)684-7543 April 13, 1987 Tigard City Council Re: Bld. permits for lots 48,49,41 ,43 of Dover Landing Although plans were approved and ready to issue at the Bldg. dept. , Engineering (Rapdy Wooley) would not allow these permits to be issued. I feel at this time these permits should be fully issued for the following reasons: 1 . Dover Landing is an approved subdivision which has been plated, recorded and purchased by JMBI. 2. Permits have already been issued in parts of Dover Landing. 3. The letter from Robert Jean of 3 25 87 indicates: "The remaining lots need approved storm drainage before permits can be issued. " The storm drainage plan has been presented and approved by city engineering. 4. The letter of 3 25 87 also states (item #1 ) "for the Developer to build the approved storm drainage system. ; Permits are issued prior to actual completion of all required improvements. 5. The City's concern is "diverting and increasing run -off into the natural drainage areas" . The constructing of homes would not increase the natural drainage. The same amount of rain would fall in area whether homes were under construction of not. ti City Council Dover landing page two Since the street is not paved, no diverting of drainage water would occur. Although I do not view it as necessary I did agree not to pipe water to the street area until authorized. As a further compromise, I agreed not to roof or gutter these homes until authorized. 6. I do not agree that issuing permits would in any way be illegal or violate rights of downstream property owners, since No additional water would be diverted. 7. Lots 48, 49, 41 , and 43 are pre-sold homes. Purchasers have move-in dates and deadlines to move out of their existing homes. The delays already caused, and any continued delays would cause hardships and financial losses on these purchasers as well as put JMBI in serious jeopardy of being unable to meet legally binding contracts and agreements. I request the immediate issue of these permits to avoid further losses, liabilities and hardships that I see as unnecessary. I. i SALE AGREEMENT AND RECEIPT FOR EARNEST MONEY Ponlced Ewe of Rwltrs T DINgNO CONIEAL.IP NOT UNOBUTOOD,SEEM COMMENT ADVICE, REALTOR Copyrlph11971,1977,1917,1985 I 1 1 _,� The,undentpn.d pu off ttoo.putdn+•the loll I d•ulibd/{wl�prap•m th^td Iyhe City at _�ti1Gt�t�� .Costly°I J � Sb»of 0.2w.,sa peg Z Ilwal dwalwbM g G ad aanwrJY k—,m, 4 for 1M ps+aI Seek.of . . . tan the f.11owinp term..1Earnestm l.Earnest W Mnn te iolfHed Ir of . i 7 ltr�� , additional somw7 instal.dr..ea of i I E N or before dealing.this Mance ofdawapa ymwt 10 mal e7uai line 61 Upon ..Pill-of title all nleliwry_,gDiRD Ilgtee 7...9, 10 � Uti g WIITR/1CT 1M sum o/ at payable m tolleru 12 17 ._-----...__.__._.. peal.att.,reh. ,s __..._..__ee'sa..___-_......._._._..._--- c•.pvnMNr ro parr mrd o..wnption Iw ad nlmburN Nllr for+ores Ma a n It Iedebldr»n n osf.Nd In chis Ironwmw,In orldi,iw re rM purdah W W 1!NiW LOAM If tI IIRD,TRANSACTION fUBIBCT TO lDtOlAflt pAN�I1 pIOPI.TT OUALIFy1N0 FBM TXf LOAN.Purdntr aOreN q mope winrr applkotlon tMnfr wl at•r IMn 16 .`L--. ......19s..,,cand.n we+bry pawn and Nen best.Mont t°Pro r•tush fk-,I W and If twwdion i.to be financed 17 _._......._. v is w 11wough fMA r FeNrol VA,seller age..+a pay he p,ewlling npPngag•dlec�g9!nI renWhd by hd/•�r/,pnal to entad 3•_.._.................r__.. SPECIAL CONDITIONS. ....0.....7 J..21C' ......70..._...rfrV�.l.........�// /_IG'LS/��G.[/laz/_.....Lt..rf.. .eL.S .tY� ...._...._-.---.....-_19 ...........................1r .._._._.......I.....�..._... _....._._ —•'to�s��!` z� _...._ ..... ......... ._ .. ..... r.w cwfinMiw,ITC mfulalion d.ulowr• penemerrts. S7 Ponies ehwwledgthal prwem naY M wb•n 1.Cary.Ceunry or 5 an Smo1.D.pnor rwuuem.nts, rte it �a 7 ENG'H'-I'S, ACCEPTING IINITWII INSTRUMEN T EE ERSON ACQUIRING fit Rl TIOEI iO THE IP60pE PROPERTY SHOULD 011 I WION N THEE APPRLOM_E CCIITY O[CWNTy=-"P*r DE►AROIMENT TO 7S VERIFY APPROVED USES.Unlrn o1Mr.lN hpeen proved,the property..to M,-.V d by eawtory wa,.n y d..d Ines fed tS•r of ell Ilea od perewnbroncw NwPt iMl.B Ml.- 76 ewsee,b•INN rr msd err. tw a F Minh,wtllltv•..•pegs r eec•tl whirl be•sl{I Ike Property w•roe•q wblrh 6.►,.p"Is l.n led,ynd........................... 27 G f dl y . ......_._............. . ..... ........ .._.........._._......._........._......................._......._...._.. ] ................_..___..._......._..._....._._....................-_......_......_..........._........... ........... S.II•r stall)unrest),a purtlaw t{He Inwancs pNlty In lite erbul,l 1 Elie prrr<Mse pace ham v lido repealer.crHnwnY t1i0.1rp Good od morkelabb lid..liar to closing 7D _.-..._.._..._...__ a NII•.,upon rpunl,will lurnith 10 pprcintin°n•I�ml ,.Iltle ripen made by.,n I i.,dose tenwnY 1Mwiw tin admen of IM lien le Ede peep•_ 71 11 Iter don nal ppreve IM n,or a /lum{th rkeroble lith nMn IhinY dove Quer nw,iu ceeaining a wnrlso sra,emwl of dNen n dellvsrd le seller,er,Mr-1 37 j pwewd d.wl.,tail+PIP.— .orae,,real.,Mnin reepred ler stall W IunJed,but of plorre by Purclwse of IM reMd dolt 1 con."""a wo in el o1Mr 77 ! nrrredin arNlobl.w hirer bur,11 sono.rapror.f tin V.I.orrd b,,e It mohetoble od punM.e lad+q c_pl.,.the punha o+Mnin pevdd IM wins,,-.Y he,. aloe pied 7. E Ir end.nY oddiriral wme,,money�/peed er agreed le M paid+MEI M Mid le wllu and the tool.°<1 thereuppoonr,tall be of ro/urine b,ed�np elle.,it Ming Me imwhw of Ili• 73 Mallin aper 11 pr.nM+e lolls to c.mplpe•1M Wnhaw peal..+:spell peY tin eemnl mon., d M hee of anY lurtl,er obit9alion stud.th1..grepenenl. 76 All bullt-I.ce"I n n.wll•ro-wall wrpeninp,drapery ed rola edt, iedo.oed door .cn.nt. norm dwr+ and windo.s. Irrlpallon, p..it bill Illolinp, peal r w von w o Irsaling Insure rKl squlprnbl(Including stoke rid ed tail,.bol Nddnq detrhed lu.pbce puiPmsotl.wan.Mann,onacAed.)went IgM and ba1Fr°em pawns,IipM Ibt,7t Ik-."lamps,ven.tlon bllyd.,ce-L e....o Nroleum,atrod.d television onlnra.,all plwld slrruW,pante,and Ener oed all hrww an b W l.h upon alle prem{sl.o+79 ypan of tlr Pro"AV p°rd°sd NaPlr..__IS' ...__._..._..._._................................_.........._.._..._..__......._.._....____._.._..._.-...... _.. �1 The ice olikV personal prepery In is present asefillon,unlw rl,srwts.sated herein.h Included In 1M Purdta..vice__._ -.-_.--__.._..._....................11 •'1 ........._..........__......_..........._......................_.. /.........................._.........._......_...._....__..._.....__.___._.__..__..._.._-....-_......._.................AZ .--._-..._...._..-_....._._...._-._...._. 1 1M lellovrirp Il.wrn% not owed by.elle oed an rot 6eing wld, .. .. ... .... .... .... _ .-_._._..� t{€ sNl.r rePrwrrnThar IM above IN ell rf corinrld ro r A public N. ty we ❑ A tn.tgol or Nplie bolo tin.he know of ro total slreclural def•nh shoal all 11 SSt eletlrk°I.Irinp,Mating,toolbg nit PI.Mirp 1",-.III E.in ped wnlnp.der and IM1 the bol. el IM gape_ Includlp yard wlll be Meg Int present IS 3!l.cendlli.n.r tin ices prthawr It singled ro Passes.l.n,sal he hat roe n.lHs a�anv 1{.l..10 M ofwttd=I*'II.Prew_I that M he.ne notice Iron My p.rermrwtbl pp•ry 10 of any visalbn of a.NloHnp 10 the W.P"I Nup......KR.:...E6S. r�I�4s_. ._..._......__..............-_._...._._...._.----.-----__._.___._..................... 17 ...... ........... 48 _ ... ._...f _.... .. __.. ..... .. .. .. .. .... nci Ern dell b.dared egtagy e9 TNR SALE Wlll W CLOSED IN lSCIIOW Wtn of.war doll b•ha by wllw 11 purchase N 1 rip IA eupA ideal V.A., whewiw.unit b•tu.en seller and P-lyse.11 o lomat)wle,f.gal feet for antro,#wewntlon stall be pad by _.............._._......._................._..._.............................. 50 Tron.fer ft..II PAY. %.If be[hand q-lly by perdaNr led seller. 31 [S haemes Ir rents.cwrwl ywi s q.n.,cent w oswnd obligations.Inwgnce premium+IA purthoun assume.stamp polls,)od rMr pep°a NPNNs onrbunble to IM SS p` ------------ property sNit be main es of Icheh--IYI I�Dale purch se,Is-Ylled 1°wneu on.O.... j�ry el abover c°ntrotrt 0 On.... ... , S] 19 Srll.r ro peY all utility bill,anwd to do,.prdaser I.eeUdd to pe.. on d P.KF. ro Por NII b1 hwtinE rwl than en O•MM Myiases le M hadled -d 1. SI purcMN.ad.)tale IME penal.of any also)pope_+ce•or assnsmwl r ronrnf 1M.ort win h I n burobl.1 a wild r pends be cnsi79 bur tin ow+rr.nr of due don SS lr par-,e1 which has Mar defnrd,dart be peld by............................_.... _. ........ ___....... ._............ _ . Z.P .....IPun:Mwr/Selbr Ind is whichI S6 TIKE If OF THE SSfING Of THIS AOtRRMENT.Tramastan n be dosed m.r belor .... d[d✓- .....................I? .... o.ee.n Nrreehw ee financing drum.nU SE tan M pneper.d coed-A-tele fill.dArre d. � ,.,,, do"after ..d,.g of ceb.rariscilirred deed SO Sell«q rpener.CID pena1.1 prow_nal sold 1.pie chosr.cenrd deli..,P..eseiw n Purl. ..........-. . r-lice and dl+bumm.nt of fund.to Nlnrr �1'7l m.. -. .- - - ----- _.. ...,or m won th.-ftr,as iii to and,pubron.will eel 60 pe,nlf raneval d fsnanrs,it a_•Prs.N{on+h.I b•depend delivered whee Nllfr has ie-led tin prow_cent dellvrd kin tMrdr b Purdros lila he first a Dote 62 Selby to keep the prope_h.w.d la"►ans rrlyl,Ag Until po.uNlan Is d.6-d to punMNr w I.oldup el le --nrenliOnd ted r NnInOCI,w prtMNr i.•nn:tld ro pn.tidon.Inavronn will M..sped by nhawr ar ................................._........_........_.........__..... 67 IME MOVIftlHO PRINTED ON THE BRVFIsR SIDS MItNH•WHICH ARE OIFdtSD BELOW AIR INCIUOED IN MIS AGREEMENT, ee AlSto"%NAI LAND SUBS CONTtACT PBOVINOPM ❑;L-% VA A►►[AIfLD VALUE CIAYlE ❑CLOSING--IOSfIWON RENTAL CLAUSE, 65 AS If CLAUSS/INSPMIOM RIPM 8 FMA APMAISFD VALUE CLAUSE It COI/OITION q Wilt CIAUH CIT.INfptCT10N AIiiMOtIZATION t•M ee Be i...................fiewilees.. Pr dq. 67 ihla opnwnenf Is biednp upon the Mln,per+eal rpr.+enrotivw,sucauon od 19m f punMNr oed seller. 11 dlr tIwIM PtndlsNr will awe•PMIee el sin Pinedale+. 69 W .n o Prfa►N WIe1.p•nk•reY rlEkh,ar/er yrh•Eree•,er.N Y IM P•eperry en•.l e++Ipn•►l.ripen e n Ven e.w.eN r Nll.r. (/ SNIT od QpurdaNr Imtroct 11.widen twlror to handle 1M wrens money O.bll.w� Rrtoin In[bltor's client's twat oc.eunh�rUpan.tial'.ge.pronce OI alter,d.paul 70 $ emit_....._......6,:A. ..f id........1-T�.T-�!_.........._........__._.a.acro++Esu ESCtOW oiPOfiT ClAU3E oN tivitfE VMIOI IS IFHAUDED HStE AS lAtr OP THn Act/tKENiI. 71 GGG�AITd f1Ull NAVE NO pUfiNtt IIASKITY W17H IIIYiCT TO TMF[AWtFT MOHFY IMO:DEPOSIT=TMS fY[OW DFfIGNATSD AROVI lnnwp Ereke 1Rrnn.n11in111•H _ 7] TM r•rde ognsd twltr g0tiewl es tulle p/�,-�mry�1 money IedJch 1-11. Me-le Meda os provide.bowl from punhawr NIM sum of i-•/vn�---.1cle ice t by 77 _ O�, Q dycy_....._-•+?�;. „�,G,�_..-s..>.�c_-�t•-_...__.—_._._.._._._...._._.13 pig'nigegg%w-yr''fy�n�ote ble w r M1on 71 N _..._ Me,,arse Pha. _.._.____._._..._...__.._.._... Enondl Phan«_-----.-..--.__.__..... ',J Mol.OHit.Address / OS i PLMCNA112 1►riml t,-L- �y [�.[w ._ ... _.. NI r AIYNOWIEDws ttnln or A COMPLTi 111"ELV 7R NLLRO IN COPi !p Y7�++ Nei T tlA0 AND UNDERSTANDS AND ACRMOWI/DGEf iMAT MCJ1ASEl MAS 9SGIVSDtIII�I eD I�MOM AMY fTAiSMSNTf 79 AIAW h SELLRR d ANY REAL ESTATE AGR1fT WMCN AM NOT MSttiN I)M"UD.DEED W CONTRACT TO V PRPAUD IN TIES HANE OF t0 r TTas offer"it aaromonaDr"Pine ._.�-.T�don°hr t""'of wntMe.r a sgneNe.M-not-atnwed within ,,IM.,�11•. It Ibt•----._.S.'L'�Q. ._.... ._ ,. ...LL...//Y.A • r w EZ ..__ZIP -fY_Y-/- _ _ .-. .. ... _.�_...T__-_.. . a 03 Purchaser N Phan•.In. ' Ern.Mr � ..Ms. .... ... ds I�Sell.Erosion,este.tin fanlpinp eHr end O Abkn IM artedrd see.rN1 rlr. ....._._...PGR[!►AIN 1!tSON•LD!OR NO.S;W agr peY IeMrwith q tin M Cyyllr lrreby stw.Ph tin I.ngble0 r:Hr.SSLUIR AGNIf i0 PAT MOT RROtl 1TW1 i.._..._........ .6an+nmd tblror,.r.If this n n rn-oP n.nfetllon.N.listing broker.1M sum.f S .. .r drop Ir Nnkn need In tbls ironsxt:an.S.Il.r heroin Oronh tnrhN�Int rr ii Ih1mE broker O rev an lin pr.eede of bl•ro recon peympe,r.1 wld pen.od Irrorac.bW a.+:9nt ro suth teohpr r liwnp bake an_mill 0l these proteids silty 1 bl•tin s9 _SeIM rMh°rim Rwltr r Bstirp brat.ro.seer alb report and Irrb nwrar•e1 S.gee..pence ed funhe vutlirlan 1Mm and row r before e c sf IM tad.wr..ds e Npern r Ierrri I-,,Hrn kttf/ansn,wllsi s rronl:np few.NII•i+tleelrp cots ad a_sntwr.blerte en,M pro.._p.yabl•by Set-an r M/en claNI qWt IIENtr/LCOIO- 90 EDON NCIMT OP n e'..I Ing Z= PiIt If IN IAP.OP TMAS AGRIEKINT WNICN fELIIR MAS PUU.V BRAD AMD UMWISTANDS.1.the..pent purdnwr bin 1.trpleq IM win°.hare• vl j kr pnrrvaed tin esrrwt mWy alit.))W dlstnbu,d n talars open dduetm k any till.Ins. a/d ewever wncell.11on Barges, a[blrr,r 11 Ices h a otiwlt.vnaean,ee rM % Z If eMp Im kr,q 1,,..tint.1 Ma aWeed trfvnlWan H�S�N.f n H nM /F'l �.ee,•,�� T. 11 nrrealYl been with leeidw q eel,.rl M�'--�Al 6ai.-- f/ir+ yf Q1 Ad6sr Case __ IO/1-J_.-_.AK..31-. RM.OS Q y .,Sells,N -Z P �- Q phase,St... ._ .Ern.Mr. R.-.. _.�...-._.-_. Daae .6L /. Mdia.er stint and ed„soledgN neaip W .1 `' _ IyrcMserloo -- Funfuleetv Cd.p tna,ra0lest .. rooted -_ w be"Wim mei/all"Theater wear�'Dl� REALTOR'S COPY SALE AGREEMENT AND RECEIPT FOR EARNEST MONEY #4429 Portland Board of 11-11 f THIS If`A LEGALLY BINDING CONRAR,If MOT LVMNMOOD,USE COMPETENT ADVICI. pEALTOR Copyright 1974,1977,19RT,1985 \ TM und.nign.d aur is,of..to purdrw Th.following .Mdbd.sal Prop."dared In to City of Tigard �,ry.f Wash. aero.f Oregon,lo WI -_ Lot 49 Dover^La ing I Illival d:wlirierd 2 TL will celestially it—.x s I fee aha PCO I Pals..1 . Ifnwr IMdr. . • .n Hr Mllwiry lore.,wars.Eannwt nsory h.nln r.ulpid Ix at . Be__._.__-___._.--__...-additional pm.er awry.lists.um•1 . . At or be(..cluing,the alarw.1 doer{py]o rm-1 f L1Pae ars.phnw•1 tltlo and dellrery of p DIED tM meso of Ill-.i./.9,10 moi wool line el 10 SF Purchasers obtaining financing for balance of with an aver —_Il S►awhl.o loibr., —_ C Federal Savings &_Loan. -----•--•—12 13 -..........._.._...............___._.. _-._-..._.._........._........_..............._.................._.........__._...-. ._..---._._ 14 11 Ind.bt•d-,,n a,,-d in Ihis I,n,o,*n,In addition Ip tM parcha.e pN,e,oarcha.0 10 oav re9ui.ed auumphoa Ise and nimarw wlNr for.sem Mb b roan•anowtf. IS N NES;LOAN If 1110101111111).14 MCTION SUSINCT TO WIOW[l AMg It01'NITT QUALIFYING FOR THR LOAN.Pundsowr agree.b make vninp apllutien IMnlw no,Inver rMn le .....•..•March__25_......,19.87.,canplon nM..sary Papan and.sen an oHom to p,_._ch hn_i gr and II Ironw,tlon N to be limned 17 w 1)..Vk PHA as Federal VA,seller agow to Pay the pwalling mongage dl.cowl re"Inid by lend..,not to.u..d 8.....-0.-.-._.-------- IB fncw cGIrlTlaa, ....Subject....t0...purchasers...approval...of..plaas..and._specifications.......Subject...............•............19 ....to-completion_.by....6L30%82.and-purchases...wa l k.-through r..pri or....to-occupancy.--.This-agree-.................20 T,t7;es...addendum..Ar...specificati4on...document/...Final._home...plant.----__._._.........................21 _..—..—_.—...._.._..................—.........._......_........................22 ►ani..o<knowl�dg•that p,o jv may M•able,.to City.Cornu or Slal.$mol•dinar rwu,r.mems,and 11 mw conlnudion,FTC Inwlolbn cl Ml r.rpuir=. 22 THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS 1NSIRUMf NI IN VIOIAiION CIF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS.BffORE SIGN.24 ING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT.THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO 25 VE111Y APPROVED USES,Unless Whe-Na herein Provd.d,rM pope"11 Its be --yed by st-lory warranty died free and glow of all lime and.usrsbrauw uNlt..nr/•,dlo• 20 .rax.►WNW.ed we—I'lWer...rwnNNw 1.Ted.r.l MIeeN.wilily..ieesenl..1.fwd wbid Mee/11 16-►..Milo as free 1.NIA Tse Prig."N legefed,and.....__.................. 27 �__No._others__knP..Wh....___............._....._.__.._..__..__.......__.._.._.__._.._............................................................ ---.__..__.._.....__._....._.._...._............................_2E -._--............----........ __..._.... - -.._..................__..._._.._......._.........................._.._...._................_. ._................._fill_._.riot........... 9 LIW shall-Mmi.M w parchawr o 11tle Inwronc.pansy In tM omowr of tM pursMse prize hem a ed.irswrwre orrawny droving good and morbmblo fill..Poor so<loslnp]O Nlbr,upon renwN,rill lums.h to punawl a p ehm,mry 1111•upon mod•by a hm inwronc•_pan, h....g the IAnl,lion of tM"IN to IM paP."' ]I II INr dole ml approve IM self, or o 1 I,arnl.11 k-bl.Nm (thin Ihl"day.all. Ice c inlrq a w f11en.IaN-1 of d.ler1.N it. to NII•.,or,Mrirp 72 pprovd IM ern,Ioil.re coa.ummal•Ir,1T1e eerm.t moeey M.......lpl•d lar.hail a fwd.d,bel a,Npranu M purdnwr o1 IM l.k d du.m1 coanilWe a waver el Mr ]] d oerndlw.-I.bl•to h,m,bun,If..list opwove•tM sale and rill.I.malt-ble and pwchaw,fo,li to compnn Ih•poach..a.harem prevld.d the«reefs marry h•r.in nNiP1•d ]4 k for.d'" oddilleml wan•sr nnon•Y pard or ogr..d ro M paid.MLI a po,d la wllx ontl thn,onnocl tA.rw .all a of m IarM.r blM,np e11M,n a�ng rM 1nr•nr.on ]5 ,L porlln IMI 11 pwcMNr la,l.to complH.IM Wrd,a Purcha.x.MLI pay IM fames.mon•Y rid a ire.of onYrtMr obi pahon glow Ihif o9rxmenl. ]e All a111•In opal H.scx.woll•ro-wall mnpeting,d aD.ry ord .lain ed., Indew „d door ween., norm doom rid rirdow., InlppNan, oumbing. vMli Nllrp, c Iinp M 37 Ilse. INlurw end.9ulpeenl 111scldi„g uokx Id oil Ian11 6u1 Isd„q deloshd 1lnpbn.,alPm.nd,oast..hpi.n,ana,hed Nwnc IIgh1 rd athroom h.Ww,IigM balb.,38 a eat Iluxe.Nnl lamp,veeeldn blirsd.,awningf,ana,hd IIm1.Wn,.noshed sel.vnloa antenna.,all planted.Hua,pam.,and tr.w and all INwnw en to a loh upon tM pr.mnw of]v as No exce tions New Construction, yvan e1 LM PNp.rn wr,M..d..Np,..._.....---.............�?_._...._.---..�.._..._........__._....------�.[.--------------.._.....__-___...___.._...._..................40 3 TM following Personal prop”In IN Present wdlllon.-I-olM wise Frated herein.1,i.d ded In IM pueJ-pd-_ -...-..............._...._.._.._...__.........................1 __._..._...._.N° Personal-_property_�................._......_. _. ... 42 fff TM IWlwr9 INnnw a..ml-ad M fall.,and.I.net be,,said,... None_kwwn... _......._.._._..............................._................ .............._....._... ..__.. ..... {, S.m,ypr•terslf,That the aver dw.lhng n cannerl•d b)p A pabh<Nw.I.el.m, ❑ A ..p001 Npll<N„Itr r`M knows el mal.rbl .truclural 411x14 IMI all 14 �I Y Wxnkal Irl Irpling. I,ng oM PlNnbing 1nrNa III In oeod=it .der and that tM b=of IM p,operry Incwnling yo d rnl a In waronnolly In w..nl 4s 4 ", goo In ..x.5111 f owd,non,m 1M lbw wrcAowr 1..nhlled ro pwwf.bm 1Mt he Mf m mUw of m`1 liens to be aw.fed against tM P,.P."1 IMF M no:Iw from.1 9.Ni rnbl ogwry 4e No exce tion of my violation of boa rdming to IM pope",wnp .._.._.........................................._._.._....___... 47 ) .... ..........._._..A. . ._._..... ......._.. 4 Alt WILL THE/ LL/t CLOSED*IN NfCtOW. o Cn of.errode r ll a ern.by..It.It punhaw m 1.hnelrp�iMouph fderel V.A.,aMn,lw suds awn.MLI be.Mrd.9,ta11y 49 YD Mwwn ssllx and pwdtaw.If a 1-f-d fol..I.0a1 Lew fen aghast pnpotanan dsall be pod by NZA.........._._..._..._..._.__.___........_...—__.__.._.._._..___................._...so Tronnx aa.II a",drll M.Mrd.away by wnhom,and NII... Pre•rolx ICO ren..,anent yeeis taaw,ins...0 on a.raned ebtigahom,Iowans•p.miacnf hf purchaser Daum"«inlrp po0sy)and wMr prpold eap.tr.f onnbutabl.ro IM 52 U]propnry drll a mod.-of Nh•ck see arilll a Dote purcM.er Is entitled Io Powumm;❑..........day oft.,d lIy Y of.bow mrdlxrd deed x eontrod,O On....................._....., S] 19 ..Sealer a Pay all Wiliry bilis ecc,wd to date PwdsoNr I.enlidd to po..eNlon and purcMN v w w r ting an p.miw payment se be Mndl.d MI-st 51 punMs.r and miles.Thar pomon of any real pope"roll or a.---x Im.wr Ther-wh„h,w'ennbumbl.ro I,period x perlad.a cbling 6sal dr of.e.mmenr of or den don SS for pay-,of whe.b..dor .led,.half be pfd . _ by.....Seller..........................._. ..............._.........-................................._. _ ............._._.... ......X)AIN BEF/S.INr InN dn. wh,,hl ss M,h TIMES IS 01 Tia ifwNCt OF THIS AGREIRPNT.Tws.wtbn Tobe dowel on or befog....... ...__......-June-.10..........19B?_w v.wen Hrr.pHx ro IN flncing simun..nn 57 .Ron b p.Pped sad-rk-bl.fill.delw.d. '- SB Seller se rern«a oil perverse,Prosperity-I.old TopwcMw,and dehvx P—lon to Pun r Ube, ori-Ivl,13 - -qday,oft.,r.,aove dlng of ab -jmnd deed 59 w wtroma and d10W.esee t of fund,t.sell., on.. .... ..__ _. .....__..June....30.....19 e7,x m moan drreahx as RaNtV lar.and r 1rnions.41160 p.rnof rereeval of tlressn.II erry,Pos.eulon.M�1 a d•«nd d•liwrd rMn seller Mm rawred rhe Prop."od Iye.•ed he Men/r ro purcM.w w t1r Ied.nlDned Reeher. el Allo.b kip dr prep."lowed IOrck oar esdyh❑Until po.seNlon N doh-sof to PWcMNr or r.wd,ng el oho..�n.nrlend did w gxllron,s•IsI.Mv.r Ilnt w.. . er[3 Wt.e7 pWchaNr i.entitled ro pwwuion.Imwoasce tin M..card by ppuunaw ar .. ... .. .. .._....__....._......._........................_....___..._.. e] g IM PROVISIONS MINTED ON ME tEVIESB f1OR MttOF MMICN AES OIlCKED/FLOW ARE INCLUDED IM INIf AGIIMPNII W g_ ADDITIOFYL l/1NO SAL..CONTRACT PROVISIONS FEDERAL VA A►►IAIfCD VALUE CZALNt O 40fIN0--IOSfSSf10N tlNTY CIAUftn e5 a Af If CLALNB ANS►ICTION 19MM FNA APMAISID VALUE CLAUSE 00 t CONWTION OP;; WELL CIAUfI CITY INSPECTION AUTHORIZATION Ieet N Be S Fir day. e7 TM.eprwnero 1.Mdmg upas tM Mln,pnwrol pr tar:vw,.Wu.sen and«npn.of-,,has-end seller. 11 after I.;"Pied-will ewer•Pertloe M 1M P.,d,••• e6 P•Mr M wMr,►wakwwY ntM..sWr MN.Rr..•,ex err 1.dam,.►,.r.rrY.,.set ewlDn.kl.tit%-written resn.wt M wlNr. e9 ggg S.IN,and Rurdrw Hotrod IM,ed.nlgnled RwNor ro hoMw 111.eernxt men.y-bib...❑Retain b Rwlrr'.dirlt f trwt.gawp❑Upon seller'.eu.ptanse el oll•r,deposit 70 m furor Ifw ISCIOW DEPOSIT CLAUSE ON EMRSE WHICH IS INCLUDED ern AS PART OF THIS AaNEMINTI. 71 22224 21ALTOB SHALL NAVE NO NRiIIiR LIARNITY WITH 21PICT TO LME EAMIST MONIY IKON DEPOSIT WITH THE[Set"OltIONAYID UOVt.ll,rlof Bnbr Atreesrnll Ilnlllel) 72 Thr smd.nlpned tenHor sd-J dg.n.wipt of sena,meswy bids Rmlms no,-to handle-povlded pbw.)front P,edta..,N fM ren el f--1•-O0-e.Idenud by 73 sO mdse 0 dseh........_ _................._...............__.._..._------------._------_------__._.._.._....._ ❑Premluery note payable on or b.lop_.____. _._.-__.-__...._................ 74 485q S._W,.Sch4.1.1s_E.er19_Bd._--__-_-- .......Praressionals_10p.Inc...—._._..._._..._._._. ..._,0-11.75 In tch Addr.w-._...- rand.Plana, 297-8211 Also.oNNa firs. 297: 1101_._..- w -... Ag.l.7• Mob Office Adder...Same...as_abofLe. .......__........ . _.._ .............. _.. ............ .n rieck a(Pin) John_Jaqua..and.Hannah Harrington.... _. ..... .. ....._.. NtRETF ACKNOWLIDOIS RICt1PT OF A COMPLITSLI 78 FILLED IN COPT FIRElOP WHICH PUDOMwI NAS WILT READ AND LEaDERRTNbS AND ACKNOWLSODES THAT 1'11KWAUR NAI NOT RECEIVED a auto UPON ANY STATIMt11TS 79 AN BY wILRE b AMP/SAL ESTATE AGENT WMCX ARE NOT NEM P!tV2MwD.DEED OR CONTRACT to RE►RE►ARED 1N TCO MAW O/....._.___._...__.._._.._.._..........._.- w Thi ellW""pWe+rnmlly«pn--.. _... do"offer time el I dgnehna,tl rot aaupd sW6 r00 ft-.se. /1 PAVAd&� 11160 S.W. 78th Don ... _...•t987_.,.-_._A M,_..__.._._.►x /2 Tigard. oR ;1P 733?-. 2�-. ! �' Purchaser u -. Ill-8...639.-7059.....,a,..Mr... .._.............Ms..273-.5291..._. ..X._._.... ... .. ...__. Jkn.Irin w ❑Sell.6. bv..Ma.dr fxepeing ale«and❑Maker tM entitled f-w eN.r. To d., ESN [J Sell.'- -.soft to torepWrq ss"w.wLLLB AGREES TO PAT NOT MORE THAN f NLA. I..._ ._t07 IRTAIM IF It D NG.AIN.W se pry Iwthwirh eave.semed 1-1w.or.If IMP N s m-ap tronwdipn,dse IWinE Motp,� frmrecablY awgofro slid Sense,w INnrq Makes an`omw+r of.hese prx.d.i0wl ro wad flumen M Illrbq brakes a Mn on rise Prxe•M al ate ra.•tun poymwll e _S.IM svhorifx!altar w Inri.q Maki ta elver 11rb open and 1111.brurwsee w All".e•p.nw end Iu.IMr eadrrl.w drm ed«cler ta pvY 9,ar r tM coati proteids of sen dr a9 wP•nr of ,-I a"gals b.IwaM.,sellers mor'd'ina feel.all«.clwip Awn ed a"encseeMwrn m rl,•pep•"payable M AIW en w Mlo.a clwks9.wLLER NIMBY ACIINOWt- 90 -I- RECE1IT I A 04.in tIT FILLED/N GAIT p THIS AWtWNT WN1g1 LELLIN HAS FULLY READ AND Ya1DNM1AMDE.In dr.vers,pfd-tan.ro sampler.dr wI -Mn. 91 =M pentad fM=RN mpMy drll a difrnblHd-blbr.ones dedlarlen of era.title Imuronx end..scow onsolle less dwrge.a D T.Beetles.w 11 dig.is oe-ao tnar.wdlen,ta rls. % 2 LNtrg kMes.w 1M fund e1 dse ogre ,prrlmlWon hair-�T]M //�ta•�� ^ )) _ _ 91 tnwredbs Isad 1>rti�e^�d,wllh nw1Ar b srbn wij_._.. .O...Y.:2_ICSL�.33 e,�.__.._._.. .. - _--..-._..___.... '�3�q Dale .�..er. .�. t .__,- •w•__.._.._ .11. Adaaw 0 O _ Phar.ten. Elco.Mr....Ip .�.1f F?M..._.. ...._._...__ ...__._..__-.. ...._. ..... -...._........._..._.._.__... Allx 97 .PAJ& _. M. std "PI 09/9 pose- MpmPy MSW .... ►I,rrrsew.. .... ._.... .. .. ____. .-...... w1C0 CreP ►ren-obpw a qV y up an ` LyinOmllor�l ISd hasp Enhw=• i00 REALTOR'S COPY Mi SALE AGREEMENT AND RECEIPT FOR EARNEST MONEY Ponlaw—1d of Rwllom �1f.1L�1161LL111IN01N0 CONTRACT.IP NOT WDftfi00D,uelc eoMnnNT ADYIn. REALTOR Copyright 1974,1977,1-1.1985 1 7851 \\ / //�� ----------- Lv�- County of Q t Th.t.d.nag-d pu Nr oH•n to purchose The following described r.al PropenY siwted In 1M Clry o!...�ISi R.y.___.._._.__, .ii i-N--------- t Slab of Oregon.t / I 1 d.MrIP1Ivn1 fi ---- -- S and connanlY i-.-+ - ._.1.5-f.Vfrl1..Q$!_V.G.__X« adid.r•�ulR.�....)_. �.�. _._._ ._.........__..._G G� E la the Mrd—Elie of ./ �n 0 t on IM term., foll-Ang to.wlh Eaamset money h.min r•celpt•d lof of . S `YM ctalllwrel•omen nwey,the.wn of . an...MARLd..... f / ±F S —I [7 Q/ X100 e N«before closing.IM balance of do.m�a ymwI IC,_7,t.9,1O mw. 9wl hm 01 f i Upon ecceplpllu of 1111•end delivery of {6 D/ID a •__ 10 O CONIBACT,M sum of spoyobNa.,euor., Sk.BS. .c.r__._t..Q........P....LiRGtiEts�..R.......Aj,+.�D....._..P.Ba.P_G—.BTY.._...2uAl_i_Fc`i_�.tJ..rr.............. ,1 _ F�.�2_...fk.�l._.Frr s....._.2�._ .. ....... Etnl......._......... LA.aT.cc.x..........To__..s;€14 ,0 ._....SND.............................. 17 ............. ... . ._._... _ G - --... -- ._.......f}AJD Sl 8. /'1RRe 2013 ......_........._..............................._......... . tett... S__�-Q ..._...............__.._...._......-..._._.....__..._...._.._._._.._.._.....____.......rear red a.+Dm 1»and n;ma n.Nil.,far.wo.'n.ia'in nr r:a,tewl.. 14 bEr _._.._..._._.... m add,hon,o,M p rcMN win.wn par IS g II Ind• •d-..,.osumad in IhIs Iron-tion, It NEW LOAN If,.BE4O�YIItD.TRANSACTION fVNICT 10►VIOIASEI AND pIOPIITY OVMIFYINO y04 iXf LOAN.Purdwur ogr»s to moo writnn apPllcolion IMnlw rol lanN rinn 10 17 ....._MRKj/[7..._.../.LL...._....._.......................... i9..�.j[amp,..........V pop.m and.Nn ben.fin aM.Wch financing, td H Iwnw<„on I.le b•hm« ds tpo�wa d Ihromh FRA oe Fed•ml VA.seller 09,00.to pay Ih,pr•»cling mongog•discount NQulned by!endo.rot to•used S..aG.r............_.._..... IB 'p - SPECIAL CONDITIONS,N/ ... .. .. .. .. ........... ......................................._...._...._................ x B _ _ tett tett ..........___.._......___.._.-__.. .__....................... .... JN 20 ..... .... ... .. tett.. ...tett. tett. .. . ...............___....._._........-.............._tett ......... tett._.. _.._._... tett ............... ......... ... 11 22 Io CITY' d County or Srwe Smol•0.re,tor r«,.n nn,aM f new,on.l,whw,FTC in,ulahw d I r L r,. 24 73 ••�� ►ani•,vcknorl•dq•IML proDeXY may b•+biter Y• dls= THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOI ALLOW USF 07 THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN IHiS INSIRU ME Nt IN YIOLA110N CK APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGIILAilONS BEFORE SIGN t ENO OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT,7NE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TIME TO THE PROPERTY RI"SHOUID O1u^K d1»IdX'ME eadPklaMI of 11 hem, ndQUN I-b'aANNH`*G PE,�Miwt••.M- 76 L VERIFY APPROVED USES.Unl- oIh.,w .h.•,n PI—dd. he praP.Nr n Io W cw..yw by Y y LS ass .1.INNg M w"HateM,nsennelw N F•d..I MNeN.wlllty•essmen N-.no wkhk Mn•hl Ike Pr•Mlry r•a M%Akh M peep”1.Mcat•d and 77 W ........ _ 7E //Q_AJ.G. _. 29 •'•__ ... .. tet t... .. tett. tett ... ... tett I Dote[ompanY M ,p Oow [d....4 b1. 1 II P-01 Io,Ioun9�0 S.II MII fur 'N 1 pu iM t Xe In pol,ry Ih n 1 the M D I,o q M tond�hon a/ M 1 I In p D uHn.rill 1 .N ro pp11MNe It^el•mn ,1. port mod br 1 W DD Y n Y 1 d..,n,+d•1 v d to.•Ilei,o u1.orhrr ]] ,r . 1 , r aDDror• o 1 HrwN rk.obl•1al• dhm choly day,oh•r un s n u g a rr I• m v,r.. Dwovw IM n,lad o + nil,Ihl w, U Y h•nm n.np,ed for+MII M•Iwl�nd'd.l 610 mpl.•['Ae punlla+. r•M r�nrw d•d'F ml,m 1hwN+h•nm r .�pnd ]4 If { •mwrobn Ie h:m;bur,II Nlnr approve.the wa- * g w tole M1•wble aM or r uo rr po, a I ea,r'b m�lhe:nl•n1.on[.1 rhe 7S WW •••.7777 Iw and ;wMn�oml m• money pa In r agreed le M paid MII M paid ro+,11•r sad rJ+be her[!I hely IunM M1611 GM o/m�:'nh.•b w••mmt•�t �� ]b punts rho d pu" ..,Lada.o,omMere rhe pwcMNr shoo wr rhe wmn noose u•em, o sad awvdaw+. Err; ai 1 bi •nnlah cbng rd 3 7 All bulllin ppho«.,wallAo•roll terp•tinq,drapery w ,rpm w+. udow d door + a•ro,mhg1.•,ollo,hw•I.cpl<IlghtP rd 6Mor�Ireom h.,ni.,chghl 1w16•,]e h»hog how..one pWprr,•nl unctwl,p.IW.r and it to EW Ndud:nq e.la[h•d iirrobm.ywpm•nrl.wa 1Iser•w»I b,.pt,v.rrerlan bNndh eeminp•,•!ached Lnalwm,atrocMd rNw,uon amenna.,all plomw NNE•.Dl•,ln,ord h»•and all hNuns on to W NII upon IM Pmm�.•as 79 r'Ry Pon el dr poWM Wr[M.•d•c w_.NIA... . ..._. .._ _ tett.. ... ..._... _.._..._.. 4 i{Y B _ 4 TM lollorinp Mr.om/f wops,ry In In pew, wd'lion unl••olMrwl natal M Is Included IM Pur M, pi Nf.R... ... .. .. __tett_. tett.._tett.. 4] iM 1 II rIp h.wN or•ml owmd by NII•,aw ata MI Mmq old, r•+Doul... Dt 1 M tMl h -k.. of. ... 1 t....'.._t d feet,: rot 111 44 5.11 p IMI IM oEov dw•I"n conn.rw t A D„bl:c n r+Y+Ism• [] A 1 lad y y9 d II a b b Ely r w•s•n1 45 •I. 1 arinp,+Mallnp, hnq end plumbinp.y+r•m+W II In pond wwk.n9 order and..h h+ bol • 1 M P tY IMI Mr'lae m Ii•1 om_1 g I 1 agency 40 g P.tdiriM, t 1 boat punhosar 1.wlitiw to Pa...- IMI M M. mtic•of any 1.I-,w L• •++w ogol t IM D aper y ^ n0 ... r1'.N. 47 of any vbie,ion el br nlohng w IM prep•M,•.nM _.........__....._..tett._ _. _. U Ih h Fed*....I V A e,hs,r N.wh toss Jell bs Jatw tawny 49 __.. .. _ •.crer shall b bo_ by II r 11 yw,Mur i•hmnn e1g TNl Ylt W1ll/!CLOSED IN ESCROW.Costs of r ._ _._. _ ..50 b•tww Nll.e acrd pur[M+•r. II a<entmct sole, 1.9a1 lees lar contract p,eponl,on.MII M pond by -- - ""'-"-' "' Sl I,=sae.II=.Jn11 M•Mrd wually by purcM+.r and"1 11 yonem, pun, ether Id..P-...",.bubbl•to the 52 p4 Pro mIH for core,..nr»t Ywr F 1pa H,inl�N/N)an a sVmNI obI, Inw,o«.premium+ISI MN,a,.umN shtinp polity)end Popo prep•rry"if be mode a.of I,b«k on.-Irl DE D.I•pu.S..,H,•nand 1e po+}.+.ion;Q doy,of,.,d•I:wn of ob n,_manlia-d deed et can,roth Q On 57 19 S.II•I Ie poY ell unl:ry bal.a„rv•d le date purcMur i.•,hued le pa.,.-O-and pur,haNr to WY nlnr for hwrirlg IuN :nm"S payment ss m handled b•w»n 54 pwcMNr and Mll..IML Pomo al any-I wopony Lac o,psNtcc+m»I e,,m•nH non rh„h„vrtriDuroble Io a",.ad w ptr�l tbprp Eat IM e..•+Nwrnr of or d»dun 5S I.,pay_,of whrth Mt be-d•I.rw,.MII be ped by. SG .� -- - - !. t •s,.rch,N,75fina ing d•—.. y TIM!If p M/lSfINCE OF SNI.ADElIMINT.Tmnwcha+to be c1.. rH,or b.lar•JL'f ftJ E .:��- - 19.I TfN as wan tMrwinr as financing d«um.nn,I n be pnperw end mnn.abl•ods d•I:srw. „Q,,, days ohs r.ordmp e/a6oremwnonw dew Sv 5 ca SHIN re noose•all Penonvl 1,1.cly not old to pw[MNr,end del;r.r pe :w to p.nM+•r hMck Dns wlrl }w twimst and d�.hlr..m.nr of land.Ie sII.rI Cl an ' -.1• ,w woe,th•,wfnr as +Xnrq law,and r..d Roll rill e0 IN, 1 el lenann.,1 any.Pontoon.MII M w dnn.ed wMn r d TM-qo».TY end del�wrw key tMnl«N pwcMNr w 1M wd.nignw Rwl,«. 01 S.Inr to kNp 1A.woMrty!mored ICMck om arllyli�UnEI pNN,Pen 1•d•I:rerw b pwJrur or nn,d.nq o/vMr••mwl:onw dew«rwrro<I,whl[Mrer In.t o[tw.:e,[3 Do'.e7 _ e] ppY pwcMNr is_,.,led le pe++.+nor, In+uronre W-11 be nnred br Dunham er 04 b V THE PROVISIMS PEINT{D ON MI tIVPES.fID1 MEtlOF WNICM APE�N�IO!At EVA APPRAISED LOW Alto LV At VItCWIS/AGtIIMINT[ Q CLOSING ON RENTAL CLAUSE: 65 ADDITIONAL LAND SAILS CONTRACT PROVISIONS ITf_l��FMA A/IRAIS[D VAEU!CLAUS! 6 Af If OAUf!/INI/ECIION RlrWT [. CITY INSPlCiION AUTHORIZATION '.. ”' day' el CONDITION OP WELL ClAUS1 ped cont of U,,ha ,uw NII.. If of1N closing P.,d-M fl M•pM1»N M Wnhse 00 !his.9r••menl Is bw:ng upon tis Mln.p.r+onol no,.Nnralne.,sed .son e++ N.»,:f,NII•,. 69 Prt+r N NIL,pnwth».'e•i".crest MN•gr»wrwt s,M Ma P'speny•n es,rwlgwekN wiM.w writtw n Sells,and pwcMNr Imnrwr,IN r,nd•nigrW Rwlror le hpndle IM prm11 Henry as/W tor•.A Itgram In R.I,w' hwl.Irvd«count;❑Upon NINr's atnplam.o/all..Jelwul 70 a,Hoot ISI ESCROW DEPOSIT CLAUS!ON!l VERS!WHICH If INCLUDED MHRI AS PART OF TMIf AGt[[MINT). 71 CIIIA1101 SNA.NAV.NO FIItTNTR LIAl1LITY WITH■!S►!CT TO THE fARNIST MONEY UPON-DEPOSIT WITH TN!ESCROW D[SIDNA7lD UON..Shunt lr•k•r Agnem..(!wide) ] The und.nignw RNbw ecWrowiwgn mc.iw of wm•et many[which Realew ogr».it,M•dl.as provided Ob..)from purdu»r In In'he- �1 f .,id-.d id .d hby 77 ON M1e .M+ / Y Q oath (3 check..,. .. 75 41AA9en17e Mara OFF.-Add,- / .�_S.W dG1 1 Lt ]] PU1MAflB IrrinR b�19 . /yk, �^ .. Neuer AOINOWtlDGtl RtCEI►I OFA COIA►L INTSIttle 7B E - Fyy.,.� pS AND AC�WW.DGIf�HAT p11lOLASIe MAS 7Wi lECt1Yl0 OR l/t1lD SMO"ANY fA1EMlMTf 79 NLLtD IM COPT NERC 101 t t HAS FULLY tlAD AND V -`' •MADE By 01,11 b ANY REAL 11TATi AGNT WHICH AES NOT XENIX 17"11110,D.ED 02 CONTRACT TO 11►tlPA1.D IN IMI NAMI p./'S CM/.�7!'!.-1 � tA_.d-dn.—N �t1../..0�/•T4"%_. PlITttL''7I_-.----f._.__ This Nlimnr••M,• deyy(h«11 D C ell padaNI�wD tmett l a ese"ad with..in,IYMhrc,heur ee71 31. ........_...AM..._ -AL e7 ------ 7. Jzip psz�-273 ----- _ .. ... . hrMNr e44- esMnR �0 yoSj/ a " sells he eby safest.M.lar•pelnp offs,end n Makes the noshed.wart.•Ms,. .to tt FOR IIPAIIf 1/![OUTBID FOR FINANCING.S•Iler o0,••s Iv p•Y IorMwirh sae Me ee Sells,Mnby.."ft It.Iwpe:np elf..311.1111 AGREES i0 PAT NOT MORE IMAM f L /1M.I.a to•p rrvnwst;w,11r.li•tirrq inns..tis•um off i'+�ti oI d»i.q Iso..vi<sa r.wNrw in MIs tmnwctlen 5•II«h..eh,gmnn wd+twlrer e7 .be..-,ranted bah-.-i y vnipm ro.soh R»Itw«list: brd•r en emwmr of Rho+•pr«•w•wool ro wed ee huip WdN a I.w M M ww•ed•of Nn b secure pe.nwt al wA•um,aw Irr»em]I M _ �Igli,w� Iwnl so I.tie m cried«•.X11 r.'e r•[erd•np tNll•%t tnohp Leu.ped ilonr eW,o'nctwnborNe+ed anurlMrD payal6 by S.IIN en-Mler•[rlN'nq fill MEIt t eAC[NOW4 90 n ' IDOt1 ER0f OP A C=1AT1LT FILLED IN COPY OF THIS ACBPEMINT W"11&SlL1.1I NAf FULL aw��cwUPQRSen d.orp.e�Q To gpita rx it ihu•complete W ep tmnwn en,In IM 9' j N ym.id•d tis or-many fall be diudbind»Fellers aMr dwu/jgion el any"It•imam«J Y lista br.k.,N tis..nm of M.o9md caw.wiNian Wer a•IF IM .1.J-IL-71 / c U ✓ ......._...._tett... _...__..�- ...__._.............---.._.... .._... 4 esY«f1.n le4b»mwwff„atw.riM tend,•a NIL;«®.._. .IL_772....J.E� .................._... • ........._.._..A.M.. .._tett.__... 9 cc...tett -._.. . < Q i Add,•b_. I I�-'X ��Z4i7 ._ Col. ter e __.2110 1Ly— -__ Ser 9 Sell.97 .__.. .. _ r efllnr,. \ r•wrNnl Wellsdnowl.dge+ ncNa 9! S .M. tett► !NL/...� ■ 99 •fPy Fn SNNr. ._ •r.lnirbN 4z >>✓ /wdwNr.. 100 ._. .._ _ _. __.__ .... ... ..._._._ .. _tett tett.. ._ .. .._. "N._..3. ___Y/341- .S•grak ._._....101 i Csp bstI••�r ekev I+anw pelt-and__.-_.__..-.__._..__._._..._ Listing 11-11W fslllp hoc 100 REALTOR'S COPY 19S SALE AGREEMENT AND RECEIPT FOR EARNEST MONEY Portland Board of Realtors Ln IS A 6&#IkY BINDING COKTLWF.No NOT WIDUSTOOD.SM COWITANT ADVICE. Copyright 1976,1977,i9"83.19:15 .9/951 REALTOR' is Th.d.k%Ig.� ock,off dict.the f.:Icvw�nik diliall real Perry.)-led in the City of_TI C-ry of to P" Tj $HrIs,of Orj. 1. 2 X ..Opal.............. 3 4 and vernally luntown fee the polloselike pe- I . . o the f.11closing Morres,to-wit.Earnest money hotel. -Ipld 1.of . . . . . . . r 7 on as additional sainsist mrsonly.tM-of . . . . . . . . . At or before 13callig,Th.balance of 60 nt . . . . . . . . . S ILI..7.8.9.10..1 sick-I liri�6) upoes cloolleftese,of kill. if.-of . . . . . . . . . . . pirysiblis res fell- CA- 111 02 .......................... --------------- .......... ....... 14 11 Indilbledinciss is auocl in this-plact-on,in addition to the w,chas,Pllc"Illhoto My t,q,i,,d pIi!nP�.9hgd f,imb, sell*,/or 5 IP Now LOAN 15 REQUIRED,7AANSACTION SLWMCT TO IFIARCHASIR AND P ARTY QUALIFYING FOR TH&LOAM ser agrees to mato written appliallickin therefor Mi later than 16 ...................................................192,_7 C-PI.I.-..,y Pop..and.."best H.".to Psuch financing,and It f-al-1.to be financed 17 through IRA cir Federal VA,sollor Ogren To pay the pninallorig-noxigis di-t ".I,.d by lend.,,-1 To steed S..._..._...._.-.-.-.. WICLAIL CWMTICM..-I......................... ........................................................................................................................... ....................................... it V1 ..............................................................I....................I..........................................................................................-.1........................................................................................................20 ........................................................................................ ........................................................ .............................-21 .4 W�;................ coq. .... - " 'L ............ ............L L L ... -........................................................................................... 22 .%ag 7H15 INSTRUMENT a k1 e that p,apsmy rray be si.ibioo Ic,Ci W.County or Star,Smoke S Oct.-,too.trom,nis.and J now FTC it 23 Mi Will.NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY c "'a D,N THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATIO OF A"I WHO USE LAWS AN INSTRUME 4 DESCRIBE fPIICA.LE D RE TI=%EIORE SIGN. 24 ING 04 ACCEPTING THIS I NSTRUMENT THE PERSON ACOU14ING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 10 25 VERIFY APPROVED USES.Unless olho,w:w heop.,provided,the pivimay is to be conveyed by Ha,ulory wa,..Iy clood f-and 1-.1 all Iand stril-brancess-.11 rionists ressisism 24 litillolot wed-.0d Mo. nmerverfl.A.1.Fteloinkil knosse" villity--ft.1-,d which b..lit ill. .Perry or...1.which EMproposky Mi hiscorked,and. .......... 27 --c-c-rg........... ........... .. ........... ............................................ 28 ........................................L................L......................................LL.............................. ..................L............................................................................................ 29 J..u,.-.Policy 1,Th. t-Ir P"'.IF-is 1,11....,a-....M-y shcr-i-g good and marketable uOks.Fit-to closing 30 "'aic- I.M.-d.*f by Ist' an,. a- he of he .,1.1. Nefti,Pliny, 312 it's. rin. 1-1 apple LIT* he P, .h-k-blis IMe w..h,n th.lIv d ......ks a w,;rtion St',ft,7ri of do ,Is is drilwonial to soln Io h.. 3 I'- or son :114= 4d:,,..To 1 1.1-inn-1, ,,1he sai-if Inonsy h,,,.n r-piscol for shell be funded.6.1 a...pIcirc. of, as,not a 1.10 33 gonistal--ild,ble 1,hirn.b,t,0 s,11o, pp-es she sake and title is-let.b1c,old ho I. P,Vd it so, it.1.c-pl.,.lh!"pipi, d Th.co n. -.y h.:::n .,..Fred 34 1*1 a P, g4:::g,d1l 11 b*,Cd tho-ri, hall be of m funh..,b,,..g It H.,."bq the mum st he 35 soc :nsi Is'is o,.:r;d he !:,d I.My to 1, 3 *1 an, -h., ."an"A"'I is gZ-1 6 All bud.-In footing c,=aanc... g,.. ad,. I dpi cod - 37 "�Il arI1:%.dd =.., T:n pi-bing -rifilcill Lig kaki drapery ands d chd fireplace iscou or i�hi and b.,h,- 711 P b_1I.d!!_.isn:ne.,allachild linoleum, ncd*.'d" antennal,•at I-Iii".41brplarills,and Immis coof.11 list.-a,.to be tell p-the p.......as 39 part of the,p(operry lowchassid occope,_44 A............................................................................................. .............................40 IE 3 Th.following pol-I ptsockty In In p-nj loonjillart.-I..officinsims Hard hiritin,Is included in the M,chans pit,. .................. 411 ___................ ........................... ...................... .................. ........ ................................................. ............ 42 Th.following,fi.t.m.cta not.. !,by Nolooks . .......- ...................... 43 Sell., ",.-Who,1 .1*,*Lit Litt I. .'Vwli�2dAl�v6spoolb:,v m,pl.,cf tanbu chat he knows of m incle,lal sinw-cil cl,lo,is; that 11 44 ril., I -I' lumbiFlill 1.V%d-ki7l.,do U...'1 1, o.1,the pp,,.P., I-IWI'LMd tolit be 1. t.-. Ily �'.promen..3 .-I 11"r . king.I thick he . in J.,I consIllon..1 It I-W.h..,I.ism,led W possession, t lict -,it. any ed:7. he that he rolice franc ony gin,=at agency 44 of any...l.'son of I.r all.tirtop to the properly,..ceps E,Xae/p._.'#`_V..j ........................................ _....................I................ 1 47 ....... .... ................ 