Loading...
City Council Packet - 04/20/1987 5. STREET LIGHTING POLICY DISCUSSION Abel o Community Development Director Referred to Staff for further study; get fot Study Session in 2 to 3 months 6. 18 MONTH CAPITAL PROJECT REPORTS o City Engineer - Verbal Report 7. DANGEROUS BUILDING ABATEMENT ORDINANCE NO. 87-18 o Community Development Director Jo/Ea UA 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: June 21, 1986, July 19, 1986, Dec. 1 & 8, 1986 & January 19 & 26, 1987 8.2 Receive and File: a Crime Prevention Report b Records Division Workplan c CIP/LID Monthly Report d Solid Waste Metro Rate Increase Pass-Through Tabled to e Monthly Departmental Reports 8.3 Approve ICHA Deferred Comp. Plan Petition - Resolution No. 87-48 8.4 Approve Formation of Special CIP Task Force - Resolution No. 87-49 8.5 Approve Resolution Forming NPO 08 & Defining Boundaries - Resolution No. 87-50 8.6 Approve Interim Training & Travel Policy 8.7 Approve Training Request - Carolyn Eadon, City Council - 133.40 Jo/Ea IIA as asended (tabled 8.2 d to 1 I77 ) - 9. NON-AGENDA ITEMS: From Council and Staff None 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council Ment into Executive Session at 9:24 .p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, and current and 'pendia litigation issues. 11. ADJOURNMENT: 10:58 Y.M. lw/4577A COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL 20, 1987 - PAGE 2 T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L REGULAR MEETING MINUTES — APRIL 20, 1987 — 6:36 P.M. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor Tom Brian (arrived at 6:40 p.m.); Councilors: Carolyn Eadon, Valerie Johnson, and John Schwartz; City Staff: Bob Jean, City Administrator; David Lehr, Chief of Police; Keith Liden, Senior Planner (arrived at 7:47 p.m. ); Bill Monahan, Community Development Director; Jill Monley, Community and Administrative Services Director (arrived at 7:03 p.m.); Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel; Deb Watros, Crime Prevention Specialist; Catherine Wheatley, Deputy Recorder; and Randy Wooley, City Engineer (arrived at 7:15 p.m. ). 2. STUDY SESSION a. Called to order at 6:36 p.m. by Councilor Eadon. b. Discussion on the evening' s agenda included background information from staff on the Bond Park public hearing. (Mayor Brian arrived: 6:40 p.m.) C. Discussion on Agenda Item 5 - Street Lighting Policy included the recent request by Mr. Robert Wyffels, 8995 S.W. Edgewood Street, for street lighting in his neighborhood. Criteria used to determine street lighting placement was questioned. Consensus of Council present was to request staff to review the street lighting policy and report their recommendations to Council. After adoption of a more formal policy for the overall needs in the City, Council would be able to respond to Mr. Wyffels request. Consensus of Council was delete discussion on this item on the evening's agenda and reschedule in the next two to three months. d. City Administrator advised that Item 8.2d should be denoted as "Approve" status rather than to "Receive and File" on the Consent Agenda. There was discussion on this item. There was some question about the rate increase and; therefore, consensus was to table this to the Council meeting of April 27, 1987. e. Mr. Roy Rogers, Washington County Commissioner, spoke to the Council and updated them on current activities in the County. (Jill Monley arrived: 7:03 p.m. ) The following topics were highlighted in Mr. Roger's presentation: o More communication/accessibility to County Government now ` available (i.e. , addition of toll free telephone number). o Advancement towards more uniform road standards; outlined road projects now underway noting that more dollars need to be spent on roads. Majority of funding for roads are presently being allocated to arterial and collector roads. Page 1 — COUNCIL MINUTES — APRIL 20, 1987 U Urban Service Issue being narrowed; County role being identified as to level of service throughout the received He noted individuals should pay for(i.e. , urban services versus rural services) o Briefly discussed contracting services with municipalities (i.e. , park maintenance, court) . O Maintaining a neutral posture on annexations. (Randy Wooley arrived: 7:15 p.m.) U Mr. Rogers commented on a November ballot measure el his full-time Commissioners. He said he does not support concept at this time because there is not a good definition of the workload for full-time commissioners. O Discussion on the need for a County-wide drainage plan. ld keep Mr. status of theded by iss es;shelng leftetheumeet ng ath7:34tp.m�vised of the 3, CALL TO STAFF FOR NON-AGENDA ITEMS - None 4. PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF VARIANCE V29-86 AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT M14-86, KEN WAYMIRE, NPO #5 (BOND PARK) nd Request to adjust one parcel of 1.84 and 1.2 parcels i(5 size Bonto Pone 03) ranging approximately 4,200 to 6,000 sq. ft.parcel of 0.54 acre 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 when 2.5 times is the maximum allowed on property zoned R-12 (Residential 12 units per acre) Located: Immediately west f Bond nd340 Park #3Lots 58-69. (WCTM 2S1 12CC, Lots 100, 3500, 3601, 3700, 3800, 3900, 4000, and 4101.) a• Public Hearing Opened. b. No Declaration or Challenges Made. C. Summation by Community Development Director. On January 6, 1987, the Director denied a request to enlarge lots 58-69 of Bond Park #3 and the Planning Commission upheld the decision on March 3, 1987• Late in March, the Council called this is-m up for review. Since this application was originally submitted, Bond Park No. 4, which will include the remaining southern portion of Tax Lot 100, has received preliminary plat approval. This lot line adjustment and variance request would allow some of the lots to be over 2-1/2 times theirid hbe denied creating belong, narrow parcels. Staff recommended the app cause of poor utilization of land, awkward lot configurations and C because the lots created could cause problems with the location of future streets in the transportation system. Long lots have the potential of redeveloping a later time (splitting) . Page 2 - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 20, 1987 (Senior Planner Liden arrived: 7:47 p.m. ) Senior Planner Liden then explained the Bond Park applicants have suggested, in a new proposal, to release their S.W. gist Avenue easement to landowners in Tax Lot 200. By releasing the easement, this would appear alleviate the primary concerns by the City and Planning Commission. Mr. Liden said Staff would have no objection to this; however, staff is not certain how the owner of Tax Lot 200 views this new proposal which would affect their property. Mr. Liden noted that S.W. gist Street is not addressed in the Transportation Plan; presently, S.W. gist is a local street with no particular alignment proposed. d. Public Testimony Proponents o Craig Hopkins, 7430 S.W. Varns, Chairman of NPO #5 testified the NPO is in favor of this proposal. He said this proposal represents a lawful, resourceful plan for securing and maintaining a natural buffer on the west boundary between these properties and development to the west. "Their request is deserving of your approval." In response to a question by Mayor Brian, Mr. Hopkins said the new proposal concerning the vacation of the easement for S.W. gist to the owners of Tax Lot 200 was not considered by the NPO but had been developed since the NPO considered the request. o Chris Carpenter, 8070 S.W. Churchill Court (co—applicant), testified he was also representing Mr. Ken Waymire, owner of Tax Lot 100 as well as homeowners of Lots 58 — 69. He reviewed the proposal submitted to Council. He said he believes this is not an unreasonable request. Mr. Carpenter testified there has been overwhelming support by the landowners involved, adjacent landowners, NPO #5 and the Chairman of the Planning Commission. The only major opposition has come from City of Tigard Planning Staff whose primary objection was with the creation of lots longer than their width by more than 2-1/2 times. Mr. Carpenter explained that the applicants, after being denied by the Planning Commission, proceeded to study options which would alleviate the primary objections to this proposal. On March 13 he and Jim Breakey met Senior Planner Keith Liden and discussed some of these options. From this meeting, he felt a plan emerged which would be acceptable to the City of Tigard staff. He reviewed the proposal with the Council: To make the variance acceptable, the plan would release the gist Avenue easement to adjacent landowners (Tax Lot 200). (The easement would be released from Tax Lot 100 and Tax Lots 58-69). �- This action would answer the concerns of the Planning Staff and the Planning Commission. Page 3 — COUNCIL MINUTES — APRIL 20, 1987 1) Planning Staff felt future subdivision of this property / would be a problem. The release of the easement would li prevent any partitioning by forfeiting the homeowners' right to access from the west. This ensure that there will be no further partitioning of the parcels. 2) The Planning Commission had concerns as to who would be responsible for the curb and gutter on the east side of S.W. 81st. Allowing S.W. gist to move to a more advantageous position on Tax Lot 200, the curb and gutter responsibility will no longer be an issue. 3) The Planning Staff expressed an interest to achieve maximum utilization of the properties involved. Forcing homeowners to purchase the land as a common tract and maintaining the easement as it currently exists would impose inefficient development of Tax Lot 200 by forcing the construction of awkward streets and or culs de sac. On the other hand, if the variance is granted, the easement will be released and Tax Lot 200 could be developed in a very efficient manner with a desirable backyard to backyard border between Bond Park II and Tax Lot 200. Mr. Carpenter requested City Council reverse the Planning Commission decision contingent upon the release of S.W. gist easement to Tax Lot 200. Councilor Johnson questioned the releasing of the easement of S.W. 81st; she asked if the property owners had any claim to this easement and whether or not vacation of the easement would be similar to the right-of-way vacation process. City Attorney advised the property owners could release this easement if indentured in their deed. He confirmed this action could be required as a condition of approval of the proposal; the vacation process to be followed can then be determined. Mayor Brian asked Mr. Carpenter if he felt the homeowners would share the cost of this vacation procedure. Mr. Carpenter indicated this would be acceptable. o Jim Breakey, 8040 S.W. Churchill Court (co-applicant) waived his opportunity to speak to the Council; he said he supported Mr. Carpenter's testimony. o Mark Corigliano, 8030 S.W. Churchill Court, testified he is in favor of the request. Mr. Corigliano entered into the record Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restriction (CCR's) for Bond Park No. 3, Washington County, State of Oregon. Page 4 - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 20, 1987 i S / He noted the restrictions in Article VIII, 4. : In order to preserve the native tree cover, each owner shall be required to receive permission from the Association, through its Board of Directors to cut trees on his lot with a five—inch or more diameter, measured two feet from the ground. Such permission will not be unreasonably denied in the case of tree disease or personal safety. This restriction will not apply to the Declarant, its heirs and assigns, and tree removal connected with the construction of the residences and their associated improvements. He assured the Council that all of the homeowners have a common interest to leave the property in its natural state. Councilor Eadon asked if the property does go to individual property owners, would they then have the right to fence the back of the property. Mr. Corigliano said he thought they would be able to do this. There was also some questions by Council concerning the CCR's; would these restrictions apply to the new area in question. o Steve Enright, 8020 S.W. Churchill Court, expressed support for the granting of this variance. He called Council's attention to the petition signed by 53 neighbors in favor of the proposal. He also commented that several letters of testimony have been submitted which also support the approval of this proposal. o Tom Love, 8060 S.W. Churchill Court, commented that he is favor of the request as outlined in the proposal. o Dorothy Gage, 8000 S.W. 54th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97219 testified she is the owner of Tax Lot 200. She expressed support of the proposal. Ms. Gage expressed concerned that whatever is done with the easement for S.W. 81st Avenue, she would not want her property to become landlocked. o Jan Thomas—Limpo, 15270 S.W. 79th Avenue testified he supported the proposal. He noted he likes the view because of the trees and also noted support of the revised S.W. 81st Avenue easement. o Letters were received from the following individuals expressing their support of the proposal: Mr. & Mrs. William Gano, 7930 S.W. Churchill Mike & Marlene Myers, 15825 S.W. 80th Avenue Mary E. and John C. Brinkman — no address given Rorie T. and Jan M. Leone, 8065 S.W. Churchill Court C Page 5 — COUNCIL MINUTES — APRIL 20, 1987 e. Recommendation by Community Development Director. He outlined Cbriefly why Staff's original recommendation for denial. He commented that should Council choose to sustain the appeal with Tax Lot 100 being included in the proposal and stipulating that the vacation of the easement of S.W. 81st Avenue to Tax Lot 200, Staff would recommend support of proposal. f. Public Hearing Closed. g. Discussion followed on the elements of the new proposal. h. Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Schwartz, to tentatively sustain the appeal of Variance V29-86 and Lot Line Adjustment M14-86, Ken Waymire (Bond Park); direct staff to prepare a resolution incorporating recommendations and/or resolving the following: o Recommend whether or not the subject easement for S.W. 81st Avenue should be relocated. o Recommend possible proposed realignment of S.W. 81st Avenue o Research whether or not the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Bond Park No. 3 can be applied to the additional area. (Council consensus was to prohibit possible future development of "flag lots.") o Determine whether or not any parcels of land are currently dependant on S.W. 81st for access and assure that no parcels of land become landlocked because of the proposal. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 5. PUBLIC NEARMG - ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA 87-M - RMCHARD AND SHIRLEY WALKER - NPO N3 Request to annex approximately 9.25 acres within the City's Urban Growth Boundary into the City. Also to change the zoning on the property from Washington County R-6 to City of Tigard R-4.5. Located: 14215 S.W. 125th (WCTM 2S1 9A, Lots 100 and 101). a. Public Hearing Opened. b. No Declarations or Challenges Made. C. Community Development Director synopsized this agenda item. Richard and Shirley Walker have requested that the City Council initiate the annexation of 9.25 acres that they own at 14215 S.W. 125th. The property is located in Tigard's Urban Planning Area and the Walkers intend to file for apprcval of a minor land partition upon annexation. All fees for processing the proposed annexation will be paid by the Walkers. Cd. Public Testimony - No one signed in to testify. Page 6 - COUNCIL (MINUTES - APRIL 20, 1987 e. Public Hearing Closed. f. Council discussed the proposal briefly. It was noted that the resolution did not include the provision wherein the Walkers would be responsible for fees associated with the annexation process. g. RESOLUTION NO. 87-47 A RESOLUTION FURTHERING ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TIGARD OF THE TERRITORY AS OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT "A" AND DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED. (Walker) ZCA 87-04. h. Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Eadon, to approve Resolution 87-47 with the third "Whereas" clause t•) read as follows: "WHEREAS, the owners of the property have requested in writing that the Tigard City Council initiate annexation of the property and agree to pay all fees; and" Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. i. ORDINANCE NO. 87-17 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A ZONE CHANGE (ZCA 87-04) (WALKER) AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. j . Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Eadon, to adopt Ordinance No. 87-17. Approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. 6. STREET LIGHTING POLICY DISCUSSION a. Council consensus to refer this item to staff for further study. This subject will be scheduled as a Study Session item within the next two to three months. 7. 18-#XWH CAPITAL PROJECT REPORT o City Engineer reported to the Council on projects being considered for the 1987-88 Capital Improvement Program. Following establishment of the 1987-88 funding levels through the budget process, City Engineer noted staff would return to Council with a formal proposal for the 1987-88 C.I.P. City Engineer suggested if Council wishes to make revisions in priorities or alternate projects for consideration, it would be appropriate to do so at this time. The City Engineer referred to his memorandum dated April 13, 1987 included in the Council packet. This memo gave a priority listing of streets, sanitary sewers, and storm drainage. C_ Page 7 - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 20, 1987 8. TMC AMENDMENT — DANGEROUS BUILDING ABATEMENT a. Community Development Director commented this was a proposed change to the Tigard Municipal Code. Currently, the abatement procedures allow for complete demolition of "Dangerous Buildings" or rehabilitation to present building code standards. Many owners of properties with vacant buildings have indicated intentions of utilizing the buildings at later dates. The dangerous buildings which would qualify for "board up" are those which are structurally sound but have become an attractive nuisance to unauthorized entry. b. ORDINANCE NO. 87-18 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 14.16.040 OF THE ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS ORDINANCE. C. Motion by by Councilor Johnson, seconded Councilor Eadon, to adopt Ordinance No. 87-18. Approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. 9. Consent Agenda Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Eadon, to approve the consent agenda as follows with the amendment that Item 9.2d be tabled to the April 27, 1987 City Council meeting: 9.1 Approve Council Minutes: June 21, 1986, July 19, 1986, December 1 and 8, 1986, and January 19 and 26, 1987. 9.2 Receive and File: a Crime Prevention Report b. Records Division Workplan c. CIP/LID Monthly Report d. Solid Waste Metro Rate Increase Pass Through (This item should have been included as "Approve" rather than "Receive and File"; — tabled to April 27, 1987) . e. Monthly Departmental Reports 9.3 Approve ICMA Deferred Comp. Plan Petition — Resolution No. 87-48 9.4 Approve Formation of Special CIP Task Force — Resolution No. 87-49 9.5 Approve Resolution Forming NPO NO and Defining Boundaries — Resolution No. 87-50 9.6 Approve Interim Training and Travel Policy 9.7 Approve Training Request — Carolyn Eadon, City Council — $133.40 10. STUDY SESSION RECONVENED — 9:24 P.M. a. Chief of Police David Lehr and Crime Prevention Specialist Deb Watros were present to discuss with Council the Neighborhood Watch Program modifications and recommendations. b. Crime Prevention Specialist Watros summarized the history of the Neighborhood Watch Program and as it now exists. Ms. Watros said ` the Neighborhood Watch is in a "reactive" as opposed to a more Q desirable "active" mode. Page 8 — COUNCIL MINUTES — APRIL 20, 1987 r F c. Chief Lehr and Crime Prevention Specialist Watros reviewed the material as presented in their memorandum of April 13, 1987 to inistrator. This memo outlined their the Mayor, Council and Adm approach to crime prevention and new role for the Neighborhood Watch Program. It is time the Police Department reassert direction of the Crime Prevention Program and utilize the committee in an advising and assisting role." They also proposed "a resolution which would bring the Neighborhood Watch Committee structure, membership appointment and length of terms into line with other boards and committees in the City." d. Chief Lehr and Crime Prevention Specialist Watros reported they have discussed the proposal with Councilor Edwards who indicated support. e. The memorandum also stated that the Police Department has ". . .announced a department organization that in part creates a Police Community Services Unit that will report directly to the Chief of Police for supervision. The crime prevention specialist and school resource officers will comprise the unit." 11. EXECUTIVE SESSION a. The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) at 9:24 p.m. to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, and current and pending litigation issues. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 10:58 P.M. De uty Recorder — City of Tigard ATTEST: Mayor — City of Tigard CW/4670A Page 9 — COUNCIL MINUTES — APRIL 20, 1987 TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY Legal P.O.BOX 370 PHONE(503)684-0360 Notice 7-6020 BEAVERTON,OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising RECEIVED • City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice APR i 71987 PO Box 23397 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit Tigard, OR 97223 CITY OFTIGARD • AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss. Anne Jean being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the ATimesvertising Director, or his principal clerk, of the T i g a r a newspaper of general }irculaTiQrddefined in ORS 19in010 and 193.020; published at he aforesaid county and state; that the 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 16, 1987 - Subscribed an sworn to fore me is 7 otary Public for Oregon My Comaftelon Expires: 9-2 0-8 8 AFFIDAVIT s e toli'mft s Rems`+ Did fbt your 4nformsttda,; L f yi l►# ttim�hOalme tYReoW � `i1Y>rCit.TG� .��!�J�riP• 3+F"� �.:F �*�.�" _'�S` .. SEy -tee �e•►ii'A �O�dl�Z�i'A fiT-0l BiC>s�d aAtCSh 9 W J 4 _ F 1 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING In the Matter of the Proposed Ordinance Nos. 87-17 & 87-18 STATE OF OREGON County of Washington ) ss City of Tigard ) I/ being first duly sworn, on oath, depose and �saY- That I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance Number(s)-87-17 and 87-18 which were adopted at the Council Meeting dated April 20, 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 -Aga day of 1 ' 4Nota Public for 0 egon : A H NT LNOTARY PUBLIC //— OREGON My Commission Expires: L/igS - rny Cc^mission Expires./!