41 w7HB sic, 49 w THE SALE WILL U CLOUD IN ISCROW.Calls of stairs,kileall be bonne by seller It p-hoser Is financing through federal V.A.,otherwise such costs shall be led gorily Imoz,on,.11.,,f:.d=has.. It c-,,.,t=,=I,fose pi,opoinklion"it be Mid by .................................................................................... So . .... try, P..._,far ;;;ft 11be shiii, "-IIV by and set 51 carrotyear in,....I-..u..d.1,1.9-on.,I......Is prini[if p-ho.,a.,-st.i.-I,Mllcyj and other p,.pald sk.porturs art,,bwabie to he 52 asI property MIT be mod. ITcheck-onlyj M Do,.p..h.-I.mind I.possession; d.,.of-elchollit 41 oboVff Inentillesed_c1ced 01 contrast,C3 on 53 19 Seller ft pay all Wilit!buts 1. - l.d 0.da and plc�-r cto any Still"for h"""ol.1 ff.. ;Proolnlsksi.paymentbe Mto handled be, So r1r_ ,j.� -,il pc, of an,11 p.-ly 111. 11.1 wInures,c, .'sn"".1.is I.is politics or pends hot.. .1 or d-do,. 53 for pay-,of which has how disf-scl,shall be Paid by ............ .... _ I ....L".., ..'(P-hil-kiScill.,Indicalitsishi,lil 56 to or to TIAMS 12 OF"He ISUNCI OF THIS AGREEMENT.Tnonsoct,on to be closed on or is ....................... thereafter Is.fi-Ig Tlc-nN 57 son M papered- norktiftbrit 1.11.cl.l.-d. 5/ To S. ft remote.11 po-I poppy-1 cold to Mch..and ceow.,Milso.l. To cha.scQ!,heck cinct_anoo is �io,loacrd.nq of b-..-,,-.d deed cir c-1.0 and disbursement tiolel-A,1.Witt, r]an . ..... .. a 19 or a. "Holt.,o=10.9 I.-and ngulal,on..111 60 P.-.",-1 FfV nal a,mr,or"undersigned Realtor. 61 peppy n.y.Po....I- hall be d.-.d d.l.-,.d when 17""has vo-od the`ptopV dol-ted ken thomfor Its W' Sol or 1.liess 0 try bawd lChock-amyl.El Until pam-lon Is d.1-od to p-hosof w eco,if.ing of bo-enctrucined dred or dione,Ill.$orvii.,or[3 Do,.62 pwchace,is entitled to Mosel— In-ows,will be soc-cl by mth...,or 63 I"PROVISIONS PAYID ON INA REVERSE 9101 11111100 ICH All CHICKID BELOW All INCLUDED IN THIS A021111101111,11k, 64 ADDITIONAL LAND"Ill CONTRACT I-..- :.D.LA1 VA APP111A.M.VAIII.C- 0 CLOSING-POSSSSUCH RENTAL CLAUSE, 6S Al 19 CLAUSE/lINSPICTION REPORT "A Alkili VALUE CLAUSE 66 CONDITION OF WILL CLAUSE City INSPECTION AUTHORIZATION Rose to I.S ........ Mr/eye 67 Th'."_,Is itlid,rill upon he heirs,P.,_l'earictionlit'i'...Itilroscialks and.."Ton..,M.,ha...and.11- If silest doill"persons.will-Is portles,or,'it.P..h- I fork-I.solhic, is'Ir _1.0.Protest.,cons on_=iMse.orill itsociewt of 19 rh= he_d_11 Beat,.,1.hand.Th.earnest .."tie 0 loictinrn Romhor's clici fmi occosint,J!;Upon colitit's otcloplance of after.deposit 10 wih a a-& a..--(SIS 1ICWW DEPOSIT CLAUS[ON REVERSE WHICH IS INCLUDED NESE AS PART OF THIS AGREEMINTI. 11 so I INJULTOR SMALL NAVY NO FURTHER LIABILITY WITH 111%PECT TO?MS 9ARMIST MONEY Looks DEPOSIT WITH TWA ESCROW DFSIGNATTV ABOVE.Lt.,...rifer A.-losill 11.16.11 72 To.9ndicirs;9imill loisho, rdg. ...P,of rearmost oncincry I.Nh Realtor.9-to handle.s p,.Wd ciltsvins)from Third-in ft-of oniclonsuld by 73 a acketh a do& .......................... --------------- 74 _11.;:: . C 0 P'-;'!Pry or bill Beach.73 Ph Offi FfAS, Branc ,tern, h1clic ce - gnl 6 EI Main Dollar Add- O-6/ ?I"C'r 11 '51 C-a 7-,��: NI E6_3 p IT Iff ACIVIOWILEDGES RECEIPT OF A COMPLETILA 70 Nll[D IM COZY N11lp ICMNROuslt ,alit 11AP S THAT FURCMA..MAS NOT RECEIVED ON RgLizoot UPON ANY STATEMENTS 79 2 MADE BY SELLER 01 ANY REAL ESTATE ADAM WM004 ADD NOT HIRSIN BXPUMD.0460 02 CONTRACT 70 U PREPARED IN THE"AMN OF..................................................... ...... gh&o loally-Pilo days after thno of onerchoser's Signe tun.if nor accepted w!ihi,that limo. 81 YAddms =4L_ Zip P-hose,93 rhano!... k:?2_,62,(,7, 4 ....... P-haie,04 by led. he f=,%, as :ff.and n Mae.0.glicialsed ji 35.11cor corcepos ff..ULUE AGREES TO PAY Plot MGM THLAN S........... ..........rot aRrAits or nouinto,mm PIKANCING.Sol[., g,-I.poor forthwith to the 16 ob-,riconsed lkocrher,ser,it his Is co cc, p Int-a-,rhe liaing bk.,the-of S, at los, 7 11"' is h R-11- 97 Innrg bikes for ""I"I md"""ll In'his= IM cold cs IIZ-1*paced.of-1..-wo Mr,non,of laid swn,and itninocably o,,.g,s 7.=?Rvaltor-listing blotter or,. ?.I tht. ph=Tom" sum. Bt Rock as list.,E-lie,ro old.h11.=and It. wronce So list.. ,=cfhsrpho,i and osc -.1 1.cash st,Nle 1M 59 Iw xzz% To pa siclosesses.0 f-ishing kill.I-ranaks,.1 -als1% IT.? a in into c.-and." 'he or bfvo is coming.$ALLEN HEREBY ACALM L. 90 rx'06115 RECEIPT OF A COWLETUT FILLED IN COPY OF THIS AGOINAUNT WHICH MILE&NAS FULLY READ AND UNDIRSTANDS.In the oilent -(oils kit c-0-the-1.a.he- 91 "'prolhisid Miss conew-T hall be diss.bured as fall-cifter diell,,d-.0 any title i....c.and-,ow mrickillciflon dw%n.C)To 11-PIC',or if ft.1.re_"Transaction,ft" 92 Ii..q the is.-Ii,st 93 bon:-:7"-.d,with romichis, 11 shis 94 .-I=.*.' IN--- ______.. _I ............ A-dI.-__ A, -7r, ...... TJOQ,.,Z -.v1Qq6 lit-I—/ _Mr.Zk4 soft=97 .1 Dole Sol JAN. Is -oh.. he Q;34 jHW isdiverimiscolges notecip,98 ..................... Co-els tlktimMf!m b.renrt above starred Roollor aid basis. grokskes 1 02 REALTOR'S COPY CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: April 13, 1987 DATE SUBMITTED: March 25 1987 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: CPA 87-01 PREVIOUS ACTION: Planning Commission ZC 87-02 — City of Tigard/Albertsons Recommendation March 3 1987 PREPARED BY: Tom Dixon DEPT HEAD OKL/11 ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: City Council/Albertsons POLICY ISSUE Can the City Council re—zone sufficient residentially zoned land to compenstate for residential land lost by approving the Albertsons' CPA/ZC proposal. INFORMATION SUMMARY On March 3, 1987 the Planning Commission met to consider Comprehensive Plan Amendments (CPA's) and Zone Changes (ZC) for seven sites in the City of Tigard and one site in the Tigard Planning Area. These sites are all residential zone districts which were considered for higher density zoning as part of the Albertsons' CPA. The Commission decided to recommend approval of staff' s recommendation for Sites G and H, to modify staff's recommendation for Site A in order to increase the zoning from R-4.5 to R-12, and to recommend against any changes on Sites B, C, D/E, F, and K. Added to the original packets for the Planning Commission are the minutes of the meeting, written comments provided at the meeting and afterwards, and a list of persons who signed up to give public testimony. Also enclosed is a letter from the Tigard Public School's Assistant Superintendent, Larry Hibbard. On March 11th, Mr. Hibbard met with Keith Liden, Senior Planner, who explained that the CPA's and ZC's were mostly shifting residential densities within the city by some 400 units rather than creating 400 new units within the school district. Initial comments from the School District indicated concern about potential problems for educational services which a dramatic increase in residential densities would present. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Deny all CPA's and ZCs. 2. Modify recommendation made in staff reports. 3. Follow the recommendations made by Planning Commission. FISCAL IMPACT SUGGESTED ACTION Support the recommendations of the Planning Commission which would allow sufficient increases in density transfers to satisfy units lost in the original Albertsons' CPA and adopt the attached ordinances. TD:sb/1056W ^ V) m -a41 / C: m o rn N CO v N N O 1 Lfl Eco a t0 :3 d' E fa U j v Ll N In E O E N fu •rl O O H Q) caU) i a N s4 ro � a a a) a) a) a) v U n. Ora � z ra � _C- ra N U U U U U N d' I O O 0 0 Z H OC CY. Z Z t7 ^ U N Z 41 H ri ^ x LI) 4 V) ^ N 4-) ^ ^ ^ CC y .LJ rl N J 1 r1 G •P •1 4J •ri °° � r+ r_ H b I rA a N N lD %D M t� C O a) LO w r-1 , tp M N :3 a E w 1 44 O CL. E `+' 4a `+ O O 44 O O d' O O O O O O UN O () a) 1 L� N N N f0 N a) N N "T H ra al a) fn N N fd N Ln a) W N u � 0) Sa Sa itl C C v v v N f [� In r1 N I CC N CL' ri W 4 V rd a O O O a a H O O -0 .N O O [L a' Ln Ln N Ln 41 —4 N • fU N M d' d N t� t I I O a a a ac a a a a H E13 x ¢ c� CO w y o x r..f ri .-� r♦ rl ri r-i r-1 v v a) a) m S4 i S4 S4� S4 S4 f fo ro f3 rs rd M Qf ru a a .--1 N M �' T ■1 ' sm OWN VIA ®■ �► -iii. 1F" Will ■ / NINE �� //- ■ •'i /111 MAN on all III 1 C'i (1 1 1 off , AV ASIA ,, : �• So 1f1111�111111�1■ 13 -- . '' i�� . ,,_.. � .,ice , ►�� row;; :��i :.•1111:�� = - �=:�1 � •..• a.. ` �� N /\N■ VISION `,�1.6 Lti.fl.p ' son Olson i■\1.� 4 ISSAIII �ha iflt■/f ii ■■ � S A\.Ilei.1111►„ 1�,� �� + ��•■ �►.a {tile •tA1I/• !•I%J`L�.�.}� 1�■�a�� t it.0■ �-: II��i �� _� ■ • ��f!: (Itis:,■ ..—, ��u . �;_ %�1 'r"1� �• gp, DOE coo 111 11111 /■ C/tQi iO.b:� main4111 ■H■ra a :q Wool 'd� I` � �� E7 - r• ■ it►� - 7^ /r + :I�ir., .• moi. 1. �r ••ars � .��.,,,.,� �• •� Jam• )1 . t J u■ go r ;�� Imo: • ��F n•••n••u ---------.► _ ■retro • ■.■..d1r..•�.'�mono°'� ■wu.u• r„��_ ■ ��+��`— ■Ina► an Inrl'•� ��s1�� ■■a .■ ■.� .... [il 1 :IrbIsisy/��Vbi Gu .— uuu �l\��11i: c Ow jail, SUll .q•IIUh'1. ��• . • • so 1111 an r1i noadlL I /��ir�u ur_'.uv•.utrru :r am. �/y .•i;.i �...■ massage � ' ;��.■ !� an W�'3'W! f siL•s•an �.L�' .r.,.y( ^fir si`d111 tliittiiii s son Wow a" or � ��■� �.� to�■ MO:;'_� rl� .��t�Q■■■ �� .` � N41 i��■■■■■■■■u■t 1■t�■i IFIE �— 1 d•�an �tls v� is an.0■ HHS■ Sol IL PIT ft frs= fflMiAsig �>t■� fir,�.-----�.a�t� ��.�� '[�[/I�s��I�■ e,,! TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - MARCH 3, 1987 1. President Moen called the meeting to order at 7:45 PM. The meeting was held at the Tigard Civic Center - TOWN HALL CONFERENCE ROOM 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. 2. ROLL CALL: Present: President Moen; Commissioners Owens, Butler, Leverett, Peterson, Vanderwood, and Newman. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Vanderwood moved and Commissioner Butler seconded to approve minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATION Staff stated that Commissioner Newton had requested that it be made a part of the record that he would not have been able to participate with agenda item 5.1 as his law firm now represents the applicant. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 VARIANCE V 29-86/LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT M 14-86 WAVERLY CONST. NPO # 5 An appeal of the Planning Director's approval to adjust one parcel of , 1.84 acres and 12 parcels (58-69 Bond Park # 3) ranging approximately 4,200 to 6,000 sq. ft. in size into one parcel of 0.54 acres and 12 parcels of approximately 9,100 to 12,000 sq. ft. in size; and for a Variance to allow lot depths up to 4 times the width of the property where 2 1/2 times is allowed. The property is zoned R-12 (Multi-Family Residential, 12 units/acre). Located: Immediately west of Park Park # 3 lots 58-69 (WCTM 2S1 1@CC lots 100, 3000, 3100, 3200, 3400, 3500, 3601, 3700, 3800, 3900, 4000, and 4101). Commissioner Newman stated that he would be abstaining from the procedure but had been out to the site and could provide technical information. Senior Planner Liden reviewed the Director's decision and made staff's recommendation to uphold the Director's decision. Discussion followed regarding the status of SW 81st Avenue. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION o Chris Carpenter, 8070 SW Churchill, one of the appellants, representing the applicant, Ken Waymire, explained the different options that they had reviewed and why they had chosen to add the additional property to each individual lot versus a common ownership. Discussion followed regarding the condition of the property, access, possible future Cdevelopment, and the easement for SW 81st Avenue. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 3, 1987 - PAGE 1 NPO COMMENTS o Craig Hopkins, Chairperson NPO # 5, explained that they had worked with the property owners since the beginning and were in support of the proposal as being good for the neighborhood and community. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o Marsha Enright, 8020 SW Churchill, supported the proposal as it would provide an excellent natural buffer. o Mark Corigliano, 8030 SW Churchill, supported the proposal. He stated that common ownership will not work because of the legal problems. Also, they would not be able to individually use the property as they wish if it is in common ownership. o Julian Kaasa, 7914 SW Churchill Way, supported the proposal as being the last opportunity to keep the property in its natural state. o Dorothy Gage, 8000 SW 54th Portland, representing herself and two other property owners for Lot 200, was in favor of the proposal. She questioned the status of the easement for SW 81st Ave., which is located on their property. She explained that at the time the easement was given the property was taken off the tax roll and now has been put back on. She also requested that the Commission waive the fee for the appeal. o Jim Breakey, 8040 SW Churchill, explained that they were trying to preserve the neighborhood as well as increase the size of their back yards. He felt this proposal is good for the buyer, the seller, adjacent property owners, and the City. He strongly urged the Commission to grant approval of this request. o Penny Love, 8060 SW Churchill Ct. , supported the proposal. She questioned the intent of the 2 1/2 times rule. She did not feel they were violating the intent of the Code. o Paul Widerburg, 8090 SW Churchill, supported the proposal stating that the existing yards are only 10 feet. o Discussion followed among Commissioners and staff regarding the background of lot 100, the easement for SW 81st, access to the area, description of the lot, responsibility for doing public improvements, the types of improvements which would be required, and the possibility of future partitioning. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED o Commissioner Butler asked why they just didn't set it up so that each property owner would have two lots. le was concerned about the ` easement for SW 81st, otherwise, he didn't see any problem. o Commissioner Peterson was concerned about the problems which might be created, but if you have 12 property owners who all agree never to divide their property, it might work. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 3, 1987 — PAGE 2 ` o Commissioner Owens was sympathetic and understood their desire and reasoning, however, the Code simply doesn't allow it to be done. The only criteria for a variance that might work would be criteria number 2 dealing with special circumstances. o President Moen had concerns that if SW 81st was improved with the development of lot 200, than we would be left with 3/4 strHeeet felt t no way to require public improvement abutting lot at variance criteria 1, 2, 4, and 5, could be applied to this proposal. o Commissioner Vanderwood opposed the proposal as being poor planning. She felt the land is developable and does not meet any of the criteria for a variance. She was also concerned that lots would be partitioned in the future and enforcement problems could result. O Commissioner Leverett favored the proposal. * Commissioner Leverett moved and Commissioner Moen seconded to approve Variance V 19-86 and Lot Line Adjustment M414-86 5 based Mon the f indinng-2 that the proposal meets criterias 1, 2, , Commissioner Owens, Butler, Peterson, and Vanderwood voting no- Commissioner Newman abstained. * Commissioner Vanderwood moved and Commissioner Butler seconded to uphold the Director's decision based on staff's findings and conclusions. Motion carried by majority of Commissioner present. Commissioner Moen and Leverett voting no. Commission Newman abstained. RECESS 8:50 RECONVENE 9:05 5.2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 87-02 AND ZONE CHANGE ZC 87-02 CITY OF TIGARD NPO's # 3, 5, and 6. Senior Planner Liden reviewed the history of the proposal and what is being proposed for each individual site. He explained that staff had been trying to contact the School District regarding their comments as rstood that this a trade off they felt the School District misunde . He reviewed situation, moving densities not just increasing densities. the NPO comments. He continued that all the proposals are consistent with the Tigard Municipal Code and staff is recommending app roval on all sites. Discussion followed on how best to proceed, how many units would be added if all sites were approved, and how this is a trade off situation. Further discussion followed on how these particular sites were chosen and what types of recommendations could be made. NPO COMMENTS o Marge Davenport, 15100 SW 109th (Member of NPO # 6) opposed the Albertsons' development. She wanted to go on record as being opposed to increasing the densities in the NPO 6 area. f PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 3, 1987 - PAGE 3 o Craig Hopkins, Chairperson NPO # 5, 7340 SW Varas, rusted that NPO # 5 is not in favor of any of the proposals. They did not feel that these changes are in the best interest of the Community. He questioned why there should be a compromise and what do we owe Albertsons' . o Sue Carver, 10155 SW Hoodview Dr., representing NPO 41 6, reviewed the priorities of the NPO. First choice would be not to have Albertsons' located at Durham & 99W. Second, would be to concentrate densities around the Albertsons' development. Third, is a list of sites they would recommend increasing densities on and what that increase would be. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o John Shonkwiler, 5750 SW Carman, Lake Oswego, Or 97034, representing Albertsons' , reviewed possible alternatives which would allow for the needed density increases. He explained that it was his understanding that the City Council wanted a priority list from the Planning Commission, which they could choose from, to increase densities. o Steve Enright, 8020 SW Churchill Ct., in Bond Park I, opposed increasing any densities. o Jan Limpo, 15270 SW 79th, explained that the area had not changed since City Council denied a zone change request for the same general area back in 1985. He was concerned that the City Council was defeating its purpose to protect the downtown core area by allowing Albertsons' to move to the south end of the community. He stated that they had held a neighborhood meeting and were concerned about the traffic, impact to the schools, and the character of the neighborhoods. o Beverly Straub, 9425 SW Inez, submitted a letter opposing the rezoning of the proposed Albertsons' site to general commercial and increasing the densities in NPO 5 and 6. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED ON GENERAL COMMENTS SITE "A" Senior Planner Liden reviewed site "A" and made staff's recommendation for a zone change from R-4.5 PD to R-7, maintaining the planned development overlay. o Discussion followed regarding why staff is proposing R-7 rather than R-12 or R-25. Further discussion on why they shouldn't just increase the entire site to R-40. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o Mr. Annand, 14600 SW Pacific Highway, stated he owned about four acres of site "A" and has lived there for 50 years. He favored the R-7 zone change. It was his understanding that the property was originally zoned R-7 and he wanted it to be zoned that again. o Discussion followed regarding how the zoning designations had changed with the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and that R-4.5 now is the same as R-7 use to be. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 3, 1987 - PAGE 4 o Oaasa Otto, 14200 SW 97th, opposed changing the zoning to R-7. She did not feel it was appropriate to have single family residential zoning along Pacific Highway. She favored a higher zoning. She felt the site was more suitable for apartments and that more trees could be preserved if the site was developed at the higher density. She added that she is not a property owner but has power of attorney and is speaking for the Peterson's who are part owners in two of the parcels. o Steven Heuser, 14938 SW 109th. He stated that he is a realtor with Caldwell Banker out of Lake Oswego and is speaking as a realtor as well as a Tigard resident. His concern is the lack of medium priced homes in the Tigard area. He favored maintaining the R-4.5 zone on site "A" and increasing site "B" from R-3.5 to R-4.5. o Charles Barr, 14992 SW 109th, explained that his was an emotional plea to save the trees and the great horned owls which live in the area. He lives adjoining site "A" and "B" and he would also be affected by site "G". PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED FOR SITE "A" o Lengthy discussion followed regarding what would be the appropriate density for Site "A" and how increasing the density to R-'t0 would replace the needed housing densities. * Commissioner Newman moved and Commissioner Leverett seconded to forward CPA 87-01 and ZC 87-02, Site "A" with a recommendation to rezone from R-4.5 PD to R-25 PD. o Further discussion followed regarding how many units would be gained. Whether the site should be zoned R-12 or R-25. * Motion failed five to two. Commissioner Moen, Owens, Butler, Peterson, and Vanderwood voting no. * Commissioner Bulter moved and Commissioner Vanderwood seconded to forward CPA 87-01 "A", and Zone 87-02 "A" to City Council recommending a change from R-4.5 PD to R-12 PD. Motion carried by majority of Commissioner present. Commissioner Moen, Owens, and Newman voting no. o Commissioner Peterson asked if it would be out of order to make a motion to deny sites "B", "F", "C", "E", and "D" without accepting testimony. Lengthy discussion followed. O President Moen asked if there was anyone who had signed up to speak who wished to testify before the Commission made a motion for denial. No one choose to speak. * Commierioner Peterson moved and Commissioner Vanderwood seconded to forward CPA 87-01 "B-, "C-, "D/E-, "F-, and -R" and Zone Change ZC 87-02 "B", -C", -D/E", "F", and "R". to City Council with a recommendation for denial. Further discussion followed regarding the legality of the process. President Moen again asked the audience if anyone wish to speak before the Commission takes action. Further discussion regarding the motion. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 3, 1987 - PAGE 5 3 7. o Discussion followed to add the provision that after the Commission had reviewed the remaining sites that they could have the opportunity to go back and look and these sites again. Commissioner Peterson agreed. Commissioner Vanderwood seconded. o Commissioner Newman requested that the names of the opponents be placed into the record. (Sign up sheets were forwarded to City Council.) Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners presents. SITE "G" Senior Planner Liden review Site "G" and made staff's recommendation for a zone change from R-12 to R-25. NPO COMMENTS o Sue Carver, NPO # 6 representative, stated that they had already reviewed a project for this site and were in support of the R-25 designation. o Discussion followed regarding the type of facility being proposed, the condition of the land, and what would be appropriate zoning for the site. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o Bill Sanders, 23256 Bentz Road, NE, Aurora, OR, owner of site "G" favored the proposed change. o Ren Cheely, 15390 SW Alderbrook Ct., Committee Chairman for Summerfield, stated he was prepared to speak against "B", "F" and "G". However, since "B" and "F" were denied in the previous motion he is no longer opposed to increasing site "G". He stated that they had original opposed Albertsons' until they found out that the property could development to 40 units per acre, so they felt Albertsons' would be the best of two evils. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED +� Commissioner Ovens moved and Commissioner Newman seconded to forward CPA 87-01 "G" and Zone Change ZC 87-02 "G" to City Council with a recommendation for a change from R-12 to R-25 PD. Motion carried by majority of Commissioners present. Commissioners Moen and Newman voting no. SITE "H" Senior Planner Liden review the site and made staff's recommendation for a Comprehensive Plan Change from Medium High to High Density Residential, which would allow development up to 40 units per acre. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o No one appeared to speak. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 3, 1987 - PAGE 6 I i �. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED in where they were as far as calculations and o Discussion followed regarding ed on the site. how many units could be develop Newman seconded to Commissioner a Underwood moved andCommissioner recommendation for City with a Residential to * Commissioner "H" to from Medium High Density forward CPA 87-01majority of Commissioners Comprehensive Plan Amendment otion carried by High Density Residential. n and Moen voting no. present. Commis jugs Newman be added to Commissioner requested that findings C.. ..E•• and ..D" President Moen reg B , IF., .. " o denial of site " " Peterson's motion for -DQE- ""17", and -K" are: Findings for motion Sites -B �", -C-� lack of bus service. * of transportation in the area, 1. Inadequacy 2. Need to preserve R- 4.5 zoning' liance with applicable locational criteria. g� Non-comp the established areas. of y. Reduces the livability be greater if the above sites are 5. Impact on the schools would increased in density- Commissioner present. Motion carried unanimously by position arding the Planning Commission's P o Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Further discussion followed reg regarding Opposing Albertsons' 0 on record as not oPP hborhoods. 0 Commissioner Leverett wanted to 90g densities into the neighborhoods. location but is opposed Commissioner Newman seconded that the rehensive ning propriate use of the and then try � President Moen moved and a commercial area, Commission feels that it ty�ndingproperty- greatly Plan to change zoning, Tigard to relocate that residential by Commissioners present. to find other areas n Motion carried unanimously 6. OTHER BUSINESS planning Commission consensus was ° vacation Portion of SW 67th Avenue. for recommendation of approval. 7. Adjournment 11:30 PM Di a M. Jelder , ecretary ATTEST: A. Donald Moen, President 3053P1dmj = _ PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION MI 4i[1TES MARCH 3, 1987 AGENDA ITEM 5.2 PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 3, 1987 \._ MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Planning Commission February 26, 1987 FROM: Tom Dixon, Assistant Planner-J ! SUBJECT: Staff reports, comments for CPA 6-65 .-:ALBERTSONS' ) Enclosed are the staff reports and recommendations for each of the separate sites under consideration for re-zoning as part of the Albertsons' Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA). Included with these reports is a copy of an Engineering memorandum and a request for comments sheet from the Tigard School District. Both have been incorporated into all staff reports but it was felt the original responses should be made available. Also, a memorandum from William Monahan to NPO Chairpersons is made available which provides clarification of the City Council's final order regarding the Albertsons' CPA and specific information about each of the sites under consideration. In addition, attached to the end of each staff report are an enlarged map showing the subject site, surrounding properties, and respective zoning districts. Following the maps are copies of any letters or comments we received from NPO's, property owners, nearby residents, and other interested parties. 3012P dmj MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON i TO: Randy Clarno, Development Services Manager February 17, 1987 FROM: Randy Wooley, City Engineer SUBJECT: Albertson's CPA Eight areas are being considered for rezoning to higher residential densities to satisfy conditions of the Albertson's CPA. You and I have briefly reviewed each of the eight proposed rezonings for potential impacts on street and utility systems. It is not known if rezoning will change the density of actual future development of the properties. However, to evaluate potential "worst case" impacts, we assumed that each area will develop to its maximum density. According to the Community Development Director's memo of December 17, 1986, the rezoning could result in up to 560 additional residential units in the south part of Tigard. Additional residential units can be expected to generate more traffic on nearby streets. We can reasonably estimate that for each additional -- single—family residence, there will be one additional vehicle trip during the evening peak hour. Because the eight proposed rezonings are spread over a wide area, it does not appear that the rezoning would have a major impact on any one street. The additional traffic could be accommodated by the street system currently proposed in the City's long—range planning. Some additional street improvements, such as additional turn lanes at selected locations, might be needed as a result of the additional traffic. It appears that the systems development charges from the additional residential units would be adequate to fund the additional street improvements that might be needed. Additional residential units would create some additional flows in the sewerage system, but it does not appear that any increases in pipe sizes would be necessary. In general, in residential areas, the size of sewer pipng is determined by minimum sizing to accommodate maintenance equipment rather than by flow requirements. Higher residential densities would probably result in slightly higher storm runoff volumes. In some areas this may require increases in the size of storm drainage piping. - The systems development charges generated by the additional units should be adequate to cover any resulting additional costs to the storm drainage system. Inpacts on the major drainageways would be negligible. - So, from an engineering standpoint, I see no objections to any of the rezonings being suggested. �- /br2968P IZJQUTS FOR COMMENTSFEB 17 1987 TO: DATE: 1 cmr Of FROM: Tigard Planning Department "HIJING DO% RE: CPA 87-01 CITY OF TIGARD The properties on the attached mann (�hnwn_ in yellow) are presently being considered for re-zoning ple. �AP SLAY our office with any comments you might have reQarv of- Additional f Additional information is included in the memorandimOnA3 bart4nna L Camprehensive Plan Amendment. Attached is the Site Plan and applicant's statement for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, we need your comments by February 17th 19 _. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If ou are unable to rest by_ the above date, please phone the staff contact noted below with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions regarding this matter, contact the Tigard Planning Department, P-0- Box 23397, Burnham and'Ash Ave. , Tigard, OR 97223. Phone: 639-4171. STAFF CONTACT: Tom Dixon PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: k) We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections-to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. S Written comments: The school district knows the City is aware of the problem we are facing regarding overcrowding in our schools. The Board of Dirtctors has asked us to convey to theCity the district's concerns about proposed changes in the comprehensive plan which would increase the density in areas where we are already experiencing considerable enrollment pressures—Templeton Elementary, for example. Making such changes in the Comprehensive Plan can send the signal to the public that needed services are in place when, in fact, school classrooms throughout the district are reaching capacity. School district patrons will have sa opportunitY to approve additional construction fundsn 19 U til that timo and a successful bond election, Name of Person Commenting: Lire' 06barS the district-_conAot guarantee a quality oducational.program for increased enrollments p}one..No`, .520-1620 additional classrom. space 'Reins available. (KSL:pm/OSS6P) " TIGARD PUBLIC SCHOOLS,DISTRICT 23J Administration Office 13137 S.W.Pacific Highway Tigard,Oregon 97223 Vs Area Code(503)620-1620 91 MAR 191987 March 17, 1987 CITY OF TIGARD pLANNING DEPT- Mr. Keith Liden City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Hall Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Keith: This is a follow-up to our discussion of March 10, 1987 during which you clarified the impact of the proposed re-zoning connected with the Albertson's development on Pacific Highway. As you recall, we reacted with some concerns about the proposal as originally interpreted because of school enrollment pressures in the area under discussion. It appeared to us that the impact population-wise in that area would be highly significant and reacted accordingly. However, since your explanation that re-zoning approval of Areas A, B, and G on the map would result in a maximum increase of approximately 91 dwelling units, our concerns are lessened. If Areas F, C, B, and D were also re-zoned to allow higher density, however, our original concerns remain. If you need further information or have questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Larrry G. Hibbard Assistant Superintendent C. i i . f C i. Councilor Johnson requested that staff report on the Beaverton �. portion of Murray Boulevard as soon as that information is available. 7. PUBLIC HEARING- ALBERTSON'S - CPA 6-86 and ZC 10-86 (NPO No. 6) Request by James & Emma Jean White; Herbert & Betty Dayson; H. C. and Amy Randall; Gary & Nadine Randall; Donald & JoAnn Randall; Health Resources, Inc. , ; and William Brownson (ALBERTSON'S) for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low, Medium High & High Density Residential to Commercial General and a ZONE CHANGE from R-4- (Residential 40 units/acre), R-25 (Residential, 25 units/acre) and R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre) to C-G (Commercial General) on property located south of Durham Road, east of Pacific Hwy. and west of 113th Avenue. (WCTM 2S1 150A, lots 100, 200, 300, 400; & 2�1 15A, lots 2800, 2802, 2900, 3000, 3001, & 3002. (Continuation of Public Hearing - from November 3, 1986) a. Public Hearing Opened. b. Councilor Eadon declared a conflict of interest concerning this agenda item and, therefore, will be abstaining from the discussion and the vote on the issue. C. Councilor Brian declared that he has had a large number of people contact him by telephone and in person regarding the land use proposal. These---contacts are split just about evenly before and against the zone change. People have expressed concerns about traffic and their preferences of one type of traffic over another, preservation of trees, the need and/or the no need for this type of development. The general information was basically opinion and he still has an open mind on considering the facts or hearing and arrived at no conclusions. d. Community Development Director assessed the history of this agenda item overall. Two memorandums were sent to Council on this issue and included in their packets. In the memorandum dated November 7, 1986, staff addressed the housing density issues and what Council's options will be. If Council decides- to make the Comprehensive Plan change, there are a number of issues concerning how the City could make up the lost housing opportunity throughout the community. This burden of responsibility can either rest with the City, with the applicant, or a combination of both. The Community Development Director advised that in the applicant's proposal, they pointed out that there would be in excess of 600 units of lost housing opportunity. A memorandum, dated November 17, 1986 prepared by the Community Development Director reflects calculations wherein he proposes that approximately 412 units will need to be made up. The Community Development Director then explained how he arrived at this Ccalculation difference. Page 8 - COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 17, 1986 Community Development Director advised that there have been two Comprehensive Plan Amendments that totalled an addition of 42 units with no change in acreage. The Council may decide to allow these 42 units to be used as a setoff when considering the need for the additional 412 units. This would mean that the bottom line would state that 370 units will need to be recovered. Community Development Director referred to maps to illustrate the actual buildable land currently in the City. He also referred to a map included in the Councilors' packets which highlighted those areas which may be nominated to make up the densities should this rezoning take place. If Council so directs, staff is prepared to present a variety of methods for the recovery of the housing opportunity. , e. City Engineer reported that he has reviewed the Associated Transportation Engineering 6 Planning, Inc. (ATEP) traffic analysis. He stated that he would feel comfortable with the analysis if the property were zoned for the proposed development today and the City was looking at a site development review at this point. The traffic analysis is quite adequate and points out the types of improvements that would be needed on Durham and Pacific Highway to accommodate the development the applicant has ._ proposed. The City Engineer has received revised pages missing from the earlier traffic study and said he is quite comfortable with the calculations which also resolve questions the County had concerning the traffic projection. The NPO questioned the adequacy of the turn lanes on Pacific Highway. This is something that should be reviewed at the time of site development review if we get to that point. The City Engineer noted that this would be quite easy to resolve. The City Engineer commented that the traffic report contains the data which would be needed for evaluation at the time of site review. The City Engineer advised that the Council may want to review the impact:: of all of those Comprehensive Plan changes -on the long—range traffic generation in the area and whether these changes should then be transferred as revisions to the Transportation Map in the Comprehensive Plan. f. Public Testimony Proponents o John W. Shonkwiler, 5750 S.W. Carman Drive, Lake Oswego OR 97034; was present representing Albertson's and addressed the housing issue. Mr. Shonkwiler explained how they calculated �I Page 9 — COUNCIL MINUTES — NOVEMBER 17, 1986 the lost density which was somewhat different than the way City staff had done their figuring. However, Mr. Shonkwiler noted that the final figure was 412 and, if the 42 units added through rezoning since adoption of the Comprehensive Plan are subtracted, then the net units to be added would be 370. Mr. Shonkwiler pointed out areas on a map which he and his staff felt would be good candidates for planning change to accommodate higher densities. Mr. Shonkwiler recommended City Council approval for this project conditioned upon the 370 units being made up. He suggested that City staff could be directed to start the legislative process to accommodate the transferring of density through rezoning. He also requested that City Council grant conditional approval to allow Albertson's to go forward with the site development review so that they do not lose time in the process. Mr. Shonkwiler noted that in their Traffic Engineer's study, that an additional 463 units could be added on Durham Road. Therefore, there is still is capacity left even after Albertson's change to commercial. o Richard Woelk, 16016 S.W. Boones Ferry, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, Traffic Engineer for Albertson's also testified. Mr. Woelk explained this Albertson's'project will be adding 177,000 -- square feet of commercial space which then will produce an increase of 6,500 cars per day (24-hour period). Mr. Woelk -zummarized the traffic conditions which now exist and then explained how the additional traffic generated by this project would impact the area. Substantial traffic improvements are needed on Durham Road as well as modifications to the access to the Summerfield at some point • past the Summerfield development., A traffic signal will be needed at the Summerfield intersection and in order to accommodate a traffic signal, revisions will be necessary to the Summerfield access, i.e. , multiple lanes out by removing the concrete island. Mr. Woelk reviewed some of the options presented in his report detailing how the increased traffic could be handled. He also noted that major improvements would be needed downtown before a development such as this could be placed there. In response to a question posed by Councilor Brian, Mr. Woelk reported if high-density residential (for which it is presently zoned) were placed on this site the amount of traffic would be virtually the same as would be created by this commercial development. However, the peak hours of usage would be different. Mr. Woelk also pointed out that if this parcel were to be developed as residential, there could be up to five additional driveways on Durham Road as opposed to the one location for the commercial proposal. Page 10 - COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 17, 1986 o Don Duncombe, Real Estate Manager, Albertson's, Inc., 10230 S.W. Hall Boulevard reiterated if Albertson's is granted the right, through zone change, to develop the property they would pay for all of the improvements thereby making the traffic situation better than it is now. Mr. Duncombe said Albertson's is committed to make this a showplace for Tigard. He believes this development could capture a large share of the $9-12 million of dollars per year leaving this area. ! o Gary Thornton, (engineer), 4806 N.E. 26th, Vancouver, Washington said he was hired by the Willowbrook people to view the traffic study for this site. He has found no problem with the traffic study and it will work for Willowbrook. o Steve Ward, Westech Engineering, 7000 S.W. Varns, Tigard, Oregon. Mr. Ward is the civil engineer on the project and advised he was at the meeting to answer questions concerning the site development access. o Jane Tye, 15650 S.W. Old Orchard Road, Tigard, Oregon, signed in as a proponent, but wish to address the Council on concerns she has regarding the development. Ms. Tye asked that the Council take care to see that the developer follows through with what has been promised if this proposal is approved. She is concerned about the change proposed for the entrance of Summerfield and wants to be assured that it will be done properly. Opponents o Phil Pasteris, NPO 06, expressed concern over the traffic -study and what he perceived as lack of projections for future traffic impacts on Highway 99. o J.B. Bishop, 3604 S.E. Oak Street, Portland, Oregon 97214, is a commercial property owner in the Tigard area. Mr. Bishop addressed several concerns including the lost density issue, future build—out of the area as it relates to the transportation study and off—site traffic impacts. Mr. Bishop contended that the downtown area could handle this proposed commercial development. He cited the recent LID improvements off Main Street which would facilitate commercial growth of this type. He conelvd^d bis remarks by saying the Council should heed the Comprehensive Plan, growth management policies and economic policies which are now in place. g. Community Development Director recommended that the City Council first make a determination whether or not the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is justified in accordance with the criteria within the Comprehensive Plan. From the presentation given on November 3, c, Page *Ul — COUNCIL MINUTES — NOVEMBER 17, 1986 the Community Development Director, at this point, still adhered to the recommendation for denial. if the City Council determines that a Comprehensive Plan Amendment is justified, then housing density issues must be addressed. h. Councilor Johnson asked the City Engineer if he was comfortable with the traffic study as to whether or not it addressed future traffic projections adequately. The City Engineer responded that he was satisfied with the traffic report. i. Public Hearing was closed. j . Mayor Cook said the first item to consider is whether or not the Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA)is justified. There followed considerable discussion on this point. I o Councilor Edwards said he had no objections to the proposed CPA as long as the criteria is followed. o Councilor Brian said he supports the proposal. One of his key concerns was that if the land is changed to commercial usage, then it should not add to to traffic that otherwise would have been experienced with the property as currently zoned for high—density residential. The traffic study indicates that the increase in traffic will be negligible. Councilor Brian noted his desire to ascertain if-- the density transfer is feasible. ,. o Councilor Johnson basically agreed with Councilor Brian. She ` commented that time would be needed for each NPO to consider the zone change and report to the Planning Commission. o There was lengthy discussion on the density transfer issue. At the conclusion of the discussion period, Councilor Brian went through the density map and outlined some possible changes which may be possible in order to accommodate the lost density if this property is to be rezoned as proposed. ;` k. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Edwards, to give tentative approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment - as proposed contingent upon density transfers approved through the land use application process, with no density transfers abutting Durham Road, and directing staff to prepare findings of fact noting conditional approval for Council action at a future meeting. The motion was approved by a 4-0-1 vote of the Council present; Councilor Eadon abstained from voting. B. TIGARD TRIANGLE STUDY REPORT a. City Engineer went over the report that was delivered to the City Council. C � Page 12 — COUNCIL MINUTES — NOVEMBER 17, 1986 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Phil Pasteris, Craig Hopkins, Bob Bledsoe December 17, 1986 FROM: William A. Monahan, Director, Community Development SUBJECT: Albertson's CPA On December 8, 1986, the City Council took final action on the CPA for Albertson's at the corner of Durham Road and Pacific Highway. The approval granted is conditional on the rezoning of sufficient residentially zoned land to gain an additional 400 or more units of housing. Several groupings of property were identified for close review by the staff, NPO's and Planning -,_Commission. If all were approved as identified by staff, up to 560 units could be gained. The Council directed the staff to initiate the comprehensive plan amendment process as soon as possible. The staff plans to prepare staff reports on the proposal revisions for review by the Planning Commission in February. We expect that the reviews will be divided for hearing on February 3 and 17. ' The Council should hear the items on March 9 and 23. These are the areas presently under consideration shown on the attached maps in yellow: POTENTIAL MAP NO. OF TOTAL PRESENT POSSIBLE UNIT GAIN IDENTIFIER PARCELS ACREAGE ZONING ZONING BY REZONE NPO A 10 24.94 R-4.5PD R-7 62 6 B 9.' 29.24 R-3.5 R-7 102 6 C 8 33.29 R-7 R-12 166 5 D 3 5.64 R-4.5 R-7' 14 5 E 2 7.52 R-4.5 R-7 19 5 F 2* 18.57 R-4.5 R-7 46 6 G 2* 9.5 R-12PD R-25 124 6 K 1 11.00 R-2 R-4.5 27 3 Those areas shown in blue were proposed by the applicant and staff as options for review, however, the Council decided to exclude them from consideration. Please set meeting dates for your NPO so that Keith Liden may discuss this issue with you in January. Your comments and input are encouraged so that the Planning Commission and City Council may take appropriate steps to complete the process. If the Council action does not create an opportunity for at Cleast 400 more housing units, we may have to initiate further reviews. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. WAM:cn/2800P r RBEFOAa I M I A_ • �, 1,;�, >- :!moi ,� �� ■ �i� �.,_ goes . . . rel■111r�� . Z ,.r s a�Nov . 7uu ■ yr r =I %venomous Men .n■ntltlts2 ►�hr.:j �unmt►�j� 4 �.- � � r{F...: ;ai6.b�M'f�/ �iiji•Z�.�<�� u■IIS1 c.Q�� car nos ii� , 'r/ff�J� gp L w.�� ■ err, man MOM i 1?,■� �■■■■ �I•■Pas "A... sells I.J:►�'.�•a _ MOM L--blur \■■■■ .= OR. ;` .fir •_ � As tlAy�y�s��!+1,�y1 ■u 1111/ i+• 1�� . I 4�ir. 'r I�'' •`� a s�• tlNtltt p'If f�\�� •'t MT . !TTTIL.- �Ma Ma � SOS t!p Zt, sip! N111 119alrf'r1aMl�1or-[ t ish ME IL W 1; •_ I}�=uu• �%/IIT ' t sl. • 11242 1 awn v •�G.w..e�irlc>rl�^'t'�'�.1'fl k y=a1 iu 7■� f1��s.l�.� • �aff�� 1111� �., R, i 'fes c �audlL r . If1rn/��,r-�rr ir^->,rurnurnra'sit 64 t:-B •aaun LI►1u;�C■■,rd j`'�� 37■ � r, MORI a n.L. .� \�" ILn -� • �, MOR o A ads �� lot ` • FIT= Ain amill, memo Ing jumm 1 "c 0!!■/11111 S'ir��'��h too.,• S.aA tlrrn.0■ BEL NEI i.��1 r.1 _ 11 ic RIM ow NEam 14 from n � _ .iii ss >•��` �,.�� .;�:�i fl=S •,- ...r- dtw.lo in 1rZvi =IN1 NEW Is � a11�■ _ ■_ r til ISO �d SUGGESTED PRIORITY RANKINGS (Ranking 1 most favorable for rezoning, Ranking 3 least favorable for rezoning ) PRIORITY ONE Parcel H (net increase of 164 units ) PRIORITY TWO Parcel A (net increase of 62 units ) Parcel G (net increase of 124 units ) Parcel 8 (net increase of 102 units ) PRIORITY THREE Parcel F (net increase of 46 units ) Parcel C (net increase of 166 units ) Parcel D/E (net increase of 33 units) SffCjA1e- ✓1G 47T3R Cy- �R •4�c3Fzrr'�,✓S NPO #6 Meeting Wednesday, Feb. 18, 7 :30 P.M. Results of discussion on item #4 - JOINT MEETING WITH NPO #5 TO REVIEW ALBERTSONS' DENSITY ISSUE (in order of choice) 1. NO Albertsons at Durham & 99W Inadequate traffic study Encroachment on residential area (enough CG already) Tree problems/ aesthetic value in comp plan 2. Concentrate Density around Albertsons Road system will be upgraded/signals Locational criteria met on 99W 3. Upzone areas (,in order of priority:) 1. Area H - froia R25 to R40 2. G - from R12 to 925 3. F - from R4.5 to R7 4. B - from 3.5 to R4.5 5. Examine CG area south of Naeve Rd. along Pacific Highway for R12 - RCF type development 1 ' 1t Z silca LO 0j 0214 C ' MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD. OREGON �z�/1 L�G City Recorder (data submitted) Loreen Wilson, t TO: j FROM: 60a (seccrretary's name) € SUBJECT: Minutes of (committee names Meeting Oate: x a PLACE: STARTING TIME: 7 MEMBERS PRESENT: IQA,-c X)A.C*� 0'�' J'-� STAFF, PRESS, PUBLIC 6 OTHERS PRESENT: to tm �ry of siinutos from said eeoti� �d w COQ MINUTES: ofthe Meetingagenda. (check applicable box) ✓ ce had been given for the meeting. A quorum was present and due noticision teed and Lack of quorum was noted, so th�odefonsulatQ s wadec toproceedby review the action itemstaken at consensus Of the *00 .s• ' Final abQQ�^given be r the M�i^ge next scheduled .weeting. Dug notice had _ Lack of quorum was noted and the meeting was cancelled. Scheduled For: Next Meeting (dat and ti TOTAL VOLUNTEER HOURS: resent (compute by number of -�ae�ab ra P (tiiiw) times hours spent in wogting.-Plus time spent preparing 7 cording Sec s 1M73�37A 4arch 2, 1987 Tigard Planning Commission 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Rezoning of Residential Property to Commercial Commissioners: Policy 5.13 of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan states THE CITY SHALL' IMPROVE AND ENHANCE THE PORTIONS OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AS THE FOCAL POINT FOR COMMERCIAL, HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, BUSINESS, CIVIC AND PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITY CREATING A DIVERSIFIED AND ECONOMICALLY VIABLE CORE AREA". The recent action taken by City council rezoning 22 acres of residential property outside the CBD zone to accommodate commercial development is clearly in violation of this policy. Most of the vacant undeveloped buildable parcels being considered for rezoning are in the NPO #5 and NPO #6 areas. As a Tigard home owner living in NPO #6, I see this as an unfavorable situation. Actually an unfavorable situation for all the residents of Tigard. I question the integrity of our City Council, I am led to believe that the Council wants the downtown area promoted for businesses and now it's OK to allow an-- established business in the CBD zone to move to the outskirts and rezone residential land to commercial. There are vacant parcels in the CBD zone that are already zoned commercial: Will this happen again? How much more residential land in the future will be rezoned to commercial at the expense of the residential citizen? The rezoning of the these parcels would allow up to 400 more dwelling units in NPO #5 and NPO #6 areas. The Tigard School District currently has an overcrowded situation at Phil Lewis, Templeton, Twality, and the High School; this rezoning could bring 400 to 800 more school age children to these schools. Tigard Schools are well known for the quality education given to their students, but can this situation continue to hold true if more students are added to an already overcrowded condition. If rezoning is allowed to accommodate the necessary density shift, more auto traffic is put on our residential streets. Why not keep increased traffic in the Durham- Pacific Highway area. Keep the congestion near Albertson's. I understand may hours were spent during the planning process to ensure that high density areas were located adjacent to major streets. The local streets in the lower density neighborhoods are simply not designed to carry increased traffic loads. I believe one of the reasons that the land on the corner of Pacific Highway and Durham was designated for high density development was the proximity to major streets. I owe Albertson's nothing, what advantage is there for me to have my residential area become more congested with homes, traffic, and overcrowded classrooms for my child? I strongly disapprove of this action by the Tigard City Council and urge the Planning Commission to recommend a more even distribution of the necessary density shift throughout all of Tigard. Sincerely, *A444VFU— P Beverly Straub T I G AR D P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N \NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIR NAME and note their address on th's sheet. (please Print you^r �ame) ITEM/bESCRIPTION: ( �C V 6)01 PROPONENT (For) OPPO NT (ag inst) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation • V • kit I /. f DATE 3O T IGARD PLANNING C O M M I S S I O N i i r \NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIR NAME and note their address. on this sheet. (Please Print your name) •p�. ITEM/DESCRIPTION: I PROPONENT (For) OPPONENT • (against) Name, Address and -Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation x S4C�l1�r�/ Q_r-. i r C C DATE � 97 I G A• R D PLANNING C O M M I S S I O N NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIR NAME j and note their address. on this sheet. (Please Print your name) (I 5. ITEM ESCRIPTION: :•-R�t;�-.--,� • � �. .: . ... L7 PROPONENT (For) OPPONENT (against) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation IL ti 3 �e7 G A R D PLANNING C O M M I S S I O N DATE NOTICE: ALL P$RSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIR NAME and note their address. on this sheet.; (Please Print your name) k : ITEM/UESCRIP.TION: �1 • Y PROPONENT (For) OPPONENT (against) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation r - ►�1�A.t�C t J -7-7 -A Sw er✓' ! /A✓T 77Ys S-C-J r !� I F { f DATE T I G A R D P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N C NAME NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN 'l':lt:l1: and note their address on th's sheet. (Please ri nt your name) If ITEM/DESCRIPTION: dzm PROPONENT (For) OPPONENT (against) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliati��li a t VC.3 /Gt i � v '11 AkA?_ SAP027"A J t 1,,t ►� 0 %57_10 is C)orJA la tv J Q Cr gewIr Serio w ►,r C:t', ti IFDATE i I G A --3A R D P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N C DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIR NAME NOTICE: ALL PERSONS and note their address. on this sheet. (Please "int your name) ITEM/DESCRIPTION: OPPONENT (against) PROPONENT (For) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation � DATE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISINSION NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIR NAME and note their address. on this s ieet. (Please Print your name) ITEM/bESCRIP.TION: -Rb-� - cQa PROPONENT (For) OPPONENT (against) ame, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation 14 G A S M ,- 0 S40 �` C 1—t-7 ti • DATE lJ Y GARD PLA N N I N G C OM M I S S I O N i ` NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIR NAME and note their address. on thi sheet. (Please Print your name) ITEM ESCRIP.TION: PROPONENT (For) OPPONENT . (against) Name, Address and Affiliation i� Name, Address and Affiliation .�. 4a3kz'-t-e A rA L DATE T I GAR D P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N k C NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIR NAME ' f and note their address on this sheet. ('Plea,/ Print your name) ITEM/bESCRIPTION: PROPONENT (For) OPPONENT (against) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliati011 IL #►+mss C�,�t,,,Q /{o o.�..wt 3�t :/ ae. / I / 17 StS w ti i t t I - I r Fi F 1 t i STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 5.2.A i C^ MARCH 3, 1987 - 7.:30 P.M. TIGARD PLANNING COMPASSION TIGARD CITY HALL - TOWN HALL 13125 SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD, OREGON 97223 A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: CPA 87-01 (A), ZC 87-02 (A) ' REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and a Zone Change from R-4.5 (Single Family Residential, 4.5 units per acre) to R-7 (Single Family Residential, 7 units per acre). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low density residential ZONING DESIGNATION: R-4.5 APPLICANT: City of Tigard OWNER: Tigard Evangelical Church John & Catherine Annand Florian & Anna Schuetz Carole Stokke Sharon Peterson Wilcox Erickson West. Corp. Elizabeth Anderson LOCATION: East of SW Pacific Highway and west of SW 109th approximately 1/2 mile north of SW Durham Rd. (WCTM 2S1 lOAC lots 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900). 2. Background Information In 1981 the Planning Commission approved a Comprehensive Plan Revision (CPR 1-81) to allow a zoning designation of A-20 (High Density, 20 units per acre) with a recommendation that all development on these lots be brought before the Planning Commission as Planned Unit Developments (PUD) and that the density in each case reviewed as a portion of the review process. The City Council reviewed CPR 1-81 and remanded the issue back to the Planning Commission for density review after giving the opinion that twenty (20) units per acre was excessive in relation to properties included in the request. Upon review, an A-12 (Urban Medium Density, 12 units per acre) was designated for the area. A Planned Development (PD) overlay was attached to the zone designation. STAFF REPORT - CPA 87-01(A) - PAGE 1 When the Tigard Comprehensive Plan was acknowledged by LCDC in 1983 Little Bull Mountain, as the site is known, was identified as an area of low density residential and was given a corresponding zoning designation of R-4.5. In addition, the PD was left intact which will require any development proposal to go though a review process with the Planning Commission. In December, 1986 the Tigard City Council gave conditional approval to the Albertson's Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) for changing the Comprehensive Plan designation of several properties located at the southeast corner of Durham Road and Pacific Highway. This proposal requested rezoning these properties from high density residential to commercial. The result of this decision was the removal of about 400 potential housing units from Tigard's inventory of vacant buildable land. The Metropolitan Housing Rule adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission states that Tigard must provide for 50 percent single family and at least 50 percent single family attached or multiple family units with a minimum of 10 units to the net acre. The Metro Housing Rule applies to only vacant buildable land within Tigard's Urban Planning Area, and does not affect established and developed residential areas. The Albertson's CPA was granted on the condition_ of rezoning of sufficient residentially zoned land to make up for the shortfall created by this decision. The City Council has identified several sites throughout the City to be considered for increased residential density. These properties are some of those identified in the City's attempt to maintain compliance with the Metropolitan Housing Rule of 10 residential units to the net acre. 3. Vicinity Information This area is surrounded by= properties zoned R=12 ' (Multiple family residential, 12 units per acre) on all sides except to the west across Pacific Highway. On the west side of the highway abutting zones, from north to south, are C-G (General Commercial), C-P . (Professional/Administrative Office Commercial 'District) and R-40 (Multiple family residential, 40 units per acre). The city limits of King City are adjacent to the southwest corner of these properties. The development pattern around these properties generally consists of apartment/multi-family residences to the north, east, and southwest. Commercial development occurs across Pacific Highway (to the west). South of these properties are mostly undeveloped parcels covered with trees and underbrush with one single family residence. 4. Site Information and Proposal Description These properties are composed of a couple of large parcels (over 2.5 acres) and several smaller parcels (under 2.5 acres), a few of which have homes on them. However, development is generally sparse and limited. STAFF REPORT - CPA 87-01(A) - PAGE 2 The terrain is sloped, descending in a southerly and westerly direction. Heavy underbrush permeates much of the area with large trees located at the top of higher areas. Given present conditions, access to these properties is limited despite the fact that all but two have frontage along Pacific Highway. 5. Agency and NPO Comments The Tigard School District has reviewed the proposal and makes the following comments: The school district knows the City is aware of the problem we are facing regarding overcrowding in our schools. The Board of Directors has asked us to convey to the City the district's concern's about proposed changes in the comprehensive plan which would increase the density in areas where we are already experiencing considerable enrollment pressures — Templeton Elementary, for example. Making such changes in the Comprehensive Plan can send the signal to the public that needed services are in place when, in fact, school classrooms throughout the -district are reaching capacity. School district patrons will have an opportunity to approve additional construction funds in 1988. Until that time and a successful bond election, the district cannot guarantee a quality educational program for increased enrollments without additional classroom space being available. The Engineering Division has reviewed the proposal and makes the following comments: i It is not known if rezoning will change the density of actual future I' development of the properties. However, to evaluate potential "worst } case" impacts, we assumed that each area will develop to its maximum density. According to the Community Development Director's memo of December 17, 1986, the rezoning could result in up to 560 additional residential units in the south part of Tigard. t r Additional residential units can be expected to generate more traffic on nearby streets. We can reasonably estimate that for each additional single family residence, there will be one additional vehicle trip ' during the evening peak hour. Because the eight proposed rezonings are spread over a wide area, it does not appear that the rezoning would have a major impact on any one street. The additional traffic could be accommodated by the street system currently proposed in the City's long—range planning. Some additional street improvements, such as additional turn lanes at selected locations, might be needed as a result of the additional traffic. It appears that the systems development changes from the additional residential units would be adequate to fund the additional street improvements that might be needed. Additional residential units would create some additional flows in the sewerage system, but it does not appear that any increases in pipe f sizes would be necessary. In general, in residential areas, the size of sewer piping is. determined by minimum sizing to accommodate E maintenance equipment rather than by flow requirements. STAFF REPORT — CPA 87-01(A) — PAGE 3 1 Higher residential densities would probably result in -slightly higher C� storm runoff volumes. In some areas this may require increases in the . size of storm drainage piping. The systems development charges s generated by the additional units should be adequate to cover any I resulting additional costs to the storm drainage system. Impacts on the major drainageways would be negligible. NPO #6 has reviewed the proposal and provides the following comments: We disapprove of this proposal for the following reasons: inadequacy of street networking and development to handle increased traffic; inconsistent application, by Council, of criterion for zone change (re: Carmen Center;; and contradiction of previous decision by Planning Commission regarding zone change request by Mo Indriss (re: R-7 to R-12 on parcels at approximately SW Hall and SW Ross). B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, -01!1d 10, and Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 7.1.2, 7.8.1, 8.1.3; 8.2.2, and Chapter 12, Locational Criteria. The Planning staff concludes that the proposal is consistent with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines based upon the following findings: 1. Goal 01 is met because ,the City has adopted a Citizens Involvement program including review of all development applications by the Neighborhood Planning Organization (NPO). In addition, all public notice requirements are met. 2. Goal #2 is met because the City applied all applicable Statewide Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan Policies and Development Code requirements to the application. 3. Goal #10 is satisfied because the proposal will provide for housing as contemplated by the City Comprehensive Plan and the- Metropolitan Housing Rule. The Planning staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Plan based upon the findings noted below: 1. Plan Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because the Neighborhood Planning Organization and surrounding property owners were given notice of the hearing and an opportunity to comment on the applicant's proposal. 2. Plan Policy 6.1.1 is satisfied because the zone change will allow for multi—family development. — CPA 87—OI — PAGE 4 STAFF REPORT (A) The City of Tigard is obligated through the Metropolitan Housing Rule to provide for an equal mix of single family and attached units with an overall development density of 10 units per acre. The City must ensure that sufficient higher density areas are available so the intent of the housing rule can be met. 3. Plan Policy 7.1.2 can be satisfied because adequate service capacities are available in the immediate area. Utility extensions (eg. sewer) will be necessary to serve the property and this can be accomplished as a condition of developing the properties. It is recognized that traffic volumes have increased on Pacific Highway. However, additional development can be adequately served with the existing facilities. It is anticipated that traffic would increase by about 620 auto trips per day. 4. Plan Policy 7.8.1 is satisfied because the Tigard School District was informed of this proposal and made comments about over- crowding in public schools and the potential problems increased enrollments could have for the quality of education in the local school system. 5. Plan Policy 8.1.3 will be satisfied as a condition for development of the property. When development occurs it would first require City approval through the Site Development Review process. The necessary right-of-way and street improvements would be required at that time. 6. Plan Policy 8.2.2 can be satisfied because Tri-Met -offers regular bus service on Pacific Highway. 7. The Locational Criteria in Chapter 12 of the Plan are satisfied _ for the following reasons: . a. The properties are within a "Development Area" which is not committed to low density development and the north, east, and south boundaries of this site are presently zoned R-12. b. The parcels potentially have access onto Pacific Highway which is an arterial and Canterbury Lane to the north which is a minor collector. C. The properties do have some development limitations due to slope and terrain. However, single-family residential development can be achieved given such limitations. d. Public services are available to these properties and service connection will be required as a condition of development. e. Convenience retail service is available along Pacific Highway and general commercial and business centers are less than_a mile away. STAFF REPORT - CPA 87-01(A) - PAGE 5 f. The trees on Little Bull Mountain provide a natural feature i of scenic value to the citizens of Tigard. Any development on these properties should be encouraged to maintain as ! many trees as possible. Therefore, the Planned Development (PD) overlay should be maintained to allow greater flexibility for preserving open space and. trees. Public open space is lacking in the immediate area but potential dedication could be gained from future development. C. RECOWENDATION Based upon the above findings and conclusions, the Planning staff recommends approval of CPA 87-01(A) and ZC 87-02(A). PREPA BY: To D' on APPROVED BY: William A. Monahan Assistant Planner Director of Community Development (TD:bs0657W) t STAFF REPORT - CPA 87-01(A) - PAGE 6 P INN ME ■ NJ�� .F' ■■ AP :�b . r ►�- N■■■■ ■■ BMWsoota� in ■ ■ STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 5.2.B MARCH 3, 1987 - 7:30 P.M. TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION TIGARD CITY HALL - TOWN HALL 13125 SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD, OREGON 97223 A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: CPA 87-01(B), ZC 87-02(8) REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and a Zone Change from R-3.5 (Single Family Residential, 3.5 units per acre) to R-7 (Single Family Residential, 7 units per acre) . COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential ZONING DESIGNATION: R-7 APPLICANT: City of Tigard OWNER: Albert & Verlene Erickson B. A. McPhillips George Law / Audra Johnson Bruce & Janet Law LOCATION: East of SW 109th, south of Canterbury Woods Apts. , north of Summerfield Subdivision, and west of both SW Hood View Drive, and SW Kable Street '(WCTM 2S1 10D Lot 100, 200, 201, 202, 300, 400, 401, 402, 403). 2. Background Information No previous land use applications have been reviewed by the City relating to these properties. In December 1986 the Tigard City Council gave conditional approval to the- Albertson's Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) for changing the Comprehensive Plan designation of several properties located at the southeast corner of Durham Road and Pacific Highway. This proposal requested rezoning these properties from high density residential to commercial. The result of this decision was the removal of about 400 potential housing units from Tigard's inventory of buildable land. The Metropolitan Housing Rule adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission states that Tigard must provide for 50 percent single family and at least 50 percent single family attached or multiple family units with a minimum of 10 units to the net acre. The Metro Housing Rule applies to only vacant buildable land within Tigard's Urban Planning Area, and does not affect established and developed residential areas. { The Albertson's CPA was granted on the condition of a rezoning of sufficient residentially zoned land to make up for the shortfall created by this decision. The City Council has identified several z i s STAFF REPORT - CPA 87-01(8), ZC 87-02(8) - PAGE 1 i I sites throughout the city to be considered for increased residential j density. These properties are some of those identified in the city's (` attempt to maintain compliance with the Metropolitan Housing Rule of 10 i residential units to the net acre. 3. Vicinity Information Generally, surrounding properties are zoned R-12 (Multiple family residential, 12 units per acre) to the north and west, R-3.5 (Single family residential, 3.5 units per acre) on the east and R-7 (Single family residential, 7 units per acre) to the south and southeast. One of these properties also abuts an R-25 (Multiple family residential, 25 units per acre) zone at its southwest corner. The Canterbury Woods apartment complex is situated north of this site and the Summerfield planned development lies to the south and southeast. Residential development also occurs on the east side (north of Summerfield) although the intensity is less than the planned development. On the viest side, across from SW 109th, properties are covered with trees and brush. 4. Site Information and Proposal Description These properties range in size from 0.75 to 9.7 acres. Single family residential development is located mostly along SW 109th, a gravel road that slopes steeply down from north to south. The homes are typically on parcels with large lots with a southern exposure as the land slopes downward toward the Summerfield development. A nursery is located at the bottom of this slope, corresponding to the southern most parcel of the subject properties. The proposed zone change could result in a potential net gain of 102 residential units on 29.24 acres. 5. Agency and NPO Comments The Tigard School District has reviewed the proposal and makes the - following comments: The school district knows the City is aware of the problem we are . facing regarding overcrowding in our schools. The Board of Directors has asked us to convey to the City the district's concerns about proposed changes in the comprehensive plan which would increase the density in areas where we are already experiencing considerable enrollment pressures — Templeton Elementary, for example. Making such changes in the Comprehensive Plan can send the signal to the public that needed services are in place when, in fact, school classrooms throughout the district are reaching capacity. School district patrons will have an opportunity to approve additional construction funds in 1988. Until that time and a successful bond election, the district f cannot guarantee a quality edwcational program for increased enrollments without additional classroom space being available. C STAFF REPORT - CPA 87-01(B), ZC 87-02(B) - PAGE 2 i The Engineering Division has reviewed the proposal and makes the t following comments: It is not known if rezoning will change the density of actual future development of the properties. However, to evaluate potential "worst case impacts, we assumed that each area will develop to its maximum density. According to the Community Development Director's memo of December 17, 1986, the rezoning could result in up to 560 additional residential units in the south part of Tigard. Additional residential units can be expected to generate more traffic on nearby streets. We can reasonably estimate that for each additional single family residence, there will be one additional vehicle trip during the evening peak hour. Because the eight proposed rezonings are spread over a wide area, it does not appear that the rezoning would have a major impact on any one street. The additional traffic could be accommodated by the street system currently proposed in the City's long-range planning. Some additional street improvements, such as additional turn lanes at selected locations, might be needed as a result of the additional traffic. It appears that the systems development changes from the additional residential units would be adequate to fund the additional street improvements that might be needed. Additional residential units would create some additional flows in the sewerage system, but it does not appear that any increases in pipe sizes would be necessary. In general, in residential areas, the size of sewer piping is determined by minimum sizing to accommodate maintenance equipment rather than by flow requirements. Higher residential densities would probably result in slightly higher storm runoff volumes. In some areas this may require increases in the size of storm drainage piping. The systems development charges generated by the additional units should be adequate to cover any resulting additional costs to the storm drainage system. Impacts on the major drainageways would be negligible. NPO #6 has reviewed the proposal and provides the following comments: We disapprove of this proposal for the following reasons: Inadequacy of street networking and development to handle increased traffic; inconsistent application, by Council, of criterion for zone change (re: Carmen Center); and contradiction of previous decision b Planning Commission regarding zone change request by Mo Indriss (re: R-7 to R-12 on parcels at approximately SW Hall and SW Ross). B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, and 10, and Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 7.1.2, 7.8.1, 8.1.3, 8.2.2, and Chapter 12, locational Criteria. STAFF REPORT - CPA 87-01(B), ZC 87-02(8) - PAGE 3 The Planning staff concludes that the proposal is consistent with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines based upon the following findings: 1. Goal 01 is met because the City has adopted a Citizens Involvement program including review of all development applications by the Neighborhood Planning Organization (NPO). In addition, all public notice requirements are met. 2. Goal #2 is met because the City applied all applicable Statewide Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan Policies and Development Code requirements to the application. 3. Goal #10 is satisfied because the proposal will provide for housing as contemplated by the City Comprehensive Plan and Metropolitan Housing Rule. The Planning staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Plan based upon the findings noted below: 1. Plan Policy 2. 1.1 is satisfied because the Neighborhood Planning Organization and surrounding property owners were given notice of the hearing and an opportunity to comment on the applicant's proposal. 2. Plan Policy 6.1.1 is satisfied because the zone change will provide an opportunity for greater diversity of housing densities and residential types. The City of Tigard is obligated through the Metropolitan Housing Rule to provide for an equal mix of single family and attached units with an overall development density of 30 units per acre. The City must ensure that sufficient higher density areas are available so the intent of the housing rule can be met. 3. Plan Policy 6.3.2 can be satisfied as a condition of approval. This requires a density transition whereby increased residential . densities adjacent to established areas must be developed in the following manner: a. THE DENSITY WITHIN 100 FEET OF EACH PROPERTY LINE SHALL NOT EXCEED 25% OVER THE DENSITY SHOWN ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE ADJACENT LAND UNLESS THERE IS AN INTERVENING ROAD (MAJOR COLLECTOR OR ARTERIAL) IN WHICH CASE THIS PROVISION SHALL NOT APPLY. b. WHERE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ABUTS AN EXISTING HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, THE HOUSING TYPES SHALL BE COMPATIBLE. 4. Plan Policy 7.1.2 is satisfied because limited service capacities are available in the immediate area at SW Naeve and Sw 109th. Some utility extension (eg. , sewer) will be necessary to serve the property, particularly to the north but this can be accomplished as a condition of developing the site. STAFF REPORT — CPA 97-01(8), ZC 07-02(8) — PAGE 4 5. Plan Policy 7.8.1 is satisfied because the Tigard School District was informed of this proposal and made comments about overcrowding in public schools and the potential problems increased enrollments could have for the quality of education in the local school system. 6. Plan Policy 8.1.3 will be satisfied as a condition for development of the property. Half street improvements are currently bonded for the south side of SW Naeve. Also, right-of-way exists for extending SW 109th north to meet up with the section adjacent to Canterbury Woods. Presently, both streets are gravel and classified as local. The necessary street extension and improvements will be required when development occurs. ' 7. Plan Policy 8.2.2 can be satisfied at this time although Tri-Met does not offer bus service to these properties. Nearest bus service is on Pacific Highway where Tri-Met provides regular service to both Tigard and the metropolitan area. 8. The Locational Criteria in Chapter 12 of the Plan are satisfied for the following reasons: a. The property is within a "Developing Area" which is not committed to low density development. b. The parcel has indirect access to Pacific Highway via SW 109th and SW Naeve, which is a minor collector street. C. Development limitations are not evident and public facilities have limited capacity to serve the properties. d. Public transit is available presently along Pacific Highway although it is unlikely more local service would be provided in the foreseeable future. The present service is within one-half mile of this site. e. Convenience retail service is available along Pacific _ Highway and general commercial and business centers are within a mile and a half. f. Public open space in the vicinity is lacking at present. Future development should provide for park/open space dedication and preservation of as many trees as possible. C. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above findings and conclusions, the Planning staff recommends approval of CPA 87-01(8) and ZC 87-02(8). PRE BY: To"ixoh AOVROVED BY: William A. Monahan Assistant Planner Director of Community Development (TD:cn/2963P) STAFF REPORT - CPA 87-01(B), ZC 87-02(B) - PAGE 5 L MEN Elm ,; �� ■■ - ■■1■ ■■■■MEN ,ON ■■■ Nose AW r /� ■�� M MM /. / ■®�Il� ■ �■ .mo i ,•� �� \\\\\!a`►��'�� 1�� IDS oow AV AIL 161 JL AV H .. li_■ +[t l[i^.S. 757.\■ I_ /r. � .Y�wn7Ke�OC �c -��- i fe-,k-0- 10 OCT 31 1986 C % CITY OF TIGARD p►ANNING DEPT. i 6y /s�00 t r T changes back for 01, r _ 11 { - - t i .77 �� 4 '`� Cstif f •"��ii FEB � �9R' r ee* C rP)�' e7 �-✓P RIO r7'y-f J7 ��'S /O�6� S.LV, �P Ro Pte,y �� Rr w� a z�P� a,,, 6� ya�� /ate �� k� k'P d 74 .CAT Ir w Ai L 't% !� 3• S ��fi�� 4r L� ,s,. •4 moi' (/7I'�r�r �� Fl�rr • r tSs� •�4��(Lr i � T! rj�? � - s, �/ _ � i �► � _,� _ /moi y ' ` 404 1 77 o r IfMAR �' IVB • . DEPT.CITY OF TMRD PLANNING STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 5.3 C f March 3, 1987 - 7:30 P.M. TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION TIGARD CITY HALL - TOWN HALL 13125 SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD, OREGON 97223 A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: CPA 87-01 (C) ZC 87-02(C) (Site C) ' REQUEST: Zone Change from R-7 (Single Family Residential, 7 units per acre) to R-12 (Multi-Family Residential, 12 units per acre). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium density residential ZONING DESIGNATION: R-7 APPLICANT: City of Tigard- OWNER: Frank &' Rebecca Earhart Eugene Thurston Ben Stark & June Hale Richard & Gayle Hoggan Lynn & Monica McDonald Darwish Idriss Edward & Lillian Sattler Frank & Garnet Nogle Richard & Margheita Corley LOCATION: East of SW Hall, south of SW Ross, west of SW 79th and north of Bond Park subdiJisi.on. (WCTM 2S1 12CA lots 4000, 4100, and 2S1 12CB lots 500, 600, 800, 1000, 1100, 1200, 1300, 1400). 2. Background Information In 1985 Darwish Idriss applied for a zone change (ZC 2-85) on two parcels of land zoned R-7 (Medium density residential, 7 units per acre). Request was made to have the zone designation changed to R-12 (Medium density residential, 12 units per acre) . At that time staff recommended approval of the zone change but the Planning Commission denied it. The request was appealed to the City Council which denied the zone change. Reasons cited for denying the zone change included the inadequacy of transportation facilities in the area, the lack of bus service and the fact that R-7 zoning would remain on three sides of the property. I In December, 1986 the Tigard City Council gave conditional approval to the j Albertson's Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) for changing the Comprehensive Plan designation of several properties located at the southeast corner of Durham Road and Pacific Highway. This proposal requested rezoning these properties from high density residential to commercial. STAFF REPORT - CPA 87-01(C) & ZC 87-02(C) - PAGE 1 The result of this decision was the removal of about 400 potential housing units from Tigard's inventory of vacant buildable land The Metropolitan Housing Rule adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission states that Tigard must provide for 50 percent single family and at least 50 percent single family attached or multiple family units with a minimum of 10 units to the net acre. The Metro Housing Rule applies to only vacant buildable land within Tigard's Urban Planning Area, and does not affect established and developed residential areas. The Albertson's CPA was granted on the condition of rezoning of sufficient residentially zoned land to make up for the shortfall created by this decision. The City Council has identified several sites throughout the City to be considered for increased residential density. These properties are some of those identified in the City's attempt to maintain compliance with the Metropolitan Housing Rule of 10 residential units to the net acre. No other land use actions have been reviewed by the City on these properties. 3. Vicinity Information These properties are generally surrounded by the following zoning districts: to the south and west, R-12 (Medium density residential, 12 -- units per acre), and on the north and east, R-4.5 (Low density residential, 4.5 units per acre). These properties are all within the designated "Developing Area" in the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Site Information and Proposal Description The development pattern on these properties is exclusively single family homes on both small and large lots ranging from 1 to 20 acres in size. Several of the larger lots are presently vacant as wood lots or lying idle as cleared lots. None of these properties are presently served by sewer. The pro owed rezoning could result in a potential residential gain of 166 housing units on 33.29 acres encompassing this site. 5. Agzncy and NPO Comments The Tigard School District has reviewed the proposal and makes the following comments: The school district knows the City is aware of the problem we are facing regarding overcrowding in our schools. The Board of Directors has asked us to convey to the City the district's concerns about proposed changes in the comprehensive plan which would increase the density in areas where we are already experiencing considerable enrollment pressure—Templeton Elementary, for example. Making such changes in the Comprehensive Plan can send the signal to the public that needed services are in place when, in fact, school classrooms throughout STAFF REPORT – CPA 87-01(C) & ZC 87-02(C) – PAGE 2 the district are reaching capacity. School district patrons will Ehave an opportunity to approve additional construction funds in 1988. Until that time and a successful bond election, the district cannot guarantee a quality educational program for increased enrollments without additional classroom space being available. The Engineering Division has reviewed the proposal and makes the following comments: It is not known if rezoning will change the density of actual future development of the properties. However, to evaluate potential "worst case" impacts, we assumed that each area will develop to its maximum density. According to the Community Development Director's memo of December 17, 1986, the rezoning could result in up to 560 additional residential units in the south of Tigard. Additional residential units can be expected to generate more traffic on nearby streets. We can reasonably estimate that for each additional single—family residence, there will be one additional vehicle trip during the evening peak hour. Because the eight proposed rezonings are spread over a wide area, it does not appear that the rezoning would be accommodated by the street system currently proposed in the City's long—range planning. Some additional street improvements, such as additional turn lanes at selected locations, might be needed as a result of the additional traffic. It appears that the systems development charges from the additional residential units would be adequate to fund the additional street improvements that might b'e needed. Additional residential units would create some additional flows in the sewerage system, but it does not appear that any increases in pipe sizes would be necessary. In general, in residential areas, the size of sewer piping is determined by minimum sizing to accommodate maintenance equipment rather than by flow requirements. Higher residential densities would probably result in slightly higher storm runoff volumes. In some areas this may require increases in the size of storm drainage piping. The systems development charges generated by the additional units should be adequate to cover any resulting additional costs to the storm drainage system. Impacts on the major drainageways would be negligible. NPO #5 was notified of the proposal and makes the following comments: The NPO unanimously agreed to go on record opposing these changes in density for the following reasons: 1. The transportation bottleneck onto Hall, Durham and Bonita which we sought to contain would be adversely affected, STAFF REPORT — CPA 87-01(C) & ZC 87-02(C) — PAGE 3 Fri t _ 2. the quality of life factor which we were in favor of preserving for the existing neighborhood would not be maintained, and 3. the appalling inconsistency in consideration of zone change requests and disregard for citizen input. Examples cited were the NPO recommendation on a zone change for Carman 4 Center, denial of the previous zone change on the Idriss property, and the lack of support to the Downtown Tigard Development. (( B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ; The relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goal's 1, 2, and 10, and Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 7.1.2, 7.8.1, 8.1.3, 8.2.2, and Chapter 12, Locational Criteria. The Planning staff concludes that the proposal is consistent with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines based upon the i following findings: 1. Goal #1 is met because the City has adopted a Citizens Involvement program including review of all development applications by the Neighborhood Planning Organization (NPO) . In i addition, all public -notice requirements are met. -' 2. Goal 02 is met because the City applied all applicable Statewide Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan Policies and Development Code requirements to the application. 3. Goal 010 is satisfied because the proposal will provide for housing as contemplated by the City Comprehensive Plan and the Metropolitan Home Rule. The Planning staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Plan based upon the findings noted below: 1. Plan Policy 2.1 .1 is satisfied because the Neighborhood Planning Organization and surrounding property owners were given notice of the hearing and an opportunity to comment on the applicant's proposal. 2. Plan Policy 6.1.1 is satisfied because the zone change maintains allowance for multi—family development. The Bond Park Subdivision, located to the south of these properties and zoned R-12, has placed protective covenants on those lots to restrict development to one detached single—family dwelling. Also, the Chessman Downs and Millmont subdivisions vi located to the southwest of these properties, were previously rezoned from R-12 to R-7. The rezoning of site "C" will for compensate STAFF REPORT — CPA 87-01(C) & ZC 87-02(C) — PAGE 4 densities lost from the previous down-zoning. This zone change will allow greater opportunity for housing choices and diversity } in an area of the city which is presently undergoing growth. The City of Tigard is obligated through the Metropolitan Housing Rule to provide for an equal mix of single family and attached units with an overall development density of 10 units per acre. The City must ensure that sufficient higher density areas are available so the intent of the housing rule can be met. 3. Plan Policy 7.1.2 is satisfied because adequate service capacities are available in the immediate area. Utility extensions (eg. sewer) will be necessary to serve the property which can be accomplished as a condition of developing the site. It is recognized that traffic volumes have increased on Hall Blvd. However, additional development can be adequately served with the existing -facilities. Previous zone changes and reductions in residential densities (i.e. , Bond Park, Chessman and Millmont subdivisions) have reduced the overall density that was originally planned for this area. The proposed rezoning will bring this overall density back to a level anticipated for residential development. 4. Plan Policy 7.8.1 is satisfied because the Tigard School District was informed of this proposal and made comments about overcrowding in public schools and the potential problems increased enrollments could have for the quality of education in the local school system. 5. Plan Policy 8.1.3 will be satisfied as a condition for development of the property. When development occurs it would first require City approval through the Site Development Review process. The necessary right-of-way and street improvements would be required at that time. It is anticipated that additional traffic generation will amount to 1660 trips per day with maximum density development. 6. Plan Policy 8.2.2 cannot be satisfied at this time because Tri-Met does not offer regular bus service on Hall Blvd. . However, rush hour service is available and future regular service might occur with more development. 7. The locational Criteria in Chapter 12 of the Plan are satisfied for the following reasons: a. The property is within a "Development Area" which is committed to low density development. b. All parcels have street frontage and good access is provided to Hall Boulevard, an arterial and 79th Avenue, a minor collector. STAFF REPORT - CPA 87-01(C) & ZC 87-02(C) - PAGE 5 C. Development limitations are not evident and public facilities can be provided to serve the property. d. Regular public transit is not available presently, but Hall Blvd. and Durham Road are logical routes for future service. e. Convenience retail service is available along Durham/Hall intersection and other commercial and business centers are 1.5 to 2 miles away. f. Public open space is available nearby at Cook Park, Durham Elementary School, and Tigard High School. C. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above findings and conclusions, the Planning staff recommends approval of CPA 87-01(C) and ZC 87-02(C). PREPARED—V?: Tom xon APPROVED BY: William A. Monahan Assistant Planner Director of Community Development (TD:bs2969P/0013P) .+c STAFF REPORT — CPA 87-01(C) & ZC 87-02(C) — PAGE 6 '' ��.1 ■III/ �� '''I ��/// .. ■■s■ ■� III �� d : � Q willLA IN a J - i fir ��N ►. •. ruff, ■ ■ • .1. ■ _ .� � � :r�/1�■ 1111 1 �� I - -�a=. UI�11� � 11��1■ 1� . 1 � 111111 /1111101111 �. ►' TREATMENT r ' Neighborhood Planning Organization #5 The January 21 , 1987 meeting of NPO #5 was called to order by Chairman Craig Hopkins at 7:335 p.m. In attendance were members Bieker, Saporta, Schmidt and Takahashi . Guests included Ken Waymire, Mel Waymire and Mary Clinton. Minutes of the September meeting were circulated and approved. We had no October meeting due to Boardsmanship Work- shops. November and December were also non-meeting months. Presenters_ Privilege: Albertson Proposal. Because this item needed staff clarification, we elected to place it first on the agenda. As explained to us, Albertsons is proposing to build �+ super store at the corner of Durham and Pacific Highway. This will be a 180,000 square foot retail project with two possible anchors. Previously, the planning staff has recommended a denial on the basis of land use zoning and the potential impact on the Downtown Tigard Development Plan. However, the City Council approved the proposal on condition that the residential factor lost by the necessary zone change on this parcel is reclaimed by changing densities on other parcels in Tigard. Our impacted areas are labeled C, D, and E on the informational maps. After much discussion and questions of staff , the NPO unanimous- ly agreed to go on record opposing these changes in density for the following reasons: 1 . the transportation bottleneck onto Hall , Durham and Bonita which we sought to contain would be adversely affected; 2. the quality of life factor which we were in favor of preserving ror the existing neighborhood would not be maintained; and 3. the appalling inconsistency in considera- tion of zone change r-equests ar.d dim'"=ter'' 'cor citizen input. (We cite as examples in support of item 3 our recommendation on a zone change for Carman Center , our denial of the previous zone change on the Idris property, and the lack of support to the Downtown Tigard Development. Old Business: A. Carman Center 's zone change was denied. B. Waymire land partition: An amicable agreement was reached with residents regarding the land strip which was un buildable at the back of their homes. Unfortunately, the city prohibits lots having that depth. So, the agreement and possible sale had to be nullified. New Business: A. Bond Park IV Development. The Waymire's presented the lot map and development scheme. There will be 16 lots and a 40 foot street. No objection was stated and Hopkins thanked both for attending. B. Land partition on 80th and Bonita was okay. C. MLP by Hartig, Gerlack and Hunziker was okay. D. Sign Code Exception: no problem �. E. ZOA by Russ Kruger. Committee recommended that the zone ordinance amendment be left as is so that each petitioner- could be considered on a conditional use basis. F. HOP for computer business: no problem OAJ art) - D f !G- -Tom' _ ------ ------- - cf' ---------- --------------- --- A - - - ----- ---- -- 1 -- ------ ---------- - ------- - -- ---------------- --"� --4V'- '`-------� -- - - W� March 2, 1987 City of Tigard Planning Commission 13125 SW Hall Tigard, Or. 97223 Dear Planning Commission, This letter is written to express our grave concern over the proposed _zoning change on site "C" of the attatched map . Our neighborhood, though close to the city has a distinct country atmosphere. The area is quiet and very conducive to raising a family. We moved here for gust that reason. We believe that changing the zoning to allow for a large multi-family development will seriousley undermind that quality of life. We believe the area is better suited to single family dwellings, and asK that You Keep it as such. As City officials it is imperitive that you Keep the rights and opinions of the people living in these affected areas at the TOP of your priority list. We trust that you concure. ThanK You for your time and attention~ to these matters. Very tru Y yours, r ill Lynn Tracy 7961 SW Churchill Wa Tigard, Or 97224 7nen �3��z��'7 �� . :��o� � ��' c ' � I March 3, 1987 Tigard Planning Commission - Tigard City. Hall 13125 SV Hall Tigard.' OR File Number CPA 87-01, ZC 87-02 The proposed rezoning. as a result of the Albertsonve project, would have an undesirable affect on the quality of life in our neighborhood for the following reasons. The proposal to contrary top and would detract from# the building of the city core. L The resulting traffic increases would only further congest Hall Blvd. Durham Road. Bonita Road. and 79th Street. The Targe influx of new the school families would over-burden system and increase classroom size beyond desirable levels. We feeI the proposal is made strictly in the interest of big bu=Inwoeo and without regard for the citizens of Tigard. Sincerely. d .r i March 3. 1987 _ k Tigard Planning Commission- 4 Tigard City Hall 13125 SV Hall Tigard. OR + File Number CPA 87-01. ZC 87-02 The proposed rezoning* as a result of the Alberteon'e prujecte would have an undesirable affect on the quality of lite in our neighborhood for the following reasons. I The proposal is contrary to* and would detract from. ` the building of the city core. ti The resulting traffic increases would only further i congest Hall Blvd. Durham Road. Bonita Road. and 79th Street. The large influx of new families would over-burden the school system and increase classroom size beyond desirable levels- We feel the proposal is made strictly in the -intarest of big businesse and without regard for the citizens of Tigard. Sincerely. f i f l Harch 3. 1987 Tigard Planning Commission Tigard City Hall 13125 SV Hall Tigard, OR File Number CPA 87-01. ZC 87-02 The proposed rezoning* as a result of the Albertson's projectv would have an undesirable affect on the quality of lite in our neighborhood for the following reasons. The proposal is contrary top and would detract from, the building of the city core. The resulting traffic increases would only further congest Hall Blvd, Durham Road, Bonita Road. and 79th Street. The large influx of new families would over-burden the school system and increase classroom size beyond desirable levels. We feel the proposal is made strictly in the interest of big businessr and without regard for the citizens of Tigard. Sincerely. lurch 3. 1987 Tigard Planning Commission Tigard City Hall 13125 SW Hall Tigard. OR File Number CPA 87-01. ZC 87-02 The proposed rezoning* as a result of the Albertson'e projectv would have an undesirable affect on the quality of life in our neighborhood for the following reasons. The proposal is contrary top and would detract from# the building of the city core. The resulting traffic increases would only further congest Hall Blvd. Durham Road. Bonita Road. and " 79th Street. _ The large influx of new families would over-burden the school system and increase classroom size beyond desirable levels. We feel the proposal is made strictly in the interest of big businessv and without regard for the citizens of Tigard. ScSc ncerely. Uvl March 3. 1987 Tigard Planning Commission - Tigard City Hall 13125 SW Hall Tigard. OR File Number CPA 87-01. ZC 87-02 The proposed rezoningv as a result of the Albertson's projectv would have an undesirable affect on the quality of life in our neighborhood for the following reasons. The proposal In contrary to* and would detract from, the building of the city core. ti The resulting traffic increases would only further congest Hall Blvd. Durham Road. Bonita Road. and 4 79th Street. The large influx of new families would over-burden the school system and increase classroom size beyond desirable levels. . We feel the proposal in made strictly in the interest of big businessv and without regard for the citizen■ of Tigard. Sincerely, v t c f� I i k March 3. 1987 Tigard Planning-Commission Tigard City Hall 13125 SV Hall Tigard. OR 1 File Number CPA 87-01. ZC 87-02 Tho proposed rezoning, as a _result of the Albertson's prujectv would have an undesirable affect on the quality of life in our neighborhood for the following reasons. The proposal in contrary too and would detract fromv the building of the city core. % The resulting traffic increases would only further congest Hall Blvd. Durham Road. Bonita Road. and 79th Street. The large influx of new families would over-burden the school system and increase classroom size beyond desirable levels. We feel the proposal is made strictly in the interest of big businessv and without regard for the citizens of Tigard. Sincerely. E F {i i c March 3. 1987 Tigard Planning Commission Tigard City Hall 13128 SW Hall Tigard, OR File Number CPA 87-01. ZC 87-02 The proposed rezoningr as a result of the Albertson's projectv would have an undesirable affect on the quality of life in our neighborhood for the following reasons. The proposal is contrary top and would detract fromv the building of the city core. N The resulting traffic increases would only further congest Hall Blvd. Durham Road. Bonita Road. and 79th Street. The -large influx of new families would over-burden the school system and increase classroom size beyond desirable levels. We feel the proposal is made strictly in the interest of big business* and without regard for the citizens of Tigard. Sincerely. or t i t i March 39 1987 - Tigard Planning CommieBion Tigard City Hall 13.125 SW Hall Tigard. OR File Number CPA 87-01. ZC 87-02 The proposers rezoningv as a result of the Albertson's projecto would have an undesirable affect on the quality Of lite in our neighborhood for the following reasons. The proposal is contrary top and would detract fromv the building of the city core. % The resulting traffic increases would only further congest Hall Blvd. Durham Road. Bonita Road. and ' 79th Street. The large influx of new families would over-burden the school system and increase clay®room size beyond desirable levels. We feel the proposal is made strictly in the interest of big business* and without regard for the citizens of Tigard. Sincerel. . i r C March 3, 1987 To whom it may concern: We as a neighborhood, strongly disagree about the the zoning change which has been proposed. We believe that thiswould damage the quality and peacefulness of our neighborhood. Regarding our existing traffic situation would, of course, not improve either, ' only get worse. We would- not mind .single home dwellings because it would not increase the neighborhoods population tremendously. As a concerned neighbor and a Tigard inhabitant, we would like to see this neighborhood a high quality area so that the city of Tigard can be proud of. Hopefully, we will see positive actions taken to resolve this matter. Thank you for your time. Sincerely yours, , , 4 Mr. and Mrs. Rady 7�11 Sw G1lVKl4{YLL WAY sos-csq-o389 t E { f March 3, 1987 Tigard Planning-Commission : f Tigard City Hall i 13125 SV• Hali Tigard. OR File Number CPA 87-01. ZC 87-02 The proposed rezoning, as a result of the Albertson's pruject. Would have an undesirable affect on the quality of life in our neighborhood for the following reasons. The proposal is contrary to* and would detract fromp the building of the city core. The resulting traffic increases would only further congest Hall Blvd. Durham Road. Bonita Road. and 79th Street. The large influx of new families would over-burden the school system and increase classroom size beyond desirable levels. We feel the proposal is made strictly in the interest of big businesso and without regard for the citizens -of Tigard. Sincerely. / t �e c March 3. 1987 Tigard Planning Commission - Tigard City Hall 13125 SW Hall Tigard. OR File Number CPA 87-01. ZC 87-02 The prop000d r©zoning. as a result of the Albertson's prujecto would have an undesirable affect on the quality of life in our neighborhood for the following reasons. The proposal is contrary to. and would detract fromp the building of the city core. , The resulting traffic increases would only further congest Hall Blvd. Durham Road. Bonita Road. and 79th Street. The large influx of new families would over-burden the school system and increase classroom size beyond desirable levels. We feel the proposal is made strictly in the interest of big businessv and without regard for the citizens of Tigard. Sincerely. 78o%�•Zfj. �� O?L sae March 3. 1987 Tigard Planning Commission - Tigard City Hall 13125 SV Hall Tigard, OR File Number CPA 87-01, ZC 87-02 The proposed rezoning, as a result of the Albertson's projecto would have an undesirable affect on the quality of life in our neighborhood for the following reasons. The proposal is contrary tog and would detract from, the building of the city core. L The resulting traffic increases would only further congest Hall Blvd. Durham Roado Bonita Road. and { 79th Straact. The large influx of new families would over-burden the school system and increase classroom size beyond desirable levels. We feel the proposal is made strictly in the interest of big business* and without regard for the citizens of Tigard. Sincerely. -7q 7E/ CPL-"A ct4A� I Karch 3. 1987 Tigard Planning Commission - Tigard City Hall 13125 SV 'Ha 1 1 Tigard. ' OR File Number CPA 87-01. ZC 87-02 The proposed rezoning, as a result of the Albertson's projectv would have an undesirable affect on the quality of life in our neighborhood for the following reasons. The proposal is contrary top and would detract fromv the building of the city core. ti The resulting traffic increases would only further congest Hall Blvd. Durham Road. Bonita Road. and y 79th Street. The large influx of new families would over-burden the school system and increase classroom size beyond desirable levels. We feel the proposal is made strictly in the interest of big business. and without regard for the citizens of Tigard. Sincerely. , S 10 (VO E t 4 �s March 3. 1987 Tigard Planning Commission Tigard City Hall 13128 SV Hall Tigard, OR File Number CPA 87-01. ZC 87-02 The proposed rezoning. as &- result of the Albertson's projecto would have an undesirable affect on the quality of lite in our neighborhood for the following reasons. The proposal is contrary too and would detract fromv the building of the city core. ' The resulting traffic increases would only further congest Hall Blvd. Durham Road. Bonita Road. and 79th Street. The large influx of new families would over-burden the school system and increase classroom eine beyond desirable levels. We feel the proposal is made strictly in the interest of big businesso and without regard for the citizens of Tigard. Sincerely. ti �� "��''y_ ff''SafJ Qrcicttn� �ilOia.l4uhgi� /1'J��t Y' C tiarch 3. 1987 Tigard Planning Commission _ - - Tigard City Hall 13125 SW Hall Tigard, OR File Number CPA 87-01. ZC 87-02 The proposed rezoning* se a result of the Albertson's projectv would have an undesirable affect on the quality of life in our neighborhood for the following reasons. The proposal is contrary top and would detract fromv the building of the city core. The resulting traffic increases would only further congest Hall Blvd. Durham Road. Bonita Road. and ' 79th Street. The large influx of new families would over-burden the school system and increase classroom size beyond desirable levels. We feel the proposal is made strictly in the interest of big businesew and without regard for the citizens of Tigard. Sincerely. 77,;1F -5- yv C l ► 9 lit- J ) Ol�� March 3. 1987 Tigard Planning Commissi-on Tigard City Hall 13125 SW Hall Tigard. OR File Number CPA 87-01. ZC 87-02 The proposed rezoninge as a result of the Albertson'e projectv would have an undesirable affect on the quality of lite in our neighborhood for the following reasons. Thu proposal is contrary to, and would detract fromp the building of the city core. + The resulting traffic increases would only further congest Hall Blvd. Durham Road. Bonita Road. and 79th Street. The large influx of now families would over-burden the school system and increase classroom size beyond desirable levels. We feel the proposal is made strictly in the interest of big - business, and without regard for the citizens of Tigard. Sincerely (4� .1e� (SZ7o ?��!- �5 � , �72 27 Karch 3. 1987 Tigard Planning Commission - - Tigard City Hall 13126 SV Hall Tigard. OR File Number CPA 87-01. ZC 87-02 The proposed rezoningo as a result of the Albertson's projecto would have an undesirable affect on the quality of life in our neighborhood for the following reasons. The proposal is contrary to, and would detract from, the building of the city core. , The resulting traffic increases would only further congest Hall Blvd, Durham Road, Bonita Road, and k 79th Street. The large influx of new families would over-burden the school system and increase classroom size beyond desirable levels. Ve feel the proposal is made strictly in the interest of big businessv and without regard for the citizens of Tigard. Sincerely. March 3, 1987 Tigard Planning Commi'edion - - Tigard City Hail . 13125 SV Hall Tigard, OR File Number CPA 87-01. ZC 87-02 The proposed rezoning* as a result of the Alberteon'e prujectv would have an undesirable affect on the quality of life in our neighborhood for the following reasons. The proposal is contrary tov and would detract from, the building of the city core. The resulting traffic increases would only further congest Hall Blvd. Durham Road. Bonita Road. and 79th Street. The large influx of new families would over-burden the school system and increase classroom size beyond desirable levels. - We feel the proposal i■ made strictly in the interest of big businessv and without regard for the citizen■ of Tigard. Sincerely. � 7 March 3, 1987 Tigard Planning Commission - - Tigard' City Hall 13125 SV Hall , Tigard. OR File Number CPA 87-01. ZC 87-02 The proposed rezoningv as a result of the Albertson's project. -would have an undesirable affect on the quality of life in our neighborhood for the following reasons. The proposal is contrary too and would detract fromp the building of the city core. ti The resulting traffic increases would only further congest Hall Blvd. Durham Road. Bonita Road. and 79th Street. The large influx of new families would over-burden the school system and increase classroom size beyond desirable levels. We feel the proposal is made strictly in the interest of big businessv and without regard for the citizen■ of Tigard. Sincerely. i March 3. 1987 Tigard Planning Commission - Tigard City Hall 13125 SV Hall Tigard. OR File Number CPA 87-01. ZC 87-02 The proposed rezoning, as a result of the Albertson's prujectv would have an undesirable affect on the quality of life in our neighborhood for the following reasons. The propoasl _is contrary to, and would detract from, the building of the city core. , The resulting traffic increases would only further ` congest Hall Blvd. Durham Road. Bonita Road. and 79th Street. The large influx of new families would over-burden the school system and increase classroom size beyond desirable levels. He feel the proposal is made strictly in the interest of big - busineser and without regard for the citizens of Tigard. Sincerely. } March 3. 1987 Tigard Plamning Commission - - Tigard City Hall 13125 SV Hall Tigard, OR File Number CPA 87-01. ZC 87-02 The proposed rezonings as a result of the Albertson•e prujecto would have an undesirable affect on the quality of life in our neighborhood for the following reasons. The proposal In contrary top and would detract from. ,the building of the city core. , The resulting traffic increases would only further congest Hall Blvd. Durham Road. Bonita Road. and 79th Street. The .large influx of new familism would over-burden the school system and increase classroom size beyond desirable levels. We feel the proposal is made strictly in the interest of big businessv and without regard for the citizens of Tigard. Sincerely. �s '!7-- S ter/ C�' March 3. 1987 Tigard Planning Comatieeicn - - Tigard City Hall 13128 SV Hall Tigard. OR File Number CPA 87-01. ZC 87-02 The proposed rezoning, as a result of the Albertson's projectv would have an undesirable affect on the quality of lite in our neighborhood for the following reasons. The proposal is contrary top and would detract from, the building of the city core. ti The resulting traffic increases would only further congest Hall Blvd. Durham Road. Bonita Road. and 79th Street. The large influx of new families would over-burden tho school system and increase classroom size beyond desirable levels. We feel the proposal in aside strictly in the interest of big business, and without regard for the citizens of Tigard. Sincerely. i 1987-. -... ,. amu y two a,;4 Zt4Z.,-, ,oc-Aod-1 Ge � GZh� �iLt^o�..�✓or7� G��" --Z �x tk Gl4S4S,7: _ _ _.. . �.- - _-- ---• - .- X9.9-Z-----.i��►'e.-.- � �,--.0��. Gr��i�.�i-c� 1 VA .2b loo�,A_ - :. l"�P1a22 .L'r�'1 T� .. %_lz2. �•^y�G2,f!c.� .��Gyio� �J'Gtr-/� i Y. 7.7 S SW G b-(-02tWtzA Jr I ADDRESS NAME -77 �.. , • ' J l , 1� �, �1 rte! L 1 • , rf ' i r r w g i i 1 4 _ . j. t (' 'rp:j�2� I 1 C�i�'2� 4��N'N6 C��M�ti 5S167U ��!,G• i l C—� C©oVx U k ('S--Fe- C� i Z AM Sv3Mt T"1t�� TN IS wal 1 TS T"-ST�N��N`/ r -Fo T>,N�ND TtAE l>ENIAt_ OtAml, oN i iZ�QvcST Fv2-. Ate: I )*,Vp GHANSC-E- THIS PRO R 5� S_rlo vt_D 't3 E �A E^S t�i� O►J '�t-'►tc- t=Uc.-leo�t r�1G �hS IS:. - t5w-,st, TOr vS -p4n-iT'lbeJ -Gor c-VO �2 'rea-�►�.� Eco rDi j- LO - IZiuIS (x.cts P3oT C--iANGEtb 3";vc-c— 1985. Loc�Q densl7z�/Nvn113E72-or ttouSE 5 H,45 Ofit-Y 6eo,, ) -51&tc- -rH 1--N e "5Ti-a e 1 4 ( � I-�alA, d-�✓�►1c�- 'S-irea'I'S LAc.� o� bus sere i ce -- i 1.�.�� si ►'� � T 148(0 ' -- �a.s �r•sov� t,�,`rLt,.?tie � �IiC'.4fxtlN�oTC�►J �qupt,I'e. , k.�5 la��a� c�cc` w�ov Irk IZ 5 7-o 7ka- ENS I> a,� fiZ-1212=1 Z dc.►cxor—d 047 2--7 -ro-11 a. 3ooi"�►. 'rin:.-�S L►•t 12ACI ,•wo 2n E Trio N NE '8 5 J3� !R4FF(G S rTvwnoio- %7Z4;� �c.Y.vPs on�o �vti�►9�Ha�� con eSTon barb's ��; onTv l/-J 9%i' • �� 1 -�q'h-n�y N ALL coo I ti ARTeR IALS. i 1 LAw>�'�2oRctzTy V'1�t_UGS 1�2 er�cr�a�ck+,^Q-w� 12-1Z �vN�� a ERs �•Nrd y �ecriea-n.�. OR Qc�rr-e,^�t'i•( buy IT HS v-w-Ik a,5 Te►� TD di ScoJru�J�- TO «T��nvQ� C"' ojweaweecUGanTl�w�o�s c1- I�oN t�"Pa�cZ�1.S t ,Z q-3 • I L.�re �s Sone a:6C7vT Tt.Q cv!c'�t'er � "TL...�2 Lticlvsror. � off:st•o��. t2.-�Z .�C7rv2p� �c�,n� 1 `.� a►t` V►1r«s'S �w\ru9tort cukr�7G t,��ov� o�-.��rw�.S� h.�ceona-oQ w�c�ST' tdo Qv'r G1zc)rerL co-eL Pl ori' rs w�'T1�oJi .��r o� see a �- c� du ,r a are cx;u 0- - s Castes. :1 w;ll ►Jar 3� i�e,4rtD H t�kscka�l , a.•�d ;Ts -��- f'�CiD"�°`�' $ci000 1 S O+re G'MfCL 4 i ace_ (AW c+1 3ed 198'7,57;4f o� . //9P}8 OuddLevy will prov-LAz— ad�voxp— Welk ©reoM'S r-ece - o�s� l G�OSvrP3 qF-?7�il6ssfL� (;�Y �1�.5 o�Z7 �5 ?dr,�)o,..�S Pry; ScytO01 0-d reCCta0 •rL._ wov l d S t na2+'eQi� nee t�a" wI II 1� s�• lv/ pak'-� ^, Ck�-J�-5 SV A44,ti "0 k) i 1� nec� -�`' iL��s 2-12 c��e cr�•�c i h� t 1 p✓�i1.� ct�w.w�-�rw'� . I i ti I • i I I I i i I �'f 1 t98 4 - 12 Q � ,� Q, .� � 1 �- i` 9122-q 60 62.o CJ f nc.r c,4. 3, 1 CN , ,..) J `� S► ic�G It iZea�•�d:nc�� -'h2- rezcr ; n� c�sc a S�c.�\u, �o�,r,,.,;\.t EZas�der�:a� -'ro a �.,,..��:. Fa.-.,•i1� V,es,cue r X i aSt Lt� SgC' C\ �eSic�er►��d\ CAceG.. We wcrr.�te� b e. OL Y1 e-cc - ), C\d.se 'vv a- -1`o C•c osS b e- CxV.- ko ,��,,,Q, •\nc..�c a o��cQ �r�v.��vr1 , '(�^c� rc". �. al\ •-.�.. -010 Yner-'r-) ucs-\,-cs c� ��-,�.d? Qack \f\o\-Y\cS wild? dcog teas\ ; C- 5 os� �csY.b� Qo-rk. �C�¢. Ve.r� cea.Sv,r� J UAN Q KY�c�J We v C C ca s e, d a r,o-c tri voce -i•1�i t i TO: PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL OF TIGARD, TIGARD, OREGON RE: PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE FROM R-7 TO R-1.2 OF THE PROPERTIES DESCRIBED BELOW: S, c; Location: cast of SW Ilall, south of SW Russ, west of SW 79th and north of Bond Park subdivision. (W(''Tlvl 2S1 12CA lots 4000, 4100, u nd 2S 112CB lots 500, 600, 500, 1000, 1100, 1200, 1300, 1400). We the undersigned property owners in the immediate vicinity al' the above described properties do hereby petition the Planning; Commission and City Council of the City of 'Tigard, 'Tigard, Oregon, to deny the requested zone change on the above described properties. We hereby express our complete unwillingness to sec the character of our neighborhood together with the values of our properties reduced by such zone change action. Respectfully submitted: NAME ADDRESS ' 774,5 7 7$0 `,SvwP rlrz--.) o, 5 r TO: PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL OF TIGARD, TIGARD, OREGON RE: PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE FRONT R-7 TO R-12 OF THE PROPERTIES DESCRIBED BELOW: Location: East of SW 111111, south of SW Ross, west of SW 791h and north of Bund Park subdivision. (WC'T1V1 2S1 12CA tuts 4000, 4100, and 2S 1-12cB lots 500,_600, 500, 1000, 1100, 1200, 1300, 1400). We the undersigned property owners in the immediate vicinity of the above described properties do hereby petition the Planning Commission and City Council of the City of 'Tigard, 'Tigard, Oregon, to deny the requested zone change on the above described properties. We hereby express our complete unwillingness to see the character of our neighborhood together with the values of our properties reduced by such zone change action. Respectfully submitted: NAME ADDRESS- 5 I - �Seo S-�✓- 7� / s/ �fUo- k 1 i . f TO: PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL OF TIGARD, TIGARD, OREGON RE: PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE FROvI R-7 TO R-12 OF THE PROPERTIES DESCRIBED BELOW: Location: bast of SW Ilall, south of SW Ross, west of SW 79111 and north of Bond Park subdivision. (W("1'M 2S1 12CA.lots 4000, 4100, and-2S1. 12CB lots 500, 600, 800, 1000, 1100, 1200, 13100, 1400). We the ;undersigned property owners in the immediate vicinity of the above described properties do hereby petition the; Planning Commission and City Council of the City of 'Tigard, 'Tigard, Oregon, to deny the requested zone change on the above described properties. We hereby express our complete: unwillingness to see the character of our neighborhood together with the values of our properties redueed by such zone change action. Respectfully submitted: NAME ADDRESS,- AD zr x)( /,S- S, 0 7"9 1171-1* ia" of jq I d".,, u i 7. ADDRESS NAME aXv� _V, r7qq to —SW Ch,,tvcfa 1 0 , , ' ► wl /- 7fllj 4.1(e5 ! / - 1 i�♦ / n .p: ADDRESSNAME rz F — 7 c:7 - , All IA I 46F� 1 bot '.l I .j� a4i - - •. •, SI-6 erD j n v A ADDRESS MUM (' ItAA,14C,111,461,17 ct, -MIS Sal a -IN5 SIAJ 16-/tl, Af -417 / • , --- _. :d NAME ADDRESS w ;yid F AGENDA ITEM 5.2 D/E STAFF REPORT 3 March 3, 1987 - 7:30 P.M. TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION TIGARD CITY HALL - TOWN HALL 13125 SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD, OREGON 97223 A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: CPA 87- 01 (D/E) and ZC 87-02 (D/E) REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and a Zone Change from R-4.5 (Single Family Residential, 4.5 units per acre) to R-7 (Single Family Residential, 7 units per acre). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential ZONING DESIGNATION: R-4.5 OWNER: John & Naomi Loewer APPLICANT: City of Tigard Richard & Barbara Bradley Walter & Joan Brooks Gary Mark Frey Lawrence & Mary Schmidt ast f SW LOCATION: 79th of SW Wnorth of Bonduth Parkn Slubd visionewoods �(WCTM°2S1 a 12CA°Lots 700, 3500, and 3600; 2S1 12CD Lots 200 and 300) . 