�.. .... ....... j CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 87— FL AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A ZONE CHANGE (ZCA 87-04) (WALKER) AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, on March 31, 1987 Richard and Shirley Walker filed a request to annex land into the City of Tigard; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on April 20, 1987 to consider the annexation request and to consider zoning designations for the property; and WHEREAS, on April 20, 1987 the City Council approved a resolution forwarding the annexation to the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission; and WHEREAS, the zoning district designations recommended by the Planning staff as set forth in Section 1 below are those which conform to those designations assigned to the properties on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map adopted by the City of Tigard. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The recommendation of the Planning staff as set forth below is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Policy 10.1.2 of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Tax Map/Tax Lot Number Current Zoning Proposed Zoning 2S1 9A 100 Wash. Co. R-6 City of Tigard R-4.5 2S1 9A 101 Wash. Co. R-6 City of Tigard R-4.5 Section 2: This ordinance shall become effective upon filing of the annexation final order with the office of the Secretary of State. PASSED: By unanimous vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this 20th day of April 1987. Catherine Wheatley, Deputy Recor er APPROVED: This 20th day of April 1987. Thomas M. Brian, Mayor \ (EAN:cn/1154W) ORDINANCE NO. 87—,/7 Page 1 ,y CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 87- Ig AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 14.16.040 OF THE ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS ORDINANCE. WHEREAS, the City Council has enacted an Abatement of Dangerous Buildings Ordinance, TMC Chapter 14.16; WHEREAS, the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings Ordinance provides remedies for the cure of dangerous buildings or structures, including repairs, vacation, and demolition; WHEREAS, the dangerous condition of certain vacant buildings or structures can be cured by boarding up entrances and exits, or by otherwise securing the building, and the current Abatement of Dangerous Buildings Ordinance does not provide for such a remedy; THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: TMC 14.16.040(b) (3) and ( 5) are re-numbered as TMC 14.16.040(b) (4 ) and (6) , respectively. Section 2: A new TMC 14.16.040(b) (3) is added to read as follows: If the building official has determined that (a) the building or structure is vacant, (b) the building or structure is structurally sound and does not present a fire hazard, and (c) the building or structure has presented or is likely to present a danger to individuals who may enter the building or structure even though they are unauthorized to do so, the order shall require that the building or structure be secured against unauthorized entry by means which may include but are not limited to the boarding up of doors and windows. Section 3: A new TMC 14. 16.040(b) (4) is added to read as follows: If, after a building or structure is secured pursuant to 14.16.040(b) (3) , the building official determines that such security measures are rendered ineffective by repeated vandalism or otherwise, and If the building official has thereby determined that the building or structure must be demolished, the C ORDINANCE NO. 87- Page 1 order shall be in accordance with 14.16.040(b) (5) and 14.16.040(b) (6) . PASSED: By VNASyiM ou5 vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this `) day of a(26 L 1987. —c Catherine Wheatley,Wheatley, Deputy Recorder APPROVED: This QD day of 1987. Tom Brian, Mayor 4 ORDINANCE NO. 87- i Page 2 f i �AGnNDA::ITEM .# VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE 4/20/87 (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 r DATE April 20, 1987 I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print the information) Item Description: PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF VARIANCE V29-86 AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT M14-86, KEN WAYMIRE, NFO #5 (BOND PARK) AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 Proponent (For Issue) Opponent (Against Issue) E , Addre sand Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation tvis SQ �vv►s./7,-,,,AT1 s gets �v�t`tr ,4PZ:r l CAA-7' ar oer, P St✓ L7 o </ V.e- �tnq i� 5,w, ch I It c N 'eta �sZ-)v S07CT DATE April 20, 1987 I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print the information) Item Description: PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA 87-04 - RICHARD AND SHIRLEY WALKER NPO #3 AGENDAITEM- NO. 4`'` Proponent (For Issue) Opponent (Against Issue) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: 4/20/87 DATE SUBMITTED: 4/9/87 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Lot Line Ad) . PREVIOUS ACTION: Denial b Planning M 14-86 Variance V 29-86 Director and Planninj Commission Waymire et. al. PREPARED BY: Keith Liden DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK" REQUESTED BY: — POLICY ISSUE INFORMATION SUMMARY On January 6, 1987, the Director denied a request to enlarge lots 58-69 of Bond Park # 3 and the Planning Commission upheld the decision on March 3, 1987. Late in March, the Council called this item up for review. Since this application was originally submitted, Bond Park No. 41 which will include the remaining southern portion of Tax Lot 100, has received preliminary plat approval. Attached is a map prepared by staff which illustrates the proposal followed by a letter to John Schwartz, March 3rd Commission minutes, neighborhood petition, notes from Chris Carpenter's presentation to Planning Commission, staff memo to the Commission explaining the appeal, Director's y decision, and the original application information. The reasons for denial by the Director and Commission are discussed on pages 3 and 4 of the staff decision. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Uphold the Planning Commission decision and adopt the attached resolution. 2. Reverse the Commission decision and direct staff to prepare a resolution. FISCAL IMPACT SUGGESTED ACTION 1. Uphold the Commission action and adopt the attached resolution. 312OP/dmj C RESOLUTION N0. 87— Page 1 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 87- A FINAL ORDER IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND VARIANCE REQUESTED BY KENNETH WAYMIRE ET AL, FILE NO.s M 14-86/V 29-86 DENYING THE APPLICATION, ENTERING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. The Tigard City Council heard the above application at a public hearing on April 20, 1987. The Council finds the following facts in this matter: 1. The applicant requested a lot line adjustment to enlarge lots 58-69 of Bond Park No. 3 and a Variance to allow lot depths of more than 2 1/2 times the lot width 2. The proposal was denied by the Planning Director on January 6, 1987, and the decision was upheld by the Planning Commission on March 3, 1987. 3. The Council reviewed the proposals and all pertinent information at its regularly scheduled hearing on April 20, 1987. 4. The relevant approval criteria are noted in the Director's decision (Exhibit "A"). Based upon the record in this case, the Council finds that the Lot Line Adjustment and Variance do not conform with Variance and Community Development Code criteria as noted in the Director's decision. The Council adopts the following conclusion of law: Based upon the above findings, the Council has determined that the Planning Commission decision is appropriate. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: Based upon the findings and conclusions, the Planning Commission decision is upheld and the Council order that M 14-86/V 29-86 is denied according to the facts, findings, and conclusions found in the Director's decision (Exhibit UA O). PASSED: This day of 1987. Mayor - City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder - City of Tigard 3120P/dmj RESOLUTION NO. 87- Paae 2 CITY OF TIGARD NOTICE OF AMENDEDDECISION MINOR LAND PARTITION MLP 11-86 VARIANCE V J,9-86 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT M 14-86 ET. AL. to adjust one parcel of 1.84 APPLICATION: Request by Kenneth Waymire,rk # ranging approximately 4,200 to acres and 12 parcels (Lots 58-69 Bond ar feet in size into one parcel of 0.54 acres and 12 parcels of 6,000 square approximately 9,100 to 12,000 square feet in size and for a Variance to allow PP to 4 times the width of the property where 2 1/2 times is lot depths of up allowed. The 0.54 acre parcel is then to be divided into three parcels of allowed. t. 4,900 square feet c size. The property is zoned R-12 (Multi-Family Residential, 12 units/acre) and is located immediately west of Bond Park #3 Lots 58-69 (WCTM 2S1 12CC lots 100, 3000, 3100, 3200, 3300, 3400, 3500, 3601, 3700, 3800, 3900, 4000, and 4101). he City Of DECISION: Notice is hereby given that the Planning Director icat on tsubject to Tigard has APPROVED the above described Partition app nd certain conditions and The D D the above described Varianc Adjustment applications. findings and conclusions on which a the LDirector based his decision are as noted below. A. FINDING OF FACT 1, Background A Director's decision was released on thea appe9 aldate 86. The and the decision contained an error regarding s been issued to proposal description. l not all theended property cision a owners signed the correct the errors. Also, Code. application as required by Bond Park III subdivision was approved in 1984 (File ,S 2-84). The western portion of this phase of the development (Lots 58-69) are involved in this proposal. 2, Vicinity Information • Adjacent properties to the south, east, and west are zoned 7 (Residential, 12 units/acre) and the R-7 (Residential,, unites/acre) zone lies to the north. The eastern portion of abutting parcels Park III ond is immediately east and the remaining are homesites that range is size from approximately one to 19 ner of the acres. Bond Street ends at rn peasement hrunse t along its western roperty and a 40 foot access boundary (81st Avenue). _ C NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION - MLP 11-86 - PAGE 1 3. Site Information and Proposal Description ® This application involves a 900 by 90 foot vacant parcel and Lots 58-69 of Bond Park III. The applicant proposes to absorb the northern area of the vacant tract by extending the western boundary of the subdivision lots 90 feet to the west. The southern section of this vacant parcel will be divided into three lots and Bond Street will extend approximately 100 feet further west to provide access. 4. Agency and NPO Comments The Engineering Division has the following comments: a. The creation of Lot 3 precludes the southerly continuation of 81st Avenue to provide access to Tax Lots 1900 and 2000 to the south. Previous development plans for the area have shown an extension of 81st Avenue and no additional access to Durham Road, largely because of restricted sight distance in this location. b. This access question may be resolved by indicating a feasible alternate method for providing suitable access for these southern parcels. C. The proposed lot line adjustment and resulting lot depths of up to 200 feet will potentially create problems relating to access if the enlarged lots are to be partitioned in the future. The Building Inspection Division and the Tualatin Rural Fire Protection District have no objections to the request. No other comments have been received. B. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION The proposed major land partition element of this application is consistent with Community Development Code . standards for lot size, dimensions, and access. The lot line adjustment (i.e. , the expansion of Lot 58-69) does not meet the standard for lot depth which may not exceed 2.5 times the lot width. A variance has been requested and an analysis of the relevant criteria is discussed below. The following criteria are given in Section 18.134.050 of the Code for granting a variance: 1. The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Code, be in conflict with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, to any other applicable policies and standards; and to other properties in the same zoning district or vicinity; NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION — MLP 11-86 — PAGE 2 2. There are special circumstances e h texist which hor otare peculiar to the lot size ptopography, ther circumstances over which the applicant has no control, and which are not applicable to other properties; 3. The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this Code and City standards will be maintained to the greatest extent that is reasonably possible,' while permitting some economic use of the land; 4. Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage, dramatic land forms, or parks will not be adversely affected any more than would occur if the development were located as specified in the Code; and 5. The hardship is not self-imposed and the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. One purpose of the Comprehensive Plan and the Community Development Code is to promote efficient development of land within the City. The Code standard that requires lot length not to exceed 2.5 times lot width is intended to maximize efficient use of land and allow for an enhanced ability to redevelop property. In the long run, the proposed lots will be undesirable because of the poor utilization of land, awkward lot configuration, and difficulties associated with future partitioning of these oversized parcels, particularly from the standpoint of access. In addition, if some of the properties are subsequently divided, the orientation of buildings may not be desirable with lots having a random pattern of abutting front and rear yards. The proposal will also create problems relating to the location of future streets on the adjoining property to the west. City policy calls for provision of suitableL access 'for . adjacent properties during the course of development. When the property to the wet develops, some access to the rear of the proposed lots should be retained to accommodate future partitioning. Arranging a functional street system on this property will be troublesome when the number and timing for future division of the expanded lots will be impossible to predict. The Planning staff understands the desires of the lot owners in Bond Park III to establish a buffer area between their properties and future development to the west. Although the creation of long, narrow parcels will achieve this objective, it will effectively foreclose future options for utilization of the property. Joint purchase of the entire tract as common open space area would also achieve the desired result and retain the option for developing the property later as a cohesive unit. If permanent open space remains as a goal, future 'sale or dedication to the City for park purposes may also be a possibility. It C should be noted that if the "common tract" option is pursued, the partition proposal would need to be modified since this would establish a fourth parcel and a maximum of only three may be created through the partition process in one calendar year. NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION — MLP 11-86 — PAGE 3 r. 1 The staff also reviewed the possibility of only expanding the lots to the west by 10 to 20 feet. This action would have a , �r detrimental effect upon thedevelopment parcel. Thelreduction the ® remaining 70 to 80 foot by inde pendently. width would make it virtually impossible to develop C. DECISION The Planning Director approves MLP 11-86 subject to the conditions noted below and denies V 29-86 and M 14-86. OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET PRIOR TO 1, UNLESS I, RECORDING THE PARTITION WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY. 2, The partition survey map and legal descriptions shall be Director for review and approval PRIOR submitted to the Planning TO RECORDING. The partition may be modified to include the creation of a large northern parcel umo purchased jointly of 3parcelsshall be the adjacent lot owners. A max permitted. 3, Standard full and half-street improvement fronting applicants proposed lots including sidewalks, curbs, streetlights, driveway aprons, storm drainage and utilities shall be installed along the extension of SW Bond Street street frontage. Said improvements along SW Bond Street shall be built to City LocalStreet the alignment of existing adjacent standards and conform t improvements. q, Seven (7) sets of plan-profile public improvement construction plans and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate, stamped by a Registered Professional Civil Engineer, detailing all proposed public improvements shall be submitted to the Engineering Section for approval. 5. Sanitary and storm sewer plan-profile details shall be provided as part of the public improvement plans. 6. Construction of proposed public improvements shall not roved commence until after the Engineering Section has issued app ublic improvement plans. The Section will require posting fee of 100% Performance Bond, the payment of a permit gn installation/streetlight fee. Also, the execution of a riot to, or construction compliance agreement shall occur P ic improvement concurrently with the issuance of app plans. SEE THE ENC LES D BONDING ANDING AG MORENSPECIFIC INFORMATION E . REGARDING FEE SCHEDU 7. A one (1') foot reserve strip granted to the "City of Tigard" shall be provided at the terminus of the proposed SW Bond street street extension. C NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION - MLP 11-86 - PAGE 4 8. Right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Public along the SW Bond Street extension frontage to provide right-of-way of 25 feet from centerline. The description for said dedication shall be tied to the existing right-of-way centerline. The dedication document shall be on City forms and approved by the Engineering Section. DEDICATION FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS ARE AVAILABLE FROM THE ENGINEERING SECTION. 9. Lot #3 of applicants proposal shall not be allowed to obstruct southerly extension of (commonly known) SW 81st Avenue, said extension having been previously proposed by the applicant (Bond Park No. 3 preliminary plat submittal) to serve as the primary future accessway for T.L. #1900 and #2000, unless a alternate route is proposed by the applicant which is acceptable to the City. 10. Street Centerline Monumentation a. In accordance with ORS 92.060 subsection (2), the centerlines of all street and roadway right-of-ways shall be monumented before the City shall accept a street improvement. b. All centerline monuments shall be placed in a monument box conforming to City standards, and the top of all monument boxes shall be set at design finish grade of said street or roadway. C. The following centerline monuments shall be set: 1. All centerline-centerline intersection. Intersections created with "collector" or other existing streets, shall be set when the centerline alignment of said "collector" or other street has been established by or for the City; 2. Center of all cul-de-sacs; 3. Curve points. Point of intersection (P.I.) when their position falls inside the limits of the pavement otherwise beginning and ending points (B.C. and E.C.) 4. All sanitary and storm locations shall be placed in positions that do not interfere with centerline monumentation. 11. The applicant shall provide for roof rain drainage to the public stormwater system. 12. The applicant shall provide for connection to proposed buildings to the public sanitary sewerage system. A connection permit is required. NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION - MLP 11-86 - PAGE 5 13. All property owners of Lots 58-•59 of Bond Park #3 involved in this decision shall sign the application form on file at the Planning office or submit a letter acknowledging permission to submit the application prior to appealing this decision. 14. This approval is valid if exercised within one year of the final decision date noted below. D. PROCEDURE 1. Notice: Notice was pa�-lished in the newspaper, posted at City Hall and mailed to: XXX The applicant & owners XXX Owners of record within the required distance XXX The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization XXX Affected governmental agencies 2. Final Decision: THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON January 19, 1987 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. 3. Appeal: Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.32.290(A) and Section 18.32.370 of the Community Development Code which provides that a written appeal must be filed with the CITY RECORDER within 10 days after notice is given and sent. The deadline for filing of an appeal is 3:30 P.M. 1-19-87 4. Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Department, Tigard • City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., PO ' Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223, 639-4171. AW2 PREPARED BY: Keith S. Liden, Senior Planner DATE Wil i A. Monahan, Director of Community Development DATE APPROVED (KSL:bs2813P) / .� j L NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION - MLP 11-86 - PAGE 6 1'4 SECTION 12 T2S R I W W.M. 2S I 12CC VISHINGTON COUPI'Y )REGQPj SCALE I' 10i' CANCELLED TAX LOT NUMBERS H 'oo--o I.--oo. SEE MAPkovwjop -PAILL&vs 2S I t2CB `7 4 A0tPjVVjAgLPT 000 2900 2,306" 300 200 - 57 56 w Z' 2 7L)O .23100 5.1 55 U) 32)J- 2600 60 O 54 3300 zO so 2500-) 61 =an j'153 soos 3400 iC: -2400 3500 -,L300 .J, 63 o —51 '& r 74-44 3601 y S2200 50 9$"00 2100 -a 5a4 �A .....�-; t-3 00 I!I Ll 6 3900 67 so.,$ URC - 40, Is-- Ld A 7 ..v 4400 SEE MAP E. -101 401 69 457-1 44500 25 1 lZCD 1042070 CD 0 S0 4600 2 74 4c so 4300 » 5 4 700 775 .6--s.f -sc 412 c3 S.W.» BO DS 1900 '4 '23 so* Ac -,-":c 00 5100 5 49 0 so,, 4800 1 lf*%M 'PAILIL 1. 77 80 79 78 76 LID.4 1900 2000 OJAC FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES ONLY.DO NOT RELY ON FOR ANY OTTER USE. sce '�'-• —j DURHAM -L J- fr,_Z STATE "fGwWAy 217) ROAD E MA P A'm COUNTY PARTMIrNT OF 13 ASSESSMENT&TAXATION t „s' iYo►• . `.fi t- RON �® ■ tr t� an-40 3w SUN s�• WIN EL ®sE ;;, - s �IyM� _ MAIN 1'.�■��■ 1111111111 a . n 7 .r. • i John Schwartz, Tigard City Council On March 3, 1987 a group of Tigard citizens presented an appeal of the denial of Variance V 19-86 and Lot Line Adjustment M 14-86 to the Tigard Planning Commission in which we do not believe we received a fair judgement. I want to stress that this is not a case of sore losers grasping at straws. We genuinely feel the commission's actions which lead to their decision were inappropriate. We have two primary concerns: 1) We stated in our letter of appeal that we wished to add a stipulation to the purchase of the property which would prevent us from attempting to subdivide our lots. This would prevent random development in the future. The first planning commissioner to speak stated that he wanted the stipulation added as a condition of approval of the appeal. The second commissioner stated that he wanted a stipulation added that would require us to pay for curb and gutter should 81st Street be developed. Both of these stipulations were perfectly acceptable to us. We welcome direction from the city on ways to help insure good management of our property. Now the problem, when the motion was made for approval of the appeal the commissioner making the motion neglected to add the stipulations. He did not feel they were necessary and stated that the appeal should be approved without them. We thank the commissioner for his confidence, however it was obvious to us that at least two of the commissioner's would not approve the appeal without them. We feel that since the "no future subdivision" stipulation had been part of our appeal that it should have been included in the motion. We also feel the "curb and gutter" stipulation could have been added. It may very well have altered the outcome. 2) The Planning Commission heard public testimony from six applicants speaking in favor of approval. It also heard unsolici e testimony from NPO 5 and from the adiacent-proper owner, Dorthv_ e. on s gned by 53 interested neighbors was also sented. The chairman of the Planning Commission spent a considerable period of time addressing each point of accountability required for a variance to be approved and gave a complete explanation of how he felt we had met or exceeded each of them. He also provided a detailed explanation of why he--felt our appeal should be approved. Conversely no public testimony was presented against the approval of the appeal. The commissioner who made a motion for denial gave no support for her position saying only that it was bad planning and that our appeal meet none of the four points of accountability. These statements, when made without qualification, are meaningless and yet became the grounds on which the motion to deny our appeal was approved. No further explanation was given. Considering the vast support for this variance we, as good citizens of Tigard, feel we are entitled to such an explanation. { We ask that you review -this situation. Great neighborhoods are one of Tigards best qualities. This variance takes a giant step toward i preserving one of them and deserves the attention of our City Council. Thank You. 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 ACC 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, Ren 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 development, and the easement for SW 81st Avenue. t PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 3, 1987 - PAGE 1 NPO COMMENTS co 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 Marie Corigliano, 8030 SW Churchill, supported the proposal. He stated a ti.aL common ownership will not work because of the legal problems. Also, they would not be able to individually use the property as they r 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 cw-ners for Lot 200, was in favor of the proposal. She SW ch is questioned the status of She the explained easementfor at the time ,thei easement awas ted on their property. P 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. He 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 Ccreated, 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 a 3/4 street with no way to require public improvement abutting lot 100. He felt that varian 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 M 14-86 based on the findings that the proposal meets criterias 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Motion failed 4-2 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 they felt the School District misunderstood that this is a trade off situation, moving densities not just increasing densities. He reviewed the NPO comments. He continued that all the proposals are consistent with the Tigard Municipal Code and staff is recommending approval on all sites. Discussion followed on how best to proceed, how many unics ;.o-ld 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. C PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 3, 1987 - PAGE 3 CWe the undersigned, wish to express our support of the Bond III residents' petition to receive a variance from the Tigard city regulation limiting lot depth to 2.5 times the lot width. Although we will receive no direct benifit from their opportunity to purchase the additional 90 feet behind their homes, we agree with their desire to maintain the natural beauty of the neighborhood. As residents of the city of Tigard and Bond Park, we are in favor of preserving the enviroment that attracted us to this neighborhood. Therefore, we petition the Planning Director to grant the variance requested by our neighbors. 2. o�S Sw C'hu,Ch�l I �/ . 3. 4. ` O�JS S. .�1tJ (/y�//IZC'W 6. 80?5 sc,y C�ULI,ckLtL Gt. 7. All IRI :\► 9. Lks 10. i 3 �^ J 11 .12. f 0 c pit �5(,U L%�,vu�.c. •�. ! 1. •;;,;.j -- 14. S, • 15. 16. J 17. is. 7 19`� (con't) 20. 21 . itf, L 22. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 1c, kwingo,� 32. 33. - 34. S N 36. 7z 37. 7 38. S T4 Al IV146,. 39. 40. 41 . 4 2. 43. Of &a-ck -zp 1- ,(,) -fi>ek,� D- 44 45. (con't) 4 6. 47. o 49. J d 7y �° '-e I 5 0. f•S6 g'd % , 51. !Z L .�- Y _7/ rlf 52. 53. S w 727'1 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. ' 1'Z 1 OL 630 MY 1LJ� Is CH�rs �:42l�E.v7`E2/ ,qMc -T 14AA- E�'t�Fsc.uii�v� �e-�, wEy rc.'r rZE A o D 1 tfe uoL vc- t,,� 7, / J'PLI C'/� T/p/V Or-- 1/,k1 �c /INCE U l - (o /�fV/� ZO-7 4/&4 A-t7J (>S-FAA 6-1v7- kA ( -q. — 1 W&VZ- > L i 41= 70 6'4o� U t '-"L`l c- Y T (11 VE- You A t,17rTLE T3ACK62D L A-rl> /iv %/11/S /1'(A 7TC/c'. T DIP-c4C--/-,3 �� l Q U S 'i ►.•o ►�-� w,t,' F its Uutz Svc eovivD1tiGs At i t-) {-6 T Gvc,csc r _ �!0 -T-0�pE �X`-r-C,V� �U2 . OTS �G � /=EET" i_• � i��V O 1 rl- -G q�tiTt/2� A/L / F� �,' 1 r rc Ti-i�e ICE�v G(/As U.vGviLL/�vG %o s� 1 r�usE J N V C'f'U G3 GfZ 1 �T ��v vv G— �6kE ( D/V Ti�1•.C7`Er? /,(�j `t' ��E�1 07-- fUST_ V7- /ye C,fJT/2Ep� /COoT f%F(2CEL �c �/EfzE v Y -t:Xv/'121-ZAAJ 1--> A)lq7-" -7iT SEL t ��f 7 F/� �--c� 2 � v �t�f'UIZTU�/�j-"�( , • 7HA-T E` ' ,SW,-UL.0 C 02Z-V V65 .L Y. ZT" GI,A SE- !,(�� - G�^c--�- �t�f�-cJc �u�.�E C� Tom' C'i�-r ;•��-,:�' �-t- (JJo v Lv NOT- ALL UGv �.v<< �' pr /,' ic.,. W rr-1--F / t4ic- e)P77, s �C-LLC-2S ` / Pv�/,r,9.5E �itJLY A 1�o�2nU.v f 2s .0 �r✓G �,oA-r UJoCILD ALLOW �GL ©�" �NE �f/76Al/ :; TU I=AA-L L L(/r►-y/�v J rFE Cf 7-Y (ppE //-/,t-- FtiT/,eE f A2 CE, /U01,JLY /41L40ti077/s -� 12 /IGS Dw,vs 0 A PPL`r /=7v-2 /A ,41-G676(--' Il�-c- PA/z cEG ' -7-o �lJ r-r 4 CA c I q E-:v'r&/v,olA/es TE, 7h`E /G',.s?F2iV l&/T� YOC, -T- �i'P'7-1 O AJS A'A.91--> W 4y bU E S ELS LT E� /ffc�s 1_A5-r !-1 T►1c- — �hJ c.Y -T—fFE /4�nm✓n.�T- O F �*�/�IU 1� �2o w�. /�-iA r- �vvvLlU LLL)to 14-4-1- 77) 4-LL77) Co 1v i=L-tzo.� To fic- Cr-r i es L eyr- L.c o7-iq lm j;::-� -7-14 t s . O F-n oiV Fi-^2 TrtE- �-LLEf2 4% —IHC- rt'fi�,��2 TY X(-ST'S -FCOA Y, �-r Is VNpCuc CiP/,kL3L6: /ivG CIV LY 4 Po r-- 1--7 n N U/= Tk 1-4,(,,o 91MI 0 /Uc;r(— & %Av ,f�/S -- 1A14 - -s-z-- O� `TNS 4 2 CSL G(/v c9 1� Aa-6- ?- AN, > AJb6'r- 4-E ICC L Y 6610(J L t:,-> RC-6 Tffe- SGC'OA-lp OPM,V T �.AeA-rn0AierD ac-v/Dms� Y C-&a7ze f,42 e Ca/t r 11r19NL AY,Aoly Gvws —1H6 IN VST 1 G l+W Q PTT 0 J /S As 6/ITff /`tl'tJY 7Weeec- /s c. n A!v D mi l��V �m2C- ©lam CQ'/UCE�2it/ V L/AB) -->S UfS �A--r Ca vLp X/?/ct' 1 N CASE I N� WE2c ✓C-2 l v 13C- AA-J Ac C t oc-ter- CSN %& L -T—h�cs ►NN i - (J� �vp/i1/G Tim t9X I s--nNc; loawul2G IS �t GUILU�tJ6 ALL�/z - wc==r Ar, .c— (DILL//UGvyE,�2S `TF & Tc. AA) JlNG O F- '(Dts 2 )4-F?L! c-A-Tl D1 J IS US R-20 p-' -Fu 2 c t4As 1)uG Vic- AIV` C—XreA DOJ QUA lCws-7/j16 d ' WOULi> L1e-c- � C—tuPMA-51?-�e -TH�4TT TA-c- I_AN p AS �-r- CU teoG wz `( t/DUDC—yc—LOPA8LE . I uV/z DF 4126 Peiz'rY wI LL klmri CYAIVG 4 I-Ttl-s ",C- �0 1/t,�TS G�/G aj9 U L/�" Ll�� o �2, ti� Op IV /ffc fi q-rz cc-L �o Ip-t5- E7 IUo r P.Aue Ay Y 1)1v %—t- �6sCxTL Y LtJ�� "VLJ-,-) Aso -7o RiA,17-- 4&7o7- //�✓ n�N�- �t�� P'DS Erb 1/i42 6/1JC� A/U TT+'.s 15 1j -it�D VN/QUE G517VA-7-fLA2 V Nbyo 61UE Cc,Gd? YDS Xiv IPC-4 4c-- MA 6/U1Tv/Jz5' op= JIT& G.IMvv 09--Ze-� Aw c- QU11LjE �rZ.C�--GS 4-C,26-:5 , dv2 ApF->&AL CoA)c��,S ©/UL,Y /IS 4z-,a---5 -3. (,:v eZ,6 &lc- 7—Pc- L-AAAt> /N COAvC L 11s11,6i !�/� D► U ID/N b �� FN7we !�/+IZC� I,�-r� 17?- -1Nppr - !,(Jjo U t-DBe r=7 PEz� 1-s //7v- 8c--S r 6>77AIll 4 y. 0GQUesr TH4r 7-99 �c.4,v v%vG loK«•�s�c c. "� 0 U7O/CJ� S vPPO.PCT �U/Z / 'i' %`f� i AGEMDA ITEM 5.1 PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 3, 1987 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Planning Commission C FROM: Planning Staff ��V f 9 s1- SUBJECT: Appeal of Variance V 19-86 and Lot Line Adjustment M 14-86. Bond Park III On January 6, 1987 the Director of Community Development denied an application for a variance and a lot line adjustment in conjunction with a minor land partition request which was approved for a 1.84 acre parcel and lots 58-69 in Bond Park V. The variance was r-squested to allow lot depths of up to 4 times the width of the property. Section 10.154.020 (&) (2) of- the Community Development Code states that "The depth of all lots shall not exceed 2h times the average width." The lot line adjustment was requested to adjust the 1.84 acre parcel. and 12 parcels into one .54 acre parcel and 12 9,000 ;12',OW_squafe:£oot_-pWol. StaffIs justification for denial of the variance and lot line adjutment is s outlined on pages 3 and 4 of the attached Amended decision. Also attached is the Notice of appeal which contains the property owners reasons for appealing the-Director's denial. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission uphold Staff's denial of the variance and lot line adjustment requests. � 1 Ha ire is-McMonagle Associates, Inc. ENGINEERS-SURVEYORS ® 12555 S.W.HALL BLVD. TIGARD,OREGON 97223-6287 Iblephone(503)639-3953 November 12 , 1986 z EXHIBIT "A" Y 4 MINOR LAND PARTITION AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NARRATIVE BACKGROUND: Enclosed , as Exhibit "B" , is a copy of a portion of County Assessor' s map 2S-1-12CC which was current in 1984 . This map defines S. W. 81st Avenue as a public way . & The preliminary plat for Bond Park No. 3, Exhibit "C" , was based on S. W. 81st being an unimproved 40 foot wide public way as it had been shown for 20 years. Bond Park No . 4 was to consist of those lots along the east side of S. W. 81st Avenue. Just last year it was de- termined that although the 40 foot wide strip was intended to be a public way, it was never actually dedicated and the maps were changed to reflect this as shown on Exhibit "D" . This strip is now defined as a non-exclusive easement with the land owned by Dorothy Gage. Kenneth Waymire, President of Waverly Construction Co. , developer of Bond Park, has contacted Mrs. Gage several times with offers of joint development of both parcels, purchase of the 40 foot strip, or pur- chase of the entire Gage tract . All offers were to no avail . Mrs . Gage apparently does not desire to do anything with her property. The utilization of the land which would have been Bond Park No. 4 is the reason for this request . MINOR LAND PARTITION: The minor land partition request is for that land adjacent to and west of the west end of S. W. Bond Street as shown on Exhibit "D" . This request will provide for the orderly extension of the public facilities. As part of this partition S. W. Bond Street and all public facilities will be extended west across the applicant ' s land and to the east line of the 40 foot strip of land owned by Mrs. Gage and shown on the tax map as S. W. 81st Avenue, but not a dedicated public road . The extension of these improvements are consistant with the preliminary plan previously approved for the Bond Park development , andwill pro- vide access and facilities to the lands to the north, south and west AwAk for future development. H-WASS®C., INC. MINOR LAND PARTITION (Cont. ) Page 2 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND VARIANCE TO LOT DEPTH STANDARD A The lot line adjustment request involved that portion of Tax Lot 100 adjacent to and west of Lots 58 through 69 as shown on Exhibit "D" . The owners of these lots have been contacted and are willing to purchase that portion of the land westerly of and adjacent to their individual lots. This purchase will require a variance to the lot depth standard . The lots involved are generally 50 feet wide which by the code of 21/2 times the lots width would limit the lots to 125 feet in depth. This request would add 95 feet to the rear yards of the lots involved as can be seen on Exhibit "D" , marked "Lot Line Adjustment Area" . At this time the land involved in the lot line adjustment is land locked as far as development to City standards is concerned , as it does not front on a dedicated public road . In the future, when the Gage tract , to the west , develops the area involved can be provided access and , if the owners choose, can be developed as building sites. This variance request is the minimum that will allow the applicant to sell his property while still providing for the possible future use of the land . Exhibit ItDI, ,e �. see••YlYt sloe w DORBUReq°:6•LP , QS 03000 2300 2tl00 200 100 -- - cc \� 57 56 i �S Ac I W , ,.a•.Rc � " ,,•' �a t�\zese .�� 27002 Z 3100 It Q J —- l V' 75 P ..2600 60 54 9J 1! ^"•LO es u i .2500 33061 ;^(� ' s egos 3400 ^eC x2400 I C-- — 3500 S '300 0 ^/ 63 0 o 51 z^ 44 , •..3501 1 0 2200 I I o I o�1 50 . .. I;A'Aw: 01 i Z -':1 'f_`•'st 7e � 9•i• cl , 1 6 " �7 X100`; u ..i �` o•• 55 r 49 1122• • 3e00 O, 29 39-30 ,• V .,2711 (' ^/ 67 'O'f h�RC �— X4401 40rr ^ CLI;+( 72 s 1 C )h8 aJuu SEE R1AP I _ fl le 9S7 o_"Ivl�— �` 4501 .451)0 1 ^1(_, 59 ^ s 7% i I �lw0i� `20096 " 0. 00E46 o d IC2 a 70• Z ac , so 4 i 3 00` to \ i _ 4300 0 4700 ^ ' 71 U) » 75 .011 �•1C/i '2 •- 9 17e .071 1 ^ S.W. ®OND �S . 292 C! l�� C� •_�:.. 211 a RF ,. ,. ,• :::.; »7- 15JJl � 5200 5100 5000 4900 4900 » 78-80 79 P 77 ' 76 t 1900 2000 I OJAc 1 • . ICS:.O,:ae) FJR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES ONLY.00 NOT RELY ON FOR ANY OT•1ER USE. _ •1 ros• 111 I�01 IV -41 I.eAc ; • 101 71.L «ee•:f'l ._. DURHAM`. -L L ROAD:`= (GLS STATE HIGHWAY 217) •�.�'�—"'�1•iF.+'-.;• ••4•f��s.i�'�`..k•{4'.=�.si�J3:!�'�ti1�',.:r'�a �s`1ri... - -- - __ - - -.. •--•�----""'-•.-. ....� -~�....._-... .. .riri:v ire-'e..w.4 '.�. .... -`.'GLs�i1....•_ .' - MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor, Co cil strator April 17, 1987 FROM: Chief of Police SUBJECT: Lot Line Adjustment M14-86 Variance U29-86 Waymire Et. Al. The Police Department staff has studied the appellant's proposal and appeal, and has determined that the Department has no objection to the proposal frau a public safety view. As long as 81st is developed, emergency services 1 personnel and equipment will have access to developed property. The Police Department would request that the property owners be required to post their addresses by number and street name conspicuously on the rear property line facing 81st Street. i CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM Variance V29-86 Lot Line Adjustment M14-86 Presented To: Tigard City Council Presented By: Ken Waymire Bond Park Homeowners (Lot 58 - 69) 4 In preparation for the City Council meeting on April 20, 1987 , the homeowners of Bond Park III (Lots 58 to 69) have compiled this document to aid in the council' s evaluation of the agenda �. item concerning Planning Staff's denial of Variance V 29-86 and Lot Line Adjustment M 14-86. { Our primary reason for bringing this issue before you is that we truly believe that our application for the variance and lot line adjustment is not an unreasonable request . We have exhibited overwhelming support for the application from the present land owners , the surrounding land ownersl, our neighbors2, the N.P.O3, and the President of the Planning Commission4. The I only opposition to the application has come from the City of j Tigard Planning Staff. The reason for the opposition is that a majority of the lots in the proposed application would violate the city code that states that the length of a lot should not exceed the width by more than 2 1/2 times . E At the Planning Commission hearing on March 3, 1987, we �ff presented our reasons for our continued pursuit of the 1 application for the Variance and Lot Line Adjustment. Please i refer to the attached minutes for a brief summary of the Planning Commission' s proceedings. M t I Considering the overwhelming support for our position the homeowners felt it must be possible to find some common ground for agreement between the homeowners and the planning staff. With this in mind, Jim Breakey and Chris Carpenter arranged a ++! i meeting with Keith Liden, Senior Planner for the City of Tigard . A plan emerged from this meeting which Mr . Liden agreed would be acceptable to the Planning Staff . 1. Dorthy Gagey - public testimony, Tigard Planning Commission regular meeting minutes, March 3, 1987 - (see Exhibit B) . 2. Petition - (see^Exhibit C) . 3. Craig Hopkins - NPO comments, Tigard Planning Commission regular meeting minutes, March 3, 1987 (see Exhibit B) NPO #5 meeting minutes, March 18, 1987 (see Exhibit D) 4. President Moen - Tigard Planning Commission regular meeting r minutes, March 3, 1987 (see Exhibit B) . To make the variance acceptable the plan would release the 81st CAvenue easement to adjacent land owners (tax lot 200) . This action would answer the concerns of the Planning Staff and the Planning Commission. Releasing the easement to 81st would alleviate the primary concerns of the city. 1) The Planning Staff felt that the future subdivision of this property would be a problem. The release of the easement would prevent any partitioning by forfeiting the homeowners right to access from the west. This ensures that there will be no future partitioning of the parcels. 2) The Planning Commission had concerns as to who would be responsible for the curb and gutter on the east side of 81st . Allowing 81st to move to a more advantaqeous t position on tax lot 200 , the curb and gutter responsibility will no longer be an issue . 3) The Planning Staff expressed an interest to achieve maximum utilization of the properties involved . Forcing the homeowners to purchase the land as a common tract and maintaining the easement as it currently exists would impose inefficient development of tax lot 200 by forcing the construction of awkward streets and/or cul de sacs. On the other hand , if the variance is granted , the easement will be released and tax lot 200 could be developed in a very efficient manner (see Exhibit A) with a desirable backyard to backyard border between Bond Park III and tax lot 200. The homeowners have a desire to preserve the natural beauty and wooded surroundings of the Bond Park area. The adjustment of the lot line would preserve the existing physical and natural systems, giving the homeowners of Bond Park the opportunity to enhance the aesthetic value of the entire area. The homeowners recommend that' the Variance and Lot Line Adjustment should be granted . As confirmed by Mr . Moen, President of the Planning Commission, the applicants satisfy the I five criteria given in section 18.134.050 of the code for granting a variance. The homeowners have solicited input from the City Planning Staff and have arrived at a mutual alternative that would satisfy all parties; i .e. release the easement to 81st Avenue. We request that the City Council reverse the decision of the Planning Commission and add the following stipulations to the application: 1) Release the easement to 81st Avenue . 2) Advise any further restrictions that the council would feel necessary to manage the future of the land. ISO as seeaft 91.01 �. e 9s6 �PL- 3000 2900 2800 0 — m 200 100 0 58 40 57 56 3 9'Ac I i.64 Ac s v a r 3100 z'. It 2E. 2700o W o 59 0 55 6204 "r p•SO TS x3200 of •'� 2600 60 `°s 54 A 90.13 m Z R.2O 09.86 Ra 20 2500 50 0 "' :x/'0 61 : T n aft 48.32 v N ee.Os . . 2400 Q Rte' 62 "' ��7 h •�'52 . sell C n F' I 35V0 . y X300 in �._ °o o� 63 0 0 j 51 IA `e4 44 �W 6T _ 360 t g o 2200 0 (C C- 2.,152) Rr.-�,6 °S 04.26 7 „t 65 c ��S 2 if1�►i rr. . 49 e Rs.3800 g LI) . 66 ;. 1:0 210 1 3900 .� ,,•u.++ �'/y I " X4401 A 4 La 72 10 40 .;. •1 1� 4400 S 4100 Q 4500 2 I 6 M 69 R : 73 R I 52 96 .�-- ' 420090 O 4600 �. 102 70 R 74« R so EXHIBIT B TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION C^ 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 development, and the easement for SW 81st Avenue. C PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 3, 1987 - PAGE 1 NPU COMMENTS C 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 ::ould 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 C.^„"...'^„ission -:raiva the fate 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. He 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 +v 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 a 3/4 street with no way to require public improvement abutting lot 100. He felt that 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 M 14-86 based on the findings that the proposal meets criterias 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Motion failed 4-2 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 they felt the School District misunderstood that this is a trade off situation, moving densities not just increasing densities. He reviewed the NPO comments. He continued that all the proposals are consistent with the Tigard Municipal Code and staff is recommending approval 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 j increasing the densities in the NPO 6 area. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 3, 1987 - PAGE 3 f l We the undersigned, wish to express our support of the Bond III residents ' petition to receive a variance from the Tigard city regulation limiting lot depth to 2.5 times the lot width. Although we will receive no direct benifit from their opportunity to purchase the additional 90 feet behind their homes, we agree with their desire to maintain the natural beauty of the neighborhood. As residents of the City of Tigard and Bond Park, we are in favor of preserving the enviroment that attracted us to this neighborhood. Therefore, we petition the Planning Director to grant the variance requested by our neighbors. 2. � 7 V (:��� �.� •Chu,.��`-^-'"�uc,� id 7 6. (Iaa�-�.►�E. -Jlu.rc.4�»ami 805 5ty C��c«ct,��(� Ct. 7. 8. 226 9. 10. ' 11. 12. / > 14. S. . 16. �6.s(� `;�. YAC/�"l.� (c).e 17. E - - "K. � •� .1. j r I y �t► ' 1 t Jt (con't) 20. 21 . 22. /'N' V ee;&-tv 23. 244. 25. 26. 7'i Y 27. 28. 29. 30. 66 31 32. 33. 344. ALA - 35. 36. 77 37. T4 38. 39. 40. 41 . 42. 43. 44 45. (con't) 46. T 47. 48.`�'r� �7Lr�-J /v` ✓� �� `�y.�!� t ra> 7/ 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. /s"Z35 S w 54. 55. 