2. Background Information No previous-land use applications have been reviewed by the City relating to these two parcels. In December 1986 the Tigard City Council gave conditional approval changing o the the Albertson's Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) ' the for Comprehensive Plan designation of several properties located proposal southeast corner of Durham Road and Pacific Highway. requested rezoning these properties from high density residential to commercial. The result of this decision was the removal of about 400 potential housing units from Tigard's inventory of buildable land. The Metropolitan Housing Rule adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission states that Tigard must provide for 50 percent single family and at least 50 percent single family at or multiple family units with a minimum of 10 units to the net acre. The Metro Housing Rule applies to only vacant buildable land within Tigard's Urban Planning Area, and does not affect established and developed residential areas. The Albertson's CPA was granted on the condition of a rezoning of sufficient residentially zoned land to make up for the shortfall created by this decision. The City Council has identified several sites throughout the city to be considered for increased residential STAFF REPORT - CPA 87-01(D/E) - ZC 87-02(D/E) - PAGE 1 density. These properties are some of those identified in the city's attempt to maintain compliance with the Metropolitan Housing Rule of 10 l residential units to the net acre. 3. Vicinity Information These properties are surrounded by the following zoning districts: R-12 (Medium density residential, 12 units per acre) to the south and southwest, R-7 (Single family residential, 7 units per acre) on the east and west sides, and R-4.5 (Single family residential, 4.5 units per acre) to the north. Subdivision development has already occurred on both the north and south sides of these properties. Part of Bond Park, a phased development which is still in progress, is located to the south of these properties. Although zoned R-12, all phases of that subdivision have protective covenants restricting each lot to one detached single family dwelling. Gentlewoods Subdivision, situated to the north of these properties, is fully built. The Millmont and Chessman Downs subdivisions' in this vicinity were previously zoned R-12. The rezoning of the subject properties is therefore consistent with the amount of residential density originally anticipated in this area of the city. 4. Site Information and Proposal Description The lot sizes of these parcels range from just under 1 acre up to 5.6 acres totaling 13 .16 acres. Most of the, lots have homes built in a semi-secluded manner among stands of trees. The lots are also located away from heavily traveled streets. The terrain is generally varied with several areas having slight slopes and swales and there is an abundance of trees throughout the area. The zone change is desired to allow for singl.e-family development requiring smaller lot sizes (5,000 minimum lot size) than that required in the R-4.5 zone (7,500 minimum lot size). These properties are all within a designated "Developing Area" in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed zone change could ! potentially result in a net gain of 33 residential units. 5. Agency and NPO Comments The Tigard School District has reviewed the proposal and makes the following comments: The school district knows the City is aware of the problem we are facing regarding overcrowding in our schools. The Board of Directors has asked us to convey to the City the district's concerns about proposed changes in the comprehensive plan which would increase the density in areas where we are already experiencing considerable enrollment pressures — Templeton Elementary, for example. Making such changes in the Comprehensive Plan can send the signal to the public that needed services are in place when, in fact, school classrooms throughout the district are reaching capacity. School district patrons will have an opportunity to approve additional construction funds in 1988. Until that time and a successful bond election, the district cannot guarantee a quality educational program for increased { enrollments without additional classroom space being available. } STAFF REPORT - CPA 87-01(D/E) - ZC 87-02(D/E) - PAGE 2 [i { f I The Engineering Division has reviewed the proposal and makes the following comments: c � It is not know if rezoning will change the density of actual future development of the properties. However, to evaluate potential "worst i case" impacts, we assumed that each area will develop to its maximum { density. According to the Community Development Director's memo of December 17, 1986, the rezoning could result in up to 560 additional E residential units in the south part of Tigard. Additional residential units can be expected to generate more traffic on nearby streets. We can reasonably estimate that for each additional single family residence, there will be one additional vehicle trip during the evening peak hour. Because the eight proposed rezonings are spread over a wide area, it does not appear that the rezoning would have a major impact on any one street. The additional traffic could be accommmodated by the street system currently_ proposed in the City's long—range planning. Some additional street improvements, such as additional turn lanes at selected locations, might be needed as a result of the additional traffic. It appears that the systems development changes from the additional residential units would be adequate to fund the additional street improvements that might be needed. Additional residential units would create some additional flows in the sewerage system, but it does not appear that any increases in pipe -- sizes would be necessary. In general, in residential areas, the size of sewer piping is determined by minimum sizing to accommodate maintenance equipment rather than by flow requirements. Higher residential densities would probably result in slightly higher storm runoff volumes. In some areas this may require increases in the size of storm drainage piping. The systems development charges generated by the additional units should be adequate to cover any resulting additional costs to the storm drainage system. Impacts on the major drainageways would be negligible. 1 NPO #5 was notified of the proposal and makes the following comments: The NPO unanimously agreed to go on record opposing these changes in i density for the following reasons: ; 1. The transportation bottleneck onto Hall, Durham, and Bonita which we sought to contain would be adversely affected; 1 t 2. The quality of life factor which we were in favor of preserving for the existing neighborhood would not be maintained; and 3. The appalling inconsistency in consideration of zone change requests and disregard for citizen input. Examples cited were the NPO recommendation on a zone change for Carman Center, denial , of the previous zone change on the Idriss property, and the lack j of support to the Downtown Tigard Development. STAFF REPORT — CPA 87- OI(D/E) — ZC 87-02(D/E) — PAGE 3 B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, and 10, and Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 7.1.2, 7.8.1, 8. 1.3, 8.2.2, and Chapter 12, Locational Criteria. } The Planning staff concludes that the proposal is consistent with the tt applicable Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines based upon the following findings: 1. Goal #1 is met because the City has adopted a Citizens Involvement program including review of all development applications by the Neighborhood Planning Organization (NPO). In addition, all public notice requirements are met. j i 2. Goal #2 is met because the City applied all applicable Statewide Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan Policies and Development Code requirements to the application. 3. Goal #10 is satisfied because the proposal will provide for housing as contemplated by the City Comprehensive Plan. The Planning staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Plan based upon the findings noted below: 1. Plan 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 cgmment on the applicant's ` proposal. 2. Plan Policy 6.1.1 is satisfied because the zone change will allow for multi-family development. In 1984 the City approved a zone change from R-12 to R-7 on two parcels totaling approximately 20 acres at the corner of Hall Blvd. and Durham Road. Also, Bond Park subdivision, located north of Durham Road on either side of 79th Avenue, is a single family development occurring on land which is zoned R-12 and eligible for multi-family development. This proposal will help supplement the inventory of land in this - area of the City which is available for multi-family development. The City of Tigard is obligated through the Metropolitan Housing Rule to provide for an equal mix of single family and attached units with an overall development density of 10 units per acre. The City must ensure that sufficient higher density areas are available to the intent of the housing rule can be met. 3. Plan Policy 7.1.2 is satisfied because adequate service capacities are available in the immediate area. Some utility extensions (e.g. , sewer) will be necessary to serve the property but this can be accomplished as a condition of developing the site. It is recognized that traffic volumes have increased on Durham Road, the nearest arterial. However, additional development can be adequately served withthe existing facilities. It is STAFF REPORT - CPA 87-01(D/E) - ZC 87-02(0/E) - PAGE 4 anticipated that. maximum development would result in a traffic increase of 330 trips per day. 4. Plan Policy7.8.1 is satisfied because the Tigard School District r( was informed of this proposal and made comments about overcrowding in public schools and the potential problems increased enrollments could have for the quality of education in the local school system. 5. Plan Policy 8.1.3 will be satisfied as a condition for development of the property. The necessary right-of-way and street improvements will be required when such development occurs. 6. Plan Policy 8.2.2 cannot be satisfied at this time because Tri-Met does not offer bus service on Durham Road. However, since it is an arterial route, it will be a logical choice for future bus service. 7. The Locational Criteria in Chapter 12 of the Plan are satisfied for the following reasons: a. The property is within a "Development Area" which is committed to low density development. b. All parcels have direct access to SW 76th or SW 79th which are minor collectors. C. Development limitations are not evident and public facilities have adequate capacity to serve the properties. d. - Rush hour bus service is available along Hall Boulevard. As development occurs Durham Road is a logical route for future service. e. Convenience retail service is available at the Durham/Hall intersection and general commercial and business. centers are 1.5 to 2 miles away. f. Public open space is available nearby at Cook Park, Durham - Elementary School, and Tigard High School. C. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above findings and conclusions, the Planning staff recommends approval of CPA 87-01(D/E) and ZC 87-O2(D/E) . j PREPARED BY: o�ix 1 APPROVED BY: William A. Monahan Assistant Planner Director of Community IDevelopment (TD:sb/297OP/O013P) STAFF REPORT - CPA 87-01(0/E) - ZC 87-02(D/E) - PAGE 5 r ti X1111/� WONISQ- AdF sub ■ ■ //�■ � 1111 1 �r� -: � , � �■� UTA TREATMENT PLANT Ar sw 'CAMOR D" =0401111111 ME Russ - �11�f11 � 1 �1116�1 1��■•�'■ � �� 1111 1 11��1�111111 N1111111111 -� w Neighborhood Planning Organization #5 The January 21 , 1987 meeting of NPO #5 was called to order by Chairman Craig Hopkins at 7:35 p.m. In attendance were members Bieker, Saporta, Schmidt and Takahashi . Guests included Ken Waymire, Mel Waymire and Mary Clinton. Minutes of the September meeting were circulated and approved. We had no October meeting due to Boardsmanship Work- shops. November and December were also non-meeting months. Presenters' Priv-ilege_ Albertson Proposal. Because this item needed staff clarification, we elected to place it fiest on the agenda. As explained to us, Albertsons is proposing to build a ; super store at the corner of Durham and Pacific Highway. This f will be a 180,000 square foot retail project with two possible f anchors. Previously, the planning staff has recommended a denial on the basis of land use zoning and the potential impact on the Downtown Tigard Development Plan. However, the City Council approved the proposal on condition that the residential factor lost by the necessary zone change on this parcel is reclaimed by changing densities on other parcels in Tigard. Our impacted areas are labeled C, D, and E on the informational maps. After much discussion and questions of staff , the NPO unanimous- ly agreed to go on record opposing these changes in density for the following reasons: I. the transportation bottleneck onto Hall , Durham and Bonita which we sought to contain would -be adversely affected; 2. the quality of life factor which we were in favor of preserving for the existing neighborhood would not be maintained; and 3. the appalling inconsistency in considera- tion of zone change requests and disregard for citizen input. (We cite as examples in support of item 3 our recommendation on a zone change for Carman Center, our denial of the previous zone change on the Idris property, and the lack of support to the Downtown Tigard Development. Old Business: A. Carman Center 's zone change was denied. B. Waymire land partition: An amicable agreement was reached with residents regarding the land strip which was un buildable at the back of their homes. Unfortunately, the city prohibits lots having that depth. So, the agreement and possible sale had to be nullified. i New Business: A. Bond Pari: IV Development. The Waymire's presented the lot map and development scheme. There will be 16 lots and a 40 foot street. No objection was stated and Hopkins thanked both for attending. B. Land partition on 80th and Bonita was okay. C. MLP by Hartig, Gerlack and Hunziker was okay. D. Sign Code Exception: no problem E. ZOA by Russ Kruger. Committee recommended that the zone ordinance amendment be left as is so that each petitioner f could be considered on a conditional use basis. F. HOP for computer business: no problem FEB 2 3 1987 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING ®Epp. •February 21 , 1987 Tigard Planning Department ' City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: File No. : CPA 87-01 , ZC 87-02 Applicant: City of Tigard To the Tigard Planning Commission: We are in receipt of the "Notice of Public Hearing" on Tuesday, March 3, 1987, of the Tigard Planning Commission regarding the above noted plan. We are opposed-to any increase in density in our area for the following reasons: r 1 . The roads are too poor (too narrow and in too poor condition) to handle any further increase in traffic flow (traffic is already a serious problem here) . 2. It is extremely difficult to gain access to Durham road under the present circumstances and any increase in traffic within our area would make it almost impossible. 3. There are many families with small children in this area and any increase in density building would make it very unsafe for them. We would appreciate it very much if you would consider our request to not change the zoning. Thank you. Sincerely, Mr. and Mrs. John L. Hagy (John and Lenis) 7705 S.W. Bond Street Tigard, Oregon 97224 (503) 684-2619 STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 5.2 F MARCH 3, 1987 — 7:30 P.M. TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION TIGARD CITY HALL — TOWN HALL 13125 SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD, OREGON 97223 A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: CPA 87-01(F) & ZC 87-02(F) ' REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and a Zone Change from R-4.5 (Single Family Residential 4.5 units per acre) to R-7 (Single Family Residential, 7 units per acre). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low density residential ZONING DESIGNATION: R-4.5 APPLICANT: City of Tigard OWNER: Edward & Lillian Sattler Kenneth & Agnes Miller LOCATION: South of SW Sattler, east of SW Alderbrook, north of SW Hamlet and approximately 600 ft. west of SW Hall (WCTM 2S1 11DA lot 200 and part of 100). 2. Background Information No previous land use applications have been reviewed by the City relating to these two parcels. In December 1986 the Tigard City Council gave conditional approval to the ' Albertson's Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) for changing the Comprehensive Plan designation of several properties located at the southeast corner of Durham Road and Pacific Highway. This proposal requested rezoning properties from high density residential to commercial. The result of this decision was the removal of about 400 potential housing units from Tigard's inventory of buildable land. The Metropolitan Housing Rule adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission states that Tigard must provide for 50 percent single family and at least 50 percent single family attached or multiple family units with a minimum of 10 units to the net acre. The Metro Housing Rule applies to only vacant buildable land within Tigard's Urban Planning Area, and does not affect established and developed residential areas. STAFF REPORT — CPA 87-01(F) & ZC 87-02(F) — PAGE 1 The Albertson's CPA was granted on the condition o make up for therezoning shortfall sufficient residentially zoned land Council has identified several created by this decision. The City sites throughout the City to be considered for increased residential density. These properties are some of those identified in the City's attempt to maintain compliance with the Metropolitan Housing Rule of 10 residential units to the net acre. 3, Vicinity Information urrounded by subdivision developments on all These properties are s pasture land. The current sides except to the east which is mostly p zoning of surrounding subdivisions are as follows: R-4.5 (Single units per acre) on the north and south sides, Family Residential, 4.5 R-7 (Multiple Family Residential, 7 units per acre) to the %Jest an R-12 (Multiple Family Residential, 12 units per acre) to the east. 4, Site Information and Proposal Description The two properties consist of tax lost 200 (14.57 acres) and a portion lot 100 is split zoned of tax lot 100 (12.65 acres). Presently, tax with approximately 4 acres being considered for rezoning. The remaining 8.65 acres is currently zoned R-12. Properties on Site F are currently being used for raising livestock. The entire fencinunded by land hasandea farmhousef en clearedfand barn rare locatedsneaor Sattler or past barbed wire g Street. The proposed change of zone would allow a maximum increase of 46 residential units for Site "F." 5. Agency and NPO Comments The Tigard School District has reviewed the proposal and makes the following comments: The school district knows the City is aware of the problem we are facing regarding overcrowding in our schools. The Board of Directors has asked us to convey to the City the district's concerns about proposed changes in the comprehensive plan which would increase the density in areas where we are already experiencing considerable enrollment pressures — Templeton Elementary, for example. Making such Comprehensive Plan can send the signal to the public changes in the are in place when, in fact, a that needed servicespatrons throughout the district are rea will have an opportunity to appchroveng c School district additional construction funds in the district 1988. Until that time and a successful ueducationalnd program election for increased cannot guarantee a quality enrollments without additional classroom space being available. The Engineering Division has reviewed the proposal and makes the following comments: STAFF REPORT - CPA 87--01(F) 6 ZC 87-02(F) - PAGE 2 It is not !mown if rezoning will change the density of actual future / development of the properties. However, to evaluate potential "worst \r case impacts, we assumed that each area will develop to its maximum density. According to the Community Development Director's memo of December 17, 1986, the rezoning could result in up to 560 additional residential units in the south part of Tigard. Additional residential units can be expected to generate more traffic on nearby streets. We can reasonably estimate that for each additional single family residence, there will be one additional vehicle trip during the evening peak hour. Because the eight proposed rezonings are spread over a wide area, it does not appear that the rezoning would have a major impact on any one street. The additional traffic could be accommodated by the street system currently proposed in the City's long—range planning. Some additional street improvements, 'such as additional turn lanes at selected locations, might be needed as a result of the additional traffic. It appears that the systems development changes from the additional residential units would be adequate to fund the additional street improvements that might be needed. Additional residential units would create some additional flows in the sewerage system, but it does not appear that any increases in pipe sizes would be necessary. In general, in residential areas, the size of sewer piping is determined by minimum sizing to accommodate maintenance equipment rather than by flow requirements. Higher residential densities would probably result in slightly higher storm runoff volumes. In some areas this may require increases in the size of storm drainage piping. The systems development charges generated by the additional units should be adequate to cover any resulting additional costs to the storm drainage system. Impacts on the major drainageways.jMuld be negligible. NPO #6 has reviewed the proposal and provides the following comments: We disapprove of this proposal for the following reasons: inadequacy of street networking and development to handle increased traffic; inconsistent application, by Council, of criterion. for zone change (re: Carmen Center); and contradiction of previous decision by Planning Commission regarding zone change request by Mo Indriss (re: R-7 to R-12 on parcels at approximately SW Hall and SW Ross). B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, and 10, and Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 7.1.2, 7.8.1, 8.1.3, 8.2.2, and Chapter 12, Locational Criteria. The Planning staff concludes that the proposal is consistent with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines based upon the following findings: STAFF REPORT — CPA 87-01(F) & ZC 87-02(F) — PAGE 3 1. Goal #1 is met because the City has adopted a Citizens rr Involvement program including review of all development applications by the Neighborhood Planning Organization (NPO). In addition, all public notice requirements are met. 2. Goal #2 is met because the City applied all applicable Statewide Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan Policies and Development Code requirements to the application. 3. Goal 010 is satisfied because the proposal will provide .for housing as contemplated by the City Comprehensive Plan ant the Metropolitan Housing Rule. . The Planning staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Plan based upon the 'findings noted below: 1. Plan Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because the Neighborhood Planning Organization and surrounding property owners were given notice of the hearing and an opportunity to comment on the applicant's proposal. 2. Plan Policy 6.1.1 is satisfied because the zone change will allow greater flexibility for housing choices In 1984 the City approved a zone change from R-12 to R-7 on two parcels totaling approximately 20 acres at the corner of Hall Blvd. and Durham Road. Also, Bond Park subdivision, located north of Durham Road on either side of 79th Avenue, is a single family residential development occurring on land which is zone R-12 and eligible for multi-family residential development. This proposal will help supplement the inventory of land in this area of the City which is available for multi-family development. The City of Tigard is obligated through the Metropolitan Housing Rule to provide for an equal mix of single family and attached units with an overall development density of 10 units per acre. The City must ensure that sufficient higher density areas are available so the intent of the housing rule can be met. 3. Plan Policy 7.1.2 can be satisfied because adequate service capacities are available in the immediate area. Utility extensions (eg. sewer) will be necessary to serve the property which can be accomplished as a condition of developing the site. It is recognized that traffic volumes have increased on Hall Blvd. . However, additional development can be adequately served with the existing facilities. At maximum development it is anticipated that traffic will increase by 460 trips per day. 4. Plan Policy 7.8.1 is satisfied because the Tigard School District was informed of this proposal and made comments abcut overcrowding in public schools and the potential problems _ increased enrollments could have for the quality of education in the local school system. STAFF REPORT - CPA 87-01(F) & ZC 87-02(F) - PAGE 4 *" 5. Plan Policy 8.1.3 will be satisfied as a condition for �.. development of the property. The necessary right-of-way and street improvements will be required at the time of development. 6. Plan Policy 8.2.2 can be satisfied at this time because Tri-Met offers rush hour bus service on Hall Blvd. . - As subsequent development occurs in this area, Hall Blvd. will be a logical choice for regular bus service. 7. The Locational Criteria in Chapter 12 of the Plan are satisfied for the following reasons: a. The parcels have direct access to SW Sattler which is a minor collector. b. Development limitations are not evident and public facilities can be provided to serve the property. C. Regular public transit is not available presently, but Hall Blvd. is a likely route for future service. d. Convenience retail service is available along Durham/Hall intersection and other commercial and business centers are 1.5 to 2 miles away. e. Public open space is available nearby at Cook Park, Durham Elementary School, and Tigard High School. s C. RECOMMENDATION s Based upon the above findings and conclusions, the Planning staff recommends approval of CPA 87-01(F) and ZC 87-02(F). f PREPA D BY: Tom Dixon APPROVED BY: Wil iam A. Monahan Assistant Planner Director of Community Development (TD:bs2971P) STAFF REPORT - CPA 87-01(F) & ZC 87-02(F) - PAGE 5 ■■■Imam ■ ■� _ _ cmu- TUALITY ■ . KOH SCHOOL ■ ■ - • � � � BIS � ■ � � � ■9 ■ �� ■ ■■■■■■t■Ea ■■.■ �,1�■ ■ ■■■ ■■ ■ t �•� 1/ �A .. t■ . ■ -,, SCHOOL r %r ELEMENTARI i� . 9 ICON NONNI w 10 VA ® ■� ■i Irl ■■��7� ■��■ " _ =' 1/i�� aliL•Tai �� _a '�� • 1 i ;.�/1�■ -■ 111 1 :. ��-�� • 1�lIII �•'� ii� "�i�� ! 1 ilt��1�� u11 Com'/ IIh�Ii�■■!� Y■ Bill ■ ■ �■ ►�///11111 ..�� ■ ter. _ _ : - • ter. 1 . . USA ; TREATMENTPLANT ' STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 5.2 G MARCH 3, 1987 - 7:30 P.M. TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION TIGARD CITY HALL - TOWN HALL 13125 SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD, OREGON 97223 A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: CPA 87-01 (G), ZC 87-02 (G) REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential and a Zone Change from R-12 (PD) (Multi-Family Residential, 12 units per acre, Planned Development) to R-25 (PD) (Multi-Family Residential, 25 units per acre, Planned Development). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential ZONING DESIGNATION: R-12 (PD) APPLICANT: ' City of Tigard OWNER: William & Claire Sanders Chalmer Lee George, Jr. LOCATION: East of SW Pacific Highway, north of SW Naeve, and approximately 500 feet west of SW 109th (WCTM 2S1 10D lot 700 and part of 600). 2. Background Information The properties on this site were considered for a- Comprehensive Plan Revision in 1981 (CPR '1-81). Prior to this, these properties were annexed into the City with a Washington County zone designation of RU-4 (Residential, 4 units per acre). CPR 1-81 proposed to change the Comprehensive Plan from low to medium density residential and a zone change to R-12. A Planned Development (PD) overlay was included in the final approval which would require all development on the site to be brought before the Planning Commission and the density to be reviewed as a part of the approval process. In December 1986 the Tigard City Council gave conditional approval to the Albertson's Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) for changing the Comprehensive Plan designation of several properties located at the southeast corner of Durham Road and Pacific Highway. This proposal requested rezoning these properties from high density residential to commercial. The result of this decision was the removal of about 400 potential housing units from Tigard's inventory of buildable' land. The Metropolitan Housing Rule . adopted by the Land Conservation and STAFF REPORT - CPA 87-01(G) & ZC 87-02 (G) - PAGE 1 1 Development Commission states that Tigard must provide for 50 percent single family and at least 50 percent single family attached or multiple family units with a minimum of 10 units to the net acre. The Metro Housing Rule applies to only vacant buildable land within Tigard's Urban Planning Area, and does not affect established and developed residential areas. The Albertson's CPA was granted on the condition of a rezoning of sufficient residentially zoned land to make up for the shortfall created by this decision. The City Council has identified several sites throughout the City to be considered for increased residential density. These properties are some of those identified in the City's attempt to maintain complic, ce with the Metropolitan Housing Rule of 10 residential units to the net acre. , 3. Vicinity.Information The properties to the north are presently zoned R-4.5 (low density residential, 4.5 units per acre) but are now under consideration for a rezoning to R-7 (medium density residential, 7 units per acre). The city limits of King City are to the west (across Pacific Highway); C-0 (General Commercial) and R-25 to the south, and R-12 to the east are the other zoning districts that surround the site. The general vicinity is mostly undeveloped with the exception of The Fountains at Summerfield extension which reaches north almost to S.W. Naeve. Half-street improvements on S.W. Naeve are in process as part of that development approval. 4. Site Information and Proposal Description The proposed zone change affects all of tax lot 700 (the western most property) but only the western half of tax lot 600 (approximately 4 acres).-- This amounts to a total of 9.5 acres. The rezoning could potentially add 124 residential units to this, at-mdx-imum allowable development. The PD overlay would remain with the zone change. Presently, the site has one single family residence set back about 200' feet from S.W. Naeve. Nearby is an old, unused greenhouse and vacant one-story building, both of which apparently were once used for a nursery business. 5. Agency and NPO Comments The Tigard School District has reviewed the proposal and makes the following comments: i The school district knows the City is aware of the problem we are facing regarding overcrowding in our schools. The Board of Directors has asked us to convey to the City the district's concerns about C j proposed changes in the comprehensive plan which would increase the- + density in areas where we are already experiencing considerable STAFF REPORT - CPA 87-01(G) b ZC 87-02 (G) - PAGE 2 C enrollment pressures — Templeton Elementary, for example. Making such changes in the Comprehensive Plan can send the signal to the public that needed services are in place when, in fact, school classrooms throughout the district are reaching capacity. School district patrons will have an opportunity to approve additional construction funds in 1988. Until that time and a successful bond election, the district cannot guarantee a quality educational program ' for increased enrollments without additional classroom space being available. The Engineering Division has reviewed the proposal and makes the following comments: It is not known if rezoning will change the density of actual future development of the properties. However, to evaluate potential "worst case impacts, we assumed that each area will develop to its maximum density. Accprding to the Community Development Director's memo of December 17, 1986, the rezoning could result in up to 560 additional residential units in the south part of Tigard. Additional residential units can be expected to generate more traffic on nearby streets. We can reasonably estimate that for each additional single family residence, there will be one additional vehicle trip during the evening peak hour. Because the eight proposed rezonings are spread over a wide area, it does not appear that the rezoning would have a major impact on any one street. .The additional traffic could be accommodated by the street system currently proposed in the City's long-range planning. Some additional street improvements, such as additional turn lanes at selected locations, might be needed as a result of the additional traffic. It appears that the systems development changes from the additional residential units would be adequate to fund the additional street improvements that might be needed. Additional residential units would create some additional flows in the sewerage system, but it does not appear that any increases in pipe sizes would be necessary. In general, in residential areas, the size of sewer piping is determined by minimum sizing to _,e ccommodate maintenance equipment rather than by flow requirements. Higher residential densities would probably result in slightly higher storm runoff volumes. In some areas this may require increases in the size of storm drainage piping. The systems development charges generated by the additional unit* should be adequate to cover any .resulting additional costs to the storm drainage system. Impacts' on the major drainageways would be negligible. NPO N6 has reviewed the proposal and provides the following comments: We disapprove of this proposal for the following reasons: inadequacy of street networking and development to handle increased traffic; inconsistent application, by Council, of criterion for zone change (re: 1 Carmen Center); and contradiction of previous decision 'by Planning- Commission regarding zone change request by Mo Indriss (re: R-7 to R-12 on parcels at approximately SW Hall and SW Ross). E k STAFF REPORT - CPA 87-01(G) b ZC 87-02 (G) - PAGE 3 B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Statewide *Planning Goals 1, 2, and 10, and Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 7.1.2, 7.8.1, 8.1.3, 8.2.2, and Chapter 12, Locational Criteria. The Planning staff concludes that the proposal is consistent with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines based upon the following findings: 1. Goal #1 is met because the City has adopted a Citizens Involvement program including review of all development applications by the Neighborhood Planning Organization (NPO). In addition, all public notice requirements are met. $ 2. Goal 02 is met because the City applied all applicable Statewide Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan Policies and Development Code requirements to the application. 3. Goal #10 is satisfied because the proposal will provide for housing as contemplated by the City Comprehensive Plan and the Metropolitan Housing Rule. The Planning staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Plan based upon the findings noted below: 1. Plan Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because the Neighborhood Planning Organization and surrounding property owners were given notice of the hearing and an opportunity to comment on the applicant's proposal. 2. Plan Policy 6.1.1 is satisfied because the zone change will allow for multi—family development. The City of Tigard is obligated through the Metropolitan Housing Rule to provide for an equal mix of single family and attached units with an overall development density of 10 units per acre. The City must ensure that sufficient highbr density areas are available so the intent of the housing rule can be met. 3. Plan Policy 7.1.2 is satisfied because adequate service capacities are available in the immediate area. Utility extensions (e.g. sewer) will be necessary to serve the property. This can be accomplished as a condition of developing the site. 4. Plan Policy 7.8.1 is satisfied because the Tigard School District was informed of this proposal and made comments about overcrowding in public schools and the potential problems increased enrollments could have for the quality of education in the local school system. STAFF REPORT — CPA 87-01(G) S ZC 87-02 (G) — PAGE 4 • i • i 5. Plan Policy 8.1.3 will be satisfied as a condition for Cdevelopment of the property. The necessary right-of-way and street improvements would be required at that• time. 6. Plan Policy 8.2.2 can be satisfied at this time because Tri-Met offers bus service on Pacific Highway. F 6 . r . 7. The Locational Criteria in Chapter 12 of the Plan are satisfied for the following reasons: a. The property is within a Developing Area' which is not committed to low density development. b. The parcels have direct access to a Pacific Highway, an f arterial and Naeve St., a minor collector. ! C. Development limitations are not evident and public facilities can be provided to serve the property if they are extended. d. Public transit is available for the two parcels. 1 e. Convenience retail service is available along Pacific Highway general commercial and business centers are 1 to 1.5 miles away. C. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above findings and conclusions, the Planning staff recommends approval of CPA 87-01(G) and ZC 87-02(G). PREPA BY: To on AP E BY: ill am . Monahan Assistant Planner Director of Commnunity Development (TD:cn/2976P/O013P) t STAFF REPORT - CPA 87-01(G) & ZC 87-02 (G) - PAGE 5 �w ■_ �7 • / �■ �■■ ■WAMP lam- -�I �_•�� r� • �.��• ► _ OMEN■■ .• ♦ • . _ �.: X1111 .III AP 1101 - 11� �■ III �� ■�Z' ` I CJI TIMI �� dw,II ; ` — 1 I 4 9 January 1987 i City of Tigard, 3 Community Development Dept. ' Tikard, Or. *97223 7 Attnt Keith S. Liden Dear Sir, s We aeandawouldthere stillylikesome getnR-20 back for es in"our are our property att 11165 /SW Naeve ST 2SI -lOD-00600 Key #497377 ♦. "Since'' y. W. B. Sanders s 2,3256 Bents Rd:NR f Aurora. ;Or. 97002 678-4997 r . STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 5.2.H MARCH 3, 1987 - 7:.30 P.M. TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION \ TIGARD CITY HALL - TOWN HALL 13125 SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD, OREGON 97223 A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: CPA 87-01 (H) REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Medium High Density Residential to High Density Residential. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium High Density ZONING DESIGNATION: R-24 (Washington Co.) APPLICANT: City of Tigard 0WNER: Roy i & Gertrude Darcy Gray ick LOCATION: East of SW Pacific Hwy., north of the Tualatin River and approximately 100 ft. south of SW Gravens St. (WCTM 2S1 15C lots 100 and 1300). 