9 d 55. t 56. S 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. i ExHI ]E�3FF C a . NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATION #5 The March 18, 1987 meeting of NPO R5 was called to order by Chair Craig Hopkins at 7:40 p.m. In attendance were Bieker, Saporta, Takahashi and Schmidt . Chris Carpenter of Bond Park was a guest on our agenda. There were no minutes of the previous joint meeting with NPO #6, but a recap will be included with the March meeting. Old business : Where is the Albertson' s issue? City Planner ,joined us during the meeting to report that parcels A, G. and H which we had discussed previously had been up-zoned which created more than the 400 some units needed to "balance" the loss of the high density housing. These proposed changes will be considered by the City Council on April 13 at their regular meeting. Note that this is a change from March 23rd as previoulsy announced. Bond Park variance: In previous action, the NPO supported the efforts of Bond Park residents to negotiate a minor land partition with developer Waymire regarding a narrow strip of land at the back of their properties . However , the city pointed out to the parties that the lot depth which would result was not allowable in the development code. However, the residents are pursuing another angle which would release the 81st Street easement and allow a new street plan. The NPO supported Chris Carpenter' s and his neighbors ' �.. efforts to work out a viable plan with adjacent property owners . Chair Hopkins also apprised us of an appeal being filed by Crow. Spieker Hosford regarding signage of Park 217 ; the exception applied for was denied by the planning commission. The city is striving to bring all signs into compliance by 1988. It was also unclear what signs are currently not in compliance according to our sign code. The coming of the Target Department Store chain will also present an opportunity for clarification as Target stores sometimes use the entire side of their buildings as signage. New business Hopkins attended the March 9 Boardsmanship Workshop which he described as a state of the city appraisal . He was pleased with the information aspect and the team-management style which allowed many to participate and share. In another Washington County workshop, County 2000, he felt that the same positive attitude was fostered. He urged us all to take advantage of the future such opportunities to meet and work with our leaders ; city and county. We approved a minor land partition to bring the former Sabre Construction site into compliance. The MLP was filed by Richard and Bette Pike; the location is the corner of 72nd and Bonita. Questions were asked about the Metzger annexation. i CWe covered the agenda by 9: 10 p.m. and adjourned. Rfppectfully, 4/14/87 P TO: Bond Park III Homeowners, Lots 58 - 69 FROM: Ken Waymire, Waverly Construction Company Inc. SUBJECT: Release of the easement to 81st Avenue I, Ken Waymire, representing Waverly Construction Company Inc. , owner of tax lot 100, hereby state on this 14th day of April, 1987 that I am willing to grant a QuiT. Claim Deed to tax lot 200, relinquishing the easement now held by tax lot 100 to S.W. 81st Avenue in Tigard Oregon. Granting the Qui:F Claim Deed to release the easement is however subject to the purchase of tax lot 100 by Bond Park III homeowners, lots 58 - 69 . W Ken Waymire, Waverly Construction Company Inc. a INDEX PAGE =-CLARATION 1 ARTICLE I: Definitions 2 ARTICLE II: Annexation of Additional Property 3 ARTICLE III: Nature of Association 3 ARTICLE IV: Membership 4 ARTICLE V: Voting Rights 4 Class A Members 4 Class B Members 4 ARTICLE VI: Property Rights 4 ARTICLE VII: Covenant for Maintenance Assessments --- Creation of the Lien and Personal Obligation of Assessments 5 Purpose of Assessments 5 Basis and Maximum of Annual Assessor,ents 5 Uniform Rate of Assessment 6 Quorum for Any Action 6 Date of Commencement of Annual Assessment 6 Effect of Non-Payment of Assessment; Remedies of the Association 6 Subordination of the Lien to Mortgages 7 Exempt Property 7 ARTICLE VIII: Restrictions 7 ARTICLE IX: General Provisions 8 Enforcement 8 Non-Compulsory Arbitration of Disputes Severability 100 Amendment 10 Insurance 10 Q DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR BOND PARR NO. 3 WASHINGTON COUNTY, STATE OF OREGON THIS DECLARATION, made this 1st day of July by tfaverly Construction company, In orporated, an Or * 1985, hereinafter referred to as DECLARANT; egon Corporation, WHEREAS, Declarant is •the Owner of certain real property in the County of Washington, State of Oregon, which is more particularly described as: Bond Park No. 3, a duly recorded subdivision located within Washington County, State of Oregon AND WHEREAS' Declarant will convey said property subject to certain protective covenants, conditions, restrictions, reservations, easements, liens and charges for the benefit of said real property and its present and subsequent owners, as hereinafter set forth; NOW, THEREFORE, Declarant hereby declares that all of the said property is and shall be held, sold and conveyed subject to the following easements, restrictions, covenants and conditions, all of which are for the purpose of enhancing and protecting the value, desireability and attractiveness of said real property. These easements, covenants, restrictions, reservations and conditions shall constitute covenants to run with the land and shall be binding on all persons claiming under them and having or acquiring any right, title or interest in the de- scribed property or any part thereof, and shall inure to the benefit of and be limitations upon each owner thereof, and his heirs and assigns, if an individual, or its successors and assigns, if a partnership or corporation. C ARTICLE I C DEFINITIONS tinction 1: "Association" shakll mean and refer to Bond Park No. 3 C=eowners Association, Inc. , its successors and assigns, or in the event Bond Park No. 3 Homeowners Association, Inc. , or its successors and assigns are not in existence, then the owners of the lots comprising the properties. Snation 2: "Properties" shall mean and refer to that certain real pro?orty ereinbefore described, and such additions thereto as may here- after be brought within the jurisdiction of the Association. Section 3: "Common Area" shall mean and refer to all real property own . y the Association for the common use and enjoyment of the members of the Association. There is no common area owned by the Association at the time of this Declaration. Section 4: "Lot" shall mean and refer to any plot of land shown upon the recorded subdivision plat of Bond Park No. 3 . _. . A ii - - s _f_r, to a..wry .....•e�waf Or ant d♦y wh^ Section 5. Member shall mean and refer �.. �tie_Y �..a..�.. .,_ .�...�_,� a.._ 3olZe membership in Vhn c-^-dation. section 6: "Owner" shall mean and refer to the record owner, whether )ne or more persons or entities, of a fee simple title to any lot which :s part of the properties, including contract buyers, but excluding hose having such interest merely as security for performance of an ,bligation. ection 7: "Declarant" shall mean and refer to Waverly Construction ompany, Inc. , and its successors and assigns, if such successors or ssigns should acquire more than one undeveloped lot from Declarant for he purposes.of development. action 8: "Residence" shall mean that portion or part of any structure itended toto be occupied by one family as a dwelling, together with :torched or detached garage, as the case may be, and the patios, porches steps annexed thereto. action 9: "Declaration" shall mean and refer to the Declaration of ive ann-ts, Conditions and Restrictions applicable to the properties as :ecuted by Declarant on the lst day of July , 1985. C ARTICLE II ANNEXATION OF ADDITIONAL PROPERTY Real property in addition to that described above, may be made subject to the juriediction of the Association, whereupon it automatically shall be included in any reference herein to "properties". Section 1: Within twelve (12) years of the date of this instrument, additional lands may be annexed by Declarant without consent of members. Section 2: After the twelfth anniversary of this instrument's execution, annexation of additional property shall require the assent of persons entitled to cast two-thirds (2/3) of the votes of Class A members present in person or by written proxy (except as provided in Section 3 below) at a meeting of the Association duly called for such purpose, written notice of Which shall be sent to all members not less than fifteen (15) days nor more than forty-five (45) days in advance of such meeting, setting forth the purpose of such meeting. Section 3: The presence of members or proxies entitled to cast sixty percent 60%) of the votes of each class of membership shall con- stitute a quorum at such meeting. In the event a quorum is not present, another meeting may be called, subject to th=- ment set for,h above, and the required quorum at such meeting shall be one-half (1/2) the required quorum at the preceding meeting. If the required assent is not forthcoming, no subsequent meeting shall be held for the purpose of annexing such property for sixty (60) days from the date of the last of such meetings. ARTICLE III NATURE OF ASSOCIATION -- DUTIES AND POWERS Section 1: The Association is a corporation organized and existing under the provisions of the Oregon Nonprofit Corporation Law and its duration is perpetual. Section 2: The duties and powers of the Association and its directors and o kers shall be as defined and limited by its Article of In- corporation and its Bylaws, and the corporate powers enumerated in the Oregon Nonprofit Corporation Law, and in general, to serve as a perpetual and continuing corporate entity, for the benefit of its �. members. In reaching its decision, the Committee shad consider the facts sub- � tted to it on the basic of its interpretation of all of the covenants "` •ad the Declaration applicable to the controversy. The Committee shall also take into account any applicable ordinances of the City of Tigard and the County of Washington. Unless the matters submitted* to the Arbitration Coznittee are made the ruSject of any action at lawor suit in equity by one or more of the L arties to the arbitration procccdings, the decision of the Committee in a =ttor mu=itted to it for arbitration shall be final and binding upon all pasties to the proceedings. Snztion 3: Severabilit - Invalidation of any one of these covenants and rer-trictions by judgment or court order shall in no way affect any other Provisions* which shall remain in full force and effect. Section 4: Amendment - The covenants and restrictions of this Declartion 11 run with and bind the land, and shall inure to the benefit of and be enforceable by the Association or the owner of any lot subject to this Declaration, their respective legal representatives, heirs, succes- sors, and assigns, for a term of tutu (2) years from the date of this Declaration's recording in the Deed Records of Washington County, after which time said covenants, unless revoked, shall, together with any amendment thereof, be automatically extended for successive periods of five (5) years. The covenants and restrictions of Article VITT y'y amended or revoked by an instrument signed by not less than seventy-five Percent (75t) of the lot owners. Any instruments affecting a revocation or any amendment of this Deolaration must be properly recorded in the 1 Deed Records of Washington County, State of Oregon. g Section 5: Insurance - The Association may, at its option, maintain a policy or policies insuring the Association, its Board of Directors, the owners and other, if any, against any liability; in addition, the Association may, at its option, maintain a fidelity bond to insure the Board of Directors for actions taken in their fiduciary capacity. ARTICLE. IV MEMBERSHIP Every person or entity who is a record owner of a fee or undivided fee interest in any lot Which is subject to assessment by the Association, including contract purchasers, shall be members of the Association. The foregoing is not intended to include persons or entities who hold rn interest merely as security for the performance of an obligation. _ No owner shall have more than one membership. Membership shall be appurtenant to and shall not* be separated from ownership in any lot which is subject to assessment by the Association. Ownership of such lot shall be the sole qualification for membership. ARTICLE V VOTING RIGHTS The Association shall have two classes of voting members: Class A: Class A members shall be all those owners as Min in Article IV with the exception of the Declarant. Class A members shall be entitled to one vote for each lot in which they own the interest required for membership by Article IV. When more than one person holds such interest in any lot, all such persons shall be members. The vote for such lot shall be exercised as they among themselves determine; but in no event shall more than one vote be cast with respect to any lot. Class B: The Class B member shall be the Declarant. The Class B member shall be entitled to three (3) votes for each lot in which it holds the interest required for membership by Article IV, provided that the Class B membership shall be converted to Class A membership on the happening of either of the following events, whichever occurs earlier: a. When the total votes outstanding in the Class A membership equal the total votes outstanding in the Class B membership, or b. On a. date twelve (12) years from the date of recording of these Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions in the Deed Records of Washington County. ARTICLE VI PROPERTY RIGHTS Section 1: Common Property Acquisition - The Association shall, as set forth in and limited by its Articles of Incorporation and its Bylaws, have power to acquire, by gift, purchase or otherwise, and to own, hold, improve, landscape, build upon, operate, maintain, sell, convey, dedicate for public use or otherwise dispose of, real or Section 4: Uniform Rate of Ass essment - AssessmentsymuSembannualdortannual form ' ra or ell ots an may collectedon a quarterly. basis, except* however. that Declarant be relieved of all obligation to pay assess- ( 3ents on lots upon which no residence has been ty rd(700%)lofsthetlotsvinuslY the transferred to an 0-mer. After more than seventy percent Plat of Bond Parc No. 3 have been sold, the Declarant will have the obligation to pay assessments on the same basis as any other owner. he Section 5: uoru:► for Se Acn 3aboYe, thedpresenceeorimM rsAortproxiestentitled c� is . as provI in Section above, e-:5ershi p shall Ion- to cast sixty percent (60%) of al fired quorcmI the tis notes of epresentAch sat any =_eting. another sti Lute a quora'n0 If R �_etirg may be called, subject to the tnotice reeeting uiiremsntshall be osetha forth (1in) cc^irequired tri= required quor�.-n at such subsequent Stto:�uca at t11e receding meeting. No such subsequent meeting shall be held more than sixty (607 days following the preceding meeting. Section 6: Date of Coenccment of Annual Assessment: Due Dates and Prorates - The initial annus assessment sia commence onAthe firsonaaand shall benadjusteaall be determtned by the Board of Directors of the according to the nw..ber of months remaining in the calendar year. All assdays in essments for any year after the first year shall be fixed Written t less nthirty ennotice for theannua0 lassessment advance of each annual assessment period. lot shall be sent to each owner subject therthe�first timeThe ashallebemproratedaaccording which becomes subject to assessment for �.___ «�,. ..�io.,.�ar year for which assessed. to the number or months rib x„1-9 • �- -••v�• . The Association shall upon demand at any time furnish a certificate in writing signed by an officer of the Association setting forth the assess entseon arge a specified lot. indicating whether said assessments have paid. Such be made by the Board for the issuance of these mentithereinmay certficats�stated torhavecbeensmade. be conclusive evidence of payment of any assess tion Section 7: Effect of Hon-Pa ent of Assessment: stew. Remedies e de1inquents of the Ifstheaassessment Any assessments which are not paid when ,is not paid within thirty (?4) days after the due date, the assessment shall er abear interest from the date of delinquency oatathlawaagainst�the ht ownernpersonally obligated and the Association may bring an acts to pay the same, or foreclose the lien against the lot on account of which it is assessed. _ A first mortgagee, upon request, is entitled to wten nownercofianYfrom the obligationsfora tion of any default in the performance by the individualdays after due date. payment of assessment which is not cured within sixty (60) The Association shall file in the office of the county clerk within uent asseasonabsettime after such delinquency, a statement to the amount of the they with interest at the above rate. and upon payment in full thereof shall execute gn lea proper release of such lien. Such filingassessnoticeduntil rthe lien est eOs released td file P P ­tstitute a lien on the lot from the date of filing no as herein provided. i ARTICLE VII COVENANT FOR MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENTS CSection 1: Creation of the Lien and Personal Obligation of Assess:.tents The Declarant, for all of said property, hereby covenants, and each owner of any lot by acceptance of a deed or contract of sale therefore, whether or not it shall be so expressed in any deed or contract of sale, is deemed to covenant and agree to pay to the Association: 1. Annual assessment or charges; such assesamenta to be fixed, established and collected from tire to tine as hereinafter provided. The annual assesements or civargca, to- gether with interest thereon and costs of collection vhereof, as herein- after provided, shall be a charge on the land and shall be a continuing lien upon the property against which each such assessment is made. Each such assessment, together with interest, costs and reasonable attorney fees for collection, shall be the personal obligation of the person who was the owner of the lot at the time such assessment fell due. The personal obligation shall not pass to his successors in title unless expressly assumed by them. Suction 2: Pur se of Assessment - The assessments levied by the Aseoci on shall be used exclusively for the purpose of promoting the ----.-&.j...- L--11.L 40-6-0 "--Al fM"^ *-%f *}10 "e04Ae - n a j �i..'\.�i'.i►V14I../ •�CaiZ Via/ 8.�i<i.�.� , c.+.Jvjr .•+ . �+u•ter ...�i...r... v� the properties. Section 3: Basis and Maximum of Annual Assessments: a. The first maximum annual assessment shall be Twenty Dollars ($20.00) per lot. After the first annual assessment, the maximum annual assessment per lot may be increased each year by the Board of Directors of the Association by no more than six percent (6%) above the previous year' s maximum assessment without a vote thereon by the membership of the Association. b. From and after January 1 of the year immediately following the date of commencement of annual assess- ments, the maximum annual assessment may be increased above six percent (6%) by an affirmative vote of two- thirds (2/3) of each class of members voting in person or by proxy, at the meeting duly called for this purpose, written notice of which shall be sent to all members not less than fifteen (15) days or more than forty-five (45) days in advance of the meeting, setting forth the purpose of the meeting. The limitations here described shall not apply to any change in the maximum and basis of assessment undertaken incident to a merger or con- solidation in which the Association is authorized to participate under its Articles of Incorporation. e. After consideration of the current maintenance costs ` and future needs of the Association, the Board of Directors may fix the annual assessment at an amount :r In the event a judgment or decree is obtained in favor of the Associa- tion, at trial or appeal, the Owner shall be liable for the Association' court coats, disbursements and reasonable attorney' s fee to be fixed by the Court, such coats, disbursements and attorney' s fee to be further secured by said lien. No owner may waive or otherwise escape liability for the assessments provided for herein. Section C: Subordination of the Lien to ?:c:tc-ac;^3 - The lien for assess• menta provider: for herein shall be subordinate to the lien of any first mrtgage or deed of trust. Sale or transfer of any lot shall not affect the saa®a ezt lien. go-vever, sale or transfer of any lot which is sub- ject to any first mortgage or deed of trust, pursuant to degree of fore- closure, shall: 1. Not in any case relieve the lot from liability for any asse,cament which became a lien prior to such sale or transfer; 2. Not in any case relieve such lot from liability for any assessment thereafter becoming due or from the lien thereof. Section 9: E:enPt Property - The following property subject to this Declaration shall be excapt from rhe assessments created herein: (a) all properties dedicated to and accepted by a public authority; (b) any future acquired codon area; and (c) all properties owned by a charit- able or nonprofit organization exempt from taxation by the laws of the State of Oregon. Eovever, no land or improvements devoted to dwelling use shall be exempt from said assessments, notwithstanding that the same may be owned by a charitable or nonprofit organization. ARTICLE VIII RESTRICTIONS The following restrictions shall apply to the occupancy and use of said real property and shall be for the benefit of and limitations upon all present and future owners and authorized users of said property: 1. No lot shall be used except for residential purposes. The residences shall meet the following criteria: All must have a minimum of eleven hundred (1,100) square feet of finished living area. The residences shall not exceed two and one-half stories in height. No shop or store for business purposes will be allowed on t4%e property. 2. ---No building -shall be located upon any lot nearer than # fifteen (15) feet to the front lot line. On all corner lots, the buildings shall be set back a minimum distance of ten (10) feet from the side lot line adjoining a street. However, twenty (20) feet shall be maintained between each garage entrance and the property line. 3. The minimum backvard setback shall be ten (10) feet. 4. In order to preserve the native tree cover, each owner shall be required to receive permission from the Associa- tion, through its Board of Directors, to cut treea on his lot with a five inch or more diameter, measured two feet from the ground. Such permission will not be un- reasonably denied in the case of tree disease or personal safety. This restriction will not apply to the Declarant, its heirs and assign3, and tree removal connected with the construction of "the residences and their associated improvements. S. Each owner chall allow maximum ease of pedestrian, bice and vehicular ingress and egress on wakes, streets, and driveways by prohibiting automobile parking which would interfere with any other owner' s use of the streets, driveways or other access to his residence location. 6. No exposed television or other aerials shall be installed or located upon said properties without written permis- sion of the Board of Directors. 7. No structure of a 'temporary character, including trailer, basement, tent, shack, garage or other outbuilding shall be used for residential purposes on any ioct, either temporarily or permanently. S. Parking of boats, trailers, motorcycles, trucks, campers and similar equipment shall not be allowed on any lot excepting within the confines of an enclosed garage or behind the front setback line of the residence, suitably screened. 9. Each lot shall be landscaped in a reasonable manner witr- in nine months after the date of occupation of the resi- dence on said lot. No lot shall be used as a dumping ground for rubbish or for storage of junked automobiles. Trash, garbage or other waste shall not be kept except in sanitary containers. All incinerators or other equipment of this nature for the storage or disposal of such materials shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition and comply with all local, state and federal regulations. ARTICLE IX t GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 1: Enforcement - The Association, or any owner, shall have the right to enforce, by and proceeding at law or in equity, all restric- t Cins, conditions, covenants, reservations, easements, liens and charges { now or hereafter imposed by the provisions of this Declaration. Failure by the Association or by any owner to enforce any covenant or restric- tions herein contained shall, in no event, be deemed a waiver of the right to do so thereafter. Section 2: Nor.-Compulsory Arbitration of Disputes - The Board of Directors of the Association may appoint a standing committee of three of its members to arbitrate disputes which are voluntarily submitted Cto, it by members of the Ascociation with regard to the proper inter- :etation of, or compliance with, the use and occupancy restrictions i»posed under this Declaration. One of the members of such committee (Arbitration Committee) shall be appointed for a three year term, another member for a two year term, and the third member for a term of one :car. Upon expiration of each of the respective terms of the original Arbitration Co�ittcc me.-mbera, appoint=--nts made to fill that vacancy should -bo- for the came term, so as to insure t.%a preacnce on tho Co--ittee, at all timer., of at least one member with prior Co.mit- teo a::perience. Zlppointments shall be made as required ::o complete urtc::pired terms of, any Co=ittee member whon a vacancy ariaos s: death, resignation, or -other causen; and a tempora,—,1 ur "pro-tem" :aa.:.bar shall ::z appointed in any case where a permanent member of the standing Comaittee is a party to a controversy submitted for arbitration. Participation by members of the Association in arbitration proceedings shall be on a voluntary basis, pursuant to agreement of the parties to the dispute to settle it by arbitration, as evidenced by submission by all the parties of a written statement of the case to the Arbitration Committee. Procedure for arbitration shall be as follows: Members who are parties to a dispute, after reaching an agreement to submit the same to the Arbitration Committee for decision, shall submit, either jointly or separately, a brief statement of the facts and issues in the controversy, accompanied by a reference to those provisions of the Declaration deemed applicable. If the parties are unable to agree upon a joint statement of the case, each shall bubmit his own separate statement to the Committee and, on the same date, mail or otherwise deliver a copy thereof to the other parties involved. After one party has delivered his state- ment of the case to the Committee and other parties, all other parties participating in the arbitration shall mail or deliver their statements to the Committee and other parties within five days thereafter. Upon receipt of the matter for arbitration, the Committee shall notify the parties by mail of the date and time set for hearing, which shall be a date not more than ten (10) days after the Committee is in receipt of all statements submitted by the parties. All three Committee members shall attend the hearing, which shall be informal, and each party when :alled on by the Chairman of the Committee shall present his version of -the case, without interruption by other parties, after which each party rho wishes it shall be afforded one opportunity to answer the case made .)y the opposing party or parties. Committee members shall address luestions to the parties as required to develop the facts and issues evolved in the dispute. YCommittee shall, within five (5) days of hearing, render a decision -iriting'-"on the basis of-'agreement-6f at least two of the three iembers, and a copy of said decision shall be signed by the Chairm,,t: ind mailed or otherwise delivered to all parr:e:: participatln; in sub- ii.ssion of the dispute to arbitration. The written statement of the 3arties submitted to the Committer and its written decision shall :onstitute the entire record of the proceedings. 85024920 BYLAWS BOND PARC NO. 3 HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INDEX Pace ARTICLE I+ Name and Location _ 1 ARTICLE III Definitions -- 1 ARTICLE III: Membership 1 ARTICLE IV: Property Rights j ARTICL3 V: Board of Directors: Selection Term 2 . ARTICLE VI: Meetings of Directors 2 ARTICLE VII# Nomination and Election of Directors 3 ARTICLE VIII# _Powersp Duites of Board of Directors 3 ARTICLE jX# Committees 4 ARTICLE X: Meetings of Members S ARTICLE Xiz Officers and Their Duties 6 ARTICLE XII: Assessments 7 ARTICLE XIII: Books and Records 7 ARTICLE XIV Amendments 7 ARTICLE XV: Miscellaneous 7 Signatures and Certification 8 C- - BYLAWS OF c. BOND PARK NO. 3 HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ARTICLE I NAME AND LOCATION _The name of the Corporation is BOND PARK NO. 3 Homeowners Association, hereinafter referred to as the 'Aaeociation". The principal office of the Corporation shall be located at 10185 S.W. Riverwood Lane, Tigard, Oregon 972231 but meetings of members and directors may be held at such places within the State of Oregon as may be .2esignated ry the Board of Directors. ARTICLE II DEFINITIONS The definitions of terms used in these Bylaws are identical to those definitions set forth in ARTICLE I, Declaration of Covenants, Deeds, and Restrictions, as recorded in the Deed Records of Washington County, Oregon, which are incorporated herein by thin reference, ARTICLE III Membership Membership in the Association is that set forth in ARTICLE IV, Declaration of Covenants, Deeds, and restrictions, as recorded in the Deed Records of Washington County, which are incorporated herein by this reference. ARTICLE IV PROPERTY RIGHTS: RIGHTS OF ENJOYMENT Property rights and rights of enjoyment of members of the Association are those set forth in ARTICLE IV, Declaration 'of Covenants, Deeds, and Restrictions, as recorded in the Deed Records of Washington County, which are incorporated herein by this reference. PAGE ONE 'ARTICLE V BOARD OF DIRECTORS! SELECTION= TERM OF OFFICE C Station 1: Number. The affairs of this Association shall be managed by a Board of not less than three (3) nor more than five (5) Directors, who need not be members of the #ngociation. Section 2: Election At the first annual meeting of the members, the members shall replace by election those directors then in office whose terms shall expire at the and of such -year. Each director so elected shall be deemed elected for a terra of two years. Anything to the contrary herein notwithstanding, the Declarants during the period of construction of the WND PARK development may appoint the initial Board of Directors from among the new lot owners. The term of these appointed directors shall be determined among them by lot, with one director drawing one year terms and two directors drawing two year terms. Section 3: Removal Any director may be removed from the Board, with or without cause, by a majority vote of the members of the Association. In the event of death, resignation or removal of a director, his successor shall be selected by the remaining members of the Board and shall serve for the unexpired term of his predecessor. _ Section d; Compensation tan director:rertn� shalla...,�.,cc Li1��: a:a+u+j�Aoatiliii for any service he may render to the Association. However, any director may be reimbursed for his actual expenses incurred in the performance of his duties. Section 5: Action Taken Without a Meeting The directors shall have the right to take any action in the absence of a meeting which they could take at meeting by obtaining the written approval of all the directors. Any action so approved shall have the same effect as though taken at a meeting of the directors. ARTICLE VI MEETINGS OF DIRECTORS Section 1: Regular Meetings Regular Meetings of the Board of Directors shall be held monthly without notice, at such time and place as may be fixed by resolution of the Board. Section 2: Special Meetings Special meetings of the Board of Directors shall be held when called by the President of the Association, or by any tow directors, after not less than three (3) days notice to each director. Section 3: Quorum A majority of the number of directors shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. Every act or decision done or made r by a majority of the directors present at a duly held board meeting at which a quorum is present shall be regarded as the act of the board. f i l f PAGE TWO ARTICLE VFI C NOMINATION AND ELECTION OF DIRECTORS Section 1: tionination After the initial appointed Board of Directors, nominations for election to the Board shall be made by a Nominating Committee. Nominations may also be made from the floor at the annual meeting. The Nomination Committee shall coaciat zf a Choi:mar, who shall be a member of the Board of Directors, and two or more members of the Association. The Nominating Committee shall be appointed by .the Board of Directors prior to each annual meeting of the members, to serve from the clo3e of such annual meeting to' the close of the next annual meeting and such appointment shall be announced at each annual meeting. The dominating Cosm+ttee shall make as many nominations for election to the Board of Directors as it shall in its discretion determine, not less than the number of vacancies that are to be filled. Such nominations may be made from among members or nonmembers. Section 2: Election Election to the Board of Directors shall be by secret written ballot. At such election the members or their proxies may cast, in respect to each vacancy, as many votes as they are entitled to exercise under the provisions of the Declaration. The persons receiving the highest number of votes shall be elected. Cumulative voting is not permitted. ARTICLE VIII POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS Section 1: Powers The Board of Directors shall have the power to: (a) Adopt and publish rules and regulations governing the use of the common areas and facilities, and the personal conduct of the members and their guests thereon, and to establish penalties for the infraction thereof; (b) Exercise for the Association all powers, duties and authority vested in or delegated by this Association and not reserved to the Membership by other provisions of these Bylaws, the Articles of Incorporation, or the Declaration; (e) Declare the office of a member of the Board of Directors to be vacant in the event such member shall be absent from three (3) consecutive regular meetings of the Board of Directord; (d) Employ a manager, an independent contractor, or such other employee as it deems necessary, and to prescribe their duties. C _ . Section 2i Duties, It shall be the duty of the Board of Directors tos (a) Cause to be kept a complete record of all its accounts, acts and corporate affairs and to present a statement thereof at the annual meeting to the members, or any special meeting, when such statement is requested in writing by one-fourth (1/4) of the Class A members entitled to votes (b) Supervise all officers, agents and employees of th© Aacociation, and see that their duties are properly performed; (c) Supervise and enforce the. provisions of the Covenant for Maintenance Assessments, ARTICLE VII of the Aeclaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions recorded in the Deed Records of Washington County and incorporated by this reference; (d) Procure and maintain adequate liability and hazard insurance on properVy owned by the Association; (e) Cause any Common Area, including any recreational facilities, plantings, trees or landscaping thereon, to be maintained, if aequireds (f) Cause all officers or employees have fiscal responsibilities to be bounded, as it may deem appropriate. ARTICLE 1X COMMITTEES Section 1: Names The Board of Directors shall appoint a Nominating Committee, as provided in these Bylaws. In addition the Board may appoint such other committees as may be deemed appropriate in carrying out its purpose, such as: (a) A Recreation Committee which shall advise the Board of Directors on all matters pertaining to the recreational program and activities of the Association, and shall perform such other functions, as the Board in its discretion, determines; .(b) A maintenance Committee, which shall adivse the Board on all matters pertaining to the maintenance, repair or improvement of the Properties, and shall perform such other functions as the Board, in its discretion, shall determine; (c) A Publicity Committee which shall inform the members of all activities and functions of the Association, and shall, after consulting with the Board of Directors, meke such public releases and announcements as are in the best interest of the Association; (d) An audit Committee which shall supervise the annual audit of the Association's books and approve the annual budget and statement of income and expenditures to be presented to the membership at its regular annual meeting. The Treanurer of the Association shall be an ex officio member of this Committee. PAGE POUR Section 2:. - Duties It shall be• the duty of each committee to receive complaints from members on any matter involving this Association's functions, duties and activities within its field of responsibility. It shall dispose of such complaints as it deems appropriate, or refer them to such other committee, director, or officer of the Association as is ttwther concerned with the matter presented. ARTICLE X MEETINGS OF MEMBERS Et%ction 1: Annual Meeting The first meeting of the members shall be held no later than the date of completion of the final residential unit in the development, or two years from the dare of incorporation of the Association, whichever event first occurs. Each subsequent regular annual meeting shall be held on the approximate same day of the same month of each year thereafter, at the hour of 7:30 P.M. Section 2: Special Meeting Subject to the provisions of the Declaration, special meetings of the members may be called at any time by the president or by the Board of Directors, or upon written request of the members entitled to cast one-fourth (1/4) of the votes of the entire membership, or who are entitled to cast one-fourth (1/4) of the votes of the Class A membership. Section 3: Notice of Meetings Subject to the provisions of the ueciaraz:vn, written notice of each meeting of the members shall ba given by, or at the direction of, the Secretary or person authorized to call the meeting, by mailing a copy of such notice, postage prepaid, to each member entitled to vote thereat, at least fifteen (15) days before such meeting, , addressed to the member's address last appearing on the books of the Association., or supplied by such member to the Association fur the purpose of notice. Such written notice shall set forth the place, day and hour of the meeting, and in the case of a special meeting, the purpose of the meeting. Section 4: Quorum T:ie quorum required on actions related to assessments is that set forth in the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions, ARTICLE VII, Section 6, recorded in the Deed Records of Wathington County and incorporated herein by this reference. For any other action, the quorum required is the presence of members entitled to cast, or of proxies entitled to cast, one-tenth (1/10) of the votes of each cZ .s nf membership. If, however, such quorum shall not be present or represented at any meeting, the members entitled to vote thereat ahall have the power to adjourn the meeting from time to time, without notice other than announcement at the meeting, until a quorum as aforesaid shall be present or be represented. Section 5: Proxies At all meeting of members, each member shall be entitled to vote by proxy or in person. All proxies shall be in writing and filed with the secretary. Every proxy shall be revocable and shall automatically cease upon conveyance by the member of his lot. PAGE FIVE ARTICLE XI OFFICERS AND THEIR DUTIES Section 1: Enuneration of Officers The Officers of this Association shall be a president and vice-president, who shall at all times be members of the Board of Directors, a secretary, and a treasurer, and such other officers as the Board may from time to time by resolution create. Section 2: Election of Officers The election of officers shall take place at the first meeting of the Board of Directors following their election. ^_etion 3: Terns The officers of this Association shall be elected annually by the Board and each shall hold office for one (1) year unless he shall sooner resign, or shall be removed, or otherwise disqualified to serve. Section 4: Special Appointments The Board may elect such other officers as the affairs of the Association may require, each of whose shall hold office for such period, have such authority, and perform such duties as the Board may, from time to time, determine. Section 5: Resignation and Removal Any officer may be removed from office with or without cause by the Board. Any office: may resign at any time by giving notice in writing to the Board, the president, or the secretary. Such resignation shall take effect on the date of receipt of the notice, or at any later time specified therein, and unless otherwise specified therein, the acceptance of such resignation shall not be necessary to make it effective. Section 6: Vacancies A vacancy in any office may be filled in the manner prescribed for regular elections. The officer elected to such vacancy shall serve for the remainder of the term of the officer he replaces. Section 7: Multiple Offices The offices of secretary and treasurer may be held by the same person. No per&-)n shall simultaneuusly hold more than one of any of the other offices except in the case of special offices created pursuant to Section 4 of this ARTICLE. Section 8: Duties The duties of officers are as follows: (a) President The President shall preside at all meetings of the Board of Directors, shall see that orders and resolutions of tine Board are carried out; shall sign all leases, mortgages, deeds and other written instruments, and may co-sign all checks and promissory notes. (b) Vice-President The Vice-President shall act in the place and stead of the President in the event of his absence, inability or refusal to act; and shall exercise and discharge such other duties as may be required of him by the Board. PAGE SIX (c) Secretary The Secretary shall record the votes and keep the chutes of all meetings and proceedings of the Board and of the members: keep the corporate seal of the Association and officers and affix it to all papers requiring said seals serve notice of meetings of the Board and of the \ memberes keep appropriate current records showing the members of the Association, together with their addresses, and shall perform such other duties as required by the Board. (d) Treasurer The Treasurer shall receive and deposit in appropriate bank accounts all monies of the Association and shall disburse such funds as directed by resolution of the Board of Directors shall sign all checks and promissory notes of the Associations keep proper books of accounts cause an annual audit of the Association books to be made by a public accountant at the completion of each fiscal year; and shalt prepare an annual budget and a statement of income and expenditures to be presented to the membership at its regular annual meeting, and deliver a copy to each of the members. ARTICLE XII ASSESSMENTS ARTICLE VII, Covenant for Maintenance Assessments, in the Declaration of Covenants, conditions and Restrictions recorded in the Deed Records of Washington County is incorporated herein by this reference. ARTICLE XIII BOOKS AND RECORDS The books, records and papers of the Association shall at all times, during reasonable business .hours, be subject to inspection by any member. The Declaration, Articles of Incorporation, and Bylaws of the Association shall be available for inspection by any member at the principal office of the Association, where copies may be purchased at reasonable cost. ARTICLE XIV AME!'D!*W 2TS Section 1: Amendment These Bylaws may be amended at a regular or special meeting of the members, by a vote of the majority of a quorum of members present in person or by proxy. Section 2: Conflict In the event of any conflict between the Articles of Incorporation and these Bylaws, the Articles shall control; and in the evert of any conflict between the Declaration and these Bylaws, the Declaration shall control. ARTICLE XV CMISCELI ANEOUS The fiscal year of the Association shall begin on tre first day of January and end on the 31st day of December of each year, except that the first fiscal year shall begin on the date of incorporation. IWITMESS WNERtar. we, being all of the directors of the BOND >'ARE NO. M Noosowiere Association, have hereunto set out hand this let 4ay of 4MY 19e 5 ,nTteth L. Waymlze Roberta A. Waymire ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE MIP ORSU M County of _ Clackamas ) ss. BE IT REMEMBERED, That on this 1St day of July , 190 S before no, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared the within named Kenneth L. Waymire and Roberta A. Waymire known to be the identical individuals described in and who executed the within instrument and acknowledged to me that they executed the same freely and voluntarily. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hano and affixed my official seal the day and year last above written. ��•tl � i► J��,f- otary'Public for Oregos J My Commission expires 2/20/88 1 I, the undersigned, do hereby certify: THAT I am the duly elected and acting Secretary of BOND PARK No. ) Homeowners Association, an Oregon Corporation, and THAT the foregoing bylaws constitute the original bylaws of said Association, as duly adopted at a meeting of the Board of Directors hereof, held on the TM day of .]u1i�� , 192 5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF. I have a-e reu. to subscribed ■y name as Secretary of said Association on this ISL day of 198 5 Secretaryt Roberta A.06aymire STATE OF OREOOM County of wsawtpm � t f xrtattt W Mawr,Dreclo,of As..ownwe alto Ta"hun and E.Othco Metopes.of Co. +evwKes for wn county do naesy prM'er SACS EIGHT thr e.nwt WhuwWq a - g ass focal w and.ecno.n m boos a tecade a and court' 1529/2-7o Donate W Macon o.vaa at Asaswttms aw Treason Ee- oston Lousy Cm.e !l1Se -j PX V!1 .. IN hereuIN ntoWg'itEits hand and sealundersigned, �ay Of Declarant uly, 1985herein, has WAVERLy CONSTRUCTI1ON CO., INC- By , )c.