2. Background Information These properties are presently located in unincorporated Washington County but are within the Tigard Planning Area. The present property owners requested a Comprehensive Plan Amendment as part of the rezoning of residential properties associated with the Albertson's proposal. In December 1986 the Tigard City Council gave conditional approval to thQ Albertson's Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) for changing the Comprehensive Plan designation of several properties located roposal he southeast corner of Durham Road and Pacific Highway. p requested rezoning these properties from high density residential to commercial. The result of this decision was the removal of about 400 potential housing units from Tigard's inventory of buildable land. The Metropolitan Housing Rule adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission states that Tigard must provide for 50 percent single family and at least 50 percent single family attached or multiple family units with a minimum of 10 units to the net acre. The Metro Housing Rule applies to only vacant buildable land within Tigard's Urban Planning Area, and does not affect established and developed residential areas. STAFF REPORT - CPA 87-01(H) & ZC 87-02(H) - PAGE 1 The Albertson's CPA was granted on the condition of a rezoning of sufficient residentially zoned land to make up for the shortfall created by this decision. The City Council has identified several sites throughout the City to be considered for increased residential density. Although these two parcels were not selected by the City Council for consideration, it was suggested to the Planning Division by both property owners and by their representative. For this reason these properties are identified in the City's attempt to maintain compliance with the Metropolitan Housing Rule of 10 residential units to the net acre. 3. Vicinity Information These properties are bordered by the Tualatin River to the squth and Pacific Highway to the west. Unincorporated Washington County zoning districts include R-9 (Residential, 9 units per acre) to the north. The subject parcels bound the urban growth boundary to the south and west. 4. Site Information and Proposal Description The southerly property of these two parcels borders on the Tualatin River to the south. the northern part of the property is on high ground with a partly boarded—up house located next to Pacific Highway and a couple of sheds situated about 50 feet from the main structure and from each other. A large structure, apparently a barn, sits in the southern half of the lot. This portion of the property is significantly lower than the northern half and is within the 100 year flood plain. Several small flood ponds were observed and drainage on the lower portion of the property is poor. Besides the built portion of this lot, the land is partially wooded with several strands of fir, cedar, and evergreen trees scattered about. The cleared portions of land are used as a cow pasture. The second property (the most northerly) contains a single—family dwelling setback about 300 ft. from Pacific Highway. The residence is surrounded by various species of both conifers and deciduous trees. The front half of the property has been cleared and tree trimmings and stumps are piled up in several places. 5. Agency and NPO Comments The Tigard School District has reviewed the proposal and makes the following comments: The school district knows the City is aware of the problem we are facing regarding overcrowding in our schools. The Board of Directors has asked us to convey to the City the district's concerns about proposed changes in the comprehensive plan which would increase the density in areas where we are already experiencing considerable enrollment pressures — Templeton Elementary, for example. . Making such changes in the Comprehensive Plan can send the signal to the public Cthat needed services_ are. in place when, in fact, school classrooms throughout the district are reaching capacity. School district patrons will have an opportunity to approve additional construction funds in STAFF REPORT — CPA 87-01(H) & ZC 87-02(H) — PAGE 2 IF 1988. Until that time ar�d a successful bond election, the district cannot guarantee a quality educational program for increased enrollments without additional classroom space being available. The Engineering Division has reviewed the proposal and makes the following comments: It is not known if rezoning will change the density of actual future development of the properties. However, to evaluate potential "worst case impacts, we assumed that each area will develop to its maximum density. According to the Community Development Director's memo of December 17, 1986, the rezoning could result in up to 560 additional residential units in the south part of Tigard. Additional residential units can be expected to generate moreltraffic on nearby streets. We can reasonably estimate that for each additional single family residence, there will be one additional vehicle trip during the evening peak hour. Because the eight proposed rezonings are spread over a wide area, it does not appear that the rezoning would have a major impact on any one street. The additional traffic could be accommodated by the street system currently proposed in the City's long—range planning. Some additional street improvements, such as additional turn lanes at selected. locations, might be needed as a result of the additional traffic. It appears that the systems development changes from the additional residential units would be adequate to fund the additional street improvements that might be needed. Additional residential units would create some additional flows in the i sewerage system, but it does not appear that any increases in pipe sizes would be necessary. In general, in residential areas, the size of sewer piping is determined by minimum sizing to accommodate maintenance equipment rather than by flow requirements. Higher residential densities would probably result in slightly higher storm runoff volumes. In some areas this may require increases in the size of storm drainage piping. The systems development charges generated by the additional units should be adequate to cover any resulting additional costs to the storm drainage system. Impacts on . the major drainageways would be negligible. NPO #5 and 06, a joint meeting on February 18, 1987, indicated they would support the rezoning of these two parcels. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, and 10, and Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 7.1.2, 7.8.1, 8.1.3, 8.2.2, and Chapter 12, Locational Criteria. The Planning staff concludes that the proposal is consistent with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines based upon the l following findings: l 1. Goal qi is met because the City has adopted a Citizens Involvement program including review of all development applications by the Neighborhood Planning Organization (NPO). In addition, all public notice requirements are met. STAFF REPORT — CPA 87-01(H) & ZC 87-02(H) — PAGE 3 2. Goal #2 is met because the City applied all applicable Statewide (� } Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan Policies and Development Code requirements to the application. 3. Goal #10 is satisfied because the proposal will provide for housing as contemplated by the City Comprehensive Plan. The Planning staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Plan based upon the findings noted below: 1. Plan Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because surrounding property owners were given notice of the hearing and an opportunity to comment on the applicant's proposal. , 2. Plan Policy 6.1.1 is satisfied because the zone change will still permit multi-family development. The properties are already zoned for medium high density residential development so the change will permit greater diversity in high density development. . 3. Plan Policy 7.1.2 is not satisfied because adequate service capacities are not available in the immediate area. As a condition of development, services (i.e., sewer) extensions will be necessary. 4. Plan Policy 7.8.1 is satisfied because the Tigard School District was informed of this proposal made comments about over crowding in public schools and the potential problems increased enrollments could have for the quality of education in the local school system. 5. Plan Policy 8.1.3 will be satisfied as a condition for development of the property. If an apartment complex does materialize, it would first require City approval through the Site Development Review process. The necessary .right-of-way and street-improvements would be required at that time. 6. Plan Policy 8.2.2 can be satisfied at this time because Tri-Met offers bus service on Pacific Highway. 7. The Locational Criteria in Chapter 12 of the Plan are satisfied for the following reasons: a. The property is not within a "Developing Area" but is within the Tigard Planning Area and likely to be annexed sometime in the future. b. Development limitations are evident due to portions of both properties being in the 100 year flood plain. Innovative site design could permit a transfer of density to the buildable portions of both properties. C. Public sewer is not currently available and will need to be extended to service these-properties. STAFF REPORT - CPA 87-01(H) & ZC 87-02(H) - PAGE 4 d. Convenience retail service is available along . Pacific Highway and general commercial and business centers are about 2-3 miles away. e. Public open space is available along portions of the Tualatin River. C. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above findings and conclusions, the Planning staff recommends approval of CPA 87-01(H) and ZC 87-02(H). PREPAR D BY: TWDixon AOROVED BY: William A. Monahan Assistant Planner Director of Community Development (TD:bs2983P/0021P) STAFF REPORT — CPA 87-01(H) 6 ZC 87-02(H) — PAGE 5 111 11■ —■ ' i 1� IIi oil ;- �� -iN ■i1 .. �1 111 ♦�� %II�, �Aff ...1111 ■_ � it /� �■ rr�rn�c � •1 ' r ' _ � _ � �i: /c L�~�r�T•?+i.'w�'V/�i ),•'"Y •'F•TJ t`�:i .:�:� � /�i�. �. �{y.�il�i i :�i•i•+Y'•��" tr7✓, Tt•�'7ls� r{A'�� .i 11� f ��•l..' 'Li:�i_�:,�V i!. �•t• ' - • ~�- 1:.)' �' 4�1�I r 12'x';' -.��.•..(ti'r� .r �{t 'r '(`• ) !Y � 3 . II dim ILA inc. riAN271987 • CITY OF TIWO 17rr pI,pNNIN(i CST• January 26, 1987 Mr. Keith S. Liden Senior Planner City of Tigard PO Box 23397 Tigard,OR 97223 Dear Keith: In our recent conversation you stated the City would consider increasing the density of some multi-family sites to replace that lost in the Albertson development. I would like you to•consider increasing the density of Tax -- Lots 100 and 1300, Section 15 T2S, R1W, Map C to 40 units per acre. The two parcels are within your urban growth boundary. Due to their location on Pacific Highway, an increase in traffic caused by the increase in density would not impact the City's streets. I am enclosing letters from each of the owners requesting the same. Your cooperation is appreciated. Yours truly, MACADAM FORBES,INC. W. Vern Galaway Associate Broker WVG:hlm enclosure cc: R.E. Gray John H. Frederick C ) . RZALTORS 1 ODD S.W.FIRST AVENUE PORTLAND.OREGON 97MI (saq 227-25W JOHN H. FREDERICK & ASSOCIATES � IN MOHAWK BUILDING Joan H.iltrnt1M 708 S.W.3rd,State 400 stAttcARt r 7A1tLF�t.,kout Ptrtrts P.O.Box S70 we Insurance Portland.Oregon 97207 DisaMMY��iOA Telephone 299-4749•299-4348 Heads and Aeddent Schod A Student Programs Pension&Psbfd shaft Dental Caverar EItSWPSSStTUATtOl6 G +fT'V L! V (vJ :� JAN 27 1987 Stock Redempdan ESTATE AN""33 a t Y OF (IGMD PLANNING DEU* , January 8, 1987 Tigard City Council City of Tigard 12755 SW Ash Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Tax Lot 1300 Section 15 2sl Map C Dear Council Members: It has been brought to our attention that the city is looking to increase the housing density caused by a zone change in the Tigard area. We would like you to consider increasing the density to forty (40) per acre on the above described property. Thank you ,for giving this matter your attention. "erederick Darcy F. Frederick . i A'Division of Campbell. Galt, & Newlands."tae. AFFnJATSD DOURANM SBAVICI S IN "A)=CPl'ttiS UMTED STATESICANADA f 7dvd S,Wl qa-r-� w . azr f f io Ida- w a 1987 � JAN 27 •, CtNNING 0 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 5.2 K MARCH 3, 1987 - 7:30 P.M. TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION TIGARD CITY HALL - TOWN HALL 13125 SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD, OREGON 97223 A. FACTS 1 . General Information CASE: CPA 87-02 (K) & ZC 87-02 (K) REQUEST: Zone Change from R-2 (Single Family Residential, 2 units per acre) to R-4.5 (Single Family Residential, 4.5 units per acre) . COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low density residential ZONING DESIGNATION: R-2 APPLICANT: City of Tigard OWNER: Elsie Ames LOCATION: Southwest of SW Gaarde and north of Ames Orchard subdivision. (WCTM 2S1 1086 lot 600). 2. Background Information No previous land use applications have been received by the City relating to this parcel. In December 1986 the Tigard City Council gave conditional approval to the Albertson' s Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) for changing the Comprehensive Plan designation of several properties located at the southeast corner of Durham Road and Pacific Highway. This proposal requested rezoning these properties from high density residential to commercial. The result of this decision was the removal of about 400 potential housing units from Tigard's inventory of buildable land. The Metropolitan Housing Rule adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission states that Tigard must provide for 50 percent single family and at least 50 percent single family attached or multiple family units with a minimum of 10 units to the net acre. The Metro Housing Rule applies to only vacant buildable land within Tigard's Urban Planning Area, and does not affect established and developed residential areas. C STAFF REPORT - CPA 87-01 (K) & ZC 87-02 (K) - PAGE 1 The Albertson's CPA was granted on the condition of a rezoning of sufficient residentially zoned land to make up for the shortfall created by this decision. The City Council has identified several sites throughout the City to be considered for increased residential density. These properties are some of those identified in the City' s attempt to maintain compliance with the Metropolitan Housing Rule of 10 residential units to the net acre. 3. Vicinity Information Properties surrounding this parcel are zoned R-1 (Single family residential, 1 unit per acre) on the south, R-4.5 (Single family residential, 4.5 units per acre) to the north and R-6 (Residential, 6 units per acre) on the east and west. The R-6 zone is a Washington County designation as properties on both the east and west side of the subject parcel lie outside the Tigard City limits. Current development in this area is mostly located to the south of this parcel at Ames Orchard, an area of single family residences built on one acre lots. Residential development on smaller lots also occurs to the northeast in unincorporated Washington County. The remaining property around this parcel is undeveloped with filbert orchards being the predominant use. 4. Site Information and Proposal Description This property is completely undeveloped at this time. Vegetative growth includes both filbert trees, grass and weeds. The terrain is generally uneven with a downward slope toward the southeast corner. The only access to this property is at its northeast corner where SW Gaarde make a 900 turn from west to north and becomes SW 121st Avenue. The proposed zone change would result in 27 additional residential units at maximum allowable development. The R-4.5 zone has a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet compared to a 20,000 square foot lot required in the R-2 zone. 5. Agency and NPO Comments The Tigard School District has reviewed the proposal and makes the following comments: The school district knows the City is aware of the problem we are facing reSarding overcrowding in our schools. The Board of Directors has asked us to convey to the City the district's concerns about proposed changes in the comprehensive plan which would increase the density in areas where we are already experiencing considerable enrollment pressures — Templeton Elementary, for example. Making such changes in the Comprehensive Plan can send the signal to the public that needed services are in place when, in fact, school classrooms throughout the district are reaching capacity. School district patrons will have an opportunity to approve additional construction funds in 1988. Until that time and a successful bond election, the district cannot guarantee a quality educational program for increased enrollments without additional classroom space being available. STAFF REPORT - CPA 87-01 (K) b 2C 87-02 (K) - PAGE 2 The Engineering Division has reviewed the proposal and makes the following comments: It is not known if rezoning will change the density of actual future development of the properties. However, to evaluate potential "worst case impacts, we assumed that each area will develop to its maximum density. According to the Community Development Director's memo of December 17, 1986, the rezoning could result in up to 560 additional residential units in the south part of Tigard. Additional residential units can be expected to generate more traffic on nearby streets. We can reasonably estimate that for each additional single family residence, there will be one additional vehicle trip during the evening peak hour. Because the eight proposed rezoning$ are spread over a wide area, it does not appear that the rezoning would have a major impact on any one street. The additional traffic could be accommodated by the street system currently proposed in the City's long—range planninj. Some additional street improvements, such as additional turn lanes at selected locations, might be needed as a result of the additional traffic. It appears that the systems development changes from the additional residential units would be adequate to fund the additional street improvements that might be needed. Additional residential units would create some additional flows in the sewerage system, but it does not appear that any increases in pipe sizes would be necessary. In general, in residential areas, the size of sewer piping is determined by minimum sizing to accommodate maintenance equipment rather than by flow requirements. Higher residential densities would probably result in slightly higher storm runoff volumes. In some areas this may require increases in the size of storm drainage piping. The systems development charges generated by the additional units should be adequate to cover any resulting additional costs to the storm drainage system. Impacts on the major drainageways would be negligible. NPO #3 reviewed the proposal and makes the following comments: By a vote of 4-0 (one abstention) NPO #3 makes the following recommendation to the City Council: "As a general policy the rezoning of designated residential land to commercial uses is highly undesirable. This places great stress on the City's adopted plan. The planned zoning was arrived at with difficulty after much public input. This practice will result in ever increasing densities on the remaining developed residential land. We doubt that Albertson's has established the need for the zone change they request. PAGE 3 STAFF REPORT — CPA 87-01 (K) 6 ZC 87-02 (K) — rF We oppose upzoning "parcel K" from R-2 to R-4.5 as also does the nearby Ames Orchard Homeowners Association which represents 20 homes on acre lots. We also oppose the upzoning of "Parcel L" and "Parcel M" from R-4.5 to R-7. We have long maintained that the higher densities should be located nearer the arterials. If the City Council approves the rezoning of the Albertson properties from high density residential to commercial, it should make its first attempt with LCDC the recognition of credit for properties like the Pacific Highway-Bull Mountain Road site that went from commercial to high density residential (the exact opposite of the present case). It should be remembered that LCDC did not recognize any housing units in the C-P zones (of which the above site was one) and that therefore the Council was forced to change the R-20 zone to R-25. It is inappropriate that adjustments should be made only upward, with no credit or consideration for changes that work in the reverse direction." B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, and 10, and Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 2. 1.1, 6.1. 1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.8.1, 8.1.3, 8.2.2, and Chapter 12, Locational Criteria. The Planning staff concludes that the proposal is consistent with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines based upon the following findings: 1. Goal N1 is met because the City has adopted a Citizens Involvement program including review of all development applications by the Neighborhood Planning Organization (NPO). In addition, all public notice requirements are met. 2. Goal 02 is met because the City applied all applicable Statewide Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan Policies and Development Code requirements to the application. 3. Goal N10 is satisfied because the proposal will provide for housing as contemplated by the City Comprehensive Plan. The Planning staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Plan based upon the findings noted below: 1. Plan 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. C STAFF REPORT - CPA 87-01 (K) 6 ZC 87-02 (K) - PAGE 4 Jill ! 'JillE 2. Plan Policy 6. 1.1 is satisfied because the zone change will still provide for single family residential development but will provide for greater opportunity of housing diversity and lot sizes. The City of Tigard is obligated through the Metropolitan Housing Rule to provide for an equal mix of single family and attached units with an overall development density of 10 units per acre. The City must ensure that sufficient higher density areas are available wo the intent of the housing rule can be met. 3. Plan Policy 7.1.2 is satisfied because adequate service capacities are available in the immediate area. Some utility extensions (eg. sewer) will be necessary to serve the property but this can be accomplished as a condition of developing the site. 4. Plan Policy 7.2.1 will be satisfied as a pre-condition to development to ensure that natural drainage ways be maintained, erosion controls can be implemented and development will not create adverse off-site impacts. 5. Plan Policy 7.8.1 is satisfied because the Tigard School District was informed of this proposal and made comments about overcrowding in public schools and the potential problems increased enrollments could have for the quality of education in the local school system. 6. Plan Policy 8.1.3 will be satisfied as a condition for development of the property. When development occurs it would first require City approval through the Site Development Review process. The necessary right-of-way and street improvements would be required at that time. 7. Plan Policy 8.2.2 cannot be satisfied at this time because Tri-Met does not offer bus service on SW Gaarde. The nearest available service occurs on Pacific Highway. 8. The Locational Criteria in Chapter 12 of the Plan are satisfied for the following reasons: a. The property is within a "Development Area" which is committed to low density development. The existing R-2 and proposed R-4.5 zone are within the low density residential category. E b. The parcel potentially has access onto SW Gaarde. E C. Development limitations may have to be overcome but public facilities have adequate capacity to serve the property. i d. Convenience retail service is available along Pacific C Highway and other commercial and business centers are 1.5 I to 2 miles away. STAFF REPORT - CPA 87-01 (K) 6 ZC 87-02 (K) - PAGE 5 e. Public open space is lacking in this part of Tigard at present. Development proposals should include open space provisions. Also, SW Gaarde is identified as part of the Tigard area pedestrian/bike path system and right-of-way dedication with be required. C. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above findings and conclusions, the Planning staff recommends approval of CPA 87-01(K) and ZC 8702(K). PREPARED BY: Tom Dixon APPROVED BY: W' i �A. Monahan Assistant Planner Director of Community Development (TD:bs0661W/1OW) STAFF REPORT - CPA 87-01 (K) 6 ZC 87-02 (K) - PAGE 6 . . � fi 11111 s: i i i NPO# 3 REGULAR ML.:TTLNG JANUARY 19, 1961 Tigard Civic Center I 1 . Call to order at 7:35 P.M. 2. Roll Call: Present were Bledsoe, Mortensen, Porter, Ramsdell, and Bednarek; staff present was Keith l.iden. f 3 . Minutes of April 7, 1986 were read and appr•t v-4 t otter of June 6. 1906 was read and approved. 4. By a vote of 4-0 (one abstention) N110 11" m,akes the fol lowing f recommendation to the City Council: "As a general policy the rezoning of dvsignated residential land to commercial uses is highly undesirable. This places great stress un the City' s adopted plan. The planned zoning was arrived at with difficulty after much public input. This practice will result in ever increasing densities on the remaining undeveloped residential land. We doubt that Albertson' s has established the need for the zone change they request. We oppose upzoning "parcel K" from R-4 5 to R-2.0 as also does the nearby Ames Orchard Homeowners Association which represents 20 homes I on acre lots. r We also oppose the upzoning of of "Parcel t" and "Parcel M" from R-4.5 to R-7. We have long maintained that the higher densities should be located nearer the arterials . If the City Council approves the rezoning of the Albertson properties from high density residential to commercial, it should make its first attempt with LCDC the recognition of credit for properties like the k Pacific Highway-Bull Mountain Road site that went from commercial to high density residential (the exact opposite of the present case) It should be remembered that LCDC did not recognize any housing units in the C-P zones (of which the above site was one) end tF�.at therefore the Council was forced to change the R-20 zone to R-25. It is inappropriate that adjustments should be made only upward, with no credit or consideration for changes that work in the revrrsr direction." C•_ 4 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON DATE: March 2, 1987 TO: William A. Monahan, Director 6f, Community Development FROM: Diane M. Jelderks, Office Assitant II / SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION FOR CPA 87-01 On March 2, 1987, I received a call from Marge Davenport. She claimed she had '3 ust received notification of the March 3rd public hearing and that she had not received proper notification because the envelope is postmarked February 27, 1987. I asked her under what name had the notification been received, she stated B.A. McPhillips. I checked the affidavit of mailing for the Public Hearing Notice which was mailed on February 20th. The Name BA McPHILLIPS, 15100 SW 109th, TIGARD, OREGON 97224 was included in the list of mailing labels. I then check the mailing list of property owners who were mailed an agenda and a staff report on February 27, 1987. BA McPHILLIPS is also included on this list. It seems apparent that Marge Davenport is confusing the notice of public A, hearing with the agenda, as both the notice of public hearing and the agenda have the same map printed on the reverse side and look similar from the front. It is our contention that proper notification was accomplished. Skft, 3025P/dm j ~� �� 2d 14 A000 A-a� • `D 60 t#otatlo)z OREGON-ALASKA LAND DEVELOPMENT CO. 13050 SW FOREST MEADOWS WAY LAKE OSWEGO. OREGON 97034 503-635-4551 MARCH 3, 1987 A. DONALD MOEN, PRESIDENT TIGAR15 PLANNING COMMISSION TIGARD CITY HALL P.O. BOX 23397 TIGARD, OREGON 97223 RE: REZONE CPA 87r01 (D/E) AND ZC 87rO2 (D/E) AGENDA ITEM 5.2 D/E DEAR MR. MOEN, WE HAVE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE THE 5 ACRE F:►RCEL OF PROPERTY SOUTH OF BOND PARK (WCTM 2S1 12CA LOT 3500) . IT IS OUR INTENTION TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION FOR A SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED SUBDIVISION OF LOT 3500. WE ARE IN FAVOR OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE FROM R;.4.5 TO Rr7 FOR THE PARCELS OF LAND DESIGNATED AS SITES "E" AND "D" ON THE MAP ATTACHED TO THE STAFF REPORT. THANK YOU. YOURS TRULY, GORDON HOBBS, PRESIDENT a � pp M7j'-I� V/J `l 14,d5z 41, 4 Y �$ 17 �� I --ai�i �J r•I� � �`�,<''{�„`�'of Q r, 20 t � �wo 1 cl x,50 Y, oS a_ CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON MEMORANDUM T0: Honorable Mayor and City Council April 6, 1987 FROM: Marcha K. Hunt SUBJECT: COUNCIL MEETING CALENDAR UPDATE Date MegtiLn2 Where Apr. 7 Tues 6:00 Bvtn—Tigard Joint Council Meeting Sayler's Apr. 8 Wed 12:00 Noon Wa. Co. Caucus Salem Apr. 11 Sat — 8:00-4:00 Council Workshop THCR Apr. 13 Mon 6:30 Study Session/8:00 Study Agenda Meeting THCR & THR Apr. 16 Thurs 6:00 Doris Hartig's Retirement Dinner Hi Hat Apr. 20 Mon 6:30 Study Session (w/Roy Rogers) THCR 7:30 Regular Meeting THCR Apr. 21 Tues 7:00 Budget Committee THCR & THR Apr. 27 Mon 6:30 Study Session/7:00 Business Meeting THCR Apr. 28 Tues 7:00 Budget Committee May 2 Sat Tigard Clean—Up Day THCR & THR May 4 Mon 6:30 Study Session/7:00 Business Meeting THCR May 5 Tues 7:00 Budget Committee May 11 Mon 6:30 Study Session/8:00 Study Agenda Meeting THCR THCR & THR May 12 Tues 7:00 Budget Committee May 13 Wed 12:00 Noon Wa Co. Caucus Salem May 18 Mon 6:30 Study Session/7:00 Business Meeting THCR & THR ' May 25 Mon MEMORIAL DAY HOLIDAY June 8 Mon. 6:30 Study Session THR 7:00 Business Meeting THCR June 10 Wed 12:00 Noon Wa. Co. Caucus Salem June 15 Mon 6:30 Study Session/8:00 Study Agenda Meeting THCR & THR June 22 Mon 6:30 Study Session/7:00 Business Meeting THCR & THR June 23 Tues Oregon Mayor's Association Meeting — 26 Fri June 26 Fri — 28 Sun Council Training Workshop Silver Falls July 8 Wed 12:00 Noon Wa. Co. Caucus Salem Aug. 12 Wed 12:00 Noon Wa. Co. Caucus Salem Sep. 9 Wed 12:00 Noon Wa. Co. Caucus Salem Oct. 14 Wed 12:00 Noon Wa. Co. Caucus Salem Nov. 11 Wed 12:00 Noon Wa. Co. Caucus Salem i Dec. 9 Wed 12:00 Noon Wa. Co. Caucus Salem mh/1300p ;5 :4: MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Ir TO: Honorable Mayor and Cit Councilors April 6, 1987 FROM: Loreen Wilson, Recorde SUBJECT: March 31, 1987 Election Results The following results have been confirmed by Washington County Elections as the final results for three of the measures presented to the voters at the 3/31/87 election. YES NO OVERVOTES UNDERVOTES SOUTH METZGER ANNEXATION TO TIGARD 156 83 0 4 RESTORING COUNTY FUEL TAX (4CENTS) 15,581 16,785 29 648 3—YEAR LIBRARY SERIAL LEVY (WCCLS) 16,977 14,708 16 1,342 lw/4595A i I CITY OF TIGARD OREGON � COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: April 13, 1987 DATE SUBMITTED: March 31, 1987 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Southwest PREVIOUS ACTION: Corridor Study PREPARED BY: Randall R. Wooley DEPT HEAD OK! CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: OLICY ISSUE Shall the City support the Conclusions and Recommendations of the Southwest Corridor Study Report? INFORMATION SUMMARY A public hearing has been scheduled by JPACT on the draft Conclusions and Recommendations of the Southwest Corridor Study. A copy of the hearing notice is attached. Also attached is a copy of a memo to the Planning Commission providing more detail. The JPACT public hearing will be April 15th. Any Council action to support or oppose the Conclusions and Recommendations should be formalized prior to the hearing. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Support the Conclusions and Recommendations as drafted. 2. Recommend revision of the Conclusions and Recommendations. 3. Recommend rejection of the Conclusions and Recommendations. 4. Take no action. FISCAL IMPACT Funding will need to be provided by Federal, State, County and City sources over the next 20 years. Some of the local improvements might be privately funded in conjunction with the development of adjoining properties. Identification of specific funding sources was not a part of the planning study. Funding strategies will need to be discussed through the budgeting processes of the various agencies. SUGGESTED ACTION The City Engineer recommends that the City support the Conclusions and Recommendations as drafted. I /br3102P METRO Meetings Notice 20005.W.First Avenue Portland,OR 97201.5398 503221-1646 Week of: April 13 Contact: Vickie Rocker, 221-1646 Metro's Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. Wednesday, April 15, on the draft of the Southwest Corridor Study Conclusions, Recommendations and Evaluation of Alternatives Report. The hearing will be in the Souther Auditorium at St. Vincent Hospital, 9205 SW Barnes Rd. An informal open house will be from 5:30 to 7 p.m. with Metro staff on hand to answer questions. 30 - �w p MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Cr ! March 31, 1987 T0: Members of the Planning Commission `�' �f FROM: Randall R. Wooley, City Enginee f SUBJECT. Southwest Corridor Study The Southwest Corridor Study is a regional review of transportation needs for the next 20 years in the southwest metropolitan area. The study has been a joint effort of the affected cities and counties, Metro, Tri—Met, and the Oregon Department of Transportation. On December 1, 1986, the City Council heard a presentation on the Study's findings, presented by Andy Cotugno of Metro. All Planning Commission members received invitations to that presentation. Since December, the Study's Technical and Policy Advisory Committees have developed Conclusions and Recommendations. In March, Metro's Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation (JPACT) approved the draft of the Southwest Corridor Conclusions and Recommendations and the Southwest Corridor Evaluation Summary. Copies of these documents are attached. On April 15, 1987, JPACT will hold a public hearing on the draft documents. If the Study conclusions and recommendations are approved by JPACT and the Metro Council, it is expected that the Regional Transportation Plan will be amended in accordance with the recommendations. Only two minor changes would be necessary in Tigard's Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map. First_ the proposed routing of the Murray Boulevard extension would need to be amended slightly to agree with the Urban Planning Area Agreement adopted by the City and County last year. Second, the study calls for the eventual extension of Durham Road to connect with 72nd Avenue in some future year after the County gravel pit is abandoned. Major relief to Tigard roadways would be provided by the new Western By—pass roadway from Tualatin to Sherwood to Aloha, combined with improvements to existing roadways throughout the region and improved transit service in radial corridors. On April 13, 1987, we will be asking the City Council to indicate the City's position on the Study's conclusions and recommendations. Formal Planning Commission action is not required; however, if the Commission does have any recommendations, we could convey those recommendations to the Council prior to any Council action on April 13th. I will be recommending to the Council that the City of Tigard endorse and support the Southwest Corridor Study Conclusions and Recommendations as drafted. The recommended plan appears to be the best available long—range solution to growing regional transportation problems. The plan is expected to reduce growth impacts on Highway 99W and Highway 217 by providing new routes for through traffic. The plan is expected to reduce through—traffic impacts in the neighborhoods in the west and south areas of Tigard. Adoption of the regional plan is imperative for a coordinated approach to resolution of the transportation problems in our areas. i /br3102P SOUTHWEST CORRIDOR STUDY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The western portion of the Portland metropolitan area is a major growth area. Together with steady growth in downtown Portland, severe traffic pressures will be placed on virtually all of the transportation system, particularly in the regional travel corridors . Transportation improvement is an essential prerequisite to supporting this growth. Without adequate improvement to the transportation system, unacceptable levels of traffic congestion will develop, access to job and labor force markets will deterio- rate, neighborhood traffic problems will grow and ultimately economic growth will shift, to some degree, to other more attractive locations both within the Portland area and elsewhere. The most cost-effective method of serving this combination of transit service expansion and improvement torowth isrboth the regional freeway and arterial systems and local road network. This report presents a comprehensive transit and highway improvement program for the Southwest Corridor area. Parts of the needed improvement program are recommended as additions to the Regional Transportation Plan; other parts are already reflected in the Plan. Transit expansion is most critical in the I-5 and Sunset corridors to improve accessibility to job centers in downtown Portland and along the Highway 217 corridor . Transit expansion is important for the dual purpose of providing access to certain job locations plus ensuring that the highway system functions adequately so that accessibility to other locations via the automobile can be improved. To meet these transit objectives, service expansion throughout the Westside is necessary, together with the associated capital improvements to support the service expansion, including new transit centers, park-and-ride lots, fleet expansion and considera- tion of construction of the Sunset LRT. Improvement to the regional highway system is needed in two major radial corridors, Sunset and I-5, and in two major circumferential corridors, Highway 217 and the Western Bypass. These improvements entail a package of capacity increases, interchange improvements, operationalimprovements and construction of new facilities to serve existing and projected traffic demands . In addition, improvement to the local road network is needed throughout the area to serve local circulation requirements and subregional provido access to the regional highway network. movements and to The most significant issue associated with improvement to the highway system that was addressed by this study is the question of whether or not a Western Bypass is needed to serve the future development of the adopted local comprehensive plans as well as the effect this decision has on the scope of regional improvement needed to the Sunset Highway, Highway 217 and other routes in the system. However , the vast majority of the proposed highway improvements are not affected by the Bypass decision and should be implemented I ' I regardless of the final conclusion on the Bypass. This includes a Il� large number of improvements to the major state highways and city and county roads for which the scope of improvement is the same under any circumstance. Two areas addressed by this study will be addressed further at a later date: Tualatin Valley Highway from Beaverton to Hillsboro will be addressed by an ODOT reconnaissance engineering study and the Macadam corridor and Willamette River crossing south of downtown Portland will be addressed by Metro's Southeast Corridor Study. The following conclusions about the Western Bypass itself can be reached: 1. The Western Bypass would produce several areas of improved service that would not occur through improvement to other facilities in lieu of the Bypass. In particular: Travel times between the Tualatin-Sherwood area and the Hillsboro-Aloha area would be significantly w better , thereby improving access to job and labor force markets for these areas; Access from the developing Sunset corridor to I-5 (near Tualatin) -- the major highway serving the full length of Oregon -- will foster further economic expansion in this area. Better traffic relief through the South Beaverton and South Tigard neighborhoods would be realized with the Western Bypass as compared to upgrading Highway 217 and the Sunset Highway. Tualatin Valley Highway (between Murray Boulevard and r 219th Avenue) would operate at a better level of i� service with the Bypass than without by allowing traffic to be dispersed west of the most congested segment at 185th Avenue. Further analysis will be conducted by ODOT' s reconnaissance engineering study. 2. If a Western Bypass is built within the next 20 years, some improvement to Highway 217, the Sunset Highway and Highway 99W can be delayed and, with it, the $17.7 million required for these improvements can be deferred. I 3. The cost of the Western Bypass ($150 million total cost R from I-5 to the Sunset Highway) is not an inherent impediment since it can be divided into as many as seven different operable stages which can be implemented over an extended period of time as financing becomes available. With this approach, the project can be divided into increments costing between $6.6 million and $53. 5 million, thereby making it possible to program the project over time. The two primary phases for the Bypass are 1) from I-5 to highway 99W, and 2) from Highway 99W to the - ii - Tualatin Valley Highway. The remaining phases involve addition of interchanges to the facility and improvements to Boones Ferry Road and 219th/216th/Cornelius Pass Road. The first phase (from I-5 to Highway 99W) would provide an operable facility providing a new connection between two state highways and therefore could be developed as an independent project or jointly with the remainder of the Bypass. 4. If sufficient financing is not available, a portion of the Bypass can be delayed (with a deferred cost of $70 million) and, instead, further improvement to Highway 217 and Sunset Highway ($17.7 million) could be implemented. The d alternative of further improving Highway 217 and Sunset Highway would provide an acceptable highway system for the next 15 to 20 years in the event the Bypass cannot be fully implemented within that time. However , beyond 2005, the Bypass is needed to serve the full development of Washington County's Comprehensive Plan. 5. Land use issues regarding consistency of the Bypass with rural land uses need to be resolved before the Bypass can be constructed. These issues are most significant in the 1 Highway 99W to T.V. Highway segment where significantly improved accessibility is provided. However , this segment is not immediately required to correct existing and short-term transportation problems. Furthermore, the d Bypass is intended to serve currently planned regional e travel needs rather than open up new areas for urban development. The Bypass is proposed as a limited access facility to minimize development pressures and does not rely on expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary to nd efficiently utilize the facility. 6. The most appropriate location for the Bypass is from I-5 north of Norwood Road to the Sunset Highway at Cornelius Pass Road. Alternative locations for the southern Y_ terminus at Stafford or Boeckman are not preferred because they are too far out of direction for the majority of users . Alternative locations for the northern terminus at Murray Road, 185th Avenue or west of 219th are not on preferred due to cost, impact and inadequate traffic service. Recommended Actions 1. Amend the Regional Transportation Plan to include the an highway improvements identified on Maps R1 and R2. Map R1 depicts the Western Bypass and highway improvements directly affected by the Bypass. Map R2 depicts the n, remainder of the required highway improvements (a portion of which is already included in the RTP -- the remainder Ic must be added; see pages 11-14 for details) . • r 2. The overall program should be staged over time as financing becomes available with priority placed on those improvements that correct the most immediate problems. Presented in Section VI of this report is a Staging Plan to provide guidance on which improvements are most critical to correct existing and short-term problems and which can be deferred. The plan is simply a guideline and actual funding decisions that are made over time will need to consider up-to-date information on funding availability and the rate at which development creates the need for the improvement. The Staging Plan concentrates on the regional highway system and does not fully present when improvements are needed on the local, collector and minor arterial parts of the highway system. These improvements are more directly required to serve surrounding develop- ment and should be implemented by the local jurisdictions j as those developments occur . i In addition, a Staging Plan is presented for both the "Bypass" and "Highway 217/Sunset Highway" alternatives -- both of which have a common Stage 1. If funding does not become available for the full Bypass, there is the opportunity to shift to the Highway 217/Sunset improvement for an interim period. As such, ODOT should identify areas where right-of-way would be needed for the Highway 217/Sunset Highway alternative and, together with the local jurisdiction, take action to protect the right-of-way from encroachment from development. 3. Elements of this improvement program are eligible for available funding from federal, state and regional sources. However , decisions to fund these improvements will be made in accordance with regional priorities established through JPACT and by the responsible funding agency taking into consideration needs throughout the region. 4. Washington County should begin preliminary engineering (PE) on the Western Bypass with available funds from the Washington County serial levy. 5. Amend the Regional Transportation Plan to add a transit trunk route on I-5 to the Tualatin Transit Station as reflected in Map R3. Reserve right-of-way as part of the proposed Western Bypass to allow for future transitway construction. (The balance of the transit improvements identified on the map are already included in the RTP.) 6. Tri-Met and the affected local jurisdictions should implement the already funded bus transfer stations and park-and-ride lots as expeditiously as possible. Service expansion is subject to funding availability and regional priorities. Construction of the Sunset LRT is subject to further analysis and adoption- of a financial plan. iv - However , in accordance with previously adopted policy, PE on the Sunset LRT can proceed with available funds from UMTA to prepare for a construction decision at a later date. i i 7. Metro and Washington County should execute an interagency d agreement defining the process for ensuring consistency of ed the Bypass with local comprehensive plans and state land ty use policies. Such a process would entail the following he steps: ` a) Consistent with local, regional and state r policies , Washington County should determine: S 1. If and where expansion of the Urban Growth S Boundary is recommended; 2. If and where exceptions to Goals 3 (Agriculture) , 4 (Forest) , 5 (Resource) and 14 (Urbanization) are necessary; and t 3. Where none are necessary. nt b) Washington County and Metro will compile documentation required by local, regional and state policies to support necessary amendments to the Urban Growth Boundary. c) Metro will consider adoption of necessary Urban Growth Boundary amendments and/or Goal 14 exceptions . Any UGB amendments proposed as a result of this process will be distributed to JPACT for review. d) Washington County will compile documentation required by state, regional and local policies to support necessary exceptions to Goals 3, 4 and 5. e) Washington County will consider adoption of necessary exceptions and changes to land use designations . e Conclusion of this process to satisfactorily establish consistency of the proposed Bypass with comprehensive plans is necessary before ODOT can publish the Environ- i mental Impact Statement (EIS) required for the project. Documentation and actions produced through this process ; will provide input to the EIS. e E al to - v - Comprehensive Plan consistency for the Highway 99W to T.V. Highway segment is more significant than for the I-5 to Highway 99W segment . As such, the two segments could be separated and implemented as two separate projects with o the I-5 to Highway 99W segment coming first. Although the a two segments should be designed to be compatible with one another , the I-5 to Highway 99W segment would provide a logical, operable facility by itself in the event the remainder is not- built. H'� 16tFU AC/sm lane 6465C/478-9 xe.SS i i t V i i I L :®O �oN e Vi - i i i, L—. r r i AN CO r Hn boro \ _ 6lanes I 216th/219th alignment A- ~' •.wy-� I (5 lane arterial with access conttol) a ,. 6lanes ,(,;; ,t'' �: .. ''•• psi l i tl Overton 6 lanes • J � I.N. �• — prV• / � + � 'M K i+•- . Jt'� 4 lane limited access A auxi`liar lanes ' O 'l facility(generalized (J : alignment) qke'. 6 lanes Tr ' <<a Ko a.- %Tlgar .: ��• K Kin City l _7 .,r.J•. Durham /I`" .IJ �'O•I�,� — r«.I,II� -`� • r 1 ,� Awerq.ove --/"� l ' 3-4 IaneS Tu tat, lanesJ. She ood , `_ .,,s.-C,o.�__ — _ r 4-5 lanes l ON= New constriction l i % _ Ramp metering — nuutnunnp widening •• TSM improvements f 0 Interchange/intersection ——— r Improvements Urban growth boundary i I Mo Southwest Corridor Study Figure R i Recommended Projects for Western Bypass Alternative (Part 1) it � .. ........._..:.•.:..,.•.».......,. _....._ 6-X,I S ii bolo `<• a -- 10 > y ref ■ F--. \\ �.. .� -�� ter:.:.. i .. C .I o.rs_w- � ..r t,l•A'.. �'/: �h'/�•:__ � S, y.l t I .� /: ..•or. .rw I b •r 1 .ar•r• it ;� I • - � r r fCoon.• a — tr i�,•_ r—)' ( L• itrrnrnplon Mrn t { .1 •rwr,.: \-L'�.. - Igar .,,, urn ��.._ - ='+� -i;•� 4�:•��. ML City/ • ' rr rtir �! •. ..� Durham .JJ n•` Rrvergrove $ Tualatin •r- , } — ��' ✓IL K She ood —i.trtt CO —' � '°� ` •��. '•: i o i4 m New construction Ramp metering � _ - •-' NxRmmn Widening �- ams TSM improvements �% TISI _� S-• InterChangMntersectton Improvements I ,i Urban growth boundary 1rJlL 11 O Southwest Corridor Study Figa yl� Recommended Projects (Part 2) & / Adopted RTP •I-. .i-- - ,. Imo' � fi - ��a I � moi•�t fi�•�j�• I .��1.�1-.�. t ..�\._•/ ' •i1 n` 4k p spy 1 j X16 �� ` •j,/'•��.\E W ~_�:..1 • l�'�''' �i� 1 .. f 1 /Tem/—^.r—.-.1 `I) .Z: �wY 7.�.• �.�r-1:... f �• 1•. .� �v � i'� p _._T'acs�• � �l • '/'•, .,��'.rt.!� Lt ' •.� I Y r �,r •f'•i[, rS•,t�� 1:1 /: � '•._rte./ ! �"' r r I . �� - •f, �� .' ;�, _\� �'�. � �. �•�i=-� a i _-,�,,., � �� Est r col IA ` �•� �.. y�--1 ---•1-�w'rr� t .rte a �^.! \ coo I j� �"•�'_•�---{---'T � � .---i � to cc ,• `�• � JI � 1 p1 � �Q �a�'j t ' '� �� >< ��I syr✓l t—�— I---t � Fi rte,.• ,.o, �, ��'�� .-- �/ 1 , SOUTHWEST CORRIDOR EVALUATION SUMMARY Major transit and highway investments are needed to implement local comprehensive plans, the majority of which are common to all alternatives. The total cost to meet 20-year highway expansion needs on the Westside is $433-$524 million of which more than $300 million is common to all alternatives. The higher cost alternative reflects the $139 million cost of building a western bypass. This package is $91 million higher in cost than the Highway 217/ Sunset Alternative. Transit expansion needed to accompany the highway improvement requires an annual increase in local costs from $81 million per year to $132 million per year. Any of the improvement packages are severely underfunded: Transit: 20 percent Highway: 48-52 percent Significant expansion of resources will be needed over time to implement preferred alternative. Tolls: revenue-generating potential marginal due to diversion to other facilities. Diversion also lessens traffic benefits attributable to Bypass construction. System Performance Each of the alternatives provide a comparable level of traffic service on the highway system by 2005 -- 216th Bypass Alternative being somewhat better overall. Reserve circumferential capacity for growth in local comprehensive plans beyond 2005 will not be available with 217/Sunset Alternative -- further highway construction in Bypass corridor will be necessary. - Reserve capacity for radial travel in any alternative can be best provided through further transit expansion. All alternatives carry more traffic at better overall travel speeds. All alternatives produce a good return on investment in the regional system -- there is a greater increase in utilization of the regional system than addition of lane miles. All alternatives shift traffic off the local system -- the Bypass shifts the most (4 percent versus 11-13 percent) . C � t Travel time improvements for most destinations are similar between alternatives; improvement in the Bypass corridor is significant (30 percent) . There is an improvement of 10-35 percent of work force accessible to employment centers in Tualatin, Wilsonville, Tanasbourne, Aloha and Hillsboro due to Bypass. I ( - There is an improvement of 11-26 percent of jobs accessible to residential areas of Aloha, Wilsonville and Tualatin due to Bypass. i - Transit expansion is as important or more important to accessibility as highway improvement for locations clustered around Highway 217, Barbur Boulevard, Macadam Avenue and downtown Portland. - As traffic shifts from the local system to the regional system, ! I neighborhood infiltration decreases. Largest benefit -- Ii" regardless of alternative -- is to west Tigard, Stephenson Road and Corbett-Terwilliger areas. i' Additional significant benefit with the Bypass is realized in Ili the south Tigard and south Beaverton neighborhood areas. Impacts - A reconnaissance level impact evaluation was performed to identify those areas of potential impact associated with the project improvements called for in the alternatives. Specific i, . impacts cannot be accurately defined without the detailed preliminary engineering work that would proceed actual construction. In any case, project design would seek to avoid, minimize or mitigate as practical any adverse impacts. �I - Significant differences exist among the alternatives relative to potential residential and commercial acquisition impacts in the "western bypass" corridor. The largest number of potential impacts in this area is associated with the 185th Bypass Alternative (up to 193 residences and 14 businesses) , followed by the 216th Bypass Alternative (up to 105 residences and 26 businesses) . The 217/Sunset Alternative would likely impact up to 20 residences and 13 businesses in the corridor as a result I ` of the limited scope of improvements associated with that alternative. Another major difference in possible impacts among the alternatives is the amount of land outside the UGB likely to be � ) impacted in the western circumferential corridor, although all Iltof the alternatives contain improvements outside the UGB. In the Sunset Highway corridor , more impact could be expected with the 217/Sunset Alternative due to the improvement to 185th rather than 158th. f� I In the Highway 217 corridor, the majority of improvements associated with all three alternatives can be accomplished within existing right-of-way, minimizing differences in impacts. In any case, traffic disruption impacts are likely to be severe (more so with the 217/Sunset Alternative) , and careful staging would be required. Sta in to _ Staging of improvements, regardless of alternative, will be needed in light of limited resources. Major existing and short-range travel patterns should be addressed first and logical additional increments defined. j - The first stage should include construction of a new I-5 to Highway 99W connector as well as some degree of improvement in all the major travel corridors (I-5, Sunset Highway, Highway 217) . :em, - The second stage should include either construction of a bypass toad between Highway 99W and T.V. Highway or further upgrading of Highway 217 and Sunset Highway west of 158th. Ln - In the short term, transit centers and park-and-ride facilities designed to accommodate future service expansion should be implemented. Transit service should be expanded incrementally as development occurs, and ultimately the Sunset LRT should be constructed. AC/sm -:ic 6216C/466-3 a Ad, �e , in Aal red up ilt . 1,p 11 y :d _'5t CITY OF TIGARD OREGON g, COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY (CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD) AGENDA OF: April 13 1987 DATE SUBMITTED: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Authorize PREVIOUS ACTION: Public Hearing on LID additional consultant work Qn 135th Ave. LID PREPARED BY: Randall R. Woole DEPT HEAD OK! CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: "'— POLICY ISSUE Contract Review Board authorization of additional preliminary engineering work on the 135th LID project. INFORMATION SUMMARY On March 23rd the Council directed that some additional preliminary engineering work be done on the 135th LID. The attached memos described the additional work proposed. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED I. Authorize the additional work as requested. 2. Authorize additional work with amended limits. 3. Withhold authorization. FISCAL IMPACT f i ! The request is for authorization not to exceed $7,500. SUGGESTED ACTION Authorize additional work per the attached memo. CRRW:cn/1112W v I c MEMORANDUM TO: Contract Review Board April 13, 1987 FROM: Randall R. Wooley, City Engineerpi/� SUBJECT: 135th Avenue LID Engineering Services In my memorandum of April 2, 1987, 1 requested authorization for additional engineering services not to exceed $7,500. After more detailed review of the tasks required, I am amending my request to a figure not to exceed $10,000. In order to provide accurate cost estimates of the various alternatives prior to May 11th, a considerable amount of work must be done in a relatively short time period. /br MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Contract Review Board April 2, 1987 FROM: Randall R. Wooley SUBJECT: 135th Avenue LID The Council has directed staff to explore some alternative plans for the 135th Avenue LID in preparation for a workshop meeting in May. To provide the information desired, we need to have the engineering consultant do some additional work to provide cost estimates and to determine impacts on estimated assessments. The additional work is expected to take the total of preliminary engineering fees beyond the $15,000 limit where advance approval is required from the Contract Review Board. The exact scope of the additional work is not known. It will depend, in part, on Council direction following the May workshop session. Also, Council encouraged property owners to suggest alternatives prior to the May workshop; it may be necessary to explore new alternatives suggested. Therefore I propose to authorize additional consultant work on a• time and materials basis based on the standard rates shown on the attached labeled Exhibit C. I am requesting the Contract Review Board to authorize the City Engineer to direct Robert E. Meyer Consultants, Inc. to provide additional engineering services on a time and materials basis not to exceed $7,500. The $7,500 figure is set high enough to provide for any additional work that may be required after the May workshop (such as a revised assessment roll for the June hearing). I expect the total cost to be well below this figure. RRW:cn/1112W Attach. i 1 C f 1 E EXHIBIT C cc ROBERT E. MEYER CONSULTANTS, INC. January, 1987 Standard Hourly Rates For Services PRINCIPAL $ 75.00 PRINCIPAL ENGINEER $ 55.00 DESIGN ENGINEER $ 48-50 ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN $ 35-40 SURVEYOR $ 45.00 ARCHITECT $ 45.00 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT $ 36-40 DRAFTSPERSON $ 34-36 i SURVEY FIELD CREW (2-MAN) $ 54-60 SURVEY FIELD CREW (3-MAN) $ 78-85 i ! RESIDENT PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE $ 33-36 WORD PROCESSOR $ 22.00 CLERICAL $ 20.00 i +► AS APPROVED BY THE CLIENT AND WHEN THE PROJECT REQUIRES WORK OUTSIDE THE NORMAL 8 HOUR DAY, 40 HOUR WEEK, SATURDAY, SUNDAY, OR LEGAL HOLIDAY BILLING WILL BE 1.50 TIMES THE AMOUNT SHOWN. TECHNICAL EQUIPMENT WORD PROCESSOR $ 10.00 COMPUTER $ 35.00 i EDM - ELECTONIC DISTANCE MEASURING $ N/C TOTAL STATION - INCLUDES CAD $ TO NEGOTIATE PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANTS i AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY 1.05 X ACTUAL COST GEOTECHNICAL / SOILS LABORATORY TESTING 1.05 X ACTUAL COST ; i r i C � i Page 1 EXHIBIT C r rc ROBERT E. MEYER CONSULTANTS,INC. January, 1987 OTHER COSTS -SUPPLIES, REPRODUCTION, MILEAGE, COPIES do MISCELLANEOUS POLYESTER FILM (MYLAR DRAFTING MATERIAL) $ .60 PER SQ FT SEPIA PER SQ FT $ 1.60 PER SQ FT BLUELINE PRINTS: 22 X 34 PER SHEET $ 1.00 30 X 42 PER SHEET $ 1.25. XEROX COPIES PER SHEET . $ .08 MILEAGE CAR -PER MILE $ .30 SURVEY TRUCK - PER MILE $ .40 SURVEY MATERIALS STANDARD STAKES - PER STAKE $ .25 IRON RODS - PER ROD $ 2.00 OUTSIDE REPRODUCTION 1.05 X ACTUAL COST PHONE CHARGES 1.00 X ACTUAL COST POSTAGE do SPECIAL HANDLING 1.00 X ACTUAL COST FILE RECORD SURVEY 1.00 X ACTUAL COST Page 2 i MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON k TO: Mayor and Council April 2, 1987 FROM: Randall R. Wooley�� SUBJECT: 135th Avenue LID To date, we have received no additional suggestions for LID alternatives since the March 23rd meeting. Based on the March 23rd discussion, we are exploring the following options in preparation for the May 11th workshop meeting: 1. Alternative project limits and LID boundaries, deleting Murray Boulevard west of 135th Avenue. 2. Deletion of sidewalks on one or both sides. 3. Deletion of street lighting. 4. Deletion of undergrounding of utilities. 5. Reduction in the width of the proposed street. 6. Construction of an interim rural—standard street with ditches, no curbs, no sidewalks. 7. Alternatives to a bridge for the crossing of Summer Creek. 8. Costs of acquiring right of way. In addition, staff is tallying the SDC fees paid to date by properties within the LID. And the Attorney's office is researching legal questions relating to the proposed assessment method. Also, we will be checking on the calculation of assessments for some large R-4.5 parcels in response to a questions raised outside the hearing. If there are other alternatives which you wish for us to review, please let me know as soon as possible. RRW:cn/1112W f CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON � , S COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: April 13, 1987 DATE SUBMITTED: March 24 1987 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Training Request PREVIOUS ACTION: None APWA Street Maintenance and Wastewater Collection S stems PREPARED BY: William A. Monahan DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: POLICY ISSUE Should crew chiefs for the Street Crew and Wastewater Crews attend APWA Street Maintenance and Wastewater Collection Systems Short School? INFORMATION SUMMARY APWA will conduct a short school on Street Maintenance and Wastewater Collection Systems in Bend, Oregon on April 20-22. The Operations Crew Chiefs in these areas both wish to attend. The sessions run concurrently, each with a special area of emphasis. Neither crew chief has been able to attend prior training of this type. �i ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Approve training for two employees at a cost of $421 .78 split between the Wastewater and Streets budgets. 2. Deny the request. FISCAL IMPACT The total cost of $421.78 from funds budgeted in the Operating 1986-87 budget for training and travel. SUGGESTED ACTION The staff recommends approval of this training request for Steve Rivr..tt and John Roy. \ /br3091P COZY 0FT01A[W EDUCATION/TRAINING REQUEST YM This form is to be used for conferences, seminars, college classes and other forms of either training or education. Documentation is required, a copy is to be attached to this form. Attachments for mailing may also be attached. A follow up report is req ired. A copy will be placed in your persot}pel fif e. DATE OF REQUEST: Requested by: _S7^-,P– Vendor ^,,P– Vendor No. • �— PAYABLE T0: The Conference Company [)C) Employee request attend P-0- Box 185 ( ) Employer required attend —_Halsey. OR 97348 For check run of [ x) Mail check [ X ) Notify dept. when ready Vendor No. : Vendor No. : PAYABLE TO: Steve Rivett PAYABLE TO: acaazaaaaxe.c..aaxaaaaaa=c..aaaaoocv=�====aaa=a�aax==x.axxxacxvxaaxoxxaaacsasca Title of Program: S1',+�fi 1ndi.�te�nNaa 4. Lt]ast�,aac,r (e1).rt..r. SPo... 5A.r-t Institution or organization Registration Deadline Apr;l 17 Training Dates From: 2 To: Describe the purpose: Srt—ma� SasS/o'44 eta... 0ton eree. #n&(,n�f4n t.,e., R4,i., �1lIe1`^�7tI� �li� �Or � '` :M�.� C ,�' ^`/ (`f)��u+• r./ ik igpr,CS �5in`�• ! ►4ih ►•� helwrt71 (� �s ; -etci64A'.71�)Arsa►c.►4�n+ 4,-• (io D"JI-4 rl Is this related to [x) current position [ ) reasonable" promotion Aor transter'.'`, Explain: tST .ZDC•far% Q(Jt/t$ Ih VO�MC. 4�� pµ� Imo/ Nn.►� /ithe4.S ytr mMh�na�•tce (�roarsH•s. TRAINING COSTS: [)Q) to be advanced [ ) to be reimbursed after attendance , Account No. Anwunt Account or tuition.... .... .... ...... .... ... – S Books.. Travel (mileage,•bus,•train,•airplane, •etc.).. Lodging.. Per Diem.... ........ .... . .. .... .............. •�S – 162YY S. OD Other: Total aaaazzasaza=x=c.voaexmxxa=.a=xcxvazaaxzzzazazzaazzzzaxax x zzzzzacac azaaza....... 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 expendit a made y b lf. Employee Signature: ,�,� _ Date v Appropriation balance Manager:_ _[x) approved ( ( disappeovr.i Dept. bead: [>Q approved [ ) disapproved (explain): Finance Director: £ZZLS 80 abVSIl L SS(Z XOH Oo MIV011 30 1110 33IHO M3b3 n31VM31SVM AL)b NHOf i9 oN uwb3e '-AZIO 1 bd OI EL6 uo�ai0 '�aTBS A nm s n SN 'IS 'MaxaLuagO VL 1 I iajuaD iojstmjL APoiougaal, uo4aIo i GaPUIQ T)SIB OP@G�O(t� 1�@C�(t�CtD0009�f vg.@ @9(DP PP@,t@na April 20, 219 229 1987 Bend, Oregon APWA/OWCPS SHORT SCHOOL Send, Oregon 1987 his year's short school has been designed by the members of APWA& OWCPS to meet the ,eeds of individuals working in their respective fields. If you are a newcomer or have long time experience, the four concurrent sessions offered in this short school will give you the opportunity to design your own curriculum to best meet your needs. Join your colleagues in this experience of sharing information and gaining new ideas that will help you save time and money. Come early and see the product displays. When: April 20,21, 22, 1987 Cost: $65.00 per person Registration 9:30 am-Noon (includes 3 days lunches & Product Displays Tues. night banquet) April 20th, 9:3u am - 5:30 pm Banquet Tues. Night $12 j Where: The Riverhouse Guest: Deadline for registration 3075 N. Hwy 97 April 17, call 369-2797 Bend, OR 97701 The Riverhouse-Lodging Information - 14MO-452-6878 - Identify yourself with "Short School" 4 Spacious rooms ** 1 queen- I person$32 ** 1 queen-2 people$36 ** 2 queens- 2 people $41 2 queens-4 people$50 ** ask about King Size Bed,Water Bed,Fire Place Rooms, all at terrific ratcs Suites-Family Units ***Executive Suites *** Jacuzzi Suites *** Special Conference Rates *** Recreation - Heated Outdoor Pool,Spa, Indoor Swim Spa, Saunas, Nautilus Exercise Rodin, 1 Jogging Trails, Nearby Shopping Mall Wear your favorite duds (blue jeans & western shirts) to the Tuesday Night Banquet I WESTERN is the theme with country music and old-fashioned conversation. Cold beverage @ 6:30 p.m., Steak Fry @ 7:00 p.m., Entertainment @ 8:3Q p.m. YYI�I►lLYll. Send registration to: THE CONFERENCE COMPANY I Make checks payable to: Post Office Box 185 Phone (503) 369-2797 Halsey, Oregon 97348 I wish to register for the APWA/OWCPS SHORT SCHOOL,to be held at The Riverhouse, Bend OR. I April 20, 21, 22, 1987 E r Name Steve Rivett Employer City of Tigard Phone 639-4171 Employer Address p.o. Box 23397 C;,1y Tiaard State OR Zip 97223 C.,Mount Enclosed BiIVPO# E Guest Banquet Registration ($12) Enclose or call %9-2797 on or before April 17 CLASS DESCRIPTIONS STREET MAINTENANCE SESSION • Hazardous Materials - Mike Cherniak, Environmental • Concrete Maintenance & Repair - Dave Weddle& Sam Training Consultants-Gives complete details on methods, Kidd,City of Salem-Comprehensive information on meth- equipment and procedures used to contain hazardous material ods,equipment,and terminology use in constructing and repair- spills. Explains the necessity for developing a hazardous ing concrete facilities. Outlines of procedures used from start materials spill containment program. to finish including preparation,saw cutting,excavation,form setting,pouring,fmishing,clean-up and area renovation. COLLECTION SYSTEMS SESSION • Pavement Rating Systems - Chec Consulting - *Micro Camera - Craig Johns & Boyd Campbell ,City of Describes rating systems used for maintaining roads and Springfield-A class for those of you with a limited budget. streets. Details the assignment of values to types of pavement The micro TV systems available now provide a number of distress,taking into account the extent and seriousness of the capabilities to meet your needs. Through a classroom demon- defects. stration and a hands-on experience you will be able judge for yourself. * Crack Sealing - Chec Consulting -Practical information on materials,equipment,methods and * Chemical Root Control - Jeff Ballard, General Chemical the reasons for sealing pavement cracks. How to avoid cutting roots. Instead cut your costs. An intro- duction to the latest root control systems. i * Geotextile Fabrics - Phillips Petroleum - Outlines the many different types of construction and paving fabrics and • Pipeline Locating - Jeff Ballard, General Chemical - their individual uses. Exposure to the latest technology in locating equipment. • Asphalt Maintenance & Repair - George Dicks, * Employees With Impact - Gary Pickering, City of City of Springfield-Provides practical information on meth- Springfield-A brief freewheeling discussion of personal and ods,equipment and terminology applying to the use of asphalt professional excellence and how to attain it. in maintenance of all types of pavement structures. ° Pipeline Cleaning - Brad Lowe, General Equipment • - * Placing Asphalt -George Dicks,City of Springfield- Pipe cleaning with a velocity cleaner and combination machine. Provides practical information on methods,equipment and the steps necessary for quality paving and small section overlays. • Smoke and Dye Testing - Rob Hungerford & Russ Rot- rock,Clackamas County Utilities-Fundamentals of smoke • Rolling Asphalt - George Dicks, City of Springfield - and dye testing to check for i&I and cross connections. Provides practical information on compacting asphalt pave- ment surfaces. Comprehensive,it illustrates how good practic- *Confined Space Safety - Phil Lane,City of Salem - es must consider mix temperature,rolling pattern,number of Confined space safety and hydrogen sulfide hazards to the passes,rolling speed,roller types and joint rolling techniques. collection system worker and to the system. • Street Cleaning - Dave Ritter,City of Eugene- * Collection Systems Basic Course - Kerry Heath, City Provides a full range of information on street sweeping and of Lebanon & Mike Faught,City of Albany-This course i% street flushing. designed for the worker starting out in the collection systems field. A'must'course for the beginner. This is an all-day • Pavement Markings -Jerry Dillard,City of Salem - course and the topics include: Explains importarce of a good lane line marking program. *Wastewater now Gives information on types of material and equipment availa- *The collection system work and wastewater tre tnimt ble for installing and removing pavement markings. *Manhole safety and inspection •Cleaning • Dealing With Criticism - Craig Johns & Boyd Camp- *Testing-repair and hookups bell,City of Springfield-Giving and receiving criticism is dif- Cicult for most of us. This class will provide you with some • Basic Math -John Stoner,Oregon Water R Wastew�uer key ideas on how to deal with criticism both in and outside the Treatment Certification Program-Basic math skills aril work place, calculations for collection system workers. This comae assists in preparation for certification. 8 St • x �aa �•� a � � O O qN O O � -• C � � � � V � Sv eao vary 0 o - a u V 0Q ba O � a H -Nr e �(QJ �y.�{ �• •, v� yyah 8 E .a s ei O € 3 ►� Cl) d o a a 3 o V 3co Ao d 3 a CL a o a a � Z Y y V g H CW) V ' eo r !4 9as e►� OO Q' h iG u U ,� h a C C g S $ v ``�' 8 h r $ 8 h 8 8 8 .. c�3 ci v a. >+ $ $ d o d $ o c d d C o o r. ,n .. T CITY O' TIGA W 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 erso nel file. DATE OF REQUEST: 3�� $ 7 Reques ted by: .J a kAf e. ` Vendor No. PAYABLE T0: The Conference Company [ �] Employee request attend ( ] Employer required attend P.O. Box 185 Halsey, OR 97348 For check run of ( VI Mail check [ XI Notify dept. when ready Vendor No. : Vendor IVo. : PAYABLE T0: ohn Roy PAYABLE TO: a.a��aaoa��maa�cc�-e�eea.c_a=aa e..ac. =aaa=o..ocnoca==cseao==��=cco==c.......= / Title of Program: J� suradLiiI2p I Institution or organization Ad A- IpMe.AlL I Registration Deadline 7 T aining Dates From: ti/ To: Describe the purpose: C#/ •W sysAW le4vjfvos Aot4 i-, d grg (vk, 7) CPAuIsfi'��GreTa��ja-Co ( �� nt/Polsfijc ( J reasonable promo 'on.or transte Y I� r Exp 1 in: 'i� A - f��leweb 66 ANA—ASAL.&� 160 lr4o 46 �jp��91�i1 m � ��I/� - • �� •,�i�s iri>G�• TRAINItJG COSTS: to be advanced [ ] to be reimbursed after attendance Account No. Amount Registration or tuition......... ............. .. . . Books....... ... ....... .. ......... .... . . ........ Travel (mileage, bus, train, airplane, etc.)... . �- •� 3" S.7Q Lodging..... ............. . ....... ............. Per Diem........... . ... .. .............. .... ... yf:d0 Other: Total S ato, Authorizations: I(employee), understand and agree that if all condition:: of education/training policies are not met, I may be required to reimburse the City for any expenditures pyde on y ehalf. Employee Signature: Date 3 Appropriation balance:;approved /I Manager:( X] approved disapprovett Dept. (lead: ;i�, � ( ( ] disapproved (explain) : 1100 - Finan.r Director: =1 £ZZLS b0 02iV911 ASD MS SSLZ1 Obv`J1 i :30 Al 1 3 1N30N31N1b3dns 3NOI1V83dO Nj1b'1N 3d 3WJ213(' S9 ON Llv4d3d 'dao 01£L6 u011030 'luajuS C3 1 dd ZN IS LgaxaLuauO VL t t 31 �s9 sy dpi ia�ua0 ia;suekL aojouuoas, U011010 ijvs pPV#,p April 205 219 229 1987 Bench, Oreg®n APWA/OWCPS SHORT SCHOOL Send, Oregon 1997 This year's short school has been designed by the members of APWA & OWCPS to meet the a needs of individuals working in their respective fields. If you are a newcomer or have long time experience, the four concurrent sessions offered in this short school will give you the opportunity to design your own curriculum to best meet your needs. Join your colleagues in this experience of sharing information and gaining new ideas that will help you save time and money. Corrie early and see the product displays. When: April 20, 21, 22, 1987 Cost: $ 65.00 per person Registration 9:30 am-Noon (includes 3 days lunches & Product Displays Tues. night banquet) April 20th, 9:30 am - 5:30 pm Guest: Banquet Tues. Night $12 Where: The Riverhouse Deadline for registration 3075 N. Hwy 97 April 17, call 369-2797 Bend, OR 97701 The Riverhouse-Lodging Information - 1-800-452-6878 - Identify yourself with 'Short School" Spacious rooms ** 1 queen- 1 person$32 ** 1 queen- 2 people$36 ** 2 queens- 2 people $41 2 queens-4 people$50 ** ask about King Size Bed,Water Bed, Fut Place Rooms, all at terrific rates Suites-Family Units *** Executive Suites *** Jacuzzi Suites *** Special Conference Rates Recreation - Heated Outdoor Pool, Spa, Indoor Swim Spa, Saunas, Nautilus Exercise Rmim. Jogging Trails, Nearby Shopping Mall Wear your favorite duds (blue jeans & western shirts) to the Tuesday Night Banquet WESTERN is the theme with country music and old-fashioned conversation. Cold beverage @ 6:30 p.m., Steak Fry @ 7:00 p.m., Entertainment @ 8:30 p.m. 1LY'1y1t11� - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Send registration to: THE CONFERENCE COMPANY Make checks payable to: Post Office Box 185 Phone (503) 369-2797 Halsey, Oregon 97348 I wish to register for the APWA/OWCPS SHORT SCHOOL, to be held at The Riverhouso, Bend OV-11, April 20, 21, 22, 1987 Name John Rov Employer city of Tigard Phone 639-4171 Employer Address P.O. Box 23397 City Tigard State OR Zip 97223 Amount Enclosed BiIVPO# Guest Banquet Registration ($12) Enclose or call 369-2797 on or before April 17 4 GY M' CLASS DESCRIPTIONS STREET MAINTENANCE SESSION * * Hazardous Materials - Mike Chemiak, Environnmenuml Concrete Maintenance & Repair -pave Weddle & Sam . Training Consultants-Gives complete details on Kidd,City of Salem-Comprehensive information on meth- methods. � ods,equipment and terminology use in constructing and repair- equipment and procedures used to contain hnrActkmue nmatcri:►I 1 ing concrete facilities. Outlines of procedures used from spills. Explains the necessity for developing a ha7nnlous to finish rncludin m start materials spill containment ro g preparationsaw cutting,excavation,form p �m r. setting,pouring,finishing,clean-up and area renovation. COLLECTION SYSTEMS SESSION * Pavement Rating Systems - Chec Consulting - * 1 Describes rating systems used for maintaining roads and Micro Camera - Craig Johns & Boyd Campbell , City of 4 streets. Details the assignment of values tot Springfield-A class for those of you with it limited budget. a distress,taking into account the extent and serious ness of the The micro TV systems available now l�rt�vidc:t ttunthcr ut' defects, capabilities to meet your needs. Through a chuzsnx)m demur stration and a hands-on experience you will be able judge feu * Crack Seating - Chec Consulting-Practical Yourself. r information on materials,equipment,methods and the reasons for sealing pavement packs * Chemical Root Control - Jeff Ballard. General Chcmiral How to avoid cutting roots. Instead cut your costs. An intro * Geotextile Fabrics - Phillips Petroleum - Outlines the duction to the latest root control systems. many different types of construction and paving fabrics and • ` their individual uses, Pipeline Locating - Jeff Ballard, General Chemical - Exposure to the latest technology in locating equipment. { F ' Asphalt Maintenance & Repair - George Dicks, * City of Springfield-Provides practical information on meth- Employees With Impact - Gary Pirkcriug, City. of ods,equipment and terminology applying to the use of asphalt Springfield-e brief freewheeling data it. of per anal;tnd s in maintenance of all types of pavement structures• professional excellence and how to attain it. 1 k * Placing Asphalt - George Dicks,City of Springfield - * Pipeline Cleaning - Brad Lowe, General Equipment Provides practical information on methods,equipment and the Pipe cleaning with a velocity cleaner and conibinstitvi ni:h•hin; t steps necessary for quality paving and small section overlays. Smoke and Dye Testing - Rob Hungerford & Ruwc hut. ' Rolling Asphalt _ George Dicks, City of Springfield - rock,Clackamas County Utilities-Fund;tnmcntals of smoke Provides practical information on coinand dye testing to check for I&1 and crosc r�umnectiuns, patting asphalt pave- ment surfaces. Comprehensive,it illustrates how good practic- es must consider mix temperature,rolling pattern,number of Confined Space Safety - Phil Lane Passes.rolling speed,roller types and joint rolling techniques. Confined space safety and hydrogen sulfide h:ir:tril.h,the ` collection system worker and to the system. * Street Cleaning - Dave Ritter,City of Eugene Provides a full range of information on street sweeping and Collection Systems Basic Course - Kerry Hoath, Pity street flushing, of Lebanon&Mike Faught,City of Albany-'this txvum i. designed for the worker starting out in the collrrtKum systems * Pavement Markin field. A'must'course for the beginner. This is tum all-day Explains importance -Jery Dillard,City of Salem - course and the topics include: ' P portance of a good lane line marking program. • °p Gives information on types of material and equipment _ Wastewater flow ## t ble for installing and removing pavement markings. avar(a *The collection system work and wastew,tcr treatmcr►t Manhole safety and inspection Dealing With Criticism - Craig Johns & Boyd Camp- *Cleaning bell,City of Springfield Giving and receiving criticism u dif- *Testing-repair and hookups £;cult for most of us. This class will provide you with some Basic Math -John Stoner.Oregon Water& Wasfowatar key ideas on how to deal with criticism both in and outside the %'k pie. Treatment Certification Program-Basic math skills mu%l calculations for collection system workers. This%xxiiv. assists in preparation for certification. C e Qv� F � UOQarU < � 8 o 0 a e » x � » � � � u q p u q •i O � � s tj o � € C6 C OG • pT CGOO' � •.!r�.d � C 93 06 be be 00 o. CO h A CL 04 1100 M •{��i � u G a+ � � � $ opo C N A 8 0 0 -:1 g $ c o S 8 8 $ s S 8 C` �f V1 O ~ C-6 1 .� v cn M r 4 PWA -owcps s1 - s��oo I cess GiQ,5 021t �r i x 3V = 71 . `yo PAM- d►Uvr, �� ) 3 os` X 3 days = (70 . 00 Rat.., I- roX '-f 3 y� X 3 d`y s slt a+t- s aL 1 clQ c s (-L ( 3 0 30t6y S. _ "1Q . 0 0 9 /2 5 asp dc..7f,ov. r- rrni»c,_1 a�3 G o2 `l Fr (I- mown r.ie.Qc�s f a CITY OF TIGARD OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY f AGENDA OF: April 13, 1987 DATE SUBMITTED: 4-1-87 l ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: TraininG Rectuest PREVIOUS ACTION: forBasic Cr' Prevention School PREPARED BY: Lt. Robert Wheeler DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: Lti& . Robert Wheeler POLICY ISSUE INFORMATION SUMMARY The Texas Crime Prevention Institute is holding an 80-hour course on Basic Crime Prevention May 4 through May 15, 1987 at S.W. Texas State Unviersity. Given Debra Watros' current assignment to the position of crime prevention specialist, it will be necessary for her to have a good working knowledge of crime prevention concepts and techniques with an emphasis- on practical application, as well as the varied approaches to implementing Neighborhood Watch programs. This course will also give her insight into violent person type crime prevention; i.e. rape. Information learned by Ms. Watros will be of great value to the ccmnunity crime prevention, and community neighborhood watch programs, as well as passed onto the other members of the Tigard Police Department. There are sufficient funds in the budget to cover this training. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Approve the request. 2. Deny the request. FISCAL IMPACT 1. $1,507.00 2. 0 SUGGESTED ACTION C. Motion to approve the request. (Alternative #1) CITY Of 1I1FAW 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 yo r pRjjle. DATE OF REQUEST: '�/-/- g 7 Requested by: 1, �{ .