� K net L. Naymi�e, P� ry esi�ent STATE OF OREGON ) ss. County of ClackAmas ) On this 1st day of July , 1985, personally appeared before Inc ;:enneth L. WaT--Ire, who, being duly sworn, stated he 3s the President of Waverly Construction Co., Inc., the above nand corporation, and that the foregoing instruner.t was signed and sealed in behalf of said cor.,.,rtion by Authority of its Hoard of Directors and he acknowledged said instrument to be the voluntary act and deed f said corporation. NO ey is or Oregon comm* ion Expires: 2/20/88 J l� STATE OF OPKQOH cowov of Wow A bomn i nso oruw W Man D.acsor of A S"Vvww anu ia■~arwr E.Offao PAMCrof Gen- .,•ranr rd sM cour*V 00 nawey oaewr nM ww ~ ~Ulf"" or wwwwp wa rfew,ed and recorosd n Hoot or rao0ra<of sard cma" Donod W Mason OncWr Of Asssssraan, and Tasaaon. Ea. Oft=OoVW cwh 3 JM-2 PR 313 -11- MR.&MRS.WILLIAM GANO 7990 S.N.CHURCHILL TIGARD.OR 97224 9P 7, �G7�}. L� wrc e c l GLcci Z�tzc ry / LGLC Lctt1-a_X rye C�)<-• 2l'C-6't{t �4 .rf.2tt����--C�.� F.Gt�� IL�yI.�U�f-,�`6'�> asp. t-n .77T �s� G�u.Q� a7 u-r:(� his r s�j4-c/i�r h �'f 96 L7L.r �fi P.�>/c- c/tab-�-k-&C �cc &z Vtj.t', /'✓w/C��ii-6..(��1--61� �-C.1� lYl�yi. �f'LC� . �ti.i..ti� 7h1= 7[7'i1..i• a?LQ 96 Lft�• {�IL{2 tii�- /C C_<? �t C � (�LG�i � -tT fZCJ� G` Cz�t-f-.-- � v- ulk to �,r-ee fit-CC ���.it�.c.cr�-t% ��c.L �R���ol�•:z u��.0 �' cuce -�o aHeoci p)_L stx u co 1, c�-�k of 1,o-t c'�o4 ��r�CP -�� a �- �w fit.► ,c1 �4 �c�j '444-)C t y C U- U%t v u u cL-tc_ -44do (-j-,) y C u `�-loft s i nCC re.t-j . J 1 C • -Ax--ul April 20, 1987 Tigard City Council Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Council Members: We live at 15825 SW 80th Avenue, the first lot South of and adjacent to the land which would be purchased with your ap- proval of the variance. We support our neighbors attempt to purchase this property and feel it is the best use for the area. We believe and trust their motives for purchase as being in the best interest of all Bond Park residents. Please move to approve the purchase which will provide security to a beautiful greenway in our neighborhood. Sincerely, /44 " Mike do Marie a Myers Q. i rcc-.-I'� ,G`eat• ,.SCS i-�r..r r._ j\,o s..�..v; ->.C.... _. _.--- 1 r.T'-re S`�S 1. �'-�-l. _ .!_'�•-S.__.._ :�. .. , .7arQpresal✓�nq_ IO.Qa� j u CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: April 20, 1987 DATE SUBMITTED: April 6, 1987 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: ZCA 87- 04 PREVIOUS ACTION: None Walker Annexation PREPARED BY: Elizabeth Ann Newton DEPT HEAD OK 7Y ADMIN�OK REQUESTED BY: Richard & Shirley Walker P LICY ISSUE Should the City Council forward a 9.25 acre annexation of land located north of SW Bull Mountain Road at 14215 SW 125th to the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission. INFORMATION SUMMARY a Attached is a letter from Richard and Shirley Walker requesting that the City Council initiate the annexation of 9.25 acres that they own at 14215 SW 125th. The property is located within Tigard's Urban Planning Area. the Walkers intend to file for approval of a minor land partition upon annexation. Also attached is a resolution to forward the proposal to the Boundary Commission and an ordinance to zone the property in conformance with r the Comprehensive Plan. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Adopt the attached resolution and ordinance to forward the annexation to the Boundary Commission and zone the property in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Deny the proposal. FISCAL IMPACT The fees will be paid by Mr. and Mrs. Walker. SUGGESTED ACTION Adopt the attached resolution and ordinance to forward the annexation to the Boundary Commission and zone the property in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. .L_ EAN:sb/1159W y Richard A. ?c. Shirley re 14215 S.N. 125th TISard, OR 57224 City of Tigard 13125 S.W . Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 March 30, 1987 Lear Mayor and Members of the City Council : We desire annexation to the City of Tigard because %ve viant to file for a minor land .partition through the city. Due to the uncertainty of the; Triple Majority Method, we request that the Mayor and the Tigard City Council pass the resolution to initiate annexation of the property. We, Richard A. Walker and Shirley D. Walker, ov.,rers of the property are consenting to the annexation. Sincerely, �� J I -'Y Y STAFF REPORT APRIL 20, 1987 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL TIGARD CIVIC CENTER 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD TIGARD, OREGON 97223 A. Facts 1. GENERAL INFORMATION CASE: ZCA 87-04 Zone Change Annexation REQUEST: A request to annex 9.25 acres into the City of Tigard and zone the property in conformance with the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map as follows: TAX MAP/TAX LOT NUMBER CURRENT ZONING PROPOSED ZONING 2S1 9A 100 &101 Wash Co R-6 City of Tigard R-4.5 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: TAX MAP/TAX LOT NUMBER 2S1 9A 100 & 101 Low Density Residential APPLICANT: Richard A & Shirley D Walker OWNER: Same 14215 SW 125th Tigard, Or 97223 LOCATION: The property is located north of SW Bull Mountain Road, at 14215 SW 125th. 2. Background No other applications have been filed for land use actions for the subject property. 3. Vicinity Information The property is bounded on the south, west and east by large lot single family development. The property to the north is vacant and is zoned R-4.5 (PD). The property is acessed by a narrow private road which is paved to the north property line of Tax Lot 101. STAFF REPORT - ZCA 87-04 - PAGE 1 E �^ 4. Site Information There is an existing single family home on the southeast corner of Tax Lot 101. The land slopes to the west and majority of Tax Lot 100 is in timber 5. Agency and NPO Comments No written comments had been received at the writing of this report. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevent criteria in this case are Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1 and 10.1.2 and Chapter 18.136 and Chapter 18.138 of the Community Development Code. The Planning Staff has determined that the proposal as submitted is consistent with the relevent portions of the Comprehensive Plan based upon the findings noted below: a. Plan Policy 2.1.1 is satisified because the Neighborhood Planning Organization and surrounding property owners were given notice of the hearing and an opportunity to cotmiieuc on the applicant's proposal. b. Plan Policy 10.1.2 is satisfied because the Police Department has been notified and the land is located within Tigard's Urban Planning Area. The Planning Staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevent portions of the Community Development Code based upon the findings noted below: a. Chapter 18.136 is met because the applicant has met all of the approval standards. b. Chapter 18.138 is met because the land meets the definition for buildable lands as defined by OAR 660-07-000 and shall be designated as "developing area" on the Development Standards Area Map. C. Recommendation Based upon the above findings and conclusions, the Planning Staff recommends approval of ZCA 87-04 subject to the following conditions: 1. The property shall be designated as a "developing area" on the Development Standard Areas map. 2. All development on the property shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Tigard. X(AIJAIM A&a&Y-) -- AR . E izabe Newton APPROVED BY: William A. Monahan Senior Manner Director of Planning STAFF REPORT - ZCA 87-04 - PAGE 2 & Development .k �..� �•�:• : ` �: i ■1111©�! . WE / ■ VOWA 100111 SEE ME MOM I 1111 NONNI �mom/11111.. x♦ .* ��•� :�.Ti ���. ■f■ �■■�� �► ♦ , ♦ � ■�II� Imo. ■ �.■■■ �� ■� est MEN Sop 1 .. ■� �t1� - _____.._ - ■ 5 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: April 20, 1987 DATE SUBMITTED: April 13, 1987 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Streetlights PREVIOUS ACTION: Policy Discussion PREPARED BY: William A. Monahan DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: POLICY ISSUE What policies should be applied by staff when evaluating requests for street lighting presented by Tigard residents? asassaaaaaaaaassaaasaaaaasasaaaasaaaaaasmaasa=saaasasaaasasaaaasasa�=ao3aaaa=aa INFORMATION SUMMARY Recently the staff has received several requests from Tigard residents for the installation of streetlights. No clear policy has been established. The City presently has some funds available which could be used to increase the number of streetlights in the City. Staff seeks Council direction on how to prioritize such requests. sssassaasmassa:assaaasaasaaasasamaa.sasaaaaassaaaasaamaasasaasamaaaaasaaasasasaa ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Discuss the issue and determine a priority list of criteria for staff to apply to streetlighting requests. Direct the staff to return with a policy for adoption. 2. Discuss the issue and take no action. aaassasssaaasmaasasa:sa:s:asmssasssassaaamaaasassaasassassesasassmaassasassassas FISCAL IMPACT saaaasssasamassasaaassaasassaesaaasasasasasasaassasaasassasaaasaaavassssaaaaasaa SUGGESTED ACTION The staff suggests that the Council pursue options. � C /br3129P F t .j MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Members of the City Council April 13, 1987 FROM: William A. Monahan, Director, ,A�� Community Development VV''��rr'' SUBJECT: Street Lighting Policy Discussion The responsibility for processing requests for new City streetlights falls within the Department of Community Development. Lately, the staff has received requests for lights in areas which were annexed to the City several years ago. To adequately respond to these requests, the staff would like to discuss policy options with the Council to arrive at a standard process to follow in reviewing requests. Over the past nine months, the City has paid PGE $117,634 for streetlights. In addition, $19,374 was paid for traffic signals. If the nine month trend is projected out for a twelve month period, approximately $183,000 of the $200,000 budgeted for lighting within the street division budget will be spent by June 30, 1987. The engineering staff, which monitors the PGE billings, feels that $16,000 is needed monthly to cover billing for existing lights, or $192,000 annually. Additional funds are budgeted in case a traffic signal unit malfunctions. Repair of a faulty signal can be very costly and would be unanticipated. In past years, the staff at various time has identified subdivisions which require streetlights. We have used an informal policy that streetlights at intersections are the highest priority, particularly those with a safety concern. Second priority is street lights on collectors and arterials. Third priority are neighborhood street lights with a preference for placing new lights on previously unlit streets. Another issue is that some Tigard residents have expressed concern that they were promised streetlights when they annexed to the City, however, no lights were ever installed. Residents of SW O'Mara Street recently submitted a request for lights based on an alleged past promise. A more complicated request was received last fall from two residents of SW Edgewood Street. They requested that the City reimburse them for their costs incurred to operate two sentinel lights which they privately requested that PGE install. The request was for the City to pay for all lighting costs from the date of annexation, early 1982, on. The two property owners request reimbursement of over $400 each. I denied the request based upon a review by my staff which showed that the lights were not part of a street lighting district and were not acceptable to function as public street lights. Tigard recently authorized PGE to replace these units with standard streetlights which were mounted to illuminate the roadway properly. In fact, our request to PGE apparently triggered this request. My staff determined that the lights which were requested privately were not operating at a maximum illumination intensity level, therefore, not as beneficial to the general public as desired. i i f Members of the City Council CStreetlight Policy Discussion Page 2 ISSUE The staff would like to receive direction from Council on: 1. How to allocate resources for new streetlights on existing streets. 2. The City policy of providing streetlights in areas annexed to the City. The staff feels that the highest priority should be safety concerns, at intersections and on streets where the lack of lighting poses a particular problem. It is possible for the staff to prioritize existing conditions where streetlights do not exist. Factors such as street classification, traffic volume, topographical constraints, and presence of existing streetlights should be considered. My staff can update the maps showing areas requiring streetlights. We then can follow your policy and apply criteria to determine a priority listing of lighting projects. Upon completion of the priority list, we can present you with a list with associated costs to allocate available funds. If the Council approves of that approach, the staff will have direction for reviewing present and future needs. The issue of providing streetlights to areas annexed to the City also needs tobeaddressed. hat My they applied not f or have knowledge that promises were made oresidents; or supported an annexation, then streetlights would immediately be provided by the City. If such promises have been made, direction has not been passed on to staff. We "zrts bhsed upon need. Once an area is in the City, I suggest that its particular streetlighting needs be prioritized and added to our list. This process would be consistent with the way we evaluate capital projects needs. A special case exists where streetlights were erected as part of a streetlight district in an area that is annexed to Tigard. The City takes over responsibility for paying the streetlighting bills because the formation and existence of the district requires a public hearing and review to ensure public benefit. Lights existing under a district meet the same criteria which the City requires, therefore, they fit neatly into our system. On the other hand, lights which are requested by individuals are placed by PGE to benefit the person paying the bill. There is no insurance that the light meets the criteria to provide maximum public benefit. I suggest that these private lights, upon annexation to the City, be evaluated along with unlit areas. The City can prioritize which areas have the greatest need for optimum lighting. We can look at the past and present acceptability of the unit to function as a public street light. The cost of operating these lights should not be assumed by the City. This is consistent with present policy which is applied to individual lights erected in Tigard for the benefit of i property owner. Today, if an individual requests a light privately through PGE, the monthly bill goes to the individual, even if it enhances the existing City streetlights. To have the City assume responsibility for these individual ( requests would eliminate pubic control of the system. CONCLUSION The staff would like direction on the priorities to apply to requests for streetlights as based on a discussion with Council. I will return at a later meeting with a policy for adoption. /br3129P • i r CITY TIFARD February 23, 1987 OREGON 25 Years of Service 1961-1986 Robert Wyffels 8995 S.W. Edgewood Street Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Bob: I have reviewed your February 6 letter with Bob Jean. We have tentatively set a Council agenda item for April 20, 1987, to clarify the Council policy in this area. Between now and then, my..staff will take another look at your request. I will notify you of the actual Council meeting date when available. sincerel William A. Monahan, Director, Community Development /br }; -4171 13125 SW Ha11 B1vcL P.O.Box 23397,Tigard,Oregon 97223 (503)639 ll/ CITYOF TIGARD,_ OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: 4-20-87 DATE SUBMITTED: 4-13-87 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Capital PREVIOUS ACTION: Improvement Program Report PREPARED BY: Randall REQUESTED BY: R. Woole DEPT HEAD K ! CITY ADMIN OK Q POLICY ISSUE Preliminary review of 1987-88 Capital Improvement Program for streets, sanitary sewers, and storm drainage. INFORMATION SUMMARY Attached is a report of projects being considered for the 1987-88 Capital Improvement Program. Following establishment of the 1987-88 funding levels through the budget process, we will return to Council with a formal proposal for the 1987-88 C.I.P. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED This is a preliminary review. If council wishes to suggest revisions in priorities or alternate projects for consideration, it is appropriate to do so at this time. Otherwise, no formal action is required. Formal action will come through the budget process and subsequent Council adoption of the 1987-88 C.I.P. FISCAL IMPACT Estimated costs for each project are shown in the attached report. SUGGESTED ACTION I No formal action required. RRW:bs3126P 1 I i i MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 'i T0: Honorable Mayor and City Council April 13, 1987 FROM: Randall R. Wooley, City Engineer SUBJECT: 1987-88 Capital Improvement Program Below for your review are the lists of new Capital Improvement Projects which we anticipate recommending for the 1987-88 Fiscal Year. The projects are listed in priority order. STREETS A priority list of nine new street projects has been recommended by the Transportation Advisory Committee after considering a list of 40 needed projects. The recommended nine top projects are as follows: 1. creenburg/Tiodeman Turn Lane. Would provide a right—turn lane for southbound traffic on Greenburg at Tiedeman. The turn line is needed R to make the proposed traffic signal function efficiently. Estimated cost is $15,000. (The signal is already funded) . 2. Tigard Triangle South Access Study. Provides for City participation, if needed, in a current State study of Highway 217 interchange improvement. The City portion would address access between the Triangle and the Hunziker Street industrial area. This coordination with the State work is needed to complete our Triangle study. Estimated cost is $10,000. 3. 72nd Avenue/Pacific Highway Intersection. Provides for planning, design, and right—of—way acquisition for an improved connection of 72nd Avenue to Pacific Highway. Estimated cost $50,000. Construction would be funded in a subsequent year. 4. Durham Road/Hall Boulevard Turn Lane. Provides for a right turn lane for westbound traffic on Durham Road to relieve peak—hour congestion. Estimated cost is $15,000. 5. Pacific Highway Intersections (McDonald Street to Bull Mountain Road) Provides for preliminary work to resolve the traffic problems created by the existing series of intersections and the frontage road. The City work, if needed, would supplement work being done for State and MSTIP projects. Estimated cost is $10,000. C 6. Greenburg/Ash Creek Bridge Widening. Provides for widening of the bridge for safety. Recent development in the area has widened the street approaches. Bridge widening is needed to reduce safety hazards and provide additional traffic capacity. Estimated cost is $140,000. 7. Greenburg Road/Center Street Intersection. Provides for widening of Greenburg Road near Center Street to improve capacity. Estimated cost $25,000. 8. North Dakota Street Shoulder. Provides for construction of a paved shoulder on one side of North Dakota Street between Fanno Creek and 114th Avenue, for pedestrian safety. Estimated cost is $50,000. 9. Ash Avenue at Cresmer Drive. Provides for completion of street improvements on Ash Avenue for safety. Estimated cost is $10,000. Available Funding: Allowing for City participation in the 135th Avenue LID, it now appears that funding is available for the first seven projects in FY 1987-88. We will probably be able to fund only design work on the Greenburg Bridge with construction to occur in a subsequent year. SANITARY SEWERS Staff recommendations for new sanitary sewer projects are as follows: 1. Garrett/99W Area Sewer Capacity Improvements. The existing 20-year-old sewer is almost at capacity. Additional capacity is needed to accommodate continuing growth in the upstream areas. Estimated cost is $250,000. 2. Gentle Woods Manhole Protection. A sewer line crossing of Fanno Creek and a manhole are being threatened by erosion of the creek bank. Bank repair and protection is proposed to protect the sewer facilities. This project was previously shown as a storm drainage project but is more appropriately funded as a sanitary sewer project. The estimated cost is $20,000. 3. Pinebrook/Hall Sewer Repairs. Major repairs or replacement are needed for approximately 175 feet of sewer line on Pinebrook near Hall Blvd. . The estimated cost is $10,000. 4. Leron Heights Sewer Modifications. This project would allow abandonment of an existing pump station and an existing creek crossing by connecting some existing lines to a USA trunk line near Fanno Creek and 113th Place. This project may be necessary before we can complete the Tiedeman Avenue street realignment project. The project would reduce future maintenance costs. Estimated project cost is $15,000. C 5. Summercre st/Burl crest Area Sewer Replacement. This project would replace a line which is currently running at or near capacity. Estimated cost is $75,000. s t IF Available Funding: It appears that funding will be adequate to cover the first four suggested sanitary sewer projects. STORM DRAINAGE Staff recommendations for new storm drainage projects are as follows: lacing pipe in an existing ditch along 1, 100th Avenue/Sattler/Murdock Draina a Im rovements. The existing CI includes a small project for p 100th Avenue. This project needs to be expanded to include replacement of other undersized facilities ttotal nthe tare is $50a to �000inate recurring flooding problems. The 2, 104th/Hillview Area Draina a Im rovements. This project would undersized pipes and open ditches in an arelaintse replace existing storm drainage comp Council and staff have received many Estimated cost is $160,000. Storm runoff from the Washington 3, Cascade Avenue Area Improvements. 