(��rsonn 1 f��iCC( ►e Vendor No. : PAYABLE TO: THE %& (At Ce,6,.c Zia- • ( ) Employee request attend SOU-4"e-ST- T KAS 7A-P4t 1AN p AJ;4-,1 (x('74. Employer required attend 5�A/ 4Aoeeas,._7"e5cl4S -76A(pe�-_414 For check run of S/a Y5- 36.3 f 9r `/9S. ( ] Mail check [ ] Notify dept. when ready Vendor No. : o Vendor No. : PAYABLE TO: A oS 0/012-PAYABLE TO: 771r-ARA .ee. j2Za7" a 3mss3smmsaasamamzzzs=3zz=aa=�aaa3aoovea3=3==z.czc.....z3amazsas:sasmmssms.sss. Title of Program: eR 1 mc, Pge.V -wdio-✓ Institution or organization %,EIA_S CRt'vr,¢, f 9qeve-A,-4.',aA1 Registration Deadline /QS'�gT Training Dates From:S-Jhe7 To: 5-1.'-8 Describe theA purpose' :^ CseC /T IAC�1G C• / Al At 04.a Ce-th iA-r�-/ Is this related to (XI>f current position [ ) reasonable promotion or transfer? Explain: L-)eb/tA 4" j0ocri/1a, 1 OA: C'Rr*n.,t, `J Retr..ti-4'• -' SPIC�aL iS-�-r Lv�a�+b S ack /Zegv rit t A WoRNP•a1 //••/.a� /<<�� CRlma. PpRCt c-S.i tffi%/s NO $tc t�t•z� 1ppi.IeA-ua� AS tti►eII As n/ r /�(,.,.cl,�..J ..i��:l� TRAINING COSTS: �to be advanced [ ) to be reimbursed after attenga ce Account No. Amount Registration or tuition.... .. ..... ..... .. .. .... . /a-///O;1,15;e0 1 V'9 Books...................... .. . .......... . .. . . ... Travel (mileage, bus train, airplane, etc. )... . /U - ///0 : /_ fy;oe �' IN, Lodging(AAN� .Q°/7.�37.yX .. . .... ....... . . ... .. /D-//Io : letc/:00 o � Per Diem... ................ .. ............ .. .. .. . /o -///o ' 6Z !'OO Other: v Total $ 1 5 0 7, 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: Date_ 67 Appropriatio ce: Manager: ( approved ( ) disapproved Dept. Head: [ )�ed ( ) di ppr ved (explain) : D Finance Director: l 7 T _ C TECAS CRD(E PREVENTION INSTITUTE _ 1 1986-87 COURSE SCHEDULE c �s ■ 0 HOURS/COURSE TITLE DATE LOCATION 16-hr Basic Crime Stoppers Dec 9-10 New Braunfels 8-hr Specialized Crime Stoppers Dec 11 New Braunfels I 8-hr Latch Key/Self Care Jan 15 San Antonio 20-hr Public Speaking Jan 19-21 Houston 16-hr Sexual Assault Theory Jan 21-23 Houston and Prevention 80-hr Basic Crime Prevention Feb 2-13 New Braunfels** 40-hr Basic Crime Prevention Feb 23-27 Harlingen 16-hr Crime Stoppers Intelligence Mar 4-6 , E1 Paso Exchange 40-hr Basic Crime Prevention Mar 30-Apr 3 Austin 16-hr Advanced Locks and Safes Apr 6-7 Addison 20-hr Crime Stoppers Fund Raising Apr 8-10 Dallas and Publicity 8-hr Latch Key/Self Care Apr 21 Corpus Christi ' 16-hr Neighborhood Watch Apr 22-23 Corpus Christi �41 3-I(o Advanced and Specialized courses to be conducted after June 1, 1987, will be announced in the spring of 1987. 40-hr Basic Crime Prevention Jul 27-31 Richmond 16-hr Crime Stoppers and the Law Aug 26-27 Midland 80 hr Basic Crime Prevention Sept 14-25 New Braunfels** 40-hr Basic Crime Prevention Oct 12-16 Amarillo TCP I-CS1 186 din CRM Pi BVRXTION ® COURSES .y Basic Crime Prevention Designed for those that work full-time at crime prevention, this basic program covers fundamental concepts and techniques of crime prevention with an emphasis on practical application. Topics include home and business security, community programs, environmental design, internal management, locks, and alarms. In addition, sections on security lighting, vehicle theft, public information, safes, and program planning are presented. Trainees conduct actual field security surveys. Also offered is a condensed version of the above course which is designed for patrol officers, criminal investigators, private industry security personnel, and others. (80 hours) 7 Neighborhood Watch The varied approaches to implementing neighborhood watch programs are presented by people who have successful programs. Areas of instruction ' include program planning, development, implementation, and problem solving. (16 hours) Sew-Al Assault Theory and Prevention i This course not only provides the participant with information, but also with insight into the violent, interpersonal offense of sexual assault. Instructors, with expertise in this area, discuss sexual assault, statis- tical data, and the classification of rapists. Participants learn the psychological and emotional factors of the rapist, who the victim is, and victim trauma. In addition, this course deals with child molestation, and child sexual assault. (20 hours) Latch Rey / Self Care This program is designed for crime prevention practitioners, school liaison officers, and parents. The course will enable them to teach children to make 'decisions on their own in situations that may be life threatening. (8 hours) Public Speaking This course exposes each participant to the techniques of effective verbal t communication. Trainees receive instructions and then make presentations before an audience, instructors, and video camera. (20 hours) Advancad Locke and Safee This course includes the latest information on locking devices and safes. Participants learn haw to install locks, and the various methods used to defeat them. Students will examine safes to enhance their knowledge on types and classifications. All applicants must have completed a basic crime prevention course. (16 hours) C CHO STOPPERS %PMS COURSES .f Basic Crime Stoppers Sections in this course are presented by the nation's foremost Crime Stopper practitioners. The material is appropriate for new program coordinators, board members, and media representatives. (16 hours) Advanced Crime Stoppers This training course provides a variety of comprehensive subjects. Participants may select the topics which will assist them and their respective programs. Students have the opportunity to exchange information during group discussions. This course is designed for coordinators, board members, and ! media. (16 hours) i Specialized Crime Stoppers This school is designed for coordinators who have completed a basic Crime Stoppers course. Telephone interviewing techniques are highlighted. (8 hours) t Crim Stoppers — Successful Fund Raising and Publicity Attendees are given instructions in how to outline fund raising projects used by Crime Stoppers programs in Texas. Also, a detailed analysis of how to plan and implement such programs is presented. Leading crime stopper/media i practitioners illustrate haw to improve television reenactments, radio i broadcasts, and newspaper articles, as well as, outline other methods of ' publicizing a crime stopper program. (20 hours) Crime Stoppers and the Lav Prosecuting crime stoppers cases, current law, proposed legislation and legal issues are among the topics presented. District attorneys and judges are invited to participate along with coordinators and board members. (16 hours) Was Stoppers Intelligence Exchange Participants work in group sessions to exchange intelligence inforuation concerning criminal activity in their jurisdiction. Presentations will he made on organized criminal activities such as narcotics trafficking and crimes committed by transients. (16 hours) r r l; HOUSING For the courses indicated (**) - motel accommodations, double occupancy, are provided at no cost to participants covered by the grant. These accommodations are available to other participants at reduced rates. The Texas Crime Prevention Institute does not provide lodging for any trainees for courses conducted in cities other than those indicated with ENROLLMENT Course enrollment is limited. Reservations are made on a first-come basis upon receipt, by the institute, of a written application. Tuition-paying participants need not send their tuition when they make application, but should pay-in-full upon receiving confirmation. !� REGISTRATION I WHO MAY ATTEND - Courses conducted by the Texas Crime Prevention Institute are open to any interested party based upon certain enrollment guidelines. TERAS law enforcement agency employees working in crime prevention or related j fields have their tuition paid-in-full by a grant from the Governor's Office, Criminal Justice Division. The grant also provides these individuals with lodging during selected courses. For the Crime Stoppers and Neighborhood i Watch courses, the grant also pays full tuition for certain other individuals. The institute car yo-� if you qualify. Persons not qualifying for a tuition subsidy may attend courses by paying: $495 - 80-hour course $125 - 16-hour course $350 - 40-hour course $ 95 - 14-hour course $200 - 20-hour course $ 25 - 8-hour course FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: The Texas Crime Prevention Institute Southwest Texas State University San Marcos, Texas 78666-4610 Telephone: (512) 245-3031 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON I TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council March 27, 1987 FROM: Jill Monley, Community Services Director C\ I SUBJECT: CONFIDENTIAL (ORS 192.660)— Employee Fompensation Study Attached are summaries and examples from two compensation studies completed in March, 1987. These are for your review. The information is CONFIDENTIAL per ORS 192.660. Our policy over time has been to use a total compensation matrix approach in which we would pay Tigard employees in the middle of the market based on all costs of compensation. The purpose of hiring consultants is to gather this information objectively and to establish bench mark positions against which the remaining city positions can be related. We would normally hire only one consultant to perform this study. However, in view of the pending police arbitration, we felt the benefit gained by having two independent consultants using two different approaches to establish these bench marks, was worth the investment. In reviewing this information keep in mind that the consultants gathered information on the same elements (retirement, vacation, longevity, etc.). The difference was in their approach and the comparables from which this information was gathered. The Salik Report used the City's "traditional" approach involving the same comparables (other cities) as we have used in the past. (I might mention this becomes increasingly difficult as Tigard grows and changes relative to those other comparables). The Shuck Report took an "open market" approach, wherein different comparables were used depending on the position and the market for that position, (i.e. , the market area for an Office Assistant II is significantly different that the market for a Project Engineer). The major difference between Tigard and all of the other comparables in both studies is in the area of retirement. As you are reviewing the figures, a 3% retirement value factor must be added to the study results on all General and. Managementemployees. This relates back to the 1985 Milliman and Robertson retirement recommendation which concluded that a 12% money purchase plan benefit is equal to the 15-16% PERS benefit. When looking at the patrol and the dispatch positions, please keep in mind that the Tigard numbers are a year behind the other cities (i.e. , 1985 Tigard pay plan vs. 1986 market plans). Since we do not yet have a 1986/87 Csettlement, we could only include the 1985/86 salary and benefit figures. These are compared in the study to 1986/87 figures of the other jurisdictions. OF Confidential Memo to Council Page 2 In conclusion for 1986/87, we can say that the Police positions are now still slightly above market. The General employees in 1986/87 are slightly below market, and the Management employees for 1986/87 are generally at market. As you study the information you will find that some positions are little more above or below, but generally speaking the above conclusions can apply. In addition to employee data we asked both consultants to gather comparative council compensation data. Those results are attached (in shocking pink). Using the same total cost of compensation median market approach the following changes are recommended: $100 per month City Council flat rate - not related to number of meetings. $150 per month Mayor flat rate - not related to number of meetings. . Full family medical - Blue Cross Plan II and dental. . Expense reimbursement on actual cost basis. The Five-Year Financial Plan is based on an annual 4% wage increase with a 1% benefits roll-up, a 5% total. Instructions to staff for budget planning has been to include a 3% wage C.O.L.A. and 1% benefits roll-up for a total 4% compensation adjustment. This should leave us about 1-2X below our Five-Year Plan projections, depending upon any "catch-up" costs for General Employees in the 1987-88 contract and Police arbitration. If you would like to review either of these compensation studies in their entirety, please contact Doris Hartig or me. We'd be glad to provide to you the two half inch reports. We'll be discussing these compensation studies in a brief Executive Session planned for April 20. dc:1358p Salik Associates Salary Survey At the request of the City of Tigard. Salik Associates surveyed six metropolitan cities to compare salaries and benefits paid for the following positions. Office Assistant II Executive Secretary Utility Worker II Operations Superintendent Engineering Technician II Crew Chiefs project Engineer planner II police Officer Accounting Supervisor Dispatcher Finance Director police Lieutenant Administrative Assistant Information on benefits paid for city council members was also gathered. Survey Method The survey was conducted by interviewing Assistant City Administrators or Personnel Officers and researching contracts and pay plans. positions were considered comparable when 80% of the job duties similar hierarchyreporting relativerelationships within the organizational These cities and persons participated: Lake Oswego Shirley Schultz 635-0262 657 0891 Oregon City Lynn Todd West Linn Charlene Richards 651-6119 6-4261 Hillsboro Tim Erwert -2204 Beaverton Steve Foster 526 526-5171 Milwaukie Sandy Miller -1- Sampled Cities The cities selected for the survey are suburban cities in the Portland Metropolitan area. With the possible exception of Hillsboro, the labor market for these cities is comparable. Hillsboro, although only 15 miles from i downtown Portland seems to have a separate labor market. The Local Government Personnel Institute groups cities in population classes. Beaverton, Hillsboro and Lake Oswego fall into the category of cities having more than 25,000 residents. Tigard, Milwaukie, West Linn, and Oregon City are grouped in cities with more than 10,000 but less than 24,500 residents. Data commonly used to classify cities for salary surveys includes population, geographic size, assessed valuation, full time equivalent positions and labor market. The following table displays some of this kind of data. The data are arrayed in order of assessed valuation of the city. City Poaulation Size Positions Valuation (sq.mi.) (full time) ($ billion) Beaverton 33,500 ---- 295 $1 .6 Lake Oswego 26,300 10 225 $1 .2 Hillsboro 30,332 14 165 $0.96 Tigard 23,000 8.7 104 $0.96 Milwaukie 17,435 4.5 120 $0.59 West Linn 13,100 7 65 $0.47 Oregon City 14,800 7 124 $0.44 Tigard fits in the middle of the cities sampled with respect to population and assessed valuation. If a more refined grouping were used, Tigard could be grouped with either Oregon City, Milwaukie and West Linn, or with Beaverton, Lake Oswego and Hillsboro. -2- Data The data gathered was analyzed by position. It is presented in two sections of this report. The data gathered for the City of Beaverton may change because Beaverton's contracts are currently being negotiated. Section A provides a narrative description of the position Tigard asked to be surveyed. Related positions from the surveyed cities are named and qualifications for matching the positions to Tigard's are documented. Two tables follow the position narratives. The first table displays matched and relative positions, monthly salary and adjusted hourly position costs where the encumbent has been employed two, five, seven and fifteen years respectively. The data are shown in rank order by adjusted hourly position costs. Related, but not comparable, positions are noted with an asterisk *. The percent of mean adjusted hourly costs are calculated and shown for parable positions. The second table displays the same data excluding the citys' costs for retirement benefits. This presentation is made because all cities but Tigard participate in the Public Employee's Retirement System and the premium structure for comparable retirement benefits is different. Section B is a set of reports that document salary and benefits paid and display calculations for adjusted hourly position costs. Calculations are done for circumstances in which the employee has worked for two, five, seven and fifteen years. The following assumptions and reasoning was used to determine adjusted hourly position costs. • Monthly salary costs shown include amounts an employee could earn for educational incentive pay and longevity pay. The applicability of incentive and longevity pay to Police Lieutenants was uncertain and the base salary for tt!ese positions has not been adjusted. • The amount of holiday time given is expressed in days equivalent to an eight hour work shift. • The amount of vacation time given is expressed in days equivalent to an eight hour work shift. • Available hours are calculated by subtracting holiday time and vacation time from available working days in a year, 261 . -3- ir a Factors used in calculating paid benefits are displayed in terms of premium rates or monthly costs. The annual costs of the benefits are calculated and displayed. inhere are premium is charged to a portion of wages, the maximum amounts are not shown for lack of space. The maximum amounts are included in the formulae for calculating costs of paid benefits. Adjusted hourly costs are calculated by totaling the annual costs of salary and paid benefits and dividing the sum by the annual available working hours. C. —4— Detail Job Characteristics Salik Associates February 1987 Office Assistant II The key attribute of this position is operating office equipment such as word processing and cashiering equipment. The array of duties likens this position to that of handling the one person office. The Office Assistants II position is one of four in a class series, Office Assistant I through IV. The Office Assistant I is supervised by an administrative person. The Office Assistant III supervises assigned clerical staff, or works under the direction of a senior manager such as the Community Development Manager. The Office Assistant IV may supervise clerical staff and/or work directly for the City Manager. Compared Positions Each city surveyed had positions which matched Tigard's Office Assistant II position, in job duties and skills. Job titles and position or classification hierarchies varied from city to city. Lake Oswego's Senior Secretary is the mid level of the series, Clerk typist or Secretary, Senior Secretary and Administrative Secretary. Oregon City's Secretary II is the mid level of the Secretary I to Secretary II. The Secretary II pay level is also equivalent to the Accounting Clerk Specialist. Beaverton's Office Associate is nested in the series Office Assistant, Office Associate, Senior Secretary, Administrative Assistant and Executive Assistant. Milwaukie's Clerk Typist III serves as the Planning Director's secretary, a kind of clerk of the works for the Planning Department. This is the top position of a series, Clerk Typist I through Clerk Typist III. Duties of the second level of this series are more strongly receptionist and typing. -6- office Assistant 11 Q vexes experience) Retirement included) Maximum Qdiusted Monthly Hourly Percent Cit., Position Salary Costs Mean ---T:-ard �Off.Asst.II ---$1 279.00 --- $10.31 95.11% Beavzrton Off.Assoc. $1,'252 .00 $10.61 =7.88% 'slsbero �C^,.Sec. $1,18 .00 $9 91 91.42% Si _nke uswego Ser•ior Sec. $1,41$.00 $11.64 107.33% eCier:: �vo.ilI 31"I.J.GO 310.95 101.01% Or,eon Citv -Sec.11 $1,409.00 $11.30 109.78% West ;inn Secretary $1,463.00 $10.56 97.42% -------------------------------------------------- Averaoe 31,:-01.4:3 $10.84 Office assistant 1' 15 years exeerience! (Retirement included) Maximum Adjusted Monthly Hourly Percent City Position Salary Costs Mean ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- ------ Ticard Off.Asst.II $1,41'.00 $11.43 92.75% Beaverton Off.Assoc. $1.450.00 $12.31 99.90% Hillsboro Adm.Sec. $1;305.(!0 $10.90 3.457. La,:e Oswego Senior Sec. $1.640.00 $13.54 109.83% Milwaukie Clerk Tvp.III $1,440.00 $12.10 93.19% Oregon City 5__.II f±,139.00 $13.72 111.34% West Linn Secrete.ry $1,165.00 $12.26 99.49% --------------------------------------------------- --Average $1,479.57 $12.3: -------------- ':-'-'ice ________________________________-_=_---______ ^-rice Assistant II !' •:ears exoer:_nce) eme^t :PCIunc) maximum Ad!usted Z"'rthly Hourly Percent =ity Positicn Salary Casts Mean -------------------------------------------------------------- card CLF.;sst.1: 51,413.00 311.61 93.24% E?averton FF.Assoc. $1,523.00 312.86 103.287. Hill bore 4�71.Sec. $1,":•05.00 $10.90 37.54% Lase G=-w2go senior Sec. $1,640.00 $13.54 103.74% MI#aukie Clerk ?vo.III $1,440.00 $12.10 97.18 Orelor City °ec.11 $1,623.00 $13.39 111.55% West Linn Secretary $1.465.01 $12.26 9?.46% --------------------------------------------------------------- Average $1,490.00 $12.45 4 .rric_ assistant iI 15 year; xoer:erce) ;M1a:rFSiEnt inc:cde.) Maximum Adiusted Monthly Hourly Percent City PCs,ti cm Salary Costs Mean ------------------- ----------------------------------- T.::ard Of F.A3st.II $1.41?.00 $11.72 92.14% Beav;rton Off.Assoc. $1,523.00 $13.14 103.30% C Hill=_acro Adm.Sec. $1,305.00 $11.13 37.501: L:fie Oswego Senior Sec. $1.540.00 $13.23 103.72'!. M1Iwaukie Clerk Tvo.II1 $1,440.00 $12. 5 96.31% Oregon City 3ec.Il 51.539.00 $14.44 113.52% Nest u nn Secretary $1,465.00 $12.`3 93.51% --------------------------------------------------------------- Average $1,490.00 $12.72 20 1 /- Ofr:ce Assistant II (2ears ef3erience) (retirement excluded) Maximum adjusted Monthly Hourly Percent City Position Salary Costs Mean ----------------- ------------------ Tigard Off.Asst.II $1,279.06 $9.50 ?8.75:: Beaverton Off.Assoc. 31;252.01) g9,: 97.51Z u;il_boro Adm.Sec. $1,187.00 38.77 Lake :aweao Senior Sec. $1.417,00 310.:'3 106.34% ":i.,aukie rl=-K - p.III 41,.03.00 $9.65 100.:! 3reaon City Sec. i 31,409.00 310.40 108.11 (Veit Linn Secretary .•s1,263 00 3=.�1 97.b''2% J -------------------------------;---------------- Average S1,301.43 39.62 Office Assistant it (5 years exoerien_e) !Ret:cement excluded) Maximum Adjust?d Monthly sourly Percent City Position Salary Costs Mean ------- ------------------------------------------------------------- Tigard Off,Asst.II 31,418.00 310.`2 96.^6% Beaverton Ug.Assoc. 3I,450.00 $10.37 99.57% Hillsooro Adm.Sec. 31,305.(10 39.63 Lake Cswego Senior Sec. 31,640,00 $11.'A 108.827 Milwa_kte Clerk Typ.III $1,440.00 310.65 97.55% Cre?on City Sec..I $1:639.OQ $11.97 10?.64'1, West Linn Secretary $1,465.00 310.9•) ?3.84;: --------------------------------------------------------------- Averace 31,479.5741('.9'' ----------------- Office assistant II (I years e:;.erlence) iFetirement exclucec) MaX.:mUm Adjusted Monthly Hour'_y Percent :ity °esition Salary Costs Mean --------------------- ------------- --------- ---------- T:gard Ofc.Asst.il i1,41q.00 310.69 96.92: Beaverton "f-,.assoc. $1,4`_•0.00 $11.34 102.01% Piilstorov4d .Sec. 3100 s9.63 87.-17. -eke :sweoe Sena^r Sec, 31,640.00 311.28 107.71'/. M:iwaukle Clea• 'yya.I1I $1,440. 00 $10.,15 +6.55% ?rec n City ec.Il 31,639.!X1 $12.12 109._'7. W=it L:nn Secretary $'-,465.00 310.90 `y8.P:1*11. --------------------------------------------------------------- Average $1,479.57 '311.03 ! Osftte Assistant II +:� 'years -: er:e^Ce/ i :r.z'__^?Te-t mayimum Adie. ter '+:nthly Uo_rly ?percent y Pr iti0r. Salary costs mean ------------------- --=------------------ Tigard Oft.Asst.II 31,418.00 41('.? 95.84% 5eaverton Off.Assoc. $1 511.00 311.59 102.25Z Hill=boyo Adm.Sec. 31,305.00 $9.14 87.32% j °ake, Oswego Senior Sec. $1.W. .0() 312.13 107.64% Mi1w?uk.ie Clerk Tyyoo.II1 $1,440.09 310.79 95.757. Oregon City Sec.Ii 31,671.00 $12.59 111.7?%. we=- -1rn S?cretary --------------------------------------------------------------- Average 31,4194.57 $11.27 21 Office Assistant 11 City Tigard Beaverton Hillsboro Lake Oswego Milwaukie Oregon City West Linn Position Off.Asst.I1 Off.Assoc. Adm.Sec. Senior Sec. Clerk Typ.1II Sec.1I Secretary Represent OPEU OPEU NON-REP. LOMEA MEA AFSCME AFSCME Salary Years 2 $1,279.00 $1.152.00 $1,187.06 $1,417.00 $1,303.00 $1,409.00 $1,163.00 Employed 5 $1,418.00 $1.450.00 $1,365.00 $1,640.00 $1,440.00 $1,639.23 $1.465.00 7 $1,418.06 $1.523.08 $1,385.00 $1,640.00 $1,440.00 $1,639.23 $1,465.00 15 $1,418.06 $1,523.60 $1,305.00 $1,640.00 $1,440.60 $1,671.69 $1,465.00 Holidays 2 11.0 12.0 9.0 10.0 10.6 12.6 10.0 Per Year 5 11.0 12.6 9.6 10.0 16.0 12.6 10.0' 7 11.0 12.0 9.0 10.0 10.0 12.0 10.0 15 11.0 12.0 9.0 10.0 10.0 11.0 16.0 Vacation 2 12.0 11.0 12.0 9.9 12.6 10.1 10.0 Days/Year 5 15.0 16.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 12.2 15.0 7 18.8 16.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.1 15.6 15 21.0 11.0 20.0 26.0 18.0 26.0 20.0 Available 2 1904.6 1964.1 1920.0 1928.8 1912.0 1910.9 1928.6 Hours 5 1880.0 1864.1 1896.6 1888.0 1888.0 1894.2 1888.0 7 1850.0 1864.1 1896.0 1BB8.0 1888.0 1871.4 1888.0 IS 1832.0 1824.0 1856.0 1848.4 1864.0 1831.8 1848.0 Paid Life Insu 1.875/mo $2.70/mo. $2.15/mo. $3.10/20. .0024*Pay 3.10/mo. .00560ay Benefits Long Term .0122*Pay .005+Pav .0076*Pay .0074+Pay .0037fPay .0109*Pav $4.54/mo. MedicalSD $205.041so. 128/mo $205.03/mo. $213.19/eo. $227 :0/mo. $22R.bVan- 4717 ez/e0. Retiremen .1+Pay .155+Pay .153+Pay .1601pay .158#Pay .169*Pay .146+Pay 'Sub-total Benefits 2 $4,277.03 $5,172.24 $4,773.75 $5,441.95 $5,291.07 $5,829.35 $5,206.09 5 $4,464.18 $5,552.40 $5,001.16 $5,889.91 $5,560.85 $6,326.37 $5,573.57 7 14,464.18 $5,692.56 $5,001.16 $5,BB9.91 $5,560.85 $6,326.37 $5,573.57 15 $4,464.18 15.692.56 $5,001.16 15,889.91 $5,560.85 $6.396.44 $5,573.57 Adjusted 2 $10.31 $10.61 $9.91 $11.64 $10.95 $11.90 $10.56 Hourly Costs 5 $11.43 $12.31 $10.90 $13.54 $12.10 $13.72 $12.26 7 $11.61 $12.86 $10.90 $13.54 $12.16 $13.89 $12.26 15 $11.72 0'3.14 111.13 $13.83 $12.25 $14.44 $11.53 B-2 r Z Office Assistant II Retirement costs excluded Hillsboro Lake Oswego Milwaukie Oregon City Gest Linn City Tigard Beaverton Position Off.Asst.II Off.Assoc. Ada.Sec. Senior Sec. Clerk Typ.III Sec.11 Secretary LOMEA MEA AFSCME AFSCME Represent OPEU OPEU NON-REP. Salary Years 2 $1.279.88 $1,252.88 $1,187.49 $1,417.68 $1,383.09 $1,499.96 $1,263.88 Employed 5 $1,418.89 11,459.91 $1,395.99 $1,649.99 $1.441.99 $1,639.23 11,465.99 7 $1,418.99 $1.523.99 $1,395.99 $1,649.99 $1,449.89 $1,639.23 $1,465.91 15 $1,418.91 $1,523.91 $1,365.19 $1.640.19 $1,449.91 $1,671.69 $1,465.99 Holidays 2 11.1 12.9 9.9 19.9 16.8 12.9 11.1 Per Year 5 11.9 12.1 9.9 16.1 19.8 12.1 11.1 7 11.1 12.6 9.9 19.1 19.9 12.9 11.1 15 11.1 12.1 9.9 19.9 19.9 12.1 11.9 Vacation 2 12.6 11.1 12.9 9.9 12.8 11.1 IM Days/Year 5 15.1 16.1 15.1 15.1 15.9 12.2 15.1 7 18.8 16.9 15.1 15.9 15.9 15.1 15.1 15 21.1 21.1 29.1 28.9 18.1 21.1 21.1 Available 2 1964.6 1984.1 1928.9 1928.8 1912.9 1919.9 1928.8 Hours 5 1889.1 1864.1 1896.1 1888.8 1B88.9 1894.2 1888.1 7 1856.1 1064.1 1896.9 1888.1 1888.9 1871.4 1888.1 15 1832.1 1824.1 1856.9 1848.4 1864.9 1831.8 1848.1 Paid Life Insu 7.875/mo $2.78/so. $2.15/ao. $3.11/00. .86244Pay 3.76/to. .9156#Pay Benefits Long Ten .1122*Pay .195#Pay .9176*Pay .6174*Pay .6137*Pav .6119+Pay $4.54/ao. Medical&O $215.94/ao. 228/so $215.93/no. $213.19/ao. $221.11/ao. $228.61/s0. 42'07.83/aa. Retireaen .i*Pav .155*Pay .153*Pay .169*Pav .158*Pav .169#Pay .146+Pay 'Sub-total Benefits 2 $2,742.23 $2,B43.52 12,594.41 $2,721.31 $2,829.58 $2,971.91 $21,993.31 5 $2.762.58 $2,855.41 $2,695.18 $2,741.11 $2,836.61 13,112.11 $3,916.89 7 $2,762.58 $2,859.78 $2,695.18 $2,741.11 $2,638.61 $3,812.11 $3,916.84 15 12.762.58 $2,859.78 $2,615.18 $2,741.11 $2.839.61 13,116.26 $3,996.89 Adjusted 2 $9.51 $9.38 $8.77 $19.23 $9.65 $11.41 $9.41 Hourly Costs 5 $11.52 $11.87 $9.63 111.88 $16.65 $11.97 $19.49 7 $11.69 $11.34 49.63 $11.88 $19.65 $12.12 $11.91 IS (11.81 $11.59 $9.84 $12.13 $19.79 $12.59 $11.14 ` f r U 6-1 OPEU COMPENSATION ANALYSIS The attached exhibits provide details on the benefits, salary ranges and total compensation to selected General Employees in the OPEU Bargaining Unit . These include: Benefit Comparisons Salary Range Analysis Total Compensation Analysis COMPARATORS The following Cities have been selected for the analysis of total compensation: Albany (27,950) Beaverton (35,025) Hillsboro (30,520) Lake Oswego (26,035) McMinnville (15,460) Milwaukie (17,685) Oregon City (14,360) These cities were selected for analysis after consider- ing factors such as population, functional similarity, and proximity to Tigard. While, as a group, they provide a well- rounded analysis, the prime comparators are Hillsboro, Lake Oswego , Milwaukie and Oregon City. The other cities, Albany, Beaverton and McMinnville have been included to provide a larger sampling from both ends of the population spectrum. When selecting comparators, it is important to look at whether they use you as a comparator . The three cities mentioned as additional to the prime comparators (Albany , Beaverton, McMinnville) do not fit this requirement very well. The first two compare more with larger cities than themselves and the latter compares with the smaller cities primarily outside the Metropolitan area. They none-the-less have information which is valuable for comparative purposes . I did not use Keizer since it is such an anomaly among cities. In addition to information from the above cities, I have presented a sampling of private sector data from survey sources (Consulting Engineers Council of Oregon) and from specific private employers in the Tigard area. BENEFIT COMPARISONS The Benefits provided and the overall cost of benefits compares favorably between Tigard and the other comparable cities (both Prime Comparators and the larger list) with the exception of contributions to retirement. On the average, Tigard' s benefit levels are at or above the comparators in each major category of benefits. The cost of these benefits , however, are lower in several categories. These are primarily those benefits whose costs are related to salary. The primary difference is in the contribution to retirement which has a 4-5% difference in contribution levels. Total benefit costs for Tigard and other comparables are shown below: Total Total Benefit Benefit Costs Costs Entry-level Five year employee Office Assistant II Overall Average $522.05 $605.48 Prime Average $513.73 $599.94 Tigard $425.81 $493.09 Utility Worker II Overall Average $562.38 $662.95 Prime Average $554.59 $644.55 Tigard $475.37 $588.48 Engineering Tech II Overall Average $613.97 $738.87 Prime Average $623.04 $749.34 Tigard $532.67 $609.93 Private Employer $305.83 This shows Tigard' s benefit contribution levels to be low in relation to other cities. This ranges from 15.3% to 22.7% lower than the averages shown above. There are two prime areas accounting for the differences. First, the 5-6% lower pension contribution by Tigard, and, second, the lower salaries which impact the benefit costs for retirement, vacation and holidays. In addition, there is a slightly lower contribution for insurance premiums by Tigard than the other cities on the average. 5 cAtt'r_k C72a Up `. The information above shows there is no particular pattern to the salary levels, i.e. , they are low in some, mid-range in others, and higher than the prime average in others. If salary was the only concern in this analysis , an adjustment would be appropriate in the Office Assistant category and minimal, if any, adjustments necessary in the ' other two positions. TOTAL COMPENSATION When looking at the benefit and salary data combined , a much different picture appears than when considering salary alone. The average total compensation level for these positions is substantially lower than that of its prime comparators. While the level of difference varies with the positions and with length of service, the difference remains significant in all positions, regardless of length of service. The differences is salary levels commented on above are compounded by the benefit contributions, particularly pension contributions (Tigard at 10% and others at between 14.8% and 16.3%) . These differences are illustrated below. Entry level Five Years Office Assistant II Tigard vs Overall -13.2% - 8.07 Tigard vs Prime -15.0% - 9.9% Utility Worker II Tigard vs Overall - 9.0% - 4 . 1% ,/Tigard vs Prime - 8.0% - 1 .4% Engineering Tech. II Tigard vs Overall - 2.5% - 4.2% t/rigard vs Prime - 5.4% - 6. 1% Tigard vs Private +19.7% N POLICE COMPENSATION ANALYSIS FINAL REPORT The attached exhibits provide details on the benefits, salary ranges and total compensation to Police Officers. These include: Benefit Comparisons Salary Range Analysis Total Compensation Analysis COMPARATORS The following Cities have been selected for the analysis of total compensation: Albany (27,950) Beaverton (35,025) Hillsboro (30,520) Lake Oswego (26,035) McMinnville (15,460) Milwaukie (17,685) Oregon City (14,360) These cities were selected for analysis after consider- ing factors such as population, size of force, and proximity to Tigard . While, as a group, they provide a well-rounded analysis, the prime comparators are IIillsboro, Lake Oswego, Milwaukie and Oregon City. The other cities , Albany , Beaverton and McMinnville have been included to provide a larger sampling from both ends of the population spectrum. When selecting comparators, it is important to look at whether they use you as a comparator . The three cities mentioned as additional to the prime comparators (Albany, Beaverton, McMinnville) do not fit this requirement very well. The first two compare more with larger cities than themselves and the latter compares with the smaller cities primarily outside the Metropolitan area. They none-the-less have information which is valuable for comparative purposes . BENEFIT COMPARISONS The Benefits provided and the overall cost of benefits compares very favorably between Tigard and the other compar- able cities (both Prime Comparators and the larger list) . On the average, Tigard' s benefits are at or above the compara- tors in each major category of benefits. This is true even Cin those benefit categories which are impacted by salary (Pension, Vacation, Holiday) . G Total benefit costs for Tigard and other comparable jurisdictions are shown below: Total Total Total Benefit Benefit Benefit Costs Costs Costs Entry—level Five years 15 years Overall Average $665. 26 $807. 16 $883.94 Prime Average $689.79 $833.67 $911 . 12 Tigard $721. 15 $870.79 $992.80 -- Includes impact of longevity pay This shows Tigard' s benefit levels to be very good in relation to other cities, especially when considering that many of these benefits are tied in with salary (which shows Tigard to have lower salaries on both the entry—level and after experience. SALARY LEVELS An analysis of the salary ranges shows a significant difference in the salary levels at all steps between Tigard and the other cities. Not only does Tigard have one step less than most others , the pay levels within those steps are $100 or more less than the averages of all cities and of prime comparators. This difference is shown below: Entry Level Five Year Salary Salary Overall Average $1757 ($1779)^` $2197 ($2220)-- Prime Average $1827 $2236 Tigard $1724 $2113 -- The overall average changes upward when Albany' s salaries are adjusted to reflect changes negotiated last year. By June of 87 the salaries at Albany will increase by 8.1%. The information above shows a definite and significant difference in salaries with Tigard on the low end. If salary was the only concern in this analysis, a recommendation of an adjustment of 4-6% would not be out of line to bring Tigard salaries in line with comparators. TOTAL COMPENSATION' When looking at the benefit and salary data combined , a much different picture appears than when considering salary alone. The average total compensation level for Tigard Police Officers is still lower than that of its prime comparators, until the tenth year when longevity pay starts to strongly impact total compensation, but the difference between Tigard and its comparators is much less, particularly in view of the fact that any changes in salary level will have n compounded affect on the relative total compensation levels. Well over half of the benefit costs for the City of Tigard are related to salary - including Vacation, holidays and Pension contributions. With the Tigard benefit costs already exceeding those of its comparators, this must be considered strongly in making any recommendations about salary changes . Therefore, it does not seem reasonable to expect Tigard ' s salary ranges to equate to the averages of the other comparators . The impact of longevity pay on total compensation becomes very high after five years of service. The pay increases awarded for longevity have an exponential affect on total compensation because of Tigard ' s benefit package. This impact is shown by the following analysis: Entry Level rive Year 15 Year Total Comp. Total Comp. Total Comp. Overall Avg. ;2439. 69 $3066.36 $3245. 17 Prime Avg. $2529.79 $3158.49 $3337. 52 Tigard $12445. 15 $3065. 15 $3457.60 The move from being slightly lower than others to being, significantly higher than others happens fairly quickly after five years of service and, since almost one-half of your Officers and all of your Corporals and Sergeants have over five years of service, the impact is an actual fact rather than a theoretical concern. CAP . � CITY COUNCIL COMPENSATIOly ANALYSIS information regarding the des comparators as ttaclied exhibit Proves from the same by this The a Member analyses in the to City Council a but a payments the other some differences were used in certai Y Council members, nl There are Of compensagwith reimburse cons ultant•methods cash payment apount and 100/mo. showed UP- with was standard i clearly fairly rare as receipt benefits was insurance Plans sent of insurancein the City' s the As in other areas+ The Pay' them to enroll and frequentl the allowing aid for them• and can, even who P the budget expenses+ Primarily+ regardless of trips a control °f Conference. Council has educational Annual does pay f Oregon Cities a payment to League there is is larger + usually In each Of the Ciayme t to the Mayor Council members+ the P an extra $ 50/mo . 0 E vt M N v} O 1.� :j O a v � 111 H O O C." > � �n o 0 O N U 4f} O C v H a a O caED u c a C) H a O C O +� U O C C V) Q) ri r i O E �7 a) tfl. E) a C v H 4 a a C O 44 E b rl a) •b � E U ca a) ul 1.1 11 W JJ 4J H 0 O O a) a) a) E CL) (a .d N E) 4.3 E) 31 a O H a) H C H C a H ,n a) E u E u E O O .H E) C •rl E) •ri E) rO-� a Q) a) ch a) H a) H H W H H a H a V)_ �4 C a .0 .a d aJ E) a) E (1) E E C E) O. C cn •rl E) •H a y C x H C Cil C a) E a) a) a) H a) ej H O x >, N O C+. C. O. x o a x a x o a H 0 0 E .n v) O co E r ao a �n co a c, a o. cn c)p E� u f__4 x E) y cs. n u c-to •r4 0 •rt 44 O o 0 0 - 0 - a) O E E E E >+ E >+ a) co O u C a O O O O O m O 9"— C� E E.: O O V1 O O ,-+ u r-4 O e-/ O C!} ffr V} H U O a H r4 O C �'d C C O a U O ri -V mo H O d >+ C co ri ■` C C O a) e-I O O H 3 H -rc U mo= 0 a, 0 E, > .0 o e a c •o ri c a� m a co 0 H c a >. co > r•+ a, •H co a _H H H .n a 4 z .-c e) ao a () AlH ri a) H cc ci •rc H -H H G U O H H s Benefits for City Council and Mayor All cities surveyed except Beaverton have a council manager form of government. Beaverton has a Mayor council government with a strong Mayor; the elected Mayor is the Chief Executive Officer for the city. Benefits provided council members are presented by city. Tigard Each member including the Mayor is allowed $15 per meeting not to exceed a total amount of $180 in a three month period. The city also pays for participation in limited conventions such as the annual meeting for the League of Oregon Cities. Beaverton Each council member, not including the Mayor, is provided health, dental and life insurance benefits, and a $100 monthly allowance. The city also pays for participation in limited conventions such as the annual meeting for the League of Oregon Cities. Hillsboro (No data) Lake Oswego Each council member is allowed $100 per month for expenses. The Mayor is allowed $150 per month. The city also pays for participation in limited conventions such as the annual meeting for the League of Oregon Cities. Milwcurkie Each council member is allowed $100 per month for expenses. The Mayor is allowed $150 per month. The city also pays for participation in limited conventions such as the annual meeting for the League of Oregon Cities. Oregon City The city pays for participation in limited conventions such as the annual meeting for the League of Oregon Cities. West Linn Each council member is allowed $400 per year and the Mayor $800 per year for expenses. The city also pays for participation in limited conventions such as the annual meeting for the League of Oregon Cities. —5— I I