217 to the Cascade Avenue area. Square area drains under Highway area Improved draingaCilities are Creek needed d dAin Creek. Esti Est mated ocost vis the storm waters1 $100,000. aster Plan. project would provide 4. Com letion of Storm Dra the,- Mi smaller drainage hbas ns (such as Red Rock for master planningte The plan Creek) and updating of the 1981 storm rai nteand swouldlbe an element is needed to provide for ongoing cost is $60,000. pm of our public facilities plan Available Funding: It appears that funding will ationvislt leproce d with than constructionthese of new projects. My recommmennd portio of each project where flooding of developed the critical p ring the heavy rains this past winter. Master properties occurred erformed by City staff as time permits and not planning would be p charged to the CIP. COMMENT: In the sanitary sewerage system we are doing well in providing the ommodate growth and to replace older facilities as improvements needed to acc needed. These capital improvements, combined with our improved maintenance program should continue to keep the sanitary sewers functioning without any major problems. rams, however, are continuing to fall The streets and storm drainage prog behind. \-. Of the 40 street projects identified as current needs, we will be able to fund only 6 or 7 of the smaller projects. With loss of the 3—cent County gas tax, we have no program for preventive maintenance of our existing pavements (overlays, seal coats, etc.). There is no money to reconstruct pavements where severe pavement problems will soon lead to major maintenance costs (e.g. Main Street) . The storm drainage program is inadequate to fund the major drainage improvements recommended in the 1981 master plan to accommodate continued growth. As development continues, pastures and woods are changing to streets, buildings, and parking lots. The potential for flood problems is increasing. Several million dollars will be needed to accomplish the channel improvements and bridge replacements needed if we wish to prevent a rise in the elevations of major floods. In accordance with Council goals, staff will be working this next year to better define our public facility needs and associated costs and to identify potential methods of funding these needed projects. RRW:bs3126P 71 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: 4-20-87 DATE SUBMITTED: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: TMC AMENDMENT PREVIOUS ACTION: N/A PREPARED BY: Brad Roast DEPT HEAD OKc_ L--eITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: Brad Roast OLICY ISSUE Should the City of Tigard amend TMC 14.16.040 (Dangerous Building Ordinance) to allow for "boarding up" vacant buildings as an alternate abatement procedure on buildings which do not pose a fire hazard or are structurally unsafe. INFORMATION SUMMARY Currently the abatement procedures allow for 1.) complete demolition of "Dangerous Buildings" or rehabilitation to present building code standards. Many owners of properties with vacant buildings, have indicated intentions of utilizing the buildings at later dates. The dangerous buildings which would qualify for "boarding up" are those who are structurally sound but have become an attractive nuisance to unauthorized entry. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED A) Adopt attached ordinance as part of TMC Title 14 (Dangerous Building Code). B) Reject adoption. FISCAL IMPACT A) Adoption — Possible reduction in staff time to gain compliance. B) Rejection — Possible increase in staff time to gain compliance. SUGGESTED ACTION Motion adopting the attached ordinance. BR:bs3101P Our intent is to have all requests for Neighborhood Watch be processed by the Crime Prevention Specialist and the actual organization process be carried out by her. We envision the Neighborhood Watch committee acting in an advisory role to the police department. We also envision the committee assisting in organization and maintenance efforts under the direction of the Crime Prevention Specialist. We would also expect the committee to be involved in fund raising and publicity efforts with the approval of the Chief of Police. We are proposing to present to you a new resolution for your approval that would change the role of the Neighborhood Watch committee and its relationship with the police department as outlined above. The resolution would also bring the Neighborhood Watch committee structure, membership appointment, and length of terms into line with other boards and committees of the City. We have scheduled the Crime Prevention specialist to attend the Texas Crime Prevention Institute basic crime prevention course in May, 1997. This course is comprehensive in nature, covering a broad range of programs and issues. It is considered to be one of the two best programs in the country. I've had previous experience with the program at T.P.I. and have been very favorably impressed with the results of the training. Ms. Watros will also attend three weeks of public information training in July and August, 1987 in Colorado. The training will be conducted by the U.S. Armed Forces Public Information School. The training costs will be paid by the U.S. Air Force, as will Ms. Watros' salary for that three week period. As you may know, Ms. Watros is a Captain in the Oregon Air National Guard and serves as a public information officer for the fighter group at the Portland Air Base. Ms. Watros is currently spending time with area crime prevention specialists to familiarize herself with crime prevention activities. She has also become active in her role as public information specialist for the department. She has begun a review of crime prevention and public information related material in the police department with a view toward revision and update. When Ms. Watros returns from crime prevention school, she will be prepared and will begin to develop, implement and administer a series of crime prevention programs to impact a broad range of criminal activity in the community. Examples include: utility watch; child protection programs; fraud and theft against elderly prevention programs; drug and alcohol abuse prevention; environmental design; security codes; commercial loss prevention programs. This list is fairly comprehensive, but not necessarily complete. It is anticipated that Ms. Watros will liaison with a variety of community resources to establish a comprehensive crime prevention program. She will be looking at organizations and individuals for volunteer efforts and program publicity and fund raising. As we have previously discussed, we have announced a department reorganization that in part creates a Police Community Services Unit that will report directly to the Chief of Police for supervision. The crime prevention specialist and school resource officers will comprise the unit. With this structure we anticipate an overlapping, liaisoning, coordination and cooperative effort in their responsibilities and duties. Obviously, the police department is excited about this opportunity to serve our citizens. OL:sb/1173W CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: April 20, 1987 DATE SUBMITTED: April 10, 1987 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Receive and PREVIOUS ACTION: 2/23/87 Council File Records Section Work Program Request For Work Program & Cost PREPARED BY: Loreen Wilson DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: City Council POLICY ISSUE INFORMATION SUMMARY On 2/23/87, City Council requested a work program and cost estimate memorandum for the recommended Records Management Program (RMP). Attached is that report from Nadine Robinson, Records/Court Manager. This memorandum not only sets out anticipated costs for the RMP, based on today's information, but sets forth anticipated times lines for the program based on the number of staff members assigned to the program. Staff will recommend a total of 2.5 FTE in the 1987-88 budget (a 1 FTE increase). This will allow the reorganization, inventory, and file corsversion process to be accomplished for approximately $14,750 less than originally estimated. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Receive and file work program for Records Section. 2. Take no action at this time. FISCAL IMPACT SUGGESTED ACTION Motion to receive and file work program for Records Section and begin implementation in FY 87-88 Budget. lw/1096W C MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: City Council April 1, 1987 FROM: Nadine Robinson, Records Manager SUBJECT: Records Report RECORDS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS The following report is submitted as an update to the information on records brought before Council February 23, 1987. The purpose of the report is to give Council the time frame in which we plan to have the City records updated and begin implementation of micrographics. This procedure will include: Reorganization of files Inventory of records Development of a classification/retention schedule Obtain approval from State Archivist and Council on the classification/retention schedule Completing a micrographics cost study Developing a policy and procedure manual Implementing a micrographics program The report also reviews some costs involved in a records management program and in micrographics in—house versus using a service bureau or out—of—house. These costs are based on today's costs and are sure to be higher when our micrographics program is implemented. HISTORY Historically, records were handled by having various office staff, who had "spare time", do filing. As a result, there was very little organization in the records room. A Records Clerk, Bill Quillard, was hired in July of 1985 to organize the records and assist the City Recorder in development of a records management program. To date there has been progress in organizing the records and records inventory has begun. We still have substantial work to do to establish a working records management program. NEED FOR A RECORDS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM A records management program will benefit the City in many ways. It can eliminate countless hours spent in searching for needed information. Those who had to access files prior to July 1985 remember the old "hunt and search" method of records retrieval. Happily those days are past and records are usually located promptly. Upon completing our inventory process, all records in the vault will be identified and each department will know what type of documents they create. This is important when needing to consult past records to research an issue or when background information is required to aid in making a current decision. It will also help put the City on firmer legal ground. We will have better control of the records, and with a State Archivist approved retention schedule we can destroy records in a timely fashion. HOW MICROGRAPHICS FITS IN RECORDS MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS Micrographics allows the City to keep older permanent records in a manageable, easy to access form, and allows storage space for current files. Information is better preserved since there is not the deterioration that accompanies paper records. The City is in need of a system that provides easy access to files and best utilizes existing space. The City does need to begin micrographics as soon as possible. Based on all of these considerations staff recommends implementing an aggressive records management program. ATTACHMENT INFORMATION DETAIL & ANTICIPATED COSTS When giving consideration to hiring a consultant to design and implement a records system, cost is a major factor. A consultant's administrative duty costs would be approximately $65 per hour, and to have the records filed, purged, and inventoried it would cost $30 per hour. Using first year salary information, including wages, benefits, and overhead. an Office Assistant T. could be employed for $7.50 - $8.00 per hour. o Attachments 1-A and 1-B outline the time frames we anticipate are realistic for completing the pre-micrographics stage of the records management program based on 1.5 FTE and 2.5 FTE. Attachment 1-A reflects the time until micrographics based on 1.5 FTE (an Office Assistant II and 1/2 time records manager). Study of the project/activity column will show, in addition to preparing the files for micrographing, staff will be doing daily filing/retrieval and semi-annual destructions. Other regular duties include staff meetings, inventory related work processing, correspondence, meeting room set-up/tear-down, and court bailiff duties. o Attachment 1-C shows the percentage of time spent on program elements. Note, with 2.5 FTE the time spent in records inventory and reorganizing would increase four-fold. With the addition of an Office Assistant I at this time, we anticipate being able to implement micrographics almost 2 years earlier than with 1.5 FTE. The personal service costs for 2.5 FTE, based on micrographics being implemented in October of 1990, as anticipated, would be approximately $194,605. The cost for 1 .5 FTE, again based on the time anticipated to begin micrographics - August of 1992, would be approximately $209,361. o Attachment 1-D outlines how the long term personal costs were computed. CIn getting to the micrographing stage there would be an approximate savings of $14,756 using 2.5 FTE. At that time an evaluation will need to be done to determine if 2.5 FTE will be needed to keep up with the record section demands. o There are many considerations when choosing a micrographics system. Attachment 1—E reviews some of the cost considerations based on doing our own microfilming versus using a service bureau. RECOMMENDATION It is extremely difficult to estimate the actual cost of a Records Management Program, or RMP. In order to have a good idea of the cost for Tigard to implement a program, all records must be identified and retention periods set. From this information we can develop a list of records needing to be micrographed and decide what medium of microfilm will best suit the record. The information will also establish a priority list for filming the records. We believe that to stay current with filing needs, and to begin micrographing as soon as possible, additional staff is needed. For this reason, we are recommending an Office Assistant I position be approved in the 1987-88 budget. Also in the 1987-88 budget. the Records Section is requesting funds for the conversion of the records room present stationary file system to a high—density mobile system and to purchase end—tab color—coded supplies. These costs are outlined in attachment 1—F. NR:bs/1096W 4` • • 21 ATTACEFAW PARTMENT RECORDS SECTION COMMUNITY / WORK PROGRAM ESTIMATES FM pEFCENTAGgS OL? TOTAL TIME USED FOR EACH • 199, PROJECT/ACTIVITY MIM SEPT. • 4'11' '-•' Y••M• _ .:••C= IYI' ••IY(• •:••'1. - I••:•'C� IYI' II '•:•••1. •.:f•C� IYI' D hl 55'JI '�:.•'-1. •q•'r•' Iv/' :111 111 '•:U'1. .. 1 '+ 1'•'. .• IYL 1•;n ':Ili "+ •' • •�Y I'IV•IY t• •511: IYI• '•:�1 '•' 1• IYL /:• i •• � 11 ' .• IYL I•i. �1 II Ih'1l'•IYI/ •11.11• •'•.1 1:/ •'• •' 1.: •1 • �:11: 1•IYI• '•511: IYI• ••::/ •y1v'.. • ?:11•1••IYI• ' MYL .• MI •'• •' 1" ' • '::11•1•IY 11 '•:AID IYI• '•:51 ',/ •.:.. 451 /:till fMYI• •'/ll '• •' i•.:••!• IYI" IIMI•• .• •1 --•••1` 1 : 1'.•'. �.MINI' .• 1 :1••/. _ •:l PROJ . I :.1'••. 1 111'J .. . u •�r � ■ �� .. 5•I '.li••'1. '. .. .• ..151 . • :91•Iv ln• •• »1. .•• •• I•' 1 I UI'I •11'11" •"•:I A.Y ••• •• 1:' •• N C: ' • -�.1'IYIYI• ••51I: IYI•' ••:511 1 1• '1 � • • �.1"1•/Y:•' •511::IYI• ••:511 1 1 ••-t'J •/ 1'51. 15:11' MYf•' •'..:1-'.•: - 41::11 • /:•. .11•�•:Itw •tt::' - rY'• - ' .:t' 'Ii•f..11� is•r:. 1 I. Hyl• •1 •M /• •..,Ij 1. `.]• 1' '�' 1 .]. 1_ '�•: �� _ oil It 1 1 I '•:J191i •• 4N''~ 1• ••„• •.•.. y. w' zoo ••:Go1.1. .�,_•.:o'C IYI' :111 111 '•:0••.1. I ] 1:•'. l• 0,1W6 li i •• ] I I ] 1:1'. .• IYL `]• 1•i. .. . / 1 II 11:11'•IYI• '•:to'•1. ':IIs.] •' • •.`.1'1•'•JYU •.:J I]'IYI• '-`--•;]II ••• l• IYL 1? ] •'—']/1 - .• 1 IYL 1•:r. •o II 1/:11'•/Yil `11.11' •'•:1 1.1 "• •' 1:: • J.1' MAWI• '•:AI] IYI• '•:]1 to ]•J '•:lo•.s. :• •• •• /01]1 • •\y l'lY•IYI• wYl of load •'• •' 1•' • •A•1l'1••IY l• :.N%] IYI• ••:]1 '`'?� 1 • 1z]I t:YI•IMYfo •••111 '• •' °tl-•:rr• Ire• uwl•• a •1 ••:u•r .... . 1 .: li•'. IIMI'• t• 'J '•:10••1. .. ; I% ••11 •M I. • 11 1 •M I. •'11• • 1 ••/ •'11• / /M • •••1 1L 1 of '1 •• r 1• � II i•••1. . ... ••. IV •,y. .:•••.1. ••• o /is Y'•o i•0'1. ..ry. 1• ]•J •a••./. • tr •• loops 1i i •' • �.1'1••IYIo ':Jli IYI• G.]II 0, ;0191,* 1•' 1 t• 'J . Ni. '••:I •/ '• •' 1.' '• I•:. 1::•'. wYL to «1 ••• •. /•' •• I•' t•••,•� • �.1' I•IYI• '•:A 1:.IY I• ••.i1 1 10��'J Ii:ll'IMYIg •'/11 •- t ••• /•.. .• i•o•//� ti ] •• • ��II' I••/�'.t• '•ill] IYI• •.;it1 'o• 1:'/• 1• •t' ':IIA oll•i' `:MY'• 8,0 10 1i ] •' •• Ir •••0111•:.� 1'•i• j ... ••• t 1 :••t'� ':I A t 1 :FI:1••11• '-:l 0'1. "oto' AI , I is• A' y.1 I•• �:� •: t• I '.• a ATTR 1-B COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT RECORDS SECTION pOR PERCENTAGES OF TOTAL TIME USED FOR EACH WORK PROGRAM ESTIMATES OF TBB PROGRAM EUMUM SEE ATPAOBI'SM 1-C. 2.5 P:T.E.'s 1 9 8 7 1 9 8 8 1 9 8 9 1 9 0 19 1 JUEX- OCT- JAN.- jax- OCC. JIEI.- JAPH PR0,7ECT/ACTIVITY � am S mmi i . !� ama = w !mgpp_ DR: aE DWZ PELM 8 REWE L CF EEC= — REORGANIZE VAULT (TO ACHVE MORE SPACE) TRANSFER PLANNING RECORDS- — (UMM AWRHO3W HINNA W) 8 Romm Axm7 momba DESTROY REOORDS T RAS Fnud= RECORDS- I axmm 1 mmLl ffimmmmmmmasms, fim BUIEWC B833M mmm OZ!lI m IImaw O?!Qm DEAD AQP R _ 3 . . i8Yffilp : $'1i8YI8 Em Q3!'sNm CENUR TlC SeFulm, i - -��MCKWISP A8301AL CF ME C.D. CS. EIVAMEMNSOBRIIE - C R83I3B W OOIItQ30ED C{A45Qm3="LNMS CID!032M ARiUM CF 7B8 ,C D. i 3ffiIS i— Ca. AND FEW SED EE9nU=MM CEEMWEE RERGM=RZME INEORCS II11HRl �C RIS=30?I L� Paum ISII� 3 �8 LK R RIDS i Miff.MUFT UNEM IIs[uUmm 1t8=m? _te: Delp QmIPWoM4 SSBZIS X R LSC MICROGRAPHICS X c STODY Don RISC A RM0373RE5 pgggm mmmmEms Hcmi� CREATE A COMPUM IN[= OE�- TBI! REOORDS PROGRAM • i ;'a I'IDLSmmau=mm mo=ummccuwEgam PILS9'DD snarim P'OLDm. I _ PROJECT/ACTIVITY -MM 0. 1 :• r Ivy a1•/YI• :•r•/. .. Y. . y•r• I M' s••.•1. ..:rr� In• a •r.••••I. -.:r.r Ire• sal 55•Ir -•:u•/. ' :• r IV" :11u ul 4441-4. c 1 5 iU•. •• 1 IYY 1s :+ •' S 1 - 1 : 1'1'. •• 1 IYY 1.' :� / t II Iti/1••IYI• •.:1•'I. _ _�. • • t:. 5 - •\Y I'IV•IYI• '•5I15 IYi• •J -•:51 ••' 1• lwwd Ii •' S 1 - 1• IYY . 1.7. •1 II 11:11••IY11 `11.11' •'•1:I til •••. •' f:' .1 11 i •'J • •.`:11'IV•I Y4$Di IYI• `•:51 so D 0--b. 1401419 flik"Z419 • •\Y l'1••1Y1• •IYY •• Aid "••/• •' 1:' - • •\SII• IV•IYI• ••:115 IYt• ,51 •I II II •'J t •.i 1:51 1:ti11' MYl• ••/11 •' . ••:1'C• IYi' '• I•' ':••'I. •.:•'C IYI 11411'• 1• 'J ••:••'1. 1 : I'••. 11.11•• 1• •I •:••'I. _ 1' S •• • •."11' I••IYI• •5115 IYI• •••5/ '•• '• I•' I •• •J t'• 5 •• •• IV '465I !'•'•:1111. ' 1 5 / ur•r•.•:nw •••e•• :ia Y•1' 584'1. •••C• Y:1 '150•. 1 • t M 111': •• :r'J t :•'. • t1' • 1''Y' J 1:•' A5•. ••• YCl_ 1"'.•rY ,:• '.t r•15.1 .. c ATTACHMENT 1-C PERCENTAGES-OF TOTAL TIM USED IN FIGURING VIDEM PROMAM PROGRAM ELEMEW 1.5 F.T.E's 2.5 F.T.E.'s REcoms ILvr Y & REORGANIZING 32.5% 64% DAILY FILING G RETRMAL OF RECORDS 30% 158 COURT BAILIFF 58 2.58 COUNCIL & COURT SET-UP/TAKH-DOM 7.5% 3.5$ MEETINGS 4% 4% DESTROY RECORDS 68 38 OTHBit TF15RS- 158 88 ATTACHMENT 1-D Personnel Service Costs 1.5 FTE 2.5 FTE FY 86-87 $23,543 FY 86-87 $25,948 FY 87-88 $32,510 FY 87-88 $47, 658 FY 88-89 $34,133 FY 88-89 $50,045 FY 89-90 $35,849 FY 89-90 $52,556 FY 90-91 $37,643 FY 90-91 $55, 193 FY 91-92 $38,461 FY 92-93 $40,334 The salary amounts are based on current salaries, figuring a 58 yearly increase, unless the person has "topped out" , then the increase is 3.5%. Benefits are also included in the yearly amount. Total Costs for 1.5 FTE FY 86-87 - FY 91-92 = $202,639 2 months of FY' 92-93 6, 722 TOTAL $209,361 Total costs for 2.5 FTE FY 86-87 - FY 89-90 = $176, 207 4 months of FY 90-91 18, 398 TOTAL $194,605 C ATTACHMENT 1-E Micrograhic Cost Considerations In-house versus a Service Bureau IN-HOUSE Initially the costs for in-house filming will be substanial, as equipment and supplies will need to be purchased. Equipment and cost considerations are: Planetary Camera $ 4, 500 Map-size Planerary Camera $20,000-30:,000 Rotary Camera $12,000 + Processor $10,000 Roll film/Cartridge reader $ 11000 Fiche Reader $ 200 + Roll film Reader/printer $ 3,500 Map-size Reader/printer $10,00-15,000 Supplies 100 ft. 16mm Roll film & process $ 13 Roll film with Jackets $ 6-7(+ film cost) 100 ft, 35mm Roll film with Aperature cards (500 images) $ 17-18 In addition to the initial output we will need to consider the time �..�.. W 4.11 ue opens. 1n qual i t control, rate o� filming non- professional films an average of 500 images per hour, a professional films an average of 1000 per hour) , re-filming due to operator error, and space for equipment and supplies. SERVICE BUREAU The cost of a service bureau will also vary depending on the types and sizes of records, the condition of the records, and the form of microfilm best suited for the type of record involved. Through a service bureau, roll film or fiche will cost approximately $25 per 1000 images, a roll holds 2300 images. 100 foot, 16mm, roll film placed in jackets will be about $100 per roll. To have a bureau do our building maps, using aperature cards, would be $375 for 500 drawings (using 100 foot, 35mm, roll film) . Service bureaus also provide document preparation, i.e. removing staples, taping tears, and putting documents in the correct order. The cost is $10-11 per hour. They do re-filming, caused by their error, and record destruction for no additional cost. Please note these costs are estimates based on today's prices. C. dds ATTACHMENT 1-F 1987 - 88 Costs and Implementation Advantages Mobile System Conversion $7,000 The mobile system will increase our cubic footage space for records by 75%. End-tab Color-coded Supplies $5,000 The shelving in the records room and vault is made for end-tab folders. The end-tab system will decrease time spent in file retrieval and make misfiled records more apparent. Normal Supply Costs $2,000 'r t CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY 7 AGENDA OF: April 20, 1987 DATE SUBMITTED: " ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: C.I.P. Status PREVIOUS ACTION: Report — March, 1987 _ PREPARED BY: Randall R. Wooley DEPT HEAD OK ITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: — POLICY ISSUE A report on the status of the various projects in the CIP and LID programs. INFORMATION SUMMARY Attached is the monthly report on CIP projects as of March 21, 1987. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Receive information report; no formal action required. FISCAL IMPACT SUGGESTED ACTION Receive reports; no action required. C ' RRW:br2503P/31P } CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM STATUS REPORT March 31, 1987 ST—3 North Dakota Street Resurfacing and Reconstruction (90th to 95th) Construction will resume as soon as we have sufficient warm, dry weather. ST-6 — Tiedeman Avenue Realignment City Engineer and attorney working to resolve a conflict with an existing sewer line. ST-7 — North Dakota Street Realignment at 115th Avenue Final design complete. Attorney's office is preparing the required right—of—way documents. It appears we can advertise for bids in April. ST-8 — Realignment of 79th Avenue at Bonita Road This project is being constructed in conjunction with development of Mara Woods Subdivision. The contractor is nearly ready to pave. ST 11 — Traffic Signal at Greenburg Road and Tiedeman Avenue The State has started design and estimates they will be ready to advertise for bids by July of 1987. ST-13 — Traffic Signal at Burnham Street and Hall Blvd. This project is being designed by the State. They estimate they will be ready to advertise for bids by August of 1987. ST-14 — Traffic Signal at Hall Blvd. and McDonald Street This project is being designed by the State and additional right—of—way is required. They should be ready to advertise for bids by the fall of 1987. ST-16 — L.I.D. No. 35, S.W. 68th Parkway Construction complete. The consultant has prepared the final engineer's report. We are working to complete some legal details so that the final hearing can be scheduled. ST-17 — L.I.D. No. 40, Dartmouth Street Extension Engineering design work is approximately 65% complete. Attorney's office is working on the right—of—way acquisition. The State is preparing an agreement for signal revisions and associated work at Pacific Highway. c *Projects which were previously reported as complete have been deleted. ST-18 — Pacific Highway and Canterbury Lane Intersection' Improvement The State has scheduled this project for 1990 construction. Preliminary engineering study for the project has begun. 135th Ave./Murray Blvd. L.I.D. The public hearing on LID formation has been continued until June 8, 1987. Discussion of possible revisions in scope is scheduled for a workshop meeting of the City Council on May 11, 1987. (RRW:br2503P/31P) C- , SS-1 — Sewer Master Plan The master planning work will proceed as soon as the new aerial mapping .project is complete in April. �E SS-4 — O.E.A. Trunk Access Paths The work has been delayed to better coordinate with private development in the area. SS-8 — Elmhurst Sewer Extension (LID #42) Still working on acquiring the required easements. SS-9 — 89th P1. Sewer Repair Scheduled for 1987. SS-10 — Industrial Area Sewer RR Crossing Scheduled for 1987. SS-11 — Sewer Capacity Upgrading Projects will be defined during the CIP update. (RRW:br2503P/31P) i'. SD-1 — Gaarde Street and Canterbury Area Drainage Improvements Construction plans are complete. We are working on acquiring the necessary easements. SD-2 — Gentle Woods Channel Improvements Revisions in project definition are being considered as part of the 1987-88 CIP update. SD-3 — 100th Avenue Storm Sewer (Murdock—Sattler Scheduled for 1987 if funding is adequate. SD-4 — Summerlake/Anton Park Drainage Construction plans have been prepared and easements are being acquired. Construction schedule will depend on weather and easement acquisitions. (RRW:br2503P/31P) C . . i CIP/LID PROJECT STATUS CAs Of March 31, 1987 PROJECT STATUS ESTIMATED COMMENTS PROJECT COMPLETION DATE >, tr o 4 C .1 U •.•1 C1 •.i 'O 7 •.{ G r 4 CP •� 4 .-1 •.i ro •.t 4 N W N > 4 C Q W U ST-1 - Fairview Resurface lCompleted 11 ST-2 - SW 68th Parkway Resurfac lCompleted ST-3 - No. Dakota Resurface 6/30/87 ST-4 - 104th Ave. Reconstruct Completed ST-5 - Commercial St. Connect. -- Project Postponed ST-6 - Tiedeman Ave. Realign. 18/30/87 ST-7 - No. Dakota Realign. r 16/30/87 Construction by ST-8 - 79th/Bonita Realign. 4/30/87 Private Develoaer ST-9 - Main St. Improve. Study Completed Prelim. En r On1y _ ST-10-• Hunziker Realign. Study 1 1 Completed Prelim. Engrg. Only ST-11- Greenburg/Tiedeman Sign 12/31/87 ST-12- Scholls Fry/No Dak Sign Completed ST-13- Burnham/Hall Signal i 2/29/88 ST-14- Hall/McDonald Signal I 1_5Z31/88 _ ST-15- Hall LID #85-1 f' �'' ��� Completed � i:1: ST-16- SW 68th Parkway LID #35 X Completed ST-17- Dartmouth I.ID #40 12/30/87 '.8- 99W/Canterbury Improve. _ 1990 _- .f •f --- 135th Ave/Murray I.ID _ 1988 _ i I � CIP/LID PROJECT STATUS As Of March_ 31, 1987_ PROJECT PROJECT STATUS ESTIMATED COMMENTS COMPLETION DATE c t� C 0 C to U) U) U C -4 'O 7 •.1 C OU to u ••r •rl b •.-i d) U) a w w g a w v SS-1 - Sewer Master Plan :f`: 9/30/87 _ SS-2 - Pinebrook Trunk Repairscowleted _ SS-3 - SW 69th Sewer Extension '`'"' •• Completed SS-4 - OEA Trunk Access Paths ::•r••rr:;'.•};:; SS-5 - Watkins Ave. Sewer Re pa Completed — SS-6 - 100th/Inez Sewer I.ID --- I.ID Defeated ——_ SS-7 - 74th/Cherry Sewer LID --- I.ID Defeated SS-8 - Elmhurst Sewer Extensio 16/30/87 SS-9 - 89th P1. Sewer Repair 1987 _ SS-10- Industrial Area RR Xing 1987 SS-11- Capacity U22radinq 1987 . I i CIP/LID PROJECT STATUS As Of March 31, 1987 ._ PROJECT PROJECT STATUS ESTIMATED COMMENTS COMPLETION DATE • C L C 0 C l+ N w U ' .E � r-1 c JJ 14 L a W a' 41o w u C 4 W U SD-1 - Gaarde/Canterbur Drain ry. ' _-- SD-2 - Gentle Woods Channel Im SD-3 - 100th Ave. Storm Sewer 1987 SD-4 - Summerlake Anton Park 6/30/87 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: April 20, 1987 DATE SUBMITTED: March 11, 1987 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Monthly Report PREVIOUS ACTION: February, 1987 — Community Dev. Dept PREPARED BY: William A. Monahan DEPT HEAD OK ITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: POLICY ISSUE INFORMATION SUMMARY Attached please find the Monthly Report for February, 1987 prepared by the Department of Community Development. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Accept and place in file. FISCAL IMPACT SUGGESTED ACTION Accept and place in file. (0950P/dO022P) �4 y J. MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: Members of the City Council April 13, 1987 FROM: William A. Monahan, Director, ;r'# Community Development SUBJECT: Monthly Report — February, 1987 The Department of Community Development reports the following February activity: — Building activity approached the level of 1986 in terms of single family permits and valuation. A comparison of fiscal years shows us running ahead of last year in all building permit areas. — Codes Enforcement under Tigard's new Codes Enforcement Assistant, Ron Hansen, is operating smoothly. Ron is now initiating a program to work with violators of the vision clearance ordinance to gain compliance. He has revised infraction form letters as well as the filing system. — Engineering services project reviews are unden!a; on a number of residential and commercial developments. Revenues are lower than the prior year by $7,500 through February. — Business Tax schedules have been partially inputted to the new computer system. The new computer program is under review to determine if it meets all of our needs. — The Parks Plan is proceeding well under the direction of our consultant, Debbie Knechtel. A Town Hall for parks was held on February 25. — A Spring Cleanup Day, May 2, is coming together with help from the franchise haulers and volunteer already secured. — Operations staff are imprlementing regular programs and preparing for the opening of City parks. A great amount of time was devoted to improving performance indicators, budget preparation, and fleet management program design. Steve Rivett was made Acting Operatins Manager while we recruit for a permanent manager. — The 135th LID presentation was in the final stages of preparation for Council review. (WAM:br/0950P/0022P) BUILDING SECTION - FEBRUARY COMPARISON Following is a comparison of building activity for February of 1986 and 1987: February, 1986 February, 1987 Single Family Permits 43 39 Multi-Family Permits (units) 0 0 Commercial Permits (new) 3 0 Building Permit Fees $ 17,195.00 $ 14,389.00 Plan Check Fees $ 9,336.95 $ 5,795.67 Plumbing Permits $ 7,277.50 $ 6,415.00 Mechanical Permits $ 927.00 $ 1,794.50 Valuation $3,647,988.00 $3,202,360.00 CALENDAR YEAR Jan.- Feb. - 1986 Jan. - Feb. -, 1987 Single Family Permits 82 67 Multi-Family Permits (units) 6 18 Commercial Permits (new) 4 1 GU41,Al4n9 Permit Foes $ 31,043.50 $ 30,772.00 Plan Check Fees $ 17,000.58 $ 15,175.33 Plumbing Permits $ 12,270.00 $ 10,652.50 Mechanical Permits $ 1,357.50 $ 3,463 .00 Valuation $6,410,915.00 $6,860,260.00 FISCAL YEAR COMPARISON 1985/86 - 1986/87 July - February, 1986 July - February, 1987 Single Family Permits 224 258 Multi-Family Permits 10 44 Commercial Permits 16 16 Building Permit Fees $ 105,034.67 $ 121,789.64 Plan Check Fees $ 53,578.07 $ 64,149.99 Plumbing Permits $ 34,555.00 $ 48,619.50 Mechnical Permits $ 6,478.15 $ 12,791.00 Valuation $23,386,006.00 $26,716,288.00 (br/0950P) L Ea A M A A A N QI A N A A A A O E O U yiI 0 O O O O 00 O Io O O O O m O A A A A .. CI M M O M u'r M n M M O m vI m Q Q N m M Q Q In M N A N N M N .+ O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O IO O O O O O O O 19 L7 In .M u O n M Q m N A n O N A In m Q C M N N M .� n N A ul m n m b T Ip Q QI OI m OI IO O M n n m n qV A C-4 A A N A A F L 2 W O O O O O S O O O O O O O O In u1 w In In � O In O O O � O N n N n n O N m N In In n n n E OI n O m n aI Q n Io m Q Q 10 m Io rn m M N Q Io z M O J M 7 m y m In n M Q Q N N M Q O ICI W n Q IO O Q ICI In In Q A Q n In Q O D L M IO N OI IO n OI OI Q O LL1 ICI OI In U Ip M ID b M O b N A m O IO m CI C Ip M m OI A n Q In N m m O M n Its n OI n A Ip .M-I Q Q m M N tlI OI ICI a ..Y.I O 8 N O O O Q O O N m O O 0 01 In m 111 Q n m A p /n O O E ICI CP m InO O n Q N O A n M a a Q a c In n a w a m m at A Ip O ID at M ICI M In M m M m cr in n Ifi o M e Io 0 0 a < a Is v N N A A A m O O S O O S O S O O O O O O nm O O T O O O m O O O O O N m N •p m n n0 r+ O Q O O IO a c 01 Ip ll m M M N Q In In O C M ..�.I N n In Q ID Q Q OI IO m n N IQ Ip Q S m m a Q m Q 00 LOO 7 n Ip M m at n A ll n OI N N b N N M m In N In ID In N A A N m m n T d L L T O II L 4 i+ E o L L IL6 Obi tl A, ra 3 v a T ++ o a m n oC m C L L eT� c �-I 01 a A+ Z, u m c L S .-i m O Z O h ti v N La, O E E O v N N mm O O N N S d .--I OI N 111 Q OI N CI N M .�-I m m N.-I r m N b N 111 m O+ m n m m m m Q N b J Q O F U O O O S 8 � � � 1 � p 1017 O O IA N 117 117 O C n O .m-1 b I!1 n a Q b m m J b O Q 0% n v M m m £ U C m N •-� O n0 n O n In Q m LO C b b b C U £ Z W 0O Q7 < 007 0 Q Q 0 0 OOi a 0 E 0n b m m O Oa+ In17 0 b 0 N O_ 07 N cl < < M m OI N 10W pb b cf 10 O v O coN N m < Q 137 b b n C7 Z 0-4 Yn N p 1.7 m m 111 .N- b O N b M m M b 111 J d b 117 O ... . N 7 M O m N 01 b b IC7 m 117 m V b O b m M n :Ln m n 117 b M b C b O m m 0 b b m n O 10 N m N N N N b b %0 m b n IA Ill Q 1 I N n .+ m b n m M O Go m m 117 111 10 m m O N N ti ,•� M N 1m O b n e N b m n M n m b 10 O n M rn v v m m b O m O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O (R O O O O O O O O n It7 4Y 111 Q C Q mcbmorl .` O 0 M m O b d 01 01 It) ..1 117 OI N < m M OI n - n N b 117 O\ Ill M n O b ...1 07 M N n O 10 10 n m 117 m n Q n 117 Q N m O n b m O 10 .-1 n OI N b ON .tfli N m m m Q Q L l L L O T d L d d T Ln L. vm a .Q E E 7 a «r 0 T 7 Y O d d n 7 L O C m C S1 fL� L ITS C r+ QI 6 y ? U m C .I-II Z 6 N O O .Ail h L C O'DONNELL, RAMIS, ELLIOTT & CREW MARK P. O'DONNELL ATTORNEYS AT LAW CANDY OFFICK TIMOTHY V. RAMIS 181 N.GRANT, SUITE 202 KENNETH M. ELLIOTT BALLOW & WRIGHT 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 ADMINISTRATIV9 A9919TANT KENNETH H. FOX MARGARET C. HAND SUSAN I. 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 April T, 19E7 Marcha Hunt City of Tigard P. O. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 Re: ICMA Plan Dear Marcha: Enclosed please find a proposed resolution authorizing the City Attorney to file a petition with the Washington County Circuit Court requesting a judicial determination of the ICMA Plan's constitutionality. This draft was prepared by Loreen based upon a sample we had obtained from another attorney. I am not sure what Bob's desire is as to the date on which he would like the Council to consider this resolution. Would you find that out from him, and pass that information along with the proposed resolution to Loreen for placement on the Council 's agenda. I am prepared to file the legal documents as soon as the Council has given its go ahead. Thanks for your help on this, and give me a call if you have any questions. Very truly yours, DOLL, RAMI , ELLIOTT & CREW lis E. Corrigan CEC:dd Enclosure cc: Till Monley, Comm i y Services Director N1. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: April 20, 1987 DATE SUBMITTED: April 10, 1987 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Formation of PREVIOUS ACTION: N/A Special CIP Study Task Force — NPO #8 — Metzger Area PREPARED BY: Loreen Wilson DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED B` : Mayor Brian POLICY ISSUE Should the City conduct a special study to identify the capital improvement needs of the NPO #8 — Metzger area? INFORMATION SUMMARY Since the South Metzger area has been annexed to the City of Tigard, and the area has various CIP needs, the Mayor has requested a special CIP Study Task Force be created for 1 year. The task force would not only study the CIP needs in the NPO #e — South Metzger area but also look how these CIP needs relate to the entire Metzger area systems. This task force would be appointed by the Mayor with 9 members serving on the committee. The Mayor and City Engineer would serve as ex—officio, non—voting members of this committee. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Approve the attached resolution and create Special CIP Study Task Force. 2. Modify attached resolution. 3. Take no action at this time. FISCAL IMPACT N/A SUGGESTED ACTION Alternative #1 — Motion to approve attached resolution. lw/4505A CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: April 20, 1987 DATE SUBMITTED: April 6, 1987 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Create NPO # 8 PREVIOUS ACTION: for South Metzger area PREPARED BY: William Monahan DEPT HEAD OK ' CITY ADMIN OKkACj REQUESTED BY: POLICY ISSUE Should the City create NPO # 8 to represent the North Tigard area? INFORMATION SUMMARY With the annexation of the South Metzger area, the City needs to revise the resolution which created the NPO's. A new NPO # 8 is proposed which is bound by Highway 217 and Pacific Highway. To accomplish this, the boundary of NPO/#/4 must be pulled back. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Approve a new NPO # 8 and set new NPO boundaries. 2. Take no action. FISCAL IMPACT None SUGGESTED ACTION The staff suggests that the Council approve the attached resolution creating NPO # 8. 3116P dmj C__ MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council April 10, 1987 FROM: Jill Monley, Community Services Dir./Ass't City Admininistrator. SUBJECT: Training and Travel Interim Policy I've been asked to review the City's Training and Travel Policy and make ill provide consistency and control over this function recommendations which w in ..the future. olic and procedure which I believe addresses the Attached is an interim p y ' s needs. This procedure can be Council's concerns and also meets the City training until the adoption of used as a guide for actions on travel and updated personnel rules sometime in June, 1987. dc:1369p TRAINING AND TRAVEL INTERIM POLICY April 20, 1987 BACKGROUND It is recognized that technological changes are occurring daily and it is our obligation to the community to be aware of those advancements and to determine when it is cost effective to implement changes in order to provide the highest quality service for the lowest cost. In addition, Tigard is one of the most desirable and therefore fastest growing communities in the Northwest. The City has traditionally chosen a minimum staff strategy, which requires maximum knowledge and cross—training for those positions. This emphasizes the critical need and value of employee attendance at appropriate training sessions, conferences and classes. As position openings occur, we will make every effort to hire the best staff available in order to strengthen and add to our knowledge and experience base. We must also seek ways to maintain that high knowledge and network level. POLICY Training can come from many sources: college classes, consultants brought in—house, professional conferences, training seminars and other opportunities provided through public and private associations and vendors. The following general Auldeiine is provided in order to prioritize cite aunenditures: 1st priority: o maintain specific job skill and technical advancement; 2nd priority: o city—wide systems and process development; team building, customer service and communications; 3rd priority: o general benefit — either to the employee or to the organiza— tion (ie. first aid, wellness and personal development). PROCEDURE The budget is the first place to recognize the strong need relating to technological and organizational changes. As a rule of thumb, each department will plan up to 1% of the personal services budget for training. In this way training will stay within proportion to other needs. The specific training plan for each department detailed in the Annual Budget is then considered to be approved by Council, however, still requires individual approval by the City Administrator and Department Head. The following is the guideline for those individual approvals: o if over $500 or 500 miles from the City, specific Council approval is required, unless previously approved by Council in the Budget; o if over $300 or 300 miles it requires City Administrator approval; o if under $300 or 300 miles it requires Department Head approval. CThis interim procedure will allow review of the total annual training and travel plan and assist in continued prioritization and maintenance of consistency. It assures Council adequate control of those "high visibility" training situations of potential concern, yet delegates basic training responsibility to department management. dc:1369p } EDUCATION/TRAINING REQUEST This form is to be used for conferences, seminars, college classes and other forms of either training or education. Documentation is required, a copy is to be attached to this form. Attachments for mailing may also be attached. A follow up report is required. A copy will be placed in your personnel file. DATE OF REQUEST: April 10, 1987 Requested by: Marcha K. Hunt Vendor No. : Councilor PAYABLE TO: isconsin Center Registrations �x ] xffffPrNY9We request attend 702 Langdon Street [ ] Employer required attend Madison, WI 53706 For check run of 4/17/87 [ xx] Mail check [ ] Notify dept. when ready Vendor No. : Vendor No. : PAYABLE TO: PAYABLE TO: Title of Program: Municipal Administration of Cable Television Institution or organization University of Wisconsin Extension Registration Deadline 5/29 7 Training Dates From: 6710/87 To: - Describe the purpose: Programs designed to provide a comprehensive primer for persons involved With negotiation and administration of cable TV franchises. They are especially useful for municipal officials, attorneys, cable advisory board members, etc. Is this related to ( xx] current position ( ] reasonable promotion or transfer? Explain: Liaison to MACC TRAINING COSTS: [xx] to be advanced [ ] to be reimbursed after attendance Account No. Amount Registration or tuition. . . . . . . . . . .. ...... ...... • 10-3100-62500 $125.00 Books.... ..... ...... .. . . . . . . . . . .. .. ............ . Travel (mileage, bus, train, airplane, etc.)... . 10-3100-62000 8.40 Lodging.... .......... .. . . . . . . . ..... .... ......... Per Diem............... . .. . . . .. . . .. ............. Other: Total $ $133.40 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 f/yl - Appropriation balance:l/G e. Manager [ ] approved ( ] disapproved Dept. Head: ( ] approved ( ] sapproved (explain) : L t !•t ( t�,_ /rj e u n,./, 44) S� I Finance Director: V • n C7% t R o C O y `o O. v a 00 00 a a�000 6 ' E m �c g $?t .p 3 a a E r CL Ev .Q G o y C L m a a L a a 00 ca C =o~oc$=E o�C.'A0 n ❑Q ` A a .2 2, -4 N M N acn pC o o t E c o d .c G C 7 0$ O 'r0 G .i-i N �� ipa H d•„�- r M a C .� Q •� .0 i.C.❑ .7�b G U3'r, ° ��� E., e �++ aW Z C m u C = G -4 •"'� Q r. o uN`^ a ❑ o E a Q d •i s v o '-i U V O $ _ c U o 3 N ," Ll 13 O $ O Gamc N g3 Z � �2 `e ro>io O E Er "Cc N p ` R3 O o W cC Ln 0 % p o 0 (.r d ,4 N W 'V^C4 $ o '• ❑O ¢ p<,°• O $$•e n M.2 .•2 O O E C a �. R HON �3 3rd e H v8 808 s k Li. 06 k. E e u m v o t X a W W O " v 00 a a F S F'cj Hm 2 Or �, a o o F W O iY. O CL CS H Z F O ¢ u rc c > DO w (jt w � `o y u o o w s vbc o �' rn e c y° n ° a r_:6 Ur- O utsuU 0 v ed �eU3m_�om>8i,.u0�pe�:3ca' e�m.�SQ. X• "C°a ti'�o.��'„>...o f U o aacu<eV O' C E E -�, ��Cvvc,C uco;? aau-< ccc U° >C aI y C utd0 NC;3° ON2�O mc ° coo � E `o" is g t >0rim p E UV, N-, =m1m yx��u7•acCcEp OaU"�>V� E ; ��0:7 a� 0 mum° u E `+ C O O C s�o°ow =- ff=� �=0aC°0 C 0. C u a � ES "�m° O? 1> U00 0o 06Sc° > Eoyo> °S > , . ° - uoo ` E1i Y .0 UZm � UuyZUowm> onmEmZ a.j=ooU EZ �w v° 8 8 CL 8 8 N 8 � o m t ° a c < S uu 0 a• E _ e M •u0 C u n a t C u v°i u C O O < O C.. u O. ` E > n C ..FFCC7^' o VC1 o •�,° v ° u u o i0 n E M ° a O $ a c u A =L 0 u c c c 0u0 _`' c 2 E c �+ o > .. .. u u ucaoSo Ec s ocearic E o `=3 o > oa ieyN c $3 u9 •• �+ C m s c •u y .0 m .pT. Q m E � 0 � � � 8� >. � $ � �i c mcuc¢•� e�soR =3 Acco: ou ma15oA3< e �@ OG �� � e`u U a a u � i° O., '0.5 ,+ o 'C ���! � `-`� Oo co2„ a _ o` w �iao gwe� a vas' C e G aoo � rO wa- u �'„6.og .� ' u _oE @� ° 2aa 'aE'En �9*01 �C o h � T, u � g � �•; u� > >��D uC�V =tUO� o'C p°i o 2 ''CC p C c 00 '2 0 0 o u o J C7 J Q Z S wU aZU�.1 �G7WE.8 �a<.�:zc7ea '< �p �2 o Oce e E ea 8 University of W isconsin-Madison 220 Lowe!l Hall 610 Langdon Street Madison,'. 53703 Regional One-Day Workshops on Municipal Administration of Cable Television May 6,1987—Austin,Texas June 10,1987—Portland,Oregon V 0 r. s �� oN u Ea V cd .cut `0 ac, � � oo EE o.. � c 0 G.0 �•' V e� c ��'vV o u E E a . F- c act.= o ob' o rr > e u �i m u aAc ° a ' rQ _ a o OL E: S. Ea N ° = oa=t `oo c 0 uF: a roc o o u ,,: .� ;•7 °.•._ .; . u, u u e w - e E C^j C., > �.. C 4;N E .G.� C V ewe-;-u O._ O C.� V u u e� A °'- a a� ocouuc0 Z c yv F c. � v tY ee >Looe Z .. tt1 "c jm"� eaue � a o LL! -- x E �.. c N Y u r •C ._ p E X c r Z u g'°1 t A '° " ,^� c� u0 o c w' �' ' rn u c w i o v o3 'v u ri JR c _ c' s o . V 3 N O = eES �a K_ c p o h d c u c u o ` o c ° c c V c N 5 Ev o '9oAcu� c.° r Av Vin. � � o w . Ycd Cdve vo 05; O vO.ahO �L` o3 n•c .z $ Wc 130`Voi Cc o 3 � Q $ cue V ° E a A m e me ;; �� W EA = o � 2Ro a � � T = co t; 3 c a r �_ < ° Lrn < ovoid`+.-�- 0 cA `^ E v' `c_ cu O = $ OQY 419 > > n a e g oc r T"' a^O Yi C e0•N > N w A N V ,., W ?; < ° _ .>, u �n cc 9 0 3 3 a u �.., a .d � � eou9 uam.�u. s Z e5oo o ax eN c V ° Oo O > wa�Q N �<V u ti E m.oT, o < e W O = :°AN w e .=l c o > e = �+° oa F -= QZvv ° o � N cc N `u ° E ', m-` _ �: Z � v �j e Y°u ri We c O w o _ SEs oEa v. E tYo. V�5 E o. E oeii Vim._ 6. O .� u .1 L C •v u y i0 = A C V C •C 'C �u7qV L.T'V>_^.•gu ,eo� otL CEC'v_c= C° s 12O Vt-' uv E .13 u= E � `° > A VA Cu,tCu CY EO C 0 A O O V V N ° E E eAa0 e n 3 u `u EnD sE c2 L- •3` op Vu nEeEv aEu' t. Vy EoC LyaE aF ,C•• U E a p OV m 0 c ` � nCo _ E o o n b ° cu `ou ac o ? oou 3 ou o >, c c u A `°— C rOi O 0 0 VV ° ri'j 9 r O O 0C�0•O v e'70 7 V ..i =' `• v `u ,r!; C V L'o 0A q C 0 '^ v N '^ p u 0 o < ao _t u N V Q u M A Z > u v.0 E Q y? �+ i°o 10 m m - w y'C Q D t= u > ri n ° V v y t u p V u C 'On w y C O Y E O G O D ° Cce o ° gti V �VVo —oe � yX�+ � E O C Nair w m t �. G 3 LL. .w`.. m p �` u — u L " $ Q 8 " „ w U E C C u p ° i _ c Lam' ; $ o o = e c c r o v 3 o c 0 ,w 4L w E u o p $ o u c = ,a c o v ee p o <w o N �,= V ..W. O c 3 oo `= O .o t- P'�t u u C L L O v 0 C/1 V 7.•N t V O A V C C 'O N = u L t6 Y C A o i• �`NL- �+ F $ ? C V ..0. V e0 3 = eC0 D V A C ° ` G — .w.. ri�e C 7 V O 000'C G O V Z 3 tJ > 7° E t r v .� t E a 1; e ,7• s 'c o E F- _ v f o u -Z